Keeping a list to hand: Seeking a clearer understanding of relic lists in medieval Evangeliaries and Gospel Books with Göttingen SUB 4 Cod. Ms. theol. 37 Cim.

During the 2024 Göttingen Summer School in Digital Palaeography, participants investigated a number of enigmatic texts within the manuscripts of the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen (SUB Göttingen). One of these texts can be found hidden away in a Latin Gospel manuscript of the Carolingian period. In this manuscript, a remarkable inventory of sorts has been carefully entered onto the blank parchment between the end of Matthew and the beginning of Mark: H[a]ec sunt reliquie, qu[a]e continentur in ista ecclesia … (‘These are the relics which are kept in this church…’) [SUB Göttingen, 4 Cod. Ms. theol. 37 Cim., fol. 51v].

After this straightforward introduction follows a thorough inventory of the church’s relic collection. As in the many other liturgical ‘lists of saints’ to be found in medieval manuscripts, the entries in the texts are written in an unusual manner. Generally, the word ‘relic’ is omitted entirely, though the entries still at least provide the name of the saint with whom the relic is to be identified. This is in fact the most common way of writing such medieval ‘saint lists’, such as those that can be found in liturgical kalendars of feast days, or in litanies.

In these texts, the noun ‘festum’ (‘feast day’) and the prayer formula ‘Ora pro nobis’ (‘Pray for us!’) are typically not written out repeatedly. The scribes expected, rather, that readers were already familiar with the genre of text and could easily fill in the missing and abbreviated words for themselves.

Sometimes there are also brief explanations, as in this example for the Holy Sponge: De spongia unde Dominus noster Iesus Christus bibit acetum felle mixtum (‘from the sponge from which our Lord Jesus Christ drank mixed vinegar [i.e., soured wine] and gall’). This short addition was apparently written to accord with all the variant Gospel concordances of the event:

• Vulgate, Matt. 27:34: et dederunt ei vinum bibere cum felle mixtum et cum gustasset noluit bibere
• New King James Version: ‘They gave him sour wine to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink’.

• Vulgata, Joh. 19:29: vas ergo positum erat aceto plenum illi autem spongiam plenam aceto hysopo circumponentes obtulerunt ori eius
• New King James Version: ‘Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth’.

But sometimes the word ‘relic’ is repeated unnecessarily in the relic list. The abbreviations also vary, and the names of the saints, or the Latin spellings themselves, often depart strikingly from the expected forms, for example, ‘sagwne’ instead of ‘sanguine’ (‘blood’). This effect causes the list to seem disorderly and to lack parallelism. Why would the scribe do this? Lists are supposed to be for organisation, aren’t they?

The answer to this question can be seen in the original creation of the list. As Max Förster explains in his work on the veneration of relics in early medieval England, relic lists are based on relic labels (German: Reliquienauthentiken; French: authentiques). These small parchment tags were attached to relic bundles and reliquaries in order to ensure the correct identification of the relic and to demonstrate authenticity. As a result, relic lists are a type of inventory, much like treasury or sacrists’ inventories, or book lists.

Clearly someone, likely the sacristan or the ‘custodes’, the guardian of the shrine, tried to copy the small parchment slips as precisely as possible. These relic labels, or authentiques, have recently become a very exciting area of research, as they transmit many traces of early medieval Latinity.

However, in 4 Cod. Ms. theol. 37 Cim., the list is based on a prior draft. Despite the variable format of the entries, the list is written in a very regular, even manner. Furthermore, the list adheres to a methodical organisation system, which can be partly distinguished by the content of the marginal insertions. The list’s entries have generally been written neatly inside the ruled writing area, with the exception of the entries designated ‘Sancti Philippi’ and ‘Sancti Kyliani’. It seems at first strange that these relics were not entered into the empty lines at the bottom, but this can be explained by the organisational structuring of the list. At the very top, mostly Christ-relics appear, such as relics of the Holy Sponge, the clothes of S. Mary, or the finger or blood of John the Baptist, as well as the relics of martyrs. Further below, there are two pale symbols on the margin. These symbols, called paragraphus marks, emphasize the organisation system in the list: namely, that apostles, martyrs, confessors, and virgins are sorted into individual groups. Further, at the very bottom of the list, there are relics named as ‘De loco Calvarie’ (from the place of Calvary) and ‘de virga Aaron’ (from the staff of Aaron). These entries are in the same hand as those above, but in an unexpected place. One possible explanation is that these relics were kept together with the relics of the virgins, perhaps in the same shrine or altar.

The script of the list is much later than that used to copy out the Gospels themselves. According to Meyer’s catalogue, Die Handschriften in Göttingen, the list was entered in the manuscript in the thirteenth century, and the Gospel Book itself can be dated to the ninth-to-tenth century [Vol. 2, p. 327]. There is room to improve this dating, however. The beautiful Caroline minuscule of the Gospels does display several hallmarks of the late ninth century, particularly the lack of word separation, the spatulate ascenders, and the tendency towards ornamental serifs on the feet of ‘m’ and ‘n’. However, the relic list appears rather to have been entered in the early fourteenth century: the slight cursiveness of the script, the very small and drawn-up tail of the letter ‘g’, and the two-compartment ‘a’ are all notable evidence for a slightly later dating than that of Meyer.

The list also contains a special piece of evidence for the manuscript’s provenance. In the upper portion of the list, one entry reads Reliq[ui]e s[an]c[t]i bartholomei p[at]roni n[ost]ri. A further piece of evidence can be found on the first leaf: Mente pie librum donavit presbiter istum / Ecclesie sancti Sygeberhtus Bartholomei / Abstulerit quis eum pereat maledictus in evum (‘In pious mind the priest Sygeberht gave this book to the church of Saint Bartholomew / May whoever steals it perish (and) be cursed forever’). This text clearly indicates that the book once belonged to the St. Bartholomäuskirche in Rhoden (Waldeck), and was presumably given to the church by a priest named Sygeberht, perhaps as early as thirteenth century, at the initial dedication and founding of the church.

Somewhat limited research has so far been undertaken on relic lists like that in 4 Cod. Ms. theol. 37 Cim. Their exact function still remains unclear. One hypothesis is that they may have functioned as a place for parishioners to swear oaths or make other attestations. It is not uncommon to find oral texts which relate to swearing in Gospel Books. Two interesting examples of this phenomenon are the partially Old High German ‘Zeitz Confessions’ on fol. 13v in Zeitz, Stiftsbibliothek, 2° Ms. perg. lat. 5, and the Old English recordings of manumissions in the Bath Old English Gospels.   

Additionally, it is clear from other sources such as ordeal formulas and oath formulas that Gospel Books and Evangeliaries were used alongside relics as objects over which statements could be sworn. This fact is still visible in society, as Bibles are still sometimes used in formal swearing procedures.    

The relic list in 4 Cod. Ms. theol. 37 Cim. could support this theory. On the margin of the page, the remains of an integrated bookmark can be seen. A slit slightly above is likely the last traces of an earlier, now-lost bookmark. Did medieval people lay their hands directly on this page as they recited swears or oaths? The question will have to wait for further investigative study …

My sincere thanks to Ms. Özge Babayol (Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Anglistik) for her editorial suggestions to the German version of this piece.

Curious about relic lists? Have a look at my website Loca Sanctorum.  

Bibliography – Manuscripts

• Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Ms. theol. lat. qu. 140.
• Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 140.
• Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen, 4 Cod. Ms. theol. 37 Cim.
• Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 29327 (1), Clm 10077.
• Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579.
• Pierrefitte-sur-Seine, Archives Nationales, AB/XIX/3971, Pièce 20.
• Zeitz, Stiftsbibliothek, 2° Ms. perg. lat. 5. 

Bibliography – Print

• Bartlett, R. 2015. Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things?: Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
• Bartlett, R. 1986. Trial by Fire and Water: The Medieval Judicial Ordeal. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
• Bischoff, B. 1967. Mittelalterliche Schatzverzeichnisse I. Veröffentlichungen des Zentralinstituts für Kunstgeschichte in München 4. Munich: Prestel-Verlag. 
• Calkins, R. G. 1986. Illuminated Books of the Middle Ages. Cornell Univ. Press.
• Förster, M. 1943. Zur Geschichte des Reliquienkultus in Altengland. Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Abteilung 8. Munich: Beck.
• Frenk, B., K. Wallenwein, and T. Licht, eds. 2021. Reliquienauthentiken: Kulturdenkmäler des Frühmittelalters. Regensburg: Schnell + Steiner.
• Heinzelmann, M. 1979. Translationsberichte und andere Quellen des Reliquienkultes. Typologie des Sources du Moyen Âge Occidental 33. Turnhout: Brepols.
• Liebermann, F., ed. 1903–16. Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen. 3 vols. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
• Luxford, J. 2017. ‘The Nature and Purpose of Medieval Relic-Lists’. In Saints and Cults in Medieval England: Proceedings of the 2015 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. S. Powell, 58–79. Harlaxton Medieval Studies 27. Donington: Shaun Tyas.
• Meyer, W., ed. 1893–1894. Die Handschriften in Göttingen. 3 vols. Verzeichniss der Handschriften im preußischen Staate 1–3. Berlin: Bath. 
• Thomas, I. G. 1974. ‘The Cult of Saints’ Relics in Medieval England’. PhD Dissertation, University of London.
• Wegener, P. 1876. ‚Verzeichniss der auf der Zeitzer Stifts-Bibliothek befindlichen Handschriften‘. In Programm des Königlichen Stifts-Gymnasiums in Zeitz, p 1–22.

---

---