See a Problem?
Comparison shows that six of the ten tales are to be found in MS Paris and eight of them in the Stella maris. He had the tales of V 1 from the Mariale magnum, and those of V 2 from another collection very like it, which on other occasions he called the Mariale, that is the Ur-Mariale. The sources of the collection which Vincent of Beauvais incorporates into the Speculum historiale are, therefore, as he describes them: 1 the Mariale magnum and 2 the Ur-Mariale. He probably found them together in the same Cistercian monastery which there is reason to believe was Clairvaux.
Victor and MS Paris which included materials other than Mary legends scattered here and there about the collection, as suggested in the Mirande prologue. The Mariale magnum was a more recent and compact collection which had eliminated a good many of the traditional tales whose authenticity had become doubtful, and added others supplied with names of places in which they occurred and witnesses to them. Among them were many Cistercian legends, interpolated in groups.
To this new collection could be given the authority of the Cistercian order which Vincent of Beauvais says that it had. The table on pages compares the legends of Vincent of Beauvais with other Quoniam and Mariale collections. The second collection of Mary legends in MS British Museum Additional , in a script of the thirteenth century, names the Mariale magnum as the source of its legends.
The series of Mary legends which follows agrees substantially with Vincent of Beauvais through chapter a, or well beyond the end of the series which the Dominican took from the Mariale magnum. Several of the legends of Vincent of Beauvais are missing, but none of those omitted is a Cistercian legend. The forty-three legends of MS Additional , therefore, comprise two series, A 1 , nos. The first series, A 1 , was copied from Vincent of Beauvais , who took them from the Mariale magnum, a Cistercian collection.
The second series, A 2 , is also Cistercian. Ten of the eleven incidents occur in Cistercian houses of England or France, or are reported by abbots of Cistercian monasteries of those regions. Seven are from northern France. It is impossible to believe that it applies to the Additional collection itself, because, except for certain additions of details, A 1 was clearly copied from Vincent of Beauvais ; and the collection must therefore have been made after or , the date of the completion of the Speculum historiale.
It is probable that the compiler of the collection was a monk of Clairvaux. When he reaches no. The tale which is interpolated in this fashion, no. One of. His companion prevented him from doing so, and they both entered Clairvaux. The Mariale magnum is given by the compiler as the source of the entire collection of MS Additional In the face of the clear relationship to Vincent of Beauvais , it must be concluded that he used two collections: 1 the Speculum historiale for the legends of A 1 and 2 another Cistercian collection for A 2.
Gobius attributes the last, no. They are similar, too, to that Cistercian legend which the compiler of the Speculum exemplorum said he had from the Mariale, probably the Ur-Mariale, which was the source of the Mariale magnum. Why, if he had the complete Mariale magnum available, did he choose to use a second-hand source?
The answer is that it saved him labor and parchment. Vincent of Beauvais had already reduced the bulky legends to a briefer form without changing the order or detracting from the narrative. He chose the shorter versions of Vincent of Beauvais , except for some details omitted by the encyclopedist, and then added the others at length from the Mariale magnum itself.
If the collection of MS Additional was taken from the Mariale magnum, and the evidence permits us to assume that it was, then the dates of the compilation of the Mariale magnum may be narrowed to the period between and , dates which are not incongruous with what is known about other collections of Mary legends in northern France related to the Mariale magnum.
The Architecture of Modern Italy
The Vendome collection, comprising sixty-five legends as it stands, was made at the Cistercian monastery of Vaux-Cernay, founded in on the borderline between the dioceses of Paris and Chartres. Believing it to be the work of Thibaud de Marley, abbot of Vaux-Cernay, Bouchet dates it between and , the years of his incumbency.
Most of the introductory matter of the Vendome collection is almost identical with that of Vincent of Beauvais. It begins with excerpts from the same portions of the visions of St. Although the diction is very similar, the abbot was clearly not copying from Vincent of Beauvais , for he mentions details from the work which the latter omits.
Nor could Vincent of Beauvais have been taking his excerpts from the Vendome collection for the same reason.
- 2082 pumkin coloring page?
- English to Italian vocabulary list by Freedict | • The Vore.
- The Valley Of Baca.
- Wickedly Magical (Baba Yaga).
They were using a common source which presented that portion of the work in full, presumably the Mariale magnum or the Ur-Mariale. Between the excerpts from St.
- La Nona Emanazione.
- Contemporary Editing.
- e-book La Nona Emanazione (Italian Edition)!
- Warlords: An Extraordinary Re-creation of World War II Through the Eyes and Minds of Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin.
- Tess dei DUbervilles (Italian Edition)?
Elizabeth, the compiler of Vaux-Cernay inserts a brief paragraph from the De transitu of Melito of Sardis quoted by Vincent of Beauvais at greater length. There are also two paragraphs about the girlhood of Mary from a work which John of Garland uses, but which Vincent of Beauvais does not employ in this connection, the Pseudo-Matthei Evangelium. The abbot of Vaux-Cernay, for the most part, relates Cistercian legends and anecdotes which are not frequently in other collections in northern France.
Here and there are some popular ones very greatly abbreviated. Although he tells some familiar tales not among the first series of Vincent of Beauvais , the character of the narratives as well as the order in which they are told points to knowledge of the Mariale magnum or a collection related to it:. Among the first group of five legends is one told to him by the abbot of Clairvaux. While he was there, it may be imagined, he took the opportunity to do some research in the library and among the monastery records.
Interni Italia Marzo 12222
If he was actually Thibaud de Marley abbot , he probably did not find the collection of the Additional manuscript there, for part of that was certainly copied from Vincent of Beauvais , whose work was not completed until or He might very well have seen there that other source used by the compiler of MS Additional , which he said was the Mariale magnum.
The great volume probably lay on the shelves of the library of the monastery of Clairvaux in the second quarter of the thirteenth century along with the earlier Ur-Mariale which will now be referred to as the Clairvaux Mariale. The likelihood is that they were both compiled there where St. Bernard left behind him a strong tradition of devotion to the Virgin Mary. Collections derived from the Mariale magnum had their descendants. The pseudo-Celestine collection, comprising twenty-seven legends, briefly told, depends upon the work of the abbot of Vaux-Cernay.
La Nona Emanazione (Italian Edition)
It is included among the works printed by Telera in as those of Pope Celestine V c. A clue as to the origin of the collection is given in the first legend, the only unique one. This tale, together with the attribution to an Italian, suggests Italy rather than France as the place where the collection was compiled.
It tells how a priest, accused of writing a letter attacking the emperor, had his hand cut off and exposed before his own church dedicated to the Virgin Mary. The legends follow in the same order as in the Vendome collection, although many have been omitted. The diction employed in telling them is not the same, and there are very minor variations in the details.
None of the legends told on the authority of the abbot of Vaux-Cernay is included. The additional legends at the end of the pseudo-Celestine collection only serve as a reminder that the Vendome collection, as we have it to-day, is a fragment. A comparison of these two collections and that of MS Additional follows:. Granted that the Mariale magnum was the work of Cistercian monks, it was the mendicant orders, particularly the Dominicans, who seem to have made the most use of it during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
Just before the end of the thirteenth century, the dignified tales the Cistercians heard in their monasteries begin to appear in a new guise. Almost everything has been eliminated except the bare narrative, and that has been revised by the addition of homely, and sometimes vulgar, detail intended to excite the interest of crowds.
It may have been Johannes Gobius , a Dominican preacher of Alais, who adapted the Mariale magnum to these uses; or if not he, some other of his profession. At any rate, a large number of the legends of the Mariale magnum are included in a great compilation of materials arranged for the use of preachers and called the Scala celi. The work may have been begun as early as the last years of the thirteenth century, although it probably was not completed in its final form before Several Mary legends appear singly under other titles also.
Gobius mentions the source from which each was drawn, as in Mariali magno, in libello de miraculis.
Download Strapaese e Stracittà. «Il Selvaggio» «L'Italiano» «» PDF - TheudofridI
Caesarius, etc. The first twenty-two, and then seven more, are attributed to the Mariale magnum, appearing in almost the same order as in Vincent of Beauvais. The difference in the arrangement is to be explained by the use for which the collection was intended. The first seven series are made up altogether of legends of the Mariale magnum; and all but four of the seventeen series the last four but one, nos. One of the legends Gobius attributes to Vincent of Beauvais. Since Gobius knew Vincent of Beauvais , according to his own statement, Mussafia doubts whether he ever used the Mariale magnum directly.
In the first place, Gobius cites the Mariale magnum as the source of five legends which are not told by Vincent of Beauvais. At least one of the five is just the kind of legend that would be appropriate in the sort of Mariale magnum described above, how a Cistercian monk who knew only the Ave Maria was saved by the Virgin. The tale of the Cistercian monk and another of the five are among a number of legends which can be connected with the Mariale magnum in MS Paris already described.
Other preachers of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries used the collections of Mary legends made in northern France as the source of exempla for their sermons, especially the collection of Vincent of Beauvais. One of them, the Promptuarium Discipuli de miraculis beate virginis, is a collection of one hundred Mary legends. Oswald Pelbart of Temesvar in Hungary, a Franciscan preacher, wrote a work in which is a compilation of materials about the Virgin Mary for the use of preachers.
Some of them are attributed also to the Mariale magnum, although it is clear in this case that he did not use the work itself. Frequently he mentions a double source, as Scala celi et Mariale magnum. The author of the Speculum exemplorum, probably a Flemish Franciscan who wrote in , used the Clairvaux Mariale, Vincent of Beauvais , and the Scala celi, among numerous other sources. The additional legend is a common one, how an image in the church at Mont-St. A collection with the title Rosarius in French vernacular of the second quarter of the fourteenth century was made by a Dominican preacher of Soissons whose name is unknown.
He uses the Grant Marial as one of his principal sources.
It included, in addition, certain Cistercian legends which had accumulated in the monastery since the time of St. Bernard and other materials useful as readings for the celebration of Mary festivals. Among them were the De transitu of Melito of Sardis, the visions of St. The Mariale magnum was a better organized collection, compiled after and before Many of the traditional anecdotes were abandoned to make room for more recent and authentic incidents reported by Cistercian abbots.