[In the following essay, Friedman analyzes the relationship between the extant versions of the text of the Credoand the extant versions of the work's iconography.]

1. The account in the Vie de saint Louis of his life at Acre makes no mention of an activity which has assumed importance in Joinville's literary biography: the composition of the Credo between the months of August 1250 and April 1251. The lessons of Saint Louis reported in sections 43-45 of the Vie are generally believed to be the initial inspiration for this pious project to aid the moribund in their struggle with the devil.¹ The ancient enemy of mankind, no longer able to take away good works already performed, would seek to bring the dying to damnation by temptation in matters of faith. With the other bodily senses sinking at this moment, the only pathways left open to him would be those of the eyes and ears. The Credo found its utility in closing these last two entrances, for the patient could hear the words of the Creed read to him and see the illustrations of the faith shown to him. This use of the two media of sight and hearing characterizes the Credo in which the miniatures are an integral part of the whole economy, not mere adornment. Both Perdrizet and Mâle have called attention to the interest offered by the Credo with its close interrelation of text and illumination for the study of mediaeval religious iconography.²

The only known text of the Credo is that preserved in MS 4509 of the nouvelles acquisitions du fonds français (former 7857) of the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris. Its history has been adequately recorded.³ After recognition by Paulin Paris that the work was by Joinville, a fac-simile edition limited to twenty-five copies, with an accompanying translation, was published by Artaud de Montor in 1837. This in turn was reproduced in reduced format by Ambroise-Firmin Didot in 1870. The text was subsequently re-edited by Natalis de Wailly after a collation by Paul Meyer of the Montor edition with the original manuscript then at Ashburnham Place. Wailly appended line drawing reproductions of the miniatures—totally inadequate—from the earlier edition of Didot. The Montor edition was notably faulty and Wailly has not always indicated the changes he made. These are difficult to determine from a comparison of the two editions, since the latter editor applied to the Credo the technique he used on the Vie namely the modification of the orthography of the manuscript in accord with norms derived from other works from the chancellory of Joinville. For these reasons, as early as 1898, Gaston Paris indicated the utility of a new edition.⁴

As is apparent from the text, this version of the Credo can scarcely be the redaction of Acre in 1250-1251,⁵ and 1287 is accepted as the date of the extant text.⁶ That the only known copy is considerably posterior to the known date of composition has resulted in much conjecture about the changes which might have taken place between the two redactions.⁷ Except for the passage concerning the old Saracen and the captive French crusaders, agreement is almost universal that such additions were limited to the introductory passages preceding the exposition of the Creed proper.

2. It is fortunate that two media were employed in the exposition of the Credo, for although the verbal text has been preserved in only one version, three versions of the iconographic text are extant. These three sets of miniatures will offer a third interest of the Credo for the study of problems and techniques of manuscript illumination. MS 4509 is incomplete in its illumination, having only twenty-six miniatures although the text specifically announces eleven more scenes as depicted. Three blanks unfilled by miniatures have been left on the folios. Since the miniatures are introduced interruptively and directly into the text of this manuscript, it has been taken for granted by Delaborde and Langlois that this was the fashion in which the text ought to be illuminated. Considering that the specific indications for the placing of the miniatures given by the text rarely coincide with their actual placement, this assumption is less warranted than it has previously seemed to be. The miniatures have been here left in the positions they occupied in the manscript, even though this position may not be the one designed by the wording of the text.

The second set of illustrations comprises a series of outline drawings, inspired by the Credo, found on folios 231r°-232v° of MS latin 11907 of the Bibliothèque nationale, already reproduced photographically by Delaborde and Lauer in 1909.⁸ At least one folio, possibly more, is missing, so that the series begins with the illustrations for the first part of Article V of the Creed. These drawings are here reproduced on Plates I-IV. At first glance, they give the impression of preliminary sketches to be used later by an illuminator, a hypothesis rejected by Delaborde on the grounds that the arrangement of the sketches in a continuous series does not reveal how they could be broken up to take their proper places in the text, that there are inversions in the order of the sketches compared to the text, and finally that all the legends with the exception of that for the scene of the captive crusaders are in Latin, which would not befit a work written in Romance. Hence the drawings were not the preliminary work for illuminating a text of the Credo.⁹ Having arrived at these perhaps valid conclusions (based implicitly on the assumption that the illumination of the Credo was to have been as it appears in the extant text), the author then elaborated the hypothesis that the sketches were to serve for the mural decoration of the Maison-Dieu of Joinville. There is nothing easier than to fill a no longer extant building with murals. However, the subsequent discovery by W. Bakhtine of a 13th-century Breviary, ostensibly for the service of Saint-Nicaise of Rheims, executed before the canonization of Saint Louis, and preserved in the Public Library of Leningrad, offered a more plausible alternative which was not seized, probably because Delaborde's publication had been lost from sight.¹⁰ The Breviary contains the only known complete set of illuminations for the Credo, which are here reproduced on Plates V-XXII.¹¹ Since these illustrations include the scene of the captive French crusaders (Pl. XVII), their origin in Joinville's work is beyond doubt. The Breviary fulfills all the conditions of the sketches, containing a set of miniatures not ostensibly subordinated to a Romance text, legends which, with the same exception as in the outline drawings, are in Latin, and a slight displacement in the order of the miniatures. The relation between the outline drawings and the Breviary will be examined at some length later.

3. Until now the main source of information on the Leningrad Breviary was a highly misleading report made by Ch.-V. Langlois to the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres of a communication from W. Bakhtine of the Public Library of Leningrad. Langlois' inaccuracies were all the more regrettable since the Académie claimed to have lost Bakhtine's original. Among other things, Langlois stated that the scenes from the Old and New Testaments were brought together in symmetrical pairs on successive folios. The inaccuracy is patent from the most cursory glance at the illuminations. Plate VII brings together the Annunciation and Isaiah, the Nativity and Daniel, neither of which persons could be termed New Testament; plates VIII-IX contain both events of the Passion and of the “Estoire Joseph”; Plate X contains an event of the Passion and four Old Testament figures. Such examples could be further multiplied. What is the actual state of affairs?

In the body of the work, Joinville's task was to expound the Creed by the witness of Holy Writ. The tradition of scriptural testimony hardly requires review here, but its specific function in the Credo seemingly does. From his discussion in the second paragraph, it is clear that Joinville believed that faith was of things not manifest, concerning which we have certainty only through hearsay (fides ex auditu). In the category of hearsay is placed the witness of the Scriptures conceived as testimony from the mouth of the Almighty through the holy persons of both Testaments. As such, it transcends all other types of witness. The Scriptures are the divina auctoritas and in the Credo scriptural references are not the starting point of argumentation but the final proof.¹²

In the opening paragraph Joinville announces that “poez veoir ci aprés point et escrit les articles de nostre foi par letres et par ymages,” from which it has been assumed that the expression “les articles de nostre foi” is equivalent to the twelve articles of the Creed. It is not, however, certain whether the author drew any careful distinction between the articles of faith construed specifically as the articles of the Creed or construed more generally as doctrinal points.¹³ The concluding paragraphs of the work refer more precisely to the “romant qui devise et enseigne les poinz de nostre foi,” for there can be no doubt that the term “les poinz de nostre foi” has an exact meaning not to be identified with the articles of the Creed as such but more generally with points of doctrine which the faithful are required to believe.¹⁴ The situation in the Credo is that the articles of the Creed may serve as the fundamental basis representing the minimum required of the faithful for salvation, but the actual unit of composition is the “point of faith” seen to be contained in or derived from the article. These “points” have brought about the fragmentation of the articles and an expansion or development of each fragment.¹⁵ More interesting is Joinville's identification as “points” of the faith of traditional scenes of mediaeval iconography: the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Baptism, “toute la Passion et l’Ascension et l’avenement dou Saint-Esperit.” Mâle has indicated that the number of New Testament scenes treated in the middle ages was restricted and seldom varied. A partial explanation can perhaps be sought in the concept that they were explicit in some of the articles of the Creed. That the problem in the Credo was the application of this traditional material to the Creed is apparent in the iconography.

4. Although Delaborde was puzzled by it, there does exist a fairly obvious order in the arrangement of the outline drawings in registers. The portions of the articles of the Creed, in red letters, occur only in alternate registers, two of them side by side, inscribed over such scenes as the Harrowing of Hell, the Resurrection, the Ascension, Christ seated at the right of God, Christ of the Second Coming, Pentecost, and the Last Judgment. In the preceding, unfilled portion of the register and in the preceding register are found the illustrations for the prophecies in work and word for these “points,” the prophecy in work on the left, in word on the right.¹⁶ In almost all instances these prophetic scenes have the same order as in the text of the Credo. The prophecy in word is represented by a figure with an appropriately inscribed phylactery. If a prophecy occurs in the unfilled portion of a register containing the illustrations for the “points,” it is always a prophecy in word. Lastly, for the portion of text concerned, the outline drawings adhere rigidly to the system of parallel prophecies in work and word.

The fragmentation into “points” is confirmed by the Leningrad Breviary which, by its ascription of each article to an Apostle opposed to a Prophet, permits definite identification of Joinville's division of the Articles and their subdivision into eighteen “points.”

Article I. Apostle, Peter. Prophet, Jeremiah.

Point 1: Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem … (The Fall of the Angels).

Point 2: Creatorem celi et terre (The Creation).

Article II. Apostle, Andrew. Prophet, Nebuchadnezzar (?).

(Joinville uses this article for the Advent and combines it with the following in his treatment, so only the prophecies occur.)

A. Credo in Jhesum Christum Filium Eius.

B. Unicum Dominum nostrum.

Article III. Apostle, James. Prophet, Isaiah (?).

Point 3: Qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto (The Annunciation).

Point 4: Natus ex Maria Virgine (The Nativity).

Article IV. Apostle, John. Prophet, Esdras.

Point 5: Passus sub Pontio Pilato (The Passion): a. Pilate washes his hands, b. the Sale of Christ, c. the Flagellation, d. the Bearing of the Cross).

Point 6: Crucifixus (Christ between the two thieves).

Point 7: Et mortuus (Christ's death on the Cross with the accompanying prodigies).

Point 8: Et sepultus (The Entombment).

Article V. Apostle, Thomas. Prophet, Hosea (?).

Point 9: Descendit ad inferna (The Harrowing of Hell).

Point 10: Tertia die resurrexit a mortuis (The Resurrection).

Article VI. Apostle, James the Less. Prophet, David.

Point 11: Ascendit ad celo (The Ascension).

Point 12: Sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis (Christ seated at the right of God).

Article VII. Apostle, Philip. Prophet, Joel.

Point 13: Inde venturus judicare vivos et mortuos. (Christ of the Second Coming).

Article VIII. Apostle, Bartholomew. Prophet, Zachariah.

Point 14: Credo in Spiritum Sanctum (Pentecost).

Article IX. Apostle, Matthew. Prophet, Solomon.

Point 15: Sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam (The Church).

Article X. Apostle, Simon. Prophet, Micah.

Point 16: Sanctorum communionem, remissionem peccatorum (The Sacraments: a. Baptism, b. Marriage, c. Confession, d. the Eucharist).

Article XI. Apostle, Thaddeus (Jude). Prophet, Ezekiel.

Point 17: Carnis ressurectionem (The Resurrection and Judgment).

Article XII. Apostle, Matthias. Prophet, Daniel.

Point 18: Vitam eternam. Amen (The Marriage Supper of the Lamb).

In the illumination of the Breviary, the prophecy in word for these “points” has frequently been incorporated into the miniature depicting the “point.”

The described order does not obtain in the outline drawings after the first register of f. 232r° where the composition by prophecy undergoes considerable modification in the text. Another exception occurs with the first of the articles depicted (compartments 1-2, top register, Pl. I) where the red legend is placed over two drawings: the first, showing Samson opening the jaws of the lion, the other, the Harrowing of Hell. The usual symmetry is missing, the point appears also over the prophecy in work, and the prophecy in word is lacking, despite the fact that it, not Samson, should have appeared to the left of the Harrowing of Hell. In the corresponding miniatures in the Breviary (lower register, Pl. XIV), the portion of the Creed also covers both the prophecy of Samson and the Harrowing of Hell. In a previous publication attempting to demonstrate that the Credo was skillfully contrived, we indicated that the prophecy of Hosea, with its equivocation on the term “mors” concorded directly in word with Article IV of the Creed and the development on the Fishing of Leviathan, while it concorded directly in idea by its exegetic treatment with the exegesis of the Samson prophecy and the Harrowing of Hell.¹⁷ It is gratifying to discover that the illumination of the Breviary confirms this by including the Hosea prophecy with the iconography for the Fishing of Leviathan (compartment 3, bottom register, Pl. XIII).

There is again an exception in the outline drawings for the point “Tertia die resurrexit a mortuis” (compartments 1-2, bottom register, Pl. I) where there is no separate illustration for the Resurrection, but where the red legend again appears over two compartments, the first of which contains a truncated Resurrection scene, with, inside its borders, the additional black legend “Resusitatio leunculi.” The adjoining compartment shows the figure of David with his prophecy “Et refloruit caro mea.” Both are Joinville's prophecies for the Resurrection. The remainder of the register is occupied by the illustration for the Ascension. In compartment 3 of the top register, where we should expect to find the prophecy in work for the Resurrection, occurs the prophecy in work for the Ascension, followed by a portion of the prophecy in word for the same event (compartment 1, middle register). The remainder of this register contains one compartment depicting two different scenes: (1) Jonah coming forth from the whale, with the legend “Jonas exit de ventre ceti” and (2) the old Saracen talking to the captive crusaders, with the legend “Li Saradins dit au barons pris an Negite.” This latter scene has suffered truncation of the young armed Saracens mentioned in the text. The Jonah scene is one of those believed by Delaborde to be out of order, since he thought it the Jonah prophecy for the Entombment given in the text. A different conclusion presents itself, however: the prophecy given is not for the Entombment but for the Resurrection. The middle ages distinguished three separate prophecies in the Jonah story: (1) his being cast into the sea: the Passion, (2) his being swallowed by the whale and the length of time passed in its belly: the Entombment, (3) his live return to shore: the Resurrection.¹⁸ The Speculum humanae salvationis employs both Jonah's being swallowed and his being regurgitated with these different implications.¹⁹ In the outline drawings, contrary to the extant text where the emphasis is placed upon a concordance of the time spent by Jonah in the whale's belly and by Christ in the tomb,²⁰ the reference is to Jonah's release (Jonas exit de ventre ceti) and it is, consequently, a prophecy for the Resurrection. There can be no doubt of Joinville's application of its accompanying illustration to the Resurrection.²¹

In the corresponding miniatures for the Breviary (Pl. XV) here too Elijah's being carried off in a fiery chariot, the prophecy in work for the Ascension, precedes the prophecies for the Resurrection, represented by Jonah coming forth from the whale (Jonas exit de ventre cetis) and David (Et refloruit …). The prophecy in word for the Ascension has been absorbed into the illumination for that point (upper register, Pl. XVI), the illumination for the Resurrection follows in the lower register, the resuscitation of the lion cub is neither depicted nor mentioned, and the scene of the captive crusaders appears out of place (compartment 1, upper register, Pl. XVII).

That the Jonah scene occurs here as a prophecy for the Resurrection is confirmed by the use in the Breviary of Jonah's being swallowed by the whale under the Entombment, with the legend “Jonas mittitur in mare” (compartment 1, upper register, Pl. XIII), so that the Breviary follows the same usage in this matter as the Speculum humanae salvationis. Langlois maintained that the appearance of the Jonah prophecy at this point demonstrated that the miniaturist had not servilely copied Joinville's text and had asserted his independence by substituting the more scriptural Jonah scene for the original lion cub.²² This explanation, if it ever was satisfactory, certainly is no longer, since the same irregularity is found in the outline drawings (except that the resuscitation of the lion cub is there mentioned) and obviously stems from reasons more immediately discernible than an artist's strivings for independence and more readily discoverable by better methods than mindreading.

5. The hypothesis to be advanced is that the outline drawings stem from a version of the Credo in which the Resurrection was supported by the Jonah prophecy, the prophecy of the lion cub, the prophecy of David, and the personal exemplum (used as a prophecy?) of Joinville's experience in Egypt. This has resulted in overcrowding the space available for the illuminations, an artistic problem tentatively solved in the drawings by the pictorial suppression of the lion cub, and by the inclusion of the David prophecy in the illustration for the point. The Leningrad Breviary has solved the same problem in another fashion: the complete suppression of the lion cub, and the maintenance of a separate David prophecy. This still does not leave room for the captive crusaders, a scene which, in the Breviary, has been put in place of Jacob's rending his coat, the prophecy in work for the point “Sedet ad dexteram …” (compartment 1, top register, Pl. II). In the Breviary, the replaced prophecy has been moved back into position in the preceding cycle of the “Estoire Joseph” (compartment 2, upper register, Pl. X).²³ It seems apparent that both the outline drawings and the Breviary stem from a version of the Credo different from that conserved in MS 4509. Since the lion cub is still mentioned although pictorially suppressed in the outline drawings, the latter are perhaps intermediate between the original text and the Breviary, where the cub nowhere appears. A simple comparison between the order of the scenes in the drawings and the Breviary from this point on shows an identity of arrangement (except where the prophecy in word of pseudo-Job has been normally incorporated into the illustration for its point), including the inversion of the last two articles of the Creed which occur in the order “Vitam eternam. Amen” and “Carnis resurrexionem” (Pls. IV and XXII). The identity in anomalies and deviations from the extant text in both drawings and Breviary, the identity of treatment (except for the problems posed by the Resurrection), and the identity of order indicate a very direct relation between the sketches and the illuminations. The final purpose of the order of the sketches does not become apparent until the successive folios of the Breviary are brought into opposition. In opposing Plates IX and X, it is seen that the upper register of both folios contains the continuous exposition of the “Estoire Joseph” while the lower register carries the parallel story of the Passion. The opposition in this instance is not, as Langlois would have it, between folios, one devoted to New Testament scenes, the other to Old, but an opposition of Old and New Testament between upper and lower registers of two succeeding folios treated as a unit. If Plates XIII and XIV are opposed, the upper register of both pages contains the illuminations for the Entombment and its prophecies, while the lower contains the Harrowing of Hell with its materials. The opposition of Plates XV and XVI brings the prophecies for the Ascension into line with the illumination for the point in the upper register and the Resurrection material together in the lower. Plates XVII and XVIII appear to depart from this arrangement, unless it is recalled that the captive crusaders appear in place of a prophecy for the point “Sedet …,” and the lower register is consistent in its application to the point “Inde venturus. …” The same obtains for the remaining folios, so that it is only in this final opposition of the completed illuminations of the Breviary that the rationale of the order of the outline drawings becomes apparent.

Although a direct relation between the sketches and the Breviary is demonstrable in this fashion, were the sketches actually the preliminary work for the illumination of the Breviary? The answer to this question is outside the competence of this writer and is best left to specialists in the field of mediaeval fine arts. The treatment of the individual scenes is not always identical, but certainly shows greater similarity than the treatment of the corresponding scenes in the extant version. On the other hand, it seems difficult to reconcile the rather wooden, stocky figures of the drawings with the graceful, svelte, elegant figures of the Breviary.²⁴ In the sketches, all the figures look alike; in the Breviary, they are highly individualized, with a particularly distinctive Christ and Virgin. All beards in the sketches receive the same treatment, which recurs only as one style among several in the Breviary. The compact crowns of the sketches have little resemblance to the flaring, elongated crowns of the Breviary. Many of these discrepancies may perhaps be attributed to the differences inherent between preliminary and finished work. There nevertheless remain differences of considerable importance. In the drawings, the scene of the captive crusaders depicts only the turbaned Saracen, leaning on one crutch, talking to the French captives in a pavillion (middle register, Pl. I). In the Breviary, the little old man, with a turban, leans on one crutch and appears in the company of the young Saracens with drawn swords. The French captives are within a tower or pavillion inside another enclosure (upper register, Pl. XVII). If the Breviary was illuminated from the drawings, a text was still necessary for the restoration of these details. Lastly, both these illustrations are far more faithful to the text than is the miniature of the extant version which merely opposes the band of armed Saracens with drawn swords and the little old man leaning on two crutches to the French captives (p. 40).²⁵

Similarly the sketch for the Judgment of Solomon shows the king seated on a throne, the disputing women, and the executioner with the babe and a sword (compartment 3, top register, Pl. II). This treatment is similar to that of the extant version (p. 44) and both are adequate renderings of the Biblical scene. In the Breviary however these Biblical details have been relegated to the sides of the miniature, the center of which is occupied by Solomon, seated on a throne, holding a two-edged sword (lower register, Pl. XVII). A glance at the text shows that this is a complete rendering of Joinville's discussion centering chiefly around the two-edged sword of justice. The extant version and the sketches contain illustrations for the Biblical account of the Judgment of Solomon, while the miniature in the Breviary applies specifically to the use of this prophecy in Joinville's Credo, so that again a text would have been required for this highly particularized treatment.²⁶

6. If the relation of the sketches to the Breviary is more or less clear, what is the relation of the extant version to either or both of them? The declaration of the independence of the Breviary illuminations from the text of the Credo was made by Langlois. If he meant that the Breviary is not accompanied by a text, the statement is manifestly true. But if he referred to formal problems of the relation of the miniatures to a text, the statement is false, particularly as qualified by Langlois' explicitly stated opinion that the author intended the text to be illuminated in the manner of the extant version. In the author's statements of purpose there is nothing to warrant this sort of dependence: “Et devant lou malade façons lire le romant … si que par les eux et les oreilles mete l’on lou cuer dou malade si plain de la verraie cognoissance que li anemis … ne puisse riens metre ou malade dou sien …” (p. 51). This program calls for a text to be read to the patient and illustrations to be shown to him, but there is no necessity that the two occur together and in alternation. The opening lines of the body proper read: “Vous qui regardez cest livre troverez le Credo en letres vermeilles et les prophecies par euvres et par paroles en letres noires.” No mention at all is made that the reader is going to encounter illuminations, since the indications apply only to the text. That a complete separation into a textual and pictorial series does not seem to have been the author's intent, however, is indicated in the opening lines of the preamble: “poez veoir ci aprés point et escrit les articles de nostre foi par letres et par ymages …” (italics ours) although it must be recalled that this preamble is considered an addition to the original version.

In regard to the formal problems of the relation of the miniatures to the text, the problem of “independence” appears to be the reverse of the position taken by Langlois. Indeed what mode of illumination could be more “independent” than that of the extant version, where the scribe or composer could interrupt the column of text wherever necessary or desired to insert an illustration? As many or as few as wished could be included, and they could all be placed with facility in their proper positions. Despite this maximal freedom, the specific textual references to the placement of the illuminations do not agree with the actual placing, nor do many of the scenes specifically announced appear at all. These discrepancies were evidence for Gaston Paris that the extant version was not executed under Joinville's eyes, the implication seemingly being that the 19th century critic found the work badly finished. In any event, it is evidence that the extant version was copied from a text, the redaction of 1287, in which the miniatures were placed according to the given indications. This view is confirmed by the pagination references in the text which do not refer to the actual pagination of the manuscript of the extant version. What information is supplied by the wording of these indications? They are, with the frequency of their occurrence: “Que vous veez ci aprés point” (3), “qui ci aprés sont point” (4), “ci aprés” (1), “que vous verrés ci aprés point” (2), “qui desus est point” (2), “que vous veez ci desuz point” (1), “que vous veez ci point” (4), “qui devant est point” (1), que vous veez ci devant pointes” (1). Aside from the expression “ci point,” although the opposing terms “ci aprés” and “ci devant” occur, there is no term opposed to “ci desuz.” Such indications could conceivably apply to a page in which columns of text appeared beneath a group of miniatures.²⁷ The very use of these references in the text would seem applicable not to a system of illumination where the text could be opened wherever desired, but indicative of an attempt to synchronize a text with a series of miniatures which have to meet their own formal requirements of placement. The problem of overcrowding as witnessed for the Resurrection is a problem only if the formal arrangement of the miniatures must still be synchronized with a text. Completely liberated from the text, the artist could utilize as many or as few compartments as he wished.

Conversely, the method of illumination by opening the text leaves complete liberty to the author to modify his text as he wishes. Yet the extant version gives the appearance of having still another attempted solution to the problem of overcrowding in the iconography of the Resurrection—the textual suppression of the Jonah prophecy. At the point where it should occur, we find a discussion of the need of confession within a period of three days and a sentence of a pagan on sin. Neither of these requires illumination nor is consistent with the plan of the Credo. Are we dealing with a substitution for the Jonah prophecy? If so, such a substitution, rather than an outright deletion, is required only if a specific ratio between lines of text and iconography must be preserved.²⁸

Are there other indications in the extant version to support this view? The miniatures for the Passion in the extant version contain a nimbed figure with a phylactery who has no relevance to the text (p. 33). Is he perchance a remnant of Saint John, the Apostle to whom the article is ascribed in the Breviary and whose nimbed head and phylactery appear there (compartment 1, lower register, Pl. IX)? Similarly the last miniature of the extant version (p. 50) applies to nothing in the text. Again is he the Prophet Daniel or Ezekiel, both of whom are opposed in the Breviary illuminations to Matthias and Jude respectively on the final folio (Pl. XXII)? The first of the two crucifixion scenes²⁹ contains a strange crowned figure holding a book in his left hand, with his right raised in the gesture of speech, who has no relevance to the Crucifixion. In all likelihood he is David, but the fusion of a prophecy in word with the illumination for the point is a technique of the Breviary.³⁰ Although the extant version has a miniature for the Jonah prophecy for the Entombment, it has the wrong scene from the cycle, unless we accept the iconographic peculiarity of Jonah's being swallowed feet first (p. 37). That the picture represents the Resurrection is quite conclusively proved by the presence of the tree, which figures only where Jonah is deposited by the whale on terra firma and not where he is being swallowed. At another sensitive spot (p. 42), the “Tunica Joseph” for the point “Sedet …,” the extant version again has the wrong scene from the cycle (Joseph's coat presented to Jacob rather than Jacob's rending his own coat). Mere chance could hardly explain all these peculiarities, occurring only at the places which the sketches and Breviary have shown to be sensitive and a source of problems. Finally, the inversion of the last two Articles of the Creed in the sketches and Breviary seems dictated by artistic considerations requiring an ascending order from the Resurrection to the Judgment to Paradise, with the damned being cast off into Hell at the bottom, to God's left. Such a situation would only arise if the two Articles had to be fused into a composite or arranged in two registers on the same folio, since the textual order is that of the Articles. That the two have been treated as a whole is also apparent in the text, for Article XI is accompanied only by a prophecy in word, while Article XII is accompanied only by a prophecy in work. In the textual discussion, the prophecy in word applies to the damned, the prophecy in work, by its exegesis, principally to the elect. The division of the prophecy in work into two scenes occupying the upper register has necessitated an additional, balancing, verbal authority, that of Augustine. The textual indication that the illumination for the joys of the blessed is seen “ci aprés” while the following sentence states the parable of the wise and foolish Virgins is “ci desuz” (with the illustrations for the parable intervening) does not apply to the extant version, but could readily apply to a manuscript such as we have described, where the ten Virgins appeared at the top of a folio, above a text, whereas the joys of Paradise would by normal distribution occur on the following, opposed folio.

The indications are then that the extant version is a copy of the redaction of 1287 the latter of which was seemingly illuminated in a manner similar to the Breviary and offered a third solution to the Resurrection problem. It will be recalled that Joinville states, “fis je premiers faire cest euvre en Acre.” Gaston Paris and Wailly both correctly expressed their opinion that this did not signify that Joinville ordered the work to be composed by someone else. The text is Joinville's. On the other hand, the term is more than a mere synonym for “écrire” or “dicter.” The program envisioned by Joinville posed definite problems whose solution called for close synchronization between author, scribe and illuminator. The iconographic evidence still reveals some of these problems of collaboration and adds a new dimension to the term “faire faire.”

7. The ascription of the articles to the Apostles presents no problems, other than to note that Joinville's account of the lesson of Saint Louis given in the Vie reports: “Donc devez-vous croire fermement touz les articles de la foy, lesquiex li apostre tesmoingnent, aussi comme vous oez chanter au dymanche en la Credo”³¹ (italics ours). Neither the preamble nor the body of the extant version makes any reference to this old tradition of the ascription of the articles to the Apostles. Is its appearance in the Breviary merely an hors d’œuvre added by the illuminator without specific connection with Joinville's text? These figures do not appear in the outline sketches, although it is not impossible that they occurred together on a now missing folio.

The ascription to the Prophets, on the other hand, presents some problems which may cast light upon the question. Although the figures of the Prophets normally occur outside the framework of the illuminations, no such figure appears for Article III (Pl. VIII). Are we to assume that Isaiah, whose name appears in the margin, serves both for the opposed Prophet and for the prophecy in word? In Article V (Pls. XIII-XIV), again no prophet appears in the margin, but Hosea is provided with his prophecy in word for the text on a phylactery and a second prophecy extending down the side of the frame. In the first instance, the prophet and his prophecy serve both the needs of ascription and of the text, while in the second the Prophet is used twice, but he is provided with separate prophecies for his dual role. In Article II (Pls. VII-VIII), the Prophet is seemingly Nebuchadnezzar. Elsewhere we have shown that Articles II and III have been treated as a unit for the Advent by Joinville, as indeed they are when the successive folios of the Breviary are brought together.³² The prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar which does not appear in the text is needed, however, to restore the balance between the prophecies in word and work, resulting in three of each.

The extant version, in the preamble, the text, and the iconography (except where the figures perhaps occur mistakenly, as discussed above) seems to have dispensed with the Apostles and Prophets. Such deletion would cause no problem in the first two instances cited above, but would create an imbalance in the third, since the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar is needed in the text. It is not impossible that the Apostles and Prophets were originally an integral part of the Credo. Their disappearance is consistent with Joinville's alteration of Saint Louis' lesson in the preamble to the extant version.

The Prophets and their prophecies are as follows:

Article I. (Pl. VI) Jeremiah: Patrem vocabis me dicit dominus qui fecit celum et terram in fortitudine sua et prudentia sua firmavit celos. As is apparent, this is not a direct quotation but an allusion composed of several fragments of Jeremiah: Et dixi: Patrem vocabis me … (Jer. 3:19); Ecce, tu fecisti coelum et terram in fortitudine tua magna (Jer. 32:17); Qui fecit terram in fortitudine sua … et prudentia sua extendit coelos (Jer. 51:15); see also Jer. 10:12.

Article II. (Pl. VII) Nebuchadnezzar: Ecce, inquit, video viros quatuor solutos et ambulantes in medio ignis et nichil corruptionis in eis est, et species quarti similis filio Dei … (Dan. 3:91).

Article III. (Pl. VIII) Isaiah: Ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium et vocabitur nomen [eius Emmanuel] (Isa. 7:14).

Article IV. (Pl. IX) Esdras: Clamantes ante tribunal vinxistis, et humiliastis me: suspensum in ligno morti tradidistis me. The prophecy is not from the Vulgate and its provenance presents difficulties. The most extensive treatment is given by Montague R. James, The Fourth Book of Ezra, Texts and Studies, ed. J. Armitage Robinson, III, 2 (Cambridge, 1895), xxxviii-xl, from which the following texts are quoted. The closest Biblical text is IV Esdras 1:33 as preserved in only one MS, a Bible of the XIth century: “… acclamantes ante tribunal iudicis ut me traderet uobis. Accepistis me tanquam iniquum, non ut patrem, qui uos liberaui de seruitute et suspensum ligno morti tradidistis.” This text is supposed to represent a Spanish version of Esdras as opposed to the French manuscript tradition. The text closest in wording is a Latin version of the “Acts of Silvester's Dispute with the Jews,” as transcribed by James from a XIIth century MS: “Vinxisti me non sicut patrem qui liberaui uos de terra Egypti, Clamantes ante tribunal iudicis humiliasti me: suspensum in ligno tradidisti morti me.” This differs somewhat from the Greek reported by Georgius Cedrenus in Migne, PG, CXXI, 525. These three are the only instances of the line which James discovered, and no liturgical references are cited.

Article V. (Pl. XIII) Hosea: … et vivificabit nos post duos dies, in die tertia suscitabit nos (Hos. 6:3).

Article VI. (Pl. XVI) David: Ascendit Deus in jubilatione (Psalm 46:6, Ascendit Deus in jubilo).

Article VII. (Pl. XVIII) Joel: Ego suscitabo omnes gentes ut consurgant et ascendant in vallem Josaphat, quia ibi sedebo et iudicem eos. This is again a compound of several verses: Congregabo omnes gentes (Joel 3:2); Ecce, ego suscitabo eos (Joel 3:7); Consurgant et ascendant gentes in vallem Josaphat, quia ibi sedebo, ut judicem omnes gentes in circuitu (Joel 3:12).

Article VIII. (Pl. XX) Zachariah: Septem oculi Domini qui discurrunt in universam terram requiescere fecerunt spiritum meum in terra aquilonis. Compounded of Septem isti oculi sunt Domini, qui discurrunt in universam terram (Zach. 4:10) and Ecce, qui egrediuntur in terram aquilonis, requiescere fecerunt spiritum meum in terra aquilonis (Zach. 6:8).

Article IX. (Pl. XX) Solomon: Una est columba mea, (perfecta mea), una est matris suae, electa genitrici suae (Cant. 6:8).

Article X. (Pl. XX) Micah: Reliquie fratrum nostrorum convertentur ad filios Israel in fortitudine Domini et deponet omnes iniquitates nostras. Compounded of Et reliquiae fratrum ejus convertentur ad filios Israel, Et stabit et pascet in fortitudine Domini (Micah 5:3-4) and deponet iniquitates nostras et projiciet in profundum maris omnia peccata nostra (Micah 7:19).

Article XI. (Pl. XXII) Ezekiel: Ecce, ego aperiam tumulos vestros et educam vos de sepulchris vestris, et inducam vos in terram vestram (Ezek. 37:12, Ecce, ego aperiam tumulos vestros, et inducam vos de sepulcris vestris, populus meus, et inducam vos in terram Israel).

Article XII. (Pl. XXII) Daniel: In tempore illo salvabitur populus meus, omnis qui inventus fuerit scriptus in libro vite (Dan. 12:1, In tempore illo salvabitur populus tuus, omnis qui inventus fuerit scriptus in libro).

A comparison of the ascription of the articles to the Apostles and Prophets in the Credo, the Munich Blockbook (Symbolum Apostolicum, Blochbuch-unicum der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek zu München, Paul Kristeller, Graphische Gesellschaft, XXIII Veröffentlichung [Berlin, 1917], Pls. I-XII) and the Psalter of the Duke of Berry (V. Leroquais, les Psautiers manuscrits latins des bibliothèques de France [Mâcon, 1940-1941], II, 145-146) indicates that the attribution of the articles to the Apostles is uniform in all three and that, within the variations in the division of the articles permitted, all three fall into tradition 2 of the chart presented by Curt F. Bühler, “The Apostles and the Creed,” Speculum, XXVIII (April, 1953), 336-337. No such agreement, however, exists with the prophets as shown in the following table.

Only three of the Prophets, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Hosea appear for the same article in all three instances. Apart from them, only Daniel, Joel, Zachariah, Micah, Ezekiel and Daniel appear in all three lists, although in different positions. The Credo stands alone in using Nebuchadnezzar, Esdras, and Solomon. Amos and Malachi appear in both Blockbook and Psalter, although the Blockbook alone uses Jonah and the Psalter alone uses Zephaniah. Some of the differences of the Credo are explicable from the use in the text proper of prophets or prophecies occurring in the other lists. The Belleville Breviary also paired off the Apostles and Prophets in the calendar, of which, unfortunately only November and December are left, with the Apostles Thaddeus and Matthias, and the Prophets Malachi and Zachariah, introducing still a fourth variation. (See V. Leroquais, les Bréviaires manuscrits des Bibliothèques publiques de France [Paris, 1934], III, 205). Only an extensive collection of such attributions could determine whether there were several distinguishable traditions.

8. In the essay on Joinville, Gaston Paris cast doubt on the probability that Joinville, aged twenty-six, possessed the vast theological knowledge necessary for the composition of the Credo. Hence he must have received the aid of some learned clerk.³³ Such a statement was an open invitation to the sourciers to busy themselves with the indices of the Patrologia latina and even graeca, with the result that the “sources” were discovered either nowhere, or, which ultimately amounts to the same thing, everywhere. The deviner was left with his hazel switch pointed inquisitively at the cathedral windows of XIIIth-century France for no better reason than that Flaubert alleged, in the XIXth century, to have once found inspiration in a similar quarter.³⁴ The first objection to be made is that Paris' attitude derives more from the portrait of Joinville handed down by the romantic critic Villemain through Sainte-Beuve than from an examination of Joinville's work itself. Whatever service these early critics may have done Joinville, they also did him the immense disservice of riveting, seemingly insolubly, the epithets “naive,” “primitive,” “spontaneous,” and “charming” to his name. The terms “naive” and “primitive” had a specific meaning to romantic critical theory and were based upon equally romantic historic and anthropologic concepts. Their use by later critics down to the present day, however, has no such justification, since the supporting systems have long since collapsed. Nor have the terms been reinterpreted through the meanings currently ascribed to them by the contemporary disciplines of history and anthropology. Anthropologically speaking, the term “primitive” is restricted to the meaning “preliterate” which results in manifest nonsense when applied to a writer. Whatever vague, judgmental or descriptive meaning is still left to these terms in the parlance of post-romantic criticism seems closely allied to the popular cliché of the mediaeval knight so eloquently expressed by Hanz von Wittenstein zu Wittenstein: “Comme chacun le sait, la part la plus importante du chevalier, c’est le cheval.”

As might be expected, the most pregnant parts of the Credo are those which baffled or defied attempts to find their sources. We have pointed out, in the wake of Delaborde and Lauer, that Joinville's Job prophecy does not come from the book of Job but is the Response to a Lesson taken from the book of Job for the Service of the Dead in the Roman Breviary.³⁵ In other instances, such puzzling items resolved into Biblical concordances of the two Testaments, presenting the appearance not of the activity of concordance, but its results, indicative that the author had a fund of theological knowledge derived from a specific mode of reasoning developed in mediaeval exegesis.³⁶ Indeed, upon examination, there is little in the Credo which requires looking farther than the Breviary or the liturgy to find its “source.” The vast theological knowledge possessed by the author of the Credo had already been conveniently assembled by the Church. There are no grounds for suspecting the truthfulness of Joinville's description of his life at Acre at the moment he was composing the Credo: “Je avoie dous chapelains avec moy, qui me disoient mes hores; li uns me chantoit ma messe si tost comme l’aube dou jour apparoit, et li autres atendoit tant que mi chevalier et li chevalier de ma bataille estoient levei. Quant je avoie oÿ ma messe, je m’en aloie avec le roy.”³⁷ No definite attempt has been made to trace Joinville's liturgical inspiration, since the obvious starting point, the text of the Leningrad Breviary, is inaccessible.

In addition to this constant exposure to liturgical influence at the time of the composition of the Credo, Joinville had undoubtedly had a normal, Christian upbringing. Various treatises of the time show the use of the same materials for the purposes of catechism, and it may well be asked whether the knowledge shown in the Credo is more extensive than that possessed by any reasonably intelligent mediaeval knight who had been through his catechism. To these may be added the on-the-spot Biblical observations made to Joinville by Saint Louis in the Holy Land and the general piety of the entourage of a king who thought that one of the best distractions for the court was to hear sermons, in Latin, subsequently translated into the vernacular for those who might not have comprehended. In short, this theological knowledge was undoubtedly a basic element, if not a commonplace, in Joinville's environment.

9. The text has been transcribed from photographic reproductions. In the transcription, fidelity to the manuscript was the guiding principle. Any editorial additions have been enclosed between parentheses, while elements to be deleted from the text have been enclosed within square brackets. A distinction has been made between i and j, between u and v. The various symbols have been resolved according to the full form most frequently used by the scribe in the given word. Final accented e has been indicated, and the trema has been used to distinguish words of otherwise identical orthography, pais païs, etc. Foliation of the MS has been indicated between square brackets within the text.

Certain problems have arisen in differences in conventions in regard to the proper appearance of a page. Such problems arose where, in the extant version, the rubric of a miniature occupied the left hand half of a line while the text began on the right half; or, when the miniature occupied either the right or left half of a folio while the text continued in the unoccupied portion. To indicate such occurrences, and to remedy any instances where our printed page does not synchronize exactly with the placing of words and miniatures in the original, an asterisk has been placed after the last letter preceding a miniature in the original and before the first letter following it.

A commentary is appended, divided according to the Articles of the Creed.

Notes

1. References to the Vie de saint Louis are to the numbered paragraphs of Joinville, Histoire de saint Louis, Credo et Lettre à Louis X, texte original, accompagné d’une traduction, par M. Natalis de Wailly (Paris, 1894).

2. Speculum humanae salvationis, texte critique, traduction inédite de Jean Mielot (1448): les sources et l’influence iconographique principalement sur l’art alsacien du XIVe siècle, par J. Lutz et P. Perdrizet (Mulhouse, 1907), I, 332.

   Emile Mâle, l’Art religieux du XIIIe siècle en France, 8th ed. (Paris, 1948), p. 177, n. 1.

3. Gaston Paris, “Jean, sire de Joinville,” HLF, XXXII, 363-364.

4. Loc. cit.

5. Joinville declares, “… fis je premiers faire cest euvre en Acre … ”; a reference to Henry the German, whose death is placed in 1254, states “mout fu grant clers”; the first reference to Louis IX contains the pious exhortation “que Diex absoille,” indicative that the text was written after the king's death (1270) and probably prior to his canonization (1297), since the epithet “saint” does not appear.

6. Natalis de Wailly set the date, from the statement in the text that 1287 years had passed since the dispersion of the Jews. The Diaspora is generally reckoned from the fall of Jerusalem to Titus in the year 70, so that this would date the redaction as 1357, posterior to Joinville's death and not, according to Paris, in agreement with the paleographic evidence. Hence it has been assumed that Joinville considered the Diaspord to be a consequence of the Incarnation, so that the indication 1287 would be the year of the redaction. Cf. Vie, “Eclaircissement XIV,” p. 491.

7. For Paris, paragraphs 772-777 of the Wailly edition were added. He also believed that the account of the captive crusaders was in the original version (Paris, p. 365). Langlois has taken over these opinions textually, except for adding his personal opinion that the episode of the crusaders must also be considered added, in accord with his general theory that everything which appears both in the Credo and the Vie must be considered an addition to the former (Ch.-V. Langlois, la Vie en France au moyen âge, IV [Paris, 1928], 4-5, 13, n. 3). If such was really Langlois' viewpoint, why did he not mark the closing paragraphs of the Credo as additions, since they, too, are contained in the biography? A. Foulet (“When did Joinville Write his Vie de Saint Louis?” RR, XXII [1941], 242) believes that the preamble was inspired by the deposition of Joinville at the inquest for canonization and that the author wished to include several lessons of the future saint. G. Lozinski (“Recheches sur les sources du Credo de Joinville,” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, XXXI [1930], 200) believes that the entire work may have undergone extensive revision and addition between the two dates.

8. H.-F. Delaborde and Ph. Lauer, “Un projet de décoration murale inspiré du Credo de Joinville,” Monuments et mémoires publiés par l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris: Fondation Piot, 1909), XVI, 61-84, and Pls. VII-X.

9. Ibid., pp. 64-65.

10. Ch.-V. Langlois, “Observations sur un missel de Saint-Nicaise de Reims, conservé à la Bibliothèque de Leningrad,” Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Bulletin de octobre-décembre, 1928), 362-368. Langlois refers to the work as a missal. H.-F. Delaborde, les Principaux Manuscrits à peintures conservés dans l’ancienne Bibliothèque impériale publique de Saint-Pétersbourg (Paris, 1936) refers to it as a Breviarium romanum. Since much of Langlois' report has proven to be inaccurate while Delaborde's publication conforms to what is known, the latter's designation will be accepted here. This publication will be referred to henceforth in the notes as Delaborde, les MSS à peintures.

11. Two of these were reproduced by Delaborde, les MSS à peintures, Pls. VI-VII. He describes the MS: “Velin, petit in-4°. Deux feuillets blancs, 365 numerotés et un blanc. Dimensions: 235 × 165 mm. Justification: 150 × 105 mm. Longues lignes. Cahiers de 8 feuillets avec réclames. Contenue: le Bréviaire romain. Provient de la collection Dubrowski. 20 grands miniatures.”

    I should here like to express my thanks to the authorities of the Leningad Public Library for their courtesy and kindness in sending photographic reproductions of the Breviary miniatures.

12. Lozinski's failure to realize the role of scriptural testimony, so explicitly stated by Joinville, has led him to write some curious pages. His conclusion that Joinville was no theologian of mark is quite valid (Joinville probably would have been the first to agree), but the logic by which it is reached is not valid. For Joinville to have entered into discussion of the problems raised by his authorities—the exact concordance of the length of time passed by Jonah in the whale's belly and by Christ in the tomb, the title of “prophet” given to Caiaphas, the faith of devils, etc.—as Lozinski would have him do, would have been to depart completely from the indicated treatment and to indulge in all the digressive, rambling, artless traits which have traditionally been assumed characteristic of Joinville's lack of style.

13. The only direct reference to the articles of the Creed is the remark “Vous qui regardez cest livre troverez le Credo en letres vermeilles et les prophecies par euvres et par paroles en letres noires.” The articles are, to be sure, in red letters, but the black portions of the text contain expositions of points of doctrine in addition to the prophecies.

14. Joinville first uses the term in Saint Louis' lesson on what to do should the devil send temptation “dou sacrement de l’autel ou d’aucun autre point de la foi” (Credo, p. 30). This does not offer much precision. More revealing is the account of the chapel which the king had constructed to attract the Mongols to the faith and in which he “fist entaillier … par ymages, l’Annonciacion Nostre Dame et touz les autres poins de la foy” (Vie, 134). A second narration of the incident is more explicit: “… et pour aus atraire à nostre creance, il lour fist entaillier, en la chapelle, toute nostre creance, l’Annonciacion de l’angre, la Nativitei, le bauptesme dont Diex fu baptiziez, et toute la Passion et l’Ascension et l’avenement dou Saint Esperit …” (Vie, 471).

    Outside Christianity, when speaking of the Assassins, he writes: “Li uns des poins de la loy Haali est que, quant uns hom se fait tuer pour le commandement son signour, que l’ame de li en va en plus aisié cors qu’elle n’estoit devant …” (Vie, 460). Speaking of the same group and of the Beduins, he writes: “Li autres poins si est teix, que il croient que nulz ne puet mourir que jusques au jour que il li est jugié … Et en cesti point croient li Beduin,” (Vie, 461). The “points” patently refer to doctrinal beliefs and the expression “les poinz de nostre foi” refers to the general corpus of Christian doctrine rather than to the specific articles of the Creed.

15. L. J. Friedman, “On the Structure of Joinville's Credo,” MP, LI (1953), 1-8.

16. As noted, the separation of the articles and prophecies by the use of red and black ink respectively is a device of the text. Its preservation in the outline drawings may cast some doubt on Delaborde's assertion that the sketches are not subordinated to any text of the Credo.

    It has been generally assumed that Joinville's prophecies are Old Testament sayings or events intepreted as predictions of the events of the New Testament. The assumption will not bear examination, since the prophecy in word for the Ascension is the message which Christ enjoined Mary Magdalene to carry to the Disciples, the prophecy for the Entombment is Christ's answer to the wicked and adulterous generation seeking after a sign, and the prophecy in work for eternal life is the parable of the wise and foolish Virgins. The prophetic system is more extensive than the simple accommodation of the two Testaments.

17. Friedman, “Structure,” pp. 5-6.

18. “Factis quoque praefiguratae sunt: projectio enim Jonae in mare Christi passionem, susceptio ejusdem in ventre ceti Christi sepulturam, redditio ejus vivi in littus Christi resurrectionem, aperte praefiguravit.” Radulphus Ardens, Homilia XXIV, in Migne, PL, CLV, 2028.

19. Op. cit., I, p. 57, 67, 145, 150 and II, Pls. 54 and 64.

20. Cf. p. 37.

21. Did Joinville intend it to serve as the prophecy in word? Or did the Jonah scene itself represent not only the prophecy in work of the Old Testament event but also the prophecy in word through the specific interpretation given it by Christ in the Gospels? Since the words of Christ have already been used prophetically in connection with the Entombment, the latter seems improbable.

22. Langlois, “Observations,” p. 366.

23. The Breviary shows another instance of overcrowding at the Crucifixion. A balance between prophecies in word and work is maintained by treating each of the prodigies accompanying the Crucifixion as a prophecy in work. The prophecies of Isaac, the pascal lamb, David, Caiaphas, and the Queen of Sheba appear on Pl. XI, with both David and the Queen of Sheba in one compartment. Habakkuk and the Centurion are absorbed into the illumination for the Crucifixion. Of the four prodigies, only the eclipse is illustrated by a scene from the legend of Saint Denis. Impossible to absorb into the point, this appears beneath the framework of dual registers. Pl. XII. It cannot be known whether Jeremiah or Saint Denis appeared in the outline drawings.

24. Delaborde, les MSS à peintures: “C’est l’art charmant et plein de noblesse des XIIIe et XIVe siècles dont Honoré est le représentant le plus connu. Les peintures de ce MS rappellent celles qui ornent le Bréviaire de Philippe le Bel, conservé à la Bibliothèque nationale à Paris sous le n° 1.023 du fonds latin.”

25. “De sa resurrection vous dirai je que je en oï en la prison lou diemenche aprés ce que nous fumes pris, et ot on mis en un paveillon les riches homes … une grant foison de jeunes gens sarrasinz entrerent ou clos, la ou on nous tenoit pris, les espees traites … il amenerent un petit home si viel par samblant comme home poist estre … lors s’apoia li viex petit hom sor sa croce, et atout sa barbe et ses treces chenus …” (Credo, pp. 39-41).

26. Cf. p. 44.

27. As is clear by Joinville's use of the term, “ci aprés” does not mean “immediately following” but merely “following.” An even larger interval might be indicated by the use of the future verrés for the present veez. It is futile to follow this track further, for a multitude of possible meanings opens up for these vague indications.

28. The only other possibility is that Joinville's remark “Au tiers jour vraiement Nostre Sires resuscita de mort a vie pour tenir covant a ses apostres et a ses deciples de sa resurrection …” is a reference to the Jonah prophecy. This hardly seems credible, since Christ gave the sign of Jonah not to his disciples and the Apostles but to the scribes and Pharisees, of which Joinville seems to be quite aware (“La profecie de la parole si dist Diex meesmes as Juis qui le requeroient qu’il lour feist aucum signe”).

29. The substitution in the extant text of Jeremiah for Saint Denis could have two causes: the replacement of what was later realized to be a non-scriptural quotation by an authentic one, or an attempt to solve the arrangement problems occasioned by overcrowding. In the extant text the eclipse is represented in the first Crucifixion scene at Jerusalem, rather than at Heliopolis as required by the Saint Denis prophecy. Once Saint Denis is removed, the eclipse may be absorbed in the existing illustration.

30. Even where prophet and point are juxtaposed elsewhere in the miniatures of the extant version, the two elements are isolated in separate frames (pp. 32, 33).

31. Vie, 45.

32. Friedman, “Structure,” pp. 2-4.

33. Paris, “Joinville,” pp. 367-368.

34. Lozinski, “Recherches,” pp. 203-204.

35. Friedman, “Joinville, Job, and the Day of Wrath,” MLN, LXVII (1952), 539-541.

36. Friedman, “A Mode of Medieval Thought in Joinville's Credo,” MLN, LXVIII (1953), 447-452.

37. Vie, 501.