BAND 1 Schrift, Schreiber, Schenker: Studien zur Abtei Sankt Viktor in Paris und den Viktorinern 9783050083612, 9783050040387

Citation preview

Corpus Victorinum Instrumenta

Corpus Victorinum iussu Instituti Hugonis de Sancto Victore edendum curavit Rainer Berndt SJ

Instrumenta VOLUMEN I

Schrift, Schreiber, Schenker Studien zur Abtei Sankt Viktor in Paris und den Viktorinern Herausgegeben von Rainer Berndt SJ

Akademie Verlag

ISBN 3 - 0 5 - 0 0 4 0 3 8 - 6 © Akademie Verlag GmbH, Berlin 2005 Das eingesetzte Papier ist alterungsbeständig nach D I N / I S O 9706. Alle Rechte, insbesondere die der Übersetzung in andere Sprachen, vorbehalten. Kein Teil dieses Buches darf ohne schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlages in irgendeiner Form — durch Fotokopie, Mikroverfilmung oder irgendein anderes Verfahren — reproduziert oder in eine von Maschinen, insbesondere von Datenverarbeitungsmaschinen, verwendbare Sprache übertragen oder übersetzt werden. Satz: Christiane Storeck mit TUSTEP, Hugo von Sankt Viktor-Institut, Frankfurt am Main Einbandgestaltung: deblik, Berlin Druck und Bindung: Druckhaus »Thomas Müntzer«, Bad Langensalza Printed in the Federal Republic of Germany

Vorwort Der vorliegende Band ist hervorgegangen aus den Forschungsprojekten des Hugo von Sankt Viktor-Instituts, die wir während der vergangenen Jahre dank der Förderung durch die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft durchgeführt haben. Die Beiträge von Matthias M . Tischler sind entstanden im Rahmen der Forschungen zur Viktorinerbibel, die Beiträge von Ralf M . W . Stammberger bieten erste Ergebnisse aus den Arbeiten an der kritischen Edition von Hugos Kommentar zu den historischen Büchern des Alten Testamentes. Darüber hinaus haben wir eine Reihe von Kolleginnen und Kollegen gewinnen können, an diesem ersten Band des Corpus Victorinum mitzuwirken. Allen Autoren danke ich herzlich für das Vertrauen, das sie in ein neues Unternehmen setzen, welches zu einer Zeit an die wissenschaftliche Offendichkeit tritt, in der derartig langfristige Perspektiven nicht leicht zu vermitteln sind. Der Adolf Messer-Stiftung in Königstein am Taunus sowie der Stiftung Hochschule Sankt Georgen Frankfurt am Main danke ich sehr herzlich für die mehrjährige Förderung unserer Arbeiten und auch dieser VeröfFendichung. Herrn Martin Beiz danke ich herzlich für seine Arbeiten an den Registern. In bewährter Weise hat Frau Diplom-Chemikerin Christiane Storeck den mühevollen Satz der Beiträge auf sich genommen. Dafür danke ich ihr sehr herzlich. Schließlich danke ich einmal mehr unserem Lektor seitens des Akademie Verlags, Herrn Manfred Karras, fur die vorzügliche Begleitung unserer Publikationen. Der Herausgeber

INHALT

Vorwort

5

RAINER BERNDT

Das Corpus Victorinum — Intellektuell-spirituelle Topographie eines Pariser Mikrokosmos (12.—18. Jahrhundert)

11

Die Abtei MATTHIAS M . TISCHLER

Die Auftraggeber, Vorbesitzer und Schenker der Bibeln von Saint-Victor

27

1. Einträge im älteren [jüngeren] Nekrolog von Saint-Victor

30

2. Einträge in Handschriften

54

3. Eintrag in einem vermeindich für Saint-Victor bestimmten Nachlaßinventar

58

4. Sozialgeschichdiche Bemerkungen zu den Auftraggebern, Vorbesitzern und Schenkern der Bibeln von Saint-Victor

58

MATTHIAS M . TISCHLER

Die glossierten Bibeln von Saint-Victor

67

Die Viktoriner CONSTANT J . M E W S

Lagica in the Service of Philosophy: William of Champeaux and his Influence William of Champeaux and the Introiuctiones dialecticae

77 79

William's glosses on Porphyry and Aristode

87

Manegold and William of Champeaux on Cicero's De invention

89

T h e 'moderni' in the late eleventh century: grammar, dialectic and rhetoric

97

William's Sententie on divinity

105

William of Champeaux as bishop (1113—1122) and the cause of reform

109

T h e influence of William of Champeaux

112

Conclusion

116

8

Inhalt

R A L F Μ . W . STAMMBERGER

Die Edition der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor (t 1141) durch Abt Gilduin von Sankt Viktor (t 1155) — Eine Rekonstruktion

119

1 Die Handschrift BMaz, 717

123

π Weitere Kopien der Gilduin-Ausgabe

137

m Die Beweiskraft der Gilduin-Ausgabe fur Fragen der Authentizität der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor

161

Anhang 1. Abbildungen 2. Liste der Handschriften der Expositio in regukm beati Augustini 3. Rekonstruktion der Werkausgabe Gilduins von Sankt Viktor

178 189 193

R A L F M . W . STAMMBERGER

The Works of Hugh of St. Victor at Admont: A Glance at an Intellectual Landscape in the xnth century 1. Intellectual welfare at Admont

233 234

2. Glossed books of the bible in stamped leather bindings from Paris at Admont

236

3. The Admont book-lists by Peter of Arbon

239

4. The works of Hugh of St. Victor at Admont

240

5. Admont and its intellectual exchanges

251

.JULIAN HARRISON

Hugh of Saint-Victor's Chronicle in the British Isles

263

The Manuscripts

269

Ralph de Diceto

284

The Book-Lists

286

Appendix: The historians of Antiquity

289

GRETI DINKOVA-BRUUN

Leonius of Paris and his Liber Ruth

293

ι Manuscript tradition of the Historie ueteris testamenti

294

π Contents of the Historie ueteris testamenti

296

m Leonius' Liber Ruth

301

rv Glosses on Leonius' Liber Ruth in BAV, Ms. Reg. lat. 283 ( = V 1 )

304

ν The style of the poem

306

vi The edition

307

Inhalt

9

Bibliographia Series editionum

321

Fontes

321

Studia

332

Indices Sacra Scriptura

365

Auetores et opera

366

Nomina personarum

376

Nomina locorum

382

Codices manu scripti

385

ABBREVIATIONES ET SIGLA

BArs

PARIS, Bibliotheque de l'Arsmal

BL

LONDON, British Library

BMaz

PARIS, Bibliotheque Mazarine

BnF

PARIS, Bibliotheque nationale de France

ms. Birm.

ms. BIRMINGHAM, Public Library, 91/med/3

:

Wiederholungszeichen in Tabelle

Das Corpus Victorinum. Intellektuell-spirituelle Topographie eines Pariser Mikrokosmos (12—18. Jahrhundert) v o n R A I N E R B E R N D T SJ

Vor den Mauern von Paris, auf dem linken Seineufer, sammelte sich zu Beginn des 1 2. Jahrhunderts eine Schar junger Studenten aus der Schule von Notre-Dame, um in Gemeinschaft zu leben und sich somit als Kleriker der zeitgenössischen kirchlichen Reformbewegung anzuschließen. Diese Neugründung, die im Bannkreis einer schon bestehenden Kapelle in der Nähe eines Friedhofs, wahrscheinlich unter dem Patronat des hl. Viktor, eines Märtyrers aus Marseille, stand, blühte rasch auf. Politisch erfreute sich die neue Gemeinschaft königlicher Protektion; unter päpstlichem Schutz bezog sie Stellung aufgrund ihres erklärten kirchlichen Reformwillens. Das 1113 zur Abtei erhobene regulierte Augustinerchorherren-Stift Sankt Viktor 1 zog im Laufe des 12. Jahrhunderts Scharen von Intellektuellen aus ganz Europa an/ Wenn auch in den folgenden Jahrhunderten die literarische Produktion der Kanoniker von Sankt Viktor nach einer ersten Blütezeit zurückging, so blieb die Abtei dennoch stets eine der ersten Adressen des religiösen und intellektuellen Paris, bis sie im Zuge der Französischen Revolution aufgelöst und ihre Gebäude geschleift wurden.' Schon im Jahre 1985 begann in Paris im Kreis um Jean Chätillon, angeregt von den Forschungsmöglichkeiten des dortigen Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes und unterstützt u.a. von Francois Dolbeau, Charles Lohr sj, Jean Longere und Paul Tombeur, die Konzeption und die Organisation der kritischen Ausgabe der Werke des aus Hamersleben (Diözese Halberstadt) stammenden Hugo von Sankt Viktor (t 1141)· Die Diskussionen und Überlegungen führten zu der Übereinkunft, den Sitz der Edition in Deutschland anzusiedeln. Im Jahre 1990 gründete die von der Gesellschaft Jesu getragene Philosophisch-Theologische Hochschule Sankt Georgen in Frankfurt am Main das gleichnamige Institut für Quellenkunde des Mittelalters, um die Edition in einen institutionellen Rahmen einzubinden.

Ι ζ

S i e h e d a z u BERNDT 2002 ( B i b l . ) . S i e h e d a z u d e m n ä c h s t JOACHIM EHLERS: » S a i n t V i c t o r i n E u r o p a . E i n z u g s b e r e i c h u n d W i r k u n g d e r K a n o n i k e r g e m e i n s c h a f t i m 12. Jahrhundert«, in Bibel und Exegese in Sankt Viktor zu Paris. Torrn und Funktion eines Grundtextes in europäischem Rahmen, W i s s e n s c h a f t l i c h e S t u d i e n t a g u n g in K o o p e r a t i o n m i t d e m » E r b a c h e r H o f M a i n z « , 19.—21. A p r i l 2004, hg. v o n RAINER BERNDT SJ ( C o r p u s V i c t o r i n u m . I n s t r u m e n t a ) , Berlin ( i n V o r b e r e i t u n g ) .

3

V g l . POIREL 1998b.

12

Ratner Berndt

Corpus Victorinum bezeichnet das Forschungs- und Publikationsprojekt des Frankfurter Hugo von Sankt Viktor-Instituts, das die Pariser Abtei Sankt Viktor und die ihr affiliierten Häuser sowie die Viktoriner und die mit ihnen verbundenen Schriftsteller zum Gegenstand hat. Dieses Vorhaben berührt neben der Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte vor allem die politische Geschichte, die sich für die europaweiten Beziehungen zwischen Menschen und zwischen Institutionen interessiert. Doch auch die Bibliotheks-, die Kunstund die europäische Bildungsgeschichte dürften den geplanten Quellenpublikationen zur Geschichte der Abtei und der einzelnen Autoren, die hoffentlich zu einschlägigen Untersuchungen anregen werden, Einschätzungen, Fragestellungen, ja neue Befunde für ihre je spezifischen Betrachtungsweisen abgewinnen können. Das Corpus Victorinum intendiert, im Spiegel des Mikrokosmos dieser einen Abtei von Augustinerchorherren, eine intellektuellspirituelle Topographie des werdenden Europas zwischen dem 12. und dem 18. Jahrhundert zu erstellen und diese wissenschaftlich zu repräsentieren. Die sich bei der editorischen Arbeit ansammelnden Erfahrungen zusammen mit der im Verlaufe des vergangenen Jahrzehnts sich unaufhaltsam ausbreitenden Informationstechnik auch in den Geisteswissenschaften 4 haben dazu gefuhrt, das den gesamten Viktoriner Mikrokosmos umfassende Projekt eines Corpus Victorinum entwickeln und nunmehr dessen ersten Band publizieren zu können. Das Frankfurter Institut wird sich in diesem Kontext prioritär auf die Edition der Werke Hugos konzentrieren. Nach Maßgabe der zur Verfügung gestellten Mittel sollen jedoch auch weitere editorisch nötige Zuarbeiten durchgeführt werden. Aufs Ganze gesehen, hofft das Institut auf breites wissenschaftliches Interesse an diesem Vorhaben und lädt herzlich zur Kooperation an der geschichtswissenschaftlich zu erarbeitenden intellektuell-spirituellen Topographie der Viktoriner ein, welche das gesamte Spektrum der sich auf Augustinus und seine Regel berufenden christlichen Lebensentwürfe exemplarisch aufzeigen will.5 Unter dem Dach des Corpus Victorinum artikulieren sich verschiedene Einzelvorhaben: die kritischen Textausgaben, die Reihe der Untersuchungen, die deutsche Übersetzung der Schriften der Viktoriner, der Einsatz elektronischer Datenverarbeitung.

4

Vgl. zur ersten Information das gesamte Heft der Zeitschrift Le medieviste et l'ordinateur 42 (2002), besonders den Beitrag von AMIRI 2002. Siehe darüber hinaus unten Anm. 46.

5

Für einen ersten Versuch, gemeinsame religiöse und intellektuelle Anliegen der Viktoriner zu eruieren, sei verwiesen auf RAINER BERNDT: »Vom >sacramentum mundi< zum >intellectus fideitextus recipiendusLaoneser Modell< (1), >Pariser Modell seit ii3o< (2) und >Pariser Modell der alternierenden Zeilen< (3) bezeichnen kann: Z u (1): Hier ist der Bibeltext in größerer Schrift als Haupttextkolumne in der Seitenmitte geschrieben, während die Glosse in kleinerer Schrift marginal in den beiden Seitenspalten, deren Liniierungschemata sich nicht am Zeilenspiegel der Haupttextkolumne orientieren, sowie auch interlinear eingebracht ist. Da die Randglossen manchmal sehr lang sind, müssen sie in dem nicht vorausberechneten Glossenraum oft zusammengequetscht und vom seidichen Rand zum unteren Seitenbereich weitergeführt werden. Bei kurzen Marginalglossen bleiben größere Bereiche des Randes unbeschrieben, die allenfalls für spätere Ergänzungen genutzt werden können. Diese noch wenig elaborierte Seitenkonzeption weisen etwa die ältesten glossierten Bibeln Laoneser Provenienz auf. Z u (2): Dieses Seitenmodell ist der Versuch, die oftmals unästhetische und vor allem unökonomische Seitengestaltung des >Laoneser Modells< zu überwinden, indem die Marginalglosse innerhalb der Glossenspalten aus Platzersparnis immer häufiger auf mehrere schmale Kolumnen aufgeteilt wird. Der Haupttext wird unverändert links und rechts von jeweils einem Glossenraum umrahmt, jedoch pendeln sich die Zeilenzahlen von Haupt- und Glossentexten nun auf ein Verhältnis von 1 : 2 ein. Z u (3): Unter dem Einfluß der Neuorganisation der »magna glosatura« des Petrus Lombardus in den Pariser Buchwerkstätten zwischen 1140 und 1160 (vgl. DE HAMEL 1984, S. 18—24) entsteht ein Liniierungsmodell, bei dem die Zeilenziehung für den Haupttext und die Glossenspalten in einem einzigen Arbeitsgang vorgenommen wird. Auch der Schreibvorgang wird ökonomisiert und erfolgt in einem Zuge. Der in größerer Schrift kopierte Bibeltext von unterschiedlicher Länge und Kolumnenbreite wird nun immer zwischen zwei Zeilen gesetzt, während die nach wie vor in kleinerer Schrift angefertigte Glosse auf jeder dieser Zeilen zu stehen kommt, so daß das maximale Zeilenverhältnis zwischen Haupt- und Glossentext 1 : 2 beträgt.

4

GASPARRI 1990.

69

Die glossierten Bibeln von Saint-Victor LISTE 1 ALTES TESTAMENT®

GN

BnF, Ms. lat. 14398 * vor 1135—1140 * Laon BnF, Ms. lat. 14399 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) BMaz, Ms. 131 (49), I * i . Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

Ex

BnF, Ms. lat. 14400 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) BMaz, Ms. 131 (49), II * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

Lv

BnF, Ms. lat. 14771 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) BMaz, Ms. 132 (55), I * i . Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

Nm

BMaz, Ms. 81 (57) * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BMaz, Ms. 132 (55), Π * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

Dt

BMaz, Ms. 132 (55), ΙΠ * ι. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

los

BMaz, Ms. 135 (66), I * 1.-2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

Idc

BMaz, Ms. 135 (66), I * 1.—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

Rt

BnF, Ms. lat. 14781,1 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) BMaz, Ms. 135 (66), I * 1.—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

I—Π Sm

BMaz, Ms. 133 (60) * 1.—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

ΙΠ-IV Rg

BMaz, Ms. 133 (60) * 1.-2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

I—II Par

BMaz, Ms. 134 (65) * 1—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

OrMan

BMaz, Ms. 134 (65) * 1—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

I—Π Esr

BnF, Ms. lat. 1 4 7 7 2 , 1 * 2 . Viertel des 12. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich BMaz, Ms. 134 (65) * i.—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

Tb

BMaz, Ms. 135 (66), I * 1.—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

Idt

BMaz, Ms. 135 (66), I * 1.—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

Est

BMaz, Ms. 135 (66), I * 1.-2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

lob

BnF, Ms. lat. 14625, f. Ar—Cv6 * 1. Viertel des 12. Jahrhunderts * Laon BnF, Ms. lat 14401 * 1. Viertel des 12. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich BnF, Ms. lat. 14781, II * vor 1135—1140 * Laon BnF, Ms. lat. 14773 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?)

5

Die Bibelbücher sind mit den Siglen der Biblia sacra, S. xxxi, gekennzeichnet. Die römischen Ziffern I und Π hinter der Signatur zeigen den Handschriftenteil an. Eine nähere Untersuchung der jeweiligen Textzustände der einzelnen Glossae mußte aus Zeitgründen unterbleiben. Erst sie kann die Textgenese aufdecken und die chronologische Ordnung der einzelnen Uberlieferungsträger sichern.

6

Eine Schriftprobe desselben Kopisten von f. I28r ist abgebildet bei GASPARRI 1990, Tafel 14a.

Matthias Μ. Tischler

7°

BMaz, Ms. 135 (66), II * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BnF, Ms. lat. 14240 * 2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich Ps

BnF, BnF, BnF, BnF, BnF,

Ms. Ms. Ms. Ms. Ms.

lat. lat. lat. lat. lat.

14402 * 2. Viertel des 12. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich 14403 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) 14241 * 2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris 14242 * 2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris 14774 * 2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich

Cantica

BnF, Ms. lat. 14402 * 2. Viertel des 12. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich BnF, Ms. lat. 14403 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?)

Prv

BnF, Ms. lat. 14776 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) BArs, Ms. 92 (114 T. L) * 3. Viertel des 12. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich (Paris?) BnF, Ms. lat. 14777 * Ende des 12. oder Anfang des 13. Jahrhunderts * England (?) BMaz, Ms. 136 (75) * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BnF, Ms. lat. 14405 * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich

Ecl

BnF, Ms. lat. 14776 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) BArs, Ms. 92 (114 T. L) * 3. Viertel des 12. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich (Paris?) BnF, Ms. lat. 14777 * Ende des 12. oder Anfang des 13. Jahrhunderts * England (?) BMaz, Ms. 136 (75) * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BnF, Ms. lat. 14405 * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich BnF, Ms. lat. 488, II * 13. Jahrhundert * England

Ct

BnF, Ms. lat. 14778 * ca. 1140—1150 * Nordfrankreich BnF, Ms. lat. 14776 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) BnF, Ms. lat. 14777 * Ende des 12. oder Anfang des 13. Jahrhunderts * England (?) BMaz, Ms. 136 (75) * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BnF, Ms. lat. 14405 * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich

Sap

BnF, Ms. lat. 1 4 7 7 2 , 1 * 2 . Viertel des 12. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich BMaz, Ms. 136 (75) * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BnF, Ms. lat. 14405 * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich

Sir

BnF, Ms. lat. 14779 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich BnF, Ms. lat. 488, I * Ende des 12. oder Anfang des 13. Jahrhunderts * England (?) BMaz, Ms. 136 (75) * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BnF, Ms. lat. 14405 * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich

71

Die glossierten Bibeln von Saint-Victor

Is

BnF, Ms. lat 14780 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) BMaz, Ms. 138 (105) * i—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

Ier

BnF, Ms. lat. 14406,1 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) BMaz, Ms. 140 (in) * i.—z. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BMaz, Ms. 100 (110) * 2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

Lam

BnF, Ms. lat. 14781,1 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) BnF, Ms. lat. 14406, II * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) BMaz, Ms. 140 (in) * 1—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BMaz, Ms. 100 (110) * 2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

Bar Ez

BMaz, Ms. 139 (108) * i.—z. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BArs, Ms. 139 (80 T. L) * 2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich

Dn

BnF, Ms. lat. 14781,1 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) BMaz, Ms. 139 (108) * i.—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BArs, Ms. 139 (80 T. L) * 2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich

Os—Mal

BMaz, Ms. 137 (101), I * 1—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BArs, Ms. 139 (80 T. L) * 2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich

I—II Mcc

BMaz, Ms. 137 (101), II * 1.—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

NEUES TESTAMENT

Mt

BnF, Ms. lat. 14409, Π * vor 1135—1140 * Laon BMaz, Ms. 141 (165) * 1.—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts 4 Paris BnF, Ms. lat. 14783 * 1230—1240 * Nordfrankreich (Normandie?)

Mc

BnF, Ms. lat. 14784 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) BnF, Ms. lat. 14408 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) BMaz, Ms. 141 (165) * i.—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

Lc

BMaz, Ms. 142 (170) * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BnF, Ms. lat. 14244,1 * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich

Io

BMaz, Ms. 142 (170) * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BnF, Ms. lat. 14244, I * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich

Act

BnF, Ms. lat. 14772, Π * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) BMaz, Ms. 144 (181) * i.—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

Rm—Hbr

BnF, Ms. lat. 14409,1 * vor 1135—1140 * Laon BnF, Ms. lat. 14785 * 2. Viertel des 12. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich BnF, Ms. lat. 14786 * Mittelitalien (wohl Umgegend von Arezzo) * Mitte bis 3. Viertel des 12. Jahrhunderts

72

Matthias Μ. Tischkr

Iac—lud

BnF, Ms. lat. 14266—14267 * 1170—1180 * Paris BMaz, Ms. 143 (189) * i.—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BMaz, Ms. 266 (196) * 2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BnF, Ms. lat. 14778 * ca. 1140—1150 * Nordfrankreich BnF, Ms. lat. 14789 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor (?) BnF, Ms. lat 14787, II * Ende des 12. oder Anfang des 13. Jahrhunderts * England (?) BMaz, Ms. 144 (181) * i.—z. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BnF, Ms. lat. 14245,1 * 1.-2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich BnF, Ms. lat. 14790 * 2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich

Apc

BnF, Ms. lat. 14778 * ca. 1140—1150 * Nordfrankreich BnF, Ms. lat. 14244, Π * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich BArs, Ms. 92 * 3. Viertel des iz. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich (Paris?) BMaz, Ms. 144 (181) * 1.-2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

De xn lapidibus = Apc zi, ig(.

BArs, Ms. 92 * 3. Viertel des 12. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich (Paris?) BMaz, Ms. 144 (181) * 1.—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

LISTE 2

Gn * Ex

BMaz, Ms. 131 (49) * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris7

Lv * Nm * Dt

BMaz, Ms. 132 (55) * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris8

los * Idc 4 Rt * Tb * Idt * Est

BMaz, Ms. 135 (66), I * 1.-2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

I—Π Sm * ΙΠ—TV Rg

BMaz, Ms. 133 (60) * 1.—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

Ι-Π Par * OrMan * Ι-Π Esr

BMaz, Ms. 134 (65) * 1.-2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris9

I—Π Esr * Sap

BnF, Ms. lat. 14772, 1 * 2 . Viertel des 12. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich

7

Möglicherweise sind recht bald nach ihrer Entstehung die beiden Teile Gn und Ex zusammengefügt worden.

8 9

Die drei Teile Lv, N m und D t sind erst später zusammengebunden worden. Aufgrund der Lagenzusammensetzung kann man sagen, daß ab f. ii4r mit dem Prolog zu I—Π Esr sowie I Esr und Π Esr selbst eine neue Lagenfolge beginnt, die wohl nach anderer Vorlage kopiert worden ist. Die Verknüpfung von I—Π Par und I—Π Esr ist also nicht ursprünglich in der Vorlage gegeben gewesen.

Ditglossierten Bibeln von Saint-Victor

Ps * Cantica

73

BnF, Ms. lat. 14402 * 2. Viertel des 12. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich BnF, Ms. lat. 14403 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor(?)

Apc * De xn lapidibus * Prv * Ecl Prv * Ecl * Ct

BArs, Ms. 92 (114 T . L ) * 3. Viertel des 12. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich (Paris ?) BnF, Ms. lat. 14776 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor(?)'° BnF, Ms. lat. 14777 * Ende des 12. oder Anfang des 13. Jahrhunderts * England (?)

Prv * Ecl * Ct * Sap *

BMaz, Ms. 136 (75) * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

Sir Prv * Ecl * Ct * Sir * Sap Ier * Lam

BnF, Ms. lat. 14405 * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfirankreich BnF, Ms. lat. 14406 * Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts * Saint-Victor

(·)"

BMaz, Ms. 140 (in) * 1.—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris E z * Dn

BMaz, Ms. 100 (110) * 2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BMaz, Ms. 139 (108) * 1—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris12

Os—Mal * Ez * Dn

BArs, Ms. 139 (80 T . L) * 2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich'3

10

Die Handschrift besteht, wie an den Koordinationsschwierigkeiten im Lagenaufbau (vgl. die leeren Seiten f. 65V und 87V—89V) leicht ablesbar ist, aus drei Einzelteilen, die vermutlich nach verschiedenen Vorlagen zusammengestellt worden sind. Da die einzelnen Lagenfolgen jedoch denselben Entstehungskontext und eine ähnliche Gestaltung aufweisen, dürften sie schon früh zusammengebunden gewesen sein.

11

Der Codex ist aus zwei nach verschiedenen Vorlagen kopierten Einzelteilen zusammengesetzt, wie die voneinander abweichenden kodikologischen Daten verraten. Gleichwohl stammen beide Teile wegen der gemeinsamen Schrift aus demselben Skriptorium und sind möglicherweise von Anfang an zusammengebunden gewesen, zumal die originale Lagenzählung durch die gesamte Handschrift geht.

12

Aus der Lagenstruktur ergibt sich, daß der Codex aus den beiden Einzelteilen Ez und Dn vermutlich nach jeweils separater Vorlage zusammengestellt worden ist. Freilich sprechen die identische Seitengestaltung und Illumination dafür, daß die beiden Einzelteile von Anfang an zusammengehörten.

13

Die Handschrift setzt sich aus der Lagenfolge mit den 12 Kleinen Propheten sowie dem Abschnitt mit Ez und Dn zusammen. Beide Teile scheinen aber aufgrund ihrer recht ähnlichen kodikologischen und paläographischen Daten schon früh, vielleicht von Anfang an miteinander verbunden gewesen zu sein.

Matthias Μ. Tischler

74 D n * R t * Lam

Mt * Mc

BMaz, Ms. 141 (165) * 1—2. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris

LcMo

BMaz, Ms. 142 (170) * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris BnF, Ms. lat. 14244, I * 1. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Nordfrankreich

C t * Apc * Iac-Iud

BnF, Ms. lat. 14778 * ca. 1140-1150 * Nordfrankreich'*

Apc * De xn lapidibus

BMaz, Ms. 144 (181) * i.—z. Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts * Paris.'6

* Act * Iac-Iud

14

Die Koordinationsschwierigkeiten, die sich im Lagenaufbau dieses Handschriftenteils ablesen lassen, zeigen, daß Dn, Rt und Lam aus separaten Vorlagen zusammengestellt worden sind.

15

Es handelt sich um drei Einzelteile derselben Provenienz mit nahezu identischen kodikologischen und paläographischen Daten. Dies spricht dafür, daß alle drei Teile nach verschiedenen Einzelvorlagen kopiert und recht bald zu einem individuellen Korpus glossierter Bibelbücher zusammengestellt worden sind. Dies muß nicht verwundern, hat doch bereits Guy Lobrichon auf die häufige Zusammenstellung der glossierten Bibelbücher Apc und Ct im Hochmittelalter hingewiesen; vgl. LOBRICHON 1986, S. 82f. mit Anm. 23.

16

Aus der Lagenbestimmung ergibt sich, daß die Handschrift aus zwei, vermudich nach verschiedenen Vorlagen angefertigten Teilen zusammensetzt ist, wobei Apc und De xn lapidibus den einen, Act und die Kanonischen Briefe den anderen Abschnitt bilden. Freilich sprechen die identischen kodikologischen, paläographischen und kunstgeschichdichen Daten dafür, daß beide Teile von Anfang an zu einer Einheit zusammengefügt waren.

Die Viktoriner

Logica in the Service of Philosophy: William of Champeaux and his Influence b y CONSTANT J. M E W S

William of Champeaux (d. 1122) has never generated the same public attention as Peter Abelard, Hugh of St. Victor, or Bernard of Clairvaux.1 H e is most often remembered through Abelard's image of him as a stubborn, traditionally minded teacher, who resented being interrupted during lectures on rhetoric by a student who challenged his understanding of universale.2 Abelard claims that students accorded such importance to universals as ι

I am indebted to Yukio Iwakuma, Dominique Poirel and Irene Rosier-Catach for sharing their unpublished research, and for commenting on an earlier draft of this paper, which complements my book, Abelard and Heloise, forthcoming with Oxford University Press in the series, Great Medieval Thinkers.

2

ABAELARDUS Hisloria calamitatum, 70—100, discussed by FREDBORG 2003, p. 55—56. On William, the biography of MICHAUD 1867 is remarkable for its synthesis of historical and intellectual history, although it is now seriously dated. He drew on theological sentences preserved in a manuscript, BnF, lat. 18113 (Notre-Dame 222; from Chälons-sur-Marne, subsequendy lost in 1914 when on loan to Louvain), as well in a Troyes manuscript of the Liber pancrisis (see n. 128 below). New studies and editions are much needed. For the historical context of William's career see BAUTIER 1991; JOIJVET 1991 provides a helpful view of philosophical themes in William's writing. P L 163, c. 1037—1072 attributes to William an extract on the eucharist and a charter from 1120, and gives as 'opuscula dubia' a fragment on the origin of the soul, and a Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew, dedicated to Alexander of Lincoln, certainly not by William; see ABULAFIA 1989. MICHAUD 1867, p. 73, suggested that William might have been born in around 1070; a date around 1060 is perhaps more likely. He had studied divinity under Anselm of Laon ( d 1117), whom Abelard recorded was an old man, but still teaching in 1113. He probably first started to teach in the 1090s (MEWS 1999, p. 60—65, 68 and notes on p. 321—322; see n. 9). William was made a canon of Notre-Dame only after the consecration of Bishop Galo in 1104, when he was also appointed an archdeacon of Paris. William resigned from the cathedral chapter in 1109, when he transferred to a small church that later become the abbey of Saint-Victor. He was consecrated bishop of Chälons-sur-Marne in June/July 1113. MICHAUD 1867, p. 482—483 cites an unpublished charter, "tiree de la layette des autels, aux Archives de Chalons" from 1121, confirmed by Cuno of Palestrina, in which he leaves his goods for the poor and the sick. This must have been after Easter 1121, from when the year was calculated in the archdiocese of Rheims. As he is recorded as dying in 1121 by Symeon, and on 18 January by the obituary of Molesme (n. 154 below), this must mean 18 January 1122. The new bishop of Chälons-sur-Marne, Ebalus, is identified as beginning his episcopate in 1121, although again this

Constant J. Mews

7«

containing the essence o f a teacher's understanding o f dialectic, that once William was forced to m o d i f y his argument, his reputation went into general decline. W i t h i n studies of intellectual life in the twelfth century, much more emphasis tends to be given to dialectic, in particular to Abelard's criticism of the philosophical realism associated with William of Champeaux, than to grammar or rhetoric. Although William is commonly remembered f o r establishing the community that became the abbey o f St. Victor, little is known about what influence he exerted on its intellectual profile. In many ways William tends to be overshadowed as a thinker by the brilliant personalities that followed him. Yet, as Jolivet has argued, William was a more significant figure than Abelard's caricature would suggest. W i b a l d o f Corbie and Alberic of Trois Fontaines both refer to his having left many writings, although without giving much detail.' F o r a long time, our only independent source o f insight into his teaching derived f r o m various sententiae attributed to "Willelmus" or "Guillelmus" in manuscripts o f the Liber pancrisis, an anthology compiled in the first half of the twelfth century. William's theological achievement is often presumed to be very similar to that of his own teacher, Anselm of Laon. 4 In 1974, Green-Pedersen examined arguments about topics attributed to master W . within an important compendium o f lecture notes f r o m the early twelfth century, Orleans, Bibliotheque municipale, 266.' In 1976, Fredborg argued that William composed two commentaries on Cicero's De inventione and the Rhetorica ad Herennium ( " I n primis" and "Etsi cum Tullius" respectively, currently being edited by John O . Ward and Juanita Feros Ruys). W h i l e these commentaries are anonymous in most manuscripts, Fredborg argued that their content was very close to arguments attributed to master G . in the Notae Dunelmenses (Durham, Dean and Chapter Library C. I V . 29), a rich summary o f the teaching o f different masters f r o m the early twelfth century about both grammar and rhetoric. 6 M o r e recently, Iwakuma followed up arguments o f D e R i j k that William's teaching is transmitted in certain Introductiones iialecticae secundum Wilgelmum, also attributing to William various glosses on Porphyry,

would mean before Easter 1122. In MEWS 1999, p. 54 etc. I erroneously gave his year of death as 1120, correcting this in the paperback version to 1121.1 now realize that I should have corrected this to January 1122. }

JOLIVET 1991; see WIBALDUS Epistolae, E p . 1 4 7 ad M a n e g o l d u m , c. 1 2 5 0 D ; ALBERICUS TRIUM

FONTIUM Cbronicon, p. 819: "magister Guilelmus de Campellis, qui moralia beati Gregorii pape abbreviavit, et quedam alia facit." 4

William's Sententiae were edited, alongside those of Anselm of Laon by Lottin: GUILLELMUS CAMPIUENSIS Sententiae, p. 189—227.

5

GREEN-PEDERSEN 1 9 7 4 , 1 9 7 7 a n d 1984, p. 165—168.

6

Studied, without attribution to William, by DICKEY 1968, attributed to William by FREDBORG 1976.1 am indebted to Juanita Feros Ruys and John O. Ward for sharing their research on these texts.

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

79

Aristotle, and Boethius. 7 Independently, Rosier-Catach has drawn attention to the similarity between certain grammatical arguments attributed to W i l l i a m by Abelard and those advanced in certain Glosule on Priscian Minor (Books xvn—xvm of the Grammatical Institutes), also very close to those attributed to master G. in the No toe Dunelmenses (named by Kneepkens in 1978 as an otherwise unknown master Guido, rather than as W i l l i a m of Champeaux). 8 These studies have tended to focus on only one discipline in particular, whether it be grammar, dialectic, or rhetoric, without exploring the common themes underpinning William's understanding of "logica" as a whole, or their relationship to his teaching on theology. This paper offers further reasons for supporting Fredborg's argument about William's authorship of important commentaries on Cicero's De invention and the Rhetorica ad Herentiium. I fully support her identification of master G. in the Notae Dunelmenses as W i l l i a m of Champeaux, and argue that William's major contribution to the study of language was to communicate a vision of "logica" as embracing not just dialectic, as transmitted by Boethius, but also grammar and rhetoric, based on the teaching of Priscian and Cicero. Each of these disciplines he saw as working in the service of philosophy, thus laying the foundations for a theme that Hugh of St. Victor would subsequendy develop in his Didascalicon. I also suggest that W i l l i a m used his understanding of language to develop a theological system that was more speculative than that of Anselm of Laon, and laid foundations that would be elaborated upon in very different ways by both Hugh of St. Victor and Peter Abelard. W i l l i a m lays the foundations for a vision of the fundamental unity of the arts of language as in the service of philosophy that would be developed both by Hugh of St. Victor in his Didascalicon, and three decades later, with a great deal more attention to the teaching of Aristotle, by John of Salisbury in his Metalogicon.

W I L L I A M OF C H A M P E A U X A N D T H E

Introductions

diahcticae

In the Historia calamitatum Abelard acknowledges that in around 1100, W i l l i a m of Champeaux was preeminent in the discipline of dialectic, both in reality and in reputation ("in hoc tunc magisterio re et fama precipuum"). By contrast, Abelard presents Anselm of Laon (d. 1117) as someone whose reputation owed more to long established custom than anything else.9 W i l l i a m of Champeaux is the first known teacher in Paris to have acquired 7

William's authorship of one of these versions, was first identified by DE RIJK 1967, 2/1, p. 130—144; for full edition and commentary on these Introductions, LIENSIS Introductiones

see GUILLELMUS DE CAMPI-

and IWAKUMA 2003. On the glosses see IWAKUMA 1999b and his forthcoming

paper IWAKUMA 2 0 0 4 . 1 am indebted to Iwakuma for allowing me to consult these papers. 8

ROSIER-CATACH 2003a, 2003b and in more detail 2003c; the Glosule on Priscian Minor is attributed to Guido by KNEEPKENS 1978.

9

ABAELARDUS Historia calamitatum,

34—35; cf. 164—165.

8o

Constant J. Mews

such a reputation in dialectic. His predecessor at the cathedral school of Notre-Dame was a certain "Drogo gramaticus", an admirer and perhaps disciple of Berengar of Tours (c. iooo—1088), known for a few surviving glosses on the Epistles of St. Paul.1" We do not know when William started to teach at Notre-Dame, but it was probably in the 1 0 9 0 s . This was a decade of acute polarization within the cathedral chapter, as within the Latin Church as a whole. William of Champeaux, loyal to the cause of ecclesiastical reforms, may have been supported by Walerann, precentor of Notre-Dame, and a friend of St. Anselm (in close contact with the cathedral chapter in the 1 0 9 0 s ) . The opposing faction, more supportive of king Philip I and Bertrada, former countess of Anjou, was dominated by Stephen of Garlande, appointed an archdeacon of Paris between 1 0 9 4 and 1 0 9 7 . " The accusations of heresy made against Roscelin of Compiegne at the Council of Soissons (c. 1 0 9 0 / 9 2 ) by admirers of St. Anselm reinforced a sense of sharp polarization between those, like William of Champeaux, who were loyal to philosophical tradition, and teachers whom they labelled as "false dialecticians" because they denied that a universal was any more than a "flatum vocis" and in theology denied the underlying unity of God.12 William's expertise in dialectic is evident in two versions of his Introductions to the art of dialectic, studied and edited by Iwakuma. One, occurring in Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, cvp 2499 (s. xnT), is entitled "Introductiones dialecticae" and "Introductiones secundum Wilgelmum" in a concluding rubric. An initial discussion of "vox", "oratio", and both categorical and hypothetical propositions (f. 23V—29r), is followed by sections on basic rules of inference (f. 29V—32V), the meaning of "oratio", "vox", and the purpose of dialectic (f. 33r—35V), and "media", or the principles underpinning inference 10

Cartulaire general de Paris, no. 98, p. 126. In this charter of St. Martin des Champs from 1067, " D r o g o gramaticus" is different from Drogo the archdeacon, who is replaced by Stephen of Garlande between 1094 and 1097 (no. 113, p. 138; no. 119, p. 144). This " D r o g o gramaticus" is likely to be the Drogo whose glosses on St. Paul are mentioned alongside glosses by Berengar and Lanfranc, in a number o f manuscripts studied by SMALLEY 1937, p. 381—397 (confusing this master Drogo with Drogo the archdeacon on p. 394), where she refers to an admiring letter from Drogo to Berengar of Tours, addressing him as his "dominus", edited within BERENGARIUS Sammlung, p. 250 [not seen]. See also SMALLEY 1964, p. 47, 63—65, 70, 72.

π

O n these political divisions, see BAUTIER 1981, p. 58—62, MEWS 1993 and M E W S 1999, p. 60—68. Walerann is noted as cantor or precentor o f Notre-Dame in documents from 1083/92 (Cartulaire general de Paris, no. 104, p. 132, and 1101 (no. 129, p. 152). Anselm expressed sympathy for Walerann's thwarted desire to enter the monastic life at Saint-Martin-des-Champs in Ep. 161—162 to bishop Geoffrey in 1093: ANSELMUS CANTUARIENSIS Opera, I V , p. 32—34. H e had been replaced as precentor by Adam (subsequendy canon o f S t Victor) in » 0 7 (no. 143, p. 163); this seems to be the Walerann who writes to Anselm ca. 1107 about diversity o f eucharistic practice (Opera, Π, p. 233—238), and to whom Anselm sends his Epistola de sacramentis ecclesiae (Π, p. 229—242) and De processione spiritus sancti contra Graecos ( V , p. 362—363).

12

De incamatione Verbi in ANSELMUS CANTUARJENSIS Opera, I, p. 285. O n the evolution o f this treatise, and its effect in polarizing attitudes between teachers, see M E W S 1991, 1998a.

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

81

(f. 35V—42v), all by the same author.1' This is followed by various theological questions about Christ and providence (f. 42V—45),14 two excerpts from Jerome (f. 45r—46V), a discussion of theological and logical questions perhaps from the mid twelfth century, edited by De Rijk as Quaestiones Victorinae (f. 47r—67V),15 and short theological texts (f. 68r—69r), including extracts from the Synod of Rome in 1078. 1 6 A different version of this manual, entitled "Introductiones dialecticae artis secundum magistrum G. paganellum" is preserved in a manuscript (El Escorial, e. I V . 24) from the second quarter or mid twelfth century, on spare leaves of a copy of Macrobius' In Somnium Scipionis. An initial discussion of "vox", "oratio", categorical and hypothetical propositions, and the rules of inference (f. 98V—io2r) follows Macrobius, while an introduction to Porphyry and a discussion of "media", all by the same author, are copied between two books of Macrobius (f. 52r—53r).'7 The name "Paganellus" is unusual, but it could have been another way of presenting William's cognomen 'de Campellis' (from the fields), if 'paganellus' is a variant of 'pagellus' or small 'pagus' (a patch of countryside). It probably refers not to the town of that name in Brie, but to a Parisian suburb close to Les Halles, and transferred in 1137 to the possession of the cathedral of Notre-Dame.' 8 The slightly more common spelling of William's name in the twelfth century is "Willelmus", although "Guillelmus" is used in Anglo-Norman manuscripts.'9

13

DE RJJK 1957, 2/1, p. 92 and 130—146, initially suggested that these Introductiones, were by William of Champeaux. GUILLELMUS CAMPILIENSIS Introductiones, p. 57—87 edits these texts as four sections of the Introductiones, from the Vienna M S (subsequendy referred to as GUILLELMUS CAMPILIENSIS Introductiones, W I—IV).

14

GUILLELMUS DE CAMPILIENSIS Introductiones, p. 8 4 - 8 7 .

15

Edited by DE RIJK 1957, 2 / 2 , p. 731—769 as work of the school of William of Champeaux, but argued by GUILLELMUS DE CAMPILIENSIS Introductiones, p. 47, to date from the mid twelfth century.

16

GUILLELMUS DE CAMPILIENSIS Introductiones, p. 4 6 , referring to MANSI 1 7 5 9 — 1 7 9 2 , 20, c. 5 0 3 C and 506AC.

17

These three texts are edited by GUILLELMUS DE CAMPILIENSIS Introductiones, p. 88—114, ^ d will be referred to as GUILLELMUS CAMPILIENSIS Introductiones, Ε I—ΠΙ.

18

Cartulaire general de Paris, I, p. 260: "in loco qui in suburbio Parisiensi Campellus appellator, ejusdem loci fossatum [ . . . ] " In Gallia Christiana IX, c. 877 (reprinted in P L 163, c. 1037), Champeaux is identified as a town in Brie. H e is referred to as "Wilhelmum Parisiensem" by WIBALDUS Epistolae, Ep. 147 ad Manegoldum, c. 1250D.

19

"Willelmus" is the form used by in our single copy of ABAELARDUS Super Tapica, p. 271, by Bernard of Clairvaux, and by John of Salisbury (n. 31 below); "magister W . " is referred to in the manuscripts BnF, lat. 13368 and Orleans, Bibliotheque municipale, 266; GEYER 1933, p. 595. "Willelmus" (only occasionally "Guillelmus") is used in the Clairvaux copy of the Liber pancrisis (Troyes, Bibliotheque municipale, 425), but "Guillelmus" is employed in Anglo-Norman copies

Constant J. Mews

82

These Introductions, one of the earliest manuals of dialectic from the twelfth century, are much more accessible for student use than the compendious commentaries of Boethius on the subject. In his Mttalogicon, itself a sophisticated introduction to the study of "logica" and its relationship to wisdom and faith, John of Salisbury praises such Introiuctiones as more helpful than the writings of the ancients, although he acknowledges a comment of Abelard (who himself composed certain Introductions parvuhrum early in his career) that while easier to understand, these manuals would never gain as much authority. 20 From the outset, W i l l i a m defines dialectic as distinguishing truth from falsehood through the study of "voces", as distinct from grammar, concerned with the correct use of case, tense, and person, and rhetoric, concerned with using "voces" in an embellished and sharp way.21 W h i l e he makes a passing comment that a "vox universalis" signifies a "res universalis" and that a species, like sensible, animated substance, is "a universal thing, diffused in all individual animals", he never refers to any debate about universals, and does not even mention the issue in the Escorial text. 22 Rather than focusing on individual "voces", he emphasizes how dialectic is concerned with their underlying function in formulating argument, as distinct from both grammar and rhetoric. In the Escorial version, he explains in more detail that dialectic concerns not the study of words, but the finding of the principles on which arguments are based, and the use of syllogisms or the judging of arguments, for the sake of distinguishing truth from falsehood. 2 ' W i l l i a m of Champeaux here follows the teaching of Boethius in the De differentiis topicis, itself based on Cicero's discussion of topics, that "logica" is the science of discourse ("ratio disserendi"), which in turn involves both the finding ("inventio") and the judgement ("iudicium") of arguments. 24 W i l l i a m holds that the common ground to "logica" is discussion of "voces", but studied in three different ways, namely to establish correct speech, as in grammar, to speak

of the same text, Avranches, Bibliotheque municipale, 19 and BL, Harley 3098, containing William's theological sentences (n. 128 below). On the tendency of the French to use " G . " for the German " V . " , see WIBALDUS 20

IOANNES SARESBERIENSIS

Epistolae, Ep. 147 ad Manegoldum, c. 1256D.

Metabgicon, m 4, p. 116. Abelard himself refers to Introiuctiones

wrote for the young in ABAELARDUS Diabetica,

that he

p. 174. 269. 329. 352. 482. Although De Rijk

identifies this lost text with the literal glosses edited by DAL PRA 1973, the passages to which Abelard alludes are about rules of inference, not dealt with in these glosses; see IWAKUMA 2003 a n d MARENBON 1 9 9 7 , p. 38 21

GUILLELMUS CAMPIUENSIS

Introiuctiones,

W I, 1, 1, p. 57: "Ars ista dialectica, quam Peripatetic!

loycen appellabant, propter discretionem veri et falsi inventa est." 22

GUILLELMUS CAMPIUENSIS

Introiuctiones,

23

GUILLELMUS CAMPIUENSIS

Introiuctiones, Ε I, 1, p.

24

For insightful translations and commentaries on these two key texts of Boethius see STUMP 1978

W

I, 2, 2, p. 58-59. 88.

and 1988. See also GREEN-PEDERSEN 1984, p. 163—174.

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

83

persuasively, as in rhetoric, and to distinguish truth from falsehood, as in dialectic.25 H e divides philosophy into three parts: "speculativa", concerned with the nature of things, "activa", concerned with the moral science of living well, and "dissertiva", concerned with rational discourse.26 This repeats a division of philosophy into "physica", "ethica" and "logica", attributed to Plato by Augustine and frequently invoked by Boethius as well as by Carolingian authors.27 In these Introdwtiones he gives little attention to predicables and categories, discussed in the Isagoge and Categories, but dwells much more on the rules of inference on which all argument is based. William admires Aristotle for laying down the rules of dialectic, but considers that these rules were implanted in human souls, before they descended into a physical body, a comment that gives valuable insight into his sense of the priority of the soul over the body. By contrast, Hugh recognizes that these rules were formulated long after humanity started to speak.28 Writing his Metalogicon in the late 1150s, John of Salisbury refers respectfully to Hugh of St. Victor, but he is much more aware of the significance of Aristotle's writings about argument, so much more prominent in intellectual debate since the time of Abelard. 29 Hugh had given only a very limited introduction to the arts of language, being more interested in using reading as a way into the spiritual life. While he treats of ethics in his Policraticus, John presents his Metalogicon as an introduction to the study of "logica", for which the study of grammar and rhetoric was as important as that of dialectic. H e may have formulated the title by analogy with "Metaphysica" (not translated into Latin until around 1160, but the title of which he would have known from Boethius) to explain that his work was a synthesis about "logica" and its place within philosophy. 50 Significandy, however, John invokes the memory of William of Champeaux when talking about the centrality o f topics to the study of dialectic: The matter of invention is involved in these [topics], which William of Champeaux, subsequendy bishop of Chälons-sur-Marne, of happy memory, defined even if imperfecdy as the science of finding the middle term, and thus of constructing an argument. When inherent

25

GUILLELMUS CAMPILIENSIS Introductions, W

26

GUILLELMUS CAMPILIENSIS Introdwtiones,

I Ü , 5, 1, p. 7 3 — 7 4 ; Ε Π, 5—6, p . n o .

27

AUGUSTINUS De civitate Dei, XI 25, p. 220; on a Carolingian classification of learning, see BISCHOFF

28

GUILLELMUS CAMPILIENSIS Introductions,

Ε I, 5, p. n o .

1958, and on the interaction of dialectic and grammar in this period, LAW 1997, p. 154—163. W

HI, 7 , 2, p . 7 4 — 7 5 ; cf. HUGO DE SANCTO VICTORE

Didascalicon (1939), 1 n, p. 21 2—5. 29

IOANNES SARESBERIENSIS Metalogicon, 15, p. 5 defending Hugh against the unjust criticisms of Cornificius, and rv 13, p. 151 on Hugh's definition of faith as "uoluntaria certitudo", implicidy preferred to Abelard's definition of faith as "aestimatio".

30

BOETHIUS In Periermeneias, 1 5, p. 74; π 5, p. 102. The earliest known copy of the Latin translation of the Metaphysica is preserved in Avranches, Bibliotheque municipale, 232, f. 2oir—225V, from Mont St-Michel. On the links between the translations in this manuscript, James of Venice and John of Salisbury, see MINIO-PALUELLO 1952, esp. p. 215—219.

Constant J. Mews

84

agreement is doubted, it is necessary to search for some "medium" through which extremes may be linked. I cannot easily identify any more subtle or efficacious speculation for this purpose. A "medium" is necessary where the force of the inference is involved in the terms.'1

John appreciates William's contribution to the study of topics, imperfect as it was, as about studying the common ground or "medium" between two terms in an argument. Finding the middle term in an argument is a specific illustration of this "medium", necessary to any particular argument. An inference like "if Socrates is not a man, Socrates is a man" is erroneous, because it is not based on a sound "medium". William even describes one particular type of "medium" as the "medium Gylduini", perhaps an allusion to the same Gilduin who officially founded the abbey of St. Victor.®2 The Escorial version of the Introductions is similarly concerned with establishing the topic on which a valid inference is based, of the kind, "If every man is an animal, every man is a substance."" It concludes with a long discussion of various kinds of "media", namely the "parvum medium" (based on the antecedent) and the "medium" based on parts, as well as on a predicate, and on a subject. In the Metalogicon, John emphasizes the importance of identifying these underlying principles as the basis for making and evaluating argument in "logica", the "ratio disserendi" that embraces both dialectic and rhetorica.54 While he is aware that there is much debate about universals, he places it within a broader understanding of "logica". He was not sympathetic to Abelard's analysis of universals as "sermones", rather than as words that describe real things: "They are my friends, although they so twist the captive letter, that the hardest mind is filled with compassion for it. They say that it is monstrous to predicate a thing of a thing, and although Aristotle is the author of this monstrosity and often asserts that a thing is predicated of a thing."" He expresses his amazement that Abelard taught that in hypothetical syllogisms, only those could be accepted in which the consequent was contained within the antecedent.'6 John is likely to have acquired this distrust of Abelard's teaching on universals, as well as his admiration for William of 31

m 9, p. 129 43—46: "Versatur in his inuentionis materia,

IOANNES SARESBERIENSIS Metalogicon,

quam hilaris memoriae Willelmus de Campeliis postmodum Catalanensis episcopus definiuit, et si non perfecte, esse scientiam reperiendi medium terminum, et inde eliciendi argumentum. Cum enim de inhaerentia dubitatur, necessarium est aliquod inquiri medium, cuius interuentu copulentur extreme. Qua speculatione an aliqua subtilior uel ad rem efficacior fuerit, non facile dixerim." M y translation differs slighdy from that of Daniel D. McGarry, see IOANNES SARESBERIENSIS Metakgicon

(engl.), p. 187, in which "medium" is translated as "middle term". See

GUILLELMUS CAMPILIENSIS Introductions,

Ε ΙΠ, p. 112-114.

GUILLELMUS CAMPILIENSIS Introductions,

W I, i, 7, p. 79; see D E RIJK 1967, 2/1, p. 144—145.

33

GUILLELMUS CAMPILIENSIS Introductions,

Ε I, 7, 1, p. 96.

34

IOANNES SARESBERIENSIS Metalogicon,

π 1—3, p. 56-60.

35

IOANNES SARESBERIENSIS Metalogicon,

π ίο, p. 81.

36

IOANNES SARESBERIENSIS Metalogicon,

m 6, p. 122 24.

32

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

»5

Champeaux, from his studies under Alberic of Paris, "that fierce critic of the nominalist sect" and brilliant analytical mind, of whom John speaks with great respect.'7 John emphasizes in his Metalogicon that "logica" embraces all the arts of language. While aware of Abelard's teaching that the topic underpinning any argument was not an actual thing, John believes that William of Champeaux was fundamentally more sound on the issue of examining an argument. In the first part of the Dialectica, written perhaps between 1112 and 1117, Peter Abelard frequently

criticizes the opinions of "magister noster" or "magister noster V . " (once

referred to as "magister noster W . " ) , in all cases opinions held by William of Champeaux.' 8 In the long third section of the Dialectica, devoted to topics, Abelard moves away from explicit criticism of "our teacher", but avoids all reference to understanding the topics in terms of a generalized "medium". Instead, he speaks only o f the "middle term" as that which is common to the two end points of an inference." H e sees the force of any legitimate inference as based only on the terms of that inference, not any external state of affairs. This is consistent with his broader opposition to William's notion that a proposition signifies some external thing ("res"). Abelard insists that in an inference, the truth of a consequent is guaranteed, not by any external state of affairs, but uniquely by the antecedent·4" Abelard's argument about the truth of a consequent being contained uniquely in the antecedent, rather than in some underlying principle, struck John of Salisbury as quite absurd. 4 ' Rather than speak about "media", Abelard concentrates on the maxim or maximal proposition underpinning an argument, without identifying it as a thing. In the Dialectica, however, he still echoes William's teaching that a maximal proposition carries within it all the different senses to which it applies. Only in his commentary on the De differentiis topicis (the super Topica gkssae, part of the Logica 'Lngredietttibus', written around iizo or later) does Abelard move further away from William in arguing that a maximal proposition contains no inherent meaning, other than what is implied by the terms o f the

37

On John's studies under Alberic (not to be confused with Alberic of Rheims), see IOANNES

38

In his edition of ABAELARDUS Dialectica, p. xx-xxi, De Rijk suggested that the "magister noster

SARESBERIENSIS Metalogicon, π ίο, p. 7110—12. V . " (as distinct from "magister noster") was Ulger (bishop of Angers 1125—1148), a view questioned by FREDBORG 1977, p. 34 n. 7 7 and most unlikely from a chronological viewpoint (although Ulger, whom Abelard does criticize elsewhere, could have been a disciple of W i l liam). The reference to " V . " could refer to " W i l l e l m u s " , whose name is spelled both in the German and French forms (n. 19 above); see the references I give in MEWS 1985, p. 84—85; see also IWAKUMA 1999b, p. 103—113, and IWAKUMA 2003. 39

ABAELARDUS Dialectica, p. 516—517.

40

ABAELARDUS Dialectica, p. 285.

41

IOANNES SARESBERIENSIS Metalogicon, m 6, p. 122 124. On the originality of Abelard's perspective, see MARTIN 1 9 8 7 .

86

Constant J. Mews

arguments to which it is applied. 42 H e emphasizes that maxims are not general statements about things, but abstract principles applied variously in different situations. 4 ' Abelard's originality is to apply a vocalist critique of the meaning of universal words to William's understanding of the topics that underpin argument. 44 In commenting on the De differentiis topicis, Abelard sketched out the ideas for a forthcoming Rhetorica, a treatise that we do not know if he ever completed. Although he had ambitions to create a series of treatises, Diakctica, Grammatica and Rhetorica, he would always be remembered primarily for his achievement in dialectic.45 William's reputation as a theorist of topics is also acknowledged in frequent references to his teaching in a set of glosses on the De differentiis topicis preserved within Orleans, Bibliotheque municipale, 266. This manuscript records and often favours the arguments of Goscelin, a former student of William, who taught in Paris, perhaps at Notre-Dame during the years 1109—1113, becoming archdeacon of Soissons in 1115, and eventually its bishop (1126—1151).46 T h e Orleans manuscript records that master W . taught that an argument was a thing ("res") mediating between terms. Thus, in an inference like "if Socrates is a man, Socrates is an animal", the argument is "man", as this is the "medium" or middle thing between "Socrates" and "animal". 47 This is justified by Cicero's definition, as reported by Boethius, that an argument was "medietatis inventum". 48 William is described as understanding a topic ("locus") to be a thing, in so far as it describes a general relationship between genus and species, generating the senses of all the arguments to which it is applied. 49 William's concern is not to apply a theory of universale to topics. Rather, he understands argument as being about things ("res"). Abelard's critique of William's theory of argument reflected his own interest in the way universal words did not signify "res", but were predicated of individual entities. William based his

42

ABAELARDUS Diakctica, p. 317 37—318 1. GREEN-PEDERSEN 1984, p. 166—167, 170; but ABAELARDUS Super topica, p. 231 26—232 40.

43

ABAELARDUS Super topica, P. 234 234.

44

GUILLELMUS CAMPILIENSIS Introductiones, W I V , 1, 5, p. 78, part of a larger discussion of "media" in W I V , p. 75—80. GUILLELMUS CAMPILIENSIS Introductiones, Ε ΠΙ, p. 112—114, includes a comparable discussion.

45

For a new edition of the section of Abelard's super Tbpica dealing with rhetoric, see FREDBORG

46

GREEN-PEDERSEN 1974, summarized in GREEN-PEDERSEN 1984, p. 165—167. The detail that W i l -

2003, with discussion of Abelard's interest in argument in MEWS 2003b. liam was Goscelin's teacher is mentioned in Fragment 12, GREEN-PEDERSEN 1974, p. 23. W i l liam's teaching is mentioned in Supplementa (B 6, p. 194b—204b), Quontam (B 7, p. 205a—229b) and Boethium esse (B 8, p. 230a—235b). These identifying codes refer to a list of commentaries established in GREEN-PEDERSEN 1977, p. 127—128 and again in GREEN-PEDERSEN 1984. See also KNEEPKENS 1993.

47

GREEN-PEDERSEN 1974, p. 1 6 - 1 7 .

48

BOETHIUS In topica, c. 1051A.

49

GREEN-PEDERSEN 1 9 7 4 , p. 28.

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

87

understanding of dialectic as essentially concerned with topics on the teaching of Cicero, as interpreted by Boethius in his De differentiis topicis and his In Topica Ciceronis. Following their semantic terminology, William holds that just as words signify a "res" or a reality outside o f language, so the principle underpinning any valid argument has a reality that cannot be denied. Fuller understanding of William's contribution to the study of rhetoric must wait for a complete edition of In primis and Etst cum Tullius, as well as of that of Manegold on the De inventione.

WILLIAM'S GLOSSES ON PORPHYRY AND ARISTOTLE

Besides commenting on the De differentiis topicis of Boethius, William also delivered a series o f glosses on Porphyry's Isagoge and Aristotle's Categories and Periermeneias, identified by Iwakuma. 5 " While none of these glosses carry an explicit attribution to William of Champeaux, Iwakuma observes that not only do they transmit the same central arguments as the Introductiones iialecticae, but they also match arguments attributed to "our teacher" by Abelard in his Dialectica. Iwakuma also observes that the introductions to these glosses all employ a common framework, in identifying the "intentio", "materia", "utilitas" and "cui parti philosophiae" (or "logicae") "supponatur" to any text. Abelard's prologues begin with a similar group of four sections, except that he discusses the "finis" or "finalis causa" rather than the "utilitas" of a text.5' T h e number of surviving manuscripts of these glosses, some of which survive in multiple recensions, testifies to the extent of William's influence in the twelfth century. Working from the researches of Iwakuma, John Marenbon has assembled the following list of glosses that may be influenced by William, using numbers referring to his own list of commentaries on Porphyry [P], the Categories [C] and the Periermeneias [H]: Ρ 2 9 ( E s c o r i a l , e. I V . 2 4 , f . 5 2 r - v = WILLIAM Introductiones, Ε II, p . 1 0 8 — 1 2 )

Ρ }

(Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud. lat. 6 7 , f. 9V—14V; revised versions in BnF, lat. 13368, f. 2i4r—223r, attributed to Rabanus; Assisi, Biblioteca Conv. Franc., 573, f. 4 r - i 5 v )

Ρ 1 4 ( B n F , lat. 17813, f . i r - i 6 v )

50

See IWAKUMA 1999b, and the summary of his research given by MARENBON 1993 and with a supplementary catalogue in MARENBON 2000, p. 128—140. These glosses survive in more than one recension: on Porphyry ( P 3), on the Categories ( C 8), on the Periermeneias ( H 11) and the De iifferentiis topicis ( B 8).

51

IWAKUMA 1999b, p. 101. See HUNT 1948, p. 96, reprinted in HUNT 1980, p. 128. For a general survey o f these introductions, see IWAKUMA 1999a and his forthcoming paper "Prologues o f Commentaries on the Logica vetus Literature in the 12th Century". O n Bernard o f Utrecht, see n. 92 below.

Constant J. Mews

88

C 8 (shorter version: München, CIm 14458, f. g^r—iozt; BL, Royal 7. D . x x v , f. 55ra— 62vb; longer version: BnF, lat. 13368, f. i95ra—2i4vb; Vatican, B A V , Reg. lat. 230, f. 4 i r - 7 i r ) Η ii (BnF, lat. to Η

9

13368,

f. 225rb—23ivb; Vatican, B A V , Reg. lat.

Orleans, Bibliotheque municipale,

266,

p.

f. 72ra—79vb; very close

230,

5—43;

Assisi, Biblioteca Conv.

F r a n c . , 573, f . 4 8 r — 6 7 V )

It is uncertain whether all the revisions within individual glosses, such as that on Porphyry (P 3, attributed to "Rabanus") are also by William of Champeaux. T h e gloss Ρ 3 incorporates significant additional passages, including one acknowledging, without any tone of hostility, that there are those who interpret them as words ("voces") and refuse to admit that a thing ("res") could ever be predicated of a subject. These additional passages effectively modify William's original teaching by declaring that genus and species are "voces", but explain that they can be used in designation of things.52 This addition may be the work of a disciple of William, more familiar with the teaching of the Glosule that words designate things. We know from Orleans

266,

as well as BnF, lat.

13368,

that Goscelin did

not always agree with every opinion of his teacher." These manuscripts also contains Goscelin's De generibus et speciehus, in which he contests the opinions of his teacher William, but formulates the view that a universal is a "res", based on a collection of individuals. T h e notion espoused in these additional passages in Ρ 3 that genus and species are words used to designate things reflects awareness of a distinctive position advocated in the Glosule on Priscian, that nouns nominate or designate specific things, but signify their quality. Universals are things, which are not different, rather than essentially the same.54 In the original version of his glosses, William does not present a particularly sophisticated definition of universals, beyond suggesting that a species is the material essence shared by different individuals, distinguished by accidents, the position that Abelard forced him to revise around

1109.55

When he wrote the Introiuctiones, William had not absorbed the

teaching of the Glosule. More research is needed to explore how he may have become familiar with its teaching, and perhaps participated in or supported a project to extend its ideas in a way that was similar to his own. It could be that both Goscelin and Abelard played a role in urging William to greater awareness of categories like genus and species as "voces". While both Goscelin and Abelard were urging such an awareness of philosophical categories as "voces", Goscelin was not as radical as Abelard in his criticisms of the

52

IWAKUMA 1992, p.

53

Ρ

44.

3 was originally dated by

I W A K U M A 1992, p. 42, to 1 0 6 0 s / 1070s. I W A K U M A 2004 suggests that the version in BnF, lat. 13368 may be a revision of William's gloss by Goscelin; Iwakuma notes that C 8 is very closely to C 14 (Assisi, Biblioteca Conv. Franc. 573, f. 15V—48); see M A R E N B O N

2000, p. 131. 54

GEYER

55

On philosophical links between St. Anselm and William of Champeaux, see

1933, p.

595. IWAKUMA

1996.

89

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

terminology o f Boethius about "res". T h e label " R a b a n u s " , whether it refers to William or this disciple, creates the image o f an all rounded master, re-asserting the voice o f tradition. By contrast, the same manuscript contains other glosses explicidy attributed to "Peter Abelard, the younger peripatetic o f L e Pallet."' 6 T h e difference in rubrics captures well the tension between tradition and modernity in the study o f dialectic. Abelard reproduces a similar accessus to William in his earliest glosses, except that he speaks o f the "finis" rather than the "utilitas" o f each text. 57 Above all, Abelard emphasizes that the predicables o f which Porphyry speaks are words ( " v o c e s " ) rather than things.

MANEGOLD AND WILLIAM OF CHAMPEAUX ON CICERO'S De

invention

William was renowned as a theorist of rhetoric as much as o f dialectic. In 1976, Fredborg argued f o r William's authorship o f two commentaries on Cicero's De inventione ( " I n prim i s " ) and the Rhetorica ad Herennium ( " E t s i cum Tullius") first studied by M a r y Dickey, preserved in at least six manuscripts, including f r o m the twelfth century York, Minster, X V I . M . 7, f. ι—51A and f. 51Λ—6gvb ( f r o m the Augustinian abbey o f S t Mary-in-theFields, Leicester, founded in 1143), Durham, Dean and Chapter Library C . I V . 7, f. ira— 5irb, and Vatican, B A V , Borgh. lat. 57, f. $6r—93V.58 W h i l e these glosses are mostly anonymous, they seem to be attributed to "Willelmus" in a fourteenth-century manuscript (Brugge, Stadsbibliotheek, 553, f. ira— 39ra), f r o m the Cistercian monastery o f Dunes.® 9 A n extensive summary, the so-called materia Htllii, o f these commentaries In primis and Etsi cum

56

The manuscript is described by GEYER 1933, p. 592—597; see the literal glosses, ABAELARDUS Editions, p. 3—203 (P 5, C 5, Η 4, D 7). IWAKUMA 1999b, p. 94, identifies a number of other manuscripts containing versions of these literal glosses, information summarized by MARENBON 2000, p. 129. Glosses once attributed to Roscelin (P 7, in Munich, elm 14779, f. 31—36V; ed. IWAKUMA 1992, p. 74—102), as also Η 5 on f. 44R—66r of the same manuscript, are now attributed to Abelard by IWAKUMA 1999b and MARENBON 2000, p. 131. IWAKUMA 1999b, p. 94—101, similarly attributes to Abelard unpublished glosses on the De differentiis topicis and De syllogismo hypothetic (Β 1 and S H 2) in Munich, elm 14779, f. 87r—105V and 67V—86v and on the De divisione ( D 6), De differentiis topicis (B 7a) and De syllogismo categorico ( S C 4 ) in BnF, lat. 7094A, f. 83rb—92«, 92rb—95va, and 82ra—83rb.

57

IWAKUMA 1999b, p. 94.

58

DICKEY 1968 and FREDBORG 1976. There also survive two fifteenth-century copies in Alba Julia, Π.77 and Vienna, O N B , cvp 3147, f. i76vb—25ova. The York M S X V I . M . 7 matches another York M S , X V I . M . 6 , containing the De inventione, Ad Herennium and fourth book of the De differentiis topicis, as noted by WARD 1995, p. 230—232.1 am indebted to John O. Ward and Juanita Ruys for being allowed to consult their draft edition of In primis, in preparation for Corpus Christianorum.

59

FREDBORG 1976, p. 2. O n Ward's discovery of this manuscript in 1972, see WARD 1995, p. 231 n. 75, the attribution to William is apparently preserved only on the binding of the manuscript.

Constant}. Mews

9°

Htllius is attributed to a master G . in another twelfth-century manuscript (Durham, C. I V . 29, f. i96ra—2i5va) that also contains extensive glosses on Priscian, also giving particular authority to the opinions of this master G. 6 " On the basis of the evident close links between the commentary attributed to Willelmus in the Brugge manuscript and the teachings attributed to G. in the Notae Dunelmenses as well as to the views of William of Champeaux as reported by Abelard, she argues that William is the author of commentaries on the De inventione and AdHerennium, and that his ideas were a potent influence on Abelard. 6 ' Without pronouncing firmly on the authorship of In primts and Etsi cum Tullitts to William, Ward observed that these commentaries play an important role in the evolution of rhetorical theory in the twelfth century, in being characterized by a close nexus between dialectic and rhetoric. H e translates and comments on a thoughtful discussion attributed to master G. about the great differences between the De inventione, concerned with the finding of arguments, and the more practically useful Ad Herennium!'1 One of the distinctive issues discussed in an epilogue to the Ad Herennium gloss is the contrast between Boethius's understanding of the "materia" of an orator as any business, and Cicero's understanding of this "materia" as something which is unformed. T h e author of Materia Tullii recognizes that master G. follows the view of Cicero, in holding that the subject matter of oratory is in itself shapeless, until shaped according to specific ends (justice, honesty or utility), and according to whether it concerns a cause, a question or a constitution. 6 ' Something of the specific originality of the In primis commentary can be seen by comparison to the commentary on the De inventione by master Manegold, by whom this master G . is clearly influenced. In the York manuscript, In primis opens with an initial prologue taken from this commentary, attributed here to "master Menegaldus" and preserved in several manuscripts of the late eleventh or early twelfth century, all from the Rhineland region.64 This Manegold has a detailed knowledge of the technical vocabulary of Cicero, but, unlike the In primis author, he makes no effort to relate rhetoric to "logica".

60

DICKEY 1968, p. 5—6 described D u r h a m C . I V . 29 as essentially very similar to that found in York X V I . M . 7 ,

with occasional variation, FREDBORG 1976, p. 6—12, shows that

Durham

C . I V . 29 (Materia lulit) contains a close summary o f the argument o f In primis with additions, and frequent allusions "secundum M . G . " 61

FREDBORG 2003.

62

WARD 1995, p. 108, 1 4 7 — 1 4 8 (with translation o f Durham, C . I V . 29, f. 2oivb).

63

FREDBORG 1976, p. 6—9, with fuller edition o f the prologue on p. 35—39.

64

T h e M a n e g o l d commentary is preserved in Köln, Diözesan- u n d Dombibliothek 197 (incomplete, but accessible online at http://www.ceec.uni-koeln.de), Trier, Bistumsarchiv 18, and Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, 100; WARD 1995, p. 223. J o h n O . W a r d provides an invaluable list o f these Catena glosses on the De inventione and Rhetorica ad Herennium as an appendix to his " T h e Medieval and Early Renaissance S t u d y o f Cicero's De inventione and the Rhetorica ad Herennium", in The Rhetoric of Cicero in its Medieval Commentary Tradition, edited by VIRGINIA C o x and JOHN O . WARD, Leiden (forthcoming).

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

91

Instead, Manegold begins his commentary by distinguishing between a "rhetor" (who knows the rules of rhetoric), an "orator" (who is skilled in speaking), and a "sophista" (who introduces his students to cunning and sometimes false arguments). H e distinguishes rhetoric from both grammar and dialectic, but does not identify a concern with "voces" as the common ground to these three disciplines except in a general sense as a branch of eloquence. There seems little reason to doubt that its author is Manegold of Lautenbach (d. 1113— 1122), a famous secular master who became an Augustinian canon at Marbach in 1090, described as "master of modern masters" and a prolific commentator on Scripture by Wolfger of Prüfening.' 5 Manegold of Lautenbach draws on a wide knowledge of classical as well as patristic writers in his Liber ad Gebehardum, an eloquent defence of the need for radical reform in the Church, and his Liber contra Wolfelmum about misusing Macrobius' commentary on Cicero's Dream of Scipio as evidence of Christian doctrine.66 Study of M a negold's rhetorical commentary might well illuminate his interest in exploring rhetorical strategies within Scripture, also a concern of Anselm of Laon. T h e growth of interest in Scriptural commentary in this period was stimulated by attention to the arts of language. Where Manegold taught is not known for certain. Otto of Freising simply says that he taught "in the far West, that is Gaul and Spain", like Berengar and Anselm of Laon.' 7 Given that Ivo of Chartres sends him a warm personal letter in 1094, and that Baudri of 65

WOLFGERUS De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, 105, c. 981D—982A; see the testimonies translated and annotated by MANEGOLDUS Contra Wolfelmum (engl.), p. 112.119.131. There has been debate about all these texts are about the same Manegold. For an invaluable survey of all the surviving testimony, including translation of all known references to him, and a rich bibliographical essay, see MANEGOLDUS Contra Wolfelmum (engl.), p. 93—103, who notes (p. 97) that Manegold has also been identified as author of commentaries on Ovid (Munich, elm 4610) and Horace (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, M S 327); see VILLA 1996. The suggestion that Manegold composed the commentary on Priscian's Institutiones Grammaticae in Durham, Cathedral Library, M S C. I V . 29, based on a misreading of the initials M . G., is clearly erroneous. The commentary on the Psalter attributed to Manegold by Wolfger has often be identified with one erroneously attributed to Bede (PL 93, 477—1098). HARTMANN 1972, p. 319—327 suggests that it might rather be the commentary falsely attributed to Haimo, but printed from a manuscript of Marbach (PL 116, 193-696).

66

He sometimes rejects classical learning in a way that demonstrates his enthusiasm for Roman history, as in MANEGOLDUS Ad Gebehardum, Pref., p. 313: "In quo denique non Aristotelicorum sophismatum acumen, non Tullianae eloquencie prestolamur disertitudinem, sed, ut verbis utar non tarn poetae fabulosi quam veracis hystorici, 'tu satis ad vires Romano in prelio' [Lucan, Pharsalia, I 66] solus [ . . . ] " He cites ancient Romans throwing off the yoke of kingship to reject the authority of Henry rv (Ad Gebehardum, 30, p. 365), even quoting Tertullian, a rarely cited author, but known at Hirsau, when comparing the Emperor to Nero (Ad Gebehardum, 43, p. 385).

67

OTTO Chronica, 5, p. 227; MANEGOLDUS Contra Wolfelmum (engl.), p. 126. There is no particular foundation to the claim that Manegold taught in Paris, a speculation based on the assumption

Constant J. Mews

92

Bourgueil reports that Manegold taught Gerard of Loudon, before Gerard came to Angers, it is not impossible that he taught for a time either at Rheims, where Bruno of Cologne taught between 1056 and 1080, or Laon, increasingly important as an educational centre after 1080.68 Masters in the late eleventh century were astonishingly mobile, as the career of Odo of Orleans (who went from Orleans to Toul in the Lorraine before moving to Toumai in 1090/91) attests.6' Manegold and William of Champeaux moved in a similar network promoting education and reform of clerical life. While Wolfger perceived them both as "modern masters", William had a greater interest in dialectic, as well as in applying dialectic to theology. Through Bruno, there were strong links between Rheims and the Rhineland. The strength of rhetorical teaching at Rheims in the period 1080—1107, is also shown by the commentary on the Ad Herenttium of Odalric of Rheims, a protagonist in factional conflicts within the city.70 Manegold was known to Ivo of Chartres, who congratulates him in 1094/95 on giving up his wanderings as a teacher of philosophy and of becoming a regular canon. As founding provost of the community of regular canons at Saint-Quentin, Ivo (d. 1115) was himself profoundly involved in the movement to encourage educational reform among the clergy, inspired by archbishop Gervase of Rheims. 7 ' After the political crisis of 1080 led to the departure of many reform minded clerics, there developed a growing polarization between teachers sympathetic to classical studies, and those who emphasized religious reform. After 1080, the growing influence of Anselm of Laon helped displace Rheims as a centre for the study of Scripture, although that city maintained its eminence in the study of classical literature through the teaching of Godfrey and Odalric, at least until the death of Manasses π in 1107.

that he taught William of Champeaux in person. On Manegold's role in introducing Marbach to the Hirsau reform movement, as well as important scholastic manuscripts at Marbach, see GRIFFITHS 2003. 68

On the importance of Rheims as a centre for the study of antique authors, including Cicero, in the eleventh century, following the important presence there of Gerbert of Aurillac, in the late tenth century, see WILLIAMS 1954. Baudri of Bourgueil was a friend of Godfrey of Rheims. Roscelin of Compiegne says that he was educated at Rheims, where he may have come under the influence of Bruno of Cologne (whose commentary on the Psalter he extends); see MEWS 2002b and on Bruno's great reputation, CONSTABLE 2003.

69

HERIMANNUS TORNACENSIS Liber, p. 2 7 4 .

70

Trier, Stadtbibliothek 1082; WARD 1995, p. 219—223 comments on length on valuable allusions within this commentary of Odalric, teaching in Rheims during the episcopate of Manasses π (io8o—1106), and successor to Godfrey of Rheims.

71

Ivo CARNOTENSIS Epistohe, 38, p. 156—158; trans. MANEGOLDUS Contra Wolfelmum (engl.), p. 112-113. Ziomkowski also translated other texts relating to Manegold, including (p. 129—130) the report by Richard of Poitiers, that he was married and had daughters, celebrated for their Scriptural

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

93

T h e In primis author acknowledges views of master Anselm on Cicero's De invention, valuable evidence that Anselm of Laon lectured on rhetoric as much as on Scripture. H e tends to prefer, however, the interpretations of Manegold. 72 In a discussion of deliberative rhetoric, he comments that master Anselm considered it was used "everywhere", but that Manegold was more precise in locating it within the judicial context of the forum or the senate.7' H e similarly contrasts Manegold's more specific understanding of what constitutes something credible, with the vaguer account o f Anselm. 74 This slightly critical tone towards Anselm suggests that while familiar with Laon, this author saw himself as supplanting his former teacher, perhaps in another city.75 William makes several allusions to the city o f Laon, notably that it was not in itself wrong for canons to provide lodging for students, and to the day needed for travelling between Laon and Paris, and a curious remark about possessing musical instruments being considered courtly behaviour in France, but liable to provoke criticism in Angers. 76 H e makes a number of caustic comments about simoniacal bishops, like the archbishop of Tours (accused of this crime 1076/ 82) and refers approvingly to edicts against simony of Pope Urban π (1088—1099), precious evidence that it cannot have been composed before the canons o f Melfi in 1089. Even more revealing is his remark: " O r by imitation, as he imitates master Roscelin in speaking [ . . . ] or by depravity, just as Roscelin has depraved dialectic, so he has depraved our laws." 77 This suggests that at least the Ad Herennium commentary was composed in the learning. On the role of Gervase of Rheims in promoting collegiate churches, following the Rule of Augustine, see MEWS 1996, p. 112. 72

DICKEY 1968, p. 14—15.

73

York, Minster, X V I . M . 7 , f. 6v: " H e cause, secundum Magistrum Anselmum, indiscrete ubique aguntur, sed Magister Menegaldus certa et propria loca singulis causis attribuit: in foro enim aguntur iudicialia placita ante iudices; in senatu deliberatiue cause ubi deliberabant an mitteretur exercitus Rome apud Parthos, an non, et similia."

74

York, Minster, X V I . M . 7 , f. 2ova: "Secundum Magistrum Menegaldum, credibile continet attributa persone; signum continentia cum ipso negotio et que sunt in gestione negotii; comparabile adiuncta; iudicatum consequentia. Sed Magister Anselmus nullam discrecionem facit sed iuxta exempla considerare modum probabilitatis."

75

On these allusions to a day's travel in the journey from Laon to Paris (York, Minster, X V I . M . 7 , f. 1 4 « ) , and to studying Priscian and rhetoric for a whole year at Laon (f. i8ra), as well as the contrast between allusions to Anselm and Manegold, see DICKEY 1968, p. 13—15.

76

DICKEY 1968, p. 13; the allusion to Angevins could be connected to the known friendship between William of Champeaux and Hildebert of Lavardin, who wrote to him in 1109 to congratulate him on turning to the life of a canon regular, HILDEBERTUS Epistolae, Ep. 1 1 ad Willelmum, c. 141—143. If Gerard of Loudon came to Angers from the school of Manegold, then there might be a reason for William to have contact with Angers; Ulger, scholasticus and later bishop of Angers, might have been another disciple of William.

77

DICKEY 1968, p. 16 and 18, quoting the York, Minster, X V I . M . 7 , f. 1 9 Λ and in the Ad Herennium gloss, f. 5 2 A .

Constant J. Mews

94

wake o f the Council of Soissons, c. 1090/92, and the diffusion o f St. Anselm's assault on Roscelin in the De incamatione Verbid T h e contrast between the approaches of Manegold and the In primis author, helps confirm Fredborg's hypothesis that he is William o f Champeaux. T h e second prologue is more systematic in identifying the "materia" and "intentio" o f the De inventione, as well as the relationship o f rhetoric to "logica" as a whole. 79 T h i s technique o f identifying a text's "materia" and its relationship to philosophy, has already been noted in relation to the glosses o f Porphyry, Aristotle, and Boethius that Iwakuma attributes to William. Whereas Manegold contrasts rhetoric to grammar and dialectic, In primis combines rhetorical and dialectical analysis in a way that becomes standard in introductions both to secular and Scriptural texts in the period 1080—1120, and is first evident in the anonymous Ghsuk on Priscian. It explains the common ground between these three disciplines in the same way as William of Champeaux. Employing more philosophical vocabulary than Manegold, In primis identifies the "materia" of the De inventione as the six parts o f speech ('exordium', narrationem', etc.) and its intention as to give instruction to an "orator", and relates rhetoric to "logica", in exactly the same way as William relates dialectic to "logica" in his glosses on Porphyry and Aristotle. W h i l e Manegold distinguishes between rhetoric as dealing with the particular, and dialectic as dealing with the general, he does not take the specific step o f relating rhetoric to "logica". 8 " In primis repeats the message o f William o f Champeaux that the grammarian, dialectician and rhetor all concern themselves with "oratio", but in different ways — the grammarian with correct construction, the dialectician with distinguishing truth f r o m falsehood, the rhetor with the art o f persuasion, precisely the message o f the Introductiones. In his glosses on the topics, Abelard explicidy criticizes William o f Champeaux "and his f o l lowers" f o r arguing that a proposition could have two meanings, one grammatical, the other dialectical. 8 ' William's own writings explain that he was really teaching that grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric all looked at "oratio" but in different ways. Abelard considered this distinction between grammatical and dialectical senses too cut and dried.

78

On the Council of Soissons, see MEWS 1996. DICKEY 1968, p. 15 also reads one sentence (f. 2ovb) as an allusion to Abelard, and thus dates In primis to 1118: " N o l i iacere cum monialibus quia ex huiusmodi negotio evenit hoc nuper quod quidam testes amisit." This does not easily apply to Heloise, not a nun at the time, as noted by FREDBORG 1976, p. 4.

79 80

DICKEY 1968, p. 4 (although without observing the issue o f "logica"). Köln, Diözesan- und Dombibliothek, 197, f. 9, f. 39V; passages quoted by Mary Dickey in her unpublished B.Litt. dissertation, Tbe study of rhetoric in the first half of the twelfth century with special rtference to the Cathedral schools of northern France, Oxford 1953, esp. p. 154—155 (a copy kindly lent me by John Ward). See FREDBORG 1976, p. 31—32.

81

ABAELARDUS

Super Topica, p. 271—272.

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

95

In primis is more nuanced than the Introductiones o f William in explaining that "logica" is "sermocinalis" in embracing grammar, but "dissertiva" in embracing dialectic and rhetoric. 82 T h i s is identical to what is explained in the prologue to the Glosule on Priscian, first diffused in northern France by the late eleventh century.8® It is a definition that is repeated in the early 1120s by H u g h o f St. Victor. 8 4 Whereas in the Introductiones, William makes no clear differentiation between the three disciplines, In primis explains that "logica" strictly embraces just dialectic and rhetoric, but broadly it also includes grammar. 85 T h e same distinction, much closer to the Glosule prologue, occurs in additions to William's original gloss, preserved in the Pseudo-Rabanus gloss on Porphyry ( P 3).86 T h e second prologue o f

82

FREDBORG 1976, p. 22—28.

85

For an edition of the prologue to the Glosule on Priscian, see GIBSON 1979, especially p. 249—250, and for further discussion see MEWS 1992, p. 14; on its division o f philosophy, as also that of Hugh o f St. Victor (although not that given in William's Introductiones), see IWAKUMA 1999a.

84

HUGO DE SANCTO VICTORE Didascalicon (1939), 1 n, p. 21 2—5. While there is no evidence that Hugh was direcdy familiar with the Glosule on Priscian, H u g h could have indirecdy absorbed its distinction between "sermocinalis" and "dissertiva" from a commentary like In primis or even through Goscelin, whose observations, influenced by Boethius' Super Hpica Ciceronis (and I suspect the Glosule) are preserved in unpublished glosses on Boethius (Orleans, Bibliotheque municipale, 266, p. 149b, 171b, 230a—231b), studied by IWAKUMA 1999a, p. 179—180.

85

York, Minster, X V I . M . 7 , f. ivb—2ra: "Gramaticus et dialeticus et rethor in materia eadem uersantur, scilicet in oratione, sed in modo tractandi differunt. Gramaticus enim querit seriem recte constructionis formare, non ueritatem uel falsitatem discemere, neque ornatum uerborum docere. Dialeticus uero solam ueritatem et falsitatem in orationibus inuestigat. Rethor uero docet quomodo aliquis mentes audientium in oratione sua pulchris ornatibus uerborum et sentenciarum possit captare et allicere. Ecce quomodo de oratione agit, intendit autem, ut superius dictum est, oratorem in publicis et priuatis causis eloquentem reddere. N o t a idem esse intencionem et finalem causam. Hec autem scientia supponitur logice. Logica alia sermocinalis ut gramatica, alia disertiua ut dialetica et rethorica. Rethorica uero diuiditur in V partes, id est, scientias: inuentionem, que hie large accepta continet et iudicium, et in dispositionem et in pronunciationem et memoriam et elocutionem. [De invmtione, I vn, 9] Sed queritur, cum rethorica dicatur habere V partes, quare Tullius in Topicis inquit: 'Omnis diligens ratio disserendi distribuitur in Π partes: in scientiam inueniendi et scientiam iudicandi.' [Tapica, Π 6] Que sic soluitur: logica strictim aliquando accipitur, aliquando large. Quando strictim, habet hanc diffinitionem: 'diligens ratio disserendi', et tunc continet dialeticam et rethorice partem illam que uocatur inuentio, large accep[t]a, scilicet ut et iudicium contineat. Strictim uero (f. 2ra) accepta, diuiditur tamen in Π partes, id est inuentionem et iudicium. In hoc quod dicitur "ratio disserendi", continet inuentionem; in hoc quod "diligens", iudicium. Large uero accepta, continet gramaticam, dialeticam et totam rethoricam que diuiditur in V partes."

86

IWAKUMA 1999a, p. 173—174. H e also notes that exacdy the same definition o f the two sense o f "logica" is given in an interpolation, not early than the twelfth century, in PSEUDO-BEDA De mundi constitutione, c. 908B; see also MEWS 1993, p. 90.

Constant J. Mews

96

In primis also matches the prologue to the Glosule on Priscian in its concern to identify the "materia", "intentio" or "finalis causa" to the Grammatical Institutes, as well as the glosses on Porphyry and Aristotle, that Iwakuma has attributed to William o f Champeaux. These lead us to support Fredborg's argument that the attribution to "Willelmus" in the Brugge manuscript is correct and that William of Champeaux is indeed the author o f In primis, and by implication o f Etsi cum Tullius. H e applies the tools of dialectic to rhetoric, just as the Glosule on Priscian applies dialectic to grammar. W h e n he wrote the Introductiones on dialectic, there is no clear indication that he had been influenced yet by the Glosule on Priscian. By the time he wrote In primis, no earlier than the 1090s, William was already beginning to think about the implications o f a commentary that paid great attention to examining the causes behind individual "voces". A t the same time, he resisted the idea that philosophical arguments were not also about things. T h e close link between teaching o f grammar and rhetoric, both examined with the tools o f dialectic, is very evident in the Notae Dunelmenses, an early twelfth-century manuscript o f Durham ( C . I V . 29) that contains extensive notes on various passages o f Priscian (f. zra—i93va) and rhetoric (f. i96ra—215V). T h e grammatical section begins: "Principalis materia Prisciani uidetur M . G . esse perfecta oratio, ut alibi secundum cum dictum est [ . . . ] ceteris pretermissis illud rethoricus attenderet etc." 87 T h i s assertion that "oratio" provides the matter o f grammar, repeats precisely William's theme at the outset o f his Introductiones diahcticae, that "oratio" is the common matter o f grammar, dialectic and rhetoric. 88 T h e Durham manuscript opens the discussion of rhetoric with a similar view, also attributed to master G.: "Materia Tullii est in hoc opere rhetorica [ . . . ] et hoc est 'contraria quoque'." A s Fredborg argues, the subsequent teachings attributed to master G . on the De inventione are identical to those o f In primis. W h i l e this master's authority is frequently referred to in the Notae Dunelmenses, there is just occasional allusion to opinions on points o f grammar by Anselmus and Menegaldus, again paralleling the tendency o f the In primis author to refer back to the views o f Anselm o f Laon and Manegold.* 9 These parallels strongly suggest that G . is not an otherwise unknown Guido, but "Guillelmus". T h e Notae Dunelmenses constitute a record of the views o f this master on individual "voces" (Priscian Major), on "oratio" as a whole (Priscian M i n o r ) and rhetoric. 90 Symeon o f Durham (d. 1129), who is unusually well informed about the last days o f William o f Champeaux at Clairvaux, spells his name in a slighdy unusual way as "Gwillelmus de Campellis" in his Historia regum.9'

87

T h e manuscript is described by HUNT 1961, reprinted HUNT 1980, p. 4, with further discussion

88

See above n. 82.

89

H U N T 1980, p . 16.

and edition on p. 16—22, 35—36. A new edition of the Notae Dunelmenses is eagerly awaited.

90

These connections are suggested by ROSIER-CATACH 2003c.

91

See below, n. 154.

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

97

T H E 'MODERNI' IN THE LATE ELEVENTH CENTURY: GRAMMAR, DIALECTIC AND RHETORIC

The pattern of identifying the matter, intention, and underlying purpose, as well as utility of any text, evident in the glosses of William of Champeaux on dialectic and rhetoric, as well as in the prologue to the Gksuk on Priscian Major, was identified as a characteristic feature of "modern teachers" in the late eleventh century by Bernard of Utrecht. Within a commentary on Theodolus, addressed to Bishop Conrad of Utrecht (1076—1099), Bernard reports that while the ancients analysed seven "circumstantiae" at the beginning of every book (who, what, where, by what means, why, how, when), "moderns, more discerning in their enquiry", investigate the "materia", "intentio", and part of philosophy to which it belongs.'2 While the method of identifying seven circumstances was rooted in rhetorical analysis associated with Remigius of Auxerre, the "modern" method to which Bernard refers was inspired by applying the analysis of Boethius in the introduction to his second 'editio' on Porphyry to any other classical text (although Boethius never speaks of "materia", a term used in the De inventione, 1 5), only of the part of philosophy to which a text belongs, its intention, and utility." Unlike Boethius, however, Bernard justifies this division by explaining the opening line of Aristode's Analytica Priora, our first known witness to an extremely rare text, known to Thierry of Chartres, but only slighdy familiar to Abelard: "Videndum circa quid et de quo versetur intentio."94 He explains that the "circa quid" refers to the part of philosophy to which a text belongs, "de quo" to its "materia" and "versetur intentio" to its intention. He then explains that "They add to these utility, by the authority of Boethius, who says in the topics: 'Ut comparetur copia argumentorum et clara

92

BERNARDUS TRAIECTENSIS Commentum, p. 66—67. O n the tradition of these Accessus, see HUNT

93

O n legal "materiae", as well as this innovation in looking at texts, see MINNIS 1988, p. 21.

94

BERNARDUS TRAIECTENSIS Commentum, p. 66—67, quoting ARISTOTELES Analytica Priora 1 1 , p. 5 in

1948 and MINNIS 1984, as well as a forthcoming paper of IWAKUMA (n. 51).

the recension Florentina (preserved in a twelfth century French manuscript, Firenze, Biblioteca Naz. Centrale, Conv. Soppr. J. V I . 34, as well as other witnesses). See ARISTOTELES, Analytica Priora, p. 433, and MINIO-PALUELLO 1958, reprinted in MINIO-PALUELLO 1972, p. 377—383, observing (without knowledge of Bernard of Utrecht) that the Florentina recension is slighdy different from that known to Thierry of Chartres. I am indebted to Iwakuma for alerting me to an allusion to the Analytics of Aristotle in a commentary on the De differentiis topicis (B 2: Pommersfelden, 16/2764, f. 7r), about those who confuse matter with intention, and intention with utility: "Sunt autem / nonnulli ab hac sententia dissentientes, qui id quod materiam appellamus vocant / intentionem operis, idem opus intensum atque illud quod intentionem nominamus dicunt / utilitatem, quae ab illo procedit tractatu, qui etiam rationis expertes nullatenus / esse, videntur nisi quia philosophorum auctoritate omnino carent. Quoniam vero Aristotelem in suis Analyticis testem habemus quod illud unde fit tractatus vocetur materies, tunc / auctorem sequentes superiori militabimus sententiae." This passage is mentioned in a forthcoming paper of Iwakuma (n. 38 above).

98

Constant J. Mews

possit esse distinctio locorum'." 9 5 Bernard never tells us exactly w h o are these moderns whose authority he thinks is superior to that o f the ancients, but he clearly favours their authority. T h e same style o f introduction is also used in a set o f introductions to classical authors (Prudentius, Cato, Maximian, Homer, the Phisiologus, Theodolus, Arator, Prosper, Sedulius, Ovid [discussed at great length], Lucan, Cicero, Boethius, Priscian Horace, Pamphilius, and Thebaldus), so similar in layout to the analysis o f Bernard of Utrecht that they could be by the same author.' 6 W h i l e Bernard is more at home in analysing literature, he has a clear sense that ancient authors need to be read f r o m a philosophical perspective. Bernard's interest in relating all these authors to different parts of philosophy (i.e. "logica", "ethica", and "physica") had wide influence in Germany in the early twelfth century, not least because his account influences Conrad o f Hirsau (c. 1080—1140) in his Dialogus super auctores.97 Conrad's Dialogus is like H u g h of St. Victor's Didascalicon in wanting to show how pagan authors can usefully be studied as a guide to ethics and wisdom, although he does not have quite the same sense as H u g h o f the divisions o f philosophy.' 8 Bernard's enthusiasm f o r "moderns" echoes the phrase o f Priscian, enthusiastically explained in the Glosule, "tanto iuniores, quanto perspicaciores" (the more they are young, the more they are clear sighted). 99 W h i l e William o f Champeaux may have thought o f himself as a traditionalist rather than as modern, he shared many of their intellectual concerns. Bernard o f Utrecht defines "logica" as "sermocinalis", " b y which truth is discerned f r o m falsehood" and as distinguished into dialectic, rhetoric, and grammar by Aristotle. 100 T h i s definition echoes the statement of Gerland o f Besanfon that "logica" is "sermocinabilis vel disputabilis scientia", distinguished into the judgement and finding o f arguments."" Bernard distinguishes utility relating to things, like the w o o d or stones in a house, and relating to words ("voces"), like "genus", "species", "differentia", " p r o p r i u m " and "accidens". In referring to the five predicables o f Porphyry as "voces", Bernard aligns himself with a vocalist tradition in dialectic, such as the Historia Francica was developed during the lifetime o f archbishop Lanfranc (d. 1089) by a certain John, " w h o taught that dialectic was an "ars vocalis" and apparently had many followers, including Robert of Paris, Roscelin o f Compiegne, and Arnulf o f Laon, all o f w h o m had numerous students o f 95

BERNARDUS TRAIECTENSIS Commentum, p. 67, q u o t i n g BOETHIUS De differentiis topicis, c. 1 1 7 4 B .

96

S e e HUYGENS 1 9 7 0 , p . 19—54.

97

CONRADUS Dialogus. On this enormously prolific author, identified by Trithemius as Conrad of H i r s a u , see MEWS 2001, p. 16—20.

98

A treatise, De Septem artibus liberalibus, perhaps similar to the Didascalicon is attributed to Bernhelm of Sponheim (1098—1151), along with works De instruction! puerorum and Contra sophistam mention e d i n t h e Chronicon Sponheimense, see TRITHEMIUS 1 6 0 1 , 2 , p . 2 4 2 ; s e e M E W S 1 9 9 8 , p . 9 2 — 9 3 .

99

PRISCIANUS Institutiones, E p . D e d . 1, I I , p . 1 7 .

100

BERNARDUS TRAIECTENSIS Commentum,

101

GERLANDUS Dialectica, 4, p. 86. On this author as Gerland of Besangon (d. after 1148), rather than

p . 68.

Garlandus Compotista, as argued by De Rijk, see IWAKUMA 1992, p. 47—54.

Logica in tie Service of

Phihsophy

99

their own."102 The fact that William of Champeaux defines dialectic as "sermocinalis" in his Introiuctiones suggests that we should be careful about assuming that because John taught that dialectic was an "ars vocalis", he was ideologically opposed to William of Champeaux. By the time he wrote In primis, he was more familiar with the Glosule's explanation that strictly "logica" is partly "sermocinalis", relating to grammar, and partly "dissertiva", relating to dialectic and rhetoric. In saying that John taught that dialectic was an "ars vocalis", the Fleury chronicler was not necessarily implying that he held a radically original view point, only that he influenced teachers, like Roscelin, whom critics later accused of excessive absorption with words. The Prologue to the Glosuk on Books I — X V I of Priscian's Grammatical Institutes opens by observing that the "materia" of grammar are individual words that signify only when they are applied to signify something.10' Only in the Liber constructionum (Priscian Minor, or Books xvn—xvm), does Priscian deal with "oratio" as a whole. Grammar itself is different from dialectic, because it is concerned with the correct joining of words, rather than with distinguishing truth from falsehood. Throughout the commentary, the Glosule author is particularly concerned to establish the causes behind individual words. Thus to clarify Priscian's definition that a noun signifies "substance with quality", he explains that a noun names or is imposed on a specific substance, but signifies a quality.1"4 This implies that a universal noun (like man) is first of all applied to specific individuals, and that it signifies the quality of being a man, rather than a universal substance. One way of reading this definition is to argue that universale are first of all words rather than things. Roscelin of Compiegne uses the argument that "pater" and "filius" must refer to specific things ("res"), namely that which begets the Son and that which is begotten by the Father. Yet the Glosuk could also be used to justify the idea that words did signify things. Additions to the Glosuk, not found in the Cologne recension, reinforce the notion that collective names, may

102 Historia

Francica,

p. 3: "Hoc tempore tarn in divina quam in humana philosophia floruerunt

Lanfrancus Cantuariorum, Guido Langobardus, Maingaudus Teutonicus, Bruno Remensis, qui postea vitam duxit heremeticam, in dialectica quoque hi potentes extiterunt sophistae: Ioannes, qui eandem artem sophisticam vocalem esse disseruit, Rotbertus Parisiacensis, Roscelinus Compendiensis, Arnulfus Laudunensis. Hi Ioannis füerunt sectatores, qui etiam quamplures habuerunt auditors." This passage is translated and annotated in an invaluable appendix relating to all known references to Manegold in MANEGOLDUS Contra

Wolfelmum

(engl.), p. 122—124. Another

vocalist of this generation, not so far from Utrecht, was Guarmund of Tournai, opposed by Odo of Tournai in around IIOO, but favored by ABAELARDUS Dialectica,

1 3 , p. 112; on Guarmund

and Odo of Tournai, see M E W S 1998, p. 53—55. 103

GIBSON 1979, p. 248: "et hoc utroque modo sunt non significatiuae. Agit etiam de illis secundum hoc quod sunt significativae id est hoc solo respectu, quod ad aliquid significandum proferuntur — siue in coniunctione siue extra coniunctionem illud fiat non attendit."

104

Glosuk on PRISOANUS, Π i8, quoted by D E RIJK 1967, 2 / 1 , p. 228—229 and MEWS 1992, p. 18—19.

Constant J.

ΙΟΟ

Mews

originally have been applied to individual substances, but they signify something collective.1"5 The original

Gksule

are not specifically vocalist or realist in themselves, but they

open up debate about the meaning of individual words.1"6 Roscelin of Compiegne's concern for the distinct cause or "res" behind theological words like "pater" and "filius", inevitably created controversy, and fostered polemical labels that such dialecticians espoused dangerous opinions. Roscelin believed that words were signs of things, imposed through human will, but — like the author of the

Glosule

— did not think words signified

anything in themselves, only when they were applied to some thing. These ideas are evident in his commentary on the words of Psalm 18 4 ("Non sunt loquelae, neque sermones quorum non audiantur uoces eorum").107 William of Champeaux did not agree, however, with Roscelin's analysis of language. When Peter Abelard came to study in Paris in around 1100, he had learned enough from Roscelin to react against the way in which William of Champeaux was putting forward his ideas about grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric, all concerned with "oratio", but in different ways. As Rosier-Catach has argued Abelard was powerfully aware of the teaching of the Glosule,

but disagreed with the way in which its insights were being interpreted by William.

Undoubtedly, Roscelin had already taught him to be suspicious of the way grammatical authority was being invoked. Only very gradually, however, did Abelard detach himself from some of the commentary's basic terminology about words as signs of things, rooted in the semantic assumptions of Augustine. By drawing on the Periermeneias,

Abelard empha-

sized that words signified understandings about things. He presented his teacher, William of Champeaux, as committed to a rigid philosophical realism that did not take into account the artificial character of all human discourse. This rhetorical labelling of his teacher had the effect of making William appear to be more rigid than in fact he was. While Abelard implies that he only changed his thinking about universale after being defeated in debate, William may already have been evolving in his ideas. As so often in

105

M E W S 1992, p. 21.

106

KNEEPKENS 1992, p. 34 observes that " i n the dominating realist atmosphere o f the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries grammar was not liable to realist or nominalist positions." Y e t in so far as grammar was discussed philosophically, it was inevitably interpreted in different ways.

107

O n Roscelin's application o f this principle to the Trinity, see M E W S 1992, 1 9 9 7 , 1998. O n Roscelin's c o m m e n t o n Psalms 18 4 , see M E W S 2 0 0 2 b , p. 142: " N o t a n d u m quod constructio ista quibusdam intransitiue facta videtur, quia quorum ad loquelas et ad sermones refertur, quae nihil aliud quam voces esse videntur, sed c u m loquelae et sermones et voces in se contineant et ipsae voces sint signa rerum — aliud est enim vocem esse in natura sui, aliud signum, cum eadem vox sit et signum; alioquin omnis vox significativa esset — cum, inquam, loquelae et sermones ex vocibus c u m significatione constent, et minus mirandum esset scire quid voces significent q u a m habere scientiam proferendi et etiam proferre. Ipsi non solum sciunt quarum rerum voces signa sint, sed ipsas voces proferre sciunt et proferunt ita u t audiantur esse eorum et multorum testimonio id comprobari possit."

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

ιοί

academic dispute, ideas are attributed to an opponent for the sake of creating an argument, when in fact they do not accurately represent that teacher's point of view. The fact that the original Ghsuk on Books I—xvi of the Grammatical Institutes frequendy allude to the city of Rheims prompts the suggestion that they were originally composed in that city. Our only indication of an author to the Ghsuk is an attribution to a certain "Johannes de aingre" (likely to be a corruption of "Johannes dei gratia") within the colophon of an early printed edition.108 One suggestion that I made in 1993 is that this could be the John who taught that dialectic was an "ars vocalis", and influenced a number of dialecticians, including Roscelin of Compiegne. We know from Roscelin's own testimony that he had studied in Rheims, where a celebrated "grammaticus" called John of Rheims taught until 1080, when he left the city to become a monk at the Norman abbey of St. Evroul. In the same year, Bruno of Cologne (whose Psalms commentary was the basis for that composed by Roscelin), left Rheims, initially travelling back to his native Cologne, but then moving on to found a hermitage at La Grande Chartreuse. More research is needed on both the original text of the Glosuh and its subsequent revisions before we can evaluate the authorship of this influential commentary, possibly the product of a group of scholars. While a single manuscript survives of the earliest version (Cologne, Dombibliothek, 201, from the late eleventh-century) a revised version of the Ghsuk is preserved in manuscripts from eastern France, Fleury, as well as one from Chartres (Bibliotheque municipale, 209, unfortunately destroyed in the war but partially preserved on microfilm). The nineteenth-century catalogue records that the Chartres manuscript included on a flyleaf a list of twenty-eight books borrowed from the abbey of St. Evroul.109 It also contained a precious summary mentioning opinions of various late eleventh-century teachers ( W i d o of Langres, Lanfranc, Robert, Garmundus and Durandus de Anglia) about the substantive verb."" At Chartres, William of Conches was familiar with the Ghsuk, but subsequendy produced his own commentary on Priscian.'"

108

On these Glosule, with an edition of its prologue, see the pioneering study of

GIBSON

1979 and,

for an edition of its discussion of "vox" ROSIER 1993, p. 118—130. St. Anselm refers to similar debates raised by "dialecticians of our time" in his De Grammatico, written by 1080—85, CANTUARIENSIS

ANSELMUS

Opera, I, p. 168.

109 The reference to twenty-eight books borrowed from St-Evroul is preserved now only in the nineteenth-century catalogue of the manuscripts of Chartres, OMONT 1890, p. 108; see MEWS

I993- P· 33· no Only parts of Chartres, Bibliotheque municipale, 209 (248), f. 1—86v survive in microfilm (f. i—13, 34—68r) at the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes, Paris. Before the destruction of the library in 1944 Hunt published a discussion on the substantive verb preserved on f. 37rb and on f. 86v, HUNT 1941—1943, p. 224—228, reprinted in HUNT 1980, p. 31—35. This recension is also found in: Metz, Bibliotheque municipale, 1224, f. ira—uorb and BnF, nouv. acq. lat. 1623, f. 1—54V from Fleury. in

See the edition of the section on the "vox" in ROSIER 1993.

I02

Constant J. Mews

T h e original GlosuL· on Priscian major did not deal with Books xvn—xvm, dealing with "oratio" rather than individual "voces". T h r o u g h careful study o f excerpts o f grammatical manuscripts f r o m the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, C . H . Kneepkens has identified that a separate commentary on Priscian Minor, the ideas o f which are closely connected to those o f master G . in the Notae Dunelmenses."1 In the 1978 study, he assumed that master G . must refer to W i d o , whose name is occasionally mentioned by way o f example."' There is very little independent evidence, however, about a master o f this name. W h i l e a brief opinion o f W i d o o f Langres about the substantive verb is mentioned in a summary o f opinions about the substantive verb preserved in the Chartres, Bibliotheque municipale, 209, there is no match between this doctrine and any teachings attributed to master G . in the Notae Dunelmenses. T h i s latter manuscript contains two separate commentaries on Priscian M i n o r (f. 137m—i^vb and f. i39vb—i93va), both giving weight to the teachings o f master G . In one place, M . G . is expanded as " M . Guil." reported as holding that in the phrase Video filium studentem' the verb 'studere' governs son, and is joined intransitively to son (thus making " I see a son study" different in meaning from " I see a son studying"." 4 A s this opinion is consistent with others attributed to master G., it would seem more likely that G . is an abbreviation f o r "Guillelmus". T h e author o f the GlosuL· on Priscian minor gives as an example the phrase: " W h e n I hear 'William' I understand f o r the nature of the vocative, 'come', 'hear' or something like that."" 5 These references suggest that the author o f the Ghsule on Priscian minor, is the same person as the master G . whose opinions are quoted at length in the Notae Dunelmenses, namely William of Champeaux.

112

KNEEPKENS 1978, identifies sections o f this gloss in BL, Burney 238, f. 3ra—36vb, and Harley 2713, f. 35ra—41Λ (originally part of one manuscript) and Orleans, Bibliotheque municipale, 90, p. 359—388, now BnF, nouv. acq. lat. 1623 (where it follows the GlosuL· on Priscian major on p. 247—358, now f. I—54v). ROSIER-CATACH 2003b edits extracts from the work both from these manuscripts and from BArs, 910, f. i33ra—i4ovb, unknown to KNEEPKENS 1978.

IIJ

114

KNEEPKENS 1 9 7 8 , p . 118.

Durham, C. I V . 29, f. i89vb—1900: "Dicunt quidam quod 'video' regit filium sicut et in hac constructione 'video filium studentem', sed secundum M . Guil. non ita est, immo 'studere' regit 'filium' et intransitive / i g o r a / ei iungitur. Dicit enim diversos sensus esse 'video filium studere' et 'video filium studentem'." I am indebted to Irene Rosier-Catach for sharing with me her transcriptions from the Notae Dunelmenses. HUNT 1941—1943, p. 210, 224, reprinted HUNT 1980, p. 17 and 31, providing an edition of a fragment from Chartres, Bibliotheque municipale, 209, f. 86v.

115

BArs, 910, f. I35ra: "Quando enim audio 'Willelme' intelligo ex natura vocativi 'veni' vel 'audi' vel aliquid huiusmodi." This same passage in BL, Burney 238, f. 9rb supplies 'Fulco vel Herberte'; KNEEPKENS 1978, p. 116 n. 27 (without knowledge of the Arsenal M S ) , FREDBORG 1988, p. 178 n. 6.

Lagica in the Service of Philosophy

In the Glosult on Priscian minor, there is occasional reference to the views of master Anselm, often from a critical perspective, such as about the pronoun 'ipse'." 6 In the Notae Dunelmenses, a similar contrast is drawn between the views of master Anselm, who claimed that a participle could make a statement without a verb, and those of master G. It reports that the reason why a participle is placed under a verb in the Glosult is not according to master G . but according to master Anselm." 7 Within a discussion of apparent repetition of material in the Glosuk on Priscian ( x v n 106) master G . is reported as not remembering having read what was transmitted in the Glosult about differences between first, second and third persons, but "perhaps someone inserted it from his own part."" 8 These contrasts between master G . and Anselm parallel differences of opinion evident in the In primis commentary on the De invention. T h e Notae Dunelmenses present master G . as the inspiration for a dialectically influenced way of looking at both grammar and rhetoric as all part of the same framework of learning. There seems no reason to doubt that this master is William of Champeaux. T h e Glosult on Priscian Minor present the idea that a consignifying word signifies all that on which it is imposed." 9 In the Diabetica Abelard rejected this opinion of William, who claimed the authority of Priscian, and preferred the view o f a known vocalist, Guarmund of Toumai, that an utterance only signifies what is expressed in its "sententia". Both perspectives may have been inspired by the desire of the original Glosuk to explore the causes behind individual words. Abelard, however, preferred to distance himself from the more strictly grammatical analysis, preferred by William. Rosier-Catach has observed that there are close affinities between the philosophical additions to the Glosult, not found in the Cologne version of this text, and the gloss on Priscian minor, which suggest that these revisions could be either the work of William or perhaps a disciple. 12 " Abelard reports that William supported someone relatively well known for his lectures on Priscian during the years mo—1112, who subsequently decided to leave the schools and become a monk. 121 T h e Notae Lhinelmenses suggest that William was indeed powerfully influenced by both Priscian and Cicero in his understanding of "logica". 116

KNEEPKENS 1978, quoting Harley 2713, f. wrb.

117

Durham, C. I V . 29, f. 6 4 A : " E t notandum causam ilia quae redditur in Glosulis quare participium ponatur sub verbum non esse secundum sententiam M . G. sed secundum sententiam M . A. qui vult quod participium iunctum cum nomine enuntiativam faciat sine verbo, ut Socrates legens etc."

118

Durham, C. I V . 29, f. i7ovb: "Dicit M . G. se nullo modo recordari umquam legisse iuxta quod in Chsults habetur. Sed forsitan aliquis ex sua parte ita admiscuit etc."

119

ROSIER-CATACH 2003a.

120

ROSIER-CATACH 2003c; see also comments by KNEEPKENS 1978, p. 119 n. 35 (without making the

121

ABAELARDUS Historia calamitatum, 139—144. HUNT 1980, p. 17 wrongly interpreted these lines as

link to William of Champeaux). about William of Champeaux, rather than his protege, being famous for his lectures on Priscian.

Constant J. Mews

Indication of the potential for controversy associated with applying the analysis of the Glosule on Priscian about the meaning of words is evident from the Life of Goswin (d. 1165), written by a biographer from memories of Goswin or possibly dictated by Goswin himself, but using the third person. It tells how Goswin was a student of Goscelin in Paris during the years 1109—1113, when he dared accost Abelard in debate at the Montagne Sainte-Genevieve. Goswin reports that "a certain commentary on Priscian was seized on everywhere by everyone as much for the depth of meanings as for the elegance of its diction, particularly because many people accept new things more, throw out old things for the sake of new things coming in, soak themselves in new things and preach novelty." Goswin subsequendy concluded that knowing about the rules o f language was ultimately of no use for the good of his soul, and chose to enter the monastic life, at St. Medard, in Soissons.' 22 T h e story neady summarizes both the fascination offered by debating words, as well as frustration that ultimately focusing only on grammar could distract one for reflecting on the ethical question of how one was to live. Goswin reports that he and Abelard continued to converse about the nature of honesty, when Abelard was temporarily imprisoned at St. Medard, Soissons, after the burning of his treatise for heresy. H e eventually became abbot of Anchin, where he built up a precious collection of the writings of all of the significant figures o f his generation, including not just Bernard o f Clairvaux, Hugh of St. Victor, and Peter the Venerable, but also Peter Abelard. 12 ' Between writing his Introductiones and the In Primis commentary on Cicero, William of Champeaux became familiar with the Glosule on Priscian. H e shared with vocalist dialecticians a recognition that "logica" was an "ars sermocinalis", and having used the exegetical technique of analysing a texts "materia", its relationship to philosophy, and its intention, but preferred to emphasize continuity with the teaching of Boethius, rather than to proclaim himself as a "modern". William's first interest was in "logica" as embracing both dialectic and rhetoric. Rather than focusing on individual words, he was more interested in using dialectic to examine argument, above all the topics and thus distinguish between truth and falsehood. H e was loyal to the perspective of Cicero and Boethius in being certain that there were real things behind all legitimate discourse. When Abelard

FREDBORG 1988, p. 178, notes a suggestion that W i l l i a m actually composed the Glosule but refrains f r o m any firm judgement. nz

Vita Gosvini, p. 4 4 4 (reprinted from the edition o f R . G i b b o n s ) . A new edition o f this text is badly needed.

123

F o r the collection o f the writings o f both Bernard and H u g h o f St. V i c t o r gathered at Anchin, see POIREL 2002b, p. 87—96. A n c h i n o w n e d a manuscript ( D o u a i , Bibliotheque municipale, 357) containing Abelard's Sic et Non and Iheologia 'Scbolarium'. I suggest that G o s w i n might have been responsible f o r collecting the large collection o f Abelard's texts, preserved in a fourteenthcentury manuscrit ( O x f o r d , Balliol College, 296), f r o m the Anchin-Marchiennes region ( B U Y TAERT/MEWS 1987, p. 2 5 4 - 2 5 6 ) .

105

Logica in the Service of Philosoph

confronted William of Champeaux during his lectures on rhetoric, he was raising questions generated by Porphyry to criticize his teacher's presentation of both Cicero and Boethius. William's fate as a teacher was to have many of his individual arguments questioned by his students. Walter of Mortagne may have been one such critic, Goscelin of Soissons another.124 Abelard was much more radical than either of these, however, in wishing to develop the position of Roscelin that universale were "voces" rather than things. In holding this position, he presented William as being a philosophical realist, without fully documenting the extent to which his teacher was also concerned to understand the meaning of "voces". Over his career, William may have become increasingly aware of the concern of the Glosule to identify the nature of words as distinct from the things that they referred to, but he still adhered to traditional Boethian terminology about universals as real things, beyond the realm of language. Nonetheless, Abelard could not avoid being shaped by some assumptions of William. In his Dialectica, for example, Abelard does occasionally use a phrase about a universal thing, being diffused into particulars, similar to a comment of William in his Introductiones.'zi By the time that he composed a much more detailed commentary on Porphyry, however, Abelard gives much more attention than he does in the Dialectica to the issue of universals, and avoids all such terminology about universals as things. He now sees his philosophical mission as about showing that all words and speech, including every form of argument, conveyed understanding of what an individual perceived, but not necessarily a real thing, existing in the world.

WILLIAM'S Sententie ON DIVINITY

Although it is quite possible that William taught divinity during the late eleventh and early twelfth century, while also lecturing on dialectic and rhetoric, our first clear evidence for his lecturing on divinity comes from the period after he had taken the life of a canon regular at an abandoned church on the left bank of the river. A German student of his, writing in the period 1109—1113, explicidy describes how William had retreated to "an impoverished little church" where he offered teaching "in divine and human sciences" free of charge, in the same way as Manegold, who is referred to as still alive.126 The comparison 124

In a treatise De generali et speciali statu rerum universalium, possibly the work of Walter of Mortagne, the teaching of a master W . about one thing being predicated of different terms is questioned, quite likely to be another critique of William of Champeaux; Dijs 1990, p. 106. This could mean that Walter, who fell out with his teacher, Alberic of Rheims, in 1120, once studied under William of Champeaux or that he knew of William's teaching.

125

ABAELARDUS Dialectica, p. 186: " N a m universalis rei quantitas in diffusione sua per inferiora consistit." Cf. GUILLELMUS CAMPIUENSIS Introductions, W I, 2, 2, p. 58—59.

126

Codex Udalrici, 160, p. 285—287, trans. MANEGOLDUS Contra Wolfebnum (engl.) 2002, p. 121—122.

ιο6

Constant J. Mews

suggests that William may consciously have modelled his way of life on that of Manegold, who became a canon regular at Marbach in around 1090. T h e large number of German manuscripts that transmit theological sentences attributed to both Anselm of Laon and William of Champeaux may reflect the large number of German clerics then studying in France. Unlike Manegold or Anselm of Laon, William of Champeaux is not remembered as having produced any major commentary on Scripture, although Alberic of Trois Fontaines does recall his abbreviation of the Moralia of Gregory the Great. 127 By contrast, he is identified as author of a significant number of theological sentences within the Liber pancrisis, an anthology of the teachings of "the modern masters, William of Champeaux, Ivo of Chartres, Anselm of Laon."" 8 T h e discussions about G o d as a trinity of persons, free will, providence, and predestination in this anthology are much more influenced by speculative reasoning, than those assigned to Anselm of Laon. Thus he begins his account of God's nature by identifying how both reason and authority confirm that G o d created both the matter and the form of all things, form never existing without matter 'in actu. G o d is essence or substance beyond matter and form." 9 Drawing on the vocabulary of the GhsuL· on Priscian, he explains that within this world, nouns like piety and justice name specific individuals, but signify qualities adjacent to them. "These words, found by human custom, are transferred to speak about God. [ . . . ] Thus divine wisdom is named the Son of the Father, divine love the Holy Spirit: I do not see how I can explain how this is, since something similar cannot be found in any nature of things.'"' 0 Having started to venture an explanation by analogy, William then declares that he sees no easy way of accounting for the nature of the Trinity. H e does venture a tentative explanation, based on the contrast between nomination and signification, suggesting that Son and Holy Spirit are names given to specific divine persons, but declares that they are of the same underlying essence, "according to non-difference and according to identity." In the case of Peter and Paul, these two individuals are similar to the point of not being different, clear evidence that William has here accepted the point that Abelard had made in disputation. 1 ' 1 A characteristic feature of the sentences attributed to William, much more pronounced than in those attributed to Anselm, is an emphasis on examining " S o n " and " H o l y Spirit" as "voces". William argues, however, that 'spiritus' names all incorporeal substances, namely souls, demons, and angels — as position that Abelard refuses to accept, as he thinks

127

ALBERICUS T R I U M FONTIUM Chronicon,

128

GUILLELMUS CAMPIUENSIS Sententiae; unfortunately, Lottin breaks up the unity o f the Liber pancrisis

p . 819.

by separating all the sentences attributed to William f r o m those attributed to Anselm o f Laon or other masters. 129

GUILLELMUS CAMPIUENSIS Sententiae,

n o . 236, p . 190 1—12.

130

GUILLELMUS CAMPIUENSIS Sententiae,

n o . 2 3 6 , p . 191 4 5 — 1 9 2 8 6 .

131

GUILLELMUS CAMPIUENSIS Sententiae,

n o . 236, p . 1 9 2 108—122.

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

107

that a noun names only that which it is applied too, not all possible substances.'' 2 This is a case where W i l l i a m came to employ a core definition of the Glosule on Priscian, but applied it in a way that Abelard considered was quite unfaithful to its central insight about nouns identifying individual subjects. Abelard would have found William's conclusion less than satisfying: What therefore we call these three persons or how they differ among themselves is not yet clear to us, just as how God the Father eternally generates the Son or how God the Spirit proceeds from both has not yet been revealed. When it pleases God, he will reveal this to his faithful, because this is eternal life.'" For all his interest in philosophical theology, W i l l i a m inherits from Anselm of Laon an Augustinian scepticism about the necessity of a faith that transcends reason.1*4 Having started a process of theological reflection that recognizes how names are applied by human imposition, he steers away from talking about creation, and concludes by insisting that discussion on matters of faith cannot be taken further. The influence of W i l l i a m of Champeaux may also be evident in the Sententie divine pagine, a sentence collection that has been edited as a work of "the school of Anselm of Laon", but that is much closer in spirit to the sentences attributed to W i l l i a m of Champeaux in the Liber paticrisis than those attributed to Anselm of Laon. It is also much more theoretically informed than a widely circulated sentence collection, described in some manuscripts as the Sententie Anselmi, but without the more extensive discussion of practical pastoral matters, found in the latter work. 1 " The Sententie divine pagine are particularly concerned with how words are assigned 'improprie' about God, the supreme good, and acknowledges briefly that the divine Trinity can be known through the authority of Scripture as well as through reason, in that the Father is him from whom all things come, the Son as the wisdom through which they were made, the Holy Spirit as the goodness of God.1'6 Like the sentences attributed to W i l l i a m of Champeaux in the Liber pancrisis, the Sententie divine pagine tentatively open up theological enquiry to reason, but then warn of the necessary limits to any such endeavour: "since we cannot supply reasoning, only belief, let us not go into disputation." 1 ' 7 Underpinning the theology of these sentences is an assump-

IJ2 133 134 135

136 137

Sentential, no. 236, p. 193 164—172; cf. ABAELARDUS Dialectica, p. 112—113. Sentential, no. 236, p. 194 206—210. GUILLELMUS CAMPIUENSIS Sententiae, no. 236, p. 191 61—62. ANSELMUS LAUDUNENSIS ( ? ) Sententiae, significant contrasts between this work and Principium et causa omnium (Sententie Anselmt) must put a question mark by this claim. Its authorship deserves further investigation. ANSELMUS LAUDUNENSIS (?), Sentential, p. 6, 7—8. ANSELMUS LAUDUNENSIS ( ? ) Sententiae, p. 9. GUILLELMUS CAMPIUENSIS

GUILLELMUS CAMPIUENSIS

ιο8

Constant J. Mews

tion that a noun names everything to which it is applied, as in the case of 'spiritus', which names every incorporeal substance, whether a human soul or any of the divine persons.1'8 W h i l e W i l l i a m acknowledges the role of reason in understanding divine nature, he holds that this knowledge has been seriously deformed through original sin, and that only through grace can we rise to higher knowledge.1*9 He refers only to the institutions of the Old Testament, not to philosophers, as enabling humanity to come to faith.' 40 W i l l i a m is even more rigorous than Anselm in his assessment of original sin as sexual in character, the illicit movement of a sexual organ no longer subordinate to reason.14' Concupiscence or lust is both the stimulus and the consequence of sin, and the reason why Christ, born of a Virgin, came to redeem mankind. There is a sensual as well as a rational side to human nature; the soul perceives specific things through the senses, but reason considers individual things universally, according to what is a universal man or a universal substance.' 42 T h e corruption of reason through sin means that our knowledge of universal truths is damaged, and that only through the grace of a sinless Christ, free of the stain of lust, are we able to be redeemed from devil's hold over humanity.' 4 ' T h e benignity of God is his promise to free us from the chain of lust, by which we still struggle to reach our heavenly reward, even after the grace of baptism.' 44 In Christ, however, there is perfect charity, and it is through loving God that humanity is restored to its true identity. More work is needed on the theological Sententie attributed to W i l l i a m to determine whether he may be the teacher whose ideas are transmitted in the Sententie divine pagine. It is already apparent, however, that even if he was a disciple of Anselm of Laon in divinity, W i l l i a m made a significant contribution in developing a more speculative approach to the discipline. In his theoretically informed discussion of the Trinity, based around analysis of "voces" used about God, Abelard was taking much further a technique already developed in germ by W i l l i a m of Champeaux. W h e n obliged to listen to the classes of Anselm of Laon, Abelard was greatly disappointed in this famous figure, not least because Anselm simply had not absorbed the kind of reflection on the arts of language which W i l l i a m of Champeaux took for granted. W h i l e William's ideas often provoked a critical response from Peter Abelard, they went much further than those of Anselm of Laon in being based much more on the skills of dialectic than on patristic authority.

138

GUILLELMUS C A M P M E N S I S Sentential,

n o . 236, p . 193.

139

GUILLELMUS C A M P M E N S I S Sentential,

no. 261, p. 211.

140

GUILLELMUS C A M P M E N S I S Sententiae,

no. 261, p. 212.

141

GUILLELMUS CAMPMENSIS Sententiae,

no. 251, p. 205. See also the broader discussion in nos.

246—260, p. 203—210. 142

GUILLELMUS C A M P M E N S I S Sententiae,

no. 2 4 3 , p. 201.

143

GUILLELMUS C A M P M E N S I S Sententiae,

n o . 253, p . 2 0 6 .

144

GUILLELMUS C A M P M E N S I S Sententiae,

no. 259, p. 210.

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

Whether William of Champeaux was significantly influenced by the writings of St. Anselm still needs to be explored. William certainly sympathized with St. Anselm's views of Roscelin. Abelard, a former student of Roscelin of Compiegne, would inevitably come into conflict with William of Champeaux. Nonetheless, it is inaccurate simply to label William as a traditionalist. He was a teacher fascinated by the project of reflecting on both the liberal arts and on divinity. For all his limitations, William sketched out a project of an intellectual synthesis that many of his students would seek to pursue.

WILLIAM OF CHAMPEAUX AS BISHOP ( 1 1 1 3 - 1 1 2 2 ) AND THE CAUSE OF REFORM

Paradoxically, William's most profound legacy on twelfth-century thought may not have been through any impact on the schools of Paris, but through his influence in promoting reform movements within the Church. Sometime after 20 May 1113, he was appointed to the newly vacant bishopric of Chalons-sur-Marne.'45 Shortly after that date Louis vi issued a royal privilege for the abbey of St. Victor, a document that William did not sign, as he had not yet been officially consecrated as bishop.146 Nonetheless, it seems impossible to believe that William did not have an influence in getting the king to support the fledgling community. The actual construction of the new abbey, in place of the original small parish church, did not begin until after the accession of a new bishop, Gilbert. The obituary of St. Victor accords no particular honour to William, except to describe him as a canon of the community, giving the honour of actually founding and building the abbey, to its first prior, Gilduin.'47 During his episcopate, William became principal adviser to Cuno, Cardinal Bishop of Palestrina (also known as Conon of Praeneste), a Suabian cleric who had helped establish an order of Augustinian canons at Arrouaise, near Liege in the 1090s, and rose to become papal legate of both France and Germany between mi and 1124. Cuno presided over a string of councils in northern France, at Beauvais (6 February 1114), at Rheims (28 March 1115), and Chalons-sur-Marne (12 July 1115), excommunicating the German Emperor, Henry v, even against the wishes of Pope Paschal n. In spring 1115, Cuno travelled to Germany to encourage rebellion against Henry v.'48 In the final days of Gelasius n, forced out of the 145 MICHAUD 1867, p. 433—438, puts forward evidence that William, although temporal lord of the city, assigned secular government to a lay 'vicedominus'. 146 Actes de Louis vi. The previous bishop had died on 20 May 1113. 147 BAUTIER 1991, p. 34—35; Nccrologium S.V., [25 Jan.], p. 538: "magistri Guillelmi, Cathalauensis episcopi et nostri canonici." Paschal π only gave a papal privilege to St. Victor on 1 December 1114, and building of the new abbey did not begin before 1116. 148 Chronique de Morigny, p. 33, 42, 65—67; ALBERICUS TRIUM FONTIUM Chronica, p. 820—821; on Cuno's political importance, see HIESTAND 1972. In 1122 he signs a charter immediately after the Pope, Calixtus, Epistohe, 179, c. 1246D, but is replaced as bishop of Palestrina by 1124, no. 273, c. 1323c.

Constant J. Mews

no

city of Rome to seek exile at Cluny in January 1119, Cuno reportedly declined an invitation to become his successor, but threw his support behind the election of Guy of Vienne as Calixtus n.149 William of Champeaux travelled to Strasbourg with Pontius, abbot of Cluny, to negotiate with Henry v, where he initially obtained a promise from the Emperor to abandon all rights to investiture and brought this back to the Council of Rheims, convened in October 1119 in the presence of the Pope. When the Emperor subsequently went back on this promise, William delivered a fiery rebuke that ended up in Henry v, imperator being excommunicated by the Council, and Germany then going to war on France in revenge. William of Champeaux was one of the distinguished orators at the Council of Rheims, being charged with delivering decisions of the assembly "in his native tongue" ("materna lingua") to the assembled clerics and laypeople.15" William was an accomplished public speaker, as much as a theorist of rhetoric. In 1115, William befriended a twenty-five year old Bernard of Clairvaux, who had approached him to be ordained a priest. Although William of St. Thierry reports that he did so because there was no bishop at the time at Langres, in whose diocese Clairvaux was situated, this may not actually have been the case, as bishop Joceran of Langres had already been installed by this date.15' In any case, William and Bernard became firm friends, and spent a great deal of time in each other's company, either through Bernard visiting Chälons-sur-Marne, or William spending time at Clairvaux. Also in 1115, possibly on the same day, another daughter foundation of Citeaux was established, also in the diocese of Langres, at Morimond., From the outset, it seems that Morimond gathered a number of German speaking monks, who would soon seek to establish further foundations in Germany. Clairvaux, on the other hand, saw itself much more within a French sphere of influence. At William's suggestion, the first daughter house of Clairvaux was established at Trois Fontaines in 1118, within the diocese of Chälons-sur-Marne.

149 ROBINSON 1990, p. 63—64. 157—158. 429—430, relying on the testimony of Falco o f Benevento. Calixtus Π did not himself mention this offer to Cuno in January 1119, see CALIXTUS, Epistolae, no. i, c. 1093A. 150

On William's involvement in the negotiation with Henry v, leading up to the Council o f R h e i m s , see ROBINSON 1990, p. 131-133, and the detailed account o f HESSO SCHOLASTICUS Rdatio,

p. 25: "Tunc episcopus Catalaunensis, zelo Dei inflammatus et gladio verbi Dei accinctus, respondit pro omnibus: 'Si, domine rex, negare vis scriptum quod tenemus in manibus, et determinationem quod audisti, paratus sum sub testimonio religiosorum virorum, qui inter me et te fuerunt, iurare super reliquias sanctorum et super evangelium Christi, te ista omnia in manu mea firmasse, et me sub hac determinatione recepisse'." On William's persuasive oratory at the Council itself, see ORDERICUS VITALIS Historia ecclesiastica, xn 25 ( V I , p. 252—276, especially p. 274). 151

CASEY 2003, p. 126. Casey's study of Bernard's intervention into the affairs of Morimond, where there was a strong German presence, confirms that even in these early years there was a strong nascent sense o f a Cistercian orio, the existence o f which has been questioned by BERMAN 2000.

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

III

After the Council of Rheims in 1119, Calixtus Π confirmed the privileges a wide range of monastic communities, including a small group of abbeys that followed the ordo of Citeaux.1'2 William was held in great respect by the abbots of this ordo, the core principles of which were defined in the Carta caritatis. At William's request, they allowed Bernard to live apart from the community, so that he could recover from excessive mortifications that he had inflicted on his body. William's support for these monks was such that in 1120 Bernard wrote to certain Augustinian canons advising them they had William's support for transferring to a stricter way of life at Clairvaux.15' Although William of Champeaux was still technically a canon of St. Victor, Symeon of Durham (d. 1129) records that eight days before his death on 18 January 1122, he assumed a Cistercian habit at Clairvaux.'54 This detail is also reported by Rupert of Deutz, writing in the mid 1120s, as evidence of how a scholastic now supported the eminence of the monastic order.'55 This information about William may have reached Symeon through the entourage of archbishop Thurstan of York, who attended the Council of Rheims in 1119, but only returned to England in 1122, as Symeon relates.'56 Symeon's unusually precise information about "Gwillelmus de Campellis" is likely to be connected to the presence at Durham of manuscripts of many important early scholastic manuscripts, including the Notae

Dunel-

rnmses which record the teachings of master G. on both grammar and rhetoric. The absence of any reference to William as becoming a monk of Clairvaux within French sources may reflect a disinclination to provoke tension between St. Victor and Clairvaux. In the last eight years of his life, William moved away from those early concerns with dialectic and rhetoric that had made him such a prominent figure in Paris, when Abelard first came to sit at his feet. If his friendship with Bernard of Clairvaux is any guide, he moved to a more mystical attitude in his understanding of the religious life. In April 1121, William of Champeaux co-signed a charter with Cardinal Cuno at Soissons, strong evidence that William was also present at the Council of Soissons, where Abelard tried unsuccessfully to defend the orthodoxy of his treatise on the Trinity.'57 Whether William had any influence on Alberic of Rheims and Lotulf of Novara, the two clerics whom 152

CALIXTUS Epistohe, no. 58, c. 1147B—1148A.

153

BERNARDUS CLARAEVALLENSIS Epistolu,

154

SYMEON DUNELMENSIS Opera [Historia regum], Π, 259—260: "Gwillelmus de Campellis, Catalau-

3, 3, p . 23.

nensis episcopus, viii. diebus ante exitum, suscepto habitu monachico, vita decedit x v . Kal. Februarii." This is in turn repeated by ROGERUS DE HOVEDENE Chronica [Historia post Bedam], 1, 178. This detail is not mentioned in the obituaries of Chälons-sur-Marne and of Molesme, who mention his death on 18 January, or of St-Victor, which gives it as 25 Jan. 1122. 155

RUPERTUS TUTTIENSIS De vita apostolica, Ν i6, c. 659C—660C.

156

SYMEON DUNELMENSIS Opera [Historia regum], Π, p. 254-256, 262.

157

This charter is quoted by MICHAUD 1867, p. 482 n. 2, from "Hist. Ms. De iom J. Francois, liv. ΠΙ, p. 230." It is not included among the letters and charters of Cuno, see CONO PRAENESTINUS Epistolae.

112

Constant}. Mews

Abelard singles out f o r moving the campaign against him, we do not know. There seems little doubt, however, that William's negative assessment o f his former student would have been o f great influence, both on those assembled at the Council, as well as on William's greatest protege, Bernard o f Clairvaux.

T H E INFLUENCE OF WILLIAM OF CHAMPEAUX

Directly or indirectly William o f Champeaux influenced many o f the most important thinkers who would emerge during the two decades following his death in 1122, both in the schools and within the reform movement as a whole. Even if many individuals would move beyond William in the way they interpreted individual aspects o f his teaching, they could never shake o f f his influence. Perhaps the most important o f these was Bernard o f Clairvaux, whose rhetorical genius may well have been encouraged by William o f Champeaux, a great theorist o f the discipline. Bernard's understanding o f Christian doctrine, in particular his sense o f sin and humanity's need f o r grace, was profoundly shaped by that o f William. O n the other hand, Bernard never felt at ease with William's theoretical reflections on grammar, dialectic and rhetoric. Bernard would radically transform William's theological teaching by introducing a new element of reflection on personal experience, drawn f r o m his reflections on the R u l e of Benedict. Bernard was not opposed to scholastic learning as such. Rather he reserved his hostility f o r empty discussion o f words that lacked spiritual depth. W i t h i n the schools, a leading disciple o f William whose thought still needs to be explored more fully was Goscelin, subsequently bishop o f Soissons (1126—1151). W h i l e he did not accept all of William's early teachings, Goscelin extended his teacher's ideas into new directions. Another logician w h o m William may have influenced was Alberic o f Paris. William's opinions are quoted with respect in two compendia o f dialectic f r o m the mid twelfth century that appear to emanate f r o m Alberic's school, the Introductions Montane minores (Vienna, O N B , cvp 2486 and Wolfenbüttel, 56.20 Aug. 8° and the Introiuctiones Montane maiores (BnF, lat. 15141 f. 47—io4).' s8 John o f Salisbury praises Alberic f o r always being ready with a sharp question, and was quite possibly the source f o r some o f those comments in the Metalogicon that are critical o f Abelard, as well as f o r the respectful remark about William o f Champeaux.' 59 Inheriting William's suspicion o f the arguments of Peter Abelard, Alberic ensured that his teachings on dialectic would not go unchallenged. T h e Quaestiones Victorinae, theological and logical questions f r o m the mid twelfth-century, may also attest to William's influence in the schools o f the Montagne Sainte-Genevieve f r o m this period. 158 DE RIJK 1967, 2/1, p. 146—150 and edition in 2/2, p. 11—71. 159 The opinion of "Magister Gallielmus" [surely a misprint for 'Gullielmus'] is given in Introductiones Montane Minores, in DE RIJK 1967, 2/1, p. 27; further references in IWAKUMA 2003.

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

»3

More indirectly, William also influenced the intellectual career of Hugh of St. Victor, who travelled with his uncle from Germany to France in 1115, at the height of political hostility between the reform movement, as embodied by Cuno of Praeneste and William of Champeaux, and those clerics who were loyal to Henry v. Yet there are also profound differences between the thought of William, so much concerned with the detail of "logica", and that of Hugh. Given that he starts his literary career at Saint-Victor very quickly, it seems quite likely that he had already acquired a significant education at Halberstadt, where he later remembered provost Gunther and other canons with affection. (There is no particular foundation for the frequently made claim that Hugh was born in 1096). At the outset of the Diiascalicon, composed in the 1120s, Hugh repeats William's analysis, previously formulated in the Ghsule on Priscian, that "logica" is "sermocinalis" and embraces both dialectic and rhetoric. Hugh departs from William, however, in dividing philosophy into four parts, "theorica" (speculative), "practica" (active or ethical), "mechanica", that which pertains to human artifice and "logica". Drawing on a Peripatetic division of philosophy, advocated by Gerbert, Hugh introduces an innovative awareness of practical human endeavour as part of philosophy.' 60 William, by contrast, is much more of a theorist of dialectic than Hugh, and is less concerned with the material world. Hugh never absorbed the detail of William's fascination with topics as the foundation of both dialectical and rhetorical argument. By contrast he is much more interested in the themes that divine revelation is mediated through the created world, also a strong theme in the writing of Conrad of Hirsau (c. 1070/ 80—c. 1140), reportedly a disciple of William of Hirsau (d. 1091) and familiar with the writings of Bernard of Utrecht (fl. 1076—1099).161 Whereas the theological sentences attributed to William of Champeaux are shaped by familiarity with Augustinian doctrine about sin and grace, Hugh of St. Victor is influenced by a wider range of patristic authors, some relatively little known, such the Celestial Hierarchy, attributed to Denis the Areopagite.'62 In the De tribus diebus Hugh first develops a

160 HUGO DE SANCTO VICTORE Didascalicon (1939), π ι, p. 24 21—25: "Theorica interpretatur speculativa; practica, activa, quam alio nomine ethicam, id est moralem dicunt, eo quod mores in bona actione consistant; mechanica, adulterine, quia circa humana opera versatur; logica, sermocinalis, quia de vocibus tractat." On these divisions of philosophy, including that of Hugh, see IWAKUMA 1999a.

161

On Conrad of Hirsau, the name given by Trithemius to the prolific Hirsau author (also known as Peregrinus), who composed the Dialogus super Auctores, the Speculum virginum and many other works, see various chapters within MEWS 2001, including that of KIM POWER (MEWS 2001, p. 85—110) who brings out his debt to Ambrose in her chapter "From Ecclesiology to Mariology: Patristic Traces and Innovation in the Speculum virginum." More study is needed of the relationship between this author and Hugh of St. Victor.

162 On the influence of Ambrose's Expositio in Hexaemeron and a relatively rare text of Paschasius Radbertus (although preserved at Corbie) on Hugh's notion of a triad of divine attributes "potentia-sapientia-benignitas", see POIREL 2002, p. 162—165, 351—356.

Constant J. Mews

«4

favourite notion that "the whole sensory world creation is like a certain book, written by the finger of God, that is created by divine strength, and individual creatures are like certain words ("figurae"), not found through human convention, but established by divine judgement to reveal and in a kind of way signify the hidden wisdom of God." The image of heaven ("caelum") as rolled like a book occurred in Scripture (Isaiah 34 4) and had been repeated in passing by both Augustine and Ambrose, but never the world ("mundus") as like a book.'6' By invoking the phrase "non humano placito inuentae sed diuino arbitrio institutae" Hugh was deliberately contrasting an Aristotelian tradition, emphasized by Abelard, that words were the product of human convention, with language manifest in creation. Through the magnificence of the created world, Hugh taught that we can rise to contemplate the power, wisdom, and benignity of God. Only in the final stages of his treatise, does Hugh reflect that these attributes can be identified with the three persons of the divine Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Much ink has been spilled over the relationship between Hugh's adoption of this triad of divine attributions and Abelard's use of the same triad in the Theologia 'Summi boni', completed by 1120, and condemned for heresy at the Council of Soissons in March/April 1121. Poirel has challenged the assumption that Hugh must have been influenced by Abelard, and has suggested that Hugh wrote the De trihus diebus between 1118 and 1120, thus providing inspiration for Abelard, rather than the other way round. It is possible, however, that William of Champeaux provided a point of departure for both teachers. Very similar ideas are formulated, albeit briefly, in the Sententie divinae paginae, a sentence collection with many connections to known teachings of William of Champeaux. While Hugh was fascinated by those concrete things to which language referred, Abelard focused on words as a means for understanding the transcendent goodness of God, and the intention which was behind them. They both appreciated that the universe was a vehicle for understanding divine goodness, but approached the question in different ways. While Hugh respected William's broad vision that logica had to serve philosophy, he was not particularly interested in the more technical aspects of dialectic and rhetoric. In the Didascalicon, Hugh demonstrates a basic awareness of all three arts of the trivium, and picks up on William's idea that grammar is the science of speaking without fault, dialectic that of distinguishing truth from falsehood and grammar that of persuasion.'64 Hugh may have been direcdy or indirecdy influenced by William in explaining that "logica" embraces

163

HUGO DE SANCTO VICTORE De trihus iiebus (2.002), p. 9 94—98. In his apparatus, Poirel mentions Exodus 31 18 (about the tablets of Moses as written by the finger of God), but not Isaiah 34 4 about the firmament as a book, cited by AUGUSTINUS Enarrationes in Psalmos, vm 7, p. 511—16.

164

H U G O DE SANCTO VICTORE Didascalicon

( 1 9 3 9 ) , Π 30, P. 4 6 - 4 7 .

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

»5

both "grammatica" and the "ratio disserendi" or dialectic and rhetoric. 1 ' 5 N e a r the outset o f the Didascalicon, H u g h quotes from exactly the same passage o f Porphyry's Isagoge about the three fold power o f the soul, namely in promoting physical life, feeling, and the life o f the mind, as William paraphrases in his Introductions diakcticae,l66 H u g h is not interested, however, in those questions about how topics underpin all argument, so important to William o f Champeaux. H u g h does write an elementary treatise on grammar, but shows no awareness o f the distinction between nomination and signification, introduced by the Ghsule on Priscian, and present in William's mature theological discussion o f the Trinity.' 67 T h i s contrasts profoundly with Peter Abelard, who felt that William misused arguments raised by the Glosule, and went much further in considering the divine persons not as "voces", but as "nomina" that signified different qualities o f G o d , the supreme good. H u g h was more interested in reflecting on how creation rather than words can lead the mind to G o d . H e recognizes that the ancients considered that they needed to evaluate words and understandings before they discussed the natures o f things and behaviour ("quia vocum et intellectuum discretionem non habebant").' 68 H e wishes to move away, however, from a fixation with "logica" as the sole path to philosophy, and gives more emphasis than William to the natural sciences or the quadrivium in the scheme o f knowledge as well as to "practica", or ethical and behavioural sciences and mechanical arts. In the Didascalicon, logica is presented as the fourth rather than the first part o f philosophy. In a sense, John o f Salisbury is more in direct continuity than H u g h with William's understanding o f "logica" in his Metalogtcon. John understood why zeal for novelty and artificial disputation was giving dialectic a bad name, but he wanted to rescue an ideal o f studying all the arts o f language from negative tendencies o f either specializing in one discipline or in adopting a purely utilitarian, anti-intellectual approach to education. H e may have been frustrated with the limitations o f Hugh's Didascalicon in not providing an adequate account o f the core texts o f "logica", above all o f Cicero and Aristotle. W h i l e John respected H u g h for his understanding of faith, and disagreed with certain propositions o f Abelard, he felt it important to explain why the arts o f language, in particular the topics, were central to the study o f "logica", and thus o f philosophy as a whole. True understanding o f "logica" was not at odds with faith in G o d , who was ultimately beyond all human definition. John wished to retain a sense o f balance between respect for grammar as the foundation o f all literature, appreciation o f dialectic as about the general principles underpinning discourse and awareness o f rhetoric as the theory o f persuasive eloquence, based on specific example.

165

H U G O DE SANCTO V I C T O R E Didascalicon

( 1 9 3 9 ) , Π 2 8 ; GUILLELMUS CAMPIUENSIS Introductions,

Ε Π,

ζ, p. 109. 166 167

HUGO DE SANCTO VICTORE Didascalicon (1939), 1 3 , p. 7 21—24. H U G O DE SANCTO V I C T O R E Didascalicon

( 1 9 3 9 ) , Π 2 9 ; see also H U G O DE SANCTO V I C T O R E

grammatica (1966). 168

HUGO DE SANCTO VICTORE Didascalicon (1939), 1 1 1 , p. 19 7.

De

π6

Constant J. Mews CONCLUSION

This inquiry into a range of writings on dialectic, rhetoric, and grammar, has revealed that William of Champeaux was a teacher of much wider influence than has often been appreciated. In many ways, he was a traditionalist, loyal to the teaching of Boethius. Above all, he inherits a traditional sense that "logica" embraces all three disciplines of the trivium. In his teaching on dialectic, as evident in his early Introductions diakcticae, he attaches great importance to the study of topics as the foundation of all argument. His glosses on Porphyry, Aristotle, and Boethius do not have the originality that we find in the glosses of Abelard, but they demonstrate his ability to communicate the essence of the discipline of dialectic to a wide audience. William was also an authority on rhetoric, as evident in his commentaries on the De inventione (In primis) and the Ad Herennium (Etsi cum Tullius). These glosses show that he wished to apply some of the core philosophical principles of the Glosule on Priscian, about relating grammar to "logica" as a whole to the study of rhetoric. Comparing his glosses on Cicero to those of Manegold reveals that William made significant progress in analysing "rhetorica" with the tools of dialectic. William also became very interested in developing the arguments of the Glosule on Priscian. There are good reasons for thinking that William is the master G. whose opinions are so often referred to in the Notae Dunelmenses, a manuscript that seems to present a 'reportatio' of classes on master G. on both grammar and rhetoric, in which passing reference is also made to the arguments of other teachers, notably Anselm of Laon. This manuscript supports the possibility that William may also have composed certain Glosule on Books xvn—xvm of the Grammatical Institutes, concerned with the way in which sentences are constructed, and perhaps introduced revisions into the text of the Glosule on Books I—xvi, concerned with the meaning of individual words. William also went much further than his teacher, Anselm of Laon, in exploring the study of "voces". It would be wrong to identify any single text, such as the Glosule on Priscian, as the inspiration for new ways of thinking. Earlier in the eleventh century, Berengar of Tours had created controversy through examining the meaning of the words uttered in the formula of consecration. During the second half of the eleventh century, particularly in the schools of Rheims and Laon, but elsewhere as well, there was great attention to exploring the meaning of words, whether in ordinary language or of Scripture. Inevitably there were arguments, as certain teachers (like Roscelin) were accused of going beyond the bounds of orthodoxy. William of Champeaux sided with upholders of tradition, but he was anxious to channel new thinking about the meaning of words into a creative direction. Above all, he was interested in "oratio" as the basis for all discourse, whether examined through grammar, dialectic, or rhetoric. Indirectly, William of Champeaux inspired both Hugh of St. Victor and John of Salisbury in their attempts to formulate a synthesis of the liberal arts. While John felt that Hugh had not sufficiently understood the core teachings of Aristotle in his exposition of

Logica in the Service of Philosophy

"7

"logica", they both embraced a vision of "logica" as at the service of philosophy. Paradoxically, it would be increasingly difficult for any one individual to embrace all those disciplines in which William of Champeaux had expressed an interest. Abelard became widely known for his teaching on dialectic, but it is not known if he ever lived to complete his Rhetorica. Thierry of Chartres, who did write a commentary on the De inventione that would overtake In primis of William of Champeaux, created his own synthesis of the liberal arts, the Heptatetuhon, but did so by summarizing excerpts from all the relevant ancient authors, rather than formulating his own version of a synthesis. John of Salisbury did try to develop a synthesis of teaching in "logica", but he could never extend this with any depth to theology. Through their commentaries on the De Trinitate of Boethius, both Thierry of Chartres and Gilbert of Poitiers endeavoured to carry out that project of relating "logica" to a vision of philosophy that William of Champeaux could only vaguely

Die Edition der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor (f 1141) durch Abt Gilduin von Sankt Viktor (f 1155) — Eine Rekonstruktion1 von RALF M . W .

STAMMBERGER

A u f die Bedeutung des Indiculum omnium scriptorum Magistri Hugonis de Sancto Victore que scripsit, das Joseph de Ghellinck 1910 veröffentlicht hatte, für alle Fragen nach der Authentizität der Werke des Hugo von Sankt Viktor hat Damien Van den Eynde in seiner Abhandlung Essai sur la succession et la date des ecrits de Hugues de Saint-Victor nachdrücklich hingewiesen.2 Das Indiculum ist bislang nur in einer einzigen Fassung aus der Handschrift Oxford, Merton College 49, f. 8ir—82V, bekannt (vgl. Abbildungen 1—4). Diese vermutlich in England entstandene Handschrift stammt aus dem 15. Jahrhundert und enthält eine Sammlung mehrerer Werke Hugos.' Das Indiculum befindet sich unter Hugo zugeschriebenen Werken und stellt, kodikologisch gesehen, keine Hinzufiigung dar. Es umfaßt eine detaillierte Auflistung der Tituli, Incipits und Desinits der Werke Hugos, so wie sie sich in einer vierbändigen Ausgabe seiner Werke fanden, die Abt Gilduin von Sankt Viktor 4 — ausweislich des Zeugnisses des Indiculum — nach Hugos Tod besorgte:

1

Nach dem ersten Abschluß des Manuskripts ist die sehr gründlich gearbeitete Studie POIREL 2002b erschienen. Der Autor untersucht in einem eigenen Kapitel (S. 27—86) ebenfalls die Ausgabe der Werke Hugos durch Abt Gilduin. Ich habe mich nachträglich bemüht, seine Ergebnisse zu berücksichtigen und einzuarbeiten. Für wertvolle Hinweise bei der Abfassung des Manuskripts danke ich P. Prof. Dr. Rainer Bemdt sj, Prof. Dr. Rodney M. Thomson und Dr. Matthias M. Tischler.

2

Vgl. VAN DEN EYNDE i960, hier besonders S. 1-3; DE GHELLINCK 1910, vgl. auch BARON 1963a.

3

Vgl. die Beschreibung bei COXE 1852,1/3, S. 33F. Rodney Thomson hält mit guten Gründen eine

4

Z u Gilduin vgl. PAULIN 1865 = PL 196, Sp. 1365B-1372C (dort nach Gallia Christiana Vit, S. 658),

Herkunft aus St. Albans für möglich. CHÄTILLON 1969, S. 53—75. Aus Gilduins eigener Feder sind nur wenige Zeilen bekannt. Sein Prologus in opusculumfratrum cenobii sei. uictoris parisimsis de dictionibus spricht von seinem Bemühen um die Erstellung eines verläßlichen Textes über die Akzente: »Quoniam in eisdem dictionibus diuersi diuersos accentus pronunciant [ . . . ] ego Gilduinus cenobii sei. uictoris parisiensis dictus abbas [ . . . ] electis de ipsorum fratrum numero [ . . . ] iniunxi. ut ipsam uarietatem [ . . . ] sub unitatis leges et iura redigerent«; Libelhs de aicentibus cum Prologo GiUuini abbatis, Erlangen, Universitätsbibliothek 186, f. 221V—226V (12/2), hier f. 22iv; zitiert nach Manuscripta mediaevalia zur Hs. (http://www.manuscripta-mediaevalia.de vom 4.6.2005); nun in JOCQU£/POIREL 2003, 181—192; vgl. POIREL 1998b, S. 194 Anm. 50.

Ralf Μ. W. Stammberger

I20

[ . . . ] post mortem eius abbas Geldewinus collegit omnia in simul et fecit quatuor volumina.5

Der Anlaß ftir die Ausgabe Gilduins lag darin, daß Hugos Werke bereits zu Lebzeiten zerstreut wurden und die Abtei Sankt Viktor offenbar nicht über eine verläßliche und vollständige Sammlung der Werke ihres berühmten Magisters verfugte: [ . . . ] fere omnia opera eius, antequam moreretur, dispersa erant.6

Die Idee der Herstellung einer Textausgabe aus verstreuten (»dispersa«) Textzeugen, die dann autoritativen Charakter haben sollte, geht auf die Bemühungen des Hieronymus um den Bibeltext zurück.7 Die Authentizität der in dieser Ausgabe versammelten Werke ist also gesichert durch die Autorität des ersten Abtes von Sankt Viktor, Gilduin, der Hugo um 14 Jahre überleben sollte. In ihr sind jene Werke versammelt, die in Hugos eigener Abtei nach seinem Tode für echt angesehen wurden. Das Indiculum beschreibt diese Ausgabe zwar sehr detailliert, doch nicht vollständig. Vor allem kleinere Werke (Miscellanea) werden mit summarischen Formulierungen übergangen.8 Das Indiculum ist nicht die einzige mittelalterliche Liste der Werke Hugos. 9 Es unterscheidet sich aber von den übrigen nicht allein durch die Präzision seiner Angaben, sondern vor allem dadurch, daß es im eigentlichen Sinne keine Werkliste darstellt. Vielmehr handelt es sich um die Beschreibung des Inhalts einer Werkausgabe. Das Indiculum legt also seine Quelle offen. Da das Indiculum sich in einer Handschrift des 15. Jahrhunderts befindet, ist davon auszugehen, daß die uns überlieferte Fassung lediglich eine Abschrift einer anderweitig entstandenen, früheren Fassung darstellt bzw. der Inhalt der Werkausgabe erst zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt zusammengestellt wurde.10 Die Position des Indiculum in der Hand-

5

Indiculum, S. 282.

6

Indiculum, S. 282.

7

Vgl. den Evangelien-Prolog an Papst Damasus: » N o v u m opus facere me cogis ex veteri, ut post exemplaria scripturarum toto orbe dispersa quasi quidam arbiter sedeam, et, quia inter se variant, quae sint ilia quae cum graeca consentiant veritate decemam« (Biblia sacra, S. 1515).

8 9

Vgl. im Anhang nach den Werken 34 und 132. Weitere finden sich etwa in Oxford, Merton College 129 (ediert in d e G h e l u n c k 1913), in einem Band einer vierbändigen Bibel: BnF, lat. 14234, f. 182V (In einem weiteren Band derselben Bibel, BnF, lat. 14237, f. i8iv findet sich ein Verzeichnis der Werke Richards von Sankt Viktor); zwei weitere in der Handschrift BnF, lat. 15065, einer Handschrift aus Sankt Viktor aus dem 14. Jahrhundert, auf den f. 3r und 6v (vgl. H a u r £ a u 1852, S. 181 und 188).

10

Die Praxis, Incipits und nicht nur Werktitel aufeulisten, ist in Bibliothekskatalogen erst ab dem Ende des 14. Jahrhunderts bezeugt. Früheste Zeugnisse sind hier die Bibliothekskataloge von Admont (vgl. M ö s e r - M e r s k y 1961, S. 15—63 und W i c h n e r 1889). Diese Beobachtung ist für die Datierung der Entstehung des Indiculum bedeutsam. (Ich danke fiir diesen Hinweis Herrn Dr. Thomas Falmagne).

Die Edition der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor durch Abt Gilduin

121

schrift Oxford, Merton College 49, zwischen Werken des Hugo von Sankt Viktor, läßt vermuten, daß es beim Zusammenstellen des Materials, welches in die Handschrift aufgenommen werden sollte, für so interessant befunden wurde, daß man es aus einer nunmehr verlorenen Vorlage in diese Sammlung hineinkopiert hat." Die vierbändige Werkausgabe des Abtes Gilduin, deren Inhalt das Indiculum wiedergibt, ist nicht erhalten. In der Bibliothek von Sankt Viktor finden sich jedoch unter den Signaturen des Claude de Grandrue mit H H 1 (Paris, Bibliotheque Mazarine 717 = BMaz, 717)' 2 und H H 18 (Paris, Bibliotheque nationale de France lat. 14506 = BnF, lat. 14506)'' zwei Handschriften ausschließlich mit Werken Hugos, die von der Forschung regelmäßig bei der Diskussion um Fragen der Authentizität herangezogen werden, da man vermutet, es handele sich bei diesen Handschriften um Abschriften der Gilduin-Ausgabe. 14 In seiner Untersuchung von Hugos Degrammatica hatte Jean Leclercq bereits 1943 festgestellt: [ . . . ] les deux autres manuscrits sont d'excellentes copies, contemporaries de Hugues de SaintVictor ou peu s'en faut: ce sont le B.N. lat. 14506, f. 225—241V ( N ) et le n. 717, f. 53—73, de la Bibliotheque Mazarine (Μ), qui est une sorte d edition princeps des oeuvres completes de Hugues de Saint-Victor. Ces manuscrits dependent d'un meme exemplaire, qui est peut-etre l'original [.. .]'* Diese Beobachtung Leclercqs wird bestätigt durch die Zusammenordnung der beiden Handschriften in der Gruppe α in der Edition, die Patrice Sicard von De archa Noe und dem Libellus deformatione arche vorgelegt hat.'6 Auch die Edition von De tribus diebus aus der Hand von Dominique Poirel belegt in ihrem Stemma, daß diese beiden Handschriften einer Gruppe zuzurechnen sind und eine gemeinsame Vorlage haben.'7

11

Die übrigen Werklisten (vgl. oben Anm. 9) finden sich in aller Regel am Ende einer für bedeutend empfundenen Handschrift auf den in der letzten Lage verbliebenen Vacat-Folios. Die mögliche Abhängigkeit dieser Listen untereinander ist bislang nicht untersucht worden.

12

Vgl. OUY 1999, 2, S. 256—257.

IJ

Vgl. O U Y 1999, 2, S . 267.

14

Vgl. BARON 1956a; VAN DEN EYNDE i960, hier S. 7 - 8 ; Zuletzt hat Dominique Poirel (POIREL

15

LECLERCQ 1943, hier S. 266; vgl. auch BARON 1956a, S. 196: »Le M S B N 14506 est evidemment de

2002b, S. 27—86) das Verhältnis des Indiculum zur Handschrift BMaz, 717 untersucht. la meme famille que le M S BMaz, 717 (cf. les editions du Didascalicon, du De grammatica, de I'Epitome, de la Practica Geometriae). La finale du De area morali est la meme dans les deux MSS.« Baron (BARON 1963a, S. 44) hatte es allerdings als unmöglich angesehen, die beiden Handschriften der im Indiculum wiedergegebenen Gilduin-Ausgabe zuzuordnen. 16

Vgl. SICARD 2001, S. 81*—89*. 139*—143*. Im Falle des Libellus geht Sicard davon aus, daß BnF, lat. 14506 direkt von BMaz, 717 abhängt, im Falle von De archa nicht. (Vgl. dazu unten Anm. 44).

17

Vgl. POIREL 2002a, S. 140*—141*. 221*. Poirel geht von einer direkten Abhängigkeit von BnF, lat. 14506 von BMaz, 717 aus. Nimmt man an, was im folgenden zu belegen sein wird, daß die Handschriften nicht werkweise, sondern komplett oder zumindest in Werkgruppen zusammenhängend kopiert wurden, ergibt sich die methodische Maxime, daß dann auch die abwei-

122

Ralf Μ. W. Stammberger Der detaillierte Vergleich des Indiculum mit diesen beiden Handschriften (vgl. Anhang 3)

zeigt das hohe Maß an Ubereinstimmung zwischen den Angaben des Indiculum und dem Inhalt dieser Handschriften.' 8 In der Handschrift BMaz, 717 stimmen für diejenigen Werke, die sich in der Handschrift finden, fast sämtliche Tituli, Incipits und Desinits mit dem Indiculum überein. In der Handschrift BnF, lat. 14506 fehlen gelegentlich die Tituli, ansonsten sind kaum Abweichungen festzustellen. Daß einige Werke (Didascalicon, Epitoma Dindimi in philosopbiam, De grammatica, Practica geometric, Libellus deformatione arche, De archa Noe) in beiden Handschriften überliefert werden, erklärt sich daraus, daß sie beide voneinander unabhängige direkte oder indirekte Abschriften der ursprünglichen Gilduin-Ausgabe darstellen. Diese Überschneidungen im Textbestand sind es, die den oben erwähnten stemmatischen Vergleich ermöglichen. In beiden Handschriften gibt die Abfolge der Werke nur partiell diejenige des Indiculum wieder. Unsere genauere Untersuchung der Handschriften vermag jedoch zu zeigen, daß sie beide zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt neu gebunden wurden und ihre rekonstruierbare, ursprüngliche Gestalt noch größere Nähe zum Indiculum aufweist als ihre gegenwärtige Erscheinungsform. Diese Beobachtung beweist schlüssig die in der Forschung immer wieder diskutierte These, daß die Handschriften BMaz, 717 und BnF, lat. 14506 tatsächlich Abschriften der Gilduin-Ausgabe der Werke Hugos sind.'9 Die Rekonstruktion der Gilduin-Ausgabe ist also nicht nur auf der Grundlage des Indiculums möglich, sondern auch mittels derjenigen Handschriften, die sich als Abschriften dieser frühesten Ausgabe der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor erweisen lassen. Dadurch können außerdem die Angaben des Indiculum ergänzt, seine Angaben überprüft und in einigen Details korrigiert werden. D a die Handschrift BMaz, 717 die größte Nähe zum Indiculum aufweist, ist sie an erster Stelle zu untersuchen (1). In einem zweiten Schritt werden dann weitere direkte und indirekte Kopien der Gilduin-Ausgabe untersucht, um mit deren Hilfe den an BMaz, 717 gewonnenen Befund zu ergänzen. Es handelt sich dabei zunächst um die Handschrift BnF, lat. 14506 (n.i). In den Vergleich einbezogen werden dann noch die Handschriften BnF, lat. 15695 und Birmingham, Public Library, 9 1 / M e d / 3 ( = ms. Birm.), die sich als Abschriften der Handschrift BMaz, 717 erweisen lassen, und die somit geeignet sind, die bei der Untersuchung dieser Handschrift und der Rekonstruktion ihres ursprünglichen Zustands chenden Lesarten nicht textweise für die Erstellung eines dann im Detail abweichenden Stemmas herangezogen werden können, sondern gruppenweise betrachtet werden müssen. 18

Vgl. auch BARON 1963a, S. 35, und BARON 1969, Sp. 904—905.

19

Somit bestätigt sich die Vermutung Barons, daß die Handschriften, deren Inhalt das Indiculum beschreibt, tatsächlich existiert haben (vgl. BARON 1963b, S. 336), wenn auch die erhaltene Handschrift BMaz, 717 direkt vor dem von ihm untersuchten Miscellaneum 1169 abbricht (vgl.

Anhang bei Werknr. 110); die von ihm erwähnten Aütgoriat in Novum Hstamentum, π 3—14, die das Indiculum unter dem Titel »Tractatus super dominicam orationem« auflistet, finden sich in der Handschrift BnF, lat. 14506, f. i78v-i83r (Werknr. 208).

123

Hie Edition der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor durch Abt Gilduin

auftretenden Probleme zu klären. Es wird das Verhältnis aller vier Handschriften untereinander und zu der Gilduin-Ausgabe, so wie sie das Indiculum präsentiert, untersucht. Mit Hilfe dieses Vergleichs läßt sich dann zunächst die ursprüngliche Gestalt der Handschrift BMaz, 717 rekonstruieren (n.2). Es zeigt sich dabei, daß mit Hilfe dieser Handschriften der Inhalt der Gilduin-Ausgabe an den Stellen rekonstruiert werden kann, an denen das Indiculum nur summarische Beschreibungen liefert. Auf diese Weise kann der Inhalt der Gilduin-Ausgabe der Werke Hugos nunmehr insgesamt vollständig rekonstruiert werden (Anhang 3). Abschließend wird die Frage erörtert, welche Beweiskraft die so rekonstruierte Gilduin-Ausgabe fur die Frage nach der Authentizität der Hugo zugeschriebenen Werke hat (m).

I D I E HANDSCHRIFT B M A Z ,

717

Die Handschrift BMaz, 717 stammt aus der Bibliothek von Sankt Viktor und wird in der Abteilung H H des Bibliothekskataloges des Claude de Grandrue von 1514, in welcher sich die Sammelhandschriften mit den Werken Hugos finden, unter der Signatur 1 geführt. Die Schriftform verweist die Handschrift in die Mitte oder die zweite Hälfte des 12. Jahrhunderts.2" Das Exlibris auf f. 1 wird von Fran^oise Gasparri ins 15. Jahrhundert datiert.21 Die folgende Untersuchung der Handschrift ergänzt den Befund, den Auguste Molinier, Roger Baron und Dominique Poirel erhoben haben, auf deren Abhandlungen fur die hier nicht vorgenommene detaillierte Beschreibung der Handschrift verwiesen sei.22 Zunächst werde ich den Inhalt der Handschrift mit der Beschreibung des Inhalts der Gilduin-Ausgabe vergleichen, die das Indiculum überliefert, um den Befund zu erheben, aufgrund dessen diese Handschrift als Abschrift der Gilduin-Ausgabe gelten darf (1). Sodann wird die Handschrift kodikologisch-paläographisch untersucht (2) und der so gewonnene Befund mit dem Ergebnis der inhaltlichen Analyse abgeglichen (3). Schließlich wird die historische Bedeutung der Handschrift erörtert, die — neben der nur über das Indiculum indirekt bezeugten Gilduin-Ausgabe, auf die sie zurückgeht, — als Beleg gewertet werden darf, daß es in Sankt Viktor eine Art >editio princeps< der Werke Hugos gegeben hat (4), die als Vorlage fur weitere Abschriften, die in Sankt Viktor angefordert wurden, gedient hat.

20

Patrice Sicard und Dominique Poirel datieren die Handschrift zwischen 1140 und 1150 (vgl. 2oor, S . 43*; POIREL 2002a, S . 47*); Gilbert Ouy setzt ihr Entstehen um 1200 an (vgl. OUY 1999, 2, S. 257).

SICARD

21

V g l . GASPARRI 1990, S . 7 6 .

π

Vgl.

MOLINIER

1885, S. 330—334; BARON 1956a, S. 183.191;

POIREL

2002b, S. 428—445.

Ralf Μ. W. Stammhtrger

124

ι. Inhaltliche Analyse Die Handschrift BMaz, 717 enthält Werke, die aus dem ersten und zweiten Band der im Indiculum überlieferten vierbändigen Gilduin-Ausgabe stammen. N u r an wenigen Stellen weicht die Textform der Tituli, Incipits und Desinits in der Handschrift von der im Indiculum überlieferten ab. Diese Stellen bedürfen der eingehenderen Untersuchung, da sie geeignet sind, die These, es handele sich bei BMaz, 717 um eine Abschrift der GilduinAusgabe, in Frage zu stellen. Es handelt sich um folgende Stellen: 2 ' (1) V o m Beginn des ersten Bandes der Gilduin-Ausgabe fehlen die Chronica und die Auslegung des Octateuch. (2) In der Handschrift (f. 74vb) findet sich auch der Prolog zum Diiascalicott, der im Indiculum keine Erwähnung findet. (3) Das Desinit von Epitome Dindimi in philosophiam lautet in der Handschrift » [ . . . ] animus ad reliqua liber euadit.« (f.54r). 24 Das Indiculum (S. 278) dagegen gibt als Desinit an »Sane omnem linguam potest homo aut audiendo tenere aut legendo a preceptore accipere. Finis.« Hier hat sich der Autor des Indiculum offenbar von dem Wort »Finis« in die Irre führen lassen. Das angebliche Desinit stammt aus dem nachfolgenden Werk De grammatica, das — wie Epitome — als Dialog des Dindimus mit Sosthenes konzipiert ist. Es findet sich dort am Ende des ersten Abschnittes/ 5 Diese Abweichung ist wohl deshalb lange nicht aufgefallen, weil das nachfolgende Incipit »Alphabetum ebraicum uiginti due littere [ . . . ] « (Indiculum, S. 278) 26 sich durchaus in De grammatica findet. Es handelt sich um den Beginn der Tafel mit den verschiedenen Alphabeten, die sich in der Handschrift BMaz, 717 (f. 55r) (und auch BnF, lat. 14506, f. 227r) nach dem ersten Abschnitt findet, der mit »Sane omnem linguam potest homo aut audiendo tenere aut legendo a preceptore accipere. Finis.« endet. Die Differenz zwischen dem Indiculum und den beiden Handschriften ist hier also nur oberflächlich. Der Verfasser des Indiculum hat lediglich den ersten Abschnitt von De grammatica irrigerweise zu Epitome gerechnet und den Beginn der Tafel als Beginn von De grammatica aufgefaßt. Die zugrundeliegende Textgestalt der Gilduin-Ausgabe, die das Indiculum wiedergibt, war offenbar identisch mit derjenigen, die sich in der Handschrift BMaz, 717 (und auch BnF, lat. 14506) findet.

23

Vgl. dazu auch die Gegenüberstellung im Anhang 3.

14

V g l . B n F , lat. 14506, f. 225R u n d HUGO DE SANCTO VICTORE Epitoma, hier S . 2 0 6 .

25

V g l . HUGO DE SANCTO VICTORE De grammatica

grammatica (1966), S . 80. 26

V g l . HUGO DE SANCTO VICTORE Epitoma, S . 2 0 6 .

( 1 9 4 5 ) , S . 2 7 0 ; HUGO DE SANCTO VICTORE

De

Dit Edition der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor durch Abt GiUuin

125

(4) Das Explicit von Practica Geometrie auf f. 5orb ist in der Handschrift im Vergleich zum Indiculum um den Satz »Omnia pretereunt preter amare deum. Unde peroptimus est amor qui nunquam preterit.« ergänzt. Dieser ist jedoch in erheblich kleinerer Schrift gehalten als der übrige Text. Er stellt also offenbar einen, allerdings zeitgenössischen, Schreiberzusatz dar und gehört nicht zum ursprünglichen Textbestand. (5) Die Handschrift läßt im Titel von De archa Noe das Wort »triplici« aus (f. 9ra). (6) V o m Beginn des zweiten Bandes der Gilduin-Ausgabe fehlt in der Handschrift das Werk De assumptione beatae virginis. (7) Das Desinit von De vanitate mundi in der Handschrift ( » [ . . . ] ad mutabilitatem temporis non mutetur«; f. i35vb) entspricht dem in den Druckausgaben. Das im Indiculum aufgeführte Desinit »Finis est: A d ueram pacem stabilitatemque eternam totis desideriis colligantur« (S. 281) verweist darauf, daß der Text in der Vorlage des Indiculum vorher (bei P L 176, Sp. 739 25) endete. (8) A m Ende von Egredietur virga ergänzt die Handschrift »Amen« (f. i6irb). (9) A u f f. i6irb—i6iva findet sich das Werk Maria porta, das im Indiculum nicht verzeichnet ist. D a es sich um ein sehr kurzes Werk handelt (10 Zeilen in der Ausgabe von Baron) 27 ist es wohl unter die Werke ohne Titel zu rechnen, von denen das Indiculum spricht, wenn es dort heißt: » E t hoc scitote, quod fere omnia que continentur in secundo volumine sine titulo distribuuntur, [ . . . ] « (S. 282). Viele dieser kurzen Werke werden, wie unten noch öfters zu sehen sein wird, im Indiculum nicht eigens aufgelistet. (10) A m Ende von De cibo Emmanuelis ergänzt die Handschrift »Per dominum nostrum« (f. i6 5 ra). (11) A m Ende von De sapientia animae christi ergänzt die Handschrift »Ualet« (f. i68vb). (12) A m Ende der Collatio i 1 de verbo incamato ergänzt die Handschrift »Amen« (f. i76va). (13) Nach dem Miscellaneum 1 82 finden sich in der Handschrift acht weitere Miscellanea (Misc., ι 83—90) (f. i78vb—i79va), die im Indiculum nicht verzeichnet sind. (14) A m Ende von Misc., 1 91 ergänzt die Handschrift »Amen« (f. i8orb). (15) Misc., 1 1 0 6 endet in der Handschrift — so wie der edierte Text ( P L 177, Sp. 536) — mit dem Desinit » [ . . . ] perfecta satisfactio condigna« (f. i8orb—i8ova). Im Indiculum (S. 280) heißt es hier lediglich: »Notate in penitencia tria sunt: Dolor preteriti. Custodia futuri. Satisfactio delicti. Dolor culpam placat. Satisfactio uicium sanat. Custodia sanitatem seruat.« Daß das Indiculum hier gekürzt hat, ergibt sich aus der unmittelbar folgenden Anmerkung: »Huiusmodi exposiciones et diversarum sentenciarum infinite sunt in hoc uolumine. E t ideo distuli earum principia scribere vel fines.« (S. 280).

27

Vgl. HUGO DE SANCTO VICTORE Maria porta.

126

Ralf Μ. W. Stammberger

(16) A u f Misc., 1 1 0 6 folgen in der Handschrift weitere 71 Miscellanea (Misc., ι 92, Misc. »In peccato duo sunt«, Misc., 1 93—96. 99. 97—98.100—103.105.104.107—117. 60, Depotestate et voluntate dei, 118—149, ' 5 ° i n drei Teilen, 151—158), die im Indiculum nicht verzeichnet sind (f. i8ova—i93rb). Diese Lücke erklärt sich durch die eben zitierte Anmerkung des Itidiculum. (17) Das von der Angabe des Indiculum abweichende Desinit der Expositio super Psalmos in der Handschrift » [ . . . ] Si totum iudicaret homo non haberet iudicium deus« (f. 2o8va) erklärt sich dadurch, daß im Indiculum nicht das Explicit der Expositio, sondern der letzte kommentierte Psalmvers als Explicit genannt wird: »usque hunc uersum: Quam dulcia faucibus meis eloquia tua« [Ps 118 103] (S. 280). (18) A m Ende von De quinque septenis ergänzt die Handschrift »Amen« (f. 2i2vb). (19) Der Textbestand eines Teils von De uerbo dei ( P L 177, 289—294) ist unvollständig, da die Handschrift inmitten des Textes auf f. 2i2vb abbricht. In der Patrologia Latina ist dieses Werk zusammen mit De unione unter einem gemeinsamen Titel abgedruckt. De unione ( P L 177, 285—289) findet sich in der Handschrift bereits auf f. i70va—i77vb. 28 Die folgenden sechs, im Indiculum (S. 280) verzeichneten Werke (»Sermo super dominicam orationem« [ = Misc., 1 1 6 9 & 170], »Duobus modis diabolus humilitatem« [= Misc., 1 1 7 2 ] , »Tres sunt nature ignis« [ = Misc., 1173], »Potestatem remittendi peccata« [ = De sacramentis, π 14, 8], »Contemplantis anima« [— Misc., 1174],

»De creacione

mundi« [ = De sacramentis legis naturalis et scriptae dialogusj) fehlen in der Handschrift. (20) Das erste Kapitel von Buches 1 von De sacramentis, das das Indiculum als »Tractatus sine titulo« bezeichnet, ist in der Handschrift nicht vollständig überliefert. Der Text setzt auf f. 98ra unvermittelt mit den Worten » [ . . . ] sol cotidiano cursu circumvectus [ . . . ] « ( = P L 176, Sp. 194B) ein. Der entsprechende Eintrag im Indiculum (S. 280) lautet: »Quisquis ad divinarum scripturarum. Tractatus iste sine titulo. Littera: Arduum profecto et laboriosum opus. Finis: Postremo autem qualiter sit reparatus.« Der Textbestand, auf den sich diese Angabe bezieht, entspricht dem der Edition des ersten Kapitels von De sacramentis in P L (176, Sp. 187—206). Das Desinit » [ . . . ] postremo autem qualiter sit reparatus« in der Handschrift (f. ioirb) stimmt mit der Angabe des Indiculum (S. 28of) überein. Die fragmentarische Form des Textes in Mazarine ergibt sich aus den kodikologischen Veränderungen im Zustand der Handschrift (s. u.). Offenbar ist dieses Kapitel als unabhängiges Miscellaneum überliefert worden. Für eine solche separate Überlieferung von De sacramentis, 1 1 gibt es noch weitere Belege.29 28

Diese in der Patrologia Latina zusammengefaßten Werke sind ursprünglich selbständig gewesen. Vgl. dazu PIAZZONI 1980, S. 862f., vor allem 862 n. 4; dort aber kein Verweis auf die Edition des Textes in BARON 1969b, S. 60—81.

29

Allein in der knappen Liste der fragmentarischen Uberlieferung von De sacramentis bei GOY 1976, S. I7if. sind drei Handschriften genannt, in denen dieses Kapitel separat überliefert ist; vgl. dazu ausfuhrlicher unten S. 164, Anm. 88 und 89.

Die Edition der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor durch Abt Gilduin

127

(21) Das Werk De vanitate mundi ist im Indiculum (S. 281) zweigeteilt (cap. 1 & π und m & rv). Das vom Indiculum verzeichnete Desinit »Finis est: Ad ueram pacem stabilitatemque etemam totis desideriis colligantur« verweist darauf, daß das vierte Kapitel in seiner Vorlage nur teilweise (bis P L 176, Sp. 739B) überliefert war. Die Handschriften BMaz, 717 (f. i24ra—i35vb) und BnF, lat. 14506 (f. nr—i26v) enthalten den längeren Text, der sich auch in der Druckausgabe bei Migne findet (bis P L 176, Sp. 740). (22) Wo das Indiculum (S. 281) »prologus de laude caritatis« schreibt, findet sich in unserer Handschrift »tractatus de laude caritatis« (f. i5ora). Allerdings endet der Prolog in der Handschrift mit »Explicit prologus«, was darauf hinweist, daß die Lesung »tractatus« zu Beginn des Prologs eine Eigenheit des Schreibers oder seiner Vorlage ist. Diese Beobachtung stellt ein weiteres Argument dafür dar, daß unsere Handschrift und die Vorlage des Indiculum unabhängig voneinander auf die Werkausgabe des Gilduin zurückgehen und weder unsere Handschrift die Vorlage des Indiculum gewesen sein kann, noch umgekehrt die Vorlage des Indiculum die Vorlage unserer Handschrift. Beim >tractatus< selbst findet sich in der Handschrift ein Schreiberzusatz: »Qui cum eodem patre et spiritu sancto uiuit et regnat deus per omnia secula seculorum. Amen.« (f. i5ivb). (23) Das Werk De virtute orandi endet nach dem Indiculum (S. 281) mit den Worten » [ . . . ] in ara cruris adoletur.«J° Die Handschriften lesen » [ . . . ] in ara cordis adoletur« (BMaz, 717, f. i55vb, bzw. BnF, lat. 14506, f. i56r). Das Indiculum (S. 281) gibt den Titel »Tractatus de uirtute orandi« an, in der Handschrift heißt es »Prologus in tractatu de uirtute orationis«. Auffällig ist, daß sich dieses Werk in der Handschrift BMaz, 717 auf f. i52vb—i55vb vollständig findet und zusätzlich auf f. 74m ein Fragment des Schlusses. (24) Die weiteren vom Indiculum verzeichneten Werke fehlen in der Handschrift.'1 Diese Abweichungen zwischen dem Indiculum und BMaz, 717 zeigen, daß die Handschrift BMaz, 717 nicht die Vorlage des Indiculum gewesen ist, und umgekehrt war die Vorlage für das Indiculum nicht die Vorlage für BMaz, 717. Die Handschrift BMaz, 717 steht aber der Vorlage des Indiculum so nahe, daß man annehmen kann, daß zur Abfassung dieser Handschrift die Gilduin-Ausgabe oder eine Kopie derselben als Vorlage gedient hat. Dieses Verhältnis von BMaz, 717 zur Gilduin-Ausgabe wird noch genauer zu untersuchen sein. Der unterschiedliche Textumfang der Handschrift BMaz, 717 und der Vorlage des Indiculum (vgl. Nr. 1, 6, 9,13,16, 24) erklärt sich dadurch, daß die Handschrift entweder ihre Vorlage nicht vollständig kopiert hat oder diese Vorlage nicht vollständig der Gilduin-

30

Der Vergleich mit der Handschrift zeigt, daß de Ghellinck korrekt transkribiert hat.

31

Vgl. Anhang 3 ab Werknr. 127.

128

Ralf Μ. W. Stammberger

Ausgabe entsprach, wie sie uns das Indiculum überliefert. Einige Brüche (vgl. N r . 19, 20, 23) belegen zudem, daß vom ursprünglichen Textbestand in der Handschrift Teile verloren gegangen sind. Die kleineren Abweichungen der Tituli voneinander und die Schreiberzusätze am Ende einzelner Werke, die in der Regel in kleinerer Schriftgröße gehalten sind, liegen im Rahmen der üblichen Praxis der Kopisten (vgl. N r . 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 18, 22, 23). Einige Abweichungen erklären sich durch rekonstruierbare Fehler oder abweichende Werkeinteilung beim Erstellen des Indiculum (vgl. N r . 3, 15, 17, 21) bzw. durch die abweichende Gestalt eines Werkes in der Vorlage des Indiculum (vgl. N r . 7, 8, 21). Erläuterungsbedürftig bleiben die unvollständige Gestalt von De uerbo dei und De sacramentis, 1 1 in der Handschrift (vgl. N r . 19, 20) und das Auftreten eines Fragments von De virtute orandi (vgl. N r . 23), da in diesen Fällen der einfache Vergleich der Handschrift mit dem Indiculum keine abschließende Erklärung liefert. U m zu einer solchen zu gelangen, ist der Aufbau der Handschrift BMaz, 717 genauer zu untersuchen. In der vollständigen Gegenüberstellung des Indiculum mit der Handschrift BMaz, 717, die sich im Anhang 3 findet, fällt auf, daß die Abfolge der Werke in einzelnen Abschnitten im Indiculum und in der Handschrift die gleiche ist. So ergeben sich bestimmte Werksequenzen. (Zur besseren Orientierung des Lesers finden sich im Anhang den einzelnen Texten zugeordnete Werknummern, auf die im folgenden Bezug genommen wird.) Die Abfolge dieser Werksequenzen untereinander in der Handschrift weicht jedoch von deren Abfolge im Indiculum ab. Die Werksequenzen in der Handschrift sind folgende: Abfolge der Werksequenzen in der Handschrift BMaz, 717 (1) Libellus deformatione arche, De archa, De institutione (Werknr. 7—9; f. iva—4ora) (2) Practica geometriae (Werknr. 6; f. 4ira—5orb) (3) Epitoma Dtndimi, De grammatica (Werknr. 4—5; f. 5ira—73r) (4) De virtute orenJi-Fragment (Werknr. 126; f. 74ra) (5) Epistola π ad Ranulphum de Mauriaco (Werknr. 302; f. 74ra—74vb) (6) Didascalicon (Werknr. 3, mit Prolog; f. 74vb—97vb) (7) De sacramentis, 11—Fragment, Adnotationes elucidatoriae in Threnos, De vanitate mundi, De tribus diebus, De arrha anime, De laude caritatis, De substantia dilectionis, De virtute orandi (Werknr. 117—126; f. gära—i55vb) (8) De meditatione, Misc., 1 1 , Collatio m a de verbo incamato, Egredietur virga, Maria porta, Collatio n* de verbo incarnato, De quatuor voluntatibus, Misc., 1 2, De sapientia animae Christi, De beatae Mariae virginitate, Collatio la de verbo incarnato, De unione corporis et spiritus, Misc., I 81—91.106. 92, Mise. »In peccato duo sunt«, 93—96. 99. 97—98. 100—103.

Ι0

5·

I0

4 · 107—117. 60, De potestate et

voluntate dei, Misc., 1118—158, Adnotationes in Psalmos, Institutiones in decalogum π & m, De quinque septenis, De uerbo ώι-Fragment (Werknr. 11—110; f. i56ra—2i2vb)

Die Edition der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor durch Abt Gilduin

129

Die f. 8rb—8vb, 4ora— 4vb, 5orb—5ovb, 73Γ—73V, lz^rb—izjvb und 213Γ sind Leerseiten, ein Befund, der die Abgrenzung der ersten drei der hier aufgelisteten Sequenzen zusätzlich stützt. Arrangiert man nun diese Werksequenzen gemäß der Abfolge, die das Indiculum fur die Gilduin-Ausgabe verzeichnet, so ergibt sich folgende Anordnung: Abfolge der Werksequenzen aus der Handschrift BMaz, 717 arrangiert nach der Abfolge der Werksequenzen des Indiculum [Nr. der Werksequenzen aus der vorhergehenden Liste] (6) Didascalicon (Werknr. 3; f. 75ra—97vb) (3) Epitoma Dindimi, De grammatica (Werknr. 4—5; f. 5ira—73r) (2) Practica geometriae (Werknr. 6; f. 4ira—5orb) (1) Libellus de formation arcbe, De archa, De institutione (Werknr. 7—9; f. iva—4ora) (8) De meditatione, Misc., 1 1 , Collatio m 1 de verbo incamato, Egredietur virga, Maria porta, Collatio n' de verbo incamato, De quatuor voluntatibus, Misc., 1 2, De sapientia animae Christi, De beatae Mariae virginitate, Collatio I 1 de verbo incamato, De unione corporis et spiritus, Misc., 1 81—91.106. 92, Mise. »In peccato duo sunt«, Misc., 1 93—96. 99. 97—98. 100—103. 105. 104. 107—117. 60, De potestate et voluntate dei, Misc., 1118—158, Adnotationes in Psalmos, Institutions in decalogum π & m, De quinque septenis, De uerbo ώ'-Fragment (Werknr. 11—no; f. i56ra—2i2vb) (7) De sacramentis, 11—Fragment, Adnotationes elucidatoriae in Threnos, De vanitate mundi, De tribus diebus, De arrha anime, De laude caritatis, De substantia dilectionis, De virtute orandi (Werknr. 117—126; f. 98ra—i55vb) (4) De virtute oriWi-Fragment (Werknr. 126; f. 74ra) (5) Epistola π ad Ranulphum de Mauriaco; nicht im Indiculum (Werknr. 302; f. 74ra—74vb) (—) Prolog zum Didascalicon (Werknr. 3; f. 74vb) In letzterer Zusammenstellung fehlen im Vergleich zum Indiculum der Beginn des ersten Bandes der Gilduin-Ausgabe (Werknr. 1—2) und der Beginn des zweiten Bandes (Werknr. 10). Überdies fehlen zwischen dem fragmentarischen Schluß von Werk 110 und dem fragmentarischen Beginn von Werk 117 die Werke in—116. Dem Indiculum nicht zuzuordnen ist zunächst die Epistola π ad Ranulphum de Mauriaco (Werksequenz N r . 5), da sie sich dort nicht verzeichnet findet. Auch das Fragment des Schlusses von De virtute orandi (Werksequenz N r . 4), das eine Doppelung mit dem Schluß der Werksequenz 7 darstellt, bedarf einer Erklärung (siehe unten ab S. 156).

Ralf Μ. W. Stammberger

13° 2. Kodikologisch-paläographische Analyse

Die Lagenanalyse der Handschrift BMaz, 717 erweist sich als ausgesprochen kompliziert. Der im folgenden beschriebene Befund wurde am gebundenen Codex gewonnen, einzelne Beobachtungen sind, bedingt durch die feste Bindung, unsicher. Die einzelnen Teile der Handschrift stellen sich wie folgt dar: (1)

Lagen 1—ν (f. 1—40) bestehen aus regelmäßigen Quaternionen. Jeweils auf der RectoSeite des ersten Folios finden sich Kustoden mit Korrekturprotokoll, die die Lagen bezeichnen: f. ir: »i1* quaternus perfecte«, f. 9η »ii perfecte«, f. 17Π »iii perfecte«, f. 25r: »iiiί perfecte«, f. 33r: »um perfecte«. Die Reklamanten auf der letzten VersoSeite der Lagen verweisen jeweils auf die nachfolgende Lage. Auf f. 40V ist kein Reklamant zu erkennen.

(2) Lage vi (f. 41—50) stellt ein Quinio dar. (3) Lage vn (f. 51—54) ist ein Binio, der mit der Kustoden »ix« gekennzeichnet und mit einem Reklamanten versehen ist, der auf f. 55r verweist. Auf f. 5ir und 52r sind mit Bleimine die Zahlen »I« und »n« vermerkt. (4) Lage vm—ix (f. 55—68) stellen eine Einheit dar. In diesen beiden Lagen sind die einzelnen Folios mit den folgenden Kustoden versehen: f. 55Π »primum folium«, f. 56: —, f. 57V: »iiif«, f. 58V: »iiiif«, f. 59V: »uf«, f. 60: —, f. 6iv: »uiif«, f. 62V: »uiiif«, f. 63V: »ixf«, f. 64V: »xf«, f. 65V: »xif«, f. 66v: »xiif«, f. 67V: »xiiif«, f. 68v: »xiiiif«. Offenbar sind die Kustoden auf f. 56 und 60 durch späteren Beschnitt verloren gegangen. Alle 14 Folios sind zudem mit Reklamanten ausgestattet. Der Reklamant auf f. 68v verweist auf f. 69^ Lage vm (f. 55—58) ist ein Binio. Lage ix (f. 59—68) ist ein Quinio. Auf f. 59t findet sich die Kustode »x«. (5) Lage χ (f. 69—73) ist ein Ternio, dessen letztes Folio fehlt. (6) Lagen xi—xm (f. 74—97) sind regelmäßige Quaternionen, die mit den Kustoden »ui«»uiii« gekennzeichnet sind. Der Reklamant »sepe nobis« auf f. 97V, also zum Schluß der mit »uiii« gekennzeichneten Lage, verweist auf den Beginn von Lage vn (f. 5ir), die mit »ix« gekennzeichnet ist (s.o. (3)). (7) Die Lagen xrv—xx (f. 98—151) bilden nach dem paläographischen Befund eine Einheit. Lage xrv (f. 98—106) ist ein Quaternio, dem f. 102 als Einzelblatt eingefugt wurde. Lage x v (f. 107—114) ist ein regelmäßiger Quaternio. In Lage xvi (f. 115—123) sind die einzelnen Folios mit den Buchstaben »a«-»i« gekennzeichnet. Die Lage ist ein Quaternio, dem ein Folio (f. 123) angefügt wurde. Lagen xvn—xix (f. 124—147) sind regelmäßige Quaternionen. Der Reklamant auf f. 147 ist von späterer Hand hinzugefügt. Lage xx (f. 148—151) ist ein Binio.

Die Edition der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor durch Abt Gilduin

(8) Lage xxi (f. 152—155) ist ein in einer Hand des 15. Jahrhunderts geschriebener Binio (vgl. Abbildung 5). (9) Lagen xxn—xxvm (f. 156—211) sind regelmäßige Quaternionen. Auf den Lagen xxn— xxiv sind noch die Kustoden »i«-»iii« zu erkennen. Auf den Lagen xxiv—xxvm finden sich Reklamanten. Lage xxix (f. 212) besteht nur noch aus einem einzigen Folio. Der Reklamant »utraque ad inuicem ligant« auf f. 2i2vb verweist auf die Fortsetzung des Textes von De uerbo dei (vgl. P L 177, S p . 2 9 I A ) . J 2

Die Kustoden und Reklamanten bestätigen, daß diese Lagen xxn—xxix ursprünglich eine Einheit bildeten." Die Positionierung von Lage xxi aus dem 15. Jahrhundert inmitten älterer Lagen belegt, daß die Handschrift zum Zeitpunkt, als diese eingefügt wurde, neu gebunden worden ist. Die ursprüngliche Lagenordnung der Handschrift, die es zu rekonstruieren gilt, ist also durch mindestens eine, tatsächlich aber wohl durch zwei Neubindungen verändert worden, was im folgenden erörtert werden soll. Ob die Handschrift in Sankt Viktor entstanden ist bzw. ob sie sich schon vor dem 15. Jahrhundert, aus dem das Ex-libris auf f. 1 stammt, in der Bibliothek der Abtei befand, läßt sich nicht zweifelsfrei feststellen. Es gibt allerdings auch keine Indizien fiir eine andere Provenienz. Die Tatsache, daß sie als Kopiervorlage einer Pariser und einer englischen Handschrift gedient hat (vgl. unten 1.4 und n), legt es außerdem nahe, sie vor dem 15. Jahrhundert in Paris zu vermuten.

32

Vgl. auch Anhang 3, S. 212, Werknr. 110.

3)

A n drei Stellen weicht diese Analyse von derjenigen bei POIREL 2002b, S. jgf., im wesendichen ab: 1) f. 41—68: Poirel sieht in f. 41—48 einen Quaternio, dem zwei Folios hinzugefügt wurden ( » 4 / 6 « ) , die f. 49—50 sind gar nicht berücksichtigt. In f. 51—58 sieht er einen Quaternio, in f. 59—68 einen Quinio. Gegen diese Einteilung in nur zwei Lagen sprechen die auch von ihm bemerkten Reklamanten auf f. 54V und 68v, die innerhalb einer Lage überflüssig wären. 2 ) f. 148—155: Poirel sieht hier einen regelmäßigen Quaternio, verweist aber selbst darauf, daß f. 152—155 aus dem 15. Jhdt. stammen, was ihre Zuordnung zur gleichen Lage mit f. 148—151 ausschließt. 3) f. 204—212: Poirel sieht hier einen Quaternio, dem f. 212 als Einzelblatt hinzugefügt wurde. Der Reklamant auf f. 2iiv spricht aber m. E . gegen eine solche kodikologische Zusammengehörigkeit.

Ralf Μ. W. Stammberger

132

3. Rekonstruktion des ursprünglichen Zustandes der Handschrift Der oben (1.1) erstellten hypothetischen Neuordnung der Werksequenzen in der Handschrift BMaz, 717 lassen sich nunmehr die Lagen der Handschrift zuordnen. Zusammenschau der inhaltlichen und der kodikologischen Analyse der Handschrift BMaz, 717 Rekonstruierte Abfolge aufgrund der

Zuordnung der Teile der Handschrift

Werkfolge des Indiculum

BMaz, 717

(Werknr. in der Reihenfolge des Indiculum)

(Folios der Handschrift)

Band 1 der Gilduin-Ausgabe (6) Didascalicon (Werknr. 3)

(6) Lagen xi—xm (f. 7 4 - 9 7 )

(3) Epitoma Dindimi, De grammatica (Werknr. 4—5)

(3) Lage vn (f. 51—54) (4) Lagen v m - i x (f. 55-68) (5) Lage χ (f. 6 9 - 7 3 )

(2) Practica geometriae (Werknr. 6) (1) Libellus de formation arche, De archa, De

(2) Lage v i (f. 41—50) (1) Lagen 1—ν (f. 1—40)

institutione (Werknr. 7—9) Band π der Gilduin-Ausgabe [Werk 10 fehlt] (8) De meditatione, Misc., 1 1 , Collatio raa de

(9) Lagen xxn—xxix (f. 156-212)

verba incarnato, Egredietur virga, Maria porta, Collatio na de verbo incamato, De quatuor voluntatibus, Misc., 1 2, De sapientia animae Christi, De beatae Mariae virginitate, Collatio f de verbo incarnato, De unione corporis et spiritus, Misc., 1 81—91. 106. 92, Mise. »In peccato duo sunt«, Misc., 1 93—96. 99. 97—98. 100—103.

ιο

5·

io

4· 107—117. 60,

Depotestate et voluntate dei, Misc., 1118—158, Adnotationes in Psalmos, Institutiones in deca~ logum n & m, De quinque septenis, De verbo ώί-Fragment (Werknr. 11—110) [Rest von Werk 110, Werke m—116 und Beginn von Werk 117 fehlen]

Die Edition der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor durch Abt GiUuin

(7) De sacramentis, 11—Fragment, Adnotationes elucidatoriae in Threnos, De

(7) Lagen xrv-xx (f. 98-151) (8) Lage xxi (f. 152-155)

vanitate mundi, De tribus diebus, De arrha anime, De laude caritatis, De substantia dilectionis, De virtute orandi ( W e r k n r . 117—126)

(4) De virtute o«nDe sacramentis< unerwähnt gelassen haben sollte. Es ist notwendig die Frage nach dem Inhalt von Band rv der Gilduin-Ausgabe und die Frage danach, ob De sacramentis in der Gilduin-Ausgabe enthalten war, voneinander zu trennen. Die einzige Lösung der zweiten Frage besteht in der Annahme, daß die beiden Bände von De sacramentis überhaupt nicht Bestandteil der Gilduin-Ausgabe gewesen sind. Das ist insofern plausibel, als sie in separaten Codices überliefert wurden 82 und fur sie das Problem gar nicht nicht bestand, das Gilduin motiviert hatte, Hugos Werke in einer vierbändigen Ausgabe zusammenzufassen. 8 ' Möglicherweise haben die beiden zusammengehörigen Viktoriner Handschriften Paris, I.R.H.T., coli, privees 60, und BnF, lat. 14509, die die beiden Teile von De sacramentis enthalten, als Referenzausgabe dieses Werkes in Sankt Viktor gedient,84 und insofern die Gilduin-Ausgabe komplettiert. Die Identität des vierten Bandes der Gilduin-Ausgabe mit Buch π von De sacramentis kann mithin ausgeschlossen werden. Wahrscheinlicher scheint es, daß es sich hier um ein anderes Werk Hugos handelt. 8 ' 80

So weist etwa die frühe Handschrift Bonn, Universitätsbibliothek 292 für Buch π von De sacramentis 233 Kapitel aus.

81

V g l . DE GHELLINCK 1910, S . 396; DE GHELLINCK 1 9 1 4 , S . 113.

82

V g l die Z u s a m m e n s c h a u der H a n d s c h r i f t e n bei G O Y 1 9 7 6 , S . 133—172.

83

Vgl. Indiculum, S. 282: » [ . . . ] quia fere omnia opera eius antequam moreretur dispersa erant. Sed

84

Vgl. GASPARRI

post mortem eius abbas Geldewinus collegit omnia in simul et fecit quatuor uolumina.« 1991,

schrift BnF, lat.

hier besonders S.

14508

137

und

139.

Nach Gasparri sind die f.

1—75V

eine Kopie der Handschrift Paris, I.R.H.T., Coli, privees

der Hand-

60

(die von

Gottfried von Sankt Viktor korrigiert wurde); vgl. GASPARRI 1981, S. 281. 85

Aufgrund seiner Aufteilung in 200 Kapitel kommt der zuerst von Schneyer entdeckte Uber sermonum hierfür in Frage. Vgl. SCHNEYER 1964.

Ralf Μ. W. Stammberger

164

D i e beiden erwähnten Abschnitte aus De sacramentis, die das Indiculum unter eigenen Tituli führt, sind als unabhängige Werke (114 und 117) aufzufassen, die später — wie so viel anderes früheres Material auch — Eingang in De sacramentis gefunden haben. 86 D i e eigenständige Uberlieferung von De sacramentis, 1 1 belegt mindestens eine Handschrift. 8 7 M i n destens zwei Handschriften enthalten sowohl De sacramentis, π 14, 8 als auch 1 1 , also genau jene beiden Abschnitte, die auch das Indiculum anfuhrt. 88 (2) Notule in librum Iudicum D i e Notule in librum Iudicum fehlen im Indiculum. Dabei ist aber die Struktur des entsprechenden Eintrags zu beachten: 8 ' Aufgelistet werden (in dieser Reihenfolge) Kapitel 1 der Adnotationes elucidatoriae in Pentateuchon, Kapitel 1—xvn von De scripturis und dann Kapitel n—vi der Adnotationes elucidatoriae in Pentateuchon. E s folgt dann der Vermerk: »In principio creauit deus celum et terram et cetera.« 9 " E s wird also nur der erste kommentierte Vers wiedergegeben. D e r Gesamtumfang läßt sich nur aus dem folgenden Satz erschließen: »Notulas istas facit super pentateucum et librum Regum.« 9 ' Die Tatsache, dafi der Liber iudicum hier nicht erwähnt wird, läßt sich erklären mit dem Verweis auf die komprimierte Ankündigung. In der handschriftlichen Überlieferung finden sich außerdem die Kommentare zu Richter und Könige stets zusammen. S o gibt es keinen Grund, die Authentizität der Notule in librum Iudicum ernsthaft in Z w e i f e l zu ziehen. 92

86

Vgl. zur Integration früherer Werke bei der Abfassung von De sacramentis WEISWEILER 1944—

87

Napoli vm. A. 37 (13./14. Jhdt.), f. 52vb-58vb (vgl. GOY 1976, S. 171).

1949. 88

Lisboa, Alcob. LXXVI/243 (15. Jhdt., nach GOY 1976; 13. Jhdt. nach Van den Eynde und Arnos), f. 48ra—51A und 86rb—98vb (vgl. VAN DEN EYNDE 1963; GOY 1976, S . 171; AMOS 1989, S . i7if.)

und Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, lat. fol. 744 = Görres 41 (13. Jhdt.; Himmerod OCist.), f. 54rb—58rb. 97rb-io9rb (vgl. VAN DEN EYNDE 1963 und GOY 1976, S. 153). Die vergleichende Detailbeschreibung bei VAN DEN EYNDE 1963 zeigt, daß die Abfolge der Werke in Lisboa, Alcob. LXXVI/243 insgesamt derjenigen in der Handschrift Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz lat. fol. 744 = Görres 41 entspricht (vgl. auch AMOS 1989, S. 171). Die Bezeichnung Liber Magistri Hugonisfindetsich nur in der Lissaboner Handschrift. Eine genauere Untersuchung der Handschriften dürfte weitere Zeugen für die separate Uberlieferung von De sacramentis, I1 und π 14, 8 zu Tage fördern. 89

Vgl. Indiculum, S. 277—278.

90

Indiculum, S. 278.

91

Indiculum, S. 278.

92

Einzige Ausnahme ist die Handschrift Cambridge, Univ. Libr., Kk.II.22 (15. Jhdt.), in der nur der Kommentar In librum Iudicum enthalten ist. Vgl. dazu die vollständige Handschriftenbeschreibung in der kommenden kritischen Ausgabe von Hugos Octateuch-Kommentar.

Die Edition der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor durch Abt Gilduin

.65

(3) Sententie de iiuinitate Uber die Entstehung der Sententiae de diuinitate, die in drei Handschriften überliefert sind," unterrichtet uns ein Brief des Laurentius von Durham, eines Schülers Hugos: [ . . . ] Qui cum sentencias de divinitate dicere incepisset, rogatus sum a plerisque sociorum, [...], rogatus, inquam, sum, quatenus ad communem tarn mei quam aliorum utilitatem easdem sentencias scripto et memorie commendarem. Quorum precibus cum iam bis vel ter commonitus non acquiescerem, ut qui me ipsum melius quam ipsi noveram, demum magistrum Hugonem in eadem peticione secum adhibuerunt. Qui et hoc onus scribendi nobis iniunxit et fiduciam perficiendi magna quadam alacritate promisit. [ . . . ] Et ne quis vel iuste reprehendencium vel in vide mordencium calumpnie pateret introitus, semel in septimana ad magistrum Hugonem tabellas reportabam ut eius arbitrio, si quid superfluum esset, resecaretur, si quid pretermissum, suppleretur, si quid viciose positum, mutaretur, si quid vero quandoque forte fortuitu bene dictum, tanti viri auctoritate comprobaretur. [ . . . ] Non enim me huius operis auctorem, sed quodammodo artificem profiteor.94 Wenn Laurentius in seinem Brief auch eine Autorschaft im engeren Sinne von sich zurückweist, so ist dennoch umgekehrt klar, daß Hugo selbst nicht in diesem engeren Sinne der Autor der Sententie de diuinitate war. Es handelt sich vielmehr um eine von ihm approbierte Reportatio seiner Vorlesung. Auf die inhaltlichen und strukturellen Parallelen zwischen den Sententie de diuinitate und De sacramentis hat bereits Bernhard Bischoff hingewiesen." (4) Descriptio mappe mundi Hugos Libellus dejormatione arche enthält drei Hinweise auf eine >mappa mundiDescriptio mappe mundimagister L.< identisch, der, aus Durham stammend, in Paris studierte, 1143 nach England zurückkehrte und später Abt von Westminster wurde (vgl. BISCHOFF 1 9 6 7 , S. 183, n . 9 ) . Bernhard von Clairvaux erwähnt diesen >magister Laurentius< in der Epistola 543. (Zum Gebrauch des Titels >magister< als Ausweis höherer Bildung vgl. BARROW 1989.) Adressat des Briefes ist vermudich Mauritius von Rievaulx, der ebenfalls in Durham aufgewachsen war (vgl. CROYDON 1950). V g l . BISCHOFF 1967, S . 1 8 4 - 1 8 5 .

96 » [ . . . ] cuius situs in mappa mundi ibidem constat [ . . . ] « (Libellus dejormatione arche, v, 148 6—7 = P L 176, Sp. 6 9 6 C ) ; » [ . . . ] in descriptione mappe mundi postea clarebit [ . . . ] « (Libellus de formattone arche, rx, 155 4 8 F . = P L 176, Sp. 6 9 9 D ) ; »In hoc spacio mappa mundi depingitur [ . . . ] « (.Libellus dejormatione arche, XI, 157 6—7 = P L 176, Sp. 7 0 0 C ) (vgl. dazu GAUTIER DALCHÄ 1988, S. 1 8 - 1 9 ) .

Ralf Μ. W. Stammherger

ι66

Passage aus dem Libellus oder schließlich auf einen Teil des Chronicon bezieht.97 Roger Baron hatte 1955 einige Teile aus dem Chronicon ediert und diese als das im Libellus zitierte Werk ausgegeben.98 Patrick Gautier Dalche konnte dies mit Hinweis darauf, daß die entsprechenden Teile des Chronicon niemals separat überliefert sind und überdies nicht den Titel »Descriptio mappe mundi« tragen, zurückweisen. 99 Seinerseits hat er, ausgehend von zwei von drei ihm bekannten Handschriften, eine anonyme Descriptio mappe mundi ediert und diese mit dem im Libellus genannten Werk identifiziert.' 00 Wenn auch das Indiculum dieses Werk nicht kennt, so findet es sich jedoch in zwei Listen der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor aus dem 14. Jahrhundert (BnF, lat. 15065, f. 3r und f. 6v).101 D a die Handschriften, die das Werk überliefern, 102 nicht aus Sankt Viktor oder dem Umfeld der Abtei stammen, ist es gut möglich, daß die Descriptio mappe mundi Abt Gilduin für seine Werksammlung nicht zur Verfügung stand. Im 14. Jahrhundert wußte man jedoch in Sankt Viktor noch um ein solches Werk Hugos, wie die erwähnten viktorinischen Werklisten belegen. Gautier Dalche konnte überdies nachweisen, daß Paulinus von Venedig (1270—1344) für den Traktat De mappa mundi, der seinem zwischen 1324 und 1339 entstandenen Werk Satyrica historiabeigefügt

ist,

das Memorial* historiarum des Johannes von Sankt Viktor benutzt hat. Diesem wiederum lag offenbar eine Handschrift der Descriptio mappe mundi vor, die Hugo von Sankt Viktor als Autor benannte.1"4

97

Vgl. die Darstellung dieser Auseinandersetzung in GAUTIER DALCH6 1988, S. 13—23.

98

Vgl. BARON 1956c, S. 137—145.

99

Vgl. GAUTIER DALCH£ 1988, S. 15; GOY 1976, S. 481 bezieht sich auf den von Baron als >Mappa mundi< ausgegebenen Teil des Chronicon; zum Chronicon vgl. nun auch HARRISON 2002.

100 In der Handschrift BnF, lat. 4863 ist die Descriptio mappe mundi verloren gegangen (vgl. GAUTIER DALCH£ 1988, S. 30—33). 1991 konnte er noch zwei weitere Textzeugen hinzufügen, die ihm erst später bekannt geworden waren (vgl. GAUTIER DALCH£ 1991, S. 145). 101

Ediert bei HAURJ=AU 1852. O b diese Handschriften bzw. die Werklisten in Sankt Viktor entstanden oder erst später in die Bibliothek gelangt sind, ist allerdings nicht abschließend geklärt.

102

Dijon, Bibliotheque municipale, 561 (322) (12. Jhdt); San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Biblioteca monastica, f. 1. 12 (12. Jhdt.); BL, Harley 3773 (13. Jhdt.) und Trier, Stadtbibliothek, 1353/132 (15. Jhdt.). Die beiden letzteren Handschriften stellen vermudich eine frühere Version dar. Ihr Textbestand weicht von den älteren Handschriften ab. So fehlt etwa der Prolog. In BnF, lat. 4863 ist der Text nur im Inhaltsverzeichnis nachweisbar. Vgl. GAUTIER DALCH6 1991, S. 148—152.

103

Erhalten ist das Werk in der Handschrift Vaticano, Bibliotheca Apostolica, vat. lat. i960.

104 Vgl. GAUTIER DALCH£ 1991, S. 152—161. E r revidiert damit seine frühere These, daß Paulinus selbst eine Handschrift der Descriptio mappe mundi vorgelegen habe (vgl. GAUTIER DALCH£ 1988, S. 4 2 - 4 7 ) .

Die Edition der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor durch Abt Gilduin

167

Die im Memoriale historiarum beschriebene Weltkarte, die noch Johannes von Sankt V i k tor gekannt haben muß, wenngleich sie wohl schon zu seiner Zeit teilweise zerstört war,'"5 ist nicht erhalten. Die Karte auf f. 154V der Handschrift München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, clm 1 0 0 5 8 aus dem 1 2 . Jahrhundert stellt jedoch vermutlich eine vereinfachte Kopie dieser Karte dar.'"6 Wenn auch aufgrund des kompilatorischen Charakters der Descriptio mappe mundi ein stilistischer Vergleich mit den authentischen Werken Hugos schwerfällt, so gibt es doch einige Parallelen zum Chronicon und zu De archa Noe, sowie eine stilistische Nähe des Prologes zu Passagen aus De archa Noe, dem Libellus deformatione arche und dem Didascalicon'"7 Der Zusammenhang mit diesen anderen Werken erlaubt überdies eine Datierung zu Beginn der dreißiger Jahre des 12. Jahrhunderts.' 08 Ausgehend von dem Zitat aus dem Libellus deformatione arche und den Spuren, die die Descriptio mappe mundi in den Werklisten und bei Paulinus von Venedig hinterlassen hat, kann diese mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit als authentisches Werk Hugos gelten.' 09 (5) Rescriptum

Hugonis

Unter dem Titel Rescriptum Hugonis hat Ludwig Ott den an Walter von Mortagne gerichteten Widmungsbrief Hugos zu seinem Werk De sapientia animae Christi ediert, der gleichfalls nicht in der Gilduin-Ausgabe enthalten war." 0 Das Rescriptum Hugonis stellt die Antwort auf den Brief Walters an Hugo dar,"1 in dem Walter um Klärung von Hugos Position bezüglich der umstrittenen Frage nach der menschlichen Weisheit Christi gebeten hatte." 2 Er findet sich neben den Ott bekannten sieben Handschriften in mindestens fünf weiteren."' Da sich der Brief — außer in der Handschrift Bruxelles, Bibliotheque royale, 6 7 9 — 6 8 1 ( 1 4 2 2 ) " 4 — ausschließlich in Hand-

105

V g l . GAUTIER DALCH6 1991, S . 158.

106

V g l . GAUTIER DALCH£ 1991, S . 1 4 4 .

107

V g l . GAUTIER DALCH6 1988, S . 4 8 - 5 2 .

108

V g l . GAUTIER DALCH£ 1988, S . 5 5 - 5 8 .

109

VgLauch

uo

Vgl. O T T 1937, S. 353^

in

112

Vgl. H U G O DE SANCTO VICTORE Rescriptum, S . 353: »Longis siquidem ac diuturnis occupationibus detentus, vix tandem aliquando modicum furatus otium stilum arripui et, quae interim pro tempore occurrere potuerunt, in eam quaestionem, quam de anima Christi proposuistis solvendam, transmisi.« Zu dieser Auseinandersetzung zwischen Walter von Mortagne und Hugo vgl. STAMMBERGER

II}

Vgl. GOY 1976, S. 124—132.

GAUTIER DALCH£

1991, S. i57f.

2002, S. 76—85.

114 Vgl. OTT 1937, S. 353; GOY 1976 führt diese Handschrift nicht an.

Ralf Κ W. Stammberger

ι68

Schriften aus dem deutsch-österreichischen Raum" 5 und aus England und Irland" 6 findet, ist es wahrscheinlich, daß er bereits Gilduin bei der Zusammenstellung seiner Werksammlung nicht mehr verfügbar war. In mindestens drei Handschriften des Werkes De sapientia anittw Christi, die alle aus dem 12. Jahrhundert stammen, findet sich eine W i d m u n g an Walter von Mortagne, ohne daß das Rescriptum vorausginge." 7 Sie bestätigen die im Rescriptum enthaltene W i d m i m g dieses Werkes an Walter. Inhalt, Form und handschriftliche Uberlieferung belegen somit die Authentizität des Schreibens. (6) Epistok ad milites templi In der Handschrift Nimes, Bibliotheque municipale, 37 (12. Jhdt.; vormals im dortigen Jesuitenkolleg)" 8 findet sich auf den f. 1 6 9 V — 1 7 2 V ein >sermo«$*>·*ϊί?

CAfttnci ypi/f»»"^ Wftrtfc Scatc Iccttc Mäiul · MatU^h«·** vOn»

uJnnv

(TfotS&cn· ft>pA

Ii Ii

^«Tt»Jp»i-firtfi»Π «Γ

C

»

X n j L M i e i i A ' f i U ^ d M · · ^ ^ Λ . i r S>JI AtlSicuy

U

i

II fill

liiltnan^

I I ' il i

-Ii-

< tlitfiigrü-

n yStC*

• il Ü Ü;

Abbildung 3: Oxford, Merton College, 49, f. 82r

Ralf Μ. W. StammbiTger

*, 1-1Ϊ9 ^UjBJMXs r

• ft. >4«

myat

φ, fit«: f^BiVfCnttTtdV&iiv'MtbJ W

-) «JrUi^XvCfntH^WuCyUl: ">7f-fc—L.JA». Λ fi-

mnfyt-fftn>jr·χ!}

fhUtWw

i ß L ^ Ä » WHrrf-^rS.1 «^ΜλΓ ji «Λ»'«·»"·

^i^rtiM-ttij^fyrmi'i f"*

'/,

«si-j>» ι .H·

μ 9 j W Hd>4W

94tS.it· ihft*n$t*rtr*n&ita

r ^ w Ä Ä r w M ^ M ^ ^ f » ^ ^ W /»«jM S r / i i f f W ύΛΛίφ,ηΟβΜΐ" «ί ίΓι*· btytiui»/&*} fifel A ' ft£u> Mt J ' f i t ti*n*tt3 t&cfiful KJ^-for f f t M e αη^ΟΜφηάέΜΉ»ftnSb \ V o f w f i i i fntt -Mrtfo frfhtfrrtoti tpfiiii jttnaüVtUMtfMi

^ä^-^V^) Sc R j r j w f t ?M

(,!"«·^

ι t x t u r t i v a o i9mrfc£t»att)

tuvtu

fcxut'C^iattkt

~ϊϊ*>~iW Ri>ttti j ! • γΐ*Α*ΜιόΛ>(- fpcvcnitA m Qjntiirti 1

A»»m»>> t»>»» m«>>i

nül' fnu

mcrtAfht· . 1 i frort $u\ in

)

'

Abbildung 4: Oxford, Merton College, 49, f. 82V

'njr

Die Edition der Werkt Hugos von Sankt Viktor durch Abt Gilduin

iHwc-qfifcinia awo:rounOim|>> «ιοι>ηα· fesrfrtidtummSq^B.« i,e«#amböat i ιό« μβκι.'ίβ axunprttaim t*t' »wa«^ αϊαύφάοια icaiutfcriuid«R8 traf at „jCrflXmim Out Λύ mtuKfttagirnut j ni9ii'«itr^ff''^iofiuif um qiu a(' The present text is that of Cotton Julius B. xm, but Stowe 4 (f. 272A) has also been examined: this second BL witness contains many orthographical variants, and is headed "Nomina hystoriographorum".

The following abbreviations have been employed for Hugh's sources: Gregory: Gregory of Tours, Historiarum libri decern. Josephus: Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (in Latin translation). Livy: Titus Livius, Ab urhe condita libri. Orosius:

P a u l u s O r o s i u s , Historia aduersum paganos.

i)i

RADULFUS DE DICETO Opera Historica, n, p. Lvm-Lix; GRANSDEN 1974—1982, 1, p. 332. 359. 364.

132

VAUGHAN 1949—1953, p. 381. 391.

133

WAITZ 1853-1858, p. 307-308.

134

GUEN6E 1983, p. 137—139.

366—367.395—396. 412. 444. 504; GRANSDEN 1974—1982, 2, p. 126; CHENEY 1973, p. 214—219.

135

GUEN6E 1983, p. 137.

136

RADULFUS DE DICETO Opera Historica, 1, p. 2 0 - 2 4 ;

n

>

P*

xvn-xix.

Julian Harrison

290 Cotton M S . Julius B. xm, f. 2 7 V De nominibus historiographorum

Pompeius Trogus (first century B.C.), author o f Historiae [1]

Pompeius Tro(g)us

Philippicae, now known mainly through an epitome by Justinus: Orosius ( v n 27 etc.); Cornelius

[2]

Cornelius

Tacitus

(fl. A . D .

118), author (among

other

works) of the Agricola, the Germania, the Histories and the Annals: Orosius ( v n 27 etc.); Sextus Iulius Africanus (fl. ca. A . D . 220), Christian philo-

[3]

lulianus Affricanus

sopher and author o f Chronographies in 5 books, a source o f Eusebius' Chronicle; Justin (Marcus Iunianus Iustinus), author o f a Latin epitome o f Pompeius Trogus, Historiae Philtppicar. Orosius (1 8,

[4]

Iustinus

[5]

Palefatus de incredibili-

Palaephatus (late-fourth century B.C.), author o f a Peri apis-

bus mundi

ton (On incredible things), which survives in a single excerpt:

10, i v 2 6 ) ;

O r o s i u s (112—13);

[6]

Herodotus de regibus Egiptiis

Herodotus o f Halicarnassus (f ca. 420 B.C.), author o f the earliest extant historical narrative, book π o f which deals with E g y p t : Josephus ( v m 157 etc.);

[7]

Renatus Frigeridus

Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus, author o f a lost History: Gregory (n 8—9);

[8]

Sulpitius Alexander

Sulpicius Alexander (fourth century A.D.), also author o f a lost History: Gregory (n 9);

[9]

Valmtinus

a misreading o f Gregory (n 9); Quintus Fabius Pictor (fl. 216 B.C.), reputedly the first R o m a n historian, who wrote in Greek: Orosius (iv 13); Livy

[10]

Fabius

(1 4 4 etc.); Irenaeus, bishop o f Lyons (t ca. A . D . 202), Christian theologian and author o f Aduersus hereses, primarily extant only in

[11]

Ireneus

Latin translation; Lucius Cincius Alimentus (fl. 210 B.C.), author o f a history o f R o m e (in Greek): Livy ( x x i 38);

[12]

Cinnius Alimentius

Hugh cf Saint-Victor's Chronicle in the British Isles [13]

Helius

Quintus Aelius Tubero (late-first century B.C.), author of Annates and a Roman history in at least 14 books: (?)Livy (iv 23);

[14]

Claudius qui et annates Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius, author of a history of Acilianos de Greco in Latinum transtulit

Rome in at least 23 books, and reputedly translator of a history of Rome (in Greek) by Gaius Acilius: Livy ( x x v 39); Orosius (iv 20 etc.);

[15]

Suetonius Tranquillus

Suetonius (Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus) (t ca. A.D. 130), author of De uiris illustribus and De uita Caesarum: Orosius (vi 7 etc.);

[16]

Alexander Polistor

Alexander 'Polyhistor' (first century B.C.), compiler of various treatises on geography, philosophy and marvels: Josephus (1 240—241);

[17]

[18]

Ierontmus Egiptius de

Hieronymus the Egyptian, who composed a history of

antiquitate Phenicie

Phoenicia: Josephus (1 94);

Manasseas Damascenus a conflation of Mnaseas of Patura (fl. ca. 200 B.C.), author of a collection of mythological tales, with Nicolaus of Damascus (no. 25), derived from the faulty Latin translation ('Mnaseas Damascenus') of Josephus: Josephus (1 94);

[19]

Horosus de istoria Cal- Berosus (fl. 290 B.C.), author of a Babylonian history in at deorum

least 3 books, now preserved only in fragments: Josephus (1 93 etc.);

[20]

Megastenis de istoria Indica

[21]

Megasthenes (f 290 B.C.), author of a history of India: Josephus (x 227);

Diodes de historia Colo- (?)Diocles of Peparethos (probably third century B.C.), niarum

whose work was utilized by Quintus Fabius Pictor: Josephus (x 228);

[22]

Philostratus, de historiis Philostratus: Josephus (x 228); Indicts et Phenicis

[23]

Ouidius Saharcides de successoribus Alexandri

[24]

Agatharchides of Cnidus (fl. 145 B.C.), Greek historian and philosopher: Josephus (xn 5—7);

Polibius Megalopolitanus Polybius of Megalopolis (t ca. 118 B.C.), author of Histories de Tholomeis

(in Greek) in 40 books, of which only the first five survive intact: Josephus (xn 135—137. 358—359); Orosius (iv 20);

291

Julian Harrison Nicholaus

Nicolaus of Damascus (first century B.C.), author of a universal history in 144 books, repeating no. 18: Josephus (1 94, 108 etc.);

Arnobius rethor de diuersitate linguarum in exposition psalmi xiiii.

a probable conflation of Arnobius the Elder (fl. A.D. 310), teacher of rhetoric and author of Aduersus nationes in 7 books, with Arnobius Junior (fifth century A.D.), who wrote allegorical commentaries on the Psalms;

Titus Lunus

Livy (Titus Livius) (t A.D. 17), author of Ab urbe condita libri in 142 books, of which only books 1—10 and 21—45 survive intact: Orosius (in 21 etc.);

Anneus Florus

Lucius Annaeus Florus (second century A.D.), author of Epitome bellorum omnium annorum .dcc.

losephus antiquitatum et Josephus (Flavius Josephus) (first century A.D.), author of de exciiio Ierosolimorum De antiquitatibus ludaicae and De hello Iudaico: Orosius (vn 6, 9); Egesippus

Hegesippus (second century A.D.), author (according to Eusebius) of 5 books of Memoirs;

Orosius hormesta mundi Paulus Orosius (fl. A.D. 417), author of Historia aduersum paganos (De ormesta mundi) in 7 books; Victor de historia Affricana

Victor, bishop of Vita (fl. A.D. 488), author of Historia persecutionis Africanae prouinciae.

Leonius of Paris and his Liber Ruth1 b y GRETI DINKOVA-BRUUN

The important dates in the life of Leonius of Paris, a twelfth century master and priest, poet and composer, were established in 1986 by Craig Wright.2 According to Wright, Leonius had been connected to three different Parisian institutions. He started his career as an administrator at St. Benoit, a collegiate church subordinate to Notre Dame of Paris, where he remained for almost twenty years, until ca, 1180. Later he became a canon at Notre Dame, achieved priesthood, and was actively involved in the intellectual life of the Cathedral. While a canon at Notre Dame, Leonius also joined the congregation at the Augustinian Abbey of St. Victor. In this he was following a practice popular among those of his contemporaries, who were deeply attracted to the rich intellectual life of the Victorines.' The last time Leonius' name appears in contemporary documents is in 1201. He probably died shortly afterwards. Leonius' major poetic work is a large biblical poem entitled Historie ueteris testamenti, which has never been published and which remains generally unknown.4 In addition, he also wrote eight short poems, four on moralizing themes and four verse-epistles addressed to influential contemporaries, such as Pope Adrian iv, who occupied the See from 1154 to 1159, Pope Alexander in, who lived in France in the years 1162—1165, and cardinal Henry of Marcy, papal legate to France between 1179—1189.'

ι

I would like to thank Professors A. G. Rigg, and P. G. Schmidt, as well as F. Unwalla for their useful comments and suggestions.

2

See WRIGHT 1986.

3

See WRIGHT 1986, p. 15—16, who supports this view by calling attention to the obituaries of Notre Dame and St. Victor, which contain the names of canons and benefactors of both institutions. Some scholars have argued that Leonius of Notre Dame and Leonius of St. Victor were two different individuals: see GUINGUEN£ 1869. This argument, which is not supported by any evidence, was adopted also by SCHMIDT 2000.

4

The longest excerpt from Leonius' Historie ever published is found in SCHMIDT 2000, p. 255—259. It comprises 143 verses from the beginning of Book rv, describing the story of Joseph and the wife of Putiphar (Gen 39). Schmidt based his edition on a single manuscript, Vatican City, BAV, Ms. Reg. Lat. 283 (assigned the siglum V 1 : see below).

5

Two of Leonius' letters — to Henry of Marcy and to an anonymous friend — are edited by HOLSINGER/TOWNSEND 2000. The first 16 (of 52) verses from the Leonius' letter to Pope Adrian i v are printed in WRIGHT 1986, p. 2 4 .

Greti Dinkova-Bruun

294

T h i s article concentrates on Leonius' Historie ueteris testamenti. It presents a brief description of the eight manuscripts in which the p o e m is preserved, followed by a survey of the general organization of the work. It also includes a critical edition of the Liber Ruth, f o u n d in Book x n of the poem, and a discussion of its textual relationship with other versifications of the same theme in the works of M a r b o d and Peter Riga.

I. M A N U S C R I P T TRADITION OF T H E

Historie ueteris testamenti

T h e p o e m is f o u n d in eight manuscripts, all of French origin. 6 Seven of them are preserved in the Bibliotheque nationale de France in Paris, and one in the Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana. At least two of these codices were among the books possessed by the famous library of the Abbey of St. Victor (see below, P'76° and P' 7 ") 7 and two belonged in the early fourteenth century to the Benedictine monastery of St. Denis (V 1 and P 4 ). 8 O n e codex (P 5 ) was in the possession of the College de Navarre in the fourteenth century, clearly acquired soon after the College's foundation in 1305.9 T h e known manuscripts of the Historie ueteris testamenti are: P ,7 '° = BnF, Ms. lat. 14760, f. i r — D a t e : late 12th century. Parchment 298 χ 198 m m ; written space 205 χ 136 m m ; one column, 30 lines per page; t o p line above ruling. N o attribution to Leonius. Provenance: "Iste liber est Sancti Victoris Parisiensis. Quicumque eum furatus fuerit uel celauerit uel titulum istum deleuerit anathema sit. Amen." (f. ir, lower margin). O n f. iv we see the arms of the Abbey of St. Victor. O l d shelf-mark on the recto of the flyleaf: Β 14.10 Ρ' 75 ' = BnF, Ms. lat. 14759, f. ir—147V. Date: ca. 1200. Parchment 337 χ 205/213 m m ; written space 237 χ ioo m m ; one column, 48 lines per page, t o p line above ruling. O n f. ir: "Leonii presbiteri Parisiensis Historiarum ueteris testamenti liber primus incipit ab orbe condito."" Provenance: old shelf-mark "S. Victor 68" (f. ir, added in the right margin by a later hand). O n f. 147V—151V we find also Leonius' verse epistles.12

6

I was able to add one manuscript (our P') to the list of seven manuscripts known to Wright.

7

See OUY 1999, 2, p. 19. Grandrue's catalogue mentions only one of the manuscripts of Leonius (our P' 76 °).

8

S e e NEBBIAI-DALLA GUARDA 1985, nos. 131 a n d 159. F o r m a n u s c r i p t V ' see also WILMART 1 9 4 5 ,

p. 91-93, esp. 93. 9

For a general study of the history of the College and its importance see GOROCHOV 1997 and O U Y 1975.

10

See O U Y 1999, 2, p. 19.

11

This title, found in three of the manuscripts (P'7S9, P2, and V ' ) , is an unmistakable allusion to

12

For the incipits of these works see HOLSINGER/TOWNSEND 2000, p. 247. This manuscript is not

Livy's historical work De urbe condita. mentioned by the catalogue of Claude de Grandrue.

Leonius of Paris and his Liber Ruth

295

P 2 = BnF, Ms. lat. 8in, f. ir—ιγρ. Date: early 13th century. Parchment 324 χ zi2 mm; written space 230 χ io6 mm; one column, 40 lines per page; top line above ruling. On f. ir: "Leonii Presbyteri Parisiensis Hystoriarum ueteris testamenti liber primus incipit ab orbe condito." Provenance: belonged in later times to the French Royal library, number 3847. The last 18 verses of the epilogue are added in a humanist hand. The marginal annotations of the sources used by the poet are missing entirely. V 1 = Vatican City, BAV, Ms. Reg. Lat. 283, f. ιν—24η:. Date: early 13th century. Parchment 244 χ 155 mm; written space 160/65 χ 8o mm; one column, 29—30 lines per page; top line above ruling. On the verso of the flyleaf, in a later hand: "Leodius seu Leonius Parisiensis Historiam Veteris Testamenti Libri xn, carmine el(e)giaco". On f. ir: "Leonii Parisiensis Historiarum ueteris testamenti liber primus incipit ab orbe condito". Provenance: St. Denis. Found throughout the manuscript, but especially in Books χ, xi and xn, are numerous interlinear and marginal glosses. P 4 = BnF, Ms. lat. 18559, £ it—210V. Date: early 13th century. Parchment 226 χ 159 mm; written space 173 χ 87 mm; one column, 30 lines per pages, top line above ruling. On f. ir, upper margin, written in a later hand: "Leonius presbyter canonicus Sancti Benedicti Parisiensis." In the lower margin, in a later hand: "Pentatheucum per uersus." Provenance: S t Denis. 1 ' Imperfect copy. Missing are the end of book xi, the entire book xn, and the epilogue. In addition, there is a single folio missing after f. 137. It would have contained the end of book vn and the beginning of book vm. P' = BnF, Ms. lat. 8111a, f. ir— 134V. Date: early 13th century. Parchment 240 χ n8 mm; written space 194/199 χ 52/80 mm; one column, 51—53 lines per page; top line above ruling. N o attribution to Leonius. Provenance: belonged in later times to the French Royal library, number 4145. Imperfect copy. Missing are the last 62 verses of the Liber Ruth and the epilogue. P' = BnF, Ms. lat. 8100, f. ir—i6ov. Date: early 13th century. Parchment 236 χ 156 mm; written space 170 χ 8o mm; one column, 39 lines per page; top line above ruling. N o attribution to Leonius. Provenance: belonged in later times to the French Royal library, number 4146. Imperfect and inferior copy. Missing are the prologue, the entire book 1, and the first 170 verses of book n, as well as the Liber Ruth from book xn and the epilogue.'4 P* = BnF, Ms. lat. 18560, f. ir—235V. Date: early 14th century. Parchment 223 χ 140 mm; written space 172 χ 92 mm; one column, 30 lines per page; top line below ruling. N o attribution to Leonius. Provenance: "Pro libraria regalis collegii Campaniae [...?] Nai)

The manuscript was probably copied at the abbey in the thirteenth century. See NEBBIAI-DALLA GUARDA 1985, p. 222, where she also says: "Le manuscrit porte au f. 1 un titre du xiv e siecle: Pentateucum per uersus et un cote de Saint-Denis." The numbers seen in the lower margin of f. ir are: vi.vii".ii.

14

Manuscripts P' and P' are given consecutive numbers in the Royal library's old catalogue. Their binding is also very similar. The two codices were probably acquired at the same time.

Greti Dinkova-Bruun

296

uarrae" (f. ir, upper margin); "Pro regali gymnasio Nauarrae" (f. 236V, in a later hand); "De magna libraria theologorum regalis colegii Nauarre" (f. 240V). Old shelf-mark on f. ir, upper margin: "Navarre 41." An interesting feature of the codex is the presence of some letters that appear in alphabetical order in the right and left margins, probably to facilitate the reference to different passages in the text. Leonius' authorship is attested in four of the eight witnesses: Ρ1759, P2, and P 4 , but not V1, attribute the Historie ueteris testamenti to Leonius presbyter Parisiensts. The reference to "presbyter" suggests that the poem was finished after 1180 when Leonius left his position at the church of St. Benoit to become canon and eventually also priest at the Cathedral of Notre Dame. It is worth noting that, with the exception of manuscript P5, which is a later copy probably made especially for the College de Navarre, the rest of the manuscripts are all written between the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century. It seems that Leonius' 'magnum opus' enjoyed short-lived popularity around the time of the poet's death at 1201, and was afterwards almost completely forgotten.

N. CONTENTS OF THE

Historie ueteris testamenti

Leonius' poem comprises 14 065 verses. This figure agrees almost precisely with what the poet says in his epilogue: Sintque satis magno bis sena uolumina libro Bisque quater deni bis septem milia uersus.15 Let twice six books, twice four times ten and twice seven thousand [ = 14 080] verses be enough for this large volume.

The poem is divided into twelve books, each approximately the same length. It begins with the story of creation and ends with the Book of Ruth, representing thus a verse Octateuch. The work contains both a prologue and an epilogue, which suggests that what we have is most likely complete, at least as a first volume. In the epilogue Leonius declares that he will continue the biblical narrative in another, even larger, book.'6 This is also confirmed in the explicit of manuscript PI7S9.17 Nevertheless, there is no evidence that Leonius ever fulfilled his task. Here is a short description of the contents of the Historie ueteris testamenti: 15

These two verses are followed by a line that probably does not belong to the original text: "Desint ut numero tres tantum uel duo tando." The line is added in the margin in manuscripts Ρ'759, P', and P z and is altogether missing in manuscripts P'76° and V 1 . It is perhaps an attempt to make the figure provided by Leonius more exact.

16 17

Sed cum propositi iam pars exhausta laboris, | Sit non parua, mihi pars maior ut altera restet In manuscript P'759, in the left margin on f. 147V, we find: "Explicit prima pars hystoriarum Leonii presbiteri Parisiensis".

Leonius of Paris and his Liber Ruth

297

1) Protmium libri — inc. "Historiae sacrae gestas ab origine mundi" (55 w ) ; 2) Liber primus — inc. "Principio massa pariter congesta sub una" (1055 w ) . Book 1 begins with the story of creation and ends with the death of Noah and the division of the world (Gen i—10); 3) Liber secundus — inc. "Iam caput et princeps regnorum regia stabat" (1152 w ) . From the story of Abraham, i.e. the beginning of the second age of the world, to the story of Esau giving up his right of firstborn for a bowl of soup (Gen 11—25); 4) Liber tercius — inc. "Ortam deinde famis cupiens euadere pestem" (1172 w ) . From Isaac's flight to Egypt to the birth of Thamar's sons Esrom and Zara (Gen 26—38); 5) Liber quartos — inc. "At lugente Iacob rapti sibi funera nati" (1132 w ) . Begins with the story of Joseph and the wife of Putiphar and ends with Jacob's blessing of his sons (Gen 39-5°); 6) Liber quintus — inc. "Post magnum magnisque Ioseph quem patribus equum" (1231 w ) . From the description of the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt to the crossing of the R e d Sea (Ex i—13); 7) Liber sextus — inc. "Cumque inimicorum spoliis armisque potitos" (1187 w ) . Moses changes the bitter water into sweet water; ends with the description of the clothes of the high priest (Ex 14—39); 8) Liber septimus — inc. "Iamque in se reuolutus erat primumque secundus" (1175 w ) . Begins with the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 40), continues with the instructions given in the Book of Leviticus and ends with the journey to Zared Valley in the Moab territory ( N u m 2118); 9) Liber octauus — inc. "Ventum erat ad uallem Bamoth et nomine Phasga" (1238 w ) . Moses asks Seon, the king of the Amorites, to allow the Israelites to pass through his land, but Seon refuses; ends with the death of Moses (Num 2 1 1 9 — Deut 33); 10) Liber nonus — inc. "At populi cui iam fuerat commissa regendi" (1244 w ) . Joshua becomes the leader of the people; ends with his death (Ios 1—24); 11) Liber decimus — inc. " C u m sic ergo Dei famulus dux gentis Hebree" (1x62 w ) . Judah and his brother Symeon are sent to fight the remaining Canaanites; ends with Sangar's bravery (lud 1—3); 12) Liber undecimus — inc. " A h nimium dure populis ceruicis et omni" (1150 w ) . Israel is under the leadership of Deborah; the book comprises the stories of Gideon, Thola, Manasse, and Jair (lud 4—10 3); 13) Liber duodecimus — inc. "Sed noua peccatis peccata prioribus addens" (1045 w ) . From Jephthah to Samson (lud 10 4—16);'8 ends with the story of Ruth (Ruth 1—4); 14) Epilogue — inc. "Hec de Ruth tibi scripta puta progressus ab imo" (60 w ) .

18

Leonius omits the final five chapters of the Book of Judges, which contain the stories of Micah's idols and the Levite's concubine.

298

Greti Dinkova-Bruun

Leonius dedicates the Historie ueteris testamenti to a patron whose name he does not explicitly mention. T h e head o f a religious order that shines in the whole world ( " o r d o radians in toto orbe"), this patron is just, humble, and virtuous; most importantly, he is also a defender o f Leonius against his detractors. It is generally agreed that Leonius' addressee is Guerin, abbot o f St. V i c t o r in 1173—1193. 19 Later in the prologue Leonius justifies his decision to turn his prose sources into poetry. T h e shortness and melody o f the verse would make his work more pleasant to the ear ("opus gratum auribus"), more useful to the mind ("nec minus utile menti"), and more helpful to the memory ("firmius id teneat"). Leonius is writing f o r the young and the unschooled w h o need to learn about the rewards o f virtue and the punishment o f sins. T h e poet wishes to help them grasp the first elements o f faith, so that they may find G o d in the early years of their lives: Scribimus ingeniis rudibus puerisque legenda Tradimus, ut puras primum sacra lectio mentes Imbuat et melior doctrina preoccupet aures, H i e scelerum penas uirtutum premia discant Diuinoque rudes iam participare timore, Incipiant teneris Deum cognoscere ab annis E t fidei prima hec habeant elementa fideles.

T h a t poetry could be successfully read as mnemonic aid and used as a tool in the instruction of the young are standard claims in the prologues o f thirteenth-century biblical versifications. 10 These claims reflect the intellectual reality o f the time when the growing popularity o f the schools demanded the development o f new teaching methods. It is difficult to say whether Leonius' Historie ueteris testamenti was ever studied in the schools. T h e eight manuscripts in which the poem is preserved suggest that it was not widely known. A t most, the Historie could have been used locally, probably at the school o f St. Victor, as an aid in teaching history.

19

S e e WRIGHT 1986, p . 20.

20

One example is Alexander of Ashby who repeats this topos in the prose prologues to both his poetic works, the Breuissima comprehensio historiarum and the Liber Festiualis. In the Comprehensio he says: " V t autem historie Veteris et Noui Testamenti, postquam eas didiceris, memorie tue firmius inhereant et que a memoria tua elapse fuerint, eidem facilius occurrant, hoc metricum tibi mitto compendium, in quo tanquam in speculo historias breuiter comprehensas inspicere poteris"; and in the Liber Festiualis his words are: "Ideo autem in hoc opusculo metrica breuitate usus sum, ut memorie fragilitas forcius inde iuuaretur. Hec est enim precipua metrorum utilitas, quod in eorum compendio memoria habet magnum subsidium. H o c in me ipso expertus didici, cum enim aliquid memorie arcius inprimere studeo, nullo faciliori modo illud retinere possum quam si idem uersu uno uel pluribus complectar." See ALEXANDER ESSEBIENSIS Breuissima comprehensio, p. 13 and p. 155—156.

299

Leonius of Paris and his Liber Ruth

The Historie is divided into twelve books. This design is deliberate. Leonius probably organized his biblical poem on the model of classical epic, such as Virgil's Aeneii. This arrangement is unusual among biblical versifications, which rarely conform to the norms of the epic. Usually, the biblical poets simply follow the order and number of the books they versify,11 but sometimes also impose an additional organizing principle based on the ages of the world." For example, Peter Riga and Alexander of Ashby both devote a single book of verse to a particular biblical book. By contrast, Hugo Ambianensis dedicates three out of the five books in the Opusculum, his verse Pentateuch, to the events narrated in Genesis, and is thus an exception to the rule. Leonius goes further. His eagerness to preserve the conventional division of epic into twelve books impelled an artificial presentation: Genesis in the Historie covers not one but four books, and Exodus is narrated across two books rather than the traditional one. Another interesting feature of the Historie is the poet's choice of metre. The Late Antique biblical poets write predominantly in hexametres, using elegiac couplets only in the prologues and epilogues; the versifiers of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries by contrast, favour the elegiac couplets. 2 ' In their use of hexametres, Leonius of Paris and Adam of Barking are the exceptions to this general trend. This use of classical norms in structure as well as metre is also extended to matters of style: difficult prosody, elaborate syntax, and convoluted verse forms. These characteristics meant that Leonius' Historie could never match the popularity of its contemporary rival, the Aurora of Peter Riga· 24 But then, very few poetic works could compete with Riga's "bestseller". The only composition that comes close in popularity is Matthew of Vendöme's Tobias, found in HI manuscripts. Leonius' Historie is, nevertheless, an ambitious work in which the poet expands the biblical narrative with numerous historical sources, such as Pomponius Mela, Origen, Josephus, Philo, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Bede, and the Ghssa Ordinaria. These sources are named in marginal notes in the majority of the manuscripts.25 The poet, in a lovely gesture of modesty, does not exclude

21

See HUGO AMBIANENSIS In Pentateuchum.

Hugo lived in the beginning of the twelfth century;

PETRUS RIGA Aurora; and ALEXANDER ESSEBIENSIS Breuissima

comprehmsio

historiarum.

Peter Riga and

Alexander worked at the end of the twelfth — beginning of the thirteenth century. 22

See LAURENTIUS DUNELMENSIS (IIOO—1154) Hypognosticon

or the still unedited De serie sex etatum by

Adam of Barking (s. χπ α -χιπ™). For Adam of Barking see RIGG, 1992, p. 133—135, and SHARPE 1997, p. 5 - 6 . 2)

See Hypognosticon

by LAWRENCE OF DURHAM (2443 couplets), Opusculum

in Pentateuchum

AMBIANENSIS (505 couplets), Aurora by PETRUS RIGA (6124 couplets), and Breuissima historiarum

by HUGO comprehmsio

by ALEXANDER ESSEBIENSIS (352, 463 and 688 couplets in its three different versions).

See also MATHEUS VINDOONENSIS Tobias (1113 couplets). 24

Riga's poem is preserved in over 440 manuscripts.

25

See manuscripts P'76°, P', P J , Ρ 4 , P5, and V ' .

Greti Dinkova-Bruun

JOO

himself from this august list. His interventions are duly noted with A U , A U T , A U T O R , or with a sign that stands for Ν Ο Τ Α . Here is an example from Book n: Quodque piis oculis Deus hie uidisset utrumque,

MOSES26

Inde loco nomen 'Dominus uidet' indidit illi. Tunc uelut in uitam certa de morte remissum

( F L A V I U S ) IOSEPHUS"

Natum amplexitur, nato pater oscula figiL Gaudia nec celant lacrime, uix pectore toto

AUTOR

Leticiam capit ipse suam pietasque paterna Plena redit. Mouet inde gradum puerosque reuisit

MOSES

Tantarum ignaros rerum campoque relictos. Inde simul Sarram et notos petiere penates

IOSEPHUS

Diuinoque illis semper presente fauore Felices tanto sub protectore manebant. And another one from Book xi: Extincto sic Abimelech non sic tarnen eius

AUTOR

Abiecit Deus omne genus, Thola nam patrueli Sanguine uinctus ei successor factus est illi,

IUDICES 28

Post ilium dux in populo surrexit Hebreo. Mater namque duos diuersis patribus una,

GLÖSA 2 9

Diuersis licet ex tribus Gedeona Phuamque, Edidit hunc Ysachar, ilium de Stirpe Manasse. Isacherita igitur Ephraimque in monte, Sanirque

IUDICES

Vrbe habitans, populique manens Thola tempore iudex Non paruo, nichil ipse tamen memorabile gessit. Nil scriptum de se pulcrum uel turpe reliquit. Bis denisque regens populum tres addidit annos Predictaque habuit defunctus in urbe sepulcrum.

26

See Gen 22 14. The next reference to Moses is Gen zz 19.

27

The passage from Josephus that Leonius uses in this context is: "Illi vero praeter spem semetipsos amplectentes, quippe qui bonorum talium promissiones audirent, osculabantur alterutros, et sacrificio celebrato, reversi sunt ad Sarram, feliciterque degebant cuncta quae vellent eis praebente Deo." See FLAVIUS IOSEPHUS Antiquitates, p. 154 10—14.

28

See lud 10 1—2.

29

The passage from the Glossa Ordinaria is: "Aug. Quomodo füit patruus Abimelech uir de tribu Ysachar, cum Abimelech pattern habuerit Gedeon de tribu Manasse? Quomodo ergo Phua et Gedeon fratres füerunt, ut posset esse Phua patruus Abimelech, cuius filxus Thola ipsi Abimelech succederet? Potuerunt ergo Gedeon et Phua unam habere mattem, ex qua diuersis patribus nascerentur et fratres essent unius matris filii, non unius patris." See Biblia latina c. glossa, 1; and AUGUSTINUS In Heptatcucum, Quaestiones ludicum, XLVN, p. 357, 809—816.

Leonius of Paris and his Liber Ruth

501

The treatment of the episodes of Isaac's sacrifice (Gen 22) and Thola's governance (lud 10) is typical of Leonius' working method. He expands the biblical story that provides the basis of his own narrative both with details from a historical source, in these case from Josephus and the Glcssa Ordinaria, and with personal reflections on the significance of the related events. Leonius is not interested in the allegorical interpretation of the biblical stories, so prominent in Peter Riga's Aurora. The title of his work reveals that. It is called Historie ueteris testamenti, and it is indeed a historical account whose aim is to collect, organize and versify the available historical knowledge. Leonius himself makes the claim at the beginning of the prologue: Hystorie sacre gestas ab origine mundi Res canere et uersu facili describere conor, Quas habuere satis Moses Mosenque secuti Auctores dare prose. A preliminary survey would appear to suggest that the sources most often used by Leonius are the Bible and its historical companion, the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus. The poet's own comments also constitute a considerable portion of the poem's text, whereas the names of the other authors appear only occasionally. This impression of the distribution of the sources needs to be explored further however, for it is likely that not all sources are named in the marginal notes. In addition, further study would be required to establish whether the annotations are authorial or not. In any case, they appear in as many as six of the eight manuscripts of the Historie,indicating

strongly that they became part of

the tradition of the text at a very early stage, probably during Leonius' lifetime. The range and nature of the sources suggest that whoever composed the marginal notes must have had access to an excellent collection of books such as the library of St. Victor.

M. LEONIUS' Liber Ruth The story of Ruth is a popular theme in medieval exegesis. The marriage of Ruth and Booz is often treated as an allegorical representation of the union of the gentile and the Christian church.'1 As a type of the 'ecclesia de gentibus' and mother of Obeth, Ruth is one of only four women included by Matthew in his genealogy of Christ.' 2

30

31

32

See manuscripts P'76°, P', PJ, P\ P\ and V'. For an introduction to the medieval tradition of interpretation on the Liber Ruth see SMITH 1996. In addition to the sources used by Smith (i.e. Jerome, Isidore of Seville, Glossa Ordinaria, Peter Comestor, Hugh of St. Cher, and Nicholas of Lyra), see PETRUS CELLENSIS In Ruth and the anonymous Commmtaria in Ruth. None of these commentaries was used by Leonius. See Matth 11—18. The other three women mentioned by Matthew are Thamar, Rahab, and Bathsheba.

Greti

Dinkova-Bruun

Poetic retellings of the story of Ruth include works by Marbod (d. 1123)" and Peter Riga (d. 1209), whose versification is incorporated into the Aurora. To these versions of the story we can now add the one by Leonius of Paris. Each of these poems is very different in conception and character. Marbod's account is dramatic in form. It is written almost entirely as a dialogue and rarely relies on narrative. In a departure from the biblical story, Marbod's Ruth is granted prophetic knowledge of the Incarnation and the importance of her son Obeth in the genealogy of Christ. Peter Riga surveys only the principal events, while providing at the same time an extensive allegorical commentary based on Isidore's Quaestiones

in Vetus UstamentumLeonius

adopts a different approach. Not for him Mar-

bod's dramatic flair or Riga's exegetical enthusiasm. Unlike the latter, he does not use the literal sense of the story as scaffolding for allegory, but interprets the biblical narrative historically, drawing on a wide range of ancient and medieval historical sources. The distinguishing features of each of these poems can be seen in the following brief comparison. After deciding to return to her own country, Noemi tries to persuade her daughters-in-law to remain in their native land, but Ruth will not listen. The arguments, with which she persuades Noemi to allow her to remain at her side, are the subject of very different poetic treatments: M A R B O D : Liber Ruth,

PL

171, c. 1679D-1680A:

" N o n erit, inquit, ita, sed tecum sit mihi uita. S i t mors communis, domibus maneamus in unis; Pars mea sit tecum, d u m uixero pars tua mecum. Q u o d colis ipsa colam, uenerarier idola nolam. Ο petra deserti, nolens ad omissa reuerti, Q u i d tibi mercedis, linquens tua, cedere credis? H o s p i t a quam sequeris uictu caret, indiget aeris. E x p e r s argenti, rogo, quid praestabit egenti? S e d rex coelorum tibi, plusquam turba deorum, Complacet, hunc sequeris, huic uelle placere uideris. C u i te committis, dabit hie tibi plura relictis. Ipse potens, magnus, terrae dominator et A g n u s , H i n c emittetur. D e te rex egredietur Quarta progenie, proauus citharista M a r i a e . " Tarn firmae menti causam bonitatis habenti, T a m q u e piae comiti non est socrus ausa reniti.

See MARBODUS Liber 54

Ruth.

See PETRUS RIGA Aurora,

1, note to Liber Ruth, p. [23].

Leonius of Paris and his Liber Ruth PETRUS R I G A :

m

Aurora, Liber Ruth, w . 21—32, 1, p. 245:

"Ad quemcumque locum disponis pergere, pergam; Qui Deus aut populus est tuus, ille meus; Que te suscipiet morientem terra, sepulcrum Post uite metam conferet ilia michi." Ruth sanctam notat ecclesiam de gentibus ortam, Que primo coluit idola plena dolo. Nunc colit et recolit sacra uera Deumque fatetur Hunc solum sancti quem coluere patres; Que peruenturam se sperat qui) caro Christi Conscendit postquam pertulit ille crucem. Ruth Noemi sequitur cum gens conuersa priores Moribus et mentis est imitata patres. LEONIUS:

Historie ueteris testamenti, xn, Liber Ruth, w . 38—49:

"Que patria est populusque tuus, mea patria certe Et meus est populus. Deus amodo nec meus alter Quam tuus," inquit, "erit. Eadem me prospera tecum Siue aduersa manent, nec te mihi uita nec ipsa Mors adimet, tibi queque dabit, dabit ilia sepulcrum Terra mihi." Dixit pergensque tenaciter illi Hesit et in casus comitem se prebuit omnes, Nec nurus ut socrum, sed mattem nata secuta est. Constantique uidens animo Ruth pergere secum, Non reditum suadere aduersarique uolenti Vlterius uoluit Noemi, sed mentis eodem Ac fidei feruore fidem mirata recepit. Of the three heroines, Riga's is undoubtedly the character most lacking in passion. Her words to Noemi are reported by the poet only to be superceded by the allegorical meaning encoded in them. Marbod and Leonius by contrast, offer a richer portrayal, Marbod by granting Ruth prophetic knowledge of the importance of following Noemi back to Bethlehem, and Leonius by adding details to his description of the mutual affection and trust between the two women. It is significant that each poet creates a highly individual account from the same narrative elements. Biblical versification would appear to be a genre that is not especially hospitable to individual interpretation. Its authors, after all, were the vessels of the divine word. Poetry served to glorify God, not to further literary fame or ambition. But the example of Marbod, Leonius, and Riga clearly shows that tradition and convention were not incompatible with poetic invention.

Greti Dinkova-Bruun

Leonius' Liber Ruth is included in the twelfth book of the Historie. Its 259 verses are found in six of the eight manuscripts of the poem, P'76°, Ρ'7", Ρ2, P!, P5, and V.55 The last 62 verses are missing in P5. Like the rest of the poem, this section follows the biblical story quite closely and also adds some details that are borrowed from Josephus and Petrus Comestor. Other details Leonius invents himself. His main source for the Ruth narrative is Josephus. No less than twenty verses in his Liber Ruth are directly inspired by the Antiquitates and relate information that is found exclusively there: for instance, Noemi saves for Ruth some of the food she receives from her neighbours (w. 120—121); or the two women are seen to be overjoyed at the approaching end of their misfortunes when Ruth returns home after her night with Booz (v. 198).'' In two other cases, Leonius depends on Comestor. Heli's father is not named in the Bible, but following the Historia scholastica, Leonius gives his name as Ithamar (v. 2). Also, in his account of the night that Ruth spends with Booz, Leonius appropriates Comestor's description of the feast customarily held on the threshing floor (w. 151-157)· Finally, Leonius own amplification of the Ruth narrative should be noted. Generally, the poet elaborates on the biblical text or on a theme he has borrowed from another source (w. 22—23, 34> 45> 49» 122—124» and 240), but on three occasions he expresses his own judgement of the characters and the events. At verses 60—64, he is careful to explain the ways of divine providence in giving Ruth a better husband and Noemi a better son in compensation for the loss of their dear one. Elsewhere, he declares that it was faith, justice, and love of the sacred law that constituted the foundation of the union between Ruth and Booz, not lust, money, or beauty (w. 231—235). In the last instance (w. 251—253), Leonius glosses the joy the people of Bethlehem feel at the impending marriage between Ruth and Booz with the biblical phrase "Vox populi, vox Dei" (Is 66 6).

IV. GLOSSES ON LEONIUS' Liber Ruth IN VATICAN CITY,

BAV, Ms. REG. LAT. 283 (= V1) In manuscript V1 the poem is heavily glossed with interlinear and marginal glosses. Both are written in a hand that is slightly posterior to the original early thirteenth-century one. The interlinear glosses are generally concerned with explaining the difficult syntax of the poem, whereas the marginal notes give insights into the meaning of the story. Often the glosses provide useful help on how to construe the verses. Some examples are:

See manuscripts P'76°, f. 23or—234r; P'7'9, f. 144V—I47r; P2, f. i 6 g r — 1 7 2 Γ ; P', f. 1 3 2 V — 1 3 4 V (imperfect); P5, f. 23or—234V; and V', f. 235V—24or. 36 All the other cases of influencefromJosephus are listed in the notes to the edition of the Liber 35

Ruth.

Leonius of Paris and his Liber Ruth

3°5

1) w . 131—134, on f . 237V—238t Tunc Domino grates egit gauisa uirumque Rettulit hunc Noemi natisque uiroque propinquum Fratemaque usum pietate, quod esset ab illo Prestita defunctis, fuerat que gratia uiuis. 131 gauisa] Noemi 132 rettulit] ei Ruth hunc] Booz natisque uiroque propinquum] .i. tunc dixit ei et aperuit, quod cognatus esset et propinquus genere filis suis et marito'7 133 usum] et retulit ilium Booz fuisse usum in earn etc. (left margin, referring to 'fratema pietate') .1. pietate cognata, qua usus fuerat in earn, acsi si fratres essent sui illi qui, quorum amore tarn benignum se ei exibuerat (cognatus enim erat mariti sui qui mortuus erat'8 et aliorum fratrum); uel ideo, quia ipsa Noemi et Ruth erant cognate eius, qtias fraterno diligebat amore 133—34 (right margin) Noemi et dicebat ilium, scil. Booz, usum fraterna pietate, quod esset gratia prestita ab illo defunctis, que fuerat prestanda illis uiuis, .i. si uiuerent 2 ) w . 175—181, on f. 238V Excitus a sompno medie quasi tempore noctis Expauitque Booz querensque agnouit ut eius Et causam et nomen, illi benedixit et egit, Quas decuit tante fidei pro munere, grates, Quod non lasciuo iuuenes quoscumque secuta, Coniugis extincti casto sed amore propinquum, Posteriore fide studuit superare priorem. 175 excitus] Booz 176 ut] postquam 176—177 (left margin) postquam cognouit que esset, benedixit earn laudans que fecerat; sciebat enim quod non hoc fecerat lecacitate,'9 sed casto amore, ex quo magis uolebat ei copulari, qui erat de genere sui mariti, licet seni, quam iuuenibus alterius generis. 179 quod] ideo scil. quoscumque] alterius generis 180 propinquum] sed secuta [ . . . ] mariti sui

37

marito] maritis V 1 a. c.

38

erat] fuerat V 1 a. c.

39

"lecacitas" — "wantonness, obscenity".

Greil Dinkova-Bruun

jo6

I8I (left margin, referring to 'posteriore fide') et ideo etiam laudauit earn, quia non solum maritum uiuum dilexerat, uerum etiam mortuum non minus diligere studebat; sicut enim alium non cognouit eo uiuente, sic aliis nisi de genere illius se iungere nolebat, et ideo fidelis et casta erat priorem] fidem T h e glosses seem to be independent f r o m the known exegetical material on Liber Ruth and were likely composed especially f o r Leonius' text. T h e y do not provide allegorical interpretation, as is the case with Gossa Ordinaria, but simply expand further the literal sense o f the biblical narrative. T h i s approach is consistent with the poet's own treatment o f the biblical text. T h e presence of the glosses in manuscript V 1 and their character suggest that Leonius' poem was studied and commented upon by someone who had considerable familiarity with biblical history. W i t h o u t having definitive proof, it seems likely that the glosses in V 1 were written while the manuscript was still in the possession o f the Abbey of St. Denis, perhaps around the middle of the thirteenth century.

v . T H E STYLE OF THE POEM

T h e Liber Ruth is written in unrhymed hexametres. Typical o f Leonius' style are the excessive use o f elision and the tiresome repetition o f the enclitic '-que'. 40 T h e poet is also determined to avoid, if possible, the use o f direct speech, a technique that creates convoluted sentences and often makes the understanding o f the poem a laborious task. 4 ' A good example o f this characteristic is seen in verses 91—99, where the whole construction o f the sentence depends on the verb 'dixit' in verse 97: Mirantique, esset tanti que causa fauoris, Vnde sibi tantum mulier meruisset habere Tarn facilem peregrina uirum, quam mente fideli Sit nurus extincto socrui coniuncta marito, Vt patriam patriosque reliquerit ilia penates Pretuleritque Israelis eis populumque deumque, Omnia se dixit fido didicisse relatu, Orans retribui digna mercede piique Huic operis fructum Domino miserente rependi.

40

The examples are numerous, but see, for instance, verses 9—10, where we have three times "-que" which is elided twice: "Commoda cumque loci tellusque habitanda placere | Cepisset residesque in ea regione manerent."

41

The only longer speech is delivered by Booz at the end of Liber Ruth, when he presents Noemi's case to his relative and the ten elders (w. 208—215 and 217—221).

Leonius of Paris and his Liber Ruth T h i s predilection f o r the use o f indirect speech could be another indication of Leonius' dependence on historical rather than poetic sources. Leonius is first a historian and then a poet. H e is more concerned to represent events accurately than to elaborate them rhetorically. In this he is very different f r o m M a r b o d and Peter R i g a w h o use the historical narrative in order to supercede it, creating in the process a new poetic reality.

v i . T H E EDITION

T h i s critical edition o f Leonius' Liber Ruth is based on all six manuscripts that preserve the text. T h e divergences between the witnesses are mostly orthographic, which makes the task o f establishing their relationship very difficult. A comparison of the number o f individual variants shows that all the manuscripts are o f relatively good textual quality. Manuscripts P' 76 °, P 5 and V exhibit the highest number o f individual variants (6, 7, and 8 respectively), but f o r a text that is 263 verses long this figure is insignificant. T h e other three manuscripts (P J , P 2 , and P I7S9 ) are virtually error-free. 42 These observations are based on a very small portion o f the poem. A collation of all the relevant manuscripts of the entire text could yield different results. In any case, one thing is certain. T h e uniformity o f the textual tradition o f the Liber Ruth supports the suggestion made earlier in this article that Leonius' Historie ueteris testamenti was a poem o f limited popularity.

42

Manuscript P3 exhibits no individual errors, manuscript P 1 — one (v. 15), and manuscript P'759 — two (v. ι and v. 232).

Greti Dinkova-Bruun

3O8 LEONIUS: HETOME

VETERIS

TESTAMENTI

LIBER R V T H Huic Aaronis Hely genus alto a sanguine ducens, Summus Hely primusque Ithamar de Stirpe sacerdos, Successit populique data est huic cura regendi. Apprehenditque fames illo sub iudice terram Vxore et Noemi socia natisque duobus, Ε quibus hie Maalon, Chelyon hie nomen habebat, Elymelech, cui nomen erat uir Belleemites, Ire fame est urgente procul patriamque coactus Deserere, in terra cupiens Moabitide pasci. Commoda cumque loci tellusque habitanda placere Cepisset residesque in ea regione manerent, Ambo defuncto iuuenes seniore parente Duxere uxores Moabitidas: illius Orpha, Alterius Ruth nomen erat. Nec prole relicta Decessere annis ipsi bis quinque peractis. Cumque uiro Noemi natisque orbata duobus Sola remansisset Dominumque audisset, abacta Tempestate famis, patriam ciuesque benigne Respexisse suos illisque alimenta dedisse, De regione Moab surrexit eamque relinquens Ad terram Iuda, de qua hue abuenerat hospes, Altera sed longe quam uenerat, ipsa redibat, Namque reuertenti pro natis proque marito Herebat socios iungens nurus utraque gressus

ι huic] hinc P5

Hely] Heli P,7to P !

Chelion Ps V'

hie ... hie] hec ... hec P5

Beleemites P 1

11 ea] ilia V'

Hely genus] Helygetius Ρ ™

3 cura] curanda V' a. c.

7 Elymelech] Elimelech Ρ'7*" V'

15 ipsi] ipsis P 1

16 Noemi] Noemy V'

6 Chelyon]

Belleemites] Bellemites P,76°,

22 ipsa] ipse P,?6°

13 reuertenti]

reuerenti V' a. c. Ι

huic] 'huic' refers to Samson, the judge before Heli. See

FLAVIUS IOSEPHUS

mortem uero Samson praefüit Israhelitis sacerdos Heli"

Antiquitatcs,

Ν

9 1, p. 347, 6: "Post

1 Ithamar] Aaron had four sons: Nadab, Abiu,

Eleazar, and Ithamar (Num. 26 60). The first two died while making an offering before the Lord with unauthorized fire (Leu. 10 1—2; Num. 26 61). The rights of priesthood were passed to Eleazar and then transferred to Heli, the son of Ithamar. See PETRUS

COMESTOR

Historie scbohstUa, Liber Ruth, c. 1293A, and Additio 1, c. 1295B IOSEPHUS Antiquitatis, ν 9 1, p. 347 11) we read that

15 annis ... bis quinque] In the edition by Blatt (see FLAVIUS

Elimelech's family remained in the Moabite territory for eighteen years but this is clearly a mistake, since the Bible and all the other sources talk about a period of ten years (see Ruth 1 4).

Lamius of Paris and his Liker Ruth

Seque uel inuite comitem dabat. Ilia manere In patria suadebat eis, nec inaniter illi Se sociare, spei poterat que nullius esse Amplius, ut nullos illis paritura maritos Posse nec, ut pareret, tarnen expectare priusque Has fieri uetulas sibi quam pubescere natos. Sermo sed in sola ualuit suasorius Orpha, Que data cum fletu post oscula postque supremum Acceptum dictumque 'uale' dimisit euntem Se reddens non sponte suis laribusque deisque. Ruth uero a cara numquam discedere socru Sustinuit, cui, cum Noemi monstraret ab ilia Non patriam patriosque deos debere relinqui, "Que patria est populusque tuus, mea patria certe Et meus est populus. Deus amodo nec meus alter Quam tuus," inquit, "erit. Eadem me prospera tecum Siue aduersa manent, nec te mihi uita nec ipsa Mors adimet, tibi queque dabit, dabit ilia sepulcrum Terra mihi." Dixit pergensque tenaciter illi Hesit et in casus comitem se prebuit omnes, Nec nurus ut socrum, sed mattem nata secuta est. Constantique uidens animo Ruth pergere secum, Non reditum suadere aduersarique uolenti Vlterius uoluit Noemi, sed mentis eodem Ac fidei feruore fidem mirata recepit. Pergentes simul ergo due, uelut una duabus Mens erat. In Bethleem uenere et nuncia uelox Vrbe uolans tota per cunctos fama cucurrit, Rumor et hie turbe muliebris in ore sonabat Plurimus: "Hec ilia est Noemi." Quibus ilia negabat Se Noemi, nec iam pulcram, nec nomine fausto Se dignam, sed iure Mara debere uocari,

26 illi] illis P,76°, eis P,7*° p. c„ eas Ρ"*° a. c. 47 reditum] redditum P

,7io

a. c.

33 acceptum] aceptum P ™ Ρ» P !

41 dabit] aii. V ' supra I.

aduersarique] aduersariue P 17to

19-30 posse ... natos] Telling them "that even if she (Noemi) gave birth again, they (Orpha and Ruth), could still not wait and that they would become old before her sons grew up." are not biblical. For verse 44, see

FLAVIUS IOSEPHUS

Antiquitates,

Ν

44—45 hesit... est] These two verses

9 1, p. 347 19—20: "sociam sibi duxit in omne

quicquid emergeret" Verse 45 seems to be Leonius' own expansion.

Greil

60

65

70

75

80

85

Dinkova-Bruun

Quam, cum plena domo quondam digressa fuisset, Nunc uacuam uelut et sterilem Deus ecce reducens Perpetuo merore animoque implesset amaro. Sed Deus hec aliter prouiderat ut meliorem Natum disponens Noemi dare Ruthque maritum. Accessitque rei satis oportuna gerende Ex ipsoque data est occasio tempore prima, Namque metebantur tunc ordea Ruthque sequente Ire die socru sibi permittente, per agros Messorumque manus fugientes tollere spicas Colligere et petiit sparsas, ubicumque daretur. Magnarum uir opum, ciuis tunc Bethleemites, Elymelech cognatus, erat uir clarus in illa Vrbe Booz, Ruth cuius agrum seu gnara, quod illi Monstrarat Noemi, seu forte hoc accidit, intrans Colligere instabat spicas post terga metentum. Ipse quoque, ut dominis agrorum inuisere mos est Messores, paulo post urbe egressus in agrum Se tulit. Acceptaque Booz dictaque salute Vidit, ut ignotam querens hec unde puella Aduenisset eis. Genitam Moabitide terra, Accepit, Noemique nurum manibusque metentum Elapsas petiisse inopem sibi tollere spicas. Naturaque ut mitis erat pronusque fauori Cognatique pius non sanguinis immemor, illi Largius indulsit primumque hanc noluit agrum Intrare alterius, uestigia deinde metentum Iam non pone sequi et spicis remanentibus illam Messorum nec relliquiis herere, sed ipsam Et metere et, quantum uoluisset, tollere iussit.

57 disgressa] digressa P® a. c.

69 Elymelech] Elymelec P ' 7 " P z P ! , Elimelech V '

61 N o e m i . . . R u t h ] N o e m i and R u t h are in dative depending on "dare". T h e subject o f "dare" is " D e u s " from the previous line. verses 78 and 83.

69 Elymelech] "Elymelech" — genitive.

72 metentum] "metentum" = metentium. See also

80—86 naturaque . . . iussit] These six verses combine the biblical text o f R u t h 2 8—9 with the

text o f FLAVIUS IOSEPHUS Antiquitatis, ν 9 2, p. 348 4—6: "qui de fauore socrus atque memoria mariti sibimet copulati gratias agens, et ei experiments rerum bonarum exhortans spicas quidem earn colligere noluit, sed metere quicquid posset et sibi portate permisit." " a tergo".

84 pone] " p o n e " — adverb, "behind." Manuscript V 1 glosses it with

3"

Leonius o j Paris and his Liber Ruth

90

95

100

105

no

115

Precepitque suis, ne quis prohibere, molestus Esse nec auderet, addens ipsamque puellis Se sociare suis cumque hiis potumque cibumque Sumere uescendi solita messoribus hora. Mirantique, esset tanti que causa fauoris, Vnde sibi tantum mulier meruisset habere Tarn facilem peregrina uirum, quam mente fideli Sit nurus extincto socrui coniuncta marito, Vt patriam patriosque reliquerit ilia penates Pretuleritque Israelis eis populumque deumque, Omnia se dixit fido didicisse relatu, Orans retribui digna mercede piique Huic operis fructum Domino miserente rependi. Ilia tarnen magis hinc humilis magis est, quasi nullam Se reputans, non se dignam, cui gratia tanti Esset habenda uiri, sed nec se cuilibet eius Esse puellarum similem dicebat habendam. Ad latus ergo sedens messorum (uenerat illis Sumendi namque hora cibi) simul ipsa comedit Relliquiasque tulit socrui saturata reseruans. Inde, ut colligeret spicas ex more iacentes, Surrexit puerisque suis ipsosque maniplos Proicere et post se Booz ultro relinquere iussit, Colligere ut posset saltern sic absque rubore, Quam metere et forsan sibi non sua ferre puderet. Sic ergo insistens operi, dum sera ueniret Vespera, concesso sibi Ruth collegit in agro Postque opus ad socrum spicis honerata reuersa est. Virgaque excussis palearum tegmine granis Tres modios implens, ephi mensura reperta est. Relliquiasque, quibus fuerat saturata, ciborum, Quas pia, quas animo socrui deuota fideli Filiaque ut matri seruarat, protulit illi.

102 uirsum aii. P ! in marg.

100 est] et V' 2

107 ut] aut V ' a. c.

HI metere] mentem V 1 a. c.

1

reliquiasque P p. c., relliquiasque P a. c. in quam ... puderet] Construe: "quam forsan puderet sibi metere et non sua ferre."

117 relliquiasque]

Greti

312

120

Dinkova-Bruun

Impertita fide nurui quoque socrus eadem est Quem sibi uicini dederant potumque cibumque; Simplicibusque erat animis pietasque fidesque, Rebus ut in commune habitis sibi non alienum Aut proprium quicquam siue hec, siue ilia putaret.

us

Cumque, ubi Ruth fecisset opus fructumque quis esset Ηunc largitus ei, Studium quem nec muliebre Nec labor unius posset peperisse diei, Quereret admirans Noemi, se dixit in agro Collegisse Booz. Patefecit et omnia narrans,

130

Dixerat et que uir bonus ille et fecerat illi. Tunc Domino grates egit gauisa uirumque Rettulit hunc Noemi natisque uiroque propinquum Fraternaque usum pietate, quod esset ab illo Prestita defunctis, fuerat que gratia uiuis.

135

Hinc animo tractare et secum uoluere cepit, Ruth Booz ut dignum sibi posset habere maritum Cognatoque nurum se uelle reducere lecto, Conueniens detur occasio si qua, locique Si se commoditas et temporis offerat ulla.

140

Nouerat ergo Booz quod precepisse fidelis, Hoc ipsum et prudens nurui precepit et ipsa, Alterius ne cuiusquam transiret in agrum, lungere sed solis uellet sociamque puellis Se prebere Booz, proponens esse timendum,

145

Non sibi concesso uis ne qua repelleret agro.

124 quicquam] add. P' supra L dehinc P*

hec] add. Ρ ™ P', add. P' 76 ° P 1 supra I.

14z alterius] ulterius

Ρ,7ίο

P!

V'

126 quem nec] nec quem Ρ 5

135 hinc]

transiret] transire V

«Ο—124 impertita . . . putaret] These verses are not biblical. T h e first two o f them are clearly inspired by FLAVIUS IOSEPHUS Antiquitates, ν 9 2, p. 348 9—10: "seruauerat autem ei et Naamis partem ciborum, quos ei uicini praebuerunt",

whereas

the

following

three

lines

must

be

Leonius'

own

elaboration

on

the

theme.

135—139 hinc . . . ulla] These verses represent a paraphrase o f FLAVIUS IOSEPHUS Antiquitata, ν 9 3, p. 348 13—16: "Veniens autem non post multos dies Booz, cum iam esset messis hordearia maturata ad aream propriam dormiebat. H o c cum audisset Naamis, cogitabat quemadmodum cum eo R u t h collocare posset. Iudicabat enim utile, si Booz R u t h haberet uxorem." 144 Booz] " B o o z " - genitive.

135 cepit] T h e subject o f "cepit" is Noemi. S o also gloss in V 1 .

Leonius of Paris and his Liber Ruth

313

Exiit ad spicas igitur Ruth mane legendas Ancillisque metens iuncta est Booz, ordea donee Triticea et messis deberet in horrea condi. Post hec et solito rediit ex more suique 150

Rettulit ad socrum se cum mercede laboris. Mos erat et populo quondam sollempnis in illo, Vt, trituratis cum messibus area uento Purgata et paleis superessent grana remotis, Tunc dominus pueris simul et messoribus eque

155

Participans illis grandis conuiuia cene Omnia ceu leto concludens fine pararet, Nocte Cubans ut et ipse loco dormiret in illo. Cumque hoc more Booz epulis sedisse paratis Audisset Noemi, "Requiem tibi, filia, queram,"

160

Astanti dixit sibi Ruth, Booz esse propinquum Commemorans citiusque lauari iussit et ungi, Augere et cultu meliore et ueste decorem, Seque illi conferre loco primumque latere, Donee finite post esum et pocula cene

165

Se Booz ad lectum tulerit dederitque quieti. Cumque grauata uiri sopor altus membra teneret, Quo tamen ille loco requiesceret ante notato Furtiuam tunc ire operimentoque reducto A pedibus se proicere hie tacitamque iacere,

170

Audierit donee ab eo sibi quid sit agendum. At uelut a socru disiungere se nurus eius, Sic neque preceptis fas esse resistere credens, Omnia perfecit, ut erat predocta, uirique Sopiti a pedibus iacuit sensitque iacentem.

175

Excitus a sompno medie quasi tempore noctis Expauitque Booz querensque agnouit ut eius Et causam et nomen, illi benedixit et egit, Quas decuit tante fidei pro munere, grates

147 est] -que V' hec P

s

148 messis] mesis V' a. c. ,7

173 predocta] predicta P *°

horrea] ordea P,7to

155 participans] parcipans V' a. c.

158 hoc]

175 excitus] exitus Ps

151—157 mos . . . illo] T h e passage is based on PETRUS COMESTOR Historie scholastica, Liber Ruth, c. 1294AB: " M o s

erat in Israel quod in uentilatione areae dominus grande conuiuium parabat pueris suis et messoribus. Et dormiebat in area et quasi solemnizans abstinebat ab amplexibus."

Greti

3'4

180

185

190

195

200

205

Dinkova-Bruuti

Quod non lasciuo iuuenes quoscumque secuta, Coniugis extincti casto sed amore propinquum, Posteriore fide studuit superare priorem. Esse tamen dixit ipsum, qui iure propinqui Precedat, potius cui cedere debeat uxor, Suscipere hanc si lege uelit; sed munere legis Indignus si iure suo neglexerit uti, Illi se non deesse bonus promisit et ipsum Hec audire Deum testemque hiis esse rogauit. Parte dehinc reliqua dormire et noctis ibidem Et primo docuit consurgere lucis in ortu, Senserit hie et ne quis earn iacuisse, cauere. Cumque quieuisset Ruth nocte et luce propinqua Vellet abire domum, Booz illi prebuit ordei Tres modios mensus socruique remisit honustam, Vertice quos gestans expansa ueste receptos Rem penitus nullo Ruth cognoscente recessit. Letaque leticiam rediens non ilia minorem Attulit, et socrui Booz acta et dicta renarrans Certaque de reliquo iam spes utramque tenebat. Ergo silere nurum Noemi finemque iubebat Expectare rei, nec enim cessare fidelem Posse uirum requiemque sibi permittere, donee Omnia complesset, fuerat que recta locutus. Vota nec illarum sua, nec promissa fefellit, Sed media iam pene die regressus in urbem Collectisque decern senioribus urbis in unum Iussit adesse Booz hinc Ruth atque inde propinquum, Ad quem proponens sub eis hec testibus inquit: "De terra rediit Moabitide nuper et agri, Quod te scire uolo, Noemi uult uendere partem,

189 ortu] orto V ' a. c. add. V supra I.

190 earn] post et habet V

206 inde] om. P'

191 quieuisset] quiesset P s

197 1ursum add. P ! in marg.

201 sibi]

7fo

193 tres . . . honustam] It is unclear why Leonius says that Booz gave Ruth three measures of barley, when the Bible speaks of six (Ruth 315).

198 spes] See FLAVIUS IOSEPHUS Antiquitatis, ν 9 4, p. 348 26: "haec ilia socrui

referente securitas eas tenuit spes habentes."

203—206 uota . . . propinquum] Here Leonius combines the

biblical text of Ruth 4 2—3 with FLAVIUS IOSEPHUS Antiquitatcs, ν 9 4, p. 349 1—2: "ille uero iam media die ueniens ciuitatem et seniores colligens, mittens etiam uocauit Ruth atque cognatum."

Leonius of Paris and his Liber Ruth

210

215

220

225

230

235

315

Que fuit Elymelech natorumque eius, emende Ius cuius primum te constat habere propinquum. Si placet ergo tibi, precio res cedat, et agrum Possideas emptor; seu displicet id quoque, dona Scire mihi, scire ut ualeam, mihi quid sit agendum, Heres tu primus cum sis, ego iure secundus." Ille quid emptorem sequeretur nescius "Agrum" Dixit "emam." Rursumque Booz: "Non ergo sacrarum Parte decet media memorem te fingere legum, Nam, parere uelis si legibus, accipere agrum Non sine defuncti debes uxore tuique Sic in sorte sua nomen renouare propinqui." Victus at ille Booz tunc omnia cessit agrumque Despecta, quamuis cupiens, uxore reliquit. Testificansque Booz seniores, soluere iussit Ilium uincla pedis Ruthque eius mittere sputum In faciem, legis ut cessio robur haberet. Promissique dehinc non immemor hanc seniorum Vxorem accepit multo populique fauore, Qui Booz ex ilia felicem coniuge prolem Equalemque Rachel fieri hanc Lieque rogabant. Nec recte facto Deus abfurt atque fideli Coniugio, quod non lucri uel feda cupido Vel generis fastus uel pulcre gratia forme, Sed sola est operata fides, quo cura tuende Iusticie et sacre traxit dilectio legis. Vota nec in uacuum populi cecidere deditque Ruth Deus, ut pareret, natusque est filius illi. Susceptumque sinu Noemi gremioque fouebat Officio fungens gerule et nutricis in illo,

210 Elymelech] Helimelech P,76° P' P5, Elimelech V1 213 possideas] possidas V' a. c. seu] siu V' 217 emam] eman P'76° 221 sua] tua V' a. c. 225 ultimus tarsus in P' 230 Lieque] Lyeque P2 232 cupido] om. P'7S9, libido P'7De accentibus< inedit«, in La tradition νινί. Melanges d'histoire des textes en l'honneur de Louis Holtz, ed. par PIERRE LARDET, Turnhout 2003, 161—192, editio 181—192. GUILLELMUS DE CAMPELLIS

Introductions

GUILLELMUS DE CAMPELLIS: Introductions dialecticae, ed. YUKIO IWAKUMA: >Introductiones dialicticae

secundum Wilgelmum< and >secundum G. PaganellumHistoria Ponttficalis< ofJohn of Salisbury, ed. et trans. MARJORIE CHIBNALL, rev. ed., Oxford 1986. IOANNES SARESBERIENSIS Metalogicon IOANNES

SARESBERIENSIS:

Metalogicon,

ed.

JOHN

B. HALL

auxiliata

K . S . B . KEATS-ROHAN

(CChr. C M 98), Turnhout 1991. IOANNES SARESBERIENSIS Metalogicon (engl.) The Metalogicon of John of Salisbury, DANIEL D . MCGARRY, Gloucester/MA 1971. IOHANNES WIGORNIENSIS

Chronicon

The Chronicle of John if Worcester. 2: The annals from 450 to 1066, ed. et trans. REGINALD R . DARLINGTON, PATRICK M C G U R K , JENNIFER B R A Y , O x f o r d 1 9 9 5 .

ISIDORUS Etymolcgiae ISIDORUS HISPALENSIS: Etymologiarum

libri xx,

e d . WALLACE Μ . LINDSAY, 1 — 2 , O x f o r d 1 9 1 1 .

I v o CARNOTENSIS Epistolae Y V E S DE CHARTRES: Correspondance,

I , e d . e t t r a d , p a r JEAN LECLERCQ, P a r i s 1 9 4 9 .

Journal William More Journal of Prior William More, ed. ETHEL S. FEGAN (Worcestershire Historical Society), Worcester 1914. LAURENTIUS DUNELMENSIS Epistola (1967) LAURENTIUS DUNELMENSIS: Epistola, e d . BISCHOFF 1 9 6 7 , 1 8 6 — 1 8 7 .

LAURENTIUS DUNELMENSIS Epistola (1982) LAURENTIUS DUNELMENSIS: Epistola, e d . PIAZZONI 1 9 8 2 , 9 1 2 — 9 1 3 .

329

Bibliographie LAURENTIUS DUNELMENSIS

Hypognosticon

LAURENTIUS DUNELMENSIS: Hypognosticon,

ed. Sister

M . L . MISTRETTA,

PhD. thesis, New York

1941. LAURENTIUS DUNELMENSIS Hypcgnosticon (2002) LAURENTIUS DUNELMENSIS: Hypognosticon, ed. SUSANNE DAUB: Gottes Heilsplan — verdichtet. Edition des Hypognosticon des Laurentius Dunelmensis, Erlangen-Jena 2002. Liber confratemitatum Seccoviensis Libtr confratemitatum Seccoviensis, ed. SIGISMUND HERZBERG-FRÄNKL ( M G H . Necrologia Germa-

niae. Π: Dioecesis Salisburgensis), Berlin 1904 [Nachdruck München 1983], 357—402. MANEGOLDUS Ad Gebehardum ManegoUi ad Gebehardum liber, ed. K U N O FRANCKE (MGH. Libelli de Lite 1 ) , Hannover 1891,

303-430. MANEGOLDUS Contra Wolfelmum MANEGOLD OF LAUTENBACH: Liber contra Wolfelmum,

transl. R O B E R T

ZIOMKOWKSI

(Dallas Medie-

val Texts and Translations 1), Leuven 2002. MARBODUS Carmina MARBODUS REDONENSIS: Carmina varia M A T H E U S VINDOONENSIS

(PL 171), Paris 1854, 1647-1686.

Hbtas

M A T H E U S VINDOONENSIS: Tobias,

in Mathei Vindocinensis Opera, ed. FRANCO

MUNARI,

Roma 1982,

2, 161—255. Necrohgium Admuntense Necrohgium Admuntense, ed. SIGISMUND HERZBERG-FRÄNKL ( M G H . Necrologia Germaniae, Π:

Dioecesis Salisburgensis), Berlin 1904 [Nachdruck München 1983], 287—309. Necrohgium Milstatense Necrohgium Milstatense, ed. SIGISMUND HERZBERG-FRÄNKL ( M G H . Necrologia Germaniae, Π:

Dioecesis Salisburgensis), Berlin 1904 [Nachdruck München 1983], 455—466. Necrohgia S. Rudberti Salisburgensis Necrologia S. Rudberti Salisburgensis, ed. SIGISMUND HERZBERG-FRÄNKL ( M G H . Necrologia Ger-

maniae, Π: Dioecesis Salisburgensis), Berlin 1904 [Nachdruck München 1983], 91—198. Necrolcgium Seaoviense Necrohgium Seccoviense, ed. SIGISMUND HERZBERG-FRÄNKL ( M G H . Necrologia Germaniae, Π :

Dioecesis Salisburgensis), Berlin 1904 [Nachdruck München 1983], 403—435. Necrohgium sanctimonialium Wdngartensium Necrohgium sanctimonialium Weingartensium, ed. FRANOSCUS LUDOVICUS BAUMANN ( M G H . Necro-

logia Germaniae, I: Dioeceses Augustensis, Constantiensis, Curiensis), Berlin 1888 [Nachdruck München 1983], 232—238. Necrohgium Weingartense Necrohgium Weingartense, ed. FRANOSCUS LUDOVICUS BAUMANN ( M G H . Necrologia Germaniae,

I: Dioeceses Augustensis, Constantiensis, Curiensis), Berlin 1888 [Nachdruck München 1983], 221-232. Obituaire Beauvais A L E X A N D R E DE M A R S Y :

»Obituaire et livre des distributions de l'eglise cathedrale de Beauvais

( x m 1 siecle)«, in Mmoires de la Societe academitjue d'archeolcgie, sciences & arts du departement de l'Oise 12

(1883) 135—194, editio 141—194.

Bibliographia

33° Obituaire Saint-ttienne de Meaux

AUGUSTE MOLINIER: Oiitmires de la province de Sens. 4: Dioceses de Meaux et de Troyes, ed. par ARMAND BOUTILUER DU R J T A I L , P I E R R E PIÄTRESSON DE SAINT-AUBIN ( R e c u e i l d e s H i s t o r i e n s d e l a

France. Obituaires 4), Paris 1923. ORDERICUS VITALIS Historia Ecclesiastica The Ecclesiastical History of Orieric Vitalis, ed. et trans. MARJORIE CHIBNALL, 1—6, Oxford 19691980. OTTO Chronica OTTO FRISINGENSIS: Chronica sive historia de dmhus civitatibus, ed. ADOLF HOFMEISTER ( M G H . Scriptores rerum Germanicarum 45), Hannover 1912. PATERIUS Super Genesim PATERIUS: Liber de expositione veteris at novi testamenti ( P L 79), Paris 1849, 683—1136. Peterborough Library Peterborough Abbey, ed. KARSTEN FRHS-JENSEN, JAMES M . W . WILLOUGHBY (Corpus of British medieval library catalogues 8), London 2001. PETRUS CELLENSIS In

Ruth

PETRUS CELLENSIS: Commentaria

in Ruth, e d . G Ä R A R D DE M A R T E L ( C C H R . C M

54), T u r n h o u t

1988, i—170. PETRUS COMESTOR

Historia

PETRUS COMESTOR: Historia scholastica (PL 198), Paris 1855, 1053-1722. PETRUS R I G A

Aurora

Aurora: Petri Rigae Biblia Versificata, ed. PAUL BEICHNER, 1 - 2 , Notre Dame/Indiana 1965. PETRUS DE ARBON

Bücherverzeichnis

PETER VON ARBON: Bücherverzeichnis Admont 1376, in MÖSER-MERSKY 1961, 17—34.

PICCOLOMINI Epistolae ENEA SILVIO PICCOLOMINI: Epistolarum Liber unus, Basel 1581, 500—962. PRISCIANUS Institutiones PRISOANUS: Institutiones grammaticae, ed. MARTIN HERTZ, in Grammatici Latini, ed. HEINRICH KEIL,

2—3, Leipzig 1855—1859, 1—384. PSEUDO-BEDA De mundi constitutione PSEUDO-BEDA VENERABILIS: De mundi coelestis terrestrisque constitutione liber (PL 90), Paris 1850, 881-910. RADULFUS DE DICETO Opera Historica

Radulß de Diceto Decani Lundoniensis Opera Historica: The Historical Works of Master Ralph de Diceto, ed. WILLIAM STUBBS, 1—2 (Rolls Series), London 1876. Rcgistrum Anglie Registrum Anglie de Libris Doctorum et Auctorum Veterum, edd. ROGER Α. Β. MYNORS, RICHARD H . ROUSE, MARY A. ROUSE (Corpus of British medieval library catalogues 2), London 1991. Registrum Honoris Registrum Honoris de Richmond exhibens Terrarum & Villarum qua quondam fuerunt Edwini Comitis infra Richmundshire Descriptionem, ed. ROGER GALE, London 1722. Regula pauperum Regula pauperum commilitonum Christi templique Sahmonici (PL 166), Paris 1854, 857—874.

Bibliograpbia ROGERUS DE H O V E D E N E

331 Chronica

Chronica Rogen it Hovedene, ed. WILLIAM STUBBS, 1—4 (Rolls Series 51), London 1868—1871. RUPERTUS TurnENSis De vita apostolica RUPERTUS TUITIENSIS: De vita vera apostolica dialqgorum libri quinque ( P L 170), Paris 1854, 611—664.

Sentential divinae paginal Sentintii divine pagint, ed. F R A N Z BLIEMETZRIEDER: Anselms von Loon systematische Sentenzen (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters 18.2—3), Münster 1919, editio 3—46. SYMEON DUNELMENSIS

Opera

Symeonis monachi opera omnia, ed. THOMAS ARNOLD, 1 — 2 (Rolls Series 75), London 1882—1885. Vita Cehehardi et successorum cius Vita Gebehardi, Thiemonis, Chunradi, Eberkardi, Chunradi π Arckiepiscopomm cum chronico Admuntensi, ed. GEORG HEINRICH PERTZ ( M G H . S S 11), Hannover 1881, 33-51. Vita Gosvini Beati Gosvini Vita, celiherrimi Aquicinctensis monasterii abbatis septimi, ed. RICHARD GIBBONS, Douai 1620, 10—18. Vita Eberbardi Vita Sancti Eberhardi Archiepiscopi Salzburgensis auetore anonymo quodam eins diseipuh, ed. GEORG HEINRICH PERTZ ( M G H . S S 11), Hannover 1881, 77—84. WIBALDUS Epistoki WIBALDUS CORBEIENSIS: Epistolae ( P L 189), Paris 1854, 1121—1458.

Winchcombt Annals Winchcombe Annais 1049—1181,

ed. REGINALD R . DARLINGTON , in A Medieval Miscellany for Doris

Mary Stenton, ed. by PATRICIA M . BARNES, CECIL F. SLADE (Pipe R o l l Society 76 [corr. 74], N e w Series 36), London 1962, 111—137. WOLFGERUS De scriptoribus ecclisiasticis WOLFGERUS [ANONYMUS MELLICENSIS]: Liber de scriptoribus ecclisiasticis ( P L 213), Paris 1855, 961—

984.

332

Bibliographia STUDIA

ABULAFIA 1 9 8 9

ANNA SAPIR ABULAFIA: »Jewish-Christian disputations and the twelfth-century renaissance«, in Journal of Medieval History Ij (1989) 105—125. ALESSANDRI 1 9 0 6

Inventario dell'antica Biblioteca del S. Convento ii S. Francesco in Assisi compilato nil Ij&t, ed. LETO ALESSANDRI, Assisi 1906. D'ALVERNY 1 9 7 4

MARIE-TH6R£SE D'ALVERNY: Catalogue its manuscrits en ecriture latine portant its indications di date, de lieu ou de copiste, 3 (Bibliotheque Nationale, Fonds Latin Ν™ 8ooi a 18613), Paris 1974. AMIRI 2002 BASSIR AMIRI: »Reflexions sur les enjeux et perspectives des recherches lexicales et semantiques assistees ou Perspectives sur les recherches lexicales et semantiques assistees«, in Le medieviste et l'ordinateur 41 (2002) 19—22. AMOS 1 9 8 9

THOMAS L. AMOS: The >Fundo Akobafa< of the Biblioteca Nacional, Lisbon, 2: Manuscripts ljl—jol (Descriptive Inventories of Manuscipts microfilmed for the Hill Monastic Manuscipt Library. Portuguese Libraries 2), Collegeville/Minnesota 1989. ARNOLD 1 9 7 2

KLAUS ARNOLD: »Admont und die monastische Reform des 12. Jahrhunderts«, in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftungfiir Rechtsgeschichte. Kan. Abt. 69 (1972) 350—369. AVRIL 1976

FRANCOIS AVRIL: »A quand remontent les premiers ateliers d'enlumineurs laics a Paris?«, in Enluminure gothique ( = Les dossiers d'archeologie 16, mai-juin 1976), Paris 1976, 36—44 mit 19 Abb. BARB ET DE JOUY 1 8 6 6

HENRY BARBET DE JOUY: Notice des antiquites, ohjets du Moyen Age, de la Renaissance et des limps Modernes composant le Musee des Souverains, Paris 1866 [ 2 i868]. BARON 1955a ROGER BARON: »La pensee mariale de Hugues de Saint-Victor«, in Revue d'ascetique et de mystique J I (1955) 2 4 9 - 2 7 1 . BARON 1955b ROGER BARON: »Hugues de Saint-Victor est-il l'auteur d'un commentaire de la regle de saint Augustin?«, in Recherches de science religieuse 43 (1955) 342—360. BARON 1955c ROGER BARON: »L'influence de Hugues de Saint-Victor«, in Recherches de theologie ancienne et medihale 22 (1955) 56—71. BARON 1956a ROGER BARON: »ßtude sur L'authenticite de L'oeuvre de Hugues de Saint-Victor d'apres les Mss Paris Maz. 717, Bn 14506 et Douai 360—366«, in Scriptorium 10 (1956) 182—220. BARON 1956b ROGER BARON: »Textes spirituels inedits de Hugues de Saint-Victor«, in Melanges de science religieuse IJ (1956) 157—178.

Bibliographia

333

BARON 1 9 5 6 c

ROGER BARON: »Hugues de Saint-Victor lexicographe: Trois textes inedits«, in Cultura neolatina 16 (1956) 109—145. BARON I956D

ROGER BARON: »Hugonis de Sancto Victore Practica Geometriae«, in Osiris 12 (1956) 176—224. BARON 1 9 5 7

ROGER BARON: Science et sagesse chez Hugues de Saint-Victor, Paris 1957. BARON 1958

ROGER BARON: Hugues de Saint-Victor: La contemplation et ses especes, Paris/Tournai 1958. BARON 1959

ROGER BARON: »Hugues de Saint-Victor: Contribution a un nouvel examen de son aeuvre«, in Traditio lj (1959) 223—297. BARON 1 9 6 3 a

ROGER BARON: ttudes sur Hugues de Saint-Victor, o.O. (Desclee de Brouwer) 1963. BARON 1 9 6 3 k

ROGER BARON: »Note sur rindiculum du ms. Oxford Merton College 49 et les Expositions sur l'oraison dominicale qui s'y trouvent mentionnes«, in Recherches de theologie ancienne et medieval· j o (1963) 333-336. BARON 1 9 6 3 — 1 9 6 4

ROGER BARON: »Le traite De L· contemplation et ses especes«, in Revue d'ascetique et de mystique 39 (1963) 137-151. 294-301, 4 0 (1964) 5-30. BARON 1 9 6 6

ROGER BARON: Hugonis de Sancto Victore Opera propaedeutica (Publications in Medieval Studies 20), Notre Dame/Indiana 1966. BARON 1 9 6 7

ROGER BARON: »La Chronique de Hugues de Saint-Victor«, in Studia Gratiana XII, Collectanea Stephan Kuttner,

c u r a n t i b u s GIUSEPPE FORCHIELU, ALFONSO M . STICKLER, 2, B o l o g n a 1 9 6 7 , 1 6 5 —

180. BARON 1 9 6 9 a

ROGER BARON: »Hugues de Saint-Victor«, in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite 7, Paris 1969, 901—939. BARON 1 9 6 9 b

ROGER BARON: Hugues de Saint-Victor: Six Opuscules spirituels (Sources Chretiennes 155), Paris 1969. BARROUX 1933

MARIUS BARROUX: »Adenulphe d'Anagni«, in Dictionnaire de Biographie Franfaise 1, Paris 1933, 564-565. BARROW 1 9 8 9

JULIA BARROW: »Education and the recruitment of cathedral canons in England and Germany 1100—1125«, in Viator 10 (1989) 117—138. BAUER 1 9 8 0

MARTIN BAUER: »Adenulf v. Anagni«, in Lexikon des Mittelalters 1, München/Zürich 1980, 149. BAUTIER 1 9 8 1

ROBERT-HENRI BAUTIER: »Paris au temps d'Abelard«, in Aielard en son temps. Actes du colloque international organise a l'occasion du 9' centenaire de la naissance de Pierre Abelard (14—19 mai 1979), prepare par JEAN JOLIVET, Paris 1981, 21—77.

Bihliographia

334 BAUTIER 1991

ROBERT-HENRI BAUTIER: »Les origines et les premiers developpements de L'abbaye SaintVictor de Paris«, in LONG£RE 1991a, 23—52. Beaux manuscrits 1937 Les plus beaux manuscrits fran^ais du v m ' au x v f siecle conserves dans les Bibliotheques Nationales de Paris (Ausstellungskatalog), Paris 1937. BERGER 1895

6LIE BERGER: Histoire de Blanche de CastilL·, reine de France (Bibliotheque des ßcoles Frangaises d'Athenes et de Rome 70), Paris 1895. B£RIOU 1 9 9 8

NICOLE B£RJOU: L'avenement des maitres de la Parole. La predication ä Paris au xm e siech, 1—2 (Collection des fitudes Augustiniennes. Serie Moyen Äge et Temps Modernes 31—32), Paris 1998. BERMAN 2000 CONSTANCE BERMAN: The Cistercian Evolution: The Invention 0f a Religious Order in Twelfth-Century Europe, Philadelphia 2000. BERNDT 2002 RAINER BERNDT: »Scriptum sacra magistrafidti.Zur Augustinus-Rezeption und der Einführung der 'vita regularis' in Sankt Viktor zu Paris«, in Die Augustinusregel. Normative Grundlage differenter Verbände im Mittelalter, hg. von GERT MELVILLE und ANNE MÜLLER (Publikationen der Akademie der Augustiner-Chorherren von Windesheim 3), Paring 2002, 105—125. BERNDT 2005a

RAINER BERNDT: »Le röle et l'apport du logiciel T U S T E P dans l'edition critique de lExpositio in Octateuchum de Hugues de Saint-Victor«, in: In principio erat Verbum. Melanges offerts en hommage a Paul Tombeur par des anciens etudiants ä l'occasion de son emeritat, ed. par BENotr-MLCHEL TOCK (Textes et etudes du moyen äge 25), Louvain-la-Neuve 2005, 1—18. BERNDT 2005b

RAINER BERNDT: »Die Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor (t 1141): Ist die Erstausgabe durch Abt Gilduin (f 1155) ein editorischer Glücksfall?«, in Vom Nutzen des Edierens. Akten des internationalen Kongresses zum 150—jährigen Bestehen des Instituts für Osterreichische Geschichtsfors c h u n g , 3—5. J u n i 2 0 0 4 , h g . v o n BRIGITTE M E R T A , M A R T I N SCHEUTZ, ANDREA SOMMERLECHNER

und HERWIG WEIGEL ( M I O G . Ergänzungsband 47), Wien 2005, 91—99. BEUMER i960 JOHANNES BEUMER: »Der mariologische Gehalt der Predigten Gottfrieds von Admont (f 1165)«, in Scholastik J J (i960) 40—56. BIRCH 1 8 7 0

WALTER DE GRAY BIRCH: »On the date of foundation ascribed to the Cistercian abbeys in Great Britain«, in Journal of the British Archaeological Association z6 (1870) 281—299. 352—369. BISCHOFF 1958

BERNHARD BISCHOFF: »Eine verschollene Einteilung der Wissenschaften«, in Archives d'histoire doctrinale et litteraire du moyen äge Zj (1958) 5—20 [wiederabgedruckt in IDEM: Mittelalterliche Studien. Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte 1, Stuttgart 1966, 273—288]. BISCHOFF 1 9 6 7

BERNHARD BISCHOFF: »Aus der Schule Hugos von St. Viktor«, in IDEM: Mittelalterliche Studien. Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte, 2, Stuttgart 1967, 182-187.

Bibliographia

335

BONNARD 1 9 0 4 — 1 9 0 7

FOURIER BONNARD: Histoire de l'abbaye royale et de l'ordre des chanoines reguliers de St-Victor de Paris, 1—2, Paris [1904, 1907]. BORGEHAMMAR 1993

STEPHAN BORGEHAMMAR: »Who wrote the Admont sermon corpus — Gottfried the abbot, his brother Irimbert, or the nuns?«, in De l'homelie an sermon. Histoire de la predication medievale, ed. par JACQUELINE HAMESSE, X A V I E R HERMAND, L o u v a i n 1 9 9 3 , 4 7 — 5 1 . BOUHOT 1 9 7 0

JEAN-PAUL BOUHOT: »Le sermon Dominus et Salvator, premiere forme derivee d'un sermon perdu de Saint Cesaire«, in Revue benedictine 80 (1970) 201—212. BRANNER 1 9 7 6

ROBERT BRANNER: »Saint Louis et l'enluminure parisienne au χπΓ siecle«, in Septieme centenaire de la mort de Saint Louis. Actes des Colloques de Royaumont et de Paris (21—27 m a i '97°), ouvrage publie avec le concours du C.N.R.S., Paris 1976, 69—84. BRANNER 1 9 7 7

ROBERT BRANNER (t): Manuscript painting in Paris during the reign of Saint Louis. A study of styles, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1977. BRÜCKNER 1 9 6 9

WOLFGANG BRÜCKNER: »Sterben im Mönchsgewand. Z u m Funktionswandel einer Totenkleidsitte«, in Kontakte und Grenzen. Probleme der Volks-, Kultur- und Sozialforschung. Festschrift für Gerhard Heilfurth zum 60. Geburtstag, hg. von seinen Mitarbeitern, Schriftleitung HANS FRIEDRICH FOLTIN, G ö t t i n g e n 1 9 6 9 , 2 5 9 — 2 7 7 .

Buc 1 9 9 4 PHILIPPE BUC: L'ambiguite du livre. Prince, pouvoir, et peuplt dans les commentaires de la Bible au moyen ige (Theologie historique 95), Paris 1994. BULL 1993

MARCUS GRAHAM BULL: Knightly piety and the lay response to the First crusade. The Limousin and Gascony, c. 9jo-c. 1130, Oxford 1993. BUTOMER 1 9 3 9 CHARLES H E N R Y BUTITMER: » I n t r o d u c t i o n « , i n H U G O DE SANCTO VICTORE Didascalicon

(1939),

xm-m. BUYTAERT/MEWS 1987 ELIGIUS Μ . BUYTAERT, CONSTANT J . M E W S : » I n t r o d u c t i o n s « , i n ABAELARDUS Opera Theohgica m , 15—37. 39—81. 203—308. BYVANCK 1931

ALEXANDER WILLEM BYVANCK: »Les principaux manuscrits a peintures conserves dans les collections publiques du Royaume des Pays-Bas«, in Bulletin de la Societefranfaise de reproductions de manuscrits a peintures 1J (1931) 5—124. Tafeln ι-χχχνπ. CARRIER 1950

Coutumier du xi c siecle de l'ordre de Saint-Ruf (Chanoines reguliers de saint Augustin) en usage a la cathedrale de Maguelone, ed. ALBERT CARRIER DE BELLEUSE (fitudes et documents sur l'ordre de Saint-Ruf 8), Sherbrooke 1950. CARRUTHERS 1 9 9 0

MARY J. CARRUTHERS: The Book if Memory: A Study Nostrorum Petitioni Sociorum< und Untersuchungen (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters 21), Münster 1933, 2

I973, 591-633.

DE GHELLINCK Ι9ΙΟ

JOSEPH DE GHELLINCK: »La table des matieres de la premiere edition des oeuvres de Hugues de Saint-Victor«, in Recherches de science seligieuse 1 (1910) 270—289. 385—396. DE GHELLINCK 1913

JOSEPH DE GHELLINCK: »Un catalogue des oeuvres de Hugues de Saint-Victor (Oxford, Merton College, Ms. 129)«, in Revue neoscolastique de philosophic 20 (1913) 226—232. DE GHELLINCK 1914

JOSEPH DE GHELLINCK: Le mouvement theohgitpte du xnc siecle. ttudes, recherches et documents, Paris 1914, Bruges 2i948. GIBSON 1 9 7 9

MARGARET T . GIBSON: »The Early Scholastic >Glosule< to Priscian, Institutiones Grammatical The Text and its Influence«, in Studi medievali, serie 3*, 20 (1979) 235—254. GILLINGHAM 1999

JOHN GILUNGHAM: »Historians without Hindsight: Coggeshall, Diceto and Howden on the Early Years of John's Reign«, in King John: New Interpretations, ed. by S. D. CHURCH, Woodbridge 1999, 1—26. GJERL0W 1 9 7 2

LILU GJERL0W: »A Twelfth-Century Victorine or Cistercian Manuscript in the Library of Elverum«, in Revue henedictine δι (1972) 313—338. GLORIEUX 1925

PAIJMON GLORIEUX: La litterature quodlibetique de 1160 a 1320, Le Saulchoir 1925. GLORIEUX 1933

PAL£MON GLORIEUX: Repertoire des maitres en theologie de Paris au XNI siecle, 1—2 (ßtudes de philosophic medievale 17—18), Paris 1933.

Bibliographia

342 GLORIEUX 1 9 7 1

PAL£MON GLORIEUX: Lafaculte des arts et ses maitres au xme siklc (ßtudes de philosophie medievale 59), Paris 1971. GOFF 1 9 4 8

J. F. R . GOFF: »A Catalogue of recent additions to the Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection«, in The Library of Congress Quarterly of current Acquisitions j (1948). GOROCHOV 1 9 9 7

NATHALIE GOROCHOV: Le College de Navarre de safondation (ijojj

au debut du xv'siecle (1418): histoire

de l'institution, de sa vie mtelkctuelle et de son recrutement, Paris 1997. GOTTLIEB 1915

THEODOR GOTTLIEB: Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Österreichs, i: Niederösterreich, Wien 1915. GOUGAUD 1 9 2 5

Louis GOUGAUD: Devotions et pratiques ascetiques du moyen age (Collection pax 21), Paris/Maredsous 1925. GOY

1976 RUDOLF GOY: Die Uberlirferung der Werke Hugos von St. Viktor: Ein Beitrag zur Kommunikationsgeschichte des Mittelalters (Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 14), Stuttgart 1976.

GRABMANN 1 9 4 7

MARTIN GRABMANN: »Adenulf von Anagni, Propst von Saint-Omer (t 1290). Ein Freund und Schüler des hl. Thomas von Aquin«, in Traditio j (1947) 269—283 [wiederabgedruckt in: MARTIN GRABMANN (t): Mittelalterliches Geistesleben. Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Scholastik und Mystik, 3, München 1956, 306—322]. GRANSDEN 1974—1982 ANTONIA GRANSDEN: Historical Writing in England, t—z, London 1974—1982. GRANSDEN 1 9 9 0

ANTONIA GRANSDEN: »Prologues in the Historiography of Twelfth-Century England«, in England in the Twelfth Century. Proceedings of the 1984 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. DANIEL WILLIAMS, Woodbridge 1990, 55—81 [wiederabgedruckt in EADEM: Legends, Traditions and History in Medieval England, London 1992, 125—151]. GREATREX 1 9 9 7

JOAN GREATREX: Biographical Register of the English Cathedral Priories of the Province of Canterbury c. 1066 to 1340, Oxford, 1997. GREEN 1943

WILLIAM M . GREEN: »Hugo of St. Victor: De tribus maximis circumstantiis gestorum«, in Speculum 18 (1943) 484-493. GREEN-PEDERSEN 1 9 7 4

NIELS J. GREEN-PEDERSEN: »William of Champeaux on Boethius' Topics According to Orleans Bibl. Mun. 266«, in Cahiers de l'Institut du Moyen Age Grec et Latin f j (1974) 13—30. GREEN-PEDERSEN 1 9 7 7

NIELS J. GREEN-PEDERSEN: »The Doctrine of >maxima propositio< and >locus differentia< in Commentaries from the 12th century on Boethius' Topics«, in Studia Mediewistyczne 18 (1977) 125—163.

Bibliographie

343

GREEN-PEDERSEN 1 9 8 4

NIELS J. GREEN-PEDERSEN: The Tradition of the Topics in the Middle Ages. The Commentaries on Aristotle's and Boethius' >TopicsMaestro di OrazioChronicon< on the >Abbreviationes Chronicorum< by Ralph o f Diceto", in Speculum jz (1977) 38—61. ZINN 1997

GROVER A . ZINN, JR.: »Hugh o f St. Victor's De scripturis et scriptorihus sacris as an accessus treatise f o r the study of the bible«, in Traditio jZ (1997) 111—134.

Indices

Sacra Scriptura Genesis

72, 299

I—10 28 22

14

2 97

3

2214

joo

2219

joo

314 314 72

Π Liber Paralipomenon

39 2 9 j 39-50 297

I Liber Ezrae

72,299

II Liber Ezrae Liber Psalmorum 18 4

2 97

31 18

f/4

72

72

297

14-39 40

310

I Liber Paralipomenon

297

1-13

J5

4 2-3

315

Exodus

297 308

2 8—9

301

26—38

74

I-4

281

II—25

3°

Ruth

297

72

100

Canticum Canticorum

74

297 Isaias

Leviticus

72

101—2

308

34 4

114

66 6

304

Numeri

72

2118

297

2119

297

Hiezechiel

26 60

308

Danihel

26 61

308

Lamentationes

Deuteronomium 33

10

297, 300

297

301

IO 1—2 10 4—16

Matthaeus JOI

5 36

2 57~ 2 5 8

Actus Apostolorum

297

4-10 3

73

Iohannes

297

1-3

73—74

II-18

Iosue

Liber Iudicum

73

Prophetae minores 72

2 97

1-24

74

JOO 297

Epistolae

74

74

Apocalypsis De xn lapidibus

74 74

Indices

366 A U C T O R E S ET OPERA

BEDA VENERABILIS

ADELARDUS BATHONIENSIS

Questions naturales

Chronica maiora

287

Aimonter Briefsammlung

234, 260

Epistolae

ALEXANDER ESSEBIENSIS

Breuissima comprehensio historiarum

198—299

298

I!J

ANDREAS DE SANCTO V I C T O R E

Expositio hystorica in libros Regum Expositio in Ieremiam

263—164

Ad milites templi: De laude novae militiae

168

77

169

543

i6

5

BERNARDUS TRAIECTENSIS

17

Commentum

Annales S. Stepbani Frisingensis

144.

97—98

BERNHELMUS SPONHEIMENSIS De Septem artibus liberalibus

ANSELMUS CANTUARIENSIS

101

98

BOETHIUS

De incamatione Verbi

80, 94

De differentiis topicis

De processione spiritus sancti contra Graecos Epistola de sacramentis ecclesiae

80

80

80

De trinitate 83

π 5

fy

Mitaphysica

loy

82, 85—87, 97—98

117

In Periermcneias 15

ANSELMUS LAUDUNENSIS ( ? )

Sententiae

BERNARDUS CLARAEVALLENSIS

3

Expositio in Hexaemeron

Epistolae 161-161

80

Epistolae

AMBROSIUS MEDIOLANENSIS

De grammatico

279

91

BERENGARIUS

j8, 106, 109

Liber Festiualis

2jo, 2j8,

Expositio in Psalmos

ALBERICUS T R I U M FONTIUM

Chronicon

278

De temporum ratione

ÖJ

Super Tbpica

86, 87, 9 J

ARISTOTELES

Analytica Priora Categoriae

97

CALIXTUS Π

83, 87

De interpretation

Epistolae 87, 100

1 58

ARNOBIUS MAIOR

Aduersus nationes

179

292

15 AUGUSTINUS HIPPONENSIS

7, 78, 89—90, 93—94, 96, 103

97

Somnium Scipionis

flj

De diversis questionibus

263

Enarrationes in Psalmos

114

Enchiridion

109

De inventione

266

De civitate Dei

111

CICERO

ARNULFUS LEXOVIENSIS

Epistolae

I/O

Concilia Beauvais (1114)

109

Chälons-sur-Marne (1115)

20J

Quaestiones in Heptateucum

91

300

Ephesus (431)

258

109

Indices

367

Reims (1115)

109

FLORENTIUS

R e i m s (1119)

NO—HI

Roma (1078)

81

Chronicon ι

Soissons (c. 1090—1092) S o i s s o n s (1121)

80, 94

h i , 114

180

FRECULFUS LEXOVIENSIS Chronicon

z8y

CoNRADUS HlRSAUGIENSIS Diahgus super auctoris

98, 11J

De principis instnutione

CORNELIUS TACITUS Agricola

290

AnnaUs

290

Germania

269

GERHOHUS REICHERSBERGENSIS EpistoL·u vi

290

Historiae

GERALDUS WALISIENSIS

259

Vffl

290

2J9

vm-x Decretum Gratiani

18, 236

259

XI—XVI XX

DROGO Meditatio in passionem et resurrectionem Domini 282

2J9 2J9

XXI

2J9

XXVI-XXVin iiiir

2j6

rontra ^müs haereses

236, 256—260

Liher de gloria et honore filii hominis

EUSEBIUS Chronicon

290

258—260

GERLANDUS BISUNIINUS Diabetica

EUTROPIUS Breuiarium historic Romane

287

4

9

δ

GILBERTUS UNIVERSAUS FLAVIUS IOSEPHUS

Glossa in Lamentationes hremiae

Antiquitates iudaicae

289, 292, JOO, 301, 304 GILDUINUS DE SANCTO VICTORE

193

291

194

291—292

1108

292

1 240—241

Liheüus

GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS 291

ν 9 ι

308—309

ν 9 2

310, 312

v

312

9

3

V94

290

χ 227

291

χ 228

291

ΧΠ5-7

Glossa Ordinaria

269

299, 301, 306

De generihus et speciebus

88

GREGORIUS TURONENSIS Historiarum libri decern

269, 291

Χ Π 1 3 5 - 137

291

x n 358-•359

291

De hello Iudaico

De principis instructione

GOSCELINUS

314-316

v m 157

16

292

π 8—9 Π9

290 290

GREGORIUS I MAGNUS Moralia in Ich Regula pastoralis

106 287

289

237

368

Indices

GUILLELMUS CAMPIUENSIS

Introductions dialectical

HERIMANNUS TORNACENSIS

7, 78—84, 87—88,

94—96, 99, 104—105, 115—116

Relatio

ι

δζ

5

Sj

7,1

Expositio in Lamentationes Hebraica nomina

δι

Epistolae

84, 86

11

W I

In Pentateuchum

1,7

S4

2, 2

62, IOJ

WI-IV

De claustro animal De natura avium

5.1

«j

7.2

«J

Adnotationes in libros Regum Adnotationes in librum Iudicum

7, 76, 105, 106, 108

Adnotationes in Octateuchum

10 i44
'35·

143, 147, 149, 199 125, 135

128—129, 133, 143,

147, 197. H 5 127—129,133,139—140,142,

144, 148—149, 214

144, 148, 151, 154-155. 215. 27J De tribus diebus

214

De tribus maximis circumstantiis gestorum

De ucrbo dti

128—129, 132, 143, 147, 149,

198 126, 128—129, J32>

143, 147, 204 De ijuatuor voluntatibus

126, 131, 143, 146—147, 149, 155,

128—129, 132, 134,

126, 128—129, 132, 143,

162, 164, 213

128—129, 133—134» 151 162, 165—167, 171,

Didascalicon

79, 98, 113—115, ill, 122, 128—

156, 158, 167, 196, 242

241

Prologus

257-258

124,129,144,150—151,156,158—

'59 13 11J

176 162, 164, 212

2^1

De sacramentis legis naturalis dialogus

148, 212

Fragment

129, 132-133, 137, 139-143, 147, 150-151.

163, 240-241, 243, 261

126, 143,

127—129,133—134,138—140,

177, 230

126, 128-129, !33' J44> '48. 154—155.

Π 17 12

213

Descriptio mappe mundi

126,162, 241

π 14 8

213

240—241 126, 162—165,

174, 177, 241, 246, 256, 259

π 131

1& Π

142, 144, 148, 150—151, 156, 158—159, 215,

De sacramentis Christiane ßdei

π 2 i6

125,127—129,133,137,139—

De virtute orandi

I74-J75 138, 227

πι8

De vanitate mundi

m & rv

212

π

126, 128—129,

140, 142, 144, 148—149, 155, 159

147, 149, 176, 243, 27J

II

128, 132

De unione corporis et spiritus

132, 199, 212

143, 147, 149, 198 De quinque septenis

263,

212, 2jO Fragment

π V

113—114, 121, 128—129, '33>

139—140,142,144, 146,148—149, 214, 241—

267, 267

De potestate et voluntate dei

I—TV

227

128—129, '33> 142,

244

De laude caritatis

I

173,249—250,255

D « substantia dikctionis

11 j, 121—122, 124, 128—129,

De institutione novitiorum

Prologus

18

De Septem donis spiritus sancti

132—133, 139—140, 142—143, 147, 196

De meditatione

249-250,255 yj

De beatae Mariae virginitate

De grammatica

164, 248

'3

147, 158, 240, 198

De cibo Emmanuelis

17, 173, 194,

241, 245, 247, 250, 255—256

137—139» '42-143. 146-147, 167, 197, 241, De arrha anime

1 2 5 , 1 2 8 — 1 2 9 , I32>

143, 149, 162, 168, 199, 242, 243, 257, 259

126, 143,

in

H9>

211

139—140

Libcllus deformatione arche

121—122,128—129,

20

138—140, L42, 144, 148, 218

21

219

21—30

138—140, 142, 144, 148

22

219

23

219

24

219

25

219

26

219

27

220

28

220

29

220

30

220

31

220

132—133,137—140, 142—143, 146—147, 165—

3I—4I

167, 197, 241, 244—247, 253

32

220

33 34

MI 221

35 36

221 221

ν

l6j

ix

i6j

xi

i6j

Maria porta

125,128—129, 1 i 2 · '43> '47· '49.

171. 198 Miscellanea

120, 138, 162, 169—171, 242—243

»In pater corroboramur« »In peccato duo sunt«

/71 126,128—129,132,

143, 147, 171, 201

138—140, 142, 144, 148

37

221

38

221

39

221

40

222

41

222

42

222

11

128—129, li2> '34> '43· '47> H9> '55· '9^

ι 2

128—129, 132, 135, 143, 147, 149, 199

42—52

13

216

43

ι 3—18

138—140, 142, 144, 148

138—140, 142, 144, 148 222

44

222

14

216

45

222

15

217

46

223

16

217

17

217

47 48

223 223

18

217

19

217

49 50

223 223

Indices

371

51

223

185

200

52

223

186

200

53

224

187

200

188

200 200

53-56

1 3 8 - 1 4 0 , 142, 144, 148

54

224

189

55

" 4

ι 90

201

56

224

191

125, 2 0 1

5 7 & 58

224

57—59 58

I 92

138—140, 142, 144, 148

1

93

126, 1 2 8 — 1 2 9 , 132, 143, 1 4 7 , 2 0 1 20I

170

1 9 3 - 96

59

224

194

201

60

126, 1 2 8 — 1 2 9 , 1 3 2 > 143. 147. 2 0 4

195

201

61

170

I 96

202

63

225

1

202

63—68

138—140, 142, 1 4 4 , 148

97

126, 128—129,

I

3 2 · '43>

126, 128—129, liz>

1 9 7 - 98

!

'47

43> 1 4 7

64

225

198

202

65

225

199

1 2 6 , 1 2 8 — 1 2 9 , '32> 1 4 3 . 1 4 7 . 2 0 2

66

225

I 100

67 = Epistola f ad Ranulphum de Mauriaco 169, 2 2 5

202

I l o o -- 1 0 3 I 101

126, 1 2 8 — 1 2 9 , 132, 143, 1 4 7

202

68

225

I 102

202

69

226

I 103

202

I 104

126, 128—129, 1 3 2 , 1 4 3 , 1 4 7 , 203

70

226

I 105

1 2 6 , 1 2 8 — 1 2 9 , ' 3 2 > 135. 1 4 3 , 1 4 7 ,

71

226

I 106

125—126,128—129,132,143,147,

72

226

201

69—71

138—140, 142, 1 4 4 , 148

72—75

138—140, 142, 144, 148

1107

135, 2 0 3

73

226

I 1 0 7 -- 1 1 7

74

226

1108

126, 1 2 8 — 1 2 9 , 132, 143, 1 4 7

75

227

I 109

203

76

216

I 110

203 203

203

76-78

138

I III

76—80

139—140, 142, 144, 148

I 112

203 204

77

216

I 113

78

216

I 114

204

79

216

1115

204

80 = Epistola m' ad Ioanntm Hispaknsem archicpiscopum 81

138, 216

200 1 2 8 — 1 2 9 , ' 3 2 > '43> ' 4 7 . 1 4 9

81—91

I 116

204

I 117

204

I 118

204

III8--149

82

125,200

I I I 8 - -158

83

200

I 119

83—90 84

125 200

126 1 2 8 — 1 2 9 , 132, 143, 1 4 7

205

I 120

205

I 121

205

Indices

37 2 122

205

1164

231

123

2

°5

I 165

231

124

205

I 166

231

125

206

I 167

231

126

206

I 168

231

127

206

I 169

122

128

135, 206

I 169 & 170

212

129

206

1 1 6 9 & 170

126,143, 148, 160

130

206

1171

170

206

I 172

126, 212

207

1172—173

133

207

I I73

126, 2 1 2

134

207

I I74

126, I43, 148, 212

135

207

1175-179

136

207

137

207

138

208

139

208

140

208

141

208

I 199

142

208

π = Adnotationes in Psalmos

143

208

π 3

iyi

144

208

π 55

138—140, 142, 144, M-8, 226

145 146

209

π 6o

138—140, 142, 144, 148, 222

209

π 63

138—140, 142, 144, '4^, 224

147 148

209

π 79

138—140, 142, 144, I 4®>

209

π 8o

138—140, 142, 144, 148, 225

131 132

149

209

150

126

210 210

154

210

155 156

210

157 158

211

163

170

I 193-194

170

1195-197

170

170 211

22

4

138—140, 142, 144, 148 ill, 122, 125, 128—129, 'S 2 '

Sententiac ic diuinitate

199, 212

162, 165, 177

H U G O FLORIACENSIS

Chronicon

z86

IDUNG DE PRÜFENING

Diahgus duorum monachorum Cluniacensis et Cisterciensis

211

Initculum

lj8

8, 16, 119—129, 132—134, 137—140,

142—145, 147—164, 166, 169—171, 176—177, 193, 194, 198, 213, 247, 248, 286

230 231

170

I 182

139-140, 1 4 2 - 1 4 3 , 147, 197

211

161 & 162

I 181

Quomodo scrmo 1lei unus est

230 '59 159—168 155, 160, 170, 230 160

170

sine no

210 151 1 5 1 -•158 153

170

I 180

Practica geometric

150 (teilw.)

i5 2

143,148, 160

231

Indices

373

IOHANNES CASSIANUS CoUationts

LUCIUS ANNAEUS FLORUS

277

Epitome bellorum omnium annorum .dcc.

IOHANNES DE SANCTO VLCTORE Memorial* historiarum IOHANNES

In Somnium Scipionis

SARESBERIENSIS

Metalagvon 15

MACROBIUS

JJ, 167

Historia pontißcalis

81, 91

MANEGOLDUS DE LAUTENBACH

264

7 9 , 82—85,

1I2>

n

Liber ad Gebebardum

5

Prefatio

83

91

9!

Liber contra Wolfelmum

π i~3

Super De invention/

π ίο

S^-Sj

m 4

62

Liber Ruth

m 9

91—92, 99, 105 87, 90

MARBODUS

m 6 S4

Policraticus

292

302

MATHEUS VINDOONENSIS 83

Tobias

299

IOHANNES TOLOSANUS Necrologtum Milstatense

Antiquitates regalis abbatiae S. Victims Parisiensis

jj

Necrologtum S. Marita Parisiensis

IoHANNES WLGORNIENSIS Chronica chronicarum

Necrologtum Sancti Victoris

273, 280

49'5 -53' λ

IRENAEUS LUGDUNENSIS Aduersws bereses

234

6o