Victor SV 1 or from a common source.
Of the ten numbers, seven are identical with those of SV 1 , and the sequence is almost the same in both collections: Four of the legends are omitted, and two have been added. Otherwise the legends follow in the same order. The growing tendency to versify the legends of the Quoniam collections is observed in MS Charleville of the thirteenth century, a collection which has much in common with MS Paris The compiler of X 2 , or some one who preceded him, versified a part of Melito of Sardis.
He attempted also to turn two others into verse, but gave up after the first two lines. The first series, Q 1 , depends upon the first series of the collection of St. Victor, for the legends are identical in form and diction. They are told in almost the same order in both collections except that some have been omitted from Q 1.
The second series, nos. It is difficult to believe that they were originally put together by the same person who compiled Q 1 , for the treatment of the two series is very different. The compiler of the first series has painstakingly followed his source, except for the omission of some of the legends and the rearrangement of others. In Q 2 , not even the most venerable legends escape radical alteration in diction. Others are revised to make them briefer and more dramatic in the manner of the vernacular versions of the thirteenth century.
The Latin style of the legends of Q 2 is more direct than that of the original versions, and the form is often cruder. The thirty-five legends of Q 2 , aside from nos. Eight legends, nos. Fourteen legends, nos. In the third group are five legends, nos.
When he came upon a legend told in both his sources, his instinct for the dramatic led him to rely chiefly upon the vernacular version of Gautier de Coincy. Legends which he found only in the Mariale magnum, he revised in the spirit of the vernacular examples he had before him. Some clue as to the date of Q 2 of MS Paris , aside from the script in which it is written, is furnished by several of the legends in this third group.
Editorial Reviews. About the Author. Javier Pellicer and Rubén Serrano are the compilers of Buy Legendarium IV (Spanish Edition): Read Kindle Store Reviews - maicysasaso.tk Legendarium IV (Tombooktu Fantasia y Terror) (Spanish Edition) [Javier Pellicer, Ruben Serrano] on maicysasaso.tk *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
The evidence, such as it is, supports the conclusion that the collection of Gautier de Coincy , although in the vernacular, is earlier than that of Q 2 in Latin. Three of the five legends of the Mariale magnum are among the narratives of the second collection of MS British Museum of the thirteenth century. The entire collection is said to have been taken from the Mariale magnum. Ward places one not earlier than , another not earlier than , and a third not earlier than Therefore, in the absence of other evidence, it may be concluded tentatively that Q 2 of MS Paris was composed from at least two sources, a Latin collection known by reputation as the Mariale magnum and the vernacular collection of Gautier de Coincy.
As such it is a most unusual collection, for ordinarily vernacular collections were made by translation from the Latin, not Latin collections from the vernacular. The fourth group of legends comprising Q 2 is a miscellaneous group of six, nos. A second anecdote, no. It is probable that the original home of Q 2 was Soissons, or the vicinity of Soissons, for the trails which lead to and from the collection tend to converge on that region.
Not only did the author probably use the Soissons manuscript of Gautier de Coincy , the monk of St. Medard at Soissons, as one of his sources, but a number of the legends told by him appear in a large compilation of Mary lore in the vernacular made not earlier than by an anonymous of Soissons, part of which is known as the Rosarius. There may have been a copy of the Mariale magnum available in the Soissons region about , a possible date for Q 2 as indicated by the script of MS Paris , because the Rosarius depends upon a Grant Marial as its principal source.
Victor interpolates among the miracles, the De transitu of Melito of Sardis and a commentary on a sermon of St. The compiler of MS Paris versified part of the De transitu, and he concludes the collection with references to scenes from the life of the Virgin. The Public Library of Rouen has, among others, two collections of Mary legends, one of which is a copy of the other. The earlier, MS Rouen U of the thirteenth century, bears the title, Mariale, quod est de laude gloriose et perpetue virginis Dei genitricis Marie.
The Rouen Mariale was not originally a single collection, for it has two prologues, one awkwardly following the other. A second prologue, Generalis prefatio, which belongs specifically to the series of Mary legends, follows immediately. As the second prologue foreshadows, the Rouen Mariale is a descendant of the collections of St. Of the sixty-four legends of the Rouen collections, the first forty-three, R 1 , are the same, except for changes in diction and sequence, as those of the first series of MS Paris The series from Gregory of Tours follows in the same order in both except that chapter 18 of the In gloria martyrum has been interpolated between the two legends of chapter 8, and chapter 10 has been omitted.
Both are legends about Mary relics. The fact that the series in MS Paris X 1 is chapters without modification suggests that chapter 18 is a substitution made by the compiler of the Rouen Mariale or his source, and that X 1 of MS Paris is the earlier collection. The Rouen collection uses prose versions of two legends, versified or partly versified, in the second series, X 2 , of MS Paris and in the collection of St.
Their presence here is significant, because they are part of a series which appears in versified redactions in the Parisian collections, with the exception of the Stella maris, and in prose versions in the Mariale magnum and the Stella maris. The second series of the Rouen Mariale, R 2 nos.
The twenty-one legends include six which have not been found in other collections, and six which are more or less familiar. Painter of Flanders. Unwilling to Deny Mary. In Aquitanie itaque partibus in castello quodam milites duo principabantur. Cisterian Monks at Their Field Work. Nobilis quidam honeste in seculo vite timens ne in vacuum curreret. Christ Image Broken by Brabantine Blasphemers.
Cistercian Monk Persecuted. In quodam aiebat [ Simon, abbas de Los ] Cisterciensis [ ordinis ] monasterio fuit monachus quidam religiosus. Chaplain Whom Mary Chose.
Demons in the Form of Swine. Besides the two prose legends of R 1 and the eight tales of R 2 , eleven others of the narratives of R 1 are also identified with the Mariale magnum by the compilers of collections yet to be analyzed. The Rouen Mariale, therefore, betrays evidence of two collections: 1 a Quoniam collection similar to, but not the same as MS Paris X 1 , but not X 2 ; and 2 the Mariale magnum. It was not composed, however, simply by uniting two collections, for the sequence of the legends throughout must have been influenced by the Mariale magnum, or a collection much like it.
On the other hand, the more detailed comparison of the Rouen Mariale with the collection of Vincent of Beauvais which follows does not justify the conclusion that the Rouen Mariale was descended from the Mariale magnum. It was, instead, probably derived from a single collection which was the common source of both. That collection, as yet unidentified, will be referred to at present as the Ur-Mariale. The title Mariale was, perhaps, borrowed from its source, as was also the title Mariale magnum, hence the first prologue of the Rouen collections, In libro Mariali.
It is fair to suppose that the source from which the legends were drawn did include matter of this sort. A study of the collections descended from the Mariale magnum yields evidence that it did.
The history of Mary legends in France presents no more intriguing problem than the Mariale magnum, known at present only by reputation. It must have been a work of importance in its day, for it is cited by French compilers of Mary lore from the middle of the thirteenth to the fifteenth century. The most accurate information as to its nature and content comes from the collection of Mary legends which Vincent of Beauvais incorporates in the Speculum historiale.
The note itself sheds light on the character of the Mariale magnum,. After her assumption the Virgin was made illustrious by many miracles [performed] in various parts of the earth and at various times. Certain of these worthy of credence and approved by religious men, to her honor and the enlightenment of the reader, we wish to insert briefly in this work in this fashion.
This statement by Vincent of Beauvais himself is followed immediately in the same chapter by the words Ex Mariali magno and a series of legends occupying chapters In the middle of chapter , the author, after merely alluding to several legends, breaks in with the words Explicit de Mariali magno. Item alia. The most striking characteristics about the work of Vincent of Beauvais are 1 its similarity to the Rouen Mariale and 2 the large number of Cistercian legends it includes.
Melito of Sardis died c. Elizabeth d. The Mariale magnum, therefore, may well have used both the Mirande and the Quoniam prologues of the Rouen Mariale.
Although there are many omissions and some additions, the narratives which Vincent of Beauvais , V 1 , took from the Mariale magnum follow in much the same order as those of the Rouen collection:. The first six legends of the Rouen Mariale are lacking in Vincent of Beauvais and possibly in his source, the Mariale magnum. In spite of the striking similarity in sequence, Vincent of Beauvais was not the source of the Rouen Mariale, for his versions are only summaries which are told in full, many of them with prologues, in the Rouen Mariale.
Nor was the Rouen Mariale the source of Vincent of Beauvais. Aside from the fact that the Dominican says that his source was a collection called the Mariale magnum, there is other evidence that it was not. The second series X 2 of MS Paris , already noted, was a series of ten versified, or partly versified, legends. Moreover, they follow in the first three collections in approximately the same order,.
There are several reasons, however, why the Mariale magnum could not have been the source of the Rouen Mariale, and why it is necessary to look upon the source of the Rouen collection, the Ur-Mariale, as the common ancestor of the Mariale magnum and the Rouen Mariale:.
A significant series of legends and a large number of the TS anecdotes which are at home in the Rouen Mariale are lacking in Vincent of Beauvais and probably also in the Mariale magnum.
A study of the ten legends which Vincent of Beauvais adds to those of the Rouen Mariale pre-supposes a more remote common ancestor than the Mariale magnum. Five of the ten are tales of other Quoniam collections. Blasphemer of Lausanne. In illis partibus quidam in taberna, cum tessera ludens.