Supple Rules for Prayer: Daston’s Ideas Meet the 16thc Prayerbook

I’ve been re-reading Lorraine Daston’s Rules: A Short History of What We Live By (which is brilliant -- you should go read it yourself!), and thinking about its relevance for the sixteenth-century prayerbooks that are so much part of my life right now.

Rules, Daston tells us, are important, but the best rules are thick rules; they are specific, yes, but they are also supple. They come with examples, and exceptions, and mechanisms of interpretation that don’t get befouled by absolutist thinking. Circumstances change; people get sick; time runs short. And yet in all three instances, the goal of the rule presumably still applies. A little judgment, she argues, goes a long way toward effective implementation of “the rule.” (Her chapter 2 discussion of the Benedictine rule is particularly fruitful for understanding this perspective.)

What I want to do here is play a bit with what this might mean in the context of the sixteenth-century prayerbook copied for women’s use. I’ve chosen the most ornate of the Thalbach Prayerbooks, ÖNB Cod. 11750, again, since it represents Thalbach at its most careful. “Nice” hand, carefully organized layout, clear directions, many labels, distinction between the red-ink rubrics and the brown-ink text. It’s tidy, in other words. But it also shows a tidiness of approach, in that it frequently offers up prefatory instructions to a prayer that guide the reader into the appropriate stance, place, movement, mindset. It’s what I think of short-hand as prayer choreography.

So I’m here to ask: what if we think of those rubrics as “thick rules” instead of “verbal choreography”? What do we gain? In one sense, of course, the answer is obvious: rubrics tell readers what to do. But Daston’s account of thick rules helps me ask a more precise question: not whether rubrics direct practice, but what kind of practice they assume, enable, and refine.

Rules that are not rule-bound

It is easy, especially from a modern distance, to read rubrics primarily as instruments of control: say this, do that, turn here, kneel there. But in a pre-modern devotional manuscript, a rubric may be less like a traffic sign and more like a craft instruction. It tells the practitioner what kind of action is called for, while assuming that the practitioner already inhabits a world in which the action makes sense.

Are rubrics rules? Yes—but I think they are rules of practice rather than regulations of compliance.

ÖNB Cod. 11750, fol 15r; texts have been lightly normalized by the author. Ein schön Gebet, damit alle Glieder unseres Herrn gegrüßt werden, vor einem Crucifix zu sprechen. GEGRJESST ſeyeſtu du aller heilligſt haubt vnnſers lieben herrn Jesu christi welches für unns gekrönt mit dörnen vnd geschlagenn mit einem ror…. A beautiful prayer with which all the limbs of our Lord are honored, to be recited before a crucifix. HAIL to you, most holy head of our dear Lord Jesus Christ, which for us was crowned with thorns and struck with a reed….”

We have here several elements: a description (a beautiful prayer), a content summary (with which all the limbs of our Lord are honored), and the part I am thinking of as being the rule: performative details of how and of where the prayer is to be delivered – it is to be recited (sprechen) before a Crucifix.

This isn’t complex. The supplicant isn’t drowning in detail. She’s merely guided to a best practice in prayer delivery, shifted to a space where sight (the crucifix) can reinforce the task of prayer (to consider in turn each of the body parts of the suffering Lord of the crucifixion. As a rule goes, it organizes her prayer, binding text, image, body, and gaze into a whole.

It’s a bit like “craft knowledge.” The rubric assumes some proficiency; the supplicant will know when the prayer might be useful, But it guides her through specificity of where she should stand, what she should face, and how she should let the image structure her attention. In so doing, it invokes a practice of visual, affective, and bodily meditation.

Yet this “rule” is supple too; this isn’t necessarily the crucifix of the main altar at the parish church. She could read this prayer in front of the crucifix by the convent refectory, or the one in her cell, or by flipping back a few folios and gazing at the image of the Crucifixion that adorns OENB 11750 folio 8r. The gaze will guide, but how she achieves the gaze is flexible enough to accommodate a variety of circumstances.

That’s a nuance that I didn’t think to talk about when thinking of the instruction as choreography. So, one point for Daston’s utility.

Rules for transitions

A rubric makes the page actionable, but can also provide guidance for time-of-day transitions, from the mundane to the spiritual, from the world-oriented to the spirit-oriented, from the activity of daytime to the closure of bedtime ritual.

If the crucifix rubric shows how a rule can organize devotional attention around an object, the bedtime rubric for our next prayer (OENB 11750 fol. 3v-5r) shows how a rule can organize an ordinary daily transition. I like this intervention, since it gives the actions as a set: first the rubric provides a label, then the confession, then the guiding script to ready the supplicant for bed:

Bedtime ritual (OENB 11750 fol. 3v-5r, excerpts): Volgen schuene gebet so man schlafen geeth The following are beautiful prayers to be said before going to sleep. So du ietzund wilt ſchlafen gen: so sprich dise bekantnus der ſunden. Alſo. ICH bekenne dir Herr Allmechtiger Gott erſchaffer himel vnd der Orden alle meine ſünd die ich gethon hab von meiner Iugent an bis diſe zeit vnnd ſtund... So now you wish to go to sleep: then say this confession of sins. Thus: I confess to you, Lord Almighty God, creator of heaven and earth, all my sins that I have committed from my youth until this time and hour…. Wan du gleich in dz Beth schlaffenn gehst so bezaichne dich mit dem Zeihen des ehilligen Creitz an dem stirn, und sprich also: Iesus von Nazareth sey allezeit mein abeschiirmer. (An deiner mund) Jesus von Nazareth sei allezeit in meinen mu/ond. (An dein brüst) Jesus von Nazareth sey al zeitt in meinem hertznn. Amen. [PRAYER]: O Lieber herr Jesu Christe, nur will / ich dise rüo vnd aüffenthalltung meines leibs empfahenn, in der verantigunng deiner lieb gegen vns dardürch dü vns den ſchlaf zu guttem geben hast auch desselben… When you go to sleep in your bed, make the sign of the holy cross on your forehead, and say thus: Jesus of Nazareth, be my protector at all times. (On your mouth) Jesus of Nazareth, be always in my mouth. (On your breast) Jesus of Nazareth, be always in my heart. Amen. [PRAYER] O dear Lord Jesus Christ, I now wish to receive this rest and repose of my body, in acknowledgment of your love for us, through which you have given us sleep for our good, and also...

It’s sort of like the modern ritual: first you turn off the TV, then you brush your teeth, then you climb into bed and take up the work of stilling your mind.

What’s special in the Thalbach rubric is that it provides a bodily procedure, marking the forehead, mouth, and breast, along with accompanying words. It’s apotropaic, yes, spiritually protective, but it’s also that kind of Daston middle-ground. The instruction is specific, but it’s non-narrative. There’s no need to explain every theological or bodily assumption. It presupposes habit – a practitioner who already has insider knowledge: how to make the sign of the cross, why sleep is spiritually vulnerable, and how short verbal formulae can guard thresholds.

The rubric turns ordinary sleep into a devotional exercise. It does not regulate sleep bureaucratically; it ritualizes that regular daily transition. It is, to use the common convention, a habit-stacking rule.

Again, “choreography” thinking me was VERY excited about all the actions in this rubric, but the “rule”-based assessment is more empathetic to the time-of-day and purpose-driven nature of the actions involved.

Prayer as craft knowledge

Early modern rules, in Daston’s account, assume prior experience and promise improvement, particularly when the stem from the artist’s workshop. They systematize and extend experience rather than replacing it. They are designed, she argues, to be learned but also practiced.

“To formalize craft knowledge into rules was to give it voice and dignity but not to remove it from the workshop. Dürer intended his instructions as a 'thorough introduction' to be expanded by 'daily use,' which in turn would deepen understanding and kindle invention.” (Daston p. 51)

This observation was particularly exciting to me, since there are so many similarities here with prayer as codified in prayerbooks. Prayer as something learned through repeated, bodily, attentive practice. If we draw the parallel out, we could think of prayer in prayerbooks as a mechanical art, separate from the theological and argumentatively-grounded work of the university setting. As a craft, it fits into a realm of acquired-and-enacted wisdom.

The fit is imperfect, of course. Daston’s artisans are often making things: pictures, fortifications, meals, calculations. The Thalbach reader is not producing an external artifact in the same sense. She is cultivating attention, protection, repentance, and memory. The “thing” being shaped is not primarily an artifact but the praying self: attention, contrition, memory, bodily readiness, protection, and receptivity and capacity to return to God. That difference matters because the prayerbook rule is not only guiding what she does; it is helping shape how she becomes disposed to pray.

Nor do I mean that prayer was mechanical in the sense of being merely manual, servile, or technical. But I do want to invoke Daston’s ideas to argue that prayer has craft-like dimensions. It is learned by repetition. It uses tools. It depends on timing, memory, posture, voice, attention, sequence, and correction. It can be done badly, habitually, fluently, intensely, communally, or with practiced skill.

Daston provides a summary of craft-rule guidance:

“rules were always framed in the imperative mood… , the knowledge in question was often gleaned from personal experience ….seldom addressed to rank beginners … the promised payoff of mastering the rules was improvement.”

Yes! That tracks for prayerbooks too:

1) Rubrics are typically imperative, if not always in a strict grammatical sense. Many are titles or summaries, occasions for use, or navigational cues. But they are directive all the same: they tell the reader how a text is to be used. I think that gets at the “imperative mood” element pretty effectively.

2) Similarly, they share the wisdom of previous enactments in capsule form.

3) They assume a familiarity with context and pattern, so are not “beginner books” (those are psalters!) but more the “intermediate-to-advanced” guide helpful to honing one’s personal practice. The implied reader already knows many of the gestures, formulae, and devotional contexts being cued.

4) And, as Daston argues, improvement is the goal.

In other words, OENB 11750 treats prayer as a practiced art both in the sense of being enacted and in the sense of being repeated. It assumes that technique will help devotion take on durable form.

The morning prayer sequence of Segen and prayer (OENB 11750 5v-7r) illustrates this practice. It’s not a beginner’s catechism; it’s a set of cues for someone already embedded in devotional habits. It uses cross-reference, and embodied action, and praise texts to start the day in a positive and spirtually grounded way:

Segen and prayer for morning (OENB 11750 5v-7r, excerpts): Segen vnnd Gebett: Wann man am morgen vom Schlaf auf steth IN dem Namen des Vatters des Suns vnd des heilligenn Geists…. Blessing and Prayer: When one rises from sleep in the morning In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit... Zaichne dich darauf / an dein stirn mit dem ʒeichen des heilligenn Creütz vnd ſprich. Jeſus von Nazareth ꝛc. wie oben steth. Darnach knien ider vnd sprich. ICH bette dich an vnd lobe dich O du heillige Driualtigkeit du mein Gott alles in allem ich ſage dir danckh für alle bewarung weissheit vnnd guettigkeit... Make the sign of the cross on your forehead with the sign of the holy cross and say: Jesus of Nazareth, etc., as stated above. Then kneel and say: I adore you and praise you, O holy Trinity, my God, all in all. I thank you for all protection, wisdom, and goodness...

In the first portion, there’s no need to tell the informed reader that she’s to speak these words; the ink-color transition is obvious and her actions implicit. In the second half of this text, her knowledge of the standard Jesus of Nazareth formula that she’d said just the night before saves the scribe some valuable parchment space. In Daston’s terms, these rubrics offer a system and occasion for practice. But, as she reminds us, this was already a great deal: experience refracted through the lens of the rules of art was better ordered, more sharply focused, and above all broader than that of most craftsmen occupied with the pell-mell of particulars encountered in their own workshops” (Daston p. 69)

Again, yes for the prayerbooks too.

Conclusion: rubrics as supple rules for living

Thalbach’s devotional books preserve not only texts but habits of life. Their rubrics belong to a world in which rules were not necessarily the enemy of vitality. Rather, rules were one way of making practice durable. The question, then, is not simply whether rubrics direct practice. Of course they do. The more interesting question is what kind of practice they imagine, and here the answer is more nuanced. They imagine one that is repeated, embodied, adaptive, and interiorly formative.

To read rubrics as rules, then, is not to flatten prayer into procedure. It is to take seriously the practiced intelligence of devotional life. It is to treat prayer as practiced and ever-renewed: a craft of spirituality in which small guiding texts could lead to improvement -- a more ordered disposition, better attention, more durable memory, more ready access to words and gestures, a more practiced capacity to return to God.

I don’t think reading rubrics as rules replaces the choreography model so much as it shifts the emphasis. “Choreography” catches the embodied sequence; “rule” catches the learned, repeatable, adaptable form. Drawing on both perspectives gives us the fuller picture.

Considered through Daston’s lens, the Thalbach sister’s manuscript does not simply tell its reader what to say. Its rubrics teach the reader when to pray, how to begin, where to stand, what to face, what to repeat, how to move the body, and how to carry liturgical forms into the ordinary hours of life. Its rules are specific enough to guide action and, critically, supple enough to live with. In that sense, these prayerbook rubrics belong not only to the history of books, but to the history of how people learned to inhabit devotion.

WORKS CITED

Lorraine Daston, Rules: A Short History of What We Live By (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022).

On habit-stacking, I found Clear’s version substantially less smarmy than some of the more industrial “habit-stacking” banged-it-out-for-a-buck narratives out there on the market: James Clear, Atomic Habits: An Easy & Proven Way to Build Good Habits & Break Bad Ones (2018).

For a somewhat more choreographic assessment of such rubrics, see Cynthia Cyrus, "Praying Before the Image of Mary: Nuns’ Prayerbooks and the Mapping of Sacred Space" Religions 16, no. 10 (2025): 1277. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16101277, https://www.mdpi.com/3532324

Other posts on OENB 11750:

• Threefold Illumination: A Nun’s Prayer After Communion
• A Sixteenth-Century Segen for the Mass, Pt 1  and Pt 2
• Practicing Death: The “Seven Last Words” at Thalbach

On viewing the frescoes at St George’s, Reichenau

If you are certain kind of medievalist, the painted wall of long ago holds a special allure. Not only can you Look At Pictures for credit, but you also have the fun of decoding the stories that are being told. When you have a whole church covered in paintings, so much the better.

And so dad and I found ourselves on a train, then a bus, to get to St George’s at Reichenau. 

The summertime tours are limited, and if you want to be sure to get in on the fun, you absolutely need to be on time to the open-to-the-public tour. Which meant that I planned our trip to start with some birding first before the tour itself, a two-fer that I strongly recommend. The kestrels had bred so there were five of them; we had a great time! (A cellphone camera isn’t up to the job of capturing kestrel glory, so here’s a picture of a European Serin instead):

Anyhow, at the appointed time, we paid the tour guide and in we went. First there’s an extended discussion of the fragility of the frescoes, and of their origins and influence, and then you’re let into the church itself.

Wowser.

Whole walls. Multiple layers. Decoration and figural program. Text as guide…

To keep today on focus, let’s take Lazarus as a case in point.

In case that Latin there at the bottom of the picture is beyond you, it’s:

Lazare, perge foras, quarto iam sole sepulte!
Rumpe moras mortis! Hoc dat imago Patris.

Lazarus, come forth, you who have now been buried for four days! Break death’s delay! Thus commands the image of the Father.

And there we have the scene: an observing crowd; Christ calling forth Lazarus at the request of the standing Martha reaching out in supplication, the prostrate figure of Lazarus’s sister Mary, who glances over her shoulder to see the miracle.

Plus, there is the embodied miracle: Lazarus in his grave-cloths, standing in his open sarcophagus. Two robed figures appear to hold their noses, a signal of the smells that would emerge from a tomb on the fourth day. And then a second crowd, many with neck cloths – a representation of prayer shawls (Boeckler and Jantzen p. 24), again observers to the miracle.

The story comes from John 11, and is the miracle that causes the priest Caiaphas to predict Christ’s death “that the whole nation perish not” – John 11: 50. But the miracle itself is the story in focus at St George’s. We have the assemblage of people, we have Martha, who met Christ afoot, and Mary who came to see him when summoned; we have the crowd, and we have the miracle:

And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. (KJV)

I like this scene because I think it captures a kind of optimistic, good-things-can-happen Christianity that is distinct from the more Passion-focused Christianity of my research period, some three centuries later. The needs of the congregants at Reichenau lay in the possibilities inherent in the possibilities of divine intervention. The images of St George’s encode these beliefs: demons could be expelled, sick bodies could be restored, storms could be quieted, and even, as here, death be interrupted. Kurt Martin has suggested that the eight great miracle scenes form a kind of crescendo, moving from Christ’s victory over the forces of darkness, through sickness and the dangers of the natural world, to victory over death. “Not the suffering of Christ is meant, not his humanity, but his public ministry, the demonstration of his supernatural power” (Martin, 22). 

Whether or not every viewer followed the sequence so systematically, its cumulative message is plain. Again and again, these paintings show a world gone wrong and then set right. To me, Lazarus is the climax of that promise: the tomb has opened, the dead man stands, and the sisters’ grief has—in a moment that signals the great events to come—been reversed.

That is what I mean by an optimistic, or perhaps better, an affirmational Christianity. It is not that Ottonian Christians ignored sin, judgment, or the Cross. St George itself contains a Last Judgment, and Ottonian Germany produced formidable images of the Crucifixion. But the dominant register of this nave is the triumphant, efficacious Christ. Colin Morris’s influential account of medieval religious change describes a broad movement after 1050 from emphasis on Christ’s cosmic victory and lordship toward a more human and suffering Christ who invited the viewer’s emotional identification (Morris, 139–44). St George stands on the earlier side of that change. Unlike the 15th-century prayerbooks I’ve been immersed in, its walls do not first ask viewers to share in Christ’s pain. Rather, they ask the viewer to consider what divine power can do: those storm might just fall silent, the sick may walk home, and Lazarus can emerge from his grave. 

 

---

Works Cited

• Boeckler, Albert, and Hans Jantzen. “Auferweckung des Lazarus.” In Ikonographische Studien zu den Wunderszenen in der ottonischen Malerei der Reichenau.Munich, 1961, 22ff. https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28646#0030
• Martin, Kurt. Die ottonischen Wandbilder der St. Georgskirche Reichenau-Oberzell. 2nd rev. and expanded ed. Sigmaringen, 1975.
• Morris, Colin. The Discovery of the Individual, 1050–1200. London, 1972/Toronto, 1987.

Interested in frescoes? I've also written on the frescoes of Brand, Vorarlberg (Austria) as a two-part post: Brand Pt 1   Brand Pt 2

How Long Is a Long Prayer? Innsbruck FB 1118

(Image from Walters Ms. W.438, text from Innsbruck FB 1118, fol. 60v)

The first thing I noticed about Innsbruck FB 1118 this second time through was its sheer devotional bulk. I’d met the manuscript in person, and that’s always more fun, so maybe the downer of transcription duties shaped my mood. But transcriber me just felt like this book was *endless.* Prayer follows prayer across the manuscript in a tangle of different genres: Hours of the Passion, confession prayers, devotional instruction, invocations of saints, a mystical treatise, thirty-three Miserere, further appeals based on Christ’s suffering, and finally an incomplete Marian prayer. The effect is cumulative. Page after page returns to Christ’s body in graphic and often discomforting details: blows, spitting, binding, scourging, wounds, blood. Even before pausing to distinguish the separate texts, the manuscript feels long.

But “long” is a slippery word here. It may describe the number of folios, a density of the language, the repeated return to the same scenes, or simply the fatigue of the modern reader who is transcribing and translating everything in sequence. FB 1118, copied (at least in part) in 1489, certainly contains prayers that take up substantial space. Yet my first impression—that these were extraordinarily long prayers—began to seem less obvious once I took a step back and stopped treating the manuscript as though someone were expected to read it straight through.

For the women who eventually used this book at Thalbach, prayer was not leisure squeezed into the edges of a working day. It was part of the work itself: distributed across hours, occasions, intentions, and repeated devotional routines. The more useful question, then, is not simply how many pages a prayer occupies. It is what kind of time the prayer asks its users to create.

The manuscript’s first major prayer sequence makes that distinction especially clear. The Tagzeiten zum Leiden Christi occupies more than twenty-five folios. That’s formidable when described as a single work. But it is organized according to the Hours. Matins begins one part of the Passion narrative, and then Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and the later Hours take up succeeding moments. The codex gathers these prayers into a single extended sequence, while the devotional schedule breaks that sequence apart.

What looks long in the manuscript, then, may have been experienced as a series of smaller appointments with the Passion. A user did not necessarily begin at folio 1r and continue until folio 27r. She returned to the book as the day advanced, taking up the next prayer when its hour arrived. The manuscript preserves the whole arc at once, but prayer-as-practice distributes it across time.

That difference matters because modern reading habits make the codex look more expansive than it may have felt in use. Transcription encourages continuous reading. So does scholarly description: “folios 1r–27r” turns a sequence of separate observances into a single block. But the Hours are designed precisely to resist continuous consumption. They interrupt the day and ask the reader to re-enter the Passion repeatedly, not to complete it in one sitting.

FB 1118 is therefore “long” in one sense and yet carefully portioned in another. Its textual scale reflects the number of occasions it serves. The better analogy may not be a very long prayer, but a full calendar or work schedule: substantial when viewed as an undifferentiated whole, manageable because no one performs all of it at once.

Repetition intensifies that impression of length. FB 1118 returns again and again to the same scenes out of the Passion: Christ is bound, struck, spat upon, scourged, stripped, pierced, mocked, abandoned, and made to bleed. From a modern reading perspective, this can feel less like progression than accumulation. The manuscript does not move efficiently from one event to the next. It circles back, retells, and enlarges.

But repetition here is not simply redundancy. Each return gives the reader another point of entry. One prayer may dwell upon Christ’s bodily pain; another upon his obedience to the Father; another upon Mary’s grief beneath the Cross; another upon the salvific value of a particular wound or word. The Passion remains the same story, but the devotional action changes. The reader is asked to pity, remember, imitate, petition, confess, or entrust a soul to mercy.

The repeated wording also creates a stable rhythm. Again and again, the prayer addresses Christ, recalls a particular suffering, and turns that memory into a request. In the thirty-three Miserere, the recurring formula ich ermanen dich does not merely introduce new information. It performs the same act repeatedly: “I call this suffering to your remembrance.” The length of the sequence lies partly in that insistence. Mercy is sought not through one comprehensive summary of the Passion, but through the cumulative force of many separate reminders.

To call these prayers repetitive might therefore be accurate, but it is certainly incomplete. Repetition is one of the manuscript’s organizing tools. It slows the reader down, distributes attention across Christ’s body and story, and makes the Passion available for many different devotional purposes. What appears excessive when read straight through may have functioned in use as a series of focused acts, each familiar in structure but distinct in intention.

The thirty-three Miserere make this distinction unusually explicit. Despite occupying more than forty folios in FB 1118, the prayer-sequence rubric introduces its individual manungen as being written mit kurczen Worten—“in brief words” (FB 1118, fol. 59v) Such brevity, however, is only textual. The reader is instructed to think further upon those words and to recall whatever good matter they might generate, because the more “deeply” one follows Christ’s Passion, the more “unfathomable” it becomes.

This is almost a miniature theory of prayer length supplied by the manuscript itself. What the rubricator is saying is that a prayer is not complete when the written words have been pronounced. Rather, the words are prompts, openings into a larger act of recollection. A short ermanung may name one moment—the Last Supper, the prayer in the garden, Mary beneath the Cross, Christ’s final cry—but the user is expected to expand that moment inwardly. She is to supply remembered narrative, imagined detail, emotion, and petition.

The manuscript therefore distinguishes between the length of a text and the duration of the devotional action it initiates. A compact formula such as ich ermanen dich can open into a sustained (and to modern taste overly-vivid) reconstruction of Christ’s suffering. The reader does not merely remind Christ of an event; she must first make that event sufficiently present to herself to use it as the basis of her appeal.

This helps explain the peculiar combination of brevity and excess in the Miserere. The structure is highly repetitive and the individual premises of each miniature Passion scene can be stated quickly. Yet each one invites the reader to linger—to descend further into a Passion that the manuscript describes as effectively without bottom. The prayers are short in wording but deliberately long in attention.

From a modern reader’s perspective, FB 1118 can still feel enormous. Transcription encourages us to move continuously through the manuscript, measuring prayers by folios, words, and the time required to finish them. But it’s important to remember that the book’s original users were unlikely to experience the book in quite that way. For the sisters at Thalbach, the prayers were distributed across different temporal frameworks: the Hours of a single day, the eight days of the concluding Marian prayer, Easter and successive Sundays in the prayer to St. Erasmus, and the thirty-four days prescribed for the thirty-three Miserere. The manuscript does not simply contain a great deal of prayer. It organizes prayer across time.

That does not make the prayers easy or brief. Before beginning the Miserere, the user is instructed to put aside worldly concerns and drive idle thoughts from the heart: Wenn der mesch daz gebett wil sprechen so sol er sich alles zittlichs geschafftes abtun vnd alle uppigen gedenck vß sinem herczen (fol. 59r). The work of prayer included preparation, concentration, recollection, and endurance—not merely the pronunciation of the words on the page.

So transcriber me was not wrong: FB 1118 really is endless. But it was not meant to be finished in the way I was trying to finish it. Its prayers spill beyond their written boundaries—into the next Hour, the next Sunday, the next day of an eight- or thirty-four-day sequence, and into the meditation generated by a few “brief words.” For the women of Thalbach, that was not a design flaw. Prayer was the work, and for them, the point was not to get to the end, but rather to get to the end of suffering.

---

MANUSCRIPT CITED:

Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum, Cod. FB 1118, Gebete und Betrachtungen, copied (in part) in 1489.

Why associate this manuscript with the Franciscan Tertiaries of Thalbach?

• a Thalbach ownership statement dated 1727

• the feminine self-designation Sünderin in the prayer on the Name of Jesus (fol. 37v)

• the presence of the scribe Jörg Wittlinger, who also wrote in another Thalbach manuscript, ÖNB Cod. 2837, fol. 204v

• and the copying of the thirty-three Ermahnungen or Miserere by Heinrich Beck, chaplain of the nearby—and Bregenz-dependent—St. Nicholas Chapel in Wolfurt.

FB 1118 may not have been copied specifically for Thalbach, but it was certainly used there, although exactly when it entered the sisters’ hands remains uncertain. I like to imagine Heinrich Beck working on their behalf as he labored over the copying of those 33 passion meditations in the Ermanung section. That remains speculation, of course—but a later Thalbach prayerbook, Bregenz VLB Hs. 17, makes one thing quite clear: the sisters really, really, really appreciated collections of Ermahnungen.

How Did Medieval People Learn Music? A Call for Papers

How did medieval people learn music? The answer was not confined to treatises or classrooms. Musical knowledge passed from voice to voice and instrument player to instrument player, through listening, imitation, gesture, repetition, and varied kinds of participation – in worship, ceremony, dance. Music, as we know, was preserved and reshaped in manuscripts, but was also embodied in performance, devotional practice, memory, and the daily routines of religious and educational communities.

These processes of musical learning have often been studied within separate regional and disciplinary traditions. Histories of music education in Latin Western Europe do not always enter into sustained conversation with scholarship on Russian, Ukrainian, Balkan, and other Slavic cultures. Yet bringing these traditions together raises productive questions:

• How was musical knowledge made teachable? 
• What relationships connected theory with practice, written texts with oral transmission, and technical instruction with spiritual formation? 
• What can manuscripts, diagrams, rubrics, corrections, and performance traditions tell us about teaching as it actually occurred?

A hybrid session that I am helping to organize for the 2027 International Congress on Medieval Studies at Kalamazoo seeks papers addressing these questions.

Call for Papers

“Pedagogies of Sound: Medieval Music Education in Slavic and European Contexts”
International Congress on Medieval Studies, Kalamazoo, Michigan, May 13–15, 2027
Hybrid session 

The session explores music education across medieval and early modern European and Slavic traditions, focusing on the transmission of musical knowledge through pedagogy, performance, spirituality, and creative practice.

Possible topics include theoretical instruction, chant pedagogy, performance traditions, mystical and devotional approaches to musical learning, manuscript culture, and the relationship between theory and practice. We particularly welcome comparative and cross-cultural perspectives connecting Western Europe with Russian, Ukrainian, Balkan, and broader Slavic contexts.

The session comes at a moment of renewed scholarly interest in premodern pedagogy, cultural transmission, and global approaches to medieval studies. The forthcoming Russian translation of Music Education in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance also points to growing international engagement with the history of music education and creates an opportunity for broader dialogue between Eastern and Western European scholarly traditions.

By foregrounding Slavic and Russian-language perspectives alongside Latin European materials, we hope to foster conversation across disciplinary, regional, and linguistic boundaries. A designated translator will be available to help facilitate discussion.

Proposals are due September 15, 2026.
Submit through the Confex portal using session ID #8258:
https://icms.confex.com/icms/2027/prelim.cgi/Home/0

 

A Shared Devotional Grammar: Prayers after Communion

The devout sister reading one of Thalbach’s fancier prayerbooks, OENB 11750, had her choice of several prayers after she received the sacrament at mass. Five options are given, each with its own take on what the sacrament actually meant. The first reflects on the act of reception itself, the second draws on nature imagery, while the remaining three turn toward Christological belief, the Trinity, and thanksgiving to the Father.

(1) O dise empfengknus dess Zartten waren Fronleichnus vnnd koſtharlichen bluotts

        O this reception of the tender, true Body and precious Blood of the Lord

(2) O Du ware speis der Engell O Du/o wares himelbrot der Ellendenn Menschenn

        O You true food of the angels, O You, O true heavenly bread of wretched mankind

(3) HErr Jesu Christe Jch glaub das Tich dich waren gott vnd menſch eim empfangen hab

        Lord Jesus Christ, I believe that I have truly received You, true God and man

(4) O Du Edle Driualtigkeit las dir wolgefallen

        O noble Trinity, be well pleased

(5) Danckh dir millter Vatter. Wurdiger herr vnd barmhertziger Gott

        I thank You, gracious Father, worthy Lord and merciful God

That second prayer is why I’m here today. How lovely that the experiential world of trees, sun, food and spiritual grace mingle together in a meditative mix of high highs and low lows.

TEXT (which starts with a 3-line drop cap initial):

O Du ware speis der Engell O Dů
wares himelbrot der Ellendenn
Menschenn in der wüste des Jamerthals
O du Liechter glantz / der ewigen Clarenn
Súnnen O du hoher Cederbaúm, wie
hastu dich genaigt zu mir armes würmlin,
Nur beger ich von allem himlischen heer,
Das si mir Gott helffenn bitten dancken,
der groſen gnad die gott mit mir armē ſinder
gewurckt hat. Amen.

O You true food of the angels,
O You, true bread of heaven for wretched
people in the wilderness of the valley of sorrow,
O You bright radiance of the eternal, clear Sun,
O You tall cedar tree, how
have You inclined Yourself to me, a poor worm?
I only desire of all the heavenly host
that they help me to pray and give thanks to God
for the great grace that God has bestowed upon me,
a poor sinner. Amen.

Having received the sacrament, the food is both tangible and spiritual; a miracle and a metaphor. Christ is the food of the angels, heavenly sustenance provided through sacramental miracle to the wretched here on earth. People, in contrast to angels, are wretched: they are in valleys, in shade or darkness, in wildernesses. The sacrament, however, reminds the devotee of the “eternal clear sun,” moving her attention from shade to the strength of the towering tree.

And, of course, that tall cedar tree of mid-prayer calls on biblical resonances. Tall, sweet-smelling, beautiful, strong: the tree is a building material, the stuff of temples and noble dwellings, an adornment along river banks, the wealth of nature that can be evoked as landscape. Here, the sacrament as cedar “inclines” toward the penitent whose salvation comes from Christ’s sacrifice on a wooden cross. The body bent, the tree “inclined”: the prayer is curiously evoking the imperviousness of cedar wood to the “worm,” poor worm, who is also the speaker herself, seeking salvation. I think there’s likely a resonance of the voluntary nature of the passion here: Christ accepted the need of sacrifice to save the very essence of the poor. He “leans in” to support and to salvage the struggling “worm” of humanity. The prayer’s opposites -- food and wilderness, shade and radiance, wood and worm – swing us back and forth from grace to undeservingness and back.

The prayer shifts at this junction, however, and the angels who have dwelt naturally with Christ’s heavenly substance are asked to support those for whom he chose the sacrificial path. The very angels of the start of the prayer who live in a higher realm are to join the devotee in giving thanks to God for the gift of grace.

This is an attractive set of nature images – a rich image-bank for the communicant as she considers the sacramental experience from multiple angles. Thus, it’s hardly a surprise that the prayer was not peculiar to Thalbach; it crops up in a variety of sources. This prayer belongs to a known complex of companion texts, an array of a dozen prayers that have interlinking concordances. What becomes interesting in comparison is not (just) that the complex exists (see HAIMERL or KORNRUMPF), but how it works. Curiously, its constituent members vary, but the internal order for the complex remains strikingly stable. Haimerl noted the presence of the complex in 1952, but his presentation – a dense listing of prayer incipits relegated to footnotes – disguises its organizational logic. To my eye, there is a marked stability-with-variability that characterizes this set of post-sacrament prayers.

The full set typically starts with prayers of preparation, the devotee readying him- or herself for communion. For instance:

“O Milter guttiger Herre Ihesu christe. Ich pin nicht wirdig das ich heiß dein kint oder creatur. Vnd das du eingeest In mein hawß” -- O gracious, kind Lord Jesus Christ, I am not worthy to be called Your child or creature, nor for You to enter my house...(quoted here from its Cgm 127 instance).

The question of spiritual need and the common trope of unworthiness that is nevertheless redeemed in the act is rehearsed and reinforced. There is then a procedural gap in prayer as the devotee becomes the communicant, and the set picks up with what we will take as our focus, they prayers designated for “after taking the sacrament,” typically highlighted through rubric.

Here is where the patterning shows the adaptability of manuscript copying. Across half-a-dozen manuscripts which share a concordance with the Thalbach prayer, we see a range of solutions for “what to include,” showing that the prayers are not actually circulating as a fixed suite. No surviving complex contains every option, and the individual collections vary in length and selection. But all of them operate under the same idea-logic, as shown in the markedly stable performative sequence that emerges.

Ordered listing of prayers after sacrament from six 15th-16th c prayerbooks; blank cells are for alignment

That is to say: these prayers may not come as a completed unit, but neither are they arranged randomly. Comparison shows that this complex works less like a fixed textual cycle than like an ordered repertoire. Across the witnesses, they appear in a remarkably stable performative order: praise and reception come first; prayers reflecting on the meaning of the Eucharist follow; belief and a specifically Trinitarian address come next; thanksgiving follows reflection and affirmation; petition comes afterward; and Marian intercession, when present, comes last. Individual books can omit stages, but they do not jumble them.

The comparison therefore suggests something more sophisticated than either a single transmitted prayer cycle or a loose anthology. These texts circulated as a repertoire of possible devotional actions, with an understood sequence even when only some of its parts were selected. A compiler could expand or contract the sequence, but its basic choreography remained recognizable. One might move directly from reception to the “true food of the angels” prayer, then to belief, Trinity, and thanksgiving, as in the Thalbach manuscript. Another might add praise before reception, or petitions and Marian prayer afterward. What remains stable is not the membership of the group but its devotional logic. The complex functions not as a fixed cycle, but as a flexible repertoire whose devotional order remains stable even as compilers shorten, extend, and reshape it.

That matters for understanding the five prayers in ÖNB 11750. They are presented as choices (“Ein anders schon gebet”: another beautiful prayer) , but they are not merely five interchangeable reflections after Communion. Together they occupy successive positions within a broader pattern of Eucharistic devotion: first the communicant receives, then interprets what has happened, articulates belief, turns toward the Trinity, and gives her thanks. The Thalbach compiler, in other words, has produced a compact version of a much larger devotional choreography.

And the “true food of the angels” prayer sits at a particularly stable point within that choreography. It appears in every complex in the comparison, always after reception or an equivalent preparatory opening and before thanksgiving or petition. Its imagery of food, sun, cedar, worm, grace, and heavenly assistance grounds the devotee in a succession of images. In so doing, it helps the communicant dwell on the disproportion at the heart of the sacrament: heavenly food given to the wretched, radiance entering a valley, lofty cedar bending toward the worm.

Perhaps that explains this prayer’s stability amidst the variability of this complex of post-communion prayers. It is retained for the job that it does, for its work of centering spiritual experience in an observable view of everyday landscape. And, if the prayer gives the communicant a landscape in which to understand the sacrament, the prayerbook gives her a path through it.

And that is today’s take-away. A prayerbook does more than preserve words. It gives shape to the communicant’s movement through the sacrament, using a widely shared devotional grammar to create a particular path through the experience.

 

---

WANT TO KNOW MORE?

• On another post-communion meditation from Thalbach
• On a Segen from the same manuscript (ÖNB 11750)
• Prayer practices as repetition with a purpose

MANUSCRIPT DETAILS AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION:

• OENB Cod. 11750, fol. 28r: an ornate Thalbach prayerbook from the late 16^th century; the prayers for after the sacrament come after an array of preparation *for* the sacrament. More details available from the author as needed.
• Beinecke Ms 28 (Germany, 1513), ff. 93v-98r, a prayerbook written in 1513 at the Benedictine monastery of Tegernsee, by Melchior Wigg (alias Bruder Paulus). https://pre1600ms.beinecke.library.yale.edu/docs/pre1600.ms028.htm
• Cgm 127, dated 1476 and likely for the Nuremberg St Katharinakloster, where, as Haimerl points out, it fits in a larger cycle of communion prayers by Heinrich Seuse and the so-called “St Bernhard’s Cursus” (Franz Xavier HAIMERL, Mittelalterliche Frömmigkeit im Spiegel der Gebetbuchliteratur Süddeutschlands, Münchener Theologische Studien I, 4 (München 1952), p. 48 n247).
• Cgm 165, dated 1510,, copied by M. R. (see fol. 318r), and belonged to “Dienerin” Elisabeth Röbin (HAIMERL p. 53 n267). Here again it, as Haimerl explains, Suso’s communion prayer is included in a larger group of prayers that closely matches the corresponding group in the other manuscript and serves the same purpose.
• The German Hortulus has a section of such prayers (HAIMERL p. 143 n897 and CYRUS Seelengartlein inventory). I have written separately about the Seelengartlein as a prayer collection.
• Augsburg, Cod. III.1.8º 6, fol. 159^v–160^v , discussed in Karin SCHNEIDER, Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Augsburg; Reihe 2: Die deutschen Handschriften; Bd. 1: Deutsche mittelalterliche Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Augsburg: die Siganturengruppen Cod. I. 3 und Cod. III. 1 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz 1988)
• For further concordances for this widespread prayer-group, see Gisela KORNRUMPF and Paul-Gerhard VÖLKER: Die deutschen mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek München (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1968), p. 282: https://bilder.manuscripta-mediaevalia.de/bilder/hs-bilder/k/HSK0051_b282.jpg

Hantavirus Meets the Song World: Four Songs and a News Cycle

Once upon a time five days ago, we were all learning a lot about hantavirus.

Of course, five days is not enough time to know something deeply. It is barely enough time for a news story to become recognizable. But it is more than enough time for a word to become searchable, alarming, singable, misheard, politicized, mocked, explained, and folded into pandemic memory.

So here we are in early May 2026, when hantavirus – we hope briefly! – became a live global news event. The immediate story centered on the MV Hondius, a cruise ship (yes, another cruise ship story) associated with an outbreak of the Andes strain of hantavirus. News stories breathlessly explored the deaths, the quarantines, the returning passengers, the national health agencies, the question of person-to-person transmission, and the repeated official reassurance that this was not another COVID-style pandemic. The public risk, experts said again and again, was low. But “low risk” is not the same thing as low affect. After COVID, outbreak language does not arrive neutrally. It comes already charged.

That charge can be seen in the data. Google Trends suggests that searches for “hantavirus” peaked around May 7–8. GDELT’s global news-volume curve rose across the same window and stayed elevated. Nexis Uni, meanwhile, shows indexed news stories continuing to accumulate through Monday, May 11, when the count reached its highest point in my search, after a lull over the weekend. So the three timelines do not line up neatly. Public searching crested before the archive of news coverage did. On May 7, “hantavirus” was not yet a retrospective topic. It was a live search object.

SONG 1

That matters because May 7 was also the upload date for Jonathan Mann’s “Look Out For The Hantavirus,” part of his long-running Song A Day project. (16 years is stick-to-it power writ large!) The song does not explain hantavirus. It does not tell us what the Andes strain is, how transmission works, or what public-health officials recommend. Instead, it catches the unstable middle of the news event: after the story has become recognizable, before it has settled into explanatory prose.

Mann’s song turns the pathogen’s name into a sound-world. Hantavirus becomes “haunter,” “hunter,” and finally something like “huntavirus.” The slippage matters. This is not just a song about a disease. It is a song about being pursued by disease news. The virus is named, misnamed, and renamed; it becomes a thing that hunts and haunts. The lyric fragments “each day is a year” and “no more parties” do a great deal of work. They return us to pandemic time: days stretched out beyond recognition, ordinary gathering suspended, the future both overfull and stalled.

The song’s images also move quickly beyond the cruise ship. “Guns and bombs,” “sun,” “dust,” “dinosaurs,” and an “imperial junkyard” pull hantavirus into a wider field of catastrophe. That may be scientifically excessive, but it is affectively precise. Pandemic memory doesn’t live inside tidy epidemiological categories. It links all sorts of things: virus, climate, war, misinformation, environmental ruin, and the loss of ordinary sociability. This song catches the moment when a new virus does not have to become a pandemic to actually wind up sounding like one.

SONG 2

The next song I found took the opposite route. Ginger J’s “Covid-19 Part 2 (Hantavirus song),” posted May 8, is comic, sing-songy, and almost Tom Lehrer-ish in its boom-chuck momentum. It gives the story a jaunty explanation: ship, route, rat, virus, deaths, release of passengers, possible spread. Its hook is blunt: “Covid 19 part two.” That title is the entire interpretive mechanism. It does not wait to ask whether hantavirus is like COVID. It hears the news through COVID before the comparison can be medically corrected.

What makes the Ginger J song useful is that its comedy is not simply dismissive. It is the comedy of recognition. Cruise ship? Quarantine? Passengers allowed to leave? Possible global spread? People already dead? The song turns those details into a familiar little panic machine. The phrase “lockdown soon” is funny because it is (may it ever be so) disproportionate; it is also funny because it remembers how quickly the disproportionate became ordinary back in 2020. The song does not need to be epidemiologically fair in order to be historically revealing. It shows how quickly a new outbreak story reactivates old behavioral scripts. (For that more lighthearted (?) take, see also Putnam Pig https://silencesandsounds.blogspot.com/2025/03/satire-sound-and-swine-2009-flu.html or the Flying Fish Sailors Satire, Sound, and Swine: The 2009 Flu Pandemic Goes (Musically) Viral)

SONG 3

By May 10, the story had entered a different register. The Story of Things uploaded “Hantavirus, They’re Not Telling You The Truth,” a LEGO rap that had gathered far more views than the other songs I found. This one begins as an explainer and becomes a conspiracy narrative. Its opening promises what the news supposedly withholds: “what’s actually behind it” and “what comes next.” The song moves from symptoms to mortality, from cruise ship to flights, from public-health reassurance to political accusation, and then into a wider architecture of hidden power.

This is where the news archive and the song archive start talking to each other. In my Nexis batch of news stories, 55 of 65 stories emphasized severity, death, hospitalization, or the lack of easy treatment. Forty-six carried reassurance as a major counter-frame: low risk, not COVID, not the next pandemic, do not panic. Thirty-two made explicit COVID or pandemic comparisons. This rap weaponizes precisely that gap between reassurance and history-that-bites. If officials say “low risk,” the song hears minimization. If experts say “not another COVID,” the song hears repetition. If the news explains, the song asks why the explanation is not enough.

The rap’s most revealing move is not that it becomes conspiratorial; that seems almost standard practice these days. No, it is that it makes conspiracy out of familiar pandemic ingredients: official statements, global travel, bodies on flights, absent vaccines, public-health infrastructure, political blame, and the suspicion that someone somewhere knows more than they said. Its refrain is epistemological: the problem is not only the virus, but the story around the virus. Who is telling it? Who refuses to tell it? Who profits from fear? Who gets to say “low risk”?

That is not my account of the outbreak, to be clear. It is the song’s account of mediated distrust. And that makes it inherently important. (I already mentioned Putnam Pig.) Pandemic culture did not produce only songs of comfort, solidarity, grief, and endurance. It also produced habits of suspicion. A new outbreak story, especially one involving a cruise ship, international travel, death, official reassurances, and no immediately available cure: we’ve got a hard-earned mechanism to hand to deal with that.

The echoes with COVID-19 are unmistakable. The rap’s most charged moments come when it treats official reassurance as repetition rather than information: “said don’t worry,” “said it’s fine,” “back in 2020.” That is where the song converts hantavirus into pandemic memory, textually and visually:

The issue is not only whether the Andes strain of hantavirus can spread between people, or whether passengers should have been quarantined longer, or whether the public risk really is low. The issue is that the phrases themselves have history. “Low risk” no longer sounds neutral; “don’t panic” no longer simply calms our fears. In the song’s logic, reassurance has become suspicious because it resembles earlier mistaken reassurances. The cruise ship, the scattered passengers, the absent vaccine, and the vulnerable lungs all become evidence in a larger story about institutions that fail, leaders who minimize, and publics across multiple continents being asked to trust too quickly. That makes the LEGO rap the darkest of the four examples: it shows how pandemic memory can become a hermeneutic of suspicion, turning every public-health statement into a possible cover story. It may not be medically true, but for many listeners, it is emotionally true. And that’s not a good thing.

SONG 4

The fourth song, Valtherion’s “Hantavirus: The Cruise Ship Killer Explained In A Song,” posted May 11, belongs to yet another mode: AI-assisted educational content. It’s my first knowingly consumed AI song, so let me dwell on this a moment. The channel is up-front about what it’s offering; the YouTube description announces that the music and vocals were generated using Suno AI, with audio and visuals also AI-generated, and that the facts were verified from CDC and WHO sources. This is not pandemic song as spontaneous response. It is pandemic song as content format: an explainer optimized for circulation, learning, and perhaps search.

Its title does a lot of work: “The Cruise Ship Killer Explained In A Song.” It promises drama and comprehension at once. The lyric fragments “No cure, no vaccine” and “know the science” make its double identity especially clear. It wants to be alarming enough to hold attention and responsible enough to count as educational. It turns the outbreak into a singable science brief.

That matters. Much of the news coverage did the same thing in prose. In the 65-story Nexis sample I reviewed, 61 stories functioned partly as mini-explainers. They defined hantavirus, described symptoms, explained transmission, named rodents, droppings, dust, lungs, kidneys, incubation periods, and risk. Sixty-three stories foregrounded rodents, dust, droppings, cleaning, or environmental exposure. Fifty-eight dealt with transmission uncertainty, especially the distinction between ordinary hantavirus transmission and the Andes strain’s capacity for person-to-person spread under conditions of close contact. The AI song does not depart from that archive. It condenses it into a content template.

The (problematic) news cycle and its song-based reflections

And then there is Jon Stewart. Love me some Jon Stewart.

The May 11 Daily Show segment is not one of the four songs, but it is too useful to ignore because he names the media structure that surrounds them. Stewart’s central joke is that hantavirus is not, in fact, the next COVID, but “try telling that to the news media.” The segment repeatedly stages a contest between expert reassurance and media panic. Experts say the public risk is low; the news asks whether this could be “the next pandemic.” Experts answer no, and yet the question returns, and returns again. The bit is funny because the loop is recognizable.

That loop also helps explain these songs. Mann catches the haunted atmosphere before it hardens. Ginger J turns the story into comic COVID déjà vu. The LEGO rap converts the reassurance/panic gap into conspiracy. Valtherion packages the outbreak as AI-assisted science education. Stewart then satirizes the very media system that makes all four responses legible: a system in which expert calm and headline panic can coexist indefinitely, each feeding the other.

The cruise ship is crucial here. News stories repeatedly made the MV Hondius into an outbreak-container: sealed, mobile, socially dense, nationally complicated, and easy to visualize. In my archive, 64 of 65 stories kept the cruise ship at the center. Sixty-two emphasized global movement: passengers, flights, ports, repatriations, returning travelers, national agencies. Forty-eight foregrounded quarantine, isolation, evacuation, docking, monitoring, or contact tracing. Even when the articles insisted that hantavirus was not COVID, the vocabulary revived COVID-era habits of reading. Who is exposed? Who can move? Who is isolated? Who decides? Who is reassured? Who remains afraid?

This is why the songs are not just a novelty response to a weird news story. They are small experiments in post-COVID hearing. They show what happens when a new outbreak enters a culture trained by pandemic experience to listen closely for signals of danger, denial, containment, mobility, and blame. We’re on heightened alert, and this news story -- in any format, from any media outlet -- delivers.

Of course, the four songs don’t agree with each other. Mann’s song is atmospheric and unstable. Ginger J’s is comic and immediate. The Story of Things is suspicious and accusatory. Valtherion is explanatory and machinic. But together, they form a tiny musical news cycle all their own: dread, joke, conspiracy, pedagogy. In less than a week, hantavirus passed from live-news object to singable object, from search term to content format.

To be honest, I do not think these songs tell us much about hantavirus as a disease. The news stories and public-health sources are better for that. But they do tell us a great deal about pandemic memory. They show that after COVID, outbreak news does not have to become pandemic reality in order to activate our latent pandemic feeling. A virus can be rare, contained, and low-risk to the general public, and still enter public imagination through the old portals: cruise ships, quarantine, no cure, no vaccine, passengers flying home, experts repeating themselves, news anchors asking whether we should panic, and people searching up scary terms late at night.

On May 7, hantavirus was not yet settled knowledge. It was still becoming a story. And that’s where music enters the interpretive field, explaining, expounding, riffing on the news of the day.

Because pandemic music does not only show us what people remembered. It also shows us how quickly those memories starts working again.

---

Related Pandemic Music Posts

• Pandemic music: Collective memory
• Pandemic music: Cultural amnesia 
• Pandemic music: Humor trending into sarcasm 
• Pandemic music: Music as distraction 

---

Tools Assessment

TL/DR on tools: 

1) for a fast-moving news-and-music project, use GDELT for the shape of the media event and public search attention summaries; Nexis Uni for the archival story set, and transcript tools for first-pass access to video text. Use Google News and its ilk as little as humanly possible. Double emphasis on "humanly."

2) To my jaundiced eye, the tool failure is part of the story: the same information environment that makes outbreak news instantly searchable also makes it harder to know what appeared when. There’s a reason that Lego song got so many hits.

Tool assessment, or how I spent Tuesday morning:

To be honest, this morning project also turned into a useful test of research tools for very recent news stories. And I wasn't entirely happy with what I learned.

GDELT Summary was new to me and genuinely useful. It was slow, and it took some fiddling, but it gave me the best visual sense of when the hantavirus story “popped” globally. Its value was not in giving me a final archive, but in showing the shape of the news event: early rise, spike, sustained attention. It also surfaced related stories, including an earlier Taiwanese outbreak and reminders of spring cleaning protocols, that helped me see that the cruise-ship outbreak did not emerge from nowhere. This site also contains a snapshot of Google Trends, which was useful for a different question. Instead of “how many stories were published?” it answers “when did people search?” That distinction matters. Search interest peaked around May 7–8, while Nexis coverage continued to build into Monday, May 11. This helped me place Jonathan Mann’s May 7 song at the hinge between public curiosity and institutional narration. https://api.gdeltproject.org/api/v2/summary/summary

Nexis Uni, through Vanderbilt’s library subscription, was the most useful tool for building a clean story archive. It let me run day-by-day searches, count stories, download batches, and identify the recurring emphases that make this story special. It was not perfect, and the Monday peak almost certainly reflects weekend publication, syndication, and indexing patterns as well as actual public attention. But as a source for dated, citable news items, it worked. (subscription based; sorry, general user...)

Google News and regular Google Search were together the least useful tool on the block, and I no longer will recommend either for this kind of work. They no longer behave like a reliable date-linked news archive. Even with date-range searching and AI-mitigated practices (shift of browser or &udm=14), each surfaced recent AI-curated or misdated material as though it belonged to earlier points in the story. For scholarly or semi-scholarly reconstruction, that is catastrophic. Take-away: Google is not a trustworthy way to reconstruct a news cycle. (Here’s my data notebook assessment from Coffee-O’clock this morning on the two googles: “Date range constrained searches were functionally meaningless from a scholarly point of view.” Not gonna link because, bah.)

NoteGPT’s "free YouTube transcript generator" was quick, easy, and helpful. It was especially useful for grabbing rough text from the YouTube songs and comedy segment. Caveat: song lyrics and auto-transcribed texts still need checking by ear. Puns, repeated choruses, proper names, and sung words are exactly where transcript tools tend to wobble. (https://notegpt.io/)