Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Medieval Marriage SermonsMass Communication in a Culture without Print$

David D'Avray

Print publication date: 2001

Print ISBN-13: 9780198208143

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2010

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198208143.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.  Subscriber: null; date: 23 October 2019

Gérard de Mailly OP

Gérard de Mailly OP

Chapter:
(p.227) VI Gérard de Mailly OP
Source:
Medieval Marriage Sermons
Author(s):

D.L. D’AVRAY

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198208143.003.0006

Abstract and Keywords

This chapter analyses the sermon delivered by Gérard de Mailly. The underlying structure of the sermon can be expressed schematically as follows: heretics disapprove of marriage, but the Lord instituted it and strongly endorsed its goodness. There are four kinds of marriage: carnal, sacramental, spiritual, and eternal. This manuscript is a good illustration of the argument that mass production of sermons was possible thanks not only to professional scribes, but also to clerics writing to a professional standard but not for money. There are some small deviations from the standardized text which suggest that the scribe was engaging with the content rather than copying mechanically.

Keywords:   sermon, marriage, Gerard de Mailly, carnal marriage, sacramental marriage, spiritual marriage, eternal marriage

Sigla

  • P1

    Paris, BN lat. 3546C

  • P2

    Paris, BN lat. 15956

  • P3

    Paris, BN lat. 15959

  • P4

    Paris, BN lat. 16474

  • P5

    Paris, BN lat. 16475

  • P7 1

    Paris, BN lat. 16499

  • Pr

    Prague, Metropolitní Kapitoly F. XCIV

  • V1

    Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Borghes. 96

  • V2

    Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. lat. 1284

  • V3

    Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. lat. 4392

Postill

The underlying structure of the sermon can be expressed schematically as follows

  • Heretics disapprove of marriage, but the Lord instituted it and strongly endorsed its goodness.

  • There are four kinds of marriage: carnal, sacramental, spiritual, and eternal.

    • Carnal marriage:

      • negotiations for it are dangerous;

      • initiation is shameful;

      • ratification is pernicious;

      • consummation is full of pain.

    • Sacramental marriage: for Jesus/salvation to be present at it, three things are needed:

      (p.228)
      • right intention;

      • fidelity;

      • inseparability;

    • Spiritual marriage between God/Christ and soul:

      • Seven conditions in Christ that are commonly required of the bridegroom: he is (1) eloquent; (2) rich; (3) wise; (4) good-looking; (5) strong; (6) noble; (7) eternal.

      • Four conditions needed in the bride: (1) virginity; (2) love; (3) humility; (4) variety of spiritual adornment.

    • Eternal marriage: the same four conditions for the bride, but in a more perfect way.

Before fleshing out this skeleton, a word about variations between different manuscript witnesses. A glance at the apparatus will show that there are many small modifications. All manuscript sigla in heavy type indicate scribal independence rather than error. The only manuscript to change the content on a large scale is P7, which abridges drastically. The other variations are mainly interesting because they show that the process of diffusing the text was not mechanical. This edition demonstrates again what has already become apparent from the preceding ones. Scribes were more than copyists. Many felt free to give a close paraphrase rather than an exact rendition. The details of these small changes need not be noted in the summary below.

1. As St Paul foretold, heretics forbid marriage. (Both ‘will prohibit’ and ‘used to prohibit’ are attested in the manuscript tradition. The present tense ‘prohibit’ has been adopted: it is as well or better attested, and may imply an allusion to heretics who were around in the thirteenth century, i.e. the Cathars.) Therefore the Lord confirmed it by word and by his actions. (2) There are four kinds of marriage: the carnal, sacramental, spiritual, and eternal. It will be noted that this structure is identical to that of Pierre de Saint-Benoît (see the latter’s para. 2 and passim).

3–7. Gérard does not define ‘carnal marriage’ precisely. He had said (2/3/) that it was celebrated in the brother of concupiscence. Does he mean sin in general? Perhaps the meaning is: ‘in an evil state of mind’? Does it mean sex or even literal-sense marriage conducted with bad motives, in general but with special reference to sex? At any rate, he uses the image to represent the stages of (p.229) falling into sin: temptation (=the negotiations for such a marriage), pleasure, consent, act. Early on (4/4–5/) he says that ‘theft, killing, cursing, adultery and lying’ (Osee 4: 2) sometimes arise from pourparlers for this kind marriage. Does he mean the early stage of a seduction? Or the negotiations for a marriage desired for evil motives? We cannot be sure. Perhaps he was not sure in his own mind. He may have been following where the associations of thought generated by scriptural authorities led him.

Initiation of carnal marriage (5) is equated with ‘the pleasure of the flesh’; ratification (6) with consent to sin; and consummation (7) with the act, which turns into pain and punishment. Amon’s love for his sister Tamar is given as an example. After he had violated her it turned into disgust. Perhaps this section on ‘carnal marriage’ (3–7) is about sin in general, but with special reference to sexual sin.

‘Sacramental marriage’ (8–18) is bodily marriage, i.e. marriage in the normal sense.2 It is analysed under three headings: intention (9–10), fidelity (11–16), and inseparability (17). The right intention is to have children. This is contrasted with marriage for money, as with usurers and the avaricious.

‘Fidelity’ is the longest subsection. Husband and wife should love one another, but not in a disordered fashion. They should look after each other in temporal things, honour each other, and have intercourse when the other wants it (this is the marriage ‘debt’ to which Gérard refers at 15/3/).

Inseparability (the last heading under sacramental marriage) is indissolubility.

The section on ‘spiritual marriage’ (19–36) is the longest of the main sections. This is noteworthy. If we concentrate only on marriage in the literal sense, our priorities are different from the preacher’s. The general theme in this long section is the marriage of Christ and the soul. Gérard employs the widespread topos of the qualities of the ideal husband.3 He argues (21–9) that Christ has the qualities commonly required in a bridegroom: eloquence (p.230) (he argues our case to God the Father); wealth (he is ‘heir of all things’), wisdom, beauty (‘attractive in form beyond the sons of men’), power, nobility, and—here the metaphor loses its social realism—immortality. A passage from St Paul’s Letter to the Hebrews, chapter 1, is used as a peg on which to hang these points. Not surprisingly, there is a rough convergence between this image of the ideal husband and the image of the attractive knight found in the romances of Chrétien de Troyes.4

From the bridegroom’s qualities Gérard turns to the four conditions required in the bride, i.e. in the soul (29/2/–36). She should be a virgin, free from mortal sin. If her virginity ever gets corrupted by sin, its integrity should be restored by penance. Perfect integrity is achieved when the soul gives itself to God, undistracted by temporal things. The thought is developed with reference to Leviticus 21: 13–14: a priest should not take as his wife a widow, or one that has been repudiated, or defiled, or a harlot. These various forbidden categories of women are made to stand for different degrees of attachment to worldly things: for example, ‘one that has been repudiated’ is the soul who has been deserted by the world rather than vice versa (this is reminiscent of the remark that ‘when our vices leave us, we say that we have conquered them’). The metaphor of virginity is still further developed (32). The bride of Christ must also love him (33–4), be humble like Esther (35), and be adorned with many virtues (36).

The fourth ‘marriage’ (37–41) is the marriage of eternity, i.e. heaven. For this the same four qualities are required in the soul, but in a more perfect form: complete freedom from sin (it must be taken for granted here that sinners will have been purified in purgatory), a more perfect charity, a more profound humility, and a more abundant ornament.

As always, the framework is filled with scriptural texts and the ideas they generate, of which only a few have been mentioned in this analysis. Phrases in French are a less common feature (though by no means an idiosyncratic one). They are found at 3/2/, 20/6/, and 22 passim. The abridged version in P7 does not contain phrases in French. Collation of a still wider range of manuscripts would probably reveal others which omit French phrases from this sermon.5

(p.231) One other point should be mentioned, the Esther–Vashti image at 35/3–5. In this Old Testament story one wife is repudiated for another. The point of the image is the humility of the second wife, Esther, who stands for the obedient humility owed by the soul to the divine bridegroom. In view of its context and function, this image does not seriously undermine the thesis that marriage symbolism presupposes a strong idea of indissolubility, but it does not sit particularly comfortably with that thesis.

Manuscript Descriptions

P1=Paris, BN lat. 3546C

Description based on microfilm printout of the sermon, on Bibliothèeque Nationale, Catalogue général des manuscrits latins, vi (Nos 3536 à 3775B) (Paris, 1975), 39–43 (a thorough description), and on Bataillon and Bériou, ‘“G. de Mailly” de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’, 26 (here for 3548C read 3546C), 27, 55–9, 66.

A parchment manuscript. 175×130 mm. ‘1–300 ff., précédés et suivis de 2 ff. de garde’ (Catalogue, 43). The manuscript is written in a neat hand, probably from the late thirteenth century—this kind of script can be dated more precisely than most. It is probably English (also the opinion of the authors of the Catalogue, ibid.). Cursive features mark it out fromthe majority of thirteenth-century manuscripts used for this edition. Some letter and abbreviation forms are reminiscent of late thirteenth-century English hands: the d, the re sign, and some split ascenders. For a somewhat similar script see P. R. Robinson, Catalogue of Dated and Datable Manuscripts c.737–1600 in Cambridge Libraries (Cambridge, 1988), ii, no. 114 (Corpus Christi College 465). There are pecia indications: for details see Catalogue, 43, and Bataillon and Bériou, ‘“G. de Mailly” de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’, 55–9. The manuscript contains de tempore and de sanctis sermons by Gérard de Mailly (‘Guillaume’ according to the Catalogue, but see Bataillon and Bériou). The BN cataloguers note ‘quelques corrections marginales’ (p. 43). In format and contents this is a typical preachers’ vade mecum book.

The text seems free from nonconformist scribal variations.

(p.232) P2 =Paris, BN lat. 15956, fos. 26ra–28rb

Description based on reproductions of the sermon, and on L. Delisle, Inventaire des manuscrits de la Sorbonne conservés à la Bibliothèque Impériale sous les numéros 15176–16718 du fonds latin (Paris, 1870), 30; M. Mabille, ‘Les manuscrits d’Étienne d’Abbeville conservés à la Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris’, Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes, 132 (1974), 245–66, 253–4; Catalogue des manuscrits en écriture latine portant des indications de date, de lieu, ou de copiste, iii. 469 (notice using information supplied by L.-J. Bataillon); Bataillon and Bériou, ‘“G. de Mailly” de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’, 67; and on information supplied in a personal communication from Bataillon.

A parchment manuscript, 255 × 175 mm., 321 folios, 2 columns. The manuscript belonged to Étienne d’Abbeville (d. 1272), canon of Arras, who left it to the Sorbonne. It is written in two hands: the first being responsible for fos. 10–209, the second for fos. 211–311. Bataillon suggests to me that it is composite, originally consisting of two distinct manuscripts. So far as I can judge from Mabille’s description, they had been joined before the volume as we have it passed to the Sorbonne. The script of the part of the manuscript which mainly concerns us is a neat, ‘professional’-looking thirteenth-century Gothic book hand. For a similar script see Thomson, Latin Bookhands, no. 10 (Lyons, Bibl. de la Ville, 678 (591): ‘Guillelmus Peraldus, Summa de viciis et virtutibus’; the plate in the catalogue of dated manuscripts shows the writing of the other scribe). The hand of this first part of the manuscript ‘se retrouve dans lems. 16500, qui a appartenu au même possesseur et dont nous retrouvons au 210vo du présent ms., une table de sermons’ (Catalogue (1974)). Sections are distinguished by paragraph-marks. The general appearance is marred by numerous marginal annotations. It would seem that Étienne d’Abbeville is at least mainly responsible for these. Some of them are cued into the text to make good an omission, but others seem to be extra material. For example, in the upper margin of fo. 27r we have the following remarks on women:

Nota6 mulieres debent honorari propter priuilegia aliqua que habent et non habent ea uiri. Primum quia facta fuit de nobiliori materia, quia de costa, uir autem de uili terra. Item propter locum, quia in paradyso: uir (p.233) autem in terra—ideo libentius ueniunt ad ecclesiam quam7 uiri, tamquam ad suum locum proprium ubi create sunt, qui per paradisum terrestrem significatur. 3o quia de ipsis uoluit esse filius dei sine aliquo uiri adiutorio.

This appears to be attached to the text by distinctive marks at 14/1/, but to be a supplement rather than repair of an omission.

There are letters across the upper margins, which are probably a way of numbering the sermons and dividing upt he material inside them, though a closer examination would be necessary to establish this for certain.

According to Delisle, the contents consist of sermons by ‘Jo. De Malliaco, Tho. Clar., Bartholomeus, Ligerus, Buisine, Giraudus, Rogerus de ordine Minorum, Joh. Limovicensis, Gardianus, Willelmus Minor, Petrus de Tharentasia, Willelmus lector, Joh. Aur., Bonaventura, Arnulphus Amb., Gaufridus’. (A modern cataloguer with access to Schneyer’s Repertorium could obviously go much further.) Bataillon and Bériou identify fos. 10ra–156rb as Sermones dominicales, and fos. 159ra–209rb as Sermones festiui, by Gérard. So our sermon was part of a preachers’ book, even if the format is too large for the vade mecum category.

The text seems free from large-scale scribal variation. One or two tiny changes may suggest that the scribe was not copying mechanically (e.g. ‘loquitur’ (supplied in the margin) for ‘agit’ and ‘enim’ for ‘autem’, at 8/1/ and 8/2/ respectively), and at 15/3/ the sense is consciously or unconsciously altered in the husband’s favour (see apparatus).

P3 =Paris, BN lat. 15959, fos. 264vb-267ra

Description based on microfilm printout of the sermon, and on Delisle, Inventaire (as at P2 above), 30–1; Catalogue des manuscrits en écriture latine portant des indications de date, de lieu, ou de copiste, iii. 470; Bataillon and Bériou, ‘“G. de Mailly” de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’, 68; and on a personal communication from Bataillon.

A parchment manuscript, 260×190mm., 592 folios; the sermon is in 2 columns. It is written in a neat, ‘professional’-looking Gothic book hand, probably from the second half of the thirteenth century, and perhaps not too near the end of that period. For a somewhat similar script see Catalogue des manuscrits en écriture latine portant (p.234) des indications de date, de lieu ou de copiste, iii, pl. LV: Paris, BN lat. 16607 (after 1268). Sections are distinguished by paragraph-marks.

According to Delisle, the book contains sermons of ‘G. ep.Paris., Joh. Polinus, G. ep. Cameracensis, Odo cardinalis, N. de Byart, Gerardus de Remis, Galterus de Castro Theoderici, Odo de Castro Radulfi cardinalis, Odo cancellarius Paris., Philippus cancellarius Paris., Henricus Theuthonicus, Stephanus de ordine Predicatorum, Hugo de S. Victore’. He also notes, on fo. 492v, the heading ‘In processione facta pro regina Blancha infirma, mag. Odo cancellarius’. In a personal communication Bataillon pointed out to me that this ‘is the first volume of the big collection of sermons made under the direction of Robert of Sorbon (d. 1274). Each Sunday or feast has its own quire (or group of quires) where sermons are grouped by authors, always in the same order. Clearly Mailly is always the last one, preceded by Nicholas of Biard.’ Bataillon and Bériou give a detailed list of the sermons by Gérard de Mailly in this manuscript, with folio numbers: Gérard’s are on fos. 1r–24v and 295r–296v.

The manuscript carries a fairly standardized text of the sermon.

P4 =Paris, BN lat 16474, fos. 37vb–40va

Description based on microfilm printout of the sermon, on Delisle, Inventaire (as at P2 above), 61, and on Bataillon and Bériou, ‘“G. de Mailly” de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’, 68.

The manuscript is in Delisle’s ‘Petit Format’ category. The sermon is in a ‘professional’-looking Gothic book hand, probably from the last third of the thirteenth century. The writing is below the top line and upper compartments of two-compartment as are closed. For a somewhat similar script (apart fromthe as) see Catalogue des manuscrits en écriture latine portant des indications de date, de lieu ou de copiste, iii, pl. LXVI (BN lat. 16206). Sections are distinguished by paragraph-marks. Units of meaning and syntax are also marked more informally by ‘angle-brackets’ (pointing to the right) and by more rounded markers of the same type. These rounded markers are also found in the margin around roman numerals which correspond to numbered section divisions (which are regularly preceded by paragraph-marks) in the text. It looks as though the paragraphmarks proper were the work of the original scribe, whereas the other markings may have been added subsequently by a user.

(p.235) According to Bataillon and Bériou, sermons of Gérard de Mailly occupy fos. 6ra–247vb of the manuscript.

The manuscript carries a standardized version of the sermon.

P5 Paris, BN lat. 16475, fos. 43rb–46va

Description based on microfilm printout of the sermon, on Delisle, Inventaire (as at P2 above), 61, and on Bataillon and Bériou, ‘“G. de Mailly” de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’, 68.

The manuscript is in Delisle’s ‘Petit Format’ category. The script seems to be from the second half of the thirteenth century—possibly from the third quarter, since the upper compartment of two-compartment as is frequently but not invariably left unclosed.8 The script is reasonably ‘professional’ in appearance except that it seems a little undisciplined. The structure of the text is made visible by paragraph-marks. For a somewhat similar script see Catalogue des manuscrits en écriture latine portant des indications de date, de lieu ou de copiste, iii, pl. LXII (BN lat. 16481). According to Bataillon and Bériou, fos. 1ra–226vb contain ‘Sermones de tempore’ of Gérard, and fos. 227ra–311va his ‘Sermones de sanctis’.

The text of the sermon is the standardized version on the whole, but there are some small symp toms of a scribe who was engaged with the text in his mind and not just copying mechanically: e.g. a paragraph-mark instead of ‘scilicet’ at 2/2/, and ‘creatum’ instead of ‘factum’ at 5/2/.

P7=Paris, BN lat. 16499, fos. 11rb–12rb

Description based on microfilm printout of the sermon, on a rapid examination of the manuscript, and on Delisle, Inventaire (as at P2 above), 62; Bataillon and Bériou, ‘“G. de Mailly” de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’, 30–2, 68; M. Mabille, ‘Les manuscrits de Jean d’Essômes conservés à la Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris’,Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes, 130 (1972), 231–4 at 234; and Catalogue des manuscrits en écriture latine portant des indications de date, de lieu, ou de copiste, iii. 539. This interesting manuscript deserves a fuller analysis than I have been able to provide.

A parchment manuscript, 185×130 mm. (by my measurement, but Mabille gives 200×145 mm.), ‘1+358 fol.’ (Mabille). The (p.236) catalogue of dated manuscripts puts it after 1269 and points out that it was donated to the Sorbonne c.1306. Bataillon and Bériou (p. 30) agree with Mabille that this manuscript was written by Jean d’Essômes, who bequeathed it to the Sorbonne. (On other manuscripts of Jean d’Ess ômes see Mabille, ‘Les manuscrits …’, passim, and Bériou, L’Avènement des maîtres de la Parole, i. 87. The quires of which the manuscript is composed would seem originally to have been unbound booklets, perhaps rather like the quaterni which Roger Bacon says praelati (by which he probably means parish priests) were accustomed to borrowfrom pueri (by which he probablymeans young friars).9 For instance, at the end of fo. 8, the last folio of a quire, a blank space is left and filled with a text in an ink of different colour (there is also a folio missing). At the foot of the first folio of the next quire (i.e. on fo. 9r) we find Jean’s name (‘Ioh. Solm.’) and a sign which looks like a coat of arms (his?). This sign and versions of his name recur throughout the book, and it would probably be found that they come at the beginning of new quires. Perhaps they were a sort of ownership mark, like a signature in a book today, but more probably they were to facilitate binding the books into a single volume for the Sorbonne.

It is possible that the quires or booklets at least in the part of the manuscript that concerns us were meant to go together, as a collection of Gérard deMailly’s sermons, even before being bound into a single volume. Bataillon and Bériou (p. 68) have identified him as the author of sermons on fos. 1r–126va. On fo. 128rb–va there is a rough index, presumably of Gérard’s sermons—at any rate our sermon is included: ‘Nuptie facte sunt etc. xi’ (fo. 128rb). First de tempore and then de sanctis sermons are listed—that is, the liturgical year is the structure of the index. An earlier index, on fos. 87r–88v, is alphabetical. Thus it begins (fo. 87r):

  • Abicere .1.

  • Abscondita .6.

This index follows the de tempore section10 but covers subsequent (p.237) folios as well, though none later than fo. 127 so far as I can see. Thus, the liturgically arranged index on fo. 128rb–va marks the end of a definite unit. According to Mabille, the remainder of the volume contains ‘Miscellanea et sermones (fol. 129–358)’. She thinks that Jean d’Essômes himself is probably the author of the anonymous sermon on fos. 149–200.

In the quire containing this sermon the handwriting is businesslike and ‘professional’-looking: it is disciplined and neat. (This is in contrast with some later parts of the book as bound together, which look scruffy and hastily written.) There is no decoration. Distinctiones are written very neatly at the foot of the page. For instance, at the foot of fo. 11r there is a distinctio which roughly fits the structure of the sermon edited here.

The text of the sermon is nonconformist to a high degree, as a glance at the apparatus will reveal. The siglum P7 in bold will be seen repeatedly after individualistic variants. The scribe, Jean d’Essômes himself in all probability, was adapting the sermon as he went along. This manuscript is a good illustration of the argument about the medium developed in the introduction: viz., that mass production of sermons was possible thanks not only to professional scribes but also to clerics writing to a professional standard but not formoney—men capable of adapting the text as they copied it. The case of Jean d’Essômes is a reminder that not only friars but also educated secular clerics with an interest in preaching were playing the role of copyist-adaptor.11

(p.238) Pr=Prague, Metropolitní Kapitoly F. XCIV, fos. 19ra–21vb

Description based on microfilm printout of the sermon, on A. Podlaha, Soupis Rukopisů Knihovny Metropolitní Kapitoly Pražské, ii. Druhá Žst: F–P (Prague, 1922), no. 953, p. 72, and on Bataillon and Bériou, ‘“G. de Mailly” de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’, 69.

A parchment manuscript, 170×125 mm. (so easily within the dimensions of a vade mecum book), 275 folios. According to an inscription on fo. 1r, the book belonged to the ‘monastery of the blessed Mary in Rudnicz’.

The script is below the top line and the text is structured by paragraph-marks. In the margins one finds neatly drawn outlines of hands pointing towards the written space, presumably to draw attention to important points. The writing is fairly neat and ‘professional’ in appearance. A feature which indicates a German scribe is the reversed-c version of the con sign. The date is probably late thirteenth or early to mid fourteenth century.

On fo. 1r there is an attribution to ‘Johannis de Villa’; on the verso is written ‘Ista sunt dicta magistri Johannis de Villa abbatis.’ These attributions almost certainly refer to Jean Halgrin d’Abbeville (Johannes Halgrinus de Abbatis Villa). The catalogue does not date them, and in any case they are not to be trusted. Podlaha’s catalogue description of the content is as follows:

2a–157b Johannis de Villa Sermones de Tempore. ‘Dominica prima in Adventu domini. Abiciamus opera tenebrarum … Quomodo in presenti tempore recitat nobis mater ecclesia adventum filii Dei …’ × ‘Accepit Jhesus panes et fregit. Explicit Amen.’

157b–159b Registrum,

160a–275a Sermones de Sanctis. ‘Sermo de s. Andrea. Erat autem Andreas … Inter apostolos beatus Andreas …’ × ‘ego dispono vobis sicut disposuit mihi pater. Rogemus.’

The incipit given in the catalogue for the de tempore series is close enough to that of Gérard de Mailly in Schneyer’s Repertorium, ii. 483 (‘Guilelmus de Malliaco’), no. 1; cf. Bataillon and Bériou, ‘“G. de Mailly” de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’, 41, no. 1. According to Bataillon and Bériou, fos. 2r–155r are the Sermones dominicales or the Sermones de tempore of Gérard. The incipit for the de Sanctis series is close to a sermon by Aldobrandinus de Cavalcantibus: Schneyer, Repertorium i. 169, no. 270.

(p.239) There are some small deviations fromthe standardized textwhich suggest that the scribe was engaging with the content rather than copying mechanically. For instance, at 3/2/ Pr has ‘Fit autem primo de ipsis’; at 5/1/ it has ‘inchoatio’ for ‘initiatio’; at 37/2/ it has ‘Ad hoc est’ for ‘Et’—all small changes, but cumulatively indicative of a scribe with his mind on the matter rather than just the words in front of him.12

V1=Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Borghes. 96, fos. 57r–62r

Description based on microfilm printout of the sermon, on Anneliese Maier, Codices Burgesiani Bibliothecae Vaticanae (Studi e Testi, 170; Vatican City, 1952), 127–8, and on Bataillon and Bériou, ‘“G. de Mailly” de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’, 71.

A parchment manuscript, 143×120 mm. (so firmly within the dimensions of a vade mecum book),‘ff. 351 (—f. 176)’, 1 column. The sermon is written in a neat, professional-looking hand. The upper compartment of two-compartment as tends to be open, and the general appearance is compatible with a date as early as the thirteenth century. It does not look German, Italian, or English, somay well be French. There are coloured initial letters and paragraphmarks.

According to both Maier’s catalogue and to Bataillon and Bériou, the bulk of the book is occupied by sermons of Gérard: the Sermones de dominicis arrangement according to Bataillon and Bériou. Gérard’s sermons are followed by an incomplete anonymous sermon and a short work entitled ‘De offciis praedicatorum’, which the catalogue attributes with a question-mark to Pierre Roger, who became Clement VI. This may be in Pierre Roger’s own hand. On fo. 351r there is an ownership note: ‘Iste liber est domini P<etri>Cardinalis Rothomagensis’—presumably Pierre Roger.

Maier notes that in the margins ‘emendationes, supplementa, divisiones, notabilia, annotationes, signa varia (manus, capita humanaetc.) inscripta sunt, pleraque manu Petri Rogerii’, especially in the earlier part of the manuscript. She also notes that there is an entry for the manuscript in the 1369 Avignon catalogue (no. 929).

(p.240) The text seems not to deviate intentionally from the ‘standardized’ version to any significant degree.

V2=Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. lat. 1284, fos. xxiiiira–xxvira

Description based on microfilm printout of the sermon, and on Bataillon and Bériou, ‘“G. de Mailly” de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’, 71. There appears to be no printed catalogue description.

The sermon is written in two columns, in a neat, ‘professional’-looking script, which could date from the first half of the fourteenth century or even earlier. It has a distinctive con sign, like a reversed c with a much smaller c (pointing in the normal direction) hung at the bottom of it. Paragraph-marks structure the text, and pointing hands are drawn in the margin. There are marginalia in a later hand, probably of the fifteenth-century.

According to Bataillon and Bériou, Gérard’s Sermones de dominicis occupy fos. 1ra–110va, so our sermon is not travelling on its own.

There seems to be little intentional deviation from the standardized version of the sermon.

V3=Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. lat. 4392, fos. 47r–52r

Description based on on microfilm printout of the sermon, and on Bataillon and Bériou, ‘“G. de Mailly” de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’, 71. There appears to be no printed catalogue description.

The sermon is written in one column, in a clear and legible hand which is almost certainly Italian. It could be of the thirteenth century, but Italian hands of this kind, though they appear in the decades around 1250, do not go out of fashion for a long time, so a considerably later date cannot be excluded. Two notes suggest that the manuscript belonged at one point to a convent of friars: fo. 1v ‘assignati fratri’; fo. 325r: ‘iste est liber fratris iacobi’.13 The text is structured by paragraph-marks. The general appearance is reasonably neat and ‘professional’.

(p.241) According to Bataillon and Bériou Gérard’s Sermones de dominicis occupy fos. ‘12–315v’, so our sermon is travelling as part of its set.

From a textual point of view this manuscript shows an odd combination of nonsense and independence. The following variants show the scribe’s capacity for nonsense: at 4/3/, for ‘gula enim est quasi prima radix’, V3reads ‘gloria [gl’a] enim est gloria et pri. radix’. At 7/2/, for ‘nimis adamaret’, V3 reads ‘adamaret uiris’, suggesting that Amon’s crime was sleeping with men rather than sleeping with his sister! On the other hand some variations may come from intelligent rather than uncomprehending copying. V3’s ‘nuptie prime’ makes perfectly good sense as a substitution for ‘iste nuptie’ at 7/6/. A possible explanation is that this manuscript was copied by a commercial scribe who had no understanding of or interest in the subject-matter, but that his exemplar (or an earlier ancestor) was by an intelligent copyist who felt able to modify the text as he wrote.

Agreements in Error

The following list is based on a sample collations from1/1/ to 18/1/(inclusive) and from 37/1/ to the end.

  • 1/2/ discedent] discedunt P3, P4, V2 (P1 and V1 have ambiguous abbreviations)

  • 1/2/ prohibebunt] prohibent P1, P3, P4, P5, V1, V3 (corr. from prohibebant)

  • 1/4/ cum] unde Pr, V2, V3

  • 3/3/ prolocutio] prolatio P2, P5, V3 (independent misreadings of the same abbreviation?)14

  • 3/3/ ignominiosa] ignominosa Pr, V3 (other mss. have ignomiosa with one superscript; could be coincidence)

  • 4/1/ prolocutio] prolatio P2, V3 (independent misreadings of the same abbreviation?)

  • 4/5/ prolocutione] prolatione P2, P4, P5, V2, V3

  • 5/4/ que … erubescentiam] om. P7, V2, V3 (coincidence?)

  • 5/5/ uescetur] uescentur P7(?), V2, V3; also P2 (corrected)

  • (p.242)
  • 6/5/ 14] xiii P5, V2, V3 (not a clear linking error-could easily be independent)

  • 7/1/ luctum] lucum/lutum P4, P5

  • 7/2/ haberet] habuit P1(?), P2, P3, P4, Pr, V1(?), V2

  • 7/2/ exosam habuit] exosam habuerit P2, P5, P7

  • 9/7/ diuitiis] deuitiis V1: corr. from de uitiis P4

  • 9/8/ haut] aut P2, P7, V2

  • 9/8/ secum portare] P5: om. secum P1, P2, P3, P4, P7, Pr, V1, V2, V3 (not a certain error)15

  • 9/9/ Tales] preceded by Sic igitur ad Tytum in P1, P4, V1: by Sic igitur in P3

  • 10/1/ oblatis] oblectatis P1, P4, V1: ablectatis P5

  • 10/1/ dixit] et dixit P1, P4, V1

  • 10/1/ uiro indigenti] uiro om. P1, P4, P7, V1 V3

  • 10/1/ dare] om. P5, V2

  • 10/2/ contraxit] contrahit P7, V3

  • 10/2/ Tobias qui dicebat] om. V2, V3 (could easily be independent)

  • 10/2/ 8] vii V2, V3 (could easily be independent)

  • 12/2/ 5] vi P7, V3

  • 12/6/ nubant] nubent P4, P5, V2

  • 15/1/ iuris] uiris V2?: corr. from uiris P4 (this is a particularly doubtful basis for stemmatic inference, since V2’s ‘error’ may simply be a displaced minim)

  • 15/1/ conseruatione] conuersatione P1, P2, P4, V1

  • 15/3/ ut] om. P2, P4, V1, V2, V3

  • 15/3/ et e conuerso] om. P2, P5, Pr, V2, V3

  • 16/3/ inordinatio] in ordine V2, V3

  • 17/1/ sit] om. P1, V2, V3

  • 17/3/ hec consentit habitare cum eo] hic non consentit habitare cum ea P1, P3, P4, V1

  • 37/1/ Apoc.] Apostolus P1 (altered from Apc?), P3, V3

  • 37/2/ exiguntur] om. P2, V2, V3

  • 38/2/ Christus] Christo P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, V1

  • 38/4/ erant] om. P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, V1 (not certainly an error)

  • 39/3/ huc] hoc P1(?), P4, V1, V3

Relations between Individual Manuscripts

P1 agrees in error with:

  • P2 at: 7/2/(?), 9/8/(?), 15/1/, 38/2/, 38/4/(?)

  • P3 at: 1/2/, 7/2/(?), 9/8/(?), 9/11/(?), 17/3/, 37/1/(?), 38/2/, 38/4/(?)

  • (p.243)
  • P4 at: 1/2/, 7/2/(?), 9/8/(?), 9/11/, 10/1/, 10/1/, 10/1/, 15/1/, 17/3/, 38/2/, 38/4/(?), 39/3/(?)

  • P5 at: 1/2/, 10/1/ (oblectatis, ablectatis), 38/2/, 38/4/(?)

  • P7 at: 9/8/(?), 10/1/

  • Pr at: 7/2/(?), 9/8/(?)

  • V1 at: 1/2/, 7/2/(?), 9/8/(?), 9/11/, 10/1/, 10/1/, 10/1/, 15/1/, 17/3/, 38/2/, 38/4/(?), 39/3/(?)

  • V2 at: 7/2/(?), 9/8/(?), 17/1/

  • V3 at: 1/2/(?), 9/8/(?), 10/1/, 17/1/, 37/1/(?), 39/3/(?)

P2 agrees in error with:

  • P3 at: 7/2/, 9/8/(?), 38/2/, 38/4/(?)

  • P4 at: 4/5/(?), 7/2/, 9/8/(?), 15/1/, 15/3/, 38/2/, 38/4/(?)

  • P5 at: 3/3/(?), 4/5/(?), 7/2/, 15/3/, 38/2/, 38/4/(?)

  • P7 at: 5/5/(?), 7/2/, 9/8/, 9/8/(?); cf. also 16/1/ inviolatione

  • Pr at: 7/2/, 9/8/(?), 15/3/

  • V1 at: 7/2/(?), 9/8/(?), 15/1/, 15/3/, 38/2/, 38/4/(?)

  • V2 at: 4/5/(?), 5/5/(?), 7/2/, 9/8/, 9/8/(?), 15/3/, 15/3/, 37/2/

  • V3 at: 3/3/(?), 4/1/(?), 4/5/(?), 5/5/(?), 9/8/(?), 15/3/, 15/3/, 37/2/

P3 agrees in error with:

  • P4 at: 1/2/, 1/2/, 7/2/, 9/8/(?), 9/11/(?), 17/3/, 38/2/, 38/4/(?)

  • P5 at: 1/2/, 38/2/, 38/4/(?)

  • P7 at: 9/8/(?) (but note that these mss. may be independent)

  • Pr at: 7/2/, 9/8/(?), 38/2/, 38/4/(?)

  • V1 at: 1/2/, 1/2/(?), 7/2/(?), 9/8/(?), 9/9/(?), 17/3/, 38/2/, 38/4/(?)

  • V2 at: 1/2/, 7/2/, 9/8/(?), 37/3/

  • V3 at: 1/2/(?), 9/8/(?), 37/1/

P4 agrees in error with:

  • P5 at: 1/2/, 4/5/(?), 7/1/, 10/1/(oblectatis, ablectatis), 12/6/, 38/2/, 38/4/(?)

  • P7 at: 9/8/(?), 10/1/

  • Pr at: 7/2/, 9/8/(?)

  • V1 at: 1/2/, 7/2/(?), 9/8/(?), 9/9/, 9/11/, 10/1/, 10/1/, 10/1/, 15/1/, 15/3/, 17/3/, 38/2/, 38/4/(?), 39/3/

  • V2 at: 1/2/, 4/5/(?), 7/2/, 9/8/(?), 12/6/, 15/1/(?), 15/3/

  • V3 at: 1/2/(?), 4/5/(?), 9/8/(?), 10/1/, 15/3/, 39/3/

P5 agrees in error with:

  • P7 at: 7/2/

  • Pr at: 15/3/ (either these manuscripts are independent, or the connection between them is weak: thus the convergence of their testimony will be used as an argument for a reading in doubtful cases)

  • V1 at: 1/2/, 10/1/ (ablectatis, oblectatis), 38/2/, 38/4/(?)

  • (p.244)
  • V2 at: 4/5/(?), 6/5/(?), 10/1/, 12/6/, 15/3/

  • V3 at: 1/2/(?), 3/3/(?), 4/5/(?), 6/5/(?), 15/3/

P7 agrees in error with:

  • Pr at: 9/8/(?)

  • V1 at: 9/8/(?), 10/1/

  • V2 at: 5/4/(?), 5/5/(?), 9/8/, 9/8/(?)

  • V3 at: 1/2/ (V3 corrected), 5/4/(?), 5/5/(?), 9/8/(?), 10/1/, 10/2/, 12/2/

Pr agrees in error with:

  • V1 at: 7/2/(?), 9/8/(?)

  • V2 at: 1/4/, 7/2/, 9/8/(?), 15/3/

  • V3 at: 1/4/, 3/3/, 9/8/(?), 15/3/

V1 agrees in error with:

  • V2 at: 7/2/(?), 9/8/(?), 15/3/

  • V3 at: 1/2/, 9/8/(?), 10/1/, 15/3/, 39/3/

V2 agrees in error with:

  • V3 at: 1/4/, 4/5/(?), 5/4/(?), 5/5/, 6/5/(?), 9/8/(?), 10/2/(?), 10/2/(?), 15/3/, 15/3/, 16/3/, 17/1/, 37/2/

Textual Conclusions and Guide to the Apparatus

The analysis of common errors did not reveal any serviceable overall stemma. Furthermore there is at least a possible link between any two of the manuscripts chosen for spot collation. However, some pairs of manuscripts can be found which share so few common errors that they may well be independent: that is, the one or two common errors may be the result of chance. P3 and P7 may well be independent, but P7’s version of the sermon is so individual that we cannot rely on it for the establishment of the ‘standard’ text. In the initial analysis only one agreement in error was noted between P5 and Pr: they both omit ‘et e conuerso’ at 15/3/. The omission could well be coincidence, in fact, and need not even be an error: just two scribes in a hurry.16 Both manuscripts are full of errors, so it is more striking that they hardly ever sin together.17 Accordingly, (p.245) both have been collated for the whole of the sermon, and agreement between them in support of a reading which may or may not be right is counted as an argument in favour of the reading they share. Since they are of poor quality taken singly, a couple of manuscripts which looked good on the basis of the spot collation have been collated throughout as well. Exact statistics serve no purpose: to decide whether a reading is a definite error or merely dubious is a subjective business. Still, P3 and V1 both had creditably few errors compared with most of the other manuscripts in the spot collations. Furthermore, neither of them seems to be very closely related to Pr, so they provide material for a probabilistic stemmatic argument. One of these two manuscripts could have been selected as base text. Nevertheless, the base manuscript selected is P1. We know it was copied directly from a pecia exemplar. That tells us nothing at all about its quality, which is pretty average. But even the bad readings of P1are of interest, because it is so close to a manuscript which had such a strategic position in the diffusion of the sermon collection. Its bad readings will be relegated to the apparatus. As usual, the base manuscript will get no privileges when it comes to deciding what goes into the text. A glance through the apparatus will show the shortcomings of the pecia text: a historical point worth reinforcing, though it will not surprise scholars who have prepared editions involving pecia transmissions.

One other manuscript has been collated throughout: P7. It is interesting because it deviates widely from the standard text:18 the (p.246) kind of variation that is also found, notably, in manuscripts of Pierre de Reims and Pierre de Saint-Benoî, and which casts light on the reception and transmission of preaching manuscripts. The readings of manuscripts not collated for the whole length of the sermon have not been rigorously excluded from the parts of the text which were selected for sample collations, but they will usually be mentioned (in the apparatus) only if they illustrate scribal independence.

(p.247) Gérard de Mailly OP MARRIAGE SERMON

Schneyer, Repertorium, ii. 484, ‘Guilelmus de Malliaco’ no. 17; Bataillon and Bériou, ‘“G. de Mailly” de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’,0 43, no. 14.

Base manuscript: Paris, BN lat. 3546C, fos. 43v–46v =P1

(p.248)

  • 1/1/ ‘Nuptie facte sunt in Chana Galilee’, Ioh. 2 (1). /2/Quoniam sicut prenuntiauit Apostolus, primo Thi(moth.) 4 (1), ‘discedent quidam a fide, attendentes spiritibus erroris et doctrinis demoniorum’, et inter cetera diuersa dogmata prohibent nubere: /3/—ideo Dominus matrimonium, quod in ueteri testamento proprio ore instituerat, confirmauit in nouo: /4/—et uerbo, cum dixit: ‘quod deus coniunxit, homo non separet’, Mt. 19 (6); /5/—et facto, cum in hodierno euuangelio matrimonium legitur in presentia sua corporali consecrasse, et miraculorum suorum insigniis insignisse.

  • 2/1/ Docemur autem in presenti euuangelio quale debet esse matrimonium corporale et etiam spirituale. /2/ Ad cuius euidentiam notandum quod sunt 4 genera nuptiarum, scilicet nuptie carnales, sacramentales, spirituales, eternales.1 /3/ Prime nuptie celebrantur in prostibulo concupiscentie; /4/ secunde in tabernaculo ecclesie; /5/ tertie in thalamo conscientie; /6/ quarte in palatio glorie.

  • 3/1/ Prime nuptie sunt culpabiles et detestabiles. /2/De quibus fit mentio Gallice: Eles sunt porparlees in temptatione, ∗initiantur in delectatione, ratificantur in consensu, consummantur in opere. /3/ Prolocutio est periculosa, initiatio immunda et ignominiosa, ratificatio dampnosa, consummatio exosa et penosa. /4/ Et ideo merito prime nuptie sunt detestabiles.

1/2/ doctrinis] doctrine P7 diuersa] peruersa P7 prohibent] prohibebunt Pr: prohibebant P7 nubere] matrimonium P7 1/3/confirmauit in nouo] in nouo confirmat P71/5/ (all)] et facto, in hodierno ewangelio, ubi ipsum presentia sua corporali consecrauit P7: et facto, in hodierno euangelio, ut illud sua presentia corporali obseruauit et miraculorum suorum indiciis ∗insigniuit V3: et facto, in hodierno ewangelio, ubi illud in sua corporali presentia consecrauit et miraculorum suorum initiis insigniuit Pr, V2 (presentia corporali) euuangelio] here and below euangelio might be read insigniis insignisse] signis con.rmasse P52/1/ autem] igitur P2 quale … spirituale] et quale est matrimonium corporale et quale est spirituale P7: quale est matrimonium corporale et etiam spirituale V32/2/ scilicet] om. P5 (which substitutes a paragraph-mark), P7 eternales] et eternales P, Pr, V1 2/3/ nuptie] om. P7 concupiscentie] carnalis concupiscentie P5 2/5/ tertie] P5, Pr+: tertio P1 3/2/ De quibus … temptatione] om. P7 De quibus fit] Fit autem primo de ipsis Pr: Fit autem de ip sis V3 Eles] que eles P2 sunt] ∗sont P2 porparlees] proparlees P4: porpallees Pr: purpales V2 initiantur] que initiantur P7 consummantur] consummuntur P7?: sed consummantur Pr 3/3/ ignominiosa] P5: ignominosa P1? consummatio] et consummatio Pr penosa] perniciosa P7?, Pr 3/4/ prime] ille P7: iste Pr

(p.249)

  • 1/1/ ‘There was a marriage at Cana in Galilee’, John 2: 1. /2/ Since, as St Paul foretold, 1 Timothy 4: 1, ‘certain people will depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of devils’, and among various other teachings they forbid marriage: /3/ therefore the Lord, who had instituted marriage with his own mouth in the Old Testament, confirmed it in the New: /4/ both by word, when he said: ‘what God has joined together, let no man put asunder’, Matthew 19: 6; /5/ and by deed, when we read in the present Gospel that he consecrated marriage by his bodily presence, and marked it with the signs of his miracles.

  • 2/2/ We are taught in the present Gospel what a bodily marriage should be like, and also what a spiritual marriage should be like. /2/ To make this clear we should note that there are four kinds of marriage, namely: carnal, sacramental, spiritual, and eternal. /3/ The first marriage is celebrated in the brothel of concupiscence; /4/ the second in the tabernacle of the Church; /5/ the third in the marriage chamber of conscience; /6/ the fourth in the palace of glory.

  • 3/1/ The first marriage is culpable and detestable. /2/ Of this it is said in French: ‘Eles sunt porparlees [It is negotiated]’ in temptation, initiated by pleasure, ratified by consent, consummated by deed. /3/The negotiations are dangerous, the initiation is unclean and shameful, the ratification is pernicious, the consummation is hateful and full of pain. /4/ And therefore it is right that the first marriage should be detested.

  • (p.250)
  • 4/1/ Primo, dico, prolocutio est periculosa. /2/ Uix enim uel nunquam fit sine peccato, et ex ipsa sepe consequntur multa peccata. /3/ Unde de isto periculo dicitur Luc. 17 (27): ‘Edebant et bibebant’—gula enim est quasi prima radix istarum nuptiarum—‘uxores ducebant et dabantur ad nuptias’: /4/ et sequitur statim: ‘et uenit diluuium’, scilicet peccatorum, de quo Osee 4 (2): ‘furtum, homicidium, maledictum, adulterium, mendacium inundauerunt’; /5/—∗hec enim ad litteram aliquando ex sola prolocutione istarum nuptiarum proueniunt—/6/ ‘et omnes perdidit’; solus Noe, qui fugit ad archam continentie saluatus est.

  • 5/1/ Secundo est initiatio immunda et ignominiosa, scilicet delectatio carnalis. /2/ Non enim decet hominem ad ymaginem dei creatum uilem uxorem desponsare. /3/ Propter quodprecepit Ysaac Iacob filio suo ne acciperet ∗uxorem de genere Chanaan, Gen. 28 (1). /4/ ‘Chanaan’ interpretatur ‘erubescens’,2 et signi-ficat carnalem concupiscentiam, que, propter uilitatem suam, inducit erubescentiam. /5/ Propter istam uilitatem dicitur Leu. 22 (12) ‘Si filia sacerdotis’, id est ∗anima filia Christi per adoptionem et creationem, ‘cuilibet ex populo nupta fuerit, de his que sanctificata sunt non uescetur.’ /6/ Propter enim uilitatem ipsius delectationis arcere se debet homo a perceptione sancti sanctorum et abstinere.

    [fo. 44r]

  • 6/1/ Tertio ratificatio, que scilicet fit in consensu, dampnosa. /2/ Ipse enim diabolus animam sibi sic desponsatam ad modum ribaldi spoliat omnibus bonis, scilicet gratie. /3/ In primo enim consensu quo anima consentit peccato totum ∗quicquid fecerat, quicquid meruerat, perdit a un hasart. /4/ Ecc(les). 9 (18): ‘qui

    4(all)] om. P7 4/2/ ex ipsa sepe] P3, V1: quod ipsa sepe P1 consequntur] secuntur Pr 4/3/ dabantur] Pr (Vulgate reading): dabant P1, P3, V1 5/1/ Secundo] Primo P7 initiatio] inchoatio Pr, ∗P7 ignominiosa] P5: ignominosa P1? 5/2/ creatum] P3+: creatam P1: factum P5P55/4/ inducit] P5, Pr: reducit P1 /5/5 de hiis … sunt non uescetur] non uescetur de hiis … sunt Pr 5/6/ se debet] P5, Pr: debet se P1 a perceptione … abstinere] et abstinere sacramentorum Pr sancti] P3, V1: facti P1 6/1/ Tertio] Tertio est P3: Secundo P7 scilicet] om. P7 in] per P7 6/2/ sic] om. P7 6/3/ fecerat] P5, Pr: fecerit P1? meruerat] P3, P5 (and Pr has an error probably derived from meruerat): meruerit P1: meruit V1 a un hasart] P3, Pr: un asaret P1, P4: a. i. hazart P2: ad primum hasart P5: ad unum hasardum P7: a un hasearth V2: ad unum azardum V3

  • (p.251)
  • 4/1/ First, I say, the negotiations are dangerous. /2/ For they are seldom if ever conducted without sin, and frequently many sins result from them. /3/ Therefore it is said in Luke 17: 27 of this danger: ‘They did eat and drink’—for greed is so to speak the first root of that marriage—‘they married wives and were given inmarriage’: /4/ and it continues immediately afterwards: ‘and the flood came’, the flood of sins, that is, of which it is said in Osee 4: 2: ‘theft, killing, cursing, adultery, and lying have overflowed’; /5/—for these things sometimes literally do arise out of even just the negotiations for this kind of marriage—/6/ ‘and destroyed them all’; only Noah, who fled to the ark of continence, was saved.

  • 5/1/ Secondly there is the unclean and shameful initiation, that is to say the pleasure of the flesh. /2/ For it is not fitting that man, who is made in the image of God, should marry a wife of base condition. /3/ For that reason, Isaac told his son Jacob not to take a wife from the race of Chanaan, Genesis 28: 1. /4/ ‘Chanaan’ means ‘feeling ashamed’, and signifies carnal concupiscence, which induces shame because it is base. /5/ Because of this baseness it is said, Leviticus 22: 12, ‘If the daughter of a priest’, that is, the soul, which is the daughter of Christ through adoption and creation, ‘bemarried to any of the people, she shall not eat of those things which are sanctified.’ /6/ For, because of the baseness of that pleasure, one should keep oneself away from receiving the holy of holies1 and abstain.

  • 6/1/ Thirdly, the ratification, that is, the one which takes place in consent, is pernicious. /2/ For the Devil himself, like a thieving lout, despoils the soul espoused to him of all her goods: that is, the goods of grace. /3/ For in the first consent by which the soul consents to sin it loses ‘a un hasart [at one throw]’ everything it has achieved andwhatever it has merited. /4/Ecclesiastes (p.252) in uno peccauerit, multa bona perdet’. /5/ Ideo possunt dicere anime sic desponsate illud Iudic. 14 (15): ‘an ideo uocastis nos ad nuptias ut spoliaretis’ nos?

  • 7/1/ Quarto, est consummatio istarum nuptiarum exosa et penosa, quia in luctum et penam conuertitur: /2/ quod bene figuratum fuit 2 Reg. xiii, ubi dicitur quod cum Amon nimis adamaret Thamar, procurauit quomodo eam haberet, et, opera consummato, dicitur ibi (2 Reg. 13: 15) quia eam exosam habuit, ita ut maius esset odium quo eam oderat amore quo eam ante dilexerat. /3/ Ad litteram enim carnales concupiscentie habite fastidium generant, et frequentissime in amaritudinem et luctum conuertuntur. /4/ Unde dicitur de istis nuptiis, primo Mach(ab). 9 (41): ‘Conuerse sunt nuptie in luctum, et uox musicorum in lamentum’, scilicet eternum. /5/ Momentaneum est enim quod delectat, eternum quod cruciat. /6/ Propter igitur ista quatuor sunt iste nuptie detestande.

  • 8/1/ Secunde nuptie sunt sacramentales, que sunt in matrimonio corporali, et iste sunt nuptie ad litteram de quibus agit presens euuangelium. /2/ Docemur autem in hoc euuangelio quomodo ∗debent iste nuptie conseruari et fleri in hoc quod Iesus fuit uocatus. /3/ Ad hoc enim debet fleri huiusmodi matrimonium ut sit ibi Iesus, id est, salus. /4/ Ad hoc autem quod ∗sit ibi salus, tria sunt necessaria, scilicet rectitudo intentionis in contrahendo, fldelitas etiam in conseruando, inseparabilitas in uiuendo.

  • 9/1/ Primo, dico, debet esse intentionis rectitudo in contra (p.253) 9: 18: ‘he that shall sin in one thing shall lose many good things’. /5/ Therefore the souls espoused in this way can say the words of Judges 14: 15: ‘Have you called us to the wedding on purpose to despoil us?’

6/4/ peccauerit] offenderit Pr6/5/ ‘an ideo] an idcirco Pr7/1/ Quarto, est] Quarto ergo P2: Quarto uero est V3 penosa] perniciosa Pr conuertitur] conuertuntur P5: conuertentur V3 7/2/ figuratum] P3, Pr: significatum P1(but figuratum could be read), P5, V1 (here the semi-independent mss. (Pr and P5) and also the most accurate mss. (P3, V1) divide, and either reading is possible) xiii] xi P1+ adamaret] adamasset Pr haberet] P5, P7, V3: habuit P3, P4, Pr, V2: habuit/habuerit P1, V1 (the authorities for the chosen reading are not weighty, but sense and grammar are decisive, esp. since corruption to habuit could be explained as an error of anticipation) ibi] ibidem P2 habuit] habuerit P5?, P7? 7/5/ eternum] sed eternum Pr 7/6/ igitur] om. P7: ergo V2, V3 quatuor] tria P7 iste nuptie] P3, V1, Pr (om. P5): ipse nuptie P1: nuptie prime V38/1/ corporali] Pr: carnali P1+ ad litteram] om. P7 agit presens euuangelium] agitur penes euangelium V3: agit(?) Io(hannes) hic P7 agit] loquitur P2 (supplied in margin) 8/2/ autem] enim P2 hoc] isto P7 conseruari] seruari P7: consummari V2 (probably error rather than scribal initiative) in hoc quod] quia P7 uocatus] ibi uocatus P7, Pr 8/3/ Iesus, id est salus] salus P7 9/1/ dico] ergo P7

  • 7/1/ Fourthly, the consummation of that marriage is hateful and full of pain, because it is turned into pain and punishment. /2/ This was prefigured well in 2 Kings 14, where it is said that since Amon loved Thamar beyond limits, he found away to have her, and, after the act had been consummated, it is said there that he found her hateful, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her before. /3/ For carnal desires, once they have been indulged, literally do induce a feeling of disgust, and they are very often turned into bitterness and grief./4/ Therefore it is said of this marriage in 1 Maccabees 9 (41): ‘The marriage was turned into grief, and the noise of their musical instruments into lamentation’—that is, for eternity. /5/ The pleasure lasts a moment, the pain lasts for ever. /6/ For these four reasons, therefore, that marriage is to be detested.

  • 8/1/ The second marriage is sacramental, which is in bodily marriage, and this is the marriage in the literal sense with which the present Gospel deals. /2/ For we are taught in this Gospel how that marriage should be maintained, and how it should come about, by the fact that Jesus was invited. /3/ For the purpose of this kind ofmarriage should be that Jesus, that is, salvation, be there. /4/ But for salvation to be there, three things are necessary, namely, a right intention in contracting it, fidelity in maintaining it, and inseparability in living it.

  • 9/1/ Firstly, I say, the right intention in contracting marriage (p.254) hendo, ut sit ibi bonum prolis, quod fit quando intentione prolis procreande et ad cultum dei educande contrahitur. /2/ Non sic usurarii uel cupidi, qui propter diuitias congregandas contrahunt. /3/ Hii potius contrahunt cum peccunia quam cum sponsa. /4/ Unde de talibus dicitur in Ps. (75 (76): 6): ‘Dormierunt sompnum suum.’ /5/ Uita enimtaliumnon est nisi quidam sompnus uel sompnium. |/6/ Nota de illo qui sompniat se esse regem: euigilans, dolet qui dormiens gaudebat. /7/ ∗Sic tales—‘et nichil inuenerunt omnes uiri diuitiarum’, id est, qui cum diuitiis matrimonium contraxerunt, ‘in manibus suis’. /8/ ‘Nichil enim’ intulerunt ‘in hunc mundum: haut dubium’ nichil portare poterunt, sicut dicitur Prima Thi(m). vi (7). /9/ Tales non contrahunt recta intentione, quod tamen exigitur ad hoc quod sic Iesus sit in nuptiis. /10/ Prima Cor. 7 (39): ‘Nubat cui uult, tantum in Domino’, id est, ad honorem Domini.

    [fo. 44v]

  • 10/1/ Nota de philosopho qui oblatis filie sue duobus uiris, uno fatuo et diuite, alio paupere et sapiente, dixit: ‘Malo filiam meam dare uiro indigenti pecunia quam pecunie indigenti uiro.’ /2/ Isto modo, scilicet recta intentione, contraxit Tobias, qui dicebat, Thob. 8 (9): ‘Domine, tu scis quia non luxurie causa, sed sola posteritatis dilectione accipio sororemmeam.’ /3/ Et in eodem (Tobias 8:5): ‘Filii sanctorum sumus et non possumus ita coniungi sicut gentes que ignorant deum.’

  • 11/1/ Secundo debet esse fidelitas in matrimonium contractum conseruando, ut sit ibi bonum fidei. /2/ Ista autem fidelitas in quattuor attenditur.

quando] cum V3 et ad cultum dei educande] om. P7 contrahitur] matrimonium contrahitur Pr 9/2/ sic] P5, Pr: sicut P1+ 9/4/ Unde] om. P7 9/5–6/ (all)] om. P7 9/7/ Sic tales] om. P7 matrimonium] om. P7, Pr 9/8/ portare] secum portare P5 (isolated reading, but still a plausible alternative) poterunt] V1: ∗potuerunt P1 (unclear), P5: p otu(er)nt (i.e. ambiguous abbreviation) Pr, P3 sicu t … vi] om. P7 9/9/ Tales] preceded by Sic igitur ad Tytum in P1, V1+ quod tamen] que tamen P7+ sic Iesus sit] sit Iesus P2, P7, V2, V3: sit (expunged) Iesus sit P4 in nuptiis] ibi P5 9/10/ tantum] quando P7 10/1/ oblatis] P3: oblectatis P1 dixit: ‘Malo] ‘Malo’, inquit Pr dixit] P3: et dixit P1dare uiro] P3: dare P1 10/2/ Isto … intentione] isto recto modo P7: isto modo recte V2: isto, scilicet recto modo V3 sororem] uxorem sororem P7 10/3/ et non … deum] etc. P7 possumus] P5, Pr: possimus P1 11/1/ matrimonium contractum conseruando] conseruando matrimonium P7, V3 11/2/ … attenditur] in P2 paragraph-marks direct the reader to a long passage in the lower margin, beginning: Et nota ∗quod non debent seruare fidelitatem in corpore solum sed etiam in anima

(p.255) is required, in order that it should have the good of children, which happens when marriage is contracted with the intention of procreating children and educating them to give worship to God. /2/Not so the usurers or avaricious, who contractmarriage in order to accumulate wealth. /3/ Thesemen contract marriage with money rather than with a bride. /4/ Therefore of suchmen it is said in Psalms (75 (76): 6): ‘They have slept their sleep.’ /5/ For the life of such men is only a kind of sleepor dream. /6/ Note the story about the man who dreams he is a king: when he wakes up, he is sorrowful, though he was happy when he was asleep. /7/ So it is with men of that sort: ‘all the men of riches have found nothing in their hands’ (Psalms 75 (76): 6). /8/ ‘For’ they ‘brought nothing into this world: certainly’ they ‘can carry nothing out’, as is said at 1 Timothy 6: 7. /9/ Such men do not contractmarriage with the right intention, but this is demanded in order that Jesus be present at the marriage in this way.2 /10/ 1 Corinthians 7 (39): ‘Let her marry to whomshe will, only in the Lord’, that is, for the honour of the Lord.

  • 10/1/ Note the story about the philosopher who, when his daughter had the choice between two men, one stupid and rich, the other poor and wise, said: ‘I prefer to give my daughter to a man in need of money than to money in need of a man.’ /2/ It was in this way, i.e. with the right intention, that Tobias contracted marriage, and said, Tobias 8: 9: ‘Lord, you know that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister3 to wife, but for the love of children to follow.’ /3/ And in the same place (Tobias 8: 5): ‘For we are the children of saints: and we cannot be joined together like the heathens who know not God.’

  • 11/1/ Secondly, fldelity in preserving the marriage once contracted, so that it should have the good of faith. /2/ This fldelity shows itself in four things.

  • (p.256)
  • 12/1/ Primo in intima uel interna cordium dilectione. /2/ Eph. 5 (25): ‘Uiri diligite uxores uestras.’ /3/ Hoc est unum quod summe placet deo, Ecc(li). 25 (1–2): ‘In tribus beneplacitum est spiritui meo que sunt probata coram deo et hominibus: Concordia fratrum, amor proximorum, ∗uir et mulier bene, id est, in bono, sibi consentientes.’ /4/ Non enim ∗debent se inordinate diligere, quia sicut dicit sanctus: ‘Uehemens amator uxoris adulter est’,3 immo peior quam ∗adulter, quia de eo quod datum est sibi in remedium, facit uenenum. /5/ Ad hoc enim institutum est matrimonium, ut sit in remedium contra incontinentiam. /6/ Prima Cor. vii (9): ‘si non continent, nubant: melius est nubere quam uri’.

  • 13/1/ Secundo consistit ista fidelitas in temporalium mutual administratione; sicut enim dicitur Eph. 5 (29), ‘Nemo unquam carnem suam odio habuit, sed nutrit et fouet eam’, quod est contra ebriosos. /2/ Prima Cor. vii (33): ‘Qui cum uxore est, cogitat que sunt mundi’, et ibidem (1 Cor. 7: 34): ‘Que nupta est, cogitat que sunt mundi’, scilicet, ∗prouisionem domus sue.

  • 14/1/ Tertio consistit in mutui honoris impensione. /2/ Prima Pe(tri) 3 (6–7): ‘Sara obediebat Abrahe, dominum eum uocans; similiter uiri quasi inflrmiori uasculo muliebri impartientes honorem.’

  • 15/1/ Quarto consistit inmutua | et inuiolabili iuris thori conseruatione. /2/ ‘Mulier enim sui corporis potestatem non habet, set uir, et e conuerso’, sicutdicitur Prima Cor. 7 (4). /3/ Et ideo

    [fo. 45r]

12/1/ intima uel interna] P1, V1: interna P3: intima P5: intenta Pr 12/3/ est] est enim Pr+ summe placet deo] multum placet deo P7: placet deo multum V3 meo] corr. from sancto in P1 que sunt … consentientes] etc. P7 12/4/ sanctus] Iere. P2 amator … adulter … adulter] amor … adulterium … adulterium V3 adulter est] P5, Pr+: adulter esse P1 12/5/ in] om. P3+ 12/6/ est] est enim P7 13/1/ sicut … dicitur] om. P7 enim] P3, V1: om. P1 14/1/ mutui] om. P7 honoris] obsequii P5 impensione] exibitione P7 15/1/ mutua … conseruatione] thori inuiolabilitate P7 conseruatione] P5, Pr: conuersatione P1 15/2-3/ (all)] ii Cor. vi ‘uir uxori debitum reddat’, etc. P7

(p.257)

  • 12/1/ Firstly in an intimate or deep-seated4 love of the heart. /2/ Ephesians 5: 25: ‘Husbands, love your wives’. /3/ This is one thing which pleases God to the highest degree, Ecclesiasticus 25 (1–2): ‘With three things my spirit is pleased, which are approved before God and men: The concord of brethren, the love of neighbours, and a man and wife that agree well—that is, in what is good—together. /4/ For they should not love one another in a disordered fashion, since, as the saint says, ‘The vehement lover of his wife is an adulterer’, indeed, worse than an adulterer, because he turns that which was given to him as a remedy into a poison. /5/ For marriage was instituted to this end: that it should be a remedy against incontinence. /6/ 1 Corinthians 7: 9: ‘If they do not contain themselves, let them marry. It is better to marry than to burn.’

  • 13/1/Secondly, this fidelity consists in service to each other with regard to temporal things; for as it is said in Ephesians 5: 29: ‘No one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it‘—which is against drunkards. /2/1 Corinthians 7: 33: ‘He who is with a wife thinks the things of this world’, and, in the same place (1 Corinthians 7: 34): ‘she that is married thinks on the things of this world’, namely, about providing for her household.

  • 14/1/ Thirdly, it consists in the paying of mutual honour. /2/1 Peter 3: 6–7: ‘Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord; likewise husbands, giving honour to the female as to the weaker vessel.’

  • 15/1/ Fourthly, it consists in both members of the couple preserving the law of the marriage bed without any violation. /2/ ‘The woman has not power of her own body, but her husband’, and vice versa, as is said in 1 Corinthians 7 (4). /3/ And (p.258) ibidem (1 Cor. 7: 3) precipitur ut uir uxori debitum reddat, et e conuerso.

  • 16/1/ De istis duobus ultimis, scilicet honore et thori inuiolabilitate, dicitur Heb. ultimo (13: 4): ‘Honorabile connubium in omnibus’, quoad primum, ‘et thorus immaculatus’, quoad secundum. /2/ Sed heu, hodie potest dici de multis quod dicitur Sapientie 14 (24): ‘Neque nuptias mundas iam custodiunt.’ /3/ In multis enim, sicut ibidem(Sap. 14: 26) dicitur, est ‘inconstantia nuptiarum, inordinatio mechie et impudicitie’, id est in tantumut possit dici illud quod dicebant discipuliad Dominum, Mt. ∗19 (10): ‘Si est ita causa hominis cum uxore, non expedit nubere.’

  • 17/1/ Tertio requiritur inseparabilitas in uiuendo, ut sit scilicet ibi bonum sacramenti. /2/ Unde prima Cor. 7 (10): ‘Hiis qui in matrimonio iuncti sunt precipio non ego, sed Dominus, uxorem a uiro non discedere; si autem discesserit, manere innuptam’; /3/ et post (1 Cor. 7: 12) ‘Si quis frater uxorem habet non fidelem, et hec consentit habitare cum eo, non dimittat eam’; similiter de uiro.

  • 18/1/ In talibus nuptiis igitur, in quibus ista tria concurrunt, est Iesus.

  • 19/1/ Tertie nuptie sunt nuptie spirituales, scilicet dei ad animam, que celebrantur in thalamo conscientie. /2/ ∗Hoc matrimonium solo amore contrahit deus cum anima, et necesse est interuenire consensum, sicutin matrimonio carnali.

15/3/ precipitur … reddat] precipit uir uxori debitum reddat P2 (‘the husband commands the wife to pay the debt’?) 15/3/ ut uir uxori debitum reddat] P5, Pr: uir uxori ut debitum reddat P1 et e conuerso] om. P5, Pr (could be coincidence rather than a conjunctive error) 16/1/ ultimis] om. P7 omnibus’] P5, Pr: criminibus P1 16/2/ ‘Neque … custodiunt’] iam enim nec nuptias mundas custodiunt, etc. P7: iam nuptias inmundas custodiunt V3 16/3/ sicut ibidem … dicitur, est] inuenitur sicut ibi dicitur P7 inconstantia] immunditia P7 et impudicitie’, id est] om. P7 possit] P5, Pr: posset P1 illud] P5, Pr: id P1? discipuli] apostolic V3 uxore] muliere P7 17/1/ sit scilicet] P3, V1: s. P1 17/2/ Unde] om. P7 iuncti] om. P7 si autem … innuptam’] etc. P7, which adds Mt. xix (6): quod deus coniunxit, homo, etc. discesserit] Pr, ∗P5, ∗P3, V1: discessit P1 17/3/ (all)] om. P7 habet] P3, V1, Pr: habeat P1 hec] P5?, Pr: hic P1?, P3, V1 consentit] P5, Pr: non consentit P1, P3, V1 eo] Pr+: ea P1, P3, P5, V1 dimittat] P5, Pr: dimittet P1, P3, V1 18/1/ (all)] om. P7 in quibus] ubi Pr 19/1/ sunt nuptie] sunt P7 scilicet … animam] om. P7 conscientie] inter deum et hominem added in P7 19/2/ interuenire] Pr: corr. from inuenire in P1?: inuenire P3, V1: ibi uenire P5

(p.259) therefore in the same place (1 Corinthians 7: 3) it is commanded that the husband render the debt to his wife, and vice versa

  • 16/1/ Concerning the last two things, that is, honour and the preservation of the marriage bed, it is said in the final chapter of Hebrews (13: 4): ‘Marriage honourable in all’, with respect to the first point, ‘and the bed undefiled’ with respect to the second. /2/ But alas, today one can say of many the words of Wisdom 14: 24: ‘nor do they now keepm arriage undefiled’. /3/ For as it is said in the same place (Wisdom 14: 26), in many there is ‘inconstancy in marriage, the disorder of adultery and of immodesty’, to such a degree, that is, that one may say what the disciples said to the Lord, Matthew 19: 10: ‘If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.’

  • 17/1/ Thirdly, inseparability in living is required, so that the good of the sacrament be present. /2/ And so, 1 Corinthians 7 (10–11): ‘To those who are joined together in marriage, not I, but the Lord, commands that the wife depart not from her husband; if she departs, however, that she remain unmarried’; /3/ and afterwards (1 Corinthians 7: 12): ‘If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she consents to dwell with him, let him not put her away’; similarly with a husband.

  • 18/1/ In such amarriage, therefore, in which these three things come together, Jesus is present.

  • 19/1/ The third marriage is the spiritual marriage, that is, of God to the soul, and this is celebrated in the marriage chamber of conscience. /2/ God contracts this marriage with the soul out of love alone, and it is necessary for consent to be given, just as in a carnal marriage.

  • (p.260)
  • 20/1/ Nota: si quis haberet unam filiam heredem regni, sollicitus esset cui eam daret. /2/ Ecc(li.) 7 (27): ‘Trade filiam’, et post, ‘uiro sapienti da eam’, id est, Christo. /3/ Prouer. 23 (26): ‘fili, prebe michi cor tuum’. /4/ Et nisi cito dederis eamdeo ∗honorabiliter, dabis uel uendes eamdiabolo uiliter. /5/Quelibet enim anima uel est sponsa regis celestis uel concubina dyaboli. /6/ Grandis diuisio, granz diuise.

  • 21/1/ Sunt autem vii conditiones in Christo que communiter in sponso solent requiri, propter quas libenter debet anima cum ipso matrimonium spirituale contrahere, que omnes tanguntur in principio epistole ad Hebre.

  • 22/1/ Prima conditio est quia est eloquentissimus: Gall(ice): ‘biaus ∗parlers’. /2/ Ipse enim per pulcram locutionem suam ∗rationabiliter ∗allegauit querelam nostram in cruce: gall(ice): ‘deregna’—et adhuc allegat in curia celesti. /3/ ‘Aduocatum enim habemus apud patrem: Iesum Christum iustum’, i Io. ∗2 (1). /4/Unde ipsemet dicit de se ipso, Ysa. lxiii (1): ‘Ego ∗qui ∗loquor iustitiam et propugnator sum ad saluandum. /5/ Gall(ice): ‘Iai desraine bienma droiture e si combat bien pur ma alme sauuer.’ /6/ Ista conditio tangitur cum dicitur (Hebr. 1: 1–2): ‘Multipharie multisque modis’, etc., ‘nouissime | diebus istis locutus est nobis in filio’.

    [fo. 45v]

  • 23/1/ Secundo est ditissimus. /2/ Unde sequitur (Hebr. 1: 2): ‘quem constituit heredem uniuersorum’. /3/ Ideo dicit anima

20/1/ unam] unicam Pr regni] regni terreni P720/2/ filiam’] P5, Pr: om. P1: et grande opus feceris added in P7 ‘uiro] P5, Pr: fi/si (deleted?) uiro P1 eam’] illamP7 id est, Christo] desponsa igitur animam t. deo P7 20/3/ (all)] om. P7 20/4/ Et nisi] quia nisi P7 cito] om. P7 20/5/ regis celestis] Christi P7 concubina] adultera P7 20/6/ diuisio] P7unclear granz diuise] Gall(ice) gran deuise (gran deuise expunged then repeated) P3: om. P5, P7: Gall(ice) grant de uise Pr: Gallice granz diuise V1 21/1/ (all)] om. P7 22/1/-29/1/ (all)] abridged in P7 to Christus enim sponsus etiam ditissimus. Heb. i (2) ‘quem constituit heredem uniuersorum’ etc. [cf. 23/1–2/]. Formosissimus. Heb. i (3): ‘Qui cum sit spendor’ etc. [cf. 25/1–2/]. Ysa. (63: 1): ‘Iste formosus in stola’ etc. (/3/) Ps. (44: 3; cf. 1 Peter 1: 12): ‘Speciosus forma’ etc. (/4/) Optimus et excellentissimus, id est, tanto est melior angelis effectus, etc. [cf. 27/1–2/] 22/1/ parlers’] parliers P3, Pr, V1: parleirs P5 22/2/ suam ∗rationabiliter] om. Pr ‘deregna’] deregns P1?: deraina P3: desrena P5: desreigna Pr: dereingna V1 22/3/ i] P3,V1: om. P1 22/4/ Unde] Et Pr 22/5/ Iai] Le n P5?: Ie Pr desraine] derainie P3: desrene P5: desreigne Pr bien] bene/ben P3: bion Pr? droiture] dreture P5e] et P3, P5, V1 si] se P5 combat] me combat P3, Pr bien] bene/ben P3 pur ma] por mon P3, Pr: p or moi P5 alme] aman P3: bonami Pr: ame V1 sauuer’] a sauer P3?: saluer V1

(p.261)

  • 20/1/ Note: if someone had one daughter who was the heiress of a kingdom, he would take a lot of care in choosing a husband for her. /2/ Ecclesiasticus 7: 27: ‘Marry your daughter’, and afterwards: ‘give her to a wise man’, that is, to Christ. /3/ Proverbs 23: 26: ‘My son, give me your heart.’ /4/ And unless you make haste to give her to God honourably, you will disparage her by giving or selling her to the Devil. /5/ For every soul is either the bride of the heavenly king or the concubine of the Devil. /6/ A great difference, ‘granz divise’.

  • 21/1/ There are, however, seven conditions in Christ which are commonly required in a bridegroom, and because of these the soul ought to be willing to contract a spiritual marriage with him; and all these conditions are mentioned at the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

  • 22/1/ The first condition is for him to be very skilful as a speaker: ‘biaus parlers’, in French. /2/ For on the cross he made a reasoned plea on our behalf in beautiful words: ‘deregna’, in French—and he continues to argue our plea in the court of heaven. /3/ We have an advocate before the Father: Jesus Christ, the just, 1 John 2: 1. /4/ Therefore he himself said of himself, Isaiah 63: 1: ‘I, that speak justice and am a defender to save’. /5/ In French: ‘Iai desraine bien ma droiture e si combat bien pur ma alme sauuer [I have argued my right well and fight well to save my soul].’ /6/ This condition is mentioned when it is said (Hebrews 1: 1–2): ‘At sundry times and in diversmanners’, etc.,5 ‘last of all in these days he has spoken to us in [his] son’.

  • 23/1/ Secondly, he is very rich. /2/ Therefore it continues (Hebrews 1: 2): ‘whom he has appointed heir of all things’.

(p.262) sancta, Sapientie 8 (9): ‘Proposui hanc’—id est, sapientiam increatam: dei filium—sponsummichi sumere, qui ‘∗communicabit’ michi ‘de bonis’ suis.

  • 24/1/ Tertio est sapientissimus. /2/ Unde sequitur: ‘per quem fecit et secula’. /3/ Prouer. 3 (19): ‘Dominus sapientia fundauit terram, stabiliuit celos prudentia.’

  • 25/1/ Quarto est ∗pulcherrimus. /2/ Unde sequitur (Hebr. 1: 3): ‘Qui cum sit splendor glorie et figura substantie’ dei. /3/ Ipse enim est ‘formosus in stola sua’ (Is. 63: 1). /4/ Unde in Ps. 63 (recte 44: 3): ‘Speciosus forma pre filiis hominum’, ‘in quem desiderant angeli ∗prospicere’ (1 Pet. 1: 12).

  • 26/1/ Quinto est fortissimus siue potentissimus. /2/ Unde sequitur (Hebr. 1: 3): ‘portans omnia uerbo uirtutis sue’. /3/ Istam autem fortitudinem maxime declarat portando peccatores per expectationem. /4/ Facilius enim est portare totum mundum quam unum peccatorem uel peccatum. /5/ Unde Gregorius: ‘Deus qui omnipotentiam tuam parcendo’, etc.4

  • 27/1/ Sexto est nobilissimus. /2/ Unde sequitur (Hebr. 1: 4): ‘tanto excelsior angelis factus’. /3/ Et sequitur (Hebr. 1: 5): ‘ad quem enim angelorum dixit: “Filius meus es tu”?’

  • 28/1/ Septimo est inmortalis et eternus. /2/ Unde sequitur (Hebr. 1: 12): ‘Tu autem idem ipse es’, etc. /3/Hic enimest ‘qui habet solus inmortalitatem’, i Thi(m). vi (16).

  • 29/1/ Propter igitur istas vii conditiones libenter debet anima contrahere matrimonium cum ipso. /2/ Sed aduertendum est quod iste sponsus quattuor conditiones ∗requirit in sponsa, (p.263) /3/ Therefore the holy soul says, Wisdom 8: 9: ‘I proposed to take her’—that is, the uncreated wisdom, the son of God—to myself as a bridegroom, who ‘will communicate to me of her good things’.

23/3/ sancta] space follows in P1 sponsum] sponsam Pr: also P5 but ‘corrected’ from sponsum, so no stemmatic argument 25/3/ est] P5, Pr: om. P1 26/4/ peccatorem uel peccatum] P5: peccatorem propter peccatum Pr: peccatum P1 26/5/ etc.] maxime Pr 27/2/ ‘tanto excelsior] melior Pr 27/3/ tu”?] et viio capitulo (Hebr. 7: 26) dicitur: ‘excelsior celis factus’ added in Pr 28/1/ Septimo] 7 P1 28/2/ etc.] et anni tui non deffcient Pr 28/3/ (all)] Et p rimaThi. vi ‘qui solus habet immortalitem’ Pri] V1: primo P1: prima P3 (ia) 29/2/–30/7/ (all)] Iste uero sponsus in sponsa sua, scilicet anima, requirit castitatem P7

  • 24/1/ Thirdly he is very wise. /2/ Therefore it continues (Hebrews 1: 2): ‘by whom he also made worlds’. /3/ Proverbs 3: 19: ‘The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth, and established the heavens by prudence’.

  • 25/1/ Fourthly, he is very good-looking. /2/ Therefore it continues (Hebrews 1: 3): ‘who, since he is the splendour of glory and the figure of the substance’ of God. /3/ For he is ‘beautiful in his robe’ (Isaiah 63: 1). /4/ Therefore it says in Psalms 44: 3: ‘Attractive in form beyond the sons of men’, ‘on whom the angels desire to look’ (1 Peter 1: 12).

  • 26/1/ Fifthly he is very strong or powerful. /2/ Therefore it follows (Hebrews 1: 3): ‘upholding all things by the word of his power’. /3/He makes that power clear above all by carrying sinners: by bearingwith them. /4/ For it is easier to bear the whole world than one sinner or sin. /5/ Therefore Gregory the Great says: ‘O God, who [manifests] your omnipotence [especially] by showing forebearance’ etc.

  • 27/1/ Sixthly, he is very noble. /2/ Therefore it continues (Hebrews 1: 4): ‘being made so much higher than the angels’. /3/ And it continues (Hebrews 1: 5): ‘For to which of the angels has he said: “You are my son”?’

  • 28/1/ Seventhly, he is immortal and eternal. /2/ Therefore it continues (Hebrews 1: 12): ‘But you are the self-same’, etc. /3/ For this is the one ‘who alone has immortality’, 1 Timothy 6: 16.

  • 29/1/ Because of these seven conditions the soul ought to contract marriage with him willingly. /2/ But it should be noted that this bridegroom requires four conditions to be satisfed in the (p.264) scilicet uirginitatis integritatem, amoremsiue caritatem, obedientie humilitatem, et ornatus spiritualis ∗uarietatem.

  • 30/1/ Primo dico requirit in sponsa decorum uirginitatis. /2/ Unde Sap. 8 (2): ‘quesiui eam sponsam michi assumere, et amator factus ∗sumforme illius’, id est, uirginitatis illius. /3/ Ista autem uirginitas attenditur tam in integritate corporis quam in integritatementis, que est per diligentem custodiama ∗consensus peccati mortalis. /4/ Unde ista uirginitas, si corrumpatur aliquando per peccatum, reintegratur per penitentiam. /5/ Tunc autem perfecta est integritas in anima quando soli deo uacat, et non est diuisa circa huius mundi temporalia: /6/ secundum illud ∗prima Cor. 7 (34): ‘mulier innupta’ mundo, que scilicet non desponsauit sibi mundum per amorem, ‘et uirgo, cogitate ea que dei sunt’—‘qui autem cum uxore est, cogitat quomodo placeat uxori: qui autem cogitat ea que mundi sunt, diuisus est’, sicut dicitur prima Cor. 7 (33). /7/ Non habet ergo perfectam integritatem.

  • 31/1/ Propter quod preceptum est in Leuit. 21 (13–14) quod sacerdos, id est Christus, uirginem ducat uxorem; uiduam autem et repudiatam et sordidam et meretricem non accipiat’. /2/ Per ‘meretricem’ intelligitur animaque omnibus immunditiis et peccatis mortalibus | se exponit. /3/ Per ‘sordidam’, illa que, licet a peccatis mortalibus se abstineat, adhuc habet sordidas affectiones, quia adhuc nimium affcitur circa temporalia. /4/ De qua dicitur Tren. primo (9): ‘sordes eius in pedibus eius’. /5/ Per ‘repudiatam’ intelligitur anima que licet non affciatur circa temporalia uel carnalia, hoc tamen non est quia ea ∗repudiauerit, (p.265) bride, namely, a virgin’s integrity, love or charity, the humility of obedience, and variety of spiritual adornment.

    [fo. 46r]

29/2/ scilicet] om. P5(replaced by paragraph-mark): uidelicet Pr spiritualis] P5, Pr: spirituali P1? 30/2/ michi] P5, Pr: om. P1 30 /3/ corporis … mentis] mentis quam corporis Pr (after a space) in integritate mentis] mentis P3: cordis P5 30/4–5/ (all)] Unde ista uirginitas ∗est in anima … temporalia Pr (abridgement, noterror?) 30/5/ huius mundi] P5 (on grounds of sense): huiusmodi P1+ (.ts awkwardly with preceding context) 30/6/ illud] P5, Pr: id P1? mundo, que scilicet] om. P5: scilicet que Pr desponsauit] P5, Pr: desponsauerit P1 amorem] P3, Pr: amatorem P1 ea que … ea que] que … que P5: que … ea que Pr 30/7/ ergo] igitur P5 31/1/ Propter … 21] Leui. xxi precipitur P7 Propter quod] Propter hoc Pr non accipiat’] Pr: om. P1, P3, V1: non ducat P5: non recipiat P7 31/2–6/ (all)] Uidua appellatur anima peccatrix que ∗separata est a Christo. Repudiata, quia derelicta a deo. Sordida, quia maculata peccato. Meretrix, quia exposita dyabolo P7 31/2/ mortalibus] etiam mortalibus Pr 31/3/ adhuc] tamen adhuc Pr temporalia] et carnalia added in Pr 31/5/ licet] P5, Pr: licet anima P1 afficiatur] multum afficiatur Pr

  • 30/1/ Firstly, I say, he requires in his bride the graciousness of virginity. /2/ Consequently, Wisdom 8: 2: ‘I have sought to take her to myself as a bride, and I have become a lover of her beauty’, that is, of her virginity. /3/ But this virginity shows it self both in integrity of body and in integrity of mind, which comes from carefully guarding oneself from consent to mortal sin. /4/ Consequently, if this virginity should ever get corrupted by sin, its integrity is restored through penance. /5/ Perfect integrity in the soul is achieved when it gives itself over to God alone, and is not divided with respect to the temporal things of this world: /6/ as it is said in 1 Corinthians 7: 34: ‘a woman not married’ to the world, that is, one who has not married6 the world through love, ‘and the virgin thinks on the things of God’;—‘but he that is with a wife thinks about how he may please his wife: for he who thinks about the things which are of the world is divided’, as is said in 1 Corinthians 7: 33. /7/ Therefore he does not have perfect integrity.

  • 31/1/ For this reason it was commanded in Leviticus 21: 13–14 that a priest, that is, Christ, ‘should take a virgin as a wife, but that he should not take a widow, or one that has been repudiated, or defiled, or a harlot’. /2/ By ‘harlot’ is understood the soul which exposes herself to all kinds of impurities and mortal sins. /3/ By ‘one that has been deled’, she who, though she keeps herself free from mortal sins, still has feelings that are defiled, because her feelings are still too much bound up with temporal things. /4/ Of this it is said in Lamentations 1 (9): ‘Her impurities are in her feet.’ /5/ By ‘one that has been repudiated’ is understood the soul which, though it is not moved by temporal or carnal things, nevertheless this7 is not because the soul has repudiated them, indeed, it is rather because the soul has been (p.266) immo potius quia ab ipsis repudiata est; et libenter se ingereret adhuc si posset recipi—sicut lecatores nutriti in curiis, quando eiciuntur per unum hostium, redeunt per aliud. /6/ Per ‘uiduam’ intelligitur anima cui mundus mortuus est, sednon ipsa mundo, que adhuc libenter de mundanis et carnalibus loquitur et cogitat, sicut uidua de marito mortuo, licet fuerit ei pessimus.

  • 32/1/ Et nota quod non solum tenetur sponsa seruare siue habere integritatem, immo etiam ostendere sponso, si petit, signa uirginitatis, sicutdicitur in Leuit. (Deut. 22: 15?), inter que signa precipuum est uerecundia, ut scilicet non exhibeat se familiare malicui nisi sponso, et quod non det mentem locutionibus, id est, suggestionibus dyaboli. /2/ Licet enim necesse habeat audire, non tamen debet respondere, quia respondere est ei consentire. /3/ In signum huius legimus, Ysa. 38 (recte Is. 36: 21) quod Ezechias precepit populo ut ∗non responderet Rapsaci.

  • 33/1/ Secundo requirit in ea amorem siue caritatem, ut scilicet sponsa diligat sponsum: alioquin non essent nuptie delectabiles. /2/ Ie(rem.) 2 (2) ‘Recordatus sumtui, miserans adholescentiam tuam, et caritatem desponsationis tue’ id est, per quam te michi desponsaui.

  • 34/1/Hinc est quod ille nuptie de quibus agit presens ∗euuangelium, per quas intelliguntur nuptie spirituales, sunt facte in Chana Galilee. /2/ Chana interpretatur ‘zelus’,5 Galilea interpretatur ‘rota’,6 et significat deum, qui non habet principium (p.267) repudiated by them; and it would gladly throw itself at them if it still had a chance of being received—just as hangers-on who are fed at courts, when they are thrown out through one door, return through another. /6/ By ‘widow’ is understood the soul to which the world is dead, but which is not dead to the world, which still gladly speaks and thinks about worldly and carnal things, as a widow does of her dead husband, despite the fact that he treated her very badly.

    immo] sed Pr ingereret] P3, Pr: ingeret P1 31/6/ que] quia P5 32 (all)] om. P7 32/1/ tenetur sponsa] P3+: tenetur sponsa tenetur P1 etiam] P5, Pr: et P1 que signa] P5, Pr: que signum P1 et quod … dyaboli] quia debet mentem longe habere a suggestionibus dyaboli P5det mentem] respondeat Pr32/3/ Rapsaci] l added in P1, V1 (not in P3, P5, Pr) 33/1/ Secundo] om. P7in ea] P3, Pr, V1: in eam P1: om. P5 ut … delectabiles] om. P7 essent nuptie delectabiles] esset fidelis P533/2/ (all)] Iere. ii ‘recordatus sum adolescentie tue, caritatem desponsationis tue, quando sequta es me in deserto’ P7 te … desponsaui] desponsam te michi habui P5 34/1/ (all)] om. P7 Hinc … ille] nota quod P5 sunt] dicuntur Pr 34/2/ om. P7

  • 32/1/ And not that the bride is not only bound to keepo r have integrity, but also to show the bridegroom the signs of virginity, if he asks for them, as is said in Leviticus,8 and among these signs the principal one is modesty, that is, so that she should not behave herself in a familiar way with anyone except her husband, and that she should not pay attention to the speeches, i.e. to the suggestions, of the Devil. /2/ For although she cannot help hearing, still she should not reply, for to reply is to consent to him. /3/ As a sign of this we read, Isaiah 36: 21, that Ezechias told the people not to reply to Rapsaces.

  • 33/31/ Secondly, he requires her to have love or charity, so that the bride should love the bridegroom, that is: otherwise the marriage would be without delight. /2/ Jeremiah 2: 2: ‘I remember you, with compassion for your youth, and the love of your espousals’, that is, through which I espoused9 you to myself.

  • 34/1/ Hence it is that the marriage with which the present Gospel is concerned, throughwhich spiritualmarriage is understood, took place in Cana of Galilee. /2/ Cana means ‘zeal’, Galilee means ‘wheel’, and signifies God, who has no begin (p.268) neque finem, ad modum rote. /3/ Fuerunt ergo iste nuptie spirituales in Chana Galilee, id est in zelo et amore dei. /4/ Hinc est etiam quod fatue uirgines, ∗non habentes oleum caritatis in lampadibus, non intrauerunt cum sponso ad nuptias.

  • 35/1/ Tertio requirit in ea obedientie humilitatem. /2/ Hoc ∗respexit ipse specialiter in beata uirgine, sicut ipsamet dicit in cantico.7 /3/ Hinc est quod Vashti superba, que contempsit uenire ad regis inperium, separata est ab Assuero, sicutdicitur Hester primo. /4/ Sed Hester humilis, que abhominabatur omne signum superbie, sicud ipsamet dixit (Esther 14: 16) meruit ab eo desponsari, sicud dicitur Hester 2. /5/ De qua desponsatione dicitur (Esther 2: 18) quod rex fecit ‘conuiuium preparari magnificum pro ∗coniunctione et nuptiis Hester’.

  • 36/1/ Quarto requirit in ea ornatus uarietatem. /2/ Non enim decet | exhibere sponsam nudam regi. /3/ Iste autem ornatus consistit in uarietate uirtutum et bonorum operum. /4/ De quo ornatu dicitur Apoc. 19 (7): ‘uenerunt nuptie agni et uxor ∗eius preparauit se.’ /5/ Iste ornatus est bissus continentie, purpura patientie, persum penitentie, uiride abstinentie, scarletum caritatis, uarium honestatis,8 ut ‘omnis gloria eius filie regis sit ab intus’ (Ps. 44: 14). /6/ De istis omnibus ornamentis dicitur Eze. 16 (9–10): ‘unxi te oleo, et uestiui te discoloribus’.

    [fo. 46v]

34/3/ (all)] Iste nuptie celebrantur in Chana Galilee, quia in zelo caritatis, Io. ii P7 Fuerunt] P5, Pr: Fiunt P1+ (a very plausible reading but with less stemmatic backing: note too that at 34/1/ we have sunt facte rather than fiunt, and that at 34/4/ we have intrauerunt rather than intrant) ergo] autem Pr id est] P5, Pr: quasi P1 34/4/ (all)] Sine hoc oleo fatue uirgines non intrant ad nuptias, Mt. ∗xxv (esp. 11–12) P7 caritatis] scilicet caritatis Pr 35 (all)] om. P7 35/2/ respexit … specialiter] precipue respexit ipse Pr 35/3/ Hinc est] Hinc est etiam Pr 35/4/ sicud ip samet … 2] om. Pr dixit] dT P1, Pr, V1: dicit P3, P5 dicitur] P3, P5 (om. Pr): dT P1 35/5/ dicitur] dicitur Hester ii Pr magnificum] permagnificum Pr coniunctione et]om. P5 36/1/ (all)] Tertio requirit ornatus ueritatem et pulcritudinem P7 36/2–6/ (all)] non enim decet tradere sponsam regi ∗nudam sed bene ornatam. Ps. (44: 10): ‘astitit regina’ etc. Prouer. ult. ‘∗Stragulatam uestem’ etc. P7 36/2/ exhibere] exhiberi P3, P5 (a possible reading) 36/3/ Iste] P5, Pr: IE P1 36/5/ Iste] P5, Pr: IE P1 patientie] P3: passe P5 ut] Pr: et P1+ gloria] Pr: glorie P1+ sit ab] Pr: ab P1+

(p.269) ning or end, like a wheel. /3/Therefore that spiritualmarriage was10 in Cana of Galilee, that is, in the zeal for and love of God. /4/Hence it is also that the foolish virgins, not having the oil of charity, did not go into the marriage when the bridegroom did.

  • 35/1/Thirdly, he requires in her the humility of obedience. /2/ He himself looks for this especially in the blessed Virgin, as she herself says in the canticle.11 /3/ Hence it is that proud Vashti, who haughtily refused to come at the king’s command, was separated from Assuerus, as is said in Esther 1. /3/ But humble Esther, who abominated any sign of pride, as she said herself (Esther 14: 16), deserved to become his bride,12 as is said in Esther 2. /5/ It is said (Esther 2: 18) about this espousal that the king had ‘a magnificent banquet prepared for his union with and marriage to Esther’.

  • 36/1/ Fourthly, he requires in her a variety of adornment. /2/ For it is not fitting to show the bride13 naked to the king. /3/ But this adornment consists in the variety of virtues and good works. /4/ Of this adornment it is said, in Apocalypse 19: 7: ‘the marriage of the lamb has come, and his wife has prepared herself’. /5/ This adornment is the fine linen14 of continence, the purple cloth15 of patience, the ‘perse’16 of penitence, the green cloth17 of abstinence, the ‘scarlet’18 cloth of charity, the ‘vair’19 of honesty, so that ‘all the glory of the king’s daughter is within’20 (Ps. 44: 14). /6/ Of all these adornments it is said in Ezechiel 16: 9–10: ‘I anointed you with oil, and I clothed you with embroidery’.

  • (p.270)
  • 37/1/ Quarte nuptie sunt nuptie eternales, de ∗quibus Apoc. 19 (9): ‘Beati qui ad cenam nuptiarum agni uocati sunt.’ /2/ Et notandum quod quattuor conditiones, que in sponsa in nuptiis spiritualibus requiruntur, exiguntur etiam ad hoc quod recipiatur aliquis ad nuptias eternas, sed multo perfectiores. /3/ Requiruntur enim uirginitas purior, caritas perfectior, humilitas profundior, et ornatus habundantior siue pulcrior.

  • 38/1/ Primo dico requiritur uirginitas siue integritas purior, que scilicet nullum peccatum, neque mortale neque ∗ueniale patiatur. /2/ Tunc enim exhibebit Christus illam gloriosam sponsam ‘non habentem maculam’ mortalis nec ‘rugam’ uenialis (Eph. 5: 27). /3/ Hinc est quod de illis qui, inuitati ad nuptias, ∗neglexerunt uenire, dicit Dominus, Mt. 22 (8): ‘Nuptie parate sunt, sed qui inuitati fuerant non erant digni.’ /4/ Non enim habebant perfectam integritatem spiritualem, immo diuisi erant circa mundana, sicut dicitur ibi (Mt. 22).

  • 39/1/ Secundo exigitur caritas perfectior. /2/ Inde est quod ab istis nuptiis repelli meruit non habens uestem nuptialem, id est, caritatem. /3/ Mt. 22 (12): ‘cui dictum est: Amice, quomodo huc’, etc.

  • 40/1/ Tertio exigitur humilitas profundior. /2/ ‘Qui enim humiliates fuerit, erit in gloria’ (Job 22: 29). /3/ Ideo dicitDominus Luc. 14 (8, 10): ‘Cuminuitatus fueris ad nuptias, non discumbas in primo loco’, etc., ‘seduade et recumbe in nouissimo loco, ut

37/1/–41/3/ (all)] Quarte sunt nuptie eternales, de quibus Apo. (19: 9): ‘Beati qui ad cenam nuptiarum’ etc. Luc. xiiii (8): ‘Cum inuitatus fueris ad nup(tias)’ etc. Mt. xxii (2): ‘Simile est reg(num) ce(lorum)’ etc. Ab istis nuptiis tria genera hominum excluduntur, Luc. xiiii (18–20), scilicet, qui aliamuxoremduxerunt, ut luxuriosi, qui iuga boum probare uolunt, ut cupidi, qui uillam emerunt, ut superbi. Recipiuntur sola ueste nuptiali induti, id est caritate, Mt. xxii (11–13). Ad quas nos perducat, etc. P7 37/1/ Apoc.] Apostolus P1 37/2/ Et notandum] Nota V3 Et] Ad hoc est Pr quattuor] ille quattuor Pr, V3: iste quattuor V2 conditiones … exiguntur] conditiones sunt … que exiguntur P5 (clever attempt to correct a corrupt exemplar?) 37/3/ Requiruntur] P2 (correcting error in archetype?): requiritur P1, P3, P4, Pr, V1, V2,V3: om. P5 38/1/ que scilicet] scilicet ut Pr patiatur] P5: comp atiatur P1+ 38/2/ Christus … sponsam] Pr: sponsam gloriosam Christo P1 38/3/ inuitati] P5, Pr: inuitati sunt P1 dicit] P5: dT Pr: dixit P1fuerant] P1, Pr, P5 (dubious Latin but could be the author’s): erant Vulgate erant] P1, P5, V1: fuerunt Pr, Vulgate (possibly right here) 38/4/ erant] Pr+: om. P1+ 39/2/ id est] scilicet Pr caritatem] P5, Pr: caritatem Christi P1 39/3/ huc’] P5, Pr: hoc P1 40/1/ profundior] Pr, V3: om. P1, P5+

(p.271)

  • 37/1/The fourth marriage is the eternal marriage, of which it is said in Apocalypse 19: 19: ‘Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the lamb.’ /2/ And it should be noted that the four conditions, which are required of the bride in the spiritual marriage, are also demanded if someone is to be allowed into the eternal marriage, but in a much more perfect form. /3/ For the following are required: a purer virginity, a more perfect charity, a more profound humility, and a more abundant or more lovely adornment.

  • 38/1/ Firstly, I say, a purer virginity or integrity is required, that is, one which does not suffer any sin, not mortal, not venial. /2/Then Christwill present her as a glorious spouse, ‘not having the stain’ of mortal sin nor ‘the wrinkle’ of venial sin (Ephesians 5: 27). /3/ Hence it is that the Lord says, Matthew 22: 8, about those who were invited to the marriage and neglected to come, that ‘The marriage has been prepared, but those who had been invited were unworthy.’ /4/ For they did not have perfect spiritual integrity, indeed, they were divided with respect to worldly things, as it is said in that place (Matthew 22).

  • 39/1/ Secondly, amore perfect charity is demanded. /2/Hence it is that the person who did not have a wedding garment, that is, charity, was deservedly driven away from that marriage. /3/ Matthew 22: 12: ‘To him it was said: Friend, how [how did you come] in here [without having a wedding garment]?’

  • 40/1/Thirdly, a more profound humility is demanded. /2/ ‘He that has been humbled will be in glory’ (Job 22: 29). /3/ Therefore the Lord says, Luke 14 (8, 10): ‘When you have been invited to a marriage, do not sit down in the first place’, etc., ‘but go and (p.272) cum uenerit qui te inuitauit, dicat tibi: “Amice, ascende superius”, et tunc erit tibi gloria coram simul discumbentibus’.

  • 41/1/ Quarto exigitur ornatus uarietas habundantior, scilicet uirtutum et operum bonorum et meritorum. /2/ Unde Mt. 25 (10) dicitur: ‘Que parate erant’, id est, diuersis meritis ornate, ‘intrauerunt cum sponso ad nuptias.’ /3/ Ad quas nos p(erducat), Amen.

(p.273) sit down in the lowest place, so that when the person who invited you comes, he may say to you: “Friend, go up higher”, and then you will have glory with those that sit at table with you’.

  • 41/1/ Fourthly, amore abundant variety of adornment, that is, of virtues and good deeds and merits, is demanded. /2/ Therefore it is said in Matthew 25: 10: ‘they that were ready’, that is, adorned with diversmerits, ‘went in with the bridegroom to the marriage’. /3/May he lead us to it, Amen.

Notes:

(1) I have retained the sigla of L.-J. Bataillon and N. Bériou, ‘”G. de Mailly“ de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 61 (1991), 5–88 at 78: hence the omission of P6,since I have not collated the manuscript in question.

(2) Although Gérard may have borrowed his fourfold schema of marriage from Pierre de Saint-Benoît, it should be noted that ‘sacramental’ is given a different meaning. For Pierre it was the marriage of Christ and the Church, whereas for Gérard it is normal human marriage.

(3) See N. Bériou and D. L. d’Avray, ‘The Image of the Ideal Husband in Thirteenth Century France’, in eid., with P. Cole,J. Riley-Smith, and M. Tausche, Modern Questions about Medieval Sermons: Essays on Marriage, Death, History and Sanctity (Spoleto, 1994), 31–69.

(4) Ibid. 42–6 for a fuller analysis of the parallels.

(5) Cf. the discussion of MS BL Arundel 395 by Bataillon and Bériou, ‘“G. de Maillyde” l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’, 30: ‘Les modifications les plus substantielles concernent les textes. Ils se trouvent dépourvus des proverbes français qui sont presque toujours cités au début de l’introduction.’

(6) Largely concealed in the margin on the photograph.

(7) Presumed reading: concealed in the margin on the photograph.

(8) It is not possible to tell from the microfilm whether the writing is above or below the top line.

(9) Roger Bacon, Opus tertium, in Fr. Rogeri Bacon Opera Quaedam Hactenus Inedita, i, ed. J. S. Brewer (Rolls Series; London, 1859), 309: ‘Et quia praelati, ut in pluribus, non sunt multum instructi in theologia, nec in praedicatione dum sunt in studio, ideo postquam sunt praelati, cum eis incumbit opus praedicandi, mutuantur et mendicant quaternos puerorum.’

(10) Bataillon and Bériou (p. 68) classify this first collection as Sermones de dominicis rather than de tempore. (The difference is not huge: de dominicis sermons are only for Sundays, whereas de tempore collections include feasts (like Christmas and Holy Thursday) which are not on Sundays but which are not for Saints.) Bataillon and Bériou show that both ways of arranging Gérard de Mailly’s sermons were used, while admitting that collections they describe as de dominicis do include some sermons not for Sundays. This is the case with P7, which has sermons for the Thursday and Friday of Holy Week (I have not checked further). So while their choice of terms is convenient for classifying the tradition, it does not impose itself. My reason for opting for de tempore is that in the liturgically arranged index the second series is described (fo. 128v) as de sanctis, thus the counterpart of a de tempore collection. I doubt if usage was very precise in the Middle Ages: even Schneyer’s modern Repertorium fudges the terminology, which for his purpose was probably well-advised.

(11) The analysis by Bataillon and Bériou of the collection as a whole in this manuscript bears out this impression of an intellectually active and interventionist ‘scribe’: sermons are omitted and added—thus nine sermons by Pierre de Saint-Benoît are inserted—and there is at least a possibility that Jean provided his own ending to a sermon which came to him incomplete. (‘“G. de Mailly” de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’, 30–2).

(12) In each of the first two examples there is another manuscript with a similar variation, so it is possible that an ancestor of Pr rather than Pr himself was individualistic.

(13) Personal communication from L.-J. Bataillon, who also provides the following observations: the French proverbs seem to have been copied correctly (despite the Italian handwriting), and the red initials have violet-coloured ‘filigranes’, which may indicate southern France or north Italy.

(14) With respect to 3/3/, 4/1/, and 4/5/, L.-J. Bataillon points out in a personal communication: that ‘At least P1 and P4 have ambiguous abbreviations’ which could be interpreted either as ‘prolat-’ or as ‘prolucut-’. He suggests that the ambiguity may have been in the exemplar, and that ‘prolatio’ is not a stupid interpretation. Only the fragment of French reveals it to be an error (so the manuscripts with the right interpretation of the abbreviation could have reached it without taking it from the archetype).

(15) P5’s reading looks tempting, but the manuscript’s general record does not inspire confidence.

(16) I have not put a question-mark by this common error in the list of ‘Agreements in Error’, because it is too easy to reclassify after reaching decisions about relationships between manuscripts: an easy descent to stemmatic self-deception. Nevertheless, there would be an honest case for a query here.

(17) To avoid circular argument, I have in general included in the foregoing analysis only those common errors identified before the text of the sermon had been established in its final form. In general the process of establishing it bore out the independence of P5 and Pr: when they agree together, the reading looks inherently plausible as an original reading of the archetype. There is one definite exception: at 41/1/ P5 and Pr both omit ‘habundantior’, as do all the manuscripts collated except V3. It may be that V3 made an emendation here: a very simple one since the correct reading had been indicated just above, at 37/3/, where the parts of the subdivision are announced. Here (as with the omission of ‘profundior’ after ‘humilitas’ at 40/1/) we must reckon with the possibility that the author himself was careless. If not, it must be admitted that the two manuscripts chosen for their independence have a second common error. However, for the method adopted here to work, independence needs only to be relative, because it is only one more probabilistic argument for choosing a given reading.

(18) Cf. the comments of Bataillon and Bériou on another manuscript, not used for this edition, MS BL Arundel 395: ‘Les modifications les plus substantielles concernent les textes. Ils se trouvent dépourvus des proverbes français qui sont presque toujours cités au début de l’introduction (alors qu’une version latine se conserve mieux, par exemple dans le sermon 13). Et ils sont fortement abrégés: par exemple, la division du sermon 2 est reduite de cinq à trois points; la matière du sermon 16 est reduite de moitié environ par rapport à la version habituelle’ (‘“G. de Mailly” de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs’, 30; they also point out that this manuscript omits some texts and adds some new ones).

(1) Cf. Pierre de Saint-Benoît, para. 2/1–2/ (perhaps the direct source).

(2) ‘Chanaan “erubescens” …’ (MS BL Add. 39629, fo. 574RA).

(1) i.e. communion.

(2) The arguments for including or excluding ‘in this way’(‘sic’) from the Latin text are finely balanced.

(3,) A metaphor in context, nedless to say.

(3) ‘Uehemens … adulter est’: cf. Alanus de Insulis, Summa de arte praedicatoria, 45 (‘Ad conjugatos’) (Migne, PL 210. 193); also Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum 1. 49 (Migne, PL 23. 293).

(4) ‘Intimate or deep-seated’: it is possible that ‘intima uel interna’ results from the incorporation of a gloss into the text, but this seems less likely since it is hard to see how ‘uel interna’ would clarify or explain ‘intima’. Pr’s ‘intenta’, ‘eager’, probably originated as a scribal error but makes good sense.

(5) In the Vulgate the passage continues: ‘God spoke in times past to the fathers …’ that is, the passage is about speaking.

(4) Gregory the Great, Liber sacramentorum, Hebdomada xii post Pentecosten (Migne, PL78. 181): ‘Deus, quiomnipotentiam tum parcendo maxime, et miserando manifestas, multiplica super nos misericordiam tuam, ut, ad tua promissa currentes, coelestium bonorum facias esse consortes.’

(6) Or ‘betrothed herself to’.

(7) The awkwardness of the syntax is in the Latin.

(5) ‘Chana “zelus” …’ (MS BL Add. 39629, fo. 574ra).

(6) ‘Galilea “rota” …’ (MS BL Add. 39629, fo. 580VB).

(8) Deut. 22: 15?

(9) There is the usual ambiguity: ‘-spons-’ words can mean either betrothal or marriage.

(7) Probably a reference to the Magnificat. Cf. Luke 1:48,52.

(8) Cf. Guibert de Tournai, para. 14/6/.

(10) Or ‘takes place’, if we adopt the reading ‘fiunt’. See the apparatus.

(11) Probably a reference to the Magnificat, which stresses humility.

(12) ‘desponsari’. See p. 267 n. 9.

(13) Or ‘for the bride to be shown’ (if the reading ‘exhiberi’ is adopted in place of ‘exhibere’).

(14) The names of types of cloth in this passage are hard to translate with certainty. I am indebted to my colleague Patrick Chorley, a leading specialist in the history of medieval textiles, for the notes which follow.

(15) Purpura was a silk cloth, probably light, not necessarily purple in colour.

(16) A dark blue woollen cloth.

(17) Also woollen: woollen cloths were often designated simply by their colour, unlike other materials.

(18) The word does not necessarily imply red at this period—but almost certainly does in this context.

(19) Squirrel fur, probably: the word can mean ray cloth, but that would not be appropriate for a king’s daughter.

(20) The Vulgate continues: ‘in golden borders, clothed around with varieties’.