The Art of Regensburg Miscellanies

The Art of Regensburg Miscellanies
Adam S. Cohen
In many respects, Clm. 14731 in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich
is a perfcctly typical miscellany-both a primary and secondary
miscellany in Greti Dinkova-Bruun’s useful terminology.1 Comprising 94
folios, it is a relatively small volume, measuring 18.5 x 13 cm. The primary
miscellany, folios 1 to 83, was executed between 1145 and 1152
and contains a rich assortment of texts and a smattering of pictures. The
bulk of this part of the manuscript, folios 1 to 51, is taken up by the
Imago mw1di of Honorius Augustodunensis, while the rest contains, according
to the 1876 Munich library catalogue, „varia excerpta.“2 The second
part, from fo lios 84 to 94, is a description of the Holy Land added
sometime in the fourteenth century. The entire volume was produced in
the monastery of St. Emmeram in Regensburg, arguably the most venerable
Benedictine foundation in Bavaria, with roots reaching back to the
eighth century.3 In dealing with Clm. 14731, we are confronted with the
usual questions. What motivated the creation of this particular collection
of texts? What was the original and/or subsequent function of the volume?
From an art-historical perspective, what insights can the images
See Dinkova-Bruun’s essay in t his volume. Here 1 will only deal with the primary
miscellany in Clm. 14731. This essay represents work for a broader study of
illustrated miscellanies, Laboratories of Thought in Twelfth-Centwy Germany, in
which 1 hope to expand on some ofthe materials and issues herein.
Karl Halm, Catalogus Codicum Manu Scriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis
4,2 (Munich: Libraria regia Palmiana, 1876), 224 (no. 1699).
On St. Emmeram, see in general the essays in St. Emmeram in Regensburg. Geschichte-
Kunst-Denkmalpflege. Beiträge des Regensburger Herbstsymposiums vom
15. – 24. November 1991, Thurn und Taxis-Studien 18 (Kallmünz: Lassleben,
1992); Franz Fuchs, „Das Reichsstift St. Emmeram,“ in Geschichte der Stadt Re·
gensburg, ed. Peter Schmid (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2000), vol. 2, 730-44;
and, for the eleventh and twelfth centuries in particular, Claudia Märtl. „Regensburg
in den geistigen Auseinandersetzungen des lnvestiturstreits,“ Deutsches Archiv
für Erforschung des Mittelalters 42:5 (1986): 144-91.
ART OF REGENSBURG MISCELLA~IES 35
provide about the book’s production and use? More broadly, what place
does this primary miscellany have-both textually and visually-within
the context of twelfth-century Regensburg? Finally, what might Clm.
14731 teil us about miscellanies in general?
Table 1 (in the appendix at the end of this contribution) provides a
summary !ist of the book’s contents; although 1 have not yet identified
the sources of all the different texts, the table should give a sufficient
overview of the book as a whole.4 In brief, Honorius‘ encyclopedic Imago
mundi is followed by the Letters of Paul and Seneca, excerpts from
Augustine’s Confessions, and passages derived, inter alia, from patristic
sources, Isidore, Bede, Zachary of Besan~on, and Rupert of Deutz, dealing
with such subjects as measurements, wisdom, the reckoning of Easter,
interpretations of the gospels, and, in the final section that includes five
pictures, wonders of the world. One can be sympathetic to the 1867
cataloguer for simply calling the approximately SO individual texts
between folios 54 and 83 „varia excerpta,“ and to Elisabeth Klemm in her
1980 catalogue entry for similarly labelling them „Kurze Texte
verschiedenen Inhalts und Miniaturen.“s Still, Clm. 14731 has fared
poorly in the scholarly lite-rature, among both textual scholars and art
historians.
The earliest scholar to deal with Clm. 14 731 at any length was Albert
Boeckler in his magisterial 1927 work on the Regensburg-Prüfening
school of book illumination.6 He introduced the manuscript by saying
that it „offered more archaeological than artistic interest,“ though he did
not actually explain what he meant by „archäologisches Interesse.“
Boeckler was similarly vague with regard to the place of the images
within the manuscript; these represent the Table of the Temple Showbread,
Noah’s Ark, the Labyrinth, Jericho, and a world map (Figures 1-4,
below). Although they were related to the text of the „Seven Wonders of
lt is my hope that others more competent in textual history will be motivated to
investigate further the nature and sources of these different texts. The first
nineteen have been clarified by Friedrich Helmer (as in n. 11 below).
Elisabeth Klemm, Die romanischen Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek
1: Die Bistümer Regensburg, Passau und Salzburg. Katalog der illuminierten
Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek in München (Wiesbaden: Reichert,
1980), v. 1, 31-32, and v. 2, figs. 56-58.
Albert Boeckler, Die Regensburg-Prüfeninger Buchmalerei des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts,
Miniaturen aus Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek in
München 8 (Munich: A. Reusch, 1924), 64-65, 108-09.
36 ADAMS. COHEN
the World,“ the group „ist aber ohne Beziehung zu diesem.“7 After
offering a brief description and iconographic reading of each of the
book’s pictures, including the „kunstlose Weltkarte,“ Boeckler concluded:
„But for the artistic development ofthe Regensburg-Prüfening forms, the
manuscript, on account of the humble quality of its drawings, is
insignificant.“8 Such qualitative judgements disappeared in Klemm’s
1980 catalogue entry, which provided enhanced iconographic and
comparative materials and brief explanations of the texts in immediate
proximity to the pictures. But like Boeckler, Klemm did not probe
sufficiently the question of the relationship of the pictures to the texts;
for example, the text of the Showbread Table, and by extension the
image, is „independent of the following description of the Seven
Wonders of the World.“9 As will become evident, the pictures are indeed
related to the adjacent texts, although it is necessary first to consider the
textual contents of the miscellany more closely before examining the
images.
The foremost scholar to consider the texts of Clm. 14731 has been
Valerie Flint in her studies of Honorius Augustodunensis.10 Flint made
the astute observation that Clm. 14731 and Clm. 536 have a number of
texts in common; my Table 1 indicates the 19 ( of approximately 4 7) texts
that the two manuscripts share, 18 of which come in exactly the same
order at the beginning of the two volumes. 11 Based on the dedication
Boeckler, Buchmalerei, 64, „without connection to this [text).“
Boeckler, Buchmalerei, 65, „Für die künstlerische Entwicklung der Regensburgprüfeningischen
Formen aber ist die Handschrift bei der geringen Qualität ihrer
Zeichnungen belanglos.“
Klemm, Die romanischen Handschriften, 32: „unabhängig von der nachfolgenden
Beschreibung der sieben Weltwunder.“
10 Valerie Flint, „The Place and Purpose of the Works of Honorius Augustodunensis,“
Revue benedictine 87 (1977): 97-127, esp. 114; Valerie Flint, „Honorius
Augustodunensis. Imago Mundi,“ Archives d’histoire doctrinale et litteraire du
Mayen Age (1982): 7-153, esp. 26-28, 41.
11 These contents are also found in the same order in Clm. 14348, a thirteenthcentury
St Emmeram manuscript. See in general Klemm, Die romanischen
Handschriften, 58-59, and for a more detailed consideration, see Friedrich
Helmer, Katalog der Handschriften aus dem Benediktinerkloster St. Emmeram in
Regensburg. Vorläufige Beschreibung (Munich: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek,
2009), available on Jine at: http://www.manuscripta-mediaevalia.de/hs/projektBSB-
Emmeram-pdfs/ Clm%2014348.pdf, accessed 7 April, 2012. The relationship
ofthese three manuscripts is considered in Table I below.
ART OF REGENSBURG MISCELLANIES 37
page depicting Ab bot Wernher on fol. 1 and the conclusion of the papal
!ist at the end ofthe Imago mundi with Lucius II (1144-45), Clm. 536 can
be securely dated between 1143 and 1145 and localized to Prüll, a monastery
founded in 997 just outside Regensburg’s southern walls.12 A
hospital and hostel are attested at the site in 1130, and in the early
1140s Wernher, from Admont, was appointed abbot and furthered the
Hirsau reform in Regensburg. In her analysis of Clm. 536, Flint argued
that the manuscript is among a group of books that communicated the
claims of twelfth-century Benedictine monks to engage in pastoral care.
Among the items in Clm. 536 that Flint adduced for her pastoral reading
of the manuscript are a bestiary, a lapidary, and „a fascinating series of
mixed Latin and German charms, formulae, aphorisms, miracle stories,
[and] the Vision of Wettin. lt also has the same supposed pronouncement
of Pope Boniface IV on the rights of monks to sacerdotal office.“13 Such a
reading of Clm. 536 makes sense in light of the fact that Prüll ran a hospital.
But most of the texts specific to a pastoral function or its defense are
not in Clm. 14731 (in fact, they mostly occur in a single gathering in Clm.
536, fol. 81-90, suggesting that not all the contents of this manuscript
were conceived originally to have a pastoral function). lt is also telling
that one of the texts Flint singled out is a passage about lucky and unlucky
days (Clm. 536, fol. 62v), but this very passage was erased in Clm.
14731 (fol. 56v).
From a textual standpoint, then, despite the overlap of a certain
number of t exts, Clm. 14731 has none of the medical materials in Clm.
536, nor does it seem particularly pastoral overall; therefore, we should
be wary of also seeing Clm. 14 731 in light of a presumed pastoral agenda
of the St. Emmeram monks. For the most part the miscellany includes a
rather different set of works. One group tends to emphasize the relation-
12 On the manuscript, see Klemm, Die romanischen Handschriften, 202-03. For
Prüll, see Alois Schmid, „Ratisbona Benedictina. Die Regensburger Benediktinerklöster
St. Emmeram, Prüll und Prüfening während des Mittelalters,“ in Regensburg
im Mittelalter. Beiträge zur Stadtgeschichte vom frühen Mittelalter bis zum
Beginn der Neuzeit, ed. Martin Angerer and Heinrich Wanderwitz (Regensburg:
Universitätsverlag, 1995), 179-81; and 1000 Jahre Kultur in Karthaus-Prüll.
Geschichte und Forschung vor den Toren Regensburgs. Festschrift zum Jubiläum
des ehemaligen Klosters (Regensburg: Pustet, 1997).
13 Flint, „The Place and Purpose of the Works of Honorius Augustodunensis,“ 114.
Fora consideration of the medical aspect of this manuscript, see Bernard Schnell,
„Das ‚Prüller Kräuterbuch.‘ Zum ersten Herbar in deutscher Sprache,“ Zeitschrift
für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 120 (1991): 184-202.
38 ADAMS. COHEN
ship of the Old and New Testament, particularly in the writings of Rupert
of Deutz and Zachary of Besans;on. Another leitmotif that runs through
this manuscript much more than Clm. 536 is that of ancient knowledge
and wonders. Although both manuscripts contain Bede’s description of
the Seven Wonders of the ancient world (but in very different parts of
the respective manuscripts), Clm. 536 immediately follows that with
Seven Wonders at the birth of Christ, seven physical and spiritual gifts of
humans, and then the medical items-mater ial consistent with a pastoral
function. Clm. 14731, on the other hand, continues with passages about
the Palladium, places in the Holy Land, Noah’s Ark, Orpheus and Creation,
and Divinations. In theory, these texts could be meaningful in a pastoral
collection, given that some of the works shared by Clm. 536 and
Clm. 14731 include at the beginning passages from Augustine about creation,
predestination, and the revelation of secret things. Both also have
a short passage based on Pope Gregory the Great about wonders in the
Old Testament. But several texts specific to Clm. 14731 suggest a much
greater preoccupation with different kinds of knowledge and their authorization
and, like the numerous glosses throughout the manuscript
(Clm. 536 has virtually none), convey the pronounced scholarly nature of
Clm.14731.
Knowledge is an essential theme in both manuscripts. The Imago
mundi of Honorius is an account of the cosmos according to a Christian
worldview encompassing such subjects as astronomy and magic.14 The
pseudepigraphical Letters of Paul and Seneca that follow can be understood
as a demonstration of the compatibility of pagan and Christian
philosophy, though clearly the Christian view is superior.1s The subsequent
Augustine passages, drawn from books 12 and 13 of the Confessions,
deal with creation, predestination, revelation, and knowledge,
while the Gregory excerpts then focus on several wonders ofthe Old Tes-
14 See, for example, Valerie Flint, „World History in the Early Twelfth Century: the
‚Imago Mundi‘ of Honorius Augustodunensis,“ in The Writing of History in the
Middle Ages: Essays presented ta Richard William Southern, ed. Ralph H. C. Davis
and j. M. Wallace-Hadrill (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 211-38, esp. 220-24.
is Claude W. Barlow, ed„ Epistolae Senecae ad Paulum et Pau/i ad Senecam <quae
vocantur>. Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 10
(Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1938); „The Correspondence of Paul and
Seneca,“ in The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian
Literature in an English Translation, ed. James Keith Elliott (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1993), 54 7- 54.
ART Of REGENSBURG MISCELLANIES 39
tament, Jike the Rod ofMoses and the Red Heifer.16 On the next folio (57)
is an excerpt attributed to Isidore on the differencc between knowledge
and wisdom; scientia is limited to temporal subjects, while sapientia is
devoted to more eternal, spiritual matters.17 After a few more shared
texts, the contents of the two manuscripts diverge dramatically. While
Clm. 536 continues with the Physiologus, the consideration of different
theological sevens, and the material related to healing, Clm. 14731 turns
primarily to gospel expositions. The first lengthy section, from 61-64, is
excerpted from Zachary of Besarn;:on’s opening preface to his gospel
harmony, written in the 1130s.18 What is striking about the passages
selected is the emphasis on the applicability and compatibility of
philosophical categories to the gospels, with recourse to quotations from
Origen, Boethius, and Ambrose.
But it is in the Wonders section at the end of Clm. 14731, with its accompanying
diagrams, that the philosophical bent of this miscellany
comes through most strongly. This begins on folio 78, after the gospels
16 Augustine, Confessionllm libri XIII, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina
[henceforth CCSL] 27, ed. Lucas Verhe1jen (Turnhout: Brepols, 1981); and
Augustine, Confessions, translated with an introduction and notes by Henry
Chadwick (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), Bk. 12, 20, 29 (CCSL, 230-31;
Chadwick, 260-61), Bk. 12, 21, 30 (CCSL, 231-32; Chadwick, 261), Bk. 13, 11. 12
(CCSL, 247-48; Chadwick, 279- 80), Bk. 12, 29, 40 (CCSL, 238-40; Chadwick
268-70).
11 The text is based closely on lsidore’s Differentiarum, book 2, Liber de Differentiis
Rentm, 147 and 148, PL 83, col. 938. The definitions of wisdom are based on
Cicero, De optimo genere oratorum, 4 (eloquentia constat ex verbis et ex
sententiis), and Augustine, De trinitate, 14, 22 (disciplinam qua in evitandis mulis
bonisque appetendis actio nostra versatur). The source of the Jsidorc passage is
not noted in Helmer’s catalogue entry on Clm. 14348. Except where otherwise
noted, all translations (and mistakes) are my own.
1e See most recently Ulrich Schmid, „‚ … so that those who read the (biblical) text
and the commentary do not correct one after the other‘ (Zacharay of Besa1won).
Some observations on the textual traditions of two twelfth-century Latin Gospel
Harmony Commentaries,“ in Paratext and Megatext as Channels of }ewish and
Christian Traditions, ed. Aurelius Augustinus den Hollander, Ulrich Schmid, and
Willem Frederik Smelik (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 136-51, with further bibliography.
The text itself is printed in PL 186, cols. 11-620, esp. 19-22 (Saepissime
praemissa recapitulant evangelistae … In commune, quia omnes homines ex uno
patre nati sunt. Unde apostolus: ‚Si quis /roter nominatur fornicator‘ et cetera);
23-24 (Restat nunc … dispositione distribuit); 25 (Ambrosius super Lucam …
admiranda mysteria revelantur); 36 (Epylagus brevis: Est summi natura boni
super omnia simplex … Tres igitur faciunt personae, quod Deus, omne).
40 ADAMS. COHE>I
section of the miscellany ends with Zachary of Besan~on’s second preface,
which thus serves as a bookend around several excerpts frorn Rupert
of Deutz’s De gloria et honore Filii hominis super Matthaeum.19
Zachary’s text ends with the first word on the last Jine of folio 77v, which
then continues immediately with a short paragraph that serves as a conclusion
to this gospels section and as a transition to the subsequent
wonders part ofthe miscellany. lt reads:
You should understand the first, the middle, and the last things as prohibitions,
precepts, and persuasions, or those things that were in force before the law,
that were in force under the law, and that are in force during the time of grace.
Jerome calls „canon“ the sequence of the Old and the New Testament. For he
set prologues before the books of the evangelists. To remember all things and
to sin in absolutely nothing is more characteristic of divinity than of mortality.
„Unless someone should see a statue of Hercules, he cannot infer how !arge
Hercules was.“ Augustine, in his Book of Questions on Exodus, says, „The
lsraelites did not commit theft by despoiling the Egyptians, but rather they
rendered a service by God’s command, just as when the minister of a judge
kills a guilty man.“ Und er the [ old] law there was the shadow of the obscurity
offigures. In the gospel there is a clear image, the distinction of trut1i.zo
There is nothing unusual about the way the relationship between the Old
and New Testaments is expressed here; nor is the reference to Jerome
19 The excerpts are taken in sequence from each book of Rupert’s work ( excluding,
curiously, book 7, though with additional passages from books 6 and 8). For the
text, which was written around 1125, see Rupert of Deutz, De gloria et honore
Filii hominis super Matthaeum, ed. R. Haacke, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio
Mediaevalis [henceforth CCCM] 29 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1979); and Christei
Meier-Staubach, „Ruperts von Deutz literarische Sendung. Der Durchbruch eines
neuen Autorbewußtseins im 12. Jahrhundert,“ in Aspekte des 12. Jahrhunderts.
Freisinger Kolloquium 1998, ed. Wolfgang Haubrichs, Eckart Conrad Lutz, and
Gisela Vollmann-Profe (Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 2000), 29-52. In general, see John
Van Engen, Rupert of Deutz (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), esp.
350-60 for comments on the Degloria.
zo Prima media perfecta intel/ige prohibitiones, praeceptiones, persuasiones, vel ea
quae ante Jegem, quae in lege, quae in tempore gratiae. Canonem dicit leronimus
veteris et novi testamenti seriem. lpse enim Jibris evangelistarum prologos
praeposuit. Omnium habere memoriam et penitus in nul/o peccare divinitatis
magis quam mortalitas est. Nisi quis statuam Herculis percipiat, non potest
conicere quantus Hercules fuerit. Augustinus Jibro quaestionum Exodi, „lsrahelite
furtum non fecerunt spoliando Egyptios sed Deo iubenti ministerium praebuerunt,
quemadmodum cum minister iudicis occidit reum.“ In lege fuit umbra obscuritatis
figurarum. In evangelio est imago clara distinctio veritatis.
ART OF REGENSBURG MlSCELLANlES 41
especially remarkable. But the unattributed citation from Augustine,
„Unless someone should see a statue of Hercules, he cannot estimate how
great Hercules was,“ seems particularly out of place.21 In its original
Augustinian context the consideration of Hercules was part of a discussion
about the magnitude of the soul; its use here appears to be a way to
implicate matters of classical knowledge in a Christian theological discourse.
This becomes patent with the Augustinian reference to the plundering
of the Egyptians. Although used explicitly as a rationalization for
judicial killing, Augustine’s explanation of the lsraelites‘ activity evokes
in this context his argument in the De doctrina christiana about the utility
of pagan philosophy to Christians, and it thus serves as a validation for
incorporating pagan material in theological discussions.22 Because both
classical and Old Testament items are included in the wonders section
that immediately follows, this short paragraph, which seems to have
been written de novo by a Regensburg monk, should be seen as a justification
for such deliberations.
The final section ofthe miscellany begins on fol. 78 not with the Seven
Wenders of the ancient world, a text it shares with Clm. 536 and that was
presumably in the exemplar, but instead with a short passage about the
Temple showbread. Opening with a paraphrase of Hebrews 9:2, the exposition
on the showbread is freely based on Bede’s De tabernaculo 1,
21 De Quantitate Animae 3,4 (Anima quanta sit): PL 32, col. 1037; Augustine, The
Greatness of the Soul and The Teacher, trans. Joseph Colleran, Ancient Christian
Writers 9 (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1950), 16-17.
22 Augustine, De doctrina christiana, 2, 40; PL 34, col. 63 or Augustine, De doctrina
Christiana, CCSL 32, Joseph Martin, ed. (Turnhout: Brepols, 1962), 73-75. 1
cannot explain why the Regensburg monk chose to quote not from the De
doctrina itselfbut rather from the Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, Exodus 2.39 (Pl
34, col. 607, or Augustine, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, ed. Iohannes Fraipont,
CCSL 33 [Turnhout: Brepols, 1958), 85). Moreover, this passage from Augustine
was cited by both lvo of Chartres, Decretals, 13.2 (PL 161, col. 8038-Quod filii
Israel non fecerint furtum spoliando Aegyptios. August. lib. Quaest. [ quaest. 39 ad
c. XI Exod.]), and Peter Abelard, Sie et Nor., 157 (PL 178, col. 1607C-Quod liceat
homines interficere, et non). The text in Clm. 14731 is closer to lvo and Abelard
than to Augustine himself. Because there are other passages in Clm. 14731 based
on lvo, it is likely that this was the source of the Augustine quote. On the
diffusion of the Augustinian trope, see Joseph de Ghellinck, Le mouvement
theologique du Xlle siecle, Museum Lessianum, section historique 10 (Bruges:
Editions De Tempel, 1948), 94-95.
42 ADAMS. COHEN
7.23 In short, the twelve loaves are compared to the twelve apostles, the
doctrine they spread, and the popes; just as the loaves are replaced one
by one, so too are the apostles, in the form of the pope.24 What makes this
page particularly notable, however, is the large drawing of the „mensa
23 Pl 91, cols. 411-14, Vasorum mensae et panum propositionis descriptio; Bede: On
the Tabernac/e. Translated by Arthur G. Holder (Liverpool: Liverpool University
Press, 1994), 27-31, „The Vessels for (the Table] and the Loaves of Proposition,
and the lncense.“
24 „In temp/o domini erat mensa et propositio panum.“ Per mensam accipimus sacram
scripturam unde il/ud „parasti in conspectu mensam meo“ in qua erant .xii. panes
id est .xii. apostolorum doctrina. Qui benedicuntur post ostium quia per fidei
acceptionem, quae ostium est ingrediendi ad eum, debet unusquisque sacram verbi
doctrinam cognoscere. Illi panes ponebantur in mensa prima sabbati et
quotienscumque aliquis eorum auferebatur, quacumque de causa, max alius in eius
loco ponebatur et hoc fiebat usque ad septimum sabbatum in qua omnes simul
auferebantur. Per .xii. panes, ut diximus, .xii. apostolos intelligimus, quorum
quotiens aliquis moritur, alius eius sub loco, ut Petra defuncto C/emens, successit, et
sie per ceteros. Quod adhuc de episcopis fit qui vicem tenent apostolorum et hoc fit
usque in .vii. aetatem et tune omnes auferentur quia non erit necesse ut aliquis
doceatur, quia sicut ipse dixit per os leremiae, „A maiore usque ad minorem omnes
eum cognoscent.“ „Et in unoquoque pane lucidissimum thus“ quod ostendit quod
unusquisque sacerdos debet habere puras cogitationes et deo offerre orationes in
quibus de/ectetur ut in thuris odore. („In the temple of the Lord there was the
table and the showbread (Hebrews 9,2). Through ‚table‘ we understand Sacred
Scripture, from which we get this: ‚You prepared a table in my sight‘ (Ps 2 2,5). On
the table there were twelve loaves of bread, that is, the teaching of the twelve
apostles; the (loaves] are blessed after the doorway, because through the
acceptance of faith, which is the doorway of approaching him, each ought to
recognize the sacred teaching of the Word. Those loaves were placed on the first
Sabbath table, and however many times one of them was taken away, whatever
the reason, soon another one was put in its place. And this was done all the way
up to the seventh Sabbath, when they were all taken away at the same time.
Through the twelve loaves, as we said, we understand the tvvelve apostles: for as
soon as one dies, another takes his place, just as Clement succeeded Peter after
he had died, and the same with the others. This practice continues with the
bishops, who hold the place of the apostles, and it will continue until the seventh
age; and then they all will be taken away, because it will not be necessary that
anyone be taught. For, just as He Himself said through the mouth of jeremiah: ‚All
from the greater to the lesser will recognize him.‘ ‚And in each loaf there was
brightest incense‘ that showed that every priest should have pure thoughts and
offer to God prayers in which He may delight as in the fragrance of incense.“)
Although the bulk ofthe passage is based on Pl 91, eo!. 412; Holder, 30-31, Bede
himself mentions neither the verse from Hebrews nor that from Psalms.
ART OF REGE!\SBt.:RG MlSCELLANlES 43
propositionis“ that structures the page (Figure 1). lt is clear that the
drawing was executed first and the text written in around it. What was
the function of this relatively simple image of the Temple table and the
loaves?
Perhaps what is most important about the picture is not any specific
visual information it provides, for it adds very little to the textual passage
under it, but its very presence on the page and in the manuscript. As the
very first image in the miscellany, it announces that the subject matter
here is of special importance and deserves extra attention. More specifically,
it seems to be an overt expression of the final lines of the transitional
paragraph just above the representation: In lege fuit umbra
obscuritatis figurarum. In evangelio est imago clara distinctio veritatis: „In
the [ old] law there was the shadow of the obscurity of figures. In the gospel
there is a clear image, the distinction of truth.“ The contrast between
the darkness of the era of the Law and the clarity of the era of Grace was
a venerable topos, and by rendering the Temple table as afigura, the Regensburg
monk responsible for the miscellany more tangibly articulated
the obscured meaning and physicality of the Old Testament that only becomes
intelligible and spiritual through the New Testament.ZS
2s For the concept of „figura,“ see in general, Der Begriff der Repraesentatio im Mittelalter,
ed. Albert Zimmermann and Gudrun Vuillemin-Diern (Berlin: De Gruyter,
1971); L’/mage: fonctions et usages des images dans l’Occident medieval, ed.
jeröme Baschet and Jean-Claude Schmitt, Cahiers du Leopard d’Or 5 (Paris: Le
Leopard d’Or, 1996), and Jean-Claude Schl’litt, „Imago: de l’image a l’imaginaire,“
in L’image, 29-37. On artistic expressions of the contrast between old and new,
see Herbert L. Kessler, „Medieval Art as Argument,“ in lconography at the Crossroads,
ed. Brendan Cassidy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 59-70.
For a further consideration of these issues, see Adam S. Cohen, „Art, Exegesis,
and Affective Piety in Twelfth-Century German Manuscripts,“ in Manuscripts and
Monastic Culture: Religious Reform and lntellectttal Life in Twelfth-Centwy
Germany, ed. Alison Beach (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), 45- 68.
44 ADAMS. COHEN
Figure 1: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 14731, fol. 78r, Table M the
Temple Showbread (Mensa propositionis). See also the colour plate at the end of the
volume.
ART OF REGEt“SBURG MISCELLANIES 45
The Temple showbread passage ends on the penultimate line of fol.
78, and the same scribe continued immediately with the Seven Wonders
of the ancient world: the Capitolium in Rome, the Lighthouse in Alexandria,
the Colossus of Rhodes, the Statue of Bellerophon, the Marble Theater
of Eraclea, a bath heated by a single candle, and the Temple of Diana
in Ephesus. This text, which runs until the top of fol. 79, is taken almost
verbatim from the De septem mundi miraculis conventionally attributed
to Bede, though the extensively detailed description of the Temple of Diana
at the end has been reduced to a simple, „because of the magnitude
and multitude of its columns.“26 The appearance of the Seven Wonders
text is not wholly surprising, for it was included already in Clm 536, attesting
to a wider interest in the topic in twelfth-century Regensburg.
But, as noted above, Clm. 536 then follows the Seven Wonders with a series
of theological sevens (e.g„ wonders at the birth of Christ), while Clm.
14 731 extends the consideration of ancient wonders by turning to a melange
of subjects in texts and images whose common theme seerns to be
their antiquity, peculiarity, and connection to knowledge. In brief these
include the Palladium, Sebastes/Neapolis (Shechern) and other sites in
the Holy Land, Noah’s Ark, Orpheus and Creation, Divinations, the Labyrinth,
Jericho, and a map ofthe world with reference to the sons of Noah.
Like the Temple table, the text about Noah’s Ark on fol. 80 is also accornpanied
by a picture, which here takes up more than half the page
(Figure 2).
26 PL 90, col. 961-62. On the Seven Wonders and their reception in the Middle Ages,
see Kai Brodersen, Reiseführer zu den sieben Weltwundern. Phi/an von Byzanz und
andere antike Texte (Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag, 1992), and Kai Brodersen,
Die sieben Weltwunder. Legendäre Kunst- und Bauwerke (Munich: Beck, 1996),
esp. eh. 9. The only wonder in the Bede text not accounted for in earlier such Jists
is the self-heating bath (number 6). Although Brodersen, Die sieben Weltwunder,
106, suggested that it was the product of Bede’s frigid Northumbrian climate, it is
likely that there is a textual source yet tobe identified.
46 ADAMS. COHEN
Figure 2: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 14731, fol. 80r, Noah’s Ark. See
also the colour plate at the end ofthe volume.
ART Of REGENSBt:RG MlSCELLA:‘-IIES 47
lt is similar in form to an image in a twelfth-century Benediktbeuern
miscellany, but in that instance the picture is connected to a PseudoBedan
text in which the Ark is interpreted as a type of the Church.27 In
Clm. 14731, although the Ark is surmounted with a cross and the letters
A and 0 appear in the gable, the paragraph above is remarkably free of
any theological content. Instead, the focus is on various numerical
aspects of the ark, such as its size and the years it took to build. The
single titulus that goes beyond being a simple label-„In the bottom of it
the excrement of all of them feil by wonderful artifice“-similarly tilts
away from theology and expresses more the remarkable nature of the
Ark.28 In this regard, the inclusion and treatment ofthe Ark in this section
of the manuscript is more in keeping with the !ist of ancient wonders
given by Gregory of Tours at the beginning of the De cursu stel/arum, but
this was not adapted by Bede and there is no evidence the Regensburg
27 On the manuscript, Clm. 4556, see Günter Glauche, Die Pergamenthandschriften
aus Benediktbeuern: C/m 4501-4663. Katalog der lateinischen Handschriften der
Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994), 85-89.
For the text, see PL 90, eo!. 1179-80. Fundamental on the subject of the Ark as a
type of the Church is Joachim Ehlers, „Arca significat ecclesiam. Ein theologisches
Weltmodell aus der ersten Hälfte des 12. Jahrhunderts,“ Frühmittelalter/iche
Studien 6 (1972): 171-87. For images of Noah’s Ark in general, see Andreina
Contessa, „Noah’s Ark and the Ark of Covenant in Spanish and Sephardic
Medieval Manuscripts,“ in Between judaism and Christianity. Art Historica/ Essays
in Honor of Elisheva (Elisabeth} Revel-Neher, ed. Katrin Kogman-Appel and Mati
Meyer (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 171-89, with further bibliography.
20 In fundum eius stercora il/orum omnium miro artificio cadebant. 1 have not been
able to find the source or interpretation of this titulus, nor of the passage as a
whole. Trecentorum cubitorum erat arcae longitudo, quinquaginta cubitorum erat
latitudo eius. Triginta cubitorum erat altitudo eius. In summitate vero mensuram
unius cubiti habuit. Ab Adam qui primus creatus est usque ad tempus diluvii anni
fuerunt duo milia sexenti quinquaginta. vi. Noe cum vixisset post diluvium trecentis
et quinquaginta annis, omne tempus fe/iciter agens, mortuus est anno vitae suae
nongentesimo quinquasimo. Mense Maio intravit Noe arcam et post circulum anni
egressus est ex ea. In montibus Ararat Armeniae arca requievit. Centum annis
fabricata esse describitur arca. („The length of the ark was 300 cubits, its width
was 50 cubits. lts height was 30 cubits. In the highest part it had a measure of 1
cubit. From Adam, who was created first, until the time of the tlood, there were
2656 years. Noah, when he had lived 350 years after the flood (passing this span
of time happily), died in the 9SQ•h year of his life. Noah entered the ark in the
month of May, and after the passing of a year, exited it. The ark rested on Mount
Ararat in Armenia. The ark is said to have been made in a hundred years„“)
48 ADAM S. COHEN
miscellany compiler knew that work.29 In any event, the impressive
image in Clm. 14 731 that dominates the page effectively communicates
the marvelous-ness of the structure as quantified by the numerical information
ofthe text.
The next several texts are devoid of illustration. Two deal directly
with ancient cosmology and knowledge: an account of creation in the
name of Orpheus and Hesiod (called Thesiod),30 and a long quotation on
29 The text is printed in Gregory of Tours, De cursu stel/arum, ed. Bruno Krusch,
MGH Scriptorurn rerurn Merovingicarurn 1, 2 (Hannover: Hahn, 1885), 854-72,
esp. 857-58. A translation is available in Monks, Bishops, and Pagans: Christian
Culture in Gaul and Italy, 500-700. Sources in Translation, including The World of
Gregory of Tours, ed. and trans. William Coffrnan McDermott (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 197 5), 209-18.
30 Orpheus igitur est qui dicit primum fuisse chaos sempiternum, inmensum,
ingenitum, ex qua omnia [acta sunt; hoc sane ipsum chaos non tenebras, non lucem,
non hwnidum, non aridum, non calidum, non frigidum, sed omnia simul mixta et
semper unum fuisse informe; a/iquando tarnen quasi ad inmanis ovi modum per
inmensa tempora effectam peperisse ac protulisse ex se quandam speciem, quam
illi masc/ofeminam vocant, ex contraria admixtione concretam; et hoc esse
principium omnium, quod primum ex materia puriore processcerit quodque
procedens discretionem iiii elementorum dederit et ex duobus, quae prima sunt,
fecit caelum; ex a/iis vero terram. Ex quibus iam omnia participatione sui invicem
nasci dicit et gigni. Haec quidem Orpheus. Sttbiungit his et Thesiodus; post chaos
statim ceium dicens fuisse factum esse, et terram. Ex quibus ait progenitos illos xi,
quos interdum et xii dicit; ex quibus vi mares, v feminas ponit. Nomina enim dat
maribus Oceanus, Cheus, Cryus, Yperion, lapotus, Cronus, qui et Saturnus. ltem
feminis: Thya, Rhea, Themis, Econemosine, Thetis. Quae nomina per allegoriam hoc
modo exponunt: Numerum quidem xi sive xii, ipsam dicunt primam naturam, quam
et Rheam a fluendo dictam volunt. Reliquas vero x accidentia eius dicunt, quas
equalitates appellant. Xii tamen numerum Cronum quod apud nos Saturnum dicunt;
hoc pro tempore accipiunt. Saturnum vero et Rheam tempus ponunt et
materiam. („Therefore it is Orpheus who said that first there was everlasting,
immense, unbegotten chaos, from which all things were made; that this chaos of
course was not darkness, not light, not moist, not dry, not hot, not cold, but
everything mixed together and always one unforrned thing. At sorne point,
though, as if through a huge egg in an immense amount of time, chaos bore and
brought forth from itself a certain species, which they call „masculo-femina,“
created from a mixture of contrary things. And (he said that] this is the beginning
of all things, because first it came from more pure matter and thereafter it
produced the division of the four elements, and from the first two elements it
made the sky and from the others the earth. Frorn which he says everything is
born and begatten by means of their participation with each other. This is what
Orpheus said. And Thesiod adds to this view, saying that immediately after chaos
ART OF REGENSBURG MISCELLANIES 49
different kinds of divination in the name ofVarro as codified by Isidore of
Seville.JJ Sandwiched bctwecn these two is a very unusual passage that
offers an exegetical interpretation of Luke 17,34, „(There will be] two
men in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left behind.“
The bed, therefore, is this world on which we lie and on which we exist. From
this bed, one will be taken up, that is one who is holy and chosen for the
kingdom of heaven, and „we will be taken up into the air to meet with Christ in
the clouds and thus we will always be with the Lord“ (1 Thess 4,16). The other
will be left behind, this is the sinn er, whether the people of the Gentiles or the
Jews, who have not accepted the truth, namely that Christ is the son of God;
but in the last days they will accept the Antichrist, the fullness of every sin, and
therefore they will be driven out on the last day.n
the sky was made, and the earth. He says that from them came those eleven
progeny, which he sometimes calls twelve; of which he lists s ix males and five
females. To the males he gives the names Oceanus, Coeus, Crius, Hyperion,
lapetus, Cronus who is known as Saturn. Likewise to the females [he gives the
names] Theia, Rhea, Themis, Mnemosyne, Thetis. They explain these names
through allegory in this way: the number eleven or twelve they say is the first
nature itself, which they wish to call ‚Rhea,‘ from flowing. They say the remaining
ten are accidents of her, which they call ‚qualities‘. They say that the twelfth
number is Cronus, who among us is known as Saturn; this they understand as
‚time.‘ lndeed they count Saturn as time and Rhea as matter.“) 1 have not located
the source of this passage.
31 lsidore, Etymologiae 8, 9 („De Magis“), PL 82, col. 312-13. For an English
translation, see Isidore, The Etymologies of Isidore of Sevil/e, translated, with
introduction and notes, by Stephen A. Barney et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006), 182-83. Several slight word variations suggest that it
was lvo of Chartres (Decretals 11, 68: „De variis generibus divinationum,“ PL
161, eo!. 761-62), rather than !sidore himself, who was t.he source for the
Regensburg compiler (lvo is used elsewhere in Clm. 14731), though my
knowledge of the manuscript history of both texts does not allow me to assert
this with confidence. For a consideration of this passage in lsidore and beyond,
see Lynn Thorndike, A Histo1y of Magie and Experimental Science. Vol. 3:
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (New York: Columbia University Press, 1934),
629-32.
32 Duo in lecto unus assumetur et alter relinquetur. Dectus igitur hie mundus est in
qua iacemus et in quo sumus. Ex hoc lecto unus assumetur, id est sanctus et e/ectus
ad regnum ce/orum et in aera obviam Christo in nubibus rapiemur et sie semper
cum Domino erimus. Alter relinquetur, id est peccator sive populus Gentium aut
Judeorum qui non receperunt veritate{mj, id est Christum fi/ium dei, sed in
novissimis temporibus reciperent a11tichristum plenitudinem omnis pecati et ideo
in novissimo die expellentur foras. Ambrose of Milan, Expositio evange/ii secundum
Lucam, 8, 46, referred to the Antichrist in his interpretation of this passage, but
50 ADAMS. COHEN
The lack of any identifiable source and the somewhat irregular writing of
this paragraph on fol. 80v suggest that this is another original composition
by the twelfth-century Regensburg monk, articulating once more the
respective status of truth in Christ versus the falsehood of both pagans
and Jews. What is especially noteworthy is the placement of this passage
in a section on wonders that is filled with examples of both ancient and
)ewish learning and marvels, and the implication that the problem of the
non-believers is their rejection ofknowable truth.
The final texts on fol. 82 of Clm. 14731 make explicit the preoccupation
with questions of proper and improper knowledge in the primary
miscellany. The first is said to be by )erome but is in fact a text of Bede,
from his Expositionis al/egoricae in Samuelem prophetam:
He who thinks that they (the readers] should be entirely prohibited from reading
seeular books disturbs the sharpness of readers and drives them to fail,
sinee it is permitted to them to take up as their own whenever useful things are
found (in the books). Otherwise Moses and Daniel would not have allowed people
to be edueated in the knowledge or letters of the Egyptians and the Chaldeans,
whose superstitions and allurements they nevertheless shuddered at
equally. Nor would the teacher himself have inserted some of the verses of gentile
poets into either his sayings or writings.33
This is followed by two lines attributed to Ambrose:
We read some things lest [others] be read. We read lest webe ignorant. We do
not read that we may be ignorant. We read not so that we may support hold
(ideas] but so that we may refute.34
there are no real similarities between his exegesis and that found in Clm. 14731
(PL 15, col. 17888; Ambrose, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, ed. M. Adriaen,
CCSL 14 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1957), 313-14; Ambrose, Commentary of Saint
Ambrose an the Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. ide M. Ni Riain [Dublin:
Halcyon, 2001], 285). 1 have found no closer s ouree.
33 Bede, In Samuelem prophetam al/egorica expositio, 2, 9; PL 91, eo!. 589-90 or
CCSL 119, ed. David Hurst (Turnhout: Brepols, 1962), 121. Turbat acumen
legentium et deficere cogit, qui eos a legendis secularibus libris omnimodo estimat
prohibendos, quibus ut ubilibet inventa sunt utilia quasi sua sumere licet. Alioquin
Moyses et Daniel sapientia vel litteris Egiptiorum Chaldeorumque non paterentur
erudiri quorum tarnen supersticiones simul et delicias horrebant Nec ipse magister
gentium aliquot versus poetarum suis vel dictis vel scriptis indidisse.
34 Ambrose, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, 1,1; PL 15, eo!. 15338; Ambrose,
Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, 7; Ambrose, Commentary, 6. legimus a/iqua
ne legantur. Legimus ne ignoremus. l egimus non ut ignoremus. Legimus non ut
ART OF REGE1’SBURG MISCELLA:\lES 51
Finally, the section concludes with a passage captioned „The opinion of a
certain wise man“:
Who runs with death toward water and drinks the water without death?
Whose footprints are never found, either on the earth or on the water? lt is the
serpent whose footprints do not appear when it runs. And when it arrives at
water, before it drinks, it vomits out its venom, and then it drinks. And so
should we act that, when we need to approach the altar of God, we put aside
the worst poisons, namely rage, hatred, envy, falsehood, sin, bitterness, Just,
evil pride. These are the poisons of [our] souls. Let us set them all aside first,
and so approach the altar of God.„35
lt is worth quoting these passages at length because their selection and
content indisputably speak to the intellectual predilections behind the
compilation of Clm. 14731. They help contextualize the opening passage
(which cites the plundering of the Egyptians), and the middle text (which
expounds on „two men in one bed“) that, together with these final excerpts,
structure this section of the miscellany to demonstrate the value
and legitimacy of pagan knowledge.
Taken as a whole, the various components of the primary miscellany’s
last seven folios communicate not only a fascination with ancient
marvels and ideas, but also the need to cloak these and bring them within
a Christian worldview. The miscellany’s last three pages present images
that articulate this most clearly. Folios 82v and 83 feature an unusual
double-page opening that juxtaposes Theseus and the Minotaur in the
teneamus sed ut repudiemus. The repetition of the „ignoremus“ phrase is not in
Ambrose.
35 This sermon is printed in PL 17, col. 653-54, as Ambrose, Sermo XXIV, 10. De
Sancta Quadragesima VIII, though the sermon is now attributed to PseudoAmbrose.
See, for example, Richard Finn, Alms9ivi11g in the Later Roman Empire.
Christian Promotion and Practice, 313-450 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2006), 52, n. 72. Although the caption „The opinion of a certain wise man“
(Sententia cuiusdam sapientis) suggests that the Regensburg compiler was
already aware that the sermon was not by Ambrose, it is hard to know what the
source was or was thought to be. Qui cum morte wrrit ad aquam et sine morte
bibit et vestigia illius nusquam inveniuntur neque super terram neque super
aquam. Serpens est qui cum currit, vestigia illius non apparent Et cum venerit ad
aquam, priusquam bibit, evomit venenum suum et sie postea bibit. lta et nos
faciamus ut, quando ad altare dei accedere debemus, deponamus venenum
pessimum scilicet iracundiam, odium, invidiam,falsitatem, iniquitatem, amariciam,
cupiditatem, malam superbiam. Hec sunt animarum venena. lsta omnia prius
deponamus. Et sie ad altare dei acce[dere].
52 ADAMS. C:OHEN
Labyrinth with a representation of Jericho, also depicted as a kind of
labyrinth (Figure 3).36
–
Figure 3: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 14731, fol. 82v-83r, Labyrinth/
Jericho. See also the colour plates at the end of the volume.
The labyrinth had many possible meanings in the Middle Ages, and the
interpretive key here is provided by the reference to Jericho as the moon,
making it a symbol of the sinful world; by extension, Theseus’s battle
against the Minotaur can be understood as Christ’s victory over sin and
death.37 In the context of the whole book, however, what is notable is the
36 l have discussed these images at greater length in Cohen, „Art, Exegesis, and
Affective Piety.“ The tituli accompanying the pictures read: Cum minothauro
pugnat theseus laborinto („When Theseus fights against the Minotaur in the labyrinth“)
and Urbs lericho lune fuit assimilata figure („the city of Jericho is compared
to the shape of the moon“).
37 Klemm, Die romanischen Handschriften, 32, with further literature. See also Wolfgang
Haubrichs, „Error lnextricabilis. Form und Funktion der Labyrinthabbildung
in mittelalterlichen Handschriften,“ in Text und Bild: Aspekte des Zusammenwirkens
zweier Kiinste in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed. Christei Meier and
Uwe Ruberg (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1980), 63-174; and Penelope Reed Doob, The
ART OF REGENSBURG MtSCEL.LA~IES 53
way Christian symbolism is forged by the choice and juxtaposition of a
classical wonder and an esoteric Old Testament reference. lf we imagine,
for a moment, a twelfth-century monk using this book, we can envision
him reading on folio 82 the words of „Jerome,“ Ambrose, and „a certain
wise man“ and then turning the page and encountering the labyrinth
opening. Before his eyes was a wonder of the ancient world, clearly
labelled, but how was he to interpret it? Because it was not treated
earlier in this volume he would have had to know about Theseus and the
Minotaur from other sources, and in light of the warnings about using
pagan knowledge properly, he surely would have given it a Christian
interpretation. In the context of this whole miscellany, with its lengthy
passages from Honorius and Rupert of Deutz, he would have imbued this
interpretation with what Michael Curschmann calls the „symbolistic
spirituality“ characteristic of twelfth-century German theology.3s The
labyrinth and its ancient actors were thus not only part of God’s creation
and direction of the world, but also vehicles for discerning deeper
allegorical meanings about leading a Christian life. In this case, we can
prcsume that the victory over sin and death represented by the fight in
the labyrinth applied not only to Christ, but also to the individual monk
charged with negotiating the poison of “rage, hatred, envy, falsehood, sin,
bitterness, Just, and bad pride.“
But this is not the final piece ofthe primary miscellany. lt ends on fol.
83v with a map of the world that has a decided Old Testament slant (Figure
4). Under the elaborated T-0 map is a smaller, schematic rectangle
with an accompanying titulus, stating „Thus was the world divided by the
sons of Noah after the flood “ (Ecce sie diviserunt terram filii noe post
diluvium). This was not an unusual idea, though it was hardly common to
all medieval maps, and it underscores that geography was implicated in
sacred history.39
!dea of the Labyrinth from Classical Antiquity through t/Je Middle Ages (lthaca:
Cornell University Press, 1990).
38 Michael Curschmann, „lmagined Exegesis: Text and Picture in the Exegetical
Work of Rupert of Deutz, Honorius Augustodunensis, and Gerhoch of
Reichersberg,“ Traditio 44 (1988): 145-69, esp. 148.
39 See Chet van Duzer and Sandra Saenz-L6pez Perez, „Tres filii Noe diviserunt
orbem post diluvium: the world map in British Library Add. MS 37049,“ Word &
Image 26 (2010): 21-39. The map in Clm. 14731 has been treated briefly by
Leonid S. Chekin, Northem Eurasia in Medieval Cartography. lnventory, Text,
Translation and Commentary (Turnhaut: Brepols, 2006), 48-49. For the
54 ADAMS. (OHEN
Figure 4: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 14731, fol. 83v, World map. See
also the colour plate at the end ofthe volume.
relationship of mappae mundi to the encyclopedic tradition, see Margriet
Hoogvliet, „Mappae mundi and Medieval Encyclopaedias: Image versus Text,“ in
Pre-Modem Encyclopaedic Texts. Proceedings of the Second COMERS Congress,
Groningen, 1-4 july 1996, ed. Peter Binkley (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 63-74.
ART OF REGEXSBURG MISCELLANlES 55
Furthermore, although the map may be „kunstlos,“ it nevertheless
had a function. As the very last item in the original miscellany, it served
as a co/lectio, a visual summary of all that came before.40 lt signals to the
reader that the book as a whole is about everything contained in the
world. lt is thus a bookend fitting to the beginning of the volume, the
Imago mundi of Honorius, itself a theological compendium of information
about the world.
The pictures that are clustered at the end of the miscellany support
an interpretation of Clm. 14731 as a manuscript in which ideas about ancient
knowledge and marvels are fundamental. lt is difficult to imagine
that such representations as the Temple table or Noah’s Ark would have
been particularly useful in a pastoral context, despite the overlap of certain
texts with Clm. 536. Rather, as Mary Carruthers has demonstrated,
such pictures work mainly to make things memorable.41 Their graphic
forms stand out from the text, drawing attention to themselves and to the
words around them. Above all, they support the process of monastic
meditatio. In this regard, Clm. 14731 is not the most expansive or revealing
book in terms of its images, but seeing it in light of othcr twelfthcentury
Regensburg manuscripts helps us understand how the book and
its pictures functioned as agents of monastic thought.
In certain ways, the closest manuscript to Clm. 14731 is Clm. 13002, a
miscellany made in the nearby Benedictine monastery of St. George in
Prüfening between 1158 and 1165. The heart of this volume is the Glossarium
Salomonis, a lengthy alphabetical glossary (fol. 8v-208v),
followed by the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana, a much shorter text
containing Greek and Latin word lists (fol. 209-218) and then several
short Old and New Testament commentaries (fol. 218v-229). The whole
book is preceded by a gathering of images that represent, in order, Man
as the Microcosm, cauterization procedures, anatomical diagrams,
allegories of the Vices and Virtues, Jerusalem, a diploma of the
monastery’s holdings, and a list of its books. As Elisabeth Klemm has
noted, the sequence of pictures represents a spiritual progression for the
monastic audience.42 What is notable in connection to Clm. 14731 is a
somewhat similar combination of ancient knowledge (the source of the
40 For images as „summary,“ see Mary Carruthers, The Craft of Thought. Meditation,
Rhetoric, and the Making of Images, 400- 1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998), esp. 147-51, 201-03, 241-43.
41 Carruthers, The Craft ofThought, passim.
42 Klemm, Die romanischen Handschriften, v. 1, 60-64 and v. 2, figs. 150-64.
56 ADAMS. COHEN
medical and anatomical images), the Old Testament (the allegories), and
the Holy Land (the depiction of Jerusalem and accompanying text from
Bede’s De locis sanctis). The opening image of the microcosm in Clm.
13002 functioned as a dispositio (Figure 5), the foundation for and
summary of what was to follow, and so it is a conceptual counterpart to
the world map that served as the co/lectio at the end of Clm. 14 731.
Figure 5: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 13002, fol. 7v, Microcosm. See
also the colour plate at the end of the volume.
ART OF REGENSBURG MISCELLA’\11 S 57
Furthermore, the tituli for the microcosm picture were drawn from
the Elucidarium of Honorius Augustodunensis,43 whose De imago mundi
opened Clm . 14731; both manuscripts are thus witnesses to the great
impact of Honorius in Regensburg, where he was active earlier in the
twelfth century.44
The use of material from the popular Elucidarium for the microcosm
tituli in Clm. 13002 is not surprising, but it is worth noting that the Elucidarium
itself was not among the contents of that manuscript. This is a
simple, but useful, reminder about the process by which such miscellanies
as Clm. 13002 and Clm. 14731 were compiled. As 1 have demonstrated
elsewhere, the act of selecting and copying the diverse sources of
the texts and images in Clm. 13002 was an exercise in monastic compi/atio
and meditatio, a method by which the Regensburg-Prüfening monks
deliberated on preexisting material and then created a new manuscript
storehouse of information that would serve as fodder for future rumination.
45 And just as Clm. 13002 was both the product of and vehicle for
monastic cogitation, so too was the artistically more humble but textually
more varied Clm. 14731.
Still, we should not be deceived by the relatively simple character of
the drawings in Clm. 14731. As we have seen, these images were used to
43 See, fundamentally, Boeckler, Buchmalerei, 20-29, 91-94. Also important are
Bruno Reudenbach, ‚“In Mensuram Humani Corporis‘: Zur Herkunft der Auslegung
und Illustration von Vitruv III im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert,“ in Text und Bild:
Aspekte des Zusammenwirkens zweier Künste in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed.
Christei Meier and Uwe Ruberg (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1980), 651-88, and MarieTherese
d’Alverny, „L’homme cornrne symbole: le microcosme,“ in Simboli e
simbologia nel/’alto medioevo, Settimane de Studio del Centro ltaliano di Studi
sull’Alto Medioevo 23 (Spoleto: CISAM, 1976), vol. 1, 123-83; reprinted in
d’Alverny, Etudes sur Je symbolisme de la Sagesse et sur J’iconographie (Aldershot:
Variorum, 1993), IX, both with further literature.
H The most accepted account of Honorius‘ life and chronology of his writings has
been provided by Valerie Flint in her „The Career of Honorius Augustodunensis.
Some Fresh Evidence,“ Revue benedictine 82 (1972): 63-86; „The Chronology of
the Works of Honorius Augustodunensis,“ Revue benedictine 82 (1972): 215-42;
„The Commentaries of Honorius Augustodunensis on the Song of Songs,“ Revue
benedictine 84 (1974): 196-211; and Honorius Augustodunensis of Regensbur9
(Aldershot: Variorum, 1995) for an overview.
•s Adam S. Cohen, „Making Memories in a Medieval Miscellany,“ Gesta 48 (2009):
135-52. See also Melanie Holcomb, Pen and Parchment: Drawing in the Middle
Ages (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2009), 15-16, and 96 for a sirnilar
assessrnent of Clrn. 14159 (on which see below and n. 53).
58 ADAMS. COHEN
highlight the wonders section of the miscellany, to communicate the
place of Old Testament and antique marvels within a Christian theological
system, and to provide additional material upon which the Regensburg
monks could cogitate. The presence of such pictures specifically in a
miscellany is also significant, as a comparison to Clm. 13002 again makes
clear. With tituli drawn from the Elucidarium, we might expect the microcosm
picture to appear in a manuscript containing works of Honorius,
like Clm. 13105, which was made in Prüfening in the second quarter of
the twelfth century and includes the Elucidarium, Inevitabile, Offendiculum
and De Apostatis.46 Yet that book has only modest initials (Figure 6),
and as a general rule Honorius’s manuscripts were not illustrated, in Regensburg
or elsewhere.
The incorporation of pictorial matter as part of such a cogitative
method might even be said to have influenced the inclusion of narrative
scenes in Clm. 1307 4, one of the earliest illustrated Lives of the Apostles.
In brief, the manuscript contains a vita for each apostle supplemented by
two for Saints Christopher and Barnabas; a pair of images devoted to the
life and especially the martyrdom of the respective apostle or saint
precedes each text (Figure 7).47 The major exception is his Expositio on
the Song of Songs with four complex allegorical images that were likely
original parts of Honorius‘ treatise.48 But although this text had a
relatively wide distribution,49 the four pictures in the Expositio are not
46 Klemm, Die romanischen Handschriften, v. 1, 52-53.
47 The images for James the Less and Barnabas are found at the end of their
respective texts, and certain other texts and pictures have been lost from the
manuscript, which retains nineteen figural pages. For the manuscript in general,
with details of its contents, see Klemm, Die romanischen Handschriften, vol. 1,
68-71 and vol. 2, figs. 178-83.
48 Curschmann, „lmagined Exegesis,“ 153-60. On the commentary, see Flint, „The
Commentaries“; E. Ann Matter, The Voice of My Beloved: the Song of Songs in
Western Medieval Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1990), 58-76, 155-58; jeremy Cohen, „‚Synagoga conversa‘: Honorius
Augustodunensis, the Song of Songs, and Christianity’s ‚Eschatological jew,“‚
Speculum 79 (2004): 309-40.
49 Curschmann, „lmagined Exegesis,“ 154, lists six extant manuscripts from the
twelfth century: Clm. 4550 (Benediktbeuern), Clm. 5118 (Beuerberg). Clm.
18125 (Tegernsee), Vienna, ÖNB, lat. 942 (Salzburg?), Baltimore, W. 29
(Lambach), and Augsburg 1 2 2° 13 (southwest Germany). Flint, Honorius
Augustodunensis of Regensburg, 167-68, dates the Vienna manuscript to the
thirteenth century. All these manuscripts contain the Expositio, Sigillum S.
Mariae, and Hexameron .
ART OF REGENSBURG MISCElLA’ilES 59
even equal in numberto the illustrations in Clm. 14731. Itwould seem, at
least in twelfth-century Regensburg, that concentrations of illustration
were more usually connected with theological miscellanies like Clm.
14731. Unlike the copying of a Gospel Book or a Sacramentary, for
example, whose texts (and occasional pictures) were steeped in and
restricted by tradition and authority, creating miscellanies within the
context of monastic meditatio provided monks greater opportunity to use
diverse visual materials as part of this collation process.
Figure 6: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 13105, fol. 83r, Initials from
Honorius, lnevitabile. See also the colour plate at the end of the volume.
so Curschmann, „lmagined Exegesis.“ For an overview of book illustration in
Regensburg in the twelfth century, see Elisabeth Klemm, „Die Regensburger
Buchmalerei des 12. Jahrhunderts,“ in Regensburger Buchmalerei: Von frühkarolingischer
Zeit bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters, ed. Karl Dachs and
Florentine Mütherich (Munich: Prestel Verlag, 1987), 39-46. The majority of
figural illustrations are found in theological miscellanies.
60 ADAMS. COHEN
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.
As such, the manuscript could be considered a miscellany of apostles‘
vitae, to which the pictures add further material for visual and mental
contemplation.
In her catalogue entry for Clm. 13074, Klemm pointed out the difficulties
in localizing the manuscript to either St. George in Prüfening or St.
Emmeram in Regensburg and in giving the manuscript a precise date.51
The same issues pertain to Clm. 14399, an Ambrose manuscript with illustrations
of the Days of Creation within the Hexameron.52 Part of the
s1 Klemm, Die romanischen Handschriften, vol. 1, 68-71. She concluded that the
manuscript was made c. 1175 but was unwilling to ascribe it to one monastery or
the other. Attributing this and other manuscripts to one monastery or the other
is based on several. often conflicting pieces of information. Klemm’s catalogue
entries should be consulted for details in each specific case.
s2 Klemm, Die romanischen Handschriften, vol. 1, 32-34 and v. 2, figs. 61-65. The
manuscript contains, in addition to the Hexameron, the following Ambrose texts:
ART OF REGENSBURG MISCELLA:'<IES 61
problem is that Clm. 13074 and Clm. 14399 have been compared stylistically
to manuscripts attributed to both St. George (Clm. 13002) and St.
Emmeram (Clm. 14159). But as important as it is to untangle the stylistic
connections among these manuscripts, it is more important to recognize
that what unites them is not only their shared artistic vocabulary, but
also their shared intellectual armature. Clm. 13002, the miscellany with
pictures of the microcosm and others, provided the Prüfening monks
with images that could be used in their meditations toward spiritual advancement.
This function should be extended to Clm. 14731 as weil. Clm.
14159, a treatise usually called De /audibus sanctae crucis that has been
attributed convincingly to Conrad of Hirsau, begins with an extensive
prefatory cycle that visually articulates the relationship of the Old Testament
to the New with an emphasis on the cross.sJ At the very end of the
treatise are two more full-page drawings: the first represents the division
of the world into 72 lands and languages through the sons of Noah (Figure
8), and the second is a genealogy of Christ from Terach through
Abraham, Moses, and Solomon, among others.
Although not directly based on the Dialogus de cruce text, these
concluding pictures can be interpreted in light of Clm. 14731’s world
map with the sons of Noah as a demonstration that the christological
theology of the treatise is encompassed within the broader scope of
(sacred) history. In short, while these various Regensburg-Prüfening
manuscripts have been considered as a group mainly in order to identify
the hand of a particular artist, to localize a book either to St. Emmeram or
St. George, or to chart stylistic developments, the presence of stylistic
connections also signals that the visual and textual contents of the
De Paradiso, De Cain et Abel, and the Recapitulationes. The illustrations are
related closely to pictures in the Admont Bible produced in Salzburg around
1140 (Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, ser. nov. 2701-02).
53 On the manuscript, see primarily Wolfgang Härt!, Text und Miniaturen der Handschrift
‚Dialogus de Jaudibus sanctae cmcis‘ (München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
Clm 14159). Ein monastischer Dialog und sein Bilderzyklus (Hamburg: Kovac,
2007), and, in brief, Klemm, Die romanischen Handschriften, vol. 1. 34-37, and
Holcomb, Pen and Parchment, 94-96. For the attribution to Conrad of Hirsau, see
Marco Rainini, „Oltre il velo delle immagini. II ‚Dialogus de cruce e Corradof’Peregrinus‘
di Hirsau,“ Rivista di Storia de/ Cristianesimo 6 (2009): 121-58,
who has proposed that the treatise more properly be called Dia/ogus de cruce. 1
am most grateful to Father Rainini for sharing the results of his important
research with me.
62 ADAMS. COHEN
different books should be seen as interconnected components of the
monks‘ theological and spiritual activities.
Figure 8: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 14159, fol. 187v, Sons of Noah
diagram. See also the colour plate at the end of the volume.
ART OF REGENSBL’RG M!SCEl.l.ANIES 63
In order to create Clm. 14731, the St. Emmeram monk or monks responsible
for its texts and images drew on an extensive Iibrary. The various
texts in the miscellany have garnered little interest from scholars of
religion, but a consideration of both individual pieces and their juxtaposition
ought to reward further investigation. Nor have the „humble“ drawings
captured the attention of art historians, who have been inclined to
study more intriguing Regensburg products like the Dialogus de cruce
images of Clm. 14159 or the microcosm of Clm. 13002. But it is precisely
in the more pedestrian miscellany of Clm. 14731 that we can observe
how the St. Emmeram compiler forged a meaningful assemblage of texts
and images that worked in complementary ways to communicate ideas
about the suitability of all kinds of knowledge for understanding the
Christian universe. Like its more prominent Regensburg-Prüfening siblings,
this manuscript provides evidence for the practice of Benedictine
monks to use a wide range of pictorial and textual materials to explore
their world and express their beliefs. In creating the Clm. 14731 miscelIany,
the anonymous Regensburg monk produced another brick toset beside
the others in the spiritual and intellectual edifice at St. Emmeram.54
54 1 thank Lucie Dole:Zalova for the opportunity to participate in the stimulating
conference in Prague and to the editors for their efforts in bringing this volume
to press. Luciana Cuppo in particular offered many valuable comments that have
improved this essay. During the course of my work, several students at the
University of Toronto provided excellent research assistance: Susannah Brower,
jenneka janzen, Hannah Moland, and Adam Stead. Erika Loic at Harvard
University supplied timely bibliographic help under duress, and Linda Safran, as
always, has been an invaluable reader. A grant from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada was critical in supporting my research
and providing funds for the purchase of necessary photographic materials. 1
express my deep gratitude to the Council and to the individuals listed here.
64 ADAMS. COHEN
Appendix: The relationship among C/m. 536, Clm. 14731, and C/m. 14348
That these three manuscripts have shared content has long been noticed
but has not been sufficiently investigated.55 lt is worth untangling the
relationship among the three in order to understand better the choices
made by the compiler of Clm. 14731. The best description of the shared
contents is Helmer’s provisional but detailed catalogue entry for the latest
of the manuscripts, Clm. 14348, which includes incipits and explicits
for most of the texts as weil as references to printed editions (for the
most part 1 have not repeated these in my Table 1, where the shared
texts are indicated by an asterisk). Clm. 14348 is a !arge book (28 x 21
cm), written in St. Emmeram in the first quarter ofthe thirteenth century
and containing works by Gaufridus Babion, Rupert of Deutz, Gerhoh of
Reichersberg, and Honorius Augustodunensis, including the Elucidarium
and De imagine mundi, which occupies fol. 220-241v. Clm. 536 begins
with the Imago mundi, and from this point the two manuscripts have the
same contents in the same order: the Letters of Paul and Seneca, the „Patristic
excerpts,“ and the Physiologus. Clm. 14348 ends with the Physiologus,
while Clm. 536 continues with charms and other medicinal
materials. Although Clm. 14348 is much !arger than Clm. 536, which
measures only 20.5 x 14 cm, and is for the most part written in two columns
as opposed to the single text block of Clm. 536, the layout of the
latter manuscript is remarkably similar to the earlier one; even the use
of section headings is virtually the same (though „AUG“ can be made
„AUGUST“ vel sim.). lt is not surprising, therefore, that Helmer thought
that Clm. 14348 copied Clm. 536.
Despite their close similarities, 1 doubt that Clm. 14348 directly copies
Clm. 536, in !arge part because I find it difficult to imagine that the
thirteenth-century St. Emmeram monks would have had access to a
small book that seems to have been used pastorally in the nearby monastery
and hospital at Prüll. lt is more likely that the scribes of Clm. 14348
had recourse instead to t he exemplar of Clm. 536, which remained in St.
Emmeram itself. Although this seems a small point, it does shed light
55 Flint, „The Place and Purpose of the Works of Honorius Augustodunensis,“ 114;
Flint, „Honorius Augustodunensis. Imago Mundi,“ 26-28; Die romanischen Handschriften,
203; Elisabeth Klemm, Die illuminierten Handschriften des 13. Jahrhunderts
deutscher Herkunft in der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek (Wiesbaden:
Reichert, 1998), 59; Helrner, Katalog der Handschriften aus dem Benediktinerkloster
St Emmeram.
ART OF REGEl’SBL’RG MISCELLA ‚llES 65
onto the question of whether Clm. 14731 was copied from Clm. 536. In
some ways, these two manuscripts are closc-in size (Clm. 14 731 is 18.5
x 13 cm), date (Clm. 536 was made between 1143 and 1146, Clm. 14731
between 1145 and 1152), and contents, and one might therefore assume,
as Flint did, that they had similar purposes. Both begin with the Imago
mundi, the Letters of Paul and Seneca, and the „Patristic“ excerpts. The
only deviations in the nineteen shared texts are the erasure of the „lucky
days“ and the displacement of the Seven Wonders of the world in Clm.
14731. But there are subtle differences between the manuscripts even
within the shared parts, some meaningful, others less so. For example, in
Clm. 14731, every line on every page is generally written to fill the entire
text block, forcing chapter headings to be situated in the margins; in Clm.
536 they are regularly embedded within the text block. In fact, the scribe
of Clm. 536 seems to have cared a Jot about these chapter headings; for
example, on fol. 6v there was not enough space within the line, so the
scribe inserted „De mesopota“ and then finished „mia“ in the margin.56
More significant is the fact that there are many apparently contemporaneous
marginal corrections to the main text in Clm. 536 that are not in corporated
into Clm. 14731,57 suggesting that those who made Clm. 536
were more punctilious (Flint 1982 calls the text „excellent“), and that the
scribes who made Clm. 14731 did not have Clm. 536 before their eyes.
Once again, it is logical that if Clm. 536 was in use in Prüll, then those responsible
for Clm. 14 731 turned instead to a common exemplar. Indeed,
Flint has remarked on the „puzzling“ nature ofthe Clm. 14731 version of
Honorius’s text, suggesting that it represents a first version of what is
called the 1133 text ofthe Imago mundi.sa
Unfortunately, it is not possible to say much more about this presumed
exemplar, except to point out that that not only was there an earlier
manuscript of Honorius’s Imago mundi produced in St. Emmeram
before 1143 but also that it was already in a miscellany, which was then
copied by or for Prüll. Because of its long intellectual tradition, St.
56 lt might be worth pointing out that, despite Clm. 536’s carefully corrected text
and concern for headings, the quality of the parchment is not particularly high.
This is likely a reflection of the relative status of Prüll and St. Ernrneram.
57 To take but one of several such exarnples. On fol. 30 of Clrn. 536, De anno lunari
(chap. 61; PL 172, eo!. 155), the rnain scribe jumps directly from Tertius„. to
Quintus„„ and so the corrector has added Quartus„. in the margin. Clm. 14731,
fol. 29v, sirnply lacks this correction altogether.
58 Flint, „Honorius Augustodunensis. Imago Mundi,“ 41.
66 ADAM S. COHE1\
Emmeram makes more sense as the source of this original miscellany
than does PrülJ.59 Presumably the contents at the beginning of this lost
miscellany matched what is found in all three copies (Clm. 536, 14731,
14348), but it is impossible to know what came after, though it likely
contained the Physiologus as in Clm. 536 and 14348. Within a few years,
the first nineteen sections of the miscellany model were copied again in
Clm. 14731, whose compiler then turned to any number of other
manuscripts available at St. Emmeram for the materials not found in Clm.
536 and Clm. 14348. The different contents, glosses, and illustrations
with their emphasis on knowledge and marvels speak to the intellectual,
rather than pastoral, concerns of the compiler. Finally, in the thirteenth
century, yet another St. Emmeram monk turned to the now-lost
miscellany exemplar, and the many sermon collections in this volume
indicate once again a more pastoral interest.
59 Unfortunately, the earliest catalogues of books in St. Emmeram do not give any
indication of the presence of an earlier miscellany with the Imago mundi. For
these catalogues, dated 1347, 1449/52, and 1500/01, see Christine Elisabeth
Ineichen-Eder, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz
4/1: Die Bistümer Passau und Regensburg (Munich: Beck, 1977). The catalogue of
1347 lists two books with the Imago mundi. One is in a section (16} of libri
hystoriarum and listed between liber lulii de situ orbis and scolastica hystoria
(Ineichen-Eder, 158, II. 203-04). The second is in a single volume that also
contains the Elucidarium as weil as a liber de miraculis sancta Marie (lneichenEder,
158, II. 230-31). This second must be Clm. 14348, and Klemm, 1980, 31,
seems to have considered the first entry tobe a reference to Clm. 14731, but this
should remain an open question. Konrad Pleystainer’s 1449/52 catalogue lists
two items of interest: a Honoritts de ymagine mundi; item descripcio terre sancta,
which must be Clm. 14731, and a volume with various sermons, the Elucidarium
and the Imago mundi, which is surely Clm. 14348 (Ineichen-Eder, 173, II. 310-
17). In the 1500/01 catalogue of Dionysius Menger, finally, is a lengthy and
detailed description of Clm. 14348 (lneichen-Eder, 21 0, II. 1001-1017), and of
Clm. 14731(lneichen-Eder,223-24, II. 1527-37).
1 have not been able to consult Zwettl, Stiftsbibliot hek, 172, a twelfth-century
manuscript that Flint („Honorius Augustodunensis. Imago Mundi,“ 40) consi dered
to be „of exceptionally high authority“ and that she thought might have
originated in Regensburg. lt would be worth examining this manuscript in light
of these renewed considerations.
ART OF REGH:Sßt:RG MlSCELLA:–llES
Tab/e 1: ListofContentsofC/m.14731
(information about items shared with Clm. 536 and Clm. 14348, indicated with an
asterisk, is taken from Helmer except where differences are noted)
*Honorius, Imago Mundi
*Letters of Paul and Seneca (prefaced by Bk. 12 of )erome, De viris illustribus)
*Augustine, excerpts from Confessiones
In principio creavit (Bk. 12, 20, 29)
Terra erat invisibi/is, etc. (Bk. 12, 21, 30)
Symbola Trinitatis in homine (Bk. 13, 11, 12)
Quomodis dicitur aliquid prius (Bk. 12, 29, 40)
*Quodvultdeus, Adversus quinque haereses, Sermon X, 5, 7
*Wonders of the OT (based on Gregory the Great?)
*Commentary on joel, derived from lsidore, Sententiarum (Bk. 2, 23 [not, as per
Helmer, De fide catholica]) and Etymologiae (Bk. 12, 5)
*Passage about the prophets of the Chaldeans and Greeks, including the Sybil
*Passage about Measurements
*Passage about Chronicling (with a reference to jerome)
*Jerome, Misterium hebdomadis, Letter 52, 3
‚“lsidore on Sapientia and Scientia (based on Differentiarum, book 2, Liber de
Differentiis Rerum, 147 and 148)
*De signo sanctae crucis
67
*De salvatione Salomonis (based on Augustine, Ennarationes in Psalmos, Psalm 126)
*Moralinterpretation of David and Solomon (attributed to Ambrose, but actually
Gerhoh of Reichersberg, Expositionis in Psalmos Continuatio 9, Psalm 88 [PL 194,
col. 542D])
*Passage on the Mercy of God (attributed to John of Constantinople, taken from lvo of
Chartres, Decretals 15, 62, which includes the attribution to John (this text is
ultimately from Bachiarius Monachus, as per Helmer, but that was not the direct
source for Clm. 14 731])
*Augustine, Exhortation on how to Jive (De agone christiano, eh. 13)
*On saints and sins (attributed to Augustine, but through Burchard [Helmer] or more
likely lvo, Decretals, 15, 82)
* Gregory the Great, On ‚“perfect men“ (Homiliae i11 Ezechie/em Prophetam 1, Homily
9)
Bede, Reckoning Easter (De ordinatione feriarum Paschalium, Post resurrectionem vel
ascensionem Domini Sa/vatoris … Pascha nobis iustum est observare {visum est
ce/ebrare], PL 90, eo!. 607-610)
Zachary ofBesan~on, Praefatio in Quatuor Libros Sequentes (extensive, but highly
abbreviated, passages from Preface 1, starting Saepissime praemissa recapitulant
evangelistae … quod Deus, omne, PL 186, col. 19-36)
De iiii temporibus and days you can fast („De quatuor temporibus … )
Pseudo-Alcuin, excerpt from De divinis officiis (Vigiliae vero quae a pastoribus … a
fidelibus manditur, PL 101, eo!. 1175)
68 ADAM S. COHEN
On masses and history (Vel a/iud tres misse fi9urant … que numquam terminabitur.
Based on Honorius?)
De iiii deibus an pasca (Noscat vestri caritas … lterum vice mulierum cantores aBnus
dei.)
De diebus rogationum (Letania graece /atine rogatio. Tres dies rogationum … que est l
[40} dies.)
Bede, Homilia in Vigilia Pentecostes, (Homilies, bk. 2, 11, Quinquagesima vero die …
i/la summae pacis tranqui/lites, PL 94, col. 194-195; plus 5 lines very sim ilar to
Homily 10, PL 94, col. 187)
Rupert of Deutz, excerpts from successive books of Opus de Gloria et Honore Filii
Hominis Super Mattheum [ except book 7) (lncipits follow the PL 168-manuscript
varies at different points. Septem matres fuisse steriles … ; Jacob, inquit, genuit
Joseph„.“; „Si enim in virum sanctum … ; dum concepisset hos geminos.„; Hanc ejus
gratiam evangelista … ; Porro nebula fornicationis i/lius … ; Nam Salmon, ait, genuit
Booz de Rechab … ; plerosque mirari, cur benignitas Dei … ; Vide/icet propter
peccatum domus Abrahae … ; Primum, Emmanue/ … ; Elige, inquit Dominus, duodecim
viros singulos … ; Populus qui ambulabat in tenebris … ; Mutetur modus praelii … ;
scilicet species columbae … ; Qui autem dixerit fratri suo raca … ;Si peccaverit in te
frater tuus … ; Sunt namque tres orationis modi … ; Primus omnium jejunasse legitur
Moses … ; Si ergo jejunarent propter causasejusmodi … )
lsidore, Sententiarum (Bk. 1, 22, Omnis enim latituclo Scripturarum … super universam
camem, PL 83, col. 587)
Rupert of Deutz, excerpt from Opus de Gloria (unascribed; Bk. 5, 6, Ecce haec est
oratio Dominica, septem distincta partibus … dabit vobis.)
Rupert of Deutz, excerpt from Opus de Gloria (Bk. 6, 6, Nemo potest duobus dominis
servire. Duo domini tune ibi esse coeperunt … Quae haereditas infilio lsai? PL 168,
eo!. 1441-1442; Quis autem vestrum cogitans potest adjicere„. palmum unum.
1444)
Material about Herod, Andromache, commentary about Jonathan (unidentified
source[s])
Rupert of Deutz. excerpt from Opus de Gloria (Bk. 8, 9, Quid ergo faciat is cui
credita … non tu so/us graveris, PL 168, col. 1484-1485)
De xii apostolis (Rupert, Bk. 8, 10 continues wi th a discussion of the Apostles, but this
is not the text in Clm. 14731)
Discourse on Nathanael (unidentified source[s])
Zachary ofBesan~on, Praefatio in Quatuor Libros Sequentes (Preface 2: Matthaeus
cognomento Levi … apprehendere expetunt recognoscan, PL 186, col. 35- 38)
Passage on the relative value ofthe Old and New Testament (citing jerome,
Augustine)
On the Temple Showbread (based on Bede, De Tabernaculo, 1,7) {Diagram}
*Bede, De septem mundi miracu/is (unascribed)
On the Palladium (unidentified source[s])
On Sebastes/Neapolis and other items in the Holy Land (unidentified source[s])
On Noah’s Ark (unidentified source[s]) {Diagram}
On Creation (citing Orpheus and Hesiod; unidentified source[s))
Discourse on Lk 17,34
ART OF REGENSBURG MISCELLANIES
On Divinations (citing Varro but based on lsidore ofSeville)
Passage justifying secular works ( citing Jerome, but actually Bede, Expositionis
al/egoricae in Samuelem prophetam)
Passage on secular knowledge (Ambrose cited explicitly once; Pseudo-Ambrose)
Drawings of Labyrinth/ Jericho
World Map/Sons ofNoah
69
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.