The Wiesbaden Miscellany: The Deliberate Construction of a Haphazard Collection

The Wiesbaden Miscellany:
The Deliberate Construction of a Haphazard Collection
Kees Sehepers
The degree of intended coherence as well as the projected use of miscellanies-
especially if their content is diverse and every indication of
ownership or origin is absent-is notoriously difficult to establish. The
danger of over-interpretation looms !arge, as scholarly analysis tends to
seek coherence in whatever it investigates, even when on principle
„chance“ must be considered an important factor. On the other hand, if
one submits to agnosticism for Iack of explicit information, the significance
of a variety of clues risks being overlooked. The various, mostly
nebulous suggestions about origin, design and use of the Wiesbaden
miscellany bring into focus this problern of the interpretability of miscellanies.
I intend to identify and interpret these clues, without exceeding
the Iimits of what can be known.
The Wiesbaden miscellany, a voluminous folio-size codex named
after the place where it is currently kept, contains some 80 widely
divergent Middle Dutch texts,1 whose sole common denominator is that
they qualify as „devotional literature.“ Within the category of
miscellanies of devotional texts, the Wiesbaden collection stands out for
being very early, dating from the first decades of the fifteenth century.
This early date is likely a partial explanation for the fact that the
collection contains so many rare and unique texts. The critical edition of
this miscellany has recently been published.2
The codex was probably both written and owned by lay people in a
Flemish city. This hypothetical origin is based on the analysis that will be
Wiesbaden, Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, 3004 B 10.
Hans Kienhorst and Kees Schepers, Het Wiesbadense handschrift. Hs. Wiesbaden,
Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, 3004 B 10, with contributions to the introduction
by Amand Berteloot and Paul Wackers, Middeleeuwse Verzamelhandschriften
uit de Nederlanden 1 1 (Hilversum: Verloren, 2009).
DELIBERATE CONSTRt:CTlON OF A HAPHAZARD COU.ECTT0:-1 2 1 9
presented i n this contribution. The material aspects of t h e codex, however,
do not fit a privately owned miscellany of devotional texts. Because
of this incongruity, the Wiesbaden miscellany constitutes a category of
its own. Numerous other miscellanies of devotional texts in Middle Dutch
exist, but the Wiesbaden codex is markedly different and has none of the
material characteristics one would expect. On the other hand, there are
numerous codices that are comparable in their material aspects, but they
either do not contain this type of texts or they were in the possession of
institutional owners, mostly monasteries.
In the following I will first present the notable aspects-both material
and textual-of the codex. Its many idiosyncrasies are the defining
characteristic of the manuscript. I will identify these idiosyncrasies and
explain what is remarkable about them. Thus it can be shown that the
codex conflicts in many ways with expectations based on knowledge of
other codices.
Secondly, I will present an hypothesis about the genesis, use and
provenance of the codex that helps explain the identified idiosyncrasies.
The Wiesbaden miscellany might be hard to interpret, but we can be
sure that the codex did not come about in a vacuum. Relations to the social
and religious context did exist, and the codex must have served some
purpose. I will try to read the material and textual signs that tel! us implicitly
what the codex fails to teil us expressis verbis.
1 . /diosyncrasies ofthe codex
Only after a full codicological analysis of the codex, an evaluation o f its
content, and an examination of the clues about its use, will its remarkable
material and many textual features become apparent. Some features
are not striking at first sight, and their peculiarity can only be acknowledged
after the comprehensive analysis. I will put forward the results of
such analysis without elaborating on the detailed work necessary to
attain them.
a) Basicfacts
First it is necessary to establish the basic facts about the Wiesbaden
codex. The manuscript contains 153 folio-size leaves, according to the
220 KEEs SeHEPERs
modern foliation in black ink.3 Several codicological units can be distinguished;
they are separated by an asterisk in the following collation
formula.4
[1 is pastedown] l12 (2-13) 14 15116 ,Zl4 (17-23″26-32 24j25) .312 (33-44) *
45160 1:10 (46-55) .5.4 (56-59) 61 * 212 minus 1 after 2 (62-72) zlo minus 1 after
17 (73-89) * 8.4 (90-91 “ 1 09-110 92) * 212 (93-104) 1Q4 (105-108) * 1.110
(111-120) * 121 li4 (122-125) 126 * 1.3.4 (127-130) .1.44 (131 133-135 132)
136 * 1.5.4 (137-140) .lQ.B (141-148) 114 minus 1 after 3 (149-151) 152 [153
is pastedown]
The codex is written o n paper, with the exception of two parchment
quires (fol. 93-104 and fol. 105-108) that were inserted into the binio
90-9 1 “ 1 09 – 1 1 0 . Thus there are 1 3 1 paper and 22 parchment leaves.
The leaves measure c. 29 x 2 1cm, and are written in two columns. Nine
scribal hands can be distinguished. Two scribal hands wrote on the
parchment quires only. Since these quires were probably obtained from
elsewhere by the Compilers of the codex, the persans behind the two
stints in question are most likely not connected to the persans behind
the other scribal hands. These seven hands all write at least part of their
work on the same type of paper. More specifically, they share the same
batch of paper.s The manuscript must have been written in the first decades
of the fifteenth century, since it was partly finished in 1 41 0, judging
from a colophon on fol. 2v.6
The texts are written in Flemish and Brabantine regional dialects.
Information about the identity of the scribes and early ownership of the
manuscript is completely lacking. It is largely unknown how the book
The foliation includcs both pastedowns.
Quires are numbered and underlined. Superscript figures indicate the nurober of
leaves in each quire; missing leaves are mentioned in italics. For example, the
nurober 12 indicates that the quire consists of 6 conjugate leaves (12 manuscript
leaves). Modern foliation is added between brackets. Single, inserted leaves are
indicated in bold. Pairs of conjugate leaves are separated by a vertical line ( I ).
The watermark in this prevalent type of paper, used by all the scribes, is a unicorn,
and can be identified with Gerhard Piccard, Die Wasserzeichenkartei Piccard
im Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart, Findbuch 10 (Fabeltiere) (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1980), Abt. 111, Einhorn, Grossformate, fig. 2480; cf. Kienhorst and
Schepers, Het Wiesbadense handschrift, 24-27.
Anno domini MCCCC ende x ja er. Ende hi hout CI.XI bladeren. Nota. („In the year of
the Lord 1410. And it contains 161 leaves. Nota.“) Some leaves (perhaps a quire)
have gone missing since this note was written but there is no apparent loss of
text.
DEUBERA TE CO:-ISTRL’CT!Oi’i OF A HAPHAZARD COLLECT!O!’\ 2 2 1
ended up in Wiesbaden.7
The manuscript is bound in a contemporaneous binding; the boards
are covered with leather, decorated with simple linear motifs. Parts o f
the locks have been preserved. l n a recent restoration the text block was
reconnected to the binding.
What makes the codex truly unique is the presence of a !arge collection
of pre-Eyckian drawings, either glued onto leaves of the manuscript
itself or pasted onto separate leaves that were inserted into the codex.S
The following table shows the structure of the codex and the position
of the inserted leaves in relation to the texts and the distribution of
scribal hands.
Table 1: Codicological structure, texts and scribal hands
Quires Leaves Texts and Drawings Hands
[+1] [1: leafwith drawing on the inside of the
2 – 1 3
upper cover]
2: o.a. table of contents Wech van salicheit
(Way ofSalvationJ
[2vb: tipped-in drawing]
3-13: Way ofSalvation
1
1
[+ 3]
214 17-23􀎰26􀎱32
[14, 15, 16: inserted leaves with drawings]
17-23: Way ofSalvation 1 [+ 2] [24, 25: inserted leaves with drawings on
312
410
33-44
45, 46-55
fol. 24]
26-::32: Way Q[Salvation
33-44: Way ofSa/vation
[45r: tipped-in drawing]
4Sva-50vb: a.o. jean Gerson, Mirair de /’ame
51vb: Augustijnken, Commentary on the
__ Gospel of )ohn
1
1
1
2
The manuscript was at one time in the possession of the Premonstratensian abbey
of Arnstein an der Lahn, south-east of Koblenz, until its dissolution in the
secularizing movement of 1802. Cf. Bruno Krings, Das Prämonstratenserstift Amstein
a.d. Lahn im Mittelalter (1139-1527), Veröffentlichungen der Historischen
Kommission für Nassau 48 (Wiesbaden: Selbstverlag der Historischen Kommission
für Nassau, 1990), 269-70; cf. Kienhorst and Schepers, Het Wiesbadense
handschrift, 77.
Fora detailed study of the entire collection see Marta 0. Renger, ‚The Wiesbaden
codex B 10 and Netherlandish art around 1410,“ (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University,
1985).
222
—– ·
54
l+_!L -·
612-1
718-1
84
[+ 1]
9
104
(84)
1110
[+ 1]
124
1+.!1 􀁩 –
134
144
[+ 1]
[+_!] _ _
154
168
56-59, 60
62-72
73-89
90-91
„(109-1 10)
92
93 104
105-108
(90-91/)
“ 109-110
1 1 1-120
122-125
127-130
1 3 1 “ 133-135
143-146
1 4 1 – 142, 137-
140
147-14􀢴
KEES SCHE.PERS
56ra-58rb: Augustijnken, Commentary on
the Gospel of john
58va-59rb: Vanden vier vingheren ende
vanden dume
59va-60rb: o.a. Beswaringhe des /idens, 60v:
blank
j6!: i!!s􀁵t􀁵d JeaLwi!h 􀁶ra􀁷i!lgsJ –
62-72: Beda, Expositio Apocalypseos
7}-89: Beda, Expositio -1.Pocq!Jpseos_
90r-91 v: a.o. Praise of Mary
[92: inserted leafwith drawingsJ
93-1 04ra: Versified dtalogue on the
contemplative life
1 04ra-l 04vb: Questtons of a good, stncere
person
105ra-108ra: Questions ofa good. sincere
person
lO􀁸rb 108vb: ExPrc1ses for l spiritual pet .on
109r-109v: Exercises for a spiritual person
and prayers
110r: Prayer to john the Evangelist
[1 10v: ti􀁹􀁹ed-in drawing]
1 11ra-113vb: Anti-hierarchical disputation
114ra-1 16vb: Anti-hierarchical disputation
1 1 6vb-118rb: a.o. Over vier lichten
[118v: tipped-in drawing]
1 19ra-120vb: Prayers
[120v: tipped-in drawing]
(12 1: inserted leaf with drawings]
122-12Svb: a.o. Spiritual ladder with thirty
steps
[126: inserted Jeaf with 􀁺rawings]
127-130va34: Palmtree-treatise
130va35-vb: Sermon on John 8:59
131: Sermon on john 8:59
(132: inserted leafwith drawings]
132-134vb: Sermon on john 8:59
134vb-135vb: o.a. Limburg Sermon 46
f13􀁪: inserted leaf􀁻th_drawjngs]
143ra-146ra: o.a. Teachings ofSt Paul
146rb-146va: o.a. Sermon of Hendrik van
Calster
141ra-147ra: Devotional texts
147ra-148vb: Cordiale de quatuor novissimis
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
7
9
9
9
9
9
9
7
7
7
7
174-1
[+ 1 ]
[+ 1]
DELISERA TE COJ’\STRlCTIO!\ OF A HAPHAZARD COLLECTJO>,; 223
149-151 149ra-151rb13: Cordia/e de quatuor 7
novissimis
151rb14-31 : Two poems 7
[151v: tipped-in drawing]
(152: inserted leaf with tipped-in drawing
in col. rb]
[153: pastedown with tipped-in drawing]
a) Size ofpaper and book
The first striking aspect of the book is its !arge size (29 x 21 centimeters).
Being both !arge and voluminous, the codex has the material
appearance of an institutionally owned book-be it by a monastery or a
chapter-that would have been shelved with similar volumes. But this
book was apparently owned by private persans (as will be shown later).
Through its size and binding it has the Iook of a codex meant for serious
study, lectio divina, or even for use in a liturgical context, but it does in
fact contain texts that serve catechetical instruction and private devotion.
The nature of many of these texts would go much better with a
compact, small size book. The material model emulated by this bookirrespective
of the function it was to have-seems to have been a
common type o f monastic book.
b) Drawing on pastedown
On opening the codex, we are amazed to find a full-page drawing glued
onto the upper board. This drawing of Jesus as Salvator Mundi, like many
others in the codex, is of a kind one does not normally find in manuscripts.
9 These drawings were not made to be part of this manuscript,
and would have functioned outside of the codexto (Figure 22). Still, the
subject matter does make sense here: Christ, who states in the banderole
„I am the way, and the truth, and the life,“ stands as a visual motto i n
front o f the collection o f devotional texts that follows.ll
Cf. infra x.
1o All the drawings are published in color in Kienhorst and Schepers, Het Wiesbadense
handschrift.
1 1 The text written in the form of a distinctio says: „Since 1 am so beautiful/
wealthy/ strong/ benevolent/ just, why do you not Iove/ desire/ fear/ approach
me and stay away from sin?“ The Latin proverb in translation: „Your death, the
death of Christ, the deception of the world, the heavenly glory as weil as the torments
of hell are what you must keep in mind.“
224 KEEs SeHEPERs
Figure 22: Wiesbaden, Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, 3004 B 10, fol. lv: Salvator
Mundi (copyright Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv). See also the colour plate at the end
ofthis volume.
c) „Tab/es of contents“
The next page, fol. 2, the first leaf of the first quire of the codex, is for the
most part quite standard: it contains the table of contents of the very
]arge catechetical text it preceeds. This first leafwas apparently reserved
DELISERA TE COXSTRLCT!O􀁂 OF A HAPHAZARD COLLECTIOI\ 225
to accommodate the table that ends o n fol. 2v at the top of the first column.
The rest of fol. 2v, however, constitutes one of the strangest idiosyncrasies
in the entire codex (Figure 23). The page contains several
different elements:
A. The end of the table of contents of the Way ofSalvation
B. „Table of contents“ for the entire codex
C. Versifled exposition ofthe „lending rule“
D. Colophon
E. Tipped-in drawing, with accompanying verses.
Figure 23: Wiesbaden, Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, 3004 B 10, fol. Zv (copyright
Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv). See also the colour plate at the end ofthis volume.
Part of fol. 2v contains what at first Iooks like a table of contents of sorts
for the entire codex that was crammed into the remaining space. If one
ignores all the other elements on the page, the table of contents is in fact
fairly limited, both in size and in scope. What is immediately striking i s
226 KEES SeHEPERS
its impracticality. Chaotic, badly structured and very incomplete, it lists a
mere ten texts out of almost eighty, and it gives no indication as to where
they can be found in the codex.12 The few texts mentioned are not even
in the right order, which renders the Iist even more unusable. With these
characteristics-not all the texts, no usable references-what Iooks like
a table of contents cannot have been intended to have a referential function.
l t is more of a sample Iist, mentioning the texts that the scribes who
wrote the entries thought worthy of note. Prominent among these almest
randomly listed titles are those added by scribe 7, a person whose
activity can b e observed all through the codex and who will be discussed
in more detail below. Particularly strange are the two entries in the second
column, that both refer to very short texts. Here the Iist conspicuously
fails to mention some much Ionger texts that occur in the same
section. In short, the Iist falls into the category of tables of contents, but
because ofits special features it is different from normal examples.
d) „Lending rufe“
On the same page, between the two parts of the table, we come across a
versified formulation of a very basic Jending rule, instructing the reader
to return the book when finished. The rule betrays nothing, unfortunately,
about the owner of the book nor of the collection it belonged to.
Alse desen boec ghelesen es,
soe gheeften weder dies hi es,
soe sal menne u ten anderen male
gherne leenen, dat weet ic wale.
Waermen des oec nieten dade
ende menne anderwerven bade,
hi soude wesen onghereet;
dat seghet de ghene diet wel weet.
When you have finished reading this
book,
you should give it back to whom it
belongs,
so it will readily again
be lent to you, ofthat I am sure.
in case one did not do that
and one would ask for it again,
it would not be available;
thus says the person who knows weil.
This is essentially an admonition to bring back the book after borrowing,
with the warning that otherwise any further request to borrow it would
be rejected. The phrasing does not seem weil considered, because the
message contains an inherent contradiction if taken literally: it is obviously
impossible to borrow the book a second time if one did not return
it the first time. We must assume that the rule refers to a Situation when
IZ The texts listed are: 6, 12, 26, 32/3, 34, 42, 28, 17, 41, 47.
DELIBERATE CONSTRl.’CTIO!\ OF A H,\PHA7.:ARD COLLECTION 227
the book was not returned at the proper time, but eventually did end up
with the owner again. But if we ignore the logical anomaly, we may understand
the rule to simply deliver the messagc: „Be sure to return the
book.“ The rule would also make sense ifwe interpret it to mean that the
second request to borrow the book would come from someone eise; i n
that case the book would obviously n o t b e available.
This versified, moralistic Jending rule seems to suggest a library; but
that would be jumping to conclusions. lf we Iook at the Iitera! meaning,
then it simply states that this particular book can be borrowed from the
person who possesses it. That is what the second line says: „one should
give it back to whom it belongs.“ The library we tend to imagine might
therefore consist of just this one book.
But we can take the speculation one step further, to arrive at a different
sort of „library.“ Obviously, the concept of Jending books only makes
sense if there is more than one book to !end out. With numerous possible
borrowers and just one book, the requested book would be unavailable
most of the time. In order for the rule to serve a purpose, there must be
more books. lt is certainly conceivable that other, likeminded persons,
who together formed an informal group, also owned one or two similar
books and that the members of the group had agreed to I end these books
to each other. In that case the book would indeed be part of a library,
albeit a decentralized one and the rule would make sense.
The rule suggests that there are several prospective readers of the
codex who are members of an unidentified and undefined group. The
separate books they would !end and borrow constitute a communal library.
And if this communal library did not (yet) exist, then there certainly
seems to have been the desire to start one. This presumed
objective presupposes some communality, some shared cause between
the members of the group that would set them apart from other parts of
society. In the urban environment of a Flemish or Brabantine city one
can easily imagine such a group of individuals living apart but with a
shared, communal identity.
e) Anachronistic initial
The first real text in the codex, which is also the longest, starts on fol. 3r.
lt is entitled Wech van salicheit (‚The Way of Salvation‘) and deals in
forty-five leaves with everything that is needed for a person’s Salvation
and the avoidance of his or her down fall. Within the genre of catechetical
228 KEEs SeHEPERS
texts i n Middle Dutch, this is one of the clearest and best organized treatises.
13 lt is found in two more manuscripts, and was printed in 14 79 and
1480, perhaps because of its lucid and ingenious composition.14 The text
is written in an unremarkable early·fifteenth·century script. There is,
however, one extraordinary element that strongly signals that this is not
a run-of-the-mill manuscript. The initial the text opens with is anachronistic
(Figure 24). Nothing remotely comparable can be found in manuscripts
of the early fifteenth century, but close resemblance exists with
initials from the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The initial seems to have
been used to give the text a grand and ancient Iook, and thus attempts to
inject it with respectability. The motif resembles that of Celtic knots and
is combined with the equally ancient motif of serrated leaves.
Figure 24: Wiesbaden, Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, 3004 B 10, fol. 3r (copyright
Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv). See also the colour plate at the end ofthis volume.
n On Wech van Salicheit, see Schepers, Wech van sa/icheit Een catechetische summa
als centrale tekst in verzamelhandschrift Wiesbaden 3004 8 10 (The way of salva·
tion. A catechetical summa as central text in the miscellany Wiesbaden 3004 B
10), forthcoming.
14 [The Netherlands: Printer of “Wech der sielen salicheit,“ before 5 May 1479) (ILC
2205, IDL 4708, CA 1776). Experts agree that this is a book printed in Flanders. lt
has been attributed without certainty to both Ghent and Oudenaarde. Other edi·
tions are: (Utrecht: Printer with the Monogram, before 5 May 1479] (ILC 2206,
IDL 4709, CA 1777); Utrecht: (Printer with the Monogram], 13 )an. 1480 (ILC
2207, IDL 4710; CA 1775).
DELIBERATE CONSTRLCTIO!\ OF A HAPHAZARD COLLECTIO‘>: 229
Again, like the size of the book, this initial suggests that the Wiesbaden
codex was modcled after „classic“ monastic books. Even though the volume
was never part of a clerical, monastic milieu, its time-honoured
book culture seems to have been the measure of all things in the construction
of the Wiesbaden codex.
fJ Script
There is a conspicuous development in the types of script used in the
codex, from traditional, unassuming and im personal with the first scribal
hand to untraditional, impetuous, individual, and-one is tempted to
say-incompetent with the last scribe.1s This transition in script mirrors
the general shift in the character of the entire collection from serene,
composed and focused in the beginning to agitated and fervent towards
the end. The difference, in particular, between the script of scribes 1 and
7 is telling. lt reflects the different roles these scribes had. Scribe 1 writes
two !arge texts, and three small ones. This is all done in a very orderly
fashion in the most professional looking script in the codex. Scribe 7, on
the othcr hand, not only wrote a host of small tcxts, he also took care of
the final „editing“ process of the codex, which entailed adding small
decorations and inserting little texts, wherever he found available space.
One might be tempted to think that the person of script 1 was not
really part of the project, and that his work was simply integrated into
what others wrote and assembled later-comparable to the inclusion of
the parchment quires. We must, however, discard this option since
scribe 1 wrote on the same type of paper used by all the other scribes.
This shared material makes scribe 1 by necessity part of the group of
contributors to the codex.
g) Interruption ofthe work ofscribe 3 by scribe 7
The work of the scribes, moreover, is not purely sequential (which might
have allowed for the possibility that they did not engage in a collaborative
effort and might not even have known each other). The possibility of
non-cooperation and mere sequentiality is unlikely, again, because of the
fact that they all use the same batch of paper. But stronger and even conclusive
evidence of collaboration between the scribes of this codex exists.
Scribe number 7-the eventual editor ofthe codex-interrupts the work
1s Specimina of all scripts are published in Kienhorst and Schepers, Het Wiesbadense
handschrift.
230 KEES SeHEPERs
of another scribe i n the middle of a column. On fol. 78vb we find that he
suddenly takes over the work of scribe 3 for a very short while.16 H e
ends his addition two lines into fol. 79ra. Scribe 7 , therefore, must actually
have interacted with scribe 3. This one column proves that at least
some of the scribes knew each other and that they worked in close coordination.
h) Drawings-murals
A unique feature of the miscellany is that it contains an incomparable
collection of so-called pre-Eyckian drawings, that is to say, predating the
work of the brothers V an Eyck.17 Most of the drawings were glued onto
the recto and/or verso of separate leaves that were then inserted into
the codex. Same drawings were glued onto the very paper that the
scribes used. With scribe 7 drawings were inserted in the middle of his
stint, which implies that he hirnself had access to them. Quite often there
is more than one drawing on an inserted page, and in some instances
clippings from several drawings were used to construct a new composition.
In total there are 3 7 extant drawings, and there are traces of 8 lost
ones. These drawings were never intended to have anything to do with
this or any other manuscript. Their original function is uncertain, but it is
assumed that they were models, possibly used by mural painters.1a Many
of the drawings are damaged, indicating frequent handling before they
found a sheltered harne in the codex.
One can find many of the subjects painted on walls. The Salvator
Mundi from fol. 1, for example, is similar to a Salvator Mundi painted o n
the vault of the Saint Nicholas Church in Kaikar in the Rhineland.l9 8oth
16 Fol. 78vb9-79ra4.
17 The earliest study of these drawings is Dittmar Heubach, Aus einer Niederländischen
Bilderhandschrift vom Jahre 141 0; Grisaillen und Federzeichnungen der
altflämischen Schule (Strasbourg: Heitz, 1925). See also the aforementioned
study Renger, „The Wiesbaden codex B 10.“ One of the drawings was also published
and discussed in Erwin Panofsky, Early Netherlandish Painting: Jts Origins
and Character (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), vol. 1, p. 107; vol. 2, fig. 139.
1 8 Renger, „The Wiesbaden codex B 10,“ considers the drawings to have been models,
without specifying their particttlar f,mction. Sehepers and Kienhorst have argued
more specifically for murals, while not excluding their use as models for
other monumental, perhaps three-dimensional artworks; cf. Kienhorst and
Schepers, Het Wiesbadense lwndschrift, 92-99.
19 Guido de Werd, St Nikolaikirche Kalkar, with introduction by M. )eiter (Munich:
Kunstverlag, 2002).
DELIBERATE CONSTRLCTION OF A HAPH \ZARD COLLECTrOl’\ 2 3 1
images have the same banderole, with the same text written in the same
type of script. Another mural from the Saint Nicholas Church-a church
with an exceptionally well-preserved interior from the late-fifteenth,
early-sixteenth-century-shows Christ passing judgement on those risen
from the dead at judgement Day.zo Again, the similarity with the drawing
is striking. The manuscript composition originally only had the upper
half of the scene, but a skilled artist added the lower half to complete the
image.
Another page once featured a drawing of Saint Christopher; the accompanying
texts on banderotes written on the page to which it had
been glued are still extant. One would find the image of Saint Christopher
on a wall near the entrance in many medieval churches. lt was supposed
to protect against sudden death if one said the prayer that also appears
in the miscellany.21 Quite a few drawings portray saints, depicted from a
frontal view with the same monumental simplicity as one finds when
they are painted on pillars in churches.
The style of the drawings points to Flanders and Northern France at
the end of the fourteenth century. Panofsky even confidently places them
in Bruges.zz The availability of these contemporaneous drawings to the
makers of the miscellany suggests that they were in some way close to
the owners or producers of these drawings. Possibly the artists and
scribes were even members of overlapping groups.
i} Amateurish: decorations, collage-technique
At this point it is appropriate to discuss the pervasive activity of scribe 7
throughout the codex. This probably took place once the manuscript was
finished-if one can say that about a miscellany, which is, of course,
always open-ended. We have already considered the table of contents,
where we find some chaotic and unusable additions to an earlier version
of the list of works. These imprecise additions are partly the work of
hand 7, who wrote the latter part of the codex. But he not only worked as
a scribe. At some point the codex must have come into his possession, or
at least und er his control. From then on he could do whatever he deemed
useful to enhance its esthetic appeal and tcxtual organization. And he
20 Fol. lSv.
21 Fol. 16r. The most common of those texts is a Latin saying: Christofori sancti speciem
quicumque tuetur, il/o nempe die non morte mala morietur („Whoever Iooks
at the image of saint Christopher, will not die a sudden death that day“).
22 Panofsky, Early Netherlandish Painting, vol. 1, 107.
2 3 2 KEEs SeHEPERS
used this liberty in a very amateurish manner. His decorations are far
removed from the refinement and quality for which scriptoria i n Flanders
were famous; the faintest echo of what professional artists produced.
With every intervention of hand 7 the codex is removed further
from the well-organized, high-quality monastic book that was the initial
model. Hand 7 added decorations throughout the codex and inserted
drawings that he first glued onto separate leaves.
These included some compositions that had already been assembled
by a previous owner. They were constructed by cutting up drawings and
assembling the cuttings in a collage technique. One of the most peculiar
examples of this procedure is The Adoration of the Magi (Figure 25)
composed of cuttings from four different drawings.
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 ofthis volume.
j) The texts 1: versifted commentary to the Gospel of ]ahn and Bede’s
Apocalypse commentary
From the total of some 80 texts, I will mention only those that seem to be
DELISERA TE CONSTRCCTION OF A HAPHAZARD COLLECTIOI‘ 233
enlightening with regard to the questions of the genesis, ownership and
use of the codex. The first lengthy texts in the codex are basic instructional
ones-The Way of Salvation and jean Gerson’s Commentary on the
Ten Commandments.23 As explicitly declared by their original authors,
they are aimed at simple and uneducated people. Therefore it is surprising
to find that the next two lengthy texts are much more complex
and intellectual. The first of these is a versified commentary on the first
chapter of the Gospel of john, one of the most profound chapters in the
New Testament. The versified commentary tries to do j ustice to the
profundity of john’s chapter and provides extensive exegesis for each
verse. The result is a text that is anything but easy.
The second is a Middle Dutch translation of the commentary on the
Apocalypse by the Venerable Bede. I n th1s case we can be certain that the
text as it is found in this miscellany couid hardly have been accessible to
its readers. Proper understanding of Bede’s commentary requires familiarity
with the exegetical tradition regarding the Apocalypse, which we
know to have been absent in the vernacular.24 But apart from this obstacle,
understanding of the text is severely impeded by the way it is here
presented. Bede’s commentary excells in conciseness. There is a complex
interweaving of biblical text and commentary, which requires a careful
distinguishing between Iemma and exposition. In the Iayout of the Wiesbaden
text these elements are often inadequately distinguished. Moreover,
the translation of Bede’s text is so Iitera! that one needs the Latin at
hand to understand the Dutch; it is also necessary to have access to the
Latin text of the Apocalypse. This text could only function in an environment
with other such resources; here by itself it is unusable.
k) The texts 2: independent, anti-c/erical thinking
After the two instructive and two challenging texts, the next lang ones
are remarkable because of their anti-clerical nature. The First is entitled:
„Questions of a good, sincere person.“25 The text comprises 38 questions
23 Kees Schepers, „Het Opus triportiturn van )ean Gerson in het Middelnederlands“
(The Opus triportiturn of Jean Gerson in Middle Dutch), Ons Geestelijk Erf 79
(2008): 146-88.
24 Kees Schepers, „Kortsluiting tussen Wearmouth-)arrow en Vlaanderen. Oe
Apocolyps in het Middelnederlands,“ (Discontinuity between Wearmouth·)arrow
and Flanders. The Apocalypse in Middle Dutch) Queeste 15 (2008): 97-119.
2s Fol. 104ra9-108ra: Questien van eenen goeden sirnpelen rnensche; cf. Rohrecht
Lievens, „Questien von eenen goeden sirnpelen rnensche“ (Questions of a Good,
234 KEES SeHEPERS
that are answered by an unidentified T. This T is not a priest or a cleric,
but apparently an inner voice. All the questions asked are relevant for an
individual who wants to Iead a sincere religious life without the formal
guidance of the church or a priest. The second text has no title but it has
been Iabelied „an anti-hierarchical disputation,“ though „anti-clerical
disputation“ would be a more appropriate title.z6 More combative in
tone, it comprises a dialogue between a priest and a young woman. This
allegedly naive but surprisingly self-confident and well-informed woman
puts the priest on the defensive over the immoral behavior of the clergy.
She also makes it clear that if she had to choose between truth and justice
on the one hand and the authority of the church on the other, she
would certainly choose justice.
Since these texts share and articulate the same very specific view of
religious life, it is likely that the intended readers of the manuscript were
close to this ideologyP
m) lnterspersion oftexts by scribe 7
When it comes to texts expressing independent and critical thinking, it is
again scribe 7 who makes the strongest mark. When the other scribes
had finished their work, and the miscellany was in his possession, this
hand added small texts in every available space. Three of these texts,
some of the shortest in the codex, are the most virulent in tone.zs ln one
Common Person) in Hulde-album Dr. F. Van Vinckenroye, ed. Theo Coun et al.
(Hasselt: Provinciaal Hager Handelsinst., 1985), 187-208.
26 Fol. 1 1 1ra-116vb32: Antihierarchische disputatie; cf. Rohrecht Lievens, „Een antihierarchische
disputatie uit de veertiende eeuw,“ (An anti-hierarchal disputation
from the fourteenth century), in Album amicorum Nico/as-N. Huyghebaert o.s.b., a
special issue of Sacris Erudiri 25 (1982): 167-201.
27 Lievens, „Questien van eenen goeden simpelen mensche,“ 192, argues strongly for
beghards as the intended audience for these texts.
28 Text 45: Onse heere seget: Soe waer si v seien wesen in een huys, daer seien die drie
sijn jegen die twee ende die 11 jegen die 111. Nu merct hoe sorgelijc het hier mede
staet in a/ die kerstenheit, in kerken, in c/oesters, in canesien, in steden, inder vierscaren,
in rade, in lande, in dorpen, in gebuerten, in gesinde des huys, in convente,
in huwelike. In al desen vint men grote oneendrachticheit. Maer die meeste
eendrachticheit die nu is, die hebben si die een gespan maken in sonden, in
keefsdomme, in overspele, in woekere, in voercope ende in anderen boosen werken.
Hier in vintmen grote eendrachticheit. („Our Lord says: Wherever there shall be
five people in a hause, there will be three opposed to the two, and those two
against three. Now note how worrisome the situation is, in churches, in monasteries,
in chapters, in cities, in courthouses, in councils, across the country, i n
DELISERA TE Cü“iSTRL’CTIOJ\ OF A HAPHAZARD COLLECTIO:\ 235
of them the people who follow priests are contrasted with those who
follow God.29
Die papen, alsic versta,
en volghen der hefigher scriften niet na;
noch helighe lieden, wats ghesciet,
en volghen oec den papen niet,
maer si volghen den woerde ans heeren,
dat si ans predeken ende leeren.
Hoer ghelike, hoer meysniede
volghen hem ende sijn hoer Iiede;
diegode minnen volghen gode
ende doen gaerne sine ghebode.
Nota bene.
The priests, as far as I know,
do not follow Holy Scripture;
Nor do holy persons, whatever may be
the case,
follow the priests,
but they follow the words of our Lord
that they preach and teach us.
Their equals, their companions,
follow them and belang to them;
those who Iove God, follow God,
And like to follow his commands.
Nota bene.
ln another it is stated that religious works and actions are meaningless
when committed by people living in sin. Above all, it is sin that must be
avoided.30
Sente Augustijn seghet: Niet te meer dan
gode es bequame dat hassen vonden
honden of dat brieschen vonden coeyen of
datghi/en vonden swinen, soe en es hem
oec niet bequamelijc dat singen ende dat
lesen ende den dienst vonden papen ende
vonden c/erken die met oncuyscheiden
omme gaen, ende oec van alle den ghenen
die met oncuyscheden omme gaen ende in
dootsonden leven. Nota.
Saint Augustine says: no rnore
agreeable to God than the barking of
dogs or the mooing of cows or the
screaming of pigs is the singing and
reading and the mass read by priests
and clergy that engage in sin, nor of all
those who engage in sin and live i n
mortal sin. Nota bene.
2. Hypothesis: an explanation for the idiosyncrasies
Any hypothesis regarding the genesis of the codex would need to account
for all the disparate phenomena that we have just noted. One thevillages,
in hamlets, in families, in convents, in rnarriages. In all of these one finds
great discord. But the greatest agreement these days is found among those who
team up in sin, in adultery, in usury, in speculation and in other malicious
deeds.“)
29 Fol. 60rb, text 2 5 : anti-clerical poem.
Jo Fol. 1 18rb, text 46: complaint.
236 KEEs SeHEPERS
ory that emanates naturally from the observable facts would be that
from the very first leaf there was the plan to write a !arge book which
would serve the interests and be at the disposal of the group of people
that participated in making it. The group seems to have had little or n o
prior experience i n assembling a collection of texts. The objective was
largely achieved by the time the codex came to be at the disposal of
scribe 7. He then seems to have continued collecting texts, and he organized
the final state of the codex. Eventually he may have been its sole
owner.
What is the basis for this hypothesis? lt is the size of the paper. This
basic insight can be expanded into three related propositions.
a) Large size paper implies a voluminous book. lf one starts writing on
the type of paper used in the Wiesbaden miscellany, one necessarily envisages
a big, voluminous book. lt would not be practical to have a book
of only a few quires of this size of paper. lt would be difficult to handle
and easily damaged.
b) A big, voluminous book implies a col/ection (i.e. a library). This is
not as much a logical necessity as the first proposition, but rather an observable
fact. Only very few one-book libraries seem to have existed
(such as the book discussed by Eva Nyström in her contribution to this
volume).31 Normally, a big book, especially if it has a robust binding, is
meant to be handled frequently and not damaged easily. The frequent
handling of a book happens only with books from a collection that are
read by different people. To support the thesis of a collection in the case
of the Wiesbaden miscellany, there obviously is the Jending rule that explicitly
states the objective of Jending the book to different people. A onebook
library, moreover, would not make sense if there were several potential
readers, since the book would not be available most ofthe time.
c) A collection of books implies a group or a wealthy individual as owners.
Since there is clearly no wealthy individual involved in the Wiesbaden
miscellany (professional scribes and illuminators would have been
employed), the intended book collection must have been the shared objective
of a group of people. Since this is not a monastic book, we must
31 Another example is the anthology in the Vernon manuscript (Oxford, Bodleian
Library, Eng. Poet. A. 1).
DELISERA TE CO“STRl’CTIO:\ OF A HAPHAZARD COLLECTIO’I 237
postulate an undefined group of lay people.
These three premises can be the point of departure for understanding
the idiosyncrasies of the entire codex. But before anything can be
said about the intended organization of the codex, we must be certain
that the inferences drawn from specific elements are relevant for the codex
as a whole-in other words that there is an averarehing coherence
in the miscellany. The strengest piece of evidence that the codex is coherent
from beginning to end is that all the scribes write on the same
batch of exceptionally !arge, unusual paper.32 A second part is the fact
that scribe 7 appeared amid the work of scribe 3, thus providing evidence
for actual cooperation during the working process.
The anachronistic initial on fol. 3r is a first expression of the desire to
emulate dassie monastic books, while at the same time it attests to the
amateurish character of the work and the Iack of experience in book
production of the group involved. The flawed imitation of the model can
be seen by the addition of a table of contents (or sample Iist], that hints at
the desire to create a grand book but cannot be used as a reference tool.
The /ending rufe quite clearly points to a group of people, undetermined
as to its membership and not restricted to a particular location. In imagining
such a loosely defined group, the members of which were not living
tagether in one building, one necessarily thinks of an urban environment
where kindred spirits can be loosely associated while living in separate
locations. The number of scribes involved points to a group enterprise.
An urban environment (and a possible overlap between different
groups) can be deduced from the availability of the drawings, which in
themselves suggest artists in a city. At least one of the group members
must have had connections to the milieu of artists or craftsmen.
There are some spheres of interest that seem to guide the choice of
texts. l nitially the selection seems to have been governed by the desire to
have clear, accessible, informative texts. The Way of Salvation and Jean
Gerson’s Commentary on the Ten Commandments provide basic instruction.
In a second phase some texts were added, possibly acquired at random,
that might have been beyond the intellectual grasp of the group,
but still answered to some need. Bede’s commentary on the Apocalypse
is with certainty incomprehensible within the context of this manuscript.
But what does connect the Way of Salvation, Gerson’s text and Bede’s
32 With the exception of the two scribes who write on parchment and must be excluded
from the group.
238 KEEs SeHEPERS
commentary is that they each devote attention to the Last Things. These
texts seem to reflect a strong interest in apocalypticism that can be identified
in Flanders araund 1400,33
In a third phase two !arge and important texts give expression to a
self-confident lay spirituality that probably reflects the spiritual connection
between group members. The „Questions of a good, sincere person“
and the „Anti-hierarchical disputation“ might therefore be Iabelied the
signature texts of this codex pointing to lay people who were intent on
living a sincere religious life, willing to bypass ecclesiastical authority if
it would hinder the unfettered pursuit oftheir spiritual ideals.
Finally, under the control of scribe 7, the choice of texts became increasingly
random. He seems to have collected whatever he could lay his
hands on. lt might weil be that by this point the project of assembling
texts that were meaningful to a group was derailed.
3. Historical context
lf we seek to link the codex to a historical context, we must Iook for
groups of ardently devout lay people with a penchant towards the anticlerical.
Two groups come to mind. The first group is the beghards, the
male counterpart of the beguines. Little is known about them. As we
have seen, Lievens has already tried to connect the Questions-text with
the beghards. He deduced that such a text would have emerged from,
and been aimed at, a group of simple, unlearned, mystical men, living in a
commu nity and wearing a typical vestment. Lievens then notes that this
profile conforms with that of the so-called beghards.34
Tempting as this identification may be, there are other equally good
candidates, such as the so-called homines intellgi entiae in Brussels, who
are known from inquisitorial proceedings from 1410-1 1.35 They are considered
to be doctrinally related to Brethren of the Free Spirit.36 Notwithstanding
widely diverging views, they seem to have shared
unorthodox opinions, as weil as a tendency to discredit the validity of the
33 Cf. Schepers, „Kortsluiting tussen Wearmouth-)arrow en Vlaanderen.“ 3􀏬 Cf. Lievens, „Questien van eenen goeden simpelen mensche,“ 192. 35 Paul Fredericq, ed., Corpus documentarum inquisitionis Neerlandicae 1 (Gent:
Vuylsteke, 1889), 267-79. 36 Cf. Robert E. Lerner, The Heresy of the Free Spirit in the Later Midd/e Ag es (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1972).
DELISERA TE CO:–ISTRl’CTIOl\ OF A HAPHAZARD COLLECTIOK 239
church. Other contenders would be the flagellants who had fanned out
over N orthern Europe after the plague of 1348; as they grew in numbers
they developed into a sect with its own views and practices.J7
Finally, there are the beguines.38 Simons notes that among beguines
books were private property and that beguinages did not have collective
libraries. Same wills even attest to the practice of Jending books to
others.39 Because of the many uncertainties, it would be rash to favour a
particular group as the putative producer ofthe Wiesbaden codex.
Thus, from the detailed analysis of codicological and textual aspects
ofthe Wiesbaden miscellany arises the faint but distinct image of a group
of urban religious people as both the makers and users of this codex.
There are several unconventional groups that would fit the profile of
producers of the Wiesbaden miscellany, but for the moment it is
impossible to identify one in particular.
37 As late as the Council of Constance (1414-18) jean Gerson wrote a treatise to
denounce them. jean Gerson, Contra sectarn Flagellantium, in jean Gerson,
Oeuvres completes 10, ed. Palemon Glorieux 10 (Paris: Desclee & Cie, 1973), 46-
51.
3B Walter Simons, „‚Staining the Speech of Things Divine‘: The Uses of Literacy in
Medieval Beguine Communities,“ in The Voice of Silence. Women’s Literacy in a
Men’s Church, ed. Therese de Hemptinne, Maria Eugenia G6ngora (Turnhout:
Brepols, 2004), 85-110, esp. 100-04.
39 Simons, „Staining the Speech ofThings Divine,“ 104.