Published jointly with
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
The publication of this book was made possible by grants of funds to the
Academy from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the American
Council of Learned Societies, and Wellesley College
THE MEDIAEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA
Printed in the U. S. A.
printed at the harvard university printing office
[1 ] Valuable descriptions of manuscript collections are to be found in Mussafiia, op. cit.; Morawski, op. cit.; Catalogue of Romances in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum (London, 1883-1910), vols. ii and iii; Louis Villecourt, ‘Les collections arabes des miracles de la Sainte Vierge,’ Analecta Bollandiana, xlii (1924), 21-68 and 266-287; C. G. N. De Vooys, Middelnederlandse legenden en exempelen (Groningen, 1926); and the volumes of Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres bibliothèques, Paris, 1787-. Still other manuscript collections are noted or described in notes appended to various editions of Mary legends. See especially Levi, op. cit., and the notes by Warner in his edition of the second book of Miélot. Albert Poncelet, ‘Miraculorum B. V. Mariae quae saec. vi-xv latine conscripta sunt index,’ Analecta Bollandiana, xxi (1902), 241-360, is an index of Mary legends.
THOMAS FREDERICK CRANE in his edition of the Pez collection deplores the inaccessibility to students of mediaeval history and culture of so many of the Latin collections of Mary legends. Adolf Mussafia, as long ago as 1889, asked for an edition of the collection of John of Garland. These demands, combined with my interest in the works of John of Garland, have led me to undertake an edition of his collection, the Stella maris. It was made, if the numbers and the bulk of the manuscripts are a criterion, at a time when the activity of gathering Mary legends was at its height, and in a region where it was particularly intense.
John of Garland’s collection has certain advantages over all the other manuscript collections which I have examined. It is the only one which can be accurately dated and at the same time securely attached to a particular author and geographical center — a firm anchor in an almost unbroken sea of anonymity. Even though the narratives are merely suggested, their outlines are sufficiently clear so that particular versions can be identified. Of the printed collections of Mary legends made in northern France in Latin, only that which Vincent of Beauvais included in the Speculum historiale is comparable in these respects. The Stella maris, therefore, occupies a position of strategic importance in the history of Mary legends. I have attempted with the miscellaneous data which all these collections yield in hand and John of Garland’s collection as a point of departure to place some of the Latin collections which I have used in relationship one to the other. Without the help of the painstaking studies of Mussafia, the careful descriptions of H. L. D. Ward, Paul Meyer, Albert Poncelet, and many others whose help I have acknowledged in the footnotes, I should not have attempted it.
From the point of view of the history of the Mary cult in the middle ages, an important subject too little investigated, the collection of John of Garland should be a document of particular value. It represents the attitude toward the Virgin Mary, not of the trained theologian, nor of the simple souls often portrayed in the legends themselves, but that of an educated layman who was also a schoolmaster. It was composed, as the author of the gloss remarks, with a great deal of feeling, and with a deeper sincerity than characterizes the more pretentious works of the author. Of special importance, I believe, is the suggestion as to the way in which the secular learning of the schools was made in his classes to serve the cult of the Virgin. In some of the other manuscript school-books and commentaries
[[ Print Edition Page No. xii ]]
which I have surveyed in the course of this study there is evidence that his interpretations were not unique. With this subject, however, I have not attempted to deal.
It is, moreover, with the expectation that the Stella maris, composed as it was for use in the schools, will be able to throw additional light upon the teaching of Latin and the use of the classics in the thirteenth century that I have edited the text together with all the glosses.
My interest in the work of John of Garland began as a student of the late L. J. Paetow at the University of California. Generous grants made by Radcliffe College, especially the Alice Mary Longfellow Fellowship, and the American Council of Learned Societies enabled me to pursue it under the direction of the late C. H. Haskins at Radcliffe and in the libraries of Europe. I am particularly indebted to Professor E. K. Rand for aid and encouragement all along the way.
I wish also to thank Professor William Thomson of Harvard University, who generously helped me with the Arabic words in the glosses.
My thanks are due to many libraries for permission to use and photograph their manuscripts and for generous hospitality and assistance, especially the British Museum, the Bibliothèque Nationale, the Public Library at Bruges, the Widener Library of Harvard University, and the Wellesley College Library; and to the Coe Fund of the University of Maine for aid in the typing of the manuscript.
For making the publication of this study possible, I owe a deep debt of gratitude both to Wellesley College and to the Mediaeval Academy of America: to the Wellesley College Committee on Publications, its chairman, Ella Keats Whiting, and the Alumnae who contributed to the Fund which it administers; to Charles R. D. Miller and Robert J. Clements of the Academy for their helpful interest and assistance, and to the American Council of Learned Societies and the Carnegie Corporation of New York for their contributions.
E. Faye Wilson
8 June, 1944
THE worship of the Virgin Mary, originating in the East, slowly penetrated into western Europe during the interval from the fifth to the eleventh century.1 The festivals of the Virgin began to be celebrated; pictures were painted and images were carved; churches were dedicated to her; and prose and poetry, profane2 as well as sacred, honored her. The absence of details about the life of the mother of God in the gospels was an advantage, rather than a disadvantage, to the growth of the Mary cult. Accounts of her parents, her childhood, her marriage, her purification, and the miraculous deeds she performed both before and after her assumption multiplied.3
At first the miracles of the Virgin were told singly by churchmen to point a moral or to celebrate a festival, related to pilgrims visiting particular shrines, or incorporated into the records of monasteries. As early as Gregory of Tours (c. 538-594) eastern tales of this nature begin to be narrated by ecclesiastical writers in the West. In his Liber miraculorum, the first book of which is entitled In gloria martyrum, he tells, among a number of others, six Mary legends of eastern origin.4 It is, however, not much earlier than the eleventh century that tales of western origin make their appearance in written form in significant numbers.5
The earliest known collections of Mary legends originating in the West are those which gathered about the churches of France dedicated to the Virgin Mary. They date in their present form from the beginning of the twelfth century, although they were probably begun much earlier. Such are those compiled for the Mary churches of their respective towns by
[[ Print Edition Page No. 4 ]]
John of Coutances6 at the very beginning of the twelfth century, by Guibert de Nogent (d. 1124) and Herman of Laon7 (compiled c. 1150), by Hugo Farsitus of Soissons,8 and by the abbot Haimon writing for the Mary church of St. Pierre-sur-Dive in Normandy.9 Rocamador in Guienne,10 Chartres,11 and Fécamp12 also had their collections made by anonymous compilers in the twelfth century.
By the eleventh century the popularity of the Virgin Mary had outstripped that of all the saints and was growing in ever-widening circles. Sinners as well as the righteous could rely upon her to get them into heaven, if only they had that mediaeval virtue of loyalty. She had become the Mother of Mercy13 whose privilege it was to mitigate the Justice of God. Saturday was in many places a day reserved for the recitation of the office of the Virgin.14 The network of Cluniac monasteries and the pilgrimage routes offered new and broader avenues along which Mary legends could make their way. When Odo caused Mary to be honored as the Mother of Mercy at Cluny,15 his example was followed in many monasteries. As a consequence not only did the number of Mary legends increase rapidly, but the same legends came to be known far from their original home. And thus there began the second stage in the history of Mary legends in the West, the collection of tales gathered from far and near, of universal rather than merely local interest.
The oldest of these collections, according to Mussafia,16 is the group of legends which make up the first seventeen numbers of the compilation printed by Bernhard Pez in the eighteenth century.17 It begins with the tale of ‘Hildefonsus’ and ends with that of ‘Murieldis,’ hence it is known as
[[ Print Edition Page No. 5 ]]
HM.18 The origin of the collection is obscure, and the authors are, for the most part, anonymous. Six of the seventeen legends have lost the names and places with which they were originally associated; the others come variously from Italy, France, Spain, and Germany. The subjects are gathered from the lives of saints and from monastic records of various sorts. Some of them were not in their first form Mary legends at all. The saint for whom they were originally written is still there, but he has been subordinated to the Virgin Mary, who now usurps the leading role.19 This ancient series of tales exists in more or less complete form in almost all the great collections, although the order in which the legends are told is frequently altered. John of Garland’s Stella maris includes eleven of the seventeen.
Next in order of their development, and also of the eleventh century, are the legends of the Elements-series.20 The four anecdotes which comprise it have been rewritten by their unknown compiler so that each illustrates the Virgin’s dominion over fire, earth, air, or water.21 Although it is English in origin and has been found as a unit only in collections which can be identified with England,22 the single legends appear very commonly in the great collections of northern France. John of Garland tells two of them, omitting ‘Childbirth in the Sea’ and ‘Jew of Bourges.’23 They are not told in series, nor with their original significance.
The third series in point of time, belonging to the twelfth century,24 is the collection which forms the third book of two manuscripts, MSS British Museum Cotton Cleopatra C x and Toulouse 482. Related to it also is MS Oxford Balliol 240. There are seventeen numbers, beginning with the legend of ‘Toledo’ and ending with ‘Saturday,’ hence the collection is designated TS.25 Mussafia believes that this series also is English in origin,26 although the tales are gathered from many different sources. All three of these early collections appear together in MS Cotton Cleopatra C x27 of
[[ Print Edition Page No. 6 ]]
the twelfth century. The four legends of the Elements-series make up the first book;28 the HM series, the second book; and the TS group, the third book.29
Of primary importance in the history of Mary legends is the so-called Pez collection.30 Probably French in origin and a product of the twelfth century, it was transported to Germany to become the foundation upon which Latin collections in that region were built.31 The first seventeen of the forty-three legends is a complete HM series, told in the same sequence in which they appear in the Cleopatra-Toulouse-Oxford manuscripts.32 Two of the four Elements-series are narrated in the same versions as in Cleopatra-Toulouse-Oxford.33 Nine are TS legends, and one more, ‘Conception,’ is a different version of a TS tale. To these, fourteen new legends have been added from the constantly increasing number of incidents recorded in other sources. That TS was one of the principal sources of Pez is indicated by the fact that the nine miracles of Pez which are identical with those of TS follow in Pez in exactly the same order as in TS.34 The Pez
[[ Print Edition Page No. 7 ]]
collection is, therefore, derived from three sources: HM, the Elements-series, and TS, to which other legends have been added. These four collections are the foundations upon which were built, not only the French collections of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, but those in all western Europe.
At the close of the twelfth century the Mary cult was in full bloom, and the century which followed has been properly called‘the century of Mary.’35 The Ave Maria was as frequently and universally on the lips of all classes as any other prayer. The Salve Regina, the favorite anthem of the pilgrims and crusaders, was sung regularly in the evening before the image of the Virgin, not only in the churches of the religious orders, but by laymen as well.36 The four great Mary festivals already covered the entire year, one for each of the seasons, when the Conception of the Virgin and the Visitation were added in the twelfth century.37 Relics of the Virgin, her shift, her girdle, her sweat, and her milk accumulated. Images of the mother with the Child in her lap were countless, and the great Gothic cathedrals were rising in her honor.
Much of the ever-growing popularity of the Mary cult in the twelfth century is to be attributed to the new monastic orders, the Cistercians, Praemonstratensians, and the various groups of canons regular. In the thirteenth century the mendicant orders joined them in propagating the worship of the Virgin. Robert of Molesme, the founder of the Cistercian order, it is said, had been particularly devoted to her by reason of a vision seen by his mother before he was born.38 Alberic, his successor, had decided that the order should be dedicated to her, and that its houses should be under her invocation. According to legend the Virgin bestowed upon him a white mantle, and it was for that reason that the Cistercians gave up their black habit for a white one. All their churches were dedicated to the Virgin, and each had its Mary altar, before which the office of the Virgin was celebrated every Saturday.39 The seal of the Cistercian monasteries
[[ Print Edition Page No. 8 ]]
pictured the Virgin crowned. It is understandable, then, that in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century the collection of Mary legends became a particular project of the Cistercian order.40 The Dominicans and the Franciscans also were greatly devoted to the Mother of God. Tradition tells how the Virgin herself urged St. Dominic to found his order, and the preaching of the mendicants spread Mary legends to the far corners of Europe.41
The larger place given to Mary in the calendar of the church and in the hearts of the people called for greater efforts on the part of the compilers of Mary legends, for it was particularly on the Virgin’s days that the story of her life and her marvellous deeds was read in monasteries and churches. They were not content merely to tell and retell the anecdotes of the HM and TS collections, and to search the old sources, monastic records and saints’ lives, for occasional fresh tales. Entirely new and more varied sources were sought. Even history was forced to make its contribution. The Virgin became the heroine of incidents in the chronicles in which previously she had had no place; and then succeeding chroniclers retold the incident with the legendary accretion as sober history!42 The chance narratives of the ecclesiastical writers of the twelfth century were gathered into the growing compendia, and single miracles were culled from local collections.43 The quickening interest of the twelfth century in the matter of ancient Rome prompted the transformation of some highly pagan tales into Mary legends.44 Even folk tradition may have played a considerable part in the shaping of Mary legends, though the evidence is hard to lay hold of.45
Some new and entertaining anecdotes were selected from the growing collections of sermon stories, especially in the thirteenth century. Mary legends had always been used in sermons, and the collection of sermon stories ran parallel with the gathering of Mary legends. It was natural, therefore, that the compilers of one series should borrow from the other. Some rather undignified anecdotes written to entertain popular audiences were, consequently, rewritten with great freedom to include the Virgin and added to the number of Mary legends.46 Equally diverting are the Mary legends used by preachers as sermon stories. The stately old miracles, composed for the most part for leisurely monastic audiences, had to be
[[ Print Edition Page No. 9 ]]
made briefer and livelier to appeal to impatient lay crowds. This appropriation of Mary legends by popular preachers grew until in the fourteenth century collections of Mary legends were made primarily for the use of preachers, and many of them had become unrecognisable.47
The more frequent contacts between the East and West beginning with the twelfth century and the increasing travel in the West itself stimulated by the pilgrimages and crusades, the growth of the mendicant orders, and the development of commerce opened other new sources. More legends about miraculous images came back from the East as well as new eastern versions of the old stories that had been told by Gregory of Tours. Even merchants were credited with the transmission of legends about Mary images.48 Travellers in western Europe itself carried tales from one place to another by word of mouth.49
Still other Mary legends came into existence in a purely literary fashion. New details were fitted into favorite old themes until whole cycles of Mary legends having the same theme may be distinguished.50 Westerners grown accustomed to visualizing the Christ as a child sitting in the lap of the Virgin transformed eastern tales about crucifixes into Mary legends with a few strokes of the pen.51 Latin legends, it seems, were translated into the vernacular and back again into Latin with the homely details and new incidents which they had acquired in the process.52
As a result of the growth of the Mary cult in all its aspects, the collections of Mary legends rolled up like huge snowballs in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. The Pez collection of the twelfth century comprises forty-three legends. A similar collection about a generation later counts seventy-seven legends, even if the separate miracles of Soissons are not given numbers.53 A compendium made in the same region about 1200 numbers one hundred and five legends,54 and another by Alfonso el Sabio in the Galician vernacular in the thirteenth century, more than three hundred and fifty.55 The manuscript which John of Garland used at Ste. Geneviève in 1248 must have included a large number, for he calls the sixty-one legends
[[ Print Edition Page No. 10 ]]
he tells, ‘a few.’56 In all, more than two thousand separate legends originating in the middle ages have been counted, and there are other collections still to be studied. They come from Iceland and from Ethiopia, from Spain and Russia and the middle East; and they are written not only in Latin, but in the vernaculars.
Some of these numerous new anecdotes about the Virgin, originating in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, gained as wide currency in Europe as those of the HM and TS series. Others got no father than the collections in which they first appeared. A considerable number, however, circulated freely within fairly large areas, more or less coterminous with language boundaries.57 There developed, consequently, in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, Latin collections which may be identified as specifically Anglo-Norman, or French, or German in origin.58 At a later date, however, even the latter part of the thirteenth century, the distinctions between regional collections have broken down.
Identification of anonymous regional collections is made in several different ways. The most important is the differentiation of tales characteristic of certain regions whose author or place of origin can be determined. The legend of the ‘Maid of Arras,’ for instance, occurs only in collections which can be traced to northern France. Certain redactions of some legends, especially the ancient TS legends, are characteristic of certain areas. There are, for example, two particular versions of the ‘Milk’ miracle which are found only in collections originating in England and another which is characteristic of collections French in origin.59 The differences between versions of English and French provenance appear clearly in the manuscripts of John of Garland’s work. His collection belongs to the series made in northern France, and the individual who wrote some of the commentary in the British Museum manuscript is familiar only with the redactions of English origin, or with similar English stories.60 Because the first vernacular collections were translations from Latin, they too are useful in determining the regional origin of particular Latin collections.61
Paris with its two great monasteries, Ste. Geneviève and St. Germain-des-Prés, was already an important monastic center, when in 1108 William of Champeaux founded the Canons of St. Victor. They lived under the rule connected with the name of St. Augustine, as did the canons regular of Ste. Geneviève when the monastery was reformed. A particular feature of the Austin canons — they included also the Praemonstratensians founded by St. Norbert in 1120 — was their devotion to the Virgin Mary.62 To the city on the Seine in the twelfth century also came merchants, students, and pilgrims. The road which ran from north to south across the island was one of the great pilgrimage routes. Paris was, therefore, very early a center of the new life in Europe which contributed to the growth of the Mary cult and the collection of Mary legends. Although the narratives themselves offer little proof of the specific place where the collection was made, there are strong indications that the monasteries of Paris did play a leading part in the development of the great French collections.
There are to-day in the Bibliothèque Nationale a number of manuscript collections, obviously related one to another, which were made in northern France during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. One group in particular connects itself with the monastic and educational centers about Paris. The first and oldest of these is MS Paris Bibliothèque Nationale 14463, written in scripts of the twelfth century. It once belonged to the monastery of St. Victor, hence Mussafia designates it SV.63 The Sorbonne possessed two very similar collections.64 The second is a larger collection, MS Bibliothèque Nationale 12593 of the thirteenth century.65 Since it came formerly from the library of the monastery of St. Germain-des-Prés, it is called SG. Several Paris manuscripts, with no clue as to their origin, are related also to this series of Latin collections, especially MSS Bibliothèque Nationale 17491 of the thirteenth, 2333A of the fourteenth, and 18134 of the late thirteenth or early fourteenth centuries. No similar compilation has been identified as the possession of the third great monastery of Paris, Ste. Geneviève. One did exist there in the thirteenth century, nevertheless, for John of Garland used it in 1248 as the source of the Stella maris. The monastery of Ste. Geneviève, then, had in the thirteenth century a collection very similar to SV and SG, manuscripts which are known to have been the property of the two other great monasteries of Paris. It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose that these two collections were in the thirteenth
[[ Print Edition Page No. 12 ]]
century lying on the shelves of their respective monasteries. If they were also originally compiled there, then an important part in shaping the great collections of northern France could be attributed to the Parisian monasteries, for all three collections are important links in the history of Mary legends in northern France in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
The collection of St. Victor, SV, compiled in the latter half of the twelfth century,66 numbers seventy-seven legends, aside from the entire local collection of Soissons. They fall into two major groups. The first sixty-six, SV1, are legends, many of them originating in northern France, which became widely disseminated in France and Spain. The Sorbonne collections and two manuscripts of the Brussels Library follow SV only to this point.67 The second series, SV2 (nos. 67-77), are a miscellaneous group, among which are interpolated the De transitu beatissime virginis of Melito of Sardis and a commentary on St. Bernard’s sermon Missus est angelus (fols. 72v-89). Eight of the legends (nos. 67 and 71-77) may have belonged to a single small collection, for they are found together in MS British Museum Royal 6 B x with an introductory paragraph.68 This small collection also originated in northern France, for three of the tales were first told by an abbot of Capelle, one by King Louis of France (probably Louis VII, 1137-1180), and another by a monk of Noyon. It was, perhaps, appended to SV1 by the monks of St. Victor. Their additions did not, however, become popular enough to be told in the great collections.69
It is the first series, SV1, therefore, that is significant in the history of the collections made in northern France. In it are included all the miracles of the HM series, three of the Elements-series, and all except one of the TS legends.70 The compilation is not done, however, as in the Cleopatra-Oxford-Toulouse manuscript, simply by adding one series after another in the same order. The Paris compiler put the tales together as one would a mixed bouquet — several from one old source, a few from another, and then some new ones to give variety to the compilation.71 The first seven
[[ Print Edition Page No. 13 ]]
numbers of SV1 are the first seven HM legends, except that no. 7 precedes no. 6. A second series of eight from HM is interpolated after no. 15, although they do not follow in the same order as in Pez. The two remaining HM anecdotes are nos. 39 and 59 of SV1. The TS tales are treated in the same manner, as are also the remaining Pez legends. The following shows the relationship between TS, Pez, and SV1:
|2.||Foot Cut Off||18||65|
|4.||Mother of Mercy (Sicut iterum)||—||32|
|7.||Mary Image Insulted||—||26|
|8.||Drowned Sacristan (Nonus)||—||—|
|9.||Devil in Beasts’ Shapes||23||37|
|*11.||Milk: Monk Laid Out||30||28|
|27.||Pilgrim in the Sea||27||50|
|28.||Light on Masthead||28||51|
|31.||Jew of Bourges||31||66|
|33.||Jew Lends to Christian||33||53|
|34.||Hours Sung Daily||34||54|
|*35.||Love by Black Art||35||36|
|39.||Monk Drowns: Friend Prays||39||56|
The table illustrates clearly a relationship between SV1 and Pez. Is SV1 derived from the completed Pez? Or did the compiler of SV1 have available some collection or collections which may be regarded as the ancestor
[[ Print Edition Page No. 14 ]]
of Pez? The latter seems to be the case. In the first place, the St. Victor collection includes tales which belong to the TS series, but which are omitted in the Pez collection (TS 1, 3-4, 7, 12, and 14). Secondly, the version of TS 15, ‘Conception,’ which SV1 presents is that of the Cleopatra-Oxford-Toulouse collection, not that of Pez 19. In the third place, the arrangement of the legends of SV1 indicates that the compiler had access to a manuscript which presented TS in the form in which it is found in Cleopatra-Toulouse, not in Pez.72 Note especially the three series TS 3-4 = SV 31-32; TS 14-15 = SV 9-10; TS 16-17 = SV 24-25. Moreover, three of the Elements-series are included in SV1 in the versions of Cleopatra-Toulouse.73 It appears, then, that SV1 and Pez share a common source, that one of the sources that the compiler of St. Victor used in the making of his collection included not only HM, TS and the Elements-series, but also the miracles which were eventually to become associated with them to form the Pez collection. The compendium which was their common source was probably French in origin, possibly Parisian.74
These four common compendia account for forty-nine of the sixty-six legends of SV1. Although some of them may well have originated in northern France, they spread so widely over western Europe that they have lost much of their value as a means of distinguishing the collections of northern France from others. It is the seventeen (or eighteen) legends75 of SV1 still unaccounted for that characterize the collections made in this region. For many of them it is their earliest appearance in a collection of Mary legends, and the narrative is embedded in the considerable introductory matter which belonged to them in their original form. They were probably extracted from their original sources by some monk of Paris:
11. Mother of Mercy (Pseudo-Anselm). Meminimus et meminisse delectabile est.
12. Foot Cut Off: Grenoble. Dilectis in Christo fratribus . . . Cum nuper in territorio Grannopolitano.
13. Bridegroom: Transported To a Remote Region. Audiant adhuc quos audire delectat. . . . Iuvenis erat predives. S.M. 35.76
14. Milk: Tongue and Lips Restored. Clericus quidam vite secularis. S.M. 1.
15. Mouth of Hell. Sanctimonialis quedam sancte enutrita. S.M. 39.
29. Monk Dies Suddenly in Burgundy. Olim erat cognitus alter quidam monachus (versified).
[[ Print Edition Page No. 15 ]]
33. Sacristan Worthy to Kiss Hands and Feet of Mary. Erat in quodam sancte dei genitricis . . . cenobio frater.
34. Boy Devoted to the Devil. Inter innumera dei genitricis . . . insignia. . . . Fuit quidam nobilis affluensque. S.M. 52.
35. Excommunicate Absolved by Foolish Servant of Mary. Preiudicatis quippe nonnullis in seculo eundi ad penas. . . . Erat quidam mire sanctitatis presbyter.
40. Will for Deed. Fuit quidam miles nobilitate et dignitate conspicuus. S.M. 55.
44. Bread. Spiris est locus famosus. S.M. 49.
45. Chaste Empress. Quam mercedem legale coniugium. . . . Hic siquidem de quo loqui incipimus imperator. S.M. 14.
58. Maid of Arras. Memoriam gloriose virginis. . . . Erat igitur in suburbio civitatis Atrebatensis. S.M. 33.
[58a. Poor Man Strikes Stone. Quam magna sit. . . . Quidam pauperculus homuntio Walterus nomine in vicinia Aquicinensis]77
61. Rich Man and Poor Widow. Fuit ecclesia cuius parrochie presbiter preerat (versified).
62. Incest. Quam secreta regis abscondere. . . . Erat Rome vir quidam nobilis (versified).
63. Stepmother and Stepson. Chiviachus villa est episcopii Laudunensis.
64. Wife and Mistress. Est preterea aliud quiddam relatu breve exemplo. . . . Ex relatione Atrebatensis episcopi mulier quedam fuerat.
The whole of Hugo Farsitus of Soissons is included in SV1, preceding no. 58.
Four of the eighteen legends characteristic of SV1 are taken more or less literally from two ecclesiastical writers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, both of whom wrote in northern France. The first, no. 11, included among the works of Anselm of Canterbury, is by Maurilius, archbishop of Rouen, 1055-1067.78 Three, nos. 12, 63, and 64, come from the De laude sancte Marie of Guibert de Nogent, chs. 10-12.79 Another tale, no. 44, is much the same anecdote as that told by Gautier de Compiègne, De miraculis beate virginis Marie,80 but the diction is so altered and the details so different that it can scarcely have been taken directly from that work. Two of the legends, nos. 58 and 64, originated at Arras; one at Anchin near Douai, no. 58a; two, nos. 12 and 29, in Burgundy; and one, no. 44, at Speyer. The Speyer legend is, however, probably not of German authorship, for the author remarks of a phrase which he quotes, ‘as German boys say.’
The trail of four of the legends which are new in SV1 leads back to
[[ Print Edition Page No. 16 ]]
Rome, and suggests an earlier period. The legend of ‘Chaste Empress’ appears to be from an ancient collection connected with Roman emperors in which the Virgin at first had no part. In the tradition of three of the others, ‘Bridegroom: Transported,’ ‘Boy Devoted to the Devil,’ and ‘Incest,’ early popes are important characters.81 It is possible, therefore, that the compiler of SV1 had available also an ancient collection of legends from Italy. The ‘Milk’ legend, no. 14, is a redaction of one of the TS miracles. The origin of the remaining five legends is unknown. All of the eighteen are related again and again in the collections made in northern France and Spain in both Latin and the vernaculars. With some exceptions they are not so frequently told elsewhere in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. John of Garland tells nine of them in the Stella maris.82
Analysis of the St. Victor manuscript suggests the way in which collections of Mary legends grew in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Each compiler copied and rearranged the old legends. He rejected some, perhaps because they did not suit his fancy, because a certain number were needed for the requirements of the services, or because he had a certain limited amount of parchment to fill. In any case few collections were made without adding some legends from a new source. So it was with the monk who brought together the collection of St. Germain-des-Prés, MS Paris Bibliothèque Nationale 12593 (SG) of the thirteenth century.83 The legends, therefore, fall into two series: SG1, nos. 1-80, and SG2, nos. 81-105.
The compiler of the collection of St. Victor had been satisfied with the old prologue, beginning Ad omnipotentis Dei laudem, which stood before the HM series. The compiler of the legends of St. Germain-des-Prés, embarking upon a more ambitious project, writes a new one, beginning Quoniam gloriosissima virgo virginum. In the last paragraph he announces his intention to bring together the miracles of the Mother of God, those performed ‘in different times and in diverse places, upon diverse persons of either sex, of different age, and of different condition and status; whatever is to be found in the books of the saints or scattered about in the writings of the faithful.’84
The writer of this prologue intended to do a good deal of original research in ecclesiastical literature, but, none-the-less, the nucleus of his collection is SV1. Of its sixty-six legends, sixty are repeated in SG1 in almost
[[ Print Edition Page No. 17 ]]
identical words, and another, ‘Jewish Boy,’ is told in a different version.85 It was, however, not the manuscript of St. Victor itself that the compiler of St. Germain-des-Prés used, but another similar to it which he, perhaps, found in his own monastery. A legend obviously belonging to the SV1 series, but lacking in the St. Victor manuscript, ‘Poor Man Strikes Stone,’86 is no. 75 of his collection. Either he, or a compiler who preceded him, was, moreover, strongly influenced by a twelfth-century collection which Mussafia designates as APM,87 so-called because it exists to-day in three manuscripts, MSS British Museum Arundel 346 (twelfth century), Paris Bibliothèque Nationale 18168 (twelfth century), and Montpellier 146 (twelfth to thirteenth century), as is shown by the table on the following page.
The first twenty-six legends of SG1 in general follow the sequence of APM, except for Sicut iterum which is inserted between HM 4 and 5, TS 16 (‘Leuricus’) which is added, and TS 3 (‘Musa’) which is deferred. As in SV, however, Pseudo-Anselm is interpolated after ‘Conception.’ The first twenty-five legends of SV1, on the other hand, show no marked relationship to APM, except the series‘Mead’- ‘Conception’ (nos. 9-10). Nevertheless, beginning with no. 26 and continuing through no. 43, SV1 is tied more closely to APM than is SG1 (see nos. 31-32, 42-43, 28-30, etc.). The APM sequence ought to be older than the sequence of SV1 1-25, because it reproduces HM 1-17 intact and certain series of TS in order (TS 12, 14-15, 1-6, 11, to which SG adds TS 16). Could there have been at St. Germain-des-Prés a copy of SV1 older than the manuscripts of St. Victor, the Sorbonne, and the Brussels collections which reproduced the first twenty-six legends more nearly in APM sequence? It is difficult to explain the marked parallels between SV1, SG1, and APM in any other way. There are two suggestions of such a collection in the Sorbonne manuscripts themselves. They follow SV1 almost exactly except that (1) ‘Three Knights’ (TS 12) is placed after Pseudo-Anselm (no. 10) in approximately the same place as in SG1 and (2) ‘Theophilus’ has been deferred, as in SG1, until later in the collection (no. 27). The original home of SV1, then, may well have been the old monastery of St. Germain-des-Prés rather than the newer
|1-17.||HM, 1-17 (ending ‘Murieldis’)||1-7,||18, 39, 23, 16, 17, 19-22, 59||1-4,||6-18 (ending‘Murieldis’)||1-7,||13, 23, 18, 32, 12, 14-17, 60|
|18.||Jew of Bourges P 31||66||26,||but a different version||67|
|19.||Three Knights TS 12||60||19||11|
|20.||Mead TS 14||9||8. Theophilus||21||50. Theophilus||8||27. Theophilus|
|21.||Conception TS 15||10||11. Mother of Mercy (Pseudo-Anselm)||20||22. Mother of Mercy (Pseudo-Anselm)||9||10. Mother of Mercy (Pseudo-Anselm)|
|22.||Toledo TS 1||41||24||25. Leuricus TS 16||64|
|23.||Foot Cut Off TS 2||65||103||21|
|24.||Musa TS 3||31|
|25.||Mother of Mercy (Sicut iterum) TS 4||32||5||22|
|26.||Libia TS 5||42||57||46|
|27.||Gethsemane TS 6||43|
|*28.||Milk: Monk Laid Out TS 11||78||35|
|*29.||Monk Dies Suddenly||29|
|*30.||Uncompleted Confession P 41||41||37|
|*31.||Wife and Mistress||—||43||41|
|*32.||Love by Black Arts P 35||36||—||43|
|*33.||Bonus P 37||38||27||33|
|34.||Mary Image Insulted TS 7||26|
St. Victor. The re-ordering of the legends of SG1 beginning with no. 27 is to be explained by the desire of the compiler to group together legends with similar themes.88 A series of five, nos. 27-31, are about Mary images; nos. 34-35 tell of sinners saved by repeating the prayer O intemerata; nos. 45-46, of cities saved by the Virgin; and nos. 48-56, of Mary festivals and Mary in the liturgy.
The basic source of SG1 is the twelfth-century collection SV1, or an earlier compilation, of which SV1 is a redaction. The addition of seventeen legends distinguishes SG1 from SV1, legends which together may be used to differentiate the Quoniam (the first word of SG’s prologue) collections and their descendants from others made in northern France.
29. Bridegroom: Ring on Finger. In antiquis temporibus factum de ymagine genitricis — Erat quedam ecclesia in qua imago. S.M. 8.
30. Orleans. Omnis cetus fidelium audiat hoc miraculum — Quoddam municipium est Aurelianensi proximum civitati quod Avenon nuncupatur. S.M. 26.
31. Saracen and Mary Image. Contigit Sarracenum quendam habuisse ymaginem. S.M. 7.
32. Unchaste Monk Warned by Widow. In territorio Cameracensi quoddam cenobium est.
33. Mare. De matre misericordie matre domini mirabilia multa narrantur — In vicinia Remensis urbis est quoddam cenobium regule Premonstratensi deditum. S.M. 29.
34. O intemerata: Devil as Servant. Homo quidam erat nobilis divitiis potens et honoribus.
35. O intemerata: Buried Outside the Churchyard. Aliud quoque beneficium gloriose virginis de eadem oratione — Erat quidem adolescens nequam.
45. Constantinople Saved. In diebus Theodosii predecessoris Leonis pape.
46. Chartres. Temporibus Karoli regis Francorum qui cognominatus est Simplex anno ab incarnatione domini 806. S.M. 32.
47. Sardenay. Tempore quo Greci terram inhabitabant.
48. Nativity. Sancte dei genitricis semper que virginis Marie navitatis — Solitarius quidam sancte vite fuit. S.M. 15.
49. Purification. Temporibus Iustiniani Augusti quinto decimo imperii ipsius anno. S.M. 30.
52. Thread in Lip. Dominus noster Ihesus Christus dei filius annuntiatus — Erat quidem tunc temporis in Gallia in suburbio scilicet Noviomince urbis quedam puellula Heremburgis nomine.
53. Origin of Antiphony. O Maria virgo, pia maris stella. Hanc suprascriptam antiphonam docuit s. dei genitrix monachos in quodam cenobio — Laicus quidam inibi degens.
54. Sight Restored. Est responsorium quod quidam asserunt in ecclesia non debere cantari — Responsorii . . . istius . . . auctor exitit quidam Romanus nomine Victor.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 20 ]]
56. St. Luke’s Portrait of Mary. Dum beatissima dei genitrix moraretur cum apostolis.
58. Barns Filled. Monasterium est valde magnum in Iherusalem. S.M. 6.
Of the seventeen tales which are new in SG1, five are from monastic or communal records of northern France, nos. 30, 32, 33, 46, and 52. Six are anecdotes connected with the liturgy, nos. 34-35, 48-49, and 53-54. Two are ancient tales about Mary images, nos. 31 and 47. One is from Gregory of Tours’ In gloria martyrum, ch. 10, no. 58. The other three, nos. 29, 45, and 56, have nothing in common except that they originate in Rome or mention early popes. This is true also of nos. 53 and 54, as well as four other legends told in SV1 and repeated in SG1, except for ‘Incest’ which is lacking only because by some accident it was versified.89 These legends probably belonged to an ancient collection of Roman origin brought to France. A further hint of the existence of such a collection comes from the British Museum gloss of the Stella maris, written by some one who had seen the collection of Ste. Geneviève. John of Garland tells all of the legends except ‘Constantinople,’ and the author of the gloss remarks, Cum maximo affectu compositus illo modo totaliter de miraculis beate virginis, prout in registro Rome et etiam alibi comprobantur.90 There seems to be no other explanation for this statement, except that a particular group of legends in the manuscript of Ste. Geneviève were said to come from an ancient papal ‘register.’ Moreover, some of the anecdotes, together with others of the same nature, are related in MS Paris Bibliothèque Nationale 5268 of the twelfth century. One of them, a tale about Leo the Great, begins, Romanorum testimonio didicimus et in commentariis pontificalibus.91 These two phrases, it should be noted, cover both types of ancient legends among the Quoniam anecdotes.
The legends of the first series of the collection of St. Germain-des-Prés, therefore, clearly point to northern France as their home. Some come from collections already in existence there, probably including one of Roman or Italian origin. Others are the result of the search of the works of ecclesiastical writers, of chronicles, and of monastic and communal records promised by the compiler in his preface. It is in the second series of the collection that he most specifically carries out his intention to tell tales ‘of diverse persons of either sex, of different ages and different conditions and status.’ These, as well as the seventeen tales of SG1, probably were his own additions. In SG2 he groups the legends according to the social status of the individuals about whom they are told. Numbers 81-90 are about priests
[[ Print Edition Page No. 21 ]]
and monks; nos. 91-92, about conversi; nos. 93-95, about clerks; no. 96, about a nun; and nos. 97-105, about laymen. The laymen include an emperor, a knight, a servant, an impoverished man, and a blind man. Two of the tales are about boys. It may be inferred that the compiler was a monk, for he puts even the conversi of the monastery before the clerk and the nun, to say nothing of the emperor and the knight.
Of the twenty-five tales of SG2 only three, nos. 101-103, are well-known in France, and even they are not the usual versions. The others suggest some region farther from Paris. Does SG2 offer any clue as to the home of the compiler and the origin of his legends?
A first examination of the series, SG2, suggests Germany or at least the Rhineland as the home of these tales. The scene of two of the legends is the Rhineland, no. 100 at Strassburg92 and no. 93 at Trier.93 A third occurred in a monastery in Germany.94 Two themes particularly popular in German lands predominate in the collection, the ‘Drowned Sacristan’ theme,95 and the theme of the ‘Bread’ legend.96 In fact this particular ‘Bread’ legend seems to be the point of departure for all others of German origin. Two of the three popular legends, nos. 101 and 102, are from thirteenth-century collections which exist to-day in German libraries,97 and one of them, no. 101, is a version seldom found in the French collections. Mussafia reports three collections (MSS Copenhagen Thott 26, 12th-13th centuries; and Leipzig 821 and 819, 13th century) which are related to SG. The Copenhagen collection and the second Leipzig manuscript repeat only the first legend of SG2, no. 81. The first Leipzig collection includes six, nos. 81, 88-90, 96, and 101.98
The first series of the collection of St. Germain-des-Prés presumes northern France as its home, and the second series strongly suggests Germany or the Rhineland. In view of these facts, was the compiler a German monk who brought SG2 with him to Paris? Or was he, perhaps, a French monk who had visited Germany? The author of the ‘Bread’ legend, no. 104, writes at the close of his narrative, ‘This, the lord Louis, abbot of St. Peter at Châlons-sur-Marne,99 is a witness, was related to him by the abbot of
[[ Print Edition Page No. 22 ]]
that very monastery [where the incident occurred], a very truthful and pious man, when he was studying in Germany in that same monastery.’100 The author says also that the abbot Louis frequently told the anecdote to his monks in his [the author’s] hearing.101 The legend which follows the ‘Bread’ miracle and closes the series, no. 105, comes also from the region of Châlons-sur-Marne. It is a tale of a young boy whose soul was rescued by St. John because he repeated the prayer O intemerata to Mary and St. John the Evangelist. The prayer was found upon his pillow when he died. Gonterus (fl. 1156), abbot of Chalade, a Cistercian monastery near Clermont-en-Argonne founded in 1138,102 heard it at a chapter meeting of Cistercian abbots, to which a priest brought the scroll with the prayer on it. Gonterus wrote down the prayer.103
The collection of St. Germain-des-Prés could, therefore, have been made by a monk who had come to Paris at the end of the twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth century from the region east of Paris toward the Rhineland bringing with him a collection from a monastery of that region. If the compiler of SG2 was the author of the ‘Bread’ miracle he was a monk of the Benedictine monastery of Châlons-sur-Marne.104 In the Benedictine monastery on the Seine he made another collection gathered from the sources available there and appended his earlier collection to it. The whole he refurbished with a prologue of his own, and it became the progenitor of a group of Quoniam collections, of which John of Garland’s source, the collection of Ste. Geneviève, was one.105
Nothing is known of the origin or the compiler of the large collection of MS Paris Bibliothèque Nationale 17491 (X)106 in a script of the thirteenth century. It could scarcely have been made earlier than the last
[[ Print Edition Page No. 23 ]]
quarter of the twelfth century, for it includes an incident recorded by the Cistercian monk, Helinand of Froidmont (d. after 1227), under the year 1161,107 and a tale told in his later years by the abbot Baldwin of the Praemonstratensian abbey of Belleval in Lorraine, who flourished in 1179.108 The work is constructed according to no discernible plan109 except to include under one cover as many Mary legends as possible. Among the more than ninety numbers are the following:
The collection ends with remarks on various incidents in the life of the Virgin, the Annunciation, Assumption, etc.
The work of the compiler of MS Paris 17491 (X) falls into two distinct parts, each of which closes with an unique legend.119 The first series, X1, nos. 1-72, are entirely in prose; the second, X2, nos. 73-82, are in verse, or partly in verse, and in some cases the details differ from the prose versions in other collections. The first collection, X1, is derived either from SG1 or from a common source. The prologues, Quoniam gloriosissima virgo,120 are identical; and not only are sixty-nine legends the same in both collections, but there are several long series which follow in the same sequence:
Of the seventeen legends which differentiate the collection of St. Germain-des-Prés from the earlier one of St. Victor, all but two122 are repeated in the first series of X in much the same order.123 Six legends, neither in SV nor SG, have been added:
7. Columns Raised. Beata dei genitrix et perpetua virgo . . . cuius basilica a Constantino ammirabili opere fabricata renitet. S.M. 13.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 25 ]]
8. Light in a Mary Church. Huius gloriose virginis reliquie in oratorio Marciacensis Averni territorii continentur.
9. Jewish Boy. Quid etiam in oriente actum fuerit . . . Iudei cuiusdam vicarii filius. S.M. 3.
11. Mary Relics. Huius itaque beate virginis reliquias quadam die super me in cruce aurea positas exhibebam.
65. Judas in Hell. Omnis qui de testimonio veritatis novit agere. S.M. 27.
65a. Christ Appears to Monk. Quoniam de visionibus studio aptare pennam cepimus quod in monasterio Saviniensi contigit sub venerabili patre . . . Serlone relatu dignum credimus. Unus fratrum cuius nomen novimus. S.M. 40.
The first four incidents are from Gregory of Tours’ In gloria martyrum, chs. 8-10.124 The other two are tales of visions seen by monks. The first is recorded under the year 1161 in the Chronicon of the Cistercian monk of Froidmont, how a novice in a monastery in England saw a vision of heaven and hell. The second incident occurred in the Cistercian monastery of Savigny when Serlo de Vaubadon was abbot, 1140-1153 (abbot of Clairvaux, 1153-1158), how Christ appeared to a monk on two different occasions when he was saying mass. If the two collections do not emanate from a common source, then MS Paris 17491 (X1) would seem to be derived from the first series of the collection of St. Germain-des-Prés, because of the slightly later date, as compared with SG1, of the legends which distinguish it;125 and because their common prologue is more at home in SG than in X.
The versified series, X2, of MS Paris 17491, on the other hand, is derived either from the first series of the collection of St. Victor (SV1) or from a common source. Of the ten numbers, seven are identical with those of SV1, and the sequence is almost the same in both collections:126
|Monk Laid Out as Dead||28||79|
|Monk Dies Suddenly in Burgundy||29||78|
|Love by Black Art||36||76|
|Rich Man and Poor Widow||61||73a|
The manuscript of the Bibliothèque Nationale, 2333A, in a script of the fourteenth century, is little more than a copy of MS Paris 17491. Four of the legends are omitted,127 and two have been added.128 The legend, ‘Theophilus,’ in verse replaces the prose version of X. Otherwise the legends follow in the same order.129
The growing tendency to versify the legends of the Quoniam collections is observed in MS Charleville 168 of the thirteenth century, a collection which has much in common with MS Paris 17491. The compiler of X2, or some one who preceded him, versified a part of Melito of Sardis. He attempted also to turn two others into verse, but gave up after the first two lines. The compiler of the Charleville collection adds to the number, ‘Mare’ and ‘Unchaste Monk Warned by Widow,’ besides another legend which is unique.130
The fifty-nine legends of MS Paris Bibliothèque Nationale 18134 in a script of the second half of the thirteenth century or the beginning of the fourteenth131 may be divided into two distinctly different series: Q1, nos. 1-26, except nos. 1 and 17; and Q2, nos. 27-59 and nos. 1 and 17. The first series, Q1, depends upon the first series of the collection of St. Victor, for the legends are identical in form and diction. They are told in almost the same order in both collections except that some have been omitted from Q1.132 The prologue is the ancient Ad laudem prologue, as in SV.133
The second series, nos. 1, 17, and 27-59 (Q2), is one of the most interesting and mysterious series in all the collections of Mary legends in Latin. It is difficult to believe that they were originally put together by the same person who compiled Q1, for the treatment of the two series is very different. The compiler of the first series has painstakingly followed his source, except for the omission of some of the legends and the rearrangement of others. In Q2, not even the most venerable legends escape radical alteration in diction. Others are revised to make them briefer and more dramatic in the manner of the vernacular versions of the thirteenth century. The Latin style of the legends of Q2 is more direct than that of the original versions, and the form is often cruder.
The thirty-five legends of Q2, aside from nos. 41 and 58 which are Pez legends, may be divided into four groups according to the sources from which they appear to come:
1. Eight legends, nos. 17, 27, 35, 42, 54-56 and 59,134 are unique, or not often told in Latin collections made in northern France.
2. Fourteen legends, nos. 28-30, 34, 39, 43-47, and 49-52,135 are sufficiently similar in diction, detail, and sequence to the collection in the French vernacular of Gautier de Coincy136 that it must be concluded either (1) that Gautier de Coincy used Q2 in the composition of his work or (2) that the author of Q2 was following the text of Gautier de Coincy. Although it is not possible with the evidence at hand to conclude definitely that Gautier’s vernacular collection was the source of the fourteen legends of Q2,137 a study of some of the narratives in the next classification as well as the script of MS 18134 would indicate a date later than 1223 for the composition of Q2, and therefore lead to the second conclusion.
3. In the third group are five legends, nos. 32-33, 36, 38 and 48,138 identified with a Latin collection referred to as the Mariale magnum, but not now extant.139 They are similar in theme to certain tales found in other collections where they are said to have been extracted from that enigmatical work.140 In addition to these five legends, said to be from the Marialemagnum, which do not appear in Gautier de Coincy’s collection, there are ten or eleven other Mariale magnum legends among those fourteen in the second group which are common to both Gautier de Coincy and MS 18134, nos. 28-30, 34, 39, 43-44, 46-47, 49, and probably 50.141 These numbers include all but one of the legends of MS 18134 in whose diction there are traces of both Gautier de Coincy and another source which Mussafia believed to be SG.142 But, the SG legends are the same versions as those found in Vincent of Beauvais and attributed to the Mariale magnum. The compiler’s second source, therefore, could have been, not SG, but the Mariale magnum. In view of this fact and of the appearance of the five legends of the Mariale magnum in Q2, but not in Gautier de Coincy, it would seem that the author of Q2 (provided he did use Gautier de Coincy as his source and not vice versa) was employing both Gautier de Coincy and the Mariale magnum as
[[ Print Edition Page No. 29 ]]
sources. When he came upon a legend told in both his sources, his instinct for the dramatic led him to rely chiefly upon the vernacular version of Gautier de Coincy. Legends which he found only in the Mariale magnum, he revised in the spirit of the vernacular examples he had before him.
Some clue as to the date of Q2 of MS Paris 18134, aside from the script in which it is written, is furnished by several of the legends in this third group. The evidence, such as it is, supports the conclusion that the collection of Gautier de Coincy, although in the vernacular, is earlier than that of Q2 in Latin. Three of the five legends of the Mariale magnum are among the narratives of the second collection of MS British Museum 15723 of the thirteenth century.143 The first series of this compendium depends upon Vincent of Beauvais. The entire collection is said to have been taken from the Mariale magnum.144 The details of three legends make it possible to date them. Ward places one not earlier than 1161,145 another not earlier than 1180,146 and a third not earlier than 1200.147 A fourth legend, appearing in the Mariale magnum, but not in Q2, could have been told in its original form as late as 1223.148 It is not at all likely that legends with termini ex quo so late as 1200 could have been written down in Latin and then revised by the compiler of Q2 in time for Gautier de Coincy to use them in the early 1220’s. Therefore, in the absence of other evidence, it may be concluded tentatively that Q2 of MS Paris 18134 was composed from at least two sources, a Latin collection known by reputation as the Mariale magnum and the vernacular collection of Gautier de Coincy. As such it is a most unusual collection, for ordinarily vernacular collections were made by translation from the Latin, not Latin collections from the vernacular.
4. The fourth group of legends comprising Q2 is a miscellaneous group of six, nos. 1, 31, 37, 40, 53, and 57.149 One of them, no. 40, how the Virgin rebuked a Cistercian monk who sang softly, has the same general characteristics as the legends of the Mariale magnum, and may well belong there.150 It exists today in the French vernacular in the Miserere of the Renclus of Moiliens,151 written about the end of the twelfth century. A second anecdote, no. 57, is the same tale as no. 60 of MS Rouen A 535, a collection closely related to the Mariale magnum.152 The first legend of the manuscript
[[ Print Edition Page No. 30 ]]
is another which has been identified in the same version only in a vernacular collection.153 A story similar to no. 37, how a widow taught her son to lay garlands upon the altar of the Virgin, is told by the Dominican preacher Herolt in the next century.154 The ‘Chorister,’ no. 31,155 and ‘Beatrice the Sacristan,’ no.53, could also have come to MS Paris 18134 by way of the Mariale magnum.156
It is probable that the original home of Q2 was Soissons, or the vicinity of Soissons, for the trails which lead to and from the collection tend to converge on that region. Not only did the author probably use the Soissons manuscript of Gautier de Coincy, the monk of St. Medard at Soissons, as one of his sources, but a number of the legends told by him appear in a large compilation of Mary lore in the vernacular made not earlier than 1328 by an anonymous of Soissons, part of which is known as the Rosarius. There may have been a copy of the Mariale magnum available in the Soissons region about 1325, a possible date for Q2 as indicated by the script of MS Paris 18134, because the Rosarius depends upon a Grant Marial as its principal source.157 The author of the Rosarius knew the work of the Renclus of Moiliens, whose vernacular poem, Miserere, yields the only parallel to one of the legends of Q2 of MS Paris 18134.158
The title ‘Mariale’ is defined in the thirteenth century as a collection of materials in praise of the Virgin, a sort of anthology or summa of Mary lore. Such volumes were useful in the monasteries and churches as sources of readings for Saturdays and the celebration of the great festivals of the
[[ Print Edition Page No. 31 ]]
Virgin Mary.159 Some of the collections already described include scatered materials other than legends. The collection of St. Victor interpolates among the miracles, the De transitu of Melito of Sardis and a commentary on a sermon of St. Bernard. The compiler of MS Paris 17491 versified part of the De transitu, and he concludes the collection with references to scenes from the life of the Virgin.
The Public Library of Rouen has, among others, two collections of Mary legends, one of which is a copy of the other. The earlier, MS Rouen U 134160 of the thirteenth century, bears the title, Mariale, quod est de laude gloriose et perpetue virginis Dei genitricis Marie. Both belonged to the Benedictine monastery of Jumièges. The Rouen Mariale was not originally a single collection, for it has two prologues, one awkwardly following the other. The first, In libro Mariali, beginning Mirande virginis laudes qui miratur, mirandus est nemo, ends with the statement that the work is compiled‘from miracles and sayings of the fathers, ancient and modern.’161 In spite of this declaration, the thirteenth-century copy162 is made up of
[[ Print Edition Page No. 32 ]]
legends only, four of which are not Mary legends. A second prologue, Generalis prefatio, which belongs specifically to the series of Mary legends, follows immediately. It is the prologue of SG and MS Paris 17491, Quoniam gloriosissima virgo virginum.163
As the second prologue foreshadows, the Rouen Mariale is a descendant of the collections of St. Germain-des-Prés and MS Paris 17491, X1. Of the sixty-four legends of the Rouen collections, the first forty-three, R1, are the same, except for changes in diction and sequence, as those of the first series of MS Paris 17491. Among the anecdotes common to both are three of particular significance because they have been found only in Quoniam collections, including the Stella maris: the vision of ‘Judas in Hell’ from Helinand of Froidmont; following it, as in MS Paris 17491, that of the monk to whom Christ appeared while he was saying mass; and the legend of the fire in the church at Mare. The series from Gregory of Tours follows in the same order in both except that chapter 18 of the In gloria martyrum has been interpolated between the two legends of chapter 8, and chapter 10 has been omitted. Both are legends about Mary relics. The fact that the series in MS Paris 17491 (X1) is chapters 8-10 without modification suggests that chapter 18 is a substitution made by the compiler of the Rouen Mariale or his source, and that X1 of MS Paris 17491 is the earlier collection. That the Rouen Mariale was not copied directly from X1 as it appears in the Paris manuscript 17491, however, is indicated by the presence of ‘Musa,’ which is omitted in X1, in its appropriate place before ‘Columns Raised,’ as in MS Paris 2333A, clearly related to X1.164 The Stella maris includes, not only the three distinctive legends common to MS Paris 17491 and the Rouen Mariale, but also three from the Gregory of Tours series.165
There is other evidence that MS Paris 17491 was not the immediate source of the Rouen Mariale. The Rouen collection uses prose versions of two legends,166 versified or partly versified, in the second series, X2, of MS Paris 17491 and in the collection of St. Victor. Their presence here is significant, because they are part of a series which appears in versified redactions in the Parisian collections, with the exception of the Stella maris, and in prose versions in the Mariale magnum and the Stella maris.167 These facts imply not only that MS Paris 17491 was not the source of the Rouen Mariale, but also that the Rouen Mariale shares a common source with the Mariale magnum, or that its source was the Mariale magnum.
The second series of the Rouen Mariale, R2 (nos. 44-64), provides more evidence of its relation to the Mariale magnum. The twenty-one legends include six which have not been found in other collections,168 and six which are more or less familiar.169 A third group of eight are characteristic only of the Mariale magnum and collections related to it:
44. Painter of Flanders.170 Caritati diligentium virginem matrem Christi Iesu Mariam incentivum aliquod superaddi cupientes, parvum sed pulchrum quid de pictore quodam loquimur, qui eidem Domine pro vite sue merito familiaris in partibus Flandrie sibi nomen fecerat. S.M. 54.
45. Unwilling to Deny Mary.171 Lapsis gravi peccatorum ruina . . . In Aquitanie itaque partibus in castello quodam milites duo principabantur.
46. Cisterian Monks at Their Field Work.172 Laborantis anima laborabat sibi . . . Nobilis quidam honeste in seculo vite timens ne in vacuum curreret.
47. Christ Image Broken by Brabantine Blasphemers.173 Iuxta castrum Radulfi est quedam abbatia, que Dolis vocatur.
48. Cistercian Monk Persecuted.174 Rei geste quam sequens perstringit lectio.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 34 ]]
. . . In quodam aiebat [Simon, abbas de Los] Cisterciensis [ordinis] monasterio fuit monachus quidam religiosus.
53. Monk Who Recited Five Psalms Daily.175 Quidam archiepiscopus Cantuariensis ecclesie.
60. Chaplain Whom Mary Chose.176 In territorio Lexoviensi quidam fuit iuvenis natalibus ortus non infimis.
62. Demons in the Form of Swine.177 Fuit ex eorum numero, quos Cartusiensis ordo suscipit laicus quidam humilis genere.
Besides the two prose legends of R1 and the eight tales of R2, eleven others178 of the narratives of R1 are also identified with the Mariale magnum by the compilers of collections yet to be analyzed.179 Moreover, the sequence of certain of the legends of both R1 and R2 was determined either by the Mariale magnum or a common source.180
The Rouen Mariale, therefore, betrays evidence of two collections: (1) a Quoniam collection similar to, but not the same as MS Paris 17491 (X1, but not X2); and (2) the Mariale magnum. It was not composed, however, simply by uniting two collections, for the sequence of the legends throughout must have been influenced by the Mariale magnum, or a collection much like it. On the other hand, the more detailed comparison of the Rouen Mariale with the collection of Vincent of Beauvais which follows does not justify the conclusion that the Rouen Mariale was descended from the Mariale magnum. It was, instead, probably derived from a single collection which was the common source of both. That collection, as yet unidentified, will be referred to at present as the Ur-Mariale.181
The title Mariale was, perhaps, borrowed from its source, as was also the title Mariale magnum, hence the first prologue of the Rouen collections, In libro Mariali. The concluding sentence of the same prologue, huius libelli series ex miraculis et ex dictis patrum veterum et recentium tota contexitur,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 35 ]]
makes a promise that is not really fulfilled in the Rouen Mariale,182 which is made up entirely of legends. It is fair to suppose that the source from which the legends were drawn did include matter of this sort. A study of the collections descended from the Mariale magnum yields evidence that it did.
The following table compares the Rouen Mariale with other collections:
|X||Stella maris||Vincent of Beauvais|
|Rouen Mariale (R1)|
|1.||Judas in Hell||65||27||—|
|2.||Christ Appears to Monk||65a||40||—|
|3.||Stained Corporal P 14||33||—||—|
|6.||Musa TS 3||—||—||—|
|8.||Gregory of Tours, ch. 18||—||—183||—|
|9.||Light in a Mary Church||8||—||—|
|12.||Libia TS 5||3||17||—|
|13.||Gethsemane TS 6||5a||—||—|
|14.||Saracen and Mary Image||68a||7||119b|
|15.||Mary Image Insulted TS 7||4||18||119c|
|16.||Toledo TS 1||36||9||81b|
|17.||Jew Lends to Christian P 33||29||19||82|
|19.||Fire at Mont-St.-Michel P 15||34||41||—|
|24.||Milk: Tongue and Lips Restored||25||1||84|
|25.||Childbirth in the Sea P 22||27||—||85|
|26.||Abbess P 36||38||2||86|
|*27.||Uncompleted Confession P 41||81||—||—|
|28.||Devil in Beasts’ Shapes TS 9||26||5||—|
|29.||Kiss Hands and Feet||48||—||—|
|31.||Son Restored P 24||28||4||—|
|32.||Pilgrim in the Sea P 27-28||40||10||88-89|
|33.||Saturday TS 17||56||58||—|
|35.||St. Dunstan P 25-26||60||—||113|
|36.||Bonus P 37||—||—||97a|
|37.||Poor Man Strikes Stone||64||—||98
[[ Print Edition Page No. 36 ]]
|39.||Hours Sung Daily P 34||59||23||—|
|40.||O intemerata: Buried Outside||70||—||—|
|41.||Three Knights TS 12||51||—||—|
|42.||Eulalia TS 13||52||—||—|
|43.||Leuricus TS 16||55||—||—|
|Rouen Mariale (R2)|
|44.||Painter of Flanders||—||54||104|
|45.||Will not Deny Mary||—||—||105-106|
|46.||Monks at Their Field Work||—||—||107|
|48.||Cistercian Monk Persecuted||—||—||109|
|49.||Milk: Fulbert of Chartres||—||—||—|
|50.||Liberated by the Prayers of Brothers||—||—||—|
|51.||Peter the Venerable, ch. 30||—||—||—|
|54.||Five Joys P 4||16||—||—|
|55.||Charitable Almsman P 5||49||48||—|
|56.||O intemerata: Son of a Priest||—||—||—|
|57.||King of France||—||—||—|
|58.||Girl of Lausanne||—||—||—|
|59.||Liberated from Captivity||—||—||—|
|60.||Mary Choses a Chaplain||—||—||—|
|61.||Niece of a Wicked Man||—||—||—|
|62.||Demons as Swine||—||—||112|
|64.||Abbot Eats Spider||—||—||—|
|Thread in Lip184||—||—||89b|
The history of Mary legends in France presents no more intriguing problem than the Mariale magnum, known at present only by reputation. It must have been a work of importance in its day, for it is cited by French compilers of Mary lore from the middle of the thirteenth to the fifteenth century. The most accurate information as to its nature and content comes from the collection of Mary legends which Vincent of Beauvais incorporates in the Speculum historiale.185 The work was probably completed by 1244, certainly by 1247.186 Since one of the legends which the compiler
[[ Print Edition Page No. 37 ]]
attributes to it mentions the year 1187,187 the Mariale magnum must have been compiled, as Vincent of Beauvais used it, in the sixty years between 1187 and 1247.
Vincent of Beauvais’ legends are preceded by excerpts from the De transitu of Melito of Sardis and the vision of the assumption of the Virgin from Elizabeth of Schönau (d. 1165).188 That these selections have a definite connection with the miracles about to be related, he makes clear when he begins the author’s note introducing the legends with Post Assumptionem. The note itself sheds light on the character of the Mariale magnum,
After her assumption the Virgin was made illustrious by many miracles [performed] in various parts of the earth and at various times. Certain of these worthy of credence and approved by religious men, to her honor and the enlightenment of the reader, we wish to insert briefly in this work in this fashion.189
This statement by Vincent of Beauvais himself is followed immediately in the same chapter by the words Ex Mariali magno and a series of legends occupying chapters 81-119. In the middle of chapter 113, the author, after merely alluding to several legends, breaks in with the words Explicit de Mariali magno. Item alia. He gives no information about the source of the additional miracles which follow in chapters 113-119, except that he tells two of them elsewhere in the Speculum historiale and attributes them to the ‘Mariale.’190 His collection, therefore, may be divided into two series: V1, chs. 81-113b (33 legends) and V2, chs. 113c-119 (10 legends).
The most striking characteristics about the work of Vincent of Beauvais are (1) its similarity to the Rouen Mariale and (2) the large number of Cistercian legends it includes. Certain phrases of the author’s note suggest the Quoniam gloriosissima virgo prologue of the Rouen Mariale.191 Vincent
[[ Print Edition Page No. 38 ]]
of Beauvais, furthermore, adds portions of the De transitu of Melito of Sardis and the visions of Elizabeth of Schönau to the variety of materials promised in the Mirande virginis laudes prologue of the Rouen Mariale. Melito of Sardis (died c. 190) is an ‘ancient’ father, and the brother of St. Elizabeth (d. 1165), a ‘recent’ one. The Mariale magnum, therefore, may well have used both the Mirande and the Quoniam prologues of the Rouen Mariale. Although there are many omissions and some additions, the narratives which Vincent of Beauvais, V1, took from the Mariale magnum follow in much the same order as those of the Rouen collection:
The first six legends of the Rouen Mariale are lacking in Vincent of Beauvais and possibly in his source, the Mariale magnum.193 Of the twenty-one others which are missing, fourteen are either Pez or TS legends.194 These data suggest that the Mariale magnum had eliminated many of the legends of the earliest collections, perhaps because they were lacking in the authority that mention of names, places, and witnesses gives.
In spite of the striking similarity in sequence, Vincent of Beauvais was not the source of the Rouen Mariale, for his versions are only summaries which are told in full, many of them with prologues, in the Rouen Mariale. Nor was the Rouen Mariale the source of Vincent of Beauvais. Aside from the fact that the Dominican says that his source was a collection called the Mariale magnum, there is other evidence that it was not. The second series (X2) of MS Paris 17491, already noted, was a series of ten versified, or partly versified, legends. Of the ten, Vincent of Beauvais tells five in prose, the Rouen Mariale only two, and John of Garland three. Moreover, they follow in the first three collections in approximately the same order,
|MS Paris 17491 (X2)||Rouen (prose)||V1 (prose)||Stella maris|
|73a.||Rich Man and Poor Widow||—||96||—|
|[Poor Man Strikes Stone]||37||98||—|
|76.||Love by Black Art||—||—||—|
|77.||Clerk of Pisa||—||—||—|
|78.||Monk Dies Suddenly||—||—||—|
|79.||Monk Laid Out as Dead||—||—||—|
|80.||Jewess in Childbirth||—||99a||37|
Obviously there was somewhere in the ancestry of the Rouen Mariale and Vincent of Beauvais a collection which narrated at least five of these ten legends and ‘Poor Man Strikes Stone’ in prose in much the same sequence as in MS Paris 17491. The natural conclusion would be that it was the Mariale magnum, Vincent of Beauvais’ source; and that it was likewise the source of the Rouen Mariale. There are several reasons, however, why the Mariale magnum could not have been the source of the Rouen Mariale, and why it is necessary to look upon the source of the Rouen collection, the Ur-Mariale, as the common ancestor of the Mariale magnum and the Rouen Mariale:
2. A study of the ten legends which Vincent of Beauvais adds to those of the Rouen Mariale pre-supposes a more remote common ancestor than the Mariale magnum. Five of the ten are tales of other Quoniam collections.197
[[ Print Edition Page No. 40 ]]
The other five, however, are legends not yet encountered in the collections of northern France:
chs. 102-103. Girl Named Mary. Erat miles quidam dives, et in bellis famosus.
ch. 104b. Blasphemer of Lausanne. In illis partibus quidam in taberna, cum tessera ludens.
ch. 108. Electuary. Apud Claramvallem quidam cum promisisset fieri se monachum.
ch. 110b. Saracens Unable to Injure Mary Image.198 Quandam sancte Marie basilicam ingressi Saraceni.
ch. 111. Jew of London. Quidam Iudeus nomine Iacobus a Londonia . . . apud Wintoniam pergens.
Comparison of three versions of the second narrative in this group provides more definite proof of the existence of the Ur-Mariale which was the common source of the Rouen Mariale and the Mariale magnum. The anecdote of the ‘Blasphemer’ is told following the ‘Painter of Flanders’ in Vincent of Beauvais, MS British Museum Additional 15723 (fol. 79) and Gobius, Scala celi (nos. 33 and 34). All three compilers attribute both narratives to the Mariale magnum. Vincent of Beauvais does not record the scene of the second incident — presumably, then, it was Flanders, for the text begins In illis partibus, and Flanders is the scene of the preceding legend. The Additional version omits the scene of the ‘Painter’ and incorporates apud Lausennam into the text of the ‘Blasphemer.’ Gobius substitutes in Lavana for the first phrase. Since ‘Lavana’ cannot be identified, it is almost certainly a corruption of ‘Lausana.’ These variations can be explained only with the help of an unique legend from the Rouen Mariale and the supposition of an Ur-Mariale which was the source of the Rouen collection and the Mariale magnum. Rouen Mariale, no. 58, relates a tale of a girl in Lausenna civitate199 who was saved from burning by the Virgin Mary. The Ur-Mariale, it may be conjectured, related the legend of the ‘Girl of Lausanne’ first and following it, the ‘Blasphemer,’ beginning In illis partibus. The compiler of the Mariale magnum omitted the first legend and placed the second after the ‘Painter of Flanders,’ probably inscribing apud Lausennam in the margin opposite the ‘Blasphemer.’200 The compiler of the Additional collection,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 41 ]]
who used the Mariale magnum, noted the confusion which this created. He naturally thought, however, that the two legends belonged together, and so he solved the problem by incorporating apud Lausennam into the text of the‘Blasphemer’ and omitting Flandrie from the text of the ‘Painter.’ Gobius merely substituted in Lausana for the first phrase of the ‘Blasphemer.’201 Because Vincent of Beauvais failed to interpolate the name of the place into his text it was lost, and therefore his ‘Blasphemer’ appears to be from Flanders instead of Lausanne, its proper home.
3. A study of the Cistercian legends of the Rouen Mariale and those which Vincent of Beauvais took from the Mariale magnum fits into the same hypothesis. He says in his note that the legends he used had the sanction of a religious order.202 Both the Rouen Mariale and the collection of Vincent of Beauvais are, for the most part, made up of legends of northern France, especially those of the Quoniam collections. Only occasionally do the latter include Cistercian materials. The first series of MS Paris 17491 and the Stella maris relate two, ‘Judas in Hell’ and ‘Christ Appears to Monk.’203 The Rouen Mariale, whose source was the Ur-Mariale, adds to these, three which may be identified as Cistercian.204 In the first series, those which he took from the Mariale magnum, Vincent of Beauvais relates sixteen legends which are not in MS Paris 17491, a series of five, except for the interpolation between nos. 4 and 5 of ‘Poor Man Strikes Stone,’ and another of eleven.205 The five are the versified legends of MS Paris 17491 which have been accounted for. Of the eleven remaining, three in a series are legends about Cistercian monks,206 two of them monks of Clairvaux.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 42 ]]
Two of the three are narrated in the Rouen Mariale, one from Clairvaux.207 These data lead to the conclusion that the Mariale magnum and probably also the Ur-Mariale were Cistercian collections. The Benedictine of Jumièges, who compiled the Rouen Mariale, was not interested in all the Cistercian legends in his source. The compiler of the Mariale magnum, a Cistercian, copied all of them and passed them on to Vincent of Beauvais.
4. Strangely enough, an analysis of the ten legends of Vincent of Beauvais’ collection which he drew from a source other than the Mariale magnum, V2, provides more proof of the existence of an Ur-Mariale which was the source of both the Rouen Mariale and the Mariale magnum. Four only of the ten legends which comprise it are not found in MS Paris 17491 and the Parisian collections, except the Stella maris. Three of the four are told in sequence. One of the sequence is a Cistercian legend, told also in the Rouen Mariale. Two of the four, as well as six others, eight of the ten, are legends of the Stella maris. The series, V2, then, was evidently also selected from a Cistercian collection related to MS Paris 17491 and John of Garland’s source, the collection of Ste. Geneviève, a description which fits the Mariale magnum. Furthermore, two of the tales of V2, Vincent of Beauvais tells elsewhere and attributes them to the ‘Mariale.’ It has been presumed without question that he meant the Mariale magnum,208 and it would appear to be true, especially since four more of the ten legends are attributed to the Mariale magnum by other compilers who used it:
|Vincent of Beauvais, V2||X1||R||Stella maris|
|ch. 113c.||Priest of One Mass||13||—||25|
|114.||Vision of St. Hugh of Cluny||—||—||—||M209|
|115.||Boy Devoted to the Devil||21||—||52|
|117.||Woman Revived for Confession||—||—||12||MM|
|118.||Little Devil in Church||—||—||42||MM|
|119b.||Saracen and Mary Image||68a||14||7|
|119c.||Mary Image Insulted||4||15||18|
It might be supposed, then, that Vincent of Beauvais gathered the second series, V2, also, from the Mariale magnum, if it were not for his own statement and the fact that in Book XXIX, ch. 4 of the Speculum historiale, he reproduces the entire series of Rocamador with the note, in Mariali; and
[[ Print Edition Page No. 43 ]]
nothing has come to light about the Mariale magnum that would justify the inference that it included any of the local series which are sometimes incorporated in the Parisian collections.211 The complete collection of Rocamador is to be found in MS Paris 17491,212 which, as has already been noted, has much in common with the Rouen Mariale. Although the Rouen Mariale does not recount the miracles of Rocamador, it is quite possible that the Ur-Mariale did, and that when Vincent of Beauvais cites the Mariale he means the very collection to which we have given the name Ur-Mariale. It could then be concluded that the collection to which he turned after he had finished with the Mariale magnum was its source, the Ur-Mariale.
All the data which has been presented about V2 would, in that case, fit neatly into place. (1) The four legends which other compilers attribute to the Mariale magnum are legends of the Ur-Mariale which were retold in a portion of the Mariale magnum, not used by the Dominican encyclopedist for the summaries of V1. (2) The Rouen Mariale, also dependent upon the Ur-Mariale, recounts four of the same legends which Vincent of Beauvais, V2, took from the Ur-Mariale, the source of both. (3) The relationship between the Rouen Mariale and a Quoniam collection similar to MS Paris 17491, X1, has already been established. If the hypothesis that the legends of V2 are from the Ur-Mariale is correct, the ten legends should show a marked resemblance to one of the Quoniam series. Comparison shows that six of the ten tales are to be found in MS Paris 17491 and eight of them in the Stella maris. Only one of them is missing from the Quoniam collections and that, the ‘Vision of Hugh of Cluny,’ Vincent of Beauvais narrates elsewhere with the note that he took it from the Mariale. (4) Furthermore, the veracity of Vincent of Beauvais need not be questioned. He had the tales of V1 from the Mariale magnum, and those of V2 from another collection very like it, which on other occasions he called the Mariale, that is the Ur-Mariale.
Added support for the existence of a collection called the ‘Mariale,’ which was the source of the Mariale magnum and the Rouen Mariale comes from the Speculum exemplorum, the first edition of which was published in 1481.213 It was later expanded and edited by the Jesuit, John Major (1542-1608), as the Magnum speculum exemplorum (Douai, 1605). The original compiler, who may have been a Flemish Franciscan, tells a tale about a monk and a nun of the Cistercian order which he says he had from a volume called the ‘Mariale,’ Legitur in libro quodam exemplorum
[[ Print Edition Page No. 44 ]]
B. virginis qui vocatur Mariale.214 The work he mentions may very well have been the collection which has been designated temporarily as the Ur-Mariale.
The sources of the collection which Vincent of Beauvais incorporates into the Speculum historiale are, therefore, as he describes them: (1) the Mariale magnum and (2) the Ur-Mariale. He probably found them together in the same Cistercian monastery which there is reason to believe was Clairvaux.215 The Ur-Mariale, it may be supposed, was an older collection in the style of the collection of St. Victor and MS Paris 17491 which included materials other than Mary legends scattered here and there about the collection, as suggested in the Mirande prologue. The Mariale magnum was a more recent and compact collection which had eliminated a good many of the traditional tales216 whose authenticity had become doubtful, and added others supplied with names of places in which they occurred and witnesses to them. Among them were many Cistercian legends, interpolated in groups. To this new collection could be given the authority of the Cistercian order which Vincent of Beauvais says that it had.217
The second collection of Mary legends in MS British Museum Additional 15723, in a script of the thirteenth century, names the Mariale magnum as the source of its legends.218 It begins with Vincent of Beauvais’
[[ Print Edition Page No. 45 ]]
note, obviously copied from the Speculum historiale. The series of Mary legends which follows agrees substantially with Vincent of Beauvais through chapter 119a,219 or well beyond the end of the series which the Dominican took from the Mariale magnum. Several of the legends of Vincent of Beauvais are missing, but none of those omitted is a Cistercian legend.220
The forty-three legends of MS Additional 15723, therefore, comprise two series, A1, (nos. 1-32, with the exception of no. 20) and A2, (nos. 34-43). The first series, A1, was copied from Vincent of Beauvais, who took them from the Mariale magnum, a Cistercian collection. The second series, A2, is also Cistercian. Ten of the eleven incidents occur in Cistercian houses of England or France, or are reported by abbots of Cistercian monasteries of those regions. Seven are from northern France.221 Eight of them are later retold by the abbot of a Cistercian house on the borderline between the diocese of Chartres and Paris.222 The anecdotes of A2 are related in very circumstantial fashion including names and places that can be readily identified. Ward’s date for the collection, not earlier than 1200 and while Philip Augustus was still king of France, that is 1200-1223,223 may well apply to the Mariale magnum from which the compiler said he had the legends. It is impossible to believe that it applies to the Additional collection itself, because, except for certain additions of details, A1 was clearly copied from Vincent of Beauvais; and the collection must therefore have been made after 1244 or 1247, the date of the completion of the Speculum historiale.
It is probable that the compiler of the collection was a monk of Clairvaux. When he reaches no. 19 of Vincent of Beauvais, how a knight of Aquitaine refused to deny Mary, he suddenly interrupts the narrative to tell an unique legend of which he is reminded by the similarity of the theme. The tale which is interpolated in this fashion, no. 20, is the story of two boys from the vicinity of Clairvaux who went to Paris to study. One of
|Vincent of Beauvais||SG||X||S.maris||R||A||Gobius||Vendome|
|82.||Jew Lends to Christian||72||29||19||17||—||3||2|
|84.||Milk: Tongue and Lips Restored||39||25||1||24||4||6||5|
|85.||Childbirth in the Sea||—||27||—||25||5||9||3|
|87.||Bridegroom: Ring on Finger||29||67||8||—||7||13||7|
|88.||Pilgrim in the Sea||70||40||10||32||8||10||—|
|89a.||Light on the Masthead||71||41||—||32a||9||—||—|
|89b.||Thread in Lip||52||37||—||—||—||7||—|
|96.||Rich Man and Poor Widow||—||—||—||—||11||15||19|
|98.||Poor Man Strikes Stone||75||64||—||37||—||—||—|
|99a.||Jewess in Childbirth||—||—||37||—||—||27||—|
|100.||Wife and Mistress||69||61||—||—||14||12||—|
|101.||O intemerata: Devil as Servant||34||69||—||—||15||30||25|
|102-103.||Girl Named Mary||—||—||—||—||16||14||—|
|104b.||Blasphemer of Lausanne||—||—||—||—||18||34||—|
|105-106.||Unwilling to Deny Mary||—||—||—||45||19||31||10|
|107.||Monks at Their Field Work||—||—||—||46||21||20||—|
|109.||Cistercian Monk Persecuted||—||—||—||48||23||16||—|
|110a.||Blasphemers of Brabant||—||—||—||47||24||35||—|
|110b.||Unable to Injure Mary Image||—||—||—||—||—||—||—|
|111.||Jew of London||—||—||—||—||25||49||—|
|112.||Demons as Swine||—||—||—||62||26||32||—||
[[ Print Edition Page No. 47 ]]
|113a.||Mother of Mercy||5||17||16||—||—||—||—|
|113c.||Priest of One Mass||10||13||25||—||28||—||43|
|114.||Vision of St. Hugh of Cluny||—||—||—||—||—||—||—|
|115.||Boy Devoted to the Devil||62||21||52||—||29||46||—|
|117.||Woman Revived for Confession||—||—||12||—||31||—||—|
|118.||Little Devil in Church||—||—||42||—||—||22||—|
|119b.||Saracen and Mary Image||31||68a||7||14||—||—||—|
|119c.||Mary Image Insulted||27||4||18||15||—||—||—|
them fell in love and was commanded by the devil to deny Christ and the Virgin Mary in order to win the girl. His companion prevented him from doing so, and they both entered Clairvaux.224
The Mariale magnum is given by the compiler as the source of the entire collection of MS Additional 15723. In the face of the clear relationship to Vincent of Beauvais, it must be concluded that he used two collections: (1) the Speculum historiale for the legends of A1 and (2) another Cistercian collection for A2. Three of the legends of A2, aside from the compiler’s word for it, show some relation to the Mariale magnum. Gobius attributes the last, no. 43, to the Mariale magnum.225 A series of two, nos. 34-35, are distinctly similar to nos. 51 and 34 of the second series of MS Paris 18134, which seems to have been derived from the Mariale magnum.226 Certainly the tales are similar in form and character to the Cistercian legends of A1 and could well have belonged to that collection. They are similar, too, to that Cistercian legend which the compiler of the Speculum exemplorum said he had from the Mariale,227 probably the Ur-Mariale, which was the source of the Mariale magnum. There is, therefore, no reason to doubt the compiler’s veracity except that he clearly used Vincent of Beauvais’ versions of some of the legends. Why, if he had the complete Mariale magnum available, did he choose to use a second-hand source? The answer is that it saved him labor and parchment. Vincent of Beauvais had already reduced the bulky legends to a briefer form without changing the order or detracting from the narrative. He chose the shorter versions of Vincent of Beauvais, except for some details omitted by the encyclopedist, and then added the others at length from the Mariale magnum itself.
If the collection of MS Additional 15723 was taken from the Mariale magnum, and the evidence permits us to assume that it was, then the dates of the compilation of the Mariale magnum may be narrowed to the period between 1200 and 1247, dates which are not incongruous with what is known about other collections of Mary legends in northern France related to the Mariale magnum.
Certain characteristics of another Cistercian collection of Mary legends now in the Public Library of Vendome228 lend support to the picture of
[[ Print Edition Page No. 49 ]]
the Mariale magnum just outlined and permit a further conjecture about the work. The Vendome collection, comprising sixty-five legends as it stands,229 was made at the Cistercian monastery of Vaux-Cernay, founded in 1128 on the borderline between the dioceses of Paris and Chartres. Believing it to be the work of Thibaud de Marley, abbot of Vaux-Cernay, Bouchet dates it between 1235 and 1247,230 the years of his incumbency.
Most of the introductory matter of the Vendome collection is almost identical with that of Vincent of Beauvais. It begins with excerpts from the same portions of the visions of St. Elizabeth of Schönau. Although the diction is very similar, the abbot was clearly not copying from Vincent of Beauvais, for he mentions details from the work which the latter omits. Nor could Vincent of Beauvais have been taking his excerpts from the Vendome collection for the same reason. They were using a common source which presented that portion of the work in full, presumably the Mariale magnum or the Ur-Mariale. Between the excerpts from St. Elizabeth, the compiler of Vaux-Cernay inserts a brief paragraph from the De transitu of Melito of Sardis quoted by Vincent of Beauvais at greater length. There are also two paragraphs about the girlhood of Mary from a work which John of Garland uses, but which Vincent of Beauvais does not employ in this connection, the Pseudo-Matthei Evangelium.231
The abbot of Vaux-Cernay, for the most part, relates Cistercian legends and anecdotes which are not frequently in other collections in northern France. Here and there are some popular ones very greatly abbreviated. Although he tells some familiar tales not among the first series of Vincent of Beauvais, the character of the narratives as well as the order in which they are told points to knowledge of the Mariale magnum or a collection related to it:
|Jew Lends to Christian||2||ch. 82|
|Childbirth in the Sea||3||85|
|Milk: Tongue and Lips Restored||5||84|
|Bridegroom: Ring on Finger||7||87|
|Unwilling to Deny Mary||10||105-106|
|Rich Man and Poor Widow||19||96|
|O intemerata: Devil as Servant||25||101|
The Cistercian legends of the Vendome collection may be divided into two classes: (1) those which were related to the abbot of Vaux-Cernay
[[ Print Edition Page No. 50 ]]
⁁C0⁁and were written down by him232 and (2) those which he found among the records of Cistercian monasteries or in collections of Mary legends. Among the first group of five legends is one told to him by the abbot of Clairvaux.233 In the second class are several unique tales originating at, or in the vicinity of, Clairvaux,234 and a series of legends which are similar to a sequence in the second series (A2) of MS Additional 15723.235 It was possibly on a visit to Clairvaux, perhaps a chapter meeting, that the abbot of Vaux-Cernay heard the story which he says the abbot of Clairvaux told him. While he was there, it may be imagined, he took the opportunity to do some research in the library and among the monastery records. If he was actually Thibaud de Marley (abbot 1235-1247), he probably did not find the collection of the Additional manuscript there, for part of that was certainly copied from Vincent of Beauvais, whose work was not completed until 1244 or 1247. He might very well have seen there that other source used by the compiler of MS Additional 15723, which he said was the Mariale magnum. The great volume probably lay on the shelves of the library of the monastery of Clairvaux in the second quarter of the thirteenth century along with the earlier Ur-Mariale which will now be referred to as the Clairvaux Mariale. The likelihood is that they were both compiled there where St. Bernard left behind him a strong tradition of devotion to the Virgin Mary. The collection and the recording of Mary
[[ Print Edition Page No. 51 ]]
legends was probably something of an official project, pursued chiefly at chapter meetings when numbers of Cistercian abbots came together.236 This would account for the authority as well as the availability of the Mariale magnum.
Collections derived from the Mariale magnum had their descendants. The pseudo-Celestine collection,237 comprising twenty-seven legends, briefly told, depends upon the work of the abbot of Vaux-Cernay. It is included among the works printed by Telera in 1640 as those of Pope Celestine V (c. 1215-1296), though they are certainly not written by him. A clue as to the origin of the collection is given in the first legend, the only unique one. This tale, together with the attribution to an Italian, suggests Italy rather than France as the place where the collection was compiled. It tells how a priest, accused of writing a letter attacking the emperor, had his hand cut off and exposed before his own church dedicated to the Virgin Mary. She restored the member, and the emperor came on foot and sought the priest’s pardon.238
The legends follow in the same order as in the Vendome collection, although many have been omitted. The diction employed in telling them is not the same, and there are very minor variations in the details. None of the legends told on the authority of the abbot of Vaux-Cernay is included. The additional legends at the end of the pseudo-Celestine collection only serve as a reminder that the Vendome collection, as we have it to-day, is a fragment. A comparison of these two collections and that of MS Additional 15723 follows:
Granted that the Mariale magnum was the work of Cistercian monks, it was the mendicant orders, particularly the Dominicans, who seem to have made the most use of it during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Just before the end of the thirteenth century, the dignified tales the Cistercians heard in their monasteries begin to appear in a new guise. Almost everything has been eliminated except the bare narrative, and that has been revised by the addition of homely, and sometimes vulgar, detail intended to excite the interest of crowds.
It may have been Johannes Gobius,240 a Dominican preacher of Alais, who adapted the Mariale magnum to these uses; or if not he, some other of his profession. At any rate, a large number of the legends of the Mariale magnum are included in a great compilation of materials arranged for the use of preachers and called the Scala celi. The work may have been begun as early as the last years of the thirteenth century, although it probably was not completed in its final form before 1323-1330.241 Under the title, Virgo Dei Genitrix, are gathered fifty-five Mary legends, all related very briefly. Several Mary legends appear singly under other titles also. Gobius mentions the source from which each was drawn, as in Mariali magno, in libello de miraculis . . . . Caesarius, etc. The first twenty-two, and then seven more, are attributed to the Mariale magnum, appearing in almost the same order as in Vincent of Beauvais. The difference in the arrangement is to be explained by the use for which the collection was intended. Gobius’ anecdotes were to be used as exempla. The preacher accordingly tells his fifty-four legends in seventeen series, each series illustrating some particular power of the Virgin, ‘She honors those who love her,’ ‘She saves from drowning,’ etc. The first seven series are made up altogether of legends of the Mariale magnum; and all but four of the seventeen series (the last four but one, nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16) begin with a legend from that source. One of the legends Gobius attributes to Vincent of Beauvais.242
Since Gobius knew Vincent of Beauvais, according to his own statement, Mussafia doubts whether he ever used the Mariale magnum directly.243 The question is difficult because of the large number of innovations in Gobius’ text, including complete alteration in diction.244 Nevertheless, a
[[ Print Edition Page No. 53 ]]
closer examination of the texts leads to the conclusion that Gobius probably did make independent use of the Mariale magnum itself, or some version of it current in southern France which had already been revised for the use of preachers. In the first place, Gobius cites the Mariale magnum as the source of five legends245 which are not told by Vincent of Beauvais. At least one of the five is just the kind of legend that would be appropriate in the sort of Mariale magnum described above, how a Cistercian monk who knew only the Ave Maria was saved by the Virgin.246 A second, ‘Jewish Boy,’ in the version of Gregory of Tours, could appear in the Mariale magnum, if our hypothesis about its origin is correct. The tale of the Cistercian monk and another of the five are among a number of legends which can be connected with the Mariale magnum in MS Paris 18134 already described.247 Still another, the ‘Clerk of Chartres,’ is one of those attributed to the Mariale magnum by the compiler of MS Additional 15723 in A2, the series not taken from Vincent of Beauvais. Gobius’ treatment of certain legends also points toward independent use of a source which related the legends more fully than they are told in Vincent of Beauvais. In the case of the ‘Painter,’ for instance, the details which Gobius and Vincent of Beauvais select for emphasis are quite different. Occasionally the scene and other details of Gobius’ stories differ from that of Vincent of Beauvais, even though both claim to be using the Mariale magnum.248 The probability is that Gobius was using a version of the Mariale magnum available in southern France, in which the tales had been reduced to the briefer and more dramatic form demanded by the preachers.
Other preachers of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries used the collections of Mary legends made in northern France as the source of exempla for their sermons, especially the collection of Vincent of Beauvais. John Herolt, called Discipulus, a Dominican friar of Basle, in the first half of the fifteenth century wrote two promptuaria (‘storehouses’). One of them, the Promptuarium Discipuli de miraculis beate virginis,249 is a collection of one hundred Mary legends. In some cases Herolt states his authority; but,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 54 ]]
whether stated or not, a great many of the legends can be traced to Vincent of Beauvais.
Oswald Pelbart of Temesvar in Hungary, a Franciscan preacher, wrote a work in 1483 which is a compilation of materials about the Virgin Mary for the use of preachers.250 Scattered through it are Mary legends which he attributes to various sources, chiefly the work of other preachers, Scala celi, Discipulus, etc. Some of them are attributed also to the Mariale magnum, although it is clear in this case that he did not use the work itself. Frequently he mentions a double source, as Scala celi et Mariale magnum. The author of the Speculum exemplorum,251 probably a Flemish Franciscan who wrote in 1480, used the Clairvaux Mariale, Vincent of Beauvais, and the Scala celi, among numerous other sources.
The history of Vincent of Beauvais’ collection is not limited to Latin compilers. A manuscript of the British Museum, Additional 17920, of the late fourteenth century includes a collection in Provençal, obviously a translation of part of Vincent of Beauvais.252 It comprises thirteen miracles which correspond exactly to the first thirteen of Vincent of Beauvais, except that one legend has been added and one omitted. The additional legend is a common one, how an image in the church at Mont-St.-Michel was saved from destruction by fire. It follows ‘Childbirth in the Sea,’ the scene of which is also Mont-St.-Michel. The legend omitted is ‘Chaste Empress,’ no. 12, a very long tale.
A collection with the title Rosarius in French vernacular of the second quarter of the fourteenth century was made by a Dominican preacher of Soissons whose name is unknown. He uses the Grant Marial as one of his principal sources.253
The ‘Mariale’ family, then, as it developed in the first half of the thirteenth century included the following Latin collections: (1) The Clairvaux Mariale, an unidentified collection, (2) the Mariale magnum, also known only by reputation, (3) the Rouen Mariale, (4) the collection of Vincent of Beauvais, (5) MS British Museum Additional 15723, and (6) the Vendome collection. The Clairvaux Mariale was the earliest, compiled in the
[[ Print Edition Page No. 55 ]]
manner of the older collections. It included, in addition, certain Cistercian legends which had accumulated in the monastery since the time of St. Bernard and other materials useful as readings for the celebration of Mary festivals. Among them were the De transitu of Melito of Sardis, the visions of St. Elizabeth of Schönau, and incidents from the Pseudo-Matthei Evangelium.
The Mariale magnum was a better organized collection, compiled after 1200 and before 1247. Many of the traditional anecdotes were abandoned to make room for more recent and authentic incidents reported by Cistercian abbots. The authority which Vincent of Beauvais claims for it and the wide variety of houses in England and France from which the incidents come, suggest that the collection of Mary legends had the official approval of the Cistercian order. By the end of the thirteenth century, if not earlier, the Mariale magnum and the collection of Vincent of Beauvais had got into the hands of the preachers, especially the Dominicans, who used them in the compilation of collections of anecdotes to be related in their sermons.
The Rouen Mariale is a collection made by a Benedictine of Jumièges who used the Clairvaux Mariale as his source. Since he was not particularly interested in the Cistercian tales, he copied few of them. Most of his attention he devoted to the familiar anecdotes, to which he added certain local legends.
Vincent of Beauvais, who later became a ‘lector’ in the Cistercian monastery of Royaumont near Paris, used only a portion of the Mariale magnum for his collection. He probably selected the first part of it because it included tales of universal rather than particularly Cistercian interest. When they grew less frequent, we may suppose, he turned to the older, more general collection, the Clairvaux Mariale. The abbot of Vendome also used the Mariale magnum as one of his sources. To these legends he added others which he himself had gathered, some of them tales told by Cistercian abbots. The anecdotes he copied, he told only briefly, the others at greater length. The compiler of the Additional collection, who was probably a monk of Clairvaux, used both Vincent of Beauvais and the Mariale magnum as the sources of his compilation.
The ‘Mariale’ collections originated in the Cistercian monasteries of northern France. Collections were made in the convents of the same order in other regions, and because the nature of Cistercian monastic organization promoted frequent contacts between abbots as well as the exchange of books, some similarities among collections of various regions would naturally result. The seventh book of the Dialogus miraculorum of Caesar of
The ‘Mariale’ Collections
Heisterbach together with several Mary legends in the Libri VIII miraculorum and the anonymous collection attributed to him by Meister are Cistercian collections made in the region of Cologne.254 The first two were completed during the years 1223-1227, and the third, it would seem, not a great deal later.255
Neither the collection of Caesar of Heisterbach nor pseudo-Caesarius clearly belong to the series of collections which have been discussed in relation to the Stella maris, for they do not include the tales typical either of SV or the Quoniam series. They are, however, related to the ‘Mariale’ collections of Clairvaux. In the Dialogus Caesar of Heisterbach tells three or four256 of the legends that characterize the ‘Mariale’ collections; and in the Libri VIII miraculorum, a single one.257 The best clue we have to explain his acquaintance with them is a statement prefacing quite another tale about the Virgin, ‘We read in the Book of the Miracles of Clairvaux.’258 Could it have been the Clairvaux Mariale or possibly the Mariale magnum that he knew? It is difficult to give an affirmative answer. No one of his legends is exactly the same version as the corresponding ‘Mariale’ legends, even when allowances are made for differences in diction; and of the one, ‘Girl Named Mary,’ which is most similar in detail Caesar of Heisterbach says, ‘I heard it recently from a certain abbot of our order,’259 indicating
[[ Print Edition Page No. 58 ]]
an oral source. It seems more likely, therefore, that the collection of Clairvaux in which he read was an earlier collection than either of these. It may not have been limited to Mary legends and was, perhaps, the common source of some of the Cistercian legends in the Clairvaux compilations of Mary legends, Caesar of Heisterbach, and the Exordium magnum ordinis Cisterciensis of Conrad of Eberbach, a contemporary of Caesar of Heisterbach.
As for pseudo-Caesarius, it cannot be said with certainty that he did not know the Clairvaux Mariale or the Mariale magnum, although it seems very doubtful. He includes six characteristic ‘Mariale’ legends, aside from those which seem to come from Caesar of Heisterbach himself.260 One of them, no. 91, appears again in Gobius, Scala celi, where it is clearly attributed to the Mariale magnum. The ‘Painter’ is very much abbreviated. The other four do appear in MS Paris 18134, although the details differ radically from those of pseudo-Caesarius.261
If, on the other hand, pseudo-Caesarius compiled his collection at Heisterbach, there must have been available to him as to Caesar of Heisterbach,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 59 ]]
the presumably older Book of the Miracles of Clairvaux, a probable source of some of the Cistercian legends of the‘ Mariale’ collections made at Clairvaux.262 His acquaintance with them could then be attributed to a common source, as in the case of Caesar of Heisterbach.263 Whatever the relationship, the absence of the series of Mary legends typical of northern France in these two Cistercian collections from the region of Cologne, made in the years when the Mariale magnum was taking shape, serves to emphasize the separate identity in the first half of the thirteenth century of the ‘Mariale’ collections made in northern France. Caesar of Heisterbach’s reference to the Book of the Miracles of Clairvaux also confirms our thesis that the monastery of Clairvaux was an important center for the collection of Mary legends in the same period.
The Mariale collections, it is clear, were descended from the large compilations of northern France, specifically those with a prologue beginning Quoniam gloriosissima virgo virginum. Two representatives of this group existed in the thirteenth century in the monasteries of Paris, one at St. Germain-des-Prés and another at Ste. Geneviève, where John of Garland used it. A third, MS Paris 17491, cannot be traced to a particular source. One of these, or another very like it, must have been the link between the Parisian collections and the Mariale family, the source of the non-Cistercian legends of the Clairvaux Mariale. That collection, the evidence of the Stella maris suggests, was John of Garland’s source, the collection of Ste. Geneviève.
John of Garland says in a note appended to the Stella maris that he versified the legends he tells from a collection which he found in the book-press of the monastery of Ste. Geneviève.264 Unlike those of St. Victor and St. Germain-des-Prés, the library of Ste. Geneviève was dispersed in the sixteenth century, so that not a single manuscript or printed book remained
[[ Print Edition Page No. 60 ]]
when the monastery was reformed by the Cardinal de la Rochefoucault in 1624.265 It is perhaps for this reason that no collection among those examined can be identified as that which John of Garland had before him. What has proved to be an important collection in the history of Mary legends in northern France can be studied only through the verses of the schoolmaster’s Stella maris. That it was a much more extensive collection than his may be inferred from his reference to his own tales as ‘a few.’266
The original of John of Garland must have been a summa of Mary legends current in northern France in the first half of the thirteenth century. Among the ‘few’ tales of the Stella maris are characteristic representatives of all the collections that have thus far been analyzed. The collection of Ste. Geneviève began with one or two prologues. The Quoniam gloriosissima virgo prologue, which characterizes the legends of St. Germain-des-Prés, MS Paris 17491, and the Rouen Mariale was certainly there. It is chiefly a theological discussion of the Virgin Mary as the immaculate mother of God and queen of heaven, ‘the one hope of mankind after God.’267 This had been the theme of John of Garland’s Epithalamium beate virginis,268 and it is the involved symbolism of the Epithalamium that he uses rather than the words of the Quoniam prologue. The author of the long gloss of the British Museum manuscript of the Stella maris treats the theme more fully in the manner of the Quoniam prologue.269
It is possible that the manuscript of Ste. Geneviève had also the Mirande virginis laudes prologue which appears before Quoniam gloriosissima in the Rouen Mariale, for John of Garland tells one of the legends which distinguishes the only other collection in Latin in northern France which used it, MS Bibliothèque Nationale 5268 (12th century), from all other collections investigated.270 Following the prologue, or prologues, the collection of Ste. Geneviève related the life of the Virgin as told in the Pseudo-Matthei Evangelium, excerpts from which are inserted at the beginning of the Vendome collection. John of Garland merely suggests the incidents, to which the Bruges gloss of the Stella maris adds more detail.271 It may
[[ Print Edition Page No. 61 ]]
have included also the De transitu of Melito of Sardis, for that treatise, or a part of it, appears regularly in other collections related to it.272
The legends of the Stella maris were, of course, derived from a single source, the manuscript of Ste. Geneviève, but in order to clarify the relation of their source to other collections of northern France, they have been divided into four groups: those legends which the Stella maris has in common with (I) the first series of St. Victor (SV1), the first series of St. Germain-des-Prés (SG1), and MS Paris 17491 (X); (II) the Rouen Mariale; (III) Vincent of Beauvais; and (IV) the second series of MS Paris 18134 (Q2).
I. The nucleus around which the collection of Ste. Geneviève, as well as many other Latin collections of northern France, was built is clearly the first series of St. Victor. Of the sixty-one legends of the Stella maris, thirty-seven273 are the same legends in the same versions as those of the twelfth-century SV1. The only miracles of SV1 conspicuously absent from the Stella maris are those which are versified.274 One of these, ‘Incest,’ John of Garland tells, but his version is not the same as that of SV1.
The relationship of the collection of Ste. Geneviève to the first series of St. Germain-des-Prés, a Quoniam collection, is even closer. The Stella maris and SG1 have in common, not only thirty-four of the thirty-seven legends of SV1,275 but also nine more narratives. Forty-three of the sixty-one legends which John of Garland versified at Ste. Geneviève might have come, therefore, from the collection of St. Germain-des-Prés. One of the additional tales, ‘Mare,’ is significant, because it occurs, among the collections examined, only in those with the Quoniam prologue and one other, defective in the beginning, MS Charleville 168.276 The nine legends are arranged in the Stella maris in two well-marked series, nos. 6-8, 15, 26, 29-32, in much the same sequence as in SG1, where they are numbers 29-33, 46-49 (with the exception of 47), 54 and 58.
It is more likely, however, that the collection from which the legends of Ste. Geneviève emanated was not SG1, but a work which stands in closer relationship to the first series of MS Paris 17491. There are in the Stella
[[ Print Edition Page No. 62 ]]
maris and X1, not only the thirty-seven tales of SV1 and the nine additional narratives of SG1, but also four more legends, not in SV1 or SG1. Fifty of the sixty-one legends of the Stella maris, then, may be accounted for with reference to MS Paris 17491 (X1). The character of the four narratives of John of Garland’s collection, not in SV1 or SG1, indicates an intimate relationship between the collection of Ste. Geneviève and the two other Quoniam collections, MS Paris 17491 and the Rouen Mariale. Two of the tales have been found together in no other collections investigated:277‘Judas in Hell,’ told by the Cistercian monk of Froidmont, and ‘Christ Appears to Monk’ from the Cistercian monastery of Savigny. The two others, ‘Jewish Boy’ and ‘Columns Raised,’ are part of the series from Gregory of Tours reproduced in MS Paris 17491 and the Rouen Mariale.278
Comparison of the legends of the Stella maris with the second series (X2) of MS Paris 17491, however, makes it certain that the collection of Ste. Geneviève was not copied directly from MS Paris 17491. John of Garland did not use the versified redactions of X2. He tells three of the legends, but his versions are those of the Rouen Mariale and Vincent of Beauvais in which they are related in prose.279 The collection of Ste. Geneviève, the Rouen Mariale, and the Mariale magnum, therefore, probably reach back into a tradition earlier than MS Paris 17491 or even the collection of St. Victor, where some of the legends appear in verse. The manuscript which John of Garland used at Ste. Geneviève could, and probably did, ante-date the present MS Paris 17491, and the first series of it, X1, was older in its original form than the Ste. Geneviève collection.280
II. Analysis of the legends of the Stella maris to this point has disclosed
[[ Print Edition Page No. 63 ]]
incidentally certain important similarities between the Rouen Mariale and the manuscript of Ste. Geneviève, John of Garland’s exemplar. They shared the Quoniam prologue and one legend, ‘Mare,’ characteristic only of the collections it prefaced. The two Cistercian legends, furthermore, have been the means of distinguishing certain of the Quoniam collections from others. The work of St. Germain-des-Prés lacks both of them; MS Charleville 168 has only the first (‘Judas’); three collections only include them both: MS Paris 17491, the collection of Ste. Geneviève, and the Rouen Mariale. The collection of Ste. Geneviève has thirty legends altogether in common with the Rouen Mariale; and the larger collection, MS Paris 17491, relates forty of the same legends as are narrated in the Rouen compilation. Obviously the three collections are an intimately related group. The first series (X1) of MS Paris 17491 was probably one of the sources of the collection of Ste. Geneviève. Where shall the Rouen Mariale be placed with reference to the other two?
The first two collections, X1 and the collection of Ste. Geneviève, seem to be earlier in origin than the Rouen Mariale. Of the legends that can be dated, the most recent occur in the Rouen Mariale.281 The Rouen Mariale, then, probably descended from one of the two earlier collections. Comparison of the three collections suggests that the first series (R1) of the Rouen Mariale might have been drawn either from MS Paris 17491 (X1) or from the collection of Ste. Geneviève, with the probability in favor of Ste. Geneviève. Only three of the legends of R1, except ‘Musa,’ lack in MS Paris 17491 (X1): (1) chapter 18 of the In gloria martyrum of Gregory of Tours (no. 8); (2) ‘Chaste Empress’ (no. 34); and (3) ‘Bonus’ (no. 36). The two latter, however, are important in the differentiation of the Quoniam collections. They belong to the versified series of X2. With the exceptions of MS Paris 17491 and MS Charleville 168, the Quoniam collections, including John of Garland and the Rouen Mariale, use the prose versions of most of the legends.282 Although John of Garland does
[[ Print Edition Page No. 64 ]]
not relate the first of the legends which differentiate X1 from the Rouen Mariale, he does include chapter 21 of the same work of Gregory of Tours, ‘Christ Image Wounded.’283 The collection of Ste. Geneviève, therefore, may have included both chapters 18 and 21.284 The Stella maris lacks sixteen of the legends of the first series of the Rouen Mariale, but fifteen of them are the common tales of the Quoniam collections which ought to have been in the collection of Ste. Geneviève. The other is ‘Bonus,’ one of the series lacking also in MS Paris 17491.
The legends which clearly distinguish the collection of Ste. Geneviève from MS Paris 17491 (X1) in its relation to the Rouen Mariale occur in the second series (R2) of the Rouen Mariale. It is, for the most part, made up of legends which are lacking in both the Stella maris and X1, some of them local or unique. Only two legends commonly in other Quoniam collections are among them.285 The Stella maris includes one of these and MS Paris 17491 (X1), both of them. The Stella maris, on the other hand, includes two additional legends of the second series, R2, not to be found in any other of the Quoniam collections, nor in SV:286 the ‘Painter of Flanders’ and ‘Beirut.’287 The latter is not a Mary legend, either as told by John of Garland or by the compiler of the Rouen collection, and its presence is exceptional in collections of Mary legends. In other words, the correspondence between MS Paris 17491 (X1) and the Rouen Mariale ends at no. 43 (R1), while the similarity of the Rouen collection to the manuscript of Ste. Geneviève continues through the entire work. The lost collection of Ste. Geneviève was, therefore, nearer to the source of the Rouen Mariale than is MS Paris 17491 (X1), a conclusion which is substantiated by a study of the legends of the Stella maris which are repeated in the collection of Vincent of Beauvais.
III. Vincent of Beauvais and John of Garland both extracted legends from collections using the Quoniam gloriosissima virgo prologue.288 Both
[[ Print Edition Page No. 65 ]]
their sources, the collection of Ste. Geneviève and the Mariale magnum, incorporated ‘Mariale’ materials of the sort described in the Mirande prologue of the Rouen Mariale, writings of ‘the fathers ancient and recent.’289 John of Garland, moreover, gathered from the manuscript of Ste. Geneviève fourteen of the thirty-three legends which Vincent of Beauvais, V1, took from the Mariale magnum, and eight of the ten, V2, which he took from the Clairvaux Mariale.290 Seventeen of the twenty-two (14+8) are the tales of the Quoniam collections, St. Germain-des-Prés and MS Paris 17491 (X1). The other five have come to light in the same versions only in Vincent of Beauvais, or in collections known to be related to his or to the Mariale magnum:
|12.||Woman Revived for Confession||—||117||—|
|37.||Jewess in Childbirth||99a||—||—|
|42.||Little Devil in Church||—||118||—|
|54.||Painter of Flanders||104a||—||44|
Vincent of Beauvais (V2) selected, then, from the Clairvaux Mariale eight of the same legends which John of Garland took from the collection of Ste. Geneviève, two of them unusual legends, missing from other Quoniam collections. From the Mariale magnum he took fourteen of the legends of Ste. Geneviève, three of them distinctive. Nine of the fourteen legends common to the collection of Ste. Geneviève and the Mariale magnum, including one distinctive narrative (no. 44), are also in the Rouen Mariale. Presumably these nine legends, at least, arrived in the Rouen Mariale by way of its source, the Clairvaux Mariale. Seventeen of the narratives of Ste. Geneviève, then, can be certainly ascribed to the Clairvaux Mariale (9 in V1 + 8 in V2), among them three significant ones. The number must actually have been much larger for two reasons: (1) John of Garland merely selected legends from a larger collection at Ste. Geneviève, and Vincent of Beauvais reproduced in summary form only a portion of the Mariale magnum. (2) The compiler of the Mariale magnum, the source of Vincent of Beauvais, had already eliminated many of the common
[[ Print Edition Page No. 66 ]]
Quoniam legends. These selective processes tended to reduce the number of legends common to Vincent of Beauvais and the Stella maris, upon whose fragments of their originals our evidence must depend. Even if there were no other confirmation, seventeen legends, therefore, seems a sufficiently large number upon which to base the conclusion that the collection of Ste. Geneviève was the source of the non-Cistercian legends of the Clairvaux Mariale. From the Clairvaux Mariale, the Rouen collection had thirty legends of Ste. Geneviève; and the Mariale magnum, the fourteen non-Cistercian legends related by Vincent of Beauvais (V1). The eight legends of V2, the Dominican compiler derived directly from that source.
The order of the narratives of Vincent of Beauvais, the Rouen Mariale, and the Stella maris supports the same conclusion. The Mariale magnum and the Rouen Mariale, it would seem, inherited it from the collection of Ste. Geneviève by way of their common source, the Clairvaux Mariale, and passed it on to Vincent of Beauvais.291 The similarity in sequence extends only through V1, but V2 is lacking the careful notation, ex Mariali magno . . . Explicit de Mariali magno. Item alia, which indicates that the compiler was using all the legends between those notes in their original order. In other words, the series V1 is a portion of the Mariale magnum; the legends of V2 are merely tales selected in no particular order from the Clairvaux Mariale.
The character of the Stella maris as a whole is further evidence of the relation of its source, the collection of Ste. Geneviève, to the Mariale collections. Besides the incidents from the Pseudo-Matthei Evangelium, a large amount of matter appropriate to a ‘Mariale’ is scattered throughout the Stella maris — medicine, physical geography, and astronomy ‘appropriated’ to the Virgin Mary,292 a description of the festivals of the Virgin,293 a sequence in her honor,294 and numerous other songs of praise.295 What John of Garland has composed, in fact, is a Mariale parvum, adapted not to the uses of monks in a monastery, as was his source, but to young students
[[ Print Edition Page No. 67 ]]
learning the seven liberal arts. As such it is a collection unique in the history of Mary legends.
IV. The hypothesis which makes the collection of Ste. Geneviève the source of the non-Cistercian legends of the Clairvaux Mariale explains the presence of the ‘Chorister’ (no. 43) in the Stella maris. Although it is missing from the Rouen Mariale and Vincent of Beauvais, it does appear in the second series, Q2, of MS Paris 18134 and the Vendome collection which are both descendants of the Mariale magnum.296 Comparison of the texts of the ‘Chorister’ supports the conclusion that all three were descended from a common source.297
Three, or possibly only two, of the narratives of John of Garland’s Stella maris are unique. One, the story of the healing of the victims of ergotism at Notre-Dame de Paris,298 was obviously inserted to enable the author to pay a compliment to William of Auvergne, bishop of Paris. Another, the victory of the Parmese over Frederick II, was the latest piece of news to come to Paris from Italy.299 The third, a tale of a school-boy saved in a thunderstorm by the singing of Ave maris stella,300 may also be unique, though the theme is a common one. It could have been inserted by the author from memory, because he was preparing a lesson for school-boys.
Almost all the legends and much of the introductory matter, John of Garland took from his source, but these account for only two-thirds of the lines of the Stella maris. The author intended to use his collection, as he did many of the other things he wrote, in the schools. He tells us, therefore, that he has inserted lessons on various subjects, natural science, astronomy, and theology.301 These lessons are, none-the-less, subordinated to the purposes of a Mariale, or a work in praise of the Virgin Mary. Hippocrates is mentioned in support of the power of the Virgin to heal human disease.302 The author of the British Museum gloss says that it was John of Garland’s purpose to adapt the astrology of Martianus Capella to the Virgin Mary.303 The constellations, as John of Garland describes them,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 68 ]]
each in its own particular way, signify some aspect of the Virgin’s dominion or that of her Son.304 The constellation of Virgo, as described by Albumasar, for instance, pictures the Virgin Mary nursing her Child.305 The Stella maris demonstrates how even the secular learning of the schools was in the author’s classes made to serve the Mary cult.
The Stella maris is significant also in other respects, quite aside from its connection with the schools and the substance it gives to the personality of the valuable collection of Ste. Geneviève. John of Garland wrote, not as a monk, but as a layman interested in the art of writing poetry. So far as the evidence goes, he is the first lay compiler of Mary legends in northern France. For the first time he gives a collection of Mary legends the semblance of the literary form of the panegyric. His purpose is not that of the monk-compilers, to assemble a large number of Mary legends. The marvellous deeds of the Virgin are but examples of her power in heaven and earth, a power which the learning of the seven liberal arts, medicine, and theology confirms. The narratives, he merely suggests, and these are followed at intervals by songs in her praise.
In this respect the collection made by Alfonso el Sabio, King of Castile, 1252-1284, resembles the Stella maris. The Cantigas de Santa Maria306 was written in the second half of the thirteenth century in the Galician language. Of the four hundred and twenty-two canticles set to music, three hundred and fifty-three are Mary legends. The narratives are at times very brief, and songs in praise of the Virgin are interpolated at regular intervals. Although it could not be maintained that the author owes the particular form to the Stella maris, there are some important similarities between the two collections.
The legends of the Cantigas were gathered from many sources, most of them written sources.307 The author mentions a book of the miracles of Soissons,308 and he had also the Speculum historiale, sent him by St. Louis of France. One of the collections he used, he says had nearly three hundred legends in it.309 To add to these, he sent to shrines and had local compilations copied, so that he complains that he cannot write down half of those he knows.310 The legends fall into two groups, (1) those which are local, and (2) those widely-known in France and perhaps in Spain. Of the latter,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 69 ]]
Mussafia counts ninety-four.311 Although king Alfonso says that he used collections of many countries,312 all ninety-four are legends commonly found in the collections of northern France, especially the collection of Ste. Geneviève and the ‘Mariale’ collections.313 Of the sixty-one tales of the Stella maris, thirty-seven are included in the Cantigas, fifteen of them also in the Mariale magnum. Particularly significant is the treatment of the legends of Soissons. They are in the Cantigas, as in the Stella maris, scattered through the entire collection. In both the Cantigas and the Stella maris the festivals of the Virgin are named and described.314 In addition to the fifteen legends of the Mariale magnum which are common to the Cantigas and the Stella maris, there are twelve other ‘Mariale’ legends among the Cantigas. Clearly either the collection of Ste. Geneviève or one of the ‘Mariale’ collections, or both, was used in the composition of the Cantigas. Alfonso el Sabio is known to have visited Paris, where he could have seen both John of Garland and his source; and it is not likely that his agents overlooked Clairvaux in their search for Mary legends.
John of Garland’s collection seems to have been more popular in England than in France. To a Frenchman of the thirteenth century, they were but old familiar narratives; but to an Englishman of the same period many of them were new tales, while others were unfamiliar versions of anecdotes he already knew. One of the manuscripts of the Stella maris which remain, MS British Museum Royal 8 c iv, belonged in the middle ages to the monastery of Bury St. Edmunds. There is some reason to believe that it was copied there about 1300 by a monk whose name was Adolf, who supplied it with certain glosses in addition to those which his exemplar already possessed. A study of the text shows that two manuscripts were used in the construction of Adolf’s text, one from which he copied the text, and another which was used for corrections.315
A manuscript given to the library of St. Augustine’s Abbey at Canterbury by one of its monks, Thomas de Wyvelsberge, included both the Stella maris (or a part of it) and the Epithalamium beate Marie virginis of John of Garland.316 If he is the Thomas de Wyvelsberge mentioned in the
[[ Print Edition Page No. 70 ]]
register of the abbey in documents of 1242 and 1243,317 then his volume must have contained the earliest known copy of the Stella maris in England.
At the beginning of the fifteenth century John Boston, monk of Bury, listed a manuscript of the Stella maris among the books which he saw in the monastic libraries of England and Scotland. He uses the title mentioned in the colophon of the British Museum manuscript and quotes the incipit.318 It is possible that the manuscript he knew was the one which Adolf copied, the British Museum manuscript we know today; but, on the other hand, Boston does not give it the number (82) by which he usually designates a Bury book,319 nor does he mention other works in the same codex.320 The likelihood is, therefore, that it was not the Bury copy that he has in mind, but one belonging to another library.
At about the same time that Boston of Bury was noting the presence of the Stella maris in English monastic libraries, an anonymous Englishman was using it to produce a remarkable collection in English verse. A considerable fragment of his work is now in the British Museum, MS Additional 39996,321 in script of the first half of the fifteenth century. It includes eighteen legends, breaking off in the middle of the tale of ‘Julian the Apostate,’ number 24 of the Stella maris. There can be little doubt that the Englishman had before him the Stella maris of John of Garland, even though he stretches the narratives to many times the length of the original. The order in which he tells the tales is that of the Stella maris, except for slight alteration:
|MS 39996||Stella maris||MS 39996||Stella maris|
In many cases the Englishman’s tales are spun in alarmingly original fashion from the meager details of John of Garland. The materials with which he elaborates his narrative are not all gathered from thin air, however. He knows, in some instances, the complete versions of the stories;323 and in at least one case, he seems to have had another collection close at hand when he wrote.324 Only the first legend of MS Additional 39996, how a monk was tempted by the devil in the form of a woman and saved by his prayer to the Virgin has no connection with John of Garland.
In conclusion, therefore, it may be said that the collection of Ste. Geneviève, the source of John of Garland, was a large and significant compilation of materials about the Virgin Mary, chiefly Mary legends. It included not only those tales which had been gathered together in the monastery of St. Germain-des-Prés and by the unknown compiler of the first series of MS Paris 17491 (X1), but also certain significant legends used in the construction of the Clairvaux Mariale. The Cistercian monk who compiled it had little to do but interpolate groups of Cistercian legends here and there, and his collection was complete. John of Garland, on the other hand, adapted the collection of Ste. Geneviève for use in his class-room. He wrote some verses merely suggesting the content of selected legends, and then he built his own ‘Mariale’ by the addition of matter from the arts’ curriculum, intended to show how all the seven liberal arts unite in worship of the Virgin Mary. His little work also gave new form to collections
[[ Print Edition Page No. 72 ]]
of Mary legends. The entire Stella maris is a panegyric in praise of the Virgin. The legends are merely cited as examples of her prowess over man and nature. Whether or not the Spanish king, Alfonso el Sabio, saw the Stella maris at Paris, he composed a work which used Mary legends in much the same way, not as pieces to be read in monasteries or told by preachers to point a moral, but as part of a literary composition glorifying the Virgin. Before the end of the thirteenth century John of Garland’s work was taken to England, perhaps by the author himself or by one of his students, and there became the source of a collection in English verse.
The table on pages 74-75 shows the relationship between the Stella maris and other collections.
The last quarter of the twelfth century and the first half of the thirteenth century was, as this study shows, a period of importance in the development of the Mary cult, one of the chief features of which was the collection and popularization of legends about the Virgin Mary. The collection of anecdotes of universal rather than merely local interest had got well under way by the beginning of the twelfth century with the compilation of HM, the Elements-series, and TS. They included not more than seventeen legends. Possibly the number had mystical significance in connection with the Mary cult, or it may have been determined only by the requirements of the services and other uses to which the collections were put.
Just when or where the Pez collection of forty-three legends came into existence is not certain, but it could not have been much earlier than the SV1 collections, nor far distant from their home. To Pez, the compiler of SV1, probably in the third quarter of the twelfth century, added another series of seventeen or eighteen tales, gathered chiefly from the ecclesiastical writers of northern France and from monastic and communal records in the same region. The number of copies of SV1 and the collections descended from it at Paris in the thirteenth century325 make it probable that it was compiled in a Parisian monastery.
The compiler of the first collection with the Quoniam gloriosissima virgo virginum prologue was probably a monk of St. Germain-des-Prés, who did his work in the last quarter of the twelfth century. To SV1, or a collection like it, he added another group of seventeen tales, nearly all of which originate in the region of northern France of which Paris is the center. Other monastic compilers used his to heap up even larger collections to the glory of the Virgin and to give greater interest and variety to the readings in the monasteries.
It was still another Paris collection, that of the monastery of Ste. Geneviève, which became the foundation upon which the Cistercians built the Clairvaux Mariale by the addition of legends gathered chiefly from their own monasteries. Obviously there was a limit to which the mere accumulation of materials of this sort could go, if they were to be used conveniently. The collection of St. Victor was already a large folio volume, and it included nothing but legends and two other short treatises about the Virgin. A collection of three hundred legends, such as Alfonso X mentions, if they were reproduced in full in an easily legible script, must have been an unmanageable volume. Some drastic sort of selection must take place when new tales were added, or the legends must be revised to make them briefer. Both these processes went on in the Cistercian monasteries. The Mariale magnum used only selected legends from the older collections, and the abbot of Vendome reduced the traditional tales to the briefest form possible. Even the Cistercian anecdotes were pruned of circumstantial details. The compiler of MS Additional 15723 to save space used the briefer versions of Vincent of Beauvais, but copied in full other legends of the Mariale magnum. It remained for the preachers of the Dominican and Franciscan orders who took the legends out of the monasteries and into the market squares of the towns to eliminate all the matter which encumbered the narrative.
In the earliest compilations, except in the Elements-series which has a unity of its own, little care had been given to the form of the collection itself. There was some attempt in Pez and SV1 to distribute new legends among the old, probably to give some degree of novelty to each group as it was used in the monasteries. The compiler of the Quoniam collection of St. Germain-des-Prés used subject matter to some extent as a principle of organization in his first series (SG1), and the social status of the individuals concerned in the second (SG2). The matter, other than Mary legends, was apparently incorporated into most of the collections of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries without much thought as to its position in the collection. In the collections of Ste. Geneviève and the Mariale magnum, these materials were placed at, or near, the beginning of the collection and arranged with reference to the life of the Virgin: (1) accounts of her parents and her earthly life from the Pseudo-Matthei Evangelium, (2) her assumption as in Melito of Sardis and Elizabeth of Schönau, and finally (3) the miraculous deeds she performed after her assumption. Preachers varied the order of the tales to suit their need to illustrate a moral truth, grouping those from which a given lesson could be extracted under a single heading.
The collection of Mary legends was in northern France by the middle of the thirteenth century no longer confined to monks or cathedral clergy. John of Garland is the first known lay compiler of Mary legends in that
|Stella maris||MS Paris 14463||MS Paris 12593||MS Paris 17491||Rouen Mariale||Vincent of Beauvais||Vendome||MS Paris 18134||Gobius||Alfonso el Sabio||MS Additional 39996|
|1.||Milk: Tongue and Lips||14||39||25||24||84||5||29||6||—||6|
|5.||Devil in Beasts’ Shapes||37||64||26||28||—||—||30||—||47||9|
|7.||Saracen and Mary Image||—||31||68a||14||119b||—||47||—||46||—|
|8.||Ring on Finger||—||29||67||—||87||7||43||13||42||11|
|10.||Pilgrim in the Sea||49||70||40||32||88||—||—||—||33||—|
|16.||Mother of Mercy||32||5||17||—||113a||—||—||—||—||—|
|18.||Mary Image Insulted||26||27||4||15||119c||—||—||36||34||16|
|19.||Jew Lends to Christian||53||72||29||17||82||2||—||3||25||17|
|22.||Clerk of Chartres||3||3||15||—||—||—||4||18||24||18|
|23.||Hours Sung Daily||54||73||59||39||—||—||—||—||—||—|
|24.||Julian the Apostate||70||102||2||—||—||—||—||—||15||19|
|25.||Priest of One Mass||39||10||13||—||113c||43||23||—||32||—|
[[ Print Edition Page No. 75 ]]
|28.||Mal des Ardents at Paris||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—|
|33.||Maid of Arras||58||74||63||—||—||—||—||—||105||—|
|37.||Jewess in Childbirth||—||—||—||—||99a||—||—||27||89||—|
|39.||Mouth of Hell||15||40||19||—||—||—||9||—||58||—|
|40.||Christ Appears to Monk||—||—||65a||2||—||—||—||—||—||—|
|41.||Fire at Mont-St.-Michel||21||16||34||19||—||—||11||—||39||—|
|42.||Little Devil in Church||—||—||—||—||118||—||—||22||—||—|
|46.||Two Brothers at Rome||23||11||20||—||—||—||—||—||—||—|
|50.||Pilgrim of St. James||18||9||35||—||—||—||—||—||26||—|
|51.||Foot Cut Off||65||24||46||—||—||—||—||—||37||—|
|52.||Boy Devoted to Devil||34||62||21||—||115||—||14||46||115||—|
|53.||Christ Image Wounded||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||37||—||—|
|55.||Will for Deed||40||42||54||—||—||17||20||—||45||—|
|56.||Ave maris stella||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—||—|
|57.||Freed from Captivity||57c||—||56c||—||—||—||—||—||62||—|
region. He, before the middle of the century, and Alfonso el Sabio in the second half gave their collections something resembling literary form. Their verses do little more than to suggest the familiar narratives, and songs of praise are introduced at intervals between groups of legends. Once the collection of Mary legends has emerged from the monasteries into the hands of the mendicant preachers, vernacular writers and laymen, not only the legends themselves, but the collections into which they were gathered take on such variety of form that relationships between them are difficult to establish.
Two centers in northern France emerge in the last half of the twelfth and the first half of the thirteenth century as scenes of important activity in the gathering and dissemination of Mary legends in the Latin language: the monasteries of Paris and the Cistercian monastery of Clairvaux. Of the collections made at Paris, that of the monastery of Ste. Geneviève was probably the largest and the most significant; and of those made at Clairvaux, the Mariale magnum was the best-known and most authoritative. If either collection has survived the middle ages, it has yet to be discovered. The Stella maris, nevertheless, provides us with a shrunken image of the former, and MS Additional 15723 with a somewhat more adequate reflection of the latter.
As for vernacular collections, with which this study has not been primarily concerned, the scanty evidence available in print at the present time suggests that Soissons was an equally important focal point for the production of collections in the French vernacular. At any rate, northern France, when its full history has been written, must be accorded a place of prominence in the development of the Mary cult in its popular and literary aspects.
JOHN OF GARLAND himself acknowledges the authorship of the Stella maris. In the midst of an apostrophe to the Virgin interpolated between two legends he writes,
In hiis ridmis quasi cannis
Stridulis planctum Iohannis
Audi de Garlandia.1
His contemporaries knew it as one of his minor works. In the Ars lectoria John of Garland finishes the enumeration of his works with the line, Hiis scriptis alia poteram conjungere multa, and the author of the Bruges gloss comments, Ut Commentarium, Stellam maris, Assertiones fidei, Morale scolarium, Georgica spiritualia.2
The Stella maris is not, as has been suggested,3 to be identified with another work which John of Garland mentions as his own in the Morale scolarium,
Edita sunt annis in paucis Mira Iohannis,
Transversis pannis promptis ad bella tirannis.
Sarra molestatur ab Agar, dolet et lacrimatur;
Set pius armatur deus ut vindicta sequatur.4
The Morale scolarium was, in the first place, written in 1241,5 seven or eight years before the Stella maris. Moreover, the content of the Mira or Mirabilia, as John of Garland describes it, is in no way suggestive of the Stella maris, nor is there anything in the work that would make reference to it apt in the situation which he is discussing in the Morale scolarium.
The date of the work may be determined with considerable accuracy by means of internal evidence. The author, recounting a miracle which took
[[ Print Edition Page No. 78 ]]
place in the church of Notre-Dame at Paris, mentions a certain bishop Guillaume as a witness,
Est in templo virginali
Virgo, medicina mali
Fertur ignis infernalis,
. . .
O Gwillelme, presul pie,
Qui conservans es Marie
Oves et ovilia.
Ista vides et testaris.6
Guillaume d’Auvergne was bishop of Paris from 1228 until his death, March 30, 1249.7 During his episcopacy there was a recrudescence at Paris of the plague of ergotism, commonly known in the middle ages as sacer ignis, or as John of Garland calls it, ignis infernalis. In an act of the bishop and the chapter of Notre-Dame it was ordered in March 1248 (1249) that the entrance before which the sick and dead were laid, especially those suffering with sacer ignis, should be illuminated by means of six lamps.8
Still another passage in the Stella maris itself confirms the date, March 30, 1249, as the terminus ad quem,
Ista mira quando scripsi,
Tunc scripture favet isti
Hoc magister tunc Galterus
Pie rexit, prudens erus,
Gautier de Château Thierry became chancellor of the University of Paris in 1244 and was made bishop of Paris after the death of Guillaume d’Auvergne, March 30, 1249.10 If the Stella maris was composed, then, when Gautier de Château Thierry was chancellor of the University and Guillaume d’Auvergne was bishop of Paris, it must have been written before March 30, 1249.
A terminus ex quo is provided by a reference in legend no. 59 to a battle between the Parmese and Frederick II,
De Frederico a Parmensibus superato et quo tempore factus liber iste
Dum Parmenses invaserunt
The battle mentioned was the siege of Victoria12 by Frederick II of February 12, 1248. Matthew Paris describes it in the Chronica majora, and there are numerous references to it in the annals of the north Italian towns.13 Nothing is said in these accounts about the miracle, although the victory is generally attributed to divine aid. It is Fra Salimbene, the gossipy Parmese chronicler, who not only reveals the source of John of Garland’s miracle, but also gives the clue as to the manner in which the news reached John of Garland in Paris and the length of time it took it to get there. The friar says that in the year his city was besieged by Frederick he went to France, first to the pope at Lyons, then to Paris where he stayed eight days from the festival of the Purification of the Virgin, and finally to Sens. As he was lying ill at Sens early in March, some French brothers from the Franciscan convent at Parma came to him telling the news of the victory. The letter which he mentions was written by the Parmese themselves to Pope Innocent IV at Lyons, a sort of official account of the saving of the city. Salimbene intended to include it in his Chronicle,14 but it has not been preserved. There is, however, in the Chronica majora of Matthew Paris a similar letter written by the podesta of Parma to the people of Milan through their podesta, telling of the same event.15 The story which this official account tells of the battle is the one which John of Garland puts into verse. Parma was saved by a picture of the Virgin painted on its standard, and the enemy suffered great losses. Doubtless the same French Franciscans who brought the letter to Salimbene at Sens had visited Paris as well. John of Garland might have had it from a sermon preached by one of the friars, or he may have seen the document itself.
It is possible to conclude, then, that the Stella maris was completed between February 12, 1248, the date of the siege of Parma and March 30, 1249, the date of the death of Guillaume d’Auvergne and the end of Gautier de Château Thierry’s chancellorship of the University of Paris. It could have been finished as early as March, 1248, for the letter which was the basis of one of the last three legends had reached Sens, and presumably Paris as well, early in that month.
There are but two known manuscripts of the Stella maris of John of Garland:16
I. MS Bruges 546 = B
The manuscript now in the Public Library of Bruges is the most significant of all the known manuscripts of John of Garland because of its early date, the richness of the marginal and interlinear glosses, and the bulk of the work of John of Garland it contains.17 It once belonged to the Cistercian monastery of Dunes in western Flanders, which was burned by the Gueux in 1560 and re-established in Bruges in 1624.18 De Poorter has deciphered an inscription on the first folio which names a certain knight, Henry Sumi, as an ancient owner.19
The volume, written in an irregular script of the second half of the thirteenth century on vellum, comprises 174 folios, many of which have been damaged. With the exception of the first number and the various brief items which fill in the blank spaces, it is devoted to the works of John of Garland.20 The Stella maris is written in three columns of thirty-eight to forty-four lines each. The text has been so frequently corrected that it is more accurate than the British Museum (M) manuscript, which was originally written with more care. Some of the corrections are in the book hand of the text, while others are in the semi-cursive of the gloss. Titles appear in faded red ink. Space has been left for rubric initial letters, but they have never been added.
Numerous interlinear and marginal glosses, probably by a single hand, accompany the text, some of them of considerable length. There is some evidence that John of Garland himself wrote much of the gloss. The note at the bottom of the first folio is clearly his own, written in the first person. Certain other comments on the legends themselves must have been made by some one who had seen and read the manuscript of Ste. Geneviève, John of Garland’s source. In the case of fourteen legends appropriate details are added by the gloss, especially accurate references to the scene of the incident,21 which would not have remained long in the memory of some
[[ Print Edition Page No. 81 ]]
one who was only generally familiar with the tales. The author of the gloss as a whole betrays a particular interest in the natural sciences, as does the Stella maris and many other works written by John of Garland.22 At the top of folio 88 is the only existing reference to an unidentified work of John of Garland, a Liber elegiarum.23
Other glosses must have been written for young boys learning the Latin language. They are intended to explain the meaning of difficult words, the gender of nouns, the particular conjugation to which a verb belonged, to point to an antecedent of a relative pronoun, or to identify a figure of speech. In the latter part of the manuscript some Latin words have been given French equivalents.24 The gloss is, therefore, evidence of the use of the Stella maris in the schools, the purpose for which the author composed it.
II. MS London British Museum Royal 8 c iv = M
The Stella maris is the only work of John of Garland in the British Museum manuscript25 of 210 folios, vellum in 4°, comprising miscellaneous numbers in hands of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The volume consists of two collections which have been bound together since the fifteenth century.26 The first collection comprises twenty-four numbers, including the Stella maris, and bears the press mark of the abbey of Bury St. Edmunds, R. 42. The second is a medical collection with the Bury press mark, M. 35.27 The codex was one of seventeen manuscripts known to have been acquired by John, Lord Lumley, from the abbey in the late sixteenth
[[ Print Edition Page No. 82 ]]
or early seventeenth century. King James I purchased it for the Royal Library along with Lumley’s collection.28
John of Garland’s Stella maris, the seventh article in the first collection, begins on folio 16 and is concluded on folio 23v with the colophon, Explicit liber magistri I. de G. de miraculis beate virginis. The script, a hand of the thirteenth century, perhaps about 1300, is more careful than that of the B manuscript. It is possible that the same scribe wrote both text and glosses, for they are contemporary hands, and some of the corrections of the text are in the semi-cursive hand of the gloss.29 The scribe who copied the commentary, and perhaps the text as well, has left his name on the top margin of folio 20v at the close of some verses which are pen-trials.30 The first lines have been trimmed off the margin,
Est stilus equivocus, quia dat. . . .
Columpne medium qualitas Carmentis habet,
Cum ipsum carmen sit officialisque poete,
Est instrumentum quo scribit scriptor Adulfus.
Adolf was probably an Englishman, perhaps even a monk of Bury. Most of the gloss he must have copied from the text he had before him, for it is at some points identical with that of the Bruges manuscript. Some of the glosses were, however, composed by an Englishman who did not know the legends current in northern France. The legend ‘Ring on Finger’ is unfamiliar to him, for he names ‘Eadmundus’ as the hero, thus connecting it with a similar English tale told about Edmund Rich, archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of Henry III.31 Apropos of the disease of the tongue of the clerk of the ‘Milk’ legend, he writes a cancero devoratam, a remark which proves that he is thinking of ‘Twenty-three Plants in Flower,’ a legend of English origin, rather than John of Garland’s ‘Tongue and Lips Restored,’32 current in northern France. The English glosses which appear on several folios are probably his also.33 Two proper names in the text itself, ‘Willelme’ (l. 496) and ‘Walterus’ (l. 913) are spelled in English style. Several other spellings of the text and gloss probably indicate English origin. In five instances ‘e’ is used where ‘i’ would be expected:‘palleo’ for ‘pallio’ (l. 84); ‘incendeo’ for ‘incendio’ (l. 87); ‘vexit’ for ‘vixit’ (l. 87); and ‘descraseas’ for ‘discrasias’ (l. 117).
The text of the M manuscript is written in two columns of thirty-three to forty-four lines each with the exception of the first and last folios. The first has but one column and the last three. The chapters are marked by the use of crude red and blue initial letters. Most of the titles appear in the margin in the semi-cursive hand of the gloss, the first seven in hands which differ from that in which the others are written. Two kinds of corrections have been made. The scribe did some in book-hand presumably when he copied the text.34 Others were done in semi-cursive from a manuscript related to B, if not B itself, when the titles and glosses were written.35 Several peculiarities of spelling, besides those mentioned above, differentiate M from B. Occasionally ‘liquor’ is spelled ‘licor’ (l. 218), ‘quondam’ appears as ‘condam’ (l. 604), and ‘quedam’ as ’cuedam’(l. 868). The same peculiarity extends to the gloss and the titles of M: ‘pertorcuens’ (p. 89), ‘secuntur’(l. 42 and title, p. 89) and ‘licor’ (l. 219). In two cases ‘s’ is written for ‘c’: ‘Sedit’ for ‘Cedit’ (l. 391) and ‘selis’ for ‘celis’ (gloss to l. 148).
As for the relationship of M and B, the evidence is not entirely conclusive. There are some indications that a manuscript of the M type was used in the correction of B, and conclusive evidence that B itself, or a manuscript close to B, was used in the rubrication and probably the correction of M.
After the text of B had been completed the same scribe, or possibly another who was a contemporary, corrected it and wrote the titles with the help of a second manuscript. His second exemplar was not M, but it had some of the characteristics of M. Writing in semi-cursive, the scribe introduced four of M’s readings, all of them verbs, into the text of B as alternative readings.36 He created new and appropriate chapter divisions on folios 87v and 88, writing the titles in the margin or squeezing them in between the columns.37 He made a sign opposite line 1005 on folio 88 to mark the omission in B of twenty-four lines which appear in M, and wrote the title which belongs to them between the columns.38 Using a pair of the same signs, he indicated the transposition of six lines of the B text to a more suitable position, the position which they occupy in M.39
The nature of these corrections suggests that the scribe’s second manuscript, one of the M type, was a later revision of the Stella maris made by
[[ Print Edition Page No. 84 ]]
the author himself. The twenty-four lines of M, omitted in B, have a unity of their own, one of a series of brief pieces in praise of the Virgin covered by the title, de eius magnificentia usque ad finem libri. The verses thus interpolated in M are, in all probability, from the pen of John of Garland. They are similar in form and theme40 to others included under that title and elsewhere in the Stella maris. He may well have written them after the completion of the Stella maris and incorporated them into a ‘second edition,’ which was the parent of the M text.41
A striking case of agreement in error proves that either B, or a manuscript of the B type, was used in the rubrication of M. When B was copied, there was a thin place, or perhaps a tiny hole, in the vellum of folio 86 exactly where the red initial belongs at the beginning of legend no. 34 (l. 538). The rubric was never made; nor was there a guide to the rubricator. The first word of the line in B, then, is [A]bbas. With use the weak spot wore into a hole with thin edges until it framed exactly the first letter of the line beneath on the next folio. The letter was ‘P,’ and the word to the casual reader even today appears to be Pbbas. Just so the rubricator of M copied it, quite oblivious of the fact that the correct letter ‘a’ had been written there for his guidance.42 The scribe of the M text has, moreover, sometimes failed to provide for a rubric where one is clearly needed. The rubricator of M may have had the assistance of B when he marked the beginning of those chapters with a red paragraph sign.43 Certain corrections and one alternative reading may also be the result of contact between B and M.
The M manuscript, except for the last three folios, is even more liberally supplied with interlinear and marginal glosses than is B. The character of the commentary as a whole is similar to that of B and sometimes identical.44 Several long glosses, however, distinguish it from B. A theological discussion on the first folio, similar to that of the Quoniam prologue prefixed to the collection of St. Germain-des-Prés is followed by more details from the Pseudo-Matthei Evangelium than John of Garland gives. Both these glosses, together with the reference to a‘register at Rome’ as the source of some of the legends, imply acquaintance with John of Garland’s source, the manuscript of Ste. Geneviève.
The author of the glosses of M, however, was primarily interested in grammar and the natural sciences, not in theology. He has written a
[[ Print Edition Page No. 85 ]]
rhetorical preface to the Stella maris, pointing out how the principles of the Clavis Compendii of John of Garland have been applied in the composition of the Stella maris.45 He knows also the Epithalamium beate Marie virginis and the Compendium grammatice of the same author, from both of which he quotes.46 The most interesting of the glosses are those on ‘spiritual astronomy,’ to use the words of the title of the chapter.47 These are but the counterpart of the glosses on Albumasar’s De naturis signorum in B.48
In fact, a comparison of the glosses of M and B leaves the impression of two students sitting in the class-room listening to their master lecture on the Stella maris who have decided to divide the labor of taking notes between them. Certain of the briefer remarks are identical, but the long glosses supplement each other. The M manuscript, it should be noted, has no French glosses after line 663; and B, none before line 725. At least, it can be said, that the bulk of the commentary of B and M must have emanated from the same general source. It is just possible that John of Garland himself wrote a great deal of the M gloss also to go with his‘second edition.’
John of Garland’s collection of Mary legends is usually referred to as Miracula beate Marie virginis or Stella maris.49 The latter title has been adopted for this edition, because it is the author’s title, and he attached a particular significance to it. Just as the star of the sea, Virgo, shows itself in the north to sailors in danger, so his little book by means of the miracles of the Star of the Sea spreads forth the way of salvation amid the bitterness of the world to him and his students there in the studium at Paris.50
The two known manuscripts of the work have been used in the preparation of the edition. The Bruges manuscript is designated B and the British Museum manuscript M. Because it is earlier in date and more adequately corrected, the aim has been to present as accurate a picture of the Bruges manuscript, as is consistent with the making of a legible text. In cases of garbled words, omissions, and errors in B, the readings of M have been adopted. Lines 1006-1029 are lacking in B. They have been included in the text, nevertheless, for two reasons: because there is a device in B at the end of line 1005 which the scribe who made some of the corrections has
[[ Print Edition Page No. 86 ]]
used before to indicate an omission, and because the missing lines were almost certainly written by John of Garland.51
The titles are those of the Bruges manuscript with the exception of that which prefaces the verse prologue and one other.52 These have been borrowed from M. The assistance of M has also been required in arranging the sub-divisions of the text. Numbers have been given to legends only, even though other sub-divisions have titles. The spelling is that of the Bruges manuscript with a few exceptions, and these have been noted. No distinction has been made between ‘ci’ and ‘ti,’ between the long and the short ‘i,’ or between ‘u’ and ‘v.’
The prose preface which introduces the work as it has been edited is in reality a note at the bottom of the first folio of the Bruges manuscript. It has been used as a preface to the text for the following reasons: (1) It is indisputably by John of Garland himself. (2) It explains the circumstances under which the work was composed and serves as a sort of grammatical preface. (3) And it helps to solve the mechanical difficulty which results from the number and length of the glosses at the beginning of the work. The corresponding preface of the M manuscript has been placed in a parallel position as a gloss.
All the glosses are included as they appear in the manuscripts, except for such words as ‘dico,’ ‘id est,’ and ‘scilicet’ when they are not required to make the meaning clear. Interlinear notes are given without reference to their position on the folio; the location of others is indicated. Several of the verses quoted in the glosses have not been identified. Presumably they are from contemporary works.
The Latin texts of the original versions of the narratives which John of Garland used could not be reproduced in the notes because of their bulk. Instead, brief English summaries have been placed at the beginning of each of the notes on the legends. So far as possible the texts of MS Paris Bibliothèque Nationale 12593 have been employed for this purpose.53 The lists of parallel texts included in the notes take into account only those which are available in print, and they are rather strictly limited in scope. No attempt has been made, for instance, to include tales which are merely similar in theme or in a few details.
[1 ] Ernst Lucius, Die Anfänge des Heiligenkults (Tübingen, 1904), pp. 420-504, and Stephan Beissel, Geschichte der Verehrung Marias in Deutschland (Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1909), pp. 1-71.
[2 ] H. P. J. M. Ahsmann, Le culte de la sainte Vierge et la littérature française profane du moyen âge. Utrecht, . Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
[3 ] The Prot-evangelion of St. James, the Pseudo-Matthew, and the so-called Infancy gospels, edited by Constantinus de Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha (Leipzig, 1876), besides numerous collections of miracles.
[4 ] Gregorii Turonensis opera (ed. Wilhelm Arndt and Bruno Krusch, Hanover, 1885), ii, 451-561.
[5 ] Adolf Mussafia, ‘Studien zu den mittelalterlichen Marienlegenden,’ Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wein. Phil.-hist. Kl., cxiii (1886), 917-936, lists these legends. Henry L. D. Ward, Catalogue of Romances in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum (London, 1893), ii, 586-589, makes some additions.
[6 ] The collection is edited by E. A. Pigeon, Histoire de la cathédrale de Coutances (Coutances, 1876), pp. 367-383. See also Léopold V. Delisle, ‘Notice sur un traité inédit du douzième siècle,’ Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes, series ii, iv, 339-352.
[7 ] Guibert de Nogent, De laude sancte Marie, Migne, P.L., clvi, 537-578, and ibid., De vita sua, pp. 953-962. Those compiled by Herman of Laon are printed in the appendix to De vita sua, pp. 961-1018.
[8 ] Hugo Farsitus, Libellus de miraculis B. Marie virginis, Migne, P.L., clxxix, 1773-1800.
[9 ] Léopold V. Delisle, ‘Lettre de l’abbé Haimon,’ Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes, series v, i, 113-139.
[10 ] Edited by Gustave Servois, ibid., series iv, iii, 21-44 and 228-245, and more recently by Edmond Albe, Les miracles de Notre-Dame de Roc-Amadour. Paris, 1907.
[12 ] Just when this collection was made is not known, except that it could not have been done earlier than 1082. It is edited by Arthur Långfors, De miraculis quae in ecclesia Fiscanensi contigerunt (Helsinki, 1932), pp. 1-32. (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, xxv, series B).
[13 ] Beissel, op. cit., pp. 124-125.
[14 ] Ibid., p. 272.
[15 ] Ibid., p. 125.
[17 ] Venerabilis Agnetis Blannbekin . . . vita et revelationes auctore anonymo . . . Accessit Pothonis Prunveningensis prope Ratisbonam O. S. B. liber de miraculis s. Dei genitricis Mariae . . . edidit Bernardus Pez. Vienna, 1731. The Mary legends are reprinted by Thomas Frederick Crane, Liber de miraculis sanctae Dei genitricis Mariae. Ithaca, 1925.
[18 ] Also known as the Ad laudem group, the prologue which precedes the legends.
[21 ] Carl Neuhaus, Die lateinischen Vorlagen zu den alt-französischen Adgar’schen Marienlegenden (Aschersleben, 1886-1887), pp. 9-25. The ‘Jew of Bourges’ is a miracle performed in fire; ‘Theophilus,’ in air; ‘Childbirth in the Sea,’ in water; and ‘Julian the Apostate,’ in earth. See prologue to ‘Julian,’ ibid., p. 23.
[23 ] John of Garland’s tale of ‘Jewish Boy’ (no. 3) is the Gregory of Tours version.
[25 ] Mussafia, III, 58. In the first two manuscripts mentioned the series ends with ‘Leuricus,’ which ‘Saturday’ precedes; but by comparison with other manuscripts Mussafia comes to the conclusion that ‘Leuricus’ originally preceded ‘Saturday.’
[28 ] There are two other legends in the first book in addition to these four.
[29 ] The third book is incomplete in the Cleopatra manuscript. It is necessary to use the two other manuscripts related to it to determine the order and the contents of the TS collection. Kjellman, op. cit., prints most of the numbers of the Balliol collection as the source of the Anglo-Norman collection he has edited. The manuscript is regarded by both Mussafia and Kjellman as English in origin.
[30 ] Mussafia, I, 936-953. Mussafia, III, 54-55, notes that ‘Potho’ or ‘Botho,’ monk of Priefling, is not the author of the whole series, as Bernhard Pez thought. He is the author of a single tale which he incorporated into the collection. A more recent and better-documented statement of the case is by J. A. Endres, ‘Boto von Prüfening und seine schriftstellerische Thätigkeit,’ Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, xxx (1905), 605-646.
[33 ] Ibid., pp. 25-27 (22), ‘Childbirth in the Sea,’ and pp. 39-40 (31), ‘Jew of Bourges.’
[34 ] The following table illustrates the relationship between Pez and TS. It should be noted that Pez (ed. Crane) gives ‘Botho’ a number, thus counting forty-four instead of forty-three legends in the Pez collection. Seventeen tales altogether are added in Pez.
|TS||Pez||Legends Added in Pez|
|2.||Foot Cut Off||18|
|4.||Mother of Mercy (Sicut iterum)||—||19.||Conception (Pseudo-Anselm).|
|7.||Mary Image Insulted||—||22.||Childbirth in the Sea.|
|9.||Devil in Beasts’ Shapes||23||24.||Son Restored. 25-26. St. Dunstan. 27. Pilgrim in the Sea. 28. Light on Masthead.|
|11.||Milk: Monk Laid Out||30||31.||Jew of Bourges.|
|13.||Eulalia||32||33.||Jew Lends to Christian. 34. Hours Sung Daily. 35. Love by Black Arts. 36. Abbess. 37. Bonus.|
|16.||Leuricus||38||39.||Drowned Sacristan; Friend Prays. 40. German Nobleman Healed. 41. Uncompleted Confession.|
[35 ] Ahsmann, Le culte de la sainte Vierge, pp. 4-46, has an excellent account of the development of the Mary cult in France. It incorporates material from J. A. F. Kronenburg, Maria’s Heerlijheid in Nederland (Amsterdam, 1904-1914), which is valuable.
[36 ] Ahsmann, op. cit., p. 18.
[37 ] Ibid., pp. 19-20.
[38 ] Ibid., p. 26.
[39 ] Ibid., pp. 26-28, and Beissel, op. cit., pp. 195-214.
[40 ] Below, pp. 50-51.
[41 ] Beissel, op. cit., pp. 214-266.
[42 ] John of Garland, Stella maris, no. 30, ‘Purification,’ and no. 32, ‘Chartres.’
[43 ] At times old local collections were copied entire into the new compilations. John of Garland, nos. 44, 45, and 57, are examples of miracles gathered from the local collection of Soissons.
[44 ] Stella maris, no. 8, ‘Ring on Finger.’
[45 ] Especially ibid., no. 14, ‘Chaste Empress.’
[48 ] Stella maris, no. 19, ‘Jew Lends to Christian,’ is a story said to have been brought from Constantinople by a pilgrim. Another version attributes it to a merchant. See p. 175 and ibid., note 56.
[49 ] Ibid., no. 23, ‘Hours Sung Daily.’A clerk on a pilgrimage heard the story at Cambrai. The tale of the siege of Parma was brought to Paris by the Franciscans of Parma (ibid., no. 59). See below, pp. 78-79.
[50 ] The ‘Bridegroom’ cycle, ibid., no. 8; or ‘Drowned Sacristan,’ no. 36.
[51 ] Ibid., no. 53. See p. 203.
[56 ] Stella maris, l. 27.
[57 ] The ‘Parma’ legend, ibid., no. 59, is an example of a tale which, although it is told in the chronicles of Italy, never won a place among collections of Mary legends. The legend, ‘Mare,’ no. 29, is found in only four collections in northern France. Number 8, ‘Ring on Finger;’ no. 14, ‘Chaste Empress;’ no. 26, ‘Orleans;’ and no. 33, ‘Maid of Arras,’ are legends characteristic of collections made in northern France in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
[59 ] Stella maris, no. 1. See notes, pp. 155-156.
[60 ] Ibid., no. 1, ‘Milk: Tongue and Lips Restored;’ no. 8, ‘Ring on Finger;’ and no. 34, ‘Conception.’
[61 ] The French vernacular collection of Gautier de Coincy is gathered chiefly from Latin collections made in northern France (edited by Alexandre Eusèbe Poquet, Paris, 1857), and the anonymous Anglo-Norman collection edited by Kjellman, op. cit., is from the Latin collection MS Oxford Balliol 240, etc.
[62 ] Ahsmann, op. cit., pp. 26-27.
[64 ] Mussafia compares the Sorbonne collections with SV, ibid., I, 959-962. There are also in Brussels two collections, one of the twelfth and another of the thirteenth century, the first series of which are almost identical with SV (Mussafia, IV, 2-5). The second series of the earlier of the two Brussels collections, MS Brussels Phillipps 336, resembles that of the second Sorbonne collection, Mussafia’s Ps (Mussafia, III, 23-24).
[65 ] Ibid., I, 962-969.
[66 ] Number 58, ‘Maid of Arras,’ mentions the date 1142, and no. 72 is told by Theodoric, abbot of Capelle from 1141-1149. The script is in several hands of the twelfth century.
[68 ] Ward, Catalogue of Romances, ii, 642-645, and Mussafia, IV, 10-11. The British Museum manuscript may have included others of the legends of SV2, for it is fragmentary, and the last legend is no. 67 of SV.
[69 ] In the Sorbonne manuscripts SV1 is followed by the De miraculis of Peter the Venerable of Cluny (d. 1156) of which MS Paris 16056 includes only a few selections. The Brussels manuscript, Phillipps 336, relates several visions in addition to the treatise of Peter the Venerable. In Brussels 7797-7806 of the thirteenth century, there are a great many legends, only a few of which are Mary legends. These Mussafia summarizes (Mussafia, IV, 2-5). One originates in the church of St. Martin at Paris, another at Rheims, and several at Soissons.
[70 ] TS 8, ‘Drowned Sacristan: Clerk Named Nonus.’
[71 ] Collections of Mary legends were made in monasteries to be read or repeated at various services. This method of compilation probably had advantages over the other. The new legends, it may be supposed, were so placed in the collection that one or more occurred in each reading, or so that the reading of new legends alternated with the reading of old ones.
[* ] Versified
[73 ] The fourth legend of the Elements-series in a version different from that of Cleopatra-Toulouse concludes SV2.
[75 ] The recurrence of the number seventeen almost certainly has some particular significance in connection with Mary legends, but I have not been able to discover what it is.
[76 ] Brief summaries of such of these legends as appear in the Stella maris will be found in the notes on legends under the appropriate number.
[77 ] This legend must also originally have belonged to the collection. It follows ‘Murieldis’ (HM 17), which is no. 59 of SV1 in the Brussels manuscripts and in one of the Sorbonne manuscripts. See Mussafia, I, 961, and IV, 2.
[78 ] André Wilmart, Auteurs spirituels et textes dévots du moyen âge latin (Paris, 1932), pp. 480-481. Migne, P.L., clviii, 946-947. The SV collection includes another version of the same narrative, beginning Sicut iterum, a TS legend.
[79 ] Migne, P.L., clvi, 564-574.
[80 ] Ibid., clxxiii, 1383-1384. The work was written after 1141.
[81 ] See notes on Stella maris, nos. 14, 35, 52, and 20 respectively.
[84 ] MS Paris 12593, fols. 118-119, . . . diversis temporibus, diversis locis, et diversis personis utriusque sexus, diverse etatis, diverse conditionis et ordinis . . . que in sanctorum libris vel quorumcumque fidelium litteris dispersa reperimus.
[85 ] Mussafia, I, 962 (26). The legends of SV1 lacking in SG1 are nos. 29, 38, and 61-63. The first four are versified. The narratives selected from SV1 do not follow in the same sequence as in their source. Small series of from two to four legends are, however, set side by side in both collections:
[* ] Versified
[88 ] Classification according to subject matter could not account for the differences between the first twenty-six legends of SG1 and SV1. It does explain the deviation from APM beyond no. 26.
[89 ] The legends are: ‘Bridegroom: Transported to a Remote Region,’ SV 13 and SG 61;‘Boy Devoted to the Devil,’ SV 34 and SG 62; ‘Chaste Empress,’ SV 45 and SG 79; and ‘Incest,’ SV 62 (versified).
[90 ] See pp. 87-88.
[92 ] ‘Poor Man With Three Marriageable Daughters.’ In Argentina civitate Strazburc quidam civium (fol. 205v).
[93 ] ‘Student Forbidden to Swim in the River Drowns.’ Pari pene modo afflicta fuisse narratur ecclesia Trevirorum (fols. 202v-203).
[94 ] No. 104, ‘Bread.’ Quantum pura simplicitas deo placeat . . . Ait namque in Alemannia esse quoddam famosum et ditissimum cenobium (fol. 209).
[95 ] SG2, nos. 81, 85, 86, and 92; also SG1, no. 76.
[96 ] SG2, no. 104; SG1, nos. 28 and 44.
[99 ] Louis was abbot of St. Peter at Châlons, 1140-1166. Better known as St. Pierre-au-Mont, it was a Benedictine monastery founded in 1028 (Gallia Christiana, ix [Paris, 1751], 928).
[100 ] MS Paris 12593, fol. 209. Hoc dominus Ludovicus, abbas Sancti Petri Cathalaunensis, testatur sibi relatum esse ab abbate eiusdem cenobii, viro veracissimo et religiosissimo, cum in Alemannia studendi gratia scolis deditus idem cenobium frequentaret.
[101 ] Ibid., fol. 208. licet . . . quoddam delectabile miraculum scribere quod dominus Ludovicus venerabilis abbas Sancti Petri Cathalaunensis monachis suis frequenter me audiente retulit. The narrative is summarized, below, p. 199.
[102 ] Gallia Christiana, xiii (Paris, 1785), 1319-1320. Gonterus was present at the council of Rheims in 1148, and in 1156 signed a document.
[103 ] MS Paris 12593, fol. 209. Querente vero presbiter accepit orationem illam, et ad Cisterciense capitulum veniens, ubi plurimi abbates illius ordinis confluxerant, quod viderat, retulit et orationem illam illis tradidit. Inter ceteros ergo abbates qui afferunt etiam dominus Gonterus abbas Caladiensis qui fuerat monachus Sancti Martini Tornacensis eam descripsit seque eam cotidie dicere asserens quibusdam et dicendam tradidit. The eighth legend of MS Cambrai 739 (Mussafia, I, 976) is a redaction of this same legend without mention of specific names and places.
[104 ] St. Germain-des-Prés was also a Benedictine monastery, and the compiler’s own personal contribution is frequently placed at the end or near the end of the collection.
[105 ] See p. 60.
[106 ] Analyzed by Mussafia, I, 976-980. A number of the legends have been overlooked in Mussafia’s analysis. In order to avoid confusion, his numbers have been retained, and the missing numbers are designated by the use of small letters. The missing legends are:
|2a.||Sardenay SG 47.|
|42a.||Mother of Mercy (Pseudo-Anselm) SV 11.|
|55a.||Gethsemane P 21.|
|68a.||Saracen and Mary Image SG 31.|
|68b.||Unchaste Monk Warned by Widow SG 32.|
|68c.||Mare SG 33.|
|73a.||Rich Man and Poor Widow SV 61 (versified).|
[108 ] Ibid., I, 979 (72).
[109 ] The numbers are divided into five ‘parts,’ each part with a carefully labelled prologue followed by a list of titles to chapters. Upon investigation the prologues are found to be merely the traditional prologues to the first legend in the ‘part,’ whose content connects it with that miracle only. The legends within each part are numbered. Either the numbering was done very carelessly, or the numbers were taken from the source from which the compiler worked. Some legends without numbers are interpolated between two bearing consecutive numbers; and in several cases the numbering would indicate that legends found in the compiler’s source have been omitted. In spite of considerable search no particular collection has been found in which the legends are arranged in the sequence suggested by the numbers of X. Except for the last ‘part,’ which comprises versified legends, the ‘parts’ have no recognisable unity.
[110 ] MS Paris 17491, fols. 61-71v.
[111 ] Ibid., fols. 91-100.
[112 ] Ibid., fols. 103-139v.
[113 ] Ibid., fols. 22v-24.
[114 ] Ibid., fols. 84-88 and Migne P.L. ccxii, 1059-1063.
[115 ] Ibid., fols. 88-88v.
[116 ] Ibid., fols. 167v-169.
[117 ] Ibid., fols. 149-167v.
[118 ] Ibid., fols. 146-149 and 169-169v. The first is said by its author to be miraculum inauditum told by the abbot Baldwin of the Praemonstratensian monastery of Belleval in the diocese of Rheims to a brother named Gualterus as happening in his youth, how Mary appeared in a voice from heaven in the midst of a fire which engulfed his bed without burning it. The other comes at the end of the collection to warn the reader against skepticism, how a learned man made sport of Mary’s miracles, and how she appeared to him in the middle of the night and struck him with her sleeve on the left side of the head. It was only after he had confessed that he recovered from the headache it gave him.
[119 ] Numbers 72 and 83.
[120 ] This prologue introduces only those collections which on other grounds can be connected with the collection of St. Germain-des-Prés, MS Paris 17491, MS Charleville 168 (defective in the beginning), the collection of Ste. Geneviève, MS Paris 2333A, MSS Rouen U 134 and A 535. These comprise the Quoniam collections.
[121 ] Especially significant because SG1 5 is a legend interpolated between two long series of HM legends.
[122 ] Those omitted are: no. 53, ‘The Origin of O Maria virgo pia;’ and no. 56, ‘Portrait of St. Luke.’
[123 ] The long series SG1 29-35 = X1 67-70; SG1 48-49 = X1 5-6, etc.
[124 ] The second part of ch. 9, ‘Barns Filled,’ is no. 58 of SG1.
[125 ] Among the legends of SG1 which can be dated, the most recent one is ‘Mare,’ an incident referred to in a letter of pope Alexander III (1159-1181) to Henry de France, archbishop of Rheims, 1162-1175 (see below, p. 184). The incident itself may have happened earlier. Besides this tale, MS Paris 17491 relates ‘Judas in Hell,’ dated 1161 in the Chronicon of Helinand (d. after 1227), and the unique one told by the abbot Baldwin of Belleval (fl. 1179) in his later years.
[126 ] Numbers 74, 77, and 80 of X2 are lacking in SV1. Of these nos. 74, ‘Chaste Empress,’ and 77, ‘Clerk of Pisa,’ are only partly in verse, as if the compiler of X2 had begun something he found too difficult to finish. The third, no. 80, is a version of ‘Jewess in Childbirth,’ not known elsewhere. The APM collections place the versified legends together at the end of the collection, as in X.
[127 ] No. 5, ‘Purification;’ no. 57, ‘Mary Relics;’ no. 66, ‘Conception;’ and no. 72, ‘Abbot Baldwin.’
[128 ] No. 6, ‘Musa,’ and no. 79, ‘Wife and Mistress,’ in verse.
[131 ] Between 1280 and 1325, is the judgment of Henri Omont. Mussafia attributes it to the thirteenth century. See Mussafia, ‘Über die von Gautier de Coincy benützten Quellen,’ Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, xliv (1894), 49, note 1.
[132 ] Mussafia’s series of studies on Mary legends, I, 982-989, overlooks three of the legends of MS Paris 18134. Two are among the series of Q1, ‘Hieronymous’ (fol. 114) and ‘Fire at Mont-St.-Michel’ (fols. 114-114v); and one belongs to Q2, ‘Milk: Tongue and Lips Restored’ (fols. 141-141v). The two additional legends of the first series make the case for dependence upon SV1 stronger than Mussafia indicates. Mussafia’s numbering has had to be abandoned in this analysis, because in addition to the omissions, there are errors in the printing. In Mussafia’s study Q1 = nos. 1-24, except nos. 1 and 15, and Q2 = nos. 1, 15, and 25-65.
[136 ] Gautier de Coincy, Les miracles de la sainte Vierge, ed. by Alexandre Eusèbe Poquet, Paris, 1857. Three additional legends are edited by Jacob Ulrich in Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, vi (1882), 325-346. Arthur Lȧngfors edits several from the Hermitage manuscript in Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, series B, xxxiv (Helsinki, 1937). Mussafia in Denkschriften, xliv, 3-5, lists the legends as they appear in the Soissons manuscript. There is a study of the manuscripts by Arlette P. Ducrot-Granderye in Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, xxv, 2, series B (Helsinki, 1932).
[137 ] Mussafia, Denkschriften, xliv, 35-54, marked the similarity in diction of nine of the legends, noting that in one case the author of MS Paris 18134 seems to have known also the version of the manuscript of St. Germain-des-Prés as well as that of Gautier de Coincy. Five other legends, not noted by Mussafia, show traces in diction as well as detail of both Gautier de Coincy and SG. Moreover, with a single exception, the legends of the Paris manuscript 18134 and the Soissons manuscript of Gautier de Coincy follow in the same sequence. The legends, not noted by Mussafia are: X2, no. 29, ‘Milk: Tongue and Lips Restored;’ no. 30, ‘Devil in Beasts’ Shapes;’ no. 39, ‘Abbess;’ no. 45, ‘Eulalia;’ and no. 46, ‘Ebbo;’ Following is a table showing the parallels:
|Q2||G. de Coincy|
[139 ] See below, pp. 36-51.
[140 ] Number 32, how a married woman and a clerk eloped with her husband’s money and the church treasure, in Magnum speculum exemplorum (ed. Major, Cologne, 1747), pp. 472-474 (43); no. 33, how Ubaldus, a knight, refused to deny Mary, in Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum historiale, VII (105-106); no. 36, about an old Cistercian who could learn only the Ave Maria, in Gobius, Scala celi (Ulm, 1480), no. 17; no. 38, of a physician, turned Cistercian, who refused to eat coarse food, in Vincent of Beauvais, op. cit., ch. 108; and no. 48, of a boy drowned by a tidal wave, in Gobius, op. cit., no. 8. These legends are treated with great freedom by the author of MS 18134, but the number of them and the obvious similarity in theme and some of the details makes it impossible to dismiss them, as Mussafia does, as legends which developed independently. Certain of the legends of Q2 appear to come from the vernacular collection of Gautier de Coincy. It is just possible that there was also an intermediary vernacular collection between the Mariale magnum and Q2 (see below, p. 30, note 157). Certain of the legends, however, follow more closely what must have been the Latin text of the Mariale magnum.
[141 ] Mussafia’s numbers are 26, -, 27, 40, 45, 49-50, 52-53, 55, and probably 56. The last two legends often appear together. The exceptional one, ‘Eulalia,’ no. 45, may also be a Mariale magnum legend, for it appears in related collections.
[142 ] Mussafia in Denkschriften, xliv, 48-49, after a comparison of the diction of MS 18134, no. 50; SG, no. 35; and Gautier de Coincy comes to this conclusion. The same is equally true of other legends which Mussafia apparently did not study, especially Q2, nos. 29, 39, and 46. See p. 27, note 137.
[143 ] Ward, Catalogue of Romances, ii, 622-636, describes this collection.
[144 ] See below, pp. 44-48.
[145 ] MS 18134, no. 44, ‘Five Psalms.’ Ward, ii, 632-633 (30).
[146 ] MS 18134, no. 51, “Nun Could Not Unlock Door.” Ward, ii, 634 (34).
[147 ] MS 18134, no. 34, ‘One Hundred and Fifty Aves Daily.’ Ward, ii, 634-635 (35).
[148 ] Ward, ii, 624-625, ‘Missus Gabriel.’
[150 ] It is a Cistercian legend, as are many others of the Mariale magnum.
[151 ] A. G. van Hamel (ed.), Li Romans de Carité et Miserere du Renclus de Moiliens (Paris, 1885), pp. 261-272 (232-252).
[152 ] See below, pp. 36-39 and 46-47.
[153 ] In MS Paris Bibliothèque Nationale French 2094, fol. 162v. This legend is printed by Jozef Morawski, ‘Mélanges de littérature pieuse: Les miracles de Notre-Dame en vers français,’ Romania, lxi (1935), 335-342.
[156 ] The tale of ‘Beatrice the Sacristan,’ as well as several others of MS Paris 18134, is among the legends of Caesar of Heisterbach and an anonymous collection probably made also at the Cistercian monastery of Heisterbach, which is designated as pseudo-Caesarius. One of the sources of these two collections seems to have been an unidentified Book of the Miracles of Clairvaux, a probable source of some of the legends of the Mariale magnum. See below, p. 55-59. In fact it might even be possible to conclude that the compiler of Q2 was using the Book of the Miracles of Clairvaux as one of his sources, if it were not for the definite traces in the versions of MS Paris 18134 of the diction of the versions of the Mariale magnum in those legends which certainly must have come from Gautier de Coincy. The Book of the Miracles of Clairvaux seems to have lacked the legends of northern France, so abundant in Gautier de Coincy and MS Paris 18134.
[157 ] Morawski, op. cit., pp. 316-326, and Lȧngfors, Notices et extraits, xxxix (1916), 503-662. See Morawski, p. 319, and Q2, no. 1; Morawski, p. 323, and Q2, no. 53 (Mussafia, I, 987, 59); Lȧngfors, op. cit., p. 605, and Q2, no. 48 (Mussafia, I, 986-987, 54). If the Grant Marial were a vernacular Mariale magnum, the mystery of Q2 would be solved. Comparison of the inedited Rosarius texts with Q2 could provide the answer.
[158 ] The relationship between the collections studied to this point may be illustrated as follows:
[159 ] MS Cambrai 739, a collection of Mary legends and sermons about the Virgin, suggests that they were repeated at certain services. The sermons and the miracles are each divided into three readings (lectiones). The manuscript has two rubrics which explain their use: Incipiunt miracula beatissime virginis Marie que dicuntur ad matutinas, quando agitur de S. Maria privatis noctibus, and Sermones de S. M. que dicuntur privatis noctibus quando agitur de S. M. ad matutinum cum miraculis supradictis. See Mussafia, I, 975-976.
[160 ] Albert Poncelet, ‘Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum latinorum Bibliothecae Publicae Rotomagensis,’ Analecta Bollandiana, xxiii (1904), 143-146 and 214. A collection also entitled ‘Mariale’ is MS Brussels Phillipps 336, of the twelfth century (Mussafia, III, 23-24 and IV, 2-5). Vincent of Beauvais, too, used a collection which he called ‘Mariale.’
[161 ] Poncelet, op. cit., p. 144, huius libelli series ex miraculis et ex dictis patrum veterum et recentium tota contexitur. It is possible that this is the prologue also of MS Paris 5268, the first folio of which is mutilated (Mussafia, II, 5).
[162 ] Excerpts from a sermon of St. Augustine are inserted in the fourteenth-century copy which is MS Rouen A 535.
[163 ] Even the title, Generalis prefatio, is from MS Paris 17491 and SG.
[164 ] The following table records legends in series common to both collections:
|MS Paris 17491||Rouen||MS 2333A|
|7.||Columns Raised ch. 8a||7||7|
|[Mary Relics] ch. 18||8||—|
|8.||Light in a Mary Church ch. 8b||9||8|
|9.||Jewish Boy ch. 9a||10||9|
|10.||Barns Filled ch. 9b||11||10|
|11.||Mary Relics ch. 10||—||11|
|59.||Hours Sung Daily||39|
|65.||Judas in Hell||1|
|65a.||Christ Appears to Monk||2|
[165 ] ‘Judas,’ no. 27; ‘Christ Appears to Monk,’ no. 40; ‘Mare,’ no. 29; and from Gregory of Tours, nos. 3, 6, and 13, as well as a legend (no. 53) which is a redaction of ch. 21 of the same work.
[166 ] Rouen Mariale, no. 34, ‘Chaste Empress,’ of which only the first sentences are versified, and no. 36, ‘Bonus.’ The latter is included in versified form, not only in the Parisian collections, but also in Pez, no. 37. The collection of St. Germain-des-Prés omits it. Following the two versified legends in the Rouen Mariale is ‘Poor Man Strikes Stone’ (no. 37). In the legends which Vincent of Beauvais took from the Mariale magnum, this legend occupies the same position following ‘Bonus.’
[167 ] John of Garland has, of course, versified all the legends he uses, but his details are those of the prose versions which he found in the collection of Ste. Geneviève. See especially ‘Jewess in Childbirth,’ Stella maris, no. 37, and MS Paris 17491, no. 80. (Mussafia, I, 979-980.)
[168 ] Rouen Mariale, nos. 56-59, 61, and 64: no. 56, how an English priest was freed of demons by reciting O intemerata (suggests no. 1 of MS Paris 18134); no. 57, not a Mary legend; no. 58, how a girl of Lausanne was rescued by Mary (there is another legend of Lausanne in MS Additional 15723); no. 59, how a captive was liberated from prison; no. 61, how the niece of a wicked man of Rouen accused of being an accomplice in one of his crimes was freed; and no. 64, about an abbot who ate a spider with the sacrament, which is not a Mary legend.
[169 ] Rouen Mariale, nos. 49, 51-52, 54-55: no. 49, ‘Fulbert of Chartres,’is found chiefly in Anglo-Norman collections; no. 51, from Peter the Venerable (Migne, P.L., clxxxix, 949-950); no. 52, from Lanfranc (ed. J. A. Giles, Oxford, 1844, 1, 340-349); nos. 54-55 are Pez, 4-5; no. 63, ‘Beirut,’ is not a Mary legend, but does appear in the Stella maris, no. 21.
[171 ] Ibid., chs. 105-106.
[172 ] Ibid., ch. 107.
[173 ] Ibid., ch. 110.
[174 ] Ibid., ch. 109.
[175 ] Gobius, Scala celi, no. 21 and MS British Museum Additional 15723 attribute it to the Mariale magnum. Vincent of Beauvais tells the tale (ch. 116), but it is not one of the legends which he attributes to the Mariale magnum.
[176 ] MS Paris 18134, no. 57 (fols. 166-168).
[179 ] Below, pp. 37-48.
[182 ] There are, of course, the legends from ‘recent’ fathers, Peter the Venerable (no. 51) and Lanfranc (no. 52).
[183 ] Chapter 21 of the same work is no. 53, of the Stella maris.
[* ] Versified.
[184 ] A separate article immediately following the Mary legends.
[185 ] Bibliotheca mundi Vincentii Burgundi; speculum quadruplex, naturale, doctrinale, morale, historiale (Douai, 1624), vol. iv. In this edition the legends are in Bk. VII, chs. 80-119, pp. 250-266.
[187 ] Vincent of Beauvais, op. cit., VII, ch. 110, how in 1187 during a war between Henry II and Philip Augustus two Brabantines blasphemed and stoned a Mary image. The Douai edition which has been cited erroneously reads 1287.
[188 ] Ibid., VII, chs. 75-80. Schönau was a Benedictine monastery founded at Trier in the twelfth century. The visions of St. Elizabeth, related by her brother Egbert or Eckbert of Schönau, were well-known in the middle ages. A large number of manuscripts remain. Cf. F. W. E. Roth, Die Visionen und Briefe der hl. Elisabeth (2nd ed., Brünn, 1886), and Ruth J. Dean, ‘Manuscripts of St. Elizabeth of Schönau in England,’ Modern Language Review, xxxii (1937), 62-71. The De transitu beate virginis of Melito of Sardis is edited in Bibliotheca maxima veterum patrum (Lyons, 1677), ii, pt. ii, 212-216.
[189 ] Vincent of Beauvais, op. cit., ch. 81. Author. Post Assumptionem vero suam beatissima Virgo multis miraculis per diversas orbis partes, diversis quoque temporibus clarificata est. Ex quibus quaedam fide digna, et a religiosis viris approbata, ad ipsius honorem, et legentium aedificationem, huic operi inserere voluimus breviter in hunc modum.
[190 ] Ibid., ch. 119a, ‘Nativity’ in VI, ch. 65; and ch. 114, ‘Vision of St. Hugh of Cluny,’ in XXVI, ch. 7. Ward has assumed that he meant the Mariale magnum (Catalogue of Romances, ii, 624).
[191 ] MS Paris 17491, fol. 16, miracula . . . diversis temporibus, diversis locis et diversis personis, . . . ad edificationem legentium in unum corpus collecta compegimus; Vincent of Beauvais, ch. 81, Virgo multis miraculis per diversas orbis partes, diversis quoque temporibus clarificata est . . . quaedam . . . ad ipsius honorem, et legentium aedificationem, huic operi inserere voluimus . . .
[192 ] Vincent of Beauvais, ch. 89b, the sermon on the Annunciation by Radbod II of Noyon, who died in 1028 (Migne, P.L., cl, 1531), follows the collection of Mary legends in the Rouen Mariale as a separate article.
[193 ] The first six include the legends which serve to establish a clear relationship between X1 and R1:‘Judas in Hell,’ ‘Christ Appears to Monk,’ ‘Mare,’ and the series from Gregory of Tours. One of the Gregory of Tours legends (‘Columns Raised,’ ch. 81a), however, stands at the beginning of V1.
[194 ] TS 3, 5-6, 9, 17, 12-13, and 16. all of which occur in the Rouen Mariale in the order listed and in MS Paris 17491 (except ‘Musa’ which really belonged there) are lacking in Vincent of Beauvais. He relates only TS 1 and 7. Of the remaining Pez legends included in R1 and X1, nos. 14-15, 41, 24, and 34 are lacking in V1, while nos. 22, 36, 27-28, and 25-26 appear there. See table, pp. 35-36.
[195 ] This legend appears in the Rouen Mariale in verse, no. 27.
[196 ] The series common to X1 and the Rouen Mariale (Judas, etc.).
[199 ] These are the only tales from Lausanne noted in all the collections examined.
[200 ] This is frequently done in the text of the Stella maris and elsewhere in collections of Mary legends. See glosses on ll. 142, 220, 244, etc.
[201 ] Gobius and others have in like manner preserved the scene of other legends. The legend, ‘Girl Named Mary,’ Gobius says happened in Armandia; Vincent of Beauvais omits the scene. The compiler of the Additional manuscript probably copied the text of this particular legend from Vincent of Beauvais, but he had the Mariale magnum at hand. A number of the legends and probably certain details which he adds to Vincent of Beauvais’ text were from the Mariale magnum itself (cf. pp. 45-48 and note 219).
[202 ] It would be logical to suppose that it was his own, the Dominican order, especially since these same legends were so frequently used by Dominican preachers in the next century. There is no evidence of their use by the Dominicans in the first half of the thirteenth century.
[203 ] Stella maris, no. 12, should not be confused with a similar tale from the Exordium magnum ordinis Cisterciensis, Migne, P.L., clxxxv2, 1129-1131 (5). It is a Cluniac legend as told by both John of Garland and Vincent of Beauvais.
[204 ] Rouen Mariale, no. 46, ‘Cistercian Monks at Their Field Work;’ no. 48, ‘Cistercian Monk Persecuted,’ told by Simon, abbot of Loz (d. 1204), a Cistercian monastery near Lille in the diocese of Tournai; no. 53, ‘Five Psalms,’ witnessed by a bishop of Arras, who had previously been a Cistercian abbot.
[206 ] Ibid., chs. 107-109, ‘Monks at Their Field Work,’ ‘Electuary,’ and ‘Cistercian Monk Persecuted.’ Tales similar to the first two are to be found in the work of a Cistercian, Herbert of Torres (or Clairvaux), Migne, P.L., clxxxv2, 1273-1275, 1365-1366; and Exordium, ibid., pp. 1062-1063 and 1077-1078. The legends as told by Vincent of Beauvais, however, do not come from either of these sources, although they are sufficiently similar in detail so that they must have had a common origin. The origin of the third is unknown, except that it was told by a Cistercian abbot.
[207 ] MS Rouen A 535, nos. 46 and 48.
[208 ] Ward, Catalogue of Romances, ii, 624. Or, it is sometimes assumed that he used the term generally to apply to any collection of Mary legends.
[210 ] MM = attributed to the Mariale magnum: ch. 116a, by Gobius, no. 54; ch. 116b, in MS Additional 15723, fols. 80-85v, and Gobius, no. 21; ch. 117, by the anonymous author of the Rosarius; ch. 118, by Gobius, no. 22.
[212 ] Ibid., I, 978, following no. 68.
[214 ] Magnum speculum exemplorum (ed. John Major, Cologne, 1747), pp. 472-474 (43). The first printing was 1605. Moreover, the tale is very similar to no. 32 of MS Paris Bibliothèque Nationale 18134, one of whose sources was, in all probability, the Mariale magnum (see above, p. 28, note 140) and to a tale in pseudo-Caesarius (see below, p. 58, note 260) which probably shares a common source with the Ur-Mariale.
[216 ] The Rouen Mariale includes a great many tales of the older collections, nine of the TS legends, four of the HM series, and eight of the additional Pez legends. Vincent of Beauvais tells only one of the TS legends, one from HM, and three additional Pez legends.
[218 ] Described by Ward, Catalogue of Romances, ii, 622-636. There are two collections of Mary legends in the volume. The first in a script of the twelfth century is related to the HM series. There is also an abridgement of the life of St. Elizabeth of Schönau which in three collections of legends (Vincent of Beauvais, Vendome, and MS Paris Bibliothèque Nationale French 818) serves to introduce the legends. In this manuscript, however, it appears to have no connection with either series of legends.
[219 ] The note is without the designation ‘Author.’ The selections from Elizabeth of Schönau and Melito of Sardis are lacking. The texts of the legends agree substantially with Vincent of Beauvais, although there are some variations. The prayer O intemerata (Vincent of Beauvais, ch. 101) is written out in full. The scene of the legend of the ‘Painter’ is omitted (Vincent of Beauvais gives it as Flanders in ch. 104). The scene of the ‘Blasphemer’ in the same chapter of Vincent of Beauvais is apud Lausennam. A note is added to ‘Five Psalms’ (Vincent of Beauvais, ch. 116b), Hic potes notare de collecta quam beata virgo Maria docet quendam novicium nostri ordinis in Calabria. The titles of the legends suggest Vincent of Beauvais.
[221 ] Number 33, Noyon; no. 34, Blois; no. 35, Beauvais; no. 38, Beauvais; no. 39, Rheims; no. 40, Paris; no. 42, Neufchatel.
[222 ] The Vendome collection, pp. 48-51.
[223 ] Ward, op. cit., ii, 624-625.
[224 ] Ward, op. cit., pp. 624-625, believes the collection was made at Clairvaux. Ruth J. Dean in Modern Language Review, xxxii (1937), 63-64, mentions a slip in the manuscript when she used it which says that it probably belonged to Citeaux. Even if the manuscript belonged to Citeaux the collection might have been compiled at Clairvaux, as the evidence indicates.
[226 ] ‘Nun Who Could Not Unlock the Convent Door’ and ‘A Hundred Aves a Day.’ The variations in the versions may perhaps be attributed to the intervention of a vernacular version between the Mariale magnum and the legends of MS Paris 18134 which seem to come from it.
[229 ] The last folios have been lost.
[230 ] Charles Bouchet, ‘Un recueil de miracles de la Vierge,’ ibid., ix (1870), 182-183.
[231 ] Pseudo-Matthei Evangelium (ed. Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1876), chs. 4-9. The first excerpt, De bona indole eiusdem, is part of the introduction to the Vendome collection; the second, De puericia beate virginis et Ihesu, is interpolated between legends 10 and 11 (Isnard, op. cit., pp. 34 and 50).
[232 ] Numbers 50-55 except no. 52: Isnard, op. cit., p. 216 (50), told by the deceased Adam, an Englishman who was abbot of Estrée, a Cistercian abbey in the diocese of Evreux, founded 1144; p. 218 (51), by the same Adam; p. 222 (53), by a recluse of Canterbury, once countess of Leicester; p. 282 (54), by ‘a certain person;’ p. 284 (55), by the abbot of Clairvaux. Neither the abbot of Estrée nor the countess of Leicester has been identified. The list of abbots in Gallia Christiana, xi (Paris, 1874), 672, lacks five abbots who held office in the last quarter of the twelfth and part of the thirteenth century. Adam was apparently one of these.
[234 ] Ibid., p. 56 (14), how a conversus of Clairvaux in the time of St. Bernard heard the angels celebrating the Assumption of the Virgin; p. 106 (20), about a young man who came to Clairvaux in the time of St. Bernard; p. 148 (33), a vision of a monk of Clairvaux; pp. 291-292 (58), about a hermit whose soul flew to heaven with St. Bernard’s; pp. 309-310 (65), ‘Monks at their Field Work.’
[235 ] The legends of the Vendome collection are told more briefly and without mention of many names and places. In one case the abbot of Vendome tells not the same story but a similar one, and in another a different tale from the same monastery.
|MS Additional 15723 (A2)||MS Vendome 185|
|33.||Dream of a Harlot and Her Horses||—|
|34.||Nun Who Could Not Unlock Door||26|
|35.||A Hundred Aves a Day||27|
|36.||Virgin Bares Her Breast||28|
|37.||Souls of Cistercians Released||29|
|38.||Cistercians Beneath Virgin’s Cloak||38,||a similar tale|
|40.||Abbey of Le Val||35,||another from the same monastery|
|41.||Persuaded to Stay Forty Years||—*|
|42.||The Sequence Missus Gabriel||31|
[236 ] There are in support of this statement the large number of Mary legends already referred to as related or witnessed by Cistercian abbots. It was to a Cistercian chapter meeting that a priest brought a scroll, the evidence of the authenticity of the ‘Bread’ legend of MS Paris 12593 and a Cistercian abbot who recorded it (see above, p. 22).
[237 ] Coelestinus Telera (ed.), S. Petri Caelestini . . . opuscula omnia (Naples, 1640), pp. 199-219.
[238 ] Ibid., pp. 199-200.
[239 ] This legend as it is narrated in the pseudo-Celestine is a fusion of no. 21, ‘Monks at Their Field Work,’ and no. 22, ‘Electuary,’ both in A1 (Ward, ii, 629-630). If the Vendome collection also included, when it was still complete, pseudo-Celestine, nos. 21-27, it is additional evidence of the relationship between Vendome and MS Additional 15723.
[242 ] Gobius, no. 46, ‘Boy Devoted to the Devil.’ It is not one of the legends Vincent of Beauvais attributes to the Mariale magnum. Note again the recurrence of the number 17 in connection with the Mary legends of Gobius.
[246 ] Virgo Dei Genitrix, no. 17. Moreover, the only exact parallel occurs in pseudo-Caesarius, a collection which is related to the Mariale magnum by way of common sources (see below, p. 58, note 260). See Mussafia, III, 40-43, for comparison with Vincent of Beauvais.
[248 ] In Gobius, no. 30, O intemerata and no. 35, ‘Brabantine Blasphemers,’ there are differences in detail, precedent for which may be found in other versions. The scene of no. 9, ‘Childbirth in the Sea,’ and no. 34, ‘Blasphemer of Lausanne,’ differs from Vincent of Beauvais, but see above, pp. 40-41.
[249 ] Johannes Herolt, Sermones Discipuli de tempore et de sanctis unacum Promptuario exemplorum, Strassburg, 1492. The volume also includes the Promptuarium de miraculis beate Marie virginis. The Mary legends are translated into English in the Broadway Medieval Library by C. C. Swinton Bland, The Miracles of the Blessed Virgin Mary (New York, 1928), with an introduction by Eileen Power.
[251 ] The Speculum exemplorum was expanded into a larger collection in the years following 1480, and edited by the Jesuit, John Major, in the seventeenth century under the title Magnum speculum exemplorum.
[253 ] Morawski in Romania, lxi (1935), 316-321. The manuscript is described by Arthur Lȧngfors, ‘Notice du manuscrit français 12483 de la Bibliothèque Nationale,’ Notices et extraits, xxxix2 (1916), 503-662. The collection is inedited.
[254 ] Alfons Hilka, Die Wundergeschichten des Caesarius von Heisterbach, vol. iii (Bonn, 1937), has recently edited the only two books which remain of the Libri VIII miraculorum together with the anonymous collection, or collections, which Meister attributed to him. The Dialogus miraculorum, planned as the second volume of Hilka’s work, is available in the older edition of Joseph Strange (Cologne, 1851). It has been translated into English in the Broadway Medieval Library by H. von E. Scott and C. C. Swinton Bland (London, 1929).
[255 ] Hilka, op. cit., p. 13. Since the anonymous compiler makes use of Caesar of Heisterbach, some of his legends come from the same towns and monasteries, and many are Cistercian legends, the assumption is that the compiler was a Cistercian of the same region, if not the same monastery, in which Caesar of Heisterbach lived. Of the legends which can be dated readily, the most recent (no. 43) could have been written as early as 1189.
[256 ] The tale of ‘Beatrice the Sacristan’ is included doubtfully, because its only claim to be a ‘Mariale’ legend is its appearance in MS Paris 18134 (no. 53).
|Dialogus miraculorum||MS Paris 18134||Vincent of Beauvais||MS Add. 15723||Vendome||Gobius|
|VII, xxxii,||One Hundred Aves||34||—||35||27||—|
|lix,||Under Her Cloak||—||—||38||38||—|
|II, 7, Girl Named Mary||—||102-3||16||—||14|
|Pseudo-Caesarius||MS Paris 18134||Vincent of Beauvais||MS Add. 15723||Vendome||Gobius|
|55.||Man and Woman Freed||32||—||—||—||—|
|72.||Boy Saved From Drowning||48||—||—||—||—|
|91.||Could Learn Only ‘Ave Maria’||36||—||—||—||17|
|103.||Unwilling to Deny Mary||1+33||—||—||—||—|
In favor also of the pseudo-Caesarius’ use of the Clairvaux Mariale is the appearance of so many Pez legends in his collection. But, on the other hand, the fact that the Ad laudem prologue directly precedes Pez, 1 and 2, suggests that he was using Pez as Pez. The series of narratives which characterize SV and the Quoniam collections are lacking in pseudo-Caesarius. But, strangely enough, he does include two of the series of versified legends which appear in MS Paris 14463 (SV1) and MS Paris 17491 (X2). Significantly they appear in sequence and in prose instead of verse: Pseudo-Caesarius, no. 76, ‘Poor Man and Rich Widow,’ and no. 77, ‘Incest’= SV1, nos. 61-62, and X2, nos. 73a and 73. Furthermore pseudo-Caesarius’ version of ‘Incest’ should be the original one, for it is more logical than the other versions. In one of the sources of pseudo-Caesarius, therefore, we should have the prose originals of the versified series of SV2, but the pseudo-Caesarius yields no other clues. He could not have had them from the Book of the Miracles of Clairvaux, if my theory of the relationship between these collections is correct, for Vincent of Beauvais’ Mariale version of ‘Incest’ is definitely not descended from a common source. The source used by pseudo-Caesarius for these two legends ought to antedate both APM and SV, and that would make it a very early one.
[261 ] It should be recalled, however, that the legends of MS Paris 18134 are very freely treated by their author. Carleton Brown, on the other hand, points out essential differences between the versions of the ‘Chorister,’ as it appears in MS Paris 18134 and pseudo-Caesarius. See below, pp. 194-195.
[263 ] The probable relationship between these collections may be illustrated as follows:
[264 ] MS Bruges 546, fol. 84. Gloriose virginis miracula compendiose a parvitate mea descripta ab armario Sancte Genoveve Parisiensis extracta sunt, et a me scolaribus meis Parisius ridmificata. . . .
[265 ] R. P. Claude du Molinet, Le cabinet de la Bibliothèque de Sainte Geneviève (Paris, 1692), preface.
[266 ] Stella maris, ll. 25-27.
[267 ] MS Paris 12593, fols. 118-118v. Quoniam gloriosissima virgo virginum Maria sancti spiritus operatione salvo virginee integritatis signaculo miro et ineffabili ordine omnium peperit salvatorem. . . . Ipsa siquidem regina glorie prima . . . merito pre ceteris sanctis ab onmibus est honoranda, amanda, et predicanda quibus ipsa sit singulare presidium et unica spes post deum. . . .
[268 ] The Epithalamium was completed in 1220 or 1221. There is a quotation from the first lines in the glosses on the first folio of the British Museum manuscript of the Stella maris.
[269 ] Below, p. 89.
[270 ] Mussafia, II, 5. In his analysis of MS Paris 5268 Mussafia calls the Mirande prologue ‘otherwise unknown.’ Its presence as a preface to the manuscript of Ste. Geneviève would explain the compiler of Rouen’s acquaintance with it. The legend is Stella maris, no. 53.
[271 ] Stella maris, ll. 13-30.
[272 ] The collections of St. Victor, MS Paris 17491, Vincent of Beauvais, and the Vendome collection. The manuscript of Ste. Geneviève probably did not include St. Elizabeth of Schönau, which seems to be a Cistercian addition.
[273 ] Included in the number is the legend ‘Mead,’ although the version of the Stella maris, no. 11, is not exactly the same as that of SV1. The modification was probably the work, either of John of Garland himself or of the compiler of Ste. Geneviève. The SV version of ‘Jewish Boy’ is the ‘Jew of Bourges’ redaction, not the Gregory of Tours version which John of Garland tells (no. 3), even though the rubricated title of SV proclaims it to be from Gregory of Tours.
[274 ] The versified legends of SV are nos. 29-30, 36, 38, and 61-62.
[275 ] The discrepancy is accounted for by the fact that SV includes the work of Hugo Farsitus of Soissons, while SG does not. The three missing legends are from the collection of Soissons.
|27.||Judas in Hell||65||1|
|40.||Christ Appears to Monk||65a||2|
The Cistercian legends stand at the beginning of the Rouen Mariale, probably not their original position. In MS Paris 17491, the sequence is ‘Judas’ (65), ‘Christ Appears to Monk’ (65a), ‘Orleans’ (68), and ‘Mare’ (68a); in the Stella maris ‘Judas’ is between ‘Orleans’ and ‘Mare’ (nos. 26, 27, and 29). In three other similar collections ‘Orleans’ and ‘Mare’ are not far separated: SG, nos. 30 and 33; MS Charleville 168, nos. 3-4; and in the Rouen Mariale itself, nos. 20 and 18. The primary position given to the two Cistercian legends in the Rouen Mariale may be an argument for the Cistercian origin of its source, the Clairvaux Mariale.
|Stella maris||R1||Vincent of Beauvais|
|14.||Chaste Empress||34||chs. 90-92|
[280 ] The prose versions should, on general principles, be older than the versified versions. There is, in the case of ‘Incest,’ some further indication of the greater age of the prose version. In its versified form, details have been added to the father’s departure patterned after Joachim’s retirement to the hills before the birth of the Virgin.
[281 ] The only legends of the Stella maris, except those clearly unique, which relate incidents later than the middle of the twelfth century are: (1) ‘Judas,’ recorded by the monk Helinand of Froidmont under the year 1161; (2) ‘Mare,’ an incident referred to in a letter of pope Alexander III, 1159-1181; and (3) ‘Christ Appears to Monk,’ which occurred when Serlo de Vaubadon was abbot of Savigny, 1140-1147.
Besides these three legends MS Paris 17491 records an incident (no. 72) which took place in the youth of Baldwin, abbot of Belleval in Lorraine, who flourished in 1179.
Three legends of the Rouen Mariale bear dates nearer the close of the century: (1) ‘Brabantine Blasphemers’ mentions the date 1187 (no. 47); (2) Simon, abbot of Loz, the narrator of ‘Cistercian Monk Persecuted’ (no. 48) witnessed charters in 1197 and 1201, and died in 1204; (3) the archbishop of Canterbury, mentioned in ‘Five Psalms’ (no. 53) has been identified by Ward (Catalogue of Romances, ii, 633) as Theobald (1139-1161), the monk as Joscio who died in 1163, and the Cistercian abbot who told the story as Andrew, abbot of Vaux-Cernay, 1161-1173.
[282 ] ‘Bonus’ is lacking in the Stella maris also; ‘Chaste Empress’ is no. 14, though there is no difference in the details of the prose and the partly versified versions. The other two, ‘Incest’ (no. 20 of the Stella maris) and ‘Jewess in Childbirth’ (no. 37), do differ in details. John of Garland’s details are from the prose versions. The collection of St. Germain-des-Prés includes but two versified legends, nos. 41 and 43, but they are Pez legends. One of these, the Rouen Mariale also uses in versified form.
[283 ] Stella maris, no. 53.
[284 ] There is some evidence in the Stella maris that these two legends were associated in collections of Mary legends. Gregory of Tours, ch. 18, was a Mary legend from the beginning, while ch. 22 in Gregory of Tours and elsewhere was the story of a crucifix. In the Stella maris the crucifix has become a Mary image with the Child sitting in the Virgin’s lap, and it is the Child that is wounded.
[286 ] The tale of ‘Beirut’ does appear on the first folios of the volume of MS Paris 14463, but it is not a part of the collection itself.
[287 ] Stella maris, nos. 54 and 21, and Rouen Mariale, nos. 44 and 63. The ‘Painter’ is the first legend of R2 and ‘Beirut,’ the next to the last legend.
[288 ] See pp. 37-38.
[289 ] This is clearer in the case of Vincent of Beauvais who makes excerpts from Melito of Sardis, an ancient father, and St. Elizabeth of Schönau, whose brother, a ‘recent’ one, related her visions. John of Garland, besides incidents from the life of the Virgin Mary from the Pseudo-Matthei Evangelium, incorporates within the work a great deal of matter from ‘recent’ writers on the seven liberal arts (see pp. 66-68) which he probably regarded as fitting substitutes for the ‘recent’ fathers in his source. In addition, there are some references to the Roman writers of the classical period.
[290 ] The marked difference in the proportion of legends common to the Stella maris and V1 (14/33) as compared with V2 (8/10) supports our thesis (pp. 44 and 55) that the Mariale magnum comprised only selected legends from the Quoniam collections to which were added tales of Cistercian origin, while the Clairvaux Mariale was a compilation similar to the older Quoniam compilations, among which was the collection of Ste. Geneviève.
[291 ] See table, pp. 46-47. The similarities between the collection of Ste. Geneviève, the Rouen Mariale, and Vincent of Beauvais could scarcely be attributed to descent of all three from the Mariale magnum. The dates of legends in the Rouen Mariale and Vincent of Beauvais are later than those of the Stella maris, except those legends which were clearly the additions of John of Garland himself. The collection of Ste. Geneviève could, on that basis, have been made as early as 1161. The Rouen Mariale must have been composed not earlier than 1187, and probably not earlier than 1197. See p. 63, note 281. All three of the legends of the Rouen Mariale, upon which these later dates depend, appear also in Vincent of Beauvais, (chs. 109-110a and 116b). If, in addition, the legends of MS Additional 15723, also attributed to the Mariale magnum, are taken into consideration, then it could not have been compiled earlier than 1200. The probability is that the collection of Ste. Geneviève was compiled just before 1200 and the Mariale magnum about a generation later.
[292 ] Stella maris, ll. 64-75, 148-213, 670-675, 916-987, 1006-1035.
[293 ] Ibid., ll. 988-1005.
[294 ] Ibid., ll. 1036-1053.
[295 ] Ibid., ll. 742-759, 808-825, 844-849, 1126-1155.
[296 ] MS Paris 18134, fol. 142, no. 31, and Isnard, pp. 194-196 (41). It stands strangely in Q2 among legends whose source is probably Gautier de Coincy. Gautier de Coincy also relates the anecdote, but the version of Q2 is obviously not that of Gautier de Coincy, nor does it fit properly into the sequence. The Paris version is surprisingly close to that of John of Garland, considering the nature of the other legends of Q2.
[297 ] See below, notes on the ‘Chorister,’ pp. 194-195, and Carleton Brown, A Study of the Miracle of Our Lady Told by Chaucer’s Prioress (Chaucer Society, London, 1910).
[298 ] Stella maris, no. 28.
[299 ] Ibid., no. 59, and p. 79.
[300 ] Ibid., no. 56.
[301 ] Ibid., John of Garland’s preface, below, p. 87, Et phisicalia et astrologica interserta [sunt].
[302 ] Stella maris, ll. 64-66. The author of the gloss of the Bruges manuscript quotes the words of the Prognostics which he considers the authority for his statement.
[303 ] Ibid., l. 148. Hic adaptat autor quamdam astrologiam Martiani beate virgini.
[304 ] Ibid., ll. 148-213. The Galaxy lights the way to the House of God, as does the Virgin; Dracho, who degraded the first man, Mary treads under foot; etc.
[305 ] Ibid., ll. 975-977.
[306 ] Las Cantigas de Santa Maria, ed. by La Real Academia Española, Madrid, 1889.
[307 ] Ibid., pp. 36 (25), 75 (51), 84 (58), 108 (68), 114 (73), and 163 (106), in which there are references to sources, and Aubrey F. G. Bell, ‘The Cantigas de Santa Maria of Alfonso X,’ Modern Language Review, x (1915), 338-348.
[309 ] Ibid., p. 49 (33).
[310 ] Ibid., p. 168 (110).
[311 ] Cantigas, op. cit., i, 63.
[312 ] Ibid., ii, 484 (347).
[314 ] Cantigas, pp. 567-586.
[315 ] See pp. 82-84.
[316 ] M. R. James, The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover (Cambridge, 1903), pp. 281 and lxxiv. The work is listed as Meditacio bona Iohannis de Garlandia de miraculis beate virginis. Since it is followed immediately by the Epithalamium, it can scarcely be doubted that the Stella maris is meant, or at the least, one of the prefaces to the Stella maris. The same volume contained Compendiosa excerptio de libro qui vocatur Mariale. I should like to think that the ‘compendious excerpt’ was from the collection of Ste. Geneviève, which in all probability was called ‘Mariale.’ If that should be true, then it becomes barely possible that John of Garland’s hint to the prior of Ste. Geneviève that he ought to ‘publish’ the Stella maris was acted upon. (See below, the author’s preface.) The catalogue edited by James was made between 1491 and 1497. The manuscript has been lost.
[317 ] The Register of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury (ed. G. J. Turner and H. E. Salter, London, 1915), pt. ii, p. 486 and 495. The volume, as it appears in James’ catalogue, however, includes a work of master Walterus de Woburne, Egregium carmen de beata virgine et inclito (?) eius filio. He ought to be the Gualterus de Wiburne mentioned by Leland, Pits, and Bale as the author of a poem entitled Carmen de beata virgine et eius filio. John Pits, in Relationum historicarum de rebus Anglicis, tomus primus . . . (Paris, 1619), p. 500, gives his floruit as 1367. There is, however, no other evidence in the contents of the volume and nothing else known about Walter of Woburn that would make it necessary to give him and the manuscript in which his work appeared such a late date. Furthermore, the work of Walter of Woburn might have been added to the manuscript presented by Wyvelsberge at a later date.
[319 ] M. R. James, The Abbey of S. Edmund at Bury (Cambridge, 1895), pp. 34-35.
[320 ] That is, not in the portion of the work which Tanner prints, which is restricted to English authors.
[321 ] The manuscript is described and the Mary legends are edited by Ruth Wilson Tryon in Publications of the Modern Language Association, xxxviii (1923), 340-373. The author points out the relationship of the collection to the Stella maris, although she had not studied it in detail.
[322 ] There is a folio missing at this point. It probably had on it no. 7 of the Stella maris.
[324 ] The author here reproduces a comparatively insignificant detail almost exactly as in the Pez version:
Cur dedisti filium quem tam sceleri morte et sibi et matri subtrahere decrevisti? Set quia potes suscitare mortuum, cui esse cum non esset, dedisti, indubitanter credo, spero, confido . . . (MS Paris Bibliothèque Nationale 12593, fol. 170v).
I hade hym by þi grace verray
And by þi likinge he is a-way
And þou may ʒif þi wille be
My sone lyf lene to me.
(Tryon, pp. 352-353, ll. 18-22)
[325 ] There were two copies of SV1 at the Sorbonne, one at St. Victor, and probably one at St. Germain-des-Prés. Two collections descended from SV1 were also at Paris, one at St. Germain-des-Prés and one at Ste. Geneviève.
[1 ] Stella maris, ll. 820-822.
[2 ] MS Bruges 546, fol. 76-76v. The author of the gloss of MS Cambridge 385, fol. 139 writes, Ut Novum dictionarium, Stellam maris, Assertiones fidei, Morale scolarium. L. J. Paetow prints these glosses in his edition of the Morale scolarium (Berkeley, 1927. Memoirs of the University of California, iv, 2), pp. 107-108, and A. De Poorter, ‘Catalogue des manuscrits de grammaire latine médiévale de la Bibliothèque de Bruges,’ Revue des bibliothèques, xxxvi (1926), 126-127.
[3 ] Paetow, op. cit., p. 115. In the introduction to the Morale scolarium Paetow gives all the biographical details that are known about the author.
[4 ] Ibid., p. 190, ll. 33-36.
[5 ] Ibid., p. 152.
[6 ] Stella maris, ll. 484-499.
[7 ] P. B. Gams, Series episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae (Ratisbon, 1873), p. 596.
[8 ] Benjamin Guérard, Cartulaire de l’église de Notre Dame de Paris, i (Paris, 1839), 466.
[9 ] Stella maris, ll. 910-915.
[10 ] Gams, op. cit., p. 596.
[11 ] Stella maris, ll. 904-906. The title, whether written by John of Garland or not, indicates that the date of the work is revealed in this legend.
[12 ] Victoria was a camp built near Parma as a base for the siege of Parma. The Parmese on February 12, 1248 made an attack upon this stronghold and won a decisive victory.
[13 ] Matthew Paris, Chronica majora (ed. Henry Richards Luard, London, 1880), v, 13-14. Annales Parmenses maiores (ed. G. H. Pertz, M. G. H., Scriptores, xviii, Hanover, 1863), 674-675 and Annales Placentini Gibellini, ibid., pp. 496-497.
[14 ] Cronica fratris Salimbene de Adam Ordinis Minorum (ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, M. G. H., Scriptores, xxxii, Hanover, 1913), pp. 212-213.
[15 ] Matthew Paris, op. cit., vi, 146-147; and M. G. H., SS, xxviii, 297-298.
[16 ] The third manuscript which Paetow mentions in the Morale scolarium, p. 114, MS Cheltenham Phillipps 448, no. 2, is a collection of Mary legends in prose, not the Stella maris. The manuscript is now in the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin, Theol. Q 369. Information as to its whereabouts I owe to the kindness of Seymour de Ricci.
[17 ] The best description is by De Poorter in Revue des bibliothèques, xxxvi (Paris, 1926), 119-133. See also P. J. Laude, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Publique de Bruges (Bruges, 1859), 478-485, and Paetow, op. cit., p. 149.
[18 ] Leopold Janauschek (ed.), Originum Cisterciensium, i (Vienna, 1877), 51-52, and Henri Pirenne, Histoire de Belgique, iii (Bruges, 1907), 449.
[19 ] De Poorter, op. cit., p. 133.
[20 ] De Poorter lists the numbers in detail.
[21 ] Stella maris, nos. 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 27, 32, 34, 37, 41, 43, 46, and 57.
[22 ] Paetow, op. cit., p. 84. Hippocrates (l. 64), Johannitius (l. 113), and Albumasar (l. 976) are quoted. There is a diagram which has to do with the signs of the zodiac, intended to accompany a long astronomical gloss following l. 558.
[23 ] The lines which are quoted from it have not been found in any of the known works of John of Garland. It reads Hee sunt dotes hominis glorificati sicut habentur in libro magistri J. elegiarum instead of Hee sunt . . . in libro magistri J. de Gar., as De Poorter has it (op. cit., p. 129).
[24 ] Stella maris, ll. 725, 739, 818, 856, 859, and 1076.
[25 ] The manuscript is described by George F. Warner and Julius P. Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s Collections (London, 1921), 1, 229-232.
[26 ] The codex, as it stands to-day, reflects the varying fortunes of the library of Bury St. Edmunds. In 1429 when William Curteys became abbot and John Boston was a monk there, the library had fallen into decay. Curteys complains that books given out to the brethren for study have been lent, pledged, or even sold. To restore the situation, he had a library built, and probably with John Boston as librarian, they made an effort to recover the lost books and put them in order. Montague Rhodes James, The Abbey of S. Edmunds at Bury (Cambridge, 1895), p. 41, thinks that the construction of the library was Boston’s project. It was he, in all probability, who reorganized the Royal manuscript and bound the two collections together. An erased table of contents on folio 41v proves that the first collection, that is R. 42, included at least two other works now missing, De disciplina scholarium, an anonymous work attributed to Boethius, and Egidius’ De verbis Latinis. Both of them are school-books, as was also the Stella maris and certain other numbers in the collection. The Stella maris probably began on folio 101 of the original volume, for Roman numerals ci-cv are written in the lower right-hand corner of the first five folios.
[27 ] The letters refer to the contents of the book. The letter ‘R’ is for Robert Grosseteste of Lincoln, whose Summa beginning Templum Domini is the first number; and ‘M’ is for medical. See James, op. cit., p. 2.
[28 ] Warner and Gilson, op. cit., 1, pp. xviii-xix.
[29 ] Stella maris, ll. 67, 72, 165, 244, 266, 276, 343, etc.
[30 ] Another scribbling at the top of the same folio seems to connect Moses, Cadmus, and the Greeks with the invention of the ‘Carmentis notule.’
[31 ] Stella maris, notes on no. 8.
[32 ] Ibid., notes on no. 1.
[33 ] Ibid., ll. 94, 155, 559 and 675. Whoever he was, Adolf the Scribe had the soul of a goliard, for he concludes some skeptical verses about the gifts of the Virgin with the complaint,
Set mihi sancta parens nihil prestat preter egere.
On the same folio is an uninteresting couplet about ebony. The top of this folio, 19v, has also been trimmed.
[34 ] Stella maris, ll. 14, 40, 245, 318, etc.
[35 ] Ibid., ll. 67, 72, 165, 244, 266, 267, 343, 361, etc.
[36 ] Stella maris, ll. 78, 93, 287, and 703.
[37 ] The titles in B ordinarily stand between the lines in spaces left for them by the scribe of the text. One of the new titles is written vertically between the columns. The new chapter divisions do not, however, agree exactly with those of M.
[38 ] The missing lines were never added to the B text. M has no titles on the corresponding folio. The titles of B and those of M which do appear on the first folios agree sufficiently in diction that it must be assumed that the archetype had titles. Titles are lacking on the last three folios of M because they were written along with the gloss.
[39 ] Lines 124-129 originally followed l. 147 in B.
[40 ] The conception of Our Lord, using figures drawn from meteorology.
[41 ] Other works of John of Garland have been similarly revised.
[42 ] If the rubricator of M had, however, consistently followed the guide letters of B in preference to those of his own text, he might have corrected at least two errors, one of them on the very folio on which he made the unfortunate mistake. Cf. ll. 508 and 808.
[43 ] Stella maris, ll. 382 and 529.
[44 ] Ibid., ll. 19, 26, 56, 58, 61, 113, 172, etc.
[45 ] Ibid., pp. 87-88. The work is inedited.
[46 ] Ibid., ll. 23 and 361. Neither work has been edited.
[47 ] Ibid., ll. 148-213.
[48 ] Ibid., l. 976.
[49 ] Paetow, Morale scolarium, p. 114 and elsewhere. The colophon of the M manuscript reads Explicit . . . de miraculis beate virginis.
[50 ] Below, pp. 87-88. In the apostrophe to his work in the poem itself John of Garland calls it Stella maris (ll. 124-126). The same title is used whenever it is mentioned by the author’s contemporaries (above, p. 77).
[51 ] Above, pp. 83-84.
[52 ] See titles preceding ll. 1 and 124.
[53 ] The differences between these texts and those which the manuscript has in common with MSS Paris Bibliothèque Nationale 14463 and 17491 are negligible, so far as the purpose for which they have been used, is concerned.
GLORIOSE virginis miracula compendiose a parvitate mea descripta ab armario Sancte Genoveve Parisiensis extracta sunt, et a me scolaribus meis Parisius ridmificata quam exemplar vivum, per manum domini prioris eiusdem abatie publigandum ad nostre speculum honestatis. Seneca dicit non aliter vivas in solitudine et aliter in foro [Epis. mor., V, 2] ut igitur equaliter vivamus in secreto et in publico in Dei servitio. Factus est liber iste qui est nobis vivendi positus exemplar, cuius causa materialis est miracula gloriose virginis. Et phisicalia et astrologica et teologica interserta [sunt]. Et sequitur modus agendi et causa formalis. Causa
[[ Print Edition Page No. 88 ]]
vero finalis est in Christi fide stabili permanentia. Unde teologie supponitur, et etiam phisice et astronomice. Titulus talis est ab interpretatione huius nominis, Maria, quod est Stella maris, quia fit denuntiativus stelle maris; et alia ratione, sicut stella maris, Virgo, se offert versus septentrionalem plagam navigantibus et periclitantibus, sic libellus iste per miracula stelle maris viam salutis pandit in huius mundi amaritudine ut veram pacem mentis hic et in studio contra vitia conitimur. Unde Iohannes Crisostomus, Vera pax est contra vitia litigare et virtutibus concordare [Chrysos. in Matth. XXXV al. XXXVI (Migne, P.G., lvii, 405). Cf. Morale scolarium (ed. Paetow), l. 441]. In principio concinetur prefatio.
Dum flos virum nec pro virum
Miro partu protulit.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 90 ]]
Fons in rivum est deductus,
5Nectar fundens, siccans luctus
Quos vir primus intulit.
DE PATRE ET MATRE GLORIOSE VIRGINIS*
Sanctus, iustus, memorandus,
15Florem florum genuit.
Anna sancta, florens ortus,
In quo crevit flos exortus,
Sponsa Dei perornata,
20A prophetis premonstrata,
Ab Anna concipitur.
In conclavi salutata,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 92 ]]
1. DE LINGUA CLERICO RESTITUTA
Clerus matrem salutavit,
Linguam quam hic devoravit
Hec lacte restituit.
Formam gerit pietatis
35Dulce lac et ubertatis,
Que de celo defluit.
Lac est vere virginale,
Nectar vite spiritale,
Quo mors victa corruit.
Rose celi supplicabat
[[ Print Edition Page No. 93 ]]
Eius fuit sub tutela,
Et servatus sub cautela
2. DE ABBATISSA QUAM BEATA VIRGO LIBERAVIT AB INFAMIA
50Dulcis fons qui nectar sapit,
Palmis puer angelorum
Deportatus est duorum,
55Puer servit purus Deo
Rationis in tropheo
Sancta vita preditus.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 94 ]]
60Amor et clementia.
Amor pronus prius audit
Postulantes, post exaudit
Illos clemens gratia.
PRONOSTICUM ARTIS MEDICINE VIRGINI APPROPRIATUM*
Ipocrate, docto teste,
65Accedendum est celeste
Salus egro reparatur
Et effectus naturales
Nostra vincit medica.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 95 ]]
Quod virtutis est divine
Non humane medicine
DE FILIO IUDEI AB INCENDIO LIBERATO
Missus puer in fornacem
Est saluti redditus.
[[79.]] Ad doctrinam literarum
Puer fuit positus.
Ussit pater hunc Iudeus,
Quem protexit Christo Deus,
Et Maria pallio.
85Salus illi, Christus sumptus
Vixit ab incendio.
Sumpsit, et a patre tristi
[[ Print Edition Page No. 96 ]]
In fornacem missus pater,
4. DE MULIERE STERILI QUAM BEATA VIRGO FECUNDAVIT
Virgo sponsam, et ditavit
Sterilem hanc filio.
Sic Maria maternali
Mors a vita spoliavit,
Mortis nodum denodavit
110Rosa, Deum que portavit
Calor est innaturalis
[[113.]]Febris, et a corde talis
Exit in arterias.
Delet vite renodatrix
5. DE DEMONE VERBERATO A BEATA VIRGINE
HIC APOSTROPHAT AD LIBELLUM
HIC RESPONDET AUTOR ANTIPOPHORE, ID EST TACITE OBIECTIONI*
130Ubi, quando, si queratur,
Hec sunt facta, teneatur
Basis firma fidei.
Que sunt digna laudum, lira
Infinita micant mira
6. DE MONACHIS DITATIS A BEATA VIRGINE
Signant et sublimitatem
[[ Print Edition Page No. 100 ]]
Hec est fulgens galaxias
Que celestes pandit vias
Dei domus ardue.
Arthos tortum ad Draconem
155Lucet et ad aquilonem
In figuram virginis.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 101 ]]
Hec draconem conculcavit,
Qui livore degradavit
Primi statum hominis.
Nobis polus, quo monstratur
Stella maris lapsum nescit,
Offert sese, nec torpescit
[[ Print Edition Page No. 102 ]]
Adriagne in corona
Designatur ferre dona
Athlantee septem stelle
[[ Print Edition Page No. 103 ]]
170Signant quod est plena melle
Hec est celum, Christus axis,
175Celi, terre sustentator,
Terre factus habitator,
In celum regreditur.
Ille stellas qui formavit
Se per illas annotavit
Admiranda nam iunctura
Fit plasmator plasmatura,
Homo, matris opifex.
Stelle proles figuratur
185In Vervece qui mactatur,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 104 ]]
Geminus est Deus homo,
Hunc ad nos in tempore.
190Sane sic intelligatur,
Per se Deus operatur
Signatus in opere.
Omnibus, nec coartatur
Est de tribu Iuda Leo,
Gloriosus in tropheo
Et carne virginea.
Libra iudex designatur,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 105 ]]
Vincit quasi Sagittator,
Quasi Capricornus, dator
205Urnam fundens sacri roris,
Quasi Piscis fluminis.
Christus, sol eternitatis,
Annum dat infinitatis,
Mater Dei moderatrix
Est, post Deum et salvatrix
Dei largo munere.
7. DE YMAGINE QUE OLEUM FUDIT A MAMILLIS*
Hec convertit Sarsacenum
215Per stupendum, per amenum
Sunt in carnem mamme verse
Signans partum virginis.
8. DE CLERICO QUI YMAGINEM VIRGINIS DESPONSAVIT
9. DE QUERELA BEATE VIRGINIS DE IUDEIS
10. DE PEREGRINO SUBMERSO
Salutantem hec salvavit
Quem ad portum duxerat.
235Celi potens imperatrix,
Maris moti mitigatrix
Stella maris vis in mari
Habet suo singulari,
Hec in terra dominatur,
Hec inferno comminatur
11. DE DOLEO VINO INPLETO
Hospites dum paverat.
Cum sit mater summi boni,
Sui largitatem doni
12. DE MULIERE SUSCITATA UT CONFITERETUR
Maris stellam, set errabat,
Non aperte confitetur,
Cuius vita dum deletur
Mens ad corpus remeavit,
Confitentem se purgavit
Mulier per virginem.
13. DE MACHINA QUAM IPSA VIRGO OSTENDIT
260Et columpnas elevandi
Vir sumpsit originem.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 109 ]]
Tres de scolis pueri.
265Caste placent Deo scole,
Ubi sunt percusse vole
Et domantur teneri.
14. DE INPERATRICE ROMANA QUAM IPSA VIRGO SALVAVIT
Rome fuit et dampnata
Lepras curat, pauper vixit,
Virgo clemens, ut predixit,
275Expurgavit, et honores
Dolus tandem apparebat,
Et ad tempus que latebat
[[ Print Edition Page No. 110 ]]
280Frater hanc imperatoris
Esse loco corruptoris
Hinc in silvam spiculator
Duxit illam, set venator
Rursus casta condempnatur,
Set a nautis conservatur
In navis regimine.
Est relicta in rupellis
Dei sub tutamine.
Mater Christum que portavit
Herbam illi demonstravit
[[ Print Edition Page No. 111 ]]
300Qua lepras mundaverat.
Vixit arte medicine,
Hostes suos post in fine
Lepra cedit leonina,
305Sua victa medicina,
310Sicca prior exardescit,
Sequens friget et arescit,
Friget, humet tertia.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 112 ]]
Quarta calet et humescit,
Tamen eger convalescit
Sanitas non potest geri,
Nisi prius confiteri
Sic infantis iugulator
320Est peccati demonstrator,
Et sanus efficitur.
Lepram sanat, delatoris
325Imperator ius uxoris
Papam petit, set pudoris
Illa vovit munera.
Vitam sanctam terminavit
[[ Print Edition Page No. 113 ]]
Hec est nuptis in exemplum
Casto sub coniugio.
15. QUOMODO FESTUM NATIVITATIS BEATE VIRGINIS FUIT INVENTUM
Ortus floris ut colatur
Festum in ecclesiis.’
Festum ita virginale,
Nate rose speciale,
345Hiis cepit indiciis.
Ita primo celebrata
Virginis et venerata
Est sancta nativitas.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 114 ]]
Esse debet festivalis
350Toti mundo virginalis
Et materna puritas.
16. QUOMODO IPSA VISITAVIT QUENDAM IN EXTREMIS*
Iustum quemdam est affata
In extremis, consolata
355Hic reginam comitatur,
Et per illam sociatur
17. DE YMAGINE FACTA MIRACULOSE CONTRA IUDEOS
Forma rose specialis
360Facta fuit celitus.
Templum fit apostolorum,
Illis illud Iudeorum
Furor linquid penitus.
18. DE IUDEO RAPTO A DEMONIBUS
Raptus a demonibus.
Christianus illam lavit,
Oleum de qua manavit
19. QUOMODO YMAGO CHRISTI FIDEIUSSIT PRO MERCATORE
Fideiussor Christus fuit,
Mercans fraudem nullam struit
Dans mari marsupium.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 116 ]]
380Set in forma sculpta Deus
Dixit viri vitium.
20. DE PECCATRICE ACUSATA A DEMONE IN SPECIE CAUSIDICI
Presumebat et dampnare
Demon vultu clerici.
385Hec cum nato concumbebat,
Set flens nephas diluebat
Rore summi medici.
Virga Iesse triumphalis,
A conspectu labilis.
Oves Christi salvant tria,
395Christus et crux et Maria,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 117 ]]
Dico Christi gregibus.
21. DE YMAGINE QUE SANGUINEM FUDIT
400Formam fecit salvatoris
Hanc Iudei perfoderunt,
Vix Iudei crediderunt,
Ad baptismum concurrerunt
Leto tandem pectore.
22. DE CLERICO IN ORE CUIUS FLOS INVENTUS ERAT
[[ Print Edition Page No. 118 ]]
415Carnotensi nam beata
23. DE QUODAM SALVATO PER HORAS VIRGINIS
Ante Deum iudicandus,
420Sompno raptus, steterat.
Propter horas virginales,
24. DE MORTE IULIANI APOSTATE
A quodam qui suscitatur
A beata virgine.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 119 ]]
Hoc peracto bustum petit,
Iulianum mors irretit
25. DE SACERDOTE LIBERATO AB EPISCOPO SUO
Hec succurrit sacerdoti
Puri cordis et devoti,
445Semper ‘Salve sancta parens’
Vir cantabat, arte carens,
Semper cantans unicum.
Hec prelatum exterrebat
Qui ministrum suspendebat
450Laudis ab officio.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 120 ]]
Sublimavit preses illum
Et constantem et tranquillum
Matris in servitio.
26. DE YMAGINE VULNERATA*
Civem ictu dum protexit,
Et crus lesum dum erexit,
Hostes id sedaverat.
27. DE MONACHO QUI VIDIT PENAM IUDE
[[ Print Edition Page No. 121 ]]
Rota dum corruerat.
Templum Dei, turris pacis,
475Ave, flos suavitatis,
Lilium es castitatis,
O flos, ave, sponsa solis,
Solem sequens, nove prolis
480Genitrix et filia.
Dulcis odor violarum
28. DE MIRACULO QUOD FIT PARISIUS DE IGNE PESTIFERO
485Virgo, medicina mali
[[ Print Edition Page No. 122 ]]
Fertur ignis infernalis,
Artus urit ignis talis
Intus et exterius.
490Hec est stella paradisi,
Ex hac natus est salvator,
Sol iustorum, consolator
29. DE YMAGINE NON COMBUSTA
Remis fuit et salvata
505Mater sic est illibata,
Stella maris obumbrata
Dei nube nivea.
30. DE INSTITUTIONE PURIFICATIONIS
Et morborum novitate
Ypapanti est statutum,
Et exultat vulgus, tutum
A peste contagii.
32. DE CAMISIA VIRGINIS
Velo carnis et unitur
Sumpto Deus homini.
Per hanc terra sublimatur,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 124 ]]
Per hanc celo dominatur
Hostes urbis Carnotensis
Stravit, frangens vires ensis
33. DE VIRGINE VIOLATA CONTRA VOTUM SUUM
34. DE ABBATE PERICLITANTE IN MARI
[[ Print Edition Page No. 125 ]]
Lux in mali summitate
Virgam pandit Iesseam.
Inde festum inchoatur,
545Et a multis celebratur
In alvo sanctificata
Matris est, et celebrata
35. DE CLERICO A NUPTIIS REVOCATO
In remotam regionem
Illum ad religionem
Mundi salus tempestiva,
In celum regrediens.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 126 ]]
Austrum, arcon, orientem,
560Lustrat hec et occidentem,
Quam ad plenum exaltare
Nemo potest, hanc laudare
Stili temptat brevitas,
565Ut a clero memoretur
Et ad laudem revocetur
36. DE MONACHO SUBMERSO
Monacus submersus erat,
570Erat carni deditus.
Pia matre succurrente,
Pio Deo discernente,
Vite fuit redditus.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 127 ]]
Nam per noctes exeundo,
575Et a luxu redeundo
Illud Ave dixerat.
Per hanc celi restauratur
Ovis que perierat.
37. DE MULIERE IUDAYCA VIRGINEM INVOCANTE
Tandem fere morientem,
Luce lustrans iuverat.
590Per baptismum proles nata
Ad vitam pervenerat.
38. DE INFULA DATA EPISCOPO THOLETANO*
Habens, hanc amaverat.
595Infulam hec presularem
Dedit illi singularem,
Sacrans quam induerat.
39. DE MONIALI A NUPTIIS REVOCATA
Os inferni moniali
Pro contractu nuptiali
Set Maria, fons dulcoris,
Pietatis et honoris,
Hanc celo restituit.
40. QUOMODO CHRISTUS MONACHO APPARUIT
Misse quondam in secreto
605Vultu comparebat leto
Christus uni monaco.
Christi matrem honorabat,
Christus illum confortabat
41. ITEM DE YMAGINE NON COMBUSTA
610Templum quoddam fulmen ussit,
Velum igne non pallebat
Super caput quod tegebat
615In templo virgunculam.
42. DE DEMONE SCRIBENTE PECCATA MULIERUM*
Verba scripsit in vesano
Quasi vultu simie.
Ungue, dente dum trahebat
620Scripti cartam, hic ruebat
A murali serie.
Clerus ista videns risit,
Set deflevit quod commisit,
Culpatus a presule.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 130 ]]
625Supra pectus dormientis
Manus stelle miserentis
Prorupsit scriptum cedule.
Et prelato demonstravit
630Scriptum hostis invidi.
Quarum voces comprobantur
Et sermones stolidi.
43. DE PUERO QUI CANTAVIT DE BEATA MARIA IN ANGLIA
640Mater querens hunc vocavit,
Hic in terra recantavit
[[ Print Edition Page No. 131 ]]
Mortis reos lex punivit
645Iudeos in Anglia.
44. DE POPULO SANATO AB IGNE PESTIFERO
Morbos graves turmis densis
655In celesti maiestate
Virgo venit, potestate
Sanans morbos igneos.
45. DE FEMINA CUIUS NASUM BEATA VIRGO REFORMAVIT
Hec, membrorum reparatrix,
665Nasi fuit reformatrix
Quem amisit femina.
Sanat claudos, cecitatem,
Mutis reddit famina.
QUOD BEATA VIRGO MEDICINALIA VINCIT ET PREVENIT
Vas nec pulsus nec urina
Docent nec pronostica.
Afforismi sermo brevis
Hec est, et dieta levis,
46. DE REDUCTO AB INFERIS AD PENITENTIAM
Penis Iude traditoris
Dum avari predatoris
Redit per triginta dies
680Penitendo, inde quies
47. DE RUSTICO SALVATO QUIA DIXIT SALUTATIONEM VIRGINIS
Sepe dixit, vivens prave,
690Metas agri transiens.
Hic ab hoste liberatur,
Dum post vitam asportatur,
IN GENERE DICITUR
Sani gaudent, furiosi
695Et contracti et leprosi,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 134 ]]
Sanat membra, sanat mentes
Celo facit refici.
48. DE PAUPERE EROGANTE ADQUISITAS ELEMOSINAS PRO MARIA
700Pauper panem adquisitum
[[703.]] Virgo tandem hunc beavit,
Et ad celum advocavit,
49. DE PUERO VOCANTE PUERUM VIRGINIS
Quedam suum tulit natum
Ad Mariam inclinatum
Et ad suum parvulum.
Panem illi porrigebat,
710‘Pupa papa,’ proferebat,
Addens sonum querulum.
Amplectando simul flendo
715‘Post tres dies tu papabis
[[ Print Edition Page No. 135 ]]
Pupa, mecum, et cantabis
Ad mea convivia.’
Puer mox febricitavit,
Et ad celum transmigravit,
720Acta die tertia.
O res mira, celum datur
50. DE PEREGRINO QUI SIBI GUTTUR AMPUTAVIT ET TESTICULOS
Sibi quidam amputavit,
725Sicut demon instigavit,
Guttur et virilia.
Demon dixit quod salvaret
730Iacobus hunc ad Mariam
Duxit sanctus sanctam, piam,
Sicut virgo iudicavit,
Mens ad corpus remeavit
735Deo se confederans.
51. DE PARTIBUS INFERIORIBUS RESTITUTIS
Ignis crus et tibiam.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 136 ]]
740Virgo totum restauravit,
Plenam ferens gratiam.
PRECONIUM GLORIOSE VIRGINIS SUMMO MIRACULO
Ad te, virgo, nos clamantes
Deduc, salva, libera.
745Stella maris, dux, salvatrix,
Assit tua dextera.
EXORTATIO AD PUPLICATIONEM MIRACULORUM
O prelati Gallicani,
755Presides et Anglicani,
Stelle mira predicetis,
Opus breve comportetis
Ponderis hoc modici.
52. DE PUERO GENITO IN NOCTE PASCHALI QUEM MATER DEDIT DYABOLO*
760Nocte quidam in Pascali
Uxor rixans ad hunc actum,
Quicquid ibi fuit factum
Generatus est et natus
Puer, gratus et amatus
A cuntis videntibus.
Rem congnoscit hic a matre,
770Stimulatus mentis atre
Papam hic et cardinales
Audit et pontificales
Sensus et consilia.
775Ierusalem tandem petit,
Fructum a prelato metit
Et vite solacia.
Pape prelatique cartam
Sanctus preces heremita
Fundit iuvenis pro vita,
Misse sacrum faciens.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 138 ]]
Inter ipsum et altare
785Hostis ausus est raptare
In infernum puerum.
Hunc Maria revocavit,
Et gaudentem reportavit
Sanctum ad presbiterum.
Sanctus presul gratulatur,
Papa plausu iubilat.
Redit puer ad parentes,
Viso nato congaudentes,
795Set infernus ululat.
53. DE IUDEO QUI PERCUSSIT YMAGINEM CHRISTI
Hec in silvis et sperantes
In se regit previa.
Et a nexu liberatos
Collocat in patria.
QUOMODO BEATA VIRGO MARIA SUPERAT OMNIA MUNDI PRECIOSA*
Ave, gemma preciosa,
Iaspis tibi comparata
Hebes et discolorata
Erit et degenerans.
Omnem vincit vim gemmarum,
815Omnis cedit vis herbarum
Velit ergo subvenire
Nobis et nos expolire,
Rudes celi solio.
54. DE PICTORE QUI DIABOLUM TURPEM DEPINXIT
Turpem pinxit et Mariam
Hostis illi comminatur,
830Quia tantum deformatur
[[ Print Edition Page No. 140 ]]
Post hec furtim tabulatum,
In quo suum pictor statum
Fecit, hostis diruit.
835Retinere set ymago
Hunc est visa, ut virago
Que viro non defuit.
Multi factum audientes
Et videntes et scandentes
840Novis assunt cratibus.
A lacerto dependentem
Virginali et ridentem
Factis sumunt gradibus.
QUOD VIRGO OMNES SIBI DEVOTOS RECIPIT
Audit cetus laicales,
845Audit turmas clericales,
Pauperes et divites.
Omnem sexum hec exaudit,
Nec etatem hec obaudit,
55. DE MILITE QUI VOVERAT FACERE ECCLESIAM VIRGINI
850Quidam miles vixit male,
Se facturum voverat.
Ante factum infirmatur,
Ante Deum ventilatur
855Quod in vita fecerat.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 141 ]]
Propter votum cucullata,
Dei matris precibus.
860Deus et hanc compensavit
Pro bonis operibus.
56. DE SCOLARE LIBERATO A PESTE
Scolas adit vir scolaris,
Tollit hunc vis procellaris
Areptum in aera.
865Cantat ‘Ave maris stella,’
Et dimittit hunc procella
Mente sanum libera.
57. DE PUERO LIBERATO A FENERATORE
Quedam fuit generosa
Propter natum luctuosa,
870Vadem pro pecunia.
Nimis hec depauperata,
Est Mariam deprecata
[[873.]]Ad nati presidia.
Hunc custodit fenerator
875In catenis, coartator,
Set puer educitur.
Ducit illum celi porta,
Ad salutem nostram orta,
Qua mundus redimitur.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 142 ]]
58. DE MIRACULO FACTO BISANCII DE FESTIVITATE SABATI*
Primo fuit conservata
Illi dies septima.
Quondam urbs Bisanciana
890Hanc colebat fide cana,
Velum per se tollebatur
Sacrum sexta feria.
895Hora nona sabatali,
Tecto vultu virginali,
Virgo suo cedit nato,
Festo nati celebrato
900In die dominica.
Saltem colunt hanc a nona
Qui spem habent ut corona
Detur illis celita.
59. DE FREDERICO A PARMENSIBUS SUPERATO ET QUO TEMPORE FACTUS EST LIBER ISTE*
Fugit victus et vincentes
Intulerunt, non parcentes
INTRODUCUNTUR PER PROSOPOPEYAM SUPERIORA BEATAM VIRGINEM COMMENDARE ET EIUS FILIUM PER DIVINAM POTENTIAM
[[916.]] Hic si mundus posset fari,
Pars cum toto venerari
920In hac sese humanavit
[[ Print Edition Page No. 144 ]]
Hanc et ex se fecundavit
Qui comprendit omnia,
Aquas, vires per divinas
[[946.]] Splendor stupet Saturnalis,
Cuius cursus planetalis
Est Iove sublimior.
Admiratur Iovis stella
950Quod puella, Dei cella,
Est stellis serenior.
Luce sua rubicundus
Vultu velut iracundus,
Rose Mars obtemperat.
955Cedit matri creatoris
Sol, estivi fons caloris,
Quo ver flores generat.
Venus, mater venustatis,
Stupet de maternitatis
Ridet lux Mercurialis
Quod fert fructum virginalis
Venter sine semine.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 146 ]]
Solis lumen habens luna
Solem novum pariat.
Luna crescit et decrescit,
Lux que circumradiat.
QUOD DISPOSITIONES STELLARUM AD LAUDEM VIRGINIS ORDINANTUR ET QUOD EAM ET FILIUM SUUM DESIGNANT
Inter stellas declaratur
Virgo lactans puerum.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 147 ]]
Stellis lux ingremiatur
980Per quam homo designatur
DE FESTIS GLORIOSE VIRGINIS SECUNDUM ANNI TEMPORA ET DE EIUS MAGNIFICENTIA USQUE AD FINEM LIBRI
990Per orbis capedinem.
Cuius vernat ver decore,
Flos conceptus est a flore
Per Verbi dulcedinem.
Est assumptus ab hoc mundo
In Augusto flos fecundo
995Ad celi pallatia.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 148 ]]
In Septembri flos est natus,
In Decembri generatus
Ad humana gaudia.
1000Ignem aque qui ligavit,
Aura cum aerea,
Decus et ius maternale
QUOMODO MARIA CONCEPIT FILIUM DEI DE SPIRITU SANCTO
[[1006.]] Qui producit de tesauris
Suis ventos, flores auris
Vernos pinget levibus.
O Rector, qui cuntos cernis,
1010Ventos claudis in cavernis,
Movens terram flatibus.
Ad impulsum dum ventorum,
Ether inflamatur horum,
Pium fulgur emicat.
1015Ether inflammatus tonat,
Dum in cana nube sonat,
Dum cum aqua dimicat.
[[1018.]] Ascendente nix vapore
Formam capit ex torpore
1020Venti flantis gelidi.
[[1021.]] Si descendat nimbi stilla,
Grando sepe viget illa
Venti flatu frigidi.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 149 ]]
[[1024.]] De thesauro deitatis
1025Spirat flatus puritatis,
Flavit auster, sacer flatus,
Per quem fuit humanatus
Dei patris filius.
1030Mater veri salvatoris,
Laudem sumas peccatoris,
Preces non repudians.
Est cum matre bonus Deus,
Post hos homo, lapsus reus,
1035Plus vel minus devians.
INCIPE SEQUENTIAM HIC
[[1036.]] Virgo Deum, rosa rosam
Rosa rose maritatur,
1040Mundi rosa decoratur
Hanc iuncturam admiratur
Et in illa speculatur
Tota celi curia.
1045Rosa rosam sibi pingit
In qua decor omnis ningit,
Decens supra lilia.
Chori novem organizant,
Cunta celi citharizant
1050Matris laudes organa.
[[ Print Edition Page No. 150 ]]
Hanc in terris cordis corde,
Hanc sublimant toto corde
Trinitas hic operatur:
Pater per potentiam,
Inspiratu sacer flatus,
Per illustrem Dei natus
[[ Print Edition Page No. 151 ]]
Hic est amor relativus,
Idem est demonstrativus
Quod vult virgo, vult et natus
Matri nec est adversatus
[[1083.]]Ad salutem hominis.
Tota fluit pietate
Nulli manet hec ingrata,
Cuntis bonum operata
Illi laus, et perhennetur
Os cum manu revirescit
1095Floris ad obsequia.
60. DE THEOPHILO*
Et honorem secularem
Illum, spreta fide Dei,
1100Sibi ligat Sathanei
61. DE CLERICO SUSPENSO QUEM BEATA VIRGO LIBERAVIT
Hec latronem liberavit,
Et suspensum supportavit
1110Et fovit per triduum,
Quia dixit illud Ave,
Dulce verbum et suave,
Sanctum et mellifluum.
Quamvis penam renovarent,
1115Et plus guttur laquearent
[[ Print Edition Page No. 153 ]]
Et regine famulari
[[1119.]]Spe salutis gaudii.
1120Oves ducis et reducis,
Virgo, mater pii ducis
Et pastoris ovium.
Pia, furem convertisti
Et suspensum dissolvisti
1125Ad vitam fidelium.
Vite via, sponsa dia,
Miserere, nos tuere,
1130Oves gere, remedere
Egris, O pastoria.
Tu vocaris singularis
Stella maris, lux solaris,
1135Flos decoris, ver viroris,
Nux dulcoris, vas honoris,
[[ Print Edition Page No. 154 ]]
Tibi stilus inchoatur,
Tibi, virgo, finiatur
Linter portu defigatur
1150Mens non potest meditari,
Lingue laudem preconari
Si mens Deo philomenat,
1155 Hec duo sufficiunt.
Explicit liber magistri Iohannis de Garlandia de miraculis beate virginis.
[* ] Preface, bottom of folio [cf. supra, p. 86], B; corresponding preface without title, marg. M: Quoniam beata virgo est generalis omnium catholicorum invocatrix, ideo ab ea nomen illius libri autor intitulavit. Est enim titulus talis, Incipit Stella maris. Contingit autem reperire tria per titulum: scilicet materiam, causam, et fructum, prout dicitur in Clave Compendii:
Materiam titulo causam, fructum retinemus,
Hec tria, si titulus bene ponitur, inveniemus.
[Clavis Compendii of John of Garland, MS Bruges 546, fol. 40v]
Unde sciendum quod beata virgo Maria non fortuitu aut solo placito parentum set divina dispositione et dispensatione nomen accepit, ita ut ipsa vocabuli sui figura magum quoddam innueret sive demonstraret. Interpretatur nomen Maria, stella maris, unde quid misticum hec interpretatio generat per similitudinem ostendamus: Nautis quippe mare transeuntibus opus est notare stellam iuxta cardinem celi sive iuxta polum articum [MS ardicum corr. articum] coruscantem, et ex regula illius stelle estimare atque dirigere cursum suum ut portum possuit apprehendere destinatum [MS destinare corr. destinatum]. Similiter oportet universos christicolas in fluctus huius seculi remigantes attendere hanc stellam maris, id est Mariam, que suppremo rerum cardini, id est Deo, proxima est, et regula exempli eius cursum vite dirigere ut ad portum claritatis eterne valeamus pervenire. Et quamvis autor iste in omnibus suis carminibus fecerit mentionem de beata virgine et eius filio omni carente crimine, prout dicit in Clave Compendii:
Principium vite, proles benedicta Marie,
Virginis intacte, sine te nihil ordiar umquam
[Clavis Compendii of John of Garland, MS Bruges 546, fol. 33]
cum maximo affectu compositus illo modo librum totaliter de miraculis beate virginis, prout in registro Rome et etiam alibi comprobantur. Proposuit compilare quia prout dicitur in Ecclesiastice, reverentia que matri defertur [Vulg. Ecclesiaticus, 3,5] illi etiam qui eam talem fecit ut virgo et mater esset exhibetur. Materia ergo presentis opusculi sunt miracula de virgine Maria que est sola regina mundi, scala celi, ianua paradisi, letabilis angelis, sanctis optabilis, necessaria perditis, congrua profugatis. Intentio sua sic et autorum versatur circa materiam. Intendit enim illa miracula compilare et cleris volentibus placare et sic patet causa formalis sive modus agendi. Fructus vero sive utilitas et etiam causa finalis est ut, istis miraculis in cleris et retentis stabiles, in fide Christi de Maria incarnati stabiles maneamus. Titulus autem, ut predictum est, sumitur ab interpretatione huius nominis Maria que interpretatur stella maris. Et ita patet quod per titulum inveniuntur ista tria: materia, causa, et fructus, ut aperuit. Servat compromissum et dicitur titulus a ‘Titane,’ id est a ‘sole,’ quia [sicut] sol illuminat totum mundum, similiter titulus illuminat totum librum. Unde versus:
Est a ‘Titane’ titulus dictus [MS ductus] nec inane,
Quo res clarescit, quo libri causa patescit.
[Clavis Compendii, MS Bruges 546, fol. 40v]
Set ne eronia alicubi incurrat disgressio, set ut fine respondente principio, condigna sit operis consummatio, ad trinum et unum primo fiat invocatio, prout in Clave Compendii cernitur revolutio:
Vis patris eterna, sapientia nate paterna,
Spiritus interna penetratus nos, sancte, guberna.
De rosula verna flos, Christe, marisque lucerna,
Que sunt externa purga virtute superna.
[Clavis Compendii, MS Bruges 546, fol. 25. Cf. also fol. 42v at the close of the same work, and Morale scolarium (ed. Paetow), ll. 249-252.]
[* ] Sub-title, lacking B
[* ] Sub-title, Sequitur in prefatione commendatio patris et matris beate virginis M
[* ] Liber 2 in box between columns in hand of gloss B
[* ] [cf. Jul. Rufin. Schem. Dian., 4-5 (ed. Karl Halm, Rhetores latini minores, Leipzig, 1863), pp. 60-61, and Morale scolarium (ed. Paetow), ll. 76 and 356]
[* ] Tertius liber marg. B
[* ] Sub-title, Astronomia est scientia secundum veritatem, scilicet de astris; astrologia secundum opinionem top of folio B
[* ] Sub-title, effudit M, a mamillis lacking M
[* ] Sub-title, Quod ipsa visitabat quemdam in extremis M
[* ] Sub-title, wlnerata M
[* ] Sub-title, lacking M
[* ] Sub-title, donata archiepiscopo Toletano M
[* ] Sub-title, Item lacking M
[* ] Sub-title, lacking M
[* ] Sub-title, lacking M
[* ] Sub-title, lacking M
[* ] Sub-title, lacking M
[*] Sub-title, lacking M, in margin B
[* ] [cf. Epithalamium beate Marie virginis of John of Garland, MS British Museum Cotton Claudius A x, fol. 46, Virgo comparatur regioni stellarum:
. . . . . . .
Mira planetarum simphonia pasceret aures,
Si cui transiret ad cor ab aure melos.
Non minus excipitur a nostris motibus alta
Regia virgo Dei, sole serena suo.]
[* ] Sub-title, lacking M
1. [F]ecit B
Prefatio, In principio huius libri facit autor prefationem ad miracula beate Marie virginis subsecuta ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam ewangelicamque doctrinam patris et filii et spiritus sancti, unam divinitatem sub pari maiestate et sub pia trinitate, credamus. Et etiam confiteamur dominum nostrum Ihesum Christum, unigenitum Dei filium et unum Deum et dominum nostrum, ante secula et sine tempore de patre natum, in ultimis diebus descendisse de celis et ex spiritu sancto incarnatum et sancta atque gloriosa virgine et Dei genitrice Maria natum, et hominem formatum et pro redemptione nostra crucifixum, unum essentie et substantialis trinitatis coadorandum et glorificandum patri et sancto spiritui. Nec enim alium Verbum nec alium Christum congnoscimus, set unum atque eundam ipsum consubstantialem patri secundum divinitatem et substantialem nobis, eundam ipsum secundum humanitatem passibilem quam inpassibilem divinitatem. Ut enim in divinitate est perfectus, ita idem ipse in humanitate est perfectus. Non enim dicendum quod Deus Verbum principium ex Maria sumpserit, set in ultimis diebus de celis descendit et ex ipsa incarnatus est et homo factus et natus gemina quidem natura set una persona. Dicit ergo autor in principio quod ipse Deus, omnium creator et animarum recreator, mirabiliter se humiliavit quando pro nostra redemptione in beata virgine sese humanavit, qui si sibi placeret totum genus humanum sola voluntate redemisset. Set noluit quia sit violentia diabolo. Intulisset et ideo iudicio et non posse suo totaliter procedebat. Sic enim diabolus, pertorcuens serpentem, femine, scilicet Eve, suasit ut gustaret pomum vetitum. Eva etiam viro suasit ut gustaret ex quorum gustu deperditum fuit genus humanum. Similiter per contrarium Deus nuntiavit ut beate virgini Marie quod conciperet filium Dei qui salutem et redemptionem humano generi repararet. Sic etiam per fructum ligni totum genus humanum Adam subpediavit; similiter Christus mortem patiendo in ligno humano generi salutem repararet marg. M; Materia huius libri sunt miracula gloriose virginis marg. B
1. Deus, Deus sic diffinitur: Deus est substantia spiritualis, causa inestimabilis suavitatis, causa ineffabilis pulcritudinis quod angeli qui solem septuplo sua vincit pulcritudine iugiter dilectent sive desiderent in ipsum aspicere. Secundo modo sic: Deus est summum bonum. Tertio modo sic: Deus est sphera indivisibilis, cuius centrum est ubique, circumferentia vero nusquam. Et Deus dicitur ethimologice, quasi ‘dans eternam vitam solus’ marg. M; mirus, mirabilis BM; mirum, miraculum B
2. Dum flos, dum Maria virgo M; flos, virgo Maria B; virum, filium Dei B, filium suum M; nec pro virum, sine semine M, id est per virile semen prout dicitur in Ecclesiastice [Vulg. Ecclesiasticus, 44, 11; 46, 11]. Quid igitur mirum si sine coruptione nascitur qui sanctificatione concipitur? Non enim decebat ut ille qui nobis efferebat salutem matri preriperet integritatis dignitatem. Nam qui terra, mari celoque non capitur, in terra unius corpusculi membra suscipitur. Circumdat enim [virum] mater Maria angelo fidem dando, quia Eva perdidit virum serpenti consentiendo,
Numquam natura mutavit sic sua iura
Ut virgo pareret, nisi virginitate careret,
Isti sunt versus demonis ad angelum.
Lumine solari nescit vitrum violari
Nec vitrum sole, nec virgo puerpera sine prole,
Isti sunt versus angeli demoni respondentis. [Hans Walther, Das Streitgedicht (Munich, 1920), p. 103, note 4] marg. M
4. Fons, Deus BM; Fons in rivum, fons est versus in rivum quando Deus, fons misericordie, suscepit humanitatem in virgine marg. M; rivum, hominem B; deductus, rivus est deductus in fontem quando gloriosa virgo suscepit Deum salvatorem [cf. Epithalamium beate Marie virginis of John of Garland, MS British Museum Cotton Claudius A x, fol. 1,
Culta nites viva speculans in ymagine, vivus
Fons de fonte nitet; natus, ymago patris.
Tu, vite splendor, de fontis ymagine vivi,
Tu, solis radius, quem, radiosa, paris]
5. Nectar, dulcedine B, dulcedinem M; fundens, fons B; siccans, ille BM
6. Quos, scilicet luctus BM; vir primus, Adam B
7. in fontem, in matrem creatoris, scilicet B; rivus, Maria B
8. vivus rivus corr. rivus vivus B
vivus, per duramen, propter septem dona spiritus sancti, que habuit beata virgo B, hec sunt septem virtutes beate Marie: casta, tacens, humilis, residens, comparans, pia, prudens top of folio B
9. Fons, illa B
10. Hec, gloriosa virgo B, Maria M; solis, Christi M
11. Sol, illa B, unde Job: in sole posuit tabernaculum suum [Vulg. Job, 18, 6], id est in Maria; sole, Deo B; nata, illa BM; prolis, filii B
11. celo M
12. Lux, illa B; regina, illa B; glorie, gloria est frequens fama cum laude marg. M
13. [I]ohachim B, Ioachim corr. M
Ioachim, pater beate virginis B, in hoc prohemio facit autor commendationem patris et matris gloriose virginis, scilicet Ioachim et Anne, qui cum per annum, ut scribitur, sic stetissent matrimonio copulanti nullam prolem poterant procreare. Unde cum Ioachim quodam die festivo oblationem, sic solebat, in templo obferre volebat, sacerdos illam coram toto populo resistebat [MS resitabat] quia nullam prolem procreabat, qua de causa Ioachim maximo dolore compunctus simul et pudore adsit pastores suos in deserto qui ibi cum eis per quatuor menses perhendinavit marg. M
14. venerandus corr. memerandus B, memorandus corr. M
14. Sanctus, quia divisit omnia que habuit in partes tres, et unam dedit pauperibus, et aliam templo, tertiam domui, hoc est ad sustentationem suorum [cf. Ps-Matthei Evangelium (ed. Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1876), pp. 54-55] B; memorandus, dignus memorari M
15. Florem, Mariam M
16. Anna, mater gloriose virginis M; ortus, est curtil M
17. quo, orto, BM; flos, virgo gloriosa B, Maria M
18. Lilium, virginem M; exeruit, emisit BM
18. exseruit M
19. Sponsa, Maria M; perornata, perfecte ornata BM
20. premonstrata, per prophetias B, ante — M
21. Anna, a matre sua M
22. Hec corr. M
22. Hec in templo, beata virgo ab infantia B; Hec, Maria M; conversata, manens M
23. In conclavi, in thalamo suo M, dicitur talamus, ubi nullus intrat nisi ipse rex, unde Maria virgo erat conclave spiritui regis. Huic concordat in Epitalamico, dicens versus:
Stella maris, de fonte fontemque regingnis,
Nectareum rivus, nil nisi nectar habens.
Alveus est alvus fontis tua quem nequis orbis
Orbita tam largo claudere tota sinu
[Epithalamium B. Marie virginis of John of Garland, MS British Museum Cotton Claudius A x, fol. 1] marg. M; conclavi, thalamo B; salutata, ab angelo Gabrieli B
24. Genitrix, quando respondit angelo: fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum [Vulg. Luc., 1, 38] M
25. Mira, quia mater et virgo simul et semel M
26. Mira, miracula B, -cula M; in hac via, in hoc mundo BM
27. Quorum, miraculorum BM; recito, et sic patet materia huius libri M
28. Mira, -bilia B, -cula M; nati, Christi B, filii M; mira, -bilia B
29. vicissim, vicissitudine quadam B, aliquando M
31. [C]lerus B, Celerus corr. Clerus M
Clerus, clericus unus M; matrem, Dei BM
32. quam, linguam M; hic, clericus M; devoravit, habuit a cancero devoratam M
33. Hec, mater Dei M; restituit, reparavit B, de celo allatam M
34. Formam, quia ipsa est mater pietatis et plenitudinis gratie M
35. lac, lac potest hic sumi ad literam vel mistice. Ad literam est quia sibi videbatur quod beata virgo lac virginale ori suo inposuit. Si mistice sumatur tunc dicatur lac, dulcedo vite spiritualis marg. M; ubertatis, plenitudinis M
36. Que, ubertas BM
37. vere, in rei veritate M; virginale, virginis Marie B, lac virginis M
38. spiritale, lac M
39. Quor corr. Quo B, coruit M
Quo, lacte M; mors, mors aliquando dicitur peccatum, aliquando diabolus, et aliquando dicitur mors ultimum continuitatis in tempore. Unde Oracius: mors ultima linia rerum est [Hor. Ep., I, 16, 79] marg. M; mors victa, diabolus victus M; corruit, decedit B
40. eger, clericus B; coniectabat, probabat per argumenta B, considerabat in sompnis M, ‘conicio, conicis,’ id est quod estimo, et facit in supino ‘coniectum, -tu;’ ‘u’ mutata in ‘o’ fit frequentativum, ‘coniecto, -tas’ marg. M
40. coniectabat corr. M
41. Rore corr. Rose B
Rose . . . , Marie virgini pro salute clerici M
42. Angelus, nota quod unumquemque hominem secuntur duo angeli, unus bonus, alius malus. Bonus notat facta bona, malus facta mala. Unde ad bonum possunt dirigi isti versus:
Angele, quivis es custos virtute superna,
Me tibi commissum [MS commissat] defende, salva, guberna
[cf. Morale scolarium (ed. Paetow), l. 1] marg. M
42. pulcherimus M Sub-title, abatissa M
43. Eius, angelus M; fuit, clericus ipse B, clericus M; tutela, custodia B
44. sub cautela, sub protectione angeli M; cautela, eius B
45. Surgendo, ille B
46. [A]bbatisse, guide to rubricator ‘a’ B, Abatisse M
46. flenti, de — B
47. Fetum, puerum BM; alvo, ventre M
47. defetenti B
48. Crimen, corruptionis B; clemens, Maria M; diluit, lavit B
48. clemens corr. M
49. preces, abatisse M; capit, Maria M
49. capdit M
50. Dulcis fons, fons dulcedinis B, Maria M; nectar, dulcedinem B
51. Qui, fons B; devotos, in omnibus M; imbuit, humectat M
51. inbuit M
52. Palmis, a B, in manibus M
54. Eremite M
Heremite, cuiusdam B, heremita dicitur cultor heremi et est heremus locus, scilicet desertus; et habet mediam copiam vel productam, set in diversa significatione, unde versus: Nobilis est heremus sine habentia, horemus adire marg. M; traditus, puer M
55. purus, omni vitio carens M
56. tropheo, victoria BM
57. preditus, -dicatus B, ille BM
58. Sic, a isto fonte M; stille, gutte BM
58. stille corr. B
59. fluunt corr. B Sub-title, virginis adaptatum M
59. quas, guttas BM
60. Amor, caritas [MS caries], scilicet Dei B, quem habet ad hominem M; clementia, pietas B, qua respicit genus humanum M
61. Amor, suus M; pronus, ad audiendum BM
62. Postulantes, rogantes B, homines ipsam rogantes M; exaudit, perfecte audit M
63. Illos, postulantes M; clemens, illa M; gratia, gratia cum clementia B
64. [I]pocrate, guide to rubricator ‘i’ B, Ypocrate M, docte M
Ipocrate, in Pronosticis dicit ita: est etiam quoddam celeste in quo previdere oportet cuius si tanta fuerit providentia, admirabilis est et minima stupenda [cf. Hippocrates, Prog., I, MS British Museum Royal 12 B xii, fol. 223] B; docto, et hoc M
65. Accendendum B
Accedendum, considerandum B, circa egros M
66. ad miraculum M
adminiculum, auxilium B; ad miraculum, ad divinum auxilium M
67. egro corr. B, ergo corr. egro in hand of gloss M
egro, homini egrotanti M
68. Stella maris, Maria BM; quem, egrum M
68. quem corr. B
69. Pium, pietatis B; flectens, illa, scilicet ad nos M; oculum, pietatis M
69. flectens corr. B
70. Rationes, regulas rationales in phisicis B, rationes que considerantur [MS considerantes] in phisica M
70. fisicales M
71. effectus, sunt virtutes herbarum B, effectus nature M; naturales, nature B
72. vivit corr. vincit in hand of gloss M, madica corr. medica M
vincit medica, beata Maria B, Maria M
73. Quod, hoc M
74. Non, et M
75. Iactitat, non iactanter profert B, iactitando ostendit M; theorica, speculativa scientia a ‘theorio’ quod est ‘speculatio’ B, ars medicinalis M
75. teorica M
76. [M]issus B
Missus, a patre M; puer, Iudaicus B, quidam Iudaycus M
77. Et, puer M; comminatem, valde ardentem M
77. cominatem M
78. salute corr. saluti M, deditus B, redditus alternate reading in hand of gloss B
79. Transposition of lines 79 and 80 corr. B
80. Primitivam, a, b, c, d et cetera B
82. Ussit, combussit, id est comburere voluit M; hunc, puerum M
83. Quem, puerum M; protexit, cooperuit et salvavit M
84. palleo M
pallio, de son mauntel M
85. Christo corr. Christus M
Christus, corpus Christi B, corpus Christi assumptum M
86. Inserted in the margin B, quam M
86. quem, Christum BM; inconsumptus, non B
87. Vexit M, incendeo M
Vixit, ille puer Iudaycus M
88. Hic, puer M; parvis, pueris Christianis M; Christi, in die Pasce M
88. parviis M
90. Missus, ille puer M; ignem, in fornacem M; subiit, set permansit illesus ut predictum est Quem protexit Christo Deus, et cetera M
90. ignem corr. M
91. missus, a populo Christiano superveniente M; pater, illius pueri M
92. fuit M
92. ater, niger B, niger, -gra, -grum M
93. subiit alternate reading in hand of gloss B Sub-title, respexit M
93. iniit, intravit M
94. Hec, virgo Maria M; ederina, edere quam Deus creavit contra estum supra caput Ione B, umbra edere, Anglice wodebind, quia sic edera semper viridis perseverat; similiter beata virgo omni tempore exaudit ipsos devotis precibus exorantes M
95. Ione, prophete B, illius prophete M; medicina, illa M
96. Extinguens, illa M
97. Hec, Maria M; roris, refrigerii vel spiritus sancti B, refrigerii M
98. Cella, domus B, illa M; favi, misericordie B; fons, illa M; dulcoris, receptaculum omnimodi dulcoris M
99. Salutaris, -lutis B, illa M
100. [I]nfecundam B, no rubric M
Infecundam, quia sterilis erat B, sterilem M; fecundavit, fecunditavit M
101. Virgo, Maria M; sponsam, quamdam mulierem disponsatam M
102. hanc, sponsam M
104. Eademque, Maria pollet M
105. Pollet, ea, Maria B
106. hunc, puerum M; quem, puerum M
106. quem corr. B
107. a vita corr. B
a vita, ab hoc mundo M; spoliavit, puerum M
108. Inserted in right margin B
108. Non . . . , mors quia virgo gloriosa eum suscitavit M
110. Rosa, Maria M
111. Inserted in right margin B
111. Et, que M
113. Iohannitius, in primo Medicine: fibries est calor innaturalis cursum supergrediens nature, procedens a corde in arterias, suoque sedens effectu [cf. MS British Museum Royal 12 B xii, fol. 213] top of folio B; talis, calor innaturalis M
114. arterias, arterie dicuntur quasi ‘arte aeris vie’ et dicuntur aliter ‘canales’ [cf. ibid., fol. 210] marg. B, et etiam in venas totius corporis M
115. mediatrix, Maria M
116. renodatrix, illa M
117. Febriles, febrium B; discrasias, distemperantias BM
117. descraseas M Sub-title, verberato demone M
118. [F]orma B
118. hostis, diabolus M
119. camina B, canina corr. M
canina, et forma M; leonina, et in forma M
120. Monachum M Sub-title, lacking B. Lines 124 to 129 appear after l. 147 B, corr. in hand of gloss B
121. Hostem, diabolum M; virgo, Maria M
122. Tertioque, tertia vice M; verberavit, diabolum M
123. quam, virgam M
124. Stella, tu B
125. contemptis corr. M, numcuparis B
contentis, miraculis B, in te M; nuncuparis, vocaris B
126. stelle, beate virginis M
127. Ve, dolorem BM; Eva, prima mulier M; hec, Maria M; Ave, salutem B, salutem et gaudium M
128. hec inserted above line B, ave corr. a ve B
128. quod, gaudium BM; hec, Maria M; a ve, a dolore BM
129. amortis corr. a mortis B Sub-title, lacking B
mortis, inferni M; iaculis, a telis vel a penis M
130. [U]bi B, no rubric M
Ubi, in quo loco M; quando, in quo tempore M; si queratur, si questio fieret M
131. facta, beate virginis miracula M
132. Basis, firmum fundamentum B, firma columpna M; fidei, sufficit sic credere M
133. Que, facta B, miracula M; lira, denuntiatione B, modulatione et diversitate M
134. mira, -cula BM
135. Operis, Marie virginis M
136. infinita, miracula de beata virgine M
137. Emendetur corr. Emundetur B
138. Tanguntur, et sic invenitur utilitas huius libri et finis M
139. [H]ec B, no rubric M
Hec, Maria M
140. Farre, plenitudine B
141. Ad, contra BM, et sic est facta prothesios paralauge, scilicet prima prepositio pro alia [Diomedes, Ars gramm., (ed. Heinrich Keil, Grammatici latini, I, Leipzig, 1857), p. 443] M
142. Elia M
Elya, Ierusalem B, in civitate Ierusalem M
143. mellita, suavissima B, dulce M; pietate, Marie B
144. istud, miraculum B
145. Im corr. In M Sub-title, spiritalis M, stellarum M
145. hac, Maria BM; enim, quia B; plenitudo, summi boni BM
146. Exundat, habundat BM; gratitudo, gratia dandi B, gratia ipsius M
148. [S]igna B
148. Signa celi etc. Hic adaptat autor quamdam astrologiam Martiani beate virgini, dicens quod signa firmamenti signant beate virginis sublimitatem, et prodit quod beata virgo designatur per galaxiam. Est enim galaxia circulus quidam albus in firmamento qui dirigitur ab [MS ad] septentrionali plaga, id est boriali, ad australem regionem, per aliud emisperium rediens ad punctum firmamenti a quo incepit. Et dicitur a ‘galao’ quod est ‘lac,’ et ‘xios,’ ‘via,’ quasi ‘lactea via,’ de qua loquitur Ovidius in primo Metamorphosios, dicens:
Est via sublimis celo manifesta sereno,
Lactea nomen habet candore notabilis ipso,
Ac iter est superis ad magni tecta Tonantis.
[Ovid, Meta., I, 168-170]
Sicut igitur galaxia, quam Ovidius notat lacteam, fabulose est iter ad tectum Iovis; similiter beata virgo est iter et mediatrix veraciter ad summum creatorem. Dicunt enim quidam quod galaxia est quedam impressio in firmamento; contra quos respondet Aristotiles in libro Meteorerum fere in principio, dicens quod galaxia est incessus celis [MS selis] et non impressio [Meteorics, I, MS British Museum Royal 12 G ii, fols. 230-231]. Dicunt etiam quod galaxia est quedam congregatio stellarum mobilium; contra quos respondet Aristotiles, dicens ibidem quod galaxia est in omni hora in uno loco stellarum notabilium [MS notarum], id est visu notabilium, cum quibus continuatur lumen solis, non recedens ex illo loco [Meteorics, I, viii], quoniam sol est maior quam terra et quedam stelle sunt maiores terra. Dicit quidam commentator, scilicet Algazel, quod sol est maior terra centies sexagesies quinquies et tertia. Unus etiam dicit id, quod omnes stelle visu notabiles preter lunam et Mercurium sunt maiores terra. Dicit Aristotiles consequenter nos quod videmus galaxiam de die et de nocte quando possibile in uno loco videre illam, et inspicimus iterum quod ipsa non est recedens de loco suo.
Iam ergo declaratum est nobis quod galaxia non est ex incessu stellarum mobilium, videlicet lumen rediens; nos, autem, dicens quod esse galaxie est hoc modo: quod est quia ingnis purus propinqus orbi lune est inflammatus lucidus; et in locis orbis in quibus videtur galaxia, sunt multe stelle spissim site minute et magne propinque et luminose quarum lumina propter propinquitatem equaliter adinvicem et per adiutorium luminis solis efficiunt galaxiam. Cum ergo procedit lumen earum ex inflammato ignito in eo fit lumen oblongum quod dicitur galaxia. Et iste quidem stelle sunt fixe quarum quedam tangunt alias et sunt suscipientes splendorem ex soleque continuatur lumen quarumdam earum cum quibusdam. Ergo videtur galaxia in loco uno orbis et non recedens ab eo. Esse autem galaxie simile est esse stellarum comas habentium. Ipse enim similes sunt per hunc modum in locis suis quoniam lumen solis cooperat et adiuvat [lumen] earum.
Unde sciendum quod ita galaxia representat beatem virginem, quia sic galaxia semper est in uno loco perseverans et ab eo non recedens, et etiam circuens totum firmamentum; similiter beata virgo perseverans est interventrix nostra ad filium suum, omnium creatorem marg. M
150. largiflue, large fluentis bonitate M
151. Hec, Maria M; galaxias, via celi a ‘gala’ quod est ‘lac’ et ‘ago, -gis,’ quasi ‘lactea via’ B, via alba firmamenti M
152. Que, virgo B, Maria M; pandit, demonstrat et aper[u]it M
153. Dei domus, celi empirei B
154. Arthos, illa stella marina B, illa stella et duplex est M; Arthos tortum, hic adaptat autor quoddam signum quod dicitur Arthos beate virgini, unde sciendum est congregatio quarumdam stellarum numquam tendentium ad occasum, set semper agitantur circa polum articum, que stelle [MS stella] dicuntur maior ursa; scilicet viginti septem, secundum Tolomeum, parve stelle propinque in parte boriali prope polum articum, ut plenius dicetur consequenter. Unde sicut stelle sempiterne sunt apparitionis et numquam tendentes ad occasum; similiter beata virgo est stella nostra que nescit occasum marg. M; tortum, wrong M; ad, contra M; Draconem, duo sunt Archi, scilicet maior ursa et minor ursa, signa planete B, ad illud signum M; tortum ad Draconem, ad sciendum quid sit Draco, scilicet illud signum de quo loquitur hic: Est primo notandum quod quilibet planeta preter solem habet tres circulos, scilicet equantem, deferentem, et epiciclum. Equans qui dicitur lune est circulus concentricus cum terra, cuius deferens est circulus ecentricus, et una cuius medietas declinat versus septentrionem, alia versus austrum, et intersecat deferens equantem in duobus locis, et figura intersectionis appellatur Draco, quoniam lata in medio et angustior versus fines. Intersectio ergo illa per quam movetur luna ab austro in aquilonem appelatur capud draconis. Reliqua vero intersectio per quam movetur a septentrione in austrum dicitur cauda draconis. Et adaptatur illud signum beate virgini quia ipsa est mediante et filium Dei Verbo concipiente. Potestas draconis, id est diaboli, draconi comparabilis, est adnichilata et vita sempiterna nobis reparata marg. M
155. ad, contra M; aquilonem, norht M
156. virginis, Marie M
157. Hec, Maria M; draconem, diabolum BM; conculcavit, calcavit M
100. Infecundam, quia sterilis erat B, sterilem M; fecundavit, fecunditavit M
158. Qui, draco M; livore, per B, invidia M; degradavit, deposuit M
159. hominis, Ade BM
160. Cum Boote, cum illa stella M, Boetes est quedam stella distincte sita iuxta polum articum que semper ostendit se nobis, nec intendit ad occasum, et apparet semper in eodem loco propter cursus sui brevitatem. Et dicitur stella nautica cui beata virgo est comparata, ut prenotatum est in materia marg. M; Boote, illa parva stella B
160. Booete M
161. Nobis polus, duplex est polus, scilicet polus articus et polus antarticus. Polus articus semper apparet nobis versus partem borealem, set polus antarticus semper nobis occultatur, videlicet penes partem australem. Unde Virgilius:
Hic vertex nobis semper sublimis; at illum
Sub pedibus Stix atra tenet Manesque profundi
[Georg., I, 242-243]
marg. M; Vertex, id est polus articus; illum, scilicet polum antarticum. Sicut enim polus articus et etiam stella nautica iuxta polum articum sita in eodem loco, semper sunt apparentes; similiter benignitas beate virginis non torpescens, semper se ostendit ipsam pura mente exorantibus marg. M; Virgilius:
Maximus hic flexus sinuoso elabitur Anguis
Circum perque duas in morem fluminis Archos
Artos Occeani metuentes equore tingi
[Georg., I, 244-246]
top of folio B; polus, articus BM; quo, polo BM
163. Stella, Maria M; lapsum, vicii B, occasum M
164. nec, pro ‘et non’ M; torpescit, non est torpida nec incidit in tenebras M, lentescit [MS [l]entevit] M
165. Benigne corr. Benigna in hand of gloss M
166. Adriagne, illius stelle ad modum corone B, illius circuitionis stellarum, circuitus M, Adriangne corona, Adriagne est dispositio quarumdam stellarum in septentrionali plaga admodum corone in circuitu. Et per illud signum designatur virgo gloriosa que in celo coronatur corona honoris et glorie et que nobis largitur honorem et gloriam marg. M
167. Demonstratur M
167. Demonstratur, beata virgo M
168. Honoris, corona B, quantum ad hanc vitam M; glorie, quantum ad vitam futuram M
169. Athlantee, stelle Atlantis B, septem stelle que dicuntur fuisse filie Athlantis M; hic facit autor adaptationem Athlantidum, id est illarum septem stellarum versus partem meridionalem apparentium que secundum fabulas dicebantur fuisse filie septem Athlantis que fabulose dicebantur celum sustinuisse passione Athlantis patris earum, quod Athlas celum sustinuit; cuius rei veritas est quod ipse Athlas in suis temporibus optimus erat astronomus et ideo fingebatur celum sustinuisse. De istis stellis loquitur Virgilius in primo Georgicorum dicens:
Ante tibi Eoe Athlantides abscondantur
Gnos[i]aque ardentis discedet stella Corone [Corona corr. Corone],
Debita quam sulcis committas spuma [sic]
Quamque invite properes anni spem credere terre.
[Georg., I, 221-224]
Eoe, id est in orientali parte orientis et per partem meridionalem usque ad partem occidentalem tendentes; Gnosia, id est Cretensis; anni, id est ‘annone future’. Quidam enim dicebant quod iste septem stelle dicerentur maior ursa, unde in rei veritate sciendum secundum Tolomeum in suo Magno Almagesto quod iste Athlantides nec sunt maior ursa nec minor, quia maior dicitur quedam congregatio stellarum viginti septem secundum Tolomeum, ut predictum est, et hoc in formam quadranguli ex parte boriali iuxta polum articum. Minor ursa est congregatio septem stellarum, set in modo quadranti, et etiam versus partem borialem. Et sunt sempiterne apparitionis quia sunt in septentrione circa polum, ita quod minor est propinquior polo et ursa maior est a polo remotior. Unde iste septem stelle adaptantur beate virgini que est repleta septem donis spiritus sancti, septem dona, scilicet que sunt donum sapientie, donum intellectus, donum consilii, donum fortitudinis, donum scientie, donum pietatis, et donum timoris domini. Versus: Sap, intel, con, for, sci, pi, ti, collige dona marg. M and the same verse, bottom of folio B
Ante tibi Eoe Athlantides abscondantur
Gnosiaque ardentis descendat stella Corone [MS Corona],
Debita quam sulcis committas sonima [sic].
[Virgil, Georg. I, 221-223]
Solima dicta [MS Sonima luca] salem; Ierosolima, Iebus, Helya,
Urbs sacra Ierusalem dicitur atque salem
[cf. supra, l. 142] bottom of folio B
170. est, illa B, beata virgo M; melle, dulcedine BM
171. Septiformis, septem donorum bonorum B, septem donorum spiritus sancti M
172. Hec, Maria M; axis, Virgilius [sic]: stabilisque manet dat cunta movere B, quia dicit Boitius: stabilisque manens dat cunta moveri [Boethius, Cons. philos., III. 9, 3] M
173. quos M
173. quos, Christum et Mariam M; sinaxis, vespertina oratio B, oratio finalis M
174. suscipitur, exauditur M
175. Celi, secundum quod Deus M; terre, secundum quod homo M; sustentator, secundum quod Deus B
176. Terre . . . , quia descendit in uterum virginis et ibi fuerat incarnatus M; habitator, secundum quod homo B
177. In celum . . . , per formam deitatis sue B, regressus unde venerat M, secundum formam sue deitatis M
178. Ille, summus artifex B
179. annotavit, demonstravit B, designavit M
180. Admirandus, ille BM; artifex, operarius M
181. Admiranda, per -dam B, admirabili M; nam, pro ‘quia’ B
182. plasmator, formator B, Deus omnium formator M; plasmatura, creatura B, creatura ut homo M
183. opifex, ille creator B, ille operator M
184. Stelle, filius Marie B, Marie M; proles, filius M; figuratur, significatur BM
185. Vervece, Ariete B; in Vervece, in Ariete M; qui, Vervex M; mactatur, sacrificatur ut contingit in antiqua lege et similiter Deus pro nostra redemptione M, sicut legitur de Abraham qui sacrificabat arietem domino. Vervex rapitur qui cornibus heret in dumis; aries, similiter Christus sacrificatus est per nos in cruce marg. M
186. Et in Tauri . . . , proles virginis B, Taurus mactabatur in veteri lege unde Salomon optulit domino tauros et oves et sacrificabant. Et similiter Christus pro nobis est oblatus marg. M
186. Tauri corr. M
187. Geminus . . . , hic ponuntur xii signa in quibus signatur Christus marg. M, gigas gratie sublime B, ipse filius Marie M; Deus, et M
188. Cancro, per, signo B, per Cancrum M; conversivum, Deum conversum B, conversantem ad nos pro nostra redemptione M
188. pono corr. promo B
189. Hunc, Deum M
190. Sane sic . . . , hic respondet autor antipophore quia posset astrologus credere quod quia Christus signatur per stellas nihil posset operari sine stellis. Hoc removet, dicens Per se Deus etc. marg. M; sic, sic, id est, sicut dicam M; intelligatur, illud quod signatur per signa et per stellas M
191. Per se, per divinam potentiam et sine naturali effectu stellarum B, sine officio stellarum M
192. Signatus, Deus M; opere, in stellis et in omnibus aliis creaturis M
193. Creaturus M
Creaturus, Deus M; dominatur, ille dominium habet B, ipse Deus M
194. nec, pro ‘et non’ M; coartatur, ab aliis B
195. subiecto, subposito sibi M
195. sidere M
196. Iuda corr. M
Iuda, indeclinabile B, quando vicit diabolum M; Leo, Christus BM, Christus comparatur leoni quia sicut leo est animal primitive nature et victor animalium, sic Christus victor fuit in cruce diabolum devincendo et de morte ad modum leonis resurgendo M
197. Gloriosus, leo B, ille M; tropheo, victoria sancte crucis B, in victoria contra diabolum M
198. virginea, tanquam in clipeo BM
199. Libra, per Libram BM, quia sicut libra ponderat eque, sic Christus iustus est iudex et equs, qui nec prece nec preda a via veritatis obliquat vel recedit marg. M; iudex, esse, iustus M; designatur, Christus B, ille M
200. Scorpione, illo signo, id est per -nem B, Ihesu fili David, ut quid venisti torquere nos [Vulg. Matth., 8, 29] B, per illud signum quod dicitur Scorpio M, Scorpio vermis est subito pungens et per illud signum designatur Christus qui cruce pungendo adusta ewlsit infernalia, et demonem devicit et dicitur scorpio, quasi ‘carpio,’ a ‘carpium’ marg. M; demonstratur, ipse Deus M
201. Vincere, ad vincendum M; tartarea, tempestates inferni BM
202. Vincit, ipse Christus M; Sagittator, id est Chiro, -rius B, dum respondit intentionibus Iudeorum, in Sagittario M
203. Quasi, ipse vincit M; dator, Capricornus M
204. Elongati, a nobis, scilicet per peccatum primi parentis B, a nobis per peccata primi parentis vel ad litteram quia in Capricorno, id est, in illo signo in quo est sol in Decembre, elonga[n]tur dies artificiales M
205. Urnam, ollam M, Christus datur intelligi per Aquarium quia sicut Aquarius in quo sol est in Ianuaria frequenter pluvias demittit et hec inferiora humectat, similiter Christus rore spiritus sancti quos diligit quasi rorat marg. M; fundens, ipse B, Christus quantum ad Aquarium M; sacri roris, spiritus sancti BM
206. Preco, denuntiator BM; mitis, suavis B; caloris, ignis spiritus sancti B, spiritus sancti et principii estatis M; dominus: veni ignem mittere in terram: et quid volo nisi ut ardeat [Vulg., Luc., 12, 49] marg. B
206. et M
207. Piscis, quantum ad illud signum quod dicitur Pisces M, quantum ad illud signum, sol in Piscibus, quia sol in Piscibus accendens versus nos, maiorem calorem inter hec inferiora demittit, et pisces percepto calore se multiplicant, sic Christus per suam divinam calorem spiritus sancti, id est, ignem amoris inter Christianos demittit marg. M; fluminis, ipse B
208. Christo M
209. infinitatis, eternitatis B, annum qui non habet finem M
210. Suo, Christo M; natus, ille B; sydere, de Maria sibi electa BM
210. sidere M
211. Mater, Maria M
212. Est, in omnibus hiis signis M
213. largo, ex divina gratia M, versus est:
bra, ete [MS ariete], pione, ro, gittario, no,
li, ari, scor, tau, sa, iemi;
corno, cro, one, quario, ce, gine,
capri, can, le, a, pis, vir.
Sol est in istis signis [The second and fourth lines, intended as mnemonic verse, are made up of the first syllables of the names of the signs of the zodiac. The remaining syllables appear above them (cf. supra, gloss on l. 169 and infra, gloss on l. 304)] bottom of folio M
214. [H]ec, guide to rubricator ‘h’ B, Saracenum M
Hec, beata virgo B, Maria M
215. Per stupendum, per admirabile M; stupendum, admirabile B
216. Oleum, et per M; ymaginis, Marie M
217. mame B, versus mamme corr. mamme versus M
218. Quibus, mammis M; per se, sine artificio B, sine administratione alicuius M
218. licor stillat M Sub-title, virginis lacking M
219. Signans, licor M
220. Accidit Rome marg. B; Adolescens, quidam iuvenis, scilicet Eadmundus [Edmund Rich, archbishop of Canterbury, 1234-1240 (cf. supra, p. 82)] M; yconie, ymagini Marie B, statue M
220. [A]dolescens, guide to rubricator ‘a’ B, Aadoloscens ycenie M
222. pacto, et dicitur pactum, quasi ‘pacis actum.’ Est pactum equivocum, unde versus: Est [MS Cum] [pactum] ratio conditioque lucrarum
[cf. Morale scolarium (ed. Paetow), Prologue, l. 36] marg. M
223. Hunc, iuvenem M; castigavit, Maria M
225. consortii, uxoris B
226. [I]N, guide to rubricator ‘i’ B, Iin M
226. Toleto, in illa civitate M
227. Signum corr. Signo M
Signo cere, in ymagine de cera facta M
228. Instant, contendunt B; crucifigere, ad crucifigendum M
229. audita, ab archiepiscopo cantante missam B, per totam civitatem M
230. De, pro M; Messye, Christi B, salvatoris M; Messias, Ebreum est, et interpretatur ‘salvator’ marg. M; trita, crucifixa B, crucifica et vexata M
230. Messie M Sub-title, submerso peregrino M
231. Renovato vulnere, quia sanguis effluxit in terram M
232. [M]ersum, guide to rubricator ‘M’ B, no rubric, but sign in margin indicates paragraph M
232. Mersum mari, peregrinum crucesignatum B, quemdam peregrinantem M; palliavit, Maria B, hec, scilicet Maria, id est, cooperuit M
233. Salutantem, illum dicentem assidue ‘Ave Maria, ave Maria’ M
234. portum, pretento pallio B, salutis M
235. potens, Maria est M
236. Maris moti, per procellam M; mitigatrix, temperatrix B
237. Famulo, ne esset submersus in mari M; subvenerat, ausilium tulerat M
238. Stella maris, Maria M; vis, potestatem BM
239. singulari, unico dato in celo M
241. Hec, Maria M
242. comminatur, dicens: redde cartam B, diabolo existente in inferno; sic accidit de Teophilo quando gloriosa [virgo] dixit ut cartam redderet [cf. infra, no. 60] M
243. inperio M
244. [M]Vlieris, guide to rubricator ‘m’ B, no rubric, but guide to rubricator M
244. vas, doleum scilicet B, dolium M; accidit in Anglia marg. B; implevit, ipsa, scilicet Maria M
245. quod, vinum M; flevit, mulier M
245. abesse corr. M
247. Cum, ipsa B, Maria M; summi boni, Dei qui dicitur summum bonum a Boitio [Boethius, Cons. phil., III, 12, 89] M
248. largitatem, hoc quod habet a summo bono B
249. Petenti, mulieri M
250. Accidit in Anglia marg. B; Era, bona domina M
250. [E]rat corr. [E]ra, guide to rubricator ‘e’ B, HEra M, quidam corr. quedam in hand of golss M Sub-title, virgo lacking M
251. stellam, Mariam M
252. Occultato, in confessione B, celato in confessione M; vitio, hoc M
253. Non . . . , dum illa mulie[r] non erat confessa M
255. Iminet, apparat M; dampnatio, ei a summo iudice B, a summo iudice M
256. Mens, anima BM; corpus, mulieris ad preces gloriose virginis M
259. [P]er B
259. hanc, Mariam M; machinandi, componendi rotas quasdam et dicitur de ‘ruo, ruis,’ M; bige dico, rota: tu lapide que rota marg. M
261. Vir, artifex B, quidam artifex M; originem, doctrinam originalem B, principium M
262. Machinalem, ponderositatem cuiusdam machine M; erexerunt, elevaverunt quia beata virgo iussit ut eligeret in scola tres pueros et virgines. Isti ausiliarentur ipsum istis circum coadunatis, statim ipsum consequebatur propositum M
263. Molem, ponderositatem B
263. virum corr. M
265. scole, scolastes B
266. vole corr. B
vole, palme BM
267. pueri M, teneri in hand of gloss M Sub-title, Romanorum quam virgo M
268. [I]mperatrix, guide to rubricator ‘i’ B
Imperatrix, mulier quedam M; acusata, a fratre imperatoris B; hic narrat qualiter fuit primo dampnata, dicens quod frater imperatoris petiit ipsam de illicito amore et quia ipsa noluit consentire, ideo acusabat eam penes inperatorem qui eam dampnavit, ea innocente marg. M
270. aculeo, stimulo B, stimulo fratris ipsius inperatoris M
271. curans M, vixit pauper corr. pauper vixit M
curans, illa sanans M; pauper, ipsa, scilicet inperatrix M
272. Virgo, Maria M; ut, pro ‘sicut’ M
273. Effectu, effectu cuiusdam herbe M; gramineo, -nis B
274. Lepra, a M; delatores, acusatores B, incusatores M
274. lepros corr. lesos M
275. Expurgavit, ipsa sanavit M
276. Mundi corr. in hand of gloss M
276. meruit, et ipsa M
277. Dolus, fratris ipsius imperatoris M
278. que, veritas M
279. emicuit M
280. hanc, imperatricem quia noluit ei consentire M
281. coruptoris M
corruptoris, adulteri B, adulterii M
282. Optans, frater M
283. Hanc M, silvam corr. B
Hanc, imperatricem M; spiculator, tortor B, tortor qui deberet eam decolasse M
284. illam, imperatricem M
285. Liberans, et ille M
286. Nutrix, ipsa B, illa, scilicet imperatrix M; hic narrat quomodo fuit secundo dampnata marg. M
286. hec set M, amator corr. amatur M
287. quodam, in domo ipsius venatoris M; perpetratur, facta est M
287. perpetratur M, perpetratur alternate reading in hand of gloss B
289. Puerile, pueri B; resecabat, et ille iuvenis M, ecce scelus [MS celus] quod perpetravit M
289. reserabat M
290. Guttur, et dicitur guttur quasi ‘gutte iter’ marg. M; hanc, inperatricem M
291. vesania, per B, invidioso furore M
292. casta, illa imperatrix, M; hic narrat qualiter tertio fuit dampnata marg. M
295. illa, in castitate M; rebella, illa M
295. rebella corr. rebellis M
296. in rupellis, in saxis M
297. sub tutamine, sub protectione et defensione M
298. Mater, Maria M; que, Maria M
299. illi, mulieri B
300. Qua, herba M; lepras, omnes species lepre, tamen cum omnis lepra sit incurabilis M
301. medicine, particularis B
302. Hostes, illos duos acusatores B, illos duos acusatores qui prius eam acusaverant M
303. lepra corr. B
303. sanaverat, et M
304. cedit, imperatrici M; leonina, nomina leprarum B, illa species lepre M; hic ostenduntur quatuor species lepre secundum quatuor humores: et est prima species, leonina, et fit ex colera; secunda est elephancia, et fit ex malencolia; tertia est alopicia, et fit ex sanguine; quarta est tiria, et fit ex fleumate. Et notentur isti versus Clavis Compendii:
Sunt species lepre quas sillabice retinebis,
Participes fiant quibus ex humoribus: ipse
Ele, melan; leo, co; san, alopi; tiria, fleu, sit
[Clavis Compendii of John of Garland, MS Bruges 546, fol. 42]
305. victa, lepra M
306. elephancia, atra species lepre B, et, secunda species M
307. Tiriaque M
Tyriaque, tertia species B, et, illa species lepre M, tyria est serpens unde fit tyriata marg. B
308. perhibetur, wlpecula [cf. vulpecula and alopecia] B, dicitur M
309. Putris, putrida M; allopicia, illa quarta species M
309. alopicia M
310. prior, leonina B, prima species, scilicet leonina M; exardescit, calida est et sicca ex colera M
311. Sequens, secunda lepra elefancia B, secunda species quedam elephancia M; arescit, melancolia B, desiccat, id est, frigida est et sicca ex melancolia M
312. Friget, fleumati B, frigida et humida ex fleumate M; tertia, tyria B, species quedam tiria M
313. Quarta, species lepre, id est allopicia B, species quedam alopicia M; calet, est calida et humida ex sanguine M; humescit, sanguineus B
314. Tamen, quamvis iste species lepre sint incurabiles quantum ad auxilium humanum M; convalescit, factus est sanus B, sanus fit M
315. Maternali M
315. Matronali gratia, data sibi a beata virgine B; gratia, data inperatrici a virgine M
316. geri, haberi M
317. confiteri, peccata sua B, omnia peccata sua M
318. hic suprascribed M
318. patitur, morbum B, lepram M
319. Sic, per confessionem BM; iugulator, strangulator M
320. peccati, per confessionem B
322. hec, matrona B, inperatrix M
322. inperatoris M
323. delatoris, acusatoris BM
324. celera corr. scelera B
scelera, peccata M
326. Papam, a B; pudoris, castitatis M
327. Illa, imperatrix M; vovit, Deo et beate Marie M
328. terminavit, illa inperatrix M
329. Set M
329. transmigravit, illa, scilicet inperatrix M
330. Papali consilio, consilio pape M
331. Hec, matrona B, inperatrix M; nuptis, uxoribus M; exemplum, ille nupte M
332. sanctum corr. B, line appears in margin M
334. hec, inperatrix M
335. Casta, Maria M; quam, inperatricem M; protexit, defendit M
336. Nec castam M Sub-title, festum lacking B, nativitas B, beate Marie M
Castam, inperatricem M; deseruit, dewerpit M
337. [V]lr, guide to rubricator in margin ‘v’ B
Vir, quidam M
338. gyrum M
girum, circuitum B, per circuitum M
339. Res, rei veritas M; querenti, illi viro causam ab angelis querenti M
340. Vox, angeli B, angelica M; celebratur, in celis M
340. respondet M
341. Ortus floris, nativitas Marie BM; colatur, observetur M
343. Festum corr. in hand of gloss M
Festum, festum virginis Marie M; virginale, -nis B
344. Nate, ab Anna M; rose, Marie M; speciale, proprium B, pulchrum M
345. cepit, incepit BM; indiciis, demonstrationibus M
346. primo, ab angelis et argangelis in celo et postea in terra M
350. Toti, omnibus hominibus mundanis M
351. puritas, claritas M
352. [I]ustum, guide to rubricator ‘i’ B
Iustum, hominem M; est affata, Maria M
353. In extremis, in morte BM; consolata, Maria M
354. Miris . . . , ille existens B, Maria existens M
354. deliciis corr. B Sub-title, per miraculum facta M
355. Hic, vir M; reginam, celi M
356. illam, virginem M
357. contuberniis, hoc contubernium est consortio militum in expeditione, de ‘con’ et ‘tabula’ marg. B, contubernium est proprie societas militum in expeditione et dicitur de ‘con’ quod est ‘similis,’ et ‘yberno, -nas’ marg. M
358. Istud fuit in primitiva ecclesia, Ierusalem accidit marg. B; quadam, Iudaica M; virginalis, Marie virginis M
358. [D]omo, guide to rubricator ‘d’ B
359. Forma, ymago B; specialis, Marie M
360. celitus, miraculose BM
361. Templum corr. in hand of gloss M
Templum, monasterium M, Templum dicitur quasi ‘teos platos,’ id est divina latitudo, unde in Compendio:
Exponens templum sic esse ‘theos platos’ illud,
Hic quia ‘platea theos,’ vicus divinus habetur
[Compendium grammatice of John of Garland, MS Bruges 546, fol. 126]
marg. M; fit, illa domus M
362. Illis, apostolis BM; illud, templum M; et accidit istud miraculum, gloriosa virgine inveniente marg. M
363. linquit M
364. [V]Ir, guide to rubricator ‘v’ B, appella M, eiecit M
364. Vir apella, Iudeus [cf. Horace, Sat., v, 100-101] BM
365. factam M Sub-title, Quod ymago fideiussit pro Christiano M
365. Formam, Marie virginis M; mox, consequenter M
366. Raptus, ille M
367. illam, ymaginem M
368. qua, ymagine BM
369. Palam, coram B; admirantibus, omnibus hic ineuntibus M
370. [F]orma, guide to rubricator ‘f’ B, FOrma M
370. In Constantinopolis civitate illud acidit marg. B; Forma, ymago Christi et beate Marie B, quedam ymago Christi M
371. creditori, Iudeo BM
372. Quod, mercator M
373. hos, denarios B, denarios ad diem statutum M
374. Quorum, denariorum BM; hoc, mare BM
374. reportator M
376. Fideiussor, mercatoris M; Christus, illa ymago B, plegius M
377. Mercans, mercator BM; struit, parat B
378. marsupium, marsupium dicitur a ‘manu’ et ‘supino, -nas’ quod est ‘elevo, -vas’ marg. B; bursam cum numis M; et dicitur de ‘manus, -nus, -nui,’ et ‘supino, -nas’ quod est ‘elevo, -vas,’ quia marsupium manu supinatur, id est elevatur dum evacuatur marg. M
379. Abscondebat, sub tapite sera B; hoc, marsupium B; hos, denarios M
379. hos M Sub-title, accusata M, causitici M
380. Deus, id est forma Dei M
381. viri, Iudei B, illius Iudei M; vitium, fraudem B
382. [P]eccatricem, guide to rubricator ‘p’ B, no rubric initial, but large rubric paragraph sign M
Peccatricem, quamdam mulierem M; acusare, quia habuit filium cum filio, vir fuit Rome B
384. wltu M
vultu, habitu BM; clerici, causidici B, cuiusdam causitici M
385. Hec, mulier peccatrix a demone accusata M; cum, dixit B
386. flens, ipsa [MS ipsam] B, illa mulier, id est peccatrix accusata M; nephas, peccatum B; diluebat, peccatum suum lavit M
387. Rore, per misericordiam Dei B, misericordia Dei M
388. Illi, mulieri accusate M; lateralis, col— M
388. lateralis corr. B
389. Virga, Maria M; Iesse, Marie B, hic Iesse, indeclinabile, fuit pater David regis prout dicitur in genera [librum generationis]; Iesse autem genuit David regem marg. M; triumphalis, virgo B
390. invisibilis, Maria, scilicet hominibus M
391. Sedit M
391. hic, acusator M; imperatrici, Marie BM
392. Cruci, signaculo crucis M; peccatrici, accusator cedit M
392. phebi M
393. labilis, ille BM, evanescibilis B
394. Oves, fideles Christianos M
396. Propulsatis, iectis B
397. Scutum, defensio B; karacter, crucis signum B, signum, hic caracter crucis est signum a pastore ovibus impressum; unde crux Christi est noster caracter, id est nostrum signum contra demonem et numinem M
397. caracter M
398. Pastoralis, Christus B
398. quod], et M
399. Dico, ego B; gregibus, fidelibus in ecclesia M
400. [F]ormam, guide to rubricator ‘f’ B
Formam, ymaginem BM; salvatoris, Christi M
401. Nichomedus corr. Nichodemus B, Nicodemus M
401. ad, propter, proteseos paralauge [cf. supra, gloss on l. 141] M
402. Perhennis M
403. Hanc, ymaginem M; perfoderunt, perforaverunt M
404. Amphoram, dicitur ab ‘am’ quod est ‘circum’ et ‘fero, ferrs’ B, ollam capacem M, amphora dicitur de ‘ansa, -se’ et ‘phoros, ferre,’ quia manibus est portabilis sive contrectabilis, igitur maniabile marg. M
405. cruoris, sanguinis emanantis M
405. corpoream M Sub-title, inventus flos fuit M
409. [H]anc, guide to rubricator ‘h’ B
Hanc, Mariam M; peccator, clericus B
410. cuius, peccatoris [MS peccatricis] M; vernavit, floruit BM, accidit Carnoti B
412. campo M
412. hoc, corpus B, corpus clerici mortui M
413. humatum, sepultum M
414. atrio, catholico B, in cimiterio M
415. Carnotensi, de Chateris M
416. viro, canonico B
416. comminata M
417. ore rustico, quia nondum sepultus erat servus eius in cimiterio M; rusticio, turpius, rusticio, nihil est effrontius animo bottom of folio B
417. Fuit ore rustico M Sub-title, virginales M
418. [S]cripto, guide to rubricator ‘s’ B, commemorandus corr. memorandus B
418. quidam, homo M
419. indicandus corr. iudicandus in hand of gloss M
419. iudicandus, ille M
422. Cruciatus, penas inferni M
423. Dimissus, ille M; evaserat, eschapa M
425. vernans, illa M
426. Ierico, hec Ierico est vallis et indeclinabile, in hoc loco delectabili M
427. Balsamum, hec balsamus est arbor, hoc balsamum est liquor eius M; cinnamomum, canel M; cinnamomum dicitur quasi ‘canna amomi’ bottom of folio M
427. cinamomum M Sub-title, apostote B
428. Vincit, ipsa Maria M; nardum, talem arborem preciosam M; amomum, illud unguentum M
430. [I]ulianus, guide to rubricator ‘i’ B
Iulianus, apostata B, imperator qui primo erat monachus [sic] M
431. A quodam, qui vocabatur Mercurius M; suscitatur, a morte B
433. Hoc, postquam perforavit Iulianum M; bustum, sepulcrum BM; petit, Mercurius M
434. irretit, -tio, -tis M, illaqueat BM
436. urbs Cesariensis, Roma [sic] M
436. Sesariensis M
437. doxis, gloriis, hec doxa, id est gloria B, laudibile M; inpensis, donis B, datis M
438. Basilio M Sub-title, ab episcopo liberato M
Basilico, qui fuit episcopus Remensis [sic] B, qui tunc fuit episcopus Cesariensis, id est papa Romanus [sic] M
439. volitante, currente M
440. Equo, et hoc M; hasta, hoc M; sanguinante, sanglaunt [MS sanglaung corr. sanglaunt] M
441. Mercurio, equite illo B, Mercurius vocabatur miles ille qui eum interfecit M
442. [H]ec, guide to rubricator ‘h’ B
Hec, Maria M
444. Literato, sacerdoti M; modicum, parvum M
445. Salve . . . , illud officium, scilicet missam de beata virgine M
446. Vir, ille sacerdos M
447. cantans, ille M; unicum, cantum, scilicet ‘Salve, etc.’ M
448. Hec, Maria M; exterrebat, fortis terrebat B, espuntat M
449. ministrum, illum sacerdotem M
450. Laudis, ab officio celebrandi missam M
451. preses, episcopus M; illum, sacerdotem M
452. tranquillum, et non fatigabat illum postea B
453. Matris, gloriose virginis M
454. [E]sset, guide to rubricator ‘e’ B, pungna M
454. immanis, terribilis B, magna et terribilis M, ab ‘in’ quod est ‘sine,’ et ‘manu’ quod est ‘bono,’ quasi ‘sine bono’ marg. B
455. Aurelianis, accidit Aurelianis B, illi civitati M
456. Ymago, beate virginis M
457. Cive M
Civem, quemdam burgensem M; protexit, ymago BM, quia ymago illa suscepit ictum pro burgense vel pro cive M
458. crux corr. crus B, de corr. dum M Sub-title, Iude lacking M
crus, a se M; erexit, ymago BM
459. Hostes, inimicos M; id, miraculum B; sedaverat, pacificaverat BM
460. [P]enam B
460. In Anglia accidit marg. B; proditoris, qui tradidit dominum Iudeis M
461. Pandi, monstrari B, ostendi M; salvatoris, Christi M
462. Monacho promiserat M
Monaco, Anglie B, cuidam Anglicano M; promiserat, concesserat M
463. Iuda B
463. inflammata, ardens M
464. Hunc corr. Nunc M
Nunc, aliquando M; depressa, a vale M; nunc, aliquando M; levata, exaltata M
466. in M
466. Descendebat, rota BM; frangore, cum tumultu M
467. plebs, multitudo BM
467. amore corr. clamore M
469. Omnes, ibi pendentes B, pendentes ibi M; percusserunt, Iudam M
469. percursserunt corr. percusserunt M
470. devoverunt, maledixerunt B, maledixerunt Iudam M
471. corruerat, descenderat B
472. Rubric paragraph sign in left margin M
472. Ave, O gloriosa virgo M; mira, miracula M
473. Templum, tu BM; turris, tu M, a qua dependet omnis armatura fortior B
474. refrigium, tu M
475. flos, O Maria M
477. solsequium, sicorea, alter flos calendula B, tu, solsekel, flos est quidam M
478. solis, Christi M
479. nove prolis, filii Dei incarnati B
480. Genitrix, tu, quia portasti filium Dei M; filia, quia Deus creavit omnia et sic beatam virginem M
481. violarum, illorum florum, violette Gallice M
482. In te corr. B, Inte M Sub-title, quod fiebat ingne pestifero M
482. spirat, redolet BM
483. Exundat, abundat M; fragrantia, redolentia BM
484. [E]st, guide to rubricator ‘e’ B, EEst M
484. templo, in ecclesia beate Marie apud Parisius B, in ecclesia beate virginis M
485. Virgo, est B; mali, morbi M
487. Fertur, illud malum B, illa egritudo M; ignis infernalis, herisipula B
488. Artus, membra M
490. Hec, Maria M; paradisi, a ‘para’ quod est ‘iuxta’ et ‘disis,’ ‘stella’ B
491. celum, empirium ubi sunt angeli et archangeli M; dysi, stella, scilicet Maria B, stella M
491. disi M
492. lucifera, dysis B
493. hac, dysi B, stella, id est Maria M; salvator, Christus M
494. Sol, ille M
496. Willelme M Sub-title, lacking M, appears following l. 507 B
498. Oves, animas M; ovilia, ecclesias in istius dioceseos B, ecclesias et monasteria M
499. vides, tu B; testaris, testimonium peribes M
501. Miris, -aculis [MS oculis] B, miraculis M; ecclesia, beate virginis Parisius M
502. [I]gne, guide to rubricator ‘i’ B
502. inviolata, non B, non corupta M
503. Remis, illi civitati B, apud illam civitatem M
504. Ymago, ymago virginis M
505. Mater, Dei M; sic, hac similitudine M; illibata, non degradata nec corrupta B, intacta ab omni voluptate carnali M
506. Stella, illa M; obumbrata, tecta B, cooperta M
507. nivea, alba vel lactea quod id est M
508. [S]trata B, guide to rubricator ‘s’ B, Grata genus M
508. mortalitate, igne infernali B
510. Bysan corr. Bysansii in hand of gloss M Sub-title, lacking M
Bysancii, Constantinopolis B, apud illam civitatem Constanopolitanam [MS Constantinopolitatam], et declinatur hoc Bisancium [MS Bisansium corr. Bisancium], -cii M
511. Ypapanti, representatio B, illud festum Purificationis beate virginis M; est statutum, festum Purificationis B
513. peste, pestis est corruptio elementorum B; contagii, ab illo calore generali M
514. [C]Ecum B, guide to rubricator ‘c’ B
514. hec, Maria M
515. iocundus M
515. elimavit, solemniter composuit B, elimate composuit, id est nobiliter M
516. Tantum M
516. responsorii, ‘Gaude Maria virgo cuntas hereses’ B
517. Dolet, quod virgo fuit et mater M
517. ereticorum M
518. Accidit Rome B, eorum, hereticorum M
519. flagitii, tormenti B
520. [I]N, guide to rubricator ‘i’ B
520. Carnotensis accidit B; hac, Maria B, gloriosa virgine M; rex, Christus M
521. Velo, coopertorio M
522. Sumpto, velo, id est humanitati sumpte de beata virgine M
523. hanc, Mariam M; terra, corpus hominis B
524. hanc, Mariam M; celo, celestibus creaturis M
525. homo inserted above the line in hand of gloss M
525. numini, Deo B, deitati M
526. Carnotensis corr. Cornotensis M Sub-title, deflorata M
Carnotensis, Chartris M
527. Stravit, acravanta M; frangens, camisia BM; ensis, gladius B
528. Virginis, Marie M; camisia, et dicitur camisia quasi ‘carni missus’ quia propinqus mittitur carni et id dicitur hec interula marg. M
529. [N]imphe guide to rubricator ‘n’ B, no rubric, rubricated paragraph sign M
529. integravit, Maria integram fecit, sanavit M
530. Quam, nimpham vel plagam B, plagam M; reseravit, aperuit M
530. reseravit M
532. violata, virgo illa, corupta M
533. integrata, integram facta M
535. Incorupta M
535. mens, puelle deflorate M
537. menti corr. M Sub-title, albate B
537. femine, illius puelle M
538. [A]bbas, hole in MS where letter ‘A’ should be and letter ‘P’ on next folio appears through it; Pbbas, although guide to rubricator is ‘a’ M [cf. supra, p. 84]
538. In Anglia accidit B; Abbas, de Ramisseya M; maris stellam, Maria[m] M
539. Invocabat M
539. procellam, tempestatem M
540. Hec, Maria M
540. stravit corr. B
541. mali, hic malus B
543. Iesseam, Iesse B, gloriosam virginem, signatam per virgam Iesse quia quasi cerei [MS cerey] apparuerunt in summitate mali M
544. Inde, ex hoc B, hac de causa M; festum, Conceptionis B
545. multis corr. B
546. Virginis, ante natale domini M; Conceptio, nota quod duplex est conceptio, scilicet spiritualis et carnalis. Carnalis conceptio est quando semen inmittitur in matricem et ita conceptio non celebratur; spiritualis conceptio est quando anima infunditur ipsa masse carnee, et de hac conceptione est hic intelligendum M
547. sanctificata, ipsa B, Maria M
548. Matris, Anne M
550. [N]uptialem, guide to rubricator ‘n’ B
551. Integrando, integre servando castitatem quam voverat Marie M
552. Clericus, quidam M
554. Illum, clericum M
555. Regina, celi et terre B, celi M
556. L is rubric M
556. stella, Maria M; progressiva, quia B
557. Mundi, hominis qui dicitur minor mundus M; salus, illa M; tempestiva, seisunabilis [MS seisunabile] B
558. regrediens, retro B, illa M; Circulus concentricus cum terra dicitur equans; circulus vero ecentricus cum terra dicitur deferens. Parvus circulus epiciclus nominatur per cuius circumferentiam defertur corpus planete et centrum epicicli semper defertur per circumferentiam deferentis. Si autem due linee ducantur a centro terre ita quod includunt epiciclum, una ex parte orientis, alia ex parte occidentis, punctus contactus ex parte orientis dicitur statio prima. Punctus contactus ex parte occidentis dicitur statio secunda, et pars utrabique existens dicitur stationarius. Arcus superior epicicli dicitur directio et planeta ibi existens, directus. Arcus vero inferior dicitur retrogradatio et planeta ibi existens, retrogradus between lines 558 and 559 B. There is a diagram illustrating these remarks on fol. 88v B.
559. [A]ustrum, guide to rubricator ‘a’ but no sub-title B, no rubric M, arc corr. arcon in hand of gloss B, archon M
Austrum, sout M, plagam meridionalem M; arcon, septentrionalis B, nort M, plagam septentrionalem M
560. Lustrat, illuminat BM; hec, Maria M
561. exaudiens, illa M
562. Quam, Mariam M
563. [h]anc B
hanc, Mariam M
564. Stili, qualitas carminis B, carminis M
565. Ut, in memoria cleri M
566. Et ad laudem, ad hunc finem facio librum M
568. [M]onacus B, Monachus M
Monacus, quidam M
569. Causam, quare erat submersus M
569. siquis M, requerat M
570. carni, deliciis carnalibus et luxurie M; deditus, subditus B
571. Pia, et hoc M
572. Pio, hoc M; discernente, iudicante M
573. redditus, ille monachus M
576. Illud Ave, salutationem virginis M; dixerat, monacus B, ille monachus M
577. hanc, Mariam M
578. ordo, angelorum B, angelorum et archangelorum M; reparatur, ad ovile per Mariam virginem M
578. reparatur M
579. Ovis, anima M
580. Virgo, Maria M; pastoris, Christi B, Christi qui dicit: Ego sum pastor bonus [Vulg. Luc., i, 30] M
581. oves, Christianos M; raptoris, diaboli M
582. pastoria, illa M
583. Illi, Marie M; lupi, spiritus maligni B, maligni spiritus M
584. quam, Mariam M; exsortes, expertes B, sine sorte M
584. exortes B
585. Noctis, huius mundi qui dicitur nox M
585. in corr. M Sub-title, Iudaica muliere M
586. [H]ec B
586. In Hyspannia marg. B; Hec, Maria M
587. morientem, Iudeam M
588. lustrans, illuminans B
589. liberata, Iudea M
591. vitam, eternam B, celestem M
592. [A]rchipresul B, Toletanus M
592. Toletanus, de Tulus M
593. Mentem, quantum ad bonam cogitationem M; manus, quantum ad bona opera M.
593. sacras] sacra M
595. Infulam, chesible M; hec, Maria M
596. illi, archiepiscopo M; singularem, convenientem illi et nulli alteri M
597. sacras corr. sacrans in hand of gloss M
Sacrans, corpus Christi M; quam, infulam BM; induerat, ille, scilicet admissam. Infula dicitur de ‘influo, -is,’ vel de ‘in’ et ‘philos,’ ‘amor,’ quia denotat sacerdotem esse in amorem Dei marg. M
598. [O]S B
Os, introitus BM
599. contractu, desponsatione nuptii B, quia voluit nubere M
603. Hanc, monialem M
604. [M]isse, guide to rubricator ‘m’ B, condam M
Misse, dum dicebat canonem misse M; secreto, canone B
605. Wltu BM, comparabat M
606. monacho M
607. honorabat, ille monachus M
608. illum, monachum M
609. Eliaco M
Elyaco, luce consolari, ab ‘elyos’ quod est ‘sol,’ id est Christus, qui est sol iustitie B, solari M, elios igitur ‘sol’ littere et inde ‘eliacus,’ id est ‘solaris.’ Item de ‘elios’ igitur sol littere dicitur ‘elios,’ unde Sedulius loquens de helia dicit:
nam si sermonis Achivi
Una per accentum mutetur litera, sol est
[Paschal. carmin., i, 186-187]
610. [T]emplum, guide to rubricator ‘t’ B
Templum, ecclesiam BM
611. concussit M Sub-title, mulieris B
611. percussit, in templo Sancti Michaelis B
612. Virginalem formulam, ymaginem Marie virginis M
613. Velum, quod fuit in capite illius ymaginis M; igne, ab B
614. quod, velum M
615. virgunculam, parvam virginem B, parvam ymaginem de ligno factam M
616. [T]emplo, guide to rubricator ‘t’ B, Templum M, Toletano M
616. demon, in ecclesia chathedrali Toleti B, en temple de Tulete M
617. Verba, duarum mulierum M
619. tradebat M
trahebat, simia B
620. cartam, parganum B, percamenum M; ruebat, diabolus M
621. A murali serie, muri B, ab ordinato ordine muri M
623. commisit, ridendo B, deliquit ridendo M
624. Culpatus, ille M; presule, archiepiscopo B
625. dormientis, clerici BM
626. stelle, beate Marie BM
627. Prorusit M Sub-title, beata virgine M
Prorupsit, ostendit BM; cedule, quam scripsit diabolus de peccatis mulierum M
630. hostis, diaboli BM
631. advocantur, ad iudicium coram presule M
632. Quarum, mulierum M; voces, dicta B; comprobantur, et concordabant cum scripto verbo ad verbum M
633. stolidi, stulti B
634. [D]e, guide to rubricator ‘d’ B
634. civitas in Anglia B
635. cantans, ‘Gaude Maria virgo’ B
636. Maternam inopiam, ne deperiret inopia M
637. Hunc, puerum M; stravit, occidit B, interfecit M
637. straavit B
638. quem corr. B
639. Diram per invidiam, quia cantavit de virgine B, quia cantavit de gloriosa virgine M
640. querens, puerum suum M
641. Hic, puer M
642. Solita, solitas cantilenas de beata virgine M
643. Puer followed by erasure M
643. liber, set plage apparuerunt M
644. reos, Iudeos M
646. ‘S’ is rubric M
646. Scriptis, per -ta B; hec, miracula BM
647. novantur, de novo recitantur B
649. prisca, miracula BM; removemur, unde apostolus: exuite veterem habitum et induite novum [Vulg. Mar., 15, 20] marg. B
651. munditiam, corporis et anime M
652. [V]idit, guide to rubricator ‘v’ B, Suesionensis M
652. Suessionensis, Gallice Sessoins B, Sesuns M
653. turmis, per B; densis, espessis M
654. funereos, mortiferos B, mortales, per id notat quod illa turba vexata fuit erisipila, id est igne infernali M
655. maiestate, dignitate B
656. Virgo, Maria M; potestate, divina B
657. morbos igneos, infernales, scilicet herisipila B, ignes infernales M
658. apud Suessionem B, aput urbem Suesionensem M
659. Quo, sotulari BM
659. sanatus B
660. pernicies, infirmitas B, infirmitas populi M
661. Soccum, sotularis B, sotularem M; spernit, vel sprevit M
661. sperniit M
662. illum M
662. ulcus, ulceratio vel scabies B, bace M
663. distorta, desturné M; facies, set recuperavit sanitatem B
664. [H]ec, guide to rubricator ‘h’ B
Hec, Maria est M
666. Quem, nasum BM; amisit, per egritudinem supervenientem M
667. Sanat, Maria M; claudos, clops M; cecitatem, hominem cecum, proprietas ponitur pro substantivo M
668. Wlneratos BM
669. femina corr. femina M Sub-title, omnia medicinalia M
famina, verba B, loquelas M
670. [A]dsit, guide to rubricator ‘a’ B, Assit M
670. hec, virgo B, Maria M
671. Et nos pulsus M, ruina corr. urina in hand of gloss B
pulsus, pulsus dicitur motus arterie vite continuus B, pulsus est motus vite continuus marg. M
672. pronostica, indicia de morte vel de vita, ‘pronosticor, -aris,’ id est, ‘indicio, -as’ marg. B, pronostica sunt indicia de morte alicuius vel de vita marg. M
673. Afforismi, afforismus est sententia brevis grandem comprehendens sententiam marg. B, istius regule phisicalis M; brevis, grandem includens sententiam B, hec Maria est M
674. dieta, dieta est competens observantia egri, scilicet laxare digesta et non movere turda marg. B, dieta est competens observantia sani et similiter egri [cf. Morale scolarium (ed. Paetow), l. 601], dieta est sumptus sive iter unius diei, unde versus: Estque dieta cibus moderatus iterque diei marg. M
675. Ordinans, illa B; viatica, doctrinas medicinales in potu et cibo B, lirepuup [MS liresuus] M, hoc viaticum tribus modis sumitur: est enim viaticum, expensa in via; et viaticum est corpus Christi; et viaticum est ipse generalis doctrinalis, prout continetur in Libro viaticorum [of Ibn al-Jassār, tr. by Constantine the African and others] marg. M
676. [P]enis, guide to rubricator ‘p’ B
677. predatoris, cardinalis Rome B
679. Redit, predator B, anima ad corpus M
680. Penitendo, dum egit penitentiam, vel sic ut faceret penitentiam M
682. space between huius and psalmi M
683. in maculati M Sub-title, quia salutationem beate virginis dixit M
684. Dicens, ipse B, ille predator M
685. penam, [peniten]tiam B
686. plenam, penitentiam M
687. Que, pena B; profuit, isti restituenti ablata B
688. [Q]Vidam, guide to rubricator ‘q’ B
688. Ave, Maria etc. BM
689. iuvens M Sub-title, lacking M
691. hoste, diabolo B
692. asportatur, a diabolo B
694. [S]ani, guide to rubricator ‘s’ B, no rubric M, gaudens M
696. paralitici, a ‘para’ quod est ‘dis’ et ‘lesus,’ ‘solutio,’ et est mortificatio membri nemenis ex nimia frigiditate marg. B
698. sanctaque M Sub-title, lacking M
698. que, Maria B
699. refici, reddi B
700. [P]auper, guide to rubricator ‘p’ B
Pauper, homo B
701. beata M
701. Maria, amore Marie B; tritum, minutum B
703. ditavit M, ditavit in hand of gloss as alternate reading B Sub-title, lacking M
705. audientibus, ubi moriebatur B
706. [Q]Vedam, guide to rubricator ‘q’ B, tulit suum corr. M
Constantinopolis B; Quedam, mulier B
707. inclinatum, natum in ecclesia B
708. pararvulum B
710. papa, comede B; proferebat, dicebat B, Horatius [sic]:
in templo quid facit aurum?
Nemo hoc quod Veneri donate virgine pupe,
[Persius, II, 69-70]
Persius: ‘poscit papare minutum’ [Persius, III, 17-18] marg. B
713. Dicit in hand of gloss B, hic M
713. hec, pupa papa B; respondendo, dicens: post triduum tu papabis mecum B
714. Christus M
714. Ihesus, ymago B
715. papabis, comedes B
716. Pupa, tu B
722. et] quod M
722. pensatur, ponderatur B
723. Infinita corr. B Sub-title, lacking M
724. [S]ibi, guide to rubricator ‘s’ B
725. instigavit, entiza Gallice B
726. virilia, dependentia B
728. dum hunc M
728. dampnaret, demon B
729. indicia M
730. hunc lacking M
731. sanctus inserted above the line M
733. iudicavit, autoritate filii sui B
734. remavit M Sub-title, lacking M
735. confederans, coniungens B
736. [Q]Vidam, guide to rubricator ‘q’ B
736. amputavit, propter dolorem B
737. Eius M
737. sacer, execrabilis B
738. Iignis B
Ignis, erisupila B
739. Hic corr. Dum M Sub-title, lacking M, gloriosa B
739. palpavit, tasta Gallice B
740. totum, totum fecit et sanum B
741. ferens, illa B
742. [A]d, guide to rubricator ‘a’ B
743. Mundi lacking M
743. naufragantes, periclitantes B
745. Sstella B
Stella, O B
746. Captivorum, in peccatis B
748. vite, in gloria eterna B
749. agone, certamine B; spes, tu B
751. vicem, vicissitudinem B
751. salvatorei M
752. tuos, qui tibi serviunt B
753. in ergastulo, in inferno B
753. mergastulo corr. in ergastulo B Sub-title, lacking M
754. [O], guide to rubricator ‘o’ B
755. Anglicani, persuasio est ad prelatos ecclesie B
756. Hispane M
757. Stelle, Marie [MS maree] B; mira -cula B
758. Opus breve, summam [MS sumum] B
760. No rubric provided for; title is interpolated between lines, paragraph sign B
761. Inpulsu, per inpulsum et instigationem B
763-764. Lines transposed B, rixas M, f̣ ibi M
rixans, contradicens B; actum, venereatum B
769. cognoscit M
770. Stimulatus, coactus B; atre, angustiate B
771. Inclusis, per -sos B; doloribus, -res B
774. consilio M
consilia, pontificum B
775. tandem corr. B
776. Fructum, fructuosum consilium B; prelato, Ierosolimitano B
778. cartas M
779. talem, quod petens Ierusalem B; artam, strictam B
779. ob rem talem artas M
780. adiens, petens B
783. sacrum, officium B
790. iocundatur, quando puer respondit: Amen B
791. presul, Ierusalem B
792. plausau M Sub-title, lacking M
796. [F]ormam, guide to rubricator ‘f’ B, wlneravit M
796. Ihesu, in gremio matris B
797. que, forma B
797. saguinavit M
798. Bisancii M
Bisansii, Constantino . . . est adiectivum con . . . [margin is trimmed here] marg. B
799. credit, et baptizatus fuit B
800. cruoris, a pectore ymaginis B
801. Virginalis filii, filii virginis B
802. Paragraph sign BM
802. deviantes, inter spiritualia sunt miseralia B
803. Hec, Maria B
805. Paragraph sign B
805. hec, Maria B
808. [A]ve, guide to rubricator ‘a’ B, Que gemma sponsa M
811. comparata, equiparata B
812. Ebes M
814. vicit M
816. inperio M
818. expolire, feit[i]er Gallice B
819. Rudes, nos [MS vos] B
820. rithmis M
821. Tridulis M, plantam M
Stridulis, ridmis B
822. Audi, beata virgo B
824. vertis M Sub-title, lacking M
825. irradia, clarifica B
826. [S]athaneam, guide to rubricator ‘s’ B, Sathaniam M
829. illi, pictori B
830. Quia corr. B
832. furtum corr. furtim B
833. pictor suum M
836. virago, fortissima mulier B, virago quasi de ‘viro acta’ marg. B
837. non viro M Sub-title, lacking M
843. sumunt, ipsi B
844. [A]Vdit, guide to rubricator ‘a’ B Sub-title, lacking M
845. clericales, -corum B
848. Nec . . . obaudit, non male B
849. precipites, senes B, precipitantes in peccato mortali B
850. [Q]uidam, guide to rubricator ‘q’ B, iunxit M
851. Templum, in honore virginis beate B
851. monachale M
853. Ante, -quam fecit templum B
855. Quem corr. Quod B
856. cucullata, covele B
857. Mens, anima B
857. celum M
859. acceptavit, agrea Gallice B
861. nobis M Sub-title, lacking M
862. [S]colas, guide to rubricator ‘s’ B, scolaris corr. B
863. vis, violentia B; procellaris, procelle B
866. dimisit M Sub-title, lacking M
867. sanum, illum B
868. [Q]Vedam, guide to rubricator ‘q’ B, Cuedam M
870. Vade M
Vadem, fideiussorem B; Gallia, apud Corbi B
871. Nimis corr. M
873. subsidia M
875. cathenis M
876. puer, per Mariam B
878. orta, porta B
882. Spiritali, dote B
883. Non est, ipsa B
884. natura, humana B
886. [P]Rimo, guide to rubricator ‘p’ B
887. Stella corr. B, et callata] condonata M
887. callata, et specialiter data B
888. septima, sabbati B
889. Bisanciana, Constantinopolis B
890. cana, perfecta B
892. Hic, in urbe Bysancii B; ymago, Maria B
892. velebatur corr. velabatur M
893. per se, sine auxilio; tollebatur, quod erat circa ymaginem B
894. sexta, die Veneris circa horam nonam, scilicet in sabbato B
896. Tota M
901. colunt, ipsi B; hanc, diem B
904. [D]um, guide to rubricator ‘d’ B, Parmanses B
904. Parmenses, cives Parme B
905. et tulerunt M
906. ymaginem, in bellum, in loco vexilli B, in Quadragesimo fuit marg. B
907. victus, ipse B; vincentes, illi Parmenses B
908. non] in M
909. Stragmen M
Stragem, mortem B
911. Tunc] Sunt M, favet corr. B
913. Quo tempore hoc fuit ostendit per personam autenticam marg. B; Hoc, studium B
913. magistri M, Walterus M
914. herus M Sub-title, lacking M, in margin B
916. No rubric provided for, paragraph sign BM, passit B
918-919. Space between lines for insertion of sub-title B
918. Unam, solam virginem B
919. [A]rtifex, guide to rubricator ‘a’ B, no rubric M, formavit M
919. firmavit, stabilivit in continuo motu B
920. hac, virgine B, humanavit, humanum fecit B
921. diceret, proferret [Vulg., Psal., 17, 3] B
922. ‘M’ is rubric M, mens M
922. Motor, firmamentum dicit qui movet me B
923. Hanc, Mariam B; fecundavit, fecit fecundam B
924. Qui, ille B
925. cristallinas, ab aquis amplioribus [Vulg., Gen., 1, 6] B
928. hic, Deus B
928. congellavit M
929. nusquam M
931. Space provided for rubric by scribe who copied MS and guide to rubricator ‘h’; another has added ‘H’ in black ink as corr. B, Hic] Sic M, creatura creator corr. creator creatura M
931. creatura, Maria B
932. Creaturis M
934. inflammavit M
934. Nimpham, virginem Mariam B
935. obumbravit M
935. inflammavit, spiritu sancto B
936. Igne, amore B
938. adoravit M
940. palliavit, texit B
941. Quem, Deum B; victorem, tertia die qui sursum vivit B
941. clipiavit M
942. Ad, contra B; hostium, malignorum spirituum B
943. sacra deleted following sancta B
944. ara, sanctitate B
945. Demonis, Luciferi B
945. demonium B
946. No rubric provided for B, paragraph sign M
949. Iovis, secundus planeta B
950. puella, Maria B; cella, domus Dei B
953. Wltu B, velud M
954. obtemperat, favet B
957. Quo, sole B
958. venustatis, nobilitatis B
960. Dotibus, donis B, hee sunt dotes hominis glorificati sicut habentur in Libro magistri Iohannis elegiarum [an unidentified work of John of Garland]:
Corpora sanctorum fulgebunt; fortia, sana,
Libera, pulcra, cita letaque semper erunt.
Sensus, amicitia, concordia, plena potestas,
Pax, honor: hee dotes sex animabus erunt top of folio B
960. virgine corr. B
961. Mercurialis, -curii B
964. luna, luna non habet aliquam lucem nisi a sole marg. B
965. quo B
965. lux una, stella, Maria B
966. Solem, a quo lumen habet B
967. ‘L’ is rubric M
Luna, lux B; decrescit, quantum ad lucem B
968. Et M
968. illa, lux, Maria B
969. circumradiat, splendet in circuitu B
970. Corpus, Marie B; glorificatum, immortale factum B
970. est] que M Sub-title, lacking M
971. quod, corpus B
972. Elementis, nostris B
973. Nunc, aliquando B; nunc, ali[a]s existens B
974. zelo, amore B
975. remunerat, dat, munerat B
976. [U]t, guide to rubricator ‘u’ B, Quod albumas aitestatur M
976. Albumasar, ille astronomus B, Albumasar in capitulo ii [MS i], vi liber, De naturis signorum: Et que forme stellarum oriuntur per singulos decanos cuiuslibet signi: Dicit Virgo signum sterile est, bipartitum, triforme, in cuius primo decano, ut Perse, Caldei, et Egiptii omniumque duces, Hermes et Astalius, a prima etate docent, puella cui Persicum nomen ‘seclios die zama’ [sic], Arabice interpretatum ‘adre nedefa’ [ ‘adhra’ naḍīfah], id est virgo munda, puella dico virgo immaculata, corpore decora, wltu venusta, habitu modesta, crine prolixa, manu geminas aristas tenens, supra solium auleatum residens, puerum nutriens ac in se pascens in loco cui nomen Hebrea, puerum inquam a quibusdam nationibus nominatum ‘Ihesum’ signantibus ita, ‘Eliza’ [‘īsā], quem nos Greece ‘Christum’ dicimus [Introductorium in astronomiam (Venice, 1506), VI, 2, fol. 4v. Cf. Roger Bacon, Metaphysica (ed. Robert Steele, Opera hactenus inedita, fasc. 1, Oxford, 1905), pp. 8-9 and 46] bottom of folio B
979. ingremiatur, ponitur in gremio B
980. quam, lucem B; designatur, celis, scilicet esse B
981. Moderator, moderator et creator B
981. siderum M
982. ‘M’ is rubric M
983. hiis, elementis B
984. domine corr. M
domine, Marie B
986. Super M
987. Thronorum M Sub-title, lacking M, inserted vertically between columns B
987. ordine, arcangelorum B
988. No rubric provided for, paragraph sign B, no rubric M
988. stipant, suppodiant B; festa, Marie B
989. Quorum M
989. Cuius, festi B; gesta, facta B; digesta, divisa B
990. capedinem, capacitatem B
991. Cuius, floris B
992. Flos, Christus B; flore, Maria B
993. dulcedinem, per salvationem B
995. flos, virgo Maria B
996. palatia M
997. natus, Maria B
1000. Paragraph sign M, Igne M
1001. Terra M
1001. confederavit, consociavit B
1003. Concathenat M
Conchatenat, conligat B
1004. matronale M Sub-title, lacking M, inserted between columns B
1006. Lines 1006-1029 are lacking, but sign following l. 1005 indicates proposed insertion B
1009. ‘O’ is rubric M
1012. ‘A’ is rubric M
1015. ‘E’ is rubric M, Eether M
1018. ‘A’ is rubric M
1920. geligdi M
1021. ‘S’ is rubric M
1024. ‘D’ is rubric M Sub-title, lacking M, inserted between columns in hand of gloss B
1032. repudians, repellens B
1033. bonus Deus, immo summum bonum B
1036. No rubric provided for, paragraph sign B, ‘V’ is rubric M
1039. Rosa, Deus B; rose, Marie quando assumit humanitatem B
1040. decoratur, pulcrior sit B
1041. Inserted in margin M
1041. per rosam celitam, per filium Dei B
1043. illam corr. illa B
1044. celica corr. curia M
1045. Rosa, filius Dei B; rosam, Mariam B; pingit, adornat B
1046. qua, rosa B; decor, corporis et anime B; ningit, habundat de celo, candida apparet B
1047. Decens, ille B
1048. Chori, angelorum B
1051. corde, hec corda, id est arterie cordis B
1053. Sequence is concluded with this line
1053. timpana, implementa exteriora B
1054. ‘A’ is rubric M
1054. figuratur, ipsa B
1055. sole, filio B; serenatur, clarificatur B
1056. Carnis corr. B
Carnis, habitati B; nubem, tegimen carnis B
1057. madet, ipsa B
1058. Solem, filium Dei B
1059. Velum iris M
1059. yris, arcus celi B; referens, representans, representat solem B
1060. Reus M
1060. incarnatur, quamvis ut tres persone B
1061. Trinitas hic, incarnatione B
1063. Inspiratum M
Inspiratu, inspiratione B; sacer flatus, spiritus sanctus B
1064. natus, filius B
1066. Quemque audunt M
1066. Verum, -re [MS res] B; commendare, ad commendationem convenire B
1067. stelle, Marie B
1068. Genitor, per sapientiam vel potentiam B; filius, per incarnationem B
1069. Flatus, spiritus sanctus B; auris, obedientia; legatus, Gabriel arcangelus B
1069. lagatus M
1070. patrem, autoritatem B
1071. secretius, in secreto loco, scilicet in talamo B
1072. Neuma corr. Neupma B, nipham M
1072. Neupma, spiritus sanctus B
1073. Se dum M
1074. Auris, obedientia B
1075. legatus, lictorus B; salutavit, Mariam, ne timeas Maria [Vulg. Luc., 1, 30] B
1076. portum M
1076. animavit, acoraga Gallice B
1078. Hic, incarnatione, et in Christo et in virgine Maria B; relativus, mutuus B
1079. demonstrativus, alludit grammatice B
1082. conversatus, adversatus alternate reading M
adversatus, ipse B
1083. Inserted in margin B
1084. fluit, ipsa B
1085. fulta, roborata B
1085. sanctitate B
1086. Salus, illa B
1087. namet M
1090. Ore, verbis B; manu, opere B; mente, cogitatione B
1090. datur corr. detur M
1091. perhennetur, perhennitur, extunditur B
1093. cultu, per honorem B
1093. mens corr. M
1094. Os, sermo B
1095. Floris, Marie B
1096. [D]ignitatem, guide to rubricator‘d’