Glose super Donatum (Artistarium) 9070419033, 9789070419035

Citation preview

ARTISTARIU M A Series of Texts on Mediaeval Logic, Grammar & Semantics EDITORS L. M. de RIJK & E. P. BOS Lei den

H. A. G. BRAAKHUIS & C. H. KNEEPKENS Nijmegen

Vol. 1: L. M. de Rijk, Anonymi auctoris franciscani Logica ,,Ad rudium" (edited from the MS Vat. lat. 946), Nijmegen 1981 Vol.2: Ralph of Beauvais, Glose super Donatum, ed. C. H. Kneepkens, Nijmegen 1982

in preparation: E. P. Bos, Johannes Hollandrinus, Logica: A Critical Edition of the Suppositiones, Fallacie, Obligationes, and Consequentie H. A. G. Braakhuis, Nicholas of Paris(?), Summe Metenses: A Complete Edition C. H. Kneepkens, Ralph of Beauvais, Liber Tytan L. M. de Rijk, Sorne l 4th Century Tracts on the Probationes terminorum. An Edition of Four Current Textbooks with an Introduction and Indexes SUPPLEMENT A to ARTISTARIU M: Vol. 1: English Logic and Semantics, from the End of the Twelfth Century to the Time of Ockham and Burleigh, Nijmegen 1981

ARTISTAR IUM 2

RALPH OF BEAUVAIS

GLOSE SVPER DONATVM

edited with a short introduction, notes and indices

by C. H. KNEEPKENS

Nijmegen Ingenium Publishers

1982

ISBN 90 70419 03 3 Copyright 1982 by lngenium Publishers, P.O. BOX 1342, 6501 BH Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Ali rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher. PRINTED by KRIPS REPRO MEPPEL, THE NETHERLANDS.

P R E F A C E

The present edi tian of Ralph of Beauvais' s Glose .:;uper Donatum is based on a collation of all the extant manuscript material, edi tian is preceded by a short

The

however meagre i t may be.

introduction to the life and writings of Ralph, the manuscripts, and the position of the Glose in the development of mediaeval grammar.

For

heavily

the introductory section I have W. Hunt on

Richard

upon the ·.vork of

The

relied

School of Ralph

of

Beauvais, which was published as the second part of his studies on Priscian in the eleventh and t«·:elfth centuries in Mediaeval and Renaissance

~tudies,

reprinted in Dr. Hunt's

vol.

(1950),

II

Collected

Grammar in the Middle Aryes,

1 -

56, and recently

Papers on the

History of

edited by G. L. Bursill-Hall.

The text of the Glose is followed by the Notes, consisting of

references

to the works quoted by Ralph, and of the appa-

ratus criticus. I took the opportunity to edit two short gram-

matical fragments, which are appended in the

nss

(L

and T)

im-

mediately after the Glose. The Index locorum and the Index exemplorum aim at completeness, whereas the

I~dex

nominum et rerum notahilium is notex-

haustive. I wish to express my

thanks

to Professor L. M. de Rijk

of

Leiden and to Prof essor H. ;,., G. Braakhuis of Nijmegen for their critical remarks on an earlier draft of the edition, and to Mr Eric Kellerman, B.Ed. M.A.

and to Mr Jan Klerkx for help with

the translation of the introduction.

Nijmegen,

February

1982 C.

H.

Kneepkens

C0 NT E NT S

PREFACE TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

V

VII

IX

NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION

XXVII

BOOKS AND ARTICLES REFERRED TO

XXXII

ARGVMENTVM

XXXVI

SIG LA

XX1'VIII

GLOSE SVPER DONATVM: TEXT NOTES TO THE TEXT

57

APPENDIX I

77

APPENDIX II

78

INDICES

81

INDEX LOCORVM INDEX EXEMPLORVM

83

INDEX NOMINUM ET RERVM NOTABILIVM

88

86

VII

I ,

INTRODUCTION

The Ars minor of Donat is one of the textbooks that have enjoyed the unceasing attention of the world of education from Late Antiquity far into the Renaissance period. This booklet, written by the teacher of St. Jerome, played a very important role in the teaching of the rudiments of the Latin language, as is commonly known. It should furthermore be emphasizedthat the Ars minor also functioned as an introduction to grammar, for it was this work which confronted the mediaeval student with a systematic set of grammatical notions and technical terms for the first time in his school career. As was usual witt textbooks in the Middle Ages, the Ars minor was frequently adapted and commented on.

h glance atthe

survey of mediaeval Donat commentaries published by G. L. 1 Generally speaking, the importance

Bursill-Hall will suffice.

of commentaries for our insight into the development of a discipline can hardly be overestimated. Since it was common practice for the mediaeval masters to embody their own opinions in commentaries on authoritative texts, be it Glosae, gloss commentaries or Quaestiones, these writings have to be considered as notable documents for the attainments of mediaeval scholarship. However, a question that might be posed at this point is whether, and to what degree, the commentaries on such elementary texts as the Donatus minor have really contributed to the development of the theory of grammar or to its pedagogical applications. In short, what is the status of the commentaries on texts like the minor within that basic mediaeval discipline, the ars

yra~matica.

The present critical edition of Ralph of Beauvais' Glose super Donatum will not give a full and decisive answer to this question, but it will certainly deepen our insight into the IX

R A L P H

0 F

B E A U V A I S

elementary and secondary levels of grammar instruction in the twelfth century, the period in which the development of grammatical theory showed a spectacular growth.

II,

RALPH

OF

BEAUVAIS

HIS LIFE

It was the late Richard W. Hunt

who decisively restoredRalph

of Beauvais and his writings to their rightful place in the history of mediaeval grammar. The second part of his famous study on Priscian in the eleventh and twelfth centuries was entirely devoted to this grammarian and to what Dr. Hunt called "The School of Ralph of Beauvais''.

2

Using the evidence supplied by the sixth letter of Peter of Blois, Gerald of Wales' Gemma ecclesiastica, Dist. II,cap. 37, and the Chronicle of Helinand of Froidmont, Dr. Hunt was able to reconstruct the main events of Ralph's life. Born in England, Ralph went to France and studied under the direction of Peter Abailard. He taught at Beauvais and earned a reputation as a solid and thorough grammarian with special interests in the writings of the classical authors. Ralph was still alive, though very old, in the early 1180's.

3

HIS WRITINGS

Dr. Hunt has re-attributed the authorship of two works to Ralph, namely the Liber Tytan and the Glose super Donatum.

4

The Liber Tytan is a collection of grammatical notes of various levels within a framework supplied by lines taken from Ovid's Metamorphoses and Lucan's Pharsalia. It is preserved in the following manuscripts:

BERN, Burgerbibliothek, G DAN S K,

X

519,

Bi b 1 i o the ka Nau k ,

119v;

5

f f. 1 and 2 7 2 .

7

1'5380, ff. 111r -

LONDON, British Library, Add.

ff. 116r - 135v;

Mar .

Q•

46 ,

6

I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N

In the Middle Ages, there were copies in the libraries of Christ Church, Canterbury, and Waltham Abbey. 8 It is quoted in a twelfth century gloss commentary on Priscian known as the Glose "Promisimus•. 9 The Glose super Donatum, the subject of the present edition, is preserved in three manuscripts: LONDON,

British Library, Add.

BRUGGE,

Stadsbibliotheek,

TA R RA G0 N A ,

Bi b 1 i o te c a

544,

10380, ff. 123va -

f. 117va-b;

pro v en ça 1 ,

127ra;

10

11

fond o S . Creus , 5 4 , f . 1 3 1 !2

A more extensive description of these codices is presented below. At Canterbury, the Glose was in the same manuscript as the Liber Tytan.

13

Furthermore, Dr. Hunt has shown with the help of a number of references in the Glose "Promisimus• that Ralph must also have composed a gloss commentary on Priscian's Institutiones Unfortunately, this work has as yet not been grammaticae.~ identified in the manuscripts. A grammatical treatise by Ralph is also attested in 1202 in the library of St. Andrew's, Rochester. However, the reference is too vague to allow identification with one of the extant

works.~

Closely connected with the writings of Ralph is a collection of grammatical quaestiones and notae of a rather elementary nature. In the Middle Ages it had already received the name Verba preceptiva after its opening words. 16 It must have been fairly popular, since it has been preserved in four manuscripts, and there are two mentions in mediaeval booklists. The manuscripts are: Add.

16380, ff. 120ra -

123va;

17

LONDON,

British Library,

MILANO,

Biblioteca Ambrosiana, M 9 sup.,ff.170r-183r;

TARRAGONA,

Biblioteca

provençal,

fonda

S.

Creus,

18

54,

XI

R A L P H

f f. 1 2 4 va - 1 3 1 r b; PARIS,

0 F

BEAUVAIS

19

Bibliothèque nationale,

lat.

18072,

f.

134r-v.

20

Thomas of Marlborough

about 1200 ) was in possession of a copy of this work, which also figures , together with the Liber Tytan, in the Wal tham catalogue. 21 A quotation from the Verba preceptiva in the Glose "Promisimus" has been referred to by Dr. Hunt. 22

III. THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE uGLOSE SUPER DONATUMu As indicated above, we have three manuscripts of the Glose at our disposa!, but only one of them, the London MS, contains the text in full; both the other codices only provide short fragments. 1. LONDON, British Library, Add. 16380 (Sigl.: L ) Cod. membran.;

307ff.~

Although direct indications are lacking, we may assume that this convolute was in a Canterbury library in theMiddle Ages. h. reference to Christ Church, Canterbury in the righthand margin of f. 185v provides the evidence for this view. Before the codex went into the collection of the British I-1useum on November 24, 1846, it was owned by the Reverend James Boys, the son of John Boys of Betshanger, a descendant of the well-known Kentish family of Boys. 24 The ff. 111 - 1 27, on which the works of

Ralph and the are written, originally constitued an independant section.~ The text is written in two columns per Verba

preceptiva

page in a very small textualis, dating from the end of the 12th century, in which several hands can be distinguished. 26 The text of the Glose begins on f. 123vb, whereas the lower part of f. IllC.:

uia grammatica prima est arcium in eius principio uidendum est quid sit generalis causa inuencio/nis omnium arcium ...

and ends on f. XII

123va is left blank:

127va:

I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N

DE3.: Responde. nulla. quia interiectiue profertur. similiter me miserum. et o uirum ineffabi/lem.

The Explicit runs as follows: Expliciunt glose magistri Radulfi. EXPLICIUNT RES.

EXPL.

F.

127vb contains an anonymous note on the substantive noun

'quis /

qui':

IllC.: Quoniam hoc nomen substantiuum quis et alia substantiua ideo inuenta sunt ad sig~ificandum substantiam a substantiuis in/choandum est ...

DES.:

geminationem enim huiusmodi secundum priscianum compositionem uocamus

The text of this note is edited in the Appendix IIa (below, pp. 78 - 80) • 2.

BRUGGE,

Stadsbibliothee k,

544

(Sigl.: B)

Cod. membran.; III+ 125 ff.; s. XIII. The rnanuscript forrnerly belonged to the Cistercian Abbey Ter Duinen at Bruges as is evident frorn the Burgundiancross es on the first and last leaves. 27 Àn excellent description is Nevertheless sorne found in De Poorter 1934, pp. 644 - 5. additions rnay be made to the analysis of that part of the codex which contains the fragment of Ralph's Glose. The ff. 94ra - 117va of this miscellaneous rnanuscript contains the text of Peter of Spain's Absoluta cuiuslibet.~ On 117va-b it is followed by a set of notes, apparently fragments of prologues to works on the artes. The first text is f.

the first part of the prologue to Ralph's f.

~lose

super Donatum;

117va-b:

INC.:

Quoniam gramatica prima est artium in eius inicio uiden/dum est quid sit generalis causa omnium artium inuentionis ...

DE~.:

ut intellectum faciat. Dyaletica ad fidem rethorica ad persuasionem etc.---

The second text resernbles the prologue to Petrus de Isolella's Compendium gramatice (ed. Fierville 1886, p. 7);

XIII

R A L P H

0 F

B E A U V A I S

INC.: Nota quod .v. sunt claues sapientie quarum prima est timor domini/ secunda honor magistri ... DES.:

in prouerbiis senece inter humane nature comoda nichil/dignius sciencia reperitur

The next two texts are no doubt prologues to works on the artes too, but I am not able to identify them: INC.: Nota quod Deus uobismet ipsis dedit/instrumenta scilicet manurn et in tellecturn ... DES.

unde quando aliquis adquisitus est aliquas artes liberales uel artem/liberalern rnere uoluntatis si ............. subiciatur etc.

and: INC.: Philosophus dicit ornnes hornines naturaliter scire desiderant et quia per scientiarn possurnus/deuenire ad sapientiarn uidearnus quid sit scientia primo et postea quid sit sapientia ... DES.

fructus dulcedinern ampli us non gustabi t

( f.

3. TARRAGONA, Biblioteca provengal, fonda (Sigl.: T)

11 7vb)

~antes

Creus,

54

Cod. membran.; 131 ff.; s. XIIex - XIV. This convolute formerly belonged to the library of the monastery of Santes Creus. For a concise inventory of the whole codex I refer to Dominguez Bordona 1952 1 p. 56. Here I only give a more detailed analysis of that part of the MS which contains the fragment of Ralph's Glose. The ff. 120ra - 131vb contain mostly grammatical texts, written in two columns per page in a small textualis dating from the end of the twelfth century:~

A. FF. 120ra-b: a short tract on accentuation INC.: Quoniam rnagnos legentibus affert fructus accentuurn cognicio regulas eorurn quamuis a prisciano traditas compendiose colligere perutile decreui •..

B. F. 120rb: an anonymous grammatical question IYC.: Quare potius dicitur hoc nomen qui infinitum quia significat substantiam nulla certa qualitate determinatarn quarn pronornen ipse curn sirniliter significet substantiam nulla certa qualitate ...

XIV

I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N

C.

F. 120rb: an anonymous grammatical question

I~C.

D.

Quedam nomina sunt que habent construi tam cum datiuo quam cum genitiuo aposito uerbo substantiuo ...

FF. 120va - 121vb: Marbod

of

Rennes, De ornamentis uerbo-

rum I~C.:

Versificaturo quedam tibi tradere euro

cf. Walther, Initia 20244, and the edition, PL 171, 1687- 92D

E. F. 121vb: some verses on the Muses etc. 1.

Clio historias. Clio quasi cogitacio prima discendi Melpomene tragedias .... Polimia rethoricam idest memoriam faciens

cf. Anthologia latina, I, ii, C. 664 2.

Clio uolens. talia capax. melpomene pensans Euterpe bene delectans. polimia recordans Assimilans erato. tersicora iudicium dans Eligit urania. bene profert calliopea

3.

Clio gesta canens tractatis tempera reddit Dulciloquis calames euterpe flatibus urget Comica lasciuo gaudet sermone talia Melpomene tragico proclamat mesta boatu Tersicore affectus citaris mouet. imperat. auget Plectra gerens erato. salutat pede. carmine uultu Urania poli motus scrutatur et astra Carmina calliope libris heroica mandat Signat cucta (!) manu loquiturquepolimia gestu Mentis apolline~ uis has mouet undique musas In media residens complectitur omnia phebus

cf. Anthologia latina, I, ii, C. 664 4.

Cleto colum baiulat. lachesis trahit. atropos ocat Prima net ut fiat. rem digerit inde secunda Tercia mox delet. quicquid neuere sorores

cf. V."alther, Initia 2943 F.

F. 121vb: 44 grammatical verses with the title De patronomicis,

INC.:

but other subjects are also dealt with:

Si sit in as uel in es uel ios oy mutat in ides

G. FF. 122ra

123va: Isidorus, Etymologiarum liber, I, xxxii,

- xxxvii, 35

XV

RA L P H

0 F

B E A U V A I S

INC.

Barbarismus est uerbum corrupta litera uel sono enunciatum ...

DES.

idest si ille cithera fretus. ego pietate;

cf. the edition H.

F.

w. n.

Lindsay

123va: 14 grammatical verses

IVC.: Ast.ac.at.neque.nec.si.quin.si~.quatinus.aut.uel Neu.neue.siue .seu.construe prepositiue Subtus enim.quoque.u ero.quidem.que .ue.construe.ne .autem Construe communes alias communiter cernis Frons hominis mentem proprio. deponit amictu Talis erit uultus qualia corda gerit Pendeo suspensus. pendo dum subleuo pomus Lacteo lac sugo. lacto lac prebeo nato Concipiens morte parit equa uipera sorte Sunt matura mora. ficus et amigdala mora Milo transpositum. ducit tria tempora secum prepr e Bestia pedem equus producitur alter et equus f Gens populus breuis est. longatur populus arbor Pando facit passum. pareo patior quoque passum.

I.

FF. 123vb - 124rb: a grammatical treatise on the partes orationis

I.'.'C.

omo que pars ? Nomen. Quare ? Quia significat substanciam cum qualitate propria uel communi/idest aliquid supositum locutioni · cum quacumque proprietate ...

DE:3.

Quot sunt con1unctiones ? XV. Que ? At.ac.ast.aut. uel.nec.neque . uero./quin.qu atinus.sin.seu .siue.neue.ni. Quot sunt subiunctiue ? VIII. Que ?/ que.ue.ne.quoq ue.autem.quide m.uero.enim. Quot communes ? alie omnes.

J.

FF. 124va - 131rb: the anonymous grammatical treatise called the Verba preceptiva

INC.

Verba preceptiua tam cum datiuo quam cum accusatiuo/con struuntur sequente uerbo infinitiuo ...

DES.:

ut apud lucanum. leges et plebiscita

K.

131rb-vb: a fragment of Ralph of Beauvais' Glose super

F.

coact~;

Donatum I:!C.

XVI

asus nominum quot sunt? VI. et cetera. Casus quoque non est singularia (!) significationi s. sed est proprietas nominis. contracta ex uariacione terminacionis et officia .•.

I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N

DES.: Vel sic. Quedam decli/nantur hac declinacione nomina. ergo est declinacio quorundam nominum;

L. F. 131vb: a fragment of a text on the first declension

Inc.

Prima declinacio .III. habet terminaciones in.a. et es. et as. sillabam/ ...

It ends abruptly: DE::. : ablatiuus au tem in a

The text of this fragment is edited in the hppendix la (belcw, p. 77).

IV. THE PLACE OF RALPH'S "GLOSE" IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LINGUISTIC THOUGHT IV.

1

RALPH'S RELATIONSHIPS TO DONAT AND PRISCIAN

Since the end of the eleventh and the beginning of the b1elfth century, the time of the ~losule and the writings of the young William of Conches, 30 the development of grammatical theory was mainly based on Priscian's Institutiones gramr.. ati32 whereas his cae;31 Donat's Ars ;;1aior was all but forgotten, minor marked the end of the instruction level the mediaeval

grammarians used to call the doctrina puerilis or puerorua. 33 When making an effort to establish the position of Ralph's Glose, we must bear in mind that,

as has already been remarked,

the Ars minor supplied its readers with two kinds of information. It gave, more or less systematically, the most important elementary data about the Latin parts of speech, e.g. the inflexions of the nouns and pronouns, verb conjugations, the formation of some adverbs etc.; in short, it was a Latin Primer. However, it also provided the student with a set of grammatical notions and technical terms he needed in order to handle and speak about the elementary phenomena of the Latin language, while lie was learning it. Thus each section of the minor is preceded by a paragraph in which a sort of definition of the part of speech in question, and the grammatical

XVII

R A L P H

0 F

B E A U V A I S

categories, the accidentia, which traditionall y belonqto that part, are given. A serious problem of the method employed by Donat is that his work, however useful it has been, lacks any explanation of the notions and terms used, so that the student has to grasp them intuitively with the help of examples only. Ralph's Glose, characterize d by Dr. Hunt as "a grammatical Summa,for which the Donatus minor provides the framework",~ is intended to meet this pedagogical omission in Donat's method. Ralph gives no comment on the normative sections of the minor, in which the actual declensions and conjugations are given, but devotes himself entirely to the explanation of technical terms. Although Ralph comments on Donat, the theoretical background for his commentary is formed by Priscian's InstitutioHe inserts discussions on phenOmena which do not occur in Donat, but are dealt with by Priscian, e.g.:

nes.

the species of the pronouns, se. primitiva and deriuatiua, are taken from Priscian, XII, lsqq.; they do not appear in Donat; Donat does hot mention the pronomina gentilia, which·get an extensive treatment in Priscian, XII, 8; XIII, 2, and in a paragraph in Ralph's Glose (below, p. 28); the discussion of the gerunds is wholly absent in Donat: he does not even mention this category, whereas both Priscian and Ralph devote extensive discussions to it. When the

of Donat and Priscian are conflicting, Ralph generally repudiates Donat, and follows Priscian, e.g.: vie~s

Ralph does not consider comparatio to be an accidens of the noun as Donat does; for if it were an accident, then, according to Ralph, diminutio also had to be counted among the accidentia. Priscian also omits comparatio from the accidentia nominis (below, p. 7); according to Ralph, Donat was deceived regarding the div-

XVIII

I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N

ision of figura into simplex and composita only; Ralph accepts Priscian's division into simplex, composita and decomposita (below, pp. 15 and 41); Ralph does not regard the words quis and qui as belonging to the category of the pronouns as Dona~ does, but accepts them to be nouns as Priscian does (below, pp. 22 and 27); Ralph prefers the use of Priscian's denomination of the subjunctive mood: modus subiunctivus , whereas Donatspeaks of modus coniunctiv,1s (below, p. 34); in the same section, se. on the moods of the verb, Ralph joins Priscian in the view that the imperso~al verb is not a mood, but a special sort of verb per se, which has all the moods other verbs have (below, p. 35); Ralph agrees with Priscian in distinguishi ng four conjugations of the verb instead of Donat's three (below, p. 38);

Priscian's view concerning the place of the indeclinable parts of speech in the order of the treatment of the partes orationis is given the qualificatio n "et merito" (below, p. 42) . In only a few cases does Ralph give up his attachment to Priscian. For instance when the qualitas nominis is concerned, he defends the views of bath Priscian and Donat without any sign of preference by painting to their different acceptance of the term qua litas

IV. 2

(below, p. 6).

RALPH AND THE COMMENTARIES ON PRISCIAN

It is beyond doubt that in commenting on Donat' s .irs .·!inor Ralph heavily relied upon contemporary commentaries on Priscian' s Institutione s. For instance, it is evident that he made frcquent use of William of Conches' Glose super Priscianu1n. This famous grammarian is explici tly referred to four twice in the discussion on the comparison of the times:~ XIX

RA L P H

0 F

B E A U V A I S

noun

(below, pp. 8 - 9) ,and twice in the chapter on the participle, se. concerning the use of the present participle in construction s with a verb in the future tense (below, p. 47) and concerning the word composition (below, p. 50). Furthermore, discussions, for instance on the gender of the noun, on the definition(s ) of time in the chapter of the verb% etc. can be found nearly verbatim in William's work. We can go even further: the arrangement of Ralph's introductory section, where he deals with the materia and the intentio of grammar, allows the conclusion that Ralph had a copy of the later version of William's Glose at his

elbow.~

Ralph's relationship to Peter Helias, touched upon by Dr. is much less clear. Ralph nowhere mentions Peter's name, and those places in Ralph's Glose which showresembl ance Hunt,~

to Peter's Summa, might also have been derived ~rom William's Glose. 39 On the other hand we must bear in mind that Ralph was an active grammarian, and that he composed his Glose after William had finished the later version of his Priscian gloss, that is to say at the end of the 1140s.~ Peter Helias wrote his Summa in nearly the same period. Margaret Gibson dates it "provisiona lly to the 1140' s". 41 So i t seems very unlikely that Ralph should not be acquainted with Peter's work. Perhaps we have to look for another reason for Ralph's silence on Peter Helias. We must bear in mind that Ralph did not belong to the "School of Peter Helias'', the sequaces magistri Petri Helie or Heliste as they are called by the Glose "Promisimus •.

And, as Dr. Hunt has pointed out, Ralph commonly adheres to the views attributed by Peter Helias to the Anti42

qui, views, it must be stressed, which coincide with those expressed by William of Conches.~

IV. 3

RALPH'S OWN CONTRIBUTION

It is difficult to determine Ralph's own contribution to the development of grammatical theory on the basis of his commentary on the minor. The reapplicatio n of the studies of the auctores to grammar, which Dr.

XX

Hunt called an important fea-

I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N

ture of the "School of Ralph of

Beauvais"~

cannot be obser-

ved in this work. The quotations from the works of the classical and Christian authors are few in number, and most of them stem from Donat, Priscian and the commentaries on the latter. Indeed, the glass on Donat proceeds along the lines marked out by the Priscian commentaries: Ralph elucidated the terms used by Donat from the point of view of these more theoretically orientated works. The circumstance that Ralph, being an active grammarian in the period after Peter Helias, generally adhered to the views of the Antiqui, could imply that his attitude in grammaticalibus should be characterized as conservative. To some

extent this is in agreement with the picture nf him as the old-fashioned, thorough grammar master, who favoured the auctores,

as Peter of Blois and Gerald of Wales described

him.~

This grammatical conservatism appears to run counter to Ralph's remark that declension (declinatio) did not belong to the accidentia nominis, since it is not necessary for construction.% This claim of appropriateness of a grammatical category for construction is quoted as an indication of the growing contextual approach among the 12th century grammarians.

~

It must be said that the doctrine of the accidentia underwent a change in the third quarter of the 12th century. The older grammarians, for instance William of Conches and Peter Helias, paid special attention to the division of the accidentia into the communes proprietates,

the common prop-

erties of a word, which do not add any meaning, e.g. species or figura, and the secundarie significationes , those accidents which add some supplementary meaning, e.g. tense or number.~ About twenty years later, in the 1160s, the grammarians put emphasis on a more syntactically orientated approach. Robert of Paris already speaks of the accidentia constructiva in his Summa on constructions,~ whereas the anonymous glass commentary on Priscian "Omnis traditio", daXXI

RA L P H

0 F

B E A U V A I S

ting from the end of the 12th century, concludes that all the accidents are necessary for the scientia construendi.~ Ralph's position in this development is mainly on the side of the generation of William and Peter. He generally main tains the distinction between the common properties and the secondary significations.~ His claim as to the appropriateness of an accident for construction stands rather isolated in his doctrine of the accidentia. 52 Nevertheless, he did include it in his Glose, thus contributing to its dissemination, as is apparent from the Glose "Promisimus", which explicitly attributes this view to Ralph.~ The insertion of a chapter on government (reqimen) in a gloss commentary on Donat's Ar.s minor may also be regarded as an important improvement.~ It is commonly accepted that the organisation of syntax was mainly due to the activities of the 12th century grammarians. 55 Within their syntactical system government was a key notion,~ to which much attention was paid in the commentaries on Priscian. 57 These texts, however, were only meant for the iam provevti or ~aturiores of the students. On the other hand we know that the F~eri were also expected to have some acquaintance with this notion. 58 As a matter of course Donat is silent on this newlydeveloped topic, but in Ralph's Glose on the minor we do find an explanatory section on this key notion in the doctrine of construction. It is difficult to determine to which extent Ralph's view on regir.en is original. He appears to belong to the group of grammarians who were reproached by Peter Helias for their concept of government , and in sorne respects he Look a position midway between William of Conches on the one hand and the gloss commentary "Licet Nulti" and Peter Helias other.~ However, his description of reqere deserves

on the

our special attention; it is, as Dr. Hunt has observed "noteworthy because the definition he gives of the way one word governs another is that which came to be generally accepted'~~ Indeed, we find it already in the Summa gramatice of Robert Blund, a grarnmarian who was active in the last quarter of the XXII

I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N

12th century or even in ta li

casu

earlier:~

[et esse eius patronus] ".

grammarians

2 6

are referred to by con-

Ralph

Sorne opinions adhered to by temporary

poni

"conferre alicui dictioni

mentioning

without

his name. h. locus

difficilis which one frequently meets in grammatical writings since the Late h.ntiqui ty is the construction of "horum mai or est caritas"

(I Cor.

duced by William of

13, 13)

Ralph

rejects the solution ad-

Conches , and puts

forward

an answer

The glossing master which we also see in his Liber Tytan. solution, but Robert Ralph's of the Glose "Promisimus" accepts of Paris explicitly rejects it.~ Robert also disagrees with 63

Ralph's view on the construction "legendum est Musas" (cf. Prise. Inst. qram. XVIII, 63). Legendum is, according to Ralph, in the accusative case, and is not governed nor governing, i. e. it is used absolute (cf. below, p. 37); Robert argues that it is governed by the impersonal verb est "ex infortunio et inopia persane".~

It is not possible to trace whether in these and other cases we are confronted with views which were developed by Ralph or whether he in turn took them from other works. However, in my opinion the merits of Ralph's Glose super Donatum must not be sought in original contributions to the development of grammatical theory. The work served rather as acombination of a filter and a hatch through which contemporary grammatical theory, as it had been developed on the basis of Priscian's Institutiones, was handed down to the elementary and secondary levels of language instruction. It supplied an up-to-date theoretical background to pedagogical grammar.

V,

THE PROLOGUE

The prologue to Ralph's Glose starts with a discussion on the three human vices, se. ignorance, concupiscence and weakness, and on their three remedies: wisdom, virtue and need. For the relationship of this part of the prologue to cognate texts I refer to L. M. de Rtjk's study on this topic, which was very XXIII

R A L P H

0 F

B E A U V A I S

common in the 12th century accessus to scientific works.

66

It is followed by an elementary divisio scientiarum, which partly goes back to Isidor:~ phisica sapientia -{

ethica -{grammatica logica

dialet~ca

-rethor 1. ca

VI. THE DATE OF COMPOSITION OF THE "GLOSE" Mlthough the Glose does not provide any direct indication for the time of its composition, there are some hints that allow us to determine an approximate date. The

ter~inus

post quem is

provided by William of Conches' later version of his

Glose

on Priscian, which he wrote at an advanced age as E. Jeauneau has pointed out: about 1150.œ The terminus antP is more difficult to fix. Ralph's Glose must have been in circulation at the time the Glose "Promisimus•, a reportatio, was taken down from the mouth of the glossing master, since views attributed in this work toRalph are to be found in his gloss commentary on Donat. 69 Unfortunately, the Glose •Promisimus• itself is also difficult to date with any precision. It must have been composed after 1168, since Maurice de Sully, who was bishop of Paris from 1168 to 1196, is referred to in this function.m Professor De Rtjk claims the third quarter of the century as the time of its composition, because of its reliance on William of Conches and Peter Helias, and because of the fact that all the textbooks of logic quoted belong to the logica vetus, except for the sophistici elenchi.n So we arrive at the 1170s for the date of composition of the Glose "Promisimus•, which implies the conclusion that Ralph composed his Glose in the third quùrter of the 12th century.

XXIV

I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N

VII.

A NOTE ON THE uREALESu AND THE uNOMINALES"

Ralph's remark on the Reales and their opponents, the:lominales, deserves our special attention. In the discussion on the persona nominis he observes that: [belo1;, p. 21] 'Essencia dicitur quod significatur nomine substantialiter. Quia essencia significatur nomine uniuersali substantiali ter, ut hoc nomine hor.10, que est communis, quod R e a 1 e s uniuersale, N o m i n a 1 e s uero dicunt statum specialem uel generalem'.

It is obvious that Ralph here is not aiming at the well-known difference in position in theologicis, whereby the Reales identified the articles of faith with the res or eventus, and the Uominales adhered to a variant of what G. Nuchelmanscalls a complexum or enuntiabile theory.n Ralph's remark regards the distinction between the logical Realism and the logical Nominalism, as it concerns adifferent view on the universalia or rather on that which is signified substantialiter by a nomen universale.~ The Reales took it to be a universale, whereas the nominales defended the theory that it is a status specialis or generalis, a view also adhered to by Abailard and his

followers.~

VIII. THE EDITION Only one manuscript, L, preserves the integral text of the Glose. In this codex the text has been corrected by a different hand, Le, writing its corrections and additions between the lines and in the margins. The corrector was no doubt a contemporary of the scribe of the manuscript, and as I suppose, he did not have a second exemplar at his disposal, since sometimes he corrected an unacceptable reading of L in a sensible, though wrong way, e.g. p. 17, n. 30. The Bruges codex gives a very short fragment, which limits It contains a great number of minor itself to the prologue. variants, of which only the omission of the invective against the monks is of any interest (below, p. 1, n. 26).

XXV

R A L P H

0 F

B E A U V A I S

The Tarragona manuscript is more important. It provides a fragment of the discussion on the noun (pp. 16, n. 5 - 20, n. 12), but suffers from long omissions. In view of this limited manuscript evidence I have generally followed the text as it has been handed down in L (or in Le). The variant readings of B and T have been printed in the text only in those cases in which they were obviously pref erable. All the rejected variant readings are to be found in the Notes, except for some minor changes of the word order. The orthography of L (or Le) has largely been maintained. Capitalization and punctuation have been adapted to modern usage. The titles of each section are not in the manuscripts, but have been added by the editor. The lemmata from Donat's Ars minor have been printed in capitals in order to enable the reader to distinguishread ily between Ralph and Donat. In L these words, often only indicated by their initials, have been marked by underlining.

XXVI

I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N

NOTES TO

THE

INTRODUCTION:

Bursill-Hall 1981 (1) Hunt 1950 Hunt 1950, 12 Hunt 1950, 13 - 5 Hunt 1950, 13 andBursill-Hall 1981 (2), 149.24.1 Hunt 1950, 13andBursill-Hall 1981 (2), 25.22.2 Dr Marian Borzyszkowski, of Olsztyn, Poland, was kind enough to supply me with a microfilm of these leaves. For a description of the contents of this MS, see Borzyszkowski 1981 Hunt 1950, 12 - 3. For the Christ Church Library, see James 1903, 73: 644 ~ Moralium dogma. In hoc uol. cont.: Liber de Iudicio PariDis. Prouerbia philosophorum. Summa M.R.Beluacensis super Donatum. Summa eiusdem qui uocatur tytan. Exempla de Lucano. Libellus M.Serlonis de differenciis. Figure super Virgilium. For Waltham Abbey, see James 1933-34, 43: 67. Titan Magistri Rad(ulphi) cum questionibus dialetice et grammatice. (Titan unknown to me). 68. Verba precepta (obscure). Hunt 1950, 13 - 4 10

Hunt 1950, 15 and Bursill-Hall 1981 (2), 149.24.3

li

Hunt 1950, 15. Unfortunately, a printing error in Dr. Hunt's article has caused some troubles. The signature of the Bruges MS of Ralph's Glose is 544 instead of Dr. Hunt's 545. This implies that the item 37.15 in Bursill-Hall 1981 (2) has to be deleted. Brugge 545 contains the text of Ovid's Metamorphoses, cf. De Poorter 1934, 646. For the recurrent misreading of quum for quoniam Bursill-Hall 1981 (2), 37. 14.), see C. R. Cheney, QUUM and QUONIAM, in: Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 24 (1951), 44-5

u

Domin~uez Bordona 1952, 56

13

See above, n. 8

~

Hunt 1950, 45

~

Hunt 1950, 13; cf. the catalogue of the library of Rochester Priory, Rye 1860, 60: Librarium Magistri Hamonis (which covers the items 200215): 212. Grammatica magistri R. Belvacensis, in 1 vol.

16

Hunt 1950, 14

17

Hunt 1950, 14 and Bursill-Hall 1981 (2), 149.24.2

18

Bursill-Hall 1981 (2), 166.44.l

XXVII

RA L P H

0 F

B E A U V A I S

19

Kneepkens 1978, 138 and Bursill-Hall 1981 (2), 270.4.4; for the edition of the part of the Verba preceptiva, which is preserved in this MS, see Kalinka 1894

20

Hunt 1950, 14 and Bursill-Hall 1981 (2), 209.276

21

Hunt 1950, 14, esp. n. 3; for the Waltham catalogue, see abo?e, n. 8

~

Hunt 1950, 14, n. 4

23

For an inventory of this MS, see Additions 1846, 184 - 5

~

For the most important data of the Reverend James Boys' life, cf. Crockford's Clerical Directory for 1860, 69 and The Registers of Wadham College, Oxford, ... Edited with biographical notes, by R. B. Gardiner, London 1889. We must bear in mind that one of the members of this family was the Reverend John Boys (1571 - 1625), Dean of Canterbury, who is said to have been one of the great book collectors of his time, cf. Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. II, London 1908, 1036

25

Hunt 1950, 15, n. 1

26

Ff.lllra - 116ra + 116rb (lower part); distincti?e features are the appearance of the trailing headed A the long R, and the h i g h tironian 7-sign; f. 116rb (upper part); a small neat letter; it sometimes has the D with an erect hasta; ff. 117ra - 123va; here the distinctive features are the lack of the trailing headed A and of the h i g h tironian 7-sign; ff. 123?b - 127ra; a smaller type of writing. It must be born in mind that a different hand does not necessarily imply a different scribe

v

De Poorter 1934, 8

28

For this text and its author, see Hunt 1975

29

I wish to express my thanks to the Director of the Biblioteca provencal of Tarragona, who very kindly provided me with a xerox copy of this part of the MS

3J

For the Glosule, see Hunt 1943 and Gibson 1979; for William of Conches, see Jeauneau 1960, Fredborg 1973 and Fredborg 1981

31

Bursill-Hall 1981 (1), 73

32

Except for the third book, the so-called Barbarismus, cf. Bursill-Hall 1981 (1), 71

33

cf. Kneepkens 1978, 123, and below, n. 58

3+

Hunt 1950, 15

35

Hunt 1950, 20

36

I quote William's observations as to time from the MS Paris, EN lat. 15130, f. 59vb: 'Et notandum quod tempus tribus modis accipitur: generaliter, parcialiter, totaliter. Generalis uero diffinitio [differentia MS] temporis est hec: tempus est dimensio more et motus mutabilium rerum. Dicta generalis, quia

XXVIII

I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N

omni tempore conuenit. Hanc diffinitionem ponit Augustinus. Totalis uero talis est: tempus est spacium qui (!) cum monda inccpit et cum monda desinet, [et] etsi mondus numquam desinet. Dicitur uero totalis, quia ita conuenit isti toti, scilicet tempori, quod nulli parti illius. Hac utitur Plata in Thimeo. Parcialem uero ponit Tullius talem: tempus est pars [est] eternitatis, idest illius magni spacii, quod a philosophis eternitas uocatur.' '31

For the versions of William's glass commentary on Priscian, see Jeauneau 1960 and Fredbor:; 1981

38

Hunt 1950, 20 - 1

39

cf. Jeauneau 1960, 229 and Fredborg 1973

40

cf. Jeauneau 19€0, 216 and Fredborg 1973, 5

41

Gib:oor. 1978, 164

42

Hunt 195:J, 52 - 4

43

Hunt 1950, 35, n. 1

44

Hunt 1950, 39

45

cf. Peter of Blois, Epist. \1 I (I quote the edition of Giles 1847, p. 16): 'Vos autem tumultuoso strepitu, et clamore nautico de nugis assidue disputantes, inutiliter aera verberatis; vos circa litteram et syllabam, et circa hujusmodi elementares doctrinae primitias, vestrum adhuc ingenium exercetis ... Priscianus et Tullius, Lucanus et Persius; isti sunt Dii vestri'; and Gerald of Wales, Gemma eccl. (ed. Brev:er 1862 Rolls Series, pp. 348 - 9): 'Radulphus Beluacensis, qui in literatura nostris diebus praecipuus erat trimembrem facere consueuerat clericorum distinctionem in hune modum: ... alii superseminati, qui et superficiales dici possunt, qui preterrnissa literatura, poetarum scilicet et auctorurn, philosophorum, et artium fundamento, statim a Donato et Catane ad leges non solum humanas, sed etiam divinas, se tr~nsferre praesumunt'.

'i6

Hunt 1950, 15 (see also below, p. 19)

47

De Rjjk 1967 ( 1), 116

48

CL Pinborg 1967, 33 - 4 and Fredborg 1973

49

Robert's Summa on the constructiones is preserved in the MS London, EL Har.I. 2515, ff. lra - 27va (cf. Kneepkens 1981, 62). For the accidentia constructiva, see for instance his chapter on the constructions of the indeclinable parts of speech on f. 23vb sqq. (p. 280 sqq. in my forthcoming edition) :'Constructiuorum accidentium tria accidunt nomini quemadmodum genus, numerus et casus'.

50

MS Oxford, Corpus Christi College 250, f. 5lra:'Siquis tamen alcius inspiciat: omnia hec (se. accidentia) sciencie construendi sint necessaria'.

51

Hunt 1950,, 34 - 5

52

It must be stressed in this context that Ralph does accept conjugation as an accidens verbi. Therefore, I feel inclined to believe that Ralph adduced the constructio argument in the case of declension and of the

XXIX

R A L P H

0 F

B E A U V A I S

persan of the noun (below, p. 19) in order to defend "apparent" omissions by both his auctores; maybe Ralph acted under the influence of contemporary syntacticians

XXX

53

Hunt 1950, 15

~

Hunt 1950, 36

55

See e.g. J. Golling, Einleitung in die Geschichte der lateinischen Syntax, in: G. Landgraf, Historische Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, Vol. III, Leipzig 1903; J. Wackernagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax, I, 2. Auflage, Basel 1926, 22; Hunt 1950, 35 - 6 andBursill-Hall 1975, 205

%

Pinborg 1973, 496 - 7

~

Kneepkens 1978

58

Peter Relias, for instance, refers to them in connection with a regimen question in his Summa super minorem, ed. Tolson 1978, 12l:'Nec debemus dicere, ut dicunt pueri, quod regitur ab hoc verbe 'venit' quod sumitur a 'venere' .• It must be noted that this remark does not occur in the ver si on of Peter' s Summa that is preserved in the "1S Paris, Btl lat. 15121 (cf. Kneepkens 1981, 68). A practical example is supplied by the case of the stubborn Simon, who was chaplain to Vitalis, the vicar of Sunning. When examined by William of Wanda, the Dean of Salisbury, in 1222 on his elementary knowledge of Latin, Simon failed to give the correct answer to the questions, which case the initial word te in the canon prayer "Te igitur, clementissime Pater, ... " is in, and by which part of speech it is governed: a qua parte regeretur. Cf. the Memorandum de actis per Willielmum dècanum Sarum apud Sunning, A. D. 1222, in: Vetus ~e­ gistrum Sarisberiense, Vol. I, ed. W. H. Rich Jones, Rolls Series, vol. 78, 304

59

Kneepkens 1978, 137 - 8

fil

Hunt 1950, 36

61

For this grammarian, see De Rijk 1967 (1), 255 - 7 and Kneepkens lY&l, 59 - 62

~

Kneepkens 1978, 139

~

William appended his opinion to the chapter on the comparatives in his Glose [MS Paris, EN lat. 15130, f. 40rb]'Item queritur an dicendum sit 'maior horum est caritas' uel 'minor (!) his'. Hoc tamen dicimus quod aliqua simul numerentur, et uolumus comparare unum ad ceteras, ponimus genitiuum et non ablatiuum, ut si dicam 'tres isti legunt, sed doccior horum est iste'. Si enim dicerem 'doccior his' iam dicerem 'doccior his tribus', quod falsum est, quia non est doccior se ipso. Similiter numerauerat spem, fidem, caritatem et 'maior horum sit caritas', non 'maior his', quia non est maior se. Et dicere maior horum , idest i n nu mer o horum maior est.' Ralph apparently disagrees with him (below, p. 10, 12 - 3): 'Alii dicunt quod oportet subintelligi numero et ab eo regitur.' In the Liber Tytan Ralph states [MS London, BL Add. 16380, f. 115 vb]:'Frequenter nomina comparatiua ponuntur per subauditionem relatiue particule, ut 'maior horum est caritas'. Hic ponitur hoc comparatiuum

I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N

maior per subauditionem relatiue particule, scilicet aliis. Que si apponatur, perfecta erit oratio 'horum caritas maior est aliis'. Et nota quod male dicunt quidam gcnitiuum hic poni pro ablatiuo. Conuenienter enim construitur nominatiuus iste caritas cum hoc genitiuo horum, sicut cum dico 'animalium aliud est rationale,aliudest irrationalc', iste genitiuus animalium regitur ab hoc nomine aliud iuxta hanc regulam: genitiuus distributiue positus potest regi a dictione designante unum eorum que distribuuntur.' ~The Glose

'Promisimus' [MS Oxford, Eodl. Laud. lat. 67, f. 56va]'Et ablatiuus quidem (Prise. III, 17). Ad ultimum constructionem ablatiui ostendit dicens quod ablatiuo tam singulari quam plurali construitur. Sed dicemus quidem 'maior horum est caritas'. Heliste dicunt comparatiuum pro superlatiuo, 'maior' pro 'maxima' poni. Magister uero dicit quod ille genitiuus pluralis significat res distribuendas, quare regitur a dictione significante rem que est de numero distribuendarum, scilicet caritas. Est enim sensus 'caritas una horum est maior ceteris' et erit ecliptica. Vel genitiuus regetur a dictione distributiua subintellecta, scilicet una. Robert of Paris devotes an extensi"1e discussion to this topic in his Summa [MS London, EL Harl. 2515, f. llrb (p. 130, cf. above, n. 49)] 'Alii sunt qui asserunt quod iste nominatiuus caritas exigit illum genitiuum, non tamen debet apponi.'

65 MS (above, n. 64), f. 17rb (p. 203, cf. above, n. 49) 'Queritur etiam utrum iste accusatiuus legendum ponatur absolute uel non. Et dicunt quidam quod ponitur absolute. Et etiam omnes alii casus possunt poni absolute secundum illos. A frequentiori tamen dictum est quod ablatiuus ponitur absolute. Nos uero dicimus quod non absolute ponitur, immo regitur ab hoc uerbo inpersonali est, non ex natura persane uel modi uel aliqua aliarum, sed ex infortunio et inopia persone.' ffi

De Rijk 1967 (2)

~cf.

Isidor, Etym. lib. II, xxiv, 3sqq.

œ Jeauneau 1960, 216 and Fredborg 1973,

5; see also above, p. XX

œ Hunt 1950, 15 ~Hunt 1950, 18 TI

De Rijk 1967 (1), 255

n:1uchelmans 1973, 178 - 83; for the difference between the Reales /Nominales in theologicis and the Reales / ~ominales in logicalibus, see Braakhuis 1979, 40 ~For other 12th century references to the ''logical" Reales and ~omina­

les, see Braakhuis 1979, 40 and Kneepkens 1980, 126, n. 4 ~cf. L. M. de Rijk, Introduction to the edition of Peter Abailard's

Dialectica (2nd, revised edition) Assen 1970, XCV - XCVIII

XXXI

R A L P H

B0 0KS Additions 1846

AND

0 F

B E A U V A I S

ART I C L E S R E F E R R E D T O

Catalogue of Additions to the

~anuscripts

in the Brit-

ish Museum in th