The Amiata Stemma

We can be quite certain that a copy of the Great Stemma was at the Benedictine Monastery of San Salvatore on Monte Amiata in Italy in the eleventh century, because it inspired an author-artist on the mountain to attempt his own adaptation of it, "correcting" it, abridging it and extending its content up to "modern" times.

In this update, the structure and essential text of the diagram were retained, but most of the stemmata that fill its central space were discarded and replaced by a vast tableau of successive rulers of the western world in 128 roundels, spanning fifteen centuries from Darius the Great to Henry III. The latter name allows us to date this document, because Henry III must have been the current Holy Roman Emperor when this remix was laboriously copied by the scribes onto four blank folios at the back of a book of commentaries by great theologians on books of the Old Testament. Henry III ruled Germany and Italy between 1039 and 1056. His year of death is added in another hand to a list of kings elsewhere in the same codex.

This graphic adaptation of the Great Stemma scheme for a new age must have existed in multiple copies, but we only possess one of them,which has been penned into a codex which was made and kept at Monte Amiata and is preserved today in the Laurentian Library in Florence under the name Codex Amiatinus 3. The diagram spanning eight pages (ff. 169r-172v) in Amiatinus 3 is demonstrably not the original, because the artist evidently laid out his first draft on a wide scroll, and that is how I have sketched it here:

It is not too difficult to prove that the drawing now spread over eight pages must have once occupied a single sheet. The tableau of 128 kings, which is designed to be read left-to-right in eight rows of sixteen roundels, has been split and placed on two sides of a folio. This obliges a reader who wants to read it in historical order to continuously turn the page back and forth: a situation which would never have been intended by the artist. The split is merely the consequence of sectioning the overall diagram into frames so that it would fit in a codex.

In the above plot, I have drawn a black rectangle around the 128 historic rulers of the west. The succession (it makes many wild jumps) comprises Achaemenid rulers, emperors of Rome, kings of Italy and Holy Roman Emperors. Some of the authors below perceive this as a documentary forerunner to the translatio imperii doctrine.

It is conceivable that this remix (which dispenses with most of the stemmata except for the families of Adam and Isaac) was compiled before Henry III came to power, and was merely updated to keep up to date with changes in political control. The revision contains a list of popes which the scribe has not bothered to update. This roll-call of the papacy ends with Agapitus (pontificate 946-955), so it is conceivable that the re-drawing took place in the middle of the tenth century.

Very little has been published about this document, although a plot of it, not quite as accurate as mine, appeared some years ago in an article by Gert Melville. The latter two authors below appear not to have realized that the abbey possessed a copy of the Great Stemma from Spain which mentions the Visigothic King Wamba. None of them explore the theological position of the Amiata drawing, which rejects the Joachimite account of Jesus's ancestry and restores an orthodox genealogy that exactly follows the text of the Luke Gospel with 42 generations from David to Christ via Nathan.

Gorman, Michael. ‘Manuscript Books at Monte Amiata in the Eleventh Century’. Scriptorium 56 (2002): 225–293: 268–271. Lists the contents of Amiatinus 3 and discusses the Amiata scriptorium. See my earlier discussion of this article in respect of the Liber Genealogus.

Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. L’ombre des ancêtres. Paris: Fayard, 2000. Discusses the Amiata Stemma at pp. 72-73.

Melville, Gert. ‘Geschichte in graphischer Gestalt. Beobachtungen zu einer spätmittelalterlichen Darstellungsweise’. In Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtesbewusstsein im späten Mittelalter, edited by Hans Patze, 57–154. Vorträge und Forschungen / Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für Mittelalterliche Geschichte 31. Sigmaringen [Germany]: Thorbecke, 1987. Contains a drawing of the Amiata Stemma on a fold-out, making clear that Melville also interpreted it as a single-page diagram. Given the work that went into the plot, one is surprised by the brevity of the discussion at pp. 66-67.

Cyclopaedia

The Florence copy of the Great Stemma appears in a codex which seems to be an idiosyncratic scrapbook containing snatches of ancient things. I described in an earlier post how Michael Gorman reconstructed its putative source, a library book at Monte Amiata that doubtless had as its title work the Etymologiae, a copious dictionary of legal, religious and other terms by Isidore of Seville, the seventh-century Spanish bishop.

A good many blank pages had evidently been left free at the end of the Monte Amiata copy of the dictionary, and a monkish user, perhaps a teacher or an abbot, had used them as a kind of scrapbook, copying into them a personal miscellany of the sort of items often formerly appended to dictionaries: a guide to syllables, vowels and consonants; Bede's alphabetical directory of Latin grammar exceptions; how to study the bible; the list of Lombard kings; brief repetititions from the Etymologiae; four different chronologies of biblical time; and our diagram.

Seen on its own, each item seems absurdly and wilfully truncated, but if one assumes that its learned user only copied what he really needed - the things he could not easily remember - this begins to make sense. The items belong to a class of things that in my student days I would have photocopied and kept on a window-sill, and that I might now scan and tuck into a miscellaneous folder on my computer.

The book by Junilius, for example, is a collection of thoughts about bible education written in 551 CE and seemingly aimed at a teaching audience. It was published and comprehensively discussed by Kihn (link below to archive.org). John F. Collins prepared a 20th century introduction and English translation, now on James O'Donnell's Cassidorus website.

Other items in this anthology are intended handbook-style for the classroom or self-study.

An illuminating dissertation by Carin Ruff translates sample sections of Bede's De Orthographia and stresses  that it was mainly written to instruct the intermediate student of Latin in the many exceptions of usage and declension in Latin grammar. It is in alphabetical order of keywords. It sets out for example verbs that take the dative. A sample:

Noceo, obsum, incommodo, maleficio, officio, in una significatione ponuntur, quod graece dicitur βλάπτω, et cuncta datiuum casum trahunt. (Noceo, obsum, incommodo, maleficio, officio, are used in one sense (“hinder”), which in Greek is βλάπτω, and they all take the dative case. Translation by Ruff.)

You can read this on the 10th line of the left column of folio 12v of the Florence manuscript Plutei 20.54 (the scribe seems to have got the Greek wrong). Ruff quotes a suggestion that the intended audience for Bede's manual was "the less-experienced copyist or glossator who might 'be dissuaded from making a rash emendation' if he could find an apparently anomalous reading discussed in a readily accessible manual."

The inclusion of four or more contradictory chronologies should not suggest the book's owner had a burning interest in chronography or in resolving the differences among them. Quite the opposite: he clearly wanted something comprehensive which he could look up when he came across a seeming error in a book, resolve quickly whether the anomaly had a genuine source or was merely a "typo" and then move on. He seems to have regarded the Liber Genealogus as a handy quick guide to biblical names and the Great Stemma doubtless served for him a similar purpose.

I deliberately term the Etymologiae here a dictionary, although it is conventionally termed an encyclopaedia, because our modern conception is that an encylopaedia should summarize scientific and scholarly knowledge whereas a dictionary is mainly an aid to finding and correctly spelling the words with which we write about such things. The Monte Amiata handbook must have been much more the second of these things, and it occurs to me that I had just such a book when I was a school pupil and student: Pears Cyclopaedia.

When I first began working as an editor at dpa in the 1980s, the newsroom had no ready references and I arranged for the purchase of a Pears and a Quid. Both had their heyday before the internet and were useful to editors and proofreaders who faced all sorts of unexpected dilemmas over correcting texts and needed this kind of omnibus collection of seemingly useless facts. The cyclopaedia, which is subtitled "A Book of Background Information for Reference for Everyday Use" and was conceived in the medieval spirit as something in between a modern encycylopaedia and a handbook, begins with a chronicle of events from the formation of the Earth.

The appendices to the Monte Amiata copy of the dictionary were probably accumulated with a similar intent: not to transport the texts themselves (which are only excerpted and are largely offered without the necessary metadata such as author's names) but simply to have key facts close to hand. It is interesting that not even a very erudite later owner of Plutei 20.54, Coluccio Salutati, seems to have realized that the handlist of Latin exceptions was a work of Bede, although Coluccio was familiar with Bede's church history. Coluccio began writing out the headwords of the alphabetical list, but only got as far as C and never finished. He never attached the author's name to the list, and his own Latin doubtless became solid enough that he no longer needed such an intermediate-level reference for himself.

Kihn, Heinrich. Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten : nebst einer kritischen Textausgabe von des letzteren Instituta regularia divinae legis. Freiburg: Herder, 1880. Archive.org. Edition and discussion of a work found near the Great Stemma in a codex in Florence.

Ruff, Carin. ‘The Hidden Curriculum: Syntax in Anglo-Saxon Latin Teaching’. University of Toronto, 2001. Website. Usefully translates samples from and discusses Bede’s De orthographia. Follow link to dissertation, go to chapter 4, which is a PDF containing Part II, section 2.

Tábara

Today's virtual tour is to Tábara in Spain, where the Morgan Beatus was made. There is not much to see. Today's church of Santa María occupies the site of the old monastery, which was probably sacked by Almanzor, the Muslim chancellor and warlord of al-Andalus, during his late 10th century campaigns against the Christian kingdoms of northern Spain.

We start at the old church which is romanesque and dates from well after the time of the monastery, though it may be partly built of dressed stone from the abbey.

If you can get Google Street View to work, turn around and consider getting a coffee from the Scriptorium Cafe on the other side of the highway. There is a good account of the history at Arteguias, which you can translate into English with Bing.

John Williams now thinks the Morgan Beatus was commissioned from Maius by San Miguel de Moreruela Abbey, a sister house which was less than two hours' walk away. Here is a map of how to get there by road.

At Moreruela, the present-day church of San Miguel Arcángel de Moreruela also dates from long after the abbey days.

The Catholic parish there has its own website with a little more information. The church appears to have various pieces of stonework of the old abbey incorporated into it:

As far as I can see, San Miguel Abbey was here, not on the nearby site of the later Cistercian abbey at Granja de Moreruela:

Books, Books, Books

I have just refreshed the bibliography on the Great Stemma which now runs to more than 180 items. The  major change is that it is now annotated, following the urging of Phoebe Acheson of the University of Georgia (Athens) Miller Learning Center, who founded the Ancient World Open Bibliographies (AWOL). She added the original bibliography to her list in May 2011, where it is tagged under both information architecture and paragraphy.

Additions include the article by Helena de Carlos which I recently posted about as well as a rather shallow discussion by Carlos Miranda in 2000 of the differences between the Great Stemma, Lesser Stemma and Compendium of Peter of Poitiers:

Miranda García, Carlos. ‘Mnemonics and Pedagogy in the Compendium Historiae in Genealogia Christi by Peter of Poitiers’. In Genealogia Christi, edited by Maria Algàs, translated by Anne Barton de Mayer, 29–89. Barcelona: Moleiro, 2000.

This appears in a very interesting volume devoted to a Rome manuscript in roll form of the Compendium. To my astonishment this is quite a rare book: there is only one copy as far as I know in any research or public library in the north of Germany (and only two in the south, at Passau and Munich). As an insert, it contains a printing of what I would guess is the first-ever digital plot of a medieval stemmatic diagram. The work on this very impressive poster-style, fold-out sheet is credited in the book (page 15) to Enrique de Castillo. I will give it a bibliographic reference of its own when I do a medieval book-list.

Gospel Contradictions

One of the new pages I posted online this year dealt with the efforts in the early years of Christianity to explain why the different Gospels do not agree on some details about Jesus.

One of the harder-to-find texts dealing with this is an anonymous tract that may date from the third or fourth century and which was published in 1852 by Angelo Mai. I have grabbed this from a facsimile (title page below) on Archive.org and have cleaned it up a bit so that you can either read it (if you know Latin) or cut and paste it into Google Translate for a rough and ready translation into your language of choice.

As far as I know, this is the first time this tract has ever been edited online, which is always a special moment with any ancient text that has lasted 1,000 years plus.

The text is perhaps of more general interest. It offers a rather abstruse meditation on the contradictions between Matthew and Luke, based on theories of the auspicious numbers hundred, sixty, thirty and three, and contends that Matthew's last group of 13 ancestors properly adds up to 14 because the missing element is either Eli, or the church, or the Holy Spirit. My own particular interest is only in the second of its 12 sections, where it alludes to an explanation for the Gospel contradiction which it rejects: that Luke's genealogy is a list of Mary's ancestors.

A lot of people want the generations which Matthew enumerates to apply to Joseph, and the generations which Luke enumerates to apply to Mary, arguing that the man is the "head" of the woman, and so requiring that, even for her generation, the man be named.

This is an early, independent and hostile allusion to the family of ideas on which the Great Stemma is based, though of course without the element of Mary being allotted a father named Joachim. The tract's author approves (if I understand him or her correctly) a simplified version of the levirate-marriage theory first developed by Julius Africanus. For an overview of all six different theories which circulated, see my article about the Gospel contradictions.

The author of this tract is referred to as Pseudo-Hilarius because the text was once thought to be a work of the fourth-century bishop Hilary of Poitiers, and the piece (along with a second tract on the Gospel of John) is listed in the Beuron Répertoire General (RGAEL) of Gryson and Frede as one of the pieces with the code "PS-HIL tr" (p. 562).

Christophe Guignard (earlier post) states in La lettre de Julius Africanus (2011: page 116, note 503) that the part of the text down to section 7 below is also reproduced in a series of pseudo-Augustinian sermons published in Bibliotheca Casinensis, seu Codicum manu-scriptorum qui in tabulario Casinensi asservantur series (volume 2, [Monte Cassino]: Typis Montis Casini, 1875, pp. 63-66 of the Florilegium Casinense, at the end of the volume: see the Google Books digitization). He also quotes the RGAEL, which I have not yet checked, as noting that there is a similarity between this text and a group of Gospel commentaries known under the name Epiphanius Latinus (dated to either the 5th or the 5th-6th centuries). I think it is entirely possible that the text below does date from between 250 and 450.

Having gone to the trouble to digitize this, I present the text in full in case it is of use to anyone else:

1. A transmigratione Babylonis usque ad Christum generationes quattuordecim dicuntur, et tredecim inveniuntur. Huius rei ratio nobis exponenda est. Quaestio haec generationum iuxta regulae rationem solvitur, Scribitur in lege, ut si defunctus fuerit quis sine filiis, frater aut proximus eius accipiat uxorem ipsius, ut suscitet semen in nomine defuncti. Est ergo Ioseph duorum filius, unius iuxta carnem, id est Iacob; et alterius iuxta legem, id est Heli. Iacob cum esset proximus, accepit uxorem Heli, et generavit Ioseph. Idcirco Matthaeus enumerans generationes, filium dicit Iacob; Lucas eum, iuxta legem scribens evangelium, servans regulae suae rationem, filium dicit Heli; iuxta illud videlicet quod iam dudum in lege fuerat praeceptum, ut in nomine defuncti, qui sine filiis excesserat, suscitaretur semen, deputabatur in nomine defuncti filius; sicut hic Ioseph deputatur filius Heli. Sed veritatis imaginabat lex personam. Ubi ergo completum est, imago percurrens abscessit, et veritas loco suo fixa stetit. Igitur ut plenius ostendatur, nullum in nomine defuncti suscitatum, nisi ei cui res parabatur, Iacob genuit filium; et non cum nominavit Heli, sed Ioseph.

2. Superest nunc ut intellegamus, apostolos omnes quasi unum virum, qui fratres a Domino sunt appellati, iam non dicam vos servos sed fratres, accipientes ecclesiam post mortem Domini, id est post eius passionem. Et vere suscitatus est ab eis filius in nomine defuncti, id est Christi, populus Christianorum, qui vere ex defuncti nomine nominatur. Matthaeus evangelium sic incipit: “liber generationis Iesu Christi filii David, filii Abraham.” David Christum dicit ob hoc, quia multis in locis idem Christus dictus est David: vel quia Maria ex eadem tribu et Ioseph fuerit, id est de tribu Iuda, unde et David. Idcirco et Christus verus et aeternus rex nominatur vel dicitur David. Multi volunt, generationem, quam enumerat Matthaeus, deputari Ioseph; et generationem quam enumerat Lucas, deputari Mariae; ut quia caput mulieris vir dicitur, viro etiam eiusdem generatio nuncupetur. Sed hoc regulae non convenit, vel quaestioni quae est superius: id est, ubi generationum ratio demonstratur, verissime solutum est. Ut superius dictum est filium David Christum, sic David, sic Abraham, sic Adam, sic Dei. Quia ab Adam decurrens generatio pervenit ad Abraham; et ab Abraham ad David regem, ut superius dictum est; ostendit verum et aeternum regem Christum, sicuti prophetae dixerunt. Ut autem intellegi manifestius possit, cur Iudas cum esset quarto loco natus, acceperit benedictionem, et non primitivus natus, haec ratio fuit. Cum sit mos in lege non alium accipere benedictionem, nisi qui maior natu sit, et qui habeat promogenita, Ruben primogenitus illa ratione non accepit, quia incestaverat concubinam patris. Simeon et Levi illa ratione, quia cum indigne ferrent stuprum Dinae sorori suae illatum ab Emor et Sichem, circumcisos civitatis viros, et in dolore constitutos, gladiis interfecerunt. Quo facto, his non contulit benedictionem, quae datur Iudae, quarto loco nato: propter illum numerum, quo Salvator propter historiam et legem et prophetiam venerat, qui solus benedictionem totam habet: sicuti Iudas, qui quartus fuit, accepit benedictionem, qui leo et catulus leonis est dictus. Iam tunc Christus ob potentiam leo dictus, qui victor et triumphator diaboli, etiam ipsius mortis invenitur.

3. Satis anxie satisque trepidanter, cur sanctissimus Matthaeus tali usus sit principio, exponere aggredior. Ait namque: “liber generationis Iesu Christi filii David, filii Abrahae.” Quaeritur ergo principii istius ratio, quare sic coeperit, cum Lucas praemissa quadam oratione coeperit evangelium conscribere. Sed quia veterum scripturarum series studens novitati, et quaecumque vetus testamentum singulariter continet, novum ipsa veritatis ratione adimplevit; iam dudum enim fuerat per sanctissimum David ita praenuntiatum: in capite libri scriptum est de me; non inmerito sanctus Matthaeus ita praefatus est dicendo: liber generationis Iesu Christi; hoc est, in capite libri scriptum est de me. Quod Spiritus futurum sciens, dicebat librum evangelii, qui nativitatem filii Dei contineret. Vel quia Hebraei Christum venturum manifeste sciunt, vel quia iam venisse non credunt, idcirco tali principio Matthaeus utitur dicendo: liber generationis Iesu Christi, et cetera. Illa igitur ratione filius dicitur David, quia ex prosapia David, per virginem Mariam erat venturus. Hic est quem sanctissimus Iacob in benedictione Iudae demonstrans, leonem et catulum leonis dixit. Et Moyses sanctissimus ait: “Prophetam vobis suscitabit dominus Deus vester de fratribus vestris. Hunc sicut me audietis. Erit autem, quaecumque anima non audierit prophetam illum, eradicabitur de populo suo. Vel quia Esaias Emmanuhelem, id est nobiscum Deus, per virginem venturum dixerit. Et Hieremias: hic Deus noster, et non reputabitur alius. In terra visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est.”

4. Ideo ergo Hebraeis occurritur, ut quem venire sperant, iam venisse certo certius eis demonstraretur. Et ideo ne sit aliqua excusatio, tali principio sanctissimus Matthaeus utitur: liber generationis Iesu Christi filii David; carnalem scilicet generationem describens, quia sic venturus per prophetas est annuntiatus, id est ex David. Quia virgo Maria per traducem veniens David, non inmerito ait propheta: virga ex radice Iessae, et flos de radice eius ascendet. Virga, Maria; flos ex virga, Christus dominus, filius Abraham. Prius enim quam circumcideretur, Abraham credidit Deo, sicut scriptura testatur: credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam. Ergo Abraham iustus, qui credendo, pater fidei invenitur. Denique ad eius contubernium et sinum omnes fideles inveniuntur. Quod autem ait: filii David, filii Abraham; Christus dominus noster, quia per Abraham; ex tribu Iuda, quia per David, decurrentibus generationibus, ex Maria virgine carnem accepit. Idcirco dicitur filius David, ut per prophetas idem filius Dei dicitur David, et David filius Abrahae, a quo generationum propter iustitiam a sanctissimo Matthaeo sumitur principium. Ergo quia iustus est filius Dei, qui iuste iudicat, et iustitiam diligit, et rex est perpetuus, merito generationem secunduin carnem sanctissimus Matthaeus ab Abraham exorsus est. Sed quia per traducem, et David regis fecit mentionem, ostendit filium Dei Iesum Christum et regem; merito eius iustitiae, et regalis secundum carnem progenies ascribitur.

5. Decursis igitur generationibus Matthaeus et ostensis, rursus recapitulat dicendo: “ab Abraham usque ad David generationes quattuordecim. Et a David usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis, generationes quattuordecim. Et a transmigratione, Babylonis usque ad Christum, generationes quattuordecim.” Facit tres ordines ter decusquartus, quo fiunt quadraginta duo. Non sine ratione hoc scripsisse invenitur; sed diligentius ratio stili eius requisita, et magna cum sollicitudine discussa, ordinum factorum nobis mysterium adiuvante Deo patefiet; testimoniis scilicet ad hanc rem pertinentibus contractis et perquisitis. In parabola enim seminis boni invenimus per eundem Matthaeum enuntiatum, incipientem scilicet a centesimo fructu ad sexagesimum, et a sexagesimo ad tricesimum, qui sunt ordines tres. Qui ordines hactenus simpliciter accipiendi sunt. Centesimus fructus, perfecta fides, ut centenario Abrahae, id est patri fidei, natus sit Isaac. Vel quia centum in manu dextera tenentur, quod est dextri lateris, in qua parte agni collocati inveniuntur a pastore. Ideo ergo ab Abraham incipit, qui est pater fidei, generationes enarrare. Sexagesimus autem fructus, secundus ordo est virginum. Ordo enim primus usque ad David: secundus vero ordo a David usque ad transmigrationem. Merito ergo a David ordo virginum declaratur, in sexagesimo scilicet fructu, quia virgo Maria ex David, de qua dominus noster Christus carnem accepit. Tricesimus autem fructus ordini tertio conveniens, a transmigratione Babylonis ad Christum; ideo quia Christus dominus et Deus noster, ut ait Lucas evangelista “et ipse Iesus erat incipiens fere annorum triginta, ut putabatur esse filius Ioseph.” Quibus annis passus est dominus noster Iesus Christus.

6. Videmus ergo haec omnia spiritaliter in filio Dei, Deo ac domino nostro, deputari, in quo perfecta iustitia et virtus invenitur consummata. Et quia sanctissimus Matthaeus, descensionem filii Dei nititur insinuare e caelis ad terram, quando dignatus est nostri causa venire, et hominem induere, ideo a centesimo numero ad tricesimum pervenit, id est a maiori summa ad minorem, hoc est de caelis ex illa gloria, ad hominis corpus induendum descendisse filium Dei demonstrat. Et ideo a centesimo ad sexagesimum de caelo veniens ad virginem per quam editus, ad tricenarium numerum veniens annorum, quo tempore passus est. Lucas autem evangelista passionem eius et ascensionem, et ad dexteram patris sessionem, a tricesimo numerans fructu, quot annorum passus est; et ad sexagesimum veniens, quod est caro virginalis incorrupta; quam Dominus ab inferis suscitans, secum pertulit ad caelos. Centesimi autem fructus adimpletio fidelis, et martyrii Christi cum virtute et potentia perfecta, ad dexteram patris consedisse manifestum est. Non inmerito et Lucas evangelista, generationes a Christo rursum per Ioseph numerans, id est ab homine usque ad Deum perveniens, verissime eius ascensionem demonstrans, a Ioseph per David et Abraham, et per Adam usque ad Deum pervenit. Et quem dixerat filium, ut putabatur esse, Ioseph; hunc dicit filium esse Dei. Igitur quia fides vel martyrium, quod est centesimus fructus; et virginitas, sexagesimus; et tricesimus, virtus; omnia haec per gradus, quos diximus, in filio Dei qui in omnibus, utpote Deus, perfectus invenitur, conveniunt et concurrunt. Quod autem Matthaeus a centesimo ad sexagesimum, et inde ad tricesimum decurrit, descensionem domini nostri Iesu Christi ostendit, quippe qui iuxta carnem nativitatem eius descripserit. Lucas autem quod a tricesimo ad sexagesimum, et inde ad centesimum percurrit, demonstrat, ut superius dictum est, passionem, id est virtutem qua diabolum vicit per crucem et incontaminatam carnem, quam resuscitatam imposuerit in caelis; et ideo a minori summa, rursum ascendere ad maiorem numerum invenitur; non inmerito, ut supra exposuimus, aquilae gerit imaginem, qua eum ad caelum volasse demonstrat. Et quia tres ordines numerantur de fructibus, de quibus breviter demonstravimus, tres etiam ordines in generationibus demonstrantur, et numero certo ascribuntur. Quique tres ordines generationum et seminum, sine dubio trinitatem patris et filii et spiritus sancti demonstrant.

7. Sed quia novissima summa, quam a transmigratione Babylonis usque ad Christum dixerat, generationes quattuordecim inveniuntur, scrupulum quoddam legentibus incutit, quasi Matthaeus vel mendacii reus, vel subtractor unius arguatur, cum praescriptus numerus non totus inveniatur. Ideo necesse est hoc quoque omni diligentia exponere ac discutere, et veritatem patefacere. Ergo quia numerus unius generationis facit nobis quaestionem, cum quattuordecim dicuntur, et tredecim inveniuntur, spiritalis intellectus invenit istam generationem, quae in numero non invenitur. Dinumeratis scilicet generationibus iuxta carnem, una inde ad simplicem intellectum invenitur esse subtracta; sed, ut dixi, spiritali intellectu numero conveniente significantur. Et sic incipit veritas evangelistae, cui nec mentiri nec fallere licet, tota hice clarescere. Dicit igitur, usque ad Christum generationes quattuordecim; et tredecim inveniuntur. Sequitur spiritalis generatio, quae licet numeretur inter carnales, non tamen in eo numero inveniatur. Sic enim decet ut ea generatio, quae de saeculo non est, cum saeculi generationibus non inveniatur. Quartadecima spiritalis est, de qua sic rettulit dicendo: Christi autem generatio sic erat. Christi autem generatio ecclesia intelligitur. Et merito David ait: Deus autem in generatione iusta est. Haec generatio Christi, id est ecclesia, in qua filius Dei permanere invenitur. Igitur quia ecclesia Dei spiritali nativitate renata, in saeculo non est, habens scilicet conversationem caelestem, quam Salomon in nave figurans ait, inter se naves in pelago natantes non cognoscere; id est conversationem vel generationem ecclesiae in saeculo non posse repperiri; siquidem actus eius et nativitas sit spiritalis; et ideo generatio iusta, in qua filius Dei consistit, ecclesia est; de qua dictum est: Christi autem generatio sic erat. Quatenus autem excitata sit haec generatio post apostolos, satis ut opinor, in quaestione generationum discussum est et ostensum.

8. “Cum esset disponsata mater eius Maria Ioseph, ante quam convenirent, inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu sancto. ”Hanc igitur conceptionem Mariae futuram sanctissimus Esaias propheta plenissime retulit dicendo: “ipse Dominus dabit signum: concipiet virgo in utero, et pariet filium, et vocabitur Emmanuhel.” Non immerito Lucas evangelista eundem partum describens futurum, angeli Gabrihelis interventum plenissime demonstravit dicens:

eodem tempore missus est Gabrihel angelus in civitatem Galilaeae, cui nomen erat Nazareth, ad virginem disponsatam viro, cui nomen erat Ioseph, de domo David, et nomen virginis Maria. Et ingressus ad eam angelus Domini, benedixit eam, et dixit illi: abe, gratia plena, Dominus tecum, benedicta tu inter mulieres. Ipsa autem ut vidit eum, obstupuit in introitu eius, et erat cogitans quod sic benedixit eam. Et ait illi angelus Domini: ne timeris, Maria; invenisti enim gratiam apud Deum: ecce concipies in utero, et paries filium, et vocabis nomen eius Iesum. Hic erit magnus, et filius Altissimi vocabitur. Et dabit illi dominus Deus sedem David patris eius, et regnabit in domo Iacob in aeternum, et regni eius non erit finis. Dixit autem Maria ad angelum: quomodo fiet istud, quoniam virum non cognovi? Et respondens angelus dixit illi: Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi; ideoque quod nascetur sanctum, vocabitur filius Dei.

Cogitabat igitur Ioseph quid facere debeat, quoniam nullam adhuc propter hoc monitionem angeli acceperat, sicuti ait: “Ioseph autem vir eius cum esset iustus, et nollet eam traducere, voluit occulte dimittere eam.” Postea quam cogitata sua Ioseph efficere nititur, inhibetur ab angelo. Denique ait: “haec eo cogitante, angelus Domini in somnis apparuit ei dicens: Ioseph fili David, noli timere accipere Mariam coniugem tuam; quod enim ex ea nascetur, de Spiritu sancto est. Pariet autem filium, et vocabis nomen eius Iesum: ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum.” Iesus enim salvator interpretatur. Ergo quia erat Ioseph iustus, et sciens scriptum esse per prophetas, quia venturus esset salvator filius Dei ex virgine natus, non solum credidit angelo Dei dicenti, sed et iussa mox perfecit.

9. Introducens itaque sanctissimus Matthaeus virginis partum vel conceptum, prophetae Esaiae usus est testimonio. Dixerat enim Deum ipsum signum daturum. Et quasi interrogatus, quod signum? respondit: “ecce virgo in utero accipiet, et pariet filium, et cetera.” Hanc per Ioatham, postea quam septuaginta duo interpretes, Ptolemaeo iubente segregati, tamquam uno ore et sermone totam legem ex hebraeo in graecum interpretassent; sed quidam ex Iudaeis adulteratores et interpolatores scripturarum, non virginem sed iuvenculam fecerunt. Quod enim signum futurum diceretur, si iuvencula conciperet ex viro? Hoc, naturae consuetudo est. Sed signum Dominus repromittit, quia virgo parere haberet Emmanuhelem, quod est nobiscum Deus. De hoc Hieremias quoque sic ait: “hic Deus noster, et non reputabitur alius. In terra visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est”. Hic est igitur Emmanuhel, nobiscum Deus, quem virgo Maria edidit. De qua re quid cogitaret Ioseph, per angelum sine intermissione docetur, et perficit. Denique ait: “exurgens autem a somno, fecit sicut praecepit illi angelus Domini. Et accepit coniugem suam, et non cognovit eam, donec peperit filium, et vocavit nomen eius Iesum.”

10. Quod autem ait, non cognovit eam donec peperit, multis haec verba, sed carnalibus dumtaxat non spiritalibus, scrupulum incutiunt, quasi postea quam natus sit Iesus, cognoverit eam Ioseph, quia dixit, donec. Sed quicumque sanae mentis sunt et spiritales, sic sentire non debent, ut potuisset Ioseph vir iustus, qui et visiones angelorum videbat, et quid ageret angelo monente ediscebat, contingere Mariam, de qua didicerat filium Dei natum; cui etiam ut nomen Iesu imponeret, quod est salvator, ab angelo didicit. Quia fieri non poterat, ut homo iustus Ioseph, qui custos positus Mariae invenitur; qui signum quod per prophetas fuerat dictum, in populo futurum cernebat, ut hic Mariam libidinis causa temptaret. Angelos enim sanctis et pudicis viris semper apparuisse, manifestum est. Igitur nisi Ioseph in sanctimoniae itinere gressus firmos habuisset constitutos, numquam puto eum angelorum visiones videre potuisse, et quid agere deberet eorum insinuatione edidicisse. Quod utique si fuisset verum, numquam profecto diceret Iesus in passione constitutus ad matrem suam de Iohanne discipulo: “ecce filius tuus. Et ad ipsum Iohannem: ecce mater tua. Et recepit eam discipulus ille apud se ex illa die.”

11. Constat igitur sanctissimam Mariam post editum Iesum sic permansisse, et ei semper fuisse obsecutam, et postea cum apostolis orationi vacasse, sicuti actas continet apostolorum. “Hi omnes erant unanimes deservientes orationi, cum mulieribus, et Maria matre Iesu, et fratribus eius.” Videmus etiam hic exceptam personam matris, quae utique si mulier eo genere ut ceterae haberetur, fuisset inter easdem dinumerata. Sed quando dicit cum mulieribus et Maria matre Iesu, videmus Mariam praecellere mulieribus, sicuti apud Moysen et Aaron invenimus: praecedens autem Maria dicebat: cantemus Domino, et cetera. Ilia ratione praececedebat mulieres, quia virgo erat. Sed et hic Maria, ex partu mulier quidem, quantum autem ad virum expectat, virgo, non immerito inter mulieres non numeratur, sed excipitur, et dicitur: cum mulieribus, et Maria matre Iesu. Quantum autem ad Iudaeos attinet, non solum dicebant Iesum fratres et sorores habere, verum etiam Iesum fabri filium dicebant; ut etiam docenti se ingerere non destiterint temptantes illum “ecce fratres tui foris stant, quaerentes loqui tecum.” Et alibi cum virtutum ipsius miracula cernerent, quae sine dubio homo facere non posset, admirantes dicebant: “nonne hic est Iesus fabri filius, cuius fratres scimus et sorores?” Erant ergo stupentes in mirabilibus, non intellegentes dicta prophetarum, quia filius Dei veniens talia esset facturus.

12. Ut ergo plenius demonstremus de sanctissimae Mariae glorificatione, quae idcirco a Ioseph cognosci non potuit, donec peperit dominum gloriae et totius potentiae, habens in utero non cognoscebatur; sanctissimi Moysis cum Deo colloquentis glorificata est facies, ita ut non possent intendere in eum filii Israhel, sed velamen faciei suae ponens, ad eos loquebatur; quanto magis sanctissima Maria agnosci vel intueri non poterat, quae ut diximus dominum potentiae in utero habebat, id est Emmanuhelem? Sed plenius de hac ipsa re angelus dixit, cum ait ad Mariam: Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi. Hanc igitur obumbrationem virtutis Altissimi, non obscuritatem sed infinitam claritatem debemus intellegere. Sicuti enim oculis nostris cum radiis solis attentius voluerimus intendere, hebetat visus, et nimiam ob claritatem fit obscuritas, ut videre omnino nequeamus; sic ergo sanctissima Maria claritate virtutis Altissimi obumbrata cognosci non poterat a Ioseph, donec pareret. Post partum ergo hactenus, ut diximus, a Ioseph cognita invenitur specie faciei, non tactu libidinis. Completa est quaestio generationis Iesu Christi domini nostri, cui cum Patre sanctoque Spiritu est gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

The tract quotes the Vetus Latina version of the bible, not Jerome's Vulgate, which is a strong indicator that it may date from the fifth century or earlier. Jerome's revision of the Vetus Latina was conservative, changing only occasional words, but none of his changes appear in the main scriptural passage quoted above.

Here is Luke 1:26-35 from Sabatier's version of the Vetus Latina, (based mainly on the Codex Colbertinus but with verse 29 from the Codex Corbeiensis II). The main differences from the Vulgate are marked in bold:

[26] Eodem autem tempore, missus est angelus Gabriel a Domino in civitatem Galilaeae, cui nomen Nazareth, [27] ad Virginem desponsatam viro, cui nomen erat Ioseph, de domo David, et nomen virginis, Maria. [28] Et ingressus Angelam ad eam dixiti: Ave, gratia plena, Dominus tecum, benedicta tu inter mulieres. [29 Corb.] Ipsa autem ut vidis eum, meta est in introitu eius, et erat cogitans quod sic benedixisset eam.  [30] Et ait angelus ei: ne timeas, Maria; invenisti enim gratiam apud Deum: [31] ecce concipies in utero, et paries filium, et vocabis nomen eius Iesum. [32] Hic erit magnus, et filius Altissimi vocabitur, et dabit illi Dominus Deus sedem David patris eius, et regnabit in domo Iacob in aeternum, [33] et regni eius non erit finis. [34 Mss.] Dixit autem Maria ad Angelum: quomodo fiet istud, quoniam virum non cognovi? [35] Et respondens Angelus dixit ei: Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi. Ideoque et quod nascetur ex te Sanctum, vocabitur Filius Dei.

Mai says the text of the tract comes from a codex in the Vatican Library: Cod. Vat. 4222, f. 37 ff. He apparently thought the author really was Hilary of Poitiers. The second tract, on questions connected to the Gospel of John, can be consulted in the volume at Archive.org.

Roda in Northern Spain

A visit to Roda de Isábena, Spain, where the Codex of Roda was kept for centuries, is not possible with the help of Google Street View because the road ends at the carpark: link. A tourist website, which notes that it is the smallest town in Spain to have a cathedral, offers this fine view from above:

The Cathedral of Saint Vincent in this tiny town in Aragon appears to be well worth a visit.

The scriptorium which produced the codex has never been finally established. The Spanish Wikipedia article notes that the locations suggested by the key scholars include Nájera, where a Francisan community has its own small website enabling a look at the public parts of Santa María La Real Monastery. This monastery was founded by the kings of Navarre. Other suggested origins include Leire, Pamplona and San Millán de la Cogolla.

An Abbey on an Extinct Volcano

Google Street View enables a virtual visit to the Abbadia San Salvatore at Monte Amiata, Italy which was mentioned a few months ago in this blog as the source of three outstanding medieval codices.

The abbey was suppressed in 1782 in consequence of a scandal involving Filippo Pieri, the last abbot, his brother who was also a monk and their live-in girl friend, who had become pregnant. The account, quoted by Michael Gorman, includes an outraged duke denouncing the monks for their "airy, careless, protected, ignorant, liberal" ways and the public scandal they sowed.

A religious community was re-established in 1939, but as far as I can see on the internet, it is no longer there. A municipal website for the town, which took over the name from the religious community, provides no further useful information. Elsewhere, I find an imperfectly translated history of the site and photos including:

Monte Amiata is reckoned at 1,738 metres to be the second-highest volcano in Italy, but is now extinct and covered with forest. The abbey and its town are on the mountain flank, not the top (Roberto Ardigo photo):