The Iacobus or Liber sancti Iacobi 1 has long been a subject of debate among scholars. The codex that seems to be at the origin of the entire tradition of this book is the so-called Codex Calixtinus,2 housed today in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela.3 It is composed of diverse texts intended to exalt St. James and the Compostela pilgrimage. It begins with a letter attributed to Pope Calixtus II (1119-1124) addressed to the abbey of Cluny, whose name is not indicated, to William of Malines, Patriarch of Jerusalem (1130-1145), and to Archbishop Gelmírez of Compostela (archbishop between 1120-1140). Since the terms of office of these prelates do not coincide, it is clear that this letter is a forgery. Nevertheless, it is important: this Ps.-Calixtus declares himself as the author of the compilation and explains the circumstances of its composition, referring especially to books I (an extensive collection of liturgical texts) and II (a liber miraculorum). However, the Iacobus also includes three more books: the short book III (with texts on the translatio of the body of Saint James and on some festivals dedicated to the Apostle), book IV (the so-called Ps.-Turpinus, on Charlemagne and Iberia), and book V (a pilgrim’s guide to Compostela).

The debate surrounding the unity, authorship, and date of the Liber sancti Iacobi remains unresolved. There are two main theses: the Compostelan compilation theory, primarily championed by Manuel C. Díaz y Díaz, which nevertheless acknowledged the possible involvement of French compilers;4 and the French composition theory, which attributes the Liber to a certain Aymeric Picaud (who, in a bifolio added to the Calixtinus codex —f. 221r— is said to have delivered the codex to the cathedral), supported more recently by Diego Catalán, among many others.5 Nevertheless, even this French authorship is thought to have been «linked to Compostela’s interests».6 Regarding the date, opinions vary between 1131-1134 (Catalán, who suggests that the Calixtinus was copied between 1137-1139),7 1135-1139 (Louis),8 1137-1144 (Stones),9 1140-1150 (Herbers),10 1150 (David),11 and 1160 (Díaz).12

Some of the texts that were copied in the Calixtinus had an independent circulation. For example, the miracles attributed to St. James that are part of book II must have been circulating in Compostela since at least the beginning of the twelfth century. The same goes for the two passiones s. Iacobi (ff. 18r-19v < Rufinus, Hist. eccl. 2.8.1-10.9; ff. 48r-53r: BHL 4057) and the two translationes (ff. 156v-159r: BHL 4067; ff. 159r-160r: BHL 4061).13

According to Díaz, who extensively studied the Liber, «no manuscript has been discovered that is independent of the famous and important manuscript from the Archive of the Cathedral of Santiago».14 The exception may be only MS Salamanca, Biblioteca Universitaria, 2631, copied in Spain at the beginning of the fourteenth century.15

A shorter version of what seems to be this same collection circulated as early as the mid-twelfth century, surpassing the success of the Liber likely because it was easier to copy and handle. Adalbert Hämel identified and studied it, terming it Libellus sancti Iacobi due to its reduced length. He suggested that this short version was produced using the Liber as a model.16 However, Hämel’s view has not garnered unanimous support. Instead of asserting a direct dependence between the two texts, Díaz proposed an alternative possibility: the existence of a primitive lost short collection that served as the basis for both the Libellus and the Liber.17

In regard to the Libellus, it is clear that it was never regarded as a closed collection. In its fullest version it came to include the following texts:

The Libellus spread rapidly, but its copies rarely had that «complete» structure. In the list made by Hämel, only seven manuscripts transmit all these texts.18 In fact, the Libellus had various configurations, with copyists adding, removing, or rearranging texts as they saw fit.

In this paper, I will focus on a case study. I am interested in studying the version of the Libellus transmitted by MS Douai, Bibliothèque Marceline Desbordes-Valmore (olim Bibliothèque Municipale) 842, copied at the end of the twelfth century in the monastery of Sainte-Rictrude de Marchiennes, located in southern Flanders. This is a remarkable codex, because it preserves the oldest version of the Liber chronicorum attributed to Pelagius of Oviedo, copied in a location far removed from its place of production.19 It was through this Ovetensis collection that I came across this manuscript: the presence of Pelagius’ Liber chronicorum and the Libellus sancti Iacobi in the same manuscript prompted me to study this second collection as well and to attempt to establish its origin.

In fact, geographically distant from the Iberian Peninsula, like various other monastic establishments in the northern France-southern Flanders area Marchiennes bears witness to the remarkable popularity enjoyed by the Libellus in the latter half of the twelfth century. This study focuses on this particular version of the Libellus sancti Iacobi. Throughout this paper, I will offer a comprehensive description of this Libellus and explore its connections to other existing copies. Furthermore, I also aim to provide contextualization of the Libellus within the setting of this monastery and the codex in which it was transcribed. Finally, I will delve into the factors contributing to the flourishing of the veneration of St. James the Great in the region towards the conclusion of the twelfth century, which can explain the collection's enormous success in Southern Flanders.

The manuscript Douai 842 is a miscellaneous codex consisting of three distinct parts (I: ff. 1-7; II: ff. 8-47; III: ff. 48-173), which were copied at the end of the twelfth century. The folio dimensions are approximately 290 mm x 200 mm.

Part I of Douai 842 was copied in the twelfth century, but was added to the beginning of the codex probably at the end of the thirteenth century. It is formed by a quarto, whose last two folios were cut off. It transmits only the Passio sancti Iacobi (BHL 4057): ff. 2r-3v; and the Passio sancti Christophori (BHL 1770): ff. 4r-6r. In the Roman calendar, the feasts of St. James and St. Christopher coincide on July 25, which is why many legendaria link the two texts, as they are here. In Iberia instead, before the Mozarabic liturgical calendar was replaced by the Roman calendar in the late eleventh century, legendaria did not associate these two passions, because St. James was celebrated on December 28 and St. Christopher on July 10. Hence, the main Visigothic Iberian manuscripts transmit both these passiones, but not together.20 In addition, BHL 1770 seems to be relatively rare: the Bollandists list only four manuscripts prior to 1300 that transmitted it (including Douai 842). The oldest, MS Rouen, Bibliothèque municipale et patrimoniale Villon (olim Bibliothèque Municipale), MS 1400 (olim U. 3), was copied in the second half of the eleventh century in the abbey of the Trinity in Fécamp, but the Passio s. Christophori was not associated with the Passio s. Iacobi.21 In the remaining two manuscripts, the associated passiones are indeed BHL 4057 + 1770, as in Douai 842. Of these manuscripts, the most relevant is the København, Kongelige Bibliotek, Thott 133 ff., pp. 265-271, 271-277: Baudouin de Gaiffier suggested that it may have been composed in the Seine-et-Loire region.22 This combination of BHL 4057 + BHL 1770 always refer to a context outside of Iberia.

On folio 6vb, only four lines were used. The rest of the folio and all of folio 7 were left blank.

Parts II and III of Douai 842 were first brought together (still without Part I) in the thirteenth century. A brief index of this manuscript can be found on f. 8r, at the end of which the copyist added the note liber sancte Rictrudis ecclesie Marciannensis.

Douai 842, Part II (ff. 9-47), was completed towards the end of the twelfth century (see below). It consists of five quaternions, all of which were written by the same scribe in two columns of 39 lines. It is worth noting that only the first quire is numbered («I^us») at the end of f. 15v, indicating that it was originally the first quire of the manuscript prior to the addition of what is now known as Part I.

Part II transmits two different collections: the Libellus sancti Iacobi (ff. 9ra-22ra) and the Liber chronicorum by Pelagius of Oviedo, in a primitive version of the so-called Compilation B (ff. 22ra-45rb). At the end, the copyist added an anonymous short chronicle of the history of the Franks (ff. 45va-47vb).23

Part III of the manuscript (ff. 48-173) transmits a legendarium from the second half of the twelfth century.24 It consists of 16 quaternions, written in two columns of either 33 (ff. 48r-142r, 143v-146r, 166r-171) or 34 lines (ff. 143r, 146v-165v). The thirteenth quire (ff. 143-149), which includes the beginning of the Vita s. Iohannis Eleemosinarii Alexandriae episcopi (BHL 4388), has only seven folios: the first was cut off without compromising the text. The quires are numbered from I to XV, with the exceptions of quire XII and quire XVI, which were not numbered at the end, probably because the last folio was, in both cases, initially left blank.

This part contains several distinct sets of texts: 1) a dossier on the translation of St. Nicholas; 2) a dossier on some miracles of the imago Christi; 3) the lives of the Breton saints Winwaloeus and Ethbinus; 4) a small collection of religious poems; 5) a dossier of St. Stephen’s miracula. With the exception of Bertha, abbess of a monastery in Blangy-sur-Ternois, and Amatus of Sion, whose life the Vita Amati was authored by Hucbald of Saint-Amand (c. 850-930), none of the saints featured in the manuscript are local to the region.25 Instead, the manuscript privileges saints from the wider region of France and the Rhineland, including Eucharius and Valerius of Trier, Maternus of Cologne, Leodegarius of Autun, and Winwaloeus and Ethbinus of Landévennec. Only five texts refer to «universal» saints: Nicholas, Genesius of Rome, Cosmas and Damian, Pantaleon, and Fides, Spes, and Caritas and their mother Sapientia. None of these texts is unique to Douai 842, as they were all well-known and attested in various monasteries in the region and correspond to the region’s taste for hagiographic literature.26

The last two folios of the codex were left blank after the Vita Iohannis Eleemosinarii. However, in the thirteenth century, someone ruled these folios in a very irregular manner: 2 columns and 44 lines on f. 172r, 3 columns and 51 lines on ff. 172v-173rb, 53 lines on f. 173rc, and 2 columns and 56 lines on f. 173v. At least three different scribes copied four metric (no. 25) and rhythmic (no. 26-28) poems about miracles, two of them with a Jacobean theme and two about miracles attributed to the Virgin Mary.27

The poems on St. James (no. 25, 28) were likely added due to the manuscript’s association to Libellus sancti Iacobi. These two poems are versified versions of miracles in prose: no. 25 refers to miracle 17 and no. 28 to miracle 5 of the well-known Miracula sancti Iacobi (BHL 4072). Poem no. 26, which recounts a Marian miracle, appears to be a version of a prose story identified by Albert Poncelet as no. 454 and 602, and previously published by Adolf Mussafia.28 Poncelet also identifies other versions of the stories transmitted by these poems, suggesting a possible circulation in the French-Rhineland region.

Douai 842, Part III, does not conform to the typical structure of a legendarium, which is usually organized thematically or chronologically according to the liturgical year. Instead, it appears that the copyists simply transcribed texts as they found them, perhaps with the aim of expanding Marchiennes’ library. While a more systematic analysis of the texts is necessary, all the evidence suggests that their direct models circulated in these regions and were not imported from more distant climes. Although the model for Douai 842, Part III, is unknown, its proximity to manuscript Douai 865, which was copied around the same time or shortly thereafter in Anchin, confirms the possibility of copying and/or borrowing relationships between manuscripts from these two abbeys.29 In fact, all the texts copied in Douai 842, ff. 48ra-99vb, are also transmitted by Douai 865, although not in the same sequence.30

The first collection of Douai 842, Part II, is a version of the so-called Libellus sancti Iacobi. In this manuscript, it consists of the following texts:

In Douai 842, the list of chapters copied in ff. 8va-9ra (no. 1) includes 28 texts that were usually part of this Libellus: the prefatory epistle to the Liber by Ps.-Calixtus II (no. 2); the prologue to book III (no. 3); the Translatio s. Iacobi (no. 4); the so-called Epistula Leonis (no. 5); the De tribus solemnitatibus (no. 6); the prologue to book II and the 22 miracles of book II of the Liber, including miracle 13 (no. 7). In Douai 842, the capitula that identify these 22 miracles are the same as those of the Codex Calixtinus at the beginning of book II (ff. 140r-141r). Additionally, two more miracles that were usually included in the Libellus (BHL 4075 and BHL 4072d+f) were also copied and numbered in Douai 842, although not listed in the capitula (no. 8-10). None of the remaining texts identified by Hämel as usually part of the Libellus were copied in Douai 842.31

The manuscripts that transmit this same structure (BHL 4076a + Lib. III + Lib. II) of the Libellus are:

In addition to these manuscripts, I have also seen 30 other manuscripts that transmit the Libellus in different forms:

Libellus sancti Iacobi (BHL 4076a + Lib. III + Lib. II + Lib. IV):

Libellus sancti Iacobi (Lib. IV + BHL 4076a + Lib. III + Lib. II):

Libellus sancti Iacobi (other structures):

In sum, these manuscripts exhibit one of two fundamental structures. The one which begins with the prefatory letter attributed to Calixtus II (BHL 4076b), followed by the texts concerning the Translatio sancti Iacobi (book III of the Codex Calixtinus), the Book of Miracles (which corresponds to book II of the Codex Calixtinus), and the texts of Ps.-Turpinus (BHL 4076b + Lib. III + Lib. II + Lib. IV). In some cases, other texts (e. g. BHL 2784, 4074, 4076) are also present. There are other versions of the Libellus without the texts of Ps.-Turpinus, such as our Douai 842, Montpellier H 1 t. 3, Paris, lat. 5272, and Paris, lat. 14464, as well as versions without the Book of Miracles (Montpellier H 2) or the prefatory letter by Calixtus II (Montpellier H 281).

The other structure begins with the book of Ps.-Turpinus, followed by some scattered texts that are also present in the first structure (BHL 2784, 4074, 4076), then the prefatory letter attributed to Calixtus II, the texts concerning the Translatio sancti Iacobi, and the Book of Miracles at the end.

To analyze the relationships between all these manuscripts, I have collated one of their texts: the Translatio sancti Iacobi. This is a text of about 7.500 words, which was transmitted in complete form by all these manuscripts.65 It is typically copied between the prologue attributed to Calixtus II and the Epistula Leonis. It briefly describes the preaching of James the Greater, one of Christ’s disciples, in Palestine, the names of his seven disciples, his martyrdom, and his disciples’ journey with his body to Galicia (there is no reference to a previous visit of the apostle to Iberia). On reaching Iria, the disciples take the body «ad orientem» to a place that is «fere quinque miliariis ab urbe», where they are welcomed by a noble widow named Luparia, who initially appears hospitable but soon sets a series of traps for them. These traps involve being persecuted by the king of the region (who is killed with his army crossing a bridge, in an episode that recalls the crossing of the Red Sea and the destruction of the Pharaoh’s army), a threat by some angry bulls, and a final fight against a dragon. Despite these difficulties, Luparia eventually converts to Christianity and has a church built on the site, destroying the pagan shrine; this church later became the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela. Although the text sometimes uses unusual language and employs wordplay, alliteration, and rhyme, the narrative structure is simple. While the text has never been critically edited, several transcriptions have been made from the Codex Calixtinus66 and a few other manuscripts.67

I collated the text of the Translatio sancti Iacobi transmitted by all the manuscripts listed above. Since the Translatio also circulated autonomously, without any relation to the Libellus, I also collated ten other manuscripts dating from the eleventh to the fifteenth century, where the text is included in legendaria.70

Although a critical edition of the Translatio is lacking, and regardless of which one transmits the «better» text,71 the manuscripts transmitting it can tentatively be grouped around the variants identified by Gaiffier: one group (α) includes the Codex Calixtinus and manuscripts transmitting the names of the seven disciples of Saint James and mentioning the vigil at the tomb by two magistri, while another group of manuscripts (β) does not include the names of the disciples and mentions the vigil by three magistri.

In addition to these two examples mentioned by Gaiffier, there are still other minor variants that distinguish manuscripts as belonging to α or as belonging to β:

Surprinsingly enough, α is a group of manuscripts where the Translatio sancti Iacobi is always included in the Liber or in the Libellus sancti Iacobi (as it is the cases of the codex Calixtinus and MS Douai 842). Hence, all manuscripts listed above and transmitting the Translatio belong to α too. In the same way, MS Bruxelles KBR 98-100 transmits the Translatio as part of a legendarium, with no connection to the Liber/Libellus sancti Iacobi. The same situation applies to the other ten manuscripts which I grouped under β: here, the Translatio stands always without the Libellus. Therefore, α represents the Translatio transmitted by the Liber and by the Libellus sancti Iacobi; β represents the Translatio transmitted within legendaria.

Let’s focus, then, only on α. Regarding the Liber sancti Iacobi, I also accepted Díaz’s conclusion that all manuscripts transmitting the Liber depend on the Calixtinus, MS Salamanca, BU 2631 excepted. Therefore, I only examined the Calixtinus.

Due to the absence of a critical edition of the text, until more information becomes available, I have considered it as the reference text whenever the text of the Translatio is shared by both the Liber/Calixtinus and β. Consequently, I came to identify a small set of variants that distinguish all manuscripts of the Libellus from both the Liber/Calixtinus and β. While these variants may appear individually insignificant, their consistent presence in the Libellus across all analyzed manuscripts suggests that they cannot be mere coincidence; rather, they originate from a common model where these variants were present. I will refer to this sub-family of the Translatio as γ. It represents the Libellus sancti Iacobi (that is, the shorter version of the Calixtinus) and it was at the origin of all the manuscripts listed above. Here is a short list of these variants:

Within sub-family γ (= Libellus), the Translatio transmitted by Douai 842 (= D) is closer to the following manuscripts, which form what I call sub-family δ:

Surprisingly, MSS Montpellier H1, Paris lat. 5272, and Paris lat. 14464 do not belong to this sub-family γ. While they transmit the Libellus with a structure similar to our MS D (BHL 4076b + Lib. III + Lib. II, without the Ps.-Turpinus), collation reveals that these three manuscripts also depend on γ, but do not depend on δ. In fact, model δ preserved the main structure of the Libellus (BHL 4076b + Lib. III + Lib. II + Lib. IV, with the Ps.-Turpinus at the end), which is found in six manuscripts: BCEVXM; one can also add our D to this group, even though it does not include the Ps.-Turpinus texts. The loss of the Ps.-Turpinus in D appears to have occurred independently.

However, in MSS RSPQU the sequence of the texts is also reversed: in the context of northern France, the memory of Charlemagne must have been a good reason to move the Ps.-Turpinus’ chronicle to the beginning of the collection.72

Manuscript A consists of only eight folios. It contains a mutilated version of the Ps.-Turpinus (BHL 1590), followed by the Translatio. Hence, it is possible that the model for A began with the Ps.-Turpinus and was closer to RSPQU. Furthermore, A was housed in Saint-Germain-des-Prés, where manuscript P also originated. However, neither one appears to be a copy of the other.

Manuscript Z is a resumé of the text, with the epigraph incipiunt miracula sancti iacobis maioris. The Translatio starts only at its paragraph 4, and the text is nearly complete up to paragraph 8, followed by a brief summary of the following paragraphs of the text.

Model δ had a remarkable success right from the start, with 7 manuscripts dependent on it, most probably copied still in the twelfth century (ABCDEVR). The location where they were copied is also significant: B in Saint-Ghislain, C likely in Rochester, our D in Marchiennes, E in Sygny-l’Abbaye, V in Saint-Amand, and RQ in Jumièges Abbey (Q seems a copy of R). Manuscript A was shelved in the library of Saint-Germain-des-Prés. Consequently, the version of the Translatio corresponding to δ had likely circulated within a limited region stretching from Normandy (Jumièges) to southern Flanders (Marchiennes, Saint-Amand, Saint-Ghislain, Sygny-l’Abbaye), with an extension to the south of England, easily explained by the political and cultural ties between the two sides of the Channel in the late twelfth century. Hence, δ was likely a copy created in the mid-twelfth century in northern France. Even later manuscripts indicate the existence of copies in this region: manuscript P is from Le Bec, S is from Lyre, and Z is perhaps from the Liège region. Manuscript X was probably copied a little further south in the Berry. Manuscript U, a fifteenth-century English codex, is very similar to but not a copy of C.73 M is a fourteenth-century manuscript from Iberia that likely originated elsewhere.

Among the 14 manuscripts dependent on δ, there are 7 which share a set of minor variants (Z is a resumé and do not transmit all the text) : 1. uterinus rel. frater uterinus BDEVXM; 6. abdicaret rel. abdicabat BDEVXZM; 7. exordicionis rel. exordio BDEVXM; 9. hortari insistere rel. hortantur BDEVXM.

Among these seven, X has the fewest variants in common with the other 6:

Five of these manuscripts (BDEVZ) were copied in southern Flanders-northern France. This allows for the identification of a sub-family of manuscripts of the Translatio that originated in this region. By examining a small number of textual variants, it is possible to confirm the relationship between these manuscripts: tit. om. BDEV (and U); 5. sueque rel. suique BDEV; 9. possunt rel. om. BDEV (and P); auribus sermonem audire rel. audire auribus BDEV.

BDVZ seem to be closely related:

D and V, the manuscripts from Marchiennes and Saint-Amand, share several exclusive variants:

DV are contemporary manuscripts. It is possible that V is a copy of D or, at least, that they depend both on a common model. However, V does not transmit any of the other texts found in D: V is a composite manuscript, which gathers together a treatise by Aelred (ff. 2r-13v), several sermons (ff. 13v-49v), an incomplete Hexameron (ff. 50r-87v), some lives of saints (ff. 88r-111v) and a few other lives (BHL 1232) and treatises (ff. 136r-176v), a hymn and texts from the liturgy of St. Rictrudis (ff. 176v-182v).

Based on these findings, a stemma of the Translatio s. Iacobi within the Liber/Libellus sancti Iacobi is proposed to illustrate the relationship between all these testimonies:

I also collated the prefatory letter to book I of the Codex Calixtinus (BHL 4076a). Of all the manuscripts of the Libellus listed above, including Douai 842, only three do not transmit this letter: in fact, Bruxelles, KBR 12131-12150 (our Z manuscript), Bruxelles, KBR 14775-14776 (our A manuscript), and Montpellier H 281 transmit fragmentary recompositions of the Libellus sancti Iacobi.

The text of the letter transmitted by the Codex Calixtinus is much more developed than that copied in the manuscripts of the Libellus. In the Calixtinus, it includes an order from the pope to end the liturgical confusion of chants and prayers in honor of St. James and to sing only the authentic «responsoria euangeliorum, que hic liber continet» (Codex Calixtinus, f. 2v). This prescription makes sense in the context of the Calixtinus (book I contains mostly liturgical texts) but is irrelevant to the Libellus sancti Iacobi, where book I was never copied.

In the Libellus, the last sentence of the prefatory letter to book I is near-identical in almost all cases, reading: «idem de karoli que in hoc codice post [or, in some cases, ante] miracula beati iacobi continetur et a beato turpino remensi archiepiscopo describitur statuimus». This text refers to the position of the Ps.-Turpinus within the codex, either before or after the prefatory letter. Manuscript D simplifies this information and includes it only in the margin: «item de hystoria karoli que a beato turpino remensi archiepiscopo describitur statuimus» (f. 9v marg.). It is easy to explain why: D does not indicate whether the Ps.-Turpinus was copied before or after the prefatory letter by Ps.-Callixtus, because it does not include this chronicle.

Upon collating all the manuscripts,74 it becomes evident that the codices of the Libellus are clearly distinguishable from the Codex Calixtinus again:

Within γ, the BCDEVRSPXQMU manuscripts clearly form a sub-family δ:75

Within δ, BDEVM also share some exclusive variants: basilice rel. ecclesie BDEVM; sedis apostolice sue electionis rel. om. BDEVM; cosmi climatibus rel. mundi partibus BDEVM; sedenti rel. om. BDEVM; appareat rel. aperiatur BDEVM.

As with the Translatio, M transmits a slightly different text of the prefatory letter from BDEV, which are the manuscripts from southern Flanders: ea rel. miracula audita BDEV om. M; beati Iacobi rel. de beati Iacobi uirtutibus BDEV de beati iacobi uirtute M; precibus insistenti BDEV precibus insistens M; olim fuit in refectorio legantur rel. annua precessit legantur BDEV annua legantur precesserit M.

The proximity between DV is evident:

As I said before, our MS D was copied in the monastery of Sainte-Rictrude of Marchiennes. This was one of the monasteries in northern France and Flanders which claimed to have been founded by the famous bishop-missionary St. Amand (c. 584-679), around 640. Amand himself passed away in Saint-Amand-les-Eaux, less than 15 km from Marchiennes. With a tumultuous history, in a contested borderland between the counties of Flanders and Hainaut, Marchiennes, a «community of the second order»,76 was also surrounded by larger monasteries such as the aforementioned Saint-Amand, and those of Saint-Bertin and Anchin.

Throughout the twelfth century, the library at Marchiennes grew significantly thanks to the monastery’s active engagement in manuscript production and acquisition. Historical records indicate that Marchiennes and its more progressive neighbor and rival, Saint-Sauveur of Anchin, a recent monastery founded in 1079, frequently exchanged manuscripts.77 In the twelfth century, Marchiennes’ scriptorium began to focus more on the complete reproduction of codices, mainly from Anchin, sometimes even replicating the layout, initials, and marginalia.78

The libraries of Marchiennes and Anchin focused primarily on Christian authors and themes. Notable authors like Augustine, Cassian, Basil of Caesarea, Anselm of Canterbury, Hugh of Saint-Victor, and texts such as Ambrose of Milan’s Hexameron, Isidore of Seville’s Etymologiae, and Eusebius of Caesarea/Rufinus of Aquileia’s Historia ecclesiastica were copied.79 Marchiennes also demonstrated a particular taste for liturgical themes.80 However, Tjamke Snidjers also identified a significant decline in the copying of hagiographic-themed manuscripts in Marchiennes during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, which was likely influenced by the Cistercian order’s turn away from veneration of the saints.81

Even so, by the end of the twelfth century, the monastery decided to invest in the copy of the Liber sancti Iacobi, reflecting the widespread cult of Saint James throughout Western Europe in the twelfth century. I can provide only a set of examples to illustrate its importance in the region of Marchiennes.

Despite the ongoing debate regarding the authorship of the Liber sancti Iacobi, the mere existence of the Historia of the Ps.-Turpinus serves as evidence of the significance of St. James in regions beyond the Pyrenees.82 In northern France, the saint’s success is evident: from 1027, the abbey of Fleury-sur-Loire claimed that it was possible to venerate the saint in any church dedicated to him because of the existence of relics.83 One of its priories, Saint-Jacques-sur-Beuvron in Normandy, possessed a relic that was believed to work miracles. In Paris, the church of Saint-Jacques-de-la-Boucherie was already mentioned in a bull of Calixtus II of 27 November 1119,84 and it is also mentioned in the Historia of the Ps.-Turpinus as a foundation of Charlemagne himself.85

References to St. James in the County of Flanders and neighboring territories are abundant:86 in 1117, Robert IV of Bethune (? - c. 1128) founded a chapel dedicated to the saint in this city. In Ghent, there was already a church dedicated to St. James before the fire of 1120. In 1136, a chapel dedicated to him was present in the abbey of Saint-Maurice in Noyon, and a church in Abbeville. The church of St. James in Ypres was built before 1138, and a parish church dedicated to him was constructed in Tournai between 1153 and 1167. In the second half of the twelfth century, Philip I of Flanders (1143-1191) founded the church of St. James in Cappellebrouck and donated a relic of the saint in 1172. Additionally, in the middle of the twelfth century, there was already a chapel of St. James in Montreuil-sur-Mer. In 1189, there was a church of Saint-Jacques in Huy, and in 1200, another was built in Nesle. After 1200, Philip of Namur (1175-1212) founded a chapel dedicated to the saint after his pilgrimage to Compostela. The church of St. James in Douai became the centre of a parish in 1225.

The pilgrims in Compostela are well documented: as early as 1056, Baudouin I of Guines; around 1076, Ingelram de Lillers; in 1084, Baudouin VII of Flanders; before 1143 and again in 1156, Guy III of Noyon; in 1153, Nicholas I, bishop of Cambrai; in 1154, Louis VII of France;87 in 1172, Philip I of Flanders; in 1192, William of the White Hands, archbishop of Reims; in 1200, Philip of Namur; around 1203, Pierre Garin, sire of Oberch; in 1215-1216, Hugues de Pierrepont, bishop of Liège.

In Berclau, located 35 km from Marchiennes, the head of St. James was venerated since 1025, attracting pilgrims from the start.88 Likewise, at Liège, a «non ineximia portio» of the saint had been kept since 1056, leading to the rededication of the church from St. James Minor to St. James the Greater.89 The arrival of relics of the saint in Liège in 1076, following a pilgrimage to Compostela, further increased the importance of St. James in the city.

Between 1166 and 1173, the abbey of Saint-Vaast of Arras, located about 45 km from Marchiennes, came into conflict with Berclau over the head of the saint, which Saint-Vaast claimed had been wrongly taken from the abbey before 1025. The conflict was mediated by Philip I of Flanders, who prevented the relic from being returned to Saint-Vaast and instead donated it to the Collegiate Church of Aire-sur-la-Lys. The dispute involved Pope Alexander III (1159-1181) and the archbishop of Reims, Henry of France (1161-1175). Philip eventually relented in January 1173 and returned the saint’s head to Saint-Vaast, where the skull (or part of it) immediately worked four miracles. However, Guiard de Moulins, the dean of Aire between 1297-1320, stated that a part of the skull remained in Aire: in 1173, Philip had kept the uultus of the skull, only returning to Saint-Vaast the other part.90

The conflict over the head of St. James is part of a larger dispute between the abbeys of the diocese of Arras for primacy and for their liberation from the bishop’s tutelage. From 1168/1170, Pope Alexander III considered Saint-Vaast as a direct dependency of Rome, and the dispute over St. James’ head added apostolic legitimacy to Saint-Vaast’s exemption. The recovery of the head of St. James allowed Saint-Vaast to achieve the exemption from episcopal authority, which was guaranteed in 1175.91

Saint-Vaast was not the only monastery in the diocese of Arras competing for primacy. Marchiennes and Anchin were also vying for preeminence, with the former emphasizing its antiquity and the latter being a dynamic center of monastic reform. In Marchiennes, on 2 August 1164, the relics of St. Rictrudis were transferred to a new altar in the church, in the presence of the archbishop of Reims and the bishop of Arras.92 In 1170, at the request of Michel II of Harnes (c. 1131-1195), Constable of Flanders, the patriarch Aimery of Antioch (? - 1199), sent to Anchin (which since the first crusade had an arm of St. George)93 some relics of St. James (and St. Barnabas).94 The acquisition of these relics by Anchin is significant, as it occurred just as Saint-Vaast was fighting for possession of the head of St. James. It suggests that the symbolic importance of St. James had grown during the 1160s and 1170s, making his relics highly sought after.

Meanwhile, in the late eleventh-early twelfth century, the Iberian Catalogus reliquiarum ecclesiae Ouetensis (Díaz 722) also arrived at Saint-Amand,95 where it was copied onto a blank folio of a ninth-century manuscript (now MS Valenciennes, Bibliothèque Municipale, 99, ff. 2va-3r).96 The Translatio reliquiarum Oueto (Díaz 1011), originating in Oviedo, was oddly enough transmitted solely through manuscripts from the southern region of the County of Flanders. These manuscripts include Cambrai, Bibliothèque Municipale 804, ff. 68ra-73va, which was copied in the abbey of the Holy Sepulchre of Cambrai in the second half of the twelfth century; Valenciennes, Bibliothèque Municipale 30, ff. 163vb-169va, which was copied at the end of the twelfth century in Saint-Amand-les-Eaux; Bruxelles, KBR II 2544, ff. 1r-8v, which was copied in Saint-Ghislain in the thirteenth century; and Paris, BnF, lat. 18123, ff. 40v-46v, which was copied in the thirteenth century in the abbey of St. Martin of Tournai. According to José Carlos Martín-Iglesias, all these manuscripts were derived from the same archetype, which was written in Visigothic script.97

One should also consider the close diplomatic relations between the County of Flanders and the northwest of Iberia: Matilda (or Theresa) (c. 1151-1218), one of the daughters of Afonso I of Portugal (1109-1185), married in 1183 the same Count Philip I of Flanders who intervened in the disputes between Saint-Vaast of Arras and Berclau; in 1212, Ferdinand of Portugal (1188-1233), a nephew of Matilda, married Countess Joan of Flanders and Hainaut (c. 1999-1244); and Alfonso (? - 1279), a son of Alfonso II of Portugal, and later King Alfonso III of Portugal, was educated in Paris with his cousin Louis IX, and in 1235 married Countess Matilda II of Bologne (1202-1259).

Finally, I must mention the Liber chronicorum by Pelagius of Oviedo, also copied in Douai 842, Part II, ff. 22ra-45rb,98 just after the Libellus sancti Iacobi. Pelagius’ Liber chronicorum was the text which led me to this manuscript and to the Libellus. The same hand copied both collections. Pelagius’ Liber offers further proof of the existence of close contacts between Oviedo and southern Flanders. Composed in Oviedo in the mid-twelfth century, this Liber was not previously known to have circulated beyond the borders of Iberia.

It is improbable that these two collections circulated together within Iberia, though. While, as I have argued, the Libellus of Marchiennes bears a resemblance to other versions found in the north of France and the south of Flanders, none of the many manuscripts transmitting the Libellus in these regions, or elsewhere either in Iberia or in the trans-Pyrenean area, were ever copied alongside any Iberian historical collections. In fact, after Isidore’s Chronicon, Iberian historiography remained geographically particularistic, with limited or no circulation beyond the Pyrenees.

In this context, Pelagius’ Liber chronicorum may have journeyed from Iberia to southern Flanders in the latter half of the twelfth century, possibly within the context of the many diplomatic and religious relations between these regions which I have referred to above. It was in Marchiennes that a single copyist, captivated by the popularity of the Libellus sancti Iacobi, and certainly by the fact that both the Libellus and the Liber chronicorum were related to Iberia, made the decision to combine the two collections and copy them together. Their shared Iberian theme would have served to enhance each other’s narrative.99

At the end of the Liber chronicorum, the copyist also added an anonymous chronicle of the Franks up to 1137 (ff. 45va-47vb) that may have been one of the sources used by André of Marchiennes for book III of his Historia succincta, written between 1184 and 1196.100 Following the conclusion of the Liber, but before this text on the Franks, the same copyist included additional text aimed at updating the content of Pelagius’ Chronicon with information about Alfonso VII of Castille and his descendants.101 After the text discussing the Franks, a very similar addition can also be found detailing the lineage of Eleanor of Aquitaine with Louis VII of France and Henry II of England.102 They were surely written by the same person. By examining the information provided about the royal families of León-Castille, France-Aquitaine, and England-Aquitaine, we can approximate the timeframe of these additions. The first text after Pelagius’ Chronicon refers to the recent death of Constance of Castille, daughter of Alfonso VII and second wife of Louis VII, who passed away on October 4, 1160. This is the terminus post quem for this addition. The latest event mentioned by the second text copied after the anonymous chronicle of the kings of Franks is the marriage of Joan of England and William II of Sicily on February 13, 1177. It is worth noting that when these texts were written, Sancha of Castile (mentioned in the first), who married Sancho VI of Navarre, and Louis VII of France (mentioned in the second) were both still alive. She passed away on August 1179, and Louis VII on September 18, 1180. While it is possible that the copyist of Douai 842 had access to a version of the Liber chronicorum and of the chronicle on the Franks that already included these additions, it is plausible to suggest that the manuscript was copied between 1177 and 1179, just a few years after Duke Philip I of Flanders’ pilgrimage to Compostela in 1172. This timeframe aligns with the likely period of the copying of Douai 842, Part II.

Douai 842 has received very little attention. It consists of three distinct parts that were likely compiled together during the thirteenth century. Part I (ff. 2-7) transmits the Passio sancti Iacobi (BHL 4057) and the Passio sancti Christophori (BHL 1770). These passiones are not of Iberian origin: prior to the twelfth century, Iberian legendaria did not put them together, and there is no evidence of BHL 1770 ever circulating south of the Pyrenees.

Part II marks the beginning of a Jacobean collection known as the Libellus sancti Iacobi. This Libellus enjoyed great popularity in the latter half of the twelfth century, circulating and being widely copied in nearby monasteries around Marchiennes. The version of the Libellus found in Douai 842 does not appear to be directly based on an Iberian model but rather on a model originating from northern France in the mid-twelfth century. In fact, the Libellus known in Marchiennes was very similar to the copy shelved in Saint-Amand and was also similar to the copies of Saint-Ghislain and Sygny-l’Abbaye. In the context of twelfth-century southern Flanders, the Libellus was likely viewed as a valuable possession for both reading and devotion, particularly given the region’s numerous relics of St. James, which were of significant symbolic importance and led to conflicts between abbeys. For example, the saint’s head was located just a day’s journey from Marchiennes, and other relics were housed several hours away. Thus, the presence of several copies of the Libellus in southern Flanders must be seen as part of a larger trend reflecting a recent growth in the importance of St. James in the region.

Douai 842 is the only known manuscript in which the Libellus was associated with a primitive version of the so-called Compilation B of the Liber chronicorum by Pelagius of Oviedo and with a short anonymous chronicle on the Franks. It is plausible to suggest that the Liber chronicorum made its way from Iberia to southern Flanders in the latter half of the twelfth century, and a scribe there decided to combine it with the Libellus sancti Iacobi. The latter had already gained significant popularity in the region, and because of their common Iberian theme, the two collections were likely considered to complement each other well. The chronicle on the Franks, ending in 1137, was held in the monastery when André of Marchiennes wrote his Historia succincta at the end of the twelfth century.

Taking into account two additions made at the end of the Liber chronicorum and the chronicle on the Franks, it is possible to suggest that the copy of Part II of Douai 842 was made between 1177 and 1179.

Before Part I was added, Part II of the manuscript was already combined, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, with a seemingly disorganized legendarium —Part III of the codex. Douai 842 contains a vast collection of hagiographic texts that mostly circulated between northern France, Flanders, and the Rhineland in the latter half of the twelfth century. In fact, while this paper does not delve into the relationships of copying and transmission of these hagiographic texts between Marchiennes and other scriptoria in the region, a brief analysis reveals several similarities with other manuscripts and scriptoria mainly from southern Flanders, and especially with the monastery of Saint-Sauveur at Anchin.