SELIM03.pdf


60
María José Mora, Selim 3 (1993): 57-71

THE POWER OF THE KEYS:

A PARALLEL TO THE LINE DRAWINGS IN BL MS STOWE 944

The line drawings on fol. 7r of BL ms Stowe 944, the New Minster Liber

Vitae, have traditionally been taken for a representation of the Last Judge-

ment. The central register of the illumination shows St. Peter striking the devil 

with his key and trying to release from his clutches a soul whose fate seems 

to be at stake, whereas the top and bottom sections depict the celestial city 

and the mouth of hell respectively [Fig.1]. It is perhaps this simultaneous

depiction of heaven and hell that has prompted the association with a Last 

Judgement context. In a recent study, however, David F. Johnson has noted 

significant differences with traditional and contemporary representations of 

this theme and, analyzing iconographic details in the light of Old English 

homiletic literature, has concluded that the scene is rather a vision of indi-

vidual judgement at the moment of death and represents the efficacy of inter-

cessory prayer.1 This re-interpretation can be further refined through a com-

parison with the 12th century Latin miracle of the monk of St. Peter’s at 

Cologne, which constitutes a very close parallel to the central register of the 

Stowe drawing. Both the story and the illumination are indeed concerned with 

intercession and illustrate the same doctrinal point: the power of the keys, 

that is, the power of absolution granted by Christ to Peter and the Church. 

The joint analysis of text and image can also be extended to explore a broader 

field, since the history of the transmission of the miracle story and the context 

1David F. Johnson, “St. Peter's Key and the Knell of Doom: An Old English Homiletic 
Motif,” Twenty-sixth Congress on Medieval Studies, Western Michigan U, May 9, 
1991.



61

of drawings offer a good insight into the changing traditions of medieval 

devotion.

The story of the monk of St. Peter’s at Cologne appears regularly as the 

7th (occasionally 8th) in the most widespread of medieval collections of 

Marian miracles: that termed by Mussafia HM (after the initials of the first 

and last story in the series, Hildefonsus-Muriel).1 This collection was put to-

gether at the beginning of the 11th century, almost certainly by Anselm the 

Younger.2 The story tells of a monk in the monastery of St. Peter by the city 

of Cologne who led an evil life. As a proof of his iniquity we learn that, 

"contra proposito monachi," he even fathered a son whom, in some versions 

of the story, he also made a monk at the same monastery. Not surprisingly, 

the devils seize his soul at the moment of death. Peter sees this and begs God 

for the salvation of his monk, but God refuses:

Ignoras inquit quid propheta me inspirante dixerit, domine quis 

habitarit in tabernaculo tuo, aut quis requiescit in monte sancto 

tuo? Subitiens, qui in greditur sine macula, & operatur iustitiam. 

Quomodo ergo hic potest fieri saluus, cum neque sine macula sit 

ingressus, neque ut debuit iusticiam opera tus.3

‘Do you not know what the prophet, under my inspiration, said: 

"Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle, and who shall dwell in t hy

holy hill? He that enters taintless, and works righteousness. How 

1Adolf Mussafia, Studien zu den mitteralterlichen Marienlegenden, Sitzungsberichte der 
K. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien (1886-1893).

2R. W. Southern, “The English Origins of the `Miracles of the Virgin,'“ Mediaeval and 
Renaissance Studies 4 (1958): 176-216.

3Elise Dexter, ed., Miracula Sanctae Virginis Mariae. U of Winsconsin Studies in the 
Social Sciences and History 12 (1927): 21. Christ's words are taken from Psalm 15. The 
full text of the miracle is reproduced in the Appendix below. Unless otherwise noted, 
quotations from the miracle story are taken from this edition.



62

can this be saved, who would not enter taintless, and did not work 

righteousness as he ought to have done?’

Peter then asks the angels and saints to intercede with God for the monk 

and pray for the salvation of his soul, but God replies to all of them in the 

same way. Finally, Peter turns to the Holy Mother of God and the Holy Vir-

gins, certain that their prayers will be heard. Christ, not willing to contra vene

the Prophet’s words, but at the same time unable to refuse his Mother and 

dear sisters’ request finds a compromise solution in letting the monk go back 

to life to repent and do penance, and thus be able to face judgement again 

with a better chance. Upon hearing this, Peter "magna clave quam tenebat di-

abolum terrens eum in fugam vertit, et animam fratris eripuit": he scares away 

the devil with the large key he had and snatches the soul of the brother. The 

soul is then led back to the body. The monk comes back to life and explains

to all that he was saved from the power of the devil through the intercession

of the Virgin Mary and St. Peter.

The description of Peter brandishing his key to frighten away the devil 

and regain the damned soul closely parallels the action depicted in the central 

register of the Liber Vitae illumination. It is indeed possible that there may 

have been a connection between both: the Liber Vitae was produced in the 

first half of the 11th century; William of Malmesbury, who retells this story in 

his Miracula Sanctae Mariae Virginis, places the miracle in the first half of 

the 9th, under the reign of Louis the Pious.1 Withouth more conclusive ev-

idence, however, it would be rash to conclude that this story is the direct 

source for the picture of Peter in the Liber Vitae, especially since William’s 

1For the dating of BL Stowe 944 see N. R. Ker, A Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing 
Anglo -Saxon (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1957). William's text is edited by Peter N. Carter in 
“William of Malmesbury's Treatise on the Miracles of the Virgin,” diss., Oxford U, 
1959. The story is no. 17 in this collection. 



63

dating has been shown to be occasionally unreliable.1 But since, as David 

Johnson pointed out, there is no known pictorial source for this drawing, we 

may at least assume that the artist had in mind a story similar to this one, a 

vision in which a soul is about to be condemned after death but is rescued 

through Peter’s intercession. This focus on intercession is no doubt

appropriate to the Stowe manuscript: the Liber Vitae contained a record of 

the members of the monastic community and confraternities for whom the 

monks would offer their prayers.

The comparison with the Latin miracle thus clears up one important point 

in the interpretation of the Liber Vitae drawing: it shows that the fate of the 

soul for which Peter and the devil seem to be contending is by no means un-

decided, since the fact that Peter shows his key is a proof that he has tri-

umphed over the devil. The significance of Peter’s keys is alluded to, though 

not really explained, in the earlier versions of the miracle. At the end of his 

tale, the narrator comments on the extraordinary character of his story and 

defends its veracity. If someone should think this miracle is incredible, he 

protests, they should consider how great the power of the Holy Mother of 

God is, over all the orders of saints, and abandon all doubt. And he adds: "Si 

uero obicit de claue sancti petri qua terruit inimicum, meminerit quia incor-

poralia corporeis nisi per corporea narrari non possent"; if they object to Pe-

ter’s having a key, they should remember that spiritual truths cannot be re -

vealed to mortals except by material images.

Peter’s key is obviously being used as a symbol for a spiritual truth, but 

the narrator does not elaborate on this. William of Malmesbury is more ex-

plicit on this point, although he still refers to the meaning of the key briefly:

1See Peter N. Carter, “The Historical Context of William of Malmesbury's Miracles of 
the Virgin Mary,” The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to R.W. 
Southern, ed. R. H. C. Davis and J. M. Wallace-Hadrill (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1981), 
127-65.



64

Idem de clave dicetur que significativum potestatis Petro at-

tribuitur [emphasis added]. Nec enim nisi per corpoream simili-

tudinem debuit potes tas surrecturo monacho monstrari, nec ab alio 

aliter narrari, nec audientibus potuit aliter intellegi.

‘The same can be said as regards this key, which represents Pe-

ter’s power. Only in this graphic way could his power be re vealed

to the monk who was about to be resurrected; it is imposs ible to 

think of any other way of describing these things so that they can 

be understood by those who hear.’1

The association of the keys with Peter derives, obviously, from the words 

of Christ in the Gospel: "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of 

heaven: And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; 

and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16, 

19). This gift of the keys, and the power to bind and unbind conferred on 

Peter with it, has traditionally been interpreted in two ways: Peter, the prince 

of the apostles, is the celestial key-bearer; he is the lord of the gates of 

Heaven, and will open them to the souls of the righteous and close them 

against those who should justly be excluded. But more commonly, the gift of 

the keys has been related to the sacrament of penance, and understood as 

the power of absolution granted to Peter, or Peter and the Church. This 

second meaning of the keys seems to be the one operating in the miracle 

story. In the story, Peter unbinds in effect by assigning penance: by 

accepting this temporal penance, the monk is absolved from eternal

punishment. Thus Peter functions in the hereafter as a priest would on earth. 

This relationship between Peter’s keys and the power of absolution is more 

clearly explained in the Legenda Aurea, which incorporates this miracle in the 

chapter dedicated to "St. Peter ad vincula." The chapter reviews four reasons 

1Carter ii, 424-25.



65

for the institution of this feast, the first being the commemoration of Peter’s 

miraculous release from his bonds in prison and the last--illustrated by the 

story of the monk of Cologne--the celebration of the power to remit sins 

conferred on Peter by Christ, and represented by the keys:

Dominus enim a vinculis Petrum miraculose absolvit et eidem lig -

andi et absolvendi potestatem dedit, nos autem vinculis peccato-

rum obligati tenemur et absolvi indigemus. Ideo, igitur ipsum in 

sollemnitate, quae dicitur ad vin cula, honoramus, ut, sicut ipse a 

vinculis absolvi promeruit et sicut absolvendi potestatem a domino 

accepit, sic ipse a peccatorum vinculis nos absolvat … Quod 

autem per claves, quas accepit, interdum etiam damnandos absol-

vat, in quodam miraculo, quod legitur in libro miraculorum beatae 

Virginis, satis claret.

‘Our Lord miraculously freed Peter of his chains and gave him the 

power of absolving from sin; we, on the other hand, are bound by 

the chains of sin, and have need of being absolved. And therefore 

we honour him in the feast which is called ad vincula, in order that 

as he merited to be set free of his bonds and to receive the power 

of absolving from the Lord, so also he may absolve us of our sins. 

And a certain miracle whereof we read in the book of the miracles 

of the Blessed Virgin shows that by the keys which he received, he 

does absolve even those who are about to be condemned.’1

Both the story and the drawing then seem to exemplify the same doctrinal 

issue: the power of the keys. But, as the earliest versions extant present it, 

there seems to be a central inconsistency in the miracle story. Ideally, the key 

1Latin text from Th. Groesse, ed., Jacobi a Voragine. Legenda aurea (Leipzig, 1850), 
459-60; trans. by Granger Ryan and Helmut Ripperger, The Golden Legend (New York: 
Arno, 1969), 406.



66

Peter shows the devil represents his power to absolve. Yet, the narrative in 

the story does not precisely inspire confidence in Peter’s power: he tries, but 

is not able to save the monk by himself, and has to request Mary’s help.

This inconsistency may be explained by the fact that this story was not 

originally a miracle of the Virgin Mary, but of St. Peter. The transfer to Mary 

of a miracle first associated with a saint is by no means unprecedented. A 

clear example is the story of the two brothers at Rome (HM 10). An early 

version of this story appears in the Dicta Anselmi: Two brothers, Peter and 

Stephen, die. Stephen is sent to hell, since he was a judge and had made ill 

use of his office moved by greed; he had, for instance, deprived the churches 

of St. Lawrence and St. Agnes of some land. But, as his only good deed, he 

had always served Praeiectus martyr devoutly. This Saint hears of Stephen’s 

plight, turns to St. Lawrence and St. Agnes and begs them to cease in their

wrath. The three of them then intercede for him before Christ:

In illis ergo poenis dum esset, beato martyri Praeiecto … quidam 

sanctorum dixerunt: "O Praiecte quid agis? Nonne quantum miser 

iste te dilexerit recordaris? … Cur pro illo non oras?" Quibus ille, 

"Vos" ait, "videris quod sanctus Laurentius et beata virgo Agnes 

indignati sunt ei." "Nos," inquiunt "veniemus tecum. Eamus pre -

cari eos ut hanc sibi noxam remittant, ac deinde pro eius libera tione

dominum Iesum nobiscum exorent." Laurentius itque et Agnes 

interpellati venerabili martyri Praeiecto culpam donaverunt eiusque 

amore dominum Iesum pro damnati ereptione adeuntes veniam

obtinuerunt. Protinus ergo domini imperio nuntius ivit qui eundem 

Stephanum de lacu miseriae educeret, et pro eo qualiter Praeiectus 

martyr oraverit indicaret. Denuntiatum est illi etiam quod triginta 

dierum haberet spatium in corpore vivendi in quibus vitam

pristinam emendaret.1

1Text cited by Southern, 214-15.



67

‘While he suffered these torments some saints said to Praeiectus: 

"Praeiectus, what are you doing? … Don’t you remember how 

much this wretched soul loved you? Won’t you pray for him?’ But 

he said: ‘You have seen that St. Lawrence and the blessed virgin 

Agnes are greatly offended by him.’ They said: ‘We will go with 

you. We will go beg them to forgive his offence and then to come 

with us and pray to God for his deliverance. Lawrence and Agnes, 

when Praeiectus martyr asked them, forgave Stephen, and for the 

love of Praeiectus went to the Lord Jesus and obtained pardon for 

the theft. Then the messenger of the Lord was dispatched at once, 

with the command that he should bring Stephen out of the pool of 

misery and explain to him that Praeiectus martyr had prayed for 

him. It was also announced to Stephen that he would have thirty 

days to live in his body, so that he could amend his earlier life.’

As it appears in the Dicta, therefore, this is not a miracle of the Virgin. 

Mary does not even figure in the story. But when the story is recast in the 

11th-12th century collections of miracles, the Virgin appears together with 

Praeiectus, interceding and obtaining grace for Stephen’s soul:

… Sanctus Praeiectus, primo accedens ad sanctum Laurentium et 

Sanctam Agnetem in quos ille deliquerat, precebatur ut ei veniam 

darent. Illi vero pro amore eius culpae illius pepercerunt citius. 

Deinde exoravit dominum pro eo, cooperante sancta genitrice Dei 

Maria [emphasis added], et mox obtinuit ut anima illius rediret ad 

corpus quatinus quod rapuerat redderet et peccatis suis paeniten-

tiam ageret, vivens diebus triginta.1

1Southern 216.



68

‘ … St. Praeiectus first turned to St. Lawrence and St. Agnes, 

against whom Stephen had sinned, and begged their pardon for 

him. They, for his love pardoned Stephen’s guilt immediately. They 

then prayed to the Lord for him and, with the help of the Holy 

Mother of God, were soon granted that the soul might return to the 

body, so that he would live for thirty days to re turn what he had 

wrongfully taken and do penance for his sins.’

In the case of the miracle of the monk of St. Peter’s, the scant evidence we 

have suggests that this story is also adapted from a miracle of a saint: as in 

the Stowe drawing, Peter would sprobably have occupied the central place in 

the original version. The setting for the story, a monastery of St. Peter, seems 

to hint in that direction. But the clearest indication that such an adaptation

has taken place is the apparent clash between Peter and Mary’s roles in the 

narrative. The allusion to the keys as a symbol of Peter’s power to bind and 

unbind conflicts with his failure to resolv e in favour of his monk, and does 

not cohere with the emphasis on Mary as universal protector and media tor.

This conflict between the image of the keys and the new role assigned to 

Mary was certainly perceived by those who recast the story. That is perhaps 

why they hint at the significance of the keys, but do not expand on the doc-

trine. The history of the transmission of the miracle, moreover, gives us fur-

ther evidence that the story was in the process of being adapted from a Peter 

to a Mary miracle: in several later collections of Marian miracles, the incon-

sistency is solved by omitting the reference to Peter’s driving the devil away 

with his key. Thus, for instance, Gonzalo de Berceo in his Milagros de 

Nuestra Señora still has Peter rescue the monk’s soul, but there is no 

mention of the keys:

Quando udió Sant Peidro esti tan dulz mandado,

vÍo que su negocio era bien recabdado;

tornó a los diablos, concejo enconado:



69

la alma que levavan tolliógela sin grado.

Diógela a dos ninnos de muy gran claridat,

creaturas angélicas de muy gran sanctidat;

Diógela en comienda de toda voluntat

por tornarla al cuerpo con gran seguridat.1

‘When St. Peter heard this sweet command and knew that his peti-

tion had been well received, he turned angrily to the devils and 

took the soul they were carrying away. He gave it in charge to two 

bright youths, angelic creatures of great sanctity, so that they 

would return it to its body safely.’

Nigel of Canterbury in his Miracles of the Virgin Mary goes even further 

in his adaptation of the story. After the account of Christ’s sentence, com-

manding the soul to be led back to the body, the narration turns directly to 

the resurrection of the monk. Any reference to Peter or his keys is silenced:

Dixit; et in corpus anima redeunte reuixit

dandus iam tumulo iamque tegendus humo.2

‘This he said; and as the soul entered the body, he who was going 

to be buried and covered with earth revived.’

In one case in this process of transmission, however, the story is brought 

back to its original Peter context. The Legenda aurea, even though it tells the 

story as a Mary miracle, includes it, as we have seen, in the chapter devoted 

to "St. Peter ad vincula." In this chapter, the story follows a full discussion of 

1Gonzalo de Berceo, Milagros de Nuestra Señora, ed. Michael Gerli (Madrid: Cátedra, 
1988), vii.173-74.

2Nigel of Canterbury, Miracles of the Virgin Mary, in Verse, ed. Jan Ziolkowski (Toronto:
Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1986), 1099-1100.



70

the symbolic meaning of the keys and Peter’s power to remit sins. In this 

case, the narrator logically omits the final comment emphasizing Mary’s 

power as mediator.

This change in the dedication of miracle stories is a consequence of a 

change in devotional practices. Before the 12th century most miracle stories 

were associated to the shrine of a saint, and had therefore a strong local em-

phasis as pieces of propaganda.1 By the 11th and especially the 12th century, 

the increasing popularity of the miracles of the Virgin reflect a new kind of 

piety:

[In these stories, t]ime and place lose all significance, and we come 

under the sway of a universal power … exercised with the

appearance of caprice for the protection of all who love the person 

from whom these benefits flow. Like the rain, this protective power 

of the Virgin falls on the just and the unjust alike. … The Miracles

of the Virgin were not written to proclaim the glo ries, or to enhance 

the reputation of any church or corporate body: they appealed

solely to individuals, and if they had a propaganda purpose, it was 

the encouragement of pious practices, which came in time to 

occupy a position at the very centre of medieval personal

devotion.2

In both the Liber Vitae drawing and the miracle story, we have then a vi-

sion of post-mortem judgement that illustrates Peter’s power to remit sins. In 

both cases, too, the context seems to reflect a change of emphasis from Pe-

ter’s power of absolution as represented by his key--whose importance is 

well exemplified, for instance, in Bede’s account of the synod of Whitby--to

Mary’s rising role as mediator par excellence, as the main channel, or "aque-

1R. W. Southern, The Making of the Middle Ages (New Haven: Yale UP, 1953), 247. 
2Southern 248.



71

duct" as St. Bernard would call her, of God’s grace. In the New Minster 

drawing (dating from the early 11th century), Peter still retains the central 

place he would have occupied in the source of the Latin miracle story. But 

Winchester was already an important center of Marian cult, and the New 

Minster had been re -dedicated to Mary.1 The Liber Vitae itself bears witness 

to the increasing importance of Mary as mediator: in the illumination on 6r 

[Fig.2], depicting Cnut’s gift of a golden cross to the monastery, we see both 

Mary and Peter as the two figures to whom the monks represented below 

pray for intercession. The Latin miracle, as we know it from the earlie st veri-

ons extant, seems to represent a later stage in this process. The central role 

which must originally have been Peter’s has been finally transferred to Mary.

APPENDIX

In monasterio sancti Petri quod apud coloniam, erat quidam frater, cuius 

uita & mores nimis ab habitu monachili discrepabant. Nam leuiter se agens in 

pluribus actibus etiam filium contra proposito monachi habebat, et seculari se 

actu in multis tradiderat. Hic igitur aliquando cum quibusdam fratribus 

potionem pro corporis salute accip iens, irruente languore nimis afflictus, sine 

confessione uel Christi corporis sacra communione repente defunctus est. 

Cuius anima ab antiquo mox hoste arrepta, ducebatur ad infernalia loca. Quod 

cernens sanctus petrus cuius erat monachus, accessit ad benignum sominum, 

& pro anima ipsius deprecabatur eum. Cui dominus: Ignoras inquit quid 

propheta me inspirante dixerit, domine quis habitarit in tabernaculo tuo, aut 

quis r. in m. sancto tuo? Subitiens, qui ingreditur sine macula, & operatur i. 

Quomodo ergo hic potest fieri saluus, cum neque sine macula sit ingressus, 

neque ut debuit iusticiam operatus.

1Mary Clayton, The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Anglo -Saxon England (Cambridge: CUP, 
1990), 132. 



72

Hec audiens sanctus petrus, iterum sanctos angelos et deinde singulos 

ordines sanctorum precatus est, ut orarent pro anima fratris. Quibus singulis 

se deprecantibus cum ea que supra retulimus respondet dominus, nouissime 

uenit ad sanctam dei genitricem sanctasque uirgines, sciens certissime earum 

exaudiri preces. Ob quam rem cum surrexerit sancta dei genitrix, precatura 

suum filium cum sanctis uirginibus, statim assurrexit eis Christus, dixitque sue 

sancte matri sanctisque uirginibus: Quid a me poscis dulcissima mater, cum 

meis carissimis sororibus? Cui sancta uirgo dum respondisset: quod pro 

anima fratris memorati postularet, Christum ait illi: Licet per prophetam dixeri

neminem posse in meo tabernaculo habitare, nisi qui sine macula ingreditur, & 

iusticiam operatur, tamen quia tibi placet ut indulgentiam consequatur,

concedo ut anima eius ad corpus reuertatur, ut acta de malis actibus peniten-

tia, demum requie  perfruatur. Hec ut sancta uirgo sancto petro innotuit, con-

festim sanctus petrus magna claue quam tenebat diabolum terrens eum in 

fugam vertit & animam fratris eripuit. Quam duobus spetiosis pueris com-

mendauit, et et ipsi michilominus commendauerunt eam cuidam fratri, qui 

fuerat monachus prefati monasterii. Qui reducens eam, rogauit quasi pro 

mercede ut singulis disebus diceret pro eo psalmum, misereri mei deus, & 

persepe scopis mundaret sepulchrum eius. At frater ille de morte resurgens, 

que sibi contigerant, uel quod uiderat narrauit, et quomodo a diaboli

potestate fuisset ereptus, sufragiis sancte dei genitricis, atque sancti petri 

apostoli. Sane si hoc quod narrauimus miraculum alicui uidetur incredible, 

cogitet quantum possit sancta dei genitrix supra omnes ordines sanctorum 

apud filium suum celi et terre dominum, et deponet omne incredulitatis 

ambiguum. Si uero obicit de claue sancti petri qua terruit inimicum, meminerit 

quia incorporalia corporeis nisi per corporea narrari non possunt.

María José Mora

University of Sevilla



73

* * *



74

Figure 1 fol. 7r of BL ms Stowe 944



75

Figure 2 fol. 6r of BL ms Stowe 944