The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music, and Liturgy (Medieval Monastic Studies, 7) 9782503569031, 250356903X

Citation preview

The Medieval Dominicans

MEDIEVAL MONASTIC STUDIES Volume 7

General Editors Janet Burton, University of Wales Trinity Saint David Karen Stöber, Universitat de Lleida Editorial Board Frances Andrews, University of St Andrews Edel Bhreathnach, Discovery Programme, Dublin Guido Cariboni, Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano Megan Cassidy-Welch, Monash University James Clark, University of Exeter Albrecht Diem, Syracuse University Marilyn Dunn, University of Glasgow Sarah Foot, Oxford University, Christ Church Paul Freedman, Yale University Johnny Grandjean Gøgsig Jakobsen, University of Copenhagen Alexis Grélois, Université de Rouen Martin Heale, University of Liverpool Emilia Jamroziak, University of Leeds Kurt Villads Jensen, Syddansk Universitet William Chester Jordan, Princeton University József Laszlovszky, Central European University Budapest Julian Luxford, University of St Andrews Colmán Ó Clabaigh, Glenstal Abbey Tadhg O’Keeffe, University College Dublin Antonio Sennis, University College London

The Medieval Dominicans Books, Buildings, Music, and Liturgy

Edited by

Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir

F

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

© 2021, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. ISBN: 978-2-503-56903-1 e-ISBN: 978-2-503-56904-8 DOI: 10.1484/​M.MMS-EB.5.111012 ISSN: 2565-8697 e-ISSN: 2565-9758 Printed in the EU on acid-free paper. D/2021/​0095/​118

Table of Contents List of Illustrations

7

Acknowledgements 11 Introduction Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian Thomas Leitmeir 13 The Impact of the Dominicans on Books at the University of Paris, 1217–1350 Richard Rouse and Mary Rouse 31 The Spread and Circulation of the Dominican Pocket Breviary Laura Albiero 51 Illustrated Dominican Books in France, 1221–1350 Alison Stones 73 The Artistic and Spiritual Impact of the Dominicans in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Late Middle Ages Panayota Volti 109 The Preachers and the Evolution of Liturgical Space in Italy, Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries Haude Morvan 135 ‘A Path Prepared for Them by the Lord’: King Louis IX, Dominican Devotion, and the Extraordinary Journey of Two Preaching Friars Emily Guerry 167 Thomas Aquinas, Dominican Theo­logy, and the Feast of Corpus Christi M. Michèle Mulchahey 213

6

ta b l e of con ten ts

Reading Eschato­logy in the Feast of Corpus Christi Barbara R. Walters 255 The Orations of the Medi­eval Dominican Liturgy Innocent Smith OP 285 Dominican Mass Books before Humbert of Romans Eleanor J. Giraud 299 ‘Lest the Sisters Lose Devotion’: Dominican Liturgy and the Cura Monialium Question in the Thirteenth Century Innocent Smith OP 321 Compilation and Adaptation: How ‘Dominican’ is Hieronymus de Moravia’s Tractatus de Musica? Christian Thomas Leitmeir 335 Jerome of Moravia’s Cantor: A Specialist in Musical Sounds Błażej Matusiak OP 365 Index 391

List of Illustrations Figures Figure 1.1. Thirteenth-century distinction on ‘equus’, from Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale MS 109 fol. i.

38

Figure 2.1. Distribution of the surviving breviaries per century.

52

Figure 2.2. Distribution of the surviving breviaries according to century and dimensions.

52

Figure 2.3. Distribution of surviving breviaries according to the orders.

53

Figure 2.4. Decoration in Dominican breviaries.

55

Figure 2.5. Key to layout termino­logy.

56

Figure 3.1. ‘Guala’s Vision of the Ascension of St Dominic’, Arras, Bibliothèque munici­pale, MS 1302, p. 5. c. 1248.

75

Figure 3.2. ‘The murder of St Peter of Verona’, Paris, BnF, n.a.fr. 16251, fol. 93r. c. 1285.

77

Figure 3.3. ‘Reginald d’Orléans receiving the habit and Dominic preaching’, Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale, 10525, fol. 4r. Thirteenth century, third quarter.

78

Figure 3.4. ‘The miracle of the book that would not burn’, Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, 280, p. 31. Thirteenth century, third quarter.

78

Figure 3.5. ‘Retable of St Dominic from Sant Miquel de Tamarit de Llitera’, Barcelona, Museu Nacional d’Art de Catalunya, Núm. 015825–000. Early fourteenth century.

80

Figure 3.6. ‘Reginald d’Orléans receives the habit in the presence of Dominic’, Bruges, Groot Seminarie, MS 55/​171, fol. 80v. Thirteenth century, third quarter.

81

Figure 3.7. ‘Reginald d’Orléans receives the habit’ and ‘Dominic and a companion receive a sealed charter and a book from Pope Honorius’, Paris, BnF, n.a.l. 3255, fol. 446v. After 1306. 

83

8

l i s t of i llustr ation s

Figure 3.8. ‘Dominic receives a sealed charter from the pope; Dominic is supported by Sts Peter and Paul’ and ‘Pope Innocent’s vision of Dominic upholding the Church’ (miniature), Belleville Breviary, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 10484, fol. 272r. 1323–1326.

85

Figure 3.9. ‘Guala’s Vision of the ascension of St Dominic’, London, British Library, MS Add. 30072, fol. 213v. c. 1300.

86

Figure 3.10. ‘Ascension of St Dominic’, London, British Library, Harley MS 2449, diurnal, fol. 210r. c. 1300–1330.

87

Figure 3.11. ‘Ascension of St Dominic’, Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, 603, fol. 277v. 1336–1348.

88

Figure 3.12. ‘Blessing of the shrine of St Dominic and pilgrims beneath the shrine’, London, British Library, MS Add. 30072, fol. 167v. c. 1300.

88

Figure 3.13. ‘Bishops remove ossuary, guarded by soldiers; friars carry St Dominic’s shrine, pilgrims crouch beneath it’, Belleville Breviary, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 10483, fol. 184r. 1323–1326. 90 Figure 3.14. ‘Bishops remove ossuary, guarded by soldiers; friars carry St Dominic’s shrine in procession, pilgrims crouch beneath it’, Belleville Breviary, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 10484, fol. 218v. 1323–1326.

91

Figure 3.15. ‘King Louis IX and assistants collecting bones at Mansourah’, Paris, BnF, n.a.l. 3255, fol. 470r. After 1306.

92

Figure 3.16. ‘King Philippe le Bel before the Head of St Louis’ and ‘The Head of St Louis borne in procession from SaintDenis to Paris’, Paris, BnF, n.a.l. 3255, fol. 479r. After 1306.

94

Figure 4.1. Map of the Eastern Mediterranean.

110

Figure 4.2. Plans of the church of the Dominican convent of Saint Sophia in Andravida: original plan and late medi­eval plan. 116 Figure 4.3. Plan of the church of the Dominican convent at Herakleion.

121

Figure 4.4. The Orthodox church of the Dormition of the Virgin at Merbaka, Argolis.

123

Figure 4.5. North funerary stone in Merbaka.

124

list of illustrations

Figure 4.6. South funerary stone in Merbaka.

125

Figure 5.1. Rome, Santa Maria sopra Minerva, main apse.

140

Figure 5.2. Viterbo, Santa Maria della Quercia, map of the church after 1496.

143

Figure 5.3. Viterbo, Santa Maria in Gradi, restitution of the medi­eval map.

145

Figure 5.4. Naples, San Domenico Maggiore, the apse seen from piazza San Domenico Maggiore.

147

Figure 5.5. Naples, San Domenico Maggiore, map of the apse.

148

Figure 5.6. Lyon, Notre-Dame de Confort, map of the church drawn by Father Ramette in 1719.

151

Figure 5.7. Geneva, stalls formerly in the Franciscan church, now in Saint-Gervais temple.

153

Figure 5.8. Milan, Santa Maria delle Grazie, the main apse with the stalls.

158

Figure 6.1. ‘Friar Jacques and Friar André on their mission to retrieve the Crown of Thorns’, watercolour showing the composition of window A-102 (c. 1246–1248) in the upper chapel of the Sainte-Chapelle before restoration.

201

Figure 6.2. ‘The friars help to transport the Crown relic on a double bier’, watercolour showing the composition of window A-92 (c. 1246–1248) in the upper chapel of the Sainte-Chapelle before restoration. 

202

Figure 6.3. ‘King Louis IX and Robert d’Artois carry Crown relic on a double bier’, watercolour showing the composition of window A-98 (c. 1246–1248) in the upper chapel of the Sainte-Chapelle before restoration. 

203

Figure 10.1. Cistercian gradual, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 17328, fol. 71v (detail). 12th century.

306

Figure 10.2. Pre-reform notated missal, The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, MS Ludwig V 5, fol. 113r (detail). 1246–1254.

306

Figure 10.3. Pre-reform gradual, Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 10773, fol. 75r (detail). Before 1246.

307

9

10

l i s t of i llustr ation s

Figure 10.4. Post-reform exemplar, Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1, fol. 341r (detail). 1256–1259.

307

Figure 10.5. Melodic differences between the Cistercian and Dominican traditions.

308

Figure 10.6. Minor differences in pre-reform sources.

309

Tables Table 2.1. Average size of breviaries in 1 and 2 volumes.

54

Table 2.2. Exploitation of the page (‘black’) of breviaries in 1 and 2 volumes.

54

Table 2.3. Layout (plain pages or two-column manuscripts).

57

Table 2.4. Distribution of pocket breviaries in plain pages and two columns per date.

57

Table 8.1. Sermon 13: Homo quidam fecit cenam magnam, Part III. 

266–67

Table 8.2. Chants of Sacerdos in aeternum (BnF, MS lat. 1143) and their sources. 

270–76

Table 10.1. Pre-reform Dominican books related to the Mass.

301

Table 10.2. Alleluia verses for select feasts between Easter and Pentecost. 

302

Table 10.3. Transposed Alleluia verses in pre-reform sources, compared to Cistercian and post-reform sources.

310

Table 10.4. Feasts added to the Mass at the Dominican reform.

314

Table 10.5. Feasts that became memorials after the Dominican reform.

315

Table 12.1. Proportions of chapters in the Tractatus de Musica

344

Table 12.2. Similarities between the Tractatus de Musica, Aristotle’s Physica, and Aquinas’s Commentarius in VIII libros Physicorum Aristotelis.

351

Table 12.3. Similarities between the Prologue of the Tractatus de Musica and Aquinas’s Summa theo­logiae.

352

Table 12.4. Similarities between the Tractatus de Musica and Aquinas’s Summa theo­logiae.

354

Acknowledgements The seeds of this book were sown in 2015, at a three-day international conference organized by Eleanor Giraud and Gregory Schnakenberg on The Influences of the Dominican Order in the Middle Ages, which took place at the Taylor Institute, Lincoln College, and Blackfriars’ Hall, University of Oxford on 10 to 12 September. The conference was held in anticipation of the Dominican Jubilee Year in 2016, celebrating 800 years since the foundation of the Order of Preachers. The Influences of the Dominican Order in the Middle Ages was made possible through the generous support of the Michael Zilkha Fund of Lincoln College, Oxford; Oxford Medi­eval Studies, sponsored by The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities (TORCH); Blackfriars Hall; the Plainsong and Medi­eval Music Society; and Medium Aevum, The Society for the Study of Medi­eval Language and Literature. The publication of this volume, which focusses in particular on the cultural impact and output of the medi­eval Dominican Order, has been made possible thanks to awards from Magdalen College, Oxford and the Michael Zilkha Fund, Lincoln College, Oxford. We thank Donal Cooper, Krisztina Ilko, and the anonymous reviewer for their input which has helped shape our volume, Joel Blaize for compiling its index, and in particular Laura Macy and Katharine Bartlett for their dedication, patience, and stellar work in copyediting the book. Finally, we warmly thank all our contributors for sharing their research in this book.

Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian Thomas Leitmeir

Introduction The Dominican Jubilee Year of 2016, celebrating 800 years since the foundation of the Order by St Dominic in 1216, saw a revival of academic interest in the roots of the Dominican Order. Events held around the jubilee included conferences on the Dominicans in Germany,1 France,2 and Northern Europe,3 Dominicans and the University,4 Dominicans and the ecumenical councils,5 Dominican preaching and bible studies,6 and various aspects of Dominican history.7 The anniversary also saw various cultural events and outputs, such as CD recordings8 and liturgical books,9 as well as exhibitions  1 Die deutschen Dominikaner und Dominikanerinnen: 1221 bis 1515, Co­logne, 6–8 October 2015. The proceedings of this conference have been published as von Heusinger and others, ed., Die deutschen Dominikaner und Dominikanerinnen.  2 Les Dominicains en France: xiiie–xxe siècle, Paris, 10–12 December 2015. The proceedings of this conference have been published as Bériou, Vauchez, and Zink, ed., Les Dominicains en France.  3 Dominicans in the Medi­eval Society of Northern Europe, University of South Denmark, 7–8 November 2016.  4 Dominicans and the University, Thomistic Institute, Washington, DC, 1–2 April 2016. Audio recordings of the papers of this conference are available online at [accessed 1 June 2021].  5 I Domenicani e I concili, Rome, 23–24 June 2016.  6 Bibelstudium und Predigt bei den Dominikanern – Geschichte, Ideal, Praxis, Vienna, 27–29 October 2016. Selected papers of this conference have since been published as Dóci and Prügl, ed., Bibelstudium und Predigt im Dominikanerorden. Geschichte, Ideal, Praxis.  7 Contemplata aliis tradere: Lo specchio letterario dei frati predicatori, Rome, 23–27 January 2017. A special issue of Memorie Domenicane is being prepared as a result of this conference.  8 For example, Nova sonet harmonia, recorded by Ensemble Discantus; and Gaudeamus: Celebrating 800 Years of Dominican Life, recorded by the schola cantorum of the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, DC.  9 Cantus Selecti Ordinis Praedicatorum (Rome: Ad Sanctae Sabinae, 2016). Eleanor J. Giraud completed her PhD at the University of Cambridge in 2013, on the ‘Production and Notation of Dominican Manuscripts in Thirteenth-Century Paris’. She is currently the Course Director of the MA Ritual Chant and Song at the Irish World Academy of Music and Dance, University of Limerick, Ireland. Christian Thomas Leitmeir is a Tutorial Fellow in Music at Magdalen College and Associate Professor of Music at the University of Oxford. He is a Lay Dominican.

The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music, and Liturgy, ed. by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, MMS 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021) pp. 13–29 10.1484/M.MMS-EB.5.124211

FHG

14

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d an d c h r i s t i an   t h o mas le i t me i r

in Paris,10 Colmar,11 Regensburg,12 and Cambridge.13 These events and their resulting publications have gone some way to redressing the balance of scholarship on the Dominican Order in comparison to other Orders.14 Anticipating the Jubilee year, a conference on The Influences of the Dominican Order in the Middle Ages was organized in Oxford by Eleanor Giraud and Gregory Schnakenberg OP in September 2015.15 Unlike enclosed monastic orders, medi­eval Dominican friars actively sought to engage with the laity, through their activities as preachers, confessors, and scholars. As a result of this direct contact, Dominicans had an active presence in the urban locations where they settled, and their innovations informed medi­eval life and thought outside of the Order, from artwork and architecture to scholastic thought and theo­logy. The Oxford conference thus brought together a variety of perspectives on how the Dominican Order came to shape the communities with which it came into contact. This conference provided the stimulus for the present volume. It presents a selection of papers from the conference that specifically examine the cultural impact and output of the Dominican Order, in particular in relationship to their liturgy, directly or indirectly, alongside chapters commissioned specifically for this edited book.16 Published studies17 of the Dominican Order and its history have naturally clustered around the Order’s history,18

 10 Une bibliothèque retrouvée: Les livres du couvent des Jacobins de Paris du Moyen Âge à la Révolution, Bibliotheque Mazarine, December 2015–February 2016; and at the Mairie du Ve arrondissement, Huit siècles de presence dominicaine à Paris, March 2018. A catalogue of the Mazarine exposition appears in Lévecque-Stankiewicz, ‘Une bibliothèque retrouvée’.  11 Dominicains 1216–1516 – Lumières médiévales de la predication aux cathares à la défense des indiens, June-September 2016.  12 Füllenbach and Biber, ed., Mehr als Schwarz und Weiss: 800 Jahre Dominikanerorden.  13 A virtual exhibition of Dominican books, A Pipeline from Heaven, was curated by Nigel Morgan at Cambridge University Library and is available online: [accessed 1 June 2021]  14 There are no book series devoted to Dominican studies published outside of the Dominican Order, unlike, for example, Brill’s series The Medi­eval Franciscans.  15 The conference was generously supported by Lincoln College Oxford, Oxford Blackfriars, Oxford Medi­eval Studies (supported by The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities), the Michael Zilkha Fund, Medium Aevum, and the Plainsong and Medi­eval Music Society.  16 While most of the chapters were given as papers at the 2015 Oxford conference, Barbara Walters was invited to contribute a chapter, Innocent Smith contributed a second chapter in addition to his conference paper, and Emily Guerry’s contribution differs from her paper read at the conference.  17 For a general biblio­graphy of publications since 1992, see Dominican History Newsletter, an annual biblio­graphy published by the Dominican Historical Institute in Rome. For a select biblio­graphy of (English language) publications from before 1992, see Auth, Emond, and Driscoll, A Dominican Biblio­graphy and Book of Reference, 1216–1992.  18 See, for example, Hinnebusch, The History of the Dominican Order; Prudlo, ‘The Friars Preachers’.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

their structure and governance,19 their presence in certain cities or regions,20 individual saintly members,21 and, given the centrality of preaching and education to Dominican activity, their intellectual theo­logical contributions,22 and their preaching.23 Aspects of Dominican theo­logy, philosophy, preaching, education, and transregional exchange, which had ranked among other themes of the conference, are not the focal point of this volume, although in light of their topical status within Dominican studies, they are present throughout the individual studies assembled here. Instead this volume examines material, liturgical, and cultural (in music and art) aspects of Dominican life, which rarely come to the fore in studies of the Dominican Order. Their relative marginalization may have been partly encouraged by the Order’s continuing determination to prioritize the core aspects of their mission over the Divine Office. From the earliest constitutions onwards, the friars were instructed to perform the liturgy ‘breviter et succincte’ (briefly and succinctly), lest it inhibited study or devotion.24 While such statements unmistakably articulate a hierarchy of values, they are far from dismissing liturgy and music making as worthless. Indeed, the celebration of the Mass and the recitation of the Divine Office (as far as possible, in the choir) formed an integral part of daily life of medi­eval Dominicans, and, along with study, prayer was an essential part of preparation for their mission as preachers. Furthermore, the importance of liturgical identity for the Order can be seen from their protracted efforts to reform the liturgy in the middle of the thirteenth century: begun in 1244, assigned to ‘four friars’ in 1245, who apparently completed two unsuccessful revisions in 1248 and 1251, before the task was assigned to the new Master General Humbert of Romans. Humbert completed his revision in 1256,25 and provided a painstakingly detailed set of

 19 See, for example, Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order; Thomas, De oudste constituties; Linde, ed., Making and Breaking the Rules.  20 See, for example, Freed, The Friars and German Society in the Thirteenth Century; Foggie, Renaissance Religion in Urban Scotland; Holder, The Friaries of Medi­eval London; Ó Clabaigh, The Friars in Ireland; O’Sullivan, Medi­eval Irish Dominican Studies.  21 See, for example, Vicaire, Histoire de Saint Dominique; Prudlo, The Martyred Inquisitor; Hamburger and Signori, Catherine of Siena: The Creation of a Cult.  22 Papers from our conference that explored the influence of the Dominican Order in the field of theo­logy were published in a special issue of Angelicum, edited by Gregory Schnakenberg in 2016. See also, for example, Tugwell, Early Dominicans: Selected Writings. On Dominican education, see Mulchahey, ‘First the Bow is Bent’; Gelber, It Could Have Been Otherwise.  23 See, for example, the studies of Dominican preaching in O’Carroll, A Thirteenth-Century Preacher’s Handbook; Wenzel, Latin Sermon Collections from Later Medi­eval England; Thompson, Revival Preachers and Politics in Thirteenth-Century Italy; D’Avray, The Preaching of the Friars; Kienzle, The Sermon; Corbari, Vernacular Theo­logy.  24 Thomas, De oudste constituties, p. 316.  25 For an overview of the revision of the Dominican liturgy, see Giraud, ‘Totum officium bene correctum habeatur in domo’, pp. 153–56.

15

16

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d an d c h r i s t i an   t h o mas le i t me i r

regulations for the uniform recitation of chants in his commentary on the Dominican constitutions.26 William Bonniwell’s study of the Dominican liturgy remains the most often cited source on the subject,27 even though many now recognize that his work is outdated, not least owing to the subsequent discovery of further liturgical manuscripts.28 More recently, studies on the Dominican liturgy have often focused on particular manuscripts or groups of manuscripts, including an important collection of studies of the Dominican liturgical exemplar, Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1.29 While a comprehensive study of the Dominican liturgy remains a desideratum, this book helps bring it to the fore through a consideration of various cultural contributions of the Dominican Order. Fine art is another blind spot of Dominican studies. The octocentenary history of the Order of Preachers, edited by Gianni Festa and Marco Rainini, is almost completely silent on this matter.30 Before the advent of Fra Angelico, the first ‘great’ master of the Order, art-historical publications are scant and scattered. Dominican art has entered the frame almost exclusively in two areas: unsurprisingly, illuminated books have always featured prominently in the study of an Order devoted to study and learning. The architecture of monastic churches and convents (including interior decoration, such as frescoes, altarpieces, and funeral monuments), on the other hand, has been of interest particularly in relation to the normative constraints imposed by the mendicant orders.31 The present collection shifts the emphasis towards the design of liturgical spaces for certain rituals (including the veneration of relics). The first area is explored in the three opening chapters of this volume: Mary and Richard Rouse, Laura Albiero, and Alison Stones examine the production and decoration of Dominican books. Books were of central  26 Humbert of Romans, Expositio super constitutiones fratrum Praedicatorum and Instructiones de officiis ordinis. See also Smith, ‘Dominican Chant and Dominican Identity’.  27 Bonniwell, A History of the Dominican Liturgy. Another early study of the Dominican liturgy was Delalande, Le Graduel des Prêcheurs.  28 As new Dominican liturgical books came to light, they were studied by Gignac, Dirks, and Gleeson: Gignac, Le Sanctoral dominicain; Dirks, ‘De tribus libris manu scriptis primaevae liturgiae dominicanae’; Dirks, ‘De evolutione liturgiae dominicanae’; Gleeson, ‘Dominican Liturgical Manuscripts from before 1254’; Gleeson, ‘The Pre-Humbertian Liturgical Sources Revisited’. Recent and current doctoral research of Hrvoje Beban, Eleanor Giraud, Dominik Jurczak, OP, and Innocent Smith, OP, has given further attention to early Dominican liturgical manuscripts.  29 Boyle and Gy, ed., Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine.  30 Festa and Rainini, ed., L’Ordine dei predicatori.  31 Cannon, Religious Poverty, Visual Riches; Lloyd, ‘Paintings for Dominican Nuns’; Kleefisch-Jobst, Die römische Dominikanerkirche Santa Maria sopra Minerva; Schenkluhn, Architektur der Bettelorden; Lafaye, ‘The Dominicans in Ireland’; Mickisch, ‘Architecture and Space in the Dominican Order’; Pérez Vidal, ‘Legislation, Architecture, and Liturgy in the Dominican Nunneries in Castile’.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

importance to the functioning of the Order, as tools for study, preaching, devotion, and liturgical practice. As the Rouses and Albiero show, Dominican innovations regarding book production were felt beyond the Order and in some cases shaped the format of books for decades, even centuries, to come. Stones’ work shows that individual patrons were the main influence behind the decorative themes and icono­graphy in liturgical books and objects, rather than there being an Order-wide approach. The creation, decoration, and adaptation of Dominican liturgical space is the focus of the chapters by Haude Morvan and Panayota Volti, who examine the situation in Italy and the Eastern Mediterranean respectively. Two liturgical celebrations that the Dominicans were intimately involved in facilitating and promulgating were those of the Crown of Thorns and Corpus Christi. Emily Guerry’s chapter explores the diplomatic role of the Dominicans in acquiring the Crown of Thorn relics for King Louis IX, while M. Michèle Mulchahey and Barbara Walters consider how Dominicans, and in particular Thomas Aquinas, shaped the Corpus Christi liturgy. Innocent Smith and Eleanor Giraud consider aspects of the Dominican Mass liturgy more generally, Smith collating the three orations or prayers said at Mass, and Giraud examining the extent to which Mass books changed (or did not change) as a result of the Dominican liturgical reform in the mid-thirteenth century. Concurrent with the reform of the liturgy was the development of the constitutions of Dominican nuns, which is examined with relation to its regulation of the liturgy in a second chapter by Smith. The elusive figure of Jerome of Moravia, whose music treatise Tractatus de Musica discusses both liturgical and non-liturgical music, raising questions as to its relevance for Dominican readers, is the subject of the final two chapters, by Christian Thomas Leitmeir and Błażej Matusiak. We regret that the books, buildings, and liturgical practices of female Dominicans (nuns and tertiary) could not receive greater attention in our edited collection. Although the first community assembled by Dominic was one of women, in Prouille in 1206, research into ‘the Dominicans’ has been dominated by the so-called First Order (of men). With the exception of a few individuals (such as Catherine of Siena), the Second Order (of cloistered Dominican nuns), and Tertiaries (both male and female) are relatively underrepresented in special studies as well as in historical surveys of the Order of Preachers. While the patriarchal and clerical bias of historio­ graphy has no doubt contributed to this marginalization, the situation is compounded by a lack of documentation of the activities of the Second and Third Orders in the thirteenth century. The First Order produced a rich stream of written sources, detailing its history (through chronicles such as Gérard de Frachet’s Vitae fratrum, and hagio­graphical accounts of the lives of St Dominic and others), its legislation and administration, and its activities more generally. Prior to the fourteenth century however, information on Dominican women and Tertiaries is scant, especially when it comes to the liturgy and the production of liturgical books — the very focal points of the

17

18

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d an d c h r i s t i an   t h o mas le i t me i r

present collection. Moreover, the picture in the early years is complicated by the fact that in the 1240s the Order of Preachers often incorporated existing convents of women (such as Beguines), who became Dominican by virtue of adopting the Rule of St Augustine, and thus may have been indistinguishable from Augustinian canonesses.32 There is a growing body of scholarship examining the activities and interests of Dominican women. This is particularly the case for nuns in the German-speaking lands, in part owing to the substantial number of monasteries (of nuns) in the Province of Teutonia in the Middle Ages, which boasted nearly half of all monasteries across the Order.33 Similarly, the substantial number of high-grade liturgical books surviving from the royal foundation of nuns in Poissy has also attracted a number of studies.34 While these are a highly commendable step towards redressing the gender balance, it is significant, however, that they too focus almost exclusively on the late Middle Ages. In the absence of direct documentation from Dominican nuns themselves in the early years of the Order, they are represented only indirectly in this collection: Smith’s chapter describes the liturgical practices of female Dominicans, using legislative statements made by regulators from the First Order. We hope that this will invite further study to achieve a deeper and more holistic understanding of the broader liturgical practices of Dominican women and of Tertiaries across the history of the order, and particularly in the Middle Ages. * * * Drawing together their lifetime’s study of medi­eval book production, Richard and Mary Rouse highlight the manner of ways in which the Dominican Order has influenced book copying, notably in connection with the University of Paris. This research was delivered as the keynote paper of the 2015 Oxford conference. The Bible sits at the heart of Dominican life, from its use in study and preaching to its place as the central foundation of  32 Lewis, By Women, For Women, About Women, pp. 10–31; Franks Johnson, Monastic Women and Religious Orders in Late Medi­eval Bo­logna, pp. 113–16; Frank, ‘Wie der Dominikanerordern zu den Dominikanerinnen kam’. Additionally, the Order of Penance (Ordo de Poenitentia), also known as the Third Order, became formally established through the rule written by Munio Zamora, soon after his election as Master of the Order in 1285. Lehmijoki-Gardner, ‘Writing Religious Rules as an Interactive Process’.  33 Recent studies of the liturgical books and activities of Dominican nuns in Germany include Hamburger, ed., Leaves from Paradise; Hamburger and Schlotheuber, ‘Books in Women’s Hands’; Fassler and Hamburger, ‘The Desert in Paradise’; Hamburger and others, Life and Latin Learning at Paradies bei Soest; Jones, Ruling the Spirit: Women, Liturgy, and Dominican Reform in Late Medi­eval Germany.  34 See for example: Naughton, ‘Manuscripts from the Dominican Monastery of SaintLouis de Poissy’; Naughton, ‘Books for a Dominican Nuns’ Choir’; Naughton, ‘From Unillustrated to Illustrated’; Stinson, ‘The Poissy Antiphonal: A Major Source of Late Medi­eval Chant’; Sutcliffe, ‘Downside MS 61166 and the Processional Liturgy of Poissy’; Avril, ‘Un bréviaire royal du xive siècle’.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

liturgical celebration. The substantial demand for a single-volume Bible by itinerant Dominican preachers as well as Dominican university students contributed significantly to the soar in popularity of the so-called Paris Bible; the smaller and even more convenient pocket Bible is itself likely to have been a Dominican invention. Various Dominican biblical tools, such as Hugh of Saint-Cher’s postils, the compilation of textual variants (correctoria), of definitions (distinctiones), and of verbal concordances, became indispensable tools for biblical study in the Middle Ages, with the Dominican concordances unrivalled for several centuries until the advent of Google. Likewise, biblical study was facilitated by certain features internal to the Bibles themselves, such as the ordering of the books of the Bible, and their subdivision into chapters; these became standardized across most Bibles thanks to proliferation of Dominican Bibles in the thirteenth century. The swift production of single-volume Bibles and other popular Dominican texts may well have been owing to the Dominicans’ close relationship with a Parisian bookmaker, Guillaume de Sens, and their early adoption of the ‘pecia’ method of book copying. This system, which facilitated simultaneous copying, may have gained traction in Paris thanks to its use in books made for or by Dominicans. Alongside the Bible, all Dominican novices with sufficient funds were requested to acquire a breviary,35 and consequently Dominicans may well also have been influential regarding the format and popularity of pocket breviaries. As part of a wider codico­logical study of the breviary, Laura Albiero’s chapter examines the material nature of Dominican breviaries, including their dimensions, layout, decoration, and script. Although very few records have survived specifically about Dominican breviary production, Albiero’s substantial survey of the extant sources reveals that the Dominicans were remarkably consistent in their production choices, preferring small ‘pocket’ breviaries with text copied in two columns, and usually by a single scribe. The larger of the extant Dominican breviaries are consistently supplied with substantial decoration, although the choices regarding the type of decoration and icono­graphy are not consistent and appear to reflect local decisions. The decorated breviaries that formed part of the corpus in Albiero’s chapter also receive attention in Stones’ study of the illustration of Dominican liturgical books in France in the first century of St Dominic’s cult. This broader range of liturgical artwork similarly shows a diverse approach to Dominican icono­graphy, with certain themes gaining popularity (such as

 35 ‘Volumus ut novicii qui tantam pecuniam habent; ut solutis vestibus. possint de illa emere bibliam et breviarium; quod ex ea de residuo emant.’ (We wish that novices who have sufficient money, after having paid for clothes, to be able to buy a Bible and breviary, from now on should buy these [the Bible and breviary] with that money. – Admonitio from the General Chapter of 1233), Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, i, p. 4.

19

20

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d an d c h r i s t i an   t h o mas le i t me i r

Guala’s vision of the ascension of St Dominic, the martyrdom of Peter of Verona, and, in manuscripts after 1326, Thomas Aquinas’s teaching), but no uniform approach to depicting these themes, and little consistency overall in the choice of scenes and subjects. Individual book makers and patrons had noticeable autonomy to choose how and which Dominican scenes to depict. In addition, the extant manuscript evidence points to a proliferation of Dominican icono­graphy from the mid-thirteenth century onwards in the north of France (Artois, Flanders, Hainaut) and around Paris and Poissy, rather than in the south of France where Dominic himself had lived and worked. While the Dominicans may not have had a single approach to icono­ graphy, a pattern can be found in adaptations to the architecture of many (though not all) of their churches in early modern Italy. From the seventeenth century onwards, it became common across Europe for the choir stalls to be relocated behind the high altar, with the altar separating the laity from the religious. However, this change can be found as early as the fifteenth century in monastic, conventual, and canonical churches in Italy, before this disposition of space became the norm. Haude Morvan’s chapter examines the ways in which this occurred in the Italian Dominican churches of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome, Santa Corona in Vicenza, San Domenico in Siena, San Domenico Maggiore in Naples, and Santa Maria della Quercia and Santa Maria in Gradi, both in Viterbo. Albeit largely an Italian phenomenon prior to c. 1600, a similar spatial reorganization can be found in the Dominican church of Notre-Dame de Confort in Lyon from 1466; Morvan suggests that the presence of Florentines in Lyon from the fifteenth century may well have influenced their early adoption of the repositioned choir. Morvan demonstrates that the friars themselves had an important role in instigating such changes to the layout of their churches, even if they turned to lay patrons to help fund the alterations. The driving factor behind the reorganization of the ecclesiastical space was the promotion of greater lay devotion, which complemented the Order’s close engagement with the laity. Dominican churches were also the site of integration and exchange with the local population in the Eastern Mediterranean, both in terms of spirituality and architectural design, as Panayota Volti reveals.36 The thirteenth-century church of St Sophia in Andravida, for example, combined both Western and oriental forms, drew on local building construction techniques, and was remodelled in the fifteenth century in order to mimic the symmetrical design of Byzantine religious architecture, thus making it visually familiar to the local Orthodox population. A similar architectural modification took place at the Dominican church in Herakleion on the

 36 For a similar phenomenon in modern-day Switzerland and Southern Germany, see Mickisch, ‘Architecture and Space in the Dominican Order’.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

island of Crete — and it seems that this may have occurred in order to support the celebration of both the Latin and the Greek liturgies in the Dominican church. Adaptation went in both directions: a twelfth-century Orthodox church in Argolis has been known since the late thirteenth century as ‘Merbaka’, named after the Dominican translator and bishop William of Moerbeke, who seems to have been involved in decorating the church with two ancient funerary stones. The significant degree of interaction and exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean was facilitated by the Dominicans’ proficiency in the Greek language. This went beyond simply preaching, with both Dominicans and Greek Orthodox monks translating the scholarship of the likes of Aristotle and Aquinas respectively, thus fostering intellectual exchange and the dissemination of Thomism in Orthodox thought. As the Rouses’ chapter also points out, translation and vernacular language acquisition was an important part of their missionary activity across the province. Facility with languages and familiarity with activities in Constantinople were key to the success of the mission of two Dominican friars, André de Longjumeau and Jacques, who were sent by King Louis IX in 1238 to Constantinople to acquire a relic of the Crown of Thorns. Emily Guerry’s chapter explores the friars’ journey against the odds to acquire the relic, drawing on a detailed analysis of the Historia of Gauthier Cornut, the narrative design of the windows of the Sainte-Chapelle, and other contemporary witnesses. King Louis IX had a close relationship with both the Franciscans and the Dominicans, and even chose to portray himself as a friar in the processions marking the arrival of the Crown of Thorns into Paris, perhaps ritually re-enacting the journey made by friars André and Jacques. Even after the relic had been received, the Dominican Order was instrumental in promulgating its annual celebration: the feast of the Crown of Thorns was one of the new additions to the revised Dominican liturgical calendar, and its Matins lections were paraphrased from Cornut’s Historia, which detailed the Dominican friars’ intrepid journey.37 As well as celebrating their own role in acquiring this important Passion relic, the feast may have been included in Humbert of Romans’ revision of the Dominican liturgy on account of his close relationship with King Louis IX (as evidenced, for example, by the fact that Humbert was chosen as godfather to one of Louis IX’s sons). As Eleanor Giraud’s chapter shows, the feast of the Crown of Thorns was specifically introduced by Humbert of Romans, and not at the earlier stages of the liturgical revision. One area of liturgy where the Dominican Order actively contributed to wider practice is with regards to the feast of Corpus Christi, which is the subject of two chapters of this volume, by Michèle Mulchahey and Barbara Walters. While the vision of Juliana of Mont-Cornillon sparked

 37 For an edition of the Dominican liturgy in honour of this relic, see Maurey, The Dominican Mass and Office for the Crown of Thorns.

21

22

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d an d c h r i s t i an   t h o mas le i t me i r

the campaign for a feast celebrating the Eucharist, and Pope Urban IV who instituted the feast in 1264, it was the Dominicans who had an impact on the feast’s celebration: the Dominicans of Liège helped first establish the feast in the town, the teaching of their provincial prior Hugh of Saint-Cher promoted the feast beyond Liège, and Thomas Aquinas is widely held to have later composed two Office liturgies for the feast. Mulchahey, after tracing the history of the feast’s establishment, examines how Thomas Aquinas’s period teaching as lector in Orvieto (in close proximity to Pope Urban IV and his curia) was characterized by his innovative reconsiderations of familiar subjects, including questions regarding the Eucharist — and, as she goes on to show, the research he accomplished in Orvieto is evident in his composition of the Corpus Christi Offices, the earlier Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum, and the more widespread Sacerdos in aeternum. Barbara Walters’s chapter provides a close reading of the later Corpus Christi Office composed by Thomas Aquinas, Sacerdos in aeternum, found in BnF, MS lat. 1143. The chants of this rhymed Office are based on carefully selected pre-existing chants, many of which concern redemptive acts and Marian devotion. Comparing Aquinas’s writings, and in particular his Sermon 13, Homo quidam fecit cenam, with the textual and melodic sources for Aquinas’s version of the Office, Walters demonstrates that Aquinas thoughtfully and deliberately combined texts and melodies that would express his theo­logy of the Eucharist. Her chapter reminds us that, for Aquinas, liturgy and devotion were an integral and an interconnected part of his work as a theo­logian. The remarkable degree of uniformity in the Dominican liturgy, from Humbert of Romans’ reform in the mid-thirteenth century up until the seventeenth century and beyond, was made possible by the circulation of a number of liturgical ‘exemplars’, large compendia which comprised fourteen individual books required for liturgical celebration, and which set out the authorized form of the liturgy.38 While many books copied subsequently match the structure of one of these fourteen books, there are also a good number which adapt and combine the material of different books (such as notated breviaries combining the notated chants of antiphoners with the texts of the breviary), as Innocent Smith shows in his survey of the types of Dominican liturgical books. Smith’s catalogue of the prayers or orations said in Mass according to the exemplar’s Missale conventuale is a substantial resource which will open the door to further study of this repertory. His research demonstrates that while the Dominicans largely drew on standard Gregorian orations, there are certain distinctive features of Dominican orations, such as their phrasing and certain unique prayers not found (or at

 38 The exemplar and its fourteen components have received substantial attention in Boyle and Gy, ed., Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

least not catalogued) elsewhere, for Ash Wednesday, St Gorgonius, St Peter Martyr, and, notably, for a votive Mass for preachers (pro praedicatoribus). The purported reason for the need for a liturgical reform was a diversity of practices across the Order in its early years. However, Eleanor Giraud’s examination of the books related to the Mass surviving from before the reform reveals that there was remarkably little difference between the books at the points where they were most likely to vary, for example the choice of biblical verse paired with the Alleluia chant on Sundays after Easter and Pentecost, and in the sanctoral cycle. Instead, the extant Mass books tend to be largely uniform in these aspects and, confirming earlier findings,39 Giraud argues that the early Dominicans would have drawn on the Cistercian liturgy for their Mass, which they revised during their liturgical reform. As a result, Giraud suggests that the impetus for the reform may have been as much about concretizing their own distinct identity, as about ensuring uniformity. Simultaneous with the development and crystallization of the liturgy, was that of the regulation of the Dominican way of life, in the form of constitutions for the friars and for the nuns. Indeed, the two processes may well have been intertwined, not least by the involvement of the same key figure: Humbert of Romans. In his second chapter for this volume, Innocent Smith considers the development of the legislation of the nuns as it related to the liturgy, from the Institutions of San Sisto, likely composed by Dominic himself, to the Constitutions compiled by Humbert of Romans in 1259. While noting certain differences with the constitutions of the friars, most notably that the nuns were to recite the liturgy ‘tractim et distincte’ (slowly and distinctly) as opposed to the friars’ ‘breviter et succincte’ (briefly and succinctly), Smith highlights the overall dependence and close similarities with the friars’ constitutions, suggesting that the common liturgy and liturgical regulations served to unite the two branches of the order. One figure who seems to have been active in Paris around or shortly after the liturgical reform is Jerome of Moravia. Jerome’s treatise Tractatus de musica survives in a single manuscript copy that was bequeathed to the Sorbonne in the early fourteenth century where it was kept as a chained reference book in the divinity library, and is now held in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, as MS lat. 16663.40 The Tractatus de musica is a compilation (‘summula’) of writings on music from a variety of music theorists, from the likes of Boethius up to contemporary music theorists of the thirteenth century, including a handful of texts that have not survived elsewhere. Despite containing various Dominican elements (such as a Dominican tonary, certain Dominican chants, and quotations from Aquinas), the

 39 See for example Delalande, Le Graduel des Prêcheurs.  40 For an edition of this manuscript, see Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer, Lobrichon, and Hertel-Geay.

23

24

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d an d c h r i s t i an   t h o mas le i t me i r

treatise goes far beyond what would be needed by a Dominican cantor, including information on polyphony, music theory, practical and instrumental music making, and mensural polyphony — showing Jerome’s familiarity with the latest developments du jour. However, as Christian Thomas Leitmeir shows, these subjects were not necessarily prohibited to the Dominicans, as has often been thought, and Dominican elements (such as the silent quoting of Thomas Aquinas and other Dominican authors) can be seen threaded throughout the treatise, even if not overtly, thus making the treatise appropriate both for Dominicans and a wider audience. In ascertaining the Dominican profile of the treatise and its author, Leitmeir also endeavours to trace the identity of Hieronymus and suggests that the toponymic points to Moravia in Central Europe rather than, as proposed by Michel Huglo, Moray in Scotland.41 Błażej Matusiak considers the treatise in the broader context of medi­eval scholarship, showing its relationship both to other music theory texts, in terms of the material quoted, and to the methodo­logies of other encyclopaedic and scholarly texts, such as those of the Dominicans Vincent of Beauvais and in particular Thomas Aquinas — the latter of whose work is extensively quoted by Jerome of Moravia. Matusiak shows Jerome’s treatise to be part of a wider pattern of Dominican scholarship of this period, compiling, collating, and organizing material on a given topic for easier digestion by the reader. Together these thirteen chapters display a variety of approaches to engaging with the liturgical and material culture of the Dominican Order in the Middle Ages. In many cases, they demonstrate that Dominican friars sensitively interacted with their local communities, sometimes adapting to accommodate local needs, sometimes influencing their surroundings, while maintaining a clear sense of their own identity. Inevitably, the topics and themes covered here are limited, and this volume makes no claim to be a comprehensive examination of medi­eval Dominican liturgical matters. Rather, in bringing together the expertise of art historians, historians of the book, theo­logians, and musico­logists, this volume intends to sow the seeds of fruitful interdisciplinary dialogue. It is hoped that the publication serves as a model that will yield rich fruit in further scholarship of the Dominican order and beyond.

 41 Huglo, ‘La Musica du Fr. Prêcheur Jérôme de Moray’; Huglo, ‘Hieronymus de Moravia’.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

Works Cited Primary Sources Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, i: Ab anno 1220 usque ad annum 1303, ed. by Benedictus Maria Reichert, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 3 (Rome: In domo generalitia, 1898) Cantus Selecti Ordinis Praedicatorum (Rome: Ad Sanctae Sabinae, 2016) Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Christian Meyer, Guy Lobrichon, and Carola Hertel-Geay, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 250 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012) Humbert of Romans, Expositio super constitutiones fratrum Praedicatorum, in Humbert of Romans, Opera de vita regulari, ed. by Joachim Joseph Berthier, 2 vols (Rome: Befani, 1888–1889), ii, pp. 1–178 —— , Instructiones de officiis ordinis, in Humbert of Romans, Opera de vita regulari, ed. by Joachim Joseph Berthier, 2 vols (Rome: Befani, 1888–1889), ii, pp. 179–371 Thomas, A. H., De oudste constituties van de Dominicanen: voorgeschiednis tekst, bronnen, ontstaan en ontwikkeling (1215–1237), Bibliothèque de la Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 42 (Leuven: Leuvense Universitaire Uitgaven, 1965) Secondary Works Auth, Charles R., James R. Emond, and James A. Driscoll, A Dominican Biblio­ graphy and Book of Reference, 1216–1992 (New York: P. Lang, 2000) Avril, François, ‘Un bréviaire royal du xive siècle’, Art de l’enluminure, 60 (2017), 4–62 Beach, Alison I., and Isabelle Cochelin, ed., The Cambridge History of Medi­ eval Monasticism in the Latin West, vol. ii: The High and Late Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020) Bériou, Nicole, André Vauchez, and Michel Zink, ed., Les Dominicains en France (xiiie–xxe siècle) (Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres-Éditions du Cerf, 2017) Bonniwell, William R., A History of the Dominican Liturgy, 1215–1945. 2nd edn (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1945) Boyle, Leonard E., and Pierre-Marie Gy, ed., Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L 1, Collection de l’École française de Rome, 327 (Rome: École française de Rome, CNRS, 2004) Cannon, Joanna, Religious Poverty, Visual Riches: Art in the Dominican Churches of Central Italy in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013) Corbari, Eliana, Vernacular Theo­logy: Dominican Sermons and Audience in Late Medi­eval Italy, Trends in Medi­eval Philo­logy, 22 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013)

25

26

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d an d c h r i s t i an   t h o mas le i t me i r

D’Avray, David L., The Preaching of the Friars: Sermons Diffused from Paris before 1300 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985) Delalande, Dominique, Le Graduel des Prêcheurs: Recherches sur les sources et la valeur de son texte musical, Bibliothèque d’histoire dominicaine, 2 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1949) Dirks, Ansgar, ‘De evolutione liturgiae dominicanae’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 50 (1980), 5–21 —— , ‘De tribus libris manu scriptis primaevae liturgiae dominicanae’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 49 (1979), 5–37 Dóci, Viliam Štefan, and Thomas Prügl, Bibelstudium und Predigt im Dominikaner­ orden. Geschichte, Idea, Praxis, Dissertationes historicae (Rome: Angelicum University Press, 2019) Fassler, Margot E., and Jeffrey F. Hamburger, ‘The Desert in Paradise: A Newly Discovered Office for John the Baptist from Paradies bei Soest and its Place in the Dominican Liturgy’, in Resounding Images Medi­eval Intersections of Art, Music, and Sound, ed. by Susan Boynton and Diane J. Reilly, Studies in the Visual Cultures of the Middle Ages, 9 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), pp. 251–80 Festa, Gianni, and Marco Rainini, L’Ordine dei Predicatori. I Domenicani: storia, figure e istituzioni (1216–2016), Quandrante Laterza, 50 (Bari: Giuseppa Laterza e Figli, 2016) Foggie, Janet P., Renaissance Religion in Urban Scotland: The Dominican Order, 1450–1560, Studies in Medi­eval and Reformation Thought, 95 (Leiden: Brill, 2003) Frank, Isnard, ‘Wie der Dominikanerordern zu den Dominikanerinnen kam: Zur Gründung der “Dominikanerinnen” im 13. Jahrhundert’, in Das Dominikanerinnenkloster zu Bad Wörishofen, ed. by Werner Schiedermaier (Weißenhorn: Konrad, 1998), pp. 36–50 Franks Johnson, Sherri, Monastic Women and Religious Orders in Late Medi­eval Bo­logna (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014) Freed, John B., The Friars and German Society in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1977) Füllenbach, Elias H., and Susanne Biber, ed., Mehr als Schwarz und Weiss: 800 Jahre Dominikanerorden (Regensburg: Pustet, 2016) Galbraith, Georgina Rosalie, The Constitution of the Dominican Order, 1216–1360, Historical Series, 44 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1925) Gelber, Hester Goodenough, It Could Have Been Otherwise: Contingency and Necessity in Dominican Theo­logy at Oxford, 1300–1350, Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters, 81 (Leiden: Brill, 2004) Gignac, André L. M., Le Sanctoral dominicain et les origines de la liturgie dominicaine (Typescript) (Paris: Institut Supérieur de Liturgie, 1959) Giraud, Eleanor, ‘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, ed. by Cornelia Linde, Studies of the German Historical Institute London (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 153–72

i nt ro d u ct i o n

Gleeson, Philip, ‘Dominican Liturgical Manuscripts from before 1254’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 42 (1972), 81–135 —— , ‘The Pre-Humbertian Liturgical Sources Revisited’, in Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L 1, ed. by Leonard E. Boyle and Pierre-Marie Gy, Collection de l’École française de Rome, 327 (Rome: École française de Rome, CNRS, 2004), pp. 99–114 Hamburger, Jeffrey F., ed., Leaves from Paradise: The Cult of John the Evangelist at the Dominican Convent of Paradies bei Soest, Houghton Library Studies (Cambridge, MA: Houghton Library, 2008) Hamburger, Jeffrey F., and Eva Schlotheuber, ‘Books in Women’s Hands: Liturgy, Learning and the Libraries of Dominican Nuns in Westphalia’, in Entre stabilité et itinérance: livres et culture des ordres mendiants, xiiie–xve siècle, ed. by Nicole Bériou, Martin Morard, and Donatella Nebbiai, Biblio­logia, 37 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), pp. 129–57 Hamburger, Jeffrey F., Eva Schlotheuber, Susan Marti, and Margot Fassler, Life and Latin Learning at Paradies bei Soest, 1300–1425: Inscription and Illumination in the Choir Books of a North German Dominican Convent (Münster: Aschendorff, 2017) Hamburger, Jeffrey F., and Gabriela Signori, Catherine of Siena: The Creation of a Cult, Medi­eval Women: Texts and Contexts, 13 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013) Hinnebusch, William A., The History of the Dominican Order, 2 vols (New York: Alba House, 1966–1973) Holder, Nick, The Friaries of Medi­eval London: From Foundation to Dissolution, Studies in the History of Medi­eval Religion, 46 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2017) Huglo, Michel, ‘Hieronymus de Moravia: “frère morave” ou “Scottish Blackfriar”?’, in Nationes, Gentes und die Musik im Mittelalter, ed. by Frank Hentschel and Marie Winkelmüller (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), pp. 423–34 —— , ‘La Musica du Fr. Prêcheur Jérôme de Moray’, in Max Lütolf zum 60. Geburts­ tag, ed. by Bernhard Hangartner and Urs Fischer (Basel: Wiese, 1994), pp. 113–16 Jones, Claire Taylor, Ruling the Spirit: Women, Liturgy, and Dominican Reform in Late Medi­eval Germany (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018) Kienzle, Beverly Mayne, The Sermon (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000) Kleefisch-Jobst, Ursula, Die römische Dominikanerkirche Santa Maria sopra Minerva: ein Beitrag zur Architektur der Bettelorden in Mittelitalien (Münster: Nodus, 1991) Lafaye, Anne-Julie, ‘The Dominicans in Ireland: A Comparative Study of the East Munster and Leinster Settlements’, Journal of Medi­eval Monastic Studies, 4 (2015), 77–106 Lehmijoki-Gardner, Maiju, ‘Writing Religious Rules as an Interactive Process: Dominican Penitent Women and the Making of their regula’, Speculum, 79 (2005), 660–87 Lévecque-Stankiewicz, Florine, ‘Une bibliothèque retrouvée: les livres du couvent des Jacobins de Paris du Moyen Âge à la Révolution’, in Les Dominicains en France (XIIIe–XXe siècle), ed. by Nicole Bériou, André Vauchez, and Michel Zink (Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres-Éditions du Cerf, 2017), pp. 535–610

27

28

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d an d c h r i s t i an   t h o mas le i t me i r

Lewis, Gertrud Jaron, By Women, For Women, About Women: The Sister-Books of Fourteenth-Century Germany (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1996) Linde, Cornelia, ed., Making and Breaking the Rules: Discussion, Implementation, and Consequences of Dominican Legislation, Studies of the German Historical Institute London (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018) Lloyd, Joan Barclay, ‘Paintings for Dominican Nuns: A New Look at the Images of Saints, Scenes from the New Testament and Apocrypha, and Episodes from the Life of Saint Catherine of Siena in the Medi­eval Apse of San Sisto Vecchio in Rome’, Papers of the British School at Rome, 80 (2012), 189–232 Maurey, Yossi, The Dominican Mass and Office for the Crown of Thorns, Musico­ logical Studies, LXV/​29 (Kitchener: The Institute of Mediaeval Music, 2019) Mickisch, Sebastian, ‘Architecture and Space in the Dominican Order: On the Impact of Norms and Concepts in Early Normative and Narrative Sources’, in Making and Breaking the Rules: Discussion, Implementation, and Consequences of Dominican Legislation, ed. by Cornelia Linde, Studies of the German Historical Institute London (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 189–224 Mulchahey, Marian Michèle, ‘First the Bow is Bent in Study …’: Dominican Teaching Before 1350, Studies and Texts, 132 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1998) Naughton, Joan M., ‘Books for a Dominican Nuns’ Choir: Illustrated Liturgical Manuscripts at Saint-Louis de Poissy, c. 1330–1350’, in The Art of the Book: Its Place in Medi­eval Worship, ed. by Margaret M. Manion and Bernard James Muir (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1998), pp. 67–110 —— , ‘From Unillustrated to Illustrated Book: Personalization and Change in the Poissy Processional’, Manuscripta, 43/​44 (1999/​2000), 161–87 —— , ‘Manuscripts from the Dominican Monastery of Saint-Louis de Poissy’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, 1995) Ó Clabaigh, Colmán, The Friars in Ireland, 1224–1540 (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2012) O’Carroll, Mary E., A Thirteenth-Century Preacher’s Handbook: Studies in MS Laud Misc. 511, Studies and Texts, 128 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1997) O’Sullivan, Benedict, Medi­eval Irish Dominican Studies, ed. by Hugh Fenning (Dublin: Four Courts, 2009) Pérez Vidal, Mercedes, ‘Legislation, Architecture, and Liturgy in the Dominican Nunneries in Castile during the Late Middle Ages: A World of diversitas and Peculiarities’, in Making and Breaking the Rules: Discussion, Implementation, and Consequences of Dominican Legislation, ed. by Cornelia Linde, Studies of the German Historical Institute London (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 225–52 Prudlo, Donald, The Martyred Inquisitor: The Life and Cult of Peter of Verona (1252) (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008) —— , ‘The Friars Preachers: The First Hundred Years of the Dominican Order’, History Compass, 8.11 (2010), 1275–1290

i nt ro d u ct i o n

Schenkluhn, Wolfgang, Architektur der Bettelorden: die Baukunst der Dominikaner und Franziskaner in Europa (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2000) Schnakenberg, Gregory, ed., ‘The Influences of the Dominican Order in the Middle Ages.’ Special Issue, Angelicum 93.2 (2016) Smith, Innocent, ‘Dominican Chant and Dominican Identity’, Religions, 5.4 (2014), 961–71 Stinson, John, ‘The Poissy Antiphonal: A Major Source of Late Medi­eval Chant’, La Trobe Journal, 51–52 (1993), 50–59 Sutcliffe, Edward James, ‘Downside MS 61166 and the Processional Liturgy of Poissy’, The Downside Review, 137.3 (2019), 89–125 Thompson, Augustine, Revival Preachers and Politics in Thirteenth-Century Italy: The Great Devotion of 1233 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992) Tugwell, Simon, Early Dominicans: Selected Writings, Classics of Western Spirituality (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1982) Vicaire, Marie-Humbert, Histoire de Saint Dominique, 2 vols (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1957) von Heusinger, Sabine, Elias H. Füllenbach, Walter Senner, and Klaus-Bernward Springer, ed., Die deutschen Dominikaner und Dominikanerinnen im Mittelalter, Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Dominikanerordens, Neue Folge 21 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016) Wenzel, Siegfried, Latin Sermon Collections from Later Medi­eval England: Orthodox Preaching in the Age of Wyclif (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)

29

Richar d Rouse and Mary Rouse*

The Impact of the Dominicans on Books at the University of Paris, 1217–1350 There is an unexpected advantage when you get old and forgetful: life is full of surprises! Consider this one: over a long career focused on the books and book people of the Middle Ages, especially medi­eval Paris, we have published well over a hundred articles, and a goodly handful of books of our own. In the process, we have very frequently come in contact with the subject of Dominicans and books: Dominicans as authors of books, as commissioners of books, as owners of books, as users of books, as disseminators of books, as creators of bookish tools, as shapers of the formats of books, and on and on. But when we combed through our biblio­graphy, it was a surprise to find that in not a single one of our publications does the word ‘Dominican’ appear in the title. We are grateful, then, for this encouragement to assemble in a single narrative all the bits and pieces that we know, and to add the new bits we and many others have ferreted out, concerning the influence of Dominicans on books at Paris stretching over a century or so, from the Order’s arrival in that city until well into the fourteenth century. Permit us a quick survey of beginnings, doubtless known to most of you: Saint Dominic, on a diplomatic mission for the king of Castile at the beginning of the thirteenth century, encountered the Cathar heresy in passing through southern France and was shocked by it. He soon recognized that only an austerity equal to that of their opponents would give orthodox clerics any standing to combat the heretics within the local populace. Along with Bishop Diego of Osma, Dominic himself engaged in preaching and debates among the Cathars, with a discouraging lack of success. A Vita written in 1244, twenty-three years after Dominic’s death but composed by Jean de Mailly who had known him, describes a disputation or debate held at Montréal near Toulouse between the leading Cathars and the

* This chapter is dedicated to the memory of an eminent scholar and teacher we first met more than half a century ago in Oxford: Leonard Boyle, dearest of friends and Dominican to the core.

Richard and Mary Rouse, students of the medi­eval manuscript culture of Britain and France, are now retired from the University of California, Los Angeles.

The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music, and Liturgy, ed. by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, MMS 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021) pp. 31–50 10.1484/M.MMS-EB.5.124212

FHG

32

r i c ha r d ro u s e an d m ary ro u s e

orthodox clergy.1 Besides oral arguments, each side produced its treatises and books. One by one these works were discredited and discarded, until there remained at contention only a book written by the best of the Cathars and a book written by Dominic. The judge of the debate could not choose between them, so he ordered that they both be thrown into the fire. The heretical tract burst into flames and was consumed, whereas Dominic’s book — like the children of Israel in the fiery furnace — emerged unscathed. Jordan of Saxony, writing in 1232, had reported a similar incident, this time set at Fanjeaux.2 Sidestepping the miraculous element, we can say that Dominic himself wrote no books or other works, not even a rule, that has survived. But that disputation at Montréal did take place in 1207, and there were other disputations at Fanjeaux and the surrounding area. From their unsatisfactory outcome Dominic recognized that winning debates with heretics would require an army of preachers of greater training than they. He determined to create a new Order of trained men — first of all to combat this heresy, certainly, but also to continually treat Western Europe and the semi-rootless population of its burgeoning cities as a mission field. After an initial refusal in 1215, Dominic gained papal approval to create an Order of preachers, late in December of 1216. And by 1217, he had established a convent in Paris for the university training of the preachers in his Order; in the following year they took possession of the convent of Saint-Jacques, with which Paris Dominicans were to be identified through the end of the Middle Ages and well beyond. So, in effect, while the Dominican Order does not quite date back to the origins of the University of Paris (it comes close!), the origins of the Order are inextricably bound to that university. It does not surprise us, then, that the Dominicans had a great impact on books at Paris. The most widely known accomplishment of the Parisian Dominicans related to books in the thirteenth century, familiar even outside academia, was the successful introduction of Christian Aristotelianism — Thomism — to the teaching of orthodox theo­logy at the university. But this was by no means the earliest, and in many ways it was not even the longest-lasting, of Dominican effects on books at the University of Paris. Rather, in the beginning was The Book — the Bible — which the Dominican Order and especially the Dominicans at Saint-Jacques addressed with enthusiasm. They changed the Bible physically, they corrected its text, they introduced a method for the rapid reproduction of texts, they devised a means for precise biblical reference in a time before the numbering of verses, they wrote biblical commentaries, they created a formula for Bible-based sermons, and they prepared for themselves a wide variety of tools to make the biblical

 1 Tugwell, ed., Early Dominicans, p. 54.  2 Jordan of Saxony, On the Beginnings of the Order of Preachers, ed. and trans. by Tugwell, p. 7.

D o m i n i c an I m pact o n B o o ks at   t h e U ni ve rsi t y o f Pari s

text more quickly and easily accessible. (Let us say here, once and for all, that these Dominican innovations obviously were useful to, and used by, the non-Dominican scholarly community as well, just as the Dominicans borrowed and put to use good ideas originating from others). We should like to present these elements in chrono­logical order. But real life is seldom as tidy as historians might wish, and the Paris Dominicans with an astonishing burst of energy engaged in all these activities almost simultaneously — certainly in efforts that overlapped and intertwined. So we shall do our best, but the chrono­logy is more than a little ragged. The inevitable starting place is the Paris Bible. Although this chapter is focused on Dominican influence on books in medi­eval Paris, there are cases where the effects of their efforts persisted down the years into the twenty-first century, and this is one of them. The Latin Bible had been monumental in size, and frequently multi-volume; when the Bible text was supplied with a full scholarly gloss, the Glossa ordinaria that was developed in the twelfth century, it often filled eleven or more lectern-size volumes. In the first decades of the thirteenth century, as Laura Light observed twenty years ago, ‘a one-volume format became the usual format’ for the Bible, and ‘all the other alterations in both the text and physical presentation of the Bible characteristic of this period’3 — and we would add, all the period’s biblical tools and research instruments — were built on the foundation of the single-volume Bible. The earliest exemplars of the Paris Bible pre-date the presence of the Dominican Order in Paris by fifteen years or so. But along with the needs of university students, it was the new and seemingly limitless demand of itinerant friars for a portable Bible that called forth the sudden production of the single-volume Paris Bible in large numbers and in a short time. This was followed in about 1230 by the creation and production of its little brother, the pocket Bible, small enough to fit in the pouch hanging from a travelling preacher’s belt, and surely a Dominican innovation. (Specialists are reluctant to state even rough size limits for these, but we find it helpful to picture a manuscript 200 mm tall at the absolute maximum with about 120 mm tall as the norm). Production of Paris Bibles and pocket Bibles was not confined to Paris or even to France, nor was their production limited to the thirteenth century. Over a quarter of a century ago Laura Light confined herself to the thirteenth century, examining some 250 pocket Bibles,4 and that number has grown in the interim; Chiara Ruzzier reported an astounding count of nearly 1800 small, one-volume thirteenth-century Bibles, though of course they are by no means all Parisian.5 However, we have no hesitation in claiming that all those not made at Paris, and they were many, were nonetheless

 3 Light, ‘French Bibles ca. 1200–30’, p. 157; see also Light, ‘New Thirteenth-Century Bible’.  4 Light, ‘New Thirteenth-Century Bible’.  5 Ruzzier, ‘The Miniaturisation of Bible Manuscripts’, p. 105.

33

34

r i c ha r d ro u s e an d m ary ro u s e

descendants of Paris-made pocket Bibles. The rapid appearance of these one-volume Bibles was not so much a production as an explosion. How was it accomplished? This brings us to the pecia method of production — a lot earlier in the chrono­logy than experts in the field might have expected. The pecia method is documentable in records of the University of Paris by the last quarter of the thirteenth century.6 Here is how it worked then: specialized booksellers — confusingly called ‘stationers’ in Paris — offered exemplars of popular texts for rent in pieces, peciae. The Latin word was commonly used in several contexts, including plots of land, but for a manuscript, peciae meant quires or gatherings, which were numbered to keep the unbound quires in sequence. That process permitted several copyists to copy from the same exemplar simultaneously, one following after another, and the university regulated the price and (theoretically, but seldom in practice) the accuracy of the exemplar-peciae.7 The intriguing aspect is that when the pecia method first appears in the Paris university documents, the procedure is already mature. Many scholars have pointed out that there are records of pecia use at the University of Bo­logna by the early years of the thirteenth century,8 even earlier than the Parisian statutes of c. 1275, and have suggested that this explains why the process did not need a trial-and-error period at Paris. The history goes back even farther, however: at Paris (and presumably at Bo­logna as well), the system had operated informally long before its adoption by the university. How do we know a manuscript has been copied from peciae? We know because of human fallibility. When a copyist came to the end of a gathering and had to return it to the pile, or the bookshop, and take the next in the sequence, he marked discreetly in a tiny pencil note in the outer margin or the gutter, ‘Finit pecia 13’, or maybe when he had the next, ‘Pecia 14’ and so on. These marks not only helped the copyist keep his place in the procedure, they probably also helped him collect his pay. The marks were never meant to survive, and the great majority were carefully scraped away when their purpose was served — but (here is where human fallibility comes in) now and then a note, or even an entire set of notes, was overlooked and survived by accident. Certain manuscripts of school texts from Paris, copied before 1250, contain notes indicating a change of pecia. Specifically, these survive in

 6 For the earliest university statutes referring to pecia rental at Paris see Chartularium, ed. by Denifle and Châtelain, i, p. 645 (c. 1275); ii. 2, p. 107 (25 Feb. 1304); and ii, pp. 190–91 (Dec. 1316).  7 The foundational study of the pecia method at the University of Paris is Destrez, La Pecia dans les manuscrits. For more recent biblio­graphy see Bataillon, Guyot, and Rouse, ed., La Production du livre universitaire; and see Rouse and Rouse, Manuscripts, i, Chap. 3, and sources cited there. Alison J. Ray presents a thoughtful consideration of cultural effects of pecia production in her ‘The Pecia System’.  8 See Soetermeer, Utrumque ius in peciis, passim.

D o m i n i c an I m pact o n B o o ks at   t h e U ni ve rsi t y o f Pari s

texts affiliated to the Paris Dominicans — manuscripts of Paris Dominican authors, or manuscripts whose first owners were Paris Dominicans, or, as was often the case, manuscripts that met both criteria.9 To cite the bestknown example, Bishop Thomas of Finland, a Paris-trained Dominican, gave to the Dominican convent of Sigtuna before 1248 a collection of books that included several composed by Paris Dominican scholars, especially Hugh of Saint-Cher, from the 1230s; and some of the books in Bishop Thomas’s gift have surviving marginal pecia numbers. This indicates that the Paris Dominicans were employing the pecia method of copying in-house before it became an official university programme. Following the route suggested by Bishop Thomas’s books, scholars have found pecia notes in contemporary manuscripts of the works of Hugh of Saint-Cher housed in other collections.10 We assume that the rapid production of pocket Bibles was the result of a similar practice, of in-house pecia production by the convent of SaintJacques in Paris. There is a discouraging absence of pecia marks, but the physical similarity in the presentation of pocket Bible texts and, above all, the Dominican connection enforce the supposition. It will have to do, unless a more convincing explanation appears for the amazingly swift dissemination of the Paris Bible, and especially of the pocket Bible. This was our assumption before we saw Chiara Ruzzier’s article on the subject that appeared in 2014, in which she has compiled impressive statistics that change this assumption into a certainty.11 The process of encompassing all of the scriptures in a single portable volume has several implications. The ‘how’ of it, the many practical problems of compressing the lengthy text, has been frequently pondered and discussed in print. And here is one of the unavoidable effects of putting the entirety of Scripture within two covers: all the books of the Bible have to be presented in some order. Previously the sequence of the books was not fixed. There were two or three sequences that many Bibles followed, more or less — for example, Jerome’s order, not surprisingly followed in the Theodulfian Bibles, or that of the Alcuin/​Tour Bible, or the order proposed by Augustine, along with independent variants of these.12 And of course multi-volume Bibles did not have to produce a sequence for the whole of Scripture, since

 9 See Rouse and Rouse, Manuscripts, i, pp. 85–87, and sources cited there in notes 106–14 (i, p. 350).  10 The initial discovery of a list of Bishop Thomas’s book purchases at Paris was the work of Schmid, ‘Un achat de livres’, discussed in Rouse and Rouse, Manuscripts, i, pp. 85–87; see also Lehtinen, Fragmenta codicum medii aevi quae in Bibliotheca Universitatis Helsingiensis asservantur, and Pollard, ‘The Pecia System in the Medi­eval Universities’, p. 146, cited in Manuscripts, note 112.  11 Ruzzier, ‘Quelques observations sur la fabrication des Bibles’.  12 For an enjoyable and readable survey of the physical changes in the thirteenth-century Bible see de Hamel, The Book, chap. 5: ‘Portable Bibles of the Thirteenth Century’, pp. 114–39.

35

36

r i c ha r d ro u s e an d m ary ro u s e

they came in modules (the Pentateuch in one or two volumes, historical books, wisdom books, major prophets, minor prophets, gospels, epistles, and so on).13 The Paris Bible changed that forever. Its sequence seems to have resulted from a thoughtful choice, for which we should be grateful — because the rapid and concentrated production of one-volume Bibles in Dominican circles at Paris created an instant majority that settled the matter permanently. The sequence of the books in these Bibles of the thirteenth century survives in every twenty-first century Christian Bible in the West, Protestant or Catholic, with scarcely any change.14 That, one must agree, is an extraordinarily persistent influence. The first exceptional biblical scholar at Saint-Jacques in its early years was Hugh of Saint-Cher, who held one of the Dominican chairs of theo­logy from 1230 to 1235. During these same years, in addition to his lectures and doubtless in aid of them, Hugh composed postils, extended commentaries, on virtually the whole Bible. Beryl Smalley long ago suggested that this herculean task could have been accomplished only with the aid of younger Dominican students diligently collecting the raw materials that Hugh needed — thirteenth-century graduate assistants, or what Smalley called ‘friar power’.15 Hugh’s postils were theoretically intended to supplement the Ordinary Gloss, but in fact they rapidly supplanted it for use in the classroom (not only Dominican classrooms) and they were repeatedly cited in the commentaries of later and, frankly, lesser scholars at Paris throughout the century. It was Hugh of Saint-Cher’s postils that we saw in the hands of Thomas of Finland and his contemporaries, surviving from Dominican convents in several regions of Europe, from Finland to the Continent to the British Isles, in manuscripts copied by the pecia method long before that system was adopted by the university. Another Dominican accomplishment at Saint-Jacques under Hugh’s direction was admittedly and obviously a group effort, the compilation of the Dominican correctoria of the biblical text.16 These were not corrections entered as changes into the text of scriptures, like those that were made on increasingly rigorous historical and linguistic principles beginning in the early modern era. Instead, they are lists of what we today should call textual variants, variae lectiones, assiduously gathered from a comparison with older texts and with biblical citations in Patristic works – ‘ex glossis beati Jeronimi et aliorum doctorum et ex libris Hebreorum et antiquissimis exemplaribus’

 13 A volume containing the Psalms was sometimes included but sometimes not, because of the ubiquity of psalters.  14 The only difference lies in the position of the Acts of the Apostles, which the Paris Bible put between the Pauline and the Catholic epistles, but which have now moved to follow the gospels.  15 Smalley, Study of the Bible, p. 272.  16 See the pioneering study of the biblical correctoria by Denifle, ‘Die Handschriften der Bibel-Correctorien’.

D o m i n i c an I m pact o n B o o ks at   t h e U ni ve rsi t y o f Pari s

(from the glosses of St Jerome and of other doctors, and from the books of the Hebrews and the oldest exemplars), as Hugh of Saint-Cher’s pro­logue to his correctoria says.17 And by antiquissimus he explains that he means Bibles written ‘even before the time of Charlemagne’, that is, before the Alcuinian ‘Tour Bible’ text, prevalent in the Latin West. Hugh noted down all variants that seemed questionable — or even occasionally variants that just seemed interesting — and he also pointed out passages that the sources indicate are accretions without authority. Hugh’s Correctorium Biblie, copied in Dominican circles, was widely used by Dominican scholars at Paris and by others there as well. The practical advantage of a one-volume Bible facilitated and thus encouraged the creation of commentaries and of tools to make the entire Bible text rapidly accessible — if it is all in one volume in your hand, you can easily search through the whole. One device, very popular with Dominicans and other preachers in the thirteenth century, was the distinctio, a selection of words from the Bible each of which had the meanings of its numerous biblical uses distinguished or differentiated.18 Distinctiones survive in collections, but they are also found informally in margins or on flyleaves of sermon collections and preachers’ manuals; usually they are set out in diagrammatic form, the word to the left, connected by splayed lines to each of its distinguished figurative or symbolic meanings in a list to the right, each meaning supported with a biblical reference. As an example, Figure 1.1 shows a mid-thirteenth-century distinction on equus (horse). It appears jotted down on the front flyleaf of Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 109. As you see, this device is laconic to the point of being cryptic, and largely unintelligible to those of us not steeped in thirteenth-century exegesis. But while this biblical tool has not stood the test of time — in fact, it disappeared rather abruptly around the beginning of the fourteenth century — in the thirteenth it was the latest thing, and important collections of distinctions were composed by the Paris Dominicans including Nicolas Gorham and Nicolas Byard in the second half of the century. Although no new important collections were made in the fourteenth century, the Dominican collections were still offered for copying via the university’s pecia method of publication, on the only list of pecia rentals that survives from that century.19 It is hard to conceive the usefulness of this quirky little device in the classroom; its principal service instead was in the composition of Biblebased sermons. In the course of the thirteenth century, and on through most of the fourteenth, the university sermon at Paris — by which we mean sermons written and delivered by university masters, the so-called scholastic

 17 The pro­logue is edited by Dahan, ‘La Critique textuelle dans les correctoires’, pp. 386–87.  18 For an English-language survey of this preaching tool see Rouse and Rouse, ‘Biblical Distinctions’.  19 Chartularium, ii, p. 107.

37

38

r i c ha r d ro u s e an d m ary ro u s e

Figure 1.1. Thirteenth-century distinction on ‘equus’, from Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale MS 109 fol. i (translation by authors).

sermon — developed and followed a regular (not invariable) pattern: the statement of a passage from the Bible, normally from the liturgical readings for the day, followed by a three-part amplification based on that passage — usually on one word in that passage. (Nowadays we assume ‘everybody knows’ that Western literature traditionally follows the rule of three, from the Three Little Pigs to the three volumes of the Lord of the Rings, but a preacher’s manual — this one from the fourteenth century — pondered, tongue in cheek, the matter of the threefold sermon division and concluded thus: Some say sermons are divided into three parts in honour of the Holy

D o m i n i c an I m pact o n B o o ks at   t h e U ni ve rsi t y o f Pari s

Trinity, but I think, rather, it is because two parts are not enough, while four are too many.20) One can see how distinction collections would be useful in these circumstances. Supposing, for example, the gospel reading of the day was the beginning of Matthew, ‘Liber generationis Jesu Christi filii David filii Abraham … [the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David son of Abraham] … Now, the Bible tells us there are three kinds of books: The first is …’, and away you go, with a tripartite sermon based on the word liber as found in a distinction collection. In the long view, however, collections of biblical distinctions represent an idea whose time has come and, long since, gone. The biblical tool par excellence, undeniably a creation of the Paris Dominicans in the thirteenth century, was the verbal concordance.21 The verbal concordance lists all (an ambitious term) the words — verba — in the Latin Bible and gives a precise reference to each place where it occurs in the Vulgate text. This tool, and several of what one may call its ‘side-effects’, had a longer life, a more widespread influence on books at Paris, and a more universal acceptance than any other of the Dominican book-related innovations in the thirteenth century, matched in importance only by the creation (not Dominican) of the one-volume Paris Bible itself. Creation of the verbal concordance, a monumental task, was begun, like so many other biblical tools, under the direction of Hugh of Saint-Cher, head of the convent of Saint-Jacques from 1230 to 1235. This was truly a corporate enterprise, however, and when Hugh was made provincial of France (for the second time!) in 1235, and thereafter a cardinal, the work at the Paris house continued. We do not know the date when the concordance was completed, but it was definitely finished before mid-century because two different manuscript copies of it are recorded at Jumièges in the 1240s.22 The mechanics of compilation seem to have involved two stages before the final version: first, each Dominican was assigned to go through the Bible recording all appearances of words that began with certain initial letters (for example, Ste‑, Sti‑, Sto‑) jotting them down on loose bifolia, in the order of their appearance in the Bible and with enough space left to permit full alphabetization of the words, not just the first-letter or first-two-letter alphabetization that was customary at the time. The next stage involved integrating the individual reports, partly achieved by interleaving, physically, the loose leaves. And the final result was a fair copy of the fully alphabetized list, through the alphabet and through the Bible. One can see why it took a  20 Robert of Baseborn; see Rouse and Rouse, Preachers, Florilegia, and Sermons, p. 85 n. 59 and the biblio­graphy there.  21 For a dated but still valuable discussion see Rouse and Rouse, ‘Verbal Concordance to the Scriptures’.  22 William of Rouen (prior c. 1239–1247) ordered the making of a copy at Jumièges during his term as prior, and Walter Cloel (d. 1249) bequeathed a copy to the abbey; Nortier, Les Bibliothèques médiévales, pp. 151–52.

39

40

r i c ha r d ro u s e an d m ary ro u s e

long time and a great deal of man-power, because this method of compilation required a great many complete ‘trips’ through the Bible from start to finish, with each man recording just the words pertinent to his assignment and ignoring all others. We know — by deduction — about the method of compiling, because the thrifty Dominicans reused the scratch sheets of parchment as flyleaves in binding later books at the house.23 Those were the mechanics of production, as far as we can tell. But before the Dominicans could even begin this incredible task there was a problem to be solved: how to refer to the locations in the Bible. Books of the Latin Bible had commonly accepted names. But division of the books into chapters was far from standardized. There were many competing systems. One version of capitulation that seemed to be sensible had come into use at the University of Paris early in the first decade of the thirteenth century; it was used for reference in his commentaries by Stephen Langton, and thus its creation is attributed to him, perhaps rightly so. This Langton chapter division was widely employed in the Paris Bible; but the absolute decider was the use of the Langton chapters in the Dominican concordance. The concordance quickly became indispensable to scholars and preachers, but in order to use it one had to have a Bible that was divided according to the Langton capitulation.24 We know how important this was because there are surviving Bibles with older chapter divisions in the text that have the Langton chapter numbers added in their margins. This is the same system of chapter divisions that, with very few changes, survives in Christian Bibles today, in the Vulgate and in all the vernacular translations. Very well, that settled the reference by book and chapter. But what about the verse? Numbered verses in the chapters of the Bible date from the era of the printed book, in the sixteenth century, and even then they took quite a while for universal acceptance. How to make the reference more precise in an age before numbered verses? The Paris Dominicans came up with an ingenious solution: take the text of any chapter of the Bible, mentally divide it into seven parts, and call the parts by the letters A through G. This may at first sound complicated, but in practice it is not at all. A means at the beginning, G means at the end, and D means in the middle. That leaves B, a little after the beginning, C, a little before the middle, E just after the middle and F, almost to the end. It worked well, and quickly proved its adaptability to any other lengthy undivided text. The citations, by book, chapter, and letter, were listed in multiple columns, often five per page. So the problem of reference was solved.

 23 Notes were used as pastedowns in Mazarine, MSS 105, 239, 249, and 735, all with fifteenthcentury bindings from Saint-Jacques.  24 For a summary of the capitulation problem see Rouse and Rouse, ‘Verbal Concordance to the Scriptures’, pp. 9–10.

D o m i n i c an I m pact o n B o o ks at   t h e U ni ve rsi t y o f Pari s

Unfortunately, it left the finished product in an unsatisfactory state, hard if not impossible to use. Consider the example used above, the word liber, book: the verbal concordance would offer that word as a heading, followed by a staggering list of between two and three hundred citations of book, chapter, and letter A–G, providing no clues to singling out the uses that are appropriate to one’s specific purpose of the moment. So, remarkably, the Paris Dominicans did it again, on this occasion putting the word into context each time by quoting the scriptural passage in which it occurs. Parts of this second version of the verbal concordance are signed by an English Dominican at Saint-Jacques named Richard of Stavensby, and the names of two other Englishmen, John of Darlington and Hugh of Croydon, were later attributed a bit less securely to various parts of this second concordance; it has thus become known as the ‘English concordance’. This version was not merely an expansion of the references in the first version, but seems instead to have involved a certain amount of duplication of effort. The English concordance was well-intentioned, but the pendulum had swung much too far in the other direction; the contexts, or lemmata, were too large to be practical or even possible. As a result, the so-called English concordance circulated scarcely at all, no complete manuscript of it survives, and we have never been sure whether any two copies of it were identical, or whether instead it remained in a perpetual state of experimentation. But not to worry, the Saint-Jacques Dominicans doggedly went at it a third time, finishing a third concordance sometime in the third quarter of the thirteenth century. This was the version that swept the field. They kept the notion of providing a context, but of considerably more modest length. We have never tested the theory, but just as an impression we suspect the length of the context quotation was tailored to fit the width of the column on a multi-column page. This third version, also, is no mere tacking-on of contexts to the original version, but instead (like the English concordance) represents a great deal of duplicated effort, going through the Bible again. This successful version of the Dominicans’ verbal concordance immediately and obviously filled a demand. It was disseminated across Western Europe, appearing in lavishly decorated lectern-sized volumes owned by wealthy prelates and in scruffy pocket-sized volumes carried by students and preachers. The last time we studied this concordance in depth was forty years ago, at which time we knew of more than eighty surviving manuscripts, the majority of them written in Paris between 1275 and 1320;25 a great many more have been found since. This version survived into print, with the only change being the gradual integration of added entries. In a seventeenth-century concordance, printed at Lyon in 1616, the references not only retain the Dominican A through G reference system along with the verse numbers, but the A–G system is given pride of place before the verse  25 Rouse and Rouse, ‘Verbal Concordance to the Scriptures’.

41

42

r i c ha r d ro u s e an d m ary ro u s e

number, since the makers of this printed concordance took it for granted that although not everyone had a Bible with the new numbered verses, anyone knew the letters at the beginning of the alphabet.26 As far as a tool for searching the text of the Vulgate goes, this Paris Dominican device had quite a long run. Nothing remotely approached its usefulness for seven and a half centuries, from its tentative origins in the 1240s until the incorporation of Google in 1998. Overlapping with the efforts to create a useful verbal concordance, and doubtless encroaching somewhat on the time devoted to those efforts, was the Order’s endeavour to devise and impose a unified liturgy on all the convents in all the provinces of the Order. The final result, achieved in 1256, was disseminated by means of carefully produced and scrupulously corrected exemplars, each comprising a compendium of fourteen liturgical books, presumably one exemplar for each province (only three survive), and all produced in Paris under the supervision of Saint-Jacques. As Eleanor Giraud observed, this uniform liturgy established in the mid-thirteenth century formed the basis of Dominican liturgical practices throughout the Order for more than seven centuries, until Vatican II.27 Here was another Paris Dominican accomplishment with a good long run. It was in the third quarter of the thirteenth century that Dominican scholars at Paris successfully addressed a problem that had been agitating the universities of the Latin West for years: the translated Aristotle. Many of the best translations into Latin were made in the first half of the thirteenth century, but passable versions had been in existence and known to scholars since the first half of the twelfth, in the numerous translations of James of Venice ( Jacobus Veneticus).28 The availability of Aristotelian thought was exciting, exhilarating, and quite dangerous in the eyes of the Church. Latin scholars were unwilling, and perhaps unable, to resist the temptation of a profound investigation into the instantly apparent excellence — as well as the novelty — of Aristotle’s wide-ranging and exacting philosophical writings. But nor did any of the scholars care to stick his neck out very far ahead of the crowd and face the risk of condemnation for heresy, with the chance of being censured or worse. The initial demonstrations that Aristotle and Christianity could coexist were established by the German Dominican Albert the Great, and even more brilliantly by his student the Italian Dominican Thomas Aquinas — but their solutions were written at, and disseminated from, Saint-Jacques, the Dominican convent of Paris, in the years 1245–1272.

 26 Concordantiæ bibliorum utriusque testamenti (1616).  27 Giraud, ‘The Production and Notation of Dominican Manuscripts’, p. 264.  28 Concerning Jacobus Veneticus ( James of Venice, Jacques de Venise) see Minio-Paluello, ‘Iacobus Veneticus Grecus’; and for a more recent survey in English, Livesey, ‘James of Venice’, p. 282.

D o m i n i c an I m pact o n B o o ks at   t h e U ni ve rsi t y o f Pari s

The salient features of the theo­logy and philosophy of Thomism, well beyond our competence to summarize, fortunately do not sit squarely in the focus of our subject. As far as bookmaking is concerned, the pertinent matter is this: that the demand for manuscript copies of the works of Aquinas was immediate and huge, in Dominican circles and among other scholars, by supporters and by opponents, at the University of Paris and across Western Europe. The Saint-Jacques Dominicans knew that Thomas’s was an extraordinary intellect, but nonetheless they were surely stunned by the demand. We must now digress to confess that we have previously used misleading language, when we spoke about the ‘in-house production’ of the Paris Dominicans, in connection with pecia production and with the production of pocket Bibles. The truth is, as most people will know, that Dominican convents were not noted for their scriptoria, on the model of monasteries. A Dominican copyist is not an unknown creature; but their rule and their entire raison d’être combined to convince Dominicans, particularly Dominicans at the university, that their time could be and should be more wisely spent. So, it is our assumption (and not ours alone) that so-called in-house production at Saint-Jacques was done at the direction and to the requirements of the Dominicans, but by hired hands — commercial copyists that they employed and paid for the purpose.29 Now, if that is what they wanted to do, the university cities of Paris and Bo­logna were prime locations at which to attempt it. Both cities, Paris above all, had growing and increasingly competent professional makers of books — not simply copyists, but entrepreneurs knowledgeable about layout and binding, people who could secure the needed supplies of good parchment, and could even engage the services of a decorator or illuminator if one were wanted. Such people were called libraires in thirteenth-century Paris. And the Dominicans of Saint-Jacques had one of the best, right next door. Guillaume de Sens (Guillermus Senonensis) may have come to Paris from the archdiocesan city of Sens, as his name would suggest; but by the thirteenth century one cannot depend on that — it may instead have been his parents who came from Sens, and the appellation can have been a patronym, one can never be sure by this date.30 His wife was called Marguerite de Sens, which conceivably indicates that she also came from that city — but it tends instead to bolster the notion that ‘de Sens’ was being treated as the family name. Guillaume was a Parisian libraire — a lay commercial bookmaker — by 1254 at latest until his death (before 1292). Although he appears in

 29 One brother was to hold the role of the ‘Overseer of scribes’ (De officio gerentis curam scriptorum); for a description of his duties, see Humbert of Romans, Opera de vita regulari, ii, pp. 266–68.  30 Concerning the Sens family see Rouse and Rouse, Manuscripts, Chap. 3, Part 2 (i, pp. 81–96) and notes (i, pp. 349–52). Specifically, for Guillaume de Sens, see pp. 81–89.

43

44

r i c ha r d ro u s e an d m ary ro u s e

property transactions from the 1250s, the earliest book to bear his name is an important one, the four-volume Lille Bible written in 1264 (now Lille, Bibliothèque municipal, MSS 835–38). These lectern-sized books were commissioned by the Dominican Michael of Neuvirelle, a learned biblical scholar and at the time prior of the Lille Dominicans. Friar Michael was trained at Saint-Jacques in Paris,31 and not surprisingly the text of the Lille Bible follows textual peculiarities of the so-called ‘Dominican Bible’, a four-volume Bible that belonged to the convent of Saint-Jacques (now BnF, MSS lat. 16719–16722). Guillaume de Sens signed and dated the colophon of the Lille Bible as the writer of the books — scripta fuit hec biblia a Guillermo Senonensi (this Bible was written by Guillaume de Sens); whether that also involved securing parchment, designing the layout (with his patron’s advice), and hiring decorators is anyone’s guess. It is clear, in any event, that the Lille Bible’s illumination was executed in the north — perhaps Arras or Tournai — but that the pen-scrolls and pen-work initials are Parisian. The Parisian bookman Guillaume de Sens surely completed his share of the enterprise, the principal part, in Paris as well. The book trade in Paris in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was concentrated geo­graphically (as was the custom for all small trades); the book people were clustered on and around the Île-de-la-Cité. But well before the making of this Bible in 1264 — at least ten years before — Guillaume’s shop-cum-residence was located instead well to the south, on the west side of the rue Saint-Jacques nearly to the city wall of Philip Augustus; three or four other libraires were congregated to the west of Guillaume, near the Collège de Sorbonne. Guillaume, however, was located directly on the Grand’rue de Saint-Jacques itself and just about as close to the Dominican convent as was physically possible. Whether the Dominicans hired him as their publisher because he was so near, or whether he settled in this place because the Dominicans had hired him, we do not know; probably the latter. One does know, however, that having a near-exclusive libraire at their beck and call was another of the Paris Dominicans’ useful devices. We have earlier said that the reproduction of manuscripts by the pecia method, copying one unbound quire at a time, seems to have been a Dominican innovation, introduced by them to Paris. Whether Guillaume’s bookshop was involved in this process from its earliest years in Paris we do not know, but he was surely involved, originally or eventually, in the production of the Dominicans’ pocket Bibles. The strikingly similar appearance in size and layout of the surviving manuscripts of the first Dominican  31 Paris was the obvious place for the training of any Dominican theo­logian north of the Alps. The Lille Bible’s colophon says that Michael had corrected the text ‘secundum Hebreos et antiquos libros’ (according to the Hebrews and the old books), an echo of Hugh of Saint-Cher’s pro­logue to the Correctorium Biblie, which Hugh said was made from glosses of St Jerome and other doctors and ‘ex libris Hebreorum et antiquissimis exemplaribus’ (from the books of the Hebrews and the oldest exemplars).

D o m i n i c an I m pact o n B o o ks at   t h e U ni ve rsi t y o f Pari s

biblical concordance also bespeaks commercial production by pecia rental. Eleanor Giraud has speculated that Guillaume was involved in the production of the Dominican liturgical exemplars, which were clearly made by professional book people (under the close supervision of the Saint-Jacques Dominicans).32 The Dominicans’ very successful employment of Guillaume in what we have called in-house pecia production may well have been the factor that eventually prompted the University of Paris to institutionalize and regulate the procedure for the university community at large. The oldest list of exemplar-peciae for rent that survives from the University of Paris was the rental list of the stationer Guillaume de Sens; the list, undated, is datable to about 1275.33 The decisive influence of the Saint-Jacques Dominicans in bringing to pass the university’s pecia system for the rapid reproduction and dissemination of texts is, in itself, sufficient to earn the Dominicans a gold star in the bookish heavens of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Paris. This was part of the effect of the Dominicans on books at Paris; but it is a side issue as far as concerns the goals and needs of the Saint-Jacques Dominicans themselves in the second half of the thirteenth century — specifically, their urgent need, and desire, to disseminate as quickly and as widely as possible the works of their matchless luminary Thomas Aquinas. For this purpose, having the services of a libraire of their own was invaluable. The number of Thomistic works on Guillaume’s rental list of c. 1275 is large. But we should like to cite a specific example that dates even before that list. It is one that we have mentioned elsewhere, but it bears repeating in this context, in showing the Dominican advantage of instant publication in the Parisian world of academic disputes ricocheting back and forth. Thomas, at Paris and regent master of theo­logy, began writing in 1269 a brief work De perfectione spiritualis vitae that extolled the virtues of voluntary mendicancy as a way of life. The secular university masters, who needed to be paid for their teaching if they wished to eat, were incensed, and one of their leading spokesmen Master Gérard d’Abbeville attacked Thomas’s position in a Quodlibet written at the end of 1269, even before Thomas had completed the De perfectione. So Thomas, at the conclusion of his work, took up and rebutted Gérard’s argument, finishing the De perfectione in the spring of 1270. By the middle of 1270, Master Nicolas de Lisieux had written the secular masters’ response to the finished De perfectione, calling it disingenuously ‘a little book called De perfectione written by some Friar Preacher and transmitted by public exemplar’ (i.e., by the pecia method).34 To be sure, neither Gérard nor Nicolas could match Thomas in either intellect or reputation; but Thomas furthermore had in his arsenal a

 32 Giraud, ‘The Production and Notation of Dominican Manuscripts’, 85–88.  33 Chartularium, i, p. 645.  34 Rouse and Rouse, Manuscripts, i, pp. 88–89.

45

46

r i c ha r d ro u s e an d m ary ro u s e

‘Weapon of Masters’ Destruction’, Guillaume de Sens. Here are the figures: Gérard’s Quodlibet survives in three copies; Nicolas’s rebuttal survives in one. Thomas’s De perfectione spiritualis vitae, which was circulated immediately via pecia exemplars by Guillaume de Sens, survives in about 120 copies. Irony of ironies, Gérard d’Abbeville, already ill at the time of the squabble, died in 1272, leaving among his effects a manuscript of the De perfectione copied from Guillaume’s peciae. We do not know how long Guillaume de Sens worked for the Dominicans of Saint-Jacques, but his bookmaking enterprise continued to serve the convent long after his death. His immediate successor as head of the shop was his widow Marguerite de Sens, in charge by 1292.35 To be sure, 1292 is not the date when she began to run the business, it is merely the date of the next evidence, a street-by-street tax record of the businesses of Paris. Next to nothing is known about Marguerite, save that she — like Guillaume before her — left books to Saint-Victor in her will.36 By the date of the next surviving tax record, 1296, the shop was owned by André de Sens, son of Marguerite and Guillaume — and proof that ‘de Sens’ was by now a patronym, not a description.37 Probably Marguerite was dead by that date (this is not absolute proof, however). André ran the shop beginning between 1292 and 1296, and ending sometime between 1304 and 1313. The second of the two surviving Paris university pecia rental lists presents the works on offer from André’s shop in 1304; he is designated by name.38 Each of the nineteen works of Aquinas that had appeared on Guillaume’s rental list of 1275 reappears on André’s in 1304, offered in the same number of quires or rental peciae, along with an additional eleven works of St Thomas.39 And surely no other Parisian stationer could compete with André de Sens in renting peciae of other Dominican works, those of Albert the Great, of Nicolas Gorham and Nicolas Byard, Jacobus de Voragine, Robert Kilwardby, Guillaume de Mailly, and of course the biblical concordance. André and Guillaume are the only two stationers who have left formal university lists of the works they had for rent via peciae, but we know of the existence of a number of other Parisian stationers of the late thirteenth century and the beginning of the fourteenth because their names have survived on scattered rental peciae. Some of them seem to have specialized in canon law or astronomy or simply books generally in demand, but none, from this early period, has his name associated with a work of Aquinas.

 35 Concerning Marguerite de Sens see Rouse and Rouse, Manuscripts, Chap. 3, Part 2 (i, pp. 89–91).  36 Marguerite’s gift is recorded in Obituaires, p. 561; for Guillaume’s gift see Obituaires, p. 574. No equivalent record survives for gifts to Saint-Jacques.  37 Concerning André de Sens see Rouse and Rouse, Manuscripts, Chap. 3, Part 2 (i, pp. 92–93).  38 Chartularium, ii, p. 107.  39 The latest edition of these rental lists is Murano, Opere diffuse per exemplar e pecia, pp. 81–89 (1275), 120–26 (1304).

D o m i n i c an I m pact o n B o o ks at   t h e U ni ve rsi t y o f Pari s

Following André was the third generation from the Sens family, represented by Thomas de Sens, fourth head of his family’s shop, which was still located next door to the Dominicans.40 His first appearance in a record occurs on a tax list for 1313. He turns up in oaths of allegiance to the university (a requirement for all libraires in Paris) on several occasions, the last one late in 1342. Even in Thomas de Sens’s day, the Sens shop was still known as the authoritative source for Aquinas texts. A scribe’s marginal note, beside a blank he has left in a copy of Aquinas’s De potentia Dei (Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS 1536), explains to his patron that the exemplar of the stationer Robert (otherwise unknown) lacked the solution to this particular quaestio. The scribe had diligently sought out the old authentic Sens exemplar, but it too lacked that solution; and he was told (by Thomas de Sens, presumably) that the exemplar of that portion was lost.41 And this solution is still unfound today, whether because Thomas Aquinas never completed it or because Thomas de Sens lost it. In either event, if the Sens exemplar lacked it, it was as if that text had never existed. The Paris Dominicans were well served by the Sens bookshop for at least ninety years — and surely the Sens family did well from the Dominicans. * * * In sum, 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 one-volume 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. The uniform liturgy for the Dominican Order was not created by the Saint-Jacques Dominicans, but the General Chapter entrusted the Paris convent with the crucial task of producing and disseminating correct exemplars, models, of their liturgy for the whole Order. The Paris collections of distinctiones reinforced the emerging threepart scholastic sermon. The Dominican Order originated the method of rapid book reproduction via the copying of unbound exemplar quires, peciae, decades before the system was formalized by universities at Paris and Bo­logna; at Paris this process in time served to disseminate the works

 40 Concerning Thomas de Sens see Rouse and Rouse, Manuscripts, Chap. 3, Part 2 (i, pp. 93–96).  41 Vienna, Öster. Nat., MS 1536, fol. 137r.

47

48

r i c ha r d ro u s e an d m ary ro u s e

of Thomas Aquinas quickly and efficiently. And as frosting on this Paris Dominican cake, the convent of Saint-Jacques shrewdly seized the opportunity to employ the services of a commercial libraire next door to the house on the rue Saint-Jacques, the bookmaking enterprise of the Sens family over three generations.

D o m i n i c an I m pact o n B o o ks at   t h e U ni ve rsi t y o f Pari s

Works Cited Manuscripts and Archival Sources Lille, Bibliothèque municipale, MSS 835–38 Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MSS 105, 239, 249, and 735 Paris, BnF, MSS fonds latin 16719–16722 Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 109 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS 1536 Primary Sources Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. by Heinrich Denifle and Émile Châtelain, 4 vols (Paris: Delalain frères, 1889–1897) Concordantiae bibliorum utriusque testamenti veteris et novi quas merito maximas et absolutissimas liceat appellare, 2 vols (Lyon: Antoine Pilehotte, 1616) Humbert of Romans, Opera de vita regulari, ed. by Joseph Joachim Berthier, 2 vols, 2nd edn (Turin: Marietti, 1956) Jordan of Saxony, On the Beginnings of the Order of Preachers, ed. and trans. by Simon Tugwell (Dublin: Dominican Publications, 1982) Obituaires de la Province de Sens i: Diocèse de Paris, 1 vol. in 2 parts, ed. by Auguste Molinier (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1902) Secondary Works Bataillon, Louis, B. G. Guyot, and Richard H. Rouse, ed., La Production du livre universitaire au moyen âge: exemplar et pecia (Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1988) Dahan, Gilbert, ‘La Critique textuelle dans les correctoires de la Bible du xiiie siècle’, in Langages et philosophie: hommage à Jean Jolivet, ed. by A. de Libera, A. Elamrani-Jamal, and A. Galonnier, Études de philosophie médiévale, 74 (Paris: Éditions Vrin, 1997), pp. 365–92 de Hamel, Christopher, The Book: A History of the Bible (London: Phaidon, 2001) Denifle, Heinrich, ‘Die Handschriften der Bibel-Correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts’, Archiv für Literatur- und Kirchen-Geschichte des Mittelalters, 4 (1888), 263–311, 471–601 Destrez, Jean, La Pecia dans les manuscrits universitaires du xiiie et du xive siècle (Paris: Éditions Jacques Vautrain, 1935) Giraud, Eleanor, ‘The Production and Notation of Dominican Manuscripts in Thirteenth-Century Paris’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Cambridge, 2013) Lehtinen, Anja-Inkeri, Fragmenta codicum medii aevi quae in Bibliotheca Universitatis Helsingiensis asservantur, Publications of the Helsinki University Library 2.1 (Helsinki: 1996)

49

50

r i c ha r d ro u s e an d m ary ro u s e

Light, Laura, ‘The New Thirteenth-Century Bible and the Challenge of Heresy’, Viator, 18 (1987), 275–88 —— , ‘French Bibles ca. 1200–30: A New Look at the Origin of the Paris Bible’, in The Early Medi­eval Bible: Its Production, Decoration and Use, ed. by Richard Gameson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 155–76 Livesey, Steven J., ‘James of Venice’, in Medi­eval Science, Techno­logy, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia, ed. by Thomas F. Glick, Steven J. Livesey, and Faith Wallis (New York: Routledge, 2005), p. 282 Minio-Paluello, Laurentio, ‘Iacobus Veneticus Grecus: Canonist and Translator of Aristotle’, Traditio, 8 (1952), 265–304 Murano, Giovanna, Opere diffuse per exemplar e pecia (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005) Nortier, Geneviève, Les Bibliothèques médiévales des abbayes bénédictines de Normandie (Caen: Caron et Cie, 1966) Graham Pollard, ‘The Pecia System in the Medi­eval Universities’, in Medi­eval Scribes, Manuscripts & Libraries: Essays Presented to N. R. Ker, ed. by Malcolm B. Parkes and Andrew G. Watson (London: Scolar Press, 1978), pp. 145–61 Ray, Alison J., ‘The Pecia System and its Use in the Cultural Milieu of Paris, c1250–1330’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University College London, 2015) Rouse, Richard, and Mary Rouse, Preachers, Florilegia, and Sermons: Studies on the Manipulus florum of Thomas of Ireland, PIMS Studies and Texts, 47 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1970) —— , ‘Biblical Distinctions in the Thirteenth Century’, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age, 41 (1974), 27–37 —— , ‘The Verbal Concordance to the Scriptures’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 44 (1974), 5–30 —— , Manuscripts and their Makers: Commercial Book Producers in Medi­eval Paris, 1200–1500, 2 vols (London: Harvey Miller Publishers, 2000) Ruzzier, Chiara, ‘The Miniaturisation of Bible Manuscripts in the Thirteenth Century: A Comparative Study’, in Form and Function in the Late Medi­eval Bible, ed. by Eyal Poleg and Laura Light, Library of the Written Word, 27 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 105–25 —— , ‘Quelques observations sur la fabrication des Bibles au xiiie siècle et la système de la pecia’, Revue bénédictine, 124 (2014), 151–89 Schmid, Toni, ‘Un achat de livres de Thomas évêque de Finlande († 1249)’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 19 (1949), 383–87 Smalley, Beryl, Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 2nd edn (Oxford: Blackwell, 1952) Soetermeer, F. J. W., Utrumque ius in peciis: Aspetti della produzione libraria a Bo­logna fra Due e Trecento (Milan: Giuffrè, 1997) Tugwell, Simon, ed. and trans., Early Dominicans: Selected Writings (New York: Paulist Press, 1982)

Lau ra Albie ro*

The Spread and Circulation of the Dominican Pocket Breviary This chapter forms part of a larger research project on small breviaries, in which a corpus of 2153 manuscript breviaries has been examined on the basis of catalogue records, and 356 of these have been consulted directly.1 My focus in this chapter is on the production and use of the pocket breviary in the Dominican context, and I examine how Dominican breviaries were made (from a material point of view) and what principles were behind specific choices.2 A selection of twenty-nine Dominican breviaries are considered, eleven of which have been examined in person. Before entering into the subject, we need to consider the larger context of the production of breviaries. Early breviaries first emerged during the eleventh century, in variable and not-canonized forms. The breviary is the concentration in one volume of several liturgical books, which were used separately until at least the eleventh century: the collectar, lectionary, homiliary, legendary, antiphoner, hymnal, and psalter. This operation resulted in two kinds of breviary: a ‘typo­logical’ breviary, where texts are grouped by type (antiphons and responsories, lessons, collects, hymns), and a ‘chrono­logical’ breviary, in which the texts are copied in their correct



* I am extremely grateful to Dr Eleanor Giraud for discussing so many aspects of this study with me, offering valuable comments and suggestions on the earlier versions of this chapter.  1 See Albiero, ‘Le Bréviaire, de l’autel à la poche’. The number of breviaries considered in each part of this study (e.g. distribution of breviaries by century, Figure 2.1; distribution of breviaries by dimensions, Figure 2.2) depends on whether or not the relevant information is supplied by catalogues. This means that for every variable taken into account the size of the corpus can change. Of course, I have a full set of data for all the manuscripts I have consulted directly.  2 The manuscripts examined here all have the reformed text of Humbert of Romans. For the development of the text, see Gleeson, ‘Dominican Liturgical Manuscripts’, Gleeson, ‘The Pre-Humbertian Liturgical Sources’, and Eleanor Giraud’s chapter in this volume.

Laura Albiero studied Musico­logy with Giacomo Baroffio at the University of Pavia and received her PhD in Latin Palaeo­graphy from the University of Rome La Sapienza. She is an associated researcher at the Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes in Paris.

The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music, and Liturgy, ed. by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, MMS 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021) pp. 51–71 10.1484/M.MMS-EB.5.124213

FHG

52

l au r a a l b i e ro

Figure 2.1. Distribution of the surviving breviaries per century (corpus: all breviaries).

Figure 2.2. Distribution of the surviving breviaries according to century and dimensions; ‘small’ breviaries are up to 200 mm in height (corpus: all breviaries).

liturgical order, organized into the calendar, the psalter, the temporal, the sanctoral and the common of saints.3 Most twelfth-century breviaries are a single volume of quite large dimensions (350–500 mm in height) with music notation. During the thirteenth century, a process of miniaturization of the breviary began to take place: the production of breviaries increased greatly in the thirteenth century, continued in the fourteenth century and exploded in the fifteenth (Figure 2.1). From the distribution of big and small breviaries (Figure 2.2) over the eleventh to fifteenth centuries,4 it is clear that the pocket breviary takes an increasingly important place. This process of miniaturization is probably owing to the fact that the private recitation of the Office became common practice among religious and lay people, and to the need for a portable support for the Office when travelling. It should be noted that this data is based on surviving books, and the true number of books produced remains unknown: a great number of  3 See Dijk and Walker, The Origins, pp. 35–44; Gy, ‘Les Premiers Bréviaires’, pp. 104–13; Leroquais, Les Bréviaires, i, pp. xxxv–lxii.  4 I have considered volumes whose height is up to 200 mm to be small breviaries.

the spread and circulation of the dominican pocket breviary

53

medi­eval manuscripts have been lost, due to destruction and catastrophic events. Liturgical books, in particular, have often not survived. General wear and tear, liturgical reforms, and the introduction of new saints and feasts all rendered older liturgical books obsolete, causing a great number of manuscripts to be disbound and their leaves dispersed, a process that can be partially traced through the study of fragments. Nevertheless, however biased a sample the surviving manuscripts may be, the large size of the surviving corpus (2153 breviaries in total) Figure 2.3. Distribution of surviving makes it likely that the general tendency has breviaries according to the orders (corpus: all breviaries). been preserved. In this respect, it is clear that the first significant increase in production of pocket breviaries occurred in the thirteenth century: could this be linked to the rise of the mendicant orders, and in particular the Dominicans? The fact that the production of small Bibles, also known as Paris Bibles, in the very same period has proved to be associated with the activities of the Dominican Order,5 may indicate that small breviaries could similarly have been made to serve as prayer books for Dominicans during their travels. This study compares Dominican breviaries to general breviary production, with particular attention to breviaries of the mendicant orders. The distribution of breviaries by religious order (Figure 2.3) shows that the larger part of surviving breviaries belonged to the secular clergy, a smaller part to the monastic orders, while fewer than one quarter of surviving breviaries come from the mendicant orders. It seems unlikely that the low number of extant mendicant breviaries indicates that few were made in the Middle Ages: given the rapid spread of the mendicant orders across Europe, they would have required a substantial number of liturgical books. Rather, it can be assumed that the non-stable, itinerant character of the mendicant orders led to a much greater loss of books, generally speaking. It is worth taking a closer look at some codico­logical issues for the pocket breviary. In a pocket breviary all the text of a normal breviary had to be condensed into a small book. This implies certain choices in the layout, in the structure of the content, and eventually in the division of the texts in two volumes: most frequently a winter and a summer part, but sometimes the temporal and the sanctoral. Of the twenty-nine surviving Dominican breviaries, twenty-one are in one volume and eight are divided into two volumes. Of the latter, only four survive complete in their two volumes.

 5 On small Bibles, see Light, ‘French Bibles’, Ruzzier, ‘The Miniaturisation of Bible Manu­ scripts’, and the summary by Mary and Richard Rouse in this volume, pp. 32–35.

54

l au r a a l b i e ro Table 2.1. Average size (sum of height and width, in mm) of breviaries in 1 and 2 volumes (corpus: consulted manuscripts).

 

Entire corpus

Dominican breviaries

Breviaries in 1 volume

261.9

223.1

Breviaries in 2 volumes

269.5

325.3

Table 2.2. Exploitation of the page (‘black’) of breviaries in 1 and 2 volumes (corpus: consulted manuscripts).

Entire corpus

Dominican breviaries

Breviaries in 1 volume

 

0.480

0.417

Breviaries in 2 volumes

0.472

0.416

The other four are either summer or winter breviaries surviving without their complementary volume. Division into two volumes was not the most common solution by any means: most breviaries (all but 31 of the 438 under discussion here) contain the whole text in one volume. The two-volume solution (adopted in thirty-one of the surviving cases) became necessary when there were simply too many folios to be bound in one volume, because the resulting book would be too thick and thus not very easy to handle. Indeed, the average number of folios in complete one-volume manuscripts (451 folios) is significantly smaller than the average in two-volume manuscripts (621 folios). Why would the same text require such a different number of folios? One might expect the answer to lie in the general dimensions of manuscripts,6 as the number of folios is usually in inverse proportion to their dimensions. This would imply then that two-volume manuscripts should be smaller than the one-volume breviaries, but in fact this is not the case (Table 2.1). The general trend contradicts this assumption, and Dominican breviaries show a significant gap between the two. Not only were Dominican two-volume breviaries substantially larger than the one-volume ones, but also the largest Dominican breviary of this corpus is a two-volume manuscript.7 Why might this be? If we look at the value known as ‘black’ — the relationship between the area occupied by the script and the entire surface of the page — with a large value indicating that the text takes up more of the page, we see that in two-volume breviaries this value is slightly smaller than in the one-volume breviaries (Table 2.2), and the difference is very small between one- and  6 The manuscript dimensions are given on the basis of their ‘size’, calculated as the sum of the height of the page plus its width (see Figure 2.5).  7 Toulouse, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 79 and 77 (355 × 255 mm).

the spread and circulation of the dominican pocket breviary

Figure 2.4. Decoration in Dominican breviaries (corpus: Dominican breviaries).

two-volume Dominican breviaries. However, Dominican breviaries have a remarkably smaller index of exploitation of the page than the corpus overall. This means that in Dominican breviaries every page contains a smaller amount of text and has larger margins, and this is the case both for one- and two-volume manuscripts. As two-volume breviaries have a greater number of folios, one would expect the index of exploitation of the page (the ‘black’) to be lower than one-volume breviaries; the fact that both one- and two-volume Dominican breviaries have more or less the same average ‘black’ means that the space has been wasted somehow in the two-volume breviaries, as they contain more and larger folios than those of one-volume breviaries to transmit the same text, and they make use of the same proportion of the page. One explanation may be to do with the fact that Dominican two-volume breviaries are always decorated (Figure 2.4), sometimes fully, with miniatures and gold illuminated initials. The decoration often encroaches on the writing area, leaving less space on the page for text, which has the direct consequence that the book needs more folios to contain the entire text of the breviary.8 The relationship between the written surface and the page is only one index of the exploitation of the space. Indeed, it is necessary to consider how the written space was used: for example, whether the script is small and the number of lines per page is relatively high, or, on the contrary, whether there are fewer lines in a bigger script. A reliable index of the exploitation of the page is the ruling unit, which is the height of the interlinear space (Figure 2.5). If the ruling unit is small, we can deduce that the page was intensively used. In this corpus, we can observe that Dominican breviaries have a smaller ruling unit (3.53 mm in consulted Dominican manuscripts, compared to 3.87 mm for those consulted in the general corpus): they  8 As shown in Table 2.1, two-volume Dominican breviaries are bigger than one-volume breviaries, and as such the bigger Dominican breviaries are more often decorated than the smaller ones.

55

56

l au r a a l b i e ro

Page surface Written surface Size Black Ruling unit

= * = * = + = () / () = / ( - 1)

Figure 2.5. Key to layout termino­logy.

keep larger margins for an aesthetic purpose, but they compensated for the wasted space by reducing the ruling unit. This means that the exploitation of the page is pushed a little further to its limits, and that the dimensions of the script are a little smaller — that is, less easily readable. The legibility of the text is very important, and it influences all parameters of the layout, including the choice between a plain page and two columns. If the ruling unit is small, a plain page line would be not very easy to read: to avoid this inconvenience the written space is organized into two columns. An overview of the distribution of manuscripts in plain page and two columns according to religious orders (Table 2.3) shows that secular churches prefer two-column pages. On the contrary, monastic orders clearly prefer the plain page. Mendicant orders clearly chose a layout in two columns, and among them, Dominican breviaries always have two columns.

the spread and circulation of the dominican pocket breviary Table 2.3. Layout (plain pages or two-column manuscripts) (corpus: consulted manuscripts).

Plain page

Two columns

Diocesan breviaries

 

15%

85%

Monastic breviaries

76%

24%

Mendicant breviaries Franciscan Dominicans

3% 6% 0%

97% 94% 100%

Table 2.4. Distribution of pocket breviaries in plain pages and two columns per date (corpus: consulted manuscripts).

 

Plain page

Two columns

Eleventh century

100%

0%

Twelfth century

100%

0%

Thirteenth century

52%

48%

Fourteenth century

21%

79%

Fifteenth century

17%

83%

An interesting pattern emerges in the distribution of columns and plain pages in pocket breviaries over the centuries (Table 2.4). While early pocket breviaries — in the eleventh and twelfth centuries — are always written in plain pages, it is in the thirteenth century that the breviary in two columns becomes prominent. This layout becomes a model, and most of the fourteenth and fifteenth century breviaries are written in two columns. Given that Dominican and Franciscan breviaries conform to these parameters, it is clear that the mendicant orders had an important role in the spread of the small, two-column breviary, even if we cannot be sure of what impact Dominicans and Franciscans respectively had in this process. As we have seen, ‘typo­logical’ breviaries are rare before the thirteenth century. The almost contemporary rise of the two main mendicant orders during this century may have been instrumental in the spread of the breviary. And the rise of intensive use of the pocket breviary by monastic orders at this time could be a consequence of the mendicants’ initiative. It is known, for example, that the copying of sermons in monastic scriptoria was a direct imitation of the trend introduced by Dominicans, and we can assume that the use of the breviary might have followed the same pattern. Both Dominicans and Franciscans took great care in establishing the right text for their breviaries around the middle of the thirteenth century, but there is little information about the places and people involved in their production and use.

57

58

l au r a a l b i e ro

From the foundation of the Order, Dominicans were allowed — even encouraged — to have books for study, teaching, and preaching. The libraries of Dominican convents reflect the Order’s preaching mission, with a preponderance of commentaries and theo­logical works. Moreover, the itinerant character of the Order (travelling for teaching and preaching) meant that friars needed either access to a stable library or their own minimal set of smaller books that they could take while travelling. We know that they had small quires in which they copied their intellectual tools, such as concordances and collections of standard sermons, with a view to preparing their own sermons and lessons. The standard book collection of a Dominican convent includes Bibles, some of them glossed, and collections of sermons and sentences. What about the breviaries? In 1245 a commission of Four Friars was set up to correct the breviary, and the General Chapter of 1250 decided to correct again the first version of the four friars.9 The Chapter of 1254 started a new revision under the authority of Humbert of Romans, which was completed in 1256. Breviaries are mentioned in the General Chapter of 1233, which says that novices should buy their own breviaries.10 The General Chapter of 1242 recommended that every friar who was sent to another province had to bring his own breviary with him.11 After that, references to books focused on other types, such as theo­logical disputations and sermons. Study was a primary concern of Dominicans, and it became so important that friars could be granted dispensations from the Office for the sake of study. It is interesting to note that of the extant mendicant breviaries, Franciscan breviaries outnumber Dominican breviaries by three to one (107 Franciscan to 29 Dominican).12 The cause of this remarkable gap between the number of surviving Dominican and Franciscan breviaries is unclear. It is possible that the predilection of Dominicans for study, their concentration on preaching, pastoral duties, and teaching, and the great mobility due to their relationship with universities, may have contributed to the partial survival of certain books over others. Dominican breviaries do not usually display information about their production. I have found only one colophon so far, in a fifteenth-century Dominican breviary (BnF, MS lat. 1305, fol. 539r) copied for the convent of Saint-Flour that was completed on 24 April 1482.13 The colophon reads:

 9 For references see Gleeson, ‘Dominican Liturgical Manuscripts’, pp. 86–92. For further details, see Giraud’s chapter in this volume.  10 Acta capitulorum generalium, i, p. 4.  11 Acta capitulorum generalium, i, p. 22.  12 On Franciscan book making and book circulation, see for example: Şenocak, ‘Book Acquisition in the Medi­eval Franciscan Order’; Şenocak, ‘Circulation of Books in the Medi­eval Franciscan Order’; Schlotheuber, ‘Late Medi­eval Franciscan Statutes’; Welch, Liturgy, Books and Franciscan Identity, pp. 92–132.  13 The city of Saint-Flour is in southern France, in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region.

the spread and circulation of the dominican pocket breviary

Anno domini m cccc lxxxii et die vicesima quarta mensis aprilis fuit patratus iste liber per manus domni Petri Panier presbiteri ecclesie cathedralis sancti Flori. Et pertinet mihi fratri ordinis fratrum predicatorum conventus sancti Flori. Amen. (In the year of the Lord 1482 and on the 24th day of the month of April, this book was completed by the hand of Pierre Panier, priest of the cathedral church of Saint-Flour. And it belongs to me, brother , Order of the Friars Preachers of the convent of Saint-Flour. Amen.) The first striking fact is that the scribe is not a Dominican belonging to the convent but rather a priest of the cathedral of Saint-Flour. This leads us to infer that the Dominican convent did not have an active scriptorium, and that someone asked Pierre Panier to copy the breviary, probably giving something in return. It seems that Dominicans preferred to acquire or purchase their books instead of copying them: this practice is well documented in the Dominican milieu.14 The second intriguing fact concerns the owner of the breviary. The name of Franciscus Hospitalis is written by a second hand over an erasure: the breviary was not originally written for him, but came into his possession at a certain point. Probably, the previous owner died, and the breviary returned to the convent to be assigned to another friar. This short colophon sheds light on one ‘supply channel’ of breviaries in Dominican houses; even if the case cannot be generalized, it is an interesting insight into one form of Dominican breviary production, which was localized but placed outside the immediate context of the convent, as well as an insight into breviary circulation, from one brother to another. Although Dominican breviaries were not necessarily produced by Dominicans, their general aspect was somehow previously determined, following what seems to be some sort of model: small, in two columns and with a small ruling unit. The direct consultation of eleven breviaries (three medium-sized and eight pocket breviaries, see Appendix) shows that within this uniformity there is an internal differentiation which is strongly related to the place of production. The manuscripts Arsenal 602 and 603, respectively the winter and summer parts of the one breviary, and the manuscript Arsenal 107, which has only the winter part and lacks its complementary volume, were written for the female Dominican convent of Poissy, near Paris. Their written space has nearly the same dimensions and the historiated initials display almost the same icono­graphic cycle.15 Although previously  14 See Morard, ‘La Bibliothèque évaporée’, 91; it has also been proposed that Dominicans would have employed lay scribes to make their manuscripts: Giraud, ‘The Dominican Scriptorium at Saint-Jacques’.  15 There are a few differences: Arsenal MS 107 has no icono­graphy for Palm Sunday, the dedication of the church, or saints Nicholas, Stephen, John the Evangelist; on the other hand, Arsenal MS 602 has no historiated initials for the Ascension or for Saint Gregory. It

59

60

l au r a a l b i e ro

attributed to Poissy, the breviary BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255 was probably copied for a member of the royal family, according to François Avril; its icono­graphic cycle is extremely rich and peculiar, and it is not comparable to any other Dominican breviary I have ever seen.16 The manuscripts Arsenal MSS 193 and 194 respectively have the winter sanctoral and the winter temporal; Leroquais suggested that they were parts of a set of four manuscripts, lacking the two volumes for the summer temporal and the summer sanctoral.17 But the low number of folios in the two surviving volumes (170 and 155) could also suggest that the two manuscripts were originally one volume: this is the case, for example, with the Dominican breviary now found in manuscripts BAV, MSS Rossi 79 and 80, which are continuously foliated. The icono­graphy of the initials in Arsenal MSS 193 and 194 is noticeably different from that of the Poissy breviaries: in the temporal, only three initials for the first lesson and responsory of the first Sunday of Advent and for the first lesson of Christmas are historiated, and in the sanctoral only the responsories of Saint Andrew and the Purification. There is also a single historiated initial at the beginning of the psalter in BnF, MS lat. 1313, and there are two historiated initials in BnF, MS lat. 1305, one at the beginning of the psalter and one at the beginning of the temporal, while other breviaries display only foliated or pen-flourished initials. As shown above, decorated breviaries have larger dimensions, compared to non-decorated ones; other than this, there is a lack of coherence in the decoration and icono­graphy of Dominican breviaries. Breviaries sometimes display an internal division which is material and textual at the same time: the calendar is often copied in one quire, and the psalter, temporal, sanctoral and common of saints are often contained in separated groups of quires that are independent from one another. The reason for copying a breviary in this way is not entirely clear: as entire manuscripts were often by a single hand, these internal divisions were not created to facilitate simultaneous copying. Moreover, there is a lack of consistency in internal divisions, such as the discrepancies between the two volumes Arsenal MSS 602 and 603: Arsenal MS 602 has the calendar, the psalter, and the winter temporal copied seamlessly (without codico­logical divisions between sections), while the sanctoral and the common are independent; this is not dissimilar to the divisions in the breviary of SaintFlour (BnF, MS lat. 1305), where all the sections are independent with two exceptions: the psalter is copied with the winter temporal, and the sanctoral with the common of saints. Arsenal MS 603 however fully distinguishes

should be noted that it is the first lesson of Matins that receives the decorated initial. On Dominican icono­graphy, see also Alison Stones’s chapter in this volume.  16 For the attribution and a full description of the decoration of BnF MS n.a.l. 3255, see Avril, ‘Un bréviaire royal’, 30–61.  17 Leroquais, Les Bréviaires, ii, p. 323.

the spread and circulation of the dominican pocket breviary

all of its sections, and separates materially the calendar, the psalter, the summer temporal, the summer sanctoral, and the common. This separation is evident again in Arsenal MSS 107, 193, and 194. In Mazarine MS 356 only the psalter is independent, while in BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255 no divisions are found between its sections. In BnF, MS lat. 1313 the calendar and the psalter are independent, and in BnF, MS n.a.l. 859 only the calendar is separated. In the Vatican manuscripts we find other arrangements: in MS Barb. lat. 372 all parts are separated except the sanctoral and the common; in MS Barb. lat. 400 the calendar and the psalter form one part, separated from the rest of the breviary; in MSS Rossi 79 and 80 every section is independent. This differentiation points not only to the place of production, but also to individual practices that cannot be completely explained. The materiality of Dominican breviaries has shown that the physical appearance of their manuscripts, as well as their text, was established in a consistent way, even if personal solutions to their production were practised. Their layout is much more uniform in relation to the general corpus, and even with respect to Franciscan breviaries. In conclusion, we can say that the thirteenth century is the most important moment in the development of the production of manuscript breviaries. During this century, the breviary assumes the structure, size, and layout that would be its ‘normal’ features for the two following centuries, and which would become the common look of printed breviaries. It is quite likely that mendicant orders contributed in a substantial way to defining the model breviary: small and in two columns, with the text copied in a chrono­ logical sequence. If Dominicans fixed the features of the model, Franciscans probably also contributed to the success and the spread of breviaries. In a different way and with different purposes, they marked the rise and the circulation of a best seller.

61

62

l au r a a l b i e ro

Appendix of Selected Dominican Breviaries Medium-sized breviaries Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MSS 193 (I) and 194 (II)

Paris, thirteenth century, second half. 170 and 155 fols; 279 × 190 mm (197 × 128 mm), 39 written/​40 traced lines. Lead pencil ruling; two columns, simple frame lines, two through lines at the top and two at the bottom, lines for writing limited to the writing frame (Muzerelle 1–1-11/​0/​2–2/​J).18 13 historiated initials. I 16 (fols 1–6)

calendar

2–5 (fols 7–55, number 44 missing)

psalter

6–1012 (fols 56–115), 1114 (fols 116–29)

winter sanctoral

12 (fols 130–41), 13–14 (fols 142–57)

common of saints, Office of the Virgin

15 (fols 158–65), 16 (fols 166–169ter)

added

12

12

8

8

6

II  112 (fols 1–12), 212+2 (fols 13–26), 3–1212 (fols 27–146), 1311 (fols 147–55)

winter temporal

Historiated initials I fol. 7ra Beatus (Ps 1), King David playing the harp; fol. 13vb Dominus (Ps 26), David pointing to his eyes; fol. 18ra Dixi (Ps 38), David pointing to his mouth; fol. 21va Dixit (Ps 52), a crazy man; fol. 25rb Salvum (Ps 68), David in danger in the water and God; fol. 30ra Exultate (Ps 80), David playing the bells; fol. 34rb Cantate (Ps 97), three men singing; fol. 39ra Dixit (Ps 109), Holy Trinity; fol. 60ra Cum (responsory for St Andrew), the martyrdom of St Andrew; fol. 106rb Adorna, the Presentation of Jesus. Historiated initials II fol. 1va Visio (1st lesson of Advent), Isaiah praying; fol. 1vb Aspiciens (1st responsory of Advent), the prophet Isaiah; fol. 31rb Primo (1st lesson of Christmas), the Nativity of Jesus.

 18 The Muzerelle formula is a means by which writing frame rulings can be succinctly described. For clarity here, the rulings are described both in words (‘two columns, simple frame lines,’ and so on) and using the Muzerelle formula. On the latter, see Muzerelle, ‘Pour décrire les schémas de réglure: une méthode de notation symbolique applicable aux manuscrits latins (et autres)’.

the spread and circulation of the dominican pocket breviary

63

Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MSS 602 (I) and 603 (II)

Poissy, fourteenth century (after 1336). 476 and 471 fols; 236 × 163 mm (136 × 107 mm); 27 written/​28 traced lines. Ink ruling; two columns, simple frame lines, one through line at the top, lines for writing limited to every column (Muzerelle 1–1-11/​0/​1–0/​JJ). 55 historiated initials; some decorated initials; pen-flourished red and blue initials. I  1–2612 (fols 1–312), 2712 (fols 313–23 plus 336), 2812 (fols 324–35)

fols 1–6 calendar fols 7–88 psalter, litany, prayers fols 89–336 winter temporal (1st Sunday of Advent – Saturday of Pentecost), Dedication

29–3712 (fols 337–444), 3810–1 (fols 445–53)

fols 337–453 Ordo officii, winter sanctoral (St Andrew – Saints Basilidis Cirinus Naboris Nazarius)

3912 (fols 454–65), 2712–1 (fols 466–75 plus 467bis) fols 454–75 common of saints II   16 (fols 2–7)

fols 2–7 calendar

2–712 (fols 8–79), 88 (fols 80–87)

fols 8–87 psalter

9–19 (fols 88–219)

fols 88–219 summer temporal

12

20–21 (fols 220–43), 22 (fols 244–54), 23–25 (fols 255–90), 2610–3 (fols 291–97), 27–3612 (fols 298–417) 12

11

12

fols 220–417 summer sanctoral

3712 (fols 418–29), 386 (fols 430–35)

fols 418–35 common of saints

39–40 (fols 436–71)

fols 436–71 Office of the Virgin

12

Historiated initials I fol. 7ra Beatus (Ps 1), King David playing the harp; fol. 18ra Dominus (Ps 26), David pointing to his eyes; fol. 25ra Dixi (Ps 38), David pointing to his mouth; fol. 31va Dixit (Ps 52), a crazy man; fol. 38rb Salvum (Ps 68), David in danger falling into the water and God; fol. 46vb Exultate (Ps 80), David playing the bells; fol. 54rb Cantate (Ps 97), three men singing; fol. 62vb Dixit (Ps 109), holy Trinity; fol. 90vb Visio (1st Sunday of Advent), Isaiah listening to God; fol. 122va Primo (Christmas), the Nativity of Jesus; fol. 134ra Verbum, Circumcision; fol. 140vb Omnes (Epiphany), Adoration of the kings; fol. 246vb Iustus (Palm Sunday), Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem; fol. 264ra In (Easter), the Resurrection; fol. 313rb Beata (Pentecost), the Holy Spirit; fol. 324va Quociencumque (the Dedication), a bishop blessing a church; fol. 343va Proconsul, St Andrew on the cross; fol. 347rb Nicholaus, St Nicolas

64

l au r a a l b i e ro

and the three girls; fol. 355rb Heri, the stoning of St Stephen; fol. 358vb Hodie, John the Evangelist and the poisoned calyx; fol. 397va Hodie, the Presentation of Jesus; fol. 411rb Sanctus, Thomas Aquinas teaching students; fol. 419rb Vidi, the Annunciation; fol. 430va Beatus, St Peter on his knees receiving his martyrdom; fol. 443vb Post, the translation of St Dominic. Historiated initials II fol. 8ra Beatus (Ps 1), King David playing the harp; fol. 19rb Dominus (Ps 26), David pointing to his eyes; fol. 26va Dixi (Ps 38), David pointing to his mouth; fol. 33ra Dixit (Ps 52), a crazy man; fol. 39va Salvum (Ps 68), David in danger in the water and God; fol. 47va Exultate (Ps 80), David playing the bells; fol. 55ra Cantate (Ps 97), three men singing; fol. 62vb Dixit (Ps 109), holy trinity; fol. 88va Credimus (1st lesson of the Trinity), holy Trinity; fol. 93ra Dominus (Corpus Christi), a priest elevating the host; fol. 231va Sollempnitates, St John the Baptist holding a silver dish; fol. 232rb Tempore, St Peter on the cross; fol. 235vb Paulus, St Paul hurt by a soldier; fol. 261ra Fuit, Mary Magdalen; fol. 277va Beatus, St Dominic held by angels on a ladder; fol. 288vb Beatissimi, St Lawrence on a gridiron; fol. 298ra De, an angel putting a crown on Mary’s head; fol. 310vb Hodie, martyrdom of St Bartholomew; fol. 313vb Beatus, St Louis holding a church on his hand; fol. 321rb Beatus, St Augustine; fol. 330vb Hodie, a soldier beheads John the Baptist; fol. 336ra Appropinquante, the birth of Mary; fol. 360vb Novem (1st lesson of St Michael), two groups of angels; fol. 372va Paulus, St Denis holding his head in his hands; fol. 378rb Fuit, two groups of virgins; fol. 387rb Legimus, a group of saints; fol. 392ra Tempus, three men in front of a stand; fol. 398va Legitur, St Martin on a horse giving his coat to a poor man; fol. 417ra Fuit, St Catherine; fol. 436ra Adest, the Virgin holding the Christ child on her lap. Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 107 (Winter part)

Poissy, fourteenth century, first half. 407 fols; 242 × 162 mm (145 × 107 mm); 30 written/​31 traced lines. Ink ruling; two columns, simple frame lines, one through line at the top and one at the bottom, lines for writing limited to every column (Muzerelle 1–1-11/​0–0/​1A–1J/​JJ). 22 historiated initials. 16 (fols 1–6)

calendar

2–7 (fols 7–77, plus 12bis)

psalter

12

8–23 (fols 78–269), 24 (fols 270–79), 25 (fols 280–87)

winter temporal

26–33 (fols 288–392bis, numbers 330–39 missing)

winter sanctoral

34–3512 (fols 393–415bis)

common of saints

12

10

12

8

the spread and circulation of the dominican pocket breviary

Historiated initials fol. 7ra Beatus (Ps 1), King David playing the harp; fol. 16ra Dominus (Ps 26), David pointing to his eyes; fol. 22rb Dixi (Ps 38), David pointing to his mouth; fol. 28ra Dixit (Ps 52), a crazy man; fol. 34ra Salvum (Ps 68), David in danger in the water and God; fol. 41va Exultate (Ps 80), David playing the bells; fol. 48rb Cantate (Ps 97), three men singing; fol. 55vb Dixit (Ps 109), holy Trinity; fol. 79va Visio (1st Sunday of Advent), Isaiah listening to God; fol. 104vb Primo (Christmas), the Nativity of Jesus; fol. 114ra Verbum, Circumcision; fol. 119va Omnes (Epiphany), The adoration of the kings; fol. 226rb Audistis (Easter), the Resurrection; fol. 258va Quod, the Ascension; fol. 268va Libet, the Pentecost; fol. 292vb Preconsul, St Andrew; fol. 349vb Hodie, the Presentation of Jesus; fol. 361ra Sanctus, Thomas Aquinas; fol. 364vb Gregorius, Gregory; fol. 368ra Vidi, Annunciation; fol. 377va Beatus, Peter of Verona; fol. 388va Cum, Dominic on a ladder.

Pocket Breviaries Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS n.a.l. 859

Northern France, thirteenth century, second half. 502 fols; 110 × 82 (89 × 60); 27 written/​28 traced lines. Lead pencil ruling; two columns, simple frame lines, two through line at the top and one at the bottom, lines for writing limited to the writing frame (Muzerelle 1–1-11/​0/​2–1/​J). Pen-flourished red and blue initials. 15 (fols 1–6)

calendar

214 (fols 7–20), 32 (fols 21–22)

sanctoral (fragment)

4–5 (fols 23–54), 6 (fols 55–56), 714–2 (fols 57–68), 88 (fols 69–76), 94 (fols 77–80), 10–2416 (fols 81–319), 25–2616–1 (fols 320–49), 27–3016 (fols 350–413), 3118 (fols 414–31), 3216 (fols 432–47), 333 (fols 448–50), 3412 (fols 451–62)

fols 23–99 psalter fols 100–276 temporal fols 276–448 sanctoral fols 448–62 common of saints, Office of the Virgin

35–398 (fols 463–502)

addition

16

2

65

66

l au r a a l b i e ro

Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MSS Rossi 79 (fols 1–244) and 80 (fols 245–441), originally in one volume

Northern Italy, thirteenth century. 441 fols; 136 × 93 mm (90 × 58 mm); 29 written/​30 traced lines. Lead pencil ruling; two columns, simple frame lines, one through line at the top, lines for writing limited to every column (Muzerelle 1–1-11/​ 0/​1–0/​JJ). Decorated initials (Italian style); pen-flourished initials. 12 (fols 1–2)

addition

2 (fols 3–8)

calendar

6

3–4 (fols 9–20), 5 (fols 21–42), 6–7 (fols 43–66), 82 (fols 67–68)

psalter

9–1012 (fols 69–92), 11–1310 (fols 93–122), 1412 (fols 123–34), 1510 (fols 135–44), 1612 (fols 145–56), 1712–1 (fols 157–67), 18–2112 (fols 168–215), 2210–1 (fols 216–24)

temporal

23–2412 (fols 225–44)

sanctoral

12

10

12

25 (fols 245–56), 26 (fols 257–66), 27–31 (fols 267–326), 32–3310 (fols 327–46), 3412 (fols 347–58)

sanctoral

3512 (fols 359–70), 364 (fols 371–74)

common of saints

378 (fols 375–82), 38–3912 (fols 383–408), 408 (fols 409–16), 415 (fols 417–21), 424 (fols 422–25), 433 (fols 426–28), 4410 (fols 429–38), 453 (fols 439–41)

additions

12

10

12

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS n.a.l. 3255

Paris, fourteenth century (1307–1323). 562 fols; 178 × 117 mm (121 × 83 mm); 27 written/​28 traced lines. Pale ink ruling; two columns, simple frame lines, lines for writing limited to every column (Muzerelle 1–1-11/​0/​0/​JJ). Historiated initials in blue or rose on a coloured field with a golden frame, with leaves and scenes in the margins; decorated initials in rose or blue on a golden field with leaves, or in gold on a rose and blue field; pen-flourished initials, gold with blue pen flourishing. Some initials have been cut. For an exhaustive study on the icono­graphy of this breviary, see Avril, ‘Un bréviaire royal’. 1–1112 (fols 1–132), 1212–1 (fols 133–43), 13–3812 (fols 144–455), 394 (fols 456–59), 4012–1 (fols 460–70), 41–4712 (fols 471–554), 4812–4 (fols 555–62)

fols 1r–95v psalter fols 96r–312v temporal fols 313r–320v Ordo officii fol. 321 blank fols 322r–542r sanctoral fols 542v–562v common of saints

the spread and circulation of the dominican pocket breviary

67

Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, 356

Paris, fourteenth century, first half. 438 fols, 200 × 144 mm (133 × 100); 20 written lines. Lead pencil ruling; two columns, simple frame lines, three through lines at the top and three at the bottom, lines for writing limited to every column (Muzerelle 1–1-11/​0/​3-/​JJ). Decorated initials in rose or blue on a golden field, with red and blue leaves; pen-flourished initials blue and red. 1–312 (fols 1–36), 412–1 (fols 37–47), 5–1012 (fols 48–119), 117 (fols 120–26)

psalter

12–1312 (fols 127–50), 1410 (fols 151–60), 1512 (fols 161–72), 1611 (fols 173–83), 17–2212 (fols 184–255), 2312–4 (fols 256–63), 24–2612 (fols 264–300, number 282 missing), 2711 (fols 301–11), 2812 (fols 312–23), 2910 (fols 324–33), 30–3612 (fols 334–417)

fols 127–294v winter temporal (1st Sunday of Advent – Holy Saturday) fols 294v–382 sanctoral (St Andrew – Annunciation) fols 382–417 common of saints

376 (fols 418–23), 38–398 (fols 424–39)

additions

Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Barb. lat. 400

Central Italy (Rieti), fourteeneth century, beginning. 429 fols; 150 × 100 mm (102 × 72 mm); 25 written/​26 traced lines. Vertical lines in dry point ruling, horizontal lines in lead pencil ruling; two columns, simple frame lines, lines for writing limited to the writing frame (Muzerelle 1–1-11/​0/​0/​J). Pen-flourished initials. 112–1 (fols 1–11), 2–512 (fols 12–59), 612–1 (fols 60–70), 7–812 (fols 71–94)

fols 1–8 calendar fols 9–94 psalter

9–1312 (fols 95–154), 1410 (fols 155–64), 15–2112 (fols 165–248), 2212+1 (fols 249–61), 23–2912 (fols 262–345), 3010 (fols 346–55), 3112+1 (fols 356–68), 32–3612 (fols 369–428)

fols 95–247 temporal fols 247–409 sanctoral fols 409–28 common of saints

fol. 429

Addition

68

l au r a a l b i e ro

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 1313

Northern France, fifteenth century, second half. 470 fols; 184 × 132 mm (115 × 88 mm); 25 written/​26 traced lines. Ink ruling; two columns, simple frame lines, two through lines at the top and one at the bottom, lines for writing limited to every column (Muzerelle 1–1-11/​0/​2–1/​JJ). Historiated initial fol. 13rb, Beatus (Ps 1). Decorated initials blue and rose on a golden field, with leaves and flowers. 112 (fols 1–12)

calendar

2–18 (fols 13–148), 19 (fols 149–52)

psalter

20–39 (fols 153–312), 40 (fols 313–19), 418 (fols 320–27), 428–1 (fols 328–34), 438 (fols 335–42), 448+1 (fols 343–51), 45–488 (fols 352–83), 4913 (fols 384–96, fols 385–89 added), 50–578 (fols 397–470)

fols 155–343 winter temporal (1st Sunday of Advent – Holy Saturday) fols 343–423 winter sanctoral (St Andrew – St Thomas Aquinas) fols 424–70 common of saints, other Offices

8

4

8

8–1

Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Barb. lat. 372

Northern Italy, fifteenth century. 421 fols; 120 × 87 mm (72 × 56 mm); 28 written/​29 traced lines. Lead pencil ruling; two columns, simple frame lines, one through line at the top, lines for writing limited to the writing frame (Muzerelle 1–1-11/​0/​1–0/​J). Decorated initials (Italian style); pen-flourished initials, blue with red pen flourishing and red with violet pen flourishing. 110–1 (fols 1–9), 2–510 (fols 10–49), 610+1 (fols 50–60), 78 (fols 61–68)

psalter

86–1 (fols 69–73)

calendar

9 (fols 74–75), 10–16 (fols 76–145), 17–2212 (fols 146–217), 2310 (fols 218–27), 2412 (fols 228–39), 254 (fols 240–43)

temporal

26–2912 (fols 244–91), 30–4210 (fols 292–421)

fols 244–421 sanctoral fol. 421 common of saints (fragment)

2

10

the spread and circulation of the dominican pocket breviary

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 1305

France, Saint-Flour, 1482. 539 fols; 123 × 97 mm (84 × 62 mm); 28 written/​29 traced lines. Violet ink ruling; two columns, simple frame lines, one through line at the top and one at the bottom, lines for writing limited to each column (Muzerelle 1–1-11/​0/​1–1/​JJ). Two historiated initials: fol. 7ra Beatus (David playing the harp), and fol. 105vb Visio (the Annunciation); and two decorated initials with flowers and leaves (fol. 300vb, Beatus, and fol. 513rb Iam); pen-flourished initials, blue with red pen flourishing and red with black pen flourishing. 16 (fols 1–6)

calendar

2–19 (fols 7–212), 20 (fols 213–16),

fols 7r–104v psalter fols 105r–216v winter temporal (Advent – Octave of Easter)

21–2612 (fols 217–88), 276 (fols 289–94)

summer temporal

12

28

5(6–1)

4

(fols 295–99)

29–4812 (fols 300–539)

Ordo officii fols 300r–508r sanctoral fols 508v–539r common of saints, Office of the Virgin Mary

69

70

l au r a a l b i e ro

Works Cited Manuscripts and Archival Sources Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 107 —— , MS 193 —— , MS 194 —— , MS 602 —— , MS 603 Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 356 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds latin 1305 —— , fonds latin 1313 —— , fonds nouvelles acquisitions latines 859 —— , fonds nouvelles acquisitions latines 3255 Toulouse, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 79 —— , MS 77 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Barb. lat. 372 —— , MS Barb. lat. 400 —— , MS Rossi 79 —— , MS Rossi 80 Primary Source Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, i: Ab anno 1220 usque ad annum 1303, ed. by Benedictus Maria Reichert, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 3 (Rome: In domo generalitia, 1898) Secondary Works Albiero, Laura, ‘Le Bréviaire, de l’autel à la poche: Quelques considérations à propos des bréviaires portatifs’, in Change in Medi­eval and Renaissance Scripts and Manuscripts. Proceedings of the 19th Colloquium of the Comité international de paléo­graphie latine (Berlin, 16–18 September 2015), ed. by Eef Overgaauw and Martin Schubert (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019), pp. 147–60 Avril, François, ‘Un bréviaire royal du xive siècle’, Art de l’enluminure, 60 (2017), 4–62 Dijk, Stephen J. P. van and Joan Hazelden Walker, The Origins of the Modern Roman Liturgy (London: Newman, 1960) Giraud, Eleanor, ‘The Dominican Scriptorium at Saint-Jacques, and its Production of Liturgical Exemplars’, in Scriptorium. Wesen – Funktion – Eigenheiten. Comité international de Paléo­graphie latine, XVIII, ed. by Andreas Nievergelt and others (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2015), pp. 247–58 Gleeson, Philip, ‘Dominican Liturgy Manuscripts from before 1254’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 42 (1972), 81–135

the spread and circulation of the dominican pocket breviary

—— , ‘The Pre-Humbertian Liturgical Sources Revisited’, in Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine. Le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L 1, ed. by Leonard E. Boyle and Pierre-Marie Gy (Paris: CNRS, 2004), pp. 99–114 Gy, Pierre-Marie, ‘Les Premiers Bréviaires de Saint-Gall (deuxième quart du xie s.)’, in Liturgie. Gestalt und Vollzug, ed. by Walter Dürig (Munich: Hueber, 1963), pp. 104–13 Leroquais, Victor, Les Bréviaires manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, i– vi (Paris: [n.p.], 1934) Light, Laura, ‘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, ed. by Richard Gameson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 155–76 Morard, Martin, ‘La Bibliothèque évaporée. Livres et manuscrits des dominicains de Toulouse (1215–1840)’, in Entre stabilité et itinérance: livres et culture des ordres mendiants, xiiie–xve siècle, ed. by Nicole Bériou, Martin Morard and Donatella Nebbiai-Dalla Guarda (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), pp. 73–128 Muzerelle, Denis, ‘Pour décrire les schémas de réglure: une méthode applicable aux manuscrits latins (et autres)’, Quinio, International Journal on the History and Conservation of the Book, 1 (1999), 123–70 Ruzzier, Chiara, ‘The Miniaturisation of Bible Manuscripts in the Thirteenth Century: A Comparative Study’, in Form and Function in the Late Medi­eval Bible, ed. by Eyal Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 105–25 Schlotheuber, Eva, ‘Late Medi­eval Franciscan Statutes on Convent Libraries and Education’, in Acts of the Franciscan History Conference held at the Franciscan International Study Centre on 9th September 2006, ed. by Michael Robson and Jens Röhrkasten, Canterbury Studies in Franciscan History, 1 (Canterbury: Franciscan International Study Centre, 2008), pp. 153–85 Şenocak, Neslihan, ‘Book Acquisition in the Medi­eval Franciscan Order’, Journal of Religious History, 27.1 (2003), 14–28 —— , ‘Circulation of Books in the Medi­eval Franciscan Order: Attitude, Methods, and Critics’, Journal of Religious History, 28.2 (2004), 146–61 Welch, Anna, Liturgy, Books and Franciscan Identity in Medi­eval Umbria, The Medi­ eval Franciscans, 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2016)

71

Alison Stones*

Illustrated Dominican Books in France, 1221–1350 By the middle of the thirteenth century the mendicant orders had come to play a significant role in the production of devotional and secular books made for lay patrons. These products, often splendidly illustrated, took their place alongside the liturgical books made for the religious houses and their mendicant members. Yet illustrations of the Life of St Dominic were slow to achieve prominence in French illuminated books, and when a vibrant icono­graphic tradition finally emerges in the second half of the thirteenth century it is in manuscripts made not in the south, where Dominic lived and worked, but in the north of France: Artois, Flanders, and Hainaut, where several manuscripts datable to the middle and third quarter of the thirteenth century made for lay patrons include images of Dominic and his followers.1 By c. 1300 Paris had also come to the fore as the place where important books were being made for Dominican use, given special impetus by the canonization of Louis IX in 1297 and the efforts of Philippe le Bel to foster the cult of his sainted ancestor by the foundation of the Dominican nunnery of Poissy (1298–1304, consecrated 1331) and the translation of the Head of Louis from the royal abbey of Saint-Denis to the Sainte-Chapelle in 1306.2 Extant books from Poissy form an important cluster of illustrations, of which a breviary made for a member of the Belleville family and other books made for lay use, most notably the Royal Breviary recently acquired by the Bibliothèque nationale, are important counterparts.3 It is notable that * I am grateful to François Avril, Barbara Beaumont OP (Sister Historian of the Order of Preachers), Nicole Bériou, Charlotte Denoël, and Isabelle Le Masne de Chermont for their kind assistance, and to Eleanor Giraud for her careful editing of this text.  1 See especially Carlvant, ‘Thirteenth-Century Illumination’, and Carlvant, Manuscript Painting.  2 For the Poissy books see Naughton, ‘Manuscripts from the Dominican Monastery’, Naughton, ‘The Poissy Antiphonary’, Naughton, ‘Friars and their Books’, Naughton, ‘Books for a Dominican Nuns’ Choir’, and Naughton, ‘From Unillustrated to Illustrated’. I thank Joan Naughton for her dissertation and her list of publications.  3 I am indebted to François Avril for making available his notes and photos of the Breviary, acquired in 2015 by the Bibliothèque nationale de France, and for discussing many aspects

Alison Stones is Professor Emerita of History of Art and Architecture at the University of Pittsburgh.

The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music, and Liturgy, ed. by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, MMS 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021) pp. 73–108 10.1484/M.MMS-EB.5.124214

FHG

74

a l is o n s to n e s

the early examples of depictions of Dominic discussed by Russo all come from Italy,4 and the retable now in Barcelona forms a significant counterpart to the Bo­lognese manuscripts and panels that are among the earliest manifestations of an icono­graphic tradition for Dominic.5 Here I chart the emergence and development of Dominican icono­graphy in French books in the first century or so of Dominic’s cult. We shall see that certain themes enjoyed particular favour, but no two manuscripts treat the subjects in quite the same way, and it is more than likely that patron input was responsible for special preferences among what survives. The earliest depiction of Dominic in France would appear to be the remarkable vision of Dominic’s ascension to heaven witnessed by Guala, prior of Brescia, first related by Jordan of Saxony (c. 1190–1237) in his Libellus de principiis ordinis praedicatorum,6 and first illustrated, it would appear, in the full-page frontispiece, accompanied by a full-page miniature of the Crucifixion, in the Registre des barbiers d’Arras, written c. 1248 (Arras, Bibliothèque municipale, Figure 3.1).7 This surprising choice has a straight-

 4  5

 6

 7

of it with me, and to Isabelle Le Masne de Chermont for clarifying the foliation before I was able to consult the manuscript itself. See now Avril, ‘Un bréviaire royal du xive siècle’, where the manuscript is ascribed to the patronage of King Louis X le Hutin. Russo, ‘L’Ordre des Prêcheurs’. Attributed to an anonymous Aragonese artist working in the early fourteenth century, the panel comes from the church of Sant Miquel de Tamarit de Llitera (Osca, diocese of Lleida) and was acquired in 1907 by the Museu Nacional d’Art de Catalunya in Barcelona (Núm. del catàleg 015825–000), reproduced online at [accessed 1 June 2021]; see also Cornudella, Macías, and Favà, ‘La pintura’, p. 35, Figures 8–9, with reference to previous literature. It contains twelve barbed quatrefoils presenting scenes of Dominic’s life, flanking a full-length frontal portrait of the saint, nimbed, wearing black and white, and holding a fleur-de-lis sceptre and a book. Was it made in Aragon, rather than Languedoc-Roussillon? Further analysis is merited. Suffice it to note for the moment a correspondence in the treatment of the faces with their prominent eyes, with the figures in the wall-painted cycle of the Life of St Benedict in the north chapel at the parish church of Saint-André at Alet-les-Bains (Aude); the keystone in the chapel contains the arms of Guillaume d’Alzonne, Bishop of Alet (1333–1355) (gules a crossbow or). Jordan of Saxony, Opera ad res Ordinis praedicatorum, Chap. 57, p. 29; ‘Libellus de principiis Ordinis Praedicatorum’, para. 95, p. 69; see also Jordan of Saxony, A New Life, Chap. 4, p. 157; Jordan of Saxony, On the Beginnings, Chap. 10, para. 95, p. 24; Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda aurea, Chap. 113, pp. 466–83; Jacobus de Voragine, Golden Legend, pp. 426–27. Another Vita, more complete than what survives of Jordan’s version, is by Gérard de Frachet, OP (1205–1271), Vitae fratrum ordinis; a post-mortem vision is recounted on pp. 84–85, see further below. For the icono­graphy of Dominic see Iturgaiz, Iconografia de Santo Domingo de Guzman and ‘Iconografia miniada’, pp. 49–92; Heck, L’Échelle céleste, esp. pp. 202–03. See especially Espinas, Les Origines, i, pp. 43–57; ii, no. 8; the manuscript was noted by Porcher whose photo­graphs were on deposit in the Boîte Porcher at the Département des manuscrits at the Bibliothèque nationale de France in the 1960s–1980s. See also Stones, ‘Le Sacré et le profane’, pp. 195–96, Figures 1 and 2; Stones, Gothic Manuscripts, i. 1, illus 293–95; i. 2, pp. 105, 153, 495; ii. 1, p. 198; and Stones, ‘A Note on Some Images’.

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

75

Figure 3.1. ‘Guala’s Vision of the Ascension of St Dominic’, Arras, Bibliothèque munici­pale, MS 1302, p. 5. c. 1248. Reproduced by permission of the Bibliothèque municipale d’Arras.

forward explanation: the barbers, as noted in the text of the Registre itself, had adopted Dominic as their patron, and their confraternity was located on the Rue saint Dominique.8 I outline the main points here: Dominic, face covered (originally), robed in white (the Dominican shroud), sits on a throne between two ladders on which stand angels holding crowns or thuribles; the ladders are held by Christ and the Virgin;9 below is a tree where Guala points up to Dominic, inviting the viewer to see what he sees,  8 Berger, Littérature et société arrageoises, p. 67 n. 375; p. 83.  9 Two white ladders, one held by Christ, the other by the Virgin Mary, are specified by Jordan (Opera ad res Ordinis praedicatorum, p. 29; ‘Libellus de principiis Ordinis Praedicatorum’, para. 95, p. 70; and the Golden Legend, p. 426). Tugwell gives a single golden ladder in his translation of the Libellus (On the Beginnings, para. 95, p. 24). Two ladders are also depicted on the 1345 polyptych by Francesco Traiani, in the Museo nazionale di San Matteo, Pisa; see Heck, L’Échelle céleste, p. 201 and Figure 154, and Cannon, Religious Poverty, pp. 261–71; and in the early fourteenth-century Dominican

76

a l is o n s to n e s

and a second Guala sits looking at Dominic. This treatment of Guala is not repeated elsewhere to my knowledge, and other versions of the Vision (tabulated in Appendices A and B) are substantially simpler, with fewer (if any) angels, often omitting Christ and the Virgin, and placing Dominic on a single ladder, robed in the black and white Dominican habit.10 Curiously, the ascension was not favoured in Dominican icono­graphy in French devotional books of the second half of the thirteenth century, so far as we can tell from what survives.11 Other Dominican subjects were preferred, and the pictorial emphasis on Peter Martyr and Reginald of Orléans even outweighs that of Dominic himself. Often Dominic shares a miniature with Francis, or a scene depicting Dominic is matched by one featuring Francis. No two manuscripts contain the same formal treatment, although for each Dominican subject selected, there are two or more depictions. Apart from the barbers’ Registre of Arras, the earliest examples of depictions of Dominic all come from Flanders or Hainaut.12 In these regions the context for illustrations of Dominic and his followers — and also of Francis — was that of the illustrated psalter, psalter-hours or devotional picture-book, all made for the private devotions of mostly anonymous layfolk.13 What explains this regional preference? As Carlvant has shown, the production of illustrated books with mendicant saints followed the founding of the houses of Franciscans and Dominicans in Bruges and Ghent in the 1220s and 1230s.14 She convincingly links the special interest in Dominican subjects in Flanders to the transfer of the Dominican houses of Bruges and Ghent from the Province of Teutonia to the Province of Francia in 1259.15 Among the nine manuscripts from Flanders or Hainaut

novice-book in Toulouse, Bibl. mun., MS 418, fol. 94v (Heck, L’Échelle céleste, p. 203 and Figure 157) where the protagonist is an unspecified Dominican friar, not Dominic himself.  10 The throne, and the hood hiding the saint’s face, are noted in Jordan of Saxony, ‘Libellus de principiis Ordinis Praedicatorum’, para. 95, p. 70; Jordan of Saxony, On the Beginnings, para 95, p. 24 and in Jacobus de Voragine’s Golden Legend account, see p. 426.  11 It is also absent from the panel in Barcelona mentioned in note 5 above. There are some examples of Dominic’s ascension in Germanic regions from the late 1260s in manuscripts from Co­logne, Regensburg, and St Katharinenthal; I leave them aside here.  12 See the examples tabulated in Appendix A.  13 Here I mention Francis only when Dominic or another Dominican are included in the same manuscript.  14 Carlvant, Manuscript Painting, pp. 51–52, citing Moorman, History of the Franciscan Order, and Hinnebusch, History of the Dominican Order, p. 343; see also Chapotin, Études; Meersseman and Pignon, Catalogi et Chronica; Emery, Friars; Galbraith, Constitution; Simons, Stad en apostolaat.  15 Carlvant dates the Bruges and Brussels manuscripts shortly after 1260 when Dominican cardinal Hugh of Saint-Cher and Marguerite, Countess of Flanders moved to uphold the 1259 decision to transfer the Dominican houses of Bruges and Ghent from Teutonia to Francia, a change supported by Pope Alexander IV (Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, i, p. 96 line 29; Carlvant, Manuscript Painting, p. 82 n. 22). Earlier than these devotional books is the important Dominican Missal now in Mons BIU 63/201 made

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

Figure 3.2. ‘The murder of St Peter of Verona’, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, n.a.fr. 16251, fol. 93r. c. 1285. Reproduced by permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

listed in Appendix A, there is little consistency of choice although, with the exception of Guala’s Vision, the chosen subjects all appear more than once.16 There are three portraits of Dominic standing next to Francis, not all at the same place in the text (New York, Morgan Library, MS M.106, fol. 104, at Ps. 97; Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, Vitr. 23–29, fol. 94, at Ps. 97; Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 604, fol. 82v, at Ps. 80); there are four scenes of the murder of Peter of Verona (New York, Morgan Library, MS M.72, fol. 135v in a historiated initial at Ps. 101; Bruges, Groote Seminarie, MS 55/​171, fol. 111, at Ps. 109; Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS 10525, fol. 5, one of two scenes of Dominican subjects; and Paris, BnF, MS n.a.fr. 16251, fol. 93 (Figure 3.2), following Giles and preceding Francis and Anthony). The owner of the devotional Picture Book BnF, MS n.a.fr. 16251 — Marie probably in the region of Cambrai before 1253 (St Peter Martyr is absent). The image for the major feast of St Dominic on fol. 217 has been cut out. It was mis-identified as St Martin in Faider and Faider-Feytmans, Catalogue, pp. 111–12, no. 344.  16 For subjects, manuscripts, and references, see Appendix A.

77

78

a l is o n s to n e s

Figure 3.3. ‘Reginald d’Orléans receiving the habit and Dominic preaching’, Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale, 10525, fol. 4r. Thirteenth century, third quarter. Photo: author.

Figure 3.4. ‘The miracle of the book that would not burn’, Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, 280, p. 31. Thirteenth century, third quarter. Reproduced by permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

d’Enghien in my view — clearly preferred Francis and was originally depicted kneeling before him.17 Whereas a Dominican friar is included in three of the scenes of Peter’s martyrdom (Brussels, MS 10525, Bruges, Groote Seminarie, MS 55/​171, BnF, MS n.a.fr. 16251), his role is as a witness rather than as a principal player, although his halo in two of the examples (Groote Seminarie, MS 55/​171 and BnF, MS n.a.fr. 16251) suggests this figure is to be read as Dominic himself.18 Dominic is twice depicted in a teaching role: in a prominent full-page scene in Dublin, Chester Beatty, MS 61 (fol. 115v), with Dominic authoritative in a pulpit, preaching to a seated group of men and women; and in the lower scene on fol. 4 in Brussels, MS 10525, with his name inscribed on the border (Figure 3.3).19 The latter scene is somewhat reminiscent of Francis preaching to the birds in the presence of Leo of Assisi because of the sleeping Dominican accompanying Dominic, while the Dublin manuscript actually follows this miniature of Dominic preaching by one of Francis preaching to the birds. Two manuscripts include the miracle of the book that would not burn, with Dominic and his followers on the left of the fire and the heretics on the right.20 In both manuscripts the subject is given a full-page miniature; in Morgan Library, MS M.72, fol. 135v, this is situated before Psalm 97, while in Arsenal, MS 280 (p. 31, see Figure 3.4), it is part of a prefatory series of full-page miniatures, where it is preceded by two miniatures of Francis: Francis receiving the stigmata and Francis on his deathbed. Then comes the stub of a missing leaf which I have suggested most likely depicted another scene of Dominic’s life, or possibly the martyrdom of Peter Martyr, and the book-burning episode follows.21 A hint as to the identity of the patron of Arsenal, MS 280 may be suggested by the presence of a quasi-heraldic altar-cloth on p. 27 where Francis kneels, blue with white fleurs de lis  17 See Stones, Le Livre d’images; Bräm, Das Andachtsbuch, prefers to see the patroness as Marie de Gavre.  18 This is not the place for a full examination of the icono­graphy of Peter Martyr, suffice it to point to his general prevalence in manuscripts of the second half of the thirteenth century both north and south (e.g. the Breviary of Philippe le Bel, BnF, MS lat. 1023); in the Legenda aurea at the San Marino, Huntington Library, HM 3027, there is a lacuna between fols 50 and 51 that would no doubt have contained an illustration of Peter. See also the northern examples tabulated in Appendix A and the Parisian examples in Appendix B.  19 This could refer to Dominic’s preaching the Albigensian crusade, see Jordan, Opera ad res Ordinis praedicatorum, p. 11, Chap. 21, and Jacobus de Voragine, Golden Legend, p. 416.  20 Cf. the Barcelona retable. Jordan, Opera ad res Ordinis praedicatorum, p. 9, chap. 17 refers to ‘libelli’; ‘Libellus de principiis Ordinis Praedicatorum’, para. 25, p. 38 gives ‘libelli’; Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend, p. 414 calls it a ‘paper’; Jordan, On the Beginnings, para. 25, p. 7 says ‘books’ (the heretics’ one and Dominic’s). Book-burning in the context of Aristotle illustration is found in BL, MS Harl. 3487, fol. 4, at the opening of Aristotle’s Physica (attributed to Oxford, mid-thirteenth century). I thank Hanna Wimmer for this reference. Full biblio­graphy on the BL website: [accessed 1 June 2021]  21 For the missing leaf in Paris, Arsenal, MS 280, see Stones, ‘A Note on Some Images’.

79

80

a l is o n s to n e s

Figure 3.5. ‘Retable of St Dominic from Sant Miquel de Tamarit de Llitera’, Barcelona, Museu Nacional d’Art de Catalunya, Núm. 015825–000. Early fourteenth century. © Museu Nacional d’Art de Catalunya, Barcelona. Photo: Jordi Calveras.

and lions, possibly an allusion to a member of the Beaumont family.22 The book-burning is also depicted at top left on the Barcelona retable attributed to the early fourteenth century (Figure 3.5),23 and in two Parisian diurnals made c. 1300.24 Most unexpected in Flanders are the two illustrations depicting the healing of Reginald of Orléans by the Virgin, coupled with her giving the Dominican habit to Reginald. In Brussels, MS 10525 the Reginald episode is shown in the top half of a full-page miniature with Dominic preaching  22 See Stones, Gothic Manuscripts, i. 2, p. 266 for discussion.  23 See n. 5 and below.  24 BL, MS Harl. 2449 and Rouen, Bibl. mun., MS 221; see below and Appendix B.

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

Figure 3.6. ‘Reginald d’Orléans receives the habit in the presence of Dominic’, Bruges, Groot Seminarie, MS 55/​171, fol. 80v. Thirteenth century, third quarter. Photo: author.

in the lower half (Figure 3.3), as noted above, and Reginald occupies a full-page miniature in Bruges, Groote Seminarie, MS 55/​171 (Figure 3.6).25  25 The healing of Reginald by the Virgin is recounted in Jordan, Opera ad res Ordinis praedicatorum, p. 18, chap. 37; ‘Libellus de principiis Ordinis Praedicatorum’, para. 57, p. 52; On the Beginnings, para. 57, p. 15; the habit is briefly mentioned as ‘omnis huius ordinis habitum’ (the complete habit of the order). The episode of the habit is recounted in Peter of Ferrand’s Legenda sancti Dominici, pp. 324–26. Peter’s account was composed shortly after 1234 and transmitted from Peter in versions by Constantine of Orvieto (1245) (‘Legenda Sancti Dominici’, pp. 308–09) and Humbert of Romans (before 1254) (‘Legenda Sancti Dominici’, pp. 394–96), and c. 1261 by Jacobus de Voragine (Golden Legend, p. 420). These sources are reviewed in Warr, ‘Religious Habits’, and Bériou, ‘Un lieu de culte’. I thank Nicole Bériou for providing a copy of her important article in advance of publication.

81

82

a l is o n s to n e s

These examples quite possibly antedate the other surviving pictorial versions of this subject and raise questions as to who was responsible for the choice; little is known about either manuscript.26 The subject is prominent on the arca of St Dominic at Bo­logna, commissioned from Nicola Pisano in 1265 and probably executed somewhat after that date; the episode is carved on the side of the arca facing the friars’ choir. The Flemish manuscripts are undated but are also attributable to the decade of the 1260s, and thus they could well be contemporary with the arca, if not earlier. The healing of Reginald also occurs on the panel in Barcelona, attributed to the early fourteenth century (Figure 3.5); and, finally, it is in the Royal Breviary of Dominican Use, BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255, datable after 1306 (Figure 3.7). The two Flemish versions (Figures 3.3 and 3.6) differ in treatment and detail: Reginald’s head is on the right in Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS 10525 and on the left in Bruges, Groote Seminarie, MS 55/​171; he is short-haired in Brussels, MS 10525 and long-haired and bearded in Bruges, MS 55/​171, while the damsels are veiled in Bruges, MS 55/​171 and bareheaded in Brussels, MS 10525; the Virgin is veiled in Brussels, MS 10525, named in the border, and blesses, while in Bruges, MS 55/​171 she is crowned as well as veiled; she lays her hand on Reginald’s brow to heal him, no doubt using ointment from the pot held up by one of the damsels; and she hands him a scroll reading ‘ecce h(ab)it(us) ord(in)is fr(atru)m p.(re)dicator(um)’. There are striking differences in the colours and numbers of the garments in the two manuscripts: there are three garments in Bruges, MS 55/​171, a white habit and a white hooded cloak (the roquet or superpellicium?),27 and a black hooded cloak with a red belt (stole?) as well; two garments are shown in Brussels, MS 10525, a black habit and black hooded cloak. Most significant is the presence of Dominic in Bruges, MS 55/​171, robed in black and white, tonsured and nimbed, his hand on that of the Virgin touching Reginald’s brow as though he too has the power to heal his suffering brother.28 Indeed the entire scene is identified in the upper margin in capitals as ‘S Dominicus’, with no mention of the Virgin or of Reginald. Both these versions diverge from the depiction of the Reginald episode as carved by Nicola Pisano and his workshop on the arca of Dominic  26 Brussels, Bibl. Roy., MS 10525 is a psalter of Marchiennes adapted for Dominican use; Bruges, Groot. Sem., MS 55/​171 is attributed to Bruges.  27 The superpellicium or rochet was the long-sleeved over-tunic worn by Augustinian Canons Regular, as would Dominic have done as an Augustinian canon; see Warr, ‘Religious Habits’, pp. 47. It is notable however that in Jordan, Opera ad res Ordinis praedicatorum, p. 8, chap. 14, Dominic initially took the Cistercian habit, ‘assumpto ibidem habitu monachali’ (see Jordan, ‘Libellus de principiis Ordinis Praedicatorum’, para. 18, p. 35; On the Beginnings, para. 18, p. 5) while after their petition to the pope, the preachersto-be chose the habit and Rule of St Augustine ( Jordan, ‘Libellus de principiis Ordinis Praedicatorum’, para. 42, p. 46, On the Beginnings, para. 42, p. 11).  28 Cf. the praying pose of Dominic on the arca where, on the side facing the friars, the story of Reginald’s cure and receipt of the habit (a single garment) from the Virgin is depicted.

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

83

Figure 3.7. ‘Reginald d’Orléans receives the habit’ (bottom of page) and ‘Dominic and a companion receive a sealed charter and a book from Pope Honorius’ (initial B), Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, n.a.l. 3255, fol. 446v. After 1306. Reproduced by permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, rights reserved.

84

a l is o n s to n e s

in San Domenico, Bo­logna (c. 1265).29 There the sequence (from left to right) shows Dominic and Reginald in conversation, Dominic praying over Reginald taken ill, and Mary holding up a single habit in her right hand while touching Reginald’s brow with her left, in the presence of two damsels, one holding an ointment pot and the other pointing to Mary. And on the Barcelona retable (Figure 3.5) the healing takes second place as the ointment pot is held by the second of the girls and no healing is enacted. On the retable, the first of the girls holds out a white habit while the Virgin holds a sceptre and hands over a black habit to the already tonsured Reginald who sits up in bed to receive it. So the role of Dominic in the Bruges version is striking for the prominence it accords him, placing him on a par with the Virgin. But this treatment appears not to have been repeated and must have been occasioned by a special interest in Reginald, the exact nature of which is elusive, as his life does not include a Flemish component and nothing is known about the patron of the manuscript. Both Flemish manuscripts are undated, but on stylistic grounds it is not out of the question that they antedate the arca’s depiction and most likely also that of the Barcelona panel; but there is no heraldry or other identification of the patron, so the possible role of the Countesses of Flanders or members of their entourage remains speculative. Carlvant claims the Bruges manuscript is the earliest depiction of the Reginald episode but she also suggests the subject was derived from ‘special Parisian models’, an opinion that remains unsubstantiated in the absence of surviving earlier examples.30 There is one further example of the healing of Reginald and the presentation of the Dominican habit: in the Royal Breviary of Parisian manufacture acquired by the Bibliothèque nationale de France in 2015, now BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255 (Figure 3.7). It is a much pared-down version, placed in a small marginal scene at the major feast of St Dominic on 5 August. The Virgin is the primary actor, holding an ointment pot in her left hand and touching Reginald’s brow with her right hand; Reginald is tonsured and beardless. Two damsels, bareheaded and nimbed, stand beside the Virgin and hold out two white robes (habit and cloak), and Dominic is absent. The main scene for Dominic’s feast in this breviary is a historiated initial showing him wearing black and white, kneeling to receive a book from the hands of Pope Honorius while a companion in pink and white is handed a sealed document (Figure 3.7).31 This subject was also selected for illustration in the closely related Belleville Breviary (second volume, BnF, MS lat. 10484, fol. 272), of Dominican Use but made for a member of the Belleville family whose arms are included. It was illustrated by the famous team of Jean Pucelle, Anciau  29 Warr, ‘Religious Habits’, p. 50, Figures 1 and 2, citing Cannon, ‘Dominic alter Christus?’, pp. 30–36.  30 Carlvant, Manuscript Painting, p. 82 n. 22.  31 This scene is described in Jordan, Opera ad res Ordinis praedicatorum, p. 14, chap. 27, ‘Libellus de principiis Ordinis Praedicatorum’, para. 45, p. 47, and On the Beginnings, para. 45, p. 12; Jacobus de Voragine, Golden Legend, p. 416.

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

85

Figure 3.8. ‘Dominic receives a sealed charter from the pope; Dominic is supported by Sts Peter and Paul’ (bottom of page) and ‘Pope Innocent’s vision of Dominic upholding the Church’ (miniature), Belleville Breviary, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 10484, fol. 272r. 1323–1326. Reproduced by permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

86

a l is o n s to n e s

Figure 3.9. ‘Guala’s Vision of the ascension of St Dominic’, London, British Library, MS Add. 30072, fol. 213v. c. 1300. Photo: Trustees of the British Library Board.

de Sens, and Jaquet Maci.32 In the bottom margin for the Feast of St Dominic the saint, alone, receives a sealed document from the pope and, to the right, Dominic is supported by Sts Peter and Paul (Figure 3.8).33 In both details Dominic is nimbed, wears black and white, and is shown standing. In the single-column miniature above is the Vision of Pope Innocent III who sees Dominic (in black and white) supporting a collapsing church (Figure 3.8).34  32 Morand, Jean Pucelle, pp. 9–13, 34–36, 43–45; Avril, Manuscript Painting, pp. 6, 18–19, 35, 60–63 and Avril, ‘Manuscrits’, pp. 293–96, no. 240; Cockshaw, ‘Bréviaire de Belleville’. It later came into the possession of the Dominican priory of Poissy; see Naughton, ‘Manuscripts from the Dominican Monastery’, Cat. nos 57–58, pp. 388–97 (esp. 396), with further references. See also the essays in Pyun and Russakoff, ed., Jean Pucelle. For Châtelet (‘Note sur la date’), the arms of Belleville would be unlikely to refer to Jeanne de Belleville in the absence of those of her husband Olivier de Clisson, and he proposes her older brother Maurice V de Belleville as the patron; but as Leroquais first noted (Les Bréviaires, iii, pp. 198–210), it contains an original Office for the feast of Corpus Christi, adopted in 1323, whereas Maurice died in 1320 (Avril, ‘Un bréviaire’, p. 27 n. 25).  33 In Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend, p. 416, Peter hands Reginald a staff and Paul a book; cf. the Barcelona retable (cited above, n. 5). In the Parisian copy of the Legenda aurea, Huntingdon Libr., HM 3027 (c. 1280?), Dominic and his followers are depicted kneeling before the pope (fol. 91v); there are traces of a marginal sketch.  34 This subject is not in Jordan nor in the other early lives; it originated with St Francis as the protagonist rather than Dominic (it is not in Thomas of Celano’s The Lives of St Francis of Assisi but appears in Bonaventura’s Life of St Francis, chap. 3, para. 9, online), and the subject forms part of the St Francis sequence attributed to Giotto or his followers at the basilica of St Francis at Assisi (c. 1297–1300). By the time of the Golden Legend, the story had been appropriated for Dominic (Golden Legend, p. 416) and is found among the scenes on the Barcelona retable of St Dominic (cited in n. 5). An early fourteenth-century

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

Figure 3.10. ‘Ascension of St Dominic’, London, British Library, Harley MS 2449, diurnal, fol. 210r. c. 1300–1330. Photo: Trustees of the British Library Board.

Otherwise the treatment of Dominic in the Parisian books surrounding the foundation of the Dominican convent of Poissy witnesses a preference, albeit in an abbreviated form, for the Vision of Guala.35 The subject is found for the feast of Dominic on 5 August in seven of the ten Parisian manuscripts tabulated in Appendix B. However, none of them rivals the Arras barbers’ image (Figure 3.1) in scale or detail; the format in the Parisian books is historiated initials, which of course impose limits on the treatment of the subject. Only in London, BL, MS Add. 30072 is the figure of Guala included (Figure 3.9). Dominic in white with head covered is found in the diurnal BL, MS Harley 2449 (Figure 3.10) and the Private Collection Breviary olim Sotheby’s 4.6.74, lot 2919; in BL, MS Add. 30072 he is also in white but his head is uncovered; in Melbourne, MS R66A, Arsenal, MS 603, Arsenal, MS 107 (Figure 3.11) and BL, MS Egerton 3037, he wears black and white and he is bareheaded. He is supported variously by angels, but Christ and the Virgin appear in person only in BL, MS Add. 30072 (where Christ holds three darts in his left hand and gestures to the Virgin with his right), olim Sotheby’s, and BL, MS Harley 2449; in BL, MS Egerton 3037 two arms emerge and grasp the ladder, one on each side, but the rest of the figures of Christ and the Virgin are not shown.36 example from Flanders or Hainaut depicting Francis as the protagonist is the psalter, Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibl., MS 3384, 8o, fol. 43; see Carlvant, ‘Collaboration in a Fourteenth-Century Psalter’, and Stones, Gothic Manuscripts, i. 2, pp. 219, 223.  35 See Appendix B.  36 For feasts in Rouen, Bibl. mun., MS 221(Y233) and Chartres Bib. mun., MS 552, see

87

88

a l is o n s to n e s

Figure 3.11. ‘Ascension of St Dominic’, Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, 603, fol. 277v. 1336–1348. Reproduced by permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Figure 3.12. ‘Blessing of the shrine of St Dominic and pilgrims beneath the shrine’, London, British Library, MS Add. 30072, fol. 167v. c. 1300. Photo: Trustees of the British Library Board.

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

Other subjects are chosen for the feast of Dominic in three of the ten manuscripts: Dominic at a table in the breviary of Philippe le Bel (BnF, MS lat. 1023), also found on the Barcelona panel (Figure 3.5), where Dominic and his companion both wear black and white. The subject for Dominic in Chartres, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 552 (severely damaged in WWII) is unrecorded, while the BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255 and Belleville Breviaries both give Dominic receiving the charter from Pope Honorius, accompanied in BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255 by the healing of Reginald, as noted above; and Belleville includes two more scenes: the Vision of Dominic’s godmother who sees a star on his forehead,37 and Dominic preaching (also in Brussels, MS 10525, as noted above). The other context for Dominic imagery in Parisian books is for the feast of his Translation (24 May). An image is lacking in three of the manuscripts: the breviary of Philippe le Bel, Arsenal, MS 107 (it contains the winter part only), and BL, MS Egerton 3037. As already noted, the two diurnals, Rouen, MS 221 and BL, MS Harley 2449, both give the book-burning for this feast. The image in BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255 has been cut out. Of the other manuscripts, two (possibly three) give bishops and friars at Dominic’s tomb (possibly Chartres, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 552; olim Sotheby’s, and Arsenal, MS 602) while the shrine and pilgrims are the focus in BL, MS Add. 30072 (Figure 3.12) and Melbourne, MS R66A. Belleville gives the most extensive treatment, including both episodes in each of its two volumes (Figures 3.13 and 3.14).38 Three manuscripts made after 1326 include an image of Thomas Aquinas teaching (7 March): olim Sotheby’s, Arsenal, MS 602, and Arsenal, MS 107. The Belleville Breviary includes Augustine preaching (28 August), while in BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255 a border scene for the feast of Augustine shows him giving his rule to two Dominican friars. As is to be expected in Poissy books, Louis King of France is commemorated in five manuscripts on his feast of 25 August: enthroned or standing, crowned and nimbed, holding a sceptre and the Hand of Justice (in BL, MS Add. 30072 the image is an addition; the subject is also in olim Sotheby’s, BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255, and Arsenal, MS 603); holding a sceptre only (Melbourne, MS R66A); a second illustration in olim Sotheby’s shows him again, holding a sceptre and book. He is given far greater prominence in BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255 as another initial shows him Naughton, ‘Manuscripts from the Dominican Monastery’, p. 31; the illustrations in the Rouen manuscript can be consulted at [accessed 1 June 2021]  37 Jordan, Opera ad res Ordinis praedicatorum, p. 5, chap. 7: ‘Deniquo profecto praefigurabatur dari eum aliquando in lucem gentium, illuminare his qui in tenebris et in umbra mortis sederent, ut rei postmodum probavit eventus.’ Jacobus de Voragine, Golden Legend, p. 413: ‘And when Dominic’s godmother lifted him out of the sacred font, she seemed to see a star upon his forehead, which shed its light upon the whole world.’  38 Naughton explains that the feast could occur either in the context of the winter part or the summer part, depending on the date of Easter (Naughton, ‘Manuscripts from the Dominican Monastery’, p. 395, and Naughton, ‘Books for a Dominican Nuns’ Choir’, p. 87).

89

90

a l is o n s to n e s

Figure 3.13. ‘Bishops remove ossuary, guarded by soldiers; (bottom of page) friars carry St Dominic’s shrine, pilgrims crouch beneath it’, Belleville Breviary, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 10483, fol. 184r. 1323–1326. Reproduced by permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

91

Figure 3.14. ‘Bishops remove ossuary, guarded by soldiers; (bottom of page) friars carry St Dominic’s shrine in procession, pilgrims crouch beneath it’, Belleville Breviary, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 10484, fol. 218v. 1323–1326. Reproduced by permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

92

a l is o n s to n e s

Figure 3.15. ‘King Louis IX and assistants collecting bones at Mansourah’, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, n.a.l. 3255, fol. 470r (bottom of page). After 1306. Photo: BnF.

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

feeding the leprous monk and in a border scene he and followers collect bones at Mansourah (Figure 3.15). Only in BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255 is the feast of the Translation (17 May) marked with a historiated initial, of Philippe le Bel kneeling before the Head Reliquary (which has been defaced, no doubt by pious kissing, Figure 3.16), accompanied by a border scene showing the procession of the Head Reliquary from the grieving monks of Saint-Denis to its triumphal, trumpeted, reception in Paris (Figure 3.16). And two folios later a border scene returns to Louis’s life with his captivity in a Muslim prison, a final counterpart to the initial for the first Sunday in Advent, where Louis is flagellated by his confessor. Not surprisingly, the pictorial treatment of Dominic in France in the first century of his veneration varied according to context. Dominic’s ascension together with the Crucifixion serve to authenticate and add value to the official document of the Barbers’ Guild, in much the same way as images of the Crucifixion and Christ in Majesty are central to the illustration of missals, and from there transfer in the thirteenth century to civic documents.39 As a full-page devotional image, scenes from Dominic’s life took their place alongside scenes of Francis in psalters, psalter-hours, and a devotional picture-book made for lay patrons, underlining the significance of both mendicants to the lay patrons who commissioned these devotional books and their full-page miniatures. The most innovative icono­graphy is found in books associated with particular individuals — the Arras barbers’ confraternity, perhaps a member of the Beaumont family for Arsenal, MS 280, Marie d’Enghien for BnF, MS n.a.fr. 16251, and a member of the Belleville family for their breviary — even if, most of the time, the specific patrons remain unknown. Dominic in Paris is found in the context of liturgical books made for use at the Dominican nunnery of Poissy, while BL, MS Add. 30072, perhaps made in royal circles and acquired later by Poissy, sets the pace for interesting Dominican subjects, notably the active pilgrims at Dominic’s shrine and the frontal-facing Ascension, which invites the viewer to contemplate the scene as Guala does. BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255 is exceptional, its Louis icono­graphy suggesting an important royal patron, and its heraldry, of France and Navarre, pointing to Louis le Hutin, as Avril was the first to suggest.40 BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255 gives full rein to icono­graphic innovation in a context exclusively private, outside the collective devotions of a religious congregation, and its copy, the Belleville Breviary, was also made for private use. Overall, individual patrons and makers were not constrained by established patterns but were free to select, adapt, simplify or elaborate upon the fascinating narratives of the lives of Dominic and his followers.

 39 For Southern civic documents with swearing pages, see Gilles, ‘Les Livres juratoires’.  40 Avril, ‘Un bréviaire royal’, pp. 7–8.

93

94

a l is o n s to n e s

Figure 3.16. ‘King Philippe le Bel before the Head of St Louis’ and ‘The Head of St Louis borne in procession from Saint-Denis to Paris’ (bottom of page), Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, n.a.l. 3255, fol. 479r. After 1306. Photo: BnF.

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

Appendix A: Representations of Dominic and Followers in Thirteenth-Century Manuscripts from Artois, Flanders, and Hainaut fp = full-page miniature; hp = half-page miniature; hi = historiated initial

Arras, Registre des Barbiers d’Arras, 1248 Arras, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 1302, Registre des barbiers d’Arras41

fol. 5r fp Guala’s Vision of the Ascension of St Dominic.

Flemish Psalters and Psalter-hours, Thirteenth Century, Third Quarter42 New York, Morgan Library, MS M.10643

fol. 104r fp portraits of Dominic and Francis both standing (at Ps. 97). Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, Vitr. 23–2944

fol. 94r fp portraits of Dominic and Francis both standing (at Ps. 97). Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 60445

fol. 82v fp portraits of Dominic and Francis both standing (at Ps. 80).

 41 Espinas, Les Origines, i, pp. 43–57, ii, no. 8; photos in the Boîte Porcher at the Département des manuscrits, Bibliothèque nationale de France; Stones, ‘Le Sacré et le profane’, pp. 195–96, Figures 1 and 2; Gothic Manuscripts, i. 1, Illus 293–95; i. 2, pp. 105, 153, 495; ii. 1, p. 198; Stones, ‘A Note on Some Images’.  42 See especially Carlvant, ‘Thirteenth-Century Illumination’; Stones, ‘Full-Page Miniatures’; Carlvant, Manuscript Painting.  43 Stones, ‘Full-Page Miniatures’, no. 26, 298, 305; Carlvant, Manuscript Painting, colour plate 3.  44 Stones, ‘Full-Page Miniatures’, no. 25, 298, 304; Carlvant, Manuscript Painting, pp. 192–93.  45 Naughton, ‘Manuscripts from the Dominican Monastery’, Cat. no. 50, pp. 376–77; Stones, ‘Full-Page Miniatures’, no. 27, p. 305; Carlvant, Manuscript Painting, p. 200. Reproduced on [accessed 1 June 2021]

95

96

a l is o n s to n e s

Bruges, Groote Seminarie, MS 55/​17146

fol. 80v fp Vision of Reginald d’Orléans (at Ps. 80, labelled Sanctus Dominicus) fol. 95r fp Francis preaching to birds (before Ps. 97) fol. 111r fp murder of Peter Martyr, knifed and scimitar raised, two soldiers, another Dominican; soul crowned in heaven (before Ps 109). Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS 1052547

fol. 4r fp, top: Reginald d’Orléans (untonsured) in bed, blessed by the Virgin holding a black habit, followed by two damsels, one holding a black hooded cloak, the other pointing and gesturing; in the upper border an inscription reads ‘S(an)c(t)a Maria’ below: Dominic standing, accompanied by a sleeping friar, preaching (pointing finger) to a group of men sitting beneath a tree; border inscription reads ‘S(an)c(tu)s D(omi)nicus’ fol. 5r fp A Dominican friar raises both hands before an ugly-faced giant who raises a club to him; in front, the martyrdom of Peter, kneeling in prayer, sliced in the head with a scimitar by a soldier. Dublin, Chester Beatty, MS 6148

fol. 115v fp Dominic preaching from pulpit to seated men and women (before Ps. 80) fol. 135v fp Francis preaching to birds (before Ps. 97).

 46 Carlvant, ‘Thirteenth-Century Illumination’, p. 375, Tweede Group, Table 5A; Stones, ‘Full-Page Miniatures’, pp. 298, 305; Carlvant, Manuscript Painting, pp. 10, 22, 75–84, 101, 103, 108–09, 211–16, 363–66, table 2, table 8A, colour plates 6–8, Figure 27a–p; Stones, Gothic Manuscripts, i. 2, p. 265.  47 Barrois, Bibliothèque protypo­graphique, p. 174, no. 1163; Vitzthum, Die Pariser Miniaturmalerei, p. 137; Gaspar and Lyna, Les Principaux manuscrits, pp. 126–28, no. 47, Plate 27d, given as ‘abbaye de Marchiennes (?)’; Haseloff, Die Psalterillustration, pp. 52, 112–13 Table 11; Coens, ‘Anciennes litanies’, pp. 159–64; Emery, Friars in Medi­eval France, pp. 7–98, 102; Carlvant, ‘Thirteenth-Century Illumination’, i, p. 316, n. 1; Simons, Stad en apostolaat; Oliver, Gothic Manuscript Illumination, p. 161 n. 58; Bräm, Das Andachtsbuch, p. 117; Stones, Le Livre d’images, pp. 23, 94–95, Figure 57 (fol. 5); Bousmanne and Van Hoorebeeck, Librairie des ducs de Bourgogne, pp. 249–52; Stones, Gothic Manuscripts, i. 1, pp. 35, 38, 65, 131, Ills 585–87; i. 2, pp. 154, 265, 325, 329, 331–32, Cat. iii. 68; ii. 2, pp. 221, 229, Table of Psalters, ii. 2, p. 235 n. 94.  48 Stones, ‘Full-Page Miniatures’, no. 30, 299, 305; Carlvant, Manuscript Painting, pp. 65, 76–81, 83–85, 103, 109, 122, 219–22, 297, 365–66, Table 8A; reproduced at [accessed 1 June 2021]

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

New York, Morgan Library, MS M.7249

fol. 135v fp Dominic supported by bishop and friars, the non-burning book and a group of Jews (before Ps 97) fol. 140r hi murder of Peter Martyr, soldier pierces his back with a sword and raises a scimitar to his head (before Ps 101, following fol. 139v fp Francis preaching to the Birds accompanied by Leo of Assisi).

Hainaut Books (probably Cambrai), c. 1265–1285 Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 280, psalter-hours50

p. 27 fp St Francis kneeling at an altar covered with a ‘heraldic’ cloth, azure semé of lions argent [white], seeing the Vision of the Seraph p. 29 fp St Francis (grey habit, knotted cingulum) on his deathbed, attended by two friars and two mitred figures, his soul in napkin borne by two angels between pp. 29 and 30 a page has been cut, the stub remaining: did it contain another Dominic scene? or the martyrdom of Peter of Verona? p. 31 fp St Dominic and the miracle of the unburned book. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, n.a.fr. 16251, Livre d’images de Madame Marie51

fol. 93r fp Peter of Verona martyred by the sword, accompanied by St Dominic. fol. 94r fp Madame Marie (painted out) kneeling before St Francis, accompanied by St Anthony.

 49 Stones, ‘Full-Page Miniatures’, no. 31, pp. 299, 305; Carlvant, Manuscript Painting, pp. 10, 13, 92, 96–108, 110–14, 120, 132, 249–53, table 8A, colour plate 11, Figure 44a–o; Stones, Gothic Manuscripts, i. 1, pp. 70, 108; ii. 2, p. 234 n. 66.  50 Martin, Catalogue des manuscrits, no. 280 (148); Vitzthum, Die Pariser Miniaturmalerei, pp. 123–24, Plate 28; Martin and Lauer, Les Principaux manuscrits, pp. 17, 27, 29, 340, 606; Haseloff, Die Psalterillustration, pp. 154, 114; Leroquais, Les Psautiers, i, pp. lix, lxxviii, xcviii, cxi, cxiv, cxxi, cxxvi, cxxvii, cxxxiii; ii, pp. 8–10; Frugoni, Francesco, p. 129 n. 59, Plate 4 (Francis); Bräm, Das Andachtsbuch, pp. 29, 170, 172, 220, Figure 47 (fol. 21); Carlvant, Manuscript Painting, p. 386; Stones, Gothic Manuscripts, i. 1, pp. 35, 38, 62, 115, Ills 481–87, Plate 43; i. 2, pp. 252, 255, 264–67 Cat. iii. 46, 288, 332; ii. 2, pp. 204, Hours of the Holy Ghost, 222, 230 Table of Psalters, Table of Hours, Ills 360, 361, Plate 49.  51 Avril, Bibliothèque nationale, Département des manuscrits, Catalogue des nouvelles acquisitions françaises, sub numero; Bräm, Das Andachtsbuch; Stones, Le Livre d’images; Stones, Gothic Mansucripts, i. 1, pp. 29, 31, 35, 38, 47, 64, 120, Ills 540–47, Plate 52; i. 2, pp. 40, 41, 149, 154, 190, 209, 234, 277, 297, 305, 306, 308–12 Cat. iii. 57, 383, 431, 484, 597; ii. 1, pp. 172, 174, with previous literature. Reproduced at [accessed 1 June 2021]

97

98

a l is o n s to n e s

Appendix B: Dominican Iconography in Parisian Manuscripts fp = full-page miniature; hp = half-page miniature; scm = single-column miniature; hi = historiated initial; b = border scene; L = Lesson

Manuscripts in Approximate Chrono­logical Order BnF, MS lat. 1023, breviary of Philippe le Bel,52 paid for in 1297 BL, MS Add. 30072, antiphoner (Summer),53 c. 1300, owned by Poissy Chartres, MS 552 (destroyed in 1944), breviary (Summer),54 c. 1300? owned by Poissy Rouen, MS 221, diurnal,55 before 1302 (Ignatius as memoria, raised to 3 lessons in 1302), with additions, owned by Poissy BL, MS Harley 2449, diurnal, before 1297, owned by Val-Duchesse, OP, Auderghem56 BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255, breviary,57 after 1306 (Translation of the head of St Louis included; St Alexis [1306–1307] included), before 1316 (death of Louis X le Hutin, the likely owner)

 52 [accessed 1 June 2021]; Stones, Gothic Manuscripts, i. 2, Cat. no. i. 43.  53 Catalogue of Additions, 31; Vitzthum, Die Pariser Miniaturmalerei, p. 58; Hughes, FortySeven Medi­eval Office Manuscripts, p. 20; Naughton, ‘The Poissy Antiphonary’, pp. 40, 45–46; Naughton, ‘Manuscripts from the Dominican Monastery’, Cat. no. 22, pp. 324–26; Naughton, ‘Books for a Dominican Nuns’ Choir’, p. 81; Stones, Gothic Manuscripts, i. 2, Cat. no. i. 49.  54 Delaporte, Manuscrits enluminés de la Bibliothèque de Chartres, pp. 112–13; Leroquais, Les Bréviaires, i, pp. 287–88; Naughton, ‘Manuscripts from the Dominican Monastery’, Cat. no. 15, pp. 312–13.  55 Delaporte, ‘Manuscrits liturgiques’, pp. 319–20, 323; Molinier, Obituaires, ii, p. 310; Naughton, ‘Manuscripts from the Dominican Monastery’, Cat. no. 67, pp. 411–13; See [accessed 1 June 2021]  56 The correspondences with the Rouen Diurnal suggest that this book is earlier than has been suggested. Vitzthum, Die Pariser Miniaturmalerei, p. 181, grouped it with fourteenthcentury books, but the absence of St Louis suggests a date before 1297. See the record in the British Library, Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts ( [accessed 1 June 2021]) for a summary description, selected images, and select biblio­graphy.  57 Description based initially on unpublished notes kindly provided by François Avril and Isabelle Le Masne de Chermont, whom I thank for allowing me to consult the manuscript in March 2017. See now Avril, ‘Un bréviaire royal du xive siècle’ and [accessed 1 June 2021]

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

BnF, MS lat. 10483–10484, Belleville Breviary,58 1323–1326 (Corpus Christi present, Thomas Aquinas absent) olim Sotheby’s, breviary,59 between 1332 (Servatius an original entry) and 1336 (Martial added), owned by Poissy Melbourne, MS R66A,60 antiphoner-hymnal, c. 1335–1345?, owned by Poissy Arsenal, MSS 602–03, breviary,61 1336–1348 (Martial an original entry, lacks totum duplex for Vincent Ferrer), owned by Poissy Arsenal, MS 107, breviary (Winter),62 1336–1348 (Martial an original entry, lacks totum duplex for Vincent Ferrer), owned by Poissy BL, MS Egerton 3037, missal,63 1336–1348 (Martial an original entry, lacks totum duplex for Vincent Ferrer), owned by Poissy

Distribution of Illustrations, Grouped by Feast 7 March, Thomas Aquinas (canonized 1326)

olim Sotheby’s, fol. 341v ‘F’ hi, Thomas teaching Arsenal, MS 602 fol. 411r ‘S’ hi, Thomas teaching Arsenal, MS 107 fol. 361r ‘S’ hi, Thomas teaching  58 Naughton, ‘Manuscripts from the Dominican Monastery’, Cat. nos 57–58, 388–97; Naughton, ‘Books for a Dominican Nuns’ Choir’, pp. 87–89; and [both accessed 1 June 2021]  59 Private Collection, olim Sotheby’s 4.6.74, lot. 2919; Manion and Vines, Medi­eval and Renaissance Illuminated Manuscripts, p. 178, Figures 178, 180 (fols 406v, 357v); Naughton ‘Manuscripts from the Dominican Monastery’, Cat. no. 27, pp. 333–35, Figure 67 (fol. 58); Naughton, ‘Books for a Dominican Nuns’ Choir’, pp. 70–92.  60 olim Sotheby’s 1.7.46, lot 12; Sinclair, ‘Phillipps Manuscripts’, pp. 332–33; Sinclair, Descriptive Catalogue, no. 218, pp. 369–70; Manion and Vines, Medi­eval and Renaissance Illuminated Manuscripts, no. 71, pp. 176–79; J. Stinson’s entry no. 30 in Gold and Vellum; Naughton, ‘The Poissy Antiphonary’, pp. 38–49; Stinson, ‘The Poissy Antiphonal’, pp. 50–59, Naughton, ‘Manuscripts from the Dominican Monastery’, Cat. no. 32, pp. 341–44; Naughton, ‘Books for a Dominican Nuns’ Choir’, pp. 71–92; Stinson, ‘The Dominican Liturgy of the Assumption’, pp. 171, 174.  61 Leroquais, Les Bréviaires, ii, pp. 348–50, Plate 41; Delaporte, ‘Manuscrits liturgiques’, p. 320; Morand, Jean Pucelle, p. 43; Naughton, ‘Manuscripts from the Dominican Monastery’, Cat. nos 48–49, pp. 372–76; ‘Books for a Dominican Nuns’ Choir’, pp. 71–92; and [both accessed 1 June 2021]  62 Leroquais, Les Bréviaires, ii, pp. 317–19; Delaporte, ‘Manuscrits liturgiques’, p. 320; Morand, Jean Pucelle, p. 43; Naughton, ‘Manuscripts from the Dominican Monastery’, Cat. no. 47, pp. 369–71; ‘Books for a Dominican Nuns’ Choir’, pp. 70–92.  63 See the record in the British Library Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts ( [accessed 1 June 2021]) for a summary description, selected images, and select biblio­graphy.

99

1 00

a l is o n s to n e s

29 April, Peter Martyr (canonized 1253)

BnF, MS lat. 1023, fol. 321v ‘B’ hi, soldier cuts Peter in the head with a sword, watched by Dominic BL, MS Add. 30072, fol. 153r ‘O’ hi, soldiers martyr saint who kneels Chartres, MS 552 unrecorded (manuscript destroyed) Rouen, MS 221, fol. 179v ‘C’ hi, executioner wields scimitar, Peter kneels, another Dominican stands behind BL, MS Harley 2449, fol. 137r unillustrated BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255, fol. 392r initial cut out BnF, MS lat. 10483, lacuna between fols 174 and 175 olim Sotheby’s, fol. 357v ‘C’ hi, executioner wields scimitar, Peter kneels, another Dominican stands behind Melbourne, MS R66A, fol. 257v ‘O’ hi, Peter standing, scimitar in head, sword in abdomen Arsenal, MS 602 fol. 430v ‘B’ hi, executioner wields scimitar, Peter kneels, sword in abdomen, another Dominican stands behind Arsenal, MS 107 fol. 377v ‘B’ hi, standing saint, sword in head BL, MS Egerton 3037 fol. 171r unillustrated 24 May Translation of Dominic (1233)

BnF, MS lat. 1023 absent BL, MS Add. 30072, fol. 167v ‘F’ hi, church-shaped shrine on tall columns blessed by bishops, pilgrims below Chartres, MS 552, fol. 372v Translation of saint’s body Rouen, MS 221, fol. 215r ‘D’ hi, Saint throws books on fire, supported by another Dominican, heretic stands opposite BL, MS Harley 2449, fol. 160r ‘A’ hi, Dominic standing at fire, book above, facing two heretics wearing Jews’ hats; Hand of God blesses BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255, fol. 399v initial cut out; L3 ‘I’ hi, Dominic in the bar of the initial BnF, MS lat. 10483, fol. 184r scm, Bishops remove closed ossuary guarded by soldiers; b: reliquary carried by two friars, cripples beneath BnF, MS lat. 10484, fol. 218v scm, Bishops remove closed ossuary guarded by soldiers; b: reliquary carried by two friars, procession of acolytes and friars, two cripples beneath shrine olim Sotheby’s, fol. 138r ‘P’ hi, Three bishops at tomb of Dominic who is robed in white Melbourne, MS R66A, fol. 266v ‘F’ hi, Bishops carry church-shaped shrine

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

Arsenal, MS 602, fol. 443v ‘P’ hi, Two bishops, Dominic in tomb, in white, friars behind BL, MS Egerton 3037, fol. 175v, scm Dominic standing wearing black and white, holding book 5 August, Dominic (canonized 1236)

BnF, MS lat. 1023, fol. 382v ‘B’ hi, Dominic in white seated at table between two friars in white, brought bread by angels BL, MS Add. 30072, fol. 213v ‘M’ hi, Guala’s Vision: Dominic in black and white on ladder, watched by Guala from window on left, the ladder upheld by Christ and the Virgin at top Chartres, MS 552, unrecorded Rouen, MS 221, fol. 213v, decorative initial BL, MS Harley 2449, fol. 210r ‘G’ hi, Guala’s Vision: Dominic in white raised on ladder held by Virgin and Christ64 BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255, fol. 446v ‘B’ hi, Dominic and a layman kneel before Pope Honorius who hands them a sealed charter and book;65 b: Reginald d’Orléans cured by the Virgin and handed a white habit and white cloak by two nimbed damsels BnF, MS lat. 10484, fol. 270v ‘Q’ hi, Vision of saint’s godmother: Dominic standing, star on forehead; fol. 271r ‘D’ hi, Dominic preaching from pulpit to seated men and women; initial held at top by a hatted man seated astride the foliage terminal; fol. 272r scm, Vision of Pope Innocent who sees Dominic supporting a collapsing church; b: Pope Honorius handing a sealed charter to Dominic, standing; Dominic supported by Sts Peter and Paul, all standing olim Sotheby’s, fol. 406v ‘G’ hi, Guala’s vision: Dominic in white, head covered, stands on ladder held by two angels below, Virgin and Christ with book above Melbourne, MS R66A, fol. 294v ‘M’ hi, Guala’s Vision: two angels support Dominic at foot of ladder, wearing black and white, holding book Arsenal, MS 603, fol. 277v ‘B’ hi, Guala’s Vision: Dominic in black and white on bottom rung of ladder, hands clasped, supported by four angels  64 Misidentified as ‘female saint’ in the British Library online catalogue ( [accessed 1 June 2021]).  65 Cf. Huntingdon Libr., HM 3027, Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda aurea, fol. 91v (4 August), Dominic and his followers kneeling before Pope Honorius (traces of a marginal sketch); Stones, Gothic Manuscripts, i. 1, pp. 30, 44, 54, Ills 85–87; i. 2, pp. 33, 37–42 Cat. i. 20, pp. 207, 306; ii. 1, pp. 267, with previous literature.

101

102

a l is o n s to n e s

Arsenal, MS 107, fol. 388v, ‘C’ hi, Guala’s Vision: Dominic in black and white on ladder, hands clasped, supported by two angels BL, MS Egerton 3037, fol. 193r ‘D’ hi, Guala’s Vision: Dominic in black and white, supported by two angels on ladder held by an arm on each side 28 August, Augustine

BnF, MS  n.a.l.  3255, fol.  485v b, Augustine giving his rule to two Dominicans BnF, MS lat. 10484, fol. 310r scm, Augustine preaching 25 August, Louis King of France (canonized 1297)

BL, MS Add. 30072, fol. 413v, added, ‘G’ King Louis enthroned holding Hand of Justice and sceptre. BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255, fol. 466v ‘L’ hi (Ludovicus decus, Antiphon for Vespers), Louis standing, holding sceptre and Hand of Justice; fol. 470 ‘B’ hi (L1), Louis feeding leprous monk; fol. 470 b, Louis and two helpers collecting bones at Mansourah olim Sotheby’s, fol. 422r ‘L’ hi, King Louis standing holding Hand of Justice and sceptre; fol. 423 ‘B’ hi, King Louis standing holding book and sceptre, gesturing Melbourne, MS R66A, fol. 311v ‘R’ hi, King Louis standing holding sceptre Arsenal, MS 603, fol. 313v ‘B’ hi, King Louis standing holding church and Hand of Justice 17 May, Translation of Head of Louis (1306)

BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255, fol. 479r ‘E’ hi, Philippe le Bel kneeling before head reliquary; b: procession of reliquary from Saint-Denis and grieving monks, to its reception by trumpeting Parisians; fol. 481 initial for L1 cut out; fol. 481 b, Louis in Muslim prison First Sunday in Advent

BnF, MS n.a.l. 3255, fol. 101r b, Louis flagellated by his confessor (at Lauds)

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

Works Cited Manuscripts and Archival Sources Arras, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 1302, Registre des barbiers d’Arras Bruges, Groote Seminarie, MS 55/​171, psalter Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS 10525, psalter Chartres, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 552, breviary (Summer Part) (destroyed) Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, MS 3384, 8o, Franciscan psalter Dublin, Chester Beatty, MS 61, psalter London, British Library, MS Additional 30072, Dominican antiphoner (Summer Part) —— , MS Egerton 3037, missal —— , MS Harley 2449, diurnal —— , MS Harley 3487, Aristotle, Libri naturales Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, Vitr. 23–29, psalter Melbourne, State Library of Victoria, MS *096 1/​R66A, antiphoner-hymnal Mons, Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire, MS 63/201, Dominican Missal New York, Morgan Library, MS M.72, psalter —— , MS M.106, psalter Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 107, breviary (Winter Part) —— , MS 280, psalter-hours —— , MSS 602–03, breviary —— , MS 604, psalter Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fonds latin 1023, breviary of Philippe le Bel —— , MS fonds latin 10483–10484, Belleville Breviary —— , nouvelle acquisition française 16251, Picture-Book of Madame Marie —— , nouvelle acquisition latine 3255, Royal Breviary of Dominican Use Private Collection (olim Sotheby’s 4.6.74 lot 2919), breviary Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 221(Y233), diurnal San Marino, CA, Huntington Library, HM 3027, Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda aurea Toulouse, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 418, Dominican Novice-Book Panel Paintings Barcelona, Museu Nacional d’Art de Catalunya, inv. no. 015825–000, Life of St Dominic Pisa, Museo nazionale di San Matteo, polyptych, Life of St Dominic by Francesco Traiani Wall Painting Alet, Church of St André, Life of St Benedict

103

104

a l is o n s to n e s

Sculpture Bo­logna, Sto Domenico, Arca Primary Sources Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, i: Ab anno 1220 usque ad annum 1303, ed. by Fr. Benedictus Maria Reichert, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 3 (Rome: In domo generalitia, 1898) Barrois, J. Bibliothèque protypo­graphique (Paris: Crapelet, 1830) St Bonaventura, The Life of St Francis of Assisi, trans. by E. Gurney Salter (New York: Dutton, 1904) [accessed 1 July 2021] Constantine of Orvieto, ‘Legenda Sancti Dominici’, ed. by D. H. C. Scheeben, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 16, fasc. 2 (Rome: Institutum Historicum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1935), pp. 203–352 Gérard de Frachet, OP (1205–1271), Vitae fratrum ordinis praedicatorum necnon cronica ordinis ab anno 1203 usque ad 1254. Ad fidem codicum manuscriptorum accurate recognovit, notis breviter illustravit Fr. Benedictus Maria Reichert, Preface by R. P. Fr. Joachim Joseph Berthier, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 1 (Louvain: Charpentier and Schoonjans, 1896) Humbert of Romans, ‘Legenda Sancti Dominici’, ed. by R. P. Walz, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 16, fasc. 2 (Rome: Institutum Historicum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1935), pp. 355–433 Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda aurea, ed. by Th. Grässe, 2nd edn (Leipzig: Imprensis Librariae Arnoldianae, 1850) —— , The Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine, trans. by Granger Ryan and Helmut Ripperger (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1941, repr. 1969) Jordan of Saxony, ‘Libellus de principiis Ordinis Praedicatorum’, ed. by D. H. C. Scheeben, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 16, fasc. 2 (Rome Institutum Historicum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1935), pp. 1–88 —— , A New Life of Saint Dominic Founder of the Dominican Order, by Blessed Jordan of Saxony, annotated by Fr. Louis Getino, OP, trans. from the Spanish by Fr. Edmond Ceslas McEniry OP (Columbus, OH: Aquinas College, 1926) —— , On the Beginnings of the Order of Preachers, ed. and trans. by Simon Tugwell, OP, Dominican Sources: New Editions in English (Chicago: Parable and Dominican Publications, 1982) —— , Opera ad res Ordinis praedicatorum spectantia quae exstant, ed. by Joachim Joseph Berthier, Opusculum prium de initiis ordinis seu Vita b. Dominici, primi patris Fratrum Praedicatorum (Fribourg: Consociationis sancti Pauli, 1891) Thomas of Celano, The Lives of St Francis of Assisi, trans. by A. G. Ferrers Howell (London: Methuen & Co. 1908)

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

Secondary Works Avril, François, Manuscript Painting at the Court of France (London: Braziller, 1978) —— , Bibliothèque nationale, Département des manuscrits, Catalogue des nouvelles acquisitions françaises 1958–1971, nos. 15062–1427 et 25101–25245 (Paris: Biblio­ thèque nationale, 1981) —— , ‘Manuscrits’, in Les Fastes du gothique: le siècle de Charles V (Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux, 1981), pp. 276–362 —— , ‘Un bréviaire royal du xive siècle’, Art de l’enluminure, 60 (2017), 4–62 Berger, Roger, Littérature et société arrageoises au xiiie siècle, Les Chansons dits artésiens (Arras: Commission Départementale des Monuments historiques du Pas-de-Calais, 1981) Bériou, Nicole, ‘Un lieu de culte parisien oublié: La tombe de frère Réginald d’Orléans, de l’ordre des Prêcheurs († 1220)’, in Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, séances de l’année 2016, avril-juin (Paris: De Boccard, 2016), pp. 575–616 Bousmanne, Bernard, and Céline Van Hoorebeeck, La Librairie des ducs de Bourgogne, i: Textes liturgiques, ascétiques, théo­logiques, philosophiques et moraux (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000) Bräm, Andreas, Das Andachtsbuch der Marie de Gavre, Paris, Bibl. nationale N.a.fr. 16251. Zur Buchmalerei der zweiten Hälfte des 13. Jahrhunderts in der Diözese Cambrai (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1997) Cannon, Joanna, ‘“Dominic alter Christus?” Representations of the Founder in and after the Arca di San Domenico’, in Christ among the Medi­eval Dominicans: Representations of Christ in the Texts and Images of the Order of Preachers, ed. by Kent Emery Jr and Joseph Warwykow (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1998), pp. 26–48 —— , Religious Poverty, Visual Riches: Art in the Dominican Churches of Central Italy in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013) Carlvant, Kerstin E., ‘Thirteenth-Century Illumination in Bruges and Ghent’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1978) —— , ‘Collaboration in a Fourteenth-Century Psalter: The Franciscan Icono­ grapher and the Two Flemish Illuminators of MS 3384, 8o in the Copenhagen Royal Library’, Sacris Erudiri, 25 (1982), 135–66 —— , Manuscript Painting in Thirteenth-Century Flanders: Bruges, Ghent and the Circle of the Counts (London: Harvey Miller and Turnhout: Brepols, 2011) Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum in the Years 1876–1881 (London: British Museum, 1882) Chapotin, Marie-Dominique, Études historiques sur la province dominicaine de France (Paris: Lecoffre, 1890) Châtelet, A. ‘Note sur la date du Bréviaire de Belleville’, Art de l’Enluminure, 60 (2017), 62 Cockshaw, Pierre, ‘Le Bréviaire de Belleville (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MSS latins 10483–10484): Problèmes textuels et icono­graphiques’, in Medi­eval

105

1 06

a l is o n s to n e s

Codico­logy, Icono­graphy, Literature and Translation: Studies for Keith Val Sinclair, ed. by Peter Rolfe Monks and D. D. R. Owen (Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 94–109 Coens, Maurice, ‘Anciennes litanies des saints’, Analecta Bollandiana, 62 (1944), 126–68 Cornudella, Rafael, Guadaira Macías, and Cèsar Favà, ‘La pintura del primer gòtic’, in El Gòtic a les col·leccions del MNAC (Barcelona: MNAC, 2011), pp. 15–39 Delaporte, Yves, Les Manuscrits enluminés de la Bibliothèque de Chartres (Chartres: Société archéo­logique d’Eure et Loir, 1929) —— , ‘Manuscrits liturgiques’, in Le Prieuré royal de Saint-Louis de Poissy, ed. by Suzanne Moreau-Rendu (Versailles: l’auteur, 1968), pp. 319–23 Emery, Richard Wilder, The Friars in Medi­eval France: A Catalogue of French Mendicant Convents, 1200–1500 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962) Espinas, Georges, Les Origines du droit d’association dans les villes de l’Artois et de la Flandre française jusqu’au début du xvie siècle, 2 vols (Lille: E. Raoust, 1941–1942) Faider, Paul, and Mme Faider-Feytmans, Catalogue des manuscripts de la Biblio­ thèque publique de la ville de Mons (Universiteit te Gent, Werken uitgegeven door de Faculteit der Wijswbegeerte en Letteren, 65e Aflevering) (Ghent: Van Rysselberghe and Paris: Champion, 1931) Frugoni, Chiara, Francesco e l’invenzione delle stimmate: una storia per parole e immagini fino a Bonaventura e Giotto (Turin: Einaudi, 1993) Galbraith, Georgina Rosalie, The Constitution of the Dominican Order 1216–1360 (Manchester: Manchester University Press 1925) Gaspar, Camille, and Frédéric Lyna, Les Principaux manuscrits à peintures de la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique (Paris: Société française de la reproduction de manuscrits à peintures, 1937) Gilles, Henri, ‘Les Livres juratoires des consulats languedociens’, Cahiers de Fanjeaux, 31 (1996), 333–54 Gold and Vellum: Illuminated Manuscripts in Australia and New Zealand (Melbourne: University of Melbourne Museum of Art, 1989) Haseloff, Günther, Die Psalterillustration im 13. Jahrhundert ([Kiel]: [n.p.], 1938) Heck, Christian, L’Échelle céleste dans l’art du Moyen Age: une image de la quête du ciel (Paris: Flammarion, 1997, repr. 1999) Hinnebusch, William A., OP, The History of the Dominican Order, vol. i: Origins and Growth to 1500 (New York: Alba House, 1965) Hughes, Andrew, Forty-Seven Medi­eval Office Manuscripts in the British Museum: A Provisional Inventory of the Antiphonals and Breviaries, unpublished typescript (available in the British Library Manuscript Department), 1976 Iturgaiz, Domingo, OP, Iconografia de Santo Domingo de Guzman (Burgos: Aldecoa, 1992) —— , ‘Iconografia miniada de Sto Domingo de Guzman’, Archivo Domenicano, 14 (1993), 325–76 and 15 (1994), 49–92 Leroquais, Victor Marie, Les Bréviaires manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, 5 vols (Mâcon: Protat, 1934) —— , Les Psautiers manuscrits latins des bibliothèques publiques de France, 3 vols (Mâcon: Protat, 1940–1941)

il lu s t r at e d d o m i n i c an b o o ks i n f rance , 1221–13 5 0

Manion, Margaret M., and Vera F. Vines, Medi­eval and Renaissance Illuminated Manuscripts in Australian Collections (London: Thames and Hudson, 1984) Martin, Henry, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, 12 vols (Paris: Plon, Nourrit et cie, puis Bibliothèque nationale, 1885–1954) Martin, Henry, and Philippe Lauer, Les Principaux manuscrits à peintures de la Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal (Paris: Société française de la reproduction de manuscrits à peintures, 1929) Meersseman, Gillis, and Laurent Pignon, Catalogi et Chronica accedunt catalogi Stamsensis et Upsaliensis, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 18 (Rome: Institutum historicum fratrum praedicatorum, 1936) Molinier, Auguste, Obituaires de la Province de Sens, 2 vols, Recueil des historiens de la France. Obituaires, i. 1 and i. 2 (Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1902) Moorman, John R. H., A History of the Franciscan Order: From its Origins to the Year 1517 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) Morand, Kathleen, Jean Pucelle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962) Naughton, Joan M., ‘The Poissy Antiphonary in its Royal Monastic Milieu’, La Trobe Library Journal, 13, nos 51–52 (1993), 38–49 —— , ‘Manuscripts from the Dominican Monastery of Saint-Louis de Poissy’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, 1995) —— , ‘Books for a Dominican Nuns’ Choir: Illustrated Liturgical Manuscripts at Saint-Louis de Poissy, c. 1330–1350’, in The Art of the Book: Its Place in Medi­eval Worship, ed. by Margaret M. Manion and Bernard J. Muir (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1998), pp. 67–110 —— , ‘Friars and their Books at Saint-Louis de Poissy, a Dominican Foundation for Nuns’, Scriptorium, 52 (1998), 83–102 —— , ‘From Unillustrated to Illustrated Book: Personalization and Change in the Poissy Processional’, Manuscripta, 43–44 (2003), 161–87 Oliver, Judith H., Gothic Manuscript Illumination in the Diocese of Liège (ca. 1250–1330) (Leuven: Peeters, 1988) Pyun, Kyunghee, and Anna Russakoff, ed., Jean Pucelle: Innovation and Collaboration in Manuscript Painting (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013) Russo, Daniel, ‘L’Ordre des Prêcheurs dans l’icono­graphie méridionale et ses modes de représentation’, in L’Ordre des Prêcheurs et son histoire en France méridionale, Cahiers de Fanjeaux, 36 (Toulouse: Privat, 2001), pp. 345–82 Simons, Walter, Stad en apostolaat: De vestingen van de bedelorden in het graafschap Vlaanderen (ca. 1225–ca. 1350) (Brussels: Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten, 1987) Sinclair, Keith Val, ‘Phillipps Manuscripts in Australia’, The Book Collector, 11 (1962), 332–33 —— , Descriptive Catalogue of Medi­eval and Renaissance Manuscripts in Australia (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1969) Stinson, John, ‘The Dominican Liturgy of the Assumption: Texts and Music for the Divine Office’, in The Art of the Book: Its Place in Medi­eval Worship, ed. by Margaret M. Manion and Bernard J. Muir (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1998), pp. 163–93

107

1 08

a l is o n s to n e s

—— , ‘The Poissy Antiphonal: A Major Source of Late Medi­eval Chant’, La Trobe Library Journal, 13.51–52 (1993), 50–59 Stones, Alison, Le Livre d’images de Madame Marie: Reproduction intégrale du manuscrit Nouvelles Acquisitions françaises 16251 de la Bibliothèque nationale de France (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale and Cerf, 1997) —— , ‘The Full-Page Miniatures of the Psalter-Hours New York, PML, MS M.729: Programme and Patron, With a Table for the Distribution of FullPage Miniatures Within Text in some Thirteenth-Century Psalters’, in The Illuminated Psalter: Studies in the Content, Purpose and Placement of its Images, ed. by Frank O. Büttner (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), pp. 281–307 —— , ‘Le Sacré et le profane dans quelques manuscrits français du xiiie et début xive siècles’, in Thèmes religieux et thèmes profanes dans l’image médiévale: transferts, emprunts, oppositions (Actes du Colloque du RILMA, Institut Universitaire de France, Paris, INHA, mai 2011), ed. by Christian Heck, Répertoire icono­graphique de la littérature du moyen âge, Les Études du RILMA i (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), pp. 195–218 —— , Gothic Manuscripts, 1260–1320, 4 vols (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013–2014) —— , ‘A Note on Some Images of the Ascension of St Dominic’, in La Pensée du regard: Études d’histoire de l’art du Moyen Âge offertes à Christian Heck, ed. by Pascale Charron, Marc Gil, and Ambre Vilain (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), pp. 303–10 Vitzthum, Georg von, Die Pariser Miniaturmalerei von der Zeit des heiligen Ludwig bis zu Philipp von Valois und ihr Verhältnis zur Malerei in Nordwesteuropa (Leipzig: Quelle und Meyer, 1907) Warr, Cordelia, ‘Religious Habits and Visual Propaganda: The Vision of the Blessed Reginald of Orléans’, Journal of Medi­eval History, 28 (2002), 43–72

Panayota Volti

The Artistic and Spiritual Impact of the Dominicans in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Late Middle Ages The Dominicans settled in the Latin Kingdom of Constantinople in the 1220s. They served the Pope and the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, promoting the union of the two churches (East and West) and also consolidating the Latin religious presence at Byzantium.1 Mendicant preaching, and by extension the missionary activity of the Dominicans, was fundamental to these goals. In the East as in the West, Dominicans settled in major urban centres, establishing convents in Cyprus, Crete, Rhodes, and continental Greece. Most of these buildings are no longer extant; however, written documents, as well as archaeo­logical evidence, can indicate the impact of Dominican settlement after the Fourth Crusade, especially in Greece and the Aegean islands. In these Eastern regions, Dominican convents adhered to the fundamental principles of mendicant architectural poverty and aesthetic austerity, thus reflecting the way of life that they preached. This chapter will examine the various aspects of the Dominican presence in the Eastern Mediterranean in the late Middle Ages, and the cultural, social, and spiritual influence the friars exercised through their preaching and their art. A brief presentation of the historical and political context in the Eastern Mediterranean, and especially in continental Greece and the Aegean islands in the late Middle Ages, will help to highlight some specific local dynamics, in order to better explore the extent, but also the limits, of the Dominican presence in these regions.

 1 Delacroix-Besnier, Les Dominicains et la chrétienté grecque, pp. 3–4.

Panayota Volti is an Assistant Professor in Art History and Architectural History at the Université Paris-Nanterre. Her research focuses on medi­eval religious architecture of the mendicant orders, and in particular on cultural exchanges between the East and West.

The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music, and Liturgy, ed. by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, MMS 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021) pp. 109–134 10.1484/M.MMS-EB.5.124215

FHG

110

pa n ayota vo lt i

Figure 4.1. Map of the Eastern Mediterranean. Image: Eleanor J. Giraud.

The Geo-Political Landscape of Dominican Activity During the Fourth Crusade, the defeat of the Byzantine emperor in 1204 caused the political fragmentation of the Eastern part of the Mediterranean. Latin crusaders and the Republics of Venice and Genoa acquired extensive territories on the continent and many Aegean islands. These Latin territories had differing political statuses, such as the principality of Achaia, the kingdom of Cyprus, and the Mahone of Chios (a territorial occupation of wealthy merchants and ship owners2) — not to mention, of course, the increasing Muslim presence in these regions. Dominican activities thus had to adapt to diverse geo-political situations, which became even more complex as the various Latin secular authorities adapted to their localities in different ways. In general, the Dominicans came into contact with Orthodox communities in relatively circumscribed areas: Achaia, Crete, Cyprus, and in the Eastern Aegean islands (see Figure 4.1). The geo­graphical area where the Preachers were active was legally framed into three Dominican administrative units: the province of Greece, the province of the Holy Land (which included the island of Cyprus), and the Society of the Pilgrim Friars (who were charged, from the fourteenth century, with the more distant missions into Asia3). The first two provinces were created in 1228 by the General  2 Balard, La Romanie génoise, i, pp. 124–25.  3 Loenertz, Les Missions dominicaines en Orient, pp. 38–39.

The A rt i s t i c a n d S p i r i t ua l I m pact o f the Do mi ni cans

Chapter of the Order held in Paris:4 this allowed the foundation of the first Dominican convents in the Eastern lands.5 Over time, numerous Dominican convents were founded on Greek territory and on the islands of the Aegean sea, many of which were subject to architectural interventions over time. Through their subsequent alterations, the Dominican buildings shed light on the historical, political, social, and spiritual context of the various places where they were erected. As a general rule, and particularly in the province of Greece,6 the Preachers did not have an official missionary role, especially regarding the Greek Orthodox-rite community. Nevertheless, they were regularly involved in negotiations and doctrinal discussions, thanks to their contacts with the Byzantine Emperor and the Patriarch.7 They also benefited often from the protection and trust of the Latin rulers, thus cementing the close ties between the Latin lords and the Dominicans in the West. As well as interacting with the ruling authorities, the Preachers engaged in exchanges with the faithful, and especially among urban populations. Since their foundation, Dominicans had understood the value of urban and peri-urban areas for their spiritual activities, and the importance of opening up their pastoral activity to all social strata. The friars followed this attitude when they settled in Greece. There was no standard manner in which Dominicans interacted with Orthodox communities — instead they responded to each relationship individually: evidence of these Dominican-Orthodox relationships (as will be discussed below) can be detected in the topo­graphy of their convents, in the architecture and especially the decoration of their churches, in their intellectual and spiritual activities, in their preaching, and in their role as confessors. The Preachers ministered to the local laity, both Greek and Latin. Throughout Greek territories, Western settlers shared the same spaces with the local population.8 Over the course of several centuries, daily interaction and cultural exchange led both groups, almost by osmosis, to develop new and creative patterns of identity.

 4 Walz, Compendium historiae ordinis praedicatorum, p. 163.  5 For a brief description of these convents in the early fourteenth century, see the work of Bernard Gui, chronicler and historian of the Dominican Order: Bernardus Guidonis, Notitia altera status ordinis, qualis erat anno mccciii, p. xii. For further information, see Lamarrigue, Bernard Gui, 1261–1331.  6 Loenertz, ‘Documents pour servir à l’histoire de la Province dominicaine de Grèce’.  7 Delacroix-Besnier, Les Dominicains et la chrétienté grecque, pp. 34–60.  8 Balard, Les Latins en Orient discusses the various aspects of the long-term Latin installation in the oriental regions.

111

112

pa n ayota vo lt i

Language as Social and Spiritual Facilitator The Dominicans were extremely well placed to promote, regulate, and channel these encounters between East and West, through spiritual, cultural, and artistic events and exchanges. What helped them particularly was their knowledge of the Greek language: an extremely powerful medium for communication and exchange. Since their foundation, the mendicant orders unanimously adopted the principle of preaching in the local tongue.9 If friars were not native to the country or place in which they resided, they learned its language. That learning Greek was imperative for the Dominicans can be seen in the writing of the fifth Master General of the Order, Humbert of Romans, in his Opus tripartitum.10 His recommendations were, of course, closely related to the general religious and political context, and to the particular needs in the context of the negotiations for a possible convergence between Orthodoxy and the Latin church; they reflect nevertheless the general attitude of the Dominicans towards linguistic engagement: Ad hanc reconciliationem necessaria videtur scientia seu peritia linguae grecae, quia per genera linguarum diversitas gentium in unitate fidei congregator; & sicut scientia, quae prius per infusionem habebatur, nec per studium acquiritur, sic debet esse studium de linguis, cum prius esset donum infusum, & sicut fiebat tempore Hieronymi & Augustini […] Sed vix in curia Romana invenitur, qui sciat legere litteras ab eis missas, & legatos ad eos missos oportet habere interpretes, de quibus nescitur utrum intelligant, aut decipiantur. Secundo, necessaria videtur copia librorum graecorum, ut scilicet latini haberent omnia scripta eorum, theo­logicorum, expositorum, conciliorum, statutorum, officii ecclesiastici, & historiarum. (For this reconciliation it is necessary to know and to master the Greek language, because it is through language that the diversity of people gather in the unity of faith. Knowledge was once acquired directly, but now must be acquired by study, and so one must study languages, which are no longer an infused gift, as in the time of Jerome and Augustine. […] But in the Roman curia, there is hardly anyone able to read the letters sent by the Greeks; it is necessary for interpreters to accompany the legates sent to them, but we do not know if they understand or make false interpretations. Secondly it  9 For example, the Dominican convent of Lille, in France, was composed partly of Frenchspeaking friars and partly of friars fluent in the various Flemish dialects; thus they were certain to reach the entire population with their preaching, and were also able to cater to everyone’s spiritual needs. Meersseman, ‘Les Débuts de l’ordre des frères’, pp. 7–8, 23, 26.  10 Humbert of Romans, Opus tripartitum, ii. 17, p. 128. This text was written shortly before the Council of Lyon (1274) and was intended as a guide for the conciliar friars’ discussions about the Crusade, the Church union, and ecclesiastical reforms.

The A rt i s t i c a n d S p i r i t ua l I m pact o f the Do mi ni cans

is necessary to have Greek books in abundance, so that the Romans may have at their disposal all the writings on theo­logy, the doctrinal presentations, the synods, the canon law and ecclesiastical Offices, the history.) Thus, in the late thirteenth century, many Preachers were proficient in Greek, and their number increased in the fourteenth century. Indeed, from 1322 Greek was officially taught in the Studium of the convent of Pera, in Constantinople. The convent, established in the Latin quarter of the Byzantine capital, was a hive of intellectual activity, as well as participating actively in negotiations for a religious reconciliation between East and West.11 Even prior to 1322, the Greek language had already been mastered by numerous Dominicans. For instance, the Flemish Dominican William of Moerbeke created his own Latin translation of Aristotle’s Historia Animalium while at the convent of Thebes in central Greece in 1259 and undertook a translation of Aristotle’s Politics in 1260; in 1268, he wrote a number of translations of the theo­logical work of Proclus.12 The diffusion of these works in Latin, henceforth accessible and understandable, facilitated and drove the resurgence of the Neoplatonic philosophical movement in the West. According to contemporary testimonies, William of Moerbeke’s translations were excellent, and ‘de verbo in verbo’ (word for word); it seems that even Thomas Aquinas had personally ordered several of these works.13 The importance of the work carried out by the Dominicans through their thorough knowledge of oriental languages, and especially Greek, cannot be understated. In the East, Greek intellectuals and theo­logians — who often occupied important positions in the Orthodox Church — encountered not only the substance of Aquinas’s theories, but also the very methods of Thomistic thought. Prochoros Kydonès, an Orthodox monk, theo­logian, and linguist, wrote the book De essentia et operatione Dei, in which he applied the methods of Western scholasticism, supporting his arguments with extensive para­graphs from the Summa theo­logiae of Thomas Aquinas that he translated into Greek himself.14 Similarly, his brother Dimitrios Kydonès, a cultured man who was charged with important political responsibilities, also created a Greek translation of the same book. The translation and explanation of Aquinas’s works by the Kydonès brothers offered new horizons to Greek thought, through access to Western theo­logy and the techniques of philosophical discussion.15 Even for theo­logians very attached to Greek traditions (such as Nilus Cabasilas or George Scholarios), the work of Thomas

 11 Loenertz, Les Établissements dominicains de Péra-Constantinople.  12 On these works, see Verbeke, ‘Moerbeke, traducteur et interprète’.  13 Histoire littéraire de la France, ed. by Samaran, p. 142.  14 On these topics, see Russell, ‘Prochoros Cydones’.  15 Kianka, ‘Demetrius Cydones and Thomas Aquinas’.

113

114

pa n ayota vo lt i

Aquinas remained a highly praised reference, in particular for the structure of his reasoning and argumentation. Thus, mainly thanks to the contacts that the Dominicans had developed with Greek monks and scholars, the wide dissemination and use of the syllogism of Aquinas instilled definitively the practice of scholastic discussions in Orthodox theo­logy and Greek philosophy.16 The increased engagement with Western culture and thought was not only the privilege of theo­logians and philosophers. The Byzantine aristocracy, including members of the imperial family, were also eager to benefit from this teaching. The role of the Dominicans was, once again, predominant. In fact, the Dominicans were the perennial disseminators of Latin culture, which was not imposed on the Greek population, but requested by it.17

Mendicant Approaches We can legitimately question the extent to which these exchanges and activities were exclusive to the Dominicans, or whether the Franciscans, for instance, as the other important mendicant Order present in the East, did not undertake similar activities. According to the sources, it appears that, throughout the late Middle Ages, Dominicans and Franciscans established tacit arrangements in the Eastern regions in order to abolish any possible rivalry: they clearly delineated their respective fields of action, and instead of competition they rather sought maximum complementarity. We know, for instance, that the Franciscans and Dominicans alternated in holding high ecclesiastical functions, such as the episcopal sees of the Eastern Mediterranean.18 However, although a greater number of Franciscan sources survive, there is no indication that the Franciscans were systematically involved in engaging with the Greek language and Byzantine culture, and there are no testimonies about notable Franciscan cultural and spiritual exchanges with local populations over the long term. This is likely due to the significant difference between the Franciscan and Dominican attitudes towards their vocation, and the means by which they carried out their mission. According to a literary and semantic analysis of their respective sermons, Franciscan preachers emphasized will and intention in order to convert the hearts of their listeners, whereas the Dominicans stressed the intellect and attempted to persuade their listeners’

 16 Kianka, ‘A Late Byzantine Defence of the Latin Church Fathers’.  17 One example of this can be found in the activities of Manuel Sgouropoulos; see DelacroixBesnier, Les Dominicains et la chrétienté grecque, p. 193.  18 On the general criteria for the nomination of Latin prelates, see Fedalto, La Chiesa latina in Oriente, i, pp. 398–401.

The A rt i s t i c a n d S p i r i t ua l I m pact o f the Do mi ni cans

minds. It is obvious that the Dominican ‘method’ was based on dialogue, on a deep and meaningful exchange of ideas and even of philosophical doctrines. This approach was perfectly adapted to the Greek-Byzantine populations, who were already Christians; the Dominicans gave them the opportunity to build together true long-term intellectual and spiritual connections. They neither sought nor imposed religious conversion: aside from the official political and religious transactions between Byzantium and the West, Greek intellectuals (mostly churchmen), as well as the ordinary people, were on good terms with the Latin in everyday life, independently of their religious divergences.

The Dominican Church of St Sophia in Andravida Dominican convents had a considerable and rich impact on the monumental landscape of the locations where they were established. One such example of an important Dominican building, both architecturally and spiritually, is St Sophia in Andravida, in the western Peloponnese. This Dominican church was built probably around 1240 and today exists only in ruins.19 The cloister, which was located to the south of the church, has been completely destroyed. Only the Eastern, apsidal end of the church still stands, comprising three adjoining, vaulted spaces 4.6 m deep and 18.9 m wide. The original plan of the church appears to have consisted of a central nave with a narrow side aisle to the south, separated from the main nave by an arcade, and a side chapel to the south of the main chapel.20 The main apse and the south chapel were vaulted from the outset, and the south chapel most probably served as a sacristy. The vaulting conferred a sacred character to both those spaces, and also protected them from fire.21 This was a necessary precaution, especially for the sacristy where liturgical objects that were not only sacred but of significant material value were habitually stored and protected. If this space was originally a sacristy, the convent in Andravida would have followed the typical architectural layout for Dominican convents (and indeed all Latin monastic and mendicant architecture), with the sacristy sited between the apsidal end of the church

 19 Panagopoulos, Cistercian and Mendicant Monasteries, pp. 65–66.  20 Coulson, ‘The Dominican Church of Saint Sophia at Andravida’, p. 50.  21 The vaulting of the choir and the sacristy was stipulated by the Dominican Constitutions, since 1228: ‘Mediocres domos et humiles habeant fratres nostri, ita quod murus domorum sine solario non excedat in altitudine mensuram XII pedum et cum solario XX, ecclesia XXX, et non fiat lapidibus testudinata, nisi forte super chorum et sacristiam.’ (Our friars should have ordinary and humble houses, thus the walls of houses without terraces should not exceed 12 feet in height and those with a terrace 20 feet, a church 30 feet; and vaulting should not be made with stone, except perhaps over the choir and sacristy). Denifle, ed., ‘Die Constitutionem des Prediger Ordens von Jahre 1228’, p. 225.

115

116

pa n ayota vo lt i

Figure 4.2. Plans of the church of the Dominican convent of Saint Sophia in Andravida: original plan (left) and late medi­eval plan (right). Adapted from Cooper, ‘The Frankish Church of Hagia Sophia’, p. 56.

to the north and Eastern walk of the cloister to the south (Figure 4.2, left): according to the reconstruction of the church’s plan, a door in the southern nave wall immediately contiguous to the western side of the south chapel led to the cloister nearby (which no longer exists).22 By the late Middle Ages the church was a long building, with a nave and two side aisles; there was no transept and the main apse was flanked by two rectangular chapels, each one at the Eastern extremity of the respective side aisle (Figure 4.2, right). The nave was twice as wide as the lateral aisles and separated from them by rows of columns, which probably supported arches; the entire nave, including the aisles, was covered with a timber roof.23  22 Cooper, ‘The Frankish Church of Hagia Sophia at Andravida’, p. 42.  23 For the dimensions and the general description of the church, see Cooper, ‘The Frankish Church of Hagia Sophia at Andravida’.

The A rt i s t i c a n d S p i r i t ua l I m pact o f the Do mi ni cans

The main apse of St Sophia is almost square, and is still today covered by twin quadripartite ribbed vaults, while the two side chapels are covered by single quadripartite ribbed vaults. In these extant parts of the church we can observe a coexistence — certainly intentional — of Western forms, such as the pointed arch, and Byzantine features, in particular the round arches of the two side chapels’ eastern windows. The former are given preference in the most important and sacred parts of the church, such as the high altar chapel (a space also known as the ‘choir’). Certain details of St Sophia’s surviving fabric provide information about the use of the building, the various origins of its forms, and also the different techniques used in its construction. The extant structures offer evidence that the local workforce participated in the erection of the Dominican convent. For example, in certain parts of the masonry, where the blocks of stones are not perfectly aligned, fragments of brick have been inserted into the joints: this solution is a specifically local technique.24 The construction of the side chapels is particularly revealing. According to the results of the MinnesotaAndravida Project (1983–1984) — the purpose of which was to measure, draw, and study the church of St Sophia25 — it can be deduced that the two side chapels flanking the main apse of the church were not erected simultaneously. Apparently, a period of time had elapsed between the construction of the south chapel and that of the north chapel. Given the changes of style, it may even have been some decades later: the windows of the north chapel are taller and more elegantly designed, and the vaulting is lower and better proportioned. The difference in the height of the vaulting between the two chapels does not result from later repairs, for it is coordinated with the external buttressing. The buttresses of the north chapel are set at a much lower point than the other buttresses of the church, their height calculated in correspondence with the level of the vaulting inside, so as to receive and absorb its outward thrust.26 As for the north aisle, it was probably built even later than the north chapel. The remains of the north wall of the aisle abut the chapel, and the open arch in the chapel’s west wall is rather awkwardly adjusted on both sides, north and south; this arch is apparently the result of a later modification, and it was probably opened to connect the north chapel with the north aisle. The hypothesis for a later construction of the north aisle is corroborated by other details: the column bases of the south aisle seem to be each set directly in their own individual foundations, and the same white mortar is used here and for the south arcade and initial north wall. But the bases of the columns separating the main nave from the north aisle are set on a continuous line of mortared rubble foundation, as was the foundation

 24 Grossman, ‘On Memory, Transmission and the Practice of Building’, p. 501.  25 Cooper, ‘The Frankish Church of Hagia Sophia at Andravida’, p. 29 and n. 1.  26 Coulson, ‘The Dominican Church of Saint Sophia at Andravida’, pp. 51–52.

117

118

pa n ayota vo lt i

of the north wall of the church. The mortar used for the foundations of the northern arcade and the church’s second north wall is pink and contains tiny lumps of brick.27 This strongly suggests that both the north arcade and the north wall were built in a different, later, campaign, with the builders using the foundations of the church’s initial north wall as basis for the north arcade. Why was an additional north chapel added much later? Closed off from the side aisles, the north chapel was inaccessible to the laity and so was not for their use. There was no change in the function of the convent, and thus no practical need for a supplementary chapel. It is therefore necessary to consider whether a symbolic gesture motivated the architectural change. In Byzantine religious architecture from the eighth century onwards, the apse is accompanied by two subsidiary rooms, on the left and the right. Many early Christian basilicas were remodelled at this time, or were partially rebuilt, in order to conform to the new model with separate spaces flanking the sanctuary. According to some fifteenth-century sources, these rooms — commonly called ‘prothesis’ and ‘diakonikon’ — were used as auxiliary spaces and were also included in the itinerary of some ritual indoors processions; their presence was thus essential for the ceremonial functions of the church.28 St Sophia was a Latin, not an Orthodox, church. But it was prominent in the town of Andravida and connected in various ways with the local population: anonymous Greek textual sources of the fourteenth century suggest that local Frankish princes, including Geoffrey II and Guillaume II Villehardouin, patronized the Dominican convent, and sometimes stayed there and even held court in the cloister.29 Certain architectural details reveal connections between the Dominican church and some important buildings of the region, specifically Geoffrey Villehardouin’s castle of Claremont-Chlemoutsi. In fact, some fireplaces in the domestic chambers of this castle are decorated with engaged piers that have the same chamfering (or bevelled edging) as the engaged columns of St Sophia.30 Despite a lack of written evidence, it is possible to speculate that there was a circulation of workforce and architectural models between the main buildings of Andravida (especially those of the ruling class) and the Dominican church. The status of the latter as a privileged religious monument is also suggested by the fact that in the high altar chapel, the most sacred part of the building, the mouldings around the windows and the sills were cut specifically for the church, and not made from reused blocks.31 The symbolic importance of this church was probably reinforced by the fact that it was erected on the exact

 27 Coulson, ‘The Dominican Church of Saint Sophia at Andravida’, p. 52.  28 Taft, The Byzantine Rite, pp. 72–73.  29 Delacroix-Besnier, Les Dominicains et la chrétienté grecque, p. 6 n. 7.  30 Coulson, ‘The Dominican Church of Saint Sophia at Andravida’, p. 53.  31 Cooper, ‘The Frankish Church of Hagia Sophia at Andravida’, p. 34.

The A rt i s t i c a n d S p i r i t ua l I m pact o f the Do mi ni cans

site of an earlier Byzantine church:32 through its location it therefore both appropriated and maintained Andravida’s sacred topo­graphy. These features suggest that the church of St Sophia in Andravida was, from the beginning, designed to cater to both Latin and Greek aesthetics. Over the following centuries, Andravida, and in particular St Sophia, was the site of positive connections and interactions between the two communities. According to chronicles of the fourteenth century, the local Greek nobility was bilingual and eager to adopt Latin values. The Franks also tended to mingle with the Greek population. This was reflected in the attendance by both Christian communities at each other’s liturgical services. For both the Orthodox and the Latin populations, the need to participate in Christian worship outweighed the importance of the official dogmatic affiliation of the sacrament that was administered.33 In the fifteenth century, adaptations were made to the architecture of St Sophia by the bishop of Olena to further celebrate the synthesis of the two communities. Despite its political importance, Andravida was not a diocesan centre: it was an archdeaconate in the diocese of Olena. In 1418 the new bishop of Olena was a Dominican of Greek birth: Theodore Chrysobergès, born into an aristocratic Byzantine family, who had converted to Rome and entered the Dominican Order. He had a brilliant ecclesiastical career before being named bishop of Olena, where he remained until his death in 1429.34 Although the seat of the bishopric was Olena, the bishop’s residence was in Andravida.35 As Andravida was the only town in the area that possessed a Dominican convent, it was not surprising that the new bishop wished to manifest his affection towards the house of his own religious Order. The typical way to show one’s protection towards a religious establishment, in this case Andravida’s Dominican convent, was to enhance its buildings so as to glorify them and potentially attract a larger congregation. As the new bishop was not only Dominican but also Greek, he was certainly aware of the proximity that existed between the Latin and Greek communities in everyday life, even concerning religious matters. He would have been keenly aware of the spiritually and culturally idiosyncratic substratum, based on the fusion of two traditions. As a high-ranking clergyman familiar with both the Greek and Latin rites, he certainly knew that, in daily interactions, there was little animosity between the Greek and Latin communities; he also certainly knew that both communities had visual-aesthetic and physical-symbolical connections with their religious buildings.36

 32 Cooper, ‘The Frankish Church of Hagia Sophia at Andravida’, p. 34.  33 Delacroix-Besnier, Les Dominicains et la chrétienté grecque, p. 63.  34 For a short bio­graphy of Theodore Chrysobergès, see Delacroix-Besnier, Les Dominicains et la chrétienté grecque, p. 445.  35 Delacroix-Besnier, Les Dominicains et la chrétienté grecque, p. 120.  36 For a general discussion of these topics, see Spieser, ‘L’Espace sacré dans les églises byzantines’.

119

1 20

pa n ayota vo lt i

This, it seems, prompted him to undertake new works to extend the northern side of the church. By building the north chapel, symmetrical to the pre-existent south chapel, he gave to St Sophia of Andravida the ‘prothesis’ and the ‘diakonikon’, those emblematic twin spaces, which had flanked the choirs of Byzantine churches for centuries. Similarly, the windows of the north chapel combine the elongated gothic form with the Byzantine round arch at the top. The church thus became more visually familiar to the Orthodox population of the city and the region, without shocking the Latin laity. It seems likely that the north aisle was built later than the north chapel, in order to respond to the growth in the number of the faithful who then attended the church. In any case, it is certain that the church was extremely popular, because it is still central to the sacred landscape of Andravida: on the feast of St Sophia, the clergy and the faithful process through the city and still today enter the ruins of the Dominican church in order to perform a ritual celebration there.37

The Dominican Convent at Herakleion, Crete Another example of the multiple and nuanced paths taken by the Dominicans in order to respond to local sensitivities is offered by their convent at Herakleion, on the island of Crete. Founded in the second half of the thirteenth century and located in the northwest section of the city near the sea walls, it was dedicated to St Peter Martyr. The plot of land on which the convent was built had been offered to the friars by the city:38 the construction of the convent was therefore a project that could be defined as ‘urban’. Given that the administration of the city was run not only by Latin officials but also by Greek officials, it is likely that the Orthodox community was benevolent towards the convent. This is corroborated also by the fact that the street which runs in front of the convent was also given to the Dominicans: such a communal decision could not have been taken without the agreement of the Greek population. The buildings of the convent are now badly damaged. The cloister, erected to the north of the church, no longer exists. In the church, the long nave was once timber-roofed and the high altar chapel was vaulted. The main chapel presents two traditions of construction: the first span of the apse is covered by a ribbed vault, the Western tradition, and the second span, which covers the further section of the apse, by a barrel vault in the Eastern tradition. Similarly, in various parts of the church, pointed arches and round arches have both been used.39  37 On this annual celebration, see Cooper, ‘The Frankish Church of Hagia Sophia at Andravida’, p. 35 n. 2.  38 Georgopoulou, Venice’s Mediterranean Colonies, pp. 135–36.  39 For the brief description of the church, see Georgopoulou, Venice’s Mediterranean Colonies, pp. 136–40.

The A rti s ti c an d Sp i r i t ual I m pact o f the Do mi ni ca ns

121

It seems that some important architectural modifications occurred in the fourteenth century.40 It was perhaps at this moment that two chapels were added on either side of the apse, replicating the arrangement of Byzantine churches, as seen above with St Sophia in Andravida. Initially, there was only a small sacristy, placed between the northwest corner of the apse and the cloister (which was built to the north of the church) (Figure 4.3).41 Owing to the lack of evidence, it is not possible to establish a connection between the addition of the two chapels and a specific ecclesiastical personality but the erection of those two spaces flanking the high altar chapel significantly reconfigured the sanctuary end of the church. Arguably the alterations could have made the building more attractive to the Greek laity, reminding them of the disposition of the ‘prothesis’ and ‘diakonikon’. In addition, this modification — and its potential impact on liturgical celebrations — was apparently accepted by the Latin community. The social and religious context in Crete was favourable to this kind of architectural ‘flexibility’. The Latin and Greek elites were especially close on the island, particularly in the major cities, and frequently intermarried.42 By the late Middle Ages there was a Hellenization of society, with its religious corollary, the dissemination of the Greek Figure 4.3. Plan of the church rite.43 Although for the island of Crete there is no of the Dominican convent at explicit evidence regarding a double ritual affiliation Herakleion. Adapted from of churches, late medi­eval sources inform us that Georgopoulou, Venice’s many churches (both in urban contexts and the Mediterranean Colonies, p. 138. countryside) in other regions with a similar social and cultural composition to Crete, such as the island of Chios, were used for the celebration of the two rites.44 It is possible that the St Peter Martyr convent in Herakleion was adapted architecturally for the accommodation of two rites. If so, this was probably prompted by its strategic location: erected close to the city sea wall, it was clearly visible to ships. Moreover, being close to the principal roads of the city, it was

 40 Georgopoulou, Venice’s Mediterranean Colonies, p. 137.  41 Georgopoulou, Venice’s Mediterranean Colonies, p. 137.  42 Delacroix-Besnier, Les Dominicains et la chrétienté grecque, p. 75.  43 Thiriet, ‘La Situation religieuse en Crète’.  44 Sarou, ‘Peri Meichton Naon Orthodoxon kai katholikon en Chio’.

1 22

pa n ayota vo lt i

easily accessible for all the faithful, both Latin and Greek, and was probably included in the town’s liturgical processions instituted by the Venetians.45 On major feast days of the Church, the whole population was invited to participate in processions though the town via the ducal palace, which started and ended at the Latin cathedral. The focal event of these processions was the display of relics, Byzantine icons, and also the flags and standards of the Venetian Republic: thus the Greek and Latin populations alike took part, venerating treasures common to both.46 Moreover, the commitment of the faithful to the convent was probably the reason for the later addition of a series of funerary chapels on the southern side of the church, while a cemetery occupied the space in front of the building’s western entrance.47 The presence of an outdoor cemetery for the faithful indicates that the church had a parochial dimension. This disposition also created a symbolic analogy with the city’s Orthodox churches, which hosted the tombs of the faithful within their walls. It was obvious that the friars wished to receive the faithful in ‘civic’ spaces, so to speak, open to the city; this is probably the reason behind the erection of a chapel dedicated to St Vincent Ferrer in this graveyard, which could function as a welcoming threshold between the convent and its urban environment. The decoration of the church is not preserved, but some descriptions from the late Middle Ages mention the presence of icons and Byzantine frescoes.48 The use of icons, a purely Byzantine devotional device, shows that the Dominicans wished to create in their church a space familiar to the local Greek population, who clearly attended the church. A similar explanation can be given for the Byzantine style frescoes; indeed some of them could have been patronized by the Greek faithful themselves. The Dominicans employed a local workforce, educated in the architectural and pictorial Byzantine tradition — as evidenced in the construction of the barrel vault that partly covered the choir. These people, working on Dominican building sites, presumably then had the opportunity to become familiar with Latin construction techniques, decorative trends, and icono­ graphic themes. Their new technical and artistic expertise may have been brought into subsequent Greek construction projects. It is therefore clear that the Dominicans, owing to their architectural and pictorial choices, were indirect but decisive catalysts for the flourishing of the ‘Cretan Renaissance’, an important literary and artistic movement in Crete in the late Middle Ages, characterized by a distinct identity, blending Eastern and Western trends, and also adapted to the local cultural heritage.49  45 In most Western cities too, the participation of the mendicant orders in liturgical processions was common; see Volti, ‘Cheminements parallèles’.  46 Georgopoulou, Venice’s Mediterranean Colonies, pp. 221–22.  47 Georgopoulou, Venice’s Mediterranean Colonies, pp. 140–41.  48 Georgopoulou, Venice’s Mediterranean Colonies, p. 141.  49 On this movement, see Holton, ‘The Cretan Renaissance’.

The A rt i s t i c a n d S p i r i t ua l I m pact o f the Do mi ni cans

Figure 4.4. The Orthodox church of the Dormition of the Virgin at Merbaka, Argolis. Photo: author.

Dominican Connections with the Orthodox Church of Merbaka in the Argolid Regarding the meaningful proximity established between the Dominicans and the Orthodox laity, the decorative elements of the Orthodox church of the Dormition of the Virgin at Merbaka, in the Argolid (Peloponnese) offers some interesting insights.50 The church belongs to the characteristic Middle Byzantine period type, with a cross-in-square plan, comprising a narthex, the naos and a tripartite sanctuary. The whole building sits on a two-step podium, with steps extending from the north and west entrances (Figure 4.4). An impressive element of the church is the use of antique spolia: repurposed decorative stones from the late antique period; their reuse was a common architectural practice in the Middle Byzantine period. Nevertheless, from the late thirteenth century onwards, the church of the Dormition of the Virgin was probably intimately linked to at least one representative of the Franks, and not an insignificant one: the name ‘Merbaka’ (still used today) indicates that this monument was particularly dear to the Dominican William of Moerbeke.51 The reasons behind Moerbeke’s connection with the church remain uncertain.52 However, the

 50 For a detailed study of this church, see Hadji-Minaglou, L’Église de la Dormition.  51 Hadji-Minaglou, L’Église de la Dormition, p. 127.  52 The near complete lack of medi­eval sources in the Peloponnese is due to the historical events from the end of the fifteenth century: the Turkish occupation of the region was accompanied by much destruction by fire. For example, this was the case in the

123

124

pa n ayota vo lt i

Figure 4.5. North funerary stone in Merbaka. Photo: author.

church is located near roads that connected the Peloponnesian urban centres with those of the Greek mainland and beyond: this strategic position may have attracted William of Moerbeke who, from 1277 until his death in 1286, occupied the Latin archbishopric of Corinth, a Latin See established in the north-eastern Peloponnese after the Fourth Crusade.53 Although the church was built in the twelfth century, two of its decorative elements, namely a pair of antique funerary stones embedded in the upper parts of the northern and southern walls of the sanctuary end of the church, may be associated with the presence of William of Moerbeke.54 It was common practice in Byzantium to name a religious building after the person who either founded it or made noteworthy architectural or Frankish-Byzantine fortified city of Geraki, in the Peloponnese: Gritsopoulos, The History of Geraki, pp. 367–92. [Γριτσοπουλος, Ιστορία του Γερακίου, pp. 367–92].  53 Paravicini Bagliani, ‘Guillaume de Moerbeke et la cour pontificale’, pp. 31–39.  54 Contrary to Guy Sanders’s assumption that the church was founded by Moerbeke around 1285 (Sanders, ‘William of Moerbeke’s Church at Merbaka’, p. 598), the archaeo­logist and art historian Giselle Hadji-Minaglou has convincingly argued that the church must have been built no later than the twelfth century, based on archaeo­logical, historical, and stylistic evidence: Hadji-Minaglou, ‘Hagia Sotira d’Anipha en Argolide’, pp. 609–14. Hadji-Minaglou notes the possible architectural intervention in the eastern part of the building, as corroborated by the immured pottery which has been embedded in the upper part of the apse in the thirteenth century: Hadji-Minaglou, L’Église de la Dormition, p. 127. It is probable that, at the instigation of William of Moerbeke, the two antique spolia were embedded at the same time on the north and south side of the apse. But the whole church was certainly not built in the late thirteenth century.

The A rt i s t i c a n d S p i r i t ua l I m pact o f the Do mi ni cans

decorative modifications.55 The fact that this church has been referred to as ‘Merbaka’ since the late thirteenth century, strongly suggests that William of Moerbeke was involved in modifying the building.56 The only part that seems to have been renewed is the sanctuary end of the building,57 where the two antique funerary stones are embedded. The funerary stone embedded on the northern corner (Figure 4.5) represents two men in antique clothes, standing side by side, in a calm manner expressing a familiarity between them; to the south (Figure 4.6), three men appear in a similarly serene and familiar pose. Both cases are typical of antique representations of the dead. The presence of these spolia in the most sacred part of a Christian church indicates that their icono­graphy could be invested with a new signification relevant to the context of the Figure 4.6. South funerary stone thirteenth-century Peloponnese; further- in Merbaka. Photo: author. more, given the ecclesiastic responsibilities of William of Moerbeke in the region, the representations of these stones could convey a meaning connected to the spirituality and history of the Dominican Order between East and West. Scholars have often interpreted these spolia as personal propaganda on the part of William of Moerbeke.58 However, even when they occupied high  55 One famous example is the monastery of Stoudios, in Constantinople, founded in the fifth century. It was dedicated to Saint John the Baptist, but it was referred to and is still known by the name of the founder: Stoudios; see Kazhdan, Talbot, and Cutler, ‘Stoudios Monastery’.  56 In fact, the decorative modification of Orthodox churches commissioned by Latin patrons was not rare in the Frankish Peloponnese in the late Middle Ages; a characteristic example is offered by the two Byzantine churches in the citadel of Geraki, where, in the fourteenth century, the Knights Hospitaller commissioned extended decorative additions, accompanied by their coats of arms as a reminder of the commissioners’ identity. On this subject, see Louvi-Kizis, ‘Le “Proskynitère” sculpté’.  57 Hadji-Minaglou, L’Église de la Dormition, p. 127.  58 In particular, Guy Sanders proposed a link between these two funerary stones and the presence of William of Moerbeke at the Council of Lyon in 1274, during which the filioque clause was added to the Creed. According to Sanders’s interpretation, which I do not share, the south relief could refer to the Orthodox view, in which the Son and the Holy Spirit both proceed from the Father in an eternal connection — the three persons represented might then recall the Trinity — while the north relief could refer to the Latin creed and represent the Father and the Son, both of whom proceed from the unseen Holy Spirit. Sanders also claims that William of Moerbeke, as Latin archbishop

125

1 26

pa n ayota vo lt i

ecclesiastical functions, the friars remained above all Dominicans in their education and their spiritual sensitivity. Independent of his archbishopric responsibilities, William of Moerbeke remained a Dominican, dedicated to the fundamental principles of his Order; the idea that he installed the spolia to demonstrate his personal pride and power is contrary to the Dominican ideals that favoured humility over personal advancement, regardless of hierarchical position.59 From this perspective of the equality of Dominican brothers, it is possible to propose an interpretation of the two scenes as a personal choice of William de Moerbeke in connection with the Dominican presence in the region.60 For Dominicans, preaching had two components: persuasion by speech and persuasion by example, demonstrated by their way of life. In this process, images were often considered as a visual extension of speech.61 In their representations, friars aspired to convey primarily the spiritual and moral image of each person, rather than his physical image. Consequently, they adopted the pictorial-semantic principle of the ‘image in the image’: through symbolic images they wanted to express the specific qualities of the persons represented.62 They were open-minded, and were not afraid to use audacious visual effects, provided that they guaranteed a strong impact.63

 59  60  61  62  63

of Corinth, founded the church and in particular embedded these spolia in order to enact in the Peloponnese the addition of the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed, and that, as a reminder of Moerbeke’s participation at the Council, both spolia contributed indirectly to the personal glorification of the Dominican prelate: Sanders, ‘William of Moerbeke’s Church at Merbaka’. However, as many historical and theo­logical scholars have demonstrated, the Council of Lyon in 1274 (and later the Council of Florence) did not come to a definitive conclusion on the filioque question, see for example Vannier, ‘L’Apport de la clarification sur le filioque’, p. 97. Besides, the Council’s decisions about the filioque were not upheld in the Orthodox church after the death of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel VIII Paleo­logue in 1282, see Congourdeau, ‘Pourquoi les Grecs ont rejeté l’union de Florence (1438–1439)’, p. 35. It thus seems highly improbable that William of Moerbeke decided in 1285, three years after Manuel VIII’s death, to install in a prominent and sacred part of the church two spolia openly celebrating the filioque question which had already been rejected by the Orthodox laity. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine that William of Moerbeke added such an ostentatious (and provocative) proclamation of the filioque to an Orthodox church, given that the Greek faithful were firmly opposed to it, as this would have been contrary to his collaborative interactions with the Orthodox clergy and his Dominican principles of a peaceful and fertile coexistence with the Orthodox laity (as discussed above, pp. 114–15). This humility was modelled in none other than St Dominic: Aubin, ‘Les Fondements anthropo­logiques de la prière corporelle de saint Dominique’, pp. 368–69. Given the abundance of antique ruins in the region, it would have been easy to find spolia relevant to a programmatic decorative project. Bedouelle, ‘La Beauté et la parole’, p. 194. This process is explored in Rueda Acevedo, ‘Le Visage de saint Dominique’ pp. 13–21. A characteristic example is offered by the fresco of the Militant and the Triumphant Church, by Andrea di Bonaiuto, in the chapter house at the Dominican convent of Santa Maria Novella in Florence: the black and white dogs (the colours of the Dominican

The A rt i s t i c a n d S p i r i t ua l I m pact o f the Do mi ni cans

This general perspective can shed an interpretative light on the two antique spolia of the church of Merbaka. It seems likely that both reliefs were intended to convey fundamental Dominican principles and qualities in a generic manner, so as not to denote a specific person but rather the Order as a whole, and more particularly the friars who were active in the Eastern provinces, the Peloponnese, and the Argolid. The local people probably received an immediate explanation of these images’ meanings when the stones were installed, since such installations were typically accompanied by ritual celebrations in the presence of the laity, to whom the prelates would have stressed the vital importance of enhancing the sacred space of the church.64 This initial explanation of the interpretation would then have spread by word of mouth among the faithful. Most probably, this was also the case for Merbaka when William of Moerbeke’s stones were installed. A detailed analysis and explanation of the two reliefs must have been given to the laity, in order to justify the intervention of a Latin clergyman in an Orthodox church; the Dominicans, who were active in the region, fluent in Greek, and close to the archbishop, are the most likely candidates for this presentation. The viewers, mainly Greek, knowing that these two reliefs were intentionally embedded in the eastern part of the Orthodox church of Merbaka by a Dominican prelate, could thus establish visual and semantic analogies between these images and the friars that they had the occasion to meet and converse with. The fact that these images were antique reliefs was not problematic: on the contrary, these works of art were familiar to the Greeks; they were part of their aesthetic and cultural heritage and were used in the construction of Byzantine churches. Thus, the north relief (Figure 4.5), representing two men in a peaceful motion, as if they were united in an implicit exchange, may have evoked the real-life friars who always moved around the country for their preaching in pairs. Working with a socius was obligatory within the Dominican Order: friars were not allowed to be alone during their apostolic missions and other activities outside the convent, they had to be accompanied by another friar, the socius. The prior of the convent decided which friar should accompany whom, and then the two friars had a mutual responsibility of care and surveillance.65 That Dominicans in the Eastern parts of the Mediterranean adhered to this rule can be seen in the testimony of Riccoldo da Monte Croce, a Florentine Dominican who, in 1288, travelled to Baghdad and remained in the region for ten years. In his short account, known as the Liber Peregrinationis or the Itinerarius (The book of the peregrination or The

Order) in the lower part of the painting evoke the Dominicans themselves, Domini canes (Dogs of the Lord).  64 This celebration had been common in the Mediterranean since the early Middle Ages. Zimmerman, ‘Les Actes de consécration d’églises du diocèse d’Urgell’, pp. 317–18.  65 De la Selle, Le Service des âmes à la cour, p. 100.

127

1 28

pa n ayota vo lt i

itinerary), he describes his activities and frequently mentions his socius.66 It is possible that William of Moerbeke chose this specific antique relief as a visual reminder of the activities of the friars; since these activities — namely preaching and encountering the local laity in pairs — were apparently compatible with Orthodox spirituality, the evocation of the Dominicans on the wall of a Byzantine church would not have been inappropriate. The relief on the southern wall (Figure 4.6), representing three men in a similarly serene pose, as if walking linked arm in arm, could refer to a biblical theme that was dear to the Dominicans: the Pilgrims of Emmaus. In the thirteenth century, this biblical event was strongly promoted by the Dominicans. In 1251, the Dominican Constantine of Orvieto composed a model for a sermon, a processus, based on the pilgrims of Emmaus;67 it must have had a big impact, because its content was widely disseminated and used until at least the fifteenth century.68 Another thirteenth-century Dominican, Jacobus de Voragine, wrote two sermons on the same subject, Tu solus peregrinus, emphasizing the metaphorical extensions of the theme linked to the human salvation.69 The Dominican friars could certainly relate to this biblical event for, like the pilgrims of Emmaus, they led an itinerant religious life. According to the gospels, the pilgrims of Emmaus were charged by Christ with the mission to spread the ‘good news’ of the Resurrection, a fundamental component of Christian dogma in the Middle Ages for both the Catholic and the Orthodox:70 indeed, the apostolic activity of the Dominicans would have offered some answers to the laity’s questions about salvation. Furthermore, according to the Bible, the pilgrims of Emmaus shared their dinner with Christ, an emblematic event that could symbolize hospitality and generosity, but also the sharing of spiritual nourishment: three actions that the Dominicans strived for. Thus, it is probably not by chance that the entrance of the hospice in the Dominican convent of San Marco, Florence, is marked by Fra Angelico’s fresco representing Christ as a pilgrim received by two Dominicans (1440–1442), while the same scene, painted by Fra Bartolomeo some years later, marks the entrance of the convent’s refectory. Moreover, at the same period, the prior of the convent and also archbishop of Florence, Antonino Pierozzi, wrote his Trialogus, a commentary on messianic prophecies presented as a discussion between a pilgrim — Christ — and Cleophas and Amaon, the two disciples whom, according to the Bible, Christ met on his way to Emmaus. One of the oldest known copies of this book contains a woodcut representing the dialogue between Christ  66  67  68  69  70

Bousquet-Labouérie, ‘Face à l’Islam, Ricold de Monte Croce’, pp. 249–61. Bériou, ‘Parler de Dieu en images’, p. 178. Bériou, ‘Parler de Dieu en images’, p. 178 n. 40. Bériou, ‘Parler de Dieu en images’, p. 180. On the exaltation and widespread dissemination of the model of the pilgrim, see Vauchez, ‘La Sainteté du pèlerin’.

The A rt i s t i c a n d S p i r i t ua l I m pact o f the Do mi ni cans

and his disciples:71 three people, close to each other, walking peacefully in the countryside towards a city. It is striking that Christ is represented as a fifteenth-century layman, thus suggesting that the Emmaus dialogue was conceived,72 at least by the Dominicans, as a medium of spiritual exchange adaptable to various social contexts: since Christ himself was represented as an ordinary man in the context of this verbal exchange, then every member of the laity could potentially participate in this conversation. From this perspective, it is possible that the Merbaka south relief functioned as an invitation to dialogue with the local people instigated by the Dominicans. Moreover, the strong connotation of pilgrimage from the Emmaus representation could also resonate with the precise historical context of the Dominican Order at the end of the thirteenth century, in particular the Dominican ‘province’ of the Society of the Pilgrim Friars who, from around 1290, were entrusted with the distant missions in the far eastern regions of Europe and Asia.73 This was a crucial enterprise of Christianization, which would have been prepared several years in advance. Due to his high ecclesiastical position and his connections with the Holy See, William of Moerbeke was most probably informed about this project. It seems then possible that he may have wished to announce in his own Peloponnesian see, in a subtle way, the upcoming Dominican activities through an image evoking the pilgrims of Emmaus, a biblical event associated with pilgrimage. Furthermore, the 1274 Council of Lyon, in which this prelate was actively involved,74 was the very council that confirmed the official recognition of the four principal mendicant orders (Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, and Augustinians), while abolishing many other minor orders that had recently embraced the mendicant principles.75 This solemn consecration of his Order may have motivated William of Moerbeke to create, within an apparently important Orthodox church of his archbishopric and through icono­graphy familiar to the local laity, a visual manifesto of the principal Dominican activities: dialogue, exchange, and pilgrimage. The use of two icono­graphically relevant antique spolia was certainly subtle yet eloquent. Through the example of the church of Merbaka, and a nuanced interpretation of the two antique spolia probably embedded on the initiative of William of Moerbeke, it is obvious that the Dominicans could use

 71 Devotissimus Trialogus S. Antonini archiepiscopi Florentini; In hoc volumine continentur infra­scripti tractatus trialogus super evangelio de duobus discipulis euntibus in Emaus (Venice: Johann Emerich de Spire, 1495); this volume is in a private collection.  72 Indeed, representations of the Emmaus in which Christ is depicted as a pilgrim appear from the mid-thirteenth century, although these have not been linked with the Dominicans. See Bériou, ‘Parler de Dieu en images’, pp. 163–71.  73 Delacroix-Besnier, Les Dominicains et la chrétienté grecque, pp. 8–34.  74 Paravicini Bagliani, ‘Guillaume de Moerbeke et la cour pontificale’.  75 Le Goff, ‘Le Dossier des mendiants’.

129

130

pa n ayota vo lt i

icono­graphy, even with recycled works of art, in a subtle and relevant way in order to convey symbolic messages intimately linked to the identity and the apostolic mission of the Order. For the Greek Orthodox people of the Argolid, who frequented the church of the Dormition of the Virgin, the two antique reliefs could be understood as a reflection of the historical and social context of the late thirteenth century, and could create a permanent visual echo to the verbal communications in which the Greek-speaking Dominicans engaged the local laity. The message that resulted was apparently one of openness and spiritual exchange.

Conclusion Thus the Dominican impact in the eastern Mediterranean was the corollary of the friars’ desire to establish a true communion with the population: cultural, spiritual, and human. Through their close contact with the local people, they were probably sensitive to the concept of ‘enargeia’ that dominated Byzantine literary and artistic theories in the late Middle Ages. It signified and expressed the wish to discover the truth behind and beyond the sensorial dimensions, whether visual or discursive, and it embodied the Byzantine consciousness of the power of representation: aesthetical, symbolical, and metaphorical.76 Regardless of their official political and dogmatic role, the Dominicans seemed genuinely concerned to integrate themselves with the daily life of the local people, without seeking to impose their own spiritual or artistic principles. On the contrary, they were willing to become familiar with local identities, and their impact was materialized in substantial and fruitful exchanges, dominated by an organic reciprocity.

 76 On this subject, see Webb, ‘The Aesthetics of Sacred Space’.

The A rt i s t i c a n d S p i r i t ua l I m pact o f the Do mi ni cans

Works Cited Primary Sources Bernardus Guidonis, Notitia altera status ordinis, qualis erat anno mccciii post erectionem sex novarum provinciarum ex divisione totidem antiquarum ex bernardo Guidonis, ed. by Jacques Quétif and Jacques Echard, Scriptores ordinis Praedicatorum (Paris: Ballard et Simart, 1719), i, pp. iv–xv Denifle, Heinrich, ed., ‘Die Constitutionem des Prediger Ordens von Jahre 1228’, Archiv für Literatur und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters, i (1885), pp. 193–227 Devotissimus Trialogus S. Antonini archiepiscopi Florentini Ordinis Praedicatorum super enarratione Evangelica de duobus discipulis euntibus in Emmaus una cum vita ejusdem a D. Francesco de Castelione conscripta iampridem editus nunc denuo in lucem prodit auspiciis Eminentiss. ac Reverendiss. Principis D. Joannis Everardi S. R. E. Presbyteri Cardinalis Nidardi (Florence: propè Conductam, 1680) Humbert of Romans, Opus tripartitum in Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. by Giovanni Domenico Mansi, xxiv (Venice: Antonius Zatta, 1780), pp. 109–32 Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevi, ed. by Thomas Kaeppeli (Rome: S. Sabinae, 1970–1993) Secondary Works Aubin, Catherine, ‘Les Fondements anthropo­logiques de la prière corporelle de saint Dominique’, Angelicum, 81.2 (2004), 351–75 Balard, Michel, La Romanie génoise (xiie–début du xve siècle), Bibliothèque des Ecoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 235 (Rome: École française de Rome, 1978) —— , Les Latins en Orient (xie–xve siècle) (Paris: Nouvelle Clio, 2006) Bedouelle, Guy, ‘La Beauté et la parole’, in Les Dominicains et l’image. De la Provence à Gênes, xiiie–xviiie siècles, ed. by Guy Bedouelle, Antoine Lion, and Luc Thévenon, Mémoire dominicaine, 7 (Nice: Serre, 2006), pp. 193–96 Bériou, Nicole, ‘Parler de Dieu en images: le Christ pelerine au Moyen Âge’, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 152.1 (2008), 157–201 Bousquet-Labouérie, Christine, ‘Face à l’Islam, Ricold de Monte Croce (1288) et son imagier (1405)’, in Pèlerinages et croisades, Actes du 118e congrès national annuel des sociétés historiques et scientifiques, Pau, 1993 (Paris: CTHS, 1995), pp. 249–61 Congourdeau, Marie-Hélène, ‘Pourquoi les Grecs ont rejeté l’union de Florence (1438–1439)’, in Identités religieuses: Dialogues et confrontations, construction et déconstruction, ed. by Bruno Bétrhouat, Michel Fourcade, and Christian Sorrel, Les Cahiers du Littoral, 2.9 (Dunkirk: Université du Littoral Côte d’Opale, 2008), pp. 35–46

131

13 2

pa n ayota vo lt i

Cooper, Nancy, ‘The Frankish Church of Hagia Sophia at Andravida, Greece’, in The Archaeo­logy of Medi­eval Greece, ed. by Peter Lock and Guy Sanders, Oxbow Mono­graphs, 59 (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1996), pp. 29–47 Coulson, Mary Lee, ‘The Dominican Church of Saint Sophia at Andravida’, in The Archaeo­logy of Medi­eval Greece, ed. by Peter Lock and Guy Sanders, Oxbow Mono­graphs, 59 (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1996), pp. 49–58 De la Selle, Xavier, Le Service des âmes à la cour. Confesseurs et aumôniers des rois de France du xiiie au xve siècle, Mémoires et documents de l’École des Chartes, 43 (Paris: École des Chartes, 1995) Delacroix-Besnier, Claudine, Les Dominicains et la chrétienté grecque aux XIVe et XVe siècles, Collection de l’École française de Rome, 237 (Rome: École française de Rome, 1997) Fedalto, Giorgio, La Chiesa latina in Oriente, i (Verona: Mazziana, 1976) Georgopoulou, Maria, Venice’s Mediterranean Colonies: Architecture and Urbanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) Gritsopoulos, Tassos, The History of Geraki (Athens: Association of Attica’s Gerakians, 1982) [Γριτσοπουλος, Tάσος, Iστορία του Γερακίου, (Aθήναι, Eκδοσις του Συνδέσμου του εν Aττική Γερακιτών, 1982)] Grossman, Heather, ‘On Memory, Transmission and the Practice of Building in the Crusader Mediterranean’, Medi­eval Encounters, 18 (2012), 481–517 Hadji-Minaglou, Giselle, ‘Hagia Sotira d’Anipha en Argolide’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 108.1 (1984), 599–614 —— , L’Église de la Dormition de la Vierge à Merbaka (Haghia Triada), École française d’Athènes Études Péloponnésiennes, 8 (Paris: Librairie philosophique J. Vrin, 1992) Histoire littéraire de la France, xvi, ed. by Charles Samaran (Liechtenstein: Nendeln, 1972) Holton, David, ‘The Cretan Renaissance’, in Literature and Society in Renaissance Crete, ed. by David Holton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 1–17 Kazhdan, Alexander, Alice-Mary Talbot, and Anthony Cutler, ‘Stoudios Monastery’, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. by Alexander Kazhdan (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 1960–61 Kianka, Frances, ‘Demetrius Cydones and Thomas Aquinas’, Byzantion, 52 (1982), 264–86 —— , ‘A Late Byzantine Defence of the Latin Church Fathers’, Orientalia christiana periodica, 49 (1983), 419–25 Lamarrigue, Anne-Marie, Bernard Gui, 1261–1331: un historien et sa méthode (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2000) Le Goff, Jacques, ‘Le Dossier des Mendiants’, in 1274, Année charnière: mutations et continuités. Actes du colloque international n°558 du CNRS (Paris: CNRS, 1977), pp. 211–22 Loenertz, Raymond-Joseph, ‘Les Missions dominicaines en Orient au XIVe siècle et la Société des frères Pérégrinants pour le Christ’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 2 (1932), 1–83

The A rt i s t i c a n d S p i r i t ua l I m pact o f the Do mi ni cans

—— , ‘Les Établissements dominicains de Péra-Constantinople (Origines et fondations)’, Echos de l’Orient, 34.179 (Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines, 1935), 332–49 —— , ‘Documents pour servir à l’histoire de la Province dominicaine de Grèce (1474–1669)’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 14 (1944), 72–115 Louvi-Kizis, Aspasia, ‘Le “Proskynitère” sculpté de l’église de Saint-Georges à la forteresse de Géraki’, Bulletin of the Christian Archaeo­logical Society, 25 (2004), 111–26 Meersseman, Gilles Gérard, ‘Les Débuts de l’ordre des frères Prêcheurs dans le comté de Flandre (1224–1280)’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 17 (1947), 5–40 Panagopoulos, Beata, Cistercian and Mendicant Monasteries in Medi­eval Greece (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1979) Paravicini Bagliani, Agostino, ‘Guillaume de Moerbeke et la cour pontificale’, in Guillaume de Moerbeke: recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort, 1286, ed. by Jozef Brams and Willy Vanhamel, Ancient and Medi­eval Philosophy, 7 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), pp. 23–52 Rueda Acevedo, Orlando, ‘Le Visage de saint Dominique et l’image comme predication’, in Les dominicains et l’image: De la Provence à Gênes, xiiie–xviiie siècles, ed. by Guy Bedouelle, Antoine Lion, and Luc Thévenon, Mémoire dominicaine 7 (Nice: Serre, 2006), pp. 13–21 Russell, Norman, ‘Prochoros Cydones and the Fourteenth-Century Understanding of Orthodoxy’, in Byzantine Orthodoxies: Papers from the Thirty-sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Durham, 23–25 March 2002, ed. by Andrew Louth and Augustine Casiday (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), pp. 75–92 Sanders, Guy, ‘William of Moerbeke’s Church at Merbaka: The Use of Ancient Spolia to Make Personal and Political Statements’, Hesperia, 84.3 (2015), 583–626 Sarou, Emilia, ‘Peri Meichton Naon Orthodoxon kai katholikon en Chio’, Epetiris Etaireias Byzantinon Spoudon, 19 (1949), 193–208 Spieser, Jean-Michel, ‘L’Espace sacré dans les églises byzantines’, in Représentations et conceptions de l’espace dans la culture médiévale, ed. by Tiziana Suarez-Nani and Martin Rohde, Scrinium Friburgense, 30 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), pp. 305–21 Taft, Robert, The Byzantine Rite: A Short History (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992) Thiriet, Freddy, ‘La Situation religieuse en Crète au début du xve siècle’, Byzantion, 36 (1966), 201–12 Vannier, Marie-Anne, ‘L’Apport de la clarification sur le filioque’, Revue des sciences religieuses, 75.1 (2001), 97–112 Vauchez, André, ‘La Sainteté du pèlerin: un modèle anthropo­logique et spiritual’, in Saint et sainteté dans le christianisme et l’Islam, ed. by Nelly Amri and Denis Gril (Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose, 2007), pp. 151–66 Verbeke, Gérard, ‘Moerbeke, traducteur et interprète; un texte et une pensée’, in Guillaume de Moerbeke: Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire

133

134

pa n ayota vo lt i

de la mort, ed. by Jozef Brams and Willy Vanhamel, Ancient and Medi­eval Philosophy, 7 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), pp. 1–22 Volti, Panayota, ‘Cheminements parallèles: pèlerinages diocesains et déambulations sacrées mendiantes en France septentrionale à la fin du Moyen Âge’, in Cathédrale et pèlerinage aux époques médiévale et moderne. Reliques, processions et dévotions à l’église-mère du diocese, ed. by Catherine Vincent and Jacques Pycke, Bibliothèque de la revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 92 (Louvainla-Neuve: Collège Erasme/​Universiteitsbibliotheek, 2010), pp. 279–94 Walz, Angelus, Compendium historiae ordinis praedicatorum (Rome: Herder, 1948) Webb, Ruth, ‘The Aesthetics of Sacred Space: Narrative, Metaphor, and Motion in “Ekphraseis” of Church Buildings’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 53 (1999), 59–74 Zimmermann, Michel, ‘Les Actes de consécration d’églises du diocèse d’Urgell (ixe–xiie siècle): la mise en ordre d’un espace chrétien’, in Le Sacré et son inscription dans l’espace à Byzance et en Occident, ed. by Michel Kaplan (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2001), pp. 301–18

Haude Morvan

The Preachers and the Evolution of Liturgical Space in Italy, Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries From the beginning, the Order of Preachers had a pastoral mission. This mission also governed the organization of the Order’s churches: they had to be open to the laity, but simultaneously they had to offer an isolated space in the choir stalls for the friars during services. However, while continuing to respect this separation, the layout of liturgical space changed significantly between the beginning of the Order and the affirmation of the Tridentine reform, especially in Italy.

Liturgical Space in Thirteenth-Century Normative Sources Early on, the Dominicans created precise regulations regarding the inner layout of their churches.1 The 1249 General Chapter required that intermedia (rood screens) be built in order to isolate the ecclesia fratrum, the area where the choir and main altar were located, thus making the friars’ movements between convent and choir invisible from the nave. Rood screens should have one or more windows, to be opened during the eucharistic elevation.2

 1 For Dominican architectural norms, see Gilardi, ‘Ecclesia laicorum e ecclesia fratrum’; Meersseman, ‘L’Architecture dominicaine au xiiie siècle’; Montagnes, ‘L’Attitude des Prêcheurs’; Volti, ‘L’Explicite et l’implicite’; Sundt, ‘“Mediocres domos et humiles habeant fratres nostri”’; Villetti, ‘Legislazione e prassi edilizia degli Ordini Mendicanti’.  2 Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, i, p. 47. Rood screens have been the subject of growing scholarly attention since the 1970s. In the context of this chapter, only a select biblio­graphy, limited to Italian Dominican churches, can be provided: Hall, ‘The Ponte in S. Maria Novella’; Merotto Ghedini, ‘Il tramezzo nella chiesa dei santi Giovanni e Paolo a Venezia’; Barclay-Lloyd, ‘Medi­eval Dominican architecture’, pp. 251–59; De Marchi, ‘Cum dictum opus sit magnum’; Cooper, ‘Access All Areas?’; Cannon, Religious Haude Morvan is an Associate Professor (maître de conférences) in the History of Medi­eval Art at the Université Bordeaux-Montaigne, and a former member of the French School in Rome.

The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music, and Liturgy, ed. by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, MMS 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021) pp. 135–165 10.1484/M.MMS-EB.5.124216

FHG

1 36

haude m o rvan

The 1249 regulation generalized a set-up that had already been adopted by some churches. For example, in his chronicle, Friar Galvano Fiamma described the rood screen in the Dominican church in Milan as it was built for the occasion of the 1239 provincial chapter, with two windows and a pulpit; three altars were later added to the rood screen on the nave side.3 As revealed by Galvano Fiamma’s text, the rood screen had multiple functions in late medi­eval churches, beyond the mere visual separation of the laity from the religious community: it also provided spaces for private chapels under its vaults; it was used for preaching; and it was a support for images (according to Fiamma’s testimony, the rood screen included a painted depiction of the friars sent to Bo­logna by Dominic). Later, rood screens were also used as organ lofts, and as the stage for liturgical spectacles, especially during Advent and Lent.4 The possibility for outsiders to access the ecclesia fratrum is precisely regulated by the constitutions: access was controlled by the cantor, who would only admit men with important functions, and seldom lay people.5 Women, even if they were noble benefactors, were strictly forbidden in chapter house and choir, even when the community was not there.6 Furthermore, the 1249 General Chapter prohibited women from entering the aisles on either side of the choir.7 The churches of the Preachers, like those of many other orders, were thus divided in three areas: the nave for the faithful, the choir for the religious community (divided itself between professed friars’ and lay friars’ choirs), and the sanctuary with the main altar. This division corresponded to a symbolic hierarchy which was the subject of numerous liturgical and theo­logical commentaries, such as that of Richard of Saint-Victor, then quoted by Guillaume Durand and Jacobus de Voragine. The latter wrote in the Legenda aurea: Nam sanctuarium significat ordinem virginum, chorus ordinem continentium, corpus ordinem coniugatorum. Strictius est sanctuarium quam chorus et chorus quam corpus, quia pauciores sunt virgines quam continentes et isti quam coniugati. Sanctior est etiam locus sanctuarii quam chorus et chorus quam corpus, quia dignior est ordo virginum quam continentium et continentium quam coniugatorum.8

 3  4  5  6  7  8

Poverty, Visual Riches, pp. 25–45 (Chapter 1, ‘The Salve Regina Procession and the Screen’); Cooper, ‘Experiencing Dominican and Franciscan Churches’. ‘La Cronaca maggiore dell’Ordine’, ed. by Odetto, p. 326. Jung, ‘Moving Pictures’. Humbert of Romans, Opera de vita regulari, ed. by Berthier, ii, p. 242. Ordinarium, ed. by Theissling, p. 128 (Ad modo recipiendi ad beneficia). Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, i, p. 47. Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda aurea, ed. by Maggioni, ii, p. 1291.

The P r e ache r s an d t h e E vo lu t i o n o f L i t urgi cal Space i n Italy

(The sanctuary denotes the order of the virgins, the choir the order of the continent, and the body of the church the order of the married. The sanctuary is narrower than the choir and the choir narrower than the body of the church, because the virgins are fewer in number than the continent, and the latter fewer than the married. The sanctuary is more sacred than the choir, and the choir more sacred than the body of the church, because the order of virgins is more worthy than the continent and the continent more worthy than the married.)

New Insights into Choir Relocation during the Early Modern Period This threefold, rising division of the church was gradually abandoned: the choir was relocated in the apse behind the main altar, and this was often coupled with the removal of the rood screen. This new layout, in which the main altar was placed between the lay community and the religious one spread across Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, despite some opposition, which will be discussed further. However, it was initially adopted in Italy in many monastic, conventual, and canonical churches from the fifteenth century onwards, long before it became more widespread. This chapter investigates how the Preachers took part in this process. The experiments in liturgical space in Renaissance Italy have recently attracted scholarly interest.9 Nevertheless, the process of choir relocation behind the main altar before the Council of Trent is far from being globally understood.10 Studies dedicated to stalls, famous in Renaissance Italy for their wonderful intarsia decoration, rarely show a profound interest in issues of location — Joanne Allen’s doctoral thesis, which deals with stalls in Northern Italy, is a noteworthy exception.11 However, thanks to studies on Renaissance religious architecture, we have an important corpus of cases of choir relocations, mainly in Renaissance centres such as Florence, Venice, and Rome, but also in other cities such as Bo­logna and Milan.12 From these studies, it is clear that fifteenth- and sixteenth-century choir relocation  9 See, for example, the 2003 symposium at the Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florence (Stabenow, ed., Lo spazio e il culto) and the 2007 conference at the École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris (Frommel and Lecomte ed., La Place du chœur: especially pp. 89–174).  10 Provisional overviews have been sketched by de Blaauw, ‘Innovazioni nello spazio di culto’, pp. 39–43; and Hall, ‘The Tramezzo in the Italian Renaissance’.  11 Allen, ‘Choir Stalls in Venice’.  12 See in particular: Isermeyer, ‘Le chiese del Palladio’; Hall, Renovation and Counter-Reformation; Ackerman, ‘Observations on Renaissance Church Planning’, pp. 294–302; Clearfield, ‘The Tomb of Cosimo de’ Medici’; Brown, ‘The Patronage and Building History’; Brown, ‘Choir and Altar Placement’; Winkelmes, ‘Notes on Cassinese Choirs’; Gaier, ‘Il mausoleo nel presbiterio’; Pacciani, ‘Il coro conteso’; Guerra, ‘Croce della Salvezza’; Cobianchi, Lo temperato uso, pp. 26–27 and 37–40; Bisson, ‘San Giorgio Maggiore’.

137

13 8

haude m o rvan

was a complex phenomenon, dependent on many factors, in particular new aesthetic ideals promoted by Italian Renaissance architects,13 a rising devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, and lay patrons’ hold on the cappella maggiore (especially in the cases of the so-called ‘choir-mausoleums’, when a sanctuary is held by an individual patron or family as their exclusive place of burial14). To gain a better understanding of early choir relocation, it is necessary to go beyond the masterpieces of Renaissance architecture and consider a larger corpus of buildings. For this purpose, a study of Dominican conventual compendia (collections of information about given convents) enables us to incorporate churches that may be less interesting from an architectural point of view, as well as churches that no longer exist or have been profoundly rebuilt since the sixteenth century. Numerous compendia were written in Dominican convents during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries at the request of Master Generals, in order to supply data to the historians in charge of writing the annals of the Order. Each convent was requested to send a manuscript dealing with several themes, such as the foundation, privileges granted to the convent by popes and other religious or civil authorities (with a copy of the main acts from the archives), noteworthy friars who lived in the convent, illustrious people buried in it, miracles performed thanks to the intercession of the Virgin, and the communities of nuns that depended on the convent.15  13 See for instance the recommendations of Francesco di Giorgio Martini, Trattati di architettura, ed. by Maltese, i, p. 237: ‘In prima la principal cappella all’oriente volta col coro et altare dove el divino uffizio cantare si possa, col leggio et armari in mezzo dove i libri et altre cose circa al culto divino si riserva. Faccisi in mezzo o sopra dell’altare inornato tabernaculo in modo che quelli che entrano in nel tempio el corpo di Cristo in prima se representi. […] Sia in nelle croci o corpo i cori per li secolari et una o due sacrestie.’ (First, the main apse [has to be] directed to the East and house a choir and an altar where the Divine Office can be sung, with the pulpit and the cupboards in the middle to keep books and other objects used for the divine worship. In the middle or on the altar an unadorned tabernacle must be placed, in order to allow those entering the church to see first of all the Body of Jesus. […] Choir stalls for lay brothers and one or two sacristies must be located in the transept or in the nave). Indeed, in De pictura sacra (1624), Federico Borromeo ascribed the new practice of putting the choir behind the main altar to architects’ wish to increase the effect of beauty from the very entrance of the building (Borromeo, Della pittura sacra, ed. by Agosti, p. 70). For other considerations on choir location in architecture treatises, see Sabine Frommel, ‘Maître-autel et chœur’.  14 For mausoleum choirs, see de Blaauw, ‘Private Tomb and Public Altar’; Christoph Luitpold Frommel, ‘Giulio II e il coro di Santa Maria del Popolo’; Christoph Luitpold Frommel, ‘Chiese sepolcrali’; Schelbert, ‘SS. Apostoli a Roma’.  15 The first request was expressed by the 1600 General Chapter, then repeated more precisely by the 1605 Chapter (Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, v, pp. 389–90 and vi, pp. 73–74). However, it was above all the Master General Antonin Cloche (1686–1720) who obtained results, after repeating the request several times (Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, viii, p. 289). The compendia manuscripts were sent to the Master General in Rome, and today are primarily kept in the General Archive of the

The P r e ache r s an d t h e E vo lu t i o n o f L i t urgi cal Space i n Italy

These compendia have been largely overlooked by art historians, despite the fact that they often include very useful descriptions of churches, and even of other areas of the convent.16 Particularly pertinent to this study are the compendia that detail the changes in the organization of the choir and the sanctuary. Although seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Dominican authors were writing long after the cases of choir relocation with which this chapter deals, they give precious data about the earlier history of their convents, especially because they could rely on archival documents which sometimes do not exist anymore, and oral traditions. Their judgment on the evolution of the liturgical layout is also interesting, as I will discuss at the end of this chapter, because it sheds light on the debates about the position of the choir that were still alive during the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. Whereas previous studies on choir relocation have underlined above all the role of princely patrons and of their architects, this research into the conventual compendia reveals a range of new players, especially lay confraternities and the friars themselves.

The Role of the Confraternities in Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome In the first half of the sixteenth century, the main apse of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome was transformed into a mausoleum for the powerful Florentine Medici family, more precisely for the popes Clement VII and Leo X (Figure 5.1). Begun in 1533, the project was commissioned from the sculptor Baccio Bandinelli and the architect Antonio da Sangallo, and was completed in 1542 during the pontificate of Paul III.17 It is not surprising that Clement VII was the patron of the first ‘choir-mausoleum’ in Rome, for himself and his cousin Leo X, because this kind of funerary sceno­graphy was initiated specifically by the Medici in Florence and imitated thereafter throughout the fifteenth century by the great Italian princes, for example Sigismondo Malatesta in Rimini, Ludovico Sforza il Moro in Milan, or Federico da Montefeltro in Urbino. Many scholars have assumed that the visibility of the monumental Medici papal tombs, erected on opposite sides of the entrance to the apse, was the impetus for the relocation of the choir behind the main altar in these Order, in the Libri collection. For a general presentation, see Gadrat, ‘L’Enquête de l’ordre dominicain de 1694’, and for an inventory of the Libri collection, see Koudelka, ‘Il fondo Libri nell’Archivio Generale dell’Ordine Domenicano’ (1968 and 1969).  16 Exceptions include an article by Gabriella Villetti on the chrono­logy of several convents of the Roman Province based on the compendia of the Libri collection: Villetti, ‘Il fondo Libri nell’Archivio generale dell’Ordine dei Predicatori’. See also my own articles based on documents of the Libri collection: Morvan, ‘La morte nella propaganda domenicana’; Morvan, ‘Arte medi­evale in Dalmazia’.  17 Kleefisch-Jobst, ‘Die Errichtung der Grabmäler’.

1 39

140

haude m o rvan

Figure 5.1. Rome, Santa Maria sopra Minerva, main apse. Photo: Haude Morvan.

years. However, this was probably not the only reason. According to a chronicle of the convent, written by Ambrogio Brandi in the 1620s and surviving in an annotated copy of 1706, the new configuration of the choir under Paul III was promoted by the confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament. A second lay confraternity, under the protection of the Virgin of the Annunciation, contributed to fund the renovation of the choir, because during these very years Paul III established the practice of celebrating Mass with the cardinals in Santa Maria sopra Minerva on the Feast of the Annunciation.18  18 AGOP, XIV, Liber C, Parte I, fol. 16r: ‘Era anticamente il coro in mezo della chiesa cinto di fuori da alcuni altari ne’ quali si celebrava. Il Santissimo Sagramento si teneva in quel piccolo de’ Mazzatosti ch’è a lato dall’Altare grande in un’ornamento di pietra incastrato nel muro che per insino al giorno d’oggi vi si vede. […] Ma poi in tempo di papa Paolo

The P r e ache r s an d t h e E vo lu t i o n o f L i t urgi cal Space i n Italy

The Compagnia del Santissimo Sacramento of Santa Maria sopra Minerva — the first confraternity to be devoted to the Blessed Sacrament — was established by a group of Roman noblemen at the exhortation of the Dominican friar Tommaso Stella, and it was approved by Paul III in 1539. Its mission was to spread devotion to the Blessed Sacrament throughout the churches of Rome. One of its early activities was to promote the installation of a tabernacle for the Blessed Sacrament on the main altar of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, and to organize with the friars ceremonies of adoration to the Sacrament on every Friday of March.19 Before the Council of Trent, the altar dedicated to the Blessed Sacrament could be the main altar, as at Santa Maria sopra Minerva, or a secondary altar in the eastern part of the church (as at San Domenico Maggiore in Naples, discussed below). Although the prominent display of the Eucharist in a tabernacle visible to the faithful became systematic only in the seventeenth century, it was already a factor in the renovation of certain churches and their altars in the second half of the fifteenth century.20 This factor seemingly came into play in the relocation of the choir in Santa Maria sopra Minerva: if one believes the chronicle of Ambrogio Brandi, it is likely that the confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament contributed to redefining the position of the choir stalls. By relocating the choir from between the main altar and the nave to behind the main altar, the confraternity intended to give the laity sight of the tabernacle, in order to promote lay devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. 3° essendo instituita la compagnia dal Santissimo Sagramento, come si dirà più di sotto, il sagramento fu collocato con maggiore onore sopra l’altare grande dietro al quale fu trasferito il coro alla cui spesa concorse largamente la compagnia della Nunziata, massime perché in coro doveva risiedere il somme pontefice con il colleggio de Cardinali facendo cappella papale il giorno della Nunziata come hanno fatto molti anni.’ (In ancient times the choir was located in the middle of the church and was surrounded by some altars used for celebrations. The Blessed Sacrament was kept on the small Mazzatosti altar, which is located next to the main altar, inside a decorated stone work embedded in the wall and still able to be seen there. […] But then, at the time of Pope Paul III, as the Blessed Sacrament confraternity was established (as I will discuss below), the sacrament was placed in a much more honourable way on the main altar; the choir was transferred behind, strongly supported by the confraternity of Our Lady of the Annunciation, and this was mainly due to the fact that on the feast of Our Lady of the Annunciation, the choir was meant to house the pope and the college of cardinals, serving thus as a papal chapel, according to a custom which lasted for many years).  19 AGOP, XIV, Liber C, Parte I, fols 30–31: ‘[Questa compagnia] fù la prima a dar l’esempio a tutte l’altre chiese perche nella chiesa della Minerva fù fatto il primo ciborio e tabernacolo per tenervi il santissimo sagramento; non già quello che si vede oggi, ma un’altro minore quale sminuito fù adattato al fonte del Battesimo nella medema chiesa.’ (This confraternity was the first to give an example to all the other churches, since in the church of the Minerva the first ciborium and tabernacle was created to keep the Blessed Sacrament, not the one which can be seen today, but another smaller one which was then reduced to be adapted into a baptismal font inside the same church).  20 For the Blessed Sacrament altars during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, see Caglioti, ‘Altari eucaristici scolpiti del primo Rinascimento’, and Jobst, ‘Liturgia e culto dell’Eucaristia’.

141

142

haude m o rvan

Promoting the Cult of the Relics and Miraculous Images: Santa Corona in Vicenza and Santa Maria della Quercia in Viterbo In many cases, however, the displacement of the choir was not the result of lay intervention, nor was it the project of princes or confraternity members; instead it was a project promoted by the friars and their prior. In Vicenza, for example, the need to accommodate pilgrims led the friars to modify the eastern end of their church in the final quarter of the fifteenth century, shortly after the convent passed to the Observant branch in 1463. The convent of Santa Corona had been founded around 1270 by Bishop Bartolomeo da Breganze, to house the relics of the Passion donated by King Louis IX, notably a thorn from the crown of Christ (hence the dedication to the Holy Crown). These important relics attracted numerous pilgrims to the church, which over time became too small and unsuited for this function. In 1478, therefore, work was undertaken to enlarge the apse and remove the rood screen, making more room for the faithful in the nave, as is made clear in a document of January 1479, in which the friars requested finances from the Collegio dei Notai.21 A new crypt was designed to facilitate access to the relics, and the sanctuary and choir were then located above the crypt, thus in a higher position than the nave.22 The new arrangement was completed by 1520 when the relics were solemnly transferred to the new crypt. The location of the choir in 1520 is not entirely clear. Was it before or behind the altar? According to Allen, whose argument is based on a document from 1663 that is no longer extant but mentioned in an inventory of the convent in 1736, the choir would have been removed from the fifth bay of the nave at the end of the fifteenth century and relocated in front of the main altar, which was itself located at the end of the new raised apse. The positions of the choir and altar would have been exchanged only in 1663, Allen claims.23 Such a reconstruction contradicts the words of a friar of the convent, Father Gondisalvo Della Chiesa, however, who writes in a compendium written in 1706 for the team of annalists in Rome: Ma perché la chiesa riusciva troppo angusta a capire il numero delle persone, che concordevano all’adorazione, fu stimato meglio ingrandirla trasportando il coro, qual era in mezzo alla chiesa, conforme l’uso antico, dietro all’altar maggiore, che stava dove ora è la scala del coro, fabricando la capella grande, come ora si vede; finita la fabrica fu trasferita la spina

 21 The document is transcribed in Allen, ‘Choir Stalls in Venice’, p. 300.  22 For the renovation of the sanctuary in Santa Corona, see Lorenzoni and Valenzano, ‘Pontile, jubé, tramezzo’, and Allen, ‘Choir Stalls in Venice’, pp. 158–66.  23 Allen, ‘Choir Stalls in Venice’, pp. 163–64.

The P r e ache r s an d t h e E vo lu t i o n o f L i t urgi cal Space i n Italy

Figure 5.2. Viterbo, Santa Maria della Quercia, map of the church after 1496. Reproduced from Lorusso, ‘Santa Maria della Quercia a Viterbo’, p. 91.

con quel pezzo di croce nella catacomba o sotto coro, dove tuttavia si conserva. Questa translazione si fece con grande solennità l’anno 1520.24 (But because the church seemed too small to contain all the people gathering there for the adoration, the decision was taken to enlarge it by transferring the choir, which was in the middle of the church according to the ancient custom, behind the main altar, which stood at the time in the place where the choir staircase is now located, and by constructing the main apse as it can be seen today. Once this work was finished, the thorn was transferred with the piece of the holy cross into the crypt or under-choir, where it is still kept. This translation was done with great solemnity in the year 1520.) According to this text, at the end of the fifteenth century the choir was moved behind the altar, in the great raised apse. If the choir was not installed behind the altar until 1663, it would be surprising that Gondisalvo Della Chiesa was not aware of this only four decades later. It thus seems more plausible to conclude that the choir at Santa Corona was placed behind the altar during the fifteenth-century renovation of the apse, which was designed to facilitate the faithful’s access to the relics of the Passion. The same need to accommodate pilgrims while maintaining the separation of the religious community led to an original design in the church of Santa Maria della Quercia in Viterbo. The church, whose construction began in 1470, initially had a very simple rectangular plan. In the East end, the main altar (Figure 5.2, A) was installed in front of the miraculous image of the Virgin — which was the motive behind the construction of the church — enshrined in a tabernacle by Andrea Bregno in 1490 (Figure 5.2, B).25  24 AGOP, XIV, Liber D, pp. 363–64.  25 Damianaki, ‘Andrea Bregno e il tabernacolo’.

143

144

haude m o rvan

In 1496, when the church was entrusted to the Observant Friars of Tuscany, a vast chapel for the choir was added onto the former apse behind the main altar (Figure 5.2, C), and a second altar was placed at the end of a small apse for the daily Masses of the religious community (Figure 5.2, D).26

A Case of Local Emulation? Santa Maria in Gradi in Viterbo Even though the other Dominican church in Viterbo, Santa Maria in Gradi, did not possess a miraculous image like that of Santa Maria della Quercia, it adopted the same apse organization. The church was completely rebuilt during the eighteenth century, but its previous stages can be reconstituted based on archaeo­logical and archival sources, and by comparisons with other local churches.27 The medi­eval plan of Santa Maria in Gradi was similar to that of Santa Maria della Quercia, featuring a nave with a non-projecting transept and a rectangular central apse with minor rectangular apses on both sides (see Figure 5.3). The main apse was extended during the second half of the fifteenth century, very probably in order to relocate the friars’ choir. In a ‘short chronicle’ (Cronica compendiata) from around 1616, friar Giacinto dei Nobili wrote that the choir was initially located in the last two bays of the nave. The construction of new stalls started in 1505, but was delayed by the damages inflicted by the soldiers of Charles V who burnt their planks of wood in 1527. In 1546, the new choir was finally installed in the apse. The main altar was then moved from the transept crossing, where it had been previously located, to the entrance of the apse, in order to be closer to the choir (Figure 5.3).28 It was reconsecrated in 1547.29 This movement towards the East is quite unusual: in most cases,  26 Lorusso, ‘Santa Maria della Quercia a Viterbo’.  27 See the restitution proposal by Varagnoli, ‘S. Maria in Gradi a Viterbo’.  28 APR, F.IV.11, p. 22: ‘Il coro fu incominciato da Frati l’anno 1505 per levare il vecchio, che stava tra le tre colonne più vicini all’Altar maggiore. Ma nell’anno 1527 essendo condotti li travi, tavole et altro legname necessario per l’armature, etc. di detta fabrica, furon tutti abrugiati dalli soldati, che andarono al sacco di Roma, onde convenendo di novo provedere si trattene l’opera sino al’anno 1546, in cui fu totalmente compito di edificare.’ (The choir was started by the friars in the year 1505 in order to remove the old one, which was located between the three columns nearest to the main altar. But in the year 1527, when the beams, planks and other timbers requested for the structure of the abovementioned work had been brought, they were all burnt by the soldiers who went to the Sack of Rome, and so, having agreed again to provision [the choir], the work went on until the year 1546, when it was wholly completed).  29 APR, F.IV.11, p. 11: ‘Consacrò anche questo pontefice [Alessandro IV] l’altar maggiore et pose in quello molte reliquie de santi, le quali nel trasportar detto altare un poco più su verso il novo coro furon trovate l’anno 1547.’ (This pope [Alexander IV] consecrated the main altar and put in it a number of saints’ relics, which were found in 1547 when the altar was transferred slightly further up towards the new choir).

The P r e ache r s an d t h e E vo lu t i o n o f L i t urgi cal Space i n Italy Figure 5.3. Viterbo, Santa Maria in Gradi, restitution of the medi­eval map (adapted from Varagnoli, ‘S. Maria in Gradi a Viterbo’, p. 10) with the initial location of the choir and altar and their sixteenth-century relocation. Drawing: Haude Morvan.

when the choir was relocated behind the main altar, the altar was shifted toward the nave so as to give more room for the stalls. Santa Maria in Gradi constitutes a special case: the thirteenth-century altar was at the transept crossing, and not at the rear of the apse, as was more typical.30 Giacinto dei Nobili did not mention a rood screen, nor any funding by a lay patron. Considering the importance given by Dominican chroniclers to benefactors, it is logical to conclude that the Viterbo convent self-funded the reorganization of the sanctuary and choir. Giacinto provided no details about the motivation for the rebuilding, but it seems very likely that the prior wanted to increase the capacity of the church: because of the peculiar location of the thirteenth-century choir within the nave, only four bays were available for the faithful. It is also likely that an emulation effect played a role in the reorganization of the choirs of the two Dominican churches of Viterbo, Santa Maria della Quercia and Santa Maria in Gradi. Both apses were rebuilt to accommodate the choir at around the same time; however, because of a lack of precise chrono­logical data, it is not known which reorganization was the first and may have influenced the other.

 30 In an article about pope Clement IV’s tomb, I demonstrated that this unusual position of the altar was probably linked with the funerary and commemorative function of the apse (Morvan, ‘Architecture dominicaine et promotion de nouveaux saints’).

145

146

haude m o rvan

The Concession of jus patronatus as a Source of Funding Thus, in many Dominican churches, the relocation of the choir was commissioned by the friars themselves in accordance with a number of particular goals, often concerning the capacity of the church to welcome laity. However, even when the relocation of the choir was planned by the friars, the sanctuary could become a place of ostentation for an external patron. Indeed, in order to pay for the renovation, the convent sometimes sold the jus patronatus (right of patronage) over the choir to a patron, who received in exchange the exclusive rights to have his coat of arms represented and to be buried in the sanctuary. The apse therefore came to resemble a choir-mausoleum. However, it is significant to distinguish cases where the choir renovation was commissioned by an external patron, from the ones where it was commissioned by the friars themselves, even if they used an external patron’s funding. For example, in Santa Corona in Vicenza (see above), friars conceded the jus patronatus over the choir and the sanctuary to the Sesso family (whose coat of arms is still visible on the stalls), and the jus patronatus over the crypt to the Valmarana family.31 Thus, even though external patrons supported it financially, the choir relocation was planned by friars themselves in order to facilitate access to the Passion relics. A similar situation can be found in the convent in Siena.32 From the fourteenth century, the church was rebuilt in order to be enlarged, including the addition of a transept and the complete rebuilding of the apse. Work on the new apse had been in progress for six years when, in 1471, the jus patronatus was sold to the merchant Ambrogio Spannocchi, who was later buried in front of the main altar in 1478. The contract indicates that Spannocchi committed to funding the new altar, its stairs, the stained glass of the main window, and the relocation of the choir in the apse.33 It is clear from this contract that the new position of the stalls, eventually set in the main apse between 1472 and 1475, was not determined by Ambrogio Spannocchi, but had already been planned by the friars before 1471. Why did the Sienese friars decide to transfer their choir behind the altar? The purpose was seemingly not to give more visibility to the Blessed Sacrament, because the tabernacle commissioned in the same years from Benedetto da Maiano, today located on the main altar, was next to the altar in the fifteenth century, not on it. The tabernacle was therefore commissioned to hold the Eucharist, but not to make it visible for the devotion of the laity. The decision by the friars to relocate the choir should probably be  31 Allen, ‘Choir Stalls in Venice’, pp. 160–61.  32 The sources on the renovation of the sanctuary in San Domenico in Siena have been published and analysed by Carl, ‘Il ciborio di Benedetto da Maiano’.  33 Ambrogio Spannocchi committed to pay for the transfer of the old choir into the new apse or to order new stalls. The document has been published in Carl, ‘Il ciborio di Benedetto da Maiano’, p. 67.

The P r e ache r s an d t h e E vo lu t i o n o f L i t urgi cal Space i n Italy

Figure 5.4. Naples, San Domenico Maggiore, the apse seen from piazza San Domenico Maggiore. Photo: Haude Morvan.

understood in the context of the renovation initiated during the fourteenth century to increase the capacity of the church. The same method of funding was adopted almost a century later in San Domenico Maggiore in Naples. The friars first planned to relocate the choir, and only afterwards sold the jus patronatus over an area of the apse to a rich lay patron. This time, the purpose of the renovation was not to increase the capacity of the church, but to create a new entrance for the faithful. The urban development of Naples had put San Domenico Maggiore in a peculiar situation: from the fifteenth century, the façade of the church, located at the North-West, opened onto a narrow street, whereas a large square had been created behind its apse in 1442, below the church’s floor level (Figure 5.4). Since a monumental entrance was not possible on the main façade, several solutions were considered to create an entrance from the square, until in 1562 two inner stairways were built to connect the room beneath the sanctuary, converted into a private chapel with an opening on the square, to the area just in front of the main altar (Figure 5.5: the upper entrances of the stairways are marked by arrows, and the main altar by an A). This area

147

1 48

haude m o rvan

Figure 5.5. Naples, San Domenico Maggiore, map of the apse. Reproduced from Ascher, ‘The Church and the Piazza’, p. 93.

was previously the location of the choir stalls which, therefore, had to be relocated behind the main altar so that the community could be isolated from the lay circulation (Figure 5.5, B).34 Although the sixteenth- to eighteenth-century renovations were largely erased by successive nineteenth-century modifications, they can nonetheless be reconstituted thanks to a detailed mid-eighteenth-century manuscript. The anonymous author precisely described the layout of the sanctuary both before and after 1562. Conforming with the constitutions, a rood screen between the first two pillars of the nave separated the ecclesia fratrum from the laity’s area; it had two doors, with a pulpit between them from which the gospels and epistles were read. At this time, the choir stalls were located at the transept crossing, before being moved behind the main altar in 1562 by prior Giordano Crispo.35 The rood screen was simultane  34 For the various solutions proposed to resolve this issue, see Ascher, ‘The Church and the Piazza’.  35 AGOP, XIV, Liber A, Parte II, fol. 489v: ‘Il coro stava nel mezzo della nave grande, giusto nelli pilastri, che si vedono nella pianta, che sono più distinti l’uno dall’altro accosto la croce della chiesa, e che avea due porte verso la porta maggiore della chiesa, e nel mezzo

The P r e ache r s an d t h e E vo lu t i o n o f L i t urgi cal Space i n Italy

ously removed, but a separation between the nave and the ecclesia fratrum continued to exist by means of a curtain, fixed to a beam, which could be opened or closed ‘according to the rubrics’36 — as mentioned above, the thirteenth-century constitutions required the door of the rood screen to be opened during Masses for the elevation. The beam was topped with a crucifix commissioned from Giovanni Geronimo Capece (d. 1576), which was later moved to a chapel of the convent when the separation between the nave and the sanctuary was removed entirely.37 This occurred probably in 1627, when the Blessed Sacrament, which had been kept on the altar of the San Domenico da Soriano chapel, was transferred to a new tabernacle on the main altar.38 Ten years after beginning the work to create a new entrance for the faithful, the convent resorted to the assistance of a lay patron: in 1572, the jus patronatus over the chapel located below the apse (at the same level as

di queste due porte vi stava situato il pulpito, jubé, come dicono i francesi, o pure lettorino dove si cantavano l’epistole e l’evangelj, e per prova di quanto abbiamo nel libro de’ morti: “Die 13 Julij obiit Dominus Fr. Camillus Muscettula sub Prioratu Redi Magistri Alfonsi Ricci di Neapoli et sepultus est in Cappella sua vocabulo Nativitatis Domini in destra parte ubi cantatur Epistola, et Evangelio Cori fecit cortina de serico purpureo, seu carmosino anno salutis 1555”. […] Nell’anno 1562, fu trasferito il coro dietro l’altare maggiore dal P. Maestro F. Giordano Crispo in quel tempo priore di questo convento.’ (The choir was in the middle of the central nave, just between those pilasters which can be seen on the map more distant the one from the other, close to the crossing of the church, and it had two doors towards the entrance of the church, and in between those two doors was located the pulpit, jubé, as the French say, or the lectern from which epistles and gospels were sung, and as a proof of that, we have in the Book of the Dead: ‘On 13 July Domino Fr. Camillo Muscettula died when Master Alfonso Ricci from Naples was prior, and he was buried in his chapel, which was dedicated to the Nativity of our Lord on the right side where the epistles are sung, and he had made curtains of purple silk, called carmosino, for the choir on the gospel side in the year of Salvation 1555’ […] In the year 1562 the choir stalls were relocated behind the main altar by Father Master Fra Giordano Crispo, who was at the time prior of the convent).  36 AGOP, XIV, Liber A, Parte II, fol. 489v: ‘Sopra del detto altare, si vedeva un’architrave, dove stava situato un gran crocefisso, e da dove pendevano le cortine che coprivano il maggiore altare, quali si aprivano, e chiudevano, secondo le rubriche.’ (Above the above-mentioned altar, a beam could be seen on which was located a large crucifix and from which hung the curtains that hid the main altar and that were opened and closed according to the rubrics).  37 This is mentioned in the description of the second dormitory (AGOP, XIV, Liber A, Parte II, fol. 416r): ‘Nel principio di esso vi è un atrio di due archi doppi, e nel lato di quest’atrio, vi è una cappella detta del Crocefisso, perché vi sta collocata una immagine molto devota di un Crocefisso più del naturale, scolpita dal celebre, e nobile Geronimo Capece, come in altro luogo si è detto; e questo Crocefisso è quello che stava nell’architrave della chiesa sopra l’altare maggiore.’ (At its entrance there is an atrium with two double arches, and at one side of this atrium there is a chapel called ‘of the crucifix’ because a very pious image of the Crucified, larger than life, is found there; it was sculpted by the famous and noble Geronimo Capece, as mentioned elsewhere; and this crucifix is the one which was on the beam of the church, above the main altar).  38 AGOP, XIV, Liber A, Parte II, fol. 490r.

149

1 50

haude m o rvan

the square) was conceded to Giovanni de Guevara di Bovino.39 In exchange, the latter financed the monumental stairways connecting his chapel (and therefore the square) to the church.

The Export of a New Model: The Florentines and the Dominicans in Lyon40 If the new position of the choir, behind the main altar, is a phenomenon found almost exclusively in Italy in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, it is interesting to note that it was exported to France very early on, travelling with Florentine merchants, as we can see at the Dominican church in Lyon, Notre-Dame-de-Confort. The convent in Lyon, founded in the thirteenth century, was entirely destroyed in the nineteenth century, following the dissolution of the community in 1790.41 It is nonetheless possible to gain detailed knowledge of the architecture of the convent thanks to a plan drawn up in the eighteenth century (Figure 5.6) by Father Siméon-André Ramette (1685–1773).42 The structure of the church recorded in this plan was largely the result of modifications undertaken between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, which were financed by the Florentines and included the reconstruction of the apse and the addition of lateral chapels in the nave. Despite the near total absence of material remains,43 a strong foundation of written sources about the renovations are provided by the contracts preserved in the local archives,44 a chronicle in the General Archive in Rome,45 and the work of Father Ramette (archivist of the convent and overseer during the reconstruction of the convent between 1714 and 1744).46

 39 For the Guevara di Bovino chapel, see Ascher, ‘The Church and the Piazza’, pp. 98–100; Picone, ‘Nuove acquisizioni’, pp. 36–39.  40 For a more detailed presentation of the sources for the choir relocation in the Dominican church in Lyon, see Morvan, ‘Au chœur des affaires’.  41 The main studies of the history of the Lyon convent are now quite outdated: Collombet, L’Église et le couvent des dominicains de Lyon; Fontalirant, Notre-Dame de Confort; Cormier, L’Ancien Couvent des Dominicains de Lyon; Levesque, Les Frères prêcheurs de Lyon (the latter, while more recent, did little more than reproduce the substance of the nineteenthcentury publications).  42 Arch. dép. Rhône, 3H92 (1).  43 Some architectural elements of the Gadagne chapel survive, recycled in a neighbouring building in the nineteenth century; see Iacono and Furone, Les Marchands banquiers florentins, pp. 266–71.  44 Arch. dép. Rhône, 3H40.  45 AGOP, XIV, Liber M, pp. 429–503. The volume entitled Excerpta ex tabulario conventus Lugdunensis ordinis Praedicatorum monumenta quae annalibus conscribendis inservire possunt was written around 1710. This manuscript has not been used by scholars who have researched the convent: Father Jean-Donatien Levesque cites it in passing without making use of its material (Levesque, Les Frères prêcheurs de Lyon, p. 314).  46 Arch. dép. Rhône, 3H1–8. For a bio­graphy of Father Ramette, see Fontalirant, Notice sur le R. P. Siméon-André Ramette.

The P r e ache r s an d t h e E vo lu t i o n o f L i t urgi cal Space i n Italy

Figure 5.6. Lyon, Notre-Dame de Confort, map of the church drawn by Father Ramette in 1719. Reproduced from Cormier, L’Ancien couvent des Dominicains de Lyon, i, p. 11.

In the fifteenth century, Lyon was a crossroads of finance and commerce. In 1463 the increase in the number of market fairs in Lyon, decreed by Louis  XI, made the town more attractive than Geneva for trade. Consequently, the Florentine merchants, who had been based on the shores of Lake Leman from the end of the fourteenth century, moved from Geneva to Lyon. The Florentines quickly formed one of the largest and most wealthy foreign communities in the town, at the heart of both its trade

15 1

1 52

haude m o rvan

and its finance.47 The Florentine nation in Lyon had its own statutes, which largely followed the model of the previous Genevan statutes. ‘Nations’ were associations formed by émigré communities in order to manage internal and external relations, among the members and between the community and the town. Their role was political, commercial, judicial, and even religious, insofar as nations had the status of confraternities. Indeed, religious devotion is present throughout the statutes of the Florentine nation in Lyon (and probably in the now-lost Genevan statutes): they stipulated that a Mass in honour of John the Baptist, patron saint of the Florentine nation, must be celebrated daily at the main altar of the Dominican church Notre-Damede-Confort (later, when the apse was rebuilt by the Florentines, the altar was even reconsecrated in dedication to St John the Baptist); moreover, members were contracted to donate a percentage of certain commercial transactions for the embellishment of the chapel and the celebration of this cult.48 Notre-Dame-de-Confort assumed manifold functions for the Florentines. It welcomed their meetings, whether religious, commercial, or political, in the main apse. Many families of the Florentine community also built private chapels in the same church (Figure 5.6, nos 66, 67, 68, 82).49 More generally, it was a place of investment in the health of the souls of the Florentine community and in their prestige in the city of Lyon. The church was significantly remodelled over the following centuries for this purpose. The first surviving contract relating to these works was drawn up on 13 December 1466.50 The friars allowed the Florentines to reconstruct the sanctuary; they also gave them the exclusive rights to be buried in the sanctuary and to display the arms of Florence in its stone walls, glass windows, and carved wood. It is very likely that the wooden stalls, which no longer survive, were decorated with the Florentine fleur-de-lys and the figure of St John the Baptist, following the example of the stalls (still partially preserved) commissioned twenty years earlier by the same nation for its chapel in Geneva, in the main apse of the church of the Franciscans (Figure 5.7).51 In Lyon the fleur-de-lys of Florence was still visible in the

 47 For the Florentine nation in Lyon, see Cassandro, ‘I forestieri a Lione’; Boucher, Présence italienne à Lyon; Orlandi, ‘Le Grand Parti’.  48 Statuti, ed. by Masi, pp. 204–05 and 208.  49 For Florentine patronage of the Dominicans in Lyon, see Iacono and Furone, Les Marchands banquiers florentins, pp. 241–71; Carta, ‘La Cappella Panciatichi’; Carta, ‘La Nation florentine à Notre-Dame-de-Confort’.  50 The acts passed between the convent and the Florentine nation are preserved at the departmental archives of the Rhône under the shelfmark 3H40. The documents have been summarized by the anonymous author of the Excerpta ex tabulario conventus Lugdunensis (AGOP, XIV, Liber M, pp. 441–42) and by Father Ramette in his inventory of the archives (Arch. dép. Rhône, 3H3, fols 25v–26r and fol. 99v). The contract of 1466 is transcribed in Charles, Stalles sculptées du xve siècle, pp. 244–45.  51 Nothing remains of the church or the convent of the friars minor of Geneva, destroyed in the Reformation, apart from the stalls completed between 1445 and 1447, today partially

The P r e ache r s an d t h e E vo lu t i o n o f L i t urgi cal Space i n Italy

Figure 5.7. Geneva, stalls formerly in the Franciscan church, now in Saint-Gervais temple. Photo: Haude Morvan.

15 3

154

haude m o rvan

eighteenth century at the vaulting bosses, since Father Ramette noticed that ‘the arms of the Florentines are at the vault and in other places’.52 The contract of 1466 makes it clear that the pre-existing choir, sited in front of the altar (referred to in later sources as the ‘great choir’), had to be replaced or restored, while work on a new choir (the ‘little choir’) had to be undertaken.53 A screen or, at the very least, a balustrade of separation, was preserved, insofar as the contract specified an area of the Florentine jus patronatus including the altar and the choir ‘up to the door found in front of the choir’.54 The respective functions of the two choirs are not very clear. It is possible that the choir in front of the main altar (Figure 5.6, no. 77) was already destined for the Florentine nation, as was later the case: a contract drawn up on 1 August 1588 stipulates that the Florentines had undertaken to reconstruct the main altar with marble imported from Genoa several years earlier, and that the friars would continue to use the choir behind the altar (Figure 5.6, no. 73), while the Florentines would sit in the choir in front of the altar with the friars ceding their rights to its use in perpetuity. According to the Excerpta ex tabulario conventus Lugdunensis, this choir was still being used by the faithful at the start of the eighteenth century.55

 52  53

 54

 55

preserved at the church of Saint-Gervais and in the museum of art and history of Geneva. Charles, Stalles sculptées du xve siècle, pp. 100–43; Charles, ‘Saint Jean-Baptiste’. Arch. dép. Rhône, 3H92 (1) (Father Ramette’s plan), caption number 73. The contract of 1466 (Arch. dép. Rhône, 3H40) specifies ‘quod ipsi domini de conventu eisdem Florentinis et suorum sucessorum in futurum quibuscumque dare et conferre vellent presbiterium in eorum ecclesia de novo edifficari et post chorum dicte eorum ecclesie inceptum existens unacum altari et choro eiusdem ecclesie cum suis pertinenciis pro ipsis presbiterium unacum choro predicto edifficando reparando seu edifficari et reparari faciendo prout eisdem Florentinis et suis videbitur expediens et necesse fuerit faciendi’ (that these lords of the convent will agree to concede and confer to these same Florentines and to all of their successors in the future that a sanctuary be built ex novo in their church. And behind the existing choir already started in the church, a sanctuary must be built together with an altar and a choir with their appurtenances for the aforementioned church. And at the same time, they will build or repair, or have built or repaired, the aforementionned choir as it will be judged suitable and necessary by these Florentines and their families). The contract of 1466 (Arch. dép. Rhône, 3H40) specifies that the Friars Preachers give to the Florentines ‘presbiterium altare et chorum predicta usque ad portam ante dictum chorum existentem inclusive pro ibidem edifficando reparando seu edifficari et reparari aliaque edifficia in eisdem faciendo ad eorum libitum voluntatis et prout necesse fuerit et opportunum’ (the above-mentioned altar of the sanctuary and choir all the way to the door that is found before the said choir, door included, so that they build and repair them or so that they have built and repaired other structures within these in accordance with their will and as it will be necessary and suitable). AGOP, XIV, Liber M, p. 456: ‘Ad utrumque altaris latus portae sunt duae marmoreis ibidem incrustationibus aliisque in lapide sculptoriae artis operibus insignes quibus portis via patet in chorum secretiorem post altare existentem in quo fratres divinis laudibus persolvendis, diu nocteque conveniunt chorus scilicet anterior saecularibus ecclesiam nostram frequentantibus patet’. (On each one of the two sides of the altar, there is a conspicuous door with marble incrustations in the same places and other worthy

The P r e ache r s an d t h e E vo lu t i o n o f L i t urgi cal Space i n Italy

It seems that the works envisioned in the contract of 1588 progressed slowly. In 1626 the choir and main altar were still incomplete, and the Florentine merchant Alessandro Orlandini agreed to increase his role in funding these works in return for the exclusive jus patronatus over the apse. The sanctuary, which was previously a space of collective display for the Florentine nation, thus became a site of individual and family memory. The cultural transfers facilitated by foreign merchants in cosmopolitan cities such as Geneva and Lyon are already well known.56 Transfers from Italy to Lyon have been highlighted with regard to the importation of a Renaissance ornamental vocabulary and of Italian works of art. However, the adoption of a new Italian model of ecclesiastical space has been overlooked, a space which was more open and where secular activities (economic, devotional, and political) took place even in the sanctuary, the most sacred area of the church. In transalpine territories, which were unwilling to abandon gothic models marked by the division of the rood screen and by the closed choir until as late as the eighteenth century, the Dominican church in Lyon would have been seen at the time of its reconstruction as something altogether original and modern.57

Liturgical Adaptations Ecco disperse tutte le memorie dell’Antichità!, e per questa causa si sono confuso quasi tutte le rubriche ed il bell’ordine tanto lodato dalli autori di liturgia.58 (Here are lost all the memories of ancient times! and because of this there is now confusion in almost all rubrics and in the beautiful order so praised by liturgists.) These words were used by the Neapolitan friar in charge of writing the history of his convent in the middle of the eighteenth century to comment on the transfer of the choir to behind the main altar, which had been completed almost two centuries earlier. This is not an isolated example of distaste. The new model of church space, promoted in the context of the CounterReformation, was far from unanimously accepted, even in the eighteenth

sculptural works in stone; through which doors we can access the most secret choir, behind the altar, where the friars gather night and day to perform divine prayers, while the anterior choir is open to the laity who frequent our church).  56 Virassamynaïken, ed., Lyon Renaissance, pp. 197–255. Corrine Charles commented on the influence of Donatello and Michelozzo on the stalls ordered by the Florentines in Geneva. See Charles, Stalles sculptées du xve siècle, pp. 125–27.  57 For the evolution of the structure of French churches after the council of Trent, see Chédozeau, Chœur clos, chœur ouvert; Martin, Le Théâtre divin, pp. 146–54; Lours, ‘Le Chœur en bataille’; Garms, ‘Arredi liturgici e interventi architettonici’.  58 AGOP, XIV, Liber A, Parte II, fol. 489v.

15 5

156

haude m o rvan

century. As highlighted by the Neapolitan friar’s deploring words, the new position of the choir, sometimes accompanied by the removal of the rood screen, altered the traditional arrangement of certain rites. The Dominican capitulary acts are void of any allusions to this new configuration of the choir. Astonishingly, whereas the thirteenth-century chapters had imposed precise regulations for the installation of the stalls and the rood screen, those written in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries did not take the modifications which were in progress into account. For example, they did not include any alterations for rites which required a rood screen, such as the Salve Regina procession. This procession, introduced by the time of Jordan of Saxony (1222–1237), took place after Compline: the friars would leave the choir in two lines, behind two acolytes carrying crosses, singing a hymn to the Virgin; they then bowed before the images of the crucifix and the Virgin found on the rood screen which divided the church of the friars from the rest of the church.59 In 1505 the General Chapter reminded all convents that the daily Salve Regina procession was obligatory. Moreover, it reiterated the very sequence of gestures in exactly the same terms as the thirteenth-century Ordinarium of Humbert of Romans, implying therefore that churches were still separated by a rood screen on which panels of the crucifix and of the Virgin were placed.60 However, in the convents where the choir had been transferred behind the main altar and the rood screen had been removed, it is evident that some parts of the procession would have been modified. While the capitulary acts are not forthcoming, several sources relating to the reorganization of a particular church show a preoccupation with setting the new arrangement of the choir in harmony with the constitutions of the Order. I have already referred to the chapter of 1249, which required the construction of a rood screen, so that the movement of the friars between the convent and the choir would be invisible from the nave. During the Renaissance, while rood screens were gradually removed, this preoccupation to hide the movement of the friars remained. This was the case, for example, in the renovation of the choir of Santa Maria Novella in Florence between 1565 and 1566.61 Similarly, at Notre-Dame-de-Confort in

 59 Cannon, Religious Poverty, Visual Riches, pp. 25–45.  60 Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, iv, p. 29.  61 See a note sent to Duke Cosimo de’ Medici quoted by Hall, Renovation and CounterReformation, document 2, and by Lunardi, ‘La ristrutturazione vasariana di Santa Maria Novella’, p. 408: ‘Fare il coro doppio per i frati, assettarlo non levando le spalliere, né alterando la cappella, né dipinture, come sarà giudicato da l’ingegneri, con far l’entrata dietro alle cappelle che si possa di dormitorio venire in choro senza che i frati siano visti.’ (To make the double choir for the friars, setting it without removing the backs of the stalls, nor altering the chapel or the paintings, according to what will be decided by the engineers, and making the entrance behind the chapels in such a way that it will be possible for the friars to enter the choir from the dormitory without being seen).

The P r e ache r s an d t h e E vo lu t i o n o f L i t urgi cal Space i n Italy

Lyon, a new passage was constructed for this purpose between the apse and the sacristy.62 The new position of the stalls equally posed the problem of the visual participation of the community in the Eucharist. When seated in their choir in the apse, the friars found themselves on the opposite side of the altar to the celebrant, who stayed in front of it with his back turned to the nave: visual contact between the friars and the celebrant was therefore difficult because of the tabernacle which usually topped the altar, forming a high barrier between the choir and the priest. Various Dominican communities confronted this problem. The contract drawn up in 1588 between the Dominicans in Lyon and the Florentine nation specified that the new main altar should be built in such a manner that the friars could see the Blessed Sacrament from their choir.63 Equally, in San Domenico at Sienna, the tabernacle sculpted by Benedetto de Maiano, when later placed on the main altar, was opened with a window on the side of the choir.64 It is nonetheless evident that the desire to make the Blessed Sacrament visible to the faithful in the period of the Counter-Reformation was often prioritized at the expense of the participation of the religious community in the Eucharist.

Conclusion It is clear that the Preachers participated actively in the affirmation of the new model of choir position, which spread throughout the Italian peninsula from the fifteenth century. It is apparent, however, that this process was not the result of a global policy, but that it arose locally at the initiative of the prior or an external patron, responding to a specific situation or motivation. Indeed, some Dominican churches, even some of the most important ones, maintained the old choir position for several centuries. Thus, in Santi Giovanni e Paolo in Venice, the stone rood screen and the choir in front of the main altar were kept until 1683, despite the fact that the new choir position behind the main altar had been adopted far earlier in several other Venetian churches.65 Equally, in San Domenico in Bo­logna, one of the convents of the Observant Congregation of Lombardy, new intarsia stalls were ordered in the second quarter of the sixteenth century to be located in a traditional setting, that is in front of the main altar. The rood screen

 62 In Father Ramette’s plan (see Figure 5.6), the passage (converted into a chapel dedicated to Notre-Dame de Pitié in 1706) corresponds to numbers 75 and 76 and the sacristy to number 79.  63 Arch. dép. Rhône, 3H40 and 3H3, fol. 25v, Para­graph 4 (quoted by Morvan, ‘Au chœur des affaires’).  64 See the pastoral visit of 1575 cited by Carl, ‘Il ciborio di Benedetto da Maiano’, p. 71.  65 Merotto Ghedini, ‘Il tramezzo nella chiesa dei santi Giovanni e Paolo a Venezia’, p. 262.

15 7

158

haude m o rvan

Figure 5.8. Milan, Santa Maria delle Grazie, the main apse with the stalls. Photo: Haude Morvan.

was even rebuilt in 1550, and was only removed in 1625, when the stalls were moved into a new apse.66 The Observants were no more uniform than the Conventual communities in the layout of their churches. In San Marco in Florence, during the renovation of the sanctuary, commissioned from Michelozzo in 1438, the prior Antonino retained the rood screen as a sign of observance.67 However, even if Savonarola recommended a strict separation between the friars and the laity during Mass and the Offices, this precept did not shape a unique model of spatial organization in the Observant convents.68 Some, such as the one at Bo­logna mentioned above, deliberately maintained the traditional rood screen, whereas others were quick to adopt the new presbytery disposition. This was the case, for instance, in Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan:

 66 Alce, Il coro di San Domenico in Bo­logna.  67 Carl, ‘Il ciborio di Benedetto da Maiano’, p. 63.  68 Pacciani, ‘Il coro conteso’, pp. 134–35.

The P r e ache r s an d t h e E vo lu t i o n o f L i t urgi cal Space i n Italy

in 1510, the intarsia stalls were moved to the apse, a mere fifty years after they were first installed (Figure 5.8).69 Equally, in the convent of Santa Corona in Vicenza, passed to the Observance in 1463, the rood screen was removed fifteen years later and the choir was very probably moved behind the main altar at the same time, at the friars’ decision. The convents, therefore, did not follow a uniform movement. Nevertheless, modifying the arrangement of the sanctuary and choir area could not be done without the approval of the Order’s authorities. In fact, several sixteenth-century General Chapters ordered that all important building works must first be approved by a council composed of expert friars and the prior provincial.70 Despite a lack of unity and a variety of situations, one common factor can be seen in all the cases discussed here: the laity was an important factor in the renovation of the ecclesiastical space during the Renaissance, with renovations being designed to facilitate lay devotion and/​or supported by lay patrons. The process of choir relocation corresponds closely to the wider context of reform, in which the Church sought to increase the involvement of the faithful in devotional and sacramental activities. It is therefore not surprising that the Order of Preachers was quick to participate in the evolution of the ecclesiastical space, since a close engagement with the laity was central to the Order’s activities.

 69 Ciati, ‘Il coro’. Not all scholars agree on the initial location of the choir in Santa Maria delle Grazie. Some argue that it was already behind the altar before 1510. The debate has been synthesized by Luisa Giordano, who concluded that the choir did not move behind the altar until 1510 (Giordano, ‘In capella maiori’, pp. 109–12).  70 The order was expressed first by the 1513 General Chapter, and then repeated by the 1515 and 1518 chapters. It was consequently included in the constitutions, so as every rule repeated by at least three consecutive chapters (Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, iv, pp. 101, 130–31, 162–63) The rule was repeated again in 1551 (Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, vi, p. 315).

1 59

1 60

haude m o rvan

Works Cited Manuscripts and Archival Sources Lyon, Archives départementales du Rhône (Arch. dép. Rhône), 3H1–8 (Father Ramette’s inventory of the archives of the Dominican convent in Lyon) —— , 3H40 (contracts between the Florentines and the Dominican convent in Lyon) —— , 3H92 (1) (map of the Dominican convent in Lyon in 1709) Rome, Archivio della Provincia Romana (APR), F.IV.11 (Giacinto dei Nobili, Cronica compendiata di Santa Maria in Gradi di Viterbo, c. 1616) Rome, Archivio Generale dell’Ordine dei Predicatori (AGOP), XIV, Liber A, Parte II, fols 402–541 (De conventu regali S. Dominici Maioris Neapolitano, c. 1756) —— , XIV, Liber C, Parte I, fols 1–44 (Cronica breve della chiesa e del convento di S. Maria sopra Minerva, raccolta dal P. Maestro e Predicatore Fr. Ambrogio Brandi: annotated copy of 1706 from a chronicle written c. 1620–1630) —— , XIV, Liber D, pp. 344–71 (Gondisalvo della Chiesa, Breve e compendiosa relazione di quanto a forza di studiosa diligenza si è potuto rinvenire di memorabile nell’antichissimo monistero di S. Corona di Vicenza dalla fondazione sino al di d’oggi, 1706) —— , XIV, Liber M, pp. 429–503 (Excerpta ex tabulario conventus Lugdunensis ordinis Praedicatorum monumenta quae annalibus conscribendis inservire possunt, c. 1710) Primary Sources Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. by Benedikt Maria Reichert, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 3–4 and 8–14, 9 vols (Rome: In domo generalitia, 1898–1904) ‘La Cronaca maggiore dell’Ordine domenicano di Galvano Fiamma. Frammenti editi’, ed. by Gundisalvo Odetto, Archivum fratrum Praedicatorum, 10 (1940), 297–373 Federico Borromeo, Della pittura sacra libri due, ed. by Barbara Agosti (Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, 1994) Francesco di Giorgio Martini, Trattati di architettura, ingegneria e arte militare, ed. by Corrado Maltese, 2 vols (Milan: Il Polifilo, 1967) Humbert of Romans, Opera de vita regulari, ed. by Joachim Joseph Berthier, 2 vols, 2nd edn (Rome: Marietti, 1956) Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda aurea, ed. by Giovanni Paolo Maggioni, Millenio medi­evale, 6 (Testi, 3), 2 vols (Florence: Sismel – Edizioni del Galluzzo, 1998) Ordinarium juxta sacri ordinis fratrum praedicatorum jussu, ed. by Louis Theissling (Rome: Collegium Angelicum, 1921) Statuti delle colonie fiorentine all’estero (secc. xv–xvi), ed. by Gino Masi (Milan: A. Giuffrè, 1941)

The P r e ache r s an d t h e E vo lu t i o n o f L i t urgi cal Space i n Italy

Secondary Works Ackerman, James S., ‘Observations on Renaissance Church Planning in Venice and Florence, 1470–1570’, in Florence and Venice: Comparisons and Relations, proceedings of two conferences at Villa I Tatti in 1976–1977, ed. by Sergio Bertelli and Nicolai Rubinstein, 2 vols (Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1979–1980), vol. ii, pp. 287–308 Alce, Venturino, Il coro di San Domenico in Bo­logna (Bo­logna: Luigi Parma, 1969) Allen, Joanne, ‘Choir Stalls in Venice and Northern Italy: Furniture, Ritual and Space in the Renaissance Church Interior’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Warwick, 2009) Ascher, Yoni, ‘The Church and the Piazza: Reflections on the South Side of the Church of S. Domenico Maggiore in Naples’, Architectural History, 45 (2002), 92–112 Barclay-Lloyd, Joan, ‘Medi­eval Dominican Architecture at Santa Sabina in Rome, c. 1219–1320’, Papers of the British School at Rome, 72 (2004), 231–92 Bisson, Massimo, ‘San Giorgio Maggiore a Venezia: la chiesa tardo-medi­evale e il coro del 1550’, AFAT (Arte in Friuli Arte a Trieste), 33 (2014), 11–38 de Blaauw, Sible, ‘Private Tomb and Public Altar: The Origins of the Mausoleum Choir in Rome’, in Memory and Oblivion, Proceedings of the xxixth International Congress of the History of Art, ed. by Wessel Reinink and Jeroen Stumpel (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1999), pp. 475–82 —— , ‘Innovazioni nello spazio di culto fra basso Medioevo e Cinquecento: la perdita dell’orientamento liturgico e la liberazione della navata’, in Lo spazio e il culto: Relazioni tra edificio ecclesiale e uso liturgico dal xv al xvi secolo, ed. by Jörg Stabenow (Venice: Marsilio, 2006), pp. 25–51 Boucher, Jacqueline, Présence italienne à Lyon à la Renaissance du milieu du xve à la fin du xvie siècle (Lyon: LUGD, 1994) Brown, Beverly Louise, ‘The Patronage and Building History of the Tribuna of SS. Annunziata in Florence: A Reappraisal in Light of New Documentation’, Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 25 (1981), 59–146 —— , ‘Choir and Altar Placement: A Quattrocento Dilemma’, Machiavelli Studies, 5 (1996), 147–80 Caglioti, Francesco, ‘Altari eucaristici scolpiti del primo Rinascimento: Qualche caso maggiore’, in Lo spazio e il culto: Relazioni tra edificio ecclesiale e uso liturgico dal XV al XVI secolo, ed. by Jörg Stabenow (Venice: Marsilio, 2006), pp. 53–89 Cannon, Joanna, Religious Poverty, Visual Riches: Art in the Dominican Churches of Central Italy in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013) Carl, Doris, ‘Il ciborio di Benedetto da Maiano nella cappella maggiore di S. Domenico a Siena: Un contributo al problema dei cibori quattrocenteschi con un excursus per la storia architettonica della chiesa’, Rivista d’arte, 42 (1990), 3–74

161

1 62

haude m o rvan

Carta, Federica, ‘La Cappella Panciatichi in Notre-Dame de Confort a Lione’, Prospettiva, 159–60 ( July–October 2015), 163–73 —— , ‘La Nation florentine à Notre-Dame-de-Confort’, in Lyon Renaissance: Arts et humanisme, ed. by Ludmila Virassamynaïken (Paris: Somogy éditions d’art, 2015), pp. 204–09 Cassandro, Michele, ‘I forestieri a Lione nel ’400 e ’500: La nazione fiorentina’, in Dentro la città: Stranieri e realtà urbane nell’Europa dei secoli xii–xvi, ed. by Gabriella Rossetti (Naples: Liguori, 1989), pp. 151–62 Charles, Corinne, Stalles sculptées du xve siècle: Genève et le Duché de Savoie (Paris: Picard, 1999) —— , ‘Saint Jean-Baptiste dans les stalles de Saint-Gervais à Genève: entre religion, politique et économie’, in Jean-Baptiste: le Précurseur au Moyen Âge (Aix-enProvence: Publications de l’Université de Provence, 2002), pp. 61–77 Chédozeau, Bernard, Chœur clos, chœur ouvert: De l’église médiévale à l’église tridentine (France, xviie–xviiie siècle) (Paris: Cerf, 1998) Ciati, Bruna, ‘Il coro’, in Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milano, ed. by Gian Alberto Dell’Acqua and Carlo Bertelli (Milan: Banca Popolare di Milano, 1983), pp. 214–23 Clearfield, Janis, ‘The Tomb of Cosimo de’ Medici in San Lorenzo’, The Rutgers Art Review, 2 (1981), 13–30 Cobianchi, Roberto, Lo temperato uso dele cose: La committenza dell’osservanza francescana nell’Italia del Rinascimento, Medioevo francescano: Arte, 2 (Spoleto: Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 2013) Collombet, François-Zénon, L’Église et le couvent des dominicains de Lyon (1218–1789) (Lyon: L. Boitel, 1843) Cooper, Donal, ‘Access All Areas? Spatial Divides in the Mendicant Churches of Late Medi­eval Tuscany’, in Ritual and Space in the Middle Ages, proceedings of the 2009 Harlaxton symposium, ed. by Francis Andrews, Harlaxton Medi­eval Studies, 21 (Donington: Shaun Tyas, 2011), pp. 90–107 —— , ‘Experiencing Dominican and Franciscan Churches in Renaissance Italy’, in Sanctity Pictured: The Art of the Dominican and Franciscan Orders in Renaissance Italy, ed. by Trinita Kennedy (London: Philip Wilson, 2014), pp. 47–62 Cormier, Michel, L’Ancien Couvent des Dominicains de Lyon, 2 vols (Lyon: E. Vitte, 1898–1900) Damianaki, Chrysa, ‘Andrea Bregno e il tabernacolo di Santa Maria della Quercia a Viterbo’, in Andrea Bregno: il senso della forma nella cultura artistica del Rinascimento, ed. by Claudio Crescentini and Claudio Strinati (Florence: Maschietto, 2008), pp. 332–55 De Marchi, Andrea, ‘Cum dictum opus sit magnum. Il documento pistoiese del 1274 e l’allestimento trionfale dei tramezzi in Umbria e Toscana fra Due e Trecento’, in Medioevo: immagine e memoria, atti del convegno di Parma, 23–28 settembre 2008, ed. by Arturo Carlo Quintavalle (Milan: Electa, 2009), pp. 603–21 Fontalirant, Marie-Philippe, Notre-Dame de Confort, sanctuaire des frères prêcheurs à Lyon (Lyon: Josserand, 1875) —— , Notice sur le R. P. Siméon-André Ramette, des Frères prêcheurs, archiviste du couvent de N.-D. de Confort, à Lyon (1685–1773) (Lyon: Mougin-Rusand, 1877)

The P r e ache r s an d t h e E vo lu t i o n o f L i t urgi cal Space i n Italy

Frommel, Christoph Luitpold, ‘Giulio II e il coro di Santa Maria del Popolo’, Bollettino d’arte, 112 (2000), 1–34 —— , ‘Chiese sepolcrali e cori-mausolei nell’architettura del Rinascimento italiano’, in Demeures d’éternité: Églises et chapelles funéraires aux xve et xvie siècles, ed. by Jean Guillaume (Paris: Picard, 2005), pp. 73–98 Frommel, Sabine, ‘Maître-autel et chœur dans le Quinto Libro de Sebastiano Serlio’, in La Place du chœur: Architecture et liturgie du Moyen Âge aux temps modernes, ed. by Sabine Frommel and Laurent Lecomte (Paris: Picard, 2012), pp. 155–74 Frommel, Sabine, and Laurent Lecomte, ed., La Place du chœur: Architecture et liturgie du Moyen Âge aux temps modernes (Paris: Picard, 2012) Gadrat, Christine, ‘L’Enquête de l’ordre dominicain de 1694’, in Dom Jean Mabillon, figure majeure de l’Europe des lettres, ed. by Jean Leclant, André Vauchez, and Daniel-Odon Hurel (Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 2010), pp. 587–603 Gaier, Martin, ‘Il mausoleo nel presbiterio. Patronati laici e liturgie private nelle chiese veneziane’, in Lo spazio e il culto: Relazioni tra edificio ecclesiale e uso liturgico dal xv al xvi secolo, ed. by Jörg Stabenow (Venice: Marsilio, 2006), pp. 153–80 Garms, Jörg, ‘Arredi liturgici e interventi architettonici nella Francia del Settecento’, in Alla moderna. Antiche chiese e rifacimenti barocchi: una prospettiva europea, ed. by Augusto Roca De Amicis and Claudio Varagnoli (Rome: Artemide, 2015), pp. 119–35 Gilardi, Costantino, ‘Ecclesia laicorum e ecclesia fratrum: Luoghi e oggetti per il culto e la predicazione secondo l’Ecclesiasticum officium dei frati predicatori’, in Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L1, ed. by Leonard E. Boyle and Pierre-Marie Gy (Rome: École française de Rome, 2004), pp. 379–443 Giordano, Luisa, ‘In capella maiori: il progetto di Ludovico Sforza per Santa Maria delle Grazie’, in Demeures d’éternité: Églises et chapelles funéraires aux xve et xvie siècles, ed. by Jean Guillaume (Paris: Picard, 2005), pp. 99–114 Guerra, Andrea, ‘Croce della Salvezza: i benedettini e il progetto di Palladio per San Giorgio Maggiore a Venezia’, in Lo spazio e il culto: Relazioni tra edificio ecclesiale e uso liturgico dal xv al xvi secolo, ed. by Jörg Stabenow (Venice: Marsilio, 2006), pp. 353–83 Hall, Marcia B., ‘The Ponte in S. Maria Novella: The Problem of the Rood Screen in Italy’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 37 (1974), 157–73 —— , Renovation and Counter-Reformation: Vasari and Duke Cosimo in Sta Maria Novella and Sta Croce, 1565–1577 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979) —— , ‘The Tramezzo in the Italian Renaissance, Revisited’, in Thresholds of the Sacred: Architectural, Art Historical, Liturgical, and Theo­logical Perspectives on Religious Screens, East and West, ed. by Sharon E. J. Gerstel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006), pp. 215–32 Iacono, Giuseppe, and Salvatore Ennio Furone, Les Marchands banquiers florentins et l’architecture à Lyon au xvie siècle (Paris: Publisud, 1999)

163

1 64

haude m o rvan

Isermeyer, Christian Adolf, ‘Le chiese del Palladio in rapporto al culto’, Bollettino del centro internazionale di studi di architettura Andrea Palladio, 10 (1968), 42–58 Jobst, Christoph, ‘Liturgia e culto dell’Eucaristia nel programma spaziale della chiesa: I tabernacoli eucaristici e la trasformazione dei presbiteri negli scritti ecclesiastici dell’epoca intorno al concilio di Trento’, in Lo spazio e il culto: Relazioni tra edificio ecclesiale e uso liturgico dal xv al xvi secolo, ed. by Jörg Stabenow (Venice: Marsilio, 2006), pp. 91–126 Jung, Jacqueline, ‘Moving Pictures on the Gothic Choir Screen’, in The Art and Science of the Church Screen in Medi­eval Europe. Making, Meaning, Preserving, ed. by Spike Bucklow, Richard Marks, Lucy Wrapson (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2017), pp. 176–94 Kleefisch-Jobst, Ursula, ‘Die Errichtung der Grabmäler für Leo X. und Clemens VII. und die Projekte für die Neugestaltung der Hauptchorkapelle von S. Maria sopra Minerva’, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, 51 (1988), 524–41 Koudelka, Vladimir J., ‘Il fondo Libri nell’Archivio Generale dell’Ordine Domenicano (I. Liber A – Liber Z)’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 38 (1968), 99–147 —— , ‘Il fondo Libri nell’Archivio Generale dell’Ordine Domenicano (II. Liber AA – Liber MMM)’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 39 (1969), 173–217 Levesque, Jean-Donatien, Les Frères prêcheurs de Lyon: Notre-Dame-de-Confort, 1218–1789 (Lyon: J. D. Levesque, 1978) Lorenzoni, Giovanni, and Giovanna Valenzano, ‘Pontile, jubé, tramezzo: alcune riflessioni sul tramezzo di Santa Corona a Vicenza’, in Immagine e ideo­logia: Studi in onore di Arturo Carlo Quintavalle, ed. by Arturo Calzona (Milan: Electa, 2007), pp. 313–17 Lorusso, Roberta, ‘Santa Maria della Quercia a Viterbo’, Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia dell’Architettura, 40 (2002), 85–96 Lours, Mathieu, ‘Le Chœur en bataille: Débats et polémiques sur les chœurs “à la romaine” dans les cathédrales françaises au xviiie siècle’, in La Place du chœur: Architecture et liturgie du Moyen Âge aux temps modernes, ed. by Sabine Frommel and Laurent Lecomte (Paris: Picard, 2012), pp. 227–36 Lunardi, Roberto, ‘La ristrutturazione vasariana di Santa Maria Novella: i docu­ menti ritrovati’, Memorie domenicane, 19 (1988), 403–19 Martin, Philippe, Le Théâtre divin: Une histoire de la messe, xvie–xxe siècles (Paris: CNRS, 2010) Meersseman, Gilles Gérard, ‘L’Architecture dominicaine au xiiie siècle. Législation et pratique’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 16 (1946), 136–90 Merotto Ghedini, Monica, ‘Il tramezzo nella chiesa dei santi Giovanni e Paolo a Venezia’, in De Lapidibus sententiae: scritti di storia dell’arte per Giovanni Lorenzoni, ed. by Tiziana Franco and Giovanna Valenzano (Padova: Il Poligrafo, 2002), pp. 257–62 Montagnes, Bernard, ‘L’Attitude des Prêcheurs à l’égard des œuvres d’art’, Cahiers de Fanjeaux, 9 (1974), 87–100 Morvan, Haude, ‘La morte nella propaganda domenicana: le tombe cardinalizie ed i Predicatori lionesi nel Duecento’, Memorie Domenicane, 42 (2011 [2012]), 577–92

The P r e ache r s an d t h e E vo lu t i o n o f L i t urgi cal Space i n Italy

—— , ‘Architecture dominicaine et promotion de nouveaux saints: autour de la tombe de Clément IV à Santa Maria in Gradi (Viterbe)’, Bulletin Monumental, 171 (2013), 99–106 —— , ‘Au chœur des affaires: La nation florentine et les frères prêcheurs lyonnais’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, NS 3 (2018), 107–23 —— , ‘Arte medi­evale in Dalmazia: notizie dall’Archivio generale dei frati predicatori’, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome – Moyen Âge, 128.1 (2016), [accessed 1 June 2021] Orlandi, Angela, Le Grand Parti: fiorentini a Lione e il debito pubblico francese nel xvi secolo (Florence: L. S. Olschki, 2002) Pacciani, Riccardo, ‘Il coro conteso: Rituali civici, movimenti d’osservanza, privatizzazioni nell’area presbiteriale di chiese fiorentine del Quattrocento’, in Lo spazio e il culto: Relazioni tra edificio ecclesiale e uso liturgico dal XV al XVI secolo, ed. by Jörg Stabenow (Venice: Marsilio, 2006), pp. 127–51 Picone, Renata, ‘Nuove acquisizioni per la storia del complesso di San Domenico Maggiore in Napoli’, Napoli nobilissima, 4.32 (1993), 34–55 and 216–25 Schelbert, Georg, ‘SS. Apostoli a Roma: il coro-mausoleo rinascimentale e il triconco rinato’, in La Place du chœur. Architecture et liturgie du Moyen Âge aux Temps modernes, ed. by Sabine Frommel and Laurent Lecomte (Paris: Picard, 2012), pp. 101–12 Stabenow, Jörg, ed., Lo spazio e il culto: Relazioni tra edificio ecclesiale e uso liturgico dal xv al xvi secolo (Venice: Marsilio, 2006) Sundt, Richard A., ‘“Mediocres domos et humiles habeant fratres nostri”: Dominican Legislation on Architecture and Architectural Decoration in the 13th Century’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 46 (1987), 394–407 Varagnoli, Claudio, ‘S. Maria in Gradi a Viterbo, dalla chiesa duecentesca al progetto di Nicola Salvi’, Palladio, 40 (2007), 5–26 Villetti, Gabriella, ‘Il fondo Libri nell’Archivio generale dell’Ordine dei Predicatori. Prospettive di ricerca sull’edilizia degli Ordini Mendicanti’, Architettura Archivi. Fonti e Storia, 1 (1982), 10–24, repr. in Gabriella Villetti, Studi sull’edilizia degli ordini mendicanti (Rome: Gangemi, 2003), pp. 31–49 —— , ‘Legislazione e prassi edilizia degli Ordini Mendicanti nei secoli xiii e xiv’, in Francesco d’Assisi, chiese e conventi, ed. by Renato Bonelli (Milan: Electa, 1982), pp. 23–31, repr. in Gabriella Villetti, Studi sull’edilizia degli ordini mendicanti (Rome: Gangemi, 2003) pp. 19–30 Virassamynaïken, Ludmila, ed., Lyon Renaissance: Arts et humanisme (Paris: Somogy éditions d’art, 2015) Volti, Panayota, ‘L’Explicite et l’implicite dans les sources normatives de l’architecture mendiante’, Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes, 162 (2004), 51–73 Winkelmes, Mary-Ann, ‘Notes on Cassinese Choirs: Acoustics and Religious Architecture in Northern Italy’, in Coming about … A Festschrift for John Shearman, ed. by Lars R. Jones (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Art Museums, 2001), pp. 307–12

165

E mily Guerry

‘A Path Prepared for Them by the Lord’ King Louis IX, Dominican Devotion, and the Extraordinary Journey of Two Preaching Friars In the autumn of 1238, the saint-king Louis IX of France (r. 1226–1270, canonized 1297) dispatched two preaching friars named Jacques (Jacobus) and André (Andreas) on a special mission. They needed to collect the relic of the Crown of Thorns from Constantinople and transport it safely back to Paris. This was no simple act of relic translation; it involved a long and dangerous journey, the transfer of a great deal of money, and tactful diplomacy. The mission also had an impending deadline, and by the time of the friars’ departure they were already behind schedule. The opportunity for Louis IX to acquire the Crown relic had emerged during an economic crisis in the Latin East. The baronial advisors of Emperor Baldwin II (r. 1228–1273) had pledged the Crown as debt collateral to secure various loans, which were consolidated into a single sum by one creditor, a wealthy Venetian nobleman named Niccolò Quirino.1 Baldwin II then asked Louis IX, his ‘cousin’ and ally,2 to intervene. If the Capetian king paid the outstanding debt, then he would become the Crown’s new guardian. However, if the deadline for repayment passed, the relic would become the property of Quirino in Venice. Louis IX agreed to undertake the mortgage, but he had to act fast. In a matter of weeks, his Dominican envoys needed to venture across the Mediterranean with the necessary funds to pay back the imperial debt. Despite poor weather, looming threats of attacks from Greek enemies, an unexpected diversion to Venice, and the demand for even more money, they succeeded in bringing the Crown of Thorns to the king of France.  1 A helpful overview of the circumstances surrounding the pledge of the Crown relic and the management of the imperial debt is available in Nicol, Byzantium and Venice, pp. 168–70. See also the short summary by Galland, ‘Engagement de la Sainte Couronne d’épines’, p. 44.  2 Throughout their negotiations, Baldwin II apparently referred to Louis IX as his ‘cousin’, but they were technically second cousins once removed. Emily Guerry is a Senior Lecturer in Medi­eval European History at the University of Kent. Her research examines the visual, material, and ceremonial culture of relic cults in the high Middle Ages.

The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music, and Liturgy, ed. by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, MMS 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021) pp. 167–211 10.1484/M.MMS-EB.5.124217

FHG

1 68

e m ily gue r ry

When the friars eventually reached Troyes with the relic, Louis IX went to Villeneuve-L’Archevêque to intercept and inspect his ‘gift’. From there, the friars accompanied the royal cortège through the province of Sens to Paris; they travelled by boat, stopping in the towns that lined the tributaries of the Seine to give alms and pray. In addition to these vigils, magnificent processions of the Crown of Thorns also took place in both Sens and Paris. On each occasion, the city bells rang, clerics sang, and all of the people rejoiced. Marching at the head of each jubilant Christian adventus was a solemn figure: Louis IX had removed his royal crown and donned only a linen tunic as he walked barefoot, carrying the sacred reliquary in a double bier placed on his shoulders and sharing the burden with his brother, Robert d’Artois. He walked with the relic in this manner through throngs of adoring people that lined the city streets in Sens on 11 August and again in Paris on 19 August of 1239, before depositing it for safekeeping in his royal palace on the Île de la Cité. So, when he first appeared with his Crown of Thorns, the king of France actually resembled a devout friar. His radical performance of humility throughout these royal relic processions, which are often mentioned in hagio­graphic and bio­graphic studies of Louis IX, first revealed the king’s extraordinary piety in the public sphere, helping to pave the path towards his canonization in 1297, twenty-seven years after his death.3 To celebrate the arrival of the Crown, Archbishop Gauthier Cornut of Sens (r. 1222–1241) organized various reception ceremonies in his province.4 During each adventus, Cornut delivered a rousing sermon and revealed the Crown of Thorns to a crowd of people. In Paris, this took place in the Specula, situated in an open field near the Cistercian abbey of SaintAntoine.5 The content of Cornut’s oration is believed to form part of an

 3 The key hagio­graphical texts related to the life of St Louis were written by men who knew him well. Some of these authors are Geoffrey de Beaulieu (Vita Ludovici Noni, 1272), a Dominican who was his confessor; Guillaume de Chartres (De vita et actibus regis Francorum Ludovici, c. 1273–1276), a Dominican who was his clerk; Guillaume de Saint-Pathus (Vie de Saint Louis, lost original c. 1282?, French translation c. 1301–1303), a Franciscan who was the his wife’s confessor; and even Jean de Joinville (Histoire de Saint Louis, 1309), the seneschal of Champagne and the king’s close personal friend and confidant. There are a number of excellent bio­graphies on King Louis IX, including William Chester Jordan, Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade, Richard, Saint Louis, and Le Goff, Saint Louis.  4 On Gauthier Cornut and his family, see Quesvers, Notes sûr les Cornu. For his role in orchestrating the events planned to welcome the arrival of the Crown relic in France, see Guerry, Crowning Paris.  5 The location of this sermon in the Specula and the central role of Archbishop Cornut is noted by Albéric des Trois-Fontaines, a Cistercian historian who inserted his eyewitness account of the royal procession of the Crown in Paris in his Chronicon: ‘Quae corona recepta est Parisiis infra octavas Assumptionis. Venerunt obviam processiones omnium ordinum et congregationum de civitate ad locum qui Specula dicitur, iuxta abbatiam Sancti Antonii monialium, presente archiepiscopo Senonensi cum suffraganeis.’ (The Crown was received in Paris during the octave of the Assumption. And they came to meet

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

influential text known today as the Historia Susceptionis Coronae Spineae. Opening with a reportatio of the sermon attributed to Archbishop Cornut, in which he elucidates the symbolic significance of the presence of Christ’s Crown in France, the Historia then explains how the relic came to Paris. This historical summary includes a detailed description of the royal processions described above as well as a careful recapitulation of the Dominicans’ journey to Constantinople and back again. All the while, the account is dictated from the perspective of an informed eyewitness. Compiled by Cornut at the request of the king, the Historia was copied into a libellus soon after the relic’s arrival in 1239.6 These libelli circulated around the Capetian kingdom to spread the joyous news of the king’s new acquisition and support the establishment of the royal cult of the Crown of Thorns.7 Due in part to its availability to liturgists, the Historia became the primary source for many of the readings that would accompany the new Office for the annual feast of the Susceptio Coronae in France, celebrated in the Gallic calendar on 11 August. As a literary tract, the Historia appears in two seventeenth-century copies: BnF, MS lat. 3282, fols 1r–4v, a miscellany with a Sénois provenance, and BnF, MS Dupuy XIII, pp. 135–47, which is a copy of lat. 3282 produced by the Dupuy brothers at the Bibliothèque du Roi.8 No known copies of the original libellus survive. However, the lections in a

all of the orders and congregations outside of the city in the place of the processions, which is called the ‘Specula’, close to the abbey of nuns of Saint-Antoine, in the presence of the Archbishop of Sens [Gauthier Cornut] and his suffragans). See Albéric de Trois-Fontaines, Chronicon, ed. by Riant, ii, p. 242, and ‘E Chronico Alberici, Monachi Trium Fontium’, ed. by Guigniaut and de Wailly, p. 626. The present-day location of the Specula is the Hôpital Saint-Antoine on the Rue Saint-Antoine in Paris, where a plaque commemorates the occasion of the first celebration of the arrival of the Crown of Thorns.  6 For Cornut’s role in organizing festivities for the arrival of the Crown, delivering the sermons, and overseeing the production of the Historia, see Le Nain de Tillemont, Vie de Saint Louis, ii, pp. 338–42. For a more recent discussion of the attribution of Cornut, see Mercuri, Corona di Cristo, pp. 119–20.  7 For a discussion of the circulation of the Historia as a libellus, see de Wailly, ‘Récit du treizième siècle’, pp. 401–15.  8 Jacques Taveau (1548–1624), a lawyer and historian from Sens, copied the Historia found in BnF, MS lat. 3282, from a medi­eval libellus once preserved in the abbey library of SaintPierre-le-Vif. Another hand-written copy of the Historia appears in BnF, MS Dupuy XIII, pp. 135–47, which was compiled from Taveau’s transcription in 1633 by the bibliophiles Pierre Dupuy (1582–1651) and Jacques Dupuy (1591–1656). The Dupuys conclude their transcription by inserting their source’s name, ‘J. Tavellus Senon’, on p. 147. Soon after the completion of the Dupuys’ copy, the Historia first appeared in print with the title ‘Historia Susceptionis Coronae Spineae Iesu Christi quam Ludovicus Rex a Balduino Imperii Constantinopolitani Haerede obtinvit, ac Parisiis reportavit anno MCCXXXIX, Auctore Galtero Cornuto Archiepiscopo Senonensi’, in Duchesne, Historiae Francorum Scriptores, v, pp. 407–11. Today the most accessible transcriptions of the text are found in Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. by de Wailly and Delisle, xxii, pp. 26–31 and Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, pp. lxvii–lxxiv (introduction), 45–56 (transcription).

169

1 70

e m ily gue r ry

number of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century breviaries used in and around Sens and Paris were evidently copied or paraphrased from the Historia.9 Given the important role of the preaching friars in securing the Crown relic, it may come as no surprise that the earliest extant liturgical material related to the new annual feast appears in a Dominican lectionary, originally compiled in Paris between 1254 and 1256. Then, at some point between 1256 and 1259, the content of this lectionary was copied into another manuscript (Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1) known as the so-called prototype of Humbert of Romans (c. 1190–1277).10 When Humbert became the Master General of the Order of the Preachers, he attempted to standardize the Dominican liturgy, and this manuscript bears witness to both his method and his achievement.11 Humbert was close to Louis IX (he was the godfather to one of the king’s sons) and his decision to include this Office in his influential Dominican lectionary is one of many examples of the preaching friars’ crucial role in the development of the royal cult of the Crown of Thorns.12 Here, readings for In festo corone Domini appear as the forty-fifth item in the sanctoral beneath a heading that directs the readers to Humbert’s source, Ex hystoria translatione eius.13 It is clear from the content of these lections that they are paraphrased from the Historia attributed to Cornut.14 Other

 9 The text from the Historia reappears in the lections for the Crown Office in a range of sources, including BnF, MSS lat. 1028 and lat. 1041 (two thirteenth-century breviaries used in Sens), lat. 1266 (an early fourteenth-century breviary used at Meaux), lat. 10482 (an early fourteenth-century breviary used in Paris or Melun), lat. 13233 (a late thirteenthcentury breviary used at Saint-Germain-des-Près in Paris), lat. 14811 (a thirteenth-century breviary used at Saint-Victor in Paris), lat. 15182 (a late thirteenth-century breviary used in Paris), Auxerre, Bibl. mun., MSS 59 and 60 (two thirteenth-century breviaries used at Sens), Chartres, Bibl. mun., MS 500 (a thirteenth-century breviary used in Chartres but lost during World War II), and Washington, DC, MS 75 (an early fourteenth-century breviary used in Paris).  10 Humbert’s Dominican lectionary has an extensive biblio­graphy. See the recent collection of essays about this manuscript in Boyle and Gy, Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine and the excellent study of its sanctoral in Urfels-Capot, Le Sanctoral du lectionnaire de l’office Dominicain.  11 Parks, ‘The Compilation of the Dominican Lectionary’, pp. 91–106.  12 The close relationship between Louis IX and Humbert of Romans is discussed in Brett, Humbert of Romans, p. 37.  13 Transcribed in Urfels-Capot, Le Sanctoral du lectionnaire de l’office Dominicain, pp. 230–31.  14 The three lections in Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1 succinctly summarize the content of the Historia and refer to details not seen in other contemporary accounts of the relic translation; they also directly cite specific passages with a unique turn of phrase. For example, when Humbert referred to the complicated mortgage of the Crown relic in lectio II, he wrote ‘vel obligare volebant, que totius imperii titulus erat et gloria specialis gratis’ (or they wanted to mortgage it, which was the title and the particular glory of the whole empire). The Historia contains very similar language, ‘que totius imperii titulus erat et gloria specialis […] vel ad minus titulo pignoris obligare’ (which was the title and particular glory of the whole empire […] or at least mortgage it under the title of a pledge). See Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1, fol. 376v and Urfels-Capot, Le Sanctoral du

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

early versions of the Crown Office include a late thirteenth-century breviary used in Sens (BnF, MS lat. 1028, fols 286v–298v) and another breviary of a similar date used in Paris (BnF, MS lat. 15182, fols 290v–297v) but, in both of these manuscripts (and in many others too), the compilers copied parts of the Historia text verbatim.15 The Historia and the lections that accompanied many of the earliest recensions of the Crown Office include a detailed report of how Jacques and André worked together to acquire the relic for their king. By re-reading this story during each annual feast, the memory of these brave friars would continue to thrive in the living tradition of practising devotion to the Crown relic, enshrined in the Sainte-Chapelle de Paris. Relying in part on a close reading of the Historia, this chapter will retrace the story of Jacques and André’s journey to collect the Crown of Thorns. It also will attempt to expose the instrumental role of French preaching friars in the formation of King Louis IX’s new cult, which in turn enhanced the pious reputation of its royal patron.

The King Who Wished He Was a Friar For many historians, the religiosity of King Louis IX and the meteoric rise of the mendicant orders, especially the Dominicans and Franciscans, were axiomatic in thirteenth-century France.16 Born on 25 April 1214, Louis IX began his life just as the Latin Church entered a phase of reform and renewal. In November of the following year, Pope Innocent III (r. 1198–1216) presided over the Fourth Lateran Council, wherein the establishment of Canon 13 restricted the foundation of new religious orders (but Canon 10 enabled bishops to appoint preachers to support their ministry).17 Just over lectionnaire de l’office Dominicain, p. 230 and compare with the text in BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3r, and Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, p. 51.  15 Almost the entirety of the Historia as it appears in BnF, MS lat. 3282 matches the content of the nine lections for ‘De translatione sancte corone’ in BnF, MS lat. 1028, fols 286v–298v. For its provenance, see Leroquais, Les Bréviaires manuscrits, iii, pp. 3–5 and Lauer, Biblothèque nationale Catalogue général des manuscrits latins, i, pp. 368–69. For a recent study of the Crown Office, see Blezzard, Ryle, and Alexander, ‘New Perspectives on the Feast of the Crown of Thorns’, pp. 23–53. For an analysis of the Office in BnF, MS lat. 1028, see Arnaud, ‘L’Office de la couronne d’épines dans l’archidiocèse de Sens’, and Arnaud and Dennery, ‘L’Office de la Couronne d’épines à Sens’, pp. 1–42. For the Crown Office in BnF, MS lat. 15182, see Leroquais, Les Bréviaires manuscrits, iii, pp. 260–62, and Kirk, ‘Translatione corona spinea’.  16 The symbiotic relationship between King Louis IX’s increasingly zealous persona and the growing power of the mendicant orders in France is examined at length in Little, ‘Saint Louis’ Involvement with the Friars’, pp. 125–48. See also William Chester Jordan, Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade, pp. 184–85; Richard, Saint Louis: Crusader King of France, p. 193; Le Goff, Saint Louis (French version), pp. 610–12.  17 For a recent study of the relatively minor impact of Canon 13 on the restriction of new orders, see Freeman, ‘The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215’.

17 1

172

e m ily gue r ry

a year later, a new religious Order was formed when Pope Honorius III (r. 1216–1227) sanctioned the institution of the fratres Praedicatores on 22 December 1216.18 A group of followers of St Dominic (1170–1221, canonized 1234) came to Paris on 12 September 1217, where the cathedral canons at Notre-Dame offered them a place to eat, sleep, and pray within their precincts. After 6 August 1218, the cohort of Parisian Dominicans would become known as the ‘Jacobins’, a name related to the location of their convent nearby the Hôpital Saint-Jacques.19 Dominic visited the growing community of Jacobins in June 1219; he also preached in the cathedral and around the city.20 By the time of Dominic’s death in 1221, the chapter at Notre-Dame allowed the Jacobins to preach on site too.21 The coronation of King Louis IX occurred in Reims on 29 November 1226, less than two months after the death of St Francis on 3 October (1182–1226, canonized 1228). Thereafter, the Gallic Church would continue to embrace the new mendicant orders while the Jacobin community flourished in the royal city of Paris. At court and in private, the young king surrounded himself with Franciscans and Dominicans by placing them in prominent clerical roles. Occupying various positions of power, friars became some of Louis IX’s closest confidants, advisors, and friends. They encouraged their king to incorporate their religious ideas into his political leadership; they also helped to inspire his personal interest in pursuing the vita apostolica. For these reasons, the king’s close association with the friars was not without its critics in his time.22 However, Louis IX’s affection for the preachers and their way of life only increased throughout his reign. A Dominican named Geoffrey de Beaulieu (d. 1275) was an important member of the royal entourage; he was especially close to Louis IX and the king apparently referred to Geoffrey as his ‘father’.23 In addition to serving as the chief royal almoner, Geoffrey de Beaulieu was Louis IX’s confessor for over twenty years, working from the beginning of the Seventh Crusade in 1248 until Louis IX’s death during the Eighth Crusade in 1270.24 Numerous contemporary sources confirm that Geoffrey comforted the king during some of the most difficult moments of his life, including the devastating failure of his first crusade and  18 Chapotin, Histoire des Dominicains de la Province de France, p. ix.  19 Chapotin, Histoire des Dominicains de la Province de France, pp. 2–5.  20 Chapotin, Histoire des Dominicains de la Province de France, p. 7.  21 Chapotin, Histoire des Dominicains de la Province de France, pp. 2–5.  22 For example, see the reportatio of William of Saint-Amour’s polemical sermon of 1256 in William of Saint-Amour, De periculis novissimorum temporum, ed. by Gelter, p. 10.  23 For example, Geoffrey recalled that during one confession, the king referred to his confessor as his father: ‘Vos estis pater et ego filius’ (You are the father and I am the son); Geoffrey de Beaulieu, Vita Ludovici Noni, ed. by Daunou and Naudet, p. 6. See also the recent English translation in Gaposchkin and Field, The Sanctity of Louis IX, p. 79.  24 Geoffrey de Beaulieu, Vita Ludovici Noni, ed. by Daunou and Naudet, pp. 1–27. Geoffrey states in Chapter 5 (p. 5): ‘ego quamivis insufficiens, dicti domini regis confessor extiti

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

the grief he endured after the death of his formidable mother and co-regent, Queen Blanche of Castile (1188–1252).25 According to the calculations of Natalis de Wailly, if Louis IX truly committed himself to reciting the hours, listening to sermons, attending Offices, and praying as much as Geoffrey and his other hagio­graphers said he did, he would have spent as many as six hours with his confessor every day.26 Geoffrey was the first in what would become an almost unbroken tradition, which lasted for over one hundred and fifty years, of employing Dominicans as confessors to the Capetian and Valois kings of France.27 Geoffrey numbered among the men who consoled Louis on his deathbed in Carthage, listening to his final wishes, praying with him and for him. Louis IX’s last requests from his confessor included his promise to pass along his enseignements to his children and ensure that one of his sons would be educated at Saint-Jacques.28 Geoffrey shared this responsibility with Guillaume de Chartres, another Dominican royal chaplain and future hagio­grapher of Louis IX; they personally delivered the late king’s bones to his son, King Philip III (r. 1270–1285), before the interment in the royal necropolis at the abbey of Saint-Denis. After a number of miracles took place at Louis IX’s tomb in Saint-Denis, an inquest into his sainthood began. Pope Gregory X (r. 1271–1276) charged Geoffrey de Beaulieu with the task of composing an account of the king’s life. He completed his Vita Ludovici Noni in 1272.29 Praised by historians for its veracity and intimacy, the Vita Ludovici Noni became the most widely read and most frequently copied of the hagio­graphic corpus related to St Louis.30 Numerous anecdotes in this Vita testify to the king’s desire to be a friar. In chapter twelve, Geoffrey recalled a conversation when Louis IX admitted his desire to abandon his courtly life and become a friar. However, he could not decide if he should be a Franciscan or a Dominican:31

 25  26  27  28  29  30  31

per viginti annos vel circa’ (I, although not worthy, acted as confessor to the lord king for twenty years or thereabouts); discussed in de Wailly, ‘Examen critique de la Vie de Saint Louis’, p. 216. The intimacy shared between Geoffrey de Beaulieu and King Louis IX is discussed in Little, ‘Saint Louis’ Involvement with the Friars’, pp. 127–28. De Wailly, ‘Examen critique de la Vie de Saint Louis’, p. 216. De La Selle, Le Service des âmes à la cour, p. 99. Geoffrey de Beaulieu, Vita Ludovici Noni, ed. by Daunou and Naudet, pp. 8–9. On the enseignements, see Delaborde, ‘Texte primitif des enseignements de Saint Louis à son fils’, pp. 73–100. For this papal letter dated 4 March 1272, see Guiraud, Les Registres de Grégoire X (1272–1276), p. 136, no. 349. See the preface to Geoffrey’s text by Delisle in the edition by Bouquet, xx, xxviii; see also de Wailly, ‘Examen critique de la Vie de Saint Louis’, pp. 205–31; Beaune, The Birth of an Ideo­logy, pp. 93–95; Gaposchkin, The Making of Saint Louis, pp. 33–34. Geoffrey de Beaulieu, Vita Ludovici Noni, ed. by Daunou and Naudet, p. 7, and Gaposchkin and Field, The Sanctity of Louis IX, p. 80.

17 3

1 74

e m ily gue r ry

Corde devoto firmiter disponebat, quod adulto filio suo primogenito regnum penitus resignaret, et obtento uxoris assensu religiounem intraret, unam videlicet de duabus, Fratrum Minorum scilicet, sive Fratrum Praedicatorum. Has enim duas specialissime diligebat, dicens, quod si de corpore sui posset duas portiones, unam daret uni, reliquam alteri. (He resolutely planned from heartfelt devotion that when his eldest son should come of age he would give up his kingdom, obtain his wife’s consent, and enter a religious Order — specifically one of two orders; that is the Brothers Minor or the Preaching Brothers. He was particularly fond of these two, for he used to say that if he could divide himself in two, he would give half to one and the remainder to the other.) To help with this interpersonal quandary, Geoffrey states that Louis IX’s wife, Queen Marguerite de Provence (1221–1295), interceded. She explained that the Lord intended for him to be a king and, in this way, he could use his power to protect the Church.32 In chapter twenty-four of his Vita, Geoffrey offered a brief summary of how Louis IX acquired the Crown of Thorns. He mentions the difficult journey endured by the royal nuncios as well as Louis IX’s humble appearance during the relic procession in Paris:33 Quanta devotione fidei, et quam immensis laboribus et expensis ac nunciorum suorum periculis obtinuerit a Constantinopolitano imperatore sacrosanctam Coronam spineam Salvatorius […] necnon cum quam solemni ac devotissima processione totius cleri et populi pretiosae reliquiae Parisiis sint receptae, ipso rege hunc sacrum thesaurum ex una parte propiis humeris ac nudis pedibus deportante. (How great was his faithful devotion and effort, how great was the expense, how great was the danger to his agents, when he obtained from the emperor in Constantinople the sacrosanct Crown of Thorns of our Saviour […]. And again, with what solemn devotion did all the clergy and the populace receive in procession at Paris these valuable relics, when the king himself, barefoot, bore on his own shoulders for some way this sacred treasure!) Even though the translation of the Crown occurred in 1239, nine years before Geoffrey entered the king’s service, Geoffrey wrote ‘of a libellus’, which ‘was diligently compiled about these matters bears witness to all these

 32 Geoffrey de Beaulieu, Vita Ludovici Noni, ed. by Daunou and Naudet, p. 7 and Gaposchkin and Field, The Sanctity of Louis IX, p. 80. For a recent study of Marguerite’s relationship to her husband, Louis IX (and her mother-in-law, Blanche), see McCannon, ‘Two Capetian Queens’, pp. 163–76.  33 Geoffrey de Beaulieu, Vita Ludovici Noni, ed. by Daunou and Naudet, p. 15, and Gaposchkin and Field, The Sanctity of Louis IX, pp. 100–01.

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

things, from which is now read at Matins the solemn rite for the said Crown and other relics’.34 Here, like Humbert of Romans before him, Geoffrey de Beaulieu refers his readers to a specific Historia, one that was attributed to Archbishop Cornut. The nineteenth-century historian Natalis de Wailly observed that Geoffrey’s Vita contains the first references to King Louis IX as both ‘rex sanctus’ (saintly king) and ‘beatus’ (blessed).35 Geoffrey often mentioned the extremely modest appearance and behaviour of his royal patron.36 While many of Louis IX’s hagio­graphers implied that he always exhibited his piety, the king transformed into an especially ascetic man when he returned to France in 1254 after the failure of his crusade. The noticeable change in his demeanour seemed to serve a penitential function following the victory of his adversaries at El-Mansoura in February 1250, his embarrassing captivity in Egypt, and the four years he spent fortifying crusader buildings in Acre, Caesarea, and Jaffa.37 Jean de Joinville (d. 1317), the seneschal of Champagne, who also was the king’s close friend and his bio­grapher, recalled that after the crusade Louis IX started to wear modest clothing, eat meagre meals, abstain from drinking too much wine, and ensure that every day he fed the poor and gave them money.38 He actively tried to follow the vita apostolica but this holy pursuit was constantly challenged and limited

 34 ‘Testis est hic libellus, qui diligenter super his est confectus de quo ad Matutinas legitur, in solemnitatibus dictae Coronae caeterarumque reliquiarum’ (The little book that was diligently compiled about these matters bears witness to all these things, from which is now read at Matins the solemn rites for the said Crown and other relics); Geoffrey de Beaulieu, Vita Ludovici Noni, ed. by Daunou and Naudet, p. 15, and the translation in Gaposchkin and Field, The Sanctity of Louis IX, p. 101.  35 De Wailly suggested that these epithets could have been inserted by a later author some time after St Louis’s canonization, and he counted that Geoffrey uses the terms sanctitas and beatus once each, sanctissimus twice, and sanctus seven times with reference to the king across his pro­logue and six of his chapters. De Wailly, ‘Examen critique de la Vie de Saint Louis’, pp. 206–09.  36 Geoffrey de Beaulieu provides a similar description of the king’s humble appearance and demeanour in the chapter ‘De humilitate et primo de habitu et veste’ of his Vita Ludovici Noni, ed. by Daunou and Naudet, pp. 5–6.  37 On the king’s ascetic transformation after his crusade, see William Chester Jordan, Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade, pp. 128–29, 195.  38 ‘Après ce que li roy fu revenus d’outre mer, il se maintin si devotement que onques puis ne porta ne vari, ne gris, ne escarlatte, ne estriers ne esperons dorez. Ses robes estoient de camelin ou de pers; les pennes de ses couvertours et de ses robes estoient de gamites, oe de jambes de lievres, ou d’aigniaus. Il estoit si sobres de sa bouche qu’il ne devisoit nullement ses viandes, fors ce que ses cuisiniers li appareilloit; et on le mettoit devant li, et le mangeoit. Son vin trampoit en un gobelet de voirre; et selon ce que li vins estoit, il metoit de l’yaue par mesure et tenoit le gobelet en sa main ainsi comme on li trempoit son vin derriere sa table. Il faisoit tous jours mangier ses povres, et après mangier leur faisoit donner de ses deniers.’ Jean de Joinville, Histoire de Saint Louis, ed. by de Wailly, p. 140. See also the recent English edition and translation: Jean de Joinville, ‘The Life of St Louis’, in Joinville and Villehardouin: Chronicles of the Crusades, ed. and trans. by Smith, p. 313.

17 5

176

e m ily gue r ry

by his royal duties. Even though the king could not become a friar, he could look like one. According to the Franciscan chronicler Salimbene de Adam (d. 1290), Louis IX dressed ‘non in pompa regali sed in habitu peregrini’ (not in regal pomp but in the habit of a pilgrim).39 While his religious zeal attracted praise from many of his contemporaries, some believed that his behaviour, especially his humble attire, was inappropriate for a monarch. In response to a question about those who disapproved of his humility, Louis IX replied:40 Non cures pro verbis stultorum. Dicam tibi, quid mihil accidit aliquando existens in thalamo. Audio aliquos clamantes: Frater Ludovice! et maledicentes mihi, non credentes, quod audiam eos; cogito, quod possem eos facere occidi; sed video hoc ad magnum bonum accidere mihi, si propter Deum patienter sustinens dissimulavero. Et vere dico tibi, quantam in me est, non displicet si hanc injuriam irrogant mihi. (Pay no attention to the words of fools; I will tell you what happens sometimes when I am alone in my bed chamber. I hear cries of ‘Frater Ludovice!’ and of curses against me, thought to be beyond my hearing. Then I wonder in my own mind whether I should have them slain, but then I realize that this befalls me for my benefit, if only I bear it patiently for God’s sake. And, to speak frankly, I am not displeased that it happens.) According to this remarkable anecdote, preserved in a collection of contemporary Franciscan exempla, Louis IX apparently relished the criticism that he resembled a friar. In the end, King Louis IX was given the ultimate reward from the Latin Church. After various bureaucratic inquests, the production of more vitae by other authors, and the reports of numerous miracles, Pope Boniface VIII canonized St Louis on 11 August 1297.41 It cannot be a coincidence that the canonization occurred on the same day as the annual feast of the Susceptio Coronae in France. Thereafter, the date of the king’s death, 25 August, marked the annual celebration of St Louis in the liturgical calendar. The Dominicans would continue to champion the cult of their former benefactor, composing and circulating liturgy in praise of St Louis.42

 39 Salimbene, ‘De qualitate regis Francie quantum ad corpus, et de devotione eius quantum ad animam’, in his Cronica, ed. by Bernini, i, p. 317.  40 Cited from the sermon beginning ‘Dixit sancto Ludovico regi’ in the appendix of Analecta Franciscana sive Chronica aliaque varia documenta ad historiam fratrum minorum, i, p. 413 (based on BAV Ottob. lat. 522, fol. 164r).  41 See Delaborde, ‘Fragments de l’enquête faite à Saint-Denis en 1282’, pp. 1–71; see also Carolus-Barré and Platelle, Le Procès de canonisation de Saint Louis (1272–1297) and Gaposchkin, The Making of Saint Louis.  42 Gaposchkin, The Making of Saint Louis, pp. 80–82.

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

In the fourth lection of the Ludovicus Decus, a rhymed Office for St Louis composed by Dominicans c. 1301–1306, he is said to be like another King David in his humility: ‘Quanto magnus erat, velut alter David, tanto humilius se gerebat’ (The great[er] he was, just like another David, the more humbly he behaved).43 In 2 Samuel 6. 14, David removes his royal vestments and wears only an ‘accinctus ephod lineo’ (linen tunic) as he carries the Ark into Jerusalem. This allegorical association thus aligns the appearance of David with that of Louis IX during his procession of the Crown of Thorns into Paris. As a result, the royal processions of the Crown relic in August 1239 effectively invoked an Old Testament archetype. It is also possible that these civic, ceremonial rituals re-cast the king and his brother as Jacques and André, enabling the Capetians to emulate these friars and re-enact their journey on an urban stage. Having returned to this early, definitive episode in the king’s life, when he first appeared like a friar on the streets of Paris with the Crown of Christ, let us now turn to the two Dominicans who made the acquisition of this sacred relic possible.

The Selection of the King’s Envoys The principal source for understanding the translation of the Crown of Thorns in 1239 is the so-called Historia Susceptionis Coronae Spineae. Few contemporary references to the Crown relic mission survive and none of them offer the detail of the Historia. Writing in 1243, the Cistercian chronicler Albéric de Trois-Fontaines offers a very short summary of events: ‘quasdam difficultates passi sunt; sed semper, Christo triumphante, evaserunt’ (they endured some difficulties; but, as always, they evaded them through Christ triumphant).44 In the Incipit translatio sancte Corone, completed in 1244, a monk named Gérard de Saint-Quentin provided his own eyewitness account of the ceremonial arrival of the Crown in 1239 as well as the arrival of the True Cross and other Constantinopolitan relics in Paris in 1241 and 1242.45

 43 See the discussion of this lection in Epstein, ‘Ludovicus Decus Regnantium’, pp. 283–334 with the analysis at 291, and the transcription of BnF, MS lat. 911, fol. 10v, which might be the apo­graph of this Office, on p. 320.  44 Albéric de Trois-Fontaines, E Chronico Alberici, Monachi Trium Fontium, ed. by de Wailly, p. 626.  45 E. Miller discovered this text, entitled Incipit translatio sancte Corone Domini nostri Jesu Christi a Constantinopolitana urbe ad civitatis Parisiensis facta anno domini mccxli regnante Ludovico filio Ludovici regni Francorum, in a thirteenth-century parchment manuscript that contains a mélange of saints’ lives and historical works in BnF, MS n.a.l. 1423, fols 172r–174v. In this narration of the translation events between 1239 and 1242, the Incipit briefly describes the reception of the Crown and then provides a detailed discussion about the subsequent arrival of the True Cross and other holy relics in the years that followed. One year after Miller’s publication, which appeared as a review of Riant’s Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, Léopold Delisle found another manuscript

17 7

1 78

e m ily gue r ry

His Incipit explains some of the historical context surrounding the translation of the Crown. He mentions that the king’s ‘nuncii’ (agents) were ‘duos fratres ordinis Predicatorum, discretos, providos, et honestos’ (two friars of the preaching Order, who were discreet, provident, and honourable), who had some sort of Constantinopolitan connections.46 However, most of Gérard’s Incipit focuses on the arrival of additional Passion relics in Paris after 1239.47 Geoffrey de Beaulieu’s Vita of 1272, as noted above, briefly referred to dangers endured by ‘nunciorum suorum’ (his agents) on their mission and then directed his readers to seek out the libellus, containing the Historia, for further information.48 The historian and hagio­grapher Guillaume de Nangis, based at the abbey of Saint-Denis, also mentioned the special role of ‘certain agents’ (certos nuntios, or messagiers certaines) in acquiring the relic in his Vita Sancti Ludovici, completed before 1301.49 The anonymous Chronicon from the monastery of Sainte-Catherine in Rouen, completed before 1282, provides a short summary of the friars’ mission and it is one of the only other thirteenth-century historical texts to provide the names of the king’s envoys: ‘Iacobus et Andreas fratres ordinis predicatorum’ ( Jacques and André, friars of the preaching Order).50 However, upon closer inspection it is clear that the Rouennais scribe relied on the Historia (or a version of the Crown Office with lections taken from the Historia) and copied a number of phrases word-for-word from this text.51 In both the

 46  47  48  49

 50  51

(Charleville-Mézières, Bibl. mun., MS 275) containing a copy of this text with a shorter heading, Incipit translatio Sancte Corone, in 1879. He then attributed its authorship to a monk named Gérard de Saint-Quentin. See Gérard de Saint-Quentin, Translatio sancte Corone Domini, ed. by Miller, ‘Review of Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae’, pp. 292–309 at 295, Delisle, ‘Translation des reliques de la Passion en 1239 et en 1241’, pp. 143–44, and Delisle, Manuscrits Latins et Française ajoutées aux fonds des nouvelles acquisitions, i. 207 for his entry for BnF, MS n.a.l. 1423. See also de Wailly, ‘Récit du treizième siècle’, p. 408. Gérard de Saint-Quentin, Translatio sancte Corone Domini, ed. by Miller, ‘Review of Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae’, p. 295. See the description of the Incipit found in the catalogue entry for BnF, MS n.a.l. 1423 in Durand and Laffitte, Le Trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle, p. 46. See n. 34, above. ‘Ab Incarnatione vero Domini MCCXXXIX, per solemnes et certos nuntios de partibus Constantinopolis fecit coronam sacratissimam, qua Christus filius Dei pro nostris enormitatibus in passione sua coronari voluit, apportari’ (In the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1239, for the solemnities and for certain agents that brought from the parts of Constantinople the most sacred Crown, which Christ the Son of God wished to be crowned in his Passion for our enormities); Guillaume de Nangis, Vita Sancti Ludovici Regis Franciae, ed. by Daunou and Naudet, pp. 326–27. ‘Chronicon S. Catharinae de Monte Rohtomagensis’, transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, ii, p. 246, and ‘E Chronico Rotomagensi’, ed. by de Wailly, Delisle and Jourdain, p. 399. The entry for the translation of the Crown of Thorns as it appears in this Chronicon, with the citations taken from the Historia in italics, is as follows: ‘Anno MCCXLVII [sic]. Sacrosancta Spinea Corona Domini nostri Iesu Christi Parisius delata est, et translate a domino Ludovico, rege Francorum, et in Capella regia Sancti Nicolai decenter

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

thirteenth century and today, the Historia remains the most authoritative account of how the Crown came to Paris. It also describes the friars’ mission with clarity and conviction, framing their journey as part of the unfolding of salvation history. The Historia is the only extant literary tract attributed to Gauthier Cornut. Throughout his career, Cornut was instrumental in enabling the preaching friars to thrive in the Capetian kingdom. As a young man, he was a canon at the cathedral of Notre-Dame in Paris.52 It is likely that he would have been installed on site when St Dominic’s followers first reached Paris in 1217 and when St Dominic preached at the cathedral the following year. By 1221 only the chapters of Notre-Dame de Champs and Notre-Dame de Paris (where Cornut was dean at the time) allowed the members of this new Order to preach within their precincts.53 After the controversial rejection of Cornut’s appointment to the bishopric of Paris in 1220, he received the pallium from Pope Honorius III in 1222 when he became the archbishop of Sens, placing him at the very top of the prelatial hierarchy in Capetian France.54 collocata, in crastino sancti Laurentii martyris […] generum suum Balduinum direxit ad partes Gallicanas, ut a rege Ludovico, de cuius sanguine ex utraque parte patris et matris ortum habuerat, et domina Blanka, cuius neptem duxerat, ceterisque nobilibus Francie, subsidium et auxilium peteret adversus hostes suos et Grecorum gentem […] quod predictam Coronam Dominicam oporteat eos alienis vendere, vel ad minus titulo pignoris obligare, affectuoseque eidem supplicat.’ (In 1247 [sic] the sacrosanct Crown of Thorns of our Lord Jesus Christ was brought to Paris, and translated to King Louis, the king of the Franks, and it was fittingly placed in the royal chapel of Saint-Nicolas on the day after the feast of Saint Lawrence the martyr […] [ John of Brienne] directed his son in law Baldwin to the region of Gaul, as well as to King Louis, from whose blood in each part of his, father and mother, he took his origin, and Queen Blanche, whose granddaughter he had married, and certain nobles of France, to find support and seek assistance against his enemies and the nation of the Greeks […] they needed to sell the aforesaid Crown of the Lord, which was the title and particular glory of the whole empire, to other people, or at least mortgage it under the title of a pledge, and prayed for this with affection). This part of the ‘Chronicon S. Catharinae de Monte’ is transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, ii, p. 246. Compare the phrases in italics with the lines of the Historia transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, pp. 51 and 49.  52 Gauthier Cornut had been a prominent member of the chapter at Notre-Dame since 1217, when he was appointed as the ‘doyen d’église de Paris’ after the death of his maternal uncle, Hughes Clément, who previously held the title. See Quesvers, Notes sûr les Cornu, pp. 1–8. See also Rivet de la Grange, and others, Histoire littéraire de la France, xvii, pp. 270–72, and Fisquet, La France pontifical, pp. 57–59.  53 Cornut became the dean of Notre-Dame de Paris in 1220. For an overview of the openminded policies towards the Dominicans at Notre-Dame, see the sources cited in n. 52 as well as Chapotin, Histoire des Dominicains de la Province de France, pp. 2–5.  54 Pope Honorius III rejected King Philip II’s recommendation of Gauthier Cornut on procedural grounds; the pope chastised the king and disapproved of the ‘unjust’ nature of this election of a close acquaintance through royal mandate. However, he did not criticize the choice of Cornut, whom he evidently held in high regard. Instead, the pope called for the transfer of Bishop Guillaume de Seignelay of Auxerre (r. 1207–1220) to the see of

17 9

1 80

e m ily gue r ry

Over the next two decades, Archbishop Cornut used his authority to help the new mendicant orders find their footing in Louis IX’s kingdom. The establishment of the Dominicans’ presence in Sens began in 1227 and, by 1229, Cornut had personally orchestrated accommodation for the fratres Praedicatores; by 1231, Cornut had welcomed the fratres Minores into his city as well.55 In Sens, Cornut would eventually provide the mendicants with foundations near the vetus forum, the Pont Bruant, and in the surrounding faubourg.56 He also authorized the construction of a Dominican convent in Chartres in 1231 (after the resolution of a dispute amongst the cathedral chapter) and at Troyes in 1232, where many Dominicans had lived since 1228.57 Two papal bulls reveal that between 1234 and 1236, Cornut relied on the help of Sénois Dominicans to seek out and suppress heresy in his archdiocese.58 It is therefore possible that Cornut knew of Jacques and André personally through his extensive networks. Because of his critical role in facilitating negotiations between the Latin Emperor Baldwin II, King Louis IX, and Pope Gregory IX, Cornut might

Paris. Guillaume held the bishopric until his death in 1223. Honorius III’s refusal of the appointment of ‘beloved Master Gauthier’ on 27 April 1220, is preserved as ‘Epistolarum Honorii Papae […] ad Philippum’, ed. by Delisle, p. 695. In a letter explaining his appointment of Cornut to the archbishopric of Sens, Honorius III wrote that although the church of St Mary (in Paris) lost Cornut, that of St Stephen (in Sens) would gladly receive him: ‘Per nos ecclesiam Beatae Mariae amisisti sed beatus Stephanus te suscepit, et nos te confirmamus; viriliter age.’ Rivet de la Grange, Histoire littéraire de la France, xviii, p. 273.  55 Various letters exchanged between Cornut and Friar Bernard, then the guardian of the Franciscans in Sens, discuss their move from their original domicile in Sens to the parish of Saint-Romain in 1233. See Quantin, Inventaire-Sommaire des Archives Départementales, ii, p. 12, item G 41 ‘1176–1764’. See also the discussion in Roy, Le Couvent des Dominicains de Sens, p. 5, and Chapotin, Histoire des Dominicains de la Province de France, pp. 76–81.  56 ‘Illo tempore, venerunt Senonis fratres Praedicatores et obtinuerunt locum, concedente Galtherio archepiscopo, in veteri foro, et Minores ad pontem Bruant, et post in surburbio Senonensi’ (In that time, the preaching friars came to Sens and they obtained a place, granted by Archbishop Gauthier, in the old marketplace, and the Friars Minor at the Pont Bruant); Geoffrey de Courlon, Chronicon, ed. by Juillot, p. 522.  57 Chapotin, Histoire des Dominicains de la Province de France, pp. 157 and 179.  58 The following papal bulls sent to Gregory IX testify to Cornut’s use of Dominicans as agents against heresy in his province: ‘Archiepsicopo Senonensi eiusque suffraganeis notum facit se a jurisdictione inquisitorum haereticae pravitatis provinciam Senonensem revocare, eosque hortatur ut, cum fratres Praedicatores ad confutandos haereticos aptiores sint, eos ad exstirpandos errores perversorum dogmatum advocent’ (The jurisdiction to repeal, and to call back, the inquisitors of perverse heresies in the province of Sens is made known through the Archbishop of Sens and his suffragans, with the preaching friars, who are appropriate for seeking out and confuting heretics, and bringing them to the suppression of their perverse dogma) [4 February 1234]; ‘Archiepsicopo Senonensi mandat quatens per se et per fratrum Robertum, ordinis Praedicatorum, ac alios fratres Praedicatores contra haereticos procedat’ (Through the extent of the mandate of the Archbishop of Sens and through Friar Robert of the order of the preaching friars, and to other preaching friars, to proceed against the heretics) [23 August 1235]. Cited from Auvray, Les Registres de Grégoire IX, i, p. 969, no. 1763 and ii, p. 145, no. 2734.

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

have assisted with the selection of Jacques and André for this important mission.59 During a fundraising visit to his European allies in early 1237, Baldwin II met with Louis IX to ask for urgent financial and military assistance while his co-emperor, John of Brienne, remained in Constantinople to protect it.60 The Nicaean Emperor John Doukas Vatatzes III (r. 1222–1254) had threatened to invade the city. Baldwin II was a member of the Courtenay family and the primary objective of his visit to Europe was to take back ownership of what he believed to be his inheritance, namely the margrave of Namur. Then, he intended to liquefy its monetary value and divert these funds to support the Latin empire. Originally, Louis IX’s involvement in Baldwin II’s affairs was as a mediator; the king helped to apply pressure to Marguerite de Courtenay, the sister of Baldwin II who was installed at Namur.61 She eventually relinquished control and conceded to her brother, who then became the marquis. In this capacity, Baldwin then mortgaged the chateau to Louis IX for 50,000 livres, an exorbitant sum of money, before approaching other wealthy allies, including the Plantagenet king Henry III, for further help for his cause.62 Suddenly, Baldwin II’s fundraising plans were interrupted by devastating news: Emperor John had passed away. Some sources claim that before his death, John became a Franciscan friar.63

 59 Two papal bulls from Pope Gregory IX addressed to the archbishop of Sens in the early summer of 1237 reveal that Cornut was encouraging Baldwin II’s fundraising and crusading initiatives. On 30 October 1237, Pope Gregory IX granted the archbishops of both Sens and Rouen permission to organize councils to urge all French prelates to help the crisis in the Latin East; they also offered indulgences to those who came to aid. Alongside Baldwin II’s dealings with Louis IX, Archbishop Cornut was instrumental in laying the necessary groundwork to deliver support from the Capetian kingdom to Latin Constantinople. What was once a fundraising mission had become a call for crusade. For these letters, see Auvray, Les Registres de Grégoire IX, ii, pp. 667–70, letters no. 3730 and 3728 and p. 801, no. 3929.  60 Two recent projects have helped to shed new light on the co-rulership of the Latin Empire under Baldwin II and John of Brienne. For an excellent new study of Baldwin II, see Giebfried, ‘The Imagined Empire of Baldwin II’, and the recent mono­graph, which is equally detailed and informative, by Perry, John of Brienne.  61 Bovesse, ‘La Rupture du lien personnel entre les comtés de Flandre et de Namur’, pp. 191–213. Also discussed in Giebfried, ‘The Imagined Empire of Baldwin II’, pp. 154–55.  62 No official accounts of this transaction survive and our only source for this exorbitant figure is Albéric: ‘Supradictus Imperator Juvenis Balduinus castrum de Namurco Ludovico Regi Franciae supra quinquaginta millium librarum Parisiensium invadiavi’ (The abovementioned Young Emperor Baldwin engaged Louis king of France for the castle of Namur for more than fifty thousand livres Parisi). Albéric de Trois-Fontaines, Chronicon ed. by Riant, ii, p. 242.  63 Salimbene claimed that Emperor John joined the fratres minores shortly before his death. See Salimbene, Cronica, ed. by Bernini, i, pp. 62–63. For a discussion of other sources that mention John’s conversion, including Matthew Paris and Bernard of Besse, see Perry, John of Brienne, pp. 180–82.

181

1 82

e m ily gue r ry

A group of baronial advisors, led by the imperial bailiff Narjot de Toucy, took control over Constantinople in Baldwin’s absence. They sealed off the city gates in an attempt to protect its citizens, which inadvertently led to a panic. A shortage of food caused people to flee and the remaining citizens faced starvation. After John’s death, the baronial co-regents sacrificed many precious items at their disposal for their monetary value while Baldwin II remained in Europe. They ordered the bronze and timber to be stripped from the domes of Constantinopolitan palaces, selling the bronze for coinage and using the timber for firewood. They also used the Crown of Thorns, one of the many Passion relics from the imperial collection enshrined in the chapel of the Virgin near the Pharos in the Bucoleon palace, to procure an expensive loan. The Crown was originally promised to the Cistercian community at SainteMarie-de-Percheio in exchange for a loan of 4300 hyperpyra, but more debts to other creditors started to accumulate.64 The Historia clarifies that at a later stage during his negotiations with Louis IX, Baldwin II expressed his concern about the use of the Crown relic as a pawn. As he explained the circumstances surrounding this expensive mortgage, he pleaded with his patron, telling Louis IX that he was a more worthy guardian of the Lord’s Crown:65 [Baldwin] dicit itaque se novisse relatione veridica, proceres inclusos in urbe Constantinopoli, ad hanc calamitatis inediam devenisse, quod incomparabilem thesaurum illum Corone Domini (que totius imperii titulus erat et gloria specialis) oportebat eos alienis vendere, vel ad minus titulo pignoris obligare. Unde ardenter habebat in votis, quatinus ad regem, consanguineum dominum, et beneficum suum, necnon ad regnum Francie (de quo parentes ipsius utrique processerant) huius speciose gemme honor inestimabilis et gloria provenirent. ([Baldwin] then said that he knew through a true account that the leaders locked in the city of Constantinople had reached such a state of calamitous famine that they needed to sell the incomparable treasure of the Crown of the Lord, which was the title and particular glory of the whole empire, to other people, or at least mortgage it under the title of a pledge. Therefore he ardently prayed that the inestimable honour and glory of this beautiful gem should at least come to the king of his own blood, his leader and benefactor, as well as to the kingdom of France.)

 64 See Martin, Cuozzo, and Martin-Hisard, ‘Une acte de Baudouin II’, pp. 211–23. On the convent of Sainte-Marie, see Brown, ‘The Cistercians in the Latin Empire’, p. 93. See also Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, p. clxxv.  65 Gauthier Cornut, Historia, in BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3r; transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, pp. 50–51.

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

Louis IX agreed to pay the entirety of this loan too and, in so doing, his largesse would liberate the relic from the previous debt, thereby allowing Baldwin II to ‘give’ the Crown of Thorns to the king. Despite the obvious economic nature of this transaction, the transfer of the relic could not be perceived as a sale; this would have violated the rules established in Canon 62 of the Fourth Lateran Council, which state explicitly that no relic should ever be put up for sale or purchased.66 The Historia carefully explains how both parties navigated this awkward pecuniary problem: Verum, quia idem Balduinus perceperat quod si tam preciosa res ei venderetur pecunie precio, regis conscientia lederetur, affectuosa prece cum lacrimis eidem supplicat ut munus illud honorificum ab ipso recipere dono dignetur, et gratis. His auditis, rex prudenter intelligens id a Domino fieri. […] Gaudebat igitur quod, ad exhibendum honorem huiusmodi, suam Deus preelegerat Galliam, in qua per ipsius clementiam fides viget firmiter, et cultu devotissimo salutis nostre mysteria celebrantur. (Because this same Baldwin had realized that, if so precious a thing should be sold to him for a sum of money, the conscience of the King would suffer, he begged him with an affectionate prayer and tears that he adjudge that he vouchsafed to accept that honourable present as a gift and without payment. When he had heard this, the king, prudently realizing that this had come about from the Lord […] rejoiced in the fact that God had chosen his Gaul to show an honour of this kind, in which, through his very clemency, faith flourishes firmly, and the mysteries of our salvation are celebrated with the most devout worship.) Thus, for Baldwin II, Louis IX, and Archbishop Cornut, the Crown of Thorns would be transferred as a gift: it was both a gift from the Latin Emperor and a gift from God, one which the Lord believed that the French kingdom deserved. However, this gift could not be simply delivered to Paris; it needed to be collected from Constantinople only after the debt was cleared. On 4 September 1238, the baronial council in Constantinople sent an urgent letter to King Louis IX concerning the conditions of the mortgage repayment. It also outlined a plan of action for the retrieval of the Crown relic. It stated the full amount of a single, consolidated loan, amounting to 13,134 hyperpyra, and confirmed that the Crown of Thorns would serve as debt collateral. It was payable to Niccolò Quirino and the money should be transferred before a specific deadline, 10 November 1238; if four more months should pass without payment, then the Crown would belong to

 66 This portion of the text of the canons presented at the Fourth Lateran Council is transcribed in Alberigo and others (ed.), Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, p. 263.

183

1 84

e m ily gue r ry

Quirino.67 The Historia asserts that Louis IX agreed to the terms for the receipt of this ‘gift’ and took immediate action:68 Rex igitur, referens grates uberrimas Balduino, gratanter annuit se munus illud inestimabile recepturum ab ipso. Mittuntur ocius a rege Constantinopolim pro complendo negocio Iacobus et Andreas, fratres ordinis Predicatorum, quorum alter, scilicet Iacobus, prior fratrum eiusdem ordinis fuerat in urbe predicta ubi Coronam ipsam frequenter viderat, et ea que circa illam erant optime cognoscebat. (The king therefore, returning most plentiful thanks to Baldwin, joyfully assented that he would receive that inestimable gift from him. Jacques and André, friars of the preaching Order, were swiftly sent by the king to Constantinople to complete the negotiations. One of them, namely Jacques, had been prior of the brothers of this same Order in the aforementioned city where he had often seen this very Crown, and knew very well those matters relating to it.) The above passage also provides some information about the reason for the selection of these friars as the king’s special envoys. First, both Jacques and André were believed to be reliable and capable diplomats, since they were expected to ‘complete the negotiations’. Secondly, Jacques’s appointment was related to his experience living and working in Constantinople, perhaps as the former prior of the convent. This convent was once located in the district of Pera on the present-day site of the Arap Camii mosque near the Galata Tower. However, there are hardly any extant sources concerning its foundation before its rededication in 1299.69 In 1228, the Chapter General of the Order of Preachers met in Paris and agreed to establish Dominican churches in the Greek province, which would have included Latin Constantinople.70 The earliest reference to an active house of preaching friars in this city, which was probably dedicated to St Paul, is confirmed  67 This patent letter survives with four of the six original seals of the Constantinopolitan barons as Paris, Archives nationales, AE/​III/​187. Its content is transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, ii, pp. 119–21, and Vidier, ‘Le Trésor de la SainteChapelle’, pp. 249–50, item no. 1. See also Galland, ‘Engagement de la Sainte Couronne d’épines’, p. 44.  68 Gauthier Cornut, Historia, BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3r, and Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, p. 51.  69 See Loenertz, ‘Les Établissements Dominicains de Péra-Constantinople, origines et fondations’, pp. 332–49 and Loenertz, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca, i, pp. 209–26.  70 ‘Anno domini MCCXXVIII celebratum fuit a prefato magistro Iordane primum capitulum generalissimum Parisius. In quo capitulo VIII prefatis provinciis per beatum Dominicum institutis quatuor fuerant superaddite scilicet Polonia, Dacia, Grecia, et Terra sancta.’ (In the year 1228, the first Most General Chapter was celebrated by the aforementioned Master Jordan in Paris. In this chapter, to the eight aforementioned chapters established by Bl. Dominic, four more were added, namely Poland, Scandinavia, Greece and the Holy Land). Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, i, p. 3.

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

in one surviving letter from 1233.71 Thus, it is possible that Jacques was the first Dominican prior in Constantinople (or at least one of the first), but the Historia is our only extant source for this information. The Historia also stresses that Jacques ‘frequenter viderat’ (had often seen) the Crown of Thorns and that he ‘optime cognoscebat’ (knew very well) the conditions surrounding its engagement. This statement implies his ability to verify the authenticity of the relic as well as his competence in dealing with the complex plea bargain. The appearance of Jacques’s name before that of André in the Historia therefore might relate to his hierarchical status as both a ‘père’ and a ‘frère’.72 What became of Jacques after his return to Paris is unclear, but historians assume that André went on to lead a long and distinguished career as a translator, diplomat, and preacher, working on behalf of both the French king and the pope. Although his full name is not provided in the Historia, this André was André de Longjumeau, who was one of the most well-travelled and well-respected ambassadors in thirteenth-century history. His surname, which is recorded by many contemporary chroniclers as either Lontunnel, Lonçiumel, Loncjumel, and/​or Longemel, is a toponym that refers to a village located to the south of Paris.73 Before going any further, a caveat must be addressed regarding the relationship between these two friars. For far too long, some historians (particularly art historians) have assumed that both Jacques and André came from Longjumeau.74 The assumption seems to have emerged from grammatical confusion. A quick glance at the phrase ‘Jacques and André de Longjumeau’ might lead one to believe that they share a cognomen. However, these two friars were brothers only in the sense that they both belonged to the Dominican confraternity; there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. A brief examination of André de Longjumeau’s later career reveals that he possessed a remarkable set of dip-

 71 For a coherent discussion of the sources related to the first Dominicans in Constantinople, see Altaner, Die Dominikanermissionen des 13. Jahrhunderts. On Dominican activity in this area, see also the chapter by Volti in this volume.  72 While Chapotin reversed the importance of the two figures according to their order in Cornut’s text, Pelliot believed that Jacques held a higher rank than André. See Chapotin, Histoire des Dominicains de la Province de France, pp. 308–09, and Pelliot, ‘Les Mongols et la Papauté: Chapitre ii’, p. 254, note 2.  73 He is called ‘Andreas de Lontunnel’ in Latin (and ‘Lonçiumel’ in the French translation) by Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum historiale, xxxii, p. 90 (ed. by Draelants, Bases textuelles d’atelier Vincent de Beauvais [accessed 1 June 2021]); he is ‘Andreiu/​Audrieu de Longjumel’ and ‘Andreas de Loncjumel’ in the French and Latin versions of the Grandes Chroniques (in Paris (ed.), Les Grandes Chroniques de France, iv, pp. 292 and 302); and he is ‘Andreas de Loncjumel’ (in Latin) and ‘Andrieus de Longemel’ (in the French translation) of Guillaume de Nangis’s ‘Vita Sancti Ludovici Regis Franciae’, ed. by Daunou and Naudet, pp. 358 and 367.  74 A number of art historians have erroneously referred to ‘Jacques Longjumeau’. For instance, see Aubert and others, Les Vitraux de Notre-Dame et de la Sainte-Chapelle, pp. 353–54.

185

1 86

e m ily gue r ry

lomatic skills. His journey with Jacques would be the first of many famous missions, setting him on course for a life full of adventures.

The Diplomatic Career of André de Longjumeau There are a number of short bio­graphies of André de Longjumeau.75 Paul Pelliot produced the seminal work on André’s encounters with the Tatars.76 More recently, various scholars have turned their attention to retracing the itineraries of his voyages to the Mongolian empire.77 Some have argued that André’s career began at a young age. Marie-Dominique Chapotin believed that he was one of the first Jacobins, arriving in Paris soon after the foundation of Saint-Jacques, where he would have studied languages and prepared for conversion missions in foreign lands.78 Others have suggested that he accompanied Bl. Jordan of Saxony (d. 1237), who was St Dominic’s successor as Master General, on his passage to the Holy Land.79 Although each of these origin stories would explain André’s penchant for languages, there is not enough supporting evidence to justify either claim. In Dei Virtus, written in anticipation of the First Council of Lyon in 1245, Pope Innocent IV expressed his plans for ‘remedium contra Tartaros’ (a remedy against the Tatars).80 After the conclusion of this ecumenical meeting, Innocent IV sent André on a mission to improve relations with eastern  75 See also the entry on ‘André de Longjumeau’, in Rivet de la Grange and others, Histoire littéraire de la France, xviii, pp. 447–48. See also the description of frater Andreas and his missions noted in the contemporary Guillaume de Rubruk, ‘Itinerarium Willelmi de Rubruk’, ed. by Michel and Wright, pp. 296 and 310.  76 Pelliot, ‘Les Mongols et le Papauté: Chapitre i’; Pelliot, ‘Les Mongols et le Papauté: Chapitre ii’; Pelliot, ‘Les Mongols et la Papauté: Chapitre iii’.  77 See for example Rémusat, Mémoires sur les relations politiques des princes Chrétiens, i, p. 52; see also Roux, Les Explorateurs au Moyen Age; De Rachewiltz, Papal Envoys to the Great Khans, especially pp. 112–19; Jackson, ‘Early Missions to the Mongol Empire’, pp. 15–32; Claverie, ‘Deux lettres inédites’, pp. 283–92; Aigle, The Mongol Empire between Myth and Reality.  78 Chapotin was the first to sugest that André would have been one of the first Jacobins in Paris, noting a letter of 23 June 1249 in which Jean Sarrazin refers to him as ‘frere Andrieu de l’order de Saint Jacques.’ This might imply André’s connection to this convent. However, this conjecture (as well as the claim that he belonged to the community at Saint-Jacques) was criticized, because there are no explicit references to André’s origins. Moreover, in the contemporary French understanding, Sarrazin’s words may simply have referred to him being a preaching friar. See the discussion in Pelliot, ‘Les Mongols et la Papauté: Chapitre iii’, p. 142, note 2; see also Chapotin, Histoire des Dominicains de la Province de France, p. 6.  79 Touron boldly wrote that André had ‘talens naturels’ (natural talents) with languages and that he accompanied Jordan ‘sans doute’ (without a doubt) in 1228 to improve his learning. Touron, Histoire des hommes illustres de l’Ordre de Saint Dominique, i, p. 157. Others have assumed that André had special talents; for example, see Villeneuve-Bargemont, Histoire de Saint Louis Roi de France, i, p. 231.  80 Discussed by Richard, La Papauté et les missions d’Orient au Moyen Âge, p. 70.

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

Christian allies as well as the Tatars.81 To do so, André travelled from Lyon though Syrian, Jordanian, and Persian territories to meet with various rulers, including the Sultan As-Sâlih Ismâ’îl of Damascus (d. 1245), Emir Al-Malik Al-Mansûr of Homs (d. 1246), Emir An-Nâsir Dâ’ûd of Al-Karak (d. 1249), and numerous Jacobite and Nestorian prelates.82 By the autumn of 1246, André reached Tabriz, the Mongolian metropolis in Persia, where he met with Eljigidei (d. 1252), the commander of the Great Khan Güyük’s province in Azerbaijan. There, he exchanged letters and befriended Simeon RabbanAta, a high-ranking Nestorian ally known as ‘the vicar of the Orient’.83 Between 1245 and 1247, following the historian Jean-Vincent Claverie’s calculation, André had completed at least fifty-five diplomatic visits.84 All the while, he managed to strengthen connections with the eastern church, improve ties with non-Christian allies, and open discussions between the pontiff and the Tatars. When he returned to Lyon to report back to Pope Innocent IV, André de Longjumeau reunited with King Louis IX and accompanied the crusader army to Cyprus, where they prepared their approach into Egypt. In December 1248, messengers from Eljigidei arrived in Nicosia to meet with the king of France; they also carried letters from Simeon Rabban-Ata, André’s friend and ally, to discuss the possibility of an alliance with the Great Khan Güyük against the Mamluks. The papal legate Eudes de Châteauroux (d. 1273) was present for the visit of the Mongolian delegation in Nicosia. He wrote to Innocent IV and reported that ‘nuntii Regis Tartarorum’ (the king’s ambassadors to the Tatars) had provided a translation ‘de verbo ad verbum’ (word-for-word) of their letters.85 According to the Dominican encyclopaedist Vincent of Beauvais (d. 1264), André was the king’s primary translator on this occasion; he read a number of Persian and Arabic letters and copied them into Latin.86 Jean Sarrazin, Louis IX’s chamberlain, whose accounts from 1256–1257 survive in the form of tablets preserved in the Paris Archives

 81 On this mission, see Pelliot, ‘Les Mongols et la Papauté: Chapitre ii’, pp. 336–55 and Claverie, ‘Deux lettres inédites’, pp. 283–92.  82 See the discussion of this mission in Richard, Saint Louis: Crusader King of France, pp. 279–81 and Claverie, ‘Deux lettres inédites’, p. 284.  83 Claverie, ‘Deux lettres inédites’, p. 285.  84 Claverie, ‘Deux lettres inédites’, p. 285.  85 André is named near the end of the text (‘fratres Praedicatores, Andreas, Joannes, et Willelmus’) as one of the agents who delivered a fragment of the True Cross as a gift from King Louis IX to the Great Khan. This letter by Eudes de Châuteauroux is preserved in a copy in BnF, MS lat. 3768, fols 76v–81r and is edited in D’Archery, Spicilegium, iii, pp. 624–28, with the passage above at p. 625.  86 Vincent of Beauvais, ‘De legatione Tartarum ad ipsum’, in Speculum historiale, ed. by Draelants, Bases textuelles d’atelier Vincent de Beauvais, xxxii, p. 90. See also Kappler, ‘L’Image des Mongols dans le Speculum historiale de Vincent de Beauvais’, pp. 219–40. Note that Vincent of Beauvais provides a distinctively similar description of this event when compared with the content of the letter sent from Eudes de Châteauroux, described in n. 85.

187

1 88

e m ily gue r ry

nationales ( J/​/1​ 168 and AE/​II/​258), also implied that André worked as an interpreter, translating what the Mongolian delegation said into French.87 In his discussion of André’s mission to the Tatars, Matthew Paris wrote: ‘novit etiam linguam Arabicam et Caldeam’ (he knew also the Arabic and Persian languages).88 André’s multilingual talents were critical to forging diplomatic relations between the French king, Roman pope, and Mongolian empire. Unfortunately, even with his skills and experience, André failed to achieve his goals in his next and most arduous adventure: a journey of nearly 6000 miles from Nicosia to Karakorum. King Louis IX entrusted André de Longjumeau with the task of meeting with the Great Khan to solidify an alliance. In a warm gesture of support for Güyük’s rumoured interest in conversion, the king sent André with precious gifts to edify his faith. This included a fragment of the True Cross (probably from his very own relic enshrined in the Sainte-Chapelle), two chalices, books, additional preachers to chant Mass, and a portable scarlet ‘chapel’ ‘tentorio de scarleto’ (in the shape of a tent) emblazoned with images of the Annunciation, Nativity, Passion, Ascension, and Pentecost.89 Other Dominicans joined André and they departed from Nicosia in January 1249, travelling via Talas to the capital of the Mongolian empire. By the time they reached Karakorum, the Great Khan had been dead for a while; he passed away on 20 April 1248. Although André managed to hold a meeting with his widow, Empress Oghul Qaimish, who was acting as regent, she refused to accept King Louis IX as anything more than a subordinate and demanded a payment in gold.90 As a result, André was unable to negotiate any of the terms on behalf of his royal patron. He remained in Mongolia until April 1251, when he departed for Caesarea and travelled via Aleppo. Two years later, he met with Louis IX in Jaffa, where the king was busy rebuilding the crusader city’s walls.91 André relayed Empress Oghul Qaimish’s demand for

 87 Sarrazin wrote that André ‘enroumancoit la Françoiz’. The meaning and significance of this phrase as an indication of his role as an interpreter is discussed in Aigle, ‘The Letters of Eljigidei, Hülegü and Abaqa’, pp. 146–47. On Sarrazin’s ‘tablettes’ and their historical significance, see Lalou, Les Comptes sur tablettes de cire de Jean Sarrazin.  88 Matthew discussed André’s papal mission to the Tatars in detail and dedicates an entire chapter of his Chronica Majora to his exploits under the subheading to Item de Fratre Memorato. See Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, Additementa, ed. by Luard, vi, p. 115.  89 These gifts are described by Eudes de Châteauroux in his letter to Pope Innocent IV and in Jean de Joinville’s bio­graphy of King Louis IX. For Eudes de Châteauroux, see D’Archery, Spicilegium, iii, p. 627 and for Joinville’s account see his Histoire de Saint Louis, ed. by de Wailly, p. 168, and the English translation in ‘The Life of St Louis’, in Joinville and Villehardouin: Chronicles of the Crusades, ed. by Smith, p. 262.  90 The content of the actual letter from Oghul Qaimish delivered to Louis IX by André of Longjumeau is lost, but Jean de Joinville recounts an abridged Old French version of its message in his Histoire de Saint Louis.  91 Dressaire, ‘Saint Louis en Palestine (1250–1254)’, pp. 221–31. See also the discussion of this mission in Richard, Saint Louis: Crusader King of France, p. 291.

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

money to be sent annually in tribute, confirming that there would be no alliance on equal terms. This was disappointing news to the king and according to Jean de Joinville, Louis IX regretted his involvement with the Tatars.92 Some historians have assumed that André de Longjumeau also accompanied his royal patron on the Eighth Crusade in 1270.93 In his Vita, Geoffrey de Beaulieu recalled Louis IX’s late-in-life desire to convert the Saracens in North Africa. As he lay dying in Carthage, the king spoke wistfully of the time of St Augustine, when Christianity flourished in and around North Africa, and hoped that one day the faith would return to the region. Then, Geoffrey recollects, with his voice fading Louis IX wondered aloud who might be able to carry out the conversion of the local people:94 Ita quod cum iam non nisi submisse et cum gravamine loqui posset, nobis astantibus, et ad verba eius aurem adhibentibus vir Deo plenus et vere catholicus dicebat: ‘Pro Deo studeamus quomodo fides catholica possit aput Tunicium praedicari et plantari. O quis idoneus, ut mitteretur ibi ad praedicandum?’ Et nominabar quendam fratrem ordinis Praedicandum, qui alias illic iverat, et regi Tunicii notus erat. (Thus, when he could speak only softly and with difficulty, this truly catholic man filled with God said to those of us who were present and inclining our ears to his words, ‘For God’s sake, let us strive to see how true the faith may be preached and implanted in Tunis. O, who would be suitable to be sent here to preach?’ And he named a certain brother of the preaching Order, who, in another time had gone there and was known to the King of Tunis.) Guillaume de Nangis, writing in the late thirteenth century, copied Geoffrey’s vignette almost word-for-word except for the turn of phrase ‘et nominabar quendam fratrem ordinis Praedicatorum’, replacing the term ‘Praedicatorum’ with ‘Jacobitarium’.95 So who was the preaching friar (or, specifically, the Jacobin) that Louis IX named on his deathbed? The authors of the Grandes Chroniques, who, like Guillaume, worked at the abbey of Saint-Denis, elaborated this narrative and claimed that the king mentioned André de Longjumeau:96

 92 Jean de Joinville, Histoire de Saint Louis, ed. by de Wailly, p. 175, and the English translation in ‘The Life of St Louis’, in Joinville and Villehardouin: Chronicles of the Crusades, ed. by Smith, p. 267.  93 Claverie, ‘Deux lettres inédites’, p. 284.  94 Geoffrey de Beaulieu, Vita Ludovici Noni, ed. by Daunou and Naudet, p. 25 and the translation, ‘Life and Saintly Comportment of Louis, Former King of the Franks, of Pious Memory’, ed. by Gaposchkin and Field, trans. by Field, in The Sanctity of Louis IX, p. 118.  95 Guillaume de Nangis, ‘Vita Sancti Ludovici Regis Franciae’, in Receuil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, xx, ed. by Daunou et Naudet, p. 460.  96 Paris, Les Grandes Chroniques de France, iv, p. 427.

189

1 90

e m ily gue r ry

Moult se demenoit le roy qui pourroit preschier la foy crestienne en Tunes, et disoit que bien le pourroit faire frère Andri de Longjumel, pour de que il savoit une partie de langage de Tunes: car aucunes fois avoit iceluy frère Andri preeschié à Tunes pour le commandement le roy de Tunes, qui moult l’amoit. (The king lamented greatly who could preach the Christian faith in Tunis, and said that the one to do it well is the friar André de Longjumeau, for he knew a part of the language of Tunis: because in another time this friar André preached in Tunis for the conversion of the king of Tunis, who so loved him.) This nostalgic recollection of the king’s fond memories of André, in which he expressed his appreciation of his diplomatic skills and his past exploits as a multilingual preacher, is followed immediately in each of these texts by a description of Louis IX’s dying prayers to Saint Denis, Saint James the Apostle, and finally his Saviour. The historian Jean Richard believes that Louis IX said André’s name, assuming that he had served as the king’s interpreter with the Tunisians.97 Both Altaner and Pelliot also argued that André had met with the Tunisian ruler, Muhammad Al-Mustansir (r. 1249–1277) before 1270.98 If the authors of the Grandes Chroniques were correct in their identification, then Louis IX was thinking of André de Longjumeau in the final moments of his life. If they only assumed that he said this name, then this too is remarkable. In either case, André de Longjumeau had earned a superlative reputation as a Dominican diplomat by the end of his distinguished career. His esteem was so great that when these chroniclers pictured the saint-king on his deathbed, preparing for his soul to depart from his body, he also imagined Friar André setting off on yet another mission.

The Friars’ Journey to Constantinople and Venice Unlike André de Longjumeau’s encounters with the Tatars, his role in coordinating the retrieval of the Crown of Thorns with Friar Jacques is often mentioned but rarely researched. This mission, which began in the autumn of 1238 and ended in the summer of 1239, can be divided into three stages: the journey from Paris to Constantinople, from Constantinople to Venice, and then from Venice back to Paris. In the first instance, we know that the friars had to act fast; if the repayment deadline passed, then the Crown relic would belong to the Venetians. The Historia provides a clear explanation of the debt, the mortgage of the relic, and the deadline:99  97 Richard, Saint Louis: Crusader King of France, pp. 323–26.  98 Altaner, Die Dominikanermissionen des 13. Jahrhunderts, p. 109 and Pelliot, ‘Les Mongols et la Papauté: Chapitre iii’, pp. 83–84.  99 Gauthier Cornut, Historia, BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3r; transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

Tanta enim barones imperii arctaverat angustia, quod sacratissimam Coronam pro ingenti summa pecunie compulsi sunt Venetis obligare. Cives autem Venetie, qui thesaurum illum nobilem plurimum affectaverant, hanc obtinuerunt conditionem apponi, quod, nisi Corona sancta per heredem imperii vel barones redimeretur infra terminum, videlicet solemnitatem SS. martyrum Gervasii et Prothasii [19 June], ipsa caderet in commissum, ita quod illa pignoris obligatio converteretur in titulum venditionis pro pecunia iam soluta; apposuerunt insuper quod illud pignus inestimabile Venetiam interim transferretur. (For such straits had troubled the barons of the empire that they had been compelled to pledge the most sacrosanct Crown for a huge sum of money to the Venetians. However, the citizens of Venice, who very much yearned for that noble treasure, had maintained the imposition of this clause, that, if the holy Crown was not bought back by the heir to the empire or the barons by a deadline, namely the feast of the martyrs Gervais and Protais [19 June], it would be confiscated, such that the pledging of the guarantee would be converted into the category of a sale for money that had [already] been paid. Moreover, they added the clause that that inestimable pledge [the Crown] be transferred to Venice in the interim.) To meet the conditions of this agreement, the Historia states that the friars ‘were swiftly sent’ by Louis IX; Gérard de Saint-Quentin also claimed that the king was ‘impaciens’ (impatient) and sent his friars ‘non postponit’ (without delay).100 Despite their rushed departure, the friars were prepared. Multiple sources confirm that they carried important patent letters from Louis IX and Baldwin II.101 For safety reasons, the friars did not travel alone. Because they travelled with so much money and they planned on returning from Constantinople with the precious relic in their cargo, another man connected to the Latin Emperor, who seems to have acted as both a guide and a bodyguard, came with them. The Historia explains that ‘Baldwin also sent a special messenger with them, one worthy of trust, accompanied with the patent letters by which he decreed to the barons that the holy Crown should be handed over to the king’s envoys’.102 Although the first part of their

Constantinopolitanae, i, p. 52.   100 For this passage in the Historia, see note 68. Gérard de Saint-Quentin, Incipit, BnF, MS n.a.l. 1423, fol. 172r, transcribed in ‘Review of Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae’, ed. by Miller, p. 295; De Wailly, ‘Récit du treizième siècle’, p. 408.   101 See n. 100. The letters carried by the friars and collected by the friars are noted in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, ii, pp. 118–23.   102 ‘Mittit etiam cum eis Balduinus nuncium specialem, fide dignum, cum patentibus, litteris, quibus mandat baronibus ut nunciis regalibus sancta Corona tradatur.’ Gauthier Cornut, Historia, BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3r; transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, p. 51.

191

1 92

e m ily gue r ry

journey across the Mediterranean was difficult, the Historia affirms that the friars were guided by God on their quest. Archbishop Cornut wrote that ‘after many turns in their route, they reached Constantinople and found, according to the pious proposition of the King, a path prepared for them by the Lord’.103 Unfortunately, they were greeted with disappointing news upon their arrival. Although the Crown of Thorns was still in the city, the original deadline for repayment (10 November), which is noted in the patent letter sent from the Constantinopolitan barons on 4 September 1238, had passed. Having hurried across the Mediterranean Sea, now the friars needed to renegotiate the terms of the mortgage with the Venetians. They reached a new agreement, which, thankfully for historians, survives in the form of a fourteenth-century copy of the original patent letter. This letter opens with an introduction from Narjot de Toucy (d. 1241), who was then acting as bailiff to the empire, and the other baronial co-regents. They address Niccolò Quirino directly, introduce the king’s envoys, and confirm the updated conditions of the plea bargain.104 It also indicates that the friars had arrived in December 1238, more than a month after the initial deadline. Here, we also find the names of the ambassadors: ‘fratrem Andream, fratrem Iacobum, ordine fratrum predicatorum, dominum Nicolaum de Sorello, militem’ (Friar André and Friar Jacques, friars of the Order of Friars Preachers, and Nicholas de Sorello).105 Although he is not mentioned in the Historia, this letter confirms that Nicholas de Sorello was the imperial envoy who accompanied the friars. The letter then asks that Niccolò Quirino should receive these men, allow them to pay the debt in full and then hand over the Crown relic ‘sine condicione aliqua faciatis’ (without any condition).106 The final part of the text, however, is slightly foreboding:107 Et si vero ipsorum trium nunciorum unus quoquo modo defecerit, duobus ipsorum iam dictam Coronam nichilominus vos reddatis. Et si ipsorum duorum nunciorum alter quoquo modo interesse non potuerit, uni soli, remoto dubitacionis obstaculo, prebeatis. Et si ipsi tres quoquo modo defuerint, eorum nuncio vel nunciis, presentes litteras offerenti vel offerentibus, sepedictam Coronam omni occasione remota, concedatis.

  103 ‘Post multos itaque viarum anfractus, ingredientes Constantinopolim, inveniunt ad pium regis propositum, viam a Domino preparatam’. Gauthier Cornut, Historia, BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3r, transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, pp. 51–52.   104 The letter is currently preserved as Paris, Archives nationales, J/​/​155, no. 2; noted in Teulet, Layettes du trésor des Chartres, ii, p. 395 and edited as Litterae magnatum Romaniae Nicolao Quirino, ut Sanctam Coronam Spineam restituat in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, ii, pp. 122–23.   105 Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, ii, p. 122.   106 Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, ii, p. 122.   107 Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, ii, p. 122.

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

(And if any one of the three envoys should fail in any way, then the two of them already mentioned nevertheless will pay. And if two envoys could not in any way take part, you can offer the other, the one alone, with any obstacle of doubt removed. And if the same three should fail in any way, either the envoys or an envoy, the patent letters offered should remove every obstacle for the aforesaid Crown.) This crucial document thus served as insurance in case of disaster. The reference to a possible ‘failure’, as we shall see, might be related to the dangers that awaited them on their next sea voyage. During their short time in Constantinople, the Historia reports that the imperial bailiffs reacted positively to the friars’ visit:108 Barones, lectis domini sui litteris, sancto proposito regis Francorum et heredis imperii plenius intellecto devote adimplent mandatum domini, gerentes in votis ut de Venetorum manibus educta, si fieri posset, in honorem cederet ecclesie Gallicane. Conveniunt ergo cum Venetis, ut nuncii regales, quorum vita et habitus religionem testabantur, illud sacrosanctum portarent Venetiam, adiunctis sibi solemnibus nunciis imperii, presentibus etiam magnis civibus Venetorum. (Once the barons had read the letter of their master and realized more fully the sacred proposition of the king of France and of the heir to the empire, they devoutly fulfilled their master’s command and prayed that, if it were possible, the Crown be taken from the hands of the Venetians and fall to the honour of the French Church. They therefore agreed with the Venetians that the king’s messengers, whose life and habit testified to their religious devotion, carried that sacrosanct object to Venice, with the official messengers of the empire accompanying them, in the presences of grand Venetian citizens.) Jacques and André had managed to convince the Constantinopolitan barons of their royal patron’s devotion, influencing their preference for King Louis IX (and not the Venetians) to become the new owner of the Crown of Thorns. They also apparently impressed their hosts with their ‘religious habit and way of life’. With the Crown of Thorns now in their possession, Jacques and André prepared to depart Constantinople for Venice. In the Historia, the reference to a repayment deadline on the feast day of Saints Gervais and Protais (the feast for these martyrs falls on 19 June) suggests that the friars managed to negotiate a new deadline during their discussions in Constantinople

  108 Gauthier Cornut, Historia, BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3r–v; transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, p. 52.

193

1 94

e m ily gue r ry

and planned to hand over the payment in Venice by this point.109 Before departing with additional ‘nunciis imperii’ (imperial messengers), the Constantinopolitan barons sealed the reliquary. Then, the Crown of Thorns was carried out of the city in a solemn procession to the envoys’ boat.110 The Historia states that the people of Constantinople were devastated as they watched this relic of Christ’s Passion leave their city:111 Signatur loculus sigillis procerum, non sine lacrimarum fluviis et eiulatu publico, defertur ad navem. Comites itaque tam sacri pignoris, de ipsius confisi presidio, media hyeme, que solet esse nautis invia, circa Nativitatem Domini, maris fluctibus se committunt. (The chest was sealed by the seals of the leaders and was carried to the ship, not without floods of tears and cries of lamentation from the public. Then the attendants of so sacred a pledge [i.e. the Crown], relying on the protection it provided, entrusted themselves in the middle of winter, around Christmastime, to the waves of the sea, when they tend to be unnavigable to sailors.) Notwithstanding the additional trip to Venice, the Historia emphasizes the emotional and spiritual consequences of the Crown’s impending translation to Paris, claiming that its presence provided the friars with divine protection. Although the new deadline was six months away, the next part of the friars’ journey would be dangerous, and they needed to proceed with extreme caution. The inherent risk of their mission had increased significantly because the Crown of Thorns was now in their possession. Departing after Christmas in 1238, the envoys faced the harsh winter seas and tried to avoid the looming threat of enemy attacks. The chief antagonist in question was Emperor John III Doukas Vatatzes of Nicaea (r. 1222–1254), who later would invade Constantinople in 1246. His campaigns throughout the 1230s had already caused severe fragmentation in the Latin East.112 The Historia states that Vatatzes was planning to capture the Dominican envoys and take the Crown of Thorns.113 Vastachius vero, pessimus zelator imperii, per exploratores rem noverat de transferenda corona. Anxius igitur, et intendens qualiter eam nunciis posset eripere, per diversos sinus maris quibus transituri videbantur,

  109 See n. 99.   110 See n. 99.   111 Gauthier Cornut, Historia, BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3r–v, transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, p. 52.   112 See Nicol, Byzantium and Venice, pp. 167–73 and, for a general overview of Vatatzes’s plans, see Langdon, ‘John III Ducas Vatatzes’ Byzantine Imperium in Anatolian exile 1222–1254’.   113 Gauthier Cornut, Historia, BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3v, transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, p. 52.

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

copiam galearum dispergit: sed nunciis venientibus in nomine Domini nihil contrarietatis obsistit. (But Vatatzes, the worst rival of the empire, learnt of the matter of the Crown’s transference through his spies. He was therefore anxious and, considering how he could take it from the envoys, he dispatched a force of soldiers throughout the various shores of the sea to which they seemed to be sailing. But no obstacle stood in the way of the envoys, as they travelled in the name of the Lord.) In the end, Jacques and André managed to avoid Vatatzes’ sailors, soldiers, and spies. When Geoffrey de Beaulieu mentioned the ‘periculis’ (dangers) encountered by the king’s envoys in his Vita, he probably referred his readers to this section of the Historia text.114 Despite the winter storms and threats of capture, they managed to avoid disaster during their voyage from Constantinople to Venice and, again, Cornut asserted that Christ — acting through the power of the Crown relic — had kept the king’s envoys safe. The Dominicans reached Venice at some point in early 1239. They deposited the Crown relic in the treasury of the Basilica of San Marco and made the final arrangements to secure its safe entry into France.115 However, another obstacle now stood in their way. Apparently, the money they brought from Paris (via Constantinople) was insufficient and, once more, the friars had to act in haste. To acquire and then transfer the additional funds before the Venetians became the default owners of the relic, Jacques and André separated:116 Relicto ibidem fratre Andrea custode thesauri nobilis, frater Iacobus cum nunciis imperii festinanter ad regem accedit, rem gestam et statum negocii regi fideliter exprimit et regine. Gaudent ambo, et omnes quibus id secretum communicavit letitia ineffabili, sperantes in Domino quod ipse qui ceperat, votum eorum feliciter consummaret. Preparant itaque nuncios solemnes et discretos cum fratre Iacobo et nunciis imperii, mittentes eos Venetiam, instructos plenius et munitos de pecunia ad redemptionem sacri pignoris obtinendam. (While Friar André was left there as guardian of this noble treasure [in Venice], Friar Jacques hurriedly headed for the king with the

  114 See n. 34.   115 ‘Ingrediuntur Venetiam ovanter recepti, beatissimam Coronam cum vase signato in thesauraria capelle beati Marci evangeliste cum diligentia et devotione deponunt.’ (They entered Venice and were received with praise, and with care and devotion they put the most blessed Crown in a stamped vessel in the treasury of the chapel of Saint Mark the Evangelist.) Gauthier Cornut, Historia, BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3v, transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, pp. 52–53.   116 Gauthier Cornut, Historia, BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3v, transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, p. 53.

195

1 96

e m ily gue r ry

envoys of the empire, and faithfully recounted the events and the state of the negotiations to the king and queen. Both of them and all to whom he communicated that secret rejoiced with indescribable joy, hoping in the Lord that he himself who had begun the task felicitously fulfil their prayer. They then prepared official and prudent envoys and sent them to Venice with Friar Jacques and the envoys of the empire with fuller instructions and money for securing the repurchase of the sacred guarantee.) So, as André remained to guard the relic, Jacques ventured to Paris to speak with his royal patron, collect even more money, and then hasten back to Venice. In his meeting with both King Louis IX and Queen Blanche of Castile, Jacques also shared what had transpired during their mission. It is possible that our author, Archbishop Cornut, heard all about ‘rem gestam et statum negocii’ (the events and the state of negotiations) on this very occasion and then repeated elements of Jacques’s account in his sermons and his Historia. According to Cornut, the news delivered by Friar Jacques brought King Louis IX ‘letitia ineffabili’ (indescribable joy) and he agreed to send more money. During Jacques’s brief visit, King Louis IX also reached out to the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II (r. 1220–1250), his former adversary, to ask for a special dispensation of protection for his Dominican diplomats in the final part of their journey. In this instance, Frederick agreed to help; he offered a patent letter to confirm the envoys’ protection and sent imperial messengers to find André in Venice.117 The Historia summarizes Frederick’s engagement as such:118 Imperatori Friderico scribitur ut, si opus sit, nunciis regalibus conductum, consilium, conferat et iuvamen. Expedite veniunt Venetiam, fratrem Andream inveniunt cum thesauro; procurante divina clementia, tunc temporis in partibus illis negociabantur nati de regno Francie mercatores; exhibitis sibi litteris regalibus, de mutuo exponunt pecuniam ad libitum nunciorum. Redimitur sanctum pignus, dolentibus Venetis, sed, pro conditionibus initis, non valentibus obviare. (A letter was written to Emperor Frederick that he might grant, if it was necessary, safe conduct, counsel and help to the king’s envoys. They came to Venice without difficulty and found Friar André with the treasure [i.e. the Crown]. Through providence of divine clem-

  117 In his exhaustive Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, the Comte de Riant created a timeline of lost correspondence between the various parties that had brokered this arrangement, which included this letter from Emperor Frederick II. See Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, ii, pp. 118–23.   118 Gauthier Cornut, Historia, BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3v, transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, p. 53.

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

ency, merchants born in the kingdom of France were at that very time doing business in those parts. When the letter from the king had been shown to them, they mutually offered money to the tune of the envoys’ wishes. The sacred pledge [i.e. the Crown] was bought back, while the Venetians lamented but, owing to the conditions they had agreed upon, they had no way to block it.) While Jacques was away, André apparently managed to secure a line of credit from French merchants living and working in Venice. In so doing, he procured the funds necessary to keep the debt from defaulting to the Venetians while he waited for Jacques. Thankfully, Jacques moved quickly and André’s tactics worked in the interim. Against the odds, the Dominicans finally managed to be paid the entirety of the imperial loan, securing the relic of the Crown of Thorns for their royal patron at some point before June 1239. The Historia claims that their timely accomplishment disappointed the Venetians, who were compelled to respect the conditions of their contract. Next, Jacques, André, and the accompanying imperial messengers transported the relic for over 500 more miles, proceeding north and west through Emperor Frederick’s territories to enter the Capetian kingdom. The final part of their odyssey went extremely well despite the summer rain:119 Protectos insuper divini muneris presentia, nihil in via contrarium contristavit; nulla eis intemperies aeris nocuit, nec stilla pluvie cecidet super eos, licet ipsis susceptis in hospitio pluisset pluries abundanter. (Protected as they were by the presence of this divine gift, nothing contrary dismayed them in their journey. No inclemency of the weather caused them harm, nor did any drop of rain fall upon them, although when they had been taken into guesthouses it often rained abundantly.) Again, the miraculous Crown relic apparently protected the friars throughout their mission; it even kept them dry during periods of heavy rainfall. When the envoys eventually reached Troyes, possibly taking refuge in the recently founded Dominican convent, the friars sent the imperial messengers ahead to notify the king of their impending arrival and prepare for the splendid reception of this sacred gift.120

  119 Gauthier Cornut, Historia, BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3v, transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, p. 53.   120 ‘Premittunt nuncios, qui iam usque Trecas munus sacratissimum nunciant advenisse.’ (They sent envoys in front of them to announce that the most sacred present had now reached Troyes) Gauthier Cornut, Historia, BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3v, transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, p. 53. In 1232, Thibaud IV de Champagne had founded a Dominican house in Troyes. See de Melin, ‘La Sainte Couronne d’Épines et le diocèse de Troyes en 1239’.

197

1 98

e m ily gue r ry

Upon hearing that Jacques and André had reached Troyes with the relic, the Historia states that King Louis IX was ‘exhilaratus’ (exhilarated). He rushed to Villeneuve-L’Archevêque with his family, Archbishop Cornut of Sens and Bishop Bernard of Le Puy, and various soldiers and nobles ‘quos habere subito potuit’ (whom he could suddenly get hold of) to meet with the friars and see his Crown.121 The first meeting occurred on the feast day of Saint Lawrence (10 August). Throughout the friars’ journey from Venice, the relic had remained sealed inside its coffers, waiting to be opened in the presence of the king. The Historia relates an evocative and emotional description of the opening of the reliquary at Villeneuve-L’Archevêque. Inside wooden coffers, a silver châsse, and an ‘auro purissimo loculum pulcherrimum’ (most beautiful chest of the purest gold), the ‘inestimabilis margarita’ (inestimable pearl) — the very Crown that Christ wore during his Passion — lay safe inside.122 Then, upon seeing it for the first time, the witnesses were overcome with religious fervour:123 Quanta itaque devotione, quantis fletibus et suspiriis inspecta fuerint a rege et regina et aliis, vix posset perpendi; commorantur in aspectu, pre amoris desiderio, tam devotum sentientes fervorem mentium, quasi viderent coram se Dominum spinis presentibus coronatum. (With how much devotion, how much weeping and sighing these things were inspected by the king, the queen and others, is scarcely possible to measure. They were fixed in their countenance in the yearning of love, feeling as they did so devout a fervour in their minds, as if they saw the Lord before them crowned with these very thorns.) Here, the Historia states that King Louis IX and his entourage actually pictured Christ standing before them wearing the Crown of Thorns when they laid eyes upon the sacred relic. The friars then joined the royal cortège and made their way to the nearby city of Sens to celebrate the first public adventus the next day. Then, they passed through Montereau and Melun to hold vigils before stopping at the palace at Vincennes to prepare for the spectacular adventus in Paris. Dressed like a friar, King Louis IX’s urban procession of the relic would effectively dramatize the Dominicans’ long journey, enabling him to re-enact the achievements of his envoys through ritual performance. In emulating the humility and embodying the bravery of Friar Jacques and Friar André, the public exhibitions of the Crown of Thorns

  121 Gauthier Cornut, Historia, BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3v, transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, pp. 53–54.   122 Gauthier Cornut, Historia, BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3v, transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, pp. 53–54.   123 Gauthier Cornut, Historia, BnF, MS lat. 3282, fol. 3v, transcribed in Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, i, p. 54.

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

represented the relic acquisition as a sign of the Lord’s preference for the kingdom of France and conveyed that its new pious owner (a future saint) was chosen by Christ himself.

Conclusions After the Crown of Thorns was carried from Vincennes to the Specula, and then onwards to the cathedral and the palace on the Île-de-la-Cité, a private service took place inside the royal chapel of Saint-Nicolas in honour of the relic’s reception on 19 August 1239. Soon afterwards, Saint-Nicolas was demolished to make way for the Sainte-Chapelle, which would be consecrated on 26 April 1248, less than nine years after the Crown came to Paris. This two-storey, Gothic edifice enveloped Christ’s Crown and other relics of the Passion in a kaleidoscopic curtain of colour and light. Inside its upper chapel, King Louis IX could venerate, glorify, and protect the Crown in the company of his family, the chapel’s canons, and his closest companions, including his Dominican confessor, Geoffrey de Beaulieu. Above the southwestern staircase is window A, designed and installed between 1246 and 1248, the story of the king’s acquisition of the Crown of Thorns unfolds across over two dozen dazzling glass panels of the narrative design.124 These four lancets in the south side of the western-most bay follow a sprawling portrayal of biblical history, beginning with Genesis in the opposite window O and proceeding clockwise around the diameter of the upper chapel until the book of Kings in window B, with an interruption to the chrono­logical sequence in and around window H, which places the Passion of Christ at the centre of the apse. Positioned as the culmination of sacred history and poised on the precipice of what would have been an explosive eschato­logical representation in the Rayonnant rose (now replaced), the coming of the Crown relic to Paris is illuminated as a climactic event in Christo­logical time in the Sainte-Chapelle built for the saint-king.125 Here, across from the reliquary tribune that once contained the Crown of Thorns they collected for the king, Jacques and André are immortalized in the visual narrative seen in the upper chapel’s glass panels; they appear as tonsured friars, donning dark robes girded at the waist.126 They are seen   124 For this ‘O–A’ arrangement of the stained glass windows in the upper chapel glass, devised originally by the nineteenth-century restoration team, see Aubert and others, Les Vitraux de Notre-Dame et de la Sainte-Chapelle and Alyce Jordan, Visualizing Kingship in the Windows of the Sainte-Chapelle.   125 The current icono­graphy of the Flamboyant rose in the Sainte-Chapelle shows the Apocalypse. This composition replaced the original Rayonnant glass scheme, which probably contained a representation of the Last Judgment. See Perrot, ‘La Rose de la Sainte-Chapelle et sa reconstruction’, pp. 197–210, and Perrot, ‘À propos de la restauration et de la fabrication des vitraux à la Sainte Chapelle de Paris’, pp. 377–81.   126 During the restoration of the Sainte-Chapelle windows, which took place from 1848 until

199

200

e m ily gue r ry

receiving instructions for their mission from the king (A-103), wandering through a wild landscape (A-102) (Figure 6.1), marching on horseback (A-101), arriving at a walled city (A-100), carrying the relic with ceremonial pomp in a double bier (A-96) (Figure 6.2), and presenting this treasure to their royal patron, who raises his left arm in a gesture of exuberant joy (A-97) (Figure 6.3).127 Only the first of these windows is a modern reconstruction; the rest of the aforementioned panels are reliable representations of their Gothic composition of c. 1246–1248. The icono­graphy of A-96, in which the friars are seen carrying the Crown relic inside of a double bier, is then repeated in the images of King Louis IX and his brother Robert ­d’Artois (A-59 and A-98 [Figure 6.3]), who also took up the double bier during the adventus ceremonies in Sens and Paris. A close look at the detailed watercolours of these panels, diligently produced by Louis Charles Auguste Steinheil (1814–1885) before their restoration in the mid-nineteenth century, presents a clearer view of their content.128 Today, any patient visitor to the

1855, the narrative design of window A was subject to a significant amount of guesswork and reinvention. Although a number of these panels have almost entirely modern elements, there is enough material evidence to confirm that the friars did appear in multiple places in the original Gothic programme. For a full understanding of the original and current state of the glass, see Aubert and others, Les Vitraux de Notre-Dame et de la Sainte-Chapelle; Alyce Jordan, Visualizing Kingship in the Windows of the Sainte-Chapelle; Alyce Jordan, ‘Seeing Stories in the Windows of the Sainte-Chapelle’, pp. 39–60; Alyce Jordan, ‘Stained Glass and the Liturgy: Performing Sacral Kingship in Capetian France’, pp. 274–97. As of April 2015, glaziers working for the Centre des monuments nationaux completed another extensive restoration of the Sainte-Chapelle glass.   127 These panel numbers and their attributions are taken from Aubert and Grodecki’s catalogue published in their 1959 mono­graph, Les Vitraux de Notre-Dame et de la SainteChapelle de Paris: A-103: ‘Saint Louis charge les religieux d’aller chercher la relique’ [moderne]; A-102 is ‘Les religieux vont à Constantinople’ [panneau ancien]; A-101: ‘Les reliques sont transportées a dos de cheval a Venise’ [panneau ancien]; A-100 is ‘Les envoyés de Saint Louis à Constantinople (ou à Venise)’ [très effacé et restauré]; A-96: ‘Les reliques portées solennellement en France’ [très restauré]; A-97: ‘Le reliques présentées au roi à Villeneuve-l’Archevêque’ [très restauré]. As we can see from their entries, window A-103 is totally restored, whereas windows A-102 and A-101 are original and windows A-100, A-96, and A-97 are either damaged or partially restored. These attributions rely in part on the notes of Baron Ferdinand de Guilhermy, who oversaw the icono­graphic study and restoration of window A, preserved in BnF, MS n.a.l. 6188, fols 287r–288v. More recently, Alyce Jordan, who re-named window A ‘The Royal Window’ and presented a clear and helpful hypothetical reconstruction based on her extensive work on the restoration notes, assigned different numbers to these panels, so that A-103 is A-114; A-102 is still A-102; A-101 is still A-101; A-100 is A-103; A-96 is still A-96; and A-97 is still A-97. See Aubert and others, Les Vitraux de Notre-Dame et de la Sainte-Chapelle, p. 303 and ‘catalogue A’, and Alyce Jordan, Visualizing Kingship in the Windows of the Sainte-Chapelle, pp. 58–69, 122–26 and ‘window A’.   128 See n. 127, above, for the restoration history. The evident stop-gaps and confusion of the tesserae seen in Steinheil’s watercolours is due to the rearrangement of the sequence in window A after the fire in 1630, during which some of the glass in the western section of

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

Figure 6.1. ‘Friar Jacques and Friar André on their mission to retrieve the Crown of Thorns’, watercolour showing the composition of window A-102 (c. 1246– 1248) in the upper chapel of the Sainte-Chapelle before restoration (c. 1850s), Saint-Cyr, Médiathèque de l’architecture et du Patrimoine, Louis Charles Auguste Steinheil (1814–1885), ‘état actuel’ no. 79. Figures in this chapter are reproduced with permission from the Médiathèque de l’architecture et du Patrimoine.

Sainte-Chapelle can look up and marvel at the friars’ heroic mission in glass, and watch as their journey unfolds in Gothic light. In the surviving royal expenditure accounts from August 1239, there is a note for a payment of forty shillings to Friar Jacques, who carried the Crown from Sens all the way back to Paris.129 This is the last known mention the upper chapel was damaged. When the glass was cleaned and reinserted some elements were haphazardly reassembled in the wrong places.   129 ‘Pro expensa fratris Jacobi qui adduxit Coronam inter Senones et Parisius, xl s.’ (40 shillings for the expenses of Friar Jacques who carried the crown between Sens and Paris)

201

202

e m ily gue r ry

Figure 6.2. ‘The friars help to transport the Crown relic on a double bier’, watercolour showing the composition of window A-92 (c. 1246–1248) in the upper chapel of the SainteChapelle before restoration (c. 1850s), Saint-Cyr, Médiathèque de l’architecture et du Patrimoine, Louis Charles Auguste Steinheil (1814–1885), ‘état actuel’ no. 81.

of Jacques in the historical record. Meanwhile, André’s career had only just started; three more decades of adventures awaited him in Nicosia, Tabriz, Karakorum, and Carthage. For the duration of their journey to collect the See the accounts under the section labelled ‘Itinera, Dona, et Hernesia, Anno Domini MCCXXXIX inter Ascensionem et Omnes Sanctos’, in Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, xxii, p. 601.

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

Figure 6.3. ‘King Louis IX and Robert d’Artois carry Crown relic on a double bier’, watercolour showing the composition of window A-98 (c. 1246–1248) in the upper chapel of the SainteChapelle before restoration (c.  1850s), Saint-Cyr, Médiathèque de l’architecture et du Patrimoine, Louis Charles Auguste Steinheil (1814–1885), ‘état actuel’ no. 83.

Crown of Thorns from Constantinople, both Jacques and André revealed themselves to be extraordinarily capable ambassadors. Travelling thousands of miles across land and sea very quickly and very carefully, they managed to plan their routes well and to avoid enemy attacks, and they always impressed their hosts with their diplomacy and religious devotion. All the while, they balanced a multitude of complex relationships between the French king, Latin Emperor, Holy Roman Emperor, Pope, and various barons, nobles,

203

2 04

e m ily gue r ry

prelates, and other envoys. Had they failed in their mission — and the odds were not in their favour — the relic might never have reached Paris. They seemed to succeed through the grace of God. The arrival of the Crown of Thorns and its deposit in the royal palace would mark a turning point in the life of King Louis IX. For Cornut, his Historia, and for the celebrants of the new royal cult, the acquisition signified Christ’s special love for the king of France. Inspired by the many mendicants in his life, Louis IX looked and acted like a humble friar during these relic reception ceremonies. This behaviour helped to cultivate the public image of the Capetian king as an ascetic saint. Adventurous, loyal, pious, and wise, Jacques and André de Longjumeau are superlative examples of how the first French friars instigated historical change as both models and agents of Dominican devotion.

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

Works Cited Manuscripts and Archival Sources Auxerre, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 59 —— , MS 60 Charleville-Mézières, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 275 Chartres, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 500 Paris, Archives nationales, AE/​II/​258 ——  , AE/​III/​187 ——  , J/​/​1168 ——  , J/​/​155 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS Dupuy XIII —— , MS fonds latin 911 —— , MS fonds latin 1028 —— , MS fonds latin 1041 —— , MS fonds latin 1266 —— , MS fonds latin 3282 —— , MS fonds latin 3768 —— , MS fonds latin 10482 —— , MS fonds latin 13233 —— , MS fonds latin 14811 —— , MS fonds latin 15182 —— , MS fonds nouvelles acquisitions latines 1423 —— , MS fonds nouvelles acquisitions latines 6188 Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Ottob. lat. 522 Washington, DC, Library of Congress, MS 75 Primary Sources Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, i: Ab anno 1220 usque ad annum 1303, ed. by Benedictus Maria Reichert, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 3 (Rome: In domo generalitia, 1898) Alberigo, Joseph, and others (ed.), Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta (Bo­logna: Istituto per le scienze religiose, 1973) Albéric de Trois-Fontaines, ‘E Chronico Alberici: Monachi Trium Fontium’, in Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, xxi, ed. by Joseph-Daniel Guigniaut and Natalis de Wailly (Paris: Imprimerie impériale, 1855), pp. 593–630 —— , ‘Chronicon’, in Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae: Fasciculus documentorum minorum, ad byzantina lipsana in Occidentem saeculo XIIIe translata spectantium et historiam quarti belli sacri imperiique gallo-graeci illustrantium, ed. by Paul Édouard de Riant, 2 vols (Geneva: Fick, 1877), ii, pp. 242

205

206

e m ily gue r ry

Auvray, Lucien (ed.), Les Registres de Grégoire IX, i (Paris: Thorin, 1896) Bouquet, Martin, and others (ed.), Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, 24 vols (Paris: 1723–1904) E Chronico Rotomagensi, in Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, xxiii, ed. by Natalis de Wailly, Léopold Delisle, and Charles Jourdain (Paris: Welter, 1894), pp. 397–415 Chronicon S. Catharinae de Monte Rohtomagensis, in Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, ed. by Paul Édouard de Riant, 2 vols (Geneva: Fick, 1877), ii, pp. 246 Claverie, Pierre-Vincent, ‘Deux lettres inédites de la première mission en Orient d’André de Longjumeau’, Bibliothèque de l’École de chartes, 158.1 (2000), 283–92 D’Archery, Luc, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum in Galliae bibliothecis Delituerant, 3 vols (Paris: Montalant, 1723) ‘Dixit sancto Ludovico regi’, in Analecta Franciscana sive Chronica aliaque varia documenta ad historiam fratrum minorum, ed. by The College of Saint Bonaventure, 12 vols (Florence: Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1885), i, pp. 413 Gauthier Cornut, ‘Historia Susceptionis Coronae Spineae’, in Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, ed. by Paul Édouard de Riant, 2 vols (Geneva: Fick, 1877) i, pp. lxvii–lxxiv (introduction), 45–56 Geoffrey de Beaulieu, ‘Life and Saintly Comportment of Louis, Former King of the Franks, of Pious Memory’, ed. by Cecilia Gaposchkin and Sean J. Field, trans. by Larry Field, in The Sanctity of Louis IX, Early Lives by Geoffrey de Beaulieu and William of Chartres (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014), pp. 69–128 —— , Vita Ludovici Noni, in Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, xx, ed. by Pierre-Claude-François Daunou and Joseph Naudet (Paris: Victor Palmé, 1840), pp. 1–27 Geoffrey de Courlon, Chronicon, ed. by Gustave Juillot, Chronique de l’abbaye de Saint-Pierre-le-Vif (Sens: Duchemin, 1876), pp. 2–581 Gérard de Saint-Quentin, Translatio sancte Corone Domini Nostri Jhesu Christi a Constantinopolitana urbe ad civitatem Parisiensem, ed. by E. Miller, ‘Review of Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae’, Journal des Savants (1878), pp. 292–309 Guillaume de Nangis, ‘Vita Sancti Ludovici Regis Franciae’, Recueil des historiens Gaules et de la France, xx, ed. by Pierre-Claude-François Daunou and Joseph Naudet (Paris: Victor Palmé, 1840), pp. 312–465 Guillaume de Rubruk, ‘Itinerarium Willelmi de Rubruk’, Recueil de Voyages et de Mémoires, iv, ed. by Francisque Michel and Thomas Wright (Paris: ArthusBertrand, 1839), pp. 213–396 Honorius III, ‘Epistolarum Honorii Papae … ad Philippum’, in ‘Epistolarum Honorii Papae III, Lib. IV’, in Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, new series xix, ed. by Léopold Delisle (Paris: Palmé, 1880), p. 695 ‘Incipit translatio sancte Corone’, in E. Miller, ‘[Review of] Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae’, Journal des Sçavans [later Journal des Savants] (1878), pp. 292–309 ‘Itinera, Dona, et Hernesia, Anno Domini MCCXXXIX inter Ascensionem et Omnes Sanctos’, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, xxii, ed. by Natalis de Wailly and Léopold Delisle (Paris: Victor Palmé, 1860), p. 601

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

Jean de Joinville, Histoire de Saint Louis, ed. by Natalis de Wailly, Oeuvres de Jean Sire de Joinville, comprenant l’histoire de Saint Louis (Paris: Adrien le Clere, 1867), pp. 3–507 —— , ‘The Life of Saint Louis’, in Joinville and Villehardouin: Chronicles of the Crusades, ed. and trans. by Caroline Smith (London: Penguin, 2008), pp. 137–336 Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. by Henry Richards Luard, Matthaei Parisiensis Monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Majora, 7 vols (London: Longman, 1872–1883) Le Nain de Tillemont, Louis-Sébastien, Vie de Saint Louis, Roi de France, ed. by J. de Gaulle, 6 vols (Paris: Jules Renouard, 1867) Paris, Paulin, ed., Les Grandes Chroniques de France, 6 vols (Paris: Techener, 1836–1838) Riant, Paul Édouard de, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae: Fasciculus documentorum minorum, ad byzantina lipsana in Occidentem saeculo xiiie translata spectantium et historiam quarti belli sacri imperiique gallo-graeci illustrantium, 2 vols (Geneva: [n. pub.], 1877) Salimbene de Adam, Cronica, ed. by Ferdinando Bernini, 2 vols (Bari: Giuseppe Laterza, 1942) Taveau, Jacques, ‘Historia Susceptionis Coronae Spineae Iesu Christi quam Ludovicus Rex a Balduino Imperii Constantinopolitani Haerede obtinvit, ac Parisiis reportavit anno MCCXXXIX, Auctore Galtero Cornuto Archi­ episcopo Senonensi’; in André Duchesne, Historiae Francorum Scriptores, v (Paris: [n. pub.], 1649), 407–11 Taveau, Jacques, ‘Historia Susceptionis Coronae Spineae Iesu Christi […]’, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, xxii, ed. by Natalis de Wailly and Léopold Delisle (Paris: Victor Palmé, 1860), pp. 26–32 Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum historiale, ed. by Isabelle Draelants, L’atelier de Vincent de Beauvais, Bases textuelles (MS Douai, BM 797), Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes, [accessed 1 June 2021] William of Saint-Amour, De periculis novissimorum temporum, ed. by Guy Gelter, Dallas Medi­eval Texts and Translations 8 (Paris: Peeters, 2008) Secondary Works Aigle, Denise, ‘The Letters of Eljigidei, Hülegü and Abaqa: Mongul Overtures or Christian Ventriloquism?’, Inner Asia, 7 (2005), 143–62 —— , The Mongol Empire between Myth and Reality: Studies in Anthropo­logical History (Leiden: Brill, 2014) Altaner, Berthold, Die Dominikanermissionen des 13. Jahrhunderts: Forschungen zur Geschichte der kirchlichen Unionen und der Mohammedaner und Heidenmission des Mittelalters (Habelschwerdt: Franke, 1924) Arnaud, Brigitte, ‘L’Office de la couronne d’épines dans l’archidiocèse de Sens d’après la MS Paris, BnF Lat. 1028, xiiie siècle’, (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Paris Sorbonne IV, 2008)

207

208

e m ily gue r ry

Arnaud, Brigitte, and Annie Dennery, L’Office de la couronne d’épines à Sens, Musico­logical Studies lxv (Lions Bay, Canada: Institute of Medi­eval Music, 2012) Aubert, Marcel, Louis Grodecki, Jean Lafond, and Jean Verrier, Les Vitraux de Notre-Dame et de la Sainte-Chapelle de Paris (Paris: CNRS, 1959) Beaune, Colette, The Birth of an Ideo­logy: Myths and Symbols of Nation in LateMedi­eval France (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991) Blezzard, Judith, Stephen Ryle, and Jonathan Alexander, ‘New Perspectives on the Feast of the Crown of Thorns’, Journal of the Plainsong and Medi­eval Music Society, 10 (1987), 23–53 Bovesse, Jean, ‘La Rupture du lien personnel entre les comtés de Flandre et de Namur à la fin du xiiie siècle: Contribution à l’avénement dans le Namurois de la branche cadette de la maison de Dampierre’, in Album J. Balon, ed. by Rafael Gibert (Namur: Godenne, 1968), pp. 191–213 Brett, Edward Tracy, Humbert of Romans: His Life and Views of Thirteenth-Century Society (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1984) Brown, Elizabeth A. R., ‘The Cistercians in the Latin Empire of Constantinople and Greece, 1204–1276’, Traditio, 14 (1958), 63–120 Boyle, Leonard E. and Pierre-Marie Gy (eds), Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: Le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L1 (Rome: École française de Rome, 2004) Carolus-Barré, Louis, and Henri Platelle, Le Procès de canonisation de Saint Louis (1272–1297) (Rome: École française de Rome, 1994) Chapotin, Marie-Dominique, Histoire des Dominicains de la Province de France (Rouen: Cagniard, 1898) de la Selle, Xavier, Le Service des âmes à la cour: Confesseurs et aumôniers des rois de France du xiiie au xve siècle, Mémoires et Documents de l’École des chartes, xliii (Paris: École des chartes, 1995) de Melin, Roserot, ‘La Sainte Couronne d’Épines et le diocèse de Troyes en 1239’, Mémoires de la Société Académique de l’Aube, 99 (1939–1942), 185–206 de Rachewiltz, Igor, Papal Envoys to the Great Khans (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971) de Wailly, Natalis, ‘Examen critique de la Vie de Saint Louis par Geoffroi de Beaulieau’, Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes, 5.1 (1845), 205–31 —— , ‘Récit du treizième siècle sur les translations faites en 1239 et en 1241 des saintes reliques de la Passion’, Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes, 39 (1878), 401–15 Delaborde, Henri-François, ‘Fragments de l’enquête faite à Saint-Denis en 1282 en vue de la canonisation de Saint Louis’, Mémoires de la Sociète de l’histoire de Paris et de l’Ile-de-France 23 (1896), 1–71 —— , ‘Texte primitif des enseignements de Saint Louis à son fils’, Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes, 73 (1912), 73–100 Delisle, Léopold, ‘Translation des reliques de la Passion en 1239 et 1241’, Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes, 40 (1879) 143–44 —— , Manuscrits latins et français ajoutés aux fonds des nouvelles acquisitions pendant les années 1875-1891 (Paris: H. Champion, 1891)

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

Dressaire, Léopold, ‘Saint Louis en Palestine (1250–1254)’, Revue des études byzantines, 60 (1913), 221–31 Durand, Jannic, and Marie-Pierre Laffitte (eds), Le Trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle (Paris: Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 2001) Epstein, Marcy J., ‘Ludovicus Decus Regnantium: Perspectives on the Rhymed Office’, Speculum, 50 (1978), 283–334 Fisquet, Honoré, La France pontifical (Gallia Christiana), histoire chrono­logique et bio­graphique des archevêque et évêques: Métropole de Sens (Paris: Repos, 1864) Freeman, Elizabeth, ‘The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, the Prohibition against New Religious Orders, and Religious Women’, Journal of Medi­eval Religious Cultures, 44 (2018), 1–23 Galland, Bruno, ‘Engagement de la Sainte Couronne d’épines par les représentants de Baudouin II, empereur de Constantinople, à Nicolas Quirino, patricien de Venise’, Le Trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle, ed. by Jannic Durand and Marie-Pierre Laffitte (Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux, 2001), p. 44 Gaposchkin, M. Cecilia, The Making of Saint Louis: Kingship, Sanctity, and Crusade in the Later Middle Ages (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008) Gaposchkin, M. Cecilia, and Sean J. Field (eds) and Larry Field (trans.), The Sanctity of Louis IX, Early Lives by Geoffrey de Beaulieu and William of Chartres (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014) Giebfried, John, ‘The Imagined Empire of Baldwin II, the Last Crusader Emperor of Constantinople (1217–1273)’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University, 2015) Guerry, Emily, Crowning Paris: Saint Louis, Archbishop Cornut, and the Translation of the Crown of Thorns (Philadelphia: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, forthcoming) Guiraud, Jean, ed., Les Registres de Grégoire X (1272–1276) (Paris: Thorin et Fils, 1892) Guizot, François, Collection des mémoires relatifs a l’histoire de France: Chronique de Guillaume de Nangis (Paris: Brière, 1825) Jackson, Peter, ‘Early Missions to the Mongol Empire: Carpini and his Contemporaries’, The Hakluyt Society Annual Report (1994), pp. 15–32 Jordan, Alyce, ‘Seeing Stories in the Windows of the Sainte-Chapelle: The Ars Poetriae and the Politics of Visual Narrative’, Mediaevalia 23 (2002), 39–60 —— , Visualizing Kingship in the Windows of the Sainte-Chapelle (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002) —— , ‘Stained Glass and the Liturgy: Performing Sacral Kingship in Capetian France’, Objects, Images and the Word, ed. by Colum Hourihane (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), pp. 274–97 Jordan, William Chester, Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade: A Study of Rulership (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979) Kappler, Claude, ‘L’Image des Mongols dans le Speculum historiale de Vincent de Beauvais’, Vincent de Beauvais: Intentions et réceptions d’une oeuvre encyclopédique au Moyen-Âge, ed. by Serge Lusignan, Monique Paulmier-Foucart, and Alain Nadeau (Paris: Vrin, 1990), 219–40

209

21 0

e m ily gue r ry

Kirk, Douglas K., ‘Translatione corona spinea: A Musical and Textual Analysis of a Thirteenth-Century Rhymed Office’ (unpublished master’s thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1980) La Croix du Maine and François Grudé, Les Bibliothèques françoises de La Croix du Maine, i (Paris: Saillant and Nyon, 1872) Lalou, Elisabeth, Les Comptes sur tablettes de cire de Jean Sarrazin, chambellan de Saint Louis (Louvain: Brepols, 2003) Langdon, John Springer, ‘John III Ducas Vatatzes’ Byzantine Imperium in Anatolian exile 1222–1254: The Legacy of his Diplomatic, Military and Internal Program for the Restitutio orbis’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1979) Lauer, Philippe (ed.), Bibliothèque nationale: Catalogue général des manuscrits latins (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1939) Le Goff, Jacques, Saint Louis (Paris: Gallimard, 1996) —— , Saint Louis, trans. by Gareth Evan Gollrad (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009) Leroquais, Victor, Les Bréviaires manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, 3 vols (Paris: Mâcon, Protat frères, 1934) Little, Lester K., ‘Saint Louis’ Involvement with the Friars’, American Society of Church History, 33.2 (1964), 125–48 Loenertz, Raymond-Joseph, ‘Les Établissements Dominicains de PéraConstantinople, origines et fondations’, Échos d’Orient, 34 (1935), 332–49 —— , Byzantina et Franco-Graeca, i (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1970) Martin, Jean-Marie, Enrico Cuozzo, and Bernadette Martin-Hisard, ‘Une acte de Baudouin II en faveur de l’abbaye cistercienne de Sainte-Marie de Percheio (October 1241)’, Revue des Études Byzantins, 57 (1999), 211–23 McCannon, Afrodesia E., ‘Two Capetian Queens as the Foreground for an Aristocrat’s Anxiety in the Vie de Saint Louis’, in Capetian Women, ed. by Kathleen Nolan (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), pp. 163–76 Mercuri, Chiara, Corona di Cristo, corona di re: Le monarchia francese e la corona di spine nel Medioevo (Rome: Edizioni di Storia et Letteratura, 2004) Michel, Francisque, and Thomas Wright (eds), Recueil de voyages et de mémoires, 8 vols (Paris: Arthus-Bertrand, 1824–1866) Nicol, Donald, Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) Paris, Paulin (ed.), Les Grandes Chroniques de France, 6 vols (Paris: Techener, 1836–1838) Parks, Malcolm B., ‘The Compilation of the Dominican Lectionary’, in Literarische Formen des Mittelalters: Florilegien, Kompilationen, Kollektionen, ed. by Kaspar Elm, Woflenbütteler Mittelalter-Studien, 15 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000), pp. 91–106 Pelliot, Paul, ‘Les Mongols et la Papauté: Chapitre i’, Revue d’Orient Chrétien, 23 (1923), 3–30 —— , ‘Les Mongols et la Papauté: Chapitre ii’, Revue d’Orient Chrétien, 24 (1924), 225–335

‘a pat h p r e par e d fo r t he m by t he lo rd’

—— , ‘Les Mongols et la Papauté: Chapitre iii’, Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, 28 (1931–1932), 2–84 Perrot, Françoise, ‘À propos de la restauration et de la fabrication des vitraux à la Sainte Chapelle de Paris’, ‘Tout le temps du veneour est sanz oyseuseté’: Mélanges en l’honneur d’Yves Christe, professeur honoraire à l’université de Genève, ed. by Christine Hediger (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), pp. 377–81 —— , ‘La Rose de la Sainte-Chapelle et sa reconstruction’, La Sainte-Chapelle de Paris: Royaume de France ou Jérusalem céleste?, ed. by Christine Hediger (Turnout: Brepols, 2007), pp. 197–210 Perry, Guy, John of Brienne: King of Jerusalem, Emperor of Constantinople (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) Quantin, Maximillien (ed.), Inventaire-Sommaire des Archives Départementales antérieures à 1790, ii (Auxerre: Gallot, 1878) Quesvers, Paul, Notes sûr les Cornu, seigneurs de Villeneuve-La-Cornue la ChapelleRablais et Fontenailles-en-Brie (Sens: Poulain-Rocher, 1893) Rémusat, Abel, Mémoires sur les relations politiques des princes Chrétiens, et particulièrement des rois de France avec les empereurs Mongols, i (Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1822) Richard, Jean, La Papauté et les missions d’Orient au Moyen Âge (13e–15e siècles), Collection de l’École française de Rome, 33 (Rome: École française de Rome, 1977) —— , Saint Louis: Roi d’une France féodale (Paris: Fayard, 1983) —— , Saint Louis: Crusader King of France, trans. by Simon Lloyd (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) Rivet de la Grange, Antoine, and others (eds), Histoire littéraire de la France, 41 vols (Paris: Firmin Didot, 1733–2016) Roux, Jean-Paul, Les Explorateurs au Moyen Age (Bourges: Éditions du Seuil, 1961) Roy, Maurice, Le Couvent des Dominicans de Sens (Sens: Duchemin, 1902) Teulet, M. A., Layettes du trésor des Chartres, ii (Paris: Henri Plon, 1866) Touron, Antoine, Histoire des hommes illustres de l’Ordre de Saint Dominique, i (Paris: Babuty, 1743) Urfels-Capot, Anne-Élisabeth, Le Sanctoral du lectionnaire de l’office Dominicain (1254–1256), édition et étude d’après le ms. Rome, Sainte-Sabine XIV L1, Ecclesiasticum officium secundum ordinem fratrum praedicatorum (Paris: École des chartes, 2007) Vidier, Alexandre, ‘Le trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle’, Mémoires de la Société de l’histoire de Paris et de L’Ile-de-France, 36 (1909), 245–395 Villeneuve-Bargemont, Louis François, Histoire de Saint Louis Roi de France, i (Paris: Paulin, 1839)

211

M. Michèle Mulchahey

Thomas Aquinas, Dominican Theo­logy, and the Feast of Corpus Christi If one looks to assess the Dominican Order’s influences in medi­eval life, it is worth recalling the prominent role that Dominican friars played both in the establishment of the enormously popular feast of Corpus Christi and in setting the liturgical and theo­logical tone of its representation. In the latter regard, the Dominican imprint on late medi­eval eucharistic devotion was, in fact, indelible insofar as it was a friar, Thomas Aquinas, who is traditionally held to have composed the liturgy for Corpus Christi. Much has been written about Aquinas and Corpus Christi, and there is little enough to add here. But a question we might revisit is how Thomas’s work as a theo­logian and, specifically, as a teacher, informed the liturgy he ultimately devised for Corpus Christi. That means trying to tease out several things: from the correctness of the attribution of the Office to Thomas, to whether he was in any sense the pope’s official theo­logian when he wrote it, to the ways in which Thomas’s current work as a lector in a Dominican priory might have shaped his thinking about the new feast day, about the Eucharist, and about the sort of liturgical expression he felt would capture it all. * * * The story of the institution of the feast of Corpus Christi is well known.1 The tale needs retelling here only insofar as to highlight the Dominican role in popularizing the devotion, and Pope Urban IV’s early connection with both the initiative and the friars. The story begins, of course, in Liège, where, by 1240, a vision experienced by Juliana of Mont-Cornillon had led to a campaign for a special feast dedicated to the Lord’s Body.2 Juliana’s confessor,  1 Recent studies of the feast include Walters, Corrigan, and Ricketts, The Feast of Corpus Christi, esp. pp. 3–54 for the story of the feast’s foundation; Rubin, Corpus Christi, esp. pp. 164–99.  2 The principal source for the ‘pre-history’ of the feast of Corpus Christi is the Vita de beata

M. Michèle Mulchahey currently holds the Leonard E. Boyle Chair in Manuscript Studies at the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies in Toronto; her research focuses on the medi­eval Dominican Order, its schools, and the techniques the friars used to communicate their learning.

The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music, and Liturgy, ed. by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, MMS 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021) pp. 213–253 10.1484/M.MMS-EB.5.124218

FHG

214

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

John of Lausanne, had described her revelation to the local Dominicans, and even took the opportunity to consult the great theo­logian Hugh of Saint-Cher, when he made an official visit to the Dominicans’ Liège convent in 1240 as their new provincial prior. According to Juliana’s vita, the friars raised no objection to the idea of the feast on theo­logical grounds; neither did the chancellor of the University of Paris, whose opinion John had also sought.3 Encouraged by all this, Juliana arranged for the composition of an Office and Mass,4 with which John of Lausanne approached the archdeacon of Liège, Jacques Pantaléon, hoping he might persuade his bishop to establish a local feast day. Bishop Robert of Thourotte was indeed persuaded, and formally approved a feast in honour of Corpus Christi for the diocese of Liège in 1246.5 But Bishop Robert died very soon after — in fact, he must have expedited letters almost from his deathbed6 — and the new solemnity’s future was in jeopardy when Robert’s successor, Henry of Gueldre, showed little interest.7 But the Dominicans remained very supportive, and it would

 3

 4  5  6

 7

Juliana corneliensi, which dates to between 1261 and 1264, but which relies on an earlier vernacular Vita likely written by Juliana’s friend Eve of Saint-Martin. See the Bollandists’ edition, ‘De B. Ivliana Virgine’, ed. by Henschen and Papenbroch. (There is a discrepancy between the printed edition of the Acta sanctorum and the online database version, with page numbers and section references [A-F] diverging; in what follows both will be cited, the printed volume first and then the database parenthetically). Also see the modern critical edition, Vie Sainte Julienne de Cornillon, ed. by Delville, in Fête-Dieu (1246–1996), ed. by Haquin. Delville has worked to confirm the accuracy of the events reported in the Vita by comparison with other contemporary documents, and found that, while the facts of the story appear on the whole correct, the chrono­logy of events seems to be slightly different from that reported in the Vita. Delville’s chrono­logy is followed here. Vie Sainte Julienne de Cornillon, ed. by Delville, pp. 125–31; ‘De B. Ivliana Virgine’, ed. by Henschen and Papenbroch, ii. 2. 7, pp. 457F–458D (database: 459D–460A). Juliana’s Vita names the Dominicans consulted locally as friars Gilles, Jean, and Renard/​Gérard, all of whom are identified as lectors of their order living in Liège. The then-current chancellor of the University of Paris was Odo of Châteauroux (1234–1244), although Renardy, Le Monde des maîtres universitaires du diocese de Liège, 1140–1350, p. 365, implies that the individual in question may actually be the former chancellor Guiard of Laon, who was in Liège in 1242 for the dedication of the Dominicans’ new convent. For the timing of Hugh of Saint-Cher’s visit see Schoolmeesters, ‘Diplôme de Hugues de Saint-Cher instituant la Fête-Dieu’, pp. 42–43. Vie Sainte Julienne de Cornillon, ed. by Delville, pp. 136–40; ‘De B. Ivliana Virgine’, ed. by Henschen and Papenbroch, ii. 2. 9, p. 459B–E (database: 460E–461B). Juliana herself collaborated with a young monk called John in devising the liturgy. For Robert of Thourotte’s letter to the clergy of the diocese establishing the feast ‘Inter alia mira’, see the edition by Petrus Browe. See also Schoolmeesters, ‘Regeste de Robert de Thourotte’, p. 84. Robert of Thourotte took ill while he was at Fosses and died on 16 October 1246. As Walters observes (‘The Feast and its Founder’, p. 9 n. 39), the register of Robert’s letters shows that he sent out twenty copies of the new Corpus Christi liturgy between 13 October and 16 October, the day he died. Again, see Schoolmeesters, ‘Regeste de Robert de Thourotte’, p. 84. Henry reversed a number of his predecessor’s enactments, and he did not enforce the

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

be a spiritual son of Dominic who spread the observance beyond Liège: friar Hugh of Saint-Cher. Hugh had made his name in the early 1230s as a regent master in theo­ logy at Paris,8 where he had also headed up a team of friars at Saint-Jacques who not only produced the Saint-Jacques Concordance of the Bible,9 but also expanded Hugh’s classroom lectures on select books of the Bible into a full commentary, to give the West what would become one of the standard reference texts for biblical exegesis, the Postilla in totam Bibliam.10 It is important to note Hugh of Saint-Cher’s profile as a theo­logian, for he was at one time mooted as the possible author of the liturgy for the Feast of Corpus Christi now credited to Thomas Aquinas, precisely because so much of the eucharistic theo­logy reflected in the Office is consonant with Hugh’s teaching, as found most especially in the Postilla.11 By 1240 Hugh had been elected provincial of the Dominicans’ French Province; by 1244 he was a cardinal; and in 1251 he found himself back in Liège during a tour of duty as cardinal-legate to Germania. When he saw that the initiative for a Corpus Christi feast had stalled, he renewed his support for the idea, and even personally celebrated the liturgy while he was still in the city.12 Hugh of SaintCher would continue to promote the feast as he made his legatine progress throughout Germania, granting indulgences to various monasteries for the monks’ attendance at Corpus Christi Masses, for example, and ultimately decreeing in 1252 that the feast be observed throughout his legation.13 decree for the new feast. In fact, he engineered Juliana’s removal from Mont-Cornillon and then hounded her from place to place as she sought shelter elsewhere: Henry’s animosity to her project seems clear. See Walters, ‘The Feast and its Founder’, pp. 10–11.  8 Glorieux, Répertoire des maîtres en théo­logie de Paris au xiiie siècle, i, p. 43. On the career of Hugh of Saint-Cher see Walters’s brief summary in ‘The Feast and its Founder’, pp. 30–32. See also Thomas Kaeppeli, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevi, ii, pp. 269–81.  9 On the Saint-Jacques Concordance, see Mulchahey, ‘First the Bow is Bent’, pp. 486–501. The groundbreaking work is, of course, that of Richard Rouse and Mary Rouse, ‘The Verbal Concordance to the Scriptures’.  10 On the Postilla in totam Bibliam, see Mulchahey, ‘First the Bow is Bent’, pp. 486–50; also see Smalley’s earlier study in The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, pp. 269–75.  11 Zawilla, ‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi”’, demonstrated the heavy reliance on the Postilla of Hugh of Saint-Cher in the historia of the Corpus Christi liturgy, leading Zawilla to admit (p. 206) that, at least in its selection and interpretation of biblical texts, there is nothing that would suggest Thomas Aquinas rather than Hugh wrote the historia.  12 According to Juliana’s Vita, he did so at Saint-Martin, the church to which Juliana’s confessor John of Lausanne was attached, using the liturgy she had composed. Vie Sainte Julienne de Cornillon, ed. by Delville, pp. 154–58; ‘De B. Ivliana Virgine’, ed. by Henschen and Papenbroch, ii. 3. 14, p. 461C–F (database: 462F–463C). For the dating of Hugh’s return to Liège see Schoolmeesters, ‘Diplôme de Hugues de Saint-Cher’, pp. 150–66.  13 Vie Sainte Julienne de Cornillon, ed. by Delville, pp. 158–65; ‘De B. Ivliana Virgine’, ed. by Henschen and Papenbroch, ii. 3. 15, pp. 461F–462D (database: 463C–464B). This passage of the Vita also incorporates the text of Hugh’s now-lost encyclical letter, which is dated 29 December 1252 and addressed to all the clergy and Christian faithful residing within the borders of his legation, which included Germany, Bohemia, Poland, Moravia, and Dacia.

215

21 6

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

Another important early promoter of the feast was the man who served as archdeacon of Liège from 1241 to 1248, and who played a role in Bishop Robert of Thourotte’s decision to establish the Corpus Christi observance there: Jacques Pantaléon. Pantaléon worked to convince the next bishop to retain the feast on the calendar, but left Liège in 1248, when he was sent to Prussia as a papal envoy to negotiate a peace between the Teutonic Knights and local pagan clans. In 1253 Pantaléon became bishop of Verdun; two years later he was created patriarch of Jerusalem. He had returned from the Levant to consult with the Roman curia about relief for the Christians in the Holy Land when he was elected pope, at Viterbo, on 29 August 1261.14 As Urban IV he would turn his attention to the project whose beginnings he had witnessed in Liège, and elevate the feast of Corpus Christi to universal observance in 1264. It was not, as many have supposed,15 the first time a universal feast had been established by a pope, if one considers canonizations; but it was the first time a pope would include a copy of the liturgy he had had composed for the new feast right along with the bull promulgating it.16 When that bull, Transiturus de hoc mundo, was issued in August of 1264, Urban and his curia were resident in Orvieto. The location was long seen to be important in its proximity to Bolsena, where the miracle of a consecrated Host bleeding into the corporal cloth held in the hands of the celebrant had allegedly taken place just the year before. The corporal is today housed in a purpose-built chapel in Orvieto’s cathedral, and historians have attempted to link Urban’s establishment of the feast of Corpus Christi directly to the miracle and, even more specifically, to the arrival of the corporal in the city.17 The origins of the arrival story can be pushed back only as far as the early fourteenth century, however, coinciding instead, it would seem, with the re-establishment of the feast of Corpus Christi by the Council of Vienne (1311–1312) and the subsequent re-issue of Transiturus amongst the Constitutiones Clementinae (1317).18 That the lavish medi­eval

 14 For a brief bio­graphy of Urban IV, see Kelly and Walsh, ed., A Dictionary of Popes, pp. 196–97. On his work on behalf of the feast in Liège see Simenon, ‘Urbain IV à Liège’.  15 As does, for example, Rubin, Corpus Christi, p. 176.  16 Gy, ‘L’Office du Corpus Christi et S. Thomas d’Aquin’, pp. 495–96. Normally, in canonizations, the form of the liturgy to be used in celebrating a new saint was left to the local ordinary’s or a religious order’s discretion, and one might suppose that the same should have been true for Corpus Christi. Zawilla (‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi”’, p. 34 n. 67), believes this explains why Pope Clement V did not repeat Urban IV’s liturgical instructions when he re-issued Transiturus in 1317: he was assuming decisions would be taken locally about the liturgy.  17 On the presumed connections see, for example, Lazzarini, Il miracolo di Bolsena, and Callaey, ‘Origine e sviluppo della festa del “Corpus Domini”’. See Suhr, ‘Corpus Christi and the Cappella del Corporale at Orvieto’, pp. 4–58, for a recent examination of the question; her conclusion is that the link was purposefully fabricated in the fourteenth century by those wishing to legitimize the cult of the corporal in Orvieto.  18 The earliest document to juxtapose the story of the miracle with Corpus Christi is, in fact,

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

reliquary which for many centuries housed the corporal when it was not on display was created for it by Ugolino di Vieri only between 1337 and 1339 casts further doubt.19 It seems a case of wishful thinking, then, to see connections between the miracle at Bolsena, Urban’s residing in Orvieto, and Corpus Christi. Transiturus itself makes no mention of Bolsena, but, rather, describes the growth of eucharistic devotion in Liège: the letter with which Bishop Robert of Thourotte originally instituted the feast is quoted, Hugh of Saint-Cher’s confirmation is referenced, and the pope’s own personal interest in all of these events is made very clear.20 Pope Urban did, however, celebrate Corpus Christi for a first time in Orvieto in the summer of 1264.21 There has been debate as to whether that occurred on what would be its newly assigned date of the first Thursday after the octave of Pentecost, which fell on 19 June that year,22 or whether Urban arranged an extraordinary celebration, out of sequence, some time following the actual promulgation of Transiturus in August. The latter makes sense, if only by analogy with a canonization, where a first liturgical

 19

 20

 21

 22

Pope Gregory XI’s bull ‘Quamvis cum’, dated 24 June 1377, which grants an indulgence to those who visit Orvieto’s cathedral during the feast of Corpus Christi and make an annual offering to the cathedral fabric. See the transcription in Fumi, Statuti e Regesti dell’Opera di Santa Maria d’Orvieto, xiii, p. 95. See Dal Poggetto, Ugolino di Vieri. The inscription on the reliquary indicates that it was commissioned in 1337 during the pontificate of Benedict XII by the Dominican bishop of Orvieto, Tramo di Corrado Monaldeschi della Cervara, and the cathedral chapter. Payments to the goldsmith Ugolino date from 7 May 1337 to 27 December 1339. See Simenon, ‘Les Origins liègeoises de la Fête-Dieu’. The bull exists in three versions, only two of which date from the pontificate of Urban IV: the first, dated 11 August 1264, is addressed to the Patriarch of Jerusalem; a second redaction received a wider circulation to all the bishops of Christendom; the third is the form in which it was re-issued by the Council of Vienne (1311–1312) and then published amongst the Constitutiones Clementinae (1317) as part of the bull ‘Si Dominus in sanctis eius’. Franceschini, ‘Origine e stile della bolla “Transiturus”’, pp. 235–40, produced a critical edition of the original version, comparing it to the redaction that appears in the Clementinae. Bertamini then discovered the second version, which he published in ‘La bolla “Transiturus” di papa Urbano IV e l’uffizio del “Corpus Christi”’, pp. 42–49. Writing to Eve of Saint-Martin on 8 September to announce his establishment of the universal feast she had long desired to see, Urban tells her that he has already celebrated it at the curia, thus providing a terminus ante quem: ‘Et scias quod nos huiusmodi festum cum omnibus fratribus nostris, romane videlicet ecclesie cardinalibus, nec non cum omnibus archiepsicopis et episcopis ceterisque ecclesiarum prelatis, tunc apud sedem apostolicam commorantibus, ad hoc ut videntibus et audientibus de tanti festi celebritate salubre preberetur exemplum duximus celebrandum.’ (And you may also know that, together with all our brothers, namely, the cardinals of the Roman Church, and also with all the archbishops and bishops and the rest of the prelates of churches who were residing at the Apostolic See at the time, we have commanded that a feast of this sort should be celebrated, for this reason: so that it might provide a beneficial example to those seeing and hearing the observance of such a great feast). See the text of the letter in Lambot (ed.), ‘La Bulle d’Urbain IV à Ève de Saint-Martin’. This is Franceschini’s argument in his ‘Origine e stile della bolla “Transiturus”’.

217

21 8

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

celebration would normally follow upon receipt of the bull, no matter the date set for the permanent memorial.23 Urban may have done likewise with his new feast, following up his formal proclamation with a solemn Mass and Office. Orvieto is important to the story of the liturgy for Corpus Christi for another reason, however: it was in Orvieto that Urban IV first crossed paths with the friar whom tradition holds he would ask to compose the Corpus Christi liturgy. Thomas Aquinas had recently returned to Italy after taking his credential as a master in theo­logy at Paris and had just been given his first teaching assignment in his home province’s school system, as lector to the convent of San Domenico in Orvieto.24 He took up his new position in the autumn of 1261 and would remain there for the next four years.25 Modern bio­graphers formerly over-read the significance of Aquinas’s posting to Orvieto as an appointment of Thomas by Urban IV himself to the Sacred Palace, to serve as a sort of official papal adviser with whom he intended to consult regarding theo­logical matters.26 In reality, the assignment was made not by the pope but by Thomas’s own Dominican superiors, who were simply dispatching him to take over the school in a convent of middling importance in the Roman Province.27 That Thomas was a year into his teaching assignment before Urban’s curia even took up residence in Orvieto in the autumn of 1262 only serves to underscore the fact that it was not the pontiff who had engineered the appointment.28 This is not to say Urban did not recognize the value of having a newly minted Parisian master within hailing distance; and his earlier associations with the Dominicans of Liège might have predisposed him to trust the theo­logical instincts of the local lector,

 23 See Zawilla, ‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi”’, pp. 49–51, who uses the analogy to explain Urban’s letter to Henry of Gueldre of 7 September, in which he not only indicates the date he has selected for the annual celebration of the new solemnity of Corpus Christi, but that he expects the bishop to arrange an initial celebration throughout his diocese on the first available Thursday following receipt of his letter.  24 For Thomas’s assignment see Fontes vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis, ed. by Prümmer and Laurent, Documenta, no. 30, p. 582: ‘Assignamus fr. Thomam de Aquino pro lectore in conventu Urbevetano in remissionem suorum peccatorum.’ (We assign brother Thomas Aquinas as lector in the convent at Orvieto in remission of his sins). Cf. also Walz, ‘L’Aquinate a Orvieto’.  25 Thomas was moved to Santa Sabina in Rome in the autumn of 1265. On Thomas’s time in Rome and the studium he organized there, see Mulchahey, ‘First the Bow is Bent’, pp. 278–306.  26 See, for example, Mandonnet, ‘Thomas d’Aquin lecteur à la curie romaine’. Mandonnet’s once-influential view has been taken on in recent years. One might simply note here that the title of Master of the Sacred Palace did not even exist until the second quarter of the fourteenth century; see Mulchahey, ‘The Dominican Studium Romanae Curiae’.  27 Fontes vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis, ed. by Prümmer and Laurent, Documenta, no. 30, p. 582. Walz, ‘L’Aquinate a Orvieto’.  28 See Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, ed. by Potthast, ii, p. 1495, no. 18414, for the first letter Pope Urban IV issued from Orvieto; it is dated 18 October 1262.

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

especially when Urban came to focus his attention on a matter to which he had once before seen the Dominicans react positively and helpfully. Thomas Aquinas’s theo­logical instincts are, in fact, what will be reconsidered here. For, as Transiturus explicitly states, Urban IV saw the new feast and its liturgy primarily as a vehicle for communicating orthodox doctrine in theo­logically challenging times; but the liturgy Thomas Aquinas ultimately composed was actually at variance with some of Urban’s own thinking about the Eucharist. The principal rationale articulated in Transiturus for creating a new universal feast of Corpus Christi is, indeed, the combatting of heresy: ‘although this sacramental memorial is observed daily in the solemnities of the Mass’, the bull says, ‘we judge it proper and fitting that once a year a more solemn and special memorial of it should be held, especially to counteract the faithlessness and folly of the heretics’.29 Urban’s concern is not a mere topos: one of the central tenets in the anti-materialist Cathar heresy was its opposition to the very idea that Christ had assumed flesh, and, in the 1260s when Urban IV was writing, such teaching was still very much in the air.30 The pope clearly saw a feast dedicated to Corpus Christi as a golden opportunity to stress the orthodox view of Christ’s true flesh given and received. Urban IV’s own eucharistic piety, like that of the religious women he knew in Liège, focused on the corporeal presence of Christ on the altar linked to a highly affective memory of the Passion.31 These are precisely the two doctrinal themes that Urban stresses in Transiturus. He begins by describing the Eucharist as a memorial of the love of Christ that was manifested in the Passion, a love so great as to evoke tears.32 Then, paraphrasing

 29 All three versions of Transiturus agree on the lines quoted here. For the Vienne/​ Clementine text (Clementinarum, iii. 16. 1), see Corpus iuris canonici, ii, ed. by Friedberg and Richter, col. 1176: ‘Licet igitur hoc memoriale sacramentum in quotidianis missarum solennis frequentetur: conveniens tamen arbitramur et dignum, ut de ipso semel saltem in anno ad confundendam specialiter haereticorum perfidiam et insaniam memoria solennior et celebrior habeatur’. Cf. Franceschini, ‘Origine e stile della bolla “Transiturus”’, p. 238; Bertamini, ‘La bolla “Transiturus” di papa Urbano IV’, p. 45.  30 Lambert, The Cathars, esp. pp. 171–229.  31 An observation made by Gy, ‘La Relation au Christ dans l’Eucharistie selon S. Bonaventure et S. Thomas d’Aquin’, pp. 84–86.  32 Corpus iuris canonici, ii, ed. by Friedberg and Richter, cols 1174–77. See especially the affective response Urban describes (col. 1175): ‘In hac itaque sacratissima commemoratione adsunt nobis suavitatis gaudium simul et lacrimae, quia et in ea congaudemus lacrimantes, et lacrimamur devote gaudentes, laetas habendo lacrimas, et laeititam lacrimantem. Nam et cor, ingenti perfusum gaudio, dulces per oculos stillat guttas. O divini amoris immensitas, divinae pietatis superabundantia, divinae affluentia largitatis!’ (And so, the joy of sweetness and the joy of tears attend us simultaneously during this most sacred commemoration, for we both rejoice in it while weeping and weep while devoutly rejoicing, happy in shedding tears and tearful in our happiness. For indeed the heart perfused with an enormous joy causes sweet drops to pour forth from the eyes. O immenseness of divine love, superabundance of divine pity, affluence of divine

219

220

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

Innocent III in the De sacro altaris mysterio, he introduces his second theme, Christ’s promise to remain with his followers:33 In hac vero sacramentali Christi commemoratione Iesus Christus praesens sub alia quidem forma, in propria vero substantia est nobiscum. Adscensurus enim in coelem dixit Apostolis et eorum sequacibus: ‘Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi’, benigna ipsos promissione confortans, quod remaneret et esset cum eis etiam praesentia corporali. (In this sacramental commemoration of Christ, Christ himself is with us, present indeed in another form but truly in his own substance. For when he was about to ascend to heaven he said to his apostles and their followers: ‘Behold, I am with you always even until the end of time’ [Matthew 28. 20], comforting them with the reassuring promise that he would remain with them and would be with them through a corporeal presence.) With these particular emphases and the vocabulary of ‘praesentia corporalis’, Urban aligns himself both with the current trends in eucharistic piety and with contemporary sacramental theo­logy. The theo­logy of corporeal presence had developed in the twelfth century as theo­logians debated the Eucharist’s role in Christian salvation, a discussion in which the echoes of earlier eucharistic controversies over the mode of Christ’s presence in the sacrament could still be heard.34

largesse!) Cf. Franceschini, ‘Origine e stile della bolla “Transiturus”’, p. 236; Bertamini, ‘La bolla “Transiturus” di papa Urbano IV’, p. 43.  33 Corpus iuris canonici, ii, ed. by Friedberg and Richter, col. 1175. Cf. Franceschini, ‘Origine e stile della bolla “Transiturus”’, p. 236; Bertamini, ‘La bolla “Transiturus” di papa Urbano IV’, p. 43. Zawilla, ‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi”’, p. 36, highlights the parallels with Innocent III’s De sacro altaris mysterio libri sex, 4.44 (= Patro­logiae cursus completus: series latina (hereafter PL) 217: 885C): ‘Ascensurus ergo Christus ad Patrem quia promisit apostolis eorumque sequacibus, vobiscum ero cunctis diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi (Matth. XXVIII), voluit remanere cum illis non solum par [sic] inhabitantem gratiam, nec per divinam tantum essentiam, verum etiam per corporalem praesentiam. Et ideo istud sacramentum instituit, in quo praesens est nobiscum, sub alia quidem forma, sed in propria vere substantia.’ (Therefore when Christ was about to ascend to the Father because he promised his apostles and their followers, I shall be with you always even until the end of time (Matthew 28), he wanted to remain with them not only through an indwelling grace, nor through his divine essence alone, but in truth even through a corporeal presence. And hence he instituted this sacrament, in which he is present to us, indeed in another form but truly in his own substance).  34 Macy, The Theo­logies of the Eucharist, has shown that the salvific function of the sacrament is the real issue at the heart of twelfth-century theo­logians’ eucharistic concerns and that the increasing precision with which they articulated what Lateran IV ultimately would define as the doctrine of transsubstantiation was merely an outgrowth of these discussions. Also see Zawilla’s summary of these developments, ‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi”’, pp. 9–15.

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

There were some, like Anselm of Laon, who did not consider the Eucharist per se to be necessary to salvation, understanding it primarily as a sign directing the believer beyond material reality to a spiritual union with Christ in love.35 Gilbert de la Porrée, followed by Peter Lombard and Peter Comestor, argued that what is essential to salvation is the incorporation of the individual into the mystical body of Christ, guaranteed by the unity of the Church of which the Eucharist is the symbol.36 But theo­logians such as Lanfranc, Rupert of Deutz, and Alger of Liège, who were convinced that the Eucharist can achieve its salvific purpose only if the believer is brought into physical union with the body of Christ, pointedly used the language of ‘praesentia corporalis’.37 It is language that had lasting effect. Even when the Eucharist’s soterio­logical implications became a less central concern for the theo­logians of the later twelfth century, Christ’s bodily presence in the sacrament was consistently affirmed, including by those for whom the true union with Christ it accomplishes is a spiritual one. This, famously, is Hugh of Saint-Victor’s position: while he maintains, with Anselm of Laon, that the purpose of the Eucharist is to guide the believer to a more transcendent union with Christ, he begins from the premise of a praesentia corporalis that affords an initial physical union; and he cites Matthew 28. 20, ‘Behold, I am with you always even until the end of time’, as the guarantee of an abiding relationship in Christ that the Eucharist initiates.38 This insistence on a corporeal presence is at odds, however, with the Patristic understanding of the Eucharist. When the Fathers of the Church speak of the Eucharist it is as a memorial of the living Christ and a comforting sign that he continues to be spiritually present after His death. The twelfth-century theo­logians, in effect, inverted the equation, seeing the sacrament as the locus of a continuing physical presence and a memorialization of Christ’s Passion and death.39 Neither do the Fathers read Matthew  35 Macy, The Theo­logies of the Eucharist, pp. 73–105.  36 Macy, The Theo­logies of the Eucharist, pp. 106–32. According to Zawilla, ‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi”’, p. 11, note 25, this was the prevailing view. Peter Lombard’s Libri IV Sententiarum was no doubt an important means of diffusion.  37 Macy, The Theo­logies of the Eucharist, pp. 44–72.  38 See Hugh of Saint-Victor, De sacramentis christianae fidei, ed. by Migne, ii. 8. 13 (= PL 176: 470D–471A): ‘Nam ut ostenderet, quod secundum spiritualem praesentiam non recedebat, quando secundum corporalem praesentiam abire disponebat, ait: Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi (Matth. XXVIII). Sic ergo in sacramento suo modo temporaliter venit ad te, et est eo corporaliter tecum, ut tu per corporalem praesentiam ad spiritualem quaerendam exciteris, et inveniendam adjuveris.’ (For in order that he might show that he was not departing according to his spiritual presence when he arranged to pass away according to his corporeal presence, he says: Behold, I am with you always even until the end of time (Matthew 28). So, therefore, in his sacrament he comes to you now in time and through it he is with you corporeally, so that through his corporeal presence you may be roused to seeking him spiritually and may be assisted in finding him). And see Macy, The Theo­logies of the Eucharist, pp. 82–86.  39 See Gy, ‘La Relation au Christ dans l’Eucharistie selon S. Bonaventure et S. Thomas

221

222

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

28. 20 as a reference to the Eucharist.40 It has been suggested that this reinterpretation of Patristic notions was driven largely by the new affective devotion to Christ’s humanity that was becoming more widespread in these same decades, and by precisely the sort of eucharistic piety focused on the sacrament as a reminder of the Passion epitomized by devotees such as Juliana of Mont-Cornillon in Liège.41 One of the main agents in legitimizing these ideas was Pope Innocent III, who embraced the teaching of Hugh of Saint-Victor. Following Innocent’s lead, thirteenth-century theo­logians not only increasingly use the language of ‘praesentia corporalis’ with respect to the Eucharist, but cite Matthew 28. 20 as the scriptural auctoritas on which the claim rests.42 Transiturus does all these things: in it Urban speaks explicitly of a corporeal presence in the Eucharist, invokes Matthew 28. 20 as the promise of that continuing presence, paraphrases Innocent III, and connects it all to the example of eucharistic piety offered by the Christians of Liège. Thomas Aquinas, in the same months during which he would find himself working on the Corpus Christi liturgy, had undertaken a thorough new study of the writings of the Fathers. It would lead him to reject Transiturus’ formulation of ‘praesentia corporalis’ to describe the mode of Christ’s presence on the altar. While in Orvieto, Thomas began composing a commentary on the four gospels that emphasized Patristic sources, a project he tackled at the request of Pope Urban himself43 — there is even

 40

 41

 42  43

d’Aquin’, pp. 71–72, and Zawilla, ‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi”’, pp. 13–14, who identifies Hugh of Saint-Victor as the first to invert the emphases in this fashion. Zawilla, ‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi”’, pp. 250–51, offers St Augustine as representative of the Patristic view that Christ’s promise in Matthew 28. 20 refers to an ongoing spiritual comfort and not to the Eucharist, citing Augustine’s In Iohannis evangelium tractatus CXXIV, 94. 4, pp. 563–64. See the texts of Innocent III and Hugh of Saint-Victor (quoted above in notes 33 and 38), who both speak of Christ’s praesentia corporalis on the altar and read Matthew 28. 20 as referring to His promise to remain physically present to His followers through the Eucharist. Again see Gy, ‘La Relation au Christ dans l’Eucharistie selon S. Bonaventure et S. Thomas d’Aquin’, pp. 71–72, and Macy, The Theo­logies of the Eucharist, pp. 86–93. That same affective piety in combination with the emphasis on a corporeal presence in the sacrament led to new paraliturgical practices as well, including less frequent reception of the Eucharist and the salutation of the host at the moment of the elevation. Mitchell, Cult and Controversy, pp. 163–81, describes many of these new practices. See Zawilla, ‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi”’, p. 251, and esp. note 73, where Zawilla offers Alexander of Hales, William of Auxerre, and, significantly, Hugh of Saint-Cher as examples of thirteenth-century theo­logians who followed that lead. In his dedicatory letter Aquinas clearly states that he had begun his commentary at the insistence of the pope: ‘Et huius siquidem diligentiae studio Vestrae Sanctitatis complacuit mihi committere Matthaei Evangelium exponendum, quod iuxta propriam facultatem executus, sollicite ex diversis Doctorum libris praedicti Evangelii expositionem continuam compilavi.’ (Because of this diligent zeal [for wisdom], it pleased Your Holiness to commission me to expound the gospel of Matthew, which I did according to my ability, by carefully compiling a continuous exposition of the aforesaid gospel from the various books of the Doctors). See Thomas Aquinas, Catena aurea in quatuor evangelia,

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

an apocryphal story that Urban instituted Corpus Christi as a reward to Thomas for producing the commentary for him.44 Aquinas’s work would come to be known as the Catena aurea (‘Golden Chain’), because, unlike the long-standard Glossa ordinaria with its discrete glosses, Thomas provides a running exposition that links its authorities together seamlessly to form a proper commentary.45 Thomas had completed only his exposition of Matthew before Urban died,46 and he would finish the commentary after his transfer to Santa Sabina in Rome. But it is fairly clear that he was working simultaneously on all four gospels. It is also clear that Thomas was not only deeply familiar with the traditions of scriptural commentary as he had inherited them, but was also benefiting from new translations of Greek Patristic commentators he himself had commissioned.47 Thomas displays an exceptional knowledge of the writings of the eastern Fathers in the Catena aurea, citing nearly sixty Greek authors in total, a few of which, such as Theophylact, had previously been

 44

 45  46

 47

ed. by Guarienti, i, pp. 3–4. A likely date for the work, then, is 1262–1263; Parma, Bibl. Pal., MS 1, which contains this first part of the Catena, is dated 1263. Franceschini, ‘Origine e stile della bolla “Transiturus”’, 218. The source for the claim is an anonymous Brevis historia ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum reported by Mabillon from a manuscript at Santa Sabina dated 1367; see Martène and Durand (eds), Veterum scriptorum, vi, 365–66. But as Simenon (‘Les Origins liègeoises de la Fête-Dieu’, p. 5) points out, this chronicle is the only source to offer this particular story. On the Catena aurea generally see Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, pp. 171–73 and 216. Also see Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, pp. 136–41. Aquinas himself indicates this in Catena aurea, ed. by Guarienti, ii, p. 429: ‘Verum quia, eo summo Pontifice ex hac vita subtracto, tria Evangelia, Marci, Lucae et Ioannis exponenda restabant, ne opus quod obedientia inceperat, negligentia imperfectum relinqueret, cum multo labore diligens adhibui studium, ut quatuor Evangeliorum expositionem complerem, eadem in omnibus forma servata in ponendis sanctorum auctoritatibus et eorum nominibus praescribendis.’ (In truth, because the three gospels of Mark, Luke, and John still remained to be expounded when the Supreme Pontiff was taken from this life, lest negligence should leave unfinished a project that obedience had begun, I set to work, painstakingly and with no little effort, so that I might complete the exposition of the four gospels, maintaining in all four the same method of quoting the authoritative sayings of the saints and indicating their names). Thomas dedicates the remainder of the commentary to Annibaldo degli Annibaldi, a Dominican confrère who had been created cardinal by Urban IV and who was, in fact, Thomas’s former bachelor at Saint-Jacques in Paris. See Aquinas, Catena aurea, ed. by Guarienti, ii, p. 429: ‘Et ut magis integra et continua praedicta sanctorum expositio redderetur, quasdam expositiones Doctorum graecorum in latinum feci transferri, ex quibus plura expositionibus latinorum Doctorum inserui, auctorum nominibus praenotatis.’ (And so that the aforesaid commentary of the saints might be rendered more complete and cohesive, I had certain commentaries of the Greek doctors translated into Latin, from which I incorporated many things into the commentaries of the Latin Doctors, with the authors’ names clearly noted). The evidence for access to new Greek texts becomes increasingly strong in Aquinas’s exposition of the gospels of Mark, Luke, and John; in Matthew, perhaps understandably, Thomas relies heavily on St John Chrysostom’s Homeliae in Matthaeum and the so-called Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, a translation Thomas corrects where he deems it to be faulty.

223

224

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

unknown in the West, compared to only about two dozen Latins. Aquinas is also the first Western theo­logian to quote verbatim from the acts of the first five Ecumenical Councils.48 Scholars have recognized that the research Thomas did for the Catena aurea would mark all his future work.49 He would draw on it consistently in his mature biblical commentaries, and the influence of the Catena aurea itself on Aquinas’s sermons has been carefully mapped.50 The Patristic documentation Thomas deploys in the realm of Christo­logy alone has been estimated to have increased sixfold between the time he commented on the Sentences as a bachelor at Paris and the writing of the Summa theo­logiae51 — in other words, precisely during his years in Orvieto. The significance of this for his approach to eucharistic questions, and, by extension, to the liturgical expression he would deem appropriate for a feast dedicated to the Blessed Sacrament should not be overlooked. In commenting on Matthew 28. 20, for example, Thomas does not make the connection to the Eucharist that so many others had. With St John Chrysostom, he emphasizes instead that Christ utters the promise to be with his followers until the end of time immediately after instructing them to go throughout the world baptizing others and teaching them to do all that he has commanded: Thomas understands Christ’s words to mean that he will be there supporting his disciples in this difficult work always, and not only those living now in the age of the Apostles, but all those who will come after them. It is, as Chrysostom says, Christ’s way of speaking to the faithful as one body, one Church, throughout time.52 It may be both unsurprising and significant, then, that the Corpus Christi Office nowhere invokes Matthew 28. 20 — unsurprising if Thomas Aquinas is indeed the author of the liturgy, and significant because its absence is an important argument in favour of that very proposition. The other projects on which Thomas was working in Orvieto tell the same tale. At Urban’s request he reviewed a short treatise on the theo­ logical issues dividing the Greek and Latin Churches that had arrived from

 48 Geenen, ‘En marge du concile de Chalcédoine’. On Thomas’s use of the Fathers also see Conticello, ‘San Tommaso ed I Padri’.  49 Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, pp. 171 and 173, twice characterizes the Catena aurea as the turning point in Aquinas’s theo­logy. Eschmann, ‘A Catalogue of St Thomas’ Works’, p. 397, calls the Catena aurea a turning point in Catholic theo­logy as a whole.  50 On Aquinas’s later exegesis see, for example, Holmes, ‘Aquinas’ Lectura in Matthaeum’; on the sermons see Bataillon, ‘Les Sermons de saint Thomas et la Catena aurea’.  51 The calculus is that of Backes, Die Christo­logie des hl. Thomas v. Aquin und die griechischen Kirchenväter, p. 122, and has been often repeated since, including by Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, p. 139.  52 Aquinas, Catena aurea, ed. by Guarienti, i, p. 424. Thomas also notes (p. 425) that Jerome reads it as a promise that Christ’s followers will be victorious in the end, that He will not abandon them; while Pope Leo the Great read it as Christ’s continuing comfort to those whom He has invited to join him in glory, encouraging them to remain patient while they are still on earth.

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

Constantinople. Following the Byzantine re-conquest of the eastern capital in 1261, Emperor Michael VIII Palaeo­logus had written to Pope Urban seeking to open discussions about the reunion of the two Churches. He had also contacted the bishop of Crotone, Niccolò da Durazzo, presumably for his perspective as a bilingual ecclesiastic who was Greek by culture but a serving member of the Roman Church’s hierarchy. Bishop Niccolò supplied the emperor with a little digest of Patristic authorities, De fide Trinitatis ex diversis auctoritatibus sanctorum confectus contra grecos, to help familiarize Palaeo­logus with Latin theo­logy in advance of any negotiations.53 It is a Latin translation of this work that was in Urban IV’s hands by late 1262.54 He apparently gave it to Thomas Aquinas for his comments; the result was the Contra errores Graecorum. In the first part of the De fide Trinitatis, Niccolò da Durazzo attempts to show that the Greek Fathers had taught the Latin doctrine of the dual procession of the Holy Spirit, the Filioque; in its second part he gives briefer treatment to the other three key issues on which the two Churches disagreed, namely, papal primacy, the doctrine of purgatory, and the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. Thomas soon realized that Niccolò’s use of his sources is problematic, as he tries to bend their meaning in the direction of Latin theo­logy in a misguided attempt at syncretism. Niccolò da Durazzo, in fact, completely fabricated much of the content he attributes to Athanasius, Basil, John Chrysostom, Cyril, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa.55 Unsure whether the problems stemmed from faulty translation of the Greek into Latin, Thomas’s response to the De fide Trinitatis opens with a now-famous pro­logue, in which he discusses a translator’s responsibilities. These include knowing something about the evolution of an author’s thought and the historical context in which he was writing. Aquinas then turns to the business of disentangling the Greek Fathers’ opinions from the compiler’s presentation of them. He considers, first, those statements he thinks are dubious expressions of the Fathers’ meaning — there are enough of them to fill thirty-two chapters — urging caution in accepting them at face value. Next, Thomas works to show how other statements in the compilation could possibly be interpreted to support the Latin Church’s teaching on the four issues at stake. The Contra errores Graecorum, then, offers another index of Aquinas’s deepening famili-

 53 Dondaine, ‘Nicolas de Cotrone, et les sources du Contra errores Graecorum’. The libellus has been edited by the Leonine Commission and published alongside Aquinas’s Contra errores Graecorum ad Urbanum papam, in Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, vol. xl, Libellus de fide Trinitatis ex diversis auctoritatibus sanctorum confectus contra grecos, pp. A107–A151.  54 Dondaine, ‘Nicolas de Cotrone, et les sources du Contra errores Graecorum’, pp. 316–18; Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, p. 169, esp. n. 71. The Libellus is known only from a single fifteenth-century copy, in Latin, BAV, MS Vat. lat. 808, fols 47r–65v.  55 Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, p. 169.

225

226

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

arity with Greek Patristic theo­logy, including the Fathers’ views on matters relating to the Eucharist. The years in Orvieto were productive ones for Thomas, and a brief survey of the other works that date from this period enlarges our sense of where his scholarly emphases lay at the time. His teaching in the classroom in Orvieto provides one indicator. As a lector in a Dominican convent, Thomas’s primary responsibility was to see to the basic theo­logical formation of his confrères. And the curriculum he delivered at San Domenico would have revolved around two great lecture cycles, one on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, the second devoted each year to a single book of the Bible of the lector’s choosing.56 According to chronicler Tolomeo of Lucca (Bartolomeo Fiadóni), Thomas chose to comment on the Book of Job in Orvieto.57 Scholars have now come to accept what Tolomeo has to say on most matters: he knew Thomas personally and has generally proved more reliable than he was once judged to be.58 But equally persuasive is the fact that one of the central themes Thomas pursues in his exposition of Job, the mystery of divine providence, is echoed in another project on which he was working in parallel. The third book of the Summa contra Gentiles is thought to have been on Thomas’s desk in Orvieto, and this section of his Summa has him examining the very same questions we see him exploring in the Expositio super Iob ad litteram. It seems very likely that Thomas selected Job for his classroom cycle to allow him to focus further on those issues that currently held his interest.59 He has left us a moving commentary on the human condition and why we suffer, as opposed to seeing the Book of Job, as previous commentators had, primarily as a moral tale designed to teach the proper response to suffering.60 It was a new reading of scripture. Like the Catena aurea, then, Thomas’s teaching in the classroom in Orvieto reflects  56 On conventual education in the Dominican order in this period, see Mulchahey, ‘First the Bow is Bent’, pp. 130–218.  57 Tolomeo of Lucca, Historia ecclesiastica nova, ed. by Muratori, xxii. 24. 1153: ‘Scripsit etiam tempore ejusdem Pontificis Librum contra Gentiles, & quaestiones de Anima; exposuit Job; & quaedam alia opuscula fecit.’ (During the reign of the same Pontiff, he also wrote the book Contra Gentiles and the questions De anima; he expounded Job; and composed some other short works). The passage also appears in Antoine Dondaine’s partial edition in ‘Les Opuscula fratris Thomae chez Ptolémée de Lucques’, p. 151.  58 For Tolomeo’s statement that he often heard Thomas’s confession, had studied under him, and knew him intimately (saepe confessionem audivi, & cum ipso multo tempore conversatus sum familiari ministerio, ac ipsius auditor fui (I often heard his confession, lived with him for a long time attending him familiarly, and was his student)), see Historia ecclesiastica nova, ed. by Muratori, xxiii. 8. 1169. The editors of the Leonine Commission follow Tolomeo in assigning the Expositio super iob ad litteram to Thomas’s Orvietan period; see Antoine Dondaine’s introduction to Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, xxvi: Expositio super Iob ad litteram, pp. 17*–20*.  59 Aquinas, Expositio super Iob, p. 5. And see Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, p. 120; Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, pp. 153 and 368.  60 See Chardonnens, L’homme sous le regard de la Providence.

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

the sort of original reconsideration of familiar texts of the Bible that, as we shall see, is a hallmark of the liturgy for Corpus Christi that is credited to him. Thomas’s Orvietan portfolio is rounded out with four briefer opuscula, all of which were written in response to questions that had been put to Thomas by lectors in other Dominican convents and by other ecclesiastics, perhaps, as Jean-Pierre Torrell says, a ‘flattering echo of confidence’ in the new master’s competence.61 One is a letter, known today as the De emptione et venditione ad tempus, that Aquinas addressed to Jacopo da Viterbo, the lector at Santa Maria Novella in Florence, who had asked Thomas about usury and speculative investments, the sorts of questions all too often being asked in Florence in those days.62 Before he wrote back, Thomas conferred with none other than Cardinal Hugh of Saint-Cher, who was currently residing at the curia, and with Marino d’Eboli, Urban IV’s chaplain.63 The other three opuscula are not so surely datable to Thomas’s stay in Orvieto, but probably belong here. There is a little work called the De rationibus fidei which finds Thomas cribbing from his own Summa contra Gentiles to provide for a pastor working in Antioch the arguments with which to counter the objections to the Latin Church’s teaching on six key issues — the Trinity, Incarnation, redemption, purgatory, free will, and the Eucharist — that had been raised by the Saracens and eastern Christians with whom he debated.64 There is also the De articulis fidei et ecclesiae sacramentis, written for the archbishop of Palermo, wherein Thomas supplies, as requested, a summary of the articles of faith and the sacraments, together with answers to questions that might arise regarding them.65 And lastly, possibly, there is an exposition of the first two canons of the Fourth Lateran Council, which deal with doctrinal matters, written by Thomas in

 61 Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, p. 122.  62 Dated to about 1262 by the Leonine editor Hyacinthe-François Dondaine. See Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, xlii: De emptione et venditione ad tempus, pp. 383–90, for Dondaine’s introduction to the text, and pp. 393–94 for the edition. Also see Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, pp. 122–23; Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, p. 397.  63 Thomas himself notes that he had consulted initially with Marino d’Eboli because the lector in Florence had sent his enquiry simultaneously to Thomas and to the chaplain, and that he had subsequently spoken with Cardinal Hugh as well. See Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, vol. xlii: De emptione et venditione ad tempus, p. 393, lines 4–9. Hugh of Saint-Cher died in Orvieto on 19 March 1263.  64 For the edition see Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, vol. xl: De rationibus Fidei ad cantorem Antiochenum, pp. B55–B73. Also see Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, pp. 124–25; Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, p. 394.  65 For the edition see Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, vol. xlii: De articulis Fidei et Ecclesiae sacramentis ad archiepiscopum Panormitanum, pp. 243–57. Despite its brevity, the De articulis fidei proved influential, its second part being quoted in one of the decrees of the Council of Florence (1445); see De articulis, p. 212. Also see Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, pp. 126–27; Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, pp. 392–93.

227

228

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

response to a letter from the archdeacon of Todi, Gioffredi d’Anagni.66 A catalogue such as this, especially one listing occasional writings elicited by questions put to him by others, certainly cannot provide deep insight into Thomas’s mind at this juncture; but one can remark that doctrinal questions, including questions about the Eucharist and redemption and how to present them to believers and non-believers alike, were grist for his mill at just the time he is traditionally presumed to have embarked on the writing of the Office for Corpus Christi. * * * This brings us inexorably to consider the Office itself, whether the attribution to Thomas can be sustained, whether the beautiful prayers it contains bear anything like what could be called Thomas Aquinas’s theo­logical signature. Those who disputed Aquinas’s authorship of the Corpus Christi liturgy pointed first and foremost to the fact that the tradition only starts appearing in the sources in the second decade of the fourteenth century, and that early support for the attribution is restricted to a circle of Thomas’s Dominican disciples. At the centre of the tradition is, again, Tolomeo of Lucca, who was his confessor during his final months in Naples, and who may claim special insight on that count. Tolomeo not only includes the Corpus Christi Office in his list of Thomas’s writings in his Historia ecclesiastica nova (c. 1314) but makes some very particular claims about it that turn out to be absolutely true. He notes, for example, that Thomas produced two versions, both at Pope Urban’s request. Tolomeo also says Thomas wrote the liturgy ‘in its entirety, both as regards the readings and as regards the whole Office, both diurnal and nocturnal, as well as the Mass, and whatever is sung on that day. And’, he continues, ‘if we look closely at the author’s words in the historia we will see that nearly all the figures of the Old Testament appear in this Office, related clearly and in an appropriate manner to the sacrament of the Eucharist’.67 In this last remark Tolomeo has highlighted precisely that which is the Corpus Christi Office’s most noteworthy feature: its historia, that is, the story of the feast’s origins, is related exclusively through biblical quotations. It is the only medi­eval Office for which that is true. Tolomeo’s report of authorship was repeated by William of Tocco, who had been  66 For the edition see Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, xl: Expositio super primam et secundam Decretalem ad archidiaconum Tudertinum, pp. E27–E44. Also see Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, pp. 125–26; Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino, pp. 393–94.  67 Tolomeo of Lucca, Historia ecclesiastica nova, xxii. 24. 1153–1154; Dondaine, ‘Les Opuscula fratris Thomae chez Ptolémée de Lucques’, p. 151: ‘Officium etiam de corpore Christi fecit ex mandato Urbani, quod est secundum quod fecit ad petitionem Urbani. Hoc autem fecit completum et quantum ad lectiones et quantum ad totum officium, tam diurnam, quam nocturnum, quam etiam ad missam et quidquid illa die cantatur; in qua historia si attendimus ad verba scribentis, quasi omnes figure Veteris Testamenti in hoc officio videntur contineri, luculento et proprio stylo adaptata ad Eucharistie sacramentum.’

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

Thomas’s student and life-long socius and who was put in charge of the initial gathering of material for Thomas’s canonization process, beginning in 1317.68 The claim that Thomas wrote the Corpus Christi Office figures in the vita William wrote as part of the official submission.69 Between them, Tolomeo and William represent the contemporary case for Aquinas’s authorship. Another argument made against the attribution is the fact that the Dominican Order was itself slow to adopt the feast.70 Only in 1304 did the General Chapter begin the constitutional procedure to amend the Dominican liturgy to introduce a Corpus Christi observance.71 Even then there was clearly a problem with implementation. Fourteen years later the Order’s leaders had to try again; their added instruction to Master General Hervè of Nedellec to do something about providing an Office for the feast day certainly implies that whatever Thomas may have penned was not being utilized.72 Only in 1323 was use of an Office attributed to Aquinas mandated throughout the Order — and the wording of the legislation could be interpreted to mean that the Dominicans were being asked to bring their liturgy in line with that of the wider Church, which was already using it.73 So, where is the allegiance to Thomas’s memory?  68 William of Tocco, Ystoria sancti Thome de Aquino, ed. by Le Brun-Gouanvic, pp. 1–16.  69 William of Tocco, Ystoria sancti Thome de Aquino, ed. by Le Brun-Gouanvic, chap. xviii, p. 133; also William of Tocco, Vita S. Thomae Aquinatis, ed. by Prümmer, chap. xvii, p. 88.  70 An argument made by Lambot, ‘L’Office de la Fête-Dieu: Aperçus nouveaux sur ses origins’, p. 67 and reiterated by Delaissé, ‘A la recherche des origines de l’office du Corpus Christi’, pp. 236–38.  71 Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, ii, p. 3 (Toulouse, 1304): ‘In ordinario in rubrica de festo toto duplici, ubi dicitur. festum totum duplex fiat, etc. post illud que in kalendariis sunt notata. addatur et dicatur sic. feria .v. infra octavas trinitatis fiat festum totum duplex de corpore Christi. sicut summus pontifex ordinavit. quod si dictum festum in translacione beati Dominici venire contigat; ad sequentem feriam transferatur.’ (In the mass ordinary in the rubric concerning full double feasts, where it says ‘Let a full double feast’, etc., after whatever is noted in the calendars let there be added and let it say thus: ‘On the fifth feria [Thursday] within the octave of Trinity, let there be a full double feast for Corpus Christi, just as the Supreme Pontiff has commanded; if it should happen that the said feast falls on the Translation of Blessed Dominic, let it be moved to the following day.’)  72 Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, ii, p. 109 (Lyons, 1318): ‘Volumus et ordinamus, quod per totam ordinem fiat officium de corpore Christi feria .va. infra octavas trinitatis, sicut in constitucionibus Viennensis concilii est statum. De officio vero magister ordinis studeat providere.’ (We wish and command that throughout the entire Order the Office of Corpus Christi be observed on the fifth feria [Thursday] within the octave of Trinity, just as was established in the constitutions of the Council of Vienne. But let the master of the Order see to providing the Office). Gy believes that the rhymed Office Gaude, felix parens is what Hervè produced in response; see Gy, ‘L’office du Corpus Christi et S. Thomas d’Aquin’, p. 491 n. 2. It was edited in 1754 by Bernard-Marie de Rubeis and included in the first volume of the works of Aquinas issued by the Leonine Commission (1882), pp. ccli–ccliii.  73 Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, ii, p. 144 (Barcelona, 1323): ‘Cum ordo noster debeat se sancta Romane ecclesie, in quantum est possibile, in divino officio conformare, et

229

23 0

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

It should be emphasized, however, that the feast of Corpus Christi had fallen into disuse following Urban IV’s death — or perhaps it is better to say it was never fully embraced — and was only revived by the Council of Vienne a half century later. At this point we see the Dominicans working to re-establish the observance in their own rite as well.74 But as Corpus Christi regained stature, the tradition that Thomas Aquinas had composed the Office for it emerges clearly. That tradition was recognized in contemporary works of art, such as the reliquary of the miraculous corporal of Bolsena, made between 1337 and 1339:75 one of its enamelled panels shows Urban IV seated, surrounded by cardinals and members of the laity, while Thomas kneels before him, offering the pope his text. A similar scene is included in the fresco cycle Ugolino di Prete Ilario painted between 1357 and 1364 for the chapel built to house the corporal in Orvieto’s cathedral.76 And as evidence of a tradition that had moved beyond Orvieto, in the first years of the fifteenth century the Sienese painter Taddeo di Bartolo painted an altarpiece, likely intended for the church of San Domenico in Siena but now fragmentary, which included a predella panel of Thomas Aquinas presenting his work to Pope Urban in the presence of six cardinals, amongst them one Dominican friar possibly meant to be Hugh of Saint-Cher.77

 74  75  76  77

in eo precipue, quod per nostrum ordinem de mandato apostolico est confectum, volumus, quod officium de corpore Christi per venerabilem doctorem fratrem Thomam de Aquino editum, ut asseritur, per totum ordinem fiat .va. feria post festum trinitatis usque ad octavas inclusive, et dictum officium in ordinario in locis debitis annotetur.’ (Since our Order ought to conform to the Holy Roman Church as regards the Divine Office as much as possible, and especially as regards that which is performed in our Order by apostolic mandate, we wish that the Office for Corpus Christi compiled, as is claimed, by the venerable doctor Thomas Aquinas be used throughout the entire Order on the fifth feria [Thursday] after the feast of Trinity through the octave, inclusive, and that the said Office be copied into the mass ordinary in the appropriate places). The chapter also apparently circulated an exemplar of the Office, for the following year the diffinitors were reminding convents everywhere to ensure they had copied the Office that had been sent out from Barcelona: ‘[…] ubi dicitur: Volumus, quod de corpore Christi officium editum per beatum Thomam de Aquino, ut asseritur, per totum ordinem fiat, illud officium a beato Thoma editum dicimus, quod a capitulo Barchinonensi ad omnes provincias fuit missum’, ([…] where it is said: ‘We wish that the Office for Corpus Christi compiled, as is claimed, by the venerable doctor Thomas Aquinas be used throughout the entire Order…’ we mean to say that Office compiled by blessed Thomas that was sent out to all the provinces by the Barcelona chapter). Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, ii, p. 152 (Bordeaux, 1324). A Dominican breviary from the convent of San Domenico in Rieti, today Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. Barb. lat. 400, fols 85va–96vb, appears to preserve the 1323 exemplar. See Salmon, Les manuscrits liturgiques latins de la Bibliothèque vaticane, i, pp. 107–08. The Dominicans’ legislation of 1318 specifically mentions the constitutions enacted at Vienne, which had been published in 1314 as the Constitutiones Clementinae. See note 72, above. See Dal Poggetto, Ugolino di Vieri. See also above, note 19. See Suhr, ‘Corpus Christi and the Cappella del Corporale at Orvieto’, pp. 92–226. The panel, entitled ‘Saint Thomas Aquinas Submitting His Office of Corpus Domini to

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

In a slightly different vein, but also underscoring the association being made between Thomas and devotion to Christ in the sacrament, is an altarpiece painted in 1423–1424 by Stefano di Giovanni di Consalvo (il Sassetta) to be carried by Siena’s woolworkers guild in the city’s annual Corpus Domini procession.78 Thomas appears in a scene that originally formed part of the altarpiece’s predella, shown kneeling in front of a crucifix and holding a book out to Christ. The scene depicts a famous episode reported as occurring at Saint-Jacques in Paris early in Thomas’s teaching career. The young Aquinas had sought Christ’s approval for his conclusions regarding a number of questions about the Eucharist currently being debated in the schools. Thomas had placed his notes on the altar — symbolically represented by the book he holds in his hands in Sassetta’s painting — and prayed to Christ to tell him whether he was correct and could propound his ideas publicly. Witnesses heard Christ speak to Thomas, addressing him with the words: ‘Bene de hoc mei corporis sacramento scripsisti, et de quaestione tibi praeposita bene et veraciter determinasti’ (‘Well indeed have you written about the sacrament of my body, and well and truthfully have you replied to the question put to you’).79 Aquinas’s bio­graphers made much of Christ’s praise as a heavenly imprimatur of Thomas’s eucharistic theo­logy. Add to this the repeated testimony that Thomas was often so deeply moved when he celebrated Mass that tears would stream down his face,80 and it is

Pope Urban IV’, was painted around 1405 and is today in the Philadelphia Art Museum, John G. Johnson Collection, 1917, cat. 101. See Solberg, ‘Taddeo di Bartolo: His Life and Work’, pp. 187–88; 699–703; and Strehlke, Italian Paintings, 1250–1450, pp. 408–12.  78 It is today in the Pinacoteca Vaticana, inv. 40234. See Israëls, ‘Altars on the Street’. Also see Scapecchi, La pala dell’Arte della Lana del Sassetta.  79 William of Tocco, Ystoria sancti Thome, ed. by Le Brun-Gouanvic, chap. liii, pp. 187–89; William of Tocco, Vita S. Thomae Aquinatis, ed. by Prümmer, chap. lii, pp. 125–26. Scholars often assume that what is being depicted here is not, in fact, the vision Thomas received in Paris, but a similar visitation from Christ he experienced in 1273, near the end of his life, at San Domenico Maggiore in Naples. There Thomas was observed levitating in prayer before the cross in a side chapel and was heard conversing with the crucified Christ, who said to him, ‘Thoma, bene scripsisti de me; quam recipies a me pro tuo labore mercedem?’ Thomas replied, ‘Domine, non nisi te.’ Many have read this scene as Christ’s approval of Thomas’s teachings on Christo­logy, which he was organizing at the time into the Tertia Pars of his Summa theo­logiae. I am more inclined to interpret Christ’s words in Naples, coming at the end of Thomas’s life as they did, as a blessing on a lifetime’s work, rather than an endorsement of any particular element of Thomas’s doctrine. It is possible that Sassetta is conflating the two scenes, but the Parisian story with its specific reference to Thomas’s efforts to define the mode of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist seems the more likely inspiration for images designed to celebrate Corpus Christi, as Sassetta’s panel was. For this second episode see William of Tocco, Ystoria sancti Thome, ed. by Le Brun-Gouanvic, chap. xxxiv, pp. 161–62; William of Tocco, Vita S. Thomae Aquinatis, ed. by Prümmer, chap. xxxiv, p. 108.  80 Thomas’s bio­graphers and those who gave testimony at his canonization processus all report this tendency. See, for example, William of Tocco, Vita S. Thomae Aquinatis, ed. by Prümmer, chap. xxix; Bernard Gui, Vita S. Thomae Aquinatis, xxxix; Processus

231

23 2

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

clear that a special association between Thomas and the eucharistic Christ was commonly made in people’s minds. But beyond any traditional attribution, the text of the Corpus Christi Office itself offers demonstrable connections between Thomas Aquinas’s eucharistic theo­logy, his scriptural interests at the time, and a liturgical mode that seems to express both. The so-called ‘Roman’ Office of Corpus Christi, that is, the one associated with the establishment of the universal feast by Urban IV and with Thomas Aquinas, was preceded by an Office that had been devised for the local feast in Liège, known as Animarum cibus from the opening words of the first antiphon for first Vespers.81 The manuscript from which this early Corpus Christi liturgy has been reconstructed was once in the possession of the church of Notre-Dame de Tongres: both the incipit and the provenance correspond with the claim made in a note appended to the Vita of Juliana of Mont-Cornillon in the fifteenth century, that a complete copy of the liturgy she and the young monk John had devised, and which bore the incipit Animarum cibus, was preserved in the church at Tongres.82 It survives today in the National Library of the Netherlands (Koninklijke Bibliotheek) in The Hague, as MS 70.E.4.83 The sources upon which the Office draws are divided between scriptural texts and ecclesiastical writers, with Patristic authors such as Augustine and Ambrose as gleaned from Gratian’s Decretum (De consecratione, Dist. ii) figuring prominently in the lessons, and Alger of Liège’s De sacramentis corporis et sanguinis dominici together with Hugh of Saint-Victor’s similarly titled tract providing texts for many of the antiphons and responsories. The eucharistic theo­logy of

Canonizationis S. Thomae Aquinatis Neapoli, x (Frater Nicolaus de Fresolino) and xlix (Frater Petrus de Castro de Montis Sancti-Iohannis). These have all been edited in Fontes vitae S. Thomae, ed. by Prümmer and Laurent, pp. 103; 205; 280; 330, 332; for William of Tocco also see his Ystoria sancti Thome, ed. by Le Brun-Gouanvic, p. 154.  81 ‘Animarum cibus dei sapientia nobis carnem assumptam proposuit in edulium ut per cibum humanitatis invitaret ad gustum divinitatis.’ (Food of souls, the wisdom of God, offered the flesh assumed for us as nourishment, so that through the food of humanity he might invite us to a taste of divinity).  82 See Vie Sainte Julienne de Cornillon, ed. by Deville, p. 138 n. 665: ‘Hoc officium incipit, Animarum cibus; et reperitur plenum in Ecclesia Tungrensi et aliis locis. Deinde Urbanus IV, officium quod ubique cantatur, instituit.’ (This Office begins, Animarum cibus; and it is preserved in its entirety in the church of Tongres and other places. Afterwards Urban IV instituted the Office that is sung everywhere).  83 The text of Animarum cibus was originally reconstructed from MS 70.E.4 by Lambot and Fransen, L’Office de la Fête-Dieu primitive: textes et mélodies retrouvés. For reasons Zawilla articulates, that reconstruction should be used with caution; see ‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi”’, p. 18 n. 36. For the new edition with translation by Vincent Corrigan from the Hague manuscript see Walters, Corrigan, and Ricketts, The Feast of Corpus Christi, pp. 117–83. Corrigan’s transcription replicates the arrangement of material in the manuscript, in which the lessons are grouped together (fols 52r–63v) followed by the music (fols 86r–96v). He does privilege the music in his analyses, however; the edition of the text is not a thorough-going critical one and lacks an appropriate apparatus.

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

Animarum cibus has been aptly characterized as a pastiche of contemporary ideas about the sacrament.84 There is an emphasis on the Eucharist as an everlasting remembrance of Christ’s Passion and death, and on the mystery of a presence the senses cannot perceive. But the impression scholars had formed that that other great theme in contemporary eucharistic piety, namely, the veneration of Christ’s corporeal presence, is clearly articulated in Animarum cibus seems to have been fostered by interpolations made by the editors of the text.85 It is not this original Office but rather Urban IV who could be said to have introduced the theme of praesentia corporalis into the Corpus Christi liturgical vocabulary through his bull Transiturus. The similarities and the dissimilarities between the Roman Office and both its Liègeois antecedent and the ideas expressed by Urban IV are thus worth marking. The Roman Office survives, as Tolomeo of Lucca has us anticipating, in two different forms, a presumed earlier version known as Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum and another known as Sacerdos in aeternum. A variety of theories has been advanced to account for the reduplication of effort, all of which revolve around the timetable according to which Urban IV introduced Corpus Christi to the world.86 As noted above, when Urban IV promulgated Transiturus, he took the unusual step of sending along with the bull a copy of the liturgy he wished to be used for the new feast. But there were actually two separate mailings of Transiturus, a first to a select group of recipients that had special meaning for Urban, including his successor as patriarch of Jerusalem (dated 11 August 1264),87 followed by a second more

 84 Rather than the systematic repudiation of Berengarian eucharistic theo­logy for which Gy argues in ‘Office liègeois et office romain de la Fête-Dieu’. And see Walters, ‘Introduction to the Liturgical Manuscripts’, p. 74.  85 As Walters has observed (‘Introduction to the Liturgical Manuscripts’, p. 75), the one text in Animarum cibus that Zawilla (The ‘Historiae Corporis Christi’, p. 19) adduces as using the phraseo­logy of ‘praesentia corporalis’ (‘Deus qui gloriosum corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi mysterium nobiscum manere voluisti, da nobis quaesumus eius praesentiam corporalem ita venerari in terris, ut de eius visione gaudere mereamur in caelis.’(God, you who wished that the glorious mystery of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ remain with us, give us, we pray, his corporal presence so to be venerated on earth that we may merit to enjoy the vision of it in heaven.)) has been shown to occur in a prayer at Lauds that was inserted into the text by Lambot and Fransen based on a conjecture made in the nineteenth century by Lavalleye, Relation du 6e jubilé séculaire.  86 A good summary of the stages by which the evidence has been gathered and interpreted remains Zawilla, ‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi”’, pp. 57–74. Walters, ‘Introduction to the Liturgical Manuscripts’, provides further detail about the current state of the question as revealed by analyses of the liturgical manuscripts that preserve the Corpus Christi liturgy.  87 A few weeks later Urban also sent personal letters announcing the establishment of the new universal feast of Corpus Christi to Henry of Gueldre, the current bishop of Liège (dated 7 September, and including a copy of Transiturus together with the prescribed liturgy and a command to have the feast celebrated throughout the diocese as soon as possible) and to Juliana of Mont-Cornillon’s friend Eve of Saint-Martin (dated 8

233

23 4

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

general distribution to all the prelates of Christendom,88 and one possibility is that the two versions of the Corpus Christi liturgy correspond to the two mailings of the bull.89 It has also been suggested that Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum may reflect the liturgy prepared at short notice for Pope Urban’s extraordinary celebration of the new feast at Orvieto in the summer of 1264, while Sacerdos in aeternum is the more polished version that actually went out with Transiturus.90 Scholars even contemplated the possibility that the revised liturgy stood at some remove from all these events, and was composed only after Urban IV’s death.91 A booklet today incorporated into BnF, MS lat. 1143 — a composite liturgical manuscript devoted to the feast of Corpus Christi that at one time belonged to the library of Pope Boniface VIII — has now been identified as the curial exemplar of Sacerdos in aeternum from which copies were made for distribution with Transiturus.92 This has helped to clarify the situation, showing, at any rate, that Sacerdos in aeternum was produced during Urban IV’s lifetime and circulated with official sanction. The current scholarly consensus acknowledges Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum as the earlier rendition, very probably used for that first celebration in Orvieto; that it likely was the version expedited with the initial mailing of Transiturus to the patriarch of Jerusalem and might even be what was forwarded to

 88

 89

 90  91  92

September, including only news of the establishment of the feast and a copy of the liturgy). For the letter to Henry of Gueldre see BnF, MS lat. 9298; for that addressed to Eve see Liège, Bibl. du Seminaire, MS 6.L.21, and Lambot, ‘La Bulle d’Urbain IV à Ève de Saint-Martin’. This is the version of Transiturus first discovered by Bertamini in 1968; see above note 20. Zawilla (‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi”’, pp. 42–43) argues that production of copies for the wider distribution was likely halted when Urban died on 2 October 1264, with only relatively few having been expedited. Both versions survive in manuscripts in which they travel with copies of Transiturus. As just two examples, Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum accompanies the bull in a manuscript today in Budapest, Ors. Szé. MS c.l.m.ae.33, while Sacerdos in aeternum has a similar witness in a manuscript belonging to the church of San Lorenzo in Bognanco, near the Swiss border (Archivio parrochiale di S. Lorenzo, libellus, s. xiii), where it, too, is found with a copy of the bull. Lambot, ‘La bulle d’Urbain IV à Ève de Saint-Martin’, pp. 92–94. Lambot, ‘La bulle d’Urbain IV à Ève de Saint-Martin’, pp. 92–94. And on the modifications to Lambot’s thesis that subsequent findings have required, again see Zawilla, ‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi”’, pp. 57–74. Gy, ‘L’Office du Corpus Christi et S. Thomas d’Aquin’, pp. 499–500. See the facsimile: Paris, BnF, MS lat. 1143 contains both the text and music for the Office and Mass for Corpus Christi, and carries marginal notations indicating the source chants from which which the musical elements were drawn. Also see Table 4 in Walters, ‘Introduction to the Liturgical Manuscripts’, pp. 70–72, indicating proper and common texts, music, and sources shared by Sacerdos in aeternum as it appears in BnF, MS lat. 1143 and Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum as it has been preserved in Prague, Strahov, MS D.E.I.7. Two further manuscripts with papal provenance that contain material from Sacerdos in aeternum are BnF, MS lat. 755, and Avignon, Bibl. mun., MS 100.

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

Liège; but that Sacerdos in aeternum went out with Transiturus to the wider Church and represents the reworked, approved version of the Corpus Christi Office and Mass. Both Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum and Sacerdos in aeternum have been attributed to Thomas Aquinas. The crux of the attribution lies, of course, in an appraisal of the doctrinal content of the Offices, which Père Gy and his confrère Ron Zawilla have so exhaustively explored — explorations that left Gy, who was re-editing the Office at the time of his death, with no doubt in his mind.93 Textually speaking, there is a substantial overlap between the two Offices, in their antiphons, versicles, and hymns, with the one obvious difference being the addition of a completely new legendum to Sacerdos in aeternum. But an evolution in thinking can nonetheless be traced from the one version to the next. And it is an evolution that maps well with a hypothesis that has Thomas rather hastily preparing Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum for Urban’s inaugural celebration of Corpus Christi in Orvieto and then refining his text in the days and weeks that followed to produce Sacerdos in aeternum. As Tolomeo of Lucca recognized, a large portion of the Corpus Christi liturgy — in both versions — is comprised solely of biblical quotations, making it unique amongst medi­eval liturgies. This shared trait alone would suggest that the two Offices were composed by the same author. But this self-same characteristic creates a methodo­logical conundrum: How does one find the traces of Thomas himself if the words are not his? Zawilla’s solution was to look closely at the choices of scriptural texts made, to see if there are any that only Thomas interprets as figures of the Eucharist elsewhere in his writings in contrast with his contemporaries, or if, indeed, the Offices omit biblical texts that are commonly read that way but not by Thomas.94 The constellation of texts used in both versions of the Corpus Christi liturgy aligns convincingly with Thomas’s known repertoire. A number of the same biblical quotations appear in both Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum and Sacerdos in aeternum. As one might expect, these are scriptural passages that are traditionally cited in discussions of the Eucharist, both by the Fathers and in early scholastic collections of sententiae like Gratian’s Decretum and the Sentences of Peter Lombard, making them obvious choices. Thomas Aquinas, for his part, invokes virtually all of these scriptural authorities elsewhere in his writings on the sacrament as part of the doctrina communis of eucharistic theo­logy. But there are also certain lines from scripture that  93 What began as a strong probability for Gy when he published ‘L’Office du Corpus Christi et S. Thomas d’Aquin’ in 1980, had become a certainty for him by 1990, when he re-issued his essay as ‘L’Office du Corpus Christi, oeuvre de Saint Thomas d’Aquin’. And, of course, that attribution is the subject of Zawilla’s dissertation, ‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi”’.  94 Much of what follows elaborates upon Zawilla’s conclusions regarding the biblical content of the two versions of the Office, summarized in Table 7 of his ‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi”’, pp. 324–25.

235

2 36

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

appear only in one version of the Office or the other. The majority of the biblical texts found exclusively in Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum depend for their eucharistic interpretations on Hugh of Saint-Cher’s Postilla in totam bibliam. This is a source with which Thomas Aquinas was very familiar, and one he would mine repeatedly throughout his career in his own exegetical works — although, here, with the exception of two, the texts do not recur elsewhere in Thomas’s mature writings on the sacrament. And, it should be said, too, that this obvious reliance on the exegesis of the Postilla is precisely why the possibility must still be entertained that Hugh of Saint-Cher, not Thomas Aquinas, is the author of Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum. By contrast, those scriptural texts that occur only in Sacerdos in aeternum appear consistently in Aquinas’s other works, and, taken together, suggest theo­ logical emphases that are characteristic of Thomas’s thought, made all the more manifest by the fact that in Sacerdos in aeternum the biblical texts are actually paraphrased, not quoted verbatim, in order to make their spiritual or doctrinal meaning clearer. One leitmotif running through both versions of the Corpus Christi liturgy is the idea of Christ, the Word, the Wisdom of the Father as nourishment for the mind. It is a traditional theme with roots in Patristic exegesis. But Thomas is almost unique amongst his contemporaries in associating texts that reference God’s wisdom — including Proverbs 9. 1 itself: ‘Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum’ — not only with the scriptures or doctrine, but also with the Eucharist.95 Another prominent theme in the Office is the sacrament as a vehicle of grace, and here there is a clear correlation between the scriptural texts Aquinas uses in his Summa theo­logiae (IIIa, Q79, A1 and 2) to pursue the question of how the sacrament confers grace and those that appear in Sacerdos in aeternum. A range of Johannine passages are called upon in  95 The Eucharist as Wisdom is most thoroughly explored in Aquinas’s Super Evangelium S. Ioannis Lectura, Cap. 6, esp. lectio 4. See, for example, Cap. 6, lect. 1: ‘Mystice refectio spiritualis per sapientiam significatur’ (Mystically, the spiritual meal is signified by wisdom); lect. 4: ‘Dixit ergo eis Iesus Ego sum panis vitae: nam, sicut supra dictum est, verbum sapientiae est specialis cibus mentis, quia eo mens sustentatur’; Eccli. XV, 3: Cibavit illum pane vitae et intellectus’ (Therefore Jesus said to them I am the bread of life: for, just as was said above, the word of wisdom is the special food of the mind, because by it the mind is sustained; Eccl. 15. 3: He ate that bread of life and understood); lect. 4: ‘Quia ergo omne verbum sapientiae derivatur a Verbo Dei unigenito, Eccli. I, 5: Fons sapientiae unigenitus Dei, residens in excelso, ideo ipsum Dei Verbum principaliter dicitur panis vitae; et ideo Christus dicit Ego sum panis vitae. Et quia caro Christi ipsi Verbo Dei unita est, habet etiam quod sit vivificativa, unde et corpus, sacramentaliter sumptum, vivificativum est’ (Because, therefore, every word of wisdom is derived from the only-begotten Word of God, Eccl. 1. 5: Font of wisdom, only-begotten of God, residing in the highest, hence the Word of God itself is principally called the bread of life; and hence Christ says I am the bread of life. And because the flesh of Christ himself is united to the Word of God, it also holds that it is vivifying, whence even the body, sacramentally consumed, is vivifying). For the edition see Thomas Aquinas, Super Evangelium S. Ioannis Lectura, ed. by Cai, pp. 854, 913, 914.

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

both: John 6. 58 (‘qui manducat me et ipse vivet propter me’) to show that the Eucharist bestows grace because it contains Christ; John 19. 34 (‘sed unus militum lancea latus eius aperuit et continuo exivit sanguis et aqua’) to show that it imparts grace by virtue of Christ’s saving Passion, which it represents; John 6. 56 (‘caro enim mea vere est cibus et sanguis meus vere est potus’) to show that precisely because the Eucharist is given as food it has an effect on the soul analogous to what food does for the body, producing a growth in grace; and John 6. 52 (‘si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane vivet in aeternum et panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi vita’) to show that the Eucharist confers grace because through it we are incorporated into His mystical body and given eternal life. These same texts appear repeatedly in the Corpus Christi Office and Mass, and often not only as responses and versicles, but also in readings where the theme of grace can be explored at some length.96 John 6. 58, for example, provides the theme for the ninth lesson of third nocturns, the idea of the Eucharist as the means by which we participate in the life of the Father, because Christ lives in the Father and through the Eucharist we receive Christ.97 John 6. 56 is used in the second reading for the second day in the octave of Corpus Christi, taken from Augustine, which considers the effects of eating and drinking not earthly food but this heavenly food which is Christ’s own flesh and blood.98 Perhaps even more tellingly, an unusual juxtaposition of texts seen in the third response and versicle of the first nocturn of Sacerdos in aeternum ( John 6. 52 with 3 Kings 19. 6–8) is repeated elsewhere in Aquinas’s exegetical work. As shown above, John 6. 52 explicitly links the Eucharist with eternal life; 3 Kings 19. 6–8 tells the story of Elias receiving angelic bread and water to strengthen him for his ascent of Mount Horeb. While all of Thomas’s contemporaries understood John 6. 52 as a promise of everlasting life for those who receive the sacrament, Thomas himself goes further, using John 6. 52 to argue that the Eucharist is not merely a sign or promise, but actually

 96 The Johannine texts recur nearly two dozen times. For the edition of Sacerdos in aeternum, see Thomas Aquinas, ‘Officium de Festo Corporis Christi’, ed. by Spiazzi, pp. 275–81, which does not, however, include the octave. Some ambiguity surrounds the ordering and division of the readings through the individual hours and days of the octave. Here the readings will be those presented at [accessed 1 June 2021].  97 Thomas Aquinas, ‘Officium de Festo Corporis Christi’, ed. by Spiazzi, p. 279. The source for the reading is Augustine of Hippo, In Ioannis Evangelium Tractatus CXXIV, ed. by Migne, Tract. xxvi, 19 (= PL 35: col. 1615). The reading is repeated, and expanded, as the third lesson for the second day of the octave. See [accessed 1 June 2021]. Also see Augustine of Hippo, In Iohannis evangelium tractatus CXXIV, ed. by Radbodus Willems, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 36 (Brepols: Turnhout, 1954), pp. 268–69.  98 The source for the reading is again Augustine’s In Ioannis Evangelium Tractatus CXXIV, ed. by Migne, Tract. xxvi, 15, 16–18 (= PL 35: col. 1614). See [accessed 1 June 2021].

237

23 8

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

accomplishes what it undertakes, because through the Eucharist we are intimately united with Christ and thus to some extent already share in His eternal life.99 The text with which it is paired, 3 Kings 19. 6–8, however, was only rarely cited in discussions of the Eucharist. Instead, Elias’s repast and journey was often read, as Hugh of Saint-Cher reads it, as symbolizing the three parts of penance: Elias’s eating of bread symbolizes the examination of one’s sins in confession; his drinking of water the shedding tears of contrition for them; the ascent of the mountain the work of satisfaction.100 Thomas, on the contrary, not only sees 3 Kings 19. 6–8 as a reference to the Eucharist, but as another indication of the causal connection that exists between the Eucharist and eternal life. In a sermon preached fairly close in time to the composition of the Corpus Christi Office, Thomas adduces this very passage, drawing attention to fact that after eating and drinking his heavenly food Elias was able to walk all the way to Horeb, which Thomas interprets as confirmation that those who consume the Eucharist will reach eternal life.101 That Thomas Aquinas takes the same singular approach to

 99 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, IIIa, Q79, A2, Sed contra and Respondeo: ‘Sed contra est quod dicitur Joan. VI, 52: Si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane, vivet in aeternum. Sed vita aeterna est vita gloriae. Ergo effectus huius sacramenti est adeptio gloriae. Respondeo dicendum, quod in hoc sacramento potest considerari et id ex quo habet effectum, scilicet ipse Christus contentus, et passio ejus repraesentata: et id per quod habet effectum, scilicet usus sacramenti et species ejus. Et quantum ad utrumque competit huic sacramento quod causet adeptionem vitae aeternae. Nam ipse Christus per suam passionem aperuit nobis aditum vitae aeternae’, ‘(But on the contrary there is what is said in John 6. 52: “If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever.” But eternal life is the life of glory. Therefore, the attainment of glory is an effect of this sacrament. I answer that it should be said that in this sacrament can be considered both that from which it derives its effect, namely, Christ Himself contained in it and his Passion represented by it, and also that through which it achieves its effect, namely, the use of the sacrament and its species. And as regards both of these things it pertains to this sacrament that it leads to the attainment of eternal life. For Christ Himself through His Passion opened for us the door to eternal life). Cited from Thomas Aquinas, Opera Omnia, ed. by Fretté and Maré, v, p. 477.   100 Hugh of Saint-Cher, In Universum Vetus et Novum Testamentum, i, fol. 282va, in 3 Reg. 19: ‘d: Et ambulabit &c] Sic poenitens postquam surrexit a peccato per timorem, & comedit panem, idest doluit de peccatis, & bibit aquam, idest lavit lectum suum per lacrymarum effusionem, debet ambulare per satisfactionis laborem.’ (d: ‘And he walked’, etc.] Thus the penitent, after he has risen from his sin through fear and eats bread, that is, has grieved over his sin, and drinks water, that is, has washed his bed with an outpouring of tears, should walk in the labour of satisfaction). Also see the dominical sermon of Aldobrandino de’ Cavalcanti: ‘3 Reg. 19: et ecce Angelus domini tetigit eum, dicens: surge, et comede et cetera. Circa secundum notandum, quod propter tria Angeli gaudent de peccatorum conversione. Primo, propter sui ministerii impletionem: sunt enim ministri, ut moneant nos ad poenitentiam.’ (3 Kings 19: And behold the angel of the Lord touched him, saying: Rise, and eat, et cetera. Regarding the second it should be noted that the angels rejoice in the conversion of sinners for three reasons: First, because of the fulfilment of their ministry: for they are ministers, so that they may guide us to penance). See [accessed 1 June 2021]: Sermo, pars 1, n. 83.   101 Thomas Aquinas, Sermo ‘Homo quidam fecit cenam magnum’, in Thomas Aquinas, Opera

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

these two texts, from John and 3 Kings, reading into both a eucharistic import, makes it unlikely that anyone but he would juxtapose them; and to see them juxtaposed twice, in Sacerdos in aeternum and again in this sermon, amounts to an exegetical auto­graph. Perhaps the most discussed evidence of scriptural authorities appearing in Sacerdos in aeternum that only Thomas Aquinas interprets as referring to the Eucharist resides in the sermon just mentioned. First edited by Père Bataillon about thirty years ago, it was composed for the second Sunday after Trinity, and takes as its thema Luke 14. 16: ‘Homo quidam fecit cenam magnam’, the parable of the banquet.102 Thomas can be seen using in his sermon more than a dozen of the same biblical texts that figure in Sacerdos in aeternum, including three additional unique pairings.103 Both the sermon and the liturgy, for example, use Deuteronomy 4. 7 (‘For what other great nation has gods so near to it as the Lord our God is to us?’) to describe the incomparable nearness of Christ actually consumed at the Lord’s table.104 No other author reads Deuteronomy that way. Nor do any of Thomas’s contemporaries connect Job 31. 31 (‘If the men of my tent have not said, “Who is there that has not been filled with his meat?”’) with the account of the Last Supper in Matthew 26. 26, as he does three times over, in this sermon, in his Super Evangelium S. Ioannis lectura, and in Sacerdos in aeternum.105

  102

  103   104

  105

omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, vol. xliv. 1: Sermones, ed. by Batallion and others, p. 200, col. 1, lines 181-186: ‘Necesse est igitur quod anima Deo unita sequetur Deum. Nullum igitur oportet timere ex quod Deus in nobis per sacramentum. In fortitudine istius cibi ambulauit Helyas usque ad montem Dei Oreb. Si digne sumimus cibum istum, traducet nos ad uitam eternam.’ (It is therefore necessary that a soul united to God will follow God. It behoves no one, therefore, to be fearful, because God in us through the sacrament. In the strength of that food Elias walked all the way to Horeb, the mountain of God. If we consume that food worthily, it will lead us across to eternal life). The sermon was first reported by Kaeppeli, ‘Una raccolta di prediche attribuite a S. Tommaso d’Aquino’. Bataillon, ‘Un sermon de S. Thomas d’Aquin sur la parabole du festin’, offered a study of the sermon, initially proposing the dates 1269–1272. His preliminary edition is found in his ‘Le sermon inédit de saint Thomas Homo quidam fecit cenam magnam’. Bataillon became less certain about the dating, subsequently considering the possibility that it was preached by Thomas in Rome, 1265–1268 — which would place it closer in time to the composition of the Corpus Christi Office. On the dating of Thomas’s sermons see Bataillon, ‘Les sermons attribués à saint Thomas’. Bataillon’s edition of ‘Homo quidam fecit cenam magnam’ for the Leonine Commission appeared in 2014, in vol. xliv. 1, pp. 193–206. See Table 7 in Zawilla, ‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi”’, pp. 324–25. Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, vol. xliv. 1: Sermones, ed. by Batallion and others, p. 199: ‘Res signata et contenta est corpus Christi et uere debet homo gloriari habere intra se corpus Christi, unde: Non est aliqua nacio tam grandis que habeat deos ita sibi appropinquantes sicut Deus appropinquat nobis.’ (The thing signified and contained is the body of Christ and truly a man should glory in having within him the body of Christ, whence, There is no nation so great that has gods as near to them as our God is near to us). See Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, vol. xliv. 1: Sermones, ed.

239

24 0

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

Such a census of texts and exegesis reveals important patterns that suggest Thomas Aquinas did compose the Corpus Christi liturgy, or at the very least that Sacerdos in aeternum must be his. But it is equally important to recognize what is driving the new use of scripture seen in Thomas’s theo­ logical thought, his preaching, and, here, his mode of liturgical expression. If we return momentarily to that cascade of Johannine texts used in both Sacerdos in aeternum and Thomas’s discussion of the Eucharist in his Summa theo­logiae, it is the latter, the Summa, that makes Aquinas’s exegetical inspiration clear. For in Quaestio 79, art. 1, of the Tertia pars Thomas builds his arguments regarding the Eucharist not only on John but also on auctoritates gleaned from Patristic commentaries: Cyril of Alexandria is cited alongside John 6. 58; John Chrysostom is used to support the interpretation of John 19. 34; Chrysostom and Ambrose together suggest the reading of John 6. 56; Augustine speaks for John 6. 52.106 All of these Patristic texts are also quoted by Thomas in the Catena aurea in his expositions of the gospels of Luke and John.107 Similarly, the unusual reading of Job 31. 31 as a figure of the Eucharist seen in Sacerdos in aeternum is courtesy of St John Chrysostom.108 In other words, Sacerdos in aeternum reflects precisely the sort of research Thomas Aquinas undertook while he was in Orvieto in the early 1260s, immersing himself in Patristic biblical exegesis in order to produce a commentary of his own for Pope Urban IV. This could also explain the differences between Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum and Sacerdos in aeternum, if, in order to meet the deadline of an imminent inaugural celebration of the new feast of Corpus Christi, Aquinas had turned to the ready references of Hugh of Saint-Cher’s Postilla in totam bibliam and Gratian’s Decretum for apposite texts, but was able to exploit his own reading of the Greek Fathers when given an opportunity to revise his liturgy. Before leaving the question of the use of scripture in the Roman Office for Corpus Christi, one particularly persuasive argument for Aquinas’s authorship based on a significant omission should be noted. And that is

by Batallion and others, p. 198; Thomas Aquinas, Super Evangelium S. Ioannis lectura, ed. by Cai, 6.6, p. 181; Officium de Festo Corporis Christi, ed. by Spiazzi, p. 278. A fourth instance is found in the reportatio vulgata of Thomas’s commentary on I Corinthians 11. 5; see Thomas Aquinas, Super epistolas S. Pauli lectura, vol. i: Super I Ad Corinthios XI–XVI reportatio, ed. by Cai, p. 357.   106 See Cyril of Alexandria, Commentarium in Lucam, ed. by Migne, Tract. xxii. 19 (= Patro­ logiae cursus completus: series graeca (hereafter PG) 72: col. 907–11); John Chrysostom, Homiliae LXXXVIII in Joannem, ed. by Migne, Homilia lxxxv. 3 (= PG 59: col. 463), and Homilia xlvi. 3 (= PG 59: col. 260); Ambrose, De Sacramentis, ed. by Migne, v. 4. 24 (= PL 16: col. 452A–B); Augustine, In Joannis Evangelium Tractatus CXXIV, ed. by Migne, Tract. xxvi. 17 (= PL 35: col. 1614).   107 See Catena aurea, ed. by Guarienti, ii, pp. 286 (Cyril), 158 (Ambrose; identified as Augustine); 574–75, 286 (Chrysostom); 426, 425 (Augustine).   108 John Chrysostom, Homiliae LXXXVII in Ioannem, ed. by Migne: Homilia xlvi. 3 (= PG 59: col. 260).

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

the oft-remarked fact that neither rendering of the liturgy at any point uses Matthew 28. 20: ‘Behold I am with you always even until the end of time.’ Again, other theo­logians saw in these words precisely the promise of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist; the bull Transiturus itself offers that interpretation.109 Thomas Aquinas, on the contrary, never uses Matthew 28. 20 in that sense anywhere in his writings. Thus there is every reason to suspect that its absence from both versions of the Office is the result of a deliberate choice, namely, to avoid the associations that text came to have with the theo­logy of corporeal presence. The idea of a praesentia corporalis, the bodily presence of Christ on the altar, was promoted, as we saw, in the eucharistic theo­logy of Hugh of Saint-Victor and Pope Innocent III; it is found in Hugh of Saint-Cher’s legatine letter and in Transiturus;110 contemporary theo­logians, including Bonaventure111 and Thomas’s fellow Dominican, the future Pope Innocent V, Peter of Tarentaise112 did not shy away from the formulation. But it is sedulously avoided throughout the Roman Office for Corpus Christi. Notably, the third reading for first nocturns, which recounts the story of the institution of the feast by Urban IV, makes no reference at all to the praesentia corporalis of which the pope himself spoke in his bull, but describes instead the ‘ineffable mode of the divine presence in the visible sacrament’.113

  109 See above, pp. 219–20.   110 See above, pp. 219–22.   111 See, for example, Bonaventure’s Commentaria in IV libros Sententiarum, iv, dist. 10, art. 1, qu. 1, ad 6: ‘Similiter patet aliud, quia praesentia corporis non auget Dei virtutem, sed congruum est, quod Dominus ex sua praesentia corporalis aliquod munus specialius tribuat; et licet non valeat illi qui credit, eum non posse operari, nisi ubi est corporaliter; credenti tamen multum valet, sicut multum valuit Zachaeo praesentia corporis.’ (Similarly, something else is clear: that corporeal presence does not increase the power of God. But it is fitting that the Lord bestows a very special gift though his corporeal presence; and although it is of no benefit to him who believes that He cannot operate except where He exists corporeally, nevertheless it avails the believer very much, just as the presence of His body was of great benefit to Zacchaeus). For the edition see Bonaventure (Giovanni di Fidanza), Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi, in Opera omnia, vol. iv, p. 218.   112 See, for example, Peter of Tarentaise’s In IV libros Sententiarum, lib. 4, dist. 10, qu. 1, art. 1, ad 1: ‘Gregorij Resp. Nos non ponimus corporalem praesentiam Christi sub sacramento propter impotentiam aliter saluandi, sicut Regulus, sed propter eius misericordiam, & dignitatem sacramenti.’ (Gregory’s response: We do not posit the corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament because of his inability to save otherwise, as does Regulus, but because of his mercy and the dignity of the sacrament). For the edition see Peter of Tarentaise, In IV. Librum Sententiarum Commentaria, ed. by de Marinis, iv, p. 109.   113 Thomas Aquinas, Officium de Festo Corporis Christi, ed. by Spiazzi, p. 277, noct. 2, lect. 5: ‘Convenit itaque devotioni fidelium solemniter recolere institutionem tam salutiferi tamque mirabilis sacramenti, ut ineffabilem modum divinae praesentiae in sacramento visibili veneremur, et laudetur Dei potentia quae in sacramento eodem tot mirabilia operatur, nec non et de tam salubri tamque suavi beneficio exsolvantur Deo gratiarum debitae actiones.’ (And so it is fitting for the devotion of the faithful solemnly to recall

241

242

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

That formulation, as Père Gy observed and Jean-Pierre Torrell has echoed, is very reminiscent of Aquinas’s usage elsewhere. In his earlier Scriptum super libros Sententiarum114 and his Responsio de 36 articulis,115 as in the Tertia pars of the Summa theo­logiae116 of his later years, Thomas refrains from referring to a corporeal presence of Christ in the sacrament, for it appeared to him to imply a problematical localization of substance. According to Aristotle, location in a particular place is an accidental attribute of a thing — a thing’s essential nature, its substance, does not change simply because it changes location.117 In the sacrament, however, Christ is present only according to his substance, with no accidental attributes to define a limited, localized

 

 

 

 

the institution of so salvific and miraculous a sacrament, in order that we may venerate the ineffable mode of the divine presence in the visible sacrament and the power of God that accomplishes so many miraculous things in the same sacrament may be praised, and neither are we excused from giving the thanks due to God for so healing and sweet a gift). 114 See, for example, Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum super libros Sententiarum, iv, dist. 10, qu. 1, art. 1, ad. 4: ‘Corpus autem Christi est in altari cum prius non fuerit, quia panis conversus est in ipsum, ita quod ipsum totum corpus est terminus per se conversionis, sicut ibi erat forma: non tamen est ens in alio sicut forma, sed per se subsistens; et ideo non oportet quod sit localiter motum, neque generatum per se, neque per accidens.’ (The body of Christ is, however, on the altar when it was not before, for the bread is converted into it, so that that entire body is in itself the end point of the conversion, just as if a form were there, although it does not exist in another like a form, but subsists in itself; and hence it is not correct to say that it is moved locally, and neither is it generated either through itself or as an accident). See Thomas Aquinas, Opera Omnia, x, ed. Fretté and Maré, p. 235. 115 For example, Thomas Aquinas, De 36 articulis, art. 33, ad arg.: ‘Istud non est uerum; uerum enim est dicere corpus Christi esse in altari uel in ecclesia. Sed hoc uerum est quod corpus Christi non est in sacramento ut in loco; non enim comparatur ad sacramentum ut locatum ad locum, quia non commensuratur ei secundum proprias dimensiones.’ (That is not true. While it is true to say that the body of Christ is on the altar or in a church, it is also true that the body of Christ is not in the sacrament as in a location; for it is not to be likened to the sacrament as a thing located in a place, since it is not commensurate with it according to its own dimensions). See Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, vol. xlii: Responsio ad lectorem Venetum de 36 articulis, p. 345. 116 As just one example, see Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, IIIa, Q75, A1, ad 3: ‘Ad tertium dicendum quod corpus Christi non est eo modo in sacramento sicut corpus in loco, quod suis dimensionibus loco commensuratur, sed quodam speciali modo, qui est proprius huic sacramento. Unde dicimus quod corpus Christi est in diversis altaribus, non sicut in diversis locis, sed sicut in sacramento: per quod non intelligimus quod Christus sit ibi solum sicut in signo, licet sacramentum sit in genere signi, sed intelligimus corpus Christi esse ibi, sicut dictum est, secundum modum proprium huic sacramento.’ (To the third objection it should be said that the body of Christ is not in the sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with the place, but in a certain special manner that is proper to this sacrament. Whence we say that the body of Christ is on different altars, not as if it were in different places, but ‘in the sacrament’: by this we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although the sacrament is a kind of sign, but we understand the body of Christ to be there, as was said, according to the manner appropriate to this sacrament). See Thomas Aquinas, Opera Omnia, v, ed. by Fretté and Maré, p. 436. 117 Aristotle, Categoriae, 1b25–2a10.

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

praesentia on any given altar. After the consecration the quantitates dimensivae that remain in the sacrament are those of the bread and wine; the body of Christ is now present in substance, but without dimensions to define its location.118 Thomas, in short, has included in his liturgy what amounts to a respectful revision of Urban IV’s theo­logy, restoring the Patristic view of the Eucharist, now understood in Aristotelian terms. It is an allusion to Aristotelian epistemo­logy found in the third lesson for first nocturns that has been held up as the most unambiguous evidence of Thomas Aquinas’s hand in the Corpus Christi liturgy. The reading includes the rather scholastic lines: ‘Accidentia enim sine subiecto in eodem existent, ut fides locum habeat dum visibile invisibiliter sumitur, aliena specie occultatum, et sensus a deceptione immunes reddantur, qui de accidentibus iudicant sibi notis.’ Torrell sees the two final clauses, in particular, as characteristic of Aquinas’s rigorous Aristotelian perspective, albeit this is a perspective not unique to him: Torrell judges Thomas to be probably the only one of his contemporaries who would think to use this sort of epistemo­logical language in a devotional or liturgical context, for, says Torrell, he alone attached such importance to it.119 Describing our perception of the eucharistic accidents inhering in the subject on the altar – ‘and the senses, which base their judgements on the accidental attributes apparent to us, are rendered immune to deception’ — these words capture succinctly a view that recurs several times in Sacerdos in aeternum. For Thomas, when the senses judge the eucharistic species to be bread and wine they are not, in fact, deceived, because it belongs to the senses to make judgements only about the appearances of things, and the appearances are indeed those of bread and wine. It is up to the intellect to judge concerning a thing’s underlying essence. And in the case of the Eucharist, the intellect ultimately disregards the perceptions of the senses because faith makes us trust Christ more, when he tells us ‘This is my body’, ‘This is my blood.’

  118 See Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, IIIa, Q76, A4, esp. Resp.: ‘Conversio autem quae fit in hoc sacramento, terminatur directe ad substantiam corporis Christi, non autem ad dimensiones eius. Quod patet ex hoc quod quantitas dimensiva remanet facta consecratione, sola substantia panis transeunte.’ (The conversion that takes place in this sacrament, however, is terminated directly at the substance of the body of Christ, and not at its dimensions. Which is evident from the fact that the dimensive quantity of the bread remains once the consecration has occurred, with only the substance of the bread passing away). See Thomas Aquinas, Opera Omnia, v, ed. by Fretté and Maré, p. 450.   119 Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, pp. 131–32. As Walters points out, the lines do appear in The Hague, Koninklijke Bibl., MS 70.E.4, from which the Liègeois Office Animarum cibus has been edited; see Walters, ‘Introduction to the Liturgical Manuscripts’, p. 61. But they were almost certainly added at a later date: not only does the reading also refer to Pope Urban IV’s institution of the universal feast of Corpus Christi, which postdates by a number of years the first use of Animarum cibus to celebrate the feast in Liège, but the folios on which it is found also appear to have been inserted subsequently, replacing a now-lost legendum.

243

244

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

This is the meaning of the beautiful lines of the Pange, lingua, gloriosi, the hymn sung at both first and second Vespers in Sacerdos in aeternum: ‘et si sensus deficit, /​ad firmandum cor sincerum /​sola fides sufficit’ (‘and if sense fails, faith alone suffices to reassure a pure heart’); and again ‘praestet fides supplementum /​sensuum defectui’ (‘let faith make good the senses’ deficit’).120 The famous sequence Lauda, Syon likewise acknowledges the need for faith to penetrate what the senses cannot: ‘quod non capis, quod non vides /​animosa firmat fides /​praeter rerum ordinem’ (‘that which you do not understand, nor see, fervent faith confirms beyond the normal order of things’).121 While these sentiments may seem to run contrary to Thomas’s insistence on the ‘immunity’ of the senses from deception seen in the reading for first nocturns, again, Aristotle teaches that the proper object of the senses is precisely the accidental attributes of things — size, shape, colour — not those things’ essential character, about which it is the proper function of the higher faculties to make judgements, based on sense data. The senses are not faulty: they appraise the appearances correctly. There is simply a miraculous reality behind those appearances that they cannot perceive. And we do find Thomas arguing, in his Scriptum super libros Sententiarum, for example, that the Eucharist stimulates faith to its maximum of merit, precisely because it leads the believer to give his assent ‘not only beyond reason, but even contrary to sense’ (‘non solum praeter rationem sunt, sed etiam contra sensum’).122 * * * Examples of the echoes and consonances between the poetry of the Corpus Christi liturgy and the eucharistic theo­logy of Thomas Aquinas could certainly be multiplied. And there are few now who would contest the   120 Thomas Aquinas, Officium de festo Corporis Christi, ed. by Spiazzi, p. 275. Translation mine. On the theo­logy of the eucharistic hymns see Tück, Gabe der Gegenwart.   121 Thomas Aquinas, Officium de festo Corporis Christi, ed. by Spiazzi, p. 281. Translation mine. The Lauda, Syon provides another argument for Aquinas’s authorship of the Corpus Christi liturgy: it borrows phrases from an anonymous hymn on the Cross called the Laudes crucis, which survives in a manuscript once owned by Cardinal Matteo Rosso Orsini, who was at the curia in Orvieto in the 1260s, making it a manuscript to which Thomas may have had access. See Szöfférvy, Die Annalen der lateinischen Hymnendichtung, ein Handbuch, i, p. 248; and Rubin, Corpus Christi, p. 192.   122 Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum super libros Sententiarium, iv, dist. 10, qu. 1, art. 1, Solutio: ‘Consequuntur etiam et aliae utilitates, sicut ostensio maximae caritatis in hoc quod seipsum dat nobis in cibum, sublevatio spei ex tam familiari conjunctione ad ipsum, et maximum meritum fidei in hoc quod creduntur multa in hoc sacramento quae non solum praeter rationem sunt, sed etiam contra sensum, ut videtur; et multae aliae utilitates, quae explicari sufficienter non possunt.’ (Other advantages also follow, such as a demonstration of the greatest love in that He gives himself to us as food, the raising up of hope from such an intimate union with Him, and the greatest merit of faith in that many things are believed in this sacrament which are not only beyond reason, but even contrary to sense, or so it seems; and many other advantages which cannot be adequately explained). Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia, ed. by Fretté and Maré, x, p. 234.

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

attribution. But whether the Corpus Christi Office and Mass were penned by Thomas Aquinas, or by someone who shared his theo­logical outlook, whether Thomas was responsible for Sacerdos in aeternum and Hugh of Saint-Cher is still considered the more likely author of Sapientia sibi aedificavit domum, one thing is clear. The Dominican Order played a seminal role in the cultivation of Europe’s eucharistic piety in the thirteenth century. Dominican friars were some of the first patrons of the idea of a feast dedicated to Corpus Christi, when Juliana of Mont-Cornillon turned to the Dominicans of Liège to vet her theo­logy and support her cause with the local bishop. It was a Dominican friar, in the person of Cardinal Hugh of Saint-Cher, who did much to see the Corpus Christi devotion that first took root in Liège firmly established in that diocese and elsewhere north of the Alps. And there are cogent reasons for believing that Pope Urban IV turned to a young Dominican theo­logian whom he met in Orvieto to give liturgical voice to the new feast of Corpus Christi, thereby shaping the way Christians everywhere would understand the presence of Christ in the sacrament and would sing the mystery of the Glorious Body and the Precious Blood. Pange, lingua, gloriosi corporis mysterium sanguinisque pretiosi, quem in mundi pretium fructus ventris generosi rex effudit gentium.

(Sing, my tongue, the mystery of the glorious body and of the precious blood, which, for the price of the world, the fruit of a noble womb, the King of Nations, poured forth.

Verbum caro panem verum verbo carnem efficit, fitque sanguis Christi merum, et si sensus deficit, ad firmandum cor sincerum sola fides sufficit.

The Word as flesh turns true bread into flesh by a word and the wine becomes the blood of Christ. And if sense fails to reassure a pure heart Faith alone suffices.)

Officium ‘Sacerdos in aeternum’, hymnus, vesperae 1 et 2

245

246

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

Works Cited Manuscripts and Archival Sources Avignon, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 100 Bognanco, Archivio parrochiale di S Lorenzo, libellus, s. xiii, s.n. Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, MS c.l.m.ae.33 Liège, Bibliothèque du Seminaire, MS 6.L.21 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fonds latin 755 —— , MS fonds latin 1143 —— , MS fonds latin 9298 Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, MS 1 Prague, Abbey of Strahov, MS D.E.I.7 The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, MS 70.E.4 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. Barb. lat. 400 —— , MS Vat. lat. 808 Artworks Orvieto, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo: Ugolino di Vieri, ‘Reliquiario del Corporale di Bolsena’ (1337–1339) Orvieto, Duomo, Cappella del Corporale, affreschi: Ugolino di Prete Ilario, ‘La storia della Festa del Corpus Domini’ (1357–1364) Philadelphia Art Museum, John G. Johnson Collection, 1917, cat. 101: Taddeo di Bartolo, ‘Saint Thomas Aquinas Submitting His Office of Corpus Domini to Pope Urban IV’ (c. 1405) Vatican City, Pinacoteca Vaticana, inv. 40234: Stefano di Giovanni di Consalvo (il Sassetta), ‘Visione di San Tommaso d’Aquino’, predella panel from the La pala dell’Arte della Lana (1423–1424) Primary Sources Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ii: ab anno 1304 usque ad annum 1378, ed. by Benedictus Maria Reichert, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 4 (Rome: In Domo Generalitia, 1899; Stuttgart: J. Roth, 1899) Ambrose, De sacramentis libri sex, in Patro­logiae cursus completus: series latina, ed. by Jacques-Paul Migne, xvi (Paris: Garnier Frères, 1843), cols 417–64 Aristotle, Categoriae vel Praedicamenta, ed. by Lorenzo Minio-Paluello in Aristoteles Latinus, i: 1–5, ed. by Lorenzo Minio-Paluello, Corpus philosophorum Medii Aevi (Bruges-Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1961) Augustine of Hippo, In Ioannis Evangelium Tractatus CXXIV, in Patro­logiae cursus completus: series latina, ed. by Jacques-Paul Migne, xxxv (Paris: Garnier Frères, 1845), cols 1379–1976

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

Augustine of Hippo, In Iohannis evangelium tractatus CXXIV, ed. by Radbodus Willems, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 36 (Brepols: Turnhout, 1954) Bernard Gui, Vita s. Thomae Aquinatis, ed. by Dominicus Prümmer in Fontes vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis notis historicis et criticis illustrati, ed. by Dominicus Prümmer and Marie-Hyacinthe Laurent (Toulouse: Privat, [n.d.]; 6 fasc. originally published in Revue Thomiste, 1911–1937), pp. 161–263 Bertamini, Tullio, ‘La bolla “Transiturus” di papa Urbano IV e l’uffizio del “Corpus Christi” secondo il codice di S. Lorenzo di Bognanco’, Aevum, 42, fasc. 1–2 (1968), pp. 42–49 Bonaventure (Giovanni di Fidanza), Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi, vol. iv: In quartum librum Sententiarum, Opera Omnia, iv (Quaracchi [Ad Claras Aquas]: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1889) Corpus iuris canonici, ed. by Aemilius Friedberg and Aemilius Ludovicus Richter, 2nd edn, 2 vols (Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1881; repr. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1959) Corrigan, Vincent, ‘Critical Editions of the Liturgical Manuscripts’, in Barbara R. Walters, Vincent Corrigan, and Peter T. Ricketts, The Feast of Corpus Christi (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 2006), pp. 77–425 Cyril of Alexandria, Commentarium in Lucam, in Patro­logiae cursus completus: series graeca, ed. by Jacques-Paul Migne, lxxii (Paris: Garnier Frères, 1864), cols 475–950 ‘De B. Ivliana Virgine, Priorissa Montis-Cornelii apud Leodium, Promotrice festi Corporis Christi: Vita ab auctore coaevo descripta ex variis codicibus MSS. (V Aprilis)’, ed. by Godefroid Henschen and Daniel Papenbroch, Acta Sanctorum, editio novissima, i (Paris and Rome: Victor Palmé, 1865), pp. 435–76, [accessed 1 June 2021] Fontes vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis notis historicis et criticis illustrati, ed. by Dominic M. Prümmer and Marie-Hyacinthe Laurent (Toulouse: Private, [n.d.]; 6 fasc., originally published in Revue Thomiste, 1911–1937) Fumi, Luigi, Statuti e Regesti dell’Opera di Santa Maria d’Orvieto. Raccolti e pub­ blicati nel sesto centenario dalla Fondazione del Duomo (Rome: Tipografia Vaticana, 1891) Gregory XI, bull ‘Quamvis cum’ (24 June 1377), in Luigi Fumi, Statuti e Regesti dell’Opera di Santa Maria d’Orvieto. Raccolti e pubblicati nel sesto centenario dalla Fondazione del Duomo (Rome: Tipografia Vaticana, 1891), vii (‘Bollario dell’Opera’), no. xiii, p. 95 Hugh of Saint-Cher, In Universum Vetus et Novum Testamentum, [no editor], vol. i (Venice: Nicola Pezzana, 1732) Hugh of Saint-Victor, De sacramentis christianae fidei, in Patro­logiae cursus completus: series latina, ed. by Jacques-Paul Migne, clxxvi (Paris: Garnier Frères, 1854), cols 173–618 Innocent III, De sacro altaris mysterio libri sex, in Patro­logiae cursus completus: series latina, ed. by Jacques-Paul Migne, ccxvii (Paris: Garnier Frères, 1855), cols 773–916

247

2 48

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

John Chrysostom, Homiliae LXXXVIII in Ioannem, in Patro­logiae cursus completus: series graeca, ed. by Jacques-Paul Migne, lix (Paris: Garnier Frères, 1862), col. 23–482 Lambot, Cyrille (ed.), ‘La Bulle d’Urbain IV à Ève de Saint-Martin sur l’institution de la Fête-Dieu’, Scriptorium, 2 (1948), 69–77; reprinted in Revue Benedictine, 79 (1969) 261–70 Martène, Edmond, and Ursin Durand (eds), Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum historicorum, dogmaticorum, moralium, amplissima collectio, vi (Paris: Montalant, 1724; reprint New York: Burt Franklin, 1968) Niccolò da Durazzo, Libellus de fide Trinitatis ex diversis auctoritatibus sanctorum confectus contra grecos, in Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, xl (Rome: Ad Sanctae Sabinae, 1967), A107–A151 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, fonds latin 1143, facsimile ed. by Vincent Corrigan, Publications of Mediaeval Music Manuscripts, xxvi (Ottawa: Institute of Mediaeval Music, 2001) Patro­logiae cursus completus: series graeca, ed. by Jacques-Paul Migne (Paris: Garnier Frères, 1857–1866), 161 vols Patro­logiae cursus completus: series latina, ed. by Jacques-Paul Migne (Paris: Garnier Frères, 1844–1864), 221 vols Peter of Tarentaise (= Innocent V), In IV. Librum Sententiarum Commentaria ex manuscriptis Bibliothecae Tolosanae Conventus Sancti Thomae Aquinatis, ed. by Jean-Baptiste de Marinis, iv (Toulouse: Arnaldus Colomerius, 1651; fasc. reproduction Ridgewood, NJ: The Gregg Press, 1964) Processus canonizationis S. Thomae Aquinatis, Neapoli, ed. by Marie-Hyacinthe Laurent, in Fontes vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis notis historicis et criticis illustrati, ed. by Dominic M. Prümmer and Marie-Hyacinthe Laurent (Toulouse: Private, [n.d.]; 6 fasc. originally published in Revue Thomiste, 1911–1937), fasc. 4, pp. 265–407 Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, inde ab anno post Christum natum MCXCVIII ad annum MCCCIV, ed. by Augustus Potthast, 2 vols (Berlin: Rudolph de Decker, 1875) Robert of Thourotte, ‘Inter alia mira’, Textus antiqui de festo corporis Christi, ed. by Petrus Browe, Opuscula et textus historiam ecclesiae eiusque vitam atque doctrinam illustrantia, Series liturgica, 4, ed. by R. Stapper and A. Rücker (Münster: Aschendorff, 1934), pp. 21–23 Schoolmeesters, Émile, ‘Diplôme de Hugues de Saint-Cher instituant la FêteDieu’, Leodium, 5 (1906), pp. 42–46 —— , ‘Regeste de Robert de Thourotte’, Bulletin de la Societé d’art et d’histoire du diocese de Liège, 15 (1905), 1–126, 449–54 Thomas Aquinas, Catena aurea in quatuor evangelia, ed. by Angelicus Guarienti, 2 vols (Turin: Marietti, 1953) —— , Commentum in libros Sententiarum, ed. by Stanislaus Edouard Fretté and Paul Maré as Thomas Aquinas, Opera Omnia, vii–xi (Paris: Vivès, 1873–1874) —— , Contra errores Graecorum ad Urbanum papam, in Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, xl (Rome: Ad Sanctae Sabinae, 1967), A67–A105

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

—— , De articulis Fidei et Ecclesiae sacramentis ad archiepiscopum Panormitanum, in Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, xlii (Rome: Editori di San Tommaso, 1979), pp. 243–57 —— , De emptione et venditione ad tempus, in Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, xlii (Rome: Editori di San Tommaso, 1979), pp. 379–94 —— , De rationibus Fidei ad cantorem Antiochenum, in Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, xl (Rome: Ad Sanctae Sabinae, 1969), pp. B55–B73 —— , Expositio super Iob ad litteram, as Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P.M. edita, xxvi (Rome: Ad Sanctae Sabinae, 1965) —— , Expositio super primam et secundam Decretalem ad archidiaconum Tudertinum, in Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, xl (Rome: ad Sanctae Sabinae), pp. E27–E44 —— , ‘Officium de Festo Corporis Christi ad mandatum Urbani Papae IV dictum Festum instituentis’, in Thomas Aquinas, Opuscula theo­logica, ed. by Raimondo M. Spiazzi, ii (Turin: Marietti, 1954), pp. 275–81 —— , Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, 50 vols (Rome: various publishers, 1889–) —— , Opera Omnia, ed. by Stanislaus Edouard Fretté and Paul Maré, 42 vols (Paris: Vivès, 1871–1880) —— , Responsio ad lectorem Venetum de 36 articulis, in Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, xlii (Rome: Editori di San Tommaso, 1979), pp. 337–46 —— , Sermo ‘Homo quidam fecit cenam magnum’, ed. by Louis-Jacques Bataillon, in Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, xliv. 1: Sermones (Rome: Commissio Leonina; Paris: Les editions du Cerf, 2014), pp. 193–206 —— , Summa theo­logiae, ed. by Stanislaus Edouard Fretté and Paul Maré as Thomas Aquinas, Opera Omnia, i–vi (Paris: Vivès, 1871–1873) —— , Super epistolas S. Pauli lectura, 2 vols, ed. by Raphael Cai (Turin: Marietti, 1953) —— , Super Evangelium S. Ioannis Lectura, ed. by Raphael Cai, 5th edn (Turin: Marietti, 1952) —— , Corpus Thomisticum: Sancti Thomae de Aquino, Officium Corporis Christi ‘Sacerdos’, text edited by Cyril Lambot and published in Revue Bénédictine. [accessed 1 June 2021] Tolomeo of Lucca (Bartolomeo Fiadóni), Historia ecclesiastica nova, ed. by Ludovico Antonio Muratori, Rerum italicarum scriptores, xi (Città di Castello: S. Lapi, 1727), cols 751–1242 Vie Sainte Julienne de Cornillon, Critical Edition, ed. by Jean-Pierre Delville, FêteDieu (1246–1996), vol. ii, ed. by André Haquin, Textes, Études, Congrès, xix/​ 2 (Louvain-La-Neuve: Institut d’Études Médiévales de l’Université Catholique de Louvain, 1999) William of Tocco, Vita S. Thomae Aquinatis, ed. by Dominic M. Prümmer, in Fontes vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis notis historicis et criticis illustrate, fasc. 6 (Toulouse: Private, 1931), pp. 57–160 —— , Ystoria sancti Thome de Aquino de Guillaume de Tocco (1323): Édition critique, introduction et notes, ed. by Claire Le Brun-Gouanvic, Studies and Texts 127 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1996)

249

250

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

Secondary Works Backes, Ignaz, Die Christo­logie des hl. Thomas v. Aquin und die griechischen Kirchenväter, Forschungen zur christlichen Literatur- und Dogmengeschichte, xvii. 314 (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1931) Bataillon, Louis-Jacques, ‘Les Sermons de saint Thomas et la Catena aurea’, in St Thomas Aquinas (1274–1974): Commemorative Studies (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1974), i, pp. 67–85 —— , ‘Un sermon de S. Thomas d’Aquin sur la parabole du festin’, Revue des sciences philosophiques et théo­logiques, 58 (1974), 451–56 —— , ‘Le Sermon inédit de saint Thomas Homo quidam fecit cenam magnam’, Revue des sciences philosophiques et théo­logiques, 67 (1983), 353–69 —— , ‘Les Sermons attribués à saint Thomas: questions d’authenticité’, Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 19 (1988), 325–41 Callaey, Fredegando, ‘Origine e sviluppo della festa del “Corpus Domini”’, in Eucharistia, ed. by Antonio Piolanti (Rome: Desclée, 1957), pp. 907–32 Chardonnens, Denis, L’Homme sous le regard de la Providence: Providence de Dieu et condition humaine selon l’‘Exposition littérale sur le Livre de Job’ de Thomas d’Aquin, Bibliothèque Thomiste, 50 (Paris: Librarie philosophique J. Vrin, 1997) Conticello, Carmelo Giuseppe, ‘San Tommaso ed I Padri: La Catena aurea super Ioannem’, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge, 57 (1990), 31–92 Dal Poggetto, Paolo, Ugolino di Vieri: gli smalti di Orvieto (Florence: Sansedoni, 1965) Delaissé, L. M. J., ‘A la recherche des origines de l’office du Corpus Christi dans les manuscrits liturgiques’, Scriptorium, 4 (1950), 220–39 Dondaine, Antoine, ‘Nicolas de Cotrone, et les sources du Contra errores Graecorum de Saint Thomas’, Divus Thomas, 28 (1950), 313–40 —— , ‘Les Opuscula fratris Thomae chez Ptolémée de Lucques’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 31 (1961), 142–203 Eschmann, Ignatius T., ‘A Catalogue of St Thomas’ Works: Biblio­graphical Notes’, in The Christian Philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas, ed. by Étienne Gilson, trans. by Lawrence K. Shook (New York: Random House, 1956), pp. 381–439 Franceschini, Ezio, ‘Origine e stile della bolla “Transiturus”’, Aevum, 39, fasc. 3–4 (1965), 218–43 Geenen, C. G., ‘En marge du concile de Chalcédoine: Les textes du Quatrième Concile dans les oeuvres de saint Thomas’, Angelicum, 29 (1952), 43–59 Glorieux, Palémon, Répertoire des maîtres en théo­logie de Paris au xiiie siècle, 2 vols (Paris: Libraire Philosophique J. Vrin, 1933) Gy, Pierre-Marie, ‘L’Office du Corpus Christi et S. Thomas d’Aquin: Etat d’une recherche’, Revue des sciences philosophiques et théo­logiques, 64 (1980), 491–507 —— , ‘L’Office du Corpus Christi, oeuvre de Saint Thomas d’Aquin’, in La Liturgie dans l’histoire (Paris: Editions Saint-Paul; Editions du Cerf, 1990), pp. 223–45 —— , ‘Office liègeois et office romain de la Fête-Dieu’, in Actes du Colloque de Liège, vol. i: Fête-Dieu (1246–1996), ed. by André Haquin (Louvain-le-Neuve: Institut d’Études Médiévales de l’Université Catholique du Louvain), pp. 117–26

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

—— , ‘La Relation au Christ dans l’Eucharistie selon S. Bonaventure et S. Thomas d’Aquin’, in Sacrements de Jésus-Christ, ed. by Joseph Doré, Jésus et Jésus-Christ, 18 (Paris: Desclée, 1983), pp. 69–106 Holmes, Jeremy, ‘Aquinas’ Lectura in Matthaeum’, in Aquinas on Scripture: An Introduction to his Biblical Commentaries, ed. by Thomas G. Weinandy, Daniel A. Keating, and John P. Yocum (London: T & T Clark International, 2005), pp. 73–97 Israëls, Machtelt, ‘Altars on the Street: The Wool Guild, the Carmelites and the Feast of Corpus Domini in Siena (1356–1456)’, Renaissance Studies, 20.2 (2006), 180–200 Kaeppeli, Thomas, ‘Una raccolta di prediche attribuite a S. Tommaso d’Aquino’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 13 (1943), pp. 59–94 —— , Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevi, ii (Rome: Ad S. Sabinae, 1975) Kelly, J. N. D., and Michael Walsh, ed., A Dictionary of Popes, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) Lambert, Malcolm D., The Cathars (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998) Lambot, Cyrille, ‘L’Office de la Fête-Dieu: Aperçus nouveaux sur ses origins’, Revue bénédictine, 54 (1942), 61–132 Lambot, Cyrille, and Irenée Fransen, L’Office de la Fête-Dieu primitive: textes et mélodies retrouvés (Maredsous: Éditions de Maredsous, 1946) Lavalleye, Edouard, Relation du 6e jubilé séculaire de l’institution de la Fête-Dieu, célébré au mois de juin 1846, à l’église primaire de Saint-Martin à Liège (Liège: H. Dessain, 1846) Lazzarini, Andrea, Il miracolo di Bolsena: Testimonianze e documenti dei secoli xiii e xiv, Temi e testi, i (Rome: Edizione di storia e letteratura, 1952) Macy, Gary, The Theo­logies of the Eucharist in the Early Scholastic Period: A Study of the Salvific Function of the Sacrament According to the Theo­logians c. 1080–c. 1220 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984) Mandonnet, Pierre, ‘Thomas d’Aquin lecteur à la curie romaine: Chrono­logie du séjour (1259–1268)’, in Xenia thomistica: a plurimis orbis Catholici viris eruditis, praeparata quae Sancto Thomae Aquinati, Doctori communi et angelico; anno ab eius canonizatione sexcentsimo, devotissime offert reverendissimus Pater, Fr. Ludovicus Thiessling, iii: Tractatus historico-criticos continens, ed. by Sadoc Szabó (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1925), pp. 9–40 Mitchell, Nathan, Cult and Controversy: The Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass (New York: Pueblo Publishing, 1982) Mulchahey, M. Michèle , ‘First the Bow is Bent in Study …’: Dominican Teaching Before 1350, Studies and Texts, 132 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1998) —— , ‘The Dominican Studium Romanae Curiae: The Papacy, the Magisterium, and the Friars’, in Philosophy and Theo­logy in the ‘Studia’ of the Religious Orders and at Papal and Royal Courts, ed. by Kent Emery, Jr, William J. Courtenay, and Stephen M. Metzger (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), pp. 577–600 Renardy, Christine, Le Monde des maîtres universitaires du diocese de Liège, 1140–1350: recherches sur sa composition et ses activités, Bibliothèque de Faculté de philo­ sophie et lettres de l’Université de Liège, 227 (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1979)

25 1

252

m .  m ichè l e m u lc h ah e y

Rouse, Richard, and Mary Rouse, ‘The Verbal Concordance to the Scriptures’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 44 (1974), 5–30 Rubin, Miri, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medi­eval Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) Salmon, Pierre, Les Manuscrits liturgiques latins de la Bibliothèque vaticane, vol. i: Psautiers, antiphonaires, hymnaires, collectaires, bréviaires, Studi e testi 251 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1968) Scapecchi, Piero, La pala dell’Arte della Lana del Sassetta (Siena: Monte dei Paschi di Siena, 1979), repr. with an additional introduction in Panis vivus: arredi e testimonianze figurative del culto eucaristico dal VI al XIX secolo, ed. by Cecilia Alessi and Laura Martini (Siena: Protagon, 1994), pp. 239–49 Simenon, Georges , ‘Urbain IV à Liège’, Revue ecclésiastique de Liège, 26 (1934–1935), 345–58 —— , ‘Les Origins liègeoises de la Fête-Dieu’, in Studia eucharistica: DCCI anni a condito festo sanctissimi Corporis Christi, 1246–1946, ed. by Stephanus Gérard Axters (Antwerp: De Nederlandsche Boekhandel, 1946), pp. 1–9 Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 3rd rev. edn (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983) Solberg, Gail, ‘Taddeo di Bartolo: His Life and Work’ (unpublished. doctoral dissertation, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 1991) Strehlke, Carl Brandon, Italian Paintings, 1250–1450, in the John G. Johnson Collection and the Philadelphia Museum of Art (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art in association with the Pennsylvania State University, 2004) Suhr, Dominique Nicole, ‘Corpus Christi and the Cappella del Corporale at Orvieto’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 2000) Szöfférvy, Joseph, Die Annalen der lateinischen Hymnendichtung, ein Handbuch, 2 vols (Berlin: E. Schmidt, 1964) Torrell, Jean-Pierre, Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol. i: The Person and His Work, revised edition, trans. by Robert Royal (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 2005) Tück, Jan-Heiner, Gabe der Gegenwart: Theo­logie und Dichtung de Eucharistie bei Thomas von Aquin, revised edition (Freiburg: Herder, 2014; now translated as The Gift of Presence. The Theo­logy and Poetry of the Eucharist in Thomas Aquinas, trans. by Scott G. Hefelfinger (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2018)) Walters, Barbara R., ‘Introduction to the Liturgical Manuscripts’, in Barbara R. Walters, Vincent Corrigan, and Peter T. Ricketts, The Feast of Corpus Christi (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 2006), pp. 57–76 —— , ‘The Feast and its Founder’, in Barbara R. Walters, Vincent Corrigan and Peter T. Ricketts, The Feast of Corpus Christi (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 2006), pp. 3–54 Walters, Barbara R., Vincent Corrigan, and Peter T. Ricketts, The Feast of Corpus Christi (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 2006) Walz, Angelus, ‘L’Aquinate a Orvieto’, Angelicum, 35 (1958), 176–90

thomas aquinas, dominican theo­l ogy, and the feast of corpus christi

Weisheipl, James A., Friar Thomas d’Aquino: His Life, Thought, and Works, reproduced with corrigenda and addenda (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America, 1983) Zawilla, Ronald J., ‘The “Historiae Corporis Christi” Attributed to Thomas Aquinas: A Theo­logical Study to Determine their Biblical Sources’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, 1985)

25 3

Barbara R. Walters*

Reading Eschato­logy in the Feast of Corpus Christi Introduction and Overview The Dominican Office for the feast of Corpus Christi, adopted by the General Chapter of the Order at Lyon in 1318, was abbreviated and adapted to the Dominican form from a late thirteenth-century Roman version now firmly established as the work of Saint Thomas Aquinas.1 The Roman version of the Office, Sacerdos in (a)eternum, can be found in BnF, MS lat. 1143. Sacerdos in (a)eternum represents an extensive revision of an earlier Office, Sapientia (a)edificavit sibi, found in a Premonstratensian breviary,2 Prague, Strahov, MS D.E.I.7. ‘Authorship’ of this earlier Office has been less firmly established but is also most likely the work of St Thomas Aquinas.3 Much has been written on the ‘signature’ lectionary readings and biblical themes in the Roman Office as these relate to Aquinas’s theo­logy of the Eucharist4 and on the implicit Christo­logy in the pairing of Old and New Testament verses

* With thanks to the Dominicans at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford University, especially the Very Reverend Simon Gaine OP, Richard Conrad OP, Director of the Aquinas Institute, John O’Connor OP, Thomas White OP, Matthew Jarvis OP, and to Michael Black and Pia Jolliffe. Thanks also to Professors Christian Smith and Paolo G. Carozza, and to Frank Murphy CSC at the University of Notre Dame. My thinking has also been substantially improved by comments from Christian Leitmeir, Eleanor Giraud, and Laura Macy. Vincent Corrigan edited the critical edition of BnF, MS lat. 1143 and other versions of the Corpus Christi Office liturgy used in the analysis presented here.  1 Delaissé, ‘À la recherche des origines’; Gy, ‘L’Office du Corpus Christi’; Lambot, ‘L’Office de la Fête-Dieu’; Rubin, Corpus Christi, pp. 185–89; Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas i, pp. 129–36; Walters, Corrigan, and Ricketts, Feast of Corpus Christi, pp. 65–66; Zawilla, ‘Biblical Sources’.  2 Walters, Corrigan, and Ricketts, Feast of Corpus Christi, pp. 80–83.  3 Zawilla, ‘Biblical Sources’, pp. 63–74; Gy, ‘L’Office du Corpus Christi’, pp. 495–96; Lambot, ‘L’Office de la Fête-Dieu’; Walters, Corrigan, and Ricketts, Feast of Corpus Christi, pp. 65–74.  4 Rubin, Corpus Christi, p. 187; Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, i, p. 131; Zawilla, ‘Biblical Sources’, pp. 85–101; Gy, ‘L’Office du Corpus Corpus Christi’, pp. 502–06.

Barbara R. Walters is Professor of Socio­logy at the City University of New York, Guest Scholar at the Kellogg Institute for International Studies, and Affiliated Scholar at the Center for the Study of Religion and Society, University of Notre Dame.

The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music, and Liturgy, ed. by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, MMS 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021) pp. 255–284 10.1484/M.MMS-EB.5.124219

FHG

2 56

ba r ba r a  r . walt e r s

in the responsories.5 This chapter adds a new layer to the vast corpus of exegesis on the BnF, MS lat. 1143 Office by close reading and analysis of the texts and themes from the source chants used in the Vespers, Matins, and Lauds antiphons and responsories. Attention and focus are thereby directed toward Aquinas’s devotional and prayer life: the mystical and contemplative experiences, which complemented and informed his formidable intellect and doctrinal theo­logy.6 The analysis suggests an eschato­logical interpretation of the BnF, MS lat. 1143 Office, one that connects Aquinas’s theo­logy to his beatific vision of the final human end. Five elements contribute to the interpretation. First, the rhymed numerical Office style provided a mnemonic device but also a semantic one, which harnessed modal order and verb tense as signs or symbols of ascension.7 Second, communal prayer formed the existential centre for Aquinas and for the Dominicans at the foundation of the new preaching Order; thus, the Office liturgical repertory offered a familiar and rich palette for the aesthetic expression of spiritual ideas not easily communicated in words.8 Third, for the Corpus Christi Office, Aquinas drew from a ‘dossier’ of biblical texts, which were shared across his later writings, that is, work executed during or after his second regency in Paris between the years 1268–1272 (the Summa, the Compendium, and Sermon 13). These later texts outline a Christian moral theo­logy, anchored in the classical and Patristic virtues.9 The late works also articulate a theo­logy of the Eucharist with ‘transubstantiation’ at the pinnacle of the sacramental and redemptive action, thereby resolving two centuries of conflict regarding the ‘real presence’.10 The version of the Office in BnF, MS lat. 1143 presents perhaps the first homily that clarifies ‘transubstantiation’ as the sacramental action behind the salvific power of the Eucharist11 and highlights themes in moral theo­logy through implicit tropes. Fourth, the implicit tropes arrive through musical material quoted or paraphrased with new texts as contrafacta for melodies in the existing Office liturgy. The texts of the source melodies selected by Aquinas from the existing Sanctorale capture snapshots — tropes — of Mary, the saints, the apostles, and confessors. Aquinas ordered  5 Zawilla, ‘Biblical Sources’, pp. 100–01; Rubin, Corpus Christi, pp. 185–89.  6 Murray, Aquinas at Prayer, pp. 1–19.  7 Hughes, ‘Modal Order and Disorder’.  8 Bonniwell, A History of the Dominican Liturgy, pp. 9–13; Foster, The Life of Saint Thomas; Murray, Aquinas at Prayer; Pieper, The Silence of St Thomas; Pope, On Prayer and the Contemplative Life; Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, i; Smith, ‘Dominican Chant’, p. 968.  9 Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, IIa; Cessario, The Virtues; Descosimo, Ethics as a Work of Charity; McGinn, Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theo­logiae; Pinsent, The Second-Person Perspective in Aquinas’s Ethics.  10 Macy, The Banquet’s Wisdom, pp. 102–09; Wainwright, Oxford History of Christian Worship, p. 237.  11 Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, i, pp. 131–32; Walters, ‘The Feast of Corpus Christi as a Site of Struggle’, pp. 143–54.

r e a d i n g e s c h ato l­ o gy i n t h e fe ast o f co rpu s chri st i

these tropes, which can be recognized through the borrowed melodies, hierarchically to illuminate the natural and theo­logical virtues, gifts, and beatitudes explained in his discursive theo­logical texts.12 Finally, Aquinas understood and wrote about the Patristic and medi­eval tradition of reading scripture, including biblical liturgy, at four levels: the literal-historical, allegorical, tropo­logical, and anagogical.13 He would automatically reach for this from his palette as part of the creative process.

The Office Liturgy in BnF, MS lat. 1143 BnF, MS lat. 1143 comprises thirty-eight folios devoted exclusively to the Mass and Office services for Corpus Christi.14 Liturgical scholars across generations have devoted extensive research to the manuscript, culminating with the seventh centennial celebration of the feast in 1946. Lambot identified BnF, MS lat. 1143 as an early fourteenth-century French manuscript;15 Delaissé thought it might be late thirteenth-century Italian.16 Regardless of the dating of BnF, MS lat. 1143, the manuscript supplies the earliest source with a complete version of all music and texts for the Sacerdos in (a)eternum Mass and Roman Office services attributed to Aquinas.17 The Office it transmits, (Sacerdos in (a)eternum), in addition to the shared biblical dossier, ‘borrows’ extensively from the earlier version of the Office, Sapientia (a)edificavit sibi (found in Prague, Strahov MS D.E.1.7), from which a fourth nocturn for monastic use, added after the Mass in BnF, MS lat. 1143, was ‘borrowed’ in its entirety.18 The version of the legendum in a Roman lectionary, BnF, MS lat. 755, with its multiple readings that are shared across both versions, was modified on the original manuscript. The manuscript shows the deletions and insertions to include the three new lections by Aquinas.19 These appear in BnF, MS lat. 1143 as lections for the first nocturn of Matins. All the texts of the antiphons, responses, and versicles in both Sapientia (a) edificat and Sacerdoes in (a)eternum are biblical or paraphrased from biblical texts. Zawilla observed that more than half of the 241 biblical texts used  12 Corrigan, Paris Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds Latin 1143; Voragine, The Golden Legend; Zawilla, ‘Biblical Sources’.  13 Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, Ia, Q1, A2, R; Thibodeau, ‘Enigmata Figurarum’, p. 75; Hoogland, ‘Introduction’, p. 11 n. 16; Lubac, Medi­eval Exegesis.  14 Corrigan, Paris Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds Latin 1143, p. v.  15 Lambot, ‘L’Office de la Fête-Dieu’.  16 Delaissé, ‘À la recherche des origines’; Walters, Corrigan, and Ricketts, The Feast of Corpus Christi, p. 83.  17 Corrigan, Paris Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds Latin 1143, p. v.  18 Corrigan, Paris Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds Latin 1143, pp. v–x; Lambot, ‘L’Office de la Fête-Dieu’, pp. 87–93.  19 Mathiesen, ‘“The Office of a New Feast”’, pp. 15–23; Walters, Corrigan, and Rickets, The Feast of Corpus Christi, pp. 58–61.

25 7

258

ba r ba r a  r . walt e r s

are shared across these two Office versions.20 Equally significant for BnF, MS lat. 1143, marginal notations next to each musical item in BnF, MS lat. 1143 identify the incipit of the source chant. The source chant incipits were first transcribed by Lambot,21 detailed by Zawilla,22 and then researched more fully to include the full texts with translations and exact melodies for both the source chants and the new contrafacta in the 2006 critical edition by Corrigan.23 Corrigan’s edition is used here. The Corpus Christi materials in BnF, MS lat. 1143 represent a highly stylized, biblically based Office that conforms to a complex set of text–musical composition rules following the protocol of the rhymed numerical Office.24 The verb tenses in the prayers move across tenses, starting in the past (Deus qui), then the present (Ecclesie tue), and ending in the future (Fac nos).25 Individual musical items are, for the most part, arranged in ascending order of the church mode, from mode 1 up to mode 8. Uniform phrase lengths in one of the metrical conventions are overlaid onto musical phrases such that the poetic phrase endings rhyme and coincide with the musical phrase endings. An especially illustrative example for the rhymed numerical Corpus Christi Office texts can be found in the first antiphon of first Vespers, Sacerdos in [a]eternum, which sets ‘new’ biblically based text to the music of the first antiphon of first Vespers for the Office of the Trinity, Gloria tibi Trinitas. First Vespers Antiphon 1 (Text Source: Psalms 109; Hebrews 5. 6; Genesis 14. 18) Sacerdos in eternum Christ the Lord, a priest forever after Christus dominus the order of Melchisedech, offered Secundum ordinem bread and wine. Melchisedech panem et vinum obtulit. Text of the First Vespers Antiphon 1 (Source Chant: Office of the Trinity) Gloria tibi Trinitas Glory to you, Trinity of equals, one Aequalis una Deitas God, before all ages, now, and forever. Et ante omnia saecula Et nunc et in perpetuum.  20 Zawilla, ‘Biblical Sources’, p. 212.  21 Lambot, ‘L’Office de la Fête-Dieu’, pp. 95–97.  22 Zawilla, ‘Biblical Sources’, pp. 215–317.  23 Corrigan, The Feast of Corpus Christi, pp. 240–361. See pp. 68–73 for a map of the inter­ textual relations across Sapientia (a)edificavit sibi, Sacerdos in (a)eternum, and the biblical sources.  24 Hughes, ‘Modal Order and Disorder’, and Hughes, ‘Chants in the Rhymed Office of St Thomas of Canterbury’; Rubin, Corpus Christi, p. 183.  25 Rubin, Corpus Christi, p. 188.

r e a d i n g e s c h ato l­ o gy i n t h e fe ast o f co rpu s chri st i

The Trinity Office, composed by Stephen of Liège in the tenth century, was the first of three late additions to the Temporale and among the first of the rhymed numerical Offices. The style in its origins reflected the Frankish interest in speculative music theory, orderly planning, and perhaps their Neoplatonic focus on the ‘eternal order of number’.26 In the Corpus Christi Office, the ‘exitus-reditus’ model – ‘the flowing of things from God and their eventual return to Him’ — provides an even more tempting analogy for the style, especially in light of its use as the structuring principle for the Summa. For Aquinas, any model would be necessarily Trinitarian, scriptural, and Christ-centred.27

Liturgy and Prayer among the Dominicans The Office liturgy in BnF, MS lat. 1143 offers a deep and intimate vista onto the foundation of the Dominican Order and into the prayer life and eucharistic devotion of Aquinas. The new Order significantly contributed to and drew from the burgeoning population of itinerant mendicants seeking to imitate the vita apostolica through preaching and teaching. The Dominican friars, however, were also canons. When St Dominic founded the Order, recognized by Innocent III in 1216, he established a way of life ‘that balanced liturgical prayer, monastic observance, and academic study’ to prepare and sustain the friars in their apostolic vocation of preaching.28 Especially communal prayer and the Mass were placed at the centre as the essential mechanism for ensuring a union between the Church and the mission of the Friars Preachers. Liturgy and the Divine Office were thus given ‘a prominent and indispensable place in the daily life of the friars’.29 Aquinas’s contemporary Humbert of Romans (d. 1277), fifth Master of the Order, authored De eruditione praedicatorum (Treatise on the Formation of Preachers),30 where he describes the critical functions of study, prayer, and discernment in the community as the means for collectively identifying the specific ‘grace of preaching’. God endows or infuses this grace gratuitously, and only He can create the preacher. However, as Tugwell observes in his introduction to the critical edition, the ‘desire to preach’ must always be subordinated to the ‘decisions of the whole community of preachers’, the human community.31 The vocation and obligatory participation at Mass and in choral performances of the Divine Office affirmed vocations that are  26 Walters, ‘The Office of the Trinity’.  27 McGinn, Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theo­logiae, pp. 68–73.  28 Smith, ‘Dominican Chant’, p. 961.  29 Bonniwell, A History of the Dominican Liturgy, p. 15.  30 ‘Humbert of Romans’ Treatise’, ed. by Tugwell.  31 ‘Humbert of Romans’ Treatise’, ed. by Tugwell, p. 182; See also p. 229 n. 39, for his comment on women and preaching in the thirteenth century.

259

26 0

ba r ba r a  r . walt e r s

embedded in community life, even as duties as Canons Regular imposed obligations perhaps at odds with the emphasis on individual study.32 The young Thomas Aquinas was exceptionally well suited by temperament and mind for the Order of Preachers; he and the nascent Dominicans were perfectly matched, perhaps a testament to the process of structuration that connected the ideal interests of the friars to the virtues and gifts of the young novice. Throughout his life, Aquinas demonstrated the capacious memory, discipline, and piety required of friar-scholar-preachers. Testimony during the canonization process, bracketing the hagio­graphic template, uniformly noted these traits and his extraordinarily developed habit of prayer. Bernard Gui and William of Tocco witnessed the Marian devotion of Thomas the child, the zeal of the young Benedictine oblate, and the habitual states of rapture and trance, especially toward the end of his life.33 In the words of Tocco: ‘Frequenter magister in spiritu rapitur cum aliqua contemplator, sed nunquam tanto tempore sicut nunc uidi ipsum sic a sensibus alieum.’ (Frequently the master is transported in spirit when he is absorbed in some contemplation. But never have I seen him out of his senses for such a long time as today).34 Precociously ‘otherworldly’, Aquinas while still a youth distinguished temporal from spiritual powers; he devoted conscious and perpetual prayers for detachment from politics and even the ecclesial hierarchy during a historical period noted for the frequency of the simony and other material and spiritual challenges to hierocratic as well as secular authority. Prayer informed his philosophical theo­logy. Paul Murray observes in Aquinas’s prayer life a ‘consonance of thought and expression’ — both corporeal images and abstract ideas – ‘between the prayers attributed to Aquinas and the theo­logical vision expressed in his other works’.35 Aquinas himself described devotion as an interior act of religion with God as its chief cause:36 Ambrose, commenting on Luke 9.55 says that ‘God calls whom He deigns to call, and whom He wills He makes religious: the profane Samaritans, had He so willed, He would have made devout’. But the intrinsic cause on our part must be meditation or contemplation. Devotion was pivotal to Aquinas’s understanding of intrinsic vocations, as was prayer. In the secunda secundae of Summa theo­logiae, he described the Lord’s Prayer as perfect, interweaving it with Augustine’s commentary on

 32 Also see Murray, Aquinas at Prayer, pp. 36–79, on the influence of Humbert.  33 Foster, The Life of Saint Thomas, pp. 36–47; Ystoria sancti Thome de Aquino, ed. by BrunGouanvic, pp. 180–81.  34 Ystoria sancti Thome de Aquino, ed. by Brun-Gouanvic, p. 180.  35 Murray, Aquinas at Prayer, pp. 34–35.  36 Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, IIa–IIae, Q83, A3.

r e a d i n g e s c h ato l­ o gy i n t h e fe ast o f co rpu s chri st i

Matthew 5. 3–13 and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11. 2–3).37 In Augustine’s commentary, the beatitudes provide steps for spiritual ascent, or rather, as Augustine would have it, emanation and return, beginning with fear of the Lord and ending with wisdom.38 Aquinas writes in the Summa: Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 11) adapts the seven petitions to the gifts and beatitudes. He says: ‘If it is fear of God whereby blessed are the poor in spirit, let us ask that God’s name be hallowed among men with a chaste fear. If it is piety whereby blessed are the meek, let us ask that His kingdom may come, so that we become meek and no longer resist Him. If it is knowledge whereby blessed are they that mourn, let us pray that His will be done, for thus we shall mourn no more. If it is fortitude whereby blessed are they that hunger, let us pray that our daily bread be given to us. If it is counsel whereby blessed are the merciful, let us forgive the trespasses of others that our own may be forgiven. If it is understanding whereby blessed are the pure in heart, let us pray lest we have a double heart by seeking after worldly things which are the occasion of our temptations. If it is wisdom whereby blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God, let us pray to be delivered from evil: for if we be delivered we shall by that very fact become the free children of God.’39

Virtues, Gifts, Fruits, and Beatitudes Augustine’s Neoplatonic interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, the received tradition of the Church Fathers, and the newly imported writings of Aristotle on virtue provided Aquinas with the moorings he needed for a biblically based moral theo­logy. The work consumed two decades of Aquinas’s life and occupied the more substantial part of the secunda secundae of the Summa theo­logiae, although some elements on the gifts appear in the prima secundae. In the Summa, he largely accepted the established pairings of the theo­logical virtues (faith, hope, and charity), and the natural moral virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude or courage, and temperance) with the seven-fold gift of the Holy Spirit,40 the fruits,41 and the beatitudes. His entire theo­logy of virtues and gifts was further informed and grounded in his extensive study of Scripture and biblical commentaries, where the term ‘spirit’ appears in the place of ‘gift’. For Aquinas, natural or acquired virtues  37 Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, IIa–IIae, Q83, A9.  38 St Augustine, ‘Commentary on the Lord’s Sermon’, pp. 109–200.  39 Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, IIa–IIae, Q83, A9; Cessario, The Virtues, pp. 13–14.  40 Isaiah 11. 2. The gifts of the Holy Spirit include wisdom, understanding, knowledge, piety, fortitude, counsel, fear of the Lord. Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, Ia–IIae, Q68, A4.  41 Galatians 5. 22. The fruits of the spirit include love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, and faithfulness, Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, Ia–IIae, Q70.

261

262

ba r ba r a  r . walt e r s

(and vices) direct habits that become second nature through reflection and prayer (or the absence thereof) and repeated practice. Thereby the infused (the natural) and acquired virtues shape the receptive capacities of the human soul (potentiae animae) for animation and transformation by the free action and influence of the Holy Spirit.42 They instil in the believer dispositions requisite to the reception of the divine inspiration that facilitates the transcendence of established human modes of action. Sin, for Aquinas, disrupts the connection between the natural virtues and the theo­logical virtues of Faith, Hope, and Joy, creating the need for redemption. Accordingly, in the received tradition, the mystery of the Cross points to the central place of martyrdom among Christian virtues alongside patient endurance of suffering for the sake of Christ, which takes root and is cultivated by the infused human virtue of courage or fortitude.43 Men and women are thus redeemed through this sacrificial act or gift, and the sacrificial acts of Mary, and the martyrs, saints, and confessors, and, of course, the Eucharist.

Corpus Christi and Aquinas’s Homily on Luke 14: Shared Biblical Verses Biblical readings and biblical concords across the Office for the feast of Corpus Christi and other writings by Aquinas are essential to its interpretation for four reasons: (1) biblical reading and commentary, as noted, were intertwined with his daily prayer, devotional and intellectual life; (2) the precise biblical concords provide tools for the chrono­logical dating of his works, and especially for distinguishing the early from the late periods;44 (3) the biblical references and citations enable reading and interpreting the liturgical texts at multiple levels: the literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical;45 and (4) they furnish the substance for differentiation of human capacities in ‘hearing’, interpreting, and understanding; the resonance of the source chants results in multiple aural levels among the listeners: Qui habet aures audiendi (Whoever has ears let them hear) (Revelation 2. 17). In the early to mid-1980s, Bataillon and Zawilla worked extensively with the biblical concords between the Corpus Christi Office in BnF, MS lat. 1143 and Aquinas’s Sermon 13 on Luke 14. 16–23, Homo quidam fecit cenam.46

 42 Cessario, The Virtues, pp. 11–15; Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, IIa, Q68; Anderson, Christian Doctrine.  43 Cessario, The Virtues, p. 12; Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, IIa, Q124, A1–A2.  44 Bataillon, ‘Le Sermon inédit’; Zawilla, ‘Biblical Sources’, pp. 88–117; Walters, Corrigan, and Ricketts, Feast of Corpus Christi, pp. 72–73.  45 Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, Ia, Q1, A10; Thibodeau, ‘Enigmata Figurarum’, p. 75. Perhaps the most thorough review of the early and medi­eval literature on the four senses of scripture can be found in Lubac, Medi­eval Exegesis.  46 Aquinas, ‘Sermon 13’, trans by Hoogland.

r e a d i n g e s c h ato l­ o gy i n t h e fe ast o f co rpu s chri st i

Bataillon noted that the gospel text was rarely used in reference to the Eucharist prior to the Homo quidam fecit cenam homily, which was most likely delivered during Aquinas’s last years in Paris — that is, between 1268 and 1272.47 Bataillon used reasoning similar to that of Gy, who regarded the absence of a specific biblical passage, Matthew 28. 20, to be evidence for a different ‘thought school’ on the Eucharist between what is presented in the BnF, MS lat. 1143 version of the Office and the earlier versions. Especially the 1246 Liège version, Animarum cibus, interpreted the Eucharist in an entirely different way.48 The appearance of Luke 14. 16, paired with Proverbs 9. 5, as the text for the First Vespers short responsory signals its significance in the new Office composed by Aquinas and in his thinking about the Eucharist. As Zawilla and Bataillon have shown, the Homo quidam fecit cenam sermon and the BnF, MS lat. 1143 Office share many biblical sources.49 Zawilla dated the Corpus Christi Office as belonging among Aquinas’s late works based on his ‘diptych’ of biblical texts, their sources and their use within the author’s dossier, or collection of available texts upon which he relied for his writings at any given period. The texts used in Aquinas’s writings before 1264 rely primarily on the existing scholastic glosses and compendia; the text references in his later works follow from his extensive biblical studies and commentaries executed between 1264 and 1274, which include the Catena aurea. Both the liturgical Office in BnF, MS lat. 1143 and Aquinas’s Sermon 13 on Luke 14. 16–23 (Homo quidam fecit cenam), as well as the Summa and the Compendium, are best positioned in the dossier of texts coincident with and following his extensive biblical commentaries on which all rely, that is, the later dossier. For the scriptural Homo quidam fecit cenam (Luke 14. 16–23) sermon, Aquinas developed a complex tripartite structure to exhort on the Luke verses: a Prometha, a Sermo, and a Collatio in Sero.50 The short Prometha introduces the central topic of the sermon: spiritual versus physical delights. A brief quotation from Rev 2. 17 highlights the theme, ‘To the one who gains the victory I shall give the hidden manna.’ Aquinas then petitions the ‘generous distributor’ of this delight for proper words of praise. The petition is to Jesus Christ, represented in Luke 14. 16 as the man who gave a great banquet.

 47 Bataillon, ‘Le Sermon inédit’; Zawilla, ‘Biblical Sources’, pp. 88–117.  48 Gy, ‘Office liègeois et office romain’, pp. 117–26; Walters, ‘The Feast of Corpus Christi as a Site of Struggle’; the Animarum cibus version of the Office for Corpus Christi is trans­ mitted in The Hague, Koninklijke Bibl., MS 70.E.4.  49 Zawilla, ‘Biblical Sources’, pp. 88–117. Bataillon, ‘Le Sermon inédit’. A table of comparison for the shared biblical texts across the two-Office version, Sapientia (a)edificavit and Sacerdos in (a)eternum, can be found in Walters, Corrigan, and Ricketts, The Feast of Corpus Christi, pp. 67–74. The table does not include texts shared with the Homo quidam sermon, but there are twenty-five such texts.  50 Hoogland, ‘Introduction’, pp. 9–10.

263

264

ba r ba r a  r . walt e r s

Part II, the Sermo, interprets Luke 14. 16 by framing the banquet or meal with three questions: Who is the man who made the dinner? What kind of meal is it? In what way is it great? First, Aquinas identifies the man as Jesus: in the fullness of his knowledge and wisdom ‘not only according to his divinity, but according to his humanity as well’.51 Second, he describes the dinner as sacramental, intellectual, and spiritual refreshment, with considerable condensation of the structure and substance of ideas found in Summa I and III.52 And third, he addresses the three reasons for the greatness of the dinner: its magnificent provision, its delightful taste, and its results in virtue. Both Parts I and II of Aquinas’s Homo quidam fecit cenam share numerous concordances, twenty-five to be exact, with the biblical sources used in the Sacerdos in (a)eternum Office of BnF, MS lat. 1143.53 In Part III, the Collatio in Sero, Aquinas preaches on the scriptural verses in Luke 14. 16–23 in their entirety. Table 8.1 on p. 266 provides the full text of the verses from Luke along with the other biblical texts by topic used in the Collatio. Aquinas organized the biblical quotes and new texts for Part III around two main questions: Who is invited? How are they called? Each question has three distinctions or parts. As the first of two bookends, Aquinas distinguishes interior (intrinsic) vocations from external calls (extrinsic), that is, the difference between an ‘interior vocation, through which the Lord addresses man internally’, the intrinsic calling from inside, and ‘the other vocation, which occurs through an angel or a human being’, which is a less effective external calling.54 After his exegesis on the verses and manner of calling, as the other bookend, Aquinas concludes the Collatio with a brief description of the three modes of human extrinsic or external calling: preaching, teaching, and compelling. For the intrinsic calling, the allegorical servant in Luke 14. 16 is the Apostle Paul but also refers to ‘other preachers, prelates, and teachers: all such people who remind us of the good’.55 Those with an internal call cannot refuse: See that this dinner is not made known to anyone but to one who is called to it. One who is not called can approach the things that he knows and desires, but he cannot approach what exceeds our desire unless he is called. Such is this dinner.56  51 Aquinas, ‘Sermon 13’, trans by Hoogland, p. 173; Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, IIIa, Q9–12; Gaine, Did the Saviour See the Father?  52 Aquinas, ‘Sermon 13’, trans by Hoogland, pp. 179–83, 98 and notes 36–52.  53 See Walters, Corrigan, and Ricketts, The Feast of Corpus Christi, pp. 70–72 for a table indicating the concordances between this Office and Homo quidam fecit cenam (as well as other texts of Aquinas).  54 Aquinas, ‘Sermon 13’, trans by Hoogland, p. 184; Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, Ia, Q23, A2; Summa theo­logiae, Ia–IIae, Q112.  55 Aquinas, ‘Sermon 13’, trans by Hoogland, p. 185.  56 Aquinas, ‘Sermon 13’, trans by Hoogland, p. 184.

r e a d i n g e s c h ato l­ o gy i n t h e fe ast o f co rpu s chri st i

For the extrinsic calling, Aquinas used Luke 14. 17–20 to create a tripartite set of categories, that is, for those invited by the servant: the citizens, the downtrodden, and strangers (see Table 8.1). Here there are no shared biblical texts with the Corpus Christi Office version in BnF, MS lat. 1143. Using the biblical texts in the table, he offers three scriptural reasons why those initially invited, the citizens or important people, may be hindered from attending: pride, concupiscence of the eye, and concupiscence of the flesh. As detailed by the biblical texts in Table 8.1, the citizens invited by the servant who initially declined (Luke 14. 16–20) include the envious, the sensual and lustful, the proud, the haughty, the vain, the concupiscent, the greedy, the weak-willed, and those turned to the sensible world. In keeping with the theme of the Prometha, which is spiritual versus physical pleasure, for his commentary on Luke 14. 19, Aquinas chose the Augustinian interpretation of the five oxen as the five senses over Ambrose’s interpretation of these as the ‘five books of the Old Law’.57 Next, in Luke 14. 21, the servant is sent to invite the downtrodden: ‘Go to the streets and the broad ways of the city, and call the weak, the blind, and the lame […]. For the great do not arrive at the dinner and neither do the mighty, but the weak and the poor do.’58 Aquinas here used a rhetorical device central to the overall structure and meaning of the Office and the sermon. Those who are literally weak, blind, and lame shame the literally strong, the proud, and the rich; the latter may be blinded by sin, weak in virtues, and lame in strength of will. These are to be called by preaching and teaching. After the servant led the blind, lame, and deaf to the banquet, in Luke 14. 22–23, he is sent by the Master to those outside the flock, ‘to the highways and hedges’, allegorically speaking, to invite three categories of unbelievers: the Gentiles and heathens who do not share the faith, the heretics and ‘the Jews, who share with us […] the sacred doctrine in the Old Testament’, but for whom ‘the figurative observances have passed away’ and ‘have become scattered roads’.59 ‘Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in’ (Luke 14. 23). There are among them still others ‘predestined’ for the banquet.60 Aquinas treated this topic in the Summa using the same biblical quotation.61 There, however, the prose provides greater clarity and more elegant nuance. Unbelief results from an intellect inappropriately directed by the will. Heretics and apostates, ‘like diseases of the body’, are at the bottom of the moral hierarchy. They commit the most grievous of errors or sins because

 57 Aquinas, Catena aurea, ‘Luke’, ed. and trans. by John Henry Newman.  58 Isaiah 29. 18–19; Isaiah 35. 5–6; Matthew 11. 4–5; Luke 7. 22; John 5. 1–9.  59 Aquinas, ‘Sermon 13’, trans by Hoogland, p. 192.  60 Aquinas, ‘Sermon 13’, trans by Hoogland, p. 191.  61 Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, IIa–IIae, Q10, A8.

265

26 6

ba r ba r a  r . walt e r s Table 8.1. Sermon 13: Homo quidam fecit cenam magnam, Part III. Rows in grey are the texts from Luke 14. 16–23. Luke 14. 16–17 are concordant with the Corpus Christi Office of BnF 1143.

Biblical Passage

Theme

Luke 14. 16 Someone made a great dinner and invited many. i Cor. 2. 9

The eye has not seen, the ear has not heard … what God has prepared

Isa. 64. 3

No ear has ever heard …

Rom. 8. 30

Those he called he justified …

Job 14. 15

You would call and I would answer

John 6. 45

Everyone who listens to my father, comes to me

Prov. 1. 24

Because I called and you rejected

Matt. 20. 16 Many called, few chosen Luke 14. 17

At the time of the dinner, he sent his servant to say to the ones who were invited: Come.

Esther 1. 7

The ones invited to the feast drank from golden cups.

i John 2. 15

Do not love the world

i John 2. 16 Three ways people are hindered: pride, concupiscence of the eye, concupiscence of the flesh Ezek. 28. 17 Exalted is your heart because of your ornament. Jer. 5. 5

You will speak to their aristocrats and, behold, they have broken the yoke of the counsels and have torn the bonds.

Luke 14. 18

I have bought a house and I am going to see it.

i Cor. 4. 7

What do you have that you have not received?

John 3. 27

Whatever you have you have from God.

Hos. 2. 8

I have multiplied for them silver and gold which they made into Baal.

Luke 14. 19 I have bought five yoke of oxen and I am going to try them out. Ezek. 16. 15 You have trusted in your ornament; you have committed fornication. Isa. 22. 12

On that day the Lord will call you to weeping and mourning.

Matt. 5. 4–5 Happy are those who lament for they shall be comforted. Isa. 1. 11

What do I care for your sacrifices?

Isa. 22. 13

Let us eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we shall die.

Luke 14. 20 The one who married a wife and could not come. Gal. 5. 17

The flesh desires against the spirit, the spirit against the flesh.

Luke 12. 47 Servant who knows the will of the master and does not do it, until he be flogged with many lashes.

r e a d i n g e s c h ato l­ o gy i n t h e fe ast o f co rpu s chri st i

Biblical Passage

Theme

Luke 14. 21

And the paterfamilias was furious when he heard that the ones invited did not want to come. Go to the streets and the broad ways of the city, and call the weak, the blind, and the lame … For the great do not arrive at the dinner and neither do the mighty, but the weak and the poor do.

i Cor. 1. 27

God has chosen those who are the weak of the world to shame whatever is strong.

Lam. 4. 1

Scattered are the stones of the sanctuary on the corner of all the broad ways.

Rev. 3. 17

You say that I am rich and do not need anything, yet do not know that you are wretched (miserable, poor, blind, and naked).

Prov. 14. 34 Sin makes people wretched. ii Tim. 3. 4 The ones who love pleasure more than God are swollen and blind. Neh. 4. 4

Weak is the virtue of the one who carries heavy loads.

i Kings 18. 21 How long will you be lame, in two minds? Luke 14. 22 There is still room. John 10. 16

I have other sheep, which are not from this flock.

Luke 14. 23 Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in. Prov. 4. 19

The ways of the godless are dark.

John 12. 35

There is still a little light in you.

Isa. 33. 8

Scattered are the roads.

Gal. 5. 2

If you let yourself be circumcised, Christ will bring you nothing.

Luke 14. 23 Heretics in the hedges i Tim. 5. 1

Do not chide an old man, but honour him as your father.

Eccl. 10. 29

Give honour to the wise man.

Exod. 23. 23 Behold, I will send my angel to go before your face so as to protect you as well as to lead you into the place. Luke 14. 23 Go out in the highways and hedges, and compel them to enter. Mark 16. 17 Signs are not given to believers, but to unbelievers. Ps. 32. 9

(Be not senseless like horses or mules) jaws in bridle and bit (that is how their temper must be curbed).

Isa. 28. 19

Only distress will give understanding to the hearing.

Jer. 13. 27 or Woe to you, Jerusalem, how long will it be before you come clean? Hos. 8. 5 How long will they be unable to attain innocence in Israel?

267

26 8

ba r ba r a  r . walt e r s

they have wilfully turned away from the truth,62 and they are thus to be compelled to attend the banquet, perhaps even subject to bodily compulsion: Alii vero sunt infideles qui quandoque fidem susceperunt et eam profitentur, sicut haeretici vel quicumque apostatae. Et tales sunt etiam corporaliter compellendi ut impleant quod promiserunt et teneant quod semel susceperunt.63 (Others are unbelievers who once accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such cases should be subjected even to bodily compulsion, that they may be constrained to what they have promised and held to what they once received.) Heathens and Jews receive less harsh treatment, especially heathens who have never heard of the faith, according to Aquinas. Jews who ‘have never received the faith’ should not be compelled, since faith hinges on the will. Moreover, their ancient rites should be tolerated in part because they prefigure those of the Church.64 However, Jews who have received the faith and then turned back may be compelled in the same manner as other apostates.65 In contrast to the numerous shared texts from Scripture that connect the Corpus Christi Office liturgy to the Prometha and Sermo of Sermon 13 (Homo quidam fecit cenam), no shared biblical texts connect the Office liturgy and the Collatio in Sero, save the exact words of Luke 14. 16–27. This telescopes those who decline: the turning away of their will and their consequent exclusion outside the tabernacle of the Eucharist. Table 8.1 highlights the exclusions through the complete absence of biblical concords for the Collatio, which contrasts sharply with the numerous concords across the BnF, MS lat. 1143 Office and the Prometha and Sermo, which were initially used by Bataillon and Gy to confirm Aquinas’s authorship. Hoogland, the translator of the homily, perhaps offered the most succinct interpretation for the inclusions and omissions through nuances in distinctions among those receiving intrinsic calls versus an extrinsic call from the servant. There are differences in species among those who ‘hear’ the scripture and enact habits of virtue through the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and those who do not: In the Collatio in sero of Sermon 13 on Luke 14.16, ‘Someone gave a great dinner and invited many’, Thomas speaks of the question of who is invited. The text shows that according to Thomas the Church is an  62 Stow, ‘The Church and the Jews’, pp. 212–13.  63 Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, IIa–IIae, Q10, A8. Heretics in Aquinas’s time especially included the Cathars, against whom the Dominicans preached.  64 Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, IIa–IIae, Q10, A11.  65 This topic receives extensive treatment with documentation in a recent book: Descosimo, Ethics as a Work of Charity. A thorough summary of the analysis contained therein exceeds the limitations of this brief chapter.

r e a d i n g e s c h ato l­ o gy i n t h e fe ast o f co rpu s chri st i

inclusive community; for instance, referring to Ambrose, Thomas endorses that sinners must not be cut out, but rather must be invited in. Therefore, the servant in the gospel who was sent, and thus Thomas’s audience, must go to great lengths to gather everybody in. Educating the ignorant is an obvious method for a Dominican. Thomas is an ardent preacher when it comes to defending the faith and religious life, but at the same time he is not rigorous. Thomas is reluctant to use violence towards sinners and even towards heretics; since the latter are a great danger for the unity of the Church and the salvation of the people, they must be converted: first by convincing them by means of words and signs, and only eventually by giving them a hard time.66 Thus, in the Sermo (Part II), Aquinas used scripture to describe the spiritual refreshment of the Eucharist, with multiple verses shared across the reading from Luke and the Corpus Christi Office antiphons and responsories. In the Collatio (Part III), by contrast, the absence of shared biblical texts and their contents suggests an allegory for those who do not receive the invitation to the banquet and those who decline, an allegory corroborated by the moral theo­logy proclaimed in the Summa. Overall, the two works taken together illustrate the scriptural anchors for Aquinas’s ‘nature-grace paradigm’.67 He sees the interior or ‘intrinsic’ vocation as a gift from God — a sign of predestination, and not all are called. Among those who receive an external or ‘extrinsic’ call, not all reply with a turning of the will. And not all receive or heed the invitation issued by other humans or angels. On this complex point concerning imperfect human knowledge of God and imperfect happiness, Thomas White writes with succinct eloquence: First, the natural desire for the vision of God is a rational, philosophical desire and is distinct from the hope for the beatific vision inspired by the infused philosophical virtues, but just for this reason, the latter is not extrinsic to the former natural disposition and desire […]. Here Aristotelianism allows Aquinas to avoid a pure grace-nature extrinsicism. […] Second, yet for this very reason (because the teleo­logical openness to God is inscribed in our nature) the pursuit of our natural end is not indicative of any inclination toward the formally supernatural as such. Grace remains entirely transcendent of our natural powers, innate inclinations and proportionate ends.68

 66 Hoogland, ‘Introduction’, pp. 15–17.  67 White, ‘Imperfect Happiness’.  68 White, ‘Imperfect Happiness’, pp. 250–51.

269

270

ba r ba r a  r . walt e r s

Table 8.2. Chants of Sacerdos in aeternum (BnF, MS lat. 1143) and their sources. Information regarding The Golden Legend taken from de Voragine, The Golden Legend, trans. by William Granger Ryan.

 Chant Text & Source Chant Text Source Chant

Source Chant Theme

first vespers Antiphon 1

Sacerdos in eternum Office of the Trinity: Contra Gloria tibi Trinitas Vespers, antiphon 1

Liège Office; among the first rhymed numerical offices.

Antiphon 2 Miserator Dominus Contra Totus orbis

Thomas of Canterbury: Lauds, antiphon 2

Monk and Martyr.

Antiphon 3 Calicem salutaris Contra Pudore bono

Saint Nicholas: Matins, 1st nocturn, antiphon 3

Generosity: Anonymous gift to the father of three daughters to preserve chastity.

Antiphon 4 Sicut novelle Contra Iuste et sancte vivendo

St Nicholas: Lauds, antiphon 3

Grace: Advanced to the priesthood.

Antiphon 5 Qui pacem point Contra Innocenter puerilia iura

St Nicholas: Matins, 2nd nocturn, antiphon 5

Knowledge: A disciple of the teaching of the gospel.

Respond

Saint Catherine: Matins, 2nd nocturn, responsory 6

Virgin: Scourged, tortured, and jailed. Miracle: Heavenly light, sweet smell, heavenly hosts sing.

St Nicholas: 2nd Vespers, Magnificat

Saint: The miracle of oil from his tomb that cures illnesses.

Homo quidam Contra Virgo flagellator

Magnificat O quam suavis antiphon Contra O Christi pietas matins, first nocturn Invitatory

Christum regem Contra Christum regem regum adoremus

St Andrew: Invitatory St Peter: Invitatory

Andrew: Apostle and Martyr. ------Peter: Apostle and Martyr.

Antiphon 1

Fructum salutiferum Contra Granum cadens

St Thomas of Canterbury: Lauds, antiphon 1

An abundance of grain and emission of sweet-smelling oil.

Antiphon 2 A fructu frumenti Contra Novus homo

Humility: St Thomas: Matins, 1st nocturn, antiphon 2 Hair-shirted.

Antiphon 3 Communione calicis Contra Crescente etate

St Bernard: Lauds, antiphon 2

Wisdom and Grace.

27 1

r e a d i n g e s c h ato l­ o gy i n t h e fe ast o f co rpu s chri st i

Notes from The Golden Legend

Mode

 

1

GL, pp. 59–61: Humility, teaching (knowledge and conduct) and prudence Martyred for justice Miracles: blind saw, the deaf heard, the lame walked, the dead brought back to life.

2

GL, pp. 21–27: Bishop of Myra Miracles: Marble tomb: oil flowed from the head, water from the feet; holy oil issues from his members to bring health

3

GL, pp. 21–27: Humility, counsel.

4

GL, pp. 21–27: [See 1st Vespers, antiphon 3]

5

GL II, pp. 720–27: Martyr: Via good works fashioned a chain with four steps: innocence, purity, humility, honesty. Exemplar: wisdom, eloquence, constancy, chastity, privileged dignity.

6

GL, pp. 21–27: [See 1st Vespers, antiphon 3]

6

GL, pp. 13–21: Prayers restored sight to Matthew in Ethiopia; Crucified by Aegeus. Miracle: Dazzling light; flour-like manna and sweet-smelling oil from the tomb. GL, 340–49: Primate of Rome; received the keys from the Lord. Crucified with his head toward the earth by Nero.

4

GL, pp. 59–61: [See 1st Vespers, antiphon 2]

1

GL, pp. 59–61: [See 1st Vespers, antiphon 2]

2

GL, pp. 484–93: Cistercian monk, preacher Fervent love, humility, well of knowledge, spring of outflow of doctrine, a sweet-smelling fragrance of good renown

3

272

ba r ba r a  r . walt e r s

 Chant Text & Source Chant Text Source Chant Responsory Immolabit dedum Contra 1 Te sanctum Dominum  

All Saints: Matins, 2nd nocturn, responsory 1

Source Chant Theme All Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim.  

St Michael Archangel: Matins, 3rd nocturn, responsory 9; 1st Vespers, responsory Responsory Comedetis carnes 2 Contra Stirps Iesse

Mary: Matins, 3rd nocturn, responsory 10 (different manuscript traditions)

Root of Jesse, shoot and flower (virgin mother and her son).

Responsory Respexit Helyas 3 Contra Videte miraculum matris Domini

Purification of Mary: 1st Vespers, responsory

Virgin conceived without a male consort. Chastity.

Common of Virgins: Matins, 2nd nocturn, responsory 1

Virgins praise and sing before the throne of God.

second nocturn Antiphon 1

Memor sit Dominus Contra In celis gaudent virgins et cantant canticum

Antiphon 2 Paratur nobis Contra Santuis sanctorum martyrum pro Christo

Common of Martyrs: Matins, Blood of holy martyrs. 2nd nocturn, antiphon 1

Antiphon 3 In voce exultationis All Saints: Contra O quam gloriosum 1st Vespers, antiphon 2 (up a fifth) est regnum

Faithful dressed in white garments.

Responsory Panis quem 1 Contra Deus qui sedes super thronos et iudicas

Sundays: Matins, 1st nocturn, responsory 2

God who sits on a throne and judges equity, a plea for the poor.

Responsory Cenantiubus illis 2 Contra Qui cum audissent

St Nicholas: Matins, 2nd nocturn, responsory 5

Worthy follower of God.  

Responsory Accepit Ihesus 3 Contra Virtute multa

St Bernard

Words of heavenly wisdom.

27 3

r e a d i n g e s c h ato l­ o gy i n t h e fe ast o f co rpu s chri st i

Notes from The Golden Legend

Mode

GL, pp. 658–66: Four quarters of the world, four categories of saints: East for apostles, South for martyrs, North confessors, West for virgins. GL, pp. 587–97: St Michael receives souls of the saints and leads them to paradise; Christ’s standard-bearer among the battalion of holy angels; at the sound of his voice, the dead will rise; he will present the cross, the nails, the spear, and the crown of thorns at the Day of Judgement.

1

GL, pp. 535–44: Mary, a descendant of David’s father, Jesse, the tribe of Judah, and also, through kinship, to the tribe of Levi. The tree of Jesse from the book of Isaiah relates the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.

2

GL, pp. 143–51: The soul of the male child enters the body on the 40th day; thus, the infant enters the temple. Mary was exempt; however, she wanted to submit to the law for four reasons: obedience to the law, an example of humility, an example of virtue, an example of poverty.

3

GL, pp. 658–66: All Saints [See 1st nocturn, responsory 1] Virgins (West): GL, pp. 664–66: Brides compared to angels; they alone have golden crowns and sing canticles. Mary leads the procession, followed by virgins.

4

GL, pp. 658–66: [See 1st nocturn, responsory 1] Martyrs [South] GL, pp. 662–63: Martyrs follow the apostles as soldiers; with charity, truth, and fortitude, they show more strength than their torturers.

5

GL, pp. 658–66:

6

 

4

GL, pp. 23–24: [See 1st Vespers, antiphon 3] Secured release of three princes unjustly arrested.

5

GL, pp. 484–93: [See 1st nocturn, antiphon 1]

6

2 74

ba r ba r a  r . walt e r s

 Chant Text & Source Chant Text Source Chant

Source Chant Theme

third nocturn Antiphon 1

Introibo ad altare Dei Contra Ascdendo ad Patrem meum

Ascension

‘I ascend to my father’.

Antiphon 2 Cibavit os Dominus Contra O per Omnia laudabilem virum

St Nicholas: Lauds, antiphon 5

Merits freed others from disaster.

Antiphon 3 Ex altari tuo Contra Gloriam mundi sprevit

St Nicholas: Matins, 2nd nocturn, antiphon 5

Raised to the highest level of priesthood.

Responsory Qui manducat 1 Contra Felix vitis

Saint Dominic: Matins, 3rd nocturn, responsory 7

Fruitful vine, overflowing shoot, passing the wine of heaven.

Responsory Misit me pater 2 Contra Verbum caro factum est

Nativity/​ Circumcision: Matins, 2nd nocturn, responsory 6

Word made flesh.

Responsory Unus panis 3 Contra Ex eius tumba

St Nicholas: Matins, 3rd nocturn, responsory 9

From his tomb, a holy oil: blind cured, deaf given back hearing, lame returned to health.

Sapientia edificavit Contra Adest dies

Saint Dominic: Lauds, antiphon 1

Dominic enters the hall of the celestial court.

Antiphon 2 Angelorum esca Contra Pauper esca

St Dominic: Lauds, antiphon 2

Poor in belongings, rich in pure life.

Antiphon 3 Pinguis est panis Contra Scala cello

St Dominic: Lauds, antiphon 3

A ladder to the heavens is revealed.

Antiphon 4 Sacerdos sancti Contra Ingressus angelus

Annunciation of Mary

Hail Mary, full of grace.

Antiphon 5 Vincenti dabo Contra Ex quo omnia

Office of the Trinity Matins, 2nd nocturn

[See 1st Vespers, antiphon 1]

Benedictus Ego sum panis antiphon Contra Pax eterna

Office of the Dedication

Eternal peace.

lauds Antiphon 1

27 5

r e a d i n g e s c h ato l­ o gy i n t h e fe ast o f co rpu s chri st i

Notes from The Golden Legend

Mode

GL, pp. 291–98: Forty days after the resurrection

7

GL, pp. 21–27: [See 1st Vespers, antiphon 3]

8

GL, pp. 21–27: [See 1st Vespers, antiphon 3]

6

GL, pp. 430–44: States: layman, canon, confessor, apostle, monk, Founder of the Dominicans, d. 1221 Fruitful vine, pruned, per John 15; preached against heretics; fruit symbolizes the Eucharist. [In 1st nocturn, responsory 1, confessors follow martyrs]

7  

GL, pp. 71–78: Octave of the birth of Christ; New name.

8

GL, pp. 21–27: [See 1st Vespers, antiphon 3]

1

GL, pp. 430–44: [See 3rd nocturn, responsory 1] Testament: ‘have charity, keep humility, and possess poverty’.

1

GL, pp. 430–44: [See 3rd nocturn, responsory 1]

2

GL, pp. 430–44: [See 3rd nocturn, responsory 1] Prior Gaulis saw the heavens open, two white ladders extended to earth, one held by Christ and the other by the BV; St Dominic seated between them at the bottom.

3

GL, pp. 535–44: [See 1st nocturn, responsory 2]

4

 

5

GL, pp. 771–82.

1

2 76

ba r ba r a  r . walt e r s

 Chant Text & Source Chant Text Source Chant

Source Chant Theme

fourth nocturn (monastic): follows mass in BNF 1143 Antiphon 1

Memoriam fecit Contra Paradisi porta

Mary-Assumption 1st Vespers, Magnificat antiphon

Virgin Mary opens the Gate of Paradise.

Antiphon 2 Memoria mea Contra Patefacte sunt lanue celi

St Stephen 2nd Vespers, Magnificat antiphon

Gates opened to St Stephen, the first in the number of saints. Trumpets and crowns.

Antiphon 3 Qui habit aures Contra Post plurima supplicia martyr alma

Saint Catherine Lauds, antiphon 2

Beheading of St Catherine.

Responsory Melchisedech vero 1 Contra Regnum mundi

Common of Virgins Disdaining the power of the Matins, 2nd nocturn, responsory 4 world.

Responsory Calix benedictionis Blessed Mary 2 Contra Solem iusticie regem

Mary, Star of the Sea, proceeds East.

Responsory Ego sum panis 3 Contra Vulneraverat caritas Christi cor eius

The love of Christ pierced his heart.

Saint Augustine Matins, 3rd nocturn, responsory 7

The Chant Sources What makes the Office in BnF, MS lat. 1143 so very special, what imparts to it the fingerprint of Aquinas, are the texts of each musical item in the Sacerdos in (a)eternum liturgy, which are set to the music of an existing chant (‘contrafaction’). Marginal notations in BnF, MS lat. 1143 supply the incipits of existing chants in the Sanctorale repertory from which the melodies for the new texts were drawn. Contemporary Dominicans and Cistercian nuns confirm that the ideal speaker-hearer of the Office, up to the present day, recollects the text of the source chants associated with the melodies as well as the seasonal location of particular melodies associated with feast days earlier in the liturgical year, for example, Good Friday.69 These reveal the particulars of Aquinas’s prayer and devotional life and thus add still another layer of meaning, which complements the eucharistic theo­logy in the newly composed texts, the homily on Luke 14, and the Summa III. Table 8.2 provides the source chants on which Sacerdos in (a)eternum is based. Where these are drawn from saints’ feasts (the Sanctorale as opposed to the Temporale), the venerated saintly exemplars (from the Golden Legend) are identified. Short notes on each reference the material in the source chants identified in BnF, MS lat. 1143. Short notes for each named  69 Fassler, Gothic Song.

r e a d i n g e s c h ato l­ o gy i n t h e fe ast o f co rpu s chri st i

Notes from The Golden Legend

27 7

Mode

GL, pp. 463–83: Assumption of Mary at Mount Sinai: An angel, then John, apostles ‘snatched up into clouds and then appear’, then Jesus with angels, prophets, martyrs, confessors, and virgins.

1

GL, pp. 426–30: Archdeacon and First Martyr Sweet odour; oil, healing of the sick.

8

GL, pp. 720–27: Oil issues from her bones, instead of blood.

3

GL, pp. 658–66: All Saints [See 1st nocturn, responsory 1]

5

GL, pp. 535–44:

1  

GL, pp. 502–18: In his Confessions: he says, ‘You have pierced my heart with the arrow of your love’.

7

saint, summarized from the Golden Legend in a separate column, depict virtues and acts for each, which model both the infused and acquired natural virtues (temperance, justice, prudence, and courage) and the infused theo­ logical virtues (faith, hope, and caritas) of those called by God. The notes or source chant text notes also identify specific miracles associated with the saint. The source chants include the full spectrum of saintly exemplars, as noted in the Golden Legend: martyrs, apostles, priests and confessors, and virgins.70 Mary, the mother of Jesus, holds an especially prominent place in the source chants of the first and fourth nocturns, which reflects the celestial endowments attributed to her in the Golden Legend. The literal and allegorical lame, blind, and deaf, provide material for several tropes. Furthermore, almost all of the saintly exemplar texts associate miraculous works through the emission of oil and a sweet odour from their bones or tombs. Overall there is a clear theme of redemptive acts, thus emphasizing the salvific power of the Eucharist. Smith, corroborates the interpretation: The redemptive power of saints is engrained in the way of life and the unique path to holiness for individual Dominican saints who were, in part, formed by and formed the liturgical life of the Order.71  70 Voragine, The Golden Legend, ii, pp. 270–80.  71 Smith, ‘Dominican Chant’, p. 968.

278

ba r ba r a  r . walt e r s

Especially compelling evidence for the allegorical and tropo­logical interpretations is the representation of the ‘ascension of St Nicolas’, who begins in First Vespers Antiphon 3 in mode 3, with a gift to save three women from prostitution. He ascends through Antiphons 4 and 5, in modes 4 and 5, to the priesthood and then to the status of teacher and preacher. He travels with the Vespers antiphon to mode 6 via the melody from the Magnificat antiphon and a source text on the miracles produced by oil emanating from his tomb. St Nicolas ‘returns’ to mode 1 in the third responsory of the third nocturn of Matins to the melody and text of ‘Unus panis et unis corpus’ with a source chant text that combines the miracle of oil from his tomb and a text taken partially from John 5. 1–13: From his marble tomb there exudes a holy oil, smeared with which the blind are cured, the deaf are given back hearing, the lame person is returned to health. V. In throngs the people rush in, desiring to see what miracles are done through him.

Summary and Conclusions If Aquinas paired the liturgical melodies identified in the marginalia of BnF, MS lat. 1143 with new texts to fit the latter to the former like a tunic, he selected source chant texts to intersect with his moral and eschato­logical theo­logy with the precision of a puzzle. The source chant texts provide snippets of redemption from the historia of saintly exemplars — snippets that vividly illuminate infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the fruits, and the beatitudes. They impart to the liturgy for the Corpus Christi Office an additional layer of meaning — one unique to the fingerprint of Aquinas, thereby exposing his interior life of devotion and prayer. The texts from the Office of Nicolas of Myra in particular detail virtuous deeds but especially the supernatural grace close to Aquinas’s heart: the protection of chastity, and the apocryphal ‘sweet-smelling myrrh’ — like the oil placed in the tomb of Jesus by Mary — that emitted from Nicolas’s tomb, the latter’s protection of Christian orthodoxy in Myra against the Arian heresy, his special veneration among the Dominicans, his patronage of students, and his hidden benefactions.72 Many have commented on the beauty of the sea in Naples and Aquinas’s sense of the location as the ‘home’ to which he adjourned during his final year in Naples, 1272–1273. There, his

 72 Kwasniewski, ‘A Tale of Two Wonderworkers’.

r e a d i n g e s c h ato l­ o gy i n t h e fe ast o f co rpu s chri st i

favourite place of prayer was the chapel of St Nicolas in the church of San Domenico.73 Other source chant texts in the Office align to depict in segments the full spectrum of saints alongside signs of moments in the life and death of Jesus as the Messiah: virgins, apostles, martyrs, and confessors, centred perhaps on the first responsory of first Matins, which connects the Paschal lamb to source texts from the Offices of both All Saints and the Archangel St Michael, guardian of heaven’s gate. Aquinas thereby evokes an otherworldly vision of the blessed and the viaticum amid a distraught thirteenth-century world torn asunder by Inquisitorial and other forms of violence, violence that struck for him very close to home and family.74 Most striking among the saints’ lives portrayed in the source chants is the total absence of the use of physical force among them; there are no military heroes or warriors. The Office liturgy, like the scriptural sources of the main text on the Eucharist, can and should be read at different levels, as Aquinas himself would have it: ‘the historical or literal’, and ‘the spiritual’, which ‘has a three-fold division’: ‘so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense’, and insofar ‘as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense’, and, insofar as the words ‘signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense’.75 Durand and other contemporaries of Aquinas likewise ‘followed the Patristic exegetical enumeration of the “four senses” of the Bible’ and noted the appropriateness of applying the same hermeneutical methods to the Divine Office.76 Aquinas’s moral theo­logy, per the brief synopsis of Summa theo­logiae IIa–IIae, includes infused virtues and gifts, perfected by habits, which might, through grace, be actualized and transformed in this world to fruits and beatitudes.77 The source chant texts of the Corpus Christi Office might, in this context, be viewed as historical figures hidden from view or spiritual types, illuminating the path of a deepening relationship to Christ. More subtle and elusive, is the ‘I–Thou’ relationship to God and its potential closure by will and revelation at the time of death. The latter connects the individual human spirit to the Christ and anchors Aquinas’s theo­logy and prayer life in his living relationship to God, mirroring the Hypostatic Union in Jesus.

 73 Kwasniewski, ‘A Tale of Two Wonderworkers’.  74 Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, i, p. 3, notes that his eldest brother was put to death by Frederick II in 1246.  75 Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, Ia, Q1, A2.  76 Thibodeau, ‘Enigmata Figurarum’, pp. 71–72.  77 Conrad, The Catholic Faith; Feingold, The Natural Desire to See God; Gaine, Did the Saviour See the Father?; Pinsent, The Second-Person Perspective in Aquinas’s Ethics; White, ‘Imperfect Happiness’; Wilms, Divine Friendship, trans. by Fulgence.

27 9

280

ba r ba r a  r . walt e r s

The relational understanding girds the anagogical reading or eschato­logy,78 as noted by Dom Ansgar Vonier early in the twentieth century: Hypostatic Union took place in order to cause in Christ’s human soul such bliss, such lights, as to make of it in its turn the direct source and cause of all the bliss and all the light that will flood the minds of the elect, in the clear vision of God, for all eternity. […] Unless Christ had been endowed with beatific vision He could not have been happy in Himself; He could not have become to us the efficient cause of our own vision of God; He could not have possessed that double entirety of glorified humanity that makes Him what He is.79 This complements a statement from Aquinas, who said concerning Jesus: The beatific vision and knowledge are to some extent above the nature of the rational soul, inasmuch as it cannot reach it of its own strength; but in another way it is in accordance with its nature, inasmuch as it is capable of it by nature, having been made to the likeness of God, as stated above. But the uncreated knowledge is in every way above the nature of the human soul.80 The beatific vision of Jesus was central to the full identity of the Christ in Aquinas’s theo­logy, that is, of Christ as both comprehensor, one who possessed a vision of God, and viator, a human learner.81 The real presence as transubstantiation in the Eucharist and the identity of Jesus as Messiah, as both human and divine, formed the epicentre of Aquinas’s life and work. And the latter both shaped and were shaped by the thinking at the epicentre of Christendom on the watershed of the doctrinal auctoritas dividing faith from heresy in the thirteenth century. He articulated themes of human existence as lived between the Fourth Lateran Council in 1216 until his death in 1274 amidst the fissures that continued through to the Council of Vienne in 1311–1312. Miri Rubin describes the central miracle of the medi­eval Ecclesia, the Eucharist, as a ritual — one that transformed a ‘small, fragile, wheaten disc […] into God’, a ‘symbol’ for which ‘over hundreds of years, and all over Europe, people lived and died, armies marched, and bodies were tormented or controlled by a self-imposed asceticism’.82 Early hagio­graphic witnesses interpreted Aquinas’s mystical experience while celebrating Mass in the chapel of Saint-Nicolas in Naples on 6 December 1273, as perhaps a final beatific vision. Reginald, his secretary, reported that Aquinas underwent a profound change after that. As is well known, Aquinas told Reginald that he was abandoning his work: ‘Et subi  78 Pinsent, The Second-Person Perspective in Aquinas’s Ethics.  79 Vonier, The Personality of Christ, p. 101.  80 Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, IIIa, Q9, A2.  81 Gaine, Did the Saviour See the Father?  82 Rubin, Corpus Christi, p. 1.

r e a d i n g e s c h ato l­ o gy i n t h e fe ast o f co rpu s chri st i

unsix sibi: “Omnia que scripsi videntur michi palee respectu eorum que vidi et revelata sunt michi”’ (And he added, ‘All I have written seems like straw compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me’).83 More contemporary historical explanations of the vision in the chapel, such as Torrell’s, support a thesis first put forward by Aquinas bio­grapher Weisheipl, who suggested extreme physical exhaustion and nervous fatigue, coupled with the mystical experiences that punctuated the last year of his life, may provide the most plausible interpretation.84 However, as Bernard McGinn notes, the ‘medi­eval and modern explanations are by no means mutually exclusive’.85 By analogy, the colossal edifice and elaborate architectonic of Aquinas’s celestial hierarchy, replete with apostles, saints, martyrs, angels, and purely spiritual beings, were, after all, grounded in an intellectual field where the earth formed a centre around which all other matter revolved. In the context of postmodern scientific paradigms, based on empirical results, these can only be deconstructed in their socio-historical context and reassembled in pieces for contemporary multi-purposing. The liturgy for the Office of the feast of Corpus Christi, by contrast, towers above the disassembling forces of human history: it stands as an astonishing aesthetic contribution that condenses, summarizes, and continues to speak clearly in the voice of the ‘dumb ox’ — the most brilliant and erudite theo­logian of the thirteenth century — on the topic of the Eucharist. His beatific vision therein was not one of sudden revelation, but rather one formed from a lifetime of daily prayer and devotion. In his last recorded statement, Aquinas himself speaks to the main point: Summo te pretium redemptionis anime mee, sumo te viaticum peregrinationis mee, pro cuius amore studui, vigilavi et laboravi et predicavi et docui; nichil unquam contra te dixi, et si quid male dixi, totum relinquo correctioni ecclesie Romane.86 (I receive you, price of my soul’s redemption. I receive you, viaticum of my pilgrimage, for love of whom I have studied, watched, and laboured; I have preached you, I have taught you, never have I said anything against you, and if I have done so, I submit this to the judgment of the Holy Roman Church.) Aquinas stands firmly within the authentic heritage of Catholic doctrine, ‘an Aristotelian philosophical realism regarding the imperfection of human natural capacities for happiness redounding a deepened Augustinian sense of the sheer gratuity of grace and supernatural beatitude, a life beyond what any human eye has seen, ear has heard, or heart imagined’.87  83 Fontes Vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis, lxxix, p. 377; McGinn, Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theo­ logiae, p. 37.  84 Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, i, pp. 289–94; Weisheipl, Friar Thomas Aquino, pp. 320–24.  85 McGinn, Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theo­logiae, p. 38.  86 Fontes Vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis, lxxx, p. 379.  87 White, ‘Imperfect Happiness’, p. 289.

281

282

ba r ba r a  r . walt e r s

Works Cited Manuscripts and Archival Sources The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, MS 70.E.4 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fonds latin 755 —— , MS fonds latin 1143 Prague, Abbey of Strahov, MS D.E.I.7 Primary Sources Augustine, ‘Book ii’. Commentary on the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount with Seventeen Related Sermons, ed. by Denis J. Kavanagh (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1951), pp. 109–200 Corrigan, Vincent, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds Latin 1143 (Ottawa: The Institute of Medi­eval Music, 2001) Fontes vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis notis historicis et criticis illustrati, ed. by D. M. Prümmer (Toulouse: Privat, 1912) ‘Humbert of Romans’ Treatise on the Formation of Preachers’, in Early Dominicans: Selected Writings, ed. and with an introduction by Simon Tugwell (New York: Paulist Press), pp. 179–370 Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints, trans. by William Granger Ryan and Eamon Duffy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012) Thomas Aquinas, Catena aurea, Commentary on the Four Gospels Collected Out of the Works of the Fathers, ed. and trans. by John Henry Newman, 4 vols (Isle of Man: Baronius Press, 2010) —— , Compendium of Theo­logy, trans. by Richard J. Regan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) —— , ‘Sermon 13: Homo quidam fecit cenam magnam’, in Thomas Aquinas, The Academic Sermons, trans. by Mark-Robin Hoogland, The Fathers of the Church Mediaeval Continuation 11 (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 2010), pp. 171–94 —— , Summa theo­logiae, trans. by Laurence Shapcote, ed. by Mortensen and Alarcon, Latin/​English Edition of the Works of St Thomas Aquinas (Lander, WY: The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012) Ystoria sancti Thome de Aquino de Guillaume de Tocco (1323), ed. by Claire le BrunGouanvic (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medi­eval Studies, 1996) Secondary Works Anderson, Gary A., Christian Doctrine and the Old Testament: Theo­logy in the Service of Biblical Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017) Bataillon, Louis-Jacques, ‘Le Sermon inédit de saint Thomas “Homo quidam fecit cenam magnam”: introduction et édition’, Revue des sciences philosophiques et théo­logiques, 67 (1983), 353–69

r e a d i n g e s c h ato l­ o gy i n t h e fe ast o f co rpu s chri st i

Bonniwell, William R., A History of the Dominican Liturgy, 1215–1945 (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1945) Cessario, Romanus, The Virtues, or the Examined Life (London: Continuum, 2002) Conrad, Richard, The Catholic Faith: A Dominican’s Vision (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1995) Delaissé, Léon Marie Joseph, ‘À la recherche des origines de l’office du Corpus Christi dans les manuscrits liturgiques’, Scriptorium, 4 (1950), 220–39 Descosimo, David, Ethics as a Work of Charity: Thomas Aquinas and Pagan Virtue (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2014) Fassler, Margot, Gothic Song: Victorine Sequences and Augustinian Reform in TwelfthCentury Paris (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) Feingold, Lawrence, The Natural Desire to See God According to St Thomas Aquinas and His Interpreters (Ave Maria: Sapientia Press, 2010) Foster, Kenelm, The Life of Saint Thomas Aquinas: Bio­graphical Documents (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1959) Gaine, Simon Francis, Did the Saviour See the Father? Christ, Salvation and the Vision of God (London: Bloomsbury, 2015) Gy, Pierre-Marie, ‘L’Office du Corpus Christi et s. Thomas d’Aquin: Etat d’une recherche’, Revue des sciences philosophiques et théo­logiques, 64 (1983), 491–507 —— , ‘Office liègeois et office romain de la Fête-Dieu’, in Fête-Dieu (1246–1996), i: Actes du Colloque de Liège, ed. by André Haquin (Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut d’Études Médiévales de l’Université Catholique de Louvain, 1999), 117–26 Hoogland, Mark-Robin, ‘Introduction’, in Thomas Aquinas, The Academic Sermons, trans. by Mark-Robin Hoogland, The Fathers of the Church Mediaeval Continuation 11 (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 2010), pp. 3–20 Hughes, Andrew, ‘Modal Order and Disorder in the Rhymed Office’, Musica disciplina, 37 (1983), 29–51 —— , ‘Chants in the Rhymed Office of St Thomas of Canterbury’, Early Music, 16 (1988), 185–201 Kilmartin, Edward J., The Eucharist in the West: History and Theo­logy, ed. by Robert Daly, SJ (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1998) Kwasniewski, Peter, ‘A Tale of Two Wonderworkers: Nicholas of Myra in the Writings and Life of St Thomas Aquinas’, Angelicum, 82 (2005), 19–53 Lambot, Cyrille, ‘L’Office de la Fête-Dieu: Aperçus nouveaux sur ses origines’, Revue bénédictine, 54 (1942), 61–123 Lubac, Henri de, Medi­eval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, trans. by Mark Sebanc (vol. i) and Edward M. Macierowski (vols ii–iii), (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000) Macy, Gary, The Banquet’s Wisdom: A Short History of the Theo­logies of the Lord’s Supper (New York: Paulist Press, 1992) Mathiesen, Thomas J., ‘“The Office of the New Feast of Corpus Christi” in the Regimen Animarum at Brigham Young University’, The Journal of Musico­logy, 2 (1983), 13–44 McGinn, Bernard, Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theo­logiae (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014)

283

284

ba r ba r a  r . walt e r s

Moore, R. I., The War on Heresy: Faith and Power in Medi­eval Europe (London: Profile Books, 2014) Murray, Paul, Aquinas at Prayer: The Bible, Mysticism and Poetry (London: Bloomsbury, 2013) Pieper, Josef, The Silence of Saint Thomas: Three Essays, trans. by Daniel O’Connor (London: Faber and Faber, 1957) Pinsent, Andrew, The Second-Person Perspective in Aquinas’s Ethics: Virtues and Gifts (New York: Routledge, 2012) Pope, Hugh, On Prayer and the Contemplative Life by Saint Thomas Aquinas, with a preface by Vincent McNabb, OP (London: R.&T. Washbourne, 1914) Rubin, Miri, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medi­eval Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) Smith, Innocent, ‘Dominican Chant and Dominican Identity’, Religions, 5 (2014), 961–71 Stow, Kenneth R., ‘The Church and the Jews’, in The New Cambridge Medi­eval History, v: c. 1198–c. 1300, ed. by David Abulafia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 204–19 Thibodeau, Timothy M., ‘Enigmata Figurarum: Biblical Exegesis and Liturgical Exposition in Durand’s Rationale’, Harvard Theo­logical Review, 86 (1993), 65–79 Torrell, Jean-Pierre, Saint Thomas Aquinas, 2 vols, trans. by Robert Royal (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 1996) Vonier, Dom Anscar, The Personality of Christ (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1928) Wainwright, Geoffrey, Oxford History of Christian Worship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) Walters, Barbara R., ‘The Office of the Trinity: An Exemplar of Rhyme and Reason’, paper given at the 29th International Congress of Medi­eval Studies, Kalamazoo, MI., (1994) —— , ‘The Feast of Corpus Christi as a Site of Struggle’, in Il ‘Corpus Domini’: Teo­logia antropo­logia e politica, ed. by Laura Andreani and Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (Orvieto: Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2015), pp. 139–54 Walters, Barbara R., Vincent Corrigan, and Peter T. Ricketts, The Feast of Corpus Christi (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006) Weisheipl, James A., Friar Thomas Aquino: His Life and His Works (New York: Doubleday, 1974) White, Thomas Joseph, ‘Imperfect Happiness and the Final End of Man: Thomas Aquinas and the Paradigm of Nature-Grace Orthodoxy’, The Thomist, 78 (2014), 247–89 Wilms, Jerome, Divine Friendship according to Saint Thomas, trans. by Sr. M. Fulgence (London: Blackfriars Publications, 1958) Zawilla, R. J., ‘The Biblical Sources of the Historia Corporis Christi Attributed to Thomas Aquinas: A Theo­logical Study to Determine Their Authenticity’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Toronto 1983)

Innocent Smith OP

The Orations of the Medi­eval Dominican Liturgy Introduction Biblical texts played a predominant role in the medi­eval Latin liturgy. In addition to the integral singing of psalms in the Divine Office and the proclamation of Old and New Testament pericopes in the Mass and Office, liturgical genres such as antiphons and responsories were predominantly adapted directly from biblical texts, while other liturgical rites such as the ordinary of the Mass have deep scriptural roots. Despite this deep-rootedness in scripture, the Latin liturgy also included certain newly composed non-scriptural texts, principally grouped into genres such as orations, prefaces, tropes, and sequences. In this chapter, I will examine the non-scriptural liturgical genre of orations, focusing especially on the repertoire found in the medi­eval Dominican liturgy. I use the English word ‘oration’ to refer collectively to liturgical prayers that were known in the medi­eval liturgy under a variety of titles: collecta or oratio (opening prayer), secreta or super oblata (prayer over the gifts during the offertory), postcommunionem or ad complendum (prayer after the reception of communion), and super populum or ad populum (prayer said before the dismissal).1 Throughout the Middle Ages, the termino­logy for referring to these prayers was somewhat fluid;2 according to Andrew Hughes, ‘by the late middle ages the terms oratio and collecta  1 For a brief overview of the place of these prayers within the medi­eval liturgy, see Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books, pp. 24–26.  2 The diversity in termino­logy with respect to these prayers is related to the distinction in the Roman liturgical tradition between the Gregorian and the Gelasian sacramentaries, with the Gregorian tradition using the term ‘super oblata’ and ‘ad completa/​complendum’ in place of the Gelasian ‘secreta’ and ‘post communionem’. See Vogel, Medi­eval Liturgy, p. 79. As the apparatus of the edition of the Gregorian sacramentary by Jean Deshusses (Le sacramentaire grégorien) makes clear, however, the termino­logy in the manuscript tradition was not consistent

Innocent Smith is a member of the Order of Preachers – Province of St Joseph. He is Assistant Professor of Homiletics at St. Mary’s Seminary and University, Baltimore, MD.

The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music, and Liturgy, ed. by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, MMS 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021) pp. 285–298 10.1484/M.MMS-EB.5.124220

FHG

286

innocent smith op

are used indiscriminately to refer to prayers’.3 Many medi­eval Mass orations have been collected in the fourteen-volume Corpus Orationum, although this collection must be supplemented at times with reference to other editions and manuscripts of medi­eval liturgical texts.4 While orations have been extensively studied, the Dominican repertoire has received little sustained scholarly attention. In this chapter, I will the analyse the orations that appear in one of the liturgical books promulgated by Humbert of Romans in the mid-thirteenth century, the Missale conventuale. This book, intended for the use of the celebrant at a conventual Mass, includes over a thousand orations. Many of these prayers are identical or closely related to those of other repertoires, while some are unique to the Dominican repertoire. By providing a guide to this repertoire, this chapter will contribute to further analysis and appreciation of the unique and common elements of the Dominican liturgy.

Dominican Liturgy in the Thirteenth Century In the mid-thirteenth century, the Order of Preachers developed a standardized liturgical practice that would endure in a substantially similar form through the early seventeenth century and thenceforth in a modified form until the adoption of the Missale Romanum after the General Chapter of 1968.5 In the uniform Dominican liturgy promulgated by Humbert of Romans in 1256, the rites of order were presented in fourteen books that were apportioned for the different aspects of the Mass, Divine Office, and other liturgical rites and processions that constituted the framework for daily life in a Dominican priory.6 With respect to the Mass liturgy, the relevant books  3 Hughes, Medi­eval Manuscripts for Mass and Office, p. 21. This is confirmed by my own research on the use of orations as theo­logical authorities in the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, and other medi­eval theo­logians; for these authors, the words ‘collecta’ and ‘oratio’ refer at times to secret and postcommunion prayers as well as collects as such. See Smith, ‘In Collecta Dicitur’.  4 Corpus Orationum (hereafter CO), ed. by Moeller, Clément, and Coppieters ‘t Wallant,. In the introduction to the first volume, the editors acknowledge that the collection almost exclusively contains those prayers which are used at Mass, and does not necessarily include other orations that might exclusively be used in the Office or other liturgies: ‘D’autre part, les prières insérées dans le Bréviaire, le Rituel ou le Pontifical, ne figurent normalement pas dans notre recueil’ (In addition, the prayers found in the breviary, ritual, and pontifical are not typically present in our collection). See ‘Préliminaires’, in CO 1 (CCSL 160), pp. v–xiv, at xii. The editors also acknowledge on pp. x–xi that they have not included every variant reading from the editions collated in the apparatus; thus it is necessary at times to consult the original editions in order to find common variants that appear in some of the medi­eval manuscripts that will be discussed in this study.  5 For a brief overview of the history of the Dominican liturgy, see Smith, ‘Dominican Chant and Dominican Identity’. See also Humberti de Romanis, ed. by Tugwell, pp. 1–51 and Giraud, ‘The Production and Notation of Dominican Manuscripts’, pp. 1–14.  6 On the promulgation of the Dominican liturgy of 1256, see Bonniwell, A History of the

th e o r at i o n s o f t h e m e d i e­ val d o mi ni can li t u rgy

were (1) the Ordinarium, which provided a list of orations, chants, and texts for both Mass and Office, (2) the Graduale, which contained the full chants for each Mass, (3) the Pulpitarium, which contained the chants for the soloists at both Mass and Office,7 (4) the Missale conventuale, which contained the prayers and rubrics needed by the priest-celebrant, (5) the Epistolarium and (6) the Evangelarium, which contained the readings for the subdeacon and deacon, and (7) the Missale minorum altarium, which provided the texts needed for what the missal describes as ‘private Masses’.8 In contrast to the Missale minorum altarium, which contains the epistle and gospel for each Mass as well as the eucho­logical texts (e.g. orations and prefaces), the Missale conventuale includes only the texts of the Mass pronounced by the priest himself, such as the eucho­logical texts and the canon, as well as the texts of the proper chants for each Mass which the priest recited together with the other ministers at the altar.9 In addition to the Ordinarium and Pulpitarium, common to Mass and Office, the liturgy of Humbert provides several books that are specific to the performance of the Divine Office. In addition to the Breviarium, which provides all the elements of the Office (including orations said at the end of each Office) while sometimes abbreviating certain aspects, several books pertain specifically to the communal celebration of the Office: the Psalterium contains not only the texts of the psalms themselves, but also the musical notation for antiphons that punctuate their performance; the Lectionarium provides the biblical and Patristic readings that are recited at the Office of Matins; the Antiphonarium provides antiphons, responsories, and hymns with musical notation; and the Collectarium provides both orations for the Office and other materials used by the hebdomadarian (the celebrant of the Office for a particular week). The remaining books pertain to other aspects of the Dominican community life: the Martyro­logium provides various texts used at the Capitulum (chapter) Office following Prime, including the reading of brief lives of the saints as well as segments from the Dominican constitutions; the Processionarium provides music, rubrics, and orations for special processions and liturgical rites that appear throughout the church year and in the life of individual communities.

Dominican Liturgy 1215–1945, pp. 83–84. For a helpful guide to the contents of the fourteen liturgical books, see Giraud, ‘The Production and Notation of Dominican Manuscripts’, pp. 93–97. A brief description of the contents of the fourteen books is given in the Works Cited section at the end of this chapter.  7 See Christian Meyer, ‘Le “Pulpitarium” des frères Prêcheurs’.  8 See ‘De Missis privatis’, in Ordinarium, ed. by Guerrini, pp. 249–51, at p. 249.  9 From the point of view of liturgical typo­logy, the Dominican Missale conventuale is thus in some respects closer to a sacramentary than a Missale plenum. It provides only the texts that are strictly speaking required by the priest in the celebration of the High Mass, although the Dominican liturgy invites the priest and other ministers to participate in the variable texts which are sung by the whole choir of friars.

287

288

innocent smith op

Although a comprehensive survey of extant medi­eval Dominican manuscripts has not yet appeared, the manuscripts I have consulted may be divided into three categories: (1) exemplar manuscripts that provide multiple books; (2) manuscripts for practical use which provide one of the fourteen books; (3) manuscripts which provide alternative arrangements of material. Of the thirteenth-century exemplar manuscripts providing the revised liturgy of Humbert,10 the most extensively studied is Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1.11 This manuscript provides all fourteen books described above. Two portions of this manuscript have been published, although with differing editorial practices: in 1921, Franciscus-M. Guerrini published a transcription of the Ordinarium from Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1,12 and in 2007, Anne-Élisabeth Urfels-Capot’s critical edition of the sanctoral portion of the Office Lectionarium from Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1 was published posthumously.13 Aside from these two portions, research on the thirteenth-century Dominican liturgy must focus primarily on the manuscript sources of the Dominican liturgy. British Library, MS Add. 23935 provides twelve of the fourteen books (omitting the Breviarium and the Missale minorum altarium, which appear to have been intentionally excluded), while Salamanca, San Esteban, MS SAL.–CL.01, provides the Antiphonarium, Pulpitarium, Graduale, and Processionarium (although it originally included all fourteen books).14

 10 It should be noted that many liturgical books were printed for the order from the fifteenth century onwards. Although these present a form of the liturgy in substantial continuity with that promulgated in 1256, they frequently differ in matters of detail (wording of prayers, etc.), and consequently should be treated with caution as witnesses to the thirteenth-­ century practice of the order, which is at the subject of this chapter. Likewise, it should be noted that the occasional references to Dominican sources in Corpus Orationum are based on print editions collated in Missale ad usum Ecclesie westmonasteriensis, ed. by Legg.  11 500 folios, 485 mm × 325 mm (358 mm × 225 mm), varying numbers of lines per folio; some books have full musical notation, others are mostly text. Contents: Ordinarium, ed. by Guerrini, fol. 1r–12v; Martyro­logium, fol. 13r–40v; Collectarium, fol. 41r–57v; Processionarium, fol. 58v–65v; Psalterium, fol. 66r–86r; Breviarium, fol. 87r–141v; Lectionarium, fol. 142r–230v; Antiphonarium, fol. 231r–323r; Graduale, fol. 323r–369r; Pulpitarium, fol. 370r–392r; Missale conventuale, fol. 393r–421v; Epistolarium, fol. 422r–435v; Evangelistarium, fol. 435v–454v; Missale minorum altarium, fol. 455r–500v. For a fuller description, see Giraud, ‘The Production and Notation of Dominican Manuscripts’, pp. 37, 93–97. For further studies focused on this manuscript, see Boyle, Gy, and Krupa, ed., Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine.  12 Ordinarium, ed. by Guerrini. This edition presents the text in a standardized ortho­graphy, including ‘ae’ for ‘e’.  13 Le sanctoral du lectionnaire, ed. by Urfels-Capot. This edition presents a diplomatic transcription that closely follows the manuscript ortho­graphy and punctuation. An electronic edition of Urfels-Capot is available at [accessed 1 June 2021]  14 See Giraud, ‘The Production and Notation of Dominican Manuscripts’, pp. 122–39 (British Library) and 140–55 (San Esteban).

th e o r at i o n s o f t h e m e d i e­ val d o mi ni can li t u rgy

One particularly rich collection of medi­eval Dominican manuscripts is that of the Bibliothèque municipale of Colmar, which has been catalogued by Christian Meyer.15 That collection includes both manuscripts that present a single volume of the fourteen books of Humbert and manuscripts that provide alternative arrangements. Colmar MS 303, for instance, is a fourteenth-century Pulpitarium, which for the most part follows the arrangement of Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1. Colmar MS 301, on the other hand, is a thirteenth-century manuscript that combines the Hymnarium section of the Humbert Antiphonarium with the Humbert Psalterium. Other manuscripts in this collection include divided sections of the Antiphonarium (MSS 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 308, 309, 310, 311, 313, 316) as well as complete presentations of the Graduale (MSS 136, 312, 317) and the Processionarium (MSS 383, 388, 412, 417). Other collections reveal further instances that present more complex combinations. Clermont-Ferrand, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 62, is a post-Humbert Missale conventuale (despite the claim in a colophon that it was copied in 1252), and Toulouse, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 103 provides the Missale minorum altarium. On the other hand, Philadelphia, Free Library, MS Lewis E 158 is a missal with full musical notation for all the proper chants as well as the full text of the epistles and gospels, in effect combining aspects of the Missale conventuale, Missale minorum altarium, and Graduale. In addition to manuscripts which provide combinations of other liturgical books, Laura Light has recently drawn attention to the prominence of thirteenth-century manuscripts that combine Bibles with liturgical texts from the Dominican liturgy, such as London and Oslo, Schøyen Collection, MS 115 (although the Dominican examples catalogued by Light all pre-date the reform of Humbert).16

Orations in the Missale conventuale In the course of a study of the use of liturgical orations in medi­eval theo­ logy,17 I produced an index of the orations found in the Missale conventuale of Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1, including a full transcription of each oration (with ortho­graphy standardized according to the principles of the Corpus Orationum collection), a collation of the Dominican prayers with the sources found in the Corpus Orationum and Bruylants’s Les oraisons du Missel Romain,18 and preliminary indications of similarities between the  15 Meyer, Catalogue des manuscrits notés.  16 Light, ‘The Thirteenth-Century Pandect’. My doctoral research at the Universität Regens­ burg focuses on 38 Bible-Missals representing various medi­eval traditions, of which at least eleven represent forms of the Dominican liturgy which pre-date Humbert’s reform.  17 Smith, ‘In Collecta Dicitur’.  18 Bruylants, Les oraisons du Missel Romain; reprinted with changed pagination but identical

289

290

innocent smith op

Dominican orations and other manuscripts indexed in the CO collection. In an appendix to this chapter available online (freely available at https:/​ /​doi.org/​10.1484/​A .14452794 via https:/​/​brepols.figshare.com/​), I have compiled a version of this index, which provides the full text of each oration (with punctuation omitted in order to facilitate searching), the occasion of its use, the genre of the oration (oratio, secreta, postcommunio, super populum), the folio number of the oration in the Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1 Missale conventuale and the enumeration of the prayer in the Corpus Orationum and Bruylants’s collections of orations. It is my hope that this index will encourage further study of the Dominican oration repertoire while a full critical edition of the medi­eval Dominican liturgy is still to be awaited. Based on this research, several preliminary indications can be given concerning the relationship between the Dominican repertoire of orations and the broader Latin liturgical tradition. The Missale conventuale includes 1020 orations:19 362 oratio, 311 secreta, 311 postcommunio, and 36 super populum orations. Of these 1020 prayers, the largest group is formed by 737 orations that might be identified as ‘base texts’, i.e. orations that appear in several forms with minor variations (e.g. one prayer being used both for St Benedict and St Bernard, differing only in the name and other minor details). The remaining prayers are distributed as follows: 286 oratio, 213 secreta, 209 postcommunio, and 29 super populum prayers. In my index, the different base texts may be identified by multiple appearances of a single number in the CO column. Following the approach of the editors of the Corpus Orationum, letters in parentheses identify different groupings of occasions within a single base text. For instance, the first two prayers in the index are alternately identified as ‘2 (C)’ and ‘2 (B)’ by the Corpus Orationum, whereas they are (coincidentally) labelled simply as ‘2’ by Bruylants without further subdivision. Cases where the Missale conventuale provides a prayer found in CO but assigns it for an occasion not recognized by CO, are indicated by an ‘(X)’. Of the 1020 prayers, 453 are assigned to the Temporale (seasonal feasts of the liturgical year, Sunday and weekday celebrations), 6 appear for the dedication of a church, 468 in the Sanctorale, 69 appear for votive Masses

enumeration in Sodi, Toniolo, and Bruylants, ed., Liturgia Tridentina, pp. 1–556. Although in many respects superseded by CO, Bruylants’s collection remains relevant for future research on liturgical orations due to its inclusion of certain prayers that are somewhat haphazardly omitted by CO (for instance, the solemn prayers of Good Friday) as well as its attention to later editions of the Missale Romanum, including the important variations between the 1570 and 1604 editions. In each entry shared in common by CO and Bruylants, the number of the Bruylants edition is helpfully indicated by the editors of CO with the prefix ‘Br’.  19 In my index there are a total of 1029 items: this number includes nine ‘invitatio’ texts (§§603–11) which introduce the nine solemn orations (oratio solemnis) from the Good Friday liturgy.

th e o r at i o n s o f t h e m e d i e­ val d o mi ni can li t u rgy

(e.g. De Spiritu sancto, Pro praedicatoribus), and 24 appear for Masses for the dead (e.g. Pro viro defuncto, Pro vivis et defunctis communis). Of the 1020 orations, 1013 may be identified with prayers presented in CO (out of the 6829 prayers included in CO), and 983 have correspondences with the Bruylants collection (out of the 1197 prayers included in Bruylants). When a prayer from the Missale conventuale is not found in CO or Bruylants, the column is left blank in my index. It should be noted that at times this absence may stem from the editorial conventions of the collections, for instance from the decision of the editors of CO not to include the oratio solemnis prayers of the Good Friday liturgy, which are helpfully included by Bruylants. The Dominican repertoire of liturgical orations appears to be substantially similar to the broader tradition of the Latin liturgy and has many correspondences with the Gregorian sacramentary tradition that forms the basis of the missal of the Roman Curia (fundamentally subsumed into the Missale Romanum of 1570–1962). Nevertheless, many distinctive features appear in the Dominican repertoire, including distinctive phrasing in many prayers (sometimes shared in common with other sources indexed in CO and sometimes not) and some individual prayers that are not found widely in other collections.20 Of the common prayers with distinctive phrasing, some variations could be considered quite minor, whereas others are more significant in altering the meaning or stress of the prayer. The most frequently found minor variations in Dominican orations are the transposition of the stock phrase ‘domine quaesumus’ (O Lord we beseech you) and the omission of the word ‘quaesumus’ (we beseech you). In some cases, the Dominican version of a prayer omits phrases that are found in the CO version, for instance in the case of the postcommunion prayer ‘Beati apostoli tui Iacobi’ for St James (CO 459b /​§ 71 in my index), where the phrase ‘cuius hodie festivitate corpore et sanguine tuo nos refecisti’ (on whose feast today you have refreshed us by your body and blood) is omitted, with the Dominican version thus providing a more concise prayer. In other cases, phrases are added to the Dominican versions of otherwise generic prayers, for instance in the six Dominican versions of CO 373 (§§63–68 in the index) which interpolate the phrase ‘intercedente beata Agatha martyre tua’ (‘by the intercession of your martyr St Agatha’, adapted with the name

 20 Interesting parallels may be found between certain textual variations (compared with the CO versions) of the prayers in the Missale conventuale and the following sources indexed in CO (for further information on these manuscripts referred to here by their CO sigla, see the introductory material in each volume of CO): Adelp, Aquilea, Arbuth, Bec, Cantuar, Gemm, Herford, Lateran, Leofric, Lesnes, Mateus, Nivern, Otton, Pamel, Praem, Rossian, Sarum. Several of these sources (Arbuth, Aquilea, Herford and Sarum) are indexed from post-thirteenth-century sources and thus may be influenced by the Dominican liturgy, although in some cases (especially Sarum) they may pre-date the Dominican liturgy in liturgical sources other than those indexed in CO.

291

292

innocent smith op

of each saint) into the postcommunion prayer ‘Auxilientur nobis’. In some cases, theo­logically rich language is included in the Dominican version which is omitted in the CO version, for instance in the oratio for Friday after Passion Sunday (CO 838 /​§ 125 in my index), where the theo­logically rich phrase ‘auxilium gratiae tuae’ (the assistance of your grace) is added to the version found in CO.21 Given the present lack of an edition of the medi­eval Dominican Missale conventuale, it may be helpful to provide here the texts of several prayers which are not available in any form in CO or Bruylants. These include an oratio for Ash Wednesday, a postcommunio prayer for St Gorgonius, a prayer for St Peter Martyr (of Verona), and a votive Mass formulary distinctive to the Dominican Order Pro praedicatoribus. The following oratio appears in the Missale conventuale after an extensive series of rubrics concerning the Ash Wednesday liturgy, coming before the absolutio and blessing of ashes: Exaudi, Domine, preces nostras, et confi­tentium tibi parce peccatis, ut quos conscientiae reatus accusat, indulgentia tuae pietatis absolvat.

Feria quarta in capite ieiunii Oratio Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1, fol. 397ra

(Hear, O Lord, our prayers, and forgive the sins confessed to you, so that the indulgence of your mercy may absolve those who are accused by a guilty conscience.)

The absence of this prayer from CO and Bruylants may suggest a distinctive Dominican origin. Yet, in actual fact, the prayer appears (in slightly different wording) already in the Gelasian sacramentary;22 it may have been omitted from CO on account of its having already been included in the Corpus benedictionum pontificalium.23 Nevertheless, the fact that it is also omitted from the sources indexed in Bruylants suggests that despite not being an  21 The word ‘auxilium’ is closely connected with the theo­logy of grace in the theo­logy of Thomas Aquinas (e.g. Summa theo­logiae (ST) Ia–IIae, Q87, A2, corpus: ‘auxilium divinae gratiae’; ST Ia–IIae, Q99, A2, ad 3: ‘auxilium gratiae’; ST Ia–IIae, Q109, A6, corpus: ‘auxilium gratuitum Dei’). Although there are many explicit cases of Thomas drawing on liturgical texts (see Smith, ‘In Collecta Dicitur’), Thomas does not appear to quote this text directly. Nevertheless, this example draws attention to the theo­logically rich atmosphere of the Dominican liturgy. It is interesting to note that this phrase is only found in the CO apparatus in connection with the Herford and Sarum sources (from the sixteenth-century versions indexed in CO).  22 Liber sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae, ed. by Mohlberg, Eizenhöfer, and Siffrin, p. 17, § 78. The prayer appears here in a section labelled ‘Orationes et praeces super paenitentes’ which comes after the formulary ‘In sexagesima’ and is succeeded by sections labelled ‘Ordo agentibus publicam paenitentiam’, ‘Orationes et praeces a quinquagesima usque quadragensima’, and ‘In ieiunio prima statione. feria IIII’.  23 Corpus Benedictionum Pontificalium, ed. by Moeller, CCSL 162A, p. 553, § 1344.

th e o r at i o n s o f t h e m e d i e­ val d o mi ni can li t u rgy

original composition of the Dominican Order, the inclusion of the prayer at this point in the liturgy is a distinctive feature of the Dominican Missale conventuale which may be helpful for further research on the development and sources of the Dominican liturgy. The Missale conventuale provides a postcommunion prayer for St Gorgonius that is not found in any sources indexed in CO or Bruylants: Familiam tuam, domine, quaesumus, propitius intuere et, intercedente beato Gorgonio martyre tuo, per haec sancta quae sumpsimus a cunctis eripe benignus adversis.

Sancti Gorgonii martyris Postcommunio Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1, fol. 416rb

(Consider favourably your family, we beseech you, O Lord, and, by the intercession of your martyr blessed Gorgonius, through this holy sacrament which we have received, mercifully deliver them from all adversity.)

The Missale conventuale provides three orations for the feast of St Peter Martyr of Verona (c. 1205–1252), the first Dominican to be canonized after St Dominic.24 Following Peter’s canonization in 1253, his liturgical prayers would have been composed shortly before the compilation of the revised liturgy of Humbert of Romans. Of these prayers, the oratio and secreta both appear for the feast of Peter Martyr in CO indexed from the fourteenth-century Roman Curia Missals collated in Bruylants, whereas the postcommunio prayer does not appear in CO or Bruylants: Praesta, quaesumus, omnipotens deus, ut beati Petri martyris tui fidem congrua devotione sectemur, qui pro eiusdem fidei dilatatione martyrii palmam meruit obtinere. ––– dilatatione] exaltatione CO

In festo beati Petri martyris Oratio Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1, fol. 412ra | CO 4475 | Br 853

(Grant, we beseech you almighty God, that with fitting devotion we may continually follow the faith of blessed Peter your martyr, who, for the spread of the same faith, merited to obtain the palm of martyrdom.)

 24 For a treatment of the life and canonization process of Peter, see Prudlo, The Martyred Inquisitor.

293

2 94

innocent smith op

Preces quas tibi, domine, offerimus, inter­ cedente beato Petro martyre tuo clementer intende, et pugiles fidei sub tua protectione custodi. –––

In festo beati Petri martyris Secreta Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1, fol. 412ra | CO 4625 | Br 888

Preces quas] Preces nostras, quas CO | domine, offerimus] trans. CO | clementer] omit. CO (Mercifully hear the prayers which we offer to you, O Lord, through the intercession of blessed Peter your martyr, and guard under your protection the champions of the faith.) Fideles tuos, domine, custodiant sacramenta quae sumpsimus et, intercedente beato Petro martyre tuo, contra omnes adversos tueantur incursus.

In festo beati Petri martyris Postcommunio Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1, fol. 412ra

(May the sacraments which we have received guard your faithful, O Lord, and, by the intercession of blessed Peter your martyr, protect them from all evil assaults.)

While it is beyond the scope of this chapter to provide a full analysis of these prayers, it is instructive to see that some (but not all) Dominican prayers were adopted in the liturgy of the Roman curia, later being taken up from there into the Missale Romanum of Trent and beyond. The Missale conventuale also provides a distinctive Dominican votive Mass formulary ‘Pro praedicatoribus’ (for preachers). According to the Vitae fratrum, a collection of stories related to the formation of the Order of Preachers compiled in the mid-thirteenth century by Gérard de Frachet at the request of Humbert of Romans, these prayers were revealed by Christ to a Cistercian monk who was asked by two friars to pray for the Order of Preachers.25 After the prayers were given to the friars, Gérard de Frachet tells us, ‘Istas oraciones dominus papa approbavit et concessit, ut dicerentur in missa’ (the Lord Pope approved and granted these prayers, that they might be said in the Mass). The versions of the prayers found in the Missale conventuale closely match those found in the critical edition of the Vitae fratrum:

 25 Gérard de Frachet, Vitae fratrum, ed. by Reichert, Part 1, Chap. 4, § 7, pp. 32–33.

th e o r at i o n s o f t h e m e d i e­ val d o mi ni can li t u rgy

Corda famulorum tuorum, domine, illumina spiritus sancti gratia, et ignitum eis eloquium dona et, qui tuum praedicant verbum, largire virtutis augmentum. (Enlighten the hearts of your servants, O Lord, with the grace of the Holy Spirit and give them a tongue of fire, and bestow an increase of power on those who preach your word.) Famulis tuis, domine, verbum tribue gratiosum et, munera oblata sanctificans, corda eorum in salutari tuo, quaesumus, visita. (Bestow the word of grace on your servants, O Lord, and, sanctifying the gifts offered to you, visit their hearts in your salvation, we beseech you.) Conserva, domine, famulos tuos unigeniti tui corpore et sanguine suscepto et, tuum nuntiantibus verbum, largitatem tribue gratiarum. (Preserve, O Lord, your servants by the reception of the body and blood of your only-begotten son, and grant an abundance of grace to the heralds of your word.)

Pro praedicatoribus Oratio Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1, fol. 419rb

Pro praedicatoribus Secreta Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1, fol. 419rb

Pro praedicatoribus Postcommunio Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1, fol. 419rb

Conclusion The Dominican repertoire of orations is closely related to that of the broader Roman rite, but it presents distinctive features that are deserving of further study. These features include the presence of minor and major variations within prayers shared by the Dominican liturgy with other traditions, as well as texts newly composed by or for the Order of Preachers. It is hoped that the index provided in the online appendix may be helpful for those undertaking further study of this rich repertoire of prayers which formed the liturgical experience for generations of Friars Preachers in the Middle Ages.

295

296

innocent smith op

Works Cited Manuscripts and Archival Sources Clermont-Ferrand, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 62: Missale conventuale Colmar, Bibliothèque municipale, MSS 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 308, 309, 310, 311, 313, 316: Antiphonarium —— , MSS 136, 312, 317: Graduale —— , MS 301: Psalterium-Hymnarium —— , MS 303: Pulpitarium —— , MSS 383, 388, 412, 417: Processionarium London, British Library, MS Additional 23935 1r–22v: [fourteenth-century additions] 23r–46v: Ordinarium 47r–80v: Martyro­logium 81r–98v: Collectarium 98v–106v: Processionarium 107r–140v: Psalterium 141r–248v: Lectionarium 249r–377v: Antiphonarium 378r–443v: Graduale 444r–479r: Pulpitarium 480r–525v: Missale conventuale 526r–545r: Epistolarium 545r–571v: Evangelistarium 572r–579v: [fourteenth-century additions] London and Oslo, Schøyen Collection, MS 115: Bible with liturgical elements Philadelphia, Free Library, MS Lewis E 158: Missale with chants and readings Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1 1r–12v: Ordinarium 13r–40v: Martyro­logium 41r–57v: Collectarium 58v–65v: Processionarium 66r–86r: Psalterium 87r–141v: Breviarium 142r–230v: Lectionarium 231r–323v: Antiphonarium 323r–369r: Graduale 370r–392r: Pulpitarium 393r–421v: Missale conventuale 422r–435v: Epistolarium 435v–454v: Evangelistarium 455r–500v: Missale minorum altarium Salamanca, San Esteban, MS SAL.–CL.01 Toulouse, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 103: Missale minorum altarium

th e o r at i o n s o f t h e m e d i e­ val d o mi ni can li t u rgy

Primary Sources Corpus Benedictionum Pontificalium, ed. by Edmond Eugène Moeller, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, 162–162C, 4 vols (Turnhout: Brepols, 1971–1979) Corpus Orationum, ed. by Edmond Eugène Moeller, Jean-Marie Clément, and Bertrandus Coppieters ’t Wallant, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, 160–160M, 14 vols (Turnhout: Brepols, 1992–2004) Gérard de Frachet, Vitae fratrum Ordinis Praedicatorum, necnon cronica ordinis ab anno MCCIII usque ad MCCLIV, ed. by Benedictus Maria Reichert, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica (Louvain: E. Charpentier, 1896) Humbert of Romans, Legendae Sancti Dominici, ed. by Simon Tugwell, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 30 (Rome: Institutum Historicum Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum, 2008) Liber sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae ordinis anni circuli (Cod. Vat. Reg. Lat. 316 /​Paris Bibl. Nat. 7193, 41/​56) (Sacramentarium Gelasianum), ed. by Leo Cunibert Mohlberg, Leo Eizenhöfer, and Peter Siffrin, Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta, Series major, Fontes, 4 (Rome: Herder, 1960) Missale ad usum Ecclesie westmonasteriensis, ed. by John Wickham Legg, Henry Bradshaw Society, 1, 5, 12 (London: Henry Bradshaw Society, printed by Harrison and Sons, 1891–1897) Ordinarium juxta ritum Sacri Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum jussu rev.mi patris fr. Ludovici Theissling eiusdem ordinis magistri generalis editum, ed. by Franciscus-M. Guerrini (Rome: Apud Collegium Angelicum, 1921) Le Sacramentaire grégorien: ses principales formes d’après les plus anciens manuscrits: Le sacramentaire, le supplement d’Aniane, ed. by Jean Deshusses, Spicilegium Friburgense, 16, 3rd edn (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires, 1992) Le Sanctoral du lectionnaire de l’office dominicain: Édition et étude d’après le ms. Rome, Sainte-Sabine XIV L1, ed. by Anne-Élisabeth Urfels-Capot, Mémoires et documents de l’École des chartes, 84 (Paris: École des Chartes, 2007) Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, Opera omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P. M. edita 4–12 (Rome: Ex Typo­graphia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1888–1906) Secondary Works Bonniwell, William R., A History of the Dominican Liturgy 1215–1945, 2nd edn (New York: J. F. Wagner, 1945) Boyle, Leonard E., Pierre-Marie Gy, and Pawełs Krupa, ed., Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L1, Documents, études et répertoires, 67 (Paris: CNRS Editions, 2004) Bruylants, Placide, Les Oraisons du Missel Romain: texte et histoire, 2 vols (Louvain: Centre de Documentation et d’Information Liturgiques, 1952) Giraud, Eleanor Joyce, ‘The Production and Notation of Dominican Manuscripts in Thirteenth-Century Paris’ (unpublished PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2013)

297

298

innocent smith op

Hughes, Andrew, Medi­eval Manuscripts for Mass and Office: A Guide to Their Organization and Termino­logy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995) Light, Laura, ‘The Thirteenth-Century Pandect and the Liturgy: Bibles with Missals’, in Form and Function in the Late Medi­eval Bible, ed. by Eyal Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 185–215 Meyer, Christian, ‘Le “Pulpitarium” des frères Prêcheurs’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 75 (2005), pp. 5–28 —— , Catalogue des manuscrits notés du Moyen Age conservés dans les bibliothèques publiques de France, vol. i (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006) Palazzo, Eric, A History of Liturgical Books from the Beginning to the Thirteenth Century, trans. by Madeleine Beaumont (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998) Prudlo, Donald, The Martyred Inquisitor: The Life and Cult of Peter of Verona († 1252) (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008) Smith, Innocent, ‘Dominican Chant and Dominican Identity’, Religions, 5 (2014), 961–71, [accessed 1 June 2021] —— , ‘In Collecta Dicitur: The Oration as a Theo­logical Authority for Thomas Aquinas’ (unpublished S.T.L. thesis, Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception, 2015) Sodi, Manlio, Alessandro Toniolo, and Placide Bruylants, ed., Liturgia Tridentina: Fontes–Indices–Concordantia: 1568–1962, Monumenta Liturgica Piana, 5 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2010) Vogel, Cyrille, Medi­eval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources, trans. by William Storey and Niels Rasmussen (Portland: Pastoral Press)

Eleanor J. Giraud*

Dominican Mass Books before Humbert of Romans In his Encyclical letter of 1256, Master General Humbert of Romans announced to the Order that his revisions to the Dominican liturgy were complete, and that the issues of diversity that had been at the heart of the revision process had been resolved:1 Adhuc noveritis, quod diversitas officii ecclesiastici, circa quod unificandum multa iam capitula sollicitudinem non modicam adhibuerunt, per dei graciam ad unitatem […] est reducta. (Furthermore, may you know that the variation in the liturgical Office,2 concerning the unification of which many Chapters have already dedicated a great deal of care, by the grace of God has been reduced […] to unity.) His letter is but one of many testaments that imply that the early forms of the Dominican liturgy were problematically diverse, perhaps because the first Dominicans adopted local rites for their liturgical celebra­ * All translations in this chapter are by the author.  1 Litterae encyclicae magistrorum generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. by Reichert, p. 42. Reichert’s edition concludes ‘ad unitatem incertis exulantibus est reducta’ (has been reduced to unity with uncertainties banished), whereas Laporte’s edition concludes ‘ad unitatem in certis exemplaribus est reducta’ (has been reduced to unity in certain exemplars): Laporte, ‘Précis historique’, p. 342. Unfortunately, the only manuscript source for these letters that I have been able to consult (Bordeaux, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 780) has blank space left for Humbert’s letter in 1256 (fol. 150r–v), so I have not been able to ascertain which reading reflects the original.  2 The frontispiece of Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1, one of the Dominican exemplars copied shortly after Humbert’s encyclical letter, unambiguously uses the term ‘ecclesiasticum officium’ to refer to the full extent of communal divine worship, including both the Mass and the Office. Although the term ‘liturgy’ is not medi­eval, it will be used in this chapter as a translation for ‘ecclesiasticum officium’.

Eleanor J. Giraud completed her PhD at the University of Cambridge in 2013, on the ‘Production and Notation of Dominican Manuscripts in Thirteenth-Century Paris’. She is currently the Course Director of the MA Ritual Chant and Song at the Irish World Academy of Music and Dance, University of Limerick, Ireland.

The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music, and Liturgy, ed. by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, MMS 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021) pp. 299–320 10.1484/M.MMS-EB.5.124221

FHG

3 00

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d

tions.3 Any differences from house to house would have caused confusion for the brothers, who moved regularly for the purposes of preaching, education, and administration, and any differences in their customs would have been awkwardly apparent when Dominicans gathered for provincial and general meetings.4 The earliest attempt to unify the liturgy that was documented in the Acts of the General Chapters dates from 1244. Diffinitors representing each province were requested to bring liturgical books from their respective provinces to the following year’s General Chapter ‘for the unification of the liturgy’ (pro concordando officio)5 — although it would seem that some form of recognizable Dominican liturgy must have already existed by 1244, given that the Teutonic Knights were permitted to adopt the Dominican liturgy in the same year.6 Four friars were assigned the task of correcting and unifying the liturgy in 1245, and their revision was made constitutional in 1246–1248.7 Unfortunately, by 1250 there had been so many complaints about the first attempt undertaken by the four friars that they were commissioned to revise the liturgy again.8 It is not known what became of this second attempt. Whatever shape it took, it cannot have been successful, because the task of revising the liturgy was subsequently taken on by the newly elected Master General Humbert of Romans in 1254, whose ‘correction and arrangement’ (correctionem et ordinacionem) of the liturgy was completed and ratified in 1256.9 These attempts to unify the liturgy presuppose that there were local variants in the early Dominican liturgy. However, a survey of the extant pre-reform Mass books does not support this narrative. There is little evidence of variation between Mass manuscripts, either in terms of the feasts celebrated or in the choice of chants, readings, and prayers used for such feasts. This chapter will first examine the Alleluia verses in order to demonstrate the Dominican liturgy’s dependence on Cistercian rather than local practices.

 3 Some extant early manuscripts reflect the norms of their place of origin; for example, the Bo­lognese Dominican book Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, MS NKS 632 8o provides two versions of the Office of St Nicolas (patron saint of the Dominican house in Bo­logna), the second of which (fols 41v–48v) reflects the usage of Central Italy: Huglo, Les Manuscrits du processionnal, pp. 283–84.  4 The most cited (although somewhat outdated) source on the Dominican liturgy is Bonni­well, History of the Dominican Liturgy; for his discussion of this early diversity, see pp. 22–24.  5 Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, i, p. 29.  6 Fehér, ‘The Hymnal of the Dominicans and the Teutonic Knights’.  7 Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, i, pp. 33, 35–36, 39, 41. In order for any new legislation to become a permanent part of the Dominican constitutions, it had to be approved by three consecutive General Chapters.  8 Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, i, pp. 53–54.  9 Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, i, pp. 68, 71, 73, 78, 81. On the resulting Dominican chant and its practice over the centuries, see Smith, ‘Dominican Chant and Dominican Identity’.

d o m i n i c an m as s b o o ks b e fo r e hu mb e rt o f ro mans

It will then consider the sanctoral cycle of feasts found in pre- and post-reform sources. These case studies shed some light on the liturgical practices of the early Dominican Order, and the purposes of the liturgical revision. Eleven liturgical books related to the Mass survive from before 1256 (see Table 10.1). These include three missals (books with texts for the Mass: prayers, readings, and the texts of chants), and four Bible-missals (Bibles that contain a section of abbreviated Mass material)10 that have received little attention in previous studies of early Dominican chant. Notated chant melodies for the full year can be found in a gradual (a book of Mass chants), and a notated missal (which combines notated chants and the texts of prayers and readings). Two further ‘liturgical miscellanies’ provide notated chants, readings, and prayers for both the Mass and the Office for select feasts.11 Table 10.1. Pre-reform Dominican books related to the Mass.

Missals

Lausanne, Musée historique de Lausanne, AA.VL 81, MS 10 (Lausanne, 1233–1244) Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fonds latin 8884 (Paris, 1233–1243) Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, MS St Peter perg. 20 (North Italy, before 1253)

Notated Missal Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Museum, MS Ludwig V 5 (Lyon, 1246–1254) Gradual

Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 10773 (St Catherine’s in Diessenhofen, before 1246).

Bible-Missals12 London and Oslo, Schøyen Collection, MS 115 (Paris, 1225–1250) Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fonds latin 215 (England, 1225–1250) Paris, Biblothèque Mazarine, MS 31 (perhaps Spain, 1225–1250) Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean MS 16 (England, before 1254) Liturgical Miscellanies

Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliothek, MS Ny Kongelig Samling 632 8o (Bo­logna, 1228–1234) London, British Library, MS Additional 41507 (Germany, after 1240).

 10 On the Bible-missal, see Light, ‘The Thirteenth-Century Pandect’.  11 It is not always possible to securely date these manuscripts, especially as the presence or absence of a feast does not provide a definite terminus post/​ante quem. For further details on the pre-reform manuscripts, see Gleeson, ‘The Pre-Humbertian Liturgical Sources Revisited’.  12 For a longer list of pre-reform Dominican Bibles which include various liturgical items (e.g. a calendar, a list of readings, etc.), see Gleeson, ‘The Pre-Humbertian Liturgical Sources Revisited’, pp. 99–100.

301

302

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d Table 10.2. Alleluia verses for select feasts between Easter and Pentecost.

Feast

Cistercian13

Dominican (pre-reform)14

Dominican (post-reform)15

Easter

Pascha nostrum

Pascha nostrum

Pascha nostrum

Feria ii

Nonne cor nostrum

Nonne cor nostrum

Nonne cor nostrum

Feria iii

Stetit ihesus in medio

Surrexit dominus et occurrens Surrexit dominus et occurrens

Feria iiii

Surrexit dominus et occurrens Christus resurgens

Christus resurgens

Feria v

Christus resurgens

In die resurrectionis

In die resurrectionis

Feria vi

In die resurrectionis

Angelus domini descendit

Angelus domini descendit

Saturday after Easter16

Hec dies

Hec dies

Hec dies

Laudate pueri

Laudate pueri

Laudate pueri

Easter octave

Post dies octo

Post dies octo

Post dies octo

Surrexit dominus de sepulcro Surrexit dominus de sepulcro Surrexit dominus de sepulcro

Ascension Vigil Omnes gentes

Omnes gentes

Exivi a patre

Ascension

Ascendit deus in

Ascendit deus in

Ascendit deus in

Ascendens christus

Ascendens christus

Ascendens christus

Veni sancte spiritum

Emitte spiritum

Emitte spiritum

Paraclitus spiritus

Veni sancti spiritum

Veni sancti spiritum

Pentecost

 13 The graduals used for the Cistercian tradition throughout this chapter are BnF, MS lat. 17328, and BnF, MS n.a.l. 1413; the latter is lacunary and both date from the twelfth century (i.e. prior to the foundation of the Dominican Order). Cistercian sources did not achieve the same degree of uniformity as the Dominicans, so it would be problematic to assume that these two manuscripts are representative of a single Cistercian tradition. They were selected from Claire Maître’s list of useful Cistercian chant sources in French collections because they are readily accessible online: Maître, ‘A propos des chants du célébrant’, p. 55 n. 4. On the uniformity of Cistercian manuscripts, see Chadd, ‘Liturgy and Liturgical Music’.  14 The pre-reform Dominican manuscripts that supply Alleluia verses are the gradual, notated missal, and three missals listed in Table 10.1, plus the Bible-missal Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean MS 16.  15 The Dominican exemplar Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L1 is the main source used here for the post-reform tradition; this exemplar is near identical to other thirteenth-century post-reform Dominican chant sources. See Giraud, ‘Totum officium bene correctum habeatur in domo: Uniformity in the Dominican Liturgy’.  16 Between the Saturday after Easter and Friday after Pentecost, each Mass has two Alleluias instead of a gradual and an Alleluia. Hughes, Medi­eval Manuscripts for Mass and Office, p. 86.

d o m i n i c an m as s b o o ks b e fo r e hu mb e rt o f ro mans

Alleluia Verses The most likely place for variation within chant repertoire for the Mass is the choice of Alleluia verse: whereas much of the Mass is stable from place to place (e.g. Viderunt omnes is inevitably given as the gradual for Christmas day), there is a certain amount of variation between traditions in the choice of Alleluia verse for any given feast, and in particular for the Alleluias on Sundays after Easter and Pentecost.17 The Dominican choice of Alleluia verse has has previously been studied by Dominique Delalande, who found the Alleluia verses in the post-reform Dominican liturgy to be almost identical to that of the Cistercians, and thus demonstrated that Dominican practices were dependent on the earlier Cistercian liturgy.18 Dirks’s survey of pre-reform sources similarly noted areas of close concordance with the Cistercian liturgy.19 A close relationship between Dominican and Cistercian chant was also found in the work of the monks of Solesmes in their search for an Urtext Roman gradual.20 Their ­graphic analysis depicted Cistercian and post-reform Dominican sources as identical,21 and as part of a larger group of Northern French manuscripts. The Cistercian Order, founded in 1098, went through two somewhat questionable processes of reforming and refining their chant in the first half of the twelfth century.22 It may have been that the Dominicans turned to the Cistercian liturgy as a tradition they thought had been corrected already. A study of the Alleluia chants of the pre-reform manuscripts reveals that the influence of the Cistercian liturgy was present from the earliest extant Mass books. Table 10.2 displays the Alleluia verses for select feasts between Easter and Pentecost. For many feasts, including Easter, Easter Monday, the Saturday after Easter, Easter’s octave, Ascension Day, and all Sundays after Pentecost,23 the same verse is used across the Cistercian and Dominican traditions (highlighted in light grey). On certain feasts, such as the Tuesday to Friday after Easter, and Pentecost (dark grey), the verse(s) assigned in the Cistercian liturgy are found in the Dominican sources in the preceding

 17 Huglo, ‘Les Listes alléluiatiques’; Apel, Gregorian Chant, pp. 378–81.  18 Delalande, Le Graduel des Prêcheurs.  19 Dirks, ‘De liturgiae dominicanae evolutione’.  20 Gajard, Le Graduel romain, Premier sondage: lieux var. 51–150 avec les mss. rattachés.  21 Their survey used a single Dominican manuscript, namely Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1 (an authoritative ‘exemplar’ of the revised Dominican liturgy, copied in Paris c. 1256–1259).  22 In an attempt to remove what were deemed to be later corruptions of Pope Gregory’s original chant, the Cistercians made various revisions to their chant melodies, including reducing the length of melismas and altering chants so that they remained within one mode, did not exceed a range of ten notes, and avoided the use of B♭. For further information on the Cistercian chant reforms, see Waddell, ‘The Origin and Early Evolution of the Cistercian Antiphonary’; Maître, La Réforme cistercienne du plain-chant.  23 Cistercian Sundays are enumerated after Pentecost, whereas Dominican Sundays are enumerated after Trinity Sunday.

303

3 04

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d

or following position. And on the Vigil for Ascension, the Cistercian and pre-reform Dominican sources supply the Alleluia verse Omnes gentes, which is replaced by Exivi a Patre in the post-reform sources. That all six Dominican pre-reform sources for Alleluia verses can be represented in a single column in Table 10.2 indicates that the extant pre-reform sources all had the same choice of Alleluia verse for these feasts. A diverse selection of Alleluia verses representing local traditions might have been expected, but this is not the case: the pre-reform choices of Alleluia verse are uniform. Moreover, the choice of Alleluia verse in the early Dominican books differs very little from that in the reformed Dominican chant books; the exception is the verse for the Vigil of Ascension, where the pre-reform Dominican Alleluia verse matches the Cistercian choice, Omnes gentes, which is changed to Exivi a patre after the reform.24 Apart from this exception, the Dominican choice of Alleluia verse before and after their reform is identical, suggesting that there was little change to the Dominican Mass liturgy as a result of the reform. Finally, it is clear that the pre-reform Dominican Alleluia verses were closer to the Cistercian choices than the post-reform verses were, since the Cistercian and pre-reform Dominican traditions share the same choice of Alleluia verse for the Vigil of Ascension. Alleluia verse incipits, by their very nature, provide only the first few words of a verse. A comparison based solely on incipits may thus give a deceptively uniform impression of the chant traditions. For example, the Alleluia verse for Easter Sunday, Pascha nostrum, would appear from its incipit to be identical across all Dominican and Cistercian manuscripts (see Table 10.2). However, in Humbert of Romans’s reformed liturgy, the full text of this chant is: ‘Pascha nostrum immolatus est christus’ (Christ our Passover has been sacrificed), whereas in the pre-reform Dominican Mass books, this is followed by a second verse: ‘Epulemur in azimus sinceritatis et veritatis’ (Let us feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth). The Cistercian tradition supplies the same text as the pre-reform Dominican manuscripts, albeit without a subdivision into two verses: ‘Pascha nostrum immolatus est christus epulemur in azimus sinceritatis et Veritatis.’ There are three further cases where an Alleluia has two verses in the pre-reform tradition,25 and in each of these, the chant has been reduced to a single verse after the reform. This suggests that Dominican revisionists followed a policy of allowing no more than a single Alleluia verse. Three conclusions can be drawn from this preliminary review of Alleluia verses. First, pre-reform chants were sometimes longer than their post-re  24 This change may have been somehow related to the composition of a new sequence for the feast of Ascension prior to Humbert’s reform by a Dominican from Colmar living in Paris, which also opened with the words Omnes gentes; see Becker, ‘Peregrinus coloniensis’.  25 Namely, the second Sunday in Advent (Letatus sum and Stantes errant pedes), the Friday after Easter (Angelus domini descendit and Respondens autem angelus), and the second Alleluia on the Saturday after Easter (Laudate pueri and Sit nomen domini).

d o m i n i c an m as s b o o ks b e fo r e hu mb e rt o f ro mans

form counterparts and were curtailed as a result of the reform. Second, as previous studies have already noted, the pre-reform Dominican Mass was closely based on Cistercian practices. Third, all the pre-reform Dominican books used the same choice of Alleluia verse. Although Alleluias were the Mass chant most susceptible to variation, there is no sign before the reform of the diversity or local variation that might have been expected. This undermines the long-held narrative that there were local variants in the early Dominican liturgy that were unified as a result of the reform in the mid-thirteenth century. An examination of the melodies of these Alleluia verses provides further support for these three conclusions. The Alleluia for the Tuesday after Easter Sunday serves as a case study; it contains the same text in Cistercian and both pre- and post-reform Dominican traditions: ‘Alleluia V. Surrexit dominus et occurrens mulieribus ait avete tunc accesserunt et tenuerunt pedes ejus.’ (Alleluia V. The Lord arose and running to the women said hail; then they came and clasped his feet). Figure 10.1 shows the opening of this Alleluia in a twelfth-century Cistercian gradual, BnF, MS lat. 17328, fol. 71v. Figure 10.2 and Figure 10.3 supply the only two notated sources dating from before the reform, the notated missal held in the Getty Museum, MS Ludwig V 5 and the gradual BAV, MS Vat. lat. 10773. Figure 10.4 is from the Dominican exemplar now held in Rome, Santa Sabina (MS XIV L 1), created to disseminate the newly revised liturgy and thought to be the first post-reform source. Differences between the chant in these four manuscripts are few in number. The main difference is the presence of a repeated pattern at the start of the melisma of Alleluia (transcribed in Figure 10.5a). This pattern is sung twice according to the pre-reform manuscripts and the Cistercian manuscript, whereas in the post-reform exemplar the pattern is only sung once. A similar alteration is found subsequently within the same melisma (Figure 10.5b), where the Cistercian and pre-reform melodies repeat the melodic pattern, while the second iteration of this pattern is omitted after the reform. Another case in which repetition is omitted can be seen on the second and third syllables of ‘surrexit’ (Figure 10.5c). Before the reform, the final syllable ‘-it’ repeats the final pitch of the previous syllable ‘-rex-’, D; after the reform the chant descends to E on ‘-rex-’, finishing the word on D without repetition. In each of these cases, the gradual BAV, MS Vat. lat. 10773 was updated following the reform, with the offending repetition removed.26 This is particularly clear on the second stave, where there would have been no reason to leave a large gap when copying a melisma with no text to guide the placement of the notes.

 26 The manuscript has been carefully updated throughout so that the melody matches that sanctioned in the post-reform exemplars.

305

3 06

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d

Figure 10.1. Cistercian gradual, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS lat. 17328, fol. 71v (detail). Twelfth century. Reproduced with permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Figure 10.2. Pre-reform notated missal, The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, MS Ludwig V 5, fol. 113r (detail). 1246–1254. Reproduced with permission of The J. Paul Getty Museum.

d o m i n i c an m as s b o o ks b e fo r e hu mb e rt o f ro mans

307

Figure 10.3. Pre-reform gradual, Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 10773, fol. 75r (detail). Before 1246. Reproduced by permission of Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, with all rights reserved.

Figure 10.4. Post-reform exemplar, Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1, fol. 341r (detail). 1256–1259. Reproduced with permission of the Archivum Generale Ordinis Praedicatorum.

A broader survey of Alleluia chant melodies reveals similar strategies. The repetition of long repeated melodic patterns within melismas in pre-­ reform chants is usually eradicated, cut down to a single iteration. Similarly, two or three repeated pitches tend to be curtailed down to a single note. This musical evidence suggests that the early Dominicans took Cistercian chant as their starting point for their Mass liturgy, not local customs as previously presumed. These Cistercian chants were then altered and shaped by the Dominicans to reflect their own needs and priorities during their reform. They did not remove melismas altogether: Dominican chant is far from being an austere repertoire. Rather, it seems that repetition of notes or melodic phrases was deemed largely unnecessary. This move towards

3 08

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d

Figure 10.5. Melodic differences between the Cistercian and Dominican traditions.

removing repetition was not particular to the Dominicans; it was a widespread practice in thirteenth-century France.27 A number of smaller differences can also be observed between the pre-reform sources. The notated missal (Figure 10.2), for instance, differs from the other sources in that it opens with just two notes on the first syllable of Alleluia instead of three (transcribed in Figure 10.6). Similarly, a rising liquescence may have been sung between the final two syllables of ‘Alleluia’ according to the notated missal, whereas the gradual (Figure 10.3) did not include this melodic articulation of the text (transcribed in Figure 10.6). These differences are characteristic of the majority of melodic variation between the two notated pre-reform sources: small melodic changes, such as the occasional removal or addition of a liquescence or a pitch within a group. Such differences are both minor and infrequent; as a result, it is hard to believe they were the ‘variation’ to which Humbert alluded, requiring the lengthy overhaul of the Dominican liturgy that took place in the middle of the thirteenth century. Moreover, as I have shown elsewhere,28 these small differences are still found between post-reform manuscripts, albeit less frequently. If the primary goal of the reform was to eliminate these kinds of differences, it was not entirely successful. Nevertheless, from a practical perspective, in communal singing it can be disruptive if someone takes a marked breath in the wrong place, or has a different way of articulating a word or melodic phrase; these differences which look minor on the page may in fact have been a source of annoyance to the early Dominicans. Indeed, the  27 Haller, ‘Early Dominican Mass Chants’, pp. 202–05.  28 Giraud, ‘Totum officium bene correctum habeatur in domo: Uniformity in the Dominican Liturgy’.

d o m i n i c an m as s b o o ks b e fo r e hu mb e rt o f ro mans

Figure 10.6. Minor differences in prereform sources.

exemplars include a set of rules about the copying of chant books, which explicitly demands that no changes be made to the music or the text: ‘Nullus scienter litteram aut notam mutet. sed teneantur littera et note et uirgule pausarum.’ (Let no one knowingly alter a letter or note, but let the letter[s] and notes and lines of pauses be observed).29 Consequently, even if the ‘minor’ variations noted above were not the main impetus behind the reform of the liturgy, it appears that the Dominican revisionists made some attempt to eradicate these kinds of differences and unify their chant practice at this micro-level as well — and they were to some extent successful.30 Another concern of the Dominican revisionists may have been modal transposition. Most Gregorian chant can be assigned a mode based on its melodic behaviour and final note; there are four pairs of modes with finals on D, E, F, and G. In some cases however, chants are transposed up a fifth; for example a first-mode chant ending on D may be transposed up a fifth, retaining the same melodic outline but ending on a. Of the eighty-five Alleluias in the temporal cycle and thirty-three in the common of saints, fifteen were written in transposed modes in the two notated pre-reform Dominican books, of which fourteen were also transposed in the Cistercian gradual BnF, MS lat. 17328 (see Table 10.3). In all fifteen cases, the reformers transposed these chants back to their original mode.31 One reason to transpose modes was to avoid the use of B♭: transposing a D-mode chant with B♭s up a fifth (i.e. to a instead of D, and f ’ instead of b♭) removed the need for B♭ entirely. When medi­eval music came to be notated on staves (from the eleventh century onwards), a note written on a B could be sung either as B♮ or B♭ depending on its context; unlike today,

 29 These rules can be found at the end of the tonary that is placed at the opening of numerous Dominican antiphoners, including the exemplars BL, MS Add. 23935, fol. 250r and Salamanca, San Esteban, MS SAL.–CL.01, fol. 1v. The folio which would have supplied the tonary is lacking from Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1. For further references regarding the Dominican tonary, see n. 36 below.  30 Giraud, ‘Totum officium bene correctum habeatur in domo: Uniformity in the Dominican Liturgy’.  31 Once again, parts of BAV, MS Vat. lat. 10773 have been updated to match the post-reform mode; for example, on fol. 88r (Alleluia V. Loquebantur variis), the C-clefs have been altered into F-clefs to bring the chant back down a fifth from a to D. However, not all transposed Alleluias in MS Vat. lat. 10773 have received this treatment.

309

31 0

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d

Table 10.3. Transposed Alleluia verses in pre-reform sources, compared to Cistercian and post-reform sources.

Pre-reform Dominican mode

Post-reform Dominican mode

Feast

Alleluia verse

Cistercian mode

2nd Sunday of Advent

Letatus sum

I transposed

I transposed

I

3rd Sunday of Advent

Excita domine

IV transposed

IV transposed

IV

1st Sunday after Epiphany’s octave

Laudate deum

IV transposed

IV transposed

IV

Monday after Easter

Nonne cor nostrum I transposed

I transposed

I

Wednesday after Easter

Christus resurgens

I

I transposed

I

Easter’s octave (2nd alleluia)

Surrexit dominus de sepulcro

I transposed

I transposed

I

Ascension (1st alleluia)

Ascendit deus

IV transposed

IV transposed

IV

Pentecost (1st alleluia)

Emitte spiritum

IV transposed

IV transposed

IV

Tuesday after Pentecost (1st alleluia)

Loquebantur variis

I transposed

I transposed

I

Tuesday after Pentecost (2nd alleluia)

Non vos relinquam32 I transposed

I transposed

I

8th Sunday after Trinity

Attendite popule

VI transposed

VI transposed

VI

16th Sunday after Trinity

Confitemini … et invocate

II transposed

II transposed

II

19th Sunday after Trinity

Dextera dei

I transposed

I transposed

I

Common of apostles

Non vos me elegistis II transposed

II transposed

II

Common of several martyrs

Te martyrum

VII transposed VII transposed

VIII

 32 This alleluia is transposed in BAV, MS Vat. lat. 10773, fol. 87v, but untransposed in Getty Museum, MS Ludwig V 5, fol. 129r. In addition, the two Alleluias for the Tuesday after Pentecost are reversed in BAV, MS Vat. lat. 10773.

d o m i n i c an m as s b o o ks b e fo r e hu mb e rt o f ro mans

the natural did not take precedence over the flat.33 This ambiguity did not sit well with the Cistercian need for clarity, and many Cistercian chants have been altered or transposed to avoid potential B♭s.34 It appears that, for their Alleluias at least, the early Dominicans followed the transposed modes of the Cistercians; these were then returned to their untransposed state as a result of the reform. This said, transposed modes were used elsewhere in post-reform Dominican chant,35 and transposed modes were not prohibited in Dominican music theory. The Dominican tonary copied into many post-reform Dominican antiphoners,36 and also found among the texts compiled by the Dominican music theorist Jerome of Moravia,37 allowed for D, E, and F modes to be transposed to a, b and c: Omnis cantus ecclesiasticus in mediis clauibus terminatur. hoc est in d. e. f. g. grauibus. et in a. b. et ♮. et c acutis. […] Igitur primus et secundus tonus. terminantur in d. graui uel in a. acuto. cum Re. Tertius et quartus tonus terminantur in e. graui. uel in a. acuto. cum Mi. uel in ♮ quadro. […] Quintus et sextus tonus terminantur in f. graui. uel in c. acuto. Septimus et octauus solum in g. graui terminantur.38 (Every liturgical chant ends on [one of] the middle notes/​pitches, namely on low d, e, f and g, and on high a, b,39 ♮ and c. […] Therefore the first and second tones end on low d or on high a-Re [i.e. with b♮ above]. The third and fourth tones end on low e, or on high a-Mi [i.e. with B♭ above], or on B♮. […] The fifth and sixth tones end on low f or high c. The seventh and eighth [tones] end only on low g.) Thus it cannot be said that a wholesale avoidance of transposed modes was a wider policy of the Dominican revisionists.

 33 The relationship between B♮ or B♭, and the characterization of these two pitches by medi­ eval theorists, is explored by Blackburn, ‘The Lascivious Career of B-Flat’.  34 See Delalande, Le Graduel des Prêcheurs, pp. 30–32.  35 For example, on Friday in the third week of Advent, the gradual Ostende nobis is in trans­ posed mode II (final on a) and the communion Ecce dominus veniet is in transposed mode VI (final on c).  36 A list of Dominican antiphoners containing this tonary is supplied by van Dijk and sup­ plemented by Huglo and Beban: Sources of the Modern Roman Liturgy, ed. by van Dijk, p. 188 n. 2; Huglo, ‘Dominican and Franciscan Books’, p. 196 n. 2 (this is a later English version of Huglo, ‘Règlements du xiiie siècle pour la transcription des livres notés’); Beban, ‘Nullus scienter litteram aut notam mutet’, p. 177. On the Dominican tonary, see Meyer, ‘Le Tonaire des Frères Prêcheurs’.  37 BnF, MS lat. 16663, fol. 54v [accessed 1 June 2021] See also the modern edition of this manuscript, Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer, Lobrichon, and Hertel-Geay, p. 147. On Hieronymus de Moravia, see the chapters by Błażej Matusiak and Christian Leitmeir in this volume.  38 Transcribed from the tonary at the start of the antiphoner in BL, MS Add. 23935, fol. 249r.  39 This b (denoting B♭) is redundant, as none of the transposed modes close on B♭.

311

312

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d

The Sanctoral Cycle Another key area of the Mass liturgy that is susceptible to variation is the sanctoral cycle of saints’ feasts. Whereas most churches across the Western Latin church celebrate the same temporal cycle of feasts relating to the life of Christ, the celebration of the sanctoral cycle is bound to show fluctuation from place to place in the choice of saints and the rank of the feasts. Had the early Dominicans adopted local liturgical practices, one might expect to find evidence of the veneration of local saints in the pre-reform liturgical books. However, there is little evidence of diversity in the saints celebrated at Mass before the liturgical reform. (The following discussion does not cover the saints that were added to the Dominican calendar during the reform period, whose presence or absence are a reflection of chrono­logy rather than local practices.40) Among the six Mass manuscripts with full sanctoral cycles (the five Mass books and the Cambridge Bible-missal), there are only two instances where a feast appears in one book but not the others. The memorial of Eusebius of Vercelli is celebrated on 1 August in the missal Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, St Peter perg. 20, but is not found in any of the other pre-reform Mass books. Similarly, proper prayers and incipits for proper chants and readings are provided for the feast of St Barbara on 4 December only in the Bible-missal Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean 16.41 Other than this, there are no cases of saints being celebrated locally in one house and not others; this would suggest that any issues of diversity in the early Dominican Mass liturgy did not stem from the celebration of local saints. There are four feasts that were widely celebrated across the early Dominican Order, but which were absent from one or two pre-reform Mass books: the memorial of Paul of Thebes, also known as Paul the Hermit (10 January), is absent from the Bible-missal Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean MS 16; the memorial of St Benedict’s sister Scholastica (10 February) is absent from the missal BnF, MS lat. 8884; the feast of St Germain (31 July, 3 lessons) is absent from BnF, MS lat. 888442 and the Bible-missal Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean MS 16; and the feast of St Remigius (1 October, 3 lessons) is absent in the gradual BAV, MS Vat. lat. 10773. Like the case of the one-off celebrations of Sts Barbara and Eusebius

 40 The feasts added to the Dominican calendar before the reform are St Elisabeth of Hungary (19 November) and the 11,000 virgins (21 October), both added by admonitio in 1243; St Dominic (5 August) and St Peter of Verona (29 April), both added by admonitio in 1254; and St Francis (4 October), who was celebrated widely but not formally adopted within the General Chapter Acts.  41 Saint Barbara’s legend features in the Dominican Vincent of Beauvais’s Speculum Historiale.  42 This is surprising: given St Germain’s association with Paris, one might expect to find his feast in this Parisian Dominican pre-reform missal.

d o m i n i c an m as s b o o ks b e fo r e hu mb e rt o f ro mans

above, it seems unlikely that the lack of celebration of these four relatively minor feasts would have been the main impetus behind the revision of the Dominican liturgy. Nevertheless, one of the aims of the revision (and the production of exemplars against which new books were to be corrected) would presumably have been to ensure that such feasts were not missing from the calendars of individual houses from then onwards. The extent to which this was successful would require further study of post-reform sources. Three feasts celebrated widely before the reform were removed as part of the process of revision. The memorial of St Nicomedes on 1 June can be found in all five pre-reform missals (memorials do not feature in the gradual BAV, MS Vat. lat. 10773, as they were not assigned proper chants).43 The removal of a feast that was universally celebrated runs contrary to the principle of unification: if the sole aim of the revision was to unify liturgical practices, then there would be no need to remove a feast that was universally venerated. This suggests that another agenda was behind the removal of this feast, although what this might have been is unclear. The Translation of St Martin of Tours on 4 July features in four of the pre-reform missals, but is absent from Lausanne, MS 10. Likewise, the memorial of Sts Germanus and Vedast (the latter was also known as St Foster in English) on 1 October is shared between the Bible-missal Fitzwilliam museum, McClean MS 16, the missal BnF, MS lat. 8884, and the missal Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibl., MS St Peter perg. 20. The translation of St Martin and the memory of St Germain (Germanus) are associated particularly with Northern France, so it may be that they were removed in a bid to make the Dominican calendar less national. In addition, there are thirteen saints who were not widely celebrated at Mass before the reform, but who received proper Mass material as a result of the reform (see Table 10.4 on the following page). Apart from the feast for the Crown of Thorns, all of these feasts appear in the Karlsruhe missal which dates from shortly before 1253.44 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. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the same series of feasts (i.e. all but the Crown of Thorns) have also been given Office material

 43 The feast of St Nicomedes is also found in the pre-reform Office books: Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 2, the breviary used by St Dominic (Rome, Monasterio del S. Rosario, Monte Mario, MS Breviarium quo utebatur S. P. Dominicus confessor), and the diurnal Engelberg, Stiftsbibliothek, Codex 104.  44 While a substantial part of Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibl., MS St Peter perg. 20 was written before 1253, a number of its quires, particularly at the beginning and end of the book, were replaced in the fifteenth century. Nonetheless, the entire sanctoral (minus the common of saints) survives from the pre-reform period — that is to say, the later folios are not a concern in this discussion.

313

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d

Date

Feasts added at reform

Grade

11 December

Damasus, pope and confessor

Memorial

15 January

Maurus, abbot

3 lessons

17 January

Anthony the Great, abbot

3 lessons

23 January

Emerentiana, virgin and martyr

Memorial

27 January

Julian, bishop and confessor

Memorial

1 February

Ignatius, bishop and martyr

Memorial

3 February

Blaise, bishop and martyr

3 lessons

1 March

Albinus, bishop and confessor

Memorial

4 May

Crown of Thorns

Simplex

31 May

Petronella, virgin

Memorial

8 June

Medard, bishop and confessor

Memorial

27 August

Rufus, martyr

Memorial

17 September

Lambert, bishop and martyr

Memorial

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓  

✓

✓

✓

✓

 

 

 

 

 

 

✓  

 

 

✓

✓

✓

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean MS 16

Table 10.4. Feasts added to the Mass at the Dominican reform.

Getty Museum, Ludwig V 5

Pre-reform sources containing this feast Karlsruhe, Badische Landes­ bibl. MS St Peter perg. 20 Lausanne, Musée historique, AA.VL 81, MS 10

31 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

✓

 

 

 

✓

✓  

 

 

 

 

in the pre-reform notated breviary held in Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 2, which has been argued by some scholars, including Gleeson, to represent the work of the four friars.45 The Crown of Thorns must have been added to the Dominican calendar at the final stage of the liturgical revision, undertaken by Humbert of Romans. This may have been as a result of Humbert of Romans’ close personal relationship with King Louis IX, who sent two Dominican brothers to acquire the Crown of Thorns relic for him in 1238–1239.46 A number of sanctoral feasts celebrated with proper chants and readings prior to the reform were downgraded to the rank of memorial or commemoration (memoria) as a result of the reform. The celebration of a memorial

 45 Gleeson, ‘The Pre-Humbertian Liturgical Sources Revisited’, p. 109.  46 On the liturgical material for this feast, see Maurey, The Dominican Mass and Office for the Crown of Thorns. On the Dominican role in the acquisition of the Crown of Thorns relic, see Emily Guerry’s chapter in this volume.

d o m i n i c an m as s b o o ks b e fo r e hu mb e rt o f ro mans

only required proper prayers (the collect, secret and postcommunion), so the obsolete proper chants and readings have been removed from some of the pre-reform Mass books to bring them in line with the post-reform liturgy; this is most conspicuous in Lausanne, Musée historique de Lausanne, AA.VL 81, MS 10, where many unnecessary texts were erased in a single campaign, with the resulting blank spaces often filled with swirling line fillers. Table 10.5 lists the sanctoral feasts that were reduced to memorials after the reform but had been celebrated with greater solemnity before the reform. Each of these feasts was in fact celebrated as a memorial in one or more of the pre-reform books, but was celebrated with proper chants and readings in the majority of the pre-reform books. This discrepancy in the grade of solemnity may have been one of the issues that the reform process sought to address. Table 10.5. Feasts that became memorials after the Dominican reform.

Date

Feast reduced to memorial at reform

Concurrent feast

13 January

Hilary & Remigius

Octave of the Epiphany (simplex)

3 May

Alexander, Eventius & Theodolus

Finding of the Holy Cross (semiduplex)

16 June

Quiricus & Julitta

 

2 July

Processus & Martinian

 

6 August

Sixtus

[within octave of St Dominic, 5 August, totum duplex]

8 August

Cyriacus & companions

[within octave of St Dominic]

11 August

Tiburtius

[within octave of St Dominic]

22 August

Timothy & Symphorian

Octave of the Assumption (simplex)

29 August

Sabina

Beheading of St John the Baptist (simplex)

30 August

Felix & Adacti

 

1 September

Giles

 

9 September Gorgonius

 

11 September Protus & Hyacinth 14 September Cornelius & Cyprian 15 September Nicomedes

  47

Exaltation of the Holy Cross (semiduplex) Octave of the Nativity of Mary (simplex)

 47 The feast of Cornelius and Cyprian is absent from Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McClean MS 16 and Getty Museum, Ludwig V 5.

315

31 6

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d

A memorial could be incorporated into another Mass: its three proper prayers would be recited at the appropriate points within the designated Mass for the day. Some of these feasts may have been reduced to memorials because they fell on the same day as another more important sanctoral feast (see Table 10.5). After the reform, only one Mass would have been performed on such days, with the proper prayers for the memorial slotting in among the proper prayers, readings, and chants for the greater feast. Similarly, when memorials that did not coincide with another sanctoral feast fell on a temporal feast or Sunday, before the reform the Dominicans would have performed two separate Masses, whereas after the reform the prayers for the saints in Table 10.5 would have been incorporated into the Sunday or temporal Mass. This lesser degree of ceremony and reduction in the number of Masses performed aligns with the general tendency within the Dominican reform to reduce the amount of time spent performing the liturgy — a sentiment that was first expressed in the early constitutions of the Order, which required the liturgy to be performed ‘briefly and succinctly’ (breviter ac succincte).48

Concluding Thoughts As the above surveys of the sanctoral feasts and the Alleluia verses suggest, very few signs of local differences can be found between the extant pre-­ reform Mass books. There are some minor instances of variation regarding the melodic articulation of chants, and of varying grades of celebration for certain lesser saints. Overall, however, the liturgical celebration of the Mass across the Dominican Order appears to have been largely uniform at both the macro-level (i.e. selection of which feasts to venerate) and micro-level (from note to note). Rather than drawing on local practices, the early Dominicans drew on the Cistercian liturgy for their gradual (Mass chants), adjusting it further during their revision process. Whether the other elements of the Mass (readings, prayers, and actions/​rubrics) also followed Cistercian practices remains to be firmly established. Other than changing chant modes back to their untransposed state and introducing a selection of new feasts, the majority of alterations that can be found after the Dominican reform involve some aspect of shortening: removing the second Alleluia verses, reducing the grades of certain feasts to memorials, and largely omitting patterns of melodic repetition. This principle of shortening the chant was in keeping with the Dominican ideal of devoting themselves to study, even at the expense of time in church. In his commentary on the Dominican constitutions, Humbert of Romans said that it was better to have a short Office with  48 Thomas, De oudste constituties van de Dominicanen, p. 316.

d o m i n i c an m as s b o o ks b e fo r e hu mb e rt o f ro mans

study, than a long Office with study hindered.49 He even recommended that if the brothers sleep in by mistake, the Cantor should shorten the length of the readings at Matins and generally hasten their way through the service, presumably to ensure that no precious study time was lost.50 It seems that many of the changes made to Mass chants as a result of the reform supported this ideal of keeping the liturgy short so as not to hinder study time. In adopting the Cistercian Mass chant repertoire, the Dominicans chose a liturgical practice that had already been pared down; however, this was clearly not enough, as they took the opportunity of the liturgical revision to further shorten the texts and chants. It would thus seem that diverging practices in Mass chants cannot have been the driving force behind the need to revise the Dominican liturgy. However, the desire for revision must have been strong, given that three attempts at revision were undertaken (the two revisions of the four friars, followed by that of Humbert of Romans) until a satisfactory solution was achieved. A study of pre-reform Office books may reveal greater evidence of local practices and deviation within the celebration of the Office; it may be that the Mass needed little adjustment and the core of the ‘problem’ lay with the Office. Nevertheless, there may also have been other factors behind the Dominican revision of the liturgy. Indicators that diversity was not the only issue that the revision addressed can be seen in the cases above where the uniform practice in pre-reform sources was altered after the revision, such as the removal of the feast of St Nicomedes (1 June) or the change of the Alleluia verse for the Vigil of the Ascension from Omnes gentes to Exivi a patre. It is possible that the revision of the Dominican liturgy was primarily a rebranding exercise. This may in part have been to mark themselves as distinct from the Franciscan Order. The Franciscans were also founded at the start of the thirteenth century (1209), and went through their own process of revising their liturgy, with a revised Franciscan ordinal reportedly issued in 1243.51 It may be no coincidence that the Dominicans embarked on their project to unify their liturgy in 1244, immediately after the Franciscans had announced their own revision.52 While there is no evidence from the Dominicans to suggest that this was the case, the rivalries between the two Orders are well known. In sum, the Dominican drive for unification may

 49 ‘Melius est autem breve officium cum studio quam prolixum cum impedimento studii.’ Humbert of Romans, Opera de vita regulari, ed. by Berthier, ii, p. 97.  50 ‘Item, quando tarde surgitur ex errore ad matutinas, facere festinari officium et abbreviari lectiones.’ Humbert of Romans, Opera de vita regulari, ed. by Berthier, ii, p. 244.  51 The longstanding authority on the Franciscan liturgy is S. J. P. van Dijk, see for example Sources of the Modern Roman Liturgy, ed. by van Dijk. Welch’s recent study builds on and respectfully revises van Dijk’s exposition of the development of the Franciscan liturgy: Welch, Liturgy, Books and Franciscan Identity in Medi­eval Umbria, 51–91.  52 Acta capitulorum generalium, ed. by Reichert, i, p. 29.

317

31 8

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d

not have arisen from divergent local practices in the Mass liturgy (although minor differences would have been eliminated during the reform); rather it seems likely that the revision sought to concretize the Dominican liturgical practices, as part of a wider project to firmly establish their own distinct identity.

Works Cited Manuscripts and Archival Sources Bordeaux, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 780 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS McClean 16 Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, MS Ny Kongelig Samling 632 8o Engelburg, Stiftsbibliothek, Codex 104 Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, MS St Peter perg. 20 Lausanne, Musée historique de Lausanne, AA.VL 81, MS 10 London and Oslo, Schøyen Collection, MS 115 London, British Library, MS Additional 23935 —— , MS Additional 41507 Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Museum, MS Ludwig V 5 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fonds latin 215 —— , MS fonds latin 8884 —— , MS fonds latin 16663 —— , MS fonds latin 17328 —— , MS fonds nouvelles acquisitions latines 1413 Paris, Biblothèque Mazarine, MS 31 Rome, Monasterio del S. Rosario, Monte Mario, MS Breviarium quo utebatur S. P. Dominicus confessor Rome, Santa Sabina, MS XIV L 1 —— , MS XIV L 2 Salamanca, San Esteban, SAL.–CL.01 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. lat. 10773 Primary Sources Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum. i: Ab anno 1222 usque ad annum 1303, ed. by Benedictus Maria Reichert, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 3 (Rome: In domo generalitia, 1898) Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus De Musica, ed. by Christian Meyer, Guy Lobrichon, and Carola Hertel-Geay, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 250 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012) Humbert of Romans, Opera de vita regulari, ed. by Joseph Joachim Berthier, 2 vols (Turin: Marietti, 1956)

d o m i n i c an m as s b o o ks b e fo r e hu mb e rt o f ro mans

Litterae encyclicae magistrorum generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum: Ab anno 1233 usque ad annum 1376, ed. by Benedictus Maria Reichert, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 5 (Rome: In domo generalitia, 1900) Maurey, Yossi, The Dominican Mass and Office for the Crown of Thorns, Musico­ logical Studies, LXV/​29 (Kitchener: The Institute of Mediaeval Music, 2019) Sources of the Modern Roman Liturgy: The Ordinals by Haymo of Faversham and Related Documents (1243–1307), ed. by Stephen J. P. van Dijk, 2 vols, Studia et Documenta Franciscana (Leiden: Brill, 1963) Thomas, Antonius Hendrik, De oudste constituties van de Dominicanen: Voor­ geschiednis tekst, bronnen, ontstaan en ontwikkeling (1215–1237), Bibliothèque de la Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 42 (Leuven: Leuvense Universitaire Uitgaven, 1965) Secondary Works Apel, Willi, Gregorian Chant (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990) Beban, Hrvoje, ‘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, ed. by Cornelia Linde (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 173–88 Becker, Hansjakob, ‘Peregrinus coloniensis OP. und die Sequenz Omnes gentes plaudite. Ein Hymno­logischer Beitrag zur literarischen und liturgischen Bedeutung von S. Jacques in Paris im 2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 49 (1979), 39–77 Blackburn, Bonnie J., ‘The Lascivious Career of B-Flat’, in Eroticism in Early Modern Music, ed. by Bonnie J. Blackburn and Laurie Stras (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015), pp. 19–42 Bonniwell, William R., A History of the Dominican Liturgy, 1215–1945, 2nd edn (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1945) Chadd, David, ‘Liturgy and Liturgical Music: The Limits of Uniformity’, in Cistercian Art and Architecture in the British Isles, ed. by Christopher Norton and David Park (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 299–314 Delalande, Dominique, Le Graduel des Prêcheurs: Recherches sur les sources et la valeur de son texte, Bibliothèque d’histoire dominicaine, 2 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1949) Dirks, Ansgar, ‘De liturgiae dominicanae evolutione’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 50 (1980), 5–21; 52 (1982), 5–76; 53 (1983), 53–145; 54 (1984), 39–82; 55 (1985), 5–47 Fehér, Judit, ‘The Hymnal of the Dominicans and the Teutonic Knights’, in Cantus Planus: Papers Read at the 12th Meeting of the IMS Study Group, Lillafüred, 2004, ed. by László Dobszay (Budapest: Institute for Musico­logy of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2006), pp. 657–68 Gajard, Joseph, Le Graduel romain (Solesmes: Abbaye Saint-Pierre, 1957) Giraud, Eleanor, ‘Totum officium bene correctum habeatur in domo: Uniformity in the Dominican Liturgy’, in Making and Breaking the Rules: Discussion,

319

3 20

e l e a n o r  j. g i r au d

Implementation and Consequences of Dominican Legislation, ed. by Cornelia Linde (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 153–72 Gleeson, Philip, ‘The Pre-Humbertian Liturgical Sources Revisited’, in Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L 1, ed. by Leonard E. Boyle and Pierre-Marie Gy (Rome: École française de Rome, CNRS, 2004), pp. 99–114 Haller, Robert B., ‘Early Dominican Mass Chants: A Witness to Thirteenth Century Chant Style’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Catholic University of America, 1986) Hughes, Andrew, Medi­eval Manuscripts for Mass and Office: A Guide to their Organization and Termino­logy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982) Huglo, Michel, ‘Règlements du xiiie siècle pour la transcription des livres notés’, in Festschrift Bruno Stäblein zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by M. Ruhnke (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1967), 121–33 —— , ‘Les Listes alléluiatiques dans les témoins du Graduel Grégorien’, in Speculum musicae artis: Festgabe für Heinrich Husmann zum 60. Geburtstag am 16. Dez 1968, ed. by Heinz Becker and Reinhard Gerlach (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1970), pp. 219–27 —— , Les Manuscrits du processionnal, 2 vols, Répertoire International des Sources Musicales, B/​XIV (Munich: G. Henle, 1999–2004) —— , ‘Dominican and Franciscan Books: Similarities and Differences Between their Notations’, in The Calli­graphy of Medi­eval Music, ed. by John Haines (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), pp. 195–202 Laporte, Vincent, ‘Précis historique et descriptif du rite dominicain’, Analecta Sacri Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum, 25 (1917), 93–106, 213–31; 26 (1918), 72–96, 331–44 Light, Laura, ‘The Thirteenth-Century Pandect and the Liturgy: Bibles with Missals’, in Form and Function in the Late Medi­eval Bible, ed. by Eyal Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 185–215 Maître, Claire, La Réforme cistercienne du plain-chant: étude d’un traité théorique, Cîteaux, Commentarii Cistercienses: Studia et documenta, 6 (Brecht: Abdij Nazareth, 1995) —— , ‘A propos des chants du célébrant dans le manuscrit Dijon, 114’, in Praise No Less Than Charity: Studies in Honor of M. Chrysogonus Waddell, Monk of Gethsemani Abbey: Contributions from Colleagues, Confrères, and Friends on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of his Monastic Profession, ed. by E. Rozanne Elder (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 2002), pp. 53–83 Meyer, Christian, ‘Le Tonaire des Frères Prêcheurs’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 76 (2006), 117–56 Smith, Innocent, ‘Dominican Chant and Dominican Identity’, Religions, 5 (2014), 961–71 Waddell, Chrysogonus, ‘The Origin and Early Evolution of the Cistercian Antiphonary: Reflections on Two Cistercian Chant Reforms’, in The Cistercian Spirit: A Symposium in Memory of Thomas Merton, ed. by M. Basil Pennington (Shannon: Irish University Press, 1970), pp. 190–223 Welch, Anna, Liturgy, Books and Franciscan Identity in Medi­eval Umbria, The Medi­ eval Franciscans, 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2016)

Innocent Smith OP

‘Lest the Sisters Lose Devotion’ Dominican Liturgy and the Cura Monialium Question in the Thirteenth Century Introduction In the course of the thirteenth century, the Order of Preachers simultaneously dealt with two major controversies: first, the establishment of a uniform liturgy that could unite the far-flung members of the Order in the midst of the prevalent liturgical diversity of the Middle Ages; and second, the determination of the relationship between the friars of the Order and the nuns associated with them.1 In both cases, Humbert of Romans, Master of the Order from 1254 to 1263, played a decisive role in reaching a satisfactory compromise between competing factions within the Order, establishing a solution that would essentially endure until the Council of Trent. Although there have been extensive scholarly discussions of each of the two issues,

 1 For recent summaries of the process of the unification of the Dominican liturgy, see Tugwell, ‘The Quest for Liturgical Uniformity’, and Giraud, ‘Totum officium bene correctum habeatur in domo: Uniformity in the Dominican Liturgy’. For a thorough (though dated) account of the cura monialium controversy, see Grundmann, ‘The Incorporation of the Women’s Religious Movement into the Mendicant Orders’. Grundmann’s account, originally published in 1935, remains indispensable for understanding the complexity of the controversy, particularly in the interrelatedness of the Franciscan and Dominican approaches to the cura monialium. For a thoroughly documented account to the different stages of the cura monialium controversy see Zimmer, ‘Einleitung I’, pp. 35–47. The postthirteenth-century liturgical activity of Dominican nuns has received renewed interest in recent years, with exemplary studies including Hamburger and others, Liturgical Life and Latin Learning, and Jones, Ruling the Spirit. Although focused on the period before the foundation of the Dominican order, the work of Fiona J. Griffiths on the positive collaborations between medi­eval male and female religious has helpful resonances for parallel issues in the Order of Preachers; see especially Griffiths, ‘Women and Reform in the Central Middle Ages’, and Griffiths, ‘The Mass in Monastic Practice’. Innocent Smith is a member of the Order of Preachers – Province of St Joseph. He is Assistant Professor of Homiletics at St. Mary’s Seminary and University, Baltimore, MD.

The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music, and Liturgy, ed. by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, MMS 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021) pp. 321–333 10.1484/M.MMS-EB.5.124222

FHG

3 22

innocent smith op

they have mostly been considered in isolation from each other, despite their simultaneity and the substantial involvement of Humbert in both matters.2 In this chapter, I will show the relevance of considering the two issues in tandem by discussing the evolution of the Constitutions which guided the lives of the Dominican nuns, focusing on the role of the liturgy in the life of the sisters. Although it is unclear when the friars of the Order first undertook the establishment of a unified liturgy, as early as 1216 the constitutions of the friars established by St Dominic and his first companions articulate certain foundational attitudes regarding the place of the liturgy in their lives.3 In particular, the 1216 Constitutions offer detailed rubrics concerning the bodily postures adopted by the friars during the liturgy, as well as the mode of performance of the chant.4 At some point between 1221 and 1238, the constitutions of the Order confirmed a particular edition of the night and day offices to be followed by the friars, although the precise content of this liturgy remains elusive.5 Over the course of the 1240s and 1250s, efforts were made to reform the liturgy of the Order which involved the participation of friars from various regional provinces. Their efforts were not universally appreciated within the Order, but upon the election of Humbert as Master in 1254 an agreement was reached to follow the liturgy as corrected by Humbert. Although Humbert himself acknowledged that his revision would not be pleasing to everyone in all aspects, the reform established in 1254–1256 essentially perdured until the early seventeenth century. Despite the involvement of St Dominic himself in establishing the first three communities of Dominican nuns at Prouille, Madrid, and San Sisto in Rome, the question of the relationship between the friars and the nuns was already becoming a source of controversy in the mid-1220s.6 One of the primary issues in this controversy was the concern that committing to friars the cura monialium or care of nuns would hamper the preaching ministry of the friars by overburdening them with pastoral care. This concern was especially focused on Germany, where the ministry of the friars quickly led to the affiliation of numerous groups of women to the Order. Although many friars in the German province were zealous in the promotion of these communities,  2 For instance, Edward Tracy Brett devotes entire chapters to Humbert’s role in liturgical reform and his role in the cura monialium question without drawing significant connections between the two issues; see Brett, Humbert of Romans, pp. 57–102.  3 When I speak of the 1216 Constitutions, I refer to those sections of the Constitutiones antique of the Order which A. H. Thomas has dated to 1216: see Constitutiones antique ordinis fratrum praedicatorum’, ed. by Thomas, pp. 309–69. For an overview of the development of medi­eval Dominican legislation, see Melville, ‘The Dominican Constitutiones’.  4 For an analysis of these rubrics, see Smith, ‘Dominican Chant and Dominican Identity’.  5 See Giraud, ‘The Production and Notation of Dominican Manuscripts’, p. 2.  6 For an overview of these foundations, see Smith, ‘Prouille, Madrid, Rome’. For further details on the development of the Dominican nuns, see Zimmer, ‘Einleitung I’, pp. 47–67.

‘ l e s t t h e s i st e rs lo se d e vot i o n’

the Order as a whole began to enact legislation to prevent the aggregation of further communities of religious women and even to disavow the care of some already established communities. Over the course of the 1240s and early 1250s, various individuals and groups concerned in the matter effected a series of reversals of policy by means of papal and curial intervention. After the intervention of the Dominican cardinal Hugh of Saint-Cher, in the early 1250s, a definitive solution was reached in 1257 under the guidance of Humbert of Romans, who oversaw the establishment of a set of policies to govern the affiliation of women’s communities to the Order and developed a unified set of constitutions to regulate the practice of the nuns. Humbert played a central role in solving the controversies related to the liturgy and to the nuns. In order to shed light on the connection between these two issues, I will proceed to describe in greater detail the role played by the liturgy in the lives of Dominican nuns. I will focus on the development of legislation for the nuns concerning the liturgy, showing how this development relates to the friars’ legislation. I will conclude by articulating the significance of this development for understanding the liturgical interactions of the Dominican friars and nuns in the thirteenth century.

Liturgical Legislation of Dominican Nuns in the Thirteenth Century As early as 1216 the friars of the Order of Preachers, under the direction of St Dominic, established what I have described as a foundational set of attitudes regarding the liturgy and the mode of performing chant. Although the friars incorporated certain aspects of the Premonstratensian legislation, the Early Constitutions have certain original aspects concerning the liturgy. For instance, the Constitutions provide that during the recitation of the psalms, one side of the choir should stand while the other side sits.7 Further, the Constitutions establish that the liturgy is to be chanted ‘briefly and succinctly, lest the brothers lose devotion and so that study might be minimally impeded’.8 Other reflections of the friars’ attitude to the liturgy are found in  7 Constitutiones antique, d. 1, c. 1, ed. by Thomas, pp. 313–14: ‘Hora itaque predicto more incepta, postquam ad Gloria post Venite inclinaverint, stet chorus contra chorum. Deinde ad primum psalmum sedeat unus chorus, ad secundum stet et similiter sedeat alter chorus. Et sic alternent usque ad Laudate Dominum de celis. Et sic faciant ad omnes horas.’ (The hour having thus begun in the way just described, afterwards, at the Gloria after the Venite inclinaverint, the two choirs stand facing each other. Then at the first psalm one choir should sit, and at the second psalm should stand while the other choir sits. And they should alternate thus until the Laudate Dominum de celis. And they should do the same at all the hours).  8 Constitutiones antique, d. 1, c. 4, ed. by Thomas, p. 316: ‘Hore omnes in ecclesia breviter et succincte taliter dicantur, ne fratres devotionem amittant et eorum studium minime impediatur.’

323

3 24

innocent smith op

the liturgical references which pervade the discussion of eating,9 fasting,10 blood-letting,11 silence,12 haircuts,13 and the chapter of faults.14 In the Institutes of San Sisto, likely composed by St Dominic shortly before his death in 1221, certain aspects of the 1216 Constitutions of the friars are directly incorporated.15 Principally, these include material concerning meals,16 haircuts,17 and the chapter of faults.18 In addition to the elements directly shared with the 1216 Constitutions, the Institutes include some original material concerning the liturgy, particularly focused on the necessity of setting aside time to adequately prepare for the liturgy and chant. After an exhortation concerning the danger of idleness, the Institutes give an important qualification to the amount of time given over to manual labour: ‘Ideo exceptis illis horis, quibus oracioni, lectioni vel provisioni divini officii seu cantus aut erudicioni litterarum debent intendere, operibus manuum omnes attente insistant, prout visum fuerit priorisse.’ (All should attentively undertake manual labour, except for in those times which ought to be given over to prayer, reading, to preparation for the divine office and chant, or for the study of letters).19 This regulation underscores the importance of careful preparation for the liturgy, and acknowledges the legitimacy and necessity of taking time to practice the various chants used throughout the year in the Divine Office and Mass. By linking this liturgical preparation with prayer, reading, and the study of letters, the Institutes suggest that liturgical prayer should be well prepared, beautifully sung, and thoroughly understood by the participants. Immediately after making this provision, the Institutes state that it is the task of the hebdomadarian to provide for what is to be read or sung.20 This indicates that most of the nuns were expected not only to be able to prepare themselves to sing or read portions of the liturgy committed to them, but were to understand the liturgy thoroughly enough to anticipate the liturgical needs of the entire community. In addition to providing for breaks from manual labour to prepare for the liturgy, the Institutes state that on feast days all manual labour (mechanicis operibus) is to be put aside, so that there is even more time than usual for reading, the Divine Office and

 9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20

Constitutiones antique, d. 1, c. 4, ed. by Thomas, p. 317. Constitutiones antique, d. 1, c. 5, ed. by Thomas, p. 317. Constitutiones antique, d. 1, c. 12, ed. by Thomas, p. 322. Constitutiones antique, d. 1, c. 17, ed. by Thomas, pp. 327–28. Constitutiones antique, d. 1, c. 20, ed. by Thomas, p. 331. Constitutiones antique, d. 1, cc. 21–23, ed. by Thomas, pp. 331–38. For the Latin text of the Institutes of San Sisto, see Simon, ed., ‘Institutions des Sœurs de Saint-Sixte de Rome’, pp. 142–53. The chapter divisions provided by Simon are an editorial addition. Institutes, cc. 2–3, ed. by Simon, p. 144. Institutes, c. 10, ed. by Simon, p. 146. Institutes, cc. 11–15, ed. by Simon, pp. 146–50. Institutes, c. 20, ed. by Simon, p. 152. Institutes, c. 21, ed. by Simon, p. 152.

‘ l e s t t h e s i st e rs lo se d e vot i o n’

prayer.21 The liturgical hours serve as the context for special times devoted to prayer on feast days: ‘Post Completorium et Nocturnos, horam unam habebunt sorores, qua oracioni, contemplacioni ac devocioni possunt vacare.’ (After Compline and Nocturns, the sisters will have one hour in which they are able to be free for prayer, contemplation, and devotion).22 On ferial days, although manual labour is still undertaken, the Institutes emphasize that: ‘Diebus autem profestis, horis canonicis nihilominus omnes devote maneant et intente.’ (All should nevertheless be devoutly and intently present for the canonical hours).23 Specific provision is made, however, for the minor hours of Prime, Terce, Sext and None; they are to be said in the work room rather than in the church, when this seems expedient.24 In the late 1220s or early 1230s, a supplement was added to the Institutes, often referred to as the Statutes of San Sisto.25 In this document, further aspects of the contemporaneous Dominican friars’ Constitutions are incorporated, although they are adapted in significant ways for the nuns. Regarding the liturgy, the most significant aspects of the Statutes are the incorporation of the detailed rubrics of the friars’ Constitutions with respect to posture in choir and the articulation of the basic approach to performing chant.26 Like the friars’ Constitutions, the Statutes of San Sisto indicate that chant is to be performed ‘briefly and succinctly, lest the sisters lose devotion’, although in this case it is work and not study that is to be ‘minimally impeded’.27 In the Institutes and Statutes of San Sisto, therefore, the fundamental attitudes of the friars towards the performance of the liturgy, both in terms of its bodily dimension and the role of singing, are faithfully reflected. Over the course of the following decades, the documents associated with San Sisto were widely disseminated, often under the title of the Rule of San Sisto. They came to be observed both in women’s communities affiliated with the Dominican friars, including the first foundation of Prouille, as well as in other newly established communities. In addition, they were used outside the scope of communities directly associated with the friars, especially among the Penitent Sisters of St Mary Magdalene. Thus, the fundamental liturgical attitudes of the friars, articulated initially in 1216, came to have a wide influence on the conception of the liturgy of monastic women both inside and beyond the direct ambit of the Dominican friars. On the other hand, the San Sisto legislation does not specifically refer to the content of

Institutes, c. 21, ed. by Simon, p. 152. Institutes, c. 21, ed. by Simon, p. 152. Institutes, c. 21, ed. by Simon, p. 152. Institutes, c. 21, ed. by Simon, p. 152. For the Latin text of the Statutes of San Sisto, see Simon, ed., ‘Statuts des Sœurs de Sainte Marie-Madeleine’, pp. 154–69.  26 For the rubrical guidelines, see Statutes, c. 1, ed. by Simon, pp. 155–56.  27 Statutes, c. 4, ed. by Simon, p. 158: ‘Omnes Hore in ecclesia succincte et breviter dicantur, ne devocionem sorores amittant, et earum opera minime impediantur.’

 21  22  23  24  25

325

3 26

innocent smith op

the liturgy which is to be so zealously prepared for; the legislation could conceivably fit with a variety of particular liturgical rites. Notably, they do not include any reference to the legislation of the friars regarding the confirmation of a particular night and day office.

Constitutions of Montargis The next stage in the development of the nuns’ legislation comes in the Constitutions of Montargis, likely composed by Humbert of Romans in 1250 while serving as Provincial of the Province of France.28 Montargis was founded in the early 1240s by the widow Amicie de Montfort, daughter of Dominic’s crusader friend Simon de Montfort. In 1245, the community was aggregated to the Order by command of Innocent IV, initiating a new stage in the dispute over the cura monialium. The Constitutions of Montargis are directly modelled on the Dominican Constitutions reformed in 1241 by Raymond of Peñafort, which preserved the earlier legislation regarding the liturgy while rearranging it into a more logical order.29 Although apparently only used at this single community, the Constitutions of Montargis are of great interest to the topic discussed in this chapter: first, because they introduce a significant change to the mode of liturgical performance expected of the nuns; and second, because they specify explicitly that the nuns are to follow the liturgy of the friars. As we have noted, the San Sisto Statutes reproduce the legislation of the friars concerning the mode of performance of chant, stating that it is to be performed ‘breviter et succincte’ (briefly and succinctly) for the sake of the devotion of the performers and so that study or work would not be impeded. In the Constitutions of Montargis, on the other hand, the hours are to be performed ‘tractim et distincte’ (slowly and distinctly).30 The justification for this change is also subtly adapted from the San Sisto Statutes. While both documents state that their respective mode of performance is undertaken ‘lest the sisters lose devotion’, the Statutes focus on the work of the sisters (‘earum opera’) being minimally impeded, whereas the Montargis Constitutions more broadly state that the ‘other things that [the sisters] have to do should be minimally impeded’. The words ‘tractim et distincte’ may have been adapted from an admonition made at the 1247 General Chapter of the friars, which stated that when the friars say the hours  28 For the Latin text of the Constitutions of Montargis, see Creytens, ed., ‘Les constitutions primitives’.  29 For the Latin text of the Constitutions of Raymond of Peñafort, see Creytens, ed., ‘Les constitutions des Frères Précheurs’.  30 Constitutions of Montargis, c. 1, ed. by Creytens, p. 68: ‘Hore in ecclesia tractim et distincte taliter dicantur ne sorores devotionem amittant, et alia que facere habent minime impediantur.’ (Compare with the text of the Statutes in footnote 27).

‘ l e s t t h e s i st e rs lo se d e vot i o n’

outside of choir they are to do so ‘tractim … et distincte’ (slowly and distinctly).31 Whereas the 1247 admonition appears to be an ad hoc response to a particular problem of the sloppy recitation of the office outside of choir, the Montargis Constitutions apply this principle to the whole of the office. Significantly, the 1256 Constitutions of the friars promulgated by Humbert of Romans maintain the ‘breviter et succincte’ prescription, whereas the 1259 Constitutions of the nuns retain ‘tractim et distincte’, indicating a conceptual difference in the overall approach to singing the office. Although the Montargis Constitutions introduce a change from the friars’ practice with respect to the mode of singing the liturgy, they also introduce a more explicit connection to the friars’ distinctive form of the liturgy. Immediately after articulating the mode of performance of the singing, the Constitutions state that: ‘Totum officium ordinis fratrum predicatorum tam diurnum quam nocturnum, quod pro tempore fuerit, sorores habeant.’ (The sisters should have the whole office of the Order of Friars Preachers, both day and night, according to the season).32 These words are an adaptation of a text which was added to the friars’ Constitutions at some point between 1221 and 1238: ‘Totum officium, tam nocturnum quam diurnum, confirmamus et volumus ab omnibus uniformiter observari, ita quod nulli liceat de cetero aliquid innovare.’ (We confirm the entire office, both day and night, and wish that it be uniformly observed by all, such that no one is allowed to change anything concerning it).33 Although it is difficult to determine both when this text appeared in the friars’ Constitutions and what precise version of the liturgy it refers to, it is striking that in 1250 — in the midst of the ongoing controversy concerning the reform of the Dominican liturgy — the nuns’ Constitutions of Montargis laid claim to the friars’ form of the liturgy. Although the precise form of the friars’ liturgy remained controversial at this time, the Montargis Constitutions envisaged the following of the liturgy of the friars as an important link between the life of the friars and nuns. An interesting parallel to this Dominican instance of a friars’ form of liturgy being followed by a female branch may be found in the 1247 Rule of Pope Innocent IV for the Poor Clares. Whereas the 1223 Later Rule (Regula bullata) of St Francis described the liturgical practice of the friars as being that

 31 General Chapter of 1247 at Montpellier: ‘Item. Quod fratres horas quas dicunt extra chorum tractim dicant et distincte.’ (The hours that the brothers say out of choir should be said slowly and distinctly). Acta Capitulorum Generalium, ed. by Reichert, i, p. 39.  32 Constitutions of Montargis, c. 1, ed. by Creytens, p. 68.  33 Constitutiones antique, d. 1, c. 4, ed. by Thomas, p. 316. A similar text (with the reversal of ‘diurnum’ and ‘nocturnum’) appears in d. 1, c. 1 of the 1241 Constitutions of Raymond of Peñafort, see Creytens, ed., ‘Les constitutions des Frères Prêcheurs’, p. 31: ‘Totum officium tam diurnum quam nocturnum confirmamus et volumus ab omnibus uniformiter observari, ita quod nulli liceat de cetero aliquid innovare.’ For a discussion of the datings proposed by various scholars for this text, see Giraud, ‘The Production and Notation of Dominican Manuscripts’, p. 2 n. 10.

327

3 28

innocent smith op

of the ‘rite of the holy Roman Church excepting the psalter’,34 the 1247 Form of Life of Pope Innocent IV for the Poor Clares, instructs: ‘De Divino Officio tam in die, quam in nocte Domino persolvendo taliter observetur, quod eae, quae legere, et canere noverint, secundum consuetudinem Ordinis Fratrum Minorum cum gravitate tamen, et modestia officium debeant celebrare.’ (Concerning the offering of the Divine Office to the Lord both day and night: let it be observed that those who know how to read and sing celebrate the Office according to the custom of the Order of Lesser Brothers, nevertheless with gravity and modesty).35 This prescription was fundamentally retained in the 1253 Form of Life of Saint Clare,36 and the 1263 Rule of the Poor Clares of Urban IV.37 In both the Dominican and Franciscan contexts, the celebration of the rite of the associated friars was clearly seen as an important aspect of the liturgical lives of the nuns.  34 Francis of Assisi, ‘Regula bullata’, ed. by Menestò and Brufani, p. 174: ‘Clerici faciant divinum officium secundum ordinem sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae excepto psalterio, ex quo habere poterunt breviaria.’ (Let the clerical [brothers] recite the Divine Office according to the rite of the holy Roman Church excepting the psalter, for which reason they may have breviaries). Translation from Francis of Assisi, ‘Later Rule’, ed. and trans. by Armstrong and others, i, p. 101. Notably, the reference to the ‘rite of the holy Roman Church’ in 1223 Regula bullata was a development from the more general reference in a parallel passage in the 1221 Regula non bullata, which referred to friars praying the Divine Office ‘according to the custom of clerics’: see Francis of Assisi, ‘Regula non bullata’, ed. by Menestò and Brufani, pp. 187–88: ‘Clerici faciant officium et dicant pro vivis et pro mortuis secundum consuetudinem clericorum.’ (Let the clerical brothers recite the Office and say it for the living and the dead according to the custom of clerics). Translation from Francis of Assisi, ‘Earlier Rule’, ed. and trans. by Armstrong and others, i, p. 65. For an overview of the development of legislation for the Franciscan order, see Grieco, ‘The Rule of Saint Francis’.  35 Innocent IV, ‘Cum omnis vera religio’, ed. by Sbaraglia, p. 477. Translation (emphasis my own) from Innocent IV, ‘Form of Life of Pope Innocent IV’, trans. by Armstrong, p. 92. (In this transcription I have expanded the abbreviations retained in the printed version).  36 Clare of Assisi, ‘Regula’, ed. by Menestò and Brufani, p. 2295: ‘Sorores litteratae faciant divinum officium secundum consuetudinem fratrum minorum, ex quo habere poterunt breviaria, legendo sine cantu.’ (Let the sisters who can read celebrate the Divine Office according to the custom of the Lesser Brothers. They may have breviaries for this reason, reading without singing). Translation from Clare of Assisi, ‘Form of Life of Saint Clare’, trans. by Armstrong, p. 112. Significantly, the 1247 Form of Life appears to envisage singing, which is explicitly forbidden in the 1253 version while retaining the connection with the liturgy of the Lesser Brothers. For an overview of the development of legislation for women religious in the Franciscan ambit, see Roest, ‘The Rules of Poor Clares and Minoresses’.  37 ‘Regula Urbani IV pro Ordine Sancte Clare’, edited in Horowski, ‘La legislazione per le Clarisse del 1263’, pp. 107–37, at p. 115: ‘De divino officio tam in die quam in nocte Domino persolvendo taliter observetur, quod hee, que legere et canere noverint, secundum consuetudinem Ordinis Fratrum Minorum, cum gravitate tamen et modestia, divinum officium debeant celebrare.’ (For a translation, see that of the essentially identical text in the 1247 ‘Form of Life of Pope Innocent IV’, see note 35 above). The 1263 Urbanist Rule (sometimes known as the ‘Second Rule’), was promulgated by Urban IV after Clare’s death and was much more widely observed in the Middle Ages than Clare’s version; see Roest, ‘The Rules of Poor Clares and Minoresses’, p. 324.

‘ l e s t t h e s i st e rs lo se d e vot i o n’

Constitutions of the Nuns of 1259 After the major settlement of the cura monialium question within the Order in 1257, Humbert of Romans promulgated a new set of Constitutions for the nuns of the Order in 1259 modelled closely on the 1250 Constitutions of Montargis38 and the 1256 Constitutions of the friars. According to Humbert, all monasteries of Dominican nuns had to accept the new version of the Constitutions or else they ‘would not at all be considered sisters of the Order’.39 In the new Constitutions of the nuns, the prescription of Montargis concerning the performance of the office ‘slowly and distinctly’ was extended to all the nuns of the Order, in place of the admonition to sing ‘briefly and succinctly’ that those following the San Sisto legislation would have practised beforehand.40 On the other hand, the statement in the Montargis Constitutions concerning the liturgy of the Order of Friars Preachers was omitted in the extant version of the 1259 nuns’ Constitutions. Although it is not entirely clear how to interpret this change, one possibility is that the settlement of the liturgical question in 1254–1256 meant that it would be taken for granted that the nuns of the Order would follow the Order’s legislation regarding the texts and chants of the liturgy. In any event, further research is needed to fully understand the relationship between the liturgical practice of the friars and nuns of the Order, both before the revision of Humbert and afterwards.

Conclusion The regulations concerning the liturgy of the Dominican nuns arose in conjunction with the related legislation of the Dominican friars, while at times developing in distinctive ways. Like the friars, the early nuns placed a special focus on the importance of the liturgy in their lives, while at the same time recognizing that it had to be carefully balanced with the other demands of their life — in the case of the friars, those of study and preaching, and in the case of the nuns, those of manual labour and other activities, which included study in preparation for liturgical performance. Starting with the San Sisto Statutes, the external mode of liturgical practice of most Dominican nuns was essentially identical with that of the friars, although it is not entirely clear from the extant legislation alone how closely the texts and chants of  38 For a brief discussion of the relationship of the two texts, see Creytens, ed., ‘Les constitutions primitives’, pp. 61–64.  39 Humbert of Romans, ‘Devotis ancillis Christi’, ed. by Berthier, p. 515: ‘Si quae vero nollent hujusmodi formam recipere, pro sororibus Ordinis minime habeantur.’  40 ‘Liber constitutionum sororum ordinis praedicatorum’, c. 1, p. 339: ‘Hore canonice omnes in ecclesia tractim et distincte taliter dicantur ne sorores devocionem amittant: et alia que facere habent minime impediantur.’

329

330

innocent smith op

their liturgy related to those of the friars at this time. On the other hand, the presence of Dominican friars as chaplains at many Dominican monasteries suggests that the nuns were observing the same liturgy as the friars, insofar as possible. Although relatively few manuscripts have been identified of the Dominican liturgy prior to the reform of Humbert of Romans, of the fifteen identified recently by Eleanor Giraud, at least three derive from nuns’ monasteries.41 This indicates that at least some, if not all, Dominican nuns were already following the Dominican liturgy before the definitive settlement by Humbert of Romans. In the midst of the contentions concerning the relationship of the friars to the nuns, it appears that liturgical practice served as a vital link between the two branches of the Dominican Order. The friars and sisters were certainly united in their mode of performing the liturgy and may have shared in the texts and chants that were gradually being developed by the friars. In the midst of controversy about the legitimacy of their Dominican status, the usage of Dominican liturgical customs strengthened the communal identity of the Dominican nuns and served as a basis for the assertion of a Dominican identity.

 41 Giraud, ‘The Production and Notation of Dominican Manuscripts’, pp. 17–26; the three manuscripts are Colmar, Bibliothèque municipale, 404 (cat 272), Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 10773, and Engelberg, Stiftsbibliothek, Codex 104. For further details on the Vatican manuscript, see Kessler, Gotische Buchkultur.

‘ l e s t t h e s i st e rs lo se d e vot i o n’

Works Cited Primary Sources Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum. i: Ab anno 1220 usque ad annum 1303, ed. by Benedictus Maria Reichert, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 3 (Rome: In domo generalitia, 1898) Clare of Assisi, ‘Form of Life of Saint Clare’, in Clare of Assisi – The Lady: Early Documents, translated by Regis J. Armstrong (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2006), pp. 106–26 —— , ‘Regula’, in Fontes Franciscani, ed. by Enrico Menestò and Stefano Brufani, Medioevo francescano 2 (Assisi: Porziuncola, 1995), pp. 2289–2307 Constitutiones antique ordinis fratrum praedicatorum, ed. by Antoninus Hendrik Thomas, in 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, 1965), pp. 304–69 Creytens, Raymond, ed., ‘Les constitutions des Frères Précheurs dans la rédaction de s. Raymond de Peñafort (1241)’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 18 (1948), 5–68 —— , ed., ‘Les constitutions primitives des sœurs dominicaines de Montargis (1250)’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 17 (1947), 41–84 Francis of Assisi, ‘Earlier Rule’, in Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, ed. by Regis J. Armstrong, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short, 3 vols (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999), i, 63–86 —— , ‘Later Rule’, in Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, ed. by Regis J. Armstrong, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short, 3 vols (Hyde Park, N.Y: New City Press, 1999), i, 99–106 —— , ‘Regula bullata’, in Fontes Franciscani, ed. by Enrico Menestò and Stefano Brufani, Medioevo francescano 2 (Assisi: Porziuncola, 1995), pp. 171–81 —— , ‘Regula non bullata’, in Fontes Franciscani, ed. by Enrico Menestò and Stefano Brufani, Medioevo francescano 2 (Assisi: Porziuncola, 1995), pp. 183–212 Horowski, Aleksander, ed., ‘La legislazione per le clarisse del 1263: la regola di Urbano IV, le lettere di Giovanni Gaetano Orsini e di san Bonaventura’, Collectanea franciscana, 87 (2017), 65–158 Humbert of Romans, ‘Devotis ancillis Christi Sororibus universis curae Fratrum Ordinis praedicatorum commissis’, in Opera de vita regulari, ed. by Joachim Joseph Berthier, 2 vols (Rome: A. Befani, 1889), ii, 513–15 Innocent IV, ‘Cum omnis vera religio’, in Bullarium franciscanum romanorum pontificum, constitutiones, epistolas, ac diplomata continens, ed. by Giovanni Giacinto Sbaraglia, i (Rome: Typis Sacræ Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, 1759), pp. 476–83 —— , ‘Form of Life of Pope Innocent IV’, in Clare of Assisi – The Lady: Early Documents, trans. by Regis J. Armstrong (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2006), pp. 89–105

331

332

innocent smith op

‘Liber constitutionum sororum ordinis praedicatorum (Ex exemplari codicis Ruthenensis in Archivo Generali Ordinis Romae asservato)’, Analecta Sacri Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum, 3 (1897), 337–48 Simon, André, ed., ‘Institutions des Sœurs de Saint-Sixte de Rome’, in L’Ordre des Pénitentes de Ste Marie-Madeleine en Allemagne au xiiime siècle (Fribourg: Oeuvre de Saint-Paul, 1918), pp. 142–53 —— , ed., ‘Statuts des Sœurs de Sainte Marie-Madeleine’, in L’Ordre des Pénitentes de Ste Marie-Madeleine en Allemagne au xiiime siècle (Fribourg: Oeuvre de SaintPaul, 1918), pp. 154–69 Secondary Works Brett, Edward Tracy, Humbert of Romans: His Life and Views of Thirteenth-Century Society, Studies and Texts, 67 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1984) Giraud, Eleanor, ‘The Production and Notation of Dominican Manuscripts in Thirteenth-Century Paris’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Cambridge, 2013) —— , ‘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, ed. by Cornelia Linde (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 153–72 Grieco, Holly J., ‘The Rule of Saint Francis’, in A Companion to Medi­eval Rules and Customaries, ed. by Krijn Pansters, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 93 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), pp. 283–314 Griffiths, Fiona J., ‘Women and Reform in the Central Middle Ages’, in The Oxford Handbook of Women and Gender in Medi­eval Europe, ed. by Judith Bennett and Ruth Karras (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 447–63 —— , ‘The Mass in Monastic Practice: Nuns and Ordained Monks, c. 400–1200’, in The Cambridge History of Medi­eval Monasticism in the Latin West, ed. by Alison I. Beach and Isabelle Cochelin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 729–46 Grundmann, Herbert, ‘The Incorporation of the Women’s Religious Movement into the Mendicant Orders’, in Herbert Grundmann, Religious Movements in the Middle Ages: The Historical Links between Heresy, the Mendicant Orders, and the Women’s Religious Movement in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Century, with the Historical Foundations of German Mysticism (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995), pp. 89–137 Hamburger, Jeffrey F., Eva Schlotheuber, Susan Marti, and Margot E. Fassler, Liturgical Life and Latin Learning at Paradies Bei Soest, 1300–1425, 2 vols (Münster: Aschendorff, 2016) Jones, Claire Taylor, Ruling the Spirit: Women, Liturgy, and Dominican Reform in Late Medi­eval Germany (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018)

‘ l e s t t h e s i st e rs lo se d e vot i o n’

Kessler, Cordula M., Gotische Buchkultur: dominikanische Handschriften aus dem Bistum Konstanz, Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Dominikanerordens, Neue Folge 17 (Berlin: Akademie, 2010) Melville, Gert, ‘The Dominican Constitutiones’, in A Companion to Medi­eval Rules and Customaries, ed. by Krijn Pansters, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 93 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), pp. 253–81 Roest, Bert, ‘The Rules of Poor Clares and Minoresses’, in A Companion to Medi­ eval Rules and Customaries, ed. by Krijn Pansters, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 93 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), pp. 315–42 Smith, Innocent, ‘Dominican Chant and Dominican Identity’, Religions, 5 (2014), 961–71 Smith, Julie Ann, ‘Prouille, Madrid, Rome: The Evolution of the Earliest Dominican Instituta for Nuns’, Journal of Medi­eval History, 35.4 (2009), 340–52 Tugwell, Simon, ‘The Quest for Liturgical Uniformity’, in Humberti de Romanis Legendae Sancti Dominici, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 30 (Rome: Institutum Historicum Ordinis Fratrum Prædicatorum, 2008), pp. 1–51 Zimmer, Petra, ‘Einleitung I’, in Die Dominikaner und Dominikanerinnen in der Schweiz, ed. by Petra Zimmer and Urs Amacher, Helvetia sacra, iv. 5 (Basel: Schwabe, 1999), pp. 23–95

333

Christian Thomas Leitmeir

Compilation and Adaptation How ‘Dominican’ is Hieronymus de Moravia’s Tractatus de Musica?

The Tractatus de musica by the Dominican friar Hieronymus de Moravia ranks among the most extensive and comprehensive treatments of music produced during the thirteenth century. Looking back to a tradition of some eight hundred years, it offers a synopsis of discourse on music from Augustine to the author’s own time.1 An end point in this respect, it also marks the beginning of subsequent encyclopaedic works on music, which proliferated a generation later. Interestingly, this genre seems to have been a monastic domain: the Dominican friar Jerome is followed by the Benedictine Walter of Evesham, compiler of the Summa de speculatione musicae,2 and the Franciscan author of the Quatuor Principalia (who self-identifies in the explicit as ‘a certain Friar Minor from the Custody of Bristol, who did not insert his name herein owing to some people’s contempt’).3 The fourteenth-century Speculum musicae, incidentally the longest encyclopaedic treatment on music, forms the exception to the rule. Whether it was written by the canon Jacobus de Montibus (as Desmond hypothesized)4 or  1 A key to Jerome’s sources (Index Fontium) is provided in the recent modern edition of Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de Musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 273–78. The main text of this edition departs but in minor details from the older edition, Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de Musica, ed. by Cserba. Both editions are based on the unique manuscript source BnF, MS lat. 16663.  2 Walter Odington, Summa de speculatione musicae, ed. by Hammond. The author was recently identified as Walter of Evesham Abbey by Hamilton, ‘Walter of Evesham Abby’ [sic], pp. 47–74.  3 The quotation is in Oxford, Bodl. Lib., MS Digby 90, fol. 63v: ‘Explicit tractatus qui Quatuor principalia vocatur, quem edidit Oxonem quidam frater Minor de Custodia Brustoll, qui nomen suum propter aliquorum dedignationem hic non inserebat.’ The most recent edition (and translation) is ‘Quatuor Principalia Musicae’, ed. by Aluas.  4 Desmond, ‘New Light on Jacobus’.

Christian Thomas Leitmeir is a Tutorial Fellow in Music at Magdalen College and Associate Professor of Music at the University of Oxford. He is a Lay Dominican.

The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music, and Liturgy, ed. by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, MMS 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021) pp. 335–364 10.1484/M.MMS-EB.5.124223

FHG

3 36

c hr is tia n t h o m as l e i t m e i r

as Jacobus de Ispania (as Bent inferred from a fifteenth-century will),5 the author was definitely secular.6 Works such as Jerome’s Tractatus de musica typically endeavour to assemble in a single book everything there is to know about music, from speculative science in the tradition of Boethius to the practical aspects of plainchant and polyphonic music: an encyclopaedic digest of a single discipline with all its ramifications, or, in Jerome’s own terms, knowledge compiled into a summula: ‘presentem summulam ex diuersis maiorum nostrorum dictis diligenti studio conpilauimus’ (we compiled this little summa with diligence from various of our best sources).7 Because Jerome, like the more practice-oriented treatise of Johannes de Grocheio,8 also commented on his own musical experiences, his Tractatus in particular has been mined for information on both music theory and details of musical life in Paris. Yet no study so far has asked the fundamental question to what extent the Tractatus was a specifically ‘Dominican’ treatise rather than a compilation for general use that happened to be produced by a Dominican friar.9 A two-pronged approach will help to answer this question: the contextual evidence in favour or against Dominican content or intent will be considered alongside Dominican influences that are found in the text itself. Whereas scholarship has shown a natural bias towards original contributions and novel ideas, the ‘unoriginal’ material can be just as significant. Compilation, after all, is just another authorial act, and the way in which material is selected, organized, re-arranged, and presented tells us volumes about the author and the readership he intended to address.10 Pursued in tandem, the two perspectives will go some way towards establishing the extent to which the Tractatus is, or is not, the work of a Dominican author, written for a Dominican audience.

 5 Bent, Magister Jacobus de Ispania. Bent’s identification with the bastard son of Enrique of Castile was challenged by Wegman’s alternative reading, less plausible in my view, of the toponymic ‘de Ispania’. Wegman, ‘Jacobus de Ispania and Liège’.  6 Although not a member of a religious order, Jacobus was familiar with, and influenced by, Dominican authors, including Jerome. Bent, Magister Jacobus de Ispania, pp. 145–47.  7 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 4, Pro­logus, ll, 59–61. See also Matusiak, ‘Jerome of Moravia’s Cantor’, in this volume, pp. 369–71.  8 Johannes de Grocheio, Ars musice, ed. by Mews and others. On the dating, see Rohloff, Die Quellenhandschriften zum Musiktraktat des Johannes de Grocheio, pp. 117–18.  9 Matusiak is primarily concerned with the identification of the author as a Dominican from Moravia, Weber with the textual sources and models of the Tractatus de Musica. Matusiak, ‘Jerome – A Moravian Dominican in Paris’; Weber, Intellectual Currents in Thirteenth Century Paris.  10 Within the musico­logical literature, Gilbert Reaney pioneered a positive evaluation of compilation; Reaney, ‘The Question of Authorship in the Medi­eval Treatises on Music’, p. 17. The vast literature on medi­eval compilation in literary criticism and intellectual history may be exemplified here by Sánches Prieto, ‘Authority and Authorship’; Minnis, ‘Late-Medi­eval Discussions of Compilatio’; and Kraebel, ‘Modes of Authorship’.

co m p i l at i o n and adaptat i o n

Any robust investigation is well advised to start with the most tangible evidence: in our case, the material object containing the Tractatus.11 Already the transmission history of the Tractatus casts serious doubt on a Dominican profile. The treatise survives as a unicum (Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fonds latin 16663) which cannot be linked to a Dominican studium or priory. Although undoubtedly of Parisian provenance, palaeo­graphical and codico­logical features suggest that the manuscript emerged neither from professional scriptoria nor from the Dominican priory of St Jacques. It was not the work of a professional scribe but rather a copy produced by a student or teacher for their own use.12 The only possible auto­graph trace may be seen in the note: ‘cor. Per h’ (corrected by H[ieronymus?]), fol. 12v. If this reading were true, Jerome served as one of the ‘proofreaders’ of the Tractatus.13 Whereas the main scribe remains unidentifiable, the early ownership of the book can be traced with great precision. By the 1290s the Tractatus, written just a few years earlier, was in the possession of Pierre of Limoges (c. 1230–1306),14 canon, physician, and bibliophile with a strong interest in mathematics and physics — and a meticulous reader, as his corrections and marginal annotations reveal (e.g. on fol. 20v).15 In 1306, Pierre bequeathed Jerome’s Tractatus, together with some further 120 scientific books, to the Sorbonne.16 It was kept in the Divinity library as a reference book on music, chained to a desk for centuries, before this collection was incorporated into the Bibliothèque nationale de France (as fonds de la Sorbonne, n° 1817).17 Pierre had no demonstrable connections with the Dominicans,18 nor with mendicants in general.19 His interest in Jerome’s book was probably  11 The codico­logical information is presented, together with an authoritative review of previous scholarship, in Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. vii–xi. Meyer and Lobrichon build on the magisterial work of Huglo, ‘La Place du Tractatus de Musica’.  12 Huglo, ‘La Place du Tractatus de Musica’, p. 35.  13 This is suggested by Huglo, ‘La Place du Tractatus de Musica’, p. 34.  14 Huglo, ‘La Place du Tractatus de Musica’, p. 35. Pierre de Limoges did not commission this book, as it does not feature in his accounts. Bataillon, ‘Comptes de Pierre de Limoges’.  15 Huglo, ‘La Place du Tractatus de Musica’, pp. 35 and 41.  16 See the colophon in BnF, MS lat. 16663, fol. 94v: ‘Iste liber pauperum magistrorum de Sorbone ex legato magistri Petri de Lemovisio quondam socii domus eius in quo continetur musica fratris Ieronimi. Precii XX s[olidorum]. Incathenabitur in capella, 64us inter quadruviales.’ (This book of the poor masters of the Sorbonne from the bequest of Master Pierre de Limoges, formerly fellow of this house, in which [book] is contained the Musica by brother Hieronymus. Price: 20 s[ols]. It will be chained in the chapel, the 64th book among the books on quadrivial subjects).  17 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. xi.  18 He may have been acquainted with the Dominican Bernard Gui, his countryman from the Limousin, who listed Pierre in his chronicle of bishops of Limoges. Bernard Gui, ‘Nomina episcoporum Lemovicensium’, ed. by Guigniaut and de Wailly, p. 755.  19 The Franciscan tertiary Ramon Llull is the exception that proves the rule; Soler, ‘Ramon Llull and Peter of Limoges’.

337

338

c hr is tia n t h o m as l e i t m e i r

attracted mainly by the fact that it provided a summary of Boethius’s De institutione musica, the official textbook for the quadrivial discipline of musica at the University of Paris.20 As Boethius’s original text is notoriously poorly organized and impenetrable in its cryptic Neoplatonic outlook, Pierre would have appreciated Jerome’s digest, which facilitated the understanding through the nearly wholesale incorporation of the widespread Glossa maior.21 While Dominicans frequented the chapel of St Ursula, where the College of Divinity kept its books, they would have shared the reading room with students and masters of theo­logy, its primary users. To all intents and purposes, Jerome’s Tractatus served this group primarily as a handy reference work on musica speculativa. The more practically relevant (and up-to-date) contents of Jerome’s compilation, for which musico­logists treasure it today, were well concealed even from theo­logians with an interest in chant, polyphony, and instrumental music. The codex was shelved together with books on quadrivial subjects.22 The entry in the catalogue of the Grand Librairie de la Sorbonne is silent both on Jerome’s Dominican affiliation and on the non-speculative chapters of his Tractatus: ‘V.g. Musica fratris Ieronimi. Quoniam ut dicit Boecius in prohemio super musicam’ (Musica by brother Hieronymus. ‘For, as Boethius says in the pro­logue to his Musica’).23 The treatise, ascribed to a Friar Jerome, is classified as a work on ‘music’. The reference to Boethius in the incipit (‘Quoniam ut dicit Boecius’) leads readers to believe that this book is concerned with speculative music.24 For that reason alone, neither Dominicans nor musical practitioners nor anyone with a broader interest in musical practices would have been able to locate the relevant contents of the book, let alone become aware of its existence. Moreover, any specifically Dominican material, such as the tonary,25 would have been completely lost on most readers of the only surviving copy. The author of the treatise proves similarly elusive. We know of him exclusively through the two snippets of information offered in the incipit and explicit of the Tractatus:26

 20 The first two books of Boethius’s De musica were prescribed as textbooks in the Arts Faculty of Paris. Rico, ‘Music in the Arts Faculty of Paris’, pp. 14–75, especially at pp. 29–31. Until the introduction of Johannes de Muris’s Musica speculativa (1323–1325), no lectures on music were recorded at the University of Paris outside the secondary curriculum. Haas, ‘Studien zur mittelalterlichen Musiklehre I’, pp. 353, 367–68.  21 Glossa maior in institutionem musicam Boethii, ed. by Bernhard and Bower. On Jerome’s use of the Glossa maior, see Meyer, ‘Lecture(s) de Jérôme de Moravie’.  22 See n. 16.  23 Delisle, Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque impériale, vol. i, p. 89.  24 On the distinction between musica (defined as speculative music) and discourses on other kinds of music see Fuhrmann, Herz und Stimme, pp. 19–47.  25 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, chapters 21–22.  26 BnF, MS lat. 16663, fol. 1r and 94r.

co m p i l at i o n and adaptat i o n

Incipit tractatus de musica compilatus a fratre ieronimo moravo ordinis fratrum predicatorum. (Here begins the Tractatus de musica compiled by brother Hieronymus Moravus of the Order of Friars Preachers.) Explicit tractatus de musica fratris Ieronimi de Moravia. (Here ends the Tractatus de Music of brother Hieronymus de Moravia.) No Hieronymus de Moravia is listed in Dominican sources of the time (a fact that might not be all that surprising, since the majority of records from medi­eval France were destroyed).27 Some 25 years ago, even the received interpretation of his name as ‘Jerome of Moravia’ came under attack. The discrepancy in nomenclature between the adjective ‘Moravus’ and the prepositional ‘de Moravia’ caused the late Michel Huglo to entertain the idea that Jerome may have hailed from Scotland rather than central Europe. Following a hint from Edward Roesner,28 he pointed out that, in medi­eval usage, the region of origin is generally indicated through an adjective, the town or city through an ablative (such as Franco de Colonia).29 While this does not resolve the conflicting information within the Tractatus (described by Huglo as ‘amphibo­logique’, ambiguous), he concluded, on the strength of ‘de Moravia’, that Jerome must have come from the Scottish diocese of Moray.30 The infrequency of the first name Hieronymus in the British Isles during the thirteenth century even allowed Huglo to identify a likely historical person:31 in 1226, a certain Jerome of Culloden acted as testator

 27 Accordingly, bio-biblio­graphical catalogues provide little more than his name (Hierony­ mus de Moravia), rough dates, and the only work that can be attributed to his pen. Kaeppeli, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevi, ii, p. 249: ‘Hieronymus de Moravia. Floruit Parisiis secunda medietate saec. xiii’ (Hieronymus de Moravia, flourished in Paris, second half of the thirteenth century). Fabian, Personennamen des Mittelalters, pp. 295, 367, 486. Weijers, Le Travail intellectuel à la faculté des arts de Paris, iv, 82–83 (with a comprehensive biblio­graphy). Weijers erroneously lists Melbourne, MS *096 1/​R66A as a fragmentary copy of Jerome’s Tractatus de Musica. In fact, fols 1r–4v of the Antiphonal-Hymnal, produced between 1335 and 1345 for the Dominican nuns of Poissy, merely present a passage from the Dominican tonary, also quoted by Jerome, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, Chapter 21. The history of prosopo­graphical literature is re­v iewed in Huglo, ‘Hieronymus de Moravia: “frère morave” ou “Scottish Blackfriar”?’, pp. 423–29.  28 Roesner, ‘The Origins of W1’, p. 374 n. 176.  29 Huglo, ‘La Musica du Fr. Prêcheur Jérôme de Moray’.  30 The ambiguity created by the conflicting terms ‘moravus’ and ‘de Moravia’ is explained away through constraints of layout in Huglo, ‘Hieronymus de Moravia: “frère morave” ou “Scottish Blackfriar”?’, pp. 429–30. Yet, while the adjective ‘moravus’ is definitely shorter than ‘moraviensis’ (the correct toponymic adjective for Moray), an abbreviation could have been used to fit the latter into the line just as well.  31 The name was uncommon among medi­eval Dominicans of the thirteenth century.

339

340

c hr is tia n t h o m as l e i t m e i r

for a document from Moray.32 At that time, he was a clerk in service of the bishop and definitely not a Dominican (not yet). The Friars Preachers did not have a base in Moray prior to 1233/​34, when the priory of St James was established in Elgin;33 in fact, the Dominicans only settled in Scotland from the 1230s, as King Alexander II established a burst of foundations across his kingdom.34 The Scottish hypothesis proves very attractive, since it ties in with the presence of Parisian polyphony at St Andrews (Wolfenbüttel, Herzog-August-Bibliothek, MS Cod. Guelf. 628 Helmst.). This redaction of the Magnus liber organi may even been introduced to Scotland as early as the 1230s, by, or mediated through, William de Malveisin, Chancellor of Scotland and Bishop of St Andrews (1202–1238) and a keen supporter in establishing Dominicans across the Scottish realms.35 With the exception of Lobrichon and Matusiak,36 Huglo’s identification has become widely accepted.37 Yet, one wonders whether it is really all that convincing: the dates do not quite match up. The latest material to be incorporated into the Tractatus, the various treatises on polyphony, stemmed from the 1280s and suggest that the author was based in Paris. If Jerome of Culloden had already been employed as a clerk as early as 1226, he would have been unrealistically old to be actively engaging in contemporary music practices and writing about music theory in France in the 1280s.38 Moreover, Huglo’s linguistic argument is far from watertight. Firstly, if the ablative does indeed refer to a city rather than a region, this disqualifies Moray just as much as Moravia, because Moray is a diocese rather than a specific town

Kaeppeli, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevi, ii, 244–50, records but four other Jeromes, none of whom was born before the mid-fourteenth century.  32 Registrum Episcopatus Moraviensis, ed. by Innes, p. 82: ‘Ego persona Jeronimus de Culicuden’ (signatory of a document dating from 1226).  33 Cowan and Easson, Medi­eval Religious Houses, Scotland, pp. 114–23, records the following foundations pre-1300: Aberdeen (1230–1249), Ayr (c. 1242), Edinburgh (1230), Elgin (1233 or 1234), Glasgow (1246), Inverness (1240), Montrose (1275), Perth (1240), Stirling (1249), and Wigtown (1267 or 1287).  34 Bower, Scotichronicon, v. 9. chap. 47, ed. by Taylor, Watt and others, p. 144, translation at p. 145. All priories but the Dominican house in Glasgow (an episcopal foundation, first recorded in a Papal Bull of 1246) were established by King Alexander II. Cowan and Easson, Medi­eval Religious Houses, Scotland, p. 114.  35 Everist, ‘From Paris to St Andrews: The Origins of W1’. Malvesin’s interest in the Dominican presence in Scotland is briefly mentioned on p. 24.  36 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. xi–xvi: Lobrichon, ‘L’auteur et la date du Traité’. Matusiak, ‘Jerome – A Moravian Dominican in Paris’.  37 See, for instance, Roesner’s (unpublished) draft for the entry on Hieronymus de Moravia in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 11 (2001) (cited in Huglo, ‘Hieronymus de Moravia: “frère morave” ou “Scottish Blackfriar”?’, p. 427) and Meyer, ‘Hieronymus de Moravia’.  38 See also Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. xiii n. 26.

co m p i l at i o n and adaptat i o n

or city.39 Secondly, in contrast to Huglo’s assumption, thirteenth-century Dominicans did in fact refer to the province or region through the ablative form.40 Jordan of Saxony ( Jordanis de Saxonia/​Alamania), St Dominic’s successor as Master of the Order, offers a prominent example from the founding years of the Dominicans. We even know of a Friar Henry of Moravia, who co-founded the priory in Kraków together with his confrere Hyacinth.41 Contemporary sources refer to this ‘frater Henricus’ as either ‘Moravus’42 or ‘de Moravia’43 — an exact correspondence with the dual practice exhibited in the manuscript of Jerome’s Tractatus de musica. Compared to Moray, where the Dominicans held but a single priory, they maintained a strong presence throughout Moravia, boasting priories in all the major Moravian cities from the late 1220s onwards:44 Olomouc, Brno, Znaim.45 The number of Dominican houses totalled 54 at the time when the Polish Province (of which Moravia originally formed a part)46 was divided in 1301 and the Bohemian Province (including Moravia) gained independence.47 Before the establishment of a university in Prague,48 Co­logne provided the nearest studium generale. Nonetheless, the itinerant nature of Dominican life meant that many Dominicans attended, or taught at, the Parisian studium generale or the University of Paris at least at some point in their career. Although the geo­graphical origin of Jerome remains uncertain, Moravia should be considered a much more plausible candidate than Moray. One section of the Tractatus in particular seems to sit uncomfortably with the attribution to a Dominican author. As noted by Huglo, Jerome devoted a whole chapter to instruction in polyphony.49 Accordingly, 23 per cent of the entire treatise deals with practices that had been supposedly forbidden to the Friars Preachers since the General Chapters of 1242 and 1250. Yet, although this prohibition keeps haunting the reference literature  39 See also Matusiak, ‘Jerome – A Moravian Dominican in Paris’, p. 7.  40 The fourteenth-century music theorist Jacobus de Ispania is another case in point.  41 Matusiak, ‘Jerome – A Moravian Dominican in Paris’, pp. 12–13. Other examples, adduced by Matusiak, include the Dominicans Nicolaus de Polonia and Nicolaus de Bohemia.  42 Monumenta Poloniae Historica, iii, ed. by August Bielowski, p. 356.  43 Monumenta Poloniae Historica, iii, ed. by August Bielowski, p. 132.  44 Flemmig, Die Bettelorden im hochmittelalterlichen Böhmen und Mähren, p. 34.  45 The foundation dates are listed here according to the following two recent studies: Černušák, ‘Vznik provincie a její rozvoj do husitských válek’ (= Č); Foltýn, Encyklopedie moravských a slezských klášterů (= F); Olomouc: 1227 (F, p. 468), 1230 (Č, pp. 22–24); Brno: 1227–1239 (F, pp. 154–55; Č, pp. 23–25); Znaim: before 1243 (F, p. 778; Č, p. 26). The Dominican priory in Šumper is first recorded in 1297 (F, p. 671).  46 Not the Teutonic Province, as Lobrichon assumes. Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. xii.  47 Flemmig, Die Bettelorden im hochmittelalterlichen Böhmen und Mähren, p. 39. Koudelka, ‘Zur Geschichte der böhmischen Dominikanerprovinz im Mittelalter I’, p. 76.  48 The establishment of Charles University in 1348 also led to the institution of a Dominican studium generale in Prague. Kadlec, ‘Řeholní generální studia při Karlově universitě’, p. 80.  49 Huglo, ‘La Musica du Fr. Prêcheur Jérôme de Moray’, p. 115.

341

342

c hr is tia n t h o m as l e i t m e i r

on medi­eval Dominicans,50 it turns out to be a red herring, since the Order of Preachers did not legislate explicitly against polyphony.51 The subject is addressed explicitly only once: in 1242, the General Chapter of Bo­logna advised the brethren against performances of discantus in their own churches, whether sung by themselves or by contracted singers: ‘Ne aliquo modo fiant discantus a fratribus nostris in ecclesiis nostris uel alienis’ (By no means should discantus be performed by our brethren in our own churches or those of others).52 Notably, this decree has but the humble status of an admonition, which is not set in stone in all perpetuity. It may have been no more than a one-off reminder dealing with a grievance brought to the attention of the chapter in 1242.53 Admonitiones were circulated through the rotulus system to all Dominican houses to encourage direct implementation. With few exceptions, no record was kept of them locally.54 As the transmission line of admonitiones is incredibly thin, the ‘recommendation’ to keep the brethren from singing discantus may well have been forgotten by the time Jerome wrote his treatise. The other prohibition, issued by the General Chapter of London in 1250, is not as ruthlessly radical as musico­logists have made it out to be: ‘Prohibemus, ne fratres nostri cantent nisi in ea voce, in qua cantus inchoatus est, non in octava’ (We prohibit that our brethren sing in any pitch (vox) other than the one in which the chant had begun, and not in the octave).55 The actual wording of the passage demonstrates that the ban of singing at the octave is in fact not concerned with polyphony at all, but simply rejects transposition into the falsetto register. To all intents and purposes, it responded to the fear that practices which go against the (male) singer’s nature might undermine the integrity of the Order. Similar gender troubles shine through Humbert of Romans’s commentary on the Dominican constitutions, written around the same time, where he lays into those who sing ‘remissis confractisque vocibus psallunt, quod multitoties potius videntur mulieres quam viri’ (with soft or broken voices so that they oftentimes seem to be women rather than men), before reminding the brethren that the chants ‘have to be sung in a manly manner’ (viriliter decantandum).56  50 For instance, Göller, ‘Die Gesänge der Ordensliturgien’, p. 271.  51 A more detailed account of this issue is presented in Leitmeir, ‘Dominicans and Poly­ phony’, especially pp. 61–69.  52 Acta Capitulorum Generalium, ed. by Reichert, i, p. 23 (Acts of the General Chapter of Bo­logna, 1242: Admonitiones).  53 Humbert of Romans, Master of the Order from 1254 to 1263, provides helpful clarification on the legal status of admonitiones in his ‘Questiones circa statuta Ordinis Praedicatorum’, ed. by Creytens. Leitmeir, ‘Dominicans and Polyphony’, pp. 67–68.  54 Leitmeir, ‘Dominicans and Polyphony’, p. 67 (with further references).  55 Acta Capitulorum Generalium, i, ed. by Reichert, i, p. 53 (Acts of the General Chapter of London, 1250: Admonitiones).  56 Humbert of Romans, ‘Expositio super constitutiones fratrum praedicatorum’, ed. by Berthier, ii, 105.

co m p i l at i o n and adaptat i o n

Incidentally, the oft-quoted prohibition of polyphony entered the discourse only in the nineteenth century by way of egregious philo­logical errors. Alexandre Vincent Jandel’s edition of Dominican constitutions conflated both statements (and assigned the wrong date to the Bo­logna chapter): ‘Cantus autem iste debet esse sine discantu et octava (Bononiae 1252 [sic], Londonis 1250)’ (This chant should be without discant and the octave (Bo­logna 1252, London 1250)).57 In light of this context, therefore, Jerome crossed no red line when he included a substantial chapter on state-of-the-art singing, composition, and notation of polyphony (Chapter 26).58 Its vast proportions (Table 12.1) result from the fact that Jerome departed from his usual technique of compiling passages from the leading authorities into a single overall account of the subject. Instead he presented whole textbooks side by side. This anomaly, which is found nowhere else in the Tractatus, prompted an explanatory note:59 De quo quidem sunt V posiciones solemnes, una scilicet uulgaris, cetere vero speciales. De quibus omnibus singulariter infra dicemus hiis pluribus de causis: primo scilicet, tum cum secundum diuersas hominum concepciones diuersi libri diuersimode sint uocati ad eorundem librorum plenam intelligenciam, tum, quia una posicio declarat aliam, tum eciam, quia una super aliam in aliquibus addit scienciam, tum quidem ad illorum, qui non propter se sed potius propter mensurabilis musice scientiam addiscunt theoricam instruccionem plenariam. (There are five eminent positions concerning discant, namely one common one and the rest particular. We will speak about all of them below individually for various reasons. First, because different books ought to be discussed in different ways according to the varying conceptions of different men for a full understanding of those books, and because one position may differ from another, and also [second] because one may add knowledge on some topic beyond the other, and indeed [third] they add knowledge to full theoretical instruction of those things that serve not themselves, but rather mensural music.)

 57 Constitutiones Fratrum S. Ordinis Praedicatorum: Editio nova, ed. by Jandel, p. 44 (§ 36), based on Constitutiones, declarationes et ordinationes capitulorum generalium, ed. by Lo-Cicero, p. 54. I had mistaken Jandel’s edition for the revised constitution in Leitmeir, ‘Dominicans and Polyphony’, p. 69. I am grateful to Simon Tugwell for alerting me to this misconception in a personal communication (3 May 2018).  58 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 176–244, chap. 26.  59 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 176. The translation (cited above with slight modifications) in Weber, Intellectual Currents in Thirteenth Century Paris, p. 398.

343

344

c hr is tia n t h o m as l e i t m e i r Table 12.1. Proportions of chapters in the Tractatus de Musica (in lines)

This short passage is revealing in several respects: Jerome openly admits that he struggled to reconcile the conflicting teachings on polyphony circulating at his time. Rather than making even an attempt at finding the common denominator, he simply passes the buck to his readers, who no doubt would find the task even more challenging than their teacher. If the treatises were complementing each other, as Jerome claims, he could have easily achieved the synthesis himself, as he had done for texts from Boethius, John of Affligem and others. At face value, this passage seems to be the cop-out of an ignorant author. Jerome’s real motivation, however, becomes apparent when we read on. As he claims, an overall synthesis would have been counter-intuitive. His readers wanted to learn less about theoretical concepts than about the practical knowledge and skills necessary to perform, read, and write polyphony. Jerome was acutely aware that, as a living art, polyphony was in a state of constant flux. Deprived of any undisputed authority, its practitioners could largely do as they pleased, without paying recourse to, or complying with, a fixed theoretical superstructure.60 Ultimately, then, Jerome’s lack of synthesis is a mark not of incompetence, but of insight. It is the discerning teacher who can realize when definitive doctrines would defeat the object in the light of an ever evolving subject matter.

 60 On the moral and ethical dimensions of this phenomenon, as recognized by Jerome, see Leitmeir, ‘Sine auctoritate nulla disciplina est perfecta’, pp. 43–45.

co m p i l at i o n and adaptat i o n

The first, ‘common’, treatise, entitled Discantus positio vulgaris (fol. 64v– 66v), is in itself an amalgam of various doctrines, which may in part date back as far as the 1230s. The oldest layers represent the first known treatment of modal rhythm. The fluidity of the textual tradition affected its coherent structure and layers. As it had been added to and modified over the decades, the text lacks a coherent structure and consistent use of concepts and termino­logy. Jerome concedes these deficiencies (calling it ‘defectuosa’ in his concluding assessment),61 but honours it because of its age – ‘quia antiquior est omnibus’ (since it is older than all others) — and the fact that it represents a set of teachings shared by an international community of musicians: ‘Qua quia quedam naciones utuntur communiter’ (because it is commonly used by several nations).62 Contrary to everyday usage, the attribute ‘vulgaris’ therefore does not articulate the ‘vernacular’ status of the treatise, but its status as the ‘common’ point of reference for instruction on discant. The version presented in Jerome’s Tractatus, however, is the only surviving copy. Were it not for his efforts, this widely circulating body of doctrines, which Sarah Fuller rightly hailed as ‘our chief source for Parisian teaching about polyphony in the decades before John of Garland’, would have vanished without trace.63 This sad fate unfortunately befell the ‘arbor’ (tree) of Magister John of Burgundy, which was to feature in Jerome’s treatise in connection with Franco’s Ars cantus mensurabilis musicae. For reasons unknown, this tree diagram was not copied into MS fonds latin 16663.64 It probably represented a single-sheet illustration of musical figures and their values that would have been eminently useful in the classroom. It may well have formed part of a vital teaching tradition, for Jerome recalls having it from John of Burgundy’s own mouth.65 From a modern perspective, the inclusion of the seminal treatises by Johannes de Garlandia (fols 66v–76v) and Franco of Co­logne (fols 76v–83r) is unsurprising. Yet one should not forget that even these significant works were not as widely disseminated as their current status suggests. Johannes de Garlandia’s De mensurabili musica is known in two other sources only. Of these, one is incomplete, and both probably post-date Jerome’s Tractatus, which preserved the sole record of a textual version not transmitted elsewhere.66 Franco’s Ars cantus mensurabilis musicae was transmitted in

 61 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 181, chap. 26, l. 180).  62 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 181, chap. 26, ll. 178–79.  63 Fuller, ‘Discant and Theory of Fifthing’, p. 250.  64 See also Berktold, ‘Die “arbor” des Johannes de Burgundia’.  65 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 215, chap. 26, l. 1102: ‘ut ex ore ipsius audiuimus’ (just as we heard it from his mouth).  66 Vatican, MS lat. 1325 (early fourteenth century, France), transmitted together with De

345

346

c hr is tia n t h o m as l e i t m e i r

countless derivative versions, compendia, and abbreviationes, including the one in the Tractatus ascribed to Petrus Picardus (Musica mensurabilis, fols 83v–84v).67 Franco’s complete text, however, is documented in a mere six manuscripts. Of these, only two date from the thirteenth century, that is from or shortly after the completion of the treatise.68 Jerome’s copy may be the younger of the two, but it also provides the more accurate text, since the older MS fonds latin 1126769 is fraught with inaccuracies and scribal errors.70 Undoubtedly, then, Jerome was sufficiently well connected in musical circles to lay his hands on up-to-date teachings on polyphonic notation and composition. The desire to reflect the latest developments in music is not restricted to the rapidly changing field of mensural theory, but makes itself felt in countless other places within the Tractatus. The concluding Chapter 28, entitled ‘In tetracordis et pentacordis musicis instrumentis, puta in viellis et similibus per consonancias cordis distantibus mediis vocum invencionibus’ (On strings distant from one another by intervals and the creation of notes in between [those intervals] on four- and five-stringed musical instruments, for example the vielle and other similar ones), for instance, applies the principles of Boethian tuning to the two-stringed instruments that were the flavour of the month in secular music: the rebec and vielle.71 Such an interest in practical questions is, quite frankly, an abomination to the Neoplatonic music theorist envisaged by Boethius. Adding insult to injury, Jerome not only described abstract tuning systems but provided concrete practical advice that betrays his own skill in

 67  68  69

 70  71

plana musica by the same author. Bruges, MS 528 (Flanders, late thirteenth or early fourteenth century), fols 54v–59r, in which the text breaks off just before the end of Chapter 6. On the transmission see particularly Johannes de Garlandia, De mensurabili musica. ed. by Reimer, vol. i, pp. 18–29. Petrus Picardus, ‘Ars motettorum compilata breviter’, ed. by Gallo. On the position of Petrus Picardus in the transmission of so-called post-Franconian theory see Ristory, Postfranconische Theorie und Früh-Trecento. See the source descriptions in Franco de Colonia, Ars cantus mensurabilis musicae, ed. by Reaney and Gilles, pp. 20–23. BnF, MS lat. 11267 (second half of the thirteenth century, provenance: Jean de Plivot, canon of the Abbey of Reims). See Huglo, ‘Recherches sur la personne et l’oeuvre de Francon’, pp. 1–4. The book consists of a single quaternion with a bifolium of sundry material tagged on at the beginning. The eight folios of the main corpus are almost entirely devoted to Franco’s Ars cantus mensurabilis musicae. After a short anonymous text on intervals (fol. 7r), fol. 8v starts with the opening of Johannes de Sarabosco’s Algorismus (‘Omnia quae a primaeva rerum origine processerunt ratione numerorum formata sunt. […]’), misidentified by Smits van Waesberghe in RISM as a commentary on Martianus Capella by Remigius of Auxerre; Smits van Waesberghe et al, The Theory of Music from the Carolinigan Era up to 1400, i, 117. Leitmeir, ‘Types and Transmission of Musical Examples’, pp. 32 and 34–38. The practical aspects of Jerome’s statements have been assessed by organo­logists and practitioners: Bec, ‘Vièle et rebec’; Page, ‘Jerome of Moravia on the Rubeba and Viella’; Page, ‘Le Troisième accord pour vièle de Jérôme de Moravie’.

co m p i l at i o n and adaptat i o n

playing the rebec and vielle. As he could not get hold of any pre-existing instruction manuals on the matter, he went the extra mile and wrote the chapter himself. The following excerpt may serve to illustrate the practical impetus behind Jerome’s writing:72 Ostensum est superius theorice qualiter scilicet proporciones harmonice in numeris ponderibus reperiantur et mensuris. Hic ultimo restat dicendum practice, qualiter in chordis inueniantur. Quoniam autem secundum philosophum in paucioribus uia magna, ideo primo de rubeba, postea de viellis dicemus. […] Nam si quis tenens rubebam manu sinistra inter pollicem et indicem iuxta capud immediate quemadmodum et uiella teneri debet, tangat cum arcu primam chordam non applicans aliquem digitorum super ipsam, reddit sonum clavis C faut. Si uero applicat indicem, non quidem girando ipsum, quod et de applicacione aliorum digitorum tam in rubeba quam in uuiella intelligimus, sed sicut naturaliter cadit super eandem chordam, facit sonum clauis D solre. (It is theoretically shown above how the proportions of harmony are found in number, weight, and measure. Here, finally, it remains to be discussed practically how they are found on strings, because according to the Philosopher the best way is in smaller things. Therefore we speak first of the rubeba and afterwards of the vielle. […] Holding the rubeba in the left hand between the thumb and index finger immediately next to the head, in which manner the vielle ought to be held as well, if one plays the first string with the bow, without applying any of the fingers to it, it produces the sound of the note C fa ut. If one applies the index finger [to the string], not turning it but rather just as it naturally falls on the string, which we perceive in the application of all of the other fingers both on the rubeba and the vielle, it produces the sound of the note D sol re.) One would presume that such an infatuation with popular music must have come into direct conflict with the Order’s ascetic outlook. Even if Jerome’s superiors turned a blind eye to the hobby horse of a single friar, they would surely not have allowed him to instruct novices in this debased and corruptive art. Yet, again, let us not jump to conclusions. There is, in fact, not a shred of evidence to support the idea that the medi­eval Dominicans were hostile to instrumental music or secular song (with participation of instruments), especially not when performed outside the context of their liturgy. In fact, many of the early brethren entered the Order with substantial  72 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 267–68, chap. 28, ll. 5–10, 17–24. The translation is quoted from Weber, Intellectual Currents in Thirteenth Century Paris, p. 497.

347

3 48

c hr is tia n t h o m as l e i t m e i r

experience as singers and instrumentalists. After a dramatic conversion experience, the troubadour Fulk of Marseille became first a Cistercian and then bishop of Toulouse. In the latter role, he fought corruption and heresy with great personal zeal. Having joined St Dominic and Diego of Osma in their mission to convert the Cathars, he turned into a powerful patron of the nascent Order of Preachers.73 Similarly, troubadours and jongleurs feature regularly in the exempla assembled by the Dominican Stephen of Bourbon in his Tractatus de diversis materiis predicabilibus.74 Not only does Stephen portray these secular musicians in a positive light, he also describes their function in terms directly analogous to the Friars Preachers, who equally wanted to reach the minds and hearts of their audiences. Far from being categorically different, secular song and preaching share an audience orientation and performativity. In relation to song, preaching is, to quote Schulman, ‘less a transformation […] than a refinement’.75 Upon closer scrutiny, all the weighty arguments against the Dominican profile of Jerome’s Tractatus (namely his interest in polyphony and instrumental music) so far have crumbled to dust. An un-Dominican treatise it clearly is not, but how Dominican is it? If the Tractatus was intended to teach novices of the Parisian studium, instructions would have taken place outside the regulated curriculum. The Dominicans had made the remarkable decision to exclude quadrivial subjects from its ‘studia artium et naturalia’, which were dominated by logic and Aristotelian texts, respectively.76 This does not imply that Dominican novices and students did not receive instruction in music at all. Music education (be it theoretical or practical) simply had its place outside the official syllabus. Whenever the opportunity arises, Jerome makes his compilation relevant to Dominican readers (and singers). Chapters 21 and 22 are lifted more or less wholesale from the Dominican tonary.77 While the tonary sections of treatises often give a good sense of what sources the author had to hand, their value is not restricted to people from the same liturgical tradition. To put not too fine a point on it, tonaries fulfil their purpose when the readers get a sense of how a set of chants could be classified modally. After all, the Dominican chant reform resulted in a Romanization of the melodies, so

 73 The religious dimension of Fulk’s life is discussed (alongside his fellow troubadourturned-Cistercian Bertrand de Born) in Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy, and Crusade in Occitania, pp. 37–38 and 210. On Fulk see also Schulman, Where Troubadours were Bishops, pp. 138–45 and elsewhere.  74 Stephen of Bourbon, Tractatus de diversis materiis predicabilibus, ed. by Berlioz and Eichenlaub.  75 Schulman, Where Troubadours were Bishops, pp. 40–41.  76 Mulchahey, ‘First the Bow is Bent in Study’, pp. 220–77.  77 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 142–43, chap. 21, ll. 78–113; pp. 145–56, chap. 22, ll. 5–288. See also Huglo, Les Tonaires, pp. 334–36; Meyer, ‘Le Tonaire des Frères Prècheurs’.

co m p i l at i o n and adaptat i o n

that Jerome’s example automatically had a wider application. Magister Lambertus’s tonary, for instance, shares with the Dominican tonary precisely those elements that are typical of a French tradition on the whole.78 A generation later, the tonary of the Speculum musicae, too, espoused reformed intonation practices in accordance with Dominican initiatives.79 Wherever the opportunity arises, Jerome promotes Dominican chants. His aesthetic evaluation of chants, which employs three grades of beauty (pulcher, pulchrior, pulcherrimus) and ugliness (turpis, turpior, turpissimus),80 illustrated chants of the former categories with examples from the liturgy of Dominican saints. The second-highest grade of beauty (pulchrior) is represented with the famous antiphon O lumen ecclesiae and the Alleluia V. Pie pater Dominice from the Office and Mass for St Dominic, the Order’s founder and first canonized saint:81 Hic est dictum, quod sint plagales note in paribus, uerbi gracia sicut alleluya Pie pater et antiphona O lumen ecclesie, que eciam tonorum parium propter notas plagales a cantatoribus intitulantur erronee. (This is to say that there are plagal notes in odd modes, for example as in the Alleluia Pie pater and the antiphon O lumen ecclesiae, which are erroneously called even modes by singers because of the plagal notes.) As the quoted excerpt betrays, Jerome is not given towards uncritical veneration, even when the Founder of his Order is concerned. While he does find fault with both chants (for obscuring their modal identity), he nonetheless listed them among the ‘more beautiful’ specimens. The responsory Dum Samsonis (Responsory 3 for Matins) and the Alleluia V. Felix ex fructu triplici for the feast of Peter of Verona (Peter Martyr), who was canonized just over a year after his martyrdom in 1252,82 are free from any defects, exhibiting the clear modality alongside convincing interval structure.83 These two examples suffice for Jerome to illustrate the highest grade of beauty in chant. Incidentally, the Alleluia V. Felix ex fructu triplici was turned into a two-part organum by another Dominican in the mid-thirteenth century.84

 78 Magister Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. by Meyer, p. xxii.  79 Bent, Magister Jacobus de Ispania, p. 14.  80 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 164–66, chap. 24, ll. 88–183. Jerome’s aesthetics are discussed in Weber, Intellectual Currents in Thirteenth Century Paris, pp. 159–65.  81 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 165, chap. 24, ll. 125–28. Translation: Weber, Intellectual Currents in Thirteenth Century Paris, p. 384.  82 This makes it the fastest canonization in the history of the Catholic Church; Prudlo, The Martyred Inquisitor, p. 81.  83 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 165, chap. 24, ll. 144–47.  84 Vatican, MS lat. 14179, fols 320v–321r. Levy, ‘A Dominican Organum Duplum’, with an

349

3 50

c hr is tia n t h o m as l e i t m e i r

The lowest degree of beauty is exemplified with chants that, while of general use, were taken from Dominican books: the Liber generationis (reproached for its repetitiveness) and two Alleluias from Advent (Alleluia V. Virga iesse floruit) and Eastertide (Alleluia V. In die resurrectionis meae).85 The intellectual tradition of the Dominicans afforded potential for further inspirations. While a comprehensive evaluation of Jerome’s borrowings is still outstanding,86 the text is indebted to a range of Dominican authors, including Albert the Great, Robert Kilwardby and others. Jerome frequently mined the Speculum maius by the Dominican polymath Vincent of Beauvais for information on the placement of music within the divisio scientiarum (including quotations from Al-Fārābī and Richard and Hugh of Saint-Victor) or on music’s effects.87 Unsurprisingly, Thomas Aquinas commands the strongest presence. Having studied in Paris, Aquinas returned for two four-year periods as a regent master and chair of theo­logy in 1256 and 1268, respectively. During these times he lived in the Dominican priory of St Jacques.88 If Jerome had been in Paris during these years, he could certainly have made his acquaintance. At any rate, Jerome shows familiarity with a remarkable breadth of Aquinas’s writings, from his philosophical commentaries on Aristotle to the Summa theologiae. Remarkably, the references are made casually, if not clandestinely. When Jerome lifted a chunk from Aquinas’s commentary on Aristotle’s De coelo et mundo into his seventh chapter, for instance, he did not even name his source. The passages marked in bold in the following excerpt are quoted from Aquinas’s commentary89 rather than Aristotle’s original text:90 Hoc est igitur quod dicit Ysidorus, libro tercio Ethimo­logiarum. Sine musica inquid, nulla disciplina potest esse perfecta, nihil enim sine illa. Nam et ipse mundus quadam armonia fertur sonorum esse conpositus et celum ipsum sub armonie modulacione reuolui, quod philosophus in secundo libro De Celo et mundo more suo reprobat. Nam postquam determinauit de motu stellarum, consequenter determinat de sono

edition on pp. 194–96. See also Leitmeir, ‘Dominicans and Polyphony’, pp. 76–78.  85 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 165, chap. 24, ll. 132–47. See also Weber, Intellectual Currents in Thirteenth Century Paris, p. 161.  86 The critical edition by Meyer and Lobrichon lists only the quotations from theo­logical and philosophical literature that had been identified previously.  87 These borrowings are summarized in Matusiak, ‘Jerome – A Moravian Dominican in Paris’, p. 4. The exact references to Vincent’s Speculum are given in Weber, Intellectual Currents in Thirteenth Century Paris, pp. 96–97 and 190.  88 Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas. vol. i: The Person and His Work, pp. 146–48.  89 Thomas Aquinas, In Aristotelis libros De caelo et mundo … expositio, ed. by Spiazzi, p. 210 (liber 2, lectio 14, no. 1), referring to Aristotle, De caelo et mundo, Bekker 290b12–291a28.  90 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 23, chap. 7, ll. 22–32.

co m p i l at i o n and adaptat i o n

earum, qui est effectus motus localis, ut dicitur in secundo De anima. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo excludit opinionem aliorum, secundo determinat ueritatem. Aquinas also forms the actual point of reference when Jerome evokes Aristotle to back up his distinction between natural and musical time. While he adopted the notion of ‘prius’ and ‘posterius’ (before and after) from Aristotle’s Physica, a comparison of his own wording with the corresponding passages in Aristotle’s text (according to the Latin translation current at the time) and Aquinas’s commentary thereon reveals that, again, he borrowed directly from the latter (identical matches are indicated in bold) (see Table 12.2).91 Table 12.2. Similarities between the Tractatus de Musica, Aristotle’s Physica, and Aquinas’s Commentarius in VIII libros Physicorum Aristotelis.

Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, Chapter 25, ll. 25–3092 Sed loquendo naturaliter successio non invenitur nisi in illis, quae sunt aliqualiter motui subjecta. Prius enim et posterius causant temporis successionem. Ex hoc enim, quod numeramus prius et posterius in motu, apprehendimus tempus, quod nihil aliud est, quam numerus prioris et posterioris in motu. Aristotle, Physica, 291a18 (Aristoteles Latinus: translatio vetus)93 At vero et in tempore est prius et posterius, propter id, quod sequitur semper alterum alterum ipsorum. Est autem prius et posterius ipsorum in motu; […] At vero et tempus cognoscimus, cum determinemus motum, prius et posterius determinantes, et tunc dicimus tempus fieri, quando prioris et posterioris motu sensum percipimus. […] Cum prius et posterius et, tunc dicimus tempus; hoc enim est tempus: numerus motus secundum prius et posterius. Aquinas, Commentarius in VIII libros Physicorum Aristotelis, iv.9.lect. 1794 Cum accipimus prius et posterius et numeramus ea, tunc dicimus fieri tempus. Et hoc ideo, quia tempus nihil aliud est quam numerus motus secundum prius et posterius: tempus enim percipimus, ut dictum est, cum numeramus prius et posterius in motu.

 91 Notably, neither reference is identified in Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon.  92 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 167, chap. 25, ll. 25–30.  93 Aristotle, Physica, Translatio vetus, ed. by Bossier and Brams, pp. 174–75.  94 Thomas Aquinas, In octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis expositio, edited by Maggiolo, pp. 282–83.

35 1

3 52

c hr is tia n t h o m as l e i t m e i r

Table 12.3. Similarities between the Prologue of the Tractatus de Musica and Aquinas’s Summa theo­logiae.

Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de Musica, [Pro­logus]95

Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, Ia, Q1, A1, co96

Subjectum igitur fore musice sonum discretum signanter dicimus. Cuius quidem racio est.

Respondeo dicendum quod Deus est subiectum huius scientiae.

Sic enim se habet subiectum ad scienciam sicut obiectum ad potenciam uel habitum, proprie autem illud assignatur obiectum alicuius potencie uel habitus sub cuius racione omnia referuntur ad potenciam uel habitum sicut uerbi gratiam homo et lapis referunter ad uisum inquantum sunt colorata. Unde coloratum est proprium obiectum uisus.

Sic enim se habet subiectum ad scientiam, sicut obiectum ad potentiam vel habitum. Proprie autem illud assignatur obiectum alicuius poten­tiae vel habitus, sub cuius ratione omnia referuntur ad potentiam vel habitum, sicut homo et lapis referuntur ad visum inquantum sunt colorata, unde coloratum est proprium obiectum visus.

Omnia autem que tractantur in musica, traduntur sub racione soni uel quia sunt ipse sonus uel quia habent ordinem ad sonum ut ad principium et finem. Vnde sequitur quod discretus sonus uere sit sub­ iec­tum huius sciencie. Quod eciam manifestum fit ex principiis huius sciencie, que sunt quidam soni. Idem vero est subjectum principiorum et tocius sciencie, cum tota sciencia uirtute contineatur in principiis.

Omnia autem pertractantur in sacra doctrina sub ratione Dei, vel quia sunt ipse Deus; vel quia habent ordinem ad Deum, ut ad principium et finem. Unde sequitur quod Deus vere sit subiectum huius scientiae. Quod etiam manifestum fit ex principiis huius scientiae, quae sunt articuli fidei, quae est de Deo, idem autem est subiectum principiorum et totius scientiae, cum tota scientia virtute contineatur in principiis.

Quidam autem attendentes ea quae tractantur in ista sciencia, et non ad racionem secundum quam considerantur, assignaverunt aliter materiam huius sciencie, uel pondus, uel mensuram contractam ad sonum, etc.

Quidam vero, attendentes ad ea quae in ista scientia tractantur, et non ad rationem secundum quam considerantur, assignaverunt aliter subiectum huius scientiae, vel res et signa; vel opera reparationis; vel totum Christum, idest caput et membra.

De omnibus autem istis tractatur in ista sciencia, secundum ordinem ad sonum, ut patebit inferius.

De omnibus enim istis tractatur in ista scientia, sed secundum ordinem ad Deum.

Jerome’s reference to cutting-edge discourse on Aristotelian natural philosophy is revealing in two respects. He had evidently been sufficiently versed in philosophy to identify a figure of thought that helped him to provide a philosophical justification for notions of musical time, as they emerged from within mensural practices of his time. Moreover, he selected the one wording that suited his purpose best, snubbing Aristotle as well as  95 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 37–38, chap. 9, ll. 28–48.  96 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logica, Ia, Q1, A1, co, ed. by De Rubeis, Balluart, and others, i, 6–7; an English translation can be found in Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logica, trans. by The Fathers of the English Dominican Province, i, 4–5.

co m p i l at i o n and adaptat i o n

other influential commentaries by Robert Kilwardby and Albert the Great, which would have been readily available for consultation in Paris as well.97 Nonetheless, Jerome did not lift the entire passage from Aquinas. The quotation curiously breaks off just before the discussion turns to the moment of time that is placed between the ‘before’ and ‘after’.98 This point would have been necessary to establish the analogy between Aristotelian time (tempus naturale) and Jerome’s own conception of musical time (tempus harmonicum) as being necessarily tripartite.99 As a result, the philosophical argument is far from establishing a rational foundation for the idea that the brevis (as the time unit) is divided into three parts rather than just two. Aquinas and other academically trained magistri, including his confreres at St Jacques, would not have lent credibility to what essentially turned out to be the mere trappings of a philosophical argumentation. In other places, the transfer from Aquinas to music theory is less superficial. When Jerome defines the subject of music as ‘sonus discretus’ (discrete sound), his argument is modelled closely on Aquinas’s discussion of the question whether God is the subject of theo­logy. As the juxtaposition of the corresponding passages reveals (in which variants are highlighted through bold, see Table 12.3), Jerome successfully repurposed a whole section from the Summa theo­logiae through strategic substitutions of a few key terms (most importantly ‘sonus discretus’ for ‘God’).100 Jerome’s most obvious borrowing from Aquinas features at the outset of the Tractatus de Musica. He lifted a section of his Pro­logue from the Summa and subjected it to minimally invasive surgery so that it could be transplanted into a text on a different subject matter entirely. Again, the sheer extent of identical material makes it more intuitive to highlight changes rather than shared passages (see Table 12.4). The near-literal recycling from Aquinas was more than a mere labourand time-saving operation. It also communicated a strong message to Jerome’s readers. In invoking the spirit of one of the best-known passages of the Summa theo­logiae, Jerome marked the status of his Tractatus right from the start: what Thomas had provided for budding theo­logians (especially, but not limited, to Dominicans), he aspired to offer to cantors (i.e. those in charge of singing and musical instruction in monastic and secular institutions). It is true, of course, that Jerome’s powers of synthesis and intellectual

 97 Robert Kilwardby, On Time and Imagination, ed. by Lewry, i, 13–14. Albert the Great, Physica. Pars I, ed. by Hossfeld, pp. 259–92 (liber 4, Tractatus 3: De tempore). Albert’s commentary is transmitted, for instance, in BnF, MS lat. 14386.  98 Thomas Aquinas, In octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis expositio, edited by Maggiolo, p. 283 (on Aristotle, Physica, 219a25).  99 Berktold, ‘Die Aristotelische und die musikalische Zeit’, especially pp. 4–5.   100 For a more detailed discussion of this passage see Matusiak’s chapter in this volume, ‘Jerome of Moravia’s Cantor’, p. 365. Weber, Intellectual Currents in Thirteenth Century Paris, pp. 89–93.

35 3

3 54

c hr is tia n t h o m as l e i t m e i r

Table 12.4. Similarities between the Tractatus de Musica and Aquinas’s Summa theo­logiae.

Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de Musica, [Pro­logus]101

Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logica, Pro­logus102

Sed considerauimus huius scientie nouicios in hiis, que a diuersis conscripta sunt, plurimum impediri partim propter grecorum vocabulorum inutilium et figurarum multiplicacionem,

Consideravimus namque hujus doctrinae novitios in his, quae a diversis conscripta sunt, plurimum impediri: partim quidem propter multiplicationem inutilium quaestionum, articulorum et argumentorum,

partim etcam quia ea quae sunt necessaria talibus partim etiam, quia ea, quae sunt necessaria talibus ad sciendum non traduntur euidenter, sed pocius ad sciendum, non traduntur secundum ordinem obscure et difficulter, disciplinae, sed secundum quod requirebat librorum expositio vel secundum quod se praebebat occasio disputandi; partim quidem quia eorum frequens repeticio, et fastidium et confusionem generabat in animis auditorum.

partim quidem, quia eorum frequens repetitio et fastidium et confusionem generabat in animis auditorum.

Hec igitur et alia hujusmodi euitare studentes tenptabimus cum confidencia diuini auxilii ea musice artis, que precipue ad officium cantantium pertinent, breviter ac lucide prosequi, cuncta breui uolumine conplicantes, ut non sit necesse quaerenti numerositatem librorum evolvere. Cui brevitas collecta offert quid quaeritur sine labore, ut autem intencio nostra sub aliquibus certis limitibus conprehendatur.

Haec igitur et alia hujusmodi evitare studentes tentabimus cum confidentia divini auxilii ea quae ad sacram doctrinam pertinent, breviter ac lucide prosequi secundum quod materia patietur.

acumen never reached the lofty heights of Aquinas’s thought. Nonetheless, he claimed an analogous status for his treatise within the academically much less rigorous realms of music teaching. Such references to academic discourse make it abundantly clear that while Jerome was not a great intellectual, he had a ready command over a vast body of theo­logical and philosophical literature. This alone would have placed him above the average music theorist and compiler of the day. Moreover, he showed a keen interest in reflecting current trends of theoretical as well as practical knowledge. His writing takes on board the latest commentaries on the Corpus Aristotelicum writings and other texts that were the dernier cri in the academic milieu of Paris. Moreover, he recognized the rapidly developing field of mensural practices through the inclusion of several positiones, thereby conceding that none of them was the last word on the matter. When new views had emerged, Jerome regularly   101 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 5, Pro­logus, ll. 69–84.   102 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logiae, Ia, ed. by de Rubeis, Billuart and others, Pro­logus, p. 1.

co m p i l at i o n and adaptat i o n

listed them side by side with established authorities, even when they clashed with the latter, and was perfectly happy to promote innovative approaches above received wisdom. Chapter 20 on the two-fold locations of chant (‘De sedibus tonorum duplicibus’) constitutes a perfect example of his openness to and intellectual curiosity about new ways of thinking. Having reproduced the accepted doctrines from Johannes Cotto103 and Boethius,104 he devotes the final section to a positive evaluation of ‘modern’ views (introduced with the phrase: ‘Modernorum autem expositio est ista’; The exposition of the moderns, however, is thus).105 Significantly, the latter is presented without recourse to any known or named authority, as if Jerome built on first-hand experience in modern-day teachings on modality in chant. Boureau even recognizes a specifically Dominican trait in Jerome’s ambition to keep his finger on the pulse of time.106 If this bestows a Dominican flair on Jerome’s Tractatus de musica, one may be surprised that he brushed his indebtedness to Aquinas under the carpet. No explicit citations of Aquinas are made, as if Jerome had to hush up his indebtedness to the Angelic Doctor, the most distinguished authority within his own Order. Did Jerome intend to wear his learning lightly? Or why else might he have been so reluctant to acknowledge his famous confrere? An explanation may be found in the fact that Thomas Aquinas had cut a fairly controversial figure in Paris at the time, when Jerome penned his Tractatus. In 1277, Bishop Stephen Tempier banned several of his doctrines as heretical.107 Between his death in 1274 and his canonization in 1323,108 he was not even unchallenged in Dominican circles. Well into the fourteenth century, General Chapters admonish the brethren to show more respect to Aquinas and not to dismiss his ideas too openly.109 Jerome’s silence on his borrowings from Aquinas may have been a conscious move to appeal to both sides. Thomists would have appreciated the resonances and near-quotations from their revered teachers, whereas Aquinas’s opponents and critics (both within the Order of Preachers and beyond) should not have been antagonized by Jerome’s reliance on him.

  103 Johannes Cotto, De musica cum tonario, ed. by van Waesberghe, Chapters 6 and 10.   104 Boethius, De institutione musica, ed. by Friedlein, v. chaps 14–15 and 17.   105 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 44, chap. 20, ll. 130–54.   106 Boureau, ‘Jérôme de Moravie et la rationalité dominicaine du xiiie siècle’, p. 45. Matusiak, ‘Jerome – A Moravian Dominican in Paris’, p. 5.   107 The most comprehensive publication on this condemnation and its effects is Aertsen, Emery Jr and Speer (eds), Nach der Verurteilung von 1277.   108 Walz, ‘Papst Johannes XXII. und Thomas von Aquin’.   109 See, for instance, the acts of the General Chapters of Milan (1278), Paris (1279) and Paris (1286); Acta Capitulorum Generalium, i, ed. by Reichert, i, pp. 199, 204 and 235. For an example of the more robust defence of Aquinas see the acts of the General Chapter of Saragoza of 1309; Acta Capitulorum Generalium, ed. by Reichert, ii, p. 38.

35 5

3 56

c hr is tia n t h o m as l e i t m e i r

Where does this preliminary investigation leave us with regard to the Dominican profile of Jerome’s Tractatus? It is beyond doubt that the entire treatise does conform to Dominican spirituality, so that it could easily have been used for the training of novices and students. Perhaps Jerome was even commissioned to produce his textbook for this very purpose. The General Chapter of 1297 places great emphasis on the fact that young Dominicans should not be permitted to read the Arts until they had received a solid training in music.110 Although the acts of the provincial chapters from France have not survived, those from the Roman province remind the priors time and again to appoint a skilled cantor in order to ensure adequate music instruction.111 The esteem of this Office was confirmed by the Provincial Chapter of Gubbio in 1329, which showered the cantors with privileges.112 No doubt, the cantors would have treasured a textbook at hand which they could use for practical, but also theoretical, instruction in music. Overall, this chapter has demonstrated that the Tractatus de Musica resonates strongly with the demands, outlook, and spirituality of the Order of Preachers. Jerome makes no secret of his Dominican identity. He was au fait with Dominican authors (Thomas Aquinas, Vincent of Beauvais) and

  110 ‘Iniungimus prioribus universis et eorum vicariis. […] nec mittantur ad studium arcium. nisi prius in cantu et divino officio sint instructi. et nisi duos annos compleverint ab ingressu’ (We enjoin on all priors and their deputies […] that they should not admit to the study of Arts anyone who had not previously been instructed in chant and the Divine Office and who had not completed two years from their entry); Acta Capitulorum Generalium, ed. by Reichert, i, p. 285.   111 For instance, acts of the Provincial Chapter Orvieto (1300): ‘Item volumus et ordinamus quod in singulis conventibus instituantur aliqui qui de cantu iuvenes instruant, prohibemusque prioribus ne aliquem ex iuvenibus ordinari faciant vel ad studium quodcumque promoveant, nisi prius fuerit in arte cantus instructus’ (Also we want and ordain that in individual houses people are put in place who instruct the young in chant; and we prohibit the priors to ordain the young or to promote them to study, unless they had previously been instructed in the theory of chant); Acta capitulorum provincialium provinciae Romanae 1243–1344, ed. by Kaeppeli, p. 137.   112 Acts of the Provincial Chapter of Gubbio (1329): ‘Item, cum de cantoribus notabilis in provincia sit defectus, volumus et mandamus prioribus universis ac eorum vices gerentibus quatenus in conventibus suis omnino ordinent quod post Pascha sit aliquis qui iuniores instruat de cantu et ad hoc cogant eos si fuerit opportunum et puniant quemcumque illorum iuvenum quem circa hoc invenerunt negligentem. Cantoribus vero principalibus qui continuo laborant in choro, gratiose dispensationes concedant et de vestibus provideant plus quam aliis, pensatis laboribus et conditionibus eorumdem’ (Also, as there is a notable lack of cantors in our province, we wish and entrust that all priors and those who deputise for them, to the extent to which they regulate affairs in their houses, that after Easter there should be someone to instruct the young men in chant; they should summon them [the young men] to this, if it is opportune, and punish each of the young men whom they find negligent in chant. To the principal cantors, however, who work continuously in choir, they should favourably concede dispensations and provide for their vestments more than for others, in consideration of their labours and conditions); Acta capitulorum provincialium provinciae Romanae 1243–1344, ed. by Kaeppeli, p. 248.

co m p i l at i o n and adaptat i o n

sources (tonary, chants). And he had Dominican readers in mind — but not just them: the pro­logue explicitly declares his intended audience as ‘fratres ordinis nostri uel alii’ (Brethren of our Order and other).113 For all its Dominican characteristics, therefore, the Tractatus is not tied to the Order of Preachers in a restrictive way. Containing exclusively material of general interest, it could (and was meant to) find a readership in wider academic circles. In hindsight, this was its saving grace. Had the Tractatus not entered the library of the Sorbonne through the physician Pierre de Limoges, Jerome’s work, including its many rara and unica, would have vanished without trace.

  113 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 4, Pro­logus, l. 61.

35 7

3 58

c hr is tia n t h o m as l e i t m e i r

Works Cited Manuscripts and Archival Sources Bruges, Stadsbibliotheek, MS 528 Melbourne, State Library of Victoria, MS Cod. *096 1/​R66A Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 90 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fonds latin 11267 —— , MS fonds latin 14386 —— , MS fonds latin 16663 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS lat. 1325 —— , MS lat. 14179 Wolfenbüttel, Herzog-August-Bibliothek, MS Cod. Guelf. 628 Helmst. (= W1) Primary Sources Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum. i: Ab anno 1220 usque ad annum 1303, ed. by Benedictus Maria Reichert, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 3 (Rome: In domo generalitia, 1898) Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum. ii: Ab anno 1304 usque ad annum 1378, ed. by Benedictus Maria Reichert, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 4 (Rome: In domo generalitia, 1899) Acta capitulorum provincialium provinciae Romanae 1243–1344, ed. by Thomas Kaeppeli, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 20 (Rome: In domo generalitia, 1941) Albert the Great, Physica. Pars I, ed. by Paulus Hossfeld, Alberti Magni […] Opera omnia, 4/​1 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1987) Aristotle, Physica: Aristoteles latinus: Physica, Translatio vetus, ed. by Fernand Bossier and Joszef Brams (Leiden: Brill, 1990) Bernard Gui, ‘Nomina episcoporum Lemovicensium’, ed. by Joseph-Daniel Guigniaut and J. Natalis de Wailly, Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France, 21 (Paris: Imprimerie Impériale, 1855), pp. 754–55 Boethius, Anicius Manlius, De institutione arithmetica libri duo. De institutione musica libri quinque. Accedit geometria quae fertur Boetii, ed. by Johann Gottfried Friedlein (Leipzig: Teubner), 1867 Bower, Robert, Scotichronicon, vol. v, ed. and trans. by Simon Tayler, Donald E. R. Watt and others (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1990) Constitutiones, declarationes et ordinationes capitulorum generalium sacri ordinis fratrum praedicatorum ab anno 1220 usque ad 1650 emanatae, et ab Vincentio Fontana exscriptae […] usque annum 1862 continuatae, ed. by Cajetano LoCicero (Rome: ex typo­graphia Bernardi Merini, 1862) Constitutiones Fratrum S. Ordinis Praedicatorum: Editio nova, in qua inserte sunt ordinationes Capituli Generalis Lovanii Anno 1885 celebrati, ed. by Alexandre Vincent Jandel (Paris: Poussielgue Fratres, 1886)

co m p i l at i o n and adaptat i o n

Franco de Colonia, Ars cantus mensurabilis musicae, ed. by Gilbert Reaney and André Gilles, Corpus scriptorum de musica, 18 (Rome: American Institute of Musico­logy, 1974) Glossa maior in institutionem musicam Boethii, ed. by Michael Bernhard et Calvin M. Bower, 4 vols, Veröffentlichungen der Musikhistorischen Kommission, 9–12 (Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1993–2011) Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de Musica, ed. by Simon M. Cserba, Freiburger Studien zur Musikwissenschaft, 2 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1935) —— , Tractatus de musica, ed. by Christian Meyer and Guy Lobrichon, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 250 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012) Humbert of Romans, ‘Expositio super constitutiones fratrum praedicatorum’: Opera de vita regulari, ed. by Joachim Joseph Berthier, 2 vols (Rome: Typis A. Befani, 1888–1899), ii, 1–178 —— , ‘Questiones circa statuta Ordinis Praedicatorum’, ed. by Raymond Creytens = ‘Commentaires inédits d’Humbert de Romans sur quelques points des constitutions dominicaines’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 21 (1951), pp. 197–214, at pp. 205–14 Jacobus Leodiensis [identified by Bent as Jacobus de Ispania], ed. by Roger Bragard, 7 vols, Corpus scriptorium de musica, 3.1–3.7 (Rome: American Institute of Musico­logy, 1955–1973) Johannes Cotto [Affligemensis], De musica cum tonario, ed. by Smits van Waesberghe, Corpus scriptorum de musica, 1 (Rome: American Institute of Musico­logy, 1950) Johannes de Garlandia, De mensurabili musica: Kritische Edition mit Kommentar und Interpretation der Notationslehre, ed. by Erich Reimer, 2 vols, Beihefte zum Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 10–11 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1972) Johannes de Grocheio, Ars musice, ed. and trans. by Constant J. Mews, John N. Crossley, Catherine Jeffreys, Leigh McKinnon, and Carol J. Williams (Kalamazoo: Teams. varia, 2011) Magister Lambertus, Ars musica: The ‘Ars musica’ attributed to Magister Lambertus/​ Aristoteles, ed. by Christian Meyer, trans. by Karen Desmond, RMA Mono­ graphs, 27 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2016) Monumenta Poloniae Historica /​Pomniki dziejowe Polski, iii, ed. by August Bielowski (Lviv: W Komisie księgarni Gubrynowicza i Schmidta, 1878; reprint Kraców: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1946) Petrus Picardus, ‘Ars motettorum compilata breviter’, ed. by F. Alberto Gallo, in Petrus Picardus, Ars motettorum compilata breviter (ca. 1270). Anonymous, Ars musicae mensurabilis secundum Franconem (ca. 1280–1300) (MSS Paris, Bibl. Nat., lat. 15129 and Uppsala, Universiteitsbibl., C 55). Anonymous, Ars musicae mensurabilis artis antiquae (Ms. Faenza, Bibl. Comunale 117), ed. by F. Alberto Gallo and others, Corpus scriptorum de musica, 15 (Rome: American Institute of Musico­logy, 1971), pp. 9–30 ‘Quatuor Principalia Musicae: The “Quatuor Principalia Musicae”: A Critical Edi­ tion and Translation, with Introduction and Commentary’, ed. and trans. by Luminita Florea Aluas (unpublished doctoral thesis, Indiana University, 1996)

359

36 0

c hr is tia n t h o m as l e i t m e i r

Registrum Episcopatus Moraviensis, e pluribus codicibus consarcinatum circa A.D. MCCCC., cum continuatione diplomatum recentiorum usque ad A.D. MDCXXIII, ed. by Cosmo Innes (Edinburgh: [n. pub.], 1837) Robert Kilwardby, On Time and Imagination. De tempore. De spiritu fantastico, vol. i ed. by Osmond Lewry, vol. ii trans. by Alexander Broadie, Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi, 9 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987) Stephen of Bourbon (Stephanus de Borbone), Tractatus de diversis materiis predicabilibus, ed. by Jacques Berlioz and Jean-Luc Eichenlaub, 3 vols, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medi­evalis, 124 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002–2015) Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logica, Opera omnia iussue impensaque Leonis XIII P.M. edita [= Editio Leonina], vols 4–12 (Rome, 1888–1906) —— , Summa theo­logica, ed. by Bernardo Maria de Rubeis, Charles René Billuart and others, i (Torino: Marietti, 1932) —— , Summa theo­logica, translated by The Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 3 vols (New York, 1948) —— , In Aristotelis libros De caelo et mundo, De generatione et corruptione, Meteoro­ logicorum expositio, ed. by Raymondo M. Spiazzi (Turin: Marietti, 1952) —— , In octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis expositio, ed. by Mariani Maggiolo (Turin: Marietti, 1954) [Thomas Aquinas (attr.)], Die Thomas von Aquin zugeschriebenen Musiktraktate, ed. by Michael Bernhard, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften – Veröffentlichungen der Musikhistorischen Kommission, 18 (Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2006) Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum quadruplex sive, Speculum maius (Graz: Akade­ mische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1964–1965, reprint of Douay: Ex Officina Typo­graphica B. Bellerie, 1624) Walter Odington [elsewhere identified as Walter of Evesham], Summa de speculatione musicae, ed. by Frederick F. Hammond, Corpus scriptorium de musica, 14 (Rome: American Institute of Musico­logy, 1970) Secondary Works Aertsen, Jan A., Kent Emery Jr, and Andreas Speer, ed., Nach der Verurteilung von 1277. Philosophie und Theo­logie an der Universität von Paris im letzten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts. Studien und Texte /​After the Condemnation of 1277. Philosophy and Theo­logy at the University of Paris in the Last Quarter of the 13th century. Studies and Texts, Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 28 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001) Bataillon, Louis-Jacques, ‘Comptes de Pierre de Limoges pour la copie de livres’, in La Production du livre universitaire au Moyen Âge. Exemplar et peca, ed. by Louis-Jacques Bataillon, Bertrand Georges Guyot, and Richard H. Rouse (Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1988), pp. 265–73 Bec, Pierre, ‘Vièle et rebec: Fausses étymo­logies, motivations secondaires et latinisations médiévales’, Jérôme de Moravie: un théoricien de la musique dans le

co m p i l at i o n and adaptat i o n

milieu intellectuel parisien du xiiie siècle, ed. by Michel Huglo and Marcel Pérès (Paris: Éditions Créaphis, 1992), pp. 97–116 Bent, Margaret, Magister Jacobus de Ispania, Author of the ‘Speculum musicae’, Royal Musical Association Mono­graphs, 28 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015) Berktold, Christian, ‘Die “arbor” des Johannes de Burgundia’, in International Musico­logical Society Study Group Cantus Planus: Papers Read at the 6th Meeting Eger 1993 (Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute for Musico­logy, 1995), pp. 653–64 —— , ‘Die Aristotelische und die musikalische Zeit bei Hieronymus de Moravia’, in Mittelalterliche Musiktheorie in Zentraleuropa, ed. by Walter Pass and Alexander Rausch, Musica Mediaevalis Europae Occidentalis, 4 (Tutzing: Schneider, 1998), pp. 1–6 Boureau, Alain, ‘Jérôme de Moravie et la rationalité dominicaine du xiiie siècle’, in Jérôme de Moravie: un théoricien de la musique dans le milieu intellectuel parisien du xiiie siècle, ed. by Michel Huglo and Marcel Pérès (Paris: Édition Créaphis, 1992), pp. 43–53 Černušák, Tomáš, ‘Vznik provincie a její rozvoj do husitských válek’, in Historie dominikánů v českých zemích, ed. by Tomáš Černušák, Augustin Prokop, and Damián Němec, Dominicana, 4 (Prague: Krystal OP., 2001), pp. 1–101 Cowan, Ian B. and David E. Easson, Medi­eval Religious Houses, Scotland: With an Appendix on the Houses in the Isle of Man, 2nd edn (London: Longman, 1976) Delisle, Léopold, Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque impériale: Étude sur la formation de ce dépôt, 3 vols (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1868–1881) Desmond, Karen, ‘New Light on Jacobus, Author of Speculum musicae’, Plainsong and Medi­eval Music, 9.1 (2000), 19–40 Everist, Mark, ‘From Paris to St Andrews: The Origins of W1’, Journal of the American Musico­logical Society, 43.1 (1990), 1–42 Fabian, Claudia, Personennamen des Mittelalters (PMA). Nomina Scriptorum Medii Aevi, 2nd edn (Munich: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 2000) Flemmig, Stephan, Die Bettelorden im hochmittelalterlichen Böhmen und Mähren (1226–1346), Jenaer mediävistische Vorträge, 7 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2018) Foltýn, Dušan, Encyklopedie moravských a slezských klášterů (Prague: Nakladatelství Libri, 2005) Fuhrmann, Wolfgang, Herz und Stimme: Innerlichkeit, Affekt und Gesang im Mittel­ alter, Musiksozio­logie, 13 (Wiesbaden: Kassel, 2004) Fuller, Sarah, ‘Discant and the Theory of Fifthing’, Acta Musico­logica, 50 (1978), 241–75 Göller, Gottfried, ‘Die Gesänge der Ordensliturgien’, in Geschichte der katholischen Kirchenmusik, i: Von den Anfängen bis zum Tridentinum, ed. by Karl Gustav Fellerer (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1972), pp. 265–71 Gy, Pierre-Marie, ‘Le Tractatus de Musica de Jérôme de Moravie et le commentaire de saint Thomas sur le De coelo et mundo d’Aristote’, in Jérôme de Moravie: un théoricien de la musique dans le milieu intellectuel parisien du xiiie siècle, ed. by Michel Huglo and Marcel Pérès (Paris: Édition Créaphis, 1992), pp. 75–81 Haas, Max, ‘Studien zur mittelalterlichen Musiklehre I: Eine Übersicht über die Musiklehre im Kontext der Philosophie’, Forum Musico­logicum, 3 (1982), 323–456

361

362

c hr is tia n t h o m as l e i t m e i r

Hamilton, Elina Grace, ‘Walter of Evesham Abby [sic] and the Intellectual Milieu of Fourteenth-Century English Music Theory’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Prifysgol Bangor University, 2014), [accessed 15 July 2021] Huglo, Michel, Les Tonaires: inventaire, analyse, comparaison (Paris: Société française de musico­logy, 1971) —— , ‘La Place du Tractatus de Musica dans l’histoire de la théorie musicale du xiiie siècle: Etude codico­logique’, in Jérôme de Moravie: un théoricien de la musique dans le milieu intellectuel parisien du xiiie siècle, ed. by Michel Huglo and Marcel Pérès (Paris: Édition Créaphis, 1992), pp. 33–42 —— , ‘La Musica du Fr. Prêcheur Jérôme de Moray’, in Festschrift Max Lütolf zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. by Bernhard Hangartner and Urs Fischer (Basel: Wiese, 1994), pp. 113–16, reprinted in Michel Huglo, La théorie de la musique antique at médiévale (Aldershot: Routledge, 2006), article 15 —— , ‘Recherches sur la personne et l’oeuvre de Francon’, Acta Musico­logica, 71.1 (1999), 1–18 —— , ‘Hieronymus de Moravia: “frère morave” ou “Scottish Blackfriar”?’, in ‘Nationes’, ‘Gentes’ und die Musik im Mittelalter, ed. by Frank Hentschel and Marie Winkelmüller (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), pp. 423–34 Kadlec, Jaroslav, ‘Řeholní generální studia při Karlově universitě v době předhusitské /​Die Ordensgeneralstudien an der Karls-Universität in der Zeit vor der Hussitenbewegung’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Historia Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis, 7 (1966), fasc. 2, pp. 63–108 Kaeppeli, Thomas, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevi, vol. ii (Rome: Ad S. Sabinae, 1975) Kienzle, Beverley M., Cistercians, Heresy, and Crusade in Occitania, 1145–1229: Preaching in the Lord’s Vineyard (York: York Medi­eval Press, 2001) Koudelka, Vladimír, ‘Zur Geschichte der böhmischen Dominikanerprovinz im Mittelalter I: Provinzialprioren, Inquisitoren, Apost. Pönitentiare’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 25 (1955), 75–99 Kraebel, Andrew, ‘Modes of Authorship and the Making of Medi­eval English Literature’, in The Cambridge Handbook of Literary Authorship, ed. by Ingo Berensmeyer, Gert Buelens, and Marysa Demoor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), pp. 98–114 Leitmeir, Christian Thomas, ‘Types and Transmission of Musical Examples in Franco’s Ars cantus mensurabilis musicae’, in Citation and Authority in Medi­eval and Renaissance Musical Culture: Learning from the Learned, ed. by Suzannah Clark and Elizabeth E. Leach (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2005), pp. 29–44 —— , ‘Sine auctoritate nulla disciplina est perfecta: Medi­eval Music Theory in Search for Normative Foundations’, in Between Creativity and Norm-making: Tensions in the Medi­eval and Early Modern Eras, ed. by Sigrid Müller and Cornelia Schweiger, Studies in Medi­eval and Reformation Traditions, 165 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 31‒60

co m p i l at i o n and adaptat i o n

—— , ‘Dominicans and Polyphony: Re-Appraisal of a Strained Relationship’, in Making and Breaking the Rules: Discussions, Implementation and Consequences of Dominican Legislation, ed. by Cornelia Linde (Oxford, 2018), pp. 59–88 Levy, Kenneth, ‘A Dominican Organum Duplum’, Journal of the American Musico­ logical Society, 27 (1974), 183–211 Matusiak, Błażej, ‘Jerome – A Moravian Dominican in Paris’, Muzyka, 59.2 (2014), 3–22 Meyer, Christian, ‘Lecture(s) de Jérôme de Moravie – Jérôme de Moravie, lecteur de Boèce’, in Jérôme de Moravie: un théoricien de la musique dans le milieu intellectuel parisien du xiiie siècle, ed. by Michel Huglo and Marcel Pérès (Paris: Édition Créaphis, 1992), pp. 56–74 —— , ‘Hieronymus de Moravia’, in Die Musik und Geschichte und Gegenwart, Personenteil 8, ed. by Ludwig Finscher (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2002), cols 1519–21 —— , ‘Le Tonaire des Frères Prècheurs’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 76 (2006), 138–45 Minnis, Alastair James, ‘Late-Medi­eval Discussions of Compilatio and the Role of the Compilator’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 101 (1979), 385–421 Mulchahey, M. Michèle, ‘First the Bow is Bent in Study …’: Dominican Education Before 1350, Studies and Texts, 132 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1998) Page, Christopher, ‘Jerome of Moravia on the Rubeba and Viella’, Galpin Society Journal, 32 (1979), 77–98 —— , ‘Le Troisième accord pour vièle de Jérôme de Moravie. Joungles et “anciens Pères de France”’, in Jérôme de Moravie: un théoricien de la musique dans le milieu intellectuel parisien du xiiie siècle, ed. by Michel Huglo and Marcel Pérès (Paris: Édition Créaphis, 1992), pp. 83–96 Prudlo, Donald, The Martyred Inquisitor: The Life and Cult of Peter of Verona (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008) Reaney, Gilbert, ‘The Question of Authorship in the Medi­eval Treatises on Music’, Musica Disciplina, 18 (1964), 7–17 Rico, Gilles, ‘Music in the Arts Faculty of Paris in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Oxford 2005), [accessed 1 June 2021] Ristory, Heinz, Post-franconische Theorie und Früh-Trecento: die Petrus de CruceNeuerungen und ihre Bedeutung für die italienische Mensuralnotenschrift zu Beginn des 14. Jahrhunderts, Europäische Hochschulschriften, 36.26 (Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1988) Rohloff, Ernst, Die Quellenhandschriften zum Musiktraktat des Johannes de Grocheio. In Faksimile herausgegeben, nebst einer Übertragung des Textes und Übersetzung ins Deutsche, dazu Bericht, Literaturschau, Tabellen und Indices (Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag für Musik, 1972) Roesner, Edward, ‘The Origins of W1’, Journal of the American Musico­logical Society, 29 (1976), 337–80

363

364

c hr is tia n t h o m as l e i t m e i r

Sánches Prieto, Ana Belén, ‘Authority and Authorship, Tradition and Invention, Reading and Writing in Early Medi­eval Compilation Genres: The Case of Hrabanus Maurus’ De institutione clericorum’, De Medio Aevo, 10.2 (2016), 179–240 Schulman, Nicole M., Where Troubadours were Bishops: The Occitania of Folc of Marseille (1150–1231), Studies in Medi­eval History and Culture, 7 (New York: Routledge, 2001) Smits van Waesberghe, Joseph, and others, The Theory of Music from the Carolinigan Era up to 1400, i, Répertoire International des Sources Musicales B/​3/​1 (Munich: G. Henle, 1961) Soler, Albert, ‘Ramon Llull and Peter of Limoges’, Traditio, 48 (1993), 93–105 Torrell, Jean-Pierre, Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol. i: The Person and His Work, trans. by Robert Royal (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996) Walz, Angelus Maria, ‘Papst Johannes XXII. und Thomas von Aquin: Zur Geschichte der Heiligsprechung des Aquinaten’, in St Thomas Aquinas 1274–1974. Commemorative Studies, part 1, ed. by Armand A. Maurer and others (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1974), pp. 29–47 Weber, Laura, Intellectual Currents in Thirteenth Century Paris: A Translation and Commentary on Jerome of Moravia’s ‘Tractatus de musica’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Yale 2009) Wegman, Rob C., ‘Jacobus de Ispania and Liège’, Journal of the Alamire Foundation, 8.2 (2016), 253–74 Weijers, Olga, Le Travail intellectuel à la faculté des arts de Paris. Textes et maîtres (ca. 1200–1500), iv, Studia Artistarum, 9 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001) Wippel, John F., ‘Thomas Aquinas and the Condemnation of 1277’, Modern Schoolman, 72.2–3 (1995), 233–72

Błażej Matusiak OP*

Jerome of Moravia’s Cantor A Specialist in Musical Sounds Jerome of Moravia’s Tractatus de musica (hereafter De musica), transmitted uniquely in the manuscript BnF MS lat. 16663, owes its reputation to its impressive scale. The author, an otherwise unknown Dominican friar from the Parisian monastery of Saint-Jacques,1 attempted to bring together all musical knowledge in a single volume, combining the heritage of Antiquity, the medi­eval tradition, and the latest advances in the field of music theory and practice. Jerome quoted some twenty authors, often extensively; of these, pride of place is given to Boethius and Johannes Cotto (Affligemensis).2 After an introduction to the field of music in the form of an accessus (Chapters 1–9), Jerome’s treatise explored the three major streams of writing about music: (1) Musica speculativa (Chapters 10–17) is primarily indebted to Boethius, but also draws on later theoretical enquiry, including in Jerome’s own attempt at expanding the list of consonances; (2) Musica practica (Chapters 18–26), concerned with plainchant, draws heavily on the authoritative writings of Johannes Cotto, but brings them in line with later developments, for example by replacing its tonary with the official Dominican tonary; the proportions of these two main strands and two principal sources are such that De musica comes across as a handbook for singers, enhanced with elements of speculative theory; (3) contemporary theory and practice, with a particular emphasis on mensural music, features in a single chapter (Chapter 26), which presents four treatises on musica * Translated by John Comber.  1 On Jerome’s bio­graphy, see Huglo, ‘La Musica du Fr. Prêcheur Jérôme de Moray’; Matusiak, ‘Jerome – A Moravian Dominican in Paris’.  2 For an index of the sources, see Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 273–78. Błażej Matusiak is a Prague-based Dominican from the Polish Dominican Province. He is author of Hildegarda z Bingen: Teo­logia muzyki [Hildegard of Bingen: Theo­logy of Music]; ‘Jerome – a Moravian Dominican in Paris’, in the journal Muzyka; and further publications in Canor (CD reviews and essays), Konteksty and Ethos.

The Medieval Dominicans: Books, Buildings, Music, and Liturgy, ed. by Eleanor J. Giraud and Christian T. Leitmeir, MMS 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021) pp. 365–389 10.1484/M.MMS-EB.5.124224

FHG

36 6

bł a że j m at u s i ak o p

mensurabilis, including Franco of Co­logne’s seminal De mensurabili musica. The influence of mensural theory is also apparent in the above-mentioned expanded list of consonances, the description of the rhythmicization of plainchant, and the new concept of the mutual relationship between musica plana and musica mensurabilis, which will be discussed in greater detail below. In addition to these three main strands, Jerome’s work offers rare glimpses into thirteenth-century performance practice, such as the playing of the string instruments rubeba and viella, and embellishments employed in singing and ways of rhythmicizing (other than the rhythmic modes of mensural music). Chapter 24 provides intriguing advice to composers and outlines criteria for the appraisal of musical works, divided into different degrees of beauty and ugliness. The compilatory character of the Tractatus de musica inevitably raises questions about its cohesion. Is there some guiding thread that binds together the disparate material, written over a vast period of time, concerning various concepts for the study and cultivation of music, and intended for different groups of readers? My answer is affirmative. This chapter seeks to demonstrate that Jerome’s De musica is more than just a repository of sundry ideas. Instead, it exhibits a deep sense of unity and cohesion that goes substantially beyond the skilful compiling of information from different sources.

One Book Instead of Many The introduction to the treatise specifies its intended audience: cantors, in particular Dominican cantors, and undoubtedly they would have been the principal readers of Jerome’s text.3 In the words of Johannes Cotto, Jerome declared that his treatise was designed to enable readers to assess the quality of existing music (cantus), correct songs with mistakes, and compose new ones:4 ut si quando fratres ordinis nostri uel alii circa qualitatem cantus, an sit urbanus, an uulgaris, uerus an falsus iudicare uoluerint et falsum corrigere et nouum componere, per ipsius exercicium ualeant quod cupiunt componere. (If the brethren from our Order or others want to judge the quality of a musical piece, be it urbane or vulgar, true or false, to correct a bad song, and to compose a new one, they could compose what they want with this exercise.)  3 ‘Cantores, fratres ordinis nostri uel alii’ (Cantors, brothers from our Order or from others); Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 4.  4 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 4, quoting Johannes Cotto, De musica cum tonario, ed. by Smits van Waesberghe, ii. 9–13, pp. 52–53. English translations are mine, unless noted otherwise.

j e ro m e o f mo ravi a’s canto r

Also drawn from Cotto is the comparison of a cantor with a drunkard, who might be able to get home, but cannot show the way, and with a millwheel, which from time to time gives off a creak of a definite pitch (‘discretum stridorem’).5 I will come back to the millwheel and the discretus stridor below. Jerome followed Johannes Cotto in quoting Guido of Arezzo’s well-known poem beginning ‘Musicorum et cantorum magna est distantia’, in which a cantor is compared to an unthinking beast.6 Yet besides those quotations in Jerome’s introduction, it is striking that he passed over the insults directed at cantors so typical of Cotto. None of Cotto’s dismissive attributes for mindless singers are included. As such, Jerome defined his aim as instructing cantors, and not as raising the cantor from his miserable state to the learned status of a musicus, a theoretician (without performance skills). The principal intention behind the Tractatus de musica was the encyclopaedic gathering of musical knowledge. In that sense, Jerome’s compilation may be seen to be a forerunner of Jacobus’s Speculum musicae.7 Yet while Jacobus produced a self-contained whole, Jerome opted for the more modest form of a compilation from the best sources, as he wrote himself: ‘presentem summulam ex diuersis maiorum nostrorum dictis diligenti studio conpilauimus’ (we compiled this little summa with diligence from different best sources).8 In addition to the two generic terms articulated here (‘summula’ and compilation), literature frequently describes the work as an encyclopaedia.9 Jerome himself, by means of a paraphrase of the Prooemium to Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theo­logiae,10 defined his intention more precisely, again indicating the recipients of his treatise and presenting his chosen method of exposition, as well as emphasizing the ideal of succinctness that guided him:11 Sed considerauimus huius sciencie nouicios in hiis, que a diuersis conscripta sunt, plurimum inpediri partim propter grecorum uocabulorum inutilium et figurarum multiplicacionem, partim eciam quia ea que sunt necessaria obscura et difficulter, partim quidem quia eorum frequens repeticio, et fastidium et confusionem generabat in animis

 5 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 4, quoting Johannes Cotto, De musica cum tonario, ed. by Smits van Waesberghe, ii. 11, p. 52.  6 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 4, quoting Guido, Regulae rhythmicae, 1–11 via Johannes Cotto, De musica cum tonario, ed. by Smits van Waesberghe, ii. 11, p. 52.  7 On the authorship of Speculum musicae and possible links between the author of that work and the Dominicans, including Jerome, see Bent, Magister Jacobus de Ispania, pp. 145–47.  8 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 4.  9 For example, Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. v; see Bent, Magister Jacobus de Ispania, p. 145.  10 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logica, ed. by De Rubeis and Billuart, Pro­logus, i, p. 1. The English translation is that of the Fathers of the Dominican Province, i, p. 1.  11 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 5.

367

36 8

bł a że j m at u s i ak o p

auditorum. Hec igitur et alia huiusmodi euitare studentes, tenptabimus cum confidencia diuini auxilii ea musice artis que precipue ad officium cantancium pertinent, breuiter ac lucide prosequi, cuncta breui uolumine conplicantes, ut non sit necesse querenti numerositatem librorum euoluere, cui breuitas collecta offert quid queritur sine labore. (We have considered that students in this science have not seldom been hampered by what they have found written by other authors, partly on account of useless Greek words and the multiplication of figures, partly also because those things that are needful for them to know are taught in an obscure and difficult manner, partly, too, because frequent repetition brought weariness and confusion to the minds of readers. In order to avoid those and similar mistakes, with our confidence in divine help, we tried to discuss, briefly and lucidly, in a little volume all that in this art applies to the duties of a cantor. Thus, one will not be obliged to look into many books, but with our short one will be able to find easily all he needs.) In order to facilitate their acquisition of knowledge, Jerome assured his readers, he had assembled in a single volume everything necessary for their musical education, especially any knowledge essential for the cantors (‘que precipue ad officium cantancium pertinent’).12 Jerome kept his promise not to burden his discourse with gratuitous Greek termino­logy (‘grecorum uocabulorum inutilium’). Accordingly, he did not follow the example of Johannes Cotto, who was evidently fond of applying Greek termino­logy for the pitches of the scale;13 and he devoted a separate chapter to the discussion of elements of Greek theory, based entirely on the fourth book of Boethius’s De institutione musica. Any departures from the ideal of succinctness are at least in part motivated by his other main objective: to create the most comprehensive repository of musical knowledge possible. In opting for the form of a compilation, Jerome — in a manner typical of his time14 — referred to established authorities (auctoritates) so that readers could access the choice excerpts of music theory in a single book. Given that his self-characterization of the treatise rephrases the famous pro­logue of the Summa theo­logiae, it is fitting to consider the link between De musica and the genre of the summa, in general, and the work of Thomas, in particular.

 12 This wording is open to interpretation. On one hand, officium appears to refer to the function of the cantor. In the Dominican nomenclature, various functions held in a monastery are called Offices, as is indicated, for instance, by the title of Humbert of Romans’s De officiis Ordinis. On the other hand, we are dealing here simply with cantantes, not cantores.  13 After having explained Greek names of pitches (Chapter 13), Johannes uses them constantly, also in his tonary. Johannes Cotto, De musica cum tonario, ed. by Smits van Waesberghe, XIII and XXIV (pp. 97–100, 163–98).  14 The most striking example is Vincent of Beauvais’s Speculum historiale, ed. by Draelants.

j e ro m e o f mo ravi a’s canto r

Summula Evidently, Jerome’s treatise is not a summa as such. It belongs to a group of musical writings from the end of the thirteenth century which, according to Joseph Dyer’s expert characterization, only employ philosophical argumentation to a small extent.15 Despite three references to Thomas (one quotation and two paraphrases), including one of a methodo­logical nature, Jerome’s work does not employ a typically scholastic form of exposition. Moreover, the singular instance of scholastic argumentation in De musica comes from Thomas’s commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo. Nonetheless, Jerome described his work as a summula. Such thirteenth-century summas as Thomas’s Summa theo­logiae form a genre of their own, recognizable through such features as the scholastic question, and within it the limiting of arguments to a relatively consistent number. The form of the quaestio had its origin in university disputations.16 Its main features are the clear exposition of a problem and conventional schema comprising a thesis, supporting arguments, the author’s answer, and a response to the arguments. However, the very genre of the summa is a more complex issue, as Palémon Glorieux has demonstrated.17 Already the etymo­logy of the word ‘summa’ suggests a process of addition, so in the case of a written work it would be a compilation or collection, as complete as possible. At the opposing end of the spectrum, a summa could be a mere summary, retaining the most important elements: summa capita. A work called ‘summa’ therefore may well represent something in between these two extremes: a complete, exact, and organic study, particularly in the field of theo­logy. Glorieux distinguishes three main kinds of summa: compilation, compendium (or summary), and thematic summa. Summa-compilations belong to three genres or thematic areas: homiletic (collections of homilies, dicta, and exempla), exegetic (collections of glosses to the Bible and biblical dictionaries), and theo­logical (such as the famous Sentences of Peter Lombard — a thematically ordered collection of statements from the Church Fathers). Among compendia, we find concise expositions of biblical or world history and brief studies from various fields of knowledge in general. Thematic summas, in contrast, combine the conciseness of the summary with the completeness of the compilation. In the field of preaching, an example of a thematic summa could be the systematic exposition of the art of rhetoric, whereas a collection of exempla would represent a compilation. Despite their appearance, not even theo­logical summas are necessarily characterized by question-based scholastic argumentation.  15 See Dyer, ‘Chant Theory and Philosophy in the Late Thirteenth Century’.  16 See Novikoff, The Medi­eval Culture of Disputation.  17 The information about summas given here comes from Glorieux, ‘sommes théo­logiques’, in Dictionnaire de théo­logie catholique, xiv, cols 2341–64. See also Imbach, ‘Summa, Summenliteratur, Summenkommentar’.

369

3 70

bł a że j m at u s i ak o p

Where, then, is Jerome’s Tractatus de musica to be placed on the spectrum? What he himself described as a ‘small summa’ points in the direction of the thematic summa. Jerome explicitly drew attention to the very features which Glorieux identified as definitive for this sub-genre. Jerome’s summula is a compilation from the best authors, but at the same time a compendium covering the entire field of musical knowledge. Another feature of De musica is pointed out by Alain Boureau. Analysing the borrowings from Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theo­logiae, he observes the lack of a conclusion in the presentation of disputed issues, characteristic of Jerome’s little summa (summula) but not to be found in a ‘large summa’.18 He gives as an example the end of the discussion of the harmony of the spheres. In a lengthy quotation, Jerome presents Thomas’s argumentation on that subject, whilst refraining from adopting his own position in the dispute. For the sake of clarity, it should be emphasized that the diminutive form summula, in our case, does not signify a separate genre of little summa, but merely articulates the author’s modesty in the rhetorical tradition of the captatio benevolentiae. The question of where Jerome’s treatise stands in relation to Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theo­logiae deserves attention in particular.19 The most important similarities between the two texts are as follows: both derive from teaching experience, both reveal knowledge of the subject literature to date, and both aspire to correct the mistakes of their predecessors. They are both intended for beginners, and both hold succinctness as an ideal. One fundamental difference, however, lies in the way in which sources are used. The way in which Aquinas drew upon the authority of masters in order to invoke them as witnesses to an accusation or a defence is not the same as the quoting of lengthy passages without commentary that we find in De musica. In other words, Thomas expounded his ideas in dialogue with his predecessors, whereas Jerome let the predecessors speak directly. The two different techniques — the question and the compilation — serve the slightly different aims of the two books. Jerome transmitted knowledge and learning; Thomas, by means of quaestiones, also taught the art of argumentation. Returning to the near-quotation from the introduction to De musica, it becomes clear that Jerome was perfectly aware of these differences. First, unlike Thomas, who emphasized the succinctness of his Summa, Jerome explained that he combined the ideal of succinctness with the desire to transmit the entire tradition of musical knowledge. Secondly, he deftly replaced Thomas’s wording about rejecting ‘the multiplication of useless questions, articles and arguments’ with a reference to diagrams and Greek  18 Boureau, ‘Jérôme de Moravie et la rationalité dominicaine’, p. 45.  19 Incidentally, Thomas, who probably belonged to the same Dominican house as Jerome, is the only author whom Jerome does not cite by name. We do not know whether this is due to the then problematic status of some of Thomas’s theo­logical theses or expressive of religious modesty. On the condemnation of 219 theses by the bishop Stephen Tempier in 1277, see Putallaz, Insolente liberté.

j e ro m e o f mo ravi a’s canto r

musical termino­logy. However, Jerome failed to find an equivalent for the sentence in which Aquinas rejected an exposition organized according to the book or questions being discussed, instead opting for an ordering that was suited to the given discipline (‘ordo disciplinae’). Jerome, on the other hand, could not have achieved this, since he had nothing to refer to. Hence, he merely inserted the general postulate of rejecting vagueness and difficulty in his exposition. Incidentally, couching an exposition of music in scholastic quaestiones would have caused considerable confusion in the structure of the treatise, not to mention the reader’s head.20

An Encyclopaedia of Music? ‘Encyclopaedia’ — another term used to describe Jerome’s De musica — promises to provide a more adequate characterization of this treatise and in particular its opening nine chapters (accessus), provided that we define an encyclopaedia as a ‘reference work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or that treats a particular branch of knowledge in a comprehensive manner’.21 Jerome shares the idea of transmitting exhaustive knowledge with another Dominican of his times, Vincent of Beauvais. In the pro­logue to his Speculum maius, for instance, Vincent terms his work a compendium and expresses his intention of collecting knowledge from many works in a single book.22 Like Jerome, he ensures his readers that he selected the choicest material from exemplary authors (de bonis meliora).23 An aspiration to cover all available knowledge seems characteristic of that epoch,24 and the idea of replacing many books with one no doubt has a great deal in common with the mendicant vow of poverty. Yet a crucial difference arises between Vincent’s work, concisely transmitting knowledge from all fields of learning, and Jerome’s handbook for cantors. That difference is perhaps most precisely conveyed by two facts: first, Jerome draws on the musical section of the Speculum maius (Book 17, Chapters 10–35) solely in the first part of De musica, which is a general introduction to musical issues. Second, he supplements the material borrowed from Vincent with information from other sources. It is worth stressing that Jerome the compiler quotes virtually the entire music section of Isidore’s encyclopaedia from Vincent the compiler-encyclopaedist. While ‘encyclopaedia’ aptly describes the first part of Jerome’s treatise (Chapters 1–9), ‘accessus’ captures its nature more accurately. This term  20  21  22  23  24

See Leitmeir, ‘Sine auctoritate nulla disciplina est perfecta’, pp. 43–47. Preece and Collison, ‘Encyclopaedias’, p. 487. Vincent of Beauvais, Pro­logus sive libellus actoris apo­logeticus totius operis, Chapter 1. Vincent of Beauvais, Pro­logus sive libellus actoris apo­logeticus totius operis, Chapter 4. See, for example, Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum maius, Petrus Hispanus, Summulae logicales, Bartholomaeus Anglicus, OFM, Liber de proprietatibus rerum.

37 1

3 72

bł a że j m at u s i ak o p

defines an introduction to the work of a particular author or a particular field of knowledge, based on a schema covering — in the case of a field of knowledge — aspects such as definition, subject, aim, utility (utilitas), and attribution to a particular branch of philosophy.25 The themes of the first nine chapters of De musica serve to define music as a field of knowledge. To that end, the author gives as many as eleven definitions, presents five explanations of the etymo­logy of the word musica, and singles out the subject of music understood as a science. An accessus also covers the beginnings of a given field, its inner division ( Jerome invoked the divisions proposed by Isidore, Boethius, Richard of Saint-Victor, and Al-Fārābī), and the significance of the discipline or work under discussion.26 This last issue, presented by Jerome under the title ‘de effectibus siue de excellencia musice’, has been defined as utility (utilitas) or, in Aristotelian terms, as an aim (finis) or ultimate cause (causa finalis).27 In accordance with the idea set out in the introduction — ‘cuncta breui uolumine conplicantes ut non sit necesse numerositatem librorum euoluere’ (we compiled everything in this little volume so it will not be necessary to seek many books) — the first part of Jerome’s treatise constitutes an antho­ logy derived from many sources. Due to the accumulation of quotations, Jerome’s accessus is exceptionally extensive, incomparably longer than the introductory chapters of many other musical treatises. Having more sources at his disposal than his predecessors, Jerome chose the richest among them; this applies in particular to the third chapter, devoted to the ‘inventors’ of music. The erudite, antho­logical character of Jerome’s accessus can be seen, for example, in comparison with Magister Lambertus. The latter confined himself to the exposition of the science itself, not devoting much attention to the presentation of a range of sources, and when he did invoke someone else’s views, he seldom gave the author.28 Jerome, meanwhile, cited his sources by name, with the curious exception of Thomas Aquinas.

 25 On the subject of the accessus, see Quain’s still irreplaceable article ‘The Medi­eval Accessus ad Auctores’.  26 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 14–23, with citations from Isidore of Seville, Etymo­logiarum Sive Originum Libri XX, ed. by Lindsay, iii. chap. 18. xx–xxii; Boethius, De institutione musica, ed. by Friedlein, i. 2 (pp. 187–89); and Richard of Saint-Victor, Liber exceptionum, ed. by Chatillon, i. 1. 10 (p. 108). Quotations from Isidore, Al-Fārābī, and Richard come directly from Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum Doctrinale, xvii, ed. by Göller, pp. 86–118.  27 Here are the subjects of the first section of the treatise: ‘quid sit musica, unde dicatur, a quibus sit inuenta, quot sint partes ipsius secundum scilicet Ysidorum “tertio libro” Ethimo­logiarum, de diuisione musice secundum Alphorabium, de diuisione eiusdem secundum Boecium, de subdivisionibus musice secundum Ricardum, de effectibus siue de excellencia musice, de subiecto eiusdem’. See Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 5.  28 Magister Lambertus, Ars musica, ed. by Meyer.

j e ro m e o f mo ravi a’s canto r

Many Definitions, One Subject In representing a general introduction to the study of music, the first part of De musica, and especially its first and last chapters, also established a way of ensuring the cohesion of the entire treatise. The first chapter of the treatise, devoted to defining music, already provides insight into the characteristic features of Jerome’s approach. It presents us with an extensive, perhaps even excessive collection of eleven definitions of music, followed by Jerome’s explanation that for the sake of conciseness no justification of such variety will be given. This chapter also brings into focus one of the typical features of the treatise: the compiler invoked many different opinions (from sources of various kinds and different standing) without emphasizing the differences and contrasting the authors. This may be interpreted as a kind of exponere reverenter, paying due deference to authorities. But one may also discern here the compiler’s surreptitious agenda of creating additional content that is not present in the quoted materials through the strategic omission of some sources, the distortion of others or the arrangement in a particular order. In the opening chapter, Jerome singled out two authors in particular: Boethius and Johannes de Garlandia. Extended quotations from these two authors frame the chapter, which otherwise comprises definitions of music devoid of any commentary. Boethius’s definition is the second to be given; Jerome followed it immediately with a lengthy quotation from the fifth book of De institutione musica, in which Boethius emphasized the supremacy of ratio over sensus, reasoned analysis over auditory impressions.29 This definition is an example of the compiler’s strategic changes: what the original text intended as a definition of harmony is turned by Jerome into a definition of music. The compiler achieved this by exploiting the grammatical possibilities of Latin, turning the noun ‘[h]armonica’ into an adjective. Boethius wrote: ‘Armonica est facultas differentias acutorum et gravium sonorum sensu ac ratione perpendens’ (Harmonics is the faculty which ponders the differences between high and low sounds).30 Jerome transformed this as follows: ‘Musica facultas armonica est differencias acutorum et grauium sonorum, sensu ac racione perpendens’ (Music is the harmonious faculty which ponders the differences between high and low sounds).31 Interestingly, in a later quotation from Isidore of Seville, harmony is referred to in Boethius’s original meaning, that is as being concerned with the differentiation of higher and lower pitches: ‘armonica est que decernit in sonis, acutum et grauem’ (Harmonics is [the faculty]

 29 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 7.  30 Boethius, De institutione musica, ed. by Friedlein, v. 2, p. 352.  31 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 7.

37 3

3 74

bł a że j m at u s i ak o p

which discerns high and low sounds). 32 The whole of the quoted exposition of Boethius from Book V seems to refer to the quotation from Book I that had opened the treatise. Both passages strongly accentuate the role of reason in the study of music and its restriction of sensory cognition. The definitions which make up the first chapter differ not just in their understanding of music, but also in the concept signified by ‘musica’, which covers both sounding acoustic phenomena and their study, i.e. music theory. The end of the chapter offers a quotation from Johannes de Garlandia, which contains three definitions of music. After a general definition of knowledge as cognition of how things are (‘sciencia est cognicio rei sicuti est’), Garlandia makes divisions within theoretical knowledge. Ultimately, music is classified as a field of arithmetic treating of numbers in relation to sounds. From this ensues a definition not taken from Garlandia, which again stresses the rational, theoretical, and abstract character of musical knowledge: ‘Musica est sciencia de numero relato ad sonos’ (Music is science of number related to sounds).33 On the other hand, the final definition within this quotation is purely practical, and confined to singing: ‘musica est ueraciter canendi sciencia et facilis ad canendi perfeccionem uia’ (Music is the science of true singing and the easy way to perfection in singing). These alternative definitions are intersected by a third, which is placed halfway between them, and which emphasizes the practical character of music: ‘Aliter practice: musica est sciencia de multitudine sonorum’ (Or in a practical way: music is the science about the multitude of sounds). The two authors given precedence in this chapter with lengthier quotations are either the oldest and greatest authority (Boethius) or a contemporary Parisian theorist, probably Jerome’s colleague, and possibly even his teacher. In this way, the compiler acknowledged Boethius’s authoritative position, but at the same time linked it with current knowledge. It is significant that the quote from Garlandia is reminiscent in content and structure of the chapter in which it is placed. John, like Jerome, assembled different terms in one place, explained one of them precisely, and sought a balance between theory and practice, to such an extent that he subsumed both under the term scientia (with different meanings). The first chapter of Jerome’s treatise, where the compiler’s technique is directly apparent, has attracted much scholarly interest. Laura Weber emphasized the way in which Jerome used the first two lengthy quotations

 32 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 15. Meyer and Lobrichon cite the locations of the quotation in Isidore and in Vincent de Beauvais, via whose intermediary Jerome quotes the text: Isidore of Seville, Etymo­logiarum Sive Originum Libri XX, ed. by Lindsay, iii. chap. xviii; Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum Doctrinale, xvii, ed. by Göller, pp. 86–118.  33 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 9. Jerome takes this and the following two definitions from Johannes de Garlandia.

j e ro m e o f mo ravi a’s canto r

to present his own conception of music.34 As she sees it, the abundance of quoted definitions reflects the controversy over the best definition of music taking place at that time. The development of Aristotelianism was accompanied by a transition from an abstract, mathematical approach to music to an empirical approach. The change of paradigm meant that acoustic phenomena which had hitherto been the subject of practical handbooks began to arouse the interest of philosophers, as evidenced by the definitions given by both Hugh and Richard of Saint-Victor and by Johannes de Garlandia. The choice of definitions reflects a desire to go beyond the division into abstract-theoretical and empirical-practical approaches — an intention that is present throughout Jerome’s treatise. Susan Fast, on the other hand, reads this chapter (and several other places in treatises by Jerome and his contemporaries) through the lens of Bakhtinian concepts.35 The notions of heteroglossia, dialogism, and polyphony seek to help us understand what techniques the compiler used to create a new text out of texts drawn from various sources. One detail of her analysis, which cannot be presented here fully, is particularly worth stressing. Just before the quotation from Johannes de Garlandia, Jerome juxtaposed four definitions that share the idea of measure in music (modulatio). According to Fast, such a prominence of modulatio is due to the influence of musica mensurabilis. Although the quoted authors had in mind modulatio in relation to poetical metre, Jerome, as compiler, altered the context of their statements and lent them new meaning, in keeping with the theory of mensural music. A surprising statement at the beginning of Chapter 25 is particularly noteworthy. After announcing that he would be dealing in this chapter with the performance of cantus planus ecclesiasticus ‘per se, id est sine discantu’ (as it is, that is without discant), Jerome wrote that any ‘modus cantandi omnem cantum ad musicam mensurabilem pertineat’ (method of singing all song is subordinate to mensural music).36 It is not clear whether this is about cantus planus being subordinate to mensural music or an attempt at adapting theory to the practice of rhythmicizing plainchant, or perhaps the more general acknowledgement that free rhythm is also a kind of rhythm. Whatever interpretation one might prefer, it is clear beyond doubt that mensural music and the theory associated with it influenced Jerome’s musical theory. In her doctoral study of Jerome’s treatise, Laura Weber demonstrated through numerous examples that Jerome sought a balance between theory and practice, between an emphasis on the roles of reason and on the sensory perception of sounds.37 She also revealed how, by invoking Boethius,

 34  35  36  37

Weber, ‘Intellectual Currents in Thirteenth Century Paris’, pp. 98–100. Fast, ‘Bahktin and the Discourse of Late Medi­eval Music Theory’. Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 167. Weber, ‘Intellectual Currents in Thirteenth Century Paris’. In this context, Alain Boureau

37 5

3 76

bł a że j m at u s i ak o p

Jerome removed from the quoted text all traces of controversy, and how he replaced Boethius’s principle of the repetition of material with the principle of succinctness, thus avoiding repetition.38 An interesting phenomenon in the treatise is a peculiar economy of means; Jerome did not hesitate to use ready-made sentences, updating their content by means of minor alterations, as and when necessary. This procedure shows yet again his respect towards tradition. Updating received knowledge is central to the synthesis that Jerome sought to accomplish. He reached this goal through adaptation, the introduction of new content, the substitution of outdated information with new information, and the clear separation of material that may be principally of (antiquarian) scholarly interest from that which remained current. This is the case especially in the above-mentioned chapter on Greek music theory, which assembled information irrelevant to thirteenth-century musical practice. Another example is the treatment of instruments. Jerome quoted a lengthy text devoted to instruments taken from Isidore of Seville’s Etymo­logiae, but he placed it in the first, general, part of his treatise, within the context of various ways of dividing music.39 In the practical part of his work, he did not return to Isidore’s text, and instead proposed an exact description of playing on two modern instruments. Instead of an erudite treatment of the subject, filled — in accordance with the name of Isidore’s work — with etymo­logy, he focused on technical details, without giving explanations of the provenance of the rubeba and viella or the meaning of their names.40 Despite Jerome’s editorial efforts, the variety of the sources quoted in De musica and the multitude of standpoints represented therein can be bewildering, if not off-putting. Jerome does not justify his multiple definitions of music, just as later on he merely presents several divisions of the scale without explaining the causes of that diversity.41 However, the first part of the treatise concludes with a chapter that is both complex and contains a clear message: a single logical definition of the subject of music that brings order to the whole content of his work.

 38  39  40  41

uses the rather awkward neo­logism musicantor, intended to signify a theorist of practice. See Boureau, ‘Jérôme de Moravie et la rationalité dominicaine’, p. 50. Weber, ‘Intellectual Currents in Thirteenth Century Paris’, pp. 43–58. Isidore of Seville, Etymo­logiarum Sive Originum Libri XX, ed. by Lindsay, iii. chap. xx–xxii, in Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 14–19. Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 267–70. Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 6–10 (on definitions of music) and pp. 49–51 and 159 (on divisions of the scale).

j e ro m e o f mo ravi a’s canto r

The Science of Sound The ninth chapter of De musica is another example of the creative possibilities afforded by the technique of compilation. Again Jerome quotes predominantly from Boethius and Johannes Cotto, his principal authorities for music theory and practice, respectively. Within this chapter, however, Jerome drew upon Thomas Aquinas’s approach to discourse.42 Each of the cited authors speaks in his own inimitable way, yet at the same time the quotations assume a new quality, over which the compiler exerts control. The very first sentence provides an answer to the question of the subject of music: ‘Subiectum autem musice est ipse sonus, sed discretus’ (The subject of music is the discrete sound). 43 Jerome then quotes a passage from Johannes Cotto introducing the notions of sonus discretus and indiscretus.44 Paraphrasing one of the articles of Summa theo­logiae, Jerome justified his choice of the subject of music. Whereas Cotto merely introduced a division of sounds, Jerome used this division as a springboard for establishing the ‘subiectum musicae’. The other quoted sections of this chapter are two quotations from Boethius: one concerned with the three kinds of people involved in music, the other with the ‘tria genera melorum’ — the three melodic genres (chromatic, enharmonic, and diatonic)45 — from which, as Jerome adds, Christian use (‘usus christianitatis’) retained only the diatonic. It is notable that Johannes Cotto had also discussed the issue of discrete sound together with a brief reference to the three kinds of tetrachord in a single chapter. While a similar selection of topics was a starting point for Jerome, he did not confine himself to citing the first part of chapter IV of Cotto’s De musica cum tonario, but replaced its second part with a thematically richer quotation from Boethius on the subject of the kinds of tetrachord.46 As Laura Weber has noted, this chapter presents a well-considered, logical arrangement: proceeding from a division of the different ways of producing a sound (and the division of instruments) to the division of people involved in music and the division of tetrachords. Weber’s interpretation is debatable, if only for the fact that at the core of this chapter are not  42 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 37. See also Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logica, ed. by De Rubeis and Billuart, Ia, Q1, A7, vol. 1, pp. 7–8.  43 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 36.  44 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 36–37; Johannes Cotto, De musica cum tonario, ed. by Smits van Waesberghe, iv, pp. 57–58.  45 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 38–39; Boethius, De institutione musica, ed. by Friedlein, i. 34, pp. 224–25 and i. 21, pp. 212–13.  46 It is worth noting that Jerome cuts from the quoted text a reference to Prudentius’ Psychomachia (v. 32–34) and an invective against idiotae. Moderation with regard to literary embellishments and an aversion to harsh turns of phrase are typical features of the Dominican’s treatise.

37 7

3 78

bł a że j m at u s i ak o p

the aforementioned divisions but the question of the subject of music. On the other hand, seeing this chapter in relation with the rest of the treatise, one recognizes a pattern: of all the people involved in music Jerome chose cantors, of all the possible kinds of music he chose the diatonic genus, cultivated during his time, and of the many ways of perceiving music he chose its definition as the art and science of sound. The first stage on the path towards establishing the subject of music is a somewhat abridged quotation from Cotto, who divides musical instruments into natural and artificial ones.47 Among the natural instruments, Cotto distinguished between the cosmic (naturale mundanum) and the human (naturale humanum). The former is the harmony of the heavenly spheres, that is, harmony in the proper sense. Cotto defined the throat as a ‘natural human instrument’: ‘Naturale autem instrumentum humanum dico illas gutturis cavitates, quas arterias vocamus’ (I call a natural human instrument those guttural cavities we call arteries). He then introduces a differentiation between the kinds of sounds: discrete sound, i.e. definite pitch, ‘sonus discretus […] qui aliquas in se habet consonancias’, (definite pitch […] which contains consonances), and indiscrete sound, ‘sonus indiscretus’. The latter is illustrated with examples from the natural world (human laughter and sighing, the barking of dogs and the roaring of lions), followed by references to instruments emitting both kinds of sound. In a nutshell, ‘soni indiscreti’ are emitted by toys and objects imitating the sounds of nature (Cotto writes about pipes used as decoys for birds), whilst the function of musical instruments is to play discrete sounds (‘soni discreti’). Musical sound, as in the familiar Greek term phthongus, is solely sonus discretus, since ‘est enim musica nihil aliud quam vocum motio congrua’ (music is nothing other than the proper movement of sounds).48 The title of Chapter 4 of Johannes Cotto’s treatise — ‘Quot sint instrumenta musici soni’ (What Are Musical Instruments) — makes it clear that the division of instruments is the main focus of the discussion, to which the issue of sonus discretus is secondary. For Jerome, on the contrary, the latter is central. The citation from Cotto’s treatise served his purpose to separate musical sounds unequivocally from all others. Yet it required a paraphrase from Aquinas’s Summa theo­logiae to justify his assertion that sonus discretus formed the subject of music. Jerome faced the dual challenge to single out the musical sound and to indicate the subject of learning about music. Only by establishing the subject of music could Jerome achieve the goal of his accessus, in which music is described in multifarious ways, by means of definitions, etymo­logies, origins, and so forth.

 47 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 36–37; Johannes Cotto, De musica cum tonario, ed. by Smits van Waesberghe, iv, pp. 57–58.  48 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 36–37; Johannes Cotto, De musica cum tonario, ed. by Smits van Waesberghe, iv, pp. 57–58.

j e ro m e o f mo ravi a’s canto r

A closer look at the relevant quotation from the Summa theo­logiae reveals the way in which Jerome paraphrased Aquinas’s text. Thomas’s argumentation fills the body of Question 1, Article 7 of the first part of the Summa and the response to the second of the two arguments in support of the considered thesis as to whether God is the subject of that branch of learning (i.e. theo­logy). The second argument (in accordance with the accepted designation Ia, Q1, A7, arg. 2) reads as follows:49 Praeterea, omnia quae determinantur in aliqua scientia, comprehenduntur sub subiecto illius scientiae. Sed in sacra Scriptura determinatur de multis aliis quam de Deo, puta de creaturis, et de moribus hominum. Ergo Deus non est subiectum huius scientiae. (Further, whatever conclusions are reached in any science must be comprehended under the object of the science. But in Holy Writ we reach conclusions not only concerning God, but concerning many other things, such as creatures and human morality. Therefore God is not the object of this science.) The following excerpt represents the corpus of the article:50 Respondeo dicendum quod Deus est subiectum huius scientiae. Sic enim se habet subiectum ad scientiam, sicut obiectum ad potentiam vel habitum. Proprie autem illud assignatur obiectum alicuius potentiae vel habitus, sub cuius ratione omnia referuntur ad potentiam vel habitum, sicut homo et lapis referuntur ad visum inquantum sunt colorata, unde coloratum est proprium obiectum visus. Omnia autem pertractantur in sacra doctrina sub ratione Dei, vel quia sunt ipse Deus; vel quia habent ordinem ad Deum, ut ad principium et finem. Unde sequitur quod Deus vere sit subiectum huius scientiae. Quod etiam manifestum fit ex principiis huius scientiae, quae sunt articuli fidei, quae est de Deo, idem autem est subiectum principiorum et totius scientiae, cum tota scientia virtute contineatur in principiis. Quidam vero, attendentes ad ea quae in ista scientia tractantur, et non ad rationem secundum quam considerantur, assignaverunt aliter subiectum huius scientiae, vel res et signa; vel opera reparationis; vel totum Christum, idest caput et membra. De omnibus enim istis tractatur in ista scientia, sed secundum ordinem ad Deum. (I answer that God is the subject of this science. The reason for this is: The relation between a science and its subject is the same as that between a habit or faculty and its object. Now properly speaking  49 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logica, Ia, Q1, A7, arg. 2, ed. by De Rubeis and Balluart, vol. i, pp. 7–8; the English translation is that of the Fathers of the Dominican Province, vol. i, pp. 4–5.  50 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logica, Ia, Q1, A7, co., ed. by De Rubeis and Balluart, vol. i, pp. 6–7; the English translation is that of the Fathers of the Dominican Province, vol. i, pp. 4–5.

37 9

3 80

bł a że j m at u s i ak o p

the object of a faculty or habit is the thing under the aspect of which all things are referred to that faculty or habit, as man and stone are referred to the faculty of sight in that they are coloured. Hence coloured things are the proper objects of sight. But in sacred science all things are treated of under the aspect of God; either because they are God Himself; or because they refer to God as their beginning and end. Hence it follows that God is in very truth the object of this science. This is clear also from the principles of this science, namely, the articles of faith, for faith is about God. The object of the principles and of the whole science is contained virtually in its principles. Some, however, looking to what is treated of in this science to be something other than God — that is, either things or signs; or the works of salvation; or the whole Christ, as the head and members. Of all these things, in truth, we treat in this science, but so far as they have reference to God.) The response to the second argument reads:51 Ad secundum dicendum quod omnia alia quae determinantur in sacra doctrina, comprehenduntur sub Deo, non ut partes vel species vel accidentia, sed ut ordinata aliqualiter ad ipsum. (Whatever other conclusions are reached in this sacred science are comprehended under God, not as parts or species or accidents, but as in some way related to Him.) According to Jean-Pierre Torrell, it is of vital importance to make a distinction between subiectum and obiectum. The former is the reality, the cognition of which is the task of a given branch of learning. The obiectum, which arises as a result of cognition, is something different. Science endeavours to express its subiectum by means of notions, thereby arriving at a body of conclusions. It is this set of conclusions that forms the obiectum of the given branch of learning.52 The difference between subject and object is certainly particularly distinctive in the case of God: the accumulation of conclusions regarding the Creator is not the same thing as the subject understood as the living God, whom we may know, love, and pray to. Torrell diagnoses a distortion introduced in the fourteenth century: theo­logians, forgetting about the distinction between object and subject, ‘ultimately adopted as the goal of their enquiry no longer knowledge of its subject, but that of its object: “to deduce the maximum of conclusions possible from the truths contained in

 51 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logica, Ia, Q1, A7, ad 2, ed. by De Rubeis and Balluart, i, pp. 7–8, the English translation is that of the Fathers of the Dominican Province, i, pp. 4–5.  52 Torrell, ‘Le Savoir théo­logique chez Saint Thomas’, p. 144.

j e ro m e o f mo ravi a’s canto r

the deposit of the revelation”’ (‘déduire le plus de conclusions possibles de vérités contenues dans le dépôt de la revelation’).53 The examples of an alternative definition of the subject of theo­logy given by Thomas connect the above-mentioned Article 7 with the pro­logue to the Summa — the other passage from the Summa that entered Jerome’s De musica (albeit in this case in the form of paraphrase). An understanding of the subject of theo­logy affects the content and arrangement of textbooks. In his pro­logue, Thomas demonstrated the need to replace old books with a new textbook (the Summa). The pro­logue is filled with a concise critique of their structure, whilst Article 7 refers to the definition of the subject of learning in existing theo­logy textbooks. These observations form the backdrop against which Jerome’s paraphrase should be read:54 Subiectum igitur fore musice sonum discretum signanter dicimus. Cuius quidem racio est. Sic enim se habet subiectum ad scienciam sicut obiectum ad potenciam uel habitum, proprie autem illud assignatur obiectum alicuius potencie uel habitus sub cuius racione omnia referuntur ad potenciam uel habitum sicut uerbi gracia homo et lapis referuntur ad uisum inquantum sunt colorata. Vnde coloratum est proprium obiectum uisus. Omnia autem que tractantur in musica, traduntur sub racione soni uel quia sunt ipse sonus uel quia habent ordinem ad sonum ut ad principium et finem. Vnde sequitur quod discretus sonus uere sit subiectum huius sciencie. Quod eciam manifestum fit ex principiis huius sciencie, que sunt quidam soni. Idem uero subiectum principiorum et tocius sciencie, cum tota sciencia uirtute contineatur in principiis. Quidam autem attendentes ea que tractantur in ista sciencia, et non ad racionem secundum quam considerantur, assignauerunt aliter materiam huius sciencie, uel pondus, uel mensuram contractam ad sonum, etc. De omnibus autem istis tractatur in ista sciencia, secundum ordinem ad sonum, ut patebit inferius. (We say that the discrete sound is the subject of this science. The reason for this is: the relation between a science and its subject is the same as that between a habit or faculty and its object. Now properly speaking the object of a faculty or habit is the thing under the aspect of which all things are referred to that faculty or habit, as man and stone are referred to the faculty of sight in that they are coloured. Hence coloured things are the proper objects of sight. But in music all things are treated under the aspect of the discrete sound; either because they are the sound itself; or because they refer to the sound as their beginning and end. Hence it follows that the discrete

 53 Torrell, ‘Le Savoir théo­logique chez Saint Thomas’, p. 145.  54 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, pp. 37–38.

381

3 82

bł a że j m at u s i ak o p

sound is in very truth the subject of this science. This is clear also from the principles of this science, namely, the sounds. The subject of the principles and of the whole science is contained virtually in its principles. Some, however, looking to what is treated of in this science and not taking into account its true aspect, have assigned weight or number related to the sound as the matter of this science. Of all these things, in truth, we treat in this science, but so far as they have reference to the sound, as it will become clear.) From Article 7 of the first question of the Summa, Jerome quoted only the corpus. In the statement that what is colourful is the proper subject of sight, the compiler faithfully quotes the words of his confrère from the Dominican priory of St Jacques in Paris. Aquinas’s further disquisition had a positive and a negative part. Jerome’s paraphrase of the former substituted the word ‘God’ with ‘sound’ and adapted the wording regarding the principles of science. Aquinas stated that the principles in theo­logy are truths of faith, and faith concerns God. His Moravian confrère, meanwhile, saw the principles of the science of music in sounds. Whilst the truths of faith are merely the obiectum that leads to God, being the subiectum of theo­logy, sounds are already that subiectum. The adaptation of Thomas’s exposition by the substitution of ‘sonus’ for ‘Deus’ appears at first to be a superficial change. Another reservation is raised by the definition of sounds as the principles (principia) of the science of music. In the Summa, the word ‘principium’ appears twice in close proximity, referring once to God as the ‘principium et finis’ of theo­logy and once to those principles (principia) which are the truths of faith.55 In the former case, Thomas appears to take advantage of the ambiguity of the words ‘principium’ and ‘finis’, emphasizing that God is the beginning and end of everything in the metaphysical sense, but also the principle and goal or end point of theo­logical cognition. According to an equally plausible reading, God is the beginning of cognition in theo­logy (thanks to the Revelation, that is — to simplify matters — information contained in the Bible) and its goal (through the efforts of theo­logians). The acknowledgement that the truths of faith are theo­logical principles requires no explanation. Of course, Jerome’s definition of sound as the ‘principium et finis’ of learning about music does not have any metaphysical connotations. It is merely another way of stating that discrete sound is the subject of music theory. It may appear, therefore, as if the use of this formulation represented merely the mechanical application of a ready-made formula. However, regarding the ‘soni discreti’ themselves as the principles (principia) of learning about music (rather than intervals, for instance) seems to be a successful

 55 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logica, Ia, Q1, A7, ad 2, ed. by De Rubeis and Balluart, i, pp. 7–8, the English translation is that of the Dominican Province, i, pp. 4–5.

j e ro m e o f mo ravi a’s canto r

strategy. It enables Jerome to continue his exposition by means of Thomas’s unaltered opinion that the whole of learning was potentially to be found in its own principles. Turning to the ex negativo definitions of the two Dominican friars from St Jacques — which reject previous definitions of the subject — one should bear in mind here the different situations of theo­logy and music. Theo­logy was a subject of university lectures, and the works to which Thomas alluded were textbooks used to teach it. As regards music, only two first books of Boethius’s De institutione musica were taught at the Sorbonne, and not in detail.56 Jerome’s remark criticizing previous introductions to music is intriguing. Surprisingly, he criticized introductions ascribed to the conception of the subject of music. Jerome turned to the familiar triad from the Book of Wisdom 11. 21 of number, measure, and weight, but curiously omitting the one element that features in definitions of music: number. It is difficult to understand whose writings he was referring to in which the subject of music was understood as weight or measure. Equally, the adjective ‘contractus’ seems an unnecessary substitute for the conventional ‘relatus’. These anomalies may have been caused by one of the following reasons. Either Jerome was unable to find an equivalent for what Thomas expressed in the words ‘vel res et signa; vel opera reparationis; vel totum Christum, idest caput et membra’ (either things or signs; or the works of salvation; or the whole Christ, that is the head and members) and replaced them with something that he had not sufficiently thought through; or he treated the whole triad as signifying a numerical definition of music which he rejected. The omission of numerus could also be a slip on the part of the copyist. The double ‘vel’, however is intriguing: while in Thomas’s text it clearly separates different concepts, it essentially acts for Jerome as the substitute of a comma between ‘pondus’ and ‘mensura’ (‘uel pondus, uel mensuram contractam ad sonum’). That inconspicuous ‘vel’, together with the equally humble ‘etc.’, appears to point to Jerome’s unresolved difficulty in finding a suitable example. This is interesting insofar as the treatise itself refers to alternative definitions of the subject of music: number in general, number in relation to time, number related to sound, sound related to number, and also every sound, not just sonus discretus. Jerome’s adaptation of Aquinas’s words, according to Bourreau, provides evidence of his perfect understanding not just of the quoted passage itself, but of the principles of Thomist thought in general.57 Notably, in the second article of the same question Aquinas gave two examples of subalternate sciences, subordinated to higher sciences, in order to show the analogy

 56 Rico, ‘Music in the Arts Faculty in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries’, especially pp. 50–51.  57 Boureau, ‘Jérôme de Moravie et la rationalité dominicaine’, pp. 46–49.

383

3 84

bł a że j m at u s i ak o p

between those branches of learning and theo­logy. Just as perspective is based on the principles of geometry and music on principles taken from arithmetic, so theo­logy is based on higher knowledge — knowledge of God and the saints.58 In Bourreau’s opinion, however, Jerome goes beyond that subordination which rendered subalternate sciences lower (with the exception of theo­logy, as based directly on the knowledge of God). In invoking ‘weight and measure in relation to sound’, Jerome had in mind the arithmetic aspects of music. So rejecting the mathematical approach to the subject of music led to music becoming an autonomous science.59 To summarize Jerome’s achievements in Chapter 9 of the Tractatus de musica: he modelled his discussion of the subject of music on Thomas, who had proposed an elegant and profound definition of the subject of theo­logy. Holy Scripture, the sacraments, the Church, prayers, morality, redemption — theo­logy deals with all of this in relation to God, its true subject. By analogy, Jerome adopted the sound of a definite pitch (sonus discretus) as the subject of learning about music (subiectum musicae). The scholastic distinction between subiectum and obiectum, between the thing itself and what a given science says about it, is important. The subject of learning about music is at the same time the subject of the treatise. Given that a proper reading of the Summa is its understanding as an exposition of theo­ logy — teaching about God — the Tractatus de musica should be regarded analogously as a work devoted to different aspects of sound. Naturally, one should take into account the generic differences between the Summa, an original work by Thomas, designed as a precisely composed sequence of scholastic quaestiones, and the compilatory compendium of Jerome. Jerome established the sonus discretus as the subject of music. On the one hand, the chapter about subiectum musicae is an example of the application of Thomas’s innovative idea from the field of theo­logy and methodo­logy. On the other hand, the interest in various kinds of music cultivated at that time brings Jerome closer to Johannes de Grocheio, who attempted to classify the new genres of secular and sacred music.60 What place, then, does Jerome’s treatise occupy in the world of cantors?

The Cantor According to Jerome In compiling his treatise, Jerome drew on the writings of scholars (Isidore, Vincent of Beauvais), philosophers (Boethius), theo­logians (Thomas) and music teachers (Cotto). He selected material originally intended for various groups of readers and ordered it in such a way as to produce from it a

 58 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logica, Ia, Q1, A2, ed. by De Rubeis and Balluart, i, p. 7.  59 Boureau, ‘Jérôme de Moravie et la rationalité dominicaine’, p. 49.  60 Johannes de Grocheo, De musica, ed. by Rohloff, pp. 50–58.

j e ro m e o f mo ravi a’s canto r

handbook for cantors. At the same time, his ambition to assemble the whole knowledge of music in one place led him to include a range of knowledge that went far beyond what was essential to the everyday practice of liturgical singing. Yet Jerome was writing for cantors, probably being one himself. With the Dominicans, that notion was probably devoid of onerous associations with ignorance, and a cantor himself was burdened with numerous duties not connected with singing itself. We know very little about the Dominican system for training cantors. There is nothing to suggest that Jerome trained cantors for the needs of particular provinces. There are no traces in Dominican chapters, either general and provincial, of a centralized system of education for cantors. We do know, however, what Dominican legislation expected of cantors. The fifth general of the Order of Preachers, Humbert of Romans, in his commentary to various tasks in the Order, De officiis ordinis, assigned five main duties to the cantor: care for liturgical books, allocating duties in the liturgy, keeping the monastery choir in order, the liturgy of the Mass and the liturgy of the Office (treated as separate tasks).61 According to Humbert, a cantor was supposed to be an excellent liturgist and an expert on liturgical rules. Little is said about his musical competence and nothing at all about a profound knowledge of music theory. This does not mean that Dominicans did not value singing. Humbert himself, in praising the honourable mission of preaching, compared it first to singing, which enchants God in the same way that the songs of court singers please a king.62 Beginning with St Dominic himself, who sang on the road and roused the brethren to song during the liturgy,63 song was strongly linked to the identity of the Friars Preachers. Moreover, the cantor resembled St Dominic himself. Only a cantor was allowed to address directly brethren who needed some encouragement in their singing of the Hours, the same encouragement the Founder used to give his brethren.64 It would seem, therefore, that Jerome was proposing a new vision of the cantor — one that perhaps few apart from him were capable of satisfying. For him, a cantor was au fait with theory and equipped with profound erudition in the area of the initial questions comprising the accessus. Above all, however, a cantor was a lover of music, of ‘soni discreti’, in all its forms: music both monophonic and polyphonic, vocal and instrumental, sacred and secular. Just how much emphasis Jerome placed on this, emerges from his Chapter 25, which has long intrigued scholars and performers of medi­eval music on account of its guidelines on the rhythmicization and

 61 Humbert of Romans, De officiis ordinis, ed. by Berthier, p. 238–45.  62 Humbert of Romans, De officiis ordinis, ed. by Berthier, p. 240.  63 Jordan of Saxony, Libellus de principiis Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. by Laurent, Chapter 34; testimony of brother Paul of Venice in Early Dominicans: Selected Writings, ed. by Tugwell, p. 83.  64 Processus canonizationis sancti Dominici (apud Bononiam), ed. by Walz.

385

3 86

bł a że j m at u s i ak o p

adornment of song. Towards the end of the chapter, Jerome enumerates five rules for non-solo singing. In this context, he conjures up the image of a millwheel that from time to time emits a sound of the character of a sonus discretus: ‘molaris rota discretum aliquando reddat stridorem ipsa quid agat nesciens’ (the wheel of the mill sometimes renders a distinct screech without knowing what it does).65 Jerome had already employed this comparison, borrowed from Johannes Cotto, to depict a poor cantor. This time, the suggestiveness of the comparison is radically altered:66 Si quis autem plures pulcras notas scire desiderat, hoc pro regula teneat, ut nullus eciam rudissimi cantum descipiat, sed ad cantum omnium diligenter attendat, quia cum molaris rota discretum aliquando reddat stridorem ipsa quid agat nesciens, inpossibile est, quod animal racionale cupiens omnes suos actus in debitum finem dirigere, quin aliquando saltem a casu et a fortuna debitam et pulcram notam faciat. Cumque sibi placentem notam audierit, ut ipsam in habitu habeat, diligenter retineat. (If anyone desires to know more beautiful notes he should take this for a rule: that he despise the song of no one, however uncultured, but he should be carefully attentive to the song of every man, because whereas the wheel of the mill sometimes renders a distinct screech without knowing what it does, it is impossible that a rational animal, desiring to direct all his actions towards a dutiful end, should not sometimes at least by chance or luck make a correct and beautiful sound. And whenever he should hear a note that pleases him, in order that he may possess the capacity of making it, he ought carefully to retain it.) Once again, this passage shows us Jerome the Dominican combining knowledge of tradition with the ability to select what remains current. He emerges as an author who gives voice to authorities both ancient and modern and has them all speak of music ‘sub ratione soni discreti’ (under the aspect of the discrete sound). De musica therefore ultimately is a treatise of music, a treatise of (discrete) sounds.

 65 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 175.  66 Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Meyer and Lobrichon, p. 175; the translation by Randall A. Rosenfeld in McGee, The Sound of Medi­eval Song, p. 28.

j e ro m e o f mo ravi a’s canto r

Works Cited Manuscripts and Archival Sources Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fonds latin 16663 Primary Sources Boethius, Anicius Manlius, De institutione arithmetica libri duo, de institutione musica libri quinque, ed. by Gottfried Friedlein (Leipzig: Teubner, 1867; repr. Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1966) Early Dominicans: Selected Writings, ed. by Simon Tugwell (London: SPCK, 1982) Hieronymus de Moravia, Tractatus de musica, ed. by Christian Meyer and Guy Lobrichon, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 250 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012) Humbert of Romans, De officiis Ordinis, in B. Humberti de Romanis, quinti praedicatorum magistri generalis Opera de vita regulari, ed. by Joachim Joseph Berthier, ii (Rome: A. Befani, 1889) Isidore of Seville, Etymo­logiarum Sive Originum Libri xx, ed. by Wallace Lindsay (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911) Johannes Cotto [Affligemensis], De musica cum tonario, ed. by Joseph Smits van Waesberghe, Corpus scriptorum de musica, 1 (Rome: American Institute of Musico­logy, 1950) Johannes de Grocheo, De musica, ed. by Ernst Rohloff, Media latinitas musica, 2 (Leipzig: Kommissionsverlag Gebrüder Reinecke, 1943) Jordan of Saxony, Libellus de principiis Ordinis Praedicatorum, in Monumenta Historica Sancti Patris Nostri Dominici, ed. by Marie-Hyacinthe Laurent, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum historica, 16 (Paris: Vrijn, 1938), Magister Lambertus, The ‘Ars musica’ Attributed to Magister Lambertus/​Aristoteles, ed. by Christian Meyer, translated by Karen Desmond, Royal Musical Association Mono­graphs, 27 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015) Processus canonizationis sancti Dominici (apud Bononiam), ed. by Angelus Walz, Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, 16 (Rome: Ex typo­ graphia polyglotta de propaganda fide, 1935) Richard of Saint-Victor, Liber exceptionum: texte critique, avec introduction, notes et tables, ed. by Jean Chatillon, Textes philosophiques du moyen âge, 5 (Paris: Vrin, 1958) Thomas Aquinas, Summa theo­logica, ed. by Bernardo Maria de Rubeis and Charles René Billuart, and others, i (Torino: Marietti, 1932) —— , Summa theo­logica, trans. by the Fathers of the Dominican Province, i (Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1948) Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum doctrinale, xvii: Vinzenz von Beauvais O.P. (um 1194–1264) und sein Musiktraktat im Speculum doctrinale, ed. by Gottfried Göller, Kölner Beiträge zur Musikforschung, 15 (Regensburg: Gustav Bosse, 1959), pp. 86–118

387

3 88

bł a że j m at u s i ak o p

—— , Pro­logus sive libellus actoris apo­logeticus totius operis (Bruxelles BR 18465, versio bifaria 1244, prepared for the edition in AFP by Monique PaulmierFoucart and Marie-Christine Duchenne) [accessed 9 September 2018] —— , Speculum historiale, ed. by Isabelle Draelants, L’Atelier de Vincent de Beauvais, Bases textuelles (MS Douai, BM 797), Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes, [accessed 1 June 2021] Secondary Works Bent, Margaret, Magister Jacobus de Ispania, Author of the Speculum musicae, Royal Musical Association Mono­graphs, 28 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015) Boureau, Alain, ‘Jérôme de Moravie et la rationalité dominicaine du xiiie siècle’, in Jérôme de Moravie: un théoricien de la musique dans le milieu intellectuel parisien du XIIIeme siècle, ed. by Michel Huglo and Marcel Pérès (Paris: Créaphis, 1992), pp. 43–53 Dictionnaire de théo­logie catholique, Initial project ed. Alfred Vacant, 15 vols (Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1903–1953) Dyer, Joseph, ‘Chant Theory and Philosophy in the Late Thirteenth Century’, in Cantus Planus: Papers Read at the Fourth Meeting Pécs 1990 (Budapest: Institute for Musico­logy, 1992), pp. 99–118 Fast, Susan, ‘Bakhtin and the Discourse of Late Medi­eval Music Theory’, Plainsong and Medi­eval Music, 5.2 (1996), 175–91 Huglo, Michel, ‘La Musica du Fr. Prêcheur Jérome de Moray’, in Max Lütolf zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. by Bernhard Hangartner and Urs Fischer (Basel: Wiese, 1994), pp. 113–16 Imbach, Ruedi, ‘Summa, Summenliteratur, Summenkommentar’, Lexikon für Theo­logie und Kirche, 3rd edition, ed. by Walter Kasper, vol. ix (1993–2001), col. 1112–17 Leitmeir, Christian Thomas, ‘Sine auctoritate nulla disciplina est perfecta: Medi­ eval Music Theory in Search of Normative Foundations’, Between Creativity and Norm-Making: Tensions in the Later Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era, ed. by Sigrid Müller and Cornelia Schweiger, Studies in Medi­eval and Reformation Traditions, 165 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 31–60 Matusiak, Błażej, ‘Jerome – a Moravian Dominican in Paris’, Muzyka, 2 (2014), 3–21 McGee, Timothy J., The Sound of Medi­eval Song: Ornamentation and Vocal Style According to the Treatises (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) Novikoff, Alex J., The Medi­eval Culture of Disputation: Pedagogy, Practice, and Performance (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013) Preece, Warren E., and Robert L. Collison, ‘Encyclopaedias’, in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition (London: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985–2010), vol. iv, p. 487, [accessed 1 June 2021]

j e ro m e o f mo ravi a’s canto r

Putallaz, François-Xavier, Insolente liberté: Controverses et condamnations au xiie siècle, Vestigia, 15 (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires, 1995) Quain, Edwin A., ‘The Medi­eval Accessus ad Auctores’, Traditio, 3 (1945), 215–64 Rico, Gilles, ‘Music in the Arts Faculty in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford 2005), [accessed 1 June 2021] Torrell, Jean-Pierre, ‘Le Savoir théo­logique chez Saint Thomas’, in Recherches thomasiennes: études revues et augumentées, ed. by Jean-Pierre Torrell (Paris: Vrin, 2000), pp. 121–57 Weber, Laura, ‘Intellectual Currents in Thirteenth Century Paris: A Translation and Commentary on Jerome of Moravia’s Tractatus de musica’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale 2009)

389

Index Aberdeen: 340 n. 33 Achaia: 110 Acre: 175 Adacti, Saint: 315 Advent: 60, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 69, 93, 102, 136, 304 n. 25, 310, 311 n. 35, 350 Aegean islands: 109, 110, 111 Agatha, Saint: 291 Albéric des Trois-Fontaines: 168 n. 5, 177, 181 n. 62 Albert the Great, Saint and bishop: 42, 46, 286 n. 3, 350, 353 Albinus, Saint: 314 Aleppo: 188 Alessandro Orlandini: 155 Alet-les-Bains: 74 n. 5 Alexander II, king of Scotland: 340 Alexander IV, pope: 76 n. 15, 144 n. 29 Alexander of Hales: 222 n. 42 Alexander, Saint: 315 Alfonso Ricci: 149 n. 35 Al-Fārābī, Abū Nasr Muhammad: 350, 372 Al-Mustansir see Muhammad Al-Mustansir Alger of Liège: 221, 232 alleluia (chant): 23, 300, 302–11, 316–17, 349­–50 Al-Malik Al-Mansûr of Homs: 187 Ambrogio Brandi: 140, 141 Ambrogio Spannocchi: 146 Ambrose, Saint: 232, 240, 260, 265, 269 Amicie de Montfort: 326 Anciau de Sens: 84

Andravida, St Sophia: 20, 110, 115–21 André de Longjumeau: 21, 166, 171, 177, 178, 180–81, 184–90, 192–204 André de Sens: 46–47 Andrea Bregno: 143 Andrew, Saint: 60, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 270 An-Nâsir Dâ’ûd of Al-Karak: 187 Annunciation depiction of: 64, 65, 69, 188 liturgy of: 67, 140, 274 Anselm of Laon: 221 Anthony of Padua, Saint: 77, 97 Anthony the Great, Saint: 314 antiphoners: 22, 51, 98, 99, 103, 287, 288, 289, 309 n. 29, 311, 339 n. 27 antiphons: 51, 102, 232, 235, 256–58, 269–76, 278, 285, 287, 349 Antonin Cloche, Master of the Order of Preachers: 138 n. 15 Antonino Pierozzi, archbishop: 128 Antonio da Sangallo: 139 apses: 115–18, 120–21, 124 n. 54, 137, 138 n. 13, 139–40, 142–50, 152, 155, 157–59, 199 Aquinas see Thomas Aquinas Aragon: 74 n. 5 architecture: 14, 16, 20, 109, 111, 115–30, 135–59 Argolid, Dormition of the Virgin (also known as Merbaka): 21, 123–30 Aristotle: 21, 32, 42, 79 n. 20, 242–44, 261, 269, 281, 348, 350–53, 372, 375 De coelo et mundo: 350, 369

392

i n dex

Historia Animalium: 113 Physica: 79 n. 20, 351 Politics: 113 Arras: 44 Barbers’ Guild: 74–76, 87, 93, 95 Artois: 20, 73, 95 Ascension depiction of: 65, 188 liturgy of: 59 n. 15, 274, 302–04, 310, 317 Ash Wednesday: 23, 292 Asia: 110, 129 As-Sâlih Ismâ’îl of Damascus, sultan: 187 Athanasius of Alexandria, Saint: 225 Augustine of Hippo, Saint: 35, 112, 189, 222 n. 40, 232, 237, 240, 260–61, 265, 276, 281, 335 depictions of: 64, 89, 102 Rule of St. Augustine: 18, 82 n. 27, 102 Augustinian canonesses: 18 Augustinian canons regular: 82 n. 27 Augustinian friars: 129 Ayr: 340 n. 33 Azerbaijan: 187 Baccio Bandinelli: 139 Baghdad: 127 Bakhtin: 375 Baldwin II, emperor of Constantinople: 167, 179 n. 51, 180–84, 191 Barbara, Saint: 312 Barcelona: 74, 229 n. 73 Bartholomew, Saint: 64 Bartolomeo da Breganze: 142 Beaumont family: 80, 93 Belleville family: 73, 84, 86 n. 32, 93 Benedetto da Maiano: 146, 157

Benedict of Nursia, Saint: 74 n. 5, 290, 312 Benedict XII, pope: 217 n. 19 Benedictines: 260, 335 Bernard Gui, bishop: 111 n. 5, 260, 337 n. 18 Bernard of Clairvaux, Saint: 270, 272, 290 Bernard of Le Puy: 198 Bertrand de Born: 348 n. 73 Bible: 13, 18–19, 32–44, 47, 53, 58, 128, 215, 226–27, 228, 235–36, 239, 255–58, 279, 285, 289, 301, 369, 382 commentaries: 32, 36–37, 40, 58, 215, 222–24, 226, 240, 260–63, 265 correctoria: 19, 36–37, 44 n. 31 distinctiones: 19, 37–39, 47, 264 exegesis: 37, 215, 236, 240, 279 Paris Bible: 19, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 47, 53 pocket Bible: 19, 33–34, 35, 43, 44, 47 Tour Bible: 35, 37 Bible-missals: 289, 301, 312–13 Blaise, Saint: 314 Blanche of Castile: 173, 174 n. 32, 179 n. 51, 196 Blessed Sacrament: 119, 138, 140–42, 146, 149, 157, 220–22, 224, 242, 245, 293–94. See also Corpus Christi; Eucharist Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus: 23, 336, 338, 344, 346, 355, 365, 372, 373–74, 375–76, 377, 384 De institutione musica: 338, 368, 373, 383 Glossa maior: 338 Bohemia (Province of the Order of Preachers): 215 n. 13, 341

index

Bologna: 34, 43, 47, 82, 136, 137, 300 n. 3, 301, 342, 343 San Domenico: 84, 157, 158 Bolsena: 216–17, 230 Bonaventure (Giovanni di Fidanza), Saint and bishop: 86 n. 34, 241, 286 n. 3 Boniface VIII, pope: 176, 234 breviaries: 19, 22, 51–69, 73, 79 n. 18, 82, 84–85, 87, 89–91, 93, 98–102, 170–71, 230 n. 73, 255, 286 n. 4, 287, 288, 313 n. 43, 314 Franciscan: 57, 58, 61, 328 n. 34, 328 n. 36 Bristol: 335 Brno: 341 Bruges: 76–77, 79, 81–82, 84, 96 Byzantium: 20, 109–30, 225. See also Constantinople Caesarea: 175, 188 Cambrai: 77 n. 15, 97 Camillo Muscettula: 149 n. 35 cantors: 24, 136, 317, 353, 356, 366–68, 371, 378, 384–86 Capece see Giovanni Geronimo Capece Carmelites: 129 Carthage: 173, 189, 202 Cathars: 31–32, 219, 268 n. 63, 348 Catherine of Alexandria, Saint: 64, 270, 276 Catherine of Siena, Saint: 17 Champagne: 168 n. 3, 175, 198 n. 20 chant see alleluias; antiphoners; antiphons; graduals; hymns; responsories Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor: 144 Chartres: 170 n. 9, 180 Chios: 110, 121 choir-mausoleum: 138, 139, 146

Christmas: 60, 62, 63, 65, 194, 274, 303 Chrysobergès see Theodore Chrysobergès Circumcision: 63, 65, 274 Cistercians: 82 n. 27, 168, 177, 182, 271, 294, 303, 348 liturgy: 23, 300, 302–11, 316–17 nuns: 276 Claremont-Chlemoutsi: 118 Clement IV, pope: 145 n. 30 Clement V, pope: 216 n. 16 Clement VII, pope: 139 cloisters: 115–16, 118, 120–21 Collegio dei Notai: 142 Colmar: 14, 289, 304 n. 24 Cologne: 76 n. 11, 341 Compline: 156, 325 confraternities: 75, 93, 139–42, 152. See also Arras Barbers’ Guild Constantine of Orvieto: 81 n. 25, 128 Constantinople: 21, 109, 110, 167, 169, 174, 177–78, 181–85, 190–95, 202, 225 Pera: 113, 184 Stoudios: 125 n. 55 constitutions of Dominican friars: 15, 16, 23, 115 n. 21, 136, 148–49, 156, 159 n. 70, 229, 287, 300, 316, 322–29, 342–43 of Dominican nuns: 17, 23, 322–30 Corinth: 124, 126 n. 58 Cornelius, Saint: 315 Cornut see Gauthier Cornut Corpus Christi: 17, 21–22, 64, 86 n. 32, 99, 213–45, 255–81. See also Blessed Sacrament; Eucharist

393

394

i n dex

Councils Fourth Lateran Council (1216): 171, 183, 220 n. 34, 227, 280 of Florence (1445): 126 n. 58, 227 n. 65 of Lyon (1245): 186 of Lyon (1274): 112 n. 10, 125–26 n. 58, 129 of Trent (1545–63): 135, 137, 141, 155 n. 57, 294, 321 of Vienne (1311–12): 216, 217 n. 20, 219 n. 29, 229 n. 72, 230, 280 Counter Reformation: 155, 157 Cracow see Kraków Crete: 21, 109, 110, 120–22 Crotone: 225 Crown of Thorns liturgy of: 17, 21, 168, 170–71, 178, 313, 314 relic of: 17, 21, 142–43, 167–71, 174–79, 182–85, 190–204, 273, 314 crucifix: 149, 156, 231. See also Holy Cross crucifixion, depictions of: 74, 93 crusades: 79 n. 19, 112 n. 10, 172, 175, 181 n. 59, 187, 188–89, 326 Fourth Crusade: 109, 110, 124 cura monialium: 321–23, 326, 329 Cyprian, Saint: 315 Cyprus: 109, 110, 187 Cyriacus, Saint: 315 Cyril of Alexandria, Saint: 225, 240 Dacia: 184 n. 70, 215 n. 13 Damasus, Saint: 314 David, king: 39, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 177, 273 dedication of a church: 59 n. 15, 63, 184, 214 n. 3, 274, 290

Denis, Saint: 64, 190 Diego of Osma, bishop: 31, 348 Diessenhofen, St Catherine (St Katharinenthal): 76 n. 11, 301 disputations: 31, 32, 45, 58, 369 Dimitrios Kydonès: 113 Divine Office: 15, 52, 58, 138 n. 13, 158, 173, 230 n. 73, 259, 279, 285, 286, 287, 288, 299 n. 2, 301, 313, 317, 323–29, 356 n. 110, 385. See also antiphoners; breviaries; Compline; Lauds; Matins; Prime; psalters; Vespers Dominic of Caleruega, Saint: 13, 17, 19–20, 23, 31–32, 73–74, 126 n. 59, 136, 172, 179, 184 n. 70, 186, 215, 259, 275, 293, 313 n. 43, 322, 323, 324, 326, 341, 348, 385 depictions of: 20, 64, 65, 73–93, 95–97, 100–02 liturgy of: 77 n. 15, 84, 87, 100–01, 229 n. 71, 274, 312 n. 40, 315, 349 translation of: 64, 100, 229 n.71 Dupuy see Jacques Dupuy; Pierre Dupuy Durand see Guillaume Durand Easter: 23, 63, 65, 69, 89 n. 38, 302–05, 310, 350, 356 n. 112 Edinburgh: 340 n. 33 Egypt: 175, 187 eleven thousand virgins: 312 n. 40 Elgin, St James: 340 Elisabeth of Hungary, Saint: 312 n. 40 Eljigidei: 187 El-Mansoura: 175 Emerentiana, Saint: 314 Enrique of Castile: 336 n. 5 Epiphany: 63, 65, 310, 315

index

Eucharist: 22, 135, 141, 146, 157, 213, 219–28, 231–45, 255–56, 262–63, 268, 269, 275, 277, 279–81. See also Blessed Sacrament; Corpus Christi Eudes de Châteauroux, bishop: 187, 188 n. 89, 214 n. 3 Eusebius of Vercelli, Saint: 312 Eve of St-Martin: 214 n. 2, 217 n. 21, 233 n. 87 Eventius, Saint: 315 exemplars of the Dominican liturgy: 16, 22, 42, 45, 47, 170, 288–90, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 299, 302 n. 15, 303 n. 21, 305, 307–09, 313 Fanjeaux: 32 Federico da Montefeltro: 139 Felix, Saint: 315 Flanders: 20, 73, 76, 80–84, 87 n. 34, 95, 112 n. 9, 113, 346 n. 66 Florence: 127, 128, 137, 139, 227 Florentines in Lyon: 20, 150–55, 157 San Marco: 128, 158 Santa Maria Novella: 126 n. 63, 156, 227 see also Councils, of Florence Foster, Saint see Vedast Fra Angelico (Giovanni da Fiesole): 16, 128 Fra Bartolomeo (di Pagholo): 128 France: 13, 19–20, 31, 33, 65, 68, 69, 73–74, 76, 93, 149 n. 35, 150, 155 n. 37, 167–69, 171, 173, 175, 176, 179, 182, 193, 195, 197, 199, 257, 303, 308, 313, 339, 340, 345 n. 66, 349 Francesco Traiani: 75 n. 9 Francia (Province of the Order of Preachers): 39, 76, 215, 326, 356

Francis of Assisi, Saint: 86 n. 34, 172, 327 depictions of: 76–79, 87 n. 34, 93, 95–97, liturgy of: 312 n. 40 Franciscans: 21, 76, 114, 129, 152–53, 168 n. 3, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 180 n. 55, 180 n. 56, 181, 317, 321 n. 1, 328, 335, 337 n. 19 breviaries: 57–58, 61 liturgy of: 317 Poor Clares: 327–28 Franciscus Hospitalis: 59 Franco of Cologne: 339, 345–46, 366 Frederick II, emperor: 196–97, 279 n. 74 frescoes: 16, 122, 126 n. 63, 128, 230 Fulk of Marseille, bishop: 348 funerary monuments: 16, 21, 122, 124–25, 139, 145 n. 35. See also choir-mausoleums Galvano Fiamma: 136 Gauthier Cornut, archbishop: 21, 168–70, 175, 179–80, 183, 192, 195, 196, 198, 204 Geneva: 151–53, 155 Genoa: 110, 154 Geoffrey de Beaulieu: 168 n. 3, 172–75, 178, 189, 195, 199 Geoffrey II of Villehardouin: 118 George Scholarios: 113 Geraki: 124 n. 52, 125 n. 56 Gérard d’Abbeville: 45–46 Gerard de Frachet: 17, 74 n. 6, 294 Gérard de Saint-Quentin: 177, 178, 191 Germain (Germanus of Auxerre), Saint: 312, 313 Germany: 13, 18, 20 n. 36, 42, 76 n. 11, 215, 301, 322

395

396

i n dex

Gervais, Saint: 191, 193 Ghent: 76 Giacinto dei Nobili: 144–45 Gilbert de la Porrée: 221 Giles, Saint: 77, 315 Gioffredi d’Anagni: 228 Giordano Crispo: 148 Giovanni de Guevara di Bovino: 150 Giovanni di Fidanza see Bonaventure Giovanni Geronimo Capece: 149 Girolamo Savonarola: 158 Glasgow: 340 n. 33 & 34 Gondisalvo della Chiesa: 142–43 Good Friday: 276, 290 n. 18, 290 n. 19, 291 Gorgonius, Saint: 23, 292, 293, 315 graduals (chant): 303, 311 n. 35 graduals (liturgical books): 287, 288, 289, 301–09, 312–13, 316 Gratian, Flavius, Decretum: 232, 235, 240 Greece: 21, 109–13, 167, 179 n. 51 Greek music theory: 368, 370–71, 376, 378 Province of the Order of Preachers: 110, 111, 184 Gregory I, Saint and pope: 59 n. 15, 65, 303 n. 22 Gregory IX, pope: 180, 181 n. 59 Gregory X, pope: 173 Gregory XI, pope: 217 n. 18 Gregory of Nazianzus, Saint: 225 Gregory of Nyssa, Saint: 225 Greyfriars see Franciscans Guala, prior of Brescia: 20, 74–77, 86–87, 93, 95, 101–02 Gubbio: 356 Gui see Bernard Gui Guiard of Laon, bishop: 214 n. 3 Guido of Arezzo: 367

Guillaume d’Alzonne, bishop: 74 n. 5 Guillaume de Chartres, Grand Master of the Knights Templar: 168 n. 3, 173 Guillaume de Mailly: 46 Guillaume de Moerbeke see William of Moerbeke Guillaume de Nangis: 178, 185 n. 73, 189 Guillaume de Saint-Pathus: 168 n. 3 Guillaume de Seignelay: 179 n. 54 Guillaume de Sens: 19, 43–46 Guillaume Durand, bishop: 136, 279 Guillaume II Villehardouin: 118 Güyuk Khan, emperor: 187–88 Hainaut: 20, 73, 76, 87 n. 34, 95, 97 Henry III, king of England: 181 Henry of Gueldre: 214, 218 n. 23, 223 n. 87, 234 n. 87 Henry of Moravia: 341 Herakleion, St Peter Martyr: 20, 110, 120–22 Hervè of Nedellec: 229 Hieronymus de Moravia see Jerome of Moravia Hilary, Saint: 315 Holy Cross Exaltation of: 244 n. 121, 315 Finding of: 315 relics of: 143, 177, 187 n. 85, 188, 273 Holy Land: 110, 184 n. 70, 186, 216. See also Jerusalem Holy Spirit: 63, 125 n. 58, 225, 261–62, 268, 273, 278, 291, 295, 302, 310 Holy Trinity see Trinity Honorius III, pope: 83, 84, 89, 101, 172, 179

index

Hugh of Croydon: 41 Hugh of Saint-Cher: 22, 35–37, 39, 44 n. 31, 76 n. 15, 214–15, 217, 222 n. 42, 227, 230, 238, 241, 245, 323 Postilla in totam Bibliam: 19, 36–37 215, 236, 240 Hugh of Saint-Victor: 221, 222, 232, 241, 350, 375 Humbert of Romans, Master of the Order of Preachers: 23, 170, 175, 294, 321–23, 326, 327, 329, 342 revision of the liturgy: 15, 21, 22, 23, 51 n. 2, 58, 156, 170, 286–89, 293, 299–300, 304, 308, 314–17, 321–23, 329–30 De eruditione praedicatorum: 259 De officiis ordinis: 317, 368 n. 12, 385 Legenda Sancti Domini: 82 n. 25 Opus Tripartitum: 112 Hyacinth, Saint: 315 hymns: 51, 99, 156, 235, 244–45, 287, 289 iconography: 17, 19–20, 59–60, 66, 73–102, 122, 125, 129–30, 199–201 icons (Byzantine): 122 Ignatius of Antioch, Saint: 98, 314 Innocent III, pope: 85–86, 101, 171, 220, 222, 241, 259 Innocent IV, pope: 186–87, 188 n. 89, 326, 327–28 Innocent V (Peter of Tarentaise), pope: 241 intarsia: 137, 157, 159 Inverness: 340 n. 33 Isaiah: 62, 63, 65, 261, 273 Isidore of Seville, Saint: 371, 372, 373, 374 n. 32, 376, 384 Islam: 93, 102, 110

Jacobus de Ispania: 335–36, 341 n. 40, 367 Jacobus de Voragine, archbishop: 46, 128, 136, 270–77 Jacopo da Viterbo: 227 Jacques Dupuy: 169 Jaquet Maci: 86 Jacques Pantaléon see Urban IV Jaffa: 175, 188 James of Venice ( Jacobus Veneticus): 42 James, Saint: 190, 291 Jean de Joinville: 168 n. 3, 175, 188 n. 89, 188 n. 90, 189 Jean de Mailly: 31 Jean de Plivot: 346 n. 69 Jean Pucelle: 84 Jean Sarrazin: 186 n. 78, 187, 188 n. 87 Jerome, Saint: 35, 37, 44 n. 31, 112, 224 n. 52 Jerome of Culloden: 339, 340 Jerome of Moravia: 17, 23–24, 311, 335–57, 365–86 Jerusalem: 63, 177, 216, 217 n. 20, 233, 234, 267 Jesus Christ: 39, 128–29, 149 n. 35, 177, 195, 198–99, 204, 219–22, 224, 231–33, 236–39, 241–43, 245, 258–59, 262, 263, 264, 267, 273, 275, 276, 277–80, 294, 304, 312, 379–80, 383 depictions of: 62, 63, 64, 65, 75–76, 87, 93, 101, 128–29, 138 n. 13, 188 Jews see Judaism Johannes Cotto (Affligemensis): 355, 365, 366–67, 368, 377–78, 384, 386 Johannes de Garlandia: 345, 373, 374, 375

397

398

i n dex

Johannes de Grocheio: 336, 384 Johannes de Muris: 338 n. 20 John Chrysostom, Saint: 223 n. 47, 224, 225, 240 John Doukas Vatatzes III, emperor: 181–82, 194–95 John of Affligem: 344 John of Brienne, emperor: 179 n. 51, 181 John of Burgundy, duke: 345 John of Darlington, archbishop: 41 John of Garland see Johannes de Garlandia John of Lausanne: 214, 215 n. 12 John the Baptist: 64, 125 n. 55, 152, 315 John the Evangelist, Saint: 59 n. 15, 64 Jordan of Saxony, Master of the Order of Preachers: 32, 74, 86 n. 33, 156, 184 n. 70, 186, 341 Judaism: 97, 100, 265, 268 Julian, Saint: 314 Juliana of Mont-Cornillon, Saint: 21, 213–14, 215 n. 7, 215 n. 12, 222, 232, 233 n. 87, 245 Julitta, Saint: 315 Jumièges: 39 jus patronatus: 146–47, 149, 154, 155

Lanfranc: 221 Langton see Stephen Langton language see translators and translations Languedoc-Roussillon: 74 n. 5 Lauds: 102, 233 n. 85, 256, 270, 274, 276 Lausanne: 301, 313, 314, 315 Lawrence, Saint: 64, 179 n. 51, 198, Leo X, pope: 139 libraries (medieval): 23, 58, 169 n. 8, 234, 337, 357 Liège: 22, 213–17, 218, 219, 222, 232, 233, 235, 243 n. 119, 245, 263, 270 Lille: 44, 112 n. 9 Limousin: 337 n. 18 Lombard see Peter Lombard London: 342, 343 Louis IX, king and Saint: 17, 21, 73, 98, 142, 167–85, 187–93, 196, 198–204, 314 depictions of: 64, 89, 92–94, 102 Louis X, king: 74 n. 3, 93, 98 Louis XI, king: 151 Ludovico Sforza: 139 Lyon: 20, 41, 150–57, 187, 255, 301. Notre-Dame-de-Confort: 20, 150–52, 156 see also Councils, of Lyon

Karakorum: 188, 202 Kilwardby see Richard Kilwardby Knights Hospitaller: 125 n. 56 Kraków: 341 Kydonès see Dimitrios Kydonès; Prochoros Kydonès

Madrid: 322 manual labour: 324–25, 329 Marguerite, Countess of Flanders: 76 n. 15 Marguerite de Courtenay: 181 Marguerite de Provence: 174 Marguerite de Sens: 43, 46 Marie d’Enghien: 77–79, 93, 97 Marino d’Eboli: 227 Martin of Tours, Saint: 64, 313 Martinian, Saint: 315

Lambert of Maastricht, bishop and Saint: 314 Lambertus (Magister Lambertus): 349, 372

index

Mary, blessed virgin: 138, 140, 156, 182, 256, 262, 273, 277, 278 depictions of: 64, 75–76, 80–84, 87, 96, 101, 143, 156 liturgy for: 62, 63, 65, 69, 156, 272, 274, 276, 315 Mary Magdalen, Saint: 64 Mass: 140, 188, 218, 219, 231, 280 Dominican practices: 15, 17, 22–23, 144, 149, 158, 259, 285–87, 299–318, 324, 349, 385 for Corpus Christi: 214, 215, 228, 229 n. 71, 230 n. 73, 234 n. 92, 235, 237, 245, 257 votive masses: 23, 152, 290–92, 294–95 see also graduals; missals Matins: 21, 60 n. 15, 175, 256, 257, 270–76, 278, 279, 287, 317, 349 Matthew, Evangelist and Saint: 271 Matthew Paris: 182 n. 63, 188 Maurus, Saint: 314 Meaux: 170 n. 9 Medard, Saint: 314 Medici family: 139 Melun: 170 n. 9, 198 Merbaka (Dormition of the Virgin): 21, 110, 123–30 Michael of Neuvirelle: 44 Michael VIII Palaeologus, emperor: 225 Michael, archangel: 64, 272–73, 279 Michelozzo di Bartolommeo: 155 n. 56, 158 Milan: 136, 137, 139, 158, 355 n. 109 Santa Maria delle Grazie: 136, 158, 159 n. 69 missals: 22, 76 n. 15, 93, 99, 286–94, 301, 302 n. 14, 305, 306, 308, 312–14. See also Bible-missals

Mongolia: 186–88 Montereau: 198 Montréal (France): 31, 32 Montrose: 340 n. 33 Moray, Scotland: 24, 339–41 Muhammad Al-Mustansir: 190 Muslims see Islam Namur: 181 Naples: 228, 278 San Domenico Maggiore: 20, 141, 147–50, 231 n. 79, 278–80 Narjot de Toucy: 182, 192 Nativity see Christmas Navarre: 93 naves: 115–17, 120, 135–36, 138 n. 13, 141, 142–43, 144–45, 148–49, 150, 156–57 Nicaea: 181, 194 Niccolò da Durazzo: 225 Niccolò Quirino: 167, 183–84, 192 Nicholas, Saint: 59 n.15, 63, 270, 272, 274, 278–79, 300 n. 3 Nicholas de Sorello: 192 Nicola Pisano: 82 Nicolas Byard: 37, 46 Nicolas de Lisieux: 45–46 Nicolas Gorham: 37, 46 Nicomedes, Saint: 313, 315, 317 Nicosia: 187–88, 202 Nilus Cabasilas: 113 nuns: 17–18, 23, 59, 73, 93, 138, 168–69 n. 5, 276, 321–30, 339 n. 27. See also constitutions; Poissy Observance: 142, 144, 157–59 Odo of Châteauroux see Eudes de Châteauroux Office see Divine Office Oghul Qaimish: 188

399

400

i n dex

Olena: 119 Olomouc: 341 Orthodox Church: 20–21, 110–14, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123–30 Orvieto: 22, 216–18, 222, 224, 226–27, 230, 234, 235, 240, 244 n. 121, 245, 356 n. 111 San Domenico: 218, 226 Osca: 74 n. 5 Palermo: 227 Palm Sunday: 59 n. 15, 63 Paris: 14, 19, 20, 21, 23, 31–48, 59, 62, 66, 67, 73, 80, 84, 86 n. 33, 87, 89, 93, 94, 98–102, 111, 167–72, 174, 177–79, 183–86, 190, 194–96, 198–204, 224, 256, 263, 301, 303 n. 21, 312 n. 42, 336, 337, 339 n. 27, 340–41, 345, 348, 350, 353, 354, 355, 365, 374 Notre-Dame de Champs: 179 Notre-Dame de Paris: 172, 179 Saint-Antoine: 168 Sainte-Chapelle: 21, 73, 171, 188, 199–203 Saint-Denis: 73, 93, 94, 102, 173, 178, 189, 190 Saint-Germain-des-Près: 170 n. 9 Saint-Jacques: 32, 35, 36, 39–48, 172, 173, 186, 215, 223 n. 46, 231, 337, 350, 353, 365, 382, 383 Saint-Nicolas (royal chapel): 178–79 n. 51, 199 University of see universities Paris, Matthew see Matthew Paris Passion of Christ: 188, 198, 199, 219, 221–22, 233, 237, 238 n. 99 Passion Sunday: 292 pastoral care: 58, 111, 135, 157 n. 64, 322. See also cura monialium Paul, Saint: 36 n. 14, 64, 85–86, 101, 184, 264

Paul III, pope: 139–41 Paul of Thebes, Saint: 312 Peloponnese: 110, 115, 123–27, 129 Penitent Sisters of St Mary Magdalene: 325 Pentecost: 23, 63, 65, 188, 217, 302–03, 310 Pera see Constantinople Perth: 340 n. 33 Peter (apostle), Saint: 64, 85–86, 101, 270 Peter Comestor: 221 Peter Lombard: 221, 226, 235, 369 Peter of Tarentaise see Innocent V Peter of Verona (Martyr), Saint: 20, 23, 64, 65, 76–77, 79, 96, 97, 100, 120, 121, 292, 293–94, 349 Petronella, Saint: 314 Petrus Picardus: 346 Philip II, king: 179 n. 54 Philip III, king: 173 Philip IV, king (Philippe le Bel): 73, 79 n. 18, 89, 93, 94, 98, 102 Pierre Dupuy: 169 Pierre of Limoges: 337–38, 357 Pierre Panier: 59 Pilgrim Friars, Society of the: 110, 129 pilgrims: 88–91, 93, 100, 128–29, 142, 143, 176, 281 Pilgrims of Emmaus: 128–29 Poissy: 18, 20, 59–60, 63, 64, 73, 86 n. 32, 87, 89, 93, 98–99, 339 n. 27 Poland (Province of the Order of Preachers): 184 n. 70, 215 n. 13, 341 polyphony: 24, 336, 338, 340–46, 348, 375, 385 Poor Clares see Franciscans Prague: 341

index

preaching: 13, 14, 15, 17, 18–19, 21, 31, 32, 33, 37–38, 58, 78–80, 89, 96, 97, 101, 102, 109, 111, 112, 114, 126, 127–28, 136, 171–72, 179, 185, 189–90, 238, 240, 259–60, 264, 265, 269, 281, 295, 300, 322, 329, 348, 369, 385 Premonstratensians: 255, 323 Prime: 287, 325 processions: 21, 91, 93, 94, 100, 102, 118, 120, 122, 156, 168–69, 174, 177, 194, 198, 200, 225, 231, 273, 286, 287, 288, 289 Processus, Saint: 315 Prochoros Kydonès: 113 Proclus: 113 Protais, Saint: 191, 193 Protus, Saint: 315 Prouille: 17, 322, 325 Prussia: 216 psalms: 36 n. 13, 79, 258, 285, 287, 323 psalters: 36 n. 13, 51–52, 60–61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 76, 82 n. 26, 87 n. 34, 93, 95–97, 287, 289, 328 Quiricus, Saint: 315 Quirino see Niccolò Quirino Ramette see Siméon-André Ramette Ramon Lull: 337 n. 19 Raymond of Peñafort: 326 rebec: 346, 347 Regensburg: 14, 76 n. 11 Reginald of Orléans: 76, 78, 80–84, 86 n. 33, 89, 96, 101 Reginald, secretary to Aquinas: 280 Reims: 172, 346 n. 69

relics: 16, 122, 142–43, 145 n. 29, 146, 177, 178, 182, 183. See also Crown of Thorns; Holy Cross Remigius, Saint: 312, 315 responsories: 51, 60, 62, 232, 256, 263, 269, 270–77, 278, 279, 285, 287, 349 Resurrection: 63, 65, 128, 275, 302, 350 Rhodes: 109 Riccoldo da Monte Croce: 127 Richard of Saint-Victor: 136, 350, 372, 375 Richard of Stavensby: 41 Rieti, San Domenico: 67, 230 n. 73 Rimini: 139 Robert d’Artois: 168, 200, 203 Robert Kilwardby, archbishop: 46, 350, 353 Robert of Baseborn: 39 n. 20 Robert of Thourotte, bishop: 214, 216, 217 Roman curia: 22, 112, 216, 217 n. 21, 218, 227, 234, 291, 293, 294, 323 Roman rite: 285 n. 2, 291, 293–95, 303, 328 Rome: 119, 137, 138 n. 15, 139–41, 142, 144 n. 28, 150, 239 n. 102 Province of the Order of Preachers: 139 n. 16, 218, 356 San Sisto: 322, 325 Santa Maria sopra Minerva: 20, 139–41 Santa Sabina: 218 n. 25, 223 Rouen, Sainte-Catherine: 178 Rufus, Saint: 314 Rule of St Augustine see Augustine Rupert of Deutz: 221

401

4 02

i n dex

Sabina, Saint: 315 sacristies: 115, 121, 138 n. 13, 157 Saint-Flour: 58–60, 69 Sainte-Chapelle see Paris, SainteChapelle salve regina ceremony: 156 Saracens: 189, 227 Saragoza: 355 n. 109 Savonarola see Girolamo Savonarola Scholastica, Saint: 312 Seine, river: 168 Sens: 43, 168–71, 179–80, 181 n. 59, 198, 200, 201 Saint-Pierre-le-Vif: 169 n. 8 Saint-Romain: 180 n. 55 sermons: 15 n. 23, 22, 32, 37–39, 47, 57, 58, 114, 128, 168–69, 172 n. 22, 173, 176 n. 40, 196, 224, 238–39, 256, 261, 262–69 Sesso family: 146 Sforza see Ludovico Sforza Siena, San Domenico: 20, 146, 157, 230 Sigismondo Malatesta: 139 Sigtuna: 35 Simeon Rabban-Ata: 187 Siméon-André Ramette: 150–51, 152 n. 50, 154, 157 n. 62 Simon de Montfort: 326 Sixtus, Saint: 315 Sorbonne: 23, 44, 337, 338, 357, 383. See also University of Paris spolia: 123–27, 129 St Andrews, Scotland: 340 Stefano di Giovanni di Consalvo (il Sassetta): 231 Stephen (deacon), Saint: 59 n. 15, 64, 276 Stephen Langton, archbishop: 40 Stephen of Bourbon: 348 Stephen of Liège, bishop: 259

Stephen Tempier, bishop: 355, 370 n. 19 Stirling: 340 n. 33 Šumper: 341 n. 45 Symphorian, Saint: 315 Tabriz: 187, 202 Taddeo di Bartolo: 230 Tatars: 186–88, 189, 190 teaching and education: 15, 20, 22, 32, 45, 58, 64, 79, 89, 99, 114, 213, 215, 218, 219, 222, 224, 225, 226, 227, 231, 259, 264, 265, 270, 271, 278, 300, 337, 344, 345, 346, 348, 354, 355, 368, 370, 383, 384, 385 Tempier see Stephen Tempier Teutonia (Province of the Order of Preachers): 18, 76, 341 n.46 Teutonic Knights: 216, 300 Thebes: 113 Theodolus, Saint: 315 Theodore Chrysobergès: 119 Theophylact of Ohrid, archbishop: 223 Thomas Aquinas, Saint depictions of: 20, 64, 65, 68, 89, 99 liturgy of: 99 role in Corpus Christi liturgy: 17, 22, 215–45, 255–81 teachings and writings of: 22, 23–24, 42, 45–48, 113, 218–19, 222–28, 256, 260–65, 268–69, 286 n. 3, 350–56, 360, 367, 370, 371, 372, 377–80, 382, 383 Catena Aurea: 223, 224, 226, 240, 263 Contra errores Graecorum: 225 De articulis fidei: 227 De emptione et venditione ad tempus: 227 De perfectione spiritualis: 45–46

index

De potentia Dei: 47 De rationibus fidei: 227 Expositio super Iob: 226 Summa contra Gentiles: 226, 227 Summa Theologiae: 113, 224, 231 n. 79, 236, 238 n. 99, 240, 242, 260–61, 279, 292 n. 21, 350, 352–54, 367, 368, 369, 370, 377, 378–79 see also Thomism Thomas de Sens: 47 Thomas of Finland, bishop: 35, 36 Thomism: 21, 32, 42–43, 45, 113–14, 355, 383 Tiburtius, Saint: 315 Timothy, Saint: 315 Todi: 228 Tolomeo of Lucca: 226, 228–29, 233, 235 Tommaso Stella, bishop: 141 tonaries, Dominican: 23, 309 n. 29, 311, 338, 339 n. 27, 348–49, 357, 365, 368 n. 13 Tongeren, Notre Dame de Tongres: 232 Toulouse: 31, 229 n. 71, 348 Tournai: 44 translations and translators: 21, 40, 42, 75 n. 9, 112–14, 185–88, 190, 223, 225, 351 Tridentine reform: 135 Trinity: 39, 62, 63, 64, 65, 125 n. 58, 227 liturgy of: 64, 229 n. 71 & 72, 230 n. 73, 239, 258–59, 270, 274, 303 n. 23, 310 troubadours: 348 Troyes: 168, 180, 197–98 Tuscany: 144 Ugolino di Prete Ilario: 230 Ugolino di Vieri: 217

universities: 13, 19, 32, 58, 369, 383 Charles University, Prague: 341 University of Bologna: 34, 43, 47 University of Paris: 18, 31–37, 40, 43, 45–47, 214–15, 218, 224, 338, 341 Urban IV, pope ( Jacques Pantaléon): 22, 213, 214, 216–20, 222–25, 227, 228, 230, 232–35, 240, 241, 243, 245, 328 Urbino: 139 Ursula, Saint see eleven thousand virgins Valmarana family: 146 Vedast (Foster), Saint: 313 Venice: 110, 122, 137, 157, 167, 190–98 San Marco: 195 Santi Giovanni e Paolo: 157 Verdun: 216 Vespers: 102, 232, 244, 256, 258, 263, 270–76, 278 Vicenza, Santa Corona: 20, 142, 146, 159, vielle: 346–47, 366, 376 Villeneuve-L’Archevêque: 168, 198, 200 n. 127 Vincennes: 198, 199 Vincent Ferrer, Saint: 99, 122 Vincent of Beauvais: 24, 185 n. 73, 187, 312 n. 41, 350, 356, 368 n. 14, 371–72, 374 n. 32, 384 Viterbo: 216 Santa Maria della Quercia: 20, 143–45 Santa Maria in Gradi: 20, 144–45 Walter Cloel: 39 n. 22 Walter of Evesham (Walter Odington), abbot: 335 Wigtown: 340 n. 33

4 03

404

i n dex

William de Malveisin, bishop: 340 William Durand see Guillaume Durand William of Auxerre: 222 n. 42 William of Moerbeke, archbishop: 21, 113, 123–29 William of Rouen: 39 n. 22 William of Saint-Amour: 172 n. 22 William of Tocco: 228–29, 260 Znaim: 341

Medieval Monastic Studies

All volumes in this series are evaluated by an Editorial Board, strictly on academic grounds, based on reports prepared by referees who have been commissioned by virtue of their specialism in the appropriate field. The Board ensures that the screening is done independently and without conflicts of interest. The definitive texts supplied by authors are also subject to review by the Board before being approved for publication. Further, the volumes are copyedited to conform to the publisher’s stylebook and to the best international academic standards in the field.

Titles in Series Women in the Medieval Monastic World, ed. by Janet Burton and Karen Stöber (2015) Kathryn E. Salzer, Vaucelles Abbey: Social, Political, and Ecclesiastical Relation­ships in the Borderland Region of the Cambrésis, 1131–1300 (2017) Michael Carter, The Art and Architecture of the Cistercians in Northern England, c. 1300–1540 (2019) Monastic Europe: Medieval Communities, Landscapes, and Settlement, ed. by Edel Bhreathnach, Małgorzata Krasnodębska-D’Aughton, and Keith Smith (2019) Michael Spence, The Late Medieval Cistercian Monastery of Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire: Monastic Administration, Economy, and Archival Memory (2020)

In Preparation Joan Barclay Lloyd, Dominicans and Franciscans in Medieval Rome: History, Architecture, and Art