Medival Miscellanies and the Case of Manuscript British Library, Cotton Titus D.XX*

Medieval Miscellanies and the Case of Manuscript
British Library, Cotton Titus D.XX*
Greti Dinkova-Bruun
British Library, Cotton Titus D.XX is a composite codex comprising three
parts, one from the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century, one
from the early fifteenth century, and one from the late fifteenth century.
All parts are written in different late Gothic scripts and represent clearly
defined codicological units. Part One contains Alexander Neckam’s De
nominibus utensilium and John of Garland’s Dictionarius. Part Two is
composed ofthree items: the Cronicon Monasterii de Wa/densi to the year
1321 and two poems attributed to John Lydgate (d. 1449/50): the Dietary,
a guide for healthy Iiving that begins imperfectly with verse 35, and
the Successio Regum Angliae which starts with William the Conqueror
and ends imperfectly on folio 96r with the first line of the stanza on
Henry IV. Part Three of the codex and its latest addition contains a miscellaneous
collection of excerpts which is the focus of this essay.
The parts were already amalgamated in 1621, and there is firm evidence
that the third part was added to the previous ones by Sir Robert
Bruce Cotton (d. 1631) himself, namely his signature which appears in
the upper margin of folio 97r. Whether the other two parts were put together
by Cotton as weil is hard to say. He personally, or more likely, his
librarian and secretary Richard James (d. 1638) is the author of the
„Table of Contents“ or Catalogus Tractatuum in isto uolumine added at
the beginning of the manuscript on folios lr-2r.1 Whoever the author of
l would like to thank Professor Rita Copeland, Professor jennifer A. Harris, and
Dr. Stephanie Hayes who read previous drafts of this article and whose suggestions
were very helpful in creating the final version of the text.
The Catalogus lists 27 items, providing also a reference after each one to the folio
on which the piece begins. The folio numbers in this list do not coincide with
those in the modern catalogues because the author of the seventeenth-century
BRJTISH LIBRARY. COTTON Tm;s D.XX 15
the Catalogus was, his table of contents is not complete for he did not
detect the presence of either Garland’s Dictionary in the first part or Lydgate’s
Dietary in the second.2
Cotton Titus D.XX is in its entirety a good example of what could be
called a „secondary miscellany,“ that is, a codex containing various parts
written at different times and by different scribes, which did not belang
together originally but were bound within the same covers at a later
stage, often at random. On this basic compositional level we need to pay
attention to the „syntax“ of the codex. Do the individual „morphological“
elements which are found in it interact in a way that creates a meaningful
„sentence“ or are they only unrelated sections that are simply bound
together? In the case of Cotton Titus D.XX, the three different parts of the
manuscript are completely independent of each other, thus representing
separate codicological entities that had been removed from their original
context and brought here into a new one.
Within this „secondary miscellany,“ Part Three is a typical example of
what could be called a „primary miscellany,“ that is, a compilation created
from the very beginning by a person or a group of people with an
overarching idea and purpose. The original creative impulse may not be
immediately apparent to the modern reader, but a close scrutiny normally
reveals that in the so-called „primary miscellanies“ we are not
confronted with the mechanical gathering of texts, which characterizes
to such a high degree the nature of the „secondary miscellanies,“ but
with a collection that exhibits clear evidence of intentionality.3
ln this essay 1 will examine in more detail the third and last part of
Cotton, Titus D.XX, which is a primary miscellany exhibiting a collection
Catalogus clearly did not include the pages of the table of contents in his
counting.
The only entries in the Cata/ogus for Parts One and Two of the codex are: (1)
Alexander Necham de nominibus utensilium; (2) Chronicon Monisterii (sie) de
Waiden. ad anm1m 1321 (corrected from 1412); and (3) Successio regum Angliue
a conquestore ad Hen. 4. Rithmis Anglicanis. On the use and importance of
Neckam’s text, see Tony Hunt, Teaching and leaming latin in Thirteenth·Century
England, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Boydell and Brewer, 1991), vol. 1, 177-90, and Rita
Copeland, „Naming, Knowing, and the Object of Language in Alexander Neckam’s
Grammar Curriculum,“ The Journal of Medieval Latin 20 (2010): 38-57.
These helpful terms, with further elaborations and explanations, were also used
by Filippo Ronconi in his I manoscritti greci miscel/anei. Recerche su esemplari dei
secoli IX-Xll (Spoleto: Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo,
2007).
16 GRETI DIJ\“KOVA -BRUUN
of summaries and extracts from various classical and medieval works,
thus covering a range of topics and raising a number of fascinating questions.
The most obvious one is „Why?“ Can we discover any meaningful
rationale in the creation ofthe compilation or is it, at least for us who are
far removed from the original concerns of the compiler, just an incomprehensible
gathering of unconnected snippets? The other question is, of
course, „How?,“ namely, how does the compiler go about collecting and
organizing his material?
In order to answer these questions, 1 will Jook at the compilation in
Cotton Titus D.XX from two different perspectives: content and form.
First, 1 will attempt to define the topics in which the anonymous compiler
seems to be interested. Second, 1 will outline the compiler’s strategies
for abbreviating and summarizing. In doing so, 1 hope to show that
the author of the compilation has succeeded in creating an entirely new
cultural context for the original compositions he had chosen for his collection,
and that the act of excerpting provided the impulse for him to
contextualize classical and medieval knowledge in the late fifteenth century.
In this process he shaped a compendium of learning intended both
for teaching and for facilitating the retrieval of information.
The miscellaneous compilation under consideration here is preserved
on folios 97r-197v of Cotton Titus D.XX. lt is written in the same
hand throughout, which suggests both physical and intentional unity.
The entries included are:
1.
2.
Title in the man- Folios Entry in the Catalogus Tractatuum in isto
uscript (mostly uolumine
in ]arger display
script)
No title, no au- 97r- 104v ( 4) Imagines Deo rum ex Fulgentio et aliis
thorial attributlon
(a digest of
mythological
information
from varlous
sources l
Marcianus 104v-12v (5) Epitomen Matiani (sie) Capellae de
Caoella Nuotiis Mercurii et Philoloaiae4
This text was mentioned briefly among the anonymous commentaries on Capella
in Claudio Leonardi, „! codici de Marziano Capella,“ Aevum 33 (1959): 443-89, at
479, n. 229.
BRJTJSH LJBRARY, COTTON TITUS D .XX 17
3. Bernardus 112v-17v (6) Bernardi Siluestris Geographiae (sie)
Siluestris Epitomen
4. Lucanus 117v-22v [71 lucani Poetae Epitomen
5. Perseus 122v-24v [8) Persii (sie) Historia
6. Petrus Riga 124v-30r [9) Petrt Ri,qa Ale,qoriae Bibliae Epitomen
7. Rufus(?) 130r-32v (10) Affrae meritricis uita a Rufo scripta
Epitomen
8. Seneca 132v-33v fll l Senecae Cordubae Tra.aediarum summa
9. Sompniora 133v-34v ( 12) De somnis Tractatus
10. Marcialis Cocus 134v-37r (13} De Martiali Coca et eius scriptis Narratio
amp/a
11. Anwnaute 137r (14 l De lasone et Araonauticis
12. Hvmeneus 137v- 38r [15) De Hvmeneo fi/ii Bachi
13. Claudianus 138r-40r (16) Poemata Claudiani Ga/ici Epitomen
14. Anteclaudianus 140r-43r (17) Epitomen Ante Claudiani Alani An,qlici
15. Architrenius 143r-44v (18) lohannis Hauilensis Angli Architrenii
epitomen
16. Philosophus 145r-59r (19) Philosophorum uitae et scripta
(20) De Hermeto et aliis philosophis narratioS
17. Poeta 159r-67r (21) Poetarum uitaeetscripta
18. Potestates 167r-74v (22) De ma.qistratibus Romanorum
19. Senator 174v-76r (23) De senatoribus
20. Sibilla 176r-76v (no entrv in the Cataloaus)
21. no title, starts l 77r-81r (24) De prouinciis Angliae et losephi
imperfectly6 Aramathia aduentu ad insulam Aua/oniam
(25) De sacerdotio Melchisedechi7
22. Sedes 181r-82r (26) De sedibus et prouinciis orbis Christiani
23. Quintus Cursius 182r-97v (27) Alexandri Magni Gesta ex Quinta Curtio
sie ends im erfectl s
De Hermeto et aliis phi/osophis narratio is entered as a separate entry in the
Cata/ogus, but there is no reason for this separation. lt is true that the letter „H“
in the name of Hermes is bigger and slightly more decorated than the rest of the
capitals but this is simply because this section starts on a new Folio (152r). Since
the !ist of the philosophers is organized more or less alphabetically, it does not
make sense to divide it in the middle.
lt seems that at least a leaf is missing here because the text on the English
provinces starts at the top of Folio 177r and apparently without a break.
Again the De sacerdotio Melchisedechi is presented as a separate entry in the
Catalogus. No separation of any kind is seen in the manuscript.
This epitome is discussed and edited in Edme R. Smits, „A Medieval Epitome of
the Historia Alexandri by Quintus Curtius Rufus: MS. London BL Cotton Titus
18 GRETI Dl1’KOVA -BRL:UN
The first theme that emerges clearly from this collection is the human
relationship with the divine, both in the form of pagan mythology and
Christian faith. This admittedly is a very broad concept, but it is the
thread that runs through the compilation. This relationship is explored
in its manifestations both in literary works and in treatises on religious
administration and practices.
Gods and humans-pagan mythology and ancient religious practices
The entire collection starts with an exposition that discusses eighteen
ancient mythological figures from the point of view of how they are depicted
visually and what their pictorial attributes mean morally.9 The
section for each divinity contains two complementary segments: first, a
quick reference to the ancient authorities, and second, a summary of the
opinion of a later, Christian author. Among the ancient authorities the
compiler mentions Fulgentius’s Mythologiae, Aristotle, and some unspecified
poete, while the later tradition is represented by the Fulgentius
metaforalis of Johannes Ridevallus (or John Ridewall, fl. 1330/40)1° and
the De formis figurisque deorum composed by Petrus Berchorius (or
Pierre Bersuire, d. 1362) but often falsely ascribed to Thomas Waleys (or
D.XX and MS. Oxford Corpus Christi College 82,“ Classica et Mediaevalia 42
(1991): 279-300, at 289-300.
The characters included in the tract are: Saturnus, Jupiter, Neptunus, Pluto, Mars,
Apollo, Mercurius, Pan, Bacchus, Pheton, Ganimedes, Perseus, Paris, juno, Minerva,
Diana, Venus, and Cibeles. The moral interpretations of the first four gods
reveal that Saturnus is jigura prudentie (fol. 97r), Jupiter is figura amoris beneuoli
(fol. 97v), Neptunus represents the uirtus intelligentie (fol. 98r), and Pluto the
uirtus prouidentie (fol. 98v). One of the gods, who are symbols of vices, is Mars
called uicium tiranidis (fol. 99v). This mythological tract is edited and discussed
in Greti Dinkova-Bruun, „Imagines Deorum: Christianizing Mythography in Manuscript
Cotton Titus D.XX,“ Archives d’Histoire doctrinale et litteraire du Moyen Age
79 (2012): 313-34.
10 See Fulgentius metafora/is, ed. Hans Liebeschütz (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1926).
The compiler of Cotton Titus D.XX does not mention the title of Ridewall’s work.
When he refers to it, he sirnply says secundum Ridewaus or iuxta Ridewaus. The
Fulgentius metaforalis was probably written in the 1330s.
BRJTISH LIBRARY. COTTON T!TUS D.XX 19
Walensis, d. 1350).11 Our compiler certainly believed that Thomas was
the author of the work he was using and referred to him repeatedly with
expressions such as secundum Thomam Waleys, prout scribit Wa/ensis or
secundum Walensem.
This intriguing summary of Christianized mythology is followed by
four additional entries dealing with mythological subjects, i.e. Perseus
(no. 5), Sompniora (no. 9), Argonaute (no. 11), and Hymeneus (no. 12).
One of the major sources for these pieces is Boccaccio’s treatise Cenealogiae
deorum gentilium,12 but other authors are mentioned as weil. lndeed,
the compiler provides not only the name of the author and the
work he is using, but also the precise book and chapter. For example, at
the end ofthe entry on the Argonauts (fol. 137r) he says: Bocachius libro
tercio decimo, capitulo vicesimo sexto. Similarly, in the section on Bacchus’s
son Hymeneus (fol. 137v-138r), he provides references to three
sources, first Albericus,13 then Lactantius, and finally Boccaccio:
11 Bersuire’s treatise was written around 1340/50. lt was first printed separately
from Bersuire’s Reductorium morale in 1484 under the name of the Dominican
friar Thomas Waleys. The Paris 1509 edition entitled Metamorphosis Ovidiana
moraliter a magistro Thoma Wal/eys Anglico de professione predicatorum sub
sanctissimo patre Dominico explanata was reproduced by Garland Publishing
(New York and London, 1979). For a modern edition of the text, see Petrus
Berchorius. De formis figurisque deorum. Reductorium mora/e, liber XV· Ovidius
moralizatus, ed. Joseph Engels (Utrecht: Rijksuniversiteit, Instituut voor Laat
Latijn, 1966).
12 See Giovanni Boccaccio, Genealogie deorum gentilium libri, ed. Vincenzo Romano
(Bari: Gius. Laterza & Figli, 1951), 2 vols. Boccaccio’s work was first published in
Venice in 1472 and was reprinted many times afterwards. The fourth edition
(Venice, 1494) was reproduced by Garland Publishing (New York, 1976).
13 Alberic of London was believed to be the author of the De diis gentium et eorum
allegoriis, entitled also Scintillarium poetarum or Liber imaginum deorum, which
contains a full range of genealogies and allegorical or figurative representations
of the various members of the classical pantheon. This Albericus (or Albricus)
wrote his treatise around 1200, and his text is known as the so-called Vaticanus
Mithographus Tercius. The identity of Albericus has not been securely established,
and it has been suggested that he might be identified with the medieval
British master Alexander Neckam who died in 1217. See A. G. Rigg, A History of
Anglo-latin literature 1066-1422 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992), 125. The attribution to „Albericus“ is considered as doubtful by Gisele
Besson who refers to the author as Ps.-Albrecht. (See „Un compilateur au travail:
les dossiers preparatoires au traite du Troisieme Mythographe du Vatican,“ in
Parva pro magnis munera. Etudes de literat11re tardo-antique et medievale offertes
a Fran~ois Dolbeau par ses eleves, ed. Monique Goullet (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009],
20 GRETJ D!J\‘.KOVA -BRUU1′
Hymeneus iuxta Alberirnm filius fuit Bachi et Veneris, secundum tarnen Lactancium
fi/ius uiri Atheniensis … Lactancius in quarto super Stati11m bene citra
finem vide 1 (fol. 138r) eciam in Bochachio libro quinto, capitulo uicesimo
quinto.14
The mythological interests ofthe compiler are further exemplified by the
entry Seneca (no. 8) which also deals with the world of pagan beliefs,
simply because this was the subject matter of all of Seneca’s tragedies,
with the exception of the ninth (not written by Seneca, as is recognized
today) which deals with the death of Nero’s wife Octavia.1s
139-58). The Liber imaginum deorum of“Albricus“ was printed in Paris (a. 1520)
as Allegoriae poeticae seu de veritate ac expositione poeticarum fabularum libri
quatuor Alberico Londonensi authore nusquam antea impressi (reproduced, New
York: Garland Publishing, 1976).
14 There are numerous additional examples of this type of referencing, which await
further study.
lS The full text of this entry reads ( orthography preserved): Seneca de Corduba ciuitate
genitus, Lucani patruus, Neronis magister et beato Paula apostolo multum
fauens, uir erat doctissimus pluraque in sui instructionem discipuli notabi/ia
scribens, inter que in stilo poetico scripsit tragedias decem, in qr1arum prima
introducit lunonem de loue ideo conquerentem, quia ad tantum honorem suas pelices
quod eas erexit in celum et locauit inter stel/as. Post Junonis uero quere/am enu
1 (fol. 133r) meratis hiis louis pellicibus introducit ulterius a11ctor ipsam Junonem
iterum in Hercu/em louis filium matremque eius A/cmenam conuertentem iram
suam. In secunda uero tragedia tractat de Pelopis filiis Atreo et Thieste
q11orum alter, scilicet Thiestes, per Atreum de regno eiectus fuerat, quia eius uxorem
Europam per incestllm turpiter uiolabat. In te rc i a de Edippo Laii Regis filio
qui in quodam tumultu propriwn patrem interfecit, matrem /ocastam in uxorem
duxit filiosque ex ipsa Ethioc/em et Polinicem, fi/ias uero Hismenem et Antigonam
post eius connubium procreauit. In quarta de Ypolito quifalsa suggestione sue
nouerce Fedre per patrem Theseum minus credulum pulsus erat in exilium ibique
equorum tractu distractus dilaceratusque usque ad martern. In quinta de ca11sa
expositionis Edippi de modoque quo cognicionem habuit quomodo interfector fuerat
proprii patris sui. In sexta de querimonia et exclamatione Heccube Priami
Regis uxore super mutacionem 1 (fol. 133v) fortune in euersione Troie et de dolore
flebili quem habebat Andromatha uxor Hectoris in interfectione sui filii Astianactis.
In se p tim a de Medea Octe Regis Colchorum filia quam jason cum aureo uellere
rapuit et sibi in uxorem iunxit. l n o c tau a de Agamenone qui per Egistum Thiestis
filium consensu Clitenestre uxoris adultere interfectus fuerat, dum ipse Troia destructa
ad propria deflectebat. l n non a de Octauia filia Claudii et uxore Neronis
quam quasi in eum confinxisset insidias interfecit Nero sponsum eius. 1 n d ec im a
uero de strenuitate Herculis et de singulis actibus eius.
BRJTJSH LJBRARY. COTTON TTTlJS D.XX 21
The practice of Roman religion, and the actual religious organizations
that took care of the day to day serving and consulting of the pagan gods
are found in the entries Potestates (no. 18) and Sibilla (no. 20). Number
18 is an entry that deals both with the religious and secular administration
of ancient Rome, which are referred to with the expression sacrorum
et ciuilium ofjiciorum potestates. Among the sacred „powers“ the compiler
mentions the luperci, the Arvalian brothers (or Arval Brethern, as
modern Classicists call them with an archaizing term), the Flamen Dialis,
the augurs, the Vestals, etc.16 Each entry is short and basically provides
the name of the office, its origin and major duties. After the sacred offices,
the compiler does the same for the secular ones, among which he
mentions senator, tribune, consul, proconsul, dictator, and some of the
Roman collegia, such as the potestas duumvirorum classium rejiciendarum
or potestas decemvirorum legum creandarum. The use of the
word potestas in relationship to these religious or secular Roman offices
is puzzling unless one considers the sources the compiler used for this
entry of his collection.
At its very end on fol. 174v, he mentions Livy and Aulus Gelius,17 who
are obvious choices for this type of information, but then he adds: Hinc
inde sparsim, simmatim uero Andreas de Florencia in libro suo De
potestatibus Romanis quasi per totum. This is an important reference not
only because it explains the use of the word potestas, but also because it
allows us to establish a terminus post quem for the creation of the
compilation. Andreas de Florentia is the humanist Andrea Domenico
Fiocco or Fiocchi of Florence, who died in 1452. His book De
magistratibus sacerdotiisque Romanorum libellus represents a historical
description of the government and priesthoods of ancient Rome. Floccus
or Fiocchi was a distinguished lawyer and secretary to the papal house in
16 Some of the „powers“ mentioned by the compiler are: Olim apud Romanos uarie
multipharieque fuerant tam sacrorum quam ciuilium officiorum potestates. Inter
quos „. potestas lupercorum 1 (fol. 167v); potestas siue 1 (fol. 168r) officium sacerdotum
fratrum Arualium; potestas augurum, poticiorum potestas et pinariorum 1
(fol. 168v); potestas siue dignitas flaminis dialis; potestas siue dignitas pontificis
maximi 1 (fol. 169r); potestas sacerdocii phecialis 1 (fol. 169v); potestas siue sacerdocium
patris patrati 1 (fol. 170r); sacerdotum in sacris dei matris circuire per
p/ateas urbis 1 (fol. 170v); potestas siue officium gallorum; officium duwnuirorum
sacrorum 1 (fol. 171r) septem uirorum epulorum; potestas siue officium uirginum
uestaliwn. The list in the collection is much longer.
17 The Latin text here reads: Hec partim Titus Liuius in /ibro Ab urbe condita,
partimque Au/us Gel/ius in libro Noctium Acticarum (fol. 174v).
22 GRET! Dl!\KOVA -BRUt;N
Florence, as weil as a student of Manuel Chrysoloras (ca. 1355-1415),
the famous classicist who wrote the first Greek grammar used in the
West. The De magistratibus sacerdotiisque Romanorum was first
published in Venice in 1475 under the name of the ancient Roman
historian Lucius Fenestella, although Fiocchi’s authorship was weil
known among learned humanists.1s Whether our compiler had access to
Fiocchi’s work in a manuscript form or after it was published in 1475 is
impossible to say, but at least we can be sure that the collection in Cotton
Titus D.XX was compiled no earlier than in the second half of the
fifteenth century.
Christianfaith, hagiography, and Church history
The matters of Christian belief are dealt with in a similar twofold way.
First we are given two examples from literary works, and then texts on
the history and organization of the Christian Church. It is not surprising
that from the !arge number of Christian poets the compiler chooses the
very popular Bible versification, the Aurora by Peter Riga (no. 6), which
he diligently excerpts, providing exemplary verses from all the Old Testamental
books that were versified by the poet.19 More surprising is his
choice of hagiographical text. Number 7 in the compilation is the verse
life of Saint Afra, supposedly written by a poet called Rufus. This raises a
number of questions. Why Saint Afra of all saints? And who is this Rufus
whom the compiler even calls metrista egregius? Afra is a martyr who
died in 304 in the city of Augsburg in Germany, after being converted
from a life of sin to the Christian faith by the Spanish Bishop of Girona
Narcissus. She was a venerated saint in the vicinity of Augsburg where
there was a Benedictine Abbey dedicated to Saints Ulrich and Afra until
the early nineteenth century when it was dissolved.20 The rationale for
1s See, for example, Flavio Biondo’s statement in his Jta/ia i/lustrata, Book 1,
chapter 32. For an edition and translation of this work, see Biondo Flavio, ltaly
lllumi-nated, ed. and trans. Jeffrey A. White, vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 2005), 74-75.
19 The New Testament is not represented. For the edition of Riga’s poern, see Paul
Beichner, Aurora Petri Rigae Bib/ia Versificata, Publications in Mediaeval Studies,
19.1-2 (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1965).
20 Josef Hemmerle, Die Benediktinerklöster in Bayern (Ottobeuren: Bayerische Benediktiner-
Akademie, 1970), vol. 2, 45-50.
BRmsH L1BRARY. ConoN Tnus D.XX 23
including the life of Afra in the compilation is not immediately apparent.
The attribution to Rufus is puzzling too. This is indeed the only author in
the collection who is not easily identifiable. l know of four manuscripts
that contain this particular verse life of the saint, the earliest of which do
not mention Rufus.21 His name appears, first, in our codex which is from
the late fifteenth century and, then, in another Cotton Titus D.XVI which
is from the sixteenth. Who this man is has to remain an open question for
the moment, but it seems that only the epitome should be attributed to
him, not the full version of Afra’s life.
After providing the reader with these two examples of Christian biblical
and hagiographical poetry, the compiler includes two entries (nos.
21 and 22), which give information on the history and organization of
the Christian Church. Number 22, Sedes, talks about the four principal
churches at the dawn of Christianity (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem),
and then continues with the later developments. This account
is based primarily on Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecc/esiastica/ History. Nurnber
21, which is a rather confused entry, seems to be a summary of the
Defensorium ecc/esiasticae potestatis by Master Adam from Easton near
Norwich, Cardinal Priest of Santa Cecilia in Rome, who died in 1397.22
His Defensorium, a condemnation of Lollard heresy, was completed in
1381 and dedicated to Pope Urban VI. Adam’s work on ecclesiastical
„power“ is a nice counterpart to the !arge entry on the pagan religious
potestates discussed already. Thus it appears that more conscious planning
went into creating the compilation than appears at first.
The entries ‚poeta‘ and ‚philosophus‘
The remaining themes represented in the compilation are somewhat
more difficult to define. The two general entries Philosophus (no. 16) and
Poeta (no. 17) could be a guide to broadly outlined interests in „philosophy“
and „poetry“ but these are such !arge and multifaceted terms that
21 These are manuscripts Bodleian Library, Laud Mise. 515 and British Library,
Royal 9.A.XIV, both written in the thirteenth century. The Royal manuscript
preserves the entire life, ca. 700 hexameters long, on fol. 113r-287r. Manuscript
Laud Mise. 515 has no attribution at all, while Royal Manuscript 9.A.XIV says in a
marginal note that the author ofthe poem is one Magister Hermannus.
22 For a brief biographical summary, see Nicholas Schofield and Gerard Skinner,
The English Cardi11a/s (Oxford: Family Publications, 2007), 46- 48.
24 GREn DrnKOVA -BRuu:-:
they are really not very helpful here. And also, themes often overlap.
There is seldom as clear a dividing line between genres and disciplines,
which makes the thematic classification 1 am trying to propose difficult
and somewhat artificial. lt is clear that the compiler of Cotton Titus D.XX
was very much interested in poetic works, no matter what the topic. After
all, almost half of the entries in the compilation derive from poetic
compositions. This interest is exemplified also in the alphabetic lists of
poets he provides in item no. 17, Poeta. lt is worth noting that among the
poetic works he chooses to include in addition to the !ist of poets, we see
two examples of satirical writing, one from the classical corpus represented
by Martial’s epigrams (no. 10) and one from the late twelfth century,
which summarizes the well-known anti-church polemical poem
Architrenius by lohannes de Hauvi!la (no. 15).23 Again classical and
medieval exarnples are juxtaposed nicely. The !ist of poets presented in
the entry Poeta (no. 17) comprises in alphabetical order as many as 57
poets. Among them we see representatives of all poetic genres (lyric poetry,
tragedy, comedy, and satire) writing, as the compiler puts it, fabu/
oso uelamine and rethorico calamo. Each entry in the !ist is short,
beginning with a clarification of the poet’s place of origin, as in Eschiles
natione Siculus (fol. 160v); Iuuenalis de Aquino oppido natus (fol. 162r);
Marcianus Capella natione Affricus et ciuis Carthaginensis (fol. 162v);
Ouidius ex Peligno oppido natus (fol. 163v); Sophocles Atheniensis (fol.
164v); Terencius poeta Carthaginensis (fol. 165v); Virgilius poeta Mantuanus
(fol. 166v), etc. The time when the poet lived could also be given in
relative terms, as in Oracius Virgilio contemporaneus (fol. 163r); Orpheus
omnium poetarum uetustissimus (fol. 163v); or Valerius Catulus Veronensis
plura tempore Machabeorum egregie scripsit (fol. 166v). After this
introduction follows an explanation in general terms of what the poet
has written. Last comes a note on where to find more information about
the writer in question.
Among the most often mentioned sources presented in this section of
the compilation are Livy, Aulus Gellius, and Valerius Maximus who provide
the biographical and geographical information for the individual
poets. In the majority of the cases the compiler states his positive judgement
of the poet’s worth and importance by calling him poeta illustris,
poeta famosus, poeta peritus, vir nobilis, vir insignis, vir ingeniosus atque
23 See Johannes de Hauvilla, Architreni11s, ed. Paul G. Schmidt (Munich: W. Fink,
1974).
BRITJSH LIBRARY, COTTON TJTUS D.XX 25
prudens, and scriptor egregius. The longest entry in the !ist is dedicated
to lohannes Bochacius de Certaldo, who is said to have written many
notable works, among which the exceedingly excellent book on the genealogies
of the gods (plura scripsit notabilia tempore suo inter que magis
egregium scripsit librum de genealogiis deorum). Here the compiler presents
a table of contents of each of the fifteen books of Boccaccio’s Genealogy
of the Pagan Gods,24 which, as already mentioned, is one of his
major sources for a number of entries throughout the collection. Dante
and Petrarch are also included in the !ist, but the entries for them are
quite cursory and generic.25 There is no question that Boccaccio was a
much more important author for our compiler. The only two female poets
deemed worthy of mention are Sapho puel/a Lesbica, after whom the
Sapphic verse was named (fol. 164v), and Cornificia huius poete Cornificii
germana (fol. 160r). Cornificia, a Roman poetess who wrote epigrams in
the first century BCE, is one of the one hundred and six subjects of
Giovanni Boccaccio’s On Famous Women. Thus we can conclude that the
compiler knew this work of Boccaccio in addition to his Genealogy. No
medieval women poets were included, but then there were not that
many to choose from.
The broad topic of „philosophy“ is treated in a similar way. Here
again we have the general entry Philosophus (no. 16) and the specific entries
on the Neo-Platonic works of Martianus Capella and Bernardus Silvestris
(nos. 2 and 3), as weil as on the moral theology of Alan of Lille’s
Anticlaudianus (no. 14).26 These personalized entries are very much of a
24 The entry for Boccaccio is found on fol. 161v-162r. The first five books of
Boccaccio’s treatise are described as follows: Primus progeniem Demogorgonis
exprimit omnem. Etheris in altro numeratur stirpitus ordo. Celius in tercio, generis
pars scribitur omnis. In quarto Titan datur et Titania pro/is. Est louis in quinto
pro/es sed Dardanus extra, etc. (fol. 161 v).
2s The entry for Dante (the only vernacular poet included in the collection) reads as
follows: Dantes de Aledigeriis poeta Florentinus tres de Paradiso uidelicet Purgatorio
et Inferno 1 (fol. 160v) in suo uu/gari eloquio scripsit notabiles comedias. The
text for Petrarch is found on fol. 161r: Franciscus Petrarcha nacione Florentinus
plura composuit opuscula inter que de be/lo Punico opus scripsit egregium quod
Africam appellare decreuerat post consummacionem.
26 The text from this manuscript is printed in Christel Meier, „Die Rezeption des
Anticlaudianus Alans von Lille in Textkommentierung und Illustration,“ in Text
und Bild. Aspekte des Zusammenwirkens zweier Kiinste in Mittelalter und früher
Neuzeit, ed. Christei Meier and Uwe Ruberg (Wiesbaden: L. Reicher, 1980), 408-
548, at 524-26.
26 GRETI Dll\KOVA -BRlJU1′
summary nature, introducing the reader to the basic contents of the
works of the authors, with some extracts from his actual composition in
the case of Bernard. In addition, we have the general entry entitled
Philosophus, which is the Jargest in the collection. This entry occupies 14
folios and represents an alphabetical list of names, short Jives and philosophical
affiliation of as many as 87 ancient thinkers, astrologers, orators,
musical theoreticians, and eminent physicians who, says the
compiler, are worthy of being remembered because the creator of all
things revealed to them the very secrets of his creation (plasmator supremus
sua secretiora reuelauit consilia plasmationis). Among them we
find Aristotle, Cato, Demostenes, Diogenes, Epicurus, Epictetus, Gorgias,
Heraclitus, Plato, Pliny, Seneca, Socrates, Solon, Thales, Tullius, Valerius
Maximus, Varro, and Zeno. As with the poets, this is an impressive list of
well-organized and easily accessible information gathered by the compiler,
in his own admission, from Book 8 of Isidore’s Ethymologiae, Book
14 of Augustine’s De ciuitate Dei, and Book 15 of Aulus Gellius‘ Noctes
Atticae. The short biographies of the „philosophers“ are constructed very
much like those for the poets. lnterestingly, they are described differently
than their literary colleagues. Thus, the qualities of the learned men
singled out by the compiler are industriousness, constancy, and intelligence,
even though fame and popularity are also invoked occasionally.
All of this paints a fascinating picture, for it is illuminating to discover
that in all of these broad topical areas (i.e. religion, poetry, philosophy,
administration) classical and medieval works are included by the compiler
on a completely equal basis. This is a clear sign that the compilation,
even though written in the late fifteenth century, is still very much
embedded in the teaching and learning ideology of the Middle Ages.
Many of the authors chosen for the compilation are names known from
the medieval school curriculum (for example, Lucan, Claudian, Martianus
Capella, Bernardus Silvestris, Peter Riga, Allan of Lille, and John of Hauvilla),
but to this well-established teaching canon later texts are added as
weil, such as the Fulgentius metaforalis from 1330, Adam of Easton’s Defensorium
from 1378, and Andreas Fiocchi’s De magistratibus sacerdotiisque
Romanorum from the first half of the fifteenth century. The
fruitful coexistence of these texts shows that the compiler is not only
looking back to tradition, first and foremost to the established authority
of the medieval school texts, but also to other late medieval texts that
appeal to his personal tastes and interests. In addition, he is also aware
of the accomplishments of his own time, exemplified by Fiocchi’s book
on Roman history. Thus, the compilation in Cotton Titus D.XX reveals to
BRJTISH LIBRARY. COTTO‘ TITUS D.XX 27
the modern reader a learned mind at an interesting junction of intellectual
awarencss. What we see in his compilation is a repository of
knowledge that seems to be trying to define itself as a teaching, writing,
and reference tool. lt is by no means a medievalflorilegium, but it is not a
Renaissance commonplace book either.27 At the same time it has features
of both, and more. With this 1 mean to suggest that in the same way the
inclusion in the compilation of authors-classical and medieval, old and
modern-creates a sense of the liminal, border-line position of the collection
as a manifestation of a scholarly mind working on a threshold between
two intellectual eras, the variety of epitomizing approaches
exhibited by the various entries in the Cotton Titus collection defies our
expectations and disagrees with the standard definitions of the typical
features that characterize the different types of compilations we encounter
in medieval manuscripts. As a result, borderlines are crossed here
again, this time on the level of form. And so 1 move to my second line of
inquiry, namely, how does the compiler construct the entries included in
his collection.
Composition of the compilation: excerpts, summaries, encyclopedic entries
The examples discussed above have already provided a sense of how
different the individual entries in the compilation are. The seventeenthcentury
Catalogus tractatuum calls many of the texts „epitomes“ (see the
Table above). The exceptions are Seneca (no. 8) where we see summa,
Martialis (no. 10) and Philosophus (no. 16) where we have narratio ampla
and narratio, respectively. In addition, some entries are not given a
denomination, for example, De Hymeneo filio Bachi (no. 12) or De magistratibus
Romanorum (no. 18). How are we to understand these labels? In
order to answer this question, we need to look at the individual entries
in order to understand the peculiarities that define them.
First, there are items that follow quite faithfully the rules of excerpting
for a typical florilegium, i.e„ numbers 6, Peter Riga and 10, Martialis
Cocus. The two entries demonstrate similar abbreviating techniques,
even though one is called epitome and the other narratio ampla in the
27 For a general discussion on the understanding and the use of commonplaces
from Antiquity to the Renaissance, see Joan Marie Lechner, Renaissance Concepts
of the Commonp/ace (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1962).
28 GRETJ DIXKOVA -BRllJl\
Catalogus.2a In both cases, the bulk of the text is composed by exemplary
quotations from thc author’s body of work. In Riga’s case the excerpts
are arranged in the order they occur in the original composition, starting
with the Book of Genesis and ending with the Book of Tobit, while in the
entry on Martial the chosen epigrams are presented both in the order of
the books they appear in and according to topic, for example: In primo
libro contra emulum inuehit per hunc modum (fol. 134v); or Contra lubricos
in quarto libro sie (fol. 134v-135r); or In detractores libro septimo sie
(fol. 135r), etc. Each of these topical titles is then followed by quotations
from the epigrams. The references to the books in Martial’s corpus coincide
perfectly with the divisions between the books that have been accepted
in the modern editions of the poet. In contrast, there are a
number ofreadings in the quotations that are not the ones printed in the
modern critical editions of Martial, a fact that could provide valuable
insights for scholars who are interested in the history of classical reception.
29 In Cotton Titus D.XX, the nickname Cocus, the Cook, is attached to
Martial’s name and the following well-known explanation of the cognomen
is provided at the beginning of the entry:3o
Martialis Cocus: Jdeo sie est dictus quia quemadmodum cocus per ignis decoctionem
a carminibus humorem noxium extrahit et eas homini ad gustandum
aptas facit Sie iste per inuectiuum calamum uiciorum saniem ab humano corde
eicit, quodque prius erat cloacha sordium posterius per huius eiectionem sorditatis
uas sincerum in susceptionem uirtutis efficit atque mundum (fol. 134v).
Martial the Cook: He is called so because like a cook with the help of the cooking
fire he extracts from the poetic compositions their harmful substance and
20 Perhaps the denomination narratio ampla for Martial could be explained with
the fact that the poet was also mentioned in the encyclopedic entry Poeta (no.
17), where he was simply introduced very briefly like everybody eise in the !ist.
29 For a detailed and useful survey of the numerous humanist commentaries on
Martial’s Epigrammaton libri, see Frank-Rutger Hausmann, Martia/is, in
Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum, ed. F. Edward Cranz and Paul
Oskar Kristeller, vol. 4 (Washington: Catholic University of America, 1980), 249-
96.
30 This explanation has been printed many times. Among them, see Michael D.
Reeve, „Martial,“ in Textsand Transmission. A Survey of the Latin Classics, ed. L. D.
Reynolds (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 239-44, at 244, n. 46; and Wolfgang
Maaz, Lateinische Epigrammatik im hohen Mittelalter. Literarhistorische Untersuchungen
zur Martial-Rezeption (Hildesheim et al.: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
1992), Appendix IV: Das Cognomen „Cocus,“ 262-67, at 267 (reference
and quotation from Reeve).
BRITISH LIBRARY, COTTON TJTUS D.XX 29
makes them suitable for human consumption. Thus with his criticizing pen he
removes from the human heart the bad blood of sin, and what was previously
a cesspit of waste, becomes, after being cleansed of its filth, a sincere and pure
receptacle of virtue ( my translation).
This is high praise for the power of satire and invective, a poetic genre
that was very popular in the Middle Ages and used often for criticizing
corrupt Church officials and dubious papal policies.
After the epigrams tres alias libel/u!os by Martial are also mentioned,
i.e. Exennia (= Xenia), Apoforetha (= Apophoreta), and a book on the
feasts (tractat de feriis) which in Fact represents a selection from the
Liber Proverbiorum of Godfrey of Winchester.31
The entry on Peter Riga begins with a short introductory paragraph,
in which Riga, called vir approbate vite profundeque sciencie, is identified
as the author of the celebrated poem Aurora. Excerpts from Old Testament
books versified by Riga follow the opening remarks. Not surprisingly,
Genesis and Exodus are best represented, with 56 and 36 verses
respectively. These are also the langest books in Riga’s composition. lt is
worth mentioning here that the compiler of Cotton Titus D.XX follows the
division into smaller units (libri) within each biblical book which we see
in the first version of Riga’s poem and which was removed in Iater redactions
of the text. This suggests that our excerpter probably had access to
a manuscript containing some of the earlier versions of the Aurora.32 The
passages chosen by the compiler represent famous biblical episodes,
such as the creation, the Fall, Noah’s ark, the destruction of Sodom, Jacob’s
lament over the death of Joseph, the crossing of the Red Sea, and so
on. Some of the selected passages contain allegorical interpretations
with Christological prefigurations and ecclesiological significance, while
others simply paraphrase the biblical story, thus remaining on the literal
level of meaning. As with all the other poetic entries in the compilation,
nothing in the page layout alerts the readers to the Fact that they are
dealing with poetry. No indentation, litterae notabiliores or any other
particular sign in the layout distinguish between prose and verse in the
31 Inc.: Vndique susceptum qui miscuit utile dulci. Martial’s and Godfrey’s epigrams
were often transmitted in the same manuscript. See Maaz, „Chapter l: Godefrid
von Winchester – Martialis Reclivuvus,“ Lateinische Epigrammatik im hohen
Mittelalter, 25-102 .
32 For the textual tradition of the Aurora, see Beichner, Aurora Petri Rigae, vol. 1,
xvii-xxvii.
30 GRETI DINKOV A -BRt;L’l\
manuscript. Clearly, the user of the codex was expected to figure out for
himself where the poetic quotations began and ended.
lt is interesting that in the entries on Martial and Riga we can observe
the art of selection on another, more localized level. Excerpting from a
given work is the first step in creating an epitome or an abbreviated version,
and this activity represents the first level of decision-making for the
compiler. The next step is to choose which other works are to be included
in the collection. Thus selection happens within selection. For the
modern reader, who strives to understand the meaning of these miscellaneous
constructs, it is like parsing the syntax of a sentence, on ly here
we are parsing the syntax either of an entire composite codex, when we
talk about „secondary miscellanies,“ or of a single original compilation,
when we talk of „primary miscellanies.“ The level of complexity in this
type of research is often so intricate that some aspects will probably always
remain without a convincing explanation.
The second abbreviating technique is creating a summary, which we
saw in the entry entitled Seneca.33 This text is just a brief outline of what
each of Seneca’s tragedies is about, no more, no less. No quotations are
provided, and this is not really the type of entry that would be included
in a typical medieval florilegium. lt is rather what we would expect to see
as part of an accessus to an author, an impression that is strengthened by
the short biographical note that opens the entry. Such notes are sometimes
included in medieval florilegia, but usually they are followed by
excerpts from the author’s body of work. Other examples of summaries
are Martianus Capella (no. 2), Alanus de Insulis (no. 14), and Curtius Rufus
(no. 23). These summae are clearly intended to provide a quick and easy
reference to the contents ofthe work by compressing them into a shorter
version. Whether these summaries were intended for school use is difficult
to say, even though this is definitely a possibility.
In addition, there are some entries that combine the excerpting and
summarizing approaches. These are, for example, Bernardus Silvestris
(no. 3) and Claudianus (no. 13), where citations from each author are
imbedded into a narrative describing his life and literary production.
This type of literary pastiche constitutes the most original entries in the
compilation because they indeed use the quotations from the classical
authors to create a completely new literary reality. The technique is used
even for mythical figures, such as, for example, Perseus (no. 5), whose
33 See above, note 15.
BRITISH LIBRAR\“. COTTON Tm..:s D.XX 31
story is told by paraphrasing Seneca’s first tragedy and the twelfth book
of Boccaccio’s Genealogy and by citing Ovid’s Metamorphoses (Books 4
and 5) and Pliny’s Naturalis Historia (Book 7).34 The result is a new story
created from the compiler’s favourite sources. This is a more elaborate
way of arranging the material, and in doing so the compiler shows himself
to be a product of his late fifteenth-century cultural milieu. The literary
pastiche incorporated into Cotton Titus D.XX show the reader how
extracts from classical sources could be infused with new life and shaped
into original fictional constructs.
The final way of organizing information is represented by entries
such as Philosophus (no. 16) and Poeta (no. 17), which exemplify an encyclopedic
approach to knowledge. The elements included in these sections
are arranged alphabetically and each is very short and to the point.
lt is obvious that these entries are meant to serve as reference tools. In
the same group we can also include Potestates (no. 18) and the mythological
digest at the beginning of the collection (no. 1), which, even
though not arranged alphabetically, are similar in their concise encyclopedic
way of presenting abundant material found in various sources.
These types of entries can be considered as precursors to the subject dictionaries
which become popular during the Renaissance.
None of these ways of epitomizing and excerpting is strikingly original,
with the possible exception of the literary pastiche. What is unusual,
however, is that we find them all together in the same compilation. The
anonymous author of the collection in Cotton Titus D.XX does not seem
tobe hampered by definitions and genre characteristics. His compilation
gives the impression of being something created for the particular use
and out of the particular interests of one particular learned, latefifteenth-
century individual. In this it comes close to what we associate
with the term „commonplace-book,“ which is basically a late medieval
34 The entry ends with the following statement on the sources used in its creation:
Ouidius quarto de transformatis finem et quinto in principio; uide eciam in
tragediis Senece tragedia prima quomodo iste Perseus Persis bei/um intulit ipsisque
uictis ibidem Persepolim edificauit 1 (fol. 124v) ciuitatem et patriam a suo
nomine Persiam nuncupauit. Qualiter posterius ipse cum uxore Andr·omeda assumptus
erat in celum et collocatus inter astra uide in Bochachio /ibro duodecimo,
capitulo uicesimo quinto. De Perse Persei filio qui prima apud Persas adinuenit
sagittas uide in Pli n i o libro septimo, capitulo quinquagesimo septimo et in
Boc h ach i o /ibro duodecimo, capitulo quadragesimo.
32 GRETJ Dll’\KOVA -BRUU~
and early modern information retrieval system.35 The term appears in
the sixteenth century, even though the genre begins to develop much
earlier. The commonplace books generally contain miscellaneous amalgamations
of quotations, sometimes arranged by topic, sometimes copied
at random. In either case the emphasis is always on the excerpted
passages or the so-called „common places“ whose versatile usefulness is
stressed in numerous ancient works on rhetorical theory. lt suffices to
quote Cicero here who says in his De Jnventione: „We call ‚common
places‘ those arguments which could be transferred to many debates.“36
However, this is not what Cotton Titus D.XX is about, not exclusively,
anyhow. There is much more present in it, from summaries to short
carefully crafted stories, from alphabetical lists of items on a certain
general topic to real epitomes of literary works. This is indeed a
multifaceted and unconventional way of approaching the sources one
has at one’s disposal.
There is much more work to be done on this compilation, especially
in relationship to its intended readership. Was it created for private or
public use, was it gathered for teaching or simply reading, was it intended
for general use or does it represent a personal notebook? These
are important questions that need to be asked. The didactic value of the
collection is unmistakable, but its potential for being a reference and research
tool is also inherent.
The identity of the compiler is also of interest. Is he a master who is
creating a useful teaching tool either for himself or for his pupils? If so,
we would be dealing with a work that is close to his medieval models. Or
is the author a student of the seven liberal arts who is excerpting from
the texts that have been assigned to him in the course of his study? In
this case, the compilation would be more in the tradition of the Renaissance
commonplace book which was the principal support system of
humanistic pedagogy. Or is the compiler a scholar who is gathering material
that would be important for him in his future intellectual work?
This would indeed be a methodology very similar to our own research
approach.
35 See Ann Moss, Printed Commonp/ace-Books and the Structuring of Renaissance
Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 136.
36 See Book 11, Chapter XV.48: Haec ergo argumenta, quae transferri in multas
causas possunt, locos communes naminamus.
BRITISH LIBRARY. COTTO\‘ Tm,;s D.XX 33
In any case, the collection in Cotton Titus D.XX is unique in its amalgamation
of themes and epitomizing approaches. lt defics our efforts to
slot it into a clear and well-defined category. On all levels-content,
form, and intent-this is a compilation that crosses the borders between
fields of knowledge and ways of thinking. lts ambiguous status is precisely
what makes it such a fascinating work to study. The various epitomizing
techniques used by the compiler have truly become a force of
creation, because the collection in Cotton Titus D.XX is not a random or
even purely thematic collection of extracts; rather it is a personalized
reference guide that reflects both what the author had read and what he
believed the user of the compilation should read too. lt is a „primary miscellany“
with attitude.
Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies:
Composition, Authorship, Use
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
SONDERBAND XXXI
Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies:
Composition, Authorship, Use
edited by
Lucie Dolezalova and Kimberly Rivers
Krems 2013
Reviewed by
Holly Johnson
and Farkas Gabor Kiss
Cover design by Petr Dolefal
with the use of MS St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 692
(photo Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen)
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG
VON
CHARLES UNIVERSITY RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
„UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL
INTELLECTUAL T RADITIONS“
AND
„PHENOMENOLOGY AND SEMIOTICS“ (PRVOUK 18)
BOTH AT THE FACULTY OF HUMAN!TlES, CHARLES UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE
UND DER
CZECH SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITHIN THE RESEJl.RCH PROJECT
„INTERPRETING AND APPROPRIATING ÜBSCURITY
IN MEDIEVAL MANUSCRIPT CULTURE“
(GACR P405/10/P112)
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
– ISBN 978-3-901094-33-.10
Herausgeber: Mediwn Aevum Quotidianurn. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der materiellen
Kulrur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 13, 3500 Krems, Österreich. Für den Inhalt verantwortlich
zeichnen die Autoren, ohne deren ausdrückliche Zustimmung jeglicher
Nachdruck, auch in Auszügen, nicht gestattet ist. Druck: KOPITU Ges. m. b. H., Wiedner
Hauptstraße 8-10, 1050 Wien, Österreich.
List of Figures
Acknowledgements
INTRODUCTION
Table of Contents
Lucie Dolefalova and Kimberly Rivers
1. TAXONOMY AND METHODOLOGY
Medieval Miscellanies and the Case of Manuscript British library,
Cotton Titus D.XX
Greti Dinkova-Bruun
The Art of Regensburg Misce/lanies
Adam S. Cohen
looking for the Purpose behind a Multitext Book:
The Miscellany as a Personal „One-Volume library“
Eva Nyström
II. AUTHORSHIP AND NON-AUTONOMY OF TEXTS
Non-auconomous Texts: On a Fifteenth-Century German „Gregorius“ Manuscript
1
14
34
70
[Constance, City Archive, Ms. A 11) 84
Diana Müller
The Appearance of „A rtes praedicandi“ in Medieval Manuscripts 102
Siegfried Wenzel
Creating the Memory of God in a Medieval Miscellany: Melk MS 1075,
Jean de Hesdin (fl. 1350-1370), and late Medieva/ Monastic Reform 112
Kimberly Rivers
Multiple Copying and the lnterpretability of Codex Contents:
„Memory Miscellanies“ Compi/ed by Ga/lus Kemli {1417-1480/1) of St Gall 139
Lucie Dolefalova
III. USE
An Educational Miscel/any in the Carolingian Age: Paris, BNF, Tat 528 168
Alessandro Zironi
The Constitution and Functions of Collections of Patristic Extracts:
The Example of the Eucharistie Controversy (9th-11 th centuries) 182
Stephane Gioanni
Theological Distinctions, Their Col/ections and Their Effects. The Example
ofln Abdiam and In Naum 194
Csaba Nemeth
The Wiesbaden Miscel/any.
The Deli berate Construction of a Haphazard Collection 218
Kees Schepers
An Interpretation of Brunetto Latini’s Tresor in a
Fifteenth-Century Miscel/any Manuscriptnuscripts 240
Dario del Puppo
The Romances of British Library, Cotton Vite/lius D.111 256
Elizabeth Watkins
Contributors 270
Index librorum manuscriptorum 275
General Index 279
Colour Plates 285
Figures
Figure 1: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 14731, fol. 78r, Table ofthe
Temple Showbread (Mensa propositionis). See also the colour plate at the end of
the volume.
Figure 2: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 14731, fo l. 80r, Noah’s Ark. See
also the colour plate at the end of the volume.
Figure 3: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 14731, fo l. 82v-83r, Labyrinth/
Jericho. See also the colour plate at the end of the volume.
Figure 4: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cl m. 14731, fo l. 83v, World map. See
also the colour plate at the end ofthe volume.
Figure 5: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 13002, fo l. 7v, Microcosm. See
also the colour plate at the end ofthe volume.
Figure 6: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cl m. 13105, fol. 83r, Initials from
Honorius, lnevitabile. See also the colour plate at the end of the volume.
Figure 7: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 13074, fol. 81v-82r, Scenes from
the Life of James the Less. See also the colour plate at the end of the volume.
Figure 8: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 14159, fol. 187v, Sons of Noah
diagram. See also the colour piate at the end of the volume.
Figure 9: An example of an easily recognizable break between codicological units,
where the blank Jeaf at the end ofthe preceding unit was later used for personal
annotations by an owner ofthe book (Cod. Ups. Gr. 8, fo l. 87v- 88r).
Figure 10: Compared to Figure 9, the break between the units is here less apparent,
since the space left over at the end ofthe quire was in a second relay utilized by
the scribe himself. The micro-texts added at the end ofthe unit link up with the
preceding narrative and rhetorical texts, whereas the next unit, beginning on f.
104, is devoted to medical texts (Cod . Ups. Gr. 8, fo l. 103v-104r).
Figure 11: Drawing of a cherub. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Codex
Vindobonensis 12465, fol. 75v. By permission ofthe Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek. See also the colour plate at the end ofthe volume.
Figure 12: Drawing of a seraph. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Codex
Vindobonensis 12465, fol. 76v. By permission of the Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek. See also the colour plate at the end ofthe volume.
Figure 13: Conrad Celtis’s mnemonic alphabet, Melk, Stifstbibliothek, 1075, pp. 878-
79. Image provided by the Hili Museum and Manuscript Library, Collegeville, MN.
Figure 14: Alphabetic table to the Rule of St. Benedict: Si9nationes capitulorum
Re9ulae S. Benedicti secundum a/phabetum. Melk, Stifstbibliothek, 1075, pp. 881-
82. Image provided by the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library, Collegeville, MN.
Figure 15: St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 972b, p. 150, Cena nuptialis.
Figure 16: St. Gall, Stiftsbiblioth ek, 293, p. 29, Cena nuptialis.
Figure 17: St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 692, p. 13, Cena nuptialis.
Figure 18: St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 692, cover.
Figure 19: Paris, BNF, lat. 17371, fol. 153 (electronic elaboration).
Figure 20: Paris, BNF, lat. 528, fol. 71v (electronic elaboration).
Figure 21: Paris, BNF, lat. 5340, fol. 146v, 11’h century.
Figure 22: Wiesbaden, Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, 3004B10, fol. lv: Salvator
Mundi ( copyright Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv). See also the colour plate at the end
of the volume.
Figure 23: Wiesbaden, Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, 3004 B 10, fol. 2v (copyright
Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv). See also the colour plate at the end of the volume.
Figure 24: Wiesbaden, Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, 3004 B 10, fol. 3r (copyright
Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv). See also the colour plate at the end ofthe volume.
Figure 25: Wiesbaden, Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, 3004 B 10, fol. 24v: The
Adoration ofthe Magi (copyright Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv). See also the colour
plate at the end of the volume.
Figure 26: New Haven, CT, Beinecke Library, 1030, c. 52v.
Figure 27: New Haven, CT, Beinecke Library, 1030, c. 53r.
Figure 28: New Haven, CT, Beinecke Library, 1030, c. 2r.
Acknowledgements
This volume contains selected, peer-reviewed and revised contributions to
an international conference Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies: Composition,
Authorship, Use, which took place at the Charles University in Prague on
August 24-26, 2009. The event and the publication of the book were
supported by the Gerda Henkel Stiftung, a junior research grant to Lucie
Dolefalova from the Grant Agency of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech
Republic, no. KJB801970701 („Remembering One’s Bible: Reception of
Summarium Biblie in 13t1′-15th c.“), by two Charles University Research
Development Programs: „University Centre for the Study of Ancient and
Medieval lntellectual Traditions“ and „Phenomeno-logy and Semiotics“
(PRVOUK 18) both undertaken at the Faculty of Humanities, Charles
University in Prague, and by a three-year post-doc grant to Lucie
Dolefalova from the Czech Science Foundation „Interpreting and Appropriating
Obscurity in Medieval Manuscript Culture,“ no. P405/10/Pl12,
carried out at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague. lt was
possible to finish editing the book thanks to a Sciex-CRUS fellowship to
Lucie Dolefalova at the „Mittellateinisches Seminar“ at the University of
Zurich. We are also grateful to Petr Dolefal who designed the book cover, as
weil as to Adela Novakova who prepared the index.
Further gratitude goes to the Centre for Medieval Studies, part of the
Philosophical Institute of the Academy of Sciences in Prague for providing
the rooms for the conference. We are especially ind ebted to all the
contributors for their kind patience du ring the editing process.