From Oral to Written and Back: A Sermon Case Study

From Oral to Written and Back:
A Sermon Case Study1
Elena Lerneneva
„Orality“ takes on a twofold meaning of „orality“ with respect to sermons.2 lt
becomes the center of attention in the relation of the text to the oral performance of a
sennon is concerned. Sermons, preserved in written form, demonstrate peculiar
features that may be designated as „rhetorics of orality.“
The source that I have chosen is the anonyrnous collection of 1 I l Latin
sermons per totum annum from the Benedictine monastery of St. Lambrecht (Styria,
Austria). The collection is preserved in a sole manuscript written in the last third of
the thirteenth century, now kept in Graz University Library as MS 8 4 1 .
Although we do not have any information o n this source other than that present
in the text itself, it is plausible to suggest the local provenance of the manuscript. The
script in which MS 841 is written is typical of the manuscripts produced in the
scriptorium of the Styrian Benedictine house of St. Lambrecht in the late thirteenth
and early fourteenth centuries.3 There are also reasons to believe that the texts
collected in this manuscript originated in St. Lambrecht. The choice of saints whose
names figure in the sermon titles is significant in this respect. These are
Lambert!Lambrecht,4 „our patron;“ John the Baptist; Mary Magdalene; John the
1 I express my gratitude and indebtness: to P. Benedikt Plank for sharing his knowledge and his
works on the history of St. Lambrecht, to Maria Mairold for the personal attention and help in
manuscript attribution; to Nicole Beriou for letting me read the manuscript version of the book on
Federico Visconti [now published as Les sermons et Ia visile pastorale de Federico Visconti
archeveque de Pise, 1253 – 1277. critical edition by Nicole Beriou and Isabelle Le Masne de
Chermont (Rome: Ecole fran9aise de Rome, 2001)], and to Aaron Ya. Gurevich for pointing to
the comparable features in sermons of Berthold of Regensburg.
2 Patrick Geary suggested using the term „vocality“ in this connection, meaning „vocalization ofthe
written text“, as opposed to „orality,“ the culture ofthe illiterate.
3 Anton Kern, Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Graz, 2 (Vienna: Österreichische
Staatsdruckerei, 1 956), passim; Maria Mairold, Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek
Graz, 3 (Vienna: Georg Prachner, 1 967), passim.
4 .. .. Ista verba dicta sunt de Domino nostro Jhesu Christo et de sancto Lamberto, patrono nostro [fol.
40r, sermon (in the following #) 37].
204 ELENA LEMENEVA
Evangelist; Lawrence; Blaise; Peter. All the other saints are patron namesakes of the
parish churches in the vicinity of St. Larnbrecht. 5
These sermons, with the exception of three or four, are alrnost certainly an
„origina1″6 work by an anonymaus preacher. 7 This fact se ipso makes this collection
interesting. Another significant feature ofthis source is its uniqueness. No identical or
similar collection of sermons are found in any other library of Styrian monasteries.
Moreover, in St. Lambrecht, the native monastery of trus collection, neither this
collection as a whole nor its parts were reproduced in later times, the manuscript bears
no traces of having been studied after it was bound in the fifteenth century.8 The
sermons must have had a local and transient relevance for a rather limited timespan.
Against this background it is worth asking if these sermons were ever actually
delivered or whether they represent a private activity of some unnamed Benedictine
brother whose „cabinet preaching“ was never considered good enough to be copied
and distributed.
Contentwise, the collection Iooks like a typical miscellany of model sermons
for various occasions.9 The sermon topics in general do not constitute a regular yearly
cycle or a thematic series. A suitable criteriurn for assembling these sermons, it
appears, was that all of them were intended for special occasions. In rnost cases the
framework for preaching was created by a popular liturgical feast followed by a
procession, as, for instance, Candelmas, the consecration of a church, or a patron
saint’s day. We also have at least two sermons, one of thern entitled De cena Domini
and the other ad populum, which seem to have been delivered at the opening of a
session of the ecclesiastical court.10 Other occasions still await eventual identification,
if it is ever possible, of course.
Anton Schönbach, the first researcher to leave an exhaustive study of this
source, attempted to prove that most of the sermons had indeed been delivered at one
5 Benedikt F. Plan.k, „Das Stift St. Lambrecht und seine Pfarren im Spiegel der Landesflirstlichen
Visitationsprotokolle des 16. Jahrhunderts,“ Hausarbeit am Institut ftir Österreichische Geschichtsforschung
(Vienna, 1 980), pp. 1 2 – 1 3 ; Anion E. Schönbach, „Miszellen aus Grazer Handschriften
1 2 : Der Prediger von St. Lambrecht,“ Beiträge zur Erforschung Steirischer Geschichte,
33 ( 1 903), pp. 2 1 -22.
6 Taking into account the usua1 medieval practice of composing sermons with the he1p of and on the
basis of multiple preaching too1s and models, one should be aware that these pieces are „original“
in the sense that no immediate prototypes have yet been estab1ished for them.
7 Johannes Baptist Schneyer, Repertorium der lateinischen Sermones des Mittelalters für die Zeit
1 150-1350. vols. 1-I.X (Münster: Aschendorff, 1969-90), vol. I, p. 493; vol. 111, p. 719; vol. IV,
pp. 49, 757.
8 Schönbach, „Miszcllen,“ p. 5.
9 lt was usual for medieval books on artes praedicandi, that is, collections of model sermons, to present
sermons for very special and very momentary occasions, such as, e.g., the king’s entry into
town.
10 Schönbach, „Miszellen,“ pp. 35-42.
FROM ORAL TO WRITTEN AND BACK 205
or another identifiable occasion. On the basis of both internal and external evidence,
Schönbach established exact historical backgrounds for a number of sermons, dating
from 1239 to the late 1260s. For example, we have one sermon supposedly preached
in 1265 on the consecration of the rnain basilica of the monastery after a fire in
1 262.11 Yet, there are many more sermons in the collection that are not likely to be
dated with any certainty.
Who was the audience for these sermons? Provided that the preacher was a
1ocal Benedictine monk, would he not be primarily concemed with the salvation of
his fellow brethren? However, from these 1 1 1 sermons only a small nurober are
explicitly addressed to fratres. 12 Schönbach contended that most of the sermons from
MS 841 were intended for the local public, composed, most probably, of peasants.
Hence the Iabel Bauernprediger, currently attached to the presumed author of these
sermons, in the Austrian literature.13
Unless greeting his audience asfratres, the preacher usually speaks to uncertain
karissimi. There is also a distinct category of serrnons that Iack any salutation.14 From
the theological viewpoint, most of the latter sermons are most sophisticated: they
abound in quotations, enumeration of arguments, and other typical features of
scholastic discourse. These „professorial sermons“ have different lengths, one ofthem
taking up ten pages, in centrast to another one only two half-pages long! Either too
short or too long for a speech, so these sermons are not likely to have ever been
delivered as they are. In the absence of an addressee and the complete absence of
allusions to local events or figures, these impersonal collections of quotations with
rare connecting phrases are probably templates, models for further use.
The sermons for karissimi are the most primitive theologically. If quoting, the
preacher refers exclusively to the Bible; often he uses appropriate loci from the Old
Testament, the Psalms he quotes by heart, as is appropriate for a Benedictine monk. In
these sermons there are almost no references to the Church fathers. The sermons for
karissimi are the most local-bound. lt is in these sermons that the preacher speaks of
the local saints, Lambert and Blaise,15 discusses political events such as the invasion
o f the Hungarian king, 16 or explains what the feast of Corpus Christi is all about.17
Could these sermons indeed have been designed for peasants?
1 1 #33, Schönbach, „Miszellen,“ p. 46.
12 ##17, 34, 77, etc.
13 Geschichte der Literatur in Osterreich von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart, vol. lU!, ed. Fritz P.
Knapp (Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1999). pp. 359-363.
14 ##15, 19, 20, 45, 46, 47, 48. 54, 55, etc.
15 ##37 and 38 respectively.
16 Ad presens etiarn karissirni possunt hec verba recitare, hoc est de expedicione dornini nostri ducis
qui pro defensione terre sue et nostre, ornnes pugnare valentes convocavit. Audivit enirn quod rex
Ungarie inimicus suus dixerit, Persequar et comprehendam divicias etc. (Exod. 1 5 :9) Muttos
enim ut audimus sarracenos Christum nescientes et Christiani nominis religioni invidentes ad se
206 ELENA LEMENEVA
The sermons for fratres are much closer to the sermons for the simple folk, for
karissimi, than to the impersonal professorial models. Certainly, the sermons for
fratres are marked by greater depth and insight in theological matters. Before the
people the preacher referred only to the Bible, while for the brethren he used remarks
that make one conclude that he must have made a more profound study of the Holy
Scriptures. 18
In the early Middle Ages monks often exercised pastoral care in place of
secular clergy, especially in remote regions.19 However, in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries it was rather unusual for the Benedictines to administer cura animarum for
the laity: they limited themselves to the right of the private church to appoint priests
to affiliated parishes.20 Extant examples of thirteenth-century Benedictine preaching
are few because Benedictines enclosed within their monastefies and preached – if ever
– to the brethren only.2 1 What if the collection from St. Lambrecht is indeed a rare
instance of Benedictine preaching to the laity?
congregavit, ut deleat nos, ct terram suo dominio subponat, ecclesias Dei destruere intendit et
omnes occidere more gladii vult, sicut quondam fecit Nabuchodonosor … . Omnem namque populum
de diversis partibus ad dominum nostrurn ducem congregatum persequi vult, conprehendere
intendit, spoliare conatur in virtute potentie sue gloriatur. Clamemus ergo ad Dominum qui
pharaonem … submersit cum omni exercitu suo … ut dominum nostrum ducem cum omnibus conservet
et adiuvet, et nostros homines et aliarum ecclesiarum incolomes et sanos reducat, et hostes
in virtute sua confidentes deiciat.(fol. 24r, #21 ).
17 Festurn enim istud (corporis Christi) ex ordinatione divina est inventum ad Christianorum utilitatem
et ad religionem divinam confirmatum est. Quidam papa Romanus Urbanus nomine considerans
hominum negligentiam et eorum fragilitatem quia tempore Dominice Cene sicut ab
ecclesia ab antiquis patribus statutum fuit confessione mundari deberent et comrnunione faci
corporis et sanguinis Christi, interesse deberent se plures absentaverunt diversis negociis impediti,
diem istum instituit, in cantu novo, in legendis, et ut devotius interesse curarent, magnam indulgentiam
omnibus concessit et dedit. (fol. 25r, #23).
18 E.g., on the use of repetitions in the language of the Old Testament: Duplici adhortatione filia
Syon iubetur gratulari, dum dicit Dominus, Gaude et Ietare (Lam.4:21), hec duo verba unam
haben! significationem sed duplicis leticie important adhortationem. Quare fit hoc? Divina
Scriptura talem habet modum, ut quandocumque rumor delectabilis et proficuus gaudium importans
debet alicui nunciar1, sub itcratione verborum replicare consuevit sicut e converso de
malis inminentibus solet alios duplicato nomine premunire ut ibi: Hierusalem, Hierusalern que
occidis prophetas etc. (Mt. 23:37) (fol. 20r, #17).
19 Cf. Lortz, Joseph, lstorija Cerkvi. rassmotrennaja v svyazi s istorij’ej idej (Geschichte der Kirche
in ideengeschichtlicher Betrachtung), vol. I (Moscow: Khristianskaja Rosssija, 1999), p. 314.
20 Dinzelbacher, Peter, „Osnovnye tendencii religioznogo razvitija Gerrnanii v epohu vysokogo
Srcdnevekovja“ (Basic Iendeneies of religious development in Gerrnany in the High Middle
Ages), in Other Middle Ages: Festschrift A. Ya. Gurevich, eds. I. V. Dubrovskij et al. (Moscow
and St. Petersburg: CGNII JNJON RAN, Universitetskaya kniga, 2000), p. 148.
21 From among 129 extant sermons of Jacques de Fumes, the abbot of the Benedictine house ofSt.Bertin
( 1230-38), many were preachcd to thc brothcrs of other Benedictine monasteries; at least
two serrnons were delivered – by spccial invitation – to the Cistercians, but none was directed at
fROM ÜRAL TO WRITTEN AND BACK 207
Schönbach arrived at his conclusions conceming the Bauernpredigt based on
specific features of the source: topics and occasions of serrnons, themes elaborated
therein, sporadic vemacular words, and so on. However, extemal historical evidence
also confirrns the possibility of Benedictine preaching to a lay audience. Because of
the particular historical settings of St. Lambrecht, secular priests in the villages
around these monasteries were sometimes replaced by monks from the mid-twelfth
century.22 In 1420 the abbots of St. Lambrecht made a treaty with the Salzburg archbishop
that stipulated their special right to appoint priests to affiliated parishes, either
secular or from the ordained monks, who were to administer the pastoral care of the
residents.23 Although we have no documentation for the thirteenth century, the
situation then is likely to have been the same, whether de facto or de iure. It is clear
from some phrases in the text that the preacher was simultaneously the priest who
served the mass.24 He would have delivered a sermon in course ofthe mass, right after
the Gospel reading.25 This evidence on the priestly functions of the preacher reinforces
an assumption that a Benedictine brother from St. Lambrecht could preach to
the laity, most probably peasant parish audience.
J also believe that, apart from local parishioners, the preacher from St. Lambrecht
could also speak to the motley public coming to Mariazell, the famous pilgrimage
site founded and managed by St. Lambrecht. 26 I am not yet able to provide
convincing textual proof for this hypothesis but it is known for certain that the monks
from St. Lambrecht served as priests and confessors for the pilgrims.
Taking all these facts and suppositions into account, one may consider the
collection from St. Lambrecht as one of the rarest examples of serrnons addressed to
the laity. See Gerard De Martel, „La collection des sennons de Jacqucs de Furnes: Le sennon sur
Ruth 1.22,“ Sacris Erudiri: Jaarboek voor Godsdienstwetenschappen, 32 ( 1 9 9 1 ), pp. 343-393 and
idem, „Les deux sennons de Jacques de Furnes en l’honneur de saint Winnoc,“ Sacris Erudiri:
Jaarboek voor Godsdienstwetenschappen, 33 ( 1992-3), pp. 343-367.
2
2 Benedikt Plank, Geschichte der Abtei St Lambrecht: Festschrift zur 900. Wiederkehr des Todestages
des Gründers Markward von Eppenstein 1076- 1976 (St. Lambrecht, 1 978), p. 22.
23 „Für diese Kirchen erhält der Abt das Recht, nach Belieben Mönchen oder Weltpriestern die
Seelsorge zu übertragen und die Vikare auch wieder abzusetzen.“ (Plank, Das Stift St. Lambrecht
und seine Pfarren, p. 8).
24 Tercium est quod corpus Christi hodie hic sumitur in altari, quia non soltun ego qui celebro et
conficio et sumo corpus Cristi, sed omnes fideles et casti et mumli, indubitanter corpus Christi
mecum sumunt, si non visibiliter et secundum fidei meritum hoc fiet. (fol. 39r, #35); … et corpus
Christi sumitur hic, id est a sacerdote me licet indigno conficitur et vice vestra sumitur hodie pro
omnibus vobis (fol. 54v, #49); Asto certe iarn sacris indutus vestibus et ipsurn non solurn pro me
sed pro vobis ornnibus offeram super aram … (fol. 58v, # 5 1 ) .
2 5 Hic exponatur evangelii textus, e t postea subde (fol. 9r, #8); Verba ista karissimi sunt veritatis hoc
est Domini nostri lhesu Christi qui tale haben! intellectum, exponas secundum Jiteram
ewangelium quo dicto agrediaris. (fol. 54r, #49); Hic exponatur eis textus ewangelii quo facto
procedat sie. (fol. 59v, #52).
26 Plank, Geschichte der Abtei St. Lambrecht, pp. 22-23.
208 ELENA LEMENEV A
the local rustic population, in contrast to multiple sermons addressed to burghers.
However, a reservation should be made. For the time being there is no evidence to
verify whether or not many of these sermons were ever delivered. We may finally
have to be content with the following cautious Statement: these texts were written
with the rustic public in the author’s mind and they could have been delivered to a
rustic audience.
The texts we have are in Latin. Some ofthem indeed may have been read out in
public as they are, that is, the present text closely reproduces the words of the preacher
or speech faithfully reproduced a text „“Titten beforehand. However, this may only
be the case with a few sermons like the „professorial“ ones and, perhaps those for the
monks, as they could possibly have understood spoken Latin.
The rest of sermons, including all those for karissimi, represent a template
rather than a ready-to-use speech. By necessity the preacher had to speak in the
vemacular, since he wanted to be understood.27 Therefore, what we see may be either
an initial Latin draft of the German speech or the fmal Latin redaction of the original
German speech.28 The latter may be, in fact, a collation of the first draft and the oral
delivery, with a certain additional editing implied. There are other options as weil,
making it rather difficult to determine the place for any given case on the scale
between oral and written.
Among other factors that led Schönbach to identify the audience of these
sermons as thirteenth-century Styrian peasantry was the fact that the texts, as we have
them now, demoostrate apparent traces of „having been spoken in vemacular.“29 Regarding
the word order and syntactic constructions, I leave it for the German native
speaker, as was Schönbach, to judge whether they are typically German. There are
also a few German interjections in the text, such as Helf uns sande Marie (fol. 57v),
which was purportedly a popular song,30 or Nu bite wir den heiligen geist (fol. 59r).
These facts alone, nevertheless, bear no witness except for the fact that the preacher
hirnself thought in German and prepared to speak to German-speakers.31 German
inclusions are not marginal remarks. Written in the same script on the same lines as
the rest of the text, they had been part of the text that the scribe had before his eyes
when he produced the manuscript. The presence of the vemacular may indicate
translation from the original vemacular into Latin (oral 7 written) after preaching, or
21 Benhold of Regensburg was so much concemed with the audience’s understanding that he often
asked them, „Versteht ir min tiutsche?“ Frank G. Banta, „Berthold von Regensburg,“ in Gestalten
der Kirchengeschichte, ed. M. Greschat, vol. 4 (Stuttgart: Kohlhanuner, 1983), p. 9.
28 Schönbach, „Miszellen,“ p. 14.
29 lbid., p.58.
30 lbid., p. 59.
3 1 There is also a wordplay – abval = apfe/, abfall (Schönbach, „Miszellen,“ p. 59): Item in isto
tempore (in Capite jejunii) jejunamus, quia mundus tune cepit, scilicet in vere, et Adam
comestione nos peccato subjecit. Unde pomum in nostra lingua dicitur: abval.
FROM ÜRAL TO WRITTEN AND BACK 209
translation from the „original“ Latin into the vernacular for consequent preaching
(written -7 oral). Had the German inclusions in the text been the remnants or reminiscences
of the original German oral presentation consequently translated into
Latin, why would they be left without translation? They do not seem to be so important
as to be preserved in original in the final Latin redaction. Rather, one would
believe that the preacher noted down a fitting passage from a vemacular song, to
remernher it later in his speech, when he was just preparing the first draft for it. 32
The text also shows another feature that fits weil in the context of preparatory
notes. These are typical, rather needless connecting phrases like: „You want to know
about it? Listen, and I will tel! you.“33 I believe that these phrases would have been
eliminated in the final redaction of the text.
The third argument to support the thesis that we have drafts rather than final
versions is the fact that most texts Iook like broad outlines rather than finished products.
In some cases there is only a rough „skeleton“ of a would-be sermon, made of
quotations with short connecting sentences in between. In other more elaborate cases,
one observes a steady logical development of the argument, but still some parts are
just hinted at by the remarks such as „Here you can narrate the example of a hermit
who saw someone who went to the church carrying the devil’s bonds upon him and
came back from the church delivered …“ 34 or „Here explain what kind of indulgence
that was. „35
Should one conclude, therefore, that the manuscript from St. Lambrecht
contains first drafts by an anonymous preacher who, for some reason, wanted to
preserve them for the future as they were, imperfect and momentarily relevant?
Schönbach believed that the manuscript consisted of after-delivery notes
although he could not tel! that for certain.36 Even if this were the case, there are
numerous indications in the text that the author or the later editor of the text foresaw
the possibility of re-fashioning the text for some other occasion as weil. For instance,
he recommended: „Here, ifyou deign, appropriately speak about confession .. . „/7 or
„Here you may introduce much about the annunciation, and then you add moraliter
the following … . „/8 or „Here, if time permits, much can be said [about the four
32 „Diese deutschen Brocken dienten am ehesten als Erinnerungsstücke flir jemand, eventuell für
Berthold [von Regensburg], der nach einer lateinischen Vorlage deutsch predigte.“ (Frank G.
Banta, „Berthold von Regensburg,•· p.l 0).
33 E.g., Vis tu scire homo, tune disce. Ecce ego docebo te. (fol.l7r, # 14).
34 Hic potes dicere exemplum de eremita qui vidit unum a diabolo ligaturn ad ecclesiam ire et solutum
redire. (fol. 24r, #21 ).
35 Hic expone qualis sit indulgentia. (fol. 25r, #23 ).
36 Schönbach, „Miszellen,“ p. 15. •
37 Hic si expedire videris, loquere de confessione. (fol. 2r, #I).
38 Hic rnulta de annunciatione introducas, et tandern moraliter hec adice. (fol. 4v, #3).
2 1 0 ELENA LEMENEVA
virtues],“39 or „You must have a belt on, meaning, avoid gluttony, but this is not to be
expounded before the poor, for they do not have extra food or drink“.40 These
suggestions make me think that we deal with the second redaction that left the first
drafts generally unchanged but expanded them so as to make them more „modellike,“
more general, less time- and situation-bound. In other words, the aim of this
redaction was to make a proper preaching tool.41 In contrast to Schönbach’s
viewpoint, I contend that in the present texts two layers of editing can be discemed:
notes that the preacher made for hirnself when writing the first draft, like Hilf uns
sande Maria, and directions for a preacher-to come made in the course of the afterdelivery
editing, like Here, if time permits, . . .
To my mind, these texts present us with different stages of the written word
being converted into the spoken and, perhaps, back from the spoken word to the
written.42 Or, if we deal with a cabinet preacher, then we observe how he imagined
the transition from the text to the oral presentation.
I also want to point to some interesting features of the sermons addressed to
karissimi. Perhaps this was a generally accepted way of preaching, or, maybe, our
preacher thought that peasants ought to be addressed in this way, since his „professorial“
sermons are absolutely different in this respect. In any case, a peculiar
characteristic common to many pieces throughout the St. Lambrecht collection is their
literary, fictitious orality. I shall explain what I mean.
These sermons demonstrate the structure that was typical of „modern“
thirteenth-century preaching and was, in turn, brought about by new developments in
rhetorics.43 The entire setmon is built on a thematic Biblical verse introduced in the
beginning. This „theme“ is usually followed immediately by the „protheme,“ another
verse that allows the preacher to introduce a little „sermon within a sermon“ before
proceeding to the actual theme. Within the protheme the preacher either explains to
his audience the roJe of a preacher or discusses the importance and the force of the
Divine Word or calls the listeners‘ attention toward the spiritual benefits ensuing from
a sermon. The protheme is closed by a call to common prayer that unites the preacher
39 Hoc est IIII virtutibus … De quibus si tempus adrnitteret multa poteris dicere. (fol. 26v, #24).
40 (Sie aurem comedetis illum renes vestros accingetis calciamenta habebitis in pedibus tenentes
baculos in manibus etc. (Exod. 1 2 : 1 1)] Accingi debes ut caveas gulam, sed de hoc non multum
coram paupcribus est dicendmn, qui non habent superflua comedere et bibere. (fol. 28v, #26).
41 Cf. Les sermons et Ia visite pastorale de Federico Visconti, chapter 3, „La constitution du recueil
des sermons de Federico Visconti,“ section 3, „Un instrmnent de travail.“
42 Cf. Les sermons et la visite pastorale de Federico Visconti, chapter 3, „La constitution du recueil
des sermons de Federico Visconti,“ section 2, „Des etats de redaction divers“; see also Dieter
Richter, Die deutsche Oberlieferung der Predigten Bertholds von Regensburg: Untersuchungen
zur geistlichen Literatur des Sparmittelalters (Munich: Beck, 1 969), pp. 225 – 24 1 .
43 See David d’Avray, The Preaching of rhe Friars: Sermons Diffused from Paris before 1300
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1 985), and Nicole Bcriou, L ‚avenement des maftres de Ia Parole a
Paris au Xl/Je siecle, 2 vols. (Paris: Institut d’etudes augustinieMes, 1998).
FROM ÜRAL TO WRITTEN AND BACK 2 1 1
and his audience.44 After the protheme the preacher returns to the thematic verse and
develops it in one or another way. He may either interpret the entire phrase or break. it
into parts or give an exegesis of one or several important words from the phrase.
The introductory part of a sermon seems to be the only part of the text that is
usually fully and coherently spelled out in the collection from St. Lambrecht. In
contrast, the development is most often j ust outlined, roughly sketched, as I have
mentioned above. It is in the development of a sermon that the text displays the features
of an oral speech.45
This interpretation is based on distinctions. Those are often numbered, as was
common in the age of scholastics as weil as nowadays: „Three things are noted in
these words … ,“ „In which we must note two things … ,“ „Since angels serve us in
three ways: the first, the second, the third … . „46 Numbering apparently facilitated
comprehension of the argument, especially if perceived by hearing only. The logical
relation of parts of the text is signaled by repetitions like: „You have heard about this
… Now hear about that,“ or „You’ve listened weil to this … still you should Iisten to
that.“47 Repetition is also used to create oppositions, one of the favourite devices of
rhetorics: „Many are used to work and give all their belongings in order to avoid the
death of the body, and few work and give their belongings in order to avoid the death
of their soul.“48 Oppositions are often rhymed, probably for easy memorization.49 The
44 E.g., sermon De Apostolis: [Theme] Estote prudentes sicur serpentes, et simplices sicut columbe.
(Mt. IO: l 6) [Protheme] Si separabis preciosum a vili, quasi os meum eris. (leremias 1 5 : 19) Ad
quemlibet predicatorem loquitur verba ista. Tu predicator si preciousm, id est animam hominis
separaveris a vili, hoc est a peccato, quasi os meum eris. Omnis predicator est os Domini. Unde:
Os enim Domini /ocutum est (lsa. 58:14). Non est in voluntate loquentis ncc clamantis, sed in gratia
Spiritus Sancti . … Vox predicatoris laboral exterius sed Spiritus Sanctus cooperator est interius.
Unde ipse Dominus in evangelio dicit: Qui audit mandata mea et servat ea, similabo eum
uno sapienti. [Call to a common prayer] Rogate ergo Dominum ut det voci sue vocem veritatis, ut
sermo noster animam vestram a peccatis separet et Spiritu Sancto nos impleat. [Return to the
theme] Unde dicite: Estote prudentes sicut Serpentes etc. (fol. 22v, #20).
45 Comparable features are found in the German sermons of Berthold of Regensburg [Aaron Ya.
Gurevich, Srednevekovyj mir: kul ‚tura bezmolvstvujuschego bol ’shinstva (Stumme Zeugen des
Mittelalters : Weltbild und Kultur der einfachen Menschen) (Moscow: lskusstvo, 1990), pp. 184-
192).
46 Eg., Christus tres dietas pro nobis fecit: primam . … secundam . … tertiam (fol. 3v, #2); Tria in his
verbis notantur. (fol. 14v, #1 3); Serva !anturn ista tria . … (fol. 17r, #14); in quibus nobis duo
notantur. (fol. 17v, # 15); Nam angeli in tribus servunt nobis. (fol. 22r, #19).
47 Audistis modo … Audite vero (fol. 2r, #!); Karissimi, bene modo audistis … adhuc audire debetis
(fol. 3r, #2): Audistis modo uno modo, unde sancta Maria nominetur amara … . Adhuc dico vobis
secundo modo et ipsa tibi Maria dicet. (fols. 58v-59r, #51).
48 Multi solent Iaborare et omnes res suas dare ut mortem corporis evadant et pauci Iaborant ut …
mortem anime evadant. (fol. 4r, #2).
212 ELENA LEMENEVA
thematic verse in full or some of its words are repeated many times throughout the
sennon to stress their importance and to better impress their meaning upon the
listeners.
The monotony of a „talking head“ seems to have been the main dang er that the
preacher tried to avoid. He used various tactics to create an illusion of a live multilateral
talk.
The argument is moved forward, the distinctions are announced, and the
sennon receives its intemal structure with the help of short questions and answers.50
Those serve several purposes simultaneously. They draw attention ofthe public, make
understanding easier, and create an impression of a dialogue between the preacher and
his audience:
And what does it signify? – Of course, the Lord’s passion … And how did he
come to the tree [of the cross]? – Definitely, riding a donkey he came to
Jerusalem today.“51
In this case, however, it is clear that this is the preacher hirnself both asking and responding.
Non-the less frequently the preacher anticipates questions from his audience.
These are usually characteristically ignorant:
Perhaps you’re deliberating why people are still dying. And, perhaps, you think
that since Maria had removed the etemal death, no one should die forever? This
is not so;
Put on your belt etc. Three things should be noted here … You Simpletons
perhaps think for yourself: These three I can wett implement: I have a belt on, I
wear shoes, and I also have a good stick. This is not as you think. Another
meaning is hidden in these words that I want to teach you;
In this connection you perhaps ponder silently: Why are you saying that we are
in the dusk although the day is already more than bright and, besides, we have
candles in our hands?52
49 Non vere, quia Dominus non adtendit materiam ligni scd victoriam signi, non floris
pulchritudinem sed virtutum habilitatem (fol. 3r. #2); Si homo diligitur et non Deus, nichil est, et
si Deus diligitur et non homo, parum prodest. (fol. 38v, #35).
50 Nicole Beriou asserts that this technique was common for many preachers of the period, Les
sermons er Ia visite pastorale, chapter 5, „Un art de precher,“ section 3a, „Une technique
familiere.“
51 Et quid designat hoc? Certe passio Domini … Et quomodo venit ad arborem? Certe hodie in asino
venit in Hierusalem. (fol. 2r, #I).
52 Forte cogitatis inter vos, quod adhuc homines moriuntur . . . Et forte cogitatis si sancta Maria
arnovit mortem eternarn nullus debet mori etemaliter? Non est ita. (fol. 6v, #5); Renes veslros
accingetis etc. (Exod. 1 2 : I I ) Tria ponuntur hic que notare debetis … Tu simplex qui audis ista forte
cogitas aput te: lsta tria bene possum implere. Cunctus sum, calciarnenta fero, baculum etiam
bcne habeo. Non est ita ut tu putas. Aliud tatet in verbis istis quod te horno docere et intelligere
volo. (fol. 28v, #26); Adhec forte cogitatis tacite sie: Quornodo dicitis nos esse in tenebris, maxirne
cum dies iam clara videatur, et insuper Iumen habeamus in rnanibus? (fol. 57v, #51).
FROM ÜRAL TO WRITTE:-1 AND BACK 2 1 3
Sometimes the question t o the audience comes from the preacher: „Why, karissimi,
did the Lord say that about John the Baptist?. You certainly think he had no reason.
Not really .. . „53 The preacher also prompts the public to respond to his words: „Just
tell me if you understood, tell me if today any of you wants to open for Christ so that
the latter will enter to him.“54
The preacher devises conversations between the beholder and the characters of
his sermon. Often, although not always, these conversations contain Biblical references.
In combination with rather colloquial words added by the preacher the effect
might at times even be comic.
And you will be told: Here is a horrible monster, you dare not enter here but
you will be thrown down to hell … . And they will receive you saying: Enter
thou into thejoy ofthy Lord, there you will see him perfectly, and by seeing you
will Iove him, and by loving him you will have etemal joy … ;
But Christ, like a good and pious father, calls us with exhortations, petitions and
even follows us saying: Return, return, o Sulamith, it is you who abandoned me
and despised me, forgetful of me, return to me, and I will draw you unto me to
the heavens.55
Sometimes the preacher makes celestial characters converse with each other:
or
Some angels were not aware of the incamation of Christ, so today, seeing him
aseend in heaven, they were surprised and asked each other: Who is this who
comethfrom Edom, that is who comes from the earth?
He sent his son from the arch of heaven into the world, thus telling him: My
son, go into Egypt, tell the pharaoh to Let my people go, for 1 have seen their
tribulation. That is, you must assume flesh from the Virgin and converse in
Egypt, which is called dusky, to deliver my people from the yoke of the
pharaoh, that is, from the yoke of devil. And the son responded: By the ward of
thy lpi s I have kept mefrom the paths ofthe destroyer.56
Sl [Inter natos mulierum non est maior etc. (Mt. I I : I I ) ) Quare hoc, karissimi, dixit de eo Dominus?
Putatis sine causa. Non vere … (fol. 12r, #1 1).
s4 Modo dicatis mihi si intellexistis, dicatis mihi si hodie aliquis ex vobis velit apcrirc Christo, ut
intret ad ipsum. (fol. 14r, #13).
ss Et dicetur ad te: Ecce monstrum horribile non intrabis huc sed cum asinis in infemum proicieris
(fol. 4r, #2); … Vos suscipiunt dicentes: Intra in gaudium Domini tui (Mt. 25:21, 25:23), ibi ipsum
perfecte videas, et videndo diligas, et diligendo eteterna gaudia habeas (fol. 4r, #2); Sed Christus
sicut bonus et pius pater revocat nos exhortationibus, peticionibus et etiam sequitur nos dicens,
Revertere revertere Sulamith (Cantic. 6:12), hoc est tu qui dereliquisti me et despexisti me, mei
oblitus revertere ad me, ct ego traham te post me ad ce/um (Jhn. 12:32) (fols. !Ov-l lr, #10).
56 Unde etiam angeli aliqui incarnationem eius ignorabant et hodie videntes eum aseendentern in
celum admirati sunt dicentes: Quis est iste qui venit de Edom (lsa. 63: 1 ) , id cst qui venit de terra?
(fol. ! I r, #10); Filium misit ab arce celi in mundum, unde taliter dixit: Fili descende in Egyptum
(Gen. 46:3), die pharaoni (Eze.31 :2) ut dirnilleret populum meum (Exod. 8:32) quia vidi
214 ELENA LEMENEVA
In some cases the preacher, the listeners and the celestial characters all participate in
the discussion:
Let us ask the Blessed Yirgin Mary: Tell us, purest Yirgin, why did you come
to the temple with your son even though you remained unviolated in any part of
your body? – So that I could demoostrate to you the form of humility and would
set you an example of justice. For my son in birth, on conversation of his earthly
life, was poor in death and always taught poverty and humility. Therefore if
you wish to approach him you must do the same.57
Whose voice was that, Mary’s or the preacher’s?
In one sermon the polyphony of voices reaches its maximum. One immediately
imagines King Solomon as a tricky school-teacher, giving riddles to his eager but not
very smart pupils:
Who is she that lookethforth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun,
and terrible as an army with banners? Lord Solomon proposed a plausible
question about the Blessed Yirgin saying, Who is she that looketh forth, etc.
Although for a long time there was no one who could answer him, there were,
nevertheless, five persons to be found who could weil give detailed responses to
his question. One of them was Lord Moses. So say you, Moses, who is that so
beautiful, so glorious? – The table of shewbread. – In the Lord’s name, he
responded wonderfully when asserting that she was the table of shewbread. Y ou
are saying, o Moses, that she was the table of shewbread? – I’m saying so. –
Why? – On the table of shewbread there was a golden pot that held manna. –
What was this golden pot for? What is so wonderful if ever on this table there
was a golden pot? You did not answer weil. – No, I responded you the best, o
Solomon. The pot with manna on the table are the flesh and soul of Christ in
Mary. She is called the table, that is, of shewbread, because the heavenly bread,
that is the Body of Christ, provides manna for anyone hungry for justice, as
Christ said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven . . . – Let also
another one speak, whoever knows better who she is. The second is Lord Isaiah.
– Say then you, Isaiah, say. say, what seems to you or what is nown about her,
say who she is. – A blossoming rod. – See how he has answered, what a
contradiction in responses. – I do not contradict, I corroborate in the sense and
truth. – Tell then, why is she a rod? – Let it be. The rod is humble and erect
ajj/ictionem ejus (Exod. 3:7). Hoc est carnem debes assumere de virgine et in Egypto quod tenebre
dicitur conversari, ut liberes populum meum de jugo pharaonis, id est diaboli. Et filius
respondit: Propier verba Ia biorum tuorum pater ego custodivi vias duras. (Ps. 16:4)(fol. 4v, #3).
57 Querarnus a beata Maria: Die nobis mundissima virgo, quare venisti cum filio tuo ad Templum
cum tu inviolata ex omni parte fueris? Ideo ut formam humilitatis vobis ostenderem et exemplum
iusticie vobis ponerem. Filius enim meus innatus in conversatione vite, in morte pauper fuit, et
semper paupertatem et humilitatem docuit. Unde similiter si ad ipsum pervenire vultis facere
debetis (fol. 18v, #16).
fROM ORAL TO WRITTEN AND BACK 2 1 5
upright. It i s moved and scrabbled by the wind and yet i t does not fall off its
root. Why? Because it is flexible and yet firmly rooted. The same way the
blessed Virgin Mary, who of the entire world exposed in herself examples of
humility saying, For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden . . . –
Let another one come forth, whoever claims to know who is so beautiful. The
third one is Lord Jeremiah responding to Solomon. – Say, then, Jeremiah, who
she is? – A burning pot. – By God, this one gives a wonderful response when
saying that the Blessed Virgin is a pot. – Truly, she is a pot. Since a pot is made
of clay, and the Blessed Mary through the first ancestor originales, like us, from
the clay of earth. But this pot is also called burning. Don’t you know that a
potter exposes a vase made by his art to the test by fire: if it does not break in
fire but endures, he approves of it and, thus reinforced, retwns it to the people’s
use. So also God the maker of creatures … – Let also another one come up,
whoever knows who she is. The fourth one is Lord Daniel who stands ready to
answer. – Speak also you Daniel, say, say if you know who she is. – A
mountain. – You see how he responded saying that the Blessed Virgin is a
mountain? – Yes, the Blessed Virgin is the mountain of which the stone is
carved, without help of hands, which grew up to a huge mountain and filled the
entire universe. The stone carved without help of hands is Christ bom of the
Virgin without male interference … – The fifth should speak to respond who she
is. I thin.k that he knows her better than all others, since they were brought up in
the world, while he studied the discipline in the loftest mountains of the divine
school. He is Arehanget Gabriel. Say also you, Gabriel, who she is. – She is full
of grace … . 5 8
58 [In Nativitate S. Marie] Que est ista que progreditur sicut aurora consurgens pulchra ut Iuna
electa ut sol terribilis ur acies ordinata (Sol. 6:9) Dominus Salomon de beata virgine questionem
laudabilem proposuit dicens: que est ista etc. Nec erat permultum tempus qui vere sibi polerat
respondere, Iandern inventi sunt quinque qui decenter responsione sua questionem enodaverunt.
Primus ex hiis est dominus Moyses. Die ergo tu Moyses que sit ista tarn pulchra tarn preclara?
Mensa propositionis. In nomine Domini, iste mirabiliter respondit, affirmans earn esse mensarn
propositionis. Dicis o Moyses ipsam esse mensam propositionis? Dico. Quare? Audite. In mensa
propositionis posita erat urna aurea in se continens manna (lieb. 9:4). Quid sibi vult in hac mensa
urna aurea? Quid miri si olim in illa mensa fuit uma aurea. Non bene respondisti. Immo optime
respondi tibi o Salomon. Audi ergo, urna aurea corpus Christi. Manna in urna, anima Christi in
corpore. Urna simul et manna in mensa, caro et anima Christi in Maria. Hec dicitur mensa, scilicet
propositionis, quia omni esurienti iusticiam prebet manna panis celestis, hoc est corpus Christi qui
dicit: Ego sum panis vivus qui de celo descendi … (Jhn. 6:41, 5 1 ) Dicat et alius si quis noverit
melior que sit ista? Secundus enim est dominus Ysaias. Die ergo tu Ysaias, die die, quid tibi
videtur vel constet de illa, die que sit ista. Florens virga. Videte, qualiter iste respondit, qualiter
discordant m responsione. Non discordo, sed concordo sensu et veritate. Die ergo quare sit virga.
Fiat. Virga humilis est et in altum est erecta. Vento agitatur et inpingitur, et tarnen a radice non
corrumpitur. Quare? Flexibilis est tarnen firmiter radicata. Sie beata virgo Maria, humilitatis
exempla ex universo mundo in se exponens dicens: Respexit Dominus humilitatem ancille sue
216 ELENA LEMENEVA
This example speaks for itself. The preacher from St. Lambrecht fashioned his
sermons as many-sided conversations, thus using the fiction of oral communication as
a literary method. In the written text he imitates an oral discourse. Perhaps, he
considered the „orality“ /“vocality“ of a sermon to be a genre requirement? Even when
there is no telling whether the text was ever delivered as an actual sermon we can
observe the author’s strategy of creating his „sermon“ as spoken word.
(Lk. 1:48) … Aeeedat et alius qui dieat se nosse que sit ista tarn formosa. Tereius est et dominus
leremias respondens Salomoni. Die ergo leremia que sit illa? Olla sueeensa. Per Deum iste
mirabili utitur responsione dieens beatam virginem esse ollam. Verum est. Olla est. Olla enim ex
luto eonfieitur et beata Maria de primo parente de terra plasmato nobiscum originem traxit. Olla
etiam, hee dicitur sueeensa. Seitis nempe quod figulus vas arte sua faetum in igne probandum
exponit, si in igne non erepat sed perdurat approbat ct sie duraturn ad usus hominum eonfert. Sie
Deus figulus figmentorum … Proeedat et alius qui noverit que st ista. Quartus est dominus Daniel
qui ad respondendum stat paratus. Die et tu Daniel die die, si nosti que sit ista. Mons. Videte
qualiter hic respondit dieens beatam virginem esse montem. lta mons est beata virgo de quo
preeisus est Iapis sine manibus qui crcvit in monlern magnum et implevit universum orbem. Lapis
sine manibus precisus de monte Christus est sine virili cooperatione natus de virgine … (fol. 30r)
Quintus dicat respondens que sit ista. Puto quod iste melius eam pre eeteris congnoverit presertim
cum isti in mundo edocti iste in supemis montibus divine scole disciplinam didicerit. lste enim est
archangelus Gabriel. Die et tu Gabriet que sit ista. Ista est gratia plena … (fol. 30v, #28).
ORAL HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE AGES
THE SPOKEN WORD IN CONTEXT
Edited by Gerhard Jaritz and Michael Richter
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
SONDERBAND XII
=
CEU MEDIEV ALIA
VOLU1vfE 3
Oral History of the Middle Ages
The Spoken W ord in Context
Edited by Gerhard Jaritz and Michael Richter
Krems and Budapest 200 1
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG DER ABTEILUNG
KULTUR UND WISSENSCHAFT DES AMTES
DER NIEDERÖSTERREICIDSCHEN LANDESREGIERUNG
niederästerreich kultur
copy editor: Judith Rasson
Cover illustration: The wife of Potiphar covets Joseph: “ … erat autem Joseph pulchra facie et
decorus apectu: post multos itaque dies iecit domina oculos suis in Ioseph et ait donni mecum.“
(“ … And Joseph was (a] goodly fperson], and weil favoured. And it came to pass after these
things, that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. „), Gen. 39:
6-7 (KJV). Concordantiae Caritatis, c. 1350. Cistercian abbey of Lilienfeld (Lower Austria), ms
151, fol. 244v (detail). Photo: Institut fiir Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit
(Krems an der Donau).
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
– ISBN 3-90 Hl94 15 6 (Krems)
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any
form or by any means, without the permission of the Publishers.
Published by:
and
– ISBN 963 9241 64 4 (Budapest)
-ISSN 1587-6470 CEU MEDIEVALIA
Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung
der materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 13, A-
3500 Krems. Austria,
Department ofMedieval Studies, Centrat European University,
Nador utca 9, H-1051 Budapest, Hungary.
Printed by Printself, Budapest.
Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………………….. 7
Michael RICHTER, Beyond Goody and Grundmann ………. . . . . . . ………. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I
Tom PETTIIT, Textual to Oral: the Impact ofTransmission
on Narrative Word-Art …………………………………………………………………….. 1 9
Elöd NEMER!<.ENYI, Fictive Audience. The Second Person Singular in the Deliberatio ofBishop Gerard of Csanäd …………………………………………….. 3 9 Katalin SZENDE, Testaments and Testimonies. Orality and Literacy in Composing Last Wills in Late Medieval Hungary ……………………………. 49 Anna ADAMSKA, The Kingdom of Po land versus the Teutonic Knights: Oral Traditions and Literale Behaviour in the Later Middle Ages …………… 67 Giedre MICKÜNAITE, Ruler, Protector, and a Fairy Prince: the Everlasting Deeds of Grand Duke Vytautas as Related by the Lithuanian Tatars and Karaites ………………………………… 79 Yurij Zazuliak, Oral Tradition, Land Disputes, and the Noble Community in Galician Rus‘ from the 1440s to the 1 460s ……………………………………… 88 Nada ZECEVIC, Ai􀃭tc; yA.uKeia. The Importance ofthe Spoken Word in the Public Affairs ofCarlo Tocco (from the Anonymous Chronaca dei Tocco di Cefalonia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 108 lohn A. NICHOLS, A Heated Conversation: Who was Isabel de Aubigny, Countess of Arundel? …………………………… 1 1 7 Tracey L. BILADO, Rhetorical Strategies and Legal Arguments: ‚Evil Customs‘ and Saint-Florent de Saumur, 979- 1 0 1 1 …………………….. 1 28 Detlev KRAACK, Traces of Orality in Written Contexts. Legal Proceedings and Consultations at the Royal Court as Reflected in Documentary Sources from l21h-century Germany ……… 1 42 6 Maria DOBOZY, From Oral Custom to Written Law: The German Sachsenspiegel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Martha KEIL, Rituals of Repentance and Testimonies at Rabbinical Courts in the 151h Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 64 Michael GOODICH, The Use of Direct Quotation from Canonization Hearing to Hagiographical Vita et Miracula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 77 Sylvia ScHEIN, Bemard of Clairvaux ’s Preaching of the Third Crusade and Orality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ….. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Michael BRAUER, Obstades to Oral Communication in tbe Mission offriar William ofRubruck among the Mongois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Elena LEMENEVA, From Oral to Written and Back: A Sermon Case Study . . . . . . . . 203 Albrecht CLASSEN, Travel, Orality, and the Literary Discourse: Travels in the Past and Literary Travels at the Crossroad of the Oral and the Literary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 217 Ulrich MÜLLER and Margarete SPRJNGETH, “Do not Shut Your Eyes ifYou Will See Musical Notes:“ German Heroie Poetry („Nibelungenlied“), Music, and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Jolanta SZPILEWSKA, Evoking Auditory Imagination: On the Poetics of Voice Production in The Story ofThe Glorious Resurrection ofOur Lord (c. 1580) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Jens T. WOLLESEN, SpokenWords and Images in Late Medieval Italian Painting . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 257 Gerhard JARTTZ, Images and the Power of the Spoken Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Preface Oral culture played an instrumental role in medieval society.1 Due to the Iack of any direct source evidence, however, research into the functions and importance of oral communication in the Middle Ages must confront a number of significant problems. Only indrect traces offer the opportunity to analyze phenomena that were based on or connected with the spoken word. The ‚oral history‘ of the Middle Ages requires the application of different approaches than dealing with the 201h or 2 151 century. For some decades Medieval Studies have been interested in questions of orality and literacy, their relationship and the substitution of the spoken by the written word2 Oral and literate culture were not exclusive and certainly not opposed to each other.3 The ‚art of writing‘ was part of the ‚ars rhetorica‘ and writing makes no sense without speech.4 Any existing written Statement should also be seen as a spoken one, although, clearly, not every oral Statement as a written one. Authors regularly wrote with oral delivery in mind. ‚Speaking‘ and ‚writing‘ are not antonyms. It is also obvious that „the use of oral conununication in medieval society should not be evaluated … as a function of culture populaire vis-a-vis culture savante but, rather, of thc communication habits and the tendency of medieval man 1 For the late Middle Ages and the early modern period, cf. Willern Frijhoff, „Communication et vie quotidienne i1 Ia fin du moyen äge et a l’epoque moderne: reflexions de theorie et de methode,“ in Kommunialion und Alltag in Spätmillefalter und fniher Neuzeit, ed. Helmut Hundsbichler (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1992), p. 24: „La plupart de gens vivait encore pour l’essentiel dans une culture orale et !es procedes d’appropriation des idCes passaient de prefcrence par Ia parolc dite et ecoutee, quand bien memc on ctait capable d’une Ieelure visuelle plus ou moins rudimentaire.“ 2 See Marco Mostert, „New Approaches to Medieval Communication?“ in New Approaches to Medieval Communication. ed. Marco Mostert (Tumhout: Brepols, 1999), pp. 15-37; Michael Richter, “Die Entdeckung der ‚Oralität‘ der mittelalterlichen Gesellschaft durch die neuere Mediävistik,“ in Die Aktualität des Miue/alters, ed. Hans-Werner Goetz (Bochum: D. Winkler, 2000), pp. 273-287. 3 Peter Burke calls the constrnct of „oral versus literate“ useful but at the same time dangerous: idem, „Mündliche Kultur und >Druckkultur< im spätmittelalterlichen Italien,“ in Volkskultur des europäischen Spätmittelalters, eds. Peter Dinzelbacher and Hans-Dieter Mück (Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag, 1987), p. 60. 4 Michael Clanchy, „lntroduction,“ in New Approaches to Medieval Communication. ed. Marco Mostert (Tumhout: Brepols, 1999), p. 6. 8 to share his intellectual experiences in the corporate framework.“5 Oral delivery was not „the sole prerogative of any socioeconomic class. „6 For all these reasons, it is important to analyze the extent of and context, in which ’speech acts,‘ auditive effects, and oral tradition occur in medieval sources .7 Research into the use of the spoken word or references to it in texts and images provides new insight into various, mainly social, rules and pattems of the communication system. 1t opens up additional approaches to the organization and complexity of different, but indispensably related, media in medieval society, and their comparative analysis.8 The spoken word is connected with the physical presence of its ’sender.‘ Speech may represent the authenticity of the given message in a more obvious way than written texts or images. Therefore, the use of ’speech acts‘ in written or visual evidence also has to be seen in context with the attempt to create, construct, or prove authenticity. Moreover, spoken messages contribute to and increase the lifelikeness of their contents, which may influence their perception by the receiver, their efficacy and success. Being aware of such a situation will have led to the explicit and intended use and application of the spoken word in written texts and images- to increase their authenticity and importance, too. lf one operates with a model of ‚closeness‘ and ‚distance‘ of communication with regard to the Ievel of relation of ’senders‘ and ‚receivers,‘ then the ’speech acts‘ or their representation have to be seen as contributors to a ‚closer‘ connection among the participants of the communication process.9 At the same time, however, Speech might be evaluated as less official. One regularly comes across ‚oral space‘ 5 Sophia Menache, The Vox Dei. Commwzication in the Middle Ages (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 19. 6 Ibidem, p. 21. Cf. also Jan-Dirk Müller, „Zwischen mündlicher Anweisung und schrifilicher Sicherung von Tradition. Zur Kommunikationsstruktur spätmittelalterlicher Fechtbücher,“ in Kommunikation und Alltag in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed. Helmut Hundsbichler (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1992), p. 400: „Offensichtlich sind schriftliche und nichtschriftliche Tradierung von Wissen weiterhin relativ unabhängig voneinander, nachdem die Schrift längst dazu angesetzt hat, lnseln der Mündlichkeil oder praktisch-enaktiver Wissensvermittlung zu erobem. Die Gedächtnisstütze kann die Erfahrung nicht ersetzen, sendem allenfalls reaktivieren. Sie ist sogar nur verständlich, wo sie auf anderweitig vermittelte Vorkenntnisse stößt.“ 7 􀆿f. W.F.H. Nicolaisen, ed., Oral Tradition in the Middle Ages (Binghamton: Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1995). 8 See, esp., Horst Wenzel, Hören und Sehen, Schrift und Bild. K ultur und Gedächtnis im Mittelalter (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1995), passim. 9 See also Siefan Sonderegger, „>Gesprochen oder nur geschrieben?< Mündlichkeil in mittelalterlichen
Texten als direkter Zugang zum Menschen,“ in Homo Medietas. Aufsätze zu Religiosität,
Literatur und Denkformen des Menschen vom Mittelalter bis in die Neuzeit. Festschrift
for Alois Maria Haas zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Claudia Brinker-von der Heyde and
Niklaus Largier (Bem e\ al.: Peter Lang, 1999), p. 665: „Jedenfalls darf man sich bewußt bleiben,
daß auch in den Texten des deutschen Mittelalters die Reflexe gesprochener Sprache eine
bedeutende Schicht ausmachen, die besonders dann immer wieder hervortritt, wenn es um
einen direkten Zugang zum Menschen geht, um einVerstehen aus unmittelbarer Partnerschaft
heraus … “
9
that has become institutionalized or more official by the application of ‚written
space.‘ 10 Simultanous employment of such different Ievels and qualities of
messages must often have had considerable influence on their efficacy.11
The papers in this volume are the outcome of an international workshop that
was held in February, 2001, at the Department ofMedieval Studies, Central European
University, Budapest. Participants concentrated on problems of the occurrence,
usage, and pattems of the spoken word in written and visual sources of the
Middle Ages. They dealt with the roJe and contents of direct and indirect speech in
textual evidence or in relation to it, such as chronicles, travel descriptions, court
and canonization protocols, sermons, testaments, law-books, literary sources,
drama, etc. They also tried to analyze the function of oral expression in connection
with late medieval images.
The audiovisuality of medieval communication processes12 has proved to be
evident and, thus, important for any kind of further comparative analysis of the
various Ievels of the ‚oral-visual-literate,‘ i.e. multimedia culture of the Middle
Ages. Particular emphasis has to be put on methodological problems, such as the
necessity of interdisciplinary approaches,13 or the question of the extent to which
we are, generally, able to comprehend and to decode the communication systems
of the past.14 Moreover, the medievalist does not come across any types of sources
in which oral communication represents the main concem.15 lnstead, she or he is
confronted, at first glance, with a great variety of ‚casual‘ and ‚marginal‘ evidence.
We would like to thank all the contributors to the workshop and to this
volume. Their cooperation made it possible to publish the results of the meeting in
the same year in which it took place. This can be seen as a rare exception, at least
in the world of the historical disciplines. The head, faculty, staff, and students of
the Department of Medieval Studies of CentTal European University offered
various help and support. Special thanks go to Judith Rasson, the copy editor of
10 This, e.g., could be weil shown in a case study on thc pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela:
Friederike Hassauer, „Schriftlichkeit und Mündlichkeil im Alltag des Pilgers am Beispiel der
Wallfahrt nach Santiago de Compostela,“ in Wallfahrt und Alltag in Mittelalter und früher
Neuzeit, eds. Gerhard Jaritz and Barbara Schuh (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 1992), pp. 277-316.
11 Cf. Bob Scribner, „Mündliche Kommunikation und Strategien der Macht in Deutschland im
16. Jahrhundert,“ in Kommunikation und Alltag in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed.
Helmut Hundsbichler (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
1992), pp. 183-197.
12 Wenzel, Hören rmd Sehen, p. 292.
13 Cf. Ursula Schaefer, „Zum Problem der Mündlichkeit,“ in Modernes Miuelalter. Neue Bilder
einer populären Epoche, ed. Joachim Heinzle (Frankfurt am Main and Leipzig: Insel Verlag,
1994), pp. 374 f.
14 Frijhoff, „Communication et vie quotidienne,“ p. 25: „Sommes-nous encore en mesure de
communiquer avec Ja communication de jadis?“
1􀅄 Michael Richter, Sprache und Gesellschaft im Mittelalter. Untersuchungen zur mündlichen
Kommunikation in England von der Mit te des elften bis zu Beginn des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts
(Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1979), p. 22.
10
this volume, who took particluar care with the texts of the many non-native
speakers fighting with the pitfalls of the English language.
Budapest, Krems, and Constance
December 200 I
Gerhard Jaritz and Michael Richter