Every archival journey has its moments of mystery. One of those
dropped in my lap this week. Late last year, one of the Thalbach
library volumes was digitized (yay!), and made its way to my
attention thanks to a very helpful librarian. (Andrea Kollinger of
the Germanisches Nationalmuseum is my “thank you” of the week!)
The volume itself
has now entered my “to-do” stack, but as a curious nerd, I did
have to open the digital link and glance at the volume to see what
state it was in.
And, happily for me,
it had paste-down flyleaves – some old folio something-or-other in
dense Latin with all those chewy abbreviations that allow for
efficient text rendition, if not always the most fluent reading.
 |
| Front Flyleaf, GNM 22273 |
The type is the
dense, angular Gothic used in many incunable theological folios –
compact, heavily abbreviated, and clearly meant for readers already
fluent in the conventions of scholastic Latin.
Okay, I love a
challenge. And it’s spring break, so I can play with my material if
I want to, right? And so I launched a journey of more hours than it
should have been.
A few words jumped
out at me immediately: scandalum, peccatum,
ignorans. Clearly in the theology orbit. But what theology,
and from where?
This kind of work is
always a mixture of frustrating and tantalizing. As you can see from
the image, the page was trimmed down – just half the folio sheet –
and parts of the first column had been effaced at some point in the
book’s journey. So one winds up with fragments of a fragment to
work from, and a chance to practice one’s transcription skills.
A quick flip to the
back fly showed more of the same.
 |
| Back Flyleaf, GNM 22273 |
Still two columns,
no helpful headers (sigh), no big paragraph marks or drop caps or
other orientation marks. Well, there’s that marginal “E.” So,
probably two fragments from the same folio book, and some kind of
marginal reference system. (It took me an embarrassingly long time to
notice the I/J in the margin of the front fly. I was distracted by
the Latin.)
The text was
organized as a scholastic discussion: questions introduced with
phrases like An autem… and Dubitat secundo…,
followed by tightly argued distinctions. Elsewhere the text referred
to examples from Scripture – including the familiar Pauline warning
about food that might cause a weaker Christian to stumble.
All of that pointed toward a very
specific intellectual world: the dense, systematic moral theology
taught in late-medieval universities and religious orders. The
fragment clearly belonged to a large theological folio, the kind of
book used for teaching and preaching rather than private devotion.
But which one?
That question turned out to be the
beginning of a small detective story.
DETERMINING CONTENT
The first step with a fragment like this
is simply to slow
down and read what survives. Even when the page is
incomplete, scholastic texts tend to give themselves away through
their habits: recurring vocabulary, familiar examples, and the
logical scaffolding of argument.
In this case, several phrases began to
stand out as I worked through the abbreviations. The text discussed
“scandalum
activum” and
“scandalum
passivum”,
distinguishing between the act of leading another person into
sin and the act of taking scandal from something done by another. It
cited the Pauline warning: “Si propter cibum frater tuus
contristatur, iam non secundum caritatem ambulas” – if
your brother is grieved because of food, you are no longer walking
according to charity. There was also the classic example about eating
meat sacrificed to idols in front of weaker Christians.
If that sounds familiar, it should.
These are standard examples in the medieval theological discussion of
scandal, a topic that runs through the moral theology tradition
descending from Thomas Aquinas. The fragment also asked a question
about ignorance – “Cum omissio sciendi sit peccatum…”
– and went on to discuss when failing to know something might
itself be sinful. Again, very much in the Thomistic moral-theology
orbit.
The structure reinforced that
impression. There were a couple of slightly larger cue words, “An
autem,” and “Dubitat,” which signaled the start of a formal
question, followed by argument and resolution. And those marginal
letters fitted with this type of writing: best guess was a scholastic
teaching text, the kind used in classrooms and by preachers preparing
sermons. Maybe not the kind of devotional reading that was most
common in the Thalbach library, but not completely out of character
either.
So far, so good. But where to go from
here? “Scholastic teaching text” covers a very large swath of
early printed books, and I do mean very large. The later Middle Ages
produced a small mountain of theological compendia, and many of them
summarized or adapted Aquinas. Some were organized by topics such as
sin or virtue; others followed the Ten Commandments; still others
took the form of alphabetical confessor’s manuals. All of them
could look, at first glance, rather like this fragment.
My first guesses followed that logic.
Perhaps the leaf came from a Dominican moral-theology summa such
as the widely printed works associated with Antoninus of Florence. Or
from another scholastic digest circulating in the late fifteenth
century. The typography – that dense two-column Gothic type I
mentioned above – certainly suggested
a large theological
folio of the incunable period.
And Fechter (Inkunabeln)
noted only that it was a fragment of a moral-theological text. Hmmm,
that’s not very specific.
But guesses only get you so far. At some
point, one has to start matching words on the page with words in
actual books. And that meant turning the fragment’s surviving
phrases into search clues and seeing where they led.
BREAKTHROUGH!
This
is where the detective work became a little more methodical. With
fragments, the trick is to find
a
phrase distinctive enough to search,
but not so
damaged by abbreviations that it disappears in transcription.
Scholastic Latin can actually be helpful here: its formulas repeat
across texts, but the exact phrasing often remains recognizable.
One of the lines that caught my eye
early on was the question about ignorance: “Cum omissio sciendi
sit peccatum…” Another promising lead was the formulation of
the problem of scandal: “An autem scandalum sit speciale
peccatum vel generale.” These phrases were long enough to be
distinctive, but common enough in moral-theological discussions that
they might turn up somewhere searchable.
So I started doing what scholars
increasingly do with fragments:
turning bits of
Latin into search strings
and seeing what the digitized book world would give back.
At first, the results pointed broadly in
the direction I expected: Thomistic moral theology, discussions of
scandal, questions about ignorance and culpability. But then one of
the searches landed on something more specific – a passage that
looked suspiciously familiar, not just in topic but in the sequence
of arguments.
The
text belonged to the Dominican theologian Johannes
Nider, in his
Praeceptorium divinae
legis (often also
called the Expositio
Decalogi). Nider
organized this work as a commentary on the Ten
Commandments, and
within each commandment he developed a series of scholastic questions
about moral life. When I looked more closely, the match became
unmistakable.
NERD
ALERT: When I’m working with a just-matched text, I work forward
and backward from my new-found phrase. Particularly given all of the
abbreviations in my flyleaf fragments, it’s helpful to work through
the more spelled-out text and do the matching. Being a color nerd, I
do that by taking images of the text and its match, and highlighting
the match – first match is always in yellow in my process – to
see the extent of the parallel. This is helpful – earlier in the
research journey I’d actually matched a passage to Aquinas himself,
but that moment of joy soon dissipated as I realized that unless
someone’s paraphrase had gotten out of hand, it was actually a
passage citing Aquinas as authority, and not an actual ID to my text.
Patience is a virtue. When I did get a hit, the yellow extended
backwards, and backwards again across a couple of different
screenshots. We definitely had a match.
Also
in nerd-dom: when I moved to the back fly, I was cautiously
optimistic that I might have a single folio sheet cut into two
pieces, but I use a different highlighting (blue)
until I match the sections.
That was a no-go; I did find the text
of the back fly in the same
book, but it was NOT in the same section – it
was several gatherings away.
The fragment from the front flyleaf
corresponds to Nider’s
Praeceptum Nonum,
chapter III,
discussing the nature of scandal. The back flyleaf comes
from Praeceptum
Quintum, chapter XIII,
dealing with related moral questions about ignorance and
culpability. In other words, both scraps derive from the same book –
a large scholastic folio –
even though they preserve pieces from different parts of it.
That also explains why the fragments
look the way they do. The binder who reused the pages was not
preserving a coherent leaf, but simply cutting up a worn-out
theological volume and using the pieces where they were structurally
useful. What survives in the
binding is therefore not a single continuous page, but two
scraps from different leaves of the same discarded book.
I can live with that.
Once the identification clicked, the
rest of the puzzle fell into place. The typography matches what we
would expect for an incunable or very early sixteenth-century
printing of Nider’s work: dense two-column Gothic type, heavy
abbreviations, and just enough typographic cues – An autem,
Dubitat – to guide the reader through the scholastic
argument. What had looked at first like an anonymous piece of dense
Latin suddenly resolved itself into a recognizable voice from the
late medieval Dominican-orbit classroom.
WHAT’S THIS DOING AT THALBACH?
Identifying
the fragment raises the question: who
was Johannes Nider, and what would a book like this have meant in the
world around Thalbach?
Johannes Nider (c. 1380–1438) was a
Dominican reformer, university teacher, and prolific writer. His
works circulated widely across fifteenth-century Europe, and –
importantly – had an influence outside of the Dominican Order. In
the present day, he’s most famous for the Formicarius,
since witch trials are an evergreen source of fascination. (For the
record, the Praeceptorium is
NOT about witches! And I suspect Nider might be disappointed that
“witch trials” rather than “intellectual breadth and prowess”
became his claim to fame, but maybe that’s just me.)
Nider
taught theology at Vienna and Basel and was closely connected
to the reform movements within the Dominican Order and, by extension,
with the broader currents of ecclesiastical reform in the decades
surrounding the Council of Basel. His writings were practical as well
as intellectual, meant to help clergy and religious communities think
clearly about the moral and pastoral problems of Christian life.
The Praeceptorium divinae legis
belongs squarely in that world of applied theology. It is organized
as an exposition of the Ten
Commandments,
and within each commandment Nider develops a sequence of scholastic
questions: what constitutes sin, what causes moral harm, when
ignorance excuses responsibility, when it does not. The text is
deeply shaped by the theological tradition of Thomas
Aquinas, but
its purpose is not simply academic commentary. Works
like this functioned as teaching
tools, helping
preachers, confessors, and monastics in general reason through the
moral complexities they encountered in pastoral care.
In other words, this was not a
devotional book for private reading. It
was a working manual
for theological thinking
– the sort of
book used in classrooms, study circles, or by clergy preparing
sermons and confessional guidance.
That context makes the fragment
especially interesting for Thalbach. The library there, as far as we
can reconstruct it, leaned heavily toward vernacular
devotional literature:
prayerbooks, saints’ lives, sermons, and spiritual
reflections. A dense Latin scholastic folio like Nider’s stands
somewhat apart from that landscape. It
represents the learned
theological infrastructure
that supported the devotional world we see more clearly in the
surviving books.
In practice, a text like the
Praeceptorium could have been used by the clerical
figures connected with the community
– chaplains, confessors, visiting preachers
– or perhaps even educated members of the religious
house itself, since the sisters read enough to acquire a quite
respectable-sized library. The sisters of Thalbach did not live in an
intellectual vacuum; their devotional life was shaped by pastoral
instruction, preaching, and sacramental guidance that drew on exactly
this kind of moral theology. To the sisters, Nider’s discussions of
scandal, ignorance, and responsibility would not have been abstract
puzzles. Rather, they represent attempts to map the moral terrain of
everyday Christian life: how one’s actions affect others, when a
mistake becomes a sin, how responsibility is understood.
Moreover, thanks to the always-helpful
Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, we know from surviving
incunables that Nider’s Praeceptorium was owned by at least
fourteen Franciscan houses, so Thalbach’s connection to the book is
not an anomaly, but rather part of a broader pattern in the
circulation of Nider’s ideas.
(https://www.gesamtkatalogderwiegendrucke.de/,
known familiarly as GW.)
Seen from that perspective, the fragment
becomes more than a curiosity tucked into a binding. It offers a
small glimpse of the intellectual
toolkit of a late-medieval religious community.
NERDS
WANT TO KNOW
You
aren’t really done with an incunable identification, of course,
until you know when and where the item was published. Here’s where
a bit of brute force comes in. Since the typeface looked early (all
those angles, and the heavy abbreviation), I was pretty sure the copy
was late 15th
century. For that, the GW is the place to start. Look up the author,
click through to the list of published works, and then just plow
through the printed candidates until you get a match. I decided to
use the front fly (Praeceptum
Nonum, chapter III) simply because it was close enough to the
volume’s end to make navigating relatively easy. Yes, it meant I
was checking bottom-of-page and end-of-line, but that’s just as
good as beginnings when you’re looking for a typographical match. I
made myself a quick cheat-sheet card with the text for the bottom of
the two columns and clicked through editions. It’s easy to
eliminate the single-column printings, and eventually (TAH-DAH!) I
found it. My Thalbach fragments (and they are mine, now that I’ve
spent this much time on them!) turn out to be pages from the Basel
printing of 1481: M26911 Nider, Johannes: Praeceptorium divinae
legis. Basel: [Johann Amerbach], 1481. 2°:
 |
| Comparison 1 of Darmstadt and Thalbach copies of Nider's Praeceporium |
Starts
and ends of lines match; the larger type for “Dubitat'” is a
confirmation; the marginal I/J is there. The Darmstadt copy got some
rubricating that the Thalbach version lacks, but those kinds of
differences are post-production. Confirmation of the shared identity
comes with the back flyleaves:
 |
| Comparison 2 of Darmstadt and Thalbach copies of Nider's Praeceporium |
Again,
larger type for “An autem”; a shared
marginal
letter; starts and ends of lines align;
abbreviations are shared:
BING BING BING we have a match!
WHY IN
THE FLY?
And
then, of course, we need to
grapple with the afterlife of the book itself. By the
sixteenth century, works like Nider’s were gradually superseded by
newer theological manuals. Not only do Nider editions drop off
precipitously at the turn of the 16th century, the large
scholastic folio volumes also seem to go out of style. Thus, these
“old fashioned” volumes became expendable, especially in smaller
libraries. It’s a case of “use then re-use”: when binders
needed sturdy paper to reinforce a book’s spine or flyleaves, an
old theological volume provided excellent raw material. The leaves
that once carried Nider’s careful distinctions about scandal and
ignorance were cut up, pasted into a binding, and sat around as
structural supports for a quite different text doing structural work
for centuries.
The fragments from Nider’s book now
serve as the pastedown flyleaves of a much smaller devotional work:
Ludwig Moser’s
Bereitung zum
heiligen Sakrament,
printed in Basel around 1493 by Michael
Furter. This
little octavo book offers preparation, in German, for receiving the
Eucharist—the kind of spiritual guidance meant for personal
devotion and practical religious life. Different in language,
different in audience, and physically different too: Nider’s work
circulated in large folio volumes, while Moser’s book is a compact
octavo, designed to be handled and read easily. The two texts almost
illustrate a miniature map of late-medieval religious culture. On the
one hand, we find the scholastic theology of the university and the
religious orders, where moral problems are dissected through
carefully structured questions and distinctions. On the other hand,
we have the vernacular devotional literature that translated those
theological concerns into forms accessible to a wider religious
readership.
Perhaps this should serve as a
cautionary tale. We tend to look at Thalbach’s intellectual world
from the perspective of the inventory of its book collection upon
dissolution in 1783 (Fechter, Neuhauser). Of course, the books listed
there do provide a wonderful glimpse into the interests and
intellectual habits of the sisters. But those are the books that made
it through and survived.
Piecing together a history that includes
the books that “didn’t make it” – those carved up into
flyleaf fragments, those mentioned only in archival records, those
cut into tiny binding scraps to hold other books together – adds
important details to the Thalbach story. It shows us that
intellectual tastes change: that changes of liturgical practice or
scholastic habits could render books obsolete. But those fragments
also tell us that once-upon-a-time, Thalbach readers too were
interested in the world of scholastic considerations of how best to
live a moral life.
As resources such as the GW and
https://fragmentarium.ms/
have made obvious, fragments are not merely accidents of survival.
They serve as valuable witnesses to the circulation of texts and
ideas. In other words, even a hard-to-decipher bit of Latin text on a
flyleaf can tell us something important about the intellectual worlds
of the past.
WORKS CITED
GNM 22273: Nürnberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Inc. 22273:
Ludwig Moser: Bereitung zum heiligen Sakrament. [Basel:
Michael Furter, um 1493]. 8°. https://dlib.gnm.de/item/8Inc22273.
A Thalbach incunable.
GW M26911: Nider, Johannes: Praeceptorium divinae legis.
Basel: [Johann Amerbach], 1481. 2° (Darmstadt exemplar inc-iv-420,
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:tuda-tudigit-23203)
Fechter, Walter.
“Inkunabeln aus Thalbacher Besitz.” Biblos
25 (1976): 233–42.
Fechter, Walter.
“Eine Thalbacher Handschrift mit Eckhart-Predigten, Exzerpten aus
Seuse, dem ps.-albertischen 'Paradisus animae' und anderem in Pavia,”
Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum
103 (1974): 311–33.
Fechter, Walter. “Thalbacher Handschriften im
Ferdinandeum Innsbruck.” Codices
manuscripti 2 (1976):
113-117
Neuhauser, Walter. “Der Thalbacher
Übergabekatalog von 1783.” In: Gedenkschrift Eberhard
Tiefenthaler, ed.
by Helmut Meusburger, Thomas Feurstein. Graz: Neugebauer 1996,
pp. 88-117; rpt: In libris: Beiträge
zur Buch- und Bibliotheksgeschichte Tirols von Walter Neuhauser,
ed. Claudia Schretter and Peter Zerlauth. Innsbruck:
Universitätsverlag Wagner, 2010, pp.
311-341.[The
Thalbach transfer catalog from 1783 = inventory at the Aufhebung.]