This study is an expanded and annotated version of a lecture delivered, during 1985/86, at Cornell, Harvard, and Princeton universities; at the universities of Bamberg, Cologne, Eichstätt, Regensburg, Salzburg, and Würzburg; and at the Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, Munich. For supplying photographs and the permission to publish them I wish to thank the following libraries and institutions: Universitätsbibliothek Augsburg (fig. 10); The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore (fig. 9); Zisterzienserstift Heiligenkreuz, Heiligenkreuz (figs. 3 and 4); Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich (figs. 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, and 13); Bodleian Library, Oxford (fig. 1); Benediktinerstift St. Paul, St. Paul im Lavanttal (fig. 7).Google Scholar

¹ Li Bestiaires d'amours di maistre Richart de Fornival e li Response du Bestiaire, ed. Segre, Cesare (Milan 1957) 3–8. Jeanette Beer has just published an English translation: Master Richard's Bestiary of Love and Response (Berkeley 1986). The prologue has been adduced briefly in various contexts in recent years, but only very recently has it received adequate attention in its own context as well as in the context of the Bestiaire's subsequent reception: see the important study by Huot, Sylvia, From Song to Book: The Poetics of Writing in Old French Lyric and Lyrical Narrative Poetry (Ithaca, N.Y. 1987) 135–73 et passim, esp. 164–73. Cf. Ohly, Friedrich, ‘Probleme der mittelalterlichen Bedeutungsforschung und das Taubenbild des Hugo de Folieto,’ Frühmittelalterliche Studien 2 (1968) 162–201 (repr. in his Schriften zur mittelalterlichen Bedeutungsforschung (Darmstadt 1977) 32–92, esp. 50–51 n. 22); Curschmann, Michael, ‘Hören–Lesen–Sehen: Buch und Schriftlichkeit im Selbstverständnis der volkssprachlichen Kultur Deutschlands um 1200,’ Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 106 (1984) 218–57, esp. 244; Kolve, V. A., Chaucer and the Imagery of Narrative: The First Five Canterbury Tales (Stanford 1984) 9f. and 25f. On Richard see Grundriss der romanischen Literaturen des Mittelalters 6.2 (Heidelberg 1970) 228–30.Google Scholar

² The term memoire is considerably broader than ‘memory’ (‘Gedächtnis’) since it indicates the ability to absorb and visualize knowledge as well as the power to retain it.Google Scholar

³ ms Oxford, Bodleian Library Douce 308 fols. 86^v–87^r. All three miniatures are reproduced by Huot (op. cit. figs. 12–14). With certain modifications, my interpretation follows the one advanced by Huot, , ibid. Google Scholar

⁴ ms Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm. 4660 fol. 72^v . Cf. Carmina Burana: Facsimile-Ausgabe der Handschrift Clm 4660 und Clm 4660a, ed. Bischoff, Bernhard (Veröffentli-chungen mittelalterlicher Musikhandschriften 9; New York 1967).Google Scholar

⁵ Herrad of Hohenbourg, ‘Hortus deliciarum,’ edd. Green, Rosalie, Evans, M., Bischoff, C., Curschmann, M., 2 vols. (Studies of the Warburg Institute 36; London 1979). Curiously enough, the interaction between the texts compiled here and the miniatures designed to represent and explicate that compilation has rarely been studied as such. For a recent attempt see my article, ‘Texte–Bilder–Strukturen: Der ‘Hortus deliciarum’ und die frühmittelhochdeutsche Geistlichendichtung,’ Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrifl für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 55 (1981) 379–418.Google Scholar

⁶ ms Bern, Burgerbibliothek 120. Ed. Siragusa, G. B., Liber ad honorem Augusti di Pietro da Eboli (Fonti per la storia d'Italia; Rome 1906). There has been some important movement recently in the scholarly literature on this long-neglected document. See especially Miglio, Massimo, ‘Momenti e modi di formazione del Liber ad honorem Augusti,’ Studi da Pietro da Eboli, ed. Istituto storico Italiano per il Medio evo (Rome 1978) 119–45; Frugoni, Chiara, ‘Fortuna Tancredi: Temi e immagini di polemica antinormanna in Pietro da Eboli,’ ibid. 148–69; Georgen, Helga, Das ‘Carmen de rebus Siculis’ (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, ms. 120): Studien zu den Bildquellen und zum Erzählstil eines illustrierten Lobgedichts des Peter von Eboli (diss. Vienna 1975). Cf. also the article by Georgen, Helga, ‘Der Ebulo-Codex als Ausdruck des Konflikts zwischen Städten und staufischem Hof,’ Bauwerk und Bildwerk im Hochmittelalter , edd. Clausberg, Karl et al. (Kunstwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen des Ulmer Vereins 11; Giessen 1981) 145–67.Google Scholar

⁷ John, H. van Engen's recent book on Rupert also has a good bibliography: Rupert of Deutz (Berkeley 1983). The most up-to-date general information and bibliographies on Honorius and Gerhoch can be found in Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon 2, edd. Ruh, Kurt et al. (2nd ed.; 1980) 1245–59 (‘Gerhoch von Reichersberg’ by Hraban Haacke), and 4 (1983) 122–32 (‘Honorius’ by Hartmut Freytag). Specifically on Gerhoch see the magisterial study by Classen, Peter, Gerhoch von Reichersberg: Eine Biographie (Wiesbaden 1960).Google Scholar

⁸ See esp. Klein, Peter K., Der ältere Beatus-Kodex Vitr. 14–1 der Biblioteca National zu Madrid 1 (text) (Studien zur Kunstgeschichte 8; Hildesheim 1976) 179ff., and Nordström, Carl-Otto, ‘Text and Myth in Some Beatus Miniatures,’ Cahiers archéologiques 25 (1976) 7–37 passim. Google Scholar

⁹ The text is published in PL 169.825–1214. A complete set of the illustrations in Heiligenkreuz 83 (no other ms shows similar ornamentation) has been reproduced by Klein, Peter F. in his important article, ‘Rupert de Deutz et son commentaire illustré de l'Apocalypse à Heiligenkreuz,’ Journal des Savants (1980) 119–39.Google Scholar

¹⁰ PL 169.941ab. The detail of the bow is recalled specifically by Rupert as he explains this equation and refers back to his comments on the first rider. See Klein (n. 9 supra) 137.Google Scholar

¹¹ Klein (n. 9 supra) 136 has no comment, but I know of no other instance in which the waters are actually depicted as people. Cf. also Klein, , Der ältere Beatus-Kodex (n. 8 supra) 149 and 514–16 n. 458.Google Scholar

¹² PL 169. 1131a. Klein (n. 9 supra) 136. The crown alone is in fact not unusual in Apocalypse iconography, but the combination of crown and scepter appears to be unique. Rupert's interpretation, if it is indeed Rupert's, would seem to have left its mark also on one of the miniatures in the famous cycle of virtues and vices in the Prüfening ms, Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm. 13002 (dated 1165): the left scene in the upper register of fol. 3^v shows John quoting Apoc. 17.3 and pointing to Babylon where the Scarlet Woman sits, drunk, next to Cupiditas. Cf. Klemm, Elisabeth, Die romanischen Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek 1 (Wiesbaden 1980) Abbildungsband fig. 158.Google Scholar

¹³ PL 169.1132a.Google Scholar

¹⁴ This is my interpretation of what Klein has demonstrated, namely that, in two conspicuous instances, the artist depicts the Church as a building that at first raises the question of access and finally (at book 12) signifies fulfillment (op. cit. [n. 9 supra] 128, 137f.; figs. 6,15). These are not isolated images; they occupy strategic positions and as a result develop a strong referential relationship. It should be pointed out in this connection that the first one does not actually open book 3, as Klein seems to think, although it is based on a text at the beginning of that book. Rather, it marks the beginning of the immediately preceding prologus in subsequentes libros (PL 169.903f.), where Rupert lays out his plan for the remainder of the work, a plan which identifies the trials and tribulations of the Church with the history of man's salvation and culminates in the description of the New Jerusalem in book 12 (see van Engen, , op. cit. 175–82). In other words these two ecclesiological images frame the bulk of Rupert's treatise, that part in which he develops his very own concept of Apocalypse exegesis, with visual reminders of its major theme.Google Scholar

¹⁵ ms Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm. 14055. It is thought by some to be the (Rhenish) dedication copy which Kuno of Siegburg brought with him he became Bishop of Regensburg in 1126, and by others to have originated in Regensburg at a somewhat later date. Cf. esp. Hraban Haacke's edition, Rupert von Deutz, De victoria verbi dei (MGH, Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte 5; Weimar 1970) xxix–xxxiii; and Klemm, , op. cit. 25f.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Klein (n. 9 supra) 122f. and fig. 3. Cf. also Camés, Gerard, Allégories et symboles dans l'Hortus deliciarum (Leiden 1971) 124, who sees the sword in the hand of the dragon in a somewhat different context.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ed. Haacke, , op. cit. 246.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The other dragon is, of course, Mordecai/Christ, as prefigured in the serpens aeneus of Numbers 21.9.Google Scholar

¹⁹ PL 172.347ff.Google Scholar

²⁰ Op. cit. 353c.Google Scholar

²¹ Twelfth century (dated variously 1140–1190): mss Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm. 4550 (from Benediktbeuern); Clm. 5118 (from Beuerberg); and Clm. 18125 (from Tegernsee). ms Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek lat. 942 (Salzburg origin?). ms Baltimore, The Walters Art Gallery 29 (from Lambach). ms Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek I 2 2° 13 (see below). Fourteenth century: ms St. Florian XI,80 (dated 1301); ms St. Paul (im Lavanttal) 44/1 (formerly 25.3.5; originally from St. Blasien). All these mss contain the same set of exegetical tracts by Honorius: Expositio, Sigillum St. Mariae, and Hexaemeron, but only the Expositio is illuminated in this fashion. Tentative speculation concerning a common archetype is as close as art-historical scholarship has usually come to linking the pictures for the Expositio with Honorius himself. Cf. Endres, Josef A., Das St. Jacobsportal in Regensburg und Honorius Augustodunensis (Kempten 1903) 27–35; Swarzenski, Georg, Die Salzburger Malerei von den ersten Anfängen bis zur Blütezeit des romanischen Stils (Leipzig 1913) esp. 95. The exception is Schmidt, Gerhard, Die Malerschule von St. Florian (Graz 1962), who surmises that the cycle ‘entstand wohl noch zu Lebzeiten und unter Anleitung des Verfassers’ (195). A good, albeit brief, recent survey is by Renate Kroos, in Die Zeit der Staufer, Geschichte–Kunst–Kultur: Katalog der Ausstellung Stuttgart 1977 , ed. Haussherr, Beiner (Stuttgart 1977) I 565f. The one ms which has never figured at all in the discussion of this iconographic program is the one now in Augsburg – where I noticed it in the fall of 1985, after it had been deemed lost for a long time, most recently by Kroos, , op. cit. 566. Originally in St. Mang in Füssen, it is southwest German in origin and close stylistically to the Historia Welforum Weingartensis, produced ca. 1180 in Weingarten: ms Fulda, Hessische Landesbibliothek D.11. Cf. esp. fol. 14^r, the picture of Frederick I and his two sons (Fillitz, Hermann, Das Mittelalter 1 [Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 5; Berlin 1969] fig. 413). Along with the bulk of the St. Mang holdings it entered the library of the princes of Öttingen-Wallerstein, which was eventually bought by the state of Bavaria and deposited in Augsburg.Google Scholar

²² On the program as a whole see the (rather unsatisfactory) entry in Schiller, Gertrud, Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst 4.1 (Gütersloh 1976) 102–104 (figs. 260–64); concerning the Filia Pharaonis see below. Of the two remaining brides the Queen of Sheba has been discussed mostly in a more general iconographic framework (cf. Mielke, Ursula, in Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, ed. Kirschbaum, E., 4 [Rome 1972] 1–3; and Curschmann, , ‘Texte’ [n. 5 supra] 41, where this southern queen is incorrectly said to approach from the east). On Honorius' Mandrake see Menhardt, Hermann, ‘Die Mandragora im Millstätter Physiologus, bei Honorius Augustodunensis und im St. Trutperter Hohenliede,’ Festschrift für Ludwig Wolff (1962) 173–94, and Hübner, Annemarie, ‘Das Hohe Lied des Brun von Schonebeck und seine Quelle,’ Festgabe für Ulrich Pretzel , edd. Simon, W. et al. (Berlin 1963) 43–54. Hübner does not discuss the pictures, although Brun's text does contain traces of this imagery (the northern Mandrake arrives accompanied by camels, a clear reflection of the picture of the Queen of Sheba: Brun von Schonebeck, ed. Arwed Fischer [Tübingen 1893] line 10536), and the context in which it survives argues strongly for an image-oriented environment (see below, n. 43).Google Scholar

²³ PL 172.352D.Google Scholar

²⁴ See esp. Erich, Oswald E., in Reallexikon der deutschen Kunstgeschichte 1 (Stuttgart 1937) 638–41, und Jutta Seibert, in Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie (n. 22 supra) 1 (Rome 1968) 111f.Google Scholar

²⁵ Op. cit. 353a.Google Scholar

²⁶ Op. cit. 353b.Google Scholar

²⁷ Op. cit. 353a.Google Scholar

²⁸ Op. cit. 353b.Google Scholar

²⁹ Op. cit. 358b–c.Google Scholar

³⁰ Op. cit. 353a.Google Scholar

³¹ By Endres, , op. cit. (n. 21 supra) 35f. Endres also thought of Clm. 5118 as the ms closest to the archetype, but Schmidt has since revised that judgment and called it ‘eine — wenn auch frühe — Sonderform’ (op. cit. 195).Google Scholar

³² In purely stemmatological terms, the copy in St. Paul obviously belongs to a branch of the tradition of which the one in Augsburg is the oldest known representative. This is evident also from the close iconographic agreement in their solution to the problem of the ‘frontispiece’ page (see below): sponsa and sponsus, crowned and standing, in separate architectural spaces but linking hands (fol. 1^v in each case).Google Scholar

³³ Op. cit. 453b–c. The colors are rose, white, and fiery red, after aurora, luna, and sol in Cant. 6.9.Google Scholar

³⁴ Clm. 4550 and Clm. 18125 (fol. 1^v in each case). Concerning this type and its almost immediate influence in monumental art, see Wellen, G. A., ‘Sponsa Christi: Het absismozaiek van de Santa Maria in Trastevere te Roem en het Hooglied,’ Feestbundel F. Van der Meer (1966) 148–59. Another type is represented by the copies in St. Paul and Augsburg (see above, n. 32).Google Scholar

³⁵ Op. cit. 352b: ‘in curru sponso adducitur.’ Google Scholar

³⁶ Op. cit. 357c.Google Scholar

³⁷ This mistake, which runs through the whole prologue to book 1 and is not corrected until well into the first chapter, is common to all the ms copies I have checked specifically for this: all three illustrated copies as well as several unillustrated ones in Munich and the ms in Baltimore. The latter shows a correction mark made by a medieval, if not contemporary, hand in one place in the margin of fol. 9^v, and even at the beginning of book 2 the original scribe was apparently still confused, for he wrote: ‘… liber de sponsa austri scilicet de filia pharaonis,’ which was corrected to … Babylonis by a later hand (fol. 23^r).Google Scholar

³⁸ There are even indications that that process started well before the actual codification of the text in question. The newly restored Ecclesia triumphans in the monastery church of Regensburg–Prüfening (see Schiller, , Ikonographie [n. 22 supra] 98–101 and fig. 249) was done in the 1120s, it now seems, and yet this very first known individual display of the Church in monumental art already exhibits iconographic features we have encountered in the rendering of the Sunamitis: above all the symbols of the evangelists, highly unusual in this context, but very much part of the Quadriga of Aminadab. Heidrun Stein, who has suggested this connection to me, deals with it only in passing in her book, Die romanischen Wandmalereien in der Klosterkirche Prüfening (Studien und Quellen zur Kunstgeschichte Regensburgs 1; Regensburg 1987) 56. Perhaps the Augsburg ms deserves special mention here: it alone among the twelfth-century copies shows the Shulammite crowned. The others use the bannered cross staff, traditional attribute of Ecclesia, to thematize the Synagogue's conversion. The well-known St.-Denis window of 1140, on the other hand, which features the Quadriga of Aminadab as arca crucis, probably represents a separate, parallel development based directly on Rupert (PL 167.1162). Cf. Hoffmann, Konrad, ‘Sugers Anagogisches Fenster in St. Denis,’ Wallraf–Richartz–Jahrbuch 30 (1968) 57–88.Google Scholar

³⁹ ms Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm. 16012. This particular part of the commentary was completed in 1147 or 1148 and has been edited by Damian, and Van den Eynde, Odulph and Rijmersdael, Angelino: Gerhohi Praepositi Reichersbergensis opera inedita 2.1 (Rome 1956). The passage illustrated is on 608f. / 612. Gerard Camés made a careful study of the composition of these images: ‘A propos de deux monstres dans l'Hortus deliciarum,’ Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 11 (1968) 587–603, and Allegories (n. 16 supra) 117–20. The following discussion will show, among other things, that Camés was right to suggest that the verses accompanying the second pair of monsters originated with Gerhoch (‘A propos’ 606), while their editor, Gabriel Silagi, assumes that all four poems were copied from an older source: MGH PLMA 5.3 (Munich 1979) 656. Their exact relationship, and that of the drawings themselves, to the surrounding text is, however, something that Camés barely touched upon, since his interest lay in the explication of the Christian allegory implied in these figures.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ ms Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm. 18158. The date given by Camés (‘A propos’ 588) — first half of the eleventh century — is clearly too early, although the editor of the verses, Karl Strecker, had dated the ms even earlier, in the tenth century: MGH PLMA 5.2 (Munich 1939) 403. See Eder, Christine E., ‘Die Schule des Klosters Tegernsee im frühen Mittelalter im Spiegel der Tegernseer Handschriften,’ Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktinerordens 83 (1972) 6–155, esp. 87 n. 200.Google Scholar

⁴¹ The basic study of this phenomenon is by Wirth, Karl-August, ‘Von mittelalterlichen Bildern und Lehrfiguren im Dienste der Schule und des Unterrichts,’ Studien zum städtischen Bildungswesen des späten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, edd. Moeller, Bernd et al. (Göttingen 1983) 256–370; see esp. 306 and 367. For further bibliographical information see Elisabeth Sears, , The Ages of Man: Medieval Interpretations of the Life Cycle (Princeton 1986), esp. 160 n.38.Google Scholar

⁴² The situation is described by Carries, , ‘A propos’ 588.Google Scholar

⁴³ It would have to include, among other things, Verses spoken by Shakespeare's Puck, as Professor Rainer Lengeler of Bonn was kind enough to point out to me (A Midsummer Night's Dream 3.1): Some time a horse I'll be, sometime a hound, A hog, a headless bear, sometime a fire, And neigh, and bark, and grunt, and roar, and burn, Like horse, hound, hog, bear, fire, at every turn. The most interesting case is that of Reinmar of Zweter, who, probably in the 1250s, created a verbal, courtly counterfact in his description of an ideal man and subsequent allegorical exegesis of this image: Die Gedichte Reinmars von Zweter, ed. Roethe, Gustav (Leipzig 1887) nos. 99–100. One of Reinmar's disciples later added two more strophes to fashion a female counterpart (op. cit. no. 302a–b), and these appear, along with a reworked edition of Rein-mar's original poem, in the chief ms of Brun of Schonebeck's verse adaptation of Canticles (n. 22 supra). This new context, including superscriptions in the ms, suggests strongly that all of them had by then (i.e., in the late fourteenth century) themselves become part of a new pictorial tradition, perhaps serving a function similar to that of the old versus raportati. This is a connection which Reinmar's learned editor could not have seen, and which Christoph Gerhardt's monumental recent study of Reinmar's poem also fails to make, although Gerhardt does consider school tabulae as major sources of inspiration: ‘Reinmars von Zweter I dealer Mann (Roethe Nr. 99 und 100),’ Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 109 (1987) 51–84 and 222–51, esp. 225 and 232–35. I have elaborated on this in a separate study which takes its departure from Ulrich von Hutten's poem Vir bonus (1513) and its accompanying woodcut image (Ulrichs von Hutten Schriften , ed. Böcking, Eduard, 3 [Leipzig 1862] 11–17): ‘Facies peccatorum–Vir bonus: Bild–Text–Formeln zwischen Hochmittelalter und früher Neuzeit,’ Poesis et pictura … Festschrift für Dieter Wuttke , edd. Füssel, S. and Knape, F. (Saecula spiritalia Sonderband; Baden-Baden 1989).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Op. cit. (n. 39 supra) 609.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ ‘Indui namque faciem porci per affectatas et perpetratas multas immunditias …’ (op. cit. 608).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁴⁷ They quote this poem from Heinrich Meyer's old anthology, Anthologia veterum Latinorum epigrammatum et poematum (Leipzig 1835) no. 233, and follow Meyer in attributing it to one Albus Ovidius Juventinus, who is supposed to have worked in the third century a.d. For helping me avoid a repetition of that error I am indebted to Professor Jan Ziolkowski of Harvard University. The poem is actually the well-known and much later Carmen de philomela, edited most recently under that title by Paul Klopsch, in Literatur und Sprache im europäischen Mittelalter: Festschrift für Karl Langosch zum 70. Geburtstag , edd. Önnerfors, Alf et al. (Darmstadt 1973) 173–94 (with all available variants). For further bibliographical information cf. Schaller, Dieter and Könsgen, Ewald, Initio carminum Latinorum saeculo undecimo antiquorum (Göttingen 1977) no. 3975.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Op. cit. (n. 39 supra) 609.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ I.e., Leo in the prose part preceding the poem and avis later on in the general category volatiles to which man likens himself per elationem. Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Op. cit. (n. 39 supra) 608.Google Scholar

⁵¹ De avibus PL 177.14–55; De rota verae religionis , ed. de Clercq, Carlo, Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi 29 (1959) 219–28 and 30 (1960) 15–37. On Hugh's work and for further bibliographical references see Ohly, , ‘Probleme’ (n. 1 supra), esp. 48–58; and on the ms tradition specifically of De avibus see Clark, Willene B., ‘The Illustrated Medieval Aviary and the Lay-Brotherhood,’ Gesta 21 (1982) 63–74. Cf. also Suckale, Robert, ‘Thesen zum Bedeutungs-wandel der gotischen Fensterrose,’ Bauwerk und Bildwerk (n. 6 supra) 259–94, esp. 280–84 and 293f. Excellent reproductions of the pictures in Heiligenkreuz cod. 226 (saec. xiii, first quarter) can be found in Walliser, Franz, Cistercienser Buchkunst: Heiligenkreuzer Skriptorium in seinem ersten Jahrhundert, 1133–1230 (Heiligenkreuz 1969) figs. 93, 95, 96, and color pl. 4; for an interesting comparative stylistic analysis of these particular renderings of the two rotae see Caviness, Madeline H., ‘Images of Divine Order and the Third Mode of Seeing,’ Gesta 22 (1983) 99–120, esp. 113f.Google Scholar

⁵² PL 210.267–79. One result of the purely cerebral nature of this relationship is that the picture can easily be left out, as is frequently the case in the ms tradition of this particular text.Google Scholar

⁵³ Greenhill, Eleanor S., Die geistigen Voraussetzungen der Bilderreihe des Speculum virginum: Versuch einer Deutung (Münster 1962) 129. Greenhill's study of this still-unedited text, although methodologically flawed, has taken a decisive step in the right direction by keeping in focus the unity of the work as a text–picture composition. Cf. also her article, ‘Die Stellung der Handschrift British Museum Arundel 44 in der Überlieferung des Speculum virginum,’ Mitteilungen des Grabmann-Instituts der Universität München 10 (1966) 3–28. The following remarks are based on information available in Greenhill as well as on autopsy of mss Arundel 44 and Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery, 72.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ E.g., the victory of humilitas over superbia from the Psychomachia, linked specifically to the text through the addition of the biblical figures of Jahel and Judith: fig. 5 in Greenhill, , ‘Die geistigen Voraussetzungen’ (from Arundel 44).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ In medallions within the first miniature (op. cit. fig. 1) as well as in separate small inserts at the end of chapter 2. See Watson, Arthur, ‘A Manuscript of the Speculum Virginum in the Walters Art Gallery,’ The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 10 (1947) 60–74 fig. 15.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ This at least is Greenhill's contention in ‘Die Stellung’ (n. 53 supra).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ ms Arundel, BL 44 fol. 83^r, quoted also by Greenhill, , Die geistigen Voraussetzungen (n. 53 supra) 115f.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Op. cit. (n. 39 supra) 612.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ PL 175 941b. Hugh is talking here about the difference between symbolic and anagogic revelations in Scripture. Cf. Ladner, Gerhart B., ‘Medieval and Modern Understanding of Symbolism: A Comparison,’ Speculum 54 (1979) 223–56, esp. 255, and also Caviness (n. 51 supra) 115.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Quoted from the description in Bloch, Peter and Schnitzler, Hermann, Die ottonische Kölner Malerschule 1 (Düsseldorf 1967) 46. The folio in question (fol. 6^v) is reproduced ibid., as fig. 116. (I am grateful to Dr. Annemarie Bonnet, Munich, for this reference). Cf. also Smeyers, Maurice, La miniature (Typologie des sources du Moyen Age Occidental 8; Turnhout 1974) 99, and Esmeijer, Anna C., Divina quaternitas: A Preliminary Study in the Method and Application of Visual Exegesis (Assen 1978) 32.Google Scholar