Multiple Copying and the Interpretability of Codex Contents: „Memory Miscellanies“ Compiled by Gallus Kemli ( 1 4 1 7 – 1 4 80/1) of St. GalP

Multiple Copying and the Interpretability
of Codex Contents: „Memory Miscellanies“
Compiled by Gallus Kemli ( 1 4 1 7 – 1 4 80/1) of St. GalP
Lucie Dolezalova
The idea that the contents of a codex play an important roJe in the
meaning of a particular text is not a new one. lt is based on an assumption
that the texts included in a medieval manuscript share some aspects
such as topic, genre, or use, and were considered as belonging to a sort of
a group by their creators and users. The company in which a text was
transmitted reveal s the immediate context in which it was read, and thus
provides evidence about its reception that may in turn be seen to contribute
to the meaning of the text. lt also suggests that whcn it was copied
it was considered to fit into a particular context. A great many
medieval codices were created with a clear and unitary design. There are
volumes with coherent contents, such as the writings of the Church Fathers,
volumes intended for university students, theological, philosophical,
medical, and other scientific compilations, as weil as volumes with
poetry or drama, and so on. When the contents seem random at first
glance, a closer scrutiny may reveal an intent behind the selection of
The research leading to this study was supported by a junior research grant from
the Grant Agency of the Academy of Seiences of the Czech Republic, „Remembering
One’s Bible: Reception of Summarium Biblie in 131h-15<h c.,“ no. K)B
801970701, by a post-doc grant from the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic
„Interpreting and Appropriating Obscurity in Medieval Manuscript Culture,“ no.
P405/10/Pl12, both carried out at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University in
Prague, as well as by The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports through
lnstitutional Support for Longterm Development of Research Organizations to
the Faculty of Humanities of the same university (PRVOUK 18 and UNCE
204002). I was able to finish this article thanks to Sciex-CRUS fellowship at the
„Mittellateinisches Seminar“ at the University of Zurich. I am also very grateful to
the librarians from the Stiftsbibliothek St. Gall for their kind help.
140 LUCJE DOLEZALOV A
texts included in a manuscript. As long as they were actually bound during
the Middle Ages, the contents of codices may contribute to grasping
the medieval understanding of a particular text.
Medieval library catalogues show that the way codices were categorized
in the Middle Ages was almost the same as it is today. Then as now
there was often a group of „leftovers“ too varied to fit any category, the
miscellanea. lndeed, we can define „medieval miscellanies“ simply as codices
that are not easy to categorize as far as their contents are concerned.
They contain a number of diverse texts, and the intent of the
compiler may be obscure. On the other hand, towards the end of the
Middle Ages, we can detect a certain individualization in some of such
compilations: a number of codices were copied by particular individuals
according to their specific tastes and for their own purposes. These personal
miscellanies need to be studied in detail before any categorization
is proposed.
A basic problern we face when interpreting the contents of such codices
is to estimate the degree of intention behind their composition. The
danger of overinterpretation always exist: we tend to see unity and design
in objects of our enquiry. Many codices may have been compiled
fairly randomly, although the degree of „randomness“ in such cases varies:
originally independent quires bound together may simply mean, for
example, that they were what was available to one person at a specific
time and place, which does not actually reflect a completely „random“
occurrence. Nevertheless, even when a clear design to the compilation
presents itself, there are several methodological points that should be
taken into account while assessing its importance.
This study will concentrate on one of these possible points only: in
general we tend to assume that the more frequently a specific text appears
in a particular environment, the more strongly we can make conclusions
about the exact way of its reception. Here I would like to
consider a case in which we find several codices of the same type with
very similar contents all created by a single person. What does such a
type of transmission indicate and imply about the text, the person who
re-copied it, and the environment in which the activities took place? Is
such a case a unique instance to be interpreted in its own terms, or can it
have wider applications?
MtiLTJPLE COPYI:-<G 141
Ga/Jus Kem/i {1417-1480/81}
The case in focus here is the well documented personal library of a late
medieval Benedictine monk, Gallus Kemli (or Kemly). He was born on
November 18, 1 4 1 7, in St. Gall. He entered the monastery in 1428, and in
1441 became a priest. In 1443, however, he left the monastery together
with five other monks because of what he called the „tyranny of the abbot“;
from that point on he was fairly itinerant. I n 1446 he can be traced
at Heidelberg; in 1453 he became chaplain at the monastery of Spanheim,
appearing in Mainz in the same year, and in 1460 he matriculated
at the University of H eidelberg. In 14 70 he returned to St. Gall, but left in
1471 (because of a renewed argument with Abbot Ulrich Rösch) for the
monastery of All Saints in Schaffhausen. In 1473 he was in Tegernau in
the Schwarzwald, in 1474 at an unknown Johannite community; in 1475
he served as chaplain and confessor of the Lollard sisters in Nessental,
then as parish priest for the Johannites in Freiburg im Üchtland. Later he
is found in Heiterried and in the Aargau. In 1480 he reappears at St. Gall
where, after another argument with Abbot Ulrich, he was imprisoned
and probably died shortly thereafter.
Gallus Kemli is known almost exclusively through his autobiographical
remarks contained in over thirty miscellaneous codices that he copied
and collected during his travels.2 Here, in addition to providing
information on his whereabouts, Kemli harshly criticized the morals o f
virtually all the places h e had visited.3 His codices themselves reveal a Iot
One of these, Zurich, Zentralbibliothek, C 150, has been digitalized and is freely
accessible at: www.e-codices.unifr.ch (last acccssed )une 20, 2012). It is called
Collectanea and is a miscellany oftexts mostly related to medical subjects.
The Iongest account of his life appears in St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 919, p. 192-
190 (written backwards), edited by Paul Lehmann“ Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge
Deutschlands und der Schweiz, vol. I (Munich: Beck, 1928), 119-20. A
digital version of the manuscript is available online at: http:/ fwww.ecodices.
unifr.ch (last accessed ]une 20, 2012). About the ]ohannite community,
for example, Kemli writes: lbi fuit dissolutissima vita cum meretricibus et
prostitucionibus et fornicatione etiam cum sodomitis (St. Gall, SB, 919, p. 191) ; or
about his stay in Nessenthal: Ubi vero per inmundissimos et malicia et dolo plenos
non conversos sed perversos homines, qui machinamentis suis me perprevenerunt,
quod etiam ex displicentia talium recessi etc., quia non veri heremite sed
truphatores pessimi etc. supersticiosi, ypocrite, simulatores, religionis deceptores
(St. Gall, SB, 919, p. 190). One of his negative Statements, this time about the
monks from Hersfeld who came to St. Gall, is evidence of the spread of devotio
142 LUCJE DOLÜ..ALOV A
about him, too. They are all miscellanies. In some of them he had various
texts copied by different hands bound together, while others demonstrate
a careful design prior to or simultaneaus with the copying process.
Kemli drew up a catalogue of his library in 1470 during his brief return
to St. Gall.4 Judging from the selection of texts, Kemli’s range of interests
seems to have been very broad. He gathered biblical sennons and homilies,
advice for preachers, poems, texts o n morals, virtues and vices, scientific
works (such as astronomic treatises), recipes, medical remedies,
parodies and satires. The richest miscellany is perhaps Zurich, Zentralbibliothek,
C 1 0 1 with a great nurober of (mostly unedited) short texts
both in Latin and German;s many of the partly empty pages are filled
with ad hoc notes and excerpts.
Kemli was also an author, but all his works are based on specific
models-it seems he never created a completely „new“ piece of writing,
and thus he has been perceived primarily as a collector.6 Kemli was
called „an exemplary type of tireless late medieval scribe and copyist of
both spiritual and popular, even trivial literature.“7 Bruno Boesch wrote
about his „encyclopedist inclinations,“8 and described him as follows:
moderna: … cenobium sancti Ga/li reformaverunt Sed eorum observantia cassata
fuit, quia non dominum sed dominium quesierunt (St. Gall, SB, 448, p. 3; cf. Peter
Ochsenbein, „Spuren der Devotio moderna im spätmittelalterlichen Kloster St.
Gallen,“ Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens und
seiner Zweige 101 (1990): 475-96). 4 l t survives in Zurich, Zentralbibliothek, A 135, fol. 2r-13v. The manuscript is
currently kept in the monastery library in St. Gall. A digital version of the
manuscript is available online at: http:/ ;www.e-codices.unifr.ch (last accessed
june 20, 2012).
The codex is presently kept in the monastery library in St. Ga II. A digital version
of the manuscript is available online at: http:/ ;www.e-codices.unifr.ch (last
accessed june 20, 2 012).
He wrote a mariologic tract (1465 or soon after), the Promptuarium ecclesiasticum
(1466/67), the Narratio proe/ii Laupensis (1475), a Latin cisioianus in
verse, and a Latin testament. Kemli addressed theological subjects, too, but not
as a theologian; instead he chose the „practically useful,“ and emphasized prayer,
for example in his discussion of the healing power of the seven words pronounced
by jesus on the Cross, or the fifteen spiritual deaths of jesus. He also
translated and adapted several Latin texts into German.
„Exemplarischer Typus eines rastlosen spätmittelalterlichen Schreibers und
Abschreibers geistlicher wie volkstümlicher, ja selbst trivialer Literatur,“ in
Stefan Sonderegger, „Deutsche Sprache und Literatur in Sankt Gallen,“ i n Die
MUL TJPLE COPYISG 143
He is an extensively educated, very weil read and assiduous scribe and copyist
of spiritual and worldly literature, who nonetheless did not disdain the popular
and the trivial, and had collected a Iot of what was probably only written
for the moment or was of use for him in h1s preaching. When one Iooks at his
life as a whole, one is surprised at all that he achieved in spite of his roaming.?
Ochsenbein names him an exemplary collector of rapiaria (i.e., collections
of sayings, biblical phrases, sentences from the Fathers, etc.),lO but
in regards to his authorial qualities the schalarship is rather negative; for
example, when discussing the possible authorship of a German poem
surviving in a St. Gall manuscript, Boesch wrote: „although Kemli compiled
a huge amount of knowledge and useful information, one detects
no creativity in him. He was not a poet.“ll Gallus Kemli’s miscellanies
shed light on various challenges presented by medieval miscellanies i n
general, personal libraries, and also b y instances o f multiple copying.
However, until the whole corpus has been properly scrutinised, any
remarks are necessarily preliminary.
Kultur der Abtei Sankt Gallen, ed. Werner Vogler (Zurich: Belser Verlag, 1990),
180.
„Enzyklopedische Neigungen,“ Bruno Boesch, „Die deutschen Schriften des St.
Galler Mönches Gallus Kemli,“ in Florilegium Sangallense. Festschriftfür johannes
Duft, ed. Otto P. Clavadetscher, Helmut Maurer, and Stefan Sonderegger (St. Gall:
)an Thorbecke, 1980), 124.
„Er ist der vielgebildete, vor allem belesene und überaus eifrige Schreiber und
Abschreiber geistlicher und weltlicher Literatur, der auch Volkstümliches und
Triviales nicht verschmähte und vieles zusammenraffte, das wohl auch nur für
den Tag geschrieben oder ihm für seine Predigttätigkeit dienlich war. Wenn man
seinen Lebenslauf überblickt, ist man erstaunt, was ihm bei all seiner Unrast
doch noch gelungen ist,“ Boesch „Die deutschen Schriften,“ 147 (my translation).
1o Ochsenbein, „Spuren der Devotio moderna,“ 483.
11 “ ( … ) Kemli zwar ungeheuer viel Wissen und Wissenswertes zusammengeschrieben
hat, aber Kreativität ist nicht zu entdecken. Ein Dichter war er nicht,“
Bruno Boesch, „Die deutschen Schriften,‘ 127. The subject of medieval authorship
is indeed complex and it has drawn scholarly attention in recent years,
see, e.g. Daniel Hobbins, Authorship and Publicity before Print: jean Gersan and
the Transformation of Late Medieval Learning (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2009).
144 LUCJE DOLELALOV A
Multiple copying
A pattern that I wouid like to address here is that of multiple copying.
There are several texts that Kemli copied more than once that provide a
useful example. At the same time, I believe this represents a more general
phenomenon of the later Middle Ages, which, to my knowiedge, has
not yet been sufficiently explored.
In theory, there may be severai simple reasons for this practice:
1. to sell or give out the manuscripts;
2. to produce a different (corrccted, better, langer, shorter etc.)
version of the text rather than to produce mere multiple copies of it
by simple transcription;
3. to copy the text into more fitting surroundings, thus, gradually
creating a „perfect codex;“
4. the scribe enjoyed copying, was mentally sick, or had some very
speciai personal reasons to re-copy;
5. to make copies only for the present moment.
Each of the points are considered below with respect to Gallus Kemli and
are also accompanied by more generat remarks; in addition, one further
option is suggested.
Kemli failing to sei/?
While participating in the book trade is surely the most frequent reason
for re-copying the same texts, I believe that in Gallus Kemli’s case this
option can be safely excluded. If Kemli indeed planned to sell the manuscripts,
he must have had extremely bad Juck as he was eventually left
with so many: over thirty codices survived which formed part of his personal
collection dedicated to the monastery of St. Gall. In any case, there
is no indication that Kemli was trading his codices; in fact he compiled a
catalogue of his library in 14 70, and thus must have considered his codices
a true possession.
MULTIPLE COPY!:-.IG 145
Copying or appropriating? The case of‘ Nuptiae Abbatheos‘
Among other multiple copies by Kemli is Hrabanus Maurus’s vcrsion of
the Cena Cypriani (Cyprian’s Feast), which Kemli calls Nuptiae Abbatheos.
Cena Cypriani is in itself a curious text of uncertain, probably Jate antique,
origin.12 Mentioning almest 3 0 0 biblical characters doing things
similar to their activities in the Bible, it seems Jike a biblical test. Since it
teils of a strange biblical feast with strange events (biblical characters
getting drunk, stealing, killing, etc.), it has been mostly discussed in the
context of medieval parody. Yet, as recent evidence clearly shows, at
least in the later Middle Ages it was perceived as a kind of biblical mnemenie
tool. This general tendency is particularly visible in the ninthcentury
recension by the praeceptor Germaniae, abbot of Fulda and
briefly archbishop of Mainz, Hrabanus Maurus, who changed the chaotic
feast into an organized biblical allegory. In the fifteenth century, copyists
frequently inserted further changes to the text, as a rule leading to more
clarity and order. The text is usually transmitted in miscellanies, which is
a context that does not seem to providc much help as far as its meaning
and medieval interpretation is concerned.t3
To my knowledge, Gallus Kemli is the only medieval scribe who copied
the Cena Cypriani more than once. Three of his copies of the text survive
and are included in St. Gall, SB, 293, 692, and 972b (Figures 15-17).
I did not find Kemli’s possible model (a surviving copy of the text) in any
of the places Kern Ii is certain to have visited. His Cena copy is the closest
to the version found in Sankt Florian, Stiftsbibliothek, Xl.32 (a miscellany
from the l4th c. in which the text is entitled Opus de nuptiis Christi et
ecclesiae), a place not too far from St. GaU and very likely to have been
visited by Kemli.
But to speak of „Kemli’s copies“ is indeed a simplification, as Kemli’s
three Cena texts differ from one another, as suggested above. Kemli did
introduce changes at each instance of copying and thus, although only
12 Cf., e.g. Christine Modesto, Studien zur Cena Cypriani und zu deren Rezeption,
Classica Monacensia 3 (Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag, 1992); Francesco Mosetti
Casaretto and Elio Rosati, Rabano Mauro-Giovanni lmmonide. La ‚Cena di Cipriano‘
(Aiessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2002, revised and corrected in 2004). 13 For more details on medieval transmission and transformations of the text, see
Lucie Dolezalovä, Reception and Jts Varieties: Reading, Re-Writing and Understanding
‚Cena Cypriani‘ in the Middle Ages, Bochumer Alterturnswissenschaftliches
Colloquium 75 (Tri er: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2007).
146 LUCIE DOLEZALOV A
two of the codices include dating, it is possible to order the copies chronologically:
972b, 293, and 692, proving that they served as direct models
to each other in this sequence.14 The last manuscript in this series, St.
Gall 692, could almost be called an authorial version. Kemli adds twe!ve
completely new allusions,1s makes a number of radical semantic
changes,l6 and adds shorter (mostly explanatory) words. Their distri-
14 For example:
line 14.8 [ed. luba/ psalterium duxit]
972b /ubal psalterium dixit
or:
293 Tuba/ psa/terium 􀇄composuit
692 Iubal psalterium composuit
line 16.1 [ed. Nunc inmutate vestros habitus et quasi pompam facientes ite.
Placuitque omnibus voluntas regis … ]
972b Nunc invitate vestros habitus et quasi pompum iste p/acuit …
293 Nunc invitate vestros habitus et quasi iste placuit …
692 Nunc invitate vestros habitus ista placuit …
For further evidence, see Dolezalova, Reception, 189-97.
This observation has been supported by a computer·aided text comparison
kindly carried out by Philipp Roelli from Zurich, using my transcriptions of 23
manuscripts of this Cena Cypriani version. On the tree generated by the computer
program the three St. Gall manuscripts are found near each other and related
in the sequence suggested. For details an the method applied, see Philipp
Roel!i, „Towards Generating a Stemma of Complicated Manuscript Traditions:
Petrus Alfonsi’s Dialogus,“ Revue d’histoire des textes n.s. 5 (2010): 307-21.
15 Among the presents for the king: [after 3.1] Adam ficum, [after 3.3] Seth grana,
Enoch lanas, lubal musicam, Tubalcayn faberlia, Noema /anificium, Matusale decrepitum,
Lamech bigamiam, [after 3.8] Agar utrem aque, [after 3.42] Osee uxorem
fornicariam, among eating the kid [after 9. 7]: Ruben Stratum mandragoras, at
the end of the entertainment [after 14.17]: Raphaei benedixit, [after 16.66) in tymorato
Symeone.
16 10.11 Thobias canem for hyrundinem, 10.14 lohannes mel silvestre for locustam,
10.17 /udas loculos for argentillum, 12.23 lohannes camelinum for locustanum,
15.2 Adam transgressivam for pelliceam, 15.37 Thobyas iugulatinam for hyrundineam,
15.41 fesus sanativam for columbinam, 15.42 fudas desperativam for argirinam,
15.47 Martha so/licitatiam for ministrativam, 16.9 in benedicto Sem for
fabricatore, 16.27 in conflatili Aaron for eloquente, 16.32 in murmurante Maria
for tympanistria, 16.51 in superbo Nabuchodonosor for inmutato, 16.63 in publicano
Matheo for in theloneario Matheus, 16.64 in divite Zacheo for in publicano
Zacheus, 18.1 variis interficerentur tormentis for afficerentur [so here the guests
were killed!), 18.10 Loth foras eductus for impictus, 18.31 Ezechias obsessus for
interfectus, 19.1 quod erat suspectum, Raab emisit exploratores for quod erot in
MULTIPLE COPYI:’\G 147
bution shows that Kemli made more alterations at the beginning, while
towards the end of the text he followcd his model much more closely. lt
is in this last version that most of the biblical allusions are identified.
Moreover, while the other two manuscripts give the immediate
impression of being direct copies of each other (they share the Iayout,
the forms of letters, titles and majuscules), St Gall 692 is different in this
respect, too: for example, the portions of the Cena that move the plot are
mostly underlined, and the script is different17 Most importantly, in this
last version Kemli omitted the dedicatory Ietter to King Lotbar (entitled
prologus in the other two manuscripts). Thus he deprived his text not
only of the guidelines for reception, but also of a way of defining its
authorship. This may have been intentional, but, at the same time, when
copying the text for the third time, Kemli might have omitted the Ietter
simply to move on to the text itself more quickly.
Kemli’s content changes mostly tend towards greater clarity: the biblical
links are the more expected ones, the words chosen are more common,
the additions are explanatory. At the same time, Kemli often does
not change the original biblical refercnce, he simply chooses a different
word from the same biblical line. Because his changes affect only ca. 1 1 o/o
of the text, I do not think that Kemli’s Cena is an attempt at a new, original
creation. What we see here is that Kemli was not simply copying but
that he paid attention to the meaning and incorporated his own ideas
into the set structure of the text His Cena is the result of his „active
reading.“
The textual analysis proves this to be a border case: one text copied
three times, each time with changes introduced that, nevertheless, did
not cause every new version to be substantially different. The changes do
not seem to be systematic and planned in advance; they give the impression
of having been created during the act of copying. In order to make
them, Kemli certainly would not have had to rely on another written
source; bis memory of the biblical events would have been sufficient.
Thus, in my opinion, this amount of variation does not in itself provide
sufficient grounds for believing that Kemli perceived hirnself as copying
three different texts, or creating three different versions.
sllspectu Raab, 19.2 Joseph restituit pecuniam for et in consensu Joseph, 21.13 Judas
videns eum dampnatum dixit peccavi for Judas pretium accepit.
17 Boesch argues that Kemli used two different scripts: a quite easily readable
Gothic cursive, and a more difficult casual cursive (Boesch, „Die deutschen Schriften,“
127).
148 LUCIE DOLEZALOV A
Kern Ii made alterations of varying significance to the texts he copied.
The idea of „active reading“ as weil as „active writing“ has recently been
studied in connection to the complex notion of medieval authorship and
written culture in general. On the one hand, ample evidence shows that
in the Middle Ages, there was not a quest for a single authoritative and
„correct“ copy of a particular text (not even the Bible): quotations are
usually only approximate and frequently even false, and mistakes are
usually left uncorrected, even when they are very obvious. On the other
hand, textual awareness, correction, and appropriation clearly do occur,
although the borderline between a copy and a new version of a text
might be very thin.ls While assessments must be carried out on case-bycase
basis, the overall pattern should be kept in mind.
The codex as a designed whole? Kemli’s „memory miscellanies“
To what degree it may be possible to interpret the contents of a codex as
a whole goes to the heart of the problern addressed in this volume: can
we posit medieval compilers as the conscious designers of „whole codices,“
carefully considering the selection of texts and their order to create
a meaningful and highly useful unit? Is it in any way possible that Gallus
Kemli was „revising“ not the text itself but the context into which it
would be placed? Or did he place a particular text into different contexts
because each time the text was to play a different role? Might we be
exaggerating the actual roJe the codex context had in the Middle Ages?
Kemli’s three codices containing the Cena have been described in the
1991 catalogue as a „miscellany of spiritual content,“ a „miscellany of
biblical content,“ and a „miscellany of pastoral content,“ respectively. In
Kemli’s own description, the first codex is Biblia pauperum cum aliis
materiis, and the second is the second volume of Promptuarium
divinorum eloquiorum (the third had not yet been written at the time
IB I addressed this problern in Lucie Dolezalova, „The Thin Borderline between the
Same and the Different: Reproducibility of Medieval Manuscripts,“ in Reproducibility
– Arts, Science, and Living Nature: lO’h Villa Lannu Meeting an «Science, or
Else?» Prague, january 11-13, 2008, ed. Amrei Wittwer, Elvan Kut, Vladimir
Pliska, and Gerd Folkers, Collegium Helveticum Heft 5 (Zurich: Collegium Helveticum,
2008), 81-87.
MULTIPLE COPYI􀁙G 149
Kemli compiled his catalogue).19 They would thus seem to be quite
different. Yet, upon closer inspection, their contents are not so very dissimilar
from each other. Each of the codices could perhaps be called a
„memory miscellany“ because each includes a number of texts linked to
memorizing the contents of the Bible and of other useful material. Trying
to find a unified content in miscellanies is certainly tricky, and applying a
general term like „memory“ may be misleading, but in this case the link
to memory is strong and clear.
Besides including the Cena, all three of the codices share another text,
the Capitulatio, or Recapitulatio in Speculurn humanae sa/vationis.zo The
original Speculum humanae salvationis21 was a medieval „bestseller.“ 1t
was written in rhymed prose by a Dominican from the Strasbourg area
around 1324 and retells the events of the Gospels and the life of the Virgin
Mary, juxtaposing them with their prefigurations in the Old Testament.
Each chapter was to serve as the inspiration for a sermon and the
text was richly illustrated. Kemli lists three other copies of the text in his
inventory, each of a different length but each with figures.22 What Kemli
copied i n the codices discussed here is a further shortened version of the
Speculum (perhaps authored by johannes Hain in 1429), and he does not
include any images. Again, it seems clear that the oldest is the version
transmitted in codex 972b, on pages 2 1 7-350, which is also the Iongest
lt does not include images but it notes figura in the margins. The two
later of his manuscripts actually include only the prologue, and not even
in its entirety: they both omit the passage in which the author explains
19 For a detailed description of their contents, see Appendix I; a comparative table
of their contents is presented in Appendix II.
2o Kemli also translated this text into German and included it in his St. Gall, SB, 605,
p. 200-21. 21 Morton W. Bloomfield, et al., lncipits of Latin Works on the Virtues and Vices,
1 1 00-1500 A.D., lncluding a Section of lncipits of Works on the Pater Noster,
Mediaeval Academy of America Publications 88 (Cambridge MA: The Medieval
Academy of America, 1979), no. 2562; Friedrich Stegmüller, Repertorium
biblicum medii aevi (Madrid: Consejo Superior de lnvestigaciones Cientificas,
1950-61), no. 1 1 765; jean-Pierre Rothschild, Bibliographie annuelle du Moyen
Age tardif Auteurs et textes latins, vers 1250-1500 (Turnhout: Brepols, since
1991), no. 3732. 22 Zurich, Zentralbibliothek, A 135, fol. 2v: ltem Speculum humane saluationis xxviii
fgt ure cum multiplicibus historiis. ltem sequens habetur speculum eiusdem materie
breuior continens xxii fgt ures; fol. 4r: Item speculum humanae salvacionis depictum
imaginibus.
150 LUCJE DOLEZA.LOV A
the importance of images for the common people (this is not surprising
as their rnodel contained no figures) and they also ornit a nice parabola
illustrating the fact that biblical explanations are far from coherent
wholes.
A curious point is found in the beginning of the codices: the oldest,
972b, begins with a text called Biblia pauperum i n the manuscript, which
is actually the Summarium biblicum, a biblical mnemonic aid summarizing
each biblical chapter in a single word and thus affering the whole Bible
in a bit over 200 verses.23 This text was a real Jate medieval
bestseller, although its form of nonsense verses juxtaposing the individual
chapter keywords led to extensive corruption during its manuscript
transmission, and thus its actual use for rnernorizing the Bible contents
can be questioned.24 I n Kemli’s copy it is not easy to recognize the verses
because each of the keywords is copied separately and followed by a detailed
explanation cornprising a whole paragraph. The Summarium biblicum
appears in three rnore rniscellaneous manuscripts in St. Gall. There
is one fourteenth-century copy of the Summarium in codex 1068;25 its
text is, however, not complete, ending with Epistola Iacobi. Codex 3 1 8
contains only the part o f the Summarium that condenses the Books of the
Kings.z6 The only full copy from the monastery is the one in codex 336
2 3 The title Bib/ia pauperum is used by scholars to refer to quite a different text,
usually accompanied by rich illuminations. Yet, only one manuscript with the
usual „Biblia pauperum“ actually bears this title, while a number of manuscripts
of „Summarium Biblicum“ are actually entitled Biblia pauperum. This observation
has already been made by Alfred Weckwert, „Der Name Biblia pauperum,“
Zeitsch rift für Kirchengeschichte 83 (1972): 1-33; and Franz ]osef Worstbrock,
„Libri pauperum. Zu Entstehung, Struktur und Gebrauch einiger mittelalterlicher
Buchformen der Wissensliteratur seit dem 1 2 . Jahrhundert,“ in Der Codex im Gebrauch,
ed. Christel Maier et al., Münstersehe Mittelalter-Schriften 70 (Munich:
Wilhelm Fink, 1996), 41-60.
24 For details, see Lucie Dolezalova, Obscurity and Mem01y in Late Medieval Latin
Manuscript Culture: The Case of the Summarium Biblie, Medium Aevum Quotidianum
Sonderband 29 (Krems: Medium Aevum Quotidianum, 2012).
2 5 lt is a miscellany bound tagether at a later stage. The booklet containing
Summarium seems to have been originally transmitted by itself.
26 l t is an unusual copy: there is the poem 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 weil as for the keywords within the commentary remained void. The
commentary is actually not dependent on the keywords at all; it works fine
ML’LTIPLE COPY!:-.=G 1 5 1
from 1 4 4 3 (pp. 137-1 60).27 Comparing the texts, i t is evident that none
of these served as Kemli’s model. ln addition, Kemli does not seem to
have liked the text: in his latter two codices, he substituted other biblical
tools with the same objective, texts describing the biblical contents chapter
by chapter and at the end providing a Iist of the books of the Bible. I n
both codices 2 9 3 a n d 692 they are entitled Exp/anatio Jibrorum Biblieza
and Margarita Biblie.29
The demonstrated replacement of the Summarium Biblie with another
biblical mnemonic aid within an otherwise very similar textual environment
can hardly be a coincidence. The observation of such a practice
without them as prose condensation of the relevant chapters. (The primary
contents ofthe codex is Nicolaus de Lyra’s Glossa in Psalterium.)
27 Here the text is called at its explicit: registrum noui testamenti capitu/ariter per
dictiones (p. 160). The codex contains a Latin biblical dictionary (p. 1 – 136, inc.:
Abstinentia auget meritum, ideo uoluit dominus non omni cibo uti in paradiso … ),
Summarium, a quadragesimale (p. 167-265, inc.: Matthei quarto legitur quod dyabo/
us temptat Christum et prima de gula cum dicit, si fi/ius dei es . .. , and sermons
(p. 275-320; inc.: [Luc 10] Bead oculi qui vident … super hoc vero beatus bene ait 0 dulcissime lhesu, quando ante faciem tuam … ). 2o lnc. Pentateuchon incipitur: in principio creauit Deus ce/um et terram. Pro qua
notandum quod tota sacra scripture diuiditur in dias partes, sci/icet in uetus
testamenturn et nouum. Prima pars diuiditur in quatuor, scilicet in libris regales,
historiales, sapientia/es et prophetales … Expl.: caritatem ascendunt per scripturam
usque ad ce/os et descendunt usque ad abyssos. This text, difficult to identify
because of the extremely frequent incipit, briefly summarizes the contents and
the meanings ofthe Scripture.
29 The title Margarita Biblie normally refers to a versified Bible by Guido Vincentius
de Ferrarra (d. 1.332) and inc. Per Scripturam Sacram dominibus sanctis divinitus
inspiratam (see Greti Dinkova-Bruun, „Biblical Versiflcation and Memory in the
Later Middle Ages,“ in Culture ofMemory in East Central Ettrope in the Late Middle
Ages and the Early Modern Period, ed. Rafal W6jcik, Prace Biblioteki Uniwersyteckiej
30 (Poznan: Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, 2008), 53-64). This text here
inc.: Qui memor esse cupit librorum bibliotece, discat opus presens … , which is an
incipit of the prologue sometimes attached to Guido’s verses (e.g., in Vatican,
BAV, Lat. 4344, fol. 1-76), other times to Roseum memoria/e divinorum
eloquiorum, i.e., the versified Bible by Petrus Rosenheim (1380-1433) (in
London, British Library, Harley 662, fol. 3-37; for details on the text, see Sabine
Tiedje, „The Rosetun Memoriale Divinorum Eloquiorum Petri de Rosenheim: A
Bible Summary from the Fifteenth Century,“ in Retelling the Bib/e: Literary,
Historica/, and Social Contexts, ed. Lucie Dolezalova and Tamas Visi (Bern: Peter
Lang Verlag, 2010), 335-53). Here, however, the text is a prose summary of the
biblical books chapter by chapter; inc.: Primus est liber Genesis, in quo agitur de
mundi et omnium creaturarum exordio …
1 5 2 LUCJE DOLEZALOV A
shows the need for scrutiny of a whole group of codices of one type i n
order t o evaluate the role of a text within its physical context. The
Summarium Biblie is manifestly associated with the „parallel texts“-that
is, texts that may replace it (here Explanatio librontm Biblie and Marga·
rita Biblie)-much more closely than with the contents of the codex in
which it appears (here e.g. Nupcie Abbatheos or Recapitu/acio in Specu·
/um humanae sa/vationis).
The two latter manuscripts, 293 and 692, agree in a number of other
texts, too: in addition to the already mentioned Explanatio librorum Bib·
lie and Margarita Biblie (replacing the Summarium from St. Gall 972b)
and the same part of Recapitulatio in speculum humanae salvationis
(which appears in full in codex 972b), they also both include Summula
Raymundi (which does not appear anywhere in 972b).30 All these are
„true copies“ with no substantial differences between them ( except for
the fact that the latter manuscript, 692, Summula Raymundi is accompa·
nied by extensive marginal notes).
The two codices also include, both just before the Cena, a Iist of the
books of the Bible, although the Iist is different in each. While in codex
293 the Iist is entitled lntitulationes librorum Biblie and groups the Old
Testament books into libri legales, historiales, sapientia/es, and
prophetales (p. 27-28), in codex 692, the text is much shorter, entitled
Tituli librorum Biblie inwulgarizati[?], and provides German translations
of the titles of some Old Testament books, followed by interpretations of
the names of some Church Fathers, and a Iist of Aristotle’s books. It then
returns to the Old Testament which is followed by some portians of the
New Testament (p. 1 2). This provides another clear example o f Kemli’s
re-writing: the basic topic remains the same (here the titles of the bibli·
cal books) but while the table in codex 293 presents the traditional
Jo Raymundus de Pennaforte (ca. 1 1 75-1275), a Dominican, born in Spain, became
a professor of canon law in Bologna, later theologian and penitentiary in Rome.
His summa was a popular work, condensed into summula several times. The
same text was probably copied in yet another codex that Kemli calls Speculum
sacerdotum in his inventory: he refers to it on fol. 12v as: ltem sumula Raymundi
cum versibus. The Summu/a here inc.: In summis festis dicitur admissam una
tantum (verse) … Quando paras calicem (prose) and is probably the work of a
certain Magister Adam, who may be Adam de Aldersbach (mid·Xlll).
MuLTIPLE CoPYixG 153
division, the revised version of codex 692 is both more condensed and
more experimental, including vernacular and non-biblical information.31
A more detailed comparative scrutiny of the three codices is necessary
in order to make final conclusions. While the table in Appendix ! I
stresses the links and similarities that are not immediately apparent, a
brief Iook at them reveals that their 1991 catalogue categorization is justified.
Codex 972b also contains a Biblia mora/is32 and sermons for Sundays,
and could certainly be seen as a „spiritual miscellany.“ Codex 293
includes further texts on the senses of the Bible, concordances, topics for
sermons, etc., and thus surely represents more of a „biblical miscellany“
than codex 692, where the additions in the end (there are baptism, exorcism
and unction formulae, a calendar, masses, statues, etc.) were geared
towards the practical application by a priest and so it is in place to call it
„pastoral.“
The last codex is also distinguished by its binding and cover, a redleather
wrapping without any wooden pieces and containing two
buttans and two pieces of grey leather to button them (Figure 18). The
contents are thus protected from all sides, and, at the same time, the volume
remains very light-ideal features for a book that was to be carried
by a frequent traveler. The other two codices are not very !arge (293 in
particular is very small) but both are bound between wooden tables,
which makes them heavier and not fit for frequent transporting. They
are also more vulnerable because they are not protected from all sides. I t
is thus indeed possible that into the last codex, 692, Kemli copied texts
that he wanted to have at hand during his travels. This specific purpese
would then justify Kemli’s re-copying of some of the texts.
In any case, the fact that Kemli kept all the codices suggests that he
found a use for each of them. Moreover, in his own catalogue he does not
3J There are two further notes on the same page: Cathalogus, cathalogo, id est de
numero penultima carrepta cathalogi. A ‚catha: quod est ‚breue‘, et ‚Iogos‘, id est
sermo breuis, multa breuis sermo multa breuiter comprehendens. And Alphabeturn
secundum litteralem ethimologiam: Ama Bonum Cole Deum Eternum Fuge Gloriam
Humanam Impfe Karitatis Legern Mandata Nosce Odire Peccata Quere Regnum
Statum Tene Virtutem Xpistum Yhesum Z. (Walther notes only Halberstadt,
Domgymnasium, 20 (XV), fol. 2 14v, oftbis curious abecedarian sentence).
32 I have not yet been able to identify the text. In his inventory, Kemli associates it
with Gregory. l t is a summary of the Bible including Christological interpretations.
lnc.: ln principio creauit deus ce/um et terram. Ce/um est spiritus, terra
corpus.
154 LUCIE DOLEtALOVA
avoid mentioning texts that appear repeatedly. If he had been merely
gradually revising the codex contents in order to create a „perfect“ codex,
he might have dismissed the „failed“ attempts rather then meticulously
including their contents in his inventory. Whatever his intention,
he was definitely not bothered by the redundancies created through his
multiple copying.
Personal multiple copies: the exception or commonplace?
We know from Kemli’s conflicts, Iifestyle, and the ideas he expressed that
he was an eccentric person but if he had some unusual reasons for recopying
texts, they would be difficult to determine. It seems exaggerated
to suggest that he was graphomaniac or deviant in any way. His multiple
copies could perhaps be partly explained by his travels: it is likely that he
did not carry his whole library with hirnself at all times, and thus he
might have feit the need to re-copy the texts he found most useful. I n
addition, h e scems t o have been quite a disorganized person, a n d thus, i n
some cases, h e might have simply forgotten that h e had already copied a
certain text. A careful comparative study of other personal libraries from
the Late Middle Ages should be carried out to see whether it was usual or
exceptional for the scribes and compilers to re-copy the same text several
times.
It is certain, however, that to create personal multiple copies would
have been exceptional before the late Middle Ages; re-copying is a type
of activity enabled by the shift of the transmission medium from expensive
parchment to affordable paper, as weil as by the general spread of
written culture due to universities and wider access to education in general.
At Kemli’s time, there were more traveling monks, preachers, or
students who gathered and copied a variety of texts. For example, a
Czech Augustinian preacher, Crux de Telcz (Oldhch Kriz z Telce, 1435-
1 504),33 copied and gathered a great number of unique texts and some of
them, for example the Summarium biblicum or an art of memory
attributed to Mattheus Beran, appear twice among his manuscripts.34 On
33 See jaroslav Kadlec, „Oldi’ich Ki’iz z Telce,“ Listy Filologicke 4 (1956): 91-102 and
234-38; and a note in Rudolf Urbänek, Ceske dejiny. Vek podebradsky (Czech history,
the era of George of Podebrady) (Praha: )an Leichter, 1930), 1 1 9 and 733.
34 On the latter text, see Lucie Dolezalova, „Matous Beran and the Art of M emory in
Late Medieval Bohemia,“ in: Culture ofMemory in East-Centra/ Europe in the Late
MULTIPLE COPYI:-IG lSS
the other hand, for example, Johannes Sintram (a Franciscan born c.
1380 in Würzburg) who gathered and mostly copied 61 manuscripts
primarily for himself, tended, as Kimberly Rivers shows, to crossreference
rather than re-copy the texts.Js Although a more detailed scrutiny
is still needed, it is clear that Kemli’s case is neither isolated, nor a
commonplace.
Copying for the moment?
lf Kemli made his copies only for his momentary use as Boesch suggested,
it is surprising that he kept them so long and carried them from
place to place. At the same time, though, there is little doubt that in the
later Middle Ages more writing was carried out for short-term purposes
than previously. Many late medieval codices in general were not created
with the earlier care and preciseness that one sees in the High Middle
Ages. Beside the fact that paper was eheaper than parchment, the notion
of the use of writing for a personal purpose seems to have gained importance,
too. In addition, writing activity came to have a different dimension
in the Late Middle Ages: not only did reading become individual
and personalized, but writing did as weiL This explains why there are
often more copies of one text in one monastery.36 Copying for the moment
thus surely forms part of the reason for multiple copying, but it
cannot be the only explanation of the phenomenon.
Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period, ed. Rafal W6jcik (Poznan: Biblioteka
Uniwersytecka, 2008), 95-103. 35 See Kimberly Rivers, „Writing the Memory of the Virtues and Vices in johannes
Sintram’s ( d. 1450) Preaching Aids,“ in TheMaking of Memory in the Midd/e Ages,
ed. Lucie Dolezalovä, Later Medieval Europe 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 31-48.
36 For example, we find eight copies of the Sttmmarium biblicum in Graz, seven in
Melk, six in Klosterneuburg. four in Admont and in Kremsmünster. They are:
Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, 309, 385, 509, 611, 648, 1264, 1295, and 665 that is
lost since 1945; Melk, Stiftsbibliothek, 83, 165, 681, 9 1 8, 1059, 1294, 1793;
Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibllothek. 193, 208, 428, 445. 503, 520; Admont, Stiftsbibliothek,
142, 203, 433, 592, Kremsmünster, Stiftsbibliothek, 42, 153, 167, and
269.
156 LUCIE DOLE7o.LOVA
Writing for remembering?
In this particular context, the nature of the re-copied texts discussed so
far should be noted: they were to be learned by heart, or at least their
main ideas were to be remernbered weil. When comparing the three codices
in the order in which Kemli compiled them, one observes that the
contents of the earlier codex always take much less space in the next one,
and the remaining pages are devoted to new material, which becomes
condensed further in the next codex. lt is as if Kemli omitted what he had
already stored in his memory, and re-copied only what he still needed to
consult on paper; as if, upon re-reading, fewer words were necessary to
help him recall the contents of the texts.
In addition to the above discussed examples of this kind of condensing
while re-writing in Kemli’s three codices, a similar kind of revision
can be found within the first item in Kemli’s inventory of his books:37
Prima in principaliori libro qui in genere intitulatur ‚Liber fgi urarum veteris et
novi testamenti‘ reperiuntur hec secundum ordinem: Prima. ltem arbor biblice
hystorie, in qua Ja eile hystoria biblie incordatur modo et forma prolixiori et diffusiori
propter materiorum acumulatarum et acumulandarum proprietatem et
hec est per transversum depicta secundum liberaliorem formam et liberaliorem
conswetudinem. 2o ltem eadem figura replicata sub eadem forma et modo, non
tarnen in tanta prolixitate et secundum formam arborum a summo descendendo
usque ad ymum, scriptura ad dexteram et ad sinistram annectata. 3o ltem a/ia
fgi ura eiusdem materie brevis ut precedens in forma prime fgi ure conscripta
propter diversorum beneplacitum. 4o ltem alia fgi ura eiusdem materie brevis in
wlgari etiam arborice conscripta secundum formam secunde ftgure signate ut
patet. So ltem a/ia figura wlgaris eiusdem materie per transversum scripta,
scriptura directe posita ad instar tercie fgi ure Latinice secundum ordinem.38
First in the first book which is generally called „Book of the figures of the Old
and the New Testament“ these are found in this order: 1. The tree of biblical
history, in which the history ofthe Bible is easily remembered, in the way and
the form which is more extensive and spread because of the matters gathered
and to be gathered, and it is depicted through transposition according to a
more liberal form and custom. 2. The same figure replicated in the same form
and way, but not to such an extent and according to the form of a tree descending
from the top to the bottom, with writing attached to the left and to
the right. 3. Another brief figure of the same matter, as the preceding one in
37 This item was, to my knowledge, not identified with any ofthe surviving codices. 38 Fol. 2r, ed. Paul Lehmann, ed., Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands
und der Schweiz, vol. I (Munich: Beck, 1928), 121-22.
MULTIPLE COPYI“>G 1 5 7
the form of the First figure for the pleasure of various [people]. 4. Another figure
of the same matter, but with the text on the tree in the vernacular,
according to the Iayout of the secend figure as is clear. 5. Another figure in the
vernacular of the same matter written through transposition, with the writing
directly placed to resemble the third Latin figure according to the order.39
The description of the contents of the codex presents a re-writing and reorganizing
of the same material in various ways, but each taking place
within one volume. I n this case, gradual condensation is observable, too.
Thus, a possible argument for Kemli’s re-copying is that through the
physical exercise of copying he could better understand the texts, camprehend
them more thoroughly, and consequently remernher them
better, too. During this process, as the space in his memory became
increasingly occupied, the space covered on the paper would gradually
diminish.
But can we really call the codices concerned „memory miscellanies“?
Can „memory“ serve as a concept unitmg the miscellaneous contents?
After all, virtually every text is written in order to be „memorable“ and
can thus be linked to memory. Certainly many more codices than the
three described in Kemli’s library1o as weil as a great nurober of late
medieval miscellanies from all over Europe could be called „memory
miscellanies.“41 Are they distinguishable from other codices from that
era?
It remains questionable whether late medieval, widely-diffused texts
linked to memory, meditation, the Bible, and morals, and thus material
directly relevant to preaching, could and should be considered to form a
particular group. Franz Josef Worstbrock claims that at least part of them
indeed should. In his careful and illuminating study42 he scrutinizes a
39 As is clear from this description, Kemli’s case can also be used for a consideration
of the relationship between the Latin and the vernacular (which is, however,
omitted in this analysis).
40 Another apt example would have been the first volume of the Promptuarium ( of
which codex 293 is the second volume), as it also included a treatise on the art of
memory. However it has not been identified among the surviving manuscripts
and thus cannot be studied. 41 Possible examples are indeed many. A fitting case is Prague, National Library,
XIV E 31, owned and partly copied by Crux de Telcz (fully digitized and freely
accessible at www.manuscriptorium.com; last accessed October 17, 2012). lt
contains a great number of mnemenie verses, Summula de Summa Raymundi,
sermons, notes, brief treatises, all probably designed for a preacher’s use. 42 Worstbrock, „Libri pauperum,“ 41-60.
158 LUCIE DOLEZALOV Ä
great number of late medieval Latin texts with the word pauperum in the
title (Liber pauperum, Breviarium pauperum, lnventarius pauperum,
Phi/osophia pauperum and also Biblia pauperum, i.e. Summarium biblicum).
He claims that Liber pauperum is a generic title and calls all of
these texts Jibri pauperum. As a literary type they are, he explains, distinguished
by the fact that they provide easy access to generat knowledge,
condensing an originally much wider amount of information, and presenting
it in an organized and approachable way. The authors of the texts
often say they write for the poor who cannot afford the ]arger, expensive
books. Yet, as Worstbrock says, these texts are not aimed only at scolares
pauperes but also at simple preachers, as weil as teachers in parish and
city schools, and their concern is not only to save space and money but
also to supply a quick aid and orientation for a difficult matter. Many of
them Uust as the Summarium), are, however, difficult to understand
without a teacher’s exposition. Their boom in the Late Middle Ages is a
sign of a desire for general knowledge and for the practical applicability
of it. Worstbrock is not explicitly concerned with the link to mnemonics
but it is implied in his analysis.
lt is clear that texts of this type (regardless o f how we decide to refer
to them) do appear frequently together in manuscripts, and their copyists
often explicitly mark them as noteworthy, good to have at hand, and
practically useful in many ways.43 lt is also certain that their transmission
in writing constitutes only a portion of their medieval diffusion.
While the exact nature o f oral transmission during the Middle Ages is
obviously difficult to assess today, it remains possible that what we witness
in some cases of medieval multiple copying is actually a tangible
reflection of the complex process of memorization.
43 As for usefulness, Kemli does include notes of this kind in his inventory as well.
For example on fol. 7v he stresses the multiple use of Auetoritotes biblie: ltem in
alio libro habentur auetoritotes biblie veteris et novi testamenti, que materia
eonvertibi/is est ad omnem rem mundi et pro neeessitate tarn seeularium quam
spiritualium negociorum („Then in another book, there are Authorities of the
Bible of the Old and the New Testament, which is a matter applicable to everything
in the world and useful in both secular and spiritual activities“).
Appendix I : Gallus Kemli’s Cena codices descriptions
St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 972b
written in Sponheim, August 14, 1453 (p. 350) and October 15, 1455 (p. 2 1 6), by
Gallus Kemli
paper, 483 pp., 2 1 0 x 145 mm
1991 catalogue: „miscellany of spiritual content“
book cover, spine: tractatus mora/es scripti per Goi/um Kemli
book cover, front Iabel: Bibila pauperum. Mora/ia sancti Gregorii in partes /ibrorum
Biblie. ltem speculum humane saluationis. ltem sennans ewangelice per omnes
dominicas anni
Kemli’s own description from 1470:
ltem in a/io libro qui intitulatur ‚Biblia pauperwn cum a/iis materiis‘ continentur
hec:
ltem prima libellus qui dicitur ‚Bib/ia pauperum‘ cum terminis suorum versuum.
Jtem nupcie abbatheos et potrum veteris et novi testamenti cum dictionibus.
ltem moralia sancti gregorii in partes librorum bib/ie.
ltem speculum humane salvacionis per versus.
Jtem ibidem oraciones de passione domini.
ltem oraciones de gaudiis et tristicia beate Marie virginis.
ltem sermones dominicales ewangelice.
ltem quedam sermones de annunciacione beate Marie semper virginis.
ltem sermo de miseria hominis.
ltem sermo de tribulacionibus paciendis.
(Lehmann, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge, 123).
St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 293
written by Gallus Kern Ii, not dated, paper, 589 pp., 150 x 110 mm
1991 catalogue: „miscellany of biblical content“
book cover, spine: Explicatio librorum Bibliorum
Kemli’s own description from 1470:
(the ms. presented as the second volume of Promptuarium divi{11]orum
eloquinorum]
In parte inferiori continentur:
Explanaciones librorum biblie veteris et novi testamenti.
ltem concordancie librorum corespondentes sibi mutuo utrarum testamentorum.
lte[m] nupcie abbatheos, quod est memoralie totius biblie.
Jtem recapitulacio specu/i humane salvacionis.
ltem tractatulus de creatione mundi et eius etutibus et de parentum prevaricatione.
ltem a/phabetarium auctoritatum biblie.
ltem notabilia de sensibus sacre scripture.
ltem de distinctione quatuor temporum mundi.
ltem formalia sermonum per omnes dominicas ab pasca usque ad finem anni et alia
multa notabilia sicut habetur in registro.
ltem de beata virgine, de sanctis et de commune sanctorum, de dedicacione, multa
de animabus et plura.
160 LUCIE DOLEZALOVA
Jtem versus Raymundi de sacramentorum dispensacione et p/uribus dubiis.
Jtem articuli pronunciandi in cena Domini vel palmarum contra eos, qui suspendendi
sunt a communione, in quibus reperiuntur casus episcopales et scrutinia
confessorum.
Jtem tractatuhts de rebus mundi et eius ymaginibus, vide registrum eiusdem ibidem,
etc., est finis materiorum huius libelli.
(Lehmann, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge, vol. I, 122).
St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 692
written in 1466 and 1476 by Gallus Kemli, paper, 491pp., 220 x 155 mm
1991 catalogue: „miscellany of pastoral content“
book cover: Gal/i Kem/i Promptuarium ecclesiasticum
[not in Kemli’s catalogue because it was written later]
Appendix I l : Comparison of the contents of Kemli’s Cena codices
972b 293
Bib/ia pauperum Explanatio librorum b1blie
[= Summarium 11-14)
Biblicum with long
explanations] (1-
149)
Margarita biblie, inc.: Qui
memor esse cupit … (l4-25)
Etaturn mirabi/ia (25)
Ef!ectus libri psa/morum (26)
Alleluia ethymoloyce (26)
lntitulationes librorum
Biblie (27-28)
Nuptie Abbatheos ( = Nuptie Abbatheos (= Cena
Cena Hrahani Mauri. Hrabani Maun. 29-37)
150-1561
In hac materia (brief
addition, crossed
over) (156; 157
void)
Bib/ia moralis (158-
216)
692
Explanatio hbrorum biblie (1-
6) –
Alelluia … ; Metapharo est
tropus … ; Figure astercus et
obelus ..j. 6; notes)
Margarita biblie, inc.: Qui
memor esse cupit … (7-11)
Diffinitio theologie (11)
Tituli librorum Biblie
inwulgarizati (12)
Cathalogus … ; Alphabeturn
secundum literalern
ethimologiam …(!l l
Nuptie Abbatheos ( = Cena
•Hrobam Mauri, 13-19)
Filii lsreal de qua ludei
processerunt… (brief addition,
19)
–
Recap1tulacio in
speculum humanae
salvationis (217-
350; 351 void)
Sermones dominicis
diebus per totum
annum (352-480)
MULTIPLE COPYI:\G 161
I Recapitulacio 10 speculum 1Recap1tulac10 m speculum
humanae salvationis (38- humanae salvationis (20-27)
46)
–
Brief texts on the biblical Concordance, compendium
contents, sermon topics, theologicae veritatis, varia (27-
concordances, varia (47- 147)
461J
Surnmula Raymundt ( 46l- I Summula Raymundi ( 143-1731
504) Articuli suspendendorum a –:-:-Note–s, formulas, statutes, etc.,
communione (505-509) calendar, canon et missae, with
Summula rerum mundi musical notations,
(510-546) benedictiones, exorcismus,
Registrum (547-586) unctiones, intimationes
temporum sacrorum et dierum
solempnium, notes, excerpts,
varia (partly in German; also
smaller pieces of paper with
additional notes inserted)
(173-491)
162 LUCIE DOLEULOVA
Figure 15: St. GaiJ, Stiftsbibliothek, 972b, p. 150, Cena nuptialis.
MUL T!PLE COPYl:-IG 163
Figure 16: St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 293, p. 29, Cena nuptia/is.
164 LUCIE DOLEZALOV A
Figure 17: St. Gall, Stiftsbiliothek, 692, p. 13, Cena nuptialis.
MULTIPLE COPY!:-<G 165
Figure 18: St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 692, cover.