Obscurity and Memory in Late Medieval Latin Manuscript Culture: The Case of Summarium Biblie.

OBSCURITY AND MEMORY
IN LATE MEDIEVAL LATIN MANUSCRIPT CULTURE:
THE CASE OF THE SUMMARIUM BIBLIE
Lucie Doležalová
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
SONDERBAND XXIX
Lucie Doležalová
Obscurity and Memory
in Late Medieval Latin Manuscript Culture:
The Case of the Summarium Biblie
Krems 2012
Reviewed by
Greti Dinkova‐Bruun
and Farkas Gábor Kiss
Cover illustration:
Julia Visi, Writing (2012)
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG
DER ABTEILUNG KULTUR UND WISSENSCHAFT DES AMTES DER
NIEDERÖSTERREICHISCHEN LANDESREGIERUNG
UND DER
CZECH SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITHIN THE RESEARCH PROJECT
“INTERPRETING AND APPROPRIATING
OBSCURITY IN MEDIEVAL MANUSCRIPT CULTURE”
(GAČR P405/10/P112)
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
– ISBN 978‐3‐901094‐31‐8
Herausgeber: Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der materiellen
Kultur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 13, A–3500 Krems, Österreich. Für den Inhalt
verantwortlich zeichnet die Autorin, ohne deren ausdrückliche Zustimmung jeglicher
Nachdruck, auch in Auszügen, nicht gestattet ist. Druck: KOPITU Ges. m. b. H., Wiedner
Hauptstraße 8‐10, A–1050 Wien.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 7
List of Abbreviations 9
List of Figures 10
I. Obscurity in the Middle Ages: Text, Manuscript, Memory 13
1. Obscurity and the canon 13
2. Medieval discourses on obscurity 16
a) Subduing pride by toil? Scriptural obscurity 16
b) Obscurity in rhetoric and poetics 20
c) Encountered vs. created obscurity 23
3. Obscurity and memory 27
II. The Case of the Summarium Biblie 30
1. Form and content 30
a) A verse list 32
b) Retelling and remembering the Bible 36
2. Elusive text 41
a) Manuscript transmission 41
b) Titles 44
c) An appendix to the Summarium? Sunt genes ex le… 47
d) Layouts 66
e) Variations within the glosses 69
f) Length of the biblical books 72
g) Order of the biblical books 74
h) The absence of the Psalms 74
i) Keyword variants 76
α) Spelling errors 77
β) Conjunction addition or omission 78
γ) Morphological variants 78
δ) Semantic variants 78
ε) Radical additions, omissions, order changes 79
ζ) The collation by medieval scribes 81
j) Case 1: The Book of Esther 84
k) Case 2: The Song of Songs 91
l) Towards a text 97
3. Physical contexts 99
a) The Summarium within Bibles 100
b) The Summarium within late medieval miscellanies 102
α) Biblical retellings and mnemonics 105
β) Non‐biblical mnemonics 110
γ) Enumeration lists 113
δ) A biblical role‐play fortune game 115
ε) The Cena Cypriani 122
c) The context of copying and use 126
4. The Summarium in competition? Improved, replaced, refused 128
III. An Obscure Mnemonic Tool? 140
Bibliography 145
Appendix: List of manuscripts of the Summarium Biblie 158
7
Acknowledgements
I was able to carry out research leading to this book only thanks to a
great number of people and institutions. My research was supported by the
following: a Junior Research Grant from the Grant Agency of the Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic “Remembering One’s Bible: Summarium
Biblie in 13th‐15th centuries” (in 2007‐2009, no. KJB 801970701) undertaken
at the Center for Theoretical Study (a joint institute of the Charles
University in Prague and of the Philosophical Institute of the Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic); a post‐doctoral project “Interpreting and
Appropriating Obscurity in Medieval Manuscript Culture” (GAČR
P405/10/P112) undertaken at the Institute of Greek and Latin Studies at
the Faculty of Arts of the Charles University; by two Charles University Research
Development Programs: “University Centre for the Study of Ancient
and Medieval Intellectual Traditions” and “Phenomenology and Semiotics”
(PRVOUK 18) both undertaken at the Faculty of Humanities, and by ERC StG
OVERMODE to Pavlína Rychterová carried out at the Centre for Medieval
Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
In addition, I have received support through a Sciex fellowship held at
the University of Zurich, from the American Philosophical Society (Benjamin
Franklin Grant), from the Mellon Foundation (held at the Vatican Film
Library at the St. Louis University), and from the Centre for Medieval
Studies in Bergen, Norway (a visiting research fellowship).
Parts of this book have appeared in several of my articles as the work
progressed (see the bibliography). At the same time, the research presented
here serves as a starting point of a more experimental endeavour: it is used
within a project “Medieval Latin Manuscripts in a Digital Environment”
(part of a Mellon Foundation supported project “Innovative Scholarship for
Digitized Medieval Manuscripts Delivered in an Interoperable Environment”).
I am very grateful for the substantial help of many kind colleagues and
dear friends, especially Martin Bažil, Ladislav Benyovszky, Nicole Bériou,
Petr A. Bílek, Marie Bláhová, Carmen Cardelle de Hartmann, Ondřej Cikán,
Lily Císařovská, Roman Černý, François Dolbeau, Petr Doležal and Jarmila
Doležalová, Cédric Giraud, Monique Goullet, Matthew Heintzelmann, Farkas
Kiss, Hana Laudátová, Désirée Ludwig, Francesco Mosetti Casaretto, Else
Mundal, Stephen G. Nichols, Robert Novotný, Eyal Poleg, Slavica Ranković,
Jeff Rider, Susanne Rischpler, Kimberly Rivers, Philipp Roelli, Sabine Seel8
bach, Pavel Soukup, Francesco Stella, Péter Tόth, Tamás Visi, Jonas Wellendorf,
Rafał Wόjcik, and Christine Wulf. They have shared their knowledge
and thoughts with me, helped me and encouraged me when needed. Special
gratitude belongs to Peter Stotz, Greti Dinkova‐Bruun, and Gerhard Jaritz
for their careful reading of the manuscript and most useful remarks.
9
List of Abbreviations
BAV Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
Bibl. Bibliothèque
BJ Biblioteka Jagiellońska
BL British Library
BoL Bodleian Library
BM Bibliothèque municipale
BnF Bibliothèque nationale de France
BSB Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
BU Biblioteka Uniwersytecka
HB Herzogliche Bibliothek
KB Kongelige Bibliotek
KNM Knihovna národního muzea
MA Městský archiv (City archive)
ML Monastery Library
MYK Moravská zemská knihovna (Moravian Library)
NL National Library
RB Stegmüller, Friedrich. Repertorium biblicum medii aevi. 11 vols. Madrid: Consejo
superior de investigacione scientificas, 1950‐1980.
UB Universitätsbibliothek
UL University Library
SB Stiftsbibliothek
SSB Staats‐ und Stadtbibliothek
StB Stadtbibliothek
VK Vědecká knihovna (Research Library)
ZB Zentralbibliothek
10
List of Figures
Fig. 1: Ms. Lilienfeld, Stiftsbibliothek 145 (s. XIV), f. 17v; Summarium Biblie (here entitled
Biblia pauperum metrica)
Fig. 2a‐r: Examples of manuscript layouts of the Summarium Biblie
Fig. 2a: Ms. Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, 681 (s. XV), f. IIv‐IIIr
Fig. 2b: Ms. Olomouc, Vědecká knihovna, M II 60 (s. XV med), f. 6v‐7r
Fig. 2c: Ms. Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, 1059 (s. XV), p. 267
Fig. 2d: Ms. Mainz, Stadtbibliothek, Hs I 570 (s. XV), f. 3r
Fig. 2e: Ms. Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 972b (s. XV), p. 3
Fig. 2f: Ms. Oxford, Oxford University, The Bodleian Library, Marshall 86 (s. XV med), f.
100r
Fig. 2g: Ms. Prague, National Library, XVIII B 18 (Bohemia, 1441), f. 1r
Fig. 2h: Ms. Prague, National Library, XI A 14 (Bohemia, 1417‐1436), f. 5v
Fig. 2i: Ms. Cologne, Stadtarchiv, GB folio 188 (s. XV in), f. 101r
Fig. 2j: Ms Cologne, Stadtarchiv, GB 4o 113 (from 1437), f. 19v
Fig. 2k: Ms. Göttweig, Stiftsbibliothek, 298 (s. XV), f. 131v
Fig. 2l: Ms. Seitenstetten, Stiftsbibliothek, 297 (s. XV), f. 367r
Fig. 2m: Ms. Prague, National Library, VIII D 15 (s. XV), f. 31r
Fig. 2n: Ms. Brno, Moravský zemský archiv, G 11 (rukopisy Františkova muzea v Brně),
905, f. 30r
Fig. 2o: Ms. Kremsmünster, Stiftsbibliothek, 42, f. 134r
Fig. 2p: Ms. Kremsmünster, Stiftsbiliothek, 153, f. 278r
Fig. 2q: Ms. Kremsmünster, Stiftsbiliothek, 167, f. 1r
Fig. 2r: Ms. Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibliothek 445, f. 13r
Fig. 3a: Ms. Prague, National Library, I A 35 (s. XV, partly 1451), f. 277r, a special layout
of the Summarium
Fig. 3b: Ms. Prague, National Library, I A 35 (s. XV, partly 1451), f. 277v, a special layout
of the Summarium
Fig. 4: Ms. Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, 1793 (s. XV), f. 235v‐236r, Genesis with 51 (instead of
50) chapters
Fig. 5: Ms. Prague, National Library, I G 11a (Bohemia, s. XV), f. 7v, the Summarium copy
by Crux de Telcz
Fig. 6: Ms. Prague, National Library, I A 41 (Bohemia, 1468‐77), fol 169r, two sets of
glosses to a number of the Summarium keywords
Fig. 7: Ms. Prague, National Library, XI A 14 (Bohemia 1417‐1436), f. 8r; originally a
single verse representing the Book of Esther (in the middle of the page), with a later
marginal note: sequitur “suspensus” infra and the two later added verses down on
the page
11
Fig. 8: Ms. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, clm. 14001, f. 5v (s. XIV, Germany or
Austria); Bible in which the Summarium is superscript on top of the pages where
relevant Bible books begin
Fig. 9: Ms. Mainz, Stadtbibliothek, Hs I 22 (from 1413), f. 347v‐348r, the Summarium
immediately followed by verses on Decretalia with the very same layout
Fig. 10: Ms. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Pal. lat. 14426, f. 68r, the
Summarium combined with another (anonymous) biblical mnemonic aid, inc.: Ante
fir lux producitur
Fig. 11: Ms. University of Pennsylvania, Rare Book & Manuscript Library, 313 (Italy, XV),
f. 1r: Summarium Biblie, after the book of Genesis, is replaced by another mnemonic
aid (based on incipits)
Fig. 12: Rationarium evangelistarum, Pforzheim, 1507, prima imago Iohannis (John 1‐6)

1 3
Obscurity in the Middle Ages:
Text, Manuscript, Memory
Any enquiry concerned with the past sets a challenge of distinguishing
the special from the normal, the extraordinary from the everyday, the
unique from the pattern. This is problematic not only due to our distance in
time (a fact that we simply have to take into account) but also due to the
character of our sources: what we have to work with are generally specific
fragments, we are never getting the whole picture. Our grasp and understanding
of the past is unavoidably a construct. With the subject of obscurity,
we are entering an especially fragile world where the lack of evidence
is particularly painful and it is hard not to mix our present day ideas of the
obscure with the medieval ones.
For this reason, before moving to the discussion of the active application
of obscurity within the late medieval culture of memory, this volume opens
with an overview of the two explicit medieval discourses on the subject of
obscurity, the scriptural and rhetoric‐poetical discourse. The actual focus of
this study, the case of the biblical mnemonic aid Summarium Biblie, is
emblematic: during the Middle Ages it was an extremely popular (even
omnipresent) text which is, at the same time, very obscure to us, making its
practical usability already in the Middle Ages questionable today. The
tension between its assumed limits as a textual tool, and its actual most
favorable medieval reception is precisely what leads to a careful re‐consideration
of the medieval approach to obscurity, which is the subject of this
book.
As with any manuscript study, and especially with a study of manuscripts
of widely diffused texts, the picture presented here is not complete:
some codices remain to be consulted and many others undoubtedly wait to
be discovered. While this book is in this respect unavoidably still a work in
progress, it presents and discusses patterns not likely to be affected by further
findings. Not offering exhaustive treatment and final answers, it hopes
to contribute to the dynamic discourse on the fascinating textual and manuscript
culture of the Latin Middle Ages.
1. Obscurity and the canon
Deciding between what is clear and what is obscure is obviously
dependent on all types of contexts—linguistic, cultural, or social—and thus
1 4
closely linked to the problem of canonicity and normativity. We perceive as
obscure what does not fit the established categories and does not follow the
set rules. Since these categories and rules are neither fixed nor ultimate,
what is considered obscure changes together with them. The “exceptional”
is usually what remains outside of the established “norm,” and thus its
status is fluid and dependent on the perspective taken. What enters the
picture as obscure might very quickly become the norm, pushing what was
originally clear to the obscure peripheries. The evaluation is not fixed in any
way either—there are and always will be admirers of the centers as well as
admirers of the peripheries.
An excellent example is Medieval Latin itself: it is generally accepted
that the sense of the norm in the Latin language in the Middle Ages was
much weaker than in the Classical period. The “correct” was still usually
distinguished from the “incorrect” (often unclear), but not always in a
coherent way and not on all levels.1 Medieval Latin is characterized by a
high tolerance to variants, and a lack of concern for a systematic use of the
“correct” language. E.g., there are almost no rules for Medieval Latin spelling
after Late Antiquity (with occasional waves of attempts at returning to
the classical rules)—spelling changes not only depending on time and space
(which are not arbitrary, since they reflect the actual pronunciation), but
even within a single text copied by one scribe.2
A number of medieval texts are considered obscure today and they were
considered obscure in the Middle Ages as well. Some apt examples are the
Hisperica famina (ca. 6th‐10th c.),3 the Epitomae and Epistolae by Virgilius
Maro Grammaticus (prob. 7th c.),4 the Occupatio by Odo of Cluny (926‐942),5
1 See, e.g., Peter Stotz, “Normgebundenheit, Normen‐Entfaltung und Spontaneität im
mittelalterlichen Latein,” in The Dawn of the Written Vernacular in Western Europe,
ed. Michèle Goyens and Werner Verbeke, Mediaevalia Lova‐niensia, Series 1, Studia
33 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003), 39‐49.
2 See, e.g., Peter Stotz, Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters, 5 vols.
(Munich: Beck, 1996‐2004), or Greti Dinkova‐Bruun, “Medieval Latin,” in A
Companion to the Latin Language, ed. James Clackson (Malden, MA: Wiley, 2011),
284‐302.
3 See, e.g., Andy Orchard, “The Hisperica Famina as Literature,” Journal of Medieval
Latin 10 (2000): 1‐45; Gabriele Knappe, “On Rhetoric and Grammar in the Hisperica
famina,” The Journal of Medieval Latin 4 (1994): 130‐62; John Carey, “The Obscurantists
and the Sea‐Monster: Reflections on the Hisperica famina,” Peritia 17‐18
(2003‐2004): 40‐60. See also Michael Lapidge, “The Hermeneutic Style in Tenth
Century Anglo‐Latin,” AngloSaxon
England 4 (1975): 67‐111.
4 Edited most recently by Bengt Löfstedt, Virgilius Maro Grammaticus: Opera Omnia
(Munich: KG Saur, 2003). Previous editions are Giovanni Polara, trans., L. Caruso
and G. Polara, eds., Virgilius Maro Grammaticus, Epitomi ed Epistole, Nuovo medioevo
9 (Naples: Liguori, 1979), and Johannes Huemer, ed., Virgilii Maronis grammatici
opera (Leipzig: Teubner, 1886).
1 5
Atto of Vercelli’s Polipticum (10th c.).6 There is also a great number of relevant
writings in vernacular.7 All these texts employ words and phrases of
unknown meaning, and are thus difficult to understand and interpret.
Usually, their purpose is unclear, too, and it is often suggested that their aim
was to baffle the readers.8
Another common characteristic of these texts is that they were not
widely diffused and do not seem to have had a large influence. The Epistolae
and Epitomae survive in a single manuscript (and part of the text is actually
missing) and almost no traces exist of their medieval reception. There are
two manuscripts of Atto’s Polipticum (in one of them the text is made
clearer through changed word order and glosses) and virtually no evidence
of reception. The Hisperica famina is a different case: even though it was
also apparently not much widespread, the hisperic style is not restricted to
this one text; a cultural milieu favoring this type of obscure writing seems
to have existed in seventh‐ to eighth‐century Ireland. Similarly, the very
complex and till this day much obscure scaldic poetry distinguished a spe‐
5 See, e.g., Margit Sterl, “Sprachliche Untersuchungen zur Occupatio des Odo von
Cluny,” PhD diss., Universität Wien, 1987; Jan Ziolkowski, “The Occupatio by Odo of
Cluny. A Poetic Manifesto of Monasticism in the Tenth Century,” in Lateinische Kultur
im X. Jahrhundert. Akten des I. internationalen Mittellateinerkongresses
Heidelberg,
12. 15.
IX. 1988, ed. Walter Berschin, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 24/25
(1989/1990): 559‐67.
6 Edited by Georg Goetz, Attonis qui fertur Polipticum quod appellatur Perpendiculum,
Abhandlungen der philologisch‐historischen Klasse der Sächsischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften 32.7 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1922); see also Carla Frova, “Il Polittico
attribuito ad Attone vescovo di Vercelli (924‐960 ca.): tra storia e grammatica,” Bulletino
dell’istituto storico italiano 90 (1982/3): 1‐75.
7 The most relevant recent volume is Obscuritas: Retorica e poetica dell’oscuro. Atti del
XXVIII Convegno Interuniversitario di Bressanone (1215
luglio 2001), eds. Giosuè Lachin
and Francesco Zambon, Labirinti 71 (Trento: Università degli Studi di Trento,
2004). For studies on obscurity in Medieval German literature, see also Alessandro
Zironi, Enigmi di sapienza nel Medioevo tedesco (Padova: Unipress, 2001), Tomas
Tomasek, Das deutsche Rätsel im Mittelalter (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1994); in
Medieval French, see, e.g., Jeff Rider, “The Perpetual Enigma in Chrétien’s Grail Episode,”
Arthuriana 8:1 (1998): 6‐21.
8 In fact, it seems that the more obscure a text is on the literal level, that is, the more
difficult it is the decode its simple, face value meaning, the more likely it is that the
text’s meaning would be interpreted as the demonstration of the skill of its author.
The most obscure texts are self referential acts, metalinguis‐tic endeavors: they
cannot hope to transfer a specific message about the outside reality, but they can
aptly show that language is not always a sufficient means of transfering a message,
that real communication is impossible. This kind of a message might have not been
the one intended by the author but it is the only decodeable message after the level
of obscurity rises up to incomprehensibility.
1 6
cific culture of a given time and place.9 Nevertheless, these texts usually
remained in the “periphery” during the Middle Ages.
In addition to texts that were obscure for the medievals and are still
perceived as obscure today, there are texts that seem quite obscure to
contemporary scholars but they were not viewed as obscure during the
Middle Ages and were fully integrated into the mainstream culture; their
obscurity was not considered striking or unusual but natural. A particular
example of such a text is the focus of this volume. Here it is not assumed
that “obscure” was equated with “unusual, special, exceptional” in the
Middle Ages; instead the focus is placed on its primary meaning of “unclear,
difficult to understand,” and its role in medieval Latin manuscripts is
examined.
2. Medieval discourses on obscurity
In order to try to retrieve what was perceived as obscure during the
Middle Ages,10 the argument develops around two main medieval
discourses that explicitly address the subject of obscurity, exegetical and
rhetorical‐poetic discourse. Each of them has a different perspective and
approach and yet they are complementary in forming the implicit medieval
about the concept.
a) Subduing pride by toil? Scriptural obscurity
Sed multis et multiplicibus obscuritatibus et ambiguitatibus decipiuntur, qui
temere legunt, aliud pro alio sentientes, quibusdam autem locis, quid uel falso suspicentur,
non inueniunt: ita obscure dicta quaedam densissimam caliginem
obducunt. Quod totum prouisum esse diuinitus non dubito ad edomandam labore
superbiam et intellectum a fastidio reuocandum, cui facile inuestigata plerumque
uilescunt.
But hasty and careless readers are led astray by many and manifold obscurities
and ambiguities, substituting one meaning for another; and in some places they
cannot hit upon even a fair interpretation. Some of the expressions are so
obscure as to shroud the meaning in the thickest darkness. And I do not doubt
that all this was divinely arranged for the purpose of subduing pride by toil, and
of preventing a feeling of satiety in the intellect, which generally holds in small
esteem what is discovered without difficulty.
Augustine, De doctrina christiana, 2.6
From all the possible obscurities, it is the obscurity of the Scriptures—an
ongoing challenge to the exegetes—that is discussed the most throughout
9 See, e.g., Jónas Kristjánsson, Eddas and Sagas. Iceland’s Medieval Literature, trans.
Peter Foote (Reykjavík: Hið Íslenska bókmenntafélag, 1988).
10 For a general definition, see Dietmar Till, “Obscuritas,” in Historisches Wörterbuch
der Rhetorik, vol. 6, ed. Gert Ueding (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
2003), cols. 358‐86.
1 7
the Middle Ages. The Scriptures, as well as the entire world, are the reflection
of God’s will and nature and can never be completely grasped in this
life. The most frequently quoted biblical passage in this context is St. Paul’s
per speculum in enigmate (1 Cor 13,12).11
In the passage quoted above, Augustine, within his most influential
“theory of signs,” presents his notion of scriptural enigma:12 enigmas in the
scriptures are intentional and we must work hard to understand them. The
toil causes us to be more modest, and it gives us greater appreciation for
what we learn. Augustine proceeds to offer an example of scriptural
enigma:
Quid enim est, quaeso, quod si quisquam dicat sanctos esse homines atque perfectos,
quorum uita et moribus christi ecclesia de quibuslibet superstitionibus praedicit
eos, qui ad se ueniunt et imitatione bonorum sibimet quodammodo incorporat;
qui boni fideles et ueri dei serui deponentes onera saeculi ad sanctum
baprismi lauacrum uenerunt atque inde ascendentes conceptione sancti spiritus
fructum dant geminae caritatis, id est dei et proximi. Quid est ergo, quod, si haec
quisquam dicat, minus delectat audientem, quam si ad eundem sensum locum
illum exponat de canticis canticorum, ubi dictum est ecclesiae, cum tamquam
pulchra quaedam femina laudaretur: dentes tui sicut grex detonsarum ascendens
de lauacro, quae omnes geminos creant, et sterilis non est in illis? Num aliud homo
discit, quam cum illud planissimis uerbis sine similitudinis huius adminiculo audiret?
For why is it, I ask, that if any one says that there are holy and just men whose
life and conversation the Church of Christ uses as a means of redeeming those
who come to it from all kinds of superstitions, and making them through their
imitation of good men members of its own body; men who, as good and true
servants of God, have come to the baptismal font laying down the burdens of the
world, and who rising thence do, through the implanting of the Holy Spirit, yield
the fruit of a two‐fold love, a love, that is, of God and their neighbor; how is it, I
say, that if a man says this, he does not please his hearer so much as when he
draws the same meaning from that passage in Canticles, where it is said of the
Church, when it is being praised under the figure of a beautiful woman, ‘Thy
teeth are like a flock of sheep that are shorn which came up from the washing,
whereof every one bears twins, and none is barren among them?’ Does the
hearer learn anything more than when he listens to the same thought expressed
in the plainest language, without the help of this figure?
11 Nunc videmus tanquam per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem… In
the Douay‐Rheims Bible: “We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then
face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.” King
James Version: “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” Within this volume, I
cite the Vulgate always according to the Clementine version available at:
http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html, and its English translation according to the
Douay‐Rheims Bible at http://www. drbo.org (both accessed August 20, 2012).
12 See, e.g., Robert A. Markus, “St. Augustine on Signs,” Phronesis 2:1 (1957): 60‐83.
1 8
He notes here that the same information could have been put much more
simply and clearly, but proceeds to make a comment that sounds disarmingly
honest:
Et tamen nescio quomodo suauius intueor sanctos, cum eos quasi dentes
ecclesiae uideo praecidere ab erroribus homines atque in eius corpus emollita
quasi demorsos mansos que transferre. Oues etiam iucundissime agnosco detonsas
oneribus saecularibus tamquam uelleribus positis et ascendentes de lauacro, id est
de baptismate, creare omnes gemonis, duo praecepta dilectionis, et nullam esse ab
isto sancto fructu sterilem uideo.
And yet, I d o n ’ t k n ow wh y , I f e e l g r e a t e r p l e a s u r e in contemplating
holy men, when I view them as the teeth of the Church, tearing men away from
their errors, and bringing them into the Church’s body, with all their harshness
softened down, just as if they had been torn off and masticated by the teeth. It is
with the greatest pleasure, too, that I recognize them under the figure of sheep
that have been shorn, laying down the burdens of the world like fleeces, and
coming up from the washing, i.e., from baptism, and all bearing twins, i.e., the
twin commandments of love, and none among them barren in that holy fruit.
He describes “the greater pleasure” resulting from contemplating the enigma
but refuses to explain its source:
Sed quare suauius uideam, quam si nulla de diuinis libris talis similitudo
promeretur, cum res eadem sit eadem que cognitio, difficile est dicere et alia
quaestio est. Nunc tamen nemo ambigit et per similitudines libentius quaeque
cognosci et cum aliqua difficultate quaesita multo gratius inueniri. Quid enim
prorsus inueniunt, quod quaerunt, fame laborant; qui autem non quaerunt, quia in
promptu habent, fastidio saepe marcescunt; in utroque autem languor cauendus
est. Magnifice igitur et salubriter spiritus sanctus ita scripturas sanctas
modificauit, ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret, obscurioribus autem fastidia
deterget. Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur, quod non planissime
dictum alibi reperiatur.
But why I view them with greater delight under that aspect than if no such
figure were drawn from the sacred books, though the fact would remain the
same and the knowledge the same, is another question, and one very difficult to
answer. Nobody, however, has any doubt about the facts, both that it is pleasanter
in some cases to have knowledge communicated through figures, and that
what is attended with difficulty in the seeking gives greater pleasure in the
finding. For those who seek but do not find suffer from hunger. Those, again,
who do not seek at all because they have what they require just beside them
often grow languid from satiety. Now weakness from either of these causes is to
be avoided. Accordingly the Holy Spirit has, with admirable wisdom and care for
our welfare, so arranged the Holy Scriptures as by the plainer passages to
satisfy our hunger, and by the more obscure to stimulate our appetite. For
almost nothing is dug out of those obscure passages which may not be found set
forth in the plainest language elsewhere.
Throughout the passage Augustine stresses that the obscure and enigmatic
character of Scripture is intentional. It does not carry a new meaning in
itself (the same message can be found elsewhere in the Bible in a direct
1 9
form); rather, its importance lies in the fact that it brings about toil for
those encountering the text, because it is the fruits of hard work that are
appreciated the most. For Augustine, the fact that the results achieved
through much toil give greater pleasure is an actual observation. He does
not intend to elaborate on it on a theoretical level.
Today’s reader of this text (as well as of most medieval exegetical treatises)
is primarily baffled by the apparent certainty of the author that a particular
biblical passage should really carry the proposed meaning. Having
concerns for the time and the context of its origin, we may have difficulty in
accepting without question that a passage from the Song of Songs refers to
Christian Saints.
However, medieval exegesis worked within a different framework, with
different suppositions, concerns, and concepts, and thus, obviously, with
different results. Is it even relevant to ask to what degree medieval exegetes
were certain of the correctness of their interpretation when facing obscurity
or an enigma? It obviously differs greatly among authors, as well as
within particular texts—sometimes one solution is proposed with absolute
certainty, other times several suggestions are made with the author not
ready to support one of them wholeheartedly, yet other times several very
vague ideas are presented. Common to most medieval exegesis is the
certainty that a meaning is present, and the feeling of necessity for trying to
understand it (although we are doomed to fail at grasping it fully)—both of
these feelings were also expressed by Augustine in the passage quoted
above.
Later exegetes and theologians largely drew on Augustine in this
respect. Developing the well‐established parallel between reading and
eating, they compared approaching Scripture to getting the nut out of its
hard shell, or sweet honey out of the honeycomb—thus showing the pleasure
that follows toil.13 Throughout the Middle Ages the sacred page is
13 E.g., Hugh of St. Victor in his Didascalicon V.2: unde modo mirabili omnis divina scriptura
ita per Dei sapientiam convenienter suis partibus aptata est atque disposita, ut
quidquid in ea continetur aut vice chordarum spiritualis intelligentiae suavitatem personet,
aut per historiae seriem et litterae soliditatem mysteriorum dicta sparsim posita
continens, et quasi in unum connectens, ad modum ligni concavi super extensas chordas
simul copulet, earumque sonum recipiens in se, dulciorem auribus referat, quem
non solum chorda edidit, sed et lignum modulo corporis sui formavit. sic et mel in favo
gratius, et quidquid maiori exercitio quaeritur, maiori etiam desiderio invenitur. At
the same time an image of simple sweetness of the Scriptures exists, not accompanied
by any toil and hardships. Or, the original difficulty of the Scripture is contrasted
to its exegesis: some exegetes present their writings as the opposite of obscurity;
using the same parallel they explain that what they offer is a careful and
easily accessible selection, they stress that they had to sweeten the food so that the
young eat it more willingly, or that they provide a good choice of different types of
2 0
viewed as an encoded message that cannot be fully decoded in this life; it
presents a great enigma, an eternal challenge. Engaging with it, however, is
a praiseworthy act bringing one closer to God.14
b) Obscurity in rhetoric and poetics
The second type of medieval discourse on obscurity takes a completely
different starting point: it is concerned with creating rather than interpreting
obscurity. Obscurity becomes a means of encoding the intended meaning—
a strategy that is either suggested or met with disapproval within
rhetoric and poetic treatises but never questioned.
In rhetoric, the word obscuritas is used in definitions of aenigma, which
is discussed as a rhetorical trope. Enigma is generally classified as a type of
allegory, distinguished from the other types precisely by its obscurity. In
the Middle Ages the ancient opinions concerning a definition seem to be
largely lost,15 and the meaning given by Donatus’ (4th c., teacher of Jerome)
in his Ars maior is quoted again and again:
Allegoria est tropus, quo aliud significatur quam dicitur… Huius species multae
sunt, ex quibus eminent septem: ironia, antiphrasis, aenigma, charientismos,
paroemia, sarcasmos, astismos… Aenigma est obscura sententia per occultam
similitudinem rerum, ut: ‘mater me genuit, eadem mox gignitur ex me,’ cum
significet aquam in glaciem concrescere et ex eadem rursus effluere.16
Allegory is a trope by which something else is meant than what is said. […]
There are many of its types, among them seven are most prominent: irony, antiphrasis,
enigma, charientism, paroemia, sarcasm, astism. […] Enigma is an
food, so that one does not have to eat too much (does not have to go through huge
volumes) and get a stomach ache.
14 This is, of course, a very complex issue presented here in a simplified manner. For
basic details, see Henri de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale: les quatre senses de l’écriture
(Paris: Aubier, 1959‐1964); Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages,
3rd corr. ed. (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1982).
15 For obscurity in Antiquity, see e.g., Manfred Fuhrmann, “Obscuritas. Das Problem
der Dunkelheit in der rhetorischen und literarästhetischen Theorie der Antike,” in
Immanente Ästhetik—Ästhetische Reflexion: Lyrik als Paradigma der Moderne, ed.
Wolfgang Iser, Poetik und Hermeneutik 2 (Munich: Fink, 1983 [1st ed. 1966]), 47‐72.
16 Donatus, Ars maior, De tropis, 17. The translation here and elsewhere, unless otherwise
noted, is mine. Quintilianus, Institutio oratoria (book 8, chapter 6, par. 126, line
24) is basically the same, although not as influential: sed allegoria, quae est obscurior,
‘aenigma’ dicitur. Donatus reappears in, e.g., Hugh of St. Victor’s De grammatica
and William of Ockham’s Summa logicae (part 3, 4, chapter 6). In De schematibus et
tropis Bede repeats the same but changes the example: Enigma est obscura sententia
per occultam similitudinem rerum, ut: ‘pennae columbae deargentatae, et posteriora
dorsi eius in specie auri’ cum significet eloquia scripturae spiritalis diuino lumine
plena, sensum uero eius interiorem maiori caelestis sapientiae gratia refulgentem, uel
certe uitam sanctae ecclesiae praesentem, uirtutum pennis gaudentem, futuram autem,
quae in caelis est, aeterna cum domino claritate fruituram (CETEDOC).
2 1
obscure expression through a hidden similitude of things, as: ‘mother bore me
and will soon be born out of me,’ which signifies water becoming ice and flowing
again out of ice.
From among the many followers of Donatus, Sedulius Scotus claims most
simply: enigma est obscuritas (“enigma is an obscurity”).17 However, enigma
appears as a sub‐species of allegory, not necessarily only in grammars and
rhetoric, but also in exegetical texts, e.g., Augustine’s aenigma est obscura
parabola quae difficile intellegitur (“enigma is an obscure parable that is
difficult to understand”)18 or Andrew of St. Victor’s (c.1110–1175) phrase
Aenigma non quaelibet, sed obscura et quasi problematica allegoriae species
esse dicitur (“enigma is said to be not just any, but an obscure and, as if
puzzling, type of allegory”).19 We also encounter it slightly refashioned in
the context of preaching, such as in Summa de arte praedicandi by Thomas
de Chobham (1160‐ca.1233):
Parabola autem et paradigma et enigma sunt communes modi significandi in
theologia et in philosophia […] Philosophi tamen distinguunt quatuor genera
similitudinum, scilicet ycos, paradigma, parabola et enigma. Omnia igitur ista per
similitudines attenduntur. […] Enigma est obscure simil itudinis obscura
sententia. In hoc enim solo differt enigma a predictis tribus: quod obscuriorem
habet similitudinem et sententiam quam predicta tria […] Hinc enigma solet
obscura parabola dici. Ycos autem et paradigma in sacra pagina non leguntur.
Parabola autem et enigma sepe.
Parable and paradigma and enigma are common types of signification in theology
and philosophy… But philosophers distinguish four types of similitudes,
which are ycos, paradigma, parable and enigma. All these are achieved by similitudes…
Enigma is an obscure statement of obscure similitude. Only in this aspect
does enigma differ from the above mentioned three, that its similitude and its
statement are more obscure than in the above mentioned three… Thus enigma is
often called obscure parable. Ycos and paradigma are not read in the Sacred
Page, but parable and enigma are often.
Whatever the particular context, aenigma functions as the term and obscuritas
as its main distinguishing characteristic. Within the context of other
types of allegory, enigma is the problematic one, where the connection
between what is said and what is meant is far from clear. At the same time,
there is an underlying assumption that enigma does have a recoverable
meaning, a clear solution. Yet, none of these texts deal with the actual
methods and intricacies in creating and solving an enigma.
17 Sedulius Scotus in Donati Artem maiorem, ed. Bengt Löfstedt, Corpus Christianorum
Continuatio Mediaevalis, Grammatici hibernici carolini evi III‐1 (Turnhout: Brepols,
1977).
18 Ennarationes in Psalmos (Psalm 48, sermon 1, par. 5, line 28).
19 Andreas de Sancto Victore: Expositiones historicae in libros Salomonis, Expositio historica
in Parabolis (CETEDOC).
2 2
According to the above quoted definitions, enigma is an expression that
makes sense on the level of vocabulary, grammar and syntax, but either its
reference to reality is suspicious (as in the example of a mother being born
out of her child), or its context suggests that it should be understood as
referring to something other than what it initially seems (e.g., Augustine’s
teeth as a flock of sheep from the Song of Songs). The concept of obscurity
is, however, potentially a larger one: it can also include cases with unclear
or non‐standard syntax, grammar, vocabulary, or all of these. It is exactly in
opposition to perspicuitas (clarity) that obscuritas is most often discussed in
rhetoric. This topic was previously addressed in detail by Quintillian, who
speaks in favor of clarity when giving advice to his readers on style.20
Within twelfth‐ and thirteenth‐century arts of poetry, obscurity is
conceived as a kind of decoration of the speech (ornatus). The authors share
the idea that the poet has a clear message to transmit, but that he does not
and should not do so directly—he makes it difficult (obscure), and thus
more interesting for his readers. At the same time however, he should be
careful to not use obscurity excessively. These were the ideas of Matthew
Vendôme21 as well as Geoffrey of Vinsauf,22 although they differ in their
presentations: Matthew is very clear, while Geoffrey’s art of poetry is in
itself a poem actively applying all the devices discussed, including obscurity.
Jan Ziolkowski demonstrated in detail the medieval oscillations between
recommending clarity and suggesting obscurity. He concluded that there is
no general rule for success—sometimes clarity is condemned as a too
“cheap” way of attracting readers, other times it is obscurity. It is impossible
to draw a clear dividing line between how much obscurity makes the
work attractive before it becomes repulsive—too many other aspects that
have influence on the reception of a text are always present, such as the cultural
and social milieux, or tradition.23 In any case, what seems to be truly
characteristic of the Middle Ages is that there is no attempt to eliminate
20 E.g., Quintillian; see Päivi Mehtonen, Obscure Language—Unclear Literature. Theory
and Practice from Quintilian to the Enlightenment (Helsinki: The Finnish Academy of
Sciences and Letters, 2003), and Päivi Mehtonen, “Obscurity as a Linguistic Device:
Introductory and Historical Notes,” Danish Yearbook of Philosophy 31 (1996): 157‐
68.
21 See, Mathei Vindociensis Opera III. Ars Versificatoria, ed. Franco Munari (Rome:
Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1988); Matthew of Vendôme, The Art of Versification,
trans. Aubrey E. Galyon (Ames: The Iowa State University Press, 1980).
22 See Galfridus de Vino Salvo, The Poetria Nova and Its Sources in Early Rhetorical Doctrine,
ed. Ernest Gallo (Paris: Mouton, 1971); English translation by Margaret Frances
Nims, Poetria nova of Geoffrey of Vinsauf (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval
Studies, 1967).
23 Jan Ziolkowski, “Theories of Obscurity in the Latin Tradition,” Mediaevalia 19
(1996): 101‐67.
2 3
obscurity altogether, or to redefine it as a subjective feature (as occurred
with the 19th c. romantic concept of the genius, or the 20th c. concept of the
subconscious).
c) Encountered vs. created obscurity
The two medieval discourses addressing the notion of obscurity, that is,
biblical exegesis and rhetoric‐poetics, present two different approaches to
obscurity due to the different positions of the authors of these texts. Biblical
exegetes are those who encounter obscurity and try to understand and
decode it. Since the particular obscure text that they are struggling with has
the highest possible authority, they do not dismiss it, and they do not doubt
that there is a meaning behind it. Obscurity for them is a challenge (which
does not mean that the commentaries they create strive for absolute
clarity).24
As opposed to this, within rhetoric and poetics, obscurity is something
to be actively employed, it is a way of encoding the message. It may be
recommended as a refreshing strategy to draw more attention to one’s text,
or it may be advised against as bothersome and burdensome to readers.
Literature will always move between the two extremes of the absolutely
clear (boring, dull) and absolutely obscure (incomprehensible). In addition,
the unresolved (or unresolvable) obscurity is sometimes appreciated; it
seems that it is not necessary to fully understand in order to enjoy.25
Two more examples of these two basic approaches are in place. In his
De dialectica, Augustine speaks of three kinds of obscurity:
Unum est quod sensui patet, animo clausum est: tamquam si quis malum punicum
pictum videat, qui neque viderit aliquando nec omnino quale esset audierit, non
oculorum est, sed animi, quod cuius rei pictura sit nescit. Alterum genus est, ubi
res animo pateret, nisi sensui clauderetur: sicuti est homo pictus in tenebris. Nam
ubi oculis apparuerit, nihil animus hominem pictum esse dubitavit. Tertium genus
est, in quo etiam sensui absconditur, quod tamen si nudaretur nihilo magis animo
emineret, quod genus est omnium obscurissimum: ut si imperitus malum illud
punicum pictum etiam in tenebris cogeretur agnoscere.
The first is when something is manifest to the senses but is closed to the mind,
as, for example, if someone sees a picture of a red apple, who has never seen an
apple or heard what it is; his failure to know what it is a picture of is due not to
24 See Päivi Mehtonen, “Scriptural Difficulty and the Obscurity of Historia,” in Historia:
The Concept and Genres, eds. Päivi Mehtonen and Tuomas M. S. Lehtonen, Commentationes
humanarum litterarum 116 (Helsinki: Societas scientiarum Fennica, 2000),
51‐67.
25 I addressed this topic in the context of the reception of the obscure but very popular
opuscle Cena Cypriani; see Reception and Its Varieties: Reading, ReWriting,
and Understanding
‘Cena Cypriani’ in the Middle Ages, Bochumer Altertumswissenschaftliches
Colloquium 75 (Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2007), 253‐58.
2 4
his eyes but to his mind. There is another kind of obscurity when the thing
would be manifest to the mind if it were not closed to the senses, as in the case
of a picture of a man which is in the dark; for as soon as it is visible to the eyes
the mind will in no way doubt that a man is pictured. There is a third kind of
obscurity, the most obscure of all three, when something is hidden to the senses
and even if it were to be revealed nothing more would be clear to the mind, as
when a man with no knowledge of apples tries to recognize a picture of an apple
in the dark.26
He bases his division on the point of view of the spectator—the one encountering
obscurity. The objects he describes here as “obscure” (a picture of an
apple and a picture of a man), are not obscure in themselves. It is the lack of
knowledge, or the lack of sensual perception, or both, that makes them
obscure to the viewer. The obscurity is then a result of various types of
“impediments” to perception. Without impediments there is no obscurity,
and thus it might seem that obscurity is something imposed and removeable.
Yet, the implicit framework of this discussion is different: being
human in this passing world is an unavoidable impediment—obscurity is a
fact of terrestrial existence.
An opposite approach to the types of obscurity, one rooted in the rhetoric‐
poetic discourse is found by Virgilius Maro Grammaticus (probably
living in the first half of the seventh century,27 perhaps in Ireland28), the
author of the two already mentioned unquestioningly obscure treatises on
grammar, Epitomae and Epistolae. These texts are formed on the model of
Donatus’ Ars maior and Ars minor but the non‐negligible difference in
comparison to Donatus lies in the fact that Virgilius’ grammar deals with
fictional grammatical rules and features, uses fabricated words, and cites
26 Augustine: De dialectica, trans. D. Darrell Jackson, Synthese Historical Library 16
(Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing, 1975), 104‐05.
27 This assumption (which is not unanimously accepted) is based on Virgilius’ dependence
on Isidore of Seville and on being quoted in some sources from the second half
of the seventh century. The first full surviving manuscripts come only from the ninth
and tenth centuries.
28 Although there is no direct evidence, his Irish origin is much promoted by Michael
Herren (“Some new light on the life of Virgilius Maro Grammaticus,” Proceedings of
the Royal Irish Academy 79, section C [1979]: 27‐71), and his works are often seen as
precursors to the specific Irish poetic tradition later developed in Hisperica famina
and culminating in James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake. Vivien Law thought that the
author might have been English, see Vivien Law, Insular Latin Grammarians (Woodbridge:
Boydell Press, 1982), 87. Virgilius himself makes an indirect mention of his
origin in Gaul. Abbo of Fleury calls him Tolosanus (of Toulouse). He was also considered
to be a Jew: many of the strange words he uses seemed to be of Hebrew origin.
The most curious (and the least accepted) is the idea of Leo Wiener, who sees
Virgilius as coming from an Arabic culture and who interprets most of his obscurities
as words of Arabic origin (Leo Wiener, Contributions Toward a History of
ArabicoGothic
Culture [Piscataway: Gorgias Press LLC, 2002], 21).
2 5
nonexistent authorities. Its most famous passages include a fourteen‐day
debate over the vocative of ego and the discussion of twelve types of Latinity.
The purpose of these texts has been much disputed.29
Among other things, Virgilius discusses a strategy that he calls scinderatio
fonorum, the breaking of words. The term encompasses a number of
practices on different levels: the change in order of verses, the change in
order of words, or splitting up a word and placing each of its parts at a
different spot in a sentence. When concerned with an individual word, the
order of syllables or letters in a word are changed, or the word is transformed
by adding or omitting some of its letters or syllables, as well as
changing some letters or syllables. Thus, on this level, scinderatio fonorum is
basically any transformation of a word into a word composed of the same
or partly different letters. Virgilius gives three reasons for this practice:
Ob tres causas fona finduntur: prima est ut sagacitatem discentium nostrorum in
inquirendis atque in inveniendis his quaeque obscura sunt adprobemus. Secunda
est propter decorem aedificationemque eloquaentiae. Tertia ne mystica quaeque
et quae solis gnaris pandi debent passim ab infimis ac stultis facile repperiantur,
ne secundum antiquum sues gemmas calcent.
The words are cut apart [and then mixed] for three reasons: first, so that we
establish the acuteness of the perception of our students in searching and
discovering these obscure things. Second, because of the ornamenta‐tion and
construction of the speech. Third, so that mystical mysteries and those which
should be apparent only to the knowledgeable, would not by chance be easily
found by the inferior and the stupid, so that, according to an ancient saying, the
swine would not tread on precious stones.30
These are very general reasons, and could be easily taken as three types of
aims when creating an obscurity. Indeed, obscurity may be a riddle, a
means of education, or, as seen with rhetoric and poetics, a way of ornamenting
the speech, or a way of encoding secret messages.
From these reasons, the third one is most often interpreted as the most
crucial, or even as the only relevant one. Vivien Law employs it to interpret
29 Previous scholarship considered it to be a parody; see Paul Lehmann, Die Parodie im
Mittelalter (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1963), 910;
Mikhail M. Bakhtin, Rabelais and His
World, trans. Hélène Iswolsky (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1984), 14;
Martha Bayless, Parody in the Middle Ages: The Latin Tradition (Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 1996). However, Vivien Law pointed out, the work seems to
be a bit too long for that purpose, and should be rather taken seriously, see Vivien
Law, The History of Linguistics in Europe from Plato to 1600 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2003), 120. Aldo D. Scaglione calls Virgilius “hermetic, cabbalistic
and pseudo‐Asianist” in The Classical Theory of Composition: From Its Origins to the
Present: A Historical Survey (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1972),
119.
30 Epitome 10 (Huemer, Virgilii 76; Polara, Virgilius, 128). Here and everywhere within
the volume the translations are mine unless noted otherwise.
2 6
the whole of Virgilius Maro’s grammar as hiding mystical truths on divine
and human knowledge.31 Michael Herren quotes it when suggesting that
Virgilius himself uses scrambling Maro–Roma–mare to hide, in a sophisticated
way, the fact that he came from Ireland—the land by the sea.32
Virgilius’ second possible reason for scinderatio is referred to by scholars
when they identify this strategy in medieval poetry, e.g., in the works of
Aldhelm33 or Arbeo of Freising.34 This practice was indeed not an uncommon
poetic strategy, but no other medieval author explicitly describes it.
Scholars usually do not assert that poets were actually familiar with Virgilius’
work; rather they state that their strategies conform to his scinderatio.35
In a way, both reasons create an exclusive relationship between the
encoding author and the reader who succeeds in decoding. Obscurity (in
the form of scinderatio, or in another form) thus results in creating an elite,
that is, a group of those who understand. To date, Virgilius’ first reason has
been primarily neglected, perhaps for seeming too obvious. But it is exactly
this reason—“so that we establish the acuteness of perception of the
students” (sagacitatem discentium adprobare)—that is, in my opinion, the
most important for the Late Middle Ages, especially since it places the
scinderatio, and the practice of creating of obscurity in general, in the wider
31 Vivien Law, Wisdom, Authority, and Grammar in the Seventh Century: Decoding
Virgilius Maro Grammaticus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), or her
“Learning to Read with the oculi mentis: Virgilius Maro Grammaticus,” Literature and
Theology 3 (1989): 159‐72.
32 See Michael Herren, “The Pseudonymous Tradition in Hiberno‐Latin: An Introduction,”
in Latin Script and Letters A.D. 400–900: Festschrift Presented to Ludwig Bieler
on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, eds. John O’Meara and Bernd Naumann (Leiden:
Brill, 1976), 126. I do not find Herren’s analysis sufficiently grounded.
33 See Kevin R. Dungey, “Allegorical Theory and Aldhelm’s Obscurity,” in Allegoresis.
The Craft of Allegory in Medieval Literature, ed. J. Stephen Russell (New York:
Garland, 1988), 3‐26; or Vivien Law, “The Latin and Old English Glosses in the ars
Tatuini,” AngloSaxon
England 6 (1997): 85.
34 See Lothar Vogel, Vom Werden eines Heiligen: Eine Untersuchung der ‘Vita Corbiniani’
des Bischofs Arbeo von Freising, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 77 (Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2000), 173; or Harald Wunder, “Arbeo von Freising,” in Die deutsche Literatur
des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon, ed. Kurt Ruh (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1978), vol. 1,
col. 420.
35 See, e.g., A. F. Ozanam who states this about Alcuin’s verse Te cupiens appel—
peregrinis—lare camoenis (Antoni F. Ozanam, La civilisation chrétienne chez les
Francs (Paris: Jacques le Coffre, 1849), 523; or Michael Lapidge, “The Hermeneutic
Style,” 147. There are, of course, exceptions. E.g., Abbo of Fleury and Atto of Vercelli
explicitly mention Virgilius. Direct influence is also claimed in the case of several
Irish poets: it has been argued that Virgilius’ grammar had a strong impact on Irish
poetry and language—in many cases two variants of a word existed side by side, one
of them supposedly better fitting for poetry.
2 7
context of education, thus making it a social and cultural rather than an elite
phenomenon.36
3. Obscurity and memory
During the Late Middle Ages, both the described discourses continue to
coexist side by side but obscurity appears also at the very centre of cultural
context: within education. Obscurity was a means of teaching, it operated as
a riddle that the students should solve, because information acquired in
such an indirect way would stick to their memory better. As a didactic
method, it uses Augustine’s idea of pleasure following toil.
A suitable example of the theoretical discussion of the use of obscurity
for memory are the treatises on the art of memory, artes memoriae.37
Already as texts these treatises often seem obscure—it is not quite clear
what their authors mean, and whether it could have possibly been useful to
anyone. For these reasons, they have also been neglected or interpreted as
a passtime of very few intellectuals for a long time. Yet, recent research
shows very clearly that the art of memory was applied in practice by both
students and preachers,38 and is, again, perhaps obscure in the meaning of
“not clear,” but definitely not obscure in the meaning of “outside the mainstream,”
or “marginal.” The treatises are obscure because they were never
meant to be self‐explanatory, they were intended to be accompanied by an
oral elucidation.
At the same time, obscurity plays an important role within the precepts
of these treatises, too. Creating obscurity—creating an image that is
unusual, striking, and unclear as far as its meaning is concerned—is
suggested as the basic strategy for remembering. The modern supposition
that there was a cultural progression leading from the complicated to the
36 This context for Epistolae and Epitomae in general is often mentioned but not
explored from this specific perspective. Vivien Law interpreted Virgilius’ work in the
context of adjusting Donatus for non‐native speakers of Latin. Dáibhí Ó Cróinín
presented Virgilius as an excellent teacher, liked by his students for being able to
make grammar fun; see Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, “Hiberno‐Latin Literature to 1169,” in
Prehistoric and Early Ireland: Prehistoric and Early Ireland, vol. I, ed. D. Ó Cróinín
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 388–89.
37 There is ample literature on the topic. See, e.g., Sabine Heimann Seelbach, Ars und
Scientia. Genese, Überlieferung und Funktionen der mnemotechnischen Traktatliteratur
im 15. Jahrhundert. Mit Edition und Untersuchung dreier deutscher Traktate und
ihrer lateinischen Vorlagen (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2000).
38 For a detailed discussion of the actual practice of the art of memory in Poland, see
Rafał Wójcik, ‘Opusculum de arte memorativa’ Jana Szklarka. Bernardyński traktat
mnemotechniczny z 1504 roku, Prace Biblioteki Uniwersyteckiej 28 (Poznań: Biblioteka
Uniwersytecka, 2006); and in the Czech lands, see Lucie Doležalová, “Fugere
artem memorativam? The Art of Memory in Late Medieval Bohemia (a Preliminary
Survey),” Studia mediaevalia Bohemica 2:2 (2010): 221‐60.
2 8
simple based on the gradual increase in knowledge is actually far from selfevident.
As Niek Veldhuis aptly showed, the ancient cuneiform script was so
complex not because its users were unable to create a simple script, but
because they wanted to make an elite group out of the scribes on whom the
rest of the society was thus dependent.39 Similarly, Paul Saenger argues that
the introduction of spaces in Latin script was due to the rise of silent reading;
before, when all reading was pronounced (even if quietly), the lack of
spaces was intentional so that one would be forced to proceed slowly.
Therefore, the “innovation” of introducing spaces was simply an appropriation
of writing to a new context, not “progress” in writing.40
Thus, “making things difficult” may often have been a very conscious
process. By not being offered the message in the most simple and straightforward
way, the audience was encouraged to think, to wonder, to interpret.
Once they found the solution, it stuck in their minds better because of
the efforts they had to make—exactly as the authors of artes memoriae
stressed in theory and the authors of the mnemonic tools applied in practice.
The art of memory is a specific example of making things difficult for
oneself, of complicating one’s own access to stored knowledge on purpose,
in order to keep one’s mind active. At the same time, the art is personal. It is
explicitly acknowledged that what suits the memory of one person may be
useless for another, and thus everyone should create mnemonic aids to fit
his or her own memory.
While this works fine in theory, there are many problems in practice,
some of which are associated with the application of obscurity in the Middle
Ages, others with retrieving its meanings and function today. This practice
is different from ours: mnemonic tools are not where we usually expect to
encounter obscurity. Textual tools in general (e.g., vocabularies, tables of
contents, concordances) are meant to help access other texts, they are supposed
to be clear, well‐arranged, and comprehensive. They present the
same material as the original text, but in a different way so as to help the
reader find and/or use the information presented in the original.41
Mnemonic tools have the same characteristics but should also be easily
memorable and should help in retrieving the basics of the original text
without having to browse through it physically.
39 Nicolaas Christiaan Veldhuis, “Elementary Education at Nippur. The Lists of Trees
and Wooden Objects,” PhD diss., University of Groningen, 1997.
40 Paul Saenger, Space between Words. The Origins of Silent Reading (Palo Alto: Stanford
University Press, 1997).
41 For a more general study on condensation in the Middle Ages and beyond, see Paul
Gerhard Schmidt, “Die Kunst der Kürze,” in Dichten als StoffVermittlung.
Formen,
Ziele, Wirkungen. Beiträge zur Praxis der Versifikation lateinischer Texte im Mittelalter,
ed. Peter Stotz (Zurich: Chronos Verlag, 2008), 23‐40.
2 9
A great number of medieval tools do not follow these basic rules and
seem disorganized and unhelpful today.42 The tables of contents for medieval
codices often lack some of the items, or even present them in a different
order. Encyclopedias and various lists were originally not alphabetical:
throughout the Middle Ages the “logical order” often violates the alphabetical
order.43 Concordances are frequently only partial and the order of the
entries sometimes seems random.44 The way in which medieval tools for
memory are “memorable” can also be considered unusual today. Many of
the texts are versified—which is striking in itself45—but the rules of metrical
or rhythmical poetry are often only loosely observed. Some of the words
are obscure and their relationship to the original is difficult to understand,
and often repetition creates a sense of confusion for the modern reader.
Exactly what we find crucial about a textual tool today—a strictly observed
order, clarity, and completeness—is frequently missing in the Middle Ages.
Nevertheless, the evidence of their reception shows that they were much
copied and used in the Middle Ages. Rather than making hasty conclusions
about medieval deficiency, a closer look at the specificities of the culture
combining obscurity and memory so often and with so much enthusiasm is
in place.
42 For a number of relevant recent discussions on the topic, see Peter Stotz, ed., Dichten
als StoffVermittlung.
43 Cf. Peter Binkley, ed., PreModern
Encyclopaedic Texts (COMERS Congress, Groningen,
July 1996) (Leiden: Brill, 1997), especially the contribution by Christel Meier,
“Organization of Knowledge and Encyclopaedic Ordo: Functions and Purposes of a
Universal Literary Genre,” 104‐26.
44 See Richard H. Rouse and Mary A. Rouse, “Statim Invenire: Schools, Preachers, and
New Attitudes to the Page,” in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, eds.
Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1982), 201‐25; Kimberly Rivers, “Memory, Division, and the Organization of Knowledge
in the Middle Ages,” in PreModern
Encyclopaedic Texts, 147‐58; Jacques Le
Goff, “Pourquoi le XIIIe siècle a‐t‐il été un siècle d’encyclopédisme?” in
L’enciclopedismo medievale. Atti del Convegno “L’Enciclopedismo Medievale”, San
Gimignano, 8‐10 ottobre 1992, ed. Michelangelo Picone (Ravenna: Longo, 1994), 23‐
40.
45 Medieval versified didactics is an exciting subject that has attracted attention of
many scholars. See, e.g., Thomas Haye, Das lateinische Lehrgedicht im Mittelalter.
Analyse einer Gattung, Mittellateinische Studien und Texte 22 (Leiden: Brill, 1997);
Bernhard Pabst, “Ein Medienwechsel in Theorie und Praxis. Die Umstellung von
prosaischen auf versifizierte Schultexte im 12. bis 14. Jahrhundert und ihre Problematik,”
in Dichten als StoffVermittlung,
151‐74; Vivien Law, “Why Write a Verse
Grammar?” Journal of Medieval Latin: A Publication of the North American Association
of Medieval Latin 9 (1999): 46‐76; Rolf Max Kully, “Denk‐ und Merkverse als
Gebrauchspoesie,” in Ze hove und an der strazen: Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters
und ihr ‘Sitz im Leben’. Festschrift für Volker Schupp zum 65. Geburtstag, eds.
Anna Keck and Theodor Nolte (Sttutgart: Hirzel, 1999), 134‐51; and also Catherine
Atherton, Form and Content in Didactic Poetry (Bari: Levante, 1997).
3 0
II. The Case of the Summarium Biblie
1. Form and content
The poem that the discussion is focused on has never been critically
edited.46 In manuscript Lilienfeld, SB, 145 (s. XIV) (Fig. 1), it begins:47
Sex prohibet peccant abel enoch archa fit intrant
egreditur dormit variantur turris it abram
loth reges credit fuga circumcisio risus
sulphur rex gerare parit offert sara rebecca
post geminos puteos benedicit scala sorores
virgas abscedit luctatur munera dina
benom gens esau vendunt thamar impia tres tres
preficitur veniunt redeunt post tristia norunt
omne genus quintam languet benedictio ioseph.48
Six prohibits they sin Abel Enoch ark is built they enter
exits sleeps they are diversified tower goes Abram
Loth kings believes escape circumcision laughter
sulphur king of Gerara gives birth offers Sara Rebecca
afterwards the twins the wells blesses the ladder sisters
the rods separated fights gifts Dinah
Benon Esau’s progeny they sell Thamar impious three three
presides they go they return afterwards sadness they recognize
the whole people the fifth wails benediction Joseph
46 Several editions are in existence but none of them is critical. The poem was included
in a number of incunables of the Vulgate Bible: at least four in Venice (Nicolaus
Jenson, 1479; Hieronymus de Paganinis, 1492; Simon Bevilaqua, 1494 and 1498)
and one in Basel (Johann Froben, 1495). It is also found in the Biblia Maxima by Jean
de la Haye (Paris, 1660) at the beginning of the first volume of this 19‐volume Bible
edition (Biblia cum tabula noviter edita). It appears on f. 2r‐8v entitled as: Incipit
Tabula super Bibliam per versus composita: omnes libros Biblie continens omniaque
capitula et de quo agitur in eisdem capitulis. Later, it appeared among biblical
mnemonic aids and arts of memory (Madrid, 1735), or, as a type of an index to
“Colección de sermones panegíricos originals” (Madrid, 1849). Further research
needs to be carried out on the early print editions of the Summarium, which,
however, will probably be of limited relevance in the search for the original version
of the text.
47 This section is using parts of my previously published article “Biblia quasi in saculo:
Summarium Biblie and other medieval Bible mnemonics,” Medium Aevum
Quotidianum 56 (2007): 5‐35.
48 For this text, see f. 17v of the Lilienfeld manuscript.
3 1
Fig. 1: Ms. Lilienfeld, Stiftsbibliothek 145 (s. XIV), f. 17v; Summarium Biblie
(here entitled Biblia pauperum metrica)
This text is completely unintelligible, it is a list of unconnected words. Had
the type been practiced in the Middle Ages, one would call it a nonsense
poem. In reality, it is not an obscure poem but a mnemonic aid aimed at
helping one remember the Bible. It is usually called the Summarium Biblie.
Every word (sometimes but very rarely two, or even more) stands for one
biblical chapter. Thus the whole Bible (except for the Psalms)49 is presented
49 A subchapter is dedicated to the omission of the Psalms below.
3 2
in a little over 200 hexameters. The text has been attributed to Alexander
de Villa Dei (Alexander de Villedieu or Déols, ca. 1175‐1240),50 the author
of a very popular versified grammar Doctrinale puerorum (composed ca.
1200).51
Why would anyone write such an extremely condensed text, and why
would anyone read it? The answer is surely linked to the rise of the universities
and the rise of the mendicant orders whose members saw their
primary mission in preaching. These two late medieval phenomena made it
necessary to think of ways of processing information in a faster and more
efficient way, and to create tools for quick orientation within a given text.52
In a way, chapter divisions, tables of contents, indices, and concordances
are signs of decline in reading as such: early medieval monastic Bibles were
usually not divided into chapters at all: the monks were simply reading
them and meditating on them in order to get closer to God. The student or
the preacher, on the other hand, needed to be able to find (as opposed to
read) a relevant place in the Bible quickly in order to follow a lecture or to
prepare a sermon. Only this new audience was interested in the kind of
information that the Summarium provides (e.g., to remember in which
chapter of the Book of Genesis Joseph interprets Pharaoh’s dreams).
Division and organiza‐tion of the Bible allow the readers to search but also
to avoid continuous reading.
a) A verse list
The technique applied in composing a poem from individual, syntactically
unrelated, keywords, each referring to a much larger text, is not
unique to the Summarium and was actually widespread during the Middle
50 See Christine Wulf, “Alexander de Villa Dei,” in Die deutsche Literatur des
Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon, eds. Wolfgang Stammler, Karl Langosch, and Kurt Ruh
(Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), 59‐61.
51 Ed. Dieter Reichling, Das ‘Doctrinale’ des Alexander de Villa Dei. Kritischexegetische
Ausgabe mit Einleitung, Verzeichniss der Handschriften und Drucke nebst Registern
(Berlin: A. Hofmann, 1893; repr. New York: B. Franklin, 1974). See also Philip J.
Ford, “Alexandre de Villedieu’s Doctrinale puerorum: a medieval bestseller and its
fortune in the Renaissance,” in Forms of the ‘Medieval’ in the ‘Renaissance’: A Multidisciplinary
Exploration of a Cultural Continuum, ed. George Hugo Tucker (Charlottesville:
Rookwood Press, 2000), 155‐71; or Jesús‐Manuel Uribe García, “Manuscritos,
incunables e impresos arcaicos del Doctrinale de Alexander de Villa‐Dei,
conservados en archivos y bibliotecas españoles,” Documenta et scripta 54 (1993):
285‐309. On the author, see Reinhold F. Glei, “Alexander de Villa Dei (ca. 1170‐
1250), Doctrinale,” in Lateinische Lehrer Europas. Fünfzehn Portraits von Varro bis
Erasmus von Rotterdam, ed. Wolfram Ax (Cologne: Böhlau, 2005), 291‐312.
52 For an excellent detailed study see Kimberly Rivers, Preaching the Memory of Virtue
and Vice. Memory, Images, and Preaching in the Late Middle Ages, Sermo: Studies on
Patristic, Medieval, and Reformation Sermons and Preaching 4 (Turnhout: Brepols,
2010).
3 3
Ages. Bernard Bischoff records the practice as already existing in the Carolingian
era, citing a mnemonic aid for Virgil’s writings:
Ty for dic si cur pri for pas quo te meri extre
Quid faciat nunc actenus et te protinus atque
Arcopat inter sic tuut atque ea panditur otur.
This verse list is, however, not made of keywords but simply of incipits of
Virgil’s works.53 Bischoff further cites a similar poem on Regula Benedicti
(inc.: De gener. ab. consul. strumen. ob. tacet. humilitate…54). However, even
he states that the heyday of this kind of poetry is to be associated with the
Later Middle Ages.55
Most widely diffused among this type of texts were surely the cisioiani,
versified calendars. In these poems, two verses are dedicated to each month
of the year. The number of syllables of each couplet equals the number of
the days in the particular month. The positions which correspond to a
particular saint’s day or other immovable feasts in the month are occupied
by the beginning syllables of the appropriate name; the remaining syllables
(and sometimes even full words) are simply used to fill up the remaining
verse space.56 Thus, when successfully memorized, used, and understood,
the cisioianus helps to recall the precise day of the month during which a
feast for a particular saint is celebrated.57
53 Verse 1 serves to recall the Eclogues (Ty[tyre tu patule], for[mosum], dic [mihi]…),
verse 2 Georgica, and verse 3 Aeneis; cf. Bernard Bischoff, “Anecdota Carolina,” in
Studien zur lateinischen Dichtung des Mittelalters. Ehrengabe für Karl Strecker zum 4.
September 1931, ed. Walter Stach et al. (Dresden: Baensch Stiftung, 1931), 7, quoted
from Cod. Gudianus, lat. fol. 70 (the text by Virgil here was copied in the 9th c., but
these verse additions in question, found on f. 3r, are from the 10th century and by
another hand).
54 Altogether 12 verses in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Theol. lat. fol. 332, last folio recto
(Bischoff, “Anecdota,” 8).
55 “Die Blütezeit jener Versemacherei, die mit dem Material einer nicht mehr als lebendig
empfundenen Sprache arbeitet, ist das spätere Mittelalter” (Bischoff, “Anecdota,”
7).
56 The name of this mnemonic type, cisioianus, is derived from the beginning of the
poem for January: cisiojanusepisibivendicatocfelimaran
/ priscafabagvincentipauponobilelumen
(1 Circumcision, 6 Epiphany, 13 octava Epiphaniae, 14 Felix,
16 Marcellus, 17 Anthony, 18 Prisca, 20 Fabian and Sebastian, 21 Agnes, 22 Vincent,
24 Timotheus and Titus, 25 Paul’s conversion, 26 Polycarp).
57 Cf. Rolf Max Kully, “Cisiojanus: Studien zur mnemonischen Literatur anhand des
spätmittelalterlichen Kalendergedichts,” Schweizerisches Archiv für Volkskunde 70
(1974): 93‐123; Hermann Grotefend, Zeitrechnung des deutschen Mittelalters und
der Neuzeit I (Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1891), 24‐25; for particular studies from the
Czech environment, e.g., Julie Nováková, České cisiojány od 14. století (Czech cisioiani
from the 14th c.), Studie ČSAV 3 (Prague: Academia, 1971), Zuzana Silagiová,
“Cisioianus debet dici. Cisioján v komputistické praxi,” (Cisioianus in the practice of
computus), in Pulchritudo et sapientia. Ad honorem Pavel Spunar, eds. Zuzana
3 4
But there are poems similar to the Summarium, or rather several
versions of similar poems, created to remember virtually any text that was
used at medieval schools and universities, e.g., Peter Lombard’s Sentences,
the Decretum Gratiani, or Decretalia (which will be discussed below). In
addition to these widely diffused mnemonic poems, there are many other
experimental texts.58 Jean Gerson (1363‐1429) was one among many to
write a Gospel harmony, which he called Monotessaron,59 and he added a
poem to it in the manner of the Summarium, recalling with each of its 150
words an item from the sequence of the Life of Christ (inc.: Verbum. mutus.
ave. montana. puer. liber. ortus). In superscript he supplied the numbers of
the chapters where the items appear in the Gospels.60
Even the attribution of the Summarium to Alexander may have been
made according to its formal similarity with his Doctrinale. Built on
Priscian’s grammar, Doctrinale is extremely condensed and many of its
verses sound nonsensical. In medieval manuscripts the text is usually
accompanied by explanatory glosses, either interlinear, or surrounding the
text on wide margins, or both. Although frequently criticized for obscurity
and incompleteness, the Doctrinale was a true medieval bestseller, surviving
in more than 300 manuscripts.61 Alexander wrote a number of other
texts but none of them reached comparable circulation. Like the Summarium,
many passages of the Doctrinale look quite incomprehensible at
first, too. An apt example is Doctrinale I, 46‐51:
Silagiová, Hana Šedinová, and Petr Kitzler (Prague: Filosofický ústav AV ČR, 2008),
188‐204.
58 See, e.g., Jakob Werner, Beiträge zur Kunde der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters
aus Handschriften gesammelt (Aarau: H.R. Sauerländer, 1905), 185. Also in Bern,
Burgerbibliothek, cod. 383 (s. XV, French origin), f. 21v‐24r, there is, e.g., what looks
like a similar poem of 112 verses composed of keywords accompanied by interlinear
glosses, inc.: Olla. patella. tripes. coclear. lanx. fuscina. cratis… Allux. articulus. tals.
talus. tibia. poples, but it is actually the so‐called Dictionarius metricus (or Dictionarius
versificatus) sometimes attributed to John of Garland (d. ca. 1272). It is found
also in mss. Munich, BSB, clm. 4146, Douai, BM, 438, and Metz, BM, 169. Cf. Hauréau,
Notices, 27 II 81, and Bruno Laurioux, “Olla patella: préliminaires à une étude de la
lexicographie alimentaire au moyen âge,” in Par les mots et les textes. Mélanges de
langue, de littérature et d’histoire des sciences médiévales offerts à Claude Thomasset,
eds. Danièle James‐Raoul and Olivier Soutet (Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris‐
Sorbonne, 2005), 465‐81.
59 RB, no. 4486 (3 mss.); ed. Opera (Paris, 1521), f. 3‐25.
60 See Daniel Hobbins, Authorship and Publicity Before Print. Jean Gerson and the Transformation
of Late Medieval Learning (Philadelphia, University of Pennsyl‐vania
Press, 2009), with images from Vienna, ÖNB, Pal. lat. 4738, f. 18v (from the Carthusians
of Brno). The poem is preserved also in a number of other mss. and edited in
Opera, Paris, 1521, f. 3‐5.
61 Cf. Reichling, Doctrinale. See also Carla Piccone, “Scribere clericulis paro Doctrinale
nouellis. Il Doctrinale di Alessandro de Villedieu tra teoria e prassi,” in Dichten als
StoffVermittlung,
175‐89.
3 5
Er vel ir ur aut um vel us aut eus pone secunda.
i genitivus erit; sed quando rectus habebit
ir aut ur aut eus, genitivus eum superabit.
um par fiet et us, sed quod fit in er, variamus.
er s p iuncta superabit et er sine muta;
s t si praesit, genitivus non superabit
Only when read together with Priscian’s grammar (which was its model)
does it suddenly make sense:
Er vel ir ur aut um vel us aut eus pone secunda.
i genitivus erit; sed quando rectus habebit
ir aut ur aut eus, genitivus eum superabit.
um par fiet et us, sed quod fit in er, variamus.
er s p iuncta superabit et er sine muta;
s t si praesit, genitivus non superabit
Priscianus: Secunda declinatio terminationes habet nominativi sex: in er, in ir, in
ur, in us, in eus, in um. Genitivus secundae declinationis in omni nomine i longa
terminatur. Exceptis illis, quae s vel sp vel n ante er habent, et a ferendo vel
gerendo compositis, quae accepta i faciunt genetivum una syllaba vincentem
suum nomina‐tivum, ut miser, miseri, prosper, prosperi. In er correptam
desinentia s et t antece‐dentibus, nisi sint possessiva, quorum in is desinunt
feminina, er in ri mutant et faciunt genetivum ut hic Auster, Austri, hic oleaster,
oleastri.
–er or –ir, ‐ur or –um or –us or –eus put to the second. –i will be the genitive; but
when it will have the ending –ir or –ur or –eus, the genitive will overcome it. –
um and –us will be the same but what ends in –er varies. –er connected to s [or]
p will take over and –er without the mute; if s [or] t precedes, the genitive will
not take over.
Priscian: The second declension has six endings in the nominative: –er, –ir, –ur,
–us, –eus, –um. The genitive of the second declension is always terminated by
long –i. Except for those that have s or sp or n before –er, and bring or make
composites, which, excepting –i make the genitive with adding one syllable to
their nominative, as miser, miseri, prosper, prosperi. If s and t precede –er, if they
are not possessive (of which the feminines change into –is), ‐er is transformed
into –ri and makes the genitive Auster Austri, oleaster, oleastri.
Like all the other texts of this type, this is a mnemonic tool that does not
help one understand on its own; the versified material has to be understood
first and only then does the tool become useful for memorization.62
62 For further examples of obscure mnemonic verses within Alexander de Villa Dei’s
Doctrinale and medieval versified grammars in general, see Pabst, “Ein Medienwechsel,”
158‐160; and Carla Piccone, Dalla prosa ai versi: forme, usi, contesti della versificazione
mediolatina, Lateinische Sprache und Literatur des Mittelalters (Bern: Peter
Lang, in print), Manfred Kraus, “Grammatical and Rhetorical Exercises in the Medieval
Classroom,” New Medieval Literatures 11 (2009): 63‐89; see also Ludwig
Benkert, Der historiographische Merkvers (Neustadt: C.W. Schmidt, 1960), 36‐68; on
3 6
One could perhaps make a formal distinction between texts that employ
full words (like the Summarium) and those that use only parts of words
(like the cisioiani), which are consequently even more obscure if unexplained.
Nevertheless, by themselves all these verses are obscure; only in
relationship to the larger texts to which they refer do they become meaningful
and useful. For this reason they usually appear with relevant explanatory
glosses in the manuscripts.
All these texts call to mind Horace’s famous brevis esse laboro, obscurus
fio (“I attempt to be brief and I become obscure”63). Brevity so extreme that
it resulted in obscurity—obscura brevitas—was criticized throughout the
Middle Ages,64 and, at the same time, became unquestioningly widespread
towards its end. The specific strategy of using the form of a list for
mnemonic purposes is worthy of a separate study.65
b) Retelling and remembering the Bible
It is not necessary to stress the importance of the Bible in medieval
culture. In addition to its existence in various forms and contexts and on
different levels within medieval society, the Bible was also frequently
retold in many ways for varied purposes.66 The most successful of the
the diffusion of versus memoriales, see Dorothea Klein, “Ad memoriam firmiorem.
Merkverse in lateinisch‐deutscher Lexikographie des späten Mittelalters,” in
Medium Aevum deutsch. Beiträge zur deutschen Literatur des hohen und späten
Mittelalters. Festschrift für Kurt Ruh zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Dietrich Huschenbett
(Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1979), 131‐153; on versus differentiales, see Alexandru N.
Cizek, “Antike Memoria‐Lehre und mittellateinische versus differentiales,” in Culture
of Memory in East Central Europe in the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern
Period, ed. Rafał Wójcik (Poznań: Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, 2008), 43‐52; and his
“Docere et delectare. Zur Eigenart der versus differentiales im Novus Grecismus Konrads
von Mure,” in Dichten als StoffVermittlung,
191‐212.
63 Ars poetica I, 25.
64 E.g., by Aegidius of Corbeil in the prologue to his De pulsibus: …qui Charybdim
confusionis volens effugere, lapsus est in Scyllam obscurae brevitatis…; ed. Ludwig
Choulant, Aegidii Corboliensis Carmina medica (Leipzig: Leopold Voss, 1826), 25.
Brevity should always be lucida brevitas (cf. Pabst, “Ein Medien‐wechsel,” 153‐57).
65 For a general treatment of literary lists, see Robert E. Belknap, The List. The Uses and
Pleasures of Cataloguing (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004); Umberto Eco,
The Infinity of List: An Illustrated Essay, trans. Alastair McEwen (New York: Rizzoli,
2009); Francis Spufford, The Chatto Book of Cabbages and Kings: Lists in Literature
(London: Chatto and Windus, 1989); L. Doležalová, ed., The Charm of a List: From the
Sumerians to Computerised Data Processing (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing, 2009).
66 For a general discussion, see Northrop Frye, The Great Code: Bible and Literature
(New York: Harcourt, 1982). See also, e.g., André Vernet, La Bible au Moyen Age.
Bibliographie (Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1989); Ezio
Franceschini et al., eds., La Bibbia nell’alto medioevo (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di
Studi sull’alto medioevo, 1963); Giuseppe Cremascoli, “Il riuso della Bibbia,” in
3 7
medieval biblical retellings was, without doubt, Petrus Comestor’s Historia
scholastica, a curious text written around 1170 by Petrus Comestor (born
in Troyes, died ca. 1178 in Paris).67 It is a summary of biblical history,
comprehensive and reader‐friendly. It is not based exclusively on the Bible
but includes information from Flavius Josephus and other historical
sources, references to the works of the Church Fathers, to the
correspondence of the two Testaments, and to moral meaning—thus
addressing all three levels of Scriptural signification. It also presents
Christian doctrine as well as a great amount of information from various
fields of knowledge. The success of the Historia scholastica in the Middle
Ages was immense;68 very soon it became incorporated into the university
curriculum.69 Previously the text was not studied much due to its
supposedly low literary quality and lack of originality. In a way, the
medieval omnipresence of the Historia scholastica is a curse: so many
manu‐scripts of its text exist that to date no modern editor has dared to
prepare a new edition of the complete text.70 Yet due to its popularity and
extremely wide circulation, scholars increasingly recog‐nize that it shaped
the knowledge of and approach to the Bible in the Late Middle Ages to a
significant degree.71
Ideologie e pratiche del reimpiego nell’alto medioevo I (16‐21 aprile 1998), Settimane
di studio sull’alto medioevo 46 (Spoleto: CISAM, 1999), 413‐31; Retelling the Bible:
Literary, Historical, and Social Contexts, eds. Lucie Doležalová and Tamás Visi
(Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011).
67 See, e.g., David E. Luscombe, “Peter Comestor,” in The Bible in the Medieval World.
Essays in Honour of Beryl Smalley, eds. Katherine Walsh and Diana Wood, Studies in
Church History, Subsidia 4 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985), 109‐29.
68 For this reason it is usually mentioned in studies on the Bible in the Middle Ages,
such as La Bibbia nel medioevo, ed. Giuseppe Cremascoli and Claudio Leonardi
(Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1996); Le Moyen Age et la Bible, ed. Pierre Riché and
Guy Lobrichon (Paris: Beauchesne, 1984), or Smalley, The Study of the Bible.
69 See, e.g., John Van Engen, “Studying Scripture at the Early University,” in Neue
Richtungen in der hochund
spätmittelalterlichen Bibelexegese, ed. Robert E. Lerner
(Munich: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 1996), 17‐38.
70 Only the Book of Genesis has been edited recently: Agneta Sylwan, ed., Petri
Comestoris Scolastica Historia. Liber Genesis, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio
Mediaevalis 191 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005). Thus, we have to work with the edition
in Patrologia latina: J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae Latinae Cursus Completus 198, col.
1053‐644. See also a review of Sylwan’s edition by Mark J. Clark, “How to Edit
Comestor’s Historia scholastica,” Revue bénédictine 116 (2006): 83‐91.
71 See, e.g., James H. Morey, “Peter Comestor, Biblical Paraphrase, and the Medieval
Popular Bible,” Speculum 68, No. 1 (1993): 6‐35; Maria Sherwood‐Smith, “Die
Historia Scholastica als Quelle biblischer Stoffe im Mittelalter,” in Die Vermittlung
geistlicher Inhalte im deutschen Mittelalter: Internationales Symposium, Roscrea
1994, eds. Timothy R. Jackson, Nigel F. Palmer, and Almut Suerbaum (Tübingen:
Niemeyer Verlag, 1996), 153‐65; Mark J. Clark, “The Commentaries on Peter
Comestor Historia scholastica of Stephen Langton, Pseudo‐Langton, and Hugh of St.
3 8
A text comparable to the Historia scholastica is the Compendium
historiae in genealogia Christi (also called Arbor historiae biblice, Compendium
veteris testamenti, Genealogia historiarum, or Summa historiae
bibliae)72 prepared by Comestor’s contemporary and successor in Paris,
Peter of Poitiers (Petrus Pictaviensis, ca. 1130‐1215).73 It is a biblical tool
created in order to help students remember the sequence of biblical genealogy
and consequently the biblical contents. It is organized as a genealogical
tree with marginal notes describing the figures from whom Christ
descended, important events in their lives, their relatives, and other details.
It was intended to be painted on classroom walls. It is, obviously, much
more substantially condensed than Historia scholastica, and is more
directly focused on the portraits of the selected individuals.
A number of prose Bible retellings survive from the later Middle Ages.
They usually proceed chapter by chapter, often include the chapter incipits,
and have a clear mnemonic function. Biblical concordances and dictionaries,
also intended to help memorization and orientation, might also be
included in this discussion, although in these texts the “retelling” aspect
often disappears. But drawing the lines of categorization is difficult: e.g.,
most medieval biblical dictionaries contain stories although not in the same
order as the Bible.74
Cher,” Sacris erudiri 44 (2005): 301‐446; Klaus Peter Schumann, “Petrus Comestor
und Petrus Lombardus in Minden? Prolegomena zu einer Geschichte der dominikanischen
Partikularstudien im spätmittelalterlichen Westfalen,” in Manipulus Florum:
Aus Mittelalter, Landesgeschichte, Literatur und Historiographie. Festschrift für Peter
Johanek zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Ellen Widder, Mark Mersiowsky, and Maria‐
Theresia Leuker (Münster: Waxmann, 2001), 151‐69. See also Lucie Doležalová,
“The Dining Room of God: Petrus Comestor’s Historia scholastica and Retelling the
Bible as Feasting,” in Retelling the Bible, 229‐44.
72 See RB, no. 6778, where numerous manuscripts are listed.
73 See, e.g., Philip S. Moore, The Works of Peter of Poitiers (Notre Dame: The University
of Notre Dame Press, 1936), 118‐22; Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 209‐215; Stella
Panayotova, “Peter of Poitiers’s Compendium in Genealogia Christi: the early English
copies,” in Belief and Culture in the Middle Ages: Studies Presented to Henry MayrHarting,
eds. Richard Gameson and Henrietta Leyser (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2001), 327‐41.
74 The examples are too numerous to be noted here. A great number of them are
recorded in RB, such as a hitherto unedited text, more of a biblical dictionary, by
Petrus de Bruniquello (Brunichellus, de Bruniquel, de Rupe Maura, probably
Frenchman, an Austin Friar, later Bishop of Città Nuova in Istria, d. 1328), Liber
super historias veteris et novi testamenti juxta ordinem alphabeti (inc.: De abstinentia.
Abstinentes voluit Deux esse primos parentes. Dixit enim Adae, written in 1319 and
dedicated to Berengario Fredol, Bishop of Tuscula‐no; RB, no. 6435 lists 10 mss. but
there are many more). One manuscript, currently being sold by Enluminures (ref.
no. 243; written in Northern Italy 1425‐1450), also contains a poem condensing the
contents of this rather long text, inc.: Comunia manue concepture filium filium proprii
liberatorem angelus apparens. Judic. 13.
3 9
Medieval retellings of the Bible that are in verse (both rythmic and
accentual),75 on the other hand, have received more attention from scholars,
and form a much more clearly distinguishable group. Christian poetic
retellings of the Bible originate in Late Antiquity and their primary concern
seems to be language. Some classically educated Christians were concerned
with the language of the Bible not following the usual norms. The aim of the
biblical versifications by Juvencus, Proba, Sedulius, Cyprianus Gallus, and
others was to please the ear, to present the correct contents in an appropriate
style, that of Virgil and the Classical Latin poets. Although the case is,
of course, not so simple, and it would be misleading to claim that these
poets changed only the style and not the contents, there verse retellings
form a specific group substantially different from the later ones.76
Following the biblical poetry of the Carolingian era,77 the great boom of
full‐scale Bible epics appeared in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.
By far the most widely diffused was Peter Riga’s Aurora,78 but there were
many others, such as Lawrence of Durham’s Hypognosticon, or Alexander of
Ashby’s Brevissima comprehensio historiarum Biblie.79 These authors, as
75 For general information on medieval poetry, see Dag Norberg, Introduction à l’étude
de la versification latine médiévale (Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell, 1958)
(published in English with an introduction by Jan Ziolkowski at The Catholic University
of America Press in 2004). A brief overview is found in Frederic James Edward
Raby, A History of ChristianLatin
Poetry from the Beginnings to the Close of the
Middle Ages (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953). As for individual studies, see, e.g., Greti
Dinkova‐Bruun, “Why Versify the Bible in the Later Middle Ages and for Whom? The
Story of Creation in Verse,” in Dichten als StoffVermittlung,
41‐55; or Dieter
Kartschoke, “‘Biblia versificata’. Bibeldichtung als Übersetzungsliteratur betrachtet,”
Vestigia Bibliae 4 (1982): 23‐41.
76 There is ample literature on the individual poets as well as on this type of poetry in
general. See, e.g., Michael Roberts, Biblical Epic and Rhetorical Paraphrase in Late
Antiquity (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1985); see also, e.g., Martin Bažil, Centones
Christiani. Métamorphoses d´une forme intertextuelle dans la poésie latine chrétienne
de l´Antiquité tardive, Collection des Études augustiniennes, Série Moyen Âge et
Temps Modernes 47 (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 2009).
77 See Francesco Stella, La poesia carolingia latina a tema biblico, Biblioteca di
medioevo latino 9 (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 1993).
78 Paul E. Beichner, ed., Aurora. Petri Rigae Biblia Versificata: A Verse Commentary on
the Bible (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1965), 2 vols. A new edition
is under preparation by Greti Dinkova‐Bruun.
79 Cf. Greti Dinkova‐Bruun, ed., Alexandri Essebiensis Opera Omnia. Opera poetica, CCSM
81 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004); Susanne Daub, ed., Gottes Heilsplan – verdichtet.
Edition des Hypognosticon des Laurentius Dunelmensis (Erlangen: Palm und Enke,
2002). See also Greti Dinkova‐Bruun, “Biblical Versifications from Late Antiquity to
the Middle of the Thirteenth Century: History or Allegory?,” in Poetry and Exegesis in
Premodern Latin Christianity: The Encounter between Classical and Christian Strategies
of Interpretation, eds. W. Otten and K. Pollmann, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae
87 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 315‐42; and other articles by the same author.
4 0
they themselves said, composed their poetry in order to facilitate the
memorization of biblical events. They not only shared this aim with
Comestor, but some of them (e.g., Peter Riga or Alexander of Ashby) even
used his Historia scholastica as their main source, and thus created retellings
of a retelling.
The tendency to stress the mnemonic aspect of the verses gradually
comes to the fore in the biblical poetry of the Late Middle Ages: the texts
become much more like verse tools than poems. They summarize the Bible
more substantially and more systematically: e.g., Peter of Rosenheim
(1380‐1433) dedicates two lines to each biblical chapter, thus creating a
long series of only vaguely related couplets.80 Lastly comes our Summarium
Biblie (as well as several other poems similar to it from the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries, see the discussion below) with its extreme condensation.
Humanistic and early modern biblical poetry returns to late ancient
models but retellings of the whole Bible are rare after the Middle Ages.
In addition to full‐scale biblical retellings, mnemonic aids for particular
parts or subjects of the Bible were also written. Some examples are the
various short verses clarifying the family relationships of the three
Maries,81 verses on the ten plagues of Egypt,82 the Decalogue,83 or various
80 For a detailed discussion of his Margarita Bibliae and other comparable texts written
by Guido Vicentius of Ferrara and Johannes Schlitpacher de Weilheim (1403‐
1482), see Sabine Tiedje, “The Roseum Memoriale Divinorum Eloquiorum Petri de
Rosenheim: A Bible Summary from the Fifteenth Century,” in Retelling the Bible, 335‐
53; as well as Greti Dinkova‐Bruun, “Biblical Versification and Memory in the Later
Middle Ages,” in Culture of Memory in East Central Europe, 53‐64. See also Jean
Michel Massing, “From Manuscript to Engravings. Late Medieval Mnemonic Bibles,”
in Ars memorativa. Zur kulturgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Gedächtniskunst 14001750,
ed. Jörg Jochen Berns and Wolfgang Neuber (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1993), 101‐
15. An excellent collection is Francesco Stella, ed., La scrittura infinita. Bibbia e
poesia in età medievale e umanistica (Florence: SISMEL Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2001).
81 The most popular one begins Nupta fuit Ioachim mater prius Anna Maria and was
ascribed to Bernard of Clairvaux (Ulysse Chevalier, Repertorium hymnologicum.
Catalogue des chants, hymnes, proses, séquences, tropes en usage dans l’église latine
depuis les origines jusqu’à nos jours, vol. II (Leuven, 1897), no. 12629) but there are
many variants on this theme (see, e.g., ibid., no. 1112 or 23009), many also in prose.
82 The most popular was that ascribed to Hildebertus Cenomanensis, inc.: Prima
rubens unda, ranarum plaga secunda; RB, no. 8379 and 10238; its variant is edited in
PL 171, col. 1436; a more recent edition is found in Scott A. Brian, Hildeberti Cenomannensis
episcopi Carmina minora (Leipzig: Teubner, 1969), no. 34. Additionally,
several more condensed texts are known—e.g., the one attributed to William de
Montibus, begins: Sanguis rana culex musce pecus ulcera grando / brucus caligo mors
pignera prima necando (see Joseph Goering, William de Montibus: The Schools and
the Literature of Pastoral Care [Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,
1992], no. 1046); another inc.: sanguis rana culex vesicae musca locusta (RB, no.
11304).
4 1
other topics or stories.84 The most popular subject seems to have been the
genealogies of Christ (that is, Matthew 1:1‐17 in verse85).
2. Elusive text
a) Manuscript transmission
In addition to looking for the theoretically possible contexts and textual
parallels of the Summarium, a scrutiny of the manuscript evidence will offer
a kind of a test of the suggestions made. What did the text look like? Were
the proposed associations already in existence in the Middle Ages? An
analysis of the context in which the Summarium was copied and read in the
Middle Ages will allow us to grasp its medieval role and meaning. Due to the
amount of the surviving material the following treatment of the codex
contents cannot be exhaustive; its aim is to show basic patterns in the
reception of the text.86
To date I have not found a single manuscript that confers authorship on
Alexander;87 this attribution seems to be much later and was perhaps made
solely on the basis of the similarity between the Doctrinale and the
Summarium—as shown above, both are greatly condensed texts that need
explanation in order to be understood and used. The author most
frequently mentioned in the manuscripts is Albert the Great (Albertus
Magnus, d. 1280).88 Also for his authorship there is no evidence and it
83 Very popular was a different poem based on the very same idea beginning Prima
rubens unda deitatem mens colae munda, which was attributed to Engelbert of
Admont (1250‐1331).
84 Also Versus de personis Veteris Testamenti exemplis vitiorum et virtutum (inc.: Lucifer,
Antiochus, Nemroth, Nebuchodonosor, Phariseus; cf. Bloomfield, Incipits, no. 2984, p.
257; no. 5928, p. 512; and no. 61, p. 19). Among the shorter verses, one of particular
interest is a biblical anthology consisting of 103 poems on the Old and the New
Testament that forms a part of manuscript XVI Q 14 from the York Minster Library.
It was discussed and edited by Greti Dinkova‐Bruun, “Medieval Latin Poetic
Anthologies (VII): The Biblical Anthology from York Minster Library (Ms. XVI Q 14),”
Mediaeval Studies 64 (2002): 61‐109.
85 For an example of an extensive poetic retelling of the genealogy, see Greti Dinkova‐
Bruun, ed., The Ancestry of Jesus. Excerpts from ‘Liber generationis Iesu Christi filii
David filii Abraham’ (Matthew 1:117),
Toronto Medieval Latin Texts 28 (Toronto:
Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2005).
86 The following section is partly based on my article “Mémoriser la Bible au bas
Moyen Âge ? Le Summarium Biblicum aux frontières de l’intelligibilité,” Cahiers
électroniques d’histoire textuelle du LAMOP 3 (2010): 1‐45.
87 He is indicated as the author only in ms. London, BL, Add. 20009, on f. 3r: Horum
carminum 212 author est Alexander Villadeus, but it is an addition by a substantially
later hand.
88 Vyšší Brod, ML, SXCI (s. XIV): Alberti nunc magni Byblia docti. Que paupertatis tytello
cognominatur. Quam tantum metro scriptitat exametro (f. 304v); Sankt Florian, SB,
XI.32 (s. XIV), f. 218r: Biblia pauperum quam edidit albertus magnus; Munich, BSB,
4 2
seems to be based on the fact that Albert authored a number of didactic
texts.89 Curious is the ascription to Johannes Chrysostomus (ca. 349‐407)
appearing in two manuscripts, Munich, BSB, cgm. 341 (s. XIVex, Bavaria)
and Vatican City, BAV, lat. 1027 (written in 1453 in France). The former is
secure about the attribution: Noui veterisque testamenti tabula per iohannem
crisostimum compendiosius versifice compilata (“Table of the New and
the Old Testament compiled in a condensed verse form by Johannes Chrysostomus”),
while the latter presents this in a rather hesitant manner:
Expliciunt versus supra utrumque testamentum; quidam dicunt Cristosomum
(!) composuisse quamvis grecus fuerit (“The verses on both the Testaments
finish [here], some say that Chrysostomus composed [them] although he
was a Greek,” f. 7v). Also this suggestion does not seem to rest on firm
grounds and I was not able to find its source. Similarly, another late copy,
Chicago, Newberry library, Ms. 16,90 names as the author Bartholomaeus
Tridentinus (Bartholomew of Trento).91 I was not able to detect any possible
link here either. The question of authorship (and thus also of dating)
has to remain open for the time being.
The present analysis concentrates on the text’s transformation and
variation during the Late Middle Ages rather than on an attempt to identify
its original version. However, it should be emphasized that each of the
supposed thirteenth‐century manuscripts that has been consulted has in
actuality proven to be a fourteenth‐century addition (or a later one). Thus
there is no known thirteenth‐century copy of the text at present. As a result,
it is possible that the Summarium was not written until the early fourteenth
century.
Similarly vague is the case with the text’s title: the title Summarium
Biblie is not documented in the manuscripts of the text, which usually have
no title at all. From among the surviving titles (see the discussion below),
clm. 3447: Alberti Magni Biblia metrica (later added on the volume spine and in the
table of contents on f. 1); and Melk, SB, 1059, where the attribution to Albert was
added in the 17th century.
89 E.g., also a summary called Philosophia pauperum is ascribed to him, see Bernhard
Geyer, ed., Die Albert dem Grossen zugeschriebene Summa naturalium (Philosophia
pauperum) (Münster: Aschendorff, 1938). It was, however, surely not written by
him, see Martin Grabmann, Die Philosophia pauperum und ihr Verfasser Albert von
Orlamünde, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters
20:2 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1918).
90 The codex is a Vulgate Bible from the second half of the 13th century but the Summarium,
together with the attribution, was added only in the 16th century.
91 A Dominican hagiographer and papal diplomat, born in 1200 in Southern Tirol, died
in 1251 or after. See Bruno W. Häuptli, “Bartholomäus von Trient,” in BiographischBibliographisches
Lexikon 22 (2003), cols. 56‐61, available at:
http://www.kirchenlexikon.de/b/bartholomaeus_v_tr.shtml (accessed August 20,
2012).
4 3
the most diffused is without a doubt Biblia pauperum.92 This title is
traditionally used by scholars for an entirely different work—a condensed
Bible that always juxtaposes a scene from the Old Testament with a corresponding
one from the New Testament and accompanies these by rich illuminations.
93 However, these works were not called Bibliae pauperum in the
Middle Ages; this title was added later and appears in a single manuscript.94
It is very difficult to estimate the number of surviving manuscript
witnesses of the text of the Summarium. In his Repertorium biblicum Stegmüller
lists a total of 11 versions with 47 manuscripts.95 Thus far I have
securely identified 336 manuscripts, but there is no doubt that the actual
number is substantially higher. The difficulties associated with this manuscript
search are many: the text is often not included in the manuscript
catalogues, because it is brief, often lacks a title, and gives the appearance of
an index. Especially within Bible codices, where it is frequently copied,
older catalogues rarely signal its presence. The actual incipit of the text is
recorded in different ways when the glosses are also included. This occurs
in particular when the glosses grow to cover several lines per keyword and
appear within the main text itself following each keyword, not between the
lines of the poem. The incipit Sex opera dierum, or Opera sex dierum is not a
very revealing one—a number of biblical paraphrases begin with the same
words, and one may miss the Summarium in this form even if consulting the
particular manuscript itself rather than merely searching the catalogues.96
Sometimes the Summarium is accompanied by a prologue taken from a
different text, and thus passes unnoticed. There are many manuscripts that
contain only a part of the text, and most frequently this is the New Testament
(inc.: Natus adoratur lotum).97
92 Cf. Franz Josef Worstbrock, “Libri pauperum. Zu Entstehung, Struktur und Gebrauch
einiger mittelalterlicher Buchformen der Wissensliteratur seit dem 12. Jahrhundert,”
in Der Codex im Gebrauch, ed. Christel Meier et al., Münstersche Mittelalter‐
Schriften 70 (Munich: Fink, 1996), 41‐60, esp. 49. Also Worstbrock states that the title
Biblia pauperum or Biblia pauperum metrica is more frequent than other titles for
the Summarium and notes seven Latin manuscripts, one German, and two medieval
catalogue references.
93 See, e.g., Gerhard Schmidt, Die Armenbibeln des 14. Jahrhunderts (Graz: Böhlau,
1959), or his Die Wiener Biblia pauperum. Codex Vindobonensis 1198 (Graz: Styria,
1962).
94 Cf., e.g., Christoph Wetzel, “Die Armenbibel, ein Mißverständnis,” in Biblia pauperum.
Armenbibel. Die Bilderhandschrift des Codex Palatinus latinus 871 im Besitz der
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (Stuttgart: Belser, 1995), 9.
95 RB, no. 1175‐82.
96 This is the case of, e.g., Admont, SB, 592 or Sankt Gallen, SB, 972b, where the Summarium
looks like a biblical condensation in prose.
97 But not exclusively; e.g., Vienna, Schottenstift, 19 (from 1465/66) has, on fols. 274v‐
276v, only the verses from the Proverbs (inc.: Predicat. extranea. melior.) until the
end of the Old Testament.
4 4
Although it is thus certain that a great number of further copies wait to
be discovered, the present number already indicates that the text was in no
way a unique or marginal curiosity but a well known and greatly widespread
piece of writing. Finally, it is reasonable to suppose that a number of
medieval copies were destroyed because the text was frequently transmitted
on independent quires and was thus more delicate.98
In spite of the proven popularity of the text, there seem to be little
external traces of its reception. But this “lack” might be in appearance only:
as the text had no established title (see the following chapter), there was
likely no established way of referring to it either. In addition, the written
(that is, material) way of its transmission might have been only secondary:
it seems that the verses were primarily meant to be learnt by heart and
stored in one’s memory. E.g., the manuscript Vatican City, BAV, lat. 1027
(from 1453), is an explicit proof that youths learned the Summarium by
heart—the beginning of the text, on f. 6v, says: Hos versus adolescentulus
cordetenus studui (“as a boy I learned these verses by heart”). Or, in London,
BL, Add. 22025, f. 30v, there is a note per hos uersus omnes libros biblie
menti tradimus (“through these verses we preserve in our mind all the
books fo the Bible”). Thus, a whole area of the reception of the Summarium,
the oral transmission, is now lost to us, we can only search ofr its traces in
the surviving manuscripts.
b) Titles
Usually the Summarium does not contain a title at all. Some of the manuscript
titles are (in alphabetical order):
[Argumenta capitum omnium biblicorum versibus hexametris comprehensa]99
Aurora minor100 [!]
Biblia [!]101
Biblia 218 versibus metrice compilata102
Biblia acurtata103
Biblia metrica104
98 E.g., Prague, NL, I F 43 is a fragment of 10 folios with the Summarium and a brief
Ordo librorum bibliae, or Munich, BSB, clm. 27462 is an 8‐folio fragment with the
Summarium and a Gospel concordance. Within some of the miscellanies, the Summarium
appears in a distinctly different hand than the rest, and its first and last
pages are darker, suggesting that it was originally transmitted separately.
99 Older catalogues’ title, e.g., for Melk, SB, 1059.
100 Sankt Florian, SB, XI.32, f. 227r: Explicit Biblia pauperum que alio nomine dicitur
aurora minor.
101 Vatican City, BAV, lat. 1290.
102 Munich, BSB, clm. 8367.
103 Vienna, ÖNB, Pal. lat. 3737.
104 Munich, BSB, clm. 18906, and clm. 3447 (within the table of contents contemporary
with the codex).
4 5
Biblia pauperum105
Biblia pauperum metrica106
Biblia pauperum seu metrica107
Biblia pauperum metrice edita108
Biblia sub breviloquio109
Biblia tota versificata per libros et capitula seriatim distincta continens novum et
vetus testamentum110
Capitula biblie metrificata111
Capitula veteris et novi testamenti tocius biblie112
Compendium Biblie113
Compendium novi testamenti114
Compendium siue tractatus tocius Biblie115
Compendium tocius biblie116
Indices metrici biliorum117
Isti sunt super totam Bibliam et fere quelibet dictio comprehendit unum
capitulum118
Metra registri Biblie119
Metra super Bibliam120
Metra super duo testamenta121
105 Admont, SB, 203, Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Msc. theol. 36, Lilienfeld, SB, 145 (s.
XIV), London, BL, Add. 20009, Melk, SB, 918, Munich, BSB, clm. 4358, 4627, 5444,
9529, 14094, 14670, Munich, UB, 4o 13 (at explicit), 2o 677 (at explicit), Nuremberg,
StB, Cent. I, 81, Prague, KNM, XVIII B 18, Sankt Florian, SB, XI.32, Sankt Gallen, SB,
972b, Uppsala, UB, C 195, Vienna, ÖNB, Pal. lat. 1122; See also Alfred Weckwerth,
“Der Name “Biblia pauperum’,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 83 (1972): 1‐33,
esp. 19; Worstbrock, “Libri pauperum,” 57, states that this title, very frequent within
miscellanies, never appears within the Bible, but I found it in six biblical mss.
(Munich, UB, 4o 13, Munich, BSB, clm. 4627 and 5444, Nuremberg, SB, Cent. I, 81,
Prague, KNM, XVIII B 18, and Vienna, ÖNB, Pal. lat. 1122).
106 Munich, BSB, clm. 8947 (front table of contents) and 15606 (at explicit), Oxford,
BoL, Auct. D. 4. 10, Lilienfeld, SB, 145.
107 Herzogenburg, SB, 102.
108 Munich, UB, 2o 677 (front table of contents).
109 Amiens, BM, 1; in Rouen, BM, 10 (A.32), a later added title reads: Biblia sub brevi
eloquio.
110 Munich, BSB, clm. 14023.
111 Chicago, Newberry Library, 16.
112 Vatican City, BAV, Pal. lat. 459 (at explicit).
113 Munich, BSB, clm. 27032.
114 Olomouc, VK, M II 34.
115 Munich, BSB, clm. 15956 (at explicit), Wrocław, BU, IV Q 161a (at explicit).
116 Graz UB, 611 (at explicit); Munich, BSB, clm. 27011; sale at Christie’s, lot 9/ sale
7725 (London, King Street, June 3, 2009).
117 Munich, BSB, clm. 3581.
118 Munich, BSB, clm. 14023, Paris, BnF, lat. 1865, Vienna, ÖNB, 1111, Graz, UB, 611,
Grenoble, BM, 5 (13th c.), Melk, SB, 1793, Munich, BSB, clm. 4358 (at explicit, close to
this but longer).
119 Munich, BSB, clm. 3447, f. 365v (at explicit).
120 Munich, BSB, clm. 26847.
4 6
Metrum super Bibliam122
Noui veterisque testamenti tabula compendiosius versifice compilata123
[Quotus biblie metricus]124
Registrum Biblie125
Registrum continens libros et capetula [!] Veteris et Novi testamenti126
Registrum biblie compendiosum127
Registrum Metricum totam continens Bibliam128
Registrum tocius Biblie tam novi quam veteris testamenti129
Summa sive rhythmica argumenta capitum Novi Testamenti130
Summaria compilacio metrificata docens quid communis et vtilius continetur in
vnoquoque capitulo tocius biblie, vnum quodlibet verbum vnius capituli summam
tenet131
Tabula biblie132
Tabula que cuiuslibet biblie libri proprietatem denotat133
Tabula super bibliam per versus composita universos libros biblie continens
omniaque capitula et de quo agatur in eisdem134
Tractatus sive compendium totius biblie135
Versus quibus quodlibet verbum continet fere unum capitulum de Biblia136
Versus pro universa Biblia mentetenus comprehenda137
Versus secundum Bibliam138
Versus super Bibliam139
Versus super capitula Biblie140
Versus super capitula tocius Biblie141
Versus super totam Bibliam et fere quelibet dictio comprehendit capitulum142
121 Munich, BSB, clm. 7711.
122 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Magd. 164.
123 Munich, BSB, cgm. 341.
124 Older catalogue title for Munich, BSB, clm. 5444.
125 Mainz, StB, I 22 (at explicit); Munich, BSB, clm. 3070 (at the front table of contents);
Schlägl, SB, 67 (incipit).
126 Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Batthyaneum, R II 66 (at explicit).
127 Graz, UB, 665 [lost since WWII].
128 Munich, BSB, clm. 27462.
129 Göttweig, SB, 298.
130 Incunable Venice: Nicolaus Jenson, 1479.
131 London, Lambeth Palace Library, 534 and New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke
Library, Marston 255.
132 Munich, BSB, clm. 9411 and 27412.
133 London, BL, Add. 22025.
134 Vienna, ÖNB, Pal. lat. 4129.
135 Prague, NL, XI A 14 (at explicit).
136 Vatican City, BAV, lat. 1290.
137 Vatican City, BAV, lat. 945.
138 London, BL, Add. 24361 (at explicit).
139 Munich, BSB, cgm. 341 (at explicit).
140 Munich, BSB, clm. 7989.
141 Zurich, ZB, Rh 184. Olomouc, VK, M I 161, contains only the part of the Summarium
on the Gospels and the title reads: Versus super capitula ewangelistarum.
142 Munich, BSB, clm. 15956 and Vienna, ÖNB, Pal. lat. 1111.
4 7
The striking variety only reconfirms that the text did not have a fixed name.
In addition, in a number of copies, different titles are given at the explicit
and at the incipit of the Summarium.143 The titles or notes near the end of
the work indicate very clearly which features of the text were seen as
crucial during its transmission. Some stress that it is brief (summa,
summaria compilatio, sub breviloquio or compendium), others that it is in
verse (versus, metrica, per versus, versificata, etc.), others again that it
comprises the whole Bible (super totam Bibliam, tocius Biblie), and finally
some point out that it is composed systematically with almost every word
referring to a biblical chapter (quelibet dictio comprehendit capitulum, unum
quodliber verbum unius capituli summam tenet).
Some of the titles are quite long and describe the use of the text. E.g.,
Munich, BSB, clm. 5444 (from 1470), f. 452v:
Versus subscripti qui sunt in numero 215 et intitulantur Biblia pauperum continent
numerum, ordinem et materiam omnium librorum et capitulorum veteris et
novi testamenti prout Biblia distinguit. Unde multum utiles sunt volentibus
materiam et ordinem capitulorum aliquotiens lecte firme memorie commendare
seu auctoritates Sacre Scripture allegare.
The verses written below which are 215 in number and are entitled “the Bible of
the Poor” contain the number, order, and subject of all the books and chapters
of the Old and the New Testament into which the Bible is divided. Thence they
are very useful for those wishing to firmly place in their memory the subject and
order of the chapters read sevear tmes(?) or to relate the authorities of Sacred
Scripture.
Yet, the most noteworthy fact about the Summarium titles is that they are
not specific to this text but are used also for other biblical mnemonics. The
observation that the biblical mnemonic retellings (whether in prose or in
verse) seem to form a distinct group is discussed in detail below.
c) An appendix to the Summarium? Sunt genes ex le…
A number of specific texts re‐appear in the vicinity of the Summarium.
Its most frequent companion by far is a brief (6‐9 verse) poem on the order
of the biblical books. Various versions of this piece exist; some are true
verses, others are not, some contain only the first syllables of the names of
the biblical books and add their ends together with the number of chapters
as superscript glosses. They also differ in the order of the books they
present. E.g., one version that accompanies the Summarium in Klosterneuburg,
SB, 151, f. 91r, reads:
Sunt genes ex le nu deu iosu iu ruth reg paral es ne
Thob iudith hester iob david salomonque sap eccle
143 E.g., Schlägl, SB, 67, has incipit registrum biblie and explicit biblia versificata.
4 8
Ys je tre bar es dany post osee iohel amos abdy
Jo mi naum post aba sophonias ag zacha mala
post macha scribe mathe mar cum luque iohanne
Ro corin et gal ephe phy co thes tymo ty phil et hebre
Actus canonicas precedunt post apo scribas
una Iacob pe due tres iohann sunt unica iu.144
An example of a longer version is found in Paris, BnF, lat. 221, (late 13th‐14th
c., with mnemonics added in the 15th c.), on f. A verso:
Sunt genes ex le nu deu io iudi ruth re parali
Es noe [!] tob iud hest iob da par eclesiastes
Cant sap eclesias ysa ie tren bar eze dani
Post osee ioel amos abd io mi naumque
Abba sophonias agge zacha malachias
Post machabe scribe math mar lucam que iohannem
Roma Corinth gal ephe Philip colo tessalonique
Timoth tyt philemon docet ultimo paulus hebreque
actus canonicas precedent post apo scribas
una iacobi pe due tres sunt iohan unica iude.
A similar text proposing a slightly different order is the one that appears,
e.g., on f. 1r of Prague, NL, VI B 11:
Profert capitula distincta mille trecenta
et quadraginta minus uno biblia tota.
Gen ex le mu[!] deuter josue judicum ruth
reg paralip esdras nem tob judith hester et Job psal
par sces can sapit ec is yer tren baruch ezech dan
os johel am ab yon mich na bak soph age zach mal
mach matheus marcus lucas que iohannes
ro cor gal ephe phil col tes tim tit phile heb la
actus iacob petrus iohan iudas appokalipsis.145
Other verses give both the order and the number of chapters of each biblical
book. Compare, e.g., with:
L genesis minus exo decem le vigen dat et epta.
dant nume triginta sex inde deu duo demit…146
144 Cf. RB, no. 8616, as Versus de numero capitulorum Bibliae, also as Versus valentes ad
sciendum numerum et ordinem librorum Bibliae, et quot capitula quilibet liber habeat
or Versus utiles ad tenendum memoriter nomina et ordinem librorum Bibliae (3 mss.
noted).
145 Another very frequent version begins: Post pentateucum sequitur Iosue Iudicum Ruth
/ Hinc Regum paralipomenon Job postea Psalmi… Together with the Summarium
found, e.g., in Melk, SB, 1059, p. 288.
146 Thus it is, e.g., in Vienna, ÖNB, Pal. lat. 1728, see RB, no. 8615; this text is also very
frequently joined with the Summarium.
4 9
Sometimes both the version without the numbers of chapters and the one
with them appear consecutively in the manuscript.147 Yet other verses
include the contents of the chapters in a greatly condensed form, as, e.g., the
verse beginning Intrat in Aegyptum Genesis liber, Exodus exit.148 Stegmüller
notes several very similar versions.149 Only very rarely do these verses have
a separate title or a rubric, e.g., Isti uersus utiles sunt ad retinendum memoriter
nomina et ordinem librorum biblie,150 Versus valentes ad sciendum
numerum et ordinem librorum Biblie et quot capitula quilibet liber habeat,151
or Quis divinorum numerus sit et ordo librorum.152 Few manuscripts include
an attribution to Guillelmus Brito (William the Breton, ca. 1165‐ca.1225),153
the author of popular Summa Britonis—another biblical tool explaining
difficult words from the Bible in alphabetical order. Two versions of the
above mentioned verses were included within the Summa,154 but William’s
authorship remains uncertain.
These verses can, in all their variations, be seen as a further summary of
the existing summary of the Summarium. Since they are so brief and are
usually copied without a mention of an author or a title mmediately after
the Summarium, they often seem to be an inherent part of it, a condensed
repetition or a structure overview at its end.
147 E.g., Graz, UB, 1049, f. 74r, Rouen, BM, 176, f. 113, or Vienna, ÖNB, Pal. lat. 1728.
148 See RB, no. 11373.
149 RB, no. 11372, vol. 7, p. 370, no. 11372: Ter denis Bibliam distingue libros, minus uno.
Sunt Genes. Exo. Levi. Numero. Deutero. Josueque. Expl: Aggae. Zachari. Malachias.
Versus super libros Bibliae, Uppsala, UB, C 137 (s. XIV) f. 1v; or RB, no. 10884, vol. 7,
p. 254, inc.: Ter denis Bibliam distingue libris minus uno. Sunt Genesis…. [Continentia
librorum Bibliae, Gen.Act.,
metrice], Pommersfelden, Gräflich Schönbornsche
Schloßbibliothek, 257 (Erfurt, St. Peter), f. 117‐23.
150 Graz, UB, 1295, f. 43v; Baltimore, Maryland, Walters Art Gallery W. 59 (s. XIII; here
utilis est is used for utiles sunt), Uppsala, UB, C 172, f. 126r.
151 Basel, UB, B XI 6, f. 134r.
152 Vienna, ÖNB, Pal. lat. 12538, f. 17r.
153 E.g., Bordeaux, BM, 38 (s. XIII), Douai, BM, 59 (s. XIII‐XIV), or Paris, BnF, lat. 51.
154 Summa Britonis sive Guilelmi Britonis expositiones vocabulorum bibliae, vol. 1, ed.
Lloyd W. Daly and Bernadine A. Daly (Padova: Antenor, 1975), xxi‐xxii. Cf. also
Hauréau, Notices et extraits, vol. IV (1892): 185‐86.
5 0
Fig. 2a: Ms. Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, 681 (s. XV), f. IIv‐IIIr
Fig. 2b: Ms. Olomouc, Vědecká knihovna, M II 60 (s. XV med), f. 6v‐7r
5 1
Fig. 2c: Ms. Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, 1059 (s. XV), p. 267
5 2
Fig. 2d: Ms. Mainz, Stadtbibliothek, Hs I 570 (s. XV), f. 3r
5 3
Fig. 2e: Ms. Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 972b (s. XV), p. 3
5 4
Fig. 2f: Ms. Oxford, Oxford University, Bodleian Library, Marshall 86 (s. XV med),
f. 100r
5 5
Fig. 2g: Ms. Prague, National Library, XVIII B 18 (Bohemia, 1441), f. 1r
5 6
Fig. 2h: Ms. Prague, National Library, XI A 14 (Bohemia, 1417‐1436), f. 5v
5 7
Fig. 2i: Ms. Cologne, Stadtarchiv, GB folio 188 (s. XV in), f. 101r
5 8
Fig. 2j: Ms. Cologne, Stadtarchiv, GB 4o 113 (from 1437), f. 19v
Fig. 2k: Ms. Göttweig, Stiftsbibliothek, 298 (s. XV), f. 131v
5 9
Fig. 2l: Ms. Seitenstetten, Stiftsbibliothek, 297 (s. XV), f. 367r
6 0
Fig. 2m: Ms. Prague, National Library, VIII D 15 (s. XV), f. 31r
6 1
Fig. 2n: Ms. Brno, Moravský zemský archiv, G 11
(rukopisy Františkova muzea v Brně), 905, f. 30r
6 2
Fig. 2o: Ms. Kremsmünster, Stiftsbibliothek, 42, f. 134r
6 3
Fig. 2p: Ms. Kremsmünster, Stiftsbiliothek, 153, f. 278r
6 4
Fig. 2q: Ms. Kremsmünster, Stiftsbiliothek, 167, f. 1r
6 5
Fig. 2r: Ms. Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibliothek, 445, f. 13r
6 6
d) Layouts
The text of the Summarium appears in a variety of layouts (see Fig. 2).
Some preserve the verse structure by copying one verse per line, others do
not. Often we find vertical lines dividing the keywords, or even “boxes”
around them. The layout also depends on the length and level of integration
of the glosses which are usually included. They are most frequently in
superscript, together with the chapter number, over the particular
keyword, but sometimes, as in Oxford, BoL, Marshall 86, the chapter
keywords are written in a column and the glosses in a parallel column at
the side, in letters the same size as the keywords. Or, as in Gallus Kemli’s
copy (St. Gallen, SB, 972b) they cover a whole paragraph following the
keyword. In Admont, SB, 592 the Summarium and its explanatory notes
cover 295 manuscript folios.
A very peculiar manuscript is Prague, NL, I A 35, in which the keywords
are copied in a strange order (Fig. 3): every line of a page consists of four
keywords but always three of them follow each other. Thus, the keywords
are distributed on the first two pages in this way:
f. 277r: f. 277v:
1 2 3 19 20 21 37 38
4 5 6 22 23 24 40 41
7 8 9 25 26 27 43 44
10 11 12 28 29 30 46 47
13 14 15 31 32 33 49 50
16 17 18 34 35 36 2 3
Although every keyword is numbered in this manuscript, it is still quite
confusing.
The varieties of presentation of the text on the manuscript page thus
does not depend only on the length of the glosses included. Perhaps it is
also due to the fact that the text was meant to be memorized: since the written
form was not its primary means of transmission, it did not become
settled, and each layout is a reflection of an individual’s “mental image” of
the text.
6 7
Fig. 3a: Ms. Prague, National Library, I A 35 (s. XV, partly 1451), f. 277r,
a special layout of the Summarium
6 8
Fig. 3b: Ms. Prague, National Library, I A 35 (s. XV, partly 1451), f. 277v,
a special layout of the Summarium
6 9
e) Variation within the glosses
The glosses vary greatly in length. E.g., the first word of the Gospel according
to Matthew, natus (“born”), is glossed:
Christus (“Christ,” e.g., Lilienfeld, SB, 145)
Christus in Bethlehem (“Christ in Bethlehem,” e.g., Oxford, BoL, Lyell Empt. 7)
est Christus in Bethlehem (“is Christ in Bethlehem,” e.g., Znojmo, MA, II 304)
liber generationis (“book of the generation,” e.g., Kremsmünster, SB, 153 or
Vienna, ÖNB, 4535)
dominus liber generationis (“the lord, book of the generation,” Kremsmünster,
SB, 167)
dominus liber generationis. Christus in bethleem luc. 23 (“the lord, book of the
generation. Christ in Bethlehem. Luke 23,” Uppsala, UB, C 172)
dominus liber generationis. Cum esset desponsata (“the lord, book of the generation.
As she was espoused,” Mainz, StB, I 22)
Christus de Maria virgine. De genealogia et ortu nostri salvatoris in Bethleem
Iudee. Cum esset desponsata mater eius (“Christ from the Virgin Mary. On the
genealogy and the origin of our Saviour in Bethlehem in Judea. As his mother
was espoused,” Mainz, StB, I 570)
Maria peperit filium suum primogenitum ac vocauit Ihesum. Liber generationis
Ihesu Christi. Cum esset desponsata mater Ihesu Maria Joseph hoc autem totum
factum est ut dictum per prophetam ‘ecce virgo concipiet et pariet’ (“Mary gave
birth to her firstborn son and called [him] Jesus. Book of the generation of
Jesus Christ. As the mother of Jesus, Mary, was espoused to Joseph. But all this
was done as it was said by the prophet: ‘behold, a virgin shall conceive and
bear a son’,” Sankt Gallen, SB, 972b, by Gallus Kemli)
In addition to length, the glosses also vary in their content: often the same
keyword is glossed in quite different ways. E.g., chapter 11 of the Second
Book of Kings is summarized as Athalia, which is usually glossed regnat
(“[Athalia] rules”),155 mulier regnauit VII annis (“woman ruled for seven
years”)156 but also interficitur (“[she] is killed”).157 Another example is
found in the second chapter of the Book of Jonah which has glosses to piscis:
deglutiuit Ionam (“fish: swallowed Jonah”)158 or eum euomit (“vomited him
out”).159
It is perhaps possible to say that there are two basic types of glosses:
some supply the continuation of the biblical quotation from the particular
chapter of the Bible from which the keyword was taken, others are explanatory.
E.g., the glosses for Genesis 40, for which the keyword is tres tres
155 E.g., Lilienfeld, SB, 145.
156 E.g., Oxford, BoL, Marshall 86.
157 Paris, BnF, lat. 2477.
158 Oxford, BoL, Bodley 798.
159 Paris, Bibl. de l’Arsenal, 119.
7 0
(“three three”)160 are: adhuc dies sunt (“are yet the days”161), which is a
quotation appearing in 40:12 (tres propagines tres adhuc dies sunt = “the
three branches are yet three days”) and 40:18 (tria canistra tres adhuc dies
sunt = “the three baskets are yet three days”), or the gloss dies pistoris et
pincerne (“the days of the butler and the baker”162), which is an explanation.
163
The character of the Summarium glosses is dependent on the character
of the biblical books themselves. E.g., Genesis tells a story and the glossators
use their own words to summarize it. Paul’s Epistles, on the other hand,
rather consist of individual passages important for Christian doctrine, and
thus the Summarium often simply provides the beginnings of the most
frequently quoted passages for each chapter. It was then customary for the
glossators to merely continue the quotation, sometimes exactly as it is in
the Bible, other times in their own words, condensing the original and
changing the word order.
Thus, a part of the main text of the Summarium can be approached as a
list of very brief (one‐ or two‐word) biblical quotations, and the glosses
accompanying it can consequently be seen as a direct continuation of these
quotations. E.g., a gloss to the keyword to I Timothy 6: oriuntur (“[they]
originate/come,” taken from 1 Tim 6:4) may be:
inuidiae etc. (“envies, etc.,” e.g., Lilienfeld, SB, 145)
inuidiae et ceteris pugna verborum (“envies, etc., strives of words,” Vienna, ÖNB, Pal.
lat. 14426)
inuidiae ex pugnis verborum (“envies from strives of words,” Oxford, BoL, Lyell Empt.
7)
contenciones ex malis (“contentions out of bad things,” Vienna, ÖNB, Pal. lat. 4535)
ex pugna verborum (“out of strife of words,” Oxford, BoL, Bodley 798)
The biblical verse 4 to which this alludes reads in its entirety: Superbus nihil
sciens sed languens circa quaestiones et pugnas verborum ex quibus oriuntur
invidiae, contentiones, blasphemiae, suspiciones malae (“He is proud, knowing
nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise
envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions”). This verse is never fully
quoted in the gloss, but different versions of its condensed contents are
included.
Furthermore, quite often a mere scribal error within the keyword leads
to its corruption, which provokes an attempt at an explanation of the new
160 The choice is due to the fact that in this chapter, the butler and the baker have
dreams of three branches on a vine and three baskets, which Joseph interprets as
refering to three days, after which one shall be executed and the other promoted.
161 An example of this gloss is found in Paris, BnF, lat. 2477.
162 This gloss is found in the 1660 De La Haye edition of the Summarium.
163 This distinction is, of course, not a strict one; e.g., Lilienfeld, SB, 145, f. 17v, has only
dies in the gloss, which could be both.
7 1
keyword within the gloss. Some of the changes are only morphological: the
keyword changes form (in case, number, person, or tense) and thus the
gloss, supplying the missing elements in order to create a meaningful
clause, also changes its grammatical form. E.g., Genesis 26: puteos: quos
fodit Iacob (“wells (acc. pl.): which Jacob dug,” e.g., Lilienfeld, SB, 145) or
putei: fodiuntur (“wells (nom. pl.): are dug,” e.g., Paris, Bibl. de l’Arsenal,
119). In the first instance the keyword is an object, so the gloss provides a
subject and predicate; in the second the same keyword is a subject, so the
gloss offers a predicate. Other, more substantial keyword mistakes result in
a complete change of the gloss.
The variety of the glosses accompanying the Summarium shows that
they were often not seen as an inherent part of the text. At the same time,
however, it would be far from correct to view each set of the glosses as the
individual creation of a particular scribe or interpreter of the text. In
general the glosses are very closely related to one another, in several manuscripts
they are the same and were obviously copied together with the main
text. Thus, it seems that some of the copyists adopted the glosses, while
others created their own. Can we speak about authorship in such cases?164
A case in point is the glosses to the Summarium Biblie in Prague, NL, I G 11a,
which were described as the work of Crux of Telcz (Oldřich Kříž z Telče)
who copied all the texts in the manuscript.165 Although thus far I have not
encountered the same set of glosses in any other manuscript, it would be an
overstatement to consider Crux of Telcz as the author of one particular
version of them. Although the exact word order, word choice, and the
amount of details provided in the glosses vary, the goal is always the same:
to evoke the specific contents of a biblical chapter. This was carried out
with many or few words, but there is only a limited space for authorship
here; the content of the glosses to the same keywords, more broadly
conceived, actually usually remains the same.166
164 The problem of the tension between the notion of a copyist and of an author is a
complex one and relevant not only to glossing but to all medieval writing. In a witty
and innovative way it is addressed in Aidan Conti, “Scribes as Authors, Transmission
as Composition: Towards a Science of Copying,” in Modes of Authorship in the Middle
Ages, ed. Slavica Ranković, Papers in Medieval Studies 22 (Toronto: Pontifical
Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2012), 267‐88. See also other chapters in this indepth
volume.
165 Jaroslav Kadlec, “Oldřich Kříž z Telče,” Listy filologické 4 (1956): 98.
166 For more details of the Summarium glosses and their analysis as a reflection of orality,
see Lucie Doležalová, “The Charm and Difficulty of a Fragment: The Cases of
Cena Cypriani and Summarium Biblie,” in Along the OralWritten
Continuum: Types of
Text, Relations and Their Implications, ed. Slavica Ranković with Leidulf Melve and
Else Mundal, Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy 20 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010),
283‐301.
7 2
f) Length of the biblical books
Variations in the number of the chapters in the Summarium is caused by
the occasional wrong division of the text of the work: since a single
keyword usually represents a chapter, in cases where two words are
present, the copyists have sometimes understood them as two keywords
referring to two different chapters. A very frequent example is that of Genesis
40, which is represented by two words: tres tres (see above). These are
sometimes mistaken to represent two chapters, and consequently Genesis
is given 51 instead of 50 chapters (Fig. 4).167 The opposite also occurs: e.g.,
the second and third chapters of the Book of Revelation are represented by
bis bine (“twice two”) and tres (“three”). These indicate the seven letters to
the seven churches, four in the second chapter and three in the third, and
thus they are both usually accompanied by the same gloss: ecclesiae docentur
(“churches are instructed”). The gloss was consequently sometimes only
superscript once above all three words (bis bine tres) and thus they were interpreted
as together representing one chapter, giving the Apocalypse 21
instead of 22 chapters.168
Fig. 4: Ms. Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, 1793 (s. XV), f. 235v‐236r,
Genesis with 51 (instead of 50) chapters
167 This is the case of, e.g., Melk, SB, 1793, or Vienna, ÖNB, Pal. lat. 4535 (from 1402).
168 This is not the only occasion when the same gloss is superscript over several keywords
following each other. E.g., the last line of the Gospel of John reads: 18. illusus.
19. moritur. 20. surrexit. 21. se manifestat., and, e.g., in Lilienfeld, SB, 145, f. 19r, each
of the words is glossed Ihesus.
7 3
A special example is that of the Book of Abdias which, being so short,
was probably never divided into chapters within the Bible. In the Summarium
it is summarized in one full verse: Legatum misit et erit saluatio
Syon (“He sent ambassador and there will be salvation of Syon”). It is difficult
to judge whether this summary perceived the Book of Abdias as one or
two chapters. The book consists of 21 verses, and legatum misit is taken
from verse 1 of the book (et legatum ad gentes misit, “and he hath sent an
ambassador to the nations”), while et erit salvatio Syon refers to verse 17 (et
in monte Sion erit salvatio, “and in mount Sion shall be salvation”). In some
manuscripts of the Summarium the chapter numbers are missing here, and
so it is seems that the whole line was understood as the summary of the
undivided book. However, as it is most unusual within the Summarium to
devote six words to a single chapter, its copyists, not concerned with the
actual division within the Bible, frequently divide the verse into two, three,
four, or even five separate chapters.
The variety of the chapter numbers is, however, still greater, and does
not reflect only mistakes in the copying and interpreting of the Summarium
but also clearly indicates that the biblical chapter division itself had not yet
been completely settled. In several cases, e.g., in the Book of Esther,169 the
manuscript variants of the Summarium reflect the varying length of some of
the biblical books which corresponds to the different number of chapters in
the Hebrew and Greek texts. In other instances the specific division of a
book of the Bible into chapters had apparently not been decided. This is the
case of the Third Book of Ezra and the Book of Neemias, which are often
excluded from the Bible as apocryphal. Within the Summarium, the Third
Book of Ezra typically has 27 keywords. However, Dietrich Engelhus, using
the Summarium to create his own biblical summary (for which see below),
writes:
Nota dicta capitula 9 dividunt alii per 27 capitula ut patet in versibus subsequentibus.
Tota tamen materia comprehenditur in dictis versibus 4. ideo sufficient.
Note that others divide the mentioned 9 chapters into 27 as is clear from the
following verses. Yet, the whole matter [of the biblical book] is contained in the
four declared verses, therefore they should be sufficient.
He proceeds to adopt four hexameters from the Summarium, those for III
Ezra 7‐27.170 Prague, NL, I A 35, on f. 285r, contains explicit evidence of the
hesitation about the number of chapters in Neemiah within the Summarium:
In Nee numerum vix audeo ponere certum. Nam varie varios video
distinwere(sic) libros. Aliqui VIII, quidam XIIII, alii XV (“For Neemiah I hardly
169 For a detailed analysis of the representation of this book within the Summarium,
see below.
170 Cf. Franz Josef Worstbrock, “Die Biblia metrica des Dietrich Engelhus und ihre
Überlieferung,” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 36 (1980): 184‐85.
7 4
dare to put a certain number since I see various people dividing books in
various ways. Some [put] 8 [chapters], others 14, others 15”).
Another case where it is not easy to decide whether the variation is due
to a difference in Bible division or to a misunderstanding within the Summarium
appears among three brief Epistles by Paul, i.e., II Timothy, Titus,
and Philemon, all covering a single, often much corrupted line within the
Summarium in which Titus is sometimes divided into two chapters and
other times into three, and Philemon is occasionally omitted altogether.
g) Order of the biblical books
Another variation occurs within the order of books. The sequence of the
books within the Bible itself was, in spite of the influence of the Paris Bible,
still not completely determined in the fifteenth century. The book that most
frequently altered its position is the Acts of the Apostles, sometimes
appearing immediately after the Gospels and sometimes inserted among
the epistles between the canonical and uncanonical ones. The Book of
Baruch also changed places: sometimes it preceded and other times it
followed the Book of Lamentations.171 In some cases the manuscripts of the
Summarium include explicit marginal notes addressing this problem of
order. E.g., Vatican City, BAV, lat. 945 and lat. 1027, contain the added note:
Canonica Iacobi debet poni inter actus apostolorum et primam Petri (“the
canonical [epistle] of Jacob should be placed between the Acts of Apostles
and the First [Epistle] of Peter”). These variations are reflected in the
Summarium, too, and, in addition, they can be found within the above
discussed Sunt gen. ex. le…, the poem accompanying it. Other changes of
order within the Summarium are likely to be scribal errors, there does not
seem to be a conscious attempt at proposing a different order of biblical
books.
h) The absence of the Psalms
The Summarium does not in fact cover the whole Bible: it does not include
the Psalms. It is most unlikely that they were omitted because they
were thought too difficult to summarize—the author was obviously not
afraid of summarizing Leviticus, Deuteronomy, or the Canticles. The omission
is more probably linked to the function of the Summarium as an aid for
memory: no particular need was felt for an additional mnemonic aid for the
Psalter since traditionally all of the Psalms were learned by heart in monasteries,
cathedrals and other schools.172 Omitting the Psalms from biblical
mnemonic tools was quite a frequent practice. In addition—and this might
171 On the position of Baruch, Dietrich Engelhus wrote: Nota liber Baruch debet stare
ante Iezechielem, post Ieremiam (quoted by Worstbrock, “Die Biblia metrica,” 186).
172 See, e.g., Mary Carruthers, The Book of Memory, esp. 94, and 100‐06.
7 5
be an important clue—the Psalms were often omitted from the late medieval
Bibles, too.
Usually no indication is given of the omission of the Psalms after The
Book of Job and before the Book of Proverbs in the manuscript copies of the
Summarium. In only a very few cases do we find a brief note such as: hic
debent esse Psalmi (“here there should be Psalms”) or post Iob sequitur Psalterium
(“after Job follows the Psalter”).173 In some cases the need for
completeness seems to have been felt but manifested itself at other places:
in several codices the Summarium is followed or preceded by a list of the
first verses of the Psalms,174 which reflects the way in which they were
learned in the Middle Ages. Some manuscripts give other aids for remembering
the Psalms. E.g., manuscript Cologne, HA, GB 4° 113 contains the
Summarium followed by mnemonic verses on the Psalms in the same style
as the Summarium verses.175
It is only within the later printed versions that the absence of the Psalms
is as a rule indicated at the appropriate place in the Summarium and their
contents are then briefly summarized. Thus, e.g., the 1660 De La Haye
edition includes a note where the Psalms would normally occur:
Hunc librum Psalterium sequitur cuius hic mentio quidem non habetur. Est enim
in quo agitur de Christi diuinitate, humanitate, passione, resurectione, ascensione,
aduentu ad iudicium, et de poenis peccatorum, et beneficiis Dei atque eius laudibus,
et habet Psalmos CL.176
This book is followed by the Psalter, which is not mentioned here. It is the one
which narrates the divinity, humanity, passion, resurrection, ascension of Christ,
his coming to judge, and the punishments of the sinners, and the favors of God
and his praises; and it includes 150 Psalms.
The absence of the Psalms within the Summarium may be puzzling because
one of the ideas behind its composition seems to have been to have the
Bible in a small manageable space. Without the Psalms, the Bible summarized
through the Summarium is not the whole Bible, and the text is thus
imperfect and inconsistent. On the other hand, medieval readers clearly do
not seem to have been concerned with the omission of the Psalms from the
Summarium. The Summarium was a tool to remember the Bible but they did
not need such tool for the Psalter since they already romembered them.
173 Prague, NL, I E 15, f. 6r.
174 E.g., miscellanies Prague, NL, F I 35 and I G 11a, Prague, Knihovna Metropolitní
Kapituly, 1640 O. LVI, or Göttweig, SB, 298 (336), f. 138v‐40r. In Paris, Bibl. de l’
Arsenal, 119, fragments of the Psalms precede the Summarium.
175 Cf. Tiedje, “The Roseum Memoriale,” 353.
176 On p. 4.
7 6
i) Keyword variants
Like that of most medieval texts, the transmission of the Summarium
Biblie was not uniform: in addition to the very different glosses, the individual
manuscript versions contain additions, omissions, copying mistakes and
their corrections or further corruptions within the main text. Deciding
between what is the original reading and what is a correction or corruption
is not easy as the text has not been critically edited. Yet, the level of variation
within its transmission is still much greater than the medieval norm.
Compared to the transmission of sermons or legends, e.g., the Summarium
has no large portions of texts added or omitted, nor is it similar in paraphrasing,
summarizing, or in the addition of completely new material: the
Summarium maintains the set structure of the Bible, and the variants occur
within this framework. Its transmission is instead more comparable to the
greatly condensed and even obscure texts, such as the previously
mentioned Doctrinale puerorum of Alexander de Villa Dei,177 or the Cena
Cypriani.178 Yet, the degree of variation is surprising even in a medieval
context and makes it difficult to speak about the “text” of the Summarium at
all.
The keyword corruption of the Summarium is not so striking when we
consider the character of the text: it is composed of unrelated keywords,
and thus there is no syntax or other point of reference except for the Bible.
Thus, a word that becomes corrupted is very likely to be further corrupted,
or, eventually exchanged for a new word related to the particular biblical
chapter. But the chance of correction back to the original keyword is
minimal.
When faced with the large number of variants one is at a loss regarding
which methodology should be applied to determine the “original” version.
One possible factor is the maintenance of the verse meter: many of the
manuscripts violate the meter harshly, and those are quite unlikely to
preserve the original reading. But “meaningfulness” is a much more problematic
concept. It seems that the author of the Summarium did not select
the simplest and most obvious keywords but often created true riddles. Of
course not every manuscript variant presents a problem, nor is each copy of
the Summarium a completely new version of the text. Nevertheless, an
appropriate description of the modes of this text’s transmission is a challenge.
While the indicated patterns of the variation of the text are doubtlessly
valid, only selected available manuscripts have been closely studied,
177 Wolfgang Maaz, “Zur Rezeption des Alexander von Villa Dei im 15. Jahrhundert,”
Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch: Internationale Zeitschrift für Mediävistik 16 for 1981
(1982): 276‐81.
178 Cf. Doležalová, Reception and Its Varieties, 140‐245; and the discussion below.
7 7
and thus the present analysis of the actual variants might not be representative
of the whole tradition.
α) Spelling errors
Among the manuscript variants it is often difficult to distinguish between
spelling errors and semantic shifts. They are both present in a much
greater number in the Summarium manuscripts than in other medieval
texts, but the difference between them depends largely on interpretation:
frequently a spelling mistake results in a semantic change and it might be
difficult to separate them from one another.
In any case, simple copying mistakes are very common. The very first
word, sex (six—referring to the six days of creation in the first chapter of
Genesis), is frequently corrupted in the manuscripts: we find lex (rule,
law),179 rex (king)180 and even tres (three).181 This corruption is due to the
fact that the initial S was often omitted when the text was originally copied:
a larger illuminated initial was planned but later rendered incorrectly. The
same occurs in the beginning of several other books, e.g.:
III Regum: Suna becomes Anna182
II Iohannis: Electe becomes Flecte183
Epistola Iacobi: Suffert becomes Auffert184
Many more copying mistakes arise from the specific character of the text:
the Summarium has no syntax; it is comprised as list of words; thus once a
word becomes corrupted, it is more likely to become further corrupted than
it is to be corrected. Examples of obvious spelling mistakes are numerous:
Exodus 27: altare vs. altera
(“by the altar” vs. “another one”; description of the altar)
Exodus 40: nubes vs. miles
(“cloud” vs. “soldier”; God in the cloud over the sanctuary)
Numbers 26: numerant vs. mirant
(“they count” vs. “they wonder”; counting of the Levis)
Often a change of catchword brought about a change in the gloss as well—
the poor copyist often struggled to find a connection between the new
catchword and the particular chapter.
179 All the 4 mss. from Admont, SB (142, 203, 433, 592), Lyon, BM, 245, and Zwettl, SB,
81.
180 Vatican City, BAV, Pal. lat. 20.
181 Copenhagen, KB, Ny Kgl. Saml. 3 b fol.
182 E.g., Klosterneuburg, SB, 208.
183 E.g., Klosterneuburg, SB, 445.
184 E.g., Klosterneuberg, SB, 428.
7 8
β) Conjunction addition or omission
Typical for the Summarium are variants that do not affect the intended
biblical link semantically, such as the frequent additions and the omission
of et, or –que. Adding or omitting this short word without altering the
selected keywords seems to have been the easiest way to make them correspond
to the meter, but some of the copyists were obviously not interested
in maintaining the verse form of the Summarium and thus disregarded the
issue altogether.
γ) Morphological variants
Other frequently found variants are morphological. Nouns and adjectives
often oscillate between various cases and singular and plural (e.g.,
sompnio vs. sompnia in Deuteronomy 24); most frequently between nominative
and accusative case (e.g., putei vs. puteos in Genesis 26, or piscis vs.
piscem in Jonah 2). Verbs move between singular and plural (e.g., prohibet
vs. prohibent in Genesis 2), past and present tense (e.g., precepit vs. precipit
in Exodus 1, postulat vs. postulavit in III Esdras 10), indicative and subjunctive
(e.g., concremet vs. concremat, or mactet vs. mactat in Leviticus 6 and
7), between active and passive voice (e.g., vendunt vs. venditur in Genesis
37, or ungunt vs. ungitur in I Paralipomenon 29). These variants do not
affect the biblical links semantically. Some of them seem to result from
copying errors, others consciously restore the exact word appearing in the
Bible, yet others make the keyword fit the gloss in such a way that the word
and the gloss together constitute a meaningful clause. For understanding
the events of Genesis 37, and also for the rhythm of the line, it makes no
difference whether the reader encounters vendunt: fratres Ioseph (“brothers
sell Joseph”) or venditur: Ioseph a fratribus (“Joseph is sold by brothers”).
This type of variation results in the morphological adjustment of the gloss
as well. Although they do not affect the meaning, together these factors
make the Summarium much less stable than a typical medieval narrative
text.
δ) Semantic variants
The most noteworthy variants are the semantic ones because they
transform the biblical relationship and necessitate a substantial change in
the accompanying glosses as well. One frequent but not very creative type is
the exchange of the original keyword for a word included in the gloss. E.g.,
for I Thessalonians 3 we find either the keyword fidem with the gloss
bonam, or the keyword bonam with the gloss fidem (both concerned with
“good faith,” the main subject of the whole chapter185).
185 Yet, the exact phrase fidem bonam or bonam fidem does not appear in the Bible.
Fides is mentioned four times, bona not at all.
7 9
On other occasions a completely different keyword is chosen, which
might suggest an attempt to improve the Summarium but might also mean
that the scribe did not understand the link between the keyword in his
model and the biblical chapter or the keyword in his model was illegible,
and so he decided to create an alternative himself. E.g., Genesis 33, the
reconciliation of Jacob and Esau, is represented by gratia (favor) or munera
(gifts). The word gratia is repeated three times in the biblical chapter, and
Jacob eventually says: sed si inveni gratiam in oculis tuis accipe munusculum
de manibus meis (Gen 33:10, “if I have found favor in thy eyes, receive a
little present from my hands”), after which Esau accepts the gifts (the word
munus, or munera does not appear in the chapter; there is only the quoted
munusculum).186 Both the keywords are meaningful and it is difficult to
suggest which might have been the original one.
Another example is found in the second chapter of the Book of Jonah,
when Jonah is swallowed by the fish. Most manuscripts summarize the
story with the word ortus. This word, meaning “risen,” “apparent,” or
“born,” does not make much sense in this particular context unless we
consider it as alluding (quite distantly) to Jonah’s eventual escape from the
whale at the end of the chapter. I am convinced that this was indeed the
original word used in the poem, but that it actually stood for oratus (“he
prayed”) and was shortened in order to maintain the rhythm of the line.187
The biblical chapter is well known for Jonah’s prayer inside the fish;
however, ortus must have seemed obscure to later scribes who often
exchanged it with piscis (“fish”),188 piscem (“fish,” acc. sg.),189 or cetus
(“whale, sea monster”),190 all alluding much more straightforwardly to the
contents of the biblical chapter.
ε) Radical additions, omissions, order changes
Finally, more radical variants also occur, that is, omission of entire lines
of text, changes in the order of the verses, or creation of new versions of
entire books. One example of such very radical changes is found in Prague,
NL, I F 43 from the second half of the fourteenth century, where completely
new versions for several of the biblical books (such as some of the Prophets,
186 There is no attempt at exclusivity in the choice of the keywords. Gratia is also the
catchword for Ad Titum, chapter 2, while munera is used for the First Book of Kings,
chapter 6.
187 The complete line which summarizes the entire Book of Jonah, reads: Post sortes.
ortus. conuertuntur. dolet ipse. (“Afterwards lots. Risen. They are turned [from their
evil ways]. He has pity.”)
188 E.g., in Znojmo, MA, II 304, Prague, NL, I F 35 or Prague, NL, I G 11a.
189 E.g., in Budapest, UL, 50, Prague, Library of the Academy of the Sciences of the Czech
Republic, 1 TB 3.
190 E.g., in Paris, Bibl. de l’Arsenal, 119, f. 366r, or Vienna, ÖNB, Pal. lat. 4535, f. 193v.
8 0
Matthew, Luke, or the Acts of Apostles) are given, and most of the other
books are radically changed as well. Or, Oxford, BoL, Lyell Empt. 7,191
Klosterneuburg, SB, 428 and also 503 offer a completely different version of
the entire Apocalypse of John192 and most of the New Testament epistles.
Compare, e.g., the last line (that is, the last five chapters) of the Apocalypse
in Znojmo, MA, II 304, f. 235v (and many other surviving manuscripts):
reges meretricem terre agni beati193 mortui ornatam uiro suo dicit sponsus194
18 19 20 21 22
flebunt. ad cenam. surgunt. sponsam. venio iam.
[They shall bewail: the kings of the earth [shall bewail] the whore. To the supper: [raise].
The bride: adorned for her husband. I am already coming: the bridegroom says—give
every man according to his deeds.]
Oxford, BoL, Lyell Empt. 7, f. 16r:
omnes amatores terre
super babilonem
cum iudicatur
18
plangent.
contemptores mundi
super eam
19
exultant.
omnes mortui
scripta in libris
suis
20
iudicantur.
celestis Hierusalem
describitur
cum ornatu
21
civitas.
et o
principium
et finis
22
Alpha.
[They shall lament: all those who love the earth [shall lament] over Babylon when it is
judged. They rejoice: those who hate the world [rejoice] over her. They are judged: all
the dead [are judged according to] the writings in their books. The City: heavenly
Jerusalem is described with adornment. Alpha: and omega, beginning and end.]
Notes on the biblical relationships and noted differences:
18: The word flebunt (“they shall bewail”) is repeated three times in the chapter
(verses 9, 11, and 15—in the latter it appears as flentes), plangent (“they shall
lament”) appears only in line 9, beside flebunt: et flebunt et plangent se super
illam reges terrae (“and the kings of the earth shall bewail her and lament her”)
19: Ad cenam (“to the supper”) refers to verse 9: beati qui ad cenam nuptiarum
agni vocati sunt, while exultant (“they rejoice”) refers to verse 7: gaudeamus et
exultemus et demus gloriam ei quia venerunt nuptiae agni et uxor eius
praeparavit se.
191 The manuscript was written in Paris in 1457‐1458 by Desiderius de Birstorff. The
Summarium (f. 2r‐16v) is followed by another very popular Bible mnemonics, Rosarium
Bibliae by Peter of Rosenheim, and a selection of other brief texts. On
Desiderius, see Augustin Calmet, Bibliothèque lorraine, ou Histoire des hommes
illustres (1751), col. 121. Although these glosses are very particular, they cannot be
ascribed to Desiderius without hesitation, as he himself writes at the end that he
merely transcribed the text (f. 16r: Explicit Biblia metrificata per me Desiderium de
Birstorff… transcripta).
192 While the Lyell contains only the new version, both Klosterneuburg manu‐scripts
include also the original immediately following it.
193 The gloss continues: qui vocati sunt.
194 The gloss continues: redde unicuique secundum opera sua.
8 1
20: Neither surgunt (“they rise”) nor iudicantur (“they are judged”) appear in
the chapter and they are replaced by derivatives (resurrectio, in ressurectione,
iudicati sunt, iudicatum est) clearly describing the chapter contents.
21: Sponsam (“bride”): this is an exact quotation from verse 2: sponsam ornatam
viro suo; civitas (“city”) appears more frequently (verses 2, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18,
19, 21, 23).
22: Venio iam (“I am already coming”) does not appear as such, but a corresponding
phrase appears three times: verse 7: et ecce venio velociter, line 12:
ecce venio cito, and line 20: etiam venio cito amen. Alpha appears in verse 13:
ego alpha et omega primus et novissimus principium et finis.
There are many more similar occasions, and at times it is difficult to decide
whether we should speak of radical changes within the Summarium, or
already of a completely different version of the text (see chapter II.4).
ζ) The collation by medieval scribes
A number of manuscripts were obviously contaminated. We find versions
where more variants to the keywords are noted, or corrections from
other manuscripts appear. Such is the case in Prague, NL, I G 11a, which
includes the edition of the Summarium copied by Crux de Telcz (Oldřich
Kříž z Telče), based on at least two different Summarium manuscripts (Fig.
5), that is, in Prague, NL, I A 41, which is linked to it and contains two sets of
glosses to many of the keywords (Fig. 6), and Vyšší Brod, ML, XCI with a
number of corrections, and many others.
The fact that the copyists worked from two different manuscripts to
produce a new version suggests that they were interested in the text’s
meaning and tried to create a reading that would make sense and thus be
useful. However, they frequently copied from only one model and added the
variants from another manuscript at a later stage, making no decisions
about which version was preferable but simply gathering options. In any
case, on the basis of this information it seems that comparing and collating
manuscripts—at least in the transmission of the Summarium—was a much
more frequent activity than it is normally supposed.
8 2
Fig. 5: Ms. Prague, National Library, I G 11a (Bohemia, s. XV), f. 7v,
the Summarium copy by Crux de Telcz
8 3
Fig. 6: Ms. Prague, National Library, I A 41 (Bohemia, 1468‐77), fol 169r,
two sets of glosses to a number of the Summarium keywords
8 4
j) Case 1: The Book of Esther
A particularly complex example is that of the Book of Esther, which is
preserved in a long and a short version in the Bible itself. As opposed to the
Hebrew Bible, there were six passages added in the Greek Septuagint. These
substantial additions195 scattered within the book change the focus or the
story.196 Jerome grouped them at the end of the book, thus creating 6 new
chapters after the original 10. It was supposedly Stephen Langton (d. 1228)
who kept this order and added the chapter and verse numbers (as he did
for the whole Bible).197 Today, the presentation of the book varies: protestant
Bibles consider the additions apocryphal and either exclude them altogether
or group them at a separate place within the book, while Catholic
Bibles keep them, either in Jerome’s arrangement or restored to their original
places.198
This situation is reflected in the Summarium, but not precisely: some
manuscripts include six keywords and others 16. The manuscripts with six
keywords are too many to be considered a mere one‐time mistake: there
are 35 among the Summarium manuscripts that have been transcribed so
far, that have this surprisingly short version of Esther. Its most frequent
reading found in 15 manuscripts is:
1. respuit. 2. hester. 3. aman. 4. honoratur. 5. epistola. 6. sompnus.199
1. he expelled. 2. Esther. 3. Aman. 4. he is honored. 5. letter. 6. sleep.
The verse refers to the biblical book of the Vulgate in the following way:
1. respuit Est 1: (verse 12: renuit and contempsit; respuit does not appear) king
Assureus turns against queen Vashti when she refuses to appear
naked at the feast
2. Hester Est 2: Esther introduced in the chapter
3. Aman Est 3: Aman introduced in the chapter
4. honoratur Est 6: the king commands Aman to honour Mardochai (the stem
honor‐ repeated 8 times in the chapter)
5. epistola Est 8: the letter of Aman against the Jews is superseded by a new letter
by the king in their favour (Est 13: copy of the letter sent by Aman to
destroy the Jews—in Septuagint at the end of Est 3)
195 They are 107 new verses added to the original 167.
196 Most importantly, unlike in the Hebrew, God is explicitly mentioned here and everything
happens through his agency.
197 For a discussion of the Bible division see the contribution by Paul Saenger in Form
and Function of Late Medieval Bible.
198 Cf., e.g., B. Sibley Towner, “Additions to Esther,” Mercer Commentary to the Bible 5:
Deuterocanonicals/ Apocrypha (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1994), liv‐lvi.
199 Budapest, UL, 50, Klosterneuburg, SB, 208, Cracow, BJ, 284, London, BL, Add. 20009
(the third version), Munich, BSB, clm. 4358, 14023 (the first version), 14670, 15956,
and 27462, and in Munich, UB, 4o 13, Prague, NL, III A 16, St. Gallen, SB, 1068,
Uppsala, UB, C 572 [esder for esther], Vatican City, BAV, lat. 945 and 1290.
8 5
6. sompnus Est 10: the dream of Mardocheus (Est 11: the dream described—in
Septuagint at the beginning of the book)
The manuscript variants, with few exceptions,200 are restricted to chapter 4,
where the alternatives to honoratur are:
honoratus.201
honor hinc. [5. epistola]202
honor hinc. [5. et epistola]203
honor. [5. hinc epistola]204
honor. [5. hinc et epistola]205
hortatur.206
ornatur.207
oriatur.208
The first four variants are linked to honour and are thus referring to the
honour Mardochai received from Aman. The remaining versions seem to
represent textual corruptions made through a misreading of a manuscript
abbreviation: neither ornatur (“is adorned”) nor oriatur (“rises”) appears in
Chapters 3‐8 of Esther, nor is their meaning related to the events narrated
there. In any case, this brief version in the Summarium is curious and it is
difficult to imagine not only how it came to being (perhaps by an omission
of part of the text?) but especially why it became so persistently widespread.
In addition to this version, there are two other groups that present Esther
in sixteen chapters. One, thus far evidenced in 11 manuscripts, continues
the short version, adding two more lines with 10 new keywords. They are:
7. suspensus. 8. anulum. 9. filii. 10. fons. 11. hinc attulerunt.
12. nuntiat. 13. orat. 14. hester. 15. et corruit. 16. rex artaxerses. 209
200 E.g., the reading sompnias instead of sompnus in chapter 6 in Znojmo, MA, II 304; or
respicit for respuit in chapter 1 in Uppsala, UB, C 218, and respondit in ch. 1 in Alba
Iulia, Biblioteca Batthyanaeum, R II 66.
201 Munich, BSB, clm. 7989.
202 Basel, UB, A XI 66 (1st version), Klosterneuburg, SB, 445, London, BL, Add. 24361.
203 Munich, BSB, clm. 4627, Uppsala, UB, C 10 (1st version) and C 218.
204 London, BL, Harley 1748.
205 Vatican City, BAV, Pal. lat. 20.
206 Vyšší Brod, ML, XCI (here later corrected into honoratur), Munich, BSB, clm. 9529
and 14094.
207 London, BL, Add. 20009 (the first version, f. 11r), Prague, NL, I G 36, Uppsala, UB, C
637 (s. XIV), and Zurich, ZB, Rh 184.
208 Paris, BnF, lat. 2477.
209 Brno, MZK, 108 [the 2nd and 3rd lines added on a separate piece of paper], Cambridge,
Corpus Christi College Library, 524 [nunccius for nuntiat; et omitted],
Munich, UB, 4o 809 [the 2nd and 3rd lines added without gloss on the top of the page,
f. 113r], Prague, NL, I A 35, I E 15, XI A 14, Vatican City, BAV, Pal. lat. 459, Wrocław,
8 6
7. he is hanged. 8. ring. 9. sons. 10. fountain. 11. they brought here.
12. he announces. 13. she prays. 14. Esther. 15. and he fell. 16. king Artaxerses.
The result is rather peculiar, since in this version, the keywords refer to
chapters: 1‐3, 6, 8, 10, 7‐13. Considering that in two of the manuscripts the
second and the third lines are added later (see Fig. 7),210 this is very
probably an enlargement of the version of six chapters, a correction made
by a copyist who would have noticed that Esther actually has 16 (rather
than 6) chapters in Jerome’s Vulgate.
The other group, witnessed by 29 manuscripts,211 has different keywords
for chapters 4‐6. Besides moving honoratur to the sixth place where
it belongs, this version gives:
4. scidit = “he tore” Est 4,1: [Mardochaeus] scidit vestimenta sua (“he rent his
clothes”)
5. inuitat = “she invites” Est 5,4: Si regi placet, obsecro ut venias ad me hodie (“If it
please the king. I beseech thee to come to me this day”)
Thus the whole most frequently encountered Summarium version of Esther
reads:
1. respuit. 2. hester. 3. aman. 4. scidit. 5. inuitat. 6. honoratur
7. suspensus. 8. anulum. 9. filii. 10. fons. 11. hinc attulerunt.
12. nuntiat. 13. orat. 14. hester. 15. et corruit. 16. rex artaxerses.
Two “keywords” are the same, i.e., Hester, the one for chapter 2 where she
first appears and the other for chapter 14 containing her prayer. But since
she is the main character of the book, almost any of the chapters could be
described by the same word. Some of the selected keywords do not appear
in the biblical text (1. respuit or 5. inuitat) but describe the chapter events.
Yet, mostly the keywords come directly from the biblical text and either
recall the exact passage (e.g., 10. fons = “fountain, stream”; Est 10,6: Parvus
fons, qui crevit in fluvium = “The little fountain which grew into a river,” i.e.
the beginning of Mardochai’s dream), or bring to one’s mind what happens,
BU, I F 222 [corruebat for et corruit, artaxersi for artaxerses], I F 296, I Q 27 [artapsis
for artaxerses], I Q 369.
210 In addition to those, in Uppsala, UB, C 10, only the second line is later added in the
margin, the third line is dropped. Thus Esther has 11 chapters in this version.
211 Cambridge, MA, Houghton Library, Riant 93 (et honoratur, sibi for filii), Cracow, BJ,
286, London, BL, Add. 22025, Munich, BSB, clm. 3070 (et omitted), 3447 (2nd
version; honorat), 4627, 14023 (2nd version), 15606, 27462 (2nd version), and
27481, Munich, UB, 2o 677, Olomouc, VK, M II 31, M II 60 (ac honoratur; artoxerses),
Oxford, BoL, Lyell Empt. 7 (honorat; lime for hinc) Prague, NL, I A 41, I F 35, VI B 11
(annunciat for nunciat), VIII D 27, and X B 16, Prague, Library of the Academy of
Sciences, 1 Tb 3 (ac honoratur; artaxersis), Prague, Nostic library, f. 1, St. Gallen, SB,
972b (arthaxersis), Uppsala, UB, C 172 (Mardocheus for scidit, honorat, and some
more but these are later corrections) and C 195, Vatican City, BAV, Pal. lat. 8, and
Vat. lat. 1027, Wrocław, BU, I F 506, I O 6, and I Q 1.
8 7
sometimes in quite a complex way. E.g., chapter 8. anulum (“ring”), might
refer both to Est 8,2: “And the king took the ring which he had commanded
to be taken again from Aman, and gave it to Mardochai” showing the symbol
of Mardochai’s advancement, but it might also recall Est 8,10 “And these
letters which were sent in the king’s name, were sealed with his ring…,”
stressing the new letters that were written in order to reverse the earlier
ones by Aman. Or it might refer to both.
Fig. 7: Ms. Prague, National Library, XI A 14 (Bohemia 1417‐1436), f. 8r; originally a
single verse representing the Book of Esther (in the middle of the page), with a later
marginal note: sequitur “suspensus” infra and the two later added verses down on the
page
8 8
Additionally, many unique versions exist. A kind of a dead‐end are three
manuscripts that belong to the latter group but exchange the order of the
second and the third line.212 Obviously, such a change makes the
Summarium even more difficult to understand. But there are also ten other
manuscripts which have a very special version of the 16 Esther chapters.
Each of them is a witness of a new attempt at creating some better‐fitting
keywords. Only the first three words respuit. hester. aman. are unchanged in
all witnesses but one, while most of the remaining ones are altered.213
A very curious version is found in Uppsala, UB, C 356:
Respuit. hester aman. dolet. invitat. decorat.
suspensus. noua lux. occidunt. exiguus fons.
dicta. prius. reperuit. reliquis. in sex. capitellis.
The most puzzling last line, in my opinion does not summarize the book of
Esther but is the scribe’s note refering to the fact that the he found the book
212 respuit. hester. aman. scidit. inuitat. honoratur. / nuntiat. orat. hester. et corruit. rex
artazerses. / suspensus. anulum. filii. fons. hinc aquilinum[!] in Kloster‐neuburg, SB,
503, f. 142v; the other one, Klosterneuburg, SB, 428, f. 132v, has attulerunt, not
aquilinum, but reads lutat for inuitat. In Munich, UB, 4o 13 (the second version),
there is aman instead of anulum.
213 Respuit. hester. aman. scidit. petit. ac honoratur. / suspensus. adar. iugulant. fons.
ecce dracones. / nuntiat. exemplar. orat. blanditur. epistula. (Lilienfeld, SB,
145, f. 18v), respuit. hester. aman. sacco. reniat. diadema. pendet. /
honoratur. occidunt. aptat. idemque. / nuntiat. exemplar. suscepi t .
corruit. exit. (Paris, Bibl. de l’Arsenal, 1144), respuit. hester. aman. uirgam.
crucem. diadema. / suspensus. noua lux. ulti. fons. ecce dracones. / ad
mortem. gentem. libera. uidi. uariantur. (Prague, NL, I F 43), respuit. hester.
aman. scidit. inuitat. decoratur. / suspensus. anulum. filii. fons. atque dracones.
/ defert. litteraque. luctus. regina. repellit. (Yale University, Beinecke
Library, Marston 255), respuit. hester. aman. mandat. veniens . honoratur. /
pendet. mutantur. dominantur. sompnus. et alter . / scriptum. nudatur.
hinc pal ida. sitque precatur. (Munich, BSB, clm. 5444, and cgm. 341), respuit.
hester. aman. hortatur. regalibus. noctem. / pendet. anulum. filii. fons. hinc
attulerunt./ nuntiat. orat. hester. et corruit. rex artaxerses (Munich, BSB, clm. 12391,
by Maurus von Weihenstephan), respuit. hester. aman. sacro. poscens. honoratur.
/ suspenso. scribunt. vindictam. dicta. reuolue. / fons creuit. somnium.
scribit. narrans et. adorat. (Munich, UB, 8o 344), Exultat. hester. aman.
adici t . prandia. noctem. / defert. litera. luctus. tenera. reuocat. inde.
/ conqueritur. reuocat . cedunt. frons. atque dracones. (St. Gallen, SB,
336), Rennuit. hester. aman. spargens. stantem. nichi l . hostis. /
summaque. suspensi. sors utraque. fons. moraretur. / subiectos. corpus.
memor inquit. callida fraude. (Munich, BSB, clm. 3010, and 3447 [1st version,
see below]).
8 9
of Esther in six Summarium chapters in his model. Yet, in this copy it is
divided, numbered and glossed as if each word stood for a chapter.214
Last, but not least, a number of manuscripts were very obviously
compared and collated. Most frequently, the copies include first the brief, 6‐
chapter, version and then, as if correcting it, they either add two more lines
or include also one of the long versions in full. E.g., Prague, NL, I G 11a had
originally the brief version, but a part of it was crossed out at a later stage
and the remaining keywords from the long version were added in the lower
margin.215 Basel, UB, A XI 66 also has the brief version within the main
text,216 and the whole long one is added on an inserted piece of paper;
Munich, UB, 4o 809 has the brief version and the extra two lines are added,
without gloss (but with further corrections), in the top margin of the
page;217 Prague, NL, VIII D 15, f. 38v, combines all the three versions; and
Munich, UB, 4o 13 has the short version immediately followed by the full
long reading. The two versions in this manuscript are not separated and the
chapters are counted continuously, so Esther here ends up containing 22
chapters.218 Munich, BSB, clm. 27412 and clm. 6411 both collate the two
versions of the first lines, thus comprising 18 chapters in total, beginning:
Respuit. hester. aman. scidit. invitat. honoratur. epistola. sompnus.219
In Munich, BSB, clm. 14023 (Bible) and 27462 (copied separately), there is
the short version followed by the long one with an explanatory note in
between:
Hester
Respuit Hester Amon honoratur epistola sompnus.
Nota quod hic liber scilicet Hester alias quotatur in octo capitula, quia quintum et
sextum capitulum quodlibet in duo subdiuiditur. Sed attende quod praeter
prescripta capitula que dicit se Ieronimus de hebreo extraxisse in edicione wulgata
214 The glosses are: : dicta: inter paruus fons. prius: in prioribus capitulis. reperuit:
Mardocheus in dictione tua. reliquis: in astis[?] ultimis. in sex: capitulis repetuntur.
capitellis: prius dicta.
215 F. 10v, the main text: respuit. hester. aman. honoratur. epistola. sompnia.; addition
down: scidit. inuitat. honoratur. / suspensus. anulum. filii. fons. hinc attulerunt. /
nunciat. orat. hester. et corruit. rex artaxerses.
216 Respuit hester aman honor huic [!] epistola sompnus .
217 Respuit hester aman scidit inuitat honorat / suspensus anulum filii occiduntur fons
hinc attulerunt sompnus / nunciat orat hester et corruit artaxerses.
218 F. 167r. It also switches the last two lines, so the whole looks confusing indeed:
Respuit. hester. aman. honoratur. epistola. sompnus
Respuit. hester. aman. scidit. invitat. honoratur.
nuntiat. orat. hester. et corruit. rex artaxerses.
suspensus. aman. filii. fons. hinc attulerunt.
219 Munich, BSB, clm. 6411, f. 398v and 27412, f. 163r‐v.
9 0
et ibi in primo220 ponitur de sompno Mardochei et de hoc vide per subscriptos
versus.
Hester
Respuit. hester. amon. scidit. inuitat. honoratur.
suspensus. anulum. filii. fons. hinc attulerunt.
nuntiat. orat. hester. et corruit. rex artaxerses.
Note that this book, that is, Esther, is otherwise divided into eight chapters,
because the fifth and the sixth chapter is each divided into two. But note that
beside the above noted chapters which Jerome says to have extracted from
Hebrew in [his] Vulgate edition, and there at the beginning [a chapter] is placed
on the dream of Mardocheus, and about that, see the verses below.
Here we have an explicit (although surprising) note that the chapters without
the Greek additions numbered 8 rather than 10, and thus, it seems that
the division made by Langton (or someone else) in the thirteenth century,
was not the only one possible. In addition, the manuscripts providing only
the 6‐chapter version of Esther within the Summarium usually do not
include any reflections on this number, they seem to be content with it. An
exception is Munich, BSB, clm. 14094, where Esther has (on f. 14r) the
Summarium version with six chapters but there is a note beside it:
c<apitula> 16 debent esse (“there should be 16 chapters”).
A special example of collation is Munich, BSB, clm. 3447, which contains
two long versions of Esther as explicit alternatives, first an unusual one and
then the typical long one introduced by Hester aliomodo (“Esther in a different
way”).221 In Munich, BSB, clm. 14670, the Summarium accompanied by
glosses is copied on every verso of folios 18v‐48v, while on the recto of the
same folios, there is an alphabetical biblical summary chapter by chapter,
220 For primo there is principio in Munich, BSB, clm. 27462.
221 Rennuit. hester. aman. spargens. stantem. nichil. hostis.
summaque. suspensi. sors utraque. fons. moraretur.
subiectos. corpus. memor inquit. callida fraude. (with slight changes, this one is found
also in Munich, BSB, clm. 3010.)
Hester aliomodo
respuit. hester. aman. scidit. inuitat. honorat.
suspensus. anulum. filii. fons. hinc attulerunt.
nunciat. orat. hester. et corruit. rex artaxerses.
This manuscript is the first volume of a Bible, covering the Old Testament from
Genesis till Ecclesiasticus. Within the Bible text itself, the Summarium keywords
together with the explanatory glosses are repeated by the relevant chapters. The
interesting thing is that the first word is within the biblical texts in both cases
rennuit, a word that does appear in the chapter, unlike the otherwise omnipresent
respuit. It seems that when the Summarium is copied together with the Bible, it
becomes textually closer to it.
9 1
presenting every biblical chapter in half a verse.222 As for Esther, the
Summarium has the 6‐chapter version here, while the summary on the
opposite page to it counts sixteen chapters.223
The exceptional and problematic versions of Esther in the Summarium
are thus much more frequent than the one which represents the book
adequately.
k) Case 2: The Song of Songs
Another fitting example is the Summarium’s presentation of the Song of
Songs, standardly divided into eight chapters within the Bible with no
alternatives or difficulties in this division. It is thus all the more striking
that by far the most frequent Summarium version consists of only seven
chapters. Moreover, the complete variation is, again, quite complex and
difficult to grasp.
The first keyword is invariably oscula (referring to the beginning of the
first poem, osculetur me osculis oris sui, “let him kiss me with the kiss of his
mouth”) in all the manuscripts.224 The second word is flos (again appearing
in the very first line, ego flos campi, “I am the flower of the field”),225 with an
exception in a manuscript that reads fons (for which there are no grounds,
so it must be a confusion with the following keyword); similarly, the fourth
is fons (this time not appearing in the first line but in the twelfth and
fifteenth stanzas, fons signatus “a fountain sealed up” and fons hortorum “a
fountain of gardens”), omitted in one manuscript and once misspelled as
foris “outside” (with no possible connection to the Bible). The third chapter
is represented by noctes, nocte, or noctem, “nights,” “by night,” or “night”
(acc. sg.), (the first line of the Vulgate reads: per noctes “through nights”)—a
good example of the frequent instability of the grammatical cases in the
Summarium in general, similar to the word for the fifth chapter, mel or
melle, “honey” or “by honey” (in the middle of the first line: comedi favum
cum melle meo “I have eaten the honeycomb with my honey”). Thus, the
222 Inc.: Assunt sex opera, Bini vetant edere ligna / Cuncta ruunt esa, De grandis Abel
necis astu / Enoch translatus, Facit hic archam Noe iustus; this text is, to my
knowledge, so far unnoticed.
223 Assureus spernit, Bona tunc Hester loca querit
Cui Amon infestus, Diuisa ueste uidemus
En vocat illa regem Facit [lacuna] invitus honorem
Grauem suspendit, Hinc annulus creditur[?] istinc[?]
In decem natis, J fons paruus modo creuit
Legavit cartas[?], Mox eunuchus dedit illas
Nunc prece letus Heber, Orans vota dedit Hester
Praua cauet iugiter, Quid rex uult scribere semper.
224 With one exception: osculo in Uppsala, UB, C 218.
225 In one manuscript, Prague, NL, I A 35, the keyword is ego flos.
9 2
first five chapters of the Song of Songs appear in a fairly standard form
(exceptions are discussed below) as:
1. oscula kisses
2. flos flower
3. noctes / nocte / noctem night / nights
4. fons fountain
5. mel / melle honey
Much more problematic are the remaining chapters. In addition to the two
most frequent versions (marked by spaces between letters), a wide variety
is found:
6 7 8
r e v e r t e r e p a r ua 226
revertere parva quis227
revertere parva quis mihi228
revertere parva multe229
revertere ascendam parua230
rever tua parua231
revertere quid parua232
revertere quam parua233
revertere quam pulchra parua234
revertere quam pulchra paruas235
revertere quam quis236
revertere ‐ quis237
re vinea soror238
226 Cracow, BJ, 284, Klosterneuburg, SB, 208, 445, 503, Munich, BSB, clm. 3010, 4358,
7662 (has flos for fons, ch. 4), 7989, 9529, 14094, 14670, 15956, Munich, UB, 8o 344,
Oxford, BoL, Lyel Empt. 7 (here there is fons for flos in chapter 2), Paris, Bibl. de
l’Arsenal 1144, Paris, BnF, lat. 2477 (here, fons for chapter 4 is omitted), Prague, NL,
I A 41, I G 36, and XI A14, St. Gallen, SB, 336, 1068 (refertere for revertere), Uppsala,
UB, C 195 and C 356, Vatican City, BAV, lat. 945 and 1290, Pal. lat. 20, Vyšší Brod,
ML, XCI, Znojmo, MA, 304 (has foris for fons, ch. 4), Zurich, ZB, Rh 184.
227 Vatican City, BAV, lat. 1027.
228 Uppsala, UB, C 10 and C 218.
229 Uppsala, UB, C 172. However, revertere and parva are corrections written over an
erased text, and thus the keywords were probably originally quo. quid. multe, as
cited below. The glosses continue the quotation and thus support this suggestion.
230 Munich, BSB, clm. 12391 (Maurus von Weihenstephan).
231 Munich, BSB, cgm. 341.
232 Basel, UB, A XI 66.
233 Munich, BSB, clm. 3070.
234 Munich, BSB, clm. 27412.
235 Munich, BSB, clm. 6411 [surely related to clm. 27412].
236 Uppsala, UB, C 637 (s. XIV).
237 New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke library, Marston 255.
238 Munich, UB, 4o 809; glosses: re[vertere Sunamith]. vinea [mane surgamus ad vineas].
soror [nostra parva].
9 3
revertere ergo parua palmaque239
revertere paruaque palmam240
revertere palmamque parua241
g r e x p a l m a q ue p a r ua 242
grex parua palmaque243
grex palmaque nostra parua244
grex palmam nostra parua245
grex palma queparua246
grex palma parua247
grex palma248
grex reuertere parua249
grex vertere parua250
dentes reuertere parua251
Between the two most common versions (grex. palmaque. parva and
reuertere. parua.) it is the former that most obviously corresponds to the
Bible because it presents eight rather than seven chapters, and parva
(“small”) definitely refers to chapter 8 and not 7. Nevertheless, the more
widespread of the two seems to be the latter, preserved in 29 manuscripts
as opposed to 11 witnesses which contain the first variation. Further 6
copies supply the keyword for the eighth chapter but keep parva on the
seventh instead of the eighth place, other 6 copies move revertere parva to
the 7th and 8th position and supply a keyword for the 6th chapter (grex or
dentes), and seven further copies keep revertere on the sixth position, move
parva to the eighth and provide keyword for the seventh chapter (palmamque,
ascendam, quam, quam pulchra, quid, or tua). The all seem to be
attempts at correcting the 7‐chapter version of the Canticles as if that was
the original which they adjust in order to refer to the Bible more directly.
However, there are other possible ways in which the corruption might
have occured. Of course, the 7‐chapter version might have appeared
through a corruption of the original 8‐chapter version. A special is Uppsala,
239 Wrocław, BU, I Q 27 (has both mel and melle side by side for chapter 3).
240 Olomouc, VK, M II 31.
241 Vatican City, BAV, Pal. lat. 8.
242 Brno, MZK, 108, Budapest, UL, 50, Munich, BSB, clm. 3447, 4627, and 27481, Prague,
Library of the Academy of Sciences 1 TB 3, Prague, NL, I E 15, III A 16, X B 16,
Prague, Nostic library, Ms. f 1, Wrocław, BU, I F 506.
243 Prague, NL, VI B 11.
244 Olomouc, VK, M II 60.
245 Prague, NL, I A 35 and VIII D 15; perhaps Vatican City, BAV, Pal. lat. 459 as well (this
is difficult to discern as the end looks more like olmam. non preva).
246 Prague, KNM, XVIII B 18.
247 Prague, NL, I F 35.
248 Cracow, BJ, 286.
249 Wrocław, BU, I Q 369, Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Batthyanaeum, R II 66.
250 Wrocław, BU, I F 222, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College library, 524.
251 Munich, BSB, clm. 14023 and 27462.
9 4
UB, C 572 (written 1424 in Salcza), which has 6. res[?] – crossed out, with
no gloss, 7. reuertere, 8. parua. Thus, perhaps the scribe could not read the
sixth keyword in his model (grex?) and so erased it from his copy and gave
it no gloss. A subsequent copyist might have then omitted the keyword
altogether, thus ending up with 7‐chapter version of the Canticles. In any
case, however, the fact that the 7‐chapter version became so widespread is
remarkable.
In some cases the keywords end up at an incorrect position (reuertere is
used on the seventh rather than the sixth spot, and palmaque is in the
eighth rather than the seventh), but even though they vary, they can be
related to the text of the Canticles.
Chapter 6
grex = flock Sg 6,4: capilli tui sicut grex caprarum quae apparuerunt de
Galaad
(“Thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from Galaad”)
Sg 6,5 dentes tui sicut grex ovium
(“Thy teeth as a flock of sheep”)
dentes = teeth the same Sg 6,5
revertere = return Sg 6,12: Revertere, revertere, Sulamitis! revertere, revertere ut
intueamur te (“Return, return, O Sulamites: return, return that
we may behold thee”)
Here the variants grex and revertere divide the group. Re and rever are
obviously shortened forms of revertere, while dentes appears in a single
manuscript and might have moved to the keyword from what was originally
the gloss to grex. In my opinion, it is possible that grex was not favored
as a keyword for chapter 6 because it appears twice (although in the plural)
in chapter 4 in very similar phrases: 4:1‐2 Capilli tui sicut greges caprarum
quæ ascenderunt de monte Galaad. Dentes tui sicut greges tonsarum… (“Thy
hair is as flocks of goats, which come up from mount Galaad, thy teeth as
flocks of sheep…”). These phrases thus do not clearly designate chapter 6 in
one’s mind.
Chapter 7
quid = what 7,1: quid videbis in Sulamiten nisi choros castrorum
(“what shalt thou see in the Sulamites but the companies of
camps?”)
quam = how 7,1: Quam pulchri sunt gressus tui in calceamentis
(“How beautiful are thy steps in shoes”)
quam pulcha = how beautiful—the same 7,1
palma = palm tree [7,7: statura tua adsimilata est palmae
(“thy stature is like to a palm tree”)] or:
7,8: Dixi: Ascendam in palmam
(“I said: I will go up into the palm tree”)
palmamque = and the palm tree—the same 7,8
ascendam = I will go up—the same 7,8
vinea = vineyard 7,8 erunt ubera tua sicut botri vineae
9 5
(“thy breasts shall be as the clusters of the vine”)
7,12 mane surgamus ad vineas
(“let us get up early to the vineyards”)
tua = your 7,8 erunt ubera tua sicut botri vineae
(“thy breasts shall be as the clusters of the vine”)
All the variants have a connection to the Bible and only tua is very weak as
a keyword since the word appears many times in the Canticles. Within this
particular chapter, it could refer to Sg 7,3 Duo ubera tua sicut duo hinnuli
(“Thy two breasts are like two young roes”) or Sg 7,7 Statura tua assimilata
est palmæ, et ubera tua botris (“Thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy
breasts to clusters of grapes”), but the copyist of the manuscript includes
the gloss ubera erant sicut botri si floruisset (“[your] breasts were clusters
[of vine] if it flourished”), which links the keyword to Sg 7,7. Since the
preceding keyword in this manuscript is the unique rever, perhaps tua is a
corruption or correction from ‐tere—the original revertere becoming rever.
tua. But this cannot be proven.
Chapter 8
quis (mihi) = who (to me) 8,1: quis mihi det te fratrem meum sugentem…
(“Who shall give thee to me for my brother”)
parua = small 8,8: soror nostra parva,et ubera non habet…
(“Our sister is little, and hath no breasts”)
nostra parva = our small the same 8,8
soror = sister the same 8,8
In addition to these variants based on the two basic groups, three more
versions exist that are even further from those already discussed. Here the
copyists may also have encountered the seven‐chapter version and decided
to rework the end of the verse completely:
4 5 6 7 8
[fons] laus grex veni fortis252
[fons melle] quo quid aque multe253
quam surgeque lilia quid que254
The copyist of the third of these unique versions was quite creative, as he
was on other occasions as well within the Summarium. He offered laus
(“praise”) for the fifth chapter, and although this word does not appear
anywhere in the chapter, it is apt in describing its contents. Similarly the
other two new words do well in recalling the contents of the respective
songs:
252 Prague, NL, I F 43.
253 Cambridge, MA, Houghton library, Riant 93, Klosterneuburg, SB, 428, Munich, UB, 2o
677 and 4o 13, Wrocław, BU, I F 296; and, with a variant multe for aque multe, also
most probably in the original reading of Uppsala, UB, C 172 (before it was corrected
by a later hand).
254 Lilienfeld, SB, 145.
9 6
veni = come Sg 7,11: veni dilecte mi egrediamur in agrum
(“come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field”)
fortis = strong Sg 8,6: fortis est ut mors dilectio
(“for love is strong as death”)
The second version is witnessed in five manuscripts.255 The third changes
the words for chapters 4‐8 using a simple and clear strategy of selection:
the copyist chose words appearing within the first verse of each song,
usually the very first one.256 One exception is que for chapter 8, which might
be a mistake for the more suitable quis; another is surge (“arise”), which
stands for chapter 5 but appears at the end of chapter 4 in the Bible. This is
similar to the choice of quo for the sixth song (above), which is actually the
first word of the last verse of the fifth song.
This overview outlines the individual improvements effected by various
copyists who were faced with a corrupted text. In addition, just as in the
previous case, at least three manuscripts were manifestly collated. One
includes the variants as variants found in other manuscripts, introducing
them by alii (“others”). It must have been based on the seven‐chapter
version of the Canticles, as it keeps the division into seven:
oscula. flos. noctes. fons. melle. reuertere alii grex. parua alii palmaque.257
The other two of them present two alternatives to the last three keywords,
one after each of them, the other putting all three alternatives at the end of
the verse. Because one begins with a seven‐chapter version and the other
with an eight‐chapter version, their Song of Songs has ten and eleven chapters
respectively:
oscula. flos. noctes. fons. melle. mel. reuertere. grex. parua. palmamque.258
oscula. flos. nocte. fons. mel. grex. palmaque. parua. quo. quid. aque multe.259
The result is, again, rather confusing.
* * *
Both these case studies seem to reconfirm the suspicion that the division
of the Bible could not have been truly settled in the fifteenth century.
255 If counting Uppsala, UB, C 172, then in six. The keywords refer to:
quo = where Sg 5,17: Quo abiit dilectus (“Whither is thy beloved gone”)
quid = what Sg 7,1: quid videbis in Sulamiten (“what shalt thou see in the Sulamites”)
aquae multae = many waters Sg 8,7: aquae multae non poterunt extinguere caritatem
(“Many waters cannot quench charity”)
256 4. quam = first word of the song 4; 5. surge = first line of the last verse of the song 4;
6. lilia = first line of the song 6; 7. quid = first word of the song 7; 8. que = first word
of 8,5 (the first word of the first line of song 8 is quis).
257 Munich, BSB, clm. 15606, f. 146v.
258 Prague, NL, I G 11a, the copy of Cruz de Telcz.
259 Prague, NL, VIII D 27.
9 7
Another possibility is that the copyists were not deeply concerned with the
referential value of the Summarium. A third explanation is provided in a
general remark at the explicit of the Summarium in Munich, BSB, clm. 4358:
Explicit tractatus tocius biblie et fere quodlibet verbum continet unum capitulum ita
quod semper vel modicum post vel ante invenies illud et non erit tibi difficultas
querendi.260
Here ends the treatise of the whole Bible and almost every word contains one
chapter so that you find it always either a little bit after or a little bit before, and
you will have no difficulty in searching.
Thus, at least one reader of the Summarium interpreted the keywords not
as words chosen to recall the contents of a particular chapter but as words
taken from the biblical sections around every new chapter, helping the
reader to find these within the Bible.
The presented variety within the summaries of single books of the Bible
in the Summarium shows clearly how instabile the transmission of the text
is. The fact that the text of the Bible was not divided into fixed chapters
even as late as the fifteenth century, this fact could not possibly be the only
reason for the unsettled transmission of the Summarium. The variants arise
to some degree also because the Summarium is not a typical text but rather
a list of words, and thus it is much more easily corrupted. But the above
examples also reveal creativity in the keyword selection, and prove that the
copyists were comparing and collating manuscripts much more frequently
than it is normally assumed. Again, in the transformations of the Summarium,
we witness, on the one hand, a careful philological work, comparison,
collation, and creativity in attempting to develop an efficient mnemonic
tool, and, on the other, a neglect for the referential value of the text, confusion,
and obscurity.
l) Towards a text
The deeper one immerses oneself into studying the manuscript transmission
of the Summarium, the more elusive the text becomes. The individual
versions are textually very far from one another, many of the keywords
are meaningful, but many remain obscure. The fact that a strikingly great
number of the manuscripts is contaminated and collated makes it impossible
to create a traditional edition by applying the Lachmann’s method. I
previously thought that the reading of Lilienfeld, SB, 145, a manuscript from
the early fourteenth century, was likely to be near the original version.261
Yet, subsequent scrutiny revealed that this version is unique on many occasions.
It might still be near the original, of course, but then the original
260 On f. 20r‐v.
261 See Lucie Doležalová, “Biblia quasi in saculo.”
9 8
would have been corrupted very early, and it was the new version that
became most widespread.
Thus far I have not managed to identify a manuscript or a group of
manuscripts that I could claim to be near the root of the tradition. Philipp
Roelli from the University of Zurich ran my transcriptions of the Summarium
through his program for text comparison,262 and had a kind of a
genealogical tree generated. Unfortunately, no computer program created
thus far has been able to “root” the tree (i.e. to specify the near‐original
version), and to account for the collations. This is a serious drawback as
manuscript collation took place in transmitting the Summarium very
frequently. The rough groups that are generated in this way, however, are
useful, and although they do not suggest which of the readings should be
selected as a basis of an edition, they help to eliminate the manuscripts that
are of little relevance for a study of the variations of the text.
The interest in the particular form in which the texts appear in the
medieval manuscripts as propagated by Bernard Cerquiglini or Stephen G.
Nichols brought about changes in the conception as well as in the editing of
medieval texts.263 As a result, editors have been more concerned with
avoiding the production of artificial versions unsubstantiated by the manuscript
tradition. Frequently, text editions present not the “best” (the closest
to the “original”) but simply one, or even the most unique manuscript
version, and the manuscript tradition is explored as an elucidating source of
the reception of a particular text.
At the same time, the primary task of editors is still to present a text in a
reader‐friendly format, and thus, only a limited space is available for an
admiration of all the variants; most of them are eventually neglected.264
This practice does not seem to have very grave consequences: the manuscript
variants indeed tend to be numerous, and when one attempts to
262 For details on his method, see Philipp Roelli, “Towards Generating a Stemma of
Complicated Manuscript Traditions: Petrus Alfonsi’s Dialogus,” Revue d’histoire des
textes n.s. 5 (2010): 307‐21.
263 Bernard Cerquiglini, Éloge de la variante. Histoire critique de la philologie, Des
Travaux (Paris: Seuil, 1989), and the “New Philology” Speculum volume of 1990 Ed.
Stephen G. Nichols.
264 See, e.g., Richard Trachsler, “Les Fables de Marie de France. Manuscrits et éditions,”
Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 44 (2001): 45‐63; Carmen Cardelle de Hartmann
and Estrella Pérez Rodríguez, “Text im Wandel und editorische Praxis: Der
lateinische Contemptus sublimitatis (Dialogus creaturarum) in der handschriftlichen
Überlieferung,” in Didaktisches Erzählen: Formen literarischer
Belehrung in Orient
und Okzident, ed. Regula Forster and Romy Günthart (Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang, 2010), 21‐40; and also Lucie Doležalová, “The Thin Borderline between the
Same and the Different: Reproducibility of Medieval Manuscripts,” in Reproducibility—
Arts, Science, and Living Nature: 10th Villa Lanna Meeting on «Science, or Else?»
Prague, January 1113,
2008, ed. Amrei Wittwer, Elvan Kut, Vladimir Pliska, and Gerd
Folkers, Collegium Helveticum Heft 5 (Zurich: Collegium Helveticum, 2008), 81‐87.
9 9
analyze all of them, the work becomes tiresome and often simply not
manageable. In addition, a great majority of textual variants are mere
scribal mistakes that do not allow one to make any conclusions about the
way the particular text was read and interpreted.
I believe that the best way to represent the text of the Summarium is
through a digital edition that will allow the reader to choose a particular
manuscript reading, or to compare several of them, to find which is the
most widespread, to consult a digital image of the actual manuscript
concerned, etc. Digital editing also allows for easier adjustments by the
editor when new important manuscript witnesses are discovered. I am
currently at work on such an edition.265
At the same time, however, a digital edition including the manuscript
images will not make the text of the Summarium easily consultable and
graspable. The elusive character of the text will remain, it will not be
supressed but rather come to the fore as one of the main characteristic
features of the text.
3. Physical contexts
The character of the actual use and function of the Summarium during
the Middle Ages can be revealed through the discussion of its physical
context. As a method, it is rather straightforward: judgement and evaluation
of the text itself is postponed, while its physical surroundings are examined.
It is like analyzing a person’s character through examining his or her close
friends—certainly not the only relevant method but one that is worthwhile
even if only as an excercise. In case of medieval texts, it is one of the methods
that can actually be used (which, because of the lack of sources cannot
be said about many other ones).
The Summarium is primarily transmitted in two types of codices: the
Bibles and miscellanies. Miscellanies with the Summarium are most
frequently codices containing material useful for preachers and/or
students, thus representing manuscripts originating in both monastic and
university environments. They are not restricted to a particular monastic
order or region,266 and they usually comprise a great number of short texts,
among them other biblical retellings, mnemonic aids for the Bible, various
265 This will be a result of a sub‐project within a larger project led by Stephen G. Nichols
and supported by the Mellon foundation, entitled “Innovative Scholarship for Digitized
Medieval Manuscripts Delivered in an Interoperable Environment” (2011‐
2013). Together with F.G. Kiss, E. Poleg, and R. Wójcik, I address these issues in a
study ”Old Light on New Media: Medieval Practices in a Digital Ages,” submitted to
Digital Philology.
266 Moreover, in the Czech lands they appear both in the Catholic and the Hussite environment.
E.g., Olomouc, VK, M I 161 belonged to Catholics, while Prague, NL, XVIII B
18, to the Hussites.
10 0
summae and libri pauperum, sermons, brief tracts, moral considerations, or
general medieval “bestsellers.”
a) The Summarium within Bibles
At present I have traced some 90 Bible codices containing the Summarium,
that is, about one fourth of the identified Summarium manuscripts
appear together with the Bible. However, I am convinced that the actual
ratio is much higher, perhaps even 50%. While in case of the miscellanies
the contents of the codex tend to be described in more detail in manuscript
catalougues, Bibles are often catalogued simply as Bibles. Thus the Summarium
copies are often easier to find within the miscellanies. This idea is
confirmed by the Czech cases that I have studied in greater detail: 19 of the
37 Summarium manuscripts of Czech origin (i.e. 51%) are found in biblical
codices.
It is not surprising to find the Summarium within the Bible. In fact, the
Summarium is a text that makes better sense together with the Bible—one
actually needs the Bible in order to understand it. Thus, putting the two
texts side by side physically is meaningful and practical,267 although the
Summarium is not without competition in this regard.268
The Summarium appears either at the beginning or at the end of the
biblical codices and only rarely do we find it somewhere else within the
book.269 It is sometimes preceded or followed by other addenda, such as
Interpretationes nominum hebraicorum,270 concordances, capitula or lists of
lectiones. Very frequently the Summarium is copied by a hand that is
267 See, e.g., Karl Stackmann, “Die Bedeutung des Beiwerks für die Bestimmung der
Gebrauchssituation vorlutherischer deutschen Bibeln,” in De captu lectoris.
Wirkungen des Buches im 15. und 16 Jahrhundert, ed. Wolfgang Milde and Werner
Schuder (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1988), 273‐88; Christine Wulf, “Tituli, Kapitelreihen,
Buchsummarien. Überlegungen zu texterschließenden Beigaben in vorlutherischen
Bibeln,” Vestigia bibliae 9/10 (1991): 385‐399.
268 E.g., the so‐called “Bible kněze Michala” (The Bible of the Priest Michal) from 1423,
kept in Prague, NL, VI E 14 presents condensed contents of each biblical book after
the individual prologues and before the actual text of the book. It includes various
other notes, among them the brief poem on the order of the biblical books inc.: Sunt
Genes. ex. le. (see above). But it does not include the Summarium. (For more on the
competition with the Summarium, see chapter II.4.)
269 Among the manuscripts noted and viewed, 21 present the Summarium at the very
beginning, 11 near the beginning, 23 at the very end, and 23 near the end. In 5 codices
part of the Summarium appears at the beginning with its continuation in the end.
In one codex, Prague, NL, VI B 11, the Summarium is inserted very unexpectedly in
the middle of the Book of Job. This is, however, a special case indeed and it is likely
that it is the result of an error as after the Summarium the Book of Job begins again
rather than continuing from the point of interruption.
270 Cf. Eyal Poleg’s contribution in Form and Function of Late Medieval Bible, eds. Eyal
Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden: Brill, in print).
10 1
substantially later, and thus it is certain that it was not part of the original
creating of the codex.
While within the miscellanies glosses to the Summarium sometimes
become long descriptions, within the Bibles the Summarium tends to be
accompanied only by interlinear notes of a few words, or is left without
glosses all together. Long chapter descriptions are not necessary as the fulltext
version of the Bible is close at hand.
In its contents the Summarium usually corresponds to the Bible in which
it appears. Thus the particular version of the Summarium mirrors the order
and number of the biblical books in the copy of the Bible to which it is
attached.271 If only part of the Bible is included, only the relevant part of the
Summarium tends to be copied in it.
In several codices, the Summarium may even have operated as a table of
contents to the Bible. E.g., in Olomouc, VK, M I 161,272 it is included in its
entirety at the end of the codex, and, in addition, the appropriate Summarium
keywords are added to the relevant chapters within the biblical
text itself.273 Munich, BSB, clm. 3447 contains the Old Testament from
Genesis to Ecclesiasticus with the relevant Summarium keywords next to
the biblical chapters, and, in the end, the relevant part of the Summarium
(Gen‐Eccl) again altogether with superscript glosses. A special but not
unique occurrence is the copying of the relevant verses from the Summarium
at the beginnings of the individual books of the Bible. Among
others,274 we find this way of presenting the Summarium also in Munich,
BSB, clm. 14001 (codex from the second half of the twelfth century with
additions from the first quarter of the fourteenth century), which includes
Old Testament from Genesis to the Fourth Book of Kings: the relevant
Summarium verses are added on top of each page where a particular book
begins (see Fig. 8).
Yet, the complete correspondence between the Bible and this tool to it
does not always occur. In the first place, it is important to recall that the
Summarium does not include verses for the Psalms, and thus, it does not
give an overview of the whole Bible, unless it appears with a Bible that lacks
the Psalms, as is the case in, e.g., Olomouc, VK, M II 31 or Prague, NL, I A 39.
271 A good example is the enormous codex Munich, BSB, clm. 14023 (written in 1450,
owned by the monastery of St. Emmeram).
272 The Bible was previously owned by Bernardines in Olomouc; see Miroslav Boháček
and František Čáda, Beschreibung der mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Wissenschaftlichen
Staatsbibiothek von Olmütz (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 1994), no. 32.
273 This is, however, only the case within the New Testament, with which the codex
opens. Within the Old Testament that follows, the Summarium keywords are not
included within the Bible itself.
274 E.g., in Munich, BSB, clm. 28543 (from 1463/64), which is not a full Bible but only
the Gospels, the relevant verses of the Summarium are copied at the beginning of
each Gospel.
10 2
The omission of the Psalms seems to bother readers more when the
Summarium is copied with the Bible than when it is found in miscellanies
and mnemonic verses are sometimes added for the Psalms as well.275
In addition, in many cases the Summarium copy included in a biblical
codex has clearly been taken from elsewhere without concern for its correspondence
to the particular Bible it acompanies. They each present a different
order of books and a different number of chapters without any correction
or attempt at reconciliation. As discussed above, the Song of Songs is
very often represented by only seven Summarium keywords even though it
contains eight chapters; or, the Book of Genesis, which has 50 chapters in
the Bible, is often incorrectly divided into 51 within the Summarium.
Thus, one cannot simply conclude that the Summarium within the Bibles
worked as a table of contents or as a practical mnemonic tool. In some cases
it is made to fulfill this function, in other cases it seems to be included without
concern for its potential as a useful reference tool.
b) The Summarium within late medieval miscellanies
Medieval miscellanies may be defined simply as codices that are not easy
to categorize as far as their contents are concerned, or as a group of “leftovers”
within both medieval catalogues of library holdings and contemporary
catalogues of medieval manuscripts. At the same time, it should be
kept in mind that they are the single largest kind of medieval manuscripts,
which until recently was not considered in its own right as of scholarly
interest as a distinct group.276
275 These are not inserted at the place in the Summarium where the Psalms should be,
but appear after or before its text. Most frequently we simply find a list of the first
verses of each Psalm, but several other texts are constructed differently even though
they have the same mnemonic aim.
276 Recent volumes on the topic include Edoardo Crisci and Oronzo Pecere, eds., Il
codice miscellaneo. Tipologie e funzioni. Atti del Convegno internazionale Cassino 1417
maggio 2003, a special issue of Segno e testo: International Journal of Manuscripts
and Their Transmission 2 (2004); Stephen G. Nichols and Siegfried Wenzel, eds., The
Whole Book: Cultural Perspectives on the Medieval Miscellany (Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press, 1996); R. Jansen‐Sieben and H. van Dijk, eds., Codices
miscellanearum, a special issue of Archives et bibliothèques de Belgique 60 (1999);
and L. Doležalová and Kimberly Rivers, eds., Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies: Composition,
Authorship, Use (Leiden: Brill, accepted for publication).
10 3
Fig. 8: Ms. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, clm. 14001, f. 5v (s. XIV, Germany or
Austria); Bible in which the Summarium is superscript on top of the pages where relevant
Bible books begin
Surely, one cannot simply claim that the apparent variety has a unity
and that there is a clear purpose behind the seeming randomness. Yet, an
exploration of texts in their material contexts means entering an exciting
world full of very relevant material waiting to be interpreted. This is in
itself not a new approach. It has already been justified (e.g., as “materialist
10 4
philology” suggested by Stephen G. Nichols and Siegfried Wenzel in The
Whole Book) and the basic terminology has already been developed (e.g., by
J. Peter Gumbert,277 Marilena Maniaci,278 or Denis Muzerelle279). Late medieval
miscellanies indeed often seem to have served as personal encyclopedias,
as a source of condensed knowledge otherwise available only in thick
volumes. The fact that they combine history and fiction, personal devotion
and general advice, or science and entertainment, is perhaps the characterizing
feature of this “genre” centered on easily accessible, selected, and
practically useful information.
The studies currently carried out usually establish an argument for a
unity of purpose or use behind a specific miscellany. It should, however, be
kept in mind that an intent to the compilation is not the rule. As Vincent
Gillespie states: “Miscellany manuscripts are frequently governed by an
inscrutable internal logic and even more often by the random acquisition of
material.”280 On the other hand, even a “random” collection is never absolutely
random: one can only gather what is accessible at a certain time and
place, which means the choice is certainly not unlimited and is dependent
on historical, cultural, and social conditions. The tension between randomness
and order, the question of the recoverability of intent, or the problems
in identifying meaning form part of any historical enquiry. The material
context of medieval texts is the most immediate context in which they
originated and were received, a context that may be tedious to process and
tricky to interpret but is undeniable, palpable, and exciting.
It is in my opinion impossible to classify the miscellanies containing the
Summarium. They are too varied: some of the volumes (e.g., sermon collections)
are quite unified and easily describable with the Summarium added
at the end or the beginning, others are very miscellaneous. If there is a
pattern, it concerns rather concrete texts or types of texts that are often
included in the immediate vicinity of the Summarium.
277 J. Peter Gumbert, “Codicological Units: Towards a Terminology for the Stratigraphy
of the Non‐Homogenous Codex,” in Il codice miscellaneo, 17‐42.
278 Marilena Maniaci, Terminologia del libro manoscritto (Rome: Istituto centrale per la
patologia del libro, 1996).
279 Denis Muzerelle, Vocabulaire codicologique. Répertoire méthodique des termes
français relatifs aux manuscrits (Paris: CEMI, 1985). For a further bibliography, see
the contributions of Alessandro Zironi and Eva Nyström in Medieval Manuscript
Miscellanies.
280 Vincent Gillespie, “Vernacular Books of Religion,” in Book Production and Publishing
in Britain, 13751475,
eds. Jeremy Griffiths and Derek Pearsall, Cambridge Studies in
Publishing and Printing History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989),
325.
10 5
α) Biblical retellings and mnemonics
The physical vicinity of the Summarium is dominated by biblical mnemonics.
An observable fact of the manuscript tradition of these tools in
general is the almost fluid transformation of their manuscript presentation
as poetry or prose. When there are glosses, they are sometimes fully
integrated into the main text. The words that were originally cut short are
restored, an act that aids comprehension but violates the meter. In other
copies they are omitted again to create a succinct poem. It seems that the
authors, as well as the copyists, hesitated between the brevity offered by
the extreme abridgement, and the clarity offered by the simple prose
retelling.
Biblical mnemonics is surely not a genre or a literary type (these texts
share a single feature, which is the facilitation of access to the Bible) but the
function they have seems enough to link them very closely in a late medieval
context. The group character is established most strongly by the fact
that these texts do not have a fixed title; instead, their titles are almost
freely interchangeable. The titles used for the Summarium listed above are
used with other full‐scale biblical mnemonics and even several of the high
medieval biblical retellings as well, and there does not seem to be a
system.281
In addition to their fluctuating titles, also the attached prologues seem
to have a generic function and move among the texts of this group: the
already mentioned Compendium historiae in genealogia Christi of Peter of
Poitiers is sometimes accompanied by a prologue:
Considerans scripturae sacrae prolixitatem necnon et difficultatem, scholarium
quoque circa studium sacrae lectionis, maxime illius, quae in historiae fundamento
versatur, negligentiam quorundam quoque ex inopia librorum imperitiae suae
solatium quaerentium, volentibus quasi in sacculo quodam memoriter tenere
narrationes historiarum, tentavi seriem sanctorum patrum, a quibus per Leviticum
et regalem tribum Christus originem habuit, cum eorum operibus in unum
opusculum redigere…
Considering the length as well as the difficulty of the Sacred Scripture, and also
the scholars’ negligence of the study of the sacred page, especially that which
deals with the background of history, as well as [the negligence] of those [scholars]
in need of consolation for their ignorance because of their lack of books, for
those wishing to hold the stories of the [biblical] history in their memory like in
some small bag, I tried to edit into one opuscle the succession of the saintly
fathers from whom—through Leviticus and the royal tribe—Christ originated,
together with their deeds…
281 E.g., in Lilienfeld, SB, 145, there is a prose retelling of the Bible entitled Biblia pauperum,
immediately followed by the Summarium entitled Biblia pauperum metrica (see
also Fig. 1).
10 6
The prologue stresses the abundance and difficulty of the existing texts and
scholarship, in which one easily becomes lost, together with the consequent
need for condensation and abbreviation. This is a topos that reappears in
medieval prologues, in which many medieval authors present themselves as
the mere mediators of previously expressed thoughts—as those who
condense, select the most important texts and order (but never compose or
invent) them, so that one would not have to go through large existing
volumes but simply have their core at hand. This is connected with their
display of modesty by calling their works opuscula.282 One would, therefore,
not be surprised to find a similar prologue in front of a similar text.
Yet, in Oxford, BoL, Marshall 86 on f. 100r283 and in two more manuscripts,
284 a text that is not merely similar but almost identical is attached to
the Summarium Biblie:
Scripture sacre considerans prolixitatem nec non et difficultatem scolarium
quoque circa studium sacrae lectionis et maxime bibliotice [!] negligenciam et
presentim quorundam ex inopia librorum impericie sue solacia quaerencium.
Volensque quasi in saculo quodam memoriter tenere narraciones historiarum,
temptavi seriem librorum biblie a genesis scilicet incipiens et usque ad apocalipsim
perducens in unum redigens opusculum compendiose metrice compilavi.
Considering the length as well as the difficulty of the Sacred Scripture, and also
the scholars’ negligence of the study of the sacred page, as well as [the negligence]
of those [scholars] in need of consolation for their ignorance because of
their lack of books, and wishing to hold the stories of the history in memory as
in some small bag, I tried [and], compiled the succession of the books of the
Bible beginning from the Genesis and arriving till the Apocalypse within one
opuscle in a metrical manner.
The two differ basically only in the brief description of the text that
follows—a genealogy in the first case, a poem in the second. Although
tracing the exact transmission and adaptation of this prologue285 as well as
an analysis of the whole large group of biblical mnemonic texts is a task
exceeding the scope of the present study, its reoccurrence is an important
feature stressing the functional unity of the group.
282 Another reappearing feature, missing here, is to point out that the author would not
dare to write the present text but he was (repeatedly) asked to do so by his friends
(colleagues, students, or superiors). The author then usually asks the readers to be
benevolent and proceeds to encourage anyone more able to correct his attempt.
283 The manuscript previously had the shelfmark Add B.28, and is described in the
second volume of Madan’s Summary Catalogue no. 5297, p. 1001‐1002. It consists of
five originally independent parts from the first half of the fifteenth century. The fifth
part, on f. 100r‐107v, contains only the Summarium up to the Fourth Book of Kings.
284 Clermont‐Ferrand, BM, 44, f. 147r, and Munich, BSB, clm. 14023, f. 643r.
285 Beside the quoted manuscripts, the same prologue seems to precede Innichen, SB,
III c 11 as well. In Heidelberg, UB, Pal. Germ. 110, it is attached to Peter of Rosenheim’s
Roseum memoriale in its German translation.
10 7
The particular texts of this type that appear in the Summarium’s physical
vicinity are many. We repeatedly find the older “bestsellers” discussed
above, Petrus Comestor’s prose retelling Historia scholastica,286 Petrus
Riga’s versified Aurora,287 and Petrus Pictaviensis’ Compendium historiae in
genealogia Christi.288 The Summarium is further copied together with its
contemporaries: Petrus Rosenheim’s Roseum memoriale,289 Guido
Vicentinus’ Margarita,290 or Johannes Schlitpacher’s Fragmentum biblie.291
Quite a few manuscripts include several texts such as this side by side.
E.g., Vatican City, BAV, lat. 945 (s. XIV) has (alongside the Summarium) two
biblical prose retellings: the so‐called Compendium litteralis sensus tocius
divine scripture292 written in 1319 by Petrus Aureoli (1280‐1322)293; and a
text entitled Liber sententiarum capitulorum tocius biblie per ordinem—a list
286 The Historia scholastica appears together with the Summarium in Munich, BSB, clm.
7989, and, in a shortened version in Augsburg, SSB, fol. 92. In Vatican City, BAV, lat.
1290, the Summarium is followed by a summary of the Historia scholastica. We also
find the Historia in Angers, BM, 27 (23), which, however, is a 13th c. manuscript to
which the Summarium was added in the 14th c.
287 An example of Aurora is found in Munich, BSB, clm. 9529, Prague, NL, VIII D 27, or
Vyšší Brod, ML, 91.
288 The transmission pattern of the last mentioned is special: many of the surviving
manuscripts feature the work on a long parchment (often folded in order to fit the
codex), accompanied by illuminations and various layouts that support its
mnemonic function. The glosses often address theological questions and provide
quotations from church authorities. For details see Stella Pantayotova, “Peter of
Poitiers’s Compendium”; Hans‐Eberhard Hilpert, “Geistliche Bildung und Laienbildung:
Zur Überlieferung der Schulschrift Compendium historiae in genealogia
Christi (Compendium veteris testamenti) des Petrus von Poitiers (+1205) in
England,” Journal of Mediaeval History 11:4 (1985): 315‐31; Aurora Di Mauro, “Un
contributo alla mnemotecnica medievale: Il Compendium historiae in genealogia
Christi in una redazione pisana del XIII secolo,” in Il codice miniato: rapporti tra
codice, testo e figurazione. Atti del III Congresso di Storia della Miniatura, ed. Melania
Ceccanti and Maria Cristina Castelli (Florence: Olschki, 1992), 453‐67. Together
with the Summarium it is found, e.g., in Eichstätt, UB, 205, Oxford, BoL, Auct. D. 4. 10,
Ottobeuren, Bibliothek der Abtei, O.53 (48), Prague, Library of the Academy, I Tb 3,
or Vienna, ÖNB, Pal. lat. 4535.
289 E.g., Graz, UB, 665 (lost), Munich, BSB, clm. 14670.
290 E.g., Gotha, HB, 108.
291 E.g., Augsburg, SSB, fol. 193.
292 Inc.: Venite ascendamus ad montem domini… Gregorius xxiii moralium exponens illus
Iob; also called Breviarium Bibliorum or Divisiones librorum utriusque testamenti;
here on f. 1r‐182r. It was a popular work surviving in at least 40 mss. (without the
Summarium it is also copied, e.g., in Prague, NL, IV C 4; IX C 9, and XIII C 6) and
printed at least 14 times between 1476 and 1647 (cf. RB, no. 6422). The most recent
edition is: Philibert Seeboeck, Compendium litteralis sensus totius diuine scripture:
editum a fratre Petro Aureoli… (Quaracchi: Typ. Coll. S. Bonaventura, 1896).
293 Or Aureolus, d’Auriol; a Franciscan philosopher and theologian, archbishop of Aix
(from 1321).
10 8
of the first sentences of each biblical chapter followed by a summary of its
contents.294
The Summarium manuscript Lilienfeld, SB, 145, on f. 161r, contains a
curious mnemonic poem combining the Decalogue with the ten plagues of
Egypt, beginning:
Unus adoretur Deus et sanguis minuetur
vanum videtur nomen nec rana timetur
One God should be worshipped and the blood will diminish
the name seems in vain so that there is no fear of frogs
Also every subsequent line consists of a precept followed by a plague—if
the precept is kept, there will be no such plague.295
Three times we find, together with the Summarium, a poem created in
the very same way on the Gospel parts in the order they are to be read at
mass during the liturgical year. In Wrocław, BU, I O 6 they directly precede
the Summarium, in Wrocław, BU, I F 323 and I Q 158 they are separate from
it. In the former they are entitled Versus super ewangelia dominicalia tocius
anni (“Verses on the Sunday gospels of the whole year”). They begin:
294 On 185r‐272v; inc.: In principio creavit dues celum et terram. De operibus sex dierum.
De distinctione et ornatu eorum. De formacione et perfectione hominis. 2. Igitur
perfecti sunt celi. Deus requiescat ab opera. Describitur paradisus. Homo introducitur.
Datur preceptum. Et imponuntur nomina. Formatur eva… Apocal. Cap. 22: Et ostendit
michi. De fluvio procedente de throno agni… de inopinato adventu ad iudicium. Vocat
christus accipiendam gloriam. In fine ponitur Iohannis contestacio. Amen. The Psalms,
Song of Songs, and Baruch are omitted.
295 In the Lilienfeld manuscript the whole reads:
Unus adoretur Deus et sanguis minuetur
vanum videtur nomen nec rana timetur
sabbata sacrentur per qua cynifes abigentur
patris honorentur carnes musceque prementur
si non occides peccorum nil morte relides
non mechando vides sic vulnera turgida rides
cum non furatur nec grandinis igne tonatur
si non testatur res facta locusta fugatur
fratris nolle thorum tenebris illustrat aurorum
nec res velle thorum salvat primogenitorum.
To my knowledge, the same poem also appears in Prague, NL, I G 39 (a miscellany
from Bohemia 1360‐1380), on f. 82v, entitled: Remedia contra decem plagas sunt
decem precepta (“The remedies for ten plagues are ten commandments”). See
Victorin Doucet, Commentaires sur les Sentences, Supplément au répertoire de M.
Frédéric Stegmüller (Florence: Ad claras aquas, 1954), no. 18, 19. G. E. Mohan,
“Initia operum Franciscalium (XIII‐XV S.),” Franciscan Studies 38 (1978) 377‐498, at
p. 486, attributes it to Mauritius de Portu Fildaeus. A poem of a similar type
combines the Old Testament prophets with the Symbolum apostolorum which is
already divided among the individual apostles (together with the Summarium, e.g.,
in Graz, UB, 309).
10 9
Castellum. signum. vinclis. vox. anna. remansit.
Castle. sign. chains. voice. Anna. remained.296
Each keyword calls to memory the particular Gospel passage to be read on
the particular Sunday at Mass: castellum—Luke 21, signum—Luke 21,
vinculis—Matthew 11, etc. There are several other manuscripts of this text
(which to my knowledge is still unedited).297
* * *
It is very clear that biblical retellings and mnemonic tools form a thematic
group, but it is a group that is not necessarily transmitted together.
Typically, one selects one or a few of the texts from the group to copy and
omits the majority of them. The reason is clear: the use of the texts. No one
needs to have too many tools for remembering the contents of biblical
chapters. When several biblical memory aids are copied together, each of
them offers something different, e.g., a longer summary of the Bible
together with the brief Summarium are accompanied by a few verses on the
order of biblical books and the number of chapters they contain; this is the
observable pattern in the Summarium manuscripts. At the same time, there
are codices that compile a number of biblical mnemonics one after the
other, thus providing a variety of tools related to a single text. This is not an
exception in medieval manuscript culture; Siegfried Wenzel makes the
same observation about the transmission of artes praedicandi and explains:
But why were arts of preaching collected and copied in groups of two or three
or even more? At least part of an answer may be found in the opening words of
Quamvis: “Although in regard to sermon making a certain art cannot be handed
on…” Certa ars, I suggest, here means “a fixed or uniform technique,” a suggestion
that gains strength from the expansion of this phrase in one manuscript to
unica et certa ars (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 423). Indeed, while artes
praedicandi may agree in the basic structure of the scholastic sermon they
teach, they differ in the details with which they treat individual aspects, in their
296 The whole reads:
Castellum. signum. vinclis. vox. anna. remansit.
idria. lepra. nauis. zyzania. vinea. semen.
crux. temptans. catuli. regnum. panes. lapides. laus.
unctio. pax. pastor. modicum. vado. rete. pnewma.
mansio. credetis. diues. iuga. dragmaque. misertus.
rethe. racha. panes. a falsis. villicus. et flens.
phariseus. surdus. yericho. lepra. querite. naym.
idrops. mandatum. paraliticus. ite. regendus.
serve. miseratus. sum tibi. reddite. filia. panes (Wrocław, BU, I O 6, f. 2r); in Wrocław,
BU, I F 323, the incipit is castallum[!].
297 E.g., Cracow, BJ, 715, f. 28r; cf. Jean‐Pierre Rothschild,. Bibliographie annuelle du
Moyen Age tardif 7 (1997): no. 928; Repertorium initiorum manuscriptorum
latinorum medii aevi: AC,
ed. Jacqueline Hamesse.
11 0
emphases on one sermon part or another, and of course also in the illustrative
examples they provide… It seems, then, that if you wanted to give helpful
instruction on sermon making, copying out two different works was better than
one, and three was even better.298
Also within the artes memoriae, the necessity to make mnemonic aids
personal, fitting individual needs is a point made repeatedly. So perhaps the
situation with biblical mnemonics is comparable: they differ in details and
emphases, and thus each suits a different reader. When compiled, they,
together, should allow everyone to find something according to their tastes
and needs.
β) Non‐biblical mnemonics
A number of mnemonic verses to standard medieval school works were
written in exactly the same style as the Summarium, that is, with metrical
verses or unrelated juxtaposed keywords each summarizing a whole chapter
and usually accompanied by interlinear glosses. These appear together
with the Summarium very frequently, thus forming a coherent group of
mnemonic tools (rather than texts on the Bible). The link to mnemonic
function seems stronger than the thematic link to the Bible.
Most frequently encountered near the Summarium (and probably most
popular in general) are mnemonic aids to Peter Lombard’s Sentences and to
canon law (that is, Pope Gregory IX’s Decretalia, sometimes together with
Decretum Gratiani). They appear in its immediate vicinity in several
codices299 (Fig. 9) and further from it in others, while the space between is
often filled by other biblical mnemonic verses.300 What can we make out of
298 Sigfried Wenzel, “The Appearance of ‘Artes praedicandi’ in Medieval Manu‐scripts,”
in Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies.
299 The exact order of the texts varies. E.g.:
Basel, UB, A. XI. 66 (Summarium, Decretalia, […] Sentences)
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College Library, 524, London, BL, Add. 20009, and Graz,
UB, 1295 (Summarium, Sentences)
Copenhagen, KB, Ny. Kgl. Saml. 3b fol. (Summarium, Decretalia; this ms. consists of
only 16 folios which contain these two texts only)
Mainz, StB, I 22 (Summarium, Decretalia)
Munich, BSB, clm. 12391 (Summarium, Decretalia, Decretum)
Munich, BSB, clm. 14670 (Summarium, one other bibl. mnem., Decretum, Decretalia,
Sentences)
Munich, UB, 8o 344, Munich, BSB, clm. 15606 (Decretalia, Sentences, Summarium)
300 E.g.: Graz, UB, 665 (Decretum, other mnemonics, Summarium)
Munich, UB, 2o 677 (f. 114r Decretalia; f. 181r Summarium)
Prague, NL, I F 35 (Summarium, aid for Psalms, abbreviation for legal texts, Decretalia)
Wrocław, BU, I O 6 (Summarium, other aids, Sentences, canon law, other aid, Decretum,
other, Decretalia)
Wrocław, BU, I Q 158 (Sentences, Summarium, other mnemonics, Decretalia)
11 1
this combination of the Bible, Peter Lombard, and canon law? Various
theological and legal texts appear side by side in a majority of the Summarium
manuscripts, and witness a shift in theological concerns: moral
theology addresses a number of everyday life questions with specific
circumstances that have to be taken into account, and thus often encounters
canon law, which becomes its inherent part.301 Most importantly, these
were the basic texts taught at late medieval universities which each student
had to know.
Fig. 9: Ms. Mainz, Stadtbibliothek, Hs I 22 (from 1413), f. 347v‐348r, here the Summarium
is immediately followed by verses on Decretalia with the very same layout
The verses on the Sentences usually begin: Res. tres. vestigium. genuit.
natura. volando. I have traced 30 manuscripts so far but there are surely
many more.302 More variation occurs within the verses on the Decretalia.
301 See Daniel Hobbins, “The Schoolman as Public Intellectual: Jean Gerson and the Late
Medieval Tract,” The American Historical Review 108:5 (2003): 1308‐1337 (accessible
online).
302 Hans Walther, Initia carminum ac versuum Medii Aevi posterioris Latinorum. Alphabetisches
Verzeichnis der Versanfänge mittellateinischer Dichtungen (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), no. 16652, lists 13; the problem with finding the
mss. is the same as in the case of the Summarium discussed above. An alternative
but less frequent incipit is Res. tres. mens. genuit. essentia. velle. potestas. (to my
knowledge in two mss). London, BL, Add. 20009, fol. 259v, begins unusually: Quid.
dictum. ratio. pater. esse. volendoque. quirit.
11 2
Among several versions,303 the most common incipit is probably Summum.
constitue. rescriptum. consue. postul (found in at least 30 manuscripts304). A
special example is Basel, UB, A XI 66 (containing the Summarium). It
includes, on fols. 34r‐38r, a completely different version of the verses on
the Decretalia, entitled Capitula librorum quinque Decretalium. The verses
appear first (up to f. 35r), followed by a prose description. The verses
include often only parts of words, which are then continued in the superscript
gloss. Thus, it begins: Desum[ma trinitate et fide catholica habet duo
capitula…], cons [de titucionibus
habet 13 capitula]. The chain of keywords
continues: res. con. post. ele. tran. aucto. re. supplen. de tempo. scu. or. e. sac.
sacra. fil. ser. ob. et. cor. debig. decleri to come to a very curious sequence:
offi. offi. offi. offi. offi. offi. offi. offi. offi. offi. Although the glosses explain that
it is offi[cio archidiaconi], offi[cio archipresbyteri], offi[cio sacriste], etc., one
can hardly resist wondering about the efficiency of such a tool.
Several of the Summarium manuscripts also contain a very brief
summary of the Decretalia, revealing only the contents of each of the books:
Iudex, iudicium, clerus, sponsalia, crimen
hec tibi designant que quinque volumina signant.305
Judge, judgement, clerics, marriages, crime,
these point out for you what the five volumes [of the Decretalia] express.
The most rare among these are separate verses on the Decretum Gratiani
(inc.: Ast. vendens. intrans.306) because the Decretum itself was frequently
integrated into the Decretalia to form a basic collection of canon law, and
thus also the mnemonic verses on it are usually included in the verses on
the Decretalia.
Similar to the memorization of the Bible, the extreme condensation into
one keyword per chapter is not the only way of creating mnemonic aids for
these texts. Also the alternative condensations are found in the company of
the Summarium. E.g., Helwicus Magdeburgensis307 wrote, shortly before
1252, a longer aid to remember the Sentences (inc.: Res et signa sunt
303 E.g.: summa. constituens. rescriptum. consueque. postul. in at least four mss. (Walther,
Initia, no. 18752 knows three), or summam. constitue. rescriptum. consue. (which
Walther, Initia, no. 18763 notes in a single ms.).
304 Walther, Initia, no. 18797 cites 10 mss.
305 I know of 17 mss., Walther, Initia, no. 9895 lists 10.
306 Only two manuscripts are known to me.
307 He was a lector in Magdeburg after Bartholomaeus Anglicus, and later in Erfurt, died
1252. He wrote also Denarius sive Decacordus, ed. Ferdinand Doelle, in Beiträge zur
Geschichte der sächsischen Franziskanerprovinz vom heiligen Kreuze 1 (1908): 87‐96.
It was translated as: Das Büchlein von den göttlichen Wohltaten, trans. W. Meyer, in
Franz von Assisi. Aus dem religiösen Geistesleben seiner drei Orden, Reihe deutscher
Texte 2 (Werl in Westfalen, 1926), 27‐66.
11 3
doctrine duo membra…)308 which quickly became very popular as Lombardus
metricus. In Munich, BSB, clm. 8947 it is included within Textus sentenciarum
metrice, and is immediately followed by the first sixteen verses of
the Summarium.309 Or, a longer version of mnemonics for Decretum
Gratiani, which dedicates half a verse to each chapter (the prologue inc.:
Prima distinctio tractat de iure naturali et divino…, the text inc.: Aspice ius
binum, bene tunc species cape legum) is found together with the Summarium
in Munich, BSB, clm. 14670 and Wrocław, BU, I O 6.310
* * *
Clearly, more research on these tools, their composition, authorship and
interrelationships needs to be carried out, but the patterns of their
transmission in the later Middle Ages will certainly turn out to be comparable
to those of the Summarium—no fixed way of remembering these
important school and university texts exists; instead we find summaries in
prose or in verse, among them the extremely condensed poems of the
Summarium type. One sometimes encounters a combi‐nation of different
tools for one text (e.g., a prose summary of the Decretum followed by the
brief verses), or, as shown above, mnemonic aids for each of these texts
copied within one manuscript. Especially during the late fourteenth and the
fifteenth century, there seems to have been a real fashion of shortening and
condensing schooltexts, at times leading to incomprehensibility.
γ) Enumeration lists
A little more distant from the Summarium, both in its formal features
and within the physical manuscripts, are other, not strictly mnemonic
verses that can be seen as lists. The words listed in them belong to the same
category—most frequently they are nouns in the nominative, or verbs in a
particular form (e.g., third person singular, present tense). Unlike the
previous group, these are not so obscure initially because it is clear they are
enumerations: no one would consider connecting the words into a meaningful
sentence.
308 Expl.: Ex hoc gaudentes nil ipsis compacientes. See Doelle, “Beiträge zum Studium
und zu wissenschaftlicher Tätigkeit der Franziskaner zu Erfurt I,” Beiträge, 65‐86,
esp. 77‐78; Walther, Initia, no. 16620, Friedrich Stegmüller, Repertorium commentariorum
in Sententias Petri Lombardi (Würzburg: F. Schöningh, 1947), vol. 1, p. 19,
nos. 18‐20; Ludger Meier, Die Barfüsserschule zu Erfurt (Erfurt: Aschendorff, 1958),
p. 41, no. 1; Christine Stöllinger, “Helwicus von Magdeburg,” Die deutsche Literatur
des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon XI, 642.
309 It is certain that the whole Summarium was originally included. It is described as
Biblia pauperum metrica in the table of contents at the beginning of the codex, and
two more items are indicated as having been inserted after it, but f. 285v with the
beginning of the Summarium lines is now the last surviving page of the codex.
310 I am aware of 5 more manuscripts but there are surely many more.
11 4
In the Summarium manuscript Cambridge, Corpus Christi College
library, 524, the Summarium is immediately followed by the verses for the
Sentences, after which comes a section with several brief sermons and
tracts.311 The first of them is entitled De effectibus dominici corporis et
sanguinis (“On the effects of the Lord’s body and blood,” inc.: Sapore diuini
faui quisquis estuas)312 and is concerned with the effects of communion. As a
closer inspection reveals, the brief tract evolves around list‐like mnemonic
verses on the subject, inc.: Liberat. emollit. purgat. solidat. pia lux est. This
version is, to my knowledge, found only in this manuscript. However, other
list‐like mnemonic verses on the same subject, the effects of the Eucharist,
seem to have been widespread. The most popular must have been:
Inflammat, memorat, sustentat, roborat, auget
Hostia, spem purgat, reficit, vitam dat et unit;
Confirmatque fidem, munit fomitemque remittit.
Quot stellae in caelo vel guttae in flumine fontis,
Tot sacramenta tui reperis in corpore Christi.313
It lights up, brings to memory, supports, invigorates, extends
the host purifies hope, restores, gives and unites life,
and confirms faith, strengthens, sends away prejudice
As many as there are stars in heaven or drops in the flow of a fountain,
so many sacraments you find for yourself in the body of Christ.
I have treated the medieval transmission of these and similar verses elsewhere;
314 yet, this material remains vast and largely unexplored, and so no
substantial conclusions may be drawn at this stage. What is clear is that this
type of versified enumeration was very popular.
But is it appropriate to call them “mnemonic verses”? As it turns out, not
only a unified version of the verses, but even an authoritative or a theological
concept which should be remebered through them is missing. The actual
effects (although mostly 12 in number) are different in each version. What
is then to be remembered here? In my opinion, these texts are in reality not
mnemonic but meditative. One should keep in mind some (any) effects of
the Eucharist, to remind oneself of its importance in his or her life in a more
efficient way. Rather then simply remembering that Eucharist is crucial, one
311 See Jan Odstrčilík, “The Effects of Christ’s Coming into the Soul: A Case Study on a
Group of Anonymous Treatises in ms. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 524,”
Medium Aevum Quotidianum, in print.
312 It covers folios 112v‐26v.
313 I am aware of 14 mss. of the poem. Walther, Initia, no. 26 and 9326 notes 4 mss.;
Rothschild, Bibliographie annuelle 11 (2001): no. 3651 notes one ms. To my
knowledge, it has not yet been edited.
314 Lucie Doležalová, “Verses on the Effects of the Eucharist: Memory and the Material
Text in Utraquist Miscellanies,” in Situating Religious Controversy: Textual Transmission
and Networks of Readership, ed. Pavel Soukup and Michael van Dussen
(Turnhout: Brepols, accepted for publication).
11 5
is invited to ponder on the individual effects within the enumeration and
re‐create the power of this sacrament in all its weight. In this way, the
Eucharist becomes present much more vividly and may influence one’s
behaviour more thoroughly. The verses can thus serve (and indeed served)
both for private meditation and as a structuring device of a sermon or a
treatise.
A different type of enumeration verses are related to virtues and vices,
another field of great concern in the medieval period. In one form or
another, a treatment of virtues and vices is included in a sur‐prisingly high
number of late medieval miscellanies. In the Summarium copy in Lilienfeld,
SB, 145, on f. 161r‐v, we find verses that are actually formed by lists of
biblical characters exemplifying vices ([Superbia] Lucifer, Antiochus,
Nemroth, Nabugo, Phariseus…) and virtues (Abel, Virgo, Iesus, humilis et
iustificatus…). In this particular manuscript the text copies the layout of the
preceding Summarium and can hardly be discerned from it. This is a text
that recurs very frequently,315 perhaps because it links moral teaching with
stories—the names of the figures used to exemplify the virtues and vices
evoke their activities and fates vividly, and the whole thus has strong potential
for affecting the audience. Again, the names within the lists vary in
many of the manuscripts and it seems that the main point is to provide
examples rather than a fixed and carefully ordered list. These examples
show that the form of list became truly popular in Late Middle Ages and
was used also outside the context of strict mnemonics.
δ) A biblical role‐play fortune game
In three manuscripts, Vatican City, BAV, Pal. lat. 20 (s. XIV, Bible), in
Wrocław, BU, I Q 158 (s. XV, miscellany), and in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek,
Theol. lat. qu. 348 (a miscellany from 1446‐1455), the Summarium is
immediately followed by a rhymed poem inc.: Vos qui concupiscitis statum
vestrum scire (“You who desire to know your state”), a most curious text.316
The two texts appear together also in Cambridge, UL, Ee. VI. 29 (s. XIVmed,
misc.). In addition, in the lost Innichen, SB, III c 10, this rhymed poem was
immediately preceded (f. 14r‐18r) by a text of the same type as the
Summarium: a condensation of the Gospels, also giving one keyword per
chapter, inc.: Ecce liber. sponsata.
315 So far I am aware of 19 mss. but there must be many more. Walther, Initia, no. 169
(Abel virgo…) notes 2 mss., no. 10418 (Lucifer, Antiochus…) notes 7 mss., Bloomfield,
Incipits, no. 61 (2 mss.) and no. 2983 (2 mss.), RB, no. 1182 has 12 mss.
316 This chapter is partly based on my study “A Biblical Role‐Playing Game? Interpreting
and Contextualizing a Late Medieval Latin Poem inc. Vos qui concupiscitis,” Acta
Universitatis Carolinae, Philologica 3, Graecolatina Pragensia
24 (2012): 103‐13.
11 6
This poem is an ambiguous text surviving in at least ten manuscripts
from mid‐14th till the 16th centuries.317 It is written in rhymed goliardic lines
and consists of 75‐116 four‐line strophes. Each strophe is dedicated to one
character of the Bible, describing his or her biblical deeds. Positive characters
usually alternate with negative ones. The characters are presented in
their biblical order of appearance: from Adam, Cain, Abel, Lamech, and
Noah to the Virgin Mary, Herod, Mary Magdalene, Zaccheus, Judas, the good
thief, Paul, and Ananias.318 Scholars have described the poem in various
ways: Franz J. Worstbrock writes that it is a poem “welches die gesamte
Bibel in der Folge ihrer Bücher auf 75 figure virtutis ac vicii abschreitet”;319
Montague Rhodes James describes it as “a series of biblical examples”320
and Henry Stevenson as Historia biblica ab Adam ad Ananiam et
Saphiram;321 the catalogue entry of London, BL, Royal 8. B. VI calls it “a
history of man by contrasted types of biblical persons from Cain and Abel to
Ananias and S. John;”322 and the catalogue entry for Cambridge, UL, Ee. VI.
29, together with Bloomfield maintain that it is “a series of spiritual directions.”
323
In an introduction to his unpublished critical edition of the text, Steven J.
Killings argues that the poem is actually a biblical play that was performed
in Cambridge in 1352 or 1353 when the Corpus Christi College was
founded.324 It is true that there is a record that on that occasion a play was
317 For their list, see below. Walther, Initia, no. 20819 notes nine, RB, no. 9329,3 notes
only the lost Innichen ms. A critical edition is easily at hand in Steven J. Killings, “Vos
qui concupiscitis or Ludus filiorum Israel: A Critical Edition,” PhD diss., University of
Toronto, 2002; available online at:
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk4/etd/NQ78424.PDF (accessed
August 20, 2012).
318 In fact the manuscripts end with different characters, either linked to the death of
Christ or stretching up to the Acts of Apostles.
319 Franz Josef Worstbrock, “Libri pauperum,” 49.
320 An unpublished handwritten description of Cambridge, UL, Ee. VI. 29, kindly
provided by Cambridge University Library.
321 Henry Stevenson et al., Codices Palatini latini bibliothecae Vaticanae descripti praeside
I. B. cardinali Pitra (Rome: Ex typographeo Vaticano, 1886), 3.
322 Catalogue of Western Manuscripts of the Old Royal and King’s Collection (London: K.G.
Saur, 1997); the description is also available online at
http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/manuscripts/DESC0010.ASP (accessed August 20,
2012).
323 Bloomfield, Incipits, no. 6542, p. 565; and A Catalogue of the Manuscripts Preserved in
the Library of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1857), 268.
324 Killings, “Vos qui,” 8‐9.
11 7
performed, but that play is referred to as Ludus filiorum Israel (Play of the
sons of Israel) and no details are known concerning its contents.325
The manuscripts come from two geographical areas: England and
Central‐Eastern Europe. Interestingly, a study of the textual variants within
the text leads to almost the same division, and also a scrutiny of the textual
context in which the poem was transmitted during the Middle Ages ends up
in creation of the same two groups. The English copies,326 place the poem
primarily into the context of goliardic poetry and satire, in general contemporary
compositions, mostly of literary character. The Central European
copies327 include the poem primarily in biblical and moral context. Except
for Vatican City, Pal lat. 20, which is a Vulgate Bible, all the surviving codices
are miscellanies. Their contents are varied, linked to preaching, liturgy, and
practical theology with a number of texts concerned with virtues and vices.
The Summarium and our poem were very probably perceived as of the
same type in the Middle Ages. The Vos qui concupiscitis poem is actually
entitled Compendium historiarum Biblie in G, and it bears the frequent
generic title of a great number of biblical mnemonic aids and retellings
(including the Summarium), Biblia pauperum,328 in K. Like the Summarium,
the Vos qui concupiscitis is in verse, which facilitates its memorization. Like
the Summarium, it retains the Biblical order. Although the Vos qui con325
Several suggestions have been made, e.g., “…we may conjecture that it was akin to
the play of the poltroon knight given by the English bishops at the council of
Constance, 1415, and embodied in the various cycles – best represented, however,
by Parfre’s Kyllynge of the Children of Israell in the Digby manuscript,” in Charles
Mills Gayley, Plays of our Forefathers and Some of the Traditions Upon Which They
Were Founded (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907), 126; “…it could
belong to that minstrel activity which, according to Alan Nelson, characterized
dramatic activity from 1342 to 1456,” in Fernando Cioni, “Stages at the University of
Cambridge in Tudor England,” in English Renaissance Scenes: From Canon to
Margins, eds. Paola Pugliatti and Alessandro Serpieri (Bern: Peter Lang, 2008), 127‐
54, at 128; or “…probably the Exodus or departure out of Egypt, with the episode of
the Red Sea,” in William Godwin, Life of Geoffrey Chaucer, the Early English Poet I
(London: T. Davison, 1804), 135.
326 C: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 177 (s. XV, Cambridge?), E: Cambridge, UL, Ee.
VI. 29 (s. XIV, owned by Thomas Southwell), G: Cambridge, UL, Gg. I. 1 (s. XIV ex.,
East England, perhaps Seyny monastery); H: London, BL, Harley 3138 (s. XV, Carmelite
convent in London, written by Roger Alban); R: London, BL, Royal 8.B.VI (s. XVI
in., England).
327 B: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, theol. lat. qu. 348 (s. XV: 1447, 1448; Carthusian monastery
in Eppenberg, Germany, most written by Petrus Mule, fl. 1450); [I: Innichen
(San Candido), SB, III c 10 (s. XV) – lost since 1970]; K: Kremsmünster, SB, 16 (s. XV,
1433, 1437, Austria?); L: Erlangen, UB Erlangen‐Nürnberg, 423 (s. XIV, Cistercian
monastery in Heilsbronn, Germany); P: Vatican City, BAV, Palatinus latinus 20 (s.
XIV and XV, Central Europe?); W: Wrocław, BU, I Q 158 (s. XV med, Poland?).
328 F. 235v: Explicit Carmen bonum quod respicit Bybliam totam unde dictum est seu
intitulatur Byblia pauperum (cited in Worstbrock, “Libri pauperum,” 49).
11 8
cupiscitis is by no means an exhaustive representation of the Bible, it does
cover it from Adam till the death of Christ (and sometimes till the characters
from the Acts of Apostles), presenting the biblical characters as prototypes
of all possible virtues and vices. Thus, it indeed is a kind of compendium
or encyclopedia of the Bible, providing the most important Christian
moral information in an easily accessible way—which justifies the Biblia
pauperum title, too.329
However, a closer look at the poem shows that it is not a simple biblical
history, or a mere representation of virtues and vices on biblical examples.
Almost all the strophes include a direct address to the biblical character.
E.g.:
O Lamech miserrime, audi quod fecisti
Bigamia veneris primus induxisti
Et in vulnus proprium duos occidisti
pro quo profundissime ad penas ruisti.
Oh, you most miserable Lamech, hear what you have done,
you were the first to engage in sexual bigamy
and you killed two to your own misfortune
for which you fell very deep to be punished.330
329 This seems to be a much more plausible context than that of a play to be performed
by a guild founding the Corpus Christi College in Cambridge. All the known provenances
of the manuscripts, including the earliest exemplars, point to monastic environments.
Killings compares the poem to plays like Ordo prophetarum, which also
features a great number of characters and does not include much interaction. Yet,
the Ordo is united by the subject: all the prophets speak of the coming of Christ, who
is indeed born in the end. It is true that in Vos qui concupiscitis, Christ is not represented,
while a number of other characters are explicitly linked to him. But being a
precursor of Christ is an inherent part of medieval Christian characterization of, e.g.,
Iob, Gideon, or Daniel, and thus occurred as natural associations to the author’s
mind. In addition, the Vos qui concupiscitis does not have any kind of plot or conclusion,
it simply lists the biblical characters and stops with one of them.
330 Other examples include:
Tu es Agar filius Ysmael vocatus
Sagax sagitarius et ad bellum natus
Cunctis aduersarius nullus tibi gratus
tu es pacis nescius semper pugne datus. //
Tu Loth plagam Sodome iustus euasisti
Angelos hospicio dum tu recepisti
Montis supercilio tamen delinquisti
Dum per vini poculo incestu ruisti. //
Tu Loth uxor uteris vacillantis alis
Dum post tergum respicis in figuram salis
Versa es ut poteris detur forma talis
Ne fiunt proni vetitis et ruant in malis (all cited here according to C; for mss.
variants, cf. Killings’s edition).
11 9
There is no dialogue between the characters, but one by one they are
directly called up in this way. In several cases there is a reference to their
presence, e.g., adest hic (“is present here”).331 The poem is very unified in
this respect, keeping this form throughout.
Crucial to the poem’s interpretation is in my opinion its very first
strophe:
Uos qui concupiscitis statum vestrum scire
Hec signa tractabitis que dant inuenire
Omnia que poscitis de vobis audire
Quid estis vel eritis hic est reperire.
Killings, sure of the performative character of the poem translates it:
You who desire to know your habit
will perform these signs which permit (you) to discover
everything that you desire to hear about yourselves.
Here it is (possible) to find out what you are or will be.332
Yet, another possible translation is:
You who wish to know your state
will pull these tokens which allow (you) to find
all that you desire to hear about yourselves
what you are or will be is to be found here.
This very clearly states that what follows will help one become familiar
with one’s “state,” that is, all that one desires to know about oneself, and
what one is and will be. The Central European manuscripts include a second
strophe which basically transmits the same message:
Hic potes eligere de gestis scripture
Que dant intelligere opere figure
Virtutis aut uicii quid sit tibi cure
Mortis et supplicii, aut uite future.333
Here you can choose from the events of the Scripture
by which act the figures allow [you] to understand
whether you are concerned with virtue, or vice,
with death and punishment, or future life.
Taken literally, the stanza suggests that the person addressed should somehow
select (perhaps pull out from among more objects on which they were
written) one of the quatrains and associate oneself with it. This supposition
is confirmed by C which has the rubric: Incipit ludus fortuitorum et debet
331 For Killings, these clauses support the idea of performance.
332 Killings, “Vos qui,” 90.
333 Here as in Erlangen, UB, 423, f. 131r.
12 0
scribi in rotulo (f. 119r), and an explicit: Explicit ludus fortuitorum siue
fatorum (f. 120v).334
Killings interprets the explicit as scribe’s hesitation about how to read
his (hypothetical) model, where he presumably saw ludus f’orum—which
would have been there for Ludus filiorum [Israel]. This is a witty suggestion
but also a very unlikely possibility: if the scribe was hesitating, he would be
hesitating at the beginning of the text (where in this case, he wrote simply
Ludus fortuitorum) rather than at its end. It is also not probable that there
would be f’orum in the model copied (it is common that the ending orum
that is abbreviated, rather than the middle ili).
Finally, this means that the
model would either not include Israel (so it would have only Ludus
filiorum), or that the scribe would decide to drop it (but why? it is not
impossible to combine it with fortuitorum or fatorum). Again, when, rather
than theorizing, we take this manuscript title seriously, we should conclude
that this is indeed not simply a poem but a ludus fortuitorum—a fortune
game.
In addition, the rubric says that it should be written it on something
round (debet scribi in rotulo). Killings suggests that a parchment roll is
meant on which the names of the biblical characters should be written and
attached to the performers so that they are identified more easily.335
However, the rubric does not speak of the names, it clearly refers to the
whole ludus; there is no doubt the ludus is what is to be written in rotulo.
Whatever the rotulus was (there are many possibilities beside the parchment
roll), in my opinion it must have allowed some kind of turning and a
random selection (pulling? handling?) of a particular quatrain. The person
turning the rotulus would then take the biblical character described in the
selected stanza as referring to himself or herself.
To my knowledge, no similar fortune‐telling game has been previously
noted. The Bible was commonly used as a method of prophesying starting
from the Late Antiquity, but for this a random biblical line was chosen that
was then interpreted as pertaining to one’s own life. The same is documented
specifically for the Psalms. But associating oneself with a character
from the Bible does not seem to have been a common practice.
In addition, although it is true that virtuous characters seem to alternate
with the vile ones in the Vos qui concupiscitis poem, none of the biblical
personages’ fates is in fact very attractive: the good often die a premature
violent death (Abel), or suffer very much in this life (Virgin Mary), while the
334 The same rubric appears in R (f. 2r), which is surely dependent on (and perhaps
directly copied from) the Cambridge manuscript. The rubric of the London manuscript
was, however, copied incorrectly in the catalogue where it appears as Ludus
fortuitorum et dicitur scribim (?) in rotulo. The explicit was also misread as: Explicit
ludus for. tuitorum siue ratorum.
335 Killings, “Vos qui,” 21‐22.
12 1
bad shall suffer longer afterwards (Cain). The fact that this particular
fortune telling would make hardly anyone happy is perhaps reflected in the
epilogue to the poem, which survives only in H. Its last strophe reads:
Signa postquam traxeris huius exemplaris
peto, dum tractaveris nunquam irascaris.
Modo tu laudaberis forte post culparis;
Hinc laudem mereberis si tu patiaris.
My suggestion for translating the passage is:336
After you have handled the signs of this exemplar
I ask you, while you are handling this, do never get angry.
Now you will be praised, afterwards you might be damned
Thence you will deserve praise if you are patient.
In the context of the game, the address is made here—as well as throughout
the poem—to the player, who is asked not to get angry about the lot
assigned to him or her. The idea that the text could make someone angry
indeed suggests that there is some personal interest in the contents of the
poem, and it recalls the popular board game “Mensch ärgere dich nicht.”337
Looking at the surviving manuscripts of the Vos qui concupiscitis,
however, the question arises whether, no matter how it was originally
meant, the poem indeed operated as a game, or whether it was rather
understood only as a biblical poem. With the exception of the rubric in C,
the text gives no indication as to whether it was used for fortune telling or
merely read. In fact, both ways of its transmission, the literary‐satirical and
the biblical‐moral, make a strong impression that it was understood simply
as a literary text or a biblical aid. At the same time, however, if the text were
indeed written on a rotulus and the game actively played, it is unlikely that
the poem would be preserved until today. Only when written down into a
codex—that is, only if taken from its original environment and re‐claimed
by the context of literature—could the text survive as a text.
336 Again, in Killings’ translation:
After you have performed the signs of this exemplar,
please, while you perform, be not upset.
Now you will be praised, perhaps later you are blamed.
Henceforth, you will merit praise if you are patient (Killings, “Vos qui,” 103).
In his explanation, this is “an admonition toward those who are reading, performing
or listening to the poem.” As for the upsetting, he suggests that the descriptions
“aren’t to be taken as seriously as they may seem,” and the patience is explained
through a quotation from an Italian Renaissance play where the audience is asked to
be patient with the performers (Killings, “Vos qui,” 187‐88). In this way, Killings
seems to hesitate whether the actors or the audience are addressed here—while the
first line definitely refers to the actors, the last concerns rather the audience in his
interpretation.
337 In Czech “Člověče, nezlob se” with the same meaning of “Do not get angry, man.”
12 2
This argument can, of course, be also used in favor of the theory that the
poem was originally a performance. In fact, the two suggestions are not so
different; they both argue for a possibility of the poem working beyond the
obvious textual level. They also both imply a kind of impersonation, either
by an actor or by an individual playing the game.338 The degree of personal
involvement may seem different in each case but that depends on how
seriously the game would be taken. I suggest that it would be more of a
simple pass‐time, since the players can hardly be expected to fully identify
themselves with Virgin Mary, David, or Abraham. In any case, using the
poem for playing a fortune‐telling game makes the exemplified virtues to be
followed and vices to be avoided much more vividly present, just like in a
performance. What also links the two ideas is that neither of them can be
proven at the moment and thus they serve primarily to point out that texts
often are more than a mere sequence of letters to be read.
ε) The Cena Cypriani
Five Summarium manuscripts339 contain a recension of the Cena Cypriani,
in itself a very curious text. “A certain king, Joel by name, organized a
wedding feast in the Eastern region, in Cana, Galilee. To this feast, many
were invited”—thus begins the Cena narrative of a strange dinner party
where characters from various parts of the Bible gather, sit down, must
cook for themselves, eat and drink (some get drunk and fall asleep), and go
home in a festive procession. But since something was stolen at the feast,
they are investigated and tortured until the King decides that only one of
them, Achan, should be punished on behalf of all. The guests all participate
in killing him, they bury him and finally return to their homes.340 The form
of the text is just as striking as the story itself: it is a series of brief listings of
the characters and their activities at the feast. E.g., the narrating of the final
killing begins:
Sed posteaquam probatum est regi, quod Achar filius Carmi solus esset reus furti.
Iussit eum commori donavitque eum omnibus. Tunc occasione accepta primus
omnium calce eum percussit Moyses, abiit in complexum Iacob, vestem detraxit
Thecla, ad terram elisit Danihel, lapide percussit David, virga Aaron, flagello Iesus,
medium aperuit Iudas, lancea transfixit Eliezer.
338 In this way, they recall a similar debate over the Cena Cypriani, discussed in the
following chapter, an enigmatic biblical opuscle, which might have also been
performed, and, in my opinion, it might also originally have been a kind of a “party
game.” See my “The Cena Cypriani, or A Game of Endless Possibilities,” in Der
Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter, ed. Wilhelm Geerlings and Christian Schulze
(Leiden: Brill, 2002), 119‐30.
339 St. Gallen, SB, 972b, Halle, Universitäts‐ und Landesbibliothek, 93e, Munich, BSB,
clm. 23799, Sankt Florian, SB, XI.32, and Vatican City, BAV, lat. 1027.
340 The text was edited by Christine Modesto, Studien zur Cena Cypriani und zu deren
Rezeption, Classica Monacensia 3 (Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1992), 14‐35.
12 3
But afterwards it occurred to the king, that Achan, son of Charmi, was the only
one to blame for the theft. He ordered his death and gave him to all. Then they
seized the opportunity, Moses, the first of all, kicked him, Jacob came to close
quarters with him, Thecla tore off his clothes, Daniel knocked him down, David
beat him with a stone, Aaron with a rod, Jesus with flagellations, Judas cut his
stomach, Eliezer stabbed him with a lance.341
Here, unlike in the Summarium, it is immediately quite clear what is
happening but it is not always clear why it is happening—each attribution
creates a tiny biblical riddle. The actions of each character at the feast is
associated to his or her actions in the Bible, and thus one needs to know the
Bible very well in order to enjoy the text. The level of understanding of the
text itself is further complicated by its dependence on the Vetus Latina
rather than the Vulgate Bible version. Because of this, several allusions
must have been incomprehensible to medieval readers and many remain so
even today.342 The medieval recipients of the text obviously struggled while
searching for the meaning of these riddles, which is illustrated by the fact
that they often changed them, omitted them, added new riddles, etc.343 Four
distinct medieval rewritings of the text survive, and, in addition several
341 Modesto, Studien, 34.
342 See Doležalová, Reception, passim. Here I will give only one example: a character
called Molessadon is repeatedly associated with salt. This name, however, appears
neither in the Bible nor in the surviving Vetus Latina fragments. A 12th c. commentator
of the Cena Cypriani, Herveus Burgidolensis, explains the link thus: [Molessadon
salem.] Molessadon quoque est Adonisedech rex Hierusalem, qui convocavit alios
quatuor reges ut quinque pugnarent contra Gabaonitas. Et cum viderent se nil posse
contra filios Israel qui Gabaonitas tetuebantur, intraverunt speluncam et inde educti
suspensi sunt in patibulis. Molessadon ergo misit salem, id est condimentum sapientie
cordibus multorum, ne quis ad pugnam venire presumeret contra filios Israel.
Significat autem cum aliis quatuor regibus quinque sensus corporis, qui nuper
conversos debellare non valentes demergunt se in profundum terreni apperitus, sed
inde turpiter educti suspenduntur ut cunctis cernentibus cruciati pereant. Scholars
have not been able to come up with better suggestions either—usually, Molessadon
is identified with Melchisedech. Strecker bases the connection on the fact that the
king is associated with the Dead Sea area which is rich in salt. Modesto suggests that
as a priest, Melchisedech had to salt the meat of sacrificial animals. I previously
suggested that this is a close textual allusion linked to Genesis 14,18: Melchisedech
rex salem proferens panem et vinum…, created by playfully disregarding the panem et
vinum and interpreting salem not as the name of the city but as salt. And yet, there is
a very simple solution: Molessadon was one of the names of Lot’s wife (see Francis
Lee Utley, “The One Hundred and Three Names of Noah’s Wife,” Speculum 16:4
(October 1941): 438; see also: M. R. James, “Inventiones Nominum,” Journal of
Theological Studies 4 (1902‐3): 243. The source of this information is Albi, cod. 29
from the 8th c.
343 E.g., Hrabanus Maurus changed the above discussed allusion from salem (salt) to
panem et vinum (bread and vine) in his version, attesting to the fact that he had the
same biblical verse in mind but obviously did not understand the original link
either.
12 4
curious individual manuscript versions that could perhaps also be called
separate rewritings. Not all changes, however, reflect an attempt at a new
interpretation of an allusion. There are numerous corruptions and mistakes
that are difficult to approach, especially because we lack information about
the ‘original’ version.
The incomprehensibility is even more striking, however, as far as the
overall meaning and use of the text are concerned. Its origin remains a
mystery: due to its relation to Vetus Latina and its other stylistic features,
scholars assume it was written in Late Antiquity, probably in the second
half of the fourth century. There is, however, no proof of this and the earliest
manuscript comes only from the ninth century. The Cena Cypriani was
ascribed to St. Cyprian, one of the early Church Fathers, bishop and martyr
of Carthage, without being linked to his works as far as its form or content
are concerned.
While earlier scholarship neglected or dismissed the Cena Cypriani, in
the second half of the twentieth century it received attention from a
number of scholars charmed by its intertextuality, wit, and parodic character.
They expounded complicated theories about the “subversive” nature of
the text and disputed its original meaning, most frequently setting the text
into the context of risus paschalis and medieval popular culture.344 In his
famous novel, The Name of the Rose, Umberto Eco describes young medieval
monks secretly copying the Cena Cypriani, hiding it under their pillows and
laughing at it in private.345
The medieval reception of the text, however, turns out to have been
surprisingly straightforward: the Cena was frequently copied throughout
Europe within the “official” culture. About half of the copies are found in
codices with St. Cyprian’s writings, the other half in (very miscellaneous)
miscellanies, frequently in the vicinity of mnemonic aids. Two of its medieval
re‐writers, Raban Maur (ca. 776‐855 or 856) and John the Deacon of
Rome (ca. 825‐880), attach prologues to their versions in which they
explain that the text should both please the audience and teach them the
Bible. Another re‐writer, the mysterious Azelinus of Reims, provides a
detailed and learned exposé, in which he also stresses the usefulness of the
opusculum. Peter Abelard (1079‐1140) refers to the Cena with such casual‐
344 See the studies by Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World; and The Dialogic
Imagination: Four Essays, ed. Michael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press,
1982); Martha Bayless, Parody in the Middle Ages; and, most recently, the numerous
articles by Francesco Mosetti Casaretto (e.g., “Cipriano e il suo doppio: Giovanni
Immonide di fronte al problema attributivo della ‘Cena’,” Wiener Studien 115
(2002): 225‐59), or “Il riso inatteso di Rabano: la ‘Cena Cypriani’,” in Atti del
Congresso internazionale ‘Homo risibilis’. Capacità di ridere e pratica del riso nelle
civiltà medievali (Siena, 24
Ottobre, 2002), Ricerche Intermedievali 1, ed. Francesco
Mosetti Casaretto (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2005), 99‐119.
345 Umberto Eco, Il nome della rosa (Milano: Bompiani, 1980).
12 5
ness (he says legimus et Cenam Cypriani, i.e., “we read also the Cena Cypriani”)
that his listeners must have been familiar with it. Hugh of Saint Victor
(1096‐1141) was asked to explain the text but happily uses the excuse that
he does not have the text at hand to escape the task. We have only the
commentary by Hervé of Bourgdieu (ca. 1075‐1149 or 1150), which is
concerned solely with the meaning of the individual allusions and does not
say anything on the overall meaning of the text.346 Only rarely does one find
glosses or marginal notes in the manuscript copies, and these are again
dealing with the explanation of the individual allusions.
There is a detectable tendency in the way the Cena Cypriani was gradually
appropriated during the Middle Ages: while not much can be stated
regarding its original purpose or meaning, in the ninth century it was rewritten
twice, once by John Deacon of Rome, when it was put into playful
verse, and once by Hrabanus Maurus, who systematized the allusions, put
them into order according to the biblical chronology and allegorized the
whole story. From the twelfth century two fragmentary versions survive,
both are allegorical poems: a very sophisticated Cena of Arras and the Cena
Azelini which destroys the riddle‐like character of the original by explaining
the actions of the characters at the feast.
During the Late Middle Ages it was Hrabanus’ didactic version that
became the most widespread and was further appropriated: titles were
provided to the individual catalogues, characters bearing the same name
were distinguished from each other (Maria Magdalena vs. Maria Moysi,
etc.), and the objects and activities were specified in more detail. While this
tendency made the links to the biblical passages clearer, it sometimes
resulted in damaging the plot.347 The story was becoming less of a feast and
more a set of biblical allusions or riddles.348 This process culminates in a
recently discovered version of the text: Cena maletractati (“The feast of the
one who was poorly treated,” that is, Christ), probably not written until the
fifteenth century.349 In this version, the Bible is represented much more
fully: the author introduced more characters from all the biblical books
(thus, e.g., we find dilectus and dilecta from the Song of Songs) and their
346 For a detailed analysis of the medieval context of Cena Cypriani and an edition of the
commentary by Herveus of Bourgdieu, see Doležalová, Reception, 42‐54 and 297‐
349.
347 For a further discussion see Doležalová, Reception, 187‐229.
348 See my “Quoddam notabile vel ridiculum: an unnoticed version of Cena Cypriani (Ms.
Uppsala, UL C 178),” Archivum latinitatis medii aevi (Bulletin Du Cange) 62 (2004):
137‐60.
349 For a detailed discussion of the text and its edition, see Lucie Doležalová, “Cena
maletractati: An Unnoticed Version of Cena Cypriani,” in Parva pro magnis munera.
Études de litérature tardoantique
et médiévale offertes à François Dolbeau par ses
élèves, ed. Monique Goullet, Instrumenta patristica et mediaevalia 51 (Turnhout:
Brepols, 2009), 195‐244.
12 6
order of appearance follows the biblical order. The author employs methods
reminiscent of biblical concordances, listing in a sequence all those
who played a musical instrument, all who rode an ass, all who kissed, etc.
Most strikingly, the author explicitly links the Cena maletractati to the art
of memory in his prologue: for him the Cena explicitly functions as a tool
for memorizing the Bible and was composed according to the precepts of
the art.
Thus, while the “story” remains more or less the same, and while the
Bible stays in the background, the organization and presentation change
significantly, and consequently the reader’s experience changes as well.
The original Cena Cypriani is a kind of a curious and obscure game or test,
jumping from place to place and challenging the reader. It gradually transforms
towards clarity in structure (e.g., by observing the biblical order of
appearance of the characters, or by carefully distinguishing them from each
other). The original playful, experimental and obscure text becomes a
clearer and more graspable mnemonic tool. And it is as a mnemonic tool
that the Cena is associated with the Summarium: four of the Summarium
manuscripts have the Hrabanus Maurus recension, and one (Vatican City,
BAV, lat. 1027) features the “most mnemonic” Cena maletractati. At the
same time, however, even with the later “mnemonic” Cena versions, it is
impossible to speak of complete clarity and comprehension: many of the
allusions remain obscure but are now placed within a well‐defined framework,
and thus they operate in the very same way as the keywords of the
Summarium.
* * *
The texts and groups of texts discussed here do not describe the physical
context of the Summarium exhaustively but they do give a kind of indication
of the patterns of its transmission Among other possible case studies of
texts repeatedly accompanying the Summarium are the artes memoriae:
three Summarium manuscripts350 include treatises on the art of memory
(each of them different), thus linking the practical mnemonic aid of the
Summarium to the theory of memorization.
c) The context of copying and use
Obviously, the manuscripts with the Summarium include a variety of
other texts as well. Among them we repeatedly encounter sermons and
various tools for preachers, as well as a variety of texts useful for students,
in general texts that were widespread and popular. As far as the age of the
texts is concerned, we find both older “bestsellers,” such as Innocentius III’s
350 Prague, NL, I G 11a, Wrocław, BU, I Q 27, and New Haven, Yale Uni., Beinecke
Library, Marston 255.
12 7
De miseria humanae conditionis,351 and very new texts addressing
contemporary issues. An example is the Hussite polemics (e.g., manuscripts
Brno, MZK, 108, or Budapest, UL, 50), or a number of shorter treatises by
Jean Gerson, perhaps the most prominent intellectual figure of the early
fifteenth century.352 The list of subjects treated in late medieval tracts at
Jean Gerson’s time provided by Daniel Hobbins is also very relevant for the
context in which the Summarium is transmitted. It includes: rents / usury,
superstition / magic, the Hussites, simony, the Immaculate Conception,
indulgences, propertied monks, the Eucharist, clerical celibacy, excommunication,
abstention from meat, moral and venial sins, cult of saints / relics,
tithes, astrology, discretion of spirits, Wycliffe (pro / contra), nobility, war /
just war, Joan of Arc, ecclesiastical dominion, women’s clothing, and marriage.
353
When trying to more precisely specify the types of texts that appear in
this context, the most relevant concept seems to be the notion of libri
pauperum (“books of the poor”), conceived of almost as a genre by Josef
Worstbrock with reference to the Summarium itself.354 Worstbrock
presents libri pauperum as summaries of a variety of longer texts, mostly
parts of university curricula, created to help the students and preachers
remember them. In addition to highlighting this prevailing and clearly
visible concern of the Summarium miscellanies, and their manifest preoccupation
with biblical material, it is also possible to trace their link to Christian
morals—there are many texts that are not purely biblical but rather
catechetical, or practically theological.
In the Late Middle Ages, written culture was changing in character and
in methods of dissemination. The number of people who could read and
write grew substantially, especially in connection with the growth of the
351 He was still writing as Lothar de Segni around 1196. The work is also called De
contemptu mundi. With the Summarium it is found in: Eichstätt, UB, 199, f. 290r‐
307r, Klosterneuburg, SB, 428 (as Liber de contemptu mundi), Lilienfeld, SB, 145, f.
87r‐97v, Leipzig, UB, 534, from f. 121r, and Merseburg, Bibliothek des Domkapitels,
31, f. 72r.
352 See Daniel Hobbins, “The Schoolman as Public Intellectual and Authorship and
Publicity before Print. We find them in Admont, SB, 203 (De tepididatibus et pollutionibus
celebrantium—a text surviving in some 160 mss.), Augsburg, SSB, 193 (De
modo orandi, De valore orationis, De sollicitudine ecclesiasticorum and Decem considerationes
in orando deum), Augsburg, SSB, fol. 86 (De mystica theologia practica—
a text surviving in almost 100 mss.), Eichstätt, UB, 266 (Ars moriendi), Cologne, HA,
GB fo 188 (De consolatione theologiae, De sollicitudine ecclesiasticorum, Regulae
morales, Opus tripartitum de praeceptis, de confessione, de scientia mortis—a text
surviving in over 200 mss. and printed 23 times before 1500), Olomouc, VK, M I 161
(Tractatus de modo vivendi omnium fidelium, ed. Ellied Du Pin Gerson, Opera Omnia
(Antwerp, 1706), vol. 2, 538‐41). There are many others.
353 Hobbins, “The Schoolman as Public Intellectual,” Appendix.
354 Cf. Worstbrock, “Libri pauperum,” esp. p. 49.
12 8
universities and the popularity of mendicant orders. Primarily due to the
use of paper rather than parchment, books became more easily affordable
and thus entered private possessions much more frequently and in larger
numbers than before. Since many of the owners were also copyists for their
own personal use, we have many autograph manuscripts that display a
personal selection of texts. The “copyists” frequently also appropriate,
change, or gloss the texts to a degree which sometimes opens up the question
of their authorship. Some of them are well‐known figures (from among
those who copied the Summarium, Crux de Telcz or Gallus Kemli), others
remain anonymous. It is clear, that the most frequent copyists and readers
of the Summarium were preachers and students.
The Summarium miscellanies are usually difficult to characterize by
their contents. The texts included are both old and new, both poetry and
prose, both brief and long, both Latin and vernacular. What ties their
contents together could perhaps be a link to morals, the Bible, and education.
The form of a list, as well as the general character of an opuscle are
also encountered most frequently. Yet, what connects them most closely is
their use for memorizing. Browsing through the late medieval miscellanies
with the Summarium, one can easily imagine a student or a preacher
writing down and copying the texts that he would have found useful in
practice.
All this is not to say that the Summarium appeared only within the mainstream—
in the Summarium manuscripts we obviously find a great number
of rare or even unique texts as well—but to stress that as far as its late
medieval transmission is concerned it is by no means a text in the margins,
an intellectual obscurity, or a singular appearance; rather, it is a text widely
disseminated in a variety of contexts, especially among students and
preachers. It is a text that was well known and actively used.
4. The Summarium Biblie in competition?
Improved, replaced, refused
The Summarium was, as the extant manuscripts clearly show, an extremely
popular text. However, evidence of attempts at its improvement
and failures in its transmission also exist. Although these are presented
here as mere case studies of particular manuscripts, together they show
that the Summarium was clearly not the biblical mnemonic aid but simply
one amongst many, sometimes favored and other times replaced.
Some alternatives to the Summarium were written in the same style. In
addition to the many manuscripts noted above that offer new versions for
particular books of the Bible, completely new texts were also written. There
was a substantial vernacular tradition, too (e.g., a German translation of the
12 9
Summarium seems to have been quite widespread355). This analysis shall,
however, concentrate only on the Latin alternatives.
Curious in this context is manuscript London, BL, Add. 20009 (a miscellany
with texts from the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth century,
formerly owned by the monastery of St. James of Liège), which includes the
Summarium three times. According to the table of contents of the manuscript,
the first and the third are the same version, while the second one is
different.356 While the second version indeed offers a completely new reading
for most of the biblical books,357 even the first and the third texts differ
from each other.
Again, it is not easy to draw a dividing line between a variant and a new
text. E.g., London, BL, Add. 24361 (s. XV, York), includes the Summarium (f.
63v‐70r), immediately followed (on f. 70v‐89v) by another copy of the
Summarium, in which, however, every Summarium keyword is followed by
an explanation, and thus a whole verse is devoted to each biblical chapter.
The explicit states clearly that its author, Walter Hothom,358 considered his
reworking of the Summarium a new creation: Explicit biblia versificata per
libros et capitula quod Ewalterus Hothom monachus sensum non metrum sibi
benedicat hoc documentum (f. 89v).
Otto of Riga (a Dominican about whom virtually nothing is known),
used the Summarium in order to compose his own biblical summary, the
Biblia metrata.359 This text seems to survive only in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek,
Magdeb. 238.360 At its incipit, it repeats that the purpose of the summary is
355 See, e.g., Nikolaus Henkel, Deutsche Übersetzungen lateinischer Schultexte, Münchener
Texte und Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters 90 (Munich:
Artemis Verlag, 1988), 49‐51 and 222‐23; and especially Christine Wulf, Eine volkssprachige
Laienbibel des 15. Jahrhunderts: Untersuchung und Teiledition der Handschrift
Nürnberg, Stadtbibliothek, Ms. Solg. 16.2o, Münchener Texte und Untersuchungen
zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters 98 (Munich: Artemis Verlag,
1991), 10, 22‐23, 30‐33, 111.
356 In the table of contents on f. 2v, the first Summarium (on f. 3r‐24r) is referred to as
Biblia pauperum, the second (on f. 255r‐60r) as Item biblia pauperum sed differunt
isti versus ab hiis qui sequuntur et ab hiis qui in principio libri ponuntur, and the third
(on f. 260r‐63v) Item biblia pauperum et concordat cum illa que in principio libri
ponitur.
357 I am working on an edition of the text.
358 He was a monk at St. Mary’s Abbey in York, I could not find any other references to
him.
359 Kühne, “Zur literarischen Tradition,” 98‐108; Leonid Arbusow, “Das metrische
Bibelsummarium des Dominikaners Otto de Riga vom Jahre 1316,” in Sitzungsberichte
der Gesellschaft für Geschichte und Altertumskunde der Ostseeprovinzen Russlands
1911 (Riga, 1913): 403‐09.
360 It is copied in the codex and also appears together with the only exemplar of Rivulus
historiarum Biblie, another biblical summary, written by Konrad of Hal‐berstadt the
13 0
for use by the “poor”: Incipit biblia metrata pro usu pauperum compilata.361
Udo Kühne argues that it was this text that served as a direct model for
another alternative: the Biblia metrica composed by Dietrich Engelhus
(1362‐1434; known primarily as a chronicler362), in Göttingen in 1407.363
His Biblia metrica (again a possible title for the Summarium364) survives
partly in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, lat. oct. 212 where it is copied side by side
with the Summarium, using from it only the verses from Genesis to Job, and
then from Proverbs through Micheas.365 Both Otto of Riga’s Biblia metrata
and Dietrich Engelhus’ Biblia metrica are longer than the Summarium, often
dedicating a whole verse to each chapter. The system of unrelated
keywords is kept, only each chapter is represented not by one but by five or
six of them. The verses for Genesis in Engelhus’ version begin:
In prin. sex opera. legimus. perfecta. creata.
Complet. fons. prohibet. adduxit. quid vocet. uxor.
serpens. abscondunt. mulier. maledixit. eiecit.
respicit. occidit. Cayn. edificat. Lamech. et Seth.
Thus, the poem remains nonsensical; as with the Summarium, only when
read with the superscript gloss do the texts become meaningful.
Engelhus, unlike Otto of Riga, often includes the true biblical chapters’
incipits, and he repeatedly replaces one of Otto’s keywords for a chapter
with a keyword from the Summarium. Although none of these strategies is
applied consistently, his text thus bears closer resemblance to the
Summarium than Otto’s does. The introductory verses added to both the
Biblia metrata and Biblia metrica are also fully in line with the Summarium
tradition, emphasizing that the Bible was abbreviated here for those who
were unable to know all of it.366
younger for Archbishop Earnest of Prague after 1354; cf. Kühne, “Zur literarischen
Tradition,” 104‐05.
361 Kühne, “Zur literarischen Tradition,” 99.
362 Hiram Kümper, “Dietrich Engelhus,” in Biographishbibliographisches
Kirchenlexikon
25 (2005), col. 373‐75; or “Engelhus, Dietrich,” in Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters.
Verfasserlexikon, ed. K. Ruh, vol. 2 (1978), col. 556‐61.
363 For a detailed study of the text and its context, see Franz Josef Worstbrock, “Die
Biblia metrica des Dietrich Engelhus”; and Kühne, “Zur literarischen Tradition.”
364 Kühne argues that the correct title should be Biblia metrata, since Biblia metrica is
too generic (Kühne, “Die Biblia metrica,” 97) but, as was shown above, generic titles
are the norm for these texts.
365 At the end of the 15th c., the codex was kept at the Carthusian monastery in Salvatorberg
near Erfurt under shelfmark B 29. As becomes evident from the library catalogue,
a second volume with the remaining part of Biblia metrica was also in existence.
The denotation of the time and place of the text’s composition appears on f.
4v: Venerabilis magister Theodoricus Engelhus Bacchalarius theologie oriundus de
Einbecke composuit ista metra in Gottingen 1407.
366 They read:
13 1
In 1508, Jacobus Magdalius (Dominican; d. ca. 1520) published a
text called the Compendium Biblie (again, a title that was also used for the
Summarium).367 The poem begins after a brief preface and consists of 257
abecedarian hexameters, each covering five chapters and providing a single
keyword for each. It also contains glosses.368 The changes to the Summarium
are undoubtedly attempts at improvement: abecedarian order
further aids the memory, and strictly observing the framework of one biblical
chapter for one keyword eliminates a number of confusions. At the same
time, the glosses form an important part of the text but together with them
the whole is substantially longer.369
In addition, we find the Capitula evangeliorum versifice scripta,
composed of mnemonic verses using the same form as the Summarium but
only covering the Gospels (except for the final chapters on Christ’s crucifixion
and the following events, which are omitted from each). They were
studied and carefully edited by Greti Dinkova‐Bruun,370 who suggests they
come from late thirteenth‐ or early fourteenth‐century Central Europe.371
The text begins:
Abraham. sponsata. nollet traducere. donec.
Bethleem. Egiptum. Rachel. Archelaus. Nazareus.
Camelorum. uipera. securis. sine. columbam.372
Biblia metrica Christo placeat, maranata
sit cunctis grata. pro talibus est breviata,
qui nequeunt latam scripturam noscere totam,
saltem curtatam partim faciant sibi notam.
Nunc ubi texuntur hystoria gestaque bella,
Illic clauduntur solo versu capitella,
ut sunt Pen. Io. Iud. Ruth. Reg. Paral. Es. Nee. Tho. Iud.
Hester. Iob. Ezechi. Daniel. Ionas. Machabei.
Actus et addantur, sed Euangelia variantur
Sed semper reliquis clauduntur singula binis (f. 4v‐5r; Worstbrock, “Die Biblia
metrica,” 188).
367 It was printed by Quentell in Cologne in 1300 exemplars. Cf. Kühne, “Zur literarischen
Tradition,” 107.
368 The author says: Et quia per unam dictionem tenor totius capituli exprimi non potest,
glossam interliniarem capitulum fere quodlibet quadriphariam dividentem
cuilibet
versu supraponere dignum duxi (“And since it is impossible to express the contents
of the whole chapter, I considered it worthy to superpose interlinear gloss to every
chapter, dividing almost every verse into four parts”).
369 Also, e.g., RB, no. 3973, includes the glosses when he cites the incipit of the Genesis:
Lucis creatio, aquarum divisio, astrorum formatio, animatorum productio…
370 Greti Dinkova‐Bruun, “Remembering the Gospels in the Later Middle Ages: The
Anonymous Capitula Euangeliorum Versifice Scripta,” Sacris erudiri 48 (2009): 235‐
73.
371 Ibid., 235.
372 Ibid., 262.
13 2
Both of the surviving manuscripts include the Summarium before this text:
Copenhagen, KB, Thott 3 8vo (s. XIV, Bohemia, with interlinear glosses)
contains the full Summarium, while Vienna, ÖNB, Pal. lat. 4543 only the part
concerning the Gospels. Thus, Capitula evangeliorum clearly supplies a kind
of alternative for the Summarium. Greti Dinkova‐Bruun observes that the
anonymous author of the Capitula evangeliorum applies the very same
strategies as the author of the Summarium: et and –que are added for the
keywords to fit the meter, some keywords are not included in full but only
their first syllable(s) appear (here, too, abbreviation enables the author to
fit the words into the hexameter), sometimes a synonym rather than the
exact word from the Vulgate is used, shifts occur between the nominative
and accusative case and between the active and passive voice, and summarizing
keywords are occasionally used in an attempt to encompass the
chapter events.373 Thus the Capitula evangeliorum are not new in method
but offer a new version within the same framework, a version about which
Dinkova‐Bruun writes:
[…] being orderly, complete, and meticulous does not prevent the poem from
presenting to its audience a perceptive and nuanced summary of the most salient
events in the gospel narrative. […] The text is deceptively simple and unassuming
but when read carefully it reveals itself as a skillful tapestry of masterfully interwoven
threads which all lead to a better understanding of the biblical text and, as
a result, to an easier recollection of it.374
More versions are doubtlessly still waiting to be discovered.375
The second type of “improvement” made to the Summarium is combining
it with other biblical mnemonic tools. E.g., biblical manuscript Paris,
BnF, lat. 171 (s. XIII) on f. 433v contains a fragment of the Summarium (Ge‐
Le 11), into which the poem on the ten plagues of Egypt (ascribed to Hildebertus
Cenomanensis376) is inserted after Exodus without any break.
373 She also suggests that sometimes when the same story is narrated in more than one
Gospel it is referred to by a different keyword, allowing the author to supply (in
several steps) fuller information on the event. Other times, when the story narrated
was familiar, he uses the same single keyword in each case. Her study also analyzes
the composition of the glosses. Ibid., 240‐56.
374 Ibid., 252.
375 Another, perhaps independent version was the version of the Gospels in the lost
manusript Innichen, SB, III C 10, f. 14r‐18r (just preceding Vos qui concupiscitis,
which was unfortunately lost after the Second World War). It began: Ecce liber
[generationis]. sponsata [cum esset Maria, mater Iesu, Joseph]. magi. fuga. surge.
revertens…. expl.: si diligis. hunc volo [scilicet merere donec veniam] tu me [sequere].
Greti Dinkova‐Bruun (in “Remembering,” 251, n. 30) also notes 7 lines entitled Tituli
evangeliorum included in Peter Riga’s Aurora (in the middle of the Gospels versification,
Beichner, Aurora, vol. 2, p. 481‐482, v. 1430‐1437), which she promises to
study in detail elsewhere.
376 See above, note 34.
13 3
Furthermore, the Summarium is also found combined with another biblical
mnemonic verse (inc.: Ante fir lux producitur, dividens undas et gregat377) in
manuscript Oxford, BoL, Bodley 801 and Vienna, ÖNB, Pal. lat. 14426 (Fig.
10). In this summary, each biblical chapter is represented by two lines and
the corresponding catchword for the Summarium is added, together with a
short gloss in the margin.
These two manuscripts contain also a prologue with a beginning that,
again, is much reminiscent of the prologue sometimes attached to the
Summarium (see Fig. 2 f) and other biblical mnemonic aids but differing
from them in one important aspect:
Quoniam modernis temporibus nonnulli non solum ex simplicibus, verum etiam,
quod deterius est, expertis et sufficientibus promptiores inveniuntur ad
disputandum de uno sophismate, quam ad referendum seu quotandum unam
historiam biblie. Hoc ut presumo magis proveniat ex memorie labilitate quam ex
studii ignorancia seu tepiditate, vere ego qui Iohannes vocor […] isti defectui qui
tamen bonum impedit cupiens obsistere omnisque de cetero volens reddere non
solum benivolos seu promptos ad studendum imo eciam facillimos ad retinendum
omnium biblie librorum hystorias sub brevissimo compendio statui comprehendere
ut confusione seu prolixitate earum vitata et ad brevitatem reducta
facilius omni excluso labore imprimi memorie valeant et semel impresse removeri
ab eadem fere oblivisci nequeant. Huiusmodi autem processus quo in isto opusculo
intendo procedere ne quid esset obscurus sive difficilis simplicibus non erit in
metro exametro seu pentametro sed pocius in stilo rithimico et plano per litteras
tamen alphabeti regulato…378
Since in the modern times, many, not only among the simple ones but indeed
even, what is worse, also among the professionals are found more ready to
dispute a sophisma, than to refer to or to quote a story from the Bible, which, as
I assume, arises rather from the slipping of memory than from ignorance or
little interest in study, truly me, who is called John […] all otherwise wishing to
restore [people] not only willing but also ready to grasp and keep the histories
of all the books of the Bible within a very brief summary, I established, so that
avoiding their confusion or lengthiness and reducing to brevity they could more
easily without all toil impress [it] to [their] memory and once having impressed
it, they would not wish to remove it from it or forget it. But the strategy of this
kind that I intend to apply in this opuscle will not be in hexameter or pentameter,
so that it would not be obscure or difficult for the simple ones, but rather
in rhythmic and plain style nevertheless limited by the alphabet…
Here, we witness the author of the biblical mnemonic aid proposing rhythmical
verses and criticizing metrical poetry for being “obscure or difficult
377 See RB, no. 2308 (attr. to Franciscus Gothus), 4127 (attr. to a “Iohannes”), and 4747
(attr. to Iohannes Castellensis = von Kastl (fl. 1339). In RB and elsewhere, the incipit
is Ante fit… However, as Greti Dinkova‐Bruun kindly pointed out to me, this does not
make sense and the correct reading is Ante fir[mamentum]…
378 Here as in Oxford, BoL, Bodley 801, f. 67r. After this, the author discusses the alphabetic
character of the text in detail.
13 4
for the simple ones.” This can be interpreted as a criticism of the
Summarium, and an attempt at its replacement. At the same time, however,
in contrast to its author’s explicit statement, the poem that follows is
metrical just like the Summarium, not rhythmical as announced. The
Summarium remains present in the text but it loses its metrical form and
becomes a further summary of the retelling proposed by Johannes, moved
to the manuscript margin.
Fig. 10: Ms. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Pal. lat. 14426, f. 68r, the
Summarium combined with another (anonymous) biblical mnemonic aid, inc.: Ante fir
lux producitur
13 5
Most noteworthy among the combinations in this context is the Biblia
pauperum compiled by Maurus von Weihenstephan in 1479379 from
several texts: Petrus de Rosenheim’s Memoriale, Johannes Schlitpacher’s
Fragmentum Bibliae and his De divisione scripture, from the Summarium,
and from incipits of the biblical chapters.380 Thus it provides several parallel
ways to remember the contents of the Bible. To my knowledge, it
survives in two manuscripts.381 In Munich, BSB, clm. 12391 the texts are
very nicely distributed on the page: Schlitpacher’s summary is copied in the
middle, the Summarium’s keywords appear beside each double verse on the
left, capitula on the right; a brief preface to every biblical book is added
over the first verse line, and a summary of the whole book by Rosenheim is
given below.
This is surely not a failure of the Summarium—it would not have been
included were it not considered useful. But it seems to imply that the
Summarium by itself was not deemed sufficient. And, in addition, the
particular version of the Summarium is unique here: Maurus introduced a
great number of changes to it. In his introduction, he reflects on the fact that
various authors divide and order the biblical books in different ways (which
he must have witnessed while trying to harmonize all these tools) but
suggests that his division and order are correct:
Prefaciuncula in opus sequens scilicet Bibliam pauperum. Videndum est de
ordinacione librorum tocius Biblie in qua omnes libri divinarum scripturarum
continentur. Et sunt numero 36. Qui licet a quibusdam aliter numerentur
et
ordinentur, tamen communiter a doctoribus et in libris correctis secundum infra
scriptum modum et numerum ordinantur.
A little preface to the following work, that is, the Bible of the Poor. We should
consider the ordering of the books of the whole Bible in which all the books of
divine scriptures are contained. And they are 36 in number. Which, although
they are by some counted and ordered differently, are nevertheless ordered
unanimously by the doctors, and in correct books in the way and number [they
are] written [here] below.
Less ambitious is a combination of the Summarium with Guido Vicentinus’
Margarita Biblie found in Gotha, HB, 108. This manuscript also contains an
excerpt from the Historia scholastica, as well as the Psalms incipits.
379 Cf. Munich, BSB, clm. 12391: Explicit Biblia pauperum per me fratrem Maurum
presbyterum et monachum atque in Beichensteuen professum conscripta, et ex diuersis
in hunc modum redacta. Anno domini 1479, 14 Kal. Aprilis. Note the reappearance of
the generic title.
380 Worstbrock, “Libri pauperum,” p. 48 n. 40, and p. 49 n. 44.
381 Munich, BSB, clm. 12391, on fols. 1r‐39r, and in Augsburg, SSB, fol. 193 on fols. 1r‐
47v (the title Biblia pauperum appears only in the former manuscript, the latter has
no title).
13 6
Fig. 11: Ms. University of Pennsylvania, Rare Book & Manuscript Library, 313 (Italy, XV),
f. 1r: Summarium Biblie, after the book of Genesis, is replaced by another mnemonic aid
(based on incipits)
The Summarium seems to have been competing with the lists of
chapter incipits, too. The incipits are usually used in prose retellings
that proceed chapter by chapter: after an incipit, a paragraph or two are
devoted to describing the chapter contents. As already mentioned, the
13 7
incipits worked very well for recalling the Psalms (which might be one of
the reasons that the Psalms were not included in the Summarium). In
addition, a curious miscellaneous manuscript from fifteenth‐century Italy,
now kept at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia under shelfmark
313,382 includes a summary of the Bible on folios 1r‐11v (Fig. 11). On f. 1r
the part of the Summarium for Genesis appears with brief superscript
glosses, entitled Capitula biblie. But the copyist apparently changed his
mind after the first book of the Bible and added a new rubric (Incipit lucidarius
super Biblia declarans quod singula canticant capitula, exprimendo
qualiter incipient ipsa capitula). He then returns to Genesis, always quoting
the first one to three words from the relevant chapter beginnings. The
glosses here are added after the keywords rather than in superscript, but
otherwise the layout looks very similar, with the chapter numbers written
in red before each keyword, and with the keywords written in a larger and
bolder script. It is clear that both the texts were intended to fulfill the same
function, but this particular scribe decided that the chapter incipits were
more useful than the Summarium.
Besides alternative texts, there are at least two biblical tools based on
the same idea as the Summarium, that is, representing each chapter separately,
but they do so in visual way. Closest to the Summarium is Biblia
sacra figuris expressa, which summarizes the whole Bible in this way,
always placing ten images on one page in the same layout. This very curious
mnemonic Bible has been masterfully studied by Susanne Rischpler.383 A
tool of the very same type exists also for Peter Lombard’s Sentences.384
Extremely popular was the anonymous Rationarium evangelistarum
(ca. 1470, Upper Rhineland), often ascribed to Petrus of Rosenheim, a visual
summary of the Gospels in which the images of the chapters are placed on
the limbs of the respective symbols for the evangelists—angel, lion, bull,
and eagle (Fig. 12).385
382 The manuscript has been digitized and is available online at:
http://dla.library.upenn.edu/dla/medren/pageturn.html?q=biblia&id=MEDREN_24
86453&size=4&currentpage=8 (accessed August 20, 2012).
383 Susanne Rischpler, Biblia sacra figuris expressa. Mnemotechnische Bilderbibeln des
15. Jahrhunderts, Wissensliteratur im Mittelalter 36 (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig
Reichert Verlag, 2001). One of the manuscripts, Munich, BSB, clm. 697 is available
online through http://daten.digitale‐sammlungen.de (accessed August 20, 2012).
384 See Susanne Rischpler, “Coeur voyant. Mémoriser les Sentences de Pierre Lombard,”
in Medieval Memory. Image and Text, ed. Frank Willaert et al. (Turnhout: Brepols,
2004), 3‐40.
385 This tool follows the rules for the art of memory very closely. An early print
(Pforzheim, 1507) is available through http://www.zvdd.de (accessed August 20,
2012).
13 8
Fig. 12: Rationarium evangelistarum, Pforzheim, 1507, prima imago Iohannis (John 1‐6)
Monastic libraries held several copies of the Summarium during the Late
Middle Ages. Seen in the context of the libraries of Melk with 7 copies or
Klosterneuburg with 6 copies, it seems that, e.g., in the abbey of St. Gall the
Summarium was not received very well. One fourteenth‐century copy of the
Summarium exists in the St. Gall monastery library in codex 1068. The
codex is a miscellany that was bound together at a later stage. The booklet
13 9
containing the Summarium was probably originally transmitted by itself.
The text is, however, not complete—it ends with Epistola Iacobi. The only
full copy from the monastery is the one in codex 336 from 1443 (pp. 137‐
160). Codex 318 contains the portion of the Summarium that condenses the
Books of Kings. It is an unusual copy: there are the verses for every book,
followed by a long commentary to every keyword covering several pages.
The scribe of this manuscript planned the same for the Paralipomenon, but
the space for the verses as well as for the keywords within the commentary
remains void. The commentary is actually not dependent on the keywords
at all and works fine without them as a prose condensation of the relevant
chapters. Finally, connected to St. Gall was Gallus Kemli, a remarkable
wandering monk originally from there, who gathered and copied at least 32
codices. Three of them, now Sankt Gallen 972b, 293, and 692, written in this
order, share a number of texts (e.g., Hrabanus Maurus’ recension of the
Cena Cypriani). Kemli here re‐included many of the texts but often in a
condensed or revised form. Only the first of these manuscripts, however,
includes the Summarium. At the very beginning of codex 972b the
Summarium is presented in prose format, each keyword followed by a fullparagraph
explanatory commentary. In the subsequent manuscripts, codex
293 and 692, the Summarium is replaced by a prose text entitled Explanatio
librorum Biblie (inc.: Pentateucon incipitur), followed by another prose text
entitled Margarita Biblie (inc.: Qui memor esse cupit librorum; different from
the previously mentioned versified Bible by Guido Vicentius). This special
case of re‐copying, re‐arranging, and re‐writing of entire codices by the
same scribe is a very precious occasion when it is possible to prove that the
Summarium was actually consciously replaced by another text fulfilling the
same function.386
386 For details, see my “Multiple Copying and the Interpretability of Codex Contents:
‘Memory Miscellanies’ Compiled by Gallus Kemli (1417‐1480/1) of Sankt Gallen,” in
Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies.
14 0
III. An Obscure Mnemonic Tool?
The obscurity of the Summarium is unusual; it is not a text “covered, or
in darkness,” it is much exposed: it was a standard part of late medieval
Bibles and late medieval miscellanies used by preachers and students.
Although it is not the medieval biblical mnemonic aid but belongs to a
whole group of such texts, it was much copied and read. It is obscure
primarily as far as its referrence to the text of the Bible is concerned. The
variety of its textual tradition as well as of the explanatory glosses shows
that the medieval readers were very often concerned with its meaning. At
the same time, however, it remains to be the case that what we find copied
in the manuscripts does not correspond to our idea of a “tool.” As a biblical
mnemonic tool, the Summarium, in a majority of its copies, fails in several
respects: it does not cover the whole Bible (it excludes the Psalms), it sometimes
presents different order of the biblical books or a different number of
chapters than the particular biblical book, some of the keywords have
obscure relationship to the biblical chapter that they are meant to summarize,
and it is sometimes copied only partly, or in a confused way. What
is such a “tool” good for? How could it ever become so popular? The obscurities
are so frequent here that the question arises what portion of them is
bearable for the text to be still useful for memorization rather than confusing
and misleading.387
A comparison with similar texts might be in place. Alexander de Villa
Dei’s Doctrinale was actively used despite its clear mistakes for almost
three centuries. At the end of the fifteenth and first half of the sixteenth
century, it was much criticized and there were several attempts to replace it
with a “better” Latin grammatical textbook, but they all failed, Doctrinale
was replaced much later during the humanist era.388 Similarly, as Hiram
Kümper shows, two medieval legal collections, the Sachsenspiegel or the Ius
387 Greti Dinkova‐Bruun, “Biblical Versification,” 61‐64, asks the same question
concerning the Summarium, the Margarita of Guido Vicentinus, and Capitula
evangeliorum.
388 Reichling dedicates a whole long chapter to a detailed description of the various
criticisms and the late medieval and early modern grammars unsuccessfully
competing with Doctrinale (see Reichling, Doctrinale LXXXIII‐CX).
14 1
Municipale Maideburgense, were repeatedly copied and much used in spite
of being extremely confusing and obscure from today’s point of view.389
On the one hand, such situations can often partly be blamed on inertia:
it takes time to replace old texts with new ones. Many old texts are still used
with additions, omissions, explicitly expressed reservations, pointing to
their limitations etc. but often also without these adjustments. The quest for
the new is not a feature of the medieval times, during which there is no fear
that a text would become less desired when old, thus no need to replace
was felt. At the same time, however, there must be more to it.
In their detailed study on the reception of Thomas Murner’s card aid for
logic (Logica memorativa or Chartiludium logicae, ca. 1500), Manuel Stoffers
and Pieter Thijs trace the way the appreciation of this curious—yet today,
again, much obscure—tool changed with the change of mentality in the
modern era. Murner’s card game is all but clear and coherent reflection (or
summary) of the then standard textbook of logic, the Tractatus (later
known as Summulae logicales) by Petrus Hispanus (13th c.). While it was
extremely popular and widely used when published, from around 1700 it
was vastly criticized and also its active use in the previous era was so
unimaginable that it was questioned. They persuasively explain the change
in evaluation of the tool by change in mentality and appraisal of imagination
rather than memory.390
In my opinion, one of the basic reasons for the medieval success of the
Doctrinale, the Chartiludium, as well as the Summarium and a number of
other texts was their graspability. Most things in this world are extremely
complicated, so complicated that it makes one scared to approach them.
Most people prefer clear answers over explicit hesitations and vagueness.
Offering a version of the reality, which is understandable, even if not
precise (or even if simply wrong) is the first step to success. There is one
unquestionable virtue in graspability: one is able to conceive the whole.
Even if not quite precisely, one can approach a text or a problem in its
entirety and place its aspects into a definite context without getting lost in
details.
The Summarium Biblie, even if mistaken in particularities, provides a
clear overview of the Bible. One can see the order of the books, more or less
389 Hiram Kümper, “Obscuritas legum: Traditional Law, Learned Jurisprudence, and
Territorial Legislation – the Example of Sachsenspiegel and Ius Municipale Maideburgense,”
in Obscuritas in the Middle Ages, eds. Lucie Doležalová and Jeff Rider
(Krems, in print).
390 Manuel Stoffers and Pieter Thijs, “A Question of Mentality: the Changed Appre‐ciation
of Thomas Murner’s Logical Card Game (c. 1500),” in Memory and Oblivion. Acts
of the XXIXth International Congress of the History of Art, Amsterdam, 17
September
1996, ed. Wessel Reinink and Jeroen Stumpel (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1999), 275‐93.
14 2
their contents, and perhaps be reminded of several important quotations.
The idea, however unrealistic, that by learning some 200 verses one will
know the Bible must have been very attractive to the readers of the
Summarium. These are features that would not suffice in making a
mnemonic tool attractive today but they obviously worked well within the
medieval culture of memory.
The degree of corruption within the manuscript copies of the Summarium
is shocking at first. Of course, spelling variants were omnipresent
in medieval manuscripts, since there was no fixed way of spelling but it is
surprising that also serious flaws—textual corruption that results in
incomprehensibility—do not seem to have bothered the medieval readers
and copyists too much. We cannot possibly suppose that they, unlike us,
simply understood the text, because some of the keyword variants are truly
irrelevant to the chapter contents. Thus, we should either suspect that they
created an inefficient tool and were naively using it (an explanation very
much in line with 19th century scholarship on the Middle Ages), or we
should reconsider the medieval concept of a tool and the medieval
approach to obscurity.
In my opinion, this case (far from being an isolated one) shows bigger
tolerance, or even a welcoming approach to obscurity in the Middle Ages.
Obscurity was understood as an inherent part of everyday life. Saint Paul’s
“now we see as through a looking‐glass, darkly” is not only a clause much
quoted by theologians and exegetes but also an everyday experience of the
medievals. This world is only a reflection of the world to come, and thus it is
expected and natural that we do not understand everything. The concepts
of efficiency and of “saving time” were not embraced by the Middle Ages.
They were completely alien to monastic culture and only slowly emerge
with the universities and fierce preaching of the Late Middle Ages. Thus, the
mnemonic tools that are gradually developed are indeed shorter and thus
can be read faster than the originals, but are not necessarily completely
clear. A certain degree of obscurity everywhere is natural and encountering
it also within tools is not surprising.
This is not to say that the author of the Summarium included obscure
key‐words on purpose but only to stress that medieval readers would not
be struck by encountering them in the text in the same way we are now.
They would expect not to understand everything and thus seeing obscurity
within a mnemonic tool would not make most of them think the tool was
insufficient. Some of them might propose changes but, while doing so,
create new obscurities. Only very rarely a truly systematic copyist transforms
the whole towards bigger clarity. Finally, the Summarium is a
condensation of the Bible, and therefore a kind of its reflection. The Bible
itself is full of mysteries and obscurities, so there is no reason its reflection
should be different.
14 3
* * *
The case study focused on a text that made the first impression of being
obscure in the sense of both unintelligible and marginal. The subsequent
contextual analysis showed it to be indeed hardly intelligible but, at the
same time, not marginal at all but forming a widely transmitted and fully
integral part of medieval Latin culture. The idea of a “widespread obscurity”
may have sounded like a contradiction in terms at the beginning but I hope
to have shown that it is not.
The case study also attempted to stress the usefulness of examining the
physical contexts of manuscripts for textual interpretation. A mere textual
analysis is always questionable because any edition of a medieval text is
unavoidably a construction. Textual analysis by itself will always be much
more reflective of our contemporary views than of medieval perspectives.
Study of manuscripts promises to supply information on the level of the
integration of the particular text within medieval culture. The manuscript
variants and glosses show the ways in which the text was read, understood,
and appropriated, while the surrounding texts within the codices indicate
the context into which the text was felt to fit. Especially when the subject of
the enquiry is a context‐bound notion, as is obscurity here, exploring the
physical context of a text offers an invaluable and otherwise inaccessible
source of further information on its role and level of integration within
medieval culture.
Yet, even the scrutiny of manuscripts does not provide the full picture.
We obviously miss a great number of written evidence (many manuscripts
do not survive or were not traced yet). But even more importantly, our
present day “documentary culture,”391 which some‐times becomes an
obsession with textuality (even in its physical form) is a sort of anachronism.
Especially texts linked to memorizing did not exist only in their written
form but primarily as mental texts and images stored in the memory of
the medieval people. Their written form is only secondary; it provides a
glimpse into the mental text but not the full picture, and we also lose the
surrounding oral explanatory discourse. This practice of transmission
would also be responsible for the fact that even very obvious mistakes in
manuscripts are rarely corrected by the scribes.392 But this alone cannot
explain the repeated copying of an obscure tool.
391 Cf. Carruthers, The Book of Memory, 8.
392 I addressed this in detail in a study “On Mistake and Meaning: Scinderationes
fonorum in medieval artes memoriae, mnemonic verses, and manuscripts,” Language
and History 52 (2009): 26‐40. An excellent example is offered by Richard Gameson
discussing the case when a corrected Bible text was closed in a treasury, while a
Bible codex with a number of obvious mistakes was used in liturgy; see Richard
Gameson, “Durham’s Paris Bible and the Use of Communal Bibles in a Benedictine
14 4
Tracing unquestionable obscurity in much diffused texts leads to the
suggestion that a higher level of obscurity was tolerated and even accepted
as relevant in the Middle Ages as opposed to the early modern times and
the present. Besides the exegetical and poetical‐rhetorical discourses, in
which obscurity was addressed on the theoretical level, there was widespread
“practical” obscurity in many other types of writing, too. It might
even sometimes seem that it was the obscure in the sense of “unclear, difficult
to understand” that was the textual norm. This “norm” was supported
by the leading language, that is, Medieval Latin with no strict spelling
guidelines and no settled grammatical rules. This is not to say that the
author of the Summarium made his text obscure on purpose but only to
stress that the medieval approach to texts was fuzzy and approximate
rather than clearly definable, distinguishable, and articulate. The medieval
people were simply more ready to tolerate obscurity because it formed an
integral part of their world. Sometimes they did pursue the objectives of
system, order, and efficiency but rarely in a systematic, orderly, and efficient
manner. They did not believe obscurity could ever completely disappear.
They were not scared of the undescribable, undividable, and
ungraspable, they accepted reality as basically unintelligible.
Cathedral Priory in the Later Middle Ages,” in The Form and Function of Late Medieval
Bible.
14 5
Bibliography
Primary sources
[Note that only editions are included here; for the list of manuscripts see the Appendix]
Augustine: De dialectica. Trans. D. Darrell Jackson. Synthese Historical Library 16.
Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing, 1975.
Beichner, Paul E., ed. Aurora. Petri Rigae Biblia Versificata: A Verse Commentary on the
Bible. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1965.
Bloomfield, Morton W. et al. Incipits of Latin Works on the Virtues and Vices, 11001500
A.D., Including a Section of Incipits of Works on the Pater Noster. Mediaeval Academy
of America Publications 88. Cambridge, MA: The Medieval Academy of America,
1979.
Brian, Scott A., ed. Hildeberti Cenomannensis episcopi Carmina minora. Leipzig: Teubner,
1969.
Bursill‐Hall, Geoffrey L. A Census of Medieval Latin Grammatical Manuscripts. Stuttgart:
Friedrich Frommann Verlag, 1981.
CETEDOC Library of Christian Latin texts CLCLT3.
Base de données pour la tradition
occidentale latine. Data base for the Western Latin tradition. Turnhout: Brepols,
1996.
Choulant, Ludwig, ed. Aegidii Corboliensis Carmina medica. Leipzig: Leopold Voss, 1826.
Daub, Susanne, ed. Gottes Heilsplan – verdichtet. Edition des Hypognosticon des Laurentius
Dunelmensis. Erlangen: Palm und Enke, 2002.
Dinkova‐Bruun, Greti, ed. Alexandri Essebiensis Opera Omnia. Opera poetica. CCSM 81.
Turnhout: Brepols, 2004.
________, ed. The Ancestry of Jesus. Excerpts from Liber generationis Iesu Christi filii David
filii Abraham (Matthew 1:117).
Toronto Medieval Latin Texts 28. Toronto: Pontifical
Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2005.
Doucet, Victorin. Commentaires sur les Sentences. Supplément au répertoire de M.
Frédéric Stegmüller. Florence: Ad Claras Aquas, 1954.
Eco, Umberto. Il nome della rosa. Milano: Bompiani, 1980.
Galfridus de Vino Salvo, The Poetria Nova and Its Sources in Early Rhetorical Doctrine. Ed.
Ernest Gallo. Paris: Mouton, 1971.
Geyer, Bernhard, ed. Die Albert dem Grossen zugeschriebene Summa naturalium (Philosophia
pauperum). Münster: Aschendorff, 1938.
Goetz, Georg, ed. Attonis qui fertur Polipticum quod appellatur Perpendiculum, Abhandlungen
der philologisch‐historischen Klasse der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
32.7. Leipzig: Teubner, 1922.
Helwich von Mageburg. Das Büchlein von den göttlichen Wohltaten. Trans. W. Meyer.
Franz von Assisi. Aus dem religiösen Geistesleben seiner drei Orden, Reihe deutscher
Texte 2. Werl in Westfalen: Franziscus Druckerei, 1926.
14 6
Helwicus Magdeburgensis. Denarius sive Decacordus. Ed. Ferdinand Doelle. In Beiträge
zur Geschichte der sächsischen Franziskanerprovinz vom heiligen Kreuze 1 (1908):
87‐96.
Henkel, Nikolaus. Deutsche Übersetzungen lateinischer Schultexte. Münchener Texte und
Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters 90. Munich: Artemis Verlag,
1988.
The Hisperica famina. Ed. Francis Jenkinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1908 [reprinted 2012].
The Hisperica famina I. The AText.
Ed. Michael W. Herren. Toronto: The Pontifical Institute
of Mediaeval Studies, 1974.
Huemer, Johannes, ed. Virgilii Maronis grammatici opera. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1886.
Joyce, James. Finnegan’s Wake. London: Faber and Faber, 1939.
Löfstedt, Bengt, ed. Virgilius Maro Grammaticus: Opera Omnia. Munich: KG Saur, 2003.
Mathei Vindociensis Opera III. Ars Versificatoria. Ed. Franco Munari. Rome: Edizioni di
storia e letteratura, 1988.
Nims, Margaret Frances. Poetria nova of Geoffrey of Vinsauf. Toronto: Pontifical Institute
of Mediaeval Studies, 1967.
Patrologiae latinae cursus completus. Ed. Jacques‐Paul Migne. Paris: Garnier, 1844‐1855.
Petrus von Rosenheim. Rationarium Evangelistarum. Pforzheim, 1505.
Polara, Giovanni, trans. L. Caruso and G. Polara, eds. Virgilius Maro Grammaticus, Epitomi
ed Epistole. Nuovo medioevo 9. Naples: Liguori, 1979.
Quintilianus, Marcus Fabius. Institutio oratoria. Trans. H. E. Butler. Loeb Classical
Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920.
Reichling, Dietrich. Das Doctrinale des Alexander de VillaDei.
Kritischexegetische
Ausgabe. Monumenta Germaniae paedagogica 12. Berlin: A Hofmann, 1893.
Schönberger, Axel. Die Ars maior des Aelius Donatus: lateinischer Text und kommentierte
deutsche Übersetzung einer antiken Lateingrammatik des 4. Jahrhunderts für den
fortgeschrittenen Anfängeruntericht. Frankfurt am Main: Valentia, 2009.
Sedulius Scotus. In Donati Artem maiorem. Ed. Bengt Löfstedt. Grammatici hibernici
carolini aevi III‐1. Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 40BC. Turnhout:
Brepols, 1977.
Seeboeck, Philibert. Compendium litteralis sensus totius diuine scripture: editum a fratre
Petro Aureoli. Quaracchi: Typ. Coll. S. Bonaventura, 1986.
Summa Britonis sive Guilelmi Britonis expositiones vocabulorum bibliae. Vol. 1. Eds. Lloyd
W. Daly and Bernadine A. Daly. Padova: Antenor, 1975.
Sylwan, Agneta, ed. Petri Comestoris Scolastica Historia. Liber Genesis. Corpus Christianorum
Continuation mediaevalis 191. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005.
Secondary sources
Arbusow, Leonid. “Das metrische Bibelsummarium des Dominikaners Otto de Riga vom
Jahre 1316,” 403‐09. In Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft für Geschichte und Altertumskunde
der Ostseeprovinzen Russlands 1911. Riga, 1913.
Atherton, Catherine. Form and Content in Didactic Poetry. Bari: Levante, 1997.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed. Michael Holquist. Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1982.
________. Rabelais and His World. Trans. Hélène Iswolsky. Bloomington IN: Indiana
University Press, 1984.
14 7
Bayless, Martha. Parody in the Middle Ages: The Latin Tradition. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1996.
Bažil, Martin. Centones Christiani. Métamorphoses d´une forme intertextuelle dans la
poésie latine chrétienne de l´Antiquité tardive. Collection des Études augustiniennes,
Série Moyen Âge et Temps Modernes 47. Paris: Études augustiniennes, 2009.
Belknap, Robert E. The List. The Uses and Pleasures of Cataloguing. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2004.
Benkert, Ludwig. Das historiographische Merkvers. Neustadt: C.W. Schmidt, 1960.
Binkley, Peter, ed. PreModern
Encyclopaedic Texts. Proceedings of the Second COMERS
Congress, Groningen, 14
July 1996. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Bischoff, Bernard. “Anecdota Carolina,” 1‐11. In Studien zur lateinischen Dichtung des
Mittelalters. Ehrengabe für Karl Strecker zum 4. September 1931. Eds. Walter Stach et
al. Dresden: Baensch Stiftung, 1931.
Boháček, Miroslav and František Čáda. Beschreibung der mittelalterlichen Handschriften
der Wissenschaftlichen Staatsbibliothek von Olmütz. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 1994.
Calmet, Augustin. Bibliothèque lorraine, ou Histoire des hommes illustres qui ont fleuri en
Lorraine, dans les Trois Évêchés, dans l’archevêché de Trèves, dans le duché de
Luxembourg, etc. Nancy: A. Leseure, 1751.
Cardelle de Hartmann, Carmen, and Estrella Pérez Rodríguez. “Text im Wandel und
editorische Praxis: Der lateinische Contemptus sublimitatis (Dialogus creaturarum)
in der handschriftlichen Überlieferung,” 21‐40. In Didaktisches Erzählen: Formen
literarischer Belehrung in Orient und Okzident. Eds. Regula Forster and Romy
Günthart. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2010.
Carey, John. “The Obscurantists and the Sea‐Monster: Reflections on the Hisperica
famina.” Peritia 17‐18 (2003‐2004): 40‐60.
Carruthers, Mary. The Book of Memory. A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture.
Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1990.
Catalogue of Western Manuscripts of the Old Royal and King’s Collection. London: K.G.
Saur, 1997.
Catalogue of the Manuscripts Preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1857.
Cerquiglini, Bernard. Éloge de la variante. Histoire critique de la philologie. Des Travaux
8. Paris: Seuil, 1989.
Chevalier, Ulysse. Repertorium hymnologicum. Catalogue des chants, hymnes, proses,
séquences, tropes en usage dans l’église latine depuis les origines jusqu’à nos jours. Vol.
II. Leuven: Lefever, 1897.
Cioni, Fernando. “Stages at the University of Cambridge inTudor England,” 127‐54. In
English Renaissance Scenes: From Canon to Margins. Eds. Paola Pugliatti and Alessandro
Serpieri. Bern: Peter Lang, 2008.
Cizek, Alexandru N. “Antike Memoria‐Lehre und mittellateinische versus differentiales,”
43‐52. In Culture of Memory in East Central Europe in the Late Middle Ages and the
Early Modern Period. Ed. Rafał Wójcik. Poznań: Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, 2008.
________. “Docere et delectare. Zur Eigenart der versus differentiales im Novus Grecismus
Konrads von Mure,” 191‐212. In Dichten als StoffVermittlung.
Formen, Ziele, Wirkungen.
Beiträge zur Praxis der Versifikation lateinischer Texte im Mittelalter. Ed. Peter
Stotz. Zurich: Chronos Verlag, 2008.
Clark, Mark J. “How to Edit Comestor’s Historia scholastica.” Revue bénédictine 116
(2006): 83‐91.
14 8
________. “The Commentaries on Peter Comestor Historia scholastica of Stephen Langton,
Pseudo‐Langton, and Hugh of St. Cher.” Sacris erudiri 44 (2005): 301‐446.
Conti, Aidan. “Scribes as Authors, Transmission as Composition: Towards a Science of
Copying,” 267‐88. In Modes of Authorship in the Middle Ages. Ed. Slavica Ranković.
Papers in Medieval Studies 22. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,
2012.
Cremascoli, Giuseppe. “Il riuso della Bibbia,” 413‐31. In Ideologie e pratiche del reimpiego
nell’alto medioevo I (16‐21 aprile 1998). Settimane di studio sull’alto medioevo 46.
Spoleto: CISAM, 1999.
________ and Claudio Leonardi, eds. La Bibbia nel medioevo. Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane,
1996.
Crisci, Edoardo and Oronzo Pecere, eds. Il codice miscellaneo: tipologie e funzioni. Atti del
Convegno internazionale, Cassino 14/17 maggio 2003. Segno e testo 2. Cassino:
Università degli studi di Cassino, 2004.
De Lubac, Henri. Exégèse médiévale: les quatre senses de l’écriture. Paris: Aubier, 1959‐
1964.
Di Mauro, Aurora. “Un contributo alla mnemotecnica medievale: Il Compendium historiae
in genealogia Christi in una redazione pisana del XIII secolo,” 453‐67. In Il codice
miniato: rapporti tra codice, testo e figurazione. Atti del III Congresso di Storia della
Miniatura. Eds. Melania Ceccanti and Maria Cristina Castelli. Florence: Olschki, 1992.
Dinkova‐Bruun, Greti. “Biblical Versification and Memory in the Later Middle Ages,” 53‐
64. In Culture of Memory in East Central Europe in the Late Middle Ages and the Early
Modern Period. Ed. Rafal Wójcik. Prace Biblioteki Uniwersyteckiej 30. Poznań:
Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, 2008.
________. “Biblical Versifications from Late Antiquity to the Middle of the Thirteenth
Century: History or Allegory?,” 315‐42. In Poetry and Exegesis in Premodern Latin
Christianity: The Encounter between Classical and Christian Strategies of Interpretation.
Eds. Willemien Otten and Karla Pollmann. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae
87. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
________. “Medieval Latin,” 284‐302. In A Companion to the Latin Language. Ed. James
Clackson. Malden, MA: Wiley, 2011.
________. “Medieval Latin Poetic Anthologies (VII): The Biblical Anthology from York
Minster Library (Ms. XVI Q 14).” Mediaeval Studies 64 (2002): 61‐109.
________. “Remembering the Gospels in the Later Middle Ages: The Anonymous Capitula
Euangeliorum Versifice Scripta.” Sacris erudiri 48 (2009): 235‐73.
________. “Why Versify the Bible in the Later Middle Ages and for Whom? The Story of
Creation in Verse,” 41‐55. In Dichten als StoffVermittlung.
Formen, Ziele, Wirkungen.
Beiträge zur Praxis der Versifikation lateinischer Texte im Mittelalter. Ed. Peter Stotz.
Zurich: Chronos Verlag, 2008.
Doelle, Ferdinand. “Beiträge zum Studium und zu wissenschaftlicher Tätigkeit der Franziskaner
zu Erfurt I.” Beiträge zur Geschichte der sächsischen Franziskanerprovinz
vom Heiligen Kreuze 1 (1908): 65‐86.
Doležalová, Lucie. “A Biblical Role‐Playing Game? Interpreting and Contextualizing a
Late Medieval Latin Poem (inc. Vos qui concupiscitis).” Acta Universitatis Carolinae,
Philologica 3, Graecolatina Pragensia 24 (2012): 103‐13.
________. “Biblia quasi in sacculo: Summarium Biblie and Other Medieval Bible
Mnemonics.” Medium Aevum Quotidianum 56 (2007): 5‐35.
________. “Cena maletractati: An Unnoticed Version of Cena Cypriani,” 195‐244. In Parva
pro magnis munera. Études de litérature tardoantique
et médiévale offertes à
14 9
François Dolbeau par ses élèves. Ed. Monique Goullet. Instrumenta patristica et
mediaevalia 51. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009.
________. “Fugere artem memorativam? The Art of Memory in Late Medieval Bohemia (a
Preliminary Survey).” Studia mediaevalia Bohemica 2:2 (2010): 221‐260.
________. “Mémoriser la Bible au bas Moyen Âge ? Le Summarium Biblicum aux frontières
de l’intelligibilité.” Cahiers électroniques d’histoire textuelle du LAMOP 3 (2010): 1‐
45.
________. “On Mistake and Meaning: Scinderationes fonorum in medieval artes memoriae,
mnemonic verses, and manuscripts.” Language and History 52 (2009): 26‐40.
________. “Quoddam notabile vel ridiculum: an unnoticed version of Cena Cypriani (Ms.
Uppsala, UL, C 178).” Archivum latinitatis medii aevi (Bulletin Du Cange) 62 (2004):
137‐60.
________. Reception and Its Varieties: Reading, ReWriting
and Understanding ‘Cena
Cypriani’ in the Middle Ages. Bochumer Altertumswissenschaftliches Colloquium 75.
Trier: Wissenschaftliches Verlag, 2007.
________ and Tamás Visi, eds. Retelling the Bible: Literary, Historical, and Social Contexts.
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011.
________. “The Charm and Difficulty of a Fragment: The Cases of Cena Cypriani and
Summarium Biblie,” 283‐301. In Along the OralWritten
Continuum: Types of Text,
Relations and Their Implications. Ed. Slavica Ranković with Leidulf Melve and Else
Mundal. Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.
________, ed. The Charm of a List: From the Sumerians to Computerised Data Processing.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009.
________, ed. The Making of Memory in the Middle Ages. Later Medieval Europe 4. Leiden:
Brill, 2010.
________. “The Thin Borderline between the Same and the Different: Reproducibility of
Medieval Manuscripts,” 81‐87. In Reproducibility – Arts, Science, and Living Nature:
10th Villa Lanna Meeting on «Science, or Else?» Prague, January 1113,
2008. Eds.
Amrei Wittwer, Elvan Kut, Vladimir Pliska, and Gerd Folkers, Collegium Helveticum
Heft 5. Zurich: Collegium Helveticum, 2008.
________. “Verses on the Effects of the Eucharist: Memory and the Material Text in
Utraquist Miscellanies,” in Situating Religious Controversy: Textual Transmission and
Networks of Readership. Eds. Pavel Soukup and Michael van Dussen. Turnhout: Brepols,
accepted for publication.
Dungey, Kevin R. “Allegorical Theory and Aldhelm’s Obscurity,” 3‐26. In: Allegoresis. The
Craft of Allegory in Medieval Literature. Ed. J. Stephen Russell. New York: Garland,
1988.
Eco, Umberto. The Infinity of List: An Illustrated Essay. Trans. Alastair McEwen. New
York: Rizzoli, 2009.
Ford, Philip J. “Alexandre de Villedieu’s Doctrinale puerorum: A Medieval Bestseller and
Its Fortune in the Renaissance,” 155‐71. In Forms of the ‘Medieval’ in the ‘Renaissance’:
A Multidisciplinary Exploration of a Cultural Continuum. Ed. George Hugo
Tucker. Charlottesville: Rookwood Press, 2000.
Franceschini, Ezio, et al., eds. La Bibbia nell’alto medioevo. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di
Studi sull’alto medioevo, 1963.
Frova, Carla. “Il Polittico attribuito ad Attone vescovo di Vercelli (924‐960 ca.): tra storia
e grammatica.” Bulletino dell’istituto storico italiano 90 (1982/3): 1‐75.
Frye, Northrop. The Great Code: Bible and Literature. New York: Harcourt, 1982.
Fuhrmann, Manfred. “Obscuritas. Das Problem der Dunkelheit in der rhetorischen und
literarästhetischen Theorie der Antike,” 47‐72. In Immanente Ästhetik—Ästhetische
15 0
Reflexion: Lyrik als Paradigma der Moderne. Ed. Wolfgang Iser. Poetik und Hermeneutik
2. Munich: Fink, 1983 [first edition in 1966].
Gameson, Richard. “Durham’s Paris Bible and the Use of Communal Bibles in a Benedictine
Cathedral Priory in the Later Middle Ages.” In The Form and Function of Late
Medieval Bible. Eds. Eyal Poleg and Laura Light. Leiden: Brill, prepared for publication.
Gayley, Charles Mills. Plays of our Forefathers and Some of the Traditions Upon Which
They Were Founded. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907.
Geerlings, Wilhelm and Christian Schulze, eds. Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter:
Neue Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Gillespie, Vincent. “Vernacular Books of Religion,” 317‐44. In Book Production and
Publishing in Britain, 13751475.
Eds. Jeremy Griffiths and Derek Pearsall.
Cambridge Studies in Publishing and Printing History. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989.
Glei, Reinhold F. “Alexander de Villa Dei (ca. 1170‐1250), Doctrinale,” 291‐312. In
Lateinische Lehrer Europas. Fünfzehn Portraits von Varro bis Erasmus von Rotterdam.
Ed. Wolfram Ax. Cologne: Böhlau, 2005.
Godwin, William. Life of Geoffrey Chaucer, the Early English Poet I. London: T. Davison,
1804.
Goering, Joseph. William de Montibus: The Schools and the Literature of Pastoral Care.
Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1992.
Grabmann, Martin. Die Philosophia pauperum und ihr Verfasser Albert von Orlamünde.
Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters 20: 2. Münster:
Aschendorff, 1918.
Grotefend, Hermann. Zeitrechnung des deutschen Mittelalters und der Neuzeit. Vol. I.
Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1891.
Gumbert, J. Peter. “Codicological Units: Towards a Terminology for the Stratigraphy of
the Non‐Homogenous Codex,” 17‐42. In Il codice miscellaneo: tipologie e funzioni. Atti
del Convegno internazionale, Cassino 14/17 maggio 2003. Eds. Edoardo Crisci and
Oronzo Pecere. Segno e testo 2. Cassino: Università degli studi di Cassino, 2004.
Hauke, Hermann. “Ein biblisches Summarium aus dem 15. Jahrhundert in der
Aschaffenburger Guttenberg‐Bibel.” Aschaffenburger Jahrbuch 7 (1981): 109‐16.
Häuptli, Bruno W. “Bartholomäus von Trient.” In BiographischBibliographisches
Lexikon
22 (2003), cols. 56‐61.
Hauréau, Barthélemy. Notices et extraits de quelques manuscrits latins de la Bibliothèque
nationale. 6 vols. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1890‐1896.
Haye, Thomas. Das lateinische Lehrgedicht im Mittelalter. Analyse einer Gattung. Mittellateinische
Studien und Texte 22. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Henkel, Nikolaus. Deutsche Übersetzungen lateinischer Schultexte: Ihre Verbreitung und
Funktion im Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit. Münchener Texte und
Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters 90. Munich: Artemis, 1988.
Herren, Michael. “The Pseudonymous Tradition in Hiberno‐Latin: An Introduction,” 121‐
31. In Latin Script and Letters A.D. 400–900: Festschrift Presented to Ludwig Bieler on
the Occasion of his 70th Birthday. Eds. John O’Meara and Bernd Naumann. Leiden:
Brill, 1976.
________. “Some New Light on the Life of Virgilius Maro Grammaticus.” Proceedings of the
Royal Irish Academy 79, section C (1979): 27–71.
Hilpert, Hans‐Eberhard. “Geistliche Bildung und Laienbildung: Zur Überlieferung der
Schulschrift Compendium historiae in genealogia Christi (Compendium veteris
15 1
testamenti) des Petrus von Poitiers (+1205) in England.” Journal of Mediaeval
History 11:4 (1985): 315‐31.
Hobbins, Daniel. Authorship and Publicity Before Print. Jean Gerson and the Transformation
of Late Medieval Learning. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.
________. “The Schoolman as Public Intellectual: Jean Gerson and the Late Medieval Tract,”
The American Historical Review 108:5 (2003): 1308‐1337.
James, M. R. “Inventiones Nominum.” Journal of Theological Studies 4 (1902‐3): 218‐44.
Jansen‐Sieben, Ria and H. van Dijk, eds. Codices miscellanearum. A special issue of
Archives et bibliothèques de Belgique 60. Brussels: Archives et bibliothèques de
Belgique, 1999.
Kadlec, Jaroslav. “Oldřich Kříž z Telče” (Ulricus Crux de Telcz). Listy Filologické 4 (1956):
91‐102 and 234‐38.
Kartschoke, Dieter. “‘Biblia versificata’. Bibeldichtung als Übersetzungsliteratur betrachtet.”
Vestigia Bibliae 4 (1982): 23‐41.
Killings, Steven J. “Vos qui concupiscitis or Ludus filiorum Israel: A Critical Edition.” PhD
diss., University of Toronto, 2002.
Klein, Dorothea. “Ad memoriam firmiorem. Merkverse in lateinisch‐ deutscher Lexikographie
des späten Mittelalters,” 131‐53. In Medium Aevum deutsch. Beiträge zur
deutschen Literatur des hohen und späten Mittelalters. Festschrift für Kurt Ruh zum
65. Geburtstag. Ed. Dietrich Huschenbett. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1979.
Knappe, Gabriele. “On Rhetoric and Grammar in the Hisperica famina.” The Journal of
Medieval Latin 4 (1994): 130‐62.
Kraus, Manfred. “Grammatical and Rhetorical Exercises in the Medieval Classroom.” New
Medieval Literatures 11 (2009): 63‐89.
Kristjánsson, Jónas. Eddas and Sagas. Iceland’s Medieval Literature. Trans. Peter Foote.
Reykjavík: Hið Íslenska bókmenntafélag, 1988.
Kühne, Udo. “Zur literarischen Tradition der Biblia metrica,” 95‐108. In: Dietrich
Engelhus. Beiträge zu Leben und Werk. Ed. Volker Honemann. Mitteldeutsche
Forschungen 104. Cologne: Böhlau, 1991.
Kully, Rolf Max “Cisiojanus: Studien zur mnemonischen Literatur anhand des spätmittelalterlichen
Kalendergedichts.” Schweizerisches Archiv für Volkskunde 70 (1974): 93‐
123.
________. “Denk‐ und Merkverse als Gebrauchspoesie,” 134‐51. In Ze hove und an der strazen:
Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters und ihr ‘Sitz im Leben’. Festschrift für
Volker Schupp zum 65. Geburtstag. Eds. Anna Keck and Theodor Nolte. Sttutgart:
Hirzel, 1999.
Kümper, Hiram. “Dietrich Engelhus,” col. 373‐75. In Biographishbibliographisches
Kirchenlexikon 25 (2005).
________. “Obscuritas legum: Traditional Law, Learned Jurisprudence, and Territorial
Legislation – the Example of Sachsenspiegel and Ius Municipale Maideburgense.” In
Obscuritas in the Middle Ages. Eds. Lucie Doležalová and Jeff Rider. Krems: Medium
Aevum Quotidianum, in print).
Lachin, Giosuè and Francesco Zambon, eds. Obscuritas: Retorica e poetica dell’oscuro. Atti
del XXVIII Convegno Interuniversitario di Bressanone (1215
luglio 2001). Labirinti
71. Trento: Università degli Studi di Trento, 2004.
Lapidge, Michael. “The Hermeneutic Style in Tenth Century Anglo‐Latin.” AngloSaxon
England 4 (1975): 67‐111. [Reprinted in Studies in Medieval History Presented to R.
H. C. Davis. London: Continuum, 2003.]
Laurioux, Bruno. “Olla patella: préliminaires à une étude de la lexicographie alimentaire
au moyen âge,” 465‐81. In Par les mots et les textes. Mélanges de langue, de littérature
15 2
et d’histoire des sciences médiévales offerts à Claude Thomasset. Eds. Danièle James‐
Raoul and Olivier Soutet. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris‐Sorbonne, 2005.
Law, Vivien. Insular Latin Grammarians. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1982.
________. “Learning to Read with the oculi mentis: Virgilius Maro Grammaticus.” Literature
and Theology 3 (1989): 159‐72.
________. The History of Linguistics in Europe from Plato to 1600. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2003.
________. “The Latin and Old English Glosses in the ars Tatuini.” AngloSaxon
England 6
(1997): 77‐89.
________. Wisdom, Authority, and Grammar in the Seventh Century: Decoding Virgilius Maro
Grammaticus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
________. “Why Write a Verse Grammar?” Journal of Medieval Latin: A Publication of the
North American Association of Medieval Latin 9 (1999): 46‐76.
Le Goff, Jacques. “Pourquoi le XIIIe siècle a‐t‐il été un siècle d’encyclopédisme?” 23‐40. In
L’enciclopedismo medievale. Atti del Convegno “L’Enciclopedismo Medievale,”
San
Gimignano, 810
ottobre 1992. Ed. Michelangelo Picone. Ravenna: Longo, 1994.
Lehmann, Paul. Die Parodie im Mittelalter. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1963.
Luscombe, David E. “Peter Comestor,” 109‐129. In The Bible in the Medieval World.
Essays in Honour of Beryl Smalley. Eds. Katherine Walsh and Diana Wood. Studies in
Church History, Subsidia 4. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985.
Lutz, Jules and Paul Perdrizet. Speculum Humanae Salvationis. Vol. 1. Mulhouse:
Meininger, 1907.
Maaz, Wolfgang. “Zur Rezeption des Alexander von Villa Dei im 15. Jahrhundert.”
Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch: Internationale Zeitschrift für Mediävistik 16 for 1981
(1982): 276‐281.
Maniaci, Marilena. Terminologia del libro manoscritto. Rome: Istituto centrale per la
patologia del libro, 1996.
Markus, Robert A. “St. Augustine on Signs.” Phronesis 2:1 (1957): 60‐83.
Massing, Jean Michel. “From Manuscript to Engravings. Late Medieval Mnemonic Bibles,”
101‐15. In Ars memorativa. Zur kulturgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Gedächtniskunst
14001750.
Eds. Jörg Jochen Berns and Wolfgang Neuber. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer
Verlag, 1993.
Mehtonen, Päivi. Obscure Language—Unclear Literature. Theory and Practice from Quintilian
to the Enlightenment. Helsinki: The Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters,
2003.
________. ”Obscurity as a Linguistic Device: Introductory and Historical Notes.” Danish
Yearbook of Philosophy 31 (1996): 157‐68.
________. “Scriptural Difficulty and the Obscurity of Historia,” 51‐67. In Historia: The
Concept and Genres. Eds. Päivi Mehtonen and Tuomas M. S. Lehtonen. Commentationes
humanarum litterarum 116. Helsinki: Societas scientiarum Fennica, 2000.
Meier, Christel. “Organization of Knowledge and Encyclopaedic Ordo: Functions and
Purposes of a Universal Literary Genre,” 104‐26. In PreModern
Encyclopaedic Texts
(COMERS Congress, Groningen, July 1996). Ed. Peter Binkley. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Meier, Ludger. Die Barfüsserschule zu Erfurt. Erfurt: Aschendorff, 1958.
Modesto, Christine. Studien zur Cena Cypriani und zu deren Rezeption. Classica Monacensia
3. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag, 1992.
Mohan, G. E. “Initia operum Franciscalium (XIII‐XV S.).” Franciscan Studies 38 (1978):
377‐498.
Moore, Philip S. The Works of Peter of Poitiers. Notre Dame: The University of Notre
Dame Press, 1936.
15 3
Morey, James H. “Peter Comestor, Biblical Paraphrase, and the Medieval Popular Bible.”
Speculum 68:1 (1993): 6‐35.
Mosetti Casaretto, Francesco. “Cipriano e il suo doppio: Giovanni Immonide di fronte al
problema attributivo della ‘Cena’.” Wiener Studien 115 (2002): 225‐59.
________. “Il riso inatteso di Rabano: la ‘Cena Cypriani’,” 99‐119. In Atti del Congresso
internazionale ‘Homo risibilis’. Capacità di ridere e pratica del riso nelle civiltà
medievali (Siena, 24
Ottobre, 2002). Ed. Francesco Mosetti Casaretto. Ricerche
Intermedievali 1. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2005.
________ and Elio Rosati. Rabano Mauro—Giovanni Immonide. La ‘Cena di Cipriano’. Alessandria:
Edizioni dell’Orso, 2002 [revised and corrected in 2004].
Muzerelle, Denis. Vocabulaire codicologique. Répertoire méthodique des termes français
relatifs aux manuscits. Paris: Éditions CEMI, 1985.
Nichols, Stephen G., ed. Speculum 65 (1990).
________ and Siegfried Wenzel, eds. The Whole Book: Cultural Perspectives on the Medieval
Miscellany. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1997.
Norberg, Dag. Introduction à l’étude de la versification latine médiévale. Stockholm:
Almquist and Wiksell, 1958. [Published in English as An Introduction to the Study of
Medieval Latin Versification. Introduction by Jan Ziolkowski. Washington, DC: The
Catholic University of America Press, 2004]
Nováková, Julie. České cisiojány od 14. století (Czech cisioiani from the 14th c.). Studie
ČSAV 3. Prague: Academia, 1971.
Ó Cróinín, Dáibhí. “Hiberno‐Latin Literature to 1169,” 371‐404. In Prehistoric and Early
Ireland: Prehistoric and Early Ireland, Volume I. Ed. D. Ó Cróinín. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2005.
Odstrčilík, Jan. “The Effects of Christ’s Coming into the Soul: A Case Study on a Group of
Anonymous Treatises in Ms. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 524,” Medium Aevum
Quotidianum, in print.
Orchard, Andy. “The Hisperica Famina as Literature.” Journal of Medieval Latin 10
(2000): 1‐45.
Ozanam, Antoni F. La civilisation chrétienne chez les Francs. Paris: Jacques le Coffre,
1849.
Pabst, Bernhard. “Ein Medienwechsel in Theorie und Praxis. Die Umstellung von prosaischen
auf versifizierte Schultexte im 12. bis 14. Jahrhundert und ihre Problematik,”
151‐74. In Dichten als StoffVermittlung.
Formen, Ziele, Wirkungen. Beiträge zur
Praxis der Versifikation lateinischer Texte im Mittelalter. Ed. Peter Stotz. Zurich:
Chronos Verlag, 2008.
Pantayotova, Stella. “Peter of Poitiers’s Compendium in genealogia Christi: The Early
English Copies,” 327‐41. Belief and Culture in the Middle Ages: Studies Presented to
Henry MayrHarting.
Ed. Richard Gameson and Henrietta Leyser. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001.
Piccone, Carla. Dalla prosa ai versi: forme, usi, contesti della versificazione mediolatina.
Lateinische Sprache und Literatur des Mittelalters. Bern: Peter Lang, in print. (PhD
Diss., University of Zurich, 2011.)
________. “Scribere clericulis paro Doctrinale nouellis. Il Doctrinale di Alessandro de
Villedieu tra teoria e prassi,” 175‐89. In Dichten als StoffVermittlung.
Formen, Ziele,
Wirkungen. Beiträge zur Praxis der Versifikation lateinischer Texte im Mittelalter. Ed.
Peter Stotz. Zurich: Chronos Verlag, 2008.
Raby, Frederic James Edward. A History of ChristianLatin
Poetry from the Beginnings to
the Close of the Middle Ages. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953.
________, and Guy Lobrichon, eds. Le Moyen Age et la Bible. Paris: Beauchesne, 1984.
15 4
Rider, Jeff. “The Perpetual Enigma in Chrétien’s Grail Episode.” Arthuriana 8:1 (1998): 6‐
21.
Rischpler, Susanne. Biblia sacra figuris expressa. Mnemotechnische Biblderbibeln des 15.
Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2001.
________. “Coeur voyant. Mémoriser les Sentences de Pierre Lombard,” 3‐40. In Medieval
Memory. Image and Text. Eds. Frank Willaert et al. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004.
Rivers, Kimberly. “Memory, Division and the Organization of Knowledge in the Middle
Ages,” 147‐58. In PreModern
Encyclopaedic Texts Proceedings of the Second COMERS
Congress, Groningen, 14
July 1996. Ed. Peter Binkley. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
________. Preaching the Memory of Virtue and Vice. Memory, Images, and Preaching in the
Late Middle Ages. Sermo: Studies on Patristic, Medieval, and Reformation Sermons
and Preaching 4. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.
Roberts, Michael. Biblical Epic and Rhetorical Paraphrase in Late Antiquity. Liverpool:
Francis Cairns, 1985.
Roelli, Philipp. “Towards Generating a Stemma of Complicated Manuscript Traditions:
Petrus Alfonsi’s Dialogus.” Revue d’histoire des textes n.s. 5 (2010): 307‐21.
Rost, Hans. Die Bibel im Mittelalter. Augsburg: Kommissionsverlag M. Seitz, 1939.
Rothschild, Jean‐Pierre. Bibliographie annuelle du Moyen Age tardif 1‐20 (1991‐2010).
Rouse, Richard H. and Mary A. Rouse. “Statim Invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes
to the Page,” 201‐25. Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century. Eds.
Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1982.
Saenger, Paul. Space between Words. The Origins of Silent Reading. Palo Alto: Stanford
University Press, 1997.
Scaglione, Aldo D. The Classical Theory of Composition: From Its Origins to the Present: A
Historical Survey. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1972.
Schmidt, Gerhard. Die Armenbibeln des 14. Jahrhunderts. Graz: Böhlau, 1959.
________. Die Wiener Biblia pauperum. Codex Vindobonensis 1198. Graz: Styria, 1962.
Schmidt, Paul Gerhard. “Die Kunst der Kürze,” 23‐40. In Dichten als StoffVermittlung.
Formen, Ziele, Wirkungen. Beiträge zur Praxis der Versifikation lateinischer Texte im
Mittelalter. Ed. Peter Stotz. Zurich: Chronos Verlag, 2008.
Schumann, Klaus Peter. “Petrus Comestor und Petrus Lombardus in Minden? Prolegomena
zu einer Geschichte der dominikanischen Partikularstudien im spätmittelalterlichen
Westfalen,” 151‐69. In Manipulus Florum: Aus Mittelalter, Landesgeschichte,
Literatur und Historiographie. Festschrift für Peter Johanek zum 60. Geburtstag. Eds.
Ellen Widder, Mark Mersiowsky, and Maria‐Theresia Leuker. Münster: Waxmann,
2001.
Seelbach, Sabine. Ars und Scientia. Genese, Überlieferung und Funktionen der mnemotechnischen
Traktatliteratur im 15. Jahrhundert. Mit Edition und Untersuchung dreier
deutscher Traktate und ihrer lateinischen Vorlagen. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2000.
Sherwood‐Smith, Maria. “Die Historia Scholastica als Quelle biblischer Stoffe im Mittelalter,”
153‐65. In Die Vermittlung geistlicher Inhalte im deutschen Mittelalter: Internationales
Symposium, Roscrea 1994. Eds. Timothy R. Jackson, Nigel F. Palmer, and
Almut Suerbaum. Tübingen: Niemeyer Verlag, 1996.
Silagiová, Zuzana. “Cisioianus debet dici. Cisioján v komputistické praxi” (Cisioianus in
practice of computus), 188‐204. In Pulchritudo et sapientia. Ad honorem Pavel
Spunar. Eds. Zuzana Silagiová, Hana Šedinová, and Petr Kitzler. Prague: Filosofický
ústav AV ČR, 2008.
Smalley, Beryl. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941.
15 5
Spufford, Francis. The Chatto Book of Cabbages and Kings: Lists in Literature. London:
Chatto and Windus, 1989.
Stackmann, Karl. “Die Bedeutung des Beiwerks für die Bestimmung der
Gebrauchssituation vorlutherischer deutschen Bibeln,” 273‐88. In De captu lectoris.
Wirkungen des Buches im 15. und 16 Jahrhundert. Eds. Wolfgang Milde and Werner
Schuder. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1988.
Stegmüller, Friedrich. Repertorium biblicum medii aevi. 11 vols. Madrid: Consejo
superior de investigacionescientificas, 1950‐1980.
________. Repertorium commentariorum in Sententias Petri Lombardi. 2 vols. Würzburg: F.
Schöningh, 1947.
Stella, Francesco, ed. La scrittura infinita. Bibbia e poesia in età medievale e umanistica.
Florence: SISMEL Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2001.
________. La poesia carolingia latina a tema biblico. Biblioteca di medioevo latino 9.
Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 1993.
Sterl, Margit. “Sprachliche Untersuchungen zur Occupatio des Odo von Cluny.” PhD diss.,
Universität Wien, 1987.
Stevenson, Henry, et al. Codices Palatini latini bibliothecae Vaticanae descripti praeside I.
B. cardinali Pitra. Rome: Ex typographeo Vaticano, 1886.
Stoffers, Manuel and Pieter Thijs, “A Question of Mentality: the Changed Appreciation of
Thomas Murner’s Logical Card Game (c. 1500),” 275‐93. In Memory and Oblivion.
Acts of the XXIXth International Congress of the History of Art, Amsterdam, 17
September 1996. Ed. Wessel Reinink and Jeroen Stumpel. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1999.
Stöllinger, Christine. “Helwicus von Magdeburg,” col. 982‐84. Die deutsche Literatur des
Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon. Vol. 3. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1951.
Stotz, Peter. Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters. 5 vols. Munich: Beck,
1996‐2004.
________. “Normgebundenheit, Normen‐Entfaltung und Spontaneität im mittelalterlichen
Latein,” 39‐49. In The Dawn of the Written Vernacular in Western Europe. Eds.
Michèle Goyens and Werner Verbeke. Mediaevalia Lovaniensia, Series 1/Studia 33.
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003.
________, ed. Dichten als StoffVermittlung.
Formen, Ziele, Wirkungen. Beiträge zur Praxis
der Versifikation lateinischer Texte im Mittelalter. Zurich: Chronos Verlag, 2008.
Tiedje, Sabine. “The Roseum Memoriale Divinorum Eloquiorum Petri de Rosenheim: A
Bible Summary from the Fifteenth Century,” 335‐53. In Retelling the Bible: Literary,
Historical, and Social Contexts. Ed. Lucie Doležalová and Tamás Visi. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang, 2011.
Till, Dietmar. “Obscuritas,” cols. 358‐86. In Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Vol. 6.
Ed. Gert Ueding. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2003.
Tomasek, Tomas. Das deutsche Rätsel im Mittelalter. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1994.
Towner, B. Sibley. “Additions to Esther.” In Mercer Commentary to the Bible 5: Deuterocanonicals/
Apocrypha. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1994.
Trachsler, Richard. “Les Fables de Marie de France. Manuscrits et éditions.” Cahiers de
civilisation médiévale 44 (2001): 45‐63.
Uribe García, Jesús‐Manuel. “Manuscritos, incunables e impresos arcaicos del Doctrinale
de Alexander de Villa‐Dei, conservados en archivos y bibliotecas espaňoles.”
Documenta et scripta 54 (1993): 285‐309.
Utley, Francis Lee. “The One Hundred and Three Names of Noah’s Wife.” Speculum 16:4
(October 1941): 426‐52.
15 6
Van Engen, John. “Studying Scripture at the Early University,” 17‐38. In Neue Richtungen
in der hochund
spätmittelalterliche Bibelexegese. Ed. Robert E. Lerner. Munich:
Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 1996.
Veldhuis, Nicolaas Christiaan. “Elementary Education at Nippur. The Lists of Trees and
Wooden Objects.” PhD diss., University of Groningen, 1997.
Vernet, André. La Bible au Moyen Age. Bibliographie. Paris: Centre national de la
recherche scientifique, 1989.
Vogel, Lothar. Vom Werden eines Heiligen: Eine Untersuchung der ‘Vita Corbiniani’ des
Bischofs Arbeo von Freising. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 77. Berlin and New
York: De Gruyter, 2000.
Walther, Hans. Initia carminum ac versuum medii aevi posterioris latinorum. Alphabetisches
Verzeichnis der Versanfänge mittellateinischen Dichtungen. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959.
________. Proverbia sententiaeque latinitatis medii ac recentioris aevi: Lateinische Sprichwörter
und Sentenzen des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit in alphabetischer
Anordnung. Ed. Paul Gerhard Schmidt. Carmina medii aevi posterioris Latina 2. 9
vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963‐1986.
Walther, Wilhelm. Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung des Mittelalters. Braunschweig:
Wollermann, 1889‐1892.
Weckwerth, Alfred. “Der Name Biblia pauperum.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 83
(1972): 1‐33.
Wenzel, Sigfried. “The Appearance of Artes praedicandi in Medieval Manuscripts.” In
Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies: Composition, Authorship, Use. Eds. Lucie
Doležalová and Kimberly Rivers. Library of the Written Word: The Medieval World.
Leiden: Brill, in print.
Werner, Jakob. Beiträge zur Kunde der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters aus
Handschriften gesammelt. Aarau: H.R. Sauerländer, 1905.
Wetzel, Christoph. “Die Armenbibel—ein Mißverständnis.” In Biblia pauperum. Armenbibel.
Die Bilderhandschrift des Codex Palatinus latinus 871 im Besitz der Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana. Stuttgart: Belser Verlag, 1995.
Wiener, Leo. Contributions Toward a History of ArabicoGothic
Culture. Piscataway:
Gorgias Press LLC, 2002.
Wójcik, Rafał. ‘Opusculum de arte memorativa’ Jana Szklarka. Bernardyński traktat
mnemotechniczny z 1504 roku. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne,
2006.
________, ed. Culture of Memory in East Central Europe in the Late Middle Ages and the
Early Modern Period. Prace Biblioteki Uniwersyteckiej 30. Poznań: Biblioteka
Uniwersytecka, 2008.
Worstbrock, Franz Josef. “Die Biblia metrica des Dietrich Engelhus und ihre
Überlieferung.” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 36 (1980): 177‐92.
________. “Libri pauperum. Zu Entstehung, Struktur und Gebrauch einiger mittelalterlicher
Buchformen der Wissensliteratur seit dem 12. Jahrhundert,” 41‐60. In Der Codex im
Gebrauch. (Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums 11. 13.
Juni 1992). Ed. Christel
Meier et al. Münstersche Mittelalter‐Schriften 70. Munich: Fink, 1996.
Wulf, Christine. “Alexander de Villa Dei,” 59‐61. Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters:
Verfasserlexikon. Eds. Wolfgang Stammler, Karl Langosch, and Kurt Ruh. Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2006.
________. Eine volkssprachige Laienbibel des 15. Jahrhunderts: Untersuchung und Teiledition
der Handschrift Nürnberg, Stadtbibliothek, MS. Solg. 16.2°. Münchener Texte und
15 7
Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters 98. Munich: Artemis
Verlag, 1991.
________. “Tituli, Kapitelreihen, Buchsummarien. Überlegungen zu texterschließenden
Beigaben in vorlutherischen Bibeln.” Vestigia bibliae 9/10 (1991): 385‐399.
Wunder, Harald. “Arbeo von Freising,” vol. 1, col. 420. In Die deutsche Literatur des
Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon. Ed. Kurt Ruh. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1978.
Zimmermann, Michel, ed. Auctor et auctoritas. Invention et conformisme dans l’écriture
médiévale: actes du colloque tenu à l’Université de VersaillesSaintQuentinenYvelines,
1416
juin 1999. Mémoires et documents de l’École des chartes 59. Paris:
École des chartes, 2001.
Ziolkowski, Jan. “Theories of Obscurity in the Latin Tradition.” Mediaevalia 19 (1996):
101‐67.
________. “The Occupatio by Odo of Cluny. A Poetic Manifesto of Monasticism in the Tenth
Century,” 559‐67. In Lateinische Kultur im X. Jahrhundert. Akten des I. internationalen
Mittellateinerkongresses Heidelberg, 12. 15.
IX. 1988. Ed. Walter Berschin.
Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 24/25 (1989/1990). Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1991.
Zironi, Alessandro. Enigmi di sapienza nel Medioevo tedesco. Padova: Unipress, 2001.
15 8
Appendix: List of manuscripts of
the Summarium Biblie
The present list of manuscripts of Summarium is by no means a final
one, it is included here only in order to show that the text was indeed very
popular. The manuscripts are listed in alphabetical order according to the
cities in which they are currently kept.
Admont, Stiftsbibliothek
142
203
433
592
Alba Iulia, Biblioteca Batthyaneum
R II 66
Amiens, Bibliothèque municipale
1
Angers, Bibliothèque municipale
27 (23)
Ansbach, Staatliche Bibliothek
lat. 1
lat. 18
lat. 58
Augsburg, Staats‐ und Stadtbibliothek
fol. 53
fol. 56b
fol. 66
fol. 92
fol. 193
fol. 291
fol. 454 [?]
Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek
lat. III. 1. fol. 1 (in German)
lat. III. 1. fol. 1a (in German)
lat. I. 2. fol. 10 [?]
lat. II. 1. fol. 16
lat. II. 1. fol. 45
lat. II. 1. fol. 86
lat. II. 1. fol. 154
Bad Windsheim, Stadtbibliothek
50
Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek
Msc. Theol. 36
15 9
Basel, Universitätsbibliothek
A. IX. 2
A. XI. 66
Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu B.
Magdeb. 69
Magdeb. 164
Lat. fol. 967 (attached to an incunabulum)
Lat. oct. 212
Theol. lat. qu. 249
Theol. lat. qu. 348
Bonn, Universitäts‐ und Landesbibliothek
Ms. S 263 [a fragment, digitized, freely accessible online through manuscriptamediaevalia.
de]
Braunschweig, Stadtbibliothek
Cod. CXXXII [?]
Brno, Moravská zemská knihovna (Moravian Library)
MK 61 [a fragment, digitized, freely accessible through Manuscriptorium]
108 (II.24) [digitized, freely accessible through Manuscriptorium]
Brno, Moravský zemský archiv (Moravian Archive)
G.11, FM 432 = 435
FM 880 = 905
Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Országos Széchényi könyvtár
376
Budapest, University library
Lat. 50
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College Library
524 [digitized on Parker on the web]
Cambridge, Emmanuel College
III.3.10 (243)
Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College
140 (80)
Cambridge, St. John’s College
179, G.11
Cambridge, University Library
Ee. Vi. 29
Gg. IV. 10
Cambridge, MA, Harvard University, Houghton Library
Riant 88
Riant 93
Chicago, Newberry Library
16
Clermont‐Ferrand, Bibliothèque municipale
44 (41)
Cologne, Historisches Archiv
GB 2o 188
GB 4o 113
Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek
Ny. Kgl. Saml. 3b fol.
Gl. kgl. S. 61 fol.
16 0
Gl. kgl. S. 189 fol.
Thott 3 8o
Cracow, Augustine Library
B 131
Cracow, Biblioteka Jagiellońska
284, vol. I and II
286
288
470
1236
Edinburgh, University Library
8
Eichstätt, Universitätsbibliothek
st. 194
st. 199
st. 205
st. 266
Engelberg, Stiftsbibliothek
119
Erfurt, Domarchiv
Th 3
Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek
Amplon. F.7
Amplon. Q.28
Amplon. Q.79
Amplon. Q.151 (36)
Erlangen, Universitätsbibliothek
439/1
439/2
Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana
Ricc. 428
Giessen, Universitätsbibliothek
663
666
Gotha, Herzogliche Bibliothek
Chart. A 11
Göttingen, Staats‐ und Universitätsbibliothek
8o ms. theol. 4 Cim.
Göttweig, Stiftsbibliothek
298 (336)
Graz, Universitätsbibliothek
309 (33/33 f.)
385 (41/24 f.)
509 (36/38 f.)
611 (36/34 f.)
648 (35/38 f.)
[665 –lost after WWII]
1264
1295
16 1
Grenoble, Bibliothèque municipale
5
Halberstadt, Domgymnasium
25
Halle an der Saale, Universitäts‐ und Landesbibliothek Sachsen‐Anhalt
Qu. Cod. 93a‐e
Qu. Cod. 129
Qu. Cod. 188
Hamburg, Staats‐ und Universitätsbibliothek
Jacobi 14
Heidelberg, Universitatsbibliothek
Sal. X 15
Herzogenburg, Stiftsbibliothek
102
Innichen, Stiftsbibliothek
[III C. 10, lost during WWII]
III C. 11
Innsbruck, Universitäts‐ und Landesbibliothek Tirol
629
Ithaca, New York, Cornell University
B.22 [?]
Kassel, Bibliothek der Stadt Kassel und Landesbibliothek
fol. theol. 111
fol. theol. 160
Kiel, Universitätsbibliothek
Bord. 24
Bord. 119
Klagenfurt, Universitätsbibliothek
Pap. 59
Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibliothek
193
208
428
445
503
520
Koblenz, Landeshauptarchiv
Best. 701, nr. 198
Best. 701, nr. 202
Korneuburg, Stadtarchiv
1753
Kremsmünster, Stiftsbibliothek
42
153
167
269
Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek
107
117
534
16 2
Lilienfeld, Stiftsbibliothek
12
145
London, British Library
Add. 20009
Add. 22025
Add. 24361
Arundel 493
Harley 1748
Royal 2.D.1
London, Lambeth Palace Library
534
Lyon, Bibliothèque municipale
245 (177)
Maihingen, Fürstliche Bibliothek
I Lat. 2‐4o‐26
II Lat. 1 Fol. 86
1 Fol. 16
Mainz, Stadtbibliothek
I 22
I 35
I 263
I 570
Melk, Stiftsbibliothek
83
165
681
918
1059
1294
1793
Merseburg, Bibliothek des Domkapitels
31
Michelstadt, Nicolaus‐Matz‐Bibliothek
D 681
D 682
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
cgm. 341
cgm. 4358
clm. 3010
clm. 3070
clm. 3447
clm. 3581
clm. 4627
clm. 5444
clm. 7662
clm. 7711
clm. 7989
clm. 8367
clm. 8947
16 3
clm. 9411
clm. 9529
clm. 12391
clm. 12704
clm. 14001
clm. 14023
clm. 14094
clm. 14670
clm. 15606
clm. 15956
clm. 18259
clm. 18906
clm. 20202
clm. 23799
clm. 26847
clm. 27011
clm. 27032
clm. 27412
clm. 27462
clm. 27481
clm. 28543
clm. 28644
Munich, Universitätsbibliothek
2o 677
4o 13
4o 809
8o 190
8o 344
New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Lib.
Marston 255
Nuremberg, Stadtbibliothek
Cent. I.6
Cent. I, 81
Cent. V, 78
Hert. Ms. 1
Olomouc, Vědecká knihovna
M I 161
M II 31
M II 34
M II 60
Ottobeuren, Bibliothek der Abtei
O.53 (48)
Oxford, Bodleian Library
Auct. D. 3. 6
Auct. D. 4. 10
Auct. F. 5. 16
Bodley 798
Bodley 801
Lyell 10
Lyell Empt. 7
16 4
Marshall 86 (olim Add. B.28)
Oxford, Exeter College (Exon. Col.)
36
Padova, Biblioteca Universitaria
700
727
Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal
119 (22.T.L.)
1144 (69.B.L.)
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale
lat. 171
lat. 221
lat. 1010
lat. 1865
lat. 2477
lat. 10421
lat. 13144
n. a. lat. 1697
Paris, Bibliothèque St. Geneviève
1182
1184
Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania
MS 313 [a fragment available online]
Pommersfelden, Gräflich Schönbornsche Schloßbibliothek, 177
Prague, Knihovna Metropolitní kapituly (Metropolitan chapter library)
1640 O. LVI
Prague, Knihovna národního muzea (Library of the National Museum)
XVIII B 18 [digitized in Manuscriptorium]
Prague, Královská kanonie premonstrátů na Strahově
DB III 13
Prague, Library of the Academy of Sciences
1 TB 3 [digitized in Manuscriptorium]
Prague, Národní knihovna (National library) [mostly digitized in Manuscriptorium]
I A 35
I A 39
I A 41
I E 15
I F 35
I F 43
I G 11a
I G 36
III A 16
VI B 11
VIII D 15
VIII D 27
X B 16
X G 10
XI A 14
XI C 3
XI E 6
16 5
XIV G 17
Prague, Nostic library
Ms. f 1 [digitized in Manuscriptorium]
Retz, Stadtarchiv
65/19
Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale
10 (A.32)
Salzburg, Erzabtei Sankt Peter
b VIII 14
San Marino, California, Huntingdon Library
HM 26061
Sankt Florian, Stiftbibliothek,
XI.32
Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek
318
336
972b
1068
Sankt Paul in Carinthia, Stiftsbibliothek
79/3
Sankt Pölten, Diözesanbibliothek
9
26
Schlägl, Stiftsbibliothek
61
67
Schulpforta, Internatsbibliothek
A6
Seitenstetten, Stiftsbibliothek,
297
Stams, Stiftsbibliothek des Zisterzienserklosters
41
Strasbourg, Bibliothèque municipale
72
Stuttgart, Württemberg. Landesbibliothek
Don. 278
HB IV 30
HB IV 6
HB II 43
The Hague, Rijksmuseum Meermanno‐Westreenianum
MM 10 D 18
Tours, Bibliothèque municipale
2
Uppsala, Universitätsbibliothek
C 10
C 172
C 195
C 218
C 356
C 572
16 6
C 637
Utrecht, University Library
B 249 [?]
Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
Pal. lat. 8
Pal. lat. 20
Pal. lat. 459
Reg. lat. 155
Vat. lat. 945
Vat. lat. 1027
Vat. lat. 1290
Vienna, Dominikanerkloster
125 (92)
155 (125)
Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
Pal. lat. 1111
Pal. lat. 1122
Pal. lat. 1454
Pal. lat. 3722
Pal. lat. 3736
Pal. lat. 3750
Pal. lat. 4030
Pal. lat. 4129
Pal. lat. 4535
Pal. lat. 4614
Pal. lat. 4759
Pal. lat. 5454
Pal. lat. 9516 (from the 18th c.)
Pal. lat. 13756
Pal. lat. 14426
Vienna, Schottenstift
19 (50. b. 10)
91 (102)
92 (103
94 (105)
95 (106)
Vorau, Chorherrenstiftsbibliothek
14 (XXVI)
144 (CCXLIII)
241 (from the 17th c.)
Vyšší Brod, monastery library
XCI
Warsaw, Biblioteka narodowa
Chart. Lat. Fol. I 388
Wilhering, Stiftsbibliothek
IX, 124
Wittenberg Lutherstadt, Lutherhalle
S 165/1361 [?]
Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek
25.1 Extr.
16 7
Worcester, Cathedral library
Q.45
Wrocław, Biblioteka Kapitulna
304
Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka
I F 222
I F 296
I F 323
I F 506
I O 6
I O 52
I Q 1
I Q 27
I Q 158
I Q 369
IV Q 161a
IV Q 177
Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek
M. ch. f. 54
M. ch. f. 121
Znojmo, Městský archiv (City archive)
304
Zurich, Zentralbibliothek
Rh. 184
Zwettl, Stiftsbibliothek
81