The library of the Augustinian convent of Soeterbeeck in Deursen has had a turbulent history, just like the convent itself. Up to the point when what remained of the library upon the convent’s dissolution in 1997 was transferred to the library of the Radboud University in Nijmegen, where it is now referred to as the Soeterbeeck Collection, it was in a constant state of shift. Not only did many of the books remain in use far into the twentieth century, books were continually added to and taken from the collection. This state of affairs has prompted several scholars of Nijmegen University who are occupied with the Soeterbeeck Collection, most prominent among whom are Johan Oosterman and Hans Kienhorst, to develop a new approach to monastic libraries, applying to them the principles of archaeological stratigraphy. The following essay will, in large part, be an exploration of the usefulness of employing this model of the archaeology of a book collection.
A look at the history of the convent of Soeterbeeck will immediately make this clear. It originated in 1448, when four women from Nederwetten, on the banks of the Suetbeeck, started a lay convent there after the example of the Modern Devotion. In 1454, the bishop of Liège granted the sisters’ wish to be made Augustinian canonesses regular, which entailed officially accepting the monastic Rule of St. Augustine. Eight years later, the convent moved to Nuenen, where they adopted clausura in 1467. In 1485 the convent of Soeterbeeck acceded to the Chapter of Venlo, a union of Augustinian convents in the spirit of the Modern Devotion, modelled on the Chapter of Windesheim. The convent’s strong bond with the Windesheim tradition is also visible from the fact that from 1452 to 1744 all of Soeterbeeck’s rectors came from the Windesheim monastery of Mariënhage in Woensel. A large part of the books in the Soeterbeeck Collection are originally from Mariënhage and have presumably ended up in Soeterbeeck through its rectors. In 1613, more books were added to Soeterbeeck’s library because of the closing down of the convent of Sint–Annenborch in Rosmalen as a result of political and religious unrest. The convent of Sint–Annenborch had by that time already absorbed the convents of Onze Lieve Vrouwe in de Hage in Helmond and Sint–Annentroon in Driel, so the seven sisters who arrived in Nuenen possibly brought with them books from all three convents. In 1732 the Protestant government forced the sisters to leave Nuenen, and the convent of Soeterbeeck ended up in Deursen, near Ravenstein. A final amalgamation took place in 1954, when the sisters from the convent of Mariëndaal in Sint–Oedenrode moved to Soeterbeeck, taking with them some, though not all, of their books. The convent of Soeterbeeck joined the Papal Congregation of the Canonesses Regular of Windesheim as late as 1971, but in 1997 the remaining sisters finally abandoned the convent in Deursen for a nursing home for elderly monastics in Nuland, handing over their library to the Radboud University (Van Dijk, “Oetmoedich” 13–17).
This brief sketch of the history of the convent of Soeterbeeck and its book collection shows several things. First, it means that the Soeterbeeck Collection bears testimony to five and a half centuries of uninterrupted monastic life, and since the convent had papal approval to keep celebrating the medieval liturgy, the medieval manuscripts continued in use for most of that period (Van Dijk, “Oetmoedich” 18). Second, it means that the collection is made up of manuscripts and printed books of at least five different origins. In its present state, then, the Soeterbeeck Collection is an extremely complex whole, whose parts are not only sometimes very old, but can also be divided into many different layers. This is what makes the archaeological approach so appropriate.
The Soeterbeeck Collection can be seen as an archaeological site. It is the goal of those who are occupied with it to map out its stratification and come to grips with the collection’s dynamics. This is done, first, by a detailed study of individual books and their stratigraphy, the results of which can later be connected to each other to span the collection as a whole. Each book consists of several layers, earliest of which is its original production, but which also include later annotations, corrections, additions, ownership notes, restorations, et cetera. Some of these layers can be dated or related to each other, often across several volumes. One example is the hand of rector Arnoldus Beckers (1772–1810), Soeterbeeck’s last Mariënhage rector, which appears in numerous corrections and notes in a fairly large number of books (Van Dijk, “Oetmoedich” 14). Another example are the loose objects which appear in many of the collection’s printed books and which are potentially meaningful, such as when mortuary cards appear in a book with the Office of the Dead. Mapping out these layers and their relations will certainly yield new insight into the way books were used in the convent of Soeterbeeck, and in a monastic context in general.
It will certainly be worthwhile to put this archaeological approach into practice, and I will try and do so with regard to manuscript Nijmegen, Universiteitsbibliotheek, 463 (olim Deursen, Soeterbeeck, IV 72). Manuscript 463 is a substantial collection of sermons by or attributed to Jordan of Quedlinburg (ca. 1300–1380), arranged in accordance with the liturgical year. Based on its watermarks, it must have been produced somewhere during the latter two decades of the fifteenth century, and an ownership note betrays that it originally belonged to the convent of Mariëndaal in Diest (Kienhorst, “Catalogus” 89). This means it is something of an odd one out, for, although it should be noted that the collection’s printed books include more books from Mariëndaal, among the manuscripts belonging to the Soeterbeeck Collection, only MS 451 (olim IV 17), a combined antiphonary and processional, is also thought to be from Diest (De Beer 38; Kienhorst, “Catalogus” 65).15 It will be remembered that the Mariëndaal books were only transferred to Soeterbeeck in 1954, meaning that, archeologically speaking, this manuscript belongs to the very top layer of the collection, just barely being part of it. In other words, only from 1954 onwards do MS 463 and the other manuscripts have common layers. It is very probable that, upon its acquisition by the sisters, manuscript 463 received its shelf mark, and subsequently disappeared onto the library shelves, never again to be regularly read from, but only to be kept as a relic from the past, a museum piece. Indeed, that is the role it has played since then, for it has been displayed at three exhibitions.16 This means it is probably not possible to connect this manuscript, or the other ones from Mariëndaal, to the other layers and books of the Soeterbeeck Collection in a meaningful way. However, if the archaeological model is truly adequate, it should still be possible to apply it fruitfully to a book like this one, not so much as part of a collection it barely belongs to, but in isolation. That is what I would like to do.
In order to assess the usefulness of the archeological approach, I will examine what manuscript Nijmegen, UB, 463 (olim Deursen, Soeterbeeck, IV 72), in its present state, and as part of the Soeterbeeck Collection, shows about the way it was used by the sisters of the convents of Mariëndaal and Soeterbeeck. The manuscript begs this question because of several peculiarities it shows. As has been said, the sermons in this collection are ordered according to the liturgical year, from the first Sunday in Advent to the sixth Sunday after Trinity, and divided into a winter and a summer part. However, there are numerous oddities. First of all, and most conspicuously, the series of sermons is interrupted on ff. 275v–277r by a papal constitution on the institution of the feast of Trinity. Its position, between the sermons for Trinity Sunday and the Sunday after it, is appropriate enough, but even so the question arises: what is its role in a collection of sermons? Second, something is wrong with the order of some of the sermons, especially in the latter part, where the sermon for the Sunday after Trinity (ff. 267r–275v) precedes that for the feast itself (ff. 280r–281r), and where the sermons for the third Sunday after Whitsun (ff. 294r–300v) are followed by the sermons for the first Sunday after Trinity, i.e. the second Sunday after Whitsun (ff. 300v–307v). Third, some of the rubrics which ascribe sermons to a certain day in the liturgical year have been changed. For example, the sermon on ff. 17r–22v was assigned by its original rubric to “den anderen sondach inden aduent,” but the rubric has been changed into reading “den eersten sondach” (f. 17r21), and there are more spectacular examples in the book’s latter part. The question arises what the reason of these changes are. Add to this the presence of numerous sermons which were probably not written by Jordan of Quedlinburg at all and of a bewildering number of hands, and MS 463 turns out to be a very curious manuscript indeed, worthy of closer investigation.
For although the manuscript in question has not been neglected, it has not yet received extensive scholarly treatment. It has been described in several catalogues (Handschriften 208–209; Kienhorst, “Catalogus” 88–89; Kienhorst, Verbruikt 78–79), it is listed in the Bibliotheca Neerlandica Manuscripta, in the online catalogue of Medieval Manuscripts in Dutch Collections, and in the repertory of Middle Dutch monastic manuscripts by Karl Stooker and Theo Verbeij (142, no. 415), and it is mentioned in Gerrit Zieleman’s 1978 dissertation on Middle Dutch Epistle and Gospel Sermons (3n). Its contents are listed, although not entirely accurately, in the Repertorium of Middle Dutch sermons preserved in manuscripts from before 1550 (Sherwood–Smith et al. 6: 221–25). Its decoration has been very briefly discussed by Richard de Beer (38), but a more extensive treatment has been given to that and other aspects, such as contents, hands and watermarks, by Rudolf van Dijk, O.Carm., and L.J.A. van der Laar, C.Ss.R, in their unpublished descriptions of the manuscript, the latter of which also includes an edition of the first sermon for Palm Sunday (ff. 157v–160r). Several general articles have been written on the convent of Mariëndaal and its books (Daniëls 139–145; Handschriften 14–200; Persoons 4.5: 1337–43; Vromans 178–198). Finally, an interesting source would also have been the prize–winning paper on the Latin and Dutch manuscripts of Jordan of Quedlinburg written by one Juvabit as part of a competition offered by the Royal Academy of Dutch Language and Literature, but of that, only the reviews by Edward Rombauts, Jan van Mierlo, S.J., and Willem van Eeghem were ever published (412–22). Of course, although our particular manuscript was not known to Robrecht Lievens when he wrote his dissertation on Jordanus van Quedlinburg in de Nederlanden (1958), that book, which also includes editions of some of the sermons, remains a work of first resource, providing, as it does, valuable information not only on the reception of all of Jordan’s works in the Low Countries, but also on the pseudepigraphical sermons, a topic further discussed by Albertus Ampe, S.J. (1963).17 Despite the number of sources just mentioned – amounting to numerous brief descriptions in general works of reference, a somewhat inaccurate table of contents in the repertory of Middle Dutch sermons, one outdated but still useful book on Jordan’s works in the Netherlands, and two unpublished descriptions – manuscript 463 and its contents have not yet been subject to the kind of substantive investigation I intend to carry out.
has been said, our main question is what manuscript Nijmegen, UB, 463,
in its present state, and as part of the Soeterbeeck Collection, shows
about the way it was used by the sisters of the convent of Mariëndaal.
The first step towards answering this question will be to prepare an
exhaustive description of the manuscript and its contents, for which
Van Dijk’s can serve as preliminary basis (see manuscript description). The next step will consist of a
few general remarks on the convent of Mariëndaal, its book production,
and the position occupied by the Mariëndaal books in the Soeterbeeck
Collection, and on Jordan of Quedlinburg, his sermons, and their extraordinary
popularity in the Low Countries, in order to put the manuscript in its
context. I will then proceed to address the manuscript’s remarkable
features, such as the wrongly ordered sermons or the papal constitution
already mentioned, and see whether they can be explained, if applicable,
in the light of the archeological model, or, in turn, shed light on
the manuscript’s history. In the end, it is hoped that an account
of how the manuscript came into being, and how it ended up in the state
it now is in, will shed light on the part it played in the lives of
the sisters of Mariëndaal, and thereby on the sisters themselves.
The Convent of Mariëndaal and its Books
A medieval ownership note in manuscript 463 says its belonged to “den susteren van sinte | mariendale binnen diest Achter sinte Annen cappelle” (f. 2r4–5). The convent of Mariëndaal originated in Diest in 1419, when Arnold Rumelants donated a house to the Windesheim priory of Bethlehem in Herent, near Louvain, for the express purpose of starting a convent of Augustinian canonesses regular there. The building was located in the Scherverstraat, behind the chapel devoted to the memory of St. Anna. Two Sisters of the Common Life from Nijmegen made up its first community, and more sisters joined in the years after. In 1422 the bishop of Liège officially declared them canonesses regular, and after that, the community and its convent continued to grow. Of course, the Reformation had a negative impact on the convent, both in terms of its spiritual and its financial state, but it was only in 1796 that the sisters were driven from their home in Diest, first moving to Eersel, but settling permanently in the castle of Henkenshagen in Sint–Oedenrode in 1801. In 1846 the old convent in Diest was bought by the Cellites, and in 1879 the Mariëndaal sisters moved to another castle in Sint–Oedenrode, that of Dommenrode (Handschriften 199). As already mentioned, the remaining sisters of Mariëndaal, twenty–seven in total, moved to the convent of Soeterbeeck in 1954, taking with them books and other possessions. This amalgamation was possible because the convent of Mariëndaal was spiritually closely related to that of Soeterbeeck. Both convents had accepted the Rule of St. Augustine, were imbued with the spirit of the Modern Devotion, and though neither of them was ever officially admitted to the Chapter of Windesheim, both had strong bonds with monasteries that were: Soeterbeeck with Mariënhage, and Mariëndaal with Bethlehem (Van Dijk, “Handschriften” 64; “Oetmoedich” 15–16).
the period when manuscript 463 was produced, then, the convent of Mariëndaal
was still a relatively young community, located in Diest. It is well
known from contemporary accounts that the sisters wrote, illuminated,
and bound manuscripts, both for their own use and for commercial purposes,
although it must be added that they did not do all three things for
every book. Manuscripts produced by sisters from the convent of Mariëndaal
were not only bought by parishes, brotherhoods and religious communities
in Diest, but also by communities from elsewhere (Handschriften
14–29). Books known with some degree of certainty to have been produced
in Mariëndaal include both liturgical books, such as a breviary and
a gradual, and other manuscripts, in both Latin and Middle Dutch. Translations
of important religious writings, such as those by Henry Suso, David
of Augsburg, and Jacobus de Voragine, and collections of sermons seem
to be dominate among the manuscripts that have come down to us (Handschriften
200–214), and our manuscript 463 can be considered a typical example
of that, containing, as it does, sermons by Jordan of Quedlinburg.
Jordan of Quedlinburg and his Sermons
Jordan of Quedlinburg (ca. 1300–1380) entered the Augustinian monastery of his birthplace ca. 1313 and studied at the university in Bologna from 1317 to 1319, when he went to the university of Paris to obtain the lectorate in theology (1319–1322). Afterwards, he went to Erfurt and Magdeburg to hold several high administrative, educational, and legal offices, among which several terms as provincial of Saxony and Thuringa. His administrative duties seem to have ceased after 1351, and he died in Vienne ca. 1380 (Lievens 1–4).
Jordan is the author of numerous theological works in Latin, a significant number of which were also translated into Middle Dutch. His most popular work were the Meditationes de Passione Christi, which consisted of sixty–five sections distributed across the seven canonical hours. They were learned treatises on important incidents of the Passion of Our Lord, accompanied by instructions on how to implement them in daily life in order to become more similar to Christ. These articles were later also included, as nos. 189–254, in Jordan’s most extensive work: the Opus Postillarum et Sermonum de Tempore, a collection of 460 postils and sermons arranged according to the liturgical year. This work dealt with the readings of Mass, and each Sunday and each feast from the temporale, the Proper of Seasons, was given its own postils, homiletic expositions on the text as a whole, and sermons, exegetical discussions of particular passages. For this text, Jordan made very extensive use of other sources, without any attempt at originality. Another important text was Jordan’s Expositio Dominicae Orationis, a treatise on the Lord’s Prayer written while he was lector at Erfurt, which was also adapted into the Opus Postillarum, as nos. 289–298. The complete work was printed in Strasbourg in 1483 (Lievens 6–19).18
The two major works, the Meditationes and the Opus Postillarum, were extremely popular in the Low Countries, especially in circles influenced by the Modern Devotion. In the Middle Dutch translation of the Opus Postillarum, the postils and the treatise on the Lord’s Prayer were almost always left out, and the Meditationes were restored to their original position as an independent text, known as Die lxv artikelen vander Passien ons Heren. Even so, not all sermons were translated into Middle Dutch, but, as if to compensate for the loss, several other sermons which were not by Jordan (or at least do not appear in the Strasbourg edition of the Opus Postillarum) were included (Lievens 27–51). Manuscript 463 is an example of a book with an extensive selection from the Middle Dutch translation of parts of the Opus Postillarum which only includes the sermons.
It is interesting that, whereas the Latin text of Jordan’s sermons is mostly found in manuscripts from monasteries, their Middle Dutch translation is almost exclusively found in manuscripts from nunneries (Stooker and Verbeij 1: 228), as is the case with manuscript 463. Gerrit Zieleman, in his dissertation on Middle Dutch sermons, concludes therefore that the translations of Jordan’s sermons, and other, similar texts, were specifically meant for nuns, lay brothers, and the laity in general, and that they (or their Latin originals) were not used for preaching (3). Van Dijk further specifies this and suggests they were read privately, or publically in the refectory, during collation or even during work (“Handschriften” 77; “Oetmoedich” 24). This means that, when attempting to situate manuscript 463 in the lives of the sisters, we can restrict ourselves to those particular situations.
is absolutely clear that MS 463 was a manuscript intended for public,
not for private use. This is not only evident from the script, which
is eminently legible (as has already been remarked by Van Dijk (“Mnl.”
1)), the cover, which is fairly solid and meant to stand heavy use,
and the presence of tabs (now gone) for ease of reference, but most
clearly from the fact that the book’s head edge has an edge title:
“Meester Joerdanus sermoenen.” An edge title helps
to identify the book, which would only be necessary if it were part
of a fairly large collection. Sisters’ private collections could never
have been large, so they would not have needed the edge title. We are
dealing, then, with a book that was used publically, not privately.
More indications of this can be found, and they will be discussed below.
The Order of the Sermons in Manuscript 463
Having briefly looked at the historical context in which manuscript 463 was produced, and at the background of its contents, we can now turn to a discussion of the problems presented by that particular manuscript, and see how the archeological method can help us in solving them. The following discussions are dependent upon my description of the manuscript.
As said before, something is wrong with the order in which the sermons appear in the manuscript. This is noteworthy, given that the work is structured in specific accordance with the liturgical calendar. The first problem is that the sermon for the first Sunday after Trinity (which is the second Sunday after Whitsun, the Sunday in the Octave of Corpus Christi) on ff. 267r–275v is followed first by a papal constitution on Trinity Sunday (ff. 275v–277r), and then by a sermon for Trinity Sunday (ff. 278r–281r). The reason for this situation, which is pragmatic rather than intentional, has to do with the way the manuscript is made up, and with the with the way it was produced. From the codicological description, it appears that the manuscript is made up of four blocks, separate production units which nonetheless belong together, in that their positions cannot be changed in relation to each other, and they are in the right liturgical order. The second block ends with f. 277, and the third block starts at f. 278. The sermon for Trinity Sunday, and the sermons following it, have been written in a different hand, with a different lay–out, on different paper than the preceding texts. Within their respective blocks, the sermons’ position is correct (see below), and the quires have not been bound in the wrong order. The only thing is that the second block ends with a sermon that is supposed to come after the one which opens the third block. What the reason for this is, is impossible to say.
disturbed order of the sermons which follow the sermon for Trinity Sunday
have to do with their very confused rubrication, which will be discussed
Rubrication in Manuscript 463
One of the most remarkable things about MS 463 is its rubrication. Each text in the manuscript, both the sermons and the papal constitution, is headed by a rubric indicating its nature and its position in the liturgical year. For instance, a sermon on a verse from the Gospel for the first Sunday in Advent is rubricated as belonging to the first Sunday in Advent. However, several of these ascriptions have been corrected or changed at a later date. Because (being translated from a text which specifically deals with the Proper of Seasons) the liturgical order in which the sermons appear is an important characteristic, and also a significant pointer to the way the manuscript was supposed to be used, it is worthwhile to further investigate this. A complete list of all the texts presented in this manuscript, together with transcriptions of all the rubrics and their different layers (insofar as they can be reconstructed), is presented in the codicological description of the manuscript. In what follows, I will discuss the implications of what is found there.
In order to compare the ascriptions in the rubrics to actual liturgical practice, I have compared the pericopes alluded to in MS 463 to a Missal that is more or less contemporary with it. MS 463 is dated, on the basis of its watermarks, to ca. 1484–1500 (Kienhorst, “Catalogus” 89), and at that time the city of Diest and the convent of Mariëndaal belonged to the prince–bishopric of Liège, just like Soeterbeeck.19 I have therefore taken the pericopes from a Missale Leodiensis that was printed in Spires in 1502 (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Rar. 2162 a). The results can be found in the appendix.
In order to interpret the significance of the changes made to the rubrics, I have also compared the ascriptions to the pericopes in a Missale Romanum from after 1570, when, following the Council of Trent (1545–1563), pope Pius V issued the new Missal for the Tridentine rite (Thurston, pars. 6–7).20 It turns out that by far the most corrections can at once be explained as having been made in accordance with the Tridentine rite as prescribed by this new Roman Missal. This means that the rubrics in MS 463 bear testimony to a liturgical reform, and that the book remained in use after that reform.
For instance, when we look at the Sundays in Advent, we can see that the corrections to the rubrics all serve to move the sermons one Sunday back, in exact correspondence to what happened to the pericopes. John 1.19–28 had originally been the Gospel for the fourth Sunday in Advent, but it had been moved to become the pericope for the third Sunday, and therefore the sermon for the fourth Sunday in Advent, on John 1.26, was moved to the third Sunday. The pericope that had originally belonged to the third Sunday in Advent (Mt. 11.2–10) had been in turn been moved to the second Sunday, so that the sermon treating Mt. 11.5 (ff. 22v–28v), which had originally been assigned to the third, was now reassigned to the second Sunday in Advent.
The only exceptions are the sermons for Palm Sunday (ff. 157v–164v), which are about Mt. 21.8, whereas the Missale Leodiensis prescribes John 12.12–16 as the Gospel reading on that day (presumably because Mt. 21.1–9 had already been read on the first Sunday in Advent). In this case, the rubric was already in accordance with the new Missal, for there the pericope for Palm Sunday is Mt. 21.1–9. However, since both fragments are accounts of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, the discrepancy is not very meaningful.
It is not necessary to exhaustively discuss all cases. However, the corrections on ff. 281v, 284v, 289v, and further are particularly problematic, because the rubrics there have been subjected to several layers of correction. It is necessary for a proper understanding of what happened to identify and interpret these layers and to place them in their chronological order.
F. 281v is the beginning of a sermon on Luke 14.16. The rubric, as it originally was, said that this was “Opten sondach als men dewangelie helt vanden groten auont/mael sermoenn [sic].” This is true, since Luke 14.16 is the first verse of Christ’s parable on the rich man who made a great supper and invited many people (Luke 14.16–24). However, since the original rubric only identifies the Gospel reading which this sermon is about, and not to the liturgical day when that pericope is read, more information was needed for the sake of clarity. (Of course, the original rubric could also be (inaccurately) taken to imply that this sermon was to be read on the Feast of Corpus Christi, for more on which, see below.) According to the rite used in the prince–bishopric of Liège previous to the Council of Trent, Luke 14.16–24 was read on the second Sunday after the Octave of Whitsun, i.e. the third Sunday after Whitsun. The rubric was clarified accordingly; specifications as to which Sunday was meant were added to the original rubric in small script in red ink. The result was that the rubric now read: “Opten ijden sondach nae beloken sinxen als men dewangelie helt vanden groten auont|mael sermoenn [sic].” The second Sunday after the Sunday after Whitsunday (Trinity Sunday) is the third Sunday after Whitsunday, so this is perfectly in accordance with pre–Tridentine usage in the diocese of Liège. The same hand (probably) also added a note at the bottom of the page, saying: “Dit met dese twee dieter nae volghen machmen lesen binnen | der octauen vanden heilighen sacramente want sij daer al op draghen.” This indicates that this sermon and the two following could also be read during the Octave of Corpus Christi, and since the parable of the rich man and his great supper is traditionally applied to the Eucharist, that is appropriate enough.
There is a second layer of corrections, however, for at a later stage, parts of both the original rubric and the clarifying additions were crossed out with black ink to yield the following text: “Opten iiden sondach nae sinxen | sermoenn [sic].” The rubric now says that this sermon should be read on the second Sunday after Whitsun, i.e. the Sunday in the Octave of Corpus Christi. Since, according to the Tridentine Rite, Luke 14.16–24 should be read during Mass on the Octave of Corpus Christi, we are here probably once more dealing with the implementation of the stipulations of the new Roman Missal of 1570. The note at the bottom of the page has also been corrected, for although it has not been crossed out, a different hand has added (in red ink that has partly turned black) a few extra specifications and changed met to mer, so that the note now reads: “Dit eerste sermoen salmen opden sondach lesen mer dese twee dieter nae volghen machmen lesen binnen | der octauen vanden heilighen sacramente want sij daer al op draghen.” The text is not entirely clear, but if we assume that the writing of these words is at least roughly contemporary with the second correction to the rubric, then the Sunday referred to by opden sondach would be the same Sunday as indicated there, and that means that this sermon should be read on the Sunday in the Octave of Corpus Christi and that the two sermons following it could be read on any day during the Octave (for more on which, see below). The same hand has added “meester jordanus” to the rubric, and that seems to indicate that our line of reasoning is correct and that the person writing the corrections to the note at the bottom of the page was also occupied with the rubric, which means that the second correction to the rubric and the correction to this note are indeed contemporaneous. However, even if the two types of corrections are not contemporaneous, they achieve the same effect: making a text that was in accordance with pre–Tridentine usage (Luke 14.16–24 on the third Sunday after Whitsun) agree with the Tridentine rite (Luke 14.16–24 on the Sunday in the Octave of Corpus Christi).
F. 284v presents a similarly chaotic picture. The original rubric read: “dit is dat ander sermoen dwelc daer is vanden auontmael des heili |ghen sacraments.”21 At face value, it could (just like the previous rubric as it originally stood) be very easily mistaken as referring to the Feast of Corpus Christi. What it says, however, is that it is the second sermon on the Eucharist, without any reference to its position on the liturgical calendar, but instead clearly referring back to the previous sermon. Since this is the second sermon on Luke 14.16–24, and since that pericope was (in the pre–Tridentine rite of the Missale Leodiensis) read on the third Sunday after Whitsun, that will have been the day when it was supposed to be read. However, part of the rubric has been crossed out with black ink (similar to what happened to the rubric on f. 281), and now reads: “vanden auontmael des heili |ghen sacraments.” A note at the bottom of the page, in the same red ink turning black as that appearing on f. 281, and which we tentatively judged to be contemporaneous with the crossing out of the rubrics, reads: “Opten heilighen sacraments dach meester | iordanus sermoen,” to which the same hand in the same ink (probably immediately) added twe between iordanus and sermoen, simultaneously altering “sermoen” to “sermoennen [sic]” to go with the numeral. What does this mean? This sermon, which was originally ascribed to the third Sunday after Whitsun (by saying that it was the second sermon on the Eucharist), has been reassigned to Corpus Christi. This is done both explicitly (by the note) and implicitly, for crossing out the statement in the rubric that this is already the second sermon on Luke 14.16 obscures the fact that this sermon was originally supposed to be read on the same day (namely the third Sunday after Whitsun) as the previous one. This is also what the addition of twe in the note does, because it takes this and the following sermon as a group, excluding the previous one. This had already been done by the note on f. 281v, which also took this second sermon and the third one together, as discussed above. There are several curious things, however. First, the revised note on f. 281v assigns this and the following sermon to the entire Octave of Corpus Christi, which is in contradiction to its specific ascription to the feast of Corpus Christi on this page. Second, Luke 14.16–24 is not the Gospel for Corpus Christi at all, neither in the pre–Tridentine Missale Leodiensis nor in the Roman Missal of 1570. As said before, the new rite stipulated that this pericope was to be read on the Sunday in the Octave of Corpus Christi, and whereas the rubric and the note on f. 281v were altered in such a way that the correct Sunday was indicated, that has not successfully been done here on f. 284v. It is not clear to me why the corrector went to such great length to distinguish this and the following sermon from the previous one in the first place, since treating them as one would not have introduced this new problem, but it is possible that this is simply due to the suitability of this pericope for Corpus Christi on the one hand, and confusion surrounding the liturgical calendar on the other.
The next sermon, on f. 289v, is more straightforward. The original rubric simply read “Dat derde sermoen” (for the third Sunday after Whitsun), until the second syllable of derde was erased and the hand using red ink turning black added an in front, causing the rubric to read: “Dat ander sermoen” (for Corpus Christi).
What follows on f. 294r and further is sometimes more difficult to explain. The rubric on f. 294r originally read: “Opden derden sondach nae sinxen dat ierste sermoen.” The same hand as the one which added the specifications on f. 281v here inserted beloken, “low” (in the sense of “Low Sunday”), between nae and sinxen in red ink. The sermon in question discusses Luke 15.10, and that verse is part of pericope Luke 15.1–10, which was originally (according to the Missale Leodiensis) read on the fourth Sunday after Whitsun. The rubricator forgot the all–important word beloken, causing the rubric to place the sermon one Sunday too early, and that needed correcting. Afterwards, the word beloken was erased again, this time because the new Missal stipulated that Luke 15.1–10 was read on the third Sunday after Whitsun. Here we see that the original rubric had to be corrected twice, in order to be brought in accordance first with the Missale Leodiensis, and then with the new Missale Romanum. So far so good, but that is not what happened to the rubric on f. 300v.
The original reading of the rubric on f. 300v has partly been erased, but because the guide rubric is still visible in the inner margin, we can be sure that it read: “Opden vierden sondach nae sinxenen dat | ierste sermoen.” The sermon deals with Luke 6.36, but the pericope Luke 6.36–42 was supposed to be read on the fourth Sunday after Whitsun, and so, in accordance with what the Missale Leodiensis stipulates, the word “beloken” was added interlineally before “sinxenen.” Again, the rubricator made a mistake, which was corrected by an interlinear addition. The next layer is the erasure of “vierden,” and its replacement by “eersten,” ascribing this sermon to the first Sunday after the Octave of Whitsun. This is probably another attempt at bringing the manuscript in accordance with the Missal of 1570, but it was not fully implemented. The pericope for the first Sunday after the Octave of Whitsun, which is the Sunday in the Octave of Corpus Christi, is Luke 14.16–24. What happened is that the second corrector forgot to delete the addition of “beloken” by the first corrector, for the pericope for the first Sunday after Whitsun in the Tridentine Missal (which was, because of the higher rank of Trinity Sunday, in practice always read on weekdays between Trinity Sunday and Corpus Christi) is Luke 6.36–42. The rubricator made a mistake, which the first corrector emended, but the second corrector corrected only the original rubric, without the first correction, and the result is a discrepancy of one week with the new Missale Romanum. The exact same thing happened with the rubric on f. 314v, and it is not necessary to describe that process at anymore length. The rubric on f. 307v, however, was emended correctly, as can be seen from Appendix 2.
will be clear that the implementation (albeit imperfect, in the case
of ff. 300v and 314v) of the Tridentine liturgical reform, provides
us with an explanation for the disorder of the manuscript’s final
sermons. Table 2 presents a survey of the rubrics as they were intended
(but not always written, at first) originally, and as they were intended
(but not always executed, in the end) after the publication of the new
Missal in 1570.
Table 2: Comparison of the (intended readings of the) original rubrics and their corrections
|Folios||Original rubric||Present rubric|
|281v–284v||Sunday 3 Whitsun||Sunday Octave Corpus Christi|
|284v–293v||Sunday 3 Whitsun||Corpus Christi|
|294r–300v||Sunday 4 Whitsun||Sunday 3 Whitsun|
|300v–307v||Sunday 5 Whitsun||Sunday 1 Whitsun|
|307v–314v||Sunday 6 Whitsun||Sunday 4 Whitsun|
|314v–319v||Sunday 7 Whitsun||Sunday 5 Whitsun|
According to their present rubrics, which are (or were intended to be) in line with the Missale Romanum of 1570, the sermons appear to hop back and forth, but as the manuscript was produced at the end of the fifteenth century, in accordance with the pre–Tridentine Missale Leodiensis, the order of the sermons was perfectly regular (except, of course, for the jump from the Sunday in the Octave of Corpus Christi to Trinity Sunday on ff. 267r–281r, which has been discussed above).
It has already been said that
it cannot be doubted that MS 463 was a book meant for public, not private
use. The fact that it was at one point meticulously brought in accordance
with the new Tridentine liturgy, further underscores this. The task
of emending all rubrics according to the new liturgy must have been
a fairly laborious one, the result of all the crossed out rubrics and
additions which this emendation entailed is less than pleasing, aesthetically,
and one of the side–results is that the order in which the sermons appear
has completely been shorn of its original logic. Why would agreement
with the liturgy matter so much to a private user that it would be considered
worthwhile to subject the book to such a radical revision? A private
user might have tried, instead of marring the book by so many kinds
of corrections, to find the appropriate sermon on her own, but apparently,
it was thought essential for the rubrics in this book to indicate the
right feast or Sunday, so that, even after the liturgical reform of
1570, the sisters could be sure that each sermon would be read on its
own day. As has already been said, this indicates public reading, of
the kind done during meals, collation, and work (Van Dijk, “Handschriften”
The Papal Constitution in Manuscript 463
Another pointer to the use to which manuscript 463 was put presents itself when looking at the question what the reason is that there is, on ff. 275v14–277r, closing off the manuscript’s second block, a papal constitution on the institution of Trinity Sunday. The constitution in question is a Middle Dutch translation of Rerum omnium creatricem beatissimam trinitatem, and its rubric reads: “Dit es die bulle vander insettinghen der feesten der | heilegher dryuuldicheit ghegeuen van onsen heilighen vader | den paus gheheeten Benedictus die derthienste” (f. 275v14–16). This Benedict XIII was Pedro de Luna, an antipope, who was ordained on 28 September 1394 and who died in 1423, still maintaining that he was the true pope although he had been denounced by both the Council of Pisa in 1409 and the Council of Constance in 1417 (Duffy 170; 403). The constitution is “[g]hegeuen te januen opten eersten dach van Julius int | elfste iaer ons bissdoms” (f. 277r20–21), that is in Genoa, on 1 July 1405. Its most important point is the order “dat die feeste | der alder salichster drijuuldicheit tsondaechs nae sinxenen | alle die werelt dore met allen alselcker hooghelijcheit | als kersmisse paeschen sacraments dach ende ander iaerlijc|ke ende principale hooghtijden worden beghaen ende gheuiert” (f. 276v8–12), fixing the feast of Trinity on the first Sunday after Whitsun for the universal Church.22 The constitution also stipulates what indulgences can be earned on Trinity Sunday and during the rest of its Octave. First, by showing remorse, confessing, and attending First Vespers, Matins, Mass, Prime, Tierce, Sext, None, Second Vespers, and Compline in church on Trinity Sunday, the same indulgences as granted by pope Urban IV (29 August 1261–2 October 1264) for doing the same on Corpus Christi are earned (f. 276v20–29).23 Second, by attending all services on the three days following Trinity Sunday, the same indulgences as granted by Urban IV for doing the same during the Octave of Corpus Christi are earned (ff. 276v30–277r4).24 Because the feast of Corpus Christi is celebrated on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday, the remaining four days of the Octave of Trinity coincide with the first four days of the Octave of Corpus Christi. By especially commemorating the Trinity while celebrating the office of Corpus Christi, an indulgence of fifty days per day can be earned (ff. 277r5–13), in addition, presumably, to those which had already been granted by Urban IV. To explain what this meant, since the text as it stood did not specify what indulgences Urban had granted, an explanatory note was later added in the lower margin of f. 277r, reading: “Te weten ter yrster vesperen te <mettenen ende te> missen ende ter iider ves|peren telken C daghen Tot den compeeten [sic] xl daghen ende | tot den anderen cleynen ghetijden elcks xl dagen | Item die binnen der octauen hoert mettenen misse vesperen ende | allen die ghetijden vanden dage die verdient C daghe af.”25 This means that, during the Octave of Trinity, you could get two thousand days in total detracted from your time in Purgatory.26 Even though Pedro de Luna had later been denounced as an antipope, this will no doubt have been deeply comforting to the sisters of Mariëndaal.
The question remains, however, why this papal document was included in a collection of sermons. It should be noted that there is, in fact, one other manuscript with sermons by Jordan of Quedlinburg which includes the constitution: Ghent, Universiteitsbibliotheek, 1268. This particular manuscript was written, according to its colophon, by the Cellites of Antwerp in 1513, and the constitution can be found on ff. 221v–223r, where it is followed, as in MS 463, by what Lievens calls sermon c (Lievens 234; Sherwood–Smith et al. 5: 351). Dealing with Trinity Sunday, its location in both these manuscripts, preceding a sermon for Trinity Sunday (on ff. 278r–281r in MS 463), is appropriate enough, but that does not explain its inclusion. However, there are some interesting circumstances surrounding Rerum omnium creatricem beatissimam trinitatem that go some way towards doing that. First, tradition has it that, while in Genoa, Pedro de Luna heard cardinal Pierre d’Ailly (1350–1420) preach on the Holy Trinity, and, being greatly impressed by the sermon, he forthwith decided to fix the feast of Trinity on the Sunday after Whitsun and to increase its liturgical rank (Coates et al. 1: 137; Hook 96; Alliaco f. z2v).27 This means that, from the start, there has been a strong connection between this particular constitution and sermons. Second, there are several examples of (manuscript and printed) books where Latin text of the constitution accompanies the sermon by d’Ailly which is supposed to have triggered it, e.g. Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, A IX 1 (Steinmann 257), Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, 9291 (Gheyn 212), New York, Columbia University Library, Western Manuscripts 31 (Kristeller 299), and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 178(2), so apparently it was a common combination. In fact, Douce 178(2), a late fifteenth–century copy of Pierre’s Tractatus et sermones, was printed by the Brethren of the Common Life in Brussels (Coates et al. 1: 137), and that means that there is at least one more example of this constitution being included in a book of sermons produced in the context of the Modern Devotion, and although the sermon on Trinity Sunday in MSS 463 and Ghent, Universiteitsbibliotheek, 1268 is not the one by Pierre d’Ailly,28 these precedents makes its inclusion there less surprising. Apparently it was common for this constitution to appear in a book of sermons.
explanatory note added at the end of the constitution reveals something
about the way MS 463 was used. Judging by its script (hybrida,
as opposed to the main text’s cursiva), the colour of its ink
(black, as opposed to the brown of the main text), and its position
on the page (in the lower margin) it is a later addition. We need not
dwell overmuch on the question whether the sisters of Mariëndaal consciously
supported as true pope someone who had officially long since been denounced
as antipope. It is likely that the sisters were not very much aware
of the problem of popes and antipopes, and so the presence of the note
probably does not say anything about the way the convent of Mariëndaal
viewed the intricacies of the Western Schism. Rather, its presence implies
that the constitution’s words on indulgences were considered relevant
enough to be complemented, and its stipulations probably acted upon,
some unspecified time after the production of the original manuscript.
This means that MS 463 was read, that its contents directly influenced
the sisters’ lives, and that the ideas of penance and indulgences
formed an important part of that.
By investigating manuscript Nijmegen, Universiteitsbiblitoheek, 463, answers have been provided to three questions regarding its make–up and its contents. The additions and changes to the rubrics bear testimony to the liturgical reform that was the result of the publication of the new Roman Missal in 1570 after the Council of Trent. The disorder of the sermons at the back of the book has also been explained as a result of this reform, and of the manuscript’s division into blocks. The inclusion of the papal constitution on ff. 275v14–277r has been made more understandable by pointing, first, to the constitution’s origin as a reaction to a sermon, and, second, to its precedents.
In the process of answering these questions, some light has been shed on the use that has been made of MS 463. First, the fact that the book’s rubrics were laboriously brought into accordance with the Missal of 1570, means that it was still used almost a hundred years after its original production ca. 1485–1500. The presence of a note further specifying the indulgences that can be earned by celebrating Trinity Sunday and its Octave, clearly not written simultaneously with the text of the papal constitution it accompanies, also points to the prolonged use of the book. This is significant. Instead of replacing or reusing an outdated book, the sisters of Mariëndaal adapted it to new times. This means that MS 463 is an exponent of the convent’s spirituality of humility and poverty. Second, it is entirely clear from the book’s general appearance, its cover, its script, its tabs and its edge title, that it was used publically, not privately. The meticulous correcting of the rubrics to bring them into accordance with new liturgical practice only provides further evidence. Strict accordance with liturgical practice probably would not matter as much to a private user, and the sloppiness that results from the presence of several layers of corrections would perhaps deter a private owner from applying them. Not aesthetics, but liturgical conscientiousness governed this choice. The only possible conclusion is that manuscript 463 was probably a book meant to be read aloud from on Sundays and feasts, perhaps during meals in the refectory, or during work, as was usual in monasteries. Again, the book is representative of monastic spirituality in general, and of the spirit of the Modern Devotion and the Chapter of Windesheim in particular. MS 463 was part of the spiritual food enjoyed by the Augustinian canonesses regular of Mariëndaal.
conclusions have been arrived at partly be means of an archeological
approach to the manuscript at hand. Studying the layering of the manuscript’s
rubrics revealed that it is due to the implementation of the Tridentine
Liturgy, nearly a century after the production of the original book,
and viewing the note at the end of the papal constitution as a separate
entry, showed that the stipulations it contains were taken seriously
and probably acted upon. In short, the archaeological approach has given
us insight, through manuscript 463, into the lives of the sisters of
Mariëndaal. As expected, it has not been possible, at least not within
the limited scope of this assignment, to connect this book in any more
meaningful way to the other books of the Soeterbeeck Collection than
by stating the fact that it was acquired by the convent of Soeterbeeck
in 1954. For that, the book’s date of acquiring is too late, and the
manuscript’s function afterwards too limited, it being little more
than a museum piece. However, as far as the method’s application to
this particular book is concerned, it has been successful.
Alliaco, Petrus de. Tractatus et Sermones: Straßburg 1490. Frankfurt: Minerva: 1971.
Ampe, A. “Een Vernieuwd Onderzoek omtrent Enkele ‘Onechte’ Sermoenen van Jordanus van Quedlinburg.” Handelingen 17 (1963): 13–46.
Bainvel, Jean. “Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 1 Dec. 2010 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07163a.htm.
Beer, R.W.M. de. “De Verluchting van de Soeterbeeckse Handschriften.” Kienhorst et al. 31–39.
Bejczy, István P.. “Jordan of Quedlinburg’s Tractatus virtutum et vitiorum (Opus Postillarum, Sermons 439–41).” Augustiniana 57 (2007): 73–88.
Bray, Nadia, ed. Opus Postillarum et Sermonum de Evangeliis dominicalibus: De Nativitate Domini – Opus Ior: Sermones Selecti de Filiatione Divina. By Jordan of Quedlinburg. Corpus Philosophorum Teutonicorum Medii Aevi 7.3. Hamburg: Meiner, 2008.
Coates, Alan, et al. A Catalogue of Books Printed in the Fifteenth Century Now in the Bodleian Library. 6 vols. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006.
Daniëls, P. “Het Klooster Mariëndael te Diest.” Bijdragen tot de Geschiedenis 4 (1905): 139–143.
Dijk, Rudolf Th.M. van. “Handschriften in de Oude Bibliotheek van de Priorij Soeterbeeck.” Priorij Soeterbeeck te Deursen. Ed. Harry Tummers. Nijmeegse Kunsthistorische Cahiers 6. Nijmegen: Nijmgen UP, 2000. 55–78.
–––. “Een Mnl. Handschrift met sermoenen van Jordanus v. Quedlinburg: Hs. Deursen, Klooster Soeterbeeck, IV 72.” Description of the manuscript.
–––. “‘Dat Oetmoedich Fundament ende Privilegie der Susteren:’ Het Leven van een Reguliere Kanunnikes in Soeterbeeck.” Kienhorst, Hans, et al. 11–25.
Duffy, Eamon. Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes. 3rd ed. New Haven: Yale UP, 2006.
Gheyn, J. van den. Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique. Vol. 5. Brussels: Lamertin, 1905.
Handschriften uit Diestse Kerken en Kloosters. Diestsche Cronycke 6. Diest: Stedelijk Museum, 1983.
Herten, Marjolein van. “Overzicht Watermerken in de Soeterbeeck–Handschriften.” 27 July 2005. [Unpublished.]
Hook, Walter Farquhar. An Ecclesiastical Bibliography. Vol. 1. London: Rivington, 1845.
Kempeneer, Albert. “Mechlin.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 30 November 2010 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10104a.htm.
Kienhorst, Hans. “Catalogus van de Handschriften.” Kienhorst et al. 49–145.
–––. Verbruikt Verleden: Handschriftfragmenten in en uit Boeken van Klooster Soeterbeeck. Nijmeegse Kunsthistorische Cahiers 17. Edam: Orange House, 2007.
Kienhorst, Hans, et al. Rijkdom in Eenvoud: Laatmiddeleeuwse Handschriften uit Klooster Soeterbeeck. Nijmeegse Kunsthistorische Cahiers 11. Rotterdam: Nijmegen UP, 2005.
Kristeller, Paul Oskar. Iter Italicum: A Finding List of Uncatalogued or Incompletely Catalogued Humanistic Manuscripts of the Renaissance in Italian and Other Libraries. Vol. 5. Leiden: Brill, 1993.
Laar, L.J.A. van de. “Preken van Jordanus (in het klooster Mariëndaal).” Description of the manuscript. [Unpublished.]
Lievens, Robrecht. Jordanus van Quedlinburg in de Nederlanden: Een Onderzoek van de Handschriften. Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Taal– en Letterkunde Reeks VI 82. Gent: Secretarie der Academie, 1958.
Missale Leodiensis Ecclesie. Spires, 1502. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Rar. 2162 a. 28 November 2010 http://nbn–resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:12–bsb00014674–8.
Missale Romanum. Antwerp, 1577. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Liturg. 842 a. 1 December 2010. http://www.mdz–nbn–resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn:nbn:de:bvb:12–bsb10186181–6.
Persoons, E. “Prieuré du Val–Notre–Dame, à Diest.” Monasticon Belge. Vol. 4.5. Liège: Centre Nationale de Recherches d’Histoire Religieuse, 1890–1993. 1337–43.
Rombauts, E., J. van Mierlo, and W. van Eeghem. Rev. of Studie over de Handschriften, zo Latijnse als Nederlandse, van Jordanus van Quedlinburg by Juvabit. Verslagen en Mededelingen (1955): 412–22.
Shahan, Thomas. “Antwerp.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 1 December 2010 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01588e.htm.
Sherwood–Smith, Maria C., et al. Repertorium van Middelnederlanse Preken in Handschriften tot en met 1550. 7 vols. Miscellanea Neerlandica 29. Leuven: Peeters, 2003–2008.
Steinmann, Martin. Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Basel: Register zu den Abteilungen A I – A XI und O. Publikationen der Universitätsbibliothek Basel 4. Basel: Universitätsbibliothek Basel, 1982.
Stooker, Karl, and Theo Verbeij. Collecties op Orde: Middelnederlandse Handschriften uit Kloosters en Semi–Religieuze Gemeenschappen in de Nederlanden. 2 vols. Miscellanea Neerlandica 15. Leuven: Peeters, 1997.
Thurston, Herbert. “Missal.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 1 Dec. 2010 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10354c.htm.
Tomassetti, Aloysius, and Francisco Gaude. Bullarum Diplomatum et Privilegiorium Sanctorum Romanum Pontificum. 26 vols. Augustae Taurinorium: Seb. Franco, etc: 1857–85.
Vromans, C.J. “De Zusters Augustinessen te Sint–Oedenrode.” Bossche Bijdragen 4 (1921–22): 178–198.
Zieleman, Gerrit Cornelis. Middelnederlandse Epistel– en Evangeliepreken. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
Zumkeller, Adolar. “Manuskripte von Werken der Autoren des Augustiner–Emeritenordens in mitteleuropäischen Bibliotheken.” Augustiniana 13 (1963): 418–73.
|Sermon(s)||Theme sermon||Text according to ML||Text according to MR|
|Sunday 1 Advent (ff. 3r–12r)||Rom. 13.11||Rom. 13.11–14||Rom. 13.11–14|
|Sunday 1 Advent (ff. 12r–17r)||Mt. 21.8||Mt. 21.1–9||Luke 21.25–33|
|Sunday 2 → 1 Advent (ff. 17r–22v)||Luke 21.25||Sunday 1 Advent: Mt. 21.1–9
Sunday 2 Advent: Luke 21.25–33
|Sunday 1 Advent: Luke 21.25–33
Sunday 2 Advent: Mt. 11.2–10
|Sunday 3 → 2 Advent (ff. 22v–28v)||Mt. 11.5||Sunday 2 Advent: Luke 21.25–33
Sunday 3 Advent: Mt. 11.2–10
|Sunday 2 Advent: Mt. 11.2–10
Sunday 3 Advent: John 1.19–28
|Sunday 4 → 3 Advent (ff. 28v–34r)||John 1.26||Sunday 3 Advent: Mt. 11.2–10
Sunday 4 Advent: John 1.19–28
|Sunday 3 Advent: John 1.19–28
Sunday 4 Advent: Luke 3.1–6
|Holy Innocents (ff. 34r–40v)||Mt. 2.13||Mt. 2.13–18||Mt. 2.13–18|
|Sunday Octave Christmas (ff. 40v–48r)||Luke 2.40||Lk. 2.33–40||Lk. 2.33–40|
|Epiphany (ff. 48r–58r)||Mt. 2.1||Mt. 2.1–12||Mt. 2.1–12|
|Sunday 2 after Epiphany (ff. 58r–66r)||John 2.1||John 2.1–11||John 2.1–11|
|Sunday 3 after Epiphany (ff. 66r–72r)||Mt. 8.5||Mt. 8.1–13||Mt. 8.1–13|
|Sunday 4 after Epiphany (ff. 72r–76v)||Mt. 8.23||Mt. 8.23–27||Mt. 8.23–27|
|Sunday 4 after Epiphany (ff. 76v–81v)||Mt. 8.24||Mt. 8.23–27||Mt. 8.23–27|
|Septuagesima (ff. 81v–88r)||Mt. 20.1||Mt. 20.1–16||Mt. 20.1–16|
|Sexigesima (ff. 88r–92v)||Luke 8.5||Luke 8.4–15||Luke 8.4–15|
|Quinquagesima (ff. 92v–96v)||1 Cor. 13.13||1 Cor. 13.1–13||1 Cor 13.1–13|
|Quinquagesima (ff. 96v–102v)||Luke 18.41||Luke 18.31–43||Luke 18.31–43|
|Quadragesima (ff. 102v–114r)||Mt. 4.1||Mt. 4.1–11||Mt. 4.1–11|
|Saturday 1 Lent → Saturday 1 Lent and Sunday 2 Lent (ff. 114r–121v)||Mt. 17.1||Saturday 1 Lent: Mt. 17.1–9
Sunday 2 Lent: Mt. 15.21–28
|Saturday 1 Lent: Mt. 17.1–9
Sunday 2 Lent: Mt. 17.1–9
|Sunday 2 Lent → Thursday 1 Lent (ff. 121v–127v)||Mt. 15.21–22||Sunday 2 Lent: Mt. 15.21–28
Thursday 1 Lent: John 8.31–47a
|Sunday 2 Lent: Mt. 17.1–9 |
Thursday 1 Lent: Mt. 15.21–28
|Monday 2 Lent (ff. 127v–133v)||John 8.25||John 8.21–29||John 8.21–29|
|Sunday 3 Lent (ff. 133v–141v)||Luke 11.28||Luke 11.14–28||Luke 11.14–28|
|Sunday 4 Lent (ff. 141v–150r)||John 6.9||John 6.1–14||John 6.1–15|
|Sunday 5 Lent (ff. 150r–157v)||John 8.59||John 8.46–59||John 8.46–59|
|Palm Sunday (ff. 157v–164v)||Mt. 21.8||John 12, 12–16||Mt. 21.1–9|
|Easter Day (ff. 168r–172r)||Mark 16.1||Mark 16.1–729||Mark 16.1–7|
|Easter Day (ff. 172r–174r)||Mark 16.2||Mark 16.1–7||Mark 16.1–7|
|Easter Day (ff. 174r–176v)||Mark 16.5||Mark 16.1–7||Mark 16.1–7|
|Sunday Octave Easter (ff. 176v–190r)||John 20.19||John 20.19–31||John 20.19–31|
|Sunday 2 Easter (ff. 190r–200v)||John 10.11||John 10.11–16||John 10.11–16|
|Sunday 3 Easter (ff. 200v–212v)||John 16.20||John 16.16–22||John 16.16–22|
|Sunday 4 Easter (ff. 212v–217v)||John 16.5–6||John 16.5–14||John 16.5–14|
|Sunday 4 Easter (ff. 217v–222v)||John 16.5||John 16.5–14||John 16.5–14|
|Sunday 4 Easter (ff. 222v–227r)||John 16.6||John 16.5–14||John 16.5–14|
|Sunday 5 Easter (ff. 227r–236v)||John 16.24||John 16.23–30||John 16.23–30|
|Ascension (ff. 236v–247v)||Mark 16.19||Mark 16.14–20||Mark 16.14–20|
|Sunday Octave Ascension (ff. 247v–254r)||John 15.26||John 15.26–27; 16.1–430||John 15.26–27; 16.1–4|
|Whitsunday (ff. 254r–267r)||John 14.23||John 14.23–31||John 14.23–31|
|Sunday Octave Corpus Christi (ff. 267r–275v)||1 John 4.16||
Sunday Octave Corpus Christi: 1 John 4.8–21
|Sunday 1 Whitsun:31
1 John 4.8–21
Sunday Octave Corpus Christi: 1 John 3.13–18
|Trinity Sunday (ff. 278r–281r)||1 John 5.7||
Trinity Sunday: 1 John 5.4–10
|Sunday Octave Easter: 1 John
Trinity Sunday: Rom 11.33–36
|Sunday 3 Whitsun → Sunday Octave Corpus Christi (ff. 281v–284v)||Luke 14.16||Sunday Octave Corpus Christi:
Sunday 3 Whitsun:32 Luke 14.16–24
|Sunday Octave Corpus Christi:
Sunday 3 Whitsun: Luke 15.1–10
|Sunday 3 Whitsun → Corpus Christi (ff. 284v–293v)||Luke 14.16||Corpus Christi: John 6.55–58
Sunday 3 Whitsun: Luke 14.16–24
|Corpus Christi: John 6.55–58
Sunday 3 Whitsun: Luke 15.1–10
|Sunday 3 Whitsun → Sunday 4 Whitsun → Sunday 3 Whitsun (ff. 294r–300v)||Luke 15.10||Sunday 3 Whitsun: Luke 14.16–24
Sunday 4 Whitsun:33 Luke 15.1–10
|Sunday 3 Whitsun: Luke 15.1–10
Sunday 4 Whitsun: 5.1–11
|Sunday 4 Whitsun → Sunday 5 Whitsun → Sunday Octave Corpus Christi (ff. 300v–307v)||Luke 6.36||
Sunday Octave Corpus Christi: Luke 16.19–31
Sunday 4 Whitsun: Luke 15.1–10
Sunday 5 Whitsun:34 Luke 6.36–42
|Sunday 1 Whitsun:35
Sunday Octave Corpus Christi: Luke 14.16–24
Sunday 4 Whitsun: Luke 5.1–11
Sunday 5 Whitsun: Mt. 5.20–24
|Sunday [6?] Whitsun → Sunday 4 Whitsun (ff. 307v–314v)||Luke 5.11||Sunday 4 Whitsun: Luke 15.1–10
Sunday 6 Whitsun: Luke 5.1–11
|Sunday 4 Whitsun: Luke 5.1–11|
Sunday 6: Mark 8.1–9
|Sunday 6 Whitsun → Sunday 7 Whitsun → Sunday 6 Whitsun (ff. 314v–319v)||Mt. 5.20||
Sunday 6 Whitsun: Luke 5.1–11
Sunday 7 Whitsun: Mt. 5.20–24
|Sunday 5 Whitsun: Mt. 5.20–24|
Sunday 6 Whitsun: Mark 8.1–9
Sunday 7 Whitsun: Mt. 7.15–21
15 Van Dijk says manuscripts IV 56 (a chronicle), and IV 58 (a breviary) were also from Mariëndaal, but those manuscripts are not included in Kienhorst et al.’s Rijkdom in Eenvoud, because they are post–medieval. Van Dijk does warn that there might be more manuscripts in the Collection which also turn out to be from Mariëndaal upon closer investigation (“Handschriften” 67).
16 These exhibitions are Handschriften uit Diestse Kerken en Kloosters (Diest, Stedelijk Museum, 25 June – 25 September 1983), Rijkdom in Eenvoud (Nijmegen, Museum De Stratemakerstoren, Autumn 2005 – Ter Apel, Kloostermuseum Ter Apel, Spring 2006), and Verbruikt Verleden (Nijmegen, Centrale Bibliotheek Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, 3 December 2009 – 21 February 2010).
17 Editions of some of Jordan’s sermons in their Latin original have been prepared by Bejczy (2007) and Bray (2008). There does not appear to be a complete modern edition of Jordan’s sermons, and, due to the daunting number of manuscript witnesses, there certainly is not any of the Middle Dutch translation.
18 For a discussion of all of Jordan’s works, see Lievens 5–25.
19 This is explicitly stated in the convent’s history as written by one of the Mariëndaal sisters and edited by C..J. Vromans: “alles in orde gestelt sijnde addresseerden sij hun bij den hoogweerden heer Joannes van Heijnsbergen, bisschop van Luijk ~ ~ onder welcker diocese dat de stadt van Diest in dien tijdt hoorde ~ ~, den welcken naer van alles wel geinformeert en onderright te sijn, heeft in het jaer 1422 op den 23 Augustus, goet gunstig met volle authoritijt, ons godtshuijs gefondeert en gestight” (181). True, she continues by saying that when “naerderhand de stadt van Diest gestelt wiert onder de dieocees van Meghgelen, alsdan wiert ons clooster ook gestelt onder den Aertsbischop van Meghgelen, onder wiens gesag en vaderlijke zorge wij sedert dien tijd altoos t’eenemaal gestaen hebben, totdat wij uyt ons clooster gejaeght sijnde te Eersel in de Meyerey hebben koomen woonen” (Vromans 182), but that transference to the archbishopric of Mechlin only took place after a diocesal reorganisation carried out by pope Paul IV in 1559 (Kempeneer, par. 3). If the manuscript has been dated correctly, that is too late to affect the production layer of our manuscript.
20 The Missale Romanum I used (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Liturg. 842 a) was printed by Christopher Plantin in Antwerp in 1577. From 1559 to the end of the eighteenth century, Antwerp was a suffragan of the archbishopric of Mechlin (Shahan, par. 3), so it is perfectly applicable to Diest, which by that time also belonged to Mechlin, as described above.
21 To this was added at some point, presumably last of all, a marginal note in pencil that this was a sermon by “M. ioerdanus,” but that need not concern us now.
22 Pedro de Luna being an antipope, the official institution of Trinity Sunday is considered to have been done by pope John XXII (1316–1334) in 1334 (Lievens 234n).
23 Referring to the bull Urban issued in 1264, Transiturus de hoc mundo (Tomassetti 3: 705–708). On the indulgences that can be earned on Corpus Christi, this bull says: “omnibus vere poenitentibus et confessis, qui matutinali officio festi eiusdem, in ecclesia in qua idem celebrabitur interfuerint, centum; qui vero missae, totidem; qui autem in primis ipius [sic] festi vesperis interfuerint, similiter centum; qui vero in secundis, totidem; illis vero, qui primae, tertiae, sextae, nonae ac completorii officiis interfuerint, pro qualibet horarum ipsarum, quadraginta” (Tomassetti 3: 708). This means that those who personally attend Matins, Mass, and the First and Second Vespers in church on Corpus Christi, are granted an indulgence of a hundred days per service, and those who personally attend Prime, Tierce, Sext, None, and Compline in church on the same day, are granted forty days for each Hour. This means that you could earn six hundred days worth of indulgences by attending all services on Corpus Christi.
24 The bull says: “illis autem, qui per octavas illius festi, matulinalibus, vespertinis, missae ac praedictarum horarum officiis interfuerint, centum dies, singulis octavarum ipsarum diebus” (Tomassetti 3: 708). This means that those who personally attend Matins, Vespers, Mass and the other previously mentioned services during the Octave of Corpus Christi earn an indulgence of a hundred days per day, meaning that one could earn another seven hundred days worth of indulgences in total by doing this on all seven days remaining of the Octave of Corpus Christi.
25 The original Latin text of the papal constitution is included in d’Ailly’s Tractatus et Sermones (ff. z2v–z3r). It is not, however, included in the two major collections of writings by antipope Benedict XIII, neither in vol. 13.2 of Aloysius Tautu’s Acta Pseudopontifica (1943–71), nor in vols. 4–6 of Karl Hanquet’s Documents relatifs au grand schism (1924–87). The note is not present in the original, so that means it is a clarification on the part of the sisters of Mariëndaal, after consultation of the bull by Urban IV.
26Including the indulgences that could be earned because of the feast of Corpus Christi and the following three days of its Octave.
27 The text in question is d’Ailly’s Sermo de sancta trinitate (Alliaco ff. y5v–z2v). Its theme is 2 Cor. 13.13, and its incipit says it was preached “coram domino papa” (Alliaco f. y5v), in the presence of our lord, the pope. The incipit to the Latin text of the constitution says that “[s]equitur constitutio eiusdem sancte trinitatis Benedicti pape .xiij. quae facta est occasione predicti sermonis” (Alliaco f. z2v), here follows the constitution on the same Holy Trinity by pope Benedict XIII, which was written on the occasion of the aforesaid sermon.
28 It is not by Jordan of Quedlinburg (Lievens 65), but its theme is 1 John 5.7 (f. 278r2–4), and not 2 Cor. 13.13, which was the theme of d’Ailly’s sermon (Alliaco f. y5v).
29 The rubric in the copy of the Missale Leodiensis I consulted refers to Mark 15, but the text is that of Mark 16, so that is merely a typographical error.
30 The rubric refers to John 10, but the text is that of John 15.26–27; 16.1–4, so that is merely a typographical error.
31 Since Trinity Sunday always supersedes the first Sunday after Whitsun in liturgical rank, in practise the texts for the latter are always used on weekdays between Trinity Sunday and Corpus Christi.
32 The Missale Leodiensis ascribes this text to the second Sunday after the Octave of Whitsun, by which the third Sunday after Whitsun is meant. (After 1856, when pope Pius IX established the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, this was the Sunday in the Octave of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (Bainvel, par. 23), but that does not concern us.)
33 The Missale Leodiensis ascribes this text to the third Sunday after the Octave of Whitsun, by which the fourth Sunday after Whitsun is meant.
34 The Missale Leodiensis ascribes this text to the fourth Sunday after the Octave of Whitsun, by which the fifth Sunday after Whitsun is meant.
35 See note 30.