Bible Missals and the Medieval Dominican Liturgy 9783110792430, 9783110792218

Citation preview

Innocent Smith Bible Missals and the Medieval Dominican Liturgy

Manuscripta Biblica

Edited by Martin Wallraff and Patrick Andrist

Volume 12

Innocent Smith

Bible Missals and the Medieval Dominican Liturgy

ISBN 978-3-11-079221-8 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-079243-0 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-079249-2 ISSN 2626-3955 Library of Congress Control Number: 2023937564 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: OPenn, University of Pennsylvania Libraries, Creative Commons, Free Cultural Works Typesetting: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Printing and Binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

“Doch lerne, Mönch, daß aus unendlich vielen, kleinen und größeren Quellen zusammenströmt Ergebnis menschlichen Lebens, so wie du einem großen Strom nicht ansiehst, welche Äderchen ihn speisten, und doch, willst seine Größe du verstehn, mußt du sie alle kennen.” —Ernest Krenek, Karl V “Caroline Vail observed that knowledge was for some a range of topics; for others, depth of perception.” —Shirley Hazzard, The Transit of Venus “He’s the sort of person that knows when Easter will be. A man who knows that knows anything.”

“Butlers come in three sizes–the large, the small, and the medium.”

—Angela Thirkell, Peace Breaks Out

—P.G. Wodehouse, Cocktail Time

Acknowledgments I am grateful to God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and to Blessed Dominic. I am grateful to my parents, Thomas (†) and Marika Smith, and to my siblings, Alan, Stuart, Demetra, Andrew, Duncan, and their families. I am grateful to my Dominican brothers and sisters, especially Bruno Cadoré, Gerard Timoner, Chris Eggleton, Kenneth Letoile, John Langlois, Darren Pierre, Albert Duggan, Allen Moran, Walter Wagner, Thomas More Garrett, John Devaney, Boniface Endorf, Sebastian White, Gabriel Torretta, Raymund Snyder, Patrick Briscoe, Ephrem Reese, Nicholas Ingham, Christophe Holzer, Robert Mehlhart, Paul Hellmeier, Klaus Obermeier, Anthony Giambrone, Timothy Bellamah, Viliam Štefan Dóci, Augustin Laffay, Conor McDonough, Matthew Jarvis, Augustine Thompson, Reginald Whitt, Michael Ciccone, Mannes Matous, Ambrose Arralde, Michael Weibley, Josemaría Guzmán-Domínguez, Gregory Schnakenberg, Thomas Petri, Dominic Langevin, Jordan Schmidt, Thomas Joseph White, Robert Gay, Nicholas Crowe, Lawrence Lew, Sr. Philip Joseph, Sr. Mary Lucy, Sr. Diana Marie, Sr. Mary Rose of the Pure Heart, Sr. Agnes Maria of Saint John, Sr. Mary Hyacinth, and Sr. Aimée Dominique. I am grateful for the fraternal hospitality of my Dominican brothers in Baltimore, Berlin, Braunschweig, Brussels, Cambridge, Chicago, Cologne, Dallas, Florence, Hanover, Leicester, London, Los Angeles, Louisville, Mainz, Milan, Munich, New Haven, New York, Oslo, Oxford, Paris, Philadelphia, Regensburg, Rome, Rotterdam, Venice Vienna, Washington, and Zagreb while writing this book. I am grateful to all those who have taught me to love and understand the Church’s liturgy, especially Alexander Blachly, Calvin Bower, Joseph Dyer, Barbara Haggh-Huglo, Andrew Hughes (†), Michel Huglo (†), Judith Paltin, Neil Roy, Daniel Scheidt, Daniel Sheerin, and Bruno Stemler. I am grateful to those who have shown me through word and example how to be a scholar, especially Mark Clark, Ethan Haimo, Andrew Hofer, O.P., Sabine MacCormack (†), and Christopher Ruddy. I am especially indebted to Harald Buchinger, who acted as a true Doktorvater during my doctoral studies at the University of Regensburg. I am grateful to Laura Light for drawing my attention to bible missals and for her feedback and support. I am grateful to Patrick Andrist, Sabina Dabrowski, Margot Fassler, Eleanor Giraud, Andrew Irving, CJ Jones, Peter Kidd, Antonia Pohl, Chiara Ruzzier, Alison Stones, and Katharina Zühlke for their generosity in offering feedback on this work. I am grateful to all of the archivists, curators, editors, librarians, scholars, colleagues and friends who have assisted me in various ways or offered valuable feedback, instruction, and support, especially Laura Albiero, Richard Beadle, Patrick Bergin, Susan Boynton, Peter and Catherine Brice, Pavel Brodský, Phillip Brown, Marjorie Burghart, Pierre Chambert-Protat, Brendan Coyne, Colleen Curran, Lisa Fagin Davis, Jeffrey J. Dean, Daniel DiCenso, Anna Dorofeeva, Matthew and Audra Dugandzic, Andrew Dunning Paweł Figurski, Fredrik Hansen, Miklós István Földváry, Sarah Gilbert, Emily Guerry, David T. Gura, Brandon W. Hawk, David Hiley, Matthew Holford Laura Ingallinella, Peter Jeffery, Lisa Marie Johnson, Martin Kauffmann, Anton ten Klooster, Caleb Kortokrax, Berthold Kress, Stephanie J. Lahey, Henrike Lähnemann, Brent Laytham, Christian T. Leitmeir, Aaron Macks, Paul Maillet, James H. Marrow, Yossi Maurey, Ian McDole, Orsolya Mednyanszky, Edward Mills, Nigel Morgan, Elizabeth Morrison, Emilie Nadal, R. Arvid Nelsen, Jörg Oberste, Matthew S.C. Olver, Richard Osban, Antonia Pohl, Eyal Poleg, Susan Rankin, Alison Ray, David Rundle, Julia Schneider, Martin Schøyen, Cindy Searcy, Paul Seaton, Leslie Smith, Manlio Sodi, Sigbjørn Olsen Sønnesyn, Gladstone Stevens, Cyrille and Lucile Strugarek, Warren Tanghe, Larry Terrien, Elaine Treharne, Gregory Tucker, Klaus Unterburger, Martin Wallraff, Arthur Westwell, N. Kıvılcım Yavuz, and Katharina Zühlke. Finally, I am grateful for the financial support provided for research and travel expenses by the Society for the Study of Medieval Languages and Literature (Medium Aevum Research Travel Bursary), the DFG Research Group Metropolität in der Vormoderne, the Fakultät für Katholische Theologie an der Universität Regensburg, and St. Mary’s Seminary and University. Tu autem, Domine, miserere nostri. Deo gratias.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-202

Contents Acknowledgments  Prologue 

 VII

 1

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

 12 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy      Liturgical Tradition 13  15 Typology of Liturgical Texts for the Mass   18 Location of Liturgical Texts   22 Decoration   25 Places and Dates of Origin      Size and Layout 30 Comparison of Bible Missals and 13th-century Missals   49 Conclusion 

2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

 51 Dating Early Dominican Mass Books   53 Reforms of the Dominican Liturgy   54 Dominican Anniversaries of the Dead      St. Dominic 58  64 St. Peter Martyr   65 Conclusion 

3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books   70 Chant Texts for St. Dominic   83 Orations for St. Dominic   88 Readings for St. Dominic      Conclusion 97

4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books  Range of Masses and Modes of Presentation   99 Chant Texts for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit   105 Orations for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit   121 Readings for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit   131 Conclusion   150

5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books   152 Extent of the Ordo Missae  Texts and Rubrics of the Ordo Missae   155 The Roman Canon   164 The Post-Canon Ordo Missae   168 Conclusion   186

6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7

 188 What Were Bible Missals For?      Reading the Bible 188  194 Celebration of Mass   196 Preparation for Liturgy     197 Preparation for Preaching     Theological Study 197  198 Personal Piety   199 Conclusion 

 152

 43

 68

 99

X 

 Contents

7

Epilogue 

8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13

 203 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals      Brussels, KBR 8882 204  214 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16   243 London/Oslo, Schøyen Collection, MS 115   255 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7      Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 31 274  290 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 163   305 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 215   317 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 16266 

9 9.1 9.1.1 9.1.2 9.1.3 9.1.4 9.1.5 9.1.6 9.1.7 9.1.8 9.2 9.2.1 9.2.2 9.2.3 9.3 9.3.1 9.3.2 9.3.3 9.4 9.4.1 9.5 9.5.1 9.6 9.6.1 9.7 9.7.1 9.7.2 9.7.3 9.7.4 9.7.5 9.7.6 9.7.7

 408 Appendix 1: Summary Catalog of Non-Dominican Bible Missals   408 Franciscan   408 Boston, Boston Public Library, MS q Med. 202     409 Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, Ff.6.47  409 Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, Hh.1.3   410 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 13   411 Darmstadt, Universitäts – und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 1967      London, British Library, Harley 2813 412  413 Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3 (107. f)   413 Wolfenbüttel, Herzog-August-Bibliothek, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst.       Abbeys of Augustinian Canons 414  414 Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal, IL 34   416 San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061   417 Tours, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 5   418 Cistercian   418 London, British Library, Add. MS 57531   419 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 36   420 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 10431      Gilbertine 421  421 Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1   422 Paris   422 Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Ms. Codex 236      Prague 423  423 Prague, Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly, B LXVIII 1   424 Undetermined liturgical tradition   424 Cambridge, Trinity College, B.10.18     425 Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18  425 Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 203/University of Notre Dame, MS 10   426 Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10   427 London, British Library, Harley 1748   427 Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, MS 874 (A. 140)       Nantes, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 2 428

 200

 330 Pisa, Biblioteca Cathariniana, MS 177  Poitiers, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 12   348  360 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) 

 369 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS 32 (A.5.6.)   Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. lat. 532 

 391

Contents 

9.7.8 9.7.9 9.7.10

 429 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 216  Sheffield, Collection of the Guild of St George, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638   430 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 1136 

10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6

Appendix 2: Summary Catalog of Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals   432 Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, St. Peter perg. 20   435 Lausanne, Musée Historique Lausanne, AA.VL 81, MS 10   437 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5   440 Mons, Bibliothèque centrale, MS 63/201   442 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 8884   444 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 

11

Appendix 3: 13th-century Missals Catalogued by Leroquais 

Bibliography 

 451

Abbreviations and Transcription Notes  List of Tables  List of Figures 

 477  481

Index of Manuscripts 

 483

Index of People and Places  Index of Scripture 

 489

 495

Index of Liturgical Incipits 

 497

Index of Non-Liturgical Paratexts 

 501

 469

 446

 432

 430

 XI

Prologue In the Middle Ages, two of the most widely produced books were the bible and the missal. The bible contained the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments,1 while the missal contained the prayers, chants, and readings that were read or sung in the eucharistic celebration of the mass.2 Although the exact number of extant sources is difficult to establish, the manuscript legacy is enormous. Chiara Ruzzier has established a census of 2,657 complete Latin bibles dating from the 7th through 15th centuries, with 1,850 manuscripts dated to the 13th century.3 Andrzej Suski and Manlio Sodi’s 2019 catalog Messali manoscritti pretridentini lists 5,079 missals dating from the 8th through the 16th centuries, with 382 manuscripts dated to the 13th century.4 In the 13th century, the production of bibles and missals was marked both by processes of standardization as well as customization and experimentation. In the opening decades of the 13th century, both book types reached a pinnacle of organization and design that would mark their form for the next several centuries.5 Each was typically presented in a single codex that integrated the content usually spread over multiple volumes in earlier centuries, contributing to a greater sense of the unity and harmony of the various books of scripture as well as between the various elements of the mass.6 At the same time, book makers continued to develop innovative modes of organizing the textual material within 1 For overviews of the development of the bible in the Middle Ages, see de Hamel 2001, van Liere 2014, and Poleg 2020a; for more detailed treatments see Gameson 1994, Boynton and Reilly 2011, Poleg and Light 2013, Piazzoni 2017, Casavecchia et al. 2021, Ruzzier 2022 and Houghton 2023. Recent volumes devoted to material aspects of bible production and use include important contributions on Latin bible manuscripts: see Lied and Maniaci 2018 and Ganz and Schellewald 2019. For overviews of research on the various textual forms of the Latin bible from antiquity through the sixteenth century, see Bogaert 2012, van Liere 2012, and Bogaert 2013. 2 For general overviews of the development of liturgical books for the mass, see Vogel 1986 and Palazzo 1998; see also the overviews offered in Dyer et al. 2018 and Buchinger et al. 2018. Recent research on the development of the missal has begun to supplement and correct the narratives of Vogel and Palazzo regarding the chronological relationship between the sacramentary and the missal; see especially Irving 2015, Rankin 2016, and Irving 2021a. For a study of the ways in which medieval users interacted with missals as physical objects, see Rudy 2023. The definition of the word “missal” is complex and controversial. I use the term to designate a codex or section of a codex which combines the variable texts of the mass as integrated liturgical formularies for particular occasions together with the (relatively) invariable texts of the Ordo Missae. The Ordo Missae sometimes begins at the preparatory or opening rites of the mass, but often begins with the offertory prayers or at the preface; it includes the Roman Canon and a selection of post-canon prayers; it is sometimes but not always accompanied by rubrics and/ or musical notation. To be classified as a missal, the variable texts must include both orations and chant texts (with or without musical notation) and may potentially (but not necessarily) include provision for the biblical readings (either as full texts or in the form of biblical references). For a discussion of the connection between the development of the missal and practices of recitation of various genres of texts by the priest alone or by the priest together with the choir and other participants, see Irving 2015, pp. 28–34. For a helpful discussion of the relevance of recent developments in codicology for the study of missals, see Irving 2021a, p. 253. As Irving observes, a plenary missal is itself a “fully-integrated pluritextual product … in which prayers and bible readings of independent origins and genres had been collected and integrated in carefully articulated interwoven series usually in a structurally homogenous volume (a ‘monoblock multi-text manuscript’).” In addition to the word “missal,” I use the overlapping but not identical term “mass book” to designate sources which contain the various liturgical genres used for mass, e.g. missals, sacramentaries, gospel books, epistle books, and graduals. 3 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 36. Ruzzier 2022, pp. 211–266 lists the shelfmarks of 1,739 manuscript Latin bibles of relatively small size (a combined height and width lower than 450 mm). 4 See Suski and Sodi 2019. I am grateful to Manlio Sodi for sharing a digital version of this publication with me. On p. 536 of the “Indice Cronologico,” the manuscripts have the following distribution: XIII: 159; XIII 1/2: 105; XIII 2/2: 118. In addition to those dated to the 13th century, Suski and Sodi include 94 manuscripts dated “XII–XIII” and 77 dated “XIII–XIV.” It should be noted that Suksi and Sodi’s catalog draws on a wide variety of sources, some of which give inaccurate dating or typological assignations; further research may eliminate some of these manuscripts and add others to the census of manuscript missals. For instance, Suski and Sodi 2019, p. 321, n. 2479, drawing on Halm and Meyer 1881, lists Munich, BSB, Clm 23275 as a “Missale,” but it is actually a breviary which includes occasional incipits of texts for the mass. Some important 13th-century missals are not included in the catalog, e.g., the Missale conventuale and Missale minorum altarium of Humbert of Romans’ Dominican liturgical exemplar Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, likely due to the fact that there is no published catalog of the Santa Sabina manuscripts. Despite its limitations, the Suski and Sodi catalog is an immensely useful starting point for further research on manuscript missals. 5 While little research has been done on the codicology of missals, 13th-century bibles have been the focus of important work over the past several decades by scholars such as Christopher de Hamel, Laura Light, Sabina Magrini, Eyal Poleg, Richard and Mary Rouse, and Chiara Ruzzier; see de Hamel 2001; Light 1984, Light 1987, Light 1994, Light 2011a, Light 2011b, Light 2012, Light 2013, Light 2016; Magrini 2007; Poleg 2013a, Poleg 2020a; Rouse and Rouse 2016, Rouse and Rouse 2021; Ruzzier 2010, Ruzzier 2013, Ruzzier 2014a, Ruzzier 2014b, Ruzzier 2018, and Ruzzier 2022. For valuable codicological studies of missals from other periods, see Collins 2016 (focusing on large missals from c. 1350–c. 1450) and Irving 2021a (focusing on early Italian mass books). 6 For helpful accounts of the production of both multi-volume and pandect (complete) bibles before the 13th century, see Ganz 2012 and Shepard 2012. While much scholarship on 13th-century bibles has focused on their innovative features, it is important to also recognize the many ways in https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-001

2 

 Prologue

the codices, presenting the books of scripture or liturgical material in a variety of arrangements. In addition to the varied layouts and modes of organization, the texts and paratexts of medieval bibles and missals are marked by significant variations from manuscript to manuscript which represent diverse traditions of prayer, translation, and exegesis. Individual bibles and missals also varied in the quality of their parchment, script, and decoration, ranging from extremely simple productions with a minimum of rubrication and decoration to deluxe masterpieces of illumination and craftmanship.7 Further, despite the general practice of integration into a single book, bibles and missals were produced in a wide array of sizes ranging from extremely small pocket-sized books to relatively large volumes.8 In addition to producing bibles and missals, some 13th-century book makers experimented with a type of hybrid volume that integrated both the bible and the missal in a single codex.9 The liturgical selections of bible missals present a wide range of material that gives a precious insight into the development of various liturgical traditions in the 13th century as well as the processes of customization and design of medieval bibles. Some bible missals contain all the texts necessary for the mass throughout the entire year (a “full missal”). In these manuscripts, the missal portion typically provides only the opening words of biblical passages, referring the user to the bible section of the manuscript to find the complete readings, while giving full texts for the orations and chant texts. In other cases, the missal portion presents a moderate selection of masses for major feasts of the temporal and sanctoral cycles as well as a selection of votive and Requiem masses (a “festive missal”). In many bible missals, the missal portion provides a limited selection of votive and Requiem masses (a “votive missal”). In a small number of manuscripts, the bible contains the Ordo Missae without mass formularies or mass formularies without an Ordo Missae.10 The biblical portion of 13th-century bible missals was almost always complete, while the liturgical material could range from a very full selection to a very limited number of texts.11

which they were in continuity with their Carolingian and Romanesque predecessors. In particular, scholarly focus on small bibles (sometimes labelled “portable” or “pocket” bibles) sometimes overshadows the continued production of bibles of larger dimensions closer to those of earlier pandects. With respect to missals integrating the contents found in sacramentaries, chant books, and epistle and gospel lectionaries, Irving 2021a demonstrates that the development from “role books” or genre-specific codices to integrated missals was not always linear. Italian sources show an earlier preference for multi-genre mass books compared with French sources. In the 13th century, genre-specific codices such as epistle books, gospel books, and graduals continued to be produced alongside integrated missals. In the Dominican liturgical exemplars of Humbert of Romans, for instance, a full range of genre-specific books were presented alongside the plenary missal; see Smith 2021a, pp. 286–287. 7 Although scholarship on 13th-century bibles undertaken from a primarily art-historical perspective has focused on more finely illustrated manuscripts, roughly a third of extant manuscripts contain very simple decoration: see Ruzzier 2013, p. 125n36: “35% of the manuscripts of the corpus have only flourished initials. The rest of the manuscripts have all or part of the initials ornamented, but only 22% of the total have historiated initials for all the books of the Bible.” For a broader discussion of the range of decoration in 13th-century portable bibles, see Ruzzier 2022, p. 172–181. 8 Ruzzier 2022, pp. 41–45 discusses the wide range of sizes of medieval bibles. Further comparative research is needed on the physical dimensions of medieval missals. Light 2013, p. 193n24 stated that “To my knowledge, there is no study of the format of medieval Missals.” Collins 2016 is an important contribution focusing on “large missals” produced in the 14th and 15th centuries ranging in size from 342 x 252 mm (Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 622) to 639 x 425 mm (the estimated original size of the fragments now preserved as London, BL, Add. MS 29704, Add. MS 29705, Add. MS 44892). Collins points out on p. 23 that “to date scholarship has not facilitated an understanding of the many large missals that existed, nor used this number to comparatively explain other large missals.” 9 Other types of hybrid volumes also exist, such as breviary missals; see e.g., Assisi, Biblioteca S. Damiano, s.s. (13th-century breviary missal); Brussels, KBR, 14678–79 (14th-century breviary missal from Trier); London, BL, Burney 335 (14th-century Cistercian breviary missal); London, BL, Royal 2 A XI (late 13th- or early 14th-century Dominican breviary with an added Dominican votive missal); Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. liturg. f. 34 (13th-century Franciscan breviary missal later adapted for Augustinian use); Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 595 (early 14th-century notated breviary missal from Saint-Etienne, Châlons-sur-Marne); Paris, BnF, latin 1022 (13th-century Trinitarian breviary missal); Paris, BnF, latin 13222 (14th-century breviary missal from Corbie); Rouen, BM 192 (13th-century breviary missal from Saint-Ouen, Rouen); Vallencines, BM 116 (12th-century breviary missal from Winchcombe). Notably, two bible missals also contain breviaries: Lisbon, BNP, IL 34 and Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236. In addition to volumes that combine two or more distinct types of liturgical books, some scholars argue that fully notated missals or breviaries are a type of hybrid between missals and graduals and breviaries and antiphonaries, although I prefer to consider them as a subset within their respective genres. 10 In a technical sense, I would not class these volumes bible missals, but rather as a “bible with Ordo Missae” or “bible with mass formularies.” Nevertheless, they offer important liturgical evidence that complements the witness of bible missals as such, so I include them in this study while recognizing their typological divergence from the broader repertoire of bible missals. 11 Only two biblical manuscripts with missals have been identified that do not contain the full biblical text: Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3 and Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1. The Olim: London manuscript was almost certainly originally a full bible. The Prague manuscript only includes the New Testament and an epistle lectionary with Old Testament passages in addition to its missal section. The Prague manuscript stands apart from the

Prologue  

 3

Given their range of contents, bible missals constitute an important type of “multi-textual codex” that has previously been overlooked in scholarship on both codicology and liturgy.12 According to Marilena Maniaci, a multi-textual codex is a manuscript which contains “multiple works or multiple textual units by different authors” which meets the following criteria: 1. The individual units that make up the codex do not form part of the same work, nor is it composed of different works by the same author. 2. The sequence in which the units are arranged is not indispensable to understanding the text, and can therefore be altered without resulting in any serious consequences with regard to the text’s proper use.13

Maniaci further distinguishes between “mono-block” and “multi-block” codices, that is between manuscripts which are “unitary, from a structural standpoint, in which a succession of texts is housed within a single, coalescent container” and those which are “non-unitary, from a structural standpoint, composed of a juxtaposition of modular units that are materially independent and textually autonomous.”14 Bible missals fulfill the criteria for being considered as multi-textual codices, since they combine biblical and liturgical elements of independent origin without necessitating a particular order in which the liturgical and biblical elements are arranged. As the comparative study of bible missals shows, liturgical elements were placed in a variety of locations within the codex without fundamentally changing the character of the combined text. Some bible missals are mono-block codices in which the liturgical texts are integrated with biblical texts without any codicological breaks between the biblical and liturgical sections, while others are multi-block codices, with the liturgical texts presented in quires that are structurally independent of the biblical text. Further, some bible missals are the result of a coordinated production process in which the biblical and liturgical texts were executed by the same team of professional scribes and artists with the intention of producing a multi-text codex from the outset (single production unit), while other manuscripts are the result of separate production processes undertaken at different times in which liturgical texts were added to a preexisting bible (multiple production units).15 The presence of liturgical texts in medieval bibles has only recently begun to receive scholarly attention. In earlier catalogs and studies of medieval bibles, liturgical texts were often ignored or only laconically mentioned, and studies of medieval liturgy have almost completely ignored the important evidence offered by bible missals for the history of the liturgy.16 In 1935, Theodor Klauser included many 13th-century bibles in a handlist of manuscripts with epistle and gospel lists, although his analysis was focused on early medieval gospel lists.17 In 1959, Louis-Marie Gignac examined Dominican liturgical calendars present in a number of 13th-century bibles, but did not explore the significance of these manuscripts

rest of the bible missal repertoire in having been produced in Prague in the mid-15th century, in contrast to the other bible missals which were all produced in England, France, or Italy (and possibly Spain) in the 13th century. For further details on these manuscripts, see Appendix 1. 12 Cf. Irving 2021a, p. 253. 13 Maniaci 2022b, p. 344. 14 Maniaci 2022b, p. 350. 15 Casavecchia et al. 2021, p. 71 defines production units as “physically autonomous sections that were conceived of, and realised, within a given timeframe, with a specific objective in mind.” Cf. Maniaci 2022b, p. 351–352 on the distinction between “organised” and “random” multi-textual multi-block codices and the possibility of production “occurring over an extended period of time.” 16 Older catalogs occasionally refer to the presence of missal sections within bibles, although the description of liturgical material is often inconsistent even within individual catalogs. For instance, the 1744 catalog of the Royal Library in Paris (now the Bibliothèque nationale de France) notes the presence of a “missale” in Paris, BnF, latin 36, but only mentions the presence of a “calendarium” (and not the other mass texts) in Paris, BnF, latin 163, and omits any mention of mass texts in Paris, BnF, latin 215; see Catalogus 1744, pp. 4, 15, 19. Likewise, the 1759 catalog of the Harley Collection of the British Museum (now the British Library) mentions the presence of “Collectæ variæ, Canon Missæ, Memoriæ, cum precibus id genus” in the entry for London, BL, Harley 1748, but does not mention the liturgical texts in Harley 2813; see British Museum 1759. Similar inconsistencies can be found in more recent catalogs; the 2011 catalog of illuminated manuscripts at the Cambridge University Library mentions the presence of a missal in Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3 but not the fragmentary missal in Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47; see Binski et al. 2011, pp. 104–105, 115–116. I am grateful to Eyal Poleg for bringing Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47 to my attention. 17 Klauser 1935, pp. LXXI–LXXXI. Klauser’s list has 179 entries, of which all but four are from manuscripts dated to the 13th century or later. Chiara Ruzzier has established an unpublished list of 246 bibles with reading lists, of which almost all are from the 13th century; by comparing Ruzzier’s list with Klauser’s, I have expanded the number to 372. Further research is needed to understand the great variety of lectionary repertoires represented by these lists as well as the variety of modes of presenting the liturgical content. For a helpful overview of the state of research on liturgical reading lists, see Peikola 2013, pp. 352–354. Recent research on liturgical material in Wycliffite bibles offers helpful models for future research on liturgical texts in Latin bibles; see especially Solopova 2016, pp. 6–17.

4 

 Prologue

for other aspects of the Dominican liturgy.18 In 1982, Nigel Morgan emphasized the importance of bibles with missals as witnesses to early 13th-century liturgy and began to draw connections between individual bible missals.19 Codicological descriptions of individual bible missals by Consuelo Dutschke in 1989 and Peter Kidd in 2007 offered detailed accounts of their biblical and liturgical contents as well as helpful references to parallel manuscripts.20 In a ground-breaking series of articles published from 2011–2016, Laura Light drew attention to the importance of non-biblical texts in medieval bibles, highlighting the presence of texts for the mass and establishing an initial handlist of bible missals mostly in French and English libraries.21 In a 2013 article, Light published brief descriptions of 23 bible missals and 3 manuscripts with related liturgical texts.22 In a 2016 article focused on Franciscan and Dominican bibles, Light mentioned seven additional manuscripts which included liturgical texts of various kinds.23 While Light’s work has laid a firm foundation for the study of bible missals, much remains to be understood about their development, purpose, and significance for the history of the liturgy and the reception of the bible in the Middle Ages.24 Building on the list of bible missals established by Light, I have identified a total of forty manuscripts which form the corpus of the present study.25 Table 1 lists the shelfmarks of each of these manuscripts, identifies their typology and range of liturgical paratexts, and indicates the page numbers of this monograph where detailed descriptions of the Dominican examples and summary descriptions of the non-Dominican manuscripts may be found.26 I am grateful to Peter Kidd, Laura Light, Eyal Poleg, and Chiara Ruzzier for sharing unpublished information about bibles which they had identified as potentially containing missals. Several of these manuscripts (listed in Table 2) have been excluded from this monograph because they do not fit the definition of bible missals despite offering liturgical evidence worthy of further scholarly attention. Table 1: Corpus of Identified Bible Missals. Shelfmark

Typology

Catalog

Appendix 1

Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202

Bible with Franciscan votive missal

Brussels, KBR 8882

Bible with Dominican votive missal and epistle and gospel list

Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47

Bible with fragmentary Franciscan (?) festive missal

409

Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3

Bible with Franciscan Ordo Missae, full missal, and calendar

409

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 13

Bible with added unfinished Franciscan (?) full missal

410

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16

Bible with Dominican full missal, calendar, preaching list, and biblical concordance

Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1

Bible with Gilbertine festive missal

421

Cambridge, Trinity College, B.10.18

Bible with hymnal, added fragmentary missal, and two added epistle and gospel lists

424

Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18

Bible with fragmentary missal (typology uncertain)

425

Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 203

Bible with fragmentary missal (typology uncertain)

425

Darmstadt, ULB 1967

Bible with Franciscan full missal

411

408 204

214

18 Gignac 1959. This work remains unpublished and difficult to access; I used the copy at the Bibliothèque du Saulchoir in Paris. Further research is needed to establish a comprehensive list of bibles with calendars. Gleeson 2004, pp. 99–100 presents a list of Dominican bibles with calendars based on Gignac 1959. 19 Morgan 1982, p. 21. 20 See the descriptions of San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 in Dutschke 1989, pp. 649–654 and of London, BL, Harley 2813 in Kidd 2007. 21 Light 2011a, Light 2013, Light 2016. 22 Light 2013, pp. 208–214. 23 Light 2016, p. 173n32. 24 I am grateful to Laura Light for her generous encouragement of my research on this topic and for her feedback on earlier versions of this monograph. 25 An additional bible missal came to my attention at a stage too late for detailed consideration in this monograph: Bernkastel-Kues, St. Nikolaus-Hospital/Cusanusstift, Cod. cus. 132. For a brief discussion of this manuscript, see p. 200n3 below. 26 For abbreviations used in shelfmarks, see Table 154 on pp. 469–470 below.

Prologue  

 5

Table 1 (continued) Shelfmark

Typology

Catalog

Appendix 1

Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10

Bible with fragmentary Ordo Missae and votive missal

426

Lisbon, BNP, IL 34

Bible with full missal and breviary (Augustinian Abbey of Saint-Ferreol, Essômes-sur-Marne)

414

London, BL, Add. MS 57531

Bible with Cistercian full missal and ritual

418

London, BL, Harley 1748

Bible with votive missal

427

London, BL, Harley 2813

Bible with Franciscan votive missal

412

London/Oslo, Schøyen 115

Bible with Dominican calendar and fragmentary votive missal

Madrid, BNE 874

Bible with added Ordo Missae and epistle and gospel list

427

Nantes, BM 2

Bible with imperfect festive missal and epistle and gospel list

428

Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3

Bible (imperfect) with Franciscan votive missal

413

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

Bible with Dominican votive missal

Paris, BnF, latin 36

Bible with Cistercian full missal

Paris, BnF, latin 163

Bible with Dominican calendar adapted for Franciscan use, added fragmentary Dominican Ordo Missae, and added incomplete Franciscan Ordo Missae

290

Paris, BnF, latin 215

Bible with Dominican votive missal, calendar, and epistle and gospel list

305

Paris, BnF, latin 216

Bible with added fragmentary votive missal and introit, epistle and gospel list

429

Paris, BnF, latin 10431

Bible with Cistercian calendar, epistle and gospel list, and votive missal

420

Paris, BnF, latin 16266

Bible with Dominican votive missal, epistle and gospel list, added calendar and added epistle and gospel list

317

Paris, Mazarine 31

Bible with Dominican votive missal

274

Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236

Bible with full missal and breviary

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Bible with Dominican festive missal, epistle and gospel list, and preaching lists

330

Poitiers, BM 12

Bible with added Dominican epistle and gospel list and Dominican mass texts

348

Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1

New Testament with festive missal and epistle and gospel list (use of Prague)

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”)

Bible with Dominican Ordo Missae, ritual, and epistle and gospel list

360

Rome, Angelica 32

Bible with Dominican festive missal, added Dominican calendar and three epistle and gospel lists

369

San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061

Bible with Augustinian (?) festive missal and added Sarum epistle and gospel list

416

Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638

Bible with Ordo Missae, epistle and gospel list, and added epistle and gospel list

430

Tours, BM 5

Bible with Ordo Missae, litany, and calendar (Augustinian Abbey of Saint-Geneviève)

417

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

Bible with Dominican votive missal, calendar, epistle and gospel list, and added gospel list

Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136

Bible with added festive missal and added epistle and gospel list

430

Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst.

Bible with Franciscan full missal and preaching list

413

243

255 419

422

423

391

6 

 Prologue

Table 2: Bibles with Other Liturgical Texts. Shelfmark

Typology

Brighton, Brighton and Hove Libraries, MS 1

Bible (no liturgical texts)27

Clermont-Ferrand, BM 23

Bible with epistle and gospel list (ff. 470r–471v) and calendar (ff. 471v–473r; ends imperfectly midway through September; additions for Dominican saints)28

Durham, University Library, Cosin V.V.18

Bible with imperfect added epistle and gospel list (f. 420r–v)29

Lisbon, Arquivo Nacional Torre do Tombo, CF 137

Bible with epistle and gospel list (ff. 513r–516v)30

London, Lambeth Palace, MS 534

Bible with mass rubrics (f. 234r–v)31

Porto, Biblioteca Pública Municipal, MS 621

Bible with introit, epistle, and gospel list (ff. 486v–488v)32

San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 51

Bible with added introit, epistle, and gospel list (ff. Ir–XIr)33

Wellesley, Wellesley College, Milne MS 43

Bible with introit, epistle, and gospel list (ff. 730r–734v; ends imperfectly)34

Individual bible missals present a high level of customization and variation, but comparative study reveals significant patterns of liturgical contents and codicological arrangement. In this book, I will study these manuscripts using two complementary methodologies: 1) a codicological perspective, which considers each manuscript as a material object whose texts, paratexts, decoration and design are intimately connected and must be studied and described in a way that expresses this integrity, and 2) a liturgiological perspective, which focuses on the liturgical texts contained in the manuscripts and compares them with other liturgical manuscripts in order to understand the development and practice of medieval liturgy.35 Despite the large scale of production of 13th-century bibles, we have little explicit knowledge of the processes by which bibles were commissioned and produced except what can be intuited from the manuscripts themselves and from limited external documentary evidence.36 13th-century bibles were as a rule produced by professional scribes, artists and artisans collaborating on various aspects of the production of a book:

27 Devine 2016, p. 240n1130 suggests that Brighton, Brighton and Hove Libraries, MS 1 contains a missal section, stating that it is a “similar example” to London, BL, Harley 1748, which contains a missal between II Mcc and Prv. Personal consultation of this bible confirmed that there is no liturgical material in the manuscript; cf. Ker 1977, pp. 173–174. 28 I consulted this manuscript by means of digital images. 29 I consulted this manuscript in person. 30 I consulted this manuscript by means of digital images. 31 I consulted the liturgical portion of this manuscript by means of digital images. 32 I consulted this manuscript by means of digital images. 33 I consulted this manuscript in person; cf. Dutschke 1989, p. 116, who identifies the liturgical list as representing the liturgical usage of the diocese of Thérouanne in northern France (secundum usum morinensis diocesis). 34 I am grateful to Ruth R. Rogers and Mariana S. Oller of Wellesley College for graciously providing me with digital images of the liturgical section. 35 During my doctoral studies at the Universität Regensburg, I had the opportunity to participate in courses and workshops on manuscript studies led by Patrick Andrist, Susan Boynton, David Gura, Andrew Irving, and Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra. In my approach to the codicological study of bible missals and especially in my detailed descriptions of Dominican bible missals published in the catalog section of this monograph, I have synthesized a variety of techniques and approaches drawn from these and other scholars. Taking inspiration especially from the work of Patrick Andrist, Paul Canart, and Marilena Maniaci on the importance of studying manuscripts as complex objects and describing their material features and content in an integrated manner (see Andrist et al. 2013 and Andrist 2015), I have developed a mode of presenting the physical structure (quires and layout) and biblical and paratextual contents in the form of tables which visually demonstrate the interaction of structure and content. I am especially grateful to Eleanor Giraud for her iterative feedback on my approach to manuscript descriptions. I have also been inspired by the visualization concepts outlined in Dirkse et al. 2019. For a discussion of varying approaches to visualizing the material and textual aspects of manuscripts and the proposal of a “collation map” model, see Dorofeeva 2019. My collation tables emphasize different aspects of the data than Dorofeeva’s but address related concerns. 36 For a discussion of the steps in production for 13th-century Parisian illuminated manuscripts, see Branner 1977, pp. 7–15. For a study of the evidence offered by documentary records for understanding Parisian book production from the 13th through 15th centuries, see Rouse and Rouse 2000. For a discussion of evidence for book production in 13th-century Oxford, see Parkes 1992 and Morgan 2012, pp. 58–73. For discussions of the role of the pecia system in the production of medieval bibles, see Ruzzier 2014b, Rouse and Rouse 2021, pp. 33–34, and Ruzzier 2022, pp. 19–21.

Prologue  

 7

The parchment could be bought by the box and needed only to be scraped before use; professional scribes (who might be clerics) or students copied the texts; rubricators and illuminators added the initials and illustrations; and binders stitched the gatherings together.37

These various tasks were typically coordinated by a bookshop proprietor known as a stacionarius or libraire who dealt both in the trade of secondhand books as well as the production of new volumes.38 Despite the near uniformity of certain textual and codicological features of 13th-century bibles, such as the two-column layout and (to a lesser degree of uniformity) the order of biblical books and prologues, clients commissioning new volumes evidently had some degree of choice in the size of the manuscript, level of artistic decoration, and range of paratexts included.39 Commissioning a bible in the mid-13th century may have been somewhat akin to purchasing a computer today. A buyer can choose from a variety of manufacturers who produce computers of varying size and quality. While a range of base models are readily available, one can also make customizations at the time of purchase or at a later date. Although any new computer can be used to connect to the Internet and do other basic tasks, computers differ greatly in size, weight, and other factors that affect the way in which the computer is used. Some brands or models are luxury items with extrinsic value as “status symbols” while others are more utilitarian in appearance and social status. In a similar way, all medieval bibles gave access to the Vulgate but differed widely in ways that affected their function (e.g., a smaller bible being easier to carry or a bible with higher quality parchment being thinner and thus potentially able to accommodate more non-biblical paratexts) as well as in aesthetic qualities such as their level of artistic decoration.40 The most time-consuming task was the copying of the biblical text itself, which typically took between one and two years if copied by a single scribe.41 Most 13th-century bibles were copied by a single scribe, although some were copied by two or more scribes working on different sections of the manuscript.42 Some decisions regarding the intended type of decoration were likely determined before the scribe began to work, as the scribe had to leave space blank for the copying of large initials and rubrics.43 While all 13th-century bibles had essentially the same range of biblical contents and similar biblical prologues preceding individual biblical books or groups of books, they differed widely in terms of other paratextual features and the level of decoration.44 With regard to decoration, some bibles contained extensive series of historiated initials depicting biblical scenes or authors of biblical books, while others presented more abstract initials decorated with For a discussion of the evidence offered by various types of quire marks, catchwords and leaf signatures for the production process of medieval bibles, see Ruzzier 2022, pp. 112–119. 37 Branner 1977, p. 7. 38 Cf. Branner 1977, pp. 9–10; Rouse and Rouse 2000, v. 1, pp. 24–25. 39 For helpful discussions of biblical paratexts, see Andrist 2018 and Casavecchia et al. 2021, pp. 49–59. 40 It should be recalled that in addition to its aesthetic role, artistic decoration had a functional role in helping the reader to navigate the text and historiated initials may have had a functional role in serving as objects of meditation and devotion; cf. Ruzzier 2022, pp. 167–188. 41 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 20. The Dominican bible missal Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 470r includes a colophon indicating that it was finished in 1250 after its scribe had been writing “for several years” (pluribus annis): “Anno milleno bis centum ter duodeno hiis quoque bis denum iungas et tollito senum. Hec fuit expleta viterbii bibliotheca dextra iohanis que scribat pluribus annis. Quem genuit duris cortona recondita muris. Quam nullus terror vicit nec polluit error. Penna gradum siste quia liber explicit iste.” (In the year 1250 this was finished in the library of Viterbo by the hand of John who was writing for several years, he whom Cortona, famous for its durable walls, bore. O quill, whom no terror conquers, nor error pollutes, cease your motion, for this book is finished.) 42 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 165: 77.6% of the manuscripts studied by Ruzzier were copied by one scribe, 8.9% by two, and 13.4% by three or more. Only a small number of 13th-century bibles include the name of their scribes; see Ruzzier 2022, pp. 166, 283. 43 Paris, BnF, latin 15474 is a fascinating example of a 13th-century bible that has the complete text but no illumination or rubrication, thus giving a glimpse into the state of a bible between the stages of the work of the scribe and the work of the rubricators, artists, and illuminators. Despite its “unfinished” state, this bible was evidently still useful: a loan register from Sorbonne indicates that this manuscript was lent out nine times in the 15th century (although other similarly sized bibles were lent out more frequently, showing a preference for rubricated bibles). Cf. Mabille 1973, p. 200, 202 (on p. 202, Mabille discusses Latin 15474 with the shelfmark ‘Ms. lat. 15475ʹ); Ruzzier 2022, p. 197n25. 44 In the case of bibles with orders of biblical books and prologues that differ from the Parisian order of 76 biblical books and 64 biblical prologues which became standard in Paris by around 1230 (see Table 157 on pp. 473–476 below), it is not clear whether the order of books or selection of prologues was determined by the client or was the result of available exemplars; cf. the prefatory remarks of Ezio Ornato in Ruzzier 2022, p. xi. In the case of the Dominican bible missal Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, which has the unusual feature of entirely omitting the biblical prologues (even to the point of excluding the “prologues” to Sir and Lc which are typically considered part of the canonical text), it seems likely that the scribe was doing this at the request of a patron; the accidental inclusion of a Parisian prologue for II Tim on f. 381v suggests that the scribe was copying from an exemplar that included prologues; for further details, see p. 256 below. Some bibles which initially featured a non-Parisian set of prologues were later adapted to conform to the Parisian set; e.g. Paris, BnF, latin 163 (see p. 291 below) and Paris, Mazarine 31 (see p. 275 below).

8 

 Prologue

painted brushwork or penwork initials. A client commissioning a bible would certainly have chosen the level of decoration, given the higher costs involved with illumination compared to simpler decoration.45 It is not clear whether commissioners of manuscripts with historiated initials may have requested specific iconography or left the choice to the artisans, although the occasional depiction of St. Jerome wearing the habit of a mendicant or monastic order in the opening Frater ambrosius initial (S. 284) or the inclusion of depictions of St. Francis, St. Dominic, or anonymous friars in marginal positions suggests that clients may have specified some elements of the artistic decoration.46 With regard to paratexts, almost all bibles produced after c. 1230 included the Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709), an interpretive guide to the meaning of Latin versions of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words found in threequarters of the 13th-century portable bibles studied by Chiara Ruzzier.47 The second most popular paratext was the epistle and gospel list, a guide to the liturgical readings of the liturgical year found in roughly a quarter of 13th-century portable bibles, although frequently as a later addition.48 A smaller but still significant number of manuscripts include a liturgical calendar, with 2.8% of Ruzzier’s corpus (10 manuscripts) including a the calendar as part of the original production unit and 3.1% (11 manuscripts) including it as a 13th-century addition. Most bibles with epistle and gospel lists and/or calendars belonged to Dominicans and Franciscans, although a few manuscripts with these texts belonged to members of monastic orders, university masters, secular clergy, or laity.49 In addition to the Interpretations of Hebrew Names and liturgical paratexts, a small number of manuscripts include other paratexts such as gospel canon tables (Canones evangeliorum) and authoritative texts for preaching against heretics (Auctoritates contra hereticos) or exegetical and preaching tools such as biblical concordances or lists of scriptural verses or themes for preaching.50 While professional book makers seem to have had access to exemplar manuscripts for the biblical text and biblical prologues, arranged in some cases according to the pecia system,51 it seems likely that the commissioner of a bible with unusual paratexts would have had to supply the scribe with an exemplar of the liturgical text to be copied if it was undertaken as part of the original production of the bible. In the case of liturgical paratexts which were later additions, some were apparently added by users of the manuscript in space originally left blank, while others were supplied on added quires copied by professional scribes and bound with the bible after its initial production. Like the wider repertoire of 13th-century bibles, bible missals were commissioned by a wide variety of clients. Individual manuscripts represent liturgical practices from abbeys of Augustinian canons such as Saint-Geneviève in Paris and SaintFerreol in Essômes-sur-Marne as well as diocesan liturgies of Prague or Paris, while larger numbers of manuscripts represent Dominican, Franciscan, and Cistercian liturgical traditions.52 Amid this variety, the tradition represented by the largest number of bible missals is that of the Order of Preachers, commonly called the Dominicans after their founder Dominic of

45 See Devine 2016, p. 308–310 for a discussion of the costs involved with illumination. 46 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, p. 195. For another example of a Frater ambrosius initial with a particular habit, see Stones 2014, v. 2, pp. 62, describing Paris, BnF, latin 16260, f. 2r: “Jerome seated holding scroll and monk in Benedictine habit.” The c. 1250–1262 “Abbey Bible” (Los Angeles, Getty, Ms. 107) includes depictions of both Dominicans and Franciscans on ff. 1r and 224r, but was clearly made for a Dominican client, as it includes a Dominican calendar (ff. 512v–513r) and Dominican epistle and gospel list (ff. 513v–514r). The Dominican identification is strengthend by the depiction of the Dominicans apparently winning a “sing-off” on f. 224r: both groups of friars are gathered around large choir books, but Christ blesses only the Dominicans, who are elevated above the Franciscans. 47 For introductions to this text, see Poleg 2013a, pp. 118–124 and Poleg 2013b. According to Ruzzier 2022, p. 83, the Interpretations of Hebrew Names is part of the original production unit in 76.6% of bibles (with 4.4% of bibles including the text as a later addition). It is more frequently omitted in Italian (28.2%) than English (15.7%) and French (9.4%) bibles. 48 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 85. In the corpus of portable bibles studied by Ruzzier, 7.6% (27) include an epistle and gospel list as part of the original production unit, 12% (43) include the list as a 13th-century addition, and 5.6% (20) include a list as a 14th- or 15th-century addition. On p. 86, Ruzzier observes that epistle and gospel lists are more frequently found in smaller manuscripts than larger ones and are less common in manuscripts with luxurious decoration, although the presence of an epistle and gospel list in the relatively large (leaf size: 270 x 197 mm) and sumptiously illuminated Abbey Bible (Los Angeles, Getty, Ms. 107) is a reminder that large luxurious bibles sometimes contain liturgical paratexts. It should be noted that some manuscripts include more than one epistle and gospel list which can usually be attributed to different production units: see e.g., Rome, Angelica 32, which contains three epistle and gospel lists in addition to an original Dominican festive missal and an added Dominican calendar. 49 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 88. 50 Cf. Light 2011a; Ruzzier 2022, p. 85. An extraordinarily broad range of paratexts are found in the Dominican bible missals Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 and Rome, Angelica 32, including biblical concordances and a range of other non-liturgical paratexts. 51 Cf. Ruzzier 2014b; Rouse and Rouse 2021, pp. 33–34; Ruzzier 2022, pp. 19–21. 52 For a discussion of evidence for the possession of bibles in the 13th century, see Ruzzier 2022, pp. 194–202.

Prologue  

 9

Osma (1170–1221).53 Of the forty identified bible missals, 13 present Dominican liturgical texts, representing a third of the total repertoire of bible missals. In the Catalog, I give detailed codicological descriptions of the 13 identified Dominican bible missals. In Appendix 1, I provide basic codicological information about the 27 non-Dominican bible missals which have so far been identified. Eight of these manuscripts are Franciscan, three are Augustinian, three are Cistercian, one is Gilbertine, one is from Paris, one is from Prague. Ten bible missals are of unidentified liturgical provenance. Founded in 1216, the Dominicans spread rapidly throughout Europe, prioritizing foundations in university towns like Paris, Bologna and Oxford.54 Together with the Order of Friars Minor, known as the Franciscans after their founder Francis of Assisi (1181–1226), Dominicans played an important role in commissioning manuscript bibles from professional bookmakers in cities like Paris and Oxford and spreading the new type of pandect bible throughout Europe and beyond. As Chiara Ruzzier has shown, mendicant friars were among the most avid users of medieval bibles, especially portable bibles which could easily be transported by friars who traveled frequently for preaching and scholarship.55 While both Dominicans and Franciscans were prominent users of the 13th-century bible, Dominicans played a major role in the development of exegetical tools such as biblical concordances, section letters to subdivide the newly standardized biblical chapters, and detailed biblical commentaries that supplemented the 12th-century glossed bibles which continued to play a major role in 13th-century theology. As Richard and Mary Rouse have observed, Dominicans played a central role in the development of nearly every aspect of medieval biblical production and exegesis: Over the first century and more of their presence at the university, the effect of the Dominicans on books in Paris was vital. They did not create the one-volume Paris Bible, but there can be little doubt that mendicant demand was the deciding factor in establishing the onevolume format as the norm for Bible manuscripts. Their introduction of the pocket Bibles at the end of the 1220s reinforced the change. The biblical tools that the Paris Dominicans created were so obviously useful and in such general demand that their instant popularity served as a fiat, authorizing one standardized order of books of the Bible and a single universally accepted division of the text into chapters. The verbal concordance created by the Saint-Jacques Dominicans, worked over until they reached a satisfactory result, was a success that continued in use for many centuries, to be replaced only by the modern online search engine.56

While Franciscans and others certainly experimented with the bible missal format, Dominicans clearly took the lead in commissioning this type of codex. After undertaking a comparative study of the full range of bible missals in the first chapter, the remainder of this book will focus on Dominican bible missals and the evidence they offer for the development of Dominican liturgy. In addition to being the largest numerical category, the corpus of Dominican bible missals includes examples that were produced in France, England, and Italy, which means that Dominican manuscripts represent a broad range of 13th-century manuscript production practices throughout Europe. From the perspective of liturgical history, Dominican bible missals offer an abundance of new evidence for Dominican liturgical practices in the pivotal early decades of the Order before the liturgical reform undertaken in the mid-1250s by Humbert of Romans (c. 1200–1277), Master of the Order from 1254–1263.57 As the Order of Preachers rapidly spread and embedded itself in the academic, ecclesiastical, and civil structures of cities throughout Europe, the liturgy played a central role in structuring the daily lives of individual friars and providing a springboard for their apostolic preaching. Bible missals give us precious glimpses into the liturgical practice of this dynamic period of the Order’s development of a distinctive identity,58 helping us to better

53 The prominence of Dominican bible missals parallels broader trends. Of the bibles studied by Ruzzier whose owners can be identified, 28 belonged to Dominicans, 14 to Franciscans, two to hermits of St. Augustine, and one to a Carmelite; see Ruzzier 2022, p. 194. 54 For the early history of the Order of Preachers, see Hinnebusch 1966, Hinnebusch 1973, and Prudlo 2010. In recent years, several important collections of essays have been published on various aspects of early Dominican history; see Heusinger et al. 2016, Bériou et al. 2017, Linde 2018, Giraud and Linde 2021, Giraud and Leitmeir 2021. 55 See Ruzzier 2022, pp. 15–19, 194–206. 56 Rouse and Rouse 2021, p. 47; cf. Rouse and Rouse 1974, Rouse and Rouse 1991a, Rouse and Rouse 1991b. 57 For a brief overview of the history of the Dominican liturgy, see Smith 2014. For a biography of Humbert, see Brett 1984. For detailed treatments of the various stages leading to the reformed liturgy of Humbert, see Tugwell 2008, pp. 1–51 and Giraud 2013, pp. 1–14; see also Giraud 2015, Giraud 2018, Giraud 2021b. The studies on the Dominican exemplar Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1 collected in Boyle et al. 2004 remain foundational. 58 For example, the Dominican bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 215 is the earliest identified codex representing Dominican liturgical practice, predating even the canonization of Dominic himself.

10 

 Prologue

understand one of the most important religious movements of the Middle Ages and avoid simplistic narratives of its liturgical practice based on a limited selection of source material.59 In previous scholarship on Dominican liturgy, only five pre-Humbert missals have received significant scholarly attention, and one further pre-Humbert missal has recently been identified.60 By studying Dominican bible missals, we can more than triple the number of pre-Humbert Dominican sources available for scholarly investigation. While most Dominican bible missals contain only a small or moderate selection of mass formulas, rather than the full range of texts used throughout the liturgical year, they nevertheless offer valuable evidence for the development of early Dominican liturgical practice, including the liturgical commemoration of St. Dominic, the observance of temporal and votive masses, and the liturgical texts and rites of the mass (the Ordo Missae). By comparative study of Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert Dominican missals, we can develop a much more nuanced understanding of the gradual development of the distinctive liturgical rites that continued to shape Dominican life for centuries after the reform of Humbert of Romans. This monograph is divided into two main parts: 1) Chapters 1–7, which provide comparative analysis of bible missals and related liturgical texts, and 2) a catalog and series of appendices which provide detailed or summary descriptions of individual manuscripts. Chapter 1 compares the full range of Dominican and non-Dominican bible missals, examining their liturgical and material features and comparing them with the broader range of 13th-century bibles and missals. Chapters 2–5 focus on Dominican bible missals, studying them in the context of the broader range of early Dominican liturgical books. Chapter 2 outlines the evidence for dating pre-Humbert Dominican mass books and establishes a relative chronology of the manuscripts. The following three chapters consist of case studies of several types of liturgical texts, covering a range of sanctoral, temporal, and votive mass formularies as well as the Dominican Ordo Missae. Chapter 3 focuses on liturgical texts for St. Dominic, showing the gradual development of a specific set of chants, orations, and readings for the feast of the founder of the Order of Preachers. Chapter 4 compares liturgical texts for the temporal feast of Pentecost with closely connected texts for the votive mass of the Holy Spirit, demonstrating that Dominicans drew on pre-existing liturgical formularies while developing their own synthesis of the broader Latin liturgical tradition. Chapter 5 examines the Ordo Missae, the texts and rubrics which regulate the variable and fixed parts of the Eucharistic celebration, revealing the diversity and unity of early Dominican eucharistic rites. Chapter 6 discusses the potential uses or “affordances” of bible missals, showing their potential not only for liturgical celebration but also for devotional, homiletic, and scholarly purposes, and is followed by an epilogue outlining paths for future research. The second part of the book consists of a Catalog of the 13 Dominican bible missals, Appendices 1–2, which provide summary descriptions of 27 non-Dominican bible missals and 6 pre-Humbert Dominican missals, and Appendix 3, which provides basic details concerning 143 manuscript missals from the 13th century used as a comparative corpus in Chapter 1. The volume concludes with a bibliography, a guide to the abbreviations used in the book, lists of tables and figures, and indices of manuscripts, people and places, scriptural citations, liturgical incipits, and non-liturgical paratexts discussed in this book. Readers interested in the broader phenomenon of medieval bibles and missals may find chapters 1 and 6 particularly useful, while those who study the development of Dominican liturgical traditions may be especially interested in the content of Chapters 2–5. I have attempted to make the detailed and summary catalog descriptions relatively self-standing, while providing cross-references to other sections of the monograph that may provide helpful context for readers focusing on a particular manuscript. Just as the codicological and paratextual innovations of 13th-century bibles allowed them to be consulted and navigated in non-linear modes, I hope that the arrangement of this monograph may allow it to be useful to a variety of readers with different interests and needs. Bible missals are a significant but understudied subset of the broader category of Gothic missals, one of the most important categories of medieval manuscripts in terms of number of extant sources.61 The texts and rites of the mass were at the core of medieval culture and were intertwined with theological, artistic, intellectual, political, and economic devel59 For discussions of the relationship between Dominican liturgical customs and the communal identity of Dominican friars and nuns, see Smith 2014 and Smith 2021b. 60 Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20; Lausanne, MHL 10; Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5; Mons, BC 63/201; Paris, BnF, latin 8884; Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3; for brief descriptions of these manuscripts, see Appendix 2. In addition to these pre-Humbert missals, I also draw on evidence offered by New Haven, Beinecke, Music Deposit 99, a manuscript which I recently identified as a pre-Humbert Dominican gospel book. This manuscript was produced in Italy and can be dated between c. 1234 and c. 1253 on the basis of the presence in the original hand of the Feast and Translation of St. Dominic and the presence of later additions concerning the gospel for St. Peter Martyr (f. 105v, with the full reading supplied on f. 143v). 61 I am grateful to Andrew Irving for sharing reflections on this theme.

Prologue  

 11

opments throughout the Middle Ages and beyond, but the books which made them available both for the use of medieval Christians and the analysis of contemporary scholars remain poorly understood. While missals were among the most frequently produced texts of the Middle Ages and tremendous resources were invested in their production and preservation, the quantity and variety of extant sources presents challenges for scholars attempting to grasp the phenomenon as a whole or to undertake studies that go beyond individual manuscripts (often chosen for their artistic significance). Through this book, I hope to contribute to a deeper understanding of the significance of both the bible and the liturgy in the lives of medieval Christians by means of a careful study of manuscripts that synthesize biblical and liturgical texts in a single volume. For medieval Christians, scripture was not only to be read, but also enacted.62 Through the liturgy, the words and events of the scriptures were continually called to mind and reenacted in the sacramental rites of the mass. In the phenomenon of the 13th-century bible missal, we encounter a material form of the interpenetration of word and sacrament. Bible missals enabled medieval clerics to be – in the words of Iac 1:22 – “doers of the word, and not hearers only.”

62 See Boynton 2011.

1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy Throughout the thirteenth century, bibles were produced in a wide range of sizes with varying types of artistic decoration, paratexts, exegetical tools, and liturgical texts.1 Bible missals, like the broader repertoire of medieval Latin bibles, appear in a variety of physical forms and present a range of paratextual features in addition to their distinctive liturgical elements. Two bible missals might vary greatly in appearance but contain similar liturgical material or might seem almost identical at first glance and yet represent distinct liturgical traditions. In this chapter, I will give an overview of the material and liturgical features of bible missals, showing how they relate to the broader range of 13th-century bibles as well as to 13th-century missals. This chapter analyzes the 40 bible missals which have so far been identified.2 I have studied 33 of these manuscripts in person, six by means of full or partial digital images, and one by means of previous scholarly descriptions.3 The comparative analysis in this chapter is founded on the detailed codicological descriptions of the 13 Dominican bible missals given in the Catalog of this monograph and the summary descriptions of the 27 non-Dominican bible missals presented in Appendix 1.4 The descriptions of Dominican bible missals in the Catalog provide comprehensive treatments of the material and textual features of each manuscript, while the summary descriptions in Appendix 1 are limited to basic information about the manuscripts. In both the detailed and summary descriptions, I identify the liturgical typology and tradition of the missal section, offer an assessment of the origin and date of the manuscript, describe its material features, layout, and extent of artistic decoration, indicate where the liturgical material appears in relation to the biblical and paratextual material, and provide bibliographical references for each manuscript. In the Catalog, I describe the material and textual features of the manuscripts in greater detail, showing the relationship of the quire structure and layouts of the manuscript to the full range of textual and artistic elements. In this chapter, I will often draw case studies from the corpus of Dominican bible missals, while offering a comprehensive overview of the range of liturgical and material features of bible missals of all liturgical traditions. I will begin by identifying the liturgical traditions represented by bible missals. Next, I will analyze the typology of the missal section of each manuscript, showing the range of occasions which it provides and the relationship of this typology to its liturgical tradition. I will then consider the locations in which liturgical texts appear (i.e., at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of the codex), showing the relationship of this factor to the typology of the missal. I will then offer a comparative analysis of the manuscripts’ artistic decoration, places and dates of origin, and size and layout, comparing the corpus of bible missals with the broader repertoire of 13th-century portable bibles studied by Chiara Ruzzier.5 I will conclude with a comparison of the size and layout of bible missals with 13th-century missals of various liturgical traditions, discussing the relevance of this comparison for addressing questions concerning the potential liturgical use of bible missals. 1 The most common non-liturgical biblical paratext in medieval bibles is the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, an interpretive guide to the meaning of Latin versions of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words which appears in most 13th-century bibles; for discussions of this text, see Poleg 2013a, pp. 118–124, Poleg 2013b, and Ruzzier 2022, pp. 81–84. 2 An additional bible missal came to my attention at a stage too late for consideration in this chapter: Bernkastel-Kues, St. Nikolaus-Hospital/ Cusanusstift, Cod. cus. 132. For a brief discussion of this manuscript, see p. 200n3 below. 3 Due to practical or curatorial concerns, I have consulted the following manuscripts only by means of digital images: Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202; Lisbon, BNP, IL 34; Madrid, BNE 874; Nantes, BM 2; Paris, BnF, latin 10431; Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”). Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3 was sold and broken up at some point after 2013 (see Light 2016, p. 176); for this manuscript I have had to rely on the brief description in Ker 1969, pp. 118–119. 4 Of the 40 manuscripts included in this study, only three have previously been provided with a description that gives comprehensive information about the material features of the manuscript as well as a detailed overview of the biblical and liturgical contents: Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18 (see Saenger 1989, pp. 34–35); London, BL, Harley 1748 (see Kidd 2007); and San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 (see Dutschke 1989, pp. 649–654). 5 Ruzzier 2022 provides a thorough analysis of the material features, production, and ownership of 13th-century “portable” bibles. Ruzzier defines “portable bibles” as those whose “taille” (the sum of the leaf height and leaf width) is under 380 mm, but also analyzes manuscripts whose taille is under 450 mm for comparative purposes (see p. 22). Ruzzier’s statistical analysis is based on three overlapping corpora: 1) 357 bibles under 450 mm in taille consulted in person by Ruzzier (see pp. 267–278); 2) 1739 bibles under 450 mm in taille analyzed by means of catalog descriptions (see pp. 211–266; this number includes the 357 bibles studied in person); and 3) c. 2700 pandect bibles of various sizes and dates (see p. 7; this number includes the other two categories). Most of Ruzzier’s statistical analysis is based on the first or second categories. In general, Ruzzier’s corpora provide a useful basis of comparison with bible missals, although it should be noted that a small number of bible missals are larger than 450 mm in taille. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-002

1.1 Liturgical Tradition  

 13

1.1 Liturgical Tradition Three quarters of bible missals (30 of 40 manuscripts) can be confidently or tentatively identified as representing a particular liturgical tradition based on distinctive liturgical features that point to a particular tradition or due to special emphasis on particular saints connected with a religious order, community, or local church.6 For instance, London, BL, Harley 2813 dedicates one of its small selection of votive mass formularies to St. Francis and includes the name of Francis in a collect which is often “customized” by the addition of particular patron saints; these details allow for a confident attribution of the manuscript to the Order of Friars Minor founded by St. Francis.7 Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47, on the other hand, only preserves a single folio of its original missal section, presenting the formularies for Christmas Day, St. Stephen, and St. John; although none of these texts mention St. Francis, they represent a version of these formularies identical with other Franciscan sources, allowing for a tentative Franciscan attribution.8 Table 3 lists the liturgical tradition of each bible missal, presenting the various traditions in descending order of frequency. Table 3: Liturgical Traditions of Bible Missals. Manuscript

Liturgical Tradition

Brussels, KBR 8882 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 163 Paris, BnF, latin 215 Paris, BnF, latin 16266 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 Poitiers, BM 12 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) Rome, Angelica 32 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202 Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47 Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 13 Darmstadt, ULB 1967 London, BL, Harley 2813 Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3 Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst. London, BL, Add. MS 57531 Paris, BnF, latin 36 Paris, BnF, latin 10431 Lisbon, BNP, IL 34 San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 Tours, BM 5 Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1 Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236 Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1 Cambridge, Trinity College, B.10.18 Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18 Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 203 Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10 London, BL, Harley 1748

Dominican Dominican Dominican Dominican Dominican Dominican (later adapted for Franciscan usage) Dominican Dominican Dominican Dominican Dominican Dominican Dominican Franciscan Franciscan (?) Franciscan Franciscan (?) Franciscan Franciscan Franciscan Franciscan Cistercian Cistercian Cistercian Augustinian Abbey of Saint-Ferreol, Essômes-sur-Marne Augustinian Abbey (?) Augustinian Abbey of Saint-Geneviève, Paris Gilbertine Paris Prague ? ? ? ? ?

6 For discussions of the diversity of medieval Latin liturgical traditions, see Chase 2021 and Földváry 2023. 7 See Kidd 2007, p. 12. In addition to the full votive mass formulary for Francis on f. 227vb, his name is added after those of Peter and Paul in the collect and postcommunion of the votive mass Alia missa ad poscenda suffragia sanctorum que fecit dominus papa Innocentius on f. 230vb; cf. Kidd 2007, p. 17. 8 See Poleg 2020a, p. 29n59, who thanks Eleanor Giraud for suggesting the provenance.

14 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

Table 3 (continued) Manuscript

Liturgical Tradition

Madrid, BNE 874 Nantes, BM 2 Paris, BnF, latin 216 Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638 Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136

? ? ? ? ?

Of the 40 bible missals, the Dominican tradition is represented by 13 examples, the largest number of identifiable manuscripts. One of these, Paris, BnF, latin 163, was later adapted for Franciscan usage.9 The next largest group is Franciscan, with eight manuscripts (not counting Latin 163). Three manuscripts represent the Cistercian liturgy, three manuscripts represent individual Augustinian abbeys (whose liturgical tradition was less unified than that of the Cistercians), and individual manuscripts represent liturgies from Paris, Prague, and the Gilbertine Order of Sempringham.10 The remaining ten bible missals are less easily identifiable; in some cases, it may be impossible to identify their liturgical tradition due to the paucity of texts or the fragmentary condition of the manuscripts, but further study may reveal evidence for the liturgical origins of some volumes. The percentage of bible missals representing liturgical traditions of mendicant and non-mendicant religious orders categories corresponds closely with the broader repertoire of 13th century bibles studied by Chiara Ruzzier. It should be noted that a much larger percentage of bible missals (74%)11 provide evidence for 13th-century possessors than Ruzzier’s repertoire of bibles (10%).12 This is likely due to the fact that liturgical texts often provide evidence for identifying ownership. Of the 36 bibles identified by Ruzzier which provide evidence for the status of their 13th-century possessor, 69.4% belonged to members of mendicant orders, while 16.7% belonged to members of non-mendicant orders (such as the Cistercians or Augustinians) and 13.9% belonged to secular clergy or university masters.13 As Table 4 shows, these numbers correspond closely with the percentage of bible missals with identified origins, of which 72.4% are from mendicant orders, 24.1% are from non-mendicant orders, and 3.4% percent represent a secular liturgical tradition (in this case, the liturgy of Paris).14 The close correspondence between the two data sets suggests that the prominence of Dominican and Franciscan bible missals is closely connected to broader trends of 13th-century bible ownership in which mendicant friars played a predominant role. Table 4: Comparison of Origins of Bible Missals and Ownership of Bibles. Owner

Bible missals with identified origins

Bibles with 13th-century evidence for possessors15

Mendicant Monastic Secular clergy University masters

21 (72.4%) 7 (24.1%) 1 (3.4%) n/a

25 (69.4%) 6 (16.7%) 3 (8.3%) 2 (5.6%)

Total

29 (100%)

36 (100%)

9 After the initial production of the manuscript, many Franciscan feasts were added to the calendar and certain Dominican feasts were erased or replaced. The individual who added the Franciscan feasts was likely also responsible for the addition of an incomplete Franciscan Ordo Missae in another part of the manuscript. For further details, see p. 292 below. 10 For a brief discussion of Gilbertine canons and nuns, see Pfaff 2009, pp. 303–310. 11 I have excluded Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1 from consideration here, since it dates to the 15th century and thus cannot be compared with the 13th-century evidence studied by Ruzzier. 12 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 195. Ruzzier identifies 36 bibles as having 13th-century ownership evidence; this is 10% of her repertoire of 357 manuscripts consulted in person. 13 Ruzzier 2022, p. 195, Tableau 158. A larger number of manuscripts provide evidence for ownership in the 14th and 15th centuries by various groups; in these cases, 48.9% belonged to mendicants and 15.9% to non-mendicant religious. 14 Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236. 15 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, p. 195, Tableau 158.

1.2 Typology of Liturgical Texts for the Mass  

 15

1.2 Typology of Liturgical Texts for the Mass In addition to representing a variety of liturgical traditions, bible missals provide a range of types of liturgical material. They can thus be classified by their liturgical typology, i.e., the extent and arrangement of their liturgical contents for the mass. Scholars who have worked with individual bible missals have struggled to articulate the precise character of the liturgical texts contained within them.16 When compared with the broader repertoire of medieval missals, however, the varying ranges of texts provided by bible missals correspond to broader typologies of medieval missals. Through comparative work with bible missals and other manuscript missals and through the study of various catalogs devoted to liturgical manuscripts,17 I have identified three basic categories of missal sections within bible missals distinguished on the basis of liturgical contents.18 1) Full missals,19 which contain the full range of temporal, sanctoral, votive and Requiem masses for the entire liturgical year.20 2) Festive missals, which contain a limited selection of major feasts for the temporal and sanctoral sections as well as a relatively full selection of votive and Requiem masses. 3) Votive missals, which contain a limited selection of votive and Requiem masses (sometimes with a handful of sanctoral masses which likely function as a form of votive mass). In all three cases, the Ordo Missae is included in some form (usually beginning with the offertory or preface and going to the end of mass, but occasionally starting with vesting prayers or with the “prayers at the foot of the altar”) and the range of occasions are provided with varying levels of completeness for different genres of liturgical texts. Most bible missals provide the chant texts and orations in essentially complete forms but have more diversity in the presentation of biblical

16 Laura Light offers a self-critique on this point in Light 2016, pp. 176–177: “In earlier articles, I unfortunately described the Missal sections with selected Masses only as ‘abbreviated’ (or even more unfortunately as ‘partial’), which may have led to confusion. Abbreviated Missals do not include Masses for the entire liturgical year, but they do include all the texts needed to say Mass on selected occasions, often votive Masses and Masses for the dead, together with a few proper Masses for selected feasts.” Other scholars have used a range of terminology to try to describe the range of texts found in various individual manuscripts. For instance, Richard Pfaff uses the term “select missal” to refer to what I describe as a “festive missal”; see Pfaff 2009, pp. 173, 294, 305, 512, 520n217, 521. 17 I have been especially influenced by the pioneering work of Vincent Leroquais and Pierre Salmon: Leroquais 1924 (focused on sacramentaries and missals in French public libraries) and Salmon 1968–1972 (focused on liturgical manuscript in the Vatican Library). Leroquais tends to identify manuscripts in the main heading of his descriptions as “Sacramentaire/Missel de []” (when he locates it to a particular place) or adjectival forms like “Missel franciscain” or “Missel cistercien” (when he associated it with a religious order rather than a particular community). In the body of his descriptions, however, Leroquais often identifies varying ranges of liturgical material that are very close to my threefold typology of full, festive, and votive missals. Leroquais identifies many manuscripts corresponding to my definition of “festive missal” with variations of the phrase “Ce missel ne renferme que les principales fêtes” (sometimes using the equivalent word “comprend” in place of “renferme”). On one occasion, Leroquais identifies a manuscript with a similar phrase which corresponds to my definition a “votive missal”: “Ce missel ne renferme que les messes votives” (v. 2, p. 97, n. 281, entry for Laon, BM 212). In the introduction to the second volume of his inventory of liturgical manuscripts in the Vatican Library, Salmon discusses the ambiguities of the phrase “missel plénier,” but makes use of the phrase “missels festifs ou votifs” (v. 2, p. X). In his descriptions, in which the typology of manuscripts is written in Latin, Salmon identifies twelve manuscripts with the phrase “Missale festivum” and ten manuscripts with the phrase “Missale votivum.” Further work is needed to establish a standardized and unambiguous set of terminology for different types of liturgical books and of mass books in particular. For a collection of essays considering the complexities of liturgical typology in the context of cataloging liturgical manuscripts, see Albiero and Celora 2021. 18 It should be noted that there are other possible ways of categorizing missals, for instance on the basis of their size, level of decoration, or place of origin; I also make use of these categories while discussing bible missals, but a typology based on liturgical contents can be of great help in seeing connections between manuscripts which might at first seem quite different due precisely to their varied size, decoration, or origin. 19 My use of the adjective “full” refers to the range of liturgical occasions contained in the missal, rather than the range of liturgical genres (chant text, oration, reading) that is typically invoked by the term “plenary” in the phrase “plenary missal” to refer to a mass book that combines the various genres of mass texts in an integrated sequence; cf. Irving 2015 and Irving 2021a. 20 An important subcategory of the full missal is a missal which divides the liturgical year into multiple volumes, e.g., a “winter” and “summer” volume, but which contains a full range of masses for that part of the year. Although no identified bible missals follow a seasonal arrangement, many manuscripts cataloged by Leroquais are divided in this way (labelled “Été” or “Hiver”).

16 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

texts: the readings are sometimes provided in full and sometimes provided in abbreviated modes that indicate only the opening words (incipit) or the opening and closing words (incipit and explicit) as well as the biblical book and chapter number.21 In addition to the three main categories of bible missals, there are also bibles which contain the Ordo Missae but no mass formularies, as well as manuscripts which contain mass formularies without an Ordo Missae. While these could arguably be denied the title “bible missals,” I have included them in this study as they offer important parallel testimony to the liturgical material contained in the three primary types of bible missals. In several cases, the missal section of a bible is now in a fragmentary state, sometimes making it impossible to identify the original typology with certainty; nevertheless, it is occasionally possible to provisionally assign a typology based on the extant material. Table 5 lists the bible missals which belong to each typology and notes the tradition which each represents. The manuscripts are listed in descending order from the fullest liturgical typology (full missal) to the least extensive (Ordo Missae without mass texts), followed by manuscripts of uncertain typology. Table 5: Typology and Tradition of Bible Missals. Shelfmark

Typology

Tradition

Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 13 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Darmstadt, ULB 1967 Lisbon, BNP, IL 34 London, BL, Add. MS 57531 Paris, BnF, latin 36 Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236 Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst. Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47 Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1 Nantes, BM 2 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1 Rome, Angelica 32 San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136 Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202 Brussels, KBR 8882 Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10 London, BL, Harley 1748 London, BL, Harley 2813 London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 215 Paris, BnF, latin 216 Paris, BnF, latin 10431 Paris, BnF, latin 16266 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 Poitiers, BM 12 Madrid, BNE 874 Paris, BnF, latin 163 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”)

Full missal Full missal (unfinished) Full missal Full missal Full missal Full missal Full missal Full missal Full missal Festive missal (fragmentary) Festive missal Festive missal (fragmentary) Festive missal Festive missal Festive missal Festive missal Festive missal Votive missal Votive missal Votive missal Votive missal Votive missal Votive missal Votive missal Votive missal Votive missal Votive missal Votive missal (fragmentary) Votive missal Votive missal Votive missal Mass texts Ordo Missae Ordo Missae Ordo Missae

Franciscan Franciscan (?) Dominican Franciscan Augustinian Cistercian Cistercian Paris Franciscan Franciscan (?) Gilbertine ? Dominican Prague Dominican Augustinian (?) ? Franciscan Dominican ? ? Franciscan Dominican Franciscan Dominican Dominican Dominican ? Cistercian Dominican Dominican Dominican ? Dominican (later adapted for Franciscan usage) Dominican

21 For example, three Dominican bible missals indicate Io 14:23–31 as the gospel for the votive mass of the Holy Spirit but present it in three different ways. Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 2va gives only the incipit (Si quis diligit me), Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 559va gives the incipit and explicit (In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis: Si quis diligit me: Finis. Et sicut mandatum dedit michi pater: sic facio), and Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 200v gives the full text. For a fuller discussion of these readings, see pp. 88–97 below.

1.2 Typology of Liturgical Texts for the Mass  

 17

Table 5 (continued) Shelfmark

Typology

Tradition

Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638 Tours, BM 5 Cambridge, Trinity College, B.10.18 Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18 Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 203

Ordo Missae Ordo Missae Fragmentary missal (typology uncertain) Fragmentary missal (typology uncertain) Fragmentary missal (typology uncertain)

? Augustinian ? ? ?

The typology with the largest number of identifiable manuscripts is the votive missal, of which there are 14 examples (35% of the corpus). This is followed by the full missal, with nine examples (23%); notably, two of these manuscripts also include full breviaries together with the missals.22 Eight bibles (20%) contain festive missals23 and five (13%) contain the Ordo Missae without proper mass formularies. One bible (3%) contains mass formularies without the Ordo Missae; the mass texts are a later addition added in the lower margins throughout the Interpretations of Hebrew Names.24 Finally, three manuscripts (8%) have uncertain typologies due to lacunae in their liturgical content.25 Table 6 compares the distribution of bible missal typologies with the liturgical traditions they represent. Each tradition that has more than one identified bible missal is listed in a separate column, while the remaining manuscripts are listed together in the “Other traditions” column. Table 6: Relationship Between Typology and Tradition. Typology Full missal Festive missal Votive missal Mass formularies Ordo Missae Uncertain Total

Dominican

Franciscan

Cistercian

Augustinian

Other traditions

1 (7.7%) 2 (15.4%) 7 (53.8%) 1 (7.7%) 2 (15.4%) 0 (0.0%)

4 (50.0%) 1 (12.5%) 3 (37.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

2 (66.7%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (33.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

1 (33.3%) 1 (33.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (33.3%) 0 (0.0%)

1 (7.7%) 4 (30.8%) 3 (23.1%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (15.4%) 3 (23.1%)

13 (100.0%)

8 (100.0%)

3 (100.0%)

3 (100.0%)

13 (100.0%)

More than half of Dominican bible missals contain votive missals, while the other typologies are each represented by only one or two Dominican manuscripts. Franciscan sources have a more balanced distribution of full and votive missals but include only a single festive missal and no examples of the other typologies. Among the more limited range of Cistercian and Augustinian bible missals, two out of three Cistercian bible missals have full missals, while the three Augustinian bible missals each represent different typologies, with one example from the full, festive, and Ordo Missae categories. The manuscripts of other traditions or whose liturgical tradition is not yet determined are relatively evenly distributed between the various typologies. Although the limited number of non-mendicant manuscripts precludes generalizations about the relationship between typology and tradition in these manuscripts, it is striking that the more amply represented mendicant traditions show a contrast between the Dominican preference for votive missals and the apparent Franciscan preference for full missals. Nevertheless, it should be recalled that the discovery of further bible missals may shift the percentages of typologies represented by each tradition.

22 Lisbon, BNP, IL 34 and Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236 contain full breviaries in addition to full missals. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 13 contains only the first few folios of what was clearly intended to be a full missal, but which was never completed by the scribe. 23 Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47 only preserves a single folio of the original missal section which begins on f. 16v after the conclusion of Iob on f. 16r. The folio begins with the mass of Christmas Day followed by formularies for St. Stephen and St. John before breaking off, and there is no indication that liturgical texts for feasts before Christmas Day were ever included. This suggests that the manuscript originally contained a festive missal with a combination of major temporal and sanctoral feasts. 24 Poitiers, BM 12. 25 Cambridge, Trinity College, B.10.18; Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18, and Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 203 each have fragmentary texts that attest to the presence of a missal, but which do not provide sufficient evidence for categorization.

18 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

1.3 Location of Liturgical Texts Liturgical texts appear in a range of locations within bible missals, and sometimes liturgical texts are found in several locations within a single manuscript. The three locations where liturgical texts appear are at the beginning of the manuscript, in the middle, or at the end. In the case of two bible missals, the texts are found in two locations within the manuscript. Table 7 lists the locations in which the liturgical texts are found in each manuscript while also noting the liturgical typologies and traditions of each manuscript. Table 7: Location of Liturgical Texts. Shelfmark

Location

Typology

Tradition

London, BL, Add. MS 57531

Beginning

Full missal

Cistercian

Paris, Mazarine 31

Beginning

Votive missal

Dominican

Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1

Beginning

Festive missal

Prague

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”)

Beginning

Ordo Missae

Dominican

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

Beginning

Votive missal

Dominican

Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136

Middle (between Est and Iob)

Festive missal

?

Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47

Middle (between Iob and Ps)

Festive missal (fragmentary)

Franciscan (?)

Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202

Middle (between Ps and Is)

Votive missal

Franciscan

Brussels, KBR 8882

Middle (between Ps and Prv)

Votive missal

Dominican

Cambridge, Trinity College, B.10.18

Middle (between Ps and Prv)

Fragmentary missal (typology uncertain)

?

Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18

Middle (between Ps and Prv)

Fragmentary missal (typology uncertain)

?

Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 203

Middle (between Ps and Prv)

Fragmentary missal (typology uncertain)

?

Darmstadt, ULB 1967

Middle (between Ps and Prv)

Full missal

Franciscan

London, BL, Harley 1748

Middle (between Ps and Prv)

Votive missal

?

London, BL, Harley 2813

Middle (between Ps and Prv)

Votive missal

Franciscan

London/Oslo, Schøyen 115

Middle (between Ps and Prv)

Votive missal

Dominican

Madrid, BNE 874

Middle (between Ps and Prv)

Ordo Missae

?

Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3

Middle (between Ps and Prv)

Votive missal

Franciscan

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

Middle (between Ps and Prv)

Votive missal

Dominican

Paris, BnF, latin 215

Middle (between Ps and Prv)

Votive missal

Dominican

Rome, Angelica 32

Middle (between Ps and Prv)

Festive missal

Dominican

San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061

Middle (between Ps and Prv)

Festive missal

Augustinian

Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638

Middle (between Ps and Prv)

Ordo Missae

?

Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst.

Middle (between Ps and Prv)

Full missal

Franciscan

Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10

Middle (between Ps and Prv [Ordo Missae])/End (after IHN [votive missal])

Votive missal

?

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 13

End (after Apc)

Full missal (unfinished)

Franciscan (?)

Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1

End (after Apc)

Festive missal

Gilbertine

Lisbon, BNP, IL 34

End (after Apc)

Full missal

Augustinian

Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236

End (after Apc)

Full missal

Paris

1.3 Location of Liturgical Texts  

 19

Table 7 (continued) Shelfmark

Location

Typology

Tradition

Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3

End (after Apc [Ordo Missae]/ After IHN [full missal])

Full missal

Franciscan

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16

End (after IHN)

Full missal

Dominican

Nantes, BM 2

End (after IHN)

Festive missal (fragmentary)

?

Paris, BnF, latin 36

End (after IHN)

Full missal

Cistercian

Paris, BnF, latin 163

End (after IHN)

Ordo Missae

Dominican (later adapted for Franciscan usage)

Paris, BnF, latin 216

End (after IHN)

Votive missal (fragmentary)

?

Paris, BnF, latin 10431

End (after IHN)

Votive missal

Cistercian

Paris, BnF, latin 16266

End (after IHN)

Votive missal

Dominican

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

End (after IHN)

Festive missal

Dominican

Tours, BM 5

End (after IHN)

Ordo Missae

Augustinian

Poitiers, BM 12

End (margins of IHN)

Mass texts

Dominican

Table 8 indicates the relationship between the location of liturgical texts and their typology. A comparison of these factors reveals two significant trends: full missals tend to be placed at the end of the manuscript (67%), while votive missals tend to appear at the middle (64%), although there are examples of full and votive missals at each location. Festive missals are relatively evenly distributed between the middle and the end, although a single manuscript places a festive missal at the beginning. Taking all typologies together, 50% of bible missals present the liturgical materials at the middle of the manuscript (20 manuscripts), 37.5% place them at the end (15 manuscripts), and 12.5% place them at the beginning (5 manuscripts).26 Table 8: Relationship Between Location and Typology. Location Beginning Middle End Total

Full missal

Festive missal

Votive missal

Mass formularies

Ordo Missae

Uncertain

1 (11.1%) 2 (22.2%) 6 (66.7%)

1 (12.5%) 4 (50.0%) 3 (37.5%)

2 (14.3%) 9 (64.3%) 3 (21.4%)

0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (100.0%)

1 (20.0%) 2 (40.0%) 2 (40.0%)

0 (0.0%) 3 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%)

9 (100.0%)

8 (100.0%)

14 (100.0%)

1 (100.0%)

5 (100.0%)

3 (100.0%)

Of the 20 manuscripts that place the texts in the middle, 85% place the liturgical texts between Ps and Prv. The other three place them between Est and Iob (Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136), Iob and Ps (Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47), and Ps and Is (Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202).27 The frequent placement of liturgical texts between Ps and Prv is likely related to the fact that this is typically the physical center of the bible, enabling the bible to remain open at these leaves more easily than other sections of the volume.28 In addition, it is relatively common for there to be a modular break or caesura between Ps and Prv, with 35% 26 For the purposes of these figures, I have included Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10 in the category of manuscripts that place the liturgical texts in the middle; this source places the Ordo Missae at the middle and the mass formularies at the end of the manuscript. I have included Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3 in the category of manuscripts that place the liturgical texts at the end; this manuscript places the Ordo Missae after Apc and the mass formularies after the Interpretations of Hebrew Names. 27 Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202 gives the biblical books in an unusual order: 1 Mc and 2 Mc are given between Est and Iob (instead of at the end of the Old Testament) and Prv, Ecl, Ct, Sap, and Sir appear after the Minor Prophets and before the New Testament. Due to this unusual order, the Franciscan votive missal in the Boston manuscript is given between Ps and Is but nevertheless appears roughly at the middle of the manuscript (ff. 193r–198r in a manuscript of 376 leaves). 28 Cf. Light 2013, p. 192: “We can only speculate on why the Missals were placed following the Psalms in the middle of the biblical text. It may simply have been a practical choice, since a book open to the middle tends to stay open. Placement in the middle of the volume also parallels the position of the canon of the Mass in the middle of most Missals.”

20 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

of the broader repertoire of bibles beginning Prv on a new quire.29 Book makers sometimes made use of leaves between the conclusion of the Psalter and the end of the quire containing the Psalter to provide liturgical texts. Brussels, KBR 8882, London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, and Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 each present a Dominican votive missal on the closing leaves of the quire which concludes the Psalter, with Prv beginning on the following quire.30 In other cases, liturgical texts begin at the end of the Psalter quire but continue onto an additional quire or quires. Paris, BnF, latin 215 begins its Dominican votive missal at the end of the Psalter quire but continues the liturgical texts on a new quire; Prv in turn begins on a new quire after the conclusion of the liturgical texts. Notably, the quire dedicated to the liturgical texts in Latin 215 is smaller than the typical quires used in this manuscript (10 leaves rather than 20 leaves); although the votive missal and other liturgical texts are part of the original production unit, the book makers must have recognized that they would not need a full 20-leaf quire for the intended liturgical texts and thus modified the quire pattern to fit the intended liturgical contents. The Dominican festive missal in Rome, Angelica 32 begins at the end of the Psalter quire and continues onto a new quire, but in this case Prv follows immediately after the liturgical texts without starting a new quire. In addition to offering clear evidence that the missal is original to this manuscript, this example shows that the space between Ps and Prv could be used for liturgical or other paratexts even without a codicological break before Prv. On the other hand, it should also be noted that some bible missals have a modular break between Ps and Prv but nevertheless place the missal section at the beginning or end of the manuscript.31 The second most common location for the missal is at the end of the manuscript, with 15 examples (37.5%). Nine of these manuscripts place the missal texts after the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, while four place them directly after Apc. One (Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10) places the Ordo Missae after Apc and the full missal after the Interpretations. Finally, in one manuscript (Poitiers, BM 12) the liturgical texts are added to blank space in the margins of the Interpretations. In contrast to missals at the center of the manuscript, which often begin on blank leaves at the end of the last Psalter quire, missal sections at the end of manuscripts tend to begin on new quires. Among Dominican examples, the liturgical sections at the end of Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, Paris, BnF, latin 16266 and Pisa, Cathariniana 177 all begin on new quires; in each of these cases, the missal is original to the production unit. In the two Dominican examples where the missal section shares leaves with the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, Paris, BnF, latin 163 and Poitiers, BM 12, the liturgical section is clearly a later addition. The least common placement for the missal section is the beginning of the manuscript, of which there are only five examples (12.5%). In four cases, there is a modular break between the end of the liturgical material and the beginning of the bible section, with the bible section beginning on a new quire. Paris, Mazarine 31 is the only exception, with the biblical prologue Frater ambrosius (S. 284) beginning on f. 5v following the end of the Dominican votive missal section or f. 5r and continuing without break onto the next quire; this is clear evidence that the missal section was produced as part of the original production unit. In the case of Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), the Ordo Missae at the beginning of the manuscript is a later addition to the bible and seems to have been added between the opening quire with a Dominican calendar and epistle and gospel list (which is likely contemporary with the bible) and the start of the bible section.32 In Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, on the other hand, the Dominican votive missal at the start of the manuscript occupies a distinct quire but seems to be original to the production of the bible. London, BL, Add. MS 57531 and Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1, which contain extensive liturgical sections (a full missal and festive missal respectively), present the liturgical material over the course of several quires before beginning the bible section on a new quire. Three manuscripts have complex arrangements of the liturgical material. Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10 places the Ordo Missae between Ps and Prv but puts the votive missal formularies at the end of the manuscript; in this case, the Ordo Missae now begins imperfectly due to the loss of several leaves, but the Ordo Missae and formularies are likely from the same production unit. Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3 likewise divides the Ordo Missae from the formularies, placing the Ordo Missae immediately after Apc and the formularies after the Interpretations of Hebrew Names; in this 29 Casavecchia et al. 2021, p. 73 defines a caesura as “an instance where the end of a text and the end of a quire are in synchrony.” On the significance of modular breaks or caesurae in biblical manuscripts, see Maniaci 2022a, pp. 50–58; cf. Maniaci 2016, p. 28; Maniaci 2022b, p. 338. For the percentages of bibles with modular breaks, see Ruzzier 2022, p. 111, Tableau 70. There are important correlations between place of origin and the presence of modular breaks: while 24% of English bibles and 28.9% of French bibles have a modular break between Ps and Prv, 56.4% of Italian bibles have this feature. 30 For further details, see the discussions of each manuscript in the Catalog. 31 E.g., Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 (Dominican votive missal at beginning); Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (Dominican festive missal at end). 32 For further details, see the discussion in the catalog description on pp. 361–362 below.

1.3 Location of Liturgical Texts  

 21

case, the Ordo Missae seems to be original to the manuscript, but the formularies appear to be a later addition. The Ordo Missae section follows the same overall layout of the preceding biblical material, although the text is written in 47 lines in two columns in contrast to the 52–53 found in most of the biblical text. The full missal formularies begin at f. 373v with a three-column layout that corresponds to the larger written space dimensions of the Interpretations of Hebrew Names section, but at f. 392r the scribes switch to a two-column layout.33 It is not obvious in this case whether the Interpretations of Hebrew Names and the later missal section are part of the original production unit of the bible. It is not uncommon for the Interpretations to have a different layout than the main biblical text, but differences in script and decoration suggest that the Interpretations is likely a later addition to the manuscript. If this is the case, then the Ordo Missae was part of the original production unit, but the full Franciscan missal was a later addition.34 Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136 presents an even more complex case. In its present state, the bible includes a festive missal at the middle of the manuscript between Est and Iob (ff. 152r–156v) but there is clear material evidence that at an earlier stage in the history of the manuscript the festive missal was found at the end of the manuscript.35 Several stages in the history of the manuscript can be discerned on codicological grounds. At its first production, the bible did not contain a missal section. Later, an epistle and gospel list was added on blank leaves between Esther and Job, making use of blank leaves at the end of the Esther quire and finishing on the margins of the opening of the Job quire. At some stage, three quires containing the Interpretations of Hebrew Names and the festive missal were added at the back of the manuscript. Given the differences of script, decoration, ruling, and pricking, the Interpretations and festive missal sections were likely produced by a different set of artisans than the rest of the bible. At a later point, the third quire of the Interpretations was removed and a portion of it (including the missal) was rebound in its current place within the manuscript, while the opening and closing folio of the quire were kept together with the first two quires of the Interpretations. Due to the obvious discontinuities and codicological complexities of the manuscript as it presently stands, it is clear that the bible and the missal represent different production units, and that the manuscript circulated in at least three different forms (bible without missal, bible with missal at end, bible with missal in the middle). To summarize, half of the corpus of bible missals present the liturgical materials at the middle of the manuscript, 37.5% place them at the end, and 12.5% place them at the beginning. The location of the liturgical materials is highly correlated with the liturgical typology: 67% of full missals are placed at the end of the manuscript, while 64% of votive missals appear at the middle. It is noteworthy that no bibles place the missal between the Old Testament and New Testament.36

33 A calendar appears in a two-column layout on ff. 387v–388v, between the end of the temporale and the beginning of the sanctorale, but the sanctorale utilizes with the three-column layout until f. 391v. 34 Cf. Poleg 2020a, p. 30: “The Mass-texts in CUL Hh.1.3 were begun by the original production team on fols 352v–354r with prefaces for a variety of liturgical occasions starting with the Nativity. A series of subsequent readers (fols 373v–404v, starting with the First Sunday of Advent) continued this work, adding and modifying chants.” The texts on ff. 352v–354r were produced by the original production team, but the added missal section is clearly the result of careful planning, rather than a gradual compilation. Given the continuity between the Interpretations of Hebrew Names and the full missal, it seems likely that these sections were produced together and added to the bible at some point after its initial production. Although further research is necessary on this manuscript to offer a satisfactory conclusion on this point, if the missal is indeed a later addition, its sanctoral and calendar sections do not offer evidence for dating the manuscript as a whole. Binski et al. 2011, pp. 115–116 date this manuscript to the third quarter of the thirteenth century without an explanation of the grounds for this dating, although the editors state that the “Missal and Calendar [are] in slightly later hands from that of the Bible,” and note the presence of Richard of Chichester (canonized 1262) in the calendar. It is not clear whether the texts for Richard contributed to the assessment of the dating of the manuscript to the third quarter of the century, but they do not seem to offer reliable evidence for the dating of the manuscript as a whole, but only of the missal section. 35 Throughout most of the bible, the written space of the text is c. 130 x 83 mm, with two columns of 58–60 lines; in the missal section, the written space is significantly taller and wider, at c. 142 x 100 mm, with two columns of 39–40 lines. The artistic decoration varies considerably between the two sections, with the littera duplex and flourished initials in the bible standing in contrast to the simpler flourished and non-flourished initials in the missal. Throughout the missal, there are prominent prickings on the inner margin which do not appear in the bible section. The quire which contains the missal begins imperfectly with the concluding section of the Interpretations of Hebrew Names (f. 151r, followed by a blank page [f. 151v]), whereas the rest of the Interpretations is found at the end of the manuscript at ff. 366r–390v. The current placement of the missal quire interrupts the epistle and gospel list which is provided on ff. 149r–150v and f. 157r, which appears to have been added at some point after the initial production of the bible on space that was originally left blank. 36 Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202 does include some added liturgical texts on blank space between the end of the Old Testament and New Testament (f. 288r–v), but the manuscript’s primary votive missal section is between Psalms and Isaiah (ff. 193r–198r).

22 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

1.4 Decoration In addition to its aesthetic value, decoration in medieval bibles played an important role in helping users to navigate the divisions and subdivisions of the biblical text and paratexts.37 In addition to paratextual features such as running headers which identified the title of the biblical book or chapter numbers which appeared in the margins or within the columns of the biblical text,38 bibles typically employed a hierarchy of different types of initials to demarcate the start of biblical books, prologues to biblical books, and chapters of biblical books.39 The Psalter was typically provided with special initials for certain Psalms which were used at the beginning of Matins or Vespers throughout the week in the secular (non-monastic) office: Ps 1 (Sunday Matins), Ps 26 (Monday Matins), Ps 38 (Tuesday Matins), Ps 52 (Wednesday Matins), Ps 68 (Thursday Matins), Ps 80 (Friday Matins), and Ps 97 (Saturday Matins), and Ps 109 (Sunday Vespers).40 Individual bible missals vary widely in the style and extent of their decoration. Given the variety of terminology in use by manuscript scholars and art historians to describe initials, I will use the following categories to describe initials: historiated (painted initials which depict biblical scenes, characters, or authors), decorated (painted initials which do not include narrative figural imagery), littera duplex (penwork initials with interlocking red and blue ink, sometimes referred to as “puzzle” initials), and flourished (penwork initials of a single color with red and blue ink flourishing).41 Although scholarship on 13th-century bibles has tended to focus on manuscripts with sumptuous artistic decoration, Chiara Ruzzier has shown that a large portion of portable bibles have more modest decoration: 35% of the manuscripts of the corpus have only flourished initials. The rest of the manuscripts have all or part of the initials ornamented, but only 22% of the total have historiated initials for all the books of the bible.42

Three examples of Dominican bible missals give a sense of this range. Brussels, KBR 8882 has very simple decoration, consisting only of littera duplex and flourished initials. Paris, BnF, latin 215 has moderately ornate decoration, with decorated initials for a few biblical books, but mostly littera duplex and flourished initials. Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 has historiated initials for nearly every biblical book.43 In the case of the Genesis initial, the Brussels manuscript begins with a littera duplex penwork initial with interlocking red and blue section,44 the Paris manuscript has a richly decorated (but non-figural) initial,45 and the Oxford manuscript has a historiated initial presenting the six days of creation with the Crucifixion at the base of the initial.46 The manuscripts likewise differ in the decoration provided for the missal sections. While the Brussels manuscript uses the same decorative style for the In principio and the Te igitur,47 the Paris and Oxford manuscripts take different approaches. Although it does not include historiated initials elsewhere in the manuscript, the

37 See Poleg 2020, pp. 6–13; Ruzzier 2022, pp. 167–188. 38 Ruzzier 2022, pp. 181–188. 39 Ruzzier 2022, p. 172. 40 For detailed tables of the use of the Psalms in the secular and monastic liturgies, see Gy 1984, pp. 546–549. For an overview of various Psalm divisions in a range of medieval psalters, see Solopova 2013, pp. 641–650. According to Ruzzier 2022, p. 63, 60.2% of a selection of 246 bibles make use of the secular liturgical division of the Psalter, with an additional 27.2% of bibles providing the liturgical division as well as marking certain other psalms for various other reasons, which means that 87.4% of bibles give prominence to Ps 1, Ps 26, Ps 38, Ps 52, Ps 68, Ps 80, Ps 97, and Ps 109 by means of special initials. In addition to this liturgical division, a significant number of bibles show traces of a tripartite division of the Psalter which gives special prominence to Ps 1, Ps 51, and/or Ps 101. According to Ruzzier, 12.6% of 13th-century bibles include special initials for Ps 51 and 12.2% include special initials for Ps 51 and Ps 101. In both cases, a larger percentage of English bibles include this feature than bibles from France and Italy, although enough French bibles include this division that the presence of special initials for these psalms is not a certain indication of place of origin. 41 Ruzzier 2022, p. 173 uses the terms historiée and ornée in the same sense that I use historiated and decorated but uses the term filigranée to comprise both types of penwork initials that I distinguish as littera duplex and flourished. I include “inhabited initials” which depict dragons or other creatures unrelated to the content of the biblical book within the category of “decorated initials.” 42 Ruzzier 2013, p. 125n36. Cf. Ruzzier 2022, p. 172–181. The statistics provided in Ruzzier 2022 are based on 355 bibles from her corpus of 357 manuscripts consulted in person. 43 The decoration of Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 is attributed to the 13th-century Oxford artist William de Brailes. Kidd 2007 suggests that the illumination of London, BL, Harley 2813, which has decorated but not historiated initials, is “in the style of William de Brailes”. 44 See Figure 10 on p. 206 below. 45 See Figure 35 on p. 307 below. 46 See Figure 22 on p. 258 below. 47 See Figure 11 on p. 207 below.

1.4 Decoration  

 23

Paris manuscript presents a Crucifixion miniature.48 The Oxford manuscript, by contrast, uses a decorated initial, rather than a historiated initial as in most of the biblical books in the volume.49 Despite this wide range of approaches to the decoration of the bible and the missal sections, the Dominican votive missals in the three manuscripts provide a comparable (though not identical) selection of liturgical texts.50 Table 9 indicates the level of artistic decoration that is typically employed for the biblical books and prologues in each manuscript, exceptions to the norm (e.g., historiated initials for the Frater ambrosius and Genesis initials in a manuscript that typically has decorated or littera duplex initials), and unusual artistic features of the missal sections of the manuscripts. The table is arranged in descending order from the most elaborate to the simplest decoration schemes. Table 9: Artistic Decoration in Bible Missals. Shelfmark

Biblical Books

Prologues

Exceptions

Darmstadt, ULB 1967

Historiated

Decorated

Decorated (Te igitur)

Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10

Historiated

Decorated

Historiated initial (Te igitur) and miniature (Christ in majesty)

Lisbon, BNP, IL 34

Historiated

Decorated

Historiated initials (Per omnia; Vere dignum; Te igitur)51

Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3

Historiated

Decorated

Unknown52

Paris, BnF, latin 10431

Historiated

Decorated

Historiated initials (Per omnia; Vere dignum; Te igitur) and miniature (Crucifixion)

Poitiers, BM 12

Historiated

Decorated

Lam (Decorated); Prologues to Mt, Mc, Lc, Io (Historiated)

Unflourished initials

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”)

Historiated

Decorated

Agg and Iud (Decorated)

Historiated initial (Te igitur)

Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638

Historiated

Decorated

Historiated initials (Per omnia; Vere dignum; Te igitur)

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 13

Historiated or decorated

Decorated

No decoration (unfinished)

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

Historiated or decorated

Decorated

Decorated initials

Paris, BnF, latin 36

Historiated or decorated

Decorated

Littera duplex

Nantes, BM 2

Historiated or decorated

Littera duplex

Historiated initials (Per omnia; Te igitur)

Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236

Historiated or decorated

Littera duplex

Historiated initials (First Sunday of Advent; Te igitur)

Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst.

Historiated or decorated

Flourished

Flourished initials and miniature (Crucifixion)

Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1

Decorated

Decorated

Decorated

Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18

Decorated

Decorated

Decorated

London, BL, Harley 2813

Decorated

Decorated

Frater ambrosius and Io (Historiated)

Missal

Decorated

48 See Figure 36 on p. 308 below. 49 See Figure 23 on p. 259 below. 50 Brussels, KBR 8882 has a lacuna within the missal section, leading to the loss of many of the formularies, but material and liturgical evidence suggests that it originally contained a fuller selection of votive masses. 51 The Per omnia and Te igitur initials have been excised, but the Vere dignum initial historiated initial remains. It seems likely that the Per omnia and Te igitur initials were historiated rather than decorated. 52 Ker 1969, pp. 118–119 does not specify whether any special decoration is provided in the missal section.

24 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

Table 9 (continued) Shelfmark

Biblical Books

Prologues

Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1

Decorated

Decorated

Exceptions

Missal

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

Decorated

Decorated initials or Littera duplex

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16

Decorated

Littera duplex

Littera duplex

Madrid, BNE 874

Decorated

Littera duplex

No decoration

San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061

Decorated

Littera duplex

Frater ambrosius, Gn, Ps 1, Mt, Mc, Lc, Io (Historiated)

Decorated initials and miniature (Crucifixion)

Paris, BnF, latin 216

Decorated

Flourished

Abd (Historiated)

No decoration

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Decorated or Littera duplex

Decorated or flourished

Frater ambrosius and Gn (Historiated)

Blank space for miniature in canon

Paris, BnF, latin 215

Decorated or Littera duplex

Littera duplex

Paris, BnF, latin 16266

Decorated or Littera duplex

Littera duplex

Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3

Decorated or Littera duplex

Flourished

Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47

Littera duplex

Littera duplex

London, BL, Add. MS 57531

Littera duplex

Littera duplex

Littera duplex

Tours, BM 5

Littera duplex

Littera duplex

Littera duplex

Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136

Littera duplex

Littera duplex

Brussels, KBR 8882

Littera duplex

Littera duplex or flourished

Littera duplex

Cambridge, Trinity College, B.10.18

Littera duplex

Littera duplex or flourished

No decoration (unfinished)

London, BL, Harley 1748

Littera duplex

Littera duplex or flourished

Littera duplex

London/Oslo, Schøyen 115

Littera duplex

Littera duplex or flourished

Littera duplex

Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202

Littera duplex

Flourished

Flourished

Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 203

Littera duplex

Flourished

Flourished

Paris, BnF, latin 163

Littera duplex

Flourished

Paris, Mazarine 31

Littera duplex or flourished

Littera duplex or flourished

Flourished initials and miniatures (Mother and Child; crucifixion)

Rome, Angelica 32

Littera duplex or flourished

Littera duplex or flourished

Littera duplex

Unflourished initials in missal; blank space for miniature in canon Frater ambrosius and Gn (Historiated)

Blank space for miniature in canon

Miniature (Crucifixion) Frater ambrosius (Historiated)

Littera duplex Flourished initials in canon; non-flourished initials in missal formularies

Frater ambrosius and Gn (Decorated)

Gn (Decorated)

Gn and Lc (Historiated); Idt, Iob, Ioel, Abd, Mt (Decorated)

Flourished

Flourished

Black initials with red highlights

1.5 Places and Dates of Origin  

 25

The percentages of bible missals with different grades of illumination correspond closely with the corpus of portable bibles studied by Ruzzier. Table 10 shows the number of bible missals and 13th-century bibles in several different categories. Table 10: Types of Artistic Decoration in Bible Missals and 13th-century Bibles. Type of decoration for Biblical Books / Prologues

Bible missals

Bibles (Ruzzier)53

Historiated / Decorated Historiated or Decorated / Decorated Historiated or Decorated / Penwork Decorated / Decorated Decorated / Penwork Penwork / Penwork Blank or missing

8 (20.0%) 3 (7.5%) 3 (7.5%) 5 (12.5%) 8 (20.0%) 13 (32.5%) 0 (0.0%)

81 (22.8%) 36 (10.1%) 0 (0.0%) 33 (9.3%) 68 (19.2%) 125 (35.2%) 12 (3.4%)

Total

40 (100%)

355 (100%)

The percentages of manuscripts in the various categories are remarkably similar: around 20% of both sets of manuscripts have a full set of historiated initials for biblical books and around 33% of manuscripts make exclusive use of penwork initials, and the intervening levels of decoration are likewise quite closely matched.54 The similarity of the percentages of bible missals and bibles with various grades of artistic decoration underscores that bible missals share in the broader phenomena of 13th-century bibles despite the distinction conferred on them by their distinctive liturgical contents.

1.5 Places and Dates of Origin In contrast to their dimensions and extent of artistic decoration, which are relatively easy to assess objectively even if categorization presents certain challenges, the place and date of origin of bible missals is less obvious and sometimes subject to scholarly debate. Only one bible missal has explicit internal evidence concerning its date and place of origin: Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 includes a colophon stating that the manuscript was written over several years and was finished in 1250 in Viterbo by a scribe named John of Cortona.55 The paucity of internal evidence of origin or date in bible missals is in keeping with the wider phenomenon of 13th-century bibles: only 2.1% of the manuscripts studied by Ruzzier include a colophon of any kind, and only 1.2% include a date.56 According to Ruzzier, The production of portable Bibles began during the third decade of the thirteenth century, increased significantly up to the middle of the century, reached its peak during the second half and then rapidly collapsed at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Compared to the French and English production, which were nearly contemporaneous, the Italian production started slightly later and developed mainly during the second half of the thirteenth century.57

Despite these general trends, Ruzzier observes that dating individual bibles “is difficult, especially since their production was so standardised and so concentrated over a short time-span.”58 Even in the case of manuscripts which have received extensive analysis, scholars do not always articulate their reasons for giving particular datings or localizations, and the

53 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 173, Tableau 133. To facilitate comparison with Ruzzier’s data, Table 10 combines littera duplex and flourished initials into the category of “penwork” initials (corresponding to Ruzzier’s filigranées category). 54 Ruzzier does not include a category of manuscripts which use historiated or decorated initials for the biblical books but penwork initials for the prologues. One bible missal with this decorative scheme (Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst.) is included in Ruzzier’s list of 357 fully studied manuscripts (see Ruzzier 2022, p. 278). Although it is not clear which two manuscripts from this list are omitted from the 355 manuscripts represented in Ruzzier’s Tableau 133, it is possible that some of the 36 manuscripts in Ruzzier’s “historiées/ornées – ornées” category might have penwork rather than decorated initials for the prologues. 55 This colophon is discussed further on p. 392 below. 56 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 33, Tableau 2. 57 Ruzzier 2013, p. 110. 58 Ruzzier 2013, p. 110n16.

26 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

dates or places of origin suggested tentatively in 19th- or early 20th-century catalogs are sometimes repeated by later scholars without sufficient critical analysis. While the presence of the liturgical material enables comparative analysis even when the dating and localizing of individual manuscripts remains tentative, it is still possible to give a general overview of the range of dates that have been provisionally identified for bible missals. Most bible missals can be localized and dated with some degree of confidence based on their artistic, paleographical, and material features. Table 11 indicates the place of origin of each manuscript, the period of the 13th century in which it was produced (except Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1, which dates to the middle of the 15th century), and its tradition and typology, arranging the manuscripts by descending order of frequency of their place of origin. Table 12 presents the same information arranged in ascending order of date of production. Table 11: Places and Dates of Origin of Bible Missals (Arranged by Place). Shelfmark

Country (City)

Date (13th c.)

Tradition

Typology

Brussels, KBR 8882

France (Paris)

Second quarter

Dominican

Votive missal

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 13

France (Paris?)

Second quarter

Franciscan (?)

Full missal (unfinished)

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16

France (Paris)

Second quarter

Dominican

Full missal

Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10

France (Paris)

Second quarter

?

Votive missal

Lisbon, BNP, IL 34

France (Paris)

Second quarter

Augustinian

Full missal

London/Oslo, Schøyen 115

France (Paris)

Second quarter

Dominican

Votive missal

Paris, BnF, latin 36

France (Paris)

Second quarter

Cistercian

Full missal

Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236

France (Paris)

Second quarter

Paris

Full missal

Tours, BM 5

France (Paris)

Second quarter

Augustinian

Ordo Missae

Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136

France (Paris)

Second quarter

?

Festive missal

Darmstadt, ULB 1967

France (Paris)

Middle

Franciscan

Full missal

Nantes, BM 2

France (Paris)

Middle

?

Festive missal (fragmentary)

Paris, BnF, latin 16266

France (Paris)

Middle

Dominican

Votive missal

Poitiers, BM 12

France (Paris)

Middle

Dominican

Mass texts

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”)

France (Paris)

Middle

Dominican

Ordo Missae

Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18

France (Paris)

Second half

?

Fragmentary missal (typology uncertain)

Madrid, BNE 874

France

Middle

?

Ordo Missae

Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3

France

Middle

Franciscan

Votive missal

Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638

France

Middle

?

Ordo Missae

London, BL, Add. MS 57531

France

Middle

Cistercian

Full missal

Cambridge, Trinity College, B.10.18

Northern France or England

Middle

?

Uncertain

Paris, BnF, latin 215

Northern France or England

Second quarter

Dominican

Votive missal

London, BL, Harley 2813

England (Oxford)

Second quarter

Franciscan

Votive missal

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

England (Oxford)

Second quarter

Dominican

Votive missal

Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 203

England

Second quarter

?

Uncertain

1.5 Places and Dates of Origin  

 27

Table 11 (continued) Shelfmark

Country (City)

Date (13th c.)

Tradition

Typology

Paris, BnF, latin 163

England

Second quarter

Dominican

Ordo Missae

Paris, BnF, latin 10431

England

Second quarter

Cistercian

Votive missal

San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061

England

Second quarter

Augustinian (?)

Festive missal

London, BL, Harley 1748

England

Second quarter to middle

?

Votive missal

Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47

England

Middle

Franciscan (?)

Festive missal (fragmentary)

Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1

England

Middle

Gilbertine

Festive missal

Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3

England

Middle or third quarter

Franciscan

Full missal

Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202

Southern France or England

Second quarter or middle

Franciscan

Votive missal

Paris, Mazarine 31

Southern France or Spain

Second quarter

Dominican

Votive missal

Paris, BnF, latin 216

Italy (Venice)

Third quarter

?

Votive missal (fragmentary)

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

Italy (Viterbo)

Middle

Dominican

Votive missal

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Italy

Second quarter

Dominican

Festive missal

Rome, Angelica 32

Italy

Second quarter

Dominican

Festive missal

Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst.

Italy

Second quarter

Franciscan

Full missal

Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1

Czechia (Prague)

15th century, middle

Prague

Festive missal

Table 12: Places and Dates of Origin of Bible Missals (Arranged by Date). Shelfmark

Date (13th c.)

Country (City)

Tradition

Typology

Brussels, KBR 8882

Second quarter

France (Paris)

Dominican

Votive missal

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 13

Second quarter

France (Paris?)

Franciscan (?)

Full missal (unfinished)

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16

Second quarter

France (Paris)

Dominican

Full missal

Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 203

Second quarter

England

?

Uncertain

Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10

Second quarter

France (Paris)

?

Votive missal

Lisbon, BNP, IL 34

Second quarter

France (Paris)

Augustinian

Full missal

London, BL, Harley 2813

Second quarter

England (Oxford)

Franciscan

Votive missal

London/Oslo, Schøyen 115

Second quarter

France (Paris)

Dominican

Votive missal

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

Second quarter

England (Oxford)

Dominican

Votive missal

Paris, Mazarine 31

Second quarter

Southern France or Spain

Dominican

Votive missal

Paris, BnF, latin 36

Second quarter

France (Paris)

Cistercian

Full missal

Paris, BnF, latin 163

Second quarter

England

Dominican

Ordo Missae

Paris, BnF, latin 215

Second quarter

Northern France or England

Dominican

Votive missal

Paris, BnF, latin 10431

Second quarter

England

Cistercian

Votive missal

Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236

Second quarter

France (Paris)

Paris

Full missal

28 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

Table 12 (continued) Shelfmark

Date (13th c.)

Country (City)

Tradition

Typology

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Second quarter

Italy

Dominican

Festive missal

Rome, Angelica 32

Second quarter

Italy

Dominican

Festive missal

San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061

Second quarter

England

Augustinian (?)

Festive missal

Tours, BM 5

Second quarter

France (Paris)

Augustinian

Ordo Missae

Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136

Second quarter

France (Paris)

?

Festive missal

Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst.

Second quarter

Italy

Franciscan

Full missal

Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202

Second quarter or middle

Southern France or England

Franciscan

Votive missal

London, BL, Harley 1748

Second quarter to middle

England

?

Votive missal

Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47

Middle

England

Franciscan (?)

Festive missal (fragmentary)

Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1

Middle

England

Gilbertine

Festive missal

Cambridge, Trinity College, B.10.18

Middle

Northern France or England

?

Uncertain

Darmstadt, ULB 1967

Middle

France (Paris)

Franciscan

Full missal

London, BL, Add. MS 57531

Middle

France

Cistercian

Full missal

Madrid, BNE 874

Middle

France

?

Ordo Missae

Nantes, BM 2

Middle

France (Paris)

?

Festive missal (fragmentary)

Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3

Middle

France

Franciscan

Votive missal

Paris, BnF, latin 16266

Middle

France (Paris)

Dominican

Votive missal

Poitiers, BM 12

Middle

France (Paris)

Dominican

Mass texts

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”)

Middle

France (Paris)

Dominican

Ordo Missae

Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638

Middle

France

?

Ordo Missae

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

Middle

Italy (Viterbo)

Dominican

Votive missal

Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3

Middle or third quarter

England

Franciscan

Full missal

Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18

Second half

France (Paris)

?

Uncertain

Paris, BnF, latin 216

Third quarter

Italy (Venice)

?

Votive missal (fragmentary)

Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1

15 century, middle

Czechia (Prague)

Prague

Festive missal

th

As Table 13 indicates, bible missals and 13th-century bibles have a relatively similar distribution of places of origin, with a majority coming from France, smaller portions coming from England and Italy, and a tiny fraction coming from other regions.59 Despite the broad correspondence, a larger percentage of bible missals are of English origin and a slightly smaller percentage of bible missals are of Italian origin than the broader repertoire of 13th-century bibles. In contrast to the similar places of origin for bible missals and 13th-century bibles, there is great disparity between the two corpora with respect to the date of production. Table 14 compares the number of manuscripts studied by Ruzzier which date to various portions of the 13th century with the repertoire of bible missals (excluding the 15th-century Prague,

59 Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1 is omitted from Table 13 since it is produced at a later date and different region than the repertoire of 13th century bibles studied by Ruzzier.

1.5 Places and Dates of Origin  

 29

Table 13: Place of Origin of Bible Missals and 13th-century Bibles. Place of Origin

Bible missals

Bibles (Ruzzier)60

0 (0.0%) 10 (25.6%) 20 (51.3%) 3 (7.7%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.6%) 5 (12.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

3 (0.2%) 246 (19.6%) 687 (54.7%) 74 (5.9%) 12 (1.0%) 0 (0.0%) 187 (14.9%) 24 (1.9%) 24 (1.9%)

39 (100.0%)

1257 (100.0%)

Low Countries England France Northern France or England Southern France or Italy Southern France or Spain Italy Germanic and Slavic countries Iberian Peninsula Total

KMK, B LXVIII 1), while Table 15 presents a simplified form of the same data dividing the manuscripts into three broad temporal categories. As these tables indicate, a much larger percentage of bible missals date to the second quarter or middle of the 13th century than the broader repertoire of bibles. While the production of bibles in general reached a peak in the second half of the 13th century, very few bible missals are dated to this period. This suggests that bible missals are more closely associated with an earlier and more experimental stage of the production of bibles, and that experimentation with the bible missal book type tapered off as the century progressed, although the production of bible missals did not cease entirely in the second half of the century. Table 14: Dates of Bible Missals and 13th-century Bibles. Date First Half

First Quarter Middle Second Quarter Unknown

Middle Second Half

Third Quarter Middle Fourth Quarter Unknown

Unknown Total

Bible missals

Bibles (Ruzzier)61

0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 21 (53.8%) 0 (0.0%)

4 (1.2%) 2 (0.6%) 26 (7.7%) 12 (3.6%)

16 (41.0%)

62 (18.3%)

1 (2.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.6%)

38 (11.2%) 1 (0.3%) 41 (12.1%) 87 (25.7%)

0 (0.0%)

65 (19.2%)

39 (100.0%)

338 (100.0%)

Table 15: Simplified Dates of Bible Missals and 13th-century Bibles. Date First Half Middle Second Half Unknown Total

Bible missals

Bibles (Ruzzier)62

21 (53.8%) 16 (41.0%) 2 (5.1%) 0 (0.0%)

44 (13.0%) 62 (18.3%) 167 (49.4%) 65 (19.2%)

39 (100.0%)

338 (100.0%)

60 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 38, Tableau 5. 61 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 34, Tableau 3. In my table, I only include the data concerning manuscripts dated to the 13th century which were personally consulted by Ruzzier. 62 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 34, Tableau 3.

30 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

1.6 Size and Layout The material features of bible missals can be helpfully compared with the broader repertoire of 13th-century bibles studied by Chiara Ruzzier as well as the broader repertoire of 13th-century missals. This section will begin by comparing the leaf size, number of leaves, and written space of the bible section of the range of bible missals, comparing these features with the broader bible repertoire. I will then analyze the written space of the missal sections and compare the missal layout with the biblical layout of the manuscripts where these two sections have different dimensions.

1.6.1 Size of Leaves The most obvious distinction among bible missals is their varying sizes, which range from very small “pocket” sized books to large folio volumes. The leaves of the smallest (Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3) are 123 x 79 mm, while those of the largest (Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638) are 330 x 220 mm, nearly three times as large. Bibles of quite different dimensions can nevertheless be closely related in terms of liturgical content. For instance, London, BL, Add. MS 57531 is fairly small, with the leaves measuring 163 x 125 mm, while Paris, BnF, latin 36 is quite large, with a leaf size of 310 x 195 mm, but both bibles include Cistercian full missals with complete texts for the various cycles of the liturgical year. In other cases, similarly-sized manuscripts contain closely related material: Pisa, Cathariniana 177 and Rome, Angelica 32, both produced in Italy in the second quarter of the 13th century, are almost identical in leaf size (c. 170 x 120 mm) and likewise both contain Dominican festive missals with closely related liturgical contents. Although it is easy to discern a wide range of sizes of bible missals, it is more difficult to interpret that diversity in the context of comparative analysis. First, it must be remembered that in many cases the leaves have been moderately or severely cut down through subsequent bindings.63 In the case of Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3, Neil Ker points out that the margins have been “badly cropped” and that “12 mm of the lower edge of f. 239 have been folded in to preserve an initial.”64 This means that although this manuscript has the smallest height of the 40 bible missals, it would have originally been at least 135 mm tall, the same height as several other manuscripts. Because of this, it is also useful to compare manuscripts by the dimensions of their written space, which allows the discernment of parallels even in manuscripts that have varying leaf sizes. For instance, four bible missals have a text height of 95 mm for the bible section, yet have leaf heights ranging from 123–140 mm.65 At the same time, one should be cautious about attempting to reconstruct “original dimensions” of manuscripts, as similar written space dimensions could have been used on leaves of quite different dimensions due to a variety of production considerations, e.g., leaving space for later notes or paratextual features, or for the sake of a more “luxurious” provision of wide margins.66 Table 16 lists the bible missals in ascending order of leaf size from smallest to largest. The table first indicates the height (H) and width (W) of the leaves as separate numbers and as a combined taille (T), i.e., the height plus width,67 as well as the total number of leaves (#). The table then lists several features of the layout of the written space of the biblical portion of each manuscript, indicating the height and width, the number of lines, and the “ruling unit” (RU) of the lines (the height of the written space divided by the number of lines).68

63 For further discussion of this point, see Ruzzier 2022, pp. 89–91. As Ruzzier points out, smaller volumes tend to be more severely cropped than larger volumes. 64 Ker 1969, p. 119. 65 Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3; Madrid, BNE 874; Paris, BnF, latin 215; London/Oslo, Schøyen 115. 66 For a discussion of relationship of leaf size to written space, see Ruzzier 2013, pp. 119–123. 67 The single number that results from the addition of the height and width of a leaf is known in quantitative codicology as the “taille” (French for “size”) and is sometimes referred to as the “demiperimeter.” For a debate on the advantages and disadvantages of this approach to quantifying the size of manuscripts, see Gumbert 2001 and Muzerelle 2007. Although I agree with Gumbert that the height alone is sometimes more useful than the height plus width, I will make frequent use of the taille to facilitate comparison with Ruzzier’s work. 68 In cases where there is a range of numbers of lines in the bible section, I have calculated the ruling unit by means of the average number of lines.

1.6 Size and Layout  

 31

Table 16: Bible Missals Arranged in Ascending Order of Leaf Size. Shelfmark

Leaves

Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3 Madrid, BNE 874 Darmstadt, ULB 1967 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 13 Nantes, BM 2 Paris, BnF, latin 215 London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 Brussels, KBR 8882 Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47 Paris, BnF, latin 216 Paris, BnF, latin 16266 Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Cambridge, Trinity College, B.10.18 Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 London, BL, Add. MS 57531 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 Rome, Angelica 32 Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst. Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 163 Lisbon, BNP, IL 34 Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 203 Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136 London, BL, Harley 2813 Tours, BM 5 Poitiers, BM 12 Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3 Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236 San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10 Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202 London, BL, Harley 1748 Paris, BnF, latin 10431 Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1 Paris, BnF, latin 36 Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638

Bible Layout

HxW

T

#

HxW

T

Lines

RU

123 x 79 130 x 90 135 x 88 135 x 90 133 x 92 133 x 94 140 x 90 137 x 95 142 x 100 148 x 100 152 x 97 150 x 105 155 x 100 152 x 107 157 x 110 168 x 108 163 x 113 165 x 118 163 x 125 168 x 120 170 x 120 179 x 119 182 x 120 180 x 123 181 x 125 187 x 120 185 x 125 183 x 133 195 x 142 205 x 133 200 x 150 218 x 148 220 x 154 225 x 158 226 x 160 230 x 160 242 x 174 255 x 167 310 x 195 330 x 220

202 220 223 225 225 227 230 232 242 248 249 255 255 259 267 276 276 283 288 288 290 298 302 303 306 307 310 316 337 338 350 366 374 383 386 390 416 422 505 550

468 580 653 612 461 584 457 490 470 519 657 490 556 519 647 461 346 440 544 400 472 418 362 285 494 472 399 508 507 546 364 465 381 452 376 346 357 408 372 398

95 x 62 95 x 60 90 x 64 90 x 63 108 x 71 95 x 65 95 x 60 100 x 67 102 x 67 98 x 65 107 x 70 106 x 74 ~70 103 x 70 110 x 70 119 x 75 112 x 68 118 x 74 115 x 85 112 x 82 115 x 78 118 x 80 122 x 80 133 x 85 126 x 86 140 x 77 130 x 83 114 x 74 127 x 87 135 x 90 150 x 95 149 x 93 156 x 103 152 x 95 150 x 98 160 x 110 167 x 105 170 x 110 202 x 121 205 x 125

157 155 154 153 179 160 155 167 169 163 177 180 ~ 173 180 194 180 192 200 194 193 198 202 218 212 217 213 188 214 225 245 242 259 247 248 270 272 280 323 330

45 47 45 41 51 42–43 48 48–49 49–50 51 47–48 50 44 48–50 49–53 52 29 48 50 55–57 50 58–64 51–54 60–63 50–51 52 58–63 51 51 46 51–52 50 58 55–57 57–62 57 58 48 60 56

2.11 2.02 2.00 2.20 2.12 2.24 1.98 2.06 2.06 1.92 2.25 2.12 ~ 2.10 2.16 2.29 3.86 2.46 2.30 2.00 2.30 1.93 2.32 2.16 2.50 2.69 2.15 2.24 2.49 2.93 2.91 2.98 2.69 2.71 2.52 2.81 2.88 3.54 3.37 3.66

69

Figure 1 shows the leaf size of the range of bible missals by means of a scatter plot which tracks the leaf height and width of each manuscript and a trendline indicating the relationship between the leaf width and leaf height. The average leaf proportion (leaf width divided by leaf height) of bible missals is 0.685. This is reasonably close to the average of Ruzzier’s corpus of 13th century bibles, which is 0.691.71 In addition to showing the correlation between height and width, 69 H x W = Height x Width; T = Taille (Height + Width); # = number of leaves; Lines = number of lines; RU = ruling unit (layout height divided by number of lines). 70 Precise measurements of the bible layout are not available. 71 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 122. As Ruzzier observes, there are clear differences between the average proportion of bibles produced in different regions; French bibles are narrower (0.685), Italian bibles are squarer (0.707), and English bibles are in between (0.693). Among bible missals, the smallest proportion is 0.63 and the largest is 0.77. Ruzzier’s corpus includes a relatively small number of bibles with proportions below or above these limits.

32 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

this figure helps to visualize the size of each manuscript at scale, with the points on the scatter plot representing the upper right corners of the leaves of each manuscript. 350

300

Leaf Height (mm)

250

200

150

100

50

0

0

50

100

150

200

250

Figure 1: Leaf Size of Bible Missals.

The average taille (leaf height + width) of bible missals is 305 mm, a figure that is well below 393 mm, the average taille of the broader corpus of 13th-century bibles.72 In keeping with the lower average taille, a greater percentage of bible missals (83%) are beneath 380 mm in taille than the broader corpus (56%). As indicated in Table 17, a smaller percentage of bible missals are within the 381–550 mm range than the broader repertoire, and no bible missals are above 550 mm in taille.

72 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 42. While Ruzzier’s monograph is focused on bibles below 450 mm in taille (with a special focus on “portable” bibles under 380 mm; see p. 22), this figure comes from Ruzzier’s broader census of one-volume bibles of all sizes. As Ruzzier’s Graphique 3 on p. 42 shows, the 393 mm average is well below the average of previous and subsequent centuries, e.g., 830 mm for 12th-century bibles, 451 mm for 14th-century bibles, and 615 mm for 15th-century bibles.

1.6 Size and Layout  

 33

Table 17: Taille of Bible Missals and 13th-century Bibles. Taille ≤380 mm 381–550 mm >550 mm Total

Bible missals

13th-century bibles73

33 (83%) 7 (17%) 0 (0%)

56% 29% 15%

40 (100%)

1168 (100%)

Only two bible missals, Paris, BnF, latin 36 and Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638, are over 450 mm in taille. The remaining 38 bible missals can be compared with the detailed statistics compiled by Ruzzier regarding 13th-century bibles under 450 mm. As Table 18 indicates, a larger percentage of bible missals are under or equal to 230 mm in taille than the broader repertoire, while the percentage of manuscripts in the 231–280 mm and 281–330 mm ranges are quite similar. Fewer bible missals than bibles are in the 331–380 mm and 381–450 mm categories. The difference between the statistics for bible missals and the broader repertoire shows that missals were more often joined to smaller bibles than larger ones, which is suggestive for thinking about the connections between the portability of small manuscripts and the potential uses of a missal combined with a small portable bible. At the same time, the presence of missals in bibles above the cutoff for Ruzzier’s portable bible category (under 380 mm in taille) shows that larger bible missals were also produced, albeit less often than smaller bible missals. Table 18: Bible Missals and 13th-century Bibles Under 450 mm Taille. Taille

Bible missals

13th-century bibles74

≤230 mm 231–280 mm 281–330 mm 331–380 mm 381–450 mm

7 (18.4%) 10 (26.3%) 11 (28.9%) 5 (13.2%) 5 (13.2%)

121 (7.4%) 469 (28.5%) 446 (27.1%) 290 (17.6%) 319 (19.4%)

Total

38 (100%)

1645 (100%)

Table 19 shows the relationship between leaf size and liturgical tradition. The majority of bible missals in the two smallest categories are of mendicant origin (i.e., Franciscan or Dominican), and most of the remaining examples in these two categories are of undetermined origin. Almost all mendicant bibles (18/21) fall into the three smallest categories. No monastic bible missals are represented in the two smallest categories, with the seven examples being relatively evenly distributed between the medium and large categories. This contrast suggests that the itinerant friars preferred smaller bible missals, while the more stable monks and canons preferred larger bible missals. The mendicant preference for smaller bible missals parallels the broader corpus of bibles. Table 20 compares the leaf size of mendicant bible missals with the broader repertoire of mendicant bibles studied by Ruzzier. As this table shows, the mendicant preference for smaller bibles is reflected in the bible missal repertoire, but a significantly larger percentage (23.8%) of mendicant bible missals are in the smallest category than in the broader repertoire (4.8%). More than half (52.4%) of mendicant bible missals are under or equal to 280 mm in taille, compared to 30.2% of the broader repertoire of mendicant bibles.

73 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, p. 42, Graphique 4. Ruzzier explains in footnote 36 that these statistics are based on a study of 1168 bibles of all sizes from the 13th century, but only lists the percentages and not the numbers of manuscripts in each category. 74 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, p. 43, Tableau 7.

34 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

Table 19: Leaf Size and Liturgical Tradition. Tradition

451 mm

1 (20%) 2 (40%)

1 (50%)

1 (20%)

1 (10%) 0 (0%)

1 (10%)

0 (0%)

1 (20%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

2 (29%)

3 (30%)

2 (18%)

0%

0 (40%)

1 (50%)

7 (100%)

10 (100%)

11 (100%)

5 (100%)

5 (100%)

2 (100%)

Table 20: Leaf Size of Mendicant Bible Missals and Bibles. Taille

Mendicant bible missals

13th-century mendicant bibles75

5 (23.8%) 6 (28.6%) 7 (33.3%) 2 (9.5%) 1 (4.8%)

3 (4.8%) 16 (25.4%) 31 (49.2%) 7 (11.1%) 6 (9.5%)

21 (100.0%)

63 (100%)

≤230 mm 231–280 mm 281–330 mm 331–380 mm 381–450 mm Total

Table 21 shows the relationship between the size of the bible missal and the typology of its liturgical material. As this table indicates, full, festive, and votive missals are all found in a variety of sizes, and a larger leaf size does not correspond to a fuller selection of liturgical texts. Table 21: Leaf Size and Liturgical Typology. Taille 451 mm Total

Full missal

Festive missal

Votive missal

Formularies

Ordo Missae

Uncertain

2 (22%) 1 (11%) 3 (33%) 2 (22%) 0% 1 (11%)

1 (13%) 2 (25%) 3 (38%) 1 (13%) 1 (13%) 0 (0%)

3 (21%) 4 (29%) 3 (21%) 0 (0%) 4 (29%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

1 (20%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%)

0 (0%) 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

9 (100%)

100%

14 (100%)

1 (100%)

5 (100%)

3 (100%)

75 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 201, Tableau 161. Ruzzier’s table includes further details about the differences in sizes between mendicant bibles from England, France, and Italy. The English and French mendicant bibles mostly fall into the three smaller categories, while the large majority (64%) of Italian mendicant bibles are in the 281–330 mm category.

1.6 Size and Layout  

 35

1.6.2 Number of Leaves The average number of leaves of bible missals is 468.4, slightly lower than the average of Ruzzier’s corpus (484).76 As Ruzzier has shown, the number of leaves in 13th-century bibles is closely connected with the size of the manuscript.77 Tables 22 and 23 show the relationship of the leaf size and the number of leaves in the corpus of bible missals and the broader repertoire of 13th-century portable bibles studied by Ruzzier.78 There are similar trends between the two sets of manuscripts. Apart from the 331–380 mm size category, the number of bible missals in each category follows similar trends as the broader repertoire regarding the number of leaves, although the relatively small number of bible missals in each size category makes slight differences appear more significant in the percentages. The average number of leaves in each size category is relatively similar, although bible missals paradoxically have a slightly lower average number of leaves in most categories (all except the 331–380 mm range)–whereas one might expect that, given their extra contents, bible missals would typically have more folios than the typical bible. Table 22: Leaf Size and Number of Leaves in Bible Missals. ≤300 f. ≤230 mm 231–280 mm 281–330 mm 331–380 mm 381–450 mm >451 mm

1 (9%)

301–450 f. 1 (10%) 5 (45.5%) 2 (40%) 4 (80%) 2 (100%)

451–600 f.

>600 f.

Total

Average number of leaves

5 (71%) 7 (70%) 5 (45.5%) 3 (60%) 1 (20%)

2 (29%) 2 (20%)

7 10 11 5 5 2

545 515.5 435.8 452.6 387.8 385

Table 23: Leaf Size and Number of Leaves in 13th-century Bibles under 450 mm Taille.

≤230 mm 231–280 mm 281–330 mm 331–380 mm 381–450 mm >451 mm

≤300 f.

301–450 f.

451–600 f.

>600 f.

0.0% 0.3% 2.2% 5.4% 1.9% n/a

6.8% 18.8% 50.3% 51.0% 54.0% n/a

48.5% 53.5% 38.0% 38.5% 37.7% n/a

44.7% 27.5% 9.6% 5.0% 6.4% n/a

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a

Average number of leaves 583 536 459 439 446 n/a

The number of leaves in each bible missal is related not only to the physical size of the book but also to the range of texts that are included in addition to the main biblical text. Table 24 shows the number of leaves and the percentage of each manuscript devoted to different types of texts: the biblical portion itself (including the biblical prologues), the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, the missal section, other liturgical texts (such as calendars, epistle and gospel lists, breviaries, etc.), other non-liturgical texts (such as concordances, preaching lists, etc.), and blank leaves. In each case, the bible section takes up a vast majority of the manuscript (between 76% and 99.8%), but the manuscripts differ widely in the amount of space devoted to liturgical texts and other paratexts. The percentage and number of leaves occupied by the missal portion is closely connected to the typology of the missal (Table 25).79

76 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 46. 77 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 46–49. 78 The data for Table 23 is taken from Ruzzier 2022, p. 48, Tableau 11. Due to the scope of her corpus, Ruzzier does not provide data for the number of leaves in bibles over 451 mm in taille. 79 These calculations omit the manuscripts listed in Table 1.24 as fragmentary or unfinished, as the missal sections in these manuscripts are much shorter than the other examples (usually just one leaf of liturgical material) and would consequently skew the data towards smaller averages.

36 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

Table 24: Number and Percentage of Leaves Used for Various Textual Genres in Bible Missals. Shelfmark (Typology)

Bible

IHN

Missal

Other liturgy

Other texts

Blank leaves

Total Leaves

Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202 (votive missal)

355 (94.4%)

14 (3.7%)

7 (1.9%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

376

Brussels, KBR 8882 (votive missal)

439 (89.6%)

43 (8.8%)

2 (0.4%)

3 (0.6%)

0 (0.0%)

3 (0.7%)

490

Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47 (festive missal [fragmentary])

469 (99.8%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (0.2%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

470

Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3 (full missal)

309 (84.9%)

18 (4.9%)

35 (9.6%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

2 (0.6%)

364

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 13 (full missal [unfinished])

560 (91.5%)

50 (8.2%)

2 (0.3%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

612

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (full missal)

492 (76.0%)

26 (4.0%)

44 (6.8%)

2 (0.3%)

83 (12.8%)

0 (0.0%)

647

Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1 (festive missal)

377 (92.4%)

20 (4.9%)

8 (2.0%)

2 (0.5%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (0.3%)

408

Cambridge, Trinity College, B.10.18 (typology uncertain [fragmentary])

404 (87.6%)

29 (6.3%)

2 (0.4%)

18 (3.9%)

1 (0.2%)

7 (1.7%)

461

Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18 (typology uncertain [fragmentary])

458 (93.5%)

29 (5.9%)

1 (0.2%)

0 (0.0%)

2 (0.4%)

0 (0.0%)

490

Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 203 (typology uncertain [fragmentary])

443 (93.9%)

28 (5.9%)

1 (0.2%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

472

Darmstadt, ULB 1967 (full missal)

557 (85.3%)

43 (6.6%)

53 (8.1%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

653

Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10 (votive missal)

400 (88.5%)

35 (7.7%)

4 (0.9%)

0 (0.0%)

12 (2.7%)

1 (0.3%)

452

Lisbon, BNP, IL 34 (full missal)

379 (76.7%)

0 (0.0%)

29 (5.9%)

86 (17.4%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

494

London, BL, Add. MS 57531 (full missal)

455 (83.6%)

33 (6.1%)

54 (9.9%)

1 (0.2%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (0.2%)

544

London, BL, Harley 1748 (votive missal)

325 (93.9%)

0 (0.0%)

3 (0.9%)

0 (0.0%)

12 (3.5%)

6 (1.8%)

346

London, BL, Harley 2813 (votive missal)

472 (92.9%)

21 (4.1%)

10 (2.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

5 (1.1%)

508

London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 (votive missal)

421 (92.1%)

31 (6.8%)

2 (0.4%)

3 (0.7%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

457

Madrid, BNE 874 (Ordo Missae)

533 (91.9%)

44 (7.6%)

1 (0.2%)

2 (0.3%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

580

Nantes, BM 2 (festive missal [fragmentary])

408 (88.5%)

33 (7.2%)

18 (3.9%)

2 (0.4%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

461

Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3 (votive missal)

461 (98.5%)

0 (0.0%)

7 (1.5%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

468

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 (votive missal)

395 (89.8%)

33 (7.5%)

6 (1.4%)

1 (0.2%)

2 (0.5%)

3 (0.8%)

440

Paris, Mazarine 31 (votive missal)

330 (91.2%)

22 (6.1%)

5 (1.4%)

2 (0.6%)

3 (0.8%)

0 (0.0%)

362

Paris, BnF, latin 36 (full missal)

328 (88.2%)

25 (6.7%)

16 (4.3%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (0.3%)

2 (0.6%)

372

1.6 Size and Layout  

 37

Table 24 (continued) Shelfmark (Typology)

Bible

IHN

Missal

Other liturgy

Other texts

Blank leaves

Total Leaves

Paris, BnF, latin 163 (Ordo Missae)

264 (92.6%)

17 (6.0%)

1 (0.4%)

3 (1.1%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

285

Paris, BnF, latin 215 (votive missal)

525 (89.9%)

48 (8.2%)

4 (0.7%)

7 (1.2%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

584

Paris, BnF, latin 216 (votive missal [fragmentary])

472 (90.9%)

30 (5.8%)

1 (0.2%)

4 (0.8%)

12 (2.3%)

0 (0.0%)

519

Paris, BnF, latin 10431 (votive missal)

321 (89.9%)

10 (2.8%)

4 (1.1%)

4 (1.1%)

8 (2.2%)

10 (3.1%)

357

Paris, BnF, latin 16266 (votive missal)

570 (86.8%)

45 (6.8%)

4 (0.6%)

16 (2.4%)

17 (2.6%)

5 (0.9%)

657

Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236 (full missal)

375 (80.6%)

27 (5.8%)

19 (4.1%)

43 (9.2%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (0.3%)

465

Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (festive missal)

330 (82.5%)

39 (9.8%)

14 (3.5%)

3 (0.8%)

12 (3.0%)

4 (1.2%)

400

Poitiers, BM 12 (mass texts)

505 (92.5%)

40 (7.3%)

✶

1 (0.2%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

546

Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1 (festive missal)

270 (78.0%)

0 (0.0%)

12 (3.5%)

36 (10.4%)

21 (6.1%)

7 (2.6%)

346

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) (Ordo Missae)

487 (87.6%)

51 (9.2%)

7 (1.3%)

11 (2.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

556

Rome, Angelica 32 (festive missal)

409 (86.7%)

23 (4.9%)

8 (1.7%)

4 (0.8%)

28 (5.9%)

0 (0.0%)

472

San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 (festive missal)

312 (81.9%)

31 (8.1%)

14 (3.7%)

12 (3.1%)

9 (2.4%)

3 (1.0%)

381

Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638 (Ordo Missae)

360 (90.5%)

27 (6.8%)

4 (1.0%)

4 (1.0%)

3 (0.8%)

0 (0.0%)

398

Tours, BM 5 (Ordo Missae)

466 (91.9%)

30 (5.9%)

2 (0.4%)

2 (0.4%)

5 (1.0%)

2 (0.4%)

507

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 (votive missal)

464 (89.4%)

40 (7.7%)

5 (1.0%)

5 (1.0%)

4 (0.8%)

1 (0.2%)

519

Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136 (festive missal)

358 (89.7%)

26 (6.5%)

5 (1.3%)

2 (0.5%)

3 (0.8%)

5 (1.4%)

399

Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst. (full missal)

355 (84.9%)

24 (5.7%)

30 (7.2%)

0 (0.0%)

9 (2.2%)

0 (0.0%)

418

✶

The mass texts in this manuscript are added to the margins of the Interpretations of Hebrew Names.

Table 25: Relationship of Liturgical Typology to Length of Liturgical Section.

Full missal Festive missal Votive missal Ordo Missae

Average leaves

Minimum Leaves

Maximum Leaves

Average percentage

Minimum percent

Maximum percent

35.0 10.2 4.8 3.0

16 5 2 1

54 14 10 7

7.0% 2.6% 1.1% 0.6%

4.1% 1.3% 0.4% 0.2%

9.9% 3.7% 2.0% 1.3%

Full missals take up between 16 and 54 leaves (4.1%–9.9%), with an average of 35 leaves (7%). The full missal with the smallest number of missal leaves, Paris, BnF, latin 36 (16 leaves), is one of the biggest bible missals in terms of leaf dimensions (310 x 195 mm; taille: 505 mm), which enables the manuscript to transmit a large amount of liturgical material on a relatively small number of leaves. The full missals with the largest number of missal leaves, Darmstadt, ULB 1967 (53

38 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

leaves) and London, BL, Add. MS 57531 (54 leaves), fall into two different size categories. The Darmstadt manuscript (135 x 88 mm; taille: 223 mm) is in the smallest category, whereas the London manuscript is noticeably larger (163 x 125 mm; taille: 288 mm). In these cases, the similar number of missal leaves contrasts with the number of leaves used for the biblical and Interpretations sections. The Darmstadt manuscript, with its smaller leaves and written space, uses 557 leaves for the bible section and 43 leaves for the Interpretations, while the London manuscript gives the same material in 455 and 33 leaves. In both cases, the percentage of the manuscript utilized for the bible and Interpretations is almost identical (85.3% and 6.6% for Darmstadt compared to 83.6% and 6.1% for London). The similarity of missal leaves despite the difference in length of the biblical and Interpretations sections is due to the fact that the London missal occasionally provides full texts of biblical readings within the full missal section, while the Darmstadt missal only provides the book title, incipit, and explicit of the biblical readings.80 Although the range of liturgical material covered by the Cistercian full missal in the London manuscript and the Franciscan full missal in the Darmstadt manuscript is relatively similar, this difference with respect to the mode of presenting one of the liturgical genres has a major impact on the length of the liturgical text compared to the biblical text. In contrast to the average of 35 leaves for full missals, festive missals have an average of roughly 10 leaves dedicated to liturgical material, with individual examples ranging from 5 to 14 leaves. This range is due not only to differences of leaf size, but also the inherent instability or flexibility of the festive missal typology, with some manuscripts providing a much fuller selection of feasts and formularies than others. For instance, the Dominican bible missals Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (168 x 120 mm; taille: 288 mm) and Rome, Angelica 32 (170 x 120 mm; taille: 290 mm) are essentially identical in size, but the Pisa festive missal takes up 14 leaves and the Rome festive missal uses only 8 leaves. There are two reasons for the difference in length. First, the Pisa missal includes musical notation for the preface dialogue and Common Preface while the Rome missal does not have any notation. Second, the Pisa missal contains a relatively large number of temporal occasions, including texts for many Sundays throughout the liturgical year, while the Rome missal only includes the major feasts like Christmas, the Circumcision, Epiphany, etc., in the temporal section, and does not provide any texts for Sundays that are not major feasts. Although these two Dominican manuscripts are both similar in size, date (second quarter of the 13th century), and place of origin (Italy), they differ not only in their arrangement of the festive liturgical material but also in their placement of the missal section within the manuscript, with the Pisa missal appearing at the end of the manuscript and the Rome missal at the middle. Votive missals tend to take up even less space, with an average of 4.8 leaves and a range from 2 to 10 leaves. Paradoxically, some votive missals use more leaves than certain festive missals (which range from 5 to 14 leaves). For instance, the Franciscan votive missal in London, BL, Harley 2813 takes up 10 leaves due to its extensive selection of votive masses, but it does not contain the range of temporal feasts that characterize festive missals. By contrast, the festive missal of unidentified liturgical tradition in Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136 uses just 5 leaves, providing a smaller number of different occasions but including the major feasts of the liturgical year. Despite these outliers, most votive missals take up less space than festive missals. Bibles with the Ordo Missae but without formularies generally devote fewer leaves to these texts than any of the other typologies, which is in accord with the fact that the other typologies include the Ordo Missae in addition to their respective range of liturgical occasions. In most cases, bibles with only the Ordo Missae utilize one or two leaves for this liturgical text. Two outliers make use of more leaves for the Ordo Missae due to the presence of full musical notation for the preface and other texts. The moderately-sized Private Collection “Wellington Bible” (155 x 100 mm; taille: 255 mm) uses 7 leaves for the Ordo Missae, which in this case also includes a historiated initial of the Crucifixion. The very large Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638 (330 x 220 mm; taille: 550 mm) devotes 4 leaves to the range of fully-notated prefaces and Ordo Missae texts which are likewise adorned with multiple historiated initials. 80 London, BL, Add. MS 57531 generally provides only incipits and explicits for biblical readings but gives full texts of readings where the liturgical pericope is complicated in some way. For instance, f. 2v gives the full text for the Old Testament reading of the Christmas Dawn Mass; the pericope begins with Is 6:1–3, then skips to Is 62:11–12. In other cases, an extended incipit or explicit is provided to supplement a section read from the bible section; for instance, f. 11v provides a short incipit for the Old Testament reading of the Tuesday after Passion Sunday, Dn 14:27.28–42 (Danielis prophete. In diebus illis: Congregati sunt babylonii ad regem: et dixerunt ei. Trade nobis danielem. xiiii. B.), but then provides an extended explicit (Finis. in momento coram eo. Tunc rex ait. Paveant habitantes in universa terra deum danielis: quia ipse est liberator faciens signa et mi­ rabilia in celo et in terra. Qui liberavit danielem: de lacu leonum.) In this case, the concluding verse is not included in the main biblical text on f. 376v, so the extended explicit helps supplement text that was intentionally or unintentionally omitted from the bible section of the manuscript. On the occasional omission of Dn 14:42 from Vulgate manuscripts, cf. Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 1373.

1.6 Size and Layout  

 39

1.6.3 Written Space of the Bible Section Figure 2 shows the dimensions of the written space of the bible section of the 39 bible missals for which measurements are available, drawing on the bible layout measurements provided in Table 16.81 250

Bible Written Space Height (mm)

200

150

100

50

0

0

50

100

150

Figure 2: Written Space Dimensions for Bible Sections of Bible Missals.

The average taille of the written space of the bible sections of bible missals is 207 mm. The average proportion between the height and width of the written space is 0.655, essentially identical to the written space proportion in Ruzzier’s corpus, 0.657.82 As a comparison of the two figures shows, the points on the written space scatter plot (Figure 2) are more closely clumped together in various groups than the leaf size scatter plot (Figure 1). The two largest manuscripts, Paris, BnF, latin 36 and Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638, differ widely in leaf size (taille of 505 and 550 mm) but have almost identical dimensions for their bible section written space (taille of 323 and 330 mm). Many smaller bible missals likewise have similar written space dimensions while differing noticeably in leaf size. Five bible missals have an almost identical written space taille, ranging from 177–180 mm, but a leaf taille ranging from 225–276 mm.83 The smallest of these manuscripts, 81 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) is excluded from this figure. 82 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 136. As Ruzzier points out, the written space proportion is almost always narrower than the leaf proportion. 83 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16; Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18; Nantes, BM 2; Paris, BnF, latin 16266; and Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1.

40 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

Nantes, BM 2 (taille 225 mm), has been badly cropped, which underscores that the current leaf size of bible missals does not always reflect the original size of the leaf, while the original written space dimensions are usually still discernable. As Table 26 shows, the written space taille is clearly correlated with the leaf taille, but most ranges of 10 mm written space taille are found in more than one 50 mm division of leaf taille. Table 26: Written Space Taille and Leaf Taille. Written Space Taille

Leaf Taille 451 mm

6

161–170 mm 171–180 mm

231–280 mm

1

Total 6

3

3

5

6

181–190 mm 1

1

1

5

6

201–210 mm

1

1

211–220 mm

4

191–200 mm

221–230 mm

1

5

1

1 0

231–240 mm 241–250 mm

2

251–260 mm

1

2

4 1

261–270 mm

1

1

271–280 mm

2

2

281–290 mm

0

291–300 mm

0

301–310 mm

0

311–320 mm

0

321–330 mm Total

7

9

11

5

5

2

2

2

39

Each 13th-century bible missal uses a two-column layout for the bible section, which is an almost universal characteristic of bibles of this period.84 The only example of a one-column biblical layout among the manuscripts considered here is the 15th-century manuscript Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1, which is also unusual in only presenting the New Testament together with its festive missal. Table 27 indicates the relationship of leaf size to the number of lines and the ruling unit (height of written space divided by number of lines) of the range of manuscripts, drawing on the data provided in Table 16.85 Because the Prague New Testament is an outlier in terms of number of lines (29 lines) and ruling unit (3.86 mm), the size category containing this manuscript lists two sets of minimum lines and maximum ruling unit.

84 98% of Ruzzier’s corpus of 13th-century bibles have a two-column layout while only 2% (seven manuscripts) use a one-column layout; see Ruzzier 2022, p. 124. 85 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, pp. 140–146.

1.6 Size and Layout  

 41

Table 27: Lines and Ruling Units Correlated to Leaf Size. Average lines ≤230 mm 231–280 mm

45.64 47.15

281–330 mm 331–380 mm 381–450 mm >451 mm Total

Minimum lines

Maximum lines

Average Ruling Unit

Minimum Ruling Unit

Maximum Ruling Unit

51 52

2.09 2.31

1.98 1.92

53.91 51.30 55.70 58.00

41 29 (Prague) 41 (others) 48 46 48 56

64 58 62 60

2.28 2.80 2.89 3.51

1.93 2.49 2.52 3.37

2.24 2.29 (others) 3.86 (Prague) 2.69 2.98 3.54 3.66

51.95

29

64

2.65

1.92

3.86

The average number of lines in the bible section of bible missals is 50.87,86 which is almost identical to the average number of lines in Ruzzier’s corpus (50).87 (The number of lines in the missal sections will be discussed below.) Excluding the Prague New Testament, the number of lines in the bible sections range from 41–64, a slightly narrower range than Ruzzier’s corpus of bibles which includes examples ranging from 32–65 lines.88 Most manuscripts use a consistent number of lines throughout the biblical portion of the manuscript, but some include a narrow range (e.g., 42–43 lines in Paris, BnF, latin 215 and 49–50 lines in Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47), and others a wide range (e.g., 49–53 lines in Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 and 58–64 lines in Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst.).89 The average ruling unit is 2.46 mm (or 2.42 mm if the Prague manuscript is omitted). The ruling unit ranges from 1.92–3.86 mm. After the Prague manuscript, which has the highest ruling unit of 3.86 mm, the next highest ruling units are 3.66 mm (Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638), 3.54 mm (Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1), and 3.37 mm (Paris, BnF, latin 36). Sheffield and Paris, BnF, latin 36 are both in the largest leaf size category (above 451 mm in taille), and Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1 is the largest manuscript in the 381–450 mm taille category. All other manuscripts have a ruling unit under 3 mm. In contrast to the relative uniformity of the manuscripts with a large ruling unit, the three manuscripts with a ruling unit under 2 mm fall into three separate size categories: London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 (taille 230 mm), Paris, BnF, latin 216 (taille 248 mm), and Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst. (taille 298 mm).

1.6.4 Written Space of the Missal Section The missal sections of bible missals have greater diversity of layouts than the bible sections. While almost all bible missals use a consistent layout for the entire bible section,90 30% of bible missals that include both the Ordo Missae and formularies use a different layout for the Ordo Missae and the formularies.91 Table 28 gives details for the nine manuscripts with different layouts for the Ordo Missae and the formularies. In most cases, the Ordo Missae is presented with a higher ruling unit than the formularies, which gives the Ordo Missae greater legibility, a feature which is also frequently found in medieval missals. In the case of the Nantes, BM 2, the use of a greater ruler unit for the Ordo Missae is accompanied by a switch to a one column format. The two bibles with a lower ruling unit for the Ordo Missae, Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10 and Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3, both present the Ordo Missae in a separate section than the formularies, with the Ordo Missae following the biblical layout and the formularies being given in a more expansive layout.

86 In the averages given here, I have made calculations using the midpoint of each range, e.g., 61 for the range of 58–64 lines in the Wolfenbüttel bible missal. 87 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, p. 145, Tableau 105. 88 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, p. 143, Graphique 12. 89 Ruzzier 2022, pp. 268–278 includes a single digit for the number of lines in each manuscript. E.g., Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf., 1335 Helmst. is listed on p. 278 as having 58 lines rather than the range of 58–64 lines which I have identified. 90 A noteworthy exception is the Dominican bible missal Rome, Angelica 32, where the biblical text is written in two main modular units which make use of distinct quire structures and layouts. 91 This percentage excludes 10 manuscripts which have only Ordo Missae or only formularies either due to their typology or fragmentary state.

42 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

Table 28: Bible Missals with Different Layouts for the Ordo Missae and Formularies. Ordo Missae

Shelfmark Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3 Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10 London, BL, Add. MS 57531 Nantes, BM 2 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136 Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst.

Formularies

H x W92

C

L

RU

HxW

C

L

RU

150 x 93 130 x 80 150 x 95 152 x 95 112 x 85 109 x 75 117 x 90 140 x 95 117 x 78

2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2

42 41 51 55–57 25 24 45 39–40 40

3.57 3.17 2.94 2.71 4.48 4.54 2.6 3.54 2.93

=OM =OM 160–185 x 115–130 158 x 112 =OM =OM =OM =OM =OM

=OM =OM 2–3 3 =OM =OM =OM =OM =OM

46 54–60 44–66 50–53 50 38 55 65 58

3.26 2.28 3.13 3.07 2.24 2.87 2.13 2.15 2.02

1.6.5 Relationship Between the Written Space of the Bible and Missal Sections Bible missals fall into two main categories concerning the relationship between the layout of the bible section and the layout of the missal section. Of the 36 manuscripts for which adequate measurements for both sections are available, 56% (20 manuscripts) have identical dimensions for the written space of both sections and 41% (15 manuscripts) have bigger dimensions for the missal than the bible. Only one manuscript has smaller dimensions for the missal than the bible due to the missal texts being added in the margins of the bible.93 Of the 20 manuscripts with essentially identical written space dimensions for both sections, 7 have fewer lines in the missal than the bible, meaning that the missal has a higher ruling unit and consequently greater legibility. Tables 29 and 30 compare the written space dimensions, number of lines, and ruling unit for the 25 manuscripts in which one of these values differs between the bible and missal section. Table 29 lists manuscripts with larger dimensions for the written space of the missal than the bible, and Table 30 lists manuscripts where the dimensions of the two sections are equal or very close in size, but where the number of written lines differs significantly. Table 29: Bible Missals with Larger Dimensions for the Missal Section than the Bible Section.

Shelfmark

Bible Layout

Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47 Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10 London, BL, Harley 1748 London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 36 Paris, BnF, latin 163 Paris, BnF, latin 216 Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 Rome, Angelica 32 Tours, BM 5 Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136

Missal Layout

HxW

Lines

RU

HxW

Lines

RU

102 x 67 150 x 95 110 x 70 152 x 95 160 x 110 95 x 60 122 x 80 202 x 121 133 x 85 98 x 65 149 x 93 112 x 82 115 x 78 127 x 87 130 x 83

49–50 51–52 49–53 55–57 57 48 51–54 60 60–63 51 50 55–57 50 51 58–63

2.06 2.91 2.16 2.71 2.81 1.98 2.32 3.37 2.16 1.92 2.98 2.00 2.30 2.49 2.15

108 x 82 160–185 x 115–130 130 x 80 158 x 112 178 x 125 112 x 72 135 x 95 220 x 150 142 x 102 127 x 90 155 x 105 117 x 90 124 x 82 127 x 114 140 x 95

36 44–66 54–60 50–53 40 50 50–52 63 77 30 52 55 51 48–51 65

3.00 3.14 2.28 3.07 4.45 2.24 2.65 3.49 1.84 4.23 2.98 2.13 2.43 2.57 2.15

94

92 H x W = Height x Width; C = Columns; L = Lines; RU = Ruling Unit. 93 The Dominican formularies in Poitiers, BM 12 are added in the lower margins of the Interpretations of Hebrew Names. 94 H x W = Height x Width; Lines = number of lines; RU = ruling unit (layout height divided by number of lines).

1.7 Comparison of Bible Missals and 13th-century Missals  

 43

The manuscripts listed in Table 29 have larger dimensions for the written space of the missal section than the bible section. In some cases, the difference is dramatic. In Paris, BnF, latin 36 the height of the missal section is nearly 20 mm taller than the height of the bible section. In Tours, BM 5, the height of both sections is identical, but the width of the missal section is 40 mm wider than the bible section. In other cases, the size difference is more subtle but still significant. For instance, the missal section of Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136 is roughly 10 mm taller and wider than the bible section. In most manuscripts, the number of lines is lower in the missal section, which means that the ruling unit is higher and consequently the missal section has greater legibility. In some cases, the missal ruling unit is bigger than the bible ruling unit, e.g., Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47 (where the missal ruling unit is 1 mm greater than the bible section) or London, BL, Harley 1748 (where the missal ruling unit is 1.64 mm greater). In two cases, the dimensions of the written space and the number of lines are both increased in the missal, leading to an identical ruling unit is both sections (Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236 and Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136). Finally, a single manuscript (Paris, BnF, latin 163) has a higher number of lines in the missal section, such that the missal ruling unit is smaller than the bible ruling unit. Table 30: Bible Missals with Equal or Similar Dimensions for the Missal and Bible Sections but Different Numbers of Lines. Shelfmark Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202 Brussels, KBR 8882 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 13 Nantes, BM 2 Paris, BnF, latin 10431 San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst.

Bible Layout

Missal Layout

HxW

Lines

RU

HxW

Lines

RU

150 x 98 100 x 67 90 x 63 108 x 71 167 x 105 156 x 103 205 x 125 103 x 70 118 x 80

57–62 48–49 41 51 58 58 56 48–50 58–64

1.70 2.06 2.20 2.12 2.88 2.69 3.66 1.75 1.93

150 x 93 = Bible 90 x 65 109 x 75 = Bible = Bible 205 x 131 = Bible 117 x 78

46 24–28 39 38 35 47–51 34 39–40 58

3.26 3.85 2.31 2.87 4.77 3.18 6.03 2.61 2.02

Table 30 lists manuscripts with essentially equal dimensions for the height and width of the bible and missal written space, but with a smaller number of lines in the missal section. In all of these cases, the ruling unit of the missal section is higher than the bible section. In some cases, this is quite dramatic, with Brussels, KBR 8882, Paris, BnF, latin 10431, and Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638 having almost double the ruling unit for the missal than the bible. In other cases, the difference is more subtle: Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 13 has just two fewer lines in the missal section, leading to a slightly larger ruling unit, while Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst. has a range of lines in the bible section (58–64) but uses the lowest end of this range for the missal section (58), leading to a slightly higher ruling unit for the missal.

1.7 Comparison of Bible Missals and 13th-century Missals Scholars who have previously studied bible missals have expressed contrary views concerning the relationship of the size of the manuscripts to their potential use for liturgical celebration. Richard Pfaff and Nigel Morgan have expressed doubts about the readability of the small script employed in 13th-century bible missals and their consequent practicality for liturgical use,95 whereas Laura Light and Eyal Poleg have argued that bible missals were likely used for liturgical celebration

95 Pfaff 2009, pp. 324–325 discusses this question in connection with the small portable Franciscan missal Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. liturg. f. 26 and the Franciscan bible missal Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3. Writing about the bible missal, Pfaff states on p. 325: “The book was certainly made to be used, but again, whether any celebrant could read such tiny writing as is displayed in, notably, the proper prefaces is doubtful. To use it while celebrating the priest would have had to pick up the book at such points and, of necessity holding it open with both hands, peer at it.” In the context of a treatment of Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3, Morgan 2017, p. 226 makes the following observation: “Several English and French thirteenth-century bibles contain abbreviated Franciscan and Dominican missals. These missal texts in Bibles seem to be in too small script to have been used for the celebration of Mass, but may have been used for the reading of the missal texts as part of daily prayer.”

44 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

despite their small size and script.96 While it is not possible to offer definitive statements as to whether or how particular manuscripts were used in the liturgy, comparative analysis of size and layout in bible missals and other 13th-century missals can offer helpful evidence for assessing these questions. Figure 3 presents a scatter plot comparing the leaf size of 40 bible missals and 143 missals dated by Victor Leroquais to the 13th century.97 Due to the geographical limits of the collections which make up his sample, Leroquais’ range of manuscripts is heavily weighted to missals of French origin, although some manuscripts from other regions are included due to their presence in French collections (e.g., Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 135, a notated missal of English origin). While further research is needed to confirm whether the trends which can be discerned from Leroquais’ repertoire hold true of missals produced in other regions, this data provides a helpful starting point for considering the broader context of 13th-century missals. As Figure 3 makes clear, bible missals tend to be smaller than the broader range of 13th-century missals, but there is significant overlap in certain sections of the scatter plot especially in manuscripts between 200 and 250 mm in leaf height. As Table 31 indicates, a large majority of 13th-century missals are above 451 mm in taille, but a significant number of manuscripts overlap with several of the bible missal size categories. Many bible missals are smaller than the average 13th-century missal, but there is sufficient overlap in size to make generalizations about the impracticality of using bible missals for liturgical celebrations misleading.

96 Cf. Light 2013, pp. 204–206: “The content of the Missals in these books, with their focus on Votive Masses, suggest their primary use was for private Masses said by traveling Friars, rather than for the conventual Masses said as part of the daily liturgy in Franciscan and Dominican Houses. … As we have noted, many of these Bible-Missals are not only very small, but were copied in tiny script, and they do raise the question of practicality; how did a celebrant read from these books? Other scholars have been struck by this conundrum: Richard Pfaff mentions it frequently when discussing Bible-Missals, very small Breviaries and Missals, coining a new term for these books which he calls ‘eye-strain volumes’. Part of the answer may be found in the importance of memory; priests using these books probably knew many of the Mass prayers by heart, and the Missal was therefore primarily a reminder and a supplement to his memory. Nonetheless, although we may question how easy it was to read these books, they were undoubtedly read and used liturgically. A very small combined Bible-Missal was easy to carry, and certainly would have been a boon for a traveling Friar, whether it was used to say private Masses, or to even at times to say Mass for a congregation (the availability of liturgical books at the parish level probably varied widely).” Cf. Light 2016, p. 176: “What were Bible-Missals used for? I would argue that the obvious answer is the correct one: Missals, whether in Bibles or copied independently, were used to say Mass, and this was true even though many of the mendicant examples were quite small, and copied in very tiny script.” Poleg 2020a, pp. 29–30 discusses material evidence for the liturgical use of bible missals, including the smudging of the face of Christ on the Crucifixion in San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, f. 178v which may have resulted from the celebrant kissing the image. Discussing Dominican and Franciscan bible missals on p. 30, Poleg observes that “the unique combination of Bible and Missal suited their itinerant lifestyle. The small size made their use within the public liturgy unlikely. They were, however, ideal for saying private Masses away from one’s convent.” For further discussion of the practice of priests kissing crucifixion images, see Rudy 2010, Rudy 2011, and Rudy 2023. 97 See Leroquais 1924. The shelfmarks and data concerning the date, number of leaves, and leaf size of each of these manuscripts are provided in Appendix 3. I have included all manuscripts roughly dated to the 13th century by Leroquais (including those classified as “XII–XIII” or “XIII–XIV”) and have excluded manuscripts of complex typology (e.g., breviary missals) as well as manuscripts that Leroquais classifies as sacramentaries. After initial analysis of the data, I corrected the measurements of two manuscripts which were outliers in the correlation of leaf height and leaf width. Leroquais 1924, v. 2, p. 14 (§206) states that Autun, BM 187 has a leaf size of 240 x 260 mm, but according to the Initiale database the dimensions are 240 x 155 mm (see http://initiale.irht.cnrs.fr/en/codex/397). Leroquais 1924, v. 2, p. 137 (§318) states that Paris, BnF, latin 830 has a leaf size of 293 x 260 mm, but the Archives et manuscrits website of the Bibliothèque nationale gives 295 x 200 mm (https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/ cc62293z). Although it has not been feasible to confirm all of Leroquais’ measurements, with these exceptions they seem to be reliable.

1.7 Comparison of Bible Missals and 13th-century Missals  

 45

450

400

350

Leaf Height (mm)

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

0

50

100

150 Leaf Width (mm)

200

250

300

Figure 3: Leaf Size of Bible Missals and 13th-century Missals. Table 31: Leaf Size (Taille) of Bible Missals and 13th-century Missals. Leaf Taille ≤230 mm 231–280 mm 281–330 mm 331–380 mm 381–450 mm ≥ 451 mm Total

Bible missals

13th-century missals

7 (17.5%) 10 (25.0%) 11 (27.5%) 5 (12.5%) 5 (12.5%) 2 (5.0%)

0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (2.8%) 17 (11.9%) 20 (14.0%) 102 (71.3%)

40 (100.0%)

143 (100.0%)

Although detailed information about the written space and number of lines in Leroquais’ repertoire of 13th-century missals is not available, a comparison of a selection of bible missals and other missals can give a preliminary indication of similarities and differences between the two repertoires. Tables 32 and 33 indicate the dimensions of nine bible missals (all of Dominican origin) with six missals of various traditions with a leaf height of 200 mm or less.98 98 Abbeville, BM 7 is a fully-notated missal from Noyon produced in the middle of the 13th century. A black-and-white digitization of the manuscript and color images of selected leaves are available at https://bvmm.irht.cnrs.fr/consult/consult.php?reproductionId=15031. For further bibli-

46 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

Table 32: Size and Layouts of Selected Bible Missals. Written space

Ordo Missae

Formularies

#99

HxW

T

HxW

Lines

Lines

RU

490 647 440 457 362 584 467 519

137 x 95 167 x 110 165 x 118 140 x 90 182 x 120 133 x 94 170 x 120 152 x 107

232 277 283 230 302 227 290 259

100 x 67 130 x 80 122 x 73 95 x 60 122 x 75 93 x 63 116 x 80 103 x 70

24–28 54–60 48 48 50–52 43 51 39-40

3.85 2.28 2.54 1.98 2.39 2.16 2.27 2.61

Shelfmark

Leaves

Brussels, KBR 8882 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 215 Rome, Angelica 32 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

41

RU 3.17

Table 33: Size and Layouts of Selected Missals. Written space

Ordo Missae

Formularies

#

HxW

T

HxW

Lines

Lines

RU

220 317 220 224 153 165

200 x 145 185 x 130 184 x 131 200 x 142 186 x 137 180 x 130

345 315 315 342 323 310

155 x 104 129 x 85 128 x 98 166 x 100 137 x 95 120 x 80

45 42 36 42 34 23

3.44 3.07 3.56 3.95 4.03 5.22

Shelfmark Abbeville, BM 7 Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 135 Paris, BnF, latin 1105 Paris, BnF, latin 10502 Semur-en-Auxois, BM 6 Troyes, BM 1731

Leaves

29

RU 4.45

Figure 4 indicates the leaf size of the manuscripts listed in Tables 32 and 33, while Figure 5 indicates their written space dimensions. As a comparison of these figures shows, the bible missals are mostly smaller than the missals in terms of leaf size (although only just) but there is more overlap in the dimensions of the written space. Table 34 indicates the dimensions of the written space, number of lines for the Ordo Missae and formularies, and the ruling unit for the Ordo Missae and formularies, listing the manuscripts in ascending order based on the formulary ruling unit. As with the leaf size and written space dimensions, the bible missals and missals considered here form mostly distinct groups with some overlap. Most of these bible missals have a formulary ruling unit under 3 mm, with a range of less than 1 mm (1.98 and 2.61). Only one bible missal, Brussels, KBR 8882, exceeds 3 mm (3.85 mm). The missals, by contrast, all have formulary ruling units above 3 mm. Like the bible missals, the ruling unit of most missals is within 1 mm (between ography and commentary, see Leroquais 1924, v. 2, pp. 109–110, n. 291; Meyer 2014, pp. 3–8; Suski and Sodi 2019, p. 115, n. 10. Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 135 is a fully-notated Sarum missal which Nigel Morgan dates to c. 1260–1275 and suggests was made for a patron or church in the diocese of London based on the saints in the calendar (see Morgan 2010, pp. 145, 150). A full-color digitization of the manuscript is available at https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc792931. For further bibliography and commentary, see Leroquais 1924, v. 2, pp. 132–135, n. 316; Bernard 1974, pp. 47–49; Suski and Sodi 2019, p. 359, n. 2982. Paris, BnF, latin 1105 is a fully-notated missal from the Abbey of Bec likely written between 1265 and 1272 (see Hughes 1963, p. vi). A blackand-white digitization of the manuscript is available at https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc590287 and the text is edited in Hughes 1963. For further bibliography and commentary, see Leroquais 1924, v. 2, pp. 158–159, n. 341; Lauer 1939, v. 1, p. 403; Suski and Sodi 2019, p. 370, n. 3118. Paris, BnF, latin 10502 is a fully-notated missal from Sens produced in the first half of the 13th century. A black-and-white digitization of the manuscript is available at https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc72220w. For further bibliography and commentary, see Leroquais 1924, v. 2, pp. 82–83, n. 263; Suski and Sodi 2019, p. 373, n. 3151. Semur-en-Auxois, BM 6 is a fully-notated missal from the diocese of Langres (Ravière?) produced in the first half of the 13th century (see Meyer 2013, pp. 176–178). A full-color digitization of the manuscript is available at https://bvmm.irht.cnrs.fr/mirador/index.php?manifest=https:// bvmm.irht.cnrs.fr/iiif/24353/manifest. For further bibliography and commentary, see Leroquais 1924, v. 2, pp. 72–73, n. 251; Suski and Sodi 2019, p. 427, n. 3795. Troyes, BM 1731 is a Cistercian missal from Clairvaux produced in the second half of the 13th century. A full-color digitization of the manuscript is available at https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc996895/ca59841471824771. For further bibliography and commentary, see Leroquais 1924, v. 2, pp. 130–131; Suski and Sodi 2019, p. 462, n. 4225. In addition to the six missals listed above, Leroquais includes a seventh that is under 200 mm in height but for which digital images are not available online: Colmar, BM 433, a small Cistercian missal (53 ff., 195 x 145 mm).

1.7 Comparison of Bible Missals and 13th-century Missals  

 47

250

200

Leaf Height (mm)

150

100

50

0

0

50

100

150

200

Leaf Width (mm)

Figure 4: Leaf Size of Bible Missals and Missals under 200 mm in Leaf Height.

3.07 and 4.03 mm), with one outlier (Troyes, BM 1731) having a ruling unit of 5.22 mm. It is striking that in both repertoires the range of ruling units remains quite narrow despite a relatively wide range of heights for the written space, showing that the book makers carefully adapted the number of lines to the dimensions of the written space. While further analysis based on a wider range of missals is needed, a preliminary comparison of the layout of a selection of bible missals and 13th-century missals suggests that bible missals tend to be smaller than the broader range of missals in their written space dimensions and ruling units but are nevertheless relatively close to small missals in these respects. The objections that have been raised concerning the “practicality” of bible missals for the celebration of the liturgy by Pfaff and Morgan would apply equally to small missals, and yet these manuscripts were evidently considered to be useful by the individuals and communities who commissioned or created them. While codicological study of extant manuscripts cannot answer contingent questions about the modes in which they were or were not used in the Middle Ages, comparative study of bible missals and other missals shows that a variety of sizes and layouts were employed for both book types, including remarkably small manuscripts as well as manuscripts of larger dimensions.100

99 # = number of leaves; H x W = Height x Width; T = Taille; Lines = Number of Lines; RU = Ruling Unit. 100 Chapter 6 will offer further reflections on the possible liturgical uses of bible missals.

48 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

200

Written Space Height (mm)

150

100

50

0

0

50

100

150

Written Space Width (mm)

Figure 5: Written Space of Bible Missals and Missals under 200 mm in Leaf Height. Table 34: Written Space, Lines, and Ruling Unit of Bible Missals and Missals (Ascending by Formulary Ruling Unit). Shelfmark London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 Paris, BnF, latin 215 Rome, Angelica 32 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Paris, Mazarine 31 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 135 Abbeville, BM 7 Paris, BnF, latin 1105 Brussels, KBR 8882 Paris, BnF, latin 10502 Semur-en-Auxois, BM 6 Troyes, BM 1731

Typology Bible missal Bible missal Bible missal Bible missal Bible missal Bible missal Bible missal Missal Missal Missal Bible missal Missal Missal Missal

Written Space 95 x 60 93 x 63 116 x 80 130 x 80 122 x 75 122 x 73 103 x 70 129 x 85 155 x 104 128 x 98 100 x 67 166 x 100 137 x 95 120 x 80

Ordo Missae

Formularies

Lines

Lines

RU

48 43 51 54–60 50–52 48 39–40 42 45 36 24–28 42 34 23

1.98 2.16 2.27 2.28 2.39 2.54 2.61 3.07 3.44 3.56 3.85 3.95 4.03 5.22

RU

41

3.17

29

4.45

1.8 Conclusion  

 49

1.8 Conclusion Bible missals represent varied liturgical traditions and typologies and share in the full range of material and textual features found in the broader range of 13th-century bibles. The 40 bible missals which have so far been identified allow for detailed comparative study, although the relatively small number means that the proportions of bible missals belonging to particular typologies and traditions may shift as more bible missals are identified. Most bible missals can be attributed to a particular liturgical tradition, with the largest number (13 manuscripts) representing early forms of the Dominican liturgy, a significant number (8 manuscripts) representing various stages of the Franciscan liturgy, several representing Cistercian and Augustinian liturgies (3 each), and individual manuscripts representing other liturgical traditions. The predominant number of mendicant bible missals parallels the broader repertoire, where bibles of identifiable origin are predominantly Franciscan and Dominican. Bible missals include three main typologies of liturgical material: 14 manuscripts include votive missals with a small selection of formularies; 9 manuscripts include full missals, with a complete range of texts for the temporal and sanctoral cycles; 8 bibles include festive missals, with a selection of feasts for the temporal and sanctoral cycles. All of these types include the Ordo Missae in addition to their respective range of formularies. 5 manuscripts contain the Ordo Missae without formularies, and 1 manuscript provides formularies without the Ordo Missae. The liturgical tradition and typology of bible missals are sometimes correlated: more than half of Dominican manuscripts include votive missals, while Franciscan examples are more evenly distributed between full missals and votive missals. Half of the bible missals place the liturgical contents at the middle of the manuscript (usually between Psalms and Proverbs); the remaining manuscripts place the liturgical texts at the end (37.5%) or the beginning (12.5%) of the manuscript. The placement of the liturgical texts is correlated with their liturgical typology: 67% of full missals are at the end of the manuscript, while 64% of votive missals are at the middle; festive missals are more evenly distributed between the three locations. Bible missals share in the broader range of artistic decoration found in 13th-century bibles. Similar percentages of bible missals (20%) and 13th-century bibles (22.8%) use the highest grade of artistic decoration: historiated initials for biblical books and decorated initials for prologues. Likewise, 32.5% of bible missals and 35.2% of bibles use the lowest level of decoration, penwork initials for both biblical books and prologues. Relatively similar percentages of manuscripts use the various intermediate grades of decoration. Some bible missals have similar decoration in the missal and the bible sections, while others have a higher or lower grade of decoration for the missal than the bible. Bible missals likewise resemble the broader repertoire of bibles in terms of place of origin but differ with respect to date of production. Most bible missals (51.3%) and bibles (54.7%) come from France, an intermediate percentage come from England (25.6% of bible missals and 19.6% of bibles), and a smaller but still significant percentage come from Italy (12.8% of bible missals and 14.9% of bibles). In contrast to the increased production of bibles in the second half of the 13th century (49.4%) than in the first half (13.0%) and middle (18.3%), most bible missals were produced in the first half of the 13th century (53.8%), with a significant number dating to the middle (41.0%) and small percentage dating to the second half of the century (5.1%). Bible missals are thus associated with an earlier and more experimental stage of the production of bibles, although they continued to be produced occasionally in later decades. Bible missals were produced in a wide range of sizes, with the leaves of the smallest example (Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3) measuring 123 x 79 mm (although this manuscript has been heavily cropped) and the largest (Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638) measuring 330 x 220 mm. Despite this range of sizes, bible missals tend to be smaller than the broader range of 13th-century bibles, with 83% of bible missals being under or equal to 380 mm in taille (height + width), compared to 56% of the broader range. In contrast to 15% of 13th-century bibles being above 550 mm in taille, no bible missals are in this category; the taille of the largest bible missal is exactly 550 mm. A larger percentage of bible missals (18.4%) than bibles (7.4%) are under or equal to 230 mm in taille; while similar percentages of bible missals and bibles are between 231–280 mm and 281–330 mm in taille, significantly smaller percentages of bible missals than bibles are between 331–380 mm and 381–450 mm, in keeping with the larger percentage of the smallest category. Leaf size is correlated with liturgical tradition: mendicant bible missals tend to be smaller than monastic bible missals, just as the broader repertoire of bibles indicates that mendicants preferred smaller manuscripts to larger ones. The number of leaves of bible missals is strongly correlated with the size of the manuscript, just as in the broader repertoire of bibles. The number of leaves devoted to liturgical texts is likewise correlated with the liturgical typology, with full missals devoting more leaves to their fuller selection of liturgical texts than festive and votive missals. While bible missals resemble the

50 

 1 Bible Missals and the Medieval Liturgy

broader repertoire of bibles in terms of the dimensions and layout of the written space for the bible sections, they have a greater diversity of layouts for the liturgical sections, with 30% of manuscripts using different layouts for the two sections. In addition to being compared with the broader range of 13th-century bibles, bible missals can also be fruitfully compared to the broader range of 13th-century missals. Although further study of the broader missal repertoire is needed, preliminary comparisons suggest that bible missals tend to be smaller in size than missals, although there is overlap between the two book types in various size categories, especially in manuscripts between 200 and 250 mm in leaf height. Bible missals tend to have a smaller ruling unit (written space height divided by the number of lines) than the broader range of missals. Nevertheless, generalized statements about whether bible missals were or could have been used for liturgical celebrations should be avoided given the wide range of sizes and layouts of medieval missals and bible missals. In Chapter 6 I will return to this question, discussing a range of “affordances” which bible missals offered for reading the bible, celebrating mass, preparing for liturgy and preaching, theological study, and personal piety. In this chapter, Dominican bible missals have emerged as the most prominent subset of the broader bible missal repertoire in terms of the number of identified manuscripts. Dominican bible missals are representative of the broader repertoire in terms of their range of biblical features and places of origin, although they tend to be smaller in size and earlier in date than the broader range of bible missals. Although more Dominican manuscripts have votive missals than the other typologies, there is at least one Dominican example of each liturgical typology. While other liturgical traditions of bible missals deserve further investigation, the remainder of this book will focus on the significance of Dominican bible missals for understanding the development of early Dominican liturgy. In the following chapters of this book, the liturgical contents of Dominican bible missals will be studied in greater detail, with comparisons being made both to the broader range of early Dominican missals as well as to the liturgical contents on non-Dominican bible missals. As this comparative study will show, bible missals provide crucial evidence for the development of Dominican liturgical practices in the dynamic early decades of the Order of Preachers.

2 Dating Early Dominican Mass Books Dominican bible missals are the most prominent group within the bible missal corpus, with the 13 identified manuscripts representing a third of the entire repertoire. In addition to their significance for understanding the broader phenomenon of bibles with liturgical texts, Dominican bible missals constitute a precious and previously overlooked source for the study of the liturgical tradition of the Order of Preachers. All Dominican bible missals can be dated to the period before the finalization of the 1254–1256 liturgical reform of Humbert of Romans,1 and thus enable a much more nuanced understanding the development of the early Dominican liturgy.2 In order to provide context for the detailed comparative studies of the liturgical contents of Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert Dominican missals that will appear in the following chapters, this chapter will give an overview of the development of the early Dominican liturgy and discuss legislative evidence for dating Dominican mass books.3 The development of Dominican liturgy was closely intertwined with the development of Dominican legislation.4 Dominican life was governed primarily by the Constitutions, which established guidelines for the liturgical, communal, and ministerial life of the friars as well as the organizational structure of the Order.5 The Constitutions were a living document that was constantly modified by means of the annual General Chapters of the Order.6 In order for a modification to the Constitutions to become permanent, it had to be approved by three consecutive chapters.7 In addition to making formal changes to the Constitutions, the General Chapters also made various decisions related to the liturgy, although it is not always clear the extent to which these admonitions were observed in practice.8 The Acts of the General Chapters and the writings of Humbert of Romans refer to several attempts to unify and reform the Dominican liturgy prior to the definitive reform of 1254–1256. Although the Acts of the General Chapters establish a timeline for these reform efforts, we have little clear evidence that allows us to connect individual manuscripts with particular stages of the pre-Humbert liturgical reforms. Earlier scholarship on Dominican liturgy has attempted to offer criteria for dating pre-Humbert Dominican liturgical manuscripts on the basis of evidence drawn from the Acts of

1 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) has an original pre-Humbert calendar and epistle and gospel list as well as an added Ordo Missae and ritual that may post-date the Humbert reform but which has a complex relationship with the Humbert liturgy. Poitiers, BM 12 contains added liturgical texts in the margins of the Interpretations of Hebrew Names which are certainly after 1253 but which do not conform precisely to the Humbert liturgy, and thus seem to reflect liturgical developments in the mid-1250s before Humbert’s reforms were finalized. The other 11 Dominican bible missals are all entirely pre-Humbert. For detailed codicological descriptions of each Dominican bible missal, see the Catalog. 2 Most scholarship on early Dominican liturgy has focused on only six pre-Humbert missals, which means that the inclusion of Dominican bible missals triples the number of pre-Humbert sources for investigation. Appendix 2 gives an overview of the gradual identification of pre-Humbert Dominican missals over the course of the past century as well as a succinct description of each manuscript. 3 The phrase “mass books” is a collective term for books of various liturgical genres used for mass, e.g., missals, sacramentaries, gospel books, epistle books, graduals. 4 For an overview of the medieval Dominican Constitutions, see Melville 2020; Galbraith 1925 remains a useful detailed study. 5 The Constitutions exist in an early version used before 1241 (known as the Primitive Constitutions) and later versions which follow a revised structure put in place by Raymond of Penyafort in 1241. Thomas 1965, pp. 304–69 provides a critical edition of the Primitive Constitutions. Tugwell 2001 presents a critical edition of the Second Distinction of the Primitive Constitutions, offering alternative interpretations to those of Thomas concerning the chronology of different sections. Creytens 1948 provides an edition of the 1241 Constitutions revised by Raymond of Penyafort. Analecta 1897 provides an edition of the 1256 version of the Constitutions. For an analysis of the foundational liturgical attitudes presented in the Constitutions, see Smith 2014. For a discussion of the development of Dominican legislation for the nuns of the Order of Preachers, see Smith 2021b. 6 For an edition of the 13th-century Acts of the General Chapters, see Reichert 1898. Later volumes in Reichert’s edition continue through the 19th century. From 1220–1244, the General Chapters met in alternation in Bologna and Paris; after 1245 they began to meet in various other cities. The chapters were held after Pentecost and took place each year except when a Master of the Order had recently died. 7 A change to the Constitutions had to be proposed by one chapter (Inchoamus), approved by a second chapter (Approbamus), and confirmed by a third chapter (Confirmamus). 8 An assessment of this question is particularly challenging due to the incomplete transmission of the Acts and the strong possibility that the dates to which various legislation is assigned in the extant manuscripts may be inaccurate. For a thorough discussion of the manuscript transmission of the Acts and the problems related to their chronology, see Tugwell 2009, pp. 145–191. The extant sources for the Acts comes from two separate traditions. One tradition is represented by a single manuscript originally from the Dominican priory of Florence, now Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV A1. Another tradition is represented by multiple manuscripts which present a redaction of the Acts compiled by the Dominican friar Bernard Gui (c. 1261–1331). Gui compiled the Acts which he was able to find but admits the imperfection of his collection. The two traditions sometimes present the same material, but sometimes a piece of legislation relevant to the liturgy is present in one tradition but not in the other. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-003

52 

 2 Dating Early Dominican Mass Books

the General Chapters, but none of these attempts have proved satisfactory.9 While the Acts provide important evidence for early Dominican liturgy, there is reason to doubt the practical force of some early Dominican legislative texts and their consequent value for dating manuscripts.10 Nevertheless, a careful comparison of Dominican legislation with extant pre-Humbert manuscripts yields some helpful evidence for dating early Dominican missals.11 There are three criteria that can help establish the date of a pre-Humbert missal: the calendar dates assigned for the annual Anniversaries of the Dead, the liturgical celebrations of St. Dominic († 1221, canonized 1234), and the liturgical celebrations of St. Peter Martyr († 1252, canonized 1253). The Anniversaries of the Dead form one of the earliest layers of Dominican liturgical practice, but the details of their observance were modified at several points over the course of the 13th century, thus providing relatively secure points of reference for dating Dominican manuscripts. The inclusion of St. Dominic in the original hand of a manuscript provides secure evidence that it was produced after 1234 and the wording of the collect for Dominic provides relatively secure evidence as to whether a manuscript was produced before or after 1244. The absence of St. Peter Martyr in the original liturgical layer of a Dominican missal provides strong (though not definitive) evidence that it was produced before his canonization in 1253. This chapter begins with a discussion of the stages of Dominican liturgical reform from the beginning of the Order through the finalization of Humbert’s reform in 1256. It will then evaluate the evidence for dating Dominican manuscripts offered by the Dominican Anniversaries of the Dead, the feast of St. Dominic, and the feast of St. Peter Martyr. It will conclude with a summary of the evidence available for each Dominican missal and bible missal, establishing a relative chronology of the sources, the liturgical contents of which will be examined in more detail in the following chapters.

9 Leroquais 1934, v. 1, pp. C–CII provides a chronological table of events and legislation connected with Dominican liturgy between 1215 and 1498; while a helpful guide in certain respects, Leroquais’ overview omits some texts that are important for dating Dominican manuscripts. Gignac 1959 relies on Leroquais 1934 for his study of the development of the Dominican sanctoral and places too much reliance on presence or absence of Elizabeth of Hungary (also known as Elizabeth of Thuringia) for dating manuscripts to before or after 1243 (cf. Gleeson 2004, p. 103). Gleeson 1969 and Gleeson 1972 offer important reassessments of early Dominican legislation, drawing attention to evidence that had been overlooked by Leroquais and Gignac, but are outdated in light of the discovery of new manuscript sources of the pre-Humbert liturgy. Tugwell 2008, pp. 577–598 and Tugwell 2009, pp. 152–171 present new editions of legislative sources for early Dominican liturgy but are selective in nature and must be used in conjunction with Reichert 1898. Dubreil-Arcin 2011, pp. 487–89 provides an overview of the development of the Dominican sanctoral from 1233 to 1370, but her coverage of the material is selective and often inaccurate. Meyer, n.d. offers a helpful but selective overview of Dominican liturgical legislation from 1239 to 1498. For a helpful discussion of the methodological problems concerning dating liturgical manuscripts based on calendars and legislative acts, see Morard 2012, pp. 341–345. 10 Legislation from 1239 concerning the feast rank of St. Vincent (22 January) and from 1243 concerning the feast ranks of the Eleven Thousand Virgins (21 October) and St. Elizabeth of Hungary (19 November) does not appear to have been consistently implemented in pre-Humbert sources. The 1239 general chapter made an admonitio raising the feast of St. Vincent to the rank of Semiduplex (ed. Reichert 1898, p. 11): “Item. Ut festum beati Vincencii fiat de cetero semiduplex.” Although this feast is ranked Semiduplex in the Humbert liturgy, it is clear that this admonitio was not implemented in all pre-Humbert manuscripts as several manuscripts datable to the late 1240s or early 1250s maintain the original feast rank of IX lect. Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), f. 2r, datable to c. 1246–1253, originally had the rank IX lect., although a later hand added semiduplex. Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 2r, dated to 1250, gives the rank as IX lect. The liturgical miscellany Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3, f. Ir, datable to c. 1253–1256(?), provides semiduplex in the original hand. The relationship of this manuscript to the Humbert reform is complex, but this may indicate that the elevation in feast rank was indeed observed in some parts of the Order before the completion of the Humbert reform. The 1243 general chapter made an admonitio calling for the observance of the Eleven Thousand Virgins and Elizabeth of Hungary at the rank of IX lect. (ed. Reichert 1898, p. 27): “Item. Fiat festum .ix. lectionum de .xi. milium virginum. Similiter et de sancta Helisabeth.” As with the 1239 admonitio, these changes were not immediately implemented. The c. 1246–1253 Wellington Bible (f. 3r) and the 1250 Vatican City (f. 3v) bible missals list the 21 October Undecim millium virginum martyrum occasion with the rank Commemoratio and omit the 19 November feast of Elizabeth of Hungary (although Sancte elysabeth III lect. was added by a later hand to the calendar of the Wellington Bible). Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3, ff. Vv–VIr presents both the 21 October and 19 November occasions with the rank of Memoria, which is how they appear in the Humbert liturgy. 11 A comprehensive evaluation of the evidence of Dominican legislation for the development of the Dominican liturgy is beyond the scope of this book. In particular, post-Humbert legislative evidence requires further research that compares the legislative texts with extant liturgical manuscripts in order to develop a more nuanced sense of the later development of the Dominican liturgy.

2.1 Reforms of the Dominican Liturgy  

 53

2.1 Reforms of the Dominican Liturgy The Dominican liturgy went through several liturgical reforms in the decades between the foundation of the Order in 1216 and the finalization of Humbert’s reform in 1256.12 From the earliest days of the Order, the Constitutions established certain guiding principles about the liturgy, including the specification of particular postures, gestures, and modes of singing, but early Dominicans seem to have made use of local liturgical books and customs in the earliest years of the Order.13 The date of the initial establishment of a distinctively Dominican set of liturgical rites is unclear.14 Although the date of the introduction of a unified liturgy is unclear, the 1241 Constitutions include a reference to the confirmation of a liturgical office (totum officium tam diurnum quam nocturnum) which had been confirmed and was to be uniformly observed.15 This confirmation appears to apply to both the divine office and the mass, as Humbert’s commentary on the Constitutions links the liturgical texts of the mass found in missals and graduals with the “officium … diurnum.”16 Although the Order had some form of unified liturgy by 1241, a perception evidently existed within the Order that this liturgy could be improved, although we do not have exact details as to what was perceived to be lacking. Beginning in 1244, the general chapters of the Order began the first of several attempts to reform Dominican liturgical practice. The 1244 General Chapter instructed that the delegates to the next General Chapter should bring along with them liturgical books of various kinds (including missals) for the sake of bringing concord to the office (pro concordando officio).17 The 1245 General Chapter commissioned four friars from various provinces to gather in Angers on the feast of St. Remigius (October 1) to correct the “words, chant and rubrics” of the Dominican liturgy.18 The following three general chapters of 1246, 1247, and 1248 proposed, approved, and confirmed the revision undertaken by the four friars, but this revision was evidently not universally accepted by the Order.19 Citing complaints from around the Order, the 1250 General Chapter called for the four friars to gather again, this time at Metz on the Feast of All Saints (1 November), to undertake further work; in the meantime, books were not to be copied or corrected from the 1246–1248 revision.20 The 1251 General Chapter (also held at Metz) approved this second revision by the four friars,21 and the 1252 General Chapter began the legislative process of modifying the Constitutions to recognize the Metz revision as binding for the Order.22

12 For overviews of this process, see Tugwell 2008, pp. 1–25; Giraud 2013, pp. 1–14; Giraud 2018. 13 Cf. Smith 2014; Giraud 2018, pp. 153–154. 14 Cf. Tugwell 2008, p. 6: “Our best hope of discovering how soon and to what extent the Dominican rite was unified before the work of the four friars lies in the detailed examination of pre-Humbert liturgical manuscripts, a task which has been begun but is far from complete.” 15 Ed. Tugwell 2008, p. 581 (T4b): “Totum officium tam diurnum quam nocturnum confirmamus et uolumus ab omnibus uniformiter obseruari ita quod nulli liceat de cetero aliquid innouare.” For a discussion of the date of this text, see Tugwell 2008, p. 2. 16 Humbert of Romans, Expositio super constitutiones fratrum Ordinis Predicatorum, §46 (ed. Reisner 2004, p. 258): “Sciendum est, quod officium nocturnum dicitur officium illud, quod continetur in antiphonario, quia pro maiori parte, que continentur ibi, de nocte dicuntur et ab officio nocturno pro maiori parte sumuntur illa, que continentur ibi dicenda de die. Diurnum vero dicitur, quod continetur in graduali et missali vel aliter dici potest nocturnum, quicquid in nocte, diurnum vero, quicquid de die dicitur, in quibuscumque libris contineatur.” 17 Ed. Tugwell 2008, p. 581 (T6): “Volumus et mandamus ut diffinitores proximi capituli generalis sequentis pro concordando officio portent secum ad dictum capitulum omnes rubricas et notulas breuiarii nocturni et diurni et gradualis et missalis.” Cf. Reichert 1898, p. 29. 18 Ed. Tugwell 2008, pp. 581–582 (T7): “Committimus quatuor fratribus Francie, Anglie, Lombardie, Teuthonie quod stantes in domo andagauensi officium nocturnum et diurnum tam in littera quam in cantu et rubricis corrigant et concordent ac defectus suppleant cum quanto possint dispendio minori, et quilibet eorum predictorum .iiii. afferant tam diurnum quam nocturnum officium secum de prouincia sua, et hec prouinciales procurent, et sint in festo Remigii, et si qui non uenerint alii nichilominus procedant.” Although the Bernard Gui manuscripts present the four provinces as France, England, Lombardy, and Teutonia, the tradition represented by Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV A1 mentions the province of Provence (southern France) instead of France (northern France): “quorum unus erit de Prouincia, alius de Lonbardia, tertius de Theothonia, .iiii. us de Anglia.” Cf. Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV A1, f. 4v; Tugwell 2008, p. 581; Reichert 1898, p. 33. 19 Ed. Tugwell 2008, pp. 582–583 (T9, T12, T14); cf. Reichert 1898, pp. 35–36, 39, 41. 20 Ed. Tugwell 2008, pp. 585–586 (T19): “Cum multorum fratrum de diuersis prouinciis super discordia multiplici diuini officii per .iiii. fratres ordinati querelas receperimus tempore capituli generalis uisum est magistro et diffinitoribus ut ad sedandas querelas predicti fratres in Methim ueniant in festo omnium sanctorum ad correctionem dicti officii faciendam et in unum uolumen redigendam; quapropter mandamus et in remissionem peccatorum iniungimus quatinus ad predicta perficienda dicti fratres statuto tempore ad locum ueniant memoratum. Interim autem a rescribendis libris uel corrigendis secundum predictam correctionem eorundem abstineant uniuersi.” Cf. Reichert 1898, pp. 53–54. 21 Ed. Tugwell 2008, p. 586 (T20): “Officium diurnum et nocturnum secundum ultimam correptionem ab omnibus recipiatur, et unum exemplar Parisius, aliud Bononie reponatur, et secundum eorum formam omnes libri ordinis scribantur uel corrigantur.” Cf. Reichert 1898, p. 60. 22 Ed. Tugwell 2008, p. 586 (T21): “Inchoamus … In capitulo de officio ecclesie, Totum officium tam diurnum quam nocturnum secundum ordinationem ultimo traditam Methis anno domini .m.cc.li. in capitulo generali communiter per totum ordinem obseruetur.” Cf. Reichert 1898, p. 63.

54 

 2 Dating Early Dominican Mass Books

There was no chapter held in 1253 due to the death of the Master of the Order John of Wildeshausen late in the preceding year. At the 1254 General Chapter the approbation of the Metz correction was set aside in favor of a call for the newly elected Master of the Order Humbert of Romans to personally oversee a definitive revision.23 As Simon Tugwell has observed, “it was presumably apparent by [1254] that the brethren were still not happy with their liturgical books.”24 The chapter expressed confidence in Humbert’s abilities to settle the vexed questions facing Dominican liturgical reform by beginning the legislative process to confirm Humbert’s revision at the same time it commissioned him to undertake it.25 The 1254 General Chapter called for the brothers to send suggestions concerning the revision of the liturgy directly to the Master of the Order by means of the next general chapter, which suggests that Humbert’s work on the reform commenced in earnest after the 1255 chapter.26 Given the fact that the 1256 General Chapter which confirmed the revised liturgy took place at Paris and the crucial role of Parisian bookmakers in producing the earliest exemplars of Humbert’s reformed liturgy, it seems likely that the principal work revising the finalized liturgy took place at the Parisian convent of St. Jacques.27 In any case, the legislative process of finalizing the legal status of Humbert’s reformed liturgy was approved in 1255 and finally confirmed in 1256.28 Humbert’s reformed liturgy was distributed by means of liturgical exemplars that divided the liturgy into fourteen liturgical books covering various material for the mass, office, and other liturgical rites of the Order such as rites for the dying and processions throughout the year.29 Although minor variations continued to exist in Dominican practice and subsequent General Chapters continued to make minor modifications to the calendar and other aspects of the Dominican liturgy, the fundamental texts, rubrics, and music established by Humbert had an astonishing stability for the next several hundred years.30

2.2 Dominican Anniversaries of the Dead Although the Acts of the General Chapters do not offer clear details about which elements of the liturgy were changed during the various stages of reform described in the previous section, they do offer some information which sheds light on the development of Dominican liturgical practice in the 13th century and which can consequently help to date Dominican missals. The Dominican Anniversaries of the Dead, the observance of which was discussed on several occasions at General Chapters, provide particularly important evidence for dating Dominican manuscripts. Over the course of the thirteenth century, four annual commemorations were introduced to the liturgy of the Order of Preachers reminding Dominicans to pray for specific groups of deceased individuals: fathers and mothers of the friars (observed on 4 February), individuals buried in Dominican cemeteries (7 July), friends and benefactors of the Order (originally 10 September, later moved to 5 September), and deceased friars (10 October). The development of these anniversaries can be partially traced in the legislation of the friars by means of manuscripts of the Constitutions of the Order as well as the Acts of the General 23 For the life of Humbert, see Brett 1984. Tugwell 2008 provides helpful comments on Humbert’s life and writings. Smith 2021b shows the links between Humbert’s efforts to reform the Dominican liturgy and to establish a settlement to the conflicts regarding the affiliation of Dominican nuns to the Order of Preachers. 24 Tugwell 2008, p. 15. 25 Ed. Tugwell 2008, p. 586 (T22): “Committimus magistro ordinis totam ordinationem ecclesiastici officii tam diurni quam nocturni et eorum que ad hoc pertinent et correctionem librorum ecclesiasticorum et quod corrigat litteram regule. Inchoamus hanc: in capitulo de officio ecclesie ubi dicitur Totum officium tam diurnum quam nocturnum addatur Secundum ordinationem et exemplar uenerabilis patris fratris Humberti magistri ordinis confirmamus.” 26 Cf. Tugwell 2008, p. 15: “Since Humbert invited the brethren to send proposed corrections of the office to the general chapter of 1255 (T23) he was presumably not expecting to do much work on it until then (which was in any case sensible, granted the other pressing concerns requiring his attention).” 27 Cf. Tugwell 2008, p. 15: “The 1256 general chapter was to be held in Paris (MOPH III 78.3), and since this is evidently where the master copy of the uolumina was in 1256 (cf. T27–29) we may presume that Humbert went there as soon as he could after the 1255 chapter in Milan and that it was at the Parisian convent of Saint-Jacques that he applied himself to the revision of the liturgy.” Cf. Giraud 2015, p. 249: “All three extant exemplars, and presumably any exemplars now lost, were copied in Paris shortly after Humbert of Romans’ completion of the liturgical revision in 1256. Paris was a hub of book-making activity in the thirteenth century, and also hosted a large Dominican convent, making it an unsurprising location for the production of Dominican liturgical books.” 28 See Tugwell 2008, pp. 587–589. 29 For a study of the liturgical exemplars, see Giraud 2015. For a discussion of the fourteen liturgical books and the diversity of ways in which they were transmitted for liturgical use, see Smith 2021a. 30 For discussions of the question of uniformity and local variation in Dominican liturgical practice after Humbert, see Beban 2018, Giraud 2018, Giraud 2021a, Smith 2021a, Giraud 2022, Jones 2022.

2.2 Dominican Anniversaries of the Dead  

 55

Chapters. When the legislative texts are compared with extant Dominican manuscripts, however, certain chronological problems emerge. Legislative texts provide an important framework for considering this aspect of Dominican liturgical practice, but it appears that Dominican liturgical practice was developing both within and without the framework of Dominican legislation.31 In Distinction II, chapter 36 of the Primitive Constitutions (used until 1241), the friars are enjoined to offer suffrages (masses and other prayers) for the dead during specific times of the year and at the death of particular individuals.32 Among the suffrages, two anniversaries for specific categories of the deceased were to be observed on specific dates: “The anniversary of fathers and mothers is to be observed on the third day after the Purification of saint Mary, and the anniversary of benefactors and friends is to be observed on the third day after her Nativity.”33 The phrase “third day after” (tertia die post) counts the referenced feast itself as the “first day,” as early Dominican calendars which include these anniversaries invariably place them on 4 February (two days after the Purification of Mary on 2 February) and 10 September (two days after the Nativity of Mary on 8 September). While the other suffrages in chapter 36 are called for either on the specific occasion of the death of an individual or within a wide time frame, it is significant that these two anniversaries are given dates which are explicitly connected to two of the four major Marian feasts of the year. Although the Primitive Constitutions do not explain why these specific dates were chosen, the date of the February anniversary links the remembrance of deceased parents with the feast of the Purification, which recalls the occasion when the parents of Jesus presented him in the Temple. In the case of the September anniversary, the symbolism is less clear, although it is possible that a similar idea was at work, e.g., giving thanks and interceding for the deceased benefactors and friends of the Order in connection with the joy of the birth of Mary. While chapter 36 offers clear information about the early liturgical practice of the Order, it is not clear when this chapter was added to the Constitutions, or whether all of the suffrages mentioned were added at the same time. Thomas dates the whole chapter somewhat broadly to 1220–1231,34 while Tugwell tentatively dates it to 1225.35 In the revised Constitutions which came into force in 1241, Raymond of Penyafort moved the chapter on suffrages to chapter 3 of the First Distinction, integrating it with other liturgical legislation concerning rubrics and fast days.36 Despite the change of location, the specification of the two anniversaries on 4 February and 10 September is identical to the Primitive Constitutions (with the exception of sancte Marie being changed to beate Marie).37 In 1246, the General Chapter of Paris initiated a process to modify two aspects of the constitutions regulating the observance of Anniversaries of the Dead. First, the date of the 10 September Anniversary of Deceased Friends and Benefactors was changed from the “third day after the Nativity” to the “third day after the octave of St. Augustine” (6 September). Second, the legislation mentions a third annual anniversary, for deceased friars, which was to be observed on the “day after the feast of blessed Dionysius” (10 October).38 The following year, at the 1247 General Chapter of Montpellier, this modification was approved with a slight amendment: instead of the “third day after the octave of St. Augustine,” the 31 Philip Gleeson seems to have been the first scholar to recognize the importance of the Anniversaries for dating Dominican liturgical books, although as will be noted below his argumentation on this point in Gleeson 1972 is sometimes problematic. 32 For the full text of this legislation, see Tugwell 2001, pp. 169–170; cf. Thomas 1965, pp. 367–368. 33 Tugwell 2001, p. 170: “Anniuersarium patrum et matrum tertia die post purificationem sancte Marie, anniuersarium benefactorum et familiarium tertia die post natiuitatem eiusdem est faciendum.” Cf. Thomas 1965, p. 368, which differs only in capitalization and orthography. 34 Thomas 1965, p. 367. 35 Tugwell 2001, p. 159: “It is not certain that the whole of [chapter] 36 was added at the same time, but it could all go back to 1225; it is also uncertain where it should go.” 36 For a description of the development of the 1241 Constitutions, see Tugwell 2001, pp. 6–7. 37 Creytens 1948, p. 33: “Anniversarium patrum et matrum tertia die post Purificatione[m] beate Marie, anniversarium benefactorum et familiarium est faciendum.” Creytens notes that the words in angular brackets were erased in the manuscript his edition is based on (Porto, Biblioteca Pública Municipal, MS 101) and replaced with “sequenti die post octavas beati augustini” in line with the legislation of 1246–1248. In Prague, National Library, VIII. B. 23, f. 68v (a manuscript not known to Creytens), the same original text is found; it too was later crossed out but is still legible. The Prague manuscript includes several additional anniversaries in the margins. 38 Reichert 1898, p. 34: “Item hanc. In constitucione ubi dicitur. anniversarium benefactorum. die tercia post nativitatem eiusdem faciendum est. deleatur. tercia die post nativitatem eiusdem. et ponatur. tercia die post octavam sancti Augustini. Anniversarium vero fratrum: sequenti die post festum beati Dyonisii.” The Octave of St. Augustine is 4 September, i.e., seven days after the feast of St. Augustine on 28 August. The feast of St. Dionysius is 9 October. Although the symbolism of these dates is less clear than that of the 4 February anniversary, it is significant that both dates are listed in connection with saints of the calendar instead of “prid. Non. Sept.” (4 September) or “VI Id. Oct.” (10 October). The placement of the Anniversary of Deceased Benefactors in connection with St. Augustine may have brought to mind the guidelines about the acceptance of gifts from benefactors in chapter five of the Rule of St. Augustine. The connection of the Anniversary of Deceased Friars with St. Dionysius might possibly have evoked the patronage of that saint over the royal burial place of the Kings of France at Saint-Denis.

56 

 2 Dating Early Dominican Mass Books

Anniversary of Deceased Friends and Benefactors was to be celebrated on the “day after the octave of blessed Augustine” (5 September).39 At the 1248 General Chapter of Paris, the legislation was confirmed, thus officially changing the constitutions to include three annual memorials on 4 February, 5 September, and 10 October.40 Although the legislation does not offer any observations on why the date of the September anniversary was modified, Philip Gleeson has suggested that the anniversary may have been moved so that it would not fall within the Octave of the Nativity of Mary, although it is unclear if this explanation is correct.41 With respect to the specification of an anniversary for deceased friars, it is significant that by 1246, thirty years after the foundation of the Order, there would have been many more deceased friars to remember than when the first two anniversaries were specified two decades earlier. After the approval of the reform of Humbert of Romans in 1254–1256, a fourth Anniversary of the Dead was added, commemorating those buried in Dominican cemeteries. At the 1263 General Chapter of London, legislation was introduced to add an “Anniversary of All Those Buried in Our Cemeteries” on the Monday after the Octave of Trinity Sunday.42 The following year, at the 1264 General Chapter of Paris, a modified version of this legislation was re-introduced which changed the movable date to a fixed date: the “first open day after the octave of the apostles Peter and Paul” (7 July).43 This second version of the legislation was approved and confirmed at the following two general chapters of Montpellier in 126544 and Trèves in 1266.45 As with the other anniversaries, no explanation is given on the reasons for the introduction of the memorial, but it was likely connected with the growing spiritual and financial significance of the friars’ right to bury lay people within their churches and cloisters.46 Table 35 indicates the presence or absence of the Anniversaries of the Dead in the Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert missals that include calendars. Table 35: Anniversaries of the Dead in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Missals. Shelfmark

4 February

7 July

5 September

10 September

10 October

Dominican bible missals Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16

Original

Original

Original

London/Oslo, Schøyen 115

Original

Original

Original

Paris, BnF, latin 163

Original

Original

Original

Original

Original

Paris, BnF, latin 215

39 Reichert 1898, p. 38: “Item hanc. In constitucionibus ubi dicitur. Anniversarium benefactorum. tercia die post nativitatem eiusdem faciendum est. deleatur. tercia die post nativitatem eiusdem. et ponatur sequenti die post octavas beati Augustini. Anniversarium vero fratrum sequenti die post festum beati Dyonisii. Et hec habet .ii. capitula.” 40 Reichert 1898, p. 41: “Item. hanc. Ubi dicitur. Anniversarium benefactorum. tercia die post nativitatem eiusdem. est faciendum. deleatur. tercia die post nativitatem eiusdem. et ponatur. sequenti die post festum beati Augustini. Anniversarium vero fratrum sequenti die post festum beati Dyonisii. Et hec habet .iii. capitula.” 41 See Gleeson 1972, p. 92, and Gleeson 2004, p. 107. In the earlier article, Gleeson suggests that the Dominicans may have begun to observe the Octave of the Nativity in 1245, the same year that it was introduced to the Roman and Cistercian calendars. In the later article, on the evidence of the presence of both the Octave as well as the 10 September anniversary in Lausanne, MHL 10, Gleeson modifies his position: “So I must concede that the presence of the octave is of no great value in dating a manuscript. But it still seems reasonable to suggest that the change in the date of the anniversary was made because of the octave, and it is possible that the octave, already widely observed, was formally adopted at the same time that it was adopted by Rome and the Cistercians.” However, it seems likely that the Octave of the Nativity was introduced very early; it is present in all of the Dominican bible missal calendars, and it is referenced in the rubrics of Paris, BnF, latin 8884, f. 292va. In his 1972 article, Gleeson acknowledges this, but offers an unconvincing argument that it is a “remnant of a practice which had been abandoned.” 42 Reichert 1898, p. 119: “Inchoamus has. In capitulo de suffragiis. post illud. post festum beati Dyonisii est faciendum. addatur. anniversarium vero omnium sepultorum in cimiteriis nostris. ubique fiat feria .iia. post octavas trinitatis.” 43 Reichert 1898, p. 123: “In capitulo de suffragiis. post illud. post festum sancti Dionysii est faciendum. addatur. anniversarium vero omnium sepultorum in cimiteriis nostris. ubique fiat prima die vacante post octavas apostolorum Petri et Pauli.” 44 Reichert 1898, p. 126: “Approbamus has. In capitulo de suffragiis. post illud. post festum sancti Dionysii est faciendum. addatur. anniversarium vero omnium sepultorum in cimiteriis nostris. ubique fiat post octabas apostolorum Petri et Pauli. Et hec habet .ii. capitula.” 45 Reichert 1898, p. 131: “Confirmamus has constituciones. In capitulo de suffragiis mortuorum. post illud. post festum sancti Dionysii. est faciendum. addatur. anniversarium omnium sepultorum in cimiteriis nostris ubique fiat prima die post octavas apostolorum Petri et Pauli. Et hec habet .iii. capitula.” 46 For a discussion of this practice, see Frank 1993, pp. 36–57.

2.2 Dominican Anniversaries of the Dead  

 57

Table 35 (continued) Shelfmark

4 February

Paris, BnF, latin 16266 (calendar is a later addition)

Original but erased

7 July

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”)

Addition

Rome, Angelica 32 (calendar is a later addition)

Original

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

Original

Original

Original

Lausanne, MHL 10

Original

Original

Original

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (calendar likely a later addition)

Original

Addition

Mons, BC 63/201

(Lacuna)

(Lacuna)

Addition

5 September

10 September

10 October

(Lacuna)

Original but erased

Original (?)

Addition

Original

Original

Pre-Humbert Dominican missals Original

Original

Original

Original

Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

Original

The Anniversaries of the Dead in Dominican calendars provide important information for identifying manuscripts as Dominican and for dating Dominican manuscripts, but they must be treated with caution. The presence of the memorials generally appears to provide solid evidence that a manuscript was made for or used by Dominicans, although some manuscripts of other traditions have similar anniversaries which may be influenced by Dominican practice without being Dominican.47 On the other hand, the absence of the memorials does not necessarily rule out Dominican usage; the cal47 In the liturgy of the Augustinian Hermits, two parallel anniversaries are celebrated: an anniversary for deceased parents on 6 February and an anniversary of deceased brothers on 7 July. Toulouse, BM 89, a 13th- or early 14th-century missal which contains several added anniversaries among additions that Leroquais characterizes as “plusieurs additions qui témoignent que le missel a été à l’usage des Ermites de Saint-Augustin”: on 6 February, there is an entry for Anniversarium patrum et matrum et benefactorum nostrorum, and on 7 July an entry for Anniversarium fratrum. Toulouse, BM 91, a missal dated by a colophon to 1362 which was produced at the Augustinian monastery of Lisle-sur-Tarn near Toulouse, anniversaries with similar names appear on the same two dates: a 6 February Anniversarium parentum nostrorum and a 7 July Anni­ versarium fratrum nostrorum ordinis. Semiduplex). Paris, BnF, latin 849, a 15th-century missal, contains a 6 February Anniversarium patrum et matrum nostrorum and a 7 July Anniversarium fratrum nostrorum. Cf. Leroquais 1924, v. 2, pp. 217–218, 316–317, v. 3, pp. 34–35. In addition to the manuscripts identified by Leroquais, Dallas, Bridwell Library, Ms 2, a 14th-century missal from Italy, contains the 7 July entry Anniversarium fratrum ordinis nostri (the leaf containing February is now missing). An interesting case is posed by New Haven, Beinecke, MS 1007, a breviary dated to 1499–1501 which includes several Anniversaries of the Dead in the calendar (ff. 1r–6v): the 4 February Anniversarium patrum et matrum, the 5 September Anniversarium familiarium et benefactorum, and the 10 October Anniversarium omnium fratrum defunctorum ordinis nostri (but no 7 July anniversary). The Beinecke website description (https://pre1600ms.beinecke.library.yale.edu/docs/ms1007.pdf) attributes the manuscript to a Dominican community near Liège on the basis of the calendar and litany (“On the basis of the calendar and the litany, the manuscript may be attributed to a convent of the Dominican order in or close to Liège, probably the convent of St. Catherine in that city, of which no manuscripts are said to survive, as the library was destroyed by a fire at the beginning of the eighteenth century.”) while acknowledging that the calendar and sanctoral “give little attention to the feast of St Dominic.” In my view, the manuscript is unlikely to be Dominican given the low ranks or absence of several important Dominican feasts which would be expected in a Dominican calendar by 1500 (cf. Breviarium secundum Ordinem Sancti Dominici [Venice: Torresanus, 1481]): there is no 28 January feast of the Translation of St. Thomas Aquinas; the 7 March feast of Thome de Aquino confessoris (canonized 1323) was originally ranked Simplex rather than Totum duplex (and later changed to Duplex); there is no entry on 5 April for St. Vincent Ferrer (canonized 1455); the 29 April feast of Petri martyris is ranked Simplex rather than Totum duplex; there is no 2 May feast of St. Catherine of Siena (canonized 1461); Corone domini is on 7 May rather than 4 May; there is no 7 May Translation of St. Peter Martyr; there is no 24 May Translation of St. Dominic; the 5 August feast of Dominici confessoris was original ranked Simplex rather than Totum duplex (and later changed to Duplex). Likewise, the Litany (ff. 106v–108v) does not support Dominican attribution, given the absence of an indication to sing Dominic’s name twice and the omission of Thomas Aquinas and Vincent Ferrer after Dominic. It is more likely that the manuscript should be ascribed to an Augustinian community, given the presence of the rank Totum duplex for the 28 August feast of Augustini episcopi. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the three Anniversaries of the Dead in this breviary are more closely related to the Dominican Anniversaries of the Dead than other Augustinian manuscripts. Significantly, the 10 October Anniversarium omnium fratrum defunctorum ordinis nostri does not include the additional words et sororum ordinis nostri introduced in 1353–1355 (cf. Reichert 1899, pp. 345, 356, 364). This suggests that the liturgical tradition represented by the Beinecke breviary was influenced by Dominican practice at some point prior to the mid-14th century; the absence of the 7 July anniversary might indicate an even earlier period of Dominican influence before the introduction of this anniversary in 1263–1267.

58 

 2 Dating Early Dominican Mass Books

endar of the pre-Humbert missal Paris, BnF, latin 8884 does not include any anniversaries, nor does the one extant leaf (containing the months of September and October) of the pre-Humbert missal Mons, BC 63/201, but there is no reason to doubt that these manuscripts and their calendars are of Dominican origin. The date of the September anniversary is important for dating pre-Humbert liturgical manuscripts but must nevertheless be used with caution. When the anniversary is listed on 10 September, the calendar represents the state of the Dominican liturgy before the legislative reforms on 1246–1248; when it is on 5 September, the calendar represents the post-1248 situation. Despite the apparent clarity of this criterion, we have one important piece of evidence that suggests the change of date took some time to spread throughout the Order. The one dated Dominican bible missal, Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, which was written by John of Cortona in 1250, includes the pre-1246–1248 anniversary of 10 September. The 1250 date at the end of the bible (f. 470r) is reinforced by an obit written by the original scribe of the calendar (f. 2v) for Cardinal Raniero Capocci (1180/90–27 May 1250), a supporter of the Dominican friars of Viterbo.48 This means that the 10 September date presents less reliable evidence that a manuscript was produced before 1246–1248, while the 5 September date presents more reliable evidence that a manuscript was produced after 1246–1248. The presence of the 10 October anniversary, although legislatively introduced at the same time as the change of the September date, does not provide reliable evidence for dating Dominican manuscripts. Multiple pre-Humbert calendars include the 10 October anniversary for deceased friars in the original hand alongside the pre-1246–1248 anniversary for friends and benefactors on 10 September. It is unclear whether the presence of the 10 October date together with the 10 September date indicates that the October anniversary was celebrated liturgically prior to its legislative approval, or whether there was a mixed adoption in some parts of the Order of the new anniversary for deceased friars which retained the archaic date for the September anniversary for friends and benefactors while also introducing the newly approved October anniversary for deceased friars. It is conceivable that the friars began to celebrate the October anniversary in 1246 while waiting for the completion of the legislative process in 1248 to actually move the date of the September anniversary, which might account for the mixed presence of dates in certain manuscripts. The 7 July anniversary for individuals buried in Dominican cemeteries, introduced in 1264–1266, is likely an important factor for dating post-Humbert Dominican liturgical manuscripts. It is obviously not relevant for dating pre-Humbert manuscripts, although it appears as a later addition in one Dominican bible missal (Private Collection, “The Wellington Bible”) and one pre-Humbert missal (Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5). This is an important piece of evidence for the ongoing use of pre-Humbert books after the completion of Humbert’s liturgical reform. Despite the importance of the Anniversaries of the Dead for dating calendars, two factors limit their value in certain cases. First, the calendar in some manuscripts is likely or certainly a later addition, which means that the original status of the anniversaries can only be used to date the calendar itself but not the whole manuscript. This is the case in the bible missals Paris, BnF, latin 16266 and Rome, Angelica 32, as well as the missal Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5. Second, five of the thirteen Dominican bible missals do not include a calendar at all. Because the anniversaries are only averred to in the calendar and not in the sanctoral, the September anniversary date cannot be discerned in these cases.

2.3 St. Dominic There are three dates on which liturgical celebrations of the founder of the Order of Preachers, Dominic of Caleruega (c. 1173–1221) occur in medieval Dominican calendars: his main feast on 5 August, and the octave of his main feast on 12 August, and the commemoration of the translation of his relics on 24 May.49 While these feasts are important for dating Dominican calendars, they also present challenges due to the incomplete documentation of the stages in which the three occasions were introduced. Nevertheless, a comparison of legislative evidence and liturgical manuscripts renders some 48 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 2v: Obitus domini Ranerii Cardinalis fundatoris ecclesie sancte marie ad gradus de viterbio. Raniero Capocci (1180/90–1250), possibly a Cistercian monk before being created cardinal by Innocent III in 1216, was a supporter of the Dominicans and is commemorated here as “founder” of the Dominican priory of Viterbo. For details on the life of Capocci, see Kamp 1975. 49 For an overview of the mass and office for St. Dominic focusing primarily on the testimony of post-Humbert manuscripts in British libraries, see O’Carroll 2005. Appendix II (pp. 604–611) of O’Carroll 2005 presents Simon Tugwell’s edition of the “Office for the feast of St Dominic”; this edition has been superseded by Tugwell 2015, pp. 383–392: “The primitive office of St Dominic.” Tugwell’s editions focus on the office texts and do not include the mass texts for Dominic. For an overview of legislation from the General Chapters connected with devotion to St. Dominic and for a French translation and commentary on the Humbert mass and office of St. Dominic, see Bériou and Hodel 2019, pp. 1437–1509.

2.3 St. Dominic  

 59

helpful information that is useful for dating Dominican bible missals. While the full range of liturgical texts for St. Dominic in Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert missals will be examined in detail in Chapter 3, this section will explore the legislative and liturgical evidence that is relevant for dating Dominican manuscripts. Following the death of Dominic on 6 August 1221, a spontaneous cultus began to develop at his tomb in Bologna.50 Despite the respect of the brethren for their founder, the friars did not initially encourage this devotion. After the election of Pope Gregory IX in 1227, who as Cardinal Ugolino had been a strong supporter of the early Franciscans and Dominicans and a personal friend of Dominic, the new pope undertook a series of canonizations of saints connected with the two mendicant orders, including Francis of Assisi in 1228 and Anthony of Padua in 1232. As Donald Prudlo has shown, Gregory undertook these canonizations both on account of a recognition of the deep holiness of these individuals as well as from a desire to strengthen the position of the mendicant orders as collaborators of the papacy.51 As part of the process of Dominic’s canonization, Gregory IX ordered that his relics should be solemnly translated to the new Dominican church of St. Nicholas which had been completed in 1231. The translation took take place on 24 May 1233 as part of the annual General Chapter of the Order.52 Participants in the ceremony reported a sweet fragrance emerging from the coffin, which was interpreted as a miraculous sign of Dominic’s holiness.53 Throughout the autumn of 1233 and spring of 1234, canon­ ical inquiries were undertaken regarding Dominic’s life and miracles in Bologna and in Southern France.54 On 3 July 1234, Gregory IX solemnly canonized Dominic, promulgating the papal bull Fons sapientie.55 The bull fixes Dominic’s feast day on the nonas augusti (5 August), the day before the anniversary of his death itself.56 This day was likely chosen to avoid a conflict with the feast day of St. Sixtus, Pope and Martyr, which was celebrated as a IX lectionum feast in the calendar of the Roman Curia and as a III lectionum feast in several early Dominican calendars, in addition to being the patron saint of the Dominican nuns of San Sisto in Rome.57 In the closing words of the bull, Gregory encouraged the faithful to visit the tomb of Dominic on his feast day, offering an indulgence to those who did so.58 Soon after the promulgation of the bull of canonization, official copies were sent to several houses of the Order, and news of the canonization spread by word of mouth, such that many communities were able to celebrate the 5 August feast already in 1234.59 It is not clear when proper liturgical texts for St. Dominic were first composed, but it plausible that at least the collect, secret, and postcommunion were composed as part of the canonization, as had become customary in the early 13th century.60 Simon Tugwell suggests that “it is possible that an office had already been prepared in advance so 50 For an overview of the stages leading to Dominic’s canonization, see Vicaire 1964, pp. 380–88. 51 Prudlo 2015, pp. 78–87. 52 For details on the construction of the new church and the consequences for the original tomb of Dominic, see Vicaire 1964, p. 381. The General Chapters ordinarily took place around the time of Pentecost, which in 1233 fell on 22 May; see Vicaire 1964, p. 382. The church of St. Nicholas was rededicated to St. Dominic in 1251 by Innocent IV; see Gleeson 1972, p. 90n43. 53 Vicaire 1964, pp. 384–385. 54 Vicaire 1964, pp. 386–387. The acts of the canonization processed are edited in Walz 1935. 55 Gregory IX’s Bull of Canonization, Fons sapientie, is available in a critical edition in Tugwell 2008, pp. 563–575. In two of the six sources used by Tugwell, the Bull is dated .v. non. iulii pontificatus nostri anno octauo (3 July); one is dated 9 July, and three are dated 13 July; see Tugwell 2008, p. 564. Prudlo 2015, p. 85, gives the date as “July 13, 1234”, although he cites Fontanini 1729, 69 which gives “quinto nonas Julii” (3 July). 56 In 1558, the feast day was transferred to 4 August in the Roman Calendar by Pope Paul IV; beginning in 1571, the Order of Preachers allowed friars to celebrate the feast on 4 August in regions where that had become customary, and in 1603 the Order officially adopted the new date; see Bonniwell 1945, pp. 291–295. The 1969 Calendarium Romanum placed Dominic’s feast on 7 August, but the 1970 Missale Romanum moved the feast to 8 August. The Order of Preachers presently observes the 24 May Translation of St. Dominic and the 8 August Feast of St. Dominic. 57 In van Dijk’s reconstruction of the c. 1200 and c. 1230 versions of the calendar of the Roman Curia, 6 August contains the feast of S. Sixti pape et mart. et ss. Felicissimi & Agapiti mart. ñ (i.e., feast of nine readings); see van Dijk and Walker 1975, pp. 20, 48. The calendar of Paris, BnF, latin 215, which includes Dominic on 5 August as a later addition, presents Sixti pape et martyris as a III lectionum feast, alongside Felicissimi et agapiti mar­ tyrum as a commemoratio; London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, Paris, BnF, latin 163, and Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 give the III lectionum rank as well. 58 Gregory IX, Fons sapientie, §9 (ed. Tugwell 2008, p. 575): “Nos uero, tanti confessoris uenerabilem sepulturam (que miraculorum fulgoribus generalem illustrat ecclesiam) cupientes dignis christiane deuotionis honoribus frequentari, uere penitentibus et confessis illam in festiuitate prefata annis singulis cum deuotione ac reuerentia debita uisitantibus, de omnipotentis dei misericordia et beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum eius auctoritate confisi, unum annum de iniuncta sibi penitentia misericorditer relaxamus.” 59 Vicaire 1964, p. 387. 60 This is particularly well documented in the case of the 1202 canonization of St. Gilbert of Sempringham. Innocent III’s Letter of Canonization of St. Gilbert of Sempringham, Cum secundum euangelicam (30 January 1202) includes texts for the collect, secret, and postcommunion: see Foreville and Keir 1987, pp. 244–253, at pp. 252–253. In the narrative account of the canonization process recorded in the Liber sancti Gilberti, Innocent III is presented as being convinced by a dream to proceed with the canonization of St. Gilbert and composing the collect immediately after waking up, and subsequently composing the secret and postcommunion prayers: see Foreville and Keir 1987, pp. 174–175. Cheney 1976, p. 56n14 states

60 

 2 Dating Early Dominican Mass Books

that it could be approved at the 1234 chapter” and suggests that “at least the original nucleus of the office was presumably in existence by 1235.”61 Some form of the office was certainly in place by 1239, when the General Chapter specified that particular antiphons from the Dominic office were to be sung as commemorations on various occasions throughout the year.62 Whether or not any new official texts were officially prescribed at the time of the canonization, the office and mass could nevertheless be celebrated by making use of texts from the Common of Saints. In the case of the mass, proper texts were composed at some point for the Alleluia (Pie pater) and sequence (In celesti), while the other texts were taken from the common of saints or directly from the bible. Nevertheless, the choice of which texts from the common were used and which scripture readings were assigned shows significant diversity in early Dominican missals, as will be examined in greater detail in Chapter 3. Although it is clear that the 5 August feast of St. Dominic began to be celebrated immediately by the Order as soon as word was received of the canonization, the development of the liturgical observance of the Octave of St. Dominic on 12 August and the Translation on 24 May are less clear.63 Ansgar Dirks does not explicitly address the date of the introduction of the Octave64 and expresses caution on the question of the date of the introduction of the Translation.65 Simon Tugwell has provided strong evidence that the translation was being observed by 1246, and provides weaker evidence that it was not yet being observed in 1243.66 Patrick Bergin has pointed out that in the Acts of the General Chapters as transmitted by Bernard Gui there is a reference to Raymond of Penyafort being elected Master of the Order “on the day of the Translation of blessed Dominic” at the General Chapter of Bologna in 1238; although this note is likely a later composition, it suggests

that “this prescribing of liturgical prayers became common in future canonizations,” but does not provide any documentation for the statement. Cheney does provide an interesting example of a request for new collects for St. Bernard (c. 1090–1153), who had been canonized in 1174: “About this time John de Bellesmains wrote to the pope from Clairvaux, asking him to compose a collect and prayers in honour of St Bernard, to be recited with special devotion ‘tum propter auctoritatem dictantis tum propter stylum dictaminis’. (PL 214.1032–3). Innocent complied on 8 June 1202 with three collects.” The newly composed prayers (Perfice quesumus, Grata tibi sit, and Suum in nobis) were received within the Cistercian Order, but it is not clear if they were used elsewhere. In the c. 1183–1188 Cistercian exemplar manuscript Dijon, BM 114, the entry for St. Bernard on f. 137v provides the 1202 prayers in the upper left margin. In the Cistercian bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 36, the new prayers are integrated into the formulary for Bernard on f. 365v; significantly, only the opening words of the collect are provided in a highly abbreviated manner followed by “etc.”, indicating that the prayer was expected to be already well known to the user, while the secret and postcommunion are given in full. Despite the affinities of the Dominican and Cistercian liturgies, it is notable that these new prayers were not taken up by the Dominican liturgy, which instead provides adaptations of the prayers for St. Benedict with the name of Bernard inserted; cf. Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 415va, which follows a practice already indicated with a mere reference to St. Benedict in Paris, BnF, latin 8884, f. 232rb and Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 552vb. (Dijon, BM 114, f. 365v may well have originally indicated a similar practice, but the original rubric was later erased and a reference to the newly added texts in the margin was written over the original text.) 61 Tugwell 2012, p. 174; on the evidence for the 1235 date, see Tugwell 2015, p. 72. 62 Tugwell 2012, p. 174; see the further discussion of this legislation below. 63 Ladner 1983, p. 300n22, states that the feast of the Translation was introduced to the Order in 1267, but he appears to be confusing a second translation of the relics of St. Dominic which took place on 5 June 1267 with the first translation which took place on 24 May 1233; the second translation does not appear to have been commemorated in the liturgy. O’Carroll 2005, p. 574 states that the Translation began to be celebrated in 1244 but does not offer any evidence for this particular year. Kessler 2010, pp. 66, 204, 207, follows Ladner 1983 in stating that the Translation was incorporated into the Dominican liturgy in 1267 (and uses this to date Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 10769 to after 1267 because it includes the Translation). Bériou and Hodel 2019, p. 1461, appear to take it for granted that the Translation was celebrated immediately after Dominic’s canonization in 1234. Bergin 2019, pp. 61–63 discusses the introduction of the Translation on based on its presence or absence in four early manuscripts, but the dating and relative chronology of these manuscripts is controversial and uncertain. 64 Dirks 1983, pp. 117–120 treats the rubrics in several early manuscripts for the Octave, but his dating of the manuscripts is based on a problematic reading of the 1239/1240 Constitutions which will be discussed below. 65 Dirks 1983, p. 97: “Sine dubio festum eius natalicium statim Calendario insertum est, nescimus tamen an translationis festum statim celebratum fuerit.” 66 Tugwell 2012, pp. 178–179: “The first edition of Bartholomew of Trent’s Epilogi, completed between Christmas 1244 and the winter of 1246, has an entry ‘De translatione sancti Dominici’ in the appropriate place for the feast on 24 May, and the lectionary which Humbert, as provincial of France, was commissioned to produce in 1246 … provides readings for the feast … this gives us a secure terminus ad quem for the feast’s introduction. A less secure terminus post quem is suggested by Jean de Mailly: he completed what seems to be the final revision of his Abbreuiatio in gestis sanctorum in 1243, including for the first time a life of Dominic based on Ferrandus’s legenda …; he could easily have distributed this life between two feasts, but, though he had always had separate entries for Martin of Tours’ main feast and the feast of his Translation, he did not give Dominic’s translation a separate entry.” According to Giovanni Paolo Maggioni’s 2013 critical edition of the Abbreviatio, however, the life of Dominic was added to a second recension of the work which he undertook shortly after Dominic’s canonization in 1234, not in the final revision of 1243, which undermines the relevance of the absence of the Translatio in the 1243 version; see Jean de Mailly 2013, pp. xvi–xxii.

2.3 St. Dominic  

 61

the possibility that the friars were already commemorating the Translation in 1238.67 In the pre-Humbert Dominican nuns’ diurnal, Engelberg, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 104, which must have been written after 1235 as it contains the feast of St. Elizabeth of Hungary (canonized in 1235), the feast of St. Dominic is in the original hand (f. 30ra–va) but indications for the Octave (f. 30v) and Translation are added in the margin (f. 26v), which seems to indicate that the three occasions were introduced at different stages.68 In the pre-Humbert Dominican missal Lausanne, MHL 10, the feast of St. Dominic is in the original hand of the missal and calendar (ff. 162v–163r, 210r) but the Translation is in a later hand in the missal (f. 89r) and both the Translation and Octave are were added by the same later hand in the calendar (ff. 210v–r). In the Dominican winter antiphonary, Houston, Menil Foundation, 65–62 DJ, specific instructions are given for the observance of the Octave (f. 145r); unfortunately the dating of this manuscript is not clear, given that the pre-1240 date assigned by Dirks is based on problematic reasoning concerning the O decus Hyspanie.69 Thus, while the presence of the 5 August feast clearly indicates that a manuscript was produced after the 1234 canonization of St. Dominic, the presence or absence of the 24 May Translation and 12 August Octave are more ambiguous as tools for dating manuscripts, although further research may provide further clues for the development of these two occasions.70 From the late 1230s through the mid 1250s, the General Chapters made various references to St. Dominic that have liturgical implications but without providing direct evidence for dating missals.71 In addition to these more general indications of a growing devotion to St. Dominic, there are three legislative texts which are directly or indirectly relevant for dating missals, although each presents certain challenges. According to the manuscripts of Bernard Gui (but not Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV A1), the General Chapter of Paris in 1239 called for the weekly conventual celebration of a votive mass in honor of St. Dominic.72 Although this legislation 67 Bergin 2019, pp. 62–63; cf. Reichert 1898, p. 10: “Anno domini .mo.cco.xxxviiio. celebratum est Bononie capitulum generale in quo fuit electus in magistrum ordinis. die translacionis beati Dominici fere ab omnibus electoribus frater Raymundus de Penaforti.” This is the reading given in the manuscripts deriving from Bernard Gui’s late 13th-early 14th-century compilation of the Acts and may have been composed by Gui. In Simon Tugwell’s new edition of the Acta of 1238, which takes Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV A1 as the basis for this passage, there is no mention of the Translation except in the variants in the critical apparatus from the sources following from Gui’s compilation: “Anno domini .m.cc.xxxviii. celebratum est Bononie sexumdecimum capitulum generale, in quo fuit electus in magistrum ordinis frater Raymundus de Pena forti.” See Tugwell 2009, p. 153. 68 For a discussion of this manuscript, see Gleeson 1972, pp. 102–107; notably, Gleeson’s terminus ante quem of 1240 is supplied based on the form of the O decus Hyspanie antiphon, which, as Tugwell 2009, pp. 189–190 has shown, is not decisive evidence. I have only been able to consult this source by means of microfilm-derived digital images. 69 For discussions of this manuscript, see Dirks 1979, pp. 28–33, Giraud 2013, pp. 22–23, Bergin 2018, p. 11. For the dating of the O decus Hyspanie, see Tugwell 2009, pp. 189–190. Houston, Menil Foundation, 65–62 DJ provides a full proper office In translatione beati dominici on ff. 104v–106v, but this is part of a quire (ff. 99–106) inserted after the original production of the manuscript which also includes the office of St. Peter Martyr (canonized in 1253) and the Crown of Thorns (possibly inserted into the Dominican liturgy in 1254); cf. Dirks 1979, p. 33. I have only been able to consult this source by means of a microfilm-derived digital images. 70 For instance, research on the pre-Humbert martyrologies Porto, Biblioteca Pública Municipal, MS 101 and Prague, National Library, VIII. B. 23 (which have been studied by Tugwell primarily in connection with their c. 1241 Constitutions of Raymond of Penyafort) may shed further light on the development of the three occasions. In the Prague manuscript, Translatio beati dominici. Duplex in added in the margin of f. 26r at the end of the 24 May Martyrology text, but the longer 5 August entry on f. 39v is also a marginal addition; this means that the fact that the 24 May entry is an addition is not necessarily a decisive factor for dating. I have not yet had an opportunity to consult the Porto manuscript. Further research on these manuscripts which considers their liturgical and constitutional aspects in tandem would be of great value for gaining a better understanding of Dominican liturgical developments in the 1230s–1250s. 71 In 1242, the General Chapter of Bologna called for a particular passage of the Legenda read at the Divine Office for St. Dominic to be erased (see Reichert 1898, p. 24); Tugwell 2015 has demonstrated the effectiveness of this legislation in the manuscript tradition of the Legenda of Petrus Ferrandi, but this change would not have directly impacted a Dominican missal. The 1249 General Chapter of Trier initiated legislation to change the chapter De inclinationibus (Distinction I, c. 2) of the Constitutions to indicate that a genuflection is to be made when St. Dominic is named in an oration, in addition to the earlier practice of genuflecting when Mary is named (see Reichert 1898, pp. 43, 48, 55). The 1250 General Chapter of London exhorted the friars to spread devotion to St. Dominic by having their own churches and those of others dedicated to the saint (Reichert 1:53); this resulted in the 1251 rededication of St. Nicholas in Bologna to St. Dominic, and the dedication of new Dominican churches in Lyon and Naples to St. Dominic in 1251 and 1255 respectively (see Gleeson 1972, pp. 90n43, 113). In 1254, legislation was introduced to add the name of Dominic to the profession formula, and this was approved and confirmed in 1255 and 1256 (see Reichert 1898, pp. 70, 75, 78). Finally, the 1254 chapter conceded that processions could be made on the feast of St. Dominic (see Reichert 1898, p. 70–71). 72 In addition to the conventual mass, the same legislation called for the singing of commemorative antiphons of St. Dominic with different selections based on whether it is a IX lectionum feast or a ferial day. See Tugwell 2009, p. 154 (cf. Reichert 1898, p. 11): “Item admonemus ut fratres nostri si uacauerit semel in septimana celebrent in honore beati Dominici missam conuentualem, et quod in festis .ix. lectionum dicatur ad uesperas ad memoriam antiphona Transit pauper, ad laudes antiphona Carnis uigor, ad secundas uesperas O decus Hyspanie, in diebus uero ferialibus ad uesperas Senescenti Iacob, in matutinis Imitator.” In the acts of the 1240 General Chapter as transmitted by Gui (but likewise not in

62 

 2 Dating Early Dominican Mass Books

would not necessarily have directly impacted the design of missals, it is significant that several Dominican bible missals with votive and festive missals include St. Dominic among their relatively limited selection of mass formularies, which suggests that these manuscripts may have been used for the celebration of votive masses of St. Dominic.73 However, the omission of a formulary for St. Dominic from Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 (dated to 1250) indicates that the 1239 legislation regarding the weekly votive mass of St. Dominic did not necessitate the inclusion of St. Dominic in a votive missal. According to Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV A1 (but not the Bernard Gui manuscripts), the 1244 General Chapter of Bologna made a change to the collect for St. Dominic: in place of the phrase meritis et exemplis, the collect was to read meritis et doctrinis.74 Both versions of the collect are found in manuscripts from before the reform of Humbert (which retained the modified meritis et doctrinis version), so it is clear that there was indeed a change introduced at some point before the revision of Humbert. According to Tugwell, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the 1244 date, but Tugwell also acknowledges that “this does not necessarily give us a dependable guide for dating manuscripts since it may not have been universally and immediately implemented.”75 An admonition from the 1254 General Chapter of Buda presents further questions: the friars are exhorted to ensure that the names of Dominic and Peter Martyr (canonized in 1253, and to be discussed in further detail below) are included in calendars and litanies, that images of the two saints should be made for Dominican churches, and that their feasts should be celebrated.76 Although the exhortation to update calendars and litanies with the name of Peter Martyr, canonized just one year before, is readily understandable, the mention of Dominic seems to indicate that the capitulars in 1254 recognized that not all Dominican liturgical books presently in use included Dominic’s name, even though he had been canonized twenty years before. It is unclear whether this situation pertained only to books which had been produced before 1234, or if it possibly also meant that even later Dominican books did not always reflect the canonization of the founder. In any case, it is a reminder of the caution which must be taken in dating liturgical books based on the absence of a particular saint, rather than on positive evidence. Table 36 indicates the presence of entries for the 24 May, 5 August, and 12 August feasts of St. Dominic in the epistle and gospel list, calendar, sanctoral, or votive sections, the inclusion or omission of Dominic in the litany of the saints (in manuscripts which include a litany), the version of the collect, and the presence or absence of the proper Alleluia verse Pie pater and the proper sequence In celesti hierarchia in the range of Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert Dominican missals. The three occasions of the 5 August Feast, the 12 August Octave, and the 24 May Translation of Dominic offer important clues for dating Dominican books, but the Octave and Translation must be treated with caution as evidence given the uncertainty of the date of their respective introductions. The presence of the 5 August feast of St. Dominic in the original hand of a manuscript must mean that it was produced after 3 July 1234; the presence of the Octave and Translation in the original hand may indicate a somewhat later terminus post quem, but this should be treated with some caution. The absence of the 5 August feast in a manuscript which otherwise has Dominican characteristics such as the Dominican Anniversaries of the Dead is likely but not certain evidence that it was produced before his 1234 canonization; the only identified manuscript which falls into this category is the bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 215. Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV A1), there is a modification to the antiphon sung in honor of St. Dominic at Second Vespers on feasts of IX lectionum: instead of O decus Hyspanie, as found in the 1239 Acts, the antiphon is named in the 1240 Acts as O lumen (cf. Reichert 1898, p. 15; Tugwell 2009, p. 160). As Tugwell 2009, pp. 189–190 has shown, there are strong reasons to doubt the accuracy of Gui’s Acts on this point, and that consequently the form of the O decus/O lumen antiphon is not a reliable instrument for dating manuscripts. Tugwell draws attention to Dirks 1979, p. 30, who uses this antiphon to date the pre-Humbert antiphonary Houston, Menil Foundation, 65–62 DJ. Gleeson 1972, p. 104 uses the same text to date the pre-Humbert diurnal Engelberg, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 104. 73 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7; Paris, Mazarine 31; Pisa, Cathariniana 177; Rome, Angelica 32. For a discussion of the formularies for St. Dominic in these sources, see Chapter 3. 74 Reichert 1898, p. 29 (apparatus): “In oracione beati Dominici dicatur. meritis et doctrinis.” See Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV A1, f. 4r. This legislation follows in the Rome manuscript immediately after a directive found in both the Gui and Rome manuscripts instructing the diffinitors to bring copies of their local liturgical books for the next chapter for the sake of bringing concord to the liturgy: “Item. Volumus et mandamus. ut diffinitores proximo sequentis capituli generalis. pro concordando officio. portent secum ad dictum capitulum omnes rubricas et notulas breviarii nocturni et diurni. et gradualis et missalis.” 75 Tugwell 2012, pp. 177–178. Cf. Tugwell 2009, p. 189n63: “There are other instances of A [i.e., Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV A1] having items which are lacking in Gui and vice versa, and there is no reason to suspect that this is due to anything more sinister than accident; we have no cause to doubt A’s evidence on this point.” Tugwell 2012, p. 383 draws attention to a citation of the post-1244 form of the collect in a homily on St. Dominic by the Dominican friar Pelagius Parvus († c. 1250), which confirms that the meritis et doctrinis version was circulating before the end of the 1240s. 76 Reichert 1898, p. 71: “Item. Priores et alii fratres. curam habeant diligentem. quod nomen beati Dominici et beati Petri martiris. in kalendariis et in litaniis scribantur. et picture fiant in ecclesiis. et quod fiant festa eorum.”

2.3 St. Dominic  

 63

Table 36: St. Dominic in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals. Shelfmark

24 May Translation

5 August Feast

Brussels, KBR 8882

Epistle and gospel list

Epistle and gospel list

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16

Calendar; Sanctoral (addition)

Calendar; formulary

London/Oslo, Schøyen 115

Calendar

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

Votive (addition)

12 August Octave

Litany

Collect

Proper Alleluia

Proper Sequence

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Omitted

Meritis et exemplis

No

Added?

Calendar

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Formulary

n/a

Meritis et exemplis

No

No

Formulary

n/a

Meritis et exemplis

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Dominican bible missals

Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 163

Calendar

Calendar

Paris, BnF, latin 215

Calendar (addition)

Calendar (addition)

Paris, BnF, latin 16266

Calendar (addition to added calendar)

(lacuna)

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Calendar

Calendar? (erased and written over) (lacuna)

Sanctoral

n/a

Meritis et exemplis

No

No

Poitiers, BM 12

Epistle and gospel list

Epistle and gospel list

n/a

Meritis et doctrinis

Yes

No

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”)

Calendar

Calendar

Calendar

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Rome, Angelica 32

Calendar; Sanctoral

Calendar; Epistle and gospel list 1 (f. 19r); Sanctoral; Epistle and gospel list 2 (f. 466r)

Calendar

n/a

Meritis et exemplis

No

Incipit (addition?)

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

Calendar

Calendar

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20

Sanctoral

Sanctoral

Sanctoral

Included

Meritis et doctrinis

Original

No

Lausanne, MHL 10

Sanctoral (addition); Calendar (addition)

Sanctoral; Calendar

Sanctoral (addition); Calendar (addition)

Added

Meritis et exemplis (changed to doctrinis)

Added

Added

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V5

Sanctoral (addition)

Sanctoral

Included

Meritis et exemplis

Added

Added?

Mons, BC 63/201

Sanctoral

Sanctoral

Included

Meritis et doctrinis

No

Included

Paris, BnF, latin 8884

Calendar; Sanctoral

Calendar; Sanctoral

Calendar

Included

Meritis et exemplis

No

No

Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

Calendar

Calendar

Calendar

Included

n/a

n/a

n/a

Pre-Humbert Dominican missals

The only other evidence connected with Dominic that has a relatively secure date is the change from meritis et exemplis to meritis et doctrinis in the collect, which is associated with the General Chapter of 1244; nevertheless, it is not clear how quickly this change was implemented in practice. Only one bible missal, Poitiers, BM 12, has meritis et doctrinis; the liturgical texts in this manuscript are unusual among Dominican bible missals in clearly being added after 1253, given the presence of St. Peter Martyr. Two pre-Humbert Dominican missals include meritis et doctrinis in the original hand: Karlsruhe, BLB,

64 

 2 Dating Early Dominican Mass Books

St. Peter perg. 20 and Mons, BC 63/201. Unfortunately, both of these manuscripts have limited evidence which would allow them to be precisely dated. Karlsruhe does not presently include a calendar, and Mons only retains one leaf of the original calendar, containing the months of September and October, but does not include any references to Anniversaries of the Dead, which means that it cannot be linked with either the pre-1246 or post-1246–1248 September anniversary. Despite this lack of precise dating, there is some evidence that Karlsruhe and Mons might reflect the 1246–1248 and/or 1251 reforms of the four friars. Eleanor Giraud has shown that the Karlsruhe missal includes a number of saints omitted in most pre-Humbert missals but which are present in Humbert’s reform, suggesting that “the consistent presence of these saints in this missal may indicate that these feasts were brought in as part of the revision by the four friars, and that the Karlsruhe missal reflects their revision.”77 Mons (not included in Giraud 2021b) provides all of the saints noted by Giraud (with the exception of the 11 December memorial of St. Damasus), which suggests that it may too reflect the revisions of the four friars. Despite their similarity, it seems likely that Mons predates Karlsruhe, as Mons provides a generic Alleluia verse (Iustus germinabit) drawn from the Common of Saints, while Karlsruhe provides the proper Alleluia verse Pie pater which became universal after Humbert’s reform.78 The inclusion in Mons of the proper sequence for St. Dominic (In celesti) without a proper Alleluia suggests that the Alleluia and sequence were composed at different stages and that the sequence was composed before the Alleluia.79 The similarities and subtle differences of these two sources suggests that Mons might reflect the first reform of the four friars (1246–1248) and that Karlsruhe reflects the second reform (1251).80 The fact that Mons and Karlsruhe are the only two pre1253 sources that reflect the 1244 change of the Dominic collect to meritis et doctrinis in the original hand may indicate that the change in wording of the collect only became widespread with the reform of the four friars in 1246–1248.

2.4 St. Peter Martyr After St. Dominic, the next Dominican friar to be canonized was Peter of Verona (c. 1205–1252), known as Peter Martyr due to his martyrdom at the hands of the assassin Carino of Balsamo on 6 April 1252.81 As Donald Prudlo has observed, Peter’s canonization on 9 March 1253 “was and remains the fastest canonization in papal history.”82 Although it is likely that Peter’s 29 April feast was celebrated immediately starting in 1253, it was officially added to the Dominican liturgy in 1254.83 As there was no General Chapter in 1253 due to the death of the Master of the Order John of Wildeshausen on 5 November 1252, the liturgical celebration of Peter Martyr was first officially recognized at the General Chapter of Buda in 1254, which called for Peter’s feast to be celebrated at the highest level as totum duplex.84 In addition to designating the rank of the feast, the General Chapter in another section linked Dominic and Peter by admonishing priors and other friars to be diligent about inserting the name of St. Dominic and St. Peter into calendars and litanies and to have pictures made of them.85 77 Giraud 2021b, pp. 313–314. 78 Giraud 2021a, pp. 349–350 suggests the possibility that the Alleluia Pie pater was “composed during an early stage of the reform process, perhaps by 1248 or 1251 (the dates at which the first and second attempts at revision were respectively issued)” on the basis of its inclusion in Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20, which she dates to “shortly before 1253.” 79 Karlsruhe does not presently have a sequentiary (although it is plausible that it may have had one originally) so it is not clear if Karlsruhe originally included the Dominic sequence or not. 80 I am grateful to Eleanor Giraud for suggesting this possibility. 81 For a study of the life and veneration of Peter of Verona, see Prudlo 2008b. Peter’s assassin Carino of Balsamo later repented and became a Dominican penitent and is the object of a local cult; see Prudlo 2008a. 82 Prudlo 2015, p. 90. 83 On the choice of 29 April (rather than 6 April) for the feast day of Peter Martyr, see Prudlo 2008b, p. 84n53: “The Dominicans requested this since 6 April (Peter’s death date) often conflicted with the Easter Triduum. 29 April was a time which was more open on the calendar. Francesco Castiglione, in his 15th-century vita, gives what is the most probable reason for 29 April. In 1253 Easter was on 20 April. Since the day of his passion often fell in Lent they wanted to fix the date as soon as possible after the 1253 Easter season so that they would be able to celebrate his first feast that very year. The 29th was one of the first days after the octave of Easter when the sanctoral cycle returned to normal precedence.” 84 Reichert, 1898, p. 71: “Item. Festum beati Petri martiris. fiat totum duplex. et pax detur in conventu.” 85 Reichert, 1898, p. 72: “Item. Priores et alii fratres. curam habeant diligentem. quod nomen beati Dominici et beati Petri martiris. in kalendariis et in litaniis scribantur. et picture fiant in ecclesiis. et quod fiant festa eorum.” A similar exhortation is made at the General Chapter of Paris in 1256; see Reichert 1898, p. 81: “Item. Apponatur diligentia: quod festum beati Dominici et beati Petri. ubique celebretur. et quod ymagines eorum in locis congruentibus depingantur. et nomina eorum in kalendariis et litaniis et martirologiis annotentur.” For a study of Dominican artwork in Italy that discusses images of Peter Martyr, see Cannon 2014.

2.5 Conclusion  

 65

Table 37 indicates the presence of texts or references to the 29 April feast in calendars, epistle and gospel lists, and formularies of Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert Dominican missals, as well as the presence or absence of Peter Martyr in the litany (where applicable). Table 37: St. Peter Martyr in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals. Shelfmark

29 April

Litany

Dominican bible missals Brussels, KBR 8882 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 163 Paris, BnF, latin 215 Paris, BnF, latin 16266 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 Poitiers, BM 12 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) Rome, Angelica 32 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

Calendar (addition) Calendar (addition) Orations (addition) Calendar (addition) Calendar (later than bible); Orations (addition) Epistle and gospel list; Orations; Alleluia verse (later than bible) Calendar (addition) Calendar (later than missal) Calendar (addition)

n/a Omitted n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Pre-Humbert Dominican missals Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 Lausanne, MHL 10 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Mons, BC 63/201 Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

Formulary (added) Formulary (added); Calendar (added) Calendar (later than missal); formulary (added) Calendar (added); formulary (added) Calendar; Divine Office Chants; Proper Alleluia

Added Added Omitted Omitted Omitted Included

In the case of the Dominican bible missals, only one calendar has Peter Martyr in the original hand (Rome, Angelica 32) but this calendar as a whole is a later addition to the manuscript and postdates the missal section. With the exception of Paris, BnF, latin 215, which omits him entirely, all the other Dominican bible missals with calendars include Peter Martyr on 29 April as a later addition, a sign that these bible missals were still being used and updated in the 1250s. Among pre-Humbert Dominican missals, Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 is the only manuscript that includes Peter Martyr in the original hand, listing him in the calendar and providing a series of office and mass chants for the saint and including him in the litany; this is clear evidence that the manuscript is later than 1253, but its many differences from the reformed Humbert liturgy suggests that it was produced before the final approval of the reform in 1256. With the exception of Mons, BC 63/201, which does not include any references to Peter Martyr (although it should be noted that the April section of the calendar is now missing), all other pre-Humbert missals include references to Peter Martyr as later additions to the calendar, formularies, or litany. Although the absence of a saint is a weaker form of evidence than the presence of one, the omission of Peter Martyr from the original hand of a calendar of a Dominican bible missal or missal provides evidence that it was likely produced before his canonization in 1253.

2.5 Conclusion As this chapter has shown, Dominican legislation from the 1230s through the 1250s provides multiple pieces of evidence for dating Dominican missals, but much of this evidence needs to be used cautiously when considering particular manuscripts. Table 38 presents a summary of the evidence provided by the Anniversaries of the Dead (principally the date of the

66 

 2 Dating Early Dominican Mass Books

September anniversary),86 the presence or absence of St. Dominic in the manuscript and the specific version of his collect (the pre-1244 meritis and the post-1244 doctrinis), and the presence or absence of Peter Martyr. In the final column, a date is given that takes into account all three types of evidence. The manuscripts are listed in roughly chronological order. Table 38: Dates of Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals. Shelfmark

September Anniversary (date changed from 10 September to 5 September in 1246–1248)

St. Dominic (canonized 1234; collect modified in 1244)

St. Peter Martyr (canonized in 1253)

Summary Date

Paris, BnF, latin 215 (bible missal)

Before 1246–1248 (?)

Before 1234 (Calendar)

Before 1253

c. 1228–1234

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (bible missal)

Before 1246–1248 (?)

After 1234 (Calendar); Before 1244 (Collect)

Before 1253

c. 1234–1244

Lausanne, MHL 10 (missal)

Before 1246–1248 (?)

After 1234 (Formulary); Before 1244 (Collect)

Before 1253

c. 1234–1244

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (missal)

n/a (Calendar is likely a later addition)

After 1234 (Formulary); Before 1244 (Collect)

Before 1253

c. 1234–1244

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 (bible missal)

n/a

After 1234 (Formulary); Before 1244 (Collect)

Before 1253

c. 1234–1244

Paris, Mazarine 31 (bible missal)

n/a

After 1234 (Formulary); Before 1244 (Collect)

Before 1253

c. 1234–1244

Paris, BnF, latin 8884 (missal)

Anniversaries omitted

After 1234 (Formulary); Before 1244 (Collect)

Before 1253

c. 1234–1244

Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (bible missal)

n/a

After 1234 (Formulary); Before 1244 (Collect)

Before 1253

c. 1234–1244

Rome, Angelica 32 (bible missal)

n/a (Calendar is later addition)

After 1234 (Formulary); Before 1244 (Collect)

Before 1253

c. 1234–1244

London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 (bible missal)

Before 1246–1248 (?)

After 1234 (Calendar)

Before 1253

c. 1234–1246 (?)

Paris, BnF, latin 163 (bible missal)

Before 1246–1248 (?)

After 1234 (Calendar)

Before 1253

c. 1234–1246 (?)

Brussels, KBR 8882 (bible missal)

n/a

After 1234 (Epistle and gospel list)

Before 1253

c. 1234–1253

Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 (missal)

n/a

After 1244 (Collect)

Before 1253

c. 1244–1253

Mons, BC 63/201 (missal)

Anniversaries omitted

After 1244 (Collect)

Before 1253

c. 1244–1253

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) (bible missal)

After 1246–1248 (?)

After 1234 (Calendar)

Before 1253

c. 1246–1253

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 (bible missal)

Before 1246–1248 (!)

After 1234 (Calendar)

Before 1253

1250

Paris, BnF, latin 16266 (bible missal)

n/a (Calendar is later addition)

n/a (Calendar is later addition)

Before 1253

c. ?–1253

Poitiers, BM 12 (bible missal)

n/a

After 1244 (Collect)

After 1253

c. 1253–?

Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 (liturgical miscellany with votive missal)

After 1246–1248

After 1234 (Calendar)

After 1253

c. 1253–1256?

86 As noted above, the September Anniversary provides important but somewhat ambiguous evidence, so I have placed a question mark in entries based on this feature.

2.5 Conclusion  

 67

As has been noted, the one dated bible missal, Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, was completed in 1250 and yet has a set of Anniversaries of the Dead which suggests that it represents a form of the liturgy from before 1246–1248.87 This means that the other dates must also be treated with some caution, as they may be reflecting the liturgical practices found in their exemplar manuscripts which may have been out of date by the time the manuscript was copied. Nevertheless, this evidence can assist in determining a tentative chronology of the Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert missals that will be discussed in more detail in the remaining chapters. Despite this relative chronology, it is difficult to confidently associate individual manuscripts with different stages of the pre-Humbert reform process, e.g., the first reform of the four friars approved in 1246–1248 or the second reform of the four friars approved in 1251. This is due to the fact that we have such little information about what precisely happened in these two reforms, aside from the fact that they were not well received by the Order at large. Further comparative study of the liturgical contents of each of the manuscripts considered here (and others that may be discovered with further research) may bring to light further criteria for determining the relative chronology of pre-Humbert mass books and understanding the extent of their unity and diversity.

87 Cf. Tugwell 2008, p. 7 on the distinction between dating the texts of the liturgical contents of Dominican manuscripts and dating the actual manuscripts themselves.

3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books In the following two chapters, I will examine a selection of mass formularies provided in Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert missals for the feast of St. Dominic, Pentecost, and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit. Representing the temporal, sanctoral, and votive cycles, these case studies enable a nuanced assessment of the diversity and unity of pre-Humbert Dominican liturgical sources. I will first consider a formulary that was newly composed by Dominican friars in the 13th century for the liturgical celebration of St. Dominic, showing how bible missals provide valuable evidence for the development of this feast. In the following chapter, I will examine formularies for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit that pre-date the Dominicans, showing how the Order developed and transmitted distinct forms of widely available liturgical texts. St. Dominic’s 5 August feast day began to be celebrated immediately after his canonization on 3 July 1234. Over the following decades, the liturgical commemoration of the founder of the Order of Preachers was gradually expanded by the celebration of the Translation of St. Dominic on 24 May and the observance of a 12 August Octave of the 5 August feast day. As discussed in the previous chapter, the main feast, the Translation, and the Octave were introduced at different stages, but the dates of these developments are unknown. The only development within the mass formulary of St. Dominic that can be dated from external evidence is the 1244 alteration of the phrase meritis et exemplis to meritis et doctrinis in the collect for St. Dominic.1 Over the decades between Dominic’s canonization in 1234 and the approval of Humbert’s reform in 1254–1256, there was a gradual development of other elements of the mass formulary for St. Dominic, with pre-Humbert sources revealing a diversity of texts for the chants and readings for St. Dominic alonside a stable set of orations. In most Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert missals, there are no differences between the texts for the 5 August feast of St. Dominic and the 24 May Translation (except for generic Alleluia verses for Paschaltide and Ascensiontide which are sometimes indicated in the Translation formulary). No specific texts are indicated in any sources for the 12 August Octave. Table 39 indicates the locations where formularies and epistle and gospel references are found in each source. Table 39: Liturgical Texts for St. Dominic in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals. Manuscript

Typology

24 May Translation

5 August feast

Brussels, KBR 8882

Epistle and gospel list

207ra: Sancti dominici (rubric only; readings left blank)

206vb: Translatio sancti dominici (rubric only; readings left blank)

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16

Full missal

549va (addition in upper margin by original hand): In translatione beati dominici: omnia sicut in die.

551va–vb: Beati dominici confessoris (full formulary)

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

Votive missal

204r (addition in lower margin): In translatione beati dominici (orations only)

Paris, Mazarine 31

Votive missal

Poitiers, BM 12

Epistle and gospel list

Occasion Unspecified

Bible missals

204r: De beato dominico (full formulary) 2vb: Missa de beato dominico (full formulary)

520v (addition in lower margin): In translatione dominici (readings)

Formularies

1 Reichert 1898, p. 29. For further details, see the discussion on pp. 62–64 above. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-004

565ra: Sequentia de beato dominico (sequence)

522ra (addition in lower margin): In die dominici. Epistula et evangelium supra in translatione eiusdem. (cross-reference only) 535r (addition in lower margin): Oratio de beato dominico (orations and Alleluia verse)

3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books  

 69

Table 39 (continued) Manuscript

Typology

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Festive missal

395ra–rb: In festivitate beati dominici (full formulary)

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”)

Epistle and gospel list

5v: Sancti dominici (readings)

Rome, Angelica 32

Epistle and gospel list

19rc: Dominici confessoris (readings)

Festive missal

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

24 May Translation

214ra: In translatione beati dominici: omnia sicut in alio festo. (cross-reference only)

5 August feast

Occasion Unspecified

214rb–va: In natale beati dominici (Full formulary without readings)

Epistle and gospel list

466rc: Sancti dominici confessoris. Totum duplex (readings)

Epistle and gospel list

512va: Dominici confessoris (readings)

Pre-Humbert missals Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20

Missal

209rb–va: In translatione beati dominici. Officium sicut in alio festo. (cross-reference plus Alleluia chants for Paschaltide and Ascensiontide)

229va–230vb: In festo beati dominici (full formulary)

Lausanne, MHL 10

Missal

154vb (addition in inner margin): In translatione beati dominici sicut in natali eiusdem. Ia. cliii.2

162va–163rb: Sancti dominici confessoris (full formulary)

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5

Missal

172r (addition in lower margin): In translatione beati dominici officium sicut in festo. Secundum alleluia Christus resurgens feria quarta in octava pasche. lxxxxix.3

181ra–181rb: In festo beati dominici confessoris (full formulary)

Mons, BC 63/201

Missal

198rb–va: In translatione sancti dominici (cross-reference only)

217rb–218rb: In natali beati dominici confessoris (full formulary)

Paris, BnF, latin 8884

Missal

213rb–214rb: In translatione beati dominici confessoris (full formulary)

227rb: Sancti dominici s. xvii. in alio festo (cross-reference only)

241v–242v: (sequence) 251v: (later addition: Alleluia)

As Table 39 shows, some sources only provide the 5 August feast (notably most of the epistle and gospel lists); others provide the main formulary on 5 August and give a cross-reference on 24 May, or conversely give the main texts on 24 May and a cross-reference on 5 August. Among the sources which give a cross-reference on 24 May, several are added in the margin. The votive missals which provide a formulary for St. Dominic do not specify which of the two feasts it applies to; this may be an indication that the formulary was intended for use in a votive context such as the weekly votive mass of St. Dominic enjoined by the 1239 General Chapter rather than for one of the specific sanctoral feasts of St. Dominic.4 2 “Ia” (prima) either refers to the first folio or first column of the two-page spread labelled cliii in the medieval foliation, corresponding with f. 162v in the modern foliation. 3 Gleeson 1969, p. 153n2 judges this addition to be by the first hand; I believe that it is by a later hand. 4 Tugwell 2009, p. 154: “Item admonemus ut fratres nostri si uacauerit semel in septimana celebrent in honore beati Dominici missam conuentualem, et quod in festis .ix. lectionum dicatur ad uesperas ad memoriam antiphona Transit pauper, ad laudes antiphona Carnis uigor, ad secundas uesperas O decus Hyspanie, in diebus uero ferialibus ad uesperas Senescenti Iacob, in matutinis Imitator.” Cf. Reichert 1898, p. 11.

70 

 3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books

In this chapter, I will discuss the chants, orations, and readings assigned for St. Dominic in each Dominican bible missal and pre-Humbert missal that provides a formulary for the saint. In the section on orations, I will also compare the orations offered by the two non-Dominican bible missals which provide formularies for St. Dominic. These two manuscripts, Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3 and Darmstadt, ULB 1967, both include Franciscan full missals. Each manuscript provides an identical set of orations for St. Dominic but no specific indications for the chants or readings, which were presumably freely chosen from the Common of Saints. Notably, Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst, the only other identified Franciscan bible with a full missal, does not provide a formulary for St. Dominic, and no other identified bible missal includes a formulary for St. Dominic.5 Due to the different methodologies involved in analyzing chant texts, orations, and scriptural readings, I will discuss each type of text in separate sections. I will first discuss the various genres of chant texts, then discuss the orations, and conclude with a discussion of the readings. I will frequently make use of the electronic databases Cantus Index, Graduale Synopticum and Usuarium as well as printed collections like the Antiphonale Missarum sextuplex and the Corpus Oratio­ num in order to give a sense of the relationship of the Dominican texts to the broader liturgical tradition.6

3.1 Chant Texts for St. Dominic In the years immediately following St. Dominic’s canonization, Dominican liturgical books presented a varied selection of chants drawn from the Common of Saints, in some cases presenting chants that had resonances with other patrons of the Order such as St. Augustine. Although the pre-Humbert sources are marked by diversity in their selection of chants for St. Dominic, it is possible to trace the gradual development of a fixed selection of chants that would become standard in Humbert’s liturgy. In this section, I will first describe the selections provided in Dominican sources for each chant genre. I will then compare the chants provided in each source with those provided in Dominican sources for the Common of One Confessor. I will conclude with an analysis of the chants provided for the Dominican formulary for St. Augustine, which appears to have served as a model for the chants assigned for St. Dominic.

3.1.1 Introit Eight of the nine sources which provide an officium/introit chant for St. Dominic indicate In medio ecclesie, while a single source provides Os iusti.7 The introit In medio is found in all of Hesbert’s Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex sources which 5 A sounding of non-Dominican missals gives a sense of the diversity of approaches to providing texts for his feast. Troyes, BM 1731, a Cistercian missal from the second half of the 13th century, provides the following rubric in the original hand on f. 113ra: Dominici confessoris. Totum fiet sicut de sancto ieronimo [cxv] (the full formulary for Jerome is found on ff. 122v–123r). Paris, BnF, latin 829, an early 14th-century missal from Capua, provides a full formulary for St. Dominic on ff. 81rb–va; this formulary includes the proper Alleluia chant Pie pater as well as the meritis et doctrinis version of the collect, but indicates Iustus ut palma for the offertory, a selection not found in Dominican sources. (For further context on this manuscript and other liturgical sources from Capua, see Kelly 2016.) Paris, BnF, latin 1113, a Parisian missal from the second half of the 14th century, provides a full formulary for St. Dominic on ff. 245rb–vb that is identical to the form found in the Humbert liturgy, including the Alleluia Pie pater and the incipit of the sequence In celesti ierarchia. Leroquais 1924, v. 2, p. 343 suggests that Latin 1113 was copied for the Sainte-Chapelle in Paris, but Maurey 2021, p. 175 states that “the manuscript was certainly copied for a Parisian church, but there is nothing to suggest it was associated with the Sainte-Chapelle.” Paris, BnF, latin 2299, a 14th-century sacramentary from southern France, includes orations for St. Dominic in a later hand in the bottom margin of f. 80v. The collect is entirely different than the typical Dominican oration, the secret is related to but not the same as the standard Dominican prayer, and the postcommunion is identical to the Dominican version. 6 The Cantus Index (http://cantusindex.org/) includes an eclectic range of sources from various periods. The Graduale Synopticum (http:// gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de) is focused on early chant sources. Usuarium (https://usuarium.elte.hu) is focused on printed books from the 15th and 16th centuries, but also includes a significant range of manuscript sources. While each of these databases has a distinct methodology and focus, when used together they provide a helpful (although not exhaustive) set of liturgical texts which are useful for situating the liturgies represented by bible missals within the wider liturgical context. In some cases, the Usuarium database has been helpful for locating distinctive texts in printed sources the enable the identification of the same texts in earlier manuscripts from the same region. 7 In medieval liturgical books, the opening chant of the mass is alternately referred to as the introitus (introit) or the officium (office); the latter word is also used to refer to the mass as a whole. In the mid-12th-century Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis of John Beleth, officium is primarily used in the sense of referring to the mass as a whole, but Beleth acknowledges that it is also used to refer to the opening chant: “Officium misse siue

3.1 Chant Texts for St. Dominic  

 71

provide introits for the feast of St. John the Evangelist, and is found widely in medieval sources for the Common of Apostles, Common of Doctors, or for the feasts of individual evangelists as well individual saints eminent for their learning such as St. Augustine.8 The text of the antiphon is derived from Sir 15:5, a text which is somewhat fluid in both Vetus Latina and Vulgate biblical sources. Table 40 shows the relationship between the chant version and the many variants registered in the Vetus Latina edition.9 While all of the Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex sources pair the (non-psalmic) introit antiphon with the verse Bonum est confiteri domino from Ps 91:2 (with some sources adding Ps 91:13, Iustus ut palma as a versus ad repetendum), some medieval sources (including the Dominican tradition) provide part of Sir 15:6 (Iucunditatem et exsul­ tationem) as the introit verse.10 Table 40: Textual Sources of In medio ecclesie (Introit). Introit (Graduale Synopticum)11

Sir 15:5 (ed. Thiele 1987, pp. 450–452)

In medio ecclesiae aperuit os eius et implevit eum dominus spiritu [spiritus] sapientiae et intellectus stolam [stola] gloriae induit eum.

et in medio ecclesiae aperiet/aperiens/aperuit os illius/eius [et] adimplebit/adimplevit/ implebit/implevit eum [dominus] spiritu/spiritum/spiritus sapientiae et intellectus/ intellectum et stolam/stola gloriae vestiet/vestibit/vestivit/vestit/investiet/induet/induit illum/eum

Verse (Cantus Index)

Sir 15:6

Jucunditatem et exsultationem thesaurizavit super eum.

[in] iucunditatem/iucunditate et exultationem/exultatione thesaurizabit/thesaurizavit super illum/eum et [in] nomine/nomini/nomen aeterno/aeternum hereditabit/ hereditavit illum

The introit Os iusti is found in the four of the five Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex sources that contain introits for the  feasts of St. Felicis in Pincis, St. Eusebius, St. Matthew, and St. Menne; it is found in later medieval sources for a wide variety of individual male saints and for various forms of the Common of One or Several Confessors.12 The antiphon text is taken without adaptations from Ps 36:30–31 (a set of verses which are identical in the Roman and Gallican Psalters) and the typical Noli emulari verse in both early and later medieval sources in taken from the Gallican Psalter version of Ps 36:1 (Table 41). As shown in Table 42, four Dominican sources provide the full text of the In medio and four sources provide only the incipit, in some cases adding a folio reference where the full text can be found. The full versions of In medio also provide the full text of the Sir 15:6 verse. The one source which provides the full text of Os iusti provides only the incipit of the typical Noli emulari verse.

missa totum dicitur a principio usque ad finem, scilicet ab introitu usque Ite, missa est. … Quandoque tamen restrictius et quasi specialius pars, que primo cantatur, scilicet introitus, officium appellatur.” (ed. Douteil 1976, CCCM 41A, pp. 62–63). The late 13th-century Rationale divinorum officiorum of William Durandus likewise uses both officium and introitus to describe the opening chant of the mass (see William Durandus 1995–2000, Book IV, c. 5, De officio seu introitu misse, ed. Davril et al., CCCM 140, pp. 267–270). In Dominican liturgical books, officium is used in both senses, sometimes appearing as part of a title rubric and sometimes as a genre rubric for the introit chant alone. For the sake of clarity, I will use the word introit in the following discussion to refer to the opening chant. 8 Cf. Hesbert 1935, pp. 18–19 (§14) and the entries for the chant in the Graduale Synopticum (http://gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/74) and the Cantus Index (http://cantusindex.org/id/g01342). On the use of the In medio for the Common of Doctors, see Smith, Forthcoming. 9 For the Vetus Latina versions of Sir 15:5–6, see Thiele 1987, pp. 450–452. For variants in the Vulgate, see Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 1047. For a short commentary on this chant, see Pietschmann 1932, p. 99. 10 The Cantus Index lists 67 manuscripts with the Ps 91:2 Bonum est verse (http://cantusindex.org/id/g01342c) and 32 sources with the Sir 15:6 Jucunditatem verse (http://cantusindex.org/id/g01342a). The Cantus Index also includes an entry for a verse beginning Cibavit illum based on Sir 15:3), but notes that “no published source in the Cantus Index network contains a chant with this Cantus ID.” The Usuarium database includes two early printed sources with the verse Cibavit illum (cf. Sir 15:3, the c. 1500 Missale Narbonense from Narbonne in France and the 1496 Missale Vicense from Vic in Spain: see https://usuarium.elte.hu/itemrepertory/1818/view. 11 In the tables of textual sources in this and the following chapter, I will print the text and common variations for each chant as found in the Graduale Synopticum; for the introit verses, which are not included in the Graduale Synopticum, I will draw on the texts given in the Cantus Index. 12 Cf. Hesbert 1935, pp. 26–27 (§20), 150–151 (§139), 158–159 (§155), 164–165 (§164); and the entries for the chant in the Graduale Synopticum (http://gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/118) and the Cantus Index (http://cantusindex.org/id/g01349).

72 

 3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 41: Textual Sources of Os iusti (Introit). Introit (Graduale Synopticum)

Ps 36:30–31 [Roman Psalter] (ed. Weber 1953, p. 78) = Ps 36:30–31 [Gallican Psalter] (ed. Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 813)

Os iusti meditabitur sapientiam et lingua eius loquetur iudicium lex dei eius in corde ipsius.

os iusti meditabitur sapientiam et lingua eius loquetur iudicium [31] lex Dei eius in corde ipsius et non subplantabuntur gressus eius

Verse (Cantus Index)

Ps 36:1 [Gallican Psalter] (ed. Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 812)

Noli aemulari in malignantibus neque zelaveris facientes iniquitatem.

Noli aemulari in malignantibus neque zelaveris facientes iniquitatem

Table 42: Introits for St. Dominic in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals. Text

Manuscripts

In medio ecclesie aperuit os eius et implevit eum dominus spiritu sapientie et intellectus stola glorie induit eum. Ps. Iocunditatem et exultationem thesaurizavit super eum. Gloria.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (incipit: In medio ecclesie.) Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 Lausanne, MHL 10 (incipit: In medio ecclesie.) Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (incipit: In medio ecclesie with folio reference) Mons, BC 63/201 Paris, BnF, latin 8884 (omits Gloria) Pisa, Cathariniana 177 Rome, Angelica 32 (incipit: In medio ecclesie aperuit os.)

Os iusti meditabitur sapientiam et lingua eius loquetur iudicium lex dei eius in corde ipsius. V. Noli emulari.

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

3.1.2 Gradual In contrast to the introit, where two different antiphons are drawn on by various sources, all Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert missals indicate the use of the gradual Os iusti. Like the introit Os iusti discussed in the previous section, the gradual Os iusti is derived from Ps 36:30–31, although the gradual verse makes use of the full text of Ps 36:31 rather than just the opening half as in the introit antiphon (Table 43). The typical liturgical version of the gradual matches the biblical version exactly (with the orthographical variation of supplantabuntur instead of subplantabuntur in some liturgical sources). The gradual appears in four of the six Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex sources, where it is assigned for the feasts of St. Stephen, St. Tiburtius, and St. Eusebius; in later sources it is assigned to a variety of male saints and to various forms of the Common of Saints for Confessors.13 Table 43: Textual Sources of Os iusti (Gradual). Gradual (Graduale Synopticum)

Ps 36:30–31 [Roman Psalter] (ed. Weber 1953, p. 78) = Ps 36:30–31 [Gallican Psalter] (ed. Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 813)

Os iusti meditabitur sapientiam et lingua eius loquetur iudicium. V. Lex dei eius in corde ipsius et non supplantabuntur gressus eius.

os iusti meditabitur sapientiam et lingua eius loquetur iudicium [31] lex Dei eius in corde ipsius et non subplantabuntur gressus eius

In the Dominican sources for the feast of St. Dominic, the full text of the gradual appears in six sources and the incipit is provided in three sources (Table 44). In the full versions, the text is essentially identical in all the sources, with the exception of the omission of the word iudicium at the end of the gradual in Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 and an 13 Cf. Hesbert 1935, pp. 144–145 (§131), 148–149 (§137); 150–151 (§139); and the entries for the chant in the Graduale Synopticum (http://gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/252) and the Cantus Index (http://cantusindex.org/id/g01343).

3.1 Chant Texts for St. Dominic  

 73

orthographical variation in Rome, Angelica 32. One of the incipit sources also includes the incipit for the gradual verse, while the other two provide the incipit for the gradual but not the verse. Table 44: Gradual for St. Dominic in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals. Text

Manuscripts

Os iusti meditabitur sapientiam et lingua eius loquetur iudicium. V. Lex dei eius in corde ipsius et non supplantabuntur gressus eius.

Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 (omits iudicium) Mons, BC 63/201 Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 Rome, Angelica 32 (subplantabuntur instead of supplantabuntur)

Os iusti meditabitur. V. Lex dei.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16

Os iusti.

Lausanne, MHL 10 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5

3.1.3 Alleluia In contrast to the uniformity of the gradual, Dominican sources show a greater variety for the Alleluia verse for St. Dominic, presenting one of three verses: Iustus germinabit, Posui adiutorium, or Pie pater dominice. The first two chants are found relatively widely in medieval sources, while the third chant was newly composed for the feast of St. Dominic. The Alleluia Iustus germinabit is a centonized text which combines words from Ps 91:13 and Os 14:6 as well as biblical phrases that appear often throughout the Vulgate like in aeternum and ante dominum (Table 45).14 In addition to the Alleluia Iustus germinabit, there is an Office antiphon (CAO 3549) and an Office responsory (CAO 7060) with the same incipit which have a close textual relationship.15 Although the Alleluia Iustus germinabit does not appear in the Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex, it is assigned to a wide variety of occasions in medieval liturgical sources, including the Common of Martyrs, the Common of Confessors, and various individual saints.16 Table 45: Textual Sources of Iustus germinabit (Alleluia). Alleluia (Graduale Synopticum)

Possible Biblical Sources

Alleluia. V. Iustus germinabit sicut lilium et florebit in aeternum ante dominum.

Ps 91:13 (ed. Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 888) iustus ut palma florebit ut cedrus Libani multiplicabitur Os 14:6 (ed. Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 1384): ero quasi ros Israhel germinabit quasi lilium et erumpet radix eius ut Libani

14 According to a search with Logos Bible Software, in aeternum appears 212 times in the Clementine Vulgate and ante dominum appears 12 times, although the two phrases do not appear together. 15 Antiphon: CAO 3549 (ed. Hesbert 1963–1979, v. 3, p. 310): “Justus germinabit sicut lilium, et florebit in aeternum ante Dominum.” Responsory: CAO 7060: (ed. Hesbert 1963–1979, v. 4, p. 264): “Justus germinavit sicut lilium, et florebit in aeternum ante Dominum. V. Plantatus in domo Domini, in atriis domus Dei nostri. – Et florebit.” In the apparatus for both pieces, Hesbert notes that germinabit and germinavit appear somewhat interchangeably even within individual sources that present the text more than once. The chronological relationship of the different chants is not entirely clear; the earliest identified source for the responsory appears to be the mid-9th-century Antiphonary of Compiègne (Paris, BnF, latin 17436), while the earliest identified source for the Alleluia verse appears to be the late 9th-century gradual Laon, BM 239 (cf. Schlager 1965, p. 104). The responsory verse is derived from Ps 91:14. If the responsory is the original version, this strengthens the identification of Ps 91:13 as a source for the chant. For the dating of the Laon manuscript to the late 9th century, see Bischoff 2004, v. 2, p. 30, §2094; cf. Rankin 2018, pp. 50, 67. As Rankin indicates, “Bischoff’s re-dating of Laon 239 from that proposed in the Paléographie musicale facsimile (‘after 930ʹ) to the last quarter of the ninth century” (p. 50) would indicate that the Laon manuscript is the “earliest extant fully notated and almost complete gradual” (p. 67). 16 See the entries in Schlager 1965, p. 104, the Graduale Synopticum (http://gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/368) and the Cantus Index (http://cantusindex.org/id/g01346). The earliest sources listed in the Graduale Synopticum are from the 10th century; the only entry for Iustus germinabit in Schlager is the 11th-century gradual Milan, Ambrosiana, E 68 sup, f. 35v (most sources listed by Schlager combine the same melody with the text Veni electa mea).

74 

 3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books

The Alleluia Posui adiutorium is based on the Roman Psalter version of Ps 88:20b (Table 46). It appears in only one of the six Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex sources, where it is assigned for the feast of St. Urban and St. Apollinaris, and in a relatively small number of medieval sources, where it is assigned to individual male saints or to the Common of Confessors.17 Table 46: Textual Sources of Posui adiutorium (Alleluia). Alleluia (Graduale Synopticum)

Ps 88:20 [Roman Psalter] (ed. Weber 1953, p. 220)

Alleluia. V. Posui adiutorium super potentem et exaltavi electum de plebe mea.

tunc locutus es in aspectu filiis tuis et dixisti posui adiutorium super potentem et exaltaui electum de plebe mea

Finally, the Alleluia Pie pater is a mid-13th-century composition in honor of St. Dominic written in a poetic form consisting of four lines of eight syllables with a disyllabic ABAB rhyme scheme (Table 47).18 Although the verse does not have a clear precedent in the Alleluia repertoire, the text makes use of several evocative and idiomatic phrases that may have been familiar to Dominican friars from liturgical, legal and literary contexts: Pie pater19 and coram summo iudice.20 The second line, tuorum memor operum, is likely evoking the Gallican Psalter version of Ps 76:12 (memor fui operum Domini quia memor ero ab initio mirabilium tuorum).21 Table 47: Text of Pie pater (Alleluia). Alleluia Alleluia. V. Pie pater dominice tuorum memor operum sta coram summo iudice pro tuo cetu pauperum.

As indicated in Table 48, six Dominican sources provide the full text of Iustus germinabit, one (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16) provides the incipit of the verse Posui adiutorium, and one (Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20) provides the Pie pater in the original hand.22 In two sources (Lausanne, MHL 10 and Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5), the original Alleluia was erased and replaced with Pie pater either on the same folio or at a later section of the manuscript. In the case of the Lausanne missal, the original incipit Iustus germinabit was erased but is still discernable. In the Los Angeles 17 See Hesbert 1935, pp. 123 (§104), 143 (§128). Of Hesbert’s sources, the Alleluia appears only in the Corbiensis (= Paris, BnF, latin 12050, f. 11v). For further assignments in medieval sources, see the entries in the Graduale Synopticum (http://gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/1424) and the Cantus Index (http://cantusindex.org/id/g02148). In contrast to the 104 appearances of the Alleluia Iustus germinabit in the Cantus Index, the Alleluia Posui appears 47 times in the same database. 18 The hymns and several other proper chants from the Office of St. Dominic are written in the same meter; for an overview of the various meters employed in the Humbert version of the Dominic Office, see Bergin 2019, p. 74. 19 The Cross Database Searchtool of Brepolis has 58 examples of “pie pater” in a variety of liturgical and literary contexts. In liturgical contexts, pie pater sometimes refers to God (e.g., CO 3148: “Intende, pie pater, in oblatis sacrificiis et benignus adspira precibus nostris …”) and sometimes refers to individual saints (e.g., in the 11th-century Miracula Donatiani Brugensis, where a woman invokes St. Donatian with the title pie pater: “o sancte donatiane pie pater gloriose pontifex adiuua me”; ed. Société des Bollandistes 1794, p. 507). William Durandus reports a custom in some churches where a bishop who reads a lesson during the Divine Office receives the following request in place of a blessing (on the principle that nullus minor benedicere debet): “Ora pro nobis, pie Pater, ad Dominum”; see William Durandus 1995–2000, Rationale divinorum officiorum V, II, 45 (ed. Davril et al., CCCM 140A, p. 36). The editors of the Rationale point out a parallel passage in the late 12th-century Tractatus de officiorum of Praepositinus of Cremona, who suggests that this is a specifically Roman custom, but gives a different form of the request that omits pie: “Ora pro nobis, pater”; see Praepositinus of Cremona 1969, pp. 221–222 (Tractatus IV, 13). 20 The Cross Database Searchtool of Brepolis has 32 examples of “coram summo iudice” in a variety of contexts; while some of these are from Dominicans (and thus may possibly be influenced by the Alleluia chant), many of them date to the 12th and early 13th century, including examples from Innocent III, Peter Cantor, and Peter the Venerable. 21 Ed. Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 864. 22 The Pie pater is included in Poitiers, BM 12, but all of the liturgical texts in this source are a later addition. This section of the source generally only includes orations, making the inclusion of the proper Alleluia verse for Dominic remarkable.

3.1 Chant Texts for St. Dominic  

 75

missal, the incipit was erased and replaced with a reference to the Pie pater, but the original incipit is not readable.23 Given that the Karlsruhe missal is a relatively late pre-Humbert source (it is described by Dirks as being later than the Lausanne, Paris, and Los Angeles missals, and is dated by Gleeson to shortly before 1253)24 and that the other sources which contain it present it as a later addition, it is not yet possible to determine exactly when the Pie pater chant was composed, although it clearly pre-dates the reform of Humbert of Romans.25 In any case, before its composition Dominicans made use of Iustus germinabit and Posui adiutorium for the Alleluia verse. It is likely that the Los Angeles missal originally indicated one of these two verses. Table 48: Alleluia Verses for St. Dominic in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals. Text

Manuscripts

Alleluia. V. Iustus germinabit sicut lilium et florebit in eternum ante dominum.

Lausanne, MHL 10 (erased incipit: Iustus germinabit) Mons, BC 63/201 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (text abbreviated with “etc.” after eternum) Rome, Angelica 32

Alleluia. V. Posui adiutorium.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16

Alleluia. V. Pie pater dominice tuorum memor operum sta coram summo iudice pro tuo cetu pauperum.

Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 Lausanne, MHL 10 (addition in lower margin) Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (addition on f. 251v; original text on f. 181r unclear) Poitiers, BM 12 (added in lower margin)

3.1.4 Sequence Two Dominican bible missals and three pre-Humbert missals include an indication of a proper sequence for St. Dominic (Table 49).26 In the bible missal Rome, Angelica 32, the incipit is written in red ink by the rubricator in the margin of the formulary for St. Dominic; in this case it is described as a Prosa and given an unusual spelling for the third word of the incipit: In celesti gerarchia. Despite providing the incipit in the formulary, this source does not provide the full text of the sequence.27 In the missal Mons, BC 63/201, f. 217v, the incipit of the sequence is supplied between the Alleluia verse Iustus germinabit and the gospel and provided with full text and musical notation in the sequentiary section at the end of the missal. In the other three sources, there is no mention of the sequence within the formulary, but the full text appears in a sequentiary section at the end of the missal. In the bible missal Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, the sequence appears on an added leaf (f. 565r) at the end of the sequentiary as one of three sequences written in a slightly different layout than the earlier sequences, although the script and decoration suggest that these sequences may have been written together with the preceding texts or at the end of the production process. In the missal Lausanne, MHL 10, the Dominic sequence is one of three written with a smaller script and different decorative style than the preceding sequences that

23 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, f. 181r; the original text has been erased and replaced with the incipit Pie pater together with the rubric quasi in fine libri. The full text and music of the Pie pater appear as a later addition on f. 251v. 24 See Dirks 1987, p. 26 and Gleeson 2004, pp. 107–108; although Dirks appears to merely offer a relative dating (while pointing out the absence of Peter Martyr, canonized in 1253), Gleeson states that Dirks “described the manuscript and dated it not long before 1253. I have no quarrel with this date.” 25 As discussed in chapter 2, it is possible that Karlsruhe reflects the second reform of the four friars issued in 1251; see p. 64 above. 26 Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 does not include any reference to a proper sequence for St. Dominic, but a later (15th-century?) cursiva hand added a sequence for confessors, Dilectus deo et hominibus (ed. Blume and Bannister 1915, pp. 131–133, §90), in the lower margin of f. 230r. For a brief discussion of the St. Dominic sequence In celesti, see Fassler 2004, pp. 257–261. 27 Rome, Angelica 32 does not include a full sequentiary and normally omits references to sequences within the formularies but does include a reference to Prosa. Letabundus within the formulary In epiphanie on f. 213r.

76 

 3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books

appear out of liturgical order at the end of the sequentiary.28 In the missal Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, the sequence seems to be part of the original set of sequences. Table 49: St. Dominic Sequence in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals. Manuscript

Folio

Rubric

Text

565ra 214rb (right margin)

Sequentia de beato dominico Prosa

In celesti ierarchia (full text) In celesti gerarchia. (incipit only)

206rb 241v–242v 264ra–va

Sequentia (no rubric) De sancto dominico sequentia

In celesti ierarchia (full text) In celesti ierarchia (full text and music) In celesti ierarchia (full text and music)

Bible missals Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Rome, Angelica 32 Pre-Humbert missals Lausanne, MHL 10 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Mons, BC 63/201

The text of the sequence in the four full-text sources is very close to the version edited in the Analecta Hymnica; aside from minor orthographical and punctuation differences (not noted below), only a few variants appear (Table 50).29 Table 50: Text and Textual Variations of In celesti ierarchia (Sequence). Sequence (Analecta Hymnica 55, n. 115, pp. 133–134)

Variations in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals30

1

In caelesti ierarchia Nova sonet harmonia Novo ducta cantico,

ierarchia] gerarchia: Rome

2

Cui concordet in hac via Nostri chori melodia Congaudens Dominico.

Cui] Qui: Cambridge

3

Ex Aegypto vastitatis Virum suae voluntatis Vocat auctor saeculi;

4

In fiscella paupertatis Flumen transit vanitatis Pro salute populi.

5

In figura catuli Praedicator saeculi Matri praemonstratur,

6

Portans ore faculam Ad amoris regulam Populos hortatur.

7

Hic est novus legis lator, Hic Elias aemulator Et detestans crimina;

auctor] actor: Cambridge and Lausanne31

28 Dirks 1984, pp. 40, 46 suggests that the quire containing the rubrics, sequentiary and calendar on ff. 204r–211v is a later addition. Based on my consultation of the manuscript, I believe that this quire is original, although it contains several later additions added in originally blank space, including the Dominic sequence. 29 Ed. Blume 1922, pp. 133–135, §115. For commentary on the scriptural allusions and references to St. Dominic in the text of the sequence, see Byrnes 1943, pp. 410–418 and Bériou and Hodel 2019, pp. 1491–1493. 30 For full shelfmarks, see Table 49. 31 The Analecta Hymnica apparatus reports that London, BL, Add. MS 23935 (the portable Humbert exemplar) also provides actor; see f. 438rb.

3.1 Chant Texts for St. Dominic  

 77

Table 50 (continued) Sequence (Analecta Hymnica 55, n. 115, pp. 133–134) 8

Vulpes dissipat Samsonis Et in tuba Gedeonis Hostis fugat agmina.

9

A defunctis revocatum Matri vivum reddit natum Vivens adhuc corpore.

10

Signo crucis imber cedit, Turba fratrum panem edit Missum Dei munere.

11

Felix per quem gaudia Tota iam ecclesia Sumens exaltatur.

12

Orbem replet semine, In caelorum agmine Tandem collocatur.

13

Iacet granum occultatum, Sidus latet obumbratum, Sed plasmator omnium

14

Ossa Ioseph pullulare, Sidus iubet radiare In salutem gentium.

15

O quam probat carnis florem Omnem superans odorem Tumuli fragrantia!

16

Aegri currunt et curantur, Caeci, claudi reparantur Virtutum frequentia.

17

Laudes ergo Dominico Personemus mirifico Voce plena.

18

Clama petens suffragia Eius sequens vestigia, Plebs egena.

19

Sed tu, pater pie, bone Pastor gregis et patrone, Prece semper sedula

20

Apud curam summi regis Derelicti vices gregis Commenda per saecula. Amen.

Variations in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals

replet] replens: Cambridge

Sed] Et: Los Angeles32

Amen not provided in AH but appears in all Dominican sources.

32 The Analecta Hymnica apparatus reports that Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 10773 and (olim) Donaueschingen, Fürstlich Fürstenbergische Hofbibliothek, Cod. 882 include this variant. Blume dates the Vatican manuscript to the 14th century, although it is actually a 13th-century pre-Humbert gradual; however, it is not clear whether the St. Dominic sequence found on ff. 177v–178v is original or a later addition; Dirks 1979, p. 20 suggested that it was part of a set of sequences that are a later addition to the manuscript, whereas Gleeson 2004, p. 106 states that “In looking at the manuscript itself, I can see nothing to suggest a later transcription.” For further details, see the discussion of the Veni sancte spiritus sequence on pp. 112–113 below, which appears in the same section of the Vatican manuscript. The olim Donaueschingen manuscript dates to the first quarter

78 

 3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books

Despite the suggestion of Blume that the sequence was written shortly after the Translation of Dominic in 1234 or after his canonization in 1234, it is clear that the text was not immediately circulating after Dominic’s canonization.33 Although there is not explicit evidence for the date of its introduction into the Dominican liturgy, it is clearly independent of the introduction of the other newly composed chant for Dominic, the Alleluia Pie pater. The Pie pater does not appear in the original hand of the Dominic mass formulary in any of the five sources that include the sequence (although Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20, which includes the Pie pater in the original hand, is missing sections at the end of the manuscript where a sequentiary may have originally appeared). Mons, BC 63/201, in which the sequence is referenced both in the formulary and in the sequentiary, pairs the proper sequence with the common Alleluia Iustus germinabit. Although we do not have external evidence for the date of composition of either the Alleluia Pie pater or the sequence In celesti ierarchia, it thus seems apparent that the proper sequence was composed and adopted before the proper Alleluia.

3.1.5 Offertory Dominican sources provide two different offertories for the feast of St. Dominic: six sources give the offertory Desiderium anime, and three sources provide Veritas mea. Desiderium animae is adapted from verse 3 and verse 4b of the Roman Psalter version of Ps 20 (Table 51). It appears in four of Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex sources, where it is assigned for the feasts of St. Eusebius, St. Menne, and St. Chrysogonus, and appears in later medieval sources for a variety of male saints and various forms of the Common of Confessors and the Common of Martyrs.34 Table 51: Textual Sources for Desiderium anime (Offertory). Offertory (Graduale Synopticum)

Ps 20:3–4 [Roman Psalter] (ed. Weber 1953, pp. 38–39)

Desiderium animae eius tribuisti ei domine et voluntate labiorum eius non fraudasti eum posuisti in capite eius coronam de lapide pretioso.

[3] desiderium animae eius tribuisti ei [] et uoluntate labiorum eius non fraudasti eum [4] quoniam praeuenisti eum in benedictione dulcedinis posuisti in capite eius coronam de lapide pretioso

The offertory Veritas mea is taken from Ps 88:25, which is identical in the Roman Psalter and Gallican Psalter (Table 52). It appears in four of the Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex sources, assigned to eight occasions for various male saints as well as for the Common of a Confessor Bishop (In natale pontificis), and appears in a large number of medieval sources for a variety of male saints and various forms of the Common of Confessors and the Common of Martyrs.35 Veritas mea appears much more often than Desiderium animae in medieval sources, with 573 concordances in the Cantus Index for Veritas mea compared to 208 concordances for Desiderium animae. Table 52: Textual Sources for Veritas mea (Offertory). Offertory (Graduale Synopticum)

Ps 88:25 [Roman Psalter] (ed. Weber 1953, p. 220) = Ps 88:25 [Gallican Psalter] (ed. Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 882)

Veritas mea et misericordia mea cum ipso et in nomine meo exaltabitur cornu eius.

et ueritas mea et misericordia mea cum ipso et in nomine meo exaltabitur cornu eius

of the 14th century; the present location of the manuscript is unknown, as it was apparently no longer part of the Donaueschingen collection when its manuscripts were acquired by Baden-Württemberg in 1993; for further bibliography on this manuscript see https://handschriftencensus. de/24386 and https://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/sammlungen/handschriften/bestand/donaueschingen/standorte/. 33 Blume 1922, p. 135. 34 Cf. Hesbert 1935, pp. 150–151 (§139), 164–165 (§164), 167 (§167); and the entries for the chant in the Graduale Synopticum (http://gregorianik. uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/509) and the Cantus Index (http://cantusindex.org/id/g01363). 35 Cf. Hesbert 1935, pp. 28–29 (§22), 42–43 (§32), 122–123 (§104), 142–143 (§128), 144 (§129b), 156–157 (§151), 160–161 (§158), 166–167 (§166), 169 (§171), 171 (§171bis); and the entries for the chant in the Graduale Synopticum (http://gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/591) and the Cantus Index (http://cantusindex.org/id/g01278).

3.1 Chant Texts for St. Dominic  

 79

Three Dominican sources (Karlsruhe, Mons, and Pisa) provide the full text of Desiderium animae while the other three sources that indicate this offertory provide only an incipit (Table 53). The three sources which indicate Veritas mea all provide the full text in identical versions. Table 53: Offertory Chants for St. Dominic in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals. Text

Manuscripts

Desiderium anime eius tribuisti ei domine et voluntate labiorum eius non fraudasti eum posuisti in capite eius coronam de lapide pretioso.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (incipit only: Desiderium anime.) Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 Lausanne, MHL 10 (incipit only: Desiderium.) Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (incipit only: Desiderium anime) Mons, BC 63/201 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (text abbreviated with “etc.” after lapide)

Veritas mea et misericordia mea cum ipso et in nomine meo exaltabitur cornu eius.

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Rome, Angelica 32

3.1.6 Communion Dominican sources make use of two different communion antiphons for the feast of St. Dominic: one source provides Beatus servus and eight sources give Fidelis servus. Beatus servus is derived from Mt 24:46–47, taking most of the text directly from the Vulgate with minor modifications such as the omission of ille and quoniam and adapting sic facientem to vigilantem in allusion to Mt 24:42–43 (Table 54).36 The antiphon appears in four of the Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex sources, assigned to seven different male saints and to the Common of a Confessor Bishop (In natale pontificis). It appears in later sources assigned to a variety of male saints and to various forms of the Common of Confessors and the Common of Martyrs.37 Table 54: Textual Sources for Beatus servus (communion). Communion (Graduale Synopticum)

Mt 24:46–47 (ed. Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 1565)

Beatus servus quem cum venerit dominus invenerit vigilantem amen dico vobis super omnia bona sua constituet eum.

[46] Beatus ille servus quem cum venerit dominus eius invenerit sic facientem [47] amen dico vobis quoniam super omnia bona sua constituet eum

Fidelis servus is adapted from Lc 12:42–43, verses which form part of a synoptic parallel to Mt 24:46–47 (Table 55). In this case, the chant takes most of its text from verse 42, while replacing dispensator with servus derived from verse 43. The chant transforms the text from a question asked by Christ (introduced with the words quis putas est in the biblical context) into a statement about the “faithful servant.” The chant appears in four of the Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex sources, assigned to the feasts of St. Gregory, St. Urban, St. Sixtus, and for the Vigil of a Confessor Bishop (In vigilia pontificis), and appears in later sources for a variety of male saints and various forms of the Common of Confessors. Fidelis servus appears less often in medieval sources than Beatus servus, with 213 concordances in the Cantus Index for Fidelis servus compared to 367 concordances for Beatus servus.38 In Dominican sources, Fidelis servus appears in essentially identical full-text forms in four sources and as an incipit in three sources, while Beatus servus appears in a full-text form in one source (Table 56). 36 Mt 24:42–43: “[42] Vigilate ergo quia nescitis qua hora Dominus vester venturus sit [43] Illud autem scitote quoniam si sciret pater familias qua hora fur venturus esset vigilaret utique et non sineret perfodiri domum suam” (ed. Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 1565). 37 Cf. Hesbert 1935, pp. 22–23 (§16b), 144 (§129b), 150–151 (§139), (§141), (§142b), 160–161 (§158), 166–167 (§166), 169 (§171), 171 (§171ter); and the entries for the chant in the Graduale Synopticum (http://gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/610) and the Cantus Index (http://cantusindex. org/id/g01354). 38 Cf. Hesbert 1935, pp. 42–43 (§32), 122–123 (§104), 144–145 (§132), 169 (§170); and the entries for the chant in the Graduale Synopticum (http:// gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/654) and the Cantus Index (http://cantusindex.org/id/g00318).

80 

 3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 55: Textual Sources for Fidelis servus (Communion). Communion (Graduale Synopticum)

Lc 12:42–43 (ed. Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 1634)

Fidelis servus et prudens quem constituit dominus super familiam suam ut det illis in tempore tritici mensuram.

[42] dixit autem Dominus quis putas est fidelis dispensator et prudens quem constituet dominus super familiam suam ut det illis in tempore tritici mensuram [43] beatus ille servus quem cum venerit dominus invenerit ita facientem

Table 56: Communion Chants for St. Dominic in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals. Text

Manuscripts

Beatus servus quem cum venerit dominus invenerit vigilantem amen dico vobis super omnia bona sua constituet eum.

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

Fidelis servus et prudens quem constituit dominus super Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (incipit: Fidelis servus) familiam suam ut det illis in tempore tritici mensuram. Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 Lausanne, MHL 10 (incipit: Fidelis servus) Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (incipit: Fidelis servus.) Mons, BC 63/201 (Alleluia is written at the end of the chant but is not provided with musical notation) Rome, Angelica 32 Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (text abbreviated with “etc.” after tempore)

3.1.7 Dominican Chants for the Common of One Confessor As the preceding discussion has shown, Dominican sources for the mass of St. Dominic generally make use of chants found in earlier medieval sources for the celebration of male saints or various forms of the Common of Confessors, while a few sources provide newly composed chants for the Alleluia and/or sequence. Table 57 presents the chants provided by each source for the introit, gradual, Alleluia, offertory, and communion in a summary form. Table 57: Dominican Chants for St. Dominic. Manuscript

Introit

Gradual

Alleluia

Offertory

Communion

Lausanne, MHL 10 (missal)

In medio

Os iusti

Desiderium

Fidelis servus

Mons, BC 63/201 (missal) Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (bible missal) Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (missal) Rome, Angelica 32 (bible missal) Paris, BnF, latin 8884 (missal) Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 (missal) Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (bible missal) Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 (bible missal) Poitiers, BM 12 (bible missal)

In medio In medio In medio In medio In medio In medio In medio Os iusti

Os iusti Os iusti Os iusti Os iusti Os iusti Os iusti Os iusti Os iusti

Iustus germinabit (replaced by Pie pater) Iustus germinabit Iustus germinabit ? (replaced by Pie pater) Iustus germinabit Iustus germinabit Pie pater Posui adiutorium Iustus germinabit Pie pater

Desiderium Desiderium Desiderium Veritas mea Veritas mea Desiderium Desiderium Veritas mea

Fidelis servus Fidelis servus Fidelis servus Fidelis servus Fidelis servus Fidelis servus Fidelis servus Beatus servus

Only two sets of sources in Table 57 present precisely the same selection of chants: 1) Lausanne, Mons, and Pisa; and 2) Rome and Paris; these two sets differ only with respect to the offertory. Cambridge, Karlsruhe, Lausanne, Los Angeles and Mons present identical selections for the chants, apart from the Alleluia. Oxford presents chants for the introit and communion that are not found in any other source, but gives the gradual, Alleluia, and offertory in an arrangement that matches Rome and Paris. When Oxford is set aside, the remaining sources are all united except for the selection of the Alleluia and the offertory.

3.1 Chant Texts for St. Dominic  

 81

The selection of chants offered in the various sources is best understood when compared with the Common of Saints and with specific mass formularies that make use of some or all of the same chants. Four Dominican sources provide an identical selection of chant texts for the Common of Saints.39 Each of these sources presents a series of chants for each genre under the title In natali unius confessoris officium. It is significant that these four sources are identical in their selections. Maura O’Carroll’s survey of the Common of Confessors in early 13th-century missals preserved in the British Library shows that sources from this period offer a great variety of texts and approaches to presenting texts for the Common.40 Table 58 lists the incipits of the chants for the Common of Confessors in the order in which they appear in the four Dominican sources, with the chants that appear in one or more sources for the mass of St. Dominic indicated in italics. Table 58: Dominican Chants for the Common of One Confessor (with Chants Used for St. Dominic in Italics). Introit

Gradual

Alleluia

Offertory

Communion

Statuit ei dominus Sacerdotes tui Sacerdotes dei Sacerdotes eius Os iusti

Ecce sacerdos Iuravit dominus Inveni david Sacerdotes eius41 Domine prevenisti Os iusti

Posui adiutorium Inveni david Disposui testamentum Iuravit dominus Iustus germinabit Os iusti Amavit eum

Inveni david Veritas mea Desiderium

Beatus servus Domine quinque Fidelis servus Semel iuravi

In addition to the four sources which present multiple chants for each genre, Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3, ff. 95vb–98ra presents the Common of Confessors in the form of a formulary with one option for each genre (Table 59). Table 59: Dominican Chants for the Common of One Confessor in Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 (with Chants Used for St. Dominic in Italics). Introit

Gradual

Alleluia

Offertory

Communion

Os iusti

Os iusti

Iustus germinabit

Veritas mea

Fidelis servus

With the exception of the introit In medio and the Alleluia Pie pater, all of the chants that are presented in the various sources for the Dominic mass are found in the Common of One Confessor in the sources that include multiple chant texts for each genre. Likewise, all of the chants included in the one-genre Common of One Confessor in Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 correspond to chants used by Dominican sources for St. Dominic.

39 See Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, ff. 557va–558ra; Lausanne, MHL 10, ff. 185va–188vb; Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, ff. 208ra–212vb; Paris, BnF, latin 8884, ff. 262rb–267v. The Common of Saints section of Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 is part of the 15th-century layer of the manuscript, so it has been excluded from consideration here. Mons, BC 63/201 does not include a Common of Saints section. Pisa, Cathariniana 177, f. 401rb–va contains an abbreviated selection, providing just two chants for each genre: Statuit ei dominus and Os iusti for the introit, Ecce sacerdos and Iuravit dominus for the gradual, Posui adiutorium and Inveni david for the Alleluia, Veritas mea and Desiderium for the offertory, and Beatus servus and Semel iuravi for the communion. 40 See O’Carroll 2005, pp. 580–582, 590–591. On pp. 581–582, O’Carroll provides a detailed list of the texts provided in London, BL, Add. MS 18031/18032 (Stavelot Missal), which provides one or two chants for each genre, and London, BL, Add. MS 17742, which provides between 4 and 7 chants for each genre. Although Add. MS 17742 provides many of the same chants as the Dominican sources discussed here, they are presented in a different order and go beyond the selection offered by the Dominican sources; significantly for the present discussion, Add. MS 17742 includes In medio as an introit for the Common of Confessors. For further remarks on the diversity of approaches to the Common of Saints in medieval missals and graduals, see Hughes 1995, pp. 153–156. 41 This text begins Sacerdotes tui in Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 557v, but Sacerdotes eius in the other sources (Lausanne, MHL 10, f. 187r; Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, f. 210r; Paris, BnF, latin 8884, f. 265r).

82 

 3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books

3.1.8 Dominican Chants for St. Augustine Although the In medio is not included in the Dominican version of the Common of One Confessor, the choice of this chant for St. Dominic was likely inspired by the use of the chant for the mass of St. Augustine.42 While both the In medio and Os iusti are thematically appropriate for the celebration of the founder of the Order of Preachers, given their emphasis on the saint receiving wisdom from God and in turn proclaiming that wisdom to others, the provision of In medio by the majority of Dominican sources was likely intended to draw a connection between St. Dominic and St. Augustine, the author of the Rule of St. Augustine and thus a major patron of the Order of Preachers which followed the Augustinian Rule.43 In the six pre-Humbert sources that include a mass formulary for St. Augustine, he is assigned the In medio as the introit and an identical selection of four chants from the Common of One Confessor (Table 60).44 Table 60: Dominican Chants for St. Augustine. Introit

Gradual Alleluia

Offertory

Communion

In medio

Os iusti

Veritas mea

Fidelis servus

Iustus germinabit

This selection of chants is identical with that provided for St. Dominic in two sources listed in Table 57 which share the same five chants: Rome, Angelica 32 and Paris, BnF, latin 8884.45 Although several sources provide an alternate text from the Common for the Alleluia and offertory or a proper Alleluia verse, it seems likely that the almost universal provision of In medio for the introit Os iusti for the gradual, and Fidelis servus for the communion of the St. Dominic formulary is indebted to the St. Augustine formulary. While several other sanctoral masses in Dominican sources make use of In medio for the introit these formularies do not otherwise closely resemble the St. Dominic mass chants.46

3.1.9 Chants for the Translation of St. Dominic In general, Dominican sources provide the same chants for the 24 May Translation and 5 August feast of St. Dominic. The only exception is the specification in two sources of a second Alleluia that is to be sung when the feast falls during Paschaltide or Ascensiontide.47 In Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, the Translation of St. Dominic is indicated by means of an added rubric in the lower margin which indicates that the Translation uses the formulary for the 5 August feast, but that the Alleluia Christus resurgens is sung as the second Alleluia.48 In Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20, a rubric that is part of the original production unit indicates that the Translation uses the formulary from 5 August, but in this case the full text of the Alleluia Christus resurgens is provided for the Tempore resurrectione and the full text of the Alleluia Ascendens christus is provided for when 42 The Divine Office chants for St. Dominic are likewise connected to those of St. Augustine, although less directly than the mass chants. In the pre-Humbert notated breviary Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L2, f. 297r–v, the hymns for St. Dominic originally used a melody also found in the same source for St. Augustine (f. 298r), although the manuscript was later adapted to include a newly composed post-Humbert melody for St. Dominic; see Smith 2008, pp. 54–56; Bergin 2019, pp. 112–113. Other office chants for St. Dominic have textual echoes of chants for St. Augustine; cf. Hughes 2004, pp. 282, 294–295; Bergin 2019, pp. 186, 188, 206–207, 246, 257. 43 The chants for St. Dominic were in turn used as the model for the chants for St. Thomas Aquinas after his 1323 canonization; see Smith, Forthcoming. 44 See Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, ff. 552vb–553ra; Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20, f. 236ra–vb; Lausanne, MHL 10, f. 166ra– rb; Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, f. 185vb; Paris, BnF, latin 8884, ff. 232v–233r. 45 With the exception of the In medio, it is also identical with the one-genre form of the Common of One Confessor provided in Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3. 46 E.g., Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 also provides the In medio for Sancti iohanis evangeliste (f. 545rb–va), Sancti iohanis ante portam latinam (f. 549rb), and Sancti luce evangeliste (f. 554va), but gives a different selection of proper or common chants for the other genres (with the exception of Os iusti as the gradual for St. Luke). 47 Easter can fall between March 22 and April 25; Ascension can fall between April 30 and June 3; and Pentecost can fall between May 10 and June 13. Due to this range of dates, the 24 May Translation can fall within Paschaltide, Ascensiontide, or after Pentecost, thus potentially calling for the use of a second Alleluia (during Paschaltide or Ascensiontide) in place of the gradual (used if the feast is celebrated after Pentecost). 48 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, f. 172r: “In translatione beati dominici officium sicut in festo. Secundum alleluia Christus resurgens feria quarta in octava pasche. lxxxxix.”

3.2 Orations for St. Dominic  

 83

the feast is celebrated Post ascensionem.49 Because their use is primarily determined by the varying temporal seasons in which the feast of the Translation of St. Dominic falls, these specifications are better understood as a response to the complex interactions of the temporal and sanctoral cycles than as proper chants for the Translation of St. Dominic.

3.1.10 Summary Pre-Humbert Dominican sources for the mass of St. Dominic predominantly draw on chants from the Common of One Confessor. Although there are variations among the sources, the selection of chants from within the Common as well as the provision of the In medio introit appears to be indebted to the mass formulary for St. Augustine. Only one source50 provides the proper Alleluia verse Pie pater for St. Dominic in the original hand, while two sources51 provide the same verse as a later addition. Four sources52 provide the full text of the proper sequence In celesti, and a fifth source provides an incipit reference to the sequence.53 The diversity of chant selections for the St. Dominic mass in the various manuscripts stands in stark contrast to the near uniformity of the chants for Pentecost and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit which will be discussed in the next chapter. Although the St. Dominic formularies principally make use of pre-existing chants from the Common of Saints, the diversity of selections found in these manuscripts reveals a range of approaches to selecting chants for St. Dominic as well as a gradual incorporation of newly composed chants for the saint. The inclusion of the proper Alleluia or sequence in only a small number of manuscripts in the original hand strongly suggests that these chants were introduced two different points after the canonization of St. Dominic, with the sequence In celesti circulating before the Alleluia Pie pater, although no clear evidence has yet emerged for precisely dating their composition or introduction into the Dominican liturgy.

3.2 Orations for St. Dominic In contrast to the diversity of selections for the chants of St. Dominic, all Dominican sources provide the same orations for the saint, although the collect exists in two distinct versions. The orations draw on phrases from earlier prayers, with the liturgical prayers for St. Francis playing a particularly prominent role, but constitute new compositions. In contrast to the chants and readings, for which non-Dominican bible missals do not provide any specific indications of liturgical texts, two non-Dominican bible missals representing the Franciscan tradition include versions of the orations that closely match the Dominican versions while containing shared variants. Considering the near uniformity between the versions of these prayers in Dominican and non-Dominican liturgical sources, these prayers were likely promulgated at the time of the canonization of St. Dominic in 1234.54

3.2.1 Collect Dominican sources provide Deus qui ecclesiam tuam (CO 1559) for St. Dominic without any variations other than the distinction between the original phrase meritis et exemplis the post-1244 modified version of meritis et doctrinis.55 Although the collect is an original composition, several of the phrases are likely adapted from earlier prayers (Table 61). The most 49 Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20, f. 209rb–va: “In translatione beati dominici. Officium sicut in alio festo. Tempore resurrectione. Secundum Alleluia V. Christus resurgens ex mortuis iam non moritur mors ultra non damnabitur. Post ascensionem. Alleluia. V. Ascendens christus in altum captivam duxit captivitatem dedit dona hominibus.” 50 Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20. 51 Lausanne, MHL 10; Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5. 52 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16; Lausanne, MHL 10; Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5; Mons, BC 63/201. The sequence in Lausanne is certainly a later addition, and the sequence in Cambridge was likely added towards the end of the production of the manuscript. 53 Rome, Angelica 32. 54 For discussion of the practice of papal or curial composition of collects in the early 13th century, see p. 59 above. 55 For further details on this variant, see the discussion of the St. Dominic collect on pp. 62–64 above. It should be noted that in Lausanne, MHL 10, f. 162v, the words “eius intercessione” are written over an erasure, but it is not clear what the original text may have been.

84 

 3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books

direct influences appear to be the collect and postcommunion prayers for St. Francis and the collect for the Friday of the Fourth Week of Lent. The opening phrase of the St. Dominic collect, Deus, qui ecclesiam tuam, is a standard collect opening found in 25 other prayers in the Corpus Orationum, including the collect for St. Francis. The statement in the first half of the collect that God has deigned to illuminate the Church by the merits and example of the saint (ecclesiam tuam … illu­ minare … meritis et exemplis) is adapted from the postcommunion for St. Francis.56 The first request in the second half of the collect that the Church not be lacking in temporal assistance (temporalibus non destituatur auxiliis) is taken directly from the collect for the Friday of the Fourth Week of Lent. Finally, the second request in the second half of the collect, that the Church might always make increase in spiritual things (spiritualibus semper proficiat incrementis), is paralleled in a collect found in a single 11th- or 12th-century Corpus Orationum source for St. Theodore of Canterbury, although the rarity of the St. Theodore collect means the overlap may be a coincidence.57 Table 61: Textual Sources for the St. Dominic Collect (CO 1559). Deus, qui ecclesiam tuam58 beati Dominici confessoris tui

CO 1561 (Francis collect): Deus, qui ecclesiam tuam beati Francisci meritis foetu novae prolis amplificas, tribue nobis ex eius imitatione terrena despicere et caelestium donorum semper participatione gaudere.

illuminare dignatus es meritis et exemplis,

CO 2421a (Francis postcommunion): Ecclesiam tuam quaesumus domine gratia caelestis amplificet quam beati Francisci illuminare voluisti meritis et doctrinis.59

concede, ut eius intercessione temporalibus non destituatur auxiliis

CO 1752: Deus, qui ineffabilibus mundum renovas sacramentis, praesta, quaesumus, ut ecclesia tua et aeternis proficiat institutis et temporalibus non destituatur auxiliis.60

et spiritualibus semper proficiat incrementis.

CO 1557: Deus qui ecclesiam tuam apostolicis voluisti constare doctrinis concede propitius ut intercessione beati Theodori confessoris tui atque pontificis et virtutum semper proficiat incrementis et sempiternis foveatur auxiliis.61

As shown in Table 62, with the exception of Poitiers, BM 12,62 all five bible missals with the Dominic formulary include the pre-1244 exemplis. Among the pre-Humbert missals, Los Angeles and Paris both provide exemplis, Lausanne originally gave 56 Cf. Dirks 1971, p. 167. Dirks does not point out the parallel with the opening lines of the Francis collect, but the use of Deus qui before the postcommunion incipit opening words Ecclesiam tuam seems to be a combination of elements from both the collect and the postcommunion. Callebaut 1927 points out a parallel between meritis et exemplis in the original form of the Dominic collect and a phrase from the 1234 Bull of Canonization of St. Dominic Fons sapientie: “Pastor et dux inclitus in populo dei factus, nouum predicatorum ordinem instituit meritis, ordinauit exemplis nec miraculis confirmare desiit euidentibus et probatis” (ed. Tugwell 2008, p. 574). While this parallel is intriguing, it seems likely that the Francis postcommunion is a more direct source for the Dominic collect. Although the phrase meritis et exemplis only appears in two other Corpus Orationum prayers, both of which are edited from post-13th-century sources (CO 1769 and CO 2421b), the words meritis and exemplis are paired in other ways in ten sources included in the verbal concordance of early sacramentaries edited by Deshusses and Darragon 1983; see the entry for exemplum in v. III/2, p. 61. 57 It is also possible that a version of the prayer is found in other sources available to the author of the Dominic collect that are not indexed in the Corpus Orationum. 58 This opening phrase is used by CO 1553a–CO1576. 59 Although the CO apparatus does not mention any variants for doctrinis, all of the 13th-century Franciscan bible missals provide meritis et exemplis for the Francis postcommunion; see Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202, ff. 193rb–va; Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3, f. 396ra; Darmstadt, ULB 1967, f. 307va; London, BL, Harley 2813, ff. 227vb–228ra; Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst., f. 204rb. Filippo Sedda’s editions of other 13th-century Franciscan sources for the St. Francis mass formulary uniformly give meritis et exemplis: see Sedda 2015, pp. 368, 384, 392. Given the transition in the Dominican tradition from meritis et exemplis to meritis et doctrinis, it is intriguing that later Franciscan sources undergo the same change; it is possible that the Dominican development may have influenced the later Franciscan practice. 60 This collect is assigned in many medieval sources for the Thursday or Friday of the Fourth Week of Lent. An almost identical version of this prayer (with the omission of et before aeternis) appears on Friday of the Fourth Week of Lent in Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, ff. 530vb– 531ra. The same phrase is also found in two other prayers in the Corpus Orationum, although these have a less wide distribution and are consequently less likely direct sources for the Dominic collect. CO 820: “Conserva, quaesumus, domine, populum tuum et gratiae tuae in eo dona multiplica, ut, ab omnibus liber offensis, et temporalibus non destituatur auxiliis et sempiternis gaudeat institutis.” CO 5023: “Rege, domine, populum tuum et gratiae tuae in eo dona multiplica, ut, ab omnibus liber offensis, et temporalibus non destituatur auxiliis et sempiternis gaudeat institutis.” 61 This prayer is only found in one CO source, Cantuar (= Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 270), a late-11th- or early 12th-century “Gélasien grégorianisé” sacramentary known as the Missal of St. Augustine’s Abbey Canterbury. The St. Theodore in this case is the 19 September feast of St. Theodore of Tarsus († 690), Archbishop of Canterbury. 62 The St. Dominic prayers in Poitiers, BM 12 were clearly added at some point after 1253, given the presence of prayers for St. Peter Martyr in the same hand.

3.2 Orations for St. Dominic  

 85

exemplis, and Karlsruhe and Mons give doctrinis in the original hand. Aside from the exemplis/meritis distinction, only one source has a textual variant: the Cambridge bible missal gives destruatur (be demolished / torn down) instead of destituatur (be without). This is a scribal error, as the resulting meaning of being “torn down by temporal assistance” is clearly non-sensical. Table 62: Collect for St. Dominic in Dominican sources. Text

Manuscripts

Deus qui ecclesiam tuam beati dominici confessoris tui illuminare dignatus es meritis et exemplis concede ut eius intercessione temporalibus non destituatur auxiliis et spiritualibus semper proficiat incrementis. Per.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (destruatur instead of destituatur) Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 Paris, Mazarine 31 Rome, Angelica 32 Lausanne, MHL 10 (exemplis erased and replaced with doctrinis; eius intercessione written over an erasure) Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Deus qui ecclesiam tuam beati dominici confessoris tui illuminare dignatus es meritis et doctrinis concede ut eius intercessione temporalibus non destituatur auxiliis et spiritualibus semper proficiat incrementis. Per.

Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 Poitiers, BM 12 Mons, BC 63/201

The Dominic collect is included in the meritis et exemplis version in the two non-Dominican bible missals which include a mass formulary for St. Dominic.63 Apart from punctuation, the two versions are identical with each other and with the form found in most pre-Humbert Dominican sources.

3.2.2 Secret In contrast to the two versions of the Dominic collect, the secret for St. Dominic is essentially stable in pre-Humbert Dominican sources, closely matching the version given in CO 3494 (although Dominican sources provide et instead of ut in the middle of the prayer). Like the Dominic collect, the Dominic secret also takes inspiration from the prayers for St. Francis, drawing the opening five words from the Francis secret CO 3493. After a formulaic invocation of the merits of the saint, the prayer borrows a request found in many postcommunion orations (e.g., CO 4194, the postcommunion for Ash Wednesday) that the Eucharistic offerings may bring about healing for the recipient (Table 63). Table 63: Textual Sources for the St. Dominic Secret (CO 3494). Munera, tibi, domine, dicata, sanctifica,

CO 3493 (Francis secret): Munera, tibi, domine, dicata, sanctifica et, intercedente beato Francisco, ab omni nos culparum labe purifica.64

ut meritis beati Dominici confessoris tui nobis proficiant ad medelam.

CO 4194 (Ash Wednesday postcommunion): Percepta nobis domine praebeant tua sacramenta subsidium ut et tibi grata sint nostra ieiunia et nobis proficiant ad medelam.65

63 Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3, f. 393va; Darmstadt, ULB 1967, f. 304rb. 64 Many sources in the Corpus Orationum use the opening three words Munera tibi domine, but only the Francis and Dominic secrets use them together with dicata sanctifica. 65 This phrase appears 15 times in the Corpus Orationum, sometimes in temporal orations like the postcommunion for Ash Wednesday (CO 4194) and more often in sanctoral orations like the Vigil of St. Andrew postcommunion (CO 4200c: “Perceptis domine sacramentis suppliciter exoramus ut intercedente beato Andrea apostolo tuo quae pro illius veneranda gerimus passione nobis proficiant ad medelam.”). It is striking that the phrase appears predominantly in postcommunion prayers; the Dominic secret is the only secret prayer that makes use of it in the Corpus Oratio­ num. One prayer that contains the phrase, CO 2503, is provided with the rubric Alia oratio unius apostoli in the Corpus Orationum. This prayer is only contained in one indexed source: Ratisb §1301 (= Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, Cod. LXXXVII (82), f. 164v, ed. Gamber and Rehle 1985, p. 219), where it is found as the fourth prayer in a section labelled Orationes unius apostoli with the rubric Alia before the prayer itself. It is thus not entirely clear what genre this Oratio belongs to, although the text of the prayer suggests that it is also a postcommunion.

86 

 3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books

The Dominic secret prayer appears with only two variations among Dominican and non-Dominican sources.66 First, as noted above, all Dominican sources provide et instead of the CO 3494 ut,67 while the two non-Dominican sources both provide ut.68 Second, Rome, Angelica 32 provides merita instead of meritis, which is likely a simple scribal error.69

3.2.3 Postcommunion While the collect and secret for St. Dominic are modelled on prayers for St. Francis, the postcommunion for St. Dominic (CO 766) is closely related to the collect for St. Gregory the Great and to an oration found in many early liturgical sources for Vespers (or occasionally mass) on the Monday or Tuesday in the Octave of Easter (Table 64).70 The opening ten words are identical to the Easter Vespers oration CO 765, while six words of the same phrase and the closing word of the collect are shared with the St. Gregory oration (CO 1354). Although more of the text is shared with the Easter Vespers oration than with the St. Gregory oration, it seems more likely that the composer of St. Dominic postcommunion was consciously drawing on the St. Gregory oration given the shared closing word (preceded by the thematically related precibus in the St. Gregory oration and patrocinio in the St. Dominic postcommunion) and the similar liturgical context of the two prayers; it is possible that greater the overlap with the Easter Vespers oration is coincidental given the formulaic nature of the opening four words.71 Table 64: Textual Sources for the St. Dominic Postcommunion (CO 766). Concede, quaesumus, omnipotens deus, ut, qui peccatorum nostrorum pondere premimur, beati Dominici confessoris tui patrocinio sublevemur.

CO 765 (Easter Vespers oration): Concede, quaesumus, omnipotens deus, ut, qui peccatorum nostrorum pondere premimur, a cunctis malis imminentibus per haec paschalia festa liberemur. CO 1354 (St. Gregory oration): Deus, qui animae famuli tui Gregorii aeternae beatitudinis praemia contulisti, concede propitius, ut, qui peccatorum nostrorum pondere premimur, eius apud te precibus sublevemur.

The St. Dominic postcommunion generally appears in the Dominican sources in a form identical to the CO 766 version given in Table 64 with only a few minor textual variations or scribal errors. While most sources use the standard genre rubric Post­ communio, Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 introduces the prayer with the unusual Completa (although this missal typically uses the term Postcommunio)72 and Paris, BnF, latin 8884 omits a genre rubric.73 Poitiers, BM 12 has a minor textual variation, with the addition of et before beati dominici.74 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 has a corrected scribal error.75 The two 66 As with all the other formularies it contains in the opening section of the manuscript, Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 2vb labels the prayer Sacra; all other manuscripts use the term Secreta. 67 For a characteristic example, see Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 551vb: “Munera tibi domine dicata sanctifica, et meritis beati dominici confessoris tui nobis proficiant ad medelam. Per.” 68 See Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3, f. 393va: “Munera tibi domine dicata sanctifica: ut meritis beati dominici confessoris tui nobis proficiant ad medelam. Per.” An identical text is provided in Darmstadt, ULB 1967, f. 304rb. 69 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 214rb: “Munera tibi domine dicata sanctifica et merita beati dominici confessoris tui, nobis proficiant ad medelam. Per.” 70 For an overview of the liturgical uses of CO 765, see Corpus Orationum 1 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160), p. 374. Although this prayer does not appear to have been used in the Dominican liturgy, it is found for Vespers on the Monday in the Octave of Easter in the late 13th-century sacramentary from S. Maria in Aquiro in Rome, Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 356, f. 125v. 71 The first four words are a formulaic opening shared by 66 prayers in the Corpus Orationum; it is thus conceivable that the St. Gregory oration was the main inspiration for the St. Dominic postcommunion, but that it was paired with a standard opening that happened to be shared with the Easter Vespers oration. 72 See Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, f. 181rb. This source also uses the term Introitus for the St. Dominic introit while usually using Officium throughout the rest of the manuscript. In both cases, the rubrics appear to be in a different hand than the usual rubricator. It is possible that they were left blank originally and that a later scribe added the rubrics. 73 Paris, BnF, latin 8884, f. 214ra–rb. In this case the omission seems to be the result of the text scribe having failed to leave sufficient space for a rubric. 74 Poitiers, BM 12, f. 535r (addition in lower margin): “Postcommunio. Concede quesumus omnipotens deus: ut qui peccatorum nostrorum pondere premimur: et beati dominici confessoris tui patrocinio sublevemur. Per.” 75 After the phrase beati dominici confessoris tui, the scribe originally transcribed the words that follow this form of the name in the secret: nobis proficiant ad medelam; the scribe then wrote the correct ending, patrocinio sublevemur, and added vacat at the beginning and end of the nobis

3.2 Orations for St. Dominic  

 87

non-Dominican bible missals with the St. Dominic formulary share a variant: both sources add the word intercedente before beati dominici.76 Although further study is needed to determine the range of variations in other non-Dominican sources, similar variations can be found in 13th-century non-Dominican liturgical books: one late 13th-century sacramentary from Anagni includes the same intercedente variant,77 while a late 13th-century sacramentary from Rome provides intercessione in the same place.78

3.2.4 Orations for the Translation of St. Dominic While most Dominican liturgical sources indicate that the same orations are to be used on the 24 May Translation and 5 August feast of St. Dominic, Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 includes an alternate set of prayers for the Translation added by a later hand at the bottom of the folio which contains the formulary for St. Dominic (f. 204r). The Translation formulary contains an oration, secret, and postcommunion prayer (Table 65). These three prayers are adaptations of prayers found in the Corpus Orationum for the translations of Edmund of Abingdon and Thomas Becket. According to the apparatus of the Corpus Orationum, these prayers appear in a small number of sources (five or six respectively) assigned alternatively to Edmund or Thomas.79 The fact that all of the indexed sources are of British origin suggests that the individual who added these prayers to the margin adapted them from liturgical sources available locally in England. Table 65: Textual Sources for the Translation of St. Dominic Orations. Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 204r (addition in lower margin)

Corpus Orationum

In translatione beati dominici Oratio. Deus, qui nobis translationem beati dominici confessoris tui celebrare concedis, te supplices exoramus, ut eius meritis et precibus a vitiis ad virtutes et a carcere transferamur ad regnum. Per. Secreta. Deus, qui panem et vinum in corpus tuum et sanguinem celesti benedictione convertis, concede propitius, ut, ad tuam misericordiam revertentes, tuo beneplacito conformemur. Qui vivis et regnas cum deo patre. Postcommunio. Deus, qui beatum dominicum confessorem tuum a suppliciis ad gaudia transtulisti, tribue, quesumus, ut, qui translationem eius veneramur in terris, per eius patrocinium ad caelestia transferamur. Per dominum nostrum.

CO1857. Deus, qui nos beati Edmundi confessoris tui atque pontificis translationem celebrare concedis, te supplices exoramus, ut eius meritis et precibus a vitiis ad virtutes et a carcere transferamur ad regnum. CO1957. Deus, qui panem et vinum in corpus tuum et sanguinem caelesti benedictione convertis, concede nobis per merita sancti Thomae martyris tui atque pontificis, ut, ad tuam misericordiam revertentes, tuo beneplacito conformemur. CO1439. Deus, qui beatum Edmundum confessorem tuum atque pontificem a suppliciis ad gaudia transtulisti, tribue, quaesumus, ut, qui translationem eius veneramur in terris, per eius patrocinium ad caelestia transferamur.

proficiant ad medelam, and the rubricator subsequently crossed out the erroneous text in red ink: Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 551vb: “Postcommunio. Concede quesumus omnipotens deus: ut qui peccatorum nostrorum pondere premimur beati dominici confessoris tui [-nobis proficiant ad medelam] patrocinio sublevemur. Per.” 76 Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3, f. 393va: “Postcommunio. Concede quesumus omnipotens deus: ut qui peccatorum nostrorum pondere premimur: intercedente beati dominici confessoris tui patrocinio sublevemur: Per.” An identical text (with punctuation variants) appears in Darmstadt, ULB 1967, f. 304rb. 77 Vatican City, BAV, Chig.C.VI.174, ff. 167v–168r: “Postcommunio. Concede quesumus omnipotens deus ut qui peccatorum nostrorum pondere premimur, intercedente beati dominici confessoris tui patrocinio sublevemur. Per.” 78 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 356, f. 203r: “Completa. Concede quesumus omnipotens deus ut qui peccatorum nostrorum pondere premimur, intercessione beati dominici confessoris tui patrocinio sublevemur. Per.” 79 See Corpus Orationum 2 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160A), p. 255; Corpus Orationum 3 (CCSL 160B), pp. 70, 119.

88 

 3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books

3.2.5 Summary Pre-Humbert Dominican sources for the mass of St. Dominic provide stable versions of the collect, secret, and postcommunion for St. Dominic, generally indicating that the same prayers should be used for the 5 August main feast and the 24 May Translation (although a later hand added proper orations for the Translation of St. Dominic in Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7). Of the three prayers, the only one with significant variations among multiple Dominican sources is the collect, which appears in earlier sources with the phrase meritis et exemplis and in later sources with the phrase meritis et doctrinis. This shift appears to have been legislatively introduced in 1244, although the earliest manuscripts with this feature may reflect the reforms of the four friars confirmed in 1248.80 The three orations are new compositions which draw extensively on earlier orations; the collect adopts phrases from the collect and postcommunion for St. Francis and the secret borrows phrases from the secret for St. Francis, while the postcommunion is closely related to the collect for St. Gregory and a collect for Vespers within the Octave of Easter. The two non-Dominican bible missals which include proper prayers for St. Dominic, both of which are Franciscan full missals, provide versions that are generally close to the Dominican prayers, but contain a few shared variants in the secret and postcommunion prayers. These two sources provide the original form of the Dominic collect, presenting meritis et exemplis rather than meritis et doctrinis. The inclusion of shared variants not found in any Dominican manuscripts suggests that the compilers of these Franciscan missals were not drawing directly on Dominican books to supply the orations for St. Dominic. It is likely that the collects were composed in conjunction with the 1234 canonization of St. Dominic and that they were transmitted in related versions by Dominican and non-Dominican sources.81

3.3 Readings for St. Dominic A comparison of the readings for St. Dominic offered by Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert missals shows relative uniformity among the selection offered for the epistle and a broader range of options for the gospel. No sources specify different readings for the 24 May Translation and the 5 August feast.

3.3.1 Epistle Most pre-Humbert Dominican sources indicate the use of II Tim 4:1–8 as the epistle for St. Dominic. This pericope is found in the early lectionary sources for various occasions including the vigil of St. Lawrence, the feast of St. Augustine, and the vigil mass for the Common of One Priest.82 In later medieval sources, the epistle is sometimes assigned for saints like St. Timothy, St. Felix, St. Luke, and St. Wolfgang, and is included in some medieval sources as part of the Common of Saints.83 The pericope is included pre-Humbert Dominican sources as one of the selections for the Common of One

80 For further details, see the discussion of the St. Dominic collect on pp. 62–64 above. 81 See the discussion of the composition of orations for newly canonized saints on p. 59 above. 82 The early 8th-century Comes of Würzburg (Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, M.p.th.f.62, f. 7r, ed. Morin 1910, p. 61) assigns II Tim 2:1–8 to the occasion In uigilias sancti laurenti. This source provides the incipit and explicit, making the extent of the passage clear. The late 8th-century Comes of Murbach provides the same incipit (without specifying the explicit) for the Deposition of St. Augustine and for the Vigil of One Holy Priest: see Besançon, BM 184 (ed. Wilmart 1913, pp. 48, 53): “IIII. k. sep. deposs. sancti agustini episcopi. … Kmi testificor.” “In vig. unius sancti sacerd. — II. Tim. K. testificor.” The 8th/9th-century Lectionary of Corbie (St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, Ms. Lat. Q.v.I.16, ed. Frere 1935, p. 20; cf. Gamber 1968, p. 432, n. 1005 and Bischoff 2004, p. 83, n. 2318) gives the full text of II Tim 4:1–8 for the occasion “In vig. unius Sacerdotis.” This pericope is not assigned in several other early lectionary sources; cf. Chavasse 1993, v. 1, p. 58. 83 While it is difficult to survey the use of this pericope in the sanctoral and common cycles of later sources due to the lack of editions and databases that include such texts for high medieval sources, a search for “Testificor” in the Cantus Network database of Libri ordinarii from the Salzburg metropolitan province gives 45 results, with the largest number for the saints mentioned above; see https://gams.uni-graz.at/context:cantus. In Maura O’Connell’s survey of the Common of One Confessor in various medieval English missals, only one source included the II Tim pericope (London, BL, Add. MS 18031/18032 [the Stavelot Missal]); the II Tim pericope is not included among the nine choices O’Carroll lists from London, BL, Add. MS 17742, ff. 222rb–225va; see O’Carroll 2005, pp. 581–582.

3.3 Readings for St. Dominic  

 89

Confessor in four sources84 and omitted from the Common of Saints in two sources.85 Although the II Tim pericope does not appear universally in medieval versions of the Common of Saints, its provision in all of the Dominican sources for St. Dominic is perhaps partially inspired by its inclusion in the Common in some Dominican sources. The text is thematically appropriate for the founder of the Order of Preachers, especially given the exhortation praedica verbum (II Tim 4:2). Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 indicates two different epistles, first providing the unusual pericope II Cor 2:14–17 and then listing the more common II Tim 4:1–8 pericope with the rubric Alia epistula. II Cor 2:14–17 is an unusual liturgical pericope in western liturgical sources.86 It was likely assigned by the compiler of the Dominic formulary represented by the Cambridge bible missal on account of the references to the “good aroma of Christ” (Christi bonus odor) and the “aroma of life” (odor vitae),87 which call to mind the beautiful aroma reported by those who attended the translation of the St. Dominic.88 As Table 66 shows, while all the pre-Humbert missals provide the full text of the epistle, most Dominican bible missals only provide a reference to the reading within the formulary or epistle and gospel list; only Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 provides the full text. The bible missals have a range of specificity with regard to the indication of the epistle and make use of a variety of methods to indicate the combined information of the number of the book and the chapter number for II Tim 4. While most sources distinguish the two numbers by placing the book number before the book title and the chapter number after the book title, two sources (the first epistle and gospel list in Rome, Angelica 32 and the epistle and gospel list in Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532) place two dots above the name of the biblical book to indicate II Tim. The epistle and gospel list in the Private Collection bible has a standard incipit, but an erroneous explicit, providing Testificor coram deo (II Tim 4:1) for the incipit but pairing it with Hec loquere et exortare (Tit 2:15).89

84 See Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), f. 6ra–rb (epistle and gospel list); Rome, Angelica 32, f. 19re; Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 513ra; Lausanne, MHL 10, ff. 185vb–186ra; Paris, BnF, latin 8884, ff. 262vb–263ra. 85 See Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 557va–vb; Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, ff. 208vb–209va. Given that the pericope is also omitted from the Common of Saints in the reformed liturgy of Humbert of Romans, it is conceivable that it was consciously removed from the Common of Saints in order to “reserve” it for the feasts of St. Dominic; for the selection of readings of for the Common of One Confessor in the Humbert liturgy, see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 435ra–rb (Epistolarium) and 498ra (Missale minorum altarium). 86 The Usuarium database includes six sources which assign this pericope to the Friday in the 25th week after Trinity: https://usuarium.elte.hu/ itemrepertory/3244/view. I have not yet located any other uses of this passage for a sanctoral liturgy. The Thales Database (http://www.lectionary. eu/) includes nine Syriac and Coptic liturgical sources that make use of this passage for various occasions, including two sources that assign it to a liturgy for the consecration of chrism. 87 II Cor 2:14–17 (ed. Colunga and Turrado 1965): “Deo autem gratias, qui semper triumphat nos in Christo Iesu, et odorem notitiae suae manifestat per nos in omni loco: quia Christi bonus odor sumus Deo in iis qui salvi fiunt, et in his qui pereunt: aliis quidem odor mortis in mortem: aliis autem odor vitae in vitam. Et ad haec quis tam idoneus? non enim sumus sicut plurimi, adulterantes verbum Dei, sed ex sinceritate, sed sicut ex Deo, coram Deo, in Christo loquimur.” 88 The Dominican friar and hagiographer Bartholomew of Trent (c. 1200–c. 1251), who was present at the Translation of in 1233, gives an eyewitness account of the event in his entry for the 24 May feast in his Liber epilogorum in gesta sanctorum (Bartolomeo da Trento 2001, pp. 128–129; for an English translation of this passage, see Tugwell 1982, pp. 92–93). Bartholomew mentions a beautiful aroma that came from the opened casket of Dominic and likens it to the “good aroma of Christ” mentioned in II Cor 2:15): “Cuius operculum removentes, tantam suavitatem odoris omnes persenserunt ac si apotheca paradisi eructuasset. Erat autem odor ille aliis odoribus fragrantia dissimilis et, ut liquido dominici eloquii predicatorem Dominicum pateret in agro Ecclesie Christi bonum odorem fuisse, videbatur odor agri pleni, cui Deus benedixit.” This aroma is also referenced in strophe 15 of the St. Dominic sequence In celesti: “O quam probat carnis florem / Omnem superans odorem / Tumuli fragrantia!” 89 The cause of this error is not obvious. Tit 2:11–15a (Apparuit gratia dei salvatoris nostri … Hec loquere et exhortare) is found in many medieval liturgical traditions as the Epsitle for the mass in the Night of Christmas. It is indicated for that occasion in the temporal section of the Private Collection Wellington Bible’s epistle and gospel list on f. 3va: “In prima missa. Lectio. Ys. ix. Populus gencium. Fi. A modo et usque in sempiternum. Epistula. Titum. ii. f. Apparuit gratia dei. Fi. Hec loquere et exortare.” Aside from sources that also assign it for Epiphany or for other days within the Christmas season, I have not been able to locate any examples of this epistle being used in other contexts. The scribe of this epistle and gospel list may have made an eye slip when copying from a source which presented the Titus reading in a liturgical context near the St. Dominic readings or may have repeated a mistake that was already present in an exemplar.

90 

 3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 66: St. Dominic Epistles in Dominican Bible Missals. Manuscript

Folio

Rubric

Text

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (full missal formulary)

551va

ii ad corinthios secundo g

Fratres: deo gracias qui semper triumphat nos in christo ihesu. Finis. Sicut ex deo coram deo in christo loquimur.

Ibid. (full missal formulary)

551va

Alia epistula. ii Thimotheum iiii

Karissime: Testificor coram deo. Finis. Sed et hiis qui diligunt adventum eius. In christo ihesu: domino nostro.

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 (votive missal formulary)

204r

Ad Thimotheum

Karissime: Testificor coram deo et ihesu christo (full text).

Poitiers, BM 12 (epistle and gospel list)

520v (addition in lower margin)

Epistula. ii Thi iiii.a.

Testificor coram. Fi. diligunt adventum eius.

Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (festive missal formulary)

395ra

Epistula. ii. Ad timotheum. iiii.

[Karissi]me. Testificor coram deo.

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) (epistle and gospel list)

5v

Epistula. ii Tim. iiii.a.

Testificor coram deo. [= II Tim 4:1] Fi. Hec loquere et exortare. [= Tit 2:15]

Rome, Angelica 32 (epistle and gospel list)

19rc

Tim¨. 4.

Testificor.

Ibid. (epistle and gospel list)

466rc

Epistula. Tim. ii. iiii.

Testificor coram deo. F. [blank]

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 (epistle and gospel list)

512va

Epistula. Thy¨ 4

Testificor coram deo. Fi. adventum eius.

The sources that present the full text of II Tim 4:1–8 are substantially similar to the Clementine Vulgate (Table 67).90 Leaving aside obvious scribal errors, the only significant textual variants are the inversion of Iesu Christo in most sources for verse 1a, the use of et or et per instead of per in many sources for 1b, the omission of autem by one source in verse 4, the inversion of resolutionis meae by most sources in verse 6, the omission of dominus by one source and the substitution of omnibus for iis in one source in verse 8. Lausanne, MHL 10 originally included a non-biblical concluding phrase at the end of the passage (In christo ihesu domino nostro) which was later erased; this phrase also appears in the Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 as part of the explicit for the reading. Table 67: Textual Variations in the St. Dominic Epistle (II Tim 4:1–8). II Tim 4:1–8 (ed. Colunga and Turrado 1965, p. 115)

Variants in Dominican Sources91

1a

Testificor coram Deo, et Iesu Christo, qui iudicaturus est vivos et mortuos,

Iesu Christo] Oxford; christo ihesu: pre-Humbert missals

1b

per adventum ipsius, et regnum eius:

per] et: Oxford, Karlsruhe, Los Angeles, Mons; et per: Paris; et [-per?]: Lausanne92

2

praedica verbum, insta opportune, importune: argue, obsecra, increpa in omni patientia, et doctrina.

3

Erit enim tempus, cum sanam doctrinam non sustinebunt, sed ad sua desideria coacervabunt sibi magistros, prurientes auribus,

tempus] spiritus: Oxford

90 The Clementine Vulgate is used as the basis for comparison because its text and punctuation are closer to 13th-century sources than the Weber and Gryson 2007 edition of the Vulgate. Cf. Houghton 2016, p. 132: “The Clementine Vulgate is often a better guide to the text of the mediaeval Vulgate than critical editions of the earliest attainable text.” Houghton identifies the 1946 Clementine Vulgate edited by Colunga and Turrado to be “the current standard reference edition”; I have made use of the 4th edition, Colunga and Turrado 1965. I will refer when appropriate to the apparatus of the Stuttgart Vulgate (ed. Weber and Gryson 2007) as well as the fuller apparatus of the Oxford Vulgate (ed. Wordsworth and White 1889–1954). For an overview of the differences between the Clementine, Stuttgart, and Oxford editions of the Vulgate, see Houghton 2016, pp. 127–133. For a helpful guide to the manuscript sources used in the Stuttgart Vulgate and Oxford Vulgate apparatus which I have relied on for the dating and localization of the Vetus Latina and Vulgate sources mentioned below, see Houghton 2016, pp. 209–281. 91 For full shelfmarks, see Table 66. 92 It appears that per was originally written after et and later erased.

3.3 Readings for St. Dominic  

 91

Table 67 (continued) II Tim 4:1–8 (ed. Colunga and Turrado 1965, p. 115)

Variants in Dominican Sources91

4

et a veritate quidem auditum avertent, ad fabulas autem convertentur.

autem] omitted in Oxford

5

Tu vero vigila, in omnibus labora, opus fac evangelistae, ministerium tuum imple. Sobrius esto.

6

Ego enim iam delibor, et tempus resolutionis meae instat.

7

Bonum certamen certavi, cursum consummavi, fidem servavi.

8

In reliquo reposita est mihi corona iustitiae, quam reddet mihi Dominus in illa die iustus iudex: non solum autem mihi, sed et iis, qui diligunt adventum eius.

resolutionis mee] Paris, Mons; mee resolutionis: Oxford, Karlsruhe, Lausanne, Los Angeles Dominus] omitted in Paris iis] omnibus: Mons In christo ihesu: domino nostro.] Cambridge, Lausanne (later erased in Lausanne)

3.3.2 Gospel In contrast to the relative uniformity of the selections for the epistle, the gospel for St. Dominic shows a much greater degree of variation. Pre-Humbert sources provide either one or two selections for the gospel pericope, making use of three different pericopes taken from Mt 5, Mc 6, and Mc 10. Table 68 shows the selection and order of the gospel in each source as well as its mode of presentation and biblical source. Table 68: St. Dominic Gospels in Dominican sources. Manuscript

Folio

Rubric

Text

Biblical Source

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (full missal formulary)

551va

Evangelium marci VI

In illo tempore: Circuibat ihesus castella: finis. Et ungebant oleo multos: et sanabantur.

Mc 6:6b–13

Ibid. (full missal formulary)

551va

Alia evangelium. Mathei V.

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Vos estis sal terre. Finis. Hic magnus vocabitur in regno celorum.

Mt 5:13–19

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 (votive missal formulary)

204r

Secundum marcum

In illo tempore: Dixit Ihesus discipulis suis: Filioli quam difficile … vitam eternam. [Full text]

Mc 10:24b–30

Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (festive missal formulary)

395rb

Evang. Marc. VI.

Circuibat ihesus castella in circuitu.

Mc 6:6b–13

Ibid. (festive missal formulary)

395rb

[blank]

Vos estis sal terre.

Mt 5:13–19

Poitiers, BM 12 (epistle and gospel list)

520v (addition in lower margin)

Evangelium. Mt. V.b.

Vos estis sal fi. magnus vocabitur in regno celorum.

Mt 5:13–19

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) (epistle and gospel list)

5v

Evangelium

Vos estis sal terre.

Mt 5:13–19

Ibid. (epistle and gospel list)

5v

vel aliud Marcum vi.a.

Circuibat castella fi. testimonium illis.

Mc 6:6b–11

Rome, Angelica 32 (epistle and gospel list)

19rc

Mt. V.

Vos estis sal.

Mt 5:13–19

Ibid. (epistle and gospel list)

466rc

Evangelium Marcum [VI.b.]

Circuibat ihesus.

Mc 6:6b–13

Bible missals

Ibid. (epistle and gospel list)

466rc

Vel. Mt. [V.b].

Vos estis sal.

Mt 5:13–19

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 (epistle and gospel list)

512va

Evangelium Mt. V.

Vos estis sal terre. Fi. In regno celorum.

Mt 5:13–19

92 

 3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 68 (continued) Manuscript

Folio

Rubric

Text

Biblical Source

Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 (full missal formulary)

230ra–rb

Secundum matheum. [margin: V]

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Vos estis sal terre. … in regno celorum. [Full text]

Mt 5:13–19

Ibid. (full missal formulary)

230va

Item aliud evangelium. Secundum marcum.

In illo tempore: Circuibat ihesus castella: … et sanabantur. [Full text]

Mc 6:6b–13

Lausanne, MHL 10 (full missal formulary)

162vb–163ra

Secundum matheum.

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Vos estis sal terre. … regno celorum. [Full text]

Mt 5:13–19

Ibid. (full missal formulary)

163ra–rb

Aliud. Secundum marcum.

In illo tempore: Circuibat ihesus castella … et sanabantur. [Full text]

Mc 6:6b–13

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (full missal formulary)

181rb

Secundum matheum.

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Vos estis … in regno celorum. [Full text]

Mt 5:13–19

Mons, BC 63/201 (full missal formulary)

217vb–218ra

Secundum matheum.

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Vos estis sal terre. … in regno celorum. [Full text]

Mt 5:13–19

Paris, BnF, latin 8884 (full missal formulary)

213vb–214ra

Secundum matheum.

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Vos estis sal terre. … in regno celorum. [Full text]

Mt 5:13–19

New Haven, Beinecke, Music Deposit 99

110v–111r

Evangelium secundum matheum

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Vos estis sal terre. … in regno celorum. [Full text]

Mt 5:13–19

Ibid.

111r–111v

Item aliud evangelium. Secundum marcum.

In illo tempore: Circuibat ihesus castella … et sanabantur. [Full text]

Mc 6:6b–13

Pre-Humbert missals

Pre-Humbert Evangelarium

Of the three pericopes, Mt 5:13–19 is the most common, appearing in thirteen of fourteen sources.93 Versions of the Mc 6 pericope appears in seven sources, with six sources presenting a longer version (Mc 6:6b–13) and one source indicating a shorter version (Mc 6:6b–11). The least common pericope is Mc 10:24b–30, which only appears in Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 (where it is the sole gospel reading). Seven sources present both Mt 5 and Mc 6 but differ in the order in which the two readings appear, with four sources placing Mt 5 first and three sources prioritizing Mc 6. As Table 69 indicates, the thirteen sources outlined in Table 68 present a total of five different arrangements of readings. Table 69: Arrangements of St. Dominic Gospel in Dominican Sources. Mt 5:13–19 as only gospel

Poitiers, BM 12 (epistle and gospel list) Rome, Angelica 32 (19rc) (epistle and gospel list) Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 (epistle and gospel list) Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (pre-Humbert missal) Mons, BC 63/201 (pre-Humbert missal) Paris, BnF, latin 8884 (pre-Humbert missal)

Mt 5:13–19 followed by Mc 6:6b–13

Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 (pre-Humbert missal) Lausanne, MHL 10 (pre-Humbert missal) New Haven, Beinecke, Music Deposit 99 (pre-Humbert evangelarium)

93 Table 68 contains eleven distinct manuscripts, but Rome, Angelica 32 is considered here as two sources, as the epistle and gospel lists on ff. 19r and 466r belong to two different production units and present different selections of readings for St. Dominic.

3.3 Readings for St. Dominic  

 93

Table 69 (continued) Mt 5:13–19 followed by Mc 6:6b–11

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) (epistle and gospel list)

Mc 6:6b–13 followed by Mt 5:13–19

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (bible with full missal) Rome, Angelica 32 (466rc) (epistle and gospel list) Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (bible with festive missal)

Mc 10:24b–30 as only gospel

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 (bible with votive missal)

Of the sources that provide two gospels for St. Dominic, only one gives a rubric that offers details about how the two gospels are to be used. After the postcommunion for St. Dominic, Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20, f. 230vb provides a rubric that specifies that the same mass texts are used for the celebration of the feast throughout the octave, but that the two gospel passages may be said in alternation: Per octavam fiat sic in die, nisi quod evangelia predicta dici poterunt alter­ natim. Given the uncertainty as to when the octave of St. Dominic was instituted, it is not clear that this rubric can be used to interpret the presence of two gospels in the other sources, particularly as the Karlsruhe manuscript is one of the later pre-Humbert missals. 3.3.2.1 Mt 5 The most commonly assigned gospel pericope for St. Dominic is Mt 5:13–19. This pericope is not found in early Roman lectionary sources94 but appears in the c. 700 Lectionary of Luxeuil for the Common of a Bishop.95 In later medieval sources it is sometimes included in the Common of Confessors and occasionally specified as belonging to the Common of Doctors, although early Dominican sources do not include it as part of the Common of Saints.96 The pericope was likely chosen for St. Dominic on account of its thematic focus on light and the authentic proclamation of the truth. The full text of the gospel pericope is given in five sources: the Karlsruhe, Lausanne, Los Angeles, Mons and Paris pre-Humbert missals and the New Haven pre-Humbert Evangelarium. As Table 70 shows, the liturgical versions of this pericope are generally in close conformity with the Clementine Vulgate, although a majority of the liturgical sources originally contained the addition of legem in 17b (in contrast to the Vulgate inclusion of legem in 17a but not 17b). Aside from this and a standard version of the liturgical In illo tempore introduction, all other variants are either the result of obvious scribal error (not noted here) or minor variations (17c and 18a).

94 Klauser’s Typus Δ set of gospel pericopes includes a subset of these verses, Mt 5:17–19, on the Wednesday of the Third Week after Pentecost; see Klauser 1935, p. 156, §180. For context on this type of gospel source and comparison with other scholarship on the topic, see Vogel 1986, pp. 343–344. 95 Paris, BnF, latin 9427, f. 233r; ed. Salmon 1944, pp. 203–204. The pericope is given in a section of readings introduced with the rubric LXXI. Item in Natale Episcoporum. 96 O’Carroll 2005, p. 582 reports that London, BL, Add. MS 17742 includes Mt 5:13–19 as the last of eight gospels for the Common of One Confessor. The Franciscan Ordo Missalis provides the pericope within a section labelled In natali unius confessoris pontificis but specifies its use particularly for doctoribus: see Van Dijk 1963, v. 2, pp. 312–323. The pericope is not assigned to any Common in pre-Humbert Dominican sources or in the reformed liturgy of Humbert. Bériou and Hodel 2019, pp. 1462–1463 draw attention to an anecdote related in the c. 1285–1298 Vita s. Dominici by Theodericus de Apolda (c. 1228–c. 1298; cf. https://www.geschichtsquellen.de/werk/4471) concerning a brother from another religious order who refuses to say the Vos estis gospel for St. Dominic because he thinks that it should be reserved for “doctors and apostolic saints” (quod proprie doc­ toribus et apostolicis Sanctis congruit; ed. Acta Sanctorum Augusti … Tomus I [1733] pp. 622–623). Bériou and Hodel judge the brother in question to be “sans doute franciscain,” which would tally with the characterization of this gospel as being assigned to doctors in Franciscan sources. This anecdote provides valuable evidence for late 13th-century perceptions of the significance of the gospel of St. Dominic, but it is not clear that the pericope was universally considered to be specific to doctors and apostles in the first half of the 13th century when the pericope was first chosen for St. Dominic. Bériou and Hodel assert that “Cet évangile est celui de l’office des fêtes de saint Jean, saint Luc et saint Augustin.” The pericope is not typically assigned to any of these feasts in Dominican or Franciscan liturgical books; Bériou and Hodel seem to be confusing the gospel with the introit In medio ecclesie, which is assigned in Dominican liturgical books for St. John, St. Luke, and St. Augustine.

94 

 3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 70: Textual Variations in the St. Dominic Gospel (Mt 5:13–19). Mt 5:13–19 (ed. Colunga and Turrado 1965, p. 966)

Variants in Dominican Sources97 In illo tempore. Dixit ihesus discipulis suis] All liturgical sources

13

Vos estis sal terrae. Quod si sal evanuerit, in quo salietur? ad nihilum valet ultra, nisi ut mittatur foras, et conculcetur ab hominibus.

14

Vos estis lux mundi. Non potest civitas abscondi supra montem posita,

15

neque accendunt lucernam, et ponunt eam sub modio, sed super candelabrum, ut luceat omnibus qui in domo sunt.

16

Sic luceat lux vestra coram hominibus: ut videant opera vestra bona, et glorificent Patrem vestrum, qui in caelis est.

17a

Nolite putare quoniam veni solvere legem aut prophetas:

17b

non veni solvere,

solvere] Los Angeles, Mons; solvere legem: Karlsruhe, Lausanne, New Haven (legem later erased), Paris (marginal addition by original hand?)

17c

sed adimplere.

adimplere] implere: Paris

18a

Amen quippe dico vobis,

quippe] omitted in Lausanne

18b

donec transeat caelum et terra, iota unum aut unus apex non praeteribit a lege, donec omnia fiant.

19

Qui ergo solverit unum de mandatis istis minimis, et docuerit sic homines, minimus vocabitur in regno caelorum: qui autem fecerit et docuerit, hic magnus vocabitur in regno caelorum.

3.3.2.2 Mc 6 The second most frequently assigned gospel for St. Dominic is Mc 6:6–13 (Table 71), which appears in five sources (and in a shorter version with Mc 6:6–11 in one source).98 In many early versions of the Roman Capitulare evangeliorum, Mc 6:6–13 is given as the first selection in the section of readings designated Pro ordinantibus episcopis, followed by the synoptic parallels Lc 9:1–6 and Mt 9:35–10:1.99 By the 13th century, Mc 6:6–13 had become the predominant gospel pericope for the ordination of bishops.100 I have not identified its use in other sanctoral sources. The reading was likely chosen for St. Dominic due to its focus on preaching and apostolic poverty. In contrast to the relative stability of liturgical versions of the other gospel pericopes considered here, Lausanne, MHL 10 presents a version of verses 10 and 11 that differs remarkably from the other liturgical sources, which match the Clementine Vulgate for these verses. The variations in Lausanne seem to be influenced by the synoptic parallel text of Lc 9:4–5. In Table 72, I have placed words in the Lausanne text that are identical to Mc 6 in italics and words that are identical to Lc 9 in bold; words that are identical in both are underlined and shared omissions are indicated with square brackets. 97 For full shelfmarks see Table 68. 98 The epistle and gospel list in Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), f. 5v, first provides the incipit of the Mt 5 pericope (without specifying the biblical book, chapter, or explicit) and then provides an incipit and explicit, book, chapter number, and section letter for the Mc 6 pericope, with the explicit indicating Mc 6:11 rather than Mc 6:13 as the final verse: “Evangelium Vos estis sal terre vel aliud Marcum vi.a. Circuibat castella fi. testimonium illis.” I have not identified any other sources that provide the shorter version of the pericope; it is possible that the explicit was given in error, although it is plausible that it could be intentional. 99 See Klauser 1935, pp. 45, 92, 129, 170. In two manuscripts studied by Klauser, a wider selection of five readings is given for the occasion In ordinatione episcoporum, with Mc 6:6–13 in second place after Mt 9:35–10:1; see Klauser 1935, p. 183. 100 In the group of manuscripts edited by Vogel and Elze 1963, p. 224 in the section “LXIII. [Ordinatio episcopi]” of their edition of the so-called “Pontificale Romano-Germanicum” (cf. Parkes 2016), the full text of Mc 6:6–13 is provided as the gospel, followed by an incipit reference to an “Aliud evangelium secundum Lucam” (beginning Lc 22:24) and not specifying an ending). The Pontificale Romanum Saeculi XII (ed. Andrieu 1938, v. 1, p. 150) provides the incipit and explicit of Mc 6:6–13 as the sole gospel for the ordination of a bishop. The manuscripts of the Pontificale Romanae Curiae (ed. Andrieu 1940a, p. 364) generally do not specify the gospel read on this occasion, although one manuscript includes a reference to the Mc 6 pericope as a marginal addition. The Pontificale G. Durandi (ed. Andrieu 1940b, p. 387) provides the Mc 6 pericope as the only gospel selection for this occasion.

3.3 Readings for St. Dominic  

 95

Table 71: Textual Variations in the St. Dominic Gospel (Mc 6:6–13). Mc 6:6–13 (ed. Colunga and Turrado 1965, p. 997)101

Variants in Dominican Sources102 In illo tempore] All liturgical sources

6a

et mirabatur propter incredulitatem eorum,

6b

et circuibat castella in circuitu docens.

et circuibat castella] circuibat ihesus castella: all liturgical sources

7

Et vocavit duodecim: et coepit eos mittere binos, et dabat illis potestatem spirituum immundorum.

vocavit] convocavit: all liturgical sources

8

Et praecepit eis ne quid tollerent in via, nisi virgam tantum: non peram, non panem, neque in zona aes,

quid] erased in New Haven

9

sed calceatos sandaliis, et ne induerentur duabus tunicis.

10

Et dicebat eis: Quocumque introieritis in domum, illic manete donec exeatis inde:

Quocumque introieritis in domum, illic manete donec exeatis inde] Quamcumque domum introieritis ibi manete donec inde exeatis: Lausanne

11

et quicumque non receperint vos, nec audierint vos, exeuntes inde, excutite pulverem de pedibus vestris in testimonium illis.

nec audierint vos] omitted in Lausanne; audiereint vos is written over an erasure in New Haven

12

Et exeuntes praedicabant ut poenitentiam agerent:

Et exeuntes] Exeuntes autem: Lausanne

13

et daemonia multa eiiciebant, et ungebant oleo multos aegros, et sanabant.

sanabant] sanabantur: all liturgical sources

Table 72: Textual Comparison of Mc 6:10–11 and Lc 9:4–5. Mc 6:10–11 (ed. Wordsworth and White 1889–1954, v. 1, p. 214)

Lc 9:4–5 (ed. Wordsworth and White 1889–1954, v. 1, p. 365)

Lausanne, MHL 10, f. 163r

[6:10] Et dicebat eis quocumque introieritis in domum illic manete donec exeatis inde.

[9:4] et in quamcumque domum intraueritis ibi manete et inde ne exeatis.

[6:10] Et dicebat eis. Quamcumque domum introieritis ibi manete: donec inde exeatis.

[6:11] Et quicumque non receperint uos nec audierint uos exeuntes inde excutite puluerem de pedibus uestris in testimonium illis.

[9:5] Et quicumque non receperint uos [] exeuntes de ciuitate illa etiam puluerem pedum uestrorum excutite in testimonium supra illos.

[6:11] Et quicumque non receperint vos: [] exeuntes inde, excutite pulverem de pedibus vestris, in testimonium illis.

The main points of Lucan influence are the inclusion of the Lucan Quamcumque domum and ibi in Mc 6:10 and the omission of the words nec audierint vos, which are found in Mc 6:11 but not Lc 9:5. The Lucan influence on the Lausanne version of Mc 6:10 is even clearer when the apparatus of the Oxford Vulgate is taken into account: three Vetus Latina sources have introieritis instead of the Vulgate intraueritis in Lc 9:4,103 and one of these sources also has donec after ibi.104 With these variations taken into account, the Lucan material the Lausanne version of Mc 6:10 thus becomes either four or six words in a row depending on the source in question. In light of these Lucan elements, it appears that the Lausanne pericope was either copied from a bible that had a version of Mark that included unusual influences from Luke, or, more likely, that it was copied from a liturgical book (e.g., a pontifical or evangelarium) which presented a version of the pericope which had been influenced by the Vetus Latina version of Luke. Given the widespread use of both the Mc 6:6–13 and Lc 9:1–6 in early medieval sources for the gospel reading for the ordination of bishops, it seems possible that some more or less distant source for the Lausanne missal may have unconsciously merged parts of the two texts at some point in the transmission process. It is easier to imagine that the transmission of the contaminated text would occur in a liturgical context than in the context of a biblical manuscript. While the liturgical version found in most Dominican sources matches the Vulgate closely, the remarkable variations in the version presented by the Lausanne missal are a reminder

101 The Weber-Gryson Vulgate divides Mc 6:6–7 differently than the Clementine Vulgate and the Oxford Vulgate, with verse 6 consisting of et mirabatur propter incredulitatem eorum and verse 7 beginning et circumibat castella; see Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 1583. 102 For full shelfmarks see Table 68. 103 c (VL 6 = Paris, BnF, latin 254), e (VL 2 [cf. Houghton 2016, pp. 211–212]), f (VL 10 = Brescia, Biblioteca civica Queriniana, s.n.). 104 f (VL 10).

96 

 3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books

of the complexity of the transmission of scriptural texts in medieval liturgical sources; further investigation of the transmission of full text versions of the liturgical pericope for the ordination of bishops may bring to light other examples of manuscripts that mix the Marcan and Lucan version of the pericope. 3.3.2.3 Mc 10 In contrast to the other sources for the mass of St. Dominic, which include Mt 5:13–19 either alone or before or after some version of Mc 6, Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 uniquely presents a single gospel pericope taken from Mc 10:24–30 (Table 73).105 Unlike the other two passages used for the St. Dominic gospel, this pericope does not have an exact parallel in earlier liturgical sources.106 As Table 73 shows, the version of the text provided in the Oxford bible missal has many differences from the Clementine Vulgate text, including the omission of six words in verse 27c. It seems likely that the pericope was chosen by the compilers of the Dominic liturgy represented by the Oxford bible missal on account of St. Dominic’s emphasis on evangelical poverty. Table 73: Textual Variations in the St. Dominic Gospel (Mc 10:24–30). Mc 10:24–30 (ed. Colunga and Turrado 1965, p. 1002)

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 204r

24a

Discipuli autem obstupescebant in verbis eius. At Iesus rursus respondens ait illis:

Secundum marcum. In illo tempore: Dixit Ihesus discipulis suis:

24b

Filioli, quam difficile est, confidentes in pecuniis, in regnum Dei introire!

Filioli quam difficile [] confidentes in pecuniis in regnum dei introire.

25

Facilius est camelum per foramen acus transire, quam divitem intrare in regnum Dei.

Facilius est camelum per foramen acus intrare: quam divitem [] in regnum dei.

26

Qui magis admirabantur, dicentes ad semetipsos: Et quis potest salvus fieri?

Quidam magis admirabantur dicentes ad seipsos. Et quis potest salvus fieri?

27a

Et intuens illos Iesus, ait []:

Et intuens illos ihesus: ait illis.

27b

Apud homines impossibile est, sed non apud Deum:

Apud homines impossibile est: sed apud deum non.

27c

omnia enim possibilia sunt apud Deum.

[]

28

Et [] coepit ei Petrus dicere: Ecce nos dimisimus omnia, et secuti sumus te.

Et post cepit eis petrus dicere. Ecce nos reliquimus omnia: et secuti sumus te.

29

Respondens Iesus, ait: Amen [] dico vobis: Nemo est qui reliquerit domum, aut fratres, aut sorores, aut patrem, aut matrem, aut filios, aut agros propter me et propter Evangelium,

Respondens ihesus: ait. Amen amen dico vobis: nemo est qui reliquerit domum aut fratres, aut sorores: aut patrem, aut matrem, aut filios aut agros propter me aut propter evangelium

30a

qui non accipiat centies tantum, nunc in tempore hoc: domos, et fratres, et sorores,

qui non accipiat centies tantum nunc in tempore [], domos [] et sorores,

30b

et matres, et filios, et agros, cum persecutionibus, et in saeculo futuro vitam aeternam.

et matres et filios, et agros cum persecutionibus: et in seculo futuro: vitam eternam.

105 The epistle and gospel list in Madrid, BNE 874, f. 580r also includes a gospel pericope for St. Dominic from Mc 10 beginning Filioli. 106 These verses do not appear in any sources studied by Klauser 1935. A wider selection of verses (Mc 10:23–31) are assigned in the 12th-century missal de Mateus (Braga, Biblioteca Pública, MS 1000, f. 205r; ed. Bragança 1975, p. 635, §2658) for the Thursday after the 16th Sunday after Pentecost; the same selection is found for similar occasions in ten sources indexed in the Usuarium database (https://usuarium.elte.hu/ itemrepertory/2047/view). Synoptic parallel passages to Mc 10:23–31 are found in some sources edited by Klauser: Mt 19:16–29 is given as an addition for the Thursday of the Second Week of Lent in some sources (ed. Klauser 1935, p. 20, §65, apparatus); Lc 18:18–30 is assigned for the occasion In adventum iudicium (ed. Klauser 1935, p. 171, §350).

3.4 Conclusion  

 97

3.3.3 Readings Summary Pre-Humbert Dominican sources are mostly uniform in their presentation of a single epistle pericope for St. Dominic but have a remarkably varied approach to the designation of the gospel pericope or pericopes for the feast. All pre-Humbert Dominican sources indicate the use of II Tim 4:1–8 for the epistle for St. Dominic, while the Cambridge bible missal also provides II Cor 2:14–17 before indicating II Tim 4:1–8. The II Tim pericope is included in some medieval sources for the Common of One Confessor and was likely chosen for St. Dominic on account of its thematic focus on preaching. The II Cor pericope is rarely assigned in medieval liturgical sources; it was probably employed for St. Dominic due to its reference to the “good aroma of Christ” in conjunction with the miracle of the “good aroma” experienced during the translation of the body of St. Dominic in 1233. Almost all pre-Humbert sources present Mt 5:13–19 as a gospel pericope for St. Dominic; some sources present only this pericope, but others provide it either before or after Mc 6:6–13 (given in the Private Collection “Wellington Bible” in a shorter version as Mc 6:6–11). A single source (Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7) presents Mc 10:24–30 as the sole pericope. Mt 5:13–19 is found in some medieval liturgical sources for the Common of Confessors and is sometimes specified for Doctors of the Church; its association with St. Dominic is likely connected due to its thematic focus on light and the authentic proclamation of the truth. Mc 6:6–13 is found in many medieval liturgical sources for the ordination of bishops; it is likely associated with St. Dominic because of its focus on preaching and apostolic poverty. One source with this pericope (Lausanne, MHL 10) gives a text with many variations which show influence from the synoptic parallel Lc 9:4–5. Finally, Mc 10:24–30 does not commonly appear in the medieval liturgy; it was likely chosen by the compilers of the St. Dominic liturgy found in the Oxford bible missal on account of its focus on apostolic poverty.

3.4 Conclusion The liturgy for St. Dominic represented by Dominican bible missals and other pre-Humbert liturgical manuscripts is remarkably diverse, especially when compared with the relatively unified liturgies found in Dominican sources for Pentecost and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit which will be discussed in the following chapter. The most uniform aspect of the St. Dominic liturgy is the selection of orations, which are essentially identical in all of the sources, with the exception of the collect which has an earlier version (with the phrase meritis et exemplis) and a later version (with the phrase meritis et doctrinis, legislatively introduced in 1244 and perhaps first implemented in the 1246–1248 reform of the four friars). While the three orations are partially modeled on earlier texts, showing especially close connections with prayers for St. Francis and St. Gregory the Great, they constitute new compositions. There is more diversity in the selections of chants and readings for St. Dominic. The sources make use of a variety of pre-existing chant texts, some of which are taken from the Common of Confessors and some of which are borrowed from other saints. The chants assigned in Dominican sources for St. Augustine had a particularly strong influence on the selection of chants for St. Dominic. At different stages after the canonization of St. Dominic, a proper sequence and later a proper Alleluia verse were composed, but these cannot be confidently dated, although it is clear that the sequence was in circulation before the Alleluia verse. Finally, most sources present II Tim 4:1–8 and Mt 5:13–19 as the epistle and gospel for St. Dominic, although a significant number of sources also provide Mc 6:6–13 in addition to the Mt 5 pericope. One source (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16) provides II Cor 2:14–17 as the epistle for St. Dominic (in addition to indicating II Tim 4:1–8 as an option), and one source (Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7) presents Mc 10:24–30 as the sole gospel pericope. The range of texts assigned in these sources for St. Dominic is a strong indication of the presence of diversity in the pre-Humbert liturgy. The selection of pre-existing chant texts associated with various categories of saints or with individual saints as well as the selection of biblical readings gives important insights into the approaches early Dominicans took to the liturgical commemoration of their founder. The use of chants associated with St. Augustine underscored the connection between the author of the Rule of St. Augustine and the saint who had followed that Rule as a canon regular in Osma and who chose it as the Rule for the newly founded Order of Preachers. The scriptural pericopes emphasized different aspects of Dominic’s life and legacy, with some focusing on his preaching mission (II Tim 4:1–8, Mt 5:13–19, and Mc 6:6–13), some alluding to his apostolic poverty (Mc 6:6–13 and Mc 10:24–30), and with one referencing the miracle of a beautiful aroma coming from his tomb at his translation (II Cor 2:14–17). The use of orations of St. Francis as a template for

98 

 3 The Mass of St. Dominic in Early Dominican Mass Books

several of the newly composed orations for St. Dominic emphasizes the shared mendicant legacy of the two saints despite the occasional rivalries between their orders. The relative uniformity of the orations in contrast to the diversity of chants and readings in Dominican sources produced in various regions and at various times after the canonization of St. Dominic suggests that the orations were disseminated relatively quickly after the canonization, likely as part of the canonization process itself, while the selection of readings and chants were left to the discretion of local communities. A parallel situation is found in early Franciscan sources for the mass of St. Francis: all sources contain the same newly composed orations, but provide varying chants and readings.107 The parallel between the reception of the formularies for St. Francis and St. Dominic indicates that there was a clear distinction in the diffusion of the orations and the other parts of the mass.108 The fact that the orations for St. Dominic are partially modelled on those for St. Francis takes on a greater significance in this context, likely giving evidence for the papal or curial composition of these orations.109 Whether or not the St. Dominic orations were in fact papal or curial compositions, the decision to change the wording of the St. Dominic from meritis et exemplis to meritis et doctrinis shows that the Dominican friars in the 1240s felt free to adapt the wording of the prayer in conjunction with a growing maturation of the liturgy for the founder of the Order of Preachers, just as the friars gradually added a newly composed Alleluia verse and sequence to the formulary. Despite the diversity of texts for St. Dominic, several selections of chants and readings are almost universal in early sources, including the use of the introit In medio, the gradual Os iusti, the epistle II Tim 4:1–8, the gospel Mt 5:13–19 (although many sources provide Mc 6:6–13 as well), and the communion Fidelis servus.110 Compared to the other pre-Humbert manuscripts, the most independent manuscript is Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, which is the only source which presents the introit Os iusti, the gospel Mc 10:24–30, and the communion Beatus servus, although it should be noted that the introit and communion are widely used for the Common of Confessors and thus unremarkable as chants for St. Dominic except in so far as the other sources with chants are united in presenting In medio and Fidelis servus instead. The corrections made to various manuscripts to add references or texts for the proper Alleluia and sequence and to adapt the collect from meritis et exemplis to meritis et doctrinis gives a sense of the St. Dominic formulary as a sort of “living liturgy” undergoing periodic revision over the course of the decades following the 1234 canonization of the saint. Although it is not yet possible to establish a precise chronology of the various versions of the mass of St. Dominic represented by the pre-Humbert liturgical sources studied here, these sources offer an important glimpse into the gradual development of liturgical devotion to St. Dominic in the thirteenth century.

107 For editions of several 13th-century Franciscan sources for the St. Francis mass, see Sedda 2015, pp. 351–392. 108 It should be recalled here that the canonization process was undergoing a renewal precisely around the time of the canonizations of St. Francis (1228) and St. Dominic (1234), led by Pope Gregory IX; for further context, see Prudlo 2015. 109 Sedda 2015, p. 351 points out that the orations for St. Francis have sometimes been ascribed personally to Gregory IX. For further discussion of the practice of papal or curial composition of collects in the early 13th century, see p. 59 above. 110 In light of the greater uniformity of the epistle than the gospel in Dominican sources for St. Dominic, it is striking that the various Franciscan formularies for St. Francis edited in Sedda 2015 offer a single epistle (Gal 6:14–18) but varying gospels.

4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books After discussing the development of proper liturgical texts for St. Dominic in the previous chapter, I will now focus on the texts provided in Dominican sources for two mass formularies that predate the Dominican Order: the temporal mass of Pentecost Sunday and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit. These formularies are a useful object of study due to their widespread presence in Dominican sources, with the votive mass appearing in nearly every Dominican bible missal and most other Dominican sources. In this chapter, I will compare the texts of Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert missals, first examining the range of masses and their modes of presentation in each source and then describing their chant texts, orations, and readings. In order to provide context for understanding the distinctive features of the Dominican versions of these formularies, I will also draw on parallel texts found in a selection of non-Dominican bible missals. Dominican sources present relatively stable versions of these formularies when compared with the broader range of variations found in non-Dominican sources. Nevertheless, there are several distinctive variants among Dominican sources that are important for understanding the transmission of early Dominican liturgical books and that can provide evidence for identifying Dominican sources.

4.1 Range of Masses and Modes of Presentation Among the votive mass formularies in Dominican bible missals, one of the most widespread is the votive mass of the Holy Spirit. While only two Dominican bible missals include mass formularies for Pentecost, all of the manuscripts which include mass formularies include one or more votive masses of the Holy Spirit.1 Likewise, all other pre-Humbert missals provide votive masses of the Holy Spirit, and most include the Pentecost mass as well. Nevertheless, the manuscripts present (or omit) the various liturgical genres within the votive mass in quite different ways and have some significant textual variants. The votive mass of the Holy Spirit is thus a helpful test case for making a sounding of the commonalities and differences between Dominican bible missals. Because the votive mass of the Holy Spirit and the formulary for Pentecost are closely related (but not identical) in most Dominican sources, it is helpful to study the two together. In brief, the two formularies typically share the same proper chants (although the Pentecost formulary usually has two Alleluias while the votive formulary usually has a gradual and a single Alleluia), the same orations (although the Pentecost collect typically includes a reference to the day of Pentecost with the words hodierna die while the votive collect usually omits this phrase), and the same gospel (Io 14:23–31) but provide different epistle readings (Pentecost typically uses Act 2:1–11, while the votive mass typically gives Act 8:14–17). In addition to the main Holy Spirit votive mass formulary, which includes chants, orations, and readings, several Dominican sources also include a secondary votive mass formulary with orations composed by Alcuin of York (c. 735– 804).2 In the following discussion, I will refer to the standard Dominican De spiritu sancto formulary as the “votive mass” and the alternate formulary as the “Alcuin mass.” Although in Dominican sources there is a clear distinction between the main votive mass of the Holy Spirit and the Alcuin mass, in some non-Dominican sources the two are intermingled. Several Dominican bible missals include indications for the readings for Pentecost and/or the votive mass of the Holy Spirit in epistle and gospel lists. As these lists are sometimes found in manuscripts that also contain votive missals, some manuscripts include readings for liturgical occasions for which they do not provide other mass texts. In two cases, the Rome and Vatican City manuscripts, indications for readings are given more than once due to the presence of multiple epistle and gospel lists. Table 74 indicates which Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert missals provide formularies or readings for Pentecost, the votive mass, and the Alcuin mass, how they present the title of the occasion, 1 Brussels, KBR 8882 has a lacuna where the votive mass texts might otherwise be found. Paris, BnF, latin 163 and Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) do not include any mass formularies, although in the case of the Paris manuscript it is possible that some were originally included after the now-imperfect Ordo Missae at the end of the manuscript. 2 See Deshusses 1972. For a discussion of Alcuin’s masses of the Holy Spirit within the wider context of medieval liturgical texts focused on the Holy Spirit, see Carmassi 2016, pp. 40–41. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-005

100 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

and where in the manuscript it is found. In the first column, I indicate the liturgical typology of the section of the manuscript in order to indicate the relationship between the typology and the range of occasions that are presented in the manuscript.3 Table 74: Liturgical Texts for Pentecost and Votive Masses of the Holy Spirit in Dominican Sources. Manuscript

Pentecost mass

Votive mass

Brussels, KBR 8882 (epistle and gospel list)

Dies pentecostes (206r)

(Lacuna)

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (full missal)

In die penthecostes ad missam (539vb–540ra)

De sancto spiritu (559rb–va)

Alcuin mass

Dominican bible missals Ad invocandam gratiam spiritus sancti (561v)

London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 (votive missal)

De spiritu sancto missa (217ra)

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 (votive missal)

De sancto spiritu (200v)

Ad gratiam postulandam (202v–203r)

Paris, Mazarine 31 (votive missal)

Officium de sancto spiritu (2va)

Ad invocandam gratiam sancti spiritus (4ra–rb)

Paris, BnF, latin 215 (votive missal)

De sancto spiritu (261ra–rb)

Ibid. (epistle and gospel list)

In die pentecostes (265va)

Paris, BnF, latin 16266 (votive missal)

De spiritu sancto (267vb) Missa de sancto spiritu (635rb–va)

Ibid. (original epistle and gospel list)

(Lacuna)

De spiritu sancto (624ra)

Ibid. (added epistle and gospel list)

In die pentecostes (657r)

De spiritu sancto (658r)

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

In die pentecostes ad missam (393va–vb)

In missa de sancto spiritu (396rb)

Poitiers, BM 12 (added orations)

Alia missa de sancto spiritu (396rb)

De sancto spiritu (532r)

Ibid. (added epistle and gospel list)

In die pentecostes (514vb)

De sancto spiritu (524ra)

Private Collection (“The Wellington bible”) (epistle and gospel list)

In die penthecostes (4vb)

De spiritu sancto (6rb)

Rome, Angelica 32 (festive missal)

In pentecosten (212vb)

Ibid. (added epistle and gospel list I)

In die (18v)

Ibid. (added epistle and gospel list II)

In die sancto pentecostes (465v)

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 (votive missal)

Ad postulandam gratiam sancti spiritus (217ra)

Missa de spiritu sancto (6r)

Ibid. (epistle and gospel list)

In die (511va)

Ibid. (added gospel list)

In die pentecostes (517vb)

Pre-Humbert missals Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 (full missal)

In die pentecostes officium (146ra–147ra)

(lacuna)

(lacuna)

Lausanne, MHL 10 (full missal)

In die officium (113vb–114va)

Missa de sancto spiritu officium (193va–194ra)

Ad invocandam gratiam spiritus sancti (199va)

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (full missal)

In die officium (127rb–128ra)

Missa de spiritu sancto (222ra–va)

Ad invocandam gratiam spiritus sancti (221v)

3 Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 has two layers: it was originally a pre-Humbert missal, but many quires were replaced in the 15th century. The Pentecost formulary is entirely present in the 13th-century layer, but the votive masses section dates to the 15th century. I have ignored the votive mass section in this manuscript, as it is not a reliable source for studying pre-Humbert Dominican liturgical practice.

4.1 Range of Masses and Modes of Presentation  

 101

Table 74 (continued) Manuscript

Pentecost mass

Votive mass

Alcuin mass

Mons, BC 63/201 (full missal)

In die pentecostes ad missam (123ra–124ra)

De sancto spiritu (243vb–244va)

Ad invocandam gratiam spiritus sancti (253vb)

Paris, BnF, latin 8884 (full missal)

In die officium (152vb–153vb)

De sancto spiritu (274ra–275vb)

Ad invocandam gratiam spiritus sancti (286ra–rb)

Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 (votive missal)

De sancto spiritu officium (107ra–109rb)

Pre-Humbert Evangelarium New Haven, Beinecke, Music Deposit 99

In die pentecostes (81r–v)

In missa de spiritu sancto (124v)

As Table 74 shows, the most common title for the votive mass is De sancto spiritu, although this is often inverted as De spiritu sancto. Several manuscripts add the word Officium or Missa before or after the title. Of the two cases where the votive mass is present in both the missal and epistle and gospel list sections, Paris, BnF, latin 215 presents the title in inverted forms between the two sections, while Poitiers, BM 12 presents the same title in each case. It is noteworthy that of the six manuscripts that contain epistle and gospel lists, three include readings for the votive mass and three do not. With regard to the Pentecost mass, only two bible missals include texts for Pentecost in the missal section, while all six manuscripts with epistle and gospel lists provide readings for the Pentecost. All of the pre-Humbert full missals include the Pentecost mass and votive mass, although Karlsruhe no longer contains the original form of the votive mass. The liturgical miscellany Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3, which includes a notated votive missal integrated with other liturgical texts, only provides the votive mass. The Alcuin mass appears in Dominican sources with a variety of names.4 It appears in five sources an identical form: Ad invocandam gratiam spiritus sancti.5 Notably, all of the sources with this precise formulation are full missals, which is significant in light of the diversity of formulations in the other types of missals. An almost identical title is given by Paris, Mazarine 31, which inverts the reference to the Holy Spirit: Ad invocandam gratiam sancti spiritus. Rome, Angelica 32 provides a similar title, but with postulandam instead of invocandam: Ad postulandam gratiam sancti spiritus. Finally, Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 provides an even shorter title: Ad gratiam postulandam. Among the manuscripts which include liturgical texts for the votive or temporal mass in their main missal section, a wide range of approaches are taken to the presentation of the texts of the mass. While the textual variations will be examined in more detail below, an overview of the breadth of approaches to the presentation of the various textual genres will be helpful at the outset. In Table 75, transcriptions of the votive mass from three Dominican bible missals are given which provide examples of the diversity of approaches to the various texts. Although the basic texts are almost identical in the three versions (with a few variations that will be discussed in detail below), they take a wide range of approaches to the presentation of the various liturgical genres. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 gives essentially complete texts for the chants and prayers while providing only the book title, chapter, and section number for the readings. Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 (see Figure 24) provides full chants and prayers like the Cambridge bible missal, but also presents the full texts for both scriptural readings, and consequently omits details about the chapters from which they are taken. Paris, Mazarine 31 (see Figure 27) presents the most limited set of texts, giving essentially just incipits for the chants and readings, while providing full texts for the orations; a later hand has added more specific indications of the biblical book and chapter above the reading incipits in order to make the biblical passages easier to identify. These examples give a sense of the complexity of possible combinations of full and abbreviated texts in bible missals.

4 As shown by the apparatus in Deshusses 1972, p. 25, this mass formulary appears with a variety of titles in medieval sources: e.g., De cordis emundatione per spiritum sanctum postulanda; Missa de compunctione cordis, Ad postulandam gratiam spiritus sancti, Missa de gratia sancti spiritus postulanda, De spiritus sancti dono postulando, Missa de spiritu sancto. In Deshusses 1972, p. 24, an entirely different mass is given with a further variety of names, including Missa ad postulandam gratiam spiritus sancti. When I refer to the “Alcuin mass” without further specification, I am referring to the set of prayers that appear in Deshusses with the title De cordis emundatione per spiritum sanctum postulanda and in Dominican and non-Dominican sources with a variety of titles. 5 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16; Lausanne, MHL 10; Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5; Mons, BC 63/201; Paris, BnF, latin 8884.

102 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 75: The Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Three Dominican Bible Missals. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, ff. 559rb–va

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 200v

Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 2va

De sancto spiritu officium. Spiritus domini replevit orbem terrarum alleluia. Et hoc quod continet omnia scientiam habet vocis alleluia alleluia, alleluia. Ps. Confirma hoc deus quod operatus es in nobis.

De sancto spiritu. Officium. Spiritus domini replevit orbem terrarum alleluia et hoc quod continet omnia scientiam habet vocis alleluia alleluia alleluia. Ps. Confirma hoc deus.

Officium de sancto spiritu. Spiritus domini replevit orbem terrarum alleluia et hoc quod continet omnia scientiam habet vocis alleluia alleluia. V. Confirma hoc.

Oratio. Deus qui corda fidelium sancti spiritus illustratione docuisti: da nobis in eodem spiritu recta sapere, et de eiusdem semper consolatione gaudere. Per.

Oratio. Deus qui corda fidelium sancti spiritus illustratione docuisti: da nobis in eodem spiritu recta sapere, et de eius semper consolatione gaudere. Per eiusdem.

Oratio. Deus qui corda fidelium sancti spiritus illustratione docuisti: da nobis in eodem spiritu recta sapere, et de eius semper consolatione gaudere. Per eundem. In unitate eiusdem.

Actuum. viii. In diebus illis: Cum audissent apostoli qui erant ierosolimis quia recepisset samaria verbum dei. Finis. Et accipiebant spiritum sanctum.

Actuum apostolorum. In diebus illis: Cum audissent apostoli qui erant ierosolimis quia recepisset samaria verbum dei: miserunt ad eos petrum et iohanem. Qui cum venissent oraverunt pro ipsis ut acciperent spiritum sanctum. Nondum enim in quemquam illorum venerat: sed baptizati tantum erant in nomine domini ihesu. Tunc inponebant manus super illos et accipiebant spiritum sanctum.

Epistola. Cum audissent apostoli qui erant.6

R. Beata gens cuius est dominus deus eorum populus quem elegit dominus in hereditatem sibi. V. Verbo domini celi firmati sunt et spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum.

Gr. Beata gens cuius est dominus deus eorum populus quem elegit dominus in hereditatem sibi. V. Verbo domini celi firmati sunt et spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum.

R. Beata gens cuius est dominus. V. Verbo domini celi.

Alleluia. V. Veni sancte spiritus reple tuorum corda fidelium et tui amoris in eis ignem accende.

Alleluia. V. Veni sancte spiritus reple tuorum corda fidelium7 et tui amoris in eis ignem accende.

Alleluia. Alleluia. V. Veni sancte spiritus.

Secundum iohanem xiiii. e. In [illo tempore]: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis: Si quis diligit me: Finis. Et sicut mandatum dedit michi pater: sic facio.

Secundum iohanem. In illo tempore: Dixit Evangelium. Si quis diligit me.9 ihesus discipulis suis: Si quis diligit me: sermonem meum servabit. Et pater meus diliget eum: et ad eum veniemus et mansionem apud eum faciemus. Qui non diligit: sermones meos non servat. Et sermonem quem audistis non est meus: sed eius qui misit me patris. Hec locutus sum vobis: apud vos manens. Paraclitus autem spiritus sanctus quem mittet pater in nomine meo: ille vos docebit omnia: ut suggeret vobis omnia quecumque dixero vobis. Pacem relinquo vobis: pacem meam do vobis. Non turbetur cor vestrum neque formidet. Audistis quia ego dixi vobis:8 vado et venio ad vos. Si diligeretis me: gauderetis utique, quia vado ad patrem: quia pater maior me est. Et nunc dixi vobis priusquam fiat: ut cum factum fuerit credatis. Iam non multa: loquar vobiscum. Venit enim princeps mundi huius: et in me non habet quicquam. Sed ut cognoscat mundus: quia diligo patrem: et sicut mandatum dedit michi pater: sic facio.

6 Later addition above incipit: Ac. VIII. 7 Originally written as filium and corrected to fidelium. 8 The letter “d” was originally written before “vobis,” but was expunctuated. This seems to be the result of dittography: the scribe began to write the preceding word “dixi” a second time, but caught the error and continued writing “vobis.” 9 Later addition above incipit: Io. XIIII.

 103

4.1 Range of Masses and Modes of Presentation  

Table 75 (continued) Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, ff. 559rb–va

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 200v

Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 2va

De sancto spiritu officium. Offertorium. Confirma hoc deus quod operatus es in nobis a templo sancto tuo quod est in ierusalem tibi offerent reges munera.

De sancto spiritu. Officium. Offertorium. Confirma hoc deus quod operatus es in nobis, a templo tuo sancto quod est in ierusalem tibi offerent reges munera, alleluia.

Officium de sancto spiritu. Offertorium. Confirma hoc deus.

Secreta. Munera quesumus domine oblata sanctifica, et corda nostra spiritus sancti illustratione emenda. Per.

Secreta. Munera quesumus domine oblata sanctifica et corda nostra sancti spiritus illustratione emunda. Per.

Sacra. Munera quesumus domine oblata sanctifica, et corda nostra illustratione emunda. Per. Eiusdem.

Communio. Factus est repente de celo sonus advenientis spiritus vehementis alleluia et repleti sunt omnes spiritu sancto loquentes magnalia dei alleluia alleluia.

Communio. Factus est repente de celo sonus advenientis spiritus vehementis ubi erant sedentes alleluia, et repleti sunt omnes spiritu sancto loquentes magnalia dei, alleluia alleluia.

Communio. Factus est repente.

Postcommunio. Spiritus sancti domine corda nostra mundet infusio et sui roris intima aspersione fecundet. Per.

Postcommunio. Sancti spiritus domine mundet infusio et sui roris intima aspersione fecundet. Per eiusdem.

Postcommunio. Sancti spiritus domine corda nostra mundet infusio, et sui roris intima aspersione fecundet. Per. In unitate. Eiusdem.

Table 76 indicates the modes of presentation for the chant texts, orations, and readings for the whole range of sources in summary form. Table 76: Modes of Presentation of the Pentecost, Votive, and Alcuin Mass in Dominican Sources. Manuscript

In10 InV

Or

Lc

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (Pentecost mass)

F

F

F

I/E

Ibid. (Votive mass)

F

I

F

I/E

Gr GrV

Al1

Al2

F

F

F

F

Ev

Of

Sc

Cm

Pc

I/E

F

Cf.

F

Cf.

I/E

F

F

F

F

Dominican bible missals F

Ibid. (Alcuin mass)

F

F

F

London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 (Votive mass)

F

F

F

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 (Votive mass)

F

I

Ibid. (Alcuin mass) Paris, Mazarine 31(Votive mass)

F

F

F

I

Ibid. (Alcuin mass)

F

F

F

F

I

I

I

I

I

I

F F

I

F

I

F

F

F

F

Poitiers, BM 12 (Votive mass)

F F

F

F

F

Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (Pentecost mass)

F

F

F

I

F

F

F

I

I

I

I

I F

F

I

I

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F F

I

I

F

F

F

I

F

F

F

F

I

F

I

F

F I

I

I

F

F

F F

F

F F

F

Ibid. (Votive mass)

F

F

F

F

Ibid. (Alcuin mass)

F

F

Paris, BnF, latin 215 (Votive mass)

Ibid. (Alcuin mass)

F

F

Paris, BnF, latin 16266 (Votive mass)

Rome, Angelica 32 (Pentecost mass)

F

F

F

F F

10 In = Introit; InV = Introit Verse; Or = Oratio (Collect); Lc = Lectio (epistle); Gr = Gradual; GrV = Gradual Verse; Al1 = Alleluia verse 1; Al2 = Alleluia verse 2; Ev = Evangelium (gospel); Of = Offertory; Sc = Secret; Cm = Communion; Pc = Postcommunion. For each liturgical genre “F” indicates that the text is given in full, “I” indicates that the Incipit alone is given, “I/E” indicates that the Incipit and Explicit are given, and “Cf.” indicates that a cross-reference is given to another location where the whole text is provided. The presence of “#” indicates that musical notation is provided for the text. In order to draw out the patterns found the treatments of the various genres, I have shaded the orations (Or, Sc, Pc) in dark grey and the two reading genre columns (Lc and Or) in light grey.

104 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 76 (continued) Manuscript

In10 InV

Or

Lc

Gr GrV

Al1

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 (Votive mass)

I

F

I

I

I

F

F

I

Al2

Ev

Of

Sc

Cm

Pc

I

I

F

I

F

F

F

Cf.

F

Cf.

Pre-Humbert missals Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 (Pentecost mass)

F

F

Lausanne, MHL 10 (Pentecost mass)

F

F

F

F

Ibid. (Votive mass)

F

F

F

F

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (Pentecost mass)

F#

F#

Ibid. (Votive mass)

I

Ibid. (Alcuin mass)

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

Cf.

F

Cf.

F

F

F

F

F

F

F#

Cf.

F#

Cf.

F

I

F

I

F

F

Ibid. (Alcuin mass)

F

F

F

F

F

F# I

I

F#

I

F F#

F#

F

F

Ibid. (Votive mass)

F#

F#

F

F

Paris, BnF, latin 8884 (Pentecost mass)

F

F

F

Ibid. (Votive mass)

F

F

F

Ibid. (Alcuin mass)

F# F# F#

F#

F#

F

F#

Cf.

F#

Cf.

F#

F

F#

F

F

F

F

F

F F

F F

F

F

F

F F#

I#

F

F

F

F

Ibid. (Alcuin mass)

F

F

Mons, BC 63/201 (Pentecost mass)

Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 (Votive mass)

F

F

F

Cf.

F

Cf.

F

F

F

F F

F# F#

F#

F

F#

F

F F#

F

Pre-Humbert Evangelarium New Haven, Beinecke, Music Deposit 99 (Pentecost mass)

F

Ibid. (Votive mass)

Cf.

As Table 76 shows, all sources that include mass texts for the Pentecost mass, the votive mass or the Alcuin mass include full texts for the three orations. Two bible missals (London/Oslo and Poitiers) only provide orations for the votive mass (although Poitiers also includes readings for the votive mass in a separate epistle and gospel list). The sources with the Alcuin mass only provide orations.11 Rome, Angelica 32 includes chant texts as well as the orations for the Pentecost mass, but entirely omits readings (in keeping with its broader practice throughout the festive missal section of the manuscript). The other manuscripts all include some combination of full texts, incipits, or incipits and explicits for the chant texts and readings of the Pentecost mass and votive mass, although the ways in which these are presented in each source varies considerably. All of the full missals provide cross-references for the secret and postcommunion prayers of the Pentecost formulary, giving the full texts only in the Vigil of Pentecost formulary. While none of the bible missals provide musical notation for the proper chant texts, Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, Mons, BC 63/201, and Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 provide full musical notation for the chants. The Los Angeles missal presents notated chant texts in the Pentecost formulary but provides only incipit cross-references in the votive mass formulary. The Mons missal, by contrast, provides notated chants in both the Pentecost and the votive mass formularies. In the following sections, I will analyze the texts provided for the Pentecost mass, the votive mass of the Holy Spirit, and the Alcuin mass and discuss their modes of presentation in the range of Dominican bible missals and other pre-Humbert missals. Although an exhaustive treatment of the parallel texts for Pentecost and the mass of the Holy Spirit in non-Dominican liturgical books is beyond the scope of this chapter, at the end of each section I will give an overview of parallel texts in a selection of bible missals from other liturgical traditions in order to provide a sense of the degree to which the Dominican texts present distinctive liturgical texts compared to distinctively “Dominican” liturgical variants.12 11 As will be discussed below, some non-Dominican sources provide formularies that combine the votive mass chants and scriptural texts with the Alcuin mass orations. 12 I have made use of 16 non-Dominican bible missals for which I have access to digital images of the relevant folios. The Pentecost mass is found in the following sources: Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3, f. 383rc; Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1, f. 383va; Darmstadt, ULB 1967, f. 274ra–rb; Lisbon, BNP, IL 34, f. 477va–vb; Paris, BnF, latin 36, f. 361rb; Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236, f. 411v; San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, f. 186ra–rb; Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst., f. 194rb–va.

4.2 Chant Texts for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 105

While much work remains to be done to fully understand the sources of the Dominican liturgy and its relationship to other medieval liturgical traditions, it is hoped that these case studies will contribute to this goal and give a tangible sense of how these particular liturgical occasions were celebrated by Dominican friars in the Middle Ages.

4.2 Chant Texts for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit Almost all Dominican missals include chant texts for Pentecost and/or the votive mass of the Holy Spirit, but they present these texts in a wide variety of modes.13 Although the Dominican texts are relatively stable, some minor variations may be found which provide evidence regarding both their transmission as well as the expectations that were placed upon the intended users of these books in terms of the degree of familiarity with the texts that was necessary to make use of the books. In this section I will describe this range of practices in detail with respect to each chant included in either the Pentecost mass or the votive mass formularies.

4.2.1 Introit 4.2.1.1 Spiritus domini in Medieval Liturgical Books The Pentecost and votive mass both provide the introit Spiritus domini, a chant found widely in medieval sources for Pentecost and in some sources for certain ferial days within the octave of Pentecost.14 The antiphon text derives from Sap 1:7, modified by the omission of the word quoniam at the beginning of the verse and the addition of the word alleluia once in the middle of the verse and three times at the end (Table 77). Table 77: Textual Sources of Spiritus domini (Introit). Introit (Graduale Synopticum)

Sap 1:7 (ed. Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 1003)

Spiritus domini replevit orbem terrarum alleluia et hoc quod continet omnia scientiam habet vocis alleluia alleluia alleluia.

quoniam spiritus Domini replevit orbem terrarum et hoc quod continet omnia scientiam habet vocis

Although the text of this introit antiphon is essentially stable in medieval sources, the accompanying verse appears with considerable variations.15 The divergence between the transmission of the antiphon and verse is likely related to the fact that the antiphon has a distinct melody that helped to stabilize its text, whereas verses which are sung with a simple melodic formula can be easily adapted to various texts.16 The Cantus Index includes six different verses that appear with

The votive mass of the Holy Spirit is found in the following sources: Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202, f. 195va; Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1, f. 384va; Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10, f. 451ra–rb; London, BL, Harley 1748, f. 172ra–rb; London, BL, Harley 2813, f. 227ra–rb; Paris, BnF, latin 36, f. 367va; Paris, BnF, latin 216, t. II, f. 263v; Paris, BnF, latin 10431, f. 349va; Paris, BnF, latin 16266, f. 635rb–va; Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136, f. 154ra–rb. The Alcuin mass is found in the following sources: Darmstadt, ULB 1967, f. 287va; Lisbon, BNP, IL 34, f. 490vb; London, BL, Harley 2813, f. 230va–vb; Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst., f. 207ra. In one source, the votive mass and Alcuin mass are combined as a single formulary: San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, f. 184ra–rb. 13 Given the absence of chant texts for these formularies in London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 and Poitiers, BM 12, in this section the phrase “all manuscripts” should be understood as excluding those manuscripts from consideration. Because no Dominican sources include chants for the Alcuin mass, this formulary will not be discussed in this section. 14 For the use of this chant in a broad range of sources, see the database entries in the Graduale Synopticum and the Cantus Index: http:// gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/149 and http://cantusindex.org/id/g01090. 15 Weber and Gryson report that several 8th- and 9th-century biblical sources present scientia in place of scientiam; this variation is represented in two liturgical sources indexed in the Graduale Synopticum (Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 1003). Some biblical sources also present vocis as voces, but this variation is not represented in the Graduale Synopticum. 16 Buchinger 2016, p. 152–153 makes the following observation while discussing the importation of Roman chant into the Carolingian realm: “That the bible version was not substituted in the reception process is a strong argument for the supposition that the texts were intimately connected to music at the point of their import. … Texts sung on formulaic melodies like the verses of the introit and communion psalmody are more prone to be updated, all the more as they were often not written out in full in early manuscripts.” Hesbert 1931, pp. 145–151 demonstrates that

106 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

the antiphon.17 Table 78 lists the Cantus Index ID of the six verses, the text as given in the Cantus Index, the number of manuscripts with the verse in the Cantus Index, and the textual source (identified by the present author), with specification when appropriate as to whether the version is closer to the Roman Psalter or the Gallican Psalter. Table 78: Introit Verses for Spiritus domini. ID

Cantus Index text

g01090a

Confirma hoc deus quod operatus es in nobis a templo tuo quod est in Jerusalem tibi offerrent reges munera

# of mss

Textual Source

g01090a.1

Confirma hoc deus quod operatus es in nobis a templo tuo quod est in Jerusalem

g01090b

Emitte spiritum tuum et creabuntur et renovabis faciem terrae

g01090c

Exsurgat deus et dissipentur inimici ejus et fugiant qui oderunt eum a facie ejus

g01090e

Omnium est enim artifex omnem habens virtutem omnia prospiciens

3

Sap 7:21b, 23b19

g01090f

Benedic anima mea domino domine deus meus magnificatus es vehementer

2

Ps 103:1a (Gallican Psalter)

15

Ps 67:29b–30 (Roman Psalter)18

8

Ps 67:29b–30a (Roman Psalter)

3

Ps 103:30 (Roman Psalter)

24

Ps 67:2 (Gallican Psalter)

As Table 78 shows, the two most frequently used verses are Exsurgat deus (Ps 67:2) and Confirma hoc (Ps 67:29b–30a).20 Of the six early chant text sources edited by Hesbert in the Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex, four indicate that Exurgat deus is to be sung first with Confirma hoc following as a versus ad repetendum. This double provision may account for the diversity of later sources, which tend to provide only one of the two verses mentioned in the earlier sources.21 Less commonly encountered among sources in the Cantus Index are Emitte spiritum and Benedic anima, both derived from Ps 103, and Omnium est, derived from Sap 7. 4.2.1.2 Spiritus domini in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Missals In Dominican sources, like the broader repertoire, the introit antiphon Spiritus domini appears in an essentially stable version (with the exception of minor orthographical and punctuation variations), while the accompanying verse shows some degree of variation. In most Dominican sources, the antiphon appears in the form found in the Graduale Synopticum (see Table 77), with a few sources including minor variations22 and three sources providing only an incipit for the introit

the Beneventan tradition presents the Roman Psalter for the introit Psalm verses whereas St. Gall sources present the Gallican Psalter for the Psalm verses while maintaining the Roman Psalter version for the introit antiphons; cf. Kelly 1989, p. 19, Kohlhaas 2001, pp. 53–54, and Pfisterer 2002, p. 77. 17 I exclude from consideration here the further texts which the Cantus Index classifies as introit tropes rather than introit verses. Some sources include more than one introit verse, e.g., first giving Omnium est and then Exurgat deus. 18 In Weber’s edition of the Roman Psalter, Ps 67:29–30 appears as follows (Weber 1953, p. 153): “[29] manda Deus uirtuti tuae confirma hoc Deus quod operatus es in nobis [30] a templo sancto tuo quod est in Hierusalem tibi offerent reges munera.” The Gallican Psalter version of these verses is similar, but (among other variations) omits the words “sancto” after “templo” and “quod est” after “tuo” in Ps 67:30: “[29] manda Deus virtutem tuam confirma Deus hoc quod operatus es nobis [30] a templo tuo in Hierusalem tibi adferent reges munera”. 19 This verse is adapted from the words which appear in bold in the following citation from Weber and Gryson’s edition of Sap 7:21–23, with the addition of est after omnium: “[21] et quaecumque sunt absconsa et inprovisa didici omnium enim artifex docuit me sapientia [22] est enim in illa spiritus intellectus sanctus unicus multiplex subtilis mobilis dissertus incoinquinatus certus suavis amans bonum acutus qui nihil vetat benefacere [23] humanus stabilis certus securus omnem habens virtutem omnia prospiciens et qui capiat omnes spiritus intellegibiles mundos subtiles.” 20 The text of the Confirma hoc verse given in the Cantus Index needs to be treated with caution; despite the apparent division of a longer and shorter version of the Confirma hoc verse, it is not clear that any sources actually include the longer version with tibi offerent reges munera; the sources listed with this ID in the Cantus Index that I have been able to check by means of digital images either include the shorter version ending at Jerusalem or only an incipit (e.g., Confirma hoc). Further, all of the sources which have full versions of the verse include the word sancto between templo and tuo, in keeping with the standard version of the Roman Psalter text for this verse. 21 See Hesbert 1935, pp. 124–125, n. 106. One of these four sources, the Codex Blandiniensis (Brussels, KBR, 10127–44, f. 106r), provides the following text after the antiphon: Psal. LXVII Ad r(epetendum). Confirma hoc deus. I interpret the numbered Psalm reference to indicate the use of the verse Exurgat deus. For a brief discussion of versus ad repetendum, see Hiley 1993, p. 109. 22 In Paris, Mazarine 31, alleluia appears twice rather than three times at the end of the antiphon; it is not clear whether this should be considered a textual variation (intended for recitation rather than singing) or a scribal error. In Pisa, Cathariniana 177, the word quod appears in

4.2 Chant Texts for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 107

antiphon.23 The content and presentation of the introit verse is considerably more complex in the Dominican sources. Table 79 presents the range of texts and modes of presentation of the verse in the Dominican manuscripts. Table 79: Introit Verses for Spiritus domini in Dominican Sources. Text

Manuscripts

Confirma hoc deus quod operatus es in nobis a templo sancto tuo quod est in ierusalem.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (Pentecost mass) Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 (Pentecost mass) Lausanne, MHL 10 (Pentecost and votive mass) Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (Pentecost mass) Mons, BC 63/201 (Pentecost and votive mass) Paris, BnF, latin 8884 (Pentecost and votive mass)24 Paris, BnF, latin 16266 (Votive mass) Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (Votive mass)

Confirma hoc deus quod operatus es in nobis a templo sancto tuo etc.

Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (Pentecost mass)

Confirma hoc deus quod operatus es in nobis a templo.

Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 (Votive mass)

Confirma hoc deus quod operatus es in nobis.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (Votive mass)

Confirma hoc deus.

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 (Votive mass)

Confirma hoc.

Paris, Mazarine 31 (Votive mass)

Confirma.

Rome, Angelica 32 (Pentecost mass)

Exurgat deus.

Paris, BnF, latin 215 (Votive mass)

[No verse]

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (Votive mass) Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 (Votive mass)

Two manuscripts (the Vatican City bible missal and the votive mass in the Los Angeles missal) omit any reference to the verse. The rest of the sources present the Ps 67:29b–30a Confirma hoc in a full or abbreviated form. One source, Paris, BnF, latin 215, presents the Ps 67:2 Exurgat deus verse in an abbreviated form, providing only the first two words of the verse. Among the bible missals, only Pisa, Cathariniana 177 and Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 present full versions of the verse, with each manuscript presenting the verse in full in one version and in an abbreviated form in the other. The other Dominican bible missals present only the incipit of the text, ranging from one to three words. Almost all of the pre-Humbert missals give the verse in full, except for Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 which has a shorter version of the verse. In this manuscript, the verse’s musical termination is written over the Euouae formulary, indicating that only the first half of the verse text has been transcribed.25

the votive mass version of the antiphon but is replaced by an abbreviated form of quidem in the Pentecost version, perhaps as the result of the scribe misreading an abbreviation. In the votive mass section of Lausanne, MHL 10, the standard triple alleluia is given in an abbreviated form: the alleluia is written once, and then followed by iii to indicate a threefold repetition. 23 Rome, Angelica 32 presents only Spiritus domini, while Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 presents Spiritus domini replevit etc. The votive mass in Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 presents Spiritus domini replevit orbem terrarum without musical notation; a later hand has added a folio reference to the location of the fully notated chant in the Pentecost formulary. 24 A later hand added Omnium est enim artifex omnem habens virtutem omnia prospiciens (Sap 7:21b, 23b) in the interlinear space in the Pentecost formulary on f. 152vb. This addition was likely made at the time when the manuscript was adapted for use at Notre Dame Cathedral, as this verse appears frequently in Parisian sources; see e.g., two 13th-century Parisian missals, Paris, BnF, latin 1112, f. 125r and Paris, BnF, latin 9441, f. 108v. In Latin 1112, Omnium is followed by Exurgat; in Latin 9441, both verses also appear, but Exurgat is labelled Aliis diebus. Notably, this addition was not made in the votive mass in Latin 8884. 25 An Euouae formulary is a conventional way of indicating the melody for the conclusion (or differentia) of a psalm tone, showing how the closing syllables of the doxology should be sung: “Et in secula seculorum amen.”

108 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

4.2.1.3 Spiritus domini in Other Bible Missals Like the Dominican bible missals, the non-Dominican bible missals examined here all provide Spiritus domini for the introit antiphon for the Pentecost and votive mass formularies. In light of the double rather than triple alleluia at the end of the antiphon in the Dominican bible missal Paris, Mazarine 31, it is notable that four non-Dominican bible missals give a double alleluia; this strengthens the possibility that a double alleluia might be considered a “liturgical variation” in text-only versions of this chant, rather than a simple scribal error.26 In contrast to the relative uniformity of the introit antiphon, the wider range of bible missals shows a broader selection of introit verses than found in Dominican sources (Table 80). While three formularies do not provide an introit verse due to their abbreviated form of presenting the chant, 15 formularies provide a verse. Half of these (eight sources) provide Omnium est enim artifex (sometimes transposed as Omnium enim est artifex), five provide Exurgat deus, and two provide Confirma hoc. Two of these sources give two verses; one gives Omnium followed by Exurgat and one gives Exurgat followed by Omnium. Table 80: Introit Verses for Spiritus domini in Non-Dominican Sources. Text

Manuscripts

Confirma hoc deus quod operatus es in nobis a templo sancto tuo quod est in ierusalem.

Lisbon, BNP, IL 34 [Augustinian] (Pentecost mass)

Confirma hoc deus quod operatus.

Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10 (Votive mass)

Exurgat deus et discipentur.

Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136 (Votive mass)

Exurgat deus.

Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236 [Parisian] (Pentecost mass) San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 (Votive mass)

Exurgat.

Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1 [Gilbertine] (Votive mass)

Exurgat. Omnium est artifex.

Paris, BnF, latin 216 (Votive mass)

Omnium est enim artifex omnem habens virtutem omnia prospiciens.

Darmstadt, ULB 1967 [Franciscan] (Pentecost mass) London, BL, Harley 2813 [Franciscan] (Votive mass)27 Paris, BnF, latin 36 [Cistercian] (Pentecost mass) Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst. [Franciscan] (Pentecost mass)

Omnium est enim artifex omnem habens virtutem omnia prospiciens. Ps. Exurgat deus.

San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 (Pentecost mass)

Omnium est enim artifex.

Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3 [Franciscan] (Pentecost mass) Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1 [Gilbertine] (Pentecost mass) London, BL, Harley 1748 (Votive mass)

[No verse]

Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202 [Franciscan] (Votive mass) Paris, BnF, latin 36 [Cistercian] (Votive mass) Paris, BnF, latin 10431 [Cistercian] (Votive mass)

The three sources which provide both Pentecost and votive formularies all present the verse differently in each case: Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1 gives Omnium for Pentecost and Exurgat for the votive mass; Paris, BnF, latin 36 gives Omnium for Pentecost and no verse for the votive mass (in keeping with the general abbreviation practice for the votive mass in this source); San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 gives Omnium followed by Exurgat for Pentecost and Exurgat alone for the votive mass. The selection of the verse is in some cases clearly connected with the liturgical tradition represented by the manuscript. All of the Franciscan sources with a verse provide some version of Omnium,28 as does the 26 Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3, f. 383r; Darmstadt, ULB 1967, f. 274r; Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10, 451r; London, BL, Harley 1748, f. 172r. 27 This source has proficiens instead of prospiciens at the end of the verse. 28 The verse Omnium is specified in the Franciscan Ordo Missalis (ed. van Dijk 1963, v. 2, p. 258) and is found in the 13th-century Franciscan missal Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale ‘Vittorio Emanuele III’, VI.G.38, f. 168r (ed. Przeczewski 2003, p. 309, §1487). The verse is still found in the 1474 Missale Romanum printed at Milan (ed. Lippe 1899, p. 239). The 1570 Missale Romanum appears to have consciously diverged from the Franciscan/curial tradition in this regard, supplying instead the Exurgat verse (see the facsimile edition edited by Sodi and Triacci 2012, p. 383, §1774); the collation of printed editions of the Missale Romanum in Lippe 1907, p. 133 does not register any pre-1570 editions with Exurgat.

4.2 Chant Texts for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 109

single Cistercian source which provides an introit verse.29 The prevalence of the Omnium verse and rarity of the Confirma verse among the broader bible missal repertoire provides helpful context for understanding the significance of the almost exclusive use of Confirma in Dominican bible missals.

4.2.2 Chants Between the Readings In contrast to the introit, which does not have any variations between the Pentecost and votive mass formularies, the selection of chants between the epistle and gospel in the Dominican sources are typically given in different forms for the two formularies. In keeping with the widespread medieval practice of omitting the gradual during the Easter Season and replacing it with an additional Alleluia verse, the Dominican Pentecost formulary typically presents two Alleluias (Emitte spiritum tuum and Veni sancte spiritus) and no gradual (and sometimes includes a sequence),30 while the Dominican votive mass formulary typically presents one gradual (Beata gens) and one Alleluia verse (Veni sancte spiritus).31 The only exceptions to this are Paris, BnF, latin 215, which presents two Alleluias despite being labelled as a votive mass (De sancto spiritu), and Rome, Angelica 32, which provides a reference to the gradual after providing two Alleluias, despite being presented as a temporal Pentecost mass (In pentecosten). The envisaged flexibility in the Rome manuscript suggests that the mass formulary was meant to function either as a temporal or votive formulary despite the apparent temporal focus of the rubric. Despite the contrast of genres included by the temporal and votive masses, both types of formularies include the Alleluia verse Veni sancte spiritus, invariably placing it as the second of the two chants between the readings. 4.2.2.1 Gradual: Beata gens All of the sources that present the gradual indicate Beata gens and usually specify the use of the verse Verbo domini. The respond of this gradual (i.e., the opening section of the chant) is taken from Ps 32:12, and the verse from Ps 32:6 (Table 81). The respond corresponds exactly with the Roman Psalter version, while the verse corresponds with both the Roman and Gallican Psalter versions.32 Table 81: Textual Sources of Beata gens (Gradual). Gradual (Graduale Synopticum)

Ps 32:12 (Roman Psalter, ed. Weber 1953, p. 64)

Beata gens cuius est dominus deus eorum populus quem elegit dominus in hereditatem sibi.

beata gens cuius est Dominus Deus eorum populus quem elegit Dominus in hereditatem sibi

Verse (Graduale Synopticum)

Ps 32:6 (Roman Psalter, ed. Weber 1953, p. 63 = Gallican Psalter, ed. Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 806)

V. Verbo domini caeli firmati sunt et spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum.

uerbo Domini caeli firmati sunt et spiritu oris eius omnis uirtus eorum

The texts of both the respond and the verse are fairly stable in the medieval repertoire, although the occasions on which it is used are quite variable.33 Four sources in the Cantus Index include it on Pentecost Sunday, while most assign it to 29 Praßl 2005, p. 345 mentions the use of Omnium as the characteristic introit verse for Pentecost in Cistercian chant sources. A sounding of two 13th-century Cistercian liturgical books supports this identification. The 13th-century Cistercian missal Vatican City, BAV, Ross. 277, provides Omnium for both the Pentecost mass on f. 113v and the votive mass on f. 231r. The c. 1225 Cistercian gradual Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, Cod. Sal. X,7, provides Omnium for the Pentecost mass on f. 72v, and does not include any indications regarding the votive mass of the Holy Spirit on f. 133r. 30 For a discussion of the early Dominican sequence repertoire, see Fassler 2004. 31 As noted below, some medieval sources provide a gradual chant as well as one or two alleluias on Pentecost Sunday. 32 The Roman Psalter includes the word dominus after elegit in Ps 32:12, which is omitted in the Gallican Psalter version of this verse; the two versions are otherwise identical. The Roman and Gallican Psalter versions of Ps 32:6 are identical. 33 For the use of this chant in a broad range of sources, see the database entries in the Graduale Synopticum and the Cantus Index: http:// gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/174 and http://cantusindex.org/id/g01217. While the sources indexed by the Graduale Synopticum do not

110 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

one of the Sundays after Pentecost (varying from the 7th, 8th, or the 15th, 16th, 17th, or 18th Sunday), to the Wednesday of the Fourth Week of Lent, to Ember Wednesday in September, or to the votive mass De Spiritu Sancto. Many sources include it on several occasions, usually giving the full chant once and a cross reference elsewhere. As Table 82 shows, most Dominican sources give the full text of both the respond and verse, while some provide an abbreviated version with the incipits of the respond and verse or the incipit of the respond alone. Of the seven bible missals which contain the gradual, four give the text in full and three in an abbreviated form. Of the five missals with the gradual, four provide the full text and one provides just incipit. Table 82: Beata gens (Gradual) in Dominican Sources. Text

Manuscripts

Beata gens cuius est dominus deus eorum populus quem elegit dominus in hereditatem sibi. V. Verbo domini celi firmati sunt et spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Lausanne, MHL 10 Mons, BC 63/201 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Paris, BnF, latin 16266 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 (heritatem instead of hereditatem)

Beata gens cuius est dominus. V. Verbo domini celi.

Paris, Mazarine 31

Beata gens cuius est. V. Verbo domini celi.

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5

Beata gens. V. Verbo domini.

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

Beata gens etc.

Rome, Angelica 32

The texts given in each source are essentially identical aside from the contrast between full and abbreviated versions. The only exception is Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3, where heritatem appears instead of hereditatem; this appears to be simply a scribal error, as this is not a standard Latin word, and as the scribe in this manuscript makes several errors in transcribing the chant text (such as writing eorumrum instead of eorum in the verse, although in that case the error was later corrected by crossing out the first rum). 4.2.2.2 Alleluia: Emitte spiritum All of the Dominican sources which present two Alleluias (i.e., the sources with the Pentecost mass as well as Paris, BnF, latin 215, which gives two Alleluias for the votive mass) first give the verse Emitte spiritum, taken from the Roman Psalter version of Ps 103:30 (Table 83).34 This verse often appears in the medieval repertoire for Pentecost Sunday, and is often also employed on one or more of the days of the Octave of Pentecost; two sources in the Cantus Index also assign it for the votive mass De spiritu sancto.35 The text is generally stable in medieval sources, although four sources in the Graduale Synopticum and one source in the Cantus Index supply the Gallican Psalter Emittes instead of the Roman Psalter Emitte as the opening word.

have any textual variants, one source in the Cantus Index, a 13th-century Cistercian gradual from the region of Silesia, has eius instead of eorum in the respond: see Warsaw, Biblioteka Narodowa, Rps 12496 IV, f. 26r. 34 The Roman and Gallican Psalter versions of this verse are identical with the exception of the first word: the Roman Psalter provides the imperative emitte, while the Gallican Psalter provides the second person future emittes. 35 For the use of this chant in a broad range of sources, see the database entries in the Graduale Synopticum and the Cantus Index: http:// gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/342 and http://cantusindex.org/id/g01091. All of the sources in the Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex (Hesbert 1935) include this text as the first of two Alleluias.

4.2 Chant Texts for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 111

Table 83: Textual Sources of Emitte spiritum (Alleluia). Alleluia (Graduale Synopticum)

Ps 103:30 (Roman Psalter, ed. Weber)

Alleluia. V. Emitte spiritum tuum et creabuntur et renovabis faciem terrae.

emitte spiritum tuum et creabuntur et renouabis faciem terrae

In contrast to the other chant texts which are provided in a range of full and abbreviated forms in various manuscripts, the Dominican sources which include this verse almost exclusively present it in an identical form: Emitte spiritum tuum et creabuntur et renovabis faciem terre. It is noteworthy that Rome, Angelica 32, which presents all the other chant texts in an abbreviated form, provides the full text for this verse. In contrast to the other sources, Pisa, Cathariniana 177 presents an abbreviated version of the verse: Emitte spiritum tuum etc. 4.2.2.3 Alleluia: Veni sancte spiritus All of the Dominican sources include the Alleluia verse Veni sancte spiritus in both the Pentecost and votive masses (Table 84). In contrast to the other chant texts considered here, this Alleluia verse does not derive from a scriptural source and does not form part of the early chant repertoire, but first appears in early 11th-century sources.36 Despite its relatively late date, the verse is widespread in the medieval sources, assigned to a variety of occasions including Pentecost Sunday, various days in the octave of Pentecost, and other occasions such as the Dedication of an Altar or the votive mass of the Holy Spirit.37 Table 84: Text of Veni sancte spiritus (Alleluia). Alleluia (Graduale Synopticum) Alleluia. V. Veni sancte spiritus reple tuorum corda fidelium et tui amoris in eis ignem accende.

The Veni sancte spiritus is presented in both full and abbreviated forms in Dominican sources. Among the bible missals, it appears in incipit form four times and in a full version in the other six sources. Pisa, Cathariniana 177 gives the full text in the votive mass formulary and an abbreviated version in the Pentecost formulary. Among the missals, it always appears in full, with the exception of the votive mass version in Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 which provides a cross reference to the Pentecost version. Except for corrected scribal errors, the text is essentially identical in all of the sources.38 The only exception to this is Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, which presents the closing phrase as in eis ignem accende in the votive mass but in an inverted form as ignem in eis accende in the Pentecost mass. Given the apparent rarity of this inverted version of the verse, it seems to be a scribal error rather than a liturgical variation. 4.2.2.4 Sequence: Sancti spiritus and Veni sancte spiritus Only one Dominican bible missal includes a sequence for Pentecost, providing Sancti spiritus assit nobis gratia, a chant ascribed to Notker Balbulus (d. 912) widely found in medieval liturgical sources.39 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum,

36 None of the sources edited in the Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex (Hesbert 1935) include the chant. Schlager 1965, pp. 72–73 lists 53 sources which include the Veni sancte spiritus, the earliest of which date to the beginning of the 11th century. Schlager 1968, pp. 519–520, provides a transcription of the text and melody from Benevento, Biblioteca capitolare, MS 39, a late 11th-century gradual-tropary-sequentiary to the end of the 11th century, where it appears on f. 102r as part of a secondary formulary for the Saturday in the Octave of Pentecost (cf. Mallet and Thibaut 1997, pp. 244, 246, 515–516). 37 For the use of this chant in a broad range of sources, see the database entries in the Graduale Synopticum and the Cantus Index: http:// gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/1474 and http://cantusindex.org/id/g01092. 38 The scribe of Paris, BnF, latin 8884 originally omitted in eis in the Pentecost mass, but the omitted words were supplied as an addition above the line, perhaps by the original scribe; the full text appears as normal in the votive mass. The scribe of Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 originally wrote Venini as the opening word, but the superfluous ni has been expunctuated. 39 See Bower 2016, v. 2, p. 122: “Of all sequences associated with the early repertoire of Sankt Gallen, this one is the most widely received and prescribed for Pentecost in liturgical books, with iterations not only in all Germanic territories, but also throughout France, Italy, England, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia.” For an edition of the sequence with a translation and commentary, see Bower 2016, v. 1, pp. 216–220, v. 2, pp. 119–126. For a list of manuscripts which include the sequence, see Blume and Bannister 1911, pp. 119–122, §60.

112 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

McClean 16, which provides a selection of sequences at the end of the missal section of the manuscript (ff. 563v–565r), presents Sancti spiritus assit nobis gratia with the rubric In die penthecostes on f. 564ra–564rb. Although this manuscript occasionally includes incipits for the sequences within the main body of the missal, for instance including the incipit for the Letabundus within the Christmas formulary on f. 525ra and the Epiphany formulary on f. 525va, no reference is made to the Sancti spiritus sequence within the Pentecost or votive mass formularies. With the exception of the Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 and Rome, Angelica 32,40 each pre-Humbert Dominican missal presents the Sancti spiritus sequence in a sequentiary section at the end of the manuscript, but only Mons, BC 63/201 references the sequence within the Pentecost formulary.41 Like Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, the other full missals reference the Letabundus in the Christmas and Epiphany formularies but not the Pentecost sequence; this suggests the possibility of common source manuscript that lies behind the copying of these various missals, and underscores the close textual connection of the Cambridge bible missal with other pre-Humbert full missals.42 In contrast to Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, which only includes the sequence Sancti spiritus for Pentecost, three pre-Humbert missals also provide the sequence Veni sancte spiritus (not to be confused with the Alleluia Veni sancte spiritus). Although often attributed to Stephen Langton (c. 1165–1228) or Pope Innocent III (c. 1160–1216), the sequence appears to have been in circulation in the mid-12th century, as it is cited in the Middle High German St. Trudperter Hohelied which was likely composed before c. 1160.43 The three pre-Humbert missals that include Veni sancte spiritus place it in a position that indicates some uncertainty on where it should fit into the liturgical cycle. Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, f. 241v gives the Veni sancte spiritus between the Trinity sequence Profitentes unitatem and the Dominic sequence In celesti ierarchia. Mons, BC 63/201, f. 263r places the Veni sancte spiritus with the rubric De sancto spiritu immediately after the Pentecost sequence Sancti spiritus and before the Trinity sequence Profitentes unitatem. Paris, BnF, latin 8884, f. 295v gives the Veni sancte spiritus between the De quolibet sancto sequence Superne matris gaudia and the In festo omnium sanctorum sequence Gaudeat ecclesia. One further pre-Humbert liturgical book, the gradual Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 10773, f. 183r–v gives the Veni sancte spiritus immediately after the Exultet, which itself follows a series of fifteen other sequences, and it is possible that the Veni sancte spiritus is a latter addition.44 The highly variable arrange40 Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 does not contain any reference to a sequence within the Pentecost formulary, which is part of the 13th-century layer of the manuscript. The sections where a Christmas or Epiphany reference to the Letabundus sequence may have once appeared have now been replaced by the 15th-century supplement to the manuscript, and do not contain a reference to the sequence. It is not clear if the manuscript contained a collection of sequences in its original 13th-century form. The 15th-century supplement does not include a sequentiary. Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 contains a sequentiary section on ff. 119v–137r, but does not provide the Sancti spiritus or the Veni sancte spiritus sequence; the sequentiary in this manuscript is more selective than those in other Dominican manuscripts, only providing sequences for Mary and certain saints (including Dominic and Peter Martyr) and not for temporal occasions. 41 Mons, BC 63/201 includes the incipit Sancti spiritus on f. 123v and provides the full text with music on ff. 262va–263ra. Unlike the other missals discussed here, the Mons missal does not reference the Letabundus in the Christmas formularies on ff. 10r–13v, but does reference it in the Epiphany formulary on f. 16v. 42 Lausanne, MHL 10 includes references to the Letabundus on f. 14r (Christmas) and f. 16r (Epiphany); it includes the text of the Sancti spiri­ tus within the Sequentiary section on f. 205ra. Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 includes references to the Letabundus on f. 19rb (Christmas) and f. 21vb (Epiphany); it provides the text and music of Sancti spiritus in the Sequentiary section on f. 238r–v. Paris, BnF, latin 8884 includes reference to the Letabundus on f. 21rb (Christmas) and f. 24r (Epiphany); it provides the text of the Sancti spiritus within the Sequentiary section on ff. 294vb–295ra. 43 For the text of the Veni sancte spiritus sequence and a discussion of its authorship, see Blume and Bannister 1915, Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi 54, pp. 234–239, §153. For a discussion of the problems with the attributions to Stephen Langton or Innocent III and the connection with the St. Trudperter Hohelied, see Tax 2006, who concludes that the sequence is an anonymous composition of the mid-12th century. Tax’s position has been widely accepted by later scholars; cf. Baumann 2009, p. 41; Paravicini Bagliani 2010, p. 38; Lohse 2011, p. 426; Walsh and Husch 2012, pp. xviii–xix, xxv. The earliest witnesses of the Veni sancte spiritus indexed in the Analecta Hymnica are from the end of the 12th century and beginning of the 13th century (often as a later addition to an earlier liturgical book), and the use of the sequence expanded considerably in the 14th and 15th centuries, eventually displacing the Sancti spiritus sequence for use on Pentecost itself; cf. Blume and Bannister 1915, p. 237: “Vom 14. Jahrh. an läßt sich die Quellenliste leicht verdoppeln; vom 15. Jahrh. an findet sich die Sequenz fast in jedem Missale oder Graduale.” On pp. 238–239, Blume and Bannister acknowledge that the Veni creator spiritus eventually displaced the Sancti spiritus for use on Pentecost itself, but do not state when this shift began to take place. On p. 239, Blume and Bannister highlight the use of the sequence in the Dominican tradition for the Monday and Tuesday after Pentecost. 44 For a description of this manuscript, see Kessler 2010, pp. 161–166. In addition to the unusual placement, there are some indications that this and several preceding sequences may be later additions to the manuscript: Dirks 1979, p. 20 suggests that the final six sequences (including the Veni sancte spiritus) and the Exultet may be later additions, pointing out discontinuities in the decorative style used for the initials of the verses. On the other hand, there is continuity in the medieval foliation in the right-hand margin of the rectos up to and including f. 183r (clxxvii in the

4.2 Chant Texts for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 113

ment of this sequence in these four pre-Humbert sources and its absence from Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 and the pre-Humbert missal Lausanne, MHL 10 suggests that the Veni sancte spiritus had only been tentatively received in the pre-Humbert liturgy.45 4.2.2.5 Chants Between the Readings in Other Bible Missals Like the Dominican sources, other bible missals tend to provide one gradual and one Alleluia for the votive mass and two Alleluias for the Pentecost mass. There are two exceptions to this distinction between the votive and temporal mass. The Cistercian bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 36 provides the gradual Beata gens as well as two Alleluias for Pentecost; as Cistercian books do not generally provide a gradual for Pentecost, the most likely explanation for this anomaly is that the same source gives only incipits for the chants of the votive mass of the Holy Spirit, including the incipit for the gradual Beata gens and a single Alleluia, so the inclusion of the full Beata gens text in the Pentecost formulary may be intended to make the Pentecost formulary usable either as a temporal or votive mass.46 Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136, a bible missal of unidentified liturgical origin, provides two Alleluia chants for the formulary entitled De sancto spiritu: Emitte spiritum tuum and Spiri­ tus domini.47 In this case, the explanation for the omission of the gradual and the presence of two Alleluias may be that the formulary has been copied without alteration from a source which assigned it to Pentecost.48 As noted above, all Dominican sources with two Alleluias provide Emitte spiritum and Veni sancte spiritus. Of the eight other bible missals which provide two Alleluias, four provide the same selection; these include the three Franciscan sources49 as well as the Augustinian bible missal Lisbon, BNP, IL 34. San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 provides Emitte spiritum, but pairs it with Non vos relinquam, a chant which is rarely assigned to Pentecost Sunday in medieval sources.50 The Parisian bible missal Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236 provides Spiritus sanctus procedens followed by Paraclitus spiritus sanctus, a pairing that is characteristic of Parisian missals but also found in some other sources.51 The Cistercian bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 36 and the Gilbertine bible missal Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1 provide Veni sancte spiritus followed by Paraclitus spiritus sanctus, a paring which is characteristic of Cistercian and Gilbertine sources.52 As with the introit verse, the varied selection of Alleluia verses in the broader range of bible missals is a confirmation of the relative uniformity of the Dominican bible missals amid a range of liturgical possibilities. medieval foliation), although this medieval foliation is not continued for the later additions which come after f. 183v. In earlier sections, the medieval foliation is clearly an integral part of the production of the manuscript, as it is systematically utilized for cross-references for chants provided only with incipits, e.g., on f. 113r. Further study of the manuscript is needed to make a definitive determination on this point. 45 In the Humbert reform, the Veni sancte spiritus was placed immediately after the Pentecost Sunday Sancti spiritus sequence and given the rubric In crastino pentecostes et die sequenti; see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 364va–vb. The placement in the Mons missal is perhaps an early witness to this approach. 46 The 13th-century Cistercian missal Vatican City, BAV, Ross. 277, provides the Alleluias Veni sancte spiritus and Paraclitus spiritus sanctus for the Pentecost mass on f. 113v and the gradual Beata gens and the alleluia Veni sancte spiritus for the votive mass on f. 231r. The c. 1225 Cistercian gradual Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, Cod. Sal. X,7, provides the Alleluias Veni sancte spiritus and Paraclitus spiritus sanctus for the Pentecost mass on ff. 72v–73r; in the margin on f. 73r a later hand has added a cross reference and folio number for the gradual Beata gens. Given the absence of a votive mass of the Holy Spirit in this source, it is likely that this indication provides for the use of the Pentecost chants as a votive formulary. 47 Spiritus domini is found widely in the medieval liturgy assigned to a variety of days within the octave of Pentecost, and in some sources on Pentecost itself; see http://cantusindex.org/id/g02103. 48 This possibility seems strengthened by the fact that the formulary provides the typical Pentecost epistle from Act 2 rather than the typical Votive epistle from Act 8 and presents the collect in the Pentecost version (with hodierna die) rather than the votive adaptation (without hodierna die), aspects which will be discussed in more detail below. 49 Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3, Darmstadt, ULB 1967, and Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst.. 50 Of the 72 sources which include this chant in the Cantus Index, only one assigns it to Pentecost Sunday; it is most commonly assigned to Ascension Thursday or the Sunday after Ascension, and occasionally to various days in the octave of Pentecost; see http://cantusindex.org/id/507020. 51 For this pairing in two 13th-century Parisian missals, see Paris, BnF, latin 1112, f. 125v and Paris, BnF, latin 9441, f. 109r. The same pair is also found in a 13th-century Bayeux missal: Bayeux, Bibliothèque du chapitre, MS 62, f. 30v and in a 15th-century notated missal from Châlons-surMarne: Paris, BnF, latin 866, f. 41v. While further research may determine other liturgical traditions that pair these two Alleluias for Pentecost Sunday, it is noteworthy that the only sources with this pair in the Usuarium database come from Paris, Bayeux, and Châlons: the 1481 Missale Parisiense, the 1503 Missale Baiocense, and the 1509 Missale Cathalaunense. 52 Besides the Cambridge Gilbertine bible missal, the only other extant Gilbertine mass book with chant texts includes these two Alleluias: see Lincoln, Lincoln Cathedral, MS 115 (A.5.5), f. 26v. This folio is part of the 13th-century Gilbertine festive missal portion of the manuscript; the 12th-century Gilbertine sacramentary portion of the manuscript does not include chant texts.

114 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

Two Franciscan bible missals include texts or references to the Pentecost sequence Sancti spiritus: Darmstadt, ULB 1967 and Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst. The Darmstadt manuscript only provides the incipit, while the Wolfenbüttel manuscript gives the full text. None of the non-Dominican bible missals studied here include the sequence Veni sancte spiritus.

4.2.3 Offertory 4.2.3.1 Confirma hoc in Medieval Liturgical Books The Pentecost and votive mass formularies in Dominican sources provide the offertory Confirma hoc, a chant found widely in medieval sources for Pentecost and various days in the octave of Pentecost.53 This offertory is derived from Ps 67:29b–30, a slightly longer version of the same scriptural source utilized for the introit verse found in most Dominican sources.54 Given the complexity of the variations which will be discussed below, it is helpful to first compare the Roman and Gallican Psalter versions of these verses. In Table 85, the two versions of Ps 67:29–30 are each subdivided into two half-verses; the words which differ between the two versions are presented in bold, and the words of the Roman Psalter which are omitted in the Gallican Psalter are indicated with square brackets ([]) in the Gallican Psalter column. Table 85: Ps 67:29–30 in the Roman and Gallican Psalters. Ps 67:29–30: Roman Psalter (ed. Weber 1953, p. 153)

Ps 67:29–30: Gallican Psalter (ed. Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 850)

[29a] manda Deus uirtuti tuae [29b] confirma hoc Deus quod operatus es in nobis [30a] a templo sancto tuo quod est in Hierusalem [30b] tibi offerent reges munera.

[29a] manda Deus virtutem tuam [29b] confirma Deus hoc quod operatus es [] nobis [30a] a templo [] tuo [] [] in Hierusalem [30b] tibi adferent reges munera

While several of these differences are characteristic of the two versions, some biblical sources show contamination between the two versions. In the apparatus of his edition of the Roman Psalter, Weber indicates that one source presents 29b as deus hoc, two sources omit sancto in 30a, and several sources present offerunt instead of offerent.55 In the apparatus of their edition of the Gallican Psalter, Weber and Gryson indicate that the Clementine Vulgate presents 29b with hoc deus and with the addition of in before nobis, and that the Clementine Vulgate as well as the Φ family of 9th-century manuscripts that follow the exemplar of Alcuin’s scriptorium present 30b with offerent instead of adferent.56 In most medieval liturgical sources, the text of the offertory is fairly stable, although the second-person es is sometimes written as the third-person est and the future offerent is sometimes written as present offerunt (Table 86). Given the presence of hoc deus and quod est in the liturgical text, it seems clear that the text is derived from the Roman Psalter rather than the Gallican Psalter, in keeping with the primacy of the Roman Psalter in the broader repertoire of mass chants. However, the offertory text typically omits sancto after templo, which is a noteworthy departure from the Roman Psalter text, although two Roman Psalter manuscripts studied by Weber also omit sancto, as do a number of manuscripts which present more distantly related versions of the Psalter. The three manuscripts which transmit the Roman chant tradition (sometimes referred to as “Old Roman”) include sancto after templo, a fact that is significant in light of the Dominican versions of the chant.57

53 For the use of this chant in a broad range of sources, see the database entries in the Graduale Synopticum and the Cantus Index: http:// gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/501 and http://cantusindex.org/id/g01094. 54 As discussed above, the introit version consists of Ps 67:29b–30a, omitting tibi offerent reges munera. 55 Weber 1953, p. 153. 56 Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 850. 57 See the table of textual variations between the “Roman” and “Gregorian” texts of this offertory in Maloy 2010, p. 241, n. 60. For a brief introduction to Roman/“Old Roman” chant and the three manuscripts utilized here, Pfisterer 2018, pp. 82–83, although in the table on p. 83 the shelf mark for Vat. lat. 5319 is incorrectly listed as “Reginensi Latini 5319.” For another perspective on the relationship between early chant repertoires, see Dyer 2018, pp. 113–116.

4.2 Chant Texts for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 115

Table 86: Medieval Versions of Confirma hoc (Offertory). Offertory (Graduale Synopticum)

Offertory (Roman sources)58

Confirma hoc deus quod operatus es in nobis a templo tuo quod est in hierusalem tibi offerent reges munera alleluia.

Confirma hoc deus quod operatus es in nobis a templo sancto tuo quod est in hierusalem tibi offerunt/offerent59 reges munera alleluia.

4.2.3.2 Confirma hoc in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Missals

As with the other chant genres, some Dominican sources present only the incipit of the chant, while most present the full text. In contrast to the other chant genres, which are in general presented with identical versions of the chant texts, the Dominican sources which contain the full text of Confirma hoc have an unusual range of textual variations. In Table 87, the text is given as found in each manuscript; variations from the Graduale Synopticum version have been put in bold, and omissions have been indicated with square brackets ([]). Table 87: Confirma hoc (Offertory) in Dominican Sources. Text

Manuscripts

Confirma hoc deus quod operatus es in nobis a templo tuo quod est in ierusalem tibi offerent reges munera alleluia.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (Pentecost mass) Lausanne, MHL 10 (Pentecost mass) Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (Pentecost mass) Mons, BC 63/201 (Pentecost and votive mass) Paris, BnF, latin 215 (Votive mass) Paris, BnF, latin 8884 (Pentecost mass) Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (Votive mass)

Confirma hoc deus quod operatus es in nobis a templo sancto tuo quod est in ierusalem tibi offerent reges munera alleluia.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (Votive mass; omits alleluia) Lausanne, MHL 10 (Votive mass; has Confirma deus hoc instead of Confirma hoc deus and operatus est instead of operatus es) Paris, BnF, latin 8884 (Votive mass; has vobis instead of nobis) Paris, BnF, latin 16266 (Votive mass) Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 (Votive mass; has operatus est instead of operatus es)

Confirma hoc deus quod operatus es in nobis a templo tuo sancto quod est in ierusalem tibi offerent reges munera alleluia.

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 (Votive mass)

Confirma hoc deus quod operatus [] in nobis a templo tuo [] in ierusalem tibi offerent reges munera alleluia.

Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 (Pentecost mass)

Confirma hoc deus quod operatus es in nobis.

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (Votive mass)

Confirma hoc deus.

Paris, Mazarine 31 (Votive mass) Rome, Angelica 32 (Pentecost mass) Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 (Votive mass)

Confirma etc.

Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (Pentecost mass)

As Table 87 shows, eight of the fifteen full text versions of the offertory give the “standard” version of the text. With the exception of the Mons missal, each source that presents the full text for both the Pentecost and votive mass has small but significant variations between the two versions. Variations appears in five phrases in the offertory text, labelled A-E in Table 88:

58 See the gradual of St. Cecilia in Trastevere (written in 1071), Cologny, Fondation Martin Bodmer, Cod. Bodmer 74, f. 106r; the 11th/12th-century gradual of the Schola cantorum, Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 5319, f. 107v; and the 13th-century gradual of St. Peter’s Basilica, Vatican City, BAV, Arch. Cap. S. Pietro F. 22, f. 63r. It should be noted that these sources also transmit offertory verses. 59 Bodmer 74 and Vat. lat. 5319 have offerunt while Arch. Cap. S. Pietro F. 22 has offerent.

116 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 88: Textual Variations in Dominican Sources of Confirma hoc (Offertory). Standard Version

Textual Variations60

(A) Confirma hoc deus

Confirma deus hoc (Lausanne votive mass)

(B) quod operatus es in nobis

quod operatus est in nobis (Lausanne votive mass; Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 votive mass) quod operatus [] in nobis (Karlsruhe Pentecost mass) quod operatus es in vobis (Paris, BnF, latin 8884 votive mass)

(C) a templo tuo

a templo sancto tuo (Cambridge votive mass; Lausanne votive mass; Paris, BnF, latin 8884 votive mass; Paris, BnF, latin 16266 votive mass; Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 votive mass) a templo tuo sancto (Oxford votive mass)

(D) quod est in hierusalem

[] [] in ierusalem (Karlsruhe Pentecost mass)

(E) tibi offerent reges munera alleluia.

tibi offerent reges munera. [] (Cambridge votive mass)

In phrase A, the Lausanne votive mass (but not the Pentecost mass) inverts Confirma hoc deus as Confirma deus hoc. Given the apparent rarity of this variation in liturgical sources, it seems possible that the scribe has unconsciously reverted to a Gallican Psalter version of these words (confirma deus hoc quod operatus es in nobis) which may have been more familiar to the scribe.61 In phrase B, two sources provide est instead of es. As noted above, this variation is attested in non-Dominican liturgical versions of this offertory, although it does not appear in the apparatus of the Weber edition of the Roman Psalter or the Weber-Gryson edition of the Vulgate. In Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3, est is written out in full; in the Lausanne, MHL 10 votive mass, it is written as an “insular est” (÷), which the scribe also employs for the est in quod est in ierusalem. In both manuscripts, the use of est is likely a scribal error, although there is a remote possibility that the Lausanne scribe is using the same abbreviation symbol in an unusual way to indicate two different but related sounds (es and est).62 Finally, one manuscript (Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20) omits es entirely and one manuscript (Paris, BnF, latin 8884) provides vobis instead of nobis, but these seem most likely to be simple scribal errors. The most significant variation appears in phrase C, where six sources add the word sancto; five include sancto between templo and tuo, as in the Roman Psalter, while one adds it after templo tuo. As noted above, most medieval sources of this chant omit sancto, although the Old Roman sources are notable for including the word.63 In the case of the Dominican sources, it is striking that all of the Pentecost formularies omit sancto, but six of the nine votive mass formularies with a full offertory text include it. It is omitted by Mons, BC 63/201,64 Paris, BnF, latin 215,65 and Pisa, Cathariniana 177.66 Five of the six votive mass formularies which include sancto place it between templo and tuo (as it appears in the Roman Psalter), while Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 places sancto after templo tuo. As it seems unlikely that five separate sources would independently have the same scribal error in the votive mass but not in the Pentecost mass, two explanations for

60 For full shelfmarks, see Table 87. 61 As this source is a missal rather than a bible missal, it is impossible to compare the text with a full psalter within the same source. A sounding of Ps 67:29 in the psalters of Dominican bible missals which contain the Gallican Psalter suggest that the following version was fairly standard: Manda deus virtuti tue: confirma deus hoc quod operatus es in nobis. See Brussels, KBR 8882, f. 196va (which, as usual with this source, presents the verse in an abbreviated form); Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 162vb; Paris, BnF, latin 215, 243vb–244ra; Rome, Angelica 32, f. 199va. 62 In the Pentecost mass, es is fully written out and est is written with ÷. The same scribe seems to have written the texts in both sections, although he or she employed different forms of abbreviation in several parallel passages. I am grateful to Dr. Sarah Gilbert for suggesting the possibility that the Lausanne scribe may have misconstrued deus as a nominative rather than a vocative, thus requiring est rather than es, and that this misconstrual is possibly connected with the reversal of hoc and deus. On the other hand, the imperative mood of Confirma seems to require the second person es; in this regard, it is interesting that the scribe of Paris, BnF, latin 8884 mistakenly wrote Confirmat rather than Confirma in the Pentecost mass, although in that case es appears rather than est as would be required by the third person verb. 63 Although versions of the Pentecost offertory with sancto appear to be very rare, it does appear in some non-Dominican sources, e.g., in a 14th-century missal from Forcheim: Philadelphia, Free Library, Lewis E 161, f. 130v; for further details on this manuscript, see Pfändtner 2005. 64 Mons, BC 63/201 gives identical fully notated versions of the offertory for Pentecost and the votive mass, both of which omit sancto. 65 Paris, BnF, latin 215 also mixes other elements of the Pentecost and votive formularies; as discussed above, it gives the two Pentecost Alleluia verses rather than the votive gradual and Alleluia; as will be discussed below, it gives the Pentecost form of the collect but the votive epistle. 66 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 gives an abbreviated version of the offertory for the Pentecost formulary but the full text (without sancto) for the votive mass.

4.2 Chant Texts for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 117

this common variation seem possible: 1) that at some point in the transmission of early Dominican liturgical sources the word sancto was mistakenly added in the votive mass version of the offertory but not the Pentecost version and was passed down to later sources; or 2) that distinct versions of the offertory chant were circulating in the medieval liturgy, one of which was generally associated with the temporal mass while the other was generally associated with the votive mass. It is significant that most of the sources considered here transmit only the text of the offertory, in which the addition or omission of a word could easily go unnoticed in transmission. In Mons, BC 63/201, the only source that contains musical notation for both the Pentecost and votive masses, the two texts and melodies are identical. In Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3, the one source that contains musical notation for the votive mass version of the offertory (but which does not provide a Pentecost formulary), the word sancto was included by the text scribe, but no musical notation is provided for this word; despite the presence of sancto on the fourth line of the offertory, the melody leaps from templo to tuo in a musical phrase that seems to is identical with the Pentecost version of the melody in Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 and the Pentecost and votive versions in Mons, BC 63/201.67 The discrepancy between the text and musical notation in Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 raises interesting questions about the source or sources which were available to the text and chant scribe or scribes producing this manuscript.68 It is possible that the source included text but not music for sancto, just as in the present manuscript. It is possible that the text scribe was copying from a source with musical notation that omitted sancto but added it from memory based on his or her familiarity with the version of the introit verse which likewise includes sancto. It is possible that the text scribe was working from an exemplar that did not include musical notation, but that the music scribe was working from a different source with musical notation that omitted sancto entirely. It is conceivable that text scribe was working from a source with musical notation that included both text and music for sancto, but that the music scribe decided not to transcribe the musical notation for this passage. In a related case, the music scribe of the manuscript shows independence from the text scribe: in the votive mass communion chant Factus est repente, which will be discussed in the next section, the text scribe omitted the word et from a certain passage, but the music scribe nevertheless added a note where the word et should have been. Whatever the reason for the inclusion of text and omission of music for sancto in the offertory, this complex situation is a reminder that the small repertoire of identified pre-Humbert Dominican liturgical books with musical notation for mass chants makes a definitive judgment difficult, although the Mons missal provides helpful evidence that the sancto variation is a purely textual rather than musical variation. In the absence of a discovery of a notated Dominican version of this chant which includes musical notation for sancto, it seems likely that the addition of this word is the result of a purely textual variation that arose in the transmission of the textual tradition of the votive mass of the Holy Spirit in early Dominican sources. Nevertheless, the existence of the alternate Old Roman tradition which includes sancto suggests that the possibility of an independently circulating musical version which includes sancto should not be excluded. In phrase D, one source (Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20) omits quod est; given the omission of these words in the Gallican Psalter, it is possible that the scribe has been unconsciously influenced by familiarity with that version; on the other hand, the same scribe does include quod est in the equivalent place of the introit verse on f. 146r, so the omission in the offertory may simply be the result of scribal error. In this regard, it may be recalled that the same scribe omitted es in phrase B, likely simply by scribal error. Finally, in phrase E, one source (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16) omits alleluia from the end of the chant in the votive mass version, although the word is included in the Pentecost version. This seems most likely to be a simple scribal error, given the lack of other sources with the same variation.

67 An essentially identical melody appears for this passage in the one other identified pre-Humbert liturgical book which provides musical notation for the Pentecost offertory, a Dominican gradual perhaps from Strasbourg: Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 10773, f. 86v. For a description of this manuscript, see Kessler 2010, pp. 161–166. This source does not include any indications for the votive mass of the Holy Spirit. 68 It is possible that one scribe was writing both text and melody, or that separate scribes undertook each task. In the following discussion I will refer to the “text scribe” and “music scribe” while keeping open the question of whether or not they were the same person.

118 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

4.2.3.3 Offertory Chants in Other Bible Missals Like the Dominican sources, most other bible missals include Confirma hoc deus for the offertory of both the Pentecost and votive mass formularies. All of the Pentecost formularies include this text in the standard form described above (although Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1 presents only the incipit). The votive mass version shows more diversity. Seven of the ten formularies present Confirma hoc deus (with minor variations but with none including sancto), two present alternate texts, and one (Paris, BnF, latin 216) omits a reference to the offertory. The Cistercian bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 10431 presents the incipit Factus est repente for the votive mass offertory; this is an unusual witness of the 13th-century use of an alternate Pentecost chant that appears in a very small number of medieval chant sources.69 The Augustinian bible missal San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 presents the incipit Emitte for the votive mass offertory, although the Pentecost mass in the same source gives the entire text of the standard Confirma hoc deus. The offertory Emitte spiritum tuum appears in many medieval sources for the Pentecost Vigil and is found in four Cantus Index sources assigned to the votive mass of the Holy Spirit.70

4.2.4 Communion 4.2.4.1 Factus est repente in Medieval Liturgical Books Dominican sources for the Pentecost mass and the votive mass all provide the communion Factus est repente, a chant found widely in the medieval liturgy for Pentecost Sunday and certain days within the octave of Pentecost.71 The text for the antiphon is a synthesis of phrases from Act 2:2, 4, and 11, a range of verses also found in the epistle typically assigned for the Pentecost mass, Act 2:1–11. In sources represented by the Graduale Synopticum the text is essentially stable.72 In Table 89, the Graduale Synopticum version of the chant is given in the left column, with the scriptural sources printed in bold in the right column; the omitted verses have been supplied in order to give a sense of the extent of omitted material. With the exception of the single alleluia after sedentes in the middle of the chant and the double alleluia at the end, all of the words of the chant are taken from the scriptural text, although certain scriptural words within particular verses are omitted. Table 89: Textual Sources of Factus est repente (Communion). Communion (Graduale Synopticum)

Act 2:2–11 (ed. Weber-Gryson 2007, pp. 1699–1700)

Factus est repente de caelo sonus advenientis spiritus vehementis ubi erant sedentes alleluia

[2] et factus est repente de caelo sonus tamquam advenientis spiritus vehementis et replevit totam domum ubi erant sedentes [3] et apparuerunt illis dispertitae linguae tamquam ignis seditque supra singulos eorum

69 This chant appears in only one of the Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex sources, the c. 800 Codex Blandiniensis (Brussels, KBR, 10127–44, f. 106r; see Hesbert 1935, p. 124, §106), where it is given after Confirma hoc deus as an alternative or additional offertory for Pentecost Sunday, and appears in a small number of later sources discussed by Levy 1987, pp. 12–26 (= Levy 1998, pp. 94–107). Hesbert 1963 had argued that the offertory Factus est repente was of Roman origin, but Levy 1987 argued that it was rather of Gallican origin. Dyer 1998, p. 18 discusses the views of Hesbert and Levy and adds further evidence for a non-Roman origin of the chant. Smyth 2000, p. 26 concurs with the judgment that it is of Gallican origin. Pfisterer 2005, p. 171 characterizes Factus est repente as part of a group of “early local additions, perhaps taken over from some older repertory.” In addition to the sources discussed by Levy, the offertory also appears in a 12th-century gradual from the diocese of Gubbio, Paris, BnF, NAL 1669, f. 113v, as indicated by the Cantus Index (http://cantusindex.org/id/g02735). While further research may cast light on other 13th-century sources with this offertory, the possibility that the incipit in Paris, BnF, latin 10431 was a scribal error should also be considered, given that the same incipit appears in this bible missal for the communion chant and may have been inadvertently copied for the offertory as well. Notably, the use of this chant is not characteristic of Cistercian liturgical books. 70 See the database entries for this chant in the Graduale Synopticum and the Cantus Index: http://gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/526 and http://cantusindex.org/id/g01088. 71 For the use of this chant in a broad range of sources, see the database entries in the Graduale Synopticum and the Cantus Index: http:// gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/652 and http://cantusindex.org/id/g01095. 72 One source presents sedentis instead of sedentes and one source originally omitted sancto.

4.2 Chant Texts for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 119

Table 89 (continued) Communion (Graduale Synopticum)

Act 2:2–11 (ed. Weber-Gryson 2007, pp. 1699–1700)

et repleti sunt omnes spiritu sancto

[4] et repleti sunt omnes Spiritu Sancto et coeperunt loqui aliis linguis prout Spiritus Sanctus dabat eloqui illis [5] erant autem in Hierusalem habitantes Iudaei viri religiosi ex omni natione quae sub caelo sunt [6] facta autem hac voce convenit multitudo et mente confusa est quoniam audiebat unusquisque lingua sua illos loquentes [7] stupebant autem omnes et mirabantur dicentes nonne omnes ecce isti qui loquuntur Galilaei sunt [8] et quomodo nos audivimus unusquisque lingua nostra in qua nati sumus [9] Parthi et Medi et Elamitae et qui habitant Mesopotamiam et Iudaeam et Cappadociam Pontum et Asiam [10] Frygiam et Pamphiliam Aegyptum et partes Lybiae quae est circa Cyrenen et advenae romani

loquentes magnalia dei alleluia alleluia.

[11] Iudaei quoque et proselyti Cretes et Arabes audivimus loquentes eos nostris linguis magnalia Dei

4.2.4.2 Factus est repente in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Missals Like the other chants, Dominican manuscripts present the communion chant Factus est repente in a range of full and incipit versions (Table 90). Among the sources with the full text, several variations appear, but they seem to be the result of scribal error rather than representing distinct traditions. In Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, the votive mass omits ubi erant sedentes, although this phrase is included in the Pentecost mass. The Lausanne, MHL 10 Pentecost mass originally omitted the same phrase along with the succeeding alleluia, but the original scribe added the missing text in the interlinear margin, and the normal text appears in the Lausanne votive mass. Paris, BnF, latin 8884 omits et before repleti in the Pentecost mass but includes it in the votive mass. As previously mentioned, Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 omits the same word, although it was later supplied in the margin; significantly, the music scribe wrote a note where et should have appeared. In both cases, this omission seems to be a simple scribal error. Table 90: Factus est repente (Communion) in Dominican Sources. Text

Manuscripts

Factus est repente de celo sonus advenientis spiritus vehementis ubi erant sedentes alleluia et repleti sunt omnes spiritu sancto loquentes magnalia dei alleluia alleluia.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 (Pentecost mass; votive mass omits ubi erant sedentes) Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 (Pentecost mass) Lausanne, MHL 10 (Votive mass; Pentecost mass provides ubi erant sedentes alleluia as interlinear addition likely by the original hand) Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (Pentecost mass) Mons, BC 63/201 (Pentecost and votive mass) Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 (Votive mass) Paris, BnF, latin 215 (Votive mass) Paris, BnF, latin 8884 (Votive mass; Pentecost mass omits et before repleti) Paris, BnF, latin 16266 (Votive mass) Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (Votive mass) Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 (Votive mass; the text scribe omitted et before repleti, but was later added in the margin)

Factus est repente de celo sonus advenientis spiritus vehementis ubi erant sedentes alleluia et repleti sunt omnes spiritu sancto etc.

Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (Pentecost mass)

120 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 90 (continued) Text

Manuscripts

Factus est repente de celo sonus etc.

Rome, Angelica 32 (Pentecost mass)

Factus est repente.

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (Votive mass) Paris, Mazarine 31 (Votive mass) Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 (Votive mass)

4.2.4.3 Communion Chants in Other Bible Missals With one exception, all of the other bible missals considered here provide Factus est repente for both the Pentecost and votive masses in full or incipit versions. As with the Dominican sources, the text is generally stable, although a few sources have minor variations that seem to be the result of scribal error.73 Several sources present variations concerning the number of alleluias at the end of the chant; while most provide the standard double alleluia, London, BL, Harley 2813 and Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst. provide a single alleluia while London, BL, Harley 1748 has a triple alleluia. One source provides a different communion chant for the votive mass. San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 provides the full text of Factus est repente for the Pentecost mass, but provides the incipit Spiritus sanctus docebit for the votive mass. Spiritus sanctus docebit appears widely in medieval sources, usually assigned to the Monday in the Octave of Pentecost; it is not provided specifically for the votive mass in any of the Cantus Index sources.74

4.2.5 Pentecost and Votive Mass Chant Texts Summary As the preceding discussion has shown, Dominican sources for the Pentecost mass and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit present the same selection of chants for both formularies with the exception of the chants between the readings. The two formularies share the introit Spiritus domini with the verse Confirma hoc, the Alleluia Veni sancte spiritus, the offertory Confirma hoc deus, and the communion Factus est repente. The two formularies give different genres for the first chant after the epistle, with the Pentecost mass providing the Alleluia Emitte spiritum and the votive mass providing the gradual Beata gens with its verse Verbo domini. Several sources provide the sequence Sancti spiritus assit nobis for Pentecost and a few provide the sequence Veni sancte spiritus in a separate section from the Pentecost mass formulary. Although the chants are generally provided in an essentially similar textual form for both the temporal and votive masses, most sources which include the votive mass present a textual variant (the inclusion of the word sancto) in the votive mass offertory Confirma hoc that is not found in Pentecost versions of the chant. When combined with other evidence, this variation of the offertory text can be used for supporting the identification of Dominican liturgical usage in a manuscript; for instance, the identification of Paris, BnF, latin 16266 as Dominican emerged partially from the fact that it shares this variation along with the presence of other distinctively (though not exclusively) Dominican variants in the introit chant and Ordo Missae.75 Among Dominican sources that contain the votive mass, Paris, BnF, latin 215 emerges as the most independent source, which is notable in light of its position as the earliest identified Dominican mass book. This manuscript provides an alternate introit verse, Exurgat, which is widely found in medieval sources but not present in any other Dominican source; it differs from all of the other sources which transmit the votive mass of the Holy Spirit by providing the two Pentecost Alleluia verses instead of the gradual and Alleluia and in providing the offertory Confirma hoc without the votive mass variation characteristic of most early Dominican sources.

73 Paris, BnF, latin 216 omits celo from the phrase repente de celo sonus advenientis. Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236 omits omnes from the phrase repleti sunt omnes spiritu sancto. 74 All of the sources with communion chants edited in the Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex include Spiritus sanctus docebit on the Monday in the Octave of Pentecost; see Hesbert 1935, pp. 126–127, §107. For the assignments in a variety of other medieval sources, which usually assign the chant to Monday but occasionally to other days in the octave, see http://gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/#id/737 and http://cantusindex.org/ id/g01098. 75 For a full discussion of the evidence for the Dominican usage of this manuscript, see p. 319 below.

4.3 Orations for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 121

Dominican bible missals are evenly divided into sources that provide full texts for each chant and sources that generally provide only an incipit for each chant, while other pre-Humbert missals tend to provide full texts for every chant. Two exceptions are the bible missal Pisa, Cathariniana 177, where the Pentecost chants tend to be significantly abbreviated while the votive chants tend to be written in full, and the missal Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, where the Pentecost chants are given in full (with notation) and the votive chants are given as incipits with folio cross-references.76 The distinction between the provision of full and incipit versions is significant for considering the potential liturgical use of bible missals. A priest utilizing a bible missal which only provided incipits would have to already know the respective chant texts by heart if he were to recite them during the celebration of mass. In this respect, it is significant that even the bible missals that generally provide full chant texts almost exclusively present the introit verse in an abbreviated form. Although Dominican priests were expected to memorize the Psalter by heart in order to facilitate the daily recitation of the Divine Office, it is significant that the introit verse in this case is derived from the Roman Psalter, rather than the Gallican Psalter which was used in the daily office and which was typically used for introit verses.77 It is interesting to ponder whether a priest presented with an incipit such as Confirma or Confirma hoc deus might complete the psalm from memory with the Gallican version rather than the Roman version, or whether the experience of chanting the Roman Psalter introit verse in a choral context might shape the memory in a way that would help him to recall the distinct introit verse version of the psalm during a private celebration. The use of abbreviation for psalm verses which were subject to wide textual variation is an example of the challenges that bible missals might pose for practical liturgical use, as well as a reminder of the complexity of the text of the Psalms in the liturgical experience of medieval Christians.78 A comparison of the chant texts in non-Dominican bible missals shows that the broader repertoire presents a wide range of introit and Alleluia verses, and individual sources present minor textual variations or alternative offertory and communion chants. This diversity provides helpful context for understanding the relative uniformity of pre-Humbert Dominican sources.

4.3 Orations for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit In contrast to the chant texts, which are provided in Dominican sources only for the Pentecost mass and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit, many Dominican sources include orations for three occasions: the Pentecost mass, the votive mass of the Holy Spirit, and the Alcuin mass. In this section, I will first consider the historical sources for these orations, showing their relationship to the Gregorian Sacramentary and the votive masses of Alcuin. I will then give a detailed textual comparison of the collect, secret, and postcommunion prayers as found in each of the three mass formularies. I will conclude with a summary and comparison of the Dominican orations with those of the wider range of bible missals. The Dominican sources for the Pentecost mass and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit all make use of a set of three mass orations that derive from the Gregorian Sacramentary, where they are assigned together for Pentecost Sunday: the collect Deus qui hodierna die corda fidelium (CO 1666), the secret Munera domine quaesumus oblata sanctifica (CO 3421), and the postcommunion Sancti spiritus domine corda nostra (CO 5351b).79 In later sources, the prayers are often assigned to Pentecost Sunday and to the votive mass of the Holy Spirit, and sometimes appear with small variations between the two occasions, most notably by the omission of hodierna die from the votive mass collect to make it more generally

76 In contrast to the Los Angeles missal, the Mons missal gives full versions of the notated chants in both the Pentecost and votive formularies; further research on the pre-Humbert Dominican chant tradition will thus be able to use this source to study the level of consistency between different versions of the same chants in a single manuscript in addition to comparing the Mons missal with other early Dominican chant sources. 77 On the use of the Gallican Psalter for introit verses in contrast to the typical use of the Roman psalter for introit antiphons, cf. Hesbert 1931, pp. 145–151 and Pfisterer 2002, p. 77. 78 For a related discussion of how Thomas Aquinas dealt with multiple versions of a different verse of Ps 67 in his theological writings, see Smith 2019b. 79 For the Pentecost mass in the Gregorian Sacramentary, see Deshusses 1992, Le sacramentaire grégorien 1, pp. 227–228, §§526–531. In addition to the three mass orations, the Gregorian Sacramentary also includes the preface, Communicantes and Hanc igitur within this formulary, whereas the Dominican sources generally present these texts within the Ordo Missae. It should be noted that the Gelasian Sacramentary includes an entirely different set of orations for Pentecost Sunday which are also found in some later sources (and some of which are also found assigned to other occasions in the Gregorian Sacramentary); see Mohlberg et al. 1960, pp. 100–101, §§637–645. The Gelasian Sacramentary does not include the Gregorian collect or secret but does have an alternate version of the Gregorian postcommunion, given as part of a set of orations for vespers within the octave of Pentecost; see Mohlberg et al. 1960, p. 101, §650 (cf. CO 5351a).

122 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

applicable.80 In some Dominican manuscripts there is a clear distinction between the Pentecost and votive mass versions of the prayers, while in others the same versions appear in both sections or the Pentecost versions appear for the votive mass. The Dominican sources for the Alcuin mass draw on the mass formulary De cordis emundatione per spiritum sanctum postulanda likely composed by Alcuin of York.81 In Deshusses’ edition, this mass includes five texts: the collect Deus cui omne cor patet (CO 1135), the secret Haec oblatio domine deus cordis nostri (CO 2858), the Preface Qui inspicis cogitationum secreta (CP 1034),82 the postcommunion Sacrificium salutis nostrae tibi offerentes (CO 5231b) and the super populum prayer Concede quaesumus (CO 738). Dominican sources with the Alcuin mass include three of these five texts: the collect, the secret, and the postcommunion. In non-Dominican bible missals which contain this formulary, some sources omit Alcuin’s postcommunion and instead present Alcuin’s super populum prayer Concede quaesumus as the postcommunion, while others present the same three orations as the Dominican sources.83 Despite the unified selection of the three prayers in Dominican sources, the extant sources include a number of important textual variants which will be discussed in detail below.

4.3.1 Pentecost/Votive Mass 4.3.1.1 Collect The Pentecost mass and votive mass of the Holy Spirit make use of versions of a collect presented in the Corpus Orationum (CO 1666) in the following form: Deus, qui hodierna die corda fidelium sancti spiritus illustratione docuisti, da nobis in eodem spiritu recta sapere et de eius semper consolatione gaudere.

According to the apparatus of the Corpus Orationum, the collect is widely diffused in medieval sources and has a relatively stable textual tradition.84 Only two significant textual variants are noted: some sources omit the words hodierna die from the opening of the prayer, and one source, Deshusses’ critical edition of the Gregorian Sacramentary (based primarily on Cambrai, BM 164 [159]) omits the word semper towards the end of the prayer. According to the apparatus of Deshusses’ edition, the Cambrai manuscript is unusual in this respect, as most early manuscript witnesses of the

80 For details on their assignments and variations in a variety of sources, see the entries in the Corpus Orationum referenced in the analysis below. 81 See Deshusses 1972, p. 25. On p. 11, Deshusses explains his criteria for attributing particular mass formularies to Alcuin; although this formulary does not meet the first criteria of being mentioned by Alcuin himself in his letters, it meets the other four criteria of being present in Paris, BnF, latin 9430 and Tours, BM 184 (a late 9th-century sacramentary of Saint-Martin de Tours now divided between two codices; the formulary is found in the Paris manuscript on ff. 87v–88r), having a large diffusion, following a characteristic structure of four orations, and having a linguistic style which Deshusses associates with Alcuin. For more recent scholarship on Alcuin’s masses, see Angenendt 1983, pp. 208–212 (= Angenendt 2005, pp. 175–179); Palazzo 1994, pp. 146–149; Driscoll 1999, pp. 130–133; Jullien and Perelman 1999, pp. 473–476; Lockett 2000, pp. 145–153; Dales 2013, pp. 188–192; Carmassi 2016, pp. 40–41; and Choy 2016, pp. 59–60. Deshusses maintained Alcuin’s authorship of this Holy Spirit formulary in later publications despite adjusting his position on other formularies; see Deshusses 1988, Le sacramentaire grégorien 2, pp. 125–126 and Deshusses 1992, Le sacramen­ taire grégorien 3, p. 77 (cf. Jullien and Perelman 1999, 476; Dales 2013, p. 291n33). Further research is needed on the complex question of the connections between Alcuin’s masses and the assignment of votive masses to days of the week. The numerous studies on this theme undertaken before the publication of Barré and Deshusses 1968 and Deshusses 1972 (e.g., Ellard 1940; Heiming 1949; Ellard 1956, pp. 144–173; Schreiber 1959, pp. 30–34; Jungmann 1957 [= Jungmann 1960, pp. 332–365]) contain valuable information, but must be treated with some caution due to the complexity of the source material, the uncertainty concerning which masses are attributable to Alcuin, and the deficiencies of the editions then available (cf. Deshusses 1972, p. 7). The brief treatment of the votive masses for the days of the week in Tomatis 2008 does not take account of the work of Deshusses. 82 The preface is not included in the version of the formulary given in the Paris, BnF, latin 9430, f. 87v; it is also absent from three other sources edited by Deshusses. 83 The following sources include Concede: Darmstadt, ULB 1967; London, BL, Harley 2813. The following sources include Sacrificium: Lisbon, BNP, IL 34; San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061; Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst. Intriguingly, the three Franciscan sources with the Alcuin mass are thus divided into two with Concede (Darmstadt and London) and one with Sacrificium (Wolfenbüttel) as the postcommunion. 84 Corpus Orationum 2 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160A), pp. 350–351.

4.3 Orations for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 123

Gregorian Sacramentary include semper.85 In Dominican sources, the Pentecost version includes the words hodierna die referring to the liturgical observance of Pentecost itself, whereas the votive mass version typically omits the words hodierna die in order to make the prayer more generally applicable. All Dominican sources include semper towards the end of the prayer. Table 91: Pentecost and Votive Versions of CO 1666. Pentecost collect

Votive collect

Deus qui

Deus qui

hodierna die corda fidelium sancti spiritus illustratione docuisti: da nobis in eodem spiritu recta sapere, et de eius semper consolatione gaudere.

corda fidelium sancti spiritus illustratione docuisti: da nobis in eodem spiritu recta sapere, et de eius semper consolatione gaudere.

Only two Dominican sources which ostensibly present the votive mass include the hodierna die Pentecost version of the collect: Paris, BnF, latin 215 and Poitiers, BM 12. In the case of the Paris manuscript, it is noteworthy that this is also the only Dominican manuscript that provides two Alleluias rather than one gradual and one Alleluia, thus following the typical Pentecost form rather than the typical votive mass form. The inclusion of the Pentecost collect in Latin 215 shows further intermingling between the two types of formularies in this source (although the Paris manuscript presents the typical votive epistle rather than the Pentecost epistle, as will be discussed below). In the case of the Poitiers manuscript, there is some ambiguity as to whether the set of prayers are primarily intended as a temporal or a votive formulary. The rubric for the occasion is De sancto spiritu, which normally would suggest the votive formulary, but it appears on f. 532r–v between a formulary labelled In ascensione domini (ff. 531v–532r) and one labelled Ad missam beatissime trinitatis (ff. 532v–533r), which suggests that the Holy Spirit prayers are intended primarily for use as a Pentecost formulary. In every other case, the sources with a Pentecost mass include the Pentecost collect and those with the votive mass include the votive collect. Aside from the distinction between the Pentecost and votive versions of the collect and minor differences in punctuation, only one Dominican source presents a textual variation.86 The votive mass in Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 presents the word eiusdem in place of eius in the final phrase of the prayer (et de eiusdem semper consolatione gaudere), although the Pentecost mass in the same source presents the standard eius. Given the difference between the two versions of the prayer, the votive mass variation may simply be the result of scribal error, although a similar phrase is found elsewhere in the manuscript as part of a collect for the Common of a Bishop Martyr.87 The non-Dominican bible missals present a similar situation to the Dominican sources: there is a clear distinction between the Pentecost and votive mass versions of the collect among the various formularies, and the text is transmitted without any variations aside from differences in punctuation and occasional scribal errors. In one source, Paris, BnF, latin 216, the collect is presented only in incipit form (Deus qui corda), in contrast to the secret and postcommunion which are given in full in the same source; this may indicate that the intended user was expected to be more familiar with the collect than with the other two prayers. To summarize, Dominican and non-Dominican sources make use of a single collect (CO 1666) for the Pentecost mass and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit, which differ only in the inclusion of the words hodierna die in the Pentecost version which are typically omitted in the votive mass version. This collect derives from the Gregorian Sacramentary and is transmitted with a high degree of textual stability in medieval mass books.

85 See Deshusses 1992, Le sacramentaire grégorien 1, p. 227, §526. 86 One source contains a clear scribal error: in the Pentecost mass of Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, f. 127rb, the scribe originally omitted sancti spiritus in the opening phrase of the collect, but the words have been supplied in the margin with a signe-de-renvoi, likely by the original hand. 87 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 556ra: “Deus qui nos beati N. martyris tui atque pontificis annua sollempnitate letificas, concede propitius: ut cuius natalicia colimus, de eiusdem etiam protectione gaudeamus.” Cf. CO 1869.

124 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

4.3.1.2 Secret In contrast to the collect, which exists in distinct Pentecost and votive forms but is otherwise fairly stable, the secret prayer is subject to a much greater textual variation among both Dominican and non-Dominican sources. In the Corpus Oratio­ num (CO 3421), the secret prayer is presented in the following form: Munera domine quaesumus oblata sanctifica et corda nostra sancti spiritus illustratione emunda.

Among the sources indexed in the Corpus Orationum, several variations are found: many sources transpose domine quae­ sumus as quaesumus domine, some sources transpose sancti spiritus illustratione as illustratione sancti spiritus, and individual sources substitute purifica or confirma for the closing emunda.88 Among Dominican sources, a wide range of variations are found for this prayer, with the 22 texts presenting seven different versions, of which four are found in individual sources and three are found in multiple sources. As Table 92 shows, the main areas of variation are in phrases B and D, with one source showing a variation in E. In the case of Phrase B, the text is either given as domine quesumus, as in the critical text of CO 3421, in the inverted form of quesumus domine, or with either domine or quesumus alone. Phrase D is given either as sancti spiritus, in the inverted form spiritus sancti, or omitted.89 Phrase E generally appears in the standard form illustratione emunda, but one entry has emenda, which is likely a scribal error.90 Table 92: Textual Variants in CO 3421.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

Munera Munera Munera Munera Munera Munera Munera

domine quesumus domine domine quesumus quesumus domine quesumus domine quesumus domine

oblata sanctifica et corda nostra oblata sanctifica et corda nostra oblata sanctifica et corda nostra oblata sanctifica et corda nostra oblata sanctifica et corda nostra oblata sanctifica et corda nostra oblata sanctifica et corda nostra

sancti spiritus sancti spiritus spiritus sancti sancti spiritus sancti spiritus spiritus sancti

illustratione emunda. illustratione emunda. illustratione emunda. illustratione emunda. illustratione emunda. illustratione emenda. illustratione emunda.

Table 93 indicates the variations found in each source for the secret prayer. Table 93: Munera domine quaesumus (CO 3421) in Dominican Sources. Manuscript

Formulary

#

Phrase B

Phrase D

Pentecost mass Votive mass Votive mass Votive mass Votive mass Votive mass Votive mass Pentecost mass Votive mass Votive mass Pentecost mass Votive mass

3 6 5 5 7 1 5 5 1 5 2 5

domine quesumus domine quesumus domine quesumus domine quesumus domine domine quesumus quesumus domine quesumus domine domine quesumus quesumus domine domine quesumus domine

spiritus sancti spiritus sancti sancti spiritus sancti spiritus

Dominican bible missals Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Ibid. London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 215 Paris, BnF, latin 16266 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 Ibid. Poitiers, BM 12 Rome, Angelica 32 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

sancti spiritus sancti spiritus sancti spiritus sancti spiritus sancti spiritus sancti spiritus sancti spiritus

88 Corpus Orationum 5 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160D), pp. 191–192. 89 The omission of the phrase entirely seems to be a simple scribal error, as the text does not make sense without the possessive genitive reference to the Holy Spirit accompanying the noun illustratione. 90 Emenda appears in the votive mass version of Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16. Although emenda is plausible as a textual variation, it is very likely a scribal error, as it does not appear in any other sources I have found. It may have arisen from the scribe copying a source that presented the word in an abbreviated form of the word that omitted the vowel in the middle, such as the Pentecost mass version of the prayer in Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20, f. 145vb, which presents the final word as emda.

4.3 Orations for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 125

Table 93 (continued) Manuscript

Formulary

#

Phrase B

Phrase D

Pentecost mass Pentecost mass Votive mass Pentecost mass Votive mass Pentecost mass Votive mass Pentecost mass Votive mass Votive mass

5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 4 5

quesumus domine domine91 quesumus domine domine quesumus domine domine quesumus domine domine quesumus quesumus domine

sancti spiritus sancti spiritus sancti spiritus sancti spiritus sancti spiritus sancti spiritus sancti spiritus sancti spiritus sancti spiritus sancti spiritus

Pre-Humbert Dominican missals Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 Lausanne, MHL 10 Ibid. Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Ibid. Mons, BC 63/201 Ibid. Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Ibid. Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

As the Table 93 shows, none of the sources which contain both the Pentecost mass and the votive mass present the same version of the secret in both sections. Five sources have Version 2 (domine / sancti spiritus), which always appears with the Pentecost mass. Ten sources have Version 5 (quesumus domine / sancti spiritus), which almost always appears with the votive mass; the Pisa bible missal and the Karlsruhe missal are the only sources that provide this version for the Pentecost mass, although the Lausanne missal Pentecost mass has been changed from Version 2 to Version 5 by the interlinear addition of quesumus. The Lausanne, Los Angeles, and Mons missals have the same pair of versions for the Pentecost and votive masses, while the pair presented by the Cambridge bible missal is very close to that of the three missals, differing only by the inversion of phrase D in the Pentecost mass. Although the range of variations found in the secret prayer in the Dominican sources do not affect the meaning of the text (with the exception of the variations which I have judged to be the result of scribal error), they offer important evidence for understanding the transmission process of the manuscripts, revealing both the diversity of the sources as well as the patterns of variations shared by multiple sources. The non-Dominican bible missals have less textual variation for the secret prayer than the Dominican sources. Of the 17 versions of the prayer in the sources studied, five match Version 1 (domine quesumus / sancti spiritus), ten match Version 5 (quesumus domine / sancti spiritus),92 one matches Version 6 (quesumus domine / spiritus sancti), and one source provides only an incipit for this prayer.93 Among the non-Dominican bible missals, there is a less clear connection between versions of the prayer and the votive or Pentecost occasions than with the Dominican sources. Almost all of the votive mass formularies provide Version 5, but the Pentecost formularies show a wider distribution of versions than among the Dominican sources. It is notable that no non-Dominican sources include Version 2 (domine / sancti spiritus), which is found in several Dominican sources for Pentecost but which is not included in the apparatus of the Corpus Orationum; the rarity of this variant strengthens the possibility that this variant may provide valuable evidence for the early transmission of Dominican missal. To summarize, Dominican and non-Dominican sources transmit a secret prayer (CO 3421) derived from the Gregorian Sacramentary for the Pentecost mass and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit. Dominican sources present a wide variety of textual variations, with seven different versions among the sources considered here, while non-Dominican sources present only three versions of the prayer. Among the Dominican variants, there is a strong correlation between the occasion (Pentecost or votive mass) and the version of the prayer, while non-Dominican sources show less consistency in this respect.

91 In this source, quesumus was added before domine above the line by a later hand. 92 One of these sources, Paris, BnF, latin 216, t. II, f. 263v, omits nostra after corda. 93 Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1, f. 383va (Pentecost mass): Munera quesumus domine oblata sanctifica. Notably, the votive mass on f. 383rc of the same source has a different opening than is indicated by the incipit for the Pentecost mass: Munera domine quesumus oblata sanctifica et corda nostra sancti spiritus illustratione emunda (= Version 1).

126 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

4.3.1.3 Postcommunion Like the collect, the postcommunion for the Pentecost and votive mass of the Holy Spirit has a relatively stable textual transmission in medieval sources. In the Corpus Orationum (CO 5351b), the text is presented as follows: Sancti spiritus, domine, corda nostra mundet infusio et sui roris intima adspersione fecundet.94

Almost all Dominican sources present the same text as the Corpus Orationum (with adspersione typically written as asper­ sione), although several sources contain minor textual variations or scribal errors. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 presents the opening words as Spiritus sancti in the votive mass, although the Pentecost mass presents the standard Sancti spiritus. The Pentecost mass of Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 omits domine, which is arguably a variant rather than a scribal error. Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 also omits domine in the votive mass, although in the Pentecost mass it adds quesumus before domine. Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 omits corda nostra, but this must be a scribal error, as the verb mundet thus lacks an object. Paris, BnF, latin 8884 omits intima in the votive mass, although the word is included in the Pentecost mass.95 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 contains the scribal error of erroris rather than roris in the Pentecost mass but provides the correct text in the votive mass. Finally, Poitiers, BM 12 gives emundet instead of fecundet as the final word of the prayer; this is likely a scribal error, perhaps unconsciously influenced by mundet earlier in the prayer. Non-Dominican bible missals generally present the prayer in a version identical to the normal Dominican version, although several have minor variations. One source adds quesumus before domine,96 one source presents tui instead of sui,97 and one source provides just an incipit for the prayer.98 To summarize, Dominican and non-Dominican sources present a relatively stable version of a Gregorian Sacramentary postcommunion (CO 5351b) for the Pentecost mass and votive mass of the Holy Spirit, although both sets of sources include scribal errors and some minor variants.

4.3.2 Alcuin Mass In contrast to the Pentecost/votive mass orations, which are found in nine Dominican bible missals and six pre-Humbert missals, only five Dominican bible missals and four pre-Humbert missals contain the Alcuin mass orations. Despite the smaller distribution, these orations also offer important evidence for the unity and diversity of early Dominican sources. It addition to the Dominican sources, the Alcuin mass is found in five non-Dominican bible missals (three of which are Franciscan and two of which are Augustinian).99 4.3.2.1 Collect In the Corpus Orationum (CO 1135), the Alcuin mass collect appears in the following form: Deus, cui omne cor patet et omnis voluntas loquitur et nullum latet secretum, purifica per infusionem sancti spiritus cogitationes cordis nostri, ut perfecte te diligere et digne laudare mereamur.

94 Corpus Orationum 8 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160G), pp. 188–189. The only variant attested in the collated sources is the omission of intima in two sources. An almost identical version of this text, with ubertate in place of intima adspersione, appears in the Gelasian Sacramentary as part of a set of orations for Vespers within the octave of Pentecost; see Mohlberg et al. 1960, p. 101, §650 (cf. CO 5351a). The Gregorian Sacramentary text also appears in some medieval sources as an Alleluia verse; see http://cantusindex.org/id/g02737. 95 As noted above, intima is omitted in some sources collated by the Corpus Orationum. 96 San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, f. 186rb (Pentecost mass): Sancti spiritus quesumus domine corda nostra mundet infusio, et sui roris intima asspersione fecundet. 97 Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136, f. 154rb (Votive mass): Sancti spiritus domine corda nostra mundet infusio et tui roris intima aspersione fecundet. 98 Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1, f. 383va (Pentecost mass): Sancti spiritus domine corda nostra. The votive mass in the same source presents the full prayer. As noted above, this manuscript also presents an abbreviated version of the secret prayer in the Pentecost mass and gives a full version in the votive mass. 99 Darmstadt, ULB 1967, f. 287va (Franciscan); Lisbon, BNP, IL 34, f. 490vb (Augustinian); London, BL, Harley 2813, f. 230va–vb (Franciscan); San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, f. 184ra–rb (Augustinian?); Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst., f. 207ra (Franciscan). San Marino integrates the Alcuin mass prayers into a full formulary with chants and readings, while the other four sources present the orations alone.

4.3 Orations for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 127

In addition to its use as part of the Alcuin votive mass, the prayer is found in some medieval English sources as part of vesting prayers for mass or for the washing of hands.100 According to the apparatus of the Corpus Orationum, there are several common variations in medieval sources: some sources add quem before nullum, some present the singular cordis nostris in a plural form as cordium nostrorum, and some invert perfecte te as te perfecte.101 In the critical editions of this formulary edited by Deshusses, based on a narrower range of early sources than those included in the Corpus Orationum, it is noteworthy that the addition of quem and inversion of perfecte te are both accounted for, but no sources are listed which include the plural form cordium nostrorum, which suggests that this variant developed at some point after the initial composition of the prayer by Alcuin.102 All three of the Corpus Orationum variants are witnessed by some or all Dominican versions of the collect. All of the sources include quem before nullum, three of the nine sources include the plural cordium nostrorum, and seven of the nine sources present te perfecte instead of perfecte te. Table 94 lists the full text of the prayer as found in each source; the presence of cordium nostrorum has been marked in bold and the presence of perfecte te has been underlined. Table 94: Deus cui omne (CO 1135) in Dominican Sources. Text

Manuscripts

Deus cui omne cor patet et omnis voluntas loquitur et quem nullum latet secretum purifica per infusionem sancti spiritus cogitationes cordis nostri ut te perfecte diligere, et digne laudare mereamur.

Lausanne, MHL 10 Mons, BC 63/201 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 Rome, Angelica 32

Deus cui omne cor patet et omnis voluntas loquitur et quem nullum latet secretum, purifica per infusionem sancti spiritus cogitationes cordis nostri, ut perfecte te diligere, et digne laudare mereamur.

Paris, Mazarine 31 Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Deus cui omne cor patet et omnis voluntas loquitur et quem nullum latet secretum: purifica per infusionem sancti spiritus cogitationes cordium nostrorum, ut te perfecte diligere et digne laudare mereamur.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Paris, BnF, latin 8884

Of the five non-Dominican bible missals that contain the Alcuin collect, four include quem before nullum, all five have the singular cordis nostri, and two give te perfecte instead of perfecte te.103 The one source that does not include quem in fact omits the entire phrase et quem nullum latet secretum.104 In light of the presence of cordium nostrorum in several Dominican sources and the almost exclusive use of te perfecte in Dominican sources, it is striking that the non-Dominican bible missals do not include the first variant and have a more balanced number of sources that represent the two versions of the second variant. To summarize, nine Dominican sources present the Alcuin mass collect (CO 1135) with a large degree of textual variation, differing most notably in the use of the singular cordis nostri found in the original form of Alcuin’s collect and the plural cordium nostrorum found in three of the nine Dominican sources. The five non-Dominican sources which include the Alcuin mass present some textual variation, but none of the sources make use of the plural cordium nostrorum.

100 For its use in medieval English liturgies, see Corpus Orationum 2 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160A), pp. 131–132. The prayer was later incorporated into the opening rites of the Book of Common Prayer and has recently found a place in the Order of Mass for Anglican Ordinariates. For a comparison of versions that appear in the major editions of the Book of Common Prayer, see Brightman 1921, pp. 640–641. For its use in the Anglican Ordinariate liturgy, see Divine Worship: The Missal (London, 2015), p. 560. 101 Corpus Orationum 2 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160A), pp. 131–132. In addition to the variations which are shared by more than one source mentioned above, one source has te instead of et towards the end of the prayer. 102 See Deshusses 1972, p. 25 and Deshusses 1988, Le sacramentaire grégorien 2, p. 125. 103 London, BL, Harley 2813, f. 230v has cognationes cordis nostri (which could be interpreted as “the affinities/relationships of our heart”) instead of cogitationes cordis nostri (“the thoughts of our heart”). Although this reading is conceivable as a variation, it does not seem to be attested elsewhere; it seems likely that it is a scribal error that may have arisen from the scribe mistaking it for n. 104 Lisbon, BNP, IL 34, f. 490vb: Deus cui omne cor patet et omnis voluntas loquitur, purifica per infusionem sancti spiritus cogitationes cordis nostri: ut perfecte te diligere et digne laudare mereamur.

128 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

4.3.2.2 Secret The Corpus Orationum (CO 2858) presents the following version of the secret for the Alcuin mass: Haec oblatio, domine deus, cordis nostri maculas emundet, ut sancti spiritus digna efficiatur habitatio.

In addition to its use as part of the Alcuin mass, this prayer was also incorporated as the secret for the Saturday after Pentecost in several medieval English liturgical sources.105 Several variants are indicated in the Corpus Orationum apparatus: some sources add quaesumus before domine deus; some sources add noster after domine deus or replace this phrase with domine or domine quaesumus; one source puts cordis nostri in the plural as cordium nostrum; one source adds in nobis after digna; and several sources transpose efficiatur habitatio as habitatio efficiatur.106 In addition to indicating three sources that have domine quaesumus instead of domine deus, the critical editions of Deshusses indicate two additional variants: one source has mundet instead of emundet and two sources have et rather than ut.107 Table 95 indicates the range of versions of CO 2858 in Dominican sources. Only one source, Paris, Mazarine 31, precisely matches the critical version of CO 2858. Four sources are identical to CO 2858 with the exception of inverting the final words as habitatio efficiatur. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 differs from this version only by inverting sancti spiritus as spiritus sancti, a variation not noted in the Corpus Orationum apparatus. Paris, BnF, latin 8884 differs from the Corpus Orationum version only by omitting deus. Finally, Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 presents a version with several peculiarities: in addition to omitting deus, the scribe originally wrote effundet instead of emundet, then supplied the correct emundet but left the original effundet as written; the scribe also wrote the final word as inhabi­ tatio (rather than habitatio), a variant which is grammatically plausible but which I have not found in other sources. In light of the inclusion of the plural form cordium nostrorum in several of the Dominican sources for the Alcuin mass collect, it is noteworthy that none of the Dominican sources include this variant in the secret. Table 95: Haec oblatio domine (CO 2858) in Dominican Sources. Text

Manuscripts

Hec oblatio domine deus cordis nostri maculas emundet, ut sancti spiritus digna efficiatur habitatio.

Paris, Mazarine 31

Hec oblatio domine deus cordis nostri maculas emundet, ut sancti spiritus digna habitatio efficiatur.

Lausanne, MHL 10 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Mons, BC 63/201 Rome, Angelica 32

Hec oblatio domine deus cordis nostri maculas emundet, ut spiritus sancti digna habitatio efficiatur.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16

Hec oblatio domine [] cordis nostri maculas emundet ut sancti spiritus digna efficiatur habitatio.

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Hec oblatio domine [] cordis nostri maculas emundet ut sancti spiritus digna habitatio efficiatur.

Paris, BnF, latin 8884

Hec oblatio domine [] cordis nostri maculas effundet emundet ut sancti spiritus digna efficiatur inhabitatio.

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

Among the five non-Dominican sources, even greater diversity is found; only two of the five sources (London and Lisbon) present exactly the same version of the text, and the three Franciscan sources (Darmstadt, London, and Wolfenbüttel) each present a different version.108 Although no Dominican sources include the quaesumus variant witnessed in the Corpus

105 Corpus Orationum 4 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160C), pp. 235–236. 106 Corpus Orationum 4 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160C), pp. 235–236. 107 See Deshusses 1972, p. 25 and Deshusses 1988, Le sacramentaire grégorien 2, p. 125. 108 Darmstadt, ULB 1967, f. 287va (Franciscan): Hec oblatio quesumus domine cordis nostri maculas emundet: et sancti spiritus digna efficiatur habitatio. Lisbon, BNP, IL 34, f. 490vb (Augustinian): Hec oblatio domine quesumus cordis nostri maculas emundet, ut sancti spiritus digna efficiatur habitatio.

4.3 Orations for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 129

Orationum apparatus, one non-Dominican source (Darmstadt) presents quesumus domine and three (Lisbon, London, San Marino) present domine quesumus in the opening phrase in place of the CO domine deus. One source (Darmstadt) includes the et rather than ut variation found in the Deshusses apparatus. Finally, one source (San Marino) concludes the prayer with habitatio efficiatur rather than efficiatur habitatio. To summarize, Dominican sources present a moderate range of variations for the Alcuin mass secret prayer (CO 2858), while non-Dominican sources present a yet wider range of variations. In contrast to the use of the plural cordium nostro­ rum in several Dominican sources for the Alcuin mass collect, no Dominican sources use the plural form of the equivalent phrase in the secret. 4.3.2.3 Postcommunion The original version of the Alcuin mass included distinct prayers for the postcommunion and Super populum, providing Sacrificium salutis nostrae tibi offerentes (CO 5231b) for the former and Concede quaesumus omnipotens deus spiritum (CO 738) for the latter. As the provision of Super populum prayers outside of Lent became rarer in later medieval mass books, none of the Dominican or non-Dominican sources considered here provide both a postcommunion and a Super populum for the Alcuin mass. The Dominican sources with the Alcuin mass all include the postcommunion Sacrificium salutis; the non-Dominican bible missals are divided between sources which present Sacrificium salutis as the postcommunion those which present Alcuin’s Super populum prayer Concede quaesumus as the postcommunion. The postcommunion Sacrificium salutis appears in the Corpus Orationum (CO 5231b) in the following form: Sacrificium salutis nostrae tibi offerentes, concede nobis, domine deus, purificatis mentibus saepius tuae pietatis celebrare mysterium.109

In the Corpus Orationum apparatus, several variants are listed: a large number of sources have sumentes in place of tibi offerentes, two sources add per gratiam sancti spiritus before purificatis, and three sources have frequentare in place of celebrare.110 In the apparatus of Deshusses’ editions of this formulary, several sources are listed with the sumentes variant and one source is listed that has quaesumus omnipotens instead of domine.111 Table 96 indicates the range of variations of CO 5231b in Dominican sources. Two sources, Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 and Paris, BnF, latin 8884, present the same text as CO 5231b. Three sources differ only in providing the accusative nos instead of the dative nobis, a variant not listed by Deshusses or the Corpus Orationum.112 Two sources add noster after domine deus. Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 gives quesumus rather than deus after domine. Finally, Pisa, Cathariniana 177 gives sumentes instead of tibi offerentes, a variant shared by a large number of sources in the Corpus Orationum.

London, BL, Harley 2813, f. 230va–vb (Franciscan): Hec oblatio domine quesumus cordis nostri maculas emundet: ut sancti spiritus digna efficiatur habitatio. San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, f. 184rb (Augustinian): Hec oblatio domine quesumus cordis nostri maculas emundet ut sancti spiritus digna habitatio efficiatur. Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst., f. 270ra (Franciscan): Hec oblatio domine deus cordis nostri maculas emundet, ut sancti spiritus digna efficiatur habitatio. 109 This prayer is closely related to another postcommunion prayer presented in Corpus Orationum as CO 5231a: Sacrificium salutis nostrae tibi, domine deus noster, offerentes, quaesumus, ut concedas nobis purificatis mentibus semper tuae pietatis celebrare mysterium. This version appears in only three Corpus Orationum sources, dated to the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries respectively. The earliest of these sources is a sacramentary made in Corbie in the second half of the 9th century, Paris, BnF, latin 12051 (cited in Corpus Orationum from the PL 78 reprint of the 1642 edition by Ménard), which includes the prayer on f. 209v as the Ad complendum for the 24th Sunday after Pentecost (not the 21st Sunday after Pentecost, as reported by the Corpus Orationum). Although this manuscript postdates Alcuin, it raises the possibility that Alcuin may have been familiar with some version of a preexisting prayer and used it as the basis for his composition; it is also possible that the Latin 12051 version is an adaptation of the Alcuin postcommunion. . 110 Corpus Orationum 8 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160G), p. 131. 111 See Deshusses 1972, p. 25 and Deshusses 1988, Le sacramentaire grégorien 2, p. 126. 112 Although Corpus Orationum does not list the concede nos variant, this phrase appears in the critical text of five prayers in the collection (CO 706, CO 707, CO 1504, CO 1572, CO 3988); by contrast, concede nobis appears in 106 prayers.

130 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 96: Sacrificium salutis nostre (CO 5231b) in Dominican Sources. Text

Manuscripts

Sacrificium salutis nostre tibi offerentes concede nobis domine deus purificatis mentibus sepius tue pietatis celebrare misterium.

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Paris, BnF, latin 8884

Sacrificium salutis nostre tibi offerentes concede nos domine deus purificatis mentibus sepius tue pietatis celebrare misterium.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Lausanne, MHL 10 Mons, BC 63/201

Sacrificium salutis nostre tibi offerentes concede nos domine deus noster purificatis mentibus sepius tue pietatis celebrare misterium.

Paris, Mazarine 31113 Rome, Angelica 32

Sacrificium salutis nostre tibi offerentes concede nobis domine quesumus purificatis mentibus sepius tue pietatis celebrare misterium.

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

Sacrificium salutis nostre sumentes concede nobis quesumus domine deus purificatis mentibus sepius tue pietatis celebrare misterium.

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Of the five non-Dominican bible missals that provide the Alcuin formulary, three provide Sacrificium salutis as the postcommunion and two provide Concede quesumus. The three with Sacrificium salutis each present different versions of the prayer. San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 presents a text that is identical with three Dominican sources (the Cambridge bible missal and the Lausanne and Mons missals), i.e., matching the Corpus Orationum version with the exception of nos in place of nobis.114 Lisbon, BNP, IL 34 and Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst. both include the variant attested in some Deshusses and Corpus Orationum sources of providing sumentes in place of tibi offerentes in the opening phrase of the prayer but differ in other respects. Lisbon provides quesumus domine deus noster in place of domine deus and provides the pietati instead of the pietatis at the end of the prayer (the latter most likely by scribal error),115 while Wolfenbüttel provides domine quesumus instead of domine deus.116 Two non-Dominican sources present versions of the Super populum prayer Concede quaesumus, which appears in the Corpus Orationum (CO 738) in the following form: Concede, quaesumus, omnipotens deus, spiritum nos sanctum votis promereri sedulis, quatenus eius gratia ab omnibus liberemur temptationibus et peccatorum nostrorum indulgentiam mereamur accipere.

Darmstadt, ULB 1967 and London, BL, Harley 2813 give the prayer in identical versions that differ from the Corpus Ora­ tionum version only by providing sanctum spiritum nos instead of spiritum nos sanctum. According to the apparatus of the Corpus Orationum, this phrase appears in several different versions (sanctum nos spiritum, sanctum nobis spiritum, spiritum sanctum nos, spiritum sanctum), although none of the versions listed in the apparatus exactly match the version found in the two bible missals.117 To summarize, all Dominican sources present the original Alcuin mass postcommunion Sacrificium salutis (CO 5231b) as the postcommunion for the formulary, while non-Dominican bible missals are divided between sources which present Sacrificium salutis as the postcommunion those which repurpose Alcuin’s Super populum prayer Concede quaesumus (CO 738) as the postcommunion for the formulary while omitting Alcuin’s Sacrificium salutis entirely. Despite their consistency in presenting the same postcommunion prayer, Dominican sources have a moderate degree of textual variation for

113 In this source, noster was originally written nre (nostre) but the e has been expunctuated to correct it to noster. 114 San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, f. 184rb: Sacrificium salutis nostre tibi offerentes, concede nos domine deus purificatis mentibus sepius tue pietatis celebrare misterium. 115 Lisbon, BNP, IL 34, f. 490vb: Sacrificium salutis nostre firmentes, concede nobis quesumus domine deus noster: purificatis mentibus sepius tue pietati celebrare mysterium. It seems likely that pietati is a scribal error rather than a dative construction (“to celebrate more frequently the mystery to your love”). The dative constructions tue pietati and pietati tue appear relatively frequently in the Corpus Orationum (17 and 19 times respectively), but most often with offero or offerimus and never with the verb celebrare. 116 Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst., f. 207ra: Sacrificum salutis nostre sumentes concede nobis domine quesumus purificatis mentibus sepius tue pietatis celebrare misterium. 117 Corpus Orationum 1 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160), pp. 359–360. The apparatus in Deshusses 1972, p. 25 and Deshusses 1988, Le sacra­ mentaire grégorien 2, p. 126 include the variants sanctum nos spiritum and sanctum nobis spiritum, but not sanctum spiritum nos.

4.4 Readings for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 131

the postcommunion prayer; non-Dominican sources likewise include several variations among the two distinct prayers supplied for the postcommunion.

4.3.3 Pentecost and Votive Mass Orations Summary As the preceding discussion shows, Dominican sources present distinct but related orations for Pentecost and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit, and a subset of Dominican sources also include another set of orations connected with the Holy Spirit which derive from one of Alcuin’s votive masses. With respect to the Pentecost and votive mass formularies, Dominican sources present a stable version of the collect with distinct versions for the two occasions but present a wide variety of textual variants for the secret prayer used on both occasions. By contrast, the postcommunion prayer has a stable text that is used for both Pentecost and the votive mass. With respect to the Alcuin mass, Dominican sources present relatively stable versions of the collect, secret, and postcommunion, although some sources have significant variations in the collect. Like the Dominican sources, the non-Dominican bible missals studied here present a relatively stable selection of prayers for Pentecost and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit. The non-Dominican sources have a clear distinction between the Pentecost and votive mass collect. In contrast to the wide range of textual variations found in Dominican sources for the secret, non-Dominican sources have relatively stable versions of this prayer. The small number of sources that include the Alcuin mass have relatively stable versions of the collect but present several variations for the secret and are divided in their selection of the postcommunion; some sources use the postcommunion from the Alcuin mass, and others adapt the Alcuin Super populum prayer as a postcommunion. Significantly, the three Franciscan sources which include the Alcuin mass present varying selections for the postcommunion in this formulary. In contrast to the Dominican sources, which keep the Alcuin formulary entirely separate from the votive mass of the Holy Spirit, one non-Dominican bible missal (San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061) integrates the two formularies, providing chants from the votive mass and orations from the Alcuin mass. While the selection and textual presentation of the orations in Dominican sources is relatively homogenous, a few textual variants appear in multiple sources that provide important evidence for the textual transmission of early Dominican sources that parallels and reinforces the similar evidence offered by variations in the mass chants discussed above. Although it would be premature to try to establish a stemma based on the shared variants in a small selection of formularies, the evidence gathered here suggests that such a task might be feasible on the basis of a broader selection of mass formularies.

4.4 Readings for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit In the earliest witnesses to the Roman lectionary, Act 2:1–11 and Io 14:23–31 are invariably assigned as the epistle and gospel for Pentecost Sunday.118 In the later sources indexed in the Usuarium database, these two readings likewise appear in every source.119 Act 2:1–11 is an obvious choice of reading for the feast of Pentecost, as it narrates the biblical event which the feast celebrates. Io 14:23–31 likewise includes a specific reference to the sending of the Holy Spirit (Io 14:26). The Pentecost Sunday gospel is in effect a continuation of the pericope read at the Pentecost Vigil, Io 14:15–21, which includes Jesus’ promise to ask the Father to send the Holy Spirit to the disciples (Io 14:16–17).120

118 For synoptic tables presenting the epistle and gospel for Pentecost in various early sources, see Chavasse 1993, v. 2, pp. 16 (epistle) and 30 (gospel). Chavasse indicates the epistle as consisting of Act 2:1–12, but this appears to be a typo for Act 2:1–11. Other readings sometimes appear in non-Roman sources; for instance, the late 7th-century Gallican mass book known as the Bobbio Missal presents Apc 21:9–21 and Io 14:12, 13, 15–21 as readings preceding the prayers for the formulary labelled In Quinquagesimo (= Pentecost); see Paris, BnF, latin 13246, ff. 147v–149v; ed. Lowe 1920, pp. 92–93; for the identification of the scriptural sources, see Wilmart et al. 1924, p. 157. Pentecost readings from other non-Roman sources may be consulted in the ThALES database at http://www.lectionary.eu/thales-database/?lg=EN&u=generic-event&gi=540&daof=1&di=1. 119 The Usuarium database includes around 200 sources which contain the two readings for Pentecost Sunday without any alternate readings; see https://usuarium.elte.hu/research/synopsis?genre=100 and https://usuarium.elte.hu/research/synopsis?genre=110. 120 The Vigil of Pentecost gospel has a similar diffusion in early and later sources as the Pentecost Sunday gospel; see Chavasse 1993, v. 2, p. 30 and https://usuarium.elte.hu/itemrepertory/2052/view. There are some discrepancies between the sources that contain the Pentecost Vigil and

132 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

In contrast to the essential uniformity of the readings for Pentecost Sunday, the readings assigned for the votive mass of the Holy Spirit in medieval sources show more diversity. According to the Usuarium database, medieval sources tend to present one of two epistles for the votive mass of the Holy Spirit: roughly 80% of 55 sources indexed in Usuarium provide I Cor 12:7–11 (Unicuique datur manifestatio), while 20% provide Act 8:14–17 (Cum audissent apostoli).121 A wider range of gospels are provided for the votive mass, with most sources presenting one of four selections: 76% of 53 sources provide Io 14:15–17 (Si diligitis me), 17% provide Io 14:23–31 (Si quis diligit me), 6% (three sources) provide Io 15:8–11 (In hoc clar­ ificatus), and 2% (one source) provide Lc 24:49–53 (Ego mittam promissum Patris).122 A comparison of the votive mass readings in Dominican and non-Dominican bible missals shows a somewhat smaller range of selections than those found in Usuarium, together with some selections not found in the database. Dominican sources generally provide Act 8:14–17 for the epistle and give the same gospel as Pentecost, Io 14:23–31. One Dominican source (Paris, BnF, latin 215) presents alternative selections for the votive mass epistle: in the votive missal section, Act 8:14–17 is indicated, whereas in the epistle and gospel list an epistle beginning with Rm 8:26 is prescribed.123 Non-Dominican bible missals generally present the same combination for the votive mass as Dominican sources, but several manuscripts have alternative readings, including one manuscript which gives the Pentecost epistle for the votive mass,124 one which indicates Rm 8:26 for the votive mass epistle (while providing the standard Pentecost gospel),125 and one which has other readings for both genres, giving I Cor 12:7–11 for the epistle and Io 4:23–24 for the gospel.126 Dominican and non-Dominican sources present the readings for Pentecost and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit in a variety of modes. Some sources include the full text of the readings along with the other texts of the formulary, while others give only incipits or incipits and explicits within the formulary or within a separate epistle and gospel list. Among sources which present only cross-references, individual manuscripts take a variety of approaches to identifying the scriptural source, ranging from sources which provide only the incipit without explicitly naming the biblical book to those which provide book title, book chapter, and a section letter to aid in the identification of the passage.127 While the biblical chapter numbers were already fairly stable by the 1230s (with some exceptions which will be discussed below),128 the section letters which divide long chapters into seven sections (A–G) and shorter chapters into four sections (A–D) have been identified by Rouse and Rouse as a Dominican innovation connected with the development of the first verbal concordance of St. Jacques.129 While Rouse and Rouse indicate that “we know of no use of the A–G references that antedates the

Pentecost Sunday gospel in the Usuarium database, but they all either derive from the presence of a lacuna or the deliberate omission of the Pentecost Vigil formulary from the source in question. Io 14:22, omitted between the two pericopes, presents a question from the apostle Jude. 121 See the entries labelled “de Sancto Spiritu” at https://usuarium.elte.hu/research/synopsis?genre=100. It should be noted that the Usuarium database only began to include detailed information on votive masses in late 2021, and fewer sources are currently provided with details regarding votive mass contents than temporal contents. The percentages of sources representing each tradition may shift as further sources are fully indexed. 122 See the entries labelled “de Sancto Spiritu” at https://usuarium.elte.hu/research/synopsis?genre=110. 123 Giraud 2022 draws attention to the wide divergence between the epistle and gospel list in Paris, BnF, latin 215 and other Dominican sources, concluding on p. 289 that “whether or not the capitulary was used by early Dominicans, it is clear that (without any of the typical Dominican features), it does not reflect a ‘Dominican tradition’.” For further discussion of the epistle and gospel list and other liturgical elements in this manuscript, see the description in the Catalog below. 124 The votive mass formulary in Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136, f. 154ra–154rb provides book titles and incipits for the Pentecost readings in the formulary labelled both De sancto spiritu and De spiritu sancto. 125 The epistle and gospel list in Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136, f. 150vc presents the following indication for the votive mass readings: De spiritu sancto. Epistola Ro. viii. Spiritus adiuvat. Evangelium. Io. xiiii. Si quis diligit me. This list does not indicate the explicit of the readings. . 126 San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, ff. 184ra–184rb provides the full texts of the readings in the formulary labelled De sancto spiritu. The In die pentecostes formula found in the same source on f. 186ra–rb provides the full texts of the standard Pentecost epistle and gospel. 127 One Cistercian bible missal, Paris, BnF, latin 36, includes references to the specific folio numbers on which the readings are found, while omitting any specific mention of the book or chapter number. 128 For a discussion of the development of biblical chapter numbers, see Poleg 2020a, pp. 8–11. 129 See Rouse and Rouse 1974, pp. 9–10. For further discussion of section letters, see Saenger 2005 and Poleg 2020a, pp. 11–13.

4.4 Readings for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 133

first verbal concordance,”130 the presence of section letters in some bible missals offers further evidence for understanding the development of this practice.131 In the following sections, I will show this range of approaches by examining the presentation of the Pentecost and votive mass readings in Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert missals, making occasional reference to the parallel approaches taken by non-Dominican bible missals. I will first consider the Pentecost and votive mass epistles separately, and then consider the gospel provided for both formularies. In each case, I will begin with a comparison of the text of the reading as found in sources that provide the full reading within the formulary and the passage in the bible sections of several Dominican bible missals.132 I will then explore the range of references to the reading in the full range of formularies and epistle and gospel lists in Dominican and non-Dominican sources.

4.4.1 Pentecost Epistle Like the broader repertoire of medieval liturgical sources, Dominican liturgical sources invariably indicate Act 2:1–11 for the epistle of Pentecost. Five pre-Humbert missals provide the full text of the epistle within the Pentecost formulary, while the Dominican bible missals which provide a Pentecost formulary or Pentecost readings in an epistle and gospel list only give references to the reading. 4.4.1.1 Textual Versions of Act 2:1–11 in Dominican Bibles and Missals Table 97 indicates the folios on which Act 2:1–11 appears in the bible section of four Dominican bible missals and in the Pentecost formulary of five pre-Humbert missals. Table 97: Dominican Sources for Act 2:1–11. Manuscript

Folios

Type

321ra 511va 481ra–rb 396ra

Biblical text Biblical text Biblical text Biblical text

146ra–va 113vb–114ra 127rb–va 123rb–va 152vb–153rb

Mass formulary Mass formulary Mass formulary Mass formulary Mass formulary

Dominican bible missals Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 215 Poitiers, BM 12 Rome, Angelica 32 Pre-Humbert Dominican missals Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 Lausanne, MHL 10 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Mons, BC 63/201 Paris, BnF, latin 8884

Table 98 presents the Latin text of the passage as found in the Clementine Vulgate and shows the range of variants found in the sources listed above. When all of the missals or all of the bibles share a variant from the Clementine text, I indicate that with “missals” or “bibles”; otherwise, I indicate the specific source which contains a variant, with “missal” or “bible” added in parentheses as a reminder of the character of the source. In Table 98, I only indicate textual variants, and do not consider orthographical or punctuation variants. In cases where more than one variant appears for a single verse, I have subdivided the verse into multiple rows. 130 Rouse and Rouse 1974, p. 10; on p. 8 they indicate that the terminus ante quem for the first St. Jacques Concordance is 1247 due to the existence of a datable copy of the Concordance, but that “one has to assume that the project must have been, if not completed, at least well under way by 1235 when Hugh’s official connection with St. Jacques was ended.” 131 While an exhaustive study of the use of section letters in epistle and gospel lists is not possible here, a systematic examination of their presence or absence in datable manuscripts of reading lists may possibly lead to a refinement of the chronology of the development of section letters. 132 I will compare the bible sections of four Dominican bible missals: Paris, Mazarine 31; Paris, BnF, latin 215; Poitiers, BM 12; and Rome, Angelica 32. These manuscripts represent a broad range of regional and temporal origins, as well as varying textual traditions.

134 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 98: Textual Variations in the Pentecost Epistle (Act 2:1–11). Act 2:1–11 (ed. Colunga and Turrado 1965, p. 1066)

Variants in Dominican Sources133

1a

Et cum complerentur dies Pentecostes,

Et] In diebus illis: missals134

1b

erant omnes pariter in eodem loco:

erant omnes pariter] erant omnes discipuli pariter: missals and bibles135

2

et factus est repente de caelo sonus, tanquam advenientis spiritus vehementis, et replevit totam domum ubi erant sedentes.

ubi erant sedentes] ubi erant apostoli sedentes: Paris, BnF, latin 8884 (missal)136

3

Et apparuerunt illis dispertitae linguae tanquam ignis, seditque supra singulos eorum:

4

et repleti sunt omnes Spiritu sancto, et coeperunt loqui variis linguis, prout Spiritus sanctus dabat eloqui illis.

5

Erant autem in Ierusalem habitantes Iudaei, viri religiosi ex omni natione, quae sub cælo est.

in Ierusalem habitantes] habitantes in iherusalem: Rome (bible)

6

Facta autem hac voce, convenit multitudo, et mente confusa est, quoniam audiebat unusquisque lingua sua illos loquentes.

lingua sua] linguam suam: Rome (bible)

7a

Stupebant autem omnes, et mirabantur, dicentes:

et mirabantur, dicentes] et mirabantur ad invicem dicentes: Mons (missal); et mirabantur dicentes ad invicem: Poitiers (bible)137

7b

Nonne ecce omnes isti, qui loquuntur, Galilaei sunt,

ecce] omitted: Poitiers (bible); expunctuated: Rome (bible)

8a

et quomodo nos audivimus unusquisque

et quomodo nos audivimus unusquisque] Et quomodo unusquisque nos audivimus: Rome (bible)

8b

linguam nostram, in qua nati sumus?

nostram] suam: Poitiers (bible)138

9

Parthi, et Medi, et Aelamitae, et qui habitant Mesopotamiam, Iudaeam, et Cappadociam, Pontum, et Asiam,

Iudaeam] et iudeam: Paris, Mazarine 31 (bible)139

10

Phrygiam, et Pamphyliam, Aegyptum, et partes Libyae, quae est circa Cyrenen, et advenae Romani,

Aegyptum] et egyptum: Los Angeles (missal; et was written by the original hand but later expunctuated)

11

Iudaei quoque, et Proselyti, Cretes, et Arabes: audivimus eos loquentes nostris linguis magnalia Dei.

magnalia Dei] et magnalia dei: Paris, BnF, latin 8884 (missal; et was written by the original hand but expunctuated)

As Table 98 shows, most variants in the five Dominican missals and four Dominican bibles are found only in a single source. Only one variant is found in all eight sources: discipuli is included in Act 2:1b in all sources, despite being omitted in the Clementine Vulgate. All four missals adapt the opening of Act 2:1a by replacing Et with a standard liturgical opening 133 For full shelfmarks, see Table 97. 134 The apparatus of the Oxford Vulgate (ed. Wordsworth and White 1889–1954, v. 3, p. 41) notes that et factum est in diebus illis appears before et cum inplerentur dies in the c. 400 Codex Bezae (Cambridge, CUL, Nn.2.41, f. 419r). 135 In Paris, Mazarine 31, discipuli was written out by later expunctuated. This variant is not listed in the apparatus of the Stuttgart Vulgate (ed. Weber and Gryson 2007, p. 1699), but is present in the original hand in two sources collated in the Oxford Vulgate (ed. Wordsworth and White 1889–1954, v. 3, p. 42): U (London, BL, Add. MS 11852, a 9th-century manuscript likely from St. Gall) and W (London, BL, Royal 1 B XII, a bible copied in England in 1254); it is present as a correction in p (Paris, BnF, latin 321, an early 13th-century New Testament). 136 The addition of apostoli is witnessed in one source (D = Dublin, Trinity College, MS 52, a New Testament copied in Ireland c. 807/808; see f. 171v) collated in the Oxford Vulgate. 137 In the original hand of Poitiers, ad invicem is written after dicentes; a later hand added a marginal note indicating that ad invicem should be written before dicentes, which is where it is found in the Mons missal. The Stuttgart Vulgate indicates two sources (G = Paris, BnF, latin 11553, a set of biblical texts copied around 810 at St-Germain-des-Prés [see f. 135v]; I = Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, B.25, an 8th- or 9th-century set of biblical texts perhaps copied in Rome) which also add ad invicem, although they do so before rather than after dicentes; intriguingly, an early marginal note in Poitiers indicates that the text should read ad invicem dicentes rather than dicentes ad invicem as it appears in the manuscript. Houghton 2016, p. 214 notes that Paris, BnF, latin 11553 provides “the best Vulgate witness by far” for the Acts of the Apostles. 138 A later hand added a marginal note indicating an alternate reading of nostram. Both the Oxford and Stuttgart editions give lingua nostra instead of the Clementine linguam nostram; neither Oxford nor Stuttgart indicates suam as a variation for nostram. 139 The addition or omission of et at various points within the list of peoples and places in Act 2:9–11 is witnessed by many manuscripts in both the Stuttgart and Oxford editions.

4.4 Readings for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 135

phrase, In diebus illis.140 Of the nine sources collated here, the Rome and Poitiers bibles have the most individual variants. The Rome bible has two examples of inversion (verses 5 and 8a), one example of words being put in the accusative rather than nominative case (verse 6), and one example of a standard word (ecce) being written but then expunctuated (verse 7b). The Poitiers bible has one example of words being added to the text (verse 7a), one omission of a standard word (ecce; verse 7b), and one case of suam appearing instead of the standard nostram (verse 8b). The Paris missal has two variations: the addition of apostoli (verse 2) and the addition of et in (verse 11), the latter of which was expunctuated. Like the Poitiers bible, the Mons missal adds ad invicem in verse 7a, although it places the words before rather than after dicentes. Finally, two different sources add et in verses 9 and 10 (in addition to the Paris missal adding et in verse 11). Despite the presence of one or several variations in individual manuscripts, the “liturgical” version of the passage found in the five missals and the “biblical” version found in the four bibles considered here are essentially identical. It is striking that there are no shared variants in the sources aside from the inclusion of discipuli in 1b, which seems to be a common feature in 13th-century manuscripts. Aside from the inclusion of In diebus illis at the opening of the passage, which is not a variation but rather an introductory phrase, there are no consistent distinctions between the biblical and liturgical versions of the text. 4.4.1.2 The Pentecost Epistle in Dominican Bible Missals The Pentecost epistle is referenced in ten Dominican bible missals. Table 99 shows the range of modes of referencing the pericope in each source. Table 99: Modes of Referencing the Pentecost Epistle in Dominican Bible Missals. Manuscript

Genre

Book

C.

S.

Incipit

Brussels, KBR 8882, f. 206ra (epistle and gospel list)

Epistola

Act.

ii

[a]

Cum complerentur dies.

Actuum

ii

a

In diebus illis: Dum complerentur dies penthecostes.

Act.

ii

Act.

ii

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, ff. 539vb–540ra (formulary) Paris, BnF, latin 215, f. 265va (epistle and gospel list)

Epistola

Paris, BnF, latin 16266, f. 657r (added epistle and gospel list)

Rubric

Explicit

finis

magnalia dei.

Cum complerentur. a

Cum complerentur dies.

linguis magnalia dei.

Pisa, Cathariniana 177, f. 393vb (formulary)

Epistola

Act.

ii

Poitiers, BM 12, f. 514vb (epistle and gospel list)

Epistola

Act.

ii

a

Dum complerentur.

Fi.

magnalia dei.

Private Collection (“The Wellington bible”), f. 4vb (epistle and gospel list)

Epistola

Act.

ii

a

Cum complerentur dies.

Fi.

magnalia dei.

Ac.

2

[?] complerentur.

Fi.

magnalia dei.

Dum complerentur.

Fi.

magnalia dei.

Rome, Angelica 32, f. 18v (epistle and gospel list) Rome, Angelica 32, f. 465v (epistle and gospel list)141

E.

Ac.

[?]

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 511va (epistle and gospel list)

Epistola

Act.

ii

Dum complerentur dies pentecostes.

Dum complerentur dies. [?]

As Table 99 indicates, all ten references clearly refer to the same text (despite some sources using the dum rather than cum, essentially an orthographical variant in this context) but provide differing degrees of specificity. The most precise source is the Pentecost formulary in Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16: this provides the name of the biblical

140 For brief discussions of the In diebus illis opening, see Droosten 1904; Dick 1955; Jungmann 1962, v. 2, p. 518; and Dyer 2012, p. 673. 141 The section of f. 465v containing the Pentecost readings has been lightly damaged, rendering some sections unreadable.

136 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

book, the chapter number, the section letter (a, indicating the opening section of the chapter), the liturgical introductory formulary (In diebus illis), the incipit, and the explicit. While no other sources include In diebus illis, five other sources include both the incipit and the explicit while four sources include the incipit alone. The length of the incipit varies in the sources, ranging from two to four words. The sources with an explicit tend to give the same two-word version, while Paris, BnF, latin 16266 provides an additional word. While all sources include the name of the biblical book (using a range of abbreviations to refer to it) and the biblical chapter, only three sources besides the Cambridge manuscript include the chapter section letter in the original hand; in Brussels, KBR 8882, the section letter was added by a later scribe. Finally, most sources explicitly indicate the genre of the reading, while the Cambridge manuscript, the added epistle and gospel list in Paris, BnF, latin 16266 and the first of the two epistle and gospel lists in Rome, Angelica 32 omit the genre title. In contrast to the consistent provision of the chapter number in these sources, none of the pre-Humbert missals that provide the full text of the Pentecost epistle provide a chapter number (which is typical of 13th-century missals).142 Dominican bible missals that provide cross-references rather than the full text of the Pentecost epistle thus clearly indicate the use of the same text as those which provide the full text but do so with varying levels of specificity. While each source indicates the biblical book, chapter, and opening words, more than half (6/10) indicate the explicit and fewer than half (4/10) indicate the section of the chapter in which the reading is found. 4.4.1.3 The Pentecost Epistle in Non-Dominican Bible Missals The Pentecost epistle is indicated in eleven non-Dominican bible missals (Table 100). In one case, San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, the full text appears with no remarkable variations from the standard version discussed above. In the other ten cases a reference is provided either in the Pentecost formulary or in the context of an epistle and gospel list. Table 100: Modes of Referencing the Pentecost Epistle in Non-Dominican Bible Missals. Manuscript

Genre

Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3, f. 383rc (formulary) Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1, f. 383va (formulary)

Epistola

Darmstadt, ULB 1967, f. 274ra–274rb (formulary) Lisbon, BNP, IL 34, f. 477va–477vb (formulary)

Epistola

Book

C.

S.

Incipit

Rubric

Explicit

Actuum apostolorum

ii

a

In diebus illis: Dum complerentur.

Fi.

magnalia dei.

Actuum apostolorum

[ii]

In diebus illis: Cum complerentur dies pentecostes:

Usque

loquentes nostris linguis: magnalia dei.

Actuum apostolorum

[ii]

In diebus illis: Dum complerentur dies pentecostes:

Finis

magnalia dei.

Act.

ii

[a]

In diebus illis: Cum complerentur dies pentecostes.

Paris, BnF, latin 36, f. 361rb (formulary)

Cum complerentur. cccxii

Paris, BnF, latin 36, f. 371r (epistle and gospel list)

Cum complerentur dies pentecostes. cccxii

Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236, f. 411v (formulary) Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236, f. 460vb (epistle and gospel list) San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, f. 186ra–186rb (formulary)

Epistola

Actuum apostolorum

ii

Act.

ii

In diebus illis: Cum complerentur die penthecostes. a

Actuum apostolorum

142 In Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20, the chapter number was added by a later hand.

Cum complerentur dies. In diebus illis: Cum complerentur … [Full text]

4.4 Readings for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 137

Table 100 (continued) Manuscript

Genre

Book

C.

Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136, f. 149vb (epistle and gospel list)

Epistola

Act.

ii

Cum complerentur. [cccxii]

Actu.

ii

In diebus illis. Dum complerentur.

Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst., f. 194rb–194va (formulary)

S.

Incipit

Rubric

Explicit

[]

magnalia dei.

Like the Dominican bible missals, non-Dominican bible missals refer to the same text but with a range of specificity that is similar to the Dominican range. Seven sources include In diebus illis, all of which are formularies; as with the Dominican sources, the epistle and gospel lists do not include this introduction. Several sources include a longer title for the book, and one source (Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1) uses an alternate rubric to indicate the end of the reading (usque rather than finis) and provides a longer explicit (five words rather than the more common two-word explicit). One source (San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061) omits the biblical chapter, but this is the same source that provides the full text of the reading, rendering the chapter number less of a practical necessity. One source has an extraordinary method of indicating the readings: the Cistercian bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 36 omits the book title and chapter entirely in both its Pentecost formulary and epistle and gospel list, but instead provides the incipit alongside a Roman numeral (cccxii) indicating the folio on which the full reading can be found, together with a signe-derenvoi that indicates exactly on the page that the reading begins. On the corresponding folio of the bible section, f. 313v, the Roman numeral appears in the upper left-hand corner of the verso (enumerating the two-page spread ff. 313v–314r) and the signe-de-renvoi appears in the inner margin next to the incipit of the passage. Within the biblical text, an f written in red after the words magnalia dei indicates the end (finis) of the passage. 4.4.1.4 Summary All of the Dominican and non-Dominican sources considered here present Act 2:1–11 for the Pentecost epistle, in keeping with the broader medieval liturgical tradition. Among Dominican bible missals, only one manuscript (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16) presents the epistle in the context of a Pentecost mass formulary, which the other Dominican bible missals all present it as part of an epistle and gospel list. No Dominican bible missals present the full text of the epistle in the missal section itself, while all of the pre-Humbert missals present the full text of the epistle. Only one nonDominican bible missal (San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061) offers the full text of the epistle within the formulary. All of the Dominican and non-Dominican sources that provide the full text of the epistle omit the chapter number, whereas most sources that provide a cross-reference naming the biblical book also provide the chapter number. Dominican and non-Dominican bible missals that offer a cross-reference to the epistle use a similar range of indications to assist the user to find the full passage, with the most precise sources offering the biblical book, chapter, and section letter, incipit, and explicit, but with many sources omitting the section letter and explicit. One Cistercian bible missal (Paris, BnF, latin 36) makes use of an extraordinary system of cross-referencing by giving the exact folio number in the bible section on which the full reading may be found together with a signe-de-renvoi to aid in the locating of the passage, while the other bible missals expect the user to locate the full passage by means of the book title and chapter number.

4.4.2 Votive Mass Epistle Dominican liturgical sources generally indicate Act 8:14–17 for the epistle of the votive mass of the Holy Spirit, although two Dominican sources (Paris, BnF, latin 215 and Paris, BnF, latin 16266) present Act 8:14–17 in the missal section and Rm 8:26 (Latin 215) or Sap 1:6–7 (Latin 16266) in the epistle and gospel list. Two Dominican bible missals and four pre-Humbert missals provide the full text of the Act 8 epistle within the votive mass formulary, while the other Dominican sources provide only references to the reading.

138 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

4.4.2.1 Textual Versions of Act 8:14–17 in Dominican Bibles and Missals Table 101 indicates the folios on which Act 8:14–17 appears in the bible section of four Dominican bible missals and in the votive mass formulary of the two bible missals and five pre-Humbert missals which provide the full text in the formulary. Table 101: Dominican Sources for Act 8:14–17. Manuscript

Folios

Type

200v 322vb 514va–vb 635rb 484rb 398rb

Mass formulary Biblical text Biblical text Mass formulary Biblical text Biblical text

113vb–114ra 222rb 243vb–244ra 152vb–153rb 107rb–va

Mass formulary Mass formulary Mass formulary Mass formulary Mass formulary

Dominican bible missals Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 215 Paris, BnF, latin 16266 Poitiers, BM 12 Rome, Angelica 32 Pre-Humbert Dominican missals Lausanne, MHL 10 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Mons, BC 63/201 Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

Table 102 indicates the range of textual variants found in the Dominican sources that provide the full text of the votive mass epistle. Table 102: Textual Variations in the Votive Mass Epistle (Act 8:14–17). Act 8:14–17 (ed. Colunga and Turrado 1965, p. 1073)

Variants in Dominican Sources143

14a

Cum autem audissent Apostoli qui erant Ierosolymis,

autem] omitted in all mass formulary versions144

14b

quod

quod] quia: all sources145

14c

recepisset

recepisset] Oxford (bible missal formulary) and Poitiers (bible); recepit: all other sources

14d

Samaria verbum Dei, miserunt ad eos Petrum et Ioannem.

15

Qui cum venissent, oraverunt pro ipsis ut acciperent Spiritum sanctum:

16a

nondum enim in quemquam illorum venerat,

venerat] venerant: Poitiers (bible)

16b

sed baptizati tantum erant

tantum erant] erant tantum: Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 (missal)

16c

in nomine Domini Iesu.

Domini] omitted in Los Angeles (missal)

17

Tunc imponebant manus super illos, et accipiebant Spiritum sanctum.

illos] ipsos: Rome, Angelica 32 (bible)

In diebus illis: supplied before Cum in all mass formulary versions

143 Full the full shelfmarks, see Table 101. 144 The apparatus of the Oxford Vulgate (ed. Wordsworth and White 1889–1954, v. 3, p. 88) indicates that one source omits autem: p (Paris, BnF, latin 321, an early 13th-century New Testament). 145 The apparatus of the Oxford Vulgate (ed. Wordsworth and White 1889–1954, v. 3, p. 88) indicates two sources with quod (aside from the Clementine Vulgate itself): W (London, BL, Royal 1 B XII, a bible copied in England in 1254) and gig (Stockholm, Kungliga biblioteket, A. 148, an early 13th-century bible which contains a Vetus Latina version of Acts). Cf. the discussion above regarding the inclusion of discipuli in all the Dominican versions of Acts 2:1 despite its omission from the Clementine Vulgate.

4.4 Readings for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 139

As with the Pentecost epistle, all of the mass formulary versions of the epistle add In diebus illis at the opening of the reading. The mass formulary versions also consistently omit autem from verse 14a, a word which is found in all of the collated biblical versions. Also parallel to the Pentecost epistle is the fact that all of the Dominican sources agree in having a particular word that is different than that found in the Clementine Vulgate: in this case, all Dominican sources provide quia instead of the equivalent Clementine quod. The Dominican sources include one variant shared by two sources: in Act 8:14c, two Dominican sources agree with the Clementine Vulgate in providing the pluperfect subjunctive form of the verb recipio/recipire (recepisset) while all other sources give the perfect indicative form (recepit).146 This word is particularly unstable in Latin versions of Acts, with the Oxford Vulgate indicating sources that present accepit, excepit, and percepit in addition to the two forms witnessed in Dominican sources. Although recepit is the majority reading among the Dominican sources considered here, it is striking that recepisset appears in both a formulary version and a biblical version of the text. All other variants are found only in a single source. In contrast to the Pentecost epistle, where there were no consistent differences between the biblical and formulary versions (aside from the provision of In diebus illis in the formulary versions), the votive mass formulary differs from the biblical version in omitting autem from the opening phrase of the reading. 4.4.2.2 The Votive Mass Epistle in Dominican Bible Missals Table 103 shows the range of texts and modes of presentation of the votive mass epistle in Dominican bible missals. Table 103: Modes of Referencing the Votive Mass Epistle in Dominican Bible Missals. Manuscript

Genre

Book

C.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 559 rb–va (formulary)

Actuum

viii

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 200v (formulary)

Actuum apostolorum

S.

Incipit

Rubric

Explicit

In diebus illis: Cum audissent apostoli qui erant ierosolimis quia recepisset samaria verbum dei.

finis

Et accipiebant spiritum sanctum.

In diebus illis: Cum audissent … spiritum sanctum. (full text)

Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 2va (formulary)

Epistola

[Ac.]

[viii]

Cum audissent apostoli qui erant.

Paris, BnF, latin 215, f. 267vb (epistle and gospel list)

Epistola

Ad Ro.

viii

Spiritus adiuvat.

Ibid., f. 261ra–rb (formulary)

Epistola

[Act]

[viii]

In diebus illis. Cum audissent apostoli qui erant iherosolimis. Etc.

Paris, BnF, latin 16266, f. 635rb (formulary)

Lectio

Actuum apostolorum

In diebus illis. Cum audissent … spiritum sanctum. (full text)

Ibid., f. 624ra (original epistle and gospel list), option 1147

Ro.

viii

e

Spiritus adiuvat.

Ibid., f. 624ra (original epistle and gospel list), option 2

Sap.

i

c

Benignus est spiritus sapientie.

Ibid. f. 658r (added epistle and gospel list)

Act.

viii

c

Cum audissent apostoli.

Fi.

Habet vocis. Accipiebant spiritum sanctum.

146 Cf. Collins 1985, p. 216: “Indirect statements in the form of object clauses introduced by quod, quia, quoniam ‘that’ may take the indicative (see Section 43); this is called the retained indicative. But the use of the subjunctive mood in such clauses emphasizes the grammatical subordination of the indirect statement.” A sounding of other 13th-century bibles indicates that recepisset was relatively common: see Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236, f. 384rb; Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 724, f. 318r; Philadelphia, Free Library, Lewis E 28, f. 568r. These three bibles also present the “Paris Bible” variant of revertendi posita in Rt 1:7, but the presence of that variant is not universally correlated with the presence of recepisset; e.g., Vatican City, BAV, Pal. lat. 15 has revertendi posita in Rt 1:7 (f. 82rb) but recepit in Act 8:14 (f. 390ra). 147 The word vel appears before both readings.

140 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 103 (continued) Manuscript

Genre

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Book

C.

Actus

viii

S.

Incipit

Explicit

Fi.

Accipiebant spiritum sanctum.

In diebus illis. Cum audissent apostoli qui erant ierosolimis.

Poitiers, BM 12, f. 515ra; cf. 524ra (epistle and gospel list)148

Epistola

Actus

viii

c

Cum audissent.

Private Collection (“The Wellington bible”), f. 6rb (epistle and gospel list)

Epistola

Act.

viii

c

Cum audissent.

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 6rb (formulary)

Lectio epistole actuum apostolorum Act.

8

Rubric

In diebus illis, cum audissent apostoli etc.

The votive mass epistle is indicated twelve times in nine Dominican bible missals, seven times in the context of a mass formulary and five times in the context of an epistle and gospel list. The proportion of sources from each category is notably different than that of the Pentecost epistle, where eight of ten sources were from epistle and gospel lists and two were from a formulary. This is connected with the fact that most Dominican bible missals are of the votive missal typology, providing mostly votive masses rather than temporal masses, and that many epistle and gospel lists concentrate on temporal and sanctoral readings and give less attention to votive mass readings. Only two of the seven votive mass formularies (Oxford and Paris, BnF, latin 16266) provide the full text of the epistle, while the others give only a reference. As was the case with the Pentecost epistle, Dominican sources for the votive mass provide a range of explicitness in the reference to the reading. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 provides a lengthy incipit, including the words In diebus illis, as well as an explicit. Paris, Mazarine 31 names the genre and offers the opening five words of the incipit, while a later hand added Ac. viii above the incipit.149 Paris, BnF, latin 215 and Pisa, Cathariniana 177 provide identical versions of the In diebus illis and the opening six words of the incipit. While Pisa, Cathariniana 177 lists the biblical book and chapter together with the genre, Paris, BnF, latin 215 simply states that it is an Epistola while a later hand added Act. viii in the inner margin.150 Paris, BnF, latin 215 and Paris, BnF, latin 16266 provide different epistles for the votive mass in the formulary and epistle and gospel list. Latin 215 indicates the standard reading from Act 8 for the formulary, but the epistle and gospel list provides an incipit beginning with Rm 8:26; given the lack of an explicit the intended extent of the reading is not clear.151 Latin 16266 likewise gives the Act 8 reading in the formulary and in the added epistle and gospel list, but gives two options for the votive mass reading in the original epistle and gospel list. Like Latin 215, the first option in Latin 16266 indicates an incipit starting with Rm 8:26 but without an explicit; in addition, Latin 16266 gives the incipit and explicit of a reading from Sap 1:6–7. The discrepancy between the epistles assigned for the votive mass in the votive missal and epistle and gospel list sections in Latin 215 and Latin 16266 suggests that the two liturgical sections derive from different liturgical sources despite being included in the same codicological units.152

148 The epistle and gospel list in Poitiers, BM 12 provides the votive mass epistle by means of an internal cross-reference. On f. 524ra, in the entry De sancto spiritu, the entry for the epistle is Epistola supra feria III. in ebdomada pentecostes. The text given in Table 103 is taken the epistle for the Tuesday after Pentecost provided on f. 515ra. 149 Throughout the missal section of Paris, Mazarine 31, the readings are only given in incipit form, and a single hand added the book and chapter number for all of the epistle and gospel incipits in a lighter ink than that used for the main text. It is conceivable that this differentiation of ink was part of the original design of the missal section, although it appears to me that the book and chapter numbers are later additions. 150 It is unusual that the votive mass epistle in Paris, BnF, latin 215 is given only as an incipit, as most readings in this source are given in full text form. 151 One non-Dominican bible missal provides the same incipit for the votive mass epistle in the epistle and gospel list: Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136, f.  150vc. The Vienna manuscript likewise does not indicate the end of the pericope. I have not yet identified a full text version of a parallel epistle. 152 Giraud 2022 draws attention to the wide divergence between the epistle and gospel list in Paris, BnF, latin 215 and other Dominican sources. While the epistle and gospel list in Latin 16266 has not yet received detailed scholarly attention, it may likewise represent a non-Dominican tradition despite the Dominican features of the votive missal section.

 141

4.4 Readings for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

4.4.2.3 The Votive Mass Epistle in Non-Dominican Bible Missals Table 104 indicates the range of texts and modes of presentation of the votive mass epistle in non-Dominican bible missals: Table 104: Modes of Referencing the Votive Mass Epistle in Non-Dominican Bible Missals. Manuscript

Genre

Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202, f. 195va (formulary)

Book

Chapter

Actuum apostolorum

viii [viii]

Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1, f. 384va (formulary)

Epistola

Actuum apostolorum

Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10, f. 451ra–rb (formulary)

Lectio

actuum apostolorum

London, BL, Harley 1748, f. 172ra–rb (formulary)

Epistola

actuum apostolorum

viii

London, BL, Harley 2813, f. 227ra–rb (formulary)

Lectio actuum apostolorum

[8]

Paris, BnF, latin 216, v. II, f. 263vb (formulary)

Act.

Section

Incipit

Rubric

Explicit

In diebus illis. Cum audissent apostoli. [7]

In diebus illis: Cum audissent apostoli. In diebus illis: Cum audissent apostoli … spiritum sanctum. (full text)

b

In diebus illis: Cum audissent apostoli.

Fin.

spiritum sanctum.

In diebus illis cum audissent apostoli. Cum audissent apostoli [partial text].

Paris, BnF, latin 10431, f. 349va (formulary)

Epistola

Lectio actuum apostolorum

[viii]

Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236, f. 462rc (epistle and gospel list)

Epistola

Ac.

viii

In diebus illis: Cum audissent apostoli qui erant. c

Cum audissent.

San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, f. 184ra–rb (formulary)

Ad chorinth.

Fratres: unicuique datur manifestatio … singulis prout vult. (full text)

Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136, f. 154ra–rb (formulary)

Actuum apostolorum

In diebus illis: Cum complerentur dies pentecostes.

Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136, f. 150vc (epistle and gospel list)

Epistola

Ro.

viii

Spiritus adiuvat.

Of the eleven epistle indications listed in Table 104, eight indicate the Act 8 epistle found in most Dominican sources, one (San Marino) provides the full text of I Cor 12:7–11,153 one (Vienna formulary) indicates the Act 2 epistle found in Dominican sources for Pentecost, and one (Vienna epistle and gospel list) provides an incipit for an epistle starting with Rm 8:26.154 Of the eight sources with the Act 8 epistle, one gives the full text (Haverford155) and one (Paris, BnF, latin 216156) gives the full text for the first two verses and the opening words for the last two verses. Only one source with a cross-reference to the epistle provides an explicit (London, BL, Harley 1748), and several cross-reference sources omit the chapter number in the original hand. The two sources which provide a section letter (London, BL, Harley 1748 and Philadelphia) indicate the passage with b and c respectively; this is a reminder that the section letter system is not entirely precise when it comes to identifying particular passages within a biblical chapter. Finally, it is noteworthy that one source (Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136) provides different readings in the formulary and epistle and gospel list; as with the Dominican bible missals Paris, BnF, 153 This source also provides an unusual gospel in the same formulary: Io 4:23–24, rather than the typical reading from Io 14:23–31 which will be discussed below. 154 Like Paris, BnF, latin 215 and Paris, BnF, latin 16266, it does not provide an explicit, so it is not possible to determine the intended length of the reading. 155 Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10 matches the standard Dominican text described above (including recipit in Act 8:14c) with the exception Act 8:16b, where it gives the erant tantum found in Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3. 156 Paris, BnF, latin 216, v. II, f. 263vb presents the full text of Act 8:14–15, but only the opening words of verses 16 (Nondum) and 17 (Tunc): “Cum audissent apostoli qui erant ierosolimis quia recepit samaria verbum dei miserunt petrum et iohanem. Qui cum venissent oraverunt pro ipsis ut acciperent spiritum sanctum. Nondum. Tunc.”

142 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

latin 215 and Paris, BnF, 16266, discussed above, this is a reminder that different liturgical sections of a manuscript sometimes represent alternative liturgical traditions, although in the case of the Vienna bible missal the formulary and epistle and gospel list are clearly of different production units while the sections in the two Paris Dominican bible missals are likely from the same production units.157 4.4.2.4 Summary In contrast to the consistency of Dominican and non-Dominican sources in offering Act 2:1–11 for the Pentecost epistle, the selection of the votive mass epistle is more varied. Most Dominican sources offer Act 8:14–17, although two sources give an incipit from Rm 8:26 and one gives an incipit and explicit for Sap 1:6–7 in the epistle and gospel list. Non-Dominican bible missals generally offer Act 8:14–17, but individual sources provide Rm 8:26, I Cor 12:7–11, and Act 2:1–11. In contrast to the relative uniformity of the biblical and formulary versions of the Pentecost epistle, there is one consistent minor difference between the two versions of the votive mass epistle, with biblical sources including autem in the opening phrase Cum autem audissent apostoli and with formulary sources consistently omitting autem; all references to the incipit in sources that provide a cross-reference to the epistle rather than the full text also omit autem. As with the Pentecost epistle, references to the votive mass epistle have a variety of degrees of explicitness, and a significant number of sources omit the chapter number and explicit. In contrast to the Pentecost epistle, where sources with a section letter consistently indicate the passage as beginning in section “a” of chapter 2 (corresponding with the modern verse 1), Dominican sources with a section letter for the Act 8:14–17 reading consistently use the section letter “c” to indicate the modern verse 14, while the two non-Dominican sources with a section letter indicate “b” or “c” for the same verse.

4.4.3 Pentecost and Votive Mass Gospel While Dominican for Pentecost and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit present distinct epistles for the two formularies, they present the same gospel pericope for both occasions: Io 14:23–31. This means that in some sources the passage appears twice, which allows for an assessment of the consistency with which the same text appears in different contexts. 4.4.3.1 Textual Versions of Io 14:23–31 in Dominican Bibles and Missals In Table 105, I indicate the folios on which Io 14:23–31 appears in the bible section of four Dominican bible missals and in the Pentecost and votive mass formularies of the sources which provide the full text. Table 105: Dominican Sources for Io 14:23–31. Manuscript

Folios

Type

200v 302ra 261ra–rb 479va 635rb–va 450ra 393rb

Votive mass formulary Biblical text Votive mass formulary Biblical text Votive mass formulary Biblical text Biblical text

146va–vb 114rb 193vb–194ra 127vb 123vb–124ra

Pentecost mass formulary Pentecost mass formulary Votive mass formulary Pentecost mass formulary Pentecost mass formulary

Dominican bible missals Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 215 Ibid. Paris, BnF, latin 16266 Poitiers, BM 12 Rome, Angelica 32 Pre-Humbert Dominican missals Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 Lausanne, MHL 10 Ibid. Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Mons, BC 63/201

157 For a discussion of the production units of Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136, see p. 21 above.

4.4 Readings for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 143

Table 105 (continued) Manuscript

Folios

Type

Ibid. Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Ibid. Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

244ra–rb 153rb–154vb 274rb–vb 108rb–vb

Votive mass formulary Pentecost mass formulary Votive mass formulary Votive mass formulary

81r–v

Pentecost mass gospel

Pre-Humbert Evangelarium New Haven, Beinecke, Music Deposit 99

In Table 106, I provide the text of the Clementine Vulgate and indicate the variants found in Dominican sources. Table 106: Textual Variations in the Pentecost/Votive Mass Gospel (Io 14:23–31). Io 14:23–31 (ed. Colunga and Turrado 1965, p. 1058)

Variants in Dominican Sources158

23a

Respondit Iesus, et dixit ei:

Respondit Iesus, et dixit ei:] In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis: All mass versions159

23b

Si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit, et Pater meus diliget eum, et ad eum veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus;

24a

qui non diligit me, sermones meos non servat.

me] omitted in Oxford (votive mass formulary)160

24b

Et sermonem, quem audistis, non est meus: sed eius qui misit me, Patris.

audistis, non est meus: sed eius qui misit me, Patris. Haec] omitted in Paris, BnF, latin 16266161

25

Haec locutus sum vobis apud vos manens.

26a

Paraclitus autem Spiritus Sanctus,

Spiritus Sanctus] omitted by the original hand in the Rome, Angelica 32 (biblical text) but supplied by later hand.162

26b

quem mittet Pater in nomine meo,

Pater] pater meus: Rome, Angelica 32 (biblical text)163

26c

ille vos docebit omnia,

26d

et suggeret vobis omnia quaecumque dixero vobis.

27a

Pacem relinquo vobis, pacem meam do vobis:

et] ut: Oxford (votive mass formulary)164

158 For full shelfmarks, see Table 105. 159 The votive mass formulary in Paris, BnF, latin 215 omits tempore by scribal error; all other gospels with full texts in this source include tem­ pore in the equivalent gospel introductions. 160 This is most likely the result of scribal error. The Oxford Vulgate apparatus (ed. Wordsworth and White 1889–1954, v. 1, p. 609) indicates one source that omits me in the original hand: R (an early 9th-century Latin Gospels from Ireland, Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Auct. D. 2. 19, f. 157v). None of the Vetus Latina Iohannes sources collated at https://itseeweb.cal.bham.ac.uk/iohannes/vetuslatina/ omit me (although some invert the order of the words). 161 Paris, BnF, latin 16266, f. 635rb–va omits the words written in Italics in the following passage from Io 14:24–25: “Et sermonem quem audistis non est meus: set eius qui misit me patris. Hec locutus sum vobis: aput vos manens”, presenting the text as “Et sermonem quem locutus sum vobis: apud vos manens.” This phrase is written at the turn of a folio, with “Et ser” appearing at the end of f. 635rb and the rest of the phrase on f. 635vb; it is possible that this turn of page contributed to the scribal error. It is possible that the scribe was partially confused by the presence of a similar phrase in Io 15:3: “Iam vos mundi estis propter sermonem quem locutus sum vobis.” If the similarity of Io 14:24–25 and Io 15:3 played a role in the error, that would suggest that the scribe was copying from a biblical exemplar rather than a liturgical pericope. However, given that the error is simply one of omission and that the text continues normally after that point, it seems more plausible that the scribe simply had an eye skip that led to the omission of several words, particularly as the resulting phrase is grammatically plausible in itself. 162 This is most likely the result of scribal error. None of the sources in the Oxford Vulgate or the Vetus Latina Iohannes omit these words (although some invert the order of the words). 163 Two sources in the Oxford Vulgate apparatus have pater meus: E (Latin Gospels copied in western France in the second quarter of the 9th century, London, BL, Egerton 609) and d (c. 400 Codex Bezae, Cambridge, CUL, Nn.2.41, f. 160r). 164 None of the Oxford Vulgate or Vetus Latina Iohannes sources include this variation.

144 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 106 (continued) Io 14:23–31 (ed. Colunga and Turrado 1965, p. 1058)

Variants in Dominican Sources

27b

non quomodo mundus dat, ego do vobis.

non quomodo mundus dat, ego do vobis] omitted by Oxford (votive mass formulary)165 mundus] hic mundus: Paris, BnF, latin 215, f. 479va (biblical text) and Rome, Angelica 32 (biblical text); hic was subsequently expunctuated in Rome166

27c

Non turbetur cor vestrum, neque formidet.

28a

Audistis quia ego dixi vobis:

vobis] omitted by the scribe in Los Angeles (Pentecost mass formulary) but added above the line by a later hand

28b

Vado, et venio ad vos. Si diligeretis me, gauderetis utique,

diligeretis] diligetis: Paris, BnF, latin 215, f. 261ra (votive mass formulary);167

28c

quia vado ad Patrem:

vado ad Patrem] ad patrem vado: Paris, Mazarine 31 (biblical text)168

28d

quia Pater maior me est.

Pater maior me] Pater me maior me: Paris, BnF, latin 8884 (Pentecost mass formulary)169

29

Et nunc dixi vobis priusquam fiat: ut cum factum fuerit, credatis.

30

Iam non multa loquar vobiscum: venit enim princeps mundi huius, et in me non habet quidquam.

31a

Sed ut cognoscat mundus quia diligo Patrem,

mundus] omitted in Los Angeles170

31b

et sicut mandatum dedit mihi Pater, sic facio.

mihi] omitted in Paris, BnF, latin 8884 (votive mass formulary)171

31c

Surgite, eamus hinc.

Omitted in liturgical versions

172

As with the two epistles considered above, the versions of the gospel for the Pentecost and votive mass consistently present a standard form of the gospel incipit (In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis) that contextualizes the following pericope as a speech to all of the disciples, in contrast to the opening words of the biblical version which present it as a response to a question by the apostle Jude (Respondit Iesus, et dixit ei).173 Aside from this typical adaptation, there are no variants that are consistently supplied by liturgical sources in distinction to biblical sources. Only one textual variant is found in more than one source: the biblical text of Paris, BnF, latin 215 and Rome, Angelica 32 include hic before mundus in Io 14:27b. This is significant in light of the fact that a relatively large number of Vetus Latina sources include hic in this context, as noted in Table 106. All other variants are found in a single source, and no

165 Although this phrase was likely omitted in the Oxford bible missal by homeoteleuton, it is noteworthy that the same phrase is omitted in one Vetus Latina Iohannes source (VL 2). 166 Hic mundus appears in eight of the 27 sources collated in the Vetus Latina Iohannes. Hic mundus appears in some versions of the antiphon Pacem relinquo vobis (CAO 4205; cf. http://gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/cdb/4205). 167 The Oxford Vulgate reports one source which presents diligetis: B (Latin Gospels written in southern England in the final quarter of the 8th century; Paris, BnF, latin 281 and Paris, BnF, latin 298; Io 14:28 appears in Paris, BnF, latin 298, f. 29v). 168 The Oxford Vulgate reports that this inversion is found in E (London, BL, Egerton 609) and e (= VL 2); the Vetus Latina Iohannes reports this version in VL 2 and VL 29 (= Paris, BnF, latin 13169, copied in Brittany in the 10th century; cf. Houghton 2016, p. 225). 169 Several sources in the Oxford Vulgate and Vetus Latina Iohannes have Pater meus maior me, but none have the same reading as the Paris formulary. 170 This appears to be a simple scribal error; no sources in the Oxford Vulgate or Vetus Latina Iohannes omit mundus. 171 This appears to be a simple scribal error; no sources in the Oxford Vulgate or Vetus Latina Iohannes omit mihi. 172 One Dominican bible, Paris, BnF, latin 215 presents this phrase as the start of chapter 15, while the others (like the Clementine Vulgate) present it as the close of chapter 14. The Oxford Vulgate apparatus reports that W (London, BL, Royal 1 B XII, a bible copied in England in 1254) likewise gives Surgite eamus hinc as the opening of chapter 15. 173 For overviews of various forms of the gospel incipit in the Latin tradition, see Droosten 1904 and Dick 1955. In short, almost all gospels begin with the phrase In illo tempore, with the exception of some where the gospel text itself describes the time of an event, e.g., Mt 1:18–21, typically read at the Vigil of Christmas, where the opening line of the pericope itself situates the text: “Cum esset desponsata mater Iesu Maria Ioseph, antequam convenirent inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu Sancto” (for this example, see Przeczewski 2003, p. 53, §254). After In illo tempore, a variety of forms are sometimes used to further set the context, e.g., Dixit iesus discipulis suis, Dicebat iesus scribis et pharisaeis, Locutus est iesus, etc.

4.4 Readings for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 145

sources that present the gospel more than once (e.g., as both a Pentecost and votive mass gospel or as a biblical text and part of a liturgical formulary) include common variations in more than one version. More significant variations are the addition of meus in verse 26b, the use of ut rather than et in 26d, the use of the future tense diligetis rather than the imperfect subjunctive diligeretis in 28b, and the inversion of several words in 28c and 28d. With the exception of the ut/et variation in 26d, each of these variations appear in at least one early Vulgate or Vetus Latina source. Although there is not enough evidence to suggest a specific connection between any of these sources and any specific earlier source cited in the footnotes above, it is a reminder of the textual complexity of the Latin bible in the 13th century and of the continued circulation of Vetus Latina readings in some Vulgate manuscripts.174 4.4.3.2 The Pentecost and Votive Mass Gospel in Dominican Bible Missals Table 107 shows the range of texts and modes of presentation of the Pentecost and votive mass gospel in Dominican bible missals. Table 107: Modes of Referencing the Pentecost and Votive Mass Gospel in Dominican Bible Missals. Manuscript

Book

Chapter

Section

Incipit

Brussels, KBR 8882, f. 206ra Evangelium (Pentecost epistle and gospel list)

Io.

xiiii

[d]

Si diligitis me sermonem meum.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, ff. 539vb–540ra (Pentecost formulary)

Secundum iohanem

xiiii

e

Ibid., f. 559rb–va (votive mass formulary)

Secundum iohanem

xiiii

e

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 200v (votive mass formulary)

Secundum iohanem

Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 2va (votive mass formulary)

Genre

Evangelium

Paris, BnF, latin 215, f. 261ra–rb (votive mass formulary) Ibid., f. 265va (Pentecost epistle and gospel list)

[Io.]

Rubric

Explicit

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis: Si quis diligit me:

finis.

Et sicut mandatum dedit michi pater: sic facio.

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis: Si quis diligit me:

finis.

Et sicut mandatum dedit michi pater: sic facio.

In illo tempore. Dixit ihesus discipulis suis: Si quis diligit me … sic facio. (full text) [XIIII]

Si quis diligit me.

Secundum iohannem

In illo: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Si quis diligit me … sic facio. (full text)

Evangelium

Io.

xiiii

Si quis diligit me.

Ibid., f. 267vb (votive mass epistle Evangelium and gospel list)

Io.

xiiii

Si quis diligit me.

Paris, BnF, latin 16266, f. 624ra (votive mass in original epistle and gospel list)

Io.

xiiii

Evangelium

Ibid., f. 635rb–va (votive mass formulary)

Secundum iohanem

Ibid., f. 657r (Pentecost in added epistle and gospel list)

Io.

e

Si quis diligit me. Vel eodem capitula. Cum venerit paraclitus. In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Si quis diligit me: sermonem meum servabit. … sic facio. (full text)

xiiii

e

Si quis diligit me.

Fi.

Dedit michi pater sic facio.

174 For instance, Paris, BnF, latin 321, an early 13th-century New Testament manuscript which has been cited occasionally in the discussions of both the epistles and the gospel above, mostly presents the Vulgate text, but provides an Old Latin version for major portions of Act (cf. Houghton 2016, p. 234). Intriguingly, this manuscript has a long Dominican provenance, with a 13th-century ex libris from the Dominican convent of Perpignan in southern France and a 16th-century ownership note from a Frater Hugo Trugosse from the Dominican convent of Millau in southern France; for transcriptions of these ownership notes, see https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc61061c.

146 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 107 (continued) Manuscript

Genre

Ibid., f. 658r (votive mass in added epistle and gospel list)

Book

Chapter

Section

Incipit

Rubric

Explicit

Io.

xiiii

f

Si quis diligit me.

Fi.

Dedit michi pater sic facio.

Pisa, Cathariniana 177, f. 393vb (Pentecost formulary)

Evangelium

Io.

xiiii

Si quis diligit me. Etc.

Ibid.. f. 396rb (votive mass formulary)

Evangelium

Io.

xiiii

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Si quis diligit me sermonem meum servabit.

Poitiers, BM 12, f. 514vb Evangelium (Pentecost epistle and gospel list)

Io.

xiiii

e

Si quis diligit me sermones.

Fi.

[blank]

Ibid., f. 524ra (votive mass epistle Evangelium and gospel list)

supra in ipso die pentecostes.

Private Collection (“The Evangelium Wellington bible”), f. 4vb (Pentecost epistle and gospel list)

Io.

xiiii

f

Si quis diligit me sermonem meum.

Fi.

Dedit michi pater sic facio.

Ibid., f. 6rb (votive mass epistle and gospel list)

Io.

xiiii

f

Si quis diligit me sermonem meum.

Io.

14

Io.

xiiii

Secundum iohanem

Io xiii

In illo tempore dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Si quis diligit me sermonem meum servabit.

Io.

14

Si quis diligit me sermonem.

Io.

xiiii

Si quis diligit sermonem.

Evangelium

Rome, Angelica 32, f. 18v (Pentecost epistle and gospel list) Ibid., f. 465v (Pentecost epistle and gospel list)

Evangelium

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 6rb (votive mass formulary) Ibid., f. 511va (Pentecost epistle and gospel list) Ibid., f. 517vb (Pentecost epistle and gospel list)

Evangelium

Si quis diligit me. []

[]

sic facio.

Fi.

sic facio.

The Dominican sources which provide a reference to the Pentecost or votive mass gospel all indicate Io 14:23–31, although Brussels, KBR 8882 presents the reference in an ambiguous manner and Paris, BnF, latin 16266 provides an additional option in its original epistle and gospel list. Brussels gives the incipit as Si diligitis me sermonem meum, rather than Si quis diligit me sermonem meum. For the first three words, the scribe supplied the very similar incipit of the Pentecost Vigil gospel, Io 14:15–21 (Si diligitis me mandata mea … manifestabo ei meipsum) but then continued the incipit with the Io 14:23 sermonem meum rather than the Io 14:15 mandata mea.175 The similarity of the two incipits was evidently a source of confusion for some scribes, as Poitiers, BM 12 has the opposite error, with the vigil mass incipit given as Si quis diligit (later corrected to Si diligeretis), although the provision of explicits in Poitiers makes the intended reading unambiguous. Paris, BnF, latin 16266 gives the standard gospel pericope in the votive missal section and the Pentecost and votive mass entries of the added epistle and gospel list, but provides two options in the original epistle and gospel list, which may represent a different liturgical tradition despite being part of the same production unit as the votive missal, as is also the case in Paris, BnF, latin 215.176 The first entry for the votive mass in the original epistle and gospel list in Latin 16266 indicates Io 14:23–31, but the second entry indicates the incipit Cum venerit paraclitus with the introductory words eodem capitula suggesting that this is also from chapter 14 of John’s gospel; in fact, this incipit corresponds to Io 15:26. No explicit 175 The Pentecost Vigil gospel is given at the end of f. 205vb as Evangelium. Ioh. xiiii. Si diligitis me. It is possible that the transition from the end of f. 205vb to the start of f. 206ra for the writing of the Pentecost Sunday incipit played a role in the error. 176 As noted above, the original epistle and gospel list in Paris, BnF, latin 16266 (like Paris, BnF, latin 215) differs significantly from other Dominican sources, including votive missal section of the manuscript. This source also provides two selections for the votive mass epistle.

4.4 Readings for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 147

is provided, but the intended pericope is likely Io 15:26–16:4, a passage found in many medieval sources for the Sunday after the Ascension and/or Trinity Sunday.177 As with the votive mass epistle, the small number of epistle and gospel lists that supply a section letter provide varying letters; Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 supplies e both times the reading appears, and the Private Collection “Wellington Bible” provides f on each occasion. The added epistle and gospel list in Paris, BnF, latin 16266 gives e for the Pentecost gospel and f for the votive mass gospel, although the two entries are otherwise identical. In Brussels, KBR 8882, where a later hand has supplied section letters for some occasions, d is provided, although it’s possible that this even earlier section letter is given on account of the confusion engendered by the incorrect opening words of the incipit. Aside from the confusion concerning the incipit in Brussels, the range of explicitness in references to the gospel in the Dominican sources is parallel to the range found in both the Pentecost and votive mass epistles. 4.4.3.3 The Pentecost and Votive Mass Gospel in Non-Dominican Bible Missals Table 108 shows the range of texts and modes of presentation of the Pentecost and votive mass gospel in non-Dominican bible missals: Table 108: Modes of Referencing the Pentecost and Votive Mass Gospel in Non-Dominican Bible Missals. Manuscript

Genre

Book

Chapter

Section

Incipit

Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202, f. 195va (votive mass formulary)

Secundum iohanem

xiiii

Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3, f. 383rc (Pentecost formulary)

Secundum iohanem

14

d

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Si quis diligit me.

Explicit

Fi.

Dedit michi pater sic facio.

Finis

Et sicut mandatum dedit michi pater: sic facio.

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Si quis diligit me.

Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1, f. 383va (Pentecost formulary)

Evangelium

secundum iohanem

[xiiii]

[g or 6]

Si quis diligit me: sermonem meum.

Ibid., f. 384va (votive mass formulary)

Evangelium

secundum iohanem

[xiiii]

[in finem]

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Si quis diligit me.

Darmstadt, ULB 1967, f. 274ra–rb (Pentecost formulary)

Secundum iohanem

[xiiii]

[f]

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Si quis diligit me sermonem meum servabit.

Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10, f. 451ra–rb (votive mass formulary)

Secundum iohannem

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Si quis diligit me … sic facio. (full text)

Lisbon, BNP, IL 34, f. 477va–vb (Pentecost formulary)

Evangelium

Ioh.

xii [sic]

London, BL, Harley 1748, f. 172ra–rb (votive mass formulary)

Evangelium

secundum iohanem

14

Secundum iohanem

[14]

London, BL, Harley 2813, f. 227ra–rb (votive mass formulary)

Rubric

Si quis diligit me. c

In illo tempore dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Si quis diligit me. In illo [tempore] dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Si quis diligit me.

Paris, BnF, latin 36, f. 361rb (Pentecost formulary)

Si quis diligit. [ccxcii]

Ibid., f. 371r (Pentecost epistle and gospel list)

Si quis diligit me sermonem meum. [ccxcii]

177 For an overview of sources with this pericope, see https://usuarium.elte.hu/itemrepertory/160/view.

Fi.

Sic facio.

148 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 108 (continued) Manuscript

Genre

Book

Chapter

Section

Incipit

Paris, BnF, latin 216, v. II, f. 263vb (votive mass formulary)

Evangelium

secundum iohanem

XIIII

In illo tempore dixit ihesus discipulis suis si quis diligit.

Paris, BnF, latin 10431, f. 349va (votive mass formulary)

Lectio sancti evangelium secundum iohanem

[xiiii]

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Si quis diligit me: sermo[nem me]um

Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236, f. 411v (Pentecost formulary)

Iohanem

xiiii

In illo tempore: dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit.

Rubric

Explicit

Ibid., f. 460vb (Pentecost epistle and gospel list)

Evangelium

Io.

xiiii

e

Si quis diligit me.

Ibid., f. 462rc (votive epistle and gospel list)

Evangelium

Io.

xiii\i/

e

Si quis diligit me.

San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, f. 184ra–rb (votive mass formulary)

Secundum iohanem

[4]

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus mulieri samariane. (full text)

Ibid., f. 186ra–rb (Pentecost formulary)

Secundum iohanem

[14]

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Si quis diligit me … sic facio. (full text)

Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136, f. 149vb (Pentecost epistle and gospel list list)

Evangelium

Io.

xiiii

Si quis diligit me.

Ibid., f. 150vc (votive epistle and gospel list)

Evangelium

Io.

xiiii

Si quis diligit me.

Ibid., f. 154ra–rb (votive mass formulary)

Secundum iohanem

[xiiii]

In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Si quis diligit.

Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst., f. 194rb–va (Pentecost formulary)

Io.

xiiii

In illo tempore dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Si quis diligit.

Fi.

Pater sic facio.

In contrast to the Dominican sources, where Io 14:23–31 is consistently indicated for both the Pentecost and votive mass gospel (apart from Paris, BnF, latin 16266, which provides an alternate gospel pericope in addition), one non-Dominican source provides the full text of a different gospel for the votive mass, Io 4:23–24.178 The other non-Dominican sources all indicate Io 14:23–31 for both masses. Two sources provide the full text of the Io 14:23–31: Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10 (votive mass formulary) and San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 (Pentecost formulary); these texts essentially match the version given in Dominican sources except for several minor scribal errors in San Marino. The other sources all indicate the Io 14:23–31 with a range of explicitness that parallels the range found in non-Dominican sources for the two epistles and in the Dominican sources for the gospel. In contrast to the sources which present the typical chapter number 14 in the original hand or as a later addition, Lisbon, BNP, IL 34 lists the chapter number as 12. Rather than being a scribal error, this corresponds to the enumeration of the chapter numbers in the biblical portion of the manuscript, which has an eccentric numbering system for the gospel

178 San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, f. 184ra–184rb: “De sancto spiritu. … Secundum iohanem. [4]. In illo tempore: Dixit ihesus mulieri samariane. Mulier venit hora et nunc est, quando veri adoratores adorabant patrem in spiritu et veritate. Nam et pater tales querit qui adorent eum. Spiritus est deus: et eos qui adorent eum in spiritu et veritate: oportet adorare.” This source also provides an unusual epistle for the votive mass but provides the standard epistle and gospel for the Pentecost mass.

4.4 Readings for Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit  

 149

of John. The Pentecost gospel passage appears on f. 333ra in a section labelled Io 12 which corresponds textually to the typical Io 14.179 The consistency of the unusual numbering between the bible section and the non-Dominican full missal is a strong indication of the integration of the production of the two sections and is a reminder that the chapter numbering system which became widespread in the early 13th century was not always consistently applied.180 As Table 108 reveals, non-Dominican sources for the gospel show particular instability with respect to the indication of the section letter of the pericope. While the Dominican sources with original section letters present the text with either e or f, non-Dominican sources with original section letters include c, d and e; when added section letters are taken into account, the range expands to include f and g (or possibly 6 in Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1, although it is not clear what the Arabic numeral would indicate) and in finem, indicating that the pericope comes at the end of the chapter. The use of this wide range of section letters to refer to the same pericope underscores the imprecision of the section letter system of reference. 4.4.3.4 Summary Almost all Dominican and non-Dominican sources consistently indicate Io 14:23–31 as the gospel for Pentecost and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit, while one Dominican source (Paris, BnF, latin 16266) presents an additional alternative gospel (Io 15:26–[16:4?]) and one non-Dominican source (San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061) presents a different gospel (Io 4:23–24) for the votive mass. Sources with the full text of the gospel in a mass formulary present a stable text, with no major variations between liturgical versions and biblical versions aside from the inclusion of a standard liturgical opening formula. Sources that present the gospel with a reference rather than the full text show a range of variation in the degree of specificity, although the sources that provide section letters are remarkably diverse in the specific section letter which they provide. One non-Dominican source (Lisbon, BNP, IL 34) has a non-standard enumeration of the chapters of the gospel of John in the bible section of the manuscript, and the reference to the Pentecost gospel in the missal section of the manuscript corresponds to the eccentric chapter numbers.

4.4.4 Pentecost and Votive Mass Readings Summary Dominican and non-Dominican bible missals generally provide Act 2:1–11 for the Pentecost epistle, Act 8:14–17 for the votive mass epistle, and Io 14:23–31 as the gospel for Pentecost and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit. One Dominican source presents an alternate votive mass epistle in its epistle and gospel list, but gives the standard Dominican votive mass epistle in the votive mass formulary,181 while two non-Dominican sources provide unusual votive mass epistles182 and one non-Dominican source presents an alternate votive mass gospel.183 While sources which provide mass formularies as well as epistle and gospel lists generally indicate the same reading in both cases, two Dominican sources (Paris, BnF, latin 215 and Paris, BnF, latin 16266) and one non-Dominican source (Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136) present contrasting readings for the votive mass epistle in the two sections. The textual versions of these readings found in mass formularies that provide the full text and those found in the bible sections of four Dominican bible missals collated here are generally very similar, with only a few small modifications being consistently found in the opening of liturgical pericope versions of readings. In contrast to the chant texts

179 On f. 327v, the section of text that is typically labelled Io 3 is presented without a break as a continuation of Io 2, which leads to the next several chapters being enumerated at one numeral below the typical numbering; on f. 331r, the text continues through the typical chapter break between Io 9 (here labelled Io 8) and Io 10, leading to the subsequent chapter numbering being off by two numerals, and thus Io 14 being presented as Io 12. There are several other unusual divisions in the rest of the book, leading to the book concluding with “Io 18” rather than Io 21. A later hand has added the typical chapter numbering in the margins. In some sections of the manuscript, the chapter numbering follows the typical 13th-century conventions (e.g., in the gospels of Mc and Lc) while in other sections besides John it also has eccentric chapter numbers (e.g., in the gospel of Mt). 180 Further research on epistle and gospel lists may draw more examples to light of the liturgical significance of inconsistent approaches to chapter numbering. 181 Paris, BnF, latin 215, gives an incipit from Rm 8:26 in the epistle and gospel list while indicating Act 8:14–17 in the votive mass formulary. 182 San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, f. 184ra (I Cor 12:7–11); Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136, f. 150vc (Rm 8:26). 183 San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, f. 184ra–rb (Io 4:23–24).

150 

 4 Pentecost and the Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Early Dominican Mass Books

and orations, where there were several textual variants in multiple sources, there are no remarkable textual variants that can be found in multiple Dominican liturgical sources for the scripture readings, although significant textual variants are occur in multiple bible sections of four Dominican bible missals for Act 2:7, Act 8:14, Io 14:27. Many Dominican biblical and liturgical sources for the readings have individual variants not shared both other collated sources; some of these are clearly the result of scribal error and others are possible signs of the influence of the circulation of differing versions of the biblical texts, particularly when Dominican variants have parallels in earlier biblical manuscripts collated as part of the editions of the Oxford Vulgate or Vetus Latina. Dominican and non-Dominican sources that present a cross reference rather than the full text of a reading do so in a variety of ways.184 The most explicit references include the book title, chapter number, section letter, and implicit and explicit, while less explicit references have a wide range of combinations of those signifiers. Section letters are included in a relatively small number of sources; in the case of Act 2:1–11, sources with section letters consistently indicate the opening of the chapter with the letter a, while section letters for Act 8:14–17 and Io 14:23–31 present a much wider range of letters to indicate that the reading starts midway through the chapter. In some cases, there is clear evidence of careful coordination between the mode of reference given in the missal section and in the bible section: the Cistercian bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 36 provides exact folio references in the missal section that correspond with the medieval foliation of the bible section, and the Augustinian bible missal Lisbon, BNP, IL 34 presents the same unusual enumeration of the chapters of the gospel of John in both the bible section and the missal. While Dominican sources are fairly homogeneous with respect to the Pentecost and votive mass readings, the mode of presentation of the readings reveals a variety of approaches to book production and liturgical cross-referencing. Individual sources present interesting textual variants, but the overall textual tradition is stable. Some Dominican bible missals provide full texts for the liturgical readings in both the missal section and the bible section, but many take advantage of the provision of the readings in the bible and provide only cross-references in the missal section.

4.5 Conclusion This detailed comparison of the texts provided for Pentecost and for the votive mass of the Holy Spirit in Dominican bible missals, pre-Humbert missals, and non-Dominican bible missals shows that Dominican sources for these mass texts are broadly similar to non-Dominican sources while showing certain distinctive features. Dominican sources are largely uniform with respect to the chant texts,185 while non-Dominican bible missals have a wider range of introit verses, Alleluia verses, and offertory chants as well as a greater range of textual variations within the chants. One particularly interesting shared textual variant exists in a number of Dominican sources which provide the word sancto in the votive mass version of the offertory Confirma hoc but omit it in the Pentecost version of the chant. The absence of this variant in notated Dominican sources suggests that it is a purely textual variant that provides evidence concerning the transmission of early Dominican missals and can serve as supplementary evidence for confirming the Dominican identity of a source.186 Dominican and non-Dominican sources present a stable selection of prayers for Pentecost and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit, but present more differences in the selection of the postcommunion prayer for the Alcuin mass. Like the mass chants, some Dominican sources include minor shared textual variants in the orations; further study of textual variants in a broader selection of formularies might enable a clearer delineation of the textual relationships of individual missals. 184 In general, the mode of providing references is consistent for the various occasions within individual sources, although in some cases later additions have been made in an inconsistent manner, e.g., the epistle and gospel list in Brussels, KBR 8882 where some but not all readings are supplied with section letters by a later hand or the festive missal in the Gilbertine bible missal Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1 where some readings have added chapter numbers while others have added chapter numbers and indications of the section in the form of words, numbers, or letters. 185 The votive mass of the Holy Spirit in Paris, BnF, latin 215 has several notable features with respect to its chant texts when compared to other Dominican sources: it includes the introit verse Exurgat instead of the more common Dominican verse Confirma hoc, presents two Alleluias rather than the typical votive mass pattern of one gradual and one Alleluia, and omits the characteristic offertory variation found in most Dominican votive mass sources. 186 The presence of this variant in Paris, BnF, latin 16266 helped to establish its Dominican origin; for a full discussion of the evidence for this identification, see the description in the Catalog below.

4.5 Conclusion  

 151

Dominican and non-Dominican sources generally provide the same readings for the Pentecost and votive mass of the Holy Spirit (Act 2:1–11 for the Pentecost epistle, Act 8:14–17 for the votive mass epistle, and Io 14:23–31 as the gospel for Pentecost and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit). While only one Dominican source includes an alternate votive mass epistle in its epistle and gospel list,187 two non-Dominican sources include other votive mass epistles and gospels.188 This broad similarity of Dominican and non-Dominican sources is unsurprising, given that the Dominican liturgy was being formed in a period when the Pentecost liturgy and the votive mass of the Holy Spirit were both highly developed and widely diffused in medieval liturgical sources, and Dominicans had no need to radically refashion these traditional texts. At the same time, this examination has shown that the component parts of the two mass formularies had different levels of stability in Dominican and non-Dominican medieval sources. The readings were very stable, with essentially no variants for the Pentecost readings and little variation for the votive mass readings. The orations were fairly stable, with general agreement on the basic forms of the prayers but with a degree of textual variation at specific points within certain prayers shared by multiple sources. Finally, the chants were somewhat flexible, with broad stability of the introit, gradual, offertory, and communion, but with a large degree of variation for the introit verse, Alleluia verses, and sequence. Despite the instability of the chants in the broader range of medieval sources, the Dominican sources examined here are largely uniform in their selection of chant texts, orations, and readings. Given that the sources considered here all predate the reform of Humbert of Romans in the 1250s, this provides evidence that the Dominican liturgy had already achieved a certain degree of stability before Humbert’s unification process. It is significant that the earliest identified Dominican mass book, the bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 215 (datable between 1228 and 1234), has several unusual selections of chant texts and readings when compared with later Dominican sources. This may indicate that it predates the introduction of the initial uniform Dominican liturgy, although further comparative research is needed to establish this hypothesis. While investigation of a broader range of pre-Humbert Dominican formularies will cast more light on the question of the uniformity of the pre-Humbert liturgy, the Pentecost and votive mass formularies considered here provide a helpful foundation for assessing the unity and diversity of early Dominican liturgical practice.

187 Paris, BnF, latin 215, f. 267vb (Rm 8:26). Giraud 2022 draws attention to the wide divergence between the epistle and gospel list in Paris, BnF, latin 215 and other Dominican sources. 188 Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136, ff. 150vc (Rm 8:26); San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, f. 184ra–rb (I Cor 12:7–11; Io 4:23–24).

5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books In addition to providing liturgical texts for the seasons and saints of the liturgical year, Dominican bible missals offer valuable evidence for the development of the Dominican Ordo Missae, the texts, chants and rubrics which were used at each celebration of mass.1 A comparison of early Dominican sources reveals both unity and diversity in the celebration of the “fixed” elements of the eucharistic liturgy, with some manuscripts offering a detailed guide to the whole liturgy and others giving a more selective set of prayers which would have had to be supplemented by a degree of memorization on the part of the priest. This variety is consistent with the wider phenomenon of medieval sources for the Ordo Missae; as Joanna Pierce and John Romano have observed, “despite being classified in the same genre, there is a bewildering variety in the specific contents of the [Ordo Missae].”2 In this chapter, I will examine the varying contents of Dominican sources for the pre-Humbert Ordo Missae and describe the range of textual variants found in the prayers and rubrics. I will first give an overview of the extent of the Ordo Missae as found in each Dominican bible missal and pre-Humbert missal and indicate the presence or absence of musical notation and artistic decoration in each source. I will then explore several important variants in the “variable” and “fixed” texts of the Ordo Missae.

5.1 Extent of the Ordo Missae Table 109 gives an overview of the Ordo Missae in each Dominican manuscript under consideration, listing the folios on which the texts appear, the typology of the source, the liturgical context in which the Ordo Missae is given, and the extent of material that is provided. Table 109: Liturgical Material for the Ordo Missae. Typology

Liturgical context

Ordo Missae material

Brussels, KBR 8882, ff. 202r–203v

Votive missal

Beginning of votive missal

Preface, canon (ends imperfectly)

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, ff. 536rb–vb, (lacuna), 537ra–rb

Full missal

Between Easter Vigil and Day

Prefaces (ends imperfectly), canon (begins imperfectly), post-canon Ordo Missae

London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, f. 215va–vb

Votive missal

Between calendar and votive masses

Prefaces (ends imperfectly)

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, ff. 199r–200r

Votive missal

Beginning of votive missal

Prefaces, canon, post-canon Ordo Missae

Paris, Mazarine 31, ff. 1ra–2rb

Votive missal

Beginning of votive missal

Prefaces, canon, post-canon Ordo Missae

Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 285v

Ordo Missae

n/a

Intonations, prefaces, canon (ends imperfectly)

Paris, BnF, latin 215, ff. 259vb–261ra

Votive missal

Beginning of votive missal

Prefaces, canon, post-canon Ordo Missae

Paris, BnF, latin 16266, ff. 637ra–638rb

Votive missal

After votive and Requiem masses

Prefaces, canon, post-canon Ordo Missae

Pisa, Cathariniana 177, ff. 399rb–400rb; 402rb–vb

Festive missal

Between Requiem masses and common of saints

Prefaces, canon, post-canon Ordo Missae

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), ff. 10ra–16rb

Ordo Missae

n/a

Intonations, prefaces, canon, post-canon Ordo Missae

Manuscript Dominican bible missals

1 The only previous scholarship on the development of the pre-Humbert Dominican Ordo Missae is Dirks 1985, which compares three pre-Humbert missals (Lausanne, MHL 10, Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, and Paris, BnF, latin 8884) with the Humbert Ordo Missae (as found in Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1). 2 Pierce and Romano 2011, p. 18. For further studies and bibliographical references concerning recent scholarship on the Ordo Missae, see Pierce 1997, Odenthal 2007, and Yao 2019. Ebner 1896 and Leroquais 1924 remain important resources for the study of the Ordo Missae. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-006

5.1 Extent of Ordo Missae  

 153

Table 109 (continued) Manuscript

Typology

Liturgical context

Ordo Missae material

Rome, Angelica 32, ff. 210va–211vb

Festive missal

Beginning of festive missal

Prefaces, canon, post-canon Ordo Missae

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, ff. 4rb–6ra

Votive missal

Between Requiem masses and votive masses

Prefaces, canon, post-canon Ordo Missae

Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20, ff. 116va–121vb

Full missal

Between Easter Vigil and Day

Prayers at the altar, offertory prayers, prefaces (ends imperfectly)

Lausanne, MHL 10, ff. 94rb–100ra

Full missal

Between Easter Vigil and Day

Prayers at the altar, intonations, offertory prayers, prefaces, canon, post-canon Ordo Missae

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, ff. 99ra–110va

Full missal

Between Easter Vigil and Day

Offertory prayers, prefaces, canon, post-canon Ordo Missae

Mons, BC 63/201, ff. 156ra–165ra

Full missal

Between temporal and sanctoral

Prefaces, canon, post-canon Ordo Missae

Paris, BnF, latin 8884, ff. 126vb–133ra

Full missal

Between Easter Vigil and Day

Vesting prayers, offertory prayers, prefaces, canon, post-canon Ordo Missae

Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3, ff. 83rb–88va

Votive missal

Beginning of votive missal

Prefaces, canon, post-canon Ordo Missae

Pre-Humbert missals

As Table 109 shows, there is a strong contrast between the extent of the Ordo Missae provided in Dominican bible missals and in pre-Humbert missals: aside from the presence of intonations for the Gloria and Credo in two bible missals which provide musical notation for the Ordo Missae, no Dominican bible missals provide any Ordo Missae texts for sections of the mass preceding the preface dialogue, while most pre-Humbert missals provide prayers for the offertory rites and some pre-Humbert missals provide vesting prayers or prayers at the altar (i.e. the opening rites of the mass). As Wilmart has observed, missals produced between the 12th and 14th centuries often omit the opening rites of the mass as well as offertory prayers.3 While most pre-Humbert (non-bible) missals include offertory prayers or other elements before the preface, Mons, BC 63/201 and Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 are similar to the bible missals in beginning at the preface. Despite these contrasts, both Dominican bible missals and other pre-Humbert missals are united in presenting the preface, canon and the post-canon prayers, although the texts offered within these sections include some minor and some major variations. As well as underscoring the range of material provided by Dominican Ordo Missae sources, Table 109 also shows that there is a strong correlation between the typology of the missal and the location within the missal section in which the Ordo Missae appears. In almost every full missal (except for the Mons missal), the Ordo Missae appears between the texts of the Easter Vigil and Easter Day (a standard location in medieval missals). In most votive missals, by contrast, the Ordo Missae is the first text to appear within the missal section. The two Dominican festive missals take alternate approaches to the placement of the Ordo Missae, with Rome, Angelica 32 providing it at the beginning of the festive missal and Pisa, Cathariniana 177 placing it towards the end of the manuscript between sets of mass prayers. In addition to varying in the range and location of the Ordo Missae, individual Dominican manuscripts differ in their provision of musical notation, rubrics, and artistic decoration for the Ordo Missae. Table 110 indicates the presence or absence of musical notation, rubrics, historiated initials, and crucifixion miniatures in each manuscript. In cases where there is a lacuna where a crucifixion miniature or historiated initial may have originally been found, I have indicated this

3 Wilmart 1932, p. 20. A sample of six 13th-century non-Dominican missals gives a sense of this diversity. Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 135 gives the Credo and devotional prayers on f. 145v and then begins the Ordo Missae as such with the preface on f. 147r. Semur-en-Auxois, BM 6, begins the Ordo Missae with the preface on f. 74v. Troyes, BM 1731 begins the Ordo Missae with the preface on f. 84v. Paris, BnF, latin 1105 and Paris, BnF, latin 10502 have lacunae where the Ordo Missae might be expected to be found. Abbeville, BM 7 begins the Ordo Missae on f. 138r with vesting prayers, followed by a full range of texts for the prayers at the altar, the offertory, the preface, the canon, and the post-canon prayers. This range of approaches suggests that the preface was one standard place for the Ordo Missae to begin in medieval sources, but that other options were available to liturgical book makers.

154 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

with a question mark.4 In cases where blank space appears that may have originally been intended to bear a crucifixion miniature, I have indicated that with “blank page” or “blank space.” Table 110: Musical Notation, Rubrics, and Artistic Elements of the Ordo Missae. Manuscript

Musical Notation

Ritual Rubrics

Historiated Initials

Crucifixion Miniature

Brussels, KBR 8882

No

No

No

No

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16

No

Yes

?

?

London/Oslo, Schøyen 115

No

?

?

?

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

No

No

No

No

Paris, Mazarine 31

No

Yes (visual)

No

Yes

Paris, BnF, latin 163

Yes

Yes

No

No

Paris, BnF, latin 215

No

No

No

Yes

Paris, BnF, latin 16266

No

No

No

No

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Yes

Yes

No

Blank space

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”)

Yes

No

Yes (Crucifixion)

No

Rome, Angelica 32

No

Yes

No

No

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

No

Blank space left for rubrics

No

Blank page

Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20

Yes

Yes

No

?

Lausanne, MHL 10

Yes

Yes

No

Blank page

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5

Yes

Yes (verbal)

Yes (rites of mass)

Yes

Mons, BC 63/201

Yes

No

Yes (rite of mass and others)

No (possibly removed)

Paris, BnF, latin 8884

No

Yes (verbal)

Yes (rites of mass and others)

No

Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

Yes

No

No

No

Dominican bible missals

Pre-Humbert missals

As Table 110 shows, most pre-Humbert missals provide notation for the Ordo Missae while only three Dominican bible missals do so. The sources differ in the degree to which they provide ritual rubrics that specify how particular actions are to be performed.5 Five bible missals and two missals provide no ritual rubrics at all (although space was left for rubrics by the scribe of Vatican City), while five bible missals and four missals provide some form of ritual rubrics, although they differ significantly in extent.6 Three Dominican bible missals depict the Crucifixion at the start of the canon; in the Private 4 In the case of the two bible missals with a lacuna for the Te igitur, Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 and London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, it is possible that these leaves were removed precisely because of the presence of a historiated Crucifixion initial or miniature which was excised for display in another context. This seems particularly likely in the case of the Cambridge manuscript, given the presence of historiated initials in the bible section. The London/Oslo manuscript only includes littera duplex and flourished initials, but it is nevertheless possible that it could have included illumination just for the missal section. In a parallel case, Paris, BnF, latin 215 has a crucifixion miniature despite not including any historiated initials throughout the manuscript (although it does have painted decorated initials for some biblical books). 5 I speak here of “ritual rubrics,” which indicate when or how a particular action is done (e.g., Hic inclinet or Hec oratio dicatur post missa inclinando, two rubrics found in the Dominican bible missal Rome, Angelica 32, f. 211v), in distinction to “genre rubrics,” which indicate when a variable text is said (e.g., the rubric before the Pentecost preface in Rome, Angelica 32, f. 210v: Hec prefatio et communicantes et hanc igitur dicantur in vigilia pentecostes et in die et cotidie per octabas.) This distinction is helpful because all Dominican sources that include more than one preface distinguish them with genre rubrics, but not all Dominican sources include ritual rubrics. 6 One of the bible missals, Paris, Mazarine 31, provides ritual rubrics in a visual rather than verbal form, using symbols to indicate how the consecrated host is fractured during the communion rite; this will be discussed in more detail below. The use of crosses within the text of the Roman

5.2 Texts and Rubrics of the Ordo Missae 

 155

Collection manuscript (see Figure 50, p. 391), this is done by means of a historiated Te igitur initial, while Paris, Mazarine 31 (see Figure 26, p. 316) and Paris, BnF, latin 215 (see Figure 36, p. 341) present Crucifixion miniatures that are included within the written space but are not incorporated into an initial letter.7 Space was left blank in the Pisa and Vatican City bible missals at a place where a Te igitur initial or Crucifixion miniature was likely originally intended to be painted. Among the six pre-Humbert missals, three have extant figural imagery. Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 depicts the rite of the mass itself within the historiated initials of the Ordo Missae, presenting two parallel sequences of a mass celebrated by a priest with a single server and a priest accompanied by a deacon and subdeacon, in addition to a two-page spread between the prefaces and the start of the canon depicting the Crucifixion and the Maiestas domini.8 Mons, BC 63/201 includes a historiated initial for the preface dialogue depicting the celebration of mass with a priest, deacon and subdeacon, and a Te igitur initial depicting the sacrifice of Isaac; it seems likely that there was originally a two-page spread before the canon with the Crucifixion and the Maiestas domini, but only stubs remain. Paris, BnF, latin 8884 presents a series of historiated initials depicting a variety of typological and liturgical scenes (preface dialogue: mass with priest, deacon, and subdeacon; preface: Synagogue and Ecclesia; Te igitur: Moses and the Brazen Serpent) but without a Crucifixion initial or miniature; based on the flow of the canon within the Ordo Missae, it seems that the manuscript never included a Crucifixion/Maiestas domini two-page spread.9 The diversity of the range of texts provided for the Ordo Missae in individual sources suggests that Dominican priests using a pre-Humbert missal or bible missal for the celebration of mass would have needed to have varying numbers of prayers memorized in order to efficiently utilize one of these manuscripts in a liturgical context. In the case of the bible missals, which all start at the preface, the priest would have needed to know the prayers and actions of the entrance and offertory rites; in the case of the other pre-Humbert missals, he would have needed to know varying amounts of text by heart depending on the manuscript in question. The lack of specificity of the texts before the preface in Dominican bible missals and the varying approaches to these texts in the other pre-Humbert missals also raises the question of the degree to which these rites were regulated in the era before Humbert’s reform. It seems possible that some freedom was left to the celebrant in terms of the specific form in which he celebrated the entrance and offertory rites, or it may be that specific texts or rites were already specified and passed down in an oral manner, and only gradually recorded in some pre-Humbert missals and in more detail in the Humbert reform. From the evidence currently available, it is difficult to adjudicate this question, but it is clear that varying ranges of liturgical texts and paratextual elements such as artistic decoration and musical notation were found in individual sources.

5.2 Texts and Rubrics of the Ordo Missae 5.2.1 Prefaces and Variable Canon Texts Although most of the prayers of the medieval Ordo Missae are invariable from celebration to celebration, the preface, Com­ municantes, and Hanc igitur vary based on the season or feast being celebrated. In early medieval sources, the prefaces and variable canon texts usually appear together with the orations in temporal, sanctoral, and votive formularies; in the context of a discussion of early medieval sources, these texts might thus be better classified as part of the proper rather than the ordinary of the mass.10 At least as early as the 11th century, however, some sacramentaries and missals began to group the prefaces together before the canon, a practice which had become widespread by the second half of the 12th century.11 By the end of the

Canon to indicate that the priest should make the sign of the cross at a particular moment could also be considered a form of visual rubrics; all Dominican sources include these crosses either in between words or syllables or in the interlinear space of the canon, so they are not noted in Table 110. For a discussion of the development of these signs of the cross during the canon, see Jungmann 1962, v. 2, pp. 179–184. 7 In addition to the Crucifixion miniature, Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 1v also has a miniature of the Virgin and Child. 8 Digital images of these initials and miniatures can be seen at https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/105SW7. For an analysis of the codicological character of the Ordo Missae and miniatures in this manuscript, see p. 438n30 below. 9 Unlike Mons, BC 63/201, where space was left blank at the end of the preface on f. 160v and where the canon begins at the top left of f. 161r, there is no “page break” in Paris, BnF, latin 8884 between the end of the preface on f. 130v and the start of the canon on the same leaf (although two lines are left blank); this means that it would not have been feasible to include a two-page spread before the start of the canon itself. 10 The 8th-century Stowe Missal includes the variable texts for the Communicantes (but not the prefaces or variable Hanc igitur texts) within the canon itself; see Dublin, Royal Irish Academy, MS D ii 3, ff. 25v–26v; cf. Warner 1915, v. 2, pp. 11–12. 11 From a survey of the manuscripts cataloged by Leroquais 1924, the earliest example I have identified is the 11th-century sacramentary Arras, BM 1027 (721), ff. 37–38r. The practice of grouping the prefaces before the canon seems to become more common from the second half of the 12th

156 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

12th century, some manuscripts also included the variable canon texts together with the prefaces.12 By the 13th century, the prefaces were almost always grouped together with the other texts of the Ordo Missae, and the Communicantes and Hanc igitur were often but not always given within the Ordo Missae as well.13 Although these variable texts originated as proper formularies, in the context of a discussion of 13th-century liturgy they can be analyzed as a variable part of the ordinary of the mass. Early medieval liturgical sources varied widely in the number of prefaces which they provided. Some sources, like the Veronese Sacramentary and the Gelasian Sacramentary, provided numerous prefaces for occasions throughout the year, while others, like the Gregorian Sacramentary, gave a much more limited range of prefaces.14 Dominican liturgical books follow the tradition established by the Gregorian sacramentary with its more limited selection of prefaces and variable prayers for the canon.15 Of the 14 prefaces in the version of the Gregorian Sacramentary known as the Hadrianum, seven formed the core of later preface repertoires: the Common Preface, Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, and the Apostles. These Gregorian prefaces were supplemented in many medieval sources by prefaces for Trinity, the Holy Cross, Lent, and the Blessed Virgin Mary, constituting a fairly stable repertoire of eleven prefaces in later medieval sources.16 In contrast to the widely varying numbers of prefaces, variable texts for the Communicantes are fewer and more consistent in early and late medieval liturgical sources. In the Roman liturgical traditions represented by the Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries, proper texts are provided for the Communicantes section of the Roman Canon for six occasions (Christmas, Epiphany, Holy Thursday, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost).17 Variable texts for the Hanc igitur, on the other hand, have a distribution in early medieval sources that resembles the prefaces; some sources like the Gelasian Sacramentary have a large number, while the Gregorian Sacramentary has a small number.18 As with the preface, many later medieval liturgical books follow the Gregorian Sacramentary in providing a small selection of variable texts for the Communicantes and Hanc igitur.

century onwards; for several examples dated to the second half of the 12th century by Leroquais, see Amiens, BM 154, ff. 137r–138r; Paris, BnF, latin 843, ff. 25r–26v; Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, MS 126, ff. 99r–102v; Saint-Omer, BM 89, ff. 19r–21v. 12 E.g., Paris, BnF, latin 18008, ff. 63r–68v. 13 For instance, in 13th-century Franciscan missal Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale ‘Vittorio Emanuele III’, VI.G.38, ff. 146r–147v (ed. Przeczewski 2003, pp. 265–267, nn. 1210–1226), the prefaces are fully written out preceding the canon, but the Communicantes are only referenced by title and incipit, with a rubric informing the user that the other infra canonem prayers are found in the temporal: “Omnes infra canonem require in festivitatibus et in teporibus suis.” 14 For a general overview of the development of the preface dialogue and preface, see Jungmann 1962, v. 2, pp. 127–161. For commentary and bibliography connected with each of the prefaces in the medieval and post-Tridentine Roman rite, see Bruylants 1966. For helpful comments on the texts of the prefaces found in Beneventan sources (which closely match those used more broadly), see Boe 1996, pp. xvi-lxi. For further bibliography of studies on prefaces, see Moeller 1980–1981 (CCSL 161), pp. cxc–cxciv. 15 The Gregorian sacramentary known as the Hadrianum, Cambrai, BM 164 (159) (ed. Deshusses 1992, Le sacramentaire grégorien 1 pp. 83–348) provides prefaces for fourteen occasions (GrH # indicates the number of the piece in Deshusses’ edition): the Common Preface (GrH 3), Christmas (GrH 38/51), St. Anastasia (two separate texts: GrH 45 and GrH 46), Epiphany (GrH 89), Easter (GrH 379/385/394/417), Ascension (GrH 499), Pentecost (GrH 522/528), the Apostles (GrH 591/596), the Vigil and Feast of St. Andrew (GrH 768/772); the Dedication of a Church (GrH 821), the anniversary of the ordination of a pope (GrH 826, labelled orationes in natale papae), the anniversary of the ordination of a priest (GrH 830, labelled oratio in ordinatione presbyteri), and for the nuptial mass (GrH 835, labelled ad sponsas velandas). In addition to these prefaces, there is a blessing of chrism that resembles the form of a preface in GrH 335. With the exception of the Common Preface, which is integrated with the canon, the prefaces in the Hadrianum appear together with the other proper texts of the formularies for the temporal, sanctoral, and ritual masses. The Supplementum to the Gregorian Sacramentary compiled by Benedict of Aniane (ed. Deshusses 1992 Le sacramentaire grégorien 1, pp. 351–605) provided 221 additional prefaces (§§1516–1737) drawn mostly from 8th-century Gelasian sacramentaries as well as some new compositions; cf. Metzger 1994, p. 118. 16 Some medieval manuscripts continued to present a wider range of prefaces; for instance, the Augustinian bible missal Lisbon, BNP, IL 34 includes a preface for the dead on f. 463r (CP 699: Per quem salus mundi) and a preface for nuptial masses on f. 491r–v (CP 967: Qui foedera nuptiarum). 17 For an overview of the range of Communicantes texts and their presence in various early sources, see CO 6124–6138 in the Corpus Orationum. Of the sources indexed in Corpus Orationum, only Leon and Stowe contain texts for occasions other than the six mentioned above. In addition to containing texts shared with other sources, the late 7th-century Veronese Sacramentary, Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, Cod. LXXXV (80) contains distinctive texts for occasions connected with Ascension (§178; CO 6132a) and Pentecost (§224; CO 6135); see Mohlberg et al. 1966, pp. 22, 29. The Stowe Missal includes texts for the Circumcision (CO 6125) and In clausula Paschae (CO 6131), as well as providing distinctive texts for Holy Thursday (CO 6128), Ascension (CO 6132b) and Pentecost (CO 6136); see Warner 1915, pp. 11–12. 18 For an overview of the wide range of Hanc igitur texts in various early sources, including the Gelasian Sacramentary, see CO 6139–6261. Variable Hanc igitur texts are provided in the Gregorian sacramentary the Blessing of a Bishop (GrH 25), Holy Thursday (GrH 331), Easter (GrH 381, repeated throughout the Easter Octave), Pentecost (GrH 524, with the same text as Easter), the Ordination of a Priest (GrH 831), and the nuptial mass (GrH 836: Ad sponsas velandas).

5.2 Texts and Rubrics of the Ordo Missae 

 157

Although the Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert missals under consideration here make use of a relatively limited range of prefaces and variable canon texts, there are several significant points of variation between the sources, including the order in which the texts are presented, the rubrical guidelines offered for the use of various texts, and the presence of variations within the texts themselves. In this section, I will first give an overview of the selection of texts offered in each source. I will then offer a more detailed analysis of the rubrics and texts for a set of texts which are representative of the common and distinctive features of the pre-Humbert Dominican versions of the prayers in relation to other liturgical traditions.

5.2.2 Selection and Order of Prefaces and Variable Canon Prayers Pre-Humbert Dominican Ordo Missae sources can be divided into two broad groups: twelve manuscripts present the full set of ten seasonal and festal prefaces in addition to the Common Preface (listed in Table 111), while six present a more limited repertoire (listed in Table 113).19 Table 111: Sources with a Full Selection of Prefaces and Variable Canon Prayers. Text

Manuscripts

Christmas (CP 1322: Quia per incarnati; CO 6124) Epiphany (CP 1294: Quia cum unigenitus; CO 6126) Lent (CP 863: Qui corporali) Easter (CP 1527: Te quidem; CO 6130; CO 6255b) Ascension (CP 1165: Qui post resurrectionem; CO 6133b) Pentecost (CP 813: Qui ascendens; CO 6137; CO 6255b) Trinity (CP 879: Qui cum unigenito) Holy Cross (CP 1200: Qui salutem) Marian (CP 366: Et te in) Apostles (CP 1457: Te domine) Preface dialogue / Common preface (CP 687)

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 1620 Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 2021 Lausanne, MHL 10 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 522 London/Oslo, Schøyen 11523 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 724 Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 16325 Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Rome, Angelica 3226

Christmas (CP 1322: Quia per incarnati; CO 6124) Epiphany (CP 1294: Quia cum unigenitus; CO 6126) Easter (CP 1527: Te quidem; CO 6130; CO 6255b) Ascension (CP 1165: Qui post resurrectionem; CO 6133b) Pentecost (CP 813: Qui ascendens; CO 6137; CO 6255b) Trinity (CP 879: Qui cum unigenito) Marian (CP 366: Et te in) Holy Cross (CP 1200: Qui salutem) Apostles (CP 1457: Te domine) Lent (CP 863: Qui corporali) Preface dialogue / Common Preface (CP 687)

Mons, BC 63/201

19 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 and London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 are both missing a significant number of prefaces due to lacunae, but a comparison of their extant texts with the other sources suggests that they originally presented the common set. 20 There is a lacuna the Ordo Missae in Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 beginning midway through Trinity preface. 21 CP 1200 is provided twice, for Passiontide and for Holy Cross, in Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20. 22 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 omits rubrics for the Holy Cross, Marian, and Apostles prefaces. 23 There is a lacuna in the Ordo Missae in London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 beginning midway through the Apostles preface. 24 In Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, the Trinity preface is given before the others. 25 In Paris, BnF, latin 163, the preface dialogue and common preface are given before the others. 26 Rome, Angelica 32 omits the Lent preface, likely through scribal error.

158 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 111 (continued) Text

Manuscripts

[399rb–vb] Preface dialogue / Common Preface (CP 687) [402rb–va] Communicantes/Hanc igitur: Christmas (CO 6124) Epiphany (CO 6126) Holy Thursday (CO 6129a) Holy Saturday (CO 6130; CO 6255b) Easter (CO 6130) Ascension (CO 6133b) Pentecost (CO 6137; CO 6255b) [402va–vb] Preface dialogue / Common Preface (CP 687) Christmas (CP 1322: Quia per incarnati) Epiphany (CP 1294: Quia cum unigenitus) Lent (CP 863: Qui corporali) Easter (CP 1527: Te quidem) Ascension (CP 1165: Qui post resurrectionem) Pentecost (CP 813: Qui ascendens) Trinity (CP 879: Qui cum unigenito) Apostles (CP 1457: Te domine) Marian (CP 366: Et te in) Holy Cross (CP 1200: Qui salutem)

Pisa, Cathariniana 17727

As Table 111 indicates, most sources give the prefaces and variable canon texts in the following order: Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, Trinity, Holy Cross, Marian, Apostles, ending with the preface dialogue and Common Preface. Two sources make minor modifications to this sequence: Oxford places the Trinity preface first, while Paris, BnF, latin 163 places the notated preface dialogue and Common Preface before the seasonal and festal prefaces. Two sources, Karlsruhe and Lausanne, present the preface Qui salutem (CP 1200) twice, between Lent and Easter and between the Trinity and Marian prefaces, thus presenting it for both Passiontide and Holy Cross. In addition to the order of prefaces found in the majority of manuscripts, two sources present the same selection of prefaces but provide them in markedly different orders. Table 112 compares the order of prefaces in the majority of manuscripts with a full selection with those of Mons, BC 63/201 and Pisa, Cathariniana 177. In the case of the Mons missal, the displacement of the Lenten preface is likely the result of the accidental omission of the Lenten preface remedied by the original scribe during the production process, but the order of the Marian, Holy Cross, and Apostles prefaces is more likely to reflect an alternative order found in the exemplar manuscript used by the scribe of the Mons missal. In the case of the Pisa bible missal, the seasonal prefaces are given in the same order as the majority of manuscripts, but the remaining festal prefaces are provided in the order of Apostles, Marian, and Holy Cross, rather than Holy Cross, Marian and Apostles. As Table 112 indicates, Mons and Pisa are united in placing the Holy Cross preface after the Marian preface, but divided in the placement of the Apostles preface. Table 112: Comparison of the Order of Prefaces in Sources with a Full Selection of Prefaces. Majority of manuscripts

Mons, BC 63/201

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Christmas Epiphany Lent Easter Ascension Pentecost Trinity

Christmas Epiphany

Christmas Epiphany Lent Easter Ascension Pentecost Trinity Apostles

Easter Ascension Pentecost

27 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 provides the notated preface dialogue and Common Preface at the beginning of the Ordo Missae and supplies the variable canon prayers and prefaces in separate sections divided by genre after the completion of the main section of the Ordo Missae.

5.2 Texts and Rubrics of the Ordo Missae 

 159

Table 112 (continued) Majority of manuscripts Holy Cross Marian Apostles Common preface

Mons, BC 63/201

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Marian Holy Cross Apostles Lent Common preface

Marian Holy Cross

[Common preface provided at beginning of Ordo Missae]

Table 113 presents the Dominican sources which provide a more limited selection of prefaces (none of which include variable canon prayers). Three bible missals provide only the preface dialogue and Common Preface. The Private Collection bible missal adds the Marian preface to this selection, while the Vatican City bible missal adds both the Marian and Holy Cross prefaces. Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 has a somewhat eccentric selection of prefaces, presenting the Common, Marian, Christmas, and Apostles prefaces. Table 113: Sources with a Limited Selection of Prefaces. Brussels, KBR 8882 Paris, BnF, latin 215 Paris, BnF, latin 16266 Common preface

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) Marian Common preface

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

Common preface Trinity Holy Cross Marian

Common preface

Marian Christmas Apostles

In general, the sources consistently provide the relevant Communicantes and Hanc igitur texts together with the corresponding preface; the only exception is Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3, which gives the Christmas preface without providing the corresponding Communicantes. All sources that provide prefaces for Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost also provide the proper Communicantes and Hanc igitur. In the case of Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 and Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, the Hanc igitur is written out fully for Easter, but only the incipit is provided for Pentecost, referring the user to the Easter version of the identical text. In all other relevant sources, the Hanc igitur is fully written out both times. The preface dialogue and Common Preface appear in every source except those which have lacunae where those texts would normally appear. In four cases, the preface dialogue and Common Preface are written out twice. Two of these, the Lausanne and Los Angeles missals, provide the texts with different musical settings. In the Paris missal, the preface dialogue and Common Preface are written twice but without musical notation, suggesting that the scribe was copying from a source that did provide musical notation for two separate settings. The Pisa bible missal provides a single notated version of the preface dialogue and common preface on f. 399ra–va and gives the text without musical notation on f. 402va at the start of the presentation of the full set of prefaces. The presence of musical notation does not guarantee a double setting of the preface: the Mons missal, the bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 163, and the Private Collection bible missal each provide a single notated version of the preface dialogue and Common Preface.

5.2.3 Rubrics for Prefaces and Variable Canon Texts In addition to providing different selections of prefaces in various orders, pre-Humbert Dominican sources make use of a variety of approaches to providing rubrics for the prefaces and variable canon texts. In this section I will examine the rubrics and texts offered for Pentecost as a representative case study of the range of approaches taken in Dominican sources for the wider set of texts.

160 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

5.2.3.1 Pentecost Preface Rubric The rubrics for the Pentecost preface and variable canon texts are given with a gradation of detail in Dominican manuscripts. As indicated in Table 114, some sources provide only a title rubric that designates the texts as being for Pentecost, some provide a little more detail on when the texts are used, and some provide a detailed rubric that specifies not only when the preface is used but also occasions on which it is not used. Three sources simply present a short title of the feast: Paris, Mazarine 31 gives the word Pentecostes, while the Pisa bible missal and Karlsruhe missal both give In pentecoste. Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 and Paris, BnF, latin 163 offer slightly more detail, mentioning the Vigil, Day, and Octave of Pentecost, but still presenting the rubric in the form of a title. The London/Oslo and Rome bible missals and the Mons and Paris missals, on the other hand, offer roughly the same information as Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 and Paris, BnF, latin 163, but give it in the form of a descriptive rubric specifying the occasions on which “this preface” (hec prefatio) is used. Finally, Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, Lausanne, MHL 10, and Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, in addition to describing the usage of the texts during the temporal celebration of Pentecost and its octave also indicate that the preface is not to be used at votive masses of the Holy Spirit celebrated from the First Sunday after Trinity (Deus omnium) through Advent.28 The Cambridge and Los Angeles rubrics are distinctive in mentioning mass being sung in choir (cantatur in choro), while the Lausanne rubric speaks more generally about mass being said (dicitur). Table 114: Rubrics for the Pentecost Preface and Variable Canon Prayers. Text

Manuscripts

In pentecoste.

Pisa, Cathariniana 177 Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20

Pentecostes.

Paris, Mazarine 31

In vigilia pentecostes et in die et per totas octavas.

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

De vigilia pentecostes et de die et cotidie per octavas prefatio.

Paris, BnF, latin 163

Hec prefatio et communicantes et hanc igitur dicantur in vigilia pentecostes et in die et cotidie per octavas.

London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 Mons, BC 63/201 (et omitted before hanc igitur) Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Rome, Angelica 32

Hec prefatio et hanc igitur et communicantes dicantur in vigilia penthecostes et in die cotidie per octabas. Quando cantatur in choro de spiritu sancto a deus omnium usque ad adventum hec prefatio non solet dici.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5

Hec sequens prefatio et communicantes et hanc igitur dicantur in vigilia pentecostes et in die et cotidie per octavas. Prefatio autem non dicitur a deus omnium usque adventum quando missa de spiritu sancto dicitur.

Lausanne, MHL 10

In addition to providing rubrics for the prefaces within the Ordo Missae, three sources provide a separate rubrical guide to prefaces in another section of the manuscript.29 In Paris, BnF, latin 8884, the preface rubrics are introduced with the title Quando debent dici prefatio et quando non. In Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, the preface rubrics are provided without a title rubric. In Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, the opening part of the rubrics are missing due to damage to the leaf, so it is not possible to say whether there was originally a title for this section. Table 115 lists the rubrics provided for Pentecost in these sources.

28 The phrase Deus omnium in these rubrics refers to the historia Deus omnium. A historia is a set of responsories sung at Matins, and its name is derived from the first responsory in the series; cf. Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, ff. 265vb–266ra. In the Humbert Ordinarium, the historia Deus omnium is sung from the first Sunday after the feast of Trinity until the first Sunday of August: “Dominica prima post Festum Trinitatis et deinceps usque ad primam Dominicam Augusti exclusive, quando de Tempore agitur, cantetur historia Deus omnium” (ed. Guerrini 1921, p. 57, n. 206). The Humbert Ordinarium frequently refers to the “Dominica Deus omnium” in the context of referring to the season of the year between Trinity and Advent; see Guerrini 1921, pp. 23–24, 26. For further discussion of the Deus omnium historia, see Hughes 1995, pp. 189–193. 29 Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 may have originally included rubrics at the end of the missal, but they are not preserved. Lausanne, MHL 10 includes some rubrics on f. 204ra–rb, but they are much shorter than those provided in the other sources described here and do not mention the preface.

5.2 Texts and Rubrics of the Ordo Missae 

 161

Table 115: Detailed Rubrics for the Pentecost Preface. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 563va

Paris, BnF, latin 8884, f. 293rb–vb

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, f. 227va–vb

In vigilia penthecostes et in die et cotidie per octavas dicatur prefatio Qui ascendens super omnes celos. Et communicantes. Et hanc igitur.

In vigilia pentecostes et in die et cotidie per octavas dicatur prefatio Qui ascendens super omnes celos et communicantes et hanc igitur.

In vigilia pentecostes et in ipsa die et cotidie per octavam dicatur prefatio Qui ascendens, et communicantes et hanc igitur.

In utroque festo sancte crucis dicitur prefatio Qui salutem humani. Quod non dicatur in sexta feriis quando sit missa de cruce. Similiter nec prefatio de spiritu sancto quando fit missa de spiritu sancto a deus omnium usque ad adventum vel in alio tempore si quando dicatur missa de spiritu sancto.

[I]n utroque festo sancte crucis dicitur prefatio Qui salutem humani generis.

Hoc quoque sciendum est quod de trinitate sive de spiritu sancto vel de cruce non est propria dicenda prefatio tam in conventu quam extra nisi in diebus in quibus de illis est superius annotata.

In all three cases, an almost identical rubric is given concerning the use of the Pentecost preface, Communicantes, and Hanc igitur on the Vigil of Pentecost and each day throughout the octave. The three sources differ, however, in their indication of when the Pentecost preface is not used. Cambridge and Los Angeles both indicate that the Pentecost preface is not used for votive masses, but express this principle in quite different ways, with Cambridge linking it to the Holy Cross preface and Los Angeles linking it to both the Trinity preface and the Holy Cross preface. Paris, on the other hand, mentions the Holy Cross preface with words similar to those found in Cambridge, but does not specify the occasions on which the Holy Cross or Holy Spirit prefaces are not used. In light of the similarity of the Cambridge and Los Angeles rubrics for the Pentecost preface within the Ordo Missae, it is striking that they take different approaches to the same matter in the rubrics section at the end of the missal material. The diversity of approaches to the rubrics for the Pentecost preface both within the Ordo Missae and in other sections indicates that despite the relatively small selection of prefaces included in the Dominican missal there was a need to offer some guidance as to when individual prefaces were or were not used. Nevertheless, there was not a unified approach to the presentation of these rubrics. In fact, even the reformed liturgy of Humbert of Romans preserves some degree of diversity in this respect. Humbert’s Missale conventuale gives a relatively detailed rubric for the Pentecost preface (In vigilia pentecostes et in die et cotidie per ebdomadam. Prefatio) but Humbert’s Missale minorum altarium gives only a title rubric (In penthecoste. Prefatio).30 Humbert’s Ordinarium offers detailed rubrics concerning when the prefaces and variable canon texts are said or not said, presenting guidelines in the case of the Pentecost texts that closely resemble those given in Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5.31 In the case of the Pentecost preface and variable canon texts, the pre-Humbert and post-Humbert liturgy follow the same practice but use a diversity of approaches to describe the details about how and when these liturgical texts were performed. 5.2.3.2 Pentecost Preface In contrast to the wide range of variations found in the Pentecost rubric, the text of the preface introduction, main text, and termination are fairly stable among the Dominican sources (Table 116). Aside from minor orthographical and punctuation differences, all of the sources except Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 present an identical version of the introduction, main text, and termination. The main text is identical to that found in the Gregorian Sacramentary and the Corpus Prae­ fationum (CP 813).32 The Oxford bible missal differs only in presenting a slightly shorter version of the introduction and presenting ascendes rather than ascendens in the main text, although this is almost certainly a scribal error.

30 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, ff. 403rb (Missale conventuale), 474rb (Missale minorum altarium). 31 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 9rc (Ordinarium): “De prefationibus. … In vigilia pentecostes, et in die et cotidie per ebdomadam, dicatur prefatio Qui ascendens cum suo communicantes et hanc igitur. … Sciendum autem quod de trinitate sive de spiritu sancto sive de cruce non est propria dicenda prefatio tam in conventu quam extra, nisi in illis diebus de quibus superius est notatum.” 32 See Deshusses 1992, Le sacramentaire grégorien 1, p. 226, n. 522.

162 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 116: Text of the Pentecost Preface. Dominican sources except Oxford

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 199r

VD eterne deus: per christum dominum nostrum.

VD. Per christum.

Qui ascendens super omnes celos sedensque ad dexteram tuam promissum spiritum sanctum hodierna die in filios adoptionis effudit. Quapropter profusis gaudiis totus in orbe terrarum mundus exultat.

Qui ascendes (sic) super omnes celos sedensque: ad dexteram tuam promissum spiritum sanctum hodierna die in filios adoptionis effudit. Quapropter profusis gaudiis totus in orbe terrarum mundus exultat:

Sed et superne virtutes atque angelice potestates hymnum glorie tue concinunt sine fine dicentes.

sed et superne virtutes atque angelice potestates ymnum glorie tue concinunt sine fine dicentes.

5.2.3.3 Pentecost Communicantes Variable texts for the Communicantes add a phrase to the standard version of the prayer that specifies the occasion which is being celebrated. Table 117 compares the standard version of the Communicantes found in the Roman Canon of the Paris missal with the Pentecost Communicantes in the same source. Table 117: Standard and Pentecost Versions of the Communicantes. Standard Communicantes (Paris, BnF, latin 8884, ff. 130v–131r)

Pentecost Communicantes (Paris, BnF, latin 8884, f. 129r)

Communicantes

Communicantes et diem sacratissimum pentecosten celebrantes quo spiritus sanctus apostolis in igneis linguis apparuit, sed

et memoriam venerantes,

et memoriam venerantes.

in primis gloriose semper virginis marie genitricis dei et domini nostri ihesu christi. Sed et beatorum apostolorum ac martirum tuorum petri, pauli, andree, iacobi, iohannis, thome, iacobi, philippi, bartholomei, mathei, symonis, et thadei, lini, cleti, clementis, syxti, cornelii, cypriani, grisogoni, iohannis, et pauli, cosme, et damiani, Et omnium sanctorum tuorum quorum meritis precibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protectionis tue muniamur auxilio. Per eundum christum dominum nostrum.

In contrast to the textual stability of the preface, the Dominican version of the Pentecost Communicantes has an important textual variant (Table 118), and the prayer is presented with minor variations in some Dominican sources (Table 119). In the Gregorian sacramentary, the Holy Spirit is said to have appeared to the apostles “in countless tongues” (innumeris linguis), whereas in the Dominican version the Holy Spirit appears “in fiery tongues” (in igneis linguis).33 Table 118: Gregorian and Dominican Versions of the Pentecost Communicantes. Gregorian Sacramentary Communicantes (ed. Deshusses 1992, v. 1, p. 226, n. 523 = CO 5137)

Dominican Communicantes

Communicantes et diem sacratissimum pentecosten caelebrantes quo spiritus sanctus apostolis

Communicantes et diem sacratissimum pentecosten celebrantes quo spiritus sanctus apostolis

innumeris linguis apparuit,

in igneis linguis apparuit.

sed et memoriam uenerantes.

Sed et memoriam venerantes.

33 This phrase also appears with several other variations within sources indexed in the Corpus Orationum: in innumeris linguis, in variis linguis, and in linguis igneis. See Corpus Orationum 10 (CCSL 160I), pp. 14–15.

5.2 Texts and Rubrics of the Ordo Missae 

 163

Among the sources indexed by the Corpus Orationum, this variant is found in a 9th-century sacramentary from Corbie,34 a 10 -century sacramentary-pontifical from Regensburg,35 a 12th-century Beneventan missal,36 and several printed missals from England and Scotland.37 Although the variation is not exclusive to Dominican sources, it is striking that all Dominican sources share this same text. As shown in Table 119, two Dominican sources add the word prevenientes to the prayer. According to the apparatus of the Deshusses’ edition of the Gregorian sacramentary and the Corpus Orationum, several manuscript sources provide prevenientes instead of celebrantes, but no manuscripts are cited that include both words.38 In Mons, BC 63/201, in which the words prevenientes vel were crossed out by a later hand, prevenientes is clearly meant to be an alternative word to celebrantes, likely meant to be used on the Vigil to express the sense of anticipating the day of Pentecost. In Paris, BnF, latin 163, prevenientes and celebrantes appear to be intended to be used together; in the manuscript, punctus appear after prevenientes and after celebrantes, apparently suggesting that prevenientes is to be read together with diem sacratissimum and celebrantes with pentecosten. th

Table 119: Variations in Dominican Versions of the Pentecost Communicantes. Dominican Communicantes

Mons, BC 63/201, f. 158r

Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 285v

Communicantes et diem sacratissimum

Communicantes et diem sacratissimum

Communicantes, et diem sacratissimum

pentecosten celebrantes

pentecosten prevenientes vel celebrantes

prevenientes, pentecosten celebrantes,

quo spiritus sanctus apostolis in igneis linguis apparuit. Sed et memoriam venerantes.

quo spiritus sanctus apostolis in igneis linguis apparuit. Sed et memoriam venerantes.

quo spiritus sanctus apostolis in igneis linguis apparuit. Sed et memoriam venerantes.

5.2.3.4 Pentecost Hanc igitur Like the Communicantes, the variable text for the Hanc igitur is inserted within the standard text. While the variable Com­ municantes texts commemorate the occasion of the celebration, Hanc igitur texts articulate intentions for the offering. The Pentecost Hanc igitur text focuses the prayer on the newly baptized. Table 120 compares the standard Hanc igitur found within the Canon itself to the Pentecost version in the Paris, BnF, latin 8884, showing the distinction between the Pentecost insertion and the standard version of the prayer. Table 120: Standard and Pentecost Versions of the Hanc igitur. Standard Hanc igitur (Paris, BnF, latin 8884, f. 131r)

Pentecost Hanc igitur (Paris, BnF, latin 8884, f. 129r)

Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostre,

Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostre,

sed et cuncte familie tue

sed et cuncte familie [tue]39 quam tibi offerimus pro his quoque quos regenerare dignatus es ex aqua et spiritu sancto tribuens eis remissionem omnium peccatorum

quesumus domine ut placatus accipias, diesque nostros in tua pace disponas, atque ab eterna dampnatione nos eripi, et in electorum tuorum iubeas grege numerari. Per christum dominum nostrum.

quesumus domine ut placatus accipias diesque nostros.

34 Ménard = Paris, BnF, latin 12051, f. 117v. 35 Ratisb = Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, Cod. LXXXVII (82), f. 112r, ed. Gamber and Rehle 1985, p. 155, n. 802. 36 Benevent6 = Berlin, SBB, MS. lat. fol. 920, f. 142r (ed. Rehle 1985, p. 502). 37 Arbuth, Herford, Sarum; cf. Corpus Orationum 1 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160), pp. xvi, xxxi, liii-liv. 38 Cf. Deshusses 1992, Le sacramentaire grégorien 1, p. 226, n. 522; Corpus Orationum 10 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160I), pp. 14–15. 39 Tue is omitted in the Paris missal Pentecost Hanc igitur on f. 129r but is included in the otherwise identical Paris missal Easter Hanc igitur on f. 128v and is included in the Pentecost Hanc igitur of other Dominican sources.

164 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

Dominican sources all present a version of the Pentecost Hanc igitur that is essentially identical to the version given for Easter and Pentecost in the Gregorian Sacramentary and the Corpus Orationum (CO 6255b).40 Most sources give the same Hanc igitur text with both the Easter and Pentecost prefaces, but Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 and Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 both provide an essentially identical rubric indicating that the text should be taken from the Easter Vigil (Hanc igitur ut supra in vigilia pasche).41 Although none of the manuscripts present significant textual variations, individual sources differ in the number of words which are given after the end of the distinctive text (quam tibi offerimus … remissionem omnium peccatorum). Most sources give the same termination presented in Table 120, but four sources end with ut placatus accipias (Paris, Mazarine 31; Paris, BnF, latin 163; Rome, Angelica 32; Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20) while Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 ends with ut placatus.

5.2.4 Summary Pre-Humbert Dominican sources follow the Gregorian Sacramentary tradition of providing a limited selection of prefaces, Communicantes, and Hanc igitur texts, although like many 13th-century missals they present these texts as part of the Ordo Missae rather than as part of mass formularies (as was the case in many early medieval sacramentaries and missals). Most Dominican sources provide the eleven prefaces that had become standard by the 13th century, although several bible missals and Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 present a more limited selection of prefaces, in some cases giving the Common Preface alone. While most texts offered by Dominican sources are identical with those found in the Gregorian Sacramentary, Dominican sources are united in sharing a variation for the Pentecost Communicantes that is not found in the Gregorian Sacramentary, although it is present in some early sources. Although the texts of the prefaces and variable canon prayers are stable among Dominican sources, the rubrics vary both in their length and in some of the details they provide about when texts are or are not used. The rubrics of Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 and Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 are remarkably similar. Both sources include some details not found in other sources, e.g., mentioning the celebration of the votive mass of the Holy Spirit in choir. In addition, both sources are distinctive in providing an incipit for the Pentecost Hanc igitur with a rubric directing the user to the Easter Hanc igitur, while other sources with these texts give the identical full texts for both Easter and Pentecost. While these details do not suggest a difference in liturgical practice, they provide helpful information concerning the textual relationships of the sources.

5.3 The Roman Canon While Dominican sources that supply the Roman Canon generally provide a fairly stable version of the text (with some minor variations appearing in individual sources that deserve further study), there are two features of the canon which are distinctive in multiple Dominican sources. Most pre-Humbert sources include a textual variant in the Memento domine, and a small number of pre-Humbert sources include textual rubrics that provide evidence for aspects of the performance of the early Dominican liturgy.

5.3.1 Memento domine In the critical edition of the Roman Canon edited by Eizenhöfer, the Memento domine appears in the following form: Memento, domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum n. et n. et omnium circumstantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota deuotio, pro quibus tibi offerimus uel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis pro se suisque omnibus, pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis et incolumitatis suae tibique reddunt uota sua aeterno deo uiuo et uero.42

40 Cf. Deshusses 1992, Le sacramentaire grégorien 1, pp. 226–227, n. 523; Corpus Orationum 10 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160I), p. 70. 41 Cambridge adds etc. after Hanc igitur. 42 Eizenhöfer 1954, p. 26.

5.3 The Roman Canon 

 165

As early as the 11th century, some sacramentaries and missals included the additional phrase atque omnium fidelium chris­ tianorum following circumstantium. Although Jungmann associated this variation with 12th-century Spanish mass books (while noting its presence in the pre-Humbert Dominican missal Paris, BnF, latin 8884),43 it was already fairly widespread in the 11th century, and is present in about 9% of the sacramentaries and missals in Leroquais’ catalog.44 The apparatus of the Corpus Orationum makes it clear that this variant had a wide diffusion in the 11th and 12th centuries,45 as it appears in two Beneventan missals from the 11th and 12th centuries,46 a late 11th-century Irish missal,47 and a missal likely copied in Limoges in the first quarter of the 12th century.48 A comparison of the Memento domine in Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert missals shows that most of these sources share this variant: eleven of fifteen sources include the phrase in the original hand, although in Rome, Angelica 32 and Mons, BC 63/201 it was later erased or crossed out (Table 121).49 Table 121: Variations in Memento domini. Sources with atque omnium fidelium christianorum

Sources without atque omnium fidelium christianorum

Bible missals Brussels, KBR 8882 Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 163 Paris, BnF, latin 215 Paris, BnF, latin 16266 Rome, Angelica 32 (later erased)

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

Pre-Humbert missals Lausanne, MHL 10 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Mons, BC 63/201 (later crossed out) Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

Although Leroquais suggested that the presence of this variant was not useful for localizing mass books given its widespread appearance in medieval sources, the percentage of Dominican sources that include the variant (73%) is much higher than

43 Jungmann 1962, v. 2, p. 208. 44 See Leroquais 1924, v. 1, pp. xxii–xxiii. Leroquais’ index entry (v. 3, p. 389) for “Memento, Domine … Variantes et additions” is avowedly incomplete, but a word search for “atque omnium fidelium” in a PDF of Leroquais’ catalog gives 28 results in manuscripts from the 7th–12th centuries (v. 1), 36 results for manuscripts from the turn of the 13th century to the end of the 14th century (v. 2), and 19 results for manuscripts from the 15th century onwards (v. 3). This indicates that at least 83/914 (9%) of the total corpus include the variation, although it should be noted that Leroquais is sometimes haphazard about identifying “unusual” texts, so it is possible that the variation is also found in other sources. The “earliest” appearance of the variation in sources studied by Leroquais is in the Amiens sacramentary Paris, BnF, latin 9432, f. 14r, but, as Leroquais observed, the text is added by a later hand. Leroquais dated this sacramentary to the second half of the 9th century, but Bischoff 2014, p. 152 dates it to the 10th century. The other manuscripts with this variant date to the 11th century or later. 45 CO 6123a; see Corpus Orationum 10 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160I), p. 5. 46 Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, MS. W.6 (CO sigla: Benevent1; 11th century; ed. Rehle 1972, p. 90, n. 271); Berlin, SBB, MS. lat. fol. 920 (CO sigla: Benevent6; first half of the 12th century; ed. Rehle 1985, p. 504). 47 New York, Morgan Library, MS M.627 (CO sigla: Drumm; ed. Forbes 1882, p. 19). Forbes notes that “the words ‘atque omnium fidelium Christianorum,’ and two lines further on, ‘pro quibus tibi offerimus vel,’ are over-scored, as if for occasional omission.” For a discussion of the dating and localizing of this manuscript see Lawrence 2007, p. 121, n. 44; Lawrence notes that Forbes’s edition is “problematic” without further specification; I have not been able to consult the manuscript and digital images are not available. 48 Braga, Biblioteca Pública, MS 1000, f. 150v (CO sigla: Mateus; ed. Bragança 1975, p. 427, §1680). Bragança notes that atque omnium fidelium christianorum is expunctuated in the manuscript. For the dating and localization of this manuscript see Bragança 1975, p. xxxviii. 49 In the Mons missal, the phrase pro quibus tibi offerimus vel later in the Memento is also crossed out on f. 161r. This latter phrase is characteristically omitted in Cistercian sources; see Leroquais 1924, v. 1, p. xxiv. Although clearly made for Dominican use, the Mons missal was later in the possession of the Cistercian nuns’ monastery of Flines, perhaps by the late 13th or early 14th century; for more details on the provenance of the manuscript, see the description in Appendix 2.

166 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

of the broader repertoire of 13th-century missals (13%).50 While the presence of this variant alone would not enable a manuscript to be identified as Dominican, it is nonetheless a characteristic feature of the pre-Humbert liturgy that might be helpful for confirming Dominican provenance when combined with other evidence. It is striking that despite this almost universal usage among early Dominican sources, this phrase was omitted from the reformed liturgy of Humbert of Romans.51

5.3.2 Rubrics within the Canon In contrast to Franciscan Ordo Missae sources, which tend to give rubrics throughout the Roman Canon describing the actions which the priest undertakes in conjunction with the words which he says,52 most pre-Humbert Dominican missals offer no rubrics concerning the postures or gestures undertaken by the priest during the Canon.53 Nevertheless, four Dominican sources provide rubrics for various parts of the Canon which are indicated in Table 122 in conjunction with the sections of the Canon where they appear. Table 122: Canon Rubrics in Dominican Sources. Paris, BnF, latin 163

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Rome, Angelica 32

Lausanne, MHL 10

Te igitur Memento domine

Hic fiat memoria pro vivis.

Communicantes Hanc igitur

Hic inclinet capud.

Quam oblationem Qui pridie

(after text) Flexa.

(Hoc est enim corpus meum in red.)

Ad hostiam.

Simili modo

Disco[pertus?].

(Hic est enim calix … in remissionem peccatorum in red.)

Ad calicem.

Unde et memores

Crucem brachia. [?]

Supra que

(imperfect)

Supplices te

(lacuna)

Hic respiciat crucem. Hic inclinet.

Memento etiam Nobis quoque

Memoria mortuorum. Hic percutiat pectus su[um].

Hic percutiat pectus.

Per quem Per ipsum

50 See Leroquais 1924, v. 1, pp. xxii–xxiii: “Le texte des prières du canon a été définitivement arrêté à la fin du vie siècle ou au début du VIIe; mais au moyen âge, cette fixité était très relative; elle n’empêchait pas les additions et les variantes que l’on rencontre à foison dans les missels de l’époque. Ecartons d’abord celles qui sont banales à force d’être fréquentes et qui ne présentent aucun intérêt pour l’identification du manuscrit. De ce nombre est la variante du Memento vivants que l’on trouve à partir du XIe siècle: « Memento, Domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum N. et N. et omnium circumastantium atque omnium fidelium christianorum quorum tibi fides cognita est… ».” 21 of 163 sources roughly dated by Leroquais to the 13th century include the variant. 51 See Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 403vb (Missale conventuale): “Memento domine famulorum famularumque tuarum N. et omnium circumastantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio, pro quibus tibi offerimus, vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis pro se, suisque omnibus, pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis et incolumitatis sue, tibique reddunt vota sua eterno deo vivo et vero.” 52 See, e.g., Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale ‘Vittorio Emanuele III’, VI.G.38, ff. 147v–149r (ed. Przeczewski 2003, pp. 267–270, §§1227–1241), where nearly every part of the Roman Canon has accompanying rubrics, indicating the posture of the priest, when the chalice is picked up and placed back down on the altar, etc. 53 The general omission of rubrics in the Roman Canon also is characteristic of post-Humbert Dominican missals, although detailed rubrical guides to the mass are often given in a separate section labelled De officio ministrorum altaris; see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, ff. 393r–394r (ed. Guerrini 1921, pp. 233–246).

5.3 The Roman Canon 

 167

Of the four sources, the Rome bible missal has the most extensive rubrics. The two Memento texts are provided with rubrics which remind the priest that the first is a memory for the living and the second for the dead. The Unde et memores is accompanied by a rubric indicating that the priest should look at or consider the cross. Unlike the other rubrics in this source, which are generally written parallel to the opening of the text which they accompany, this rubric appears in the margin at round the middle of the prayer; given the placement of the rubric and the text of the prayer itself, it seems likely that the rubric is specifically meant to apply to the words tam beate passionis, and that the priest is meant to look at the cross specifically at the moment that he mentions the “blessed passion” of Christ. Finally, the Supplices te is accompanied by a rubric indicating that the priest should say this prayer in an inclined posture, while the Nobis quoque rubric indicates that the priest should strike his breast while saying the prayer. The Pisa bible missal shares one rubric with the Rome bible missal, indicating that the priest should strike his breast while praying the Nobis quoque. The rubric is worded identically in the Rome and Pisa bible missals with the exception of the addition of suum in the Pisa bible missal.54 In addition, the Pisa bible missal indicates that the priest should incline his head during the Hanc igitur, a rubric not found in other sources. Finally, the Pisa bible missal has the unusual characteristic of presenting the words of consecration (Hoc est enim corpus meum / Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei … in remissionem peccatorum) in red ink, creating a strong visual contrast between the words typically considered by scholastic theologians to constitute the sacramental form and the surrounding prayers of the canon (see Figure 44 on p. 365 below).55 Strikingly, the words Hec quotienscumque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis are given in black rather than red after the words in remissionem peccatorum concluding the consecration of the chalice. This visual contrast corresponds with a distinction articulated in Thomas Aquinas’ Commentary of the Sentences of Peter Lombard (written c. 1252–1256), where Thomas comments that the priest sets down the chalice before the words haec quotiescumque feceritis because they are not part of the form of the consecration although they are scriptural words of Jesus.56 Although the consecration prayers are not accompanied by verbal instructions, the use of red ink may have functioned as a sort of visual rubric highlighting the centrality of these words within the prayer and reminding the priest to set down the chalice after the end of the words in red before saying the words in black. Paris, BnF, latin 163, in which the Ordo Missae is a later addition that ends imperfectly midway through the Supra que, gives rubrics for the Simili modo and Unde et memores that are somewhat damaged and difficult to read; it is possible that the now missing portion of the Canon was also originally accompanied by rubrics. At the end of the Qui pridie, a rubric appears which is difficult to read but which seems to say Flexa (having bowed). In the margin to the side of the Simili modo, the word discoo[pertus] (having uncovered) appears. These two rubrics seem to indicate that the priest makes an inclination towards the consecrated host and then uncovers the chalice before beginning the consecration of the chalice. In the margin of the Unde et memores, two words appear in the margin, the first of which is Crucem and the second of which cannot be easily read. It is possible that this rubric, like that of the Paris bible missal, is indicating that the priest should look at the cross; it is also possible that it is a reference to the practice of the priest spreading his arms in the form of a cross during the opening words of the Unde et memores.57 Finally, the rubrics of the Lausanne missal are the most limited, only specifying the that the Qui pridie and Simili modo are for the consecration of the host and chalice respectively. It should be noted that the Lausanne missal also includes rubrics concerning the posture of the priest during the canon on the folio preceding the canon itself, but these are a later addition.58

54  “Suum” is partially cropped, such that only “su” is now visible in the margin. 55 Cesena, Biblioteca Malatestiana, S.XXIX.11, f. 109r, a 15th-century Dominican missal produced in Italy, likewise presents the words of consecration in red ink. 56 Thomas Aquinas, In IV Sent., d. 8, q. 2, a. 2, qa. 1, sed contra 2: “Praeterea hoc videtur ex ritu consecrationis: quia sacerdos non deponit calicem usque ad verba illa: haec quotiescumque feceritis, quae non sunt de forma, quamvis sint Domini verba.” Text from https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent. IV.D8.Q2.A2.qa1.SC.2. 57 The Humbert missal rubrics instruct the priest to extend his hands more widely than usual after the consecration, thus in a sense forming a cross with his body; see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 393vb: “Completa consecratione; extendat brachia plus solito, mediocriter tamen usquequo ad signa crucis facienda deponere necesse sit.” 58 These rubrics are written in a different script and layout than the preceding texts and make use of originally blank space in the margin in an ad hoc manner. While these rubrics deserve further study, at least one rubric in the Lausanne missal uses language that is very similar to a parallel line in the Humbert De officio ministrorum altaris (the identical portions are presented in bold below). The Lausanne missal’s added rubrics state the following: “Postea ab illo verbo Unde et memores usque ad primum signaculum brachia plus solito extendantur.” The Humbert

168 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

5.3.3 Summary Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert missals that provide the Roman Canon present relatively stable textual versions, although most sources provide a variation in the Memento domine, adding the phrase atque omnium fidelium christianorum. While this variation appears in roughly 9% of 13th-century missals, it appears in 73% of pre-Humbert sources, suggesting that it is characteristic of the pre-Humbert Dominican liturgy despite being omitted from the postHumbert liturgy. Most Dominican sources provide the text of the Canon without any rubrics, but four sources include varying rubrical indications in individual sections of the canon.

5.4 The Post-Canon Ordo Missae Dominican sources which include the post-canon Ordo Missae have a variety of texts and modes of presenting the texts for this part of the mass.59 Table 123 gives an overview of the points of unity and diversity among these sources.60 Several abbreviations are used to indicate the mode in which a particular prayer or rubric is presented: T indicates that the full text of a particular prayer is given, M indicates that the text is given with musical notation, I indicates that only an incipit of the text is provided, and R indicates that a rubric is provided. When the number 2 appears after a letter, two different versions are provided by the source in question.61 Table 123: Overview of Post-Canon Ordo Missae in Dominican Sources. Dominican bible missals

Per omnia Oremus. Preceptis Pater noster

Pre-Humbert missals

Ca

Ox

PM

PN 215

PN 16266

Pi

PC

RoA

V

Lau

Los

Mo

PN 8884

RoS

T T T

T T T

T T T

T T I

T T T

T T I

M M M

T T T

T T T

M M M

M2 M2 M2

M M M

T T T

T T T

T T T T

T T T I

R T T T T

T T T I

T T T T

T M M I

R T T T I

T T T I

T M M T

T M T T

T M M T

T T T T

T T T T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

Embolism and Fraction Embolism rubric Libera nos Per omnia Pax domini Agnus dei

R T T T

Commingling Commingling rubric Hec sacrosancta

R T

Sign of Peace Pax rubric Pax tecum

R

R

T

R

rubrics give the following directive (Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 393vb): “Completa consecratione; extendat brachia plus solito, mediocriter tamen usquequo ad signa crucis facienda deponere necesse sit.” 59 Due to lacunae, this section of the Ordo Missae is missing from the bible missals Brussels, KBR 8882, London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, and Paris, BnF, latin 163; and from the pre-Humbert missal Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20. 60 Table 123 uses the following shelfmark abbreviations: Ca = Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16; Ox = Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7; PM = Paris, Mazarine 31; PN215 = Paris, BnF, latin 215; PN16266 = Paris, BnF, latin 16266; Pi = Pisa, Cathariniana 177; PC = Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”); RoA = Rome, Angelica 32; V = Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532; Lau = Lausanne, MHL 10; Los = Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5; Mo = Mons, BC 63/201; PN8884 = Paris, BnF, latin 8884; RoS = Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3. 61 In the case of the Los Angeles missal (Los), the same text appears with two different melodies; they are not rubricated in this source, but the two melodies are likely for solemn and ferial occasions. In the case of the Paris, Mazarine bible missal (PaM), two distinct texts are given for the Corpus/Sanguis prayer which will be discussed in more detail below.

 169

5.4 The Post-Canon Ordo Missae 

Table 123 (continued) Dominican bible missals Ca

Ox

PM

PN 215

PN 16266

Pi

Pre-Humbert missals PC

RoA

Habete vinculum pacis

V

Lau

Los

Mo

PN 8884

RoS

T R T

T R T

T

T

T

T

T

T

R T

R T

T

T

T

R T

R T

T

T

T

T

Prayers before Communion Domine ihesu rubric Domine ihesu christe Corpus et sanguis rubric Corpus/Sanguis Perceptio corporis

T R T

T

T

T

T

T

T2

T

T

T

R T R T T

T

T

T

T

Prayers after Communion Quod ore rubric Quod ore Corpus tuum

R T

T

Dismissal Ite missa est Placeat rubric Placeat tibi Meritis et precibus

R T

T

T

T

R T

M

R T

T T

All Dominican sources provide either text, text with music, or an incipit for all of the texts between the Per omnia which closes the canon and the Agnus dei, but there is much less consistency concerning the texts and rubrics after the Agnus dei. One source, the Private Collection bible missal (Pri), does not include any of the private priestly prayers, going immediately from the Agnus dei to the Ite missa est. With the exception of the Private Collection bible missal, all sources contain the pre-communion prayer Domine ihesu christe. The Ordo Missae in Paris, BnF, latin 215 ends with the Domine ihesu christe, but all of the other sources (except the Private Collection bible missal) contain a further pre-communion prayer or prayers, giving various forms of Corpus/Sanguis and in one case Perceptio corporis. A smaller number of sources give a private prayer after communion, with eight sources providing a version of Quod ore and one source providing Corpus tuum. Finally, all of the sources except Paris, BnF, latin 215 and the Private Collection bible missal provide the Placeat tibi. Among these sources, the most distinctive Ordo Missae sources are Pisa, Private Collection, and Vatican City. Pisa provides several rubrics not found in other sources, provides Perceptio corporis before communion, and omits Quod ore after communion. The Private Collection Ordo Missae is much sparer than the others, omitting all private prayers of the priest that would normally be said quietly, and yet it is the only bible missal that provides musical notation for the parts that would be sung aloud by the priest at a high mass besides the preface.62 The Vatican City Ordo Missae is unusual in containing a number of prayers not included in the other sources, including the dialogue Pax tecum/Et cum spiritu tuo, the prayer Habete vinculum pacis, the Corpus tuum (in place of the more common Dominican prayer after communion Quod ore), and the additional concluding prayer Meritis et precibus after Placeat tibi. The remaining sources share the same general outline of prayers for this part of the mass (with several exceptions noted above) but show a remarkable range of variations in the texts of the prayers themselves. In the following sections, I will examine each case where distinctive texts and rubrics are provided by one or more sources, focusing on the embolism and fraction rite, the commingling rite, the sign of peace, the prayers before and after communion, and the concluding prayers of the mass.

62 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 provides chant notation for the preface, but not for the post-canon Ordo Missae. Paris, BnF, latin 163 provides chant notation for the preface, but has a lacuna beginning midway through the canon; it is possible that it originally contained notated texts for the post-canon prayers of the Ordo Missae, although the Pisa bible missal shows that a source might include musical notation for the preface but omit it for the post-canon prayers.

170 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

5.4.1 Embolism and Fraction All Dominican sources which contain the post-canon Ordo Missae provide the full text of the embolism Libera nos after the Pater noster.63 Three sources offer verbal or visual rubrics that give guidance concerning the ritual actions that occur during the recitation of the embolism.64 The text presented by Dominican sources is fairly stable, although multiple manuscripts share certain minor variants, while the three sources which contain rubrics focus on different aspects of the liturgical rite. 5.4.1.1 Text Pre-Humbert Dominican sources for the Libera nos have several points where one or multiple sources include minor variations. Table 124 provides the text found in most sources in the left column and indicates the variations found in one or more sources in the right column. Table 124: Textual Variations in the Embolism Libera nos. Text

Manuscript Variations65

Libera nos quesumus domine ab omnibus malis preteritis presentibus et futuris,

malis] omitted in Paris, BnF, latin 215

et intercedente beata et gloriosa semper virgine dei genitrice maria

semper] semperque: Lausanne; Paris, Mazarine 31; Paris, BnF, latin 8884; Rome, Angelica 32

et beatis apostolis tuis

beatis apostolis tuis] beato: Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

petro et paulo atque andrea

petro et paulo] petro paulo: Oxford; Lausanne; Paris, BnF, latin 215; Pisa

cum omnibus sanctis,

sanctis] sanctis tuis: Oxford

da propitius pacem in diebus nostris, ut ope misericordie tue adiuti

ope] opere: Cambridge

et a peccato simus semper liberi, et ab omni perturbatione securi.

a] omitted in Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

Per eundem dominum nostrum ihesum christum filium tuum qui tecum vivit et regnat

qui tecum vivit et regnat] qui tecum etc.: Vatican City

in unitate spiritus sancti deus.

in unitate spiritus sancti deus] deus in unitate spiritus sancti: Paris, Mazarine 31 deus] omitted in Mons (supplied by a later hand before in like in the Mazarine manuscript)

While most sources provide the word semper before virgine, four sources add the enclitic – que at the end of the semper; the Corpus Orationum version of this prayer (CO 6728) acknowledges the ubiquity of this variation by including it in 63 Cf. Louth 2022: “Embolism (Gk ἐμβολισμός, ‘intercalation’) The name given to the prayer in the Roman Mass inserted between the Our Father and the Prayer for Peace. Its opening words, ‘Libera nos, quaesumus, Domine, ab omnibus malis’, take up the final words of the Our Father (‘Libera nos a malo’) which has just preceded it.” 64 In the context of discussing 15th- and 16th-century devotional manuscripts, Philip E. Webber used the term “visual rubrics” to describe the role played by images in guiding the user of a manuscript in a way that complements the role of verbal rubrics; see Webber 1978, pp. 318–319 (“If one considers the fact that the two manuscripts of our text with visual material lack rubrics … and that the rubric is present in the two purely textual manuscripts … one is led to think of the miniatures as ‘visual rubrics’, that is, not primarily as individual, unique masterworks, but rather as elements that provide concise points of identification at regular intervals within the devotional cycle.”); Webber 1982, p. 96 (“One tends to regard the miniatures and prints as ‘visual rubrics,’ i.e., not only as decoration, but rather as that integral part of the devotional cycle which, like the conventional rubric, provides points on orientation and identification at regular intervals throughout the work; the text, for its part, assumes the function not merely of narrative, but indeed of explication of the visual element.”) Building on Webber 1982, Fiero 1982, pp. 40–41 used the phrase “visual rubrics” to analyze the role of miniatures that accompany votive masses in the 14th-century Franciscan missal Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Douce 313. In addition to the applications of the term by Webber and Fiero, I think that the term is also helpful for thinking about the role of images that depict the celebration of the liturgy itself which frequently appear in the Ordo Missae section of 13th-century missals, e.g., Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 135, ff. 150r–152r, which provides historiated initials depicting a priest in different postures of prayer throughout the canon and the post-canon Ordo Missae. While some scholarship has been undertaken to try to derive historical details about liturgical practices from artistic depictions of the mass (e.g., McKinnon 1978, Subes 2004, Voyer 2015), further research is needed in this area; as stated by Gardner 2013, p. 195n29, “the utilization of the illuminations in Roman thirteenth-century books to document liturgical practice has hardly been attempted.” 65 For full shelfmarks, see Table 109.

5.4 The Post-Canon Ordo Missae 

 171

parentheses in the critical text.66 Most sources separate the names of Peter and Paul with et, but four sources omit this conjunction; the Los Angeles manuscript originally omitted it, but a later hand supplied et in the margin.67 While all Dominican sources include the words cum omnibus sanctis after atque andrea (a variation found in the Corpus Orationum apparatus), the Oxford bible missal also adds tuis after sanctis.68 The Rome, Santa Sabina missal contains two aspects which might be considered either variations or scribal errors: it provides the otherwise unattested beato petro et paulo instead of the standard beatis apostolis tuis petro et paulo, and omits the preposition a before peccato. Likewise, the Paris Mazarine bible missal presents an unusual variation or scribal error in the termination, placing deus before rather than after in unitate spiritus sancti at the end of the termination; the Mons missal originally omitted deus entirely, but a later hand added it in the same place as the Mazarine bible missal. Finally, several sources contain what are almost certainly scribal errors. The Cambridge bible missal gives ut opere misericordie instead of the standard ut ope misericordie; this is likely simply a scribal error, as I have not identified this variation in any medieval sources. Likewise, the bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 215 omits malis from the opening phrase of the prayer, which is certainly a scribal error. 5.4.1.2 Rubrics Three Dominican sources include rubrics with the Libera nos providing guidance for two distinct rites connected with the embolism. The first is connected with the custom of the priest blessing himself with the paten in the middle of the embolism.69 The Pisa and Rome bible missals both present an identical rubric instructing the celebrant to take the paten (Hic accipiat patenam); in both sources, the rubric is placed in the margin next to the start of the phrase da propitius pacem. Although this rubric does not explain what is done with the paten once it is taken up, other medieval sources offer more detailed guidance. In the Humbert Missale conventuale, the priest is instructed to receive the paten from the deacon at the Da propitius pacem, make the sign of the cross over himself with the paten, kiss it, and then place it on the altar apart from the corporal.70 A similar practice is described in the Franciscan rubrical guide for “private and ferial public masses” known as the Indutus planeta, where the priest is instructed to hold his hands in an elevated posture during the Pater noster up to the da propitius pacem and then to take up the paten and bless himself with it, although the Franciscan rubrics do not instruct the priest to kiss the paten.71 The rubric in the two bible missals does not give precise instructions for what is to be done with the paten, and we cannot assume that it necessarily prescribes the same ritual as recorded in the later Humbert missal, but it is significant nonetheless as an example of a rubric that provides a memory aid for the priest, reminding him to undertake a specific action with the paten at this moment in the prayer. The compilers of these two manuscripts are unusually attentive to offering rubrics, as the discussion of the canon rubrics in the preceding section has shown. Despite its relatively laconic wording, the careful placement of the rubric directly next to the words da propitius pacem in both sources shows a sophisticated awareness on the part of the rubricator of the relationship of the layout of the rubric to its purpose and context. Paris, Mazarine 31 provides an unusual instance of what I describe as “visual rubrics” in conjunction with the fraction rite which takes place during the concluding words of the embolism.72 In Figure 6, two small diagrams of the host appear above the words filium in the second to last line of f. 2ra and above spiritus in the first line of f. 2rb.

66 CO 6728: “Libera nos, quaesumus, domine, ab omnibus malis praeteritis, praesentibus et futuris (et), intercedente beata et gloriosa semper(que) virgine dei genitrice Maria et beatis apostolis tuis Petro et Paulo atque Andrea, da propitius pacem in diebus nostris, ut, ope misericordiae tuae adiuti, et a peccato simus semper liberi et ab omni perturbatione securi. Per dominum nostrum Iesum Christum filium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat deus in unitate spiritus sancti per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.” The apparatus provided in see Corpus Orationum 10 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160I), pp. 249–251 does not indicate which sources include – que, which makes it difficult to assess the relative frequency of the two versions. 67 The apparatus for CO 6728 does not include this variation. 68 These variations are included in the Corpus Orationum apparatus, although it does not clearly indicate which sources include tuis at the end of the phrase. 69 The paten is a dish on which the eucharistic bread is placed during parts of the liturgy. For further discussion of the practice of the priest blessing himself with the paten, see Jungmann 1962, v. 2, pp. 381–382. 70 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 393vb (Missale conventuale, De officio ministrorum altaris): “Tunc subdiaconus tradat patenam discoopertam diacono, qui recipiat eam manu nuda. Sacerdos vero quando dicturus est Da propitius pacem; ipsam accipiat. Et diaconus cum tradit eam; ipsius humerum osculetur. Et sacerdos signans se patena, et post ipsam osculans; eam super altare deponat, seorsum a corporali.” 71 Ed. Van Dijk 1963, v. 2, p. 12: “Cum vero venerit ad Pater noster, elevat manus et extendit sicut prius usque ad da propitius pacem etc., ubi accipiens patenam signat se simpliciter cum ipsa. Submittens eam hostie et discooperiens calicem facit fractionem super calicem, fragendo hostiam per medium.” 72 For discussions of medieval rites for the fraction, see Sölch 1938, pp. 119–123 and Jungmann 1962, v. 2, pp. 383–385.

172 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

Figure 6: Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 2r (Votive Missal Ordo Missae).

As with the verbal rubrics in the Rome bible missal, these visual rubrics can helpfully be compared with the Humbert mass rubrics, although here it is not clear if they are indicating precisely the same practice. In Humbert’s Missale conventuale, two diagrams are provided in a description of the fraction of the host during the closing words of the embolism. The diagrams in the Humbert missal are similar but not identical to those given in the Paris Mazarine bible missal. According to the rubrics of Humbert’s missal, after saying the closing words of the main part of the embolism, omni perturbatione securi, the priest

5.4 The Post-Canon Ordo Missae 

 173

takes up the host while saying the termination Per eundem, divides the host in two equal parts, then places the half held in his right hand horizontally across that held in his left hand and divides it into two further parts.73 As shown in Figure 7, these instructions are accompanied in Humbert’s rubrics with two diagrams signified by the words hoc modo and illustrating the round host divided in the middle and then the half-host placed horizontally and further divided in the middle.74

Figure 7: Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 393vb (Detail).

As is evident from a comparison of the diagrams in the Paris Mazarine bible missal and the Humbert rubrics, the two sets of diagrams are not identical, but they may nevertheless be intended to indicate the same rite. The bible missal diagrams consist of a circle with what appears to be a dot in the middle and another circle with a vertical line across the whole circle and a horizontal line across the right half of the circle, whereas the Humbert diagrams give a circle with a vertical line and a half-circle arranged horizontally with a vertical line. Further, the bible missal diagrams appear to be intentionally placed over specific words in the termination of the embolism, whereas the symbols in the Humbert rubrics are not associated with specific words of the termination, but rather illustrate a rite that begins while the termination as such is being said. Although it is not self-evident what the symbols in the bible missal are meant to convey, it is possible that they are indicating the same series of steps outlined in the Humbert rubrics, but specifying the moments at which the two steps are carried out. It is also possible that they are illustrating an alternate approach, for instance that the host is picked up at filium (which might accord with the circle not being divided) and then broken into three pieces at spiritus. Given the differences in the text of the Paris Mazarine bible missal Ordo Missae and the Humbert Ordo Missae, we cannot assume that the later symbols and their accompanying verbal rubrics necessarily clarify the earlier symbols. Nevertheless, it is striking to find a similar approach to visualizing the fraction rite by means of symbols, as this does not seem to have been widely undertaken in medieval liturgical books.75 73 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 393vb: “Cum autem sacerdos dixerit Omni perturbatione securi; detegat calicem. Et accepta hostia dicendo Per eundem dividat hostiam primo in duas partes hoc modo. Φ Deinde partem quam tenet in dextera superponat in transversum parti, relique in sinistra, et dividat eam in duas alias; hoc modo. ψ Ita si fieri potest; quod digiti fracturam non tangant.” (The Greek letters in this transcription are approximations of the symbols used in Figure 7.) 74 The mise-en-page of these diagrams evidently was a challenge for the producers of Humbert-era missals. In the exemplar manuscript London, BL, Add. MS 23935, f. 482vb, space was left for both diagrams but only the first was illustrated. Both diagrams appear in two 13th-century notated Dominican missals which represent Humbert’s reform: Philadelphia, Free Library, Lewis E 158, f. 12vb and Rochester, Eastman School of Music, M2147 .G733 XIII, f. 11va. 75 I have not yet identified any non-Dominican liturgical books which contain these symbols.

174 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

5.4.2 Commingling Rite and Hec sacrosancta commixtio Medieval liturgies provide a variety of prayers to accompany the commingling rite in which a piece of the consecrated host was placed in the chalice.76 Dominican sources which include a prayer for this rite all give Hec sacrosancta commixtio (CO 6736) but show a remarkable range of variations in the text. Table 125 lists the Corpus Orationum version of the prayer (identical with the versions found in Paris, BnF, latin 215 and Rome, Angelica 32) in the left column and lists variations found in one or more sources in the right column. Table 125: Textual Variations of Hec sacrosancta commixtio. Text (CO 6736)

Manuscript Variations77

Haec sacrosancta commixtio corporis et sanguinis domini nostri Iesu Christi fiat mihi et omnibus sumentibus salus mentis et corporis

fiat mihi] sit mihi: Pisa fiat mihi sumenti: Lausanne; Paris, Mazarine 31

et ad vitam capessendam aeternam

et ad vitam capessendam aeternam] et ad vitam eternam capescendam et promerandam: Cambridge; Mons et ad vitam eternam promerendam atque capescendam: Pisa; Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 (atque omitted); Vatican City et ad vitam eternam capescendam: Los Angeles; Paris, Mazarine 31 (et omitted in original hand); Paris, BnF, latin 8884; Paris, BnF, latin 16266

praeparatio salutaris.

praeparatio salutaris] sit preparatio salutaris: Lausanne; Los Angeles; Paris, BnF, latin 16266

Only two manuscripts (the bible missals Paris, BnF, latin 215 and Rome, Angelica 32) provide precisely the same text, although combinations of variations are shared by multiple manuscripts, consisting of either additions or inversions. Two manuscripts add sumenti after fiat michi, five manuscripts add the verb promerendam before or after capescendam,78 and three manuscripts add sit before preparatio salutaris at the end of the prayer.79 With respect to inversions, most sources present the words vitam eternam in succession rather than wrapping the two words around the verb capescendam. Only one Dominican source provides a rubric describing the prayer: Pisa, Cathariniana 177 gives a partially cropped rubric before the start of Hec sacrosancta commixtio: “D[einde] deponit tertiam partem corporis in calicem.” This “tertiam partem” refers to the part of the host that had been broken during the embolism fraction rite discussed above.

5.4.3 Sign of Peace Most pre-Humbert Dominican sources do not mention the sign of peace or provide any prayers to accompany it, but four sources provide rubrics which mention this rite and one source provides accompanying prayers.

76 For instance, the Corpus Orationum includes seven distinct prayers (although there is some overlap in phrasing); see CO 6731–6737, in Corpus Orationum 10 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160I), pp. 252–253. Jungmann 1962, v. 2, p. 394 discusses the prayers used in various liturgical traditions and emphasizes the presence of the Hec sacrosancta commixitio in the Dominican liturgy. For further discussion of the commingling rite and various prayers which accompany it, see Yao 2019, pp. 207–216. 77 For full shelfmarks, see Table 109. 78 In addition to these three sources, where promerendam is in the original hand, it is also added by a later hand in the Oxford bible missal. The three manuscripts with this variation in the original hand differ in how they link the promerendam and capescendam; Cambridge uses et, Vatican City uses atque, and Rome provides no conjunction. 79 In the apparatus of CO 6736, three sources are listed which provide promerendam in place of capessendam (= capescendam), and two sources are listed which provide promerendam et before capessendam; no sources are listed with the sumenti or sit variations.

5.4 The Post-Canon Ordo Missae 

 175

5.4.3.1 Text Medieval versions of the Ordo Missae differ widely in the extent and types of prayers which precede or accompany the sign of peace.80 Jungmann describes three different types of prayer: 1) a preparatory prayer for peace, such as Domine Iesu Christe qui dixisti (found as early as the 11th century in Germany);81 2) an accompanying blessing, such as Habete vinculum pacis (found in the 11th-century Missa Illyrica);82 3) a dialogue, such as Pax tecum with the response Et cum spiritu tuo (found in the late 11th-century Micrologus of Bernold of Constance).83 Most pre-Humbert Dominican sources do not supply texts for any of these three categories, but one source, the Vatican City bible missal, provides a dialogue and a blessing for the sign of peace in forms that match versions mentioned by Jungmann (Table 126).84 Table 126: Prayers for the Sign of Peace in Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532. Manuscript

Text

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

Pax tecum. Et cum spiritu tuo. Habete vinculum pacis et caritatis, ut apti sitis sacrosanctis mysteriis. Per christum dominum nostrum. Amen.

5.4.3.2 Rubrics All four sources with rubrics that mention the sign of peace provide the rubric between the Hec sacrosancta and the Domine ihesu christe (Table 127). The Cambridge and Pisa bible missals and Los Angeles missal mention the sign of peace while indicating that the Domine ihesu christe follows, while the Rome bible missal does not mention the prayer. Table 127: Rubrics Mentioning the Sign of Peace. Manuscript

Rubric

Dominican bible missals Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 Rome, Angelica 32

Sequitur osculum pacis. Data pace dicatur hec oratio. Data pace a[d] susceptionem corporis dicat h[ec oratio].85 Hic accipiat pacem.

Pre-Humbert missals Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5

Data pace dicatur ista oratio. 

The rubrics in the Cambridge bible missal and Los Angeles missal are almost identical and mention the sign of peace in a passive manner, while the Rome bible missal uses an active verb. The Pisa bible missal has a similar reference to the sign of peace but differs from the other sources in mentioning that the prayer is said as the Eucharistic body is picked up. It is not entirely clear how to interpret the rubric in the Rome bible missal. Pax, given here in the accusative case as pacem, could potentially mean the sign of peace, the physical object of the pax (also known as the paxbred or osculatorium, an object used in some rituals for giving the sign of peace by kissing the paxbred instead of giving an embrace), or the kissing of the host,

80 See Jungmann 1962, v. 2, pp. 410–413. 81 As Jungmann observes, the Dominican liturgy, along with some other late-medieval Ordines Missae, omit the preparatory prayer for peace entirely. 82 Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1151 Helmst., f. 92r (ed. Pierce 1988, p. 244): “Deinde conuertat se ad circumstantes pacemque ferat dicendo. Habete uinculum pacis et caritatis ut apti sitis sacrosanctis mysteriis.” 83 Bernold of Constance, Micrologus de ecclesiasticis observationibus 23 (ed. Migne 1853, PL 151:995A). 84 Although no other pre-Humbert sources provide texts in this context, Humbert’s reformed liturgy includes a phrase for the priest to say while giving the sign of peace: see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 393vb: “Et dans pacem diacono; dicat Pax tibi et ecclesie sancte dei. Deinde diaconus det subdiacono venienti ad se.” Significantly, this text is included in the rubrics section of the Humbert Missale conventuale but is not given in the Ordo Missae itself; cf. f. 404rb, where the Hec sacrosancta is followed immediately by the Domine ihesu christe. This is potentially helpful for understanding the absence of a reference to this prayer in the pre-Humbert Ordo Missae sources, although it should not be assumed without further evidence that the Pax tibi was already being said before the Humbert reform. 85 The rubric is partially cropped in the Pisa bible missal.

176 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

chalice, or altar. The first interpretation does not seem to fit with the verb accipiat, as the sign of peace would typically not be accepted by the celebrant from another minister, but rather is given by the priest to the other ministers. The second interpretation fits better with the verb accipiat, but it is not clear how widespread the custom of using an osculatorium was at the point this manuscript was produced. According to Joseph Braun, the first appearance of a reference to the use of an osculatorium is from a diocesan statute in England in 1248, and the practice is first attested in France and Germany in the 14th century.86 The most likely interpretation thus seems to be that the priest is being instructed to “receive the peace” by kissing the altar, host, or chalice.87 In the early 1250s, the occasions for giving the sign of peace and the recipients of it was debated at the General Chapters.88 In Humbert’s reformed liturgy, specific instructions are given for the priest to kiss the chalice after the commingling rite and before giving the sign of peace; it seems likely that the Rome bible missal rubric is referring to a similar practice.89

5.4.4 Prayers before Communion Most Dominican sources provide two sets of prayers for the priest before Communion: Domine ihesu christe, and some form of Corpus et sanguis domini (a single prayer mentioning the body and blood) or Corpus domini / Sanguis domini (separate prayers for the body and blood). 5.4.4.1 Domine ihesu christe At least as early as the 10th century, many manuscripts with the Ordo Missae provide a devotional prayer to be recited by the priest before receiving communion beginning Domine ihesu christe fili dei vivi.90 In contrast to some Ordo Missae sources which present this prayer together with another pre-communion prayer Perceptio corporis, Dominican sources provide Domine ihesu christe but not Perceptio corporis.91

86 Braun 1932, p. 558; cf. Cabrol 1910, Jungmann 1962, v. 2, pp. 408–409. For broader contextualization of the osculatorium in medieval culture, see Schreiner 1990, pp. 101–102, and Duffy 2005, pp. 115–116, 125. Duffy notes that missals and gospel books were sometimes used for the Pax ritual (Duffy 2005, pp. 497, 558). 87 For a discussion of this practice, see Jungmann 1962, v. 2, 405–407. A later non-Dominican witness, the 1499 Ordo Missae of Toledo, uses strikingly similar language to the Rome bible missal but explicitly adds that the peace is received “from the host”: “Hic accipiat pacem ab hostia et det ministro dicendo. Habete osculum dilectionis et pacis: ut apti sitis sacrosanctis mysteriis dei; pax dei et ecclesie habundet in cordibus vestris.” See Sierra López 2005, p. 163. 88 The 1250 General Chapter introduced legislation attempting to modify the Constitutions to specify that the sign of peace should not be given at private masses and only to the minister at conventual masses; the minister was only to pass on the sign of peace to the other brothers on days when they would receive communion, but could give it to “seculars” either in conventual or private masses (see Reichert 1898, p. 52: “Item. In fine capituli de officio ecclesie. addatur et dicatur sic. quod osculum pacis in missis nostris privatis non detur. nec in conventualibus nisi ministro. qui fratribus non offerat nisi in diebus in quibus commuunicare debemus. secularibus autem tam in conventualibus quam in privatis; poterit exhiberi.”) The 1251 General Chapter presented a modified version of this proposal as an “inchoamus,” removing the restriction on private masses (see Reichert 1898, p. 56: “lnchoamus hanc constitucionem. In capitulo de officio ecclesie. in fine addatur. osculum in missis non detur nisi ministro qui (det) secularibus. tam in privatis quam in conventualibus missis poterit exhibere.”) The 1252 General Chapter approved the 1251 legislation (see Reichert 1898, p. 60: “Approbamus hanc. In capitulo de officio ecclesie. in fine addatur. osculum pacis in missis non detur. nisi ministro. qui secularibus tam in privatis. quam in conventualibus missis poterit exhibere. Et hec habet .ii. capitula.”) No General Chapter was held in 1253 due to the death of the Master of the Order John of Wildeshausen late in the preceding year. The General Chapter of 1254 did not confirm this modification to the Constitutions. 89 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, ff. 393vb–394ra: “Quo dicto; sacerdos portionem hostie quam tenet in dextera manu; submittat in sanguinem dicendo Hec sacrosancta commixtio etc. Et dans pacem diacono; dicat Pax tibi et ecclesie sancte dei. Deinde diaconus det subdiacono venienti ad se.… In missis vero privatis que non sunt de mortuis; detur pax fratri servitori, sed aliis astantibus non detur; nisi consuetudo patrie teneat contrarium.” It is notable that these rubrics specify that the pax is given at private masses as well as conventual masses, and that the rubrics acknowledge the possibility of adapting the practice to the “custom of the country.” 90 For a commentary on this prayer, see Yao 2019, pp. 216–220. The earliest mass books with the prayer date to the 10th century rather than the 9th century as suggested by Yao. The Amiens sacramentary Paris, BnF, latin 9432 is dated by Bischoff 2014, p. 152 to the 10th century; the Aurillac pontifical Albi, BM 34 (20) is dated by Rasmussen 1998, pp. 40–41 to after 909. A version of the prayer does appear in a 9th-century Libellus precum: Paris, BnF, latin 13388, f. 80r; ed. Wilmart 1940, p. 141. This manuscript is dated “[IX. Jh., ca. 2. Viertel]” in Bischoff 2014, p. 208, n. 4914, so it is possible that it was already being used in the context of the mass in the 9th century. For a dated but still useful survey of the reception of the prayer in later medieval sources, see Ellard 1941. 91 For a discussion of Perceptio corporis, see Yao 2019, pp. 220–224. The Pisa bible missal contains a different prayer with a similar incipit but different middle section and conclusion as a prayer after communion that will be discussed below. The pre-communion Perceptio corporis was

5.4 The Post-Canon Ordo Missae 

 177

As was the case with Hec sacrosancta commixtio, Dominican sources show a remarkable range of variations in the text of Domine ihesu christe. Given the length of the prayer and the complexity of some of these variations, it will be helpful to first discuss the structure of one version of the prayer (as given in the bible missal Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532) and then describe the range of variations in other sources. Table 128 divides the prayer into five lettered sections and subdivides the first two sections into individual lines. The opening section (a) consists of a Trinitarian invocation; the middle sections (b–d) make three requests (to be freed from sin and evil, made obedient to God’s commands, and not permitted to be perpetually separated from God), and the final section (e) gives a termination for the prayer. Table 128: Structure and Text of Domine ihesu christe. Structure a1

Invocation

a2

Domine ihesu christe fili dei vivi, qui ex voluntate patris cooperante spiritu sancto,

a3 b1

Text (Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 6r)

per mortem tuam mundum vivificasti, First Request

b2

libera me per hoc sacrum corpus et sanguinem tuum a cunctis iniquitatibus et universis malis meis,

c

Second Request

et fac me semper tuis obedire preceptis,

d

Third Request

et a te numquam in perpetuum separari permittas.

e

Termination

Qui vivis et regnas deus, per omnia secula seculorum. Amen.

The invocation (a1–a3) is mostly stable in Dominican sources. The only non-orthographical variation is the addition of sanctissimam before mortem tuam in four sources (the Cambridge and Paris, BnF, latin 16266 bible missals and the Los Angeles and Rome missals) and pretiossimam before mortem tuam in one source (the Pisa bible missal). The first request (b1–b2) has more extensive variations. The variations found in b1 are fairly simple. Two sources add a first-person verb after libera me, with the Lausanne missal adding queso and the Pisa bible missal adding obsecro. Four sources (the Oxford and Rome bible missals and the Lausanne and Mons missals) have sacrosanctum instead of sacrum. By contrast, the variations found in b2 are quite complex. Table 129 indicates the text of these lines as found in each source: Table 129: Variations in Phrase b2 of Domine ihesu christe. Dominican bible missals92 Cambridge Oxford Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 215 Paris, BnF, latin 16266 Pisa Rome, Angelica 32 Vatican City

a cunctis a cunctis a cunctis a cunctis a cunctis a cunctis a cunctis a cunctis

iniquitatibus iniquitatibus iniquitatibus iniquitatibus iniquitatibus iniquitatibus malis iniquitatibus

Lausanne Los Angeles Mons Paris, BnF, latin 8884

a cunctis a cunctis a cunctis a cunctis

malis iniquitatibus iniquitatibus iniquitatibus

Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

a cunctis

iniquitatibus

meis meis meis

et et et et et et et et

ab ab ab ab ab

universis universis universis universis universis universis universis universis

malis malis malis malis malis malis criminibus malis

meis meis meis meis meis meis

Pre-Humbert missals

meis meis

et et et et

ab ab ab ab

universis universis universis universis

iniquitatibus malis malis malis

et

ab

universis

malis

meis meis meis

added in the 15th century in the lower margin of Lausanne, MHL 10, f. 100r: “Perceptio corporis tui domine ihesu christe, quod ego indignus peccator sumere de tua pietate confisus presumo, non michi proveniat obsecro in iudicium et condempnationem domine, sed pro tua miseratione prosit michi ad tutamen mentis et corporis et ad medelam percipiendam. Qui vivis.” For brief discussions of this addition, see Amiet 1982, p. 19 and Dirks 1984, p. 44. 92 For full shelfmarks, see Table 109.

178 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

Seven distinct versions of this phrase can be identified among the 13 sources, with three sets of three sources containing identical versions (the Oxford and Pisa bible missals and the Rome missal; the Cambridge and Paris, BnF, latin 16266 bible missals and the Los Angeles missal; and the Paris, Mazarine, Pisa and Vatican bible missals). The least significant variation is the omission of the preposition ab before universis in several sources, as the ablative case of universis does not require the preposition, particularly since a version of the same preposition (a) is given at the start of the phrase.93 The inclusion or omission of meis after iniquitatibus and malis is more significant, as it changes the meaning of the request, shifting the meaning from being freed from one’s own personal sins or evil inclinations to being kept free from the sins of others or from evil in general. Finally, while the Lausanne missal reverses the typical order of malis and iniquitatibus, the Rome bible missal not only places malis first, but also replaces iniquitatibus with criminibus, a word not found in any other Dominican sources for the prayer. The Rome bible missal presents a further unique feature in adding an additional request not found in other Dominican sources (et redde me ydoneum ad percipiendum hoc ineffabile sacramentum) before continuing with the second and third requests as found in the other sources. The second request (c) is more stable than the first request, with ten of the 13 sources presenting an identical version (Table 130). Paris, BnF, latin 215 differs from the common version by inverting semper obedire and obedire semper; Vatican City inverts tuis semper as semper tuis and gives preceptis instead of mandatis at the end of the phrase; and Los Angeles omits semper. Table 130: Variations in Phrase c of Domine ihesu christe. Dominican bible missals94 Cambridge Oxford Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 215 Paris, BnF, latin 16266 Pisa Rome, Angelica 32 Vatican City

et fac me et fac me et fac me et fac me et fac me et fac me et fac me et fac me

tuis tuis tuis tuis tuis tuis tuis

semper semper semper

Lausanne Los Angeles Mons Paris, BnF, latin 8884

et fac me et fac me et fac me et fac me

tuis tuis tuis tuis

semper

Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

et fac me

tuis

semper semper semper semper

tuis

obedire obedire obedire obedire obedire obedire obedire obedire

semper

mandatis mandatis mandatis mandatis mandatis mandatis mandatis preceptis

Pre-Humbert missals

semper semper

obedire obedire obedire obedire

mandatis mandatis mandatis mandatis

semper

obedire

mandatis

The third request (d) resembles the first in the degree of variation among the sources (Table 131). In this case, the 13 sources reveal five different versions of the phrase. The most common version is shared by five sources (the Cambridge, Paris, BnF, latin 16266, and Vatican City bible missals and the Lausanne and Los Angeles missals) and is characterized by concluding with the second-person verb permittas; one further source is identical with the exception of adding the title salvator mundi after the verb. Four sources (the Oxford, Pisa and Rome bible missals and the Rome missal) omit a second-person verb from the phrase entirely, implying that fac from the second request is also governing separari; one of these three, the Rome bible missal, also adds the title salvator mundi at the end of the prayer. Finally, three sources (the bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 215 and the Mons and Paris missals) do not include permittas, but supply the equivalent second-person verb sinas at an earlier point in the phrase, replacing the phrase a te nunquam with non sinas me and moving a te after in perpetuum.

93 If this variation is excluded, then the Cambridge, Paris, Mazarine, and Vatican bible missals and the Los Angeles missal all have the same version. 94 For full shelfmarks, see Table 109.

5.4 The Post-Canon Ordo Missae 

 179

Table 131: Variations in Phrase d of Domine ihesu christe. Dominican bible missals95 Cambridge Oxford Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 215 Paris, BnF, latin 16266 Pisa Rome, Angelica Vatican City

et et et et et et et et

a te nunquam a te numquam a te nunquam non sinas me a te nunquam a te nunquam a te nunquam a te numquam

in perpetuum in perpetuum in perpetuum in perpetuum in perpetuum in perpetuum in perpetuum in perpetuum

Lausanne Los Angeles Mons Paris, BnF, latin 8884

et et et et

a te numquam a te numquam non sinas me non sinas me

in perpetuum in perpetuum in perpetuum in perpetuum

Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

et

a te numquam

in perpetuum

a te

separari separari separari separari separari separari separari separari

permittas

separari separari separari separari

permittas permittas

permittas

salvator mundi

permittas

permittas

salvator mundi

Pre-Humbert missals

a te a te

separari

The manuscripts differ in the degree to which the termination is abbreviated, with some sources presenting only the opening words of the termination and others presenting it in full. Among both sets, there is a notable variation in the mode of referring to the Father: most sources include the phrase cum eodem patre, three use cum deo patre (the Oxford, Paris, Mazarine, and Rome bible missals), and two give more abbreviated versions that do not indicate whether eodem patre or deo patre is intended to be said.96 Although the meaning of the texts is the same, those which provide eodem are acknowledging that the Father has already been invoked in the prayer, in the same way that eiusdem spiritus sancti (found here in all of the terminations that are not abbreviated) acknowledges that the Holy Spirit has been invoked. 5.4.4.2 Corpus et sanguis domini / Corpus domini / Sanguis domini Medieval sources for the Ordo Missae provide a variety of short formulas to be said by the priest immediately before receiving communion. In some cases, the two eucharistic species of the Body and Blood are mentioned together in a single formula, and in others two separate formulas are given that each mention a single species.97 Table 132 provides the texts of the prayers as they appear in each Dominican source.98 Pre-Humbert manuscripts fall into both categories: eight provide prayers that mention the two species together, and five provide separate prayers for the two species. One source in the first category, the Paris, Mazarine bible missal, provides two alternate prayers that mention both species together. In addition to the division into sources mentioning the two species together or separately, several other elements are variable in the manuscripts. Most sources in both categories have a single subjunctive verb expressing the request of the prayer (custodiat or custodiant) but four sources provide a second verb (et perducat) that expands the request. The Oxford bible missal and the second prayer in the Paris Mazarine bible missal present almost entirely different texts that make use of other verbs.99 Among sources that mention the two species together, some emphasize the unity of the two species by putting the verb(s) in the singular, while others have the verb(s) in the plural. In the Los Angeles manuscript, the verbs were originally singular but later adapted to a plural form.

95 For full shelfmarks, see Table 109. 96 The Vatican City bible missal version skips from regnas to deus while the Mons missal skips from regnas to per omnia. 97 For an overview of these texts, see Yao 2019, pp. 226–229. 98 Notably, the Ordo Missae in Paris, BnF, latin 215 does not provide either version, ending immediately after the Domine ihesu christe but without a lacuna. 99 The Oxford prayers also unusual in giving different requests for the two species, while other sources with separate prayers give the same request for each species.

180 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 132: Texts for Corpus et sanguis domini / Corpus domini / Sanguis domini. Text

Manuscripts

Corpus et sanguis domini nostri ihesu christi custodiat me in vitam eternam amen.

Mons, BC 63/201 Paris, BnF, latin 8884 (custodiant instead of custodiat) Rome, Angelica 32

Corpus et sanguis domini nostri ihesu christi custodiat me et perducat in vitam eternam amen.

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5100 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Paris, BnF, latin 16266 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

Corpus et sanguis domini nostri ihesu christi [custodiant me] in vitam eternam. [A]men. Corpus et sanguis domini nostri ihesu christi fiat mihi salus mentis et corporis, et remissio omnium peccatorum meorum in vitam eternam. Amen.

Paris, Mazarine 31101

Corpus domini nostri ihesu christi custodiat me in vitam eternam amen. Sanguis domini nostri ihesu christi custodiat me in vitam eternam amen.

Lausanne, MHL 10 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

Corpus domini nostri ihesu christi proficiat mihi et omnibus fidelibus vivis atque defunctis in vitam eternam amen. Sanguis domini nostri ihesu christi proficiat mihi ad salutem anime et corporis et custodiat animam meam in vitam eternam amen.

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

Several Dominican sources provide rubrics for the prayers before communion; the range of rubrics are indicated in Table 133. The Cambridge and Los Angeles rubrics are remarkably similar, differing only in the grammatical form of a few words and the inclusion or omission of oratio, but they accompany different versions of the prayer itself: Cambridge provides a unified Corpus et sanguis version while Los Angeles provides separate Corpus domini and Sanguis domini prayers. The Lausanne missal and Pisa bible missal provide identical versions of the separate Corpus domini and Sanguis domini prayers, but Lausanne gives a single rubric while Pisa provides separate rubrics for each of prayer. Table 133: Rubrics for Corpus et sanguis domini / Corpus domini / Sanguis domini. Text

Manuscripts

Ante perceptionem dicatur ista oratio. Qua dicta statim communicat. Ante perceptionem dicatur ista que dicta statim comunicet. Ante sumptionem eukaristie. Sumendo c[orpus]. Sumendo sang[uinem].

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Lausanne, MHL 10 Pisa, Cathariniana 177102

5.4.5 Prayers After Communion In many medieval sources for the Ordo Missae, one or two prayers beginning Quod ore and/or Corpus tuum are often provided for the priest to recite after communion, sometimes with a specification that they are said during the purification of the chalice.103 In contrast to the Franciscan Ordo Missae, which presents both prayers together,104 pre-Humbert Dominican sources present at most one or the other of these prayers, or in some cases no prayer at all. Three bible missals and five

100 In this source, the two verbs were originally written in the singular (custodiat / perducat), but a later hand changed them to the plural by adding an n-abbreviation line over the at. A later hand then crossed out et perducant. 101 In this source, “custodiant me” is written over an erasure and a blank space is left for the A of Amen. 102 Due to cropping of the leaf, the rubrics are only partially preserved. 103 For a discussion of the appearance of these two prayers in a range of medieval sources, see Yao 2019, pp. 230–236. 104 See e.g., Przeczewski 2003, p. 273, §§1271–1273.

5.4 The Post-Canon Ordo Missae 

 181

pre-Humbert missals present Quod ore; one bible missal (Vatican City) presents Corpus tuum; one bible missal (Pisa) presents Perceptio corporis et sanguinis, and four bible missals omit a prayer in this position.105 5.4.5.1 Quod ore The earliest known appearance of Quod ore is in the 7th-century Veronese Sacramentary, where the text is assigned as part of a formulary for a mass during the month of July.106 The prayer appears in other early and later medieval liturgical sources both as a postcommunion and as part of the Ordo Missae in two related forms which are identical in the first and last line but differ in the middle portion, as shown in Table 134.107 The apparatus for the two versions in the Corpus Oratio­ num identifies a number of textual variants; the most important for understanding the Dominican versions is the frequent presence of pura before mente and ut instead of et. Table 134: Variant Forms of Quod ore. CO 4931a

CO 4931b

Quod ore sumpsimus domine mente capiamus et de munere temporali fiat nobis remedium sempiternum.

Quod ore sumpsimus domine mente capiamus et de corpore et sanguine domini nostri Iesu Christi fiat nobis remedium sempiternum.

As shown in Table 135, most Dominican sources which provide this prayer make use of the CO 4931b version, but the Lausanne missal gives the CO 4931a version. Three sources add pura before mente. Most sources give ut instead of et at the start of the second phrase; Lausanne gives et, and the Paris Mazarine bible missal likely originally gave et, but ut now appears over an erasure. The Paris Mazarine bible missal also differs from the others in having originally provided first-person singular verbs (sumpsi and capiam) which were later modified to first-person plural verbs (sumpsimus and capiamus); the final line likely originally began fiat michi but has been changed to fiat nobis. The first-person singular version of the prayer appears in a private devotional context as early as the 9th-century prayerbook of Charles the Bald108 and appears in some Ordo Missae sources described by Leroquais from the 11th century onwards.109 The appearance of this first-person singular version in the original hand of the Paris Mazarine manuscript is an interesting variation in light of the use of the plural form in all other Dominican sources, and it is also significant that the version was adapted to the more common plural form by what appears to be a fairly early user of the manuscript. Three sources provide rubrics for the Quod ore, which are listed in Table 136. As was the case with the rubrics for the prayers before communion, Cambridge and Los Angeles have closely related rubrics, here differing only in the alternate forms assumptionem and sumptionem. These rubrics are significant in that they describe the liturgical action (the washing of the fingers in the chalice) which the prayer accompanies, in contrast to the rubric of Lausanne which simply indicates the time at which the prayer is said.

105 The Ordo Missae in Paris, BnF, latin 215 ends with the Domine ihesu christe and the Ordo Missae in Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) does not include the private priestly prayers. It is noteworthy that Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 and Rome, Angelica 32 do not include any prayer in this context; both go immediately from the pre-communion Corpus/Sanguinis prayer(s) to the concluding Placeat tibi. 106 Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, Cod. LXXXV (80), ed. Mohlberg et al. 1966, p. 70, §531. For the dating of the manuscript, I follow Spagnolo and Marchi 1996, pp. 152–153. The Verona manuscript and most early sources give the CO 4931a version. 107 For references to a large number of sources, see the apparatus for CO 4931a and CO 4931b in Corpus Orationum 7 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992– 2004; CCSL 160F), pp. 308–309. 108 Munich, Schatzkammer der Residenz, ResMü Schk 4 WL, ff. 35r–35v: “Quod ore sumpsi domine mente capiam, ut de corpore et sanguine domini nostri ihesu christi, fiat mihi remedium sempiternum: per eundem dominum nostrum ihesum christum.” For a brief description of this manuscript and further bibliography, see Bischoff 2004, p. 298, n. 3518, who dates it to after 843. 109 See e.g., Leroquais 1924, v. 1, p. 145 (§62: 11th-century Tours sacramentary, Tours, BM 196, f. 8r), v. 1, p. 149 (§63: 11th-century Tours missal, Paris, BnF, latin 9434, f. 25v), v. 1, p. 225 (§103: 12th-century Cambrai missal, Cambrai, BM 234 (224), f. 7r). Further research is needed to determine if there is a specific geographical distribution for this variation.

182 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

Table 135: Texts for Quod ore in Dominican Sources. Text

Manuscripts

Quod ore sumpsimus domine mente capiamus ut de corpore et sanguine domini nostri ihesu christi fiat nobis remedium sempiternum amen. [CO 4931b]

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Mons, BC 63/201 Paris, BnF, latin 16266

Quod ore sumpsimus domine pura mente capiamus ut de corpore et sanguine domini nostri ihesu christi fiat nobis remedium sempiternum amen. [cf. CO 4931b]

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 (mente written twice)

Quod ore sumpsi\mus/ domine mente capiam\us/, [ut] de corpore et sanguine domini nostri ihesu christi fiat [nobis] remedium sempiternum. Amen. [cf. CO 4931b]

Paris, Mazarine 31110

Quod ore sumpsimus domine mente capiamus, et de munere temporali fiat nobis remedium sempiternum amen. [CO 4931a]

Lausanne, MHL 10

Table 136: Rubrics for Quod ore in Dominican Sources. Text

Manuscripts

Post assumptionem dum abluuntur digiti dicatur ista oratio. Post sumptionem dum abluuntur digiti dicatur ista oratio. Post sumptionem eukaristie.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Lausanne, MHL 10

5.4.5.2 Corpus tuum A single Dominican source, the Vatican City bible missal, provides Corpus tuum instead of Quod ore (Table 137). Like the Quod ore, the earliest witness to Corpus tuum is in the form of a postcommunion oration, in this case in the late 7th- or early 8th-century Missale Gothicum,111 and it appears in various forms in later manuscripts.112 When compared with the version of the prayer found in a 13th-century Franciscan missal, several distinctive features in the Vatican City bible missal stand out: sacer is added before sanguis, adehereant (sic) is given in the plural instead of the singular adhereat, aliqua peccati is found in place of scelerum, and ubi tua appears in place of quem. While some of these variants may be found in other sources, I have not yet identified a source that contains the same version of the prayer presented in the Vatican City manuscript.113

110 This text appears between the pre-communion prayers Domine ihesu christe and Corpus et sanguis. A later hand added an indication in the margin that it should be said after Corpus et sanguis. 111 Vatican City, BAV, Reg. lat. 317, f. 256v, ed. Rose 2005, p. 538, §519: “Post communionem. Corpus tuum domine, quod accipimus et calicem tuum, quem potauimus, hereat in uisceribus nostris. Praesta, deus omnipotens, ut non remaneat macula, ubi pura et sancta intrauerunt sacramenta. Per.” 112 E.g., the late 9th-century sacramentary of Echternach, Paris, BnF, latin 9433, f. 19r (cf. Bischoff 2014, p. 152, n. 4587, where the manuscript is described as “[Echternach, 895-900]”) and the 12th-century missal of St. Amand, Paris, BnF, latin 843, f. 29v; for further references, see Yao 2019, p. 230. 113 For instance, the early 11th-century Ordo Missae known as the Missa Illyrica has adhereant in the plural, ubi tua, and introierunt, but does not match the Vatican City version in every respect: see Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1151 Helmst., f. 95r (ed. Pierce 1988, p. 249): “Alia. Corpus tuum Domine quod accepi et calix quem potaui adhereant in uisceribus meis. et praesta ut nulla ibi remaneat peccati macula. ubi tua sancta introierunt sacramenta Qui uius et regnas.” The 1509 Missale Elborense from Évora, Portugal, includes the word sacer before sanguis, but although it shares a few phrases with the Vatican City Corpus tuum prayer it differs widely in many other respects: see Missale secundum consuetudinem Elborensis ecclesiae (Lisbon: Galharde, 1509), f. clviii (verso): “Corpus domini mei iesu christi quod accepi et sacer sanguis eius quem potavi: ita ihereat queso domine visceribus meis: ut non veniat mihi ad iudicium neque ad condemnationem: sed proficiat mihi ad salutem anime et corporis in vitam eternam amen.”

5.4 The Post-Canon Ordo Missae 

 183

Table 137: Comparison of Corpus tuum in Two Manuscripts. Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 6r (Dominican bible missal)

Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale ‘Vittorio Emanuele III’, VI.G.38, f. 149v (ed. Przeczewski 2003, p. 273, §1273) (Franciscan missal)

Corpus tuum domine quod sumpsi, et sacer sanguis quem potavi, adehereant in visceribus meis, et presta ut in me non remaneat aliqua peccati macula, ubi tua pura et sancta introierunt sacramenta. Qui vivis et regnas deus. Per omnia secula seculorum. Amen.

Corpus tuum Domine quod sumpsi et sanguis que potavi adhereat visceribus meis, et praesta ut in me non remaneat scelerum macula quem pura et sancta refecerunt sacramenta. Qui vivis.

5.4.5.3 Perceptio corporis et sanguinis A single Dominican source provides an unusual version of the prayer Perceptio corporis et sanguinis instead of the more common Quod ore or Corpus tuum prayers (Table 138). As noted above, other prayers with similar incipits appear in many medieval sources as a prayer before communion.114 An almost identical prayer after communion appears in an early 14th-century Cistercian missal from Lorvão, but this prayer does not appear to be characteristic of Cistercian sources.115 Table 138: Perceptio corporis et sanguinis in Pisa, Cathariniana 177. Text

Manuscripts

Post perceptione utrique di[cat].116 Perceptio corporis et sanguinis domini nostri ihesu christi fit michi domine et omnibus fidelibus tuis remissio peccatorum et salubre solamen ad vitam eternam consequendam. Per.

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

5.4.6 Concluding Prayers Most pre-Humbert Dominican sources conclude the Ordo Missae with the prayer Placeat tibi. A single source, the Vatican City bible missal, includes the Placeat tibi but follows it with Meritis et precibus. 5.4.6.1 Placeat tibi As early as the 9th century, many Ordo Missae sources provided the prayer Placeat tibi at the end of the mass in conjunction with the kissing of the altar.117 Almost all Dominican sources provide the prayer Placeat tibi at the end of the Ordo Missae,

114 For a discussion of the pre-communion Perceptio corporis, see Yao 2019, pp. 220–224. The earliest identified version of pre-communion version is found in a Libellus precum from the second quarter of the 9th century (see Bischoff 2014, p. 208, n. 4914), Paris, BnF, latin 13388, f. 80r–v (ed. Wilmart 1940, p. 141): “Perceptio corporis et sanguinis tui domine Iesu Christe quam ego indignus sumere p(re)sumo non mihi proveniat ad iudicium et condempnationem sed tua pietate prosit mihi ad tutamentum mentis et corporis. Qui cum patre et spiritu sancto vivis.” A wide variety of related prayers are listed in various sources catalogued by Leroquais 1924, but none match the version found in the Pisa bible missal. 115 Lisbon, Arquivo Nacional Torre do Tombo, Mosteiro de Lorvão 43 (olim CF 154), f. 143v; ed. Pires de Matos 1995, p. 116. On the date and provenance of this manuscript (likely produced in Bologna on commission for the Cistercian nuns of Lorvão), see Peixeiro 1995. The prayer in this source is preceded by the rubric Post susceptionem Corporis et Sanguinis; the text differs from the Pisa version only in providing sit rather than fit. This prayer does not appear to be characteristic of Cistercian Ordo Missae sources; it is not present in the 12th-century Cistercian exemplar Dijon, BM 114 (cf. f. 134v), the 12th-century Cistercian sacramentary Paris, BnF, latin 2300 (cf. f. 36r–v), the 13th-century Cistercian bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 36 (cf. f. 370r), or the 13th-century Cistercian missal Troyes, BM 1731 (cf. f. 90v). 116 The rubric is imperfect after “di” due to cropping of the leaf. 117 The earliest extant version noted by Leroquais is in a Saint-Amand sacramentary from the third quarter of the 9th century (see Bischoff 2004, p. 73, n. 2287), Le Mans, BM 77, f. 2v. For further discussion of this prayer, see Jungmann 1962, v. 2, pp. 542–544.

184 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

but have variations in the three aspects: the rubrics, the main text, and the termination.118 Table 139 indicates the range of versions of the main body of the prayer in Dominican sources. Table 139: Textual Versions of Placeat tibi in Dominican Sources. Text

Manuscripts

Placeat tibi sancta trinitas obsequium servitutis mee et presta ut hoc sacrificium quod oculis tue maiestatis indignus obtuli tibi sit acceptabile, michique et omnibus pro quibus illud obtuli sit te miserante propitiabile in vitam eternam.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Lausanne, MHL 10 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Paris, Mazarine 31 Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Paris, BnF, latin 16266 Rome, Angelica 32

Placeat tibi sancta trinitas obsequium servitutis mee, et presta ut hoc sacrificium quod oculis tue maiestatis indignus obtuli, tibi sit acceptabile michique et omnibus pro quibus illud optuli sit te miserante propiciabile.

Mons, BC 63/201 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

Placeat tibi sancta trinitas obsequium servitutis mee, et presta ut hoc sacrificium quod ego indignus tibi obtuli, sit tibi acceptabile, michique et omnibus pro quibus illud obtuli, te miserante, sit propitiabile.

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Placeat tibi sancta trinitas obsequium servitutis nostre, et presta ut hoc sacrificium, quod oculis tue maiestatis indignus optuli, te miserante sit propitiabile.

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

Placeat tibi sancta trinitas obsequium servitutis nostre et presta ut hoc sacrificium quod oculis maiestatis tue indignus obtuli intercedente beata maria semper virgine cum omnibus sanctis sit tibi acceptabile michique et omnibus pro quibus illud obtuli sit te miserante propitiabile.

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

Seven of the twelve sources present an identical version of the main body of the prayer. The Mons and Rome, Santa Sabina missals present an almost identical version that omits the words in vitam eternam; this text is also omitted in the Humbert Ordo Missae version of the prayer, which perhaps accounts for a later hand having crossed out these words in the Los Angeles missal.119 The Pisa bible missal omits in vitam eternam, provides hoc sacrificium quod ego indignus tibi obtuli in place of the more common hoc sacrificium quod oculis tue maiestatis indignus obtuli, and has other minor inversions of words compared to the other versions. The Oxford and Vatican City bible missals and the Rome missal present two shared variants (nostre instead of mee and the omission of in vitam eternam) and each present several individual variants. Oxford has several unique variants, including the inversion of two phrases and the addition of a long phrase asking for the invocation of Mary and all the saints. Vatican City inverts one phrase (te miserante sit in place of sit te miserante) and omits a phrase found in most other versions (tibi sit acceptabile, michique et omnibus pro quibus illud obtuli); it seems likely that the omission is the result of scribal error, as the appearance of optuli/obtuli immediately before and at the end of this phrase may have led the scribe to accidently skip the phrase while copying from an exemplar. Five of the twelve sources include a rubric introducing the Placeat. While the Lausanne missal simply identifies the prayer as taking place Post missam, the other sources specify that the prayer is said in an inclined posture; while the four longer rubrics convey the same sense, the Cambridge and Los Angeles manuscripts use almost identical wording.120

118 As noted above, the Ordo Missae in Paris, BnF, latin 215 ends with the Domine ihesu christe and the Ordo Missae in Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) does not include the private priestly prayers, and thus neither includes the Placeat tibi. 119 See Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 404va (Missale conventuale): “Placeat tibi sancta trinitas obsequium servitutis mee, et presta ut hoc sacrificium quod oculis tue maiestatis indignus obtuli, tibi sit acceptabile, michique et omnibus pro quibus illud obtuli, sit te miserante propitiabile; qui vivis et regnas deus per omnia secula seculorum. Amen.” 120 The rubricator for the Los Angeles missal may have omitted orationem simply because there was no room for the word, as the rubric as written takes up the entire space left by the text scribe.

5.4 The Post-Canon Ordo Missae 

 185

Table 140: Rubrics for Placeat tibi in Dominican Sources. Text

Manuscripts

Finita missa inclinatus sacerdos dicat istam orationem. Finita missa inclinatus sacerdos dicat istam. Fin[ita] missa inclinans dicat [?]121 Hec oratio dicatur post missam inclinando. Post missam.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 Rome, Angelica 32 Lausanne, MHL 10

Finally, the twelve sources show a wide variety of approaches to the termination of the prayer (Table 141).122 The Paris, Mazarine bible missal omits any termination, while the Rome bible missal and the Lausanne missal simply provide the word Amen without an oration-style termination. The other sources provide abbreviated or full versions of the oration termination Qui vivis; among these, the Rome, Santa Sabina missal is unusual in including a reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit in the termination, which is not typically employed when a prayer is explicitly directed to the whole Trinity.123 Table 141: Terminations for Placeat tibi in Dominican Sources. Text

Manuscripts

Qui vivis et regnas per omnia secula seculorum amen.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (omits amen) Mons, BC 63/201 Paris, BnF, latin 8884 Paris, BnF, latin 16266

Qui vivis et regnas deus per omnia secula seculorum amen.

Pisa, Cathariniana 177 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

Qui vivis et regnas cum deo patre in unitate spiritus sancti deus per omnia secula seculorum.

Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

Qui vivis et regnas.

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

Amen.

Lausanne, MHL 10 Rome, Angelica 32

[No termination]

Paris, Mazarine 31

5.4.6.2 Meritis et precibus After the Placeat tibi, a single Dominican source (Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532) adds an additional prayer, Meritis et precibus (Table 142). Versions of this prayer appear in some medieval mass books as early as the 11th century, for instance in the early 11th-century Ordo Missae known as the Missa Illyrica which has a prayer following the Placeat that begins

121 The rubric has been partially cropped, so it is not clear if there was another word after dicat. 122 As Jungmann 1962, v. 2, p. 542, n. 7 points out, the version of the prayer in a 10th-century Amiens sacramentary (Paris, BnF, latin 9432, f. 17v) also omits a termination for the Placeat; cf. the edition of Leroquais 1927, p. 444. (On the dating of this manuscript, see Bischoff 2014, p. 152.) 123 In addition to varying from the form given the Humbert Missale conventuale referenced above, the use of this ending in Rome, Santa Sabina XIV L3 also contradicts the instruction given in the Humbert Collectarium concerning the termination of the Placeat: see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 43ra–43rb: “De varietatibus terminationum in orationibus. … Orationes autem quem ad ipsam trinitatem diriguntur sic concluduntur Qui vivis et regnas deus: per omnia secula seculorum ut est illa Placeat tibi sancta trinitas.” This is an important piece of evidence confirming that Rome, Santa Sabina XIV L3 presents a pre-Humbert form of the Ordo Missae.

186 

 5 The Ordo Missae in Early Dominican Mass Books

Meritis et intercessionibus.124 The version that appears in the Vatican City bible missal is identical to a version found in Cistercian liturgical sources.125 Table 142: Meritis et precibus in Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532. Text

Manuscripts

Meritis et precibus istorum et omnium sanctorum suorum misereatur mei omnipotens dominus. Amen.

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

5.4.7 Summary Pre-Humbert Dominican sources mostly present the same basic structure for the post-canon Ordo Missae, but differ greatly in the wording of individual prayers and the degree to which they provide verbal and visual rubrics to accompany the prayers. The Hec sacrosancta commixtio, Domine ihesu christe, Corpus et sanguis/Corpus/Sanguis, and Placeat tibi show a particularly notable range of variations, while the Libera nos and Quod ore have relatively stable texts among Dominican sources. Paris, Mazarine 31 is noteworthy for including what appear to be visual rubrics that guide the priest through the fraction rite undertaken during the embolism after the Pater noster; these visual rubrics are similar but not identical to diagrams which appear in the Humbert Missale conventuale. Several Dominican sources stand out by structuring their texts differently than the others. Paris, BnF, latin 215 resembles many of the other sources for the first several prayers after the canon but ends with the Domine ihesu christe pre-Communion prayer. The Private Collection bible missal omits the private priestly prayers entirely but includes notated texts for the chanted presidential prayers. Finally, Pisa, Cathariniana 177 and Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 provide prayers or versions of prayers that are remarkably different from other Dominican sources.

5.5 Conclusion As this chapter has demonstrated, the pre-Humbert Dominican liturgy was a complex reality with many points of unity and diversity among the sources which witness to its practice. Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert Dominican missals have many points of unity concerning the Ordo Missae, and yet offer different versions of particular texts and in some cases entirely different prayers or rubrics. Sources differ in the number of prefaces and variable canon prayers which they contain, but those which present a full range of these texts tend to have uniform versions of the texts, although the rubrics show more variation. The Roman Canon tends to be stable in Dominican missals and bible missals, but most sources provide a variation (the addition of atque omnium fidelium christianorum within the Memento domine) which is characteristic of but not exclusive to the pre-Humbert liturgy; strikingly, this variant was dropped in the course of Humbert’s reform, perhaps because it was recognized as an interpolation to the ancient form of the canon. Most Dominican sources present the same range of prayers for the post-canon Ordo Missae, but many of these prayers are marked by large degrees of variation among the sources. Among these prayers, the Domine ihesu christe and Corpus et sanguis domini pre-communion prayers are particularly variable among Dominican sources, while the Quod ore and Placeat tibi only have minor variations between 124 Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1151 Helmst., ff. 98v–99r (ed. Pierce 1988, p. 256): “Finita missa accedat ad altare et osculetur illud dicens. Meritis et intercessionibus beatae Mariae semper uirginis et istorum atque omnium sanctorum suorum misereatur nostri omnipotens Dominus. Qui uiuit et regnat.” A version with the same incipit but without the specific invocation of Mary is found in a 12th-century ritual-missal from Rheims, Troyes, BM 1951, f. 64v: “Hac oratione dicta: accedens ad altare, osculans illud et dicat. Meritis et intercessionibus istorum et omnium sanctorum suorum misereatur nostri omnipotens et misericors dominus. Qui vivit et regnat.” For further printed sources which contain this prayer, see Jungmann 1962, v. 2, pp. 543–544. 125 See the Ordo Missae in the 12th-century Cistercian liturgical exemplar manuscript Dijon, BM 114, f. 134vb: “Dum osculatur altare dicat. Meritis et precibus istorum et omnium sanctorum suorum misereatur nostri omnipotens dominus. Amen.” An almost identical rubric (omitting dicat) and an identical text is found in two Cistercian missals from c. 1200 and c. 1300: Fribourg, Bibliothèque cantonale et universitaire, MS. L 158, f. 55v; Fribourg, Bibliothèque cantonale et universitaire, MS. L 305, f. 144v.

5.5 Conclusion 

 187

various sources. It is significant that the private devotional prayers are marked by greater variation than the texts like the prefaces which would be pronounced or sung aloud during a liturgical celebration. It thus appears that greater tolerance was shown for diversity among silently recited prayers where the differences between individual sources would be less noticeable to an observer than prayers which were proclaimed aloud, in which variations would be more noticeable. Even if these texts were memorized by priest celebrants, the presence of such variations between early Dominican missals may have been a source of distraction for priests relying on the missal or bible missal as an aide-mémoire. Although the meaning of the different versions of the prayers are usually identical, the divergent wording of these private prayers may have been one motivation for the ongoing attempts to unify Dominican liturgical practice. The diversity of texts for the Ordo Missae is connected to a certain degree with the distinction between the book types of bible missal and missal. The Ordo Missae in Dominican bible missals tends to begin with the preface, omitting any specific guidance regarding the first half of the mass, whereas pre-Humbert missals begin the Ordo Missae at a variety of points in the mass, with sources beginning either with preparatory prayers, prayers at the foot of the altar, offertory prayers, or with the preface. Although the range of texts provided in both types of sources would have required some level of memorization on the part of a priest using them to celebrate mass, it is noteworthy that the “stand-alone” missals tend to provide a wider range of texts for the Ordo Missae, while the bible missals provide a more minimal selection. The liturgical use of a bible missal would have thus required a greater degree of memorization on the part of a celebrant. Conversely, the memorization of a wide range of fixed liturgical texts may have made the liturgical use of the relatively small Dominican bible missals more “practical,” given that the book would only have to be consulted for the variable proper texts and perhaps used as an aide-mémoire for the canon and post-canon prayers. A particularly interesting feature of one Dominican bible missal, Paris, Mazarine 31, is the presence of “visual rubrics” which indicate the mode in which the fraction rite is carried out. Although only one Dominican bible missal has this feature, a related visual rubric is also found in Humbert’s reformed liturgy. This innovative approach to specifying liturgical actions through visual symbols is parallel to the provision of melodic lection marks in post-Humbert liturgical books; in both cases, a simple set of visual symbols are employed to remind the user of a more complicated set of actions or musical modulations.126 Just as Dominicans played an important role in developing new forms of reference tools for the study of the bible and theology, they were at the forefront of efforts to make the preparation and celebration of the liturgy more efficient and thus more effective for supporting communal life and ministry.127

126 See Giraud 2017. 127 As the Constitutions of the Order of Friars Preachers prescribed, Dominican liturgy was to be performed “briefly and succinctly, lest the brothers should lose devotion or be at all impeded in their study.” See Thomas 1965, p. 316: “Hore omnes in ecclesia breviter et succincte taliter dicantur, ne fratres devotionem amittant et eorum studium minime impediatur.” Cf. Smith 2014, pp. 964–966.

6 What Were Bible Missals For? Although bible missals have only recently begun to attract sustained scholarly attention, this book has shown that hybrid manuscripts combining biblical and liturgical texts were widely produced in the 13th century and offer important evidence for the history of the liturgy and the bible in the Middle Ages. Bible missals represent a broad range of liturgical traditions. They are especially significant for the understanding the development of the early Dominican liturgy, as they triple the number of identified Dominican missals from before the reforms of Humbert of Romans in the mid-1250s. A fundamental yet elusive question is posed by the existence of bible missals: why were they made? Laura Light has argued that “one of the most direct ways of assessing how thirteenth‐century bibles were used is to look at the non‐biblical texts they include,” and has pointed to the presence of missals, epistle and gospel lists, and texts for the Divine Office as evidence that the liturgy was one of primary uses made of 13th-century bibles.1 The precise mode or modes in which bible missals may have been used in particular liturgical celebrations remains unclear. As discussed in Chapter 1, scholars have expressed contrary views on the relationship of the small size of most bible missals to their practicality for liturgical celebration, and some have conjectured that they would have been impractical for liturgical use. Nevertheless, the existence of similarly sized missals produced as independent manuscripts in the 13th century suggests that small-sized missals were found to be useful in some way by medieval clerics. While it may not be possible to make a definitive judgment about how a particular manuscript was used in practice, the survival of a significant number of bible missals suggests that these hybrid manuscripts were valued by medieval Christians, and especially by Dominican and Franciscan friars.2 Rather than attempting to adjudicate how individual bible missals were used, I find it more helpful to consider a range of activities that we know medieval friars, clerics, male and female religious, and literate lay people engaged in, and then to consider how bible missals may have assisted them in carrying out these practices. In this section, I will discuss a range of “affordances” of bible missals, that is, the range of activities which bible missals could have assisted or enabled.3

6.1 Reading the Bible The most obvious affordance of a bible missal is its provision of the biblical text itself. In their biblical sections, bible missals do not fundamentally differ from other 13th-century bibles, presenting a similar range of common and distinctive features. Individual bible missals vary with respect to the order of biblical books and paratextual features such as prologues or historiated initials, but even in this diversity bible missals share in the broader phenomenon of 13th-century bibles.4 On account of this, any use which a bible might have been put to was afforded by a bible missal. It this section I will briefly discuss evidence that exists for specifically Dominican uses of the bible as such, although it should be borne in mind that any of these uses could have been fulfilled by a bible without a missal. In the following sections, I will discuss

1 Light 2016, p. 167. 2 See Ruzzier 2022, pp. 15–19, 194–206. 3 For a discussion of the concept of “affordances” as applied to liturgical books, see Irving 2021b, pp. 262–263: “Attention to the occasion of the book’s production and donation helps us to ‘zoom out’ from our detailed description of various material aspects of the Codex and its box, in order to consider the objects as a whole, and thereby to return, from a different perspective, to the question with which we began: what is this thing, and what does one do with it? Or, to put it another way, what is the relationship between the material aspects of these objects and plausible behaviours that they made possible or in some way shaped? James Gibson coined the term ‘affordances’ to describe what an environment including other living beings and objects affords the perceiving animal—what it offers, provides, or furnishes. Gibson argued that ‘what we perceive when we look at objects are their affordances, not their qualities’: that is, we see what kinds of behaviours these objects afford. … What the object affords is, therefore, dependent on what it is materially, but, at the same time, materiality is situated within an ‘ecology’.” 4 Cf. Light 2016, p. 182: “First, the physical appearance of mendicant Bibles is quite diverse, ranging from simply decorated volumes, to rather lavishly illuminated ones. Secondly (although somewhat more provisionally), there appears to be no textual uniformity in thirteenth-century Franciscan and Dominican bibles, beyond the incidental (even accidental) uniformity of using many Bibles from the same locality. To put this in another way, two Dominican bibles from Paris, for example, may in fact be textually quite similar, but this is probably because they are both Parisian, and not because they are both Dominican.” As Ruzzier 2022, p. 200 observes, Dominican bibles and Franciscan bibles do not represent distinct categories (except with respect to liturgical texts which they contain), although mendicant bibles as a group present certain tendencies when compared with the broader corpus. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-007

6.1 Reading the Bible 

 189

affordances that a missal section and other liturgical paratexts provided in addition to the affordances offered by a typical 13th-century bible. Hagiographic, legislative, and liturgical evidence shows that Dominican friars were encouraged to possess personal copies of the bible in order to study the biblical text and read the ferial readings for the Divine Office hour of Matins. According to one of Dominic’s early followers, John of Spain, Dominic would frequently “exhort the brothers of the Order by his words and his letters that they should constantly study the New and Old Testament.”5 According to John, Dominic “was always carrying with him the gospel of Matthew and the epistles of Paul. He was frequently studying them, such that had almost knew them by heart.”6 Dominicans quickly took advantage of the development of the one-volume portable bibles that were beginning to be produced at scale just as the Dominicans were becoming established in Paris. As Frans van Liere suggests, “The success of the Paris Bible was due mainly to the demand among Dominican and Franciscan friars and Paris students for a onevolume portable Bible, and to the ability of the professional Paris scribes to produce one in great quantities.”7 While Laura Light acknowledges that “what role, if any, the mendicant orders played in the origin of this new format still remains for further research,” she argues that “there is no denying that Franciscan and Dominican were among the most important users of these books.”8 At the General Chapter of Bologna in 1233, the first chapter from which we have extensive surviving legislation, there are two admonitions that give a sense of importance of bibles for Dominican friars.9 First, the chapter forbade the selling of books, especially bibles, after the deaths of friars: “We order and command that the books of deceased brothers, and most of all the bible, should not be sold outside or within the order, but should rather be given to student brothers.”10 This suggests that it was expected that individual friars would have books at their disposal, including bibles, that these books were sometimes valuable enough that friars might be tempted to sell them, and that there was a need to supply new members of the Order with bibles. Second, the chapter stated that novices ought to purchase bibles and breviaries with the stipend (pecunia) provided to them by the Order: “We order that novices who have enough money left over after purchasing clothing should use it to purchase a bible and a breviary with what remains.”11 Other legislation from around this period, although difficult to date precisely, provides further evidence of friars being allowed and encouraged to make use of bibles. According to the Primitive Constitutions, friars who were sent to study in Paris were to be provided with three books necessary for the study of theology: the bible, the Sentences of Peter Lombard, and the Historia scholastica of Peter Comestor.12 Bibles were understood to be books that a friar could keep as he travelled from one province to another. According to the 1241 Constitutions revised by Raymond of Penyafort, a brother who was sent to teach (regendum) in another province was allowed to bring all of his glossed books, his bible, and his own notebooks (quaternos) with him; if he was sent to another province for another purpose, he was only allowed to bring his bible and his quaternos.13

5 See Acta canonizationis 29, ed. Walz 1935, p. 147: “Item dixit, quod dictus frater Dominicus sepe monebat et hortabatur fratres dicti ordinis verbis et litteris suis, quod semper studerent in novo et veteri testamento. Et hoc scit, quia audivit eum illa dicentem, et litteras eius vidit.” 6 See Acta canonizationis 29, ed. Walz 1935, p. 147: “Item dixit quod semper gestabat secum Matthei evangelium et epistolas Pauli. Et multum studebat in eis, ita quod fere sciebat eas cordetenus.” Gerard de Frachet 1896, p. 150 (Vitas fratrum, 4.1), presents Dominic specifically recommending the study of the “seven canonical letters” of St. Paul and the gospel of St. Matthew to the friars: “In predicando autem verbum Dei, ad quod ordo a principio deputatus est … multi multos converterunt ad penitenciam solum cum textu septem canonicarum, quas cum ewangelio beati Matthei beatus Dominicus frequenter fratribus inponebat.” 7 van Liere 2012, p. 104. 8 Light 2016, p. 167. For further details on the role of Franciscans and Dominicans in the development and spread of the one-volume bible, see p. 9 above. 9 For an overview of Dominican legislation on the provision of books, see Humphreys 1964, pp. 18–45; cf. Ruzzier 2022, pp. 15–19. 10 Reichert 1898, p. 4: “Item. Volumus et mandamus: ut libri fratrum decedencium. et maxime biblie. extra nec intra ordinem vendantur. sed pocius fratribus proficientibus concedantur.” Reichert interprets “proficientibus” to mean “studentibus.” 11 Reichert 1898, p. 4: “Item. Volumus ut novicii qui tantam pecuniam habent: ut solutis vestibus. possint de illa emere bibliam et breviarium: quod ex ea de residuo emant.” 12 Cf. Primitive Constitutions, ed. Thomas 1965, p. 361; cf. the commentary on this passage in Tugwell 2001, pp. 128–130. See also the Constitutions of Raymond of Penyafort, ed. Creytens 1948, p. 66. 13 Constitutions of Raymond of Penyafort, ed. Creytens 1948, p. 66: “Cum frater de provincia ad provinciam ad regendum mittitur, omnes libros suos glosatos, bibliam et quaternos secum deferat. Si vero mittitur et non ad regendum, non tamen nisi bibliam et quaternos portet, quem si in via mori contigerit, conventus ad quem mittendus fuerat, in missis et in psalteriis ei tenebitur, ad eundem libri quos habuerit, pertinebunt.”

190 

 6 What Were Bible Missals For?

In addition to being used for the study of theology, Dominican bibles were also used for liturgical reading in the context of the Divine Office. Despite the gradual development of breviaries and office lectionaries that presented the scriptural lessons for Matins as distinct pericopes, liturgical evidence from 13th-century Dominican breviaries shows that Dominican friars were still expected to make use of a full bible in some contexts for the Divine Office in addition to using breviaries and office lectionaries in other situations.14 The pre-Humbert Dominican breviary Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L2 explicitly indicates that friars were encouraged to use bibles to read the scriptural lessons for Matins.15 At the beginning of the temporal section of the breviary, a series of short biblical passages from the first chapter of Isaiah are given for the first six Matins readings of the First Sunday of Advent (ff. 49va–51va). At the start of the ferial office for the following Monday, a rubric indicates that the user can either repeat the readings from the Sunday throughout the week, or preferably can use a bible to read selections of chapters 2 to 14 of Isaiah: You may take the ferial readings where you wish from the second chapter up to the fourteenth chapter. Note that those who do not have bibles can repeat the Sunday readings previously written throughout the ferial days. But those who have [bibles] can repeat or read from the aforesaid chapters, which is better.16

This rubric, which appears in an essentially identical form in the Humbert portable breviary,17 makes it clear that one expected use of bibles was the reading of lessons for Matins, likely in the context of private recitation of the Divine Office.18 It is striking that the rubric makes use of the new system of chapter numbers (first appearing towards the end of the 12th century and widely used beginning in the 13th century) in order to indicate the range of chapters from which the readings can be freely selected by the user.19 As Eyal Poleg has pointed out, chapter numbers and other “new methods for navigating the biblical text rarely appear in liturgical manuscripts,” but Dominican liturgical manuscripts represent an “important exception.”20 The presence of rubrics indicating that particular chapters of biblical books could be read from bibles not only indicates that Dominicans were using bibles for this purpose, but also shows they were precocious 14 For brief overviews of books for the Divine Office, see Martimort 1992, pp. 73–74, 103–105; Palazzo 1998, pp. 149–152; Buchinger 2011, pp. 225–226. Non-Dominicans likewise used bibles for reading in the context of the Divine Office. For instance, the Dominican bible missal Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 later entered Carthusian hands and includes extensive marginal annotations related to Divine Office readings likely added by a Carthusian monk; see p. 262n74 below. 15 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L2 is a very small fully-notated breviary (Parchment. 583 folios. Leaf size: 125 x 85 mm. Layout: c. 100 x 65 mm; 36 lines in 2 columns) likely copied in Paris in the mid-13th century (perhaps after 1251). For further details on the manuscript and its dating, see Gleeson 1969, pp. 82–128; Gleeson 1972, pp. 107–111; Gleeson 2004, pp. 104–105; Giraud 2013, p. 24. 16 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L2, f. 54rb: “Lectiones feriales a secundo capitulo usque ad quartum decimum capitulum accipe ubi volueris. Et nota quod illi qui non habent biblias possunt repetere per ferias lectiones dominicales prenotatas. Qui vero habent possunt repetere: vel quod melius est legere in capitulis predictis. Et hoc similiter in sequentibus observetur.” 17 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 87vb: “Lectiones feriales a secundo capitulo usque ad quartum decimum accipe ubi volueris. Et nota quod illi qui non habent biblias possunt repetere per ferias lectiones dominicales prenotatas. Qui vero habent possunt repetere vel quod melius est legere in capitulis predictis. Et hoc similiter in sequentibus observetur.” Aside from minor punctuation differences, the only difference between the two versions of the rubric are that the Humbert version omits capitulum after quartum decimum. 18 In this context, it is noteworthy that the Humbert’s Divine Office lectionary, intended for communal usage (in contrast to the breviary, which was intended for private recitation), gives longer scriptural passages and offers greater specificity of ferial scripture readings than the Breviary of the Humbert liturgy. For instance, portions of chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, and 11 are specified for the ferial readings of the First Week of Advent in the office lectionary of Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, ff. 142va–143ra, in contrast to the instruction to choose passages freely from chapters 2–14 indicated in the pre-Humbert and Humbert portable breviaries. A pre-Humbert temporal office lectionary has not yet been identified, so it is not possible to compare the pre-Humbert temporal office lectionary with the pre-Humbert breviary. Despite likely being copied after c. 1267, Oxford, Keble College, MS 49 represents a pre-Humbert version of the office lectionary, but this manuscript only provides the sanctoral portion and thus omits the scriptural readings contained in the temporal portion of the office lectionary. For further discussion of the Keble College sanctoral lectionary and its relationship to the Humbert liturgy, see Parkes 2000. 19 For a discussion of the development of chapter numbers, see Poleg 2020a, pp. 8–11. 20 See Poleg 2020a, p. 33. Poleg discusses the appearance of chapter numbers and section letters in the office lectionary of the portable Humbert exemplar, London, BL, Add. MS 23935: “In the lectionary (fols 141r–248v) the liturgical readings are provided in full, identified by their incipit. A contemporary hand, possibly that of the Master General himself, added references to chapter and sub-division, linking the new Dominican liturgy to new ways of navigating the biblical text.” Poleg rightly draws attention to the innovation represented by the appearance of chapter numbers and section letters in this context, but the same indications occur in the same context in the Rome exemplar of the Humbert liturgy, and in both cases they are clearly part of the original production of the manuscripts; see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, ff. 142r–230v. In addition to noting the chapter number and section letter for each biblical reading, these marginal rubrics also indicate when a section of the biblical text has been omitted by adding the word saltus (meaning “leap” or “jump”) before a new passage. For instance, the readings assigned in the office

6.1 Reading the Bible 

 191

in taking advantage of the newly established system of chapter numbers in order to efficiently describe intended ranges of biblical material.21 In some medieval bibles owned by Dominicans, the Psalter section of the bible was supplemented with texts for the Divine Office. As Poleg has shown, the Psalter is one of the most distinctive and variable sections of 13th-century bibles.22 While some bibles omit the Psalter entirely, those which include it typically make use of a distinctive layout that emphasizes the liturgical cycle of the Psalms read on different days at Matins, and a small number including numbering for the individual psalms. In the case of Dominican bible missals, the Psalter appears in a variety of modes. In most manuscripts, the Gallican Psalter translation typically used in the liturgy is provided, but one manuscript provides the Iuxta Hebraicum translation instead.23 Most manuscripts present the full text of the psalms, but two manuscripts give highly abbreviated forms of the verses, providing only as many words as can fit onto a line; in these cases, the Psalter could have only functioned as a memory aid for someone who already had the Psalter memorized.24 Some manuscripts conclude the Psalter with a list of biblical canticles used at the Divine Office, although these are often later additions.25 Two Dominican bible missals provide extraordinary evidence for liturgical use of the Psalter: London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 and Rome, Angelica 32.26 In both manuscripts, the psalms are numbered (likely by the original rubricator) and antiphons incipits are provided in the margins, likely by later hands. Figures 8 and 9 show the provision of liturgical texts used in the weekly cycle for Monday at Lauds and Tuesday at Matins in the Rome bible missal and for Tuesday at Matins in the London/Oslo bible missal.27 In the upper margin of f. 196r of the Rome bible missal, a series of incipits are given for the antiphons of Lauds for Monday which also include the incipit for the Old Testament Canticle sung at Lauds (Figure 8). Ant. Miserere. Ant. Intellige. Ant. Deus deus. Ant. Conversus est. Ysa. XII. Confitebor. Ant. Laudate. Ipsum. Ant. Benedictus dominus deus israel.28

lectionary for the Monday after the First Sunday of Advent (f. 142va), the marginal rubric is Saltus. II. a., indicating that some verses from chapter one of Isaiah have been omitted and that the new reading begins with the opening verse of chapter two. 21 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Laud Lat. 13, a bible produced at Oxford “c.1230–50” with illumination by William de Brailes (cf. Morgan 2012, p. 92) is an example of a bible with extensive marginal annotations indicating the parts of the bible which are read in the Divine Office. For instance, ff. 216rb–223rb give detailed notes regarding the reading various sections of Is 1–33 from the First Sunday of Advent through Monday of the Third Week of Advent. Further research is needed to determine if these marginal Divine Office annotations might offer evidence for the liturgical use of these annotations. 22 See Poleg 2020a, pp. 24–29 and Poleg 2020b; see also Ruzzier 2022, pp. 58–64. 23 Paris, BnF, latin 163. 24 Brussels, KBR 8882 and Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16. Brussels presents Ps 1–108 in an abbreviated mode and omits Ps 109–150 entirely. Cambridge presents the entire Psalter but with only the beginning of lines. An interesting parallel case is presented by Dallas, Bridwell Library, Ms 6, a mid-13th-century bible from Paris, which gives the full texts of Ps 1–108 on ff. 259ra–282ra but abbreviated versions of Ps 109–150 on ff. 282ra–286rb. (The opening verses of each of these psalms are given in full, but the remaining verses are only given as many words as fit on each line.) The special treatment (or omission) of Ps 109–150 in the Brussels and Dallas bibles may reflect an expectation that the user would be more familiar with these psalms due to their prominence in the office of Vespers. The Dallas bible also includes Roman numerals for the Psalms which are likely part of the original production. Oxford, Christ Church, MS 105, a bible produced in Oxford “c.1230–50” with illumination by William de Brailes (see Morgan 2012, p. 93), represents another approach to abbreviation of the Psalter. Ps 1–147 are given in full, but Ps 148–150 (which would have been recited daily at Lauds), are given in a highly abbreviated form (with a single letter abbreviation for most words) at the conclusion of the Psalter on f. 179v. A parallel phenomenon which deserves further study is the abbreviation of the three New Testament canticles drawn from the gospel of Luke used daily in the Divine Office: Lc 1:46–55 (the Magnificat), Lc 1:67–79 (the Benedictus), and Lc 2:28–32 (the Nunc dimitis). In certain bibles, the texts of these canticles are given in suspended forms with just a single letter per word, in contrast to the surrounding texts which are fully written out. See e.g., London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, f. 371ra–va, Oxford, Merton College, MS 7, ff. 286vb–287ra, and Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Laud Lat. 13, ff. 318vb–319rb. 25 For a discussion of canticle lists, see Poleg 2020a, pp. 33–36. For discussions of canticle lists in Dominican bible missals, see the catalog entries below for Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, and Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532. In contrast to the sources which list the canticles as a group at the end of the Psalter, Paris, BnF, latin 16266 includes added references to the canticles at the appropriate places throughout the Psalter itself. 26 Antiphons incipits are also included in Cambridge, Trinity College, B.10.18, a mid-13th-century bible missal of undetermined liturgical tradition. 27 For a brief overview of the distribution of the psalms in the Dominican liturgy according to Humbert of Romans, see Bonniwell 1945, p. 136. 28 These incipits correspond closely with the notated full-text antiphons which appear in the Psalter of the Humbert liturgy for Lauds on Monday; see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 74rb: “Ant. Miserere mei deus. Ps. Ipsum. Euouae. Ant. Intellige clamorem meum domine. Ps. Verba mea. Euouae. Ant. Deus deus meus ad te de luce vigilo. Ps. Ipsum. Euouae. Ant. Conversus est furor tuus domine et consolatus es me. Cant. Con-

192 

 6 What Were Bible Missals For?

Figure 8: Rome, Angelica 32, f. 196r (Ps 38).

Ps 38 (Dixi custodiam vias meas) begins with a large littera duplex initial, indicating that it is the first Psalm used at Matins on Tuesday. In the lower margin, incipits are given for the Invitatory antiphon and first Psalm antiphon of Matins for Tuesday, which is sung together with Ps 38 and Ps 39: Invit. Iubilemus deo. Ant. Ut non delinquam.29

fitebor. Euouae. Ant. Laudate dominum de celis. Ps. Ipsum. Euouae. Ad Benedictus ant. Benedictus deus israel. Ca. Ipsum. Euouae.” The same antiphons appear in Humbert antiphonal; see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 241rb. 29 These incipits match those provided in the Humbert antiphonal for the invitatory and first antiphon of Matins for Wednesday; see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 241va: “Feria tertia. Invitatorium. Iubilemus deo salutari nostro. Ps. Venite. In nocturno. Ant. Ut non delinquam in lingua mea. Ps. Dixi custo. Euouae.” The Humbert psalter does not provide invitatory antiphons but does provide the same opening antiphon for Matins; see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 74rb–va.

6.1 Reading the Bible 

 193

Figure 9: London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, f. 196v.

Finally, the incipit of the antiphon sung with Ps 40–42 is written in the right-hand margin at the start of Ps 40 (Beatus qui intelligit): Ant. Sana domine animam meam.30

In the London/Oslo bible missal, texts for Matins are provided in the margins of f. 196v (Figure 9). To the side of the large littera duplex initial for Ps 38, the versicle for Monday Matins is provided with text only. V. Domine in celo misericordia tua et veritas tua usque ad nubes.31

After the versicle, the same Matins antiphon found in the Rome bible missal for Ps 38 is given in the London/Oslo bible missal with a three-line musical staff but no musical notation: Ut non delinquam in lingua mea.

30 This incipit matches that provided in the Humbert psalter: see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 74va–vb: “Ant. Sana domine animam meam quia peccavi tibi.” The same antiphon is found in the Humbert antiphonale; see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 241va. 31 In the Humbert breviary and antiphonal, this versicle is provided after the antiphons and psalms of Monday Matins: see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, ff. 95ra, 241ra.

194 

 6 What Were Bible Missals For?

Although the versicles, antiphons and canticle incipits in both manuscripts appear to be written by different hands than the main Psalter, they are carefully arranged in conjunction with the layout of the psalms themselves to indicate the liturgical texts which accompanied the recitation of the psalms throughout the weekly cycle. While no other Dominican bibles provide such extensive liturgical texts within the Psalter,32 the almost universal appearance of the Gallican Psalter with Matins divisions marked by means of large initials suggests that the Psalter portion of medieval bibles may have been useful for Dominican friars in the weekly recitation of the Psalms, whether in a mnemonic form like that found in bibles with abbreviated psalters or in a full text form like that found in most of the Dominican manuscripts.33

6.2 Celebration of Mass Apart from the use of the bible for studying the scripture or reading texts for the Divine Office, which any 13th-century bible would have enabled, the distinguishing feature of bible missals is the presence of texts for the mass. As discussed in Chapter One, scholars have taken differing positions as to the practicality of celebrating mass with a small-sized bible missal, but the existence of small missals produced in other contexts suggests that we should not dismiss the possible liturgical use of bible missals based on considerations of size alone.34 Further, although Dominican bible missals tend to be small books, the broader repertoire of bible missals also contains examples of medium and large size. Although further research is needed on the material features of missals more broadly, it is clear that 13th-century missals were likewise made in a wide variety of sizes and layouts, and that bible missals shared in this diversity. The range of sizes of medieval missals underscores the danger of making assumptions about the use of bible missals based merely on the perceived impracticability of the smallest manuscripts. Like the broader corpus of medieval missals, bible missals contain a range of liturgical texts, with some providing texts for the whole liturgical year (full missals), some presenting a selection of major feasts of the temporal and sanctoral cycles (festive missals), and some containing only votive and Requiem masses (votive missals). As with the question of the relationship of size to liturgical use, the question of typology and use raises questions that are important but difficult to answer. Why did liturgical book producers include varying selections of texts in different manuscripts? In particular, why was the festive missal typology employed? Whatever the reasons may have been for the development of the varying typologies, it is clear that they enabled a priest or other user to consult varying ranges of liturgical texts, whether in the context of the celebration of mass itself or in some other academic or religious context. As has been shown, Dominican bible missals tend to be votive missals, although there are also examples of full and festive Dominican bible missals, while non-Dominican sources are more evenly distributed among the three typologies. Pre-Humbert Dominican missals, on the other hand, tend to be full missals. This distinction suggests that Dominican friars who commissioned bible missals may have had different expectations or needs for the missal section of a bible missal than for a stand-alone missal. This may be an indication that the provision of votive and Requiem masses was perceived by Dominican friars as being more useful in the bible missal context than a full selection of temporal and sanctoral masses. It is likely that financial considerations were involved as well: a professional scribe would obviously charge more for the copying of a full selection of masses over the course of many folios than for a small selection of masses occupying just a few folios. One affordance of any type of bible missal was the liturgical celebration of any of the mass formularies that were contained in the particular volume. In the case of Dominicans, we have some evidence concerning the practice of private masses in the time before the liturgical reform of Humbert of Romans that suggests that the specific masses included in votive missals would have been particularly useful for Dominican friars to have at their fingertips. While St. Dominic was admired for his devotion to the daily celebration of mass, Dominican priests were not strictly obliged to celebrate mass

32 New Haven, Beinecke, MS 433, a mid-13th-century bible from Paris which was owned by Dominicans in the 15th century (see f. 422r; cf. Shailor 1987, pp. 363–366), has the unusual feature of including running headers that indicate the day of the week to which different sections of the Psalter are assigned; see ff. 186r–208r. 33 Although there is some evidence that medieval Dominicans were expected to memorize the Psalter (see Mulchahey 1998, p. 101), the appearance of psalters in many Dominican bibles suggests that it was nevertheless useful to have the full (or partial) text of the Psalms available. It is possible that a Psalter was particularly useful in private recitation, when a friar would not have the support of the “collective memory” of the whole choir of friars reciting the psalms together. 34 See p. 43 above.

6.2 Celebration of Mass 

 195

daily. Nevertheless, frequent celebration of the mass was encouraged, and on certain occasions individual Dominican priests were obliged to celebrate private masses for particular intentions.35 In the Primitive Constitutions, the friars are instructed to be present at the conventual mass, but provision is made for a friar to be dispensed from this obligation by the superior of the community; this legislation does not specifically mention private masses, but it suggests that there was some flexibility concerning participation of individual priests in the conventual mass.36 In Humbert of Romans’ Commentary on the Constitutions, likely drafted between 1248 and 1252 (i.e., before Humbert’s election as Master),37 Humbert indicates that some friars would attend the first half of the conventual mass, and then leave after the gospel to celebrate a private mass.38 In another passage of the same work, Humbert observes that clerics are not bound to celebrate mass each day,39 although he strongly encourages friars to devoutly attend mass40 and reminds friars that when they celebrate mass outside of choir they must say all the proper texts of the mass (proprietas misse) that would be sung in choir.41 Although daily celebration of mass was not always required, Dominican priests were obliged by the Primitive Constitutions to offer three masses for the souls of deceased friars each year between the feast of St. Dionysius (9 October) and the beginning of Advent, and likewise to offer three masses after the death of a brother from their community, their prior provincial, or the Master of the Order.42 In addition to the masses regulated by the Constitutions, General and Provincial Chapters of the Order often enjoined priests to offer one or more masses for various deceased benefactors or for other occasions.43 In some cases, celebrations of particular votive masses were assigned as a penance or as a suffrage for living or deceased members of the Church or benefactors of the Order. For instance, the 1240 General Chapter of Bologna enjoined a penance of seven Missas de sancto spiritu (in addition to seven days of fasting, seven Psalters, and seven receptions of the discipline) for friars who disregarded the chapter’s restrictions concerning ministry to religious women; in addition, one friar was assigned three masses of the Holy Spirit as a separate penance.44 The 1240 General Chapter also called for each

35 During the canonization process of St. Dominic, two friars attested that St. Dominic generally celebrated mass every day even when on a journey if he was able to find a church. See the testimony of fr. Ventura of Verona, Acta canonizationis (ed. Walz 1935, p. 124): “Et etiam eundo fere singulis diebus celebrabat missam, si ecclesiam inveniebat. Et quando missam cantabat, multas lacrimas effundebat, sicut ipse testis vidit.” Cf. the testimony of fr. Paulus Venetus (ed. Walz 1935, p. 162): “Item dixit, quod ipse erat devotus et assiduus in oratione etiam eundo per viam. Et omni die volebat cantare missam, si inviebat ecclesiam idoneam ad hoc.” Other witnesses also emphasized the devotion with which Dominic celebrated the mass both in the convent and on journeys; see Walz 1935, p. 156, 165. St. Thomas Aquinas was also noted for his attentiveness to the daily celebration of mass; see Prümmer and Laurent, n.d., pp. 273, 278, 317, 373; cf. Torrell 2005, p. 286. 36 Primitive Constitutions, Dist. I, c. 4 (ed. Thomas 1965, p. 316): “Matutinas et missam et omnes horas canonicas simul audiant fratres nostri et simul comendant, nisi cum aliquibus prelatus aliter dispensare voluerit.” 37 See Tugwell 2008, p. 294. 38 Humbert of Romans, Expositio super constitutiones fratrum ordinis praedicatorum, ed. Reisner 2004, pp. 182, 184: “Circa hanc constitutionem … queritur … tertio utrum occasione missarum privatarum possint se fratres absentare ab horis canonicis seu missa, cum hic dicatur, quod hoc simul debent audire. … Ad tertium dicendum, quod quando ex consuetudine in conventu aliquo fratres post evangelium vadunt ad celebrandum vel alia hora, dum dicuntur hore vel missa vel ebdomadarius mortuorum, dum dicitur prima et prelatus videt hoc et scit nec prohibet ipse vel visitator vel alius maior, possunt in huiusmodi casibus celebraturi fratres et ministri se absentare in choro, quia intelliguntur in huiusmodi casibus habere licentiam a prelato hoc sciente et non contradicente, aliter non sine licentia generali vel speciali.” 39 Humbert of Romans, Expositio super constitutiones fratrum ordinis praedicatorum, ed. Reisner 2004, pp. 185–186: “Ad septimum dicendum est, quod dispensare potest in missa melius quam in horis canonicis. Quamvis enim devotio maior haberi debeat ad missam quam ad horas, tamen non invenitur, quod ita teneantur clerici ad missam sicut ad horas canonicas. Et hoc est, quod non est ita in potestate hominis istud sicut illud. Irreligiosum est tamen valde, quod negligatur, quin semper audiatur missa a fratribus, sive sint in via, sive in domo nec super hoc debet facile dispensari.” 40 Humbert of Romans, Expositio super constitutiones, ed. Reisner 2004, pp. 186–188. 41 Humbert of Romans, Expositio super constitutiones, ed. Reisner 2004, p. 217: “Ut autem honeste et debito modo dicatur extra chorum, dicendum est integre, proprie, aperte, distincte, morose, attente, reverenter. Integre, ut nihil omittatur eorum, que dici debent in choro, vel eorum, que scripta sunt, nec officium mortuorum nec proprietas misse in die, saltem quoad officium, nec aliqua commemoratio et similia.” The Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources includes the following definition of proprietas in ecclesiastical contexts: “a proper, part of the office for a particular feast.” See https://logeion.uchicago.edu/proprietas. 42 Primitive Constitutions, Dist. II, c. 36 (ed. Thomas 1965, p. 367). Clerics who were not priests were required to prayer a Psalter on these occasions and lay brothers were required to prayer fifty Pater nosters. 43 See Galbraith 1925, pp. 82–83. Galbraith describes a practice of friars bringing lists of friars who had died to a provincial chapter so that the other friars would know whom to pray for. 44 Ed. Reichert 1898, p. 17: “Item. Monemus. ne fratres nostri a modo religiosis mulieribus sacramenta preter penitenciam administrent. Qui vero contrarium attemptaverint. post generale capitulum. quod fuit Bononie ultimo celebratum. cum eis tunc fuerit inhibitum et acriter reprehensum. ieiunent .vii. dies in pane et aqua et dicant .vii. missas de sancto spiritu et .vii. psalteria et .vii. recipiant disciplinas. Item. Priori Regino

196 

 6 What Were Bible Missals For?

priest of the Order to celebrate three Missas de beata virgine for the Pope and one mass of the Holy Spirit for the election of a future Master of the Order.45 The following year, at the 1241 Chapter, the chapter called for each brother to offer one mass of the Holy Spirit for the King of France (Louis IX) as well as the king’s mother and his wife, and instructed that after his death he was to receive the same suffrages normally offered for a deceased Master of the Order.46 At the 1243 General Chapter, celebrated during the long papal interregnum (1241–1243) shortly before the election of Innocent IV on 25 June 1243, the brothers were instructed to offer three masses of the Holy Spirit “for the condition of the universal church.”47 The following year, the 1244 Chapter was able to return to the practice of calling for the celebration of three masses of the Blessed Virgin for the newly elected Pope.48 It is striking that the range of mass formularies that were specifically enjoined by the Primitive Constitutions and by the General Chapters, namely the mass of the Dead, the mass of the Holy Spirit, and the mass of the Blessed Virgin, are all included in each Dominican bible missal with a fully-preserved votive missal. The universal presence of these three formularies suggests that Dominican bible missals may have been useful especially for the celebration of masses that were obligatory for Dominican priests. The presence of further formularies in many Dominican bible missals suggests that these manuscripts would have also enabled the celebration of mass on other occasions, but the correlation between required masses and the minimum repertoire found in Dominican bible missals with mass formularies suggests that the possibility of fulfilling the obligation for these occasional private masses with the aid of a bible missal was one particularly important affordance offered by these manuscripts. Although we have little evidence concerning the particular friars who used bible missals in the 13th century, there is strong evidence that one Dominican bible missal, Pisa, Cathariniana 177, was later used by the Dominican friar Vincent Ferrer (1350–1419; canonized 1455).49 In light of Vincent’s testimony that he would solemnly celebrate the mass each day with singing (missam cum nota solemniter celebrare),50 even when in the midst of busy preaching tours, as well as the testimony given at Vincent’s canonization process that he “possessed nothing besides one small bible, breviary, psalter, and writing desk [scriptorium],”51 it is striking to consider that Vincent may have used this very bible missal to celebrate mass during his preaching missions.

6.3 Preparation for Liturgy In addition to the possibility of using a bible missal to celebrate mass, these manuscripts may have also been useful for preparing for liturgical celebrations. Depending on the range of formularies or texts offered in a particular manuscript, a priest may have found a bible missal useful for studying the orations or other texts which he would have to proclaim in an upcoming public mass. In the case of a bible with a full missal, the manuscript would have made it possible to prepare for essentially any liturgical celebration, whereas those with a festive missal or votive missal would have had more limited iniungimus .iii. dies in pane et aqua et tria psalteria. et .iii. missas de spiritu sancto. et paret se ad disciplinam. et cuilibet fratri qui interfuit .i. diem in pane et aqua et .i. missam et .i. psalterium. et .i. disciplinam.” For a brief discussion of the context of this injunction, see Brett 1984, p. 63. 45 Ed. Reichert 1898, p. 18: “Pro domino papa quilibet sacerdos .iii. missas de beata virgine. clericus psalmos. conversi .d. pater noster. Pro fratre R[aymundo] quondam magistro ordinis. fiat post mortem; sicut pro magistro ordinis. Pro electione magistri futuri. quilibet sacerdos .i. missam de sancto spiritu. quilibet conventus .i. clericus .vii. psalmos. conversus .c. pater noster.” 46 Ed. Reichert 1898, p. 21: “Pro rege Francie et matre et uxore quilibet frater missam de sancto spiritu. et in morte fiat pro eo sicut pro magistro ordinis per totum ordinem.” 47 Ed. Reichert 1898, p. 27: “Pro statu universalis ecclesie. quolibet sacerdos .iii. missas de spiritu sancto. clericus psalterium. conversi .d. pater noster dicant. etc.” Easter fell on 19 April in 1243, which means that the General Chapter would have been celebrated in conjunction with Pentecost on 7 June. 48 Ed. Reichert 1898, p. 30: “Pro domino papa. quilibet sacerdos .iii. missas de domina nostra. clericus psalterium. conversi .d. pater noster.” 49 For the evidence of Vincent Ferrer’s ownership, see p. 332 below. 50 See Vincent Ferrer’s letter of 14 December 1403 to the Master of the Order, cited in Gimeno Blay 2020, p. 23: “Quotidie me oportuit circumfluentibus undique populis predicare, et frequentissime bis in die, necnon et ter aliquando, imo et missam cum nota solemniter celebrare, ita quod itinerationi, comestioni, et dormitioni, et aliis pertinentiis vix mihi superest tempus.” Notably, Pisa, Cathariniana 177 includes musical notation for the preface. 51 Cited in Gimeno Blay 2020, p. 24: “nihil possidebat nisi unam parvam Bibliam, Breviarium, Psalterium et scriptorium.” For the full text of the testimony of Johannes Inardi, see Esponera Cerdán 2018, p. 545. For a discussion of the meaning of the word scriptorium in this context, see Gimeno Blay 2020, pp. 24–25.

6.5 Theological Study 

 197

possibilities in this regard. This may be one context in which a bible missal with musical notation for the presidential prayers was useful: these types of manuscripts, even if missing the formularies requisite for the celebration of mass or the private priestly prayers of the Ordo Missae, could have been used by a priest to practice chanting of the preface or to teach another cleric to do so.52 In addition, bible missals which contain indications of the readings for the liturgical year, either as a distinct liturgical unit (epistle and gospel lists) or in the form of references to the readings within a full missal, may have been useful for preparing to proclaim the readings in the liturgy. When evidence from the Humbert liturgy is considered, another possibility emerges of bible missals being useful for liturgical preparation even during the liturgy itself. In the mass rubrics given in Humbert’s Missale conventuale, a reference is made to a “book” (librum) being handed to the priest while he sits at the sedilia after saying the opening collects of the mass; according to the rubric, this is done so that the priest may “see the office in advance (officium previdere), and may be able to say the Summe sacerdos if he desires.”53 A bible missal might have been particularly useful in this context, as the typical small format would have been convenient for consultation while sitting at the sedilia.

6.4 Preparation for Preaching In addition to preparation and celebration of the liturgy, bible missals may have been useful tools for homily preparation.54 As Laura Light has noted, epistle and gospel lists are frequently found in medieval bibles, and “Bibles with lists of Mass readings were … useful tools for preachers choosing themes for sermons from the day’s readings.”55 Some bibles included preaching lists arranged for specific themes or occasions or according to the liturgical year but offering scriptural citations that went beyond the assigned readings.56 In addition to these types of texts, which are also found in bibles that do not have missal sections, the mass texts offered in bible missals may have been useful for consulting non-scriptural liturgical texts for inclusion in preaching. For example, liturgical citations from the mass are often found in the homilies of the Dominican preacher Pelagius Parvus († c. 1250).57 Simon Tugwell has drawn particular attention to Pelagius’ references to various Dominican sequence texts throughout his homilies58 as well as his citation of the collect for St. Dominic (in the post-1244 meritis et doctrinis form) in one of his homilies for the saint.59

6.5 Theological Study In addition to citing liturgical texts in preaching, many medieval theologians made references to specific orations, prefaces, chants, and other mass texts in their scholarship. Thomas Aquinas was particularly notable for his citation of a wide range of mass texts; he refers explicitly or explicitly to twenty-three liturgical orations in nearly fifty places in his writings,

52 Two of the three Dominican bible missals which contain musical notation for the Ordo Missae, Paris, BnF, latin 163 and Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), do not contain mass formularies, although in the case of the Paris manuscript there is a major lacuna and there may have originally been formularies after the Ordo Missae. The Private Collection manuscript, although apparently complete, does not provide any of the private priestly prayers within the Ordo Missae section. Pisa, Cathariniana 177, contains musical notation for the Common Preface within the festive missal. 53 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 393rb: “Sacerdos autem postquam collectas finierit, eat sessum. Diacono et altero acolitorum ei astantibus, et in sede sua cum reverenter collocantibus. Et alter acolitorum, vel ipse diaconus si desit acolitus; aliqua super genua ipsius superposita mappula ad hoc preparata; librum ei tradat, ut et officium previdere, et orationem Summe sacerdos possit dicere si velit.” 54 For a repertory of extant medieval sermons, see Schneyer 1969–1990. For a study of mendicant preaching in the 13th century, see d’Avray 1985. For a broad overview of scholarship on medieval preaching, see Kienzle 2000, supplemented by Thayer 2014. For a collection of studies on preaching and liturgy in the Middle Ages, see Bériou and Morenzoni 2008. For an overview of preaching resources developed by Dominican friars in the Middle Ages see Smith 2023. 55 See Light 2011a, p. 176. 56 See Light 2011a, p. 178. Preaching lists are included in the Dominican bible missals Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 and Pisa, Cathariniana 177 and the Franciscan bible missal Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst. 57 Tugwell 2012, p. 283. 58 Tugwell 2012, pp. 245–249. 59 Tugwell 2012, p. 383. Pelagius also gives extensive quotations from the Divine Office texts for St. Dominic throughout his homilies.

198 

 6 What Were Bible Missals For?

in addition to making frequent references to other liturgical texts.60 Although liturgical citations were particularly favored by Aquinas, the use of the liturgy as an authority in theological writing was widely practiced in the 13th century. The provision of liturgical texts in bible missals may have provided a convenient mode of access to these texts for scholastic writers. As well as citing specific liturgical texts, scholastic theologians sometimes included commentaries on the mass within their theological treatises on the Eucharist or in other literary contexts, and bible missals may have been useful for consulting the Ordo Missae or other texts in this context.61 In at least one case, material evidence suggests that a bible missal was used in the context of studying the meaning of the texts of the mass: in the Dominican bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 16266, a user added extensive notes to the Roman Canon adapted from Innocent III’s commentary on the mass, De missarum mysteriis (see Figure 40 on p. 354).62 The existence of this “glossed” copy of the Ordo Missae is a strong indication that bible missals were valued for the purpose of study in addition to the possibility of direct liturgical use.

6.6 Personal Piety In addition to encountering liturgical prayers in the liturgy itself, some medieval Christians made use of liturgical prayers in private devotional contexts. An outstanding example is the German Benedictine nun Gertrude of Helfta (1256–1302). In addition to frequently citing liturgical texts throughout her writings, Gertrude explicitly mentions her own personal practice of praying liturgical collects in the context of private devotion: I soon felt the effects of my prayer, particularly one evening when I proposed to pray for all souls. While, up to that time, I had always preferred to begin by praying for my parents, with the Collect: “Almighty eternal God, who commanded us to honor our father and mother …”, now, instead, I began by praying for your special friends with the Collect: “Almighty eternal God, who art never invoked without hope of mercy …”; and I saw that in this I pleased you better.63

While personal testimonies like that of Gertrude are rare, the provision of liturgical collects in devotional books of hours and psalters suggests that many medieval Christians, including literate lay people as well as religious and clerics, found these prayers to be valuable aids for their personal prayer.64 In light of the devotional use of liturgical prayers in nonliturgical settings, it is possible that the orations in bible missals could have been used in a devotional context by the owners of the manuscripts. In addition to the possibility that the liturgical texts themselves were used as devotional prayers, some bible missals contain texts that are clearly of a devotional nature as part of the missal section. Three Dominican bible missals (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16; London/Oslo, Schøyen 115; and Paris, BnF, latin 215) include the prayer Summe sacerdos (and, in the cases of the Cambridge and London/Oslo manuscripts, a selection of other devotional prayers); these may have been used in the devotional context of a priest preparing for the celebration of mass.65 In the case of the Summe

60 For studies of the use of mass orations in the works of Thomas Aquinas and contemporary Franciscan and Dominican theologians, see Smith 2015 and Smith 2018. 61 For an introduction to the mass commentaries of Thomas Aquinas, see Smith 2019a. For an overview of several Franciscan mass commentaries, see van Dijk 1939. 62 For further details on these glosses, see p. 319 below. 63 Gertrude of Helfta 1993, p. 116 (The Herald of Divine Love, Book 2, Chapter 16); for the Latin original, see Gertrude of Helfta 1968, p. 292: “Cum tamen conatus meos aliqualiter recolligerem, ut amatoria te blanditate foverem, parum me sensi profecisse, donec pro peccatoribus animabus purgandis, vel alio modo afflictis, movi verba orationis; quorum mox sensi effectum, et specialius cum quodam sero proponerem quod in omni memoria animarum, sicut hactenus parentes meos praeposuissem cum Collecta Deus qui nos patrem et matrem honorare etc., ita ulterius praeponerem tuos speciales cum Collecta Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, cui numquam sine spe etc.; in hoc videbaris mihi amplius delectari.” For the full texts of these prayers, see CO 1903 and CO 3809. 64 For examples of mid-13th-century books of hours from England which include collects in a devotional setting, see Donovan 1991, pp. 183–200. To take one example, the c. 1250 Marston Hours includes a series of collects for the dead after the Litany, providing Inclina domine aurem tuam (CO 3116b), Deus qui nos patrem et matrem honorare (CO 1903), Miserere quaesumus domine animabus (CO 3366), and Fidelium deus omnium conditor (CO 2684b): see New Haven, Beinecke, Marston MS 22, ff. 111r–112r. Psalters sometimes provide extensive sets of collects; for instance, the c. 1262–1280 Map Psalter (London, BL, Add. MS 28681) gives a series of fifteen collects after the litany on ff. 187v–189v and a further eleven collects specified for various occasions on ff. 221v–222v (cf. Dormer 2020). For a discussion of lay and clerical patronage and use of 13th-century books of hours and psalters, see Morgan 1982, pp. 11–21. 65 For further discussion of the Summe sacerdos, see p. 246 below.

6.7 Conclusion 

 199

sacerdos in particular, the rubrics of the Humbert missal mention this prayer when stating that the priest should be handed a book while seated at the sedilia after the collect so that he might look over the liturgical texts or pray the Summe sacerdos.66 In addition to providing evidence for the use of devotional prayers within a liturgical setting, the relative frequency of the appearance of the Summe sacerdos in Dominican bible missals suggests that this devotional prayer was particularly valued by Dominicans and that the reading of this prayer from a bible missal either in or outside of a liturgy was one affordance provided by these particular manuscripts.

6.7 Conclusion No contemporary descriptions of why bible missals were made or how they were used have been identified. Nevertheless, an examination of their contents raises several possibilities of how bible missals may have been helpful for medieval users. Like all bibles, bible missals gave access to the complete biblical text for study as well as liturgical reading. In addition, bible missals enabled the celebration of mass, and could have been used in preparation for mass and preaching as well as for theological study and private devotion. As the example of St. Gertrude indicates, the liturgical contents of bible missals may have been of interest to medieval women as well as to clerics and friars. The rich liturgical content of bible missals suggests that they played a significant role in the spiritual lives of medieval users, highlighting the enduring power of these manuscripts as tools for worship, contemplation, study and devotion.

66 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 393rb: “Sacerdos autem postquam collectas finierit, eat sessum. Diacono et altero acolitorum ei astantibus, et in sede sua cum reverenter collocantibus. Et alter acolitorum, vel ipse diaconus si desit acolitus; aliqua super genua ipsius superposita mappula ad hoc preparata; librum ei tradat, ut et officium previdere, et orationem Summe sacerdos possit dicere si velit.”

7 Epilogue This book has examined 40 bible missals of various liturgical traditions and compared the liturgical evidence of Dominican bible missals with other manuscript witnesses of the early Dominican liturgy. Despite being long overlooked by scholars, bible missals present crucial evidence for understanding the development and transmission of medieval liturgy. Far from being a marginal phenomenon, bible missals make up a significant portion of the surviving repertoire of 13th-century missals.1 Further research is needed to fully utilize the evidence offered by these manuscripts for studying the development of the Dominican liturgy and the broader medieval liturgical tradition, but I hope to have established a foundation for that work by means of analysis offered in this monograph and the accompanying catalog and appendices. Although I have endeavored to provide a reliable starting point for future research on each of the 27 non-Dominican bible missals described in a summary form in Appendix 1, more detailed study of their scriptural and liturgical contents as well as their material characteristics will enrich our understanding of the phenomenon of bible missals as well as the broader liturgical traditions represented by these manuscripts. In particular, Franciscan bible missals offer important evidence for understanding the development of Franciscan liturgical practice in the 13th century.2 The liturgical traditions of some bible missals have not yet been identified; in the case of those which provide only a small selection of votive masses or which are extremely fragmentary, it may be impossible in some cases to pinpoint their liturgical origin, but those with more extensive series of texts might possibly be identified with further study. Given the large number of extant 13th-century bibles which have not yet been adequately cataloged, it is likely that more bible missals will be identified in the future.3 Laura Light’s foundational 2013 article on bible missals discussed 23 manuscripts, and by 2016 her corpus had expanded to 33 examples. As Light has pointed out, while evidence for the liturgical use of bibles has been “almost completely overlooked by scholars studying thirteenth-century bibles, the evidence is there once you begin to look for it, and I am quite certain there is more to be found.” As this book has shown, each bible missal offers a unique insight into the medieval liturgy, and at the same time reveals the existence of patterns of production and content. The identification of distinct typologies and traditions of 13th-century bible missals offered in this book will aid the analysis of other manuscripts which may be identified in the future. Three sources of liturgical evidence offered by medieval bibles deserve further systematic study: epistle and gospel lists, marginal liturgical annotations within the bible, and calendars. Epistle and gospels lists are the most common liturgical paratext that appears in 13th-century bibles, appearing in a quarter of the bibles studied by Chiara Ruzzier.4 In this

1 Suski and Sodi 2019 list 382 missals dated to the 13th century, which means that the 39 bible missals from the 13th century (i.e., those studied here apart from the 15th-century Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1) make up roughly 10% of the total repertoire. (Because Suski and Sodi include some but not all of the bible missals considered here, the percentages are not exact.) 2 For instance, Sedda and Dalarun 2015, an important study of early liturgical texts for St. Francis, does not draw on any Franciscan bible missals. In her study of early Franciscan missals, Welch 2016, pp. 60–61 notes that the four bible missals identified in Light 2013 (Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202; Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3; Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3; London, BL, Harley 2813) are likely “amongst the earliest missals currently associated with the Franciscans.” Given their similarly early dating, the two additional Franciscan full missals discussed in this book, Darmstadt, ULB 1967 and Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst., provide important evidence for the study of Franciscan liturgy. Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47 has also been identified by Poleg 2020a as likely representing Franciscan practice, although the extant liturgical material is extremely fragmentary. Peter Kidd’s 2007 article on London, BL, Harley 2813 remains an exemplary study of an individual Franciscan bible missal. 3 At a very late stage of the preparation of this monograph, an additional Dominican bible missal came to my attention: Bernkastel-Kues, St. Nikolaus-Hospital/Cusanusstift, Cod. cus. 132, a small (189 x 135 mm, 396 leaves) 14th- or 15th-century New Testament with a Dominican full missal that was owned by Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464). Although this manuscript requires further detailed study, a preliminary survey of a digitized microfilm version shows that its contents do not affect the analysis offered in this monograph concerning the pre-Humbert Dominican liturgy, although it raises interesting questions concerning the development of the bible missal phenomenon after the 13th century. Like Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1, the Bernkastel-Kues manuscript includes the New Testament rather than the full biblical text, and both manuscripts include supplements to the New Testament that contain the Old Testament readings used for various liturgical occasions. As has been noted throughout this monograph, the Prague manuscript is an outlier both in biblical contents and date when compared with the broader repertoire of bible missals. The identification of the Bernkastel-Kues manuscript suggests that New Testament manuscripts with missals represent a distinct medieval book type worthy of further comparative study. For further details on the Bernkastel-Kues manuscript, see Kraus 1864, p. 8 (A.7), Marx 1905, pp. 129–130, Suski and Sodi 2019, p. 190, n. 844. 4 See Ruzzier 2022, p. 85. As Ruzzier’s Tableau 45 indicates, of the 357 manuscripts included in her corpus, 7.6% of manuscripts have epistle and gospel lists that were produced at the same time as the bible, 12% have lists that were added in the 13th century, and 5.6% have lists that were added in the 14th or 15th centuries. The most common non-liturgical paratext is the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, which appears more https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-008

7 Epilogue 

 201

book, I have analyzed the epistle and gospel lists that appear in Dominican bible missals and have noted their presence in other bible missals, but much more work remains to be done to establish a comprehensive catalog of bibles with epistle and gospel lists and to develop a typology of these lists. In the initial analysis of Dominican lists offered here, several important distinctions have emerged that may be helpful for future research in this area. Epistle and gospel lists vary in the range of occasions which they cover, the mode of presentation of the scriptural reference, and the presence or absence of an explicit as well as an incipit for the reading. The mode of presentation of the scriptural references may offer aid for dating bibles which contain epistle and gospel lists that are integral to the production of the bible, given the development of practices connected with the inclusion of a section letter in addition to the chapter number. Richard and Mary Rouse have drawn attention to the role played by Dominicans in developing and popularizing the chapter number and section letter reference system, focusing on its role in biblical concordances; future study may be able to establish whether Dominican or non-Dominican usage of the chapter number and section letter in epistle and gospel lists predates or postdates its usage in concordances, and whether the inclusion of section letters helps to date a particular manuscript.5 In addition to analyzing the varying modes in which scriptural references appear, further study is also needed of the specific passages which they indicate. Previous scholarship on the lectionary cycles of 13th-century liturgical sources has tended to focus on the readings assigned for Sundays, but analysis of the weekday readings of Lent, the occasional ferial readings in other seasons, and sanctoral and votive masses may allow for a more precise identification of the liturgical traditions represented by various epistle and gospel lists.6 Bible missals and other 13th-century bibles sometimes include marginal annotations or marks within the text that indicate the beginnings (and sometimes also the endings) of particular readings for the mass. In some cases (such as the Cistercian bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 36) it is clear that these are part of the original production of the bible, but in most cases it is difficult to determine whether these specifications are original or have been added by a later user. Lection marks are often extremely subtle (E.g., vertical lines before or after a passage), and often can only be recognized as such if one is looking for them. Given the uneven availability of digital images of the manuscripts studied here, it has not always been possible to systematically examine this aspect of every manuscript. Further study of this aspect of bible missals and the broader range of 13th-century bibles may cast light on this important aspect of the interaction of the liturgy and the biblical text in medieval bibles. A significant number of bible missals and other 13th-century bibles include liturgical calendars.7 Further analysis of calendars in medieval bibles may help clarify the development of particular liturgical traditions as well as the dating of frequently than epistle and gospel lists. According to Ruzzier 2022, p. 81, 66% of bibles produced in the first half of the 13th century include the Interpretations, while 80% of those produced in the second half of the century include the text. The Interpretations appear in 35 of the 40 bible missals studied in this monograph (87%). 5 See Rouse and Rouse 1974. Saenger 2005, p. 89 (cf. Saenger 2020, p. 702) points out that section letters were already being used by Thomas Gallus by 1218, i.e., before the first St. Jacques concordance. While section letters were in general a theoretical concept which had to be individually applied to a particular chapter by the user by means of mental subdivision, a handful of bibles have been identified with graphic forms of the A–G section letters. Saenger 2005, pp. 92–93, Poleg 2020a, pp. 11–13, and Saenger 2020, p. 702 discuss several examples. Paris, BnF, latin 10419, a bible likely produced in Oxford in the second quarter of the 13th century (cf. Avril and Stirnemann 1987, p. 69, no. 110; Ruzzier 2022, p. 275) has section letters in red ink throughout the entire manuscript. London, Victoria and Albert Museum, Reid MS 21 (a bible “written perhaps in England” in the second half of the 13th century according to Ker 1969, p. 380) has red A–G section letters in the center margin throughout the manuscript. Another example not noted by Saenger or Poleg is Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Laud Lat. 13, a bible produced at Oxford with illumination by William de Brailes dated by Morgan 2012, p. 92 to “c.1230–50.” In this manuscript, the section letters appear in the margins in red ink in some sections and black ink in others; given the relative consistency of their appearance throughout the manuscript, they appear to be part of the original production process. Oxford, Oriel College, MS. 77 (a bible produced in England in the first quarter of the 13th century; see Alexander and Temple 1985, p. 20, n. 176) includes red B–G section letters on ff. 3v–10r accompanying the modern chapter divisions for Gn 1–29. Although Saenger suggests that these were “written by the rubricator who added an early form of Langton’s chapter divisions in the margins” (Saenger 2005, p. 93) and elsewhere dates them to “about 1215” (Saenger 2020, p. 702), they appear to me to be much later additions written by a different hand in darker red ink than the Roman numerals indicating the chapter divisions. 6 See O’Carroll 1979 and O’Carroll 1997. The Usuarium database offers promising possibilities in this regard. 7 5.9% of Ruzzier’s corpus of 357 bibles contain calendars; 2.8% of these were present from the beginning of the production of the manuscript, and 3.1% were added in the 13th century; see Ruzzier 2022, p. 85. Gleeson 2004, pp. 99–100 gives a list of Dominican bibles with calendars based on Gignac 1959. Further research is needed to establish a comprehensive list of bibles with calendars, but an indication of the range of examples (some of which are Dominican but not mentioned in Gleeson 2004) can be seen in Poleg’s survey of paratexts in medieval bibles, which indicates that a calendar is present in the following manuscripts: Cambridge, CUL, Ee.1.16; Cambridge, CUL, Ee.6.26; Cambridge, CUL, Mm.3.2; London, BL, Add. MS 35085; London, BL, Arundel 303; London, BL, Arundel 311; London, BL, Egerton 2867; London, Lambeth Palace, MS 533; for

202 

 7 Epilogue

individual bible manuscripts. As with the epistle and gospel lists, I have offered initial analysis of the calendars included in Dominican bible missals but have not yet attempted to analyze Dominican calendars in bibles that do not include missals. Further study of the development of the Dominican calendar in the pre-Humbert and Humbert periods drawing on the witness offered by Dominican calendars, epistle and gospel lists, martyrologies, and other liturgical sources is needed to develop a clearer sense of the diversity and unity of the Dominican sanctoral cycle in the pre-Humbert era as well as the processes by which new feasts were approved and promulgated after Humbert’s reform. This may in turn offer the possibility of greater specificity in the dating of the Dominican bible missals and pre-Humbert missals discussed here, which have been given fairly broad datings based primarily on the presence or absence of St. Dominic and St. Peter Martyr, the version of the St. Dominic collect, and the dates provided for various annual commemorations of the dead. Analysis of a wider range of sources may cast light in particular on the chronology of the development of the 24 May Translation of St. Dominic and the observance of the 12 August Octave of the 5 August feast of St. Dominic. If the date of the introduction of the Translation and the Octave could be securely established, then it would be possible to offer much more precise dating for a variety of Dominican sources, including Dominican bible missals. In addition to discussing the liturgical aspects of 13th-century bibles, this book has contributed to the study of non-liturgical biblical paratexts by offering detailed analysis of the biblical prologues and historiated initials found in Dominican bible missals. In the catalog descriptions below, I have developed a new method of presenting this information in a tabular form which integrates description of the material structure of each manuscript with analysis of its biblical and paratextual elements, drawing attention to the presence of adaptations to the selections over time. As is clear from these descriptions, the order of biblical books and the selection of biblical prologues is complex and in the case of some manuscripts a dynamic aspect of the manuscript, with additional prologues being added on previously existing or newly added material support. Although there was obviously great diversity in these matters, some manuscripts clearly reflect a desire on the part of their users to adapt the selection offered by a particular manuscript; notable in this regard are Paris, BnF, latin 163, where many non-Parisian prologues are marked with variations of the phrase vacat in biblia correcta and missing Parisian prologues are supplied by a later hand, and Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, where the original selection of prologues has been expanded with an appendix of Parisian and non-Parisian prologues. While scholars have long drawn on the evidence offered by biblical prologues to localize bibles, it is not easy to undertake comparisons between sources or to efficiently draw on the data concerning these aspects presented in varying modes in individual catalog descriptions of medieval bibles. Future research on biblical paratexts in Latin bibles could be aided by the development of a database that could offer a more systematic presentation of data on biblical prologues and orders of biblical books and allow for a more comprehensive discernment of the similarities and differences of the paratextual features of large numbers of Latin bibles. Many questions remain to be studied concerning the broader repertoire of medieval missals. Very little comparative research has been done on the material aspects of 13th-century liturgical books. This is related to a broader problem in liturgical studies. Many important catalogs focused on particular types of medieval liturgical sources include careful assessment of the typology, script, and dating of liturgical manuscripts, but pay scant attention to their size or layout.8 More recent catalogs are often more attentive to offering at least minimal details about the material features of manuscripts,9 but systematic analysis of the relationship between the structure and content of medieval liturgical books is only just beginning.10 Although, as Ecclesiastes declares, “of the making of books there is no end, and much learning is a weariness to the flesh” (Ecl 12:12), I hope that this book may contribute to the further study and deeper understanding of medieval liturgical books – in all of their textual, material, artistic, and musical aspects.

details on these manuscripts, see Poleg 2013a, pp. 211–221. Morgan 2017 mentions two further examples of bibles with Franciscan calendars: Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Auct. D. 5. 11; Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. d. 9. Regarding the latter manuscript, Morgan 2017, p. 236 notes that “This thirteenth-century English Bible had a calendar and litany added in the early fourteenth century. The calendar is Franciscan but was later very carefully adapted to Dominican use for their Oxford priory, resulting in the erasure and rewriting of many of its Franciscan entries.” For further comments on this manuscript, see Morgan 2021, pp. 396–397. 8 E.g., Bourque 1948–1958, Gamber 1968. 9 E.g., Meyer 2006, Suski and Sodi 2019. 10 Cf. Irving 2015 and Irving 2021a.

8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals Dominican manuscripts make up the largest group of bible missals, and represent a diverse range of places and dates of origin, styles and extents of artistic decoration, codicological features, and modes of presenting liturgical texts. In this catalog, I will consider each manuscript individually, drawing attention to its codicological, textual and artistic features, describing the range of liturgical texts which it includes, and showing the relationship between its material structure and its biblical and liturgical contents. The catalog descriptions are divided into eight sections: Introduction, Plates, Liturgical Texts, Provenance, Material Features, Artistic Decoration, Quires and Contents, and Bibliography. In the Introduction for each entry, I discuss the contents, origin, and date of each manuscript and assess whether the manuscript consists of a single or multiple production units.1 I then provide a series of Plates showing representative images of the biblical and liturgical sections of the manuscripts. In the Liturgical Texts section, I comment on the liturgical contents of each manuscript, focusing on texts for the mass and briefly discussing the calendars and/or epistle and gospel lists that appear in some sources. In the Provenance section, I discuss evidence for the origin and later ownership of each manuscript. The Material Features section discusses the binding, material support, foliation, secundo folio,2 quire structure, as well as the presence of quire marks, catchwords and signatures. In this section, I also give a schema of the various layouts used in each manuscript. I first indicate the dimensions of the written space, the number of lines, and the number of columns (with the width of each column indicated in square brackets). I then indicate which leaves and types of content make use of each layout. I conclude this section by identify the type(s) of script used in the manuscript. For the Artistic Decoration in the manuscript, I describe the running header, the opening initials and or rubrics of biblical books and prologues, the mode of beginning biblical chapters, the presentation of the main biblical text, and the arrangement of the initials and (occasional) numbering of the Psalter. This section concludes with a discussion of the artistic decoration of the liturgical texts and other types of decoration in the manuscript. The Quires and Contents section presents a synoptic table that enables a visualization of the relationship of the biblical, liturgical, and other paratextual material to the quire structure of the manuscript. In the first column, labelled Quires, I list the quire number in the form “Q#”, followed by the range of folios in the quire, and concluding with the number of leaves in the quire in parentheses. In cases where the quire is missing leaves or has added leaves, I indicate this after listing the number of leaves and clarify whether the loss of the leaf or leaves has entailed the loss of text.3 In cases where the foliation is inconsistent, I add a footnote to explain the details of that case. In addition to listing this information about the Quires in this column, I also indicate the presence of various layouts, using the shorthand references designated for each manuscript in the Material Features section. In the second and third columns, labelled Folio Range and Content, I indicate which content appears on which leaves within the manuscript. Within the Content column, I indicate the order of biblical prologues (designated by their number in Stegmüller’s Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi preceded by “S.”),4 biblical books (presented with the abbreviated book titles as found in the Weber-Gryson Biblia Sacra Vulgata),5 liturgical sections, and other paratexts. For manuscripts with historiated initials, I identify the content of the initials in parentheses. For manuscripts which generally employ a particular form of decoration for biblical books or prologues but have occasional variations from the typical scheme described in the Artistic Decoration section, I also make note of these differences. In 1 Production units are “physically autonomous sections that were conceived of, and realised, within a given timeframe, with a specific objective in mind” (Casavecchia et al. 2021, p. 71). 2 In some medieval catalogs, the opening words of the second folio of the manuscript are listed as a way of precisely identifying a particular manuscript of a given text. Due to the inherent variability of handwritten texts, the secundo folio often provides a (relatively) unique “fingerprint” for a particular manuscript since it is more variable than the incipit of the opening folio. In some cases, I list two secundo folios, for instance when there are texts at the beginning of the manuscript which may have been added after the initial production; in all cases I specify the modern foliation of the leaf in question. Cf. Ker 1964, pp. xix–xx and Ker 1969, p. xiii. 3 For example, the opening quire of Brussels, KBR 8882 is listed in the following form: “Q1: 1–24 (24).” This indicates that quire 1 occupies ff. 1–24 and consists of 24 leaves. The next quire is listed as “Q2: 25–49 (26-1 between 40 and 41 without loss of text).” This indicates that quire 2 occupies ff. 25–49 and originally consisted of 26 leaves but is now missing one leaf which was likely removed or “cancelled” as part of the production process. 4 See Stegmüller and Reinhardt 1950–1980. 5 For the full list of abbreviations (adapted from Weber and Gryson 2007, p. xlix), see Table 156 on pp. 472–473 below. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-009

204 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

cases where a manuscript omits a prologue that is part of the standard Parisian set of 64 prologues, adds a prologue that is not part of this set, or presents a biblical book in a different order than the standard Parisian order, I make note of this in parentheses.6 Finally, in the Content column I also note the presence of blank space; this is meant to assist the reader to visualize the structure of the codex, and is particularly important for highlighting cases where the scribe has deliberately left space blank in order to begin the next item on a new column or leaf. Each entry concludes with a Bibliography section which gives an overview of scholarship on the manuscript. While the following manuscript descriptions offer considerable detail about the features that I judge to be relevant for understanding the bible missal phenomenon more deeply, each manuscript offers further mysteries to be unraveled. In particular, I have not attempted to fully analyze the range of non-liturgical paratexts, which often present questions of considerable complexity. I hope that these descriptions may offer assistance for further research on these manuscripts so that their witness to the breadth of biblical culture and medieval biblical paratexts might be more fully understood.

8.1 Brussels, KBR 8882 Summary: Bible with Dominican votive missal and epistle and gospel list Dimensions: 137 x 95 mm; 490 leaves7 Origin: Paris Date: 13th century, second quarter (liturgical texts datable c. 1234–1253) Overview of Contents: 1r–3v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 4r–201v: Bible (Gn–Ps) 203r–204v: Dominican votive missal 202r–203v: Ordo Missae (ends imperfectly) 203v–204v: Requiem masses (begin imperfectly) 205r–207v: Epistle and gospel list 208r–442v: Bible (Prv–Apc) 443r–485v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 486r–[487]v: Blank leaves (with ownership marks and pen trials)

8.1.1 Introduction Brussels, KBR 8882 is a very small bible which includes a fragmentary votive missal and a complete epistle and gospel list between Psalms and Proverbs. The manuscript is modestly decorated, with littera duplex initials as the highest level of decoration. It was almost certainly produced in Paris, judging from its quire structure (which predominantly uses of quires of 24 leaves)8 and its presentation of the Parisian order of biblical books with only two variations from the standard Parisian set of prologues.9 The manuscript presents a mixed Vulgate text, including the Parisian “revertendi posita” variant in Rt 1:7 but omitting “vinum” in Iob 1:4.10 It was certainly produced after 1234, given the presence of the 24 May Translation of St. Dominic and the 5 August feast of St. Dominic in the epistle and gospel list; however, neither of these occasions are provided with specific readings, which suggests that the epistle and gospel list was written at a time when the readings for Dominic were still in flux.11 The absence of texts for Peter Martyr suggests that the epistle and gospel list was transcribed before his canonization in 1253. The Psalter has two unusual features. It is highly abbreviated, with

6 For a list of the Parisian order of biblical books and prologues, see Table 157 on pp. 473–476 below. 7 As described in the Material Features section, the foliation omits 4 leaves, so there are 490 total leaves despite the foliation ending at 486. 8 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, p. 106. 9 On f. 221r, Sap is not preceded by S. 468; on f. 419v, Act is preceded by an additional prologue (S. 631) before the usual prologue S. 640. 10 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, pp. 76–77. 11 Cf. the discussion of the range of readings for St. Dominic on pp. 88–97 above.

8.1 Brussels, KBR 8882  

 205

most lines including only as many words from the verse as can fit on the line, with the next line beginning the next verse. Further, the Psalter only contains Ps 1–108, and it appears that Ps 109–150 were never transcribed.12 The volume is a single production unit, with a consistent decorative scheme and written space layout throughout the volume, and a relatively consistent pattern of quires of 24 leaves. The liturgical material is clearly original to the volume, appearing at the end of quire 9 which also includes the end of Iob and the Psalter. The missal is fragmentary due to the loss of four leaves between ff. 203 and 204, and now only includes the beginning of the Ordo Missae and the end of a selection of Requiem masses, but the extant material suggests that it belongs to the votive missal typology. Although the votive missal section has the same dimensions for the written space as the bible, the missal texts are written in a single column at double the module of the biblical texts (i.e., with ruled lines of c. 4 mm rather than c. 2 mm as in the bible section). The epistle and gospel list, like the bible section, is written in two columns with the same size of script as the biblical texts.

8.1.2 Plates Figure 10 Brussels, KBR 8882, f. 4r (Gn), p. 206 Figure 11 Brussels, KBR 8882, f. 202r (Roman Canon), p. 207 Figure 12 Brussels, KBR 8882, f. 205r (Epistle and Gospel List), p. 208

8.1.3 Liturgical Texts Brussels, KBR 8882 includes two sets of liturgical texts: a votive missal (ff. 203r–204v) and an epistle and gospel list (ff. 205r–207v). The votive missal begins with the preface dialogue and Common Preface, followed by the Roman Canon, which ends imperfectly after Per ipsum et cum ipso et in ipso est tibi deo patri omnipotenti in unitate spiritus sancti. Four leaves are missing between ff. 203v and 204r. After the lacuna, the votive missal resumes imperfectly on f. 204r with the words fragilium sit contra mundi pericula firmamentum sit vivorum atque mortuorum remissio omnium delictorum; this in the conclusion of the postcommunion prayer Purificent nos quaesumus omnipotens (CO 4788), often assigned with the rubric Missa sancti augustini pro salute vivorum sive mortuorum. This is followed by two Requiem formularies with orations, secrets, and postcommunion prayers; the text scribe left space blank for rubrics introducing the formularies, but these were not supplied by the rubricator. The first set consists of Pietate tua (CO 4227), Deus qui singulari corporis (CO 2108a), and Sumpta sacramenta quesumus (CO 5603), a widely-used formulary often assigned the rubric Missa pro vivis sive defunctis. The second consists of Fidelium deus omnium conditor (CO 2684b), Hostias quaesumus domine (CO 2980), and Animabus quaesumus domine (CO 260), a Requiem formulary which appears in numerous sources with rubrics indicating the occasion as a mass for many deceased persons. It is impossible to know exactly what the four missing leaves originally contained, but from comparison with other bible missals (especially Paris, BnF, latin 215, which has a similar selection of liturgical texts) it seems likely that they included several votive mass formularies. The epistle and gospel list includes entries for the temporal, sanctoral, and votive masses. Each entry includes the name of the biblical book, the chapter number in Roman numerals, and the incipit (e.g., Dominica prima adventus. Epis­ tula. Ro. XIII. Scientes quia hora est.). Most of the entries have a chapter section letter added by a later hand in the margin to the right of the main entry indicating the section of the chapter which is to be read. The sanctoral includes Translatio sancti dominici (f. 206vb; originally written Translatio sancti benedicti but with benedicti crossed out and followed by dominici in original hand) and Sancti dominici (f. 207ra). Several entries in the sanctoral are not provided with specific readings, including the two entries for Dominic.

12 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, Paris, BnF, latin 10429, and San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 abbreviate the psalms at the end of each line in a similar way to Brussels, KBR 8882, although these manuscripts include the entire Psalter (cf. Light 2016, p. 179n49). For further discussion of abbreviated Psalters, see p. 191 above.

206 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 10: Brussels, KBR 8882, f. 4r (Gn).

8.1.4 Provenance The manuscript was likely written in France for a Dominican friar. It was later owned by a secular canon in Liège, Petrus Hees († September 25, 1517), who made an inscription on f. 443r in the upper margin above the beginning of the Interpretations of Hebrew Names: Omnes hoc libro utentes orent pro anima F. Petri Hees.13 At some point it came into the possession of the Dominican friar Jean Boucquet (c. 1580–1640), who made an inscription on f. 486v: F. Ioannes Bocquet, Lyranus.14 The manuscript later entered the collection of the Bibliothèque royale de Belgique (officially renamed “KBR” in 2019), and has many stamps of the “Bibliothèque royale” (e.g., on ff. 1r, 485v, 486v, 487v). It is not clear when it entered the collection, but was clearly part of the library by 1834, as indicated by its presence in Inventaire 1839.15 Notably, the entry in Catalogue

13 Petrus Hees was a canon of the Collegiate Church of St. Paul in Liège, becoming cantor in 1506; see Thimister 1890; Fruytier 1924. 14 Jean Boucquet, born in Lier (Latin: Lyra) in Belgium, served as Prior in Ypern, Cologne, and Antwerp, and founded a priory in Lier, before being elected Provincial of the “provincia Germaniae Inferioris” (a region which included modern Belgium) in 1623. Boucquet died in Antwerp on July 11, 1640; see Alberdingk 1876. 15 Catalogue 1842, which reprints the Inventaire 1839 with an expanded introduction, indicates that “Le présent catalogue, dont le texte fut arrêté en 1834, augmenté et publié en 1839” (v. 1, p. 299).

8.1 Brussels, KBR 8882  

 207

Figure 11: Brussels, KBR 8882, f. 202r (Roman Canon).

1842 (2:108) does not give any indication of the provenance of the manuscript, although that information is provided for other bibles in the surrounding entries.

8.1.5 Material Features Binding dimensions: 144 x 100 x 47 mm Binding: Wooden boards covered in violet velvet with clasps Material of leaves: Parchment (Calf skin; see Fiddyment 2015) Dimensions of leaves: 137 x 95 mm Number of leaves: 1 parchment flyleaf + 490 + 1 parchment flyleaf Foliation (Modern): 1–148, 148[a], 149–406, 406[a], 407–411, 411[a], 412–486, [487] Foliation (Medieval): N/A Secundo folio: sine previo et monstrante (2r) Quires: The manuscript is mostly made up of quires of 24 leaves, with the exception of quire 2 (originally 26 leaves, with one removed without loss of text) and quire 12 (22 leaves). Several other quires are now missing leaves with loss of text (quires 5 and 9) or without loss of text (quires 19 and 21).

208 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 12: Brussels, KBR 8882, f. 205r (Epistle and Gospel List).

Quire marks: N/A Layout: B: c. 100 x 67 mm; 48–49 lines in two columns [32 + 32] 1r–201v (Gn–Ps) 205r–207v (Epistle and gospel list) 208r–485v (Bible) 443r–485v (Prv–Apc, Interpretations of Hebrew Names) M: c. 100 x 67 mm; 24–28 lines in one column 202r–204v (Votive missal) Script: Northern textualis.

8.1.6 Artistic Decoration Running Header: Names of biblical books in alternating red and blue capitals with decorative lines on the right and left (with the exception of Psalms, the votive missal, and the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, which have no running header). Biblical Books: Littera duplex initials; rubrics for the incipits and explicits.

8.1 Brussels, KBR 8882  

 209

Biblical Prologues: Littera duplex or flourished initials; rubrics for the incipits and explicits. Biblical Chapters: Two-line red or blue flourished initials; chapter numbers in alternating red and blue capitals, usually in the column and sometimes in the margin. Biblical Text: Consistent use of highlighting for beginning of sentences. Psalms: Littera duplex initials for Ps 1, Ps 26, Ps 38, Ps 52, Ps 68, Ps 80, Ps 97; two-line flourished initials for other psalms; single-line red or blue initials for psalm verses. The psalm verse initials all appear at the left margin due to the abbreviation of the psalm verse to each fit in a single line. Liturgical Texts: Littera duplex initials for the preface dialogue (Per omnia) and canon (Te igitur); flourished initials for other texts. In the epistle and gospel list, red and blue initials are used in alternation for each occasion. Other: Marginal decorative motifs recur throughout the volume, sometimes connected with flourished initials (e.g., f. 4r, bottom margin) or chapter marks (f. 4r, right margin; 169r) and sometimes occurring independently in the lower or right margin (e.g., f. 13r, lower margin; f. 47r, right margin).

8.1.7 Quires and Contents Quires

Folio Range

Content

Q1: 1–24 (24) Layout B

1ra–3rb

S. 284

3rb–vb

S. 285

Q2: 25–49 (26-1 between 40 and 41 without loss of text)

3vb

Blank space: 9 lines

4ra–22ra

Gn

22ra–37rb

Ex

37rb–47rb

Lv

47va–61rb

Nm

61rb–74ra

Dt

74ra–rb

S. 311

74rb–82va

Ios

82vb–92rb

Idc

92rb–93va

Rt

93va–94rb

S. 323

94rb–103rb

I Rg (loss of text between I Rg 18:19–I Rg 27:11)

103rb–113vb

II Rg

113vb–125va

III Rg

125vb–136rb

IV Rg

136rb–va

S. 328

136va–146ra

I Par

Q3: 50–73 (24) Q4: 74–97 (24)

Q5: 98–117 (24-4 between 101 and 102 with loss of text)

Q6: 118–141 (24)

210 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

146ra–rb

S. 327

146rb–157ra

II Par

157ra

Or Man (not visually distinguished from II Par)

157ra–va

S. 330

157va–160va

I Esr

160va–161rb

II Esr [Neh]

161rb–170rb

III Esr [II Esr]

170rb–va

S. 332

170va–173vb

Tb

173vb

S. 335

173vb–178rb

Idt

Q7: 142–164 (24)

16

Q8: 165–188 (24)

Q9: 189–207 (24-5 [4 between 203 and 204 with loss of text and 1 after 207 without loss of text]) Layout M

Layout B

Q10: 208–231 (24)

Q11: 232–255 (24) Q12: 256–277 (22)

178rb

S. 341 + S. 343

178rb–182vb

Est

182vb–183ra

S. 344

183ra–rb

S. 357

183rb–192ra

Iob

192ra–201vb

Ps 1–108 (Littera duplex initials for Ps 1 [192ra], Ps 26 [194ra], Ps 38 [195rb], Ps 52 [196rb], Ps 68 [197va], Ps 80 [199ra], Ps 97 [200va].

201vb

Blank space: 8 lines

202r–203v

[Votive missal] Ordo Missae (ends imperfectly)

204r

[Requiem mass] (begins imperfectly, containing only the concluding section of a postcommunion)

204r

[Requiem mass]

204r–v

[Requiem mass]

204v

Blank space: 22 lines

205ra–207va

[Epistle and gospel list]

207va

Blank space: 25 lines

207vb

Blank space: 1 column

208ra

S. 457

208ra–216rb

Prv

216rb–va

S. 462

216va–219va

Ecl

219va–221ra

Ct

221ra–227rb

Sap (Not preceded by S. 468)

227rb–243va

Sir

243va–vb

S. 482

243vb–263vb

Is

263vb–264ra

S. 487

264ra–287vb

Ier

16 There is one unfoliated leaf (f. 148[a]) between ff. 148 and 149.

8.1 Brussels, KBR 8882  

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

287vb–289vb

Lam (Lam 5:1 presented as Oratio ieremie with three-line flourished initial on f. 289va–vb)

289vb

S. 491

289vb–292vb

Bar

292vb–293ra

S. 492

293ra–314va

Ez

314va–315ra

S. 494

315ra–323va

Dn

323va

S. 500

323va–vb

S. 507

323vb–326va

Os

326va–vb

S. 511

326vb

S. 510

326vb–327vb

Ioel

327vb–328ra

S. 515

328ra

S. 512

328ra–rb

S. 513

328rb–330rb

Am

330rb–va

S. 519 + S. 517

330va–vb

Abd

330vb–331ra

S. 524

Q13: 278–301 (24)

Q14: 302–325 (24)

Q15: 326–349 (24)

331ra

S. 521

331ra–vb

Ion

331vb

S. 526

331vb–333rb

Mi

333rb–va

S. 528

333va–334ra

Na

334ra–va

S. 531

334va–335rb

Hab

335rb–ra

S. 534

335ra–336ra

So

336ra–va

S. 538

336va–vb

Agg

337ra

S. 539

337ra–339vb

Za

339vb

Blank space: 2 lines

340ra

S. 543

340ra–vb

Mal

340vb–341ra

S. 547

341ra–rb

S. 553

 211

212 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Q16: 350–373 (24)

Q17: 374–397 (24)

Q18: 398–419 (24)17

Folio Range

Content

341rb

S. 551

341rb–351rb

I Mcc

351rb–358va

II Mcc

358va–vb

S. 590

358vb

S. 589

358vb–368vb

Mt

368vb–369ra

S. 607

369ra–376ra

Mc

376ra–rb

S. 620

376rb–388rb

Lc (Lc 1:1–4 presented as a prologue with a five-line littera duplex initial, followed by Lc 1:5 also with a five-line littera duplex initial)

388rb–va

S. 624

388va–397rb

Io

397rb

S. 677

397rb–401vb

Rm

401vb

S. 685

401vb–406ra

I Cor

406ra

S. 699

406rb–408ra

II Cor

408ra

S. 707

408ra–409rb

Gal

409va

S. 715

409va–410vb

Eph

410vb

S. 728

410vb

Blank space: 2 lines

411ra–411[a]ra

Phil

411[a]ra

S. 736

411[a] ra–412ra

Col

412ra

S. 747

412ra–413ra

I Th

413ra

S. 752

413ra–va

II Th

413va

S. 765

413va–414va

I Tim

414va

Blank space: 1 line

414vb

S. 772

414vb–415va

II Tim

17 There are two unfoliated leaves in this quire: f. 406[a] between ff. 406 and 407 and f. 411[a] between ff. 411 and 412.

8.1 Brussels, KBR 8882  

 213

(continued) Quires

Q19: 420–442 (24-1 after 442 without loss of text)

Q20: 443–466 (24) Q21: 467–[487] (24-3 after [487])18

Folio Range

Content

415va

S. 780

415va–416ra

Tit

416ra

S. 783

416ra–rb

Phlm

416rb

S. 793

416rb–419vb

Hbr

419vb

S. 631 (non-Parisian prologue)

419vb

S. 640

419vb–432ra

Act

432ra

S. 809

432ra–433rb

Iac

433rb–434va

I Pt

434va–435rb

II Pt

435rb–436va

I Io

436va

II Io

436va–vb

III Io

436vb–437ra

Iud

437ra–va

S. 839

437va–442vb

Apc

442vb

Blank space: 17 lines

443r (upper margin)

Ownership mark: Omnes hoc libro utentes orent pro anima F. Petri Hees.

443ra–485vb

Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim)

485vb

Blank space: 42 lines

486r

Blank page

486v

Ownership mark: F. Ioannes Bocquet, Lyranus.

[487]r

Blank page

[487]v

Various pen trials, including Te deum laudamus.

8.1.8 Bibliography Inventaire 1839: Inventaire des manuscrits de l’ancienne Bibliothèque Royale des Ducs de Bourgogne (Brussels: Vandooren Frères, 1839). On p. 178, ms. 8882 is listed as a Biblia Sacra in Latin with the incipit Frater ambrosius. It is dated to the final third of the 14th century and the presence of “Lettrines” is pointed out. Catalogue 1842: Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale des Ducs de Bourgogne, 3 vols. (Brussels: C. Muquardt, 1842). The information presented in the 1839 Inventaire is repeated in vol. 1, p. 178 of the 1842 Catalogue. Further information about the manuscript is given in vol. 2, p. 108, where it is specified as having “Initiales alternes pâles, écriture mignonne” and having the height of “13 ½ c.” (= 135 mm).

18 The foliation ends at f. 486, but there is one further leaf after f. 486, which was originally blank [487]. There were originally three more leaves at the end of quire after the unfoliated [487].

214 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Van den Gheyn 1901: Joseph Van den Gheyn, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique. Tome premier: Écriture sainte et Liturgie (Brussels: Henri Lamertin, 1901). On p. 8, n. 14, Van den Gheyn provides a brief description of the contents and dimensions of the manuscript, mentioning the presence of the Ordo Missae and epistle and gospel list, dating the manuscript to the “XIVe siècle,” and giving transcriptions of the ownership inscriptions. Fink-Errera 1962: Guy Fink-Errera, “Une institution du monde médiéval : la « pecia »,” Revue Philosophique de Louvain 60 (1962): 184–243. On pp. 226–227n13, Fink-Errera makes the following comment: “Parmi ces bibles, il me faut signaler le codex Bruxelles, Bibliothèque Royale 8.882 où, à la suite des Psaumes qui se terminent au f° 201vb, on a inséré un cahier à ligne continue où on trouve, f° 202–204v, le canon de la Messe puis, f° 205–207v, la « table liturgique »: ces compléments apportés à la bible en font donc un livre liturgique très complet.” Light 2013: Laura Light, “The Thirteenth-Century Pandect and the Liturgy: Bibles with Missals,” in Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, ed. Eyal Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 185–215. On p. 214, Light refers to this manuscript as “KBR, MS 14 (8882).” Light indicates she did not have an opportunity to personally examine the manuscript. Fiddyment 2015: Sarah Fiddyment et al., “Animal Origin of 13th-century Uterine Vellum Revealed Using Noninvasive Peptide Fingerprinting,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 49 (2015): 15066–71, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1512264112. The manuscript is included in “Table S2,” where brief dimensions are given for the manuscript and the parchment is identified as being calf skin. Ruzzier 2022: Chiara Ruzzier, Entre Université et ordres mendiants, Manuscripta Biblica 8 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022). Ruzzier includes the manuscript on p. 219 as n. 254 in her “Liste des bibles complètes recensées.”

8.2 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16 Summary: Bible with Dominican full missal, calendar, preaching list, and biblical concordance Dimensions: 167 x 110 mm; 647 leaves Origin: Paris Date: 13th century, second quarter (liturgical texts datable c. 1234–1244) Overview of Contents: Ir–IIv: Various notes IIIr–IVr: Dominican calendar with four months per page IVv: Added sermon text 1r–4r: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 4v–232v: Bible (Gn–Ps) 232v: Added mass formulary for St. Elizabeth of Hungary in originally blank column 233r–492v: Bible (Prv–Apc) 493r–518v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 519r–521v: Preaching list 522r–522v: Added notes 523r–565v: Dominican full missal 523r–536r: Temporal: Advent–Easter Vigil 536r–537r: Ordo Missae (beginning with the Prefaces); lacuna between the end of the Trinity preface and the end of the Roman Canon (one missing folio between 536 and 537) 537r–544v: Temporal: Easter Day–26th Sunday after Pentecost 544v: Dedication of a Church 544v–555v: Sanctoral: Vigil of St. Andrew (29 November) –Sts. Vitalis and Agricola (27 November) 555v–559r: Common of Saints: Apostles–Virgins 559r–561v: Votive masses 561v–563r: Requiem masses 563r–563v: Rubrics 563v: Votive mass (Orationes ad humilitatem deposcendam) 563v–565r: Sequences

8.2 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16  

 215

565r–565v: Devotional prayers: Summe sacerdos; Si tantum delinquentie nostre reatum cogitamus 566r–642v: Biblical concordance: Aaron … Zona … Xristus

8.2.1 Introduction Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 is a small bible with a wide range of paratexts, including a Dominican calendar at the beginning of the manuscript, as well as a preaching list, a Dominican full missal, and a biblical concordance at the end of the manuscript. Each of the biblical books is provided with decorated initials. Although Pfaff 2009 and Light 2013 followed the tentative suggestion of James 1912 that the manuscript was written “perhaps in England,”19 it seems more likely to have been written in Paris judging from the quire structure (predominantly using quires of 24 leaves),20 artistic decoration, and its presentation of the Parisian order of biblical books with only a few variations from the standard set of prologues.21 Based on liturgical evidence, the manuscript was certainly produced after 1234, as it includes the 5 August feast of St. Dominic in the original hand on f. 551v, although it omits Dominic from the Easter Vigil litany on f. 535v. It was possibly written before 1244, as it includes the pre-1244 version of Dominic’s collect with meritis et exemplis rather than meritis et doctrinis.22 It was almost certainly written before 1246–1248, as it includes the 10 September date for the Anniversary of Deceased Familiars and Benefactors, rather than the 5 September date introduced in 1246–1248.23 Throughout the biblical text, marginal annotations that be part of the initial production of the manuscript indicate the beginning and endings of mass readings with the letters “p” and “f” (= Principium and Finis) and occasionally add further texts for the incipits or explicits of liturgical readings. The Psalter has two distinctive features. First, each psalm is numbered with red Roman numerals by the original rubricator.24 Second, the psalms are heavily abbreviated, with each line including only as many words from the verse as can

19 Pfaff 2009, p. 314, argues that the manuscript “was probably but not quite certainly written in England (a list of texts, apparently for sermons, includes one for Edmund martyr, unlikely to occur anywhere save in England).” The inclusion of Edmund in the reading list is not convincing evidence for English origin. According to Bale 2009, p. 9, Edmund’s cult was widespread in Europe: “From the eleventh century onwards, numerous foreign abbeys (Benedictine, Cluniac, Cistercian and Premonstratensian in France, Germany and the Low Countries) included Edmund in their legendaries and liturgies.” The Calendoscope database, compiled primarily from liturgical manuscripts in French libraries cataloged by Leroquais, includes 43 entries for “Edmundus r. Angl. m.” on 20 November; 11 of these date to the 13th century, and 12 are from manuscripts localized by Leroquais to Paris: see http://calendoscope.irht.cnrs.fr/application/positifDate/jour/20/mois/11/saint/650. Light 2013, p. 203n49, states that “although MS McClean has always been considered English (and is accepted as such by Pfaff), and was certainly in England at an early date, there is a possibility that it was copied in Paris.” The first assertion that I have identified of the manuscript being of English origin is the catalog of Robson and Kerslake 1889 (repeated in Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge 1892), but this assessment is perhaps motivated by commercial concerns, especially given their attempt to associate the manuscript with “the MS. Bible of William of Devon, preserved in the British Museum, which is valued at £500” (Robson and Kerslake 1889; Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge 1892 repeats this claim). James 1912 gives only a tentative judgment regarding origin (“finely written, perhaps in England”). The lack of published scholarship on the manuscript between James 1912 and Pfaff 2009 (except for Bogaert 2005, who did not personally consult the manuscript), weakens the significance of the suggestion that it “has always been considered English.” Morgan 2021, p. 378 challenges the suggestion that the manuscript was in England at an early date, arguing that the earliest evidence for the manuscript being in England is from the late 15th century, when several English saints were added to the calendar. Morgan judges the illumination and penflourishing to be French and argues that the quires of 24 leaves are further confirmation of French origin. 20 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, p. 106. 21 On f. 169v, II Par is not preceded by any prologue, although the usual prologue S. 327 is supplied at f. 518vb–vc. On f. 351r, S. 519 and S. 517 are presented as distinct prologues, although in the Parisian order they are typically presented together without a visual break. On f. 467v, Act is preceded by an unusual additional prologue (S. 631) following the usual S. 640. On f. 486r, Apc is preceded by two non-Parisian prologues (S. 835 and S. 831) instead of the Parisian prologue S. 839, although the Parisian prologue is supplied on f. 519ra–va. The manuscript presents the non-Parisian versions of Rt 1:7 (posita revertendi; see f. 109va) and Iob 1:4 (omitting vinum; see f. 212vb); cf. Ruzzier 2022, pp. 76–77. 22 For further details, see the discussion of the St. Dominic collect on pp. 62–64 above. 23 For further details, see the discussion of the September anniversary on pp. 54–58 above. 24 For a discussion of numbered Psalms, see Poleg 2020a, pp. 24–29. As Poleg notes on p. 28, “Bibles incorporating Psalm numbers are the exception among [Late Medieval Bibles].” Other Dominican bible missals with Psalm numbers are Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, Paris, BnF, latin 163, and Paris, BnF, latin 215. Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Laud Lat. 13, a bible produced at Oxford “c.1230–50” with illumination by William de Brailes (cf. Morgan 2012, p. 92), includes numbered Psalms in the Gallican Psalter written in parallel columns with the Psalter iuxta Hebraeos (ff. 155v–189r).

216 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

fit in the column and the next line beginning the next verse. Some psalms are further subdivided into two columns within the main text column, thus providing even fewer words per verse.25 McClean 16 contains an extraordinary range of liturgical, exegetical, and preaching paratexts. At the beginning of the manuscript, a Dominican calendar (ff. IIIr–IVr) is included in a quire distinct from the main biblical text. While generally conforming to many distinctive characteristics of pre-Humbert Dominican calendars, the calendar in this manuscript is unusual in including St. Barbara (4 December) and the Conceptio beate marie (8 December) as Totum Duplex feasts, the highest rank in the Dominican liturgy. Neither of these feasts is typically included in Dominican calendars, although two other pre-Humbert calendars include the Conceptio as a IX lectionum feast.26 The calendar has many additions, including a relatively early addition of Peter Martyr, and a large number of late-15th-century additions of British saints. As is the case with many liturgical manuscripts preserved in England through the Reformation era, the term pape is erased each time it appears in the calendar, and the name of Thomas Becket is erased from his 29 December calendar entry. Towards the end of the manuscript, after the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, a further series of paratexts is provided. The preaching list (ff. 519r–521v) contains extensive biblical references for a selection of temporal and sanctoral feasts as well as for various categories of audiences; each entry is provided with a biblical book, chapter, and section letter, as well as the opening words of the relevant verse.27 The Dominican full missal (ff. 523r–565v) contains a complete range of texts for the various cycles of the liturgical year. The missal generally provides full texts for chants and orations but only incipits and biblical references for the scripture readings, thus linking the bible section of the manuscript with the liturgical texts. Notably, some occasions are provided with full scriptural texts in the missal section. This seems to be done for readings that are complex in some way, e.g., omitting verses from the biblical text or combining verses from different chapters of a biblical book.28 The full missal is missing one leaf in the Ordo Missae section; it is possible that this leaf may have originally contained a Crucifixion miniature. Among the liturgical contents, the selection of sequences at the end of the missal is noteworthy, as this is the only Dominican bible missal which provides sequences. While many of the sequences are shared with other pre-Humbert missals, two sequences are found in this manuscript that are not found in other Dominican sources, one for evangelists and one for the dedication of a church. There are two added leaves in the manuscript, one of which supplies texts which were omitted by scribal error, and one of which supplies additional sequences and devotional prayers; as detailed below, these leaves seem to have been added at the end of the original production process of the missal. Although a full comparison of the liturgical contents of the full missal with other pre-Humbert missals is beyond the scope of this book, the Cambridge bible missal provides important evidence for further study of the pre-Humbert liturgy. The manuscript ends with an extensive biblical concordance (ff. 566r–642v) that presents an alphabetical list of the appearance of various words throughout the bible. Each entry is provided with the biblical book and chapter number as well as one or two words of the verse, and most entries also include the section letter. The selection of biblical words and the presentation of the references in the concordance do not correspond with any of the three forms of the verbal concordance to the bible identified by Richard and Mary Rouse.29 25 The abbreviated Psalm verses in the Cambridge manuscript are similar to those found in Brussels, KBR 8882, Paris, BnF, latin 10429 and San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 (cf. Light 2016, p. 179n49). For further discussion of abbreviated Psalters, see p. 191 above. 26 London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 and Paris, BnF, latin 163. 27 Similar but not identical preaching lists are present in Paris, BnF, latin 16266, ff. 624v–635r and Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst., ff. 410v–413v. For a discussion of other bibles with preaching lists, see Light 2011a, pp. 178–179. The Cambridge preaching list includes the following occasions (two of which are later additions): “In nativitate domini, In vigilia natalis domini (later addition in lower margin), In circumcisione domini, In epyphania domini, In festo sancte andree, In festo sancti nicholai, Sancti thome apostoli, Sancte agnetis, Sancti vincentii, In conversione sancti pauli, In purificatione beate virginis, In cathedra sancti petri, Sancti mathie apostoli, In annuntiatione beate marie, Sancti marci evangeliste, Apostolorum philippi et iacobi, In inventione sancte crucis, Barnabe apostoli, In nativitate beati iohanis baptiste, Beati petri apostoli, Beati pauli apostoli, Apostolorum petri et pauli, Beate margarete, Beate marie magdalene, Beati iacobi, Beati petri ad vincula, Sancti dominici confessoris, Beati laurentii, In assumptione beate virginis, De beato augustino (later addition), Beati bartholomei, In decollatione sancti iohanis baptiste, In nativitate beate marie, In exaltatione sancte crucis, Beati mathei apostoli, Beati michaelis, Beati francisci, Beati luce evangeliste, Simonis et iude, In festo omnium sanctorum, In die defunctorum, In festo beati martini, Beati eadmundi martyris, Beati clementis, Beate katerine, Beati stephani, Beati iohanis apostoli, Innocentum, Sancti thome martiris, De evangelistis, Unius apostoli et plurimorum, Unius martiris, Plurimorum martirum, Plurimorum confessorum, Unius virginis et martyris, Unius virginis non martyris, Plurimorum virginum, In dedicatione ecclesie, In translatione sanctorum, Ad viventes solitarie, Ad claustrales, Ad moniales, In sinodo ad presbyteros, Ad ordinandas, Ad magistros et scolares, Ad omnes curiales, Ad pauperes et infirmos, Ad leprosos, Ad peregrinos, Ad mercatores, In capite ieiunii, In ramis palmarum, In cena domini.” 28 For further details, see p. 218 below. 29 See Rouse and Rouse 1974.

8.2 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16  

 217

The question of whether the manuscript is a single production unit is complex. It is not clear whether the Dominican calendar, which occupies a distinct quire at the beginning of the manuscript, is part of the same production unit as the rest of the manuscript, although based on the unusual presence of the feast of St. Barbara in both the calendar and missal it seems likely that it belongs to the same production unit as the missal section.30 The series of liturgical and non-liturgical paratexts at the end of the manuscript have a complex codicological character. Quire 22 has 26 leaves, and presents the Interpretations of Hebrew Names; at the end of the quire, the Parisian prologue (S. 327) for II Par that had been omitted in the bible was added in a different hand. Quire 23 has 4 leaves and presents the Parisian prologue (S. 839) for Apc together with the preaching list in a complex layout that interweaves the two texts.31 Notably, Quire 23 ends with a leaf that is blank on the recto and verso (f. 522r–v). Quires 24–28 present the full missal and biblical concordance without codicological break. The biblical concordance begins on the final five leaves of quire 25, and then continues on quires 26–28. Although clearly professionally produced, quires 24–28 have a somewhat erratic arrangement that is nevertheless closely tied to the texts they present, consisting of 24(-1), 24(+1+1), 32, 34, and 6 leaves respectively.32 Given the presence of a decorated initial at the start of the Interpretation of Hebrew Names in Quire 22 that matches the artistic style of the bible section of the manuscript, it seems certain that this quire is part of the original bible production unit despite its change in layout. It is more difficult to judge with respect to the later quires. It is conceivable that Quire 23 and Quires 24–28 are different production units from the original bible, although at the very least they were clearly made to supplement the bible, as neither set of quires would function separately from the bible. The presence of extensive marginal notes throughout the bible section indicating the incipits and explicits of mass readings supports the idea that the bible and missal sections were produced at the same time, as these indications do not provide sufficient information to be useful for liturgical purposes without a more detailed guide to the liturgical readings. The marginal notes seem to me to be part of the original production of the bible given the careful and consistent mode in which they appear throughout. The incipits of the two main texts in Quires 24–28, the missal and the concordance, are both introduced by littera duplex initials, rather than the decorated initials found in the other major sections. Given the discontinuities of decoration and the complex quire structure, it is possible that these quires were written at a somewhat later date than the main bible section, although it is also possible that these sections were simply produced in a somewhat different manner than the preceding texts. Further paleographical and artistic analysis may shed further light on these questions, but at present it is not clear whether the manuscript consists of a single or multiple production units. Nevertheless, the extraordinarily full range of paratexts presented in this bible render it one of the most interesting examples of the bible missal phenomenon.

8.2.2 Plates Figure 13 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. IIIr (Calendar), p. 219 Figure 14 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 4v (Gn), p. 220 Figure 15 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 520r (Preaching List), p. 221 Figure 16 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 523r (Missal), p. 222

30 The calendar on ff. IIIr-IVr is part of a quire of four leaves (ff. I-IV). The initial biblical prologues and the opening of Gn begin on a new quire. The script of the calendar is written at a slightly lower grade than the following biblical texts. There are several small divergences between the entries in the calendar and those in the sanctorale section of the full missal, although most of these are commemorations that are listed in the calendar but not in the missal. The most significant divergence concerns the Conceptio beate marie, which appears on 8 December in the calendar with the rank of Totum duplex (f. IVr), but which is not referenced in the missal. On the other hand, both the calendar and the missal include the feast of St. Barbara on 4 December, although I have not identified any other 13th-century Dominican sources that include this occasion in the original hand. In the calendar (f. IVr), Beate barbare virginis et martyris is listed as Totum duplex, which suggests that the saint was particularly venerated by the Dominican friar for whom this bible was made. Although the missal does not include feast ranks, on f. 545r Sancte barbare virginis et martyris is provided with a full set of orations, as well as references for the chants and readings. I have not been able to identify a Dominican priory or church dedicated to St. Barbara, although documentation on the patronage of early Dominican churches is not well preserved. 31 S. 839 takes up the full first column and most of the second column on f. 519r but is completed on the first column f. 519v. The Preaching List begins in the bottom section of f. 519r and continues on f. 519v after the completion of S. 839. Although both texts are carefully transcribed, the reason for this complex layout is not apparent to me. 32 The leaf missing is quire 24 is a post-production loss; the two added leaves in quire 25 were both added as part of original production of the missal.

218 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 17 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 536r (Ordo Missae), p. 223 Figure 18 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 566r (Biblical concordance), p. 224

8.2.3 Liturgical Texts Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 contains a calendar at the beginning of the manuscript and a full missal towards the end that are likely from the same production unit, given the unusual inclusion of St. Barbara in both sections. The calendar is written in black ink with higher ranked feasts written in red ink; the red ink is in some cases quite faded and difficult to read. The calendar is arranged with four months per folio. The feast ranks in the main hand are Totum Duplex, Duplex, Semiduplex, IX lectionum, III lectionum, and Commemoratio. Aside from the extensive 15th-century additions of British (and some other) saints added in grey and red ink but likely by a single hand, the only addition to the calendar is Petri martyris ordinis predicatorum on 29 April; it is not clear which feast rank is written, but it seems to be Totum duplex (although it is possibly Festum duplex). Throughout the biblical text, marginal annotations that appear to date to the initial production of the manuscript indicate the beginning and endings of mass readings with the letters “p” and “f” (= Principium and Finis) and sometimes give further details concerning the incipits or explicits of liturgical readings. For instance, on f. 468v a signe-de-renvoi in the left margin near Act 3:13 (Deus abraham, et deus ysaac, et deus iacob) points to a note in the lower margin indicating how this passage should be performed in the liturgy: Secundum in epistola. In diebus illis: Aperiens petrus os suum: dixit. Viri israelite: et qui timetis deum, audite. Deus abraham etc. The letter “p” appears in the main column next to Act 3:13 and the letter “f” appears with a signe-de-renvoi connecting it to the end of Act 3:19 (peccata vestra). The long incipit in the lower margin and the indications of the beginning and end of the passage in the side margins correspond to and supplement the incipit and explicit provided for the Feria quarta in the Octave of Easter in the missal section of the manuscript on f. 537vb: In diebus illis: aperiens petrus os suum dixit. Finis. Ut deleantur peccata vestra. In addition to the “p” and “f” indications which appear frequently throughout the manuscript, other examples of marginal indications of special texts for incipits and/or explicits (often specified with the rubric in epistola) can be found on ff. 82v, 292r, 454r, 466v, etc.33 In the full missal, most chants and orations are provided with full texts, while most scriptural readings give the book name, chapter number, section letter, incipit, and explicit. For instance, the epistle for the First Sunday of Advent is listed on f. 523ra as follows (with bold indicating red ink): Rom. XIII. d. Fratres: scientes quia hora est: Finis. Sed induimini: dominum ihesum christum. On some occasions, such as the epistle for the Octave of Epiphany on f. 525vb, the full text of a reading is provided.34 In some cases, some texts are given with incipits and explicits and others are given full texts; for instance, Ember Saturday in Advent gives the full text for the reading from Isaiah while providing only the incipit and explicit for the reading from Titus (ff. 523vb–524rb). In some cases, only an incipit is provided, usually for readings which are given in full text versions in the Common of Saints. Finally, references are sometimes given to other occasions where the reading can be found. According to the analysis of Giraud 2022, pp. 284–285, the Cambridge bible missal provides two distinctive gospel readings compared to the broader repertoire of Dominican liturgical books used in England (including post-Humbert sources). For Thursday of the first week in Lent (f. 527v), the missal gives Io 5:30–47 (Non possum ego) in place of Io 8:31–45 (Si vos manseritis) found in most other Dominican sources.35 Io 8:31–45 is in turn given for the Saturday of Passion Week

33 For a brief discussion of the indication of liturgical readings in McClean, see Poleg 2020a, p. 32. The Dominican bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 163 likewise provides “p” and “f” indications throughout the bible; see p. 292 below. 34 In this case, the reading (Domine deus meus honorificabo … in universa terra. Dicit dominus omnipotens.) is a particularly complex text compiled from various chapters of Is; see the analysis in Frere 1935, p. 93 of this reading as found in St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, Ms. Lat. Q.v.I.16, an 8th/9th-century epistolary known as the “Comes of Leningrad”; cf. Gamber 1968, p. 432, n. 1005 and Bischoff 2004, p. 83, n. 2318. 35 The inclusion of Io 5:30–47 is shared by McClean 16 with the Dominican epistle and gospel list found in Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Auct. D. 5. 9 and the pre-Humbert missals Lausanne, MHL 10, f. 31v, Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, f. 40v, and Mons, BC 63/201, f. 36v. Notably, this gospel pericope is found in only four (3%) of the 211 liturgical traditions indexed in the Usuarium database, i.e., the Cistercian liturgy and diocesan books from Die, Lyon, and Tarentaise. 82% of the sources in Usuarium give Io 8:31–45 (Si vos manseritis), 15% give Mt 15:21–28 (Egressus Iesus secessit), 2% give Mc 7:24–30 (Surgens Iesus abiit), and 1% give Mt 5:20–24 (Nisi abundaverit) Cf. https://usuarium.elte.hu/research/synopsis?genre=110 (under the heading Qu/H1/f5).

8.2 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16  

 219

Figure 13: Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. IIIr (Calendar).

(f. 532r) instead of the Io 17:1–7 found in other sources. The missal also provides a specific formulary for 30 December, a feature shared with several other pre-Humbert missals.36 In addition to the orations, readings, and chant texts, the full missal is noteworthy for its consistent specification of incipits for the preface and proper Communicantes, and Hanc igitur texts throughout temporal and occasionally in other sections. Additionally, incipits are occasionally provided for sequences, while the full texts of the sequence repertoire

36 See f. 525r: “Sequenti die post festum sancti thome ad missam.” Formularies for 30 December are found in Lausanne, MHL 10, f. 14v, Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, f. 19v, and Mons, BC 63/201, f. 13v. Paris, BnF, latin 8884, f. 21v includes a rubric for this occasion, but does not specify any proper texts, perhaps due to scribal error. Post-Humbert sources (e.g., Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 457r–v) do not provide a formulary for 30 December, going directly from the major mass of Christmas to the Sunday within the octave of Christmas.

220 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 14: Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 4v (Gn).

are provided at the end of the full missal. Notably, this is the only Dominican bible missal which provides full texts for sequences.37 The full missal has two added leaves in Quire 25 (ff. 545–570) which were both likely added during the production process. The first is a partial leaf (i.e., slightly smaller than a full-sized leaf), f. 547, which was likely added at a late stage of the production of the missal to provide a series of texts which were omitted by scribal error. On f. 548rb, after providing the formulary for Sancti mathie apostoli (24 February) from the introit incipit through the communion incipit, the original scribe accidentally skipped to the epistle for the feast of the Annunciation (25 March) instead of providing the postcommunion for St. Mathias in the proper place. The missing texts were supplied on the verso of the partial leaf f. 547 inserted between ff. 546 and 548, which provides the postcommunion for St. Mathias, followed by the full formularies for Sancti

37 Rome, Angelica 32 occasionally provides incipits for sequences but not full texts.

8.2 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16  

 221

Figure 15: Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 520r (Preaching List).

gregorii pape et confessoris (12 March), Sancti benedicti abbatis (21 March), and the title rubric, introit, and collect for In annuntiatione beate marie (25 March). The texts supplied on f. 547v are written by a different scribe than those on 548r, but the same rubricator appears to have written the texts in red on both folios; it seems likely that the rubricator also wrote the text in black ink on f. 547v. The rubricator added a signe de renvoi in red ink on ff. 547v and 548r in order to make clear to the user where the text continued. A later user added further symbols and annotations in black ink to reinforce the connection. As only the verso of the partial leaf was needed to supply the missing texts, f. 547r was used to add a series of devotional prayers which will be discussed further below. Given the fact that the texts on 547v supply liturgical material accidentally omitted by the original scribe, rather than providing supplemental liturgical texts, and given the continuity of rubrication and artistic decoration, it seems almost certain that this leaf was added as part of the original production process. The second addition is a full leaf (f. 565) added between the end of the missal section and the beginning of the biblical concordance. This leaf comes at the end of the missal section after a series of sequences that are given in liturgical order

222 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 16: Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 523r (Missal).

from the Nativity of the Lord through the Feast of All Saints with temporal and sanctoral feasts intertwined, followed by a sequence De sanctis evangelistis and a sequence In dedicatione ecclesie (Table 143). The added leaf begins with three further sequences, one for St. Dominic and two for Mary. There is significant liturgical and codicological evidence that these texts are either a later addition or were added at a late stage of the production process. St. Dominic appears out of liturgical order, while the two Marian sequences have rubrics (De beata virgine and Item de beata virgine) which suggest that they may be used ad libitum on Marian feasts or commemorations. Notably, the liturgical texts for St. Dominic in the main portion of the full missal on f. 551v do not reference a sequence, although the entry for the Assumption on f. 552v does include the incipit of the sequence Aurea virga, provided with a full text in the sequence section on f. 564r. Although the rubrication and flourished initials are written in a similar style on f. 565r and the preceding leaves, the text on f. 565r is written on a larger text block (c. 132 x 85 rather than c. 128 x 80 as in the main missal layout) and with 48 lines ruled at 3 mm per line rather than the c. 54–60 lines ruled at 2 mm per line in the main missal layout (cf. Layouts M1 and M3 in the Material Features section below). Further, the text on f. 565r is written in a slightly narrower script than the

8.2 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16  

 223

Figure 17: Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 536r (Ordo Missae).

preceding texts. This evidence suggests the final three sequences were added at a late stage in the production of the manuscript, likely as part of the production process itself given the continuity of decoration and rubrication. While further research is needed on the sequences and other texts in this manuscript, the fact that the Dominic sequence is not part of the “original” sequence repertoire is perhaps significant for dating the manuscript and for understanding the chronology of the development of the mass texts for St. Dominic. All but two of the sequences included in the missal have parallels in other pre-Humbert sequence repertoires studied by Margot Fassler.38 With the exception of the Dominic sequence, none of them are part of the repertoire of sequences Fassler identifies as being composed by the Dominicans themselves.39 The two sequences not found in other pre-Humbert Dominican manuscripts, Iocundare plebs fidelis and Sancte syon, are both found in other manuscript sources that predate the Cambridge manuscript. Iocundare plebs fidelis was fairly widespread, 38 See Fassler 2004. 39 See Fassler 2004, pp. 245–248.

224 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 18: Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 566r (Biblical concordance).

being found in at least 47 manuscripts indexed by Calvin Bower.40 Sancte syon was less well known, only appearing in 3 manuscript sources in the Cantus Index; one of these is an early 13th-century missal from Notre Dame de Paris, which is suggestive in light of the likely Parisian origin of the Cambridge bible missal.41

40 Iocundare plebs fidelis appears in 47 manuscripts inventoried by Calvin Bower for the Cantus Database, two of which are pre-13th century: Paris, BnF, NAL 3126, a mid-12th-century prosary from Nevers, and Paris, BnF, latin 1086, a late 12th-century processional and prosary from Limoges; see http://cantus.uwaterloo.ca/sequence/634892. 41 Sancte syon appears in 2 manuscripts and 1 printed missal inventoried by Bower in the Cantus Database, and one additional manuscript included in the Cantus Index; see http://cantus.uwaterloo.ca/sequence/629799 and http://cantusindex.org/id/ah55033. The three manuscript sources all date to the 13th century: Orléans, BM 129 (107), a late 13th-century ordinal and sequentiary from Fleury-sur-Loire; Paris, BnF, latin 904, a 13th-century gradual from Rouen; and Paris, BnF, latin 1112, an early 13th-century (after c. 1220?) missal from Notre Dame de Paris.

8.2 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16  

 225

Table 143: Sequences in Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16. Folios

Rubric

Incipit

563va–vb 563vb 563vb 563vb–564ra 564ra 564ra–rb 564rb 564rb 564rb–va 564va–vb 564vb 564vb 565ra 565ra–rb 565rb

In nativitate domini sequentia In purificatione sancte marie In sabbatis de sancta maria In resurrectione domini In ascensione domini In die penthecostes In assumptione beate marie In nativitate sancte marie De quolibet sancto In festo omnium sanctorum De sanctis evangelistis In dedicatione ecclesie Sequentia de beato dominico De beata virgine Item de beata virgine

Letabundus Hac clara die Ave maria gratia plena Victime paschali laudes Rex omnipotens die hodierna Sancti spiritus assit nobis gratia Aurea virga Hodierne lux diei celebris Superne matris gaudia Gaudeat ecclesia Iocundare plebs fidelis Sancte syon In celesti ierarchia Salve mater salvatoris Inviolata integra et casta

After the three sequences that appear on the added leaf 565, the remainder of f. 565r–v is occupied with two devotional prayers: Summe sacerdos (introduced by the rubric Oratio beati augustini) and Si tantum delinquentie (introduced by the rubric Item alia oratio). Although these prayers begin in the same column as the sequences on f. 565rb, they are written in a slightly wider column and with a smaller script; nevertheless, they appear to be by the same scribe. Further, the script is almost identical to that of the devotional prayers on the recto of the added partial leaf (f. 547) mentioned above, which contains three further devotional prayers: Deus misericordissime atque iustissime, Conscientia culpabilis vita trepidus, and Mordacis conscientie stimulis. Notably, each of these three prayers are introduced with the rubric Item alia oratio, the same rubric used for the second devotional prayer on f. 565v. It seems likely then that these prayers on the recto of f. 547 were written after (or conceived as continuing) the texts written on the added leaf 565, and that both leaves were written at a late stage of the production of the full missal.42 Finally, in addition to the liturgical texts in the full missal towards the end of the manuscript, a contemporary or slightly later hand added a mass formulary for St. Elizabeth of Hungary at the end of the Psalter on f. 232vb.43

8.2.4 Provenance The manuscript was likely written in France for a Dominican friar judging by the Dominican liturgical texts. It was later in England, where an owner added English saints to the calendar in what Nigel Morgan identifies as a late 15th-century hand. In 1889, it was listed as Lot 442 in a catalog of the London booksellers Robson and Kerslake (Robson and Kerslake 1889). On 1 June 1892, it was sold as Lot 548 in the Sotheby’s sale of an anonymous collector from Petersham (Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge 1892); the Petersham collector likely added the armorial bookplate featuring the motto Deo et regi.44 It 42 A similar but not identical group of devotional prayers are found in the votive missal section of the bible missal London/Oslo, Schøyen 115; see pp. 245–246 below. 43 Although carefully written, the formulary was never decorated or rubricated. The formulary consists of incipits or full texts for the chants (beginning with Gaudeamus omnes in domino sub honore beate helyzabeth de cuius solemnitate and including a proper Alleluia Digne decet nos laudare and a proper sequence Dies sancta choruscavit [cf. Dreves 1890, pp. 121–122, Analecta Hymnica 8, n. 154]), full texts for the orations (beginning with CO 6007: Tuorum corda fidelium), and incipits for the epistle and gospel. With the exception of the sequence, the formulary is identical to that provided in the 1534 Missale ad usum ecclesiae Abrincensis (= Avranches); cf. https://usuarium.elte.hu/book/191/conspectuses. 44 James 1912 tentatively identified the bookplate as indicating ownership of the manuscript by James Thomson Gibson-Craig (1799–1886), but this identification is incorrect. James 1912 makes the following comment about the bookplate: “Contains the book-plate of?Gibson Craig with motto Deo et regi.” Gibson-Craig was a Scottish book collector whose substantial collection was sold at Sotheby’s on 27 June 1887, 23 March 1888, and 15 November 1888. In the catalogs of these sales, there are no manuscripts that correspond with McClean 16. Further, in the British Armorial Bindings database (https://armorial.library.utoronto.ca/stamp-owners/GIB002), none of the three binding stamps of Gibson-Craig correspond with the Deo et regi crest. All three have the motto Pandite cælestes portæ; two depict a pelican feeding her young, and one depicts a crest with three keys.

226 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

was then acquired by Frank McClean (1837–1904), who bequeathed it to the Fitzwilliam Museum, where it was assigned the shelfmark McClean 16 by M.R. James.45

8.2.5 Material Features Binding dimensions: 175 x 115 x 70 mm Binding: Brown leather binding, labelled on inside cover “Riviere & Son 1889.” Title on spine: “BIBLIA / LATINA // MS. / ANGLICANUM // CIRCA 1275.” Material of leaves: Parchment Dimensions of leaves: 167 x 110 mm Number of leaves: 2 modern parchment flyleaves + 647 + 2 modern parchment flyleaves Foliation (Modern): I–IV, 1–525, unfoliated leaf (525bis), 526–642. Foliation (Medieval): N/A Secundo folio: [appel]labantur videntes (2r) Quires: The manuscript is mostly made up of quires of 24 leaves. Quire A, which contains the calendar and other notes, has 4 leaves.46 Quire 5, which concludes with Rt, contains 14 leaves; the following quire of 24 leaves starts a new biblical book (I Rg). Quire 10, which concludes the Psalter, has 26 leaves. Quire 17, which includes the end of II Mcc and the beginning of Mt, has 20 leaves. Quire 22, which contains the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, has 26 leaves. Quire 23, which contains a preaching list, has 4 leaves. Quire 24, which begins the missal, originally had 24 leaves, but is now missing one with loss of text.47 Quire 25 is a quire of 24 leaves with two added leaves which were probably added at the end of the production of the missal. The manuscript concludes with three quires of varying types which contain the bulk of the biblical concordance (which begins on quire 25): quire 26 has 32 leaves, quire 27 has 34 leaves, and quire 28 has 6 leaves. Quire marks: Catchwords appear at the end of quires 2 (48v), 3 (72v), 4 (96v), 6 (134v; cropped), 7 (158v), 8 (182v), 9 (206v), 12 (280v), 13 (304v), 14 (328v), 16 (376v; cropped), 17 (396v; cropped), 19 (444v). Leaf signatures appear in red ink in quire 26. Layout: B1: c. 110 x 70 mm; 49 lines in two columns [33 + 33] 1r–221v (Bible: Gn–Iob) 233r–492v (Bible: Prv–Apc) B2: c. 110 x 70 mm; 52–53 lines in two columns [31 + 33] 222r–232v (Bible: Ps) C: c. 133 x 83 mm; 59–71 lines in five columns [15 + 13 + 14 + 13 + 15] 566r–642v (Biblical concordance) I: c. 127 x 100 mm; 58 lines in three columns [30 + 30 + 27] James appears to have been misled in his identification of the Deo et regi crest by a manuscript in the McClean collection which has an indisputable Gibson-Craig provenance: Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 151, a Spanish Patent of Nobility dated to 1624. In his description of this manuscript on p. 296, James states that the manuscript is “From Mr Gibson Craig’s collection according to a pencil note in the cover. Bookplate of Gibson Craig with motto Deo et Regi.” Notably, James does not put a question mark before the name Gibson-Craig in the entry for McClean 151, as he does in the entry for McClean 16. McClean 151 is identifiable with Lot 1042 of the 23 March 1888 Sotheby’s sale of the Gibson-Craig library (Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge 1888, p. 64). The annotated copy of the 23 March 1888 Sotheby’s catalog at the British Library indicates that Lot 1042 was sold to “Robson,” likely Robson and Kerslake. In 1892, the 1624 patent (now McClean 151) was sold as Lot 693 in the 1 June 1892 Sotheby’s sale of the library of an anonymous collector from Petersham, England (Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge 1892, p. 57). Several other lots from the 1892 sale can be identified with manuscripts now in the McClean collection. Lot 548 corresponds with the bible missal McClean 16. Lot 552 corresponds with Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 53, a Hieronymite processional. Lot 554 corresponds with Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 88, a 16th-century fragmentary Book of Hours. Lot 691 Corresponds with Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 96, a Flemish Book of Hours. All five manuscripts that can be linked to the 1892 sale have the Deo et regi bookplate, but no other manuscripts in the McClean collection have such a bookplate. It thus seems likely that the Deo et regi bookplate belonged to the anonymous collector from Petersham, who added it to these five manuscripts. 45 See James 1912, p. viii. 46 In the designation of the quires, I follow the labels given by James 1912, who designates the first quire as “A” and refers to the subsequent quires as 1–28. 47 James 1912, p. 30 indicated that quire 24 has 22 leaves; he appears to have not counted the unnumbered leaf between 525 and 526.

8.2 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16  

 227

493r–518v (Interpretations of Hebrew Names) K: c. 135 x 97 mm; 64 lines in two columns IIIr-IVv (Calendar) M1: c. 128 x 80 mm; 54–60 lines in two columns [35 + 35] 523r–536r, 537r–564v (Missal, with the exception of the Ordo Missae and the final sequences and devotional prayers) M2: c. 128 x 80 mm; 41 lines in two columns [35 + 35] 536v (Ordo Missae)48 M3: c. 132 x 85 mm; 48 lines in two columns [37 + 43] 565r–565v (Final sequences and devotional prayers) P: c. 135 x 90 mm; 63 lines in four columns [18 + 18 + 20 + 20] 519r–521v (Preaching list) Script: Northern textualis.

8.2.6 Artistic Decoration Running Header: Names of biblical books in alternating red and blue capitals with decorative lines on the right and left (with the exception of Psalms, the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, the preaching list, and the full missal, which have no running header; the biblical concordance has letters in the running header corresponding to the opening letters of the biblical words on each folio). Biblical Books: Decorated initials; rubrics for the incipits and explicits. Biblical Prologues: Littera duplex initials; rubrics for the incipits and explicits. Biblical Chapters: Two-line red or blue flourished initials; chapter numbers in alternating red and blue capitals in the column. Biblical Text: Consistent use of highlighting for beginning of sentences. Psalms: Decorated initials for Ps 1, Ps 26, Ps 38, Ps 52, Ps 68, Ps 80, Ps 97, Ps 109; two-line flourished initials for other psalms; single-line red or blue initials for psalm verses. The psalms are numbered with Roman numerals in red ink in the margins next to the incipit. The psalm verse initials all appear at the left margin due to the abbreviation of the psalm verses to each fit in a single line or half line. Liturgical Texts: Littera duplex initial for the opening Ad te levavi initial (f. 523r); flourished initials for other texts. (Due to the loss of one folio between ff. 536 and 537 that would have included the opening of the canon, it is possible that there was a higher level of decoration for the Te igitur.) Other: Blank spaces throughout the bible section are often provided with liner filler flourishing.

8.2.7 Quires and Contents Quires

Folio Range

Content

QA: folios I–IV (4)

Ir

Pen trials

Iv

Blank space: 1 folio

IIr

“An unfinished story in Latin on the origin of the Psalter of the Virgin” (James 1912)

IIv

Sanguis Christi est Vita Christiani. (16th-century hand according to James 1912)

IIIra–IVrb

Dominican calendar

IVva

“On iv b is part of a sermon (?) in a very good xiiith cent. hand.” (James 1912)

IVvb

Blank space: 1 column

Layout K

48 Due to the missing Ordo Missae leaf, I have taken these measurements from f. 536v, as it is the only extant folio which contains the full Ordo Missae layout.

228 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

Q1: 1–24 (24) Layout B1

1ra–3vb

S. 284

3vb–4rb

S. 285

4rb

Blank space: 11 lines

4va–24va

Gn

24va–42rb

Ex

42rb–54va

Lv

54va–72ra

Nm

72ra–87ra

Dt

Q2: 25–48 (24) Q3: 49–72 (24) Q4: 73–96 (24) Q5: 97–110 (14)

Q6: 111–134 (24)

Q7: 135–158 (24)

Q8: 159–182 (24) Q9: 183–206 (24)

Q10: 207–232 (26)

Layout B2

87ra–va

S. 311

87va–97vb

Ios

97vb–109rb

Idc

109rb–110vb

Rt

110vb

Blank space: 2 lines

111ra–va

S. 323

111va–124vb

I Rg

124vb

Blank space: 1 line

124va–134vb

II Rg

134vb–146vb

III Rg

146vb–158va

IV Rg

158va–vb

S. 328

158vb–169va

I Par

169va–182vb

II Par (Not preceded by S. 327, which is supplied at 518vb–vc)

182vb–183ra

Or Man

183ra–va

S. 330

183va–187rb

I Esr

187rb–192va

II Esr [Neh]

192vb–198rb

III Esr [II Esr]

198rb–va

S. 332

198va–202rb

Tb

202rb

S. 335

202rb–207rb

Idt

207rb

S. 341 + S. 343

207rb–212ra

Est

212ra–va

S. 344

212va

S. 357

212va–222ra

Iob

222ra–232va249

Ps (Decorated initials for Ps 1 [222ra], Ps 26 [223va], Ps 38 [224va], Ps 52 [225va], Ps 68 [226vb], Ps 80 [228ra], Ps 97 [229rb], Ps 109 [230vb].

49 “a2” here refers to a subdivision within the “a” column.

8.2 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16  

 229

(continued) Quires

Q11: 233–256 (24) Layout B1

Q12: 257–280 (24)

Q13: 281–304 (24) Q14: 305–328 (24)

Q15: 329–352 (24)

Folio Range

Content

232va2

Canticle list with allegorical interpretations50

232vb

Added mass texts for Elizabeth of Hungary in originally blank column

233ra

S. 457

233rb–240vb

Prv

240vb–241ra

S. 462

241ra–243vb

Ecl

243vb–245ra

Ct

245rb

S. 468

245rb–251rb

Sap

251rb–266vb

Sir

266vb

Blank space: 2 lines, filled with red line fillers

267ra–rb

S. 482

267rb–286ra

Is

286va

S. 487

286va–309ra

Ier

309ra–311ra

Lam

311ra

S. 491

311ra–313vb

Bar

313vb–314ra

S. 492

314ra–334vb

Ez

334vb–335rb

S. 494

335rb–343vb

Dn

343vb–344ra

S. 500

344ra

S. 507

344rb–347ra

Os

347ra

S. 511

347ra–rb

S. 510

347rb–348va

Ioel

348va

S. 515

348va–vb

S. 512

348vb

S. 513

348vb–351ra

Am

351ra–rb

S. 519

351rb

S. 517 (Presented without a break after S. 519 in the Parisian Order; here presented as a separate prologue)

351rb–vb

Abd

50 See Poleg 2020a, p. 36: “The list of Canticles is followed by a unique allegorical interpretation that linked each of them to a cardinal sin (‘These morals: Pride, Wrath …’ ‘Hec moralia. Superbia, ira …’).”

230 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Q16: 353–376 (24)

Q17: 377–396 (20)

Q18: 397–420 (24)

Q19: 421–444 (24)

Q20: 445–468 (24)

Folio Range

Content

351vb

S. 524

352ra

S. 521

352ra–vb

Ion

352vb

S. 526

353ra–354vb

Mi

354vb

S. 528

355ra–vb

Na

355vb–356rb

S. 531

356rb–357rb

Hab

357rb–va

S. 534

357va–358va

So

358va–vb

S. 538

359ra–va

Agg

359va–vb

S. 539

359vb–363va

Za

363va–vb

S. 543

363vb–365ra

Mal

365ra–rb

S. 547

365rb–va

S. 553

365va

S. 551

365va–380rb

I Mcc

380rb–390rb

II Mcc

390va

S. 590

390va–vb

S. 589

390vb–404vb

Mt

404vb–405ra

S. 607

405ra–413vb

Mc

413vb

Lc 1:1–4 (Labelled Prologus)

413vb–414ra

S. 620

414ra–428va

Lc (beginning Lc 1:5)

428vb

S. 624

429ra–439ra

Io

439ra

S. 677

439ra–444ra

Rm

444ra

S. 685

444ra–449ra

I Cor

449rb

S. 699

449rb–452va

II Cor

452va

S. 707

452va–454rb

Gal

8.2 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16  

 231

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

454rb

S. 715

454rb–456ra

Eph

456ra

S. 728

456ra–457ra

Phil

457rb

S. 736

457rb–458rb

Col

458rb

S. 747

458rb–459rb

I Th

459rb

S. 752

459va–460ra

II Th

460ra

S. 765

460ra–461rb

I Tim

461rb–va

S. 772

461va–462va

II Tim

462va

S. 780

462va–463ra

Tit

463ra

S. 783

463ra–rb

Phlm

463rb–va

S. 793

463va–467rb

Hbr

467rb–va

S. 640

467va

S. 631 (Non-Parisian prologue)

467va–480va

Act

480va–vb

S. 809

480vb–482ra

Iac

482ra–483rb

I Pt

483va–484rb

II Pt

484rb–485va

I Io

485va

II Io

485vb

III Io

485vb–486rb

Iud

486rb

S. 835 (Non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 839, which is supplied at ff. 519r–v; a marginal note draws attention to this: Hic debet scribi quidam prologus qui incipit Omnes qui pie etc. qui est in fine.)

486rb–va

S. 831 (Non-Parisian prologue)

486va–492vb

Apc

Q22: 493–518 (26) Layout I

493ra–518vb

Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim. Lodabar … Malaoth are transcribed after Zuzim, apparently to account for entries that were omitted by scribal error)

Layout P

518vb–vc

S. 327 (Parisian prologue for II Par; preceded by the following rubric: Iste prologus est secundi libri paralipomenon et deberet ibi scribi et legi sic. Cf. 169va)

518vc

Blank space: 6 lines

Q21: 469–492 (24)

232 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

Q23: 519–522 (4) Layout P

519ra–rb (upper)

S. 839 [Beginning] (Parisian prologue for Apc. Cf. 468rb)

519rb (lower)

Preaching list

519va

S. 839 [Conclusion]

519va–521vd

Preaching list continued

521vd

Blank space: 25 lines

522r–v

Blank leaf with some faint writing on recto and verso and xxxvii c l written in blue ink on the bottom of 522v followed by et de maioribus vii. [?] in red ink

523ra

[Full missal] [Temporal] Dominica prima in adventu

523ra–rb

Dominica secunda

523rb

Dominica tertia

523rb–va

Feria quarta

523va–vb

Feria sexta

523vb–524rb

Sabbato (full reading from Dn; incipits and explicits for other readings)

Q24: 523–544 (24-1 between 536 and 537) [unnumbered folio after 525] Layout M1

524rb

Dominica quarta

524rb–va

In vigilia natalis domini

524va–vb

In nocte nativitatis domini ad primam missam (full reading from Is; incipits and explicits for other readings)

524vb–ra

In aurora ad missam (full reading from Is; incipits and explicits for other readings)

525ra

In die ad maiorem missam

525ra

Sequenti die post festum sancti thome ad missam

525ra–rb

Dominica infra octavas

525rb

In circumcisione domini

525rb

Memoria de beata virgine

525rb–va

In vigilia epiphanie domini

525va

In die epiphanie

525va–vb

Dominica infra octavas

525vb

In octava epiphanie (full reading from Is)

525vb–525(bis)ra

Dominica prima post octavam epiphanie

525(bis)ra

Dominica secunda

525(bis)ra–rb

Dominica tertia

525(bis)rb

Dominica quarta

525(bis)rb

Dominica quinta

525(bis)rb–va

Dominica in septuagesima

525(bis)va–vb

Dominica in sexagesima

525(bis)vb

Dominica in quinquagesima

525(bis) vb–526va

Feria quarta in capite ieiunii

526va

Feria quinta

526va–vb

Feria sexta

526vb

Sabbato

8.2 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16  

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

526vb–527ra

In quadragesima

527ra–rb

Feria secunda

527rb

Feria tertia

527rb–va

Feria quarta

527va–vb

Feria quinta

527vb

Feria sexta

527vb–528rb

Sabbato (full reading from II Mcc)

528rb

Dominica secunda in quadragesima

528rb–va

Feria secunda

528va

Feria tertia

528va–vb

Feria quarta

528vb

Feria quinta

528vb–529ra

Feria sexta

529ra

Sabbato

529ra–rb

Dominica tertia in quadragesima

529rb

Feria secunda

529rb–va

Feria tertia

529va

Feria quarta

529va–vb

Feria quinta

529vb–530ra

Feria sexta (full reading from Nm)

530ra

Sabbato

530ra–rb

Dominica quarta in quadragesima

530rb

Feria secunda

530rb–va

Feria tertia

530va–vb

Feria quarta

530vb

Feria quinta

530vb–531ra

Feria sexta

531ra

Sabbato

531ra–rb

Dominica in passione

531rb–va

Feria secunda

531va

Feria tertia

531va–vb

Feria quarta

531vb

Feria quinta

531vb–532ra

Feria sexta

532ra

Sabbato

532ra–vb

Dominica in ramis palmarum

532vb–533ra

Feria secunda

533ra

Feria tertia

533ra–rb

Feria quarta

 233

234 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Layout M2 Layout M1

Folio Range

Content

533rb–534ra

Feria quinta in cena domini

534ra–535rb

In die parasceve

535rb–536rb

Sabbato sancto

536rb–vb

[Ordo Missae: prefaces (ends imperfectly)]

537ra–rb

[Ordo Missae: canon and post-canon prayers (begins imperfectly)]

537rb–va

In die sancto pasche

537va

Feria secunda

537va–vb

Feria tertia

537vb

Feria quarta

537vb–538ra

Feria quinta

538ra

Feria sexta

538ra–rb

Sabbato

538rb

Dominica in octabas pasche

538rb–va

Dominica secunda post pascha

538va

Dominica tertia

538va–vb

Dominica quarta

538vb

Dominica quinta

538vb–539ra

Feria secunda in rogationibus

539ra

Feria tertia

539ra–rb

In vigilia ascensionis

539rb–va

In die ascensionis domini

539va

Dominica infra octavam ascensionis

539va

In octava ascensionis

539va–vb

In vigilia penthecostes

539vb–540ra

In die penthecostes

540ra

Feria secunda

540ra–rb

Feria tertia

540rb

Feria quarta

540rb

Feria quinta

540rb–va

Feria sexta

540va–vb

Sabbato

540vb

Dominica prima post pentechostes de sancta trinitate

540vb–541ra

Dominica secunda

541ra

Dominica tertia

541ra–rb

Dominica quarta

541rb

Dominica quinta

541rb–va

Dominica sexta

541va

Dominica septima

541va–vb

Dominica octava

541vb

Dominica nona

8.2 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16  

(continued) Quires

Q25: 545–570 (24+2 [547 and 565])

Folio Range

Content

541vb–542ra

Dominica decima

542ra

Dominica [11]

542ra–rb

Dominica [12]

542rb

Dominica [13]

542rb–va

Dominica [14]

542va

Dominica [15]

542va

Dominica [16]

542va–vb

Dominica [17]

542vb–543ra

Dominica [18]

543ra

Feria quarta in ieiuniis quatuor temporum

543ra–rb

Feria sexta

543rb–va

Sabbato

543va

Dominica [19]

543va–vb

Dominica [20]

543vb

Dominica [21]

543vb–544ra

Dominica [22]

544ra

Dominica [23]

544ra–rb

Dominica [24]

544rb

Dominica [25]

544rb

Dominica [26]

544rb–va

[Rubrics on the structure of the liturgical year]

544va

In dedicatione ecclesie

544va

Per octabas

544va–vb

[Sanctoral] In vigilia sancti andree

544vb

Sancti saturini martyris

544vb–545ra

In die sancti andree

545ra

Sancte barbare virginis et martyris

545ra

Sancti nicholai

545ra

In octava sancti andree

545ra–rb

Sancte lucie virginis et martyris

545rb

Sancti thome apostoli

545rb

Sancti stephani

545rb–va

Sancti iohanis evangeliste

545va

Sanctorum innocentum

545va–vb

Sancti thome martyris

545vb

Sancti silvestri pape

545vb

Si octava sancti iohanis vel sancti stephani vel innocentum die […]

545vb

Sancti pauli hermite quere in communi

545vb

Sanctorum hylarii et remigii

545vb–546ra

Sancti felicis in pincis

 235

236 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

[NB: 547 is an added partial leaf]

Folio Range

Content

546ra

Sancti marcelli pape

546ra

Sancte prisce virginis

546ra–rb

Sanctorum fabiani et sebastiani

546rb

Sancte agnetis virginis

546rb

Vincentii martyris

546rb–va

In conversione sancti pauli

546va

Agnetis secundo

546va

Sancti ignatii episcopi et martyris (Addition in left margin)

546va–548ra

In die purificationis sancte marie

547ra–rb

Item alia oratio: Deus misericordissime atque iustissime

547rb

Item alia oratio: Conscientia culpabilis vite trepidus

547rb

Item alia oratio: Mordacis conscientie stimulis

548ra

Sancte agathe virginis

548ra

Sanctorum vedasti et amandi episcoporum memoria

548ra

Scolastice virginis memoria

548ra

Valentini martyris

548ra–rb

In cathedra sancti petri

548rb–547va

Sancti mathie

547va

Sancti gregorii pape et confessoris

547va–vb

Sancti benedicti abbatis

547vb–548va

In annuntiatione beate marie

548va

Sancti ambrosii episcopi

548va

Sanctorum tiburcii et valeriani

548va–vb

Sancti georgii martyris

548vb

Sancti marci evangeliste

548vb

Sancti vitalis martyris

548vb–549ra

Apostolorum philippi et iacobi

549ra

Sanctorum alexandri et sociorum eius

549ra–rb

In inventione sancte crucis

549rb

Sancti iohanis ante portam latinam

549rb

Sanctorum gordiani et epimachi

549rb–va

Sanctorum nerei et achillei atque pancracii

549va

Potenciane virginis memoria

549va

In translatione beati dominici: omnia sicut in die (Addition in upper margin)

549va

Urbani pape et martyris

549va

Sancte petronille virginis non martyris memoria de communi unius virginis (Addition in left margin)

549va

Nichomedis martyris memoria

549va

Marcelli et petri

549va

Medardi episcopi et confessoris commemoratio de communi unius confessoris et episcopi (Addition in left margin)

8.2 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16  

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

549va

Sanctorum primi et feliciani

549va–vb

Sancti barnabe apostoli

549vb

Sanctorum basilidi cirini et naboris

549vb

Sanctorum viti et modesti martyrum memoria

549vb

Sanctorum cyrici et iulite memoria

549vb

Sanctorum marci et marcelliani

549vb

Sanctorum gervasii et prothsai

549vb–550ra

In vigilia beati iohanis baptiste

550ra–rb

In die ad missam (full reading from Ier)

550rb

Cotidie per octavam dicatur ad missam

550rb

Sanctorum martirum iohanis et pauli

550rb–va

In vigilia apostolorum petri et pauli

550va

Eodem die sancti leonis pape memoria

550va

In die

550va–vb

In commemoratione sancti pauli

550vb

In octava die sancti iohanis baptiste ad missam ut in die

550vb

Memoria de apostolis

550vb

Sanctorum processi et martiani

550vb

Per octabas apostolorum

550vb

In translatione sancti martini memoria

550vb

In octava apostolorum

550vb

Sanctorum septem fratrum

550vb–551ra

Sancte margarete virginis

551ra

Sancte praxedis virginis

551ra

Sancte marie magdalene

551ra

Sancti apollinaris martyris

551ra

Sancte christine virginis et martyris

551ra–rb

Sancti iacobi apostoli

551rb

Eodem die sancto christofori et cucufatis memoria

551rb

Sanctorum martyrum nazarii celsi et pantaleonis

551rb

Sanctorum martyrum felicis simplicii faustini et beatricis

551rb

Sanctorum abdon et sennes martyrum

551rb–va

Sancti petri ad vincula

551va

Eodem die sanctorum machabeorum memoria

551va

Sancti stephani pape et martyris

551va

In inventione sancti stephani prothomartyris

551va–vb

Beati dominici confessoris

551vb

Sixti pape et martiris

551vb

Eodem die sanctorum felicissimi et agapiti martyrum memoria

551vb

Sancti donati episcopi et martyris commemoratio

 237

238 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

551vb

Sanctorum ciriaci sociorumque eius commemoratio

551vb–552ra

In vigilia sancti laurentii martiris

552ra

In die ad missam

552ra

Si hoc festo in dominica die evenerit et missa matutinalis erit de dominica

552ra

Missa vero de festo cotidie infra octabas sancti laurentii dicatur ad missam officium

552ra

Dominica infra octavam missa matutinalis de dominica maior autem de octava

552ra–rb

Sancti tyburcii martiris memoria

552rb

Sancti ypoliti cum sociis suis

552rb

In vigilia assumptionis beate marie

552rb–va

Eodem die sancti eusebii confessoris commemoratio

552va

In die ad missam

552va–vb

Cotidie infra octabas beate marie et in octava die

552vb

In octava sancti laurentii

552vb

Memoria de beata virgine per orationem

552vb

Sancti agapiti martyris memoria

552vb

Dominica infra octava sancte marie

552vb

Sancti bernardi abbatis et confessoris

552vb

Memoria de octabas beate marie per orationem

552vb

In octava sancte marie omnia ut in die preter sequentiam

552vb

Sanctorum timothei et simphoriani memoria

552vb

Sancti bartholomei apostoli

552vb

Sancti rufi martris. Commemoratio per orationem unius martyris non pontificis (Addition in lower margin)

552vb–553ra

Sancti augustini episcopi

553ra

Cotidie infra octavam sancti augustini ad missam

553ra

Sancte sabine virginis memoria

553ra

In decollatione sancti iohanis baptiste

553ra

Sanctorum felicis et adacti martyrum commemoratio

553ra

Sancti egidii abbatis commemoratio

553ra

In octava sancti augustini sicut in die

553ra

Marcelli martyris non pontificis commemoratio

553ra–rb

In nativitate beate marie

553rb

Cotidie per octavam fiat sicut in die excepto quod non dicitur sequentia, alleluia et evangelium poterunt variari

553rb

Sancti gorgonii martris non pontificis commemoratio

553rb

Sanctorum proti et iacincti martyrum commemoratio

553rb

In exaltatione sancte crucis missa matutinalis de martiribus [cornelii et cypriani]

553rb–va

In die ad missam

553va

Si hoc festum dominica die evenerit: missa matutinalis de dominica et memoriam de martyribus

553va

In octava beate marie omnia sicut in die excepta quod non dicatur sequencia nec credo in deum

553va

Sancti nichomedis martyris commemoratio

8.2 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16  

 239

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

553va

Sancte eufemie virginis

553va–vb

In vigilia sancti mathei apostoli

553vb

Item si vigilia ista in diebus ieiuniorum quatuor temporum evenerit intermittatur missa de vigilia. Oratio tantum de vigilia ad missam de ieiunio dicatur.

553vb

In die ad missam

553vb

Mauritii sociorumque eius martyrum

553vb–554ra

Sanctorum cosme et damiani martyrum

554ra

Sancti michaelis archangeli

554ra

Sancti ieronimi presbyteri

554ra

Sancti remigii episcopi

554ra

Eodem die germani et vedasti episcoporum commemoratio

554ra

Sancti leodegarii episcopi et martyris memoria

554ra–rb

Sancti francisci confessoris

554rb

Sancti marci pape

554rb

Eodem die sanctorum martirum marcelli sergii et bachi memoria

554rb

Sancti dionisii sociorumque eius

554rb–va

Calixti pape et martyris memoria

554va

Sancti luce evangeliste

554va

Undecim milium virginum memoria

554va

Crispini et crispiniani martyrum memoria

554va

In vigilia apostolorum simonis et iude

554va–vb

In die

554vb

Vigilia omnium sanctorum

554vb

Quintini martyris memoria

554vb

In die ad missam

554vb

In commemoratione fidelium defunctorum (Addition in lower margin)

554vb

Si commemoratio defunctorum in die dominica evenerit transferatur in crastinum.

554vb–555ra

Quatuor coronatorum

555ra

Sancti theodori martirum

555ra

Sancti martini episcopi et confessoris

555ra

Eodem die menne martyris memoria

555ra–rb

Sancte cecilie virginis et martyris

555rb

Sancti clementis pape et martiris

555rb

Sancti grisogoni martyris memoria

555rb

Sancte katharine virginis

555rb–va

Vitalis et agricole martyrum memoria

555va

[Common of Saints] In vigilia unius apostoli

555va–vb

In die

555vb

Plurimorum apostolorum

555vb–556rb

In natali unius martyris pontificis

240 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

556rb

Unius martyris pontificis

556rb

Item unius martyris

556rb–va

Unius martyris non pontificis

556va

Item unius martyris non pontificis

556va

Item unde supra

556va–557rb

Plurimorum martyrum

557rb

Alia unde supra

557rb

Alia unde supra

557rb

Alia unde supra

557rb–va

Alia unde supra

557va–558ra

In natali unius confessoris

558ra

Item unde supra

558ra–rb

De confessore et doctore

558rb

In natali unius confessoris non pontificis

558rb

Item unius confessoris non pontificis

558rb

Unius abbatis

558rb

Plurimorum confessorum

558rb–va

Item plurimorum confessorum

558va–vb

In natali unius virginis

558vb–559ra

Item ut supra

559ra

Item unius virginis non martyris

559ra

Unius virginis non martyris

559ra–rb

In dedicatione ecclesie

559rb

Hoc modo dicatur officium per totas octabas. Hoc addito quod per octavam dicantur alternatim […]

559rb

[Votive masses] De sancta trinitate

559rb–va

De sancto spiritu

559va–vb

De sancta cruce

559vb

In commemoratione beate virginis et in adventu domini usque ad natale

559vb–560ra

A nativitate domini usque ad purificationem beate virginis

560ra–rb

A septuagesima usque ad pascha

560rb

A pascha usque ad penthecosten

560rb

A deus omnium usque ad adventum et a purificatione usque ad septuagesimam

560rb–va

Missa pro peccatis

560va

Missa pro familiaribus

560va–vb

Pro tribulatione

560vb

Missa pro pace

560vb–561ra

Missa pro iter agentibus

561ra

Missa pro infirmi

561ra–rb

Missa pro pluvia postulanda

8.2 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16  

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

561rb

Missa pro aeris serenitate

561rb

Missa ad sanctos deposcendos

561rb–va

Missa pro rege

561va

Missa pro prelatis

561va

Missa contra aerias tempestates

561va

Missa votiva

561va–vb

Pro salute vivorum

561vb

Pro temptatione carnis

561vb

Ad invocandam gratiam spiritus sancti

561vb–562ra

[Requiem masses] Missa pro fidelibus defunctis

562ra–rb

Orationes pro sacerdote

562rb

Pro presenti defuncto

562rb

In anniversario

562rb

Pro benefactoribus

562rb

Pro femina defuncta

562rb–va

Pro fratribus congregationis et parentibus et familiaribus

562va

Pro familiaribus

562va

Pro parentibus

562va

Pro hiis qui sunt in cimiterio

562va–vb

Pro cunctis fidelibus defunctis

562vb

Oratio communis pro vivis ac defunctis

562vb–563ra

Item oratio communis

563ra

[Requiem readings]

563ra

Item oratio communis

563ra–va

[Mass rubrics]

563va

Oratio ad humilitatem deposcendam

563va–vb

[Sequences] In nativitate domini sequentia

563vb

In purificatione sancte marie

563vb

In sabbatis de sancta maria

563vb–564ra

In resurrectione domini

564ra

In ascensione domini

564ra–rb

In die penthecostes

564rb

In assumptione beate marie

564rb

In nativitate sancte marie

564rb–va

De quolibet sancto

564va–vb

In festo omnium sanctorum

564vb

De sanctis evangelistis

564vb

In dedicatione ecclesie

 241

242 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

Layout M3

565ra

Sequentia de beato dominico

[NB: 565 is an added full leaf]

565ra–565rb

De beata virgine

565rb

Item de beata virgine

565rb–vb

[Devotional prayers] Oratio beati augustini: Summe sacerdos

565vb

Item alia oratio: Si tantum delinquentie nostre reatum cogitamus

566ra–642ve

[Biblical concordance] Aaron … Zona …. Xristus

642ve

Blank space: 54 lines

Layout C Q26: 571–602 (32) Q27: 603–636 (34) Q28: 637–642 (6)

8.2.8 Bibliography Robson and Kerslake 1889: Robson and Kerslake, [Robson and Kerslake Catalog: 4 June 1889] (London: Robson and Kerslake, 1889). On p. 81, Lot 442, the manuscript is listed as “Biblia Latina, cum Liturgia, antiquissima et Calendario,” and is identified as being English and dating to the 13th–14th centuries (“probably about 1275”). The description states that the manuscript has 632 leaves and a binding by Rivière and mentions the presence of 63 decorated initials. The manuscript is compared to London, BL, Royal 1 D I: “Its date is probably about 1275, and its style somewhat similar to the MS. Bible by William of Devon, preserved in the British Museum, which is valued at £500. … The following inscription was upon one of the old fly-leaves: Veteris et Novi Testamenti perantiquum Exemplar, ex Versione Divi Hieronymi Manuscriptum; cui accedunt nonnulli Indices utiles, necnon antiquissima Liturgia Ecclesiae Romae quoque Manuscripto.” Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge 1892: Catalogue of the Very Choice Library of a Gentleman, (Removed from Petersham) … Which Will Be Sold at Auction, by Messrs. Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge … on Wednesday, the 1st Day of June, 1892 (London: Dryden Press, 1892). On p. 45, Lot 548, a description of the manuscript is given that closely resembles that of Robson and Kerslake 1889, while simplifying some details (the number of leaves is not mentioned and the note about the inscription is omitted). James 1912: Montague Rhodes James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the McClean Collection of Manuscripts in the Fitzwilliam Museum (Cambridge: University Press, 1912). On pp. 30–32, James gives a description of the manuscript, drawing attention to the liturgical contents as well as the preaching and exegetical texts. He dates it to the 13th century and states that it is “finely written, perhaps in England.” Bogaert 2005: Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “Le livre de Baruch dans les manuscrits de la bible latine: disparition et réintégration,” Revue Bénédictine 115 (2005): 286–342. On p. 317, explicitly relying on James 1912, Bogaert includes McClean 16 in a list of manuscripts which include a particular form (labelled Gc) of the text of Baruch, specifying that the Gc version is found in this manuscript as an addition in the lower margin. Bogaert mistakenly dates the manuscript to the “XIIe s.” Pfaff 2009: Richard W. Pfaff, The Liturgy in Medieval England: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). On p. 314, Pfaff discusses the manuscript in the context of a treatment of Dominican mass books in England. Pfaff argues that “It was probably but not quite certainly written in England (a list of texts, apparently for sermons, includes one for Edmund martyr, unlikely to occur anywhere save in England)” and suggests that it was written “before 1254” due to the presence of Peter Martyr as an addition to the calendar and the mass for Elizabeth of Hungary as an addition. Light 2013: Laura Light, “The Thirteenth-Century Pandect and the Liturgy: Bibles with Missals,” in Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, ed. Eyal Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 185–215. On p. 192, Light mentions the manuscript after a list of English bible missals, stating that it “is probably English.” On p. 193, Light includes it in a list of Dominican bible missals. On p. 203n49, Light states that “although MS McClean has always been considered English (and is accepted as such by Pfaff), and was certainly in England at an early date, there is a possibility that it was copied in Paris.” On p. 204n52,

8.3 London/Oslo, Schøyen Collection, MS 115  

 243

Light contrasts the manuscripts “extensive and complete” missal to the more selective missals found in other Dominican bible missals. On p. 210, Light gives a brief overview of the content and dimensions of the manuscript, suggesting an origin of “England? probably before 1254.” Light 2016: Laura Light, “What Was a Bible For? Liturgical Texts in Thirteenth-Century Franciscan and Dominican Bibles,” Lusitania Sacra 34 (2016): 165–182. On p. 173n33, Light mentions the manuscript in a list of Dominican bible missals. On p. 179n49, Light discusses the abbreviated psalter, comparing it to Paris, BnF, latin 10429 and San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061. Maurey 2019: Yossi Maurey, The Dominican Office and Mass for the Crown of Thorns, Musicological Studies, LXV/29 (Kitchener: The Institute of Mediaeval Music, 2019). On p. xxviii, Maurey mentions the manuscript in the context of a discussion of the absence of texts for the Crown of Thorns in pre-Humbert Dominican missals. Suski and Sodi 2019: Andrzej Suski and Manlio Sodi, Messali manoscritti pretridentini (secc. VIII-XVI), Monumenta studia instrumenta liturgica 79 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2019). On p. 170, n. 638, Suski and Sodi give brief details about the manuscript. Poleg 2020a: Eyal Poleg, A Material History of the Bible, England 1200–1553, British Academy Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020). On p. 32, Poleg discusses the use of marginal annotations in the bible and chapter numbers and subdivisions in the missal to indicate the beginning and endings of readings. On p. 36, Poleg mentions the presence of a canticle list and allegorical interpretations on the canticles on f. 323v. On p. 37, Poleg discusses the exegetical and preaching notes found in the manuscript. On pp. 194–195, Poleg includes the bible in a table of “Innovative Late Medieval Bibles.” Giraud 2021a: Eleanor Giraud, “Dominican Chant and Liturgical Practices in the English Province,” in A Companion to the English Dominican Province: From Its Beginnings to the Reformation, ed. Eleanor Giraud and Cornelia Linde, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 97 (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 343–369. On p. 349n16, Giraud includes the manuscript in a list of pre-reform Dominican mass books that include material for St. Dominic’s feast. Giraud 2021b: Eleanor Giraud, “Dominican Mass Books before Humbert of Romans,” in The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music and Liturgy, ed. Eleanor Giraud and Christian Leitmeir (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), 299–320. On p. 301, Giraud includes the manuscript in a list of pre-reform Dominican mass books. Throughout the chapter, Giraud compares feasts and texts within the missal to other early Dominican manuscripts. Morgan 2021: Nigel J. Morgan, “The Liturgical Manuscripts of the English Dominicans, ca.1250–ca.1530,” in A Companion to the English Dominican Province: From Its Beginnings to the Reformation, ed. Eleanor Giraud and Cornelia Linde, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 97 (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 370–408. On p. 378, Morgan discusses the question of whether the manuscript in English or French, arguing that it is French on the basis of its decoration and codicological features. Giraud 2022: Eleanor Giraud, “The Dominicans and Their Identity in Medieval Britain and Ireland: Evidence from Dominican Gospel Lections,” in Music and Liturgy in Medieval Britain and Ireland, ed. Ann Buckley and Lisa Colton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), 269–291. Giraud discusses the localization of the manuscript on p. 279, gives a brief description of its liturgical contents on p. 281, and discusses several gospel selections within the missal section on pp. 284–285. Ruzzier 2022: Chiara Ruzzier, Entre Université et ordres mendiants, Manuscripta Biblica 8 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022). Ruzzier includes the manuscript on p. 248 as n. 1140 in her “Liste des bibles complètes recensées.”

8.3 London/Oslo, Schøyen Collection, MS 115 Summary: Bible with Dominican calendar and fragmentary votive missal Dimensions: 140 x 90 mm; 457 leaves Origin: Paris Date: 13th century, second quarter (calendar between c. 1234 and c. 1246–1248) Overview of Contents: Unfoliated medieval flyleaf: Order of biblical books with folio numbers 1ra–3vb: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 3vb–212rb: Bible (Gn–Ps)

244 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

212va–217vb: Fragmentary Dominican votive missal 212va–213vb: Dominican calendar (four months to a page) 214ra–215rb: Preparatory prayers for mass 215va–vb: Ordo Missae (prefaces, Communicantes, Hanc igitur; ends imperfectly after rubric for Apostles preface) [Lacuna: folio originally labelled 216] 217ra–vb: Votive masses (Begins and ends imperfectly) [Lacuna: folios 218–222] 223ra–✶117va (see note on foliation below): Bible (Prv–Apc) (begins imperfectly with Prv 8:31: Ludens in orbe terrarum) IHN1–IHN31 (see note on foliation below): Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: begins and ends imperfectly, but likely originally contained Aaz … Zuzim)

8.3.1 Introduction London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 is a small bible with a Dominican calendar and a fragmentary Dominican votive missal between Psalms and Proverbs. The bible follows the Parisian order of biblical books and presents distinctive Parisian textual variations,51 but has a few minor variations from the Parisian order of prologues, giving an additional non-Parisian prologue for So (S. 532) after the Parisian prologue (S. 534) and omitting the typical Parisian prologue (S. 462) for Ecl in the normal location, supplying it instead after Apc.52 Judging from its very small size, quire structure (using mostly quires of 24 leaves),53 arrangement of biblical books, and provision of the Parisian textual characteristics for Rt 1:7 and Iob 1:4, the manuscript was likely produced in Paris. The bible and the liturgical texts between Ps and Prv form a single production unit. The calendar contains both the 24 May and 5 August feasts of St. Dominic, indicating a date after 1234, and includes the anniversary for Deceased Friends and Benefactors on 10 September, which indicates a probable date before c. 1246– 1248 when this feast was moved to 5 September.54 The calendar includes a touching witness to the filial piety of an early user who added obituary notices on f. 213r for his father (7 June) and for his mother (24 August). Despite the fragmentary character of the extant liturgical contents, the Schøyen manuscript is an important example of the Dominican bible missal, particularly due to its inclusion of an extensive series of preparatory prayers for mass between the calendar and the start of the fragmentary Ordo Missae.

8.3.2 Plates Figure 9 London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, f. 196v (Psalter), p. 193 Figure 19 London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, f. 3v (Gn), p. 245 Figure 20 London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, f. 213r (Calendar), p. 246 Figure 21 London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, f. 217r (Missal), p. 247

8.3.3 Liturgical Texts London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 includes a series of liturgical texts beginning on f. 212v, following the conclusion of the Psalter on f. 212r: a calendar, a series of preparatory prayers for mass, and then a fragmentary votive missal. The original hand of the calendar includes the Translatio beati dominici (24 May) as a Duplex and Beati dominici confessoris (5 August) as a Festum totum duplex; this indicates that the calendar is certainly after 1234. The calendar includes the Anniversarium patrum et matrum (4 February), Anniversarium familiarium et benefactorum (10 September), and Anniversarium fratrum 51 The manuscript includes the Parisian “revertendi posita” variant in Rt 1:7 as well as “vinum” in Iob 1:4; cf. Ruzzier 2022, pp. 76–77. 52 A marginal note on f. 228r, possibly by the original rubricator, draws attention to the omission and its placement after Apc (see f. ✶172v). 53 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, p. 106. 54 See the discussion of the September anniversary on pp. 54–58 above. The manuscript is dated to the second half of the thirteenth century in Sotheby’s 1988. Light 2013 dates the manuscript to the second quarter of the thirteenth century.

8.3 London/Oslo, Schøyen Collection, MS 115  

 245

Figure 19: London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, f. 3v (Gn).

ordinis nostri (10 October). In addition to the official anniversary of deceased parents, an early user added two more personal inscriptions on f. 213r, writing Obitus patris mei in the margin next to the 7 June and Obitus matris F. on 24 August. The calendar also mentions the dedication of an unidentified church of St. Matthew on 9 July (Dedicatio sancti mathei); this entry seems to be a later addition, with somewhat darker red ink and larger script than the other entries. The calendar includes several other additions by various hands, including a change of rank for Vincentii martyris (22 January; Semi­ duplex is added by a later hand in red ink before IX lect.), Apollonie virginis (9 February), S. Vincentii confessoris (5 April; Vincent Ferrer was canonized in 1455), Petri martyris de ordine predicatorum (29 April; Peter Martyr was canonized in 1253); Margarete virginis et martyris (20 July); Clare virginis (12 August; Clare of Assisi was canonized in 1255). The addition of Vincent Ferrer suggests that the manuscript was still in Dominican hands in the late 15th century. Following the calendar, a series of preparatory prayers for mass appear: Summe sacerdos (214ra–vb), Deus miseri­ cordissime atque iustissime (214vb–215ra), Conscientia culpabilis vite trepidus (215ra), Si tantum domine reatum nostre delinquentie (215ra–rb), Mordacis conscientie stimulis (215rb), Deus qui de indignis dignos facis (215rb), Deus fons totius bonitatis et pietatis origo (215rb), Deus qui contritorum non despicis (215rb). This is the most extensive set of devotional prayers in any early Dominican missal, although Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 includes versions of five of

246 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 20: London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, f. 213r (Calendar).

the eight prayers of the prayers found in the Schøyen manuscript55 and two other pre-Humbert sources include the Summe sacerdos.56 The Ordo Missae begins on f. 215v with a series of prefaces and variable canon prayers for various seasons; these end imperfectly after the rubric for the Apostles preface on f. 215vb. The liturgical texts then resume on a leaf with the late medieval folio number 217, indicating that one leaf is missing after f. 215v, which likely would have contained the 55 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 provides Deus misericordissime atque iustissime, Conscientia culpabilis vita trepidus, and Mor­ dacis conscientie stimulis (ff. 547ra-rb) and Summe sacerdos and Si tantum delinquentie nostre reatum cogitamus (f. 565rb–vb); the later prayer is related to but not identical with Si tantum domine reatum nostre found in London/Oslo, Schøyen 115. 56 The Dominican bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 215 presents the Summe sacerdos on ff. 268va–269va at the end of the votive missal section of the manuscript. The pre-Humbert Dominican missal Lausanne, MHL 10 also includes the Summe sacerdos towards the end of the manuscript on ff. 207va–208va. The pre-Humbert Dominican missal Paris, BnF, latin 8884 includes vesting prayers but not preparatory prayers before the Ordo Missae (ff. 126vb–127ra). Notably, the rubrics for the conventual mass in the Humbert Missale conventuale mention that the while the priest is sitting at the sedilia after the opening collect, the acolyte or deacon should hand him a book (librum) so that he can look ahead at the liturgical texts (officium previdere) and say the Summe sacerdos if he wishes: Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 393rb: “Sacerdos autem postquam collectas finierit, eat sessum. Diacono et altero acolitorum ei astantibus, et in sede sua cum reverenter collocantibus. Et alter acolitorum, vel ipse diaconus si desit acolitus; aliqua super genua ipsius superposita mappula ad hoc preparata; librum ei tradat, ut et officium previdere, et orationem ‘Summe sacerdos’ possit dicere si velit.”

8.3 London/Oslo, Schøyen Collection, MS 115  

 247

Figure 21: London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, f. 217r (Missal).

canon and the post-canon Ordo Missae. It is conceivable that this folio may have had a decorated Te igitur or Crucifixion miniature, and may have been removed on this account (as may also be the case in Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16). The liturgical texts resume with a series of votive masses on f. 217ra–vb. While the rubrics of these votive masses generally correspond with the repertoire of masses in other Dominican sources, only orations are provided, even for masses that are given a full votive formulary with chant texts and readings in other manuscripts (e.g., De sancta trini­ tate, De spiritu sancto, Missa de cruce). The selection of votive masses ends imperfectly midway through the postcommunion for the formulary Pro salute vivorum. It is not clear how much further liturgical content the manuscript originally contained. The following extant leaf has the late medieval folio number 223, indicating that five leaves are missing. Folio 223r begins with ludens in orbe (Prv 8:31), and the missing text of the Prv prologue and Prv 1:1–8:30 would have likely occupied the recto and verso of about two leaves.57 Although it is impossible to confirm, the other three leaves may have originally contained further liturgical texts, for instance Requiem masses and/or an epistle and gospel list (as in Paris, 57 This estimate is based on the extent of the text copied on f. 223r: Prv 8:31–11:12. In the Weber and Gryson 2007 edition of the Biblia Sacra Vulgata, this text comprises 4,623 characters and 685 words (omitting all verse numbers and punctuation). Prv 1:1–8:30 comprises 15,816 characters and 2,425 words. Although a comparison based on characters in a printed version will not exactly correspond to the manuscript page due to medieval abbreviation practices, dividing 15,816 by 4,623 renders 3.42, suggesting that with the addition of the text of the biblical prologue the missing biblical material would occupy roughly four sides of a leaf or two leaves total.

248 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

BnF, latin 215); it is also possible that there were originally blank leaves following the liturgical texts (as in Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7).

8.3.4 Provenance The manuscript was likely written in Paris between c. 1234 and c. 1246 for a Dominican friar and was likely still in Dominican hands in the second half of the 15th century when St. Vincent Ferrer was added to the calendar. It later belonged to the Belgian collector Jean de Meyer (1794–1869) and was posthumously sold (Vyt 1869). In then belonged to the American collector Joseph J. Cooke (1813–1881) and was posthumously sold (Leavitt 1883). It was later owned by the American-British collector William Waldorf Astor (1848–1919), in whose collection it received the shelfmark MS.A.11. It was subsequently part of the Astor Deposit at the Bodleian Library and was later sold (Sotheby’s 1988) to Martin Schøyen, in whose collection it received the shelfmark MS 115.

8.3.5 Material Features Binding dimensions: 148 x 93 x 60 mm Binding: Wooden boards covered with dark blue velvet Material of leaves: Parchment Dimensions of leaves: 140 x 90 mm Number of leaves: 1 modern parchment leaf + 2 medieval parchment flyleaves + 457 + 2 parchment flyleaves Foliation (Modern): N/A Foliation (Medieval): The foliation was likely done by the same 15th-century (?) hand who added the biblical table of contents on the first unfoliated medieval flyleaf. The foliation goes from 1–401 (with several leaves skipped), and then by the same hand from 142–177 (referred to here as ✶142–✶177). The final 31 leaves, which contain the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, were left unfoliated and are referred to here as IHN1-IHN31. The complete sequence of the medieval foliation is: one unfoliated modern flyleaf, two unfoliated medieval flyleaves, 1–15, two unfoliated leaves (15[a]-15[b]), 16–44, (one missing leaf), 46–68, (one missing leaf), 70–113, one unfoliated leaf (113[a]), 114–117, (two missing leaves), 120–165, (two missing leaves), 168–206, (one missing leaf), 208–215, (one missing leaf), 217, (five missing leaves), 223–235, (one missing leaf), 237–265, (one missing leaf), 267–292, one unfoliated leaf (292[a]), 293–401, ✶142–✶177, (four missing leaves), thirty-one unfoliated leaves, (one missing leaf). Secundo folio: ut intelligens (2r) Quires: The manuscript is mostly made up of quires of 24 leaves. Quire 9, containing the end of the Psalter and the votive missal, seems to have originally had 29 leaves (28 leaves plus an added singleton), of which it is now missing 4 leaves. Quire 18, containing the end of the bible section, was originally 28 leaves, of which it is now missing 2 at the end of the quire. Quires 19 and 20, which contain the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, were originally 20 and 14 leaves respectively, and both are now missing leaves (2 at the beginning of quire 19 and 1 at the end of quire 20). Quire marks: Red leaf signatures are partially visible in the lower right corners of quire 4 (especially ff. 81 and 82). Layout: B: 95 x 60; 48 lines in two columns [28 + 30] 1r–212r, 223r–✶117v (Bible) IHN1–IHN30 (Interpretations of Hebrew Names) C: 117 x 80; 66 lines in two main columns [35 + 40] 212v–213v (Calendar) D: 108 x 70; 44 lines in two columns [34 + 35] 214r–215r (Devotional prayers) M: 112 x 72; 50 lines in two columns [34 + 35] 215v–217v (Votive missal) Script: Northern textualis.

8.3 London/Oslo, Schøyen Collection, MS 115  

 249

8.3.6 Artistic Decoration Running Header: Names of biblical books in alternating red and blue capitals with decorative lines on the right and left (with the exception of Psalms and the votive missal, which have no running header). Biblical Books: Littera duplex initials. Biblical Prologues: Littera duplex or flourished initials. Biblical Chapters: Two-line red or blue flourished initials; chapter numbers in red and blue capitals typically within the column; in contrast to the usual strict alternation of red and blue within the chapter numbers, the rubricator often places repeated numerals in the same color (e.g., f. 101r, where I Rg 31 (XXXI) is indicated three blue “X” followed by one red “I”, or f. 110v, where II Rg 24 (XXIIII) is indicated with two blue “X” followed by two red “I” and two blue “I”). Biblical Text: Highlighting for beginning of sentences. Psalms: Littera duplex initials for Ps 1, 26, 38, 52, 68, 80, 97 (Ps 109 is absent due to the loss of one leaf between ff. 206 and 208); two-line red or blue flourished initials for other psalms; red highlights for psalm verses. The Psalms are numbered in the margins in red ink with a mixture of Roman and Arabic numerals that appear to be by the original rubricator. Liturgical Texts: The extant texts have two types of decoration: most have non-flourished red or blue two-line initials, while the Ordo Missae texts have flourished red or blue two-line initials. Other: N/A

8.3.7 Quires and Contents Quires

Range

Content

Inside front cover

Various provenance notes

1 modern parchment flyleaf

Modern description of the manuscript handwritten in English

2 medieval parchment flyleaves Q1: 1–22 (24) Layout B

Q2: 23–46 (24-1 [between 44 and 46 with loss of text; stub visible]) Q3: 47–70 (24-1 [between 68 and 70 with loss of text; stub visible]) Q4: 71–94 (24)

Q5: 95–117 (24)

Q6: 120–141 (24-2 [before 120 with loss of text; no stubs visible])

[I]r

Medieval table of contents

[I]v–[II]v

Blank folios

1ra–3rb

S. 284

3rb–vb

S. 285

3vb–19rb

Gn

19rb–33rb

Ex

33rb–43ra

Lv

43ra–57rb

Nm

57rb–68vb

Dt (ends imperfectly at Dt 32:15 [a deo sa(lutare)])

70ra–rb

S. 311 (begins imperfectly at sum sciat me non)

70rb–78vb

Ios

78vb–87va

Idc

87va–88vb

Rt

88vb–89va

S. 323

89va–101rb

I Rg

101rb–110vb

II Rg

110vb–121ra

III Rg

121rb–132ra

IV Rg

132ra–rb

S. 328

250 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Range

Content

Q7: 142–165 (24)

132rb–142ra

I Par

142ra–va

S. 327

142va–154vb

II Par

154vb–155ra

Or Man

155ra–rb

S. 330

155rb–158vb

I Esr

158vb–164ra

II Esr [Neh]

164ra–169rb

III Esr

169rb–va

S. 332

169va–172vb

Tb

172vb–173ra

S. 335

173ra–177rb

Idt

177rb–va

S. 341 + S. 343

177va–181va

Est

181va–182ra

S. 344

182ra–rb

S. 357

182rb–191ra

Iob

191ra–212rb

Ps (Littera duplex initials for Ps 1 [191ra], Ps 26 [194rb], Ps 38 [196va], Ps 52 [198va], Ps 68 [200va], Ps 80 [203ra], Ps 97 [205rb]. Loss of text between ff. 206 and 208, with f. 206v ending at Ps 105:35 [et didicerunt opera] and f. 208r beginning at Ps 111:7 [(audi)tione mala non timebit.])

212rb

[Canticle list–later addition?]

212rb

[Nine blessings from the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary; later addition] Alma virgo virginum intercedat pro nobis apud suum filium. … Ad societatem supernorum civium perducat nos regina angelorum. [Cf. Baltzer 2000, p. 469]

Layout C

213va–214vb

[Calendar]

Layout D

214ra–vb

[Votive missal] [Devotional prayers] Summe sacerdos

214vb–215ra

Deus misericordissime atque iustissime

215ra

Conscientia culpabilis vite trepidus

215ra–rb

Si tantum domine reatum nostre delinquentie

215rb

Mordacis conscientie stimulis

215rb

Deus qui de indignis dignos facis

215rb

Deus fons totius bonitatis et pietatis origo

215rb

Deus qui contritorum non despicis

215va

[Ordo Missae] [Christmas preface and Communicantes

215va

[Epiphany preface and Communicantes]

215va

[Lent preface]

215va

[Easter preface, Communicantes, and Hanc igitur]

215va–vb

[Ascension preface and Communicantes]

215vb

[Pentecost preface, Communicantes, and Hanc igitur]

215vb

[Holy Cross preface]

215vb

[Marian preface]

215vb

[Apostles preface rubric; ends imperfectly before preface text]

Q8: 168–191 (26-2 [before 168 with loss of text; stubs visible])

Q9: 192–217 (28-4 [-1 after 206; -1 after 215; -2 after 217; 1 originally foliated leaf unaccounted for (220)])

Layout M

8.3 London/Oslo, Schøyen Collection, MS 115  

 251

(continued) Quires

Q10: 223–244 (24-3 [-2 before 223; -1 after 235]) Layout B

Q11: 245–268 (24-1 [after 265 with loss of text; stub visible])

Q12: 269–292 (24)

Q13: 292[a]–315 (24)

Q14: 316–339 (24)

Range

Content

217ra

[Votive masses] Missa de trinitate

217ra

De spiritu sancto missa

217ra

Missa de cruce

217ra

De sancta maria

217ra

Missa pro peccatis

217ra–rb

Pro familiaribus

217rb

Pro tribulatione ecclesie

217rb

Missa pro pace

217rb

Pro iter agentibus

217rb–va

Pro infirmis

217va

Ad pluviam postulandam

217va

Pro aeris serenitate

217va

Ad deposcenda suffragia sanctorum

217va–vb

Missa pro rege

217vb

Pro episcopis et abbatibus

217vb

Contra aerias tempestates

217vb

Missa votiva

217vb

Pro salute vivorum [ends imperfectly]

223ra–228rb

Prv (begins imperfectly at Prv 8:31: ludens in orbe terrarum; the 15th-century (?) table of contents on f. [I]r indicates that Prv originally began on f. 221; it is likely that it was originally preceded by the Parisian prologue S. 457)

228rb–230vb

Ecl (not preceeded by the typical Parisian prologue S. 462; a marginal note, perhaps by the original rubricator but in a slightly darker red ink, adds: “Hic deficit prologus ecclesiastes. Sed quere post apocalipsim.” The prologue is provided after Apc on f. 177vb.)

230vb–232ra

Ct

232ra

S. 468

232ra–237rb

Sap

237rb–251rb

Sir

251rb–va

S. 482

251va–268ra

Is

268ra–rb

S. 487

268rb–287rb

Ier

287rb–289ra

Lam

289ra

S. 491

289ra–291va

Bar

291va

S. 492

291va–308va

Ez

308va–309ra

S. 494

309ra–316ra

Dn

316ra

S. 500

316ra–rb

S. 507

252 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Q15: 340–363 (24)

Q16: 364–387 (24)

Range

Content

316rb–318va

Os

318va

S. 511

318va–vb

S. 510

318vb–319va

Ioel

319va–vb

S. 515

319vb

S. 512

319vb–320ra

S. 513

320ra–321vb

Am

321vb–322ra

S. 519 + S. 517

322ra–rb

Abd

322rb

S. 524

322rb–va

S. 521

322va–323ra

Ion

323ra

S. 526

323ra–324va

Mi

324va

S. 528

324va–325rb

Na

325rb–vb

S. 531

325vb–326rb

Hab

326va

S. 534

326va

Blank space: 5 lines

326vb

S. 532 (Non-Parisian prologue)

326vb–327va

So

327va–vb

S. 538

327vb–328rb

Agg

328rb–va

S. 539

328va–331rb

Za

331rb–va

S. 543

331va–332rb

Mal

332rb–va

S. 547

332va–vb

S. 553

332vb

S. 551

332vb–344ra

I Mcc

344ra–351vb

II Mcc

351vb

S. 590

351vb–352ra

S. 589

352ra–363ra

Mt

363ra–rb

S. 607

363rb–370rb

Mc

370rb–vb

S. 620

8.3 London/Oslo, Schøyen Collection, MS 115  

(continued) Quires

Q17: 388–✶151 (24) NB: medieval foliation skips from 401 to ✶113

Range

Content

370va–382va

Lc (Lc 1:1–4 is labelled “Alius prologus”; Lc 1:5 begins with littera duplex)

382va–vb

S. 624

382vb–391va

Io

391va

S. 677

391va–396ra

Rm

396ra

S. 685

396ra–400rb

I Cor

400rb

S. 699

400rb–✶143rb

II Cor

143rb– 144vb

Gal

143rb

✶

✶

144vb

S. 715

144vb–✶146rb

Eph

✶ ✶

146rb

✶

S. 728

146rb– 147rb

Phil

147rb

S. 736

✶ ✶

✶

147rb– 148rb

Col

148rb

S. 747

✶ ✶

✶

148rb–✶149rb

✶

I Th

149rb

S. 752

149rb–vb

II Th

149vb

S. 765

149vb–✶151ra

I Tim

✶ ✶ ✶ ✶

151ra

✶

Q18: ✶152–✶177 (28-2 [after ✶ 177, without loss of text; stubs visible])

S. 707

S. 772

151ra– 152ra

II Tim

152ra

S. 780

✶ ✶

✶

152ra–va

Tit

152va

S. 783

152va–vb

Phlm

152vb

S. 793

152vb–✶156ra

Hbr

✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶

156ra

✶

S. 640

156ra– 167rb

Act

167rb–va

S. 809

167va–✶168va

Iac

✶ ✶ ✶

✶

168va– 169vb

I Pt

169vb– 170rb

II Pt

170va– 171va

I Io

✶ ✶ ✶

171va

✶

✶

✶

✶

171va–vb

✶

II Io III Io

 253

254 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Range

Content

171vb–✶172ra

✶

S. 839

172va– 177va

Apc

177vb

S. 462 (Parisian prologue for Ecl; cf. f. 228r)

✶ ✶

✶

177vb

Q19: IHN1–IHN18 (20-2 [before IHN1, with loss of text])

Iud

172ra–va

✶

✶

IHN1ra–IHN31vb

Blank space: 25 lines, later filled with added notes beginning Hii sunt xii fructus sanitas Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: begins and ends imperfectly with Apharaim pulvis suscitans and Urai lumen meum, but was likely originally the Aaz … Zuzim version)

Q20: IHN19–IHN31 (14-1 [after IHN31, with loss of text])

8.3.8 Bibliography Vyt 1869: Camille Vyt, Catalogue des livres et manuscrits formant la bibliotheque de feu M. Jean de Meyer. La vente aura lieu à Gand, le 2 novembre 1869 et jours suivants (Ghent: Camille Vyt, Libraire, 1869). On p. 1, Lot 1, this auction catalog provides a brief description of the bible, dating it to the 13th century. Leavitt 1883: George A. Leavitt, Catalogue of the Library of the Late Joseph J. Cooke, of Providence, Rhode Island. The Whole to Be Sold by Auction, at the Clinton Hall Sale Rooms, Tuesday, March 13th, 1883 (New York: Geo. A Leavitt & Co., Auctioneers, 1883). On p. 8, Lot 119, this auction catalog provides a brief description of the bible, dating it to the 13th century. Sotheby’s 1988: Sotheby’s, The Astor Collection of Illuminated Manuscripts … 21st June 1988 (London: Sotheby’s, 1988), 6–7. On pp. 6–7, Lot 50, this auction catalog provides a description of the manuscript, including a collation, overview of the provenance (mentioning the Vyt 1869 sale but incorrectly attributing the Leavitt 1883 description to an unidentified Sotheby’s sale), and brief description of the liturgical texts. The catalog localizes the manuscript to “Northern France (perhaps Paris)” and dates it to the “second half of the thirteenth century.” Light 2013: Laura Light, “The Thirteenth-Century Pandect and the Liturgy: Bibles with Missals,” in Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, ed. Eyal Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 185–215. On p. 209, Light gives a brief description of the manuscript, indicating that she has not seen it in person. Light localizes the manuscript to “Paris? ” and offers a dating of “s. xiii2/4.” Light 2016: Laura Light, “What Was a Bible For? Liturgical Texts in Thirteenth-Century Franciscan and Dominican Bibles,” Lusitania Sacra 34 (2016): 165–182. On p. 173n33, Light includes the manuscript in a list of Dominican bible missals. On p. 174n34, Light points out that this is one of the three smallest bible missals. On p. 174n35, Light includes the manuscript in a list of bible missals where the missal follows the Psalms. On p. 177n42, Light includes the manuscript in a list of mendicant bible missals with selected votive masses. Law-Turner 2020: Frederica Law-Turner, “From Warwickshire to New York via Canterbury: The Travels and Tribulations of the bible of Richard of Sholdon,” in Illuminating the Middle Ages: Tributes to Prof. John Lowden from His Students, Friends and Colleagues, ed. Laura Cleaver, Alixe Bovey, and Lucy Donkin, The Manuscript World 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 241–58. On p. 247n11, Law-Turner mentions the manuscript as an example of a bible with a calendar in the context of a discussion of the calendar in New York, Morgan Library, MS G.18. Giraud 2021b: Eleanor Giraud, “Dominican Mass Books before Humbert of Romans,” in The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music and Liturgy, ed. Eleanor Giraud and Christian Leitmeir (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), 299–320. On p. 301, Giraud includes the manuscript in a list of pre-reform Dominican mass books. Ruzzier 2022: Chiara Ruzzier, Entre Université et ordres mendiants, Manuscripta Biblica 8 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022). Ruzzier includes the manuscript on p. 248 as n. 1140 in her “Liste des bibles complètes recensées.”

8.4 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7  

 255

8.4 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 Summary: Bible with Dominican votive missal Dimensions: 165 x 118 mm; 440 leaves Origin: Oxford Date: 13th century, second quarter (liturgical texts datable c. 1234–1244) Digital images: https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/objects/f667786c-b5b4-4d25-b2c9-b70488a79be2/ (selected) Overview of Contents: 1r–v: Blank leaf with added notes 2r–4v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 5r–198v: Bible (Gn–Ps) 199r–204r: Dominican votive missal 199r–200r: Ordo Missae with prefaces, Communicantes and Hanc igitur, canon, and post-canon prayers 200r–203r: Votive masses 203r–204r: Requiem masses 204r: De beato dominico, Pro verbum dei predicantibus 204r (added in lower margin): In translatione beati dominici 204v: Added Last Gospel (Io 1:1–14) 205r: Blank 205v: Added Easter table and key 206r–207v: Blank (with added notes) 208r–406r: Bible (Prv–Apc) 406r–438v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim)

8.4.1 Introduction Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 is a small bible with a Dominican votive missal between Psalms and Proverbs. The votive missal includes the pre-1244 version of the St. Dominic collect, which means the liturgical texts can be dated to c. 1234–1244.58 In 1915, the manuscript was identified by Charles William Dyson Perrins as containing illuminations by “W. de Brailes,” an illuminator active in England in the first half of the 13th century who signed several manuscripts with an abbreviated form of his name.59 The manuscript was included in Warner 1920’s catalog of the manuscripts of Dyson Perrins, and has subsequently received extensive coverage in popular and scholarly treatments of English art.60 Pollard 1955 identified “W. de Brailes” with a William de Brailes who is documented as living at Catte Street in Oxford from c. 1230 to c. 1260, a street where many individuals involved with the book trade resided; this identification has led scholars to localize the corpus of manuscripts associated with de Brailes to Oxford.61

58 See the discussion of the September anniversary on pp. 54–58 above. An annotation to the added Easter table on f. 205v provides further evidence that the liturgical texts were produced before 1245; see Kidd 2020: “An Easter table and key, added in plummet, with 10 columns and 20 rows, starting at the year 1152, but with faint annotations apparently ‘Ann(us)’ above the 5th column and to the left of the 14th row, thus perhaps indicating the year 1245.” 59 See Warner 1920, p. 25, which includes the following note from Sydney Carlyle Cockerell: “A fourth book decorated by Brailes was discovered by Mr. Perrins and purchased by him in 1915. It is a small Bible written under Dominican influence circ. 1250 (no. 5 in this Catalogue).” Cf. Sotheby’s 1959, which notes that Dyson Perrins recognized the work of de Brailes based on plates in Olschki 1914. For a discussion of Dyson Perrins’ manuscript collecting, see Cleaver 2020. 60 See Millar 1926, Saunders 1928, Cockerell 1930, Rickert 1954, Brieger 1957. As the bibliography below shows, the manuscript has received far more scholarly attention than any other bible missal, although the liturgical section has not previously received close attention. 61 de Hamel 2010, p. 72, notes that “there is, of course, still no absolute certainty that the illuminator W. de Brailes was called William, or that William de Brailes of Catte Street was an illuminator, but it is so likely as to be now generally accepted as fact. … The only plausible alternative might have been that William and W – perhaps Walter, for example – were father and son, or brothers, both involved in the Oxford trade.” For an overview of the corpus of de Brailes’ work, see Morgan 2012. For overviews of book production in Oxford in the 13th century, see Parkes 1992 and Michael 2008.

256 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

The manuscript presents the biblical books in the Parisian order (with the exception of the omission of III Esr)62 but presents non-Parisian textual variations63 and omits almost all biblical prologues, even to the point of omitting the scriptural “prologues” of Sir (prologus before chapter 1) and Lc 1:1–4, which are often presented in contemporary bibles as if they were prologues but which are rarely omitted entirely.64 Aside from the two general prologues which appear in a distinct quire at the beginning of the volume (Frater ambrosius and Desiderii mei), only two biblical prologues appear, both in positions that seem to indicate that they were copied by mistake: S. 350, a non-Parisian prologue for Iob adapted from a letter of Jerome, appears at the conclusion rather than at the opening of the book (f. 176v), and S. 772, the Parisian prologue for II Tim, is not visually distinguished from the preceding text of I Tim (f. 381v). The omission of non-biblical prologues suggests that the patron of this manuscript specifically requested this feature, as none of the other bibles associated with de Brailes omit the prologues (although they present alternate selections rather than the standard Parisian set).65 Each biblical book is introduced by an historiated or decorated initial. Kidd 2020 suggests that there are three distinct styles of illumination, attributing the decoration on ff. 5r–399v to William de Brailes (“perhaps with assistance”), the decoration on ff. 400v–401r and 406r to a second artist, and the illumination of ff. 1r–4v (“the prologues and Moses miniature in the first quire”) and f. 199r–v (“the missal section”) to a third artist.66 The votive missal between Psalms and Proverbs includes the Ordo Missae with prefaces and variable canon prayers, a selection of votive and Requiem masses, and formularies for St. Dominic and a Dominican votive mass for preachers. These texts are written in a script similar to the rest of the bible but perhaps by a different scribe. A later hand, writing in a less formal textualis, added an otherwise unattested mass formulary for the Translation of St. Dominic adapted from orations found in English sources for the Translations of St. Edmund of Abingdon and St. Thomas Becket; this same writer also added an unusual pre-communion devotional prayer in the lower margin of f. 203r as well as the “Last Gospel” (Io 1:1–14) on the originally blank f. 204v following the conclusion of the missal on f. 204r. These texts will be discussed in more detail in the Liturgical Texts section below. The relationship of the votive missal to the rest of the manuscript is complicated, particularly given the change in layout (1 column rather than the 2 columns typical in the manuscript) and the presence of a different style of decoration than the other parts of the manuscript (with the exception of the prologues and miniature in the opening quire). The missal is written on ff. 199r–204r. It shares Quire 18 (ff. 198–207) with the concluding recto and verso of the Psalter

62 III Esr is omitted from the original production of more than half of bibles produced in England; see Ruzzier 2022, p. 57. 63 The manuscript includes the non-Parisian “posita revertendi” variant in Rt 1:7 (f. 85va) and omits “vinum” in Iob 1:4 (f. 168va); cf. Ruzzier 2022, pp. 76–77. 64 Several bibles of English origin have been identified that omit most if not all non-biblical prologues, but this feature does not always correlate with the omission of the biblical prologus of Sir of Lc 1:1–4. London, BL, Royal 1 B VIII, a bible produced in England in the second quarter of the 13th century (see Bennett 1973, pp. 309–310), only provides prologues for Bar (f. 199rb–va: S. 491, the Parisian prologue for Bar) and Rm (f. 315rb–vb: S. 674, a non-Parisian prologue, followed on f. 315vb by S. 677, a Parisian prologue); in addition to prologues, this manuscript includes a non-Parisian paratext explaining the letters of the Hebrew alphabet following Lam on f. 199rb: Alech doctrina, beth domus ... thau signa (cf. S. 9415/S. 9617). Royal 1 B VIII omits the scriptural prologus of Sir (f. 257vb) but provides Lc 1:1–4 (although Lc 1:5 is labelled in the margin as the beginning of chapter 1). Paris, BnF, latin 219, a bible produced in England in the second quarter or middle of the 13th century (Avril and Stirnemann 1987, p. 77, n. 120), omits non-biblical prologues with the exception of Frater amborsius/Desiderii and S. 677 for Iob (f. 292v); I have not been able to confirm whether this bible includes the biblical prologus for Sir or Lc 1:1–4. Oxford, Merton College, MS 7, a bible produced in Oxford with illuminations by William de Brailes (dated “c.1230–50” by Morgan 2012, p. 93), generally provides biblical prologues but omits Lc 1:1–4 (f. 286rb); the Merton College bible does provide the prologus of Sir (ff. 180vb–181ra). London, Gray’s Inn, MS 24, a bible produced in Oxford with illuminations by William de Brailes (dated “c.1230–50” by Morgan 2012, p. 92), generally provides biblical prologues but omits the prologus of Sir (f. 205v); the leaf with the opening of Luke’s gospel is excised from this bible (f. 342ra begins imperfectly with Lc 1:55: semini eius in secula). One bible of non-English origin, Paris, Mazarine 31, a Dominican bible missal produced in northern Spain or southern France c. 1234–1244, generally includes prologues but omits the prologus of Sir (f. 187rb) and includes Lc 1:1–4. 65 Morgan 2012, pp. 91–98 offers a list of “c. 1230–50 MSS containing illumination by de Brailes and close associates,” including ten bibles: Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 350/567; London, BL, Harley 2813; London, Gray’s Inn, MS 24; Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7; Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Laud Lat. 13; Oxford, Christ Church, MS 105; Oxford, Merton College, MS 7; Perth, Museum and Art Gallery, MS 462; Philadelphia, Free Library, Lewis E 29 (with various cuttings in other collections; see de Hamel 2010); and York, Cathedral Library, MS XIV.N.6. Two further leaves have been associated with the “de Brailes style”: see Lubin 1985 and Ferrini 1987. London, BL, Harley 2813 has a Franciscan votive missal between Psalms and Proverbs; cf. Kidd 2007 and the summary description on p. 412 below. 66 Kidd notes that the third artist uses a blue ink that is paler than other sections and does not use gold.

8.4 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7  

 257

(ff.  176v–198v) and is followed by several blank leaves which include later additions (ff. 204v–207v). Quire 18 has 10 leaves, rather than the 12 leaves which are used in most other quires. It seems unlikely that the original scribe would have continued the Psalter on a new quire made up of so many leaves if there was not an original intention to include further texts in the remainder of the quire. although it is conceivable that the internal eight leaves of the quire containing the missal could have been inserted into what was originally a bifolium containing the end of the Psalter, perhaps at a late stage of the original production of the manuscript. In any case, the use of a very similar ruling pattern for the Psalter and missal leaves (despite the shift to a one-column layout for the missal) suggests that the two sections were produced in conjunction with one another. The question of the connection of the production of the bible as a whole and of the missal section is relevant for dating the manuscript, as the presence of texts for Dominic’s feast have formed a major part of arguments that the manuscript was made after his canonization in 1234.67 It seem likely that the decision to include the opening prologues in a distinct quire at the beginning of the manuscript may have taken place after the manuscript began to be written, as it is unusual for these prologues to occupy a distinct quire. It is thus also possible that the inclusion of the missal was a “late” decision in the production of the manuscript, given the continuity of artistic decoration between the opening quire and the quire with the missal. It is also possible that both the opening prologues quire and section of quire 18 containing the votive missal were added at some point after the initial production of the manuscript.

8.4.2 Plates Figure 22 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 5r (Gn), p. 258 Figure 23 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 199v (Roman Canon), p. 259 Figure 24 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 200v (Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit), p. 260 Figure 25 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 204r (Mass of St. Dominic), p. 261

8.4.3 Liturgical Texts Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 includes a Dominican votive missal on ff. 199r–204r. The missal begins with a series of prefaces, Communicantes and Hanc igitur texts for various seasons and feasts, followed by the canon and post-canon Ordo Missae. Next, a series of votive masses are given with a range of approaches to the presentation of the texts; some have full chants, orations, and scriptural readings, some have a mixture of incipits and full texts, and some have only orations. These are followed by a series of Requiem masses, which are provided with full texts for the first formulary and then orations alone for the others. At the end of the votive missal, two distinctively Dominican formularies are given in the main column of the missal by the original hand: one for St. Dominic, which includes full texts for each genre, and one “For those Preaching the Word of God” (Pro verbum dei predicantibus) which provides orations alone. The formulary for St. Dominic presents many distinctive features (discussed in detail in Chapter 3 above). The introit is Os iusti (rather than In medio ecclesie as in most sources). The collect has the meritis et exemplis rather than meritis et doctrinis. The gospel reading is Mk 10:25–30 (In illo tempore. Dixit ihesus discipulis suis. Filioi quam difficile confidentes in pecuniis in regnum dei introite … in seculo futuro vitam eternam), a text not found in any other Dominican sources. The communion antiphon is Beatus servus quem cum venerit (rather than Fidelus servus et prudens, as in most Dominican sources). Despite these variations, the formulary shares the secret and postcommunion prayers with all other sources, and presents gradual, Alleluia, and offertory chant texts that correspond with some but not all other pre-Humbert sources. The shared texts make it clear that this St. Dominic formulary is not entirely “improvised,” but suggests that the orations were likely the only officially sanctioned

67 Warner 1920 suggested that the manuscript could have been written between Dominic’s death in 1221 and his translation in 1233, but that it was probably written somewhat after his canonization in 1234, suggesting “circ. 1240?” Although the post-1234 date was generally accepted by later scholars, Sotheby’s 1976 attempted to revive the possibility of a pre-1234 dating on the basis of Dominic having the title “beatus” rather than “sanctus.” Morgan 1982 convincingly refuted this suggestion.

258 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 22: Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 5r (Gn).

texts for Dominic and that local communities initially chose various elements from the Common of Saints to complete the formulary. The formulary Pro verbum dei predicantibus closely matches a votive mass found in the liturgical books of Humbert of Romans with the rubric Pro predicatoribus, differing only in the order of the words sancti spiritus in the collect and in specific forms given for the abbreviated terminations of the prayers (Table 144).68

68 For a brief discussion of this votive mass, see Smith 2021a, pp. 294–295.

8.4 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7  

 259

Figure 23: Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 199v (Roman Canon).

According to the Vitas fratrum (sometimes referred to as the Vitae fratrum), a collection of stories related to the formation of the Order of Preachers compiled by Gerald de Frachet (also known as Gerard de Frachet) at the request of Humbert of Romans after 1256,69 these prayers were revealed by Christ in a vision to a Cistercian monk who had been asked by two friars to pray for the Order of Preachers. After sharing the prayers with the friars, “the Lord Pope approved and granted

69 Tugwell 1997, p. 29.

260 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 24: Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 200v (Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit).

these prayers, that they might be said in the Mass”.70 The versions of the prayers found in the Oxford manuscript as well as the Humbert liturgy closely match those found in the Vitas fratrum. The Oxford manuscript predates the compilation of the Vitas fratrum and is the only pre-Humbert Dominican manuscript that I have so far identified which contains the

70 Gerard de Frachet 1896, pp. 32–33 (Vitas fratrum, 1.4, §7): “Istas oraciones dominus papa approbavit et concessit, ut dicerentur in missa.”

8.4 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7  

 261

Figure 25: Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 204r (Mass of St. Dominic).

formulary in the original hand.71 Their presence in the Oxford manuscript is thus highly significant for the development of this aspect of Dominican liturgy and devotion. At the bottom of the folio with the formulary for St. Dominic (f. 204r), a formulary for the Translation of St.  Dominic was added by a later hand. These texts were likely added by the same person who added an unusual

71 The formulary is present as a later addition in Paris, Mazarine 31 and in Poitiers, BM 12. In both manuscripts, the additions can be dated after 1253, as the same hands add texts for St. Peter Martyr as well.

262 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Table 144: Votive Mass for Preachers. Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 204r

Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 419rb (Missale conventuale)

Pro verbum dei predicantibus

Pro predicatoribus

Corda famulorum tuorum domine illumina sancti spiritus gratia; et ignitum eis eloquium dona et qui tuum predicant verbum largire virtutis augmentum. Per.

Oratio. Corda famulorum tuorum domine illumina spiritus sancti gratia; et ignitum eis eloquium dona; et qui tuum predicant verbum, largire virtutis augmentum. Per eiusdem.

Secreta. Famulis tuis domine verbum tribue gratiosum et munera oblata sanctificans corda eorum in salutari tuo quesumus visita. Per.

Secreta. Famulis tuis domine verbum tribue gratiosum, et munera oblata sanctificans, corda eorum in salutari tuo quesumus visita. Per.

Postcommunio. Conserva domine famulos tuos unigeniti tui corpore et sanguine suscepto, et tuum nuntiantibus verbum largitatem tribue gratiarum. Per eundem dominum nostrum ihesum christum.

Postcommunio. Conserva domine famulos tuos, unigeniti tui corpore et sanguine suscepto; et tuum nuntiantibus verbum, largitatem tribue gratiarum. Per eundem.

pre-communion prayer in the same location on the preceding recto72 and the “Last Gospel” (Io 1:1–14) on the succeeding verso (f. 204v). The Translation formulary contains an oration, secret, and postcommunion prayer. These three prayers appear to be unique to this manuscript (other Dominican sources provide one set of used for both the main feast as well as the translation of St. Dominic) but can be identified as adaptations of prayers found in the Corpus Orationum for the translations of Edmund of Abingdon and Thomas Becket.73 According to the apparatus of the Corpus Orationum, these prayers appear in a small number of sources (five or six respectively) assigned alternatively to Edmund or Thomas. The fact that all of the indexed sources are of British origin suggests that the individual who added these prayers to the margin adapted them from liturgical sources available locally in England.74

8.4.4 Provenance The manuscript was likely written and illuminated in Oxford between c. 1234 and c. 1244. Kidd 2020 provides a thorough discussion of evidence for the later history of the manuscript which I will summarize here. A 13th-century plummet inscription on f. 439v seems to indicate ownership later in the 13th-century by the Order of St. John in Harlem. Inscriptions on ff. 483v and 440v indicate ownership by Prior Johannes Linden and Brother Nicholas Boheler de Spira in the 15th century; at least the later if not both appear to have been Carthusian monks, perhaps in Mainz. In 1647, Isabella Fernandez presented the manuscript to the Sodality of the Immaculate Conception in Antwerp, who had it rebound in its present

72 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 203r (lower margin): “Agimus tibi deo patri gratias pro iam beatificatis postulantes eorum interventu nos apud te adiuvari, pro hiis quoque qui in purgatoriis locis adhuc sunt offerimus tibi patri filium supplicantes ut hanc sacrosanctam hostiam eorum pena brevior sit et levior, pro nobis autem quos adhuc gravant peccata carnis et sanguinis immolamus tibi patri filium obsecrantes ut ea peccata que ex carne et sanguine contraximus caro mundet sanguis lavet unigeniti filii tui domini nostri ihesu christi qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate spiritus sancti deus per omnia secula seculorum amen.” According to Amiet 1976, p. 190, “cette formule semble extrêment rare.” The prayer is found as a 15th-century addition to a late 11th-century missal from Brusson in the Aosta Valley (Aoste, Archives Historiques Régionales, cod. 7); the prayer is edited in Amiet 1976, pp. 189–190. A 12th-century plenary missal from Monte Cassino (Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 6082) includes the text on f. 148v as a marginal addition that may date from the 12th or early 13th century; the prayer is edited in Fiala 1947, p. 217; for the dating of the manuscript see Gamber 1968, n. 455, p. 246 and Salmon 1969, p. 160; cf. Yao 2019, p. 105. Finally, late 12th- or early 13th-century sacramentary from Angers (Nantes, Musée Dobrée, Ms 4) includes the prayer in the original hand of the Ordo Missae on f. 76v; the version of the prayer in the Nantes manuscript is edited in Leroquais 1924, v. 2, p. 2; cf. Amiet 1976, p. 190. 73 CO 1857, CO 1957, and CO 1439; see Corpus Orationum 2 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160A) p. 255; Corpus Orationum 3 (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160B) pp. 70, 119. For the full texts of these prayers and further analysis, see Table 65 on p. 87 above. 74 In addition to the missal texts, a later Carthusian user added marginal annotations in various sections of the bible indicating liturgical readings for the Divine Office; see Kidd 2020: “A Carthusian house (perhaps the one at Mainz): characteristic Carthusian marginal annotations ‘a’–‘h’ and ‘P’, ‘S’, ‘T’ (primus, secundus, tertius), appear in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Isaiah; marginalia perhaps of the same date refer to days of the week from feria 2 to feria 6 followed by Sabbato (sic!); one annotation appears to read ‘In xl’ (i.e. quadragesima) at ‘Locutus est dominus ad Moysen …’ (Numbers 15:1; fol. 50r), and two others refer to the 2nd and 3rd Sundays (presumably after Pentecost) at ‘Onus deserti maris sicut turbines …’ (Is. 21:1) and ‘Consolamini consolamini populus meus …’ (Is. 40:1); the two readings marked ‘In refectorio’ correspond to those for the 4th and 5th Sundays in Sexagesima in Raymond Étaix, ‘Le lectionnaire cartusien pour le réfectoire’, Revue d’études Augustiniennes, 23, nos. 3–4 (1977), pp. 272–303.”

8.4 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7  

 263

binding. It later belonged to Alfred Pfeiffer (1858–1913), of Vienna, and was sold along with his collection (Boerner 1914), and was then purchased by Leo Olschki (1861–1940), who included it in Olschki 1914. It was purchased in 1915 by Charles William Dyson Perrins (1864–1958), and later sold along with his collection (Sotheby’s 1959). In 1976 it was purchased by the Bodleian Library at a sale of manuscripts formerly in the library of Robin Howard (1924–1989) and was given the present shelfmark “MS. Lat. bib. e. 7.”

8.4.5 Material Features Binding dimensions: 181 x 130 x 55 mm Binding: Brown leather binding; “each cover tooled in gilt with a panel enclosing a gilt stamp depicting the Virgin holding a sceptre and the Child, a serpent underfoot, surrounded by seven stars and the legend ‘.SODAL(ITAS). IMMAC(VLATAE). CONCEPT(IONIS). D(OMINAE).V(IRGINIS). M(ARIAE). ANTVERP(IENSIS).’; the second compartment of the spine lettered in gilt ‘BIBLIA | M.S.S.’; two brass clasps (fastening from the back to the front cover); the front and back flyleaves each formed of a quire of two bifolia, one leaf serving as a pastedown; in a green Dyson Perrins box.” (Kidd 2020) Material of leaves: Parchment Dimensions of leaves: 165 x 118 mm Number of leaves: 3 paper flyleaves + 440 + 3 paper flyleaves Foliation (Modern): i-iii (paper flyleaves), 1–177, 179–441 (parchment), 442–444 (paper flyleaves)75 Foliation (Medieval): N/A Secundo folio: Et usum (3r) Quires: The manuscript is mostly made up of quires of 12 leaves. Quire 1, which may be a later addition, has 4 leaves; these present the Frater ambrosius and Desiderii mei prologues and an illuminated miniature in a discrete codicological unit. Quire 18, which contains the conclusion of the Psalter and the votive missal, has 10 leaves. Quire 38, which contains the conclusion of the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, has 6 leaves. Quire marks: A catchword appears at the end of quire 6 (64v). “Ad hoc” leaf signatures appear in quires 14 and 24 (cf. Kidd 2020) Layout: B: c. 118 x 74; 48 lines in two columns [33 + 33] 2r–4v (Biblical Prologues) 5r–198v (Gn–Ps) 208r–406r (Prv–Apc) 406r–438v (Interpretations of Hebrew Names) M: c. 118 x 74; 48 lines in one column 199r–204r (Votive missal) Script: Northern textualis; according to Kidd 2020, “the missal section and prefatory prologues apparently by a different scribe.”

8.4.6 Artistic Decoration Running Header: Names of biblical books in alternating red and blue capitals; sometimes with decorative lines on the right and left (with the exception of Psalms and the votive missal, which have no running header). Biblical Books: Historiated or decorated initials; blank space for rubrics. Biblical Prologues: N/A (with the exception of Frater ambrosius and Desiderii mei on ff. 2r and 4r, which have decorated initials, and S. 350 on f. 176v which has a flourished initial). Biblical Chapters: One- line red or blue initials; chapter numbers in alternating red and blue capitals in the margin. Biblical Text: Inconsistent use of highlighting for beginning of sentences.

75 The foliator omitted 178 by mistake.

264 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Psalms: Historiated initials for Ps 1, Ps 26, Ps 38, Ps 51, Ps 52, Ps 68, Ps 80, Ps 97, Ps 101, Ps 109; two-line flourished initials for other psalms; single-line red or blue initials for psalm verses. The psalms are numbered with Roman numerals in red and blue ink in the margins next to the incipit (cf. Poleg 2020a, pp. 25–27). Liturgical Texts: Decorated initials for Per omnia / Vere dignum (f. 199r) and Te igitur (f. 199v); two-line flourished initials or one-line red or blue initials for other texts. Other: Miniature of Moses on f. 4vb.

8.4.7 Quires and Contents Quires

Range

Inside front cover Ir–IIIv (3 paper leaves) Q1: 1–4 (4) Layout B

Q2: 5–16 (12) Q3: 17–28 (12) Q4: 29–40 (12) Q5: 41–52 (12) Q6: 53–64 (12) Q7: 65–76 (12) Q8: 77–88 (12)

Q9: 89–100 (12)

Q10: 101–112 (12) Q11: 113–124 (12) Q12: 125–136 (12) Q13: 137–148 (12)

Content Various ownership marks

Ir

Provenance marks

Iv–IIIv

Blank leaves

1r

Blank page with provenance mark.76

1v

Blank page with added partial list of biblical books from Gn to Ps in faint lead.

2ra–4rb

S. 284 (Decorated initial)

4rb–vb

S. 285 (Decorated initial)

4vb

Miniature: Moses blessed by God

5ra–21ra

Gn (Historiated initial: Six medallions of Creation: the Firmament, the Earth and the Waters, the Trees, the Sun and Moon, the Fish, and Adam; at the base, Crucifixion with Mary and John)

21ra–34vb

Ex (Decorated initial)

34vb–44rb

Lv (Historiated initial: God speaking to Moses)

44rb–57vb

Nm (Historiated initial: God speaking to Moses)

57vb–69rb

Dt (Historiated initial: Moses speaking to seven men)

69rb–77rb

Ios (Historiated initial: Joshua speaking to two men)

77rb–85va

Idc (Historiated initial: Samson fighting with the lion; a man in a hood in the lower margin holds on to the base of the letter)

85va–86va

Rt (Decorated initial)

86va–97vb

I Rg (Historiated initial: King Saul seated with sword)

97vb

Blank space: 5 lines

98ra–107ra

II Rg (Historiated initial: King David seated with sword)

107ra–117vb

III Rg (Decorated initial)

117vb–128ra

IV Rg (Historiated initial: King Ahaziah? seated with sword; a man in a hood lies prostrate at the bottom of the partially cropped initial looking up at the seated figure of the king)

128ra–137ra

I Par (Historiated initial: A seated man holding a book)

137ra–148va

II Par (Historiated initial: A seated man [Solomon? ] holding a sword)

148va–vb

Or Man (Not visually distinguished from II Par)

148vb–151vb

I Esr (Decorated initial)

76 Inscription in black ink: “Sodal. Concept. Immac. B. Virg. gall. Antuerp. // 1647. // D.D. Isabella Fernandez.” Kidd 2020 suggests that the first line is written over an erasure.

8.4 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7  

 265

(continued) Quires

Range

Content

Q14: 149–160 (12)

151vb–156va

II Esr (Decorated initial; labelled Neh; not followed by III Esr)

156va–159vb

Tb (Decorated initial)

159vb–164rb

Idt (Historiated initial: Judith praying)

164rb–168va

Est (Decorated initial)

168va–176va

Iob (Historiated initial: God and Satan discuss Job)

176va–vb

S. 350 (non-Parisian prologue for Iob; introduced with a flourished initial)

176vb–198vb

Ps (Numbered with Roman numerals in the margin) Historiated Initials: Ps 1 (David playing the harp) [176vb] Ps 26 (David and Samuel; David is being crowned by God) [180vb] Ps 38 (David covering his mouth) [183ra] Ps 51 (David and Goliath) [184vb] Ps 52 (David lamenting) [185ra] Ps 68 (Upper portion: God blessing; Lower portion: Jonah and the whale) [187ra] Ps 80 (Jacob wrestling with the angel) [189va] Ps 97 (Three clerics wearing copes singing at a lectern with musical notation) [191vb] Ps 101 (David praying; self-portrait of de Brailes?)78 [192ra] Ps 109 (Christ in Majesty) [194rb]

198vb

Blank space: Originally 22 lines, with a list of canticles added on the first six blank lines

199r

[Votive missal] [Ordo Missae] [Trinity preface]

199r

[Nativity]

199r

[Epiphany]

199r

[Lent]

199r

[Easter]

199r

[Ascension]

199r

[Pentecost]

199r

[De cruce]

199r

[De apostolis]

199r

[Marian preface]

199r

[Preface dialogue] (Decorated initial)

199r–v

[Common preface] (Decorated initial)

199v–200r

[Canon] (Decorated initial)

200r

[Post-canon Ordo Missae]

200r–v

[Votive masses] De sancta trinitate

200v

De sancto spiritu

200v–201r

De sancta cruce

201r

De cruce in pascali tempore

201r

De domina in adventum usque ad nativitatem

201r–v

Inter natalem et purificationem

Q15: 161–172 (12) Q16: 173–185 (12)77

Q17: 186–197 (12) Q18: 198–207 (10)

Layout M

2

77 Due to an error by the modern foliator, the foliation skips from 177 to 179. 78 The posture, clothing, and face of the figure in this initial is similar to that found in a Book of Hours made by de Brailes, London, BL, Add. MS 49999, f. 43r, which is accompanied by the caption w. de brail’ qui me depeint; this is interpreted as a self-portrait by Donovan 1991, p. 9.

266 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Q19: 208–219 (12) Layout B

Range

Content

201v

A purificatione usque ad pasca (written in left margin likely by the rubricator)

201v

A pasca usque ad pentecostes

201v

A deus omnium usque ad adventum

201v–202r

De angelis

202r

Pro penitentibus

202r

Pro familiaribus

202r

Pro tribulatione quecumque

202r

Pro pace

202r

Pro itinerantibus

202r

Pro infirmis

202v

De incarnatione

202v

De omnibus sanctis

202v

Oratio generalis pro ecclesia

202v

Pro ecclesia

202v

Pro perseverantia

202v–203r

Ad gratiam postulandam

203r

[Requiem masses] Pro defunctis

203r

Pro aniversario [sic]

203r

Pro episcopo

203r

Agimus tibi deo patri gratias … per omnia secula seculorum. Amen. (addition in lower margin)

203r–v

Pro defuncto presbytero

203v

Pro patre et matre

203v

Pro benefactoribus

203v

Pro muliere

203v

Pro requiescentibus in cimeterio

203v

Pro fidelibus communis

203v

Pro vivis et mortuis oratio communis

203v–204r

Oratio generalis

204r

Oratio communis

204r

[Sanctoral/votive masses] De beato dominico

204r

Pro verbum dei predicantibus

204r

In translatione beati dominici (addition in lower margin)

204v

Io 1:1–14: In principio erat verbum … plenum gratie et veritatis (addition on blank page)

205r

Blank page

205v

Added Easter table and key

206r–207v

Originally blank leaves with added notes

208ra–214vb

Prv (Historiated initial: King Solomon holding scepter)

214vb–217rb

Ecl (Decorated initial)

217rb–218va

Ct (Historiated initial: Two women embracing [Warner 1920, p. 26] or the Bridegroom embracing the Bride [Morgan 1982, p. 115])

8.4 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7  

 267

(continued) Quires Q20: 220–231 (12) Q21: 232–243 (12) Q22: 244–255 (12) Q23: 256–267 (12) Q24: 268–279 (12)

Q25: 280–291 (12) Q26: 292–303 (12)

Q27: 304–315 (12)

Q28: 316–327 (12)

Q29: 328–339 (12) Q30: 340–351 (12) Q31: 352–363 (12) Q32: 364–375 (12)

Q33: 376–387 (12)

Range

Content

218va–223va

Sap (Historiated initial: King Solomon holding a sword)

223va–237ra

Sir (Historiated initial: King Solomon holding a sword; the biblical Prologus is omitted)

237ra–251vb

Is (Historiated initial: God appearing to Isaiah while Isaiah sleeps)

251vb–269rb

Ier (Historiated initial: Jeremiah seated holding a book)

269rb–270vb

Lam79 (Historiated initial: Jeremiah lamenting)

270vb–273ra

Bar (Historiated initial: Baruch writing while Jeremiah dictates) Bar 6 (Decorated initial) [272rb]80

273ra–289ra

Ez (Historiated initial: Ezechiel standing and holding a book)

289ra

Blank space: 6 lines

289rb–295vb

Dn (Historiated initial: Daniel in the lion’s den being blessed with two fingers by God)

295vb–297vb

Os (Historiated initial: Hosea being pointed at with one finger by God)

297vb–298vb

Ioel (Historiated initial: Joel pointed with one finger while being blessed with two fingers by God)

298vb–300rb

Am (Historiated initial: Amos holding cloak to face)

300rb–va

Abd (Historiated initial: Obadiah sleeping)

300va–301ra

Ion (Historiated initial: Jonah coming out of the whale, being blessed with two fingers by God)

301ra–302rb

Mi (Decorated initial)

302rb–vb

Na (Decorated initial)

302vb–303va

Hab (Historiated initial: Habakkuk pointing to heaven)

303va–304ra

So (Decorated initial)

304rb–va

Agg (Decorated initial)

304va–307ra

Za (Decorated initial)

307ra–307vb

Mal (Decorated initial)

307vb–318ra

I Mcc (Historiated initial: Two soldiers)

318ra–325va

II Mcc (Decorated initial)

325va–336ra

Mt (Decorated initial)

336ra–343ra

Mc (Decorated initial)

343ra–354vb

Lc (Decorated; Begins with Lc 1:5 [Fuit in diebus], entirely omitting Lc 1:1–4)

354vb–363va

Io (Decorated initial)

363va–367vb

Rm (Historiated initial: Paul falling from his horse)

367vb–371vb

I Cor (Decorated initial)

371vb–374rb

II Cor (Decorated initial)

374va–375vb

Gal (Decorated initial)

375vb–377ra

Eph (Historiated initial: Paul holding a sword)

377ra–378ra

Phil (Decorated initial)

79 At the end of Lam (f. 270vb), the “Oracio Ieremie prophete” is distinguished with a flourished two-line initial and a title rubric written by a slightly later hand. 80 Chapter 6 of Bar is separated from the rest of the book by a long title rubric and a decorated initial.

268 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Q34: 388–399 (12)

Q35: 400–411 (12)

Q36: 412–423 (12)

Range

Content

378ra–379ra

Col (Decorated initial with human figure: Dragon in top part of P, with a man as the base of the letter looking up at the dragon and shaking his fist at him)

379ra–vb

I Th (Decorated initial)

380ra–rb

II Th (Decorated initial)

380rb–381va

I Tim (Decorated initial)

381va

S. 772 (Not visually distinguished from the preceding text)

381va–382rb

II Tim (Decorated initial)

382rb–vb

Tit (Decorated initial)

382vb–383ra

Phlm (Decorated initial)

383ra–386ra

Hbr (Decorated initial)

386ra–396vb

Act (Decorated initial)

396vb–397vb

Iac (Decorated initial)

397vb–398vb

I Pt (Historiated initial: Peter holding a key and a book)

398vb–399va

II Pt (Decorated initial)

399va–400va

I Io (Historiated initial: John holding a book)

400va

II Io (Historiated initial: John holding a scroll in upper portion; four men listening in lower portion)

400vb

III Io (Historiated initial: John holding a scroll in upper portion; four men listening in lower portion)

400vb–401ra

Iud (Historiated initial: Jude standing)

401ra–406ra

Apc (Historiated initial: John writing)

406ra

Erased ownership mark81

406ra

Blank space: 35 lines

406rb–438va

Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) (Decorated initial)

438va

Blank space: 21 lines

438va

Erased ownership mark82

438vb

Blank space: 1 column

439r–441v

Blank leaves, with various faded texts and ownership marks

442r–444v

Blank paper leaves, with conservation notes on 444v

Q37: 424–435 (12) Q38: 436–441 (6)

Q39: 442–445 (3 paper leaves)

Ownership marks

81 See Warner 1920, p. 27: “An early owner’s name, ‘Liber hic pertinet michi b …. ….’, at the end of the Apocalypse (f. 406) has been erased past recall.” 82 See Warner 1920, p. 27: “Another inscription (15th cent.) on f. 458b, also erased, can be read, ‘Dominus iohannes linden prior domus huius concessit michi fratri nycolao boheler hunc librum’. The same owner’s name, ‘Frater nycolaus boheler de spira (Speyer in Rheinish Bavaria) professus monachus, granarius (?) eiusdem’, appears on f. 440b, together with another erased inscription.”

8.4 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7  

 269

8.4.8 Bibliography Boerner 1914: Katalog der Bibliothek Alfred Ritter von Pfeiffer, Wien … Versteigerung 4. – 6. Mai 1914 (Leipzig: C. G. Boerner, 1914). On p. 164, Lot 800, this auction catalog identifies the manuscript as being of 14th-century French origin and provides a brief description of the artistic and textual elements, including a reference to the presence of liturgical texts (“einige liturgische Stellen”). Olschki 1914: Leo S. Olschki, “Manuscrits très précieux (Continuation),” La Bibliofilía 16, no. 7/8 (1914): 276–77. Olschki’s entry, appearing in the October-November 1914 issue of the journal (thus after the May 1914 auction), gives a short description of the manuscript on p. 276 focusing on its artistic elements and identifying it as being produced in the 13th century and of English origin. Olschki states that the manuscript is composed of 433 folios. He provides a plate with reproductions of nine historiated initials. At the end of the heading for this manuscript, Olschki gives the inventory number 36982, which is found in the manuscript itself on the front pastedown. Warner 1920: George F. Warner, Descriptive Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts in the Library of C. W. Dyson Perrins (Oxford: Printed at the University Press, 1920). On pp. 25–27, catalog entry 5, Warner gives a detailed description of the manuscript, discussing its biblical contents, collation, provenance, and identifying the subjects of the historiated initials. Warner states that the manuscript was purchased by Dyson Perrins from Olschki in 1915. Warner discusses the missal and the presence of the name of St. Dominic, suggesting that it could have been written between Dominic’s death in 1221 and his translation in 1233, but that it was probably written somewhat after his canonization in 1234. Warner later provides the dating “XIII cent. (circ. 1240?).” Referencing the initials, Warner states that “though they do not show so much vigour and invention, they have a resemblance to the work of W. de Brailes in MS. 4 [now London, BL, Add. MS 49999], and some at least appear to be by his hand.” Millar 1926: Eric George Millar, English Illuminated Manuscripts from the Xth to the XIIIth Century. (Paris: G. van Oest, 1926). Millar mentions the manuscript in passing on p. 49 in the context of a discussion of the work of W. de Brailes: “A little later, [Mr. Cockerell] acquired for his own collection a second Psalter containing one page by Brailes, and in 1915 Mr. Perrins obtained a small bible with several initials by him, neither book again containing his signature.” On p. 51, Millar mentions the manuscript in connection with the question of distinguishing between French and English small bibles: “These tiny books were executed on both sides of the channel, Paris in the second half of the century being the chief place of production, and it is particularly difficult to distinguish the French from the English copies, although certain of the latter are easily recognisable from their style alone, as for example the small bible in Mr. Perrins’s Library attributed in parts to Brailes and mentioned above.” Saunders 1928: O. Elfrida Saunders, English Illumination, 2 vols. (Florence: Pantheon, 1928). In vol. 1, pp. 61–62, Saunders gives a brief description of the works of William de Brailes, identifying him as “a certain monk” who may have worked in London or the Midlands. After listing four manuscripts “which can be definitely assigned to him,” Saunders mentions the bible missal manuscript in a separate category: “Besides these, a small bible in Mr. Perrins’ collection, (No. 5), has some initials which seem to be by the same hand, although possibly done before the artist’s style reached its highest development.” Cockerell 1930: Sydney Carlyle Cockerell, The Work of W. de Brailes, an English Illuminator of the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge: Printed for presentation to the members of the Roxburghe club, 1930). On p. 4, Cockerell gives a brief description of the manuscript, indicating that “many, if not all, of the initials are by W. de Brailes, though they do not show him at his best.” Cockerell mentions the presence of an “abridged missal” indicating “Dominican influence” and briefly discusses the provenance of the manuscript. On pp. 25–26, Cockerell gives brief descriptions of seven illuminations, explicitly drawing on the descriptions of Warner 1920. Rickert 1954: Margaret Josephine Rickert, Painting in Britain: The Middle Ages (London: Penguin Books, 1954). On p. 114, the manuscript is cited as MS. 5 of the Dyson Perrins Collection in a list of manuscripts with illumination by W. de Brailes. Pollard 1955: Graham Pollard, “William de Brailles,” Bodleian Library Record 5 (1955): 202–9. On p. 204, Pollard mentions the manuscript as number five in a list of seven manuscripts associated with the illuminator W. de Brailes; he then goes on to argue that “W. de Brailles” should be identified with a “William de Brailles” who is attested to in various Oxford documents from the middle third of the thirteenth century. Brieger 1957: Peter H. Brieger, English Art, 1216–1307, The Oxford History of English Art 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957). On p. 81, Brieger mentions the Genesis initial with a Crucifixion scene, on p. 86n2 lists the manuscript as being attributed to “W. de Brailes”, and on p. 90 describes the manuscript as having “historiated initials closely resembling the style of de Brailes” and being “probably of Dominican origin.” Sotheby’s 1959: Sotheby’s, The Dyson Perrins Collection. Part II. … Which Will Be Sold by Auction by Messers Sotheby & Co. … 1 December 1959 (London: Sotheby, 1959). On pp. 27–28, Lot 59, the catalog dates the manuscript c. 1240 and gives a brief account of the provenance and decoration of the manuscript, including the detail that “Mr. Dyson Perrins recognized the similarity of these initials to the work of William de Brailes from an illustration in Messrs. Olschki’s catalogue.”

270 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Bennet 1973: Adelaide Louise Bennett, “The Place of Garrett 28 in Thirteenth-Century English Illumination” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1973). Bennet makes several references to this manuscript as “Ex-Perrins 5” or “Ex-Perrins Coll., 5” (not to be confused with “Ex-Perrins 6,” now New Haven, Beinecke, MS 387, which Bennet sometimes refers to as the “ex-Perrins Bible of the 1230’s” and sometimes simply as the “ex-Perrins Bible”). On p. 48, Bennet points out that the Bodleian manuscript varies slightly from the Paris Vulgate order by omitting the second book of Esdras after Nehemias, and links this feature with two other bibles from the “W. de Brailes group”: York, Cathedral Library, MS XIV.N.6 and Oxford, Merton College, MS 7. In Appendix IA (p. 308), Bennet lists the order of books in the Bodleian in a table that allows comparison with other de Brailes bibles and other English bibles of the 13th century. In Appendix IB (pp. 309–310), Bennet lists the prologues of various English bibles, including the Bodleian manuscript, although this table misleadingly suggests that the Frater ambrosius and Desiderii mei prologues are omitted and does not note the presence of S. 350 after Iob or S. 772 before II Tim. Sotheby’s 1976: Sotheby’s, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts and Miniatures … Which Will Be Sold by Auction by Sotheby Parke Bernet & Co. … 5th July, 1976 (London: Sotheby Parke Bernet & Co, 1976). On pp. 54–57, Lot 81, the catalog dates the manuscript c. 1230–35 and provides an overview of the provenance and artistic decoration in the manuscript. On p. 54, the author of the entry argues that the manuscript was written before the canonization of St. Dominic in 1234 on the basis of the liturgical texts on f. 204r: “He is called beatus Dominicus (not sanctus) and the office for his translation is added in a very early hand in the lower margin, suggesting that the book may have been written before Dominic’s canonization in 1234 and probably before his translation in 1233.” On p. 56, the author argues that there were two artists at work in the initials: “44 of the historiated initials are in the hand of de Brailes. The frontispiece and the 4 historiated initials on ff. 400b–401 are by a second artist whose archaic style is characterised by brown feature-lining, less cramped expressions than used by de Brailes, and bright spots of red colour on the faces.” Kauffmann 1977: Claus Michael Kauffmann, The Bible in British Art: 10th to 20th Centuries (London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1977). On p. 9, catalog entry 11, Kauffmann gives a brief account of the manuscript, mentioning the “typological significance” of the Creation and Job initials. Bodleian 1978: “Notable Accessions,” Bodleian Library Record 9, no. 6 (1978): 357–60. On pp. 357–358, a brief account is given of the acquisition of the manuscript “with the help of a generous grant from the fund administered by the Victoria and Albert Museum.” The note discusses Pollard 1955’s identification of “W. de Brailes” with “William de Brailes” and offers some comments on the relationship of the artwork in the bible to several other works by de Brailes. Implicitly following Sotheby’s 1976, the article states that the bible was written “probably before St. Dominic’s canonization in 1234,” and links this with an observation from Saunders 1928 that de Brailes “style in it is not yet fully developed.” Alexander 1980: J.J.G. Alexander, “English or French? Thirteenth-Century Bibles,” in Manuscripts at Oxford: An Exhibition in Memory of Richard William Hunt (1908–1979), Keeper of Western Manuscripts at the Bodleian Library Oxford, 1945–1975, on Themes Selected and Described by Some of His Friends, ed. Bruce C. Barker-Benfield and Albinia Catherine de la Mare (Oxford: Bodleian Library, 1980), 69–71. On p. 71, Alexander gives a brief description of the manuscript, commenting on the artistic style of de Brailes and stating that it is “an early work, perhaps even made before 1234.” Alexander points out that “its historiated initials show Bible scenes, as opposed to the sequence in the normal Paris Bibles. Here for Psalm 80, Exultate (f. 189v), Jacob wrestles with the Angel, whereas the Paris bibles show David as a musician, usually playing the Bells.” Morgan 1982: Nigel J. Morgan, Early Gothic Manuscripts, vol. 1, A Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in the British Isles 4 (London: H. Miller, 1982). On pp. 114–16, catalog entry 69, Morgan provides a detailed description of the manuscript, dating it to c. 1234–40, identifying the scenes of the historiated initials, and arguing that “almost all the illumination is by de Brailes excepting the miniature of Moses on f. 4v and the initials on ff. 400v, 401.” Morgan convincingly refutes the pre-1234 dating proposed by Sotheby’s 1976: “The author of the entry on the bible for the Sotheby sale catalogue put forward interesting arguments for a date before 1233–4 on the basis of the addition of the mass for the Translation of Dominic and the use of beatus rather than sanctus for the mass for Dominic (i.e., implying this was before his canonisation in 1234). However the Mass Proper for Dominic, as is the case for many saints, refers to him as beatus. Also there is no evidence that masses for Dominic were celebrated until his formal canonisation so the evidence rather suggests a post-1234 date for the bible.” Eleen 1982: Luba Eleen, The Illustration of the Pauline Epistles in French and English Bibles of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982). On p. 77, Eleen cites the Oxford manuscript in a list of “MSS with isolated scenes from Acts” within the Pauline Epistles iconography, dating the manuscript to “c. 1240?”. Light 1984: Laura Light, “Versions et révisions du texte biblique,” in Le Moyen Age et la Bible, ed. Pierre Riché and Guy Lobrichon, Bible de tous les temps 4 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1984), 55–93. On p. 92, Light discusses the manuscript, dating it between 1221 and 1234 with reference to Alexander 1980. In footnote 123, Light observes that the manuscript follows the Parisian order of books but without prologues other than the two before Genesis, noting that it does not present the readings characteristic of Quentin for the Octateuch but does present those of Glunz for the gospels (cf. Light’s discussion of these variants on p. 82).

8.4 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7  

 271

Lubin 1985: Edward R. Lubin, European Illuminated Manuscripts (New York: Edward R. Lubin, 1985). On p. 11 of this catalog (written by Roger S. Wieck) the manuscript is referenced in comparison to lots 6 and 7, two single leaves (c. 213 x 148 mm) from a Latin bible with historiated initials of “Samson Slaying the Lion” and “Esther Before Ahasuerus” that Wieck suggests have stylistic similarities with the work of William de Brailes. de Hamel 1986: Christopher de Hamel, A History of Illuminated Manuscripts (Oxford: Phaidon, 1986). On p. 134, de Hamel references the manuscript in the context of a discussion of manuscripts illuminated by de Brailes in Oxford, specifying that the bible is “possibly as old as 1234.” In the second edition published in 1994, de Hamel’s discussion of de Brailes is slightly expanded, but the reference to this manuscript remains identical: see Christopher de Hamel, A History of Illuminated Manuscripts, 2nd Edn. (London: Phaidon, 1994), p. 140. Ferrini 1987: Bruce P. Ferrini, Important Western Medieval Illuminated Manuscripts and Illuminated Leaves (Akron: Bruce P. Ferrini Rare Books, 1987). On p. 35 of this catalog written by Sandra Hindman, the manuscript is referenced in comparison with lots 15–16, which are the same leaves that were listed in Lubin 1985, arguing that the similarity allows the leaves to be dated and localized to Oxford in the 1230s. Light 1987: Laura Light, “The New Thirteenth-Century Bible and the Challenge of Heresy,” Viator 18 (1987): 275–88. On p. 277, Light discusses the manuscript as one of the earliest examples of a pocket bible from England, accepting Morgan 1982’s dating of 1234–1240 (in contrast to the dating of 1221–1234 given in Light 1984). Bodleian 1988: Duke Humfrey’s Library & the Divinity School 1488–1988: An Exhibition at the Bodleian Library June-August 1988 (Oxford: Bodleian Library, 1988). On p. 7, a brief description of the bible is given as number 3 in the exhibition catalog focusing on historical documentation concerning William de Brailes and identifying the presence of several illuminators in the manuscript: “In the present manuscript two hands other than his own can be discerned: one in the initials on ff. 400v, 401 and 406, and the other in the initials on ff. 2, 4, 199 and 199v and the miniature on f. 4v.” Donovan 1990: Claire Donovan, “The Mise-En-Page of Early Books of Hours in England,” in Medieval Book Production: Assessing the Evidence: Proceedings of the Second Conference of the Seminar in the History of the Book to 1500, Oxford, July 1988, ed. Linda L. Brownrigg (Los Altos Hills: AndersonLovelace, 1990), 147–161. On pp. 151–152, Donovan discusses the manuscript in the context of arguing that the development of portable bibles in the 13th century influenced the design of Books of Hours. Donovan 1991: Claire Donovan, The de Brailes Hours: Shaping the Book of Hours in Thirteenth-Century Oxford (London: British Library, 1991). On pp. 19–21, Donovan discusses the manuscript in the context of the range of the work of William de Brailes. On p. 21, Donovan suggests that “It would have been a fine book indeed for a Dominican of the Oxford friary, or for a layperson caught up in the enthusiasm for St Dominic, just at the time that he was being officially canonised as a saint.” On p. 158, endnote 39, Donovan discusses the dating offered by Sotheby’s 1976 and Morgan 1982, and observes that “with its wealth of illumination, it could have been a lavish gift for a friar of the Oxford Blackfriars.” On p. 203, Donovan gives a brief description of the manuscript as number 16 in a Handlist of Illuminated Manuscripts made in Oxford: 1200–1270. Donovan dates the manuscript to “c. 1234 (or earlier)–40.” Parkes 1992: Malcolm B. Parkes, “The Provision of Books,” in The History of the University of Oxford, Vol. II, Late Medieval Oxford, ed. J. I. Catto and Ralph Evans (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 407–83.83 On p. 413, Parkes mentions the manuscript in the context of a discussion of works by William of Brailes: “He seems to have produced a pocket Bible for a member of the Dominican order, who was most probably in Oxford, but none of his other products can be associated with Oxford patrons.” On p. 440, Parkes mentions two bibles associated with the Dominican priory of Oxford now in the Bodleian Library: MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 and MS. Lat. bib. d. 9. With respect to MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, Parkes notes that the bible “contains the propers for the mass of the nativity of St Dominic, and that the translation of Dominic has been added.”84 Ker and Piper 1992: N. R. Ker and A.J. Piper, Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries, vol. 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992).

83 Reprinted as M.B. Parkes, “The Provision of Books [in Late Medieval Oxford; First Published 1992],” in Pages from the Past: Medieval Writing Skills and Manuscript Books, ed. M. B. Parkes, P. R. Robinson, and Rivkah Zim (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012). A German translation of selected portions of this chapter focusing on the book practices of the religious orders in Oxford appeared as: M.B. Parkes, “Buchversorgung und Buchgebrauch in den Ordenshäusern der Oxforder Universität,” in Der Codex im Gebrauch, ed. Christel Meier, Dagmar Hüpper, and Hagan Keller (Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1992), pp. 109–26. Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 is mentioned in the German translation on p. 115. 84 According to the catalog entry in Medieval Manuscripts in Oxford Libraries, Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. d. 9 is a mid-13th-century bible likely produced in Paris. By the 14th century, the bible was in England, where a calendar and litany were added at the end of the bible (ff. 316r–320v). At the end of the 14th century, the Dedication of the Dominican church of Oxford was noted on 15 June: “Dominican additions and corrections were made to the calendar in the late 14th cent., between 1394 and c 1397–1401. The additions include (15 June): ‘Dedic. ecclesie fratrum pred. Oxon. totum [duplex]’; the translation of St. Frideswide (12 Feb.), etc.” See https://medieval.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/catalog/manuscript_6346.

272 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

On pp. 157–58, in the catalog entry for Perth, Museum and Art Gallery, MS 462, Ker and Piper note the observation in Cockerell 1930 that the Genesis initials in the Perth and Oxford bibles have a resemblance. Randall 1994: Lilian M.C. Randall, “En Route to Salvation with William de Brailes,” in Medieval Codicology, Iconography, Literature, and Translation: Studies for Keith Val Sinclair, ed. Peter Rolfe Monks, D. D. R. Owen, and Keith Val Sinclair, Litterae Textuales, (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 83–93. On p. 87, Randall mentions the manuscript as an example of a bible produced by de Brailes’ workshop in the 1230s. Lewis 1995: Suzanne Lewis, Reading Images: Narrative Discourse and Reception in the Thirteenth-Century Illuminated Apocalypse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). On p. 349n36, Lewis includes the Oxford manuscript in a list of 13th-century bibles which include historiated initials for Apc that depict the apostle John writing. Maggs 1997: Illuminated Leaves and Mediæval Miniatures, European Bulletin 21 (London: Maggs Bros, 1997). On pp. 3–4, Lots 5 and 6 are two single leaves (c. 211 x 147 mm) from an illuminated bible which include a historiated initial for 1 Mcc and a decorated initial, which the catalog states “can be attributed to William de Brailes on account of the close similarity with another Bible also attributed to him (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. lat. bibl. e. 7), which is dated between 1230 and 1240.” Miriello 2004: Rosanna Miriello, “La Bibbia portabile di origine italiana del XIII secolo. Brevi considerazioni e alcuni esempi,” in La Bibbia del XIII secolo: storia del testo, storia dell’esegesi: Convegno della Società Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo Latino (SISMEL), Firenze, 1–2 giugno 2001, ed. Giuseppe Cremascoli and Francesco Santi (Florence: SISMEL – Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2004). The manuscript is mentioned on p. 69 in the context of a table of bibles of non-Italian origin. Miriello dates it to “dopo il 1221- prima del 1234” and localizes it to “Francia / Inghilterra?” Binski 2005: Paul Binski, “30. Bible,” in The Cambridge Illuminations: Ten Centuries of Book Production in the Medieval West, ed. Paul Binski and Stella Panayotova (London: Harvey Miller, 2005), 98–99. This entry, focused on the de Brailes bible Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 350/567, uses Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 as evidence that the shop of de Brailes “was producing Bibles in quantity.” Bradbury 2007: Carlee A. Bradbury, “Imaging and Imagining the Jew in Medieval England” (Ph.D. diss., Urbana, IL, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, 2007). On pp. 115–116, Bradbury briefly discusses the manuscript in the context of a discussion of the work of William de Brailes. Citing Morgan 1982, pp. 114–116, Bradbury inaccurately claims on p. 115 that “this Bible can be localized to Oxford through the calendar that cites Sts Frideswide.” Morgan 1982, p. 115 in fact mentions the “the 12th February and 19th October feasts of Frideswide” in the context of discussing the Oxford provenance of a different bible illustrated by William de Brailes, Oxford, Christ Church, MS 105. Kidd 2007: Peter Kidd, “A Franciscan Bible Illuminated in the Style of William de Brailes,” Electronic British Library Journal, 2007, Article 8, 1–20. On p. 6, Kidd discusses the presence of Dominican liturgical texts in the Bodleian manuscript in the context of describing London, BL, Harley 2813, a bible with a Franciscan missal which Kidd identifies as being illuminated in the de Brailes style. Parkes 2008: M. B. Parkes, “Handwriting in English Books,” in The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain: Volume II, 1100–1400, ed. Nigel Morgan and Rodney M. Thomson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 110–35. On p. 126n92, Parkes mentions the manuscript in in the context of a discussion the development of English scripts in the 13th century, associating it with several other small bibles produced for members of the Dominican Order in the second quarter of the 13th century. Michael 2008: M. A. Michael, “Urban Production of Manuscript Books and the Role of the University Towns,” in The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain: Volume II, 1100–1400, ed. Nigel Morgan and Rodney M. Thomson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 168–94. On p. 178n61, Michael mentions the manuscript in the context of a discussion of the broader work of William de Brailes, associating it with another bible (Oxford, Christ Church, MS 105). At p. 177, Michael suggests that “William de Brailes was probably both a text-writer and illuminator because the inscriptions giving his name and occupation in his two signed works are written in an assured hand obviously capable of text copying at a high level.” Pfaff 2009: Richard W. Pfaff, The Liturgy in Medieval England: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). On p. 313, Pfaff discusses the manuscript in the context of evidence for Dominican liturgical practice in England before the reform of Humbert of Romans. de Hamel 2010: Christopher de Hamel, Gilding the Lilly: A Hundred Medieval and Illuminated Manuscripts in the Lilly Library (Bloomington, IN: The Lilly Library, 2010). In entry 32 of the catalog (pp. 71–73), de Hamel discusses a set of 14 leaves from a bible illuminated by William de Brailes. On p. 73, de Hamel states that “the scene of Saint Paul falling from his horse (Acts 9:4) is fairly unusual for the opening of Romans (cf. Eleen 1982, pp. 85–7) but the same subject occurs at this point in other Bibles illuminated by W. de Brailes, including Oxford, Bodleian, MS Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 363v, and Cambridge, Gonville & Caius College, MS 350, f. 328v.”

8.4 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7  

 273

Ruzzier 2010: Chiara Ruzzier, “Des armaria aux besaces: La mutation de la bible au XIIIe siècle,” in Les usages sociaux de la Bible, XIe-XVe siècles, Cahiers Électroniques d’Histoire Textuelle du LAMOP 3 (Paris: LAMOP, 2010), 74–111. On p. 100n46, Ruzzier mentions the manuscript as one of four bibles in her corpus with an abbreviated missal. Light 2012: Laura Light, “The Thirteenth Century and the Paris Bible,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible 2: From 600 to 1450, by Richard Marsden and E. Ann Matter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 380–91. On pp. 382–383, Light mentions the manuscript in the context of a discussion of the development of the pocket bible. Morgan 2012: Nigel J. Morgan, Leaves from a Psalter by William de Brailes: Commentary (London: The Folio Society, 2012). On p. 92, number 21, Morgan includes the Oxford manuscript in a list of manuscripts “containing illumination by de Brailes and close associates,” dating it to c. 1230–50 and providing a brief bibliography and overview of the decoration. Light 2013: Laura Light, “The Thirteenth-Century Pandect and the Liturgy: Bibles with Missals,” in Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, ed. Eyal Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2013), 185–216. On pp. 202–203, Light discusses the manuscript, emphasizing its small size, the presence of mass texts between Psalms and Proverbs, and the presence of lavish illumination, and pointing out its significance as a pre-Humbert Dominican missal. On pp. 211–212, Light provides a brief description of the manuscript. Poleg 2013a: Eyal Poleg, Approaching the Bible in Medieval England, Manchester Medieval Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2013). On p. 114 (and note 13 on p. 143), Poleg includes the manuscript in a list of bibles with missals “written by the original scribe(s).” On pp. 132–3, Poleg discusses the iconography of the Psalter in the manuscript. On pp. 144–145, note 28, Poleg includes the manuscript in a list of bibles with liturgical texts near the Psalms. On p. 149, note 66, Poleg erroneously refers to the presence of a calendar in the manuscript, and dates it between 1221 and 1234. Johnston 2014a: Cynthia Johnston, “The Development of Penflourishing in Manuscripts Produced in England between 1180 and 1280” (School of Advanced Study, University of London, 2014). Throughout chapter 3 (pp. 166–260), Johnson discusses the Oxford manuscript in the midst of her discussion of the artistic decoration of manuscripts associated with William de Brailes. Johnston 2014b: Cynthia Johnston, “A Model Community? An Investigation into the Use of Models in the Work of William de Brailes,” in The Use of Models in Medieval Book Painting (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014), 89–110. In this article, Johnston compares the iconography of several bibles associated with de Brailes. On p. 93, Johnston points out that the de Brailes bibles can be divided into those with extensive historiated initials and those with more modest decoration, classifying the Oxford manuscript in the first category. Ruzzier 2014a: Chiara Ruzzier, “Qui lisait les bibles portatives fabriquées au XIIIe siècle?,” in Lecteurs, lectures et groupes sociaux au Moyen Âge, ed. Xavier Hermand, Étienne Renard, and Céline Van Hoorebeeck, Texte, Codex & Contexte 17 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), 9–28. On p. 16n17, Ruzzier mentions the Oxford manuscript as an example of a Dominican bible illuminated by William de Brailes containing an abbreviated missal. Light 2016: Laura Light, “What Was a Bible For? Liturgical Texts in Thirteenth-Century Franciscan and Dominican Bibles,” Lusitania Sacra 34 (2016): 165–182. On p. 173, Light includes the manuscript in a list of eight Dominican bible missals. On p. 174, Light provides a short description of the manuscript, pointing out that while it follows the order of biblical books of the Paris Bible, it does not include “the readings of the Paris Bible” and omits prologues other than Frater ambrosius and Desiderii mei, a feature that she states can also be found in “other very small English Bibles.” On p. 175, Light compares the Oxford manuscript with the Franciscan bible missal London, BL, Harley 2813. Cleaver 2020: Laura Cleaver, “Charles William Dyson Perrins as a Collector of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts c. 1900–1920,” Perspectives Médiévales 41 (2020), http://journals.openedition.org/peme/19776. In an appendix titled “Preliminary handlist of western medieval and renaissance manuscripts on parchment owned by Charles William Dyson Perrins,” Cleaver provides some details on the provenance of the manuscript. Kidd 2020: Peter Kidd, “MS. Lat. Bib. e. 7,” Medieval Manuscripts in Oxford Libraries, March 2020, https://medieval.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/catalog/ manuscript_6350. Kidd provides a thorough description of the contents, material and artistic aspects, and provenance of the manuscript. Law-Turner 2020: Frederica Law-Turner, “From Warwickshire to New York via Canterbury: The Travels and Tribulations of the bible of Richard of Sholdon,” in Illuminating the Middle Ages: Tributes to Prof. John Lowden from His Students, Friends and Colleagues, ed. Laura Cleaver, Alixe Bovey, and Lucy Donkin, The Manuscript World 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 241–58. On p. 248n11, Law-Turner mentions the presence of masses for St. Dominic and the absence of a calendar in the manuscript.

274 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Poleg 2020a: Eyal Poleg, A Material History of the Bible, England 1200–1553, British Academy Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020). On pp. 25–38, Poleg discusses the design of the Oxford manuscript’s Psalter (emphasizing its innovative use of psalm numbers written by the original production team), the presence of liturgical texts and an added canticle list after the Psalter, and the presence of later annotations that point to both academic and liturgical engagement with the manuscript. Poleg dates the manuscript to after 1234 (in contrast to the dating of 1221–1234 in Poleg 2013a). Collins 2021: Alexander Collins, “‘Do It Well and Thoroughly, for It Will Be Shown to Important People’: Art in the English Dominican Province, ca.1221– ca.1540,” in A Companion to the English Dominican Province: From Its Beginnings to the Reformation, ed. Eleanor Giraud and Cornelia Linde, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 97 (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 305–42. On pp. 324–325, Collins discusses the manuscript in the context of a discussion of books illuminated for Dominicans by William de Brailes. Collins gives a misleading description of the liturgical texts in the manuscript: “De Brailes or his workshop had made another book for Dominican users in the early 1230s, a fine small bible (Oxford, Bodleian Library lat.bibl.e.7). The book of hours’ [sic] connection to Oxford is made clear by the presence of St Frideswide in its calendar, but it also includes texts added in the margins in contemporary hands containing texts from the Mass, including the Mass of St Dominic.” Collins’ reference to Frideswide relies on the inaccurate statement regarding the presence of this saint in the manuscript by Bradbury 2007. The reference to “texts added in the margins” is a misinterpretation of a statement made in Donovan 1991, pp. 20–21, extending Donovan’s accurate description of the orations for the translation of St. Dominic being by a contemporary hand in the margin to the full range of mass texts. Morgan 2021: Nigel J. Morgan, “The Liturgical Manuscripts of the English Dominicans, ca.1250–ca.1530,” in A Companion to the English Dominican Province: From Its Beginnings to the Reformation, ed. Eleanor Giraud and Cornelia Linde, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 97 (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 370–408. On pp. 397–398, Morgan gives a brief overview of the contents of the manuscript. Giraud 2022: Eleanor Giraud, “The Dominicans and Their Identity in Medieval Britain and Ireland: Evidence from Dominican Gospel Lections,” in Music and Liturgy in Medieval Britain and Ireland, ed. Ann Buckley and Lisa Colton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), 269–291. Giraud gives a brief description of the manuscript’s liturgical contents on p. 280. Ruzzier 2022: Chiara Ruzzier, Entre Université et ordres mendiants, Manuscripta Biblica 8 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022). On p. 169n17, Ruzzier discusses the corpus of bibles associated with William de Brailes. Ruzzier includes the manuscript on p. 256 as n. 1430 in her “Liste des bibles complètes recensées.” On p. 273, Ruzzier provides brief details about the manuscript in her list of “Bibles complètes consultées.”

8.5 Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 31 Summary: Bible with Dominican votive missal Dimensions: 182 x 120 mm; 362 leaves Origin: Southern France or Northern Spain? Date: 13th century, second quarter (liturgical texts datable c. 1234–1244) Digital images: https://bvmm.irht.cnrs.fr/consult/consult.php?reproductionId=13710 (partial) Overview of Contents: 1r–5r: Dominican votive missal 1r–2r: Ordo Missae with prefaces, Communicantes, Hanc igitur, canon, post-canon prayers 2r–4r: Votive masses (including Missa de beato dominico) 4r–5r: Requiem masses 5v–7v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 8r–335v: Bible (Gn–Apc) 336r–337v: Biblical prologues 338r–339v: Mass texts for the Common of Saints 338r–338v: Orations 338v–339v: Chant Texts 340r–361v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 362r–362v: Summary of the gospels: A generat (S. 10159) (later addition) 362v: List of biblical books (later addition)

8.5 Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 31  

 275

8.5.1 Introduction Paris, Mazarine 31 includes a Dominican votive missal at the beginning of the manuscript as well as a liturgical supplement with mass texts from the Common of Saints towards the end of the manuscript. Given the codicological integration of the votive missal section at the beginning of the manuscript with the succeeding biblical prologues and opening of the book of Gn, it is clearly part of the original production unit of the bible. The Common of Saints section towards the end of the manuscript, which follows an appendix of biblical prologues, may have been part of the original production but added towards the end like the biblical prologues; it is also possible that the prologues and Common of Saints are both later additions on leaves that were originally left blank. The use of the unusual term sacra for the super oblata or secreta prayer in the opening missal section suggests an origin in southern France or northern Spain.85 A further unusual feature is the presence of a miniature of the Virgin and Child in the Roman Canon (in addition to a miniature of the Crucifixion); notably, it shares this distinctive iconography with Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 3547, an early 13th-century sacramentary from Barcelona which likewise uses the term sacra and presents the Virgin and Child instead of the more common iconography of Christ in Majesty juxtaposed with the Crucifixion.86 The missal section at the beginning of Mazarine 31 was certainly written after 1234, as it includes a mass for St. Dominic, and may have been written before 1244, as the collect uses the earlier form meritis et exemplis rather than the post-1244 form meritis et doctrinis.87 At some point after 1253, a scribe added collects in the margin for St. Peter Martyr and for the Pro predicatoribus formulary. The Common of Saints section at the end of the manuscript has a different layout than the votive missal, following the general biblical layout; notably, it uses the word secreta rather than sacra used in the opening missal section. The bible presents a non-Parisian version of the Vulgate.88 The order of biblical books and prologues has many differences from the Parisian order, although at the end of the bible a set of supplemental prologues were added which correspond to some of the missing Parisian prologues. Among the many variations noted in the Quires and Contents section below, the order of books following Tb (consisting of Iob, Est, Idt, Ps, rather than the typical Parisian order of Idt, Est, Iob, Ps) and the presence of a distinct prologue for each of the Catholic Epistles are particularly noteworthy. There are two significant instances of scribal error which may shed some light on the exemplars used by the scribe. After the end of Ex on f. 32va, the first chapter of Ios is transcribed, followed by the expected Lv. After the end of Sap on f. 186rb, the entire book of Rt is transcribed for a second time, although without chapter numbers. Significantly, the biblical text of Rt is somewhat different in this second transcription than in the first version in the normal location after Idc.89 At the end of the volume, a later hand added a Summary of the gospels, and a much later hand added a list of biblical books, although this does not correspond precisely with the order of books in the manuscript itself. One unusual feature of the bible is the presence of two sequences of vertical Cistercian number ciphers which give a running enumeration of the columns on each folio and the total number of biblical chapters throughout the manuscript.90 85 Wilmart 1925 drew attention to a group of manuscripts from southern France and northern Spain that use the term sacra; cf. Martimort 1982, pp. 29–30. See also Light 2016, p. 176: “The distinctive style of the penwork initial before Genesis suggests this book was in Spain early in its history, if it was not copied there. [Footnote 39:] I previously suggested this book was probably Spanish in origin because of the pen decoration in the inner and lower margin of f. 8 with a ‘vermiculated’ background, but other cataloguers (see C. Rabel – Initiale. Catalogue des manuscrits enluminés. http://initiale.irht.cnrs.fr/ouvrages/ouvrages.php?id=6361&indexCourant=0, accessed 06–10–2017) have suggested this decoration may have been added.” 86 Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 3547, ff. 81v–82r. In Vat. lat. 3547, the miniatures occupy a two-page spread between the prefaces and the start of the canon; in Mazarine 31, the miniatures are integrated into the text of the canon, which wraps around the miniatures. Wilmart 1925, p. 97 draws attention both to the use of the term sacra and the unusual iconography for the canon in Vat. lat. 3547. 87 For further details, see the discussion of the St. Dominic collect on pp. 62–64 above. 88 The manuscript includes the non-Parisian “posita revertendi” variant in Rt 1:7 and originally omitted “vinum” in Iob 1:4, although a later hand added “vinum” in the interlinear space above the line; cf. Ruzzier 2022, pp. 76–77. 89 For instance, the first version gives posita revertendi in terram iuda for Rt 1:7 while the second gives revertendi in terram iuda posita. 90 For a brief overview of Cistercian number ciphers, see Chrisomalis 2010, pp. 350–354; for a more detailed study, see King 2001. King identifies several uses of horizontal Cistercian ciphers as foliation but does not identify any instances of vertical ciphers being used for the enumeration of columns. King’s discussion on pp. 153–155 of the use of vertical ciphers in a late 13th-century compilation of works of Thomas Aquinas (Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 781) unhelpfully conflates the concept of foliation with that of leaf signatures, which were a tool for binders rather than readers. The Dominican bible missal Rome, Angelica 32 also includes vertical ciphers in the margins of several paratexts (e.g., ff. 7r–17r). Cambridge,

276 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

On ff. 5v–337v, vertical numeral ciphers appear in red ink at the upper left or right of each column (on the side closest to the inner or outer margin) running sequentially from 19 to 1346. The preceding missal section on ff. 1r–5r contains 18 columns, which were counted but not numbered by the scribe who wrote the column ciphers. The enumeration is omitted for the remainder of the manuscript (ff. 338r–362v), which consists of liturgical texts for the Common of Saints and the Interpretations of Hebrew Names. The column ciphers were added at some point after the initial production of the manuscript, as is shown by their placement at unusual positions when a flourished initial obstructs the area where they would normally appear (ff. 178v, 253v, 262v, 336r, etc.). In addition to the use of vertical ciphers to enumerate the columns, the same type of vertical ciphers are used to provide a running enumeration of biblical chapters. After the book of Genesis, in which the 50 chapters of the book are indicated with Roman numerals either in the column or in the margin, the Roman numeral chapter numbers of subsequent biblical books are accompanied by vertical ciphers which keep track of the running total number of chapters; thus Ex 1 is accompanied by the cipher for 51, Ex 2 with 52, all the way to Apc 22 with the cipher for 1340.91 Like the column ciphers, the chapter ciphers appear to be later additions, as their position varies slightly based on contingent factors regarding the placement of the Roman numeral chapter numbers (see e.g., f. 318r, where the ciphers appear to the left or to the right of the Roman numerals in a way that suggests they were not planned in coordination with the rubricator of the volume). In light of the stylistic similarity between the column and chapter ciphers, it is likely that they were added by the same scribe. Although it is difficult to date the addition of the vertical ciphers to the Mazarine manuscript, it is possible that they are a relatively early addition. Although ciphers have been associated with Cistercians in recent scholarship, it is not clear whether the presence of ciphers in this volume indicates that it had passed into Cistercian hands at some point after its creation or if the practice of using ciphers for enumeration had spread beyond the Cistercian Order.

8.5.2 Plates Figure 6 Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 2r (Votive Missal Ordo Missae), p. 172 Figure 26 Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 1v (Votive Missal Ordo Missae), p. 277 Figure 27 Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 2v (Votive Missal Formularies/Added Texts for St. Peter Martyr), p. 278 Figure 28 Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 8r (Gn), p. 279 Figure 29 Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 338r (Common of Saints Orations), p. 280

8.5.3 Liturgical Texts Paris, Mazarine 31 includes liturgical texts in two sections of the manuscript: a votive missal at the beginning and a series of texts for the Common of Saints at the end. The opening votive missal section begins with a series of prefaces and variable canon prayers for various occasions, and then continues with the Roman Canon and post-canon Ordo Missae. Next, a series of votive mass formularies are given with incipits or full texts for the chants, full orations, and incipits for the epistle and gospel. The first several formularies present the full text of the introit, but only incipits for the other chants; the later formularies only provide an incipit for the introit as well as the other chants. For the epistle and gospel, only the incipit is given by the original hand, but a later hand added abbreviated book titles and chapter numbers for most of the incipits (with the exception of the epistle incipit for the formulary Ad pluviam postulandam). Among these relatively full votive formularies, a Missa de beato dominico appears that only provides orations. After the series of relatively full formularies, a further series of votive masses is given that provide orations alone, followed by a series of Requiem masses with orations

Trinity College, B.10.18, a bible missal of undetermined liturgical origin, includes horizontal Cistercian ciphers on certain folios (e.g. 144v–145r, 155r, 427v). 91 According to the standard Vulgate chapter numbering of the biblical books included in the Mazarine manuscript, there should be 1357 chapters, with each of the 150 Psalms counted as a chapter. The soundings I have made of the chapter ciphers indicate that there are slight inconsistencies in the enumeration (more so than the column enumeration, which appears to be sequential without any breaks). The 150 Psalms are not provided with ciphers, but appear to be partially included in the enumeration, which jumps from 535 (Idt 16) to 675 (Prv 2), i.e., omitting 11 digits from the enumeration.

8.5 Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 31  

Figure 26: Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 1v (Canon).

 277

278 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 27: Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 2v (Votive Missal Formularies/Added Texts for St. Peter Martyr).

8.5 Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 31  

Figure 28: Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 8r (Gn).

 279

280 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 29: Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 338r (Common of Saints orations).

8.5 Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 31  

 281

alone. Among the votive masses with orations alone, one labelled De omnibus sanctis et pro ecclesia includes the name of St. Dominic in the collect and postcommunion.92 At some point after the canonization of St. Peter Martyr in 1253, orations for Peter Martyr were added on the lower margin of f. 2v by the same hand which also added the votive formulary Pro predicatoribus on the lower margin of f. 3r. Towards the end of the manuscript, a liturgical supplement appears which provides a series of orations for various categories of the Common of Saints followed by a series of full chant texts. No readings are indicated for the Common of Saints. Among the various orations, the postcommunion for De confessore et doctore has been modified by the erasure of parts of two lines, and the second formulary titled Item unius confessoris has had the oratio and secreta entirely erased; while the postcommunio for this formulary was never written out, so it seems likely that the oratio and secreta were erased as part of the production of this section.

8.5.4 Provenance The manuscript was certainly made for a Dominican friar, given the presence of the formulary for De beato dominico and the name of Dominic in the De omnibus sanctis et pro ecclesia formulary. The manuscript was still in Dominican hands later in the 13th century when the formularies for St. Peter Martyr and Pro predicatoribus were added sometime after 1253. In the 17th century, the volume may have belonged to the Canon Regulars of the Priory of Saint-Paul, also known as the Rouge-Cloître, near Brussels.93 It is not clear when the volume entered the Bibliothèque Mazarine, but it was likely acquired in the wake of the French Revolution when most of the manuscripts currently in the Mazarine entered the collection.94 It was initially given the shelfmark 621 (still visible on f. 1r), part of the “ancien fond” of manuscripts 1–1359 but was given its current shelfmark 31 by Molinier 1885 (see p. xxvi).

8.5.5 Material Features Binding dimensions: 192 x 130 x 47 mm Binding: Brown leather binding. “Biblia” written on spine in gold letters. “31” printed on diamond shaped paper at top of spine; “621” written on diamond shaped piece of leather at bottom of spine. Dimensions of leaves: 182 x 120 mm Material of leaves: Parchment

92 Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 4rb: De omnibus sanctis et pro ecclesia. Oratio. A cunctis nos quesumus domine mentes et corporis deffende [sic] periculis, et intercedente beata dei genitrice maria, et beatis apostolis tuis petro et paulo et beato dominico confessore tuo cum omnibus sanctis, salutem nobis tribue benignus et pacem, ut destructis adversitatibus et erroribus universis ecclesia tua secura tibi serviat libertate. Per eundum. [cf. CO 4] Sacra. Exaudi nos domine deus noster, et per huius virtutem sacramenti a cunctis nos mentis et corporis hostibus tuearis gratiam tribuens in presenti et gloriam in futuro. Per. [cf. CO 2506] Postcommunio. Mundet et muniat quesumus domine divini sacramenti nos munus oblatum et intercedente beata dei genitrice maria, et beatis apostolis tuis petro et paulo, et beato dominico confessore tuo cum omnibus sanctis, a cunctis nos reddat et perversitatibus expiatos, et adversitatibus expeditos. Per eundem. [cf. CO 3408] 93 Molinier 1885, p. 11 states that “le volume appartenait, au XVIIe siècle, au couvent de Rosendael.” The volume is likewise included in Köhl et al. 1976, p. 116, in a list of manuscripts that belong to Rouge-Cloître. The evidence for MS 31 having been at Rouge-Cloître is not clear to me, as I have not been able to identify an ex libris or other internal evidence that points to this provenance; however, it is possible that Molinier had some particular reason for making this assertion, as he is generally attentive to provenance and occasionally remarks on the lack of clear provenance information (see the description of Paris, Mazarine 34 in Molinier 1885, p. 12.) According to the Initiale database, many manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Mazarine belonged earlier to Rouge-Cloître, the name of which is written in a variety of ways in various manuscripts: “Rubeavallis, Rosendael, Roodenda(e)le, Sanctus Paulus in Z(S)onia, Raucloistre”; see http://initiale.irht.cnrs.fr/intervenant/587. Paris, Mazarine 22, a 13th-century bible perhaps of southern French origin with a Dominican epistle and gospel list at the beginning of the manuscript, clearly belonged to Rouge-Cloître, as it has an ex-libris on the inside cover: “Liber monasterii sancti pauli rubeevallis / in sonia, iuxta bruxellam civitatem famosissimi.” (The second line is a later addition; the first line is written in a semihybrida script, and the second line in textualis.) 94 On the history of the Mazarine collections, see Nelles 2001. Cardinal Mazarin’s original collection of manuscripts, including the Dominican bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 163, was acquired by the Bibliothèque royale (now the Bibliothèque nationale) in 1668.

282 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Number of leaves: 1 paper flyleaf + 362 + 1 paper flyleaf Foliation (Modern): 1–362 Foliation (Medieval): As noted in the introduction, the columns are enumerated with a vertical cipher system. Secundo folio: summus sacerdos (2r) Quires: Most quires have 12 leaves. Quire 1, which contains the votive missal and the start of the biblical prologues, consists of 6 leaves. Quire 2 has a singleton added before the first leaf in order to complete the biblical prologues before the start of Gn on what would have otherwise been the opening leaf of the quire. Quire 15, which contains the conclusion of the Psalter, has 8 leaves. Quire 19 has 10 leaves. Quire 21 is a bifolium that contains Bar as a discrete codicological unit, although it appears to be part of the original production unit. Quire 32 originally had 12 leaves, but the final leaf has been cancelled without loss of text. Quire marks: Quire marks appear at the end of quires 11 and 12 in red Roman numerals, numbered IV and V. Catchwords are fully visible at the end of quires 2 (19v) and 31 (351v). Cropped catchwords are discernable at the end of quires 18 (207v) and 25 (279v). Leaf signatures are preserved in a variety of styles in quires 2, 4, 10, 17, 26, 27, 30. Layout: B: c. 122 x 80 mm; 51–54 lines in two columns [37 + 37] 5v–335v (Bible) 336r–337v (Added prologues) 338r–339v (Added missal texts) I: c. 135 x 95 mm; 59 lines in three columns [30 + 30 + 30] 340r–361v (Interpretations of Hebrew Names) M: c. 122 x 75 mm; 50–52 lines in two columns [33 + 34] 1r–5r (Votive missal) S: c. 162 x 92 mm; 71 lines in three columns [28 + 28 + 28] 362r–v (Summary of the gospels) Script: The manuscript is written in southern textualis by at least two scribes (see e.g., the change of hand at 141v). In the votive missal, another southern textualis hand has added prayers for St. Peter Martyr on f. 2v which must have been added at some point after his canonization in 1253.

8.5.6 Artistic Decoration Running Header: Names of biblical books in alternating red and blue capitals with decorative lines on the right and left (with the exception of Psalms, votive missal, and Interpretations of Hebrew Names, which have no running header). Biblical Books: Littera duplex or flourished initials. Biblical Prologues: Littera duplex or flourished initials. Biblical Chapters: Two-line red or blue flourished initials; chapter number in alternating red and blue capitals in the column. Biblical Text: Inconsistent use of highlighting for beginning of sentences. Psalms: 9-line littera duplex initial for Ps 1; 4-line littera duplex initials for Ps 26, Ps 38, Ps 52, Ps 68, Ps 80, Ps 97, Ps 109; 2-line red or blue flourished initials for other psalms; 1-line red or blue capitals for psalm verses. The psalms are numbered with Arabic numerals within the column by a later hand. Liturgical Texts: The votive missal on ff. 1r–5r uses two- to four-line flourished initials for most texts or major sections of prayers. The style of flourishing is different than that used in the rest of the manuscript, including the biblical prologues which complete the quire in which the votive missal is found. In the canon, the names in the Communicantes and Nobis quoque are introduced by alternating one-line red and blue initials. In the Communicantes, a ten-line miniature of the Virgin and Child appears on f. 1va below the mention of the gloriose semper virginis marie. In the Unde et memores, a ten-line crucifixion miniature appears on f. 1vb. On ff. 2v–3r, the prayers for Peter Martyr and the Pro predicatoribus formulary added by a later hand are not decorated. In the added missal texts on ff. 338r–339v, the texts are generally introduced by two-line red or blue flourished initials which are closer in style to the flourished initials found throughout the rest of the bible. Other: The Summary of the gospels on f. 362r–v is not decorated.

8.5 Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 31  

8.5.7 Quires and Contents Quires

Folio Range

Content

Q1: 1–6 (6) Layout M

1ra

[Votive missal] [Ordo Missae] In die natalis domini

1ra

In die epiphanie

1ra

In quadragesima

1ra

Pascatis

1ra–rb

Ascensionis

1rb

Pentecostes

1rb

Trinitatis

1rb

Sancte crucis

1rb

Beate marie

1rb

Apostolorum

1va

[Preface dialogue and Common Preface]

1va–2ra

[Canon]

2ra–rb

[Post-canon Ordo Missae]

2ra

[Votive and sanctoral masses] Officium de trinitate

2va

Officium de sancto spiritu

2va

De sancta cruce missa

2va–vb

Officium beate marie. In adventu

2vb

Missa cotidiana de sancta maria

2vb

Missa de beato dominico

2vb–3ra

Pro peccatis officium

2v

[Peter Martyr] (later addition in lower margin)

3ra

Pro familiaribus

3ra

Pro tribulatione ecclesie

3ra–rb

Pro pace

3rb

Pro itinerantibus

3rb–va

Pro infirmis

3r

[Pro predicatoribus] (later addition in lower margin)

3va

Ad pluviam postulandam

3va

Pro aeris serenitate

3vb

Missa pro rege

3vb

Pro episcopis, abbatibus, et prioribus missa

3vb

Contra aerias tempestates

3vb–4ra

Missa votiva pro amico

4ra

Pro salute vivorum

4ra

Pro temptatione carnis

4ra–rb

Ad invocandam gratiam sancti spiritus

4rb

Ad deponscenda suffragia sanctorum

4rb

De omnibus sanctis et pro ecclesia

4rb–va

[Requiem masses] Pro vivis et defunctis

4va

Pro episcopo defuncto

 283

284 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Layout B Q2: 7–19 (12+1 [f. 7])

Q3: 20–31 (12) Q4: 32–43 (12)

Q5: 44–55 (12) Q6: 56–67 (12)

Q7: 68–79 (12)

Q8: 80–91 (12)

Q9: 92–103 (12) Q10: 104–115 (12)

Q11: 116–127 (12)

Q12: 128–139 (12)

Folio Range

Content

4va

Pro sacerdote

4va–vb

Pro presenti defuncto

4vb

In anniversario

4vb

Pro benefactoribus

4vb–5ra

Pro femina defuncta (rubric written over an erasure; original reading unclear)

5ra

Pro fratribus congregationis et pro parentibus et familiaribus

5ra

Pro familiaribus defunctis

5ra

Pro patre et matre

5ra–rb

Pro hiis qui in cimiterio requiescunt

5rb

Pro omnibus fidelibus defunctis

5rb

Pro vivis et defunctis

5rb

Blank space: 7 lines

5va–7rb

S. 284

7rb–vb

S. 285

7vb

Blank space: 38 lines

8ra–22rb

Gn

22rb–32va

Ex (Flourished initial)

32va–vb

Ios 1:1–2:1a (Labelled Vacat in margin. Introduced by a four-line littera duplex initial)

32vb–40ra

Lv

40ra–50rb

Nm

50rb–59rb

Dt

59va

S. 311

59va–65va

Ios

65va–72ra

Idc (Flourished initial)

72ra–73ra

Rt

73ra–va

S. 323

73va–83ra

I Rg

83ra–90vb

II Rg

90vb–100rb

III Rg

100rb–109ra

IV Rg

109ra–109rb

S. 328

109rb–117va

I Par

117va–127vb

II Par (Not preceded by S. 327; not followed by Or Man)

127vb–128ra

S. 330

128ra–131ra

I Esr

131ra–135ra

II Esr [labelled Neh]

135ra–139rb

III Esr [labelled II Esr]

8.5 Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 31  

 285

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

139rb

S. 332

139rb–141va

Tb (Not followed by Idt and Est)

141va–142ra

S. 357 (Not preceded by S. 344)

142ra–149rb

Iob

149rb

S. 341 + S. 343 (S. 343 added in the margin)

149rb–152va

Est (Non-Parisian biblical order: Est usually follows Idt)

152va–156ra

Idt (Non-Parisian biblical order: Idt usually follows Tb; not preceded by S. 344)

156ra–171va

Ps (9-line littera duplex initial for Ps 1 [156ra]; 4-line littera duplex initials for Ps 26 [158va], Ps 38 [160ra], Ps 52 [161va], Ps 68 [162vb], Ps 80 [164va], Ps 97 [166rb], Ps 109 [168ra]; the psalms are numbered with Arabic numerals within the column by a later hand.)

171va–vb

S. 457

171vb

S. 456 (Non-Parisian prologue; divided into two sections, with a new flourished initial being given at Ad extremum iam; ends with esse se regem, omitting the normal closing phrase quae omnia referuntur ad Christum; cf. de Bruyne 2015, 119–120)

172ra–178rb

Prv

178va–180va

Ecl (Not preceded by S. 462)

180va–181vb

Ct

181vb–186rb

Sap (Not preceded by S. 468)

186rb–187rb

Rt (Labelled Vacat. ruth. in margin. Introduced by one-line blue initial. The full text of the book is given in a continuous flow without chapter breaks in an unusual textual version.95)

187rb–200ra

Sir (Omits the biblical prologue Multorum nobis; begins immediately at Sir 1:1 Omnis sapientia)

200ra–rb

S. 482

200rb–213rb

Is

213rb–va

S. 487

213va–228va

Ier

228va–229vb

Lam (Flourished initial)

229vb

S. 491

Q21: 230–231 (2)

230ra–231vb

Bar (Flourished initial. Despite the unusual quire structure, this bifolium appears to be part of the original production unit of the bible.)

Q22: 232–243 (12)

232ra

S. 492

232ra–244vb

Ez (Flourished initial)

244vb–245ra

S. 494

245ra–250rb

Dn (Originally ended with Dn 14:40: momento coram eo; Dn 14:41 tunc rex ait … de lacu leonum added in the margin)

250rb

S. 500

Q13: 140–151 (12)

Q14: 152–163 (12)

Q15: 164–171 (8)

Q16: 172–183 (12)

Q17: 184–195 (12)

Q18: 196–207 (12)

Q19: 208–217 (10)

Q20: 218–229 (12)

Q23: 244–255 (12)

95 The text does not match the posita revertendi non-Parisian version given above at ff. 72ra–73ra, nor does it match the revertendi posita “Parisian” version; here, Rt 1:7 is presented as revertendi in terram iuda posita. I have not yet identified another medieval source with this version of the phrase, although a 16th century commentary on Ruth by the Franciscan friar François Feuardent presents revertendi in terram iuda posita as part of the lemma for this verse, indicating that this version had some extent of circulation; see Feuardent 1582, f. 77v. Notably, the Vetus Latina has an entirely different version of this verse, presenting the equivalent phrase as ibant ut redirent in terram Iudeae; see Gesche 2005, p. 41.

286 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Q24: 256–267 (12)

Folio Range

Content

250rb–va

S. 507

250va–252ra

Os

252ra–rb

S. 511

252rb

S. 510

252rb–253ra

Ioel

253ra

S. 515

253ra–rb

S. 512

253rb

S. 513

253rb–254va

Am

254va–vb

S. 519 + S. 517

254vb–255ra

Abd

255ra

S. 524

255ra

S. 521

255ra–va

Ion

255va

S. 526

255va–256va

Mi

256va–vb

S. 528

256vb–257rb

Na

257rb–va

S. 531

257va–vb

List of Jerome’s commentaries on the Minor Prophets: Commentatur ieronymus super osee, ioel, et amos, abdiam, et ionam pammachio. Super naum, micheam, sophoniam, et aggeum, paule et eustochio. Super abacuc, cromachio. Super malechiam, exuperio tolesane ecclesie pontifici et minervio et alexandro monachis. Super zachariam exsuperio tolesano episcopo.96

257vb–258rb

Hab

258rb

S. 534

258rb–vb

So

258vb–259ra

S. 538

259ra–va

Agg

259va

S. 539

259va–261vb

Za

261vb

S. 543

261vb–262rb

Mal

262va

S. 547

262va–vb

S. 553

262vb

S. 551

96 An almost identical text appears in at least two 12th-century glossed bibles: Engelberg, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 76, f. 75r, and Arras, BM 76 (636), f. 73r. The names of the recipients are similar to but not identical with the titles of the commentaries listed in Marc Adriaen’s 1969 and 1970 editions of Jerome’s Commentarii in prophetas minores (CCSL 76 and 76A).

8.5 Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 31  

 287

(continued) Quires Q25: 268–279 (12)

Q26: 280–291 (12)

Q27: 292–303 (12)

Q28: 304–315 (12)

Q29: 316–327 (12)

Folio Range

Content

262vb–271ra

I Mcc

271ra–276vb

II Mcc

277ra

S. 590 (Not followed by S. 589)

277ra–284va

Mt

284va–vb

S. 607

284vb–289va

Mc

289va–vb

S. 620

289vb–297vb

Lc (Lc 1:1–4 presented as a prologue with a flourished initial; Lc 1:5 begins with a littera duplex)

297vb

S. 624

298ra–303vb

Io

303vb

S. 677

303vb–306vb

Rm

306vb

S. 685

307ra–309vb

I Cor

309vb

S. 699

309vb–311vb

II Cor

311vb

S. 707

311vb–312vb

Gal

312vb

S. 715

312vb–313vb

Eph

313vb

S. 728

313vb

Blank space: 2 lines

314rb–314va

Phil

314va

S. 736

314vb–315rb

Col

315rb

S. 747

315rb–316ra

I Th

316ra

S. 752

316ra–rb

II Th

316rb

S. 765

316rb–317rb

I Tim

317rb

S. 772

317rb–vb

II Tim

317vb

S. 780

317vb–318ra

Tit

318ra

S. 783

318ra–rb

Phlm

318rb

S. 793

318rb–320va

Hbr

288 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Q30: 328–339 (12)

Folio Range

Content

320va

S. 633 (Non-Parisian prologue)

320va

S. 631 (Non-Parisian prologue)

320va–vb

S. 640

320vb–328vb

Act

328vb

S. 806 (Non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 809)

328vb–329va

Iac

329va

S. 812 (Non-Parisian prologue)

329va–330rb

I Pt

330rb

S. 818 (Non-Parisian prologue)

330rb–vb

II Pt

330vb

S. 822 (Non-Parisian prologue)

330vb–331va

I Io

331va

S. 823 (Non-Parisian prologue)

331va–vb

II Io

331vb

S. 824 (Non-Parisian prologue)

331vb

III Io

331vb

S. 825 (Non-Parisian prologue)

331vb–332ra

Iud (Divided into two chapters, with a new chapter starting at Iud 1:15: Ve illis)

332ra

S. 835 (Non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 839)

332rb

S. 829 (Non-Parisian prologue)

332rb

S. 11018 (Non-Parisian prologue)

332rb–335vb

Apc

336ra–rb

S. 327 (Usually comes before II Par)

336rb–va

S. 344 (Usually comes before Iob)

336va–vb

S. 357 (Usually comes before Iob; also appears above at 141va)

336vb

S. 335 (Usually comes before Idt)

336vb

S. 462 (Usually comes before Ecl; “N” appears instead of “M” for opening initial of Memini me)

336vb–337ra

S. 468 (Usually comes before Sap)

337ra

Sir (Biblical prologue; omitted at 187rb)

337ra–rb

S. 589 (Usually comes before Mt)

337rb–va

S. 839 (Usually comes before Apc)

337va

S. 835 (Non-Parisian prologue; also appears above at 332rb)

337vb

Blank space: 1 column

338ra

[Common of Saints orations] In vigilia unius apostoli oratio et in die similiter

338ra

In plurimorum apostolorum

338ra

In natali unius martyris pontificis

338ra

Item unius martyris pontificis

338ra

Item unius martyris

338ra

Item unius martyris

338ra–rb

Item unde supra

8.5 Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 31  

 289

(continued) Quires

Q31: 340–351 (12) Layout I

Folio Range

Content

338rb

Item unde supra

338rb

In plurimorum martyrum

338rb

Item unde supra

338rb

Item unde supra

338rb

Alia unde supra

338rb–va

Alia unde supra

338va

In nathali unius confessoris

338va

Item unde supra

338va

De confessore et doctore

338va

Item unius confessoris

338va

Item unius confessoris

338va–vb

Unius confessoris abbatis

338vb

In plurimorum confessorum

338vb

Item plurimorum confessorum

338vb

In nathali unius virginis

338vb

Item unius virginis

338vb

Item unius virginis

338vb

Item unius virginis

338vb–339ra

[Common of saints chant texts] In vigilia unius apostoli

339ra

In die

339ra–rb

In natali unius martyris

339rb–va

In natali plurimorum martyrum

339va–vb

In natali unius confessoris

339vb

In natali virginum

340ra–361vc

Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim)

361vc–362va

Summary of the Gospels: A generat (S. 10159) (Later addition)

362vb–vc

List of biblical books (later addition in cursiva script; does not correspond exactly with the order of books in the manuscript)

Q32: 352–362 (12-1 [after 362]) Layout S

8.5.8 Bibliography Molinier 1885: Auguste Molinier, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Mazarine, vol. 1 (Paris: Plon, 1885). On pp. 10–11, with the shelfmark “31 (621),” Molinier provides a brief overview of the dimensions, contents, and provenance of the manuscript. Molinier dates it to the 14th century and states that it contains the “Texte de l’Université.” Molinier mentions the presence at the beginning of the manuscript of an Ordo Missae (starting after the Secret), an epistle and gospel list for Sundays and feasts, and votive masses. Molinier is mistaken is stating that there is a list of epistles and gospels in this section, perhaps misunderstanding the nature of the liturgical texts in this section. Molinier also mentions the presence of “un certain nombre de prières pendant la messe pour les différents jours de l’année” among the texts found at the end of the manuscript after Apc, referring to the Common of Saints section.

290 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Klauser 1935: Theodor Klauser, Das Römische Capitulare evangeliorum, Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen 28 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1935). On p. LXXVIII, Klauser (misled by Molinier 1885) includes Mazarine 31 in a list of manuscripts with epistle and gospel lists. Klauser lists the manuscript as dating from the 14th century and being “Aus Flandern.” Klauser indicates that he did not personally consult the manuscript. Gignac 1959: (André) Louis-Marie Gignac, “Le sanctoral dominicain et les origines de la liturgie dominicaine” ([Thèse présentée pour la Maîtrise en liturgie], Paris, Institut catholique de Paris, Institut supérieur de liturgie, 1959). On pp. 40–41, Gignac gives a brief description of the manuscript and suggests that it can be dated between 1234 and 1243 based on the “meritis et exemplis” text of the collect for St. Dominic. On p. 106, Gignac compares the Common of Saints chants in the Mazarine manuscript with those of the pre-Humbert Dominican missal Paris, BnF, latin 8884, stating that there are only three variations between the two manuscripts. Kohl et al. 1976: Wilhelm Kohl, Ernest Persoons, and Anton G. Weiler, eds., “Domus sancti Pauli in Rubeavalle,” in Monasticon Windeshemense. Teil I, Belgien, Archives et Bibliothèques de Belgique, Numéro spécial 16 (Brussels: Archives et Bibliothèques de Belgique, 1976), 109–16. On p. 116, the manuscript is included in a list of manuscripts that belonged to Rouge-Cloître. Gleeson 2004: Philip Gleeson, “The pre-Humbertian liturgical sources revisited,” in Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L1, ed. Leonard E. Boyle, Pierre-Marie Gy, and Pawełs Krupa, Documents, Études et Répertoires 67 (Paris: CNRS Editions, 2004), 99–114. On p. 100, Gleeson includes the manuscript as number 15 in a list of “Liturgical material attached to manuscript Bibles,” mentioning the presence of “Prefaces, Canon, Votive Masses, folios 1r–5r. Collects, Secrets, and Postcommunions for common of saints, chants for common of saints, folios 338r–339v.” Gleeson’s list is explicitly derived from Gignac 1959. Light 2013: Laura Light, “The Thirteenth-Century Pandect and the Liturgy: Bibles with Missals,” in Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, ed. Eyal Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 185–215. On p. 192n21, Light describes the manuscript as “a Spanish Bible” and states that “the missal is original and included before the bible on ff. 1r–4v.” On p. 193n25, Light includes the manuscript in a list of Dominican bible missals. On p. 214, Light gives a brief description of the manuscript. Light 2016: Laura Light, “What Was a Bible For? Liturgical Texts in Thirteenth-Century Franciscan and Dominican Bibles,” Lusitania Sacra 34 (2016): 165–182. On p. 173n33, Light includes the manuscript in a list of Dominican bible missals. On p. 176, Light discusses the manuscript at some length, commenting on its size, order of biblical books and prologues, and artistic decoration. Giraud 2021b: Eleanor Giraud, “Dominican Mass Books before Humbert of Romans,” in The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music and Liturgy, ed. Eleanor Giraud and Christian Leitmeir (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), 299–320. On p. 301, Giraud includes the manuscript in a list of pre-reform Dominican mass books. Ruzzier 2022: Chiara Ruzzier, Entre Université et ordres mendiants, Manuscripta Biblica 8 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022). Ruzzier includes the manuscript on p. 233 as n. 644 in her “Liste des bibles complètes recensées.”

8.6 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 163 Summary: Bible with Dominican calendar adapted for Franciscan use, added fragmentary Dominican Ordo Missae, and added incomplete Franciscan Ordo Missae Dimensions: 180 x 123 mm; 285 leaves Origin: England Date: 13th century, second quarter (calendar datable after c. 1234, before c. 1246–1248) Digital images: https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc59585m Overview of Contents: 1r–2r: Frater ambrosius 2r: Desiderii mei (later addition; in the same hand as the Ordo Missae) 2v–264v: Bible (Gn–Apc; addition of supplementary prologues between Ps and Prv) 264v: Preparatory prayers for mass (later addition) 265r–266r: Calendar (four months per page; originally Dominican, adapted for Franciscan use) 266v: Blank page 267r: Added notes 267v–268r: Sequitur ordo librorum chatholicorum anni circuli qui in ecclesia leguntur (15th-century addition in cursiva)

8.6 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 163  

 291

268r: Added incomplete Franciscan Ordo Missae (semitextualis) 269r–285v: Added Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 285v: Added fragmentary Dominican Ordo Missae with notated incipits for the ordinary of the mass, notated prefaces, Communicantes, Hanc igitur, and canon (ends imperfectly midway through the Supra que)

8.6.1 Introduction Paris, BnF, latin 163 is a small bible with a calendar and two added versions of the Ordo Missae, one representing Dominican practices and the other representing Franciscan practices. The bible was likely produced in England in the second quarter of the thirteenth century. The decoration consists mostly of littera duplex and flourished initials, although there are two historiated initials (Gn and Lc) and several decorated initials. The decoration was identified as English by Avril and Stirnemann 1987, and the presence of a littera duplex initial for Ps 51 and the non-Parisian textual variations and order of biblical books and prologues support the identification of English origin.97 In addition to many variations from the standard Parisian set of prologues, Est appears between IV Rg and I Par rather than between Idt and Iob, the Psalter follows the iuxta Hebraicum translation rather than the Gallican Psalter, and Ct comes before rather than after Ecl. In addition to the calendar and two versions of the Ordo Missae, the manuscript contains notes about the order in which biblical books are read in the Divine Office and marginal annotations that indicate the beginning and endings of readings with the letters P and F (= Principium and Finis).98 The Dominican calendar on ff. 265r–266r is part of the original production unit of the bible. The calendar originally included St. Dominic (5 August) and the Translation of St. Dominic (24 May), indicating that it was transcribed after Dominic’s canonization in 1234. The calendar also originally included the Anniversary of Deceased Benefactors on 10 September, indicating that it was likely written before the transfer of that observance to 5 September in 1246–1248.99 After the initial production of the bible, another scribe supplemented the manuscript to make it conform to a “biblia correcta,” likely a manuscript representing the Paris order of prologues. Throughout the manuscript, many non-Parisian prologues are marked with variations of the phrase vacat in biblia correcta (see the notes in the Quires and Contents section below), and additional prologues are added at the beginning of the bible and between the end of Psalms and the beginning of Proverbs which correspond to the standard Parisian set. This same scribe also wrote the Interpretations of Hebrew Names and the Dominican Ordo Missae with musical notation for the preface and other parts of the mass at the conclusion of the Interpretations. This Ordo Missae is now fragmentary due to the loss of what were likely 7 further folios at the end of the manuscript. It is impossible to determine with certainty what the original extent of this Dominican liturgical section may have been. It is possible that it only contained the Ordo Missae, but the loss of so many folios suggests that there were also liturgical formularies, perhaps constituting a votive or festive missal.100 After the initial production of the calendar and likely after the addition of the Dominican Ordo Missae, the manuscript was adapted for Franciscan liturgical use. Many Franciscan feasts were added to the calendar and certain Dominican feasts were erased or replaced. The main hand responsible for these changes added Clare of Assisi on 12 August, indicating that these changes were implemented at some point after Clare’s canonization in 1255. It seems likely that the individual who added the Franciscan feasts to the calendar also added the incomplete Franciscan Ordo Missae, which does not seem to have ever been fully transcribed.

97 The manuscript includes the non-Parisian “posita revertendi” variant in Rt 1:7 and omits “vinum” in Iob 1:4, although “vinum” was added in the margin by a latter hand; cf. Ruzzier 2022, pp. 76–77. 98 A similar set of marks are provided in Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16; see p. 215 above. 99 For further details, see the discussion of the September anniversary on pp. 54–58 above. 100 As discussed above on pp. 37–38, the number of leaves used for votive missals and festive missals sometimes overlaps, with votive missals ranging from 2–10 leaves and festive missals from 5–14 leaves. Given that the Ordo Missae is the first item provided in the missal section of Latin 163, it is not possible to guess which typology the original missal would have employed.

292 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

8.6.2 Plates Figure 30 Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 2v (Gn), p. 293 Figure 31 Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 264v (Added Preparatory Prayers for Mass), p. 294 Figure 32 Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 265v (Calendar), p. 295 Figure 33 Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 268r (Added Franciscan Ordo Missae), p. 296 Figure 34 Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 285v (Added Dominican Ordo Missae), p. 297

8.6.3 Liturgical Texts Paris, BnF, latin 163 contains several layers of liturgical material: an added set of preparatory prayers for mass (f. 264v), a Dominican calendar that is original to the manuscript but which was later adapted for Franciscan use (ff. 265r–266r), an incomplete Franciscan Ordo Missae (f. 268r), a list of the order in which biblical books are read in the Divine Office (ff. 267v–268r), and a fragmentary Dominican Ordo Missae (f. 285v). In addition, there are many marginal annotations throughout the bible itself that are connected with liturgical readings for the mass, using the letter P to indicate the beginning (Principium) of a reading and F to indicate the end (Finis). For instance, on f. 248r, two sections of Tit are marked with P and F: Apparuit enim gratia dei … Hec loquere et exhortare (Tit 2:11–15a) and Cum autem benignitas et humanitas … secundum spem vite eterne (Tit 3:4–7). These two passages correspond with the epistles designated in other Dominican sources for the Midnight and Dawn Mass of Christmas.101 Notably, these marginal annotations do not indicate the occasions on which these texts are used, which suggests that there was once either an epistle and gospel list or a missal section that gave clearer indications of these occasions; this seems quite possible in light of the lacuna following the partially preserved Dominican Ordo Missae. The original Dominican calendar includes an unusual entry for the Conceptio beate marie on 8 December with the rank IX lectionum.102 The calendar has been heavily modified by several hands, although the chronology of these modifications is not entirely clear. At some point after Peter Martyr’s canonization in 1253, Petri martyris ordinis predicatorum was added on 29 April in a different hand than the other modifications to the calendar. At some point after the initial production, the calendar was substantially modified to conform to Franciscan usage, with the erasure of many of the original feasts and the addition of many others by a single hand. The same person who made most of the Franciscan changes also added Sancte clare virginis de ordine dominarum pauperum on 12 August with the rank Festum duplex, which means that the Franciscan transformation can be dated to after the canonization of Clare in 1255. On f. 285v, immediately after the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, a fragmentary Dominican Ordo Missae appears, providing prefaces and variable canon prayers for various occasions, the Roman Canon (which ends imperfectly midway through the Supra que), and musical notation for various chants of the mass. It is possible that there were still further liturgical texts after the Ordo Missae, given the present loss of seven leaves after f. 285. This Ordo Missae seems to be written by the same scribe who wrote the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, which is itself an addition to the manuscript. On f. 268r, there is an incomplete Franciscan Ordo Missae that begins Quando sacerdos preparat se ad celebrandum missam secundum romane curie consuetudinem dicat hos psalmos and concludes with the rubric before the blessing of the deacon before the gospel (but not the blessing itself), Quando vero dat benedictione dyacono ante evangelium dicit. The same scribe who wrote this text on f. 268r also added texts on f. 264v regarding devotional prayers before and after mass. It seems likely given the liturgical content that this was added at some point after the manuscript came into Franciscan hands, i.e., likely at some point after the canonization of Clare of Assisi in 1255. Finally, a 15th-century cursiva hand added a text titled Sequitur ordo librorum chatholicorum anni circuli qui in ecclesia leguntur on ff. 267v–268r listing the order in which biblical books are read throughout the year in the Divine Office.

101 See for instance Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 524v; the same readings are provided in Humbert’s Missale minorum altar­ ium in Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, ff. 456vb–457ra. 102 This feast is also found with the rank IX lectionum in London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, f. 213v, and with the rank Totum Duplex in Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. IVr. It is not present in any other Dominican bible missals. It is present as a 15th-century addition in Lausanne, MHL 10, f. 211v.

8.6 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 163  

 293

Figure 30: Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 2v (Gn).

8.6.4 Provenance The manuscript was likely made in England for a Dominican friar, judging from the artistic decoration and the original Dominican calendar. The manuscript was still in Dominican hands when the Interpretations of Hebrew Names and Dominican Ordo Missae were added and other adaptations were made to conform the manuscript to the Parisian order of biblical books and prologues. It was later acquired by a Franciscan who adapted the calendar to Franciscan usage at some point after 1255. It seems to have later come back into Dominican hands: according to two partially erased inscriptions

294 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 31: Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 264v (Added Preparatory Prayers for Mass).

on f. 264v, it was sold in 1402 by the Dominican Stephanus Richardi to the priest John of Ulm (domino Iohanni de Ulmo presbitero) and was purchased in 1445 by Petrus Quielen (see transcriptions in Avril and Stirnemann 1987, p. 82). In the 17th century it was acquired by Jules Cardinal Mazarin (1602–1661) and is listed as “1902” in Mazarin 1661–1662. In 1668 it was acquired along with the other manuscripts from Mazarin’s collection by the Bibliothèque royale (now Bibliothèque nationale de France), where it received the shelfmark 4304 (see Clément 1682; cf. f. 1r) and later the shelf mark Latin 163 (see Catalogus 1744 and Lauer 1939; cf. f. 1r).

8.6 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 163  

 295

Figure 32: Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 265v (Calendar).

8.6.5 Material Features Binding dimensions: 200 x 140 x 45 mm Binding: Quarter leather binding with red leather and speckled brown cardboard cover. “Biblia sacra.” printed in gold letters on the spine. Material of leaves: Parchment Dimensions of leaves: 180 x 123 mm

296 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 33: Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 268r (Added Franciscan Ordo Missae).

Number of leaves: 1 paper flyleaf + 285 + 1 paper flyleaf (now detached) Foliation (Modern): 1–285 Foliation (Medieval): N/A Secundo folio: [eversio]nem illius loquitur (2r) Quires: The manuscript mostly consists of regular quires of 12 leaves. Quire 7 is a quire of 12 leaves with one additional leaf added in the second half of the quire (likely f. 82; the binding thread is at the regular position six leaves into the quire, between ff. 78 and 79). Quire 11 has 8 leaves and marks a codicological caesura with the end of the Psalter; on blank space originally left in the last two folios, a large number of prologues were later added to supplement the selection originally

8.6 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 163  

 297

Figure 34: Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 285v (Added Dominican Ordo Missae).

contained in the bible. Quire 23 originally had 6 leaves and one leaf appears to be a later addition; it contains the final section of Apc as well as a liturgical calendar which is original to the production of the bible, as well as other liturgical texts added later; the added leaf appears to be f. 264 (which is unruled, unlike the other leaves in the quire). Quire 24 appears to have originally had 24 leaves, of which 7 are now missing at the end, judging from the presence of binding thread visible between ff. 280v and 281r; it contains the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, followed by a Dominican Ordo Missae which ends imperfectly.

298 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Quire marks: Leaf signatures written with Roman numerals appear in the bottom left margin in the first half of quires 3 (ff. 25–31), 8 (ff. 86–91), 18 (ff. 202–207), 22 (ff. 252, 253, 255), and 23 (ff. 262, 264). Layout B: 133 x 85; 60–63 lines in two columns [38 + 38] 1r–264v (Bible) C: 140 x 98; 66 lines in two main columns [48 + 48] 265r–266r (Calendar) I: 142 x 102; 68–77 lines in four columns [24 + 20 + 20 + 20] 269r–285v (Interpretations of Hebrew Names) M1: added Franciscan liturgical texts following the B layout, but with some text written in a large script that takes up two ruled lines: ff. 264v, 268r M2: Dominican liturgical texts following the I layout, but going beyond into the margins: f. 285v Script: The main biblical text is written in northern textualis, with the writing above the top line. In addition to the main biblical text, there are many additional texts added in by what appears to be a single hand writing in a more rapid hand that predominantly uses the single-compartment a: S. 285 on f. 2rb, a series of additional prologues on ff. 128ra–129vb, the Interpretations of Hebrew Names of ff. 269ra–285vb, and the Dominican Ordo Missae on f. 285v; the sections done by this scribe are only decorated with red ink, rather than the red and blue flourishing used throughout the rest of the manuscript. On ff. 264v and 268r, a single hand added Franciscan Ordo Missae texts and other prayers writing in semitextualis; this hand is likely also responsible for the Franciscan modifications to the calendar on ff. 265r–266r. On ff. 267v–268r, a much later (15th-century?) cursiva hand has added a text on the order in which biblical books are read in the Divine Office.

8.6.6 Artistic Decoration Running Header: The manuscript originally had a running header with the names of the biblical books written in alternating red and blue capitals. The running header is now mostly cropped, with only flourished descenders generally visible, but the header is still extant in some sections, e.g., ff. 83v–88r. A later hand occasionally supplies the name of the biblical book below the cropped header, e.g., ff. 35v–36r (Dt). Biblical Books: The biblical books are generally introduced with a large littera duplex initial (usually 10 lines) followed by the opening words of the chapter in 5-line flourished capitals, with the first several letters in either red or blue and the following letters in the opposite color. In some of the flourishing for the littera duplex initials, human heads (e.g., ff. 41v and 47r) or dragons (e.g., f. 82r) appear. A few biblical books (Idt, Iob, Ioel, Abd, Mt) begin with a decorated initial, followed by the same red and blue capitals for the opening words of the book used with the littera duplex initials. Gn and Lc begin with historiated initials. III Esr and Lam are introduced with only flourished initials. In the New Testament, only the first letter by each author receives a littera duplex initial, while the others have flourished initials (e.g., Rm has a littera duplex initial while the other Pauline Epistles have a flourished initial). Biblical Prologues: The biblical prologues are usually introduced with a 2- to 5-line blue or red flourished initial. The prologue to Is (f. 149vb) has a littera duplex initial, although the opening words are not written in flourished capitals. Occasionally several prologues appear together without a visible break (e.g., S. 524 and S. 522 on 194va preceding Ion). Biblical Chapters: The biblical chapters are introduced with a one-line red or blue initial in the text and a Roman numeral chapter number in alternating red and blue initials in the margin. Biblical Text: Sentences are usually given a highlight on the opening majuscule initial. Psalms: Ps 1, Ps 26, Ps 38, Ps 51, Ps 52, Ps 68, Ps 80, Ps 97, Ps 101, Ps 109 are introduced with littera duplex initials and the opening words in flourished capitals, like the biblical books. Other psalms are introduced with two-line flourished initials. Individual verses begin with one-line red or blue initials. The psalms are numbered in what appears to be part of the original design, although the numbering follows two distinct models: Ps 1–16 (ff. 114v–115r) are accompanied in the margin by Roman numerals in alternating red and blue initials executed in the same style as the biblical chapters; these have been partially cropped. The rest of the psalms have red Arabic numerals, generally integrated into the rubric introducing each psalm but sometimes appearing independently in the margin (e.g., Ps 17 on f. 115v).

8.6 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 163  

 299

Liturgical Texts: The calendar (ff. 265r–266r) is decorated with red and blue flourished Kalendae initials. The Dominican Ordo Missae (f. 285v) is decorated with red highlights which match the style of the preceding Interpretations of Hebrew Names. The added Franciscan Ordo Missae texts are not decorated or highlighted. Other: The Interpretations of Hebrew Names (ff. 269r–285v) is decorated with non-flourished red initials and highlights.

8.6.7 Quires and Contents Quires

Folio Range

Content

Q1: 1–12 (12) Layout B

1ra–2rb

S. 284

2rb

S. 285 (Later addition; partially written in blank space in column b but extending 50 mm rather than the 38 mm used for the original part of the column; partially written in one wide column in the lower margin measuring 92 mm)

2va–12vb

Gn (Historiated initial: Six Days of Creation)

12vb–21ra

Ex

21ra–26va

Lv

26va–34va

Nm

34va–41va

Dt

41vb

S. 311

41vb–46vb

Ios

46vb

Blank space: 6 lines

47ra–52rb

Idc

52rb–53ra

Rt

53ra–va

S. 323

53va–60vb

I Rg

60vb–66vb

II Rg

66vb

S. 319 (Non-Parisian prologue. Vacat in biblia correcta iste prologus added in blank ink underlined with red before the prologue.)

67ra–74ra

III Rg

74ra–80rb

IV Rg

80rb–82ra

Est (Non-Parisian biblical order; normally appears after Idt. Not preceded by S. 341 + S. 343. A partially cropped note was added later in black ink: Liber hester hic non debuisse poni, sed immediate post I[udith?] ordinari.)

82ra–88va

I Par (Not preceded by S. 328)

88va–95va

II Par (Not preceded by S. 327)

95va–vb

Or Man (No visual break from II Par; a later hand has added Oratio in the margin)

95vb–97vb

I Esr (Not preceded by S. 330)

97vb–100vb

II Esr (labelled Neh)

100vb–103vb

III Esr (labelled II Esr and designated as apocryphal: Incipit secundus liber esdre apocrifus. Flourished rather than littera duplex initial.)

Q2: 13–24 (12) Q3: 25–36 (12)

Q4: 37–48 (12)

Q5: 49–60 (12)

Q6: 61–72 (12)

Q7: 73–85 (12+1 [82?])

Q8: 86–97 (12)

Q9: 98–109 (12)

104ra

S. 332

104ra–106ra

Tb

106ra

S. 335

106ra–108vb

Idt (Decorated initial)

300 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

108vb–114ra

Iob (Decorated initial. Not preceded by Est. Not preceded by S. 344 or S. 357. In the lower margin, a later hand has added require librum hesther post quartum regum. Lection marks with Roman numerals have been added in the margins of Iob by a later Gothic hand.)

114ra

Blank space: 36 lines

114va–128ra

Ps (Iuxta Hebraicum translation. Littera duplex initials for Ps 1 [114va], Ps 26 [116rb], Ps 38 [117va], Ps 51 [118vb], Ps 52 [119ra], Ps 68 [120rb], Ps 80 [121vb], Ps 97 [123rb], Ps 101 [123va], Ps 109 [124vb])

128ra

S. 328 (Added Parisian prologue for I Par)

128rb

S. 330 (Added Parisian prologue for I Esr)

128rb–va

S. 341 + S. 343 (Added Parisian prologue for Est)

128va–vb

S. 344 (Added Parisian prologue for Iob)

128vb

S. 357 (Added Parisian prologue for Iob)

128vb

S. 462 (Added Parisian prologue for Ecl)

128vb

S. 468 (Added Parisian prologue for Sap)

128vb

S. 473 (Added non-Parisian prologue for Sir)

128vb–129ra

Sir (Prologus only; later addition)

129ra

S. 487 (Added Parisian prologue for Ier)

129ra

S. 512 (Added Parisian prologue for Am. Continuation of prologue on f. 193ra. The text is preceded by the following rubric: Hic de secundo prologo amos prout continueter post illud. The text begins Audiendi verbi dei and concludes exalta vocem tuam etc.)

129ra

S. 513 (Added Parisian prologue for Am)

129ra–rb

S. 521 (Added Parisian prologue for Ion)

129rb

S. 538 (Added Parisian prologue for Agg)

129rb–va

S. 547 (Added Parisian prologue for I Mcc)

129va

S. 553 (Added Parisian prologue for I Mcc)

129va

S. 589 (Added Parisian prologue for Mt)

129va

S. 7059 (Added non-Parisian prologue for II Mcc)

129va–vb

S. 839 (Added Parisian prologue for Apc)

129vb

Added subscription: Explicit. Deo gratias. Sit laus christo et sue pie matri.

129vb

Blank space: 8 lines

130ra

S. 457 (Begins with a long section before the normal opening Iungat epistola which starts with De parabolis salamonis and ends with ac divinitas. A later rubric states: vacat in biblia correcta.)

130ra

Blank space: 4 lines

130rb–134vb

Prv

134vb–135vb

Ct (Non-Parisian order; precedes Ecl in Parisian order)

135vb–137rb

Ecl (Non-Parisian order; precedes Ct in Parisian order)

137rb–140vb

Sap (Not preceded by S. 468)

140vb–149vb

Sir (Omits Prologus; begins with Sir 1:1: Omnis sapientia)

149vb–150ra

S. 482 (Littera duplex initial)

150ra–160rb

Is

160rb–172rb

Ier (Not preceded by S. 487)

Q10: 110–121 (12)

Q11: 122–129 (8)

Q12: 130–141 (12)

Q13: 142–153 (12)

Q14: 154–165 (12)

8.6 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 163  

 301

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

Q15: 166–177 (12)

172rb–173va

Lam (Introduced by flourished initial rather than littera duplex)

173va

S. 491

173va–175ra

Bar

175ra

S. 492

175ra–185vb

Ez

186ra

S. 498 (Non-Parisian prologue; marked vacat in the margin)

186ra–rb

S. 494

186rb

S. 495 (Non-Parisian prologue; marked vacat in the interlinear space)

186rb–190va

Dn

190va

S. 500

190va–vb

S. 507

190vb–192rb

Os

192rb

S. 511

192rb

S. 510

192rb

S. 5208 (Non-Parisian prologue; marked vacat in interlinear space)

192rb

S. 509 (Non-Parisian prologue)

192rb

Ioel (Decorated initial)

193ra

S. 515

193ra

S. 512 (Incomplete text, ending at audiendi verbum dei. An added rubric notes: de fine [?] quere infra. The text concluded by later addition at f. 129ra. Not followed by S. 513.)

193ra–194ra

Am

194ra–rb

S. 519 + S. 517

194rb–va

Abd (Decorated initial)

194va

S. 524

194va

S. 522 (Non-Parisian prologue; not visually distinguished from preceding prologue; not followed by S. 521)

194va–195ra

Ion

195ra

S. 526

195ra

S. 525 (Non-Parisian prologue; not visually distinguished from preceding prologue)

195ra–vb

Mi

195vb–196ra

S. 528 (Part of the prologue is labelled vacat in the margin)

196ra–rb

Na

196rb–va

S. 531

196vb

S. 530 (Non-Parisian prologue; labelled vacat in biblia correcta.)

196vb–197rb

Hab

197rb

S. 534

Q16: 178–189 (12)

Q17: 190–201 (12)

197rb

S. 532 (Non-Parisian prologue; not visually distinguished from preceding prologue)

197rb–vb

So

197vb–198ra

S. 539 (This prologue precedes Za in the Parisian order; here it is found in place of the Parisian S. 538)

198ra–rb

Agg

198rb

S. 3369 (Non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 539; labelled Vacat)

198rb–va

S. 540 (Non-Parisian prologue)

302 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Q18: 202–213 (12)

Q19: 214–225 (12)

Q20: 226–237 (12)

Q21: 238–249 (12)

Folio Range

Content

198va–200ra

Za

200ra

S. 543

200ra–rb

Jerome, Commentariorum in Malachiam prophetam ad Minervium et Alexandrum, Prologus: Ultimum duodecim prophetarum … quinti venit in Ierusalem.103 (Non-Parisian additional prologue. Presented in original hand without a break following S. 543. A later hand has added vacat in biblia correcta)

200rb

S. 544 (Non-Parisian prologue)

200rb–vb

Mal

200vb–207rb

I Mcc (Not preceded by S. 547, S. 553, or S. 551)

207rb–212ra

II Mcc

212ra

Blank space: 47 lines

212rb

Blank space: 1 column

212v

Blank space: 1 folio

213ra

S. 590 (Not followed by S. 589)

213ra–219va

Mt (Decorated initial)

219va

S. 607

219vb–223vb

Mc

223vb

S. 620

223vb

S. 614 (Non-Parisian prologue; labelled vacat in biblia correcta)

223vb–224ra

Lc 1:1–4 (presented as prologue)

224ra–230vb

Lc (Historiated initial: Luke writing; begins with Lc 1:5)

230vb–231ra

S. 624

231ra–236rb

Io

236rb

S. 688 (Non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 677)

236rb–238vb

Rm

238vb

S. 685

238vb–241rb

I Cor

241rb

S. 699

241rb–243ra

II Cor

243ra

S. 707

243ra–vb

Gal

243vb

S. 715

243vb–244vb

Eph

244vb

S. 728

244vb–245rb

Phil

245rb

S. 736

245rb–246ra

Col

103 See Jerome 1970, pp. 901–902; Commentarii in prophetas minores, ed. Adriaen, CCSL 76A.

8.6 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 163  

 303

(continued) Quires

Q23: 262–268 (6+1 [264?]) Layout M1 Layout C

Folio Range

Content

246ra

S. 747

246ra–va

I Th

246va

S. 752

246va–vb

II Th

246vb

S. 765

246vb–247va

I Tim

247va

S. 772

247va–248ra

II Tim

248ra

S. 780

248ra–rb

Tit

248rb

S. 783

248rb–va

Phlm

248va

S. 793

248va–250va

Hbr

250va

S. 7063

250va–257vb

Act

257vb

Post passionem domini xxv anno id est secundo neronis … Actus pauli et rome deductio. (Non-Parisian prologue not included in Stegmüller)

257vb

S. 640 (Parisian prologue for Lc)

257vb–258ra

S. 809

258ra

S. 808 (Non-Parisian prologue; labelled vacat in biblia correcta)

258ra

S. 806 (Not visually distinguished from preceding prologue)

258ra–vb

Iac

258vb

S. 815 (Non-Parisian prologue; labelled vacat prologus iste in biblica correcta)

258vb–259va

I Pt (Per silvanum [I Pt 5:12] given a separate flourished initial)

259va–260ra

II Pt

260ra

S. 820 (Non-Parisian prologue; labelled vacat in biblia correcta)

260ra–vb

I Io

260vb

II Io

260vb

III Io

260vb–261ra

S. 826 (Non-Parisian prologue; labelled vacat in biblia correcta)

261ra

Iud

261ra

S. 829 (Non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 839; labelled vacat)

261ra–264va

Apc

264va–vb

Preparatory prayers for mass (later addition)

264vb

Added provenance notes

265ra–266rb

Calendar (Four months to a page; originally Dominican, adapted for Franciscan use)

266v

Blank space: 1 folio

267r

Partial list of preaching notes or epistle and gospel list

304 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

Layout M1

267v–268r

Sequitur ordo librorum chatholicorum anni circuli qui in ecclesia leguntur (15th-century addition in cursiva script)

268ra

Incomplete Franciscan Ordo Missae (later addition in semitextualis; same hand as added prayers on f. 264v)

268rb

Added notes

268v

Blank space: 1 folio

269ra–285vb

Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) (Later addition to bible)

285v

Fragmentary Dominican Ordo Missae with notated ordinary incipits, notated prefaces, Communicantes, Hanc igitur, and canon (ends imperfectly midway through the Supra que)

Q24: 269–285 (24-7 [after 285]) Layout I Layout M2

8.6.8 Bibliography Mazarin 1661–1662: “Catalogue des manuscrits de la bibliothèque de feu Mgr. le cardinal Mazarin” (Paris, BnF, NAF 5763), https://gallica.bnf.fr/ ark:/12148/btv1b85388078/f461.image. On f. 231r, the manuscript is listed as “1902. R. Biblia. Velin. 8°.”104 Clément 1682: Nicolas Clément, “Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum hebraicorum, syriacorum, arabicorum, turcicorum, persicorum, græcorum, latinorum, italicorum, gallicorum, etc. Bibliothecæ Regiæ” (Paris, BnF, NAF 5402), https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8452804g/f309.image.105 On p. 291, the manuscript is listed under the heading “Libri latini manuscripti auctorum sacrorum. In quarto” as “4304. Biblia sacra.” In the left margin, there is apparently a reference to “Mazarin 1902.” (It is difficult to read in the digitized version, but “02” is clearly visible.) This source has been edited in Henri Omont, Anciens inventaires et catalogues de la Bibliothèque nationale, vol. 3 (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1910), 390: “4304. Biblia sacra. (Mazarin, 1902).” Catalogus 1744: Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae. Pars tertia. Tomus tertius (Paris: E Typographia Regia, 1744). On p. 15, n. CLXIII, the manuscript is listed in a section with the heading “Vetus testamentum. In-quarto.” The entry dates the manuscript to the 13th century and calls attention to the presence of a calendar at the end of the manuscript. Lauer 1939: Philippe Lauer, ed., Catalogue général des manuscrits latins, vol. 1 (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1939). On pp. 57–58, the entry dates the manuscript to the “XIIIe s.”, provides an abbreviated overview of the biblical contents, and mentions the presence of “Conseils pour célébrer la messe” on ff. 264v and 268r, of a “Calendrier dominicain corrigé par un franciscain” beginning on f. 265r, and of “Préfaces et canon de la messe, avec notation musicale et intonations” on f. 285v. Gignac 1959: (André) Louis-Marie Gignac, “Le sanctoral dominicain et les origines de la liturgie dominicaine” ([Thèse présentée pour la Maîtrise en liturgie], Paris, Institut catholique de Paris, Institut supérieur de liturgie, 1959). Gignac provides a brief description of the manuscript on pp. 33–34, focusing on the calendar, which he dates between 1234 and 1239. Gignac judges the additional liturgical texts, including the canon with notation, to be non-Dominican: “Les autres additions d’ordre liturgique – quelques rubriques et un canon avec préface notée – me paraîssent aussi appartenir à cette dernière [franciscain] tradition; elles n’ont rien en tout cas de dominicain” (p. 33). On pp. 41–42, Gignac situates Latin 163 chronologically with other Dominican bibles with liturgical texts. On pp. 44–61, Gignac includes the Latin 163 in a comparative table of Dominican calendars, giving it the sigla 6. On pp. 83–92, Gignac analyzes the calendar in comparison with other Dominican calendars, linking it in particular with the calendars of Paris, BnF, latin 210, Paris, BnF, latin 251, and Dijon, BM 7. Avril and Stirnemann 1987: François Avril and Patricia Danz Stirnemann, Manuscrits enluminés d’origine insulaire VIIe-XXe siècle (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1987). On p. 82, catalog entry 128, Avril and Stirnemann date the manuscript to “XIIIe s. (milieu)” and identify it as being of English origin with the “Texte monastique” of the Vulgate presented in a non-Parisian order. They provide an overview of the decoration as well as details about the calendar and transcriptions of several inscriptions. Plates XLIII and XLIV provide examples of the decoration on ff. 2v, 41v, and 224r.

104 This manuscript inventory has been edited in a digital edition available at https://www.unicaen.fr/services/puc/sources/mazarin/accueil. For further details on this source, see Sordet 2015 and Sordet 2016. 105 According to Henri Omont, this catalog was produced in 1682–1683; see Omont 1921, v. 5, p. 36. According to the Bibliothèque nationale website, this catalog was produced in 1680: cf. https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc40869b/cd0e74.

8.7 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 215  

 305

Gleeson 2004: Philip Gleeson, “The pre-Humbertian liturgical sources revisited,” in Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L1, ed. Leonard E. Boyle, Pierre-Marie Gy, and Pawełs Krupa, Documents, Études et Répertoires 67 (Paris: CNRS Editions, 2004), 99–114. Gleeson includes Latin 163 on p. 100 as number 6 in a list of “Liturgical material attached to manuscript Bibles,” mentioning only the presence of the calendar on ff. 265r–266r. Gleeson’s list is explicitly derived from Gignac 1959. Dahan 2004: Gilbert Dahan, “Les texts bibliques dans le lectionnaire du prototype de la liturgie dominicaine,” in Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L1, ed. Leonard E. Boyle, Pierre-Marie Gy, and Pawełs Krupa, Documents, Études et Répertoires 67 (Paris: CNRS Editions, 2004), 159–82. Dahan makes use of Latin 163 (as well as Paris, BnF, latin 210) in his study of the office lectionary of Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, indicating on p. 174n59 that he has selected Latin 163 and Latin 210 due to their inclusion in Gignac 1959. Dahan offers various observations on the relationship of the biblical text in Latin 163 to other Vulgate traditions and registers its variants in the appendix editions of Ier 1 and Ct 1–2. Dubreil-Arcin 2011: Agnès Dubreil-Arcin, Vies de saints, légendes de soi: L’écriture hagiographique dominicaine jusqu’au Speculum sanctorale de Bernard Gui († 1331) (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011). Dubreil-Arcin discusses the calendar of the manuscript on pp. 106–108 and gives an unreliable list of the presence or absence of certain Dominican feasts on p. 489. Light 2013: Laura Light, “The Thirteenth-Century Pandect and the Liturgy: Bibles with Missals,” in Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, ed. Eyal Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 185–215. On p. 212, Light gives a brief description of the manuscript and provides various details about the liturgical contents as well as bibliographical references. Ruzzier 2014a: Chiara Ruzzier, “Qui lisait les bibles portatives fabriquées au XIIIe siècle?,” in Lecteurs, lectures et groupes sociaux au Moyen Âge, ed. Xavier Hermand, Étienne Renard, and Céline Van Hoorebeeck, Texte, Codex & Contexte 17 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), 9–28. On p. 15n15, Ruzzier discusses Latin 163 as an example of a bible passing from Dominican to Franciscan hands, offering a brief analysis of the calendar. Light 2016: Laura Light, “What Was a Bible For? Liturgical Texts in Thirteenth-Century Franciscan and Dominican Bibles,” Lusitania Sacra 34 (2016): 165–182. On p. 173n33, Light includes Latin 163 in a list of Dominican bibles. On 181n59, Light gives Latin 163 as an example of a bible with marginal annotations for Divine Office readings: “Paris, BnF, MS Lat 163, Dominican, with a Missal, marked for liturgical readings in the minor prophets and the New Testament, and with a list of books read in the Office.” Poleg 2020a: Eyal Poleg, A Material History of the Bible, England 1200–1553, British Academy Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020). On p. 33n64, Poleg mentions the presence of a system for the indication of liturgical readings with P and F, thanking Laura Light for bringing this to his attention. On p. 194, Poleg indicates the presence of numbers for the psalms in the manuscript. Morgan 2021: Nigel J. Morgan, “The Liturgical Manuscripts of the English Dominicans, ca.1250–ca.1530,” in A Companion to the English Dominican Province: From Its Beginnings to the Reformation, ed. Eleanor Giraud and Cornelia Linde, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 97 (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 370–408. On pp. 399–400, Morgan gives a brief overview of the contents of the manuscript. Morgan misleadingly states that the Anniversarium fratrum familiarium et benefactorum appears on “10 September in error for 5 September.” (The Anniversary does appear on 10 September, but this is simply the pre-1246–1248 date of the Anniversary, rather than an error.) Giraud 2022: Eleanor Giraud, “The Dominicans and Their Identity in Medieval Britain and Ireland: Evidence from Dominican Gospel Lections,” in Music and Liturgy in Medieval Britain and Ireland, ed. Ann Buckley and Lisa Colton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), 269–291. Giraud gives a brief description the liturgical contents of the manuscript on p. 280. Ruzzier 2022: Chiara Ruzzier, Entre Université et ordres mendiants, Manuscripta Biblica 8 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022). On p. 195n6, Ruzzier discusses the calendar and provenance of the manuscript. Ruzzier includes the manuscript on p. 233 as n. 659 in her “Liste des bibles complètes recensées” and on p. 274 in her list of “Bibles complètes consultées,” where she dates it to the middle of the 13th century. On pp. 325–326, Ruzzier provides plates of ff. 213r and 265v.

8.7 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 215 Summary: Bible with Dominican votive missal, calendar, and epistle and gospel list Dimensions: 133 x 94 mm; 584 leaves Origin: Northern France or England

306 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Date: 13th century, second quarter (calendar datable c. 1228–c. 1234) Digital images: https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc600389 Overview of Contents: 1r–4r: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 4v–259v: Bible (Gn–Ps) 259v–262r: Votive missal 259v–261r: Common preface, canon, post-canon Ordo Missae 261r–v: Votive masses 261v–262r: Requiem masses 262v: Blank page 263r–264r: Dominican calendar 264v–268r: Epistle and gospel list 268v–269v: Summe sacerdos 271r–536v: Bible (Prv–Apc) 537r–584r: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim)

8.7.1 Introduction Paris, BnF, latin 215 is a very small bible with a liturgical section between Psalms and Proverbs consisting of a votive missal, a calendar, and an epistle and gospel list. Scholars have expressed varying positions regarding its origin: Laura Light judges the bible to be English, Nigel Morgan argues that it is French, and Chiara Ruzzier localizes it to either Northern France or England.106 Evidence that points to France includes its artistic decoration (in the view of Morgan)107 and its conformity with the Parisian order of biblical books (including III Esr),108 although there are a moderate number of variations from the Parisian set of biblical prologues.109 Evidence that points to England includes the use of quires of 20 leaves (rather than quires of 24 leaves characteristic of French manuscripts of this size),110 the absence of distinctive Parisian textual features,111 and the presence of a special initial for Ps 51.112 Whatever the place of origin may have been, the missal section is the earliest identified example of a Dominican missal, predating the canonization of St. Dominic in 1234 but already including the distinctive Anniversaries of the Dead celebrated by the early Dominicans.113 Judging from the presence of St. Francis and the absence of St. Dominic in the original hand, the calendar was written between c. 1228

106 See Light 2013, p. 212; Morgan 2021, p. 381; Ruzzier 2022, p. 275. Cf. Giraud 2022, p. 279. 107 Morgan 2021, p. 381 argues that the decoration of the manuscript is “completely French.” Morgan also points to the lack of “any feasts of English saints” and argues that “the presence of the rare St. Hildevertus (Hildeferth) in the original hand of the calendar suggests it may have originally been written for the Diocese of Meaux, of which he was a former bishop of the 7th century.” In my view, the 27 May entry for Hildeverti episcopi et confessoris is likely a later addition. 108 According to Tableau 15 in Ruzzier 2022, p. 54, only 11.1% of English bibles (four manuscripts from her corpus) present the “perfect” Parisian order of biblical books, in contrast to 76.4% of French bibles (84 manuscripts). According to Tableau 18 on p. 57, III Esr is included in 93% of bibles produced in France but 46.1% of bibles produced in England. 109 E.g., S. 327 does not appear as usual before II Par, although it is supplied later after the Psalter; S. 330 comes before Or Man rather than I Esr; one non-Parisian prologue is provided for Iob and two non-Parisian prologues for Ps; Sap does not have the Parisian prologue; additional nonParisian prologues are provided for Ioel, Mi, and Za; a non-Parisian prologue is provided for Mt and the two Parisian prologues are presented in reverse order; three additional prologues are provided for Rm and two for Apc. 110 According to Tableaux 66 and 67 in Ruzzier 2022, p. 107, French bibles ≤ 230 mm in taille (= height + width) exclusively use duodenions (24-leaf quires), while English bibles ≤ 230 mm exclusively use denions (20-leaf quires). It should be noted that Ruzzier’s table includes only two English bibles under 230 mm. The taille of Latin 215 is 227, placing it towards the upper limit of Ruzzier’s ≤ 230 mm category. Two French bibles in Ruzzier’s 231–280 mm range use 20-leaf quires, although 93% of this category use 24-leaf quires. 111 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, pp. 76–77. Latin 215 presents the non-Parisian versions of Rt 1:7 (posita revertendi) and Iob 1:4 (omission of vinum). According to Ruzzier’s Tableau 36 on p. 77, 61.3% of English manuscripts share these features, while only 28.7% of French manuscripts do so. 112 According to Tableau 25 in Ruzzier 2022, p. 63, 24.1% of her corpus of English bibles (7 manuscripts) include a special initial for Ps 51 (but not Ps 101), while only 14.9% of French bibles (17 manuscripts) do so. 113 See the discussion of the Dominican Anniversaries of the Dead on pp. 54–58 above. London, BL, Arundel 303, a bible produced in England in the second quarter of the 13th century (see Ruzzier 2022, p. 271, n. 1277; dated c. 1228–1234 in Morgan 2021, pp. 391–392), includes a calendar

8.7 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 215  

 307

Figure 35: Paris, BnF, latin 215, f. 4v (Gn).

and c. 1234. The 24 May and 5 August feasts of St. Dominic are both later additions by a single hand. Despite the original absence of Dominic, the calendar includes the 10 September and 10 October Anniversaries of the Dead in the original hand, although it lacks the 4 February anniversary. The entire manuscript appears to be a single production unit, with the main missal texts sharing the same layout as the bible.114

8.7.2 Plates Figure 35 Paris, BnF, latin 215, f. 4v (Gn) Figure 36 Paris, BnF, latin 215, f. 260r (Roman Canon), p. 308 Figure 37 Paris, BnF, latin 215, f. 261r (Votive Missal Formularies), p. 309

with some parallel features to Paris, BnF, latin 215, including the provision of the 4 February, 10 September and 10 October anniversaries, the presence of Francis on 4 October (IX lect.), and the absence of Dominic on 5 August (providing St. Oswald instead). 114 As shown in the Quires and Contents table below, the liturgical texts begin on the closing leaves of Quire 13 after the conclusion of the Psalter and continue on Quire 14 which contains only liturgical texts. The bible resumes with Prv starting on Quire 15.

308 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 36: Paris, BnF, latin 215, f. 260r (Roman Canon).

8.7.3 Liturgical Texts Paris, BnF, latin 215 includes four types of liturgical texts presented between Psalms and Proverbs: a votive missal, a calendar, an epistle and gospel list, and a devotional prayer (Summe sacerdos). The votive missal contains the Ordo Missae, three votive mass formularies, and five Requiem mass formularies. In contrast to most Dominican bible missals, it presents only the Common Preface, rather than a fuller range of prefaces and variable canon prayers for various occasions. A 12-line Crucifixion miniature appears within the column between the Common Preface and the start of the canon. The three votive formularies provide masses for the Holy Spirit, the Holy Cross, and the Blessed Virgin Mary. They include full texts for the chants, orations, and readings, with the exception of the epistle for the Holy Spirit formulary which only has an incipit for the epistle, not even providing the name of the biblical book (a later hand has added Actus VIII in the margin). The other epistle and gospel readings include the full texts and are introduced by the name of the biblical book. After the votive formularies, a Requiem formulary is introduced with the rubric Officium, presenting full texts for the chants, prayers, and readings. This is followed by four further Requiem formularies which provide only orations, which are not given explicit rubrics. The fourth of these formularies extends further into the right hand and bottom margins than the others, but appears to be written by the same hand as the other formularies, although there is a possibility that it is a later addition. Following a blank page on f. 262v, the Dominican calendar begins on f. 263r. The calendar is mostly written in black ink but with higher ranked feasts written in red and some feast ranks written in red ink. The feast ranks in the main hand

8.7 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 215  

 309

Figure 37: Paris, BnF, latin 215, f. 261r (Votive Missal Formularies).

are Totum Duplex, Duplex, Semiduplex, IX lectionum, III lectionum, and Commemoratio. Some of the higher ranked feasts include the specification of IX lectionum in addition to their other rank. The entries in the main hand include several distinctively Dominican occasions or feast ranks: Augustini episcopi et confessoris (August 28; IX lectionum. Totum duplex); Octava sancti Augustini (September 4; IX lectionum); Anniversarium famulorum et famularum et benefactorum (September 10; totum duplex); Sancti francisci confessoris (October 4; IX lectionum); Anniversarium omnium fratrum ordinis nostri (October 10; no rank). It is noteworthy that there is no entry for the 4 February Anniversary of the Dead. Two feasts of St. Dominic appear as later additions: the 24 May Translation is presented as Translatio beati dominici. Duplex and the 5 August feast as Beati dominici patri nostri. Totum duplex. There are a range of other additions throughout the calendar in several hands, including the addition of the Translatio francisci on 25 May. Notably, there is no later addition for Peter Martyr. Following the calendar, an epistle and gospel list is given which provides indications for temporal, sanctoral, Common of Saints, and votive masses. In the original hand, each entry has the incipit (but not explicit), followed by the book name and chapter number in Roman numerals. Some entries also have section letters following the chapter numbers; these appear in a variety of formats and hands. There are a number of intriguing differences between the saints included in the calendar and the epistle and gospel list.115 For instance, the 23 January feast has the title Emerentiane virginis. Commem­

115 For further analysis, see Giraud 2022, pp. 282–289.

310 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

oratio in the calendar and Emerenciane et macharii in the epistle and gospel list. A commemoratio would normally not have its own set of readings, so this may indicate a significant difference in the liturgical sources at play. On 10 February, the calendar gives Scolastice virginis. Commemoratio, while the epistle and gospel list includes Zotici yr(enei) et ia(cincti), a set of saints commemorated in some martyrologies on 10 February.116 The epistle and gospel list (but not the calendar) includes an entry for Thome apostoli in a section of feasts for July, thus indicating the 3 July feast of St. Thomas the Apostle, observed in some medieval calendars as the Translation of St. Thomas. (Notably, there is no entry for Thome apostoli corresponding with his normal 21 December feast, although the calendar includes Thomas on 21 December but not 3 July.) Although Augustini episcopi is given as a Totum duplex in the calendar on 28 August, he is omitted in the epistle and gospel list, which instead includes Hermetis martyris in the corresponding section. Finally, Sancti francisci confessoris is present in the calendar but absent in the epistle and gospel list. Although the preceding set of comparisons are not exhaustive, they present significant evidence that the calendar and epistle and gospel list are derived from divergent liturgical sources. In addition to the evidence of the sanctoral, other noteworthy features of the epistle and gospel list include the presence of entries for specific readings for the Feria quarta and Feria sexta following each set of readings for the Sundays after Pentecost, and an entry for Dominica quinta ante natalis domini (also given Feria quarta and feria sexta readings) following Dominica XXVI post Pentecostes. In light of the wide divergences between this list and other Dominican sources, Giraud 2022, p. 289 concludes that “whether or not the capitulary was used by early Dominicans, it is clear that (without any of the typical Dominican features), it does not reflect a ‘Dominican tradition’.” The missal section concludes with the devotional prayer Summe sacerdos. This prayer is also provided in Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 and London/Oslo, Schøyen 115. In contrast to those sources, here it is not provided with a title and is not accompanied by any other devotional prayers, although there is a significant amount of blank space left after the prayer on f. 269v followed by a blank leaf (f. 270r–v).

8.7.4 Provenance The manuscript was likely written for a Dominican friar, judging from the presence of the Dominican Anniversaries of the Dead in the original hand of the calendar of the votive missal. The manuscript was still in Dominican hands when the 5 August and 24 May feasts of St. Dominic were added to the calendar. The absence of an addition for St. Peter Martyr and the presence of an addition of the Translatione francisci (25 May) in the calendar suggests that it may have passed into Franciscan hands by the mid-13th century. In the 15th century, it apparently belonged to someone named Allayre, who made an inscription on f. 584r, and in the 16th century by a Dupont or Dupons de Saria, who also made inscriptions on f. 584r (for the dating of these inscriptions, see Lauer 1939). In the 17th century, it entered the collection of Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619–1683), where it had the shelf mark 6529 (found both on f. 1r and in two 17th-century catalogs of Colbert’s collection; see Baluze MS 101 and NAF 5692 in the bibliography). After Colbert’s death, it belonged successively to his sons Jean-Baptiste Antoine Colbert, marquis de Seignelay (1651–1690), Jacques-Nicolas Colbert (1655–1707), and Charles Eleonor Colbert (1689–1747). In 1732 it was purchased along with Colbert’s collection by the Bibliothèque royale (now Bibliothèque nationale de France), where it first received the shelfmark Regius 4302e (see f. 1r) and later the shelfmark Latin 215 (see Catalogus 1744 and Lauer 1939).

8.7.5 Material Features Binding dimensions: 145 x 105 x 60 mm Binding: Red leather binding with gold inlay; “Biblia Sacra.” printed in gold on the spine. Material of leaves: Parchment Dimensions of leaves: 133 x 94 mm Number of leaves: 6 paper flyleaves + 584 + 6 paper flyleaves

116 See, e.g., the Humbert Martyrology, Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 17v, which includes Zotici, hyrenei, amantii atque iacincti on 10 February (as well as St. Scholastica).

8.7 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 215  

 311

Foliation (Modern): 1–584 Foliation (Medieval): N/A Secundo folio: signatus est enim (2r) Quires: The manuscript is mostly composed of quires of 20 leaves. Quire 14, containing the continuation of the missal and other liturgical material, is 10 leaves. Quire 23 has a complex arrangement: it appears that it is a quire of 16 leaves with an additional bifolium inserted at the center of the quire. Quire 25 is 18 leaves. Quire 28, which concludes the bible portion, is 10 leaves. Finally, quires 31 and 32, which continue and conclude the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, appear to be each made up of 4 leaves. Quire marks: Quires 2–12 contain quire marks in Roman numerals at the bottom center of the verso of the final leaf. At the end of quire 17 on f. 330v, a catchword is preserved on a small, folded section of the parchment close to the inner margin). Although the lower margin has been cropped (leading to the occasional loss of the bottom portions of pen flourishing), there appear to be remnants of catchwords at the end of quires 19 (f. 370v), 20 (f. 390v), and 26 (f. 506v). Although leaf signatures are generally not visible in the manuscript, “G” appears in blue ink at the bottom center of 417r, corresponding with the seventh leaf of quire 22 (411–430). Layout B: c. 95 x 65 mm; 42–43 lines in two columns [28 + 30] 1r–259r, 271r–536v (Bible) 259v–262r (Missal) 573r–584r (Interpretations of Hebrew Names) C: c. 115 x 70 mm; 67 lines in two columns [38 + 38] 263r–264r (Calendar) E: c. 105 x 70 mm; 54 lines in two columns [35 + 35] 264v–268r (Epistle and gospel list) S: c. 105 x 65 mm; 46 lines in two columns [28 + 28] 268v–270r (Summe sacerdos) Script: Northern textualis. Many folios feature extended ascenders in the top and left margins and extended descenders in the bottom margin.

8.7.6 Artistic Decoration Running Header: Names of biblical books in alternating red and blue capitals with decorative lines on the right and left (with the exception of Psalms and the votive missal, which have no running header). Biblical Books: Decorated or littera duplex initials; rubrics for the incipits and sometimes explicits of books. Biblical Prologues: Littera duplex initials. Biblical Chapters: Two-line red or blue flourished initials; chapter number in alternating red and blue capitals, usually in the column and sometimes in the margin. Biblical Text: Inconsistent use of highlighting for beginning of sentences. Psalms: Decorated initials for Ps 1, Ps 26, Ps 38, Ps 52, Ps 68, Ps 80, Ps 97, Ps 109; Littera duplex initial for Ps 51; two- or three-line flourished initials for other psalms; single-line red or blue initials for psalm verses. The Psalms are numbered in the margins with alternating red and blue Roman numerals from I–CL, although it is difficult to determine whether these were written by the same rubricator who provided the initials for the psalm verses; the blue and red ink appears slightly lighter in color than the corresponding capitals in the psalter. Liturgical Texts: 12-line Crucifixion miniature before the Te igitur; Littera duplex initials for some texts; one- or two-line flourished or non-flourished initials for most texts. In the epistle and gospel list, only red initials and highlights are used. Other: N/A

312 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

8.7.7 Quires and Contents Quires

Folio Range

Content

Q1: 1–20 (20) Layout B

1ra–3vb

S. 284

3vb–4rb

S. 285

Q2: 21–40 (20) Q3: 41–60 (20)

Q4: 61–80 (20) Q5: 81–100 (20)

Q6: 101–120 (20)

Q7: 121–140 (20) Q8: 141–160 (20) Q9: 161–180 (20)

Q10: 181–200 (20)

Q11: 201–220 (20)

Q12: 221–240 (20)

4rb

Blank space: 28 lines

4va–25ra

Gn

25ra–41vb

Ex

41vb–53rb

Lv

53rb–70ra

Nm

70ra–84va

Dt

84va–85rb

S. 311

85rb–95vb

Ios

95vb–106va

Idc

106va–107vb

Rt

108ra–vb

S. 323

108vb–123va

I Rg

123va–136ra

II Rg

136ra–150va

III Rg

150va–163rb

IV Rg

163rb–163vb

S. 328

163vb–175rb

I Par

175rb–190vb

II Par (Not preceded by S. 327, which is supplied later at f. 259v)

190vb–191rb

S. 330 (Precedes I Esr in Paris Order)

191rb–va

Or Man (Follows II Par in Paris Order)

191va–195vb

I Esr

195vb–201va

II Esr [labelled Neh]

201va–207va

III Esr [labelled II Esr]

207va

S. 332

207vb–211rb

Tb

211rb–va

S. 335

211va–216rb

Idt

216rb–va

S. 341 + S. 343

216va–221rb

Est

221rb–vb

S. 344

221vb–222ra

S. 357

222ra

S. 360 (Non-Parisian prologue)

222ra–232ra

Iob

232ra–rb

S. 414 (Non-Parisian prologue)

232rb–va

S. 430 (Non-Parisian prologue)

8.7 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 215  

 313

(continued) Quires Q13: 241–260 (20)

Q14: 261–270 (10)

Folio Range

Content

232va–259rb

Ps (Decorated initials for Ps 1 [232va], Ps 26 [236va], Ps 38 [239ra]; Littera duplex initial for Ps 51 [241va]; Decorated initials for Ps 52 [241va], Ps 68 [244ra], Ps 80 [247ra], Ps 97 [249vb], Ps 109 [252vb])

259rb

Blank space: 25 lines

259va–vb

S. 327 (Parisian prologue for II Par)

259vb

[Votive missal] [Preface dialogue]

260ra

[Common preface]

260ra

[Crucifixion miniature]

260ra–vb

[Canon]

260vb–261ra

[Post-canon Ordo Missae]

261ra–rb

De sancto spiritu

261rb–va

De sancta cruce

261va–vb

Officium beate Marie

261vb–262ra

Officium (full Requiem formulary)

262ra–rb

[Requiem mass] (orations only)

262rb

[Requiem mass] (orations only)

262rb

[Requiem mass] (orations only)

262rb

[Requiem mass] (orations only)

262v

Blank page

263ra–264rb

Dominican calendar

Layout E

264va–268rb

Epistle and gospel list

268rb

Blank space: 41 lines

Layout S

268va–269va

Summe sacerdos

269va

Blank space: 36 lines

269vb

Blank space: 1 column

270r–270v

Blank leaf

271ra–rb

S. 457

271rb–279vb

Prv

279vb

S. 462

279vb–282vb

Ecl

282vb–284rb

Ct

284rb–290va

Sap (Not preceded by S. 458)

Layout C

Q15: 271–290 (20) Layout B

Q16: 291–310 (20)

Q17: 311–330 (20) Q18: 331–350 (20) Q19: 351–370 (20)

290va–307vb

Sir (Prologus Multorum nobis has littera duplex initial; Sir 1:1 has decorated initial)

307vb–308ra

S. 482

308ra–329va

Is

329va–329vb

S. 487

329vb–354va

Ier

354va–357ra

Lam (Lam 5 [Oratio Ieremiae] presented as separate book with littera duplex initial)

357ra

S. 491

357ra–360ra

Bar

360ra–rb

S. 492

314 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires Q20: 371–390 (20) Q21: 391–410 (20)

Q22: 411–430 (20)

Folio Range

Content

360rb–382rb

Ez

382va–383ra

S. 494

383ra–392rb

Dn

392rb

S. 500

392rb–va

S. 507

392va

Blank space: 2 lines

392vb–395va

Os

395va–vb

S. 511

395vb–396ra

S. 510 + S. 509 (S. 509 is a non-Parisian prologue, here presented without break following S. 510)

396ra–397ra

Ioel

397ra–rb

S. 515

397rb

S. 512

397rb–va

S. 513

397va–400ra

Am

400ra

S. 519 + S. 517

400rb–va

Abd

400va–vb

S. 524

400vb

S. 521

400vb–401va

Ion

401vb

S. 526

401vb

S. 10821 (Non-Parisian prologue)

401vb

Blank space: 3 lines

402ra–403vb

Mi

403vb

S. 528

403vb–404va

Na

404va–405rb

S. 531

405rb–406ra

Hab

406ra–rb

S. 534

406rb–407rb

So

407rb–va

S. 538

407va–408rb

Agg

408rb–va

S. 539

408va

S. 540 (Non-Parisian prologue)

408va–412ra

Za

412ra–rb

S. 543

412rb–413rb

Mal

413rb–va

S. 547

413vb–414ra

S. 553

414ra

S. 551

8.7 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 215  

(continued) Quires

Q23: 431–448 (16+2 [438–439])

Q24: 449–468 (20)

Q25: 469–486 (18)

Q26: 487–506 (20)

Folio Range

Content

414ra–427rb

I Mcc

427rb–436ra

II Mcc

436ra–va

S. 595 (Non-Parisian prologue)

436va–vb

S. 589 (Comes after S. 590 in Paris Order)

436vb

S. 590 (Comes before S. 589 in Paris Order)

437ra–449vb

Mt

449vb–450ra

S. 607

450ra–458rb

Mc

458rb–va

S. 620

458va–472ra

Lc (Lc 1:1–4 presented as an Argumentum with flourished initial; Lc 1:5 begins with decorated initial)

472ra–rb

S. 624

472rb–482rb

Io

482rb–vb

S. 651 (Non-Parisian prologue)

482vb–483rb

S. 670 (Non-Parisian prologue)

483rb–va

S. 674 (Non-Parisian prologue)

483va

S. 677

483vb–488va

Rm

488va

S. 685

488va–493rb

I Cor

493rb

S. 699

493rb–496va

II Cor

496va

S. 707

496va–498rb

Gal

498rb

S. 715

498rb–499vb

Eph

499vb–500ra

S. 728

500ra–501ra

Phil

501ra

S. 736

501rb–502rb

Col

502rb

S. 747

502rb–503rb

I Th

503rb

S. 752

503va–504ra

II Th

504ra

S. 765

504ra–505rb

I Tim

505rb

S. 772

505rb–506rb

II Tim

506rb

S. 780

506rb–vb

Tit

506vb

S. 783

 315

316 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

Q27: 507–526 (20)

507ra

Phlm

507rb

S. 793

507rb–511ra

Hbr

Q28: 527–536 (10)

Q29: 537–556 (20)

511ra

S. 640

511ra–524rb

Act

524rb

S. 809

524rb–525va

Iac

525va–526vb

I Pt

526vb–527vb

II Pt

527vb–529ra

I Io

529ra–rb

II Io

529rb

III Io

529rb–vb

Iud

529vb–530rb

S. 839

530rb

S. 835 (Non-Parisian prologue)

530rb

S. 829 (Non-Parisian prologue)

530rb–536vb

Apc

536vb

Blank space: 20 lines

537ra–584rb

Interpretations of Hebrew Names: (S. 7709: Aaz ... Zuzim)

584rb

Blank space: 13 lines

584rb

Provenance Marks

584v

Added notes

Q30: 557–576 (20) Q31: 577–580 (4) Q32: 581–584 (4)

8.7.8 Bibliography Baluze MS 101: Paris, BnF, Baluze 101 In this 17th-century catalog of Colbert’s collection, the manuscript is listed on f. 209v: “6529. Biblia sacra.” NAF 5692: Paris, BnF, NAF 5692 In this 17th-century catalog of Colbert’s collection, the manuscript is listed on f. 480r: “6529. Biblia sacra.” Catalogus 1744: Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae. Pars tertia. Tomus tertius (Paris: E Typographia Regia, 1744). On p. 19, the manuscript is listed as “Codex membranaceus, olim Colbertinus. Ibi continentur Veteris & Novi Testamenti libri omnes: ad calcem vocum Hebraïcarum interpretatio. Is codex sæculo decimo quarto exaratus videtur.” Lauer 1939: Philippe Lauer, ed., Catalogue général des manuscrits latins, vol. 1 (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1939). On p. 78, the catalog gives a brief overview of the contents and provenance of the manuscript, specifying that the liturgical section contains a “Calendrier dominicain.” The manuscript is dated to “XIIIe s.” without specification of place of origin. Gignac 1959: (André) Louis-Marie Gignac, “Le sanctoral dominicain et les origines de la liturgie dominicaine” ([Thèse présentée pour la Maîtrise en liturgie], Paris, Institut catholique de Paris, Institut supérieur de liturgie, 1959). Gignac provides a brief description of the manuscript on pp. 31–32, describing the various liturgical contents and judging them to all be Dominican, and dating the calendar and epistle and gospel list to between 1228 and 1231 (on the basis of the presence of the feast of St. Francis in the

8.8 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 16266  

 317

original hand and the addition of the 1231 translation of Francis). On pp. 41–42, Gignac situates the manuscript chronologically with other Dominican bibles with liturgical texts. On pp. 44–61, Gignac includes the manuscript in a comparative table of Dominican calendars, giving it the sigla 3. On 83–92, Gignac analyzes the calendar in comparison with other Dominican calendars, linking it in particular with the calendars of Paris, BnF, latin 163, Paris, BnF, latin 210, and Dijon, BM 7. Gleeson 2004: Philip Gleeson, “The pre-Humbertian liturgical sources revisited,” in Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L1, ed. Leonard E. Boyle, Pierre-Marie Gy, and Pawełs Krupa, Documents, Études et Répertoires 67 (Paris: CNRS Editions, 2004), 99–114. On p. 100, Gleeson includes Latin 215 as number 3 in a list of “Liturgical material attached to manuscript Bibles,” mentioning the presence of a calendar, epistle and gospel list, canon, and votive masses. Gleeson’s list is explicitly derived from Gignac 1959. Ruzzier 2010: Chiara Ruzzier, “Des armaria aux besaces: La mutation de la bible au XIIIe siècle,” in Les usages sociaux de la Bible, XIe-XVe siècles, Cahiers Électroniques d’Histoire Textuelle du LAMOP 3 (Paris: LAMOP, 2010), 74–111. Ruzzier mentions the manuscript on p. 100n46 as one of four bibles in her corpus of manuscripts that contain “missels abrégés.” Dubreil-Arcin 2011: Agnès Dubreil-Arcin, Vies de saints, légendes de soi: L’écriture hagiographique dominicaine jusqu’au Speculum sanctorale de Bernard Gui († 1331) (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011). Dubreil-Arcin discusses the calendar of the manuscript on pp. 106–108 and gives an unreliable list of the presence or absence of certain Dominican feasts on p. 489. Light 2013: Laura Light, “The Thirteenth-Century Pandect and the Liturgy: Bibles with Missals,” in Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, ed. Eyal Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 185–215. Light discusses the manuscript throughout the article and gives a brief description on p. 212. Light states that the manuscript comes from “England, s. xiii2/4-med”, and gives an overview of the liturgical contents. Light 2016: Laura Light, “What Was a Bible For? Liturgical Texts in Thirteenth-Century Franciscan and Dominican Bibles,” Lusitania Sacra 34 (2016): 165–182. Light includes the manuscript on p. 173n33 in a list of Dominican bibles, on p. 174n35 in a list of bibles where the missal follows the Psalms, and on p. 177n42 in a list of bibles with selected masses. Poleg 2020a: Eyal Poleg, A Material History of the Bible, England 1200–1553, British Academy Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020). On p. 194, Poleg indicates the presence of numbers for the psalms in the manuscript. Giraud 2021b: Eleanor Giraud, “Dominican Mass Books before Humbert of Romans,” in The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music and Liturgy, ed. Eleanor Giraud and Christian Leitmeir (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), 299–320. On p. 301, Giraud includes the manuscript in a list of pre-reform Dominican mass books. Morgan 2021: Nigel J. Morgan, “The Liturgical Manuscripts of the English Dominicans, ca.1250–ca.1530,” in A Companion to the English Dominican Province: From Its Beginnings to the Reformation, ed. Eleanor Giraud and Cornelia Linde, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 97 (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 370–408. On p. 381, Morgan discusses the question of whether the manuscript was made in England or France, arguing that the artistic decoration and liturgical contents are “completely French.” Giraud 2022: Eleanor Giraud, “The Dominicans and Their Identity in Medieval Britain and Ireland: Evidence from Dominican Gospel Lections,” in Music and Liturgy in Medieval Britain and Ireland, ed. Ann Buckley and Lisa Colton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), 269–291. Giraud discusses the localization of the manuscript on p. 279, gives a brief description of its liturgical contents on p. 281, and discusses the epistle and gospel list throughout the chapter. Ruzzier 2022: Chiara Ruzzier, Entre Université et ordres mendiants, Manuscripta Biblica 8 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022). Ruzzier includes the manuscript on p. 234 as n. 695 in her “Liste des bibles complètes recensées” and on p. 275 in her list of “Bibles complètes consultées,” where she dates it to the second half of the 13th century and localizes it to Northern France or England.

8.8 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 16266 Summary: Bible with Dominican votive missal, epistle and gospel list, added calendar and added epistle and gospel list Dimensions: 152 x 97 mm; 657 leaves Origin: Paris (Ruzzier 2022) Date: 13th century, middle (Ruzzier 2022); liturgical texts likely before 1253

318 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Overview of Contents: 1r–2v: Blank leaves (with added notes on f. 1r) 3r–6v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 6v–572r: Bible (Gn–Apc) 572v–573v: Alexander Neckam, Corrogationes Promethei A–B (alphabetical version): Abyssus dicitur profunditas … Bethauem qui apud nos september (?) dicitur (Cf. S. 1162,2) 574r–618v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 618v: Expositores de morum librorum (List of commentators on various biblical books) 618v–619v: Various added texts, including excerpts from Ps. Augustinus, De conflictu vitiorum et virtutum 620r–621v: Continuation of Neckam, Corrogationes Promethei, C–E 622r–624v: Epistle and gospel list (Imperfect: missing two [?] leaves between 623 and 624, which is the center of a quire) 624v: Added notes 624v–635r: Preaching list 635r–638r: Votive missal 635r–636v: Votive masses 636v: Requiem mass 636v: Added Requiem formularies 637r–638r: Ordo Missae: Preface dialogue, Common Preface, canon, post-canon prayers. Added marginal commentary adapted from Innocent III, De missarum mysteriis 638r: Added St. Peter Martyr formulary 638v: Added notes 639r–642v: Continuation of Neckam, Corrogationes Promethei, F–V: Fiscella vasculum dictum … Vicissitudinis obumbratio qui supervenientia obunbrant natalia expellerunt gratia (?). 643r–645v: Blank leaves 646r–658v: Added calendar and epistle and gospel list 646r–655v: Calendar with integrated sanctoral epistle and gospel list 656r–658v: Temporal and votive epistle and gospel list (begins imperfectly) 658v: Common of Saints epistle and gospel list (later addition)

8.8.1 Introduction Paris, BnF, latin 16266 is a small bible with a votive missal that was likely produced in Paris around the middle of the thirteenth century for the use of a Dominican friar. It presents the biblical books in the Parisian order and contains the standard set of Parisian prologues with the addition of a “prologue” to Rm that is in fact a capitula list that occasionally appears in 13th-century bibles.117 The manuscript presents a mixed Vulgate text, including the Parisian “revertendi posita” variant in Rt 1:7 but omitting “vinum” in Iob 1:4.118 The manuscript contains a set of liturgical and preaching texts that were part of the original production unit as well as a calendar and epistle and gospel list that were a later addition. The original liturgical texts seem to represent Dominican usage, although several leaves are now missing between ff. 623 and 624 which may have offered more explicit evidence for this identification. The added liturgical texts are of undetermined liturgical origin but include additions that suggest use by a Dominican within the diocese of Chartres. Within the Psalter, a later hand added the incipits and book and chapter numbers of the liturgical Old Testament canticles in the margins (e.g., ff. 265v, 268v, 271r, 274r, 277r, 280r), an addition which suggests that the Psalter was used in a liturgical context of reciting the Divine Office.119 In addition to the liturgical paratexts, several other paratexts were added by several later hands, 117 See f. 510r–v. A version of the same capitula list is edited in de Bruyne 2014, pp. 314–319. The same list also appears in Cologne, Erzbischöfliche Diözesan- und Dombibliothek, Cod. 2, f. 296v (see https://digital.dombibliothek-koeln.de/hs/content/description/333375) and Claremont, Claremont Colleges, Honnold Library, Crispin 2, f. 445r–v (see Dutschke et al. 1986, p. 15). While the Claremont bible presents capitula lists for most of the biblical books, the Cologne bible, like Latin 16266, only includes a capitula list for Rm. 118 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, pp. 76–77. 119 For further discussion of canticle lists, see p. 191 above.

8.8 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 16266  

 319

including an unusual alphabetical version of Alexander Neckam’s Corrogationes Promethei spread out over several sections of originally blank leaves (ff. 572v–573v, 620r–621v, 639r–642v),120 a list of commentators on biblical books (f. 618v), and various other added texts (ff. 618v–619v and 624v). Following the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, an epistle and gospel list, a preaching list, and a votive missal are given as part of the original production unit of the bible. The epistle and gospel list is now missing (likely two) leaves, breaking off midway through the Vigil of Pentecost and resuming midway through the Common of Pastors, thus omitting the entire sanctoral cycle. The votive missal does not contain any sanctoral formularies in the original hand, but a formulary for St. Peter Martyr was added at some point after his canonization in 1253 (which suggests that the bible may have been made before 1253). Although the epistle and gospel list is now missing leaves that may have originally contained clear evidence for Dominican usage (such as an entry for the 24 May Translation of St. Dominic), careful comparison of the texts with other clearly Dominican missals provides strong evidence that the votive missal represents pre-Humbert Dominican usage. First, the Ordo Missae of the votive missal is virtually identical with that found in several other pre-Humbert Dominican missals, including the presence of atque omnium fidelium christianorum in the Memento domine of the canon.121 Second, the votive mass of the Holy Spirit contains a textual variant in the offertory chant otherwise only witnessed in pre-Humbert Dominican sources.122 Finally, the Requiem formulary on f. 636v contains a rubric with unusual wording that is remarkably similar to rubrics found in several pre-Humbert Dominican missals and bible missals.123 In addition to its significance as a source for understanding the pre-Humbert Ordo Missae, the manuscript is notable for its inclusion of a set of glosses on the text of the Roman Canon added in the margins of f. 637r–v. These glosses are adapted from the De missarum mysteriis written by Lothario de Segnis shortly before his election as Pope Innocent III. In some cases, the marginal glosses consist of direct quotations from Innocent III,124 while in other cases the glosses present summaries of Innocent’s commentary.125 The presence of these glosses suggests that the manuscript may have been used for studying the text and meaning of the canon in addition to possible direct uses of the manuscript in the liturgy itself.126 At some point after the initial production of the manuscript, two quires were added after the original votive missal which contain further liturgical texts. The first of these quires presents a calendar which has the unusual feature of

120 For brief details and bibliography about this text and a list of other manuscripts where versions of it appear, see https://www.arlima.net/ad/ alexander_neckam.html#corrogationes-promethei-metrice. 121 This feature is not unique to Dominican sources but is a characteristic feature of most pre-Humbert sources; see p. 165 above. 122 See f. 635rv. The offertory chant Confirma hoc deus includes the word “sancto” after “templo,” an interpolation which I have only identified in pre-Humbert Dominican liturgical sources for the votive mass of the Holy Spirit. In addition to this variant, the entrance chant Spiritus domini provides the verse Confirma hoc deus instead of Omnium enim est artifex or Exurgat; this variant is not exclusive to Dominican sources, but its presence together with the offertory variant supports the Dominican identification. For further details on these features, see pp. 106–109, 115–118 above. 123 Before the tract Absolve domine on f. 636v, the following rubric is provided: “Tractus iste in die animarum a duobus cantetur et ad horas et ad missam dicitur oratio fidelium deus.” Before the gradual Si ambulem, the following rubric is provided: “Pro presente defuncto et quando specialiter pro aliquo defuncto celebratur anniversarium.” These rubrics are similar to those found in the Dominican bible missal Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 554v (“Tractus Absolve domine a duobus cantetur.”) and the pre-Humbert Dominican missals Lausanne, MHL 10, f. 174v (“Hic tractus hac die a duobus cantetur. Pro presente defuncto et quando specialiter pro aliquo defuncto anniversarium celebratur. Responsorium. Si ambulem”), Mons, BC 63/201, f. 237v (“Tractus iste a duobus hac die cantetur.”), and Paris, BnF, latin 8884, f, 245r (“Hic tractus hac die a duobus cantetur pro presente defuncto, et quando specialiter pro aliquo defuncto anniversarium celebratur. R. Si ambulem”). Notably, the liturgical reform of Humbert adjusted the earlier Dominican practice of having two friars sing the tract by instructing four brothers to sing the tract, with two pairs of friars alternating the verses; see Guerrini 1921, p. 213, n. 902: “Praedictum Responsorium et Tractus dicantur quando pro pluribus celebratur. In tribus autem Anniversariis Ordinis Responsorium a duobus et Tractus a quatuor cantetur binis et binis.” 124 Paris, BnF, latin 16266, f. 637r, upper margin, left side: “Dignum, quia nos mera voluntate fecisti. Iustum quia nos pura misericordia redemisti. Equum quia gratuito nos vivificas. Salutare quia perpetuo nos glorificas.” This is a direct quotation from De missarum mysteriis, ed. Wright 1977, p. 173, lines 474–476, although in Wright’s edition “justificas” appears in place of “vivificas.” 125 Paris, BnF, latin 16266, f. 637r, upper margin, right side: “Eterno ad patrem. Vero ad filium. Vivo ad spiritus sanctus. Vel in simbolo misse credo in spiritum sanctum dominum et vivificantem.” This is a summary of De missarum mysteriis, ed. Wright 1977, p. 197, lines 359–368: “Quapropter ita potest non indiscrete distingui, cum dicitur: Aeterno Deo, vivo et vero, ut quod est commune secundum essentiam, approprietur propter notitiam. Aeternitas Patri, ratione principii, quia Pater a nullo est, et omnia sunt ab eo; Filius per generationem; Spiritus Sanctus per processionem, cetera per creationem. Veritas Filio, quia de se dicit: Ego sum … veritas (Jo 14:6); et de quo dicit psalmista: Veritas de terra orta est (Ps 84:12). Vita Spiritui Sancto, sicut habetur in Symbola: Credo … in Spiritum Sanctum Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.” 126 See p. 198 above.

320 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

integrating an epistle and gospel list together with the names and dates of the sanctoral feasts. The second quire (which begins imperfectly) provides an epistle and gospel list for temporal feasts, beginning imperfectly with the Second Sunday of Lent; this list is contemporary with the sanctoral list in the preceding quire, but is supplemented at the end with a list of readings for the Common of Saints added by a slightly later hand. The added calendar was identified by Delisle 1870, p. 135 as “un calendrier à l’usage de l’église de Chartres,” presumably due to the 17 October entry Dedicatio ecclesie marie cartonensis ix lect. on f. 653v,127 although this entry appears to be a later addition.128 The added calendar/epistle and gospel list includes Beati petri martyris on f. 649v in what seems to be the original hand, but it is not clear whether it was originally a Dominican calendar, a question which is made more difficult to answer due to the loss of the leaves with August and September. The calendar includes various added Dominican entries (e.g., the 7 March feast of Thomas Aquinas [canonized 1323] on f. 648r, the 4 May feast of the Crown of Thorns on f. 650r, and the 24 May Translation of St. Dominic on f. 650v). Unusual elements of the calendar which may be helpful for the identification of the liturgical tradition of the calendar include the inclusion of Dyonisii episcopi et martyris as a III Lectionum feast on October 3 in addition to Dyonisii sociorumque eius as a Totum Duplex feast on October 9 on f. 653r (although it is possible that these two entries are from different hands) as well as Conceptio beate marie on December 8.

8.8.2 Plates Figure 38 Paris, BnF, latin 16266, f. 6v (Gn), p. 321 Figure 39 Paris, BnF, latin 16266, f. 635r (Votive Missal Formularies), p. 322 Figure 40 Paris, BnF, latin 16266, f. 637r (Roman Canon with Commentary Added in the Margins), p. 323

8.8.3 Liturgical Texts Paris, BnF, latin 16266 contains two sets of liturgical texts at the end of the manuscript. The first set is original to the manuscript and the second set is a later addition. The original set contains an epistle and gospel list (now missing several folios), a preaching list, and a votive missal. The added set consists of a calendar with an integrated epistle and gospel list for the sanctoral cycle as well as an additional list of readings for temporal occasions. The original epistle and gospel list on ff. 622r–624v provides the book title, chapter number, section letter, and incipit for each reading; some readings are also provided with an explicit. Readings are provided from the First Sunday of Advent through the Vigil of Pentecost, when the list breaks off due to the loss of (likely two) leaves between ff. 623 and 624. This section of the list contains several significant scribal errors. After the first reading for the Epiphany is given on f. 622r, the proper gospel is omitted and readings for the Sunday within the Octave of Epiphany are then provided without a rubric, followed by a rubric and readings for the Octave of the Epiphany. Likewise, readings were originally omitted for the Monday after the Third Sunday of Lent on f. 622v but were added in the upper margin by a relatively early hand. After the lacuna, the epistle and gospel list resumes on f. 624r midway through the readings for the Common of Confessors, then provides readings for the Common of Virgins and various votive masses. After the end of the epistle and gospel list, a preaching list (Incipiunt themata) appears on ff. 624v–635r, providing scriptural passages for homilies on a variety of occasions from the temporal and sanctoral cycles as well as the Common of Saints.129 127 According to Fassler 2010, p. 175, the dedication of Chartres Cathedral was originally celebrated on May 13, but after the dedication of a new church in 1030s the dedication was henceforth celebrated on October 17. 128 Light 2013 describes this section as follows: “ff. 646r–655v, calendar, in another hand possibly later (August now missing; Francis possibly original; with other Franciscan and Dominican feasts added, and a dedication of the church at Chartres, also added).” The added calendar/epistle and gospel list is complex and deserves further study, but it appears to me that the dedication entry is a later addition. 129 The list includes the following occasions: In vigilia natalis domini, In cena domini, In parasceve, In die pasce, In die pentecostes, In annunciatione, In assumptione, Item de beata virgine, De sancto nicholao, Sancti thome apostoli, Sancti vincentii, In conversione sancti pauli, In cathedra sancti petri, Marci evangeliste, Philippi et iacobi, In inventione sancte crucis, Sancti barnabe apostoli, Sancti iohannis baptiste, Sancti petri apostoli, Sancti pauli, Sancti petri et pauli, Margarete virginis, Magdalene [written over an erasure], De vincula sancti petri, Sancti iacobi apostoli, De sancto laurentio, De sancto bartholomeo, In exaltatione sancte crucis, Sancti mathei apostoli, Sancti michaelis, Sancti francisci, Sancti luce evangeliste, Symonis et iude, Omnium sanctorum, In die animarum, Sancti martini, Sancti clementis, Sancte katherine, Sancte cecilie virginis,

8.8 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 16266  

 321

Figure 38: Paris, BnF, latin 16266, f. 6v (Gn).

The votive missal on ff. 635r–638r begins with a small selection of votive masses for the Holy Trinity, Holy Spirit, Holy Cross, as well as two Marian formularies and a Requiem mass. Two sets of orations for the dead were added by a later hand. A different hand added a formulary for St. Peter Martyr. The added liturgical texts appear on two added quires at the end of the manuscript. The calendar with an integrated sanctoral epistle and gospel list appears on ff. 646r–655v and is missing two leaves between ff. 652v and 653r which originally contained the months of August and September. Each entry contains the name of the feast and liturgical rank, followed by two additional columns that provide the biblical book, chapter number, section letter, incipit and explicit for the epistle and gospel of each feast. As discussed in the Introduction, the calendar-reading list contains some added Dominican elements, but it is not clear that it was originally a Dominican calendar. The calendar is followed by a temporal and votive epistle and gospel list on ff. 656r–658v that begins on a new quire but seems to be part of the same production

Evangelistarum, De apostolis, Unius martyris, Plurimorum martyrum, Unius confessoris pontificis, Unius confessoris et doctoris, Plurimorum confessorum, Unius virginis et martyris, Plurimorum virginum non martyrum, Plurimorum virginum, In translatione sanctorum, In dedicatione ecclesie. (It is noteworthy that St. Cecilia [22 November] appears after St. Catherine of Alexandria [25 November].)

322 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 39: Paris, BnF, latin 16266, f. 635r (Votive Missal Formularies).

unit as the calendar. This list begins imperfectly with readings for the Second Sunday of Lent, and continues through the 25th Sunday after Pentecost, then provides a set of readings for votive masses. On f. 657v, a later hand added readings for the feast of Corpus Christi in the lower margin. On f. 658v, in space left blank after the end of the temporal and votive epistle and gospel list, a later hand added a Common of Saints epistle and gospel list.

8.8.4 Provenance The manuscript was likely produced in Paris in the mid-13th century for a Dominican friar. The bible was likely used by someone (possibly a Dominican) living in Chartres, given the added entry for the 17 October dedication of the Chartres cathedral in the calendar on f. 653v. In 1787, it was acquired by Antoine-Auguste-Lambert Gayet de Sansale (1729–1792?), librarian of the Sorbonne in the 1780s through 1792, who wrote a long inscription on the recto of the second flyleaf

8.8 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 16266  

 323

Figure 40: Paris, BnF, latin 16266, f. 637r (Roman Canon with Commentary Added in the Margins).

and gave the manuscript the shelfmark “No. 21. b” found on the verso of the first flyleaf.130 After the suppression of the Sorbonne, the manuscript eventually entered the collection of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, along with a large number of other manuscripts now numbered Latin 15176–16718 (see Delisle 1870).

8.8.5 Material Features Binding dimensions: 167 x 115 x 65 mm Binding: Late 18th-/early 19th-century, after 1787. Bound in full leather over paper (?) boards with gold tooling on the spine and covers. “BIBLIA / SACRA / MANUSCRIT / SUR VELIN / BIBLIOTHEQUE SORBONNE” printed on the spine together with three stamps of the Sorbonne. Dimensions of leaves: 152 x 97 mm

130 On Gayet de Sansale and the Sorbonne, see Franklin 1867, pp. 297–300; cf. the entry in the Bibale database at https://bibale.irht.cnrs.fr/29544.

324 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Material of leaves: Parchment Number of leaves: Four medieval parchment flyleaves + 657 Foliation (Modern): Two unfoliated parchment flyleaves, two parchment flyleaves foliated 1–2, parchment leaves foliated 3–254, 256–658 (255 is skipped due to an error in the modern foliation), two unfoliated parchment leaves Foliation (Medieval): n/a Secundo folio: et prophetis (4r) Quires: The manuscript is mostly made up of quires of 24 leaves. Quire 24, which concludes the main bible section, is 18 leaves. Quires 25 and 26, which return to the 24-leaf pattern, are a modular unit which presents the Interpretations of Hebrew Names. Quire 27, which contains the original epistle and gospel list and the beginning of the preaching list, currently has four leaves, but is missing at least two leaves at the center of the quire (between ff. 623 and 624) with loss of text. Quire 28, which contains the end of the preaching list and the votive missal, is a quire of 20 leaves. Quire 29, which contains the added calendar, was originally 12 leaves, but 2 were cut out between 652 and 653 with loss of text and visible stubs. Quire 30, which was added at the same time as quire 29, may have originally been 8 leaves; at least one is missing with loss of text at the opening of the quire (before f. 656) and two appear to be missing after the last unfoliated leaf. Quire marks: Leaf signatures are visible in red in the lower right corner of several quires (10–12, 17–18, 20). Layout B: c. 107 x 70 mm; 47–48 lines in two columns [33 + 33] 3r–572r (Bible) 574r–618v (Interpretations of Hebrew Names) 622r–624v (Epistle and gospel list) 624v–635r (Preaching list) 635r–638r (Votive missal) C: c. 120 x 85 mm; 48 lines in one main column 646r–655v (Added calendar with integrated sanctoral epistle and gospel list) E: c. 108 x 70 mm; 48 lines in three columns [12 + 25 + 25] N1: c. 117 x 77 mm; 51–54 lines in two columns [37 + 35] 572v–573v, 639r–642v (Alexander Neckam, Corrogationes Promethei) N2: c. 124 x 78 mm; 61 lines in two columns [37 + 37] 620r–621v (Alexander Neckam, Corrogationes Promethei Script: Northern textualis.

8.8.6 Artistic Decoration Running Header: Names of biblical books in alternating red and blue capitals with decorative lines on the right and left (with the exception of Psalms, the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, and liturgical and preaching texts, which have no running header). Biblical Books: Decorated initials; rubrics for the incipits. Biblical Prologues: Historiated Frater ambrosius initial; littera duplex initials; rubrics for the incipits. Biblical Chapters: Two-line red or blue flourished initials; chapter numbers in alternating red and blue capitals in the column. Biblical Text: Consistent use of highlighting for beginning of sentences. Psalms: Decorated initials for Ps 1, Ps 26, Ps 38, Ps 52, Ps 68, Ps 80, Ps 97, 109; two-line flourished initials for other psalms; single-line red or blue initials for psalm verses. The psalms are numbered with Roman numerals in black ink in the margins by a later hand. Liturgical Texts: Littera duplex initials for the Per omnia and Te igitur; two-line flourished initials for most texts; in the epistle and gospel list, only red initials and highlights are used. Other: N/a

8.8 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 16266  

 325

8.8.7 Quires and Contents Quires

Range

Content

Four parchment flyleaves; first two unfoliated (A, B), followed by ff. 1–2 (4)

[A]r

“Volume de 658 Feuillets. Le Feuiller 434 Mutilé. Les Feuillets 643–645 sont blancs. 28 Juin 1869.”

[A]v

“No. 21. b.”

[B]r

Provenance note from Gayet de Sansale describing the acquisition of the bible in 1787 and giving overview of its contents.

[B]v

Blank page

1r

Medieval note

1v–2v

Blank pages

Q1: 3–26 (24)

3ra–5vb

S. 284 (Historiated initial: Jerome writing; Jerome is depicted wearing a dark grey cloak and hood over a white tunic)

Layout B

5vb–6va

S. 285

6va–28rb

Gn

Q2: 27–50 (24) Q3: 51–74 (24) Q4: 75–98 (24)

Q5: 99–122 (24)

Q6: 123–146 (24) Q7: 147–170 (24) Q8: 171–194 (24)

Q9: 195–218 (24)

Q10: 219–242 (24)

28rb–46vb

Ex

46vb–59rb

Lv

59rb–77rb

Nm

77rb–93vb

Dt

93vb–94ra

S. 311

94rb–105va

Ios

105va–117ra

Idc

117ra–118va

Rt

118vb–119va

S. 323

119va–135rb

I Rg

135va–148rb

II Rg

148rb–163va

III Rg

163va–177vb

IV Rg

177vb–178rb

S. 328

178rb–191vb

I Par

191vb–192rb

S. 327

192rb–209rb

II Par

209rb–va

Or Man

209va–210ra

S. 330

210ra–214va

I Esr

214va–221rb

II Esr [labelled Neh]

221rb–228rb

III Esr [labelled II Esr]

228rb–va

S. 332

228va–233ra

Tb

233rb

S. 335

233rb–239rb

Idt

239va

S. 341 + S. 343

326 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires Q11: 243–267 (24) [NB: the foliation mistakenly omits “255”] Q12: 268–291 (24)

Q13: 292–315 (24)

Q14: 316–339 (24)

Q15: 340–363 (24) Q16: 364–387 (24)

Q17: 388–411 (24)

Q18: 412–435 (24)

Range

Content

239va–245rb

Est

245rb–246ra

S. 344

246ra–rb

S. 357

246rb–258vb

Iob

259ra–286rb

Ps (Decorated initials for Ps 1 [259ra], Ps 26 [263rb], Ps 38 [265vb], Ps 52 [268va], Ps 68 [271ra], Ps 80 [274rb], Ps 97 [277rb], and Ps 109 [280rb]. Indications for the Old Testament liturgical canticles added in the margins on ff. 265v, 268v, 271r, 274r, 277r, 280r.)

286rb–va

S. 457

286va–296ra

Prv

296ra–rb

S. 462

296rb–299va

Ecl

299va–301rb

Ct

301rb

S. 468

301rb–308rb

Sap

308rb–327ra

Sir (Prologus presented like a biblical prologue; Sir 1 [Omnis sapientia] begins on f. 308va with a decorated initial)

327ra–328va

S. 482

328va–349va

Is

349va–vb

S. 487

349vb–375rb

Ier

375rb–377va

Lam ( Lam 5:1 [Oratio ieremie] starts with littera duplex initial on f. 377v)

377va–vb

S. 491

377vb–380vb

Bar

380vb–381ra

S. 492

381ra–404ra

Ez

404ra–va

S. 494

404va–414ra

Dn

414ra

S. 500

414ra–rb

S. 507

414rb–417va

Os

417va–vb

S. 511

417vb

S. 510

417vb–419ra

Ioel

419ra–rb

S. 515

419rb

S. 512

419rb–va

S. 513

419va–422ra

Am

422ra–rb

S. 519 + S. 517

422rb–va

Abd

422va–vb

S. 524

8.8 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 16266  

 327

(continued) Quires

Q19: 436–459 (24)

Q20: 460–483 (24)

Q21: 484–507 (24)

Q22: 508–531 (24)

Range

Content

422vb

S. 521

422vb–423va

Ion

423va–vb

S. 526

423vb–425va

Mi

425va–vb

S. 528

425vb–426va

Na

426va–427rb

S. 531

427rb–428ra

Hab

428ra–va

S. 534

428va–429rb

So

429rb–vb

S. 538

429vb–430rb

Agg

430rb–vb

S. 539

430vb–434rb

Za

434rb–va

S. 543

434va–435va

Mal

435va–436ra

S. 547

436ra–rb

S. 553

436rb

S. 551

436rb–450va

I Mcc

450va–460rb

II Mcc

460rb–va

S. 590

460va–vb

S. 589

460vb–474va

Mt

474va–vb

S. 607

474vb–483va

Mc

483va–vb

S. 620

483vb–498vb

Lc (Lc 1:1–4 presented as a prologue with a littera duplex initial; Lc 1:5 begins with decorated initial)

498vb–499ra

S. 624

499ra–510rb

Io

510rb–va

Incipit prologus in epistola ad romanos. Paulus vocatus apostolicus fidem romanorum predicare … et ceteris adiutoribus eius. (Capitula list for Rm, ed. de Bruyne 2014, pp. 314–319. The list is given here as a continuous text without number divisions.)

510va–vb

S. 677

510vb–516rb

Rm

516rb

S. 685

516rb–521va

I Cor

521vb

S. 699

521vb–525rb

II Cor

525rb

S. 707

328 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Q23: 532–555 (24)

Q24: 556–573 (18)

Layout N1

Range

Content

525rb–527rb

Gal

527rb

S. 715

527rb–529ra

Eph

529ra

S. 728

529ra–530va

Phil

530va

S. 736

530va–531vb

Col

531vb

S. 747

531vb–533ra

I Th

533ra

S. 752

533ra–vb

II Th

533vb

S. 765

533vb–535rb

I Tim

535rb

S. 772

535rb–536rb

II Tim

536va

S. 780

536va–537ra

Tit

537ra

S. 783

537ra–rb

Phlm

537rb–va

S. 793

537va–541vb

Hbr

541vb–ra

S. 640

541ra–557va

Act

557va–vb

S. 809

557vb–559rb

Iac

559rb–560vb

I Pt

560vb–561vb

II Pt

561vb–563rb

I Io

563rb–va

II Io

563va–vb

III Io

563vb–564rb

Iud

564rb–vb

S. 839

564vb–572ra

Apc

572ra

Blank space: 26 lines

572rb

Blank space: 1 column

572va–573vb

[Later addition in textualis currens] Alexander Neckam, Corrogationes Promethei (alphabetical version): Abyssus dicitur profunditas … Bethauem qui apud nos september (?) dicitur (Cf. S. 1162,2)

8.8 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 16266  

 329

(continued) Quires

Range

Content

Q25: 574–597 (24) Layout B

574ra–618va

Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim)

618va

[Later addition in textualis] Expositores de morum librorum (List of commentators on various biblical books)

618vb–619vb

[Later addition in textualis; same hand as previous item] Various added texts, including excerpts from Ps. Augustinus, De conflictu vitiorum et virtutum

Layout N2

620ra–621vb

[Later addition in textualis currens] Continuation of Neckam, Corrogationes Promethei, C–E

Q27: 622–625 (6?-2? [between 623 and 624]) Layout B

622ra–624va

Epistle and gospel list (missing text between ff. 623 and 624)

624va

[Later addition in cursiva] Gregorius in omelia ascensionis

624vb–635ra

Incipiunt thematha in vigilia natalis domini [Preaching list]

635ra–b

[Votive missal] Missa de sancta trinitate

635rb–va

Missa de sancto spiritu

635va–b

Missa de cruce

635vb–636ra

Missa de beata virgine in adventu. Omnia que hic desunt in annunciatione reperietur.

636ra–va

Missa de sancta Maria in sabbatis a Deus omnium usque adventum

636va

Missa pro defunctis

636va–b

Pro episcopo [added in later hand]

636vb

[Added Requiem mass]

637ra

[Common preface]

637ra–vb

[Canon]

637vb–638ra

[Post-canon Ordo Missae]

638ra

[Added orations for St. Peter Martyr]

638rb

Blank space: 1 column

638va–638vb

Added notes

639ra–642va

[Later addition in textualis currens] Continuation of Neckam, Corrogationes Promethei, F–V

642va

Blank space: 15 lines

642vb

Blank space: 1 column

Q26: 598–621 (24)

Q28: 626–645 (20)

Layout N1

643r–645v

Blank leaves

Q29: 646–655 (12-2 [between 652 and 653, with loss of text; stubs visible]) Layout C

646r–655v

Added calendar with integrated sanctoral epistle and gospel list (missing two folios between ff. 652 and 653)

Q30: 656–568, two unfoliated leaves [not labelled; pasted to end label] (8?-3? [-1 before 626 and -2 after last unfoliated leaf?]) Layout E

656r–658v

Added temporal and votive epistle and gospel list (begins imperfectly)

658v

Added Common of Saints epistle and gospel list (added after previous item)

330 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

8.8.8 Bibliography Delisle 1870: Léopold Delisle, “Inventaire des manuscrits latins de la Sorbonne, conservés à la Bibliothèque impériale sous les numéros 15176–16718 du fonds latin,” Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes 31 (1870): 1–50, 135–61. On p. 135, Delisle includes the manuscript as part of a list of ten small 13th-century bibles (Paris, BnF, latin 16258–16268). Delisle highlights the present of “un calendrier à l’usage de l’église de Chartres” at the end of Latin 16266. Light 1984: Laura Light, “Versions et révisions du texte biblique,” in Le Moyen Age et la Bible, ed. Pierre Riché and Guy Lobrichon, Bible de tous les temps 4 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1984), 55–93. On p. 89n111, Light mentions that the manuscript contains tables of liturgical readings, preaching themes, and a calendar. Light 2013: Laura Light, “The Thirteenth-Century Pandect and the Liturgy: Bibles with Missals,” in Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, ed. Eyal Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 185–215. Light provides a short description of the manuscript on pp. 209–210, dating it to the second quarter to middle of the 13th century. Light notes that the epistle and gospel list is contemporary with the bible and that it represents “OP or secular use on the continent,” but refrains from identifying a liturgical use for the missal portion (“original use unknown; later used at Chartres?”). Ruzzier 2022: Chiara Ruzzier, Entre Université et ordres mendiants, Manuscripta Biblica 8 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022). Ruzzier includes the manuscript on p. 235 as n. 756 in her “Liste des bibles complètes recensées.” Ruzzier provides basic details about the manuscript on p. 276 in her list of “Bibles complètes consultées.”

8.9 Pisa, Biblioteca Cathariniana, MS 177 Summary: Bible with Dominican festive missal, epistle and gospel list, and preaching lists Dimensions: 168 x 120 mm; 400 leaves Origin: Italy Date: 13th century, second quarter (liturgical texts datable c. 1234–1244) Overview of Contents: 1r–v: Blank medieval flyleaf 2r: Added list of biblical books 2v: Added provenance notes 3r–4r: [Text on the creed]: Fundamentum nemo potest ponere 4r–6r: Preaching list of scripture verses 6r–10r: Preaching list of saints, seasons and occasions 10v: [Added text]: Iesu dulcis memoria 11r–12r: [Added text]: Salve virgo virginum 12v: Blank page with added notes 13r–274v: Bible (Gn–II Mcc) 274v: [Added text]: Guide to the Gospel of Matthew 274v: [Added text]: O vita vivens et vivificans omnia 274v: [Added text]: O superdea et eterna trinitas 274v: [Added text]: Obsecro te mediatrix iocunditatis 274v–275v: [Added text]: Index of the gospels: De conceptione precursoris domini. Lucas I. … cantando laudes matutinas. (Cf. S. 8599 and S. 8675) 276r–v: Blank leaf 277r–342v: Bible (Mt–Hbr) 343r–345r: Epistle and gospel list (mostly erased) 345v–347r: Blank leaves 347v–348v: [Added text]: Catena of patristic sources 349ra–387va: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 388r–v: Blank leaf

8.9 Pisa, Biblioteca Cathariniana, MS 177  

 331

389r–402v: Dominican festive missal 389r–393v: Selected temporal masses: Advent–Pentecost 393v–395v: Selected sanctoral masses: St. Andrew–All Saints’ Day 395v–398r: Votive masses 398r–399r: Requiem masses 399r–400r: Ordo Missae with notated Common Preface, canon, and post-canon prayers 400v: Sanctoral formulary for St. Catherine of Alexandria 400v–402r: Common of Saints 402r: Sanctoral formulary for St. Lawrence 402r–v: Ordo Missae: Communicantes and Hanc igitur texts 402v: Ordo Missae: Prefaces 402v: Exorcismum salis

8.9.1 Introduction Pisa, Cathariniana 177 is a small bible with a festive missal. It was likely produced in Italy in the second quarter of the thirteenth century for the use of a Dominican friar, judging from the quire structure (predominantly using quires of 12 leaves),131 script and decoration and the original inclusion of liturgical texts for St. Dominic.132 The bible includes two historiated initials (the opening Frater ambrosius prologue and Gn) and otherwise mostly uses decorated initials for biblical books and decorated or flourished initials for biblical prologues. The order and selection of biblical books and prologues is unusual, differing widely from the Parisian order and not matching any of the orders of biblical books inventoried by Chiara Ruzzier.133 In addition to presenting a non-Parisian Vulgate text,134 the bible is notable for including the apocryphal Confessio Esdrae (IV Esr 8:20–36) between II Esr and III Esr,135 omitting the Or Man after II Par,136 and presenting the New Testament books in an unusual order (Gospels, Apc, Act, Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles).137 The biblical prologues differ widely from the Parisian set, notably providing separate prologues for each of the Catholic Epistles. In addition to the main biblical text, the manuscript includes several sets of liturgical and preaching paratexts. In the opening quire of the manuscript, which is possibly a 13th-century addition but possibly part of the original production unit, a text on the creed and two sets of preaching aids are provided.138 The first preaching list provides scriptural authorities for various theological themes. The second provides scriptural verses connected to various saints, liturgical seasons, and 131 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, p. 106. 132 The manuscript is dated to the second half of the 13th century by Caleca 1994, p. 29 (on artistic grounds) and by Gimeno Blay 2020, p. 27 (based on the script). Neither author considers the evidence offered by the liturgical texts in the festive missal. Caleca’s dating does not appear well founded, as it is based on comparison with only one other manuscript, Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, MS. W.152. Raffaelli 1993, p. 32, dates the festive missal portion of the manuscript to the end of the 13th century, but the evidence for his dating is not explained; this late dating does not seem plausible in light of the pre-Humbert liturgical contents of the festive missal. 133 See Ruzzier 2022, pp. 279–282; cf. Tableau 14 on p. 53. 134 The manuscript includes the non-Parisian “posita revertendi” variant in Rt 1:7 and omits “vinum” in Iob 1:4; cf. Ruzzier 2022, pp. 76–77. 135 On the Confessio Esdrae, see Bogaert 2014, pp. 80–88. The Pisa manuscript is not included in Bogaert’s list of manuscripts with the Confessio on pp. 94–95; cf. p. 94n130: “La présence de la Confessio Esdrae dans des bibles est suffisamment rare et localisée pour mériter l’attention des catalographes. Il faut espérer que la présente liste appellera des compléments.” For the broader text IV Esdras from which the Confessio is excerpted, see Bogaert 2015. 136 According to Ruzzier 2022, p. 191, Or Man is very frequently absent in Italian bibles (72%). 137 Paris, BnF, latin 165, an Italian bible from the first quarter of the 13th century, gives the New Testament books in an identical order, but differs significantly in the order of Old Testament books; see Ruzzier 2022, pp. 274, 281. The unusual order of the New Testament books is likely the reason Sorbelli 1916 (followed by Miriello 2004) described the bible as being incomplete, perhaps making a hasty judgment based on the absence of Apc at the end of the bible section. 138 Gimeno Blay 2020, pp. 32–36 provides a partial edition of these texts. Gimeno Blay suggests on p. 28 that these texts were perhaps written in the 14th century, but judging from their script and use of the same layout as the opening section of the bible I think they may belong to the original production unit. Antist 1591 and Diago 1600 believed that these texts were composed by St. Vincent Ferrer, but they obviously predate his ownership and are similar to other preaching lists such as Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, ff. 519r–521v, Paris, BnF, latin 16266, ff. 624v–635r, and Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst., ff. 410v–413v. For a discussion of preaching lists in 13th-century bibles, see Light 2011a, pp. 178–179.

332 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

occasions. At the end of the quire which concludes the Old Testament (Quire 23), a series of paratexts and devotional prayers were added by a later hand; these include a partial guide to the Gospel of Matthew and an index of the gospels related but not identical to S. 8599 and S. 8675. In the final quire of the main biblical text (Quire 29), an epistle and gospel list was written but later mostly erased; it is now difficult to decipher more than a few words. It is unclear whether this list was an original part of the biblical production unit or if it was a later addition on space left blank at the end of the quire. Following the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, a Dominican festive missal appears. This festive missal was clearly written after 1234, as it includes St. Dominic in the original hand. The manuscript presents the original version of Dominic’s collect (with meritis et exemplis), rather than the revised version introduced around 1244 (with meritis et doctrinis).139 The manuscript does not include any reference to St. Peter Martyr, which suggests that it was written before 1253. Among other details, the missal is notable for its inclusion of musical notation for the preface dialogue and Common Preface within the Ordo Missae, a feature which it shares with the Dominican bible missals Paris, BnF, latin 163 and the Private Collection “Wellington Bible.” Another distinctive feature of the Ordo Missae is the use of red ink for the “words of consecration” within the canon (f. 400r; see Figure 44 on p. 365 below). The manuscript is particularly notable for its connection with the Dominican friar St. Vincent Ferrer (1350–1419). On f. 2v, several provenance notes appear which testify that the manuscript was owned by Vincent and was given by him to fr. Antonio d’Auria (who personally wrote one of the notes testifying to the gift). It was in turn owned by several Dominican friars before being donated by fr. Amadeo da Pisa to the Dominican priory of Pisa at some point after Vincent’s canonization in 1455, where it is still preserved today (despite the suppression of the priory in 1784 and its transformation into the archdiocesan seminary of Pisa).140 The Pisa bible missal is one of three portable bibles with a credible association with Vincent Ferrer; the other two are Valencia, Archivo de la Catedral, MS 304, and Salamanca, Convento de San Esteban, sine numero.141 As the Bibliography below demonstrates, the Pisa bible was an object of interest for the next several centuries, with several scholars giving first-hand descriptions of the bible and its preaching paratexts. In light of St. Vincent Ferrer’s own testimony that he would solemnly celebrate the mass each day with singing (missam cum nota solemniter celebrare), even when in the midst of busy preaching tours,142 as well as the testimony of Johannes Inardi at Vincent’s canonization process that Vincent “possessed nothing besides one small bible, breviary, psalter, and writing desk [scriptorium],”143 it is striking to consider that Vincent may have used this very bible missal to sing the mass during his preaching missions.

8.9.2 Plates Figure 41 Pisa, Cathariniana 177, f. 15r (Gn), p. 333 Figure 42 Pisa, Cathariniana 177, f. 395r (Festive Missal Formularies), p. 334 Figure 43 Pisa, Cathariniana 177, f. 399v (Roman Canon), p. 335 Figure 44 Pisa, Cathariniana 177, f. 400r (Roman Canon), p. 336

8.9.3 Liturgical Texts Pisa, Cathariniana 177 contains two main liturgical sections: an epistle and gospel list on ff. 343v–345r that has been mostly erased, and a Dominican festive missal on ff. 389r–402v. A few entries on the epistle and gospel list are partially

139 For further details, see the discussion of the St. Dominic collect on pp. 62–64 above. 140 For a thorough discussion of the provenance and transcriptions of the provenance notes, see Gimeno Blay 2020. 141 For bibliography on these manuscripts see Gimeno Blay 2020, p. 26, notes 38 and 39. Without attempting to adjudicate the question of whether any of the marginal annotations contained in these three bibles can be confidently ascribed to St. Vincent Ferrer, I would note the critical observations regarding Gimeno Blay’s earlier publications on this theme articulated by Perarnau i Espelt 1999, pp. 55–58. 142 See Vincent Ferrer’s letter of 14 December 1403 to the Master of the Order, cited in Gimeno Blay 2020, p. 23: “Quotidie me oportuit circumfluentibus undique populis predicare, et frequentissime bis in die, necnon et ter aliquando, imo et missam cum nota solemniter celebrare, ita quod itinerationi, comestioni, et dormitioni, et aliis pertinentiis vix mihi superest tempus.” 143 Cited in Gimeno Blay 2020, p. 24: “nihil possidebat nisi unam parvam Bibliam, Breviarium, Psalterium et scriptorium.” For the full text of this testimony, see Esponera Cerdán 2018, p. 545. For a discussion of the meaning of the word scriptorium in this context, see Gimeno Blay 2020, pp. 24–25.

8.9 Pisa, Biblioteca Cathariniana, MS 177  

 333

Figure 41: Pisa, Cathariniana 177, f. 15r (Gn).

legible; these include the names Bartholomei and Augustini in the middle column on f. 345r.144 Although the individual entries are difficult to decipher, the list appears to include a full temporal and sanctoral cycle of readings with both incipits and explicits. It is not presently possible to determine whether the list represents a Dominican cycle of readings, although it seems likely that it does in light of the presence of other Dominican liturgical texts. The festive missal provides selected feasts of the temporal and sanctoral cycle, a selection of votive and Requiem masses, and an Ordo Missae that begins with the preface and includes musical notation for the preface dialogue and

144 It is possible that the use of multispectral imaging or UV light might be able to reveal some of the erased entries, although certain parts appear to have been so heavily scratched out that complete recovery may be impossible.

334 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 42: Pisa, Cathariniana 177, f. 395r (Festive Missal Formularies).

Common Preface. The formularies in the festive missal provide full texts for the proper chants (without musical notation), full texts for the orations, and references to the biblical book, chapter, and incipit for the epistle and gospel readings. The selection of temporal and sanctoral masses suggests that the festive missal was copied from a source that contained a fuller selection of formularies, i.e., a Dominican full missal. The clearest evidence for this hypothesis is that texts for Monday and Tuesday are provided following the Second Sunday of Lent, while for the other weeks of Lent only the Sunday formularies are given. This suggests that the scribe was copying from a full missal with the intention of only providing the Sunday formularies but accidently included these two formularies rather than skipping to the next Sunday as in the other cases. The only other case of weekday formularies being provided is in the case of Holy Week, where texts are provided for each day between Palm Sunday and Holy Saturday; in this case it seems likely that the inclusion is intentional given the importance of these days in the liturgical year.

8.9 Pisa, Biblioteca Cathariniana, MS 177  

 335

Figure 43: Pisa, Cathariniana 177, f. 399v (Roman Canon).

Further evidence that a full missal served as the exemplar for the festive missal comes from the rubrics for both the temporal and sanctoral. The rubrics frequently presume the presence of rubrics that are not provided in this manuscript, but which would be present in a full missal. For instance, the feasts of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist and Sts. Peter and Paul are only provided with formularies for the mass of the day, omitting the vigil masses typically found in Dominican full missals for these major feasts, but the rubrics provided for the feasts presume the presence of the preceding vigils. St. John the Baptist is introduced by the rubric In die ad missam (f. 394v) without the saint being named at all, and Sts. Peter and Paul are likewise introduced simply with In die (f. 394v). These rubrics correspond exactly with those provided for the two feasts in the Dominican full missal found in Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, but the Cambridge bible missal provides fuller context in the preceding rubrics (f. 549v: In vigilia beati iohanis baptiste; f. 550r: In vigilia aposto­ lorum petri et pauli). This suggests that the scribe of the Pisa festive missal was copying from a more complete sanctoral

336 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 44: Pisa, Cathariniana 177, f. 400r (Roman Canon).

cycle and intentionally omitted the vigils of these feasts but did not update the rubrics for the formularies to reflect this more limited selection. The festive missal includes fifteen sanctoral formularies on ff. 393v–395v presented in liturgical order from St. Andrew to the feast of All Saints (a full list in liturgical order is given in the Quires and Contents section below). The selection includes the four major Marian feasts (Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, and Nativity), feasts of apostles (Andrew, John, Conversion of St. Paul, Peter and Paul, Commemoration of St. Paul), and a selection of other major feasts (St. Stephen, Holy Innocents, John the Baptist, All Saints). The inclusion of the feasts of St. Mary Magdalene (introduced with the abbreviated rubric In festivitate sancte m.m.) and St. Dominic among this selection suggest that the intended user of the book was a Dominican in a community with a strong devotion to St. Mary Magdalene. In addition to the feasts in this main sanctoral section, a formulary for St. Catherine of Alexandria is provided on f. 400v, positioned between the end of

8.9 Pisa, Biblioteca Cathariniana, MS 177  

 337

the Ordo Missae on f. 400r and the beginning of the Common of Saints on f. 400v. A final proper sanctoral formulary is provided on f. 402r for St. Lawrence, introduced by the rubric In die ad missam martyris; the omission of the saint’s name from this rubric is likely due to the omission of the vigil mass, like those of John the Baptist and Peter and Paul discussed above. The placement of the Catherine and Lawrence formularies outside of the main sanctoral section but by what seems to be the same scribe as the rest of the missal is likely further evidence of a somewhat ad hoc approach of providing a selection of texts from a broader sanctoral selection; the scribe seems to have decided after completing the sanctoral section that these two feasts should also be included in the selection.

8.9.4 Provenance Judging from its script, decoration, and liturgical contents, the manuscript was likely made in Italy for a Dominican friar between c. 1234 and c. 1244. It later belonged to the Dominican friar St. Vincent Ferrer (1350–1419), who gave it to the Dominican fr. Antonio d’Auria, possibly in Vercelli in 1406 and certainly before Vincent’s death in 1419. It then belonged to fr. Antonio d’Auria’s socius fr. Antonio de Vercellis, from whom it was acquired by fr. Amadeo da Pisa by means of a fr. Philippo pisano,145 who donated it as a relic to the Dominican priory of Santa Caterina in Pisa at some point after Vincent’s canonization in 1455 (see Caleca 1994, p. 29; Gimeno Blay 2020, pp. 16–22; the donation taking place after 1455 is shown by fr. Amadeo referring to “sancti Vincentii” in the inscription on f. 2v). After the suppression of the priory in 1784, the building became the seminary of the archdiocese of Pisa, and the collection of manuscripts was preserved in situ.

8.9.5 Material Features Binding dimensions: 178 x 133 x 52 mm Binding: Red velvet binding with metal corners and clasps and a diagonal silver plate depicting St. Vincent Ferrer on the back cover, with the words “Biblia sancti vincenty quam frater amadeus donavit sacristie pisane pro reliquia” inscribed around the silver plate.146 A plate depicting the state of the binding at the beginning of the 20th century is provided in Fagès 1905 (between pp. 374–375). Dimensions of leaves: 168 x 120 mm Material of leaves: Parchment Number of leaves: 1 modern parchment flyleaf + 2 medieval parchment flyleaves (bifolium) + 400 + 1 modern parchment flyleaf Foliation (Modern): 1–402 (the medieval parchment flyleaves at the beginning of the manuscript are foliated in sequence with the rest of the manuscript) Foliation (Medieval): n/a Secundo folio: Duodecimus articulus est credere vitam eternam (4r, secundo folio of first quire); Malachim idest tertius et quartus (14r, Bible) Quires: Quire 1 is a quire of twelve leaves with two leaves removed between ff. 10 and 11 with no apparent loss of text. The bible section of the manuscript consistently uses quires of twelve leaves (quires 2–29). Eighteen-leaf quires are employed for the Interpretation of Hebrew Names (quires 30 and 31, plus the four-leaf quire 32 which completes the text). Eight- and six-leaf quires are used for the festive missal (quires 33 and 34). Quire marks: The quires are numbered 1–34 with black Arabic numerals at the bottom center of the first folio of each quire.

145 This Philippo is likely the same person as Philippus Carpa de Pisis, who wrote an ad usum note in another bible, Pisa, Cathariniana 176, f. 218v; cf. Caleca 1994, p. 29. 146 The silver inscription is not easy to read, and scholars have offered divergent transcriptions. Cf. Raffaelli 1993, p. 32: “Reliqua biblia / s. Vincenty quam fr. / Amadeus donavit / sacrestie pisane”; Gimeno Blay 2020, p. 26: “PRETIO[S]A BIBLIA | S(ANCTI) VINCE(N)TY QUAM FR(ATER) | AMAD(E)US DONAVIT | SACRISTIE PISANE.” My transcription above accords with the closing words of Amadeus of Pisa’s inscription on f. 2v: “Quam ego sacristie pisane pro solemni reliquia.” (The inscription on f. 2v lacks a verb.)

338 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Layout: B1: c. 112 x 82 mm; 55 lines in two columns [37 + 37] 1r–10v (Introductory texts) 13r–132v (Bible) B2: c. 112 x 82 mm; 57 lines in two columns [37 + 37] 133r–342v (Bible) E: c. 114 x 95 mm; 55 lines in three columns [28 + 25 + 28] 343r–345r (Epistle and gospel list) I: c. 122 x 77 mm; 52 lines in two columns [35 + 35] 349r–387v (Interpretations of Hebrew Names) M1: c. 117 x 90 mm; 55 lines in two columns [42 + 42] 389r–397v (Missal) M2: c. 117 x 90 mm; 45 lines in two columns [42 + 42] 398r–402v (Missal) Script: Southern textualis.

8.9.6 Artistic Decoration Running Header: Names of biblical books in alternating red and blue capitals (with the exception of Psalms and the missal). Biblical Books: Historiated initial for Gn (f. 15r); decorated initials for most biblical books, with occasional littera duplex initials (e.g., II Cor on f. 331v) or flourished initials (e.g., II Esr on f. 137v) Biblical Prologues: Historiated initial for Frater ambrosius (f. 13r); decorated or flourished initials Biblical Chapters: Two-line red or blue flourished initials; chapter number in alternating red and blue capitals in the margin (despite space being left within the column, e.g., on f. 99r) Biblical Text: The beginning of sentences are highlighted in red. Psalms: Decorated initials for Ps 1, 26, 68, 80, 97, 109; littera duplex initials for Ps 38, 52 Liturgical Texts: Two-line red or blue flourished initials for the prayers. Red ink for the words of institution in the canon. 16 lines left blank at the beginning of the canon, presumably for crucifixion miniature which was never painted. Other: N/A

8.9.7 Quires and Contents Quires

Range

Content

Medieval flyleaf bifolium: 1–2 (2)

1r–1v

Blank medieval flyleaf

2r

Added list of biblical books

2v

Added provenance notes (edited in Gimeno Blay 2020, p. 32)

3ra–4ra

[Text on the creed]: Fundamentum nemo potest ponere (this and the following two preaching lists are partially edited in Gimeno Blay 2020, pp. 32–36)

4ra–6ra

Preaching list of scripture verses

6ra–10rb

Preaching list of saints, seasons and occasions

10v

[Added text]: Iesu dulcis memoria

11r–12r

[Added text]: Salve virgo virginum

12r

Blank space: half page

12v

Blank page with added notes

Q1: 3–12 (12-2 [between 10 and 11; stubs visible; no apparent loss of text])

Layout B1

8.9 Pisa, Biblioteca Cathariniana, MS 177  

 339

(continued) Quires

Range

Content

Q2: 13–24 (12)

13ra–14va

S. 284 (Historiated initial: Jerome writing)

14va–vb

S. 285

15ra–27vb

Gn (Historiated initial: Seven Days of Creation)

27vb–38rb

Ex

38rb–45vb

Lv

45vb–56va

Nm

56va–66rb

Dt

66rb–va

S. 311

66va–72vb

Ios

72vb–79vb

Idc

79vb–80vb

Rt

80vb–81rb

S. 323

81rb–90vb

I Rg

90vb–98vb

II Rg

98vb–107vb

III Rg

107vb–116va

IV Rg

116va–vb

S. 327 (Non-Parisian order; follows II Par in Parisian order)

116vb–117rb

S. 328

117rb–125ra

I Par

125ra–134vb

II Par (Not followed by Or Man)

134vb–135rb

S. 330

135rb–137vb

I Esr

137vb–141va

II Esr [Neh]

141va–vb

Confessio Esdrae (IV Esr 8:20–36; non-Parisian apocryphal text)

141vb–145rb

III Esr

145rb

Blank space: 5 lines

145va

S. 332

145va

S. 5190 (Non-Parisian prologue)

145va–148rb

Tb

148rb

S. 335

148rb

S. 5191 (Non-Parisian prologue)

148rb–151vb

Idt

151vb–152ra

S. 341 (Not merged with S. 343 as in Parisian order)

152ra–155rb

Est

155rb–vb

S. 344 (Not followed by S. 357 as in Parisian order)

155vb–162rb

Iob

162rb–179ra

Ps (Decorated initials for Ps 1 [162rb], Ps 26 [164vb]; littera duplex initials for Ps 38 [166va], Ps 52 [168ra]; decorated initials for Ps 68 [169va], Ps 80 [171va], Ps 97 [173va], Ps 109 [175rb])

Q3: 25–36 (12) Q4: 37–48 (12) Q5: 49–60 (12) Q6: 61–72 (12)

Q7: 73–84 (12)

Q8: 85–96 (12) Q9: 97–108 (12)

Q10: 109–120 (12)

Q11: 121–132 (12) Q12: 133–144 (12) Layout B2

Q13: 145–156 (12)

Q14: 157–168 (12) Q15: 169–180 (12)

340 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires Q16: 181–192 (12)

Q17: 193–204 (12)

Q18: 205–216 (12) Q19: 217–228 (12) Q20: 229–240 (12)

Q21: 241–252 (12)

Q22: 253–264 (12)

Range

Content

179ra–184va

Prv (not preceeded by S. 457 as in Parisian order)

184va

S. 462

184va–186va

Ecl

186va–187vb

Ct

187vb

Sap (not preceeded by S. 468 as in Parisian order)

191va–201va

Sir

201va–vb

S. 482

201vb

S. 480 (non-Parisian prologue)

201vb–214ra

Is

214ra–228rb

Ier (not preceeded by S. 487 as in Parisian order)

228rb–229rb

Lam (blank space left for names of Hebrew letters)

229rb–231rb

Bar (not preceeded by S. 491 as in Parisian order)

231rb–244va

Ez (not preceeded by S. 492 as in Parisian order)

244va–vb

S. 494

244vb–250ra

Dn

250ra

S. 500 (not followed by S. 507 as in Parisian order)

250ra–rb

S. 506 (non-Parisian prologue)

250rb–251vb

Os

251vb

S. 510 (not preceeded by S. 511as in Parisian order)

251vb–252va

Ioel

252va

S. 512 (not preceeded by S. 515 or followed by S. 513 as in Parisian order)

252va–254ra

Am

254ra

S. 516 (non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 519 + S. 517)

254ra–rb

Abd

254rb

S. 522 (non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 524 and S. 521)

254rb–vb

Ion

254vb

S. 525 (non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 526)

254vb–255vb

Mi

255vb

S. 527 (non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 528)

255vb–256rb

Na

256rb

S. 529 (non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 531)

256rb–vb

Hab

256vb

S. 532 (non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 534)

256vb–257rb

So

257rb

S. 535 (non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 538)

257rb–vb

Agg

257vb

S. 540 (non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 539)

257vb–259vb

Za

259vb

S. 544 (non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 543)

8.9 Pisa, Biblioteca Cathariniana, MS 177  

 341

(continued) Quires

Range

Content

259vb–260va

Mal

260va

S. 551 (not preceeded by S. 547 and S. 553 as in Parisian order)

260va–268va

I Mcc

268va–274va

II Mcc

274va

[Added partial guide to Gospel of Matthew]: Primum capitulum mathei continet generationem christi … III. Predicatione iohanis et baptisma christi.

274va

[Added prayer] O vita vivens et vivificans omnia, deus meus, vivifica me.

274va

[Added prayer] O superdea et eterna trinitas

274va

[Added prayer] Obsecro te mediatrix iocunditatis

274va

Blank space: 12 Lines

274vb–275va

[Added index of the gospels]: De conceptione precursoris domini. Lucas I. … cantando laudes matutinas. (Cf. S. 8599 and S. 8675)

275va

Blank space: 13 lines

275vb

Blank space: 1 column

276r–v

Blank leaf

Q23: 265–276 (12)

Q24: 277–288 (12)

Q25: 289–300 (12)

Q26: 301–312 (12)

Q27: 313–324 (12)

277ra

S. 590 (not followed by S. 589 as in Parisian order)

277ra–285va

Mt

285va–vb

S. 607

285vb–291rb

Mc

291rb–300rb

Lc (not preceded by S. 620 as in Parisian order)

300rb

Blank space: 5 lines

300va–307rb

Io (not preceded by S. 624 as in Parisian order)

307rb

S. 832 (non-Parisian prologue)

307rb

Blank space: 1 line

307va–311va

Apc (non-Parisian biblical order; not preceeded by S. 839 as in Parisian order)

311va–vb

S. 640

311vb

S. 631 (non-Parisian prologue)

311vb–320va

Act (non-Parisian biblical order)

320va

Blank space: 1 line

320vb

S. 809

320vb

S. 807 (non-Parisian prologue)

320vb–321vb

Iac

321vb

S. 812 (non-Parisian prologue)

321vb–322va

I Pt

322va

S. 817 (non-Parisian prologue)

322va–323rb

II Pt

323rb

S. 822 (non-Parisian prologue)

323rb–324ra

I Io

324ra

S. 823 (non-Parisian prologue)

342 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Q28: 325–336 (12)

Q29: 337–348 (12)

Layout E

Range

Content

324ra–rb

II Io

324rb

S. 824 (non-Parisian prologue)

324rb

III Io

324rb–va

S. 825 (non-Parisian prologue)

324va

Iud

324vb–325ra

S. 674 (non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 677)

325ra–328rb

Rm

328rb

S. 685

328rb–331rb

I Cor

331rb

S. 699

331rb

Blank space: 2 lines

331va–333va

II Cor

333va

S. 707

333va–334va

Gal

334va

S. 717 (non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 715)

334va–335va

Eph

335va

S. 728

335vb–336rb

Phil

336rb–va

S. 736

336va–337rb

Col

337rb

S. 747

337rb–vb

I Th

337vb

S. 752

337vb–338rb

II Th

338rb

S. 765

338rb–339ra

I Tim

339ra

S. 772

339ra–vb

II Tim

339vb

S. 780

339vb–340ra

Tit

340ra

S. 783

340ra–rb

Phlm

340rb

S. 793

340rb–342va

Hbr

342va

Blank space: 5 lines

342vb

[Added text]: In cruce petrus obiit romam dum predicat urbem …

343r

Blank page with added text: dis (sic)

343va–345rc

Epistle and gospel list (mostly erased)

345v–347r

Blank leaves

347va–348vb

[Added text]: Catena of patristic sources

8.9 Pisa, Biblioteca Cathariniana, MS 177  

(continued) Quires

Range

Content

Q30: 349–366 (18) Layout I

349ra–387va

Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz ... Zuzim)

387va

Added distinctio

387va

Blank space: 16 lines

387vb

Blank space: 1 column

388r

Blank page

Q31: 367–384 (18) Q32: 385–388 (4)

388v

Blank page with added liturgical note: In adventu feria quarta …

Q33: 389–396 (8)

389ra

[Festive missal] [Temporal masses] Dominica prima in aventu (sic)

Layout M1

389ra

Dominica secunda

389ra

Dominica tertia

389ra–rb

Dominica quarta

389rb

Ad maiorem missam

389rb

In circumcisione domini

389rb–va

Memoriam de beate virgine

389va

In vigilia epiphanie (sic; texts are for the day)

389va–vb

Dominica infra octavas epiphanie

389vb

Dominica prima post octavas epiphania (sic)

389vb

Dominica secunda

389vb

Dominica tertia

389vb–390ra

Dominica quarta

390ra

Dominica in septuagexima (sic)

390ra

Dominica in sexagesima

390ra–rb

Dominica quinquagesima

390rb

[Ash Wednesday versicles, orations, and absolution]

390rb–va

Dominica prima quadragesime

390va

Dominica secunda quadragesime

390va

Feria secunda

390va–vb

Feria tertia

390vb

Dominica tertia

390vb–391ra

Dominica quarta

391ra

Ad missam [Dominica in passione]

391ra–va

[Dominica in ramis palmarum]

391va

Feria secunda

391va–vb

Feria tertia

391vb

Feria quarta

391vb–392ra

[Feria quinta in cena domini]

392ra–393ra

In die parasceve

393ra–rb

Sabbato sancto

 343

344 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Q34: 397–402 (6)

Range

Content

393rb–va

In die sancto pasche ad missam

393va

Ad missam [In die ascensionis domini]

393va–vb

In die pentecostes ad missam

393vb

[Sanctoral masses] In die [andree]

393vb–394ra

In natale sancti stephani prothomartyris

394ra

In natale iohanis evangeliste

394ra

In natale sanctorum innocentium

394ra–rb

In conversatione sancti pauli (sic)

394rb–va

Ad missam [In die purificationis sancte marie]

394va

In annunciatione dominica

394va–vb

In die ad missam [iohanis baptiste]

394vb

In die [petri et pauli]

394vb–395ra

In commemoratione sancti pauli

395ra

In festivitate sancte m. m. [marie magdalene]

395ra–rb

In festivitate beati dominici

395rb

Ad missam [assumptionis beate marie]

305rb–va

In nativitate sancte marie

395va

In die ad missam [omnium sanctorum]

395va–vb

[Votive masses] Missa ad honorem sancte trinitatis

395vb

In missa de sancta maria in adventu

395vb–396ra

In missa de sancta maria per annum

396ra

Missa ad deposcenda suffragia sanctorum

396ra

Missa de omnibus sanctis pro ecclesia

396ra–rb

In missa de sancta cruce

396rb

In missa de sancto spiritu

396rb

Alia missa de sancto spiritu

396rb–va

In missa de angelis

396va

In missa pro peccatis

396va–vb

Missa pro amicis familiaribus

396vb

Missa pro tribulatione

396vb–397ra

Alia missa pro tribulatione

397ra

In missa pro pace

397ra–rb

Missa pro iter agentibus

397rb

Missa de sancta maria contra pericula

397rb

Pro adversitate ecclesie

397rb

Pro episcopis et prelatis

397rb

Pro concordia fratrum

397rb

Pro salute vivorum

397rb–va

Missa votiva

397va

Alia missa votiva

8.9 Pisa, Biblioteca Cathariniana, MS 177  

(continued) Quires

Layout M2 (begins at f. 398r)

Range

Content

397va

Alia missa votiva

397va

Ad pluviam postulandam

397va–vb

Pro aeris serenitate

397vb

Ad repellendam tempestatem

397vb

Pro temptatione carnis

397vb

Pro temptatione cogitationum

397vb–398ra

Pro conpunctione cordis

398ra

[Pro iter agentibus]

398ra

Pro hiis qui in vinculis detinentur

398ra–rb

Missa pro infirmis

398rb

Missa generalis

398rb–va

[Requiem masses] Pro episcopo defuncto

398va

In anniversario defuncti

398va

Alia in anniversario

398va

Pro presente defuncto

398va–vb

Alia pro defunctis

398vb

Missa pro femina defuncta

398vb

Alia missa pro defunctis

398vb–399ra

Pro fratribus congregationis

399ra

Pro hiis qui in cimiterio iacent

399ra

Pro patribus et matribus

399ra

Pro omnibus fidelibus defunctis

399ra–rb

Generalis pro vivis et defunctis

399rb–vb

[Ordo Missae] [Preface dialogue/Common Preface with musical notation]

399vb

Blank space: 16 lines (left blank for Crucifixion initial?)

399vb–400rb

[Canon and post-canon Ordo Missae]

400va

Sancte caterine virginis

400va

[Common of Saints] Collecta unius apostoli

400va–vb

In natale plurimorum apostolorum

400vb

In natale unius martyris et pontificis

400vb

Item unius martyris et pontificis

400vb–401ra

Unius martyris non pontificis

401ra

Item unius martyris non pontificis

401ra

Item alia

401ra

Item alia

401ra–rb

In natale plurimorum martyrum

401rb

Alia

401rb–va

In natale unius confessoris

401va

De confessione et doctore (sic)

401va

Unius confessoris non pontificis

 345

346 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Range

Content

401va

Item alia

401va–vb

Unius abbatis

401vb–vb

Plurimorum confessorum

401vb

Alia

401vb–402ra

In natale virginum

402ra

In die ad missam martyris [laurentii]

402ra

Blank space: 17 lines

402rb

In nocte nativitatis domini infra canonem

402rb

In die

402rb

In epiphania infra canonem

402rb

In cena domini infra canonem

402rb

In sabbato sancto infra canonem

402rb

In die pasce

402rb–va

In ascensione domini

402va

In pentecoste

402va

[Preface dialogue and Common Preface without musical notation; cf. ff. 399r–v]

402va

Prefationes. In nat. domini

402va

In epiphania infra canonem

402va

In quadragesima

402va

In pascha

402va–vb

In ascensione

402vb

In pentecoste

402vb

De trinitate

402vb

De apostolis

402vb

De beata maria vel assumptione vel nativitate vel veneratione

402vb

De sancta cruce

402vb

Exorcismum salis

8.9.8 Bibliography Antist 1591: Vicente Justiniano Antist, ed., Sancti patris nostri Vincentii Ferrarii Valentini, Ordinis Praedicatorum, Opuscula (Velentia: Apud Petrum Patricium, 1591). On pp. xii–xiv, Antist states that he consulted the manuscript in the sacrarium (sacristy or shrine) at the Dominican priory of Pisa and describes its binding with the image of the saint as well as the preaching lists on ff. 4r–10r, which Antist (incorrectly) thought were composed by St. Vincent himself: “Nos quoque in sacrario Pisani monasterii vidimus unum Vincentii nostri sacrorum Bibliorum codicem (multos enim successu temporis habuit) argento, et eius imagine ornatum, in quo quoddam eius opusculum concionatoribus apprimè utile habetur. Name per singular et temporis, et sanctorum solemnitates progrediens, quae Sacrae Scripturae loca, à Genesi usque ad Apocalypsim, huic, illuè sancto, huic, aut illi festivitati, accommodari in concionibus possint, enumerat, hac ratione. In festo Sancti Andreae ex Genesi, talis locus; de Exodo talis; ex Numerorum libro, talis, etc. usque ad Apocalypsim. In festo S. Barbararae, ex Genesi, talis; de Exodo, talis, &c. Deinde recenset sacrae scripturae sententias, quae ad varios hominum status monendos, et ad praedicandum leprosis, peregrinis, aegris, et aliis huiusmodi, inservire possunt. In initio autem illius codicis haec verba expressè leguntur. Hanc Bibliam, Domino inspirante, beatissimus Pater Vincentius Valentianus reliquit mihi Fratri Antonio de Aura, ante obitum suum.”

8.9 Pisa, Biblioteca Cathariniana, MS 177  

 347

Diago 1600: Francisco Diago, Historia de la vida, milagros, muerte y discipulos del bienaventurado predicador apostólico valenciano San Vicente Ferrer de la Orden de Predicadores (Barcelona: Gabriel Graells y Giraldo Dotil, 1600). On p. 68, Diago describes consulting the manuscript in Pisa in the year 1580, mentioning the preaching lists (which he, like Antist 1591, attributed to St. Vincent) and giving a transcription of Antonio d’Auria’s inscription: “Este tratado lo lleuaua escrito en la Biblia, que dio al Beato fray Antonio de Auria de nacion italiano, la qual esta guardada entre las reliquias del conuento que la orden tiene en Pisa. Yo la vi yendo a Roma el año mil y quinientos y ochenta. Y ley al principio della lo que se sigue: Hanc Bibliam, domino inspirante, beatissimus pater Vincentius Valentianus reliquit mihi fratri Antonio de Auria, ante obitum suum. De donde consta que fray Antonio deuio de ser discipulo del Santo, y que se hallo presente a su muerte.” Ferrarini 1732: Giuseppe Maria Felice Ferrarini, Ragguaglio istorico della vita appostolica e taumaturga di s. Vincenzo Ferreri (Milan: Guiseppe Pandolpho Malatesta, 1732). On p. 180, Ferrarini briefly mentions the manuscript: “Fr. Antonio d’Auria Italiano fu esso pure della Scuola di S. VINCENZO, e ritrovossi presente alla morte del MAESTRO, da cui in mercede del suo amore ottenne la di lui Bibbia Sagra, ed alcune minute di Assunti predicabili, scritte di propria mano del SANTO, e che dal Discepolo conservate, come Reliquie, servirono di gran frutto.” Ximeno 1747: Vicente Ximeno, Escritores del reyno de Valencia, vol. 1 (Valencia: En la Oficina de Joseph Estevan Dolz, 1747). On p. 30, Ximeno briefly discusses the manuscript, drawing on the description given in Antist 1591: “7. Concordantia Biblicæ prædicabiles. Las viò M.ss. el Maestro Antist en la Ciudad de Pisa, enquadernadas con mucha curiosidad, y adornadas con una Imagen del Santo. Al principio se leen estas palabras: Hanc Bibliam, Domino inspirante, Beatissimus P. Vincentius Valentinus reliquit mihi F. Antonio de Auria ante obitum suum. Està este libro en el Convento de Predicadores de aquella Ciudad.” Vitelli 1900: Camillus Vitelli, “Index codicum Latinorum qui Pisis in bybliotheca Conventus S. Catherinae et Universitatis adservantur,” Studi italiani di filologia classica 8 (1900): 321–427. On pp. 404–408, n. 177, Vitelli gives a thorough description of the biblical and liturgical contents of the manuscript and brief details concerning its material features. Fagès 1901: Pierre-Henri Fagès, Histoire de saint Vincent Ferrier, apôtre de l’Europe, 2 vols. (Paris: Picard, 1901). In v. 2, p. 414, Fagès briefly describes the manuscript, commenting on its connection to St. Vincent Ferrer and mentioning its liturgical contents: “A la fin se trouvent les Oraisons et les Offices dits du Commun, avec l’ordinaire de la Messe et le chant de la Préface. C’était évidemment un Missel portatif en même temps qu’une Bible.” Fagès 1905: Pierre-Henri Fagès, Notes et documents de l’histoire de saint Vincent Ferrier (Paris: Picard, 1905). On p. 374, Fagès states that the manuscript was given by St. Vincent Ferrer to Antonius d’Auria and is presently at Pisa: “Antoine d’Auria, Italien, assista le Saint à sa mort, et reçut de celui-ci sa bible annotée par lui. Elle est à Pise.” Between pp. 374 and 375, Fagès provides facsimiles of the back cover of the manuscript (with the silver image of St. Vincent) and the inscriptions on f. 2v. The reproduction of the back cover reveals that at the time these images were produced the sewing supports were partially exposed, whereas in the current binding they are completely covered with red velvet. Sorbelli 1916: Albano Sorbelli, Inventari dei manoscritti delle biblioteche d’Italia, vol. 24 (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1916). On p. 88, n. 145 (177), Sorbelli provides a brief entry for the manuscript, mentioning the presence of liturgical texts. Sorbelli incorrectly states that the bible is “non completa”; this is likely due to the placement of Apc between Io and Act, which may have led Sorbelli to think that the bible section ended imperfectly without Apc. Strohm 1965: Reinhart Strohm, “Ein englischer Ordinariumssatz des 14. Jahrhunderts in Italien,” Die Musikforschung 18 (1965): 178–81. Strohm’s article is focused on a mensural three-voice Kyrie found on ff. 217v–218r of Pisa, Cathariniana 176, a manuscript which was used by fr. Philippi Carpa de Pisis who is also associated with Pisa, Cathariniana 177 (see the Provenance section above). On p. 179, Strohm discusses the provenance of MS 177. Strohm claims that the Antonius de Auria mentioned on f. 2v of MS 177 is the same as the Antonius de Vercellis mentioned on the same folio, and argues that this person should be identified with the Franciscan friar and preacher Antonius de Vercellis who died in 1483 in Orvieto (also known as Antonio da Vercelli, Antonius Vercellensis, and Antonius de Balocco). This identification seems unlikely; according to Pratesi 1961, the Franciscan Antonio da Vercelli was born in the first decades of the 15th century, which would mean he would have been in his early teens at the time of Vincent Ferrer’s death. Raffaelli 1993: Paola Raffaelli, I manoscritti liturgico-musicali della Biblioteca cateriniana e del Fondo seminario Santa Caterina dell’Archivio arcivescovile di Pisa: storia e catalogo, Studi Musicali Toscani 1 (Lucca: Libreria musicale italiana, 1993). On pp. 32–33, n. 1, Raffaelli describes the material and liturgical elements of ff. 389r–402v, describing it as a “SACRAMENTARIO-ANTIFONARIO domenicano” and dating it to the end of the 13th century. Caleca 1994: Antonino Caleca, “Le miniature nei manoscritti e negli incunabuli della Bibliotheca Cathariniana di Pisa,” in Libraria nostra communis: manoscritti e incunaboli della Bibliotheca Cathariniana di Pisa (Pisa: Tacchi, 1994). On p. 29, Caleca briefly discusses the provenance, liturgical and artistic aspects of the manuscript, linking it stylistically with the “Conradin Bible” (Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, MS. W.152]), which Caleca erroneously refers to as W.192 [which is in fact a Book of Hours in Dutch]). Caleca localizes W.152 to central Italy and dates to the second half of the 13th century.

348 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Miriello 2004: Rosanna Miriello, “La Bibbia portabile di origine italiana del XIII secolo. Brevi considerazioni e alcuni esempi,” in La Bibbia del XIII secolo: storia del testo, storia dell’esegesi: Convegno della Società Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo Latino (SISMEL), Firenze, 1–2 giugno 2001, ed. Giuseppe Cremascoli and Francesco Santi (Florence: SISMEL – Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2004). Basic details about the manuscript (mistakenly listed as being in Bologna rather than Pisa) are provided on p. 63 in the context of a table of bibles of Italian origin. Miriello follows Sorbelli 1916 in describing the bible as “incompleta” (see Miriello’s acknowledgment of Sorbelli on p. 70). Baroffio 2011: Giacomo Baroffio, ed., Iter liturgicum italicum: editio maior, Instrumenta 1 (Stroncone: Associazione San Michele Arcangelo, 2011). On p. 399, n. 20846, Baroffio tentatively describes the liturgical section of the manuscript as a Dominican “Grd?” (graduale) which he dates to the end of the 13th century (presumably drawing on the dating offered by Raffaelli 1993). Puglia 2015: Andrea Puglia, “Produzione e circolazione di manoscritti tra XIII e XV secolo in Toscana: il caso della Biblioteca del Convento di Santa Caterina di Pisa,” Titivillus 1 (2015): 45–58. On p. 56, Puglia discusses the provenance of the manuscript, which he mistakenly referrs to as “BC, manoscritto 176” (and consequently dates to 1270–1280 based on Caleca 1994’s discussion of Pisa, Cathariniana 176). On p. 48, Puglia mentions several inventories of the Pisa library dating to 1777–1783 and 1824. Baroffio et al. 2016: Giacomo Baroffio, Manlio Sodi, and Andrzej Suski, Sacramentari e messali pretridentini di provenienza italiana: guida ai manoscritti, Veritatem inquirere 1 (Vatican City: Lateran University Press, 2016). On p. 346, no. 1971, the editors provide a brief description of the festive missal section of the manuscript, describing it as a “Messale (frammento) … (uso domenicano).” Suski and Sodi 2019: Andrzej Suski and Manlio Sodi, Messali manoscritti pretridentini (secc. VIII-XVI), Monumenta studia instrumenta liturgica 79 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2019). On p. 390, n. 3349, Suski and Sodi give a brief description of the festive missal section of the manuscript, describing it as a “Missale Dominicanum (frammento).” Gimeno Blay 2020: Francisco M. Gimeno Blay, “Una biblia de San Vicente Ferrer en Pisa,” in Frailes, santos y devociones: historias dominicanas en homenaje al Profesor Alfonso Esponera, ed. Emilio Callado Estela (Valencia: Tirant Humanidades, 2020), 15–37. Gimeno Blay gives an extensive treatment of the provenance and contents of the manuscript and provides transcriptions of the provenance notes on f. 2v (reproduced as a plate on p. 37) as well as partial transcriptions of the paratextual material on ff. 3r–10r. On p. 27, Gimeno Blay dates the manuscript to the second half of the 13th century on the basis of its script. Ruzzier 2022: Chiara Ruzzier, Entre Université et ordres mendiants, Manuscripta Biblica 8 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022). Ruzzier includes the manuscript on p. 241 as n. 947 in her “Liste des bibles complètes recensées” with the shelfmark “145. (177)”.

8.10 Poitiers, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 12 Summary: Bible with added Dominican epistle and gospel list and Dominican mass texts Dimensions: 205 x 133 mm; 546 leaves Origin: Paris Date: 13th century, middle (liturgical texts added after 1253) Digital images: https://patrimoine.mediatheques-grandpoitiers.fr/PATRIMOINE/doc/SYRACUSE/1029172/bible-latine Overview of Contents: 1r: List of saints in liturgical order, with occasional notes (includes Peter Martyr and Dominic) 1v: Blank 2r–5r: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 5v–506r: Bible (Gn–Apc) 506v: Blank page 507r–546r: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (Aaz … Zuzim) ✶ 507r–✶535v: Added liturgical texts (in the lower margin of Interpretations of Hebrew Names) ✶ 507r–✶524r: Epistle and gospel list ✶ 526r–✶535v: Mass orations and chant texts

8.10 Poitiers, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 12  

 349

8.10.1 Introduction Poitiers, BM 12 is a medium-sized bible that was likely produced at Paris around the middle of the thirteenth century, judging from its artistic decoration (featuring historiated initials with stylistic and thematic similarities to bibles produced by the so-called “Johannes Grusch Atelier”147), quire structure (utilizing mostly quires of 24 leaves),148 and presentation of Parisian textual variations149 and adherence to the Parisian order of biblical books and prologues. After the initial production of the bible, two Dominican liturgical supplements were added in the bottom margin of the Interpretations of Hebrew Names: an epistle and gospel list and a selection of mass orations (and a few chant texts) for selected temporal, sanctoral, and votive masses, including prayers for Dominic, Peter Martyr, and the Crown of Thorns. This liturgical supplement can be dated after 1253, given the presence of prayers for Peter Martyr (canonized 1253). The epistle and gospel list does not entirely correspond with the revised 1254–1256 liturgy of Humbert of Romans.150 This suggests that the liturgical supplement may have been added in the mid-1250s, i.e., after the canonization of Peter Martyr but before the Humbert liturgy was finalized and promulgated. It is likewise possible that it represents a local adaptation of Humbert’s reform. The presence of Sancti floriani martyris on 4 May in the epistle and gospel list is very unusual for a Dominican manuscript: I have not identified another Dominican liturgical manuscript that includes him.151 In addition to Florian, the list includes three other saints with venerated in Central Europe: Sancti alberti (= St. Adalbert of Prague, 24 April), Wencezlai (= St. Wenceslaus, 28 September), and Beate elizabeth (= St. Elizabeth of Hungary, 19 November). These saints may indicate that the liturgical supplement was written by or for a Dominican from Austria or somewhere else in Central Europe. There is no evidence that the manuscript ever contained an Ordo Missae, which means that it should arguably not be classified as a bible missal. Nevertheless, as the only identified bible manuscript with (added) mass orations without an Ordo Missae it is a witness to a related phenomenon of bibles with liturgical texts. In addition to the liturgical texts, a list of saints written in liturgical order with occasional notes related to biblical texts appears on f. 1r, a medieval flyleaf. The list runs in liturgical order from Andree (30 November) to Egidii (1 September), but no saints are supplied for the final portion of the sanctoral cycle. The list includes Peter Martyr (29 April, listed as Petri and appearing between the 25 April Marci and the 1 May Philippi); Floriani (4 May), Stanizlai (8 May), Translationis dominici (24 May) and Dominici (5 August). These texts may have been written by the same hand as the liturgical supplement at the end of the manuscript.

8.10.2 Plates Figure 45 Poitiers, BM 12, f. 5v (Gn), p. 350 Figure 46 Poitiers, BM 12, f. 507r (Interpretations of Hebrew Names with Added Epistle and Gospel List), p. 351 Figure 47 Poitiers, BM 12, f. 535r (Interpretations of Hebrew Names with Added Mass Orations), p. 352 147 I am grateful to Emily Guerry for suggesting this link. A group of manuscripts with a wide temporal and relatively wide artistic range were identified as the work of the “Johannes Grusch Atelier” by Branner 1972 and further elaborated in Branner 1977. The cycle of historiated initials for this manuscript has not previously been analyzed in print; I am grateful to Alison Stones for reviewing a draft list of identifications. 148 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, p. 106. 149 The manuscript includes the Parisian “revertendi posita” variant in Rt 1:7 as well as “vinum” in Iob 1:4; cf. Ruzzier 2022, pp. 76–77. 150 For instance, the reading list provides two specific readings for Beate elizabeth on f. 523v, while the Humbert Missale minorum altarium does not provide any readings for Elizabeth, corresponding with her Memoria rank in the Humbert calendar; see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 496vb. 151 St. Florian was reputedly martyred at Lorch in Austria and is especially venerated in Austria and Bavaria; cf. Watkins 2015, p. 249. In the Poitiers epistle and gospel list, Florian is in fact listed twice, although both entries seem to be intended to convey his standard 4 May date. On f. 520r, an entry for Sancti floriani appears between Alexandri et sociorum eius (3 May) and In inventione sancte crucis (3 May), although an early hand (perhaps the scribe of this addition) added the letter “b” before the Florian entry and “a” before the Holy Cross entry, apparently indicating that Florian should come after the Finding of the Holy Cross. On f. 520v, Florian appears again after the completion of the texts for the Finding of the Holy Cross and before the entry Eodem die corone domini (4 May), now with the rubric Sancti floriani martyris. In the first case, the readings are indicated with the reference Epistola et evangelium supra thome martyris, while in the second with Epistola et evangelium sicut supra sancti valentini. The readings for Sancti thome martyris on f. 518v are Sir 14:22–15:6 and Io 12:24–26 (Epistola. Eccl. XIII.f. Beatus vir qui in sapientia. Finis. In XV. Nomine eterno hereditabit illum dominus deus noster. Evangelium Io. XII.c. Amen amen dico vobis nisi granum. Finis. Honorificabit eum pater meus.) The readings for Valentini on f. 519v are Prv 3:13–20 and Mt 10:34–42 (Epistola. Proverbia. III.c. Beatus homo qui invenit sapi­ entiam. Finis. Rore concrescunt. Evangelium. Mt. X.f. Nolite arbitrari. Finis. Mercedem suam.) These selections for Thomas Becket and Valentine correspond with the those specified in the Humbert liturgy; see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, ff. 486r and 487v.

350 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 45: Poitiers, BM 12, f. 5v (Gn).

8.10 Poitiers, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 12  

Figure 46: Poitiers, BM 12, f. 507r (Interpretations of Hebrew Names with Added Epistle and Gospel List).

 351

352 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 47: Poitiers, BM 12, f. 535r (Interpretations of Hebrew Names with Added Mass Orations).

8.10 Poitiers, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 12  

 353

8.10.3 Liturgical Texts Poitiers, BM 12 has two sets of liturgical texts added to the lower margins of the Interpretations of Hebrew Names: an epistle and gospel list on ff. 507–524r (broken up into temporal, sanctoral, and votive sections with blank space separating the sections) and a series of mass orations and chant texts on ff. 526r–535v. The two sets of texts have different layouts, with a two-column, ten-line layout for the epistle and gospel list and a one-column, seven-line layout for the mass texts. The epistle and gospel list is written in a less formal cursiva script while the mass texts are written in southern textualis. Despite these differences, the two sets were likely added at the same time, as they present complementary (but not identical) sets of liturgical occasions and have a similar decorative scheme of red highlights and initials. The epistle and gospel list presents a comprehensive set of indications for readings for the entire liturgical year. Each entry is provided with the title of the biblical book, the chapter number in Roman numerals, and a section letter, as well as an incipit and explicit. In the sanctoral section, frequent cross references are utilized (e.g., for Sancti silvestri confessoris on f. 518va–vb, the epistle is indicated as Epistola in festo beati nicolai, while the gospel is given a regular reference). While further analysis of the epistle and gospel list is necessary to fully understand its relationship with other Dominican sources, the sanctoral includes several distinctive Dominican feasts, including Sancti petri martyris ordinis predicatorum (f. 520rb), the 4 May (rather than 11 August, as in Paris) Corone domini (f. 520rb), In translatione dominici (f. 520vb) and In die dominici (f. 522rb). In addition, the sanctoral also includes several feasts not found in other Dominican epistle and gospel lists that I have consulted:152 Sancti alberti (f. 520ra), Sancti floriani (f. 520rb), Sancti floriani martyris (f. 520va), Wencezlai (f. 523ra), and Beate elizabeth (f. 523vb). With the exception of the two feasts of St. Dominic and the feast of Wencezlai, which are integrated in the reading list in a straightforward manner, the other distinctive feasts are written in a way that suggests some confusion on the part of the scribe. For example, Sancti alberti (an alternate spelling of Adalbert) is added in the margin by the original rubricator; Sancti petri martyris ordinis predicatorum is written in the margin but by the original rubricator, while a different hand has supplied the actual readings. Sancti floriani appears twice, first before and then after the 3 May In inventione sancte crucis. Beate elizabeth appears in the margin, but the rubric and texts are written by the same hand as those in the main list. This range of abnormalities suggests that the scribe was attempting to synthesize two sources, a standard Dominican epistle and gospel list as well as a series of distinctive locally venerated saints. The distinctive non-Dominican saints all point to a Central European context for the epistle and gospel list, although with the exception of St. Florian they are also all saints that were eventually incorporated into the Dominican liturgy over the course of the late 13th and 14th centuries. After a gap of several folios, a series of orations and chant texts are provided in the lower margins of ff. 526r–535v. The selection of occasions corresponds with the “festive missal” typology, presenting selected temporal and sanctoral masses but not providing texts for ferial days or a full range of saints. With the exception of the final three occasions, the formularies only provide orations. The final three occasions provide the orations and well as the Alleluia verses for the Crown of Thorns, St. Dominic, and St. Peter Martyr. The collect for Dominic is the post-1244 meritis et doctrinis version. The inclusion of Peter Martyr in a hand that matches the other texts indicates that these texts were added at some point after Peter’s canonization in 1253.

8.10.4 Provenance The manuscript was almost certainly written in Paris in the mid-13th century. It was in the possession of a Dominican friar, perhaps from or based in Central Europe, at some point in the mid-13th century, when the liturgical texts were added to the margins of the Interpretations of Hebrew Names. It is not clear when it entered the Bibliothèque municipale of Poitiers. According to Fleury 1867, pp. 132–133, there were 93 manuscripts in the collection in 1817 (but cf. Catalogue 1894, p. i, n. 1), and 276 manuscript by 1830, but it is not clear from surviving documentation whether the bible in question was part of the collection already in 1817 or if it was a later acquisition.

152 I have compared the list of saints in Poitiers, BM 12 to those in the other Dominican bible missals which contain epistle and gospel lists: Brussels, KBR 8882, Paris, BnF, latin 215, Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), Rome, Angelica 32 (A.5.6), and Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532.

354 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

8.10.5 Material Features Binding dimensions: 210 x 140 x 85 mm Binding: Brown embossed leather binding Material of leaves: Parchment Dimensions of leaves: 205 x 133 mm Number of leaves: 546 + 1 closing flyleaf Foliation (Modern): 1–546 Foliation (Medieval): N/A Secundo folio: eum quem alii (3r) Quires: The manuscript is mostly composed on quires of 24 leaves. Quire 9 is 16 leaves. Quire 11 was originally 22 leaves, and concludes the Psalter; there are presently 9 leaves missing between ff. 235 and 236, with loss of text; stubs of the missing leaves are visible. Quire 18, which concludes the Old Testament, was originally 18 leaves, but the final leaf was cancelled after the conclusion of II Mcc. Quire 20 was originally 24 leaves, but is now missing one leaf between ff. 432 and 433 with loss of text. Quire 22 is 16 leaves. Quire 23, which concludes the New Testament, is 12 leaves. Quire 25, which concludes the Interpretations of Hebrew Names, is 8 leaves. Quire marks: Many quires are marked “cor” (correctus) in the bottom left corner of the final verso: 1 (f. 25v), 3 (f. 73v), 4 (f. 97v), 5 (f. 121v), 6 (f. 145v), 8 (f. 193v), 9 (f. 209v), 12 (f. 270v), 14 (f. 318v), 17 (f. 390v), 20 (f. 454v). Catchwords are present at the end of many quires: 2 (f. 49v), 3 (f. 73v), 4 (f. 97v), 5 (f. 121v), 6 (f. 145v), 7 (f. 169v), 8 (f. 193v), 9 (f. 209v), 10 (f. 233v; cropped), 12 (f. 270v; cropped), 15 (f. 342v), 16 (f. 366v; cropped), 19 (f. 431v), 20 (f. 454v), 21 (f. 478v). Leaf signatures appear in quires 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24. Layout: B: c. 135 x 90; 46 lines in two columns [40 + 40] 2r–506r (Bible) 507r–546r (Interpretations of Hebrew Names) E: c. 30 x 90; 10 lines in two columns [40 + 42] 507r–524r (Epistle and gospel list, added in lower margin of the Interpretations of Hebrew Names) M: c. 33 x 115; 7 lines in one column 526r–535v (Mass texts; added in lower margin of the Interpretations of Hebrew Names) Script: The main biblical text is written in northern textualis. The added epistle and gospel list is written in cursiva, and the added mass texts are written in southern textualis.

8.10.6 Artistic Decoration Running Header: Names of biblical books in alternating red and blue capitals (with the exception of Psalms which has no running header). Biblical Books: Historiated initials (with the exception of Lam, which has a decorated initial). Biblical Prologues: Decorated initials (with the exception of the opening prologues for the Four Gospels, which have historiated initials). Biblical Chapters: Two-line red or blue flourished initials; chapter number in alternating red and blue capitals in the column. Biblical Text: Consistent use of highlighting at the beginning of sentences. Psalms: Historiated initials are provided for Ps 1 (f. 231ra), Ps 26 (f. 235ra), Ps 97 (f. 237rb), Ps 109 (f. 109rb); due to loss of 9 folios, Ps 30:23–Ps 88:25 are missing; two-line red or blue flourished initials for other psalms; single-line red or blue capitals for psalm verses. Liturgical Texts: The added epistle and gospel list is highlighted with red. The added mass texts have red initials. Other: N/A

8.10 Poitiers, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 12  

 355

8.10.7 Quires and Contents Quires

Folio Range

Content

Opening flyleaf: 1 (followed by 1 stub)

1r

List of saints in liturgical order with selected scriptural citations

Q1: 2–25 (24) Layout B

Q2: 26–49 (24) Q3: 50–73 (24) Q4: 74–97 (24) Q5: 98–121 (24)

Q6: 122–145 (24) Q7: 146–169 (24)

Q8: 170–193 (24) Q9: 194–209 (16)

Q10: 210–233 (24)

1v

Blank page

2ra–4vb

S. 284 (Historiated initial: Jerome writing)

4vb–5rb

S. 285 (Decorated initial)

5rb

Blank space: 2 lines

5va–26ra

Gn (Historiated initial: Seven Days of Creation; Crucifixion with Mary and John)

26ra–43ra

Ex (Historiated initial: Moses leads two men; all three are wearing Jew’s hats)

43ra–55ra

Lv (Historiated initial: God speaking to Moses, who has horns and is holding tablets)

55ra–72ra

Nm (Historiated initial: Moses, with horns and holding tablets, speaking to a man wearing a Jew’s hat)

72ra–87ra

Dt (Historiated initial: Moses, with horns and holding tablets, speaking to a man wearing a Jew’s hat)

87ra–87va

S. 311

87va–98ra

Ios (Historiated initial: Two men at the Jordan river; head of God)

98rb–109va

Idc (Historiated initial: Man wearing crown lying on bed; head of God)

109va–111ra

Rt (Historiated initial: Elimelech in upper portion; Naomi with her sons Mahalon and Chelion in lower portion)

111ra–vb

S. 323

111vb–126vb

I Rg (Historiated initial: Hannah kneels at altar)

126vb–139ra

II Rg (Historiated initial: Messenger wearing Jew’s hat speaking to seated man wearing Jew’s hat)

139ra–153rb

III Rg (Historiated initial: Attendant brings Abishag to David)

153rb–166vb

IV Rg (Historiated initial: Ahaziah falls from tower)

166vb–167rb

S. 328

167rb–179rb

I Par (Historiated initial: Adam and two descendants)

179rb–va

S. 327

179va–194va

II Par (Historiated initial: Solomon wearing crown kneeling before altar with man wearing Jew’s hat behind him; head of God above altar)

194va–vb

Or Man (Only distinguished by marginal note)

194vb–195rb

S. 330

195rb–199va

I Esr (Historiated initial: Two men with work tools; king sitting with scepter)

199va–201va

II Esr [labelled Neh] (Historiated initial: Man wearing Jew’s hat kneeling before altar offering ram; head of God)

201va–204ra

III Esr [labelled II Esr] (Historiated initial: Josiah sprinkling altar)

204ra–rb

S. 332

204rb–208rb

Tb (Historiated initial: Tobit and swallow)

208va

S. 335

208va–214rb

Idt (Historiated initial: Judith beheading Holofernes)

214rb

S. 341 + S. 343

214rb–219va

Est (Historiated initial: Ahasuerus and Esther)

219va–220ra

S. 344

220rb

S. 357

220rb–231ra

Iob (Historiated initial: Job and wife; includes “vinum” in Iob 1:4 = Parisian text)

356 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

231ra–246rb

Ps (Due to loss of 9 folios between ff. 235 and 236, the text of the psalms is missing between Ps 30:23 [after dum clamarem] and Ps 88:25 [before cornu eius].)

Q11: 234–246 (22-9 [between 235 and 236, with loss of text])

Q12: 247–270 (24)

Q13: 271–294 (24)

Q14: 295–318 (24) Q15: 319–342 (24)

Q16: 343–366 (24)

Q17: 367–390 (24)

Historiated initials: Ps 1 (David harping) [f. 231ra] Ps 26 (Coronation of David) [f. 235ra] [Lacuna] Ps 97 (Two clerics at a lectern) [f. 237rb] Ps 109 (Christ in Majesty) [f. 240rb] 246rb

Blank space: 38 lines

246v

Blank page

247ra–rb

S. 457

247rb–236rb

Prv (Historiated initial: Solomon chastising Rehoboam)

236rb–256va

S. 462

256va–259vb

Ecl (Historiated initial: Solomon with scepter)

259vb–261ra

Ct (Historiated initial: Ecclesia)

261ra

S. 468

261ra–267vb

Sap (Historiated initial: Solomon and Soldier)

267vb–285va

Sir (Prologus begins with decorated initial on f. 267vb; Sir 1 begins with historiated initial of Solomon teaching on f. 268ra)

285va–286ra

S. 482

286ra–306ra

Is (Historiated initial: Isaiah sawn by two men)

306ra–rb

S. 487

306rb–329va

Ier (Historiated initial: God, Jeremiah and the Boiling Cauldron)

329va

Lam (Decorated initial)

331vb

S. 491

331vb–334va

Bar (Historiated initial: Baruch writing)

334va–vb

S. 492

334vb–356rb

Ez (Historiated initial: Four Living Creatures [Tetramorph]; Ezechiel in bed)

356rb–vb

S. 494

356vb–365va

Dn (Historiated initial: Daniel in the lions’ den)

365va

S. 500

365va–vb

S. 507

365vb–368vb

Os (Historiated initial: Hosea and Gomer)

368vb

S. 511

368vb–369ra

S. 510

369ra–370ra

Ioel (Historiated initial: Joel, man)

370rb

S. 515

370rb–va

S. 512

370va

S. 513

370va–373ra

Am (Historiated initial: Amos, sheep, head of God)

373ra

S. 519 + S. 517

373rb–va

Abd (Historiated initial: God? [without halo] speaks to Obadiah, who is wearing a Jew’s hat)

8.10 Poitiers, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 12  

 357

(continued) Quires

Q18: 391–407 (18-1 [after 407]) Q19: 408–431 (24)

Q20: 432–454 (24-1 [between 432 and 433 with loss of text])

Q21: 455–478 (24)

Folio Range

Content

373va–vb

S. 524

373vb

S. 521

373vb–374va

Ion (Historiated initial: Nineveh; Jonah and the whale)

374va

S. 526

374va–376rb

Mi (Historiated initial: Micah laments before Jerusalem)

376rb–va

S. 528

376va–377rb

Na (Historiated initial: Nahum speaks to a man)

377rb–vb

S. 531

377vb–378vb

Hab (Historiated initial: Angel transporting Habakkuk)

378vb–379ra

S. 534

379ra–vb

So (Historiated initial: God speaks to Zephaniah)

379vb–380ra

S. 538

380rb–vb

Agg (Historiated initial: Haggai with scroll in upper portion; Darius or Cyrus in lower portion)

380vb–381ra

S. 539

381ra–384rb

Za (Historiated initial: Angel with scroll; Zechariah)

384rb–va

S. 543

384va–385rb

Mal (Historiated initial: Malachi preaching to a man)

385rb–va

S. 547

385va–vb

S. 553

386ra

S. 551

386ra–399ra

I Mcc (Historiated initial: Beheading of idolatrous Jew)

399ra–407vb

II Mcc (Historiated initial: Messenger hands letter to a man, who is wearing a Jew’s hat)

408ra

S. 590 (Decorated initial)

408ra–408rb

S. 589 (Historiated initial: Matthew writing)

408rb–421rb

Mt (Historiated initial: Jesse asleep in bed; three kings and Christ in tree)

421rb

S. 607 (Historiated initial: Winged Lion)

421va–429rb

Mc (Historiated initial: Mark)

429va

Lc 1:1–4 (Decorated initial)

429va–vb

S. 620 (Historiated initial: Winged Ox)

429vb–442va

Lc (Historiated initial: Zechariah incensing altar; angel giving message. Text begins with Lc 1:5, Fuit in diebus. Due to loss of the loss of one leaf between ff. 432 and 433 the text is imperfect between Gau[dete] [Lc 6:23] and mulierem: fides tua [Lc 7:50])

442va–vb

S. 624 (Historiated initial: Eagle)

442vb–452vb

Io (Historiated initial: John writing)

453ra

S. 677

453ra–458ra

Rm (Historiated initial: Paul with scroll)

458ra

S. 685

458ra–463ra

I Cor (Historiated initial: Paul with sword and scroll)

463ra

S. 699

463ra–466rb

II Cor (Historiated initial: Paul with scroll)

358 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Q22: 479–494 (16)

Q23: 495–506 (12)

Folio Range

Content

466rb

S. 707

466rb–468ra

Gal (Historiated initial: Paul with scroll)

468ra

S. 715

468ra–469vb

Eph (Historiated initial: Paul with scroll)

469vb

S. 728

469vb–470vb

Phil (Historiated initial: Paul with sword)

471ra

S. 736

471ra–472ra

Col (Historiated initial: Paul with scroll)

472ra

S. 747

472ra–473ra

I Th (Historiated initial: Paul with sword and scroll)

473ra

S. 752

473rb–vb

II Th (Historiated initial: Paul with scroll)

473vb

S. 765

473vb–475ra

I Tim (Historiated initial: Paul with sword and scroll)

475ra

S. 772

475ra–476ra

II Tim (Historiated initial: Paul with scroll)

476ra

S. 780

476ra–va

Tit (Historiated initial: Paul with scroll)

476va

S. 783

476va–vb

Phlm (Historiated initial: Paul with sword and scroll)

476vb

S. 793

476vb–480va

Hbr (Historiated initial: Paul addressing a man wearing a Jew’s hat)

480va–vb

S. 640

480vb–494ra

Act (Historiated initial: Ascension of Christ with disappearing feet; Virgin Mary and three apostles standing below)

494ra–rb

S. 809

494rb–495va

Iac (Historiated initial: James with scroll)

495va–497ra

I Pt (Historiated initial: Peter, standing and holding key, blessing a man)

497ra–vb

II Pt (Historiated initial: Peter, sitting and holding key and scroll)

497vb–499ra

I Io (Historiated initial: John writing)

499ra–rb

II Io (Historiated initial: John holding scroll)

499rb

III Io (Historiated initial: John holding book)

499va–vb

Iud (Historiated initial: Jude writing)

499vb–500rb

S. 839

500rb–506rb

Apc (Historiated initial: John writing)

506rb

Blank space: 12 lines

506v

Blank page

Q24: 507–530 (24)

507ra–546rb

Layout E

✶

507r–517r

153

Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim; begins with decorated initial) [Epistle and gospel list] Temporal (cursiva; added in lower margin)

153 The folios with a ✶ before the folio number indicate that the text is added in the lower margin.

8.10 Poitiers, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 12  

 359

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Layout M

[Epistle and gospel list] Sanctoral (cursiva; added in lower margin)

524r

[Epistle and gospel list] Votive masses (cursiva; added in lower margin)

526r

[Mass texts added in lower margin] Dominica prima in adventu

526r–v

Dominica secunda ad missam

526v–527r

Dominica tertia

527r

Dominica quarta

527r–v

In vigilia natalis domini ad missam

527v–528r

In nocte natalis domini ad missam

528r–v

In aurora ad missam

528v–529r

Ad maiorem missam

529r–v

In circumcisione domini

529v

In epiphania domini

✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶

529v–530r

Dominica in ramis palmarum ad missam

530r–v

Feria quinta in cena domini ad missam

531r

In die pasce

531r–v

In rogationibus

531v–532r

In ascensione domini

532r–v

De sancto spiritu

532v–533r

Ad missam beatissime trinitatis

533r–v

In purificatione beate virginis

533v–534r

In commemoratione beate virginis a nativitate ad purificationem

534r

Item in annunciatione dominica et commemoratione beate virginis per adventum

534v

[Crown of Thorns]

535r

Oratio de beato dominico

✶

Q25: 531–546 (8)

✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶

535v

Beati petri martyris

✶

544v

Chant notation pen trials

546rb

Blank space: 42 lines

546v

Blank page with chant notation pen trials

After 546v

Restoration note: “Bibliothèque nationale. Atelier de reliure. Cote: Ms. Poitiers 258. Ouvrage restauré le: 28 Sept. 1949.”

✶

Closing Flyleaf

Content

518r–524r

✶

8.10.8 Bibliography Fleury 1867: Paul de Fleury, “Inventaire analytique et descriptif de manuscrits de la Bibliothèque de Poitiers,” Mémoires de la Société des antiquaires de l’Ouest 32 (1867): 131–215. On p. 137, Fleury provides a succinct description of the manuscript as “3. (Ancien 52.)”, dating it to the 14th century and mentioning the presence of “quelques lettres peintes.” Catalogue 1894: Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France : Départements–Tomes XXV. Poitiers–Valenciennes (Paris: Plon, 1894). On p. 3, the Catalogue provides a succinct description of the manuscript as “12 (258)” and mentions the presence of a “Liste de saintes, ajoutée au XIIIe ou au XIVe siècle” on f. 1 and an epistle and gospel list added on the margins of the Interpretations of Hebrew Names. The editor dates the manuscript to the 13th century and states that it features “écriture parisienne.” The editor refers to the manuscript as “Ancien 52” and indicates that it is number 3 in Fleury 1867.

360 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Gignac 1959: (André) Louis-Marie Gignac, “Le sanctoral dominicain et les origines de la liturgie dominicaine” ([Thèse présentée pour la Maîtrise en liturgie], Paris, Institut catholique de Paris, Institut supérieur de liturgie, 1959). Gignac provides a brief description of the manuscript on pp. 38–39, focusing on the added liturgical texts. Gignac (incorrectly) dates the epistle and gospel list to between 1240 and 1243 on the basis of the presence of the 4 May Corone Domini and the absence of the 19 November Elizabeth. Gleeson 2004: Philip Gleeson, “The pre-Humbertian liturgical sources revisited,” in Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L1, ed. Leonard E. Boyle, Pierre-Marie Gy, and Pawełs Krupa, Documents, Études et Répertoires 67 (Paris: CNRS Editions, 2004), 99–114. Gleeson mentions the manuscript on p. 100, giving a brief overview of the liturgical contents based on Gignac 1959. Light 2013: Laura Light, “The Thirteenth-Century Pandect and the Liturgy: Bibles with Missals,” in Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, ed. Eyal Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 185–215. Light mentions the manuscript on p. 214, providing information about the liturgical contents based on Gleeson 2004 and indicating that she has not personally examined the manuscript. Light 2016: Laura Light, “What Was a Bible For? Liturgical Texts in Thirteenth-Century Franciscan and Dominican Bibles,” Lusitania Sacra 34 (2016): 165–182. Light mentions the manuscript on p. 173n33 in a list of Dominican bible missals, and on p. 174n34 in the context of a discussion of the size of various bible missals. Ruzzier 2022: Chiara Ruzzier, Entre Université et ordres mendiants, Manuscripta Biblica 8 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022). Ruzzier includes the manuscript on p. 236 as n. 794 in her “Liste des bibles complètes recensées.”

8.11 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) Summary: Bible with Dominican Ordo Missae, ritual, and epistle and gospel list154 Dimensions: c. 155 x 100 mm; 556 leaves Origin: Paris155 Date: 13th century, middle (calendar datable after c. 1246–1248, likely before 1253; Ordo Missae added later, possibly c. 1300)156 Overview of Contents 1r: List of biblical books (13th-century addition) 1v: Table for calculating the start of Lent (1188–1343) 2r–3r: Dominican calendar (four months per page) 3v–6r: Epistle and gospel list 6r: List of the twelve Hebrew months 6v–7r: Blessing of Holy Water 7r–9v: Easter tables (1270–1619) 10r–16r: Ordo Missae with notated prefaces, canon, and post-canon prayers 16r–18v: Ritual for extreme unction 19r–22v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 22v–505v: Bible (Gn–Apc) 505v–556r: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim)

154 I have not had an opportunity to consult this manuscript, and therefore omit the Quires and Contents section in the following description. I have worked from color photographs kindly provided to me by Peter Kidd, who wrote the full description for Fogg 2014. 155 Fogg 2014 localizes the main portion of the manuscript to “France, probably Paris”, and suggests that the Ordo Missae section may have been added in Lyon. Fogg 2014 points out that the flourished initials in this section make use of purple ink, which are noted to be a “southern feature,” and observes that “the parchment also has the glossy feel of skins prepared in the characteristic southern manner.” 156 Fogg 2014 dates the manuscript “c.1250 (between 1234 and 1253); and Lyon, c.1300.”

8.11 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”)  

 361

8.11.1 Introduction This very small bible from a Private Collection was likely produced in Paris around the middle of the thirteenth century, judging from its artistic decoration (which includes historiated initials for almost all the biblical books executed in a style somewhat similar to the manuscripts associated with the so-called Johannes Grusch Atelier) and its relatively close adherence to the Parisian order of biblical books and prologues.157 The manuscript is referred to here as “The Wellington Bible” due to its past ownership by the Duke of Wellington, who acquired it as war booty from Joseph Bonaparte at the Battle of Vitoria on 21 June 1813. At the beginning of the manuscript, two quires contain a series of liturgical texts, including an added table on f. 1v for calculating the start of Lent from 1188 to 1343, a Dominican calendar on ff. 2r–3r, a Dominican epistle and gospel list on ff. 3v–6r, an added blessing for Holy Water on ff. 6v–7r, a set of Easter Tables from 1270 to 1619, an added Ordo Missae with notated prefaces on ff. 10r–16r, and an added ritual for extreme unction on ff. 16r–18v. Judging from photographs and the description in Fogg 2014, these liturgical texts appear to belong to two separate production units: the calendar and epistle and gospel list from an earlier period (likely contemporary with the production of the main portion of the bible), and the other texts from a later period.158 The earlier production unit is entirely contained in Quire 1 (ff. 1–6). The later production unit (possibly added c. 1300 judging from artistic grounds)159 used blank space on the final leaf of Quire 1 (f. 6v) and all of Quire 2 (ff. 7–18).160 The calendar in the earlier production unit can likely be dated after 1246–1248, as it presents the Anniversarium fami­ liarium et benefactorum ordinis nostri on 5 September rather than the earlier date of 10 September in what seems to be the original hand.161 The calendar and epistle and gospel list were likely written before 1253, as they omit St. Peter Martyr. The calendar contains many later additions in several hands. One hand seems to be responsible for adding the Dedication of the Dominican church at Lyon on 5 March (Dedicacio ecclesie fratrum predicatorum lugdunensis) and Beati petri martyris de ordine predicatorum with the rank Totum duplex on 29 April.162 The Dominican church at Lyon was dedicated by Pope Innocent IV in 1251, and Peter Martyr was canonized in 1253; if both additions are by the same hand, they were likely made at some point after the canonization in 1253.163 Notably, at least one other pre-Humbert Dominican missal includes an entry for the Dedication of the Church at Lyon: Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (f. 2r). In the case of the Los Angeles missal, however, the Dedicatio ecclesie lugdunensis is presented on 4 March rather than 5 March as in the Wellington Bible. The calendar of the Wellington Bible also includes the addition of Vincencii confessoris de ordinis predicatorum on 5 April, which suggests that the manuscript was still in Dominican hands when Vincent Ferrer was canonized in 1455. The epistle and gospel list which follows closely corresponds with the calendar, although it only presents Dominic once with the 5 August entry Sancti dominici.

157 Fogg 2014 notes that the biblical books appear “in the standard ‘Paris’ order … but omitting Psalms” and that “the prologues are very similar to the standard Paris set except: that to II Chronicles is omitted; Micah, Sophonias, and Zechariah each have an extra one (S.525, S.532, S.540, respectively); and Revelation has S.834 instead of S.839.” Fogg 2014 provides a full list of the historiated initials. 158 Sotheby’s 1979 and Fogg 1989 indicated that the opening 18 leaves were all a later addition; Christie’s 2012 suggested that the opening 6 leaves were original but that ff. 7–18 were an addition from c. 1300. Fogg 2014 likewise argues that the opening 6 leaves are original to the manuscript. 159 Fogg 2014 states “the added leaves of the Canon of the Mass are illustrated with a beautiful and delicately executed initial ‘T’ in the form of a Crucifixion (fol. 12r) related, as Alison Stones kindly informs us, to the illumination in the Cluny Breviary, datable to before 1300, belonging to the Mairie of St-Victor-sur-Rhins (on which see A. Stones, Gothic Manuscripts 1260–1320, Part II, A Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in France (2 vols, Turnhout, 2014), catalogue no.V-3 and ills. 194–96).” 160 According to Fogg 2014, “The collation of the first two quires is uncertain, but probably: 16–1+1 (original 1st blank leaf cancelled, present 1st leaf formerly a flyleaf; fols. 1–6) | 212 (fols. 7–18).” 161 The 5 September entry seems to me to be in the original hand of the calendar, despite being written in a slightly smaller script than the other entries; the smaller script appears to have been necessary in order to write the fairly long title of the occasion on a single line. The opening “A” of Anniversarium is written and highlighted in a way that closely matches the opening letters of the 27 November Agricole et vitalis martyrum and 30 November Andree apostoli on the same folio (f. 3r). By contrast, the other three Dominican anniversaries on the calendar all appear to be latter additions: the 4 February Anniversarium patrum et matrum, the 7 July Anniversarium sepultorum apud nos, and the 10 October Anniversarium omnium fratrum ordinis nostri. 162 I judge the additions to be by the same hand because they both employ an essentially identical abbreviation for predicatorum and are written in red ink (while most other additions are in black ink). 163 For a discussion of the dedication of this church, see Gleeson 1972, pp. 90n43, 113.

362 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

The later production unit begins on f. 6v, using what was originally blank space at the end of quire 1 to present the Blessing of Holy Water, which is continued in a different hand on the first folio of Quire 2. As the hand on f. 6v seems later than that on f. 7r, it is possible that Quire 2 originally had at least one further leaf at the beginning, which is now lost, and that the text on f. 6v was added to supplement this lost material when the quires were bound together. Quire 2 then continues with a series of tables for the calculation of Easter from 1270–1619 (with the opening blue heading incorrectly listing 1260 rather than 1270),164 following by an Ordo Missae with notated prefaces, canon, and post-canon prayers. According to Fogg 2014, the illuminated T initial in the form of a Crucifixion which opens the Te igitur of the Roman Canon on f. 12r is related to the illumination in Saint-Victor-sur-Rhins, Mairie, non coté, a notated Cluniac breviary perhaps illuminated in Lyon before 1300.165 The inclusion of Easter dates for three decades before 1300 might indicate an earlier date, but on the other hand the scribe was likely copying from a preexisting table and may have included dates that were in the past as well as those that were in the future, as was clearly the case for the table calculating the start of Lent from 1188 to 1343 on f. 1v.166 Nonetheless, the Ordo Missae does not appear to follow the c. 1256 liturgical reform of Humbert of Romans, e.g., omitting the use of the custos in the chant notation, not following the exact melodies of the Humbert Ordo Missae chants167 and omitting the “private prayers” of the priest between the Agnus Dei and the Ite missa est.168 The ritual that immediately follows the Ordo Missae presents rites for the communion of the sick and extreme unction that are closely related to the texts found in the Humbert Collectarium, although the Wellington Bible rites abbreviate the opening rubrics and provides alternate grammatical forms for female recipients of the sacraments not found in the Humbert exemplar.169 The inclusion of feminine forms of the rites suggests that the intended user of the this section of the Wellington Bible was a chaplain at a Dominican nuns’ monastery or in some other way involved in pastoral care of women. According to Fogg 2014, “the calendar and list of liturgical readings for the year are (contrary to the 1979 description) original, not additions,” but the Ordo Missae texts and illumination were added in “Lyon, c. 1300.” Although I cannot make a secure judgment regarding the question of the history of the production units without personally seeing the manuscript, this judgment seems accurate based on the photographs I have consulted. If this is the case, then the bible originally began with what is presently the first quire but with a blank verso at the end of the quire, and then the second quire was added at a later point with the added texts beginning on space left blank at the end of the first quire. From a liturgical perspective, the Dominican texts would thus combine pre-Humbert liturgical texts (the calendar and reading list) and post-Humbert liturgical texts (the Ordo Missae and ritual).

164 The first main rubric is “Annus domini m. cc. sexagesimus” [1260], but the date given for Easter is Idibus aprilis (13 April), the date of Easter in 1270, rather than II Non. Aprilis (4 April), the 1260 date. After providing the dates for the decade of the 1270s, the next main rubric correctly begins “Annus domini m. cc. octogesimus” [1280], and the chart continues sequentially through the 1610s. 165 Fogg 2014 thanks Alison Stones for pointing out the relationship between the illumination in the two manuscripts; cf. Stones 2014, v. 2, pp. 108–110 (Catalogue V-3). 166 The scribal error regarding the opening rubric as 1260 rather than 1270 supports the hypothesis of the scribe selectively copying from a source with a wider ranger of dates than the scribe chose to copy; the exemplar likely included the dates for the 1260s (and perhaps earlier), but the scribe began transcribing the actual dates from 1270 onwards. 167 For instance, on f. 15r–v the manuscript provides a single musical setting of the Pater noster labelled Cantus sollemnis et ferialis, whereas the Humbert Missale conventuale provides two distinct melodies labelled Cantus sollemnis and Cantus ferialis (see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 404r). The Wellington Bible Pater noster closely resembles the Cantus ferialis of Humbert, although sanctificetur begins on C in the Wellington Bible while it begins on D in the Humbert Ordo Missae. 168 On f. 16r, the Ordo Missae presents an unnotated partial text of the Agnus dei followed immediately by a single notated version of the Ite missa est, thus omitting the prayers Hec sacrosancta commixtio, Domine ihesu christe, Corpus et sanguinis, Quod ore sumpsimus, as well as the Placeat tibi sancta trinitas which typically comes after the Ite missa est. 169 For instance, in the Wellington Bible the rite for communion of the sick begins abruptly on f. 16r–v with “Cum autem pervenerint ad infir­ mum dicat sacerdos. Pax huic domui. Et respondeatur ab aliis. Ex omnibus habitantibus in ea.” In the Humbert Collectarium (cf. London, BL, Add. MS 23935, f. 96v and Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 56r), the rite opens with the rubric De communione infirmi, followed by a long description of the vestments and other preparatory aspects of the rite, before presenting the same text beginning Cum autem pervenerint. In the Wellington Bible, the versicle “Salvum fac servum tuum” is supplemented by interlinear texts “Salvam [fac] ancillam tuam” which do not appear in the Humbert version but appear to be by the original scribe of this section of the Wellington Bible. Despite the absence of a feminine form of the prayer in the Humbert exemplars, at least one medieval Dominican Collectarium presents only the feminine forms: Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 24, f. 93r, a late 13th-century Collectarium written for a Dominican nuns’ monastery in the diocese of Constance, Karlsruhe. I have not yet identified other manuscripts that present parallel forms for male and female recipients.

8.11 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”)  

8.11.2 Plates Figure 48 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), f. 2r (Calendar) Figure 49 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), f. 3v (Epistle and Gospel List), p. 364 Figure 50 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), ff. 11v–12r (Roman Canon), p. 365 Figure 51 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), ff. 16v–17r (End of Ritual/Beginning of Bible), p. 366 Figure 52 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), f. 22v (Gn [detail]), p. 367

Figure 48: Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), f. 2r (Calendar).

 363

364 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 49: Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), f. 3v (Epistle and Gospel List).

8.11.3 Liturgical Texts The bible includes a calendar and epistle and gospel list that is likely contemporary with the main bible section, as well as an Ordo Missae and ritual texts which are later additions. The calendar is written in black ink with higher ranked feasts underlined in red; the feast ranks are written in red ink. The feast ranks in the main hand are Totum Duplex, Duplex, Semiduplex, IX lectionum, III lectionum, and Commemoratio. Some of the higher ranked feasts include the specification of IX lectionum in addition to their other rank. The entries in the main hand include several distinctively Dominican occasions or feast ranks: Translatio beati dominici confessoris. Duplex (24 May; Totum added in later hand after Duplex); Beati dominici confessoris. Totum duplex (5 August); Octava beati

8.11 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”)  

 365

Figure 50: Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), ff. 11v–12r (Roman Canon).

dominici. IX lectionum. Semiduplex (12 August); Augustini episcopi et confessoris. Totum duplex (28 August); Octava sancti Augustini. Semiduplex (4 September); Anniversarium familiarum et benefactorum ordinis nostri (5 September); Sancti fran­ cisci confessoris. IX lectionum (4 October). Although the 5 September Anniversary is likely in the original hand, the other three Dominican anniversaries are each in different hands: Anniversarium patrum et matrum (4 February); Anniversa­ rium sepultorum apud nos (7 July); Anniversarium omnium fratrum ordinis nostri (10 October). Notably, the Wellington Bible is the only pre-Humbert missal that includes an entry for the 7 July Anniversary, first introduced in 1263 and finally confirmed in 1266,170 although as noted it is a latter addition. The calendar has a number of other additions, including Beati petri martyris de ordine predicatorum. Totum duplex (29 April), Antonii confessoris de ordine minorum. III lectionum (13 June), and, in a much later hand, Vincentii confessoris (5 April). The saints of the epistle and gospel list is in close conformity with the calendar, although further study is needed of the other sections, which include the temporal, sanctoral, Common of Saints, and a small selection of votive and Requiem masses. Each entry is provided with the biblical book, chapter number in Roman numerals, section letter, incipit, and explicit. Fogg 2014 notes the presence of marginal annotations in Apc for what seem to be Divine Office readings for the Monday after the octave of Easter (f. 499v). Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient images of the manuscript to examine the relationship of the designated readings to the main biblical text (e.g., to determine whether there are cues in the main biblical text concerning the incipits or explicits of readings).

8.11.4 Provenance The manuscript was written for a Dominican friar in Paris in the mid-13th century and was later brought to the Dominican priory of Lyon where the Ordo Missae and other texts were likely added. It was likely in Dominican hands at least through the 15th century when St. Vincent Ferrer was added to the calendar after his canonization in 1455. As described in detail by

170 See p. 56 above.

366 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 51: Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), ff. 16v–17r (End of Ritual/Beginning of Bible).

Hobson 1976 and Fogg 2014, the manuscript was later part of the collection of Charles IV, King of Spain (1788–1808), and was rebound c. 1800 in the style of the royal library. It was then removed from the Royal Palace at Madrid by Joseph Bonaparte (1768–1844), King of Spain from 1808–1813 and subsequently won by Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington (1769–1852) at the Battle of Vitoria on 21 June 1813. Although the Duke subsequently offered to restore the king of Spain’s property, in 1816 Ferdinand VII of Spain indicated that Wellington should keep what had been acquired at Vitoria (see Hobson 1976, p. 486). The manuscript remained part of the library of the Dukes of Wellington until it was sold along with other manuscripts from the collection (Sotheby’s 1979), when it was bought by Hans Marcus of Dusseldorf (see Fogg 2014). It was later sold at Fogg 1989, and was acquired by Martin Schøyen and was MS 251 in the Schøyen Collection. It was listed but apparently not sold at Christie’s 2012, and was then listed at Fogg 2014. It is presently in a private collection (see Light 2016).

8.11.5 Material Features Binding dimensions: ~ Binding: “Sewn on three bands and bound in mottled brown calf over pasteboards, the spine with gilt rules and red leather title-piece lettered in gilt “BIBLIA SACRA”, marbled endpapers, gilt edges, c.1800 (see Provenance), in a fitted calf box with gilt spine-title: “BIBLIA SACRA // FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF / JOSEPH BONAPARTE AND / THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON // PARIS. 13TH CENT.” (Fogg 2014)

8.11 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”)  

 367

Figure 52: Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), f. 22v (Gn [detail]).

Material of leaves: Parchment Dimensions of leaves: c. 155 x 100 mm (Fogg 2014) Number of leaves: 2 paper flyleaves + 556 + 2 paper flyleaves (Fogg 2014) Foliation (Modern): Not foliated Foliation (Medieval): N/A Secundo folio: ~ Quires: “The collation of the first two quires is uncertain, but probably: 16–1+1 (original 1st blank leaf cancelled, present 1st leaf formerly a flyleaf; ff. 1–6) | 212 (ff. 7–18) | 3–2820 (ff. 19–438), 2918 (ff. 439–456).” (Fogg 2014) Quire marks: “[C]atchwords in every quire except the first two and the last; leaf signatures frequently visible.” (Fogg 2014) Layout Bible layout: c. ~ x ~ mm; 44 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. ~ x ~ mm; 21 lines in 2 columns. Script: Northern textualis.

368 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

8.11.6 Artistic Decoration Running Header: Names of biblical books in alternating red and blue capitals, almost entirely cropped by a subsequent binding. Biblical Books: Historiated initials (with the exception of Agg and Iud, which are decorated); incipit rubrics written in black and underlined in red ink. Biblical Prologues: Decorated initials. Biblical Chapters: Two-line red or blue flourished initials; chapter number in alternating red and blue capitals in the column. Biblical Text: Highlighting for the beginning of sentences. Psalms: N/A Liturgical Texts: Red and blue ink used for KL initials and other decoration in the calendar; red highlights used in the epistle and gospel list. In the Ordo Missae, a 6-line Crucifixion miniature appears as the T of Te igitur; one- or two-line flourished or non-flourished initials for most texts, with purple ink used for the flourishing on red initials and red ink as the flourishing for blue initials. Other: N/A

8.11.7 Bibliography Hobson 1976: Anthony Hobson, “Manuscripts Captured at Vitoria,” in Cultural Aspects of the Italian Renaissance: Essays in Honour of Paul Oskar Kristeller, ed. Cecil H. Clough (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976), 485–96. Hobson describes the acquisition of the manuscript by the Duke of Wellington, and on p. 492 gives a brief description of the manuscript as number 12 in the list of books captured at Vitoria. Sotheby’s 1979: Sotheby Parke Bernet & Co, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts and Miniatures … Which Will Be Sold by Auction by Sotheby Parke Bernet & Co. … Day of Sale: Tuesday, 19th June, 1979 (London: Sotheby Parke Bernet, 1979). On pp. 31–32, Lot 42, the catalog describes the manuscript’s dimensions, provenance, and illumination. The catalog judges the main bible portion of the manuscript to date to c. 1250–70, and suggests that the 18 leaves at the opening of the manuscript were an addition made in the early 14th century. The catalog suggests that the illumination in the main bible section was undertaken by the workshop identified by Robert Branner as the ‘Johannes Grusch atelier.’ Fogg 1989: Sam Fogg, Catalogue 12: Medieval Manuscripts (London: Sam Fogg Rare Books, 1989). On pp. 26–27, the catalog gives a description of the manuscript as Lot 6. The catalog judges the main bible portion to date to c. 1260, and suggests that the opening 18 leaves were “illuminated around 1300,” comparing them to the illumination in the missal of St. Nicaise in Reims (St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, Ms. Lat. Q.v.I.78), painted between 1285 and 1297 possibly in Paris or Reims. Christie’s 2012: Christie’s, Valuable Printed Books and Manuscripts. Wednesday 13 June 2012 (London: Christie’s, 2012). On p. 7, the manuscript is presented as Lot 7. The catalog follows many of the conclusions of Fogg 1989, but distinguishes two sections in the opening 18 leaves, stating that leaves “vii–xviii” were inserted “c. 1300,” thus suggesting that the calendar and epistle and gospel list are original while the Ordo Missae is added. Light 2013: Laura Light, “The Thirteenth-Century Pandect and the Liturgy: Bibles with Missals,” in Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, ed. Eyal Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 185–215. On p. 214, Light gives a brief description of the manuscript, indicating that she has not seen it in person. Fogg 2014: Sam Fogg, Medieval Manuscripts: Art and Ownership (London: Sam Fogg, 2014). This catalog presents the manuscript as Lot 2, localizing it to “France, probably Paris, c. 1250, and Lyon, c. 1300” and providing a plate of the opening of Tit and Phlm. The accompanying full description, written by Peter Kidd, provides a detailed description of the manuscript. Light 2016: Laura Light, “What Was a Bible For? Liturgical Texts in Thirteenth-Century Franciscan and Dominican Bibles,” Lusitania Sacra 34 (2016): 165–182. Light includes the manuscript on p. 173n33 in a list of Dominican bibles with missals, indicating that it is now in a private collection in the United States of America after the sale at Fogg 2014.

8.12 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS 32 (A.5.6.)  

 369

8.12 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS 32 (A.5.6.) Summary: Bible with Dominican festive missal, added Dominican calendar and three epistle and gospel lists Dimensions: 170 x 120 mm; 472 leaves Origin: Italy Date: 13th century, second quarter (festive missal datable c. 1234–1244) Overview of Contents: 1r–22v: Exegetical and liturgical texts on added quires 1r–2v: Added notes 2v: Contents of the manuscript 3r–5v: Index of biblical concordance 6r–6v: Blank 7r–7v: Table of virtues and vices 8r–17r: Biblical concordance 17r–18v: Summa de vitiis 18v–19r: Epistle and gospel list I 19r: Rubrics for Ecclesiastes (cf. de Bruyne 2014, p. 562): In ecclesiastico. De honore parentum … [ends imperfectly] 19v–20r: Sex lucror in syon (Walther, Initia, n. 17606) 20r: Mnemonic of biblical books: Cum moyse iosue iudicum 20v: Blank 21r–22r: Added Dominican calendar (four months per page) 22v: Blank 23r–25v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 25v–210v: Bible (Gn–Ps) 210v–218r: Dominican festive missal 210v–211v: Ordo Missae with prefaces, Communicantes, Hanc igitur, and post-canon prayers 212r–212v: Selected temporal formularies 212v–215v: Selected sanctoral formularies 215v–216v: Common of Saints 217r: Votive masses 217v: Requiem masses 218r: Added liturgical texts 218r–438v: Bible (Prv–Apc) 438v–439v: Various added notes 440r–462v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 462v: Additional notes 463r–463v: Added texts on the vices 464r–465r: Historia omnium evangeliorum ordinata: Cum iam iudee rex esset factus herodes … Christe oliveti residens cum patre beatus. 465r: De miraculis omnium evangeliorum: Mateus agit. Curatione seu mundatione leprosi. 465v–466r: Epistle and gospel list II 466v: Additional notes 466v: Epistle and gospel list III 467r: Additional notes

370 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

8.12.1 Introduction Rome, Angelica 32 was likely produced in Italy in the second quarter of the thirteenth century, judging from the quire structure, script and decoration and the original inclusion of liturgical texts for St. Dominic.171 It includes several layers of liturgical material, including a Dominican festive missal between Psalms and Proverbs that is part of the original production unit, an epistle and gospel list at the end of the manuscript that is possibly original, two added epistle and gospel lists, an added calendar, incipits for antiphons and biblical canticles in the margins of the Psalter, and a series of marginal annotations throughout the bible indicating liturgical readings for the mass. The original festive missal section includes texts for the 5 August feast of St. Dominic and references the celebration of the 24 May Translation of St. Dominic, which indicates that it was written after 1234. The collect for St. Dominic includes the original phrasing meritis et exemplis, rather than the words meritis et doctrinis introduced in 1244, which indicates a possible terminus ante quem.172 The biblical text is written in two main codicological units which make use of distinct quire structures and layouts. The first half, ff. 23r–210v, which contains Gn–Ps, mostly uses quires of 20 leaves and consistently has 50 lines and a written space of c. 115 x 78 mm. The second half, ff. 218r–438v, which contains Prv–Apc, has a more variable quire structure and layout, mostly using quires of 16 leaves but also employing several other types of quires and presenting the text in with between 46–52 lines in a slightly larger written space of c. 125 x 80 mm. The size of script in the second half is relatively uniform despite the wide variation in the number of lines per column; the sections with fewer lines have a larger ruling unit but the minims are of a similar size (c. 1 mm). These two sections are also distinguished by the running headers, which are c. 2 mm high in the first half and c. 3 mm in the second half. Despite the clear contrast between these two sections, they seem to have been produced in coordination, as the festive missal is presented on ff. 210v–218r, in the closing folios of quire 13 (ff. 192–211), which concludes the first half, and the opening folios of quire 14 (ff. 212–228), which begins the second half. Although Prv often begins a new quire in medieval bibles, in this case Prv begins midway through quire 14 on f. 218r after six leaves of liturgical texts. As is common in 13th-century bibles produced outside of Paris, the order of biblical books and prologues has many variations from the Parisian order.173 These include a non-Parisian prologue for Rt, two additional prologues for Ier, the omission of two of the three Parisian prologues for I Mcc, the omission of one of the two Parisian prologues for Mt, the placement of the Acts of the Apostles and the Catholic Epistles immediately after the gospels rather than after the Pauline Epistles, the inclusion of several non-Parisian prologues and the omission of some Parisian prologues for various Pauline Epistles, the placement of Col after II Th rather than after Phil, the inclusion of the apocryphal Pauline letter Laod before I Tim, and a non-Parisian prologue for Apc. The manuscript presents a mixed Vulgate text, including the Parisian “revertendi posita” variant in Rt 1:7 but omitting “vinum” in Iob 1:4.174 Before and after the main biblical text, a variety of other liturgical and non-liturgical paratexts appear. At the beginning of the manuscript, a wide variety of texts are included on the opening flyleaves and three quires of different lengths (4, 14, and 2 leaves) that are all later additions representing several layers of production. Further research is needed for a comprehensive identification of all of the texts and an assessment of their order of production, but it is notable that vertical Cistercian number ciphers were added in the margins of many of these texts.175 Among the added texts is a list of the contents of the manuscript on f. 2v, which includes the text Item sequitur kalendarium immediately before Postea sequitur biblia, referring to the calendar on ff. 21r–22r, as well as 14. Testamentum[?] cum missis between 13. Ps. and 15. Proverbia sal., referring to the festive missal on ff. 210v–218r. After the conclusion of the main biblical text, Quire 28 presents the Interpretations of Hebrew Names. Although the layout for the Interpretations is quite different from the bible (as is often the case in 13th-century bibles), the style of artistic decoration employed for the initials suggests that this quire was produced along with the biblical text. Before and after the Interpretations, a variety of other texts appear, some of which are

171 I am grateful to Chiara Ruzzier for drawing this manuscript to my attention. Ruzzier 2022, p. 277 dates the manuscript to the second half of the 13th century. 172 For further details, see the discussion of the St. Dominic collect on pp. 62–64 above. 173 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, p. 282. 174 Cf. Ruzzier 2022, pp. 76–77. 175 Vertical ciphers are also used extensively in the Dominican bible missal Paris, Mazarine 31. For a brief discussion and bibliography concerning Cistercian ciphers, see p. 275 above.

8.12 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS 32 (A.5.6.)  

 371

clearly later additions added to originally blank space, and others of which may have been part of the original production. Among these is an epistle and gospel list on ff. 465v–466r that may be an original accompaniment to the festive missal.

8.12.2 Plates Figure 8 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 196r (Ps 38), p. 192 Figure 53 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 18v (Epistle and Gospel List I), p. 372 Figure 54 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 21r (Calendar), p. 373 Figure 55 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 25v (Gn), p. 374 Figure 56 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 210v (End of Psalter/Beginning of Festive Missal), p. 375 Figure 57 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 211r (Roman Canon), p. 376 Figure 58 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 214r (Festive Missal Formularies), p. 377 Figure 59 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 218r (Added Mass Texts/Beginning of Prv), p. 378 Figure 60 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 465v (Epistle and Gospel List II), p. 379 Figure 61 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 466v (Epistle and Gospel List III), p. 380

8.12.3 Liturgical Texts Rome, Angelica 32 includes four types of liturgical texts: 1) a festive missal between Psalms and Proverbs that is clearly an original part of the manuscript; 2) three epistle and gospel lists which belong to different production units; 3) a calendar added immediately before the opening of the bible after a series of other added texts; 4) a series of marginal annotations throughout the bible indicating liturgical readings. Throughout the festive missal section (ff. 210v–218r), only chant texts and orations are provided; no indications are provided for readings. This selection of genres is also found in Humbert’s Missale conventuale, which is distinguished from Humbert’s Missale minorum altarium in that it omits the readings entirely but includes the full chant texts and orations.176 After the Ordo Missae, the mass texts begin with a selection of major temporal feasts interspersed with Marian solemnities. Next, sanctoral formularies are provided for a selection of saints throughout the year, beginning with Saturinus (29 November) and concluding with Catherine of Alexandria (25 November). The most recently canonized saint is Dominic, who is provided with a full set of texts for his main feast on 5 August and a rubrical reference for his 24 May Translation. Dominic’s collect uses the pre-1244 meritis et exemplis rather than the post-1244 mertitis et doctrinis.177 Next, a selection of chants and orations are provided for various categories of saints. These are followed by a small selection of votive masses, mostly supplied with orations alone (with the exception of De cruce, which also has chant texts). The original festive missal material concludes with a set of orations for Requiem masses; notably no chant texts are provided in this section. Finally, two formularies were added by a later hand with a different style of decoration: St. Martha and the votive mass Pro predicatoribus. The manuscript contains three epistle and gospel lists which each belong to different production units. The first appears on ff. 18v–19r written in a semitextualis hand in the same five column layout as the preceding biblical concordance and Summa de vitiis. The list provides texts for temporal, sanctoral, and votive masses as well as the Common of Saints. Each entry is given an abbreviated biblical book, a chapter number in Arabic numerals, and the incipit. The sanctoral includes the 5 August feast of Dominic, but not the 24 May Translation; it does not include Peter Martyr. The second epistle and gospel list appears on ff. 465v–466r written by a southern textualis hand in a four-column layout that differs from the preceding and following material. The list provides texts for the temporal, sanctoral, Common of Saints, and Requiem masses. Each entry is given an abbreviated biblical book, a chapter number in Roman numerals, a section letter after the chapter, and the incipit; the sanctoral entries are also given a feast rank. The sanctoral includes the

176 Cf. Smith 2021a, pp. 286–287. 177 For further details, see the discussion of the St. Dominic collect on pp. 62–64 above.

372 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 53: Rome, Angelica 32, f. 18v (Epistle and Gospel List I).

5 August feast of Dominic, labelled Totum duplex and provided with two readings for the gospel;178 it does not include the 24 May Translation, or Peter Martyr. The script of the rubricator in this section is similar to that of the festive missal, and it seems that this epistle and gospel list was originally conceived of as a companion to the festive missal, which lacks any reference to specific biblical readings. A later hybrida hand has modified a large number of the readings in the temporal and a small number of readings in the sanctoral and has added St. Anthony of Padua in the bottom margin. It seems that these changes were intended to bring the readings into line with the Roman or Franciscan liturgy.179

178 See pp. 90–91 above. 179 In the four Sundays of Advent presented on f. 465v, for instance, in each case that the Dominican and Franciscan scriptural passages differ, the original reading has been erased and replaced with the Franciscan reading by a later hand; cf. O’Carroll 1997, pp. 360–361.

8.12 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS 32 (A.5.6.)  

 373

Figure 54: Rome, Angelica 32, f. 21r (Calendar).

The third epistle and gospel list was added on f. 466v in hybrida script which seems to be identical with that which made the modifications to the second reading list; it is a later addition to space that was left blank in the second column of f. 466v and is itself subdivided into two further columns written in a fairly informal way. This list only provides texts for the Common of Saints. Each entry is given a biblical book title, a chapter number in Roman numerals (but without a section letter), and the incipit. The added calendar on ff. 21r–22r, written on a bifolium constituting quire 3 (ff. 21–22) added between quire 2 (ff. 7–20) and the opening of the bible section on quire 4 (ff. 23–42), corresponds closely with the Dominican calendar as revised by Humbert of Romans and presented at the beginning of Humbert’s Collectarium.180 Notable differences from the pre-Humbert

180 See Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, ff. 41r–42v; edited in Guerrini 1921, pp. 253–266.

374 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 55: Rome, Angelica 32, f. 25v (Gn).

calendars found in other bible missals include the use of the term Memoria instead of Commemoratio and the presence of Petri martyris de ordine predicatorum as a Totum duplex feast on 29 April in the original hand. The calendar has some minor variations from the Humbert calendar as found in Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, for instance presenting the Memoria on 3 May as Alexandri et theodoli martyrum rather than Alexandri eventii et theodoli martyrum and presenting the Memoria on 7 October as Sergii et alii martyrum rather than Sergii et bachi, marcelli et apuleii martyrum. 181 Unlike the Humbert calendar, 181 It should be noted in this context that the Collectarium calendar in London, BL, Add. MS 23935, ff. 81r–82r (a portable exemplar version of the liturgy of Humbert of Romans produced slightly after Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1) also has a variation for this memoria, presenting the title as Alexandri evei et theodoli martyrum. From my comparison of the calendars from the Santa Sabina and British Library exemplars, it is clear that there are a range of minor variations in the presentation of the titles of the occasions in the two versions of the Humbert calendar; further research is needed to fully understand the relationship of these two exemplar texts to post-Humbert Dominican calendars.

8.12 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS 32 (A.5.6.)  

 375

Figure 56: Rome, Angelica 32, f. 210v (End of Psalter/Beginning of Festive Missal).

which does not supply any rank information for the 4 February, 5 September, and 10 October Dominican Anniversaries of the Dead, or the 2 November Commemoratio omnium fidelium defunctorum, in this manuscript IX is written in red ink after the title of the occasion; this presumably is an indication that there are nine readings for the Office of the Dead. The calendar has two additions that may be significant for understanding its provenance. On 29 May, there is an added obit for Guillelmus Arnaud, a Dominican inquisitor who was killed at Avignonet near Toulouse on 29 May 1242.182 182 The entry is written on f. 21v beginning on the space left blank for IIII Kalendas Iunii (=29 May) and continues on the following line and in space left blank after the entry for Petronille virginis on 31 May: “Frater Guillelmus Arnaldi ac socii eius fuerunt interfecti infidelibus apud avinionem dyocesis tholosani anno domini m.cc.xlii nocte ascensionis.” It is also possible that the name transcribed above as “Frater Guillelmus Arnaldi” is “Frater Garcias de Aura,” another Dominican who was killed along with Guillelmus and several other Dominicans and Franciscans at Avignonet near Toulouse on the night of the Ascension of the Lord in 1242. The story of this event, descriptions of subsequent miracles attrib-

376 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 57: Rome, Angelica 32, f. 211r (Roman Canon).

uted to those killed, and the text of a letter sent by the Roman Cardinals during the 1241–1243 papal interregnum acknowledging those killed as martyrs are given in Gerald de Frachet’s Vitas fratrum, Pars 5, c. 1 (ed. Reichert 1896, pp. 232–235). For brief discussions of the 1242 martyrdoms and the relationship of the papal interregnum to the stalled canonization process for the martyrs, see Prudlo 2015, pp. 87–90. According to Venchi 2001, pp. 128–129, Guillelmus and two of the other Dominican martyrs were buried in the Toulouse priory church (the Jacobin) in the 14th century, and their cult was confirmed by the Holy See on 6 September 1866. One of the non-Dominican martyrs mentioned in the Vitas fratrum, the archdeacon Raimundus Scriptor, is commemorated with similar language in a 16th-century Martyrologium and Obituarium from the Cathedral of Saint-Etienne in Toulouse, now preserved as Paris, BnF, NAL 3036, f. 178r, although in this case on the Nonas Iunii (5 June): “B. Nonas. Eodem die obiit raymundus scriptor canonicus istius loci et archidiaconus, qui interfectus est ab hereticis pro fide catholica in nocte ascensionis domini, cum clerico suo bernardo et cum aliis apud avinionem castrum diocesis tholose. Anno domini m.cc.xlii. In primo [sepultus est].” Raimundus was buried in the cloister of the Cathedral Church of Toulouse and was commemorated by an epitaph that has now disappeared, but which was transcribed by the historian Guillaume de Catel in 1633. The epitaph provided the 29 May date rather than the 5 June date found in the Obituarium: “IIII. CAL[ENDAS]. IUNII OBIIT R[AIMUNDUS]. SCRIPTOR /

8.12 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS 32 (A.5.6.)  

 377

Figure 58: Rome, Angelica 32, f. 214r (Festive Missal Formularies).

On 28 September, there is an added feast of Sancti exsuperii confessoris with the rank of Simplex; St Exuperius was Bishop of Toulouse in the early 5th century (d. c. 410). Although the narration of the Vitas fratrum concerning Guillelmus Arnaud and his companions suggests that there was somewhat widespread private veneration of the martyrs of Avignonet in the Order, I have not yet identified another Dominican calendar which includes them. The combination of the obit and the entry for the bishop of Toulouse suggests that this manuscript may have been used by a Dominican in Toulouse, although it should be noted that St. Exuperius can also be found in calendars from other regions.

SACERDOS ET CANONICUS ISTIUS LOCI ET ARCHIDIACONUS / VILLAE-LONGAE QUI FUIT INTERFECTUS CUM INQUISITORIBUS / HÆRETICORUM APUD AVIGNONET. ANNO DOMINI M.CC.XLII. / ET CUM BERNARDO EIUS CLERICO QUI SEPELITUR CUM IPSO.” See Catel 1633, p. 166; cf. Favreau and Michaud 1982, pp. 17–18; Cazes 1998, p. 165.

378 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 59: Rome, Angelica 32, f. 218r (Added Mass Texts/Beginning of Prv).

Finally, many leaves of the bible section include liturgical annotations concerning the readings for mass. While further study is needed on these annotations and their relationship to the epistle and gospel lists in the manuscript, I have identified at least three different manners of indicating the readings: a) marginal annotations written in red ink indicating the title of an occasion with the incipit and explicit of a particular passage underlined in red ink within the biblical text

8.12 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS 32 (A.5.6.)  

Figure 60: Rome, Angelica 32, f. 465v (Epistle and Gospel List II).

 379

380 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 61: Rome, Angelica 32, f. 466v (Epistle and Gospel List III).

8.12 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS 32 (A.5.6.)  

 381

itself;183 b) red underlines of the incipit and explicit without the occasion in the margin;184 c) marginal annotations in blank ink indicating the occasion but without underlines of the incipit or explicit.185

8.12.4 Provenance Given the presence of Dominican liturgical texts that are part of the original production unit of the bible, the manuscript was almost certainly written for a Dominican friar in Italy in the second quarter of the thirteenth century. It may have later been in Toulouse, given the presence of an addition of the 28 September Sancti exsuperii confessoris in the calendar, as well as the presence of the 29 May obit for the Dominican martyrs of Avignonet. It was later in the possession of someone who followed a different liturgical tradition, likely a Franciscan, who made adaptations to the reading list on ff. 465va–466rd. There is an erased added text at the top of f. 23r (the opening of the original bible section) that may have been an ownership mark, but I have not been able to decipher the text. The manuscript was likely in the Biblioteca Angelica by the early 18th century, where it may be the octavo bible referenced with the signature “Y.O.5.24” in the catalog of Basile Rasseguier.186 The manuscript was certainly in the library by 1847, when it was included in the handwritten catalog Bartolomei 1847.187

8.12.5 Material Features Binding dimensions: 180 x 120 x 65 mm Binding: White leather binding. Biblia Sacra written on upper part of spine. Stamp on lower part of spine: Biblioteca Angelica Roma. Mss 32. Material of leaves: Parchment Dimensions of leaves: 170 x 120 mm Number of leaves: 1 paper flyleaf + 2 parchment flyleaves + 472 + 1 parchment flyleaf + 1 paper flyleaf Foliation (Modern): 1–78, 70[a]-79[a], 80–467 Foliation (Medieval): Folios 463–466 are labelled I-IV in Roman Numerals at the top center of the rectos Secundo folio: Quod viros doceant (24r) Quires: The manuscript opens with several added quires which contain various additional texts: quire 1 has 4 leaves, quire 2 has 14 leaves, and quire 3 is a bifolium (presenting the added calendar). For the first half of the biblical text (Gn–Ps), the manuscript mainly makes use of quires of 20 leaves (quires 4–13, with the exception of 12 which is 18 leaves), while for the second half (Prv–Apc) it makes use of a number of different quire sizes, favoring quires of 16 leaves (quires 14–20, 24–26, although quire 14 has one added leaf) but also using quires of 12 leaves (quire 21, which has one added leaf), 14 leaves (quire 23), 18 leaves (quire 27, which has one added leaf), 20 leaves (quire 22, which contains the full text of I Mcc and II Mcc in a codicological unit). After the conclusion of Apc, quire 28 presents the Interpretations of Hebrew 183 For instance, on f. 377r, marginal rubrics and red underlines are employed for two occasions. The first, labelled Dominica infra octavam epiphanie, begins towards the end of Lc 2, and includes red underlines on the words Cum factus (Lc 2:42) and et homines at the end of the chapter (Lc 2:52); this corresponds with the reading indicated in the epistle and gospel list on f. 465v for that occasion: Evangelium. Lu. II.f. Cum factus esset ihesus. F[inis]. et homines. The second, Sabbato, begins with the underlined words Anno quinto (Lc 3:1) and ends with the underlined word dei (Lc 3:6); although the rubric is rather laconic, the passage corresponds with the reading provided for the Saturday after the Third Sunday of Advent (Ember Saturday) in the epistle and gospel list on f. 465v: Evangelium. Lu. III.a. Anno quinto. F[inis]. salutare dei. 184 For instance, on f. 365v, at the opening of Mt 17, the words Assumpsit (Mt 17:1) and resurgat (Mt 17:9) are underlined. This passage corresponds with the gospel pericope indicated in the original hand of the epistle and gospel list on 465v for the Saturday after the First Sunday of Lent, which is listed as Evangelium. Mt. XVIIa. Assumpsit ihesus F[inis]. resurgat. 185 For instance, on f. 389v, at the opening of Io 6, the rubric Dominica iiii in quadragesima appears in black ink in the margin, but with no indication in the text of the incipit or explicit. In the epistle and gospel list on 465v, the gospel pericope for this occasion is Io 6:1–14: Evangelium. Io. VI.a. Abiit ihesus. F[inis]. in mundum. 186 Rome, Angelica 1078, p. 17; cf. Sciarra 2009, p. 264. This catalog includes seven manuscripts labelled Biblia sacra, with three categorized as folios, two as quartos, and two as octavos. The other octavo (with the signature X.O.4.9) has a more elaborate title: Biblia sacra cum figuris minia­ tis, which indicates that it does not correspond to Rome, Angelica 32; this may correspond with Rome, Angelica 38, a small bible (156 x 113 mm) which includes a historiated initial for Gn. 187 For a discussion of this catalog, see Sciarra 2009, pp. 275–276.

382 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Names in a quire of 26-2 leaves (with two cancelled at the end of the quire). The closing quire 29 has 5 parchment leaves extant which contain various added texts, the original collation is uncertain. Quire marks: Leaf signatures “c-n” in lead on lower left corners of ff. 441–451 in quire 28. Layout: A1: c. 129 x 100 mm; 36 lines in two columns [45 + 50] 3r–5v (Index of bible concordance) A2: c. 168 x 115 mm; 100 lines in five columns [20 + 20 + 20 + 20 + 30] 7r–7v (Table of Virtues and Vices) A3: c. 168 x 115 mm; 89 lines in five columns [18 + 18 + 18 + 18 + 18] 8r–17r (Biblical concordance) 17r–18v (Summa de vitiis) A4: c. 168 x 115 mm; 104 lines in three columns [30 + 40 + 40] 19v–20r (Sex lucror in syon) A5: c. 152 x 100 mm; 56 lines in two columns [48 + 48] 439r–439v (Commentary on the Creed) A6: c. 144 x 100 mm; 58 lines in two columns [45 + 45] 463r–463v (Added texts on the vices) A7: c. 152 x 100 mm; 49–62 lines in two columns [50 + 50] 464r–465r (Historia omnium evangeliorum ordinata) A8: c. 158 x 108 mm; 109 lines in two columns [55 + 50] 466v (Added notes) B1: c. 115 x 78 mm; 50 lines in two columns [35 + 35] 23r–210v (Bible: Gn–Ps) B2: c. 125 x 80 mm; 46–52 lines in two columns [38 + 38] 218r–438v (Bible: Prv–Apc) C: c. 160 x 112 mm; 76 lines in two columns [52 + 53] 21r–22r (Calendar) E1: c. 168 x 115 mm; 83 lines in five columns [20 + 20 + 20 + 20 + 23] 18v–19r (Epistle and gospel list I) E2: c. 155 x 117 mm; 100 lines in four columns [30 + 23 + 28 + 33] 465v–466r (Epistle and gospel list II) E3: c. 75 x 55 mm; 39 lines in two columns [33 + 22] 466v (Epistle and gospel list III)188 I: c. 148 x 95 mm; 59 lines in three columns [28 + 28 + 28] 440r–462v (Interpretations of Hebrew Names) M1: c. 117 x 77 mm; 51 lines in two columns [34 + 35] 210v–211v (Festive missal Ordo Missae) M2: c. 124 x 82 mm: 51 lines in two columns [40 + 40] 212r–217v (Festive missal formularies) Script: The bible, the festive missal, and the Interpretations are written in southern textualis by several scribes, some of whom write in a very round script while others have a less rounded style. The missal section uses a contrast between two sizes of writing to distinguish between chant and prayer texts. The various additional texts are mostly written in southern textualis, also some are written in semitextualis or cursiva (as specified in the Quires and Contents section below).

188 Added in blank partial column.

8.12 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS 32 (A.5.6.)  

 383

8.12.6 Artistic Decoration Running Header: Names of biblical books in alternating red and blue capitals (with the exception of Psalms and the missal). The titles are c. 2 mm high from Gn–Iob and c. 3 mm high from Prv–Apc. Biblical Books: Littera duplex initials (6–12 lines) or occasional flourished initials. Biblical Prologues: Littera duplex initials (5–6 lines) or flourished red or blue initials (3–5 lines). Biblical Chapters: Two-line red or blue flourished initials; chapter number in alternating red and blue capitals, usually in the column. Biblical Text: There are a range of practices throughout the volume: sometimes certain sentences within chapters begin with alternating red and blue one-line initials; sometimes there is highlighting in red of all sentence beginnings; sometimes there is no highlighting or differentiation within the chapters. Psalms: Littera duplex initials for Ps 1, 26, 38, 52, 68, 80, 97, 109 (12 lines for Ps 1; 6–9 lines for the other psalms); two-line red or blue flourished initials for other psalms; single-line red or blue capitals for psalm verses. Liturgical Texts: Littera duplex initials for the Common Preface and Roman Canon. Two- or three-line red or blue flourished initials for the sections of the canon. Two-line red or blue flourished initials for the prefaces, post-canon Ordo Missae texts, and orations throughout the festive missal (with the exception of the added orations on 218r which have two-line red non-flourished initials). Highlighting in red of initial letters of chant texts. Other: N/A

8.12.7 Quires and Contents Quires

Folio Range

Content

Fols. 1–2 (2 parchment flyleaves with later additions)

1r

Blank parchment flyleaf, former pastedown

1v

Notes on the Ten Plagues of Egypt

2r

Added notes, faded and difficult to read

2v

Added notes

2v

Contents of the manuscript (cursiva)

Q1: 3–6 (4)

3ra–5vb

Index of biblical concordance (cursiva)

Layout A1

6r–v

Blank leaf

Q2: 7–20 (14) Layout A2

7ra–vd

Table of virtues and vices (semitextualis)

7ve

Blank column

Layout A3

8ra–17rb

Biblical concordance (semitextualis)

17rb–18va

Summa de vitiis (semitextualis)

18vb–19re

Epistle and gospel list I (semitextualis)

19re

[Index of Ecclesiastes] In ecclesiastico. De honore parentum … [ends imperfectly] (cf. de Bruyne 2014, p. 562)

19va–20ra

Sex lucror in Syon … Sedulus et prediis humilis cibor, oro, flagello. (Walther, Initia, n. 17606)

20ra

Mnemonic of biblical books: Cum moyse iosue iudicum189

20rb–rc

Blank columns

20v

Blank page

Q3: 21–22 (2)

21ra–22rb

Calendar

Layout C

22v

Blank page

Layout E1

Layout A4

189 A text with the same incipit appears in Mainz, Stadtbibliothek, Hs I 164, f. 200r (see List 1998, p. 85).

384 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

Q4: 23–42 (20)

23ra–25ra

S. 284

Layout B1

25ra–va

S. 285

Q5: 43–62 (20)

Q6: 63–73[a] (20)190 Q7: 74[a]–93 (20)

Q8: 94–113 (20)

Q9: 114–133 (20)

Q10: 134–153 (20)

Q11: 154–173 (20)

Q12: 174–191 (18)

25va–40vb

Gn

40vb–53rb

Ex

53va–62ra

Lv

62ra–74va

Nm

74va–77[a]ra

Dt

77[a]ra–rb

S. 311

77[a]rb–85rb

Ios

85rb–93vb

Idc

93vb

Booz duxit ruth in uxorem sed ex ea suscepit obez patrem ysai patris david. (Non-Parisian prologue not included in Stegmüller)191

93vb–95ra

Rt

95ra–va

S. 323

95vb–107rb

I Rg

107rb–116rb

II Rg

116rb–126vb

III Rg

126vb–136rb

IV Rg

136rb–vb

S. 328

136vb–145vb

I Par

145vb–146ra

S. 327

146ra–157rb

II Par

157rb

Or Man

157rb

Blank space: 1 line

157va–vb

S. 330

157vb–161ra

I Esr

161ra–165va

II Esr [Neh]

165va–170rb

III Esr [II Esr]

170rb

S. 332

170rb–173rb

Tb

173rb–va

S. 335

173va–177vb

Idt

177vb–178ra

S. 341 + S. 343

178ra–182ra

Est

190 Due to an error by the foliator, after f. 78, ten folios appear numbered ff. 70a–79a, with a later hand adding “a” after each of these numbers. The foliation then continues starting with f. 80. 191 An almost identical text appears in a 13th-century bible likely produced in Italy: Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 28, f. 107rb: “Booz ducit ruth in uxorem et ex ea suscepit obez patrem ysai patris david.” Transcription from Vattasso and Franchi de’ Cavalieri 1902, p. 28.

8.12 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS 32 (A.5.6.)  

 385

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

182ra–va

S. 344

182va–vb

S. 357

182vb–191ra

Iob (omission of “vinum” from Iob 1:4 = non-Parisian text)

191ra–210va

Ps (Littera duplex initials for Ps 1 [191ra], Ps 26 [194ra], Ps 38 [196ra], Ps 52 [197vb], Ps 68 [199vb], Ps 80 [202ra], Ps 97 [204ra], Ps 109 [206rb]. The psalms are numbered by the original rubricator. Antiphon and biblical canticle incipits included in the margins.)

210va

[Festive missal] [Ordo Missae variable texts] [Christmas]

210va

[Epiphany]

210va–vb

[Easter]

210vb

[Ascension]

210vb–211ra

[Pentecost]

211ra

In festo sancte trinitatis

211ra

De cruce

211ra

De beata virgine

211ra

In festis apostolorum preter festum catedre

211ra–rb

Incipit communis prefatio

211rb–vb

[Canon]

211vb

[Post-canon Ordo Missae]

211vb

[Temporal and Marian masses] In commemoratione beate marie

211vb

Blank space: 2 lines

212ra

In nativitate domini officium ad maiorem missam

212ra

In circumcisione domini

212ra

De beata virgine

212ra–rb

In epiphania

212rb

In purificatione

212rb–va

In annunciatione beate marie

212va

In resurrectione domini

212va–vb

In ascensione domini

212vb

In pentecosten

212vb

In trinitate

212vb

[Sanctoral masses] In festo sancti saturini

213ra

In festo beati andree apostoli

213ra

Beati thome apostoli

Q13: 192–211 (20) Layout M1

Q14: 212–228 (16+1 [217]) Layout M2

213ra

In natale sancti stephani

213ra–rb

In natale sancti iohanis

213rb

In natale innocentium

213rb–va

In conversione sancti pauli

213va

In cathedra sancti petri

213va

Sancti mathie apostoli

213va–vb

Sancti marchi evangeliste

213vb

Sanctorum philippi et iacobi

213vb

In inventione sancte crucis

386 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

213vb

Sancti iohanis apostoli ante portam latinam

214ra

In translatione beati dominici (Rubric only)

214ra

Sancti barnabe apostoli (Rubric only)

214ra

In nativitate beati iohanis baptiste

214ra

In natale sanctorum petri et pauli

214ra

In commemoratione beati pauli

214ra–rb

In festo beate marie magdalene

214rb

In natale sancti iacobi apostoli

214rb

In vincula sancti petri apostoli

214rb

In inventione sancti stephani

214rb–va

In natale beati dominici

214va

In natale beati laurentii martyris

214va

In assumptione beate marie virginis

214va–vb

In natale beati bartholomei

214vb

In natale beati augustini episcopi

214vb

In decollatione beati iohanis baptiste

214vb

In nativitate beate marie

214vb–215ra

In exaltatione sancte crucis

215ra

Beati mathei

215ra–rb

Sancti michaelis

215rb

In natale sancti luce evangeliste

215rb

Sanctorum apostolorum symonis et iude

215rb

Natale omnium sanctorum

215rb–va

Beati martini

215va

In festo beate katharine virginis et martyris

215va–vb

[Common of Saints] In vigilia unius apostoli

215vb

In die

215vb

In natali plurimorum apostolorum

215vb–216ra

In natali unius martyris pontificis

216ra

Item alia

216ra–rb

Unius martyris non pontificis

216rb

Item

216rb

Item alia

216rb–va

Officium plurimorum martyrum

216va

Item alia

216va–vb

In natali unius confessoris / Item officium plurimorum

216vb

Unius confessoris non pontificis

216vb

Unius confessoris et abbatis

216vb

In natale unius virginis

217ra

[Votive masses] Missa de omnium sanctis et pro ecclesia

8.12 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS 32 (A.5.6.)  

 387

(continued) Quires

Layout B2

Q15: 229–244 (16)

Q16: 245–260 (16)

Q17: 261–276 (16)

Q18: 277–292 (16)

Q19: 293–308 (16)

Q20: 309–324 (16)

Folio Range

Content

217ra

Ad postulandam gratiam sancti spiritus

217ra

Pro temptatione carnis

217ra–rb

Pro familiaribus

217rb

Pro infirmis

217rb

Pro tribulatione ecclesie

217rb

Ad poscendam suffragiam sanctorum

217rb

De cruce

217va

[Requiem masses] Pro homine defuncto

217va

Pro femina defuncta

217va

In anniversariis

217va

Pro fratribus et famulis et parentibus

217va–b

Pro cunctis fidelibus

217vb

Pro vivis ac defunctis

217vb

Pro vivis ac defunctis

217vb

Pro vivis ac defunctis

218ra

In festo beate marthe hospite christi (Later addition)

218ra

[Pro predicatoribus] (Later addition)

218ra

Blank space: 9 lines

218ra–rb

S. 457

218rb–225vb

Prv

225vb

S. 462

225vb–228rb

Ecl

228rb–229va

Ct

229va–vb

S. 468

229vb–235ra

Sap

235ra–249vb

Sir (Biblical Prologus presented as a prologue with flourished initial; Sir 1:1 begins with a littera duplex initial)

249vb–250rb

S. 482

250rb–268rb

Is

268rb

S. 487

268rb–va

S. 490 (Non-Parisian prologue)

268va

S. 486 (Non-Parisian prologue)

268va–289va

Ier

289va–291va

Lam

291va

S. 491

291va–294ra

Bar

294ra–294rb

S. 492

294rb–312va

Ez

312va–313ra

S. 494

313ra–320va

Dn

388 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Q21: 325–337 (12+1 [335])

Q22: 338–357 (20)

Q23: 358–371 (14)

Folio Range

Content

320va

Blank space: 1 line

320vb

S. 500

320vb–321ra

S. 507

321ra–323rb

Os

323rb–va

S. 511

323va

S. 510

323va–324va

Ioel

324va

S. 515

324va–vb

S. 512

324vb

S. 513

324vb–326vb

Am

326vb–327ra

S. 519 + S. 517

327ra–rb

Abd

327rb–va

S. 524

327va

S. 521

327va–328rb

Ion

328rb

S. 526

328rb–329vb

Mi

329vb–330ra

S. 528

330ra–vb

Na

330vb–331rb

S. 531

331rb–vb

Hab

331vb–332ra

S. 534

332ra–vb

So

332vb–333ra

S. 538

333ra–va

Agg

333va–vb

S. 539

333vb–336va

Za

336va–vb

S. 543

336vb–337vb

Mal

337vb

Blank space: 2 lines

337vb

S. 551 (Not preceded by S. 547 and S. 553)

337vb

Blank space: 18 lines

338ra–349vb

I Mcc

349vb–357vb

II Mcc

357vb

Blank space: 1 line

358ra

S. 590 (Not followed by S. 589)

358ra–368vb

Mt

368vb–369ra

S. 607

8.12 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS 32 (A.5.6.)  

 389

(continued) Quires Q24: 372–387 (16)

Q25: 388–403 (16)

Q26: 404–419 (16)

Q27: 420–438 (18+1 [431])

Folio Range

Content

369ra–375va

Mc

375va

Blank space: 1 line

375vb

S. 620

375vb–387rb

Lc (Lc 1:1 introduced with a five-line littera duplex at the bottom of 375vb; Lc 1:5 preceded by the rubric Incipit evangelium beati luche evangeliste with a five-line littera duplex at the top of 376ra)

387rb–vb

S. 624

387vb–395va

Io

395va

S. 640

395va–406rb

Act (Non-Parisian biblical order; in the Paris order, Acts and the Catholic Epistles follow the Pauline Epistles)

406rb–va

S. 809

406va–407va

Iac

407va–408va

I Pt

408va–409ra

II Pt

409ra–410rb

I Io

410rb

II Io

410rb–va

III Io

410va–vb

Iud

410vb–411ra

S. 674 (Non-Parisian prologue)

411ra

S. 677 (Parisian prologue; appears here without a break following S. 674)

411ra

Sedulius Scottus, Collectaneum in apostolum, Praefatio, lines 19–31: Paulus ex tribu beniamin … post passionem domini sepultus est. (Non-Parisian additional prologue; appears here without a break following S. 677)192

411ra–415ra

Rm

415ra

S. 685

415ra–419ra

I Cor

419ra

S. 699

419ra

S. 696 (Non-Parisian prologue)

419ra–421vb

II Cor

421vb

S. 707

421vb–423ra

Gal

423ra

S. 715

192 The prologue in the manuscript is almost identical to the text of Sedulius Scottus offered in Frede and Stanjek 1996–1997, vol. 1, p. 2. Sedulius introduces the text with the words Itaque Hieronimus de Paulo sic dicit, and the editors identify the Sedulius’ source as Jerome’s Liber de viris illustribus 5:1–8. As is typical for Sedulius, however, the source text from Jerome has been significantly adapted, and Rome, Angelica 32 follows the Sedulius version rather than Jerome. Although this prologue does not appear in Stegmüller, I have identified at least three other manuscripts which provide it in a similar context: Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek, 2° Cod 55a und b (bible copied in Augsburg c. 1515–1521), Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek, 2° Cod 66 (miscellany codex which includes a section of biblical prologues written in 1461), and Escorial, Real Biblioteca del Monasterio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, e. IV. 15 (15th-century bible containing Prv–Apc). For the Augsburg manuscripts, see Spilling 1978, pp. 82–84 and 98–101; for the Escorial manuscript, see Antolín 1911, pp. 104–107.

390 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

423ra–424va

Eph

424va

S. 728

424va–425ra

Phil (Not followed by Col, which instead appears after II Th. A marginal note draws attention to this: Hic debet esse epistola ad colo.)

425ra

S. 747

425ra–426ra

I Th

426ra

S. 752

426ra–va

II Th

426va

S. 736

426va–427va

Col (Non-Parisian order)

427va–vb

Laod (Non-Parisian biblical book)

427vb

S. 765

427vb–428vb

I Tim

428vb

S. 772

428vb

S. 770 (Non-Parisian prologue)

428vb–429vb

II Tim

429vb

S. 780

429vb–430rb

Tit

430rb

Phlm (Not preceded by Parisian prologue S. 783)

430rb–va

S. 793

430va–433ra

Hbr

433ra–rb

S. 835 (Non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 839)

433rb–438va

Apc

438va

Originally blank space: 19 lines

438vb

Originally blank column

438va–vb

Various additional notes

Q28: 439–462 (26-2 after 462?) Layout A5

439ra–vb

Commentary on the Creed: Ricardus de Sancto Victore: Articulus est … ad idem diligendum et volendum.

Layout I

440ra–462vc

Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim)

462vc

Added notes

Q29: 463–467 (5 parchment leaves; collation uncertain) Layout A6

463ra–vb

Added texts on the vices

Layout A7

464ra–465ra

Historia omnium evangeliorum ordinata: Cum iam iudee rex esset factus herodes … Christe oliveti residens cum patre beatus.193

465rb

De miraculis omnium evangeliorum: Mateus agit. Curatione seu mundatione leprosi.

Layout E2

465va–466rd

Epistle and gospel list II

Layout A8

466va–vb

Added notes

Layout E3

466vb

Epistle and gospel list III (Common of Saints)

467ra–rb

Added notes

193 A similar text appears in Braunschweig, Stadtbibliothek, Hs 181, ff. 8r–10v (cf. Nentwig 1893, p. 172) and Cologne, Historisches Archiv der Stadt Köln, Hs 118, ff. 79r–87r (cf. Vennebusch 1993, p. 208).

8.13 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. lat. 532  

 391

8.12.8 Bibliography Bartolomei 1847: [Rome, Angelica 2393] Fr. Guilelmus Bartolomei Bibliothecæ Angelicæ Theologus Hunc codicum indicem eiusdem bibliothecae confecit et scripsit Anno a Nativitate Dominica MDCCCXXXXVII. On f. 27v, the manuscript is listed as Bibliae sacrae latinae. Cod. memb. 8o. A.5.6. Narducci 1892: Henricus Narducci, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum praeter graecos et orientales in Bibliotheca angelica, olim coenobii Sancti Augustini de urbe : tomus prior complectens codices ab instituta bibliotheca ad a. 1870 (Rome: Typis L. Cecchini, 1892). On pp. 12–13, Narducci provides measurements and an overview of the various contents of the manuscript, although he does not note the presence of the festive missal or of the first and third epistle and gospel list. Narducci dates the manuscript to “sec. XIV.” Ruzzier 2022: Chiara Ruzzier, Entre Université et ordres mendiants, Manuscripta Biblica 8 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022). Ruzzier includes the manuscript on p. 241 as n. 958 in her “Liste des bibles complètes recensées,” on p. 277 in her list of “Bibles complètes consultées,” where she dates it to the second half of the 13th century and localizes it to Italy, and on p. 282 where she lists the order of biblical books.

8.13 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. lat. 532 Summary: Bible with Dominican votive missal, calendar, epistle and gospel list, and added gospel list194 Dimensions: 152 x 107 mm; 519 leaves Origin: Viterbo (colophon) Date: 1250 (colophon) Overview of Contents: 1r: Blank 1v–6r: Dominican votive missal 1v: Votive and Requiem mass formularies 2r–4r: Calendar (flowing in two columns) 4r–6r: Ordo Missae with prefaces, canon, and post-canon prayers 6r: Votive mass formularies 6v: Blank 7r–9v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 10r–470r: Bible (Gn–Apc) 470v–510r: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 510v–513r: Epistle and gospel list 513v–517v: Biblical prologues 517v: Added gospel list (continued from f. 518v) 518r: Blank page 518v: Added gospel list (continued on f. 517v)

194 There has been some confusion about the shelfmark of Ott. lat. 532 in scholarly literature, as it has sometimes been confused with another 13th-century bible with a Dominican epistle and gospel list, Ott. lat. 523. The confusion stems from Salmon 1969, p. 124, who included an entry for Ott. lat. 532 under the shelfmark Ott. lat. 523 in his section on missals in the Vatican Library. Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 523 is a small 13th-century bible with an added (15th-century?) Dominican epistle and gospel list; cf. Salmon 1969, p. 50. Although Salmon 1971 and Salmon 1972 both include the correct shelfmark Ott. lat. 532 in their respective entries for the calendar and epistle and gospel list of the manuscript, the incorrect Ott. lat. 523 shelfmark is given by Baroffio 1999, Baroffio 2011, Baroffio et al. 2016, and Suski and Sodi 2019.

392 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

8.13.1 Introduction Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 is a small bible with the rare distinction195 of including a colophon (Table 145; cf. Figure 64) specifying that it was completed in Viterbo in 1250 by John of Cortona196 (although some scholars have interpreted the colophon as indicating the year 1236).197 Table 145: Colophon in Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 470r. Anno milleno bis centum ter duodeno Hiis quoque bis denum iungas et tollito senum.

In the year 1000 + 200 + 36 + 20 – 6 [= 1250]

Hec fuit expleta viterbii bibliotheca Dextra iohanis que scribat pluribus annis. Quem genuit duris cortona recondita muris.

This was finished in the library of Viterbo by the hand of John who was writing for several years, he whom Cortona, famous for its durable walls, bore.

Quam nullus terror vicit nec polluit error. Penna gradum siste quia liber explicit iste.198

O quill, whom no terror conquers, nor error pollutes, cease your motion, for this book is finished.

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 includes a votive missal with a Dominican calendar at the beginning of the codex and two lists of liturgical readings at the end, one with epistles and gospels and one with only gospels, the second of which is a later addition. The bible presents the Parisian order of biblical books (with the addition of V Esr, labelled IV Esr)199 but has many variations from the standard Parisian order in the biblical prologues.200 The main biblical text is followed by the Interpretations of Hebrew Names and afterwards by an appendix of biblical prologues. The votive missal and bible are likely a single production unit. The votive missal was written by two hands, one of which seems to match that of the main text of the bible. The calendar of the votive missal is clearly Dominican and was likely written between 1250 and 1253 based on the presence of an obit for Cardinal Raniero (d. 27 May 1250) and the

195 For a discussion of the rarity of colophons in 13th-century portable bibles, see Ruzzier 2022, pp. 33; for a list of bibles with indications of dates, places, or copyists, see Ruzzier 2022, p. 283. 196 There is another 13th-century bible, formerly Brookyln, Brooklyn Museum, Ms 2 (see de Ricci and Wilson 1937, p. 1194) which contains an undated colophon with the name John of Cortona: “Qui scripsit hunc librum fiat collectum in paradisum. Johannes scriptor de Cortona scripsit et complevit. Deo gratias.” The manuscript was sold at Christie’s on June 8, 2011 (Lot 7), https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/ lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5447962. Although I have been unable to determine the current location of the manuscript, a comparison of the images on the Christie’s website with the Vatican manuscript reveals both similarities and differences in the script which make it difficult to say with certainty that it is the same scribe. Given the rarity of signed colophons in bibles of this period, it seems likely that the ex-Brooklyn bible is signed by the same scribe. For further details on the ex-Brooklyn bible’s provenance, see https://sdbm.library.upenn.edu/manuscripts/6560. I am grateful to Brandon Hawk for sharing information related to the ex-Brooklyn bible with me. Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Canon. Bibl. Lat. 59, a Latin Vulgate localized to the “North (?)” of Italy and dated “Saec. XIII ex.” by Pächt and Alexander 1970, p. 10, includes a colophon at the end of the New Testament identical to that of the ex-Brooklyn bible with the exception of omitting the name of the scribe (see Coxe 1854, cols. 267–268, who does not specify the folio number on which the colophon appears; cf. Bénédictins du Bouveret 1982, p. 467 [n. 23141]): “Qui scripsit hunc librum. fiat collectum in Paradisum.” 197 The earliest interpretation of the colophon indicating 1236 that I have identified is Sirleto 1585, the catalog of the books of Cardinal Sirleto compiled shortly after his death. The index of liturgical books in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana published by Bannister 1905 likewise interpreted the date as 1236. Although as early as 1929 the more accurate interpretation of 1250 was put forward by Katterbach et al. 1929, Salmon’s publications on the liturgical manuscripts of the Vatican Library follow Bannister 1905 in interpreting the date as 1236 (see Salmon 1969, 1971, and 1972). While later scholars have mostly followed the 1250 interpretation (Franceschini 1934, Bénédictins du Bouveret 1973, Palma 1988, Ruysschaert et al. 1997, Ruzzier 2010, Light 2013, Ruzzier 2013, Salvatelli 2015, Ponzi 2016, Salvatelli 2020), some continue to present the 1236 interpretation (Garrison 1979, Baroffio 1999, Haelewyck 2003, Baroffio 2011, Baroffio et al. 2016, Suski and Sodi 2019). Préchac 1957, without explanation, dates the manuscript to 1320. 198 The final line of the colophon has parallels in other manuscripts, e.g., Vatican City, Vat. lat. 627, a late 12th-century copy of Isidore of Seville’s Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum, which includes a similar verse at the end of f. 78rb: “Penna gradum siste quoniam liber explicit iste / Detur scriptori non cito velle mori” (cf. Vattasso and Franchi de’ Cavalieri 1902, p. 472). For further examples (mostly dating from the 14th and 15th centuries), see Bénédictins du Bouveret 1965, p. 187 (n. 1501), Bénédictins du Bouveret 1979, p. 439 (n. 18148), Bénédictins du Bouveret 1982, pp. 341 (n. 21971), 436–437 (nn. 22835–22838, 22840–22845). Curiously, the entry for the Ott. lat. 532 colophon in Bénédictins du Bouveret 1973, p. 123 (n. 8403) omits the final two lines of the colophon. 199 On the significance of this text see Bogaert 2015 (who includes Ott. lat. 532 in his list of bibles on p. 300). 200 The manuscript presents the non-Parisian version of Rt 1:7 (“posita revertendi”). I have not confirmed which version of Iob 1:4 is present; cf. Ruzzier 2022, pp. 76–77.

8.13 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. lat. 532  

 393

absence in the original hand of Peter Martyr (died 1252, canonized 1253), thus corresponding with the indication in the colophon that the manuscript was completed in 1250. There are various later additions to the bible making use of space originally left blank, most notably an extensive appendix of biblical prologues at the end of the volume. There are many marginal annotations in various hands throughout the manuscript, most of which appear to be from a single hand which also made interventions in the calendar which are datable to after 1254. The bible has an illustrious provenance, having been owned by Cardinal Marcello Cervini degli Spannochi (1501– 1555; elected Pope Marcellus II on April 9, 1555; died May 1, 1555) and later by Cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto (1514–1585), who served as Cardinal Librarian of the Vatican Library from 1572–1585 and participated in the papal commissions for the reform of the breviary, missal, and martyrology after the Council of Trent in addition to playing a role in the revision of the Vulgate. Art historians have pointed out the remarkable character of the illustrations, particularly the unusual scientific imagery used in the Genesis illumination (see Salvatelli 2015, Ponzi 2016, and Salvatelli 2020).

8.13.2 Plates Figure 62 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 6r (Ordo Missae and formularies), p. 394 Figure 63 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 10r (Gn), p. 395 Figure 64 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 470r (Colophon), p. 396

8.13.3 Liturgical Texts Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 includes four sets of liturgical texts: a votive missal, a calendar, an epistle and gospel list, and a gospel list. The votive missal provides formularies for five votive masses and two Requiem masses in addition to a calendar and an Ordo Missae. All the mass formularies include full orations, but only those for the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Trinity provide chant texts. Four formularies (Missa de cruce, Missa de beata virgine, Missa de sancto spiritu, and Missa de trini­ tate) provide incipits for the epistle and gospel, while the other three formularies (Communis, De communi defunctorum, Pro uno defuncto) omit any reference to the readings. The Ordo Missae includes four variable prefaces which correspond closely with the range of mass formularies. Compared with other Dominican sources, the Ordo Missae of Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 presents the unusual post-canon prayers Corpus tuum and Meritis et precibus.201 The Dominican calendar includes several additions which suggest that the book was later used by a Cistercian. The calendar is written in black ink with higher ranked feasts underlined in red and some feast ranks written in red. The calendar appears in two “flowing” columns (rather than being arranged with a set number of months per folio). The feast ranks in the main hand are Totum Duplex, Duplex, Semiduplex, Novem lectionum, Trium lectionum, and Commemoratio. The entries in the main hand include several distinctively Dominican occasions or feast ranks: Anniversarium patrum et matrum (February 4; IX lect.); Translatio beati dominici confessoris (May 24; totum duplex); Dominici confessoris, funda­ toris ordinis predicatorum (August 5; totum duplex); Augustini episcopi et confessoris (August 28; totum duplex); Octava sancti Augustini (September 4; IX lect.); Anniversarium familiarum et benefactorum (September 10; IX lect.); Sancti francisci confessoris (October 4; IX lect.); Anniversarium omnium fratrum ordinis (October 10; IX lect.). One curious feature of the calendar is the double appearance of Margaret of Antioch: on July 13 she is listed as Margarite virginis secundum ordinem and on July 20 as Margarite virginis secundum prioram, both times with the rank novem lectionum.202

201 For further details, see pp. 182–183, 185–186 above. 202 The meaning of the July 13 secundum ordinem and July 20 secundum prioram are not entirely clear, as both pre- and post-Humbert sources almost universally provide the July 20 date. With one exception, all other pre-Humbert missals and bible missals with calendars include Margaret’s feast day on July 20. In the case of Paris, BnF, Latin 163, f. 265v, St. Margaret was originally written on July 19, but this entry was crossed out and Margaret was written on July 20. In the Humbert liturgy, Margaret is likewise on 20 July (see Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 41vb). In the wider liturgical tradition, several different days were assigned for St. Margaret: of the 164 calendars indexed in the Usuarium database which include St. Margaret (https://usuarium.elte.hu/calendarlabel/883/view), 11 (7%) give her feast on July 12, 66 (40%) on July 13, 2 (1%) on July 14, 5 (3%) on July 15, 4 (2%) on July 19, and 76 (46%) on July 20.

394 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 62: Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 6r (Ordo Missae and formularies).

In addition to these Dominican feasts, there is an obit in the main hand of the calendar on May 27: Obitus domini Ranerii Cardinalis fundatoris ecclesie sancte marie ad gradus de viterbio. Raniero Capocci (1180/90–1250), possibly a Cistercian monk before being created cardinal by Innocent III in 1216, was a supporter of the early Dominicans and is commemorated here as founder of the Dominican priory of Viterbo.203 This establishes a terminus post quem of May 1250 for the writing of the calendar. There are numerous additions to the calendar, most of which appear to be in a single hand. For the purposes of dating and localizing the additions, the most important entries are Guilielmi episcopi (January 10; duodecim lectionum; William de Donjeon, Cistercian abbot and bishop, died 1209, canonized 1218); Commemoratio episcoporum et abbatum ordinis nostri (January 11); Sancti gilberti confessoris (February 4, replacing the Dominican Anniversarium patrum et matrum, which has been lightly crossed out); Anniversarium honorii (March 18; Pope Honorius III, died 1227); Cuthberti episcopi (March 20); Sancti petri martyris de ordine predicatorum (April 29; no rank given; died 1252, canonized 1253, added to the

203 For the life of Capocci, see Kamp 1975. For Capocci as an artistic patron, see Gardner 2013, pp. 26–27. For further discussion of Capocci in connection with this manuscript, see Ponzi 2016.

8.13 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. lat. 532  

 395

Figure 63: Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 10r (Gn).

Dominican calendar as a Totum duplex in 1254); Sancti antonii confessoris de ordine minorum (June 13; no rank given; died 1231, canonized 1232), and Festum sancte clare virginis (August 12; died 1253, canonized 1255). The fact that the additions of St. Clare and the Cistercian occasions were added in the same hand suggests that at some point after 1255 the manuscript was in the possession of a Cistercian. The manuscript includes two lists of liturgical readings. The first, written by the same scribe as the bible, is given on ff. 510v–513r, and includes temporal, sanctoral, and Common of the Saints readings for the epistle and gospel. The list is presented in a tabular form, with the two main columns each divided into six smaller columns, which indicate the start of each new entry with a paragraph mark in alternating red and blue signs; the name of the feast, an indication of the reading being either an epistle (in black ink) or a gospel (in red ink), the opening words of the reading, followed by the name and chapter of the biblical book, the letters “fi” in red (i.e., “finis”), and the closing words of the passage. The chapter numbers are normally given in Roman numerals, although occasionally Arabic numerals are employed; for biblical texts divided into several books (e.g., I–IV Rg), dots are placed above the name of the biblical book to indicate the number. The temporal section has been modified by a later hand, with changes being made to several gospels and a few epistles. The person who made these changes seems to be responsible for the added gospel list, as well as various other interventions in the manuscript. Although it is in a different section of the manuscript than the votive missal and calendar in the opening

396 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Figure 64: Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 470r (Colophon).

quire, there is a continuity of liturgical occasions between the epistle and gospel list and the calendar; all the saints in the sanctoral of the epistle and gospel list are included in the calendar. The second readings list, a later addition on ff. 517v and 518v, provides only gospel readings for the temporal. This gospel list begins on f. 518v with indications for Advent to the Vigil of Pentecost and concludes on f. 517v with entries for Pentecost to the 24th Sunday after Pentecost.

8.13.4 Provenance As recounted in the colophon on f. 470r, this manuscript was written in Viterbo over the course of several years by John of Cortona, who finished writing the manuscript in 1250. Judging from the calendar, it was likely written for a Dominican friar of the priory of Sancte marie ad gradus in Viterbo. As indicated by changes made to the calendar, it seems to have come into the possession of a Cistercian at some point after 1255. In the 16th century, it was part of the collection of Cardinal Marcello Cervini degli Spannochi/Pope Marcellus II (1501–1555; elected pope on April 9, 1555; died May 1, 1555). Along with other manuscripts from Cervini’s collection, it then entered the possession of Cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto (1514–1585). As

8.13 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. lat. 532  

 397

recounted by D’Aiuto and Vian 2011, Sirleto’s collection was acquired after his death by Cardinal Ascanio Colonna (1560– 1608) in 1588, and subsequently purchased by Duke Giovanni Angelo d’Altemps (1586–1620) in 1611. In 1690, Angelo’s son Duke Giovanni Pietro d’Altemps († 1691) gave the d’Altemps collection to the Ottoboni family during the pontificate of Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni (1610–1691), who reigned as Pope Alexander VIII from 1689–1691. The manuscript entered the Vatican Library in 1748 along with the other manuscripts of the Ottoboni collection, now called the Ottoboniani fonds.204

8.13.5 Material Features Binding dimensions: 166 x 115 x 60 mm Binding: White leather binding. “Ott.532” stamped on the spine on a brown leather strip Material of leaves: Parchment Dimensions of leaves: 152 x 107 mm Number of leaves: 1 paper flyleaf + 2 parchment flyleaves + 519 + 1 paper flyleaf Foliation (Modern): I-II; [1], 2–121, [121a], 122–518. The flyleaves are foliated in dark blue ink; the leaves are foliated in light brown ink. One leaf is missing with loss of text but without break in foliation after f. 458. The modern foliation is already used by Teoli 1748. Foliation (Medieval): Folios 7–35 are foliated in ink on the recto in Roman numerals from i–xxix. With the exception of f. 7, where “i” appears at the center of the left column, the Roman numeral foliation appears at the top right of the recto, at the same height as the running titles parallel to the edge of the written space. The medieval foliation may have been added by an additional hand which makes additions to the calendar and reading list (cf. “Hand 4” in the Script section below). Secundo folio: Ianuarius habet dies (2r, votive missal); Venit philippus (8r, bible). Quires: Written mostly in quires of 16 folios, with the exception of quire 1 (6 folios), which contains the votive missal, quire 15 (24 folios), which contains the psalter, and the final quire 33 (10 folios). Prv and Mt begin new quires (16 and 25). Quire 29 is missing a leaf with loss of text between folios 458 and 459. Quire marks: Quire marks appear in faint ink (or possibly lead) at the end of quire 3 (labelled ii) and at the opening of quires 4–33 (labelled iii–xxxii). Horizontal catchwords are written in ink at the end of quires 2, 12, 13, and 18. Layout: B1: 103 x 70; 50 lines in two columns [32 + 32] 8r–136v (Bible) B2: 103 x 70; 48 lines in two columns [32 + 32] 137r–470r (Bible) 470v–510r (Interpretations of Hebrew Names) B3: 103 x 69; 47 lines in two columns [33 + 33] 513v–517v (Additional prologues) C: 102 x 90; 46 lines in two main columns [45 + 35] 2v–4r (Calendar) M: 103 x 70; 39–40 lines in two columns [32 + 32] 1v, 5r–6r (Votive missal) R1: 103 x 90; 48 lines in two main columns 510v–513r (Original epistle and gospel list)205 R2: 102 x 75; 48 lines in two columns [34 + 39] 517v, 518v (Additional gospel list)

204 See D’Aiuto and Vian 2011, p. 447. For further comments on Cervini’s collection of manuscripts and their subsequent provenance, see Willoughby 2018. 205 The epistle and gospel list is arranged in a tabular form: the two main columns are each divided into six smaller columns, which indicate 1) the start of each new entry with a paragraph mark in alternating red and blue signs [3 mm]; 2) the name of the feast [10 mm]; 3) an indication of the reading being either an epistle (in black ink) or a gospel (in red ink) [3 mm]; 4) the opening words of the reading, followed by the name and chapter of the biblical book [20 mm]; 5) the letters “fi” in red, indicating the end of the passage (i.e., “finis”) [2 mm]; 6) the closing words of the passage [9 mm].

398 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

Script: The main biblical text is written in southern textualis by a single hand, corresponding with the statement in the colophon that the bible was written over several years finishing in 1250 by John of Cortona. One distinctive feature of the scribe’s hand is the almost invariable use of a cross on the 7-et abbreviation at the level of the baseline. Due to the rapidity of the writing, the single-compartment “a” is sometimes used. The same scribe appears to have written portions of the votive missal, including the calendar (ff. 1v–4r) and the main part of the Ordo Missae (ff. 5r–6r), as well as the Interpretations of Hebrew Names (ff. 470v–510r) and the original epistle and gospel list (ff. 510v–513r). Hand 2: A second scribe writing in a more rounded and conventional southern textualis (Rotunda) wrote the mass formularies in the votive missal (ff. 1v and 6r) as well as the prefaces of the Ordo Missae (f. 4r). This scribe does not cross the 7-et abbreviation, as is typical in southern textualis. Hand 3: A third scribe writing in semitextualis (i.e., with consistent single-compartment a) added an appendix of additional prefaces (ff. 513v–517v). Hand 4: One additional hand is worthy of note: writing in semitextualis, the same hand can be identified making changes to the calendar (ff. 2v–4r) and the original epistle and gospel list (ff. 510v–513r), as well as adding a gospel list starting on f. 518v and concluding on f. 517v. It is possible that this hand is also responsible for the medieval foliation from ff. 7–35 (i–xxix). This hand replaced several of the readings for the first three Sundays of Advent on f. 510v and made occasional interventions in the rest of the epistle and gospel list. It may be that the writer decided to simply make an additional list rather than continuing to edit the original one. This hand also appears to be responsible for many of the marginal notations throughout the volume.

8.13.6 Artistic Decoration Running Header: Names of biblical books in alternating red and blue flourished capitals (with the exception of Psalms) Biblical Books: Decorated initials; Historiated initials for Frater ambrosius (f. 7r) and Gn (f. 10r). Biblical Prologues: Decorated initials or littera duplex (without a clear hierarchy) Biblical Chapters: Two-line red or blue flourished initials; chapter number in alternating red and blue capitals, either in the margin or in the column Biblical Text: Consistent highlighting with red at the beginning of sentences Psalms: Decorated initials for Ps 1, 26, 38, 52, 68, 80, 97, 109; two-line red or blue flourished initials for other psalms; single-line red or blue capitals for psalm verses. Liturgical Texts: One- or two-line red or blue non-flourished initials. Other: For more details on the decoration, see Salvatelli 2015, Ponzi 2016, and Salvatelli 2020.

8.13.7 Quires and Contents Quires

Folio Range

Content

(Flyleaves)

Ir

Faded writing on former pastedown flyleaf

Iv

Blank flyleaf

IIv

Various shelf marks on flyleaf: Cod.Ottob.532; A.2.21 (crossed out); R.Cod.18 (crossed out); 532r

Q1: 1–6 (6)

1r

Blank page (with Vatican Library stamp and “532. ottob.”)

Layout M

1va

[Votive missal] Missa de cruce

1va

Missa de beata virgine

1va–vb

Communis

1vb

De communi defunctorum

1vb

Pro uno defuncto

Layout C

2ra–4rb

[Calendar]

Layout M

4rb

[Preface dialogue]

8.13 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. lat. 532  

 399

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

4rb

[Preface]

4rb

[Trinity preface]

4rb

[Holy Cross preface]

4rb

[Marian preface]

4v

Blank page (likely intended for Crucifixion miniature/Te igitur)

5ra–vb

[Canon] (beginning Clementissime)

5vb–6ra

[Post-canon Ordo Missae]

6rb

Missa de sancto spiritu

6rb

Missa de trinitate

6v

Blank page

Q2: 7–22 (16)

7ra–9rb

S. 284 (Historiated initial: Jerome writing)

Layout B1

9rb–vb

S. 285

9vb

List of biblical books (The list of biblical books, written in red ink, lists Gn through Ct in the same order as found in the bible itself, with the omission of IV Esr between Iob and Ps.)

9vb

Blank space: 2 lines

10ra–27vb

Gn (Historiated initial: Seven Circles Depicting the Days of Creation

27vb–42vb

Ex

42vb–52va

Lv

52va–66vb

Nm

66vb–79vb

Dt

79vb–80ra

S. 311

80r (margin)

S. 307 (Non-Parisian prologue added in right margin)

80ra–89ra

Ios

89ra

Blank space: 2 lines

89rb–98va

Idc

98va–99vb

Rt

99vb–100va

S. 323

100va–113va

I Rg

113va–123ra

II Rg

123ra–135rb

III Rg

135rb–147ra

IV Rg

147ra–147rb

S. 328

147rb

Blank space: 2 lines

147va–158rb

I Par

158rb–172ra

II Par (Not preceded by S. 327)

172ra–rb

Or Man (Not visually distinguished from II Par)

172rb–vb

S. 330

172vb–176va

I Esr

Q3: 23–38 (16) Q4: 39–54 (16) Q5: 55–70 (16) Q6: 71–86 (16)

Q7: 87–102 (16)

Q8: 103–118 (16) Q9: 119–133 (16) [NB: There is an unfoliated leaf between 121 and 122.] Q10: 134–149 (16) Layout B2 (beginning on 137r)

Q11: 150–165 (16) Q12: 166–181 (16)

400 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires Q13: 182–197 (16)

Q14: 198–213 (16)

Q15: 214–237 (24)

Q16: 238–253 (16)

Q17: 254–269 (16) Q18: 270–285 (16)

Q19: 286–301 (16) Q20: 302–317 (16)

Folio Range

Content

176va–182va

II Esr

182va–188ra

III Esr

188ra

S. 332

188ra–191vb

Tb

191vb

S. 335

191vb–197ra

Idt

197ra

S. 341

197ra

S. 343 (Presented as separate prologue from S. 341)

197ra–rb

S. 340 (Non-Parisian prologue)

197rb–201vb

Est

201vb–202rb

S. 344

202rb–va

S. 349 (Non-Parisian prologue in place of S. 357)

202va–211vb

Iob

211vb–212vb

IV Esr [cf. S. 96: V Esr]. Rubric: Incipit iiii liber hesdrem qui sit apocriphus, communiter in bibliis non habetur, nec tamen est sperendus quia multa reliquis scripturis etiam suis filiam de militanti et triumphanti ecclesia prenotantur.

212vb

Blank space: 1 line

213r

Blank page (mirror imprint of ink from facing f. 212v)

213v

Blank page, with some notes in margins

214ra–va

S. 370 (Non-Parisian prologue. Rubric: Incipit prologus magistri Gilberti super psalterium)

214va–236vb

Ps (Decorated initials for Ps 1 [214va], Ps 26 [218ra], Ps 38 [220ra], Ps 52 [222rb], Ps 68 [224rb], Ps 80 [226vb], Ps 97 [229rb], Ps 109 [231vb])

236vb

Blank space: 2 lines

236v (margin)

List of canticles for Feria 2–Sabbato added in lower margin

237ra–rb

S. 443 (Non-Parisian prologue added in a later hand)

237rb

S. 430 (Non-Parisian prologue added in a later hand)

237v

Blank page

238ra

S. 457

238rb–246ra

Prv

246ra–248vb

Ecl (Not preceded by S. 462)

248vb–250rb

Ct

250va–256ra

Sap (Not preceded by S. 468)

256ra–271vb

Sir (Prologus [Multorum nobis] presented as a prologue beginning on 256ra; Sir 1:1 [Omnis sapientia] begins on 256rb)

271vb–272ra

S. 482

272ra–290rb

Is

290rb–va

S. 487

290va–310vb

Ier

311ra–312vb

Lam (Omits Prologus [Et factum est … suspirans et eiulans dixit]; begins with Lam 1:1 [Quomodo sedet sola civitas]; Lam 5:1 presented with decorated initial on 312va)

312vb

S. 491

312vb–315rb

Bar

8.13 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. lat. 532  

(continued) Quires

Q21: 318–333 (16) Q22: 334–349 (16)

Q23: 350–365 (16)

Q24: 366–381 (16)

Folio Range

Content

315rb–va

S. 492

315va–334rb

Ez

334rb–vb

S. 494

334vb–342vb

Dn

342vb–343ra

S. 500

343ra

S. 507

343ra–345vb

Os

345vb

S. 511

345vb–346ra

S. 510

346ra–347ra

Ioel

347ra

S. 512 (Not preceded by S. 515)

347ra–rb

S. 513

347rb–349rb

Am

349rb–va

S. 519 + S. 517

349va–vb

Abd

349vb–350ra

S. 524

350ra

S. 521

350ra–va

Ion

350vb

S. 526

350vb–352rb

Mi

352rb

S. 528

352va–353ra

Na

353ra–va

S. 531

353va–354rb

Hab

354rb–va

S. 534

354va–355rb

So

355rb–vb

S. 538

355vb–356rb

Agg

356rb–va

S. 539

356va–359va

Za

359va

S. 543

359vb–360va

Mal

360va–vb

S. 547

360vb

S. 551 (Not preceded by S. 553)

360vb–372va

I Mcc

372va–380va

II Mcc

380va

Blank space: 2 lines

380vb

Blank space: 1 column

381r

Blank page with marginal notes

381v

Blank page without marginal notes

 401

402 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

Q25: 382–397 (16)

382ra

S. 590

382ra–rb

S. 589

382rb–393va

Mt

393va–vb

S. 607

393vb–400vb

Mc

400vb

Lc 1:1–4 (Presented as a biblical prologue)

401ra

S. 620

401rb–413rb

Lc (Beginning with Lc 1:5)

413rb

S. 624

413va–422rb

Io

422rb

S. 677

422rb–426vb

Rm

Q26: 398–413 (16)

Q27: 414–429 (16)

Q28: 430–445 (16)

Q29: 446–460 (16-1 between 458 and 459 with loss of text)

426vb

S. 685

426vb–431ra

I Cor

431ra

S. 699

431ra–433vb

II Cor

433vb

S. 707

434ra–435rb

Gal

435rb

S. 715

435rb–436vb

Eph

436vb

S. 728

436vb–438ra

Phil

438ra

S. 736

438ra–439ra

Col

439ra

S. 747

439ra–440ra

I Th

440ra

S. 752

440ra–va

II Th

440va

S. 765

440va–vb

I Tim

441vb

S. 772

441vb–442va

II Tim

442va

S. 780

442va–443ra

Tit

443ra

S. 783

443ra–rb

Phlm

443rb–va

S. 793

443va–446vb

Hbr

446vb–447ra

S. 640

447ra–458vb

Act (Ends imperfectly midway through Act 28:1, following Et cum evasissemus nunc cognovimus)

8.13 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. lat. 532  

 403

(continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content Lacuna: One folio missing between 458 and 459 with loss of text

Q30: 461–476 (16)

Q31: 477–492 (16)

459ra–vb

Iac (Begins imperfectly midway through Iac 2:14, beginning with potuit fides salvare eum)

459vb–460vb

I Pt

460vb–461vb

II Pt

461vb–462vb

I Io

462vb–463ra

II Io

463ra

III Io

463ra–va

Iud

463va

S. 835 (Non-Parisian prologue)

463va–464ra

S. 839

464ra–470ra

Apc

470ra

Blank space: 2 lines

470ra

Colophon

470ra

Blank space: 4 lines

470rb

Blank space: 1 column

470va–510ra

Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim)

510ra

Blank space: 21 lines

510rb

Blank space: 1 column

510va–513ra

Epistle and gospel list

513ra

Blank space: 26 lines

513rb

Blank space: 1 column

513va–vb

S. 327 [II Par] (Parisian prologue. This supplement of prologues from 513v–517v is written in a different hand than the rest of the bible. Some of the texts are Paris prologues that were omitted in the bible, while others are non-Parisian prologues.)

513vb–514ra

S. 357 [Iob] (Parisian prologue)

514ra–rb

S. 456 [Prv] (non-Parisian prologue)

Q32: 493–508 (16) Q33: 509–518 (10)

Layout R1

Layout B3

514rb

S. 455 [Prv] (non-Parisian prologue)

514rb–va

S. 462 [Ecl] (Parisian prologue)

514va–515ra

S. 596 [Mt] (non-Parisian prologue)

515ra–va

S. 670 [Rm] (non-Parisian prologue)

515va–vb

S. 674 [Rm] (non-Parisian prologue)

515vb–516ra

S. 690 [I Cor] (non-Parisian prologue)

516ra

S. 697 [II Cor] (non-Parisian prologue)

516rb

S. 633 + S. 631 [Act] (non-Parisian prologue)

516rb

S. 490 [Ier] (non-Parisian prologue)

516rb

S. 504 [Os] (non-Parisian prologue)

516rb–va

S. 506 [Os] (non-Parisian prologue)

516va

S. 501 [Duodecim Prophetae Minores] (non-Parisian prologue)

516va

S. 515 [Am] (Parisian prologue)

404 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

(continued) Quires

Layout R2

Folio Range

Content

516va–vb

Cf. S. 528 [Na] (Beginning Sciendum autem)

516vb

S. 522 [Ion] (non-Parisian prologue)

516vb–517rb

S. 595 [Mt] (non-Parisian prologue)

517rb

S. 811 [Iac] (non-Parisian prologue)

517rb–va

S. 10526 [II Io] (non-Parisian prologue)

517va

S. 10527 [III Io] (non-Parisian prologue)

517va

S. 825 [Iud] (non-Parisian prologue)

517va

S. 10528 [Iud] (non-Parisian prologue)

517va

Blank space: 27 lines

517vb

Added gospel list (Part 2, continued from 518v): In die pentecostes … Dominica XXIIII

517vb

Blank space: 13 lines

518r

Blank page

518v

Added gospel list (Part 1, continues on 517v): Dominica prima de adventu … Dominica in octavam ascensionis

8.13.8 Bibliography Cervini 1574: Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 8185 (2).206 Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 8185 (2) presents a catalog of Cardinal Marcello Cervini’s library on ff. 278r–292r, the text of which has been edited in Fossier 1979, pp. 393–407. The catalog was likely prepared by Erennio Cervini, the nephew of Cardinal Marcello Cervini/Pope Marcellus II, on the occasion of the transfer of a collection of Marcellus’ manuscripts from Montepulciano to Rome to be received by Cardinal Sirleto (see Fossier 1979 p. 386). On f. 283r (ed. Fossier 1979, p. 398), three entries appear which could potentially correspond to Ott. lat. 532: “172. Biblia vel novum et vetus testamentum in membranis. […] 223. Biblia in 8 in membranis subtilissimis. […] 190. Biblia in membranis.” Sirleto 1585: Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 6163.207 This manuscript contains a catalog of Cardinal Sirleto’s library drawn up shortly after his death in 1585. Fossier 1979 states on p. 409n2 that Ott. lat. 532 can be identified with manuscript 261 in Sirleto’s catalog but does not present evidence for this claim. On f. 278r of Vat. lat. 6163, manuscript 261 is simply identified as “Biblia.” On folio 289r, however, manuscript 502 is identified as “Biblia. Anno 1236,” which seems much more likely to correspond with Ott. lat. 532. This manuscript number appears in the section of Sirleto’s catalog labelled “In octavo,” which suggests the possibility that it might be identified with the “223. Biblia in 8 in membranis subtilissimis” entry in Cervini 1574. Teoli 1748: Domenico Teoli and Pier Luigi Galletti, Inventarii Codicum Manuscriptorum Latinorum Bibliothecae Vaticanae Ottobonianae, Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 3399 (1).208 This catalog, prepared between 1748 and 1760, describes the manuscript on f. 109r as a bible with the Old and New Testament as well as prologues and marginal annotations, providing folio indications for the opening of Genesis, the prologue of Gilbert on the Psalter, and Interpretations of Hebrew Names, and indicates that the manuscript is an octavo with 518 folios. A second hand adds a note referencing the presence of a Kalendarium et Ordinarium Missae. Coster 1804: Mauro Coster, Index alphabeticus codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae ottobonianae, c. 1804, folio 28r. Vatican City, BAV, Sala Consultazione Manoscritti, Mss. Rosso. 88 (1). “Eadem [i.e., Biblia Sacra] cum prologis S. Hieronymi interpretatione nominum Hebraicanum, ac. notis marginalibus Magistri Gilberti, ut videtur. Numero 532.”

206 A black and white reproduction is available at https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.lat.8185.pt.2. 207 A black and white reproduction is available at https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.lat.6163. 208 A black and white reproduction is available at https://digi.vatlib.it/view/INV_Sala.cons.mss.387(1).rosso.

8.13 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. lat. 532  

 405

Bannister 1905: Henry Marriot Bannister, Index codicum manuscriptorum ad liturgicam rem spectantium, 1905. Vatican City, BAV, Sala Consultazione Manoscritti, Mss. Rosso. 509. On folio 21r, Bannister dates the manuscript to 1236, and identifies it as including a Kal. Viterbien. as well as Off. miss. votiv. et canon / Kal. m. predicatorum cisterc. de Bruyne 1914: Donatien de Bruyne, “Une nouvelle préface de la traduction hexaplaire de Saint Jérôme,” Revue Bénédictine 31 (1914): 229–36. On p. 230n1 and 235, de Bruyne mentions the presence of an unusual prologue for Est, Hunc librum esther (S. 340), and discusses some variant readings which Ott. lat. 532 presents. Katterbach et al. 1929: Bruno Katterbach, Augustus Pelzer, and Carolus Silva-Tarouca, “11. Ottob. lat. 532, f. 7: An. 1250,” in Codices Latini Saeculi XIII, Exempla Scripturarum 1 (Rome: Apud Bibliothecam Vaticanam, 1929), 16–18, plate 11. On p. 16–18, the authors present the manuscript as “11. Ottob. lat. 532, f. 7 – An. 1250.” On p. 16, the authors provide a brief description of the dimensions and contents of the manuscript, dating it to 1250 and providing a partial transcription of the subscriptio on 470r. On p. 17, they suggest that the manuscript was probably at the Dominican priory of Viterbo on account of the obitus for Raniero. On pp. 17–18 they provide a transcription of the main text and marginal glosses found on f. 7r, which is reproduced on plate 11. Franceschini 1934: Ezio Franceschini, “Intorno ad alcune opere di Roberto Grossatesta, Vescovo di Lincoln,” Aevum 8 (1934): 529–42. Franceschini cites the manuscript on p. 536 in the context of a discussion of the paleographical dating of a treatise attributed to Robert Grosseteste in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Digby 104. Citing Katterbach 1929, Franceschini dates the manuscript to 1250. Préchac 1957: François Préchac, “Notulae Vaticanae sur le De Clementia de Sénèque,” Mélanges de l’école française de Rome 69 (1957): 49–74, at 51n3. On p. 51n3, identifying the manuscript as a “Biblia sacra de 1320 (Ottobon. lat., 532),” Préchac makes an observation about the use of “al” as an abbreviation for “alia” or “alias” in the marginal annotations throughout the volume, crediting “Mgr. Aug. Pelzer, scrittore émérite de la Bibliothèque Apostolique” for bringing this feature to his attention. Salmon 1969: Pierre Salmon, Les manuscrits liturgiques latins de la Bibliothèque vaticane: II: Sacramentaires, épistoliers, évangéliaires, graduels, missels, Studi e testi 253 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1969). On p. 124, Salmon gives an entry with the following heading: “301. Missalis partes. Ottob. lat. 523.” Despite listing the manuscript as “523”, this entry clearly is intended to describe Ott. lat. 532. Salmon provides a short overview of the liturgical material on ff. 1r–6v, stating that the manuscript includes “Messes de la Croix et de la Vierge, et pour les défunts; Calendier de Viterbe; préfaces et Canon.” Salmon dates the manuscript to “an. 1236.” In the bibliography section, Salmon refers the reader to “n. 91” (p. 50), which is in fact an entry for the actual Ott. lat. 523 rather than Ott. lat. 532. Salmon 1971: Pierre Salmon, Les manuscrits liturgiques latins de la Bibliothèque vaticane: IV: Les livres de lectures de l’office, les livres de l’office du chapitre, les livres d’heures, Studi e testi 267 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1971). On p. 88, Salmon gives an entry with the heading “265. Kalendarium. Ottob. lat. 532.” Salmon dates the manuscript to 1236 and provides a brief overview of the content of the manuscript, pointing out the presence of certain French saints in the calendar, as well as the presence of an obit for “card. Ranerio, fondateur de l’église ste Marie ad gradus de Viterbio.” At the end of the content overview, Salmon mentions a single list of “lectures de la messe.” Salmon 1972: Pierre Salmon, Les manuscrits liturgiques latins de la Bibliothèque vaticane: V: Liste complémentaire, Tables générales, Studi e testi 270 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1972). On p. 42, Salmon gives an entry with the heading “172. Capitulare Epistolarium et Evangeliorum. Ottob. lat. 532, ff. 510v–513v.” Salmon dates the manuscript to 1236 and mentions the presence of a single “Lectionnaire du missel, à la suite d’une Bible.” He does not mention the added gospel list. Bénédictins du Bouveret 1973: Bénédictins du Bouveret, Colophons de manuscrits occidentaux des origines au XVIe siècle, vol. 3, Spicilegii Friburgensis Subsidia 4 (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires, 1973). On p. 123, no. 8403, the editors include a partial transcription of the colophon, interpreting the date as 1250. Fossier 1979: François Fossier, “Premières recherches sur les manuscrits latins du cardinal Marcello Cervini (1501–1555),” Mélanges de l’école française de Rome 91, no. 1 (1979): 381–456, at 409 n. 2. At p. 402n2, Fossier states that Ott. lat. 532 corresponds with Théologie 261 in the library of Cardinal Sirleto; as argued above in my summary of Sirleto 1585, Fossier’s identification appears to be incorrect. Garrison 1979: Edward B. Garrison, “Random Notes on Early Italian Manuscripts II,” La Bibliofilía 81, no. 1 (1979): 1–22. On p. 20, Garrison includes the manuscript in a list of “Early Italian Manuscripts with Dates (354–1300),” dating it to 1236 and providing the following information: “Rome, Vaticana, Ottob. lat. 532, Bible (with calendar). (Giovanni da Cortona). Viterbo.” Chailley 1984: Jacques Chailley, “‘Ut queant laxis’ et les Origines de la Gamme,” Acta Musicologica 56, no. 1 (1984): 48–69.

406 

 8 Catalog of Dominican Bible Missals

On p. 62, Chailley erroneously states that a 9th-century version of the hymn “Ut queant laxis” appears without musical notation on a “page de garde” of the manuscript. According to Ross 2020, pp. 186–187, Chailley may have been confusing Ott. lat. 532 with Urb. lat. 532, which contains “Ut queant laxis” on f. 34r. Palma 1988: Marco Palma, “Modifiche di alcuni aspetti materiali della produzione libraria latina nei secoli XII e XIII,” Scrittura e civiltà 12 (1988): 119–33, at 124, 130. On p. 124, Palma dates the manuscript to 1250 and states that it is an early example of the regular use of the flesh-side of the parchment at the beginning of quires and emphasizes that the text is written below the top line. On p. 130, Palma includes Ott. lat. 532 in a table of dated manuscripts. Ruysschaert et al. 1997: José Ruysschaert, Adriana Marucchi, and Albinia Catherine de la Mare, I codici latini datati della Biblioteca apostolica vaticana: Nei fondi Archivio S. Pietro, Barberini, Boncompagni, Borghese, Borgia, Capponi, Chigi, Ferrajoli, Ottoboni (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1997). On p. 131, the authors present the manuscript as “297. Ott. lat. 532, ff. 7–470.” They provide a brief description of the manuscript and a transcription of the colophon, interpreting the date as 1250. The heading implies that the date of 1250 applies only to the bible section (ff. 7–470). Baroffio 1999: Giacomo Baroffio, ed., Iter liturgicum italicum (Padua: CLEUP, 1999). On p. 272, Baroffio includes an entry for Ott. lat. 532 with the incorrect shelfmark “Ottob. lat. 523” (cf. Salmon 1969), indicating that it has six leaves with a missal and calendar and listing its origin as Viterbo and dating it to the second quarter of the 13th century. Baroffio 2001: Giacomo Baroffio, “Manoscritti liturgici italiani datati (1010–1600),” Rivista Internazionale di Musica Sacra 22 (2001): 315–53. On p. 316, Baroffio includes an entry for Ott. lat. 532 with the incorrect shelfmark “Ottob. lat. 523” and interpreting the date as 1236. Bahor 2001: Stanislav Bahor, “Semeniška knjiznica,” in Handbuch deutscher historischer Buchbestände in Europa, ed. Simoné Okaj-Braun, vol. 9 (Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann, 2001), 203–6. In his description of the Seminary Library of Ljubljana, Slovenia, Bahor states on p. 206 that a medieval bible in the collection (Ljubljana, Semeniska knjiznica, Ms B.I.1) is in some way similar to the Ott. lat. 532: “Ein Kuriosum der Handschriftensammlung ist eine kleine lateinische Bibel aus dem 13. Jh, versehen mit dem farbigen Wappen der Grafen von Auersperg, ein Geschenk (1614) derselben an Bischof Tomaz Hren (Thomas Chrön). Eine identische, 1250 in Viterbo entstandene Bibel befindet sich in der Bibliothek des Vatikan (Ottob. Lat. 532).” According to a recent study of the Ljubljana manuscript by Nataša Golob, it was likely produced in Paris in the second half of the 13th century, and a comparison of the plates published by Golob with the Vatican manuscript does not render any obvious similarities; cf. Nataša Golob, “Hrenova Biblija, Ljubljana, Semeniška knjižnica, Ms B.I.1,” in S črnilom in zlatom: srednjeveško knjižno slikarstvo iz slovenskih zbirk [Ink and Gold: Medieval Book Painting from Slovenian Collections] (Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 2017), 334–36. I am grateful to Mateja Demšar of the Semeniška knjiznica for providing further photographs and information about the manuscript. Haelewyck 2003: Jean-Claude Haelewyck, ed., Hester, Vetus Latina 7/3 (Freiburg: Herder, 2003). On pp. 21–22, dating the manuscript to 1236, Haelewyck discusses the presence in the manuscript of the unusual preface for Est, Hunc librum esther (S. 340). Ruzzier 2010: Chiara Ruzzier, “Des armaria aux besaces: La mutation de la bible au XIIIe siècle,” in Les usages sociaux de la Bible, XIe-XVe siècles, Cahiers Électroniques d’Histoire Textuelle du LAMOP 3 (Paris: LAMOP, 2010), 74–111. On p. 82, Ruzzier mentions the manuscript as the earliest dated bible of Italian origin, interpreting the date as 1250. Baroffio 2011: Giacomo Baroffio, ed., Iter liturgicum italicum: editio maior, Instrumenta 1 (Stroncone: Associazione San Michele Arcangelo, 2011). On p. 498, n. 25752, Baroffio includes an entry for Ott. lat. 532 with the incorrect shelfmark Ottob. lat. 523 (cf. Salmon 1969). Baroffio 2011 provides the same information as in Baroffio 1999, with the exception of specifying the date as 1236 rather than the second quarter of the 13th century. D’Aiuto and Vian 2011: Francesco D’Aiuto and Paolo Vian, eds., Guida ai Fondi Manoscritti, Numismatici, a Stampa della Biblioteca Vaticana. I: Dipartimento Manoscritti, Studi e testi 466 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2011). On pp. 446–450, D’Aiuto and Vian provide an overview of the provenance of the Ottoboniani collection as a whole, and on pp. 453–455 an overview of the Latin manuscripts of the collection. Light 2013: Laura Light, “The Thirteenth-Century Pandect and the Liturgy: Bibles with Missals,” in Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, ed. Eyal Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 185–215. On p. 213, Light includes brief description and bibliography in an appendix of bibles with missals, stating that it contains a “Viterbo calendar.” Light indicates that she did not personally consult the manuscript. Ruzzier 2013: Chiara Ruzzier, “The Miniaturisation of Bible Manuscripts in the Thirteenth Century: A Comparative Study,” in Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, ed. Eyal Poleg and Laura Light, Library of the Written Word 27 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 105–25. On p. 110n16, Ruzzier mentions the manuscript as the earliest dated bible of Italian origin, interpreting the date as 1250.

8.13 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. lat. 532  

 407

Bogaert 2015: Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “IV Esdras (2 Esdras; 4-5-6 Ezra) dans les Bibles latines,” Revue Bénédictine 125 (2015): 266–304. On p. 300, Bogaert includes the manuscript in a list of bibles which contain V Esr. Salvatelli 2015: Luca Salvatelli, “Suggestioni da una libraria cardinalizia di fine Duecento. I codici miniati scientifico filosofici di Gonsalvo Gudiel,” in Memoria e materia dell’opera d’arte: proposte e riflessioni, ed. Elisa Anzellotti, Constanza Rapone, and Salvatelli, Luca (Rome: Gangemi, 2015), 65–75. On pp. 70 and 75n20, Salvatelli discusses the bible and its connection with the Dominican scriptorium in Viterbo. Baroffio et al. 2016: Giacomo Baroffio, Manlio Sodi, and Andrzej Suski, Sacramentari e messali pretridentini di provenienza italiana: guida ai manoscritti, Veritatem inquirere 1 (Vatican City: Lateran University Press, 2016). On p. 390, no. 2365, the editors include Ott. lat. 532 with the incorrect shelfmark “Ottob. lat. 523” (cf. Salmon 1969). The liturgical material on ff. 1r–6v is identified as “Messale (alcuni elementi) – Calendario (Viterbo)” as is dated “XIII (1236).” Ponzi 2016: Eva Ponzi, “Ad usum fratrum: Manoscritti francescani e dominicani a Roma, un panorama,” in Il Libro Miniato a Roma nel Ducento, ed. Silvia Maddalo and Eva Ponzi, 2 vols., Nuovi studi storici 100 (Roma: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2016), 575–612. On pp. 586–598, Ponzi offers an extensive discussion of the bible, connecting it with Cardinal Raniero Capocci and comparing it with other books produced in Viterbo or with a connection to Viterbo, and offering an analysis of the artistic decoration and comparisons with contemporary manuscripts. In the color plates, fig. 97 gives f. 7r, (Frater ambrosius initial) and fig. 98 gives f. 10r (Genesis initial). Suski and Sodi 2019: Andrzej Suski and Manlio Sodi, Messali manoscritti pretridentini (secc. VIII-XVI), Monumenta studia instrumenta liturgica 79 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2019). On p. 477, no. 4383, the Suski and Sodi include Ott. lat. 532 under the incorrect shelfmark “Ottob. lat. 523” (cf. Salmon 1969). The liturgical material on folios 1r–6v is identified as “Missale (frammento)” as is dated “XIII (1236)” and located to “Italia (Viterbo).” Ross 2020: Sidney David Ross, “Establishing the Authentic Corpus of the Latin Verse of Paul the Deacon: A Philological, Textual and Statistical Study” (Ph.D. diss., York, University of York, 2020). Ross discusses the manuscript on pp. 186–187 in the context of examining the claim that it contains a 9th-century version of “Ut queant laxis” on a flyleaf (cf. Chailley 1984). Acknowledging the assistance of Pierre Chambert-Protat, Ross suggests that Chailley may have been confusing Ott. lat. 532 with Vatican City, BAV, Urb. lat. 532, which contains “Ut queant laxis” on f. 34r. Salvatelli 2020: Luca Salvatelli, “Una Bibbia di Santa Maria in Gradi? Alcune riflessioni intorno all’Ott. lat. 532 della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana,” Biblioteca e Società 1–8 (2020): 18–21. Salvatelli discusses the interpretation of the colophon and provides a codicological description of the whole manuscript with special attention to the artistic decoration. Ruzzier 2022: Chiara Ruzzier, Entre Université et ordres mendiants, Manuscripta Biblica 8 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022). On p. 33n9, Ruzzier mentions that the manuscript is one of three sources that mention the date, place, and name of the copyist, including it on the list of manuscripts with one or more of these characteristics in Annexe 4 on p. 283. On p. 43 and p. 191, Ruzzier states that the manuscript is the first dated portable bible of Italian origin. On p. 53, Ruzzier emphasizes the rarity of Italian bibles like this one presenting the biblical books in the Parisian order. On p. 112n91, Ruzzier discusses the bible’s regular use of the flesh side at the beginning of each quire. On p. 202n60, Ruzzier includes the manuscript in a list of five bibles with “very frequent” annotations. On p. 261, n. 1574, Ruzzier includes the manuscript in a “Liste des bibles complètes recensées,” and provides basic details about the manuscript on p. 268 in the list of “Bibles complètes consultées.” On p. 317, illustration 1, a plate of f. 10r is provided.

9 Appendix 1: Summary Catalog of Non-Dominican Bible Missals In the following summary catalog, I provide basic codicological information about the twenty-seven non-Dominican bible missals which have so far been identified. The seventeen manuscripts with identified liturgical traditions are listed first, followed by ten manuscripts whose tradition has not yet been identified. The first group is presented in descending order of number of examples, beginning with eight Franciscan manuscripts, three Augustinian and three Cistercian examples, and individual manuscripts representing the Gilbertine liturgy and local traditions from Paris and Prague. In the case of the undetermined traditions, in some cases it may be impossible to clarify particular traditions due to their limited repertoire of texts or at times fragmentary condition, but in some cases further research may be able to uncover more detail about their origins. With respect to origins and dates, I note in parentheses the source for a particular estimate or judgment except in those cases when the assessment is my own; when there are equally plausible assessments, I indicate them both in the entry. In cases where I have been unable to consult a manuscript in person, I have stated that fact and identified the sources of my data. When necessary, I have indicated the absence of detailed information about a particular aspect of a manuscript with a tilde (~). For each manuscript, a full list of references to the bible missal within this monograph may be found in the Index of Manuscripts at the end of the book.

9.1 Franciscan 9.1.1 Boston, Boston Public Library, MS q Med. 202 Summary: Bible with Franciscan votive missal1 Origin: Southern France? (Light 2013)/England (Davis 2012)2 Date: 13th century, second quarter (Light 2013)3 Material: Parchment. 376 leaves. Leaf size: 226 x 160 mm.4 Bible layout: c. 150 x 98 mm; 57–62 lines in 2 columns.5 Missal layout: c. 150 x 93 mm; 42 lines (Ordo Missae)/46 lines (formularies) in 2 columns. Secundo folio: spiritualia regna descripsit (2r) Artistic decoration: Littera duplex initials for biblical books and Te igitur; flourished initials for prologues and mass texts Contents: 1r–3r: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 3r–193r: Bible (Gn–Ps)6 193r–198r: Franciscan votive missal 193r–193v: Votive masses (including masses for St. Francis of Assisi and St. Anthony of Padua) 193v–195r: Ordo Missae: Prefaces, canon, post-canon prayers 195v–197r: Votive masses 197r–198r: Requiem masses 198r: Added votive masses 1 I have not had an opportunity to consult this manuscript in person. I am grateful to Jay Moschella, Curator of Rare Books of the Boston Public Library, for providing me with photographs and measurements of the liturgical sections and several other folios, and to Lisa Fagin Davis for sharing her unpublished description of the manuscript with me. 2 Based on the images I have consulted, there appear to be at least two quite different scribes at work in the bible section: one writing in northern textualis in the Old Testament portion of the bible (e.g., ff. 3r, 10r) and another writing in (southern) semitextualis in the New Testament section (e.g., ff. 289r, 325r). It appears that Davis and Light may be making their localization based on different sections of the manuscript; further study of the manuscript itself may shed light on whether it was the collaboration of two scribes trained in different styles, of whether it may be a composite manuscript. 3 Davis 2012 dates the manuscript to the middle of the 13th century. 4 Unless otherwise noted, the measurements are taken from Davis 2012. 5 Davis lists the manuscript as having 62 lines, while Light lists 57 lines. Judging from the images I have consulted, there is a wide range of number of lines throughout the manuscript. 6 The biblical books are given in a non-Parisian order in this and the following bible sections; e.g., 1 Mc and 2 Mc are written between Est and Iob and Prv, Ecl, Ct, Sap, and Sir are written after the Minor Prophets and before the New Testament. Cf. p. 19n27 above. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-010

9.1 Franciscan  

 409

198v: Blank page 199r–288r: Bible (Is–Ecl) 288r–v: Rubrics and prayers for the Ordo Missae: Quando preparet se sacerdos ad celebrandum missam et secundum con­ suetudinem romane curie dicat hoc psalmos …7 289r–362r: Bible (Mt–Apc) 362v: Blank page 363r–376r: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 376v: Blank page Bibliography: Kidd 2007, p. 6n16 (“Boston, Public Library, MS. f.Med.q 202”); Light 2013, p. 208; Light 2016, p. 175; Ruzzier 2022, p. 223, n. 372 (“MS qMed 202”).

9.1.2 Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, Ff.6.47 Summary: Bible with fragmentary Franciscan (?) festive missal Origin: England (Binski et al. 2011) Date: 13th century, middle (Binski et al. 2011)8 Material: Parchment (goat; see Fiddyment et al. 2015). 100 (Ff.6.45) + 100 (Ff.6.46) + 92 (Ff.6.47) + 100 (Ff.6.48) + 78 (Ff.6.49) leaves.9 Leaf size: 142 x 100 mm. Bible layout: c. 102 x 67 mm; 49–50 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 108 x 82 mm; 36 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: [eunu]cho nec studiosior (Ff.6.45, f. 2r) Artistic decoration: Decorated initials for Frater ambrosius and Gn; littera duplex initials for other biblical books and prologues Contents: [Ff.6.45] 1r–4r: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei [Ff.6.45] 4r–100v; [Ff.6.46] 1r–100v; [Ff.6.47] 1r–16r: Bible (Gn–Iob) [Ff.6.47] 16v: Fragmentary Franciscan (?) festive missal10 16v: Formularies for Christmas, St. Stephen, St. John (ends imperfectly)11 [Ff.6.47] Four stubs visible after 16v [Ff.6.47] 17r–92v; [Ff.6.48] 1r–100v; [Ff.6.49] 1r–78v: Bible (Ps [begins imperfectly at Ps 137:4]–Apc)12 Bibliography: Luard 1857, nn. 1383–1387, p. 540; Binski et al. 2011, n. 111, pp. 104–105; Poleg 2020a, pp. 29n59, 194–195.

9.1.3 Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, Hh.1.3 Summary: Bible with Franciscan Ordo Missae, full missal, and calendar Origin: England Date: 13th century, middle (missal section, likely a later addition, datable to after 1262)13 7 The relationship between this set of texts and those provided in the missal section require further study. This text contains full versions of some prayers, but only rubrics for the canon. 8 Luard 1857 dates the manuscript to the 15th century. 9 This 13th-century bible was originally one volume but was rebound into five small volumes (Ff.6.45, Ff.6.46, Ff.6.47, Ff.6.48, Ff.6.49) at least as early as first half of the 16th century; see Binski et al. 2011, p. 105. Each volume is foliated separately. 10 For a brief discussion of the possible Franciscan provenance, see Poleg 2020a, 29n59. 11 For further details on the liturgical contents of the missal, see p. 13 above. 12 The Psalter begins imperfectly on f. 17r of Ff.6.47 with omnes reges terræ quia audierunt omnia verba oris tui (Ps 137:4b). This means that one or more quires are missing, in addition to the four stubs visible after f. 16v. 13 The manuscript is dated to the third quarter of the 13th century by Binski et al., 2011, who are followed in this by Light 2013 and Poleg 2020a. It seems possible to me that the manuscript may have been produced in the middle of the 13th century, and that the liturgical texts should not be used to argue for a date of the third quarter of the 13th century. For details on the date of the added liturgical texts, see Morgan 2017.

410 

 9 Appendix 1: Summary Catalog of Non-Dominican Bible Missals

Material: Parchment (calf; see Fiddyment et al. 2015). iii + 364 folios (foliated 2–404 with gaps).14 Leaf size: 200 x 150 mm. Bible layout: c. 150 x 95 mm; 51–52 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 160–185 x 115–130 mm; 44–66 lines in 2–3 columns. Secundo folio: Hoc legem (6r) Artistic decoration: Decorated initials for most biblical books; littera duplex initials for some biblical books; flourished initials for prologues and mass texts Contents: 2r–4v: Various notes15 6r–7v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei (Frater ambrosius begins imperfectly with Hoc legem on 6r) 8r–352v: Bible (Gn–Apc)16 352v–354r: Ordo Missae (prefaces with Communicantes and Hanc igitur, canon, post-canon prayers)17 354v: Blank page with added notes 355r–373r: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 373v–404v: Franciscan full missal 373v–387r: Temporale: Advent–24th Sunday after Pentecost 387v–388v: Calendar (four months to a page)18 389r–397v: Sanctorale: Vigil of St. Andrew (29 November)–St. Catherine of Alexandria (25 November) 397v–403r: Common of Saints: Apostles–Virgins 403r–403v: Requiem masses 403v–404v: Votive masses Bibliography: Luard 1858, n. 1617 (pp. 236–237), Frere 1932, n. 825 (p.104); van Dijk 1954, pp. 201n89, 202n126; van Dijk 1963, II:131n4; Oates 1986, p. 282; Connolly 2009, pp. 185–86; Pfaff 2009, p. 325; Binski et al., 2011, n. 123 (pp. 115–116); Light 2013, p. 211; Poleg 2013a, pp. 143n13, 214; Fiddyment et al. 2015 (table); Morgan 2017, n. 3 (pp. 225–227); Suski and Sodi 2019, n. 671 (p. 172); Poleg 2020a, pp. 29–30, 32, 194–195.

9.1.4 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 13 Summary: Bible with added unfinished Franciscan (?) full missal Origin: Northern France, possibly Paris (Jackson et al. 2015)19 Date: 13th century, second quarter20 Material: Parchment. v + 612 + v leaves.21 Leaf size: 135 x 90 mm. Bible layout: c. 90 x 63–70 mm; 41 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 90 x 65 mm; 39 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: clausi erant (2r) Artistic decoration: Historiated initials for most biblical books; decorated initials for prologues and some biblical books; no decoration for mass texts

14 The modern foliation is complex, as it skips missing leaves in accordance with the foliator’s assessment of the “original” form of the manuscript; cf. Binski et al. 2011: “2–4, 6–248, 261–282, 295–319, 330–370, 372–404, 405 missing.” 15 Transcriptions of several Middle English notes on these and other folios are given in Connolly 2009, pp. 185–186. Further details of added notes are given in Binski et al. 2011, pp. 115–116. 16 Added liturgical notes appear in the margins of some sections of the bible, e.g., ff. 214r–v and 297v–298r. 17 For further discussion of the missal sections of the manuscript, see pp. 20–21 above. 18 Binski et al. 2011 and Morgan 2017 discuss the saints of the calendar in conjunction with the dating. Of particular importance for dating is the presence of the 2 April feast of Richard of Chichester (1197–1253, canonized 1262; typically celebrated on 3 April according to Binski et al. 2011). In addition to the presence of various Franciscan feasts, there is a strong presence of various English saints. 19 James 1912 identifies the origin as “English or North-French.” 20 Jackson et al. 2015 gives a more restricted dating of c. 1240–1250 on art historical grounds. James 1912 identifies the date as “Cent. xiii.” 21 The flyleaves consist of ii paper + iii parchment flyleaves at the beginning and iii parchment + ii paper flyleaves at the end of the manuscript; see Jackson et al. 2015. These flyleaves are not foliated.

9.1 Franciscan  

 411

Contents: iv recto: List of biblical books (14th-century addition)22 1r–3v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 4r–560r: Bible (Gn–Apc)23 560r–561r: Unfinished Franciscan (?) full missal (later addition)24 560r–561r: Temporale: First Sunday of Advent–Ember Wednesday (ends imperfectly) 561v: Blank 562r–611v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) Bibliography: James 1912, pp. 25–26; Jackson et al. 2015, n. 88, pp. 258–260; Ruzzier 2022, p. 248, n. 1138.25

9.1.5 Darmstadt, Universitäts – und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 1967 Summary: Bible with Franciscan full missal Origin: Paris Date: 13th century, middle; between c. 1243 and c. 1260?26 Material: Parchment. 653 leaves.27 Leaf size: 135 x 88 mm. Bible layout: c. 90 x 64 mm; 45 (49 for the Psalms) lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 90 x 64 mm; 45 lines in 2 columns (ff. 271r–309v) | c. 88 x 68 mm; 39 lines in 2 columns (ff. 310r–323v) Secundo folio: nec principum sed loquitur (1r)28 Artistic decoration: Historiated initials for biblical books and decorated initials for biblical prologues; decorated and littera duplex initials in canon Contents: 1r–3v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei (Begins imperfectly at nec principum) 3v–270v: Bible (Gn–Ps) 270v–323v: Franciscan full missal 270v: Epistle and gospel list for the Tuesday of Holy Week–Easter Vigil (continued from f. 323r) 271r–280r: Temporale: Easter–23rd Sunday after Pentecost29 280r–284v: Temporale: Advent–2nd Sunday after Epiphany30 285r–287v: Ordo Missae with offertory prayers, prefaces, canon, post-canon prayers, and post-mass prayers 287v–289v: Votive masses 289v–290v: Requiem masses 290v–296r: Common of Saints

22 The dating of the addition is from Jackson et al. 2015. 23 Gn begins imperfectly due to the loss of a leaf between ff. 3 and 4. 24 Jackson et al. 2015 state that it is a 14th-century addition; I think it may have been added in the 13th century, although it is certainly an addition. The text scribe adding this section left space blank for rubrics and initials that were never supplied. The liturgical selections are similar to those in the Franciscan bible missal Darmstadt, ULB 1967, f. 280r–v. 25 I am grateful to Chiara Ruzzier for drawing this manuscript to my attention. 26 Staub 1979 dates the manuscript “13. Jh. (Mitte bis 2. Hälfte).” The liturgical texts follow the liturgical reforms found in the Franciscan Ordo missalis attributed to Haymo of Faversham (dated by van Dijk 1963 to c. 1243–1244, but see Whittle 2022, pp. 209, 212, 221–222). A date before c. 1260 is suggested by the omission of St. Clare of Assisi from the sanctoral; Clare was canonized in 1255, and the 1260 Franciscan Chapter of Narbonne called for her feast to be celebrated as a duplex (see van Dijk 1963, v. 2, p. 419). 27 Foliated 1–101, 101bis, 102–516, 516bis, 517–611, 611bis, 612–626, 626bis, 627, 627bis, 628–631, 631bis, 632–633, 633bis, 634–646; a blank medieval flyleaf is foliated 647. Staub 1979 states that there are “648 Bl.” 28 The original opening leaf is now missing; f. 1 was originally the secundo folio. 29 It is not clear why the missal begins with Easter. It is possible that the scribe was initially copying from a summer missal; I am grateful to Eleanor Giraud for this suggestion. 30 The Advent section is preceded by the following rubric: Incipit ordo missalis fratrum minorum secundum consuetudinem romane curie.

412 

 9 Appendix 1: Summary Catalog of Non-Dominican Bible Missals

296r–309r: Sanctorale: Vigil of St. Andrew (29 November) –St. Catherine of Alexandria (25 November) 309r–322v: Temporale: 3rd Sunday after Epiphany–Easter Vigil (without indications of readings) 322v–323r: Epistle and gospel list for the 3rd Sunday after Epiphany–the Monday of Holy Week (continued on f. 270v) 344r–607v: Bible (Prv–Apc) 608r–646v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … ends imperfectly with Zoon iste) Bibliography: Schneider 1954, pp. 27, 51, 66, 77, 95; Staub 1979, n. 35, pp. 65–68; Suski and Sodi 2019, n. 911, p. 195; Ruzzier 2022, p. 212, n. 37.

9.1.6 London, British Library, Harley 2813 Summary: Bible with Franciscan votive missal Origin: Oxford (Kidd 2007) Date: 13th century, second quarter (Kidd 2007) Material: Parchment. 508 leaves. Leaf size: 183 x 133 mm. Bible layout: c. 114 x 74 mm; 51 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 113 x 73 mm; 51 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: Evagari longius (5r) Artistic decoration: Historiated initials for Frater ambrosius and Io; decorated initials for other biblical books and prologues; decorated and flourished initials in missal; according to Kidd 2007, the decoration is “in the style of William de Brailes” Contents:31 1r–3v: Blank leaves with various notes (including added list of biblical books on f. 2r) 4r–6v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 7r–226r: Bible (Gn–Ps; begins imperfectly)32 226v: List of biblical books 227r–236v: Franciscan votive missal33 227r–228v: Votive masses34 228v–230v: Ordo Missae with prefaces, Communicantes, Hanc igitur, canon, post-canon prayers 230v–232r: Votive masses35 232r–233r: Requiem masses 233r–235v: Common of Saints 235v: Votive and sanctoral masses 235v–236r: Incipit ordo ad faciendum aquam benedictam 236r–v: Sequences, Credo, sanctoral mass: In festo sancte marie magdalene 237r–485r: Bible (Prv–Apc) 485r–504r: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 504r–506r: Various notes Bibliography: British Museum 1759 (n. 2813; vol. 2, no pagination); British Museum 1808, p. 713; Kidd 2007; Light 2013, p. 211; Light 2016, p. 175; Poleg 2020a, pp. 30–32, 194–195; Ruzzier 2022, p. 169n17, p. 253, n. 1310.

31 For a detailed overview of the contents see Kidd 2007. 32 Gn begins imperfectly at Gn 3:19: [vesce]ris pane donec. 33 The votive missal (ff. 227r–236v) occupies two quires (quire 15: ff. 227–234 [8 leaves]; quire 16: ff. 235–236 [2 leaves]) which are a codicological unit with slightly different script, decoration, and ruling patterns than other parts of the manuscript. Kidd offers further details on pp. 12–15. 34 The votive masses include a Missa in honore sancti Francisci (ff. 227v–228r). 35 The votive masses include an Alia missa ad poscenda suffragia sanctorum que fecit dominus papa Innocentius in which St. Francis is mentioned in the collect and postcommunion (f. 230v).

9.1 Franciscan  

 413

9.1.7 Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3 (107. f) Summary: Bible (imperfect) with Franciscan votive missal36 Origin: France (Ker 1969) Date: 13th century, middle (Ker 1969) Material: Parchment. 468 leaves. Leaf size: 123 x 79 mm.37 Bible layout: c. 95 x 62 mm; 45 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: (not specified by Ker) Secundo folio: paulus sapientiam (2r) Artistic decoration: Historiated initials for biblical books; decorated initials for prologues Contents: 1r–286v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei, Bible (Gn–Ps)38 287r–293r: Franciscan votive missal39 287r–289v: Ordo Missae with notated prefaces and canon 289v–291r: Votive and Requiem masses 291v–292r: Exorcismus salis/Exorcismus aque 292r–292v: Votive masses 292v–293r: “Prayers and cues of antiphons and psalms of the burial service.” (Ker) 293v: Blank 294r–468v: Bible (Prv–II Mcc 15:28)40 Bibliography: Ker 1969, pp. 118–119; Light 2013, p. 209 (etc.); Sotheby’s 2013 (5 June, Lot 11); Light 2016, p. 176.

9.1.8 Wolfenbüttel, Herzog-August-Bibliothek, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst. Summary: Bible with Franciscan full missal and preaching list Origin: Northern Italy (Ruzzier 2022) Date: 13th century, second quarter; after 1232, possibly before 124441 36 This manuscript was sold at Sotheby’s on 5 June 2013 as Lot 11. According to Light 2016 p. 176, after the Sotheby’s sale the manuscript “appeared briefly on eBay, after which is must have been broken, since leaves appeared at auction in 2014.” The following entry is based on Ker 1969. 37 According to Ker, “the margins [are] badly cropped: 12 mm. of the lower edge of f. 239 have been folded in to preserve an initial.” From the photographs available on the Sotheby’s website, it is clear that the upper margins have also been significantly cropped, as only the lowermost portion of the original running header is visible. 38 Ker does not specify where the biblical prologues end and when Gn begins. 39 For a fuller description of the contents, see Ker 1969; one formulary is a mass for St. Francis. 40 According to Ker, “2 Macc. ends imperfectly at xv. 28: presumably the New Testament once followed.” 41 Ruzzier 2022, p. 278 dates the bible to the fourth quarter of the 13th century. My dating is based on the integral presence of an early form of a Franciscan missal that is part of the original production unit of the manuscript. The terminus post quem is provided by the presence of texts for In sancti antonii confessoris de ordine minorum fratrum on f. 200v; Anthony of Padua (15 August 1195–13 June 1231) was canonized in 1232. A termi­ nus ante quem is less precise, but it is possibly before c. 1244 as the manuscript does not reflect the liturgical reforms found in the Ordo missalis attributed to Haymo of Faversham (dated by van Dijk 1963 to c. 1243–1244, but possibly earlier: see Whittle 2022, pp. 209, 212, 221–222). Compared with the Ordo missalis, the Wolfenbüttel manuscript differs significantly in the details of the sanctorale (e.g., the inclusion of morning masses for the feasts of St. John the Evangelist on f. 181v and the Nativity of St. John the Baptist on f. 200v and the omission of the Translation of St. Francis; cf. van Dijk 1963, v. 1, pp. 81, 85) and temporale (e.g., the inclusion of pre-Haymonian rubrics for Good Friday on f. 189r; cf. Kennedy 1958, p. 116). Likewise, the manuscript lacks texts for St. Dominic (canonized 1234) and St. Elizabeth of Hungary (canonized 1235), both included in the Ordo missalis (see van Dijk, v. 2, pp. 292, 304). However, it should be noted that the omission of these saints does not establish a terminus ante quem based on their canonization dates, as St. Elizabeth is not otherwise attested in Franciscan liturgical practice before the Ordo missalis (cf. Horowski 2016, pp. 299–300) and it is likewise unclear whether Franciscans observed the feast of St. Dominic before its inclusion in the Ordo missalis. The manuscript has many affinities with two early Franciscan missals from the second quarter of the 13th century which deserve further comparative study; see Assisi, Fondo Antico presso la Biblioteca del Sacro Convento, MS 607 and Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale ‘Vittorio Emanuele III’, VI.G.38 (ed. Przeczewski 2003), although it differs in beginning the sanctoral with the Vigil of St. Andrew rather than St. Sylvester. Of note is the presence of the proper mass Dilectus for the feast of St. Francis on f. 204r (In natale beati patris francisci ordinis minorum fratrum fundatori

414 

 9 Appendix 1: Summary Catalog of Non-Dominican Bible Missals

Material: Parchment. 418 leaves. Leaf size: 170 x 119 mm. Bible layout: c. 118 x 80 mm; 58–64 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 117 x 78 mm; 40 (Ordo Missae)/58 (formularies) lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: [fornicati]onis filios (2r) Artistic decoration: Historiated or decorated initials for biblical books; flourished initials for biblical prologues; miniature in missal Contents: 1r–2v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 3r–179v: Bible (Gn–Ps) 179v–209v: Franciscan full missal 179v–190r: Temporale: Advent–Easter Vigil 190r–192v: Ordo Missae: Preparation for mass–end of mass 192v–197r: Temporale: Easter Day–24th Sunday after Pentecost 197r–205v: Sanctorale: Vigil of St. Andrew (29 November)–St. Catherine of Alexandria (25 November) 205v–207r: Common of Saints 207r–208r: Votive masses 208r–209r: Requiem masses 209v: Added missal texts 210r–210v: Blank leaf 211r–386v: Bible (Prv–Apc) 387r–410v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 410v–413v: Preaching list42 413v–418r: Summarium biblicum (later addition)43 Bibliography: Heinemann 1888, n. 1449, p. 163; Hartmann 2001, p. 246; Ruzzier 2010, p. 100n46; Light 2016, p. 173n32; Ruzzier 2022, p. 216, n. 166, p. 278. Digital images: https://diglib.hab.de/mss/1335-helmst/start.htm

9.2 Abbeys of Augustinian Canons 9.2.1 Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal, IL 34 Summary: Bible with full missal and breviary (Augustinian Abbey of Saint-Ferreol, Essômes-sur-Marne)44 et primi ministri), described by Sedda and Dalarun 2015, p. 359 as the oldest mass formulary for St. Francis. The St. Francis mass formulary in the Wolfenbüttel bible missal is very close to that found in the Naples manuscript (ff. 249r–250r; ed. ed. Przeczewski 2003, pp. 481–482; cf. Sedda and Dalarun 2015, pp. 367–368), although the Wolfenbüttel manuscript adds Francis’ name to the introit text (Dilectus deo et hominibus franciscus cuius memoria …) and concludes the proper Alleluia verse Lux vera illuminans with the words “et rosis ornata” instead of “et rosis coronata” as found in Naples. Other features of the Wolfenbüttel manuscript that suggest a relatively early date include the appearance of a short incipit at the beginning of the missal (f. 179v: “Incipit missale”; cf. Whittle 2022, p. 209), and the rubric which introduces the texts for the First Sunday after Pentecost (f. 195r): “In hac prima dominica post pentecosten quia magna diversitas est in libris de introitibus orationibus epistolis et evangeliis qualiter in romana curia procuro” (cf. van Dijk and Walker 1960, p. 133). 42 This is labelled “Index lectionum dominicalium et festivarum” in Heinemann 1888, but it is a list of scripture passages for use in preaching rather than a list of liturgical readings. In the case of the first entry, Dominica de adventu, 16 texts are provided; other texts are provided for select feasts of the temporale and sanctorale, followed by passages for the common of saints, and then for a series of special groups (e.g., Ad viventes solitarie, Ad claustrales, Ad moniales, etc.) For a discussion of similar lists in other 13th-century bibles, see Light 2011a, pp. 178–179. 43 For a discussion of this text, see Doležalová 2013. 44 Sousa 2015 states on p. 302 that the manuscript belonged to the “Abadia beneditina de Saint-Ferreol d’Essomes” and on p. 305 mentions the presence of the 18 September feast (and octave) of Saint Ferréol de Vienne.” The Abbey of Saint-Ferreol was in fact Augustinian rather than Benedictine. Supporting this place of origin are the post-Pentecost Alleluia verses on ff. 478v–482v in the missal, which are almost identical with those found in a 16th-century printed missal from the Abbey of Saint-Ferreol in Essômes-sur-Marne (Missale secundum usum ecclesie Sosmensis [Paris, 1547]; cf. Amiet 1990, p. 102, 1668 B). I identified this correspondence with the aid of the Post-Pentecost Alleluias database from Cantus Planus Regensburg (https://www.cantusplanus.de/databases/Alleluia, where the source is listed as “Essonnes”; the verse numbers in parentheses

9.2 Abbeys of Augustinian Canons  

 415

Origin: Paris (Sousa 2015) Date: 13th century, second quarter (after 1232; possibly c. 1240–1250)45 Material: Parchment. 494 leaves. Leaf size: 181 x 125 mm.46 Bible/Breviary/Missal layout: c. 126 x 86 mm; 50–51 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: [studio]sior qui de ethiopia (2r) Artistic decoration: Historiated initials for biblical books and decorated initials for biblical prologues; historiated initials for missal47 Contents: 1r–3v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 4r–379v: Bible (Gn–Apc)48 380r–462r: Breviary 380r–426v: Temporale: Advent–25th Sunday after Pentecost 426v–428r: In dedicatione ecclesie 428r–457r: Sanctorale: St. Silvester (31 December)–St. Thomas Apostle (21 December) 457r–462r: Common of Saints 462v: Blank page 463r–491v: Full missal 463r–464r: Ordo Missae with prefaces, canon, post-canon prayers 464r–482v: Temporale: Advent–25th Sunday after Pentecost 482v: Common of Saints: In dedicatione ecclesie 482v–484v: Common of Saints: Chant texts49 484v–489r: Sanctorale: St. Silvester (31 December)–St. Thomas Apostle (21 December)/St. Nicholas (6 December)50 489r–v: Common of Saints: Reading incipits 489v–491v: Votive and Requiem masses51 491v: Sequences 492r–493r: Calendar (four months to a page)

below are taken from this database). I have not been able to consult the 1547 printed missal directly, but have compared the post-Pentecost Alleluia verses indexed by Vincent Leroquais in a notebook now preserved as Paris, BnF, NAL 3164, f. 115r–v. The lists are identical except for two elements where the later source presents a slight simplification of the earlier source. On the 19th Sunday after Pentecost, the Lisbon bible missal presents two Alleluia verses, Laudate dominum omnes gentes (116a) and Qui timent dominum (113c), while the printed missal gives only Qui timent dominum. On the 23rd Sunday after Pentecost, the bible missal provides Qui sanat (146b) and Qui posuit (147b), repeating Qui sanat on the 24th and 25th Sundays; the printed missal gives Qui sanat on the 23rd and 24th Sundays and Qui posuit on the 25th Sunday. In addition to the evidence offered by the Alleluia verses, the prominence of St. Ferreolus in the breviary (f. 499ra: De sancto ferreolo martyre) and in the calendar, where his feast and octave are supplemented by his translation (f. 429v, 7 July: Translatio sancti fereoli. IX lect.; f. 493r, 18 September: Ferreoli martyris. IX lect. Omnia responsoria dupliciter; September 25: Octava santi ferreoli. IX lect. Omnia responsoria dupliciter) supports the identification of the manuscript with the Augustinian abbey. Only one other manuscript from the abbey has been identified: according to Leroquais 1934, v. 4, pp. 389–391, Paris, BnF, latin 13225 is an early 13th-century diurnal with a fragmentary missal and ritual from the same Augustinian abbey in Essômes. The two manuscripts deserve further comparative study. Leroquais notes that the diurnal includes a dedication entry of 10 June: Dedicatio Sosmensis ecclesie; notably, the bible missal does not include a dedication entry in the calendar. 45 St. Anthony of Padua is included in the calendar (f. 492v) in the original hand, indicating that the manuscript was written after his canonization in 1232. Sousa 2015 dates the manuscript to “século XIII (1240–1250),” presumably on artistic grounds. 46 These measurements are adapted from Sousa 2015, who provides the most detailed account of the manuscript. On p. 305, Sousa specifies that the text of the bible is written in two columns of “126 x 38 mm”; I have extrapolated the width of c. 86 mm for the overall written space based on an estimate of c. 10 mm between the two columns. 47 Sousa 2015, p. 306 attributes the artistic decoration to the “Du Prat” atelier; cf. Branner 1977, pp. 78–80, 218–219. Two of the three initials that originally appeared on f. 463r–v have been cut out. 48 For a detailed description of the order of biblical books and prologues, see Sousa 2015. 49 This section includes only the chant texts for the various categories of saints. 50 The formulary for Thome apostoli is given on f. 489ra–rb, followed by the formulary for Nicholai episcopi on f. 489rb. In the calendar on f. 493rb, Nicholas is listed on the normal day of 6 December, and is also given an octave on 13 December; Thomas Apostle is listed on the normal day of 21 December. 51 The selection of interspersed votive and Requiem masses concludes on f. 491r–v with a Benedictio anuli sponse followed by a nuptial mass formulary which includes a proper preface and Hanc igitur in addition to a nuptial blessing.

416 

 9 Appendix 1: Summary Catalog of Non-Dominican Bible Missals

494r–494v: Added hymns on paper flyleaf (16th century) Bibliography: Correia 1986, p. 304; Cepeda and Ferreira 1994, n. 379, p. 255; Miranda 1999, n. 47, pp. 254–255; Sousa 2015, n. 13, pp. 302–306; Light 2016, p. 173n173; Ruzzier 2022, p. 246, n. 1084. Digital images: https://purl.pt/33208

9.2.2 San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 Summary: Bible with Augustinian (?) festive missal and added Sarum epistle and gospel list52 Origin: England Date: 13th century, second quarter53 Material: Parchment. 381 leaves. Leaf size: 220 x 154 mm. Bible layout: c. 156 x 103 mm; 58 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 156 x 103 mm; 47–51 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: audit clamorem (23r) Artistic decoration: Historiated initials for Frater ambrosius, Gn, Ps 1, Mt, Mc, Lc, Io; decorated initials for other biblical books; littera duplex initials for biblical prologues; miniature in missal Contents: 1r–21v: Added exegetical and liturgical texts (early 15th century) 1r–9v: Summarium biblicum (begins imperfectly)54 10r–21v: Sarum epistle and gospel list 22r–23v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 24r–178r: Bible (Gn–Ps)55 177r–191v: Festive missal 177r: Incipits for canticles (15th-century addition) 177v: Added texts for the Communicantes and Hanc igitur 178r–180r: Ordo Missae with prefaces, canon, and post-canon prayers

52 Dutschke 1989, p. 654 suggests that the manuscript may have come from a house of canons regular on the basis of the inclusion of a mass Pro fratribus congregationis. Further evidence to support this hypothesis can be found from a range of English and Augustinian manuscripts that contain the same formulary, notably invoking the Virgin and Michael Archangel. The Requiem mass Pro fratribus congregationis on f. 180v includes the following version of CO 2205: “Deus venie largitor et humane salutis auctor, quesumus clementiam tuam ut nostrarum congregationum fratres et sorores qui ex hoc seculo transierunt, beata maria semper virgine, et beato michaele archangelo intercedente cum omnibus sanctis tuis ad perpetue beatitudinis consortium pervenire concedas. Per.” As the apparatus to the Corpus Orationum indicates (CCSL 160B, pp. 225–226), the invocation of Mary and St. Michael is found in two sources collated in the Corpus Orationum: Oxford, Corpus Christi College, MS 504, a 12th-century missal from the Augustinian Abbey of Clones in Ireland (ed. Warren 1879, p. 76), as well as the version of the Sarum missal edited by Dickinson 1861–1883, column 871✶. In contrast to the Oxford source, which only includes “fratres,” the Sarum source, like the San Marino bible missal, includes “fratres et sorores.” An almost identical version of the prayer is found in a c. 1250–55 Sarum missal, Manchester, John Rylands Library, Latin MS 24, f. 227r–v, under the rubric Missa pro defunctis fratribus et sororibus congregacione (ed. Legg 1916, p. 438; for the date, see Morgan 2010, p. 145). In the Acts of a General Chapter of Augustinian Canons held at Northampton in 1325, a detailed account of the prayers offered at the chapter for all the prelates and brothers who had died since the previous chapter includes a version of the prayer that exactly matches the Manchester manuscript version; see Salter 1922, p. 10. This range of sources indicates that the inclusion of Mary and St. Michael in the prayer is important for linking the San Marino bible missal to other English sources representing Augustinian and Sarum liturgical practices (although it does not support Dutschke’s further suggestion that the manuscript may originate from a particular house of canons regular dedicated to Mary and St. Michael). Nevertheless, the inclusion of St. Augustine on f. 182r as one of just a few sanctoral formulas (the others are Oswald, Lawrence, Mary Magdalene, and Catherine of Alexandria) supports the suggestion that the book may have been written for Augustinian canons in England. 53 Morgan 1982 suggests a date of c. 1240; Dutschke 1989 suggests the middle of the 13th century; Light 2013 suggests the second quarter of the 13th century. 54 For a discussion of this text, see Doležalová 2013. 55 The Psalms are written “with one line per verse, omitting the words that do not fit on the line” (Dutschke 1989, p. 650); this feature is also found in Brussels, KBR 8882, Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, and Paris, BnF, latin 10429 (cf. Light 2016, p. 179n49). For further discussion of this phenomenon, see p. 191 above. In San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061, the Psalms end on the first column of f. 178r and are followed immediately by the start of the prefaces of the Ordo Missae. Folio 177 is a small leaf (172 x 115 mm) that was inserted between ff. 176 and 178 at some point after the initial production of the manuscript.

9.2 Abbeys of Augustinian Canons  

 417

180r–191v: Selected Requiem, votive, sanctoral, and temporal masses56 192r–348v: Bible (Prv–Apc) 349r–379v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 379v–381v: Various added notes Bibliography: Morgan 1982, n. 77, pp. 125–126; Dutschke 1989, pp. 649–654; Light 2013, p. 213; Poleg 2020a, pp. 29, 36–37, 194–195; Ruzzier 2022, p. 227, n. 486. Digital images: https://hdl.huntington.org/digital/collection/p15150coll7/id/51547/ (selected images)

9.2.3 Tours, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 5 Summary: Bible with Ordo Missae, litany, and calendar (Augustinian Abbey of Saint-Geneviève, Paris) Origin: Paris57 Date: 13th century, second quarter (after 1224)58 Material: Parchment. 507 leaves. Leaf size: 195 x 142 mm. Bible layout: c. 127 x 87 mm; 51 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 127 x 114 mm; 48–51 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: delirus senex (3r) Artistic decoration: Littera duplex initials for biblical books, prologues, and liturgical texts59 Contents: 1r: Flyleaf with added list of biblical books in cursiva script; sketch of the Face of Christ 1v: Added notes in cursiva 2r–4v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 4v–467v: Bible with prologues and capitula (Gn–Apc)60 467v–471r: Anselm, Prosologion (Ecce nunc homuncio … benedictus in secula amen.)61 471v–501r: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 501r–v: Litany of the Saints 501v–502v: Calendar (Augustinian Abbey of Saint-Geneviève, Paris)62 (flowing in three columns) 56 Dutschke 1989, pp. 650–651 gives an overview of the complex arrangement of these masses. 57 I suggest a Parisian origin due to the presence of the Saint-Geneviève liturgical texts in the calendar, the presence of two distinctive Parisian textual features (“revertendi posita” in Rt 1:7 on f. 82v and the presence of “vinum” in Iob 1:4 on f. 183v; cf. Ruzzier 2022, p. 76), the and the presence of “proto-Paris Bible” features discussed in the following footnote. 58 Collon 1900 dates the manuscript to the 13th century. The manuscript is after 1224, as it includes St. William of Æbelholt (d. 1203, canonized 1224) on April 6 in the calendar on f. 502r (Willerini abbatis et confessoris). Before moving to Denmark in 1165, William was subprior of the Abbey of Saint-Geneviève following its reform by the Augustinian Canons of the Abbey of St. Victor in Paris, and was included in the calendar of other books from the abbey (see note on the calendar below). The inclusion of biblical capitula and other textual features of the “proto-Paris Bible” (cf. Light 1994 and Light 2012) suggest a date relatively soon after 1224. 59 The Frater ambrosius initial on f. 2r was originally a littera duplex initial but in the 14th century was painted over with a decorated initial. 60 Throughout the manuscript, a sort of alphabetic foliation appears on the upper left of each verso, with all the folios of Gn labelled “A,” all the folios of Ex labelled “B”, Lv labelled “C”, and so forth. The list of biblical books in alphabetical order based on name of biblical book (Abbacuc, Aabdias [sic], Actus apostolorum, etc.) is keyed to this alphabetic foliation, with the letter being provided after the name of the biblical book. This foliation would have allowed a user to quickly find a particular book within the bible. 61 This text is written by the same scribe as the preceding biblical text and is introduced with a similar style of littera duplex initial. The text is preceded by two rubrics, the second of which is expunctuated: Incipit tractatus beati anselmi quod dicitur prosologion and Incipit tractatus beati augustini soliloquiorum. The Prosologion typically appears with “Eia” as the opening word, but “Ecce” is clearly written here. 62 The calendar shares many feasts highlighted by Leroquais in his descriptions of manuscripts of the Abbey of Saint-Geneviève, including 3 January feast Sancte genovefe virginis, duplex, 10 January Octava sancte genovefe iii. D., 6 April Willerini abbatis et confessoris. ix lect., 22 April Invencio sanctorum dionisii rustici et eleutherii. iii lect., 3 June Clothildis regine. duplex, 19 August Magni martyris. memoria, 28 August Sancti augustini episcopi. duplex. Hermetis martyris. memoria, 4 September Octava sancti augustini. duplex, 27 September Cerauni confessoris. duplex. Cosme et damiani martyrum. memoria, 4 October Auree virginis. iii lect., 16 October Octava sancti dionisii. ix lect., 28 October Natalis eorumdem. Translatio genovefe virginis, 3 November Marcelli episcopi as novem lectionum, 4 November Octava sancte genovefe, 26 November Miracula beate genovefe par. acta. duplex, and 28 November Dedicatio ecclesie sancte genovefe. In the sources cataloged by Leroquais, the 28 November dedication is specified for the patrons of the church of the Abbey, Peter and Paul, but here for St. Geneviève herself. Cf. Leroquais’ descriptions

418 

 9 Appendix 1: Summary Catalog of Non-Dominican Bible Missals

503r–504v: Ordo Missae with offertory prayers, prefaces, canon, post-canon prayers, and rubrics 504v: List of biblical books in alphabetical order 505r–507v: Blank flyleaves with various added notes Bibliography: Dorange 1875, pp. 2–3; Collon 1900 pp. 4–5; Ruzzier 2022, p. 237, n. 826.63 Digital images: https://bvmm.irht.cnrs.fr/consult/consult.php?reproductionId=8249 (selected)

9.3 Cistercian 9.3.1 London, British Library, Add. MS 57531 Summary: Bible with Cistercian full missal and ritual Origin: Northern France (Light 2013) Date: 13th century, middle; liturgical texts datable between c. 1246 and c. 126664 Material: Parchment. iii + 544 + iv leaves.65 Leaf size: 163 x 125 mm. Bible layout: c. 115 x 85 mm; 50 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 112 x 85 mm; 50 (formularies)/25 (Canon Missae) lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: excelsum ascende (2r; missal); immo audacie (58r; bible) Artistic decoration: Littera duplex initials for biblical books Contents: 1r–55v: Cistercian full missal and ritual 1r–25r: Temporale: Advent–25th Sunday after Pentecost66 25r–25v: Ordo Missae with prefaces, canon, post-canon prayers 29r–46v: Sanctorale: St. Stephen (26 December)–St. Thomas Apostle (21 December) 47r: Dedication of a Church (partially written, not rubricated, crossed out with a red x over the text) 47r: St. Edmund of Abingdon 47v: Dedication of a Church (In dedicatione ecclesie; In nova dedicatione; In anniversario dedicationis die; Missa de novo altari) 47v–51v: Votive masses 51v–53r: Requiem masses

of the calendars of the missals Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, MS 1259 (Leroquais 1924, v. 2, pp. 85–86, n. 266) and Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, MS 90 (Leroquais 1924, v. 2, p. 138, n. 319) and the psalter-antiphonal Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, MS 2641 (Leroquais 1940, v. 2, pp. 154–156, n. 380). 63 I am grateful to Chiara Ruzzier for drawing this manuscript to my attention. 64 While further research on the manuscript is needed, there are several feasts in the sanctoral that are relevant for dating: 15 September (f. 42r) includes the rubric In octavis beate marie et per octavas, which was instituted in the Cistercian liturgy in 1245 (cf. Backaert 1950–1951, p. 315); 17 September (f. 42r) includes a full formulary for Lamberti episcopi et martyris; this may be a result of the elevation of the feast from a Commemoration to a feast of 12 readings in 1246 (cf. Backaert 1950–1951, p. 315; Backaert gives further details about the commemoration of Lambert particularly in the abbey of Val-Saint-Lambert in the diocese of Liège). Most significantly for the Terminus post quem, f. 47r has a set of texts for Edmundi episcopi et confessoris, which appear out of place after the end of the sanctoral, rather than at 16 November. Edmund of Abingdon (c. 1180–1240), elected Archbishop of Canterbury in 1233, died at the Cistercian Abbey of Pontigny on 16 November 1240. Edmund was canonized in December 1246 and was immediately added to the Cistercian liturgy (cf. Backaert 1950–1951, p. 112). The placement of this feast outside the main sanctorale but in what appears to be in the original hand may indicate that the manuscript was produced around the time of Edmund’s canonization. The texts for Edmund are copied after the cancelled Dedication of a Church on f. 47r, which appears to indicate some confusion about where to place this material. One piece of evidence for the Terminus ante quem is the presence of a full formulary on 15 September for Nichomedis martyris, who was reduced to a Commemoration in 1266 (cf. Backaert 1950–1951, p. 315). The Petri episcopi et confessoris on f. 34r (between the 6 May feast of Iohannis ante portam latinam and the 10 May feast of Gordiani et Epymachi) is the 8 May feast of St. Peter of Tarentaise (1102–1174), not to be confused with the 13th-century Dominican St. Peter Martyr, whose feast was 29 April (pace Light 2013, p. 200). Peter of Tarentaise was a Cistercian abbot and later Archbishop of Tarentaise, canonized in 1191 and celebrated in the Cistercian calendar on 8 May from 1196 onwards (see Backaert 1950–1951, p. 302): his feast does not aid with dating the manuscript but supports the Cistercian provenance. 65 The flyleaves at the end of the manuscript are foliated “iv–vii.” 66 The temporale includes indications of the Statio church for many but not all occasions.

9.3 Cistercian  

 419

53v–54r: Common of Saints (Full texts of readings) 54r–55v: Cistercian ritual (Exorcismus salis; Exorcismus aque; Benedictio aque; Benedictio cereorum in purificatione; Benedictio cineris; Benedictio super ramos palmarum; Ad clericum faciendum ex seculari habitu receptum; Incipit ordo ad monachum benedicendum professio;67 Sequitur benedictio cucille) 56r–v: Blank leaf 57r–59v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 59v–511v: Bible (Gn–Apc, followed by Bar) 512r–544v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zorobabel)68 IV (recto)–V (recto): 16th-century contents list in French (Table des livres contenus en ce present livre), which mentions the presence of a missal at the beginning of the volume V (verso): Missa Sacratissimi Rosarii (16th- or 17th-century addition) Bibliography: Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge 1899 (10 July), Lot 241; Quaritch 1900, p. 28, Lot 216; List and Index Society 1977, pp. v, 66; British Library 2001, pp. 106–107; Duggan 2005, p. 181n67; Light 2013, p. 208; Suski and Sodi 2019, n. 1868, p. 272; Ruzzier 2022, p. 252, n. 1273.

9.3.2 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 36 Summary: Bible with Cistercian full missal Origin: Paris Date: 13th century, second quarter (after 1234)69 Material: Parchment. 372 leaves.70 Leaf size: 310 x 195 mm. Bible layout: c. 202 x 121 mm; 60 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 220 x 150 mm; 63 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: de descensione (3r) Artistic decoration: Historiated or decorated initials for biblical books; decorated initials for prologues71 Contents: 1r: 15th-century list of contents (includes mention of the missal) 2r–4r: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 4r–329v: Bible (Gn–Apc) 330r–355r: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 355r–355v: Prologus super interpretationibus72 356r–v: Blank leaf 357r–372v: Cistercian full missal

67 The profession ritual on 55r: originally included the name of the monastery where the profession was made, but the name has been erased: “Ego fr. N. promitto stabilitatem meam et conversionem morum meorum et obedientiam secundum regulam sancti benedicti coram deo et sanctis eius quorum reliquie hic habentur in hoc loco qui vocantur [____] constructo in honore beatissime dei genitricis semperque virginis marie; in presentia domini N. abbatis.” I was unable to discern the original text with the use of UV light. 68 Although the Aaz version of the Interpretations typically ends with Zuzim, a mid-13th-century Parisian bible illuminated in the style of the Leber Group sold at Sotheby’s on 3 July 2018 (Lot 11) also ends with Zorobabel. See https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2018/ medieval-and-renaissance-manuscripts-and-russian-books-l18403/lot.11.html. 69 Light 2013 dates the manuscript to the 1230s. 70 The manuscript includes original medieval foliation on the upper left of each two-page spread throughout the bible section which is employed by the missal section to offer precise cross-references; cf. p. 132n127 above. 71 Branner 1977, p. 213 attributes this manuscript to the early period of the Gautier Lebaude Atelier. 72 This unusual prologue (not identified in any other manuscript) offers commentary on the Hebrew alphabet. The prologue appears to be written in a different hand than the preceding Interpretation of Hebrew Names and the succeeding missal, although both are in a formal textualis; it is possible that a specialist scribe was needed to write the Hebrew letters in the prologue. The prologue includes a reference to the year of its composition being 1234, which has led some scholars to date the manuscript to that year (cf. Leroquais 1924, de Hamel 2001, pp. 123, 125). However, the prologue has been corrected and does appear to have been newly composed by the scribe, which indicates that the manuscript may have been written after 1234. For an edition and commentary on this prologue, see Dahan 1996.

420 

 9 Appendix 1: Summary Catalog of Non-Dominican Bible Missals

357r–362v: Temporale: Advent–25th Sunday after Pentecost 363r–367r: Sanctorale: St. Stephen (26 December)–St. Thomas Apostle (21 December)73 367r–367v: Common of Saints 367v–368r: Votive masses 368r–368v: Requiem masses 368v–369r: Full readings for St. Stephen and Common of Saints 369v–370r: Ordo Missae with prefaces 370v–372v: Epistle and gospel list Bibliography: Catalogus 1744, p. 4; Berger 1893, pp. 20–25; Leroquais 1924, n. 913, vol. 3, pp. 283–284; Lauer 1939, p. 19; Branner 1977, p. 213; Stirnemann 1990, p. 73; Dahan 1996; de Hamel 2001, pp. 115–116, 125, 128; Saenger 2005, p. 84; Light 2013, p. 209. Digital images: https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc61536t

9.3.3 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 10431 Summary: Bible with Cistercian calendar, epistle and gospel list, and votive missal Origin: England (Avril and Stirnemann 1987) Date: 13th century, second quarter; calendar datable after c. 1235–1236 and likely before 1246 on liturgical grounds (Avril and Stirnemann 1987, pp. 74–75) Material: Parchment. 357 leaves. Leaf size: 242 x 174 mm. Bible layout: c. 167 x 105 mm; 58 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 167 x 105 mm; 35 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: Maius hic dies (2r; Calendar); cum decalogo (17r; Bible) Artistic decoration: Historiated initials for biblical books; decorated initials for prologues; historiated initials and miniature in missal Contents: 1r: Blank page 1v–2v: Cistercian calendar (Four months per page) 3r–v: Blank leaf 4r–10v: Peter of Poitiers, Compendium historiae in genealogia Christi74 11r–12r: Summary of the gospels: Canon euuangelarum … Quatuor est … A generat (S. 10159) 12v–13v: Epistle and gospel list 14r–15v: Blank leaf 16r–18r: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 18r–18v: Capitula for Genesis75 19r–336r: Bible (Gn–Hbr)76 336v: Blank page 337r–346r: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 346v: Blank page 347r–350v: Cistercian votive missal 347r–349r: Ordo Missae: begins with Communicantes and Hanc igitur texts, followed by prefaces, crucifixion miniature, canon, post-canon prayers

73 Leroquais 1924 observes on p. 283 that “la fête la plus récente est celle de saint Robert de Molesmes, à la date du 29 avril; elle figure en marge du f. 364.” Robert of Molesme (1029–17 April 1111) was canonized in 1222; his feast was at first celebrated by Cistercians on 17 April, but was moved to 29 April in 1224 (cf. Backaert 1950–1951, pp. 93–94). Although Leroquais is correct in stating that Robert’s feast appears in the margin, this does not mean that it is a later addition; in the missal section, reading incipits are always indicated in the margin. Robert is included in the original hand of the epistle and gospel list on f. 372r. 74 On the history of this work, see Worm 2018, pp. 39–63. 75 Further capitula lists appear throughout the bible which deserve more detailed study. 76 The Pauline Epistles appear after Apc.

9.4 Gilbertine  

 421

349v–350r: Votive masses 350r–v: Requiem masses 351r–357v: Blank leaves77 Bibliography: Avril and Stirnemann 1987, pp. 74–75; Light 2013, pp. 212–213; Poleg 2020a, pp. 194–195; Ruzzier 2022, p. 234, n. 730. Digital images: https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc72152t

9.4 Gilbertine 9.4.1 Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1 Summary: Bible with Gilbertine festive missal Origin: England (James 1913; Pfaff 2009) Date: 13th century, middle78 Material: Parchment. 408 leaves. Leaf size: 255 x 167 mm. Bible layout: c. 170 x 110 mm; 48 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 170 x 110 mm; 48 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: quasi non legerimus (2r) Artistic decoration: Decorated initials for biblical books and prologues Contents: 1r–3r: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 3v–4v: Gilbertine Calendar 5r–380r: Bible (Gn–Apc) 380v: Blank page with faint outline drawing of Christ on the Cross 381r–388v: Gilbertine festive missal 381r–382r: Ordo Missae with prefaces, canon, post-canon prayers 382r–384v: Selected feasts from the temporale and sanctorale 384v–386v: Votive masses 386v–388r: Common of Saints 388r–v: Requiem masses 389r–409v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Tholinai ad mensuram; ends imperfectly) 410r: Added notes Bibliography: Cowie 1843, p. 114 (N.1); James 1913, n. 239, pp. 277–278; Woolley 1921, pp. xvi–xxiii (description and overview of formularies; refers to the manuscript as “MS. 239 (J)”); Woolley 1922 (edition); Sorrentino 1999 (short description on pp. 32–35, with other references throughout; refers to the manuscript as “MS 239” or “StJ239”); Sorrentino 2002, pp. 366–367 (“MS 239”); Saenger 2005, p. 85 (draws attention to the presence of pagination throughout the bible); Pfaff 2009, pp. 307–308; Poleg 2013a, pp. 143n13, 215, Appendix; Light 2013, pp. 201–202, 211; Poleg 2020a, pp. 30, 194–195; Ruzzier 2022, p. 249, n. 1159.

77 For reasons of conservation, I was not been able to consult this manuscript directly, and the black and white microfilm images end after showing a blank folio with “351” in the upper right corner and with the edges of further leaves visible. According to Avril and Stirnemann 1987, the manuscript has 357 leaves, so it appears that ff. 351r–357v are blank leaves. The entry on the BnF website (https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf. fr/ark:/12148/cc72152t) states that the manuscript has 358 leaves, so there may be an additional blank leaf after 357. 78 Pfaff 2009, p. 308, suggests that the bible missal dates to the third quarter of the 13th century without offering any evidence for this dating. Light 2013 follows Pfaff’s assessment while noting that she has not examined the manuscript in person. I have given a wider assessment of “middle,” as I do not see evidence that restricts the dating to the third quarter of the 13th century. James 1913 offers a general dating of “Cent. xiii.” Woolley 1921, p. xvi offers a dating of “slightly before 1265”; his argument for the dating is partially based on the presence of Joachim of Fiore’s prophecy “which foretells the return of all of Greece to the Roman obedience in the year 1265. Since this prophecy was not fulfilled, I think we may conclude that it was written here before the year in question, and this places the date of the book before 1265. The hand is of about that date.” Sorrentino 1999, p. 34 rightly questions this reasoning: “The script on the back flyleaf may be later than that of the main hand of the manuscript, however, and the notetaker may have had a special interest in Joachim’s prophecies. Thus, the prophecies themselves do not require a date before 1265.” Cowie 1843 did not offer any comment on date.

422 

 9 Appendix 1: Summary Catalog of Non-Dominican Bible Missals

9.5 Paris 9.5.1 Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Ms. Codex 236 Summary: Bible with full missal and breviary (use of Paris)79 Origin: Paris Date: 13th century, second quarter80 Material: Parchment (calf: see Fiddyment et al. 2015). 465 leaves. Leaf size: 218 x 148 mm. Bible layout: c. 149 x 93 mm; 50 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 155 x 105 mm; 52 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: meo autem (3r; Interpretations of Hebrew Names); de meis filibus (29r; Bible) Artistic decoration: Historiated or decorated initials for biblical books; littera duplex initials for prologues; historiated initials in missal Contents: 1r–v: Blank leaf 2r–27r: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim)81 27v: Or Man 28r–30r: Frater ambrosius / Desiderii mei 30v–400r: Bible (Gn–Apc) 400v–401v: Calendar (four months per page) 402r–420v: Full missal (use of Paris) 402r–403r: Ordo Missae (prefaces, canon, post-canon prayers) 403r–414v: Temporale: Advent–25th Sunday after the Octave of Pentecost 415r–418r: Sanctorale: St. Stephen (26 December)–St. Thomas the Apostle (21 December) 418r–419v: Common of Saints 419v–420r: Votive masses 420r–v: Requiem masses 420v: Added sanctoral formulary (De sancta katherina) 421r–458v: Breviary 421r–439v: Temporale 439v–454v: Sanctorale: Sts. Sebastian and Fabian (20 January)–St. Thomas the Apostle (21 December) 454v–457r: Common of Saints 457r–458v: Hymnarium 460r–462v: Epistle and gospel list (later addition) Bibliography: Clapp and Wood 1947, n. 1, p. 19; Faye and Bond 1962, p. 488 (“Lat. 21. Biblia”); Zacour and Hirsch 1965, p. 5 (“Lat. 21”); Smith 2001; Light 2013, p. 210 (etc.); Fiddyment et al. 2015; Suski and Sodi 2019, p. 388, n. 3333; Poleg 2020a, p. 28; Ruzzier 2022, p. 226, n. 465.

79 The identification of Parisian use is based on the order of Alleluia verses for the Monday through Friday of the Octave of Easter on f. 410r–v (Nonne cor nostrum, Surrexit dominus et occurrens, Christus resurgens ex mortuis, In die resurrectionis mee, Angelus domini descendit de celo) and the Sundays after the Octave of Pentecost on ff. 412r–414v (007b, 017, 020, 030, 058, 064, 077, 080, 087, 089, 094a, 094c, 096, 104, 107, 110, 113c, 116a, 117, 129, 145, 146b, 147b) which are identical with the Parisian sequence indexed in “Alleluias of the Easter season” (https://www.cantusplanus. de/databases/AlleluiaWittwer/) and “Post–Pentecost Alleluias” (https://www.cantusplanus.de/databases/Alleluia/) databases. Although the Easter Octave Alleluia verses perfectly match the Parisian order, the verses for the Sundays after Easter in the bible missal on ff. 410v–411r (Dominica prima post octavas: Post dies octo ianuis clausis, Surrexit dominus vere et apparuit petro, Surrexit christus qui creavit; Dominica secunda: Ego sum pastor bonus qui pasco oves meas, Oportebat pati christum; Dominica tertia: Iterum autem videbo vos, Surgens ihesus dominus noster; Dominica quarta: Vado ad eum qui misit, Surrexit altissimus de sepulchro; Dominica quinta: Usque modo non petistis, Exivi a patre) do not align perfectly with any other set in the database. 80 K.A. Smith 2001 the manuscript to the 1220s–1240s, while Light 2013 dates the manuscript to the 1220s. 81 This is an unusual placement for the Interpretations. Notably, the Interpretations and Or Man comprise two quires (ff. 1–13 [14-1 before 1] and ff. 14–27 [14 leaves]) and a new quire begins on f. 28, so it is possible that the Interpretations quires are a distinct production unit.

9.6 Prague  

 423

9.6 Prague 9.6.1 Prague, Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly, B LXVIII 1 Summary: New Testament with festive missal and epistle and gospel list (use of Prague)82 Origin: Prague Date: 15th century, middle83 Material: Parchment. i + 346 + i leaves. Leaf size: 163 x 113 mm. Bible layout: c. 112 x 68 mm; 29 lines in 1 column. Missal layout: c. 112 x 68 mm; 29 lines in 1 column. Secundo folio: Ad titum (2r) Artistic decoration: Decorated initials for biblical books and prologues; unflourished red and blue initials for biblical chapters and prayers within the missal; blank space (17 lines) left before the start of the canon presumably intended for a miniature which was not executed. Contents: i (recto): Added text: Ex testimonio quatuor evangelistarum et epistula … Eliuth patrem beati germini. i (recto): Added notes, partially erased i (verso): Blank 1r–17v: Epistle and gospel list (cursiva) 18r–19v: Biblical prologues (cursiva) 20r–32r: Festive missal (northern textualis) 20r–26r: Ordo Missae with offertory prayers, prefaces, canon, and post-canon prayers 26v–30v: Mass formularies for selected occasions with chant texts and orations.84 On f. 26v a rubric in the original hand notes that Epistolas et evangelia omnium officiorum hic contentorum quere in principio et postea in testamento. 31r–32r: Prosae officiorum praescriptorum (Texts of various sequences corresponding to the mass formularies given on ff. 26v–30v; these texts are written in a smaller script than the preceding texts, with 37 ruled lines instead of the 29 ruled lines of the previous section, but are from the same production unit) 32v–36r: Blank (original folios; ruled) 36v–40r: Alphabetical Index of the New Testament: Aceto et felle … Zebedei filiorum mater 41r–309v: Bible: New Testament (Mt-Apc) (cursiva)85

82 The epistle and gospel on ff. 1r–17v list includes several Prague saints and occasions: In translatione sancti wenceslai (14r; 4 March); Adalberti (14r; 23 April); Viti (14v; 15 June; patron of St. Vitus Cathedral in Prague); In die procopii (15r; 4 July); In die ludmille (15v; 16 September; grandmother of St. Wenceslaus); In die wenceslai (15v–16r; 28 September); In translatione ludmille (16v; 10 November). 83 Patera and Podlaha 1910 date the manuscript to the 14th century. Judging on liturgical grounds, the manuscript was certainly made after 1389. The epistle and gospel list of the Prague manuscript includes readings for the occasion In visitatione sancti marie on f. 15r. The Feast of the Visitation was initially instituted in Prague in 1386 by John of Jenstein (1348–1400, archbishop of Prague from 1378–1396). The feast was approved within the Roman obedience by Urban VI and Boniface IX in 1389; cf. Westergård 2007, pp. 64–66 and Rollo-Koster 2022, pp. 91–92. Jenstein originally called for the feast to be celebrated on 28 April, but Urban VI and Boniface IX placed the feast on 2 July. In the Prague epistle and gospel list, the Visitation is placed between the Commemoration of St. Paul (30 June: In commemoratione sancti pauli) and the feast of St. Procopius (4 July: In die procopii), which means that the Prague manuscript is following the post-1389 celebration of 2 July. The readings for the Visitation in the New Testament missal correspond with those found in an early 15th-century (c. 1406–1410) Prague missal written in northern textualis formata, Prague, National Museum, XV A 8, ff. 165v–166r, as well as a mid-15th-century (c. 1450–1467) Prague missal written in cursiva, Prague, National Library, I. A. 46, ff. 156v–157r, both of which adopt the 2 July date for the Visitation. The cursiva script and decoration of the mid-15th-century Prague, National Library missal is quite similar to that of the Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly New Testament missal. I am grateful to Pavel Brodský for confirming that the New Testament missal dates to the same period as the mid-15th-century missal Prague, National Library, I. A. 46, although Brodský suggests that they were not the work of the same artist. 84 Dominica prima in adventu domini, Officium de domina per adventum, In galli cantu, In aurora, Ad summam missam, In festo pasce ad missam, In die ascensionis, In die sancti spiritus, De sancta trinitate, De corpore christi. 85 The biblical text is accompanied by an extensive series of scriptural cross-references written in the margin in red ink as part of the original production of the New Testament. The running header includes the chapter number as well as the name of the biblical book, a feature not typically found in 13th-century bibles. In some chapters of biblical books, section letters are written in the margin, but these may be later additions since they do not appear consistently throughout the New Testament.

424 

 9 Appendix 1: Summary Catalog of Non-Dominican Bible Missals

310r–328r: Full text of Old Testament readings used in Lent and for the feasts of saints and selected other temporale occasions (cursiva) 310r–323v: Lenten ferial readings 324r–328r: Sanctoral readings 328v–330r: Summarium biblicum (New Testament part, beginning Natus adoratur lotum)86 331r–332v: Blank (added folios; not ruled) 333r–335v: Pro observancia rituum laudabilium ecclesie … prius ad ecclesiam revertantur. 335v–341r: De suffragiis sanctorum. Sancti nobis suffragantur … concordiam custodirent.87 341v–346v: Ad probandum ignem purgatorium post hanc vitam primo assumitur … mortis sue vixit hic. [Ends imperfectly?] Bibliography: Patera and Podlaha 1910, n. 377, p. 221.88

9.7 Undetermined liturgical tradition 9.7.1 Cambridge, Trinity College, B.10.18 Summary: Bible with hymnal, added fragmentary missal, and two added epistle and gospel lists Origin: Northern France or England Date: 13th century, middle89 Material: Parchment. 461 leaves. Leaf size: 168 x 108 mm. Bible layout: c. 119 x 75 mm; 52 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: N/A90 Secundo folio: [ta log]maton logicam (f. 18r; this text is crossed out and expunctuated with ratione written above logicam) Artistic decoration: Littera duplex initials for biblical books; littera duplex or flourished initials for prologues Contents: 1r–13r: Added epistle and gospel list (15th century?) 13v–16v: Blank leaves (with added notes on f. 16v) 17r–19v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 19v–205r: Bible (Gn–Ps)91 205v–209r: Hymnarium (Texts of hymns for the temporal, sanctoral, and commons) 209r: Uncompleted bible section (Prv)92 209v: Added devotional texts on the Psalms93 209v: Added mass formularies [Two folios cut out between ff. 209 and 210 with visible stubs] 210r: Added mass formularies (begins imperfectly) 86 For a discussion of this text, see Doležalová 2013; on p. 165, Doležalová notes that “many manuscripts contain only part of the [Summarium], most frequently the New Testament.” 87 A text with the same incipit but a different explicit appears in a mid-15th-century collection of Latin and Czech theological texts from Prague, Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 4936, ff. 229r–232v. See Academia Caesarea Vindobonensis 1869, p. 428 (for the text, listed as item 14: “‘De intercessione sanctorum et invocatione eorum scripture doctorum Katholice.’ Incip.: ‘Sancti nobis suffragantur et nos juvant …’ Expl. ‘parentum bona non sufficiunt.’” For the dating and localization of Cod. 4936, see Unterkircher 1971, p. 176 and Unterkircher et al. 1976, p. 204. 88 I am grateful to Chiara Ruzzier for drawing this manuscript to my attention. 89 James 1900 dates the manuscript to “Cent. xiii.” 90 The missal section is imperfect, and there is not a single folio that offers a good opportunity for measuring the original written space of the added liturgical texts. 91 In the Psalter, antiphon incipits are provided in the margins, e.g., ff. 193v, 195r, 197r. For a discussion of the presence of antiphon incipits in the Psalters of the Dominican bible missals London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 and Rome, Angelica 32, see pp. 191–194 above. 92 On f. 209r, the Proverbs prologue Iungat epistola (S. 457) and Prv 1:1–6a (Parabole salomonis … Animadvertat parabolam et inter[pretationem]” were written out and given littera duplex initials, but not rubricated. For reasons that are not clear, the scribe did not continue to write on f. 209v, which instead has other added texts. 93 Canticum psalmorum animas decorat … et animam in celo mirificabitur in secula seculorum. Amen. (S. 369; cf. de Bruyne 2015, pp. 77–78.) Si vis pro peccatis … per dei gratiam perveneris. Amen. (S. 11173).

9.7 Undetermined liturgical tradition  

 425

210v–213r: Blank leaves 213v–427v: Bible (Prv–Apc) 427v–428v: Added epistle and gospel list (13th century)94 429r–457r: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 457v–461v: Blank leaves with various added notes95 Bibliography: James 1900, n. 229, p. 318; Mooney 1995, p. 8; Ruzzier 2022, p. 249, n. 1165.

9.7.2 Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18 Summary: Bible with fragmentary missal (typology uncertain) Origin: Paris (Branner 1977)96 Date: 13th century, second half (Saenger 1989) Material: Parchment. 490 leaves. Leaf size: 150 x 105 mm. Bible layout: c. 106 x 74 mm; 50 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 106 x 74 mm; 50 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: eunucho nec (2r) Artistic decoration: Decorated initials for biblical books and prologues Contents: 1r–3v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 4r–222r: Bible (Gn–Ps) 222r–v: Fragmentary missal (prefaces, Communicantes, and Hanc igitur texts; ends imperfectly after Holy Cross preface) 223r–451v: Bible (Prv–Apc) 452r–459v: Biblical Apocrypha (IV Esr; Or Man) 460r–488v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (Cf. S. 7709: Aad testificans … Zuzim)97 488v: List of books (Saenger: “addition s. xiv”) 489r–490v: List of books of the bible (Saenger: “addition s. xv med.”)98 Bibliography: Probasco 1873, p. 373; de Ricci and Wilson 1935, n. 23812, p. 523; Branner 1977, pp. 73–74, 213; Saenger 1989, pp. 34–35; Light 2016, p. 173; Ruzzier 2022, p. 224, n. 389 (“Ms. – 18”).

9.7.3 Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 203/University of Notre Dame, MS 1099 Summary: Bible with fragmentary missal (typology uncertain) Origin: England Date: 13th century, second quarter100 Material: Parchment. 472 leaves. Leaf size: 187 x 120 mm.

94 While further study of this epistle and gospel list is needed, it is noteworthy that on the bottom margin of f. 428r a later hand has added an entry In translatione beati dominici et festo. On f. 427v, the first nine lines give a set of horizontal Cistercian ciphers that seem to be connected to the epistle and gospel list; horizontal ciphers can also be found occasionally between the columns in the main biblical text, e.g., ff. 144v–145r, 155r. On Cistercian horizontal ciphers, see King 2001. The Dominican bible missal Paris, Mazarine 31 also includes Cistercian ciphers, although of a vertical rather than horizontal variety. 95 Mooney 1995 p. 8 offers a brief description and dating of these notes, the earliest of which are “s. xv.” 96 Saenger 1989 lists the origin as “France”. 97 The Interpretations in the “Hornby-Cockerell Bible” (Columbus, The Ohio State University, Rare Books and Manuscripts Library, SPEC.RARE. MS.MR.FRAG.74.404) likewise begins with Aad testificans, a variant not noted by Stegmüller; cf. Johnson 2019, p. 293. 98 The missal portion was already fragmentary by the point this list was made. After describing the Psalter on 489r, the list continues with Prefationes. fo. 222 followed on f. 489v by Parabole salomonis. 31 capitula. Et incipiunt fo. 223. 99 This manuscript is jointly owned by the Newberry and Notre Dame. 100 The manuscript is dated c. 1230 by Christie’s 2000 and Les Enluminures 2002, and more broadly as “XIII cent.” by Sotheby’s 1933 and Sotheby’s 1951.

426 

 9 Appendix 1: Summary Catalog of Non-Dominican Bible Missals

Bible layout: c. 140 x 77 mm; 52 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 140 x 77 mm; 52 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: [fi]delis et sanctus (2r) Artistic decoration: Littera duplex initials for biblical books; flourished initials for biblical prologues Contents: 1r–4r: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 4r–209v: Bible (Gn–Iob) 209v: Fragmentary missal: Ordo Missae texts from the beginning of the mass (Introibo ad altare dei) to the offertory ends imperfectly after the rubric Quando sacerdos offert hostiam super altare: dicat hanc orationem. 210r–444r: Bible (Prv–Apc) 445r–472v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Thraties; ends imperfectly) Bibliography: Sotheby’s 1933 (3 April, Lot 343, p. 49); Sotheby’s 1951 (3 December; Lot 16, p. 14); Christie’s 2000 (11 July, Lot 10, p. 45); Les Enluminures 2002, TM 7; Ruzzier 2022, p. 224, n. 385.

9.7.4 Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10 Summary: Bible with fragmentary Ordo Missae and votive missal Origin: Paris Date: 13th century, second quarter Material: Parchment. 452 leaves. Leaf size: 225 x 158 mm. Bible layout: c. 152 x 95 mm; 55–57 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 158 x 112 mm; 50–53 lines in 3 columns (formularies on ff. 450v–452v; Ordo Missae on f. 193r–v follows bible layout.) Secundo folio: dei putant (2r) Artistic decoration: Historiated initials for biblical books; decorated initials for biblical prologues; miniature and historiated initial for missal101 Contents: 1r–2v: Frater ambrosius (ends imperfectly) 3r–192v: Bible (Gn–Ps) (begins and ends imperfectly)102 193r–v: Ordo Missae (begins imperfectly)103 194r–401r: Bible (Prv–Apc) 401v: Blank page 402r–436v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 437r–v: Blank leaf 438r–450v: Jerome, Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum (Phylo vir disertissimus iudeorum … Aethiopie tenebre … Sathan adversarius sive prevaricator) (S. 3305)104 450v–452v: Votive missal105

101 In a lecture titled “Evidence for the Liturgical Use of Thirteenth-Century Bibles” given for the Institute of Historical Research History of Liturgy Seminar on November 16, 2020, Laura Light drew attention to similarity of artistic style found in this manuscript and the Cistercian bible missal Paris, BnF, latin 36; see especially the Tree of Jesse initials for the opening of Mt on f. 319 (Haverford) and f. 267v (Paris). Branner 1977, p. 216 attributes Paris, BnF, latin 36 to the early period of the Gautier Lebaude Atelier. 102 Gn begins at 2:11: nomen uni Physon. Ps ends imperfectly at Ps 138:12 after Quia tenebre non. 103 Folios 192 and 193 are a bifolium that form all that is left of quire 17. It is not clear how many leaves are missing between the end of Ps 138:12 and the beginning of the Roman canon. Most of the quires in the manuscript are made up of 12 leaves, but it seems likely that a smaller number may have originally appeared in this quire given the relatively small amount of missing text of the Psalter. It is likely that the Ordo Missae originally began with prefaces, although it is possible it may have also had more extensive Ordo Missae texts. 104 For an edition of this text, see Jerome 1959, pp. 57–161. 105 Cf. the discussion of the liturgical texts on p. 20 above.

9.7 Undetermined liturgical tradition  

 427

450v–452r: Votive masses 452r–v: Requiem masses Bibliography: Tanis 2001, p. 6; Herman 2020, p. 6; Smith 2020.106 Digital images: http://openn.library.upenn.edu/Data/0006/html/J2_16_10.html

9.7.5 London, British Library, Harley 1748 Summary: Bible with votive missal Origin: England (Light 2013) Date: 13th century, second quarter to middle (Light 2013)107 Material: Parchment.108 346 leaves. Leaf size: 230 x 160 mm. Bible layout: c. 160 x 110 mm; 57 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 178 x 125 mm; 40 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: De remissione arche (2r; Capitula lists) / finitur omnesque (14r; bible) Artistic decoration: Littera duplex initials for biblical books; littera duplex or flourished initials for biblical prologues Contents: 1r–2r: Capitula lists 2r: List of biblical books 3r–4v: Various notes 5r–12r: Summarium biblicum (addition on paper folios; dated “s. xv?” by Light 2013, p. 211)109 13r–15r: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 15r–170r: Bible (Gn–II Mcc)110 170v–172v: Votive missal111 170v–172r: Ordo Missae with prefaces and Communicantes (but not Hanc igitur), canon, post-canon prayers 172r: Votive masses 172r–v: Requiem masses 172v: Votive masses 173r–339v: Bible (Prv–Hbr)112 340r–346v: Added notes Bibliography: British Museum 1759 (n. 1748; vol. 1, no pagination); British Museum 1808, pp. 194–195; de Hamel 2001, pp. 121–122; Saenger 2005, pp. 93, 95; Light 2013, p. 211; British Library, “Detailed record for Harley 1748”; Poleg 2020a, pp. 31–32, 194–195; Ruzzier 2022, p. 252, n. 1298.

9.7.6 Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, MS 874 (A. 140) Summary: Bible with added Ordo Missae and epistle and gospel list113 Origin: France (Torre and Longas 1935) Date: 13th century, middle114

106 I am grateful to Scott Gwara and Peter Kidd for bringing this manuscript to my attention. 107 The manuscript is dated c. 1230 by de Hamel 2001, p. 122. 108 Folios 5–12 are on paper. 109 For a discussion of this text, see Doležalová 2013. 110 The biblical books are in a very different order than the Parisian order; for further discussion of this point, see de Hamel 2001, pp. 121–122. 111 The BL online catalog entry suggests that this section was added in the 14th century. The layout, script, and decoration are strikingly different from the surrounding material, so it is almost certainly a later addition, but it may also be from the 13th century. 112 Cf. de Hamel 2001, pp. 121–122. 113 I have not had the opportunity to consult this manuscript in person. 114 The manuscript is dated s. XIII in Torre and Longas 1935 and Biblioteca Nacional 1956; it is dated XIII–XIV by Domínguez Bordona 1933.

428 

 9 Appendix 1: Summary Catalog of Non-Dominican Bible Missals

Material: Parchment. 580 leaves. Leaf size: 130 x 90 mm.115 Bible layout: c. 95 x 60 mm; 47 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. ~ x ~ mm; 34 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: [li]teras ut legat (2r) Artistic decoration: Decorated initials for biblical books; littera duplex initials for biblical prologues; no decoration for Ordo Missae Contents: Ir: Blank Iv: List of biblical books 1r–4r: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 4v–257v: Bible (Gn–Ps)116 257v: Ps 151: Pusillus eram … de filiis Israel (later addition) 258r–258v: Ordo Missae: canon, post-canon prayers (later addition)117 259r–534r: Bible (Prv–Apc) 534v: Blank 535r–579r: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 579r: Added Notes 579r–580v: Epistle and gospel list (later addition?) Bibliography: Domínguez Bordona 1933, n. 518, vol. 1, p. 253; Torre and Longas 1935, n. 29, pp. 130–133; Biblioteca Nacional 1956, n. 874, pp. 483–484; Light 2013, p. 209; Ruzzier 2022, p. 221, n. 318. Digital images: http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?lang=en&id=0000113337

9.7.7 Nantes, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 2 Summary: Bible with imperfect festive missal and epistle and gospel list118 Origin: Paris Date: 13th century, middle Material: Parchment. 461 leaves. Leaf size: 133 x 92 mm. Bible layout: c. 108 x 71 mm; 51 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 109 x 75 mm; 24 lines in 1 column (Ordo Missae)/38 lines in 2 columns (formularies). Secundo folio: Ioanis ante portam (2r; epistle and gospel list); Et ne parum hoc sit (4r; bible) Artistic decoration: Historiated or decorated initials for biblical books; littera duplex initials for prologues; historiated initials for Per omnia and Te igitur in missal; decorated initials for Per omnia (at end of canon) and Per omnia (at the end of the embolism) in missal Contents: 1r–2v: Epistle and gospel list (begins imperfectly)119 3r–5v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 5v–410v: Bible (Gn–Apc [ends imperfectly at Apc 21:11])

115 The measurements are taken from Biblioteca Nacional 1956, which has more detail about the dimensions than Torre and Longas 1935, although Torre and Longas has a more detailed treatment of the contents of the manuscript. 116 For a full listing of the biblical books and prologues, see Torre and Longas 1935. 117 Torre and Longas describe this as being written “en letra de otra mano, aunque coetánea.” 118 I have not had the opportunity to consult this manuscript in person. The measurements provide here for the leaf size are from Molinier 1893, confirmed by a photograph with a ruler. The measurements for the bible and missal layout are calculated by means of digital photogrammetry. 119 The list is noteworthy for frequently including two selections for either the epistle or the gospel for particular occasions, e.g., on f. 1r, where Dominica prima post pentecostem is provided with both Lucam VI. Estote misericordes and Secundam Lucam XVI. Homo quidam erat dives. According to the Usuarium database, 4% of sources provide the Lc 6 reading while 93% provide Lc 16 (https://usuarium.elte.hu/research/synopsis?genre=110). The sanctorale of the epistle and gospel list includes St. Anthony of Padua (canonized 1232) and St. Francis of Assisi (canonized 1228).

9.7 Undetermined liturgical tradition  

 429

411r–443v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: begins imperfectly, first full entry: Ammetha luctus; ends imperfectly, last full entry: Zebedeus donatus) 444r–461v: Festive missal (ends imperfectly) 444r–451r: Ordo Missae: prefaces, Communicantes, Hanc igitur, canon, post-canon prayers120 451v–454v: Votive masses 454v–455r: Requiem mass (full formulary) 455r–459v: Common of Saints 459v–460v: Requiem masses (orations for various occasions) 460v–461r: Votive mass Pro ecclesia 451r–461v: Temporal masses (ends imperfectly)121 Bibliography: Molinier 1893, p. 1; Ruzzier 2022, p. 232, n. 609.122 Digital images: https://bvmm.irht.cnrs.fr/consult/consult.php?reproductionId=4205

9.7.8 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 216 Summary: Bible with added fragmentary votive missal and introit, epistle and gospel list123 Origin: Venice (Avril and Gousset 1984, Light 2013; Ruzzier 2022); Northern Italy (Magrini 2007) Date: 13th century, third quarter (Avril and Gousset 1984, Light 2013) Material: Parchment. 240 (vol. 1) + 279 (vol. 2) leaves.124 Leaf size: 148 x 100 mm. Bible layout: c. 98 x 65 mm; 51 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 127 x 90 mm; 30 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: quam in aurato (2r) Artistic decoration: Historiated initial for Abd; decorated initials for other biblical books; flourished initials for biblical prologues; no decoration for missal Contents: Vol 1: 1r–3v: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 4r–207v: Bible (Gn–Iob) 208r–240v: Bible (Ps) (later addition in northern textualis)125 Vol. 2: 1r–232r: Bible (Prv–Apc) 232v: Blank 233r–262v: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 263r–v: Added fragmentary votive missal 263r–v: Imperfect Ordo Missae (Canon begins at Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes; followed by post-canon prayers ending with Quod ore sumpsimus)126 263v: Votive mass of the Holy Spirit

120 Names are added in the margins throughout the canon which appear to be identifying the “authors” of each section of the prayer: Clemens for Te igitur, Gelasius for Memento domine, Gregorius for Quam oblationum, etc. 121 The two full formularies provided for the temporal section are In natale domini and In circumcision domini (which ends imperfectly). The inclusion of these two formularies suggests that the manuscript originally contained a broader range of selected major feasts, possibly including some sanctoral feasts. It is possible that this section also originally included selected sanctoral feasts interspersed with the temporal feasts. 122 I am grateful to Laura Light for drawing this manuscript to my attention. 123 Light 2016, p. 181n59, suggests that Latin 216 is “possibly Dominican,” but does not offer reasons for this suggestion. I do not see evidence for Dominican liturgical usage. Notably, there are no entries for Dominic in the epistle and gospel list on f. 249r. 124 Ruzzier 2022, p. 92 suggests that the bible may have originally been a single volume that was later divided into two volumes. 125 Avril and Gousset 1984, p. 7 state that “Le Psautier, écrit et orné de lettres filigranés par une main française du XIVe s., a été inséré à la fin du vol. 1 (ff. 208–240v).” 126 The text is written in semihybrida, i.e., with a mixture of looped and loopless ascenders to the right of b, h, k, l. The scribe also mixes single compartment and two-compartment a. Lauer 1939 dates the addition to the 14th century.

430 

 9 Appendix 1: Summary Catalog of Non-Dominican Bible Missals

263v: Votive mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary (ends imperfectly) 264r–265r: Introit,127 epistle and gospel list: Temporale (labelled Ordinarium in a later hand) 265v: Blank 266r–278r: Hugh of St. Cher (et alia?), Sermones128 278v–279v: Introit, epistle and gospel list: Sanctorale, Common of Saints, Requiem masses (Same hand and layout as 264r–265r) Bibliography: Avril and Gousset 1984, p. 7; Magrini 2007, p. 256; Light 2013, pp. 213–214; Light 2016, p. 181n59; Ruzzier 2022, p. 92, p. 234, n. 696, p. 275.

9.7.9 Sheffield, Collection of the Guild of St George, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638 Summary: Bible with Ordo Missae, epistle and gospel list, and added epistle and gospel list129 Origin: France (Ker and Piper 1992) Date: 13th century, middle (Ker and Piper 1992) Material: Parchment. 398 leaves. Leaf size: 330 x 220 mm. Bible layout: c. 205 x 125 mm; 56 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 205 x 131 mm; 34 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: voluntatem suam (2r) Artistic decoration: Historiated initials for biblical books; decorated initials for prologues; historiated initials in missal Contents: 1r–2r: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 2v–179r: Bible (Gn–Ps) 179r–182v: Ordo Missae with offertory prayers, notated prefaces, canon, and post-canon prayers 183r–366r: Bible (Prv–Apc) 366r–393r: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zuzim) 393v–394v: Added 14th-century epistle and gospel list 395r–396v: Epistle and gospel list 397r–398r: Added late 13th-century quotations from the Church Fathers 398v: Blank 399r: De signis xv dierum 399v: Blank Bibliography: Ker and Piper 1992, pp. 273–275; Dearden 2012, n. 214, pp. 33–34.130

9.7.10 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 1136 Summary: Bible with added festive missal and added epistle and gospel list Origin: Paris131

127 The introits are labelled with the abbreviation “Off.” which is short for “Officium” (pace Light 2013, p. 191n18, who interprets “Off.” as “Offertorium”). 128 The selection begins on f. 266r with a sermon for the First Sunday of Advent: Cum appropinquaret ihesus ierosolimis etc. Notandum quod evangelium istud potest legi in duabus dominicis and ends exultabunt sancti in gloria; see Schneyer 1969–1990, 2:758, n. 2. The final sermon begins on f. 278r with Beati mortui qui in domino moriuntur. Apoc. XIIII. Nota quod est mors nature in dissolutione corporis et anime and ends sicut oves in inferno positi sunt mors depascet eos [Ps 48:15]. This sermon is not included in Schneyer, but a sermon with an identical thema and incipit is included in a 14th-century collection of sermons at the end of a selection of sermons by Hugh in Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, HB VI 106, f. 3r; see Autenrieth 1963, p. 98. 129 Ker and Piper 1992 refer to the manuscript under a former shelfmark, Sheffield, Graves Art Gallery, R.3546. 130 I am grateful to Chiara Ruzzier for drawing this manuscript to my attention. 131 Roland 1999 gives the origin as “Paris (?)”.

9.7 Undetermined liturgical tradition  

 431

Date: 13th century, second quarter132 Material: Parchment. 399 leaves.133 Leaf size: 185 x 125 mm. Bible layout: c. 130 x 83 mm; 58–63 lines in 2 columns. Missal layout: c. 140 x 95 mm; 39–40 (Ordo Missae)/65 (formularies) lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: [typ]um domini non solum (2r) Artistic decoration: Decorated initial for Gn; Littera duplex initials for other biblical books Contents: 1r–3r: Frater ambrosius/Desiderii mei 3r–149r: Bible (Gn–Est) 149r–150v: Added epistle and gospel list (continued on f. 157r) 151r: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Zare … Zuzim; continued from f. 390r)134 151v: Blank page 152r–156v: Festive missal135 152r–153v: Ordo Missae with prefaces, Communicantes, Hanc igitur, canon, and post-canon prayers 153v–156v: Selected votive, Requiem, sanctoral, temporal, and common formularies 157r: Added epistle and gospel list (continued from f. 150v) 157r–365v: Bible (Iob–Apc) 366r–390r: Interpretations of Hebrew Names (S. 7709: Aaz … Zarda; continued on f. 149r) 391r–393v: Decem sunt canones136 394r–398r: Blank leaves with added notes (including partial list of number of chapters in each biblical book from Gn–Dt on f. 394v) Bibliography: Denis 1799, pp. 34–36; Academia Caesarea Vindobonensis, 1864, p. 198; Hermann 1935, pp. 100–101; Unterkircher 1957, p. 36; Roland 1999, pp. 63–65; Ruzzier 2022, p. 218, n. 226.137 Digital images: https://digital.onb.ac.at/RepViewer/viewer.faces?doc=DTL_7899922

132 Roland 1999 dates the manuscript to the “1. Drittel 13. Jh.” The bible shares some textual characteristics with what Laura Light describes as the “proto-Paris Bible” (cf. Light 1994, pp. 166–168 and Light 2012, pp. 386–387): while it presents the biblical books in the Parisian order and includes most of the prologues that become standardized beginning in the 1230s, it omits S. 327 before II Par and S. 468 before Sap, in addition to providing a capitula list for Tb (f. 138r–v; cf. de Bruyne 2014, p. 144). It is not clear whether the chapter numbers in the margins are original or added, but their somewhat haphazard appearance suggests they may be later additions. The biblical text is divided into smaller sections than the chapter divisions, which seem to reflect older capitula divisions. On the other hand, it should be noted that the manuscript is smaller than the c. 1200–c. 1230 proto-Paris bibles discussed by Light 1994, who notes on p. 158 that “the majority are large books, ranging in size from about 48 x 30 cm to 26 x 19 cm”, although “one Bible in the group [Paris, Mazarine 70] is exceptionally small, measuring only 231 x 164 mm.” I am grateful to Laura Light for discussing this manuscript with me in personal correspondence and suggesting a tentative dating of c. 1220–1230. 133 The leaves are foliated 1–232, 232A, 233–398. 134 Based on codicological and textual evidence, it is clear that at an earlier stage in the history of the manuscript ff. 151–156 followed f. 390, but were later rebound between ff. 150 and 157. They match the production style of the Interpretation of Hebrew Names section on ff. 366–390; it seems likely that the Interpretation of Hebrew Names and missal were added after the initial production of the manuscript, and later partially rebound into the middle of the volume. 135 For further discussion of the codicological character of the missal section, see p. 21 above. 136 For a discussion of this text, see Light 2011a, p. 182. 137 I am grateful to Chiara Ruzzier for drawing this manuscript to my attention.

10 Appendix 2: Summary Catalog of Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals Aside from the Dominican bible missals studied in this monograph,1 six pre-Humbert Dominican missals have gradually been identified and analyzed over the course of the last hundred years of scholarship on the Dominican liturgy: Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20; Lausanne, MHL 10; Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5; Mons, BC 63/201; Paris, BnF, latin 8884; and Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3.2 The first pre-Humbert missal to receive scholarly attention was Paris, BnF, latin 8884, which Abbé Victor Leroquais identified as a witness of pre-1254 Dominican liturgy in his 1924 catalog of sacramentaries and missals in French public libraries.3 In his 1969 doctoral dissertation, the Irish Dominican Philip Gleeson identified Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 (then in the collection of Arthur Rau) as a pre-Humbert missal.4 In 1982, the French liturgist Robert Amiet first drew attention to Lausanne, MHL 10, which had recently entered a public collection.5 In 1984, the Swiss and German codicologists Felix Heinzer and Gerhard Stamm identified Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 as a c. 1250 Dominican missal in their catalog of the parchment manuscripts from St. Peter im Schwarzwald preserved at the Badische Landesbibliothek.6 In 1995, the English art historian Alison Stones identified Mons, BC 63/201 as a pre-1253 Dominican missal; the present monograph presents the first detailed study of the liturgical contents of the manuscript.7 Finally, the liturgical miscellany, Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3, is considered here for the first time as a witness to the pre-Humbert eucharistic liturgy.8 Throughout this monograph, the evidence that these six manuscripts offer for the liturgies of St. Dominic, Pentecost, the votive mass of the Holy Spirit, and the pre-Humbert Dominican Ordo Missae was compared with that found in Dominican bible missals. In this appendix, I provide summary descriptions of each pre-Humbert Dominican missal that offer a synthesis of the current state of research on each manuscript and a starting point for further study.9

10.1 Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, St. Peter perg. 20 Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 is a moderately-sized pre-Humbert Dominican missal copied in Italy in the mid-13th century but extensively modified in the second half of the 15th century with additional quires that replaced and supplemented 13th-century material (see Table 146).10 When both layers are considered, the manuscript includes a full range of texts for the temporal and sanctoral cycles and for the Common of Saints, votive masses, and Requiem masses. In the 13th-century layer, formularies are generally provided with full texts for the chants (without notation), prayers, and readings. In the 13th-century portion of the Ordo Missae, chant notation is provided for the prefaces. The 13th-century layer was likely written after 1244, as it contains the phrase “meritis et doctrinis” rather than “meritis et exemplis” in the original 1 In his 1959 master’s thesis, the Canadian Dominican André Louis-Marie Gignac examined the calendars or sanctoral elements of several Dominican bible missals (Paris, Mazarine 31; Paris, BnF, latin 163; Paris, BnF, latin 215; Poitiers, BM 12), but did not explore the significance of these manuscripts for other aspects of the Dominican liturgy; see Gignac 1959. 2 In her 2013 doctoral dissertation, Eleanor Giraud provides a helpful summary catalog of pre- and post-Humbert manuscripts of various liturgical genres; see Giraud 2013, pp. 17–26, 31–45. For recent studies of English Dominican liturgical manuscripts from before and after the reform of Humbert of Romans, see Giraud 2021 and Morgan 2021. 3 See Leroquais 1924, v. 2, pp. 104–106. Bonniwell’s 1945 monograph on the Dominican liturgy only discusses Paris, BnF, latin 8884. 4 Gleeson 1969 gives detailed descriptions of Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 and Paris, BnF, latin 8884 in addition to descriptions of several pre-Humbert liturgical manuscripts of other typologies. Gleeson 1972 offers summary descriptions of these manuscripts as well as commentary on the development of various Dominican liturgical practices. Gleeson 2004 contains helpful expansions and clarifications concerning his earlier publications. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Dutch Dominican Ansgar Dirks published a series of articles providing manuscript descriptions and analysis of different aspects of pre-Humbert liturgical books; see Dirks 1979, Dirks 1980, Dirks 1982, Dirks 1983, Dirks 1984, Dirks 1985, and Dirks 1987. 5 Amiet 1982; cf. Dirks 1984, pp. 40–53. 6 Heinzer and Stamm 1984, pp. 49–50; cf. Dirks 1987. 7 Stones 1995, p. 433n19. I am grateful to Alison Stones for bringing the manuscript to my attention. 8 In 1940, the German Dominican friar Gisbert Sölch published an often-overlooked study of this manuscript (Sölch 1940), but uncertainty about the dating of this source has meant that it has not been previously utilized as a source for understanding the pre-Humbert liturgy. The contents differ significantly from the Humbert liturgy and represent a form of the Dominican eucharistic liturgy from before the finalization of Humbert’s reform. 9 The descriptions that follow are based on personal consultation of each manuscript. 10 The manuscript belonged in the 15th century to the Dominican priory of Bozen/Bolzano in South Tyrol (f. 1r: Conventus bozanensis ordinis divi dominici). It was purchased by the Abbey of St. Peter im Schwarzwald in 1763. Cf. Ettlinger 1900, p. 626, Heinzer and Stamm 1984, p. 49. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-011

10.1 Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, St. Peter perg. 20  

 433

hand of the collect for St. Dominic on f. 229v.11 The absence of St. Peter Martyr in the sanctorale suggests a pre-1253 date.12 It is possible that the manuscript reflects the second reform of the four friars issued in 1251.13 As the manuscript currently stands, ff. 20–27, 49–117, 119–121, and 129–254 belong to the 13th-century layer while ff. 1–19, 28–48, 118, 122–128, and 255–296 belong to the 15th-century layer. Despite the stark juxtaposition on script and decoration between the two layers, the 15th-century scribe clearly attempted to establish textual continuity between the two layers.14 The temporale and sanctorale are mostly represented by the 13th-century layer, with some notable gaps in the temporale filled in by the 15th-century layer. The Ordo Missae is divided between the two layers; the opening rites and most of the prefaces are part of the 13th-century layer (with f. 118 as an added 15th-century leaf with one additional preface) and the conclusion of the prefaces, the canon, and the post-canon Ordo Missae are part of the 15th-century layer. The 13th-century sanctorale is entirely preserved, but the common, votive masses, and Requiem masses all belong to the 15th-century layer, which also includes a sanctorale supplement with St. Vincent Ferrer (1350–1419, canonized 1455) and St. Catherine of Siena (1347– 1380, canonized 1461), allowing the 15th-century additions to be dated after 1461. It is not clear whether the manuscript ever included a sequentiary; it is plausible that one was originally included given the presence of sequences in the other pre-Humbert missals, but as it now stands the manuscript does not include any sequences. Summary: Pre-Humbert Dominican missal Origin: Italy Date: 13th century, middle (c. 1244–1253); extensively modified in the second half of the 15th century Material: Parchment (with the exception of ff. I–II, which are paper). 296 leaves. Leaf size: 276 x 194 mm. Missal layout: c. 180 x 130 mm; 26 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: [ar]boribus et sternebant (f. 2r, 15th century section) Artistic decoration: Flourished initials Table 146: Quires and Contents of Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20. Quires15 QA: I–II (2) [15 c. (paper)] th

Q1: 1–8 (8) [15th c. (parchment)] Q2: 9–17 (10-1 between 16 and 17 without loss of text) [15th c.]

Folio Range

Content

Iva-IIrb

Added texts for Peter Martyr [15th c.]

IIva–IIvb

Added texts for St. Helena [15th c.]

1ra–116va

Temporale: Advent–Easter Vigil [15th c.: 1ra–19vb]

Q3: 18–19 (2) [15th c.] Q4: 20–27 (8) [13th c.]

[13th c.: 20ra–27vb; the first six lines of f. 20r have been erased and replaced with 15th c. text]

Q5: 28–33 (6) [15th c.]

[15th c.: 28ra–48vb]

Q6: 34–41 (8) [15th c.] Q7: 42–48 (8-1 before 42 without loss of text) [15th c.] Q8: 49–60 (12) [13th c.]

[13th c.: 49ra–116va]

Q9: 61–72 (12) [13th c.] Q10: 73–84 (12) [13th c.] Q11: 85–96 (12) [13th c.]

11 Cf. pp. 62–64 above. 12 Cf. pp. 64–65 above. 13 See Giraud 2021b, pp. 313–314; cf. pp. 63–64 above. 14 For example, at f. 20r, the first seven lines have been erased and rewritten in a 15th-century hand, while the rest of the folio is in the original 13th-century hand. At f. 128v, the 15th-century scribe added two lines beyond the normal ruling to ensure continuity with the 13th-century layer on f. 129r; several stubs of 13th-century leaves are visible before f. 129r, which indicates that 13th-century material was deliberately removed in the 15th-century adaptation of the manuscript. 15 In the quires column, a white background indicates that the quire is from the original 13th-century production unit and a grey background indicates that the quires is from one of the 15th-century production units.

434 

 10 Appendix 2: Summary Catalog of Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals

Table 146 (continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

116va–128rb

Ordo Missae [13th c.: 116va–117vb] [15th c.: 118r–v] [13th c.: 119ra–121vb] [15th c.: 122ra–128rb]

128vb–181rb

Temporale: Easter Day–25th Sunday after Trinity [15th c.: 128vb]

Q12: 97–108 (12) [13 c.] th

Q13: 109–121 (12+1 [f. 118; 15th c. addition]) [13th c.]

Q14: 122–128 (8-1 beween 127 and 128 without loss of text) [15th c.] Q15: 129–136 (12-4 before 129 with loss of text) [13th c.]

[13th c.: 129ra–181rb]

Q16: 137–148 (12) [13th c. (some texts erased and rewritten in a later hand)] Q17: 149–156 (8) [13th c.] Q18: 157–168 (12) [13th c.] Q19: 169–176 (8) [13th c.] Q20: 177–182 (6) [13th c.] Q21: 183–194 (12) [13th c.]

181rb–182va

Dedication of a Church [13th c.]

183ra–254vb

Sanctorale: Vigil of St. Andrew–Sts. Vitalis and Agricola [13th c.]

255ra–267ra

Common of Saints [15th c.]

267ra–277vb

Votive masses [15th c.]

Q22: 195–206 (12) [13th c.] Q23: 207–218 (12) [13th c.] Q24: 219–230 (12) [13th c.] Q25: 231–242 (12) [13th c.] Q26: 243–254 (12) [13th c.] Q27: 255–263 (10-1 between 259 and 260 without loss of text) [15th c.] Q28: 264–271 (8) [15th c.] Q29: 272–279 (8) [15 c.] th

Q30: 280–287 (8) [15th c.]

277vb–283va

Requiem masses [15th c.]

283va–288ra

Sanctorale supplement [15th c.]

Q31: 288–293 (6-1+1 [f. 293 is a singleton that has been attached to a stub after f. 292]) [15th c.]

288ra–294ra

Votive masses [15th c.]

Q32: 294–295 (2+1 [f. 296 is a singleton that has been joined to f. 295]) [15th c.]

294rb–295rb

Corpus Christi [15th c.]

295rb–296rb

In festo visitationis marie [15th c.]

296v

Document of profession of Christannus Cerdonis OP [15th c.]

Bibliography: Ehrensberger 1889, p. 62, n. 9; Ettlinger 1900, p. 626; Heinzer and Stamm 1984, pp. 49–50; Dirks 1987; Gleeson 2004; Giraud 2013, p. 25; Giraud 2021b. Digital images: https://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/blbhs/Handschriften/content/titleinfo/574485

10.2 Lausanne, Musée Historique Lausanne, AA.VL 81, MS 10  

 435

10.2 Lausanne, Musée Historique Lausanne, AA.VL 81, MS 10 Lausanne, MHL 10 is a large pre-Humbert Dominican missal likely produced in Paris in the second quarter of the 13th century (Table 147).16 The manuscript was copied after 1234, as it includes the 5 August feast of St. Dominic in the original hand on ff. 162v–163r. It omits Dominic from the Easter Vigil litany17 and provides the 24 May Translation and the 12 August Octave as later additions (the introduction of these observances is not securely dated).18 In the formulary for St. Dominic, the original form of the collect on f. 162v was the pre-1244 “meritis et exemplis,” but “exemplis” was partially erased and changed to “doctrinis.”19 In the calendar, the September Anniversary of the Dead is on 10 September, rather than the post-1246–1248 date of 5 September.20 The manuscript begins with a set of formularies added in the 14th and 15th centuries on ff. 1r–5v, followed by the original 13th-century portion which includes the full range of temporal, sanctoral, common, votive, and Requiem masses. The formularies are provided with the full texts of the chants (without musical notation), orations, and readings. The Ordo Missae between the Easter Vigil and Easter Day formularies includes musical notation in the original 13th-century layer; it was later supplemented with a different version of the notated prefaces inserted between the tract and the gospel of the Easter Vigil formulary on ff. 90r–93v. At the end of the manuscript, a series of unnotated sequences and a calendar appear; although Ansgar Dirks suggested that these were later additions, the main set of sequences and the calendar may be original to the manuscript, although several sequences (including one for St. Dominic) are certainly later additions.21 Summary: Pre-Humbert Dominican missal Origin: Paris Date: 13th century, second quarter (c. 1234–1244) Material: Parchment. 214 leaves (foliated 1–164, [164bis], 165–213). Leaf size: 339 x 227 mm. Missal layout: c. 255 x 170 mm; 31 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: De orationibus dicendis (2r; added texts); venientem in nube (7r; original secundo folio) Artistic decoration: Littera duplex and flourished initials; lead sketches of the Face of Christ added in the lower margin on ff. 128r and 130r

16 Amiet 1982, pp. 17–18 argued that it was copied for the Dominican priory of St. Mary Magdalene in Lausanne on the basis of its use of the words In festivitate for the rubrics of St. Mary Magdalene and St. Nicholas, suggesting that these special rubrics were provided due to Mary Magdalene being the patron saint of the convent and Nicholas having a special chapel in the church (although he acknowledges that explicit proof for the St. Nicholas chapel first appears in 1435. Dirks 1984, p. 52 points out that In festivitate is also used for those two feasts in Paris, BnF, latin 8884, which suggests that these do not provide evidence for the early provenance of the Lausanne manuscript. Andenmatten 1999, pp. 436–437 acknowledges the importance of Dirks’ critique of the Lausanne origin. I am grateful to Alison Stones for sharing her observations on the decoration of the Lausanne missal in personal correspondence. Although the manuscript does not include any historiated initials, the littera duplex and flourished initials are decorated in a style similar to Paris, BnF, latin 8884, although according to Stones the decoration of the Paris manuscript suggests that it is later than the Lausanne manuscript. Stones suggests the possibility that the littera duplex initial for the Te igitur on f. 98r may be a later addition in space left blank for a historiated initial which was never executed. This possibility corresponds with the fact that the facing verso is blank, which may have been originally intended to bear a crucifixion miniature. 17 The litany of the saints for the Easter Vigil on ff. 88v–89v does not include Dominic in the original hand, but Dominic was added in the inner margin of f. 89r by a later hand who also added Francis immediately after Dominic. St. Peter Martyr and St. Anthony of Padua were also added, but these seem to be by two distinct hands separate from the one that added Dominic and Francis. In contrast to the Lausanne missal, Paris, BnF, latin 8884, f. 124v includes Dominic but not Francis in the Easter Vigil litany. 18 The 24 May Translation of St. Dominic is added as a marginal addition on f. 154v and the calendar entries for the Translation on f. 210r and the 12 August Octave on f. 210v are later additions by the same hand. It is possible that the marginal addition on f. 154v was added by the same hand that added the St. Dominic sequence on f. 206r. 19 Cf. pp. 62–64 above. In addition, eius intercessione in the second half of the prayer is written over an erasure, but it is not clear what the original text may have been. No other Dominican sources have variations regarding this part of the prayer. 20 Cf. pp. 54–58 above. 21 Dirks 1984, pp. 40, 46 suggests that the quire containing the rubrics, sequentiary and calendar on ff. 204r–211v is a later addition based on its lack of medieval foliation and the absence of a quire mark on the first leaf of the quire. Dirks acknowledges on p. 40 that he had only worked from microfilm images of the manuscript. Based on my personal consultation of the manuscript, I believe that this quire may be original (although it contains several later additions added in originally blank space). There is continuity in the decoration and script between the two sections, although this final quire has a layout with 40–42 lines rather than the 31 lines used throughout most of the manuscript.

436 

 10 Appendix 2: Summary Catalog of Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals

Table 147: Quires and Contents of Lausanne, MHL 10. Quires22

Folio Range

Content

QA: 1–4 (4)

1r

Added epistle (15th c.)

1va–vb

Added formularies in multiple hands (St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Sancius,23 11,000 Virgins, 10,000 Martyrs, St. Catherine of Siena)

2ra–4rb

Added rubrics (14th c.)

4v

Blank leaf

5ra

Added Corpus Christi formulary (begins imperfectly)

5rb

Added prayer (15th c.): Adoro te domine ihesu christe in crucem ascendentem … quam iudices. Amen.24

5rb

Added formulary for the Conception of Mary (15th c.)

6ra–89vb

Temporale: Advent–Easter Vigil: Tract

90r–93v

Added Ordo Missae prefaces

94ra–rb

Temporale: Easter Vigil: Gospel–Dismissal

94rb–100ra

Ordo Missae

100ra–139ra

Temporale: Easter Day–Dominica ante adventum domini

139rb

Blank column

QB: 5 (2-1 before 5 with loss of text)

Q1: 6–13 (8) Q2: 14–21 (8) Q3: 22–29 (8) Q4: 30–37 (8) Q5: 38–45 (8) Q6: 46–53 (8) Q7: 54–61 (8) Q8: 62–69 (8) Q9: 70–77 (8) Q10: 78–85 (8) Q11: 86–97 (8+4 [90–93])

Q12: 98–105 (8) Q13: 106–113 (8) Q14: 114–121 (8) Q15: 122–129 (8) Q16: 130–137 (8) Q17: 138–145 (8)

139v

Blank leaf

140ra–175vb

Sanctorale: Vigil of St. Andrew–Sts. Vitalis and Agricola

176ra–193ra

Common of Saints

Q18: 146–157 (12) Q19: 158–168 (12)25 Q20: 169–180 (12)

22 Quires A, B, 24 and 25 are later additions. 23 Amiet 1982, p. 12 tentatively links this saint with St. Sancius of Cordoba, martyred in 851, but notes that the formulary seems to indicate a confessor bishop rather than a martyr. 24 Cf. Wilmart 1932, p. 37; Salmon 1974, p. 154, n. 271; Boynton 2008, p. 315. 25 Quire 19 includes an unfoliated leaf after f. 164.

10.3 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5  

 437

Table 147 (continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

193ra–199vb

Votive masses

200ra–203vb

Requiem masses (end imperfectly)

204ra–rb

Rubrics

204va–206ra

Sequences

206ra–rb

Added sequences: In festivitate marie magdalene; In sollempnitate beati dominici; De beata maria in paschale tempore

206va–vb

Added Gloria and Credo

206vb

Added formulary for St. Catherine of Siena

207ra–rb

Blessing of Holy Water

207va–208va

Summe sacerdos

208va–vb

Added formulary for the Crown of Thorns

209ra–211vb

Calendar

Q24: 212 (2-1 after 212 without loss of text; stub visible)

212ra–rb

Added votive formulary

212va–vb

Added formulary for St. Louis

Q25: 213 (1 [originally a pastedown])

213r

Blank page

213v

Document dated 1452

Q21: 181–192 (12) Q22: 193–203 (12-1 after 203 with loss of text)

Q23: 204–211 (8)

Bibliography: Amiet 1982; Dirks 1984, pp. 40–53; Andenmatten 1999, pp. 436–437; Gleeson 2004, pp. 106–107; Giraud 2013, p. 20; Giraud 2021b.

10.3 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 is a moderately sized fully notated Dominican missal likely copied in Paris in the second quarter of the thirteenth century.26 The manuscript was copied after 1234, as it includes the 5 August feast of St. Dominic in the original hand on f. 181r and the name of Dominic (followed by Francis) in the Easter Vigil litany on f. 96v. The collect

26 The dating and localization of the manuscript has been controversial; cf. the overview of different datings given by Giraud 2013, p. 23. I propose that the manuscript was made in Paris between c. 1234 and c. 1244 (given the integral presence of Dominic with the pre-1244 version of the collect) and later brought to Lyon and provided with a new calendar. Gleeson 1972, p. 113 suggested that the manuscript was likely made in Lyon in or soon after 1251 due to the presence of an entry for the dedication of the Dominican church in Lyon on 4 March in the calendar, but I am hesitant about asserting that the entire manuscript was made in Lyon given the likelihood that the calendar is a later addition, which would in turn undermine many of arguments that have been made about the dating, localization, and artistic decoration of the manuscript. There are many discrepancies between the calendar and the sanctorale which raise questions about whether they belong to the same production unit. Most importantly, St. Peter Martyr is given by the original hand in the calendar (f. 2v; pace Gleeson 1972, p. 113), but is a later addition in the missal itself (ff. 169v, 251v), suggesting that the calendar was written after 1253 and added to a pre-existing missal. (Incidentally, the calendar uses the unusual title Sancti petri predicatoris et martyris, rather than the more common Beati petri martyris de ordine predicatorum or Petri martyris or­ dinis predicatorum; the Ludwig V 5 formulation is also found in a 13th-century Dominican breviary, Trier, Stadtbibliothek, Hs. 456, f. 169r.) Gousset 2004, pp. 56–57, identified the hand of “Magister Nicolaus,” a French illuminator associated with the Roman Curia, as being responsible for most of the decoration in the manuscript (for Gousset’s reference to “Chigi C IV 174” read Vatican City, BAV, Chig. C. VI. 174 and for “Vat. lat. 7608” read Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 7658; cf. Pace 1985). While Bilotta 2011, pp. 136, 142–143 has accepted Gousset’s identification, further research is needed given the problems connected with the dating and localization of the main portion of the manuscript. Even with the c. 1251 dating suggested by Gousset, the Los Angeles manuscript would be the earliest work associated with Magister Nicolaus. The possibility that the manuscript is in fact even earlier and not produced in Lyon raises further difficulties for Gousset’s identification.

438 

 10 Appendix 2: Summary Catalog of Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals

for St. Dominic on f. 181r is the pre-1244 “meritis et exemplis” version.27 The 24 May Translation of St. Dominic is provided as a marginal addition by a later hand on f. 172r. The manuscript includes a calendar which is a mid-13th-century addition (after 1253, as it includes St. Peter Martyr in the original hand),28 formularies for the whole liturgical year (with full musical notation for the proper chants in addition to the texts of the orations and readings), an Ordo Missae with musical notation and an extensive series of historiated initials depicting the celebration of mass, a notated kyriale and sequentiary, and added texts for various saints at the end of the manuscript. The manuscript is made up of a complex arrangement of quires of 6, 8, 10, and 12 leaves (see Table 148).29 The two-page spread on ff. 104v–105r depicting Christ crucified and Christ in majesty (as well as the current opening of the Roman Canon on f. 105v) is a later addition.30 Summary: Pre-Humbert Dominican notated missal Origin: Paris Date: 13th century, second quarter (c. 1234–1244) Material: Parchment. 252 leaves.31 Leaf size: 246 x 169 mm. Missal layout: c. 165 x 110 mm; 37 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: Martius habet dies (2r; calendar); et hoc semper observetur (8r) Artistic decoration: Historiated and decorated initials Table 148: Quires and Contents of Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5. Quires

Folio Range

Content

Q1: 1–6 (6) [13 -century addition]

1r–6v

Calendar (13th-century addition)

Q2: 7–16 (10)

7ra–99rb

Temporale: Advent–Easter Vigil

th

Q3: 17–26 (10)

27 Cf. pp. 62–64 above. 28 Cf. pp. 64–65 above. 29 Gleeson 1972, p. 112 claims that “the binding makes it impossible to say how the gatherings are arranged” and von Euw and Plotzek 1979 state “Lagen: wegen der engen Bindung nicht überprüfbar, 16 = Kalendar, danach wohl Quaternionen.” In fact, binding thread is visible at the center of most of the quires, and Roman numeral quire numbers written in pencil at the bottom right of the opening folios of quires are faintly visible, especially in the second half of the manuscript, e.g., “18” on f. 150r, “19” on f. 160r (very faint), “20” on f. 168r, etc. The numbering of these pencil quire numbers are one above the quire numbers given in Table 148, which suggests the possibility that there may have been an additional quire before the current opening quire at the time these numbers were added (perhaps as part of a rebinding of the manuscript at some stage). The current binding is by René Simier (1772–1843), and is dated by von Euw and Plotzek 1979, p. 240 to c. 1825. 30 Gleeson 1972, p. 115 states: “As regards the two large miniatures on folios 106v and 107r [i.e., ff. 104v–105r in the current foliation] which depict Christ crucified and Christ in Majesty, it is possible to wonder if they were part of the original missal, but the binding of the book makes it impossible to decide if in fact they could be dated separately from the rest of the manuscript.” Gousset 2004, pp. 56–57 states that the two miniatures “figurant sur un bifolium séparé,” noting that “Cette observation que je ne pouvais effectuer sur le microfilm a été faite in situ par le Prof. Richard H. House [sic, i.e. Rouse].” Although Gousset suggests that these leaves may be from an earlier period (“Il pourrait s’agir d’une œuvre de Nicolaus à une époque antérieure”), they are certainly a later addition. Folios 104–105 are a bifolium at the center of quire 12 (ff. 101–109); this quire is missing one leaf after f. 103, i.e., immediately before the bifolium 104–105. Folio 104r is blank, ff. 104v–105r contain the full page miniatures, and f. 105v contains the text of the Roman Canon from Te igitur to Memento domine … qui tibi of[ferunt]. Although the mis-en-page is consistent between ff. 105v and 106r and the text of the Roman Canon continues seamlessly on f. 106r with [of]ferunt hoc sacrificium, analysis of the script and decoration of the two leaves reveals important discontinuities. The script on f. 105v is broader and bolder than that on f. 106r. The illuminated and flourished initials are executed in remarkably different styles. Folio 105v uses dark red and blue non-flourished initials as well as dark red and blue crosses for “Hec do+na, Hec mu+nera, Hec sanc+ta sacrificia illibata.” Folio 106r uses illuminated gold-leaf initials as well as light-blue initials with red flourishing, and f. 106v uses the same style for the crosses on “Be+nedictam, Ascr+iptam, Ra+tam.” Finally, while most of the historiated initials in the Ordo Missae section (ff. 102r, 103r, 108r, 109r) use a gold ground for the depiction of the ministers celebrating mass on an altar with a red or blue frontal, the historiated initial Te igitur on f. 105v uses a red ground while depicting a priest and deacon in front of a golden altar. These discontinuities suggest that the bifolium comprising ff. 104–105 is a later addition that was inserted at some point after the initial production of the manuscript. It seems likely that the leaf now missing after f. 103 originally contained the opening texts of the Roman Canon executed in a script and decorative style matching the rest of the Ordo Missae. 31 Gleeson’s folio numbers are two digits higher than the current foliation of the manuscript; Gleeson counts the opening two blank leaves of the manuscript as ff. 1–2, with the calendar beginning on f. 3r, whereas the present foliation does not include the opening two leaves and begins the foliation with the opening leaf of the calendar. I follow the current foliation, which is also used by von Euw and Plotzek.

10.3 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5  

 439

Table 148 (continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

99rb–110va

Ordo Missae

Q4: 27–36 (10) Q5: 37–46 (10) Q6: 47–54 (8) Q7: 55–64 (10) Q8: 65–74 (10) Q9: 75–84 (10) Q10: 85–92 (8) Q11: 93–100 (8)

[NB: f. 104r is blank; ff. 104v–105r contain full page miniatures of Christ crucified and Christ in majesty; f. 105v contains the opening of the Roman Canon, supplying text that was originally contained on the leaf now missing after f. 103]

Q12: 101–109 (8-1 [after 103] +2 [104–105]) Q13: 110–119 (10) 110va–154rb

Temporale: Easter Day–25th Sunday after Trinity

Q14: 120–129 (10) Q15: 130–139 (10) Q16: 140–149 (10) Q17: 150–159 (10)

154va–vb

Added votive mass: Missa pro mortalitate evitanda

155ra–194ra

Sanctorale: Vigil of St. Andrew–Sts. Vitalis and Agricola

194ra–217vb

Common of Saints

217vb–219rb

Dedication of a Church

219ra–224rb

Votive masses

224rb–226rb

Masses for the Dead

226r–227ra

Blessing of Holy Water

227ra–rb

Various later additions

227va–228rb

Rubrics

228va–229vb

Various later additions

230r–235r

Kyriale

235r–250v

Sequences

Q18: 160–167 (8) Q19: 168–177 (10) Q20: 178–187 (10) Q21: 188–197 (10) Q22: 198–207 (10) Q23: 208–217 (10) Q24: 218–229 (12)

Q25: 230–237 (8) Q26: 238–245 (8) Q27: 246–252 (8-1 between 251 and 252, with loss of tex)

250v–251v

Genealogy according to Matthew

251v

Added Alleluia for St. Dominic (Pie pater)

251v

Added formulary for St. Peter Martyr (ends imperfectly)

252ra–vb

Added formulary for St. Thomas Aquinas

440 

 10 Appendix 2: Summary Catalog of Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals

Bibliography: Labitte 1877, p. 4, Lot 17;32 Leroquais 1920, pp. 13–14;33 Drouot 1960, Lot 1;34 Gleeson 1969, pp. 129–170;35 Gleeson 1972, pp. 111–115; Haller 1977; Dirks 1979, pp. 6–7; von Euw and Plotzek 1979, pp. 240–244; Haller 1986, pp. 5–30; Gousset 2004, pp. 56–57; Giraud 2013, p. 23; Giraud 2021b. Digital images: https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/105SW7 (partial)

10.4 Mons, Bibliothèque centrale, MS 63/201 Mons, BC 63/201 is a large pre-Humbert Dominican missal with musical notation for the proper chants of the mass likely copied in Tournai or Cambrai in the middle of the thirteenth century (Table 149). It has not previously been analyzed within the context of musicological or liturgical scholarship on the pre-Humbert Dominican liturgy, although the art historian Alison Stones has analyzed its artistic elements and identified it as a pre-1253 Dominican missal.36 The manuscript is likely from after 1244, as it contains the phrase “meritis et doctrinis” rather than “meritis et exemplis” in the original hand of the collect for St. Dominic on f. 217r.37 The absence of St. Peter Martyr in the sanctorale suggests a pre-1253 date.38 It is possible that the manuscript represents the first revision of the four friars issued in 1248.39 Within the sanctorale, a formulary for Sancti piati martyris appears on f. 231r, situated on his traditional feast of 1 October between Ieronimi presbyteri (30 September) and Remigii episcopi et confessoris (1 October).40 A rite for the reconciliation of penitents is provided at the end of the manuscript on f. 274r–v in the original hand, an element not found in other Dominican missals. Although previously overlooked in scholarship on the Dominican liturgy, Mons, BC 63/201 is of considerable importance for understanding the development of Dominican chant, offering an additional complete source for the pre-reform chant repertoire in addition to its other liturgical elements. It is parallel in liturgical and musical arrangement to Los

32 Labitte 1877 is the catalog of the sale of the books and manuscripts of the French writer and critic Jules Janin (1804–1874). Lot 17 identifies the manuscript as a 14th-century “Breviarium” with musical notation and large miniatures depicting Christ on the cross and Christ blessing the world. 33 Leroquais 1920 is the catalog of an exposition of illuminated manuscripts from public and private collections held at the Bibliothèque de la ville de Lyon in October 1920. On p. 14, Leroquais states that the missal belonged to the “Bibl. de M. A. R.” von Euw and Plotzek 1979, p. 240 interpret this as “[Monsieur] André Rosset,” but the actual name of the Lyon book collector was Albert Rosset (1862–1928); cf. Brosset-Heckel 1929. 34 Drouot 1960 is one of several sales of manuscripts belonging to Maurice Loncle (1879–1966); cf. http://www.marquesdecollections.fr/ detail.cfm/marque/10997 (the Loncle stamp does not appear within the manuscript). 35 Gleeson 1969 refers to the manuscript as the “Rau Missal” due to its then-ownership by Arthur Rau (1898–1972). Three years later, Gleeson 1972, p. 111n84 states that Arthur Rau had “acquired the missal in 1960” (i.e., from the Loncle sale; see Drouot 1960, Lot 1) but that “the missal has recently changed hands again, and has disappeared from view.” The change of hands likely refers to the acquisition of the manuscript by by Peter Ludwig (1925–1996) and Irene Ludwig (1927–2010). It is not clear whether the Ludwigs acquired the manuscript directly from Rau, or from some intermediary such as H.P. Kraus (1907–1988); Kraus 1978 does not appear to mention this missal. The manuscript was certainly acquired before the printing of the first volume of the Ludwig collection catalog in 1979 (cf. von Euw and Plotzek 1979, p. 13: “Als wir mit der Arbeit begannen, lag die Sammlung noch nicht als abgeschlossenes Ganzes vor uns, sondern vollendete sich erst nach geraumer Zeit zu dem jetzt gegebenen Zustand”). The missal was purchased together with the rest of the Ludwig collection by the Getty Museum in 1983. 36 See Stones 1995, p. 433n19. I am grateful to Alison Stones for drawing the manuscript to my attention and discussing it with me. Stones 1995, p. 443 suggests that the manuscript was “probably of Lille.” Stones 2021, p. 76n15 suggests that the manuscript was “made probably in the region of Cambrai before 1253.” In personal correspondence, Stones suggested that in light of the inclusion of a formulary for St. Piat it is possible that the missal could have been made in Tournai. The first published description of the manuscript, Faider and Faider-Feytmans 1931, identified it simply as Missale, although the description mentions the presence on the 18th-century binding of the words “Missale S. Ord. FF. Prae.” Oliver 1988 describes it as a missal of “Douai, abbey of Flines.” An ownership note on f. 275r indicates that the manuscript belonged at some point to the Cistercian nuns’ monastery of Flines, but the manuscript was clearly originally made for Dominican rather than Cistercian use. Faider and Faider-Feymans date the inscription to the 13th–14th centuries, but it may possibly be as late as the 15th century. The crossing out of the phrase pro quibus tibi offerimus vel in the Memento domine of the Roman Canon on f. 161r suggests that the manuscript was used for the celebration of mass by a Cistercian monk, as this phrase is characteristically omitted in Cistercian sources (cf. Leroquais 1924, v. 1, p. xxiv). The presence of a 17th- or 18th-century index of chants on f. 165v suggests that it was still in liturgical use in the early modern period, perhaps functioning as a source for nuns singing the chants of the mass rather than as a missal for the use of a priest. 37 Cf. pp. 62–64 above. 38 Cf. pp. 64–65 above. 39 Cf. pp. 63–64 above. I am grateful to Eleanor Giraud for suggesting this possibility. 40 In the calendar, of which only the leaf containing September and October is preserved, there is no reference to St. Piat.

10.4 Mons, Bibliothèque centrale, MS 63/201  

 441

Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5, but contains an even more ornate and extensive series of historiated initials for the major feasts of the temporal and sanctoral. Summary: Pre-Humbert Notated Dominican missal Origin: Tournai or Cambrai? Date: 13th century, middle (c. 1244–1253)41 Material: Parchment. 275 leaves. Leaf size: 317 x 220 mm. Missal layout: c. 224 x 140 mm; 21 lines (Ordo Missae)/32 lines of text and 16 lines of text and music (formularies) in 2 columns. Secundo folio: pullum cum ea (3r) Artistic decoration: Historiated initials for major feasts and Ordo Missae Table 149: Quires and Contents of Mons, BC 63/201. Quires

Folio Range

Content

Q1: 1 (8-7 [-6 before 1 and -1 after 1])

1r–v

Calendar (September–October)

Q2: 2–12 (12-1 between 5 and 6 with loss of text; stub after 12 without loss of text)

2r

Blank page

2va–155vb

Temporale: First Sunday of Advent–24th Sunday after Trinity

Q3: 13–24 (12) Q4: 25–36 (12) Q5: 37–48 (12) Q6: 49–60 (12) Q7: 61–72 (12) Q8: 73–84 (12) Q9: 85–96 (12) Q10: 97–108 (12) Q11: 109–120 (12) Q12: 121–132 (12) Q13: 133–144 (12) Q14: 145–155 (12-1 after 155, likely without loss of text) 155vb

Added votive mass formulary

Q15: 156–165 (12-2 [-1 before 156; -1 between 160 and 161])

156ra–165ra

Ordo Missae

165va–vd

Blank page with added index of chants (17th- or 18th-century addition)

Q16: 166–177 (12)

166ra–241vb

Sanctorale: St. Andrew–St. Vitalis and Agricola

241vb–243ra

Dedication of a Church

243ra–254ra

Votive masses

Q17: 178–189 (12) Q18: 190–201 (12) Q19: 202–213 (12) Q20: 214–225 (12) Q21: 226–237 (12) Q22: 238–249 (12)

Q23: 250–261 (12)

41 Faider and Faider-Feytmans 1931 date the manuscript to the 13th century; Oliver 1988 dates it to c. 1275–85; Stones 1995 and Stones 2005 date it to “before 1253.”

442 

 10 Appendix 2: Summary Catalog of Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals

Table 149 (continued) Quires

Q24: 262–274 (14-1 after 274 without loss of text)

Parchment Flyleaf: 275 (1)

Folio Range

Content

254ra–257vb

Requiem masses

257vb–258vb

Blessing of Holy Water and Asperges/Vidi aquam

258vb–260vb

Kyriale

260vb–270rb

Sequences

270va–273va

Chants (Genealogy of Matthew, Genealogy of Luke, Exultet)

273va–vb

Epistle (Ecce sacerdos magnus)

274ra–vb

Rite for the reconciliation of penitents

275ra–vb

Added texts (blessing of fruit, votive masses and Corpus Christi formulary)

Bibliography: Faider and Faider-Feytmans 1931, pp. 111–112; Oliver 1988, v. 1, p. 168, v. 2, pp. 309, 466; Stones 1995, p. 433; Stones 2005, p. 113; Stones 2013, v. 1, p. 48n7; Stones 2021, p. 76n15.

10.5 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 8884 Paris, BnF, latin 8884 is a large Dominican missal produced in Paris in the second quarter of the thirteenth century; it was originally produced for Dominican use and was later extensively supplemented for use in the Chapel of St. Louis at Notre Dame de Paris (Table 150). The missal was written after 1234, as it includes both the 24 May Translation of St. Dominic and the 5 August feast in the original hand (ff. 213r–214r; 227r) as well as Dominic (but not Francis) in the Easter Vigil litany on f. 124v. The collect for St. Dominic on f. 213r is the pre-1244 “meritis et exemplis” version.42 The missal includes full texts for the chants (without notation), orations, and readings. The Ordo Missae does not include chant notation but was likely copied from an exemplar that did include chant notation, as it includes the preface dialogue and Pater noster twice (as is typical when the Ordo Missae includes distinct melodies for simple and solemn versions of these chants). Summary: Pre-Humbert Dominican missal Origin: Paris Date: 13th century, second quarter (c. 1234–1244) Material: Parchment. 336 leaves. Leaf size: 365 x 250 mm. Missal layout: c. 240 x 150 mm; 25 lines in 2 columns. Secundo folio: Hore noctis xii (3r) Artistic decoration: Historiated, littera duplex, and flourished initials Table 150: Quires and Contents of Paris, BnF, latin 8884. Quires43

Folio Range

Content

Q1: Unfoliated leaf [I]– A (2) [14th c.]

[I]r–v

Blank leaf (the verso contains a pasted label with the former shelfmark “XLIII.I”)

Ar

Blank page

Av

Added readings (14th c.)

1r

Added Gloria and Credo (14th c.)

1v

Blank page

2r–7v

Calendar

Q2: 1–7 (6+1 [f. 1])

42 Cf. pp. 62–64 above. 43 Quires 1 and 28–30 are 14th-century additions. Quire 31 is a 13th-century addition.

10.5 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 8884  

 443

Table 150 (continued) Quires

Folio Range

Content

Q3: 8–19 (12)

8ra–126vb

Temporale: Advent–Easter Vigil

Q4: 20–31 (12) Q5: 32–43 (12) Q6: 44–55 (12) Q7: 56–67 (12) Q8: 68–79 (12) Q9: 80–91 (12) Q10: 92–103 (12) Q11: 104–115 (12) Q12: 116–125 (10) Q13: 126–137 (12) 126vb–133rb

Ordo Missae

133rb–191ra

Temporale: Easter Sunday–25th Sunday after Trinity

191ra–247va

Sanctorale: Vigil of St. Andrew–Sts. Vitalis and Agricola

247va–272ra

Common of Saints

Q14: 138–149 (12) Q15: 150–161 (12) Q16: 162–173 (12) Q17: 174–185 (12) Q18: 186–197 (12) Q19: 198–209 (12) Q20: 210–221 (12) Q21: 222–233 (12) Q22: 234–245 (12) Q23: 246–257 (12) Q24: 258–269 (12) Q25: 270–282 (12+1 [f. 277])

272ra–273va

Dedication of a Church

273va–286rb

Votive masses; added 14th c. formulary for St. Louis on added leaf (f. 277r)

286rb–291ra

Requiem masses

291ra–292ra

Blessing of Holy Water

292rb–293vb

Rubrics

293vb–296vb

Sequences

296vb

Added prayers for the King

297ra–319va

Added 14th c. Parisian lectionary supplement

319va–320vb

Added 14th c. formularies for St. Louis

Q30: 321–332 (12) [14 c.]

321ra–332vb

Added 14th c. Parisian Sequentiary

Q31: 333–335 (2+1 [f. 335]) [13th c.]

333ra–335ra

Added 13th c. Dominican formularies for St. Peter Martyr, St. Dominic, and the Crown of Thorns

335rb–336r

Various added texts

Q26: 283–294 (12)

Q27: 295–296 (2) Q28: 297–308 (12) [14th c.] Q29: 309–320 (12) [14 c.] th

th

1 parchment flyleaf: 336 (1) [13th c.]

444 

 10 Appendix 2: Summary Catalog of Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals

Bibliography: Leroquais 1924, pp. 104–106, n. 287; Bonniwell 1945, pp. 29–35; Gignac 1959, pp. 3–8; Gleeson 1969, pp. 22–58, 292–294; Gleeson 1972, pp. 99–102; Branner 1977, pp. 60, 208; Laffitte 1997, pp. 101–103; Gleeson 2004; Gousset 2004, p. 55; Giraud 2013, p. 21; Giraud 2021b. Digital images: https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc62414w

10.6 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 is a very small manuscript likely produced in Paris in the mid-thirteenth century that includes a notated votive missal together with a variety of other liturgical texts and chants (Table 151). The votive missal on ff. 83rb–119va consists of an Ordo Missae with musical notation and a selection of mass formularies for the Common of Saints, votive masses, and Requiem masses, all of which provide full musical notation for the chant texts as well as full texts for the prayers and readings. In addition to the mass texts, the manuscript includes a wide variety of texts typically found in the antiphonal, the processional, and the gradual, as well as a series of conductus with musical notation. The manuscript was produced after 1253, as it includes texts for St. Peter Martyr in the original hand.44 It differs in many respects from the reformed liturgy of Humbert of Romans, which suggests that it was likely produced before the finalization of the Humbert reform process around 1256. Summary: Dominican liturgical miscellany with votive missal Origin: Paris Date: 13th century, middle (c. 1253–1256?) Material: Parchment. 180 leaves (foliated I–VI, 1–174). Leaf size: 124 x 90 mm. Missal layout: c. 100 x 60 mm; 32 lines in 2 columns Secundo folio: Martius habet (IIr) Artistic decoration: Littera duplex and flourished initials Table 151: Quires and Contents of Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3. Quires

Folio Range

Content

Q1: I–VI, 1–10 (16)

Ir-VIv

Calendar

1ra–5ra

Hymnarium Melodic Index

5ra–8rb

Rubrics

8rb–10ra

Blessing of Holy Water

10ra–38vb

Rites for Extreme Unction, Funerals and the Office of the Dead

38vb–61ra

Processional texts

61ra–62rb

Canticle of the Three Children

62va–68rb

Exultet

68rb–74vb

Litany of the Saints for the Easter Vigil

74vb–77va

Genealogy of Matthew

77va–80ra

Genealogy of Matthew (Alternate melody)

80ra–83ra

Genealogy of Luke

Q2: 11–26 (16) Q3: 27–42 (16) Q4: 43–58 (16) Q5: 59–74 (16)

Q6: 75–90 (16)

44 Cf. pp. 64–65 above.

10.6 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3  

 445

Table 151 (continued) Quires

Q7: 91–106 (16) Q8: 107–122 (16)

Q9: 123–138 (16) Q10: 139–154 (16) Q11: 155–171 (16+1 [171?])

Folio Range

Content

83rb–88va

[Votive missal] Ordo Missae

88va–100rb

[Votive missal] Common of Saints

100rb–113rb

[Votive missal] Votive masses

113rb–119va

[Votive missal] Requiem masses

119va–149rb

Sequentiary/Proser

149va–157va

Memoria de corona (Divine Office and Mass chants for the Crown of Thorns)

157va–163vb

In translatione beati dominici (Divine Office chants)

163vb–169va

In festo sancti petri martiris (Divine Office; proper Alleluia verse)

169va–171ra

Marian chants

171v

Credo in unum deum (15th-century addition)

Parchment flyleaf: 172 (1)

172ra–vb

Fragment of a missal

Parchment flyleaves: 173–174 (2)

173r–174v

Fragment of another book

Bibliography: Sölch 1940; Husmann 1967; Levy 1974, p. 205; Huglo 2004, v. 2, p. 345; Meyer 2005, p. 16; Giraud 2013, p. 40; Giraud 2021, p. 353n26; Maurey 2021, pp. 95, 190–191, 194–195, 228; Quinlan 2022.

11 Appendix 3: 13th-century Missals Catalogued by Leroquais This appendix provides basic details concerning date, number of leaves, leaf size, and taille of 143 manuscript missals roughly dated to the 13th century by Leroquais 1924 arranged from smallest to largest (Table 152). After providing the shelfmark and Leroquais’ catalog number, I indicate Leroquais’ identification of the place of origin, liturgical tradition and date of each manuscript, and conclude by listing the number of leaves, the leaf size, and the taille (= leaf height + width). Figure 3 (p. 61 above) provides a visualization of the leaf size of 13th-century missals compared with bible missals. Table 152: 13th-century Manuscript Missals Catalogued by Leroquais. Shelfmark

§

Title (Place of Origin)

Date

Leaves

Leaf Size

Taille

Troyes, BM 1731

312

Missel cistercien

XIII 2/2

165

180 x 130

310

Paris, BnF, latin 1105

341

Missel (Abbaye du Bec)

XIII 2/2

220

184 x 131

315

Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 135

316

Missel de Sarum

XIII 2/2

321

185 x 130

315

Semur-en-Auxois, BM 6 (6)

251

Missel (Langres)

XIII 1/2

153

186 x 137

323

Colmar, BM 433

298

Missel cistercien

XIII

53

195 x 145

340

Paris, BnF, latin 10502

263

Missel (Sens)

XIII 1/2

224

200 x 142

342

Abbeville, BM 7

291

Missel (Noyon)

XIII

220

200 x 145

345

Laon, BM 212

281

Missel cistercien

XIII 1/2

59

205 x 155

360

Troyes, BM 1946

351

Missel cistercien

XIII ex.

194

205 x 142

347

Paris, BnF, latin 1101

323

Missel (Saint-Amand)

XIII 2/2

353

207 x 135

342

Douai, BM 86

328

Missel (Marchiennes)

XIII 2/2

377

208 x 130

338

Arras, BM 448 (368)

354

Missel (Marchiennes)

XIII–XIV

309

208 x 140

348

Paris, BnF, latin 1112

234

Missel (Paris)

XIII 1/2

315

209 x 146

355

Sens, BM 18

265

Missel (Saint-Pierre-le-Vif)

XIII 1/2

395 pp. + 1 + 1

210 x 150

360

Amiens, BM 156

347

Missel (Corbie)

1289

396

210 x 147

357

Arras, BM 444 (888)

260

Missel (Saint-Vaast d’Arras)

XIII

343

212 x 155

367

Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 609

267

Missel (Marmoutier à l’usage de Mantes)

XIII 1/2

139

214 x 156

370

Paris, BnF, latin 1333

284

Missel (Une abbaye clunisienne d’Espagne)

XIII 1/2

192

215 x 153

368

Paris, BnF, latin 10503

311

Missel franciscain

XIII 2/2

226

215 x 165

380

Paris, BnF, latin 13248

236

Missel (Saint-Germain-des-Prés)

XIII 1/2

91

220 x 180

400

Evreux, BM 50

302

Missel (Rouen)

XIII m. ou 2/2

104

220 x 160

380

Rouen, BM 276 (A. 459)

333

Missel (Saint-Ouen de Rouen)

XIII 2/2

360

229 x 165

394

Rouen, BM 177 (Y. 50)

249

Missel (Rouen)

XIII 1/2

403

230 x 162

392

Paris, BnF, latin 1107

322

Missel (Saint-Denis)

XIII 2/2

407

232 x 142

374

Provins, BM 227 (8)

264

Missel (Provins)

XIII

103

234 x 170

404

Paris, BnF, latin 10504

226

Missel (Tours)

XIII in.

272

235 x 170

405

Troyes, BM 1187

274

Missel (Collégiale Saint-Etienne de Troyes)

XIII 1/2

176

238 x 157

395

Autun, BM 187

206

Missel (Saint-Nicolas de Furnes)

XIII in.

160

240 x 155

395

Rouen, BM 295 (A. 398)

335

Missel (Fécamp)

XIII 2/2

258

240 x 189

429

Charleville, BM 5

273

Missel prémontré

XIII 1/2

173

245 x 163

408

Paris, BnF, latin 13247

257

Missel (Saint-Maur-les-Fossés)

XIII 1/2

211

247 x 178

425

Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, MS 1259 (BB. 1. in-4° 11)

266

Missel (Sainte-Geneviève)

XIII 1/2

296

248 x 151

399

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-012

11 Appendix 3: 13th-century Missals Catalogued by Leroquais 

 447

Table 152 (continued) Shelfmark

§

Title (Place of Origin)

Date

Leaves

Leaf Size

Taille

Charleville, BM 3

208

Missel prémontré

XIII in

154

250 x 160

410

Paris, Mazarine 422

309

Missel (Paris)

XIII 2/2

280

251 x 167

418

Paris, BnF, NAL 1030

223

Missel (Lodi)

XIII in.

119

256 x 177

433

Sens, BM 15

262

Missel (Sens)

XIII 1/2

300 pp. + 1 +1

256 x 175

431

Auxerre, Trésor de la cathédrale, MS 8

356

Missel (Sens)

XIII–XIV

126

260 x 190

450

Autun, BM 10 (8✶)

194

Missel (Autun)

XII–XIII

345

265 x 185

450

Paris, BnF, latin 12059

256

Missel (Saint-Maur-les-Fossés)

XIII 1/2

217

265 x 185

450

Orléans, BM 721 (56)

275

Missel (Abbaye Saint-Mesmin)

XIII 1/2

134

265 x 165

430

Paris, BnF, latin 846

321

Missel (Saint-Denis)

XIII

94

267 x 175

442

Paris, BnF, latin 824

292

Missel (Paris)

XIII m.

292

270 x 190

460

Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, MS 99 (BB. 1. in-fol. 10)

242

Missel (Senlis)

XIII 1/2

220

271 x 200

471

Paris, BnF, latin 12058

255

Missel (Saint-Maur-les-Fossés)

XIII 1/2

186

272 x 190

462

Paris, Mazarine 405)

235

Missel (Saint-Faron de Meaux)

XIII 1/2

337

273 x 195

468

Auxerre, BM 51 (51)

268

Missel (Auxerre)

XIII 1/2

543 pp + 16

273 x 197

470

Colmar, BM 409

213

Missel (Abbaye de Munster)

XIII in.

166

275 x 225

500

Rouen, BM 291 (A. 329)

303

Missel (Saint-Wandrille)

XIII m. ou 2/2

217

275 x 197

472

Avignon, BM 137 (61)

228

Missel cistercien

XIII 1/4

180

278 x 180

458

Rouen, BM 299 (A. 305)

245

Missel (Jumièges)

XIII 1/2

270

278 x 185

463

Reims, BM 219 (C. 125)

211

Missel (Reims)

XIII in.

172

280 x 205

485

Avranches, BM 42

225

Missel (Mont-Saint-Michel)

XIII in.

222

280 x 210

490

Reims, BM 232 (C. 121)

261

Missel (Saint-Thierry de Reims)

XIII 1/2

209

280 x 192

472

Paris, BnF, latin 9442

338

Missel (Langres)

XIII 2/2

276

280 x 197

477

Paris, Mazarine 414

252

Missel (Saint-Denis)

XIII 1/2

344

285 x 210

495

Chartres, BM 580 (165)

270

Missel (Saint-Père de Chartres)

XIII 1/2

208

285 x 200

485

Metz, BM 218

297

Missel cistercien

XIII

77

285 x 195

480

Lyon, BM 5139 (B. 16)

217

Missel (Lyon)

XIII in.

250

290 x 205

495

Paris, BnF, latin 17321

340

Missel (Saint-Corneille de Compiègne)

XIII

322

290 x 210

500

Auxerre, Trésor de la cathédrale, MS 6

342

Missel (Abbaye Saint-Julien de Tours)

XIII 2/2

270

290 x 180

470

Provins, BM 11 (4)

212

Missel (Sens)

XIII in.

210

292 x 191

483

Verdun, BM 96

336

Missel (Saint-Vanne)

XIII 2/2

257

292 x 213

505

Reims, BM 216 (C. 126)

210

Missel (Reims)

XIII in

162

293 x 208

501

Laon, BM 228

231

Missel cistercien

XIII 1/4

139

293 x 215

508

Paris, BnF, latin 12057

254

Missel (Saint-Maur-les-Fossés)

XIII 1/2

308

294 x 198

492

Paris, BnF, latin 830

318

Missel (Paris)

XIII 2/2

369

295 x 200

495

Reims, BM 228 (C. 134)

196

Missel (Saint-Rémy de Reims)

XII–XIII

212

295 x 202

497

Pontarlier, BM 11 (21)

315

Missel cistercien

XIII

122

296 x 212

508

Paris, BnF, NAL 1773

224

Missel (Evreux)

XIII in.

284

297 x 225

522

Reims, BM 215 (C. 208)

301

Missel (Reims)

XIII

103

297 x 228

525

Laon, BM 230

233

Missel cistercien

XIII 1/4

187

298 x 202

500

448 

 11 Appendix 3: 13th-century Missals Catalogued by Leroquais

Table 152 (continued) Shelfmark

§

Title (Place of Origin)

Date

Leaves

Leaf Size

Taille

Chartres, BM 521 (231) [tome I]

269

Missel (Saint-Père de Chartres)

XIII 1/2

456

298 x 212

510

Chartres, BM 521 (231) [tome II]

269

Missel (Saint-Père de Chartres)

XIII 1/2

389

298 x 212

510

Soissons, BM 87 (80)

313

Missel cistercien

XIII 2/2

194

298 x 211

509

Toulouse, BM 104 (III, 68)

325

MIssel dominicain

XIII 2/2

239

298 x 212

510

Troyes, BM 863

289

Missel cistercien

XIII 1/2

189

300 x 240

540

Charleville, BM 247

306

Missel prémontré

XIII 2/2

256

300 x 203

503

Paris, BnF, latin 16823

337

Missel (Saint-Corneille de Compiègne)

XIII 2/2

230

300 x 216

516

Laon, BM 229

232

Missel cistercien

XIII 1/4

105

302 x 205

507

Troyes, BM 870

202

Missel cistercien

XIII in.

161

303 x 230

533

Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, MS 90 (BB. 1, in-fol. 1)

319

Missel (Sainte-Geneviève)

XIII 2/2

311

303 x 215

518

Pontarlier, BM 8 (18)

350

Missel cistercien

XIII ex.

121

303 x 210

513

Pontarlier, BM 10 (20)

314

Missel cistercien

XIII

161

304 x 212

516

Clermont-Ferrand, BM 62 (57)

305

Missel dominicain

XIII 2/2

303

305 x 200

505

Orléans, BM 117 (95)

279

Missel (Saint-Venant de Tours)

XIII 1/2

231

306 x 210

516

Paris, Mazarine 513

241

Missel cistercien

XIII 1/2

146

307 x 215

522

Paris, BnF, latin 17312

239

Missel (Auxerre)

XIII 1/2

203

308 x 217

525

Paris, BnF, latin 9443

293

Missel cistercien

XIII m.

172

308 x 212

520

Reims, BM 229 (C. 133)

197

Missel (Saint-Rémy de Reims)

XII–XIII

182

310 x 212

522

Laon, BM 227

201

Missel cistercien

XIII

193

310 x 210

520

Colmar, BM 429

250

Missel (Murbach)

XIII 1/2

183

310 x 220

530

Pontarlier, BM 9 (19)

285

Missel cistercien

XIII

172

312 x 218

530

Douai, BM 85

300

Missel (Marchiennes)

XIII m.

191

312 x 220

532

Paris, BnF, latin 862

247

Missel (Paris)

XIII 1/2

399

313 x 210

523

Troyes, BM 704

214

Missel cistercien

XIII in.

192

314 x 213

527

Lille, BM 23

329

Missel (Saint-Amé de Douai)

XIII 2/2

231

314 x 240

554

Chartres, BM 583 (233)

244

Missel (Chartres)

XIII 1/2

274

315 x 225

540

Paris, BnF, latin 17319

339

Missel (Saint-Corneille de Compiègne)

XIII 2/2

223

315 x 215

530

Lille, BM 27

346

Missel cistercien

1288

139

315 x 217

532

Avignon, BM 139 (56)

227

Missel cistercien

XIII in.

189

318 x 212

530

Cambrai, BM 183 (178)

288

Missel (Cambrai)

1241

256

318 x 225

543

Douai, BM 87

205

Missel (Marchiennes)

XIII in.

267

320 x 220

540

Vendôme, BM 17B

277

Missel (Trinité de Vendôme)

XIII 1/2

231

320 x 235

555

Troyes, BM 586

299

Missel cistercien

XIII m.

237

320 x 246

566

Paris, BnF, latin 9444

353

Missel cistercien

1299

176

320 x 215

535

Bayeux, Bibliothèque du Chapitre, MS 62

355

Missel (Bayeux)

XIII–XIV

160

320 x 233

553

Troyes, BM 708

198

Missel (Saint-Etienne de Troyes)

XII–XIII

197

321 x 215

536

Laon, BM 225

207

Missel prémontré

XIII in.

172

322 x 235

557

Cambrai, BM 181 (176)

307

Missel (Cambrai)

XIII 2/2

303

322 x 227

549

Beaune, BM 17 (27)

215

Missel (Autun)

XIII in.

278

325 x 225

550

11 Appendix 3: 13th-century Missals Catalogued by Leroquais 

 449

Table 152 (continued) Shelfmark

§

Title (Place of Origin)

Date

Leaves

Leaf Size

Taille

Paris, BnF, latin 9441

295

Missel (Paris)

XIII m

462

325 x 218

543

Verdun, BM 97

237

Missel (Verdun)

XIII 1/2

264

326 x 216

542

Laon, BM 235

272

Missel (Laon)

XIII

140

326 x 225

551

Troyes, BM 405

230

Missel cistercien

XIII 1/4

223

328 x 239

567

Arras, BM 309 (959)

331

Missel (Arras)

XIII 1/2

130

328 x 220

548

Laon, BM 234

209

Missel (Laon)

XIII in.

149

330 x 235

565

Soissons, BM 88 (81)

290

Missel cistercien

XIII

170

330 x 230

560

Troyes, BM 298

229

Missel cistercien

XIII 1/4

170

331 x 226

557

Le Mans, BM 437

278

Missel (Le Mans)

XIII 1/2

244

332 x 237

569

Charleville, BM 149

349

Missel cistercien

XIII ex.

173

333 x 235

568

Rouen, BM 298 (A. 194)

203

Missel (Jumièges)

XIII in.

238

335 x 240

575

Paris, BnF, NAL 1783

204

Missel cistercien

XIII in.

233

335 x 235

570

Chartres, BM 520 (222)

243

Missel (Chartres)

XIII 1/2

488

335 x 235

570

Paris, BnF, latin 17318

296

Missel (Saint-Corneille de Compiègne)

XIII 1/2

378

336 x 240

576

Paris, BnF, latin 15615

294

Missel (Paris)

XIII m.

428

338 x 235

573

Rouen, BM 305 (A. 166)

253

Missel (à l’usage d’Evreux)

XIII 1/2

264

340 x 230

570

Paris, BnF, latin 17308

259

Missel (Saint-Corneille de Compiègne)

XIII 1/2

214

340 x 240

580

Arras, BM 49 (94)

330

Missel (Mont-Saint-Eloi)

XIII

142

342 x 235

577

Orléans, BM 121 (99)

276

Missel (Abbaye Saint-Mesmin)

XIII 1/2

169

343 x 245

588

Troyes, BM 257

240

Missel cistercien

XIII 1/2

168

345 x 234

579

Paris, BnF, latin 15616

248

Missel (Paris)

XIII 1/2

275

345 x 242

587

Toulouse, BM 105 (III, 23)

326

Missel dominicain

XIII 2/2

325

345 x 233

578

Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Université, MS 177

246

Missel (Paris)

XIII 1/2

175

348 x 232

580

Paris, Mazarine 426

310

Missel franciscain

1254–1261

341

348 x 229

577

Toulouse, BM 103 (I, 43)

324

Missel dominicain

XIII 2/2

326

348 x 220

568

Paris, Mazarine 424

304

Missel cistercien

XIII 2/2

243

350 x 246

596

Tours, BM 198

343

Missel (Abbaye de Villeloin)

XIII 2/2

117

350 x 238

588

Paris, Bibliothèque SainteGeneviève, MS 98

344

Missel (Paris)

1286

145

350 x 240

590

Arras, BM 38 (58)

317

Missel (Mont-Saint-Eloi)

XIII 2/2

224

355 x 255

610

Arras, BM 862 (518)

348

Missel (Saint–Vaast d’Arras)

XIII 2/2

185

355 x 238

593

Paris, BnF, latin 8884

287

Missel dominicain (adapté à l’usage de Paris)

XIII m.

336

357 x 253

610

Paris, BnF, NAL 2194

222

Missel (Silos)

XIII in.

140

380 x 260

640

Lyon, BM 5126 (B. 10)

195

Missel (Lausanne)

XII–XIII

175

395 x 268

663

Bibliography Academia Caesarea Vindobonensis. 1864. Tabulae codicum manu scriptorum: praeter graecos et orientales in Bibliotheca Palatina Vindobonensi asservatorum … Volumen I. Cod. 1–2000. Vienna: Gerold. Academia Caesarea Vindobonensis. 1869. Tabulae codicum manu scriptorum: praeter graecos et orientales in Bibliotheca Palatina Vindobonensi asservatorum … Volumen III. Cod. 3501–5000. Vienna: Gerold. Alberdingk, Thijm. 1876. “Boucquet, Johann.” In Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, 3:209–10. Leipzig: Dunder und Humbolt. Albiero, Laura, and Eleonora Celora, eds. 2021. Décrire le manuscrit liturgique: Méthodes, problématiques, perspectives. Turnhout: Brepols. Alexander, J.J.G. 1980. “English or French? Thirteenth-Century Bibles.” In Manuscripts at Oxford: An Exhibition in Memory of Richard William Hunt (1908–1979), Keeper of Western Manuscripts at the Bodleian Library Oxford, 1945–1975, on Themes Selected and Described by Some of His Friends, edited by Bruce C. Barker-Benfield and Albinia Catherine de la Mare, 69–71. Oxford: Bodleian Library. Alexander, J.J.G., and Elżbieta Temple. 1985. Illuminated Manuscripts in Oxford College Libraries, the University Archives, and the Taylor Institution. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Amiet, Robert. 1976. “L’ordinaire de la messe selon le rit valdotain.” Recherches 6: 85–211. Amiet, Robert. 1982. “Un missel copié vers 1240 pour le couvent dominicain de la Madeleine à Lausanne.” Revue historique vaudoise 90: 9–19. Amiet, Robert. 1990. Missels et bréviaires imprimés. Documents, études et répertoires de l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes 43. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Amphoux, Christian-Bernard, and Jean Paul Bouhot, eds. 1996. La Lecture liturgique des Épîtres catholiques dans l’Église ancienne. Histoire du texte biblique 1. Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre. Analecta. 1897. “Liber Constitutionum Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum (iuxta codicem prototypum B. Humberti in Archivo Generali Ordinis Romae asservatum).” Analecta Sacri Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum 3: 26–60, 98–122, 162–81. Andenmatten, Bernard. 1999. “Lausanne.” In Die Dominikaner und Dominikanerinnen in der Schweiz, edited by Petra Zimmer and Urs Amacher, 420–58. Helvetia sacra, IV.5. Basel: Schwabe. Andrieu, Michel, ed. 1938. Le pontifical romain au moyen-âge: Tome I: Le pontifical romain du XIIe siècle. Studi e Testi 86. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Andrieu, Michel, ed. 1940a. Le pontifical romain au moyen-âge: Tome II: Le pontifical de la curie romaine au XIIIe siècle. Studi e Testi 87. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Andrieu, Michel, ed. 1940b. Le pontifical romain au moyen-âge: Tome III: Le pontifical de Guillaume Durand. Studi e Testi 88. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Andrist, Patrick. 2015. “Syntactical Description of Manuscripts.” In Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction, edited by Alessandro Bausi, 511–20. Hamburg: Tredition. Andrist, Patrick. 2018. “Toward a Definition of Paratexts and Paratextuality: The Case of Ancient Greek Manuscripts.” In Bible as Notepad: Tracing Annotations and Annotation Practices in Late Antique and Medieval Biblical Manuscripts, edited by Liv Ingeborg Lied and Marilena Maniaci, 130–50. Manuscripta Biblica 3. Berlin: De Gruyter. Andrist, Patrick, Paul Canart, and Marilena Maniaci. 2013. La syntaxe du codex: Essai de codicologie structurale. Bibliologia 34. Turnhout: Brepols. Angenendt, Arnold. 1983. “Missa specialis. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Entstehung der Privatmessen.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 17: 153–221. Angenendt, Arnold. 2005. “Missa specialis. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Entstehung der Privatmessen.” In Liturgie im Mittelalter: ausgewählte Aufsätze zum 70. Geburstag, edited by Thomas Flammer and Daniel Meyer, 2nd ed., 111–90. Ästhetik–Theologie–Liturgik 35. Münster: Lit. Antist, Vicente Justiniano, ed. 1591. Sancti patris nostri Vincentii Ferrarii Valentini, Ordinis Praedicatorum, Opuscula. Velentia: Apud Petrum Patricium. Antolín, Guillermo. 1911. Catálogo de los Códices Latinos de la Real Biblioteca del Escorial. Vol. 2. Madrid: Imprenta Helénica. Austin, Greta. 2019. “Burchard of Worms.” In Great Christian Jurists and Legal Collections in the First Millennium, edited by Philip L. Reynolds, 458–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Autenrieth, Johanne. 1963. Die Handschriften der ehemaligen Hofbibliothek Stuttgart: Bd. 3. Codices iuridici et politici. Patres. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Avril, François, and Marie-Thérèse Gousset. 1984. Manuscrits enluminés d’origine italienne. Vol. 2. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale. Avril, François, and Patricia Danz Stirnemann. 1987. Manuscrits enluminés d’origine insulaire VIIe-XXe siècle. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale. Backaert, Bernard. 1950–1951. “L’Evolution du calendrier cistercien.” Collectanea Ordinis Cisterciensium Reformatorum 12: 81–94, 302–16; 13 (1951) 108–127. Bahor, Stanislav. 2001. “Semeniška knjiznica.” In Handbuch deutscher historischer Buchbestände in Europa, edited by Simoné Okaj-Braun, 9:203–6. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann. Balberghe, Émile van. 1973. “Le catalogue des manuscrits de Parc dans la ‘Bibliotheca Belgica manuscripta’ d’Antoine Sanderus.” Quaerendo 3: 322–28. Bale, Anthony, ed. 2009. St Edmund, King and Martyr: Changing Images of a Medieval Saint. York: York Medieval Press. Baltzer, Rebecca A. 2000. “The Little Office of the Virgin and Mary’s Role at Paris.” In The Divine Office in the Latin Middle Ages, edited by Margot E. Fassler and Rebecca A. Baltzer, 463–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bannister, Henry Marriot. 1905. “Index codicum manu scriptorum ad liturgicam rem spectantium.” Vatican City, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana (Sala Cons. Mss., 509 rosso). Barker-Benfield, Bruce C., and Albinia Catherine de la Mare. 1980. Manuscripts at Oxford: An Exhibition in Memory of Richard William Hunt (1908–1979), Keeper of Western Manuscripts at the Bodleian Library Oxford, 1945–1975, on Themes Selected and Described by Some of His Friends. Oxford: Bodleian Library. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-013

452 

 Bibliography

Baroffio, Giacomo, ed. 1999. Iter liturgicum italicum. Padua: CLEUP. Baroffio, Giacomo. 2001. “Manoscritti liturgici italiani datati (1010–1600).” Rivista Internazionale di Musica Sacra 22: 315–53. Baroffio, Giacomo, ed. 2011. Iter liturgicum italicum: editio maior. Instrumenta 1. Stroncone: Associazione San Michele Arcangelo. Baroffio, Giacomo, Manlio Sodi, and Andrzej Suski. 2016. Sacramentari e messali pretridentini di provenienza italiana: guida ai manoscritti. Veritatem inquirere 1. Vatican City: Lateran University Press. Barré, Henri. 1970. “Un ‘Statut’ d’Urbain II.” Marianum 32: 1–14. Barré, Henri, and Jean Deshusses. 1968. “A la recherche du missel d’Alcuin.” Ephemerides Liturgicae 82: 5–44. Bartolomeo da Trento. 2001. Liber epilogorum in gesta sanctorum. Edited by Emore Paoli. Edizione Nazionale dei testi Mediolatini 2. Florence: SISMEL. Baumann, Daniel. 2009. Stephen Langton: Erzbischof von Canterbury im England der Magna Carta (1207–1228). Leiden: Brill. Beban, Hrvoje. 2018. “Nullus Scienter Litteram Aut Notam Mutet: Dominicans (Dis)Obeying the Regulations for the Copying of Chant Books. An Example from Late Medieval Dalmatia.” In Making and Breaking the Rules: Discussion, Implementation, and Consequences of Dominican Legislation, edited by Cornelia Linde, 173–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beleth, Jean. 1976. Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis. Edited by Herbert Douteil. Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 41–41A. Turnhout: Brepols. Bénédictins du Bouveret. 1965. Colophons de manuscrits occidentaux des origines au XVIe siècle. Vol. 1. Spicilegii Friburgensis Subsidia 2. Fribourg: Éditions universitaires. Bénédictins du Bouveret. 1973. Colophons de manuscrits occidentaux des origines au XVIe siècle. Vol. 3. Spicilegii Friburgensis Subsidia 4. Fribourg: Éditions universitaires. Bénédictins du Bouveret. 1979. Colophons de manuscrits occidentaux des origines au XVIe siècle. Vol. 5. Spicilegii Friburgensis Subsidia 6. Fribourg: Éditions universitaires. Bénédictins du Bouveret. 1982. Colophons de manuscrits occidentaux des origines au XVIe siècle. Vol. 6. Spicilegii Friburgensis Subsidia 7. Fribourg: Éditions universitaires. Bennett, Adelaide Louise. 1973. “The Place of Garrett 28 in Thirteenth-Century English Illumination.” PhD diss., Columbia University. Berger, Samuel. 1893. Quam notitiam linguae hebraicae habuerint christiani medii aevi temporibus in Gallia. Nancy: Typis Berger-Levrault. Bergin, Patrick. 2019. “The Offices for the Two Feasts of Saint Dominic.” Ph.D. diss., Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Bériou, Nicole, and Bernard Hodel, eds. 2019. Saint Dominique de l’ordre des frères prêcheurs. Paris: Editions du Cerf. Bériou, Nicole, and Franco Morenzoni, eds. 2008. Prédication et liturgie au Moyen Âge: Etudes réunies. Bibliothèque d’histoire culturelle du Moyen Âge 5. Turnhout: Brepols. Bériou, Nicole, André Vauchez, and Michel Zink, eds. 2017. Les Dominicains en France (XIIIe-XXe siècle). Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres/ Éditions du Cerf. Bernard, Madeline. 1974. Répertoire de manuscrits médiévaux contenant des notations musicales. Vol. 3. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Biblioteca Nacional. 1956. Inventario General de Manuscritos de la Biblioteca Nacional. Vol. 2. Madrid: Ministerio de educacion nacional. Bilotta, Maria Alessandra. 2011. I Libri dei Papi. Studi e Testi 465. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Binski, Paul. 2005. “30. Bible.” In The Cambridge Illuminations: Ten Centuries of Book Production in the Medieval West, edited by Paul Binski and Stella Panayotova, 98–99. London: Harvey Miller. Binski, Paul, Patrick Zutshi, and Stella Panayotova. 2011. Western Illuminated Manuscripts: A Catalogue of the Collection in Cambridge University Library. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bischoff, Bernhard. 1998. Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts (mit Ausnahme der wisigotischen). Teil I: Aachen–Lambach. Edited by Brigit Ebersperger. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bischoff, Bernhard. 2004. Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts (mit Ausnahme der wisigotischen). Teil II: Laon–Paderborn. Edited by Brigit Ebersperger. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bischoff, Bernhard. 2014. Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts (mit Ausnahme der wisigotischen). Teil III: Padua–Zwickau. Edited by Brigit Ebersperger. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Blume, Clemens, ed. 1922. Liturgische Prosen zweiter Epoche auf Feste der Heiligen. Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi 55. Leipzig: Reisland. Blume, Clemens, and Henry Bannister, eds. 1911. Liturgische Prosen erster Epoche. Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi 53. Leipzig: Reisland. Blume, Clemens, and Henry Bannister, eds. 1915. Liturgische Prosen des Übergangsstiles und der zweiten Epoche. Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi 54. Leipzig: Reisland. Bodleian Library. 1978. “Notable Accessions.” Bodleian Library Record 9 (6): 357–60. Bodleian Library. 1988. Duke Humfrey’s Library & the Divinity School 1488–1988: An Exhibition at the Bodleian Library June–August 1988. Oxford: Bodleian Library. Boe, John, ed. 1996. Ordinary Chants and Tropes for the Mass from Southern Italy, A.D. 1000–1250. Part 3: Preface Chants and Sanctus. Beneventanum Troporum Corpus, II. Madison, WI: A-R Editions. Boerner, C.G. 1914. Katalog der Bibliothek Alfred Ritter von Pfeiffer, Wien … Versteigerung 4.–6. Mai 1914. Leipzig: C. G. Boerner. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. 2000. “Les livres d’Esdras et leur numérotation dans l’histoire du canon de la Bible latine.” Revue Bénédictine 110: 5–26. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. 2005. “Le livre de Baruch dans les manuscrits de la Bible latine: disparition et réintégration.” Revue Bénédictine 115: 286–342. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. 2012. “The Latin Bible, c. 600 to c. 900.” In The New Cambridge History of the Bible 2: From 600 to 1450, by Richard Marsden and E. Ann Matter, 69–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. 2013. “The Latin Bible.” In The New Cambridge History of the Bible 1: From the Beginnings to 600, edited by James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper, 505–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography 

 453

Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. 2014. “Les frontières du canon de l’Ancien Testament dans l’Occident latin.” In La Bible juive dans l’Antiquité, edited by Rémi Gounelle and Jan Joosten, 41–95. Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. 2015. “IV Esdras (2 Esdras; 4-5-6 Ezra) dans les Bibles latines.” Revue Bénédictine 125: 266–304. Bondéelle, Anne. 1998. “Claude Robert Jardel, de Braine, collectionneur de manuscrits (1712–1788).” In Du copiste au collectionneur, 615–52. Bibliologia 18. Turnhout: Brepols. Bonniwell, William R. 1945. A History of the Dominican Liturgy 1215–1945. 2nd ed. New York: J.F. Wagner. Bourque, Emmanuel. 1948–1958. Étude sur les sacramentaires romains. 3 vols. Vatican City: Pontifico Instituto di Archeologia Cristiana. Bower, Calvin M., ed. 2016. The Liber Ymnorum of Notker Balbulus. 2 vols. Henry Bradshaw Society 121–122 London: Henry Bradshaw Society. Boyle, Leonard E., Pierre-Marie Gy, and Pawełs Krupa, eds. 2004. Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L1. Documents, Études et Répertoires 67. Paris: CNRS Editions. Boynton, Susan. 2008. “Libelli Precum in the Central Middle Ages.” In A History of Prayer: The First to the Fifteenth Century, edited by Roy Hammerling, 255–319. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 13. Leiden: Brill. Boynton, Susan. 2011. “The Bible and the Liturgy.” In The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: Production, Reception, and Performance in Western Christianity, edited by Susan Boynton and Diane J. Reilly, 10–33. New York: Columbia University Press. Boynton, Susan, and Diane J. Reilly, eds. 2011. The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: Production, Reception, and Performance in Western Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press. Bradbury, Carlee A. 2007. “Imaging and Imagining the Jew in Medieval England.” Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Bragança, Joaquim O., ed. 1975. Missal de Mateus: manuscrito 1000 da Biblioteca Pública e Arquivo Distrital de Braga. Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian. Branner, Robert. 1969. “The ‘Soissons Bible’ Paintshop in Thirteenth-Century Paris.” Speculum 44: 13–34. Branner, Robert. 1972. “The Johannes Grusch Atelier and the Continental Origins of the William of Devon Painter.” The Art Bulletin 54: 24–30. Branner, Robert. 1977. Manuscript Painting in Paris during the Reign of Saint Louis. Berkeley: University of California Press. Braun, Joseph. 1932. Das Christliche Altargerät in seinem sein und in seiner entwicklung. Munich: Max Hueber Verlag. Brett, Edward Tracy. 1984. Humbert of Romans: His Life and Views of Thirteenth-Century Society. Studies and Texts 67. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Brieger, Peter H. 1957. English Art, 1216–1307. The Oxford History of English Art 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Brightman, F.E. 1921. The English Rite: Being a Synopsis of the Sources and Revisions of the Book of Common Prayer, with an Introduction and an Appendix. 2nd ed. London: Rivingtons. Brinktrine, Johannes. 1930. “Zur Deutung des Wortes Secreta.” Ephemerides Liturgicae 44: 291–95. British Library. 2001. The British Library Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts. New Series. 1971–1975. Part 1. Descriptions. London: The British Library. British Library. n.d. “Detailed Record for Harley 1748.” Text. Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts. The British Library. http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/ illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=3549&CollID=8&NStart=1748. British Museum. 1759. A Catalogue of the Harleian Collection of Manuscripts, Purchased by Authority of Parliament, for the Use of the Publick; and Preserved in the British Museum. 2 vols. London: Dryden Leach. British Museum. 1808. A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts, in the British Museum. Vol. 1. London. Brosset-Heckel, Edward. 1929. Albert Rosset 1862–1928. Société des bibliophiles lyonnois. Lyon: Chez le Trésorier-Archiviste de la Société. Bruylants, Placide. 1952. Les oraisons du Missel Romain: texte et histoire. 2 vols. Louvain: Centre de Documentation et d’Information Liturgiques. Bruylants, Placide. 1966. “Les préfaces du missel romain.” La Maison-Dieu 87: 111–33. Buchinger, Harald. 2011. “Die Johannes-Apokalypse im christlichen Gottesdienst: Sondierungen in Liturgie und Ikonographie.” In Ancient Christian Interpretations of “violent texts” in the Apocalypse, edited by Joseph Verheyden, Tobias Nicklas, and Andreas Merkt, 216–66. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Buchinger, Harald. 2016. “Gregorian Chant’s Imagined Past, with Yet Another Look at the Roman Lenten Repertoire.” In Liturgy’s Imagined Past/s, edited by Teresa Berger and Bryan D. Spinks, 143–75. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. Buchinger, Harald, Ágnes Tóthné Mihálykó, Susan Boynton, Hannah Cleugh, Innocent Smith, and George D. Chryssides. 2018. “Liturgical Books: Christianity.” In Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, 16:848–57. Berlin: De Gruyter. Byrnes, Aquinas, ed. 1943. The Hymns of the Dominican Missal and Breviary. St. Louis: Herder. Cabrol, Fernand. 1910. “Baiser.” In Dictionnaire d’Archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, edited by Fernand Cabrol and Henri Leclercq, 2,1:117–30. Paris: Letouzey et Ané. Caleca, Antonino. 1994. “Le miniature nei manoscritti e negli incunabuli della Bibliotheca Cathariniana di Pisa.” In Libraria nostra communis: manoscritti e incunaboli della Bibliotheca Cathariniana di Pisa. Pisa: Tacchi. Calendarium Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli Pp. VI promulgatum. 1969. Vatican City: Typis polyglottis Vaticanis. Callebaut, André. 1927. “Influence de l’Oraison de l’office de S. François sur celle de S. Dominique.” Archivum franciscanum historicum 20: 213–15. Cannon, Joanna. 2014. Religious Poverty, Visual Riches: Art in the Dominican Churches of Central Italy in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. New Haven: Yale University Press. Capelle, Bernard. 1942. “Les origines de la préface romaine de la vierge.” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 46–58. Carmassi, Patrizia. 2016. “Der Heilige Geist in handschriftlichen liturgischen Quellen des Mittelalters.” In Aisthetics of the Spirits, 31–59. Göttingen: V&R unipress. Casavecchia, Roberta, Marilena Maniaci, and Giulia Orofino. 2021. La Bibbia a Montecassino. Turnhout: Brussels. Catalogue. 1842. Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale des Ducs de Bourgogne. 3 vols. Brussels: C. Muquardt.

454 

 Bibliography

Catalogue. 1894. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France : Départements–Tomes XXV. Poitiers–Valenciennes. Paris: Plon. Catalogus. 1744. Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae. Pars tertia. Tomus tertius. Paris: E Typographia Regia. Catel, Guillaume de. 1633. Mémoires de l’histoire du Languedoc. Toulouse: Pierre Bosc. Catholic Church. 1598. Biblia sacra vulgatae editionis Sixti V. P.M. iussu recognita atque edita. Rome: Ex Typographia Vaticana. Catholic Church. 2015. Divine Worship: The Missal. London: Catholic Truth Society. Cazes, Quitterie. 1998. Le quartier canonial de la cathédrale Saint-Étienne de Toulouse. Carcassone: Centre d’Archéologie Médiévale du Languedoc. Cepeda, Isabel Vilares, and Teresa Ferreira, eds. 1994. Inventário dos códices iluminados até 1500: Distrito de Lisboa. Lisbon: Biblioteca Nacional Portugal. Chailley, Jacques. 1984. “‘Ut queant laxis’ et les Origines de la Gamme.” Acta Musicologica 56 (1): 48–69. Chase, Nathan. 2021. “A Frayed Tapestry: The Future of the Western Non-Roman Rites.” Questions Liturgiques 101: 27–74. Chavasse, Antoine. 1993. Les Lectionnaires romains de la messe au VIIe et au VIIIe siècle: sources et dérivés. 2 vols. Spicilegii Friburgensis Subsidia 22. Fribourg, Suisse: Editions universitaires. Cheney, Christopher R. 1976. Pope Innocent III and England. Päpste und Papsttum 9. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann. Choy, Renie S. 2016. Intercessory Prayer and the Monastic Ideal in the Time of the Carolingian Reforms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chrisomalis, Stephen. 2010. Numerical Notation: A Comparative History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Christie’s. 2000. The Library of William Foyle. Part 1: Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts (11 July 2000). London: Christie’s. Christie’s. 2011. “BIBLE with Prologues and the Interpretation of Hebrew Names, in Latin, ILLUMINATED MANUSCRIPT ON VELLUM [Lot 7].” Christie’s. June 8, 2011. https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5447962. Christie’s. 2012. Valuable Printed Books and Manuscripts. Wednesday 13 June 2012. London: Christie’s. Clapp, Clifford B., and Florence Wood. 1947. A Catalogue of the T. Edward Ross Collection of Bibles Presented to the University of Pennsylvania Library in Memory of Lucien Bonaparte Carpenter. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Library. Cleaver, Laura. 2020. “Charles William Dyson Perrins as a Collector of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts c. 1900–1920” Perspectives Médiévales 41. https://journals.openedition.org/peme/19776. Clément, Nicolas. 1680. “Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum hebraicorum, syriacorum, arabicorum, turcicorum, persicorum, græcorum, latinorum, italicorum, gallicorum, etc. Bibliothecæ Regiæ.” Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, NAF 5402. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8452804g/f309. image. Cockerell, Sydney Carlyle. 1930. The Work of W. de Brailes, an English Illuminator of the Thirteenth Century. Cambridge: Printed for presentation to the members of the Roxburghe club. Collins, Alexander. 2016. “The Mass Magnified: The Large Missal in England and France c. 1350–c. 1450.” Ph.D. diss., Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Collins, Alexander. 2021. “‘Do It Well and Thoroughly, for It Will Be Shown to Important People’: Art in the English Dominican Province, ca.1221– ca.1540.” In A Companion to the English Dominican Province: From Its Beginnings to the Reformation, edited by Eleanor Giraud and Cornelia Linde, 305–42. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 97. Leiden: Brill. Collins, John F. 1985. A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. Collon, M. 1900. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France : Départements–Tomes XXXVII. Tours. Première partie. Paris: Plon. Colunga, A. 1921. “De codice liturgico in conventu Salmanticense asservato.” Analecta Sacri Ordinis Praedicatorum 29: 28–29. Colunga, Alberto, and Laurentio Turrado, eds. 1965. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementiam. 4th ed. Madrid: Biblioteca de autores cristianos. Connolly, Margaret. 2009. The Index of Middle English Prose: Handlist XIX: Manuscripts in the University Library, Cambridge (Dd-Oo). Cambridge: D.S. Brewer. Correia, Francisco. 1986. “Inventário da colecção dos Manuscritos iluminados da Biblioteca Nacional.” Bibliotecas, Arquivos e Museus 2 (1): 287–397. Coxe, Henry O. 1854. Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecæ Bodleianæ pars tertia codices Græcos et Latinos Canonicianos complectens. Oxford: E Typographeo Academico. Cowie, Morgan. 1843. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts and Scarce Books in the Library of St. John’s College, Cambridge. Vol. 2. Publications of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 8. Cambridge: Deighton and Stevenson. Creytens, Raymond. 1948. “Les constitutions des Frères Précheurs dans la rédaction de s. Raymond de Peñafort (1241).” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 18: 5–68. Dahan, Gilbert. 1996. “Lexiques hébreu/latin? Les receuils d’interprétations des noms hébraiques.” In Les manuscrits des lexiques et glossaires de l’antiquité tardive à la fin du Moyen Age, edited by Jacqueline Hamesse, 481–526. Textes et études du Moyen Age 4. Louvain-la-Neuve: Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’Études Médiévales. Dahan, Gilbert. 2004. “Les texts bibliques dans le lectionnaire du prototype de la liturgie dominicaine.” In Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L1, edited by Leonard E. Boyle, Pierre-Marie Gy, and Pawełs Krupa, 159–82. Documents, Études et Répertoires 67. Paris: CNRS Editions. D’Aiuto, Francesco, and Paolo Vian, eds. 2011. Guida ai Fondi Manoscritti, Numismatici, a Stampa della Biblioteca Vaticana. I: Dipartimento Manoscritti. Studi e testi 466. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Dales, Douglas. 2012. Alcuin: His Life and Legacy. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co. Dales, Douglas. 2013. Alcuin: Theology and Thought. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co. Davis, Lisa Fagin. 2012. “Boston Public Library Special Collections MS q. Med. 202.” Unpublished manuscript description. d’Avray, D.L. 1985. The Preaching of the Friars: Sermons Diffused from Paris before 1300. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dearden, James S. 2012. The Library of John Ruskin. Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical Society. de Bruyne, Donatien. 1929. “Le prologue, le titre et la finale de l’Ecclesiastique.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 47: 257–63. de Bruyne, Donatien. 2014. Summaries, Divisions and Rubrics of the Latin Bible. Studia Traditionis Theologiae 18. Turnhout: Brepols.

Bibliography 

 455

de Bruyne, Donatien. 2015. Prefaces to the Latin Bible. Studia Traditionis Theologiae 19. Turnhout: Brepols. de Hamel, Christopher. 1986. A History of Illuminated Manuscripts. Oxford: Phaidon. de Hamel, Christopher. 1994. A History of Illuminated Manuscripts. 2nd edn. London: Phaidon. de Hamel, Christopher. 2001. The Book: A History of the Bible. London: Phaidon. de Hamel, Christopher. 2010. Gilding the Lilly: A Hundred Medieval and Illuminated Manuscripts in the Lilly Library. Bloomington, IN: The Lilly Library. de Ricci, Seymour, and W.J. Wilson. 1935. Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada. Vol. 1. New York: H.W. Wilson. de Ricci, Seymour, and W.J. Wilson. 1937. Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada. Vol. 2. New York: H.W. Wilson. de Ricci, Seymour, and W.J. Wilson. 1940. Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada. Vol. 3. New York: H.W. Wilson. Delisle, Léopold. 1870. “Inventaire des manuscrits latins de la Sorbonne, conservés à la Bibliothèque impériale sous les numéros 15176–16718 du fonds latin.” Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes31: 1–50, 135–61. Denis, Michael. 1799. Codices Manuscripti Bibliothecae Palatinae Vindobonensis Latini Aliarumque Occidentis Linguarum. Vol. 2. Pars 1. Vienna. Deshusses, Jean. 1972. “Les messes d’Alcuin.” Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 14: 7–41. Deshusses, Jean. 1982. “Les sacramentaires: Etat actuel de la recherche.” Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 24: 19–46. Deshusses, Jean, ed. 1988. Le sacramentaire grégorien: ses principales formes d’après les plus anciens manuscrits: Textes complémentaires pour la messe. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Spicilegium Friburgense 24. Fribourg: Éditions universitaires. Deshusses, Jean, ed. 1992. Le sacramentaire grégorien: ses principales formes d’après les plus anciens manuscrits: Textes complémentaires divers. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Spicilegium Friburgense 16. Fribourg: Éditions universitaires. Deshusses, Jean, ed. 1992. Le sacramentaire grégorien: ses principales formes d’après les plus anciens manuscrits: Le sacramentaire, le supplement d’Aniane. 2nd ed. Vol. 3. Spicilegium Friburgense 28. Fribourg: Éditions universitaires. Deshusses, Jean, and Benoit Darragon, eds. 1983. Concordances et tableaux pour l’étude des grands sacramentaires. 6 vols. Spicilegii Friburgensis Subsidia 12. Fribourg: Editions universitaires. Devine, Alexander L. 2016. “A Portable Feast: The Production and Use of the Thirteenth-Century Portable Bible 1200–1500.” Ph.D. diss., Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Diago, Francisco. 1600. Historia de la vida, milagros, muerte y discipulos del bienaventurado predicador apostólico valenciano San Vicente Ferrer de la Orden de Predicadores. Barcelona: Gabriel Graells y Giraldo Dotil. Dick, Klaus. 1955. “Einleitungs- und Schlußformeln in der Perikopenlesung der römischen Messe.” Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 4: 73–80. Dickinson, Francis Henry. 1861–1883. Missale Ad Usum Insignis et Praeclarae Ecclesiae Sarum. Burntisland: E Prelo de Pitsligo. Dirks, Ansgar. 1952. “Ordo Missae secundum Ritum Fratrum Praedicatorum.” Analecta Sacri Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum 30: 291–306. Dirks, Ansgar. 1971. “De oratione beati Dominici.” Analecta Ordinis Praedicatorum 79: 167–69. Dirks, Ansgar. 1979. “De tribus libris manu scriptis primaevae liturgiae dominicanae.” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 49: 5–37. Dirks, Ansgar. 1980. “De evolutione liturgiae dominicanae.” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 50: 5–21. Dirks, Ansgar. 1982. “De liturgiae dominicanae evolutione.” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 52: 5–76. Dirks, Ansgar. 1983. “De liturgiae dominicanae evolutione.” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 53: 53–145. Dirks, Ansgar. 1984. “De liturgiae dominicanae evolutione.” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 54: 39–82. Dirks, Ansgar. 1985. “De liturgiae dominicanae evolutione.” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 55: 5–47. Dirks, Ansgar. 1987. “De liturgiae dominicanae evolutione.” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 57: 25–30. Dirkse, Saskia, Patrick Andrist, and Martin Wallraff. 2019. “Structural Visualization of Manuscripts (StruViMan): Principles, Methods, Prospects.” Open Theology 5: 249–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2019–0009. Doležalová, Lucie. 2013. “The Summarium Biblicum: A Biblical Tool Both Popular and Obscure.” In Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, edited by Eyal Poleg and Laura Light, 163–84. Leiden: Brill. Domínguez Bordona, Jesús. 1933. Manuscritos con pinturas; notas para un inventario de los conservados en colecciones públicas y particulares de España. 2 vols. Fichero de arte antiguo. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Históricos. Donovan, Claire. 1990. “The Mise-En-Page of Early Books of Hours in England.” In Medieval Book Production: Assessing the Evidence: Proceedings of the Second Conference of the Seminar in the History of the Book to 1500, Oxford, July 1988, edited by Linda L. Brownrigg, 147–61. Los Altos Hills: Anderson-Lovelace. Donovan, Claire. 1991. The de Brailes Hours: Shaping the Book of Hours in Thirteenth-Century Oxford. London: British Library. Dorange, Auguste. 1875. Catalogue descriptif et raisonné des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque de Tours. Tours: Jules Bouserez. Dormer, Sally. 2020. “The Virgin and Child in the Map Psalter (London, British Library Additional MS 28681).” In Illuminating the Middle Ages: Tributes to Prof. John Lowden from His Students, Friends and Colleagues, edited by Laura Cleaver, Alixe Bovey, and Lucy Donkin, 164–81. The Manuscript World 12. Leiden: Brill. Dorofeeva, Anna. 2019. “Visualizing Codicologically and Textually Complex Manuscripts.” Journal for Manuscript Studies 4 (2): 334–60. Douteil, Herbert, ed. 1976. Iohannis Beleth. Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis. Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 41–41A. Turnhout: Brepols. Dreves, Guido Maria, ed. 1890. Liturgische Prosen des Mittelalters aus Handschriften und Wiegendrucken. Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi 8. Leipzig: Reisland. Driscoll, Michael S. 1999. Alcuin et la pénitence à l’époque carolingienne. Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen 81. Münster: Aschendorff. Droosten, P. H. 1904. “Proems of Liturgical Lections and Gospels.” The Journal of Theological Studies 6 (21): 99–106. Drouot 1960. Précieux manuscrits à peintures: du XIIIe au XVIIe siècle … Vente à Paris, Hôtel Drouot, le 17 juin 1960. Paris: Hôtel Drouot. Dubreil-Arcin, Agnès. 2011. Vies de saints, légendes de soi: L’écriture hagiographique dominicaine jusqu’au Speculum sanctorale de Bernard Gui († 1331). Turnhout: Brepols. Duffy, Eamon. 2005. The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c. 1400–c. 1580. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

456 

 Bibliography

Duggan, Anne J. 2005. “A Becket Office at Stavelot: London, British Library, Additional MS 16964.” In Omnia Disce: Medieval Studies in Memory of Leonard Boyle, O.P., edited by Anne J. Duggan, Joan Greatrex, and Brenda Bolton, 161–82. Aldershot: Ashgate. Dutschke, C. W., Richard H. Rouse, and Mirella Ferrari. 1986. Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Claremont Libraries. Berkeley: University of California Press. Dutschke, Consuelo W. 1989. Guide to Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Huntington Library. San Marino: Huntington Library. Duval-Arnould, Louis. 1981. “Un missel du Mont-Cassin chez les chanoines du Saint-Sauveur de Bologne (Vat. lat. 6082).” Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia 35: 450–55. Dyer, Joseph. 1998. “‘Tropis Semper Variantibus’: Compositional Strategies in the Offertories of Old Roman Chant.” Early Music History 17: 1–60. Dyer, Joseph. 2012. “The Bible in the Medieval Liturgy, c. 600–1300.” In The New Cambridge History of the Bible 2: From 600 to 1450, by Richard Marsden and E. Ann Matter, 659–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dyer, Joseph. 2018. “Sources of Romano-Frankish Liturgy and Music.” In The Cambridge History of Medieval Music, 92–122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dyer, Joseph, Kenneth Levy, and Dimitri Conomos. 2018. “Liturgy and Liturgical Books.” Grove Music Online. March 20, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/ gmo/9781561592630.article.40071. Ebner, Adalbert. 1896. Quellen und forschungen zur geschichte und kunstgeschichte des missale romanum im mittelalter: Iter italicum. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Ehrensberger, Hugo. 1889. Bibliotheca liturgica manuscripta nach Handschriften der Grossherzoglich Badischen Hof- und Landesbibliothek. Karlsruhe. Eizenhöfer, Leo, ed. 1954. Canon missae Romanae: Pars prior: Traditio Textus. Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta, Series minor, subsidia studiorum 1. Rome: Orbis Catholicus. Eleen, Luba. 1982. The Illustration of the Pauline Epistles in French and English Bibles of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ellard, Gerald. 1940. “Alcuin and Some Favored Votive Masses.” Theological Studies 1: 37–61. Ellard, Gerald. 1941. “The Odyssey of a Familiar Prayer.” Theological Studies 2: 221–41. Ellard, Gerald. 1956. Master Alcuin, Liturgist. Chicago: Loyola University Press. Esponera Cerdán, Alfonso, ed. 2018. Proceso de canonización del maestro Vicente Ferrer O.P. Valencia: Facultad de Teología San Vicente Ferrer. Ettlinger, Emil. 1900. “Geschichte der Bibliothek von St. Peter im Schwarzwalde unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Handschriftenbestandes.” Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins Neue Folge. Band XV: 611–41. Faider, Paul, and Germaine Faider-Feytmans. 1931. Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque publique de la ville de Mons. Ghent: Van Rysselberghe and Rombaut. Fagès, Pierre-Henri. 1901. Histoire de saint Vincent Ferrier, apôtre de l’Europe. 2 vols. Paris: Picard. Fagès, Pierre-Henri. 1905. Notes et documents de l’histoire de saint Vincent Ferrier. Paris: Picard. Fassler, Margot E. 2004. “Music and the miraculous: Mary in the mid-thirteenth-century Dominican sequence repertory.” In Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L1, edited by Leonard E. Boyle, Pierre-Marie Gy, and Pawełs Krupa, 229–78. Documents, Études et Répertoires 67. Paris: CNRS Editions. Fassler, Margot E. 2010. Virgin of Chartres: Making History through Liturgy and the Arts. New Haven: Yale University Press. Favreau, Robert, and Jean Michaud, eds. 1982. Ville de Toulouse. Corpus des inscriptions de la France médiévale 7. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Faye, C.U., and W.H. Bond. 1962. Supplement to the Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada. New York: The Bibliographical Society of America. Ferrarini, Giuseppe Maria Felice. 1732. Ragguaglio istorico della vita appostolica e taumaturga di s. Vincenzo Ferreri. Milan: Guiseppe Pandolpho Malatesta. Ferrini, Bruce P. 1987. Important Western Medieval Illuminated Manuscripts and Illuminated Leaves. Akron: Bruce P. Ferrini Rare Books. Feuardent, François. 1582. Liber Ruth, F. Francisci Feu-Ardentii, ordinis minorum, Parisiensis theologi, commentariis explicatus. Paris: Nivellium. Fiala, Virgil. 1947. “Der Ordo missae im Vollmissale des Cod. Vat. lat. 6082 aus dem Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts.” In Zeugnis des Geistes, 180–224. Beuron: Beuroner Kunstverlag. Fiddyment, Sarah, Bruce Holsinger, Chiara Ruzzier, Alexander Devine, Annelise Binois, Umberto Albarella, Roman Fischer, et al. 2015. “Animal Origin of 13th-Century Uterine Vellum Revealed Using Noninvasive Peptide Fingerprinting.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (49): 15066–71. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1512264112. Fiero, Gloria K. 1982. “Prayer Imagery in a 14th Century Franciscan Missal (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 313).” Franciscan Studies 42: 21–47. Fink-Errera, Guy. 1962. “Une institution du monde médiéval : la « pecia ».” Revue Philosophique de Louvain 60: 184–243. Fleury, Paul de. 1867. “Inventaire analytique et descriptif de manuscrits de la Bibliothèque de Poitiers.” Mémoires de la Société des antiquaires de l’Ouest 32: 131–215. Fogg, Sam. 1989. Catalogue 12: Medieval Manuscripts. London: Sam Fogg Rare Books. Fogg, Sam. 2014. Medieval Manuscripts: Art and Ownership. London: Sam Fogg. Földváry, Miklós István. 2023. “Continuity and Discontinuity in Local Liturgical Uses.” Ephemerides Liturgicae 137: 3–34. Fontanini, Giusto, ed. 1729. Codex Constitutionum quas summi Pontifices ediderunt in solemni canonizatione Sanctorum : a Johanne XV. ad Benedictum XIII., sive ab A. D. 993 ad A. D. 1729. Rome. Forbes, George Hay, ed. 1882. Missale Drummondiense: The Ancient Irish Missal in the Possession of the Baroness Willoughby de Eresby, Drummond Castle, Perthshire. Burntisland: Pitsligo Press. Foreville, Raymonde, and Gillian Keir, eds. 1987. The Book of St Gilbert. Oxford Medieval Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bibliography 

 457

Fossier, François. 1979. “Premières recherches sur les manuscrits latins du cardinal Marcello Cervini (1501–1555).” Mélanges de l’école française de Rome 91 (1): 381–456. Franceschini, Ezio. 1934. “Intorno ad alcune opere di Roberto Grossatesta, Vescovo di Lincoln.” Aevum 8: 529–42. Frank, Isnard Wilhelm. 1993. Das Totenbuch des Mainzer Dominikanerklosters. Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Dominikanerordens: Neue Folge 3 Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Frank, Isnard Wilhelm. 1995. “Ordensarmut und missae speciales bei den spätmittelalterlichen Mendikantenorden.” In Vorgeschmack: Ökumenische Bemühungen um die Eucharistie. Festschrift für Theodor Schneider, edited by Bernd Jochen Hilberath and Dorothea Sattler, 208–24. Mainz: MatthiasGrünewald-Verlag. Franklin, Alfred. 1867. Les anciennes bibliothèques de Paris. Vol. 1. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale. Frede, Hermann Josef, ed. 1975. Epistulae ad Thessalonicenses, Timotheum, Titum, Philemonem, Hebraeos. Vetus Latina 25/1. Freiburg: Herder. Frede, Hermann Josef, and Herbert Stanjek. 1996–1997. Sedulii Scotti Collectaneum in apostolum. Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel 31–32. Freiburg: Herder. Frere, Walter Howard. 1901. Bibliotheca Musico-Liturgica: A Descriptive Handlist of the Musical and Latin-Liturgical Mss. of the Middle Ages Preserved in the Libraries of Great Britain and Ireland. Vol. 1. London: Plainsong and Mediæval Music Society. Frere, Walter Howard. 1932. Bibliotheca Musico-Liturgica: A Descriptive Handlist of the Musical and Latin-Liturgical Mss. of the Middle Ages Preserved in the Libraries of Great Britain and Ireland. Vol. 2. London: Plainsong and Mediæval Music Society. Frere, Walter Howard. 1935. Studies in the Early Roman Liturgy III: The Roman Epistle Lectionary. Alcuin Club Collections 32. London: Oxford University Press. Friedberg, Emil, and Aemilius Ludwig Richter, eds. 1879. Corpus iuris canonici. 2 vols. Leipzig: Bernhardi Tauchnitz. Fruytier, J. 1924. “Hees (Petrus).” In Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek, edited by P.J. Blok and P.C. Molhuysen, 6:744. Leiden: Sijthoff. Galbraith, G.R. 1925. The Constitution of the Dominican Order 1216 to 1360. Publications of the University of Manchester Historical Series 44. Manchester: University Press. Gamber, Klaus. 1968. Codices liturgici Latini antiquiores. Secunda editio aucta. Spicilegii Friburgensis Subsidia 1. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz. Gamber, Klaus, and Sieghild Rehle, eds. 1985. Das Sakramentar-Pontifikale des Bischofs Wolfgang von Regensburg : (Verona, Bibl. Cap., Cod. LXXXVII). Textus patristici et liturgici 15. Regensburg: Pustet. Gameson, Richard, ed. 1994. The Early Medieval Bible: Its Production, Decoration, and Use. Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ganz, David. 2012. “Carolingian Bibles.” In The New Cambridge History of the Bible 2: From 600 to 1450, by Richard Marsden and E. Ann Matter, 325–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ganz, David, and Barbara Schellewald, eds. 2019. Clothing Sacred Scriptures: Book Art and Book Religion in Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Cultures. Manuscripta Biblica 2. Berlin: De Gruyter. Gardner, Julian. 2013. The Roman Crucible: The Artistic Patronage of the Papacy, 1198–1304. Römische Forschungen der Bibliotheca Hertziana, Band XXXIII. München: Hirmer Verlag. Garrison, Edward B. 1979. “Random Notes on Early Italian Manuscripts II.” La Bibliofilía 81 (1): 1–22. Gauthier, Marie-Dominique. 2005. “L’initiale introductive du livre de la Genèse dans une Bible d’Hauterive : une œuvre de l’atelier de Blanche?” In “Tout le temps du veneour est sanz oyseuseté”: Mélanges offerts à Yves Christe pour son 65ème anniversaire par ses amis, ses collègues, ses élèves, 33–54. Culture et société médiévales 8. Turnhout: Brepols. Gerard de Frachet. 1896. Vitae fratrum Ordinis Praedicatorum, necnon cronica ordinis ab anno MCCIII usque ad MCCLIV. Edited by Benedictus Maria Reichert. Monumenta ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum historica. Louvain: E. Charpentier. Gertrude of Helfta. 1968. Œuvres spirituelles. Tome II. Le héraux (Livres I et II). Edited by Pierre Doyère. Sources Chrétiennes 139. Paris: Cerf. Gertrude of Helfta. 1993. The Herald of Divine Love. Edited by Margaret Winkworth. Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press. Gesche, Bonifatia, ed. 2005. Ruth. Vetus Latina 4/5. Freiburg: Herder. Gignac, (André) Louis-Marie. 1959. “Le sanctoral dominicain et les origines de la liturgie dominicaine.” [Thèse présentée pour la Maîtrise en liturgie], Paris: Institut catholique de Paris, Institut supérieur de liturgie. Gimeno Blay, Francisco M. 2020. “Una biblia de San Vicente Ferrer en Pisa.” In Frailes, santos y devociones: historias dominicanas en homenaje al Profesor Alfonso Esponera, edited by Emilio Callado Estela, 15–37. Valencia: Tirant Humanidades. Giraud, Eleanor. 2013. “The Production and Notation of Dominican Manuscripts in Thirteenth-Century Paris.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge. Giraud, Eleanor. 2015. “The Dominican Scriptorium at Saint-Jacques, and Its Production of Liturgical Exemplars.” In Scriptorium: Wesen, Funktion, Eigenheiten, edited by Andreas Nievergelt, 247–58. München: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Giraud, Eleanor. 2017. “Melodic Lection Marks in Latin Manuscripts for Mass.” Scriptorium: revue internationale des études relatives aux manuscrits 71: 3–37. Giraud, Eleanor. 2018. “Totum Officium Bene Correctum Habeatur in Domo: Uniformity in the Dominican Liturgy.” In Making and Breaking the Rules: Discussion, Implementation, and Consequences of Dominican Legislation, edited by Cornelia Linde, 153–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giraud, Eleanor. 2021a. “Dominican Chant and Liturgical Practices in the English Province.” In A Companion to the English Dominican Province: From Its Beginnings to the Reformation, edited by Eleanor Giraud and Cornelia Linde, 343–369. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 97. Leiden: Brill. Giraud, Eleanor. 2021b. “Dominican Mass Books before Humbert of Romans.” In The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music and Liturgy, edited by Eleanor Giraud and Christian Leitmeir, 299–320. Turnhout: Brepols. Giraud, Eleanor. 2022. “The Dominicans and Their Identity in Medieval Britain and Ireland: Evidence from Dominican Gospel Lections.” In Music and Liturgy in Medieval Britain and Ireland, edited by Ann Buckley and Lisa Colton, 269–291. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

458 

 Bibliography

Giraud, Eleanor, and Christian Leitmeir, eds. 2021. The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music and Liturgy. Turnhout: Brepols. Giraud, Eleanor, and Cornelia Linde, eds. 2021. A Companion to the English Dominican Province: From Its Beginnings to the Reformation. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 97. Leiden: Brill. Gleeson, Philip. 1969. “Early Dominican Liturgical Documents from the Period before the Correction of Humbert of Romans.” S.T.D. diss., Paris: L’Institut Catholique de Paris. Gleeson, Philip. 1972. “Dominican Liturgical Manuscripts from before 1254.” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 42: 81–135. Gleeson, Philip. 2004. “The pre-Humbertian liturgical sources revisited.” In Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L1, edited by Leonard E. Boyle, Pierre-Marie Gy, and Pawełs Krupa, 99–114. Documents, Études et Répertoires 67. Paris: CNRS Editions. Gneuss, Helmut. 1985. “Liturgical Books in Anglo-Saxon England and Their Old English Terminology.” In Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England, edited by Michael Lapidge and Helmut Gneuss, 91–141. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gousset, Marie-Thérèse. 2004. “La décoration du ‘Prototype’ et des manuscrits liturgiques apparentés.” In Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L1, edited by Leonard E. Boyle, Pierre-Marie Gy, and Pawełs Krupa, 43–57. Documents, Études et Répertoires 67. Paris: CNRS Editions. Graesse, Johann Georg Theodor, Benedict Friedrich, Helmut Plechl, and Sophie-Charlotte Plechl, eds. 1972. Orbis latinus: Lexikon lateinischer geographischer Namen des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit. 3 vols. Braunschweig: Klinkhardt & Biermann. Guerrini, Franciscus-M., ed. 1921. Ordinarium juxta ritum Sacri Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum jussu rev.mi patris fr. Ludovici Theissling eiusdem ordinis magistri generalis editum. Rome: Apud Collegium Angelicum. Gumbert, Jean-Pierre. 2001. “Livre grand, livre petit : un problème de taille.” Gazette du livre médiéval 38 (1): 55–58. Gurrado, Maria. 2013. “La liturgie de Notre-Dame dans le royaume de Naples: les manuscrits de Saint-Nicolas de Bari.” In Notre-Dame de Paris 1163–2013, edited by Cédric Giraud, 301–18. Turnhout: Brepols. Gy, Pierre-Marie. 1984. “La Bible dans la liturgie au Moyen Age.” In Le Moyen Age et la Bible, edited by Pierre Riché and Guy Lobrichon, 537–52. Bible de tous les temps 4. Paris: Beauchesne. Haelewyck, Jean-Claude, ed. 2003. Hester. Vetus Latina 7/3. Freiburg: Herder. Haller, Robert B. 1977. “The Arthur Rau Missal: A Preliminary Investigation.” M.A. Thesis, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America. Haller, Robert B. 1986. “Early Dominican Mass Chants: A Witness to Thirteenth Century Chant Style.” PhD diss., Washington: The Catholic University of America. Halm, Carolus, and Gulielmus Meyer. 1881. Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis. Tomi II Pars IV. Codices Num. 21406–27268. Munich: Bibliothecae Regiae. Hartmann, Martina. 2001. Humanismus und Kirchenkritik: Matthias Flacius Illyricus als Erforscher des Mittelalters. Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke Verlag. Heiming, Odilo. 1949. “Die mailändischen sieben Votivmessen für die einzelnen Tage der Woche und der Liber Sacramentorum des Alkuin.” In Miscellanea liturgica in honorem L. Cuniberti Mohlberg, 2:317–39.Bibliotheca “Ephemerides liturgicae” 23. Rome: Edizioni liturgiche. Heinemann, Otto von. 1888. Die Handschriften der Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel. Erste Abtheilung. Die Helmstedter Handschriften. III. Wolfenbüttel: Zwissler. Heinzer, Felix, and Gerhard Stamm. 1984. “St. Peter perg. 20: Missale Dominicanum.” In Handschriften von St. Peter im Schwarzwald: Die Pergamenthandschriften, 49–50. Die Handschriften der Badischen Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe, 10,2. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Herman, Nicholas. 2020. “Material Present: Collecting Late Medieval and Early Modern Object in (and around) Philadelphia.” In Making the Renaissance Manuscript: Discoveries from Philadelphia Libraries, 1–55. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Libraries. Hermann, Julius H. 1935. Die westeuropäischen Handschriften und Inkunabeln der Gotik und Renaissance – mit Ausnahme der niederländischen Handschriften. 1. Englische und französische Handschriften des XIII. Jahrhunderts. Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der illuminierten Handschriften in Österreich, VIII/7. Leipzig: Hiersemann. Hesbert, René-Jean. 1931. “La tradition bénéventaine dans la tradition manuscrite.” In Les principaux manuscrits de chant, edited by Joseph Gajard, 60–465. Paléographie musicale 14. Tournai: Desclée. Hesbert, René-Jean, ed. 1935. Antiphonale Missarum sextuplex. Brussels: Vromant. Hesbert, René-Jean. 1963. “Un antique offertoire de la Pentecôte: ‘Factus est repente.’” In Organicae voces: Festschrift Joseph Smits van Waesberghe angeboten anlässlich seines 60. Geburtstages, 18. April 1961, edited by Pieter Fischer, 59–70. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Middeleeuwse Muziekwetenschap. Hesbert, René-Jean, ed. 1963–1979. Corpus antiphonalium officii. Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta, Series major, Fontes 7–12. Rome: Herder. Heusinger, Sabine von, Elias H. Füllenbach, Walter Senner, and Klaus-Bernward Springer, eds. 2016. Die deutschen Dominikaner und Dominikanerinnen im Mittelalter. Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Dominikanerordens: Neue Folge 21. Berlin: De Gruyter. Hiley, David. 1993. Western Plainchant: A Handbook. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hinnebusch, William Aquinas. 1966. The History of the Dominican Order: Origins and Growth to 1500. Staten Island: Alba House. Hinnebusch, William Aquinas. 1973. The History of the Dominican Order: The Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500. Staten Island: Alba House. Hobson, Anthony. 1976. “Manuscripts Captured at Vitoria.” In Cultural Aspects of the Italian Renaissance: Essays in Honour of Paul Oskar Kristeller, edited by Cecil H. Clough, 485–96. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Horowski, Aleksander. 2016. “Testi liturgici su san Francesco nel secolo XIII: a proposito del ‘Franciscus liturgicus’ e delle ‘Fonti liturgiche francescane.’” Collectanea Franciscana 86: 291–334. Houghton, H.A.G. 2016. The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Houghton, H.A.G., ed. 2023. The Oxford Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hugh of St. Cher. 1940. Tractatus super missam: seu Speculum Ecclesiae. Edited by Gustave Gisbert Sölch. Opuscula et textus historiam ecclesiae eiusque vitam atque doctrinam illustrantia 9. Münster: Aschendorff.

Bibliography 

 459

Hughes, Andrew. 1995. Medieval Manuscripts for Mass and Office: A Guide to Their Organization and Terminology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hughes, Andrew. 2004. “Echoes and Allusions: Sources of the Office for St Dominic.” In Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L1, edited by Leonard E. Boyle, Pierre-Marie Gy, and Pawełs Krupa, 279–300. Documents, Études et Répertoires 67. Paris: CNRS Editions. Hughes, Anselm. 1963. The Bec Missal. Henry Bradshaw Society 94. London: Henry Bradshaw Society. Huglo, Michel. 1988. Les livres de chant liturgique. Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental 52. Turnhout: Brepols. Huglo, Michel. 2004. Les manuscrits du processionnal. 2 vols. Répertoire international des sources musicales B/XIV/1–2. Munich: G. Henle. Humphreys, K.W. 1964. The Book Provisions of the Medieval Friars 1215–1400. Amsterdam: Erasmus Booksellers. Husmann, Heinrich. 1967. “Ein Faszikel Notre-Dame-Kompositionen auf Texte des Pariser Kanzlers Philipp in einer Dominikanerhandschrift (Rom, Santa Sabina XIV L 3).” Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 24: 1–23. Inventaire. 1839. Inventaire des manuscrits de l’ancienne Bibliothèque Royale des Ducs de Bourgogne. Brussels: Vandooren Frères. Irving, Andrew J. M. 2015. “On the Counting of Mass Books.” Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 57: 24–48. Irving, Andrew J. M. 2021a. “Mass by Design: Design Elements in Early Italian Mass Books.” In Scribes and the Presentation of Texts (from Antiquity to c. 1550), edited by Consuelo Dutschke and Barbara A. Shailor, 251–74. Bibliologia 65. Turnhout: Brepols. Irving, Andrew J. M. 2021b. “Is the Uta Codex a Liturgical Book?” In Gottesdienst in Regensburger Institutionen, edited by Harald Buchinger and Sabine Reichert, 241–93. Forum Mittelalter Studien 18. Regensburg: Verlag Schnell und Steiner. Jackson, Deirdre, Nigel Morgan, and Stella Panayotova, eds. 2015. A Catalogue of Western Book Illumination in the Fitzwilliam Museum and the Cambridge Colleges. Part Three. France. Volume One. c. 1000–c. 1250. Illuminated Manuscripts in Cambridge. London: Harvey Miller. James, Montague Rhodes. 1900. The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. James, Montague Rhodes. 1912. A Descriptive Catalogue of the McClean Collection of Manuscripts in the Fitzwilliam Museum. Cambridge: University Press. James, Montague Rhodes. 1913. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of St John’s College, Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jean de Mailly. 2013. Abbreviatio in gestis et miraculis sanctorum: supplementum hagiographicum: editio princeps. Edited by Giovanni Paolo Maggioni. Millennio medievale 97. Florence: SISMEL. Jerome. 1959. “Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum.” In S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera. Pars I, 1, edited by Paul de Lagarde, 57–161. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 72. Turnhout: Brepols. Jerome. 1969. Commentarii in prophetas minores. Edited by Marc Adriaen. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 76. Turnhout: Brepols. Jerome. 1970. Commentarii in prophetas minores. Edited by Marc Adriaen. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 76A. Turnhout: Brepols. Johnson, Eric J. 2019. “Breaking and Remaking Scripture: The Life, Death, and Afterlife of the Hornby-Cockerell Bible.” Manuscript Studies 4: 270–333. Johnston, Cynthia. 2014a. “The Development of Penflourishing in Manuscripts Produced in England between 1180 and 1280.” Ph.D. diss., London: School of Advanced Study, University of London. Johnston, Cynthia. 2014b. “A Model Community? An Investigation into the Use of Models in the Work of William de Brailes.” In The Use of Models in Medieval Book Painting, 89–110. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Jones, Claire Taylor. 2022. “Negotiating Liturgical Obligations in Late Medieval Dominican Convents.” Church History 91: 20–40. Jullien, Marie-Hélène, and Françoise Perelman, eds. 1999. Clavis des auteurs latins du moyen age territoire français 735–987. Tomus II. Alcuin. Vol. 2.1. Turnhout: Brepols. Jun, W.H. 1844. The Life and Travels of John Pemberton, a Minister of the Gospel of Christ. London: Charles Gilpin. Jungmann, Josef Andreas. 1957. “Der liturgische Wochenzyklus.” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 79: 45–68. Jungmann, Josef Andreas. 1960. “Der liturgische Wochenzyklus.” In Liturgisches Erbe und pastorale Gegenwart: Studien und Vorträge, 332–65. Innsbruck: Tyrolia. Jungmann, Josef Andreas. 1962. Missarum Sollemnia. 5th ed. 2 vols. Freiburg: Herder. Jungmann, Josef Andreas. 1967. “Von der ‘Eucharistia’ zur ‘Messe.’” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 89: 29–40. Louth, Andrew, ed. 2022. “Embolism.” In The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2876. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kamp, Norbert. 1975. “Capocci, Raniero (Raynerius de Viterbio, Rainerius, Ranerius, Reinerius).” In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 18:608–16. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. Katterbach, Bruno, Augustus Pelzer, and Carolus Silva-Tarouca. 1929. Codices Latini Saeculi XIII. Exempla Scripturarum 1. Rome: Apud Bibliothecam Vaticanam. Kauffmann, Claus Michael. 1977. The Bible in British Art: 10th to 20th Centuries. London: Victoria and Albert Museum. Kelly, Thomas Forrest. 1989. The Beneventan Chant. Cambridge Studies in Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kelly, Thomas Forrest. 2016. “Music and Liturgy in Medieval Capua.” In Music and Culture in the Middle Ages and Beyond, edited by Benjamin Brand and David J. Rothenberg, 13–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kendall, John. 1800. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, by Way of Abstract. 2 vols. London: William Phillips. Kennedy, V. L. 1958. “The calendar of the Early Thirteenth Century Curial Missal.” Mediaeval Studies 20: 113–26. Ker, N.R. 1964. Medieval Libraries of Great Britain. 2nd ed. Royal Historical Society Guides and Handbooks 3. London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society. Ker, N.R. 1969. Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ker, N.R. 1977. Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ker, N.R. 1983. Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries. Vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ker, N.R., and A.J. Piper. 1992. Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries. Vol. 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ker, N.R., I.C. Cunningham, and A.G. Watson. 2002. Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries. Vol. 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

460 

 Bibliography

Kessler, Cordula M. 2010. Gotische Buchkultur: dominikanische Handschriften aus dem Bistum Konstanz. Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Dominikanerordens: Neue Folge 17. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Kidd, Peter. 2007. “A Franciscan Bible Illuminated in the Style of William de Brailes.” Electronic British Library Journal, Article 8, 1–20. https://www.bl.uk/ eblj/2007articles/article8.html. Kidd, Peter. 2020. “MS. Lat. Bib. e. 7.” Medieval Manuscripts in Oxford Libraries. March 2020. https://medieval.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/catalog/manuscript_6350. King, David A. 2001. The Ciphers of the Monks: a Forgotten number-notation of the Middle Ages. Boethius. Texte und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Mathematik und der Naturwissenschaften 44. Stuttgart: Steiner. Kienzle, Beverly Mayne, ed. 2000. The Sermon. Typologie des sources du moyen .ge occidental 81–83. Turnhout: Brepols. Klauser, Theodor. 1935. Das Römische Capitulare evangeliorum. Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen 28. Münster: Aschendorff. Kohl, Wilhelm, Ernest Persoons, and Anton G. Weiler, eds. 1976. “Domus sancti Pauli in Rubeavalle.” In Monasticon Windeshemense. Teil I, Belgien, 109–16. Archives et Bibliothèques de Belgique, Numéro spécial 16. Brussels: Archives et Bibliothèques de Belgique. Kohlhaas, Emmanuela. 2001. Musik und Sprache im gregorianischen Gesang. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Kraus, Franz Xaver. 1864. Die Handschriften-Sammlung des Cardinals Nicolaus von Cusa. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel. Kraus, H.P. 1978. A Rare Book Saga. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons. Labitte, Adolphe. 1877. Catalogue des livres rares et précieux composant la bibliothèque de M. Jules Janin, membre de l’Académie française, avec une Préface par M. Louis Ratisbonne. Paris: Adolphe Labitte. Laczkó, Eszter. 2016. “The Liturgical Text as Authority in Pelbartus de Themeswar’s Sermon for the Feast of Saint Francis.” Philobiblon 21 (2): 35–52. Laffitte, Marie-Pierre. 1997. “8884. Missale ad usum Fratrum Praedicatorum.” In Catalogue général des manuscrits latins nos 8823 à 8921, edited by Marie-Pierre Laffitte and Jacqueline Sclafer, 101–3. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Ladner, Paschal. 1983. “Codicologische und liturgische Beschreibung des Graduale von St. Katharinenthal.” In Das Graduale von Sankt Katharinenthal: Kommentar zur Faksimile-Ausgabe des Graduale von Sankt Katharinenthal, 295–325. Luzern: Faksimile-Verlag. Lauer, Philippe, ed. 1939. Catalogue général des manuscrits latins. Vol. 1. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale. Lawrence, Frank. 2007. “What Did They Sing at Cashel in 1172? Winchester, Sarum, and Romano-Frankish Chant in Ireland.” Journal for the Society for Musicology in Ireland 3: 111–25. Law-Turner, Frederica. 2020. “From Warwickshire to New York via Canterbury: The Travels and Tribulations of the Bible of Richard of Sholdon.” In Illuminating the Middle Ages: Tributes to Prof. John Lowden from His Students, Friends and Colleagues, edited by Laura Cleaver, Alixe Bovey, and Lucy Donkin, 241–58. The Manuscript World 12. Leiden: Brill. Leavitt, George A. 1883. Catalogue of the Library of the Late Joseph J. Cooke, of Providence, Rhode Island. The Whole to Be Sold by Auction, at the Clinton Hall Sale Rooms, Tuesday, March 13th, 1883. New York: Geo. A Leavitt & Co., Auctioneers. Legg, J. Wickham. 1916. The Sarum Missal Edited from Three Early Manuscripts. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Leroquais, Victor. 1920. Exposition de manuscrits à peintures du VIe au XVIIe siècle. Lyon: Bibliothèque de la Ville de Lyon. Leroquais, Victor. 1924. Les sacramentaires et les missels manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France. 4 vols. Paris. Leroquais, Victor. 1927. “L’Ordo Missae du sacramentaire d’Amiens.” Ephemerides Liturgicae 41: 435–45. Leroquais, Victor. 1934. Les bréviaires manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France. 6 vols. Paris. Leroquais, Victor. 1937. Les pontificaux manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France. 4 vols. Paris. Leroquais, Victor. 1940. Les psautiers manuscrits latins des bibliothèques publiques de France. 3 vols. Paris. Les Enluminures. 2002. “TM 7: Bible, with Prologues Attributed to Saint Jerome and the Interpretation of Hebrew Names.” Textmanuscripts. 2002. https://www.textmanuscripts.com/medieval/bible-jerome-illuminated-60303. Levy, Kenneth. 1974. “A Dominican Organum Duplum.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 27: 183–211. Levy, Kenneth. 1987. “Charlemagne’s Archetype of Gregorian Chant.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 40: 1–30. Levy, Kenneth. 1998. Gregorian Chant and the Carolingians. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Lewis, Suzanne. 1995. Reading Images: Narrative Discourse and Reception in the Thirteenth-Century Illuminated Apocalypse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lied, Liv Ingeborg, and Marilena Maniaci, eds. 2018. Bible as Notepad: Tracing Annotations and Annotation Practices in Late Antique and Medieval Biblical Manuscripts. Manuscripta Biblica 3. Berlin: De Gruyter. Light, Laura. 1984. “Versions et révisions du texte biblique.” In Le Moyen Age et la Bible, edited by Pierre Riché and Guy Lobrichon, 55–93. Bible de tous les temps 4. Paris: Beauchesne. Light, Laura. 1987. “The New Thirteenth-Century Bible and the Challenge of Heresy.” Viator 18: 275–88. Light, Laura. 1994. “French Bibles c. 1200–30: A New Look at the Origin of the Paris Bible.” In The Early Medieval Bible: Its Production, Decoration, and Use, edited by Richard Gameson, 155–76. Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Light, Laura. 2011a. “Non-Biblical Texts in Thirteenth-Century Bibles.” In Medieval Manuscripts, Their Makers and Users, 169–83. Turnhout: Brepols. Light, Laura. 2011b. “The Bible and the Individual: The Thirteenth-Century Paris Bible.” In The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: Production, Reception, and Performance in Western Christianity, edited by Susan Boynton and Diane J. Reilly, 228–46. New York: Columbia University Press. Light, Laura. 2012. “The Thirteenth Century and the Paris Bible.” In The New Cambridge History of the Bible 2: From 600 to 1450, by Richard Marsden and E. Ann Matter, 380–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Light, Laura. 2013. “The Thirteenth-Century Pandect and the Liturgy: Bibles with Missals.” In Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, edited by Eyal Poleg and Laura Light, 185–215. Leiden: Brill. Light, Laura. 2016. “What Was a Bible for? Liturgical Texts in Thirteenth-Century Franciscan and Dominican Bibles.” Lusitania Sacra 34: 165–182. Linde, Cornelia, ed. 2018. Making and Breaking the Rules: Discussion, Implementation, and Consequences of Dominican Legislation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bibliography 

 461

Lippe, Robert, ed. 1899. Missale romanum Mediolani, 1474. Henry Bradshaw Society 17. London: Henry Bradshaw Society. Lippe, Robert, ed. 1907. Missale romanum Mediolani, 1474, Vol. II. A Collation with other editions printed before 1570. Henry Bradshaw Society 33. London: Henry Bradshaw Society. List and Index Society. 1977. ‘Rough Register’ of Acquisitions of the Department of Manuscripts British Library 1971–1975. London: Swift Printers. List, Gerhard. 1998. Die Handschriften der Stadtbibliothek Mainz. Vol. 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Lockett, Leslie. 2000. “Alcuinus.” In Compendium Auctorum Latinorum Medii Aevi (500–1500), edited by Michael Lapidge, Gian Carlo Garfagnini, and Claudio Leonardi, I.2:145–53. Florence: SISMEL – Edizioni del Galluzzo. Lohse, Tillmann. 2011. Die Dauer der Stiftung: Eine diachronisch vergleichende Geschichte des weltlichen Kollegiatstifts St. Simon und Judas in Goslar. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Lowe, E.A., ed. 1920. The Bobbio Missal: A Gallican Mass-Book (Ms. Paris. Lat. 13246): Text. Henry Bradshaw Society 58. London: Henry Bradshaw Society. Luard, H.R., ed. 1857. A Catalogue of the Manuscripts Preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Luard, H.R., ed. 1858. A Catalogue of the Manuscripts Preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lubin, Edward R. 1985. European Illuminated Manuscripts. New York: Edward R. Lubin. Mabille, Madeleine. 1973. “Les manuscrits de Gérard Bruine, dit de Reims, conservés à la Bibliothèque nationale de Paris.” Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes 131: 198–208. Maddalo, Silvia, and Eva Ponzi, eds. 2016. Il Libro Miniato a Roma nel Ducento. 2 vols. Nuovi studi storici 100. Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo. Maggs Bros. 1997. Illuminated Leaves and Mediæval Miniatures. European Bulletin 21. London: Maggs Bros. Magrini, Sabina. 2007. “Production and Use of Latin Bible Manuscripts in Italy during the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries.” Manuscripta 51: 209–57. Mallet, Jean, and André Thibaut. 1997. Les Manuscrits en écriture bénéventaine de la Bibliothèque Capitulaire de Bénévent. Vol. 2. Paris: CNRS Editions. Maloy, Rebecca. 2010. Inside the Offertory: Aspects of Chronology and Transmission. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maniaci, Marilena. 2016. “The Medieval Codex as a Complex Container: The Greek and Latin Traditions.” In One-Volume Libraries: Composite and Multiple-Text Manuscripts, edited by Michael Friedrich and Cosima Schwarke, 27–46. Studies in Manuscript Cultures 9. Berlin: De Gruyter. Maniaci, Marilena. 2022a. “The Structure of Atlantic Bibles.” In Trends in Statistical Codicology, edited by Marilena Maniaci, 35–63. Studies in Manuscript Cultures 19. Berlin: De Gruyter. Maniaci, Marilena. 2022b. “The ‘Non-Unitary’ Greek Codex: Typologies and Terminology.” In Trends in Statistical Codicology, edited by Marilena Maniaci, 337–75. Studies in Manuscript Cultures 19. Berlin: De Gruyter. Manzari, Francesca. 2013. “La Bibbia illustrata nel XIII secolo. Codici miniati per la Corte, l’Università e gli Ordini Mendicanti.” In La Bibbia di San Bonaventura, Atti delle XVII giornate di studio (Orte, 11 dicembre 2010), edited by Silvia Maddalo, Salvatore Sansone, and Abbondio Zuppante, 51–63. Orte: Centro di Studi per il Patrimonio di S. Pietro in Tuscia. Martimort, Aimé-Georges. 1982. “Sources, histoire et originalité de la liturgie catalano-languedocienne.” In Liturgie et musique (IXe – XIV e siècle), 25–49. Cahiers de Fanjeaux 17. Toulouse: Privat. Martimort, Aimé-Georges. 1992. Les lectures liturgiques et leurs livres. Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental 64. Turnhout: Brepols. Marx, Jakob. 1905. Verzeichnis der Handschriften-Sammlung des Hospitals zu Cues bei Bernkastel a./Mosel. Trier: Selbstverlag des Hospitals. Maurey, Yossi. 2019. The Dominican Office and Mass for the Crown of Thorns. Musicological Studies, LXV/29. Kitchener: The Institute of Mediaeval Music. Maurey, Yossi. 2021. Liturgy and Sequences of the Sainte-Chapelle. Turnhout: Brepols. Mazza, Enrico. 1995. “Il prefazio della Vergine Maria istituito da Urbano II.” Marianum 57: 269–89. McKinnon, James W. 1978. “Representations of the Mass in Medieval and Renaissance Art.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 31: 21–52. Melville, Gert. 2020. “The Dominican Constitutiones.” In A Companion to Medieval Rules and Customaries, edited by Krijn Pansters, 253–81. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 93. Leiden: Brill. Metzger, Marcel. 1994. Les Sacramentaires. Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental 70. Turnhout: Brepols. Meyer, Christian. 2005. “Le ‘Pulpitarium’ des frères Prêcheurs.” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 75: 5–28. Meyer, Christian. 2006. Collections d’Alsace, de Franche-Comté et de Loraraine. Catalogue des manuscrits notés du Moyen Age conservés dans les bibliothèques publiques de France 1. Turnhout: Brepols. Meyer, Christian. 2010. Collections de Champagne-Ardenne. Catalogue des manuscrits notés du Moyen Age conservés dans les bibliothèques publiques de France 2. Turnhout: Brepols. Meyer, Christian. 2013. Collections de Bourgogne et d’Île-de-France. Catalogue des manuscrits notés du Moyen Age conservés dans les bibliothèques publiques de France 3. Turnhout: Brepols. Meyer, Christian. 2014. Collections du Nord–Pas-de-Calais et de Picardie Abbeville, Amiens, Arras, Bergues, Boulogne-sur-Mer, Cambrai. Catalogue des manuscrits notés du Moyen Age conservés dans les bibliothèques publiques de France, 4,2. Turnhout: Brepols. Meyer, Christian. n.d. “Les décisions relatives à la liturgie et au chant chez les Dominicains (1239–1498).” http://www.musmed.fr/CMN/statdom.htm. Michael, M. A. 2008. “Urban Production of Manuscript Books and the Role of the University Towns.” In The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain: Volume II, 1100–1400, edited by Nigel Morgan and Rodney M. Thomson, 168–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Milde, Wolfgang. 1971. “The Library at Wolfenbüttel, from 1550 to 1618.” The Modern Language Review 66 (1): 101–12. Millar, Eric George. 1926. English Illuminated Manuscripts from the Xth to the XIIIth Century. Paris: G. van Oest. Migne, J.-P., ed. 1853. B. Urbani II Pontificis Romani Epistolæ, Diplomata, Sermones: accedunt sæculi XI auctores incertæ ætatis et anonymi : sequuntur ad sæcula IX et X appendices amplissimæ inter alia complectentes S. Mathildis Reginæ epistolam ineditam. PL 151. Paris: J.-P. Migne. Miranda, Maria Adelaide, ed. 1999. A iluminura em Portugal: identidade e influências. Lisbon: Ministério da Cultura/Biblioteca Nacional.

462 

 Bibliography

Miriello, Rosanna. 2004. “La Bibbia portabile di origine italiana del XIII secolo. Brevi considerazioni e alcuni esempi.” In La Bibbia del XIII secolo: storia del testo, storia dell’esegesi: Convegno della Società Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo Latino (SISMEL), Firenze, 1–2 giugno 2001, edited by Giuseppe Cremascoli and Francesco Santi. Florence: SISMEL – Edizioni del Galluzzo. Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum. 1970. Vatican City: Typis polyglottis Vaticanis. Moeller, Edmond Eugène, ed. 1971–1979. Corpus benedictionum pontificalium. 4 vols. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 162–162C. Turnhout: Brepols. Moeller, Edmond Eugène, ed. 1980–1981. Corpus praefationum. 5 vols. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 161–161D. Turnhout: Brepols. Moeller, Edmond Eugène, Jean-Marie Clément, and Bertrandus Coppieters ‘t Wallant, eds. 1992–2004. Corpus Orationum. 14 vols. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 160–160M. Turnhout: Brepols. Mohlberg, Leo Cunibert, Leo Eizenhöfer, and Peter Siffrin, eds. 1960. Liber sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae ordinis anni circuli (Cod. Vat. Reg. Lat. 316 / Paris Bibl. Nat. 7193, 41/56) (Sacramentarium Gelasianum). Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta, Series major, Fontes 4. Rome: Herder. Mohlberg, Leo Cunibert, Leo Eizenhöfer, and Peter Siffrin, eds. 1966. Sacramentarium Veronense (Cod. Bibl. Capit. Veron. LXXXV [80]). Second revised edition. Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta, Series major, Fontes 1. Rome: Herder. Molinier, Auguste. 1885. Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Mazarine. Vol. 1. Paris: Plon. Molinier, August. 1893. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France : Départements–Tomes XXII. Nantes–Quimper–Brest. Paris: Plon. Mooney, Linne R. 1995. The Index of Middle English Prose: Handlist XI: Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer. Morard, Martin. 2012. “Dater par les calendriers ou se méfier des apparences. À propos de manuscrits de la chartreuse du Mont-Dieu.” Scriptorium 66: 337–81. Morgan, Nigel J. 1982. Early Gothic Manuscripts. Vol. 1. A Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in the British Isles 4. London: H. Miller. Morgan, Nigel J. 2010. “The Sanctorals of Early Sarum Missals and Breviaries, c. 1250–c.1350.” In The Study of Medieval Manuscripts of England: Festschrift in Honor of Richard W. Pfaff, 143–62. Arizona Studies in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance 35. Tempe: ACMRS. Morgan, Nigel J. 2012. Leaves from a Psalter by William de Brailes: Commentary. London: The Folio Society. Morgan, Nigel J. 2017. “The Liturgical Manuscripts of the English Franciscans c. 1250–c. 1350.” In The English Province of the Franciscans (1224–c. 1350), edited by Michael J.P. Robson, 214–44. The Medieval Franciscans 14. Leiden: Brill. Morgan, Nigel J. 2021. “The Liturgical Manuscripts of the English Dominicans, ca.1250–ca.1530.” In A Companion to the English Dominican Province: From Its Beginnings to the Reformation, edited by Eleanor Giraud and Cornelia Linde, 370–408. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 97. Leiden: Brill. Morin, Germain. 1910. “Le plus ancien comes ou lectionnaire de l’eglise Romaine.” Revue Bénédictine 27: 41–74. Mulchahey, M. Michèle. 1998. “First the Bow Is Bent in Study ….” Dominican Education before 1350. Studies and Texts 132. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Muzerelle, Denis. 2007. “Pour revenir sur et à la «taille» des manuscrits.” Gazette du livre médiéval 50 (1): 55–63. Narducci, Henricus. 1892. Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum praeter graecos et orientales in Bibliotheca angelica, olim coenobii Sancti Augustini de urbe : tomus prior complectens codices ab instituta bibliotheca ad a. 1870. Rome: Typis L. Cecchini. Needham, Paul. 1983. “The Compositor’s Hand in the Gutenberg Bible: A Review of the Todd Thesis.” Edited by William B. Todd. The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 77 (3): 341–71. Nelles, Paul. 2001. “Mazarine Library.” In International Dictionary of Library Histories, edited by David H. Stam, 1:433–35. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. Nentwig, Heinrich. 1893. Die mittelalterlichen handschriften in der Stadtbibliothek zu Braunschweig. Wolfenbüttel: Zwissler. Oates, J.C.T. 1986. Cambridge University Library: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Carroll, Mary E. 1997. “Appendix 8: The Liturgical Context of the Manuscript.” In A Thirteenth-Century Preacher’s Handbook: Studies in MS Laud Misc. 511, 355–70. Studies and Texts 128. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. O’Carroll, Maura. 1979. “The Lectionary for the Proper of the Year in the Dominican and Franciscan Rites of the Thirteenth Century.” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 49: 79–103. O’Carroll, Maura. 2005. “The cult and liturgy of St Dominic.” In Domenico di Caleruega e la nascita dell’ordine dei frati predicatori, Atti del XLI Convegno storico internazionale, Todi 10–12 ottobre 2004, 567–611. Spoleto: Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi sull’alto medioevo. Odenthal, Andreas. 2007. “‘Ante conspectum diuinae maiestatis tuae reus assisto’. Liturgie- und frömmigkeitsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum ‘Rheinischen Messordo’ und dessen Beziehungen zur Fuldaer Sakramentartradition.” Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 49: 1–35. Oliver, Judith H. 1988. Gothic Manuscript Illumination in the Diocese of Liege (c. 1250–c. 1330). 2 vols. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. Olschki, Leo S. 1914. “Manuscrits très précieux (Continuation).” La Bibliofilía 16 (7/8): 276–77. Omont, Henri. 1910. Anciens inventaires et catalogues de la Bibliothèque nationale. Vol. 3. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Omont, Henri. 1921. Anciens inventaires et catalogues de la Bibliothèque nationale. Vol. 5. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Pace, Valentino. 1985. “Per la storia della miniatura duecentesca a Roma.” In Studien zur mittelalterlichen Kunst 800–1250: Festschrift für Florentine Mütherich zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Katharina Bierbrauer, Peter K. Klein, and Willibald Sauerländer, 255–62. Munich: Prestel. Pächt, Otto, and J.J.G. Alexander. 1970. Illuminated Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library Oxford. Vol. 2: Italian School. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Palazzo, Éric. 1994. Les Sacramentaires de Fulda. Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen 77. Münster: Aschendorff. Palazzo, Eric. 1998. A History of Liturgical Books from the Beginning to the Thirteenth Century. Translated by Madeleine Beaumont. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. Palma, Marco. 1988. “Modifiche di alcuni aspetti materiali della produzione libraria latina nei secoli XII e XIII.” Scrittura e civiltà 12: 119–33. Paravicini Bagliani, Agostino. 2010. Il papato nel secolo XIII: cent’anni di bibliografia (1875–2009). Florence: SISMEL.

Bibliography 

 463

Parkes, Henry. 2016. “Questioning the Authority of Vogel and Elze’s Pontificale Romano-Germanique.” In Understanding Medieval Liturgy: Essays in Interpretation, edited by Helen Gittos and Sarah Hamilton, 75–101. Burlington: Farnham. Parkes, M.B. 1992. “The Provision of Books.” In The History of the University of Oxford, Vol. II, Late Medieval Oxford, edited by J. I. Catto and Ralph Evans, 407–83. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Parkes, M.B. 2000. “The Compilation of the Dominican Lectionary.” In Literarische Formen des Mittelalters. Florilegien, Kompilationen, Kollektionen, 91–106. Wolfenbütteler Mittelalter-Studien 15. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Parkes, M.B. 2008. “Handwriting in English Books.” In The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain: Volume II, 1100–1400, edited by Nigel Morgan and Rodney M. Thomson, 110–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Patera, Adolfa, and Antonín Podlaha. 1910. Soupis rukopisů Knihovny Metropolitní kapitoly pražske. První část: A – E. Prague: Nákl. České akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění. Peikola, Matti. 2013. “Tables of Lections in Manuscripts of the Wycliffite Bible.” In Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, edited by Eyal Poleg and Laura Light, 351–78. Library of the Written Word 27. Leiden: Brill. Peixeiro, Horácio Augusto. 1995. “A iluminura do Missal de Lorvão: breve nota.” Didaskalia 25: 97–106. Perarnau i Espelt, Josep. 1999. “Cent anys d’estudis dedicats als sermons de sant Vicent Ferrer.” Arxiu de textos catalans antics 18: 9–62. Pfaff, Richard W. 2009. The Liturgy in Medieval England: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pfändtner, Karl-Georg. 2005. “An Unknown Forchheim Missal in the Free Library of Philadelphia.” Manuscripta 49: 59–68. Pfisterer, Andreas. 2002. Cantilena Romana: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des gregorianischen Chorals. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh. Pfisterer, Andreas. 2005. “Remarks on Roman and Non-Roman Offertories.” Plainsong and Medieval Music 14: 169–81. Pfisterer, Andreas. 2018. “Origins and Transmission of Franco-Roman Chant.” In The Cambridge History of Medieval Music, 69–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Piazzoni, Ambrogio M., ed. 2017. The Bible: From Late Antiquity to the Renaissance. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. Pierce, Joanne M. 1988. “Sacerdotal Spirituality at Mass: Text and Study of the Prayerbook of Sigebert of Minden (1022–1036).” Ph.D. diss., Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame. Pierce, Joanne M. 1997. “The Evolution of the Ordo Missae in the Early Middle Ages.” In Medieval Liturgy: A Book of Essays, edited by Lizette Larson-Miller, 3–24. Garland Reference Library of the Humanities 1884. New York: Garland Pub. Pierce, Joanne M., and John F. Romano. 2011. “The Ordo Missae of the Roman Rite: Historical Background.” In A Commentary on the Order of Mass of the Roman Missal, edited by Edward Foley, 3–33. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. Pietschmann, Petrus. 1932. “Die nicht dem Psalter entnommenen Meßgesangstücke auf ihre Textgestalt untersucht.” Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft, 87–144. Pires de Matos, Maria Helena. 1995. “Missal de Lorvão: .” Didaskalia 25: 107–18. Poleg, Eyal. 2013a. Approaching the Bible in Medieval England. Manchester Medieval Studies. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Poleg, Eyal. 2013b. “The Interpretations of Hebrew Names in Theory and Practice.” In Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, edited by Eyal Poleg and Laura Light, 217–36. Leiden: Brill. Poleg, Eyal. 2020a. A Material History of the Bible, England 1200–1553. British Academy Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Poleg, Eyal. 2020b. “Memory, Performance, and Change: The Psalms’ Layout in Late Medieval and Early Modern Bibles.” In From Scrolls to Scrolling: Sacred Texts, Materiality, and Dynamic Media Cultures, edited by Bradford A. Anderson, 119–52. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam–Tension, Transmission, Transformation 12. Berlin: De Gruyter. Poleg, Eyal, and Laura Light, eds. 2013. Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible. Leiden: Brill. Pollard, Graham. 1955. “William de Brailles.” Bodleian Library Record 5: 202–9. Ponzi, Eva. 2016. “Ad usum fratrum: Manoscritti francescani e dominicani a Roma, un panorama.” In Il Libro Miniato a Roma nel Ducento, edited by Silvia Maddalo and Eva Ponzi, 575–612. Nuovi studi storici 100. Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo. Praepositinus of Cremona. 1969. Praepositini Cremonensis Tractatus de Officiis. Edited by James A. Corbett. Publications in Mediaeval Studies 21. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Praßl, Franz Karl. 2005. “Choralquellen steirischer Zisterzienserklöster.” In Zisterziensisches Schreiben im Mittelalter: das Skriptorium der Reiner Mönche, edited by Anton Schwob and Karin Kranich-Hofbauer, 337–51. Bern: Peter Lang. Pratesi, Riccardo. 1961. “Antonio da Vercelli.” In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 3:580–81. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. Préchac, François. 1957. “Notulae Vaticanae sur le De Clementia de Sénèque.” Mélanges de l’école française de Rome 69: 49–74. Probasco, Henry. 1873. Catalogue of the Collection of Books, Manuscripts, and Works of Art, Belonging to Mr. Henry Probasco, Cincinnati, Ohio. Cambridge, MA: Welch, Bigelow & Co. Prudlo, Donald. 2008a. “The Assassin-Saint: The Life and Cult of Carino of Balsamo.” The Catholic Historical Review 94: 1–21. Prudlo, Donald. 2008b. The Martyred Inquisitor: The Life and Cult of Peter of Verona († 1252). Aldershot: Ashgate. Prudlo, Donald. 2010. “The Friars Preachers: The First Hundred Years of the Dominican Order.” History Compass 8: 1275–90. Prudlo, Donald. 2015. Certain Sainthood: Canonization and the Origins of Papal Infallibility in the Medieval Church. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Prümmer, D., and M.H. Laurent, eds. n.d. Fontes Vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis notis historicis et criticis illustrati. Toulouse: Privat. Przeczewski, Marek, ed. 2003. Missale franciscanum regulae codicis VI. G. 38. Bibliothecae Nationalis Neapolinensis. Monumenta Studia Instrumenta Liturgica 31. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Puglia, Andrea. 2015. “Produzione e circolazione di manoscritti tra XIII e XV secolo in Toscana: il caso della Biblioteca del Convento di Santa Caterina di Pisa.” Titivillus 1: 45–58. Quaritch, Bernard. 1900. “215. Biblia Latina cum Psalterio atque apocryphis.” In Catalogue of Additions to the English Catalogue. Americana, Early Printing, Art, Mss. and of Llassical Literature. Bernard Quaritch’s Rough List 200. London: Bernard Quaritch.

464 

 Bibliography

Quinlan, Meghan. 2022. “Eye, Mouth, and Heart: The Female-Voiced Contrafacta of Can vei la lauzeta mover.” In Female-Voice Song and Women’s Musical Agency in the Middle Ages, 388–421. Brill’s Companions to the Musical Culture of Medieval and Early Modern Europe 5. Leiden: Brill. Raffaelli, Paola. 1993. I manoscritti liturgico-musicali della Biblioteca cateriniana e del Fondo seminario Santa Caterina dell’Archivio arcivescovile di Pisa: storia e catalogo. Studi Musicali Toscani 1. Lucca: Libreria musicale italiana. Randall, Lilian M.C. 1994. “En Route to Salvation with William de Brailes.” In Medieval Codicology, Iconography, Literature, and Translation: Studies for Keith Val Sinclair, edited by Peter Rolfe Monks, D. D. R. Owen, and Keith Val Sinclair, 83–93. Litterae Textuales. Leiden: Brill. Rankin, Susan. 2016. “Carolingian liturgical books: problems of categorization.” Gazette du livre médiéval 62: 21–33. Rankin, Susan. 2018. Writing Sounds in Carolingian Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rasmussen, Niels Krogh. 1998. Les Pontificaux du Haut Moyen-Âge. Genèse du livre de l’évêque. Edited by Marcel Haverals. Études et documents 49. Leuven: Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense. Reaney, Gilbert. 1969. Manuscripts of Polyphonic Music (c. 1320–1400). Répertoire international des sources musicales, B/IV/2. Munich: G. Henle. Rehle, Sieghild, ed. 1972. Missale Beneventanum von Canosa (Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery, MS W6). Textus Patristici et Liturgici 9. Regensburg: Pustet. Rehle, Sieghild. 1985. “Missale Beneventanum in Berlin.” Sacris Erudiri 28: 469–510. Reichert, Benedictus Maria, ed. 1898. Acta capitulorum generalium ordinis praedicatorum. Vol. 1 [Ab anno 1220 usque ad annum 1303]. Monumenta ordinis fratrum praedicatorum historica 3. Rome: In domo generalitia. Reichert, Benedictus Maria, ed. 1899. Acta capitulorum generalium ordinis praedicatorum. Vol. 2 [Ab anno 1304 usque ad annum 1378]. Monumenta ordinis fratrum praedicatorum historica 4. Rome: In domo generalitia. Reisner, Sonja. 2004. “Die ‘Expositio super constitutiones fratrum Ordinis Praedicatorum’ des Humbertus de Romanis.” PhD diss., Wien. Rickert, Margaret Josephine. 1954. Painting in Britain: The Middle Ages. London: Penguin Books. Robson and Kerslake. 1889. [Robson and Kerslake Catalog: 4 June 1889]. London: Robson and Kerslake. Roland, Martin. 1999. Die Handschriften der alten Wiener Stadtbibliothek in der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Publikationen aus der Wiener Stadt und Landesbibliothek 4. Vienna: Wiener Stadt- und Landesbibliothek. Rollo-Koster, Joëlle. 2022. The Great Western Schism, 1378–1417: Performing Legitimacy, Performing Unity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rose, Els, ed. 2005. Missale Gothicum: e codice Vaticano Reginensi Latino 317 editum. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 159. Turnhout: Brepols. Ross, Sidney David. “Establishing the Authentic Corpus of the Latin Verse of Paul the Deacon: A Philological, Textual and Statistical Study.” Ph.D. diss., University of York, 2020. Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. 1974. “The Verbal Concordance to the Scriptures.” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 44: 5–30. Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. 1991a. “Statim Invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page.” In Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and Manuscripts, 191–219. Publications in Medieval Studies 17. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. 1991b. “The Development of Research Tools in the Thirteenth Century.” In Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and Manuscripts, 221–55. Publications in Medieval Studies 17. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. 2000. Manuscripts and Their Makers: Commercial Book Producers in Medieval Paris 1200–1500. 2 vols. Turnhout: Harvey Miller. Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. 2016. “Santa Barbara’s Thirteenth-Century Paris Bible: A Second Look.” Journal of the Bible and Its Reception 3: 177–204. https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2016–2002. Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. 2021. “The Impact of the Dominicans on Books at the University of Paris, 1217–1350.” In The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music and Liturgy, edited by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, 31–50. Turnhout: Brepols. Rudy, Kathryn M. 2010. “Dirty Books: Quantifying Patterns of Use in Medieval Manuscripts Using a Densitometer.” Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 2 (102). https://doi.org/10.5092/jhna.2010.2.1.1. Rudy, Kathryn M. 2011. “Kissing Images, Unfurling Rolls, Measuring Wounds, Sewing Badges and Carrying Talismans: Considering Some Harley Manuscripts through the Physical Rituals They Reveal.” Electronic British Library Journal, 1–56. Rudy, Kathryn M. 2023. Touching Parchment: How Medieval Users Rubbed, Handled, and Kissed Their Manuscripts. Vol. 1: Officials and Their Books. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers. Ruysschaert, José, Adriana Marucchi, and Albinia Catherine de la Mare. 1997. I codici latini datati della Biblioteca apostolica vaticana: Nei fondi Archivio S. Pietro, Barberini, Boncompagni, Borghese, Borgia, Capponi, Chigi, Ferrajoli, Ottoboni. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Ruzzier, Chiara. 2010. “Des armaria aux besaces: La mutation de la Bible au XIIIe siècle.” In Les usages sociaux de la Bible, XIe-XVe siècles, 74–111. Cahiers Électroniques d’Histoire Textuelle du LAMOP 3. Paris: LAMOP. Ruzzier, Chiara. 2013. “The Miniaturisation of Bible Manuscripts in the Thirteenth Century: A Comparative Study.” In Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, edited by Eyal Poleg and Laura Light, 105–25.Library of the Written Word 27. Leiden: Brill. Ruzzier, Chiara. 2014a. “Qui lisait les bibles portatives fabriquées au XIIIe siècle?” In Lecteurs, lectures et groupes sociaux au Moyen Âge, edited by Xavier Hermand, Étienne Renard, and Céline Van Hoorebeeck, 9–28. Texte, Codex & Contexte 17. Turnhout: Brepols. Ruzzier, Chiara. 2014b. “Quelques observations sur la fabrication des bibles au XIIIe siècle et le système de la Pecia.” Revue Bénédictine 124: 151–89. Ruzzier, Chiara. 2018. “Les manuscrits de la Bible au XIIIe siècle: quelques aspects de la réception du modèle parisien dans l’Europe méridionale.” In Medieval Europe in motion: the circulation of artists, images, patterns and ideas from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic coast (6th – 15th centuries), edited by Maria Alessandra Bilotta, 281–97. Palermo: Officina di Studi Medievali. Ruzzier, Chiara. 2022. Entre Université et ordres mendiants. Manuscripta Biblica 8. Berlin: De Gruyter. Saenger, Paul. 1989. A Catalogue of the Pre-1500 Western Manuscript Books at the Newberry Library. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Saenger, Paul. 2005. “The British Isles and the Origin of the Modern Mode of Biblical Citation.” Syntagma 1: 77–123. Saenger, Paul. 2020. “Orality and Visible Language.” In The Oxford Handbook of Latin Palaeography, edited by Frank T. Coulson and Robert G. Babcock, 693–704. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bibliography 

 465

Saenger, Paul, and Laura Bruck. 2008. “The Anglo-Hebraic Origins of the Modern Chapter Division of the Latin Bible.” In La Fractura Historiografica: Las Investigaciones de Edad Media y Renacimiento Desde El Tercer Milenio, edited by Javier San José Lera, 177–202. Salamanca: SEMYR. Salmon, Pierre, ed. 1944. Le lectionnaire de Luxeuil (Paris, ms. lat. 9427): Édition et étude comparative. Collectanea biblica latina 7. Rome: Abbaye Saint-Jerome. Salmon, Pierre, ed. 1953. Le lectionnaire de Luxeuil (Paris, ms. lat. 9427): Étude paléographique et liturgique. Collectanea biblica latina 9. Rome: Abbaye Saint-Jerome. Salmon, Pierre. 1968. Les manuscrits liturgiques latins de la Bibliothèque vaticane: I: Psautiers, antiphonaires, hymnaires, collectaires, bréviaires. Studi e testi 251. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Salmon, Pierre. 1969. Les manuscrits liturgiques latins de la Bibliothèque vaticane: II: Sacramentaires, épistoliers, évangéliaires, graduels, missels. Studi e testi 253. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Salmon, Pierre. 1970. Les manuscrits liturgiques latins de la Bibliothèque vaticane: III: Ordines Romani, pontificaux, rituels, cérémoniaux. Studi e testi 260. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Salmon, Pierre. 1971. Les manuscrits liturgiques latins de la Bibliothèque vaticane: IV: Les livres de lectures de l’office, les livres de l’office du chapitre, les livres d’heures. Studi e testi 267. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Salmon, Pierre. 1972. Les manuscrits liturgiques latins de la Bibliothèque vaticane: V: Liste complémentaire, Tables générales. Studi e testi 270. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Salmon, Pierre. 1974. Analecta liturgica: extraits des manuscrits liturgiques de la Bibliothèque vaticane: contribution à l’histoire de la prière chrétienne. Studi e testi 273. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Salter, H.E., ed. 1922. Chapters of the Augustinian Canons. Oxford: Oxford Historical Society. Salvatelli, Luca. 2015. “Suggestioni da una libraria cardinalizia di fine Duecento. I codici miniati scientifico filosofici di Gonsalvo Gudiel.” In Memoria e materia dell’opera d’arte: proposte e riflessioni, edited by Elisa Anzellotti, Constanza Rapone, and Salvatelli, Luca, 65–75. Rome: Gangemi. Salvatelli, Luca. 2020. “Una Bibbia di Santa Maria in Gradi? Alcune riflessioni intorno all’Ott.lat. 532 della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.” Biblioteca e Società 1–8:18–21. Saunders, O. Elfrida. 1928. English Illumination. 2 vols. Florence: Pantheon. Schlager, Karlheinz. 1965. Thematischer Katalog der ältesten Alleluia-Melodien aus Handschriften des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts, ausgenommen das ambrosianische, alt-römische und alt-spanische Repertoire. Erlanger Arbeiten zur Musikwissenschaft 2. Munich: Walter Rick. Schlager, Karlheinz, ed. 1968. Alleluia-Melodien I: Bis 1100. Monumenta monodica medii aevi 7. Kassel: Barenreiter. Schneider, Heinrich. 1954. Der Text der Gutenbergbibel: zu ihrem 500 jährigen Jubiläum untersucht. Bonner biblische Beiträge 7. Bonn: Hanstein. Schneyer, Johannes Baptist. 1969–1990. Repertorium der Lateinischen Sermones des Mittelalters für die Zeit von 1150–1350. 11 vols. Münster: Aschendorff. Schnurman, Josephine Case. 1960. “Studies in the Medieval Book Trade from the Late Twelfth to the Middle of the Fourteenth Century, with Special Reference to the Copying of Bibles.” MLitt Thesis, Oxford: University of Oxford. Schreiber, Georg. 1959. Die Wochentage im Erlebnis der Ostkirche und des christlichen Abendlandes. Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen 11. Cologne: Westdeutscher Verlag. Schreiner, Klaus. 1990. “»Er küsse mich mit dem Kuß seines Mundes« (Osculetur me oscuto oris sui, Cant 1,1). Metaphorik, kommunikative und herrschaftliche Funktionen einer symbolischen Handlung.” In Höfische Repräsentation: Das Zeremoniell und die Zeichen, edited by Hedda Ragotzky and Horst Wenzel, 89–132. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Sciarra, Elisabetta. 2009. “Breve storia del fondo manoscritto della Biblioteca Angelica.” La Bibliofilía 111 (3): 251–82. Sedda, Filippo, ed. 2015. Franciscus liturgicus: editio fontium saeculi XIII. Padua: Editrici francescane. Shailor, Barbara A. 1987. Catalogue of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library Yale University. Vol. 2. Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 48. Binghamton: Center for Medieval & Early Renaissance Studies. Shepard, Dorothy. 2012. “Romanesque Display Bibles.” In The New Cambridge History of the Bible 2: From 600 to 1450, by Richard Marsden and E. Ann Matter, 393–403. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sierra López, Juan Manuel. 2005. El misal toledano de 1499. Toledo: Instituto Teológico San Ildefonso. Smith, Innocent. 2014. “Dominican Chant and Dominican Identity.” Religions 5: 961–71. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel5040961. Smith, Innocent. 2015. “In Collecta Dicitur: The Oration as a Theological Authority for Thomas Aquinas.” S.T.L. tesina, Washington: Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception. Smith, Innocent. 2018. “Liturgical Prayer and the Theology of Mercy in Thomas Aquinas and Pope Francis.” Theological Studies 79: 782–800. Smith, Innocent. 2019a. “1 Timothy 2, 1 and the Expositiones Missae of Thomas Aquinas.” Sacris Erudiri 58: 203–19. Smith, Innocent. 2019b. “Scriptural Plurality in the Writings of Thomas Aquinas: The Case of Psalm 67, 7.” European Journal for the Study of Thomas Aquinas 37: 49–64. Smith, Innocent. 2020. “(Mis)Understanding Medieval Manuscripts in 19th Century Philadelphia.” RETOUR (blog). April 8, 2020. https://retour. hypotheses.org/964. Smith, Innocent. 2021a. “The Orations of the Medieval Dominican Liturgy.” In The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music and Liturgy, edited by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, 285–98. Turnhout: Brepols. Smith, Innocent. 2021b. “‘Lest the Sisters Lose Devotion’: Dominican Liturgy and the Cura Monialium Question in the Thirteenth Century.” In The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music and Liturgy, edited by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, 321–33. Turnhout: Brepols. Smith, Innocent. 2023. “Liturgical Preaching and the Summa Theologiae.” The Thomist 87: 463–83. Smith, Innocent. Forthcoming. “The ‘Mouth of the Just’ in the ‘Midst of the Church’: Mass Chants and the Iconography of St. Thomas Aquinas.” In L’Iconographie de Saint Thomas d’Aquin, edited by Emilie Roffidal and Claire Rousseau. Dissertationes Historicae 42. Rome: Angelicum University Press.

466 

 Bibliography

Smith, Kathryn A. 2001. “2. Bible with Missal.” In Leaves of Gold: Manuscript Illumination from Philadelphia Collections, edited by James R. Tanis, 27–29. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art. Smith, Philip Carl. 2008. “The Hymns of the Medieval Dominican Liturgy.” BA thesis, University of Notre Dame. Smyth, Matthieu. 2001. “Répertoire romano-franc et chant «Gallican» dans la recherche contemporaine.” Miscellània litúrgica catalana 10: 15–45. Société des Bollandistes, ed. 1794. “Miracula S. Donatiani.” In Acta Sanctorum Octobris ... Tomus VI, 503–15. Tongerloo: Typis Abbatis. Sodi, Manlio, Alessandro Toniolo, and Placide Bruylants, eds. 2010. Liturgia Tridentina: Fontes–Indices–Concordantia: 1568–1962. Monumenta Liturgica Piana 5. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Sodi, Manlio, and Achille Maria Triacca, eds. 2012. Missale Romanum: Editio Princeps (1570). 2nd ed. Monumenta liturgica Concilii Tridentini 2. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Sölch, Gisbert M. 1940. “Cod. XIV L3 saec. XIII des dominikanischen Ordensarchivs in Rom: ein neuer Zeuge frühdominikanischer Liturgieentwicklung.” Ephemerides Liturgicae 54: 165–81. Sölch, Gustave Gisbert. 1938. Hugo von St. Cher O.P. und die Angfänge der Dominikanerliturgie: eine liturgiegeschichtliche Untersuchung zum “Speculum ecclesiae.” Cologne: Albertus-Magnus-Verlag. Solopova, Elizabeth. 2013. Latin Liturgical Psalters in the Bodleian Library: A Select Catalogue. Oxford: Bodleian Library. Solopova, Elizabeth. 2016. Manuscripts of the Wycliffite Bible in the Bodleian and Oxford College Libraries. Exeter Medieval Texts and Studies. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press Somerville, Robert. 2011. Pope Urban II’s Council of Piacenza. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sorbelli, Albano. 1916. Inventari dei manoscritti delle biblioteche d’Italia. Vol. 24. Florence: Leo S. Olschki. Sordet, Yann. 2015. “L’inventaire à défaut de catalogue: la dernière bibliothèque de Mazarin (1661–1662).” In De l’argile au nuage: une archéologie des catalogues (IIe millénaire av. J.-C.–XXe siècle), 263–71. Paris: Bibliothèque Mazarine. Sordet, Yann. 2016. “Reconstructing Mazarin’s Library / Libraries in Time and Space : Sources, Tools and Hypotheses.” Quaerendo 46: 151–64. Sorrentino, Janet. 1999. “Choice Words: The Liturgy of the Order of Sempringham.” Ph.D. diss., Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Sorrentino, Janet. 2002. “In Houses of Nuns, in Houses of Canons: A Liturgical Dimension to Double Monasteries.” Journal of Medieval History 28: 361–72. Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge. 1888. Catalogue of the Valuable and Very Extensive Library of the Late James T. Gibson Craig, Esq. (Removed from Edinburgh). Second Portion. Which Will Be Sold by Auction, by Messrs. Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge … on Friday, the 23rd of March, 1888. London: Dryden Press. Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge. 1892. Catalogue of the Very Choice Library of a Gentleman, (Removed from Petersham) … Which Will Be Sold at Auction, by Messrs. Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge … on Wednesday, the 1st Day of June, 1892. London: Dryden Press. Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge. 1899. Catalogue of the Valuable Library of Books and Manuscripts of the Late John Mortimer Hunt, Esq. of Airlie Gardens, Kensington, The Property of His Widow and Sold by Her Order ... Which Will Be Sold at Auction, by Messrs. Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge ... on ... 10th Day of July, 1899. London: Dryden Press. Sotheby’s. 1933. Catalogue of Valuable Printed Books, Illuminated and Other Manuscripts ... Which Will Be Sold by Auction by Messers Sotheby & Co. ... on Monday, the 3rd of April, 1933, and Following Day. London: Sotheby’s. Sotheby’s. 1951. Catalogue of Valuable Illuminated Manuscripts ... Which Will Be Sold by Auction by Messers Sotheby & Co. ... on Monday, the 3rd of December, 1951. London: Sotheby’s. Sotheby’s. 1959. The Dyson Perrins Collection. Part II. … Which Will Be Sold by Auction by Messers Sotheby & Co. … 1 December 1959. London: Sotheby’s. Sotheby’s. 1976. Catalogue of Western Manuscripts and Miniatures … Which Will Be Sold by Auction by Sotheby Parke Bernet & Co. … 5th July, 1976. London: Sotheby Parke Bernet & Co. Sotheby’s. 1979. Catalogue of Western Manuscripts and Miniatures … Which Will Be Sold by Auction by Sotheby Parke Bernet & Co. … Day of Sale: Tuesday, 19th June, 1979. London: Sotheby Parke Bernet. Sotheby’s. 1988. The Astor Collection of Illuminated Manuscripts … 21st June 1988. London: Sotheby’s. Sotheby’s. 2013. “Lot 11. Bible. Old Testament. Latin.” Highlights from the Mendham Collection: The Property of the Law Society of England and Wales (5 June 2013). https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2013/the-mendham-collection-l13409/lot.11.html#. Sousa, Luís Correia de. 2015. Sacra pagina: textos e imagens das bíblias portáteis do século XIII pertencentes às coleções portuguesas. Lisbon: Paulus. Spagnolo, Antonio, and Silvia Marchi, eds. 1996. I Manoscritti della Biblioteca Capitolare di Verona. Verona: Mazziana. Spilling, Herrad. 1978. Die Handschriften der Staats- und Stadtbibliothek Augsburg 2° Cod 1–100. Handschriftenkataloge der Staats- und Stadtbibliothek Augsburg 2. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. Staub, Kurt Hans. 1979. “Bibelhandschriften.” In Die Handschriften der Hessischen Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek Darmstadt, 9–75. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Stegmüller, Friedrich, and Klaus Reinhardt, eds. 1950–1980. Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi. 11 vols. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. Stirnemann, Patricia. 1990. “Fils de la vierge. L’initiale à filigranes parisiennes: 1140–1314.” Revue de l’Art, no. 90: 58–73. Stones, Alison. 1995. “Madame Maries Picture-Book: A Precursor of Flemish Painting Around 1400.” In Flanders in a European Perspective: Manuscript Illumination around 1400 in Flanders and Abroad; Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Leuven, 7–10 September 1993, edited by Maurits Smeyers and Bert Cardon, 429–43. Leuven: Peeters. Stones, Alison. 2005. “Questions of Style and Provenance in the Morgan Picture Bible.” In Between the Picture and the Word: Manuscript Studies from the Index of Christian Art, 112–21. Princeton: Index of Christian Art. Stones, Alison. 2013. Gothic Manuscripts 1260–1320. Part One. 2 vols. A Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in France. London: Harvey Miller. Stones, Alison. 2014. Gothic Manuscripts 1260–1320. Part Two. 2 vols. A Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in France. London: Harvey Miller.

Bibliography 

 467

Stones, Alison. 2021. “Illustrated Dominican Books in France, 1221–1350.” In The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music and Liturgy, edited by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, 73–108. Turnhout: Brepols. Strohm, Reinhart. 1965. “Ein englischer Ordinariumssatz des 14. Jahrhunderts in Italien.” Die Musikforschung 18: 178–81. Subes, Marie-Pasquine. 2004. “Art et liturgie: Le flabellum et l’ostension de la patène dans le cérémonial de la messe.” Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes 162 (1): 97–118. Suski, Andrzej, and Manlio Sodi. 2019. Messali manoscritti pretridentini (secc. VIII-XVI). Monumenta studia instrumenta liturgica 79. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Suski, Andrzej, Manlio Sodi, and Alessandro Toniolo. 2018. Sacramentari gregoriani: guida ai manoscritti e concordanza verbale. Vol. 5. Veritatem inquirere. Vatican City: Lateran University Press. Suski, Andrzej, Alessandro Toniolo, and Manlio Sodi. 2019. Pontificali pretridentini (secc. IX–XVI). Guida ai manoscritti e concordanza verbale. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. Tanis, James. 2001. “Collecting Illuminated Manuscripts in Philadelphia.” In Leaves of Gold, edited by James Tanis, 5–13. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art. Tax, Petrus W. 2006. “Zur Verfasserschaft und Entstehungszeit der Pfingstsequenz ‘Veni, sancte spiritus.’” Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 135: 13–20. Thayer, Anne T. 2014. “Medieval Sermon Studies since The Sermon: A Deepening and Broadening Field.” Medieval Sermon Studies 58: 10–27. Thiele, Walter, ed. 1987. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). Vetus Latina 11/2. Freiburg: Herder. Thimister, O.J. 1890. “1507. Pierre Hezes de Hornes.” In Histoire de l’église collégiale de Saint-Paul, actuellement Cathedrale de Liege, 2nd ed., 304–5. Liége: Grandmont-Donders. Thomas, Antoninus Hendrik, ed. 1965. De oudste Constituties van de dominicanen: Voorgeschiedenis, tekst, bronnen, ontstaan en ontwikkeling (1215–1237). Bibliothèque de la Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 42. Louvain: Bureel van de R.H.E. Universiteitsbibliotheek. Tomatis, Paolo. 2008. “Le messe votive del Messale di Pio V, specchio della devotio personale ed ecclesiale.” Rivista liturgica 95: 133–41. Torre, Martín de la, and Pedro Longás. 1935. Catálogo de Códices Latinos. Tomo I: Bíblicos. Madrid. Torrell, Jean-Pierre. 2005. Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Person and His Work. Translated by Robert Royal. Revised edition. Washington: Catholic University of America Press. Tugwell, Simon, ed. 1982. Early Dominicans: Selected Writings. New York: Paulist Press. Tugwell, Simon, ed. 1997. Miracula Sancti Dominici Mandato Magistri Berengarii Collecta. Petri Calo Legendae Sancti Dominici. Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica 26. Rome: Institutum Historicum Ordinis Fratrum Prædicatorum. Tugwell, Simon. 2001. “The Evolution of Dominican Structures of Government. III: The Early Development of the Second Distinction of the Constitutions.” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 71: 5–182. Tugwell, Simon. 2008. Humberti de Romanis Legendae Sancti Dominici. Monumenta ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum historica 30. Rome: Institutum Historicum Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum. Tugwell, Simon. 2009. “Did Dominicans Practise Affiliation in the Thirteenth Century?: 1: Two Nineteenth-Century Arguments.” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 79: 85–191. Tugwell, Simon. 2012. Pelagius Parvus and His “Summa.” Dissertationes Historicae 34. Rome: Angelicum University Press. Tugwell, Simon. 2015. Petri Ferrandi Legenda Sancti Dominici. Monumenta ordinis fratrum praedicatorum historica 32. Rome: Angelicum University Press. Unterkircher, Franz. 1957. Inventar der illuminierten Handschriften, Inkunabeln und Frühdrucke der österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: 1: Die abendländischen Handschriften. Museion. Veröffentlichungen der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, N.F. II,2,1. Vienna: Prachner. Unterkircher, Franz. 1971. Die datierten Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek von 1401 bis 1450. Katalog der datierten Handschriften in lateinischer Schrift in Österreich 2. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Unterkircher, Franz, Heidelinde Horninger, and Franz Lackner. 1976. Die datierten Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek von 1501 bis 1600. Katalog der datierten Handschriften in lateinischer Schrift in Österreich 4. Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Van den Gheyn, Joseph. 1901. Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique. Tome premier: Écriture sainte et Liturgie. Brussels: Henri Lamertin. van Dijk, Aurelian. 1939. “De fontibus «Opusculi super Missam» fr. Gulielmi de Melitona, Ord. Min.” Ephemerides liturgicae 53: 291–349. van Dijk, Aurelian. 1954. “Il culto di s. Chiara nel Medioevo.” In Santa Chiara d’Assisi: studi e cronaca del VII centenario, 1253–1953, 155–205. Assisi: Comitato centrale per il VII centenario morte S. Chiara. van Dijk, S. J. P., ed. 1963. Sources of the Modern Roman Liturgy: The Ordinals by Haymo of Faversham and Related Documents (1243–1307). 2 vols. Studia et Documenta Franciscana 1–2. Leiden: E.J. Brill. van Dijk, S. J. P., and Joan Hazelden Walker. 1960. The Origins of the Modern Roman Liturgy: The Liturgy of the Papal Court and the Franciscan Order in the Thirteenth Century. Westminster, MD: Newman Press. van Dijk, S. J. P., and Joan Hazelden Walker, eds. 1975. The Ordinal of the Papal Court from Innocent III to Boniface VIII and Related Documents. Spicilegium Friburgense 22. Fribourg: University Press. van Liere, Frans. 2012. “The Latin Bible, c. 900 to the Council of Trent, 1546.” In The New Cambridge History of the Bible 2: From 600 to 1450, by Richard Marsden and E. Ann Matter, 93–109. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Liere, Frans. 2014. An Introduction to the Medieval Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vattasso, Marcus, and Pio Franchi de’ Cavalieri. 1902. Codices Vaticani Latini. Vol. 1. Rome: Typis Vaticanis. Venchi, Innocentius. 2001. Catalogus Hagiographicus Ordinis Praedicatorum. Rome: Postulatio Generalis. Vennebusch, Joachim. 1993. Die homiletischen und hagiographischen Handschriften des Stadtarchivs Köln. Cologne: Böhlau.

468 

 Bibliography

Vicaire, M.-H. 1964. Saint Dominic and His Times. New York: McGraw-Hill. Vitelli, Camillus. 1900. “Index codicum Latinorum qui Pisis in bybliotheca Conventus S. Catherinae et Universitatis adservantur.” Studi italiani di filologia classica 8: 321–427. Vogel, Cyrille. 1986. Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources. Translated by William Storey and Niels Rasmussen. Portland: Pastoral Press. Vogel, Cyrille, and Reinhard Elze, eds. 1963. Le Pontifical Romano-Germanique du dixième siècle: Le Texte I. Studi e Testi 226. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. von Euw, Anton, and Joachim M. Plotzek. 1979. Die Handschriften der Sammlung Ludwig. Vol. 1. Cologne: Schnütgen-Museum der Stadt Köln. Voyer, Cécile. 2015. “Voix et présence. Lettres historiées d’un missel du XIIIe siècle à l’usage de Notre-Dame de Belval (Charleville-Mézières, BM, ms. 243).” Pecia. Le livre et l’écrit 18: 199–223. Vyt, Camille. 1869. Catalogue des livres et manuscrits formant la bibliotheque de feu M. Jean de Meyer. La vente aura lieu à Gand, le 2 novembre 1869 et jours suivants. Ghent: Camille Vyt, Libraire. Walther, Hans. 1969. Initia carminum ac versuum medii aevi posterioris latinorum. 2nd ed. Carmina medii aevi posterioris latina 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Walsh, Patrick G., and Christopher Husch, eds. 2012. One Hundred Latin Hymns. Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 18. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walz, Angelus, ed. 1935. “Acta canonizationis S. Dominici.” In Monumenta historica sancti patris nostri Dominici, fasc. II., 89–194. Monumenta ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum historica 16. Rome: Institutum Historicum FF. Praedicatorum, ad S. Sabinae. Warner, George F., ed. 1915. The Stowe Missal. Vol. 2. Henry Bradshaw Society 32. London: Henry Bradshaw Society. Warner, George F. 1920. Descriptive Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts in the Library of C. W. Dyson Perrins. Oxford: Printed at the University Press. Warner, George F., and Julius P. Gilson. 1921. Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s Collections. 4 vols. London: Printed for the Trustees. Warren, Frederick Edward, ed. 1879. The Manuscript Irish Missal Belonging to the President and Fellows of Corpus Christi College. London: Pickering and Co. Watkins, Basil. 2015. The Book of Saints: A Comprehensive Biographical Dictionary. 8th ed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Webber, Philip E. 1978. “A Medieval Netherlandic Prayer Cycle on the Life of Christ: Princeton University Library, Garrett Ms. 63.” Ons Geestelijk Erf 52: 311–62. Webber, Philip E. 1982. “Integration of Literary and Visual Imagery in Netherlandic Vita Christi Prayer Cycles.” Manuscripta 26 (2): 90–99. Weber, Robert, ed. 1953. Le Psautier Romain et les autres anciens Psautiers Latins. Collectanea Biblica Latina 10. Rome: Abbaye Saint-Jérôme. Weber, Robert, and Roger Gryson, eds. 2007. Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Welch, Anna. 2016. Liturgy, Books and Franciscan Identity in Medieval Umbria. The Medieval Franciscans 12. Leiden: Brill. Westergård, Ira. 2007. Approaching Sacred Pregnancy : The Cult of the Visitation and Narrative Altarpieces in Late Fifteenth-Century Florence. Bibliotheca Historica 109. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Whittle, Patrick J. 2022. “Franciscan Liturgical Practice and the Liturgy of Rome from Francis of Assisi to Haymo of Faversham: Reassessing Current Assumptions.” S.T.D. diss., Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America. Wijk, W.E. van. 1936. Le Nombre d’Or. La Haye: Martinus Nijhoff. William Durandus. 1995–2000. Rationale divinorum officiorum. Edited by A. Davril and T.M. Thibodeau. 3 vols. Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 140–140B. Turnhout: Brepols. Willoughby, James. 2018. “Cardinal Marcello Cervini (1501–1555) and English Libraries.” In Books and Bookmen in Early Modern Britain : Essays Presented to James P. Carley, edited by James Willoughby and Jeremy Catto, 119–49. Papers in Mediaeval Studies 30. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Wilmart, André. 1913. “Le Comes de Murbach.” Revue bénédictine 30: 25–69. Wilmart, André. 1925. “Une curieuse expression pour désigner l’oraison secrète.” Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique 26: 94–103. Wilmart, André. 1932. “Prières médiévales pour l’adoration de la Croix.” Ephemerides Liturgicae 46: 22–65. Wilmart, André. 1940. Precum libelli quattuor aevi Karolini. Rome: Ephemerides Liturgicae. Wilmart, André, E.A. Lowe, and H.A. Wilson. 1924. The Bobbio Missal (Ms. Paris. Lat. 13246): Notes and Studies. Henry Bradshaw Society 61. London: Henry Bradshaw Society. Wolf, Edwin. 1937. A Descriptive Catalogue of the John Frederick Lewis Collection of European Manuscripts in the Free Library of Philadelphia. Philadelphia: The Free Library. Woolley, Reginald Maxwell, ed. 1921. The Gilbertine Rite. Vol. 1. Henry Bradshaw Society 59. London. Woolley, Reginald Maxwell, ed. 1922. The Gilbertine Rite. Vol. 2. Henry Bradshaw Society 60. London. Wordsworth, John, and Henry Julian White, eds. 1889–1954. Nouum Testamentum Domini nostri Iesu Christi latine secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Worm, Andrea. 2018. “Medium und Materialität: Petrus von Poitiers’s ‘Compendium historiae in genealogia Christi’ in Rolle und Codex.” In Der mittelalterliche Codex: Material und Materialität, edited by Patrizia Carmassi and Gia Toussaint, 39–63. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Wright, David Frank. 1977. “A Medieval Commentary on the Mass: Particulae 2–3 and 5–6 of the De missarum mysteriis (ca. 1195) of Cardinal Lothar of Segni (Pope Innocent III).” Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame. Ximeno, Vicente. 1747. Escritores del reyno de Valencia. Vol. 1. Valencia: En la Oficina de Joseph Estevan Dolz. Yao, Alain-Pierre. 2019. Les “apologies” de l’Ordo Missae de la Liturgie Romaine. Ecclesia orans Studi e Richerche 3. Naples: Editrice Domenicana Italiana. Zacour, Norman P., and Rudolf Hirsch, eds. 1965. Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Libraries of the University of Pennsylvania to 1800. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Abbreviations and Transcription Notes Transcriptions In the transcriptions of texts from manuscripts, I largely follow the orthography of the manuscripts, while silently expanding abbreviations, regularizing the use of majuscule and miniscule letters as well as the consonants c and t, and distinguishing between the consonant v and the vowel u.

General Abbreviations Table 153 lists general abbreviations used throughout this monograph. Table 153: General Abbreviations. Abbreviation

Meaning

CAO Cantus Index CCCM CCSL Clementine Vulgate CO CP Graduale Synopticum NAF NAL Oxford Vulgate PL S. Stuttgart Vulgate Usuarium VL Vetus Latina Iohannes Walther, Initia

Corpus Antiphonalium Officii § (ed. Hesbert 1963–1979) http://cantusindex.org/ Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis Corpus Christianorum Series Latina Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementiam (ed. Colunga and Turrado 1965) Corpus Orationum § (ed. Moeller et al. 1992–2004; CCSL 160–160M) Corpus Praefationum § (ed. Moeller, 1980–1981; CCSL 161–161D) http://gregorianik.uni-regensburg.de/gr/ Nouvelles acquisitions françaises (Bibliothèque nationale de France) Nouvelles acquisitions latines (Bibliothèque nationale de France) Nouum Testamentum Domini nostri Iesu Christi latine secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi (ed. Wordsworth and White 1889–1954) Patrologia Latina Stegmüller § (ed. Stegmüller 1950–1980, Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi) Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem (ed. Weber and Gryson 2007) https://usuarium.elte.hu/ Vetus Latina manuscript number (see Houghton 2016, pp. 209–281) https://itseeweb.cal.bham.ac.uk/iohannes/vetuslatina/ Initia carminum ac versuum medii aevi posterioris latinorum (Walther 1969)

Manuscript Libraries and Shelf Marks In citing manuscripts, I provide the name of the city (in English when there is a conventional English name), the name of the library, and the shelfmark. Table 154 lists the abbreviations used for the names of libraries. Table 155 lists the abbreviated shelfmarks of manuscripts cited frequently throughout this book together with their full shelfmarks and a brief summary of the manuscript. Table 154: Abbreviations of Names of Manuscript Libraries. Abbreviation

Meaning

Angelica BAV BC Beinecke BL BLB BM

Biblioteca Angelica (Rome) Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (Vatican City) Bibliothèque centrale (Mons) Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library (New Haven, Yale University) British Library (London) Badische Landesbibliothek (Karlsruhe) Bibliothèque municipale

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-014

470 

 Abbreviations and Transcription Notes

Table 154 (continued) Abbreviation

Meaning

BNE BnF BNP Bodleian BPL BSB Cathariniana CUL Getty HAB KBR KMK Mazarine MHL ÖNB Penn SBB Schøyen UB ULB

Biblioteca Nacional de España (Madrid) Bibliothèque nationale de France (Paris) Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal (Lisbon) Bodleian Library (Oxford) Boston Public Library Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (Munich) Biblioteca Cathariniana (Pisa) Cambridge University Library Getty Museum (Los Angeles) Herzog-August-Bibliothek (Wolfenbüttel) KBR (Brussels) Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly (Prague) Bibliothèque Mazarine (Paris) Musée Historique Lausanne Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (Vienna) University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz (Berlin) Schøyen Collection (London/Oslo) Universitätsbibliothek Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek

Table 155: Frequently Cited Manuscripts. Abbreviated Shelfmark

Full Shelfmark

Summary

Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202

Boston, Boston Public Library, MS q Med. 202

Franciscan bible missal

Brussels, KBR 8882

Brussels, KBR, MS 8882

Dominican bible missal

Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47

Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, Ff.6.47

Franciscan bible missal

Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3

Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, Hh.1.3

Franciscan bible missal

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 13

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 13

Franciscan bible missal

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16

Dominican bible missal

Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1

Cambridge, St. John’s College, N.1

Gilbertine bible missal

Cambridge, Trinity College, B.10.18

Cambridge, Trinity College, B.10.18

Bible missal

Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18

Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18

Bible missal

Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 203

Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 203/University of Notre Dame, MS 10

Bible missal

Darmstadt, ULB 1967

Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 1967

Franciscan bible missal

Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10

Haverford, Haverford College, Quaker and Special Collections, 1250 J2.16.10

Bible missal

Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20

Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, St. Peter perg. 20

Dominican missal (pre-Humbert)

Lausanne, MHL 10

Lausanne, Musée Historique Lausanne, AA.VL 81, MS 10

Dominican missal (pre-Humbert)

Lisbon, BNP, IL 34

Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal, IL 34

Augustinian bible missal (with breviary)

London, BL, Add. MS 23935

London, British Library, Add. MS 23935

Dominican exemplar (Humbert)

London, BL, Add. MS 57531

London, British Library, Add. MS 57531

Cistercian bible missal

London, BL, Harley 1748

London, British Library, Harley 1748

Bible missal

London, BL, Harley 2813

London, British Library, Harley 2813

Franciscan bible missal

London/Oslo, Schøyen 115

London/Oslo, Schøyen Collection, MS 115

Dominican bible missal

Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5

Los Angeles, Getty Museum, Ms. Ludwig V 5 (83.MG.80)

Dominican missal (pre-Humbert)

Biblical Books 

 471

Table 155 (continued) Abbreviated Shelfmark

Full Shelfmark

Summary

Madrid, BNE 874

Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, MS 874 (A. 140)

Bible missal

Mons, BC 63/201

Mons, Bibliothèque centrale, MS 63/201

Dominican missal (pre-Humbert)

Nantes, BM 2

Nantes, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 2

Bible missal

New Haven, Beinecke, Music Deposit 99

New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Music Deposit 99

Dominican Evangelarium (pre-Humbert)

Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3

Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3 (107. f)

Franciscan bible missal

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7

Dominican bible missal

Paris, BnF, latin 36

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 36

Cistercian bible missal

Paris, BnF, latin 163

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 163

Dominican bible missal

Paris, BnF, latin 215

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 215

Dominican bible missal

Paris, BnF, latin 216

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 216

Bible missal

Paris, BnF, latin 8884

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 8884

Dominican missal (pre-Humbert)

Paris, BnF, latin 10431

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 10431

Cistercian bible missal

Paris, BnF, latin 16266

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, latin 16266

Dominican bible missal

Paris, Mazarine 31

Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 31

Dominican bible missal

Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236

Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Ms. Codex 236

Bible missal (with breviary)

Pisa, Cathariniana 177

Pisa, Biblioteca Cathariniana, MS 177

Dominican bible missal

Poitiers, BM 12

Poitiers, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 12

Dominican bible (with added mass texts)

Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1

Prague, Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly, B LXVIII 1

New Testament missal

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”)

Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”)

Dominican bible (with added mass texts)

Rome, Angelica 32

Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS 32 (A.5.6.)

Dominican bible missal

Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1

Rome, Santa Sabina, Archivum Generale Ordinis Praedicatorum, XIV L1

Dominican exemplar (Humbert)

Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3

Rome, Santa Sabina, Archivum Generale Ordinis Praedicatorum, XIV L3

Dominican miscellany with votive missal (pre-Humbert?)

San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061

San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061

Augustinian bible missal

Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638

Sheffield, Collection of the Guild of St George, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638

Bible missal

Tours, BM 5

Tours, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 5

Augustinian bible missal

Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532

Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. lat. 532

Dominican bible missal

Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136

Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 1136

Bible missal

Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst.

Wolfenbüttel, Herzog-August-Bibliothek, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst.

Franciscan bible missal

Biblical Books For biblical citations, I use the short forms for each biblical book found in the Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem (ed. Weber and Gryson 2007, p. xlix), with the exception of using I Rg and II Rg instead of I Sm and II Sm (Table 156). When appropriate, I refer to groups of biblical books using the following conventional names: Octateuch (Gn, Ex, Lv, Nm, Dt, Ios, Idc, Rt), Minor Prophets (Os, Ioel, Am, Abd, Ion, Mi, Na, Hab, So, Agg, Za, Mal), Gospels (Mt, Mc, Lc, Io), Pauline Epistles (Rm, I Cor, II Cor, Gal, Eph, Phil, Col, I Th, II Th, I Tim, II Tim, Tit, Phlm, Hbr) and Catholic Epistles (Iac, I Pt, II Pt, I Io, II Io, III Io, Iud). Table 156 indicates the short forms in alphabetical order, the full Latin titles, and conventional titles used in English scholarship. For the Psalms, I follow the Vulgate numbering.

472 

 Abbreviations and Transcription Notes

Table 156: Abbreviations of Biblical Books. Short Form

Latin

English

Abd Act Agg Am Apc Bar Col I Cor II Cor Ct Dn Dt Ecl Eph I Esr II Esr (Neh) III Esr Est Ex Ez Gal Gn Hab Hbr Iac Idc Idt Ier Io I Io II Io III Io Iob Ioel Ion Ios Is Iud Lam Laod Lc Lv Mal Mc I Mcc II Mcc Mi Mt Na Nm Or Man Os I Par II Par Phil

Abdias Actus apostolorum Aggeus Amos Apocalypsis Baruch Colossenses I Corinthios II Corinthios Cantica canticorum Danihel Deuteronomium Ecclesiastes Ephesios I Ezras II Ezras (Neemias) III Ezras Hester Exodus Hiezechiel Galatas Genesis Abacuc Hebraeos Iacobi Iudicium Iudith Hieremias Iohannem I Iohannis II Iohannis III Iohannis Iob Iohel Ionas Iosue Isaias Iudae Lamentationes Laodicenses Lucam Leviticus Malachi Marcum I Macchabeorum II Macchabeorum Micha Mattheum Naum Numeri Oratio Manasse Osee I Paralipomenon II Paralipomenon Philippenses

Obadiah Acts Haggai Amos Revelation (Apocalypse) Baruch Colossians I Corinthians II Corinthians Canticle of Canticles (Song of Songs/Song of Solomon) Daniel Deuteronomy Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) Ephesians Ezra (or 1 Esdras) 2 Esdras (or 4 Esdras/Nehemiah) 3 Esdras Esther Exodus Ezekiel Galatians Genesis Habakkuk Hebrews James Judges Judith Jeremiah John 1 John 2 John 3 John Job Joel Jonah Joshua Isaiah Jude Lamentations Laodiceans Luke Leviticus Malachi Mark 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees Micah Matthew Nahum Numbers Prayer of Manasseh Hosea 1 Chronicles (1 Paralipomenon) 2 Chronicles (2 Paralipomenon) Philippians

Parisian Order of Biblical Books and Prologues 

 473

Table 156 (continued) Short Form

Latin

English

Phlm Prv Ps I Pt II Pt I Rg II Rg III Rg IV Rg Rm Rt Sap Sir So Tb I Th II Th I Tim II Tim Tit Za

Philemonem Proverbia Psalmi I Petri II Petri I Regum (I Samuhel) II Regum (II Samuhel) III Regum IV Regum Romanos Ruth Sapientia Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) Sofonias Tobias I Thessalonicenses II Thessalonicenses I Timotheum II Timotheum Titum Zaccharias

Philemon Proverbs Psalms 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 Samuel (or 1 Kingdoms) 2 Samuel (or 2 Kingdoms) 1 Kings (or 3 Kingdoms) 2 Kings (or 4 Kingdoms) Romans Ruth Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon) Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) Zephaniah Tobit (Tobias) 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Zechariah

Parisian Order of Biblical Books and Prologues Latin bibles provide a wide variety of selections and orders of both biblical books and accompanying biblical prologues (cf. Bogaert 2012, pp. 88–89). Nevertheless, many manuscripts, especially those produced in Paris after c. 1230, provide a particular selection and ordering of 76 biblical books and a standard set of 64 prologues (cf. Ker 1969, pp. 96–98; Light 2012, p. 385). Table 157 lists this “Parisian order” of biblical books and prologues along with their typical incipits. The biblical prologues are indicated with “S.” followed by the number assigned to them in Friedrich Stegmüller’s Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi (ed. Stegmüller and Reinhardt 1950–1980). The prologues are given a grey background to emphasize the alternation between biblical and paratextual material. Table 157: Parisian Order of Biblical Books and Prologues. S. 284 S. 285

Frater ambrosius Desiderii mei

Gn Ex Lv Nm Dt

In principio creavit Deus Haec sunt nomina filiorum Israel Vocavit autem Moysen Locutusque est Dominus Haec sunt verba quae locutus est

S. 311

Tandem finito

Ios Idc Rt

Et factum est post mortem Moysi Post mortem Iosue In diebus unius iudicis

S. 323

Viginti et duas

I Rg II Rg III Rg IV Rg

Fuit vir unus Factum est autem Et rex David Praevaricatus est autem

474 

 Abbreviations and Transcription Notes

Table 157 (continued) S. 328

Si septuaginta

I Par

Adam Seth Enos

S. 327

Quomodo grecorum

II Par Or Man

Confortatus est ergo Domine omnipotens Deus

S. 330

Utrum difficilius

I Esr II Esr [Neh] III Esr

In anno primo Cyri Verba Nehemiae filii Et fecit Josias

S. 332

Mirari non desino

Tb

Tobias ex tribu

S. 335

Apud Hebreos

Idt

Arphaxad itaque rex

S. 341 + S. 343

Librum Esther + Rursum

Est

In diebus Assueri

S. 344 S. 357

Cogor per singulos Si autem fiscellam

Iob Ps

Vir erat in terra Hus Beatus vir

S. 457

Iungat epistola

Prv

Parabolae Salomonis

S. 462

Memini me

Ecl Ct

Verba Ecclesiastae filii David Osculetur me

S. 468

Liber sapientie

Sap Sir

Diligite iustitiam Multorum nobis et [Prologus]; Omnis sapientia [c. 1]

S. 482

Nemo cum prophetas

Is

Visio Isaiae, filii Amos

S. 487

Ieremias prophetam

Ier Lam

Verba Ieremiae filii Helciae Et factum est postquam in captivitatem

S. 491

Liber iste

Bar

Et haec verba

S. 492

Ezechiel propheta

Ez

Et factum est

S. 494

Danielem prophetam

Dn

Anno tertio regni

S. 500 S. 507

Non idem est ordo Temporibus

Os

Verbum Domini quod factum est ad Osee

S. 511 S. 510

Sanctus Ioel Ioel filius Phatuel

Ioel

Verbum Domini quod factum est ad Ioel

S. 515

Ozias rex

Parisian Order of Biblical Books and Prologues 

Table 157 (continued) S. 512

Amos propheta

S. 513

Hic Amos

Am

Verba Amos qui

S. 519 + S. 517

Iacob patriarcha + Hebrei

Abd

Visio Abdiae

S. 524 S. 521

Sanctum Ionam Ionas columba et dolens

Ion

Et factum est verbum Domini ad Ionam

S. 526

Temporibus Ioathe

Mi

Verbum Domini, quod factum est ad Michaeam

S. 528

Nahum prophetam

Na

Onus Ninive

S. 531

Quatuor prophete

Hab

Onus quod vidit Habacuc

S. 534

Tradunt Hebrei

So

Verbum Domini quod factum est ad Sophoniam

S. 538

Ieremias prophetam

Agg

In anno secundo Darii regis

S. 539

In anno secundo

Za

In mense octavo

S. 543

Deus per Moysen

Mal

Onus verbi Domini ad Israel in manu Malachiae

S. 547 S. 553 S. 551

Cum sim promptus Memini me Maccabeorum libri

I Mcc II Mcc

Et factum est, postquam percussit Fratribus qui sunt

S. 590 S. 589

Matheus ex Iudeis Matheus cum primo

Mt

Liber generationis Iesu Christi

S. 607

Marcus evangelista

Mc

Initium evangelii Iesu Christi

S. 620

Lucas Syrus

Lc

Quoniam quidem multi / Fuit in diebus Herodis

S. 624

Hic est Iohannes

Io

In principio erat Verbum

S. 677

Romani sunt in partibus Italiae. Hi praeventi

Rm

Paulus servus Iesu Christi

S. 685

Corinthii sunt

I Cor

Paulus vocatus apostolus

S. 699

Post actam paenitentiam

II Cor

Paulus apostolus Iesu Christi per voluntatem Dei, et Timotheus frater, ecclesiae Dei quae est Corinthi.

S. 707

Galate sunt

 475

476 

 Abbreviations and Transcription Notes

Table 157 (continued) Gal

Paulus apostolus non ab hominibus

S. 715

Ephesi sunt

Eph

Paulus apostolus Iesu Christi per voluntatem Dei, omnibus sanctis qui sunt Ephesi.

S. 728

Philippenses sunt

Phil

Paulus et Timotheus, servi Iesu Christi, omnibus sanctis in Christo Iesu.

S. 736

Colossenses et hi

Col

Paulus apostolus Iesu Christi per voluntatem Dei, et Timotheus frater, eis qui sunt Colossis.

S. 747

Thessalonicenses sunt

I Th

Paulus et Silvanus et Timotheus ecclesiae Thessalonicensium.

S. 752

Ad Thessalonicenses

II Th

Paulus et Silvanus et Timotheus ecclesiae Thessalonicensium.

S. 765

Timotheum instruit

I Tim

Paulus apostolus Iesu Christi secundum imperium Dei

S. 772

Item Timotheo

II Tim

Paulus apostolus Iesu Christi per voluntatem Dei, secundum promissionem vitae.

S. 780

Titum commonefacit

Tit

Paulus servus Dei, apostolus autem Iesu Christi, secundum fidem electorum Dei.

S. 783

Philemoni familiares

Phlm

Paulus vinctus Christi Iesu, et Timotheus frater, Philemoni dilecto.

S. 793

In primis dicendum

Hbr

Multifariam multisque modis

S. 640

Lucas natione Syrus

Act

Primum quidem sermonem

S. 809

Non ita ordo

Iac I Pt II Pt I Io II Io III Io Iud

Iacobus Dei et Domini nostri Iesu Christi servus Petrus apostolus Iesu Christi Simon Petrus Quod fuit ab initio Senior Electae dominae Senior Gaio carissimo Iudas Iesu Christi servus

S. 839

Omnes qui pie

Apc

Apocalypsis Iesu Christi

List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 Table 31 Table 32 Table 33 Table 34 Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 Table 38 Table 39 Table 40 Table 41 Table 42 Table 43 Table 44 Table 45 Table 46 Table 47 Table 48 Table 49 Table 50 Table 51 Table 52 Table 53 Table 54 Table 55 Table 56 Table 57

Corpus of Identified Bible Missals   4 Bibles with Other Liturgical Texts   6 Liturgical Traditions of Bible Missals   13 Comparison of Origins of Bible Missals and Ownership of Bibles   14 Typology and Tradition of Bible Missals   16 Relationship Between Typology and Tradition   17 Location of Liturgical Texts   18 Relationship Between Location and Typology   19 Artistic Decoration in Bible Missals   23 Types of Artistic Decoration in Bible Missals and 13th-century Bibles   25 Places and Dates of Origin of Bible Missals (Arranged by Place)   26 Places and Dates of Origin of Bible Missals (Arranged by Date)   27 Place of Origin of Bible Missals and 13th-century Bibles   29 Dates of Bible Missals and 13th-century Bibles   29 Simplified Dates of Bible Missals and 13th-century Bibles   29 Bible Missals Arranged in Ascending Order of Leaf Size   31 Taille of Bible Missals and 13th-century Bibles   33 Bible Missals and 13th-century Bibles Under 450 mm Taille   33 Leaf Size and Liturgical Tradition   34 Leaf Size of Mendicant Bible Missals and Bibles   34 Leaf Size and Liturgical Typology   34 Leaf Size and Number of Leaves in Bible Missals   35 Leaf Size and Number of Leaves in 13th-century Bibles under 450 mm Taille   35 Textual Genres in Bible Missals   36 Relationship of Liturgical Typology to Length of Liturgical Section   37 Written Space Taille and Leaf Taille   40 Lines and Ruling Units Correlated to Leaf Size   41 Bible Missals with Different Layouts for the Ordo Missae and Formularies   42 Bible Missals with Larger Dimensions for the Missal Section than the Bible Section   42 Bible Missals with Equal or Similar Dimensions for the Missal and Bible Sections but Different Numbers of Lines  Leaf Size (Taille) of Bible Missals and 13th-century Missals   45 Size and Layouts of Selected Bible Missals   46 Size and Layouts of Selected Missals   46 Written Space, Lines, and Ruling Unit of Bible Missals and Missals (Ascending by Formulary Ruling Unit)   48 Anniversaries of the Dead in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Missals   56 St. Dominic in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals   63 St. Peter Martyr in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals   65 Dates of Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals   66 Liturgical Texts for St. Dominic in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals   68 Textual Sources of In medio ecclesie (Introit)   71 Textual Sources of Os iusti (Introit)   72 Introits for St. Dominic in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals   72 Textual Sources of Os iusti (Gradual)   72 Gradual for St. Dominic in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals   73 Textual Sources of Iustus germinabit (Alleluia)   73 Textual Sources of Posui adiutorium (Alleluia)   74 Text of Pie pater (Alleluia)   74 Alleluia Verses for St. Dominic in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals   75 St. Dominic Sequence in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals   76 Text and Textual Variations of In celesti ierarchia (Sequence)   76 Textual Sources for Desiderium anime (Offertory)   78 Textual Sources for Veritas mea (Offertory)   78 Offertory Chants for St. Dominic in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals   79 Textual Sources for Beatus servus (Communion)   79 Textual Sources for Fidelis servus (Communion)   80 Communion Chants for St. Dominic in Dominican Bible Missals and Pre-Humbert Dominican Missals   80 Dominican Chants for St. Dominic   80

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-015

 43

478 

Table 58 Table 59 Table 60 Table 61 Table 62 Table 63 Table 64 Table 65 Table 66 Table 67 Table 68 Table 69 Table 70 Table 71 Table 72 Table 73 Table 74 Table 75 Table 76 Table 77 Table 78 Table 79 Table 80 Table 81 Table 82 Table 83 Table 84 Table 85 Table 86 Table 87 Table 88 Table 89 Table 90 Table 91 Table 92 Table 93 Table 94 Table 95 Table 96 Table 97 Table 98 Table 99 Table 100 Table 101 Table 102 Table 103 Table 104 Table 105 Table 106 Table 107 Table 108 Table 109 Table 110 Table 111 Table 112 Table 113 Table 114 Table 115 Table 116 Table 117

 List of Tables

Dominican Chants for the Common of One Confessor (with Chants Used for St. Dominic in Italics)   81 Dominican Chants for the Common of One Confessor in Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 (with Chants Used for St. Dominic in Italics)  Dominican Chants for St. Augustine   82 Textual Sources for the St. Dominic Collect (CO 1559)   84 Collect for St. Dominic in Dominican sources   85 Textual Sources for the St. Dominic Secret (CO 3494)   85 Textual Sources for the St. Dominic Postcommunion (CO 766)   86 Textual Sources for the Translation of St. Dominic Orations   87 St. Dominic Epistles in Dominican Bible Missals   90 Textual Variations in the St. Dominic Epistle (II Tim 4:1–8)   90 St. Dominic Gospels in Dominican sources   91 Arrangements of St. Dominic Gospel in Dominican Sources   92 Textual Variations in the St. Dominic Gospel (Mt 5:13–19)   94 Textual Variations in the St. Dominic Gospel (Mc 6:6–13)   95 Textual Comparison of Mc 6:10–11 and Lc 9:4–5   95 Textual Variations in the St. Dominic Gospel (Mc 10:24–30)   96 Liturgical Texts for Pentecost and Votive Masses of the Holy Spirit in Dominican Sources   100 The Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit in Three Dominican Bible Missals   102 Modes of Presentation of the Pentecost, Votive, and Alcuin Mass in Dominican Sources   103  105 Textual Sources of Spiritus domini (Introit)  Introit Verses for Spiritus domini   106 Introit Verses for Spiritus domini in Dominican Sources   107 Introit Verses for Spiritus domini in Non-Dominican Sources   108 Textual Sources of Beata gens (Gradual)   109 Gradual Beata gens in Dominican Sources   110 Textual Sources of Emitte spiritum (Alleluia)   111 Text of Veni sancte spiritus (Alleluia)   111 Ps 67:29–30 in the Roman and Gallican Psalters   114 Medieval Versions of Confirma hoc (Offertory)   115 Confirma hoc (offertory) in Dominican Sources   115 Textual Variations in Dominican Sources of Confirma hoc (Offertory)   116 Textual Sources of Factus est repente (Communion)   118 Factus est repente (Communion) in Dominican Sources   119 Pentecost and Votive Versions of CO 1666   123 Textual Variants in CO 3421   124 Munera domine quaesumus (CO 3421) in Dominican Sources   124 Deus cui omne (CO 1135) in Dominican Sources   127 Haec oblatio domine (CO 2858) in Dominican Sources   128 Sacrificium salutis nostre (CO 5231b) in Dominican Sources   130 Dominican Sources for Act 2:1–11   133 Textual Variations in the Pentecost Epistle (Act 2:1–11)   134 Modes of Referencing the Pentecost Epistle in Dominican Bible Missals   135 Modes of Referencing the Pentecost Epistle in Non-Dominican Bible Missals   136 Dominican Sources for Act 8:14–17   138 Textual Variations in the Votive Mass Epistle (Act 8:14–17)   138 Modes of Referencing the Votive Mass Epistle in Dominican Bible Missals   139 Modes of Referencing the Votive Mass Epistle in Non-Dominican Bible Missals   141 Dominican Sources for Io 14:23–31   142 Textual Variations in the Pentecost/Votive Mass Gospel (Io 14:23–31)   143 Modes of Referencing the Pentecost and Votive Mass Gospel in Dominican Bible Missals   145 Modes of Referencing the Pentecost and Votive Mass Gospel in Non-Dominican Bible Missals   147 Liturgical Material for the Ordo Missae   152 Musical Notation, Rubrics, and Artistic Elements of the Ordo Missae   154 Sources with a Full Selection of Prefaces and Variable Canon Prayers   157 Comparison of the Order of Prefaces in Sources with a Full Selection of Prefaces   158 Sources with a Limited Selection of Prefaces   159 Rubrics for the Pentecost Preface and Variable Canon Prayers   160 Detailed Rubrics for the Pentecost Preface   161 Text of the Pentecost Preface   162 Standard and Pentecost Versions of the Communicantes   162

 81

List of Tables  

Table 118 Table 119 Table 120 Table 121 Table 122 Table 123 Table 124 Table 125 Table 126 Table 127 Table 128 Table 129 Table 130 Table 131 Table 132 Table 133 Table 134 Table 135 Table 136 Table 137 Table 138 Table 139 Table 140 Table 141 Table 142 Table 143 Table 144 Table 145 Table 146 Table 147 Table 148 Table 149 Table 150 Table 151 Table 152 Table 153 Table 154 Table 155 Table 156 Table 157

Gregorian and Dominican Versions of the Pentecost Communicantes   162 Variations in Dominican Versions of the Pentecost Communicantes   163 Standard and Pentecost Versions of the Hanc igitur   163 Variations in Memento domini   165 Canon Rubrics in Dominican Sources   166 Overview of Post-Canon Ordo Missae in Dominican Sources   168 Textual Variations in the Embolism Libera nos   170 Textual Variations of Hec sacrosancta commixtio   174 Prayers for the Sign of Peace in Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532   175 Rubrics Mentioning the Sign of Peace   175 Structure and Text of Domine ihesu christe   177 Variations in Phrase b2 of Domine ihesu christe   177 Variations in Phrase c of Domine ihesu christe   178 Variations in Phrase d of Domine ihesu christe   179 Texts for Corpus et sanguis domini / Corpus domini / Sanguis domini   180 Rubrics for Corpus et sanguis domini / Corpus domini / Sanguis domini   180 Variant Forms of Quod ore   181 Texts for Quod ore in Dominican Sources   182 Rubrics for Quod ore in Dominican Sources   182  183 Comparison of Corpus tuum in Two Manuscripts  Perceptio corporis et sanguinis in Pisa, Cathariniana 177   183 Textual Versions of Placeat tibi in Dominican Sources   184 Rubrics for Placeat tibi in Dominican Sources   185 Terminations for Placeat tibi in Dominican Sources   185 Meritis et precibus in Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532   186 Sequences in Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16   225 Votive Mass for Preachers   262 Colophon in Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 470r   392 Original and Added Contents of Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20   433 Original and Added Contents of Lausanne, MHL 10   436 Original and Added Contents of Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5   438 Original and Added Contents of Mons, BC 63/201   441 Original and Added Contents of Paris, BnF, latin 8884   442 Original and Added Contents of Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3   444 13th-century Manuscript Missals Catalogued by Leroquais   446 General Abbreviations   469 Abbreviations of Names of Manuscript Libraries   469 Frequently Cited Manuscripts   470 Abbreviations of Biblical Books   472 Parisian Order of Biblical Books and Prologues   473

 479

List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33 Figure 34 Figure 35 Figure 36 Figure 37 Figure 38 Figure 39 Figure 40 Figure 41 Figure 42 Figure 43 Figure 44 Figure 45 Figure 46 Figure 47 Figure 48 Figure 49 Figure 50 Figure 51 Figure 52 Figure 53 Figure 54 Figure 55 Figure 56 Figure 57

Leaf Size of Bible Missals   32 Written Space Dimensions for Bible Sections of Bible Missals   39 Leaf Size of Bible Missals and 13th-century Missals   45 Leaf Size of Bible Missals and Missals under 200 mm in Leaf Height   47 Written Space of Bible Missals and Missals under 200 mm in Leaf Height   48 Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 2r (Votive Missal Ordo Missae)   172 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1, f. 393vb (Detail)   173 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 196r (Ps 38)   192 London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, f. 196v   193 Brussels, KBR 8882, f. 4r (Gn)   206 Brussels, KBR 8882, f. 202r (Roman Canon)   207 Brussels, KBR 8882, f. 205r (Epistle and Gospel List)   208 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. IIIr (Calendar)   219 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 4v (Gn)   220 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 520r (Preaching List)   221 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 523r (Missal)   222 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 536r (Ordo Missae)   223 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16, f. 566r (Biblical concordance)   224 London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, f. 3v (Gn)   245 London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, f. 213r (Calendar)   246 London/Oslo, Schøyen 115, f. 217r (Missal)   247 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 5r (Gn)   258 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 199v (Roman Canon)   259 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 200v (Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit)   260 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7, f. 204r (Mass of St. Dominic)   261 Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 1v (Votive Missal Ordo Missae)   277 Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 2v (Votive Missal Formularies/Added Texts for St. Peter Martyr)   278 Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 8r (Gn)   279 Paris, Mazarine 31, f. 338r (Common of Saints Orations)   280 Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 2v (Gn)   293 Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 264v (Added Preparatory Prayers for Mass)   294 Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 265v (Calendar)   295 Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 268r (Added Franciscan Ordo Missae)   296 Paris, BnF, latin 163, f. 285v (Added Dominican Ordo Missae)   297 Paris, BnF, latin 215, f. 4v (Gn)   307 Paris, BnF, latin 215, f. 260r (Roman Canon)   308 Paris, BnF, latin 215, f. 261r (Votive Missal Formularies)   309 Paris, BnF, latin 16266, f. 6v (Gn)   321 Paris, BnF, latin 16266, f. 635r (Votive Missal Formularies)   322 Paris, BnF, latin 16266, f. 637r (Roman Canon with Commentary Added in the Margins)   323 Pisa, Cathariniana 177, f. 15r (Gn)   333 Pisa, Cathariniana 177, f. 395r (Festive Missal Formularies)   334 Pisa, Cathariniana 177, f. 399v (Roman Canon)   335 Pisa, Cathariniana 177, f. 400r (Roman Canon)   336 Poitiers, BM 12, f. 5v (Gn)   350 Poitiers, BM 12, f. 507r (Interpretations of Hebrew Names with Added Epistle and Gospel List)   351 Poitiers, BM 12, f. 535r (Interpretations of Hebrew Names with Added Mass Orations)   352 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), f. 2r (Calendar)   363 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), f. 3v (Epistle and Gospel List)   364 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), ff. 11v–12r (Roman Canon)   365 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), ff. 16v–17r (End of Ritual/Beginning of Bible)   366 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”), f. 22v (Gn [detail])   367 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 18v (Epistle and Gospel List I)   372 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 21r (Calendar)   373 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 25v (Gn)   374 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 210v (End of Psalter/Beginning of Festive Missal)   375 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 211r (Roman Canon)   376

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-016

482 

Figure 58 Figure 59 Figure 60 Figure 61 Figure 62 Figure 63 Figure 64

 List of Figures

 377 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 214r (Festive Missal Formularies)  Rome, Angelica 32, f. 218r (Added Mass Texts/Beginning of Prv)  Rome, Angelica 32, f. 465v (Epistle and Gospel List II)   379 Rome, Angelica 32, f. 466v (Epistle and Gospel List III)   380 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 6r (Ordo Missae and formularies)  Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 10r (Gn)   395 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532, f. 470r (Colophon)   396

 378

 394

Index of Manuscripts Abbeville, BM 7 45, 46, 48, 153, 446 Albi, BM 34 (20) 176 Amiens, BM 154 156 Amiens, BM 156 446 Aoste, Archives Historiques Régionales, cod. 7 262 Arras, BM 38 (58) 449 Arras, BM 49 (94) 449 Arras, BM 76 (636) 286 Arras, BM 309 (959) 449 Arras, BM 444 (888) 446 Arras, BM 448 (368) 446 Arras, BM 862 (518) 449 Arras, BM 1027 (721) 155 Assisi, Biblioteca S. Damiano, s.s. 2 Assisi, Fondo Antico presso la Biblioteca del Sacro Convento, MS 607 413 Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek, 2° Cod 55a und b 389 Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek, 2° Cod 66 389 Autun, BM 10 (8*) 447 Autun, BM 187 44, 446 Auxerre, BM 51 (51) 447 Auxerre, Trésor de la cathédrale, MS 6 447 Auxerre, Trésor de la cathédrale, MS 8 447 Avignon, BM 137 (61) 447 Avignon, BM 139 (56) 448 Avranches, BM 42 447 Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, MS. W.6 165 Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, MS. W.152 331 Bayeux, Bibliothèque du Chapitre, MS 62 448 Beaune, BM 17 (27) 448 Benevento, Biblioteca capitolare, MS 39 111 Berlin, SBB, MS. lat. fol. 920 163, 165 Bernkastel-Kues, St. Nikolaus-Hospital/Cusanusstift, Cod. cus. 132 200 Besançon, BM 184 88 Boston, BPL, MS q Med. 202 4, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 24, 27, 28, 31, 36, 42, 43, 84, 105, 108, 141, 147, 200, 408, 470 Braga, Biblioteca Pública, MS 1000 96, 165 Braunschweig, Stadtbibliothek, Hs 181 390 Brescia, Biblioteca civica Queriniana, s.n. 95 Brighton, Brighton and Hove Libraries, MS 1 6 Brooklyn, Brooklyn Museum, Ms 2 (olim) 392 Brussels, KBR 8882 4, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22–24, 26–27, 31, 36, 43, 46, 48, 63, 65–66, 68, 99–100, 116, 135–136, 145–147, 150, 152, 154, 159, 165, 168, 191, 203–208, 216, 353, 416, 470 Brussels, KBR, 10127–44 106, 118 Brussels, KBR, 14678–79 2 Cambrai, BM 164 (159) 122, 156 Cambrai, BM 181 (176) 448 Cambrai, BM 183 (178) 448 Cambrai, BM 234 (224) 181 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 270 84 Cambridge, CUL, Ee.1.16 201 Cambridge, CUL, Ee.6.26 201 Cambridge, CUL, Ff.6.47 3–4, 13, 16–19, 24, 27–28, 31, 36, 41–43, 200, 409, 470 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-017

Cambridge, CUL, Hh.1.3 3–4, 13, 16, 19–21, 24, 27–28, 31, 36, 41–43, 70, 84–87, 104, 108, 113, 136, 147, 200, 409, 470 Cambridge, CUL, Mm.3.2 201 Cambridge, CUL, Nn.2.41 134, 143 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 13 4, 13, 16–18, 23, 26–27, 31, 36, 43, 410, 470 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16 4, 8, 13, 16, 19–20, 24, 26–27, 31, 36, 39, 41–42, 46, 48, 56, 60, 63, 65–66, 68, 72–76, 79–87, 89–91, 93, 97, 100–103, 107, 110–112, 115, 117, 119, 123–124, 126–128, 130, 135, 137, 139–140, 145, 147, 152, 154, 157, 159–161, 164, 168, 175, 180, 182, 185, 191, 197–198, 205, 215, 218–225, 245–247, 292, 310, 319, 331, 335, 416, 470 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 53 226 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 88 226 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 96 226 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 151 226 Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 350/567 256 Cambridge, St. Johns College, N.1 4, 13, 16, 18, 23, 27–28, 31, 36, 41, 104–105, 108, 113, 118, 125–126, 136–137, 141, 147, 149–150, 421, 470 Cambridge, Trinity College, B.10.18 4, 13, 17–18, 24, 26, 28, 31, 36, 191, 424, 470 Cesena, Biblioteca Malatestiana, S.XXIX.11 167 Charleville, BM 3 447 Charleville, BM 5 446 Charleville, BM 149 449 Charleville, BM 247 448 Chartres, BM 520 (222) 449 Chartres, BM 521 (231) 448 Chartres, BM 580 (165) 447 Chartres, BM 583 (233) 448 Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 18 4, 12–13, 17–18, 23, 26, 28, 31, 36, 39, 425, 470 Chicago, Newberry Library, Case 203 4, 13, 17–18, 24, 26–27, 31, 36, 425, 470 Claremont, Claremont Colleges, Honnold Library, Crispin 2 318 Clermont-Ferrand, BM 23 6 Clermont-Ferrand, BM 62 (57) 448 Colmar, BM 409 447 Colmar, BM 429 448 Colmar, BM 433 46, 446 Cologne, Erzbischöfliche Diözesan- und Dombibliothek, Cod. 2 318 Cologny, Fondation Martin Bodmer, Cod. Bodmer 74 115 Columbus, The Ohio State University, Rare Books and Manuscripts Library, SPEC.RARE.MS.MR.FRAG.74.404 425 Dallas, Bridwell Library, Ms 2 57 Dallas, Bridwell Library, Ms 6 191 Darmstadt, ULB 1967 4, 13, 16, 18, 23, 26, 28, 31, 36–38, 70, 84–87, 104–105, 108, 113–114, 122, 126, 128, 130, 136, 147, 200, 411, 470 Dijon, BM 114 60, 183, 186 Donaueschingen, Fürstlich Fürstenbergische Hofbibliothek, Cod. 882 77 Douai, BM 85 448 Douai, BM 86 446 Douai, BM 87 448 Dublin, Royal Irish Academy, MS D ii 3 155–156 Durham, University Library, Cosin V.V.18 6

484 

 Index of Manuscripts

Engelberg, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 76 286 Engelberg, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 104 61–62 Escorial, Real Biblioteca del Monasterio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, e. IV. 15 389 Evreux, BM 50 446 Fribourg, Bibliothèque cantonale et universitaire, MS. L 158 186 Fribourg, Bibliothèque cantonale et universitaire, MS. L 305 186 Haverford, Haverford College, 1250 J2.16.10 5, 13, 16, 18–20, 23, 26–27, 31, 36, 41–42, 105, 108, 141, 147–148, 426, 470 Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, Cod. Sal. X,7 109, 113 Houston, Menil Foundation, 6562 DJ 61–62 Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 20 10, 63–66, 69, 72–75, 78–83, 85, 92–93, 100, 104, 107, 112, 115–117, 119, 124–126, 133, 136, 142, 153–154, 157, 160, 164, 168, 432–433, 470 Karlsruhe, BLB, St. Peter perg. 24 362 Laon, BM 212 15, 446 Laon, BM 225 448 Laon, BM 227 448 Laon, BM 228 447 Laon, BM 229 448 Laon, BM 230 447 Laon, BM 234 449 Laon, BM 235 449 Laon, BM 239 73 Lausanne, MHL 10 10, 56–57, 61, 63, 65–66, 69, 72–76, 79–83, 85, 89–90, 92, 94–95, 97, 100–101, 104, 107, 110, 112–113, 115–116, 119, 125, 127–128, 130, 133, 138, 142, 152–154, 157, 160, 165–166, 168, 177, 180, 182, 185, 218–219, 246, 292, 319, 432, 435–436, 470 Le Mans, BM 77 183 Le Mans, BM 437 449 Lille, BM 23 448 Lille, BM 27 448 Lincoln, Lincoln Cathedral, MS 115 (A.5.5) 113 Lisbon, Arquivo Nacional Torre do Tombo, CF 137 6 Lisbon, Arquivo Nacional Torre do Tombo, Mosteiro de Lorvão 43 (olim CF 154) 183 Lisbon, BNP, IL 34 2, 5, 12–13, 16–18, 23, 26–27, 31, 36, 104–105, 108, 113, 122, 127–128, 130, 136, 147–150, 156, 414, 470 London, BL, Add. MS 11852 134 London, BL, Add. MS 17742 81, 88, 93 London, BL, Add. MS 18031 81, 88 London, BL, Add. MS 18032 81, 88 London, BL, Add. MS 23935 76, 173, 190, 362, 374, 470 London, BL, Add. MS 28681 198 London, BL, Add. MS 29704 2 London, BL, Add. MS 29705 2 London, BL, Add. MS 35085 201 London, BL, Add. MS 44892 2 London, BL, Add. MS 49999 265 London, BL, Add. MS 57531 5, 13, 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30–31, 36, 38, 42, 418, 470 London, BL, Arundel 303 201 London, BL, Arundel 311 201 London, BL, Burney 335 2 London, BL, Egerton 609 143–144 London, BL, Egerton 2867 201

London, BL, Harley 1748 3, 6, 5, 12, 105, 108, 470 London, BL, Harley 2813 4–5, 13, 16, 18, 22–24, 26–28, 31, 36, 38, 42–43, 84, 105, 108, 120, 122, 127, 129–130, 141, 147, 200, 256, 412, 427, 470 London, BL, Royal 1 B VIII 256 London, BL, Royal 1 B XII 134, 138, 144 London, BL, Royal 1 D I 215 London, BL, Royal 2 A XI 2 London, Gray’s Inn, MS 24 256 London, Lambeth Palace, MS 533 201 London, Lambeth Palace, MS 534 6 London, Victoria and Albert Museum, Reid MS 21 201 London/Oslo, Schøyen 115 5, 13, 16, 18, 20, 24, 26–27, 30–31, 36, 41–42, 46, 48, 56, 59, 63, 65–66, 100, 103, 105, 124, 152, 154, 157, 160, 168, 191, 198, 216, 225, 244–247, 292, 310, 424, 470 Los Angeles, Getty, Ludwig V 5 10, 57–58, 63, 65–66, 69, 72–76, 79–83, 85–86, 89, 92, 100–101, 104, 107, 110–112, 115, 117, 119–121, 123, 125–130, 133, 138, 142, 152–155, 157, 159–161, 164–165, 168, 175, 180, 182, 184–185, 218–219, 361, 432, 437–438, 441, 470 Los Angeles, Getty, Ms. 107 8 Lyon, BM 5126 (B. 10) 449 Lyon, BM 5139 (B. 16) 447 Madrid, BNE 874 5, 12, 14, 16, 18, 24, 26, 28, 30–31, 36, 96, 427, 471 Manchester, John Rylands Library, Latin MS 24 416 Metz, BM 218 447 Milan, Ambrosiana, E 68 sup 73 Mons, BC 63/201 10, 57–58, 63–66, 69, 72–73, 75–76, 78–81, 83, 85, 92, 101, 104, 107, 110, 112, 115–117, 119, 125, 127–128, 130, 133, 138, 142, 153–155, 157–158, 160, 163, 165, 168, 180, 182, 184–185, 218–219, 319, 432, 440–441, 471 Munich, BSB, Clm 23275 1 Munich, Schatzkammer der Residenz, ResMü Schk 4 WL 181 Nantes, BM 2 5, 12, 14, 16, 19, 23, 26, 28, 31, 36, 39–43, 428, 471 Nantes, Musée Dobrée, Ms 4 262 Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele III, VI.G.38 108, 156, 166, 183, 413 New Haven, Beinecke, Marston MS 22 198 New Haven, Beinecke, MS 433 194 New Haven, Beinecke, MS 1007 57 New Haven, Beinecke, Music Deposit 99 10, 92, 101, 104, 143, 471 New York, Morgan Library, MS M.627 165 Olim: London, Law Society, MS 3 2, 5, 12–13, 16, 18, 23, 26, 28, 30–31, 36, 49, 200, 413, 471 Orléans, BM 117 (95) 448 Orléans, BM 121 (99) 449 Orléans, BM 129 (107) 224 Orléans, BM 721 (56) 447 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Auct. D. 2. 19 143 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Auct. D. 5. 9 218 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Auct. D. 5. 11 202 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Canon. Bibl. Lat. 59 392 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Douce 313 170 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. d. 9 202, 271 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. bib. e. 7 5, 7, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22–23, 26–27, 31, 36, 46, 48, 62–63, 65–66, 68, 72–73, 75, 79–80, 85, 87–93, 96–98, 100–103, 107, 110, 115–116, 119, 124, 126–130, 138–139, 142, 145, 152, 154, 157, 160–162, 164–165, 168, 180–181, 184–185, 191, 215, 248, 255–262, 271, 471

Index of Manuscripts  

Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. liturg. f. 26 43 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Lat. liturg. f. 34 2 Oxford, Bodleian, MS. Laud Lat. 13 201, 256 Oxford, Christ Church, MS 105 256 Oxford, Corpus Christi College, MS 504 416 Oxford, Keble College, MS 49 190 Oxford, Merton College, MS 7 256 Oxford, Oriel College, MS. 77 201 Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 135 44, 46, 48, 153, 170, 446 Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 595 2 Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 609 446 Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 622 2 Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Université, MS 177 449 Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, MS 90 418, 448 Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, MS 98 449 Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, MS 99 447 Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, MS 126 156 Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, MS 1259 418, 446 Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, MS 2641 418 Paris, BnF, latin 36 3, 5, 13, 16, 19, 23, 26–27, 30–31, 33, 36–37, 39, 41–43, 60, 104–105, 108, 113, 132, 136–137, 147, 150, 183, 201, 419, 426, 471 Paris, BnF, latin 163 3, 5, 13–14, 16, 19–20, 24, 27, 31, 37, 42–43, 56, 59, 63, 65–66, 99, 152, 154, 157–160, 163–169, 191, 197, 202, 215–216, 281, 291–297, 332, 393, 432, 471 Paris, BnF, latin 165 331 Paris, BnF, latin 215 3, 5, 9, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26–27, 30–31, 37, 41, 46, 48, 56, 59, 62–63, 65–66, 100–101, 103, 107, 109–110, 115–116, 119–120, 123–124, 132–133, 135, 137–146, 149–152, 154–155, 159, 165, 168–171, 174, 177–179, 181, 184, 186, 198, 205, 215, 246, 248, 306–309, 353, 432, 471 Paris, BnF, latin 216 5, 14, 16, 19, 24, 27–28, 31, 37, 41–42, 105, 108, 118, 120, 123, 125, 141, 148, 429, 471 Paris, BnF, latin 219 256 Paris, BnF, latin 254 95 Paris, BnF, latin 281 144 Paris, BnF, latin 298 144 Paris, BnF, latin 321 134, 138, 145 Paris, BnF, latin 824 447 Paris, BnF, latin 829 70 Paris, BnF, latin 830 447 Paris, BnF, latin 843 156, 182 Paris, BnF, latin 846 447 Paris, BnF, latin 849 57 Paris, BnF, latin 862 448 Paris, BnF, latin 866 113 Paris, BnF, latin 904 224 Paris, BnF, latin 1022 2 Paris, BnF, latin 1086 224 Paris, BnF, latin 1101 446 Paris, BnF, latin 1105 46, 48, 153, 446 Paris, BnF, latin 1107 446 Paris, BnF, latin 1112 107, 113, 224, 446 Paris, BnF, latin 1113 70 Paris, BnF, latin 1333 446 Paris, BnF, latin 2299 70 Paris, BnF, latin 2300 183 Paris, BnF, latin 8884 10, 56–58, 60, 63, 65–66, 69, 72–73, 75, 79–82, 85–86, 89, 92, 101, 104, 107, 110–112, 115–116, 119, 125–130, 133–134,

 485

138, 143–144, 152–155, 157, 160–163, 165, 168, 170, 174, 177–180, 182, 184–185, 219, 246, 319, 432, 435, 442, 449, 471 Paris, BnF, latin 9427 93 Paris, BnF, latin 9430 122 Paris, BnF, latin 9432 165, 176, 185 Paris, BnF, latin 9433 182 Paris, BnF, latin 9434 181 Paris, BnF, latin 9441 107, 113, 449 Paris, BnF, latin 9442 447 Paris, BnF, latin 9443 448 Paris, BnF, latin 9444 448 Paris, BnF, latin 10419 201 Paris, BnF, latin 10429 205, 216, 416 Paris, BnF, latin 10431 5, 12–13, 16, 19, 23, 27, 31, 37, 43, 105, 108, 118, 141, 148, 420, 471 Paris, BnF, latin 10502 46, 48, 153, 446 Paris, BnF, latin 10503 446 Paris, BnF, latin 10504 446 Paris, BnF, latin 11553 134 Paris, BnF, latin 12050 74 Paris, BnF, latin 12051 129, 163 Paris, BnF, latin 12057 447 Paris, BnF, latin 12058 447 Paris, BnF, latin 12059 447 Paris, BnF, latin 13169 144 Paris, BnF, latin 13222 2 Paris, BnF, latin 13225 415 Paris, BnF, latin 13246 131 Paris, BnF, latin 13247 446 Paris, BnF, latin 13248 446 Paris, BnF, latin 13388 176, 183 Paris, BnF, latin 15176 323 Paris, BnF, latin 15474 7 Paris, BnF, latin 15615 449 Paris, BnF, latin 15616 449 Paris, BnF, latin 16260 8 Paris, BnF, latin 16266 5, 13, 16, 19–20, 24, 26, 28, 31, 37, 39, 57–58, 63, 65–66, 100, 103, 105, 107, 110, 115–116, 119–120, 124, 135–143, 145–150, 152, 154, 159, 165, 168, 174, 177–180, 182, 184–185, 191, 198, 216, 318–323, 331, 471 Paris, BnF, latin 16718 323 Paris, BnF, latin 16823 448 Paris, BnF, latin 17308 449 Paris, BnF, latin 17312 448 Paris, BnF, latin 17318 449 Paris, BnF, latin 17319 448 Paris, BnF, latin 17321 447 Paris, BnF, latin 17436 73 Paris, BnF, latin 18008 156 Paris, BnF, NAL 1030 447 Paris, BnF, NAL 1669 118 Paris, BnF, NAL 1773 447 Paris, BnF, NAL 1783 449 Paris, BnF, NAL 2194 449 Paris, BnF, NAL 3036 376 Paris, BnF, NAL 3126 224 Paris, BnF, NAL 3164 415 Paris, Mazarine 22 281 Paris, Mazarine 31 5, 7, 13, 16, 18, 20, 24, 27, 31, 36, 42, 46, 48, 62–63, 65–66, 68, 85–86, 100–103, 106–108, 110, 115–116, 120, 124, 127–128,

486 

 Index of Manuscripts

130, 133–134, 138–140, 142, 144–145, 152, 154–155, 157, 160, 164–165, 168, 170–171, 174, 177–180, 182, 184–187, 256, 261, 275–276, 281, 370, 425, 432, 471 Paris, Mazarine 34 281 Paris, Mazarine 70 431 Paris, Mazarine 405 447 Paris, Mazarine 414 447 Paris, Mazarine 422 447 Paris, Mazarine 424 449 Paris, Mazarine 426 449 Paris, Mazarine 513 448 Perth, Museum and Art Gallery, MS 462 256 Philadelphia, Free Library, Lewis E 28 139 Philadelphia, Free Library, Lewis E 29 256 Philadelphia, Free Library, Lewis E 158 173 Philadelphia, Free Library, Lewis E 161 116 Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 236 2, 5, 13–14, 16–18, 23, 26–27, 31, 37, 42, 104, 108, 113, 120, 136, 139, 141, 148, 422, 471 Philadelphia, Penn, Ms. Codex 724 139 Pisa, Cathariniana 176 337 Pisa, Cathariniana 177 5, 13, 16, 19–20, 24, 27, 30–31, 37–38, 42, 62–63, 65–66, 69, 72–73, 75, 79–81, 85, 90–91, 93, 100, 103, 106–107, 110–111, 115–116, 119, 121, 124, 126–130, 135, 140, 146, 152–154, 158, 160, 165–166, 168, 174–175, 180, 183–185, 196–197, 331–336, 471 Poitiers, BM 12 5, 13, 16–17, 19–20, 23, 26, 28, 31, 37, 42, 51, 63, 65–66, 68, 74–75, 80, 84–86, 90–92, 100–101, 103, 105, 123–124, 126, 133, 135, 138, 140, 142, 146, 261, 349–353, 432, 471 Pontarlier, BM 8 (18) 448 Pontarlier, BM 9 (19) 448 Pontarlier, BM 10 (20) 448 Pontarlier, BM 11 (21) 447 Porto, Biblioteca Pública Municipal, MS 101 55, 61 Porto, Biblioteca Pública Municipal, MS 621 6 Prague, KMK, B LXVIII 1 2, 5, 13–14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 26–28, 31, 37, 39–40, 200, 423, 471 Prague, National Library, I. A. 46 423 Prague, National Library, VIII. B. 23 55, 61 Prague, National Museum, XV A 8 423 Private Collection (“The Wellington Bible”) 5, 12–13, 16, 18, 20, 23, 26, 28, 31, 37, 39, 51–52, 57, 63, 65–66, 69, 89–91, 93–94, 99, 152, 154, 159, 165, 168, 181, 183, 197, 353, 360, 363–367, 471 Provins, BM 11 (4) 447 Provins, BM 227 (8) 446 Reims, BM 215 (C. 208) 447 Reims, BM 216 (C. 126) 447 Reims, BM 219 (C. 125) 447 Reims, BM 228 (C. 134) 447 Reims, BM 229 (C. 133) 448 Reims, BM 232 (C. 121) 447 Rochester, Eastman School of Music, M2147 .G733 XIII 173 Rome, Angelica 1078 381 Rome, Angelica 32 5, 8, 13, 16, 18, 20, 24, 27–28, 30–31, 37–38, 41–42, 46, 48, 57–58, 62–63, 65–66, 69, 72–73, 75–76, 79–80, 82–83, 85–86, 89–93, 100–101, 103–104, 107, 109–112, 115–116, 120, 124, 127–128, 130, 133, 135–136, 138, 142–144, 146, 153–154, 157, 160, 164–166, 168, 170, 174–175, 180–181, 185, 191, 220, 275, 353, 369–381, 389, 424, 471 Rome, Angelica 38 381

Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, B.25 134 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV A1 51, 53, 61–62 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L1 1, 9, 60, 89, 113, 152, 160–161, 166–168, 171, 173, 175–176, 184–185, 190–193, 197, 199, 219, 246, 262, 292, 310, 349, 362, 373–374, 393, 471 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L2 82, 190 Rome, Santa Sabina, XIV L3 10, 52, 57, 63, 65–66, 81–82, 101, 104, 107, 110–112, 115–117, 119, 125, 138, 141, 143, 153–154, 159, 164–165, 168, 170, 174, 177–180, 182, 184–185, 432, 444, 471 Rouen, BM 177 (Y. 50) 446 Rouen, BM 192 2 Rouen, BM 276 (A. 459) 446 Rouen, BM 291 (A. 329) 447 Rouen, BM 295 (A. 398) 446 Rouen, BM 298 (A. 194) 449 Rouen, BM 299 (A. 305) 447 Rouen, BM 305 (A. 166) 449 Saint-Omer, BM 89 156 Saint-Victor-sur-Rhins, Mairie, non coté 362 Salamanca, Convento de San Esteban, sine numero 332 San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 51 6 San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 26061 4–5, 12–13, 16, 18, 24, 27–28, 31, 37, 43–44, 104–105, 108, 113, 118, 120, 122, 126, 129–130, 132, 136–137, 141, 148–149, 151, 205, 216, 416, 471 Semur-en-Auxois, BM 6 46, 48, 153, 446 Sens, BM 15 447 Sens, BM 18 446 Sheffield, Graves Art Gallery, R.3546 430 Sheffield, Museums Sheffield, CGSG03638 5, 14, 17–18, 23, 26, 28, 30–31, 33, 37–39, 41, 43, 49, 430, 471 Soissons, BM 87 (80) 448 Soissons, BM 88 (81) 449 Stockholm, Kungliga biblioteket, A. 148 138 St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, Ms. Lat. Q.v.I.16 88, 218 Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, HB VI 106 430 Toulouse, BM 89 57 Toulouse, BM 91 57 Toulouse, BM 103 449 Toulouse, BM 104 448 Toulouse, BM 105 449 Tours, BM 5 5, 13, 17, 19, 24, 26, 28, 31, 37, 42–43, 417, 471 Tours, BM 184 122 Tours, BM 196 181 Tours, BM 198 449 Trier, Stadtbibliothek, Hs. 456 437 Troyes, BM 257 449 Troyes, BM 298 449 Troyes, BM 405 449 Troyes, BM 586 448 Troyes, BM 704 448 Troyes, BM 708 448 Troyes, BM 863 448 Troyes, BM 870 448 Troyes, BM 1187 446 Troyes, BM 1731 46, 48, 70, 153, 183 Troyes, BM 1946 446 Troyes, BM 1951 186

Index of Manuscripts  

Valencia, Archivo de la Catedral, MS 304 332 Vallencines, BM 116 2 Vatican City, BAV, Arch. Cap. S. Pietro F. 22 115 Vatican City, BAV, Chig. C. VI. 174 437 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 356 86–87 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 523 391 Vatican City, BAV, Ott. lat. 532 5, 7, 13, 16, 18, 20, 24–25, 27–28, 31, 37, 43, 46, 48, 52, 57–59, 62–63, 65–67, 69, 89–92, 100, 104, 107, 110, 115, 120, 124, 135, 140, 146, 153–154, 159, 165, 168, 175, 177, 180, 183–186, 191, 202, 353, 392–396, 471 Vatican City, BAV, Pal. lat. 15 139 Vatican City, BAV, Reg. lat. 317 182 Vatican City, BAV, Ross. 277 109, 113 Vatican City, BAV, Sala Consultazione Manoscritti, Mss. Rosso. 387 (1) 404 Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 28 384 Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 627 392 Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 781 275 Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 3547 275 Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 5319 115 Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 6082 262 Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 7608 437

 487

Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 7658 437 Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 10769 60 Vatican City, BAV, Vat. lat. 10773 77, 112, 117 Vendôme, BM 17B 448 Verdun, BM 96 447 Verdun, BM 97 449 Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, Cod. LXXXV (80) 156, 181 Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, Cod. LXXXVII (82) 85, 163 Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1136 5, 14, 16, 18–19, 21, 24, 26, 28, 31, 37–38, 42–43, 105, 108, 113, 126, 132, 137, 140–142, 148–149, 151, 430, 471 Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 4936 424 Warsaw, Biblioteka Narodowa, Rps 12496 IV 110 Wellesley, Wellesley College, Milne MS 43 6 Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1151 Helmst. 175, 182, 186 Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 1335 Helmst. 5, 13, 16, 18, 23, 25, 27–28, 31, 37, 41–43, 84, 104–105, 108, 113–114, 120, 122, 129–130, 137, 148, 197, 200, 216, 331, 413, 471 Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, M.p.th.f.62 88 York, Cathedral Library, MS XIV.N.6 256

Index of People and Places Abdon, St. 237 Abishag 355 Achilleus, St. 236 Adalbert, St. 349, 353, 423 Adam 264, 355 Adauctus, St. 238 Agapitus, St. 59, 237, 238 Agatha, St. 236 Agnes, St. 216, 236 Agricola, St. 214, 239, 361, 441 Ahasuerus 355 Ahaziah, King 355 Alcuin of York 99, 101, 104, 122, 126, 127, 129, 131, 150 Alexander, St. 236, 374 Alexander VIII, Pope 397 Allayre 310 Amadeo da Pisa 332, 337 Amandus, St. 236 Ambrose, St. 236 Amos, Prophet 267, 356 Anagni 87 Andrew, St. 216, 235, 331, 336, 344, 361, 385, 410, 413, 414 Andrist, Patrick 6 Anselm, St. 417 Anthony of Padua, St. 59, 365, 372, 395, 408, 413, 415, 428, 435 Antonio d’Auria 332, 337 Antonio de Vercellis 337 Antwerp 206 Apollinaris, St. 237 Apollonia, St. 245 Apuleius, St. 374 Arras 446 Astor, William Waldorf 248 Augustine, St. 55, 57, 70, 71, 82, 83, 88, 93, 97, 205, 216, 238, 242, 309, 310, 318, 329, 333, 365, 386, 393, 416, 417 Autun 447, 448 Auxerre 447 Avignonet 375 Bachus, St. 239, 374 Barbara, St. 216, 217, 218, 235 Barcelona 275 Barnabas, St. 216, 237, 320, 386 Bartholomew of Trent 60, 89 Bartholomew, St. 216, 238, 320, 333, 386 Bartolomei, Guilelmus 381 Baruch, Prophet 267, 356 Basilides, St. 237 Bayeux 113 Beatrice, St. 237 Bec 446 Bellesmains, John de 60 Benedict, St. 60, 205, 221, 236 Bergin, Patrick  60 Bernard of Clairvaux, St. 60, 238 Boheler de Spira, Nicholas 262 Bologna 9, 51, 61, 183, 189, 195 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-018

Bonaparte, Joseph 366 Boniface IX 423 Boucquet, Jean 206 Bower, Calvin 224 Boynton, Susan 6 Braun, Joseph 176 Brittany 144 Brodský, Pavel 423 Buchinger, Harald 1, 105 Buda  62, 64 Callixtus I, St. 239 Cambrai 181, 440, 441, 448 Canart, Paul 6 Canterbury 418 Carino of Balsamo  64 Carpa de Pisis, Philippus 337 Castiglione, Francesco  64 Catherine of Alexandria, St. 216, 239, 320, 331, 336, 345, 371, 386, 410, 412, 414, 416 Catherine of Siena, St. 57, 433, 437 Cecilia, St. 239, 320 Celsus, St. 237 Cervini degli Spannochi, Cardinal Marcello 393, 396 Châlons-sur-Marne 2, 113 Chartres 318, 320, 322, 447, 448, 449 Chelion 355 Christina, St. 237 Christopher, St. 237 Chrysogonus, St. 239 Clairvaux 46, 60 Clare, St. 245, 291, 292, 395, 411 Clement, St. 216, 239, 320 Clones 416 Clotilde, St. 417 Colbert, Charles Eleonor 310 Colbert, Jacques-Nicolas 310 Colbert, Jean-Baptiste 310 Colbert, Jean-Baptiste Antoine 310 Cologne 206 Colonna, Cardinal Ascanio 397 Cooke, Joseph J. 248 Corbie 2, 88, 129, 163, 446 Cosmas, St. 239 Crispinian, St. 239 Crispin, St. 239 Cucuphas, St. 237 Cuthbert, St. 394 Cyriacus, St. 238 Cyrinus, St. 237 Cyrus, King 357 Czechia 27 d’Altemps, Duke Giovanni Angelo 397 d’Altemps, Duke Giovanni Pietro 397 Damian, St. 239 Daniel, Prophet 267, 356

490 

 Index of People and Places

Darius, King 357 David, King 264, 355, 356 Davis, Lisa Fagin 408 de Brailes, William 22, 255, 256, 265, 412 de Hamel, Christopher 1 de Meyer, Jean 248 Devine, Alexander 6 Die 218 Dionysius, St. 55, 56, 195, 239, 417 Dirks, Ansgar 60, 61, 62, 75, 76, 78, 84, 432, 435 Dominic, St. – Alleluia 62, 74 – Canonization 59, 68, 306 – Collect 63, 66, 68, 83, 98, 197, 215, 255, 433, 435, 438, 440, 442 – Daily celebration of mass 194 – Death  59 – Epistle 88, 92, 97, 205 – Exhortations to study the bible 189 – Feast 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 68, 202, 215, 237, 244, 291, 309, 349, 353, 361, 364, 386, 393, 435, 437, 442 – Gospel 91, 92, 93, 97, 205 – Gradual 72 – Inclusion of name in votive mass De omnibus sanctis et pro ecclesia 281 – Introit 70, 82 – Legenda 60, 61 – Litany 62, 215, 435, 437, 442 – Liturgical legislation 61 – Mass texts 58, 68, 223, 256, 261, 266, 283, 331, 332, 336, 344, 359, 370, 439 – Octave 58, 60, 62, 68, 435 – Offertory 78 – Office Texts 58 – Postcommunion 86 – Preaching list 216 – Secret 85 – Sequence 62, 75, 112, 222, 242, 437 – Translation 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 68, 82, 89, 204, 236, 244, 261, 266, 291, 309, 320, 353, 364, 386, 393, 435, 438, 442 – Votive mass  61 Donatian, St. 74 Donatus, St. 237 Dorofeeva, Anna 6 Douai 440 Dubreil-Arcin, Agnès 52 Dupons de Saria 310 Dupont 310 Dutschke, Consuelo  4, 6, 12, 318, 416, 417 Dyer, Joseph 1, 114, 118 Dyson Perrins, Charles William 22, 255, 263 Edmund of Abingdon, St. 87, 256, 262, 418 Edmund the Martyr, St. 215, 216 Egidius, St. 238, 349 Eleutherius, St. 417 Eleven Thousand Virgins, St. 52, 239 Elimelech 355 Elizabeth of Hungary, St. 52, 61, 225, 229, 349, 353, 413

England 9, 26, 28, 29, 49, 53, 87, 111, 134, 138, 144, 163, 176, 198, 215, 216, 218, 225, 256, 262, 271, 290, 291, 293, 305, 306, 408, 409, 416, 420, 421, 424, 425, 427 – Southern 144 Epimachus, St. 236 Essômes-sur-Marne 8, 13, 414 Esther 355 Euphemia, St. 239 Eusebius, St. 71, 72, 238 Eventius, St. 374 Exuperius, St. 377 Ezechiel, Prophet 267, 356 Fabian, St. 236 Fassler, Margot 223 Faustinus, St. 237 Fécamp 446 Felicianus, St. 237 Felicissimus, St. 59, 237 Felix II, St. 237 Felix, St. 71, 88, 235, 238 Ferdinand VII (King of Spain) 366 Fernandez, Isabella 262 Ferreolus, St. 415 Feuardent, François 285 Flines 440 Florian, St. 349, 353 Four Crowned Martyrs 239 France 3, 9, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 49, 53, 59, 60, 70, 71, 111, 145, 176, 196, 206, 215, 225, 275, 306, 360, 408, 413, 425, 427, 430 – Northern 6, 26, 27, 28, 29, 53, 305, 410, 418, 424 – Southern 27, 28, 29, 53, 59, 70, 145, 274, 275, 281, 408 – Western 143 Francis, St. 9, 13, 59, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 97, 98, 200, 216, 239, 306, 309, 310, 320, 393, 408, 412, 413, 435, 437, 442 Frideswide, St. 271 Furnes 446 Genviève, St. 417 George, St. 236 Gerald de Frachet 259 Germanus, St. 239 Germany 29, 53, 175, 176, 215 Gertrude of Helfta, St. 198 Gervase, St. 237 Gibson-Craig, James Thomson 225 Gignac, Louis-Marie 3, 52, 201, 432 Gilbert of Poitiers 400 Gilbert of Sempringham, St. 59 Giles, St. 238, 349 Giraud, Eleanor 6, 13, 64, 310, 432 Gleeson, Philip 52, 55, 56, 61, 62, 75, 78, 432, 438, 440 Goliath 265 Gomer 356 Gordianus, St. 236 Gorgonius, St. 238 Gregory IX, Pope 59, 98 Gregory the Great, St. 79, 86, 88, 97, 221, 236 Grusch, Johannes 349, 361

Index of People and Places  

Gui, Bernard 51, 53, 60, 61, 62 Guillelmus Arnaud 375 Gura, David 6 Gwara, Scott 427 Habakkuk, Prophet 267, 357 Haggai, Prophet 357 Hannah 355 Hawk, Brandon 392 Haymo of Faversham 411, 413 Hees, Petrus 206 Heinzer, Felix 432 Hesbert, René-Jean 70, 73, 106, 118 Hilary, St. 235 Hippolytus, St. 238 Holofernes 355 Holy Innocents 216, 235, 344, 385 Honorius III, Pope 394 Hosea, Prophet 267, 356 Howard, Robin 263 Hugh of St. Cher 133, 430 Humbert of Romans 2, 9, 10, 51, 53, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 68, 70, 75, 89, 151, 161, 166, 186, 188, 194, 195, 258, 259, 349, 362, 373, 444 Hyacinth the Martyr, St. 238 Iberian Peninsula 29 Ignatius of Antioch, St. 236 Inardi, Johannes 332 Innocent III, Pope 58, 59, 60, 74, 112, 198, 318, 319, 394 Innocent IV, Pope 59, 196, 361 Irving, Andrew 1, 6, 10 Isaiah, Prophet 267, 356 Italy 3, 9, 10, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 38, 49, 64, 111, 330, 331, 337, 369, 370, 381, 384, 432, 433 – Northern 413, 429 Jacob, Patriarch 265 James, M.R. 215, 226 James the Great, St. 216, 237, 320, 358, 386 James the Less, St. 216, 236, 320, 385 Janin, Jules 440 Jeremiah, Prophet 267, 356 Jerome, St. 8, 70, 239, 256, 286, 302, 325, 339, 355, 389, 399, 426, 440 Jesse 357 Joachim of Fiore 421 Job 265, 355 Joel, Prophet 267, 356 Johannes Linden 262 John Beleth 70 John de Mailly 60 John of Cortona 7, 25, 58, 392, 396, 398 John of Jenstein 423 John of Spain 189 John of Ulm  294 John of Wildeshausen  54, 64 John the Baptist, St. 216, 237, 238, 320, 336, 344, 386 John the Evangelist, St. 71, 82, 93, 216, 235, 236, 264, 268, 336, 344, 355, 357, 358, 385, 386, 418 John the Martyr, St. 237 Jonah, Prophet 265, 267, 357

 491

Josiah, King 355 Jude, St. 216, 239, 268, 320, 358, 386 Judith 265, 355 Julitta, St. 237 Jumièges 447, 449 Kidd, Peter 4, 200, 255, 256, 262, 263, 264, 360, 412, 427 Klauser, Theodor 3 Kraus, H.P. 440 Lambert, St. 418 Langres 46, 446, 447 Langton, Stephen 112 Lausanne 435, 449 Lawrence, St. 88, 216, 238, 320, 331, 337, 346, 386, 416 Lebaude, Gautier 419 Leodegar, St. 239 Leo the Great, St. 237 Leroquais, Victor 15, 44, 52, 70, 165, 166, 183, 215, 415, 417, 420, 432, 446 Levy, Kenneth 118 Liège 57, 206, 418 Lier 206 Light, Laura 1, 4, 15, 19, 43, 44, 188, 189, 197, 200, 215, 408, 418, 419, 421, 422, 426, 427, 429, 431 Lisle-sur-Tarn 57 Lodi 447 Lombardy 53 London  56 Lothario de Segnis 319 Louis IX, St. 196 Louis, St. 442 Low Countries 29, 215 Lucy, St. 235 Ludmila, St. 423 Ludwig, Irene 440 Ludwig, Peter 440 Luke, St. 82, 88, 93, 216, 239, 302, 320, 386 Luxeuil 93 Lyon 61, 218, 360, 361, 362, 365, 437, 447 Machabees (Seven Holy Brothers) 237 Magnus, St. 417 Mahalon 355 Malachi, Prophet 357 Maniaci, Marilena 3, 6 Marcellian, St. 237 Marcellinus, St. 236 Marcellus, St. 236, 238, 239, 374, 417 Marchiennes 446, 448 Marcus, Hans 366 Margaret, St. 216, 237, 245, 320, 393 Mark of Rome, St. 237 Mark, Pope, St. 239 Mark, St. 216, 236, 320, 349, 357, 385 Marmoutier 446 Martha, St. 371, 387 Martin, St. 60, 216, 237, 239, 320, 386 Martinian, St. 237 Mary Magdalene, St. 216, 237, 320, 336, 344, 386, 416, 435, 437

492 

 Index of People and Places

Mary, St. 242, 264, 329, 355, 358, 385, 416 – Annunciation 216, 220, 236, 320, 336, 344, 359, 385 – Assumption 216, 238, 320, 336, 344, 386 – Conception 216, 217, 292, 320 – Nativity 55, 216, 238, 241, 336, 344, 386, 418 – Purification 55, 216, 236, 241, 336, 344, 359, 385 – Visitation 423 Mathias, St. 216, 220, 236, 385 Matthew, St. 71, 216, 239, 320, 357, 386 Maurice, St. 239 Mazarin, Cardinal Jules 294 McClean, Frank 226 Meaux 306, 447 Medardus, St. 236 Menas, St. 239 Menne, St. 71 Metz  53 Meyer, Christian 52 Micah, Prophet 357 Michael the Archangel, St. 216, 239, 320, 386, 416 Millau 145 Modestus, St. 237 Mont-Saint-Michel 447 Morard, Martin 52 Morgan, Nigel 4, 43, 46, 47, 215, 225, 257, 306 Moschella, Jay 408 Moses 256, 264, 355 Munster 447 Nabor, St. 237 Nahum, Prophet 357 Naomi 355 Naples 61 Narbonne 71, 411 Nazarius, St. 237 Neckam, Alexander 318, 319, 328 Nereus, St. 236 Netherlands 111 Nicholas of Cusa 200 Nicholas, St. 216, 235, 320, 353, 415, 435 Nicolaus, Magister 437 Nicomedes, St. 236, 238, 418 Northampton 416 Noyon 446 Obadiah, Prophet 267, 356 Olschki, Leo 263 Osma 9, 97 Oswald, St. 416 Ottoboni, Cardinal Pietro 397 Oxford 9, 26, 27, 255, 262, 271, 412 Palazzo, Éric 1 Pancratius, St. 236 Pantaleon, St. 237 Paris 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 18, 26, 27, 28, 34, 54, 55, 56, 61, 70, 113, 189, 204, 214, 215, 224, 243, 244, 248, 271, 317, 318, 322, 348, 349, 353, 360, 361, 365, 408, 410, 411, 415, 417, 419, 422, 425, 426, 428, 430, 435, 437, 442, 444, 446, 447, 448, 449, 473

Paul IV, Pope 59 Paul, St. 216, 236, 237, 267, 320, 336, 344, 357, 385, 386 Paul the Hermit, St. 235 Paul the Martyr, St. 237 Paulus Venetus 195 Pelagius Parvus 197 Perpignan 145 Peter Cantor 74 Peter Comestor 189 Peter Lombard 167, 189 Peter Martyr, St. 10, 52, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 75, 84, 112, 204, 218, 245, 261, 275, 281, 282, 283, 292, 309, 310, 318, 319, 329, 332, 349, 353, 359, 361, 365, 371, 372, 374, 393, 394, 418, 433, 435, 437, 440, 444, 445 Peter of Poitiers 420 Peter of Tarentaise, St. 418 Peter, St. 216, 236, 237, 268, 320, 336, 344, 358, 385, 386 Peter the Exorcist, St. 236 Peter the Venerable 74 Petronilla, St. 236, 375 Pfaff, Richard 15, 43, 44, 47, 215, 421 Pfeiffer, Alfred 263 Philip, St. 216, 236, 320, 349, 385 Piat, St. 440 Poleg, Eyal 1, 3, 4, 13, 21, 43, 44, 190, 191, 200, 201, 215 Pontigny 418 Portase, St. 237 Praepositinus of Cremona 74 Prague 3, 5, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18, 27, 28, 34, 408, 423, 424 Praxedes, St. 237 Primus, St. 237 Prisca, St. 236 Processus, St. 237 Procopius, St. 423 Protus, St. 238 Provence 53 Provins 446 Prudlo, Donald 59, 64 Pudentiana, St. 236 Quielen, Petrus 294 Quintus, St. 239 Quiricus, St. 237 Raimundus Scriptor 376 Raniero Capocci, Cardinal 58, 392, 394 Rasseguier, Basile 381 Rau, Arthur 432, 440 Ravière 46 Raymond of Penyafort, St. 51, 55, 60, 61, 189, 196 Regensburg 6, 163 Rehoboam, King 356 Reims 447, 448 Remigius, St. 53, 235, 239, 440 Richardi, Stephanus 294 Riviere, Robert 226 Robert of Molesme, St. 420 Robson and Kerslake 225 Rome 59, 86, 134

Index of People and Places  

Rosset, Albert 440 Rouen 2, 446 Rouge-Cloître 281 Rouse, Mary and Richard 1, 7, 9, 132, 133, 201, 216, 438 Rufus, St. 238 Rusticus, St. 417 Ruzzier, Chiara 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 14, 22, 25, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 188, 200, 306, 317, 331, 370, 411, 413, 418, 424, 429, 430, 431 Sabina, St. 238 Saint-Amand 183, 446 Saint-Denis 446, 447 Saint-Pierre-le-Vif 446 Saint-Wandrille 447 Salmon, Pierre 15 Sankt Gallen 111 Saturinus, St. 235, 371, 385 Saul, King 264 Scandinavia 111 Scholastica, St. 236 Schøyen, Martin 248, 366 Scotland 163 Sebastian, St. 236 Sedulius Scottus 389 Senlis 447 Sennen, St. 237 Sens 446, 447 Sergius, St. 239, 374 Seven Holy Brothers 237 Silvester, St. 235 Simier, René 438 Simon, St. 216, 239, 320, 386 Simplicius, St. 237 Sirleto, Cardinal Guglielmo 393, 396 Sixtus (Pope and Martyr), St. 59, 237 Slavic countries 29 Sodi, Manlio 1 Sölch, Gisbert 432 Solomon, King 264, 266, 355, 356 Sotheby’s 225, 248, 263, 366, 413, 426 Spain 3, 27, 29, 71, 366, 446 – Northern 274, 275 Stamm, Gerhard 432 Stegmüller, Friedrich 203, 473 Stephen I, St. 237 Stephen Langton 112 Stephen, St. 72, 216, 235, 237, 336, 344, 385, 386, 420 Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel 6 Stones, Alison 349, 362, 432, 435, 440 Suski, Andrzej 1 Sylvester, St. 353, 413 Symphorian, St. 238

Tarentaise 218 Teutonia 53 Theodolus, St. 374 Theodore, St. 84, 239 Thérouanne 6 Thomas, Antoninus Hendrik  55 Thomas Aquinas, St. 57, 121, 167, 195, 197, 198, 275, 320, 439 Thomas Becket, St. 87, 216, 235, 256, 262, 349 Thomas the Apostle, St. 216, 235, 320, 385, 415, 418, 420, 422 Tiburtius, St. 72, 236, 238 Timotheus, St. 238 Timothy, St. 88 Tobit 355 Toulouse 57, 375, 381 Tournai 440, 441 Tours 122, 181, 446, 447, 448 Trier 2 Troyes 446, 448 Trugosse, Hugo 145 Tugwell, Simon 52, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 197 Urban VI, Pope 423 Urban, St. 236 Ursula, St. 52, 239 Valentine, St. 236, 349 Valerian, St. 236 Val-Saint-Lambert 418 Vedast, St. 236, 239 Venice 27, 28, 429 Ventura of Verona 195 Vic 71 Vincent Ferrer, St. 57, 196, 245, 248, 331, 332, 337, 361, 365, 433 Vincent of Saragossa, St. 216, 236, 245, 320 Vitalis, St. 214, 236, 239, 361, 441 Viterbo 7, 25, 27, 28, 58, 391, 392, 394, 396 Vitoria 366 Vitus, St. 237, 423 Vogel, Cyrille 1 Wellesley, Arthur (Duke of Wellington) 366 Wenceslaus, St. 349, 353, 423 William Durandus 71, 74 William of Æbelholt, St. 417 Winchcombe 2 Wolfgang, St. 88 Ypern 206 Zechariah, Prophet 357 Zechariah, St. 357 Zephaniah, Prophet 357

 493

Index of Scripture Act – 2:1 134, 138 – 2:1–11 99, 118, 131, 133, 134, 137, 142, 149, 150, 151 – 2:1–12 131 – 2:2 118 – 2:4 118 – 2:7 150 – 2:9–11 134 – 2:11 118 – 8:14 139, 141, 150 – 8:14–15 141 – 8:14–17 99, 132, 137, 138, 142, 149, 150, 151 – 8:16 141 – 8:17 141 Apc – 21:921 131 I Cor – 12:7 I Cor 11 132, 141, 142, 149, 151 II Cor – 2:14–17 89, 97 – 2:15 89 Dn – 14:27.28–42 38 – 14:40 285 – 14:41 285 – 14:42 38 Ecl – 12:12 202 IV Esr 392, 400, 425 – 8:20–36 331, 339 V Esr 392, 400 Gal – 6:14–18 98 I Pt – 5:12 303 Iac – 1:22 11 Io – 1:1–14 256, 262, 266 – 4:23–24 132, 141, 148, 149, 151 – 4:23–31 148 – 5:30–47 218 – 6:1–14 381 – 8:31–45 218 – 12:24–26 349 – 14:12, 13, 1521 131 – 14:15 146 – 14:15–21 131, 146 – 14:16–17 131 – 14:22 132 – 14:23 146 – 14:23–31 16, 99, 131, 132, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151 – 14:24–25 143 – 14:26 131 – 14:27 150 – 14:28 144 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-019

– 14:6 319 – 15:3 143 – 15:26 146, 149 – 15:26–16:4 147 – 17:17 219 Iob – 1:4 204, 244, 256, 275, 291, 306, 318, 331, 349, 355, 370, 385, 392, 417 Is – 6:13 38 – 62:1112 38 Iud – 1:15 288 Lam – Prologus 400 – 1:1 400 – 5 (Oratio ieremie) 211, 313, 326, 400 Laod 370, 390 Lc – 1:1 389 – 1:1–4 212, 230, 253, 256, 267, 287, 302, 315, 327, 357, 402 – 1:5 212, 230, 253, 267, 287, 302, 315, 327, 357, 389, 402 – 2:42 381 – 2:52 381 – 3:1 381 – 3:6 381 – 9:1–6 94, 95 – 9:4 95 – 9:45 94, 95, 97 – 9:5 95 – 12:42–43 79, 80 – 18:18–30 96 – 22:24 94 Mc – 6:6–7 95 – 6:6–11 91, 92, 94 – 6:6–13 91, 92, 94, 95, 97 – 6:10 95 – 6:10–11 95 – 6:11 95 – 7:24–30 218 – 10:23–31 96 – 10:24–30 91, 92, 96, 97 Mt – 1:18–21 144 – 5:13–19 91, 92, 93, 97 – 5:17–19 93 – 5:20–24 218 – 9:35–10:1 94 – 10:34–42 349 – 15:21–28 218 – 17:1 381 – 17:9 381 – 19:16–29 96 – 24:42–43 79 – 24:46–47 79

496 

 Index of Scripture

Or Man 210, 228, 250, 264, 284, 299, 306, 312, 325, 331, 339, 355, 384, 399, 422, 425, 472, 474 Os – 14:6 73 Prv – 1:16 424 – 3:1320 349 Ps – 20:34 78 – 32:6 109 – 32:12 109 – 36:1 71, 72 – 36:30–31 71, 72 – 48:15 430 – 67 121 – 67:2 106, 107 – 67:29 116 – 67:30 106 – 67:29–30 106, 107, 114 – 76:12 74 – 84:12 319 – 88:20 74 – 88:25 78 – 91:2 71 – 91:13 71, 73 – 91:14 73 – 103 106 – 103:1 106 – 103:30 106, 110, 111 – 151 428

Ro – 8:26 132, 137, 140, 141, 142, 149, 151 Rt – 1:7 139, 204, 244, 256, 275, 291, 306, 318, 331, 349, 370, 392, 417 Sap – 1:7 105 – 1:67 137, 140, 142 – 7 106 – 7:21 106 – 7:21, 23 107 – 7:23 106 – 7:2123 106 Sir – Prologus 256, 288, 313, 387, 400 – 1:1 285, 300, 313, 387, 400 – 14:2215:6 349 – 15:3 71 – 15:5 71 – 15:6 71 – 15:56 71 II Tim – 4:1 89 – 4:2 89 – 4:18 88, 89, 90, 97 Tit – 2:15 89 – 2:11–15 89, 292 – 3:47 292

Index of Liturgical Incipits Absolve domine (tract) 319 Agnus dei 168 Alma virgo virginum (blessing) 250 Amavit eum (Alleluia) 81 Angelus domini descendit de celo (Alleluia) 422 Animabus quaesumus domine (CO 260) 205 Ascendens christus (Alleluia) 82, 83 Asperges 442 Aurea virga (sequence) 225 Ave maria gratia plena (sequence) 225 Beata gens (gradual) 102, 109, 113, 120 Beatus servus (communion) 79, 80, 81, 98 Benedic anima mea (introit verse) 106 Benedictus deus israel (antiphon) 191 Benedictus dominus deus israel (antiphon) 191 Bonum est confiteri domino (introit verse) 71 Carnis vigor (antiphon) 69 Christus resurgens (Alleluia) 82, 83, 422 Circuibat ihesus castella (gospel) 91, 95 Communicantes (CO 6124: Christmas) 157 Communicantes (CO 6126: Epiphany) 157 Communicantes (CO 6130: Easter) 157 Communicantes (CO 6133b: Ascension) 157 Communicantes (CO 6137: Pentecost) 157, 162 Communicantes (Roman Canon) 121, 155, 156, 158, 159, 161, 166, 244, 255, 257, 274, 282, 291, 304, 331, 369, 410, 412, 416, 420, 425, 427, 429, 431 Concede quaesumus omnipotens deus (CO 765) 86 Concede quesumus omnipotens deus spiritum (CO 738) 130 Confirma hoc (introit verse) 102, 106, 108, 120, 319 Confirma hoc (offertory) 103, 114, 115, 118, 120, 150, 319 Confitebor (Canticle) 191 Conscientia culpabilis 225, 236, 245, 246, 250 Conversus est furor (antiphon) 191 Corpus domini mei 182 Corpus domini nostri 169, 176, 179 Corpus et sanguis domini nostri 169, 176, 179 Corpus tuum 169, 182 Credo 153, 319, 412, 437 Cum audissent (epistle) 102, 138, 139, 141, 142 Cum complerentur dies pentecostes (epistle) 134, 135, 136 Da propitius pacem 171 Deo gratias qui semper (epistle) 90 Desiderium anime (offertory) 78, 79, 80, 81 Deus cui omne cor patet (CO 1135) 126, 127 Deus deus meus (antiphon) 191 Deus fons totius bonitatis 245, 250 Deus misericordissime 225, 236, 245, 246, 250 Deus qui animae famuli tui gregorii (CO 1354) 86 Deus qui beatum dominicum (CO 1439) 87 Deus qui beatum edmundum (CO 1439) 87 Deus qui contritorum 245, 250 Deus qui corda fidelium (CO 1666) 102, 122, 123

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-020

Deus qui de indignis 245, 250 Deus qui ecclesiam tuam apostolicis (CO 1557) 84 Deus qui ecclesiam tuam beati dominici (CO 1559) 84, 85, 88, 97, 98, 215, 257, 275, 332, 370, 371, 432, 440 Deus qui ecclesiam tuam beati francisci (CO 1561) 84 Deus qui hodierna die corda fidelium (CO 1666) 121, 123 Deus qui ineffabilibus (CO 1752) 84 Deus qui iustitiam diligis et aequitatem (CO 1769) 84 Deus qui nobis translationem beati dominici (CO 1857) 87 Deus qui nos beati edmundi (CO 1857) 87 Deus qui nos patrem et matrem honorare (CO 1903) 198 Deus qui panem et vinum (CO 1957) 87 Deus qui singulari corporis (CO 2108a) 205 Dicebat iesus scribis et phariseis 144 Disposui testamentum (Alleluia) 81 Dixit iesus discipulis suis 144 Domine deus meus honorificabo (epistle) 218 Domine ihesu christe (prayer before communion) 169 Domine ihesu christe (prayer before the peace) 175 Domine in celo (Versicle) 193 Domine prevenisti (gradual) 81 Domine quinque (communion) 81 Dum complerentur dies pentecostes (epistle) 135, 136 Ecce sacerdos (gradual) 81 Ecce sacerdos magnus (epistle) 442 Ecclesiae tuae quaesumus domine dona gratia (CO 2421b) 84 Ecclesiam tuam quaesumus domine (CO 1559) 84 Ego sum pastor bonus qui pasco oves meas (Alleluia) 422 Egressus Iesus secessit (gospel) 218 Emitte spiritum tuum (Alleluia) 109, 113, 120 Emitte spiritum tuum (introit verse) 106 Emitte spiritum tuum (offertory) 118 Et te in (CP 366) 157 Exivi a patre (Alleluia) 422 Exultet 112, 442, 444 Exurgat deus (introit verse) 106, 107, 108 Factus est repente (communion) 103, 117, 118, 119, 120 Factus est repente (offertory) 118 Fidelis servus (communion) 79, 80, 81, 82, 98 Fidelium deus omnium conditor (CO 2684b) 198, 205 Filioli quam difficile (gospel) 91, 96 Gaudeat ecclesia (sequence) 112, 225 Gloria 153, 437, 442 Habete vinculum pacis 169, 175 Hac clara die (sequence) 225 Hanc igitur (CO 6255b: Easter) 157 Hanc igitur (CO 6255b: Pentecost) 157, 164 Hanc igitur (Roman Canon) 155, 158, 159, 166, 219, 244, 255, 257, 274, 304, 331, 369, 410, 412, 416, 420, 425 Hec oblatio domine deus (CO 2858) 122, 128, 129 Hec quotienscumque feceritis (Roman Canon) 167 Hec sacrosancta 168, 174, 175

498 

 Index of Liturgical Incipits

Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei (Roman Canon) 167 Hoc est enim corpus meum (Roman Canon) 167 Hodierna lux diei celebris (sequence) 225 Hostias quaesumus domine (CO 2980) 205

Os iusti (gradual) 72, 80, 81, 82, 98 Os iusti (introit) 70, 71, 72, 80, 81, 257 O superdea 330, 341 O vita vivens 330, 341

Iesu dulcis memoria 330, 338 Imitator (antiphon) 69 In celesti (sequence) 70, 75, 76, 78, 83, 89, 112, 225 Inclina domine aurem tuam (CO 3116b) 198 In die resurrectionis mee (Alleluia) 422 In illo tempore 144 In medio ecclesie (introit) 70, 71, 80, 81, 82, 83, 93, 98, 257 Intellige clamorem meum (antiphon) 191 Inveni david (Alleluia) 81 Inveni david (gradual) 81 Inveni david (offertory) 81 Inviolata integra et casta (sequence) 225 Iocundare plebs fidelis (sequence) 223, 225 Ite missa est 71, 169, 362 Iterum autem videbo vos (Alleluia) 422 Iubilemus deo (antiphon) 192 Iucunditatem et exsultationem (introit verse) 71, 72 Iuravit dominus (Alleluia) 81 Iuravit dominus (gradual) 81 Iustus germinabit (Alleluia) 73, 74, 75, 78, 80, 81, 82 Iustus ut palma (introit verse) 71 Iustus ut palma (offertory) 70

Paraclitus spiritus sanctus (Alleluia) 113 Pater noster 168, 170, 171 Pax domini 168 Pax tecum 168, 175 Percepta nobis domine praebeant tua sacramenta (CO 4194) 85 Perceptio corporis 169, 176, 183 Per ipsum (Roman Canon) 166 Per omnia (embolism) 168, 428 Per omnia (preface) 23, 209, 264, 324, 428 Per omnia (Roman Canon) 168 Per quem (Roman Canon) 166 Pie pater dominice (Alleluia) 64, 70, 73, 74, 75, 78, 80, 81, 83 Pietate tua (CO 4227) 205 Placeat tibi 169, 183 Post dies octo ianuis clausis (Alleluia) 422 Posui adiutorium (Alleluia) 73, 74, 75, 80, 81 Preceptis salutaribus 168 Purificent nos (CO 4788) 205

Laudate dominum (antiphon) 191 Letabundus (sequence) 75, 112, 225 Libera nos (embolism) 168, 170 Locutus est iesus 144 Memento domine (Roman Canon) 164, 166 Memento etiam (Roman Canon) 166 Meritis et precibus 169 Miserere mei deus (antiphon) 191 Miserere quaesumus domine animabus (CO 3366) 198 Mordacis conscientie 225, 236, 245, 246, 250 Munera domine quesumus oblata (CO 3421) 124, 125 Munera quesumus domine oblata (CO 3421) 125 Munera tibi domine dicata sanctifica et intercedente beato francisco (CO 3493) 85 Munera tibi domine dicata sanctifica ut meritis beati dominici (CO 3494) 85 Nisi abundaverit (gospel) 218 Nobis quoque (Roman Canon) 166, 282 Noli emulari (introit verse) 72 Nonne cor nostrum (Alleluia) 422 Non possum ego (gospel) 218 Obsecro te mdeiatrix 330, 341 O decus hyspanie (antiphon) 61, 62, 69 O lumen ecclesie (antiphon) 62 Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, cui numquam sine spe (CO 3809) 198 Omnium est enim artifex (introit verse) 106, 108 Oportebat pati christum (Alleluia) 422 Os iusti (Alleluia) 81

Quam oblationem (Roman Canon) 166 Quia cum unigenitus (CP 1294) 157 Quia per incarnati (CP 1322) 157 Qui ascendens (CP 1322) 157, 162 Qui corporali (CP 863) 157 Qui cum unigenito (CP 879) 157 Qui post resurrectionem (CP 1165) 157 Qui pridie (Roman Canon) 166 Qui salutem (CP 1200) 157 Quod ore 169 Rege domine populum tuum (CO 5023) 84 Rex omnipotens die hodierna (sequence) 225 Sacerdotes dei (introit) 81 Sacerdotes eius (gradual) 81 Sacerdotes eius (introit) 81 Sacerdotes tui (gradual) 81 Sacerdotes tui (introit) 81 Sacrificium salutis (CO 5231b) 122, 129, 130 Salve mater salvatoris (sequence) 225 Salve virgo virginum 330, 338 Sana domine animam meam (antiphon) 193 Sancte syon (sequence) 223, 225 Sancti spiritus assit nobis gratia (sequence) 112, 113, 120, 114, 225 Sancti spiritus domine corda nostra (CO 5351b) 103, 121, 126 Sanguis domini 169, 176, 179 Scientes quia hora est (epistle) 218 Semel iuravi (communion) 81 Senescenti iacob (antiphon) 69 Si diligitis me (gospel) 145, 146 Simili modo (Roman Canon) 166 Si quis diligitis me (gospel) 102, 145, 146 Si tantum delinquentie 215, 225, 242, 245, 246, 250

Index of Liturgical Incipits  

Si tantum domine reatum nostre delinquentie 215, 245, 246, 250 Si vos manseritis (gospel) 218 Spiritus adiuvat (epistle) 132, 139, 141 Spiritus domini (Alleluia) 113 Spiritus domini (introit) 102, 105, 108, 120, 319 Spiritus sancti domine corda nostra (CO 5351b) 103, 126 Spiritus sanctus docebit (communion) 120 Statuit ei dominus (introit) 81 Summe sacerdos 197, 198, 215, 225, 242, 245, 250, 306, 308, 311, 313, 437 Sumpta sacramenta quesumus (CO 5603) 205 Superne matris gaudia (sequence) 112, 225 Supplices te (Roman Canon) 166 Supra que (Roman Canon) 166, 304 Surgens Iesus abiit (gospel) 218 Surgens ihesus dominus noster (Alleluia) 422 Surrexit altissimus de sepulchro (Alleluia) 422 Surrexit christus qui creavit (Alleluia) 422 Surrexit dominus et occurrens (Alleluia) 422 Surrexit dominus vere et apparuit petro (Alleluia) 422

 499

Te igitur (Roman Canon) 155, 166, 209, 227, 247, 264, 311, 324, 362, 368, 399, 408, 428 Te quidem (CP 1527) 157 Testificor coram deo (epistle) 90 Transit pauper (antiphon) 69 Unde et memores (Roman Canon) 166, 282 Usque modo non petistis (Alleluia) 422 Ut non delinquam (antiphon) 193 Vado ad eum qui misit (Alleluia) 422 Veni sancte spiritus (Alleluia) 102, 109, 111, 112, 113 Veni sancte spiritus (sequence) 77, 112, 113, 114, 120 Verbo domini (gradual verse) 102, 109, 120 Vere dignum (preface) 23, 264 Veritas mea (offertory) 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 Victime paschali laudes (sequence) 225 Vos estis sal terre (gospel) 91, 94

Index of Non-Liturgical Paratexts Aceto et felle (Alphabetical Index of the New Testament) 423 Ad probandum ignem purgatorium 424 Alphabetical Index of the New Testament 423 Biblical concordance 8, 9, 35, 133, 201, 214, 215, 216, 242, 369, 371, 383 Booz duxit ruth in uxorem sed ex ea suscepit obez patrem ysai patris david 384 Capitula for Genesis 420 Capitula lists 427 Catena of patristic sources 330, 342 Church Fathers, quotations 430 Cistercian cipher 275, 370, 425 Colophon 7, 25, 57, 392, 396, 403 Commentary on the Creed 390 Compendium historiae in genealogia Christi (Peter of Poitiers) 420 Cum iam iudee rex esset factus herodes 369, 390 Cum moyse iosue iudicum (Mnemonic of biblical books) 369, 383 Curatione seu mundatione leprosi 369, 390 Decem sunt canones 431 De honore parentum (Rubrics for Ecclesiastes) 369, 383 De miraculis omnium evangeliorum 369, 390 De signis xv dierum 430 De suffragiis sanctorum 424 Ex testimonio quatuor evangelistarum et epistula 423 Gospel tables (Canones evangeliorum) 8 Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum (Jerome) 426 List of biblical books 264, 274, 289, 330, 338, 360, 399, 411, 412, 417, 418, 419, 425, 427, 428, 431 Notes on the Ten Plagues of Egypt 383 Paulus ex tribu beniamin 389 Paulus vocatus apostolicus fidem romanorum predicare (Capitula list) 327 Post passionem domini xxv anno id est secundo neronis 303 Preaching list 8, 214, 216, 217, 232, 318, 329, 330, 331, 338, 413, 414 Primum capitulum mathei continet generationem christi (Guide to the Gospel of Matthew) 341 Prologus super interpretationibus 419 Pro observancia rituum 424 Prosologion (St. Anselm) 417 S. 284 (Frater ambrosius) 8, 20, 23, 24, 204, 209, 214, 228, 243, 249, 255, 256, 263, 264, 274, 284, 290, 299, 306, 312, 318, 324, 325, 331, 338, 339, 348, 355, 360, 369, 384, 391, 398, 399, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 419, 420, 421, 422, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 473 S. 285 (Desiderii mei) 204, 209, 214, 228, 243, 249, 255, 256, 263, 264, 274, 284, 290, 298, 299, 306, 312, 318, 325, 339, 348, 355, 360, 369, 384, 391, 399, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 419, 420, 421, 422, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 473 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110792430-021

S. 307 (Iesus filius Nave) 399 S. 311 (Tandem finito) 209, 228, 249, 284, 299, 312, 325, 339, 355, 384, 399, 473 S. 319 (Malachim id est tertius) 299 S. 323 (Viginti et duas) 209, 228, 249, 284, 299, 312, 325, 339, 355, 384, 399, 473 S. 327 (Quomodo grecorum) 210, 215, 217, 231, 250, 288, 306, 313, 325, 339, 355, 384, 403, 431, 474 S. 328 (Si septuaginta) 209, 228, 249, 284, 300, 312, 325, 339, 355, 384, 399, 474 S. 330 (Utrum difficilius) 210, 228, 250, 284, 300, 306, 312, 325, 339, 355, 384, 399, 474 S. 332 (Mirari non desino) 210, 228, 250, 285, 299, 312, 325, 339, 355, 384, 400, 474 S. 335 (Apud Hebreos) 210, 228, 250, 288, 299, 312, 325, 339, 355, 384, 400, 474 S. 340 (Hunc librum Esther) 400 S. 341 (Librum Esther) 210, 228, 250, 285, 300, 312, 325, 339, 355, 384, 400, 474 S. 343 (Rursum) 210, 228, 250, 285, 300, 312, 325, 355, 384, 400, 474 S. 344 (Cogor per singulos) 210, 228, 250, 288, 300, 312, 326, 339, 355, 385, 400, 474 S. 349 (In terra quidem habitasse) 400 S. 350 (Iob exemplar patientiae) 256, 265 S. 357 (Si autem fiscellam) 210, 228, 250, 285, 288, 300, 312, 326, 355, 385, 403, 474 S. 360 (Psalmorum liber quaecumque) 312 S. 369 (Canticum psalmorum animas decorat) 424 S. 370 (Christus integer caput cum membris) 400 S. 414 (David filius Iesse) 312 S. 430 (Psalterium Romae) 312, 400 S. 443 (Scio quosdam putare) 400 S. 455 (Tres libros Salomonis) 403 S. 456 (Tribus nominibus) 285, 403 S. 457 (Iungat epistola) 210, 229, 251, 285, 300, 313, 326, 356, 387, 400, 424, 474 S. 462 (Memini me) 210, 229, 244, 251, 254, 288, 300, 313, 326, 340, 356, 387, 403, 474 S. 468 (Liber sapientie) 229, 251, 288, 300, 326, 356, 387, 431, 474 S. 473 (Librum Iesu filii Sirach) 300 S. 480 (Isaias in Ierusalem) 340 S. 482 (Nemo cum prophetas) 210, 229, 251, 285, 300, 313, 326, 340, 356, 387, 400, 474 S. 486 (Ieremias Anatholites qui) 387 S. 487 (Ieremias prophetam) 210, 229, 251, 285, 300, 313, 326, 356, 387, 400, 474 S. 490 (Ioachin filius Iosiae) 387, 403 S. 491 (Liber iste) 211, 229, 251, 285, 301, 313, 326, 356, 387, 400, 474 S. 492 (Ezechiel propheta) 211, 229, 251, 285, 301, 313, 326, 356, 387, 401, 474 S. 494 (Danielem prophetam) 211, 229, 251, 285, 301, 314, 326, 340, 356, 387, 401, 474 S. 495 (Daniel interpretatur iudicium Dei) 301 S. 498 (Ubicumque medicina) 301 S. 500 (Non idem est ordo) 211, 229, 251, 285, 301, 314, 326, 340, 356, 388, 401, 474 S. 501 (Regulae sunt) 403

502 

 Index of Non-Liturgical Paratexts

S. 504 (Duplex est apud Hebraeos) 403 S. 506 (Osee crebro nominat) 340, 403 S. 507 (Temporibus) 211, 229, 251, 286, 301, 314, 326, 356, 388, 401, 474 S. 509 (Ioel de tribu Ruben) 301, 314 S. 510 (Ioel filius Phatuel) 211, 229, 252, 286, 301, 314, 326, 340, 356, 388, 401, 474 S. 511 (Sanctus Ioel) 211, 229, 252, 286, 301, 314, 326, 356, 388, 401, 474 S. 512 (Amos propheta) 211, 229, 252, 286, 300, 301, 314, 326, 340, 356, 388, 401, 475 S. 513 (Hic Amos) 211, 229, 252, 286, 300, 314, 326, 356, 388, 401, 475 S. 515 (Ozias rex) 211, 229, 252, 286, 301, 314, 326, 356, 388, 403, 474 S. 516 (Abdias qui interpretatur) 340 S. 517 (Hebrei) 211, 215, 229, 252, 286, 301, 314, 326, 356, 388, 401, 475 S. 519 (Iacob patriarcha) 211, 215, 229, 252, 286, 301, 314, 326, 356, 388, 401, 475 S. 521 (Ionas columba et dolens) 211, 230, 252, 286, 300, 314, 327, 357, 388, 401, 475 S. 522 (Ionas columba pulcherrima) 298, 301, 340, 404 S. 524 (Sanctum Ionam) 211, 230, 252, 286, 298, 301, 314, 326, 357, 388, 401, 475 S. 525 (Michaeas de Morasti) 301, 340, 361 S. 526 (Temporibus Ioathe) 211, 230, 252, 286, 301, 314, 327, 357, 388, 401, 475 S. 527 (Nahum consolator orbis) 340 S. 528 (Nahum prophetam) 211, 230, 252, 286, 301, 314, 327, 357, 388, 401, 404, 475 S. 529 (Habacuc luctator fortis) 340 S. 530 (Habacuc propheta) 301 S. 531 (Quatuor prophete) 211, 230, 252, 286, 301, 314, 327, 357, 388, 401, 475 S. 532 (Sophonias speculator) 244, 252, 301, 340, 361 S. 534 (Tradunt Hebrei) 211, 230, 244, 252, 286, 301, 314, 327, 357, 388, 401, 475 S. 535 (Aggaeus festivus et laetus) 340 S. 538 (Ieremias prophetam) 211, 230, 252, 286, 300, 301, 314, 327, 357, 388, 401, 475 S. 539 (In anno secundo) 211, 230, 252, 286, 301, 314, 327, 357, 388, 401, 475 S. 540 (Zacharias memor Domini sui) 301, 314, 340, 361 S. 543 (Deus per Moysen) 211, 230, 252, 286, 302, 314, 327, 357, 388, 401, 475 S. 544 (Malachias aperte) 302, 340 S. 547 (Cum sim promptus) 211, 230, 252, 286, 300, 302, 314, 327, 357, 401, 475 S. 551 (Maccabeorum libri) 212, 230, 252, 286, 302, 314, 327, 341, 357, 388, 401, 475 S. 553 (Memini me) 211, 230, 252, 286, 300, 302, 314, 327, 357, 475 S. 589 (Matheus cum primo) 212, 230, 252, 288, 300, 302, 315, 327, 357, 402, 475 S. 590 (Matheus ex Iudeis) 212, 230, 252, 287, 302, 315, 327, 341, 357, 388, 402, 475 S. 595 (Novum opus facere) 315, 404 S. 596 (Plures fuisse qui evangelia) 403 S. 607 (Marcus evangelista) 212, 230, 252, 287, 302, 315, 327, 341, 357, 388, 402, 475 S. 614 (Lectorem obsecro studiose) 302 S. 620 (Lucas Syrus) 212, 230, 252, 287, 302, 315, 327, 357, 389, 402, 475 S. 624 (Hic est Iohannes) 212, 230, 253, 287, 302, 315, 327, 357, 389, 402, 475 S. 631 (Actus apostolorum nudam) 204, 213, 215, 231, 288, 341, 403

S. 633 (Canit Psalmista: Ambulabunt) 288, 403 S. 640 (Lucas natione Syrus) 204, 213, 215, 231, 253, 288, 303, 316, 328, 341, 358, 389, 402, 476 S. 651 (Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos) 315 S. 670 (Primum quaeritur: Quare) 315, 403 S. 674 (Romani qui ex Iudaeis) 315, 342, 389, 403 S. 677 (Romani sunt in partibus Italiae. Hi praeventi) 212, 230, 253, 287, 315, 327, 357, 389, 402, 475 S. 685 (Corinthii sunt) 212, 230, 253, 287, 302, 315, 327, 342, 357, 389, 402, 475 S. 688 (Corinthus est civitas) 302 S. 690 (Epistola prima ad Corinthios) 403 S. 696 (Cum haec principalis) 389 S. 697 (In secunda ad Corinthios) 403 S. 699 (Post actam paenitentiam) 212, 230, 253, 287, 302, 315, 327, 342, 357, 389, 402, 475 S. 707 (Galate sunt) 212, 230, 253, 287, 302, 315, 327, 342, 358, 389, 402, 475 S. 715 (Ephesi sunt) 212, 231, 253, 287, 302, 315, 328, 358, 389, 402, 476 S. 717 (Ephesii sunt Asiani. Hi per Paulum confirmati) 342 S. 728 (Philippenses sunt) 212, 231, 253, 287, 302, 315, 328, 342, 358, 390, 402, 476 S. 736 (Colossenses et hi) 212, 231, 253, 287, 302, 315, 328, 342, 358, 390, 402, 476 S. 747 (Thessalonicenses sunt) 212, 231, 253, 287, 303, 315, 328, 342, 358, 390, 402, 476 S. 752 (Ad Thessalonicenses) 212, 231, 253, 287, 303, 315, 328, 342, 358, 390, 402, 476 S. 765 (Timotheum instruit) 212, 231, 253, 287, 303, 315, 328, 342, 358, 390, 402, 476 S. 770 (Cum esset Romae) 390 S. 772 (Item Timotheo) 212, 231, 253, 256, 268, 287, 303, 315, 328, 342, 358, 390, 402, 476 S. 780 (Titum commonefacit) 213, 231, 253, 287, 303, 315, 328, 342, 358, 390, 402, 476 S. 783 (Philemoni familiares) 213, 231, 253, 287, 303, 315, 328, 342, 358, 390, 402, 476 S. 793 (In primis dicendum) 213, 231, 253, 287, 303, 316, 328, 342, 358, 390, 402, 476 S. 806 (Iacobus apostolus sanctum) 288, 303 S. 807 (Iacobus Petrus Iohannes) 341 S. 808 (Iacobus qui appellatur) 303 S. 809 (Non ita ordo) 213, 231, 253, 303, 316, 328, 341, 358, 389, 476 S. 811 (Scripserat Iohannes evangelium) 404 S. 812 (Discipulos Salvatoris) 288, 341 S. 815 (Simon Petrus filius Ionae) 303 S. 817 (Per fidem huic mundo sapientes) 341 S. 818 (Simon Petrus per fidem) 288 S. 820 (Iohannes apostolus quem) 303 S. 822 (Rationem verbi) 288, 341 S. 823 (Usque adeo ad sanctam feminam) 288, 341 S. 824 (Gaium pietatis causa extollit) 288, 342 S. 825 (Iudas apostolus fratres) 288, 342, 404 S. 826 (Iudas frater Iacobi) 303 S. 829 (Apocalypsis Iohannis tot habet sacramenta quot verba) 288, 303, 316 S. 831 (Beatus Iohannes apostolus) 215, 231 S. 832 (Deus Pater praevidens) 341 S. 834 (Iohannes apostolus et evangelista a Christo) 361 S. 835 (Iohannes apostolus et evangelista a Domino Christo) 215, 231, 288, 316, 390, 403

Index of Non-Liturgical Paratexts  

S. 839 (Omnes qui pie) 213, 215, 217, 231, 232, 254, 288, 300, 316, 328, 358, 403, 476 S. 1162,2 (Abyssus dicitur profunditas) 318, 328 S. 3305 (Philo vir disertissumus Judaeorum) 426 S. 3369 (Secundo anno Darii) 301 S. 5190 (Tobias filius Ananiel) 339 S. 5191 (Judith vidua filia Merari) 339 S. 5208 (Joel propheta qui interpretatur incipiens) 301 S. 7063 (Matthaeus sicut in ordine) 303 S. 7709 (Interpretations of Hebrew Names) 8, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 35, 42, 51, 200, 204, 206, 208, 213, 214, 216, 217, 226, 227, 231, 244, 248, 254, 255, 263, 268, 274, 276, 282, 289, 291, 292, 293, 297, 298, 299, 304, 306, 311, 316, 318, 319, 324, 329, 330, 332, 338, 343, 348, 349, 351, 352, 353, 354, 358, 360, 369, 370, 382, 390, 391, 392, 397, 398, 403, 409, 410, 411, 412, 414, 417, 419, 420, 421, 422, 425, 426, 428, 429, 430, 431 S. 8599 (De divinitate et operatione Verbi) 330, 332, 341

S. 8675 (De conceptione praecursoris) 330, 332, 341 S. 10159 (A generat) 274, 289, 420 S. 10526 (Cum quidam dubitant) 404 S. 10527 (Gaius fide Christi suscepta) 404 S. 10528 (Judas qui et Thaddaeus) 404 S. 10821 (Michaeas secundum hebraicam) 314 S. 11018 (De ecclesiis septem) 288 S. 11173 (Si vis pro peccatis) 424 Sancti nobis suffragantur 424 Sermons (Hugh of St. Cher) 430 Sex lucror in syon 369, 383 Summa de vitiis 369, 383 Summarium biblicum 414, 416, 424, 427 Table of virtues and vices 383 Texts on virtues and vices 369, 390

 503