/';-=09

)(8*=-0/']

12:09:30 PM

VI

I um

VAR

A JOURNAL FOR MEDIAEVAL PHILOSOPHY AND

THE INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
REVUE CONSACRE LA PHILOSOPHIE MDIVALE ET
LA VIE INTELLECTUELLE DU MOYEN GE
ZEITSCHRIFT FR PHILOSOPHIE UND GEISTES LEBEN
IM MITTELALTER

VOLUME

5,

1967

cx4rm

E
VAN GORCUM - ASSEN - NETHERLANDS

Reprinted with permission of

Van Gor cum, Assen by
SWETS

& ZEITLINGER
LISSE - 1985

B.V.

12:09:30 PM

VIVARlUm
A JOURNAL FOR MEDIAEVAL PHILOSOPHY AND
THE INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
editors

- L. M. de Rijk,(Nijmegen)
- J.Engels,
C. J.de Vogel,(Utrecht)
(Utrecht).
Board
oftheEditorial
: Prof.L. M. deRijk,Sophiaweg
73,
Secretary
TheNetherlands.
Nijmegen,

publishers

Ltd.,(Dr. H. J. Prakke& H. M. G. Prakke)

RoyalVanGorcum
Assen,TheNetherlands.

subscription

Perannum:Hfl.20 ($. ,7$/.2)

SINGLECOPIES

Hfl.I2.0($. 3,7i/l.6^)

published

ca 80 pages.
eachnumber
Twiceyearly,
MayandNovember;
shouldbe written
submitted
tovivarium
Contributions
preferably
The manuscripts
shouldbe typeFrenchor German.
in English,
andfootanddoublespaced,exceptforlongquotations
written
should
be
left
each
at
notes.Adequatemargins
(ij inch)
edge
shouldbe numbered
ofthesheet.Footnotes
continuously
throughatthefootofthepage
outeacharticle.Theymaybe placedeither
or at theendofthetext.

12:09:30 PM

CONTENTS

OF VOLUME

milln bravo
Lorano
Salamanca

*accidenter*
Die Prgungdes Terminus
im Lateinischen
durchBoethius
i

L. M. de RIJK Some Noteson the Twelfth

TopicoftheThree
Century
Human
Evils
and
Science
Virtue
,
, and Tech(Four)
of
Nijmegen
as
Their
Remedies
8
niques
bruce A.
MacaronicPoetryin theCarminaBurana
i6
BEATIE
BoulderColorado
LEONARDASv. The Canonizationof Saint ThomasAquinas ....
GERULAITIS
Rochester
, Michigan

2$

servus GIEEN RobertGrosseteste

and MedievalCourtesy-Books
...
o.f.m. cap.
Rome

47

Edouard
JEAUNEAU
Paris

"Nani gigantmhumeris
Essai interpr
insidentesy'
tationde Bernardde Chartres
79

z o LTAN j.
Pelbartusoj Temesvr
: a FranciscanPreacherand
the
KOSZTOLNYIK Writer
Late
Middle
100
of
Agesin Hungary
Texas
H. A. G.
BRAAKHUis
Nijmegen
G. j. j.
WALSTRA
Utrecht

The secondtracton insolubiliafound in Paris, B. N.

Lat. 16.6 17. Aneditionof thetextwithan analysisof
itscontents
11 i
Thomasde Cantimpr
, De naturisrerum. Etat de la
question

REVIEWS

146

7, 172

BOOKS RECEIVED

12:09:30 PM

Die

des Terminus accidenter

Prgung
im Lateinischen durch Boethius
MILLN BRAVO LORANO

Der

Terminusaccidens
, PartizipiumPraesens des Verbs accido, wird
zum ersten Mal in der lateinischen Literatur vom rmischen
Philosophen Seneca in folgendemText gebraucht:
ad condicionem
rerumhumanarum
accidentium
est,ut omnium
respiciendum
aequiiudicessimus1

Schon frh erhlt er einen philosophischenWert2, der von Marius

victorinus3 an berwiegt und der bei boethius schon die volle Bedeutungbekommen hat, und vom Mittelalterund der Scholastikbernommen wird. Das Aufkommendes Terminus im Lateinischen wird
auf das griechische Vorbild to aru
[jieYjxoi;
zurckgefhrt,wie aus
verschiedenen Stellen bei martianus capella, Augustinus* und
PORPHYRius6hervorgeht,nachklingendin den lateinischen bersetzungen, vor allem von Marius victorinus.
Andererseitsflltauf, dass das Adverb accidenter
in der lateinischen
Literaturbis zu einer verhltnismssig
Periode
nicht belegt ist.
spten
Weder apuleius, calcidius, victorinus noch Augustinus, die Beispiele des adjektivischenWertes von accidens7
bringen,haben ein solches
1 Deiram,26,3.
2 berdieGeschichte
desTerminus
inderlateinischen
S. millanbravol., Laexpresin
Literatur,
deloaccidental
enla literatura
latina
hasta
elfindelImperio
inRevista
deFilosofa
xxni
,Madrid
filosfica
(1964)32S-34S.
umfassende
istmirmglich
dankder
Diese,dasganzeWerkvonboethius
Arbeit,
gewesen
dieichfr
einen
index
boethianvs
NachdemAbschluss
derkritischen
habe.
Materialen,
gesammelt
derboethianischen
Schriften
berdieSyllogismen
adsyllogismos
De
Ausgabe
(Introductio
categricos,
inkurzem
, Desillogismo
categoricis
syllogismis
fypothetico
) dienachmehreren
Vorbereitungsjahren
erscheinen
habeichdieAbsicht,
denindexboethianvs
zumachen
undzuverffentwird,
fertig
lichen.
3 S.,z. B.,diegenaue
undtechnische
inRhet.,
welche
derAusgabe
S. 211, 2$ff.,
Definition,
ergibt
c. halm,Rhetores
latini
minores
, Leipzig
1863.
4 Denupt.
denaristotelischen
TextvorAugen
4, 347,wo derVerfasser
hat,nmlich
Metaph.
Z 6, 1031b 22.
5 InCateg.
sensibus
. . . diciodiav,illudautem
tractatu
4, sagter: idquoddignoscitur
quodanimi
acsaepe
mutatur
idestaccidens
uoluerunt.
colligitur
, nominare
au[i.eY]x0^,
6 S.,z. B. Boethius,
I5 ed.Brandt:
InPorph
. comm.
Accidens
estquodadest
uelabest
sec.,p. 28oI4
subiecti
wieIsag.12,24undInPorph.
comm.
praeter
; ebenso
corruptionem
pr.,p. ioo10.
7 apuleius,
Plat.2, 2, sagt:accidens
autem
bonum
estetputatur
uenientibus
quodcorpori
rebusque
extrinsecus
copulatur.
I

12:08:10 PM

Adverbgeprgt.Das bedeutet zunchst,dass diese Neuprgungnichtaus

der innerenDynamikdes lateinischenAdjektivsaccidensentstandenist,
obwohl aus solcher Dynamik zahlreiche Adverbien, die man als einen
Fall des Adjektivsbetrachtenmuss,in der lateinischenSprachehervorgegangensind. Da man innerhalbder lateinischenSprache keine Erklrung
frdiesen Terminusfindenkann,mssenwir dafreine andere Ursache
suchen, die als Katalysatorvon aussen gewirkthat. Sogleich aber erhebt
sich die Frage: warum haben obenerwhnte Autoren, die mit der
Literaturund der griechischenphilosophischenTerminologiesehr vertrautwaren, dieses Adverbnicht geprgt- das brigensan zahlreichen
Stellen als ntig empfundenwurde? Falls seine Bildung durch das
griechische Vorbild beeinflusstist, verstehtman nicht leicht ein so
sptes Erscheinen und zwar bei Boethius, der der lateinischeSchriftsteller ist, in dessen Werk der Terminus zum erstenmal begegnet.
Tatschlich gibt es nicht wenige Autoren vor boethius, die sich in
ihren Werken von griechischen philosophischen Quellen inspirieren
Hessen.
Wir versucheneine Lsung dieser Frage zu finden,die nicht ohne
Sinn gestellt ist, die aber, wie wir sehen werden, eine treffendeund
berzeugende Antwort erhlt.
Das von dem substantivierten
Partizip to cn>(i.eY)x0<;
abgeleitete
kommt
auch in der griechischen
nmlich
Adverb,
<7i>(Jie7)x0TG><;,
philosophischenLiteraturnichtvor. Es erscheintaber in dem Werk des
Mathematikersnicomachus von gerasa1 , der um die Mitte des zweiten
n.C. sein Werk 'Api&fr/jTixY)
etdayoyY)2geschriebenhat.
Jahrhunderts
Wir wissen, dass boethius dieses Werk als Vorlage benutzte,als er
Arithmetical
seinen TraktatInstitutio
schrieb, der weder ein Original ist
noch eine Bearbeitungder uns verlorengegangenSchriftdes apuleius,
sondern lediglich eine Umarbeitungdes genanntenWerkes des nicomachus von gerasa. Wir haben Kenntnisdes Werkes von apuleius
ber cassiodorus5, der es noch in seinen Hnden gehaltenhat.
ber die Benutzung der Arithmeticades nicomachus durch
boethius belehrtuns der rmischePhilosoph selbst:
artissima
memetipsetranslationis
obnoxius
institutis
Atnonalterius
legecon1 S. darber
despauly-wissova,
Artikel
undp.courcelle,Leslettres
denentsprechenden
grecques
deMacrobe
Cassi
enOccident
S. 261ff.
odore,
2 R.hoche,Arithmetica
Teubner
introductio
1866.
, Leipzig,
3 g. friedlein,
arithmetica
libri
duo
deinstitutione
A.M.T.S. Boetii
, Lipsiae
1867.
4 p.courcelle,Leslettres
. . .S. 261f.
grecques
s Instit.
mynors.
S. 140derAusgabe
2

12:08:10 PM

sedpaululum
liberius
alienoitineri,
nonuestigiis,
Nam
insisto.
stringo,
euagatus
et ea quaede numeris
a Nicomacho
diffusius
breuitate
sunt,moderata
disputata
uelociusangustiorem
aditum
praestabant
collegiet quaetranscursa
intelligentiae
mediocri
ut aliquando
ad euidentiam
adiectione
rerumnostris
etiam
reseraui,
formulis
ac descriptionibus
uteremur.1
Dass BOETHiusdas Werk von nicomachus sehrgut gekannthaben muss,
darauf lassen seine Entwrfe schliessen. Einerseits zusammenfassend,
andererseitsentwickelndund auf der Grundlage einer fremdenArbeit
die eigenen wissenschaftlichen
Schlsse aufbauend.Deshalb ist es kein
Wunder, dass boethius in der wissenschaftlichenSchriftvon nicomachus das Vorbild gefundenhat, nach dem er das lateinischeAdverb
accidenternachgeahmt hat. Tatschlich lesen wir in der 'Api&|XY)Tix7)
:
eiaocYcoy-r)
* T 8
xai XXoiTT)
8Xy)y<*p81 Xyj?)vTp7CTY)
TOptarJ)vrxai av
olov
acfxara
aTfl&eG)po(xsva
7rotTT)Te<;,
7coctt7)tc<;,
a^iQ^aTKipLoC,
{JLixpTTjTec,
tanrjTe,c/ceic,, cvepynai,Sia&aei, totcoi,
7rvTaOLnk,
ol rapt/STaiT ev xcrrco<Jc)[xaTi,
XpvoL,
vnpxei
xa^' ocuriaxvrjroc
xai fAT7UTG)Ta.
S [iZTey-1
avfierjx6r(og
tgv7repito u7uoxe(xevov
7rapa7ToXaei
afxa 7ca&o)v.tcov8 toiotcv
aTvraocpa,avjjerjxorcog
SxatTtov[asts^vtcov
^aipTCO
7ctai7)[XT]
oTl <TG)[Z(XTG)V2.
aTCOV,
Es gibt noch ein anderes Werk von nicomachus von gerasa, von
welchem sich boethius stark inspirierenlsst,nmlich Ilepi fjLouotxrj3
.
G. MiEKLEY*hat dargetan dass die Elemente des ersten Buches der
5 von boethius dem
De musica
entsprechendemTraktatvon nicomachus
entliehen waren, aus dem boethius auch die Notizen ber die Entdeckung der Saiten und die Theorie von der Harmonie der Sphren
entnommenhat. Es scheint, dass boethius aus demselben Buch von
nicomachus den griechischen Text des Erlasses von Sparta ber
timoteus von MiLET6nimmt, da er diesem die Erfindungder elften
Saite?, wie es auch nicomachus tut, zuschreibt.
Der andere Schriftsteller,
in dessen Werk das AdverboofJieYjxoTioc;
1 Arithm
., praef.
f*- *.
2 Introd.
arithm
. 1,1,3 unc^
4
3 c. JAN,
inMusici
exNicomacho
, Lipsiae
Excerpta
scriptores
graeci
189^,S. 274.
4 G.MiEKLEY,
Deoethii
libri
demusica
primi
fontibus
, Diss.Tena
1898.
5 g. friedlein,
deinstitutione
A.M.T.S. Boet
arithmetica
libri
musica
libri
duo.Deinstitutione
,
quinqu
1867.
Lipsiae
6 S. boethius,
7 - 18310.
Demusica
182
proem.
7 S. p.COURCELLE,
Leslettres
, S. 262.
grecques
3

12:08:10 PM

erscheint,ist der KommentatorSyrian, Schulhauptder Akademie. Das

einzige Zitat des besagtenTerminusin seinem Werke lautet:
o ai>fxeY)x0T(o<;
xsl touto, xoct'ouaav S1.
An dieser Stelle wird einerseitsdie Beziehung zwischen dem Adverb
und dem Partizip klar herausgearbeitet,andererseitssein semantischer
Wert. Beide Dinge - Adverbialittund Bedeutung- kontrastierenmit
dem zweitenadverbialenElement,das dem vonunsgenanntenentspricht.
Gleichfallslsstsich beweisen, dass boethius das Werk von syrian
gut gekannthaben muss, so dass wir annehmenknnen, dass boethius
des Aristoteles
die obengenannteStelle des Kommentarszur Metaphysik
gekannthat. Wir fhreneinige Stellen an, die es beweisen. In diesen
Stellen werden sowohl Lehren wie Meinungen von syrian zitiert,
welche von boethius erwhnt und im allgemeinen zurckgewiesen
werden:
audiendus
est,sed potiusPorphyrius,
qui ita Aristotelis
Syrianus
igiturminime
sicutueraest,labare
ut eiusdefinitionem,
mentem
persequitur,
sententiamque
nonfaciat2.
et inaliquibus
aliisdiscrepare
Ebenso lehnter die Meinungdes syrian bei der Behandlungdes Problems
ber die Equivalenz der definiten und indefinitenVerneinungenab :
uimdefinitae
indefinitam
tarnen
nititur
optinere
negationis
Syrianus
negationem
ostendere.3
Die Grnde, auf die sich boethius sttzt,um die Meinung des syrian
abzulehnen,sind schon in einem anderen Werke dargelegtworden:
dicitindefinitam
NamquodSyrianus
particularis
optinere
quidemadfirmationem
uero negationem
ter dicere
tur
uniuersalis,
uim, indefinitam
quam mendaci
monin
et
rectissime
proponerentur,supra
quamqueutraeque particularibus
inprimo
strauimus
et in hislibrisquosde categoricis
composuimus,
syllogismis
librodiligenter
expressimus.5
Und anschliessendfhrtboethius fort:
facillima
ratione
conuinNuncnobisipsequoqueAristoteles
testisestet Syrianus
citur. . .6
1 syrian,
InArist.
169**.
Metaph.
* BOETHIUS,
InPeriherm
//,
p. 88a8.
Jboethius,
ibid.p. 172.
- boethius
4 DieStelle,
802CD.
istDesyll.
aufdie- ohne
densyrian
zuzitieren
hinweist,
categ.
5 boethius,
InPeriherm.
II,p. ijl22ff.
* ibid.17228.
4

12:08:10 PM

Und er beschliesstdie entwickeltePolemik mit den Worten:

Sed nosexpositionis
cursum
QuaremultismodisSyriani
franguntur.
argumenta
ad sequen
tiaconuertamur.1
drftengengen, um die Kenntnis,die boethius
Diese Ausfhrungen
von dem Werk des syrian hatte, zu beweisen. An anderen Stellen
usserter sich brigenslobender ber syrian, wie etwa :
curpronomen
est,hoclocoquaerit
uero,cuiPhiloxenus
prius
Syrianus
cognomen
dicens. . .2
de negatione,
pronuntiauerit
postde affirmatione
Die verschiedenenArtender Aussagen,wie sie von syrian unterschieden
wurden, werden weitgehendvon boethius angefhrtund sogar erklrt.
Hier ist der Anfangdieses Textes:
ab Aristotele
decursis
nosquoquea Syriano,
cui Philoxeno
Hisigitur
cognomen
de quibusin hac libri
tionum
omnium
retulimus,
numerum,
proposi
supra
nimis
ad rempertinentem
transferamus
. . .3
perpendit,
disputatione
atqueutilem
Damit htten wir die mglichen - sagen wir, wahrscheinlichengriechischenQuellen erwhnt,die boethius dazu inspirierthaben, das
Adverb accidenterals Nachahmung des Vorbildes <ru[jie7]x0T<o<;
zu
wie denn auch das Partizipaccidensdurchdas Partizipcru[xeY]x0<;
schaffen,
wurde, das in der philosophischenSpracheder peripatetihervorgerufen
schen Kreise bekanntwar.
Betrachtenwir jetzt die drei Textstellen des boethius, in denen
dieses Adverb gebrauchtwird, um zu sehen, welcher Wert in ihnen
steckt.
Die erste lautet:
et fitin loco ac tempore
est,et quidquid
Quoniamenimomnequodnascitur
loco uel tempore
natumfactumue
eumlocumuel id tempus
accidenter
fuerit,
diciturhabereprincipium.*
Das heisst,dass nach dieser Stelle das kontingentSeiende, das im Raum
und in der Zeit beginnt,dem locusund dem tempuskonnotiert,die mit
ihm zusammen zu existieren beginnen. Aber das genannte Prinzip ist
weder innerlichnoch wesentlich dem konkretenRaum und der konkreten Zeit des genannten Seienden konnotiert, sondern akzidentell
,
usserlich
denselben. Das bedeutet accidenter.
1 ibid.17311.
2 ibid.I, p. 1826.
3 ibid.II,p. 32i20dasbiszu324^reicht.
*boethius,
InPorph.
comm.
sec.,82D ( = p. ijs24 ed.Brandt).
5

12:08:10 PM

formae
Aliaestenimsubstantialis
ea quaenon
nuncupatur,
species,
quaehumanitas
ta animali,
sedesttanquam
estquasisupposi
substantiam
monstrans;
ipsaqualitas
haecenimet ab hacdiuersa
estquaeuniuscuiusque
accidenter
insitaest,
corpori
inartes. . .*
etab ea quaegenusdeducit
Wir wollen kurz den Zusammenhangdieses Abschnittesherausstellen,
um den Wert des accidenterin ihm bestimmen zu knnen. Wenn
porphyrius ber die verschiedenenArtenvon speciesspricht,zitierter
zwei, die sich auf den Menschen beziehen: die ussere Gestaltdes
Individuums,Ergebnis einer accidentium
, von boethius als
congregatio
secundumaccidensoder nicht wesentlich
bezeichnet; und die anderen
, welche sich in dem Menschenfinden,Ergebnisnichteiner Summe
species
von speciesaccidentes,
sondern einer wesentlichen Form, der humanitas
,
welche nicht das individuelle Suppositum
bildet, sondern vielmehreine
monstrans
ist. Diese speciesist verschiedenvon jener
qualitas substantiam
in
des
Individuums
den
ersten,
, das heisst, ohne
Krper
zufllighineingelegt
sein innererBestandteilzu sein, vielmehrein blosses Akzidensoder eine
Summe der Akzidenzien. Accidenter
bedeutet deshalb so viel wie - nichtwesentlich
Wirklichkeit
mit
, ohneeinewesentliche
negativausgedrckt
demSubjektzu konstituieren
das
in
heisst
der
Art
,
positiv ausgedrckt
des accidens
.
nonquodhomosit accidensautbipes,differentia
Quod autemait accidentia,
hominisaccidenter
aristotelicae
consuetudinis
insit,sed interdum
est, quae
accidens
secundoloco et extrinsecus
dicere
secundum
praedicantur,
praedicari.2
Wie im vorigenBeispiel findenwir wieder den Ausdruckaccidenter
insit,
dessen gleiche Bedeutung, unwesentlicher
oder akzidentellerBestandteil
,
wir in diesem Fall durch die Glosse secundum
accidensbesttigtfinden.
Wir knnenalso den Wert von accidenter
, den boethius in den drei
Fllen darstellt,zusammenfassenals nichtwesentlich
, oder nichtnach der
Art eines wesentlichen
Das stimmtgenau berein mit dem
Bestandteiles.
Wert von o du^eTjxoTcoc;
. . . xoct'ouatav S des Textes von syrian.
In diesem garantierttatschlichdas Entsprechendes morphematischen
Adverbsmit dem formularischenxoctoaiav genug den Wert zufllig
fr crujie-qxoTco*;,
eine Bedeutung, welche bis dahin in der philosophischen griechischen Literaturnormalerweisedurch die Formel xar
cru(Aer)x0<;
ausgedrcktwurde.
In der ersten Stelle des Textes von nicomachus von gerasa,
stehensich die Adverben crufjLeTjxoTax;3
und xa&'soomlc(ein blicher1 ibid.99C (= p. 2oo7"12
ed.Brandt).
2 boethius,
Incateg226B.
3 Introd.
arithm.
1,1,3.
6

12:08:10 PM

weise xar <7i>|jLeY)x0<;

gegenbergestelltesAdverb) gegenber. Die
Merkmale der somatischen Individualitt- des Krpers, einzeln betrachtet- sind nach ihrer Natur unvernderlichund bestndig,aber sie
nehmenzuflligTeil an den Leidenschaften,welche das Subjektbetreffen.
Das scheintder Sinn des Textes von nicomachus zu sein. Deswegen hat
denselben Wert wie zufllig,das heisst, das Gegenteil
au(jieY)x0Ta)(;
von an undfr sich, kraftseinereigenenNaturoderseineseigenenWesens
, was
xoc&'auTmit sich bringt.
In dem zweiten Fall, der zwei Zeilen nach dem erstenvorkommt,
hat der Terminuscn>[As7)x0T(o<;
eine etwas andere Bedeutung. Der Text
lautet:
vondiesenindividuellen
Die Sapientia
istdie Wissenschaft,
die besonders
Merkauchvonjenem,dasan diesenMerkmalen
malenhandelt;abersie handelt
Teil
unddaszuflligerweise
...
nimmt,
den ich mit zuflligerweise
Hier hat der Terminus 0n>(ieY)x0T0i)<;,
bersetzt habe, die Bedeutung von sekundr,nichthauptschlich
, da es dem
Worte ocipsTto
, ausdrcklich
) gegenber gestellt ist. Auf
( besonders
Fall
fr
die
bleibt
auch
die Bedeutung
jeden
Bildung au[i.eY]x0Tco^
unwesentlich
ysekundr
, oder zufllig, wie bei boethius.
Abschliessendbemerkenwir die Konkurrenzzwischenden Formen
im boethianischen Text, in dem ich der
accidenterund accidentaliter
ersten den Vorrang gebe, und zwar aus zweifachem Grunde. Einmal
scheint sie durch die Textberlieferunggarantiertzu sein, da Brandt
sie in seiner kritischenAusgabe der In Porph.comm.pr. und In Vorph
.
comm.sec.1whlt. Zum anderen wegen der Form accidentaliter
welche
,
MiGNEannimmt2.Diese Formwre nmlichdas Ergebniseines doppelten
sekundren Prozesses: der Bildung des Adjektivs accidentaliserstens,
und spter,von da an, eines zweiten Ableitungsprozesses,nmlich,der
, was mir unwahrscheinlicherbei der
Bildungdes Adverbsaccidentaliter
eines
Terminus
neuen
ist, abgesehen davon, dass es einem
Entstehung
weniger konservierendenund puristischen Zustand der Sprache als
bei boethius blich ist, nmlichdem mittelalterlichen,zukommt.
Universidad
de Salamanca

1 s. Brandt,
inIsagogen
Boethii
Commenta
, C. S. E.L., uol.xxxxvm,
Porphyrie
parsIa,Vindobonae
i9602.
* MIGNE,
P.L.,t. 64.
7

12:08:10 PM

Some

Notes

the Three (Four)

and

on the
Twelfth
Human

Techniques

Evils
as

Century
and

Their

Topic

of

of Science , Virtue,
Remedies

L. M. DE RIJK
the firstof the appendicesadded by Hugh of St. Victor to the textof
, which was composed in Paris in the late iiio's1,
In the Didascalicon
the authorgives a divisionof the contentsof Philosophy(printedby
Buttimer2as chapters 14 and ig of Book vi). It opens with the contradistinctionofthe threeevils ofhumannatureand the threecorresponding
remedies:
Triasunt:sapientia,
estcomprehensio
necessitas.
rerumprout
virtus,
Sapientia
esthabitus
animiinmodum
naturae
sunt.Virtus
rationi
Necessitas
consentaneus.
estsinequaviverenonpossumus,
sedfelicius
Haectriaremedia
viveremus.
sunt
contramalatriaquibussubiecta
estvitahumana:sapientia
contraignorantiam,
contrainfirmi
virtuscontravitium,necessitas
tatem.Propterista triamala
ista
tria
sunt
et
haectriaremedia
invenienda
remedia,
exstirpanda
quaesita
propter
inventa
estomnisarsetomnisdisciplina.
inventa
esttheorica,
virtutem
inventa
est practica,
Propter
sapientiam
propter
inventa
est
Istae
necessitatem
tresusu primae
mechanica.
sed
fuerunt,
propter
est
inventa
cum
sit
inventione
ultima,
Quae
eloquentiam
posteapropter
logica.
tamen
essedebetindoctrina.
prima
scientiaea quibusomnesaliae descendunt
:
Quattuorergo suntprincipales
mechanica,
Buttimer,
theorica,
(ed.
pp. i3oI7-i3i3).
practica,
logica
now: wisdom,virtue,and need.
"Thereare threethingsto be considered
as theyare. Virtueis a habitofmind,a
ofthings
Wisdomis theunderstanding
withreason
inthewayofa nature.
habitwhichis inharmony
A needissomething
without
whichwe cannotlive,butwithout
whichwe wouldlivemorehappily.
areas many
remedies
thethreeevilstowhich
Thesethree
human
life
things
against
virtueagainst
is subject:wisdom
life's
vice,andneedagainst
against
ignorance,
Inorderto do awaywiththesethreeevils,menhavesought
weakness.
after
those
threeremedies,
andin orderto findthethreeremedies,
everyartandevery
wasdiscovered.
discipline
artswerediscovered
Forthesakeofwisdom
thetheoretical
; forthesakeofvirtue
thepractical
forthesakeofourneedsthemechanical
artswerediscovered;
arts
inpractice,
werediscovered.
butafterwards,
forthesake
Thesethreewerefirst
1 Forthisdate,
TheDidascalicon
seeJerome
Amediaeval
tothe
Guide
Taylor,
ofHugh
ofSt.Victor.
- London
andnotes,
anintroduction
from
theLatin
with
NewYork
translated
Arts,
, p. 3.
1961
2 Hugonis
deSancto
Victore
Didascalicon
A critical
textbyBrother
Charles
, De studio
legendi.
D.C. 1939.
Buttimer,
Washington
Henry
8

12:08:53 PM

ofeloquence,
lasttobe discovered,
logicwasdiscovered.
Logic,though
oughtto
bethefirst
learned.
sciences
from
whichalltheothers
descend
; theseare
Four,then,aretheprincipal
w
thepractical,
themechanical,
thetheoretical,
andthelogical.
Thus Hugh startsfromignorance( ignorantia
), vice ( vitium
), and weakness
as
the
three
fundamental
evils
to
human
nature is
which
)
( inrmitas
),
supposed to be subject, and he opposes to them wisdom ( sapientia
as theirthreeremedies. The latterare
virtue(virtus),and need (necessitas)
said to have caused the invention of theoretical science, practical
science and mechanicalscience or techniques. Afterwards,
forthe sake of
eloquence, logic was invented,but in Hugh's division of sciences it is
apparentlynot opposed to some fourthevil of humannature.
As far as we know Hugh was the firstto reduce the inventionof
arts and sciences to certain defectsof human nature. We do not know
whetherthisreductionis an inventionof his own. This much is certain:
his view is frequentlyfound in twelfthcentury authors both in the
Victorine School and in that of Chartres1.
To startwith another writer of the Victorine School, some time
before 11^9 Richard of St. Victor wrote his LiberExceptionum2
. Richard
startsfromthe triabonaprincipabawhich God establishedwhen creating
Dei, immortalitas
man: imagoDei, similitudo
voluisset
corporissi perseverare
in obsequioCreatoris
author
ed.
the
(I, 1, 2, pp. 104-10^
Chatillon). Next,
mentionsthe threeevils: ignorantia
, concupiscentia
, and the
, and inrmitas
three remedies: sapientia
. Hugh's profoundinfluenceis
, virtus
, necessitas
quite clear :
triabonaprecedentia,
i, i , 3: Suntautemtriamalaprincipaba
que corrumpunt
scilicetignorantia,
infirmitas:
boni,concupiscentia
concupiscentia,
ignorantia
humani
estinnobis
. . . Perignorantiam
mali,infirmitas
corporis
namque
corrupta
divinaimago,perconcupiscentiam
divinasimilitudo,
immortaperinfirmitatem
litascorporis
. . . Soletautemsecundum
quosdamhoc quodhic concupiscentiam
nominamus
vitium
triamalasic: ignorantia,
dici,ut dicantur
vitium,
specialiter,
infirmitas
...
contra
triapredicta
i, 1,4: Triasuntremedia
mala,utpertriaremedia
principaba
triamalarepellantur,
triabonareformentur.
Suntautemhec: sapientia,
virtus,
contraignorantiam,
necessitas.
virtuscontravitium,
contra
necessitas
Sapientia
est comprehensio
rerumproutsunt.Virtusesthabitus
infirmitatem.
Sapientia
animiinmodum
naturerationiconsentaneus.
Estautemhabitus
veniens
qualitas
1Most
ofthem
arementioned
The
Introductions
tothe"Artes"
in:
inthe
byR.W.Hunt,
century
twelfth
Studia
inhonorem
Mediaevalia
admodum
reverendi
mundi
Martin
O.P.,Bruges
patris
Ray
Josephi
1948,[pp.85-112],
p. 100,n. 2.
2 SeetheIntroduction
Chatillon
tohisedition
ofthework(Richard
Liber
deSaint
Victor,
byJean
avecintroduction,
notes
ettables,
Paris1958),
, texte
Exceptionum
critique
p. 78.
9

12:08:53 PM

sicutestdispositio
veniens
subiecti
difficile
mobilis,
qualitas
perapplicationem
per
estsinequavivere
facile
mobilis.
.. Necessitas
nonpossumus,
subiecti
applicationem
Suntitaqueistatriaremedia:sapientia,
viveremus.
sedfelicius
virtus,
necessitas,
infirmitatem.
triasupradicta
mala:ignorantiam,
contra
vitium,
Hugh's influenceis obvious, indeed, and the occurrence of vitiumin the
last sentence (instead of Richard's "own" term concupiscentia
) is quite
striking.In his fifthchapter Richard distinguishesthe three principal
sciences: theorica
, practica, and mechanica.A similar addition of logic as
is
in
appears Hugh found,with some elaborationsonly:
estomnisarset omnis
istaautemtriaremedia
inventa
invenienda
i, i , g: Propter
mechanica
Novissima
autemomnium
theorica
and
.
.
.
,
,
(viz.
)
practica
disciplina,
estlogicacausaeloquentie,
utsapientes
inventa
quipredictas
principales
disciplinas
illastractare,
et invenirent,
honestius
de illis
rectius,veracius,
investigarent
veracius
scirent:
honestius
disserere
rectius
dialeticam,
pergrammaticam,
per
per
venustatem
rethoricam.
tudinem,veritatem,
Logica namquefacundierecti
administrai
...
To turn, now, to the School of Chartres,we have the so-called brano
mundi
revisionof William of Conches' De philosophia
, edited by Carmelo
Ottavianounder William's name1. This work containsa similarschematization of the three evils, and the three remedies. The well-known
scheme is placed by the author into a broader context in which the
excellence of man over the other animantiais expounded. This preeminence is threefold, too, and consists of man's statura
, ratio or
and
ed.
Ottaviano). Next, the three
sapientiay eloquentia(pp. 2iII-2220,
evils are enumerated: ignorantia
:
, concupiscentia
, and inrmitas
velincommoda
universaliter
quibusnostra
pp. 22^-23: Itemtriasuntadversa
etinfirmitas.
natura:ignorantia,
concupiscentia
premitur
inessedebuitprivatio.
Etnotaquod
esteiuscognitionis
quenaturaliter
Ignorantia
nonenimignoramus
nisiea quecumsciredebealiudestnescire,
aliudignorare:
veroestomnium
nonKabemus.
Hec
remus
nescimus
; nescire
quorum
cognitionem
homo
cum
mole
ex
vitio
ut
terrenorum
se,
pressus
predictum
contingit,
ignorantia
cassustemere
est,nonrecognoscit,
ideoquelumine
passimque
vagatur.
est concupiscentia,
incommodum
Secundum
que est immoderatus
appetitus
ut
modum
rationis.
anima
cont?tex
excedens
sensualitatis
Namque, aitAristotiles,
essentiam
etirrationali
rationali
essentia,
mentem,
perrationalem
perirrationalem
Et TulliusinOfficiis
ait: "Appetitus
volensdemonstrare
sensualitatem.
obedire
ut
Plato
ad
infima".
tendit
ad
debetrationi,
alta,
appetitus
quoqueasserit
que
etc.
animam
ex eodemetdiverso
componi
1 Unbrano
diConches
diGuglielmo
inedito
della"philosophia"
seems
, Napoli1935.Thisattribution
Tullio
ofauthenticity,
Anima
Mundi
diGuglielmo
Seeforthequestion
incorrect.
, Lalosoa
Gregory,
diConches
e laScuola
diChartres
, Firenze
19$S,p. 29ff.
IO

12:08:53 PM

Tertium
estinfirmitas,
incommodum
que estiliacorruptio
que in nobisest,per
facile
linde
nec
famem
nec
sitim
diu
ledimur
adversis.
quam
patinec ceteras
hecinfirmitas
vel
tolerare
vero
sit
labores
sine
:
dolore
possumus
quanta
angustias
latissime
patet.
When mentioningthe threeremediesthe authorbracketseloquentiawith
:
sapientiaas a twofoldremedyagainstignorantia
His tribusmalisdivinabenignitas
triaopposuit
bonaquasicontra
pp. 2313-20.
morbum
scilicetcontraignorantiam
et
contra
remedia,
sapientiam eloquentiam,
contrainfirmitatem
necessitatem
vel commodum.
virtutem,
concupiscentiam
Circaqueacquirenda
omnis
versatur
humana
intentio
: namomniscomposmentis
velsapientiam
ut
viri
vel
nititur
utomne
conatur
virtutem
ad
scolastici,
acquirere
virireligiosi,
veladcommoda
utnegotiatores
mundani.
Thus we findas the remedies: (1) sapientiaeteloquentia
, and (3)
, (2) virtus
necessitas
velcommodum.
The same tria-topic is foundin Ralph of Beauvais' Summain Donatum1.I quote fromthe manuscriptof the BritishMuseum, Add. 16.380,
f. i22vl> :
estartium,
ineiusprincipio
estquidsitgeneralis
videndum
<Q)uiagramatica
prima
causainventionis
omnium
Adcuiusreievidenciam
alciusinchoandum
est.
artium.
Triasuntpropter
humana
natura.
Que suntignorancia,
que periclitatur
concupiveroestnaturalis
scencia,infirmitas.
MS)
(coniunctionis
Ignorancia
cognicionis
estinmoderatus
carnisappetitus,
utcibi,potu,
<...). Concupiscencia
privacio.
et similia.<...). Infirmitas
est corrupcio
a naturali
statu;qua transgressione
.
amisit
homo
naturalem
.
>
<.
potenciam.
Then Ralph enumerates the three remedies: sapientia
, and
, virtus
necessitas
:
ibid.: Contra
hecincommoda
collatasuntremedia
: contra
;
sapiencia
ignoranciam
contraconcupiscenciam
Et est sapiencia
necessitas.
virtus;contrainfirmitatem
divinarum
rerumprobabilis
scienciavel cognicio;vel discrecio
humanarumque
boniet maliinboniappeticione
in
et malirefutacione.
esthabitus
mentis
Virtus
modonature
rationi
consentaneus
natura
estsinequa humana
<...). Necessitas
subsistere
nonpotest,felicior
tarnen
esset,si sineea esse posset,ut est usus
ciborum
etvestium.
Bearingin mind the resemblanceswith Hugh of St. Victor's exposition,
one cannot doubt about Hugh's influence.
The Gloss Promisimus
(on Priscian) found in Oxford, Bodleian
Laud.
Lat.
6y2opens with the same topic. However, it is striking
Library,
1 Forthiswork,
seeR. W.Hunt,
Studies
onPriscian
inthetwelfth
11,TheSchool
century
ofRalph
of
Beauvais
in: Mediaeval
andRenaissance
Studies
19o,[pp.1-c6l,p. 1.
London
11,
2 Forthis
seeR.W.Hunt,
referred
toinourprevious
work,
(study
note),
pp.i-io; 16-39.
I1

12:08:53 PM

thatthe thirdevil is named necessitas

insteadof infirmitas
, while in all the
previous schematizationsthe formerterm standsfor the thirdremedy,
not for the thirdevil. Here mecanicais mentionedas the thirdremedy:
suntdataincommoda,
f. 2ra:Trianobisnaturaliter
videlicet
vicium,
ignorancia,
necessitas.
sumus.Animaenimsecundum
mole
quoquenaturaliter
Ignorantes
philosophos
ea que priusantequam
corporis
agravata
incorporaretur
presciverat,
incorporata
amittit.
Viciumestqualibet
animiperturbatio.
Necessitas
estsinequaviverenonpossusineea viveremus.
mus;meliustamen
triaobiciuntur
Istisverotribus
contrariis
contraria.
Que quibusa sedenaturaliter
ab eis obitaremotain privationes
transmutantur
Hec scilicet:scientia
habitus.
virtusanimihabitusmodonaturerationiconsentaneus
privans,
ignoranciam
vicium
mecanica
necessitatem.
execrans,
assignata
expellens
Anothergrammargloss Triasuntbelongingto the same surroundingsbut
of a somewhatlater date than the Gloss Tromisimus
is foundin Oxford,
Bodleian Library, Auct. F. 3.8.1. This works opens with a similar
schematizationof the three evils and remedies, adduced, again, as an
introductorynote on the inventionof the arts. The threeevils are called
here ignorantia
, vitium, and indigentiaand the three remedies scientia
,
virtus
:
, and commoditas
f. 2ra: Triasuntquorumcausaomnisars repertafuisseperhibetur:
scientia,
omnium
commoditas.
Adscientiam
liberalium
artium
inventio.
Ad
virtus,
spectat
virtutem
anhelat
tatem
ethica.Adcommodi
mechanica.
aspirat
Scientia
estcomprehensio
veritatis
eorumquesunt.Virtus
esthabitus
mentis
bene
constitute
esthumane
nature
(astituteMS).Commoditas
temperamentm.
Contratriplexigiturhumanenatureincommodum
triplexdaturremedium.
Contra
contra
vitium
contra
commoditas.
scientia,
virtus,
ignorantiam
indigentiam
Suntenimhec triaincommoda
natura
humana
tur:
quibus
opprimi ignorancia,
vicium,
indigentia.
Finally, our topic appears in a Munich treatise on dialectic ( C.L.M .
14. 763, ff.9ora ff.; thispart of the manuscriptwas writtentowardsthe
middle of the thirteenthcentury,but the treatiseitselfseems to be of
a somewhatearlier date)2. The three evils are localized here in respectivelythe soul, the body and the conjunctionof soul and body. They are
named: ignorantia
. The remedies are: scientia
, vitium,and indigentia
,
:
virtus,and mechanica
1 Forthis
seeHunt,
seeibid.
Foritsdate,
tp.9.
gloss,
op.cit..pp.2-10;18-19.
2 Forthiswork,
seeM.Grabmann,
deraristotelischen
und
ausderZeit
Logik
Bearbeitungen
Auslegungen
vonPeter
Abaelard
bisPetrus
in: Abh.derPreuss.
Akad.derWiss.Jg.1937Phil.Hist,
Hispanus
klasse
ofmyLogica
Moder
nor
will
volume
g (Berlin
um,which
1937),pp.48-51,andthesecond
bepublished
in1967.
probably
I2

12:08:53 PM

in principio
huius
sitquasivia in omnesaliassciencias,
f. 90ra: Cumdialetica
scienciarum
tractatus
divisionem
ponamus.Sed ad evidenciam
subsequencium
estprimo
sciendum
natura,
molestatur,
quodtriasuntinquibushomo,sivehumana
scilicetanima,et
secundum
sivedeprimitur,
triaque suntin substancia
humana,
turex parteanime;indigencia
exprimi
corpus,et ex hiisconiunctum.
Ignorancia
a
vicium
esthomini
ex partecorporis,
ex parteconiuncti.
Contraquetriadatum
in
anima
scilicet
suo Creatore
remedium,
sciencias,
acquirendi
triplex
potencia
animam
ab ignorancia;
vel artesliberales,
sed contraindigenciam
que librant
artesmechanicas
: perhasenimremovetur
; contra
acquirendi
potencia
indigencia
virt
vicium
autempotencia
tes.
acquirendi
This passage seems to be a ratherverbose elaborationof the initialpart
of a more comprehensiveintroductioninto dialectic which precedes the
treatisejust mentioned:
de dyalectica,
f.89va: <T)ractaturi
quoniam
ipsaestquasiviaad omnesaliasartes,
huiustractatus
scienciarum
idcircoinprincipio
divisionem
ponamus.
Sciendum
igiturquod triasuntquibushumananaturadeprimitur:
ignorancia
exparteanime,indigencia
exparteconiuncti,
scilicet
expartecorporis,
etvicium
etanime.
corporis
esthomini
Contra
hectriadatum
: contra
remedium
potencia
triplex
ignoranciam
sciencias
contra
artes
contravicia
liberales;
acquirendi
indigenciam mechanice;
veropotencia
virtutes.
acquirendi

As we have seen (above, p. 11) ps.-William of Conches bracketed

eloquentiawith sapientia as a twofold remedy against the first evil
ignorantia.Now, thereare some authorswho pursue thisline of thought
in establishinga fourfoldscheme of evils and remedies. The oldest
among them, as far as I know, is Bernard Silvestris of Tours in his
1
commentaryon six books of Virgil's Eneid : "thereare fourevils which
beset human nature: ignorance, vice, lack of skill in speaking, and
material want. To these four evils there are four goods opposed: to
ignorancewisdom, to vice virtue,to lack of skill in speakingeloquence,
and to materialwant, sufficiency":
ed. Riedel:Praesidet,
i.e. sapientia
et mathei.e. theologiae
theoricae,
p.362-12,
maticae
etphilosophicae.
Itapraesidet
in
etpro
continetur
theorica
sapientia
quod
theorica
inventa
est.
sapientia
malasuntquaehumanam
infestant
naturam:
Vitium,
Quattuor
namque
ignorantia,
His autemquattuor
malisquattuor
bonasunt
imperitia
loquendi,indigentia.
invitiovirtus,
opposita:ignorantiae
sapientia,
imperitie
loquendieloquentia,
1 edited
Bernardi
s super
Silvesti
sexlibros
Eneidos
nuncprimm
byG. Riedel:Commentum
Virgilii
edidit
Guillielmus
Riedel,
1924.
Gryphiswaldae
H

12:08:53 PM

Prosapientia
sufficientia.
rethorica,
disciplina
adipiscendi
proeloquentia
digentiae
medianica.
practica,
pronecessitate
Itaquepraesidet
peritia,
provirtute
eloquendi
Apollotheoricae.
Thus the fourevils are named: ignorantia
, vitiumy
, and
imperitia
loquendi
four
or
virtus
and
the
remedies:
,
, eloquentia
,
;
sapientia
indigentia
goods
and sufficienti
a.
The former Public Library, now: SchsischeLandesbibliothek
, in
Dresden (D.D.R.) possessed a thirteenth(or twelfth?)centurymanuscriptDc 171 a1. It was destroyedby fireduringthe last World War. It
de artibusliberalibus.Fortunately
containedon ff.42v~43v a shorttractatus
we have a printed text of it at our disposal2. The anonymousauthor
and
startswith the enumerationof fourevils: ignorantia
, silentium
, vitium,
in
scientia
find
remedies
which
their
, eloquentia
,
,
respectively
indigentia
virtus
:
, and commoditas
incommodis:
p. 43 ed. Manitius:Humananaturaquatuormolestis
angariatur
silencium
Scienciaignorantiam,
silencio,
vicio,indigencia.
eloquencia
ignorantia,
vicium
commoditate
virtus
temperatur.
expellit,
indigencia
purgat,
veritatis
estcomprehensio
Sciencia
(virtutis
MS)eorumquesunt,utdicitBoecius
hancinvente
suntartesquadruvii.
aritmetice
inprologo
; etpropter
suntartestrivii.
hancinvente
silencium
expellit;etpropter
Eloquencia
Virtusest habitusmentisbene constitute;
propterquaminventesuntartes
practice.
hancinvente
esttemporalis
Commoditas
; et propter
temperamentm
indigencie
dequibusnichiladnos.
suntartesmechanice,
The latesttestimonyof our topic I know about is foundin the divisionof
sciences as given by Ralph of Longchamps in his commentaryon the
of Alanus ab Insulis.
Anticlaudianus
This commentarywas presumablywritten between 1212-2*, so
thatwe mayassume thatsomethingso unrelated to the author's proper
subject as this division of sciences, belongs to the twelfthcentury*.
Raoul mentions as the four evils: ignorantia
, and
, taciturnitas
, vitium
and valetudoy
and as theirremedies: philosophia
, eloquentia
, virtus9
defectum
1 Forthismanuscript,
andL. Schmidt
Schnorr
ofFranz
vonCaroldsfeld
: Katalog
seethecatalogue
zuDresden
Bibliothek
der
der
Handschriften
,vol.I (Leipzig
1882).
kgl.
ffentlichen
2 edited
frdeutsche
undSchulderGesellschaft
in: Mitteilungen
ErziehungsbyMaxManitius
16,9 (1906),
geschichte
pp.42-48.
3 SeeR.Bossuat,
avecuneintroduction
etdestables,
Alain
deLille
, Textecritique
, Anticlaudianus
Paris19ss> p. 43, andtheliterature
mentioned,
ibid.,n.i. SeealsoMarie-Thrse
d'Alverny,
sursavieetsesuvres,
Paris196$,p. 12and
avecuneintroduction
Textes
Alain
deLille.
indits,
passim.
* Compare
inthebeginning
ofthedivision
ofsciences
useofitaque
alsothesomewhat
;
right
strange
seethetext
below.
quoted
H

12:08:53 PM

the last of which is procured by mechanica. His schematizationis somefromthe previousones. I quote fromthe text printedby
what different
Grabmann1fromthe Parisianmanuscript,B.N. Lat. 8083, f. 7V:
Diffinitio
scientie.Scientiaitaqueestrerumscibilium
autem
agnitio.Dividitur
scientiain quatuorspecies:philosophiam,
eloquentiam,
poesim,mechanicam.
humane
nature
cernens
Celestis
incommoda,
quidemmedicus
quatuor
principalia
videlicet
remedefectum,
taciturnitatem,
vitium,
quatuoradhibuit
ignorantiam,
contra
taciturnitatem
dia: contraignorantiam
contra
philosophiam,
eloquentiam,
vitiumvirtutem,
contradefectum
valetudinem.
remo
vet
Philosophia
siquidem
et informat
scilicetagnitionem,
removet
contrarium,
eloquentia
ignorantiam
etinformat
taciturnitatem
vitium
et
facundiam,
poesissicutposteapatebit,
extirpt
et instruit
mechanica
defectum
valetudinem.
virtutem,
superseminat
purgat
We mayestablishthe followingdiagramof the schmatisationsdiscussed:
evils:
a. thethree(four)
: HughandRichard
ofSt.Victor
, vitium
, inrmitas
ignorantia
of
Richard
:
St. Victor;ps.-William
ofCon,
,
ignorantia
concupiscentia
inrmitas
ches; RalphofBeauvais
anti
ayvitium
GlossPromisimus
, necessitas:
inor
GlossTriasunt
:
Diaicctica
; theMunich
t vitiumt
ignorantia
indigentia
Bernard
Silvestris
, indigentia:
fimperitia
, vitium
ignorantia
loquendi
Anon.Dresd.
, silentiumf
vitiumy
indigentia:
ignorantia
, taciturnitas
, defectus:
, vitium
ignorantia
RalphofLongchamps
:
b. thethree(four)remedies
ofSt.Victor;RalphofBeauvais
necessitas:
virtust
sapientiat
HughandRichard
GlossPromisimus
scientia
Dialctica
, virtus
, mechanica:
; theMunich
scientia
GlossTriasunt
, virtus
, commoditas:
ofConches
+ eloquentia
, virtus
, necessitas
(commodum
): ps.-William
sapientia
Silvestris
: Bernard
, virtusf
sapientiat
eloquentia
sujjicientia
scientia
Anon.Dresd.
, eloquentia
, commoditas:
, virtus
virtus
(mechanica
, eloquentiay
, valetudo
): RalphofLongchamps.
philosophia
Nijmegen
73
Sophiaweg

1 D/eGeschichte
derscholastischen
Ii (Freiburg
Methode
imBreisgau
1911; repr.Darmstadt
1956),
p. go,n. i.

12:08:53 PM

Macaronic

Poetry

in the Carmina

Bur ana

BRUCE A. BEATIE
"dochrennetin allenderMarner
vor,
undschoenLatn
derlusticTiutsch
brunnen
undstarken
wn
als einfrischen
hatinsezegedoene."
gemischet
DerKenner1.
HugovonTrimberg,
"
, "the
of Poetryand Poetics
y oosELY speaking, says the Encyclopedia
been
to
verse'
has
'macaronic
.
term
.
.
| j
any verse
applied
The
firstand
rrt
re
two
or
.
.
languages together . "2.
mingling
the worst problem confrontingthe studentof bilingualor multilingual
poetry lies in the terminology.The term "macaronic verse", with its
pasta-comic overtones, seems an Italian inventionof the late fifteenth
century; the Renaissancegame which it denoted, the writingof verse
which "incorporateswords of the writer's native tongue in another
language and subjects them to its grammaticallaws, thus achieving a
comic effect"3,retainedits popularitythroughthe nineteenthcentury.
But thisnarrowly-defined
genrewas preceded bya long and richMedieval
traditionof poetic bi- and multilingualismof such variety(fromrandom
appearance of isolated foreignwords in texts predominantlyin a given
language,to regularalternationof two or more languages vithina fixed
poetic form,includingsyntacticmergingthereof)thatthe phenomenon
is scarcely describable. For the random appearance of isolated Latin
words in German texts, August Grnewald used the term "lateinische
"

1 CitedbyPhilipp
undFored.,DerMarner
Trbner,
1876,p. . (Quellen
Strauch,
, Strassburg,
inthe
undCulturgeschichte
dergermanischen
zurSprachVlker,
ig; nowreprinted
schungen
andBibliography
Reihe:Mittelalter,
Index
Deutsche
with
series
Afterword,
Neudrucke,
byHelmut
De Gruyter,
Berlin,
Brackert,
196$).
2 Ed.AlexPreminger,
Princeton
Press,
196$,p. 471.
University
3 Loc.cit.Fora concise
inthe
anda review
ofEnglish
ofthisform
thereupon
history
scholarship
in
Themacaronic
tradition
seethe"Introduction"
toWilliam
nineteenth
O. Wehrle,
hymn
century,
ofAmerica,
medieval
literature
D. C., Catholic
1933,
, Washington
pp.xi-xxxvii.
University
English
- Thefour
with
theRenaissance
dealsolely
collections
of"macaronic"
phenomenon.
principal
poetry
Geschichte
William
R. Beckley,
, London,
1831; F. W. Genthe,
Sandys,
Specimens
ofmacaronic
poetry
undSammlung
Denkmale
dermacaronischen
Poesie
ihrer
Aufl.,
, neueunvernd.
Leipzig,
vorzglichsten
"Zurmakaronischen
Poesie",Weimarische
Meissner,
1836;OskarSchade,
Jahrbuch
frdeutsche
undKunst
2 (i8$)409-464;
andJames
ed.,Macaronic
, Litteratur
poetry
Morgan,
Sprache
Appleton
anintroduction
collected
Hurd& Houghton,
1872.
, with
byJ.A.M.,NewYork,
16

12:10:28 PM

Einschiebsel"1; Otto Mller applied the same term to the whole range
of the medieval phenomenon2. For the phenomenon in toto, Emil
- a creation of Medieval Latin, and
Henrici used the term barbarolexis
and poeticae
3,
ambiguouslydefinedin the variousmedieval artesrhetoricae
while Wehrle called it simply "macaronic poetry". Sister Carmeline
Sullivan,apparentlyfollowingboth Grnewald and Wehrle, distinguished between "Latin insertions" and macaronic poetry proper*. Paul
Zumthor, attemptingto avoid this (barbaro-?) lexical confusion,coins
the inclusiveterm "poesie bilingue", which ignoresthe admittedlyrare
phenomenon of deliberately multilingualtexts*. Out of respect for
tradition, I shall "speak loosely" and retain for this essay the term
"macaronic poetry" to refer to the Medieval phenomenon described.
A historyof Medieval "macaronic" poetry remainsto be written.
Sister Sullivan deals only with a single work, and Wehrle's study,
thoughcomprehensivefor the Englishlanguage-area,ignores the internationalityof the phenomenon and is marred by his use of secondary
sources for his texts; Mller ignores texts whose mixture does not
include Latin, and Zumthor's essay is essentiallya rearrangementof
Mller's material; Grnewald and Henrici restrict themselves to
German-Latinpoetryin the twelfthand fifteenth
centuriesrespectively.
A necessaryprelude to anygeneralhistoricalinvestigationof thisformis
thereforethe task of fillingthe unstudiedgaps. The present essay will
fill only a small chink. I wish to call attentionto a small but perhaps
unique corpus of Medieval macaronicpoetrywhich, in the words of the
epigraph, "lustic Tiutsch und schoen Latin . . . gemischethat in seze
gedoene": the macaronic poems of the CarminaBurana.
The multilingualmaterial in the predominantlyLatin CodexBuranusis
of six sorts: i) isolated German or Romance words in Latin texts, the
true "Einschiebsel"; 2) Latin poems with refrainin another language;
3) poems with regular alternationof Latin and German or Romance;
1 Dielateinischen
indendeutschen
Einschiebsel
Gedichten
von
derMitte
Ende
des11. hisgegen
des12. Jahrhunderts.
E. A. Huth,
Gttingen,
1908.
2 Daslateinische
inder
Einschiebsel
Literatur
desMittelalters
1919.
, Zrich,
Leemann,
franzsischen
3 Sprachmischung
inlterer
Deutschlands
andBarbarolexis:
inlteren
Dichtung
Sprachmischung
Schriften
Deutschlands
arecontinuously
Henrici
, Berlin,
Fischer,
1913 and1914;thetwovolumes
paginated.
liststheprincipal
medieval
references
pp.i-g.
* TheLatin
insertions
andthe
macaronic
inPiers
verse
Plowman
D. C., Catholic
, Washington
University
ofAmerica,
1932.
s MUn
mdivale:
l'utilisation
du bilinguisme",
problme
d'esthtique
potique
Moyen
Age66
and$6i-94;Zumthor
discuss
textsbriefly,
does,however,
(i960) 301-336
multilingual
pp.
S&8-S90.
17

12:10:28 PM

4) the six Middle High German songs in the otherwise Latin Ludus
paschalissive de passioneDomini (CB 16*, the BenedictbeurerPassion
Play); $) the well-known "German strophes" of the CarminaBurana,
attached as a finalstrophe to Latin poems with the same or a similar
metricalform1; and 6) a group of independentGerman texts. Groups
"
and 6, which show "multilingualism
4,
only with respect to their
contextin the manuscript,will be discussed in separate essays. Here I
shall simplylist the examples included in Groups i and 2, and concentrate discussionin the six poems which are trulymacaronic, Group 3.
Group1. In CB 42, a poem in Vagantenstrophen
perhapsby Waltherof
Chatillon2,the fourthline of str. 13 is "'paies! paies!' dist li mot, si vis
impetrare"3. The fragmentof a "Teufelsspruch",CB 55, mixes Greek,
Latin, and nonsense (CB 1, 1, p. 110 ; cf. CB 11,1, p. 118):
Amara
tantatyri pastossycalos
sycaliri
Ellivoli
scarras poliliposylique
lyvarras.
CB 133 and 134, Latinpoems in leonine hexameterslisting,respectively,
bird and animal names, have German glosses over the names4. CB 19^
(Schmeller 174), a formalparody of CB 61, uses the German exclamation "Schuch!" in str. 12, and the Romance and German lines "Deu
sal misirbescher de vin" and "Wir enahtenniht uf den Rin" appear in
str. 2is. The refrainof CB log (Schmeller 182, p. 242) begins "Deu sal
sit vobiscum,o pecharie! ". In the chess-epigramCB 209 (Schmeller 184,
1 Cf.W.T. H. Jackson,
intheCarmina
huraa
andLetters
"TheGerman
N.S.
M,German
strophes
Life
"Modern
"Carmina
a caseof'irregular
Burana
andmyarticle,
contrafacture',
48-483:
7 (x93)
36-43
- Themacaronic
intheCarmina
are
Burana
80 (October
Notes
1965)470-478.
poems
Language
which
waspresented
asa public
the"German
toa newtheory
related
concerning
strophes"
closely
on
isbased
atBerkeley
onNovember
ofCalifornia
lecture
attheUniversity
30,196^.Thistheory
ina separate
andwillbediscussed
Cf.
oftheGerman
a formal-comparative
essay.
analysis
strophes,
oftheGerman
forms
inMedieval
BruceA. Beatie,
investigation
"Strophic
lyric:a descriptive
intheir
formal
Burana
oftheCarmina
1966.
diss.,Harvard
context",
University,
unpubl.
strophes
2 SeeCarmina
von
kritisch
Wilhelm
derVorarbeiten
MitBenutzung
Burana.
herausgegeben
Meyers
der
1. Einleitung
HilkaundOttoSchumann,
11.Band:Kommentar,
Alfons
(Die Handschrift
Carl
Die moralisch-satirischen
Aufl.Heidelberg,
Carmina
2. unvernd.
Dichtungen,
Burana);
asCB11,i).
cited
Winter,
1961,
p. 86(hereafter
* Op.cit.
as
cited
1930,p. 77(hereafter
yi. Band:Text,1.Diemoralisch-satirischen
Dichtungen,
CBi, 1).
Op.cit.
as
cited
vonOttoSchumann,
1941,pp.223-228
(hereafter
, i, 2. DieLiebeslieder,
hrsg.
CBI, 2).
s Carmina
aus
Handschrift
desxm.Jahrhunderts
einer
Gedichte
Lateinische
unddeutsche
Burana.
zuMnchen,
Aufl.
aufderK.Bibliothek
2.unvernd.
ed.J.A.Schmeller,
Benedictbeuern
Breslau,
inCB1,1
ofpoems
Numbers
cited
asSchmeller).
lacking
Koebner,
1883,pp.2^3-2^4
(hereafter
' inCB1,1, v-viii,
followed
tothe"Konkordanztabelle'
and2aregiven
bySchmeller's
according
pp.
inparentheses.
number
18

12:10:28 PM

p. 246) the German words "tost", "schach, roch et hie mat" appear.
The Officium
lusorum,CB 21 (Schmeller 189, pp. 248-250) uses the
phrases "inke ses", "ses inke quatter" and "dri tus es". The German
exclamation "wafna! wafna!" appears in CB 222 (Schmeller 196, p.
254), and the word "schillink"in CB 22g (Schmellercxcvm, pp. 76-77).
Dominiceresurrectionis
, the BenedictFinally,in the Ludusimmoexemplum
beurer Easter Play (a later addition to the manuscript,CB 15*), the
JewishsoldiersguardingChrist'stombuse the phrases"schauwe alumbe"
and "schauwe propterinsidias! "l .
"
Group2. The Latin refrainof CB
begins with "Prohdolor! (CB
i, i, p. 103 ; cf. CB il, i, p. 110); one mightsee this as a Latin phrase
) in the process of being transformedinto a Romance excla(pro dolore
and
hence as a macaronic "insertion" into this poem. The
mation,
refrainof CB 51a, however, is a curious mixture of Greek and Latin
(CB i, i , p. 104 ; cf. CB li, i , p. il 2)2 :
Ayos o theosathanatos,
!
ysmasather
yskyros
miserere
Kyrios,
!
salvatuosfmulos
The refrainof CB 94 is: "Audi, bel' amia, mille modos Veneris! hahi
zeualeria!" (CB 1, 2, p. 122), and that of CB 195, an imitation of
Hilarius' "Lingua servi, lingua perfidie",is "Tort a vers mei ma dama!"
(CB i, 2, p. 123). CB 180, which is followed by a "German strophe",
also has a German refrain: "Mandaliet! mandaliet! min geselle chmet
niet!" (CB 1, 2, p. 301). Finally,each stropheof CB 204 (Schmeller 181,
p. 242), a poem in praise of the city of Trier, concludes with the line
"per dulzor", and is followed by the refrain: "Her wirt, tragenther nuo
win, vrolich suln wir bi dem sin".
Group3. The fundamentalmultilingualityof the CodexBuranusis
amply illustratedby the examples given above, and it is not surprising
that we findin this context poems whose "macaronic" nature is much
more pronounced. CB 118, the only poem in which Latin and Old
French are the languagesused, was discussed by Paul Zumthor (Texte
LIV>P- 332"334)- The second stropheshows most clearlyhow the two
languagesare syntacticallymerged (CB 1, 2, P. 194):
1 Wilhelm
derkgl.Gesellschaft
Festschrift
derWissenschaften
Burana.
zu
Fragmenta
Meyer,
Berlin,
Weidmann,
Gttingen,
1901,p. 127.
2 Cf.Henrici,
p. 10.
19

12:10:28 PM

Tuapulchra
facies
me
milies;
Jejplanser
pectushabetglacies.
a remender
facies
virum
statim
un
baser
I
per
In this poem, however, the relationshipbetween Latin and Old French
is not fixed. In the followinglist of the rhyme-schemesof the seven
strophes,the Old French lines are indicated by capital letters; if the
wholeline is Old French, the letter is italicized:
1.
2.
3.
4.
g.
6.
7.

a a a B
a Aa B
a a a B
A A Ab
a a a B
a a a B
A AA B

a B
a B
a B
Ab
AB
a B
a B

The irregularalternationas well as the syntacticlinkage of the two

languagesgives this poem a naturalnesswhich is lacking in the LatinGermanpoems, where the two languagesare less closelyrelatedlinguistically.
Three of the Latin-German macaronic poems are pastourelles
. The
structureof CB 184 is, in its irregularalternationas well as in its
strophicform,related to CB 118. The firststropheand the refrainare
as follows (CB i, 2, p. 309):
Virgoquedamnobilis,
divgieze holevmberis.
do si dieburdodo gebant,
!
Refi.Heia,heia,wiesi sanch
cicha,cicha,wiesi sanch!
vincula
vincula,
vincula,
rumpebat.
In the second strophe,only the thirdline is German; in the third,the
firsttwo lines are German and the third line is lacking; the fourth
stropheis like the first.The aestheticqualityof thispoem, however, can
hardlybe praised when one compares it with CB 118: the joining of
the two languagesis purely mechanical, no organic or structuralunity
has been achieved1.
1 Henrici
onthe
a commentary
German
tothispoemfrom
gives
(pp.4-$)a lateMiddle
parallel
ofVilladei
inthems.Wolfenbttel
ofAlexander
Doctrnale
Helmstedt
654f. 143ra:"pertransivit
- doreynen
- eynmeghetyn
statim
wolghethan.
clericus
wait./inviavenit
gronen
/salvesalve
- gotgrote
boleken
dymeghetyn
puella,
fyn.
/dicotibivere- dumoyst
syn".
myn
2o

12:10:28 PM

Though the syntacticbonds between Latin and German in the

thirdstropheof CB 177 are tighterthanin CB 184, the overall effectis
scarcelybetter. The firsttwo strophesare strikingexamples of epigramlike in the direct simplicityof theirimagery(CB 1, 2,
matic lyric,haikuP- 29i):

i . Stetit
puella
rufatunica
;
si quisearntetigit,
eia!
tunicacrepuit.

2. Stetit
puella
rosula
tamquam
faciesplenduit
et os eiusfloruit,
eia!

Not only is each strophe informedby a single explicit image, but the
concrete physical image of the firststrophe becomes the basis of the
metaphorin the second, heighteningits intensity.In the third,however
(the only "macaronic" strophe), this intensityis dissipatedin a typical
situation:
pastourelleStetit
puella bi einembourne,
amorem aneiheloube.
scripsit
darchomVenusalsofram;
caritatem
magnam,
hoheminne
botsi irmanne.
Simplythe differencein strophicformsuggeststhatthe thirdstropheis
a later "imitation"of the firsttwo: the firsttwo lines of the original
melodymighthave been doubled to fitthe two initialLangzeilenof Str. 3,
the originalmelodic lines 3 and 4 could fitStr. 3, lines 3 and 4, and
were the "eia-" melody melismatic,it could have been adapted to the
last linesof Str. 3. But such a suggestionmustremainin the subjunctive:
no melodysurvivesforanypart of the poem.
The thirdpastourelle
presentsat any rate a better structuralunity.
in ten strophes,a girl tells in the
In CB 184, a true narrativepastourelle
firstperson the full storyof her seduction, includingthe most intimate
details. The structureof the firststrophe is repeated in all the others
(CB I, 2, p. 310):
Ichwaseinchintso wolgetan,
virgodumflorebam,
do bristmichdiuwerltal,
omnibus
placebam.
Ke. Hoyet oe!
maledicantur
tilie
iuxtaviamposite.
21

12:10:28 PM

Althoughthe syntacticminglingin thispoem is not so close as in CB 118

or in CB 177, 3, it is not lacking in rhetoricaleffectiveness.Syntactic
alternationof German and Latin follows a relativelyset patternin that,
in eleven cases out of twenty,the Germanline is a main clause forwhich
the followingLatin line servesas adverbialmodifier.The refrain,which
curses the trees under which the seduction took place, is a fittingLeit.
motif.The strophicformis a macaronicvariantof the Vagantenstrophe
CB 218 (Schmeller cxcii, p. 73-74) is, in its regularalternationof
Latin and German,similarto CB 184; its content,however, is radically
of clerics
different.An anticlerical Spruchattackingthe tightfistedness
toward "vagiset egentibus",its contentis typicalof Goliard poetry; it
uses an eight-linestropheof four-beatlines and simple couplet-rhyme.
Its overall structureis simple: the firststrophe, beginning"Audientes
audiant! / diu Schande vert al ber daz lant / querens viles et tenaces",
describes the general situation; strophe 2 praises the liberal, strophe 3
attacksthe miserlyclerics, and the fourthgeneralizesagain. Interesting
here is the extentto which the two languagesare mergedwithina single
syntacticstructure.The lines just quoted are one example, and Str. 2,
lines 4-8 furnishanother:
irsuitIanoffen
uwertur
vagiset egentibus,
so gewinnet
irdazhimelhus,
et inperenni
gaudio
alsusalso,alsusalso.
The finalexample presentsa more complex problem. The textof
CB 149, according to the manuscript (cf. CB 1, 2, pp. 2^3-2^4), is
as follows:
I. Floretsilvanobilis
floribus
etfoliis.
ubiestantiquus
meusamicus?
hincequitavit!
eia! quismeamabit?

;
Re.Floretsilvaundique
istmirwe!
nahmimegesellen
derwaitallenthalben,
II. Grnet
wa istmingesellealsolange?
tenhinnen,
deristgeri
owi! wersolmichminnen?

StrophesI, II, and the refrainare so markedin the manuscript.But was

the "refrain"originallymeantas such? There are no other refrain-poems
in this section of the manuscript.And however we judge the "refrain",
are we dealingwith two poems or one? On the one hand, I and II are
verballyalmost identical,while the "refrain"could well conclude each,
summarizingthe contrastof Spring'sjoy with parting'ssorrow. On the
while the "refrain"plus
other hand, I and II are formallyquite different,
22

12:10:28 PM

II producesa formroughlyequivalentto I. Or: since all the Latin poems

in this section of the manuscripthave attached "German strophes",
is II to be considered the "German strophe" of I? The exact formal
relationship of the parts to one another is perhaps never to be
answeredwithcertainty: nonetheless,themacaroniccontextofthiscodex
suggestsat least thatall threeare the productof a singlebilingualauthor.
The purpose of thisessayhas been thusfarto documentthe existence of
a significantcorpus of macaronic poetry within the CodexBuranus.The
interpretationof thiscorpus and the demonstrationof its relationshipto
the traditionof medieval macaronic poetry and to the more general
lyric traditionwould take us for the moment too far; both problems
depend to a large degree on the relationshipof this corpus to the
"Germanstrophes"of the CarminaBurana(see p. 18, n. i). Nonetheless
two tentativesuggestionsmay be made here.
i . To judge from the studies by Mller, Zumthor and Wehrle,
the sort of macaronicpoetrydescribed here is a phenomenonprimarily
of the lateMiddle Ages. (E.g., Wehrle findsonlytwo authenticexamples
in the Anglo-Saxonperiod and fivein the late thirteenthcentury,none
in the two interveningcenturies). Yet the CodexBuranus
, according to
the most recentopinions,was writtenbefore 12^0, and probablyaround
12301. Since the "German strophes" include strophes by known
dated between 1170 (Dietmar von Aist) and 12 19 (Neidhart
Minnesinger
von Reuental), the compositionof this macaronic corpus can hardlybe
placed later than ca. 122^. These would be then not only among the
earliest poems in the European macaronic traditionof the high Middle
: the examples collected by Mller and
Ages, but the only early corpus
Wehrle appear isolated in many differentmanuscripts. Are these
CarminaBurana the production of a unique poet or group of poets in
upper Austria2,or does this corpus document a continuingtraditionof
macaronicpoetryin Germanywhich began earlierthansimilartraditions
elsewhere in Europe? The existence of two rather skillfulmacaronic
poems (Latin-German) among the Cambridge Songs, one of which
1 SeePeter
"Acritical
noteonSchumann's
oftheCodexBuranus",
zur
Dronke,
dating
Beitrge
derdeutschen
Geschichte
undLiteratur
Professor
84 (H. 1-2,1962)173-183.
Sprache
(Tbingen)
Bernhard
Bischoff
whoiscompleting
theHilka-Schumann
oftheCarmina
edition
Burana
,
(Mnchen),
thedatesuggested
with
theauthor,
(inconversation
supports
byDronke
1964).
2 Bernhard
Bischon
onthebasis
waswritten
in
ofthescript
theCodex
Buranus
used,that
suggests,
theTirolorKrnten
(inconversation,
1964).
23

12:10:28 PM

("De Heinrico") is dated with some certaintyin the late tenthcentury1,

suggeststhe latter, but a definitiveanswer demands a historicalsurvey
of all survivingmacaronic poetryfromthe eleventhand twelfthcenturies.
2. The macaronicpoems of the CambridgeSongssuggesta German
macaronictraditionprior to the CarminaBurana. A curious coincidence
might imply a similar traditionslightlylater than that collection and
proceeding from the region in which the codex was written. Der (or
Konrad) Marner wrote three Latin poems which were entered by a
: CB 3* (Schmeller 9^, p. 174), CB 6*
later hand in the CodexBuranus
and
CB 9* (FragmentaBuranapp. 27-28).
(Schmeller cci, pp. 79-80),
CB 6*, "Pange vox Adonis", was writtenin 1230-31 for Heinrich von
Zwettl, who until his election in October 1231 as Bishop of Seckau had
been Propst of Maria Saal in Krnten2; and Krntenwas suggestedby
BernhardBischofF(p. 23, n. 2) as a regionin which the CodexBuranusmay
have been written. The name "Marner"is writtenabove CB 6* and 9*.
Wilhelm Meyer comments ( FragmentaBuranap. 26, note 1): aEs ist
eine sonderbareThatsache, dass unter den nicht zahlreichenZustzen,
welche sptere Hnde in diese Handschrifteingeschriebenhaben, nicht
weniger als 3 Gedichte des Marner sind, dass diese 3 Gedichte von 3
verschiedenenHnden [cf. CB 11,1, pp. s6*-sj*] eingeschriebensind,
dass aber ein und dieselbe 4. Hand ber zwei dieser Gedichte den
Namen 'Marner' geschrieben hat. Sollte der Marner einmal an dem
Ort geweilthaben,wo diese Handschrift
lag oder garsie gesehenhaben?"
Coincidentally,Marner is that poet who, in the words of Hugo von
Trimberg, "lustic Tiutsch und schoen Latn . . . gemischethat in seze
gedoene". The lines clearly suggest a macaronic poet. Though no
macaronicpoem ascribed to Marnersurvives,his poetic corpus contains
poems in both Latinand German,and he demonstratesequal skillin each
language. Is his presence in the CodexBuranuscoincidence, or does it
document, in indirect fashion,the furtherdevelopment of a German
macaronic tradition?
University
of Colorado
Languagesand Literatures
Department
oj Germanic
Boulder, Colorado 80302
1 DieCambridger
KarlStrecker,
Lieder
2. unvernd.
Aufl.,
Berlin,
Weidmann,
, hrsg.
19sS>(Monuinusum
scholarum
rerum
menta
editi,
histrica,
germanicarum
xl).
separatim
germaniae
Scriptores
"Kleriker
undNonne"
thefragmentary
onpp.57-60,
"DeHeinrico"
(No.28)on
(No.19)appears
PP.74-77.
JSeeStrauch,
op.cit.p. 16,n.1,pp.7-8and188.
24

12:10:28 PM

The Canonization

of Saint

Thomas Aquinas

LEONARDAS V. GERULAITIS

early ChristianChurch did not have any set views about the
The subject of the venerationof the saints. Some historiansview the
passage in the Acts: "And devout men carried Stephen to his
burial, and made great lamentationsover him"1, as an indicationof the
venerationof the early martyrs.But alreadyby 1^6 A. D., at the time
of the martyrdomof St. Polycarp, there is definitiveproofthatthe Jews
were aware thatthe relics of executed Christianswere likelyto become
centersof religiousdevotions2.
In the age of the martyrs,canonizationwas a spontaneousact of the
local community.Even in disputedcases thejudgementof the community
.
appears to have operated automatically^
Even by the thirdcenturywe cannot findany evidence fora formal
processof canonizationat Rome, but in Africathe Churchwas compelled
in faceof heresy(especiallyDonatism) and persecutionto legislateon the
matterof the venerationof martyrs4.It was firstdiscussed at the First
Council of Carthage in 348s. Optatus, in 370, in a work against the
Donatists, maintainedthat there can be no martyrdomapart from the
confessionof the name of Christ, and that without charitymartyrdom
cannot have any existence6.
The FifthCouncil of Carthage in 401 placed the responsibilityto
determinethe sanctityof a martyron the diocesan bishop7.
The earliest saintswere martyrswho suffereddeath for their faith
but alreadyby the second centurya new class of saintsappears. They are
thosewho sufferedfortheirfaithbut were not actuallyput to death. To
them the title 'confessor' is applied, which was later extended to all
saintswho were not martyrs8.
In the fithand sixth centuriesattemptswere made to organize the
Churchcanonical laws. Two collections of canons were compiled in this
time, the CodexcanonumEcclesiaeAfricanae
, made by Dionysius Exiguus
and afterwardbetter known as the Dionysian
, and a Spanish collection,
1 Acts
, viii,2.
2 E. Kemp,
Canonization
andAuthority
intheWestern
Church
Oxford
Univ.Press,
, Londen,
1948.p.
abbreviated:
(henceforth
K).
6 ibid.,
3 ibid.,
p. 14.
p. 7.
* ibid.
7 ibid.,p. i.
yp. 11.
8 ibid.,
s ibid.,
p. 14.
p. 17.

12:10:33 PM

known as Hispana1. These collections remained the most authoritative

sources all throughthe Dark Ages.
At thistime the cult of the saintswas limitedto venerationof relics,
usuallypieces of cloth or other objects which had been in contact with
the body of the saintor his tomb. There is no evidence, at this time, of
dismemberingof corpses or the distributionof bones2. But fromthe
middle of the sixth centurythe constantravagingof Italy by barbarous
invadersoftennecessitatedthe removalof the saints' bodies to Rome or
some other safeplaces. This establishedthe practice of translationas the
formalact of canonizationbythe eighthcentury.It came to be considered
improperthatthe body of a saintshould remainunderground,and so it
was removedand placed in a spotmore accessible to thevenerationofthe
faithful4.In general, ecclesiastical authorityintervenedonly seldom.
Canon law ordered the bishops to make sure that the martyrsbeing
veneratedwere true martyrs,but no one deemed it necessaryto refer
every case to the authoritiesin order to ask permissionto establisha
cultus. When bishopshad to intervene,theyusuallydealt withthe matter
.
synodicallys
From the eighthcenturyon the tendencywas to appeal to more and
more authorativebodies, such as referringcases to the metropolitanand
provincialsynods. With passingtime and the growthof papal authority
in general, it was inevitable that the papacy should oust the lesser
authorities6.
The earliestreferenceto a canonizationof a sainton papal authority
is fromthe year 849, but no greatweightcan be attachedto thisisolated
reference7.
It is not until the pontificateof JohnXV (985-996) that one may
begin to speak about this matter with any certainty.In 993 Liutolf,
Bishop of Augsburg,petitionedJohnXV and the assembledcardinalsat
the Lateran Council to place Udalric, his predecessor, in the catalogue
of the saints, i.e. to canonize him. Afterconsideringthe case, which
probably consisted of a recitation of his deeds and miracles by the
petitioningparty,the request was granted8.
1 Fora detailed
und
derLiteratur
derQuellen
desCanonischen
in
Geschichte
Rechts
viz.: F. Maasen,
study
Abendlande.
Gratz,
1870,II part,181.
5 ibid.
* K.,p. 26.
, p. 3.
6 ibid.
3 ibid.
yp. 3.
tp. 27.
7 ibid.
ibid.
tpp.6-7.
yp. 29.
8 Margaret
inthefourteenth
andtheProcess
Louis
Ruth
Century.
oj Canonisation
Toynbee,
oj Toulouse
abbreviated:
Manchester
Press,
1929.pp.135-6(henceforth
Manchester,
T); andK.,
University
pp.57-8.
26

12:10:33 PM

This was an importantchange because, until then, papal action was

requested only afterthe local cultus had been established,if at all ; and
thenall the pope could do was to acquiesce gracefully.It did not amount
to more thana formof courtesy.But after993 it was practicallyuniversallyaccepted that the authorityto canonize rested with the pope. The
generalacceptance of thisidea is furtherdemonstratedby almost identical cases recurring under Benedict VIII (10 12-1024), Benedict IX
(1033-1048), Leo IX (1049-1054.), and Alexander II (1061-1073)1 .
It is interestingto note that the Gregorian reforms(1074-1085),
dealing with practicallyevery other sphere of ecclesiastical authority,
did not concern itselfwith the problems of canonization2.
A furtherdevelopmenttook place duringthe pontificateof Urban II
(1088-1099). By this time papal procedure was sufficiently
developed
for the pope to refusea canonizationbecause the necessaryconditions
had not been fulfilled^.The requirement was that no one could be
canonized, unless the assent of a plenary council was secured and the
evidence of the eyewitnesseshad been produced*. In 1099 the case of
Nicholas of Trani created a new precedent. Before Urban II agreed to
canonize the saint, he entrustedthe case to the Archbishopof Trani
fora thoroughinvestigation.Now it became the pope's dutyto startan
inquiry,not only to accept blindlythe evidence given by othersat their
own evaluations.Urban II laid the basis for the whole systemof canonization, medieval and modern, by insistingon the necessityof inquiry
and witnesses6.
In the twelfthcenturypapal canonizationbecame more frequent.
Calixtus II (1119-1124) and Innocent II (11 30-1 143) continued to
enforceUrban's decree. When in 1120 the cult of St. Arnulfwas legalized, a book was produced tellingof his life and miracles, which would
later be termedhis Process of Canonization.
Until Pope EugeniusIII (i 14.5-1153) no pope had canonizedwithout
the approval of a general council, but he abandoned this practice when
he canonized Emperor Henry II on his own sole authority,a practice
which was followed by the later popes8.
The developmentof papal canonizationgoes hand in hand with the
growthof papal authorityin the eleventhand twelfthcenturies. However, the canonizationby local authoritieswas continued, even if the
1 7', p. 136;andK.,pp.58-66.
* 7', p. 136.
3 K.,p. 66.
* K.,p. 67;andT., p. 137.

s T., p. 137.
6 T., pp.137-8.
7 T., p. 138.
8 T., p. 138.
27

12:10:33 PM

general tendencywas to seek the interventionof higher ecclesiastical

authorities,on a metropolitanor provincial level. This seems to have
distinctionbetween canonizationand beatification1
.
led to a rudimentary
With the revival of the studyof canonical law at Bologna in the
twelfthcentury,the process of canonizationassumed new importance.
When Ronaldus Bonaneli, a distinguishedcanon lawyer, became Pope
Alexander III (n $9-1181), it was not surprisingthat the procedure of
the canonizationbecame more regularized2.Under him the theorythat
canonizationcan be performedonly by a general council seems to have
been abandoned; fromnow on the pope contentedwith the advice of
the cardinals. Also a clear distinctionwas establishedbetween beatification and canonizations.
From the time of AlexanderHI onwards, the surenessof sole papal
canonizationis well established,as is the procedure of the commission
is evidenced by the floweryformof
of inquiry.The same self-confidence
the papal bulls of canonization. The established pattern is followed
closely: stock phrasesappear. There is no indicationof doubt about the
papal rights4.
Innocent III (1198-1216) clearly enunciated the basis for canonization of a candidate: in order thata person mightbe veneratedby the
Churchas a sainthe has to fulfilltwo prerequisites- the virtueof morals
and the virtueof signs; thatis, his lifemustbe provento have been good
and pious, and his sanctityconfirmedby miracles afterhis death. The
second one is not sufficientby itself, because Satan too can perform
miraclesin order to mislead the believers5.
Until this time the report of the investigatingcommission was
regardedas a sufficientproof of the candidate's sanctity,but now the
pope required that this report should be substantiatedby statements
swornto by the witnessesofthe miraclesand thatsome of thesewitnesses
should be produced in person at Rome6.
One can regard the publication of the Decretalsof Gregory IX
(1 227-1241) in 1234 as the formal legal establishmentof the papal
reservationof the rightof canonization.In the eyes of the canonists,the
legal basis for this was the decretal Audivimusof AlexanderIII?.
Pope Innocent IV (1 243-1254.) deals with canonization in his
. He states:
commentaryon the Decretals
1 K.,p. 80.
2 K.,p. 82.
3 K.,pp.97-8.
K.,pp.100-1.

5 K.,p. 104.
6 K.,p. IO.
7 K.,p. 107.

28

12:10:33 PM

is to decreecanonically
andregularly
thatsomeone
u. . . to canonize
shouldbe
honored
as a saint,thatis thata solemn
office
shouldbe performed
forhimas for
othersaints
ofhisrank,so thatifa confessor
is canonized
ofa confessor
theoffice
shouldbe saidforhim,ifa martyr
theoffice
of a martyr.
Andthiscanonization
is regularly
whenthefaith,
excellenceof life,and miracles
ofhim
performed
whoisto be canonized
havebeenproved
. . . ThePopealonecancanonize
saints.
Thisis sobecausea saintis someone
fortheadoration
ofall thefaithful
proposed
andno onehasjurisdiction
overall save the Pope. . . The resultsof canonizationarethattheChurch
a solemn
recites
office
fortheperson
asfora saintand
he is placedinthelitanies
if
the
Even
saints.
the
Church
madea mistake,
among
whichis notto be believed,Godwouldacceptas in goodfaithprayers
made
suchone.
through
we do notdenythatpeopleareat liberty
to askfortheintercession
of
Further,
anydeadpersonwhomtheybelieveto havebeena goodman,buttheymaynot
a solemn
office
or makesolemn
in hishonour"1.
perform
prayers
Henricusde Segusio, Cardinalof Ostia, betterknownas Hostiensis,some
, added
eightyearsafterInnocentIV, in his commentaryof the Decretals
a decretal of Pope Honorius III (1216-1227), directing the bishops to
examinewitnessesabout the lifeand miraclesof a certainwould-be saint.
This text became a favoritewith the canon lawyersto comment upon
the procedure of the canonization2.
Innocent IV and Hostiensis seem to have been followed pretty
closely by the fourteenthcenturycanonists,such as Pope BonifaceVIII
(1 294-1303) and AugustinusTriumphus,who dealt with the matterof
canonization in his Summade potestateecclesiastica
, which appeared in
13202.
One might note in passing that the next importantstep in the
clarificationof this matterwas only taken by Pope Benedict XIV, who
in 1729 published a definitivestudy on the subject, namely the Codex
constitutionum
in solemnicanonizatione
sancquas summiponticesediderunt
torum
. In it Benedict seems to allow that canonizationsperformedbefore
AlexanderIII on episcopal authoritymaybe regardedas havingfullvalue
because of their havingthe tacit agreementof the pope. He also argues
that the participationof the General Council could never have been a
necessityforcanonization,forwhich point he adduces historicalproofs*.
The Codexjuris canonicioperative since 1918 regulatesin detail the
process of canonizationand of beatification.Canon # 1999 governsthese
matters. There are three main sections: 1) the cases for beatification
and forcanonizationare reservedto thejudgementof the Holy See alone ;
2) The Congregationof Sacred Rites is responsiblefordealing with such
1 K.,p. 108.
3 K.,pp.110-13.
2 K.,p. 108.
4 K.,pp.148-9.
29

12:10:33 PM

cases; 3) The local ordinarieshave no inherentrightto do anythingin

the matterwhich is not expresslyrequired of them by the following
canons1.
There also has been publisheda guide, under officialauspices, for
.
people concerned in such cases Codexpropostulatoribus2
The main topic of this paper is to describe the canonization of St.
Thomas Aquinas, which took place in 1323; thereforelet us examine
the actual state of the process of canonizationin the early part of the
fourteenthcentury.
The main event thatgreatlyinfluencedthe historyof the papacy in
thefourteenthcenturywas the so-calledBabylonianCaptivityat Avignon,
which extended over the period from1309 to 1377. Medieval papacy as
such fell with BonifaceVIII at Agnaniin 1303 and the papacy entered a
fromRome to Avignon.Traditionew stagewhen its seat was transferred
as
has
been
this
nally
period
regarded the nadir of papal authority,but
more recentlystudies tend to indicate that this was not quite so*. The
rapidlychangingpolitical and socio-economic picture of Europe in the
second half of the thirteenthcentury necessitated changes in papal
as well. The rise of nationalstatesmade the old order of
administration
and
emperor ruling supreme, out of date. In order to
things,pope
survivethe papacy had to adopt new means of control. The transference
of the Papal See fromRome to Avignonprovided an opportune chance
to break away from the old traditionsand to institutethe required
changes. During these seventyyears a complete change of the papacy
occurred. The spiritualcharacterof the papacy was lost and, to a large
extent, the financialside became dominant. Avignon took its place as
the capital of all Christendomin a way Rome had never been able to
achieve. The wanderingsof the popes ended and the Curia became
highlycentralized.Pope JohnXXII (1316-1334) was mainlyresponsible
for the establishmentof an elaborate bureaucracy.With the increase of
fiscalincome, papal patronagebecame paramount.
The generaltendencyto regulateall aspects of ecclesiasticalactivity
affectedcanonizationas well :
and fourteenth-century
"The difference
betweenthirteenthprocessis the
methodical
but
between
casual
and
and
not
between
chaos
order,
difference,
"4.
procedure
1 K.,pp.149-S0.
2 K.,p. 149.
3 Fora detailed
d
see
Les
G.
Paris,
Lecoffre,
Mollat, papesAvignon.
1924.(4thedit.).
study
T., pp.149-^0.
30

12:10:33 PM

One of the main sources of fourteenth-century

procedure is a contemaccount
Cardinal
at Velarbo. In
Gaetani
Stefaneschi,
by James
porary
he not only reported the ceremonies in which he
his Ordo KomanuSy
himselfhad participatedbetween 1304 and 1328, but also reproduced
which could be used to draw up general rules1.
everything
Beforeturningto the actual canonizationof St. Thomas Aquinas, let
us surveythe procedurefroma more generalstandpoint.
When a manofholyreputationdied, miraclesbeganto happenat the
place of his entombment.These miraclesconstitutedthe integralpart of
hisfama. When hisfama reached the ears of the pope, and it seems that
it needed a greatdeal of trumpetingon the partofhis adherentsto do so2,
the pope would appoint a commissionof inquiry,usually consistingof
persons high in the ecclesiastical hierarchy3.There were never fewer
than two commissionersappointed, but most commonly there were
three*. Sometimes deputies were permitted and occasionally a commissionerwas allowed to absent himself.The commissioners'work was
ofgreatimportancebecause theyacted as the representatives
of the pope.
It required a great deal of skill,judgement,and of knowledgeof men to
be a commissioner,because on their reportrested the finaldecision for
canonization. In a way, a fourteenth-century
process of canonization
could be compared to a lawsuit between the pope and the petitioners.
Since it was beforethe officeof the Advocatus
diabolihad been established,
the commissionershad to play his role as well. It was up to them to
establishthe veracityof the witnesses; sometimestheywere evensupplied
with a regularformulaof questions to be asked of the witnesses5.
The counterpartof the commissionerwas the proctorwho representedthe petitioners'side in the process. It was his duty to produce
and to marshal the witnesses, to provide for the informationof the
commissionersso-called capitulageneraba, and in case of delay to urge
on the suit6. Usuallythe proctor was appointed by the chiefpetitioner,
but he could also be a papal nominee. In cases dealing with candidates
forsainthoodfromreligiousorders,it was the generalpracticeto choose
the proctor fromthe same order. Usually there was only one proctor.
The commissionusuallysat in the center of the candidate'sja/naor the
site of his restingplace7.
The firstofficialsolemn act of the process was the handingover by
1 T., pp.io-i.
2 T., p.
3 T.,p.
4 T.,p. iS.

5 T., pp.156-7.
<>T., p. igS.
7 T., p. i9.
31

12:10:33 PM

the proctor to the commissionersthe papal lettersinstitutingthe commission. In most cases an open letterwas accompanied by closed letters
giving instructionsas to how the witnesses were to be received and
questioned. In all cases the descriptionof the open letter is practically
identical. This letter was then read to the assembled clergy and lay
people1.
Afterthe papal letter had been read, the proctor entreated the
bishops to proceed at once with the inquiry.The commissionersagreed
to startthe proceedings. In turn the proctor informedthem that they
had prepared the Capitulagenerabafor their use, and had the witnesses
and notaries ready. Then the commissionersordered him to draw up
the above negotiationsin the formof a public document2.
The Capitula generaba, or as they were also known, articuliinterrogator, were of extreme importance in this period. As soon as the
intentionto hold an inquiry had become known, the chief petitioners
would choose a small body of men well acquainted with the candidate
for canonizationand request them to write a summaryof his life and
miracles. The candidate's life was subdivided into periods and each
or articulus
. The
period into a numberof shortheadingstermedcapitulum
miracles were dealt with more summarily a list of differentkinds of
miracleswas drawnup, but no mentionof particularmiracleswas made
in genere.These capitulagenerabahad a twoin these capitulamiraculorum
fold purpose: to supply the commissioners with some preliminary
knowledgeabout thecandidate,and to provide the basis forthe questioningof the witnesses.In thisway the witnesseswere compelled to answer
only specificquestions and could not volunteer unsolicited testimony.
Life and miracles were kept separatedand formedtwo distinctparts of
the process*.
To produce the witnesseswas the dutyof the proctor, and he was
held responsiblefor them. In some instanceshe was even required to
take an oath thattruthwould be spokenon the partof the witnesses.The
witnesses, however, had to swear an individual oath as well. The
numberof the witnessesvaried greatly,no set numberbeing given*.
Under questioning,the witnessfirsthad to state his name, his age,
his positionin general; sometimesa more detailed statementof his birth,
wealth, and learningwas also requested. Often he had to stateif he was
related to the candidate or had been in his household. Finallyhe was
asked if his testimonycame fromhis own free will or if he was forced

1 T., pp.161-2.
2 T., p. 163.

3 T., pp.i6g-6.
T., pp.169-70.

32

12:10:33 PM

to give it, or prompted by some unworthymotive1. Afterwardsthe

commissionersproceeded to question the witnessin order to prove the
separate chaptersenumeratedin the capitulageneraba.The general rule
was for each witness to be called up separately,answeringin turn to
everyone of the capitula. If he did not possess any knowledge on any
of them, these were passed over, with the statement"dixitse nihilscire"
placed againstthem2.
The questioning of the witnesses on the miracles was quite as
rigorous:
areto be askedhowtheyknewthemiracle
"Thewitnesses
to be true; to supply
theplace,
whenthemiracle
theexactdate,thenamesofthosepresent
occurred,
in
thenameofthepersoninvoking
supernatural
help,andthewordsemployed
to statethenamesof thoseuponwhomthemiraclehadbeen
theinvocation;
hadknownthembefore,and,ifso,
whether
performed,
they(thewitnesses)
howlongthecured
howmanydayspreviously
theyhadseenthemill; to affirm
had
had
how
in
been
remained
to
sick,
and,finally,
persons
longthey
goodhealth,
nametheirplaceofabode"3.
In general the commissionerswere far from showing great credulity
or frompilingup large numbersof miracles. And one witnessby himself
was rarelyenough to establishthe authenticityof a miracle*.
The officiaipart of the process was handledby a notarywhose duty
was to produce the documents informampublicam.It was also he who
drew up the acts of the process, recorded proceedings, witnessed
agreementsbetweencommissionersandproctor,took down the evidence,
and finallyauthenticatedthe whole document with his signum
s.
Thus the process of the inquiry for the canonization of Thomas
Aquinas, held in 132 1 at the monasteryof Fossa-Nova, terminateswith
the followingformula:
"Et ego qui supraPetrusdietus Sarracenus
de Piperno,imperiali
auctoritate
ad requis
notarius
tumet mandatum
reverendorum
tionem,
supradictorum
roga
dominorum
et magisti
de Sabello
Petri,episcopiAgnaniensis,
patrum
Pandulphi
domini
actis,inquisitioni,
papenotarii,
predictis
presentationilitterarumpapalium,
iuramentis
testium
et examinationi
et factis
actitatis
atqueprocessui
presentaliter
dictos
dominos
et
seu
per
episcopum magistrm
Pandulphum corameis,in locis
in dictomonasterio
anno,menseet diebus
Fosse-Nove,
predictis,
pretitulatis
unacumprenominato
Laurentio
EgidiiLeporisde Urbe,publicosneteRomane
ecclesieauctoritate
fui; etinscriptis
simulcumipsofideliter
illa
notario,
presens
contextu
seuquaternoordinato
et propria
manu
redigi,et ea omniain presenti
dictiLaurentii
mesubscripsi
"6.
scripta,
meoquesolitosignosignavi
1 T.,pp.172-3.
3 T., p.193.
s T., p. 187.
2 T., p. 186.
4 T., p. 194.
6 D. Pruemmer,
Fontes
vitae
S. Thomae
1912-27,
Tolosiae,
Aquinatis.
Bibliopolam,
p. $io (henceforth
abbreviated:
FVA).
33

12:10:33 PM

Afterthe completion of the inquirythe commissionershad the dutyof

sendingthe evidence to the Curia under secure seals. Then the pope
handed over thisbook to a panel of chaplainswho were expertsin such
matters.They in turnpreparedan abstractof the whole document. This
document then was submittedto a higher committee, consistingof
cardinals, bishops, priests, and deacons who thoroughlyexamined it.
When the materialhad been properlydigested,the committeeappeared
beforethe pope in fullconsistoryand made a general statement,leaving
out all details. These were reservedfor the fourthand finalstage of the
proceedings, when the committee faced the pope and a consistory
limited to a few cardinals. Now the real work was carried out. The
separate dispositionsof every witness on every chapter were solemnly
read and the pope consultedwith the cardinalsas to whetherthe witness
had proved the article or not. At the end a decision was reached by
.
countingthe verdicts1
Afterthe examinationof the evidence had been completed, a day
was fixed for holding a public consistorywhich was attented by the
pope, the cardinals, the prelates, and an assemblyof clergyand laity.
Notice of the event was given at least a month or three weeks in advance and several preachers were appointed to preach sermonsat this
consistoryeulogisingthe candidate. Afterthe sermonstheywere to join
in entreatingthe pope to proceed with the canonization. This was a
verysolemn occasion for which no pomp was spared.
On the dayof the ceremonywhen the pope was seated on his throne
surroundedby cardinals,the proctorof the cause beggedthepope to hear
the prepared sermons. After the sermons the pope pronounced an
indulgence,gave his blessing,and retired2.
Even more solemn was the actual ceremony of the canonization
itself which usually followed soon after the public consistory. The
:
minutiaeof the procedure are thusdescribed in Gaetani's OrdoKomanus
at theappointed
which
"ThePopearrived
church,
earlyon thedayannounced
He
innumerable
was
a
illuminated
received
wasbrilliantly
tapers.
procession
by
by
receivedthe
of clergy.After
apartfora shortspaceandafterhaving
praying
he ascended
an elevated
throne
in front
ofthehigh
andtheprelates,
cardinals
thepeople
altar.Seatedtherein his richcapeandmitre,the Pope exhorted
himto errin consuminthenaveto praythatGodwouldnotsuffer
assembled
The chanting
ofthe VeniCreator
the
thecanonization.
closelypreceded
mating
theformula
ofthe
of theservicewhenthe Pope pronounced
moment
central
theannouncement
ofthefeastday
ofthenewsaint,
Thenfollowed
canonization.
1 T.,pp.196-7.

* T., pp.203-4.

34

12:10:33 PM

andan indulgence
wasoffered
to thosewhoshouldvisithistomb.After
theTe
Deum
andtherecitalofprayers
inwhichthenewsaint'snamewas
, theconfession,
thePope pronounced
The ceremony
theabsolution
andblessing.
introduced,
concluded
withthecelebration
ofMass"1.
Finally,the canonization was made legal by publishinga papal bull of
canonization.
Thomas Aquinas died on March 7th, 1274. He was canonized on July
18th, 1323. This mightraise the question why such a prominentman
had to wait foralmost halfa centuryto be canonized.
In the firstplace, the papacy never let itselfbe rushed in these
matters.Pope JohnXXII, in a letter to Thomas of Lancaster regarding
the canonization of the Archbishop of Winchester, written in 1319,
expressedthis sentiment:
"Wewouldhaveyouto know,thatourmother
theRomanChurch
is notwont
to do anything
when
a
with
so
butrather
matter,
hastily,
especially dealing
great
to weighsucha question
from
a solemn
bymeansoftheinvestigation
proceeding
examination"2.
When the Roman Catholic Church had to deal with a man of the stature
of Thomas Aquinas, especially taking into considerationhis doctrinal
yearswere allowed
theologicalworks, it is not surprisingat all thatfifty
to elapse between the two events. One mustrememberthatthe Christian
doctrine,as preached by Thomas, was novel to manyof his own contemporariesand he did not receive general supportat once. Far fromit, his
enemies were many. On March 7th, 1277, a list of propositionswas
condemned by Etienne Tempier, the Bishop of Paris, and among these
there were several which resembledsome of the doctrinesprofessedby
Thomas3. That his case was not yet settledby 1316-17 we can see from
a quodlibet of Johnof Naples, who in that year disputed the question:
"Is it allowed to teach at Paris the doctrine of Brother Thomas as in
respect to all of its conclusions?^.
It was not until after his canonization that the Bishop of Paris,
Etienne de Bourret,published a solemn letter on February14th, 132^,
in which he revoked the indirect condemnationby his predecessor of
Thomas' doctrines.He even went furtherby eulogizingon the meritsof
the teachingsof the new saints.
1 T.,p. 204.
2 Literae
Cantuarienses
inT.,p. 1^4.
No.60;quoted
, ill,Appendix
3 P. Mandonnet,
Lacanonisation
deS. Thomas
Thomistes
, LeSaulchoir,
, inMlanges
Kain,1923,
d'Aquin
abbreviated:
p. 46 (henceforth
M).
M.,p. 46.
5 M.,p. 47.
3S

12:10:33 PM

The firstofficialsteps leading to Thomas' canonizationwere taken

in 1317. But this does not mean that the Dominicans did not try to
achieve it earlier. Already in 1303 Bartholomaeusde Capua, having
heard of Thomas' miracles from Giovanni del Guidice, tried to get
Pope Benedict IX, who was also a member of the Dominican order,
interested in the case, but the pope died before anythingcould be
started(1304)1.
The whole process of Thomas' canonization can be divided into
fourmajor parts:
1. Startingof the inquest by the Dominican Province of the Kingdom
of Sicily, 1317-1318.
2. Presentationof the cause to Pope JohnXXII and the firstinquiryheld
at Naples, 1318-1319.
3. Supplementaryinquiryheld at Fossa Nova, 1321.
4. Act of canonizationat Avignon, 1323.
It was Robert of San Valention, Vicar of the Magisterof the Dominican
Order for the province of the Kingdom of Sicily, who ordered two
brothers of his order to make an inquiry into the life and miracles
performedthrough the intercession of Thomas Aquinas in order to
presentthese to Pope JohnXXII to startthe officialprocess of canonization2. These reportswere to serve as capitulageneralia.
The man who was put in charge of this preliminaryinquirywas
Guillelmo de Tocco, Prior of the Dominican monastery,at Benevento.
It seems that the other brother was Robert the Lector. They began
workingon thisproblemin November, 13 17, and by the summerof 1318
they presented themselvesat the papal palace at Avignon,where they
handed over the records consistingof notarized statementsof miracles,
the requests for canonizationmade by princes and universities,and a
of the saints. Unfortunately
these documentshave not survived
life-story
to the present. The life-storyof Thomas, writtenby de Tocco, thathas
reached our days is of a later redaction,probablyof 1320.
Admitted to the presence of Pope John XXII, de Tocco and his
companion explained the reason for their coming and presentedto the
pope the lettersfromthe greats of the Kingdom of Sicily who begged
him to institute,by apostolic authority,a commissionof inquirywhich
would lead to the canonizationof Thomas. The pope was not averse to
1 FVA,p. 378.
2 FVA,p. 147.

3 FVA,pp.2and26g.
M.,p. 24.

36

12:10:33 PM

the proposal and even expressed his own belief that Thomas was in
possessionof heavenlyglory. He also promised to de Tocco that in the
firstconsistoryto be held he would allow him to present his case
. Three dayslatera consistorywas held andde Tocco officially
personally1
presentedhis case. Once again JohnXXII used the occasion to express
his admirationfor Thomas Aquinas2.
Then the pope nominateda commissionof threecardinals,of whom
none was a member of the Dominican Order, to examine the presented
documentsdealing with the life and miraclesof Thomas. The examiners
were satisfiedand transmittedthe resultsto the pope3. Thereupon John
XXII on September 13th, 1318, issued two lettersnominatingthe papal
commissioners: Umberto, Archbishop of Naples, Angelo, Bishop of
Viterbo, and Pandulpho de Sabbello, an apostolical notary,as well as
officiallyinstitutedthe inquiry*.
These letterswere given to Guillelmo de Tocco to be delivered to
the commissioners. His firsttask was to get all three commissioners
togetherin order to startthe process. This turnedout to be not as simple
as it mightappear. Pandulphusde Sabbello, the apostolic notary,could
not come to Naples, but as was designatedby the pontificalletter, two
commissionerswere enough to carryon the proceedings*.
The pope also gave the commissionersa free hand in choosing the
location for the inquiry. Naturally,the best place would have been the
Monasteryof Fossa Nova where the remainsof Thomas were enterred
and which was the center of his miracle workings.It was there that de
Tocco firstwent, remainingthere until July ith, 13196. De Tocco
hoped to be able to convene the commissionin thatplace, but it became
evidentthat because of old age and infirmity,
Umberto, Archbishopof
was
without
unable
to
leave
Naples,
Naples
endangeringhis life. Therefore de Tocco, having gathered some more evidence on Thomas'
miracles,decided to hold the inquiryat Naples7.
The inquiry was held in the Archbishop's palace in Naples and
lasted from July 21st to September 18th, 13 19. Since Pandulphusde
Sabbello, the third commissioner,was absent, the other two commissioners nominated Petrus Iohannis de Rocca-Tarani and Franciscus de
Laureto, two public notaries,to redact the records of the proceedings8.
On Monday, July23rd, 13 19, the firstnotaryread the apostolical
1 FVA,p. 148.
* FVA,pp.148-49.
3 FVA,p. 270.
4 FVA,pp.269and271.

s FVA,p. 149.
6 FVA,p. i55.
7 FVA,p. 149.
8 FVA,p. 267.
37

12:10:33 PM

lettersand the special injunctionsto the assembled commissioners1

. On
the same day began the interrogationof the witnesses. The testimony
was heard in secret, and the witnesses' depositionswere kept thatway2.
The firstwitness to be examined was Petrus Grassusof Naples, a
king'ssoldier,aged about sixtyyears.Afterbeingswornin, he statedthat
since he was a child and a studenthe had heard without any contrary
reportsthatThomas was "homo sanctissimevite et multi tenebantquod
esset virgosicut ex utero matrissue"3. He also statedthatfora period of
some ten monthshe, Petrus,was deprivedof the use of his rightarm and
hand. Having heard of the miraculouspowers of Thomas' tomb at Fossa
Nova, he went there and :
in terraantedictumsepulcrum
a. . . genuflexus
sanitate
dieti
prorecuperanda
hec
verba
Dominum
sui brachii,
dixit
se
exorasse:
'Domine
Deus,qui in
per
sanctis
tuismirabilis
est,concedemichipermeritasanctihuius,meideperditi
brachiisolitamsanitatem.'Et statimprotenso
se totosupradictosepulcro,
sensitreditam
sibivirtutem
brachii
notabiliter
deperditam
supradicti"*.
On the followingday the interrogationof the witnesseswas continued;
the next witness was Frater Nicolaus, the Abbot of Fossa Nova. The
interrogationof various witnesses was carried on without any interruptionuntil August 16th. Two more witnessesdeposited their statementson September 18th, when the process was concluded.
In general, everyday only a few witnesseswere examined, usually
two or three. There is onlyone instancewhen fivewere examinedon the
same day - Thursday, July 31st. The commission worked for twenty
days and during this time examined forty-twowitnesses. Of these,
sixteenwere Cistercianmonksfrom Fossa Nova, eleven belonged to the
Dominicans, three were secular clergymen,and twelve were laymen:
soldiers, notaries, and non-specifiedones*.
Most of the testimonydealt withthe miraclesperformedby Thomas
afterhis death because there were very few survivorswho could still
rememberseeinghim in person. Most of the miracleswere in the nature
of cures, but quite a fewwitnessesmentionedthe wonderfulpreservation
of the corpse afterits entermentand the miraculousodor thatit exuded.
On the whole, the records of the process of the inquiryshow that
the witnesseswere thoroughlycross-examinedand there is no record of
improbable miracles. Only direct questions were asked and direct
1 FVA,pp.271-72.
3 FVA,pp.273-74.
2 FVA,p. 272.
FVA,pp.274-7
5 Seeappendix
I for
anddates
ofexamination.
names,
professions,
38

12:10:33 PM

answersreceived. The whole documentis couched in legal language,and

the proceedingsare very similar to a law-suit.
On the last day of the witnesses' examination, September i8th,
13 191, the process was concluded, the acts were drawnup and signedby
the notariesand sealed with the seals of the apostolic commissioners2.
These commissionersappointed two of their subordinates,Mattheo de
Viterbo, a canon at Naples, and Petro de Viterbo, a canon at Viterbo,
as messengersto carrythese documentsto the Papal Curia at Avignons.
They traveledby land, crossingthe Alps in wintertime,and aftermany
dangers,from which they said they were rescued by the intervention
of Thomas, arrivedat Avignonby the Lent of 1320. They delivered the
documents to Pope John XXII, who in turn submitted them to a
cardinalcommittee*.
There is lack of documentationfor the followingperiods. Even if
the evidence had been ample to satisfythe cardinalsof Thomas' sanctity,
neverthelessJohnXXII ordered anothercommissionof inquiryon June
23rd, 132 16, maybebecause several importantwitnesseswho were too
old to travel could not attendtheinquiryat Naples, and thepope wanted
to exclude anyfuturerecriminationsforlack of diligenceon his part7.
In this letter the pope designatedthree new commissioners: Peter
Ferri, Bishop of Agnani; Andrew, Bishop of Terracina, and Pandulpho
de Sabbello, who was also on the firstcommissionbut could not attend
its meetings8.JohnXXII, rememberingthe troubles de Tocco had in
assemblingthe commissionerson the firstoccasion, allowed the commissionto operate even if there was only one commissionerpresent; it
turnedout later thatthe Bishop of Terracina could not participate9.
Guillelmo de Tocco again was entrustedwith deliveringthe papal
letter startingthe proceedings. He did that, and on November 10th,
1321, the new process of investigationwas startedat Fossa Nova10. It
lasted until November 27th, 132 111.
The commissionsat for 1 days and took down the testimonyof
one hundred eleven witnesses. Of these, twelve were monks of Fossa
Nova, six were secularclerics, threewere children(thirteenandfourteen
yearsold), three were notaries,two surgeons,one "fiscus",thirty-nine
1 Mandonnet,
asdateSeptember
13th.
op.cit.,p. 30,gives
2 FVA,pp.406-07.
7 M.,pp.32-33.
8 FVA,pp.41i-i.
3 FVA,pp.1S&-S94 FVA,pp.231-33.
9 M.,p. 33.
11FVA,p. 417.
s M.,p. 32.
6 FVA,pp.41i-i.
12FVA,p. 08.
39

12:10:33 PM

were other laymenwhose professionswere not

women, and forty-three
specified.Almost all witnessescame fromthree surroundinglocalities:
Piperno, Sompnini, and Terracina. The testimonygiven was much
shorterthan during the previous session, usually dealing with a single
miracle. Many witnesses were called just to substantiatepreviously
on a single
given testimony; thus one can see a whole familytestifying
miraclethathappenedto one of itsmembers.In thiscase the examination
was much more rapid; therewere dayswhen as manyas nineteenwitnesses were examined (Monday, November i6th).
The completedacts were sentto Avignon,but we do not know who
were the messengers.The documentsarrivedat the Papal Curia in the
firstmonthsof 1322. We do know that on this occasion Guillelmo de
Tocco did not returnto Avignonas he had done on thepreviousoccasion.
He mighthave been detained by illness, or mighteven have died in the
meantime. In his duties as proctor of the proceedingshe was replaced
by Johnof Regina, who is better known as Johnof Naples, who was an
old master at the Universityof Paris and a solid defenderof Thomas
Aquinas1.
The new documents were then submittedwith the old ones to a
commissioncomposed of several cardinalswho, with the pope, closely
examined the findings2.The examinationof the documents must have
been quite thoroughbecause it was not until July,1323, thatJohnXXII
was ready to inscribe Thomas in the canons of the saints, that is, to
canonize him.
We are fortunateto possess two eyewitnesses' reports of the
ceremonies: an anonymousone and one by FraterBentiuswhich he had
written only five days after the ceremony, i.e. on July 23rd, 1323,
reportingthe events to the formerGeneral of the Dominican Order,
Aymeric de Plaisance3.
The actual ceremony was performedon two separate days. The
public consistorywas held on July14th in the Papal Palace at Avignon.
The ceremonies were very solemn. Robert, King of Naples, and his
wife, followed by many other princes and dignitaries,attended it in
person. There were eight preachers who eulogized St. Thomas. The
firstto preach was the pope himself.For the text of his sermonhe had
chosen "Hec dies boni nuncii est; si tacuerimus,et celaverimususque
mane, sceleris arguemur". (IV Reg., VII, 3). Afterthis sermonhe went
on to preach on "Scitote quia mirificavitdominus sanctum suum;
1 M.,p. 34.

2 FVA,p. 29.

3 FVA,pp.513-18.

40

12:10:33 PM

Dominus exaudavit me, quum clamavero ad eum". (Ps., IV, 4). In it

JohnXXII delivered astonishingpraises on the Order of the Preachers
as well as on the saint1.
JohnXXII was followed by Petrus Canterii,a Dominican, who had
replaced Johnof Naples as proctorbecause the latterwas ill at the time.
He preached on the text "Ad preceptum tuum elevabituraquila, et in
arduisponet nidumsuum" ( JobXXXIX, 27). He in turnwas followedby
Robert, King of Naples, who also was the brotherof St. Louis, Bishop of
Toulouse, who had been canonizedin 13 19. He preachedon the text "Ille
erat lucernaardenset lucens" (John,' ,3). Afterhimtherewere fivemore
preacherswho also extolled Thomas' virtues.When all the sermonswere
finished,the pope arose, expressed his opinion that Thomas was indeed
worthyof canonization,gave a benediction, and the consistoriumwas
ended2.
The actual ceremonyof canonizationtook place threedayslater, on
July18th, 1323. On thatday the pope with all the cardinalsand prelates
present at that time at Avignon, as well as the King and Queen of
Naples, proceeded to the churchof Notre-Dame des Doms. There the
pope preached on the text of the Psalms: "Magnus est tu et faciens
mirabilia", (Ps., LXXXV, 10). Afterthat the Holy Ghost was invoked
. Then again the pope
by communal singingof the VeniCreatorSpiritus
on
the
"Redde
text
., XVIII, 28),
quod debes", ( Matth
preached
a
of
himself
debtor
St.
Thomas.
Thereupon, he, by the authority
calling
vestedin him by God and the ApostlesPeter and Paul, publiclyinscribed
the glorious doctor in the catalogue of the saints. This was followed by
. This finished,a
singing "in strong voices" of the Te Deum laudamus
solemn mass of a confessorwas officiatedby the pope himselfin which
the introituswas: In medioecclesie
; oratio: Os iusti; the alleluia was new
and beautifulbut long; and the evangeliumwas "You are the salt of the
earth", afterSaint Dominic3.
That was the end of the officialpart, but greatrejoicingwent on in
the cityof Avignonbecause the King of Naples had declared thatthis day
should be celebrated by the populace as if it were Christmas*.Special
celebrationswere held in the Dominican monasteries*
.
Neither account mentions the public reading of the bull of the
canonization, but they might have left it out as a thing of common
knowledge6. The bull was published on the same day the ceremony
1 FVA,pp.13-14.
FVA,p. iy.
2 FVA,pp.51^-16.
s FVA,p. Siy.
6 M.,p. 40.
3 FVA,p. 516.
41

12:10:33 PM

of canonizationtook place, i.e., Julyi8th, 13231. It is a lengthydocument. In it JohnXXII gives a shortreport on the historyof the process
of the canonization,recitingthe most importantmiracles. Towards its
end the pope expresses his hope that St. Thomas shines among other
saintsas a morningstar. Then he invitesthe Church, Italy,Campagnia,
and the Order of the Preachersto rejoice, and the societyof the doctors
to applaud2. The bull ends with grantingof indulgencesto the visitors
of the saint's tomb3.
Besides the canonization itself, there is another interestingproblem
worth investigating,namely the fate of St. Thomas Aquinas' earthly
remains. From the firstday afterhis death, his body was regardedas a
holy relic ; therewas no doubt in the mindsof all concernedthathe was
a saintand thatone day he would be officiallyrecognizedas such. Since
Thomas was a Dominican, but had died in a Cistercianmonastery,the
possessorsof his body did not feel too secure in theirrightsto retainit*.
On May 2nd, 1274, hardlytwo monthsafterThomas' death, the
Universityof Paris wrote to the Dominican general chapter meeting
held at Lyonsaskingthemforthe honorof receivingand keepingThomas'
earthlyremains at the place where he had flourishedas teacher and
preachers.
When Thomas had died at the Cistercianmonasteryat Fossa Nova
on March 7th, 1274, he was very solemnlyenterredby the monks,in
frontof the main altar. But already the followingnight, the monks,
fearingthat they would be forced by the pope to give up his body
because Thomas had willed it to the Dominicans, exhumed him and
secretlyburied him in the adjoining chapel of Saint Stephen6.But the
body did not rest there for long because after some seven months
Thomas appeared in a dream to the priorand asked thatit be restoredto
itsoriginalplace, because he did not like the idea of people being deceived by prayingin frontof an emptytomb. When his tomb was opened,
everyone was surprisedby the miraculous state of preservationof his
body and by a wonderfulodor, which permeated the whole church7.
There is some mysteryconcerning the fate of the saint's head.
Bartholomaeusde Capua, in his testimonyat the process of inquiryat
Naples, stated that he had heard rumors that some eight monthsafter
1 FVA,pp.19-30.
3 FVA,p. 30.
2 FVA,p. ^28.
*
M.,p. I2.
s H. Denifle,
Universitatis
Parisiensis.
Chartularium
vol.1,p. 04,No.447.
Parisiis,
1889-97,
6 FVA,p. 209.
7 FVA,p. 278.
42

12:10:33 PM

Thomas, death, the monks at Fossa Nova, hearing that a Dominican,

Petrus de Tarentasia,had become Pope InnocentV, and fearingto lose
Thomas' body, amputated his head and hid it in another place. But
Bartholomaeuscontinues that fromother sources he had heard thatthe
bodywas intact1. Nobody else mentionsthisfactin the two inquiries,but
from other sources it is known that Thomas' head was cut off, but
probablyat a later date2.
When in 1281 Petrus de Montis Sancti Johannisbecame abbot of
the said monastery,he ordered the body's translationto a more honorable place - a stone sarcophagusplaced above the flooron the side of the
main altar. As on the previous occasion mentioned above, everybody
noticed the good state of preservationof the body as well as the sweet
odor. In his testimonyat the inquiry at Naples, Petrus states that he
noticed that the tip of the right-handthumb was missing- a fact that
was also reportedby other witnesses3.
Whereto did this part of the relic disappear? It seems that the
possessorof this precious part of the saint's body, fromthe same hand
which held the mightypen, was no other than Brother Raynaldusde
Piperno, who was travelingwith Thomas Aquinas to Lyons when the
latter became sick and had to stop at Fossa Nova. He was also present
at his death, and it is most probable that it was then thathe amputated
the tip of the thumb, rightafterhis master's demise. At any rate, in
1286, at the provincial chapter meeting of Agnani, Raynaldus,feeling
his own deathapproaching,gave thisrelic to Hughes de Billom, who had
valiantlydefendedhis master's teachingsat the Universityof Paris*.
In 1288 Thomas' tomb was once again opened, this time to fulfill
the requestof his sister,Theodora, Countessof Sansaverino,who wished
to have a relic of her own. She was given her brother's rightarms. She
kept it with her other relics in the chapel of her castle of Sansaverino
where it performedmiracles6.Her son, Count Thomas, hearingof this,
decided to give the relic to the Dominican monasteryat Salerno, where
it could be veneratedby more people?. The relic is still there today8.
The original sources are silent about the furtherfate of Thomas'
remainsbut RaymondHughes, who had eye-witnessedtheir translation
to Toulouse, reports that Thomas' head was separated from the body
duringthe time of the pontificateof Benedict XI (1 303-1304). At the
1 FVA,pp.379-80.
2 M.,p. 17.
3 FVA,pp.337;212;326.
M.,p. 16.

s FVA,pp.141and291-92.
6 FVA,pp.324-26.
7 FVA,pp.144and402-03.
8 M.,p. i.
43

12:10:33 PM

same time the Cisterciansboiled the saint's body, probablyin wine as

was the custom, in order to separate the bones fromthe flesh,which
must have been quite copious because Thomas, alive, was known as
"magnusbosCicilie", in order to be able to hide thembetter1.
In their attemptsto keep the relics in place, the monks of Fossa
Nova were aided and abetted by the relativesof St. Thomas2. At a later
date the Count of Fondi, one of the relatives,succeeded, by trickery,in
gettinghold of the remains,which he proceeded to sell to the Dominicans. Pope Urban V, by menacingthe general of the order, Elie Raymand, with excommunication,forcedthe order to relinquishthe relics,
but Raymand was able to convince the Pope to place themat St. Severin
at Toulouse, a Dominican stronghold,by showing how such action
would help its newly establisheduniversity.This translationtook place
in i 369, and to thisdaythe relics restthere; yethead and bodyare in two
separate places.
APPENDIX I.
at theprocess
Listofwitnesses
ofNaples
Name
Occupation
milesregis
i . PeterGrassus,
* 2. Fr.Nicolaus,
AbbasFossae-Novae
de Fresolino,
monachus
F. N.
3. Fr.Nicolaus
de Pastina,
F. N.
,,
4. Fr.Martinus
de
F. N.
Octavianus
Fr.
Babuco,
,,
.
F. N.
de Piperno,
6. Fr.Nicolaus
,,
F. N.
,,
Francisci,
7. Fr.Petrus
monachus
de Sancto-Stephano,
F. N.
8. Fr. Gregorius
di Piperno,
F. N.
,,
9. Fr.Leonardus
de Adelasia,
F. N.
10. Fr.Iohannes
,,
F. N.
de Sclavis,
11. Fr.Iohannes
,,
F. N.
12. Fr.Iacobusde Fresolino,
,,
F. N.
,,
Fundis,
13. Fr.Petrus
nobilisvir,miles
de Caracchulis,
14. Henricus
i. Fr.Iacobusde Caiatia,O. P.
nobilisvir
de Fresolino,
16. Nicolaus
de Sancte-Felice,
O. P.
17. Fr.Petrus
Salernitanus
de Mathia,
18. Thomas
abbas,canonicus
O. P.
de Suessa,sacerdos
19. Fr. Conradus
de Neapoli,sacretheologie
20. Fr. Iohannes
doctor,O. P.
exabbas
F. N.
de castroMontis
*21. Fr.Petrus
Sancti-Iohannis,
1 M.,p. 18.

* M.,p. 18.

3 M.,p. 18.

44

12:10:33 PM

DateExamined
July23
24
24
24
25
26
26
27
27
27
28
28
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
August i
1

de Piperno,
F. N.
22. Fr.Petrus
monachus,
de Tocco,priorin Benevento,
O. P.
*23. Fr. Guillelmus
de Brixia,O. P.
24. Fr.Antonius
Aconzaiocus
de Barello(?)
2.Maffaeus
de Neapoli,miles
26. IacobusCapuanus
Blasii,iudexde Neapoli
27. Iohannes
de RoccaSicca,monachus
F. N.
28. Fr.Nicolaus
de
monachus
Riccardus
F.
N.
Fr.
Fundis,
29.
de Gaieta,O. P.
30. Fr.Leonardus
de Capua,logotheta
8cProtonotarius
*31. Bartholomaeus
regniSicil.
32. Iohannes
Coppade Neapoli,notarius
doctor
decretorum
de Gaieta,Zeccandenarius,
33. Iohannes
de Buiano,O. P.
34. Fr.Iohannes
de Neapoli,dominus
3. PetrusCaracchulus
(?)
de
Cesarius
36.
Dompnode Neapoli(?)
de Caputiode Benevento,
O. P.
37. Fr.Petrus
milesde Neapoli
38. PetrusBranchatius,
de Apicio,O. P.
39. Fr.Martinus
de Adversa,
O. P.
40. Fr.Thomas
tanus
canonicus
41. Iacobusde Viterbio,
Neapoli
Matthaeus
de Viterbio,
42. Magister
capei1anus

3
4
4
4
6
6
7
8
8
8
9
9
11
11
11
13
14
16
16
Sept. 18
18

16 Cistercins
from
Fossa-Nova
11 Dominicans
(O. P.)
12 Laymen
3 secular
priests
* Mainwitnesses
APPENDIX II
Bibliography
etai. Operam
ActaSanctorum,
ed. J.Bollandus
etstudium
contulit
Godefrius
Henschenius
crrente
Carnandet
. . . Ed. novissima,
. . . Parisiis,
V. Palme,etc. . . .
Joanne
vol.I.
1863-19.Martius
Dei beaticatione
Benedict
etbeatorum
canonizatione.
XIV,Pope.Opusdeservorum
Roma,
1787(2nded.).
Introduction
l'tude
de S. Thomas
Chenu,Marie-Dominique.
d'Aquin.Montreal-Paris,
I9O.
H. Leslgendes
Bruxelles,
190^.
hagiographiques.
Delehaye,
duculte
desmartyrs.
H. Lesorigines
Bruxelles,
1933(2nded.).
Delehaye,
desmartyrs
etlesgenres
H. Lespassions
littraires.
1921.
Bruxelles,
Delehaye,
Essaisurleculte
dessaints
H. Sanctus.
dansVantiquit.
Bruxelles,
1927.
Delehaye,
Chartularium
Heinrich.
Universitatis
Parisiensis.
Denifle,
Parisiis,1889-97.4V*
Faber,F. W. Essayonbeatification
, Canonization
, andtheProgress
oftheCongregation
of
Rites,
[n.d.l,1848.
zurBiographie
desHl. Thomas
inHistorisches
v. Aquint
Endres,
, xxix
J.A. Studien
Jahrbuch
(1918),pp. 37-S.

12:10:33 PM

in solemni
constitutionum
ediderunt
canonizatione
Fontanini,
J. Codex
quassummi
pontices
sanctorum
. Roma,1729.
de Ptris.Historia
Toccorum.
Franciscus
genealogica
Neapoli,1654.
deskatholischen
P. System
Kirchenrechts.
Berlin,1896-97.
Hinschius,
intheWestern
andAuthority
Canonization
Church.
London,Oxford
Kemp,EricWaldram.
Press,1948.
University
in Revue
decanonisation,
dedroit
et
S. La rserve
Kuttner,
papaledudroit
historique
franais
, (seriesIV), xvii,pp. 172-228.Paris,1938.
tranger
undderLiteratur
desCanonischen
imAbendlande.
derQuellen
Rechts
Maasen,F. Geschichte
Gratz,1870.
de S. Thomas
Aquin.in Mlanges
Pierre.La canonisation
Thomistes
Mandonnet,
, Le
Revuedes SciencesPhilosophiques
Kain(Belgique),
et Thologiques,
Saulchoir,
1923.
Paris,Lecoffre,
1924(4thed.).
Mollat,G. Lespapes Avignon.
vonAquin.in Zeitschrift
deshl. Thomas
Pelster,F. Die altern
Biographien
frkatholische
xlii
,
(1920),pp. 242-74;366-97.
Theologie
translationis
S. Thomae
Conventus
P. (xviic.) Historia
, inhisMonumenta
Percin,
corporis
TolosaniOr. Praed.[n.d.]p. 229.
vitaeS. Thomae
notis
historieis
etcriticis
illuPrmmer,
Dominic,etal. Fontes
Aquinatis;
strati.
Tolosiae,Bibliopolam,
1912-37.
nova
ecclesiastica
Ptolemeus
fl.13 c. Historia
, (libr.xxiiet xxiii)in Muratori,
Lucanus,
Rerum
italicarum
1727;v. XI.
, Mediolani,
scriptores
, in: Mabillon,
Stefaneschi,
JamesGaetani,Cardinalin Velarbo.OrdoRomanus
Jean,
Museum
Italicum.
Paris,Montalbant,
1724(2nded.)v. II, pp. 418-24.
andtheProcess
intheFourteenth
Ruth.5. Louis
ofToulouse
ofCanonisation
Toynbee,
Margaret
Manchester
Manchester.
Press,1929.
Century.
University
in La scienza
e lafede,
inediti
Uccelli,A. Duedocumenti
d'Aquino,
perla vitadi S. Tommaso
seriesiii,xxxiii,(1873).
a biographical
Westminster,
Md., The
Walz, Angelus.SaintThomas
Aquinas;
study.
Newman
Press,1951.
Aquin.
desaintThomas
Paris,1903.
Douais,C. Lesreliques
OaklandUniversity
Rochester
, Michigan

46

12:10:33 PM

Robert Grosseteste and Medieval

Courtesy-Books

SERVUS GIEEN, O. F. M. Cap.

old bishop of Lincoln, Robert Grosseteste(+ 12^3), renowned
The in his life and after for his great and various qualities of mind
and spirit, left also a high reputationof havingbeen a courteous
man1. On this point the Lanercost chronicle relates the following
anedote2. Once it happened that the Earl of Gloucester, Richard de
Clare, visited the bishop. It was a fish-day,and the bishop gave orders
to pay special attentionto the table in honour of hisguest. The Earl was
sittingat the rightof the bishop and was served with all thingsfirst.
Choice pike was the meal. The seneschal, more concerned to please
his master than aware of courtesy, placed an excellent fish before
Grossetesteand a smaller one before the Earl. But the bishop, with an
angryglance, recalled his servant: "Take that fishaway or give one of
equal size to the Earl". As the servantsapologized fornot havinganother
similarone, the bishop said : "Then set aside the whole of this for alms
and give me a smallerone like the rest". Afterdinner,as was customary,
they retired togetherand now the Earl could no longer resist askinga
question. "Lord bishop", he said, "ifit is permissiblewithoutoffending
you to ask a question, I would like to know how such finecourtliness
can be acquired. For I know you are of humble originand nevertheless,
myfriendsand I oftencommenton your courtesy". "It is quite true, my
Lordship", replied the bishop, "that my fatherand mother were of
lowlyestate,but frommyearliestyearsI livedamongthe mostdistinguished and virtuousmen and the rulersof thisworld". Still more astonished
the Earl asked: "How be that,ifyou wish to explain to me". "From the
time", said the bishop, "thatI began to read and studythe Scriptures,I
found numerousworthy men who, from the beginningof the world
until now, by their life and deeds showed me prudence, modesty,
liberality, chastity and other virtues, whereby they moulded my
characteras if they were actually present. And I tried to conformmy
actions to theirs". The chronicle remarksthatthe Earl was verypleased
1 Thebestlife
sofar
isstill
written
Robert
1899.
F.s.Stevenson,
London
Grosseteste,
Bishop
ofLincoln,
Forfurther
information
seeRobert
Grosseteste
inCommemoration
andBishop.
ofthe
, Scholar
Essays
Seventh
ofhisDeath,
edited
Oxford
Centenary
19$$.
byD. A.Callus,
* The
Lanercost
chronicle
ed.J.Stevenson,
Club1839,
, 1201-1346,
44-4^.
Bannatyne
47

12:10:43 PM

with the answer and that, from that time on, he entertaineda still
greateresteem for the bishop1.
That Grossetesteattachedgreatimportanceto courtesyin common
life also appears fromthe regulationshe made for his own household2.
In the thirdadmonitionhe warnshis provosts not to admit anybodyto
faithfuland diligentand also
their household unless he be trustworthy,
"3
"thathe be of goode maners . Moreover,this traditionof Grosseteste's
stresson courtesyis endorsed by the ascription to him of two poems
which regardthissubject. The firstis sometimescalled Liberurbanitatis*
,
Liberfacessie*
6, or simply,according to the opening
, De civilitatemorum
words, Liberstarts
puerad mensami.It is a shortpoem of 43 heroic verses
1 Theanecdote
Grosseteste
wasconsecrated
TheLatin
isgiven
under
theyear1235when
bishop.
ad se comit
curialis
mensas
textreads:"Accidit
ut,adveniente
Gloverniae,
aliquotiens
praesul
Inaccubitu
veroepiscopus
comitem
ad
ettanti
obamorem
juberet.
personam
hospitis
profusius
anteseilliexhiberi
servitium
estverouterat
Ventum
suidextram
deomnibus
voluit.
praeposuit,
incibum.
domino
suopropitii,
electi
diespiscium,
vero,
apponerentur
Dapiferi
quando
lupiaquatici
anteepiscopum,
minoris
antecomitem.
natatile
Quem
egregium
hujus
generis
quantitatis
ponunt
"istum
abstrahite
autaequalem
intuens
virprudens,
nonplacido
vultu
"aut",
mihi,
inquit,
piscem
nonpossunt
"ethunc",
Inficiantibus
omnibus
corniti".
quodconsimilem
apponere,
apponite
caeteris
Illustris
etmihi
vir
eleemosinae
date".
minorem,
assignate,
coaequalem,
"integrum
inquit,
Excussa
tandem
et
imbibii
etpertractat
viderat.
invitatus
altocorde
mensa,
quodinviroscholastico
nondiffert
dives
secularis
cameram
more
curialium
intrantes,
problema
proponere
quodconceperat.
unum
sineoffensa
vellem
libenter
unde
"Silicet",
edoceri
"domine
quaererem,
inquit,
episcope,
ettamen
initafacete
facta
Namtesimplici
tanta
curialitas
oriri.
ortum,
progenie
accepimus
posset
sermonem
utsaepedeteinseculo
tuaexequentem
conferamus".
ait,"domine
comes,
"Verissime",
inorbe;sedtamen
sumnatus
inter
virtuosae
vitae
viros
ac
etmatre
humili
depatre
praecipuos
Audiens
haecalter
altiori
attonitus
eststupore,
"etquomodo",
ajuventute".
orbis
alitus
sum
rectores
et
"hocsitgratularer
scire"."Aprincipio",
ait,"quosacram
Scripturam
cepirevolvere
inquit,
mundo
nuncusque,
homines
fide
virorum
modesti,
dignorum,
legere,
quiabinchoato
prudentes,
insuisverbis
insuisgestis
etmoribus
et
virtutibus
velut
etcasti,
liberales,
pollentes,
caeterisque
habuit
eteorum
actibus
meconformare
Gratum
meinformare
studui".
vultibus,
reperi;
possent,
incorde
tenuit
etdeinceps
herus,
gratiorem."
(ed.cit.44-45).
generosus
episcopum
responsum
2 TheLatin
a single
inonly
textisextant
Univ.
Libr.
Ee.i. I,f.259va-vb
,
Cambridge,
manuscript:
sue
Lincolniensis
ordinavit
etdomus
"Hecsuntstatuta
withtherubric
queRobertus
Episcopus
tradidit".
prepositis
3 According
translation
Sloane
totheoldEnglish
Brit.
". . . no
1986
Mus.,
, f.ioor-io2r):
(London,
and
nother
inwarde
inyoure
nother
buthitbetrustyd
mann
beadmittyd
vtwarde,
howseholde,
andnamely
tothat
anddiligent,
office
towhiche
heisadmyttyd.
Alsothat
that
leuyd
yebetrewe
in Monumenta
Thistextwasprinted
Franciscana
hebe ofgoodemaners".
, ed.J.S. Brewer,
inf. j. furnivall,
inOlden
Manners
andMeals
Time
London
English
1858,583,andagain
(Early
abbreviated:
TextSociety.
1868,part1,328(henceforth
furnivall,
series,
Original
32),London
Manners.
"Explicit
Liber
urbanitatis"
Brit.
Add.
f.22v).
Mus.,
37075,
(London,
5 "Explicit
Wilelmus
liberfacessie
Bodl.
Bawl.
Libr.,
Magister
(Oxford,
Smyth"
quodWillelmus.
GonvilleCaius
ffacicie"
liber
Coll.417, f.104).
G.60,f.lr);"Explicit
(Cambridge,
6 Soe.g.P. LEYSER,
medii
aevi
etpoematum
Historia
, Halle1721,997.
poetarum
? "Explicit
liberstans
Bodl.Libr.,Lat.misc.
b. 3, f. jojr), "Incipit
(Oxford,
pueradmensam"
Stans
Puerad mensam
facetia
vocata
Brit.Mus.,Lansdowne
699,f.83K;follows
(London,
John
48

12:10:43 PM

which we shall discuss and of which we shall give a critical edition in

this article. A much longer poem of 671 hexameters is ascribed to
Grosseteste in a fourteenthcentury manuscript1with the following
words: "Incipitliber curialis quem composuit magisterRobertus Grosteste". Apropos of this work we shall have to raise several questions,
thougha definitiveword cannot be said as yet.
In any case, by these poems Grossetestebecomes involved in the
highlyinteresting,but complicatedand still scarcelyinvestigatedhistory
of medievalLatin courtesy-books.A briefsurveyof thiskindof literature
may not be out of place2.
MEDIEVAL LATIN C O U RTESY- BO O KS
At the end of the twelfthcentury this special genre, by preference
writtenin verse and particularlyconcerned with table manners,begins
to stand out againstthe general didactic and moralizingliteraturethat
served for the education of youth. Probably one of the firstof these
, primode pauperepensaof 23
poems is the well-knownQuisquses in mensa
leonine hexameters.It was published both by Francesco Novati and by
Charles Homer Haskins3. StefanGlixelli gave three different
versionsof
this poem*, but there may still be others*.No doubt it has been widely
- Sees. h. Thomson,
TheWritings
Grosseteste
English
, Bishop
,
Lydgate's
version).
ofRobert
ofLincoln
1235-1
abbreviated:
253,Cambridge
1940,149-150
Thomson,
(henceforth
Writings
) andh.
Initia
carminum
acversuum
medii
aeriposterions
latinorum
medii
aeviposterions
Walther,
(Carmina
abbreviated:
Thetextwas
latina,
1959,n. 18581(henceforth
Walther,
1),Gttingen
Initia).
from
themanuscript
Brit.
Harl.3362, f.6vbyfurnivall,
Manners
London,
Mus.>
, part
11,
published
reference
to Hain4927is somewhat
TheStans
admensam
oc30-32.Walther's
misleading.
puer
inthis
bookisLydgate's
ofourpoem.Seebelowp.62withnote1
curring
early
printed
adaptation
and2.
1 Oxford,
Coll.18, f.i68r(upper
SeeThomson,
Trinity
148-149.
margin).
Writings
2 Thefascinating
onmanuals
forstudents
inc. h. haskins,
Studies
inMediaeval
Culture
,
chapter
Oxford
contains
useful
information
butisbroader
inscope.Thebestcritical
on
1929,72-91,
study
iss. glixelli,LesContenances
tablemanners
detable
, inRomania
47 (1921) 1-40.Seealsotheintroinj. morawski,
duction
Lefacet
dition
descinqtraductions
desdeuxFacetus
enfranoys.
critique
latins
avecintroduction,
notes
etglossaire,
xix-xx
Poznan
abbreviated
: morawski,
1923,
(henceforth
Lefacet).
Ofinvaluable
medieval
isWalther,
andofthesame
Initia
helpforanyone
studying
poems
author
Proverbia
latinitatis
medii
aevi(Carmina
mediiaeviposterions
sententiaeque
latina,
11/
1-5),
1963-67.
Gttingen
3 f.novati,Carmina
medii
Firenze
aeviy
1883,49-50;c. H.haskins,
op.cit.,79.
s. glixelli,op.cit.
y28-30.
s Thepoem
isfound
with
thefollowing
inmensa
: Cum
sedes
,primode
incipits
(Walther,
paupere
pensa
Initia
sisinmensa
depaupere
n. 3754),Cum
sisinmensa,
, primm
,
(ibid.n. 3784),Cum
pensa
que
fiunt
sedule
sedes
inmensa,
depaupere
mores
demensa
pensa
(n. 3785),Dum
primo
(n.4954),Incipiunt
pensa
nobiliores
inmensa
depaupere
esinmensa
, primo
(n.9206),Quisedes
, primo
(n. 15648),
pensa
Quisqus
depaupere
A fragment
Nemo
cibum
benedictio
(n. 16168).
pensa
, donee
begins:
capiat
fiat(n. 11716)
49

12:10:43 PM

known. This is understandable,for its concise counsels lend themself

easilyto memorizingand also to expansionand adaptationboth in Latin
and in the vernacular. In the earlier twelfthcenturytwo clergyhandbooks had alreadyoccupied themselveswith this subject. Hugh of Saint
novitiorum
to
Victor dedicated four little chaptersof his De institutione
of
and
in
mensa
the "disciplina
servanda",successivelyspeaking posture
behaviour,and of what, how much and in what mannerto eat1. But it is
in theDisciplinaclericalisof PetrusAlphonsi2thatmore directconnections
with the poem Quisquses in mensabecome evident. Justas the spicy
Oriental storiesof this book became popular and were followed by the
large numberof example-booksof the thirteenthcenturypreachers,so
tate regis" and the sucit seems that its briefchapterson "De familiari
at
the
stand
comedendi"*
"De
modo
beginningof the courtesy
ceeding
like
to
stress at this point the
We
would
are
books we
illustrating.
somewhat neglected fact that Petrus Alphonsi was at the service of
Henry I of England4,for with the Englishcourt some old traditionsof
courtesyrules are connected. Accordingto Gervais de la Rue, Henry I
would have been the author of an Anglo-Normanpoem on behaviourat
table and good manners, entitled Le Dicti d'Urbains. However, this
poem was written at a later date, and, as Thomas Wright correctly
established,it is not in the slightestdegree probable that Henry I was
its author6. Yet, there remains an anonymous Latin poem, entitled
Urbanus
, of which De la Rue has published the followingfour lines,
connectingthem with Henry I:
Clerusprecipue,
miles,matrona,
puella,
hecservet
novella
;
Quilibetingenuus
scripta
RexvtusHenricus
primoddithecdocumenta
novoscribuntur
inisto7.
Illepidis,
libroque
hecdocumenta
Proverbia
sisinmensa
n. 4431a).I donotknow
Cum
andanother
, servabis
(WALTHER,
2s, f.i (13th
indisco
Cum
ofFlorence,
Eibl.Laurenz.
ifthe42sentences
,
, Plut.
C.),beginning
fueris
with
areconnected
ourpoem.
ministro
teprospice
atque
1 PL176,949-9^2
inmensa
inhabitu
etprimo
etgestu;
: De disciplina
servanda,
cap.
(cap.XVIII
inciboetprimo
observatione
xix:De triplici
quidcomedendum;
cap.xx: Secundo,
disciplinae
comedendum;
comedendum).
cap.xxi:Tertio,
quomodo
quantum
* A Spanish
Theolder
in1106,when
hewasinhisforty-fourth
editions,
e.g.
year.
Jew,
baptized
andW. Sderhjelm
in
textpublished
aresurpassed
PL157,671-706,
byA. Hilka
bythecritical
Texte
mittellateinischer
, i, Heidelberg
1911.
Sammlung
3 ed.Hilka-Sderhjelm
39-41;PL 157,699-700.
Seec. H.haskins,
inthe
Science
Studies
, 2nded.,Cambridge
1927,119.
History
(Mass.)
ofMediaeval
s G.deLArue,Essais
Normands
etAnglo-Normands,
lesBardes
sur
, etlesTrouveres
, lesJongleurs
Historiques
h,Caen1834,33-40.
6 TH.wright,
Britannica
literaria.
, London
1846,66-67.
Anglo-Norman
period
Biographia
7 Theselinesarenotindicated
inWalther,
Themanuscript
referred
tobyDe la Rueis
Initia.
So

12:10:43 PM

ButagainWrightdenies thatit has anythingwhateverto do withHenryI1.

Be thatas it may. It is certain,however, thatthe Latin poem on politeness and behaviourof Daniel of Beccles belongedto thecourtof HenryII.
This poem was called Urbanusmagnusto distinguishit fromthe Urbanus
, an alternativetitle for the Facetus2.In a chronicle discovered
parvus
by JohnBale in London but now lost, Daniel was describedas a charming
poet, a skilfulwriterin prose and verse,attachedto the house and family
of king Henry II. Besides the Urbanus
, he is said to have composed
Carminarhythmical
. The Urbanusmagnuswas edited by J. G. Smylyin 1939
fromthree manuscriptsbut without an adequate introduction*
. As we
have to returnto thispoem when discussingthe Libercurialisascribedto
Robert Grosseteste,itmay here sufficeto say that the Urbanusmagnus
is believed to have been composed about 1180. The Modus cenandi
,
A
from
a
Cotton
in
Titus
the
British
.
Museum
xx)
manuscript(
published
by F. J. Furnivalls, occurs as lines 2^24-2832 in Smyly's edition of
Urbanusmagnus.
Also from the end of the twelfthcenturydates the wide-spread
Schoolbook named Facetus
, transmittedin two redactions of varying
and
often
transcribed,printed, glossed and translated6,
very
length,
though J. G. Smyly judges the work very inferior to the Urbanus
magnus An otherwise unknown "magisterJohannes"is said to be its
lat.3718.IntheoldCatalogus
codicum
Bibl.Nat.,
bibliothecae
Paris,
tertia,
manuscriptorum
regiae
(pars
I found
tomus
Parisiis
thisstatement
ourpoem:"Poema
tertius,
1744,4^0-4^1)
concerning
cujus
Urbanus
autem
titulus
essepraecepta
adsanitatem".
, videntur
1 th.Wright,
loc.cit.- Alittle
ofgdistichs
andwritten
moral
counsels
forMaud,
containing
poem
alsobementioned
thedaughter
ofHenry
Sicmores
tuos
here.Itbegins
etactus
I, may
regina
componis
andwaspublished
inw. camden,
Remaines
London
Britainey
1637,322-323.
concerning
2 Thename
isa recent
Urbanus
Inthemanuscripts
iscalled
thework
Liber
urbanus
magnus
coinage.
orsimply
Urbanus
Libr
Bodl.
Urbani
C.SS2>f-19OorLiber
Coll.97
.,Rawl.
(Oxford,
Trinity
(Dublin,
lastmanuscript
theFacetus
inhexameters
iscalled
Parvus
Urbanus
[B*3s]yf273v)'
(f.2Sr:
liber
Finit
amen
Urbani.
Iohannes
nomine
finit;
"Explicit
parvi
scripsit").
3 J.bale,Scriptorum
illustrium
maioris
1
. . . Catalogus
221.
, 1,Basileae
Brytanniae
4 DanielBECCLESIENSIS,
Urbanus
ed.J.G. Smyly
Dublin
univ.
magnus,
1939.
(Dublin
press
serv.),
5 f.j. FURNIVALL,
Manners
, part
11,34-56.
6 Wemean
heretheFacetus
inrhymed
nihil
Cum
utilius
humane
credo
saluti
hexameters,
,
beginning
which
issometimes
calledSupplementum
Catonis
andParvus
TheGesamtkatalog
derWiegenUrbanus.
drucke
mentions
editions
58printed
2780-2791,
(n.2776-2779,
2793-2800,
6354-6355,
9670-9701).
are:c. Schroeder,
Recent
editions
Derdeutsche
Facetus
and
1911, 14-28,
(Palaestra,
86),Berlin
Lefacet
Initia
Aquite
n. 3692(andalson. 3690andn. 15489).
j. morawski,
, 3-19.Cf.Walther,
both
intenor
different
andinfluence,
istheFacetus
Moribus
work,
(orMoretus
beginning
) indistichs,
vult
etvita
esse
Notwithout
reason
ofTrimberg
: "Supradictis
eciam
notes
quisqus
facetus.
Hugh
iungiturFacetus,
sitlocisindiscretus"
multorum
auctorum
ed.K.
/Licetinquibusdam
619-620,
(Registrum
Berlin
delittrature
1942,186).Theworkwasedited
Langosch,
Mlanges
bya. morel-fatio,
catalane
Cf.Walther,
Initia
n. 11220and14438.
, inRomania
15 (1886)224-235.
7 DANIEL
Urbanus
BECCLESIENSIS,
, ed.cit., vi.
magnus
5J

12:10:43 PM

author. We shall encounterthe rhymedhexametersof the Facetusagain

in our discussionof the Stanspuerad mensm1
. Meanwhile, I would like
to stress the need of a thoroughstudy of the connections of Urbanus
magnusand Facetus2.
Still belongingto the twelfthcentury,but probablylater than the
Facetus
, sive de
, is the work of the German Reinerus called Phagifacetus
These 440 elegant hexameters sometimes contain
facetia comedendi*.
ratherlong digressionsin contrastwith the pithysayingsof the Facetus.
Hugh of Trimbergcharacterizesthe work verywell :
"NovusFacetus
sequitur,breviset exilis,
sedcarmine
Facilisin themate,
subtilis
;
mense
Qui docettantummodo
disciplinam
sodalibus
reverencie
impense
Modumque
More popular, but hardly datable, are the 12 to 14 monorhymesin
leonine hexameters Regimenmensehonorabile
, all invariablybeginning
with the words "Dum manducatisi J. Morawskipublishedthe text in an
Appendix to his French Facetuseditions. Here is a similar text from
Bodleian83J6:
Dummanducatis
Christo
referatis.
grates
mundam
Dummanducatis
teneatis.
mappam
hillarem
vultum
Dummanducatis
referatis.
Dummanducatis
inconvivio
taceatis.
Dummanducatis
mensarectesedeatis.
Dummanducatis
inopidarestudeatis.
Dummanducatis
nonmasticando
tereatis.
noneiciatis.
Dummanducatis
sputum
Dummanducatis
caveatis.
ne scalpatis
rixasmurium
Dummanducatis
fugeatis.
Dummanducatis
aliispartem
tribuatis.
Dummanducatis
necdepositum
capiatis.
salcultellocapiatis.
Dummanducatis
1Seebelow,
p. 63-67.
* I donotknow
inherPh.D. thesis
ifthisproblem
istouched
Theresa
Brentano
bySister
Mary
Facetus
Literature
tothe
Medieval
Poems
oftheUniver(Bulletin
English
Courtesy
Relationship
oftheLatin
ofKansas,
vol.xxxvi,
no.11- Humanistic
vol. no.2),Lawrence,
Studies,
Kan.,193$.I could
sity
ona copy
ofthis
notlayhands
work.
3 Thework
omnes
ofwhich
itaconcipit
: Resrerum
natura
aresomeoldeditions
. There
begins
parens
metrice
attheVatican
I examined
Ross.
pulcherrimus
compositus
(reference
Library
Stamp.
6jj) Libellus
for
etmoribus
mense
wasedited
defaccia
tractans
( = Hain6899); thepoem
appellatur
quietfagifacetus
versione
comedendi
addita
Reineri
sivedefacetia
thelasttimebyHugoLemcke:
libellus,
Phagifacetus
rantii
references
see Walther,Initia
Sebastiani
n. 1664^and12288.
1880.Forother
, Stetini
4 HUGH
OFtrimberg,
multorum
auctorum
ed.cit., 190.
698-701,
Registrum
s j. morawski,
12g.
Lefacett
6 Oxford,
Bodl.
Libr.t
837,f-Zvb.
Bodley

12:10:43 PM

A manuscriptof Lneburghas a poem of 19 lines with this beginning1

,
and one in the Vatican Library succeeds in repeating the beginning
words "Dum comedatis" up to 21 lines2. With the same rhymeon -atis
and, in greatpart, with the same contentsare providedalso the 43 lines
of the Speculummensewhich was edited by B. Hlschers.
The poetry of Johnof Garland ( + 1252) is much more personal
and the table mannersof which he treatsin his Moralescolarium,though
, are expressed
showingacquaintancewith the rules of Quisquses in mensa
fromwhat we have seen as yet*. But a
in a stylethat is quite different
judgmenton Garland's place in this courtesyliteratureshould also take
into account his still unpublishedEpithalamium
, where a similar treatment of the subject is to be founds.
One of the most ii' 'erestingdocumentsregardingItalian life of the
thirteenthcenturyis the poem De regimine
etsapientiapotestatis
of Orfino
da Lodi6. Some 120 lines of thispoem of approximately1600 hexameters,deal with table manners?.There occur remindersof the Quisqus
es in mensaand of the Facetusin hexameters,but most of its counsels are
concerned with the arrangementof a noble banquet and corresponding
behaviourratherthan with ordinarytable rules8.
1 Lneburg,
Ratsbcherei
Misc.
manducatis
mensam
D.40.30,rearoffly-leaf;
inc.Dum
mundam
teneatis.
Initia
Cf.WALTHER,
n. 4896a.
2 Roma,
comedatis
Bibl.Vat.,
lotas
manus
Pal.lat.719,f. 159rb;inc.Dum
babeatis.
Cf.Walther,
Initia
n.4844a;seealson.48933-4898,
twosecond
halves
areputtogether)
9641(where
evidently
andperhaps
20801.
3 B.HLSCHER,
inZeitschr.
undAlterthumskunde
lnd.Geschichte
inc.
irvater
37/1(1879)158-159;
Vos
discreti
manus
lotas
habeatis
Initia
, /Primo
, notinWalther's
, butcf.n. 20801.
quimanducatis
4 Thechapters
areDe curialitatibus
inmensa
concerned
conservandis
andDe ministratione
decenti
,
edited
Morale
scolarium
hexameters,
48 and38leonine
excellently
respectively
byL. j. paetow,
and227-229.
, Berkeley
1927,202-206
ofJohn
ofGarland
s Sometitles
read:Deministratione
cene
ofthiswork
mistice
inmensa
, Depeciebus
, Dereliquiis
post
Depuella
letitia
Cotton
Claudius
Brit.
Mus.,
prandium,
post
(London,
quecitharizat
prandium
quevocatur
Cf.L.j. paetow,
A.x,f.46V-47V).
op.cit.,159,note163.
6 Orfini
Laudensis
'Deregimine
etsapientia
nunc
edidit
Antonius
in
cerutti,
poema
potestatis'
primm
diStoria
Miscellanea
editapercuradellaRegiaDeputazione
di Storia
tomovii,
Italiana,
Patria,
Torino
1869,33-94.
7 Afewlinesoccur
onp. g:
Prandia
depaupere
quicensed,
primo
pensed,
Nesitinofensa
sitdeprehensa.
equedextera
Duxcomedat
sobrie
sinerusticitate,
caute,
Etbibat
moderate
;
ornate,
iaceat,
vigilet
De mensa
delectosurge
sobrius,
pudicus.
A special
however
Demoribus
manducandi
canbereadonp. 60-64.
chapter
8 Remarkable
arethedirectives
fora mealgiven
council
and
(55linesonp. 62-63)
bythetown's
fora picnic
inthefields
rules
withmusic
liketothank
Dr.Rino
(13linesonp. 64).- I should
totheVatican
whocalled
tothis
work
andoffered
ofOrfino
Avesani,
Scriptor
Library,
myattention
meother
useful
suggestions.
S3

12:10:43 PM

Some other treatises of table manners, mainly transmittedby

Germanmanuscriptswhich I could not examine, are De regimine
mensium
with
the
words
calidas
est
"Escasper janum
summeresanum"1,
beginning
and an anonymousCarmen
comedentium
"Mense doctrinam
(inc.
facetiarum
da nobis discere Christe"), which one copyist attributedto no less a
debes
person than Ovid2. Furthermorethere is a treatise Si visservire,
tu plurimascirethat mighthave some connection with the well-known
Franciscanpreacher Johnof Werden, the author of the manual Dormi
3.
secure
A popular method of learningand memorizingduringthe Middle
(ZahlSprche)4.We also findit in
Ages was the use of number-aphorisms
the courtesyliterature.Thus a shortpoem urges six (or three) principal
rules of table mannersfor clerics In mensaclerivolosexpreceptateneri(or
In mensacleridebent
hectriateneri
)s . But one wiseacre noted thatin ancient
times the sage Thaes had writtenseven courtesiesand seven rusticities
in golden letterson the Colossus in Rome6. Here theyare accordingto
a Bodleian manuscript7
:
sunturbanitates:
Septem
inprivato
sobrietas,
inpublicohillaritas,
interextreos
affabilitas,
intersocioset amicoscommunis
tas,
benigni
ininfortunio
iocunda
liberali
tas,
interadulantes
discreta
et ignotos
dapsilitas,
animistabilitas.
interprospera
et adversa
modesta
1 Cf.WALTHER,
Initia
n. 38.
2 Clm18910
inthemargin
"Presens
liber
remarks:
intitulatur
Liber
Ovidii
de
, f.100r,buta gloss
fuit
faccia
Nonenim
Ovidius
Nasoquigentilis
hune
librum
sedquiinbrandio
mense.
conscripsit,
deChristo
Ovidii
salvatore
incarnatus
erat
NasonisM.
Cf.p.Lehmann,
loquitur,
quinondum
tempore
Pseudo-antike
Literatur
desMittelalters
Initia
n.
, Leipzig/Berlin
1927,97 (note78)andWalther,
10925.
3 Cf.Walther,
Initia
as faras known
inonlyoneortwo
n. 18098.- Other
surviving
poems,
andsome
ofthem
are: Adcenam
Varus
menuper
vocavit
being
fragments
only
manuscripts
perhaps
forte
etcibum
nonbenedicens
Initia
residens
n. 322;seealson. 390),Admensam
(walther,
(n. 388),Ad
Varus
dives
me
mensm
sumens
resides
vocavit
(n. 389),Admensam
(n.390;seealso
potiores
epulas
forte
comedunt
veltres
dominorum
sunt
comedas
ettureverenter
n.322),Admensam
(n.391),Cum
(n.
fratresy
inmensa
suajuraparare
mores
servare
decentes
, dapibus
(n. 4534),Expedit
3572),Disceministrare
tendo
tibicubitum
i
edend
curia
sustentt
, quoducit
(n.1120$),Mensa
(n. 6100),Moras
suspendo
numquam
inhexameters),
certa
ofFacetus
Non
aliter
comedas
Temonet
, nisi
(n.10923a;= part
semper
(n.11959),
ecce
, bone
(n. 190$
pater
Augustinus
g).
frater
*On thistopicseee. r. Curtius,
Literatur
undlateinisches
Mittelalter
, Bern31961,
Europische
499-02.
s Cf.walther,
Initia
n. 8998.
6 Cf.L.J.PAETOW,
y231-232.
op.cit.
7 Oxford,
Initia
Bodl.
n.9065.
Laud.171,f.167rb;cf.Walther,
Libr.y
S4-

12:10:43 PM

suntrusticitates
:
Septem
tasinconvivio,
loquaci
beneficii
acceptioblivioveldatiimproperacio,
interignotos
presumpcio,
intersocioset amicoselacio,
derisio,
pauperum
contra
auxiliiobstinacio,
utilitatem
cumnecessitas
obduccio.
exigerit
By the beginning,however, of the fourteenthcenturyBonvesin da la
Riva thoughtit necessaryto prescribeno less than o rules of courtesy
of the table and to develop each of them in quatrainsof the aabb rhyme
scheme1.
Of Englishorigin are the i go goliardie lines that constitutea poem
called Castrianus2
. It is an essay on good mannerswrittenfor the youth
of noble households and is the more interestingas it was transcribed
(or composed?) in the fifteenthcenturyfor Eton students3.We shall
publishthe text at the end of thisarticle*.
With JohnSulpizio's Carmen
in mensaservandis
we
juvenilede moribus
wish to finishthis surveys. Althoughthe poem oftenremindsthe reader
of the elementaryrulesof Quisqusesin mensa
, - the most simplerules had
to be repeated-, these i 22 lines writtenin fineelegiac distichsbelong to
humanismand not needed to place the poems attributedto Robert Grosseteste. This outline could easily be prolonged, for the subject will
continue in the sixteenthcenturyto charm even such men as Erasmus
and Jacopo Sadoleto6.
1 Bonvesin's
work
is transmitted,
asfarasknown,
Italian
butitis
version,
onlyinitsmedieval
notdifficult
tosuppose
theunderlying
ofanoriginal
Latin
from
thehand
ofBonvesin
text,
possibly
inPoeti
Excellent
edition
delDuecento
himself.
Storia
e testi,
vol.2,tomo
italiana.
(Laletteratura
i),
a curadiGianfranco
contini,
i960,703-712.
Milano/Napoli
2 Thepoem
0 magnatumlii
Initia
nostri
commensales.
n. 12732;the'incipit'
Cf.WALTHER,
begins:
under
n.914(Investris
sitis
curiales
lineofthepoem.
given
operibus
) isthesecond
3 Inthemanuscript
weused(Oxford,
D. 29S>f*l^') thetitleruns:"Pro
Bodl.Libr
., Rawl.
scholaribus
etoniensibus
deLenne",
isa mere
butI think
thisanchorite
scriptus
perAnachoritam
asthelastlines
ofthepoem
read
:
copyist
Martini
sanctissimi
confessoris
festo
Finis
etprincipium
factus
estlaboris.
Castrianus
dicitur
libercompilatus
;
Nonvultquicomposuit
essenominatus.
*Seebelow,
p. 71-74.
5 sulpicius
Doctrina
Afacsimile
Tablemanners
ofa fifteenthmensae.
forboys.
verulanus,
century
Latin
inthemetre
anEnglish
atSeville
version
c. iio.With
printed
byJacobo
poem
Cromberger
oftheoriginal
andanintroduction
andnotesbyhenryThomas,
Oxford
1949.- Fortheold
editions
andmanuscripts
seeWalther,
Initia
and13064.
n. 1636$
6 DESIDERII
Omnia
Batavorum
ERASMI,
JACOBI
, I, Lugduni
sadoleti,
1703,1033-1044;
Opera
Opera
omnia
, in,Veronae
quaeexstant
1738,66-120.
SS

12:10:43 PM

contribution
to the
grosseteste's
COURTESY LITERATURE
, thatgoes
Againstthis backgroundthe little poem Stanspuerad mensam
under the name of Robert Grosseteste,seemed doomed to disappear.
Neverthelesswe shall see thatit had its literaryfortune.
To our knowledge, the poem is found in the following eleven
manuscripts:
A - London, BritishMuseum
, Add. 37075, f. iir-v (15th C.)
B1 - Oxford, BodleianLibr., Bodl. 315, f. iSra (15th C.)
B2 - Oxford, BodleianLibr., Bodl. 837, f. 3va (15th C.)
C - Cambridge, University
Libr., Add. 6865, f. 1r (13th C.)
G Cambridge,Gonville8c Caius Coll. 417, p. 103-4 i1
C.)
H - London, BritishMuseum
, Harl. 3362, f. 6v (15th C.)
O - Oxford, BodleianLibr., Lat. misc.b. 3, f. iojv-r (ith C.)
Nation.Libr. Wales, Peniarth356, f. 143-4 (l S*h C.)
P - Aberystwyth,
R Oxford, BodleianLibr., Rawl. G. 60, f. ir (15th C.)
T1 - Oxford, Trinity
Coll. 18, f. ijlra (13th C.)
T2 - Cambridge,Trinity
Coll. 0.5.4, f- l&ra
C.)
Nine of them contain the crucial line by which the work is ascribed to
Robert Grosseteste"Hec qui me docuit grossumcaput est sibi nomen".
its authenticity,
evidenceforaffirming
Thismightseem sufficient
especialof
the
and
T1
the
oldest
as
also
C
,
manuscripts,containthe attribution.
ly
There is, however, the factthatB1 and T1 have a veryshortredactionof
only 7 lines which could be the original one. This, actually, induced
S. Harrison Thomson to distinguishtwo redactions. And while he can
see little doubt as to the authenticityof the short text, he holds that
"the longer recension is obviously based on the shorter work with
additional lines taken largelyfrom the Libercurialis
, the whole in all
editor"1.To mymind, this
probabilitythe work of a fourteenth-century
statementis not so obvious as Thomson would like to have us believe.
First of all, the "additionallines" are not only not "largely"taken from
the Libercurialis
, but they do not at all occur in it. Apart fromsome
of
generic points contact, the longer recension of Stanspuerad mensam
occupies its own, ratherindependent,place in the whole of the mediaeval courtesyliterature.Nor can I convince myselfthat the longer text
is so obviouslybased on the shorterone.
Comparingthe 7 or 8 lines they have in common, the major difference that strikesthe eye is the switch fromthe second to the third
1 s. H.Thomson,
, i$o.
Writings
&

12:10:43 PM

person. I cannot believe thatthe third-personredactionis original. And

in my opinion also the other variantsof the shortredaction can hardly
lay claim to being authentic. Nevertheless, in order that the reader
himselfmayjudge, I shall gre here the shorttext of T1 with the variants
of B*:
i Stanspuerad mensm
domini
bonadogmata
discat.
Sitwultusimplex,
visumnecubiquerevolvat;
Necparies,speculum,
baculusverosittibipostis
;
Autnaresfodeat,
carnem
propriam
nequescalpet;
decetmonstrate
g Autcoramdomino
cachynnos.
[Sedmanus
atquepedes,digitiinpacequiescant].
Hec quimedocuitgrossum
capudestsibinomen.
et illefuit,cuifelixdetdeusomen].
[Presul
Line2. Sitwultu]Sic vultu. 3-4.B1inv. 3. vero]nec; tibi]sibi;noticetheslipto
thesecondpersonin T1. 4. Aut]Nec; fodeatpropriam]
fodiatproprium,g. Aut]
therhythm;
Nec; decet]decethunc;theadditionof 'hunc'improves
cachynnos]
cachinnas.6. add.inB1. 7. capud]caput. 8. add.inT1.
In its longer recension the text of our poem contains, in some manuscripts,a few additionallines which I preferto reproduce withintheir
context, though they are obviously spurious. I put them between
bracketsand make an indention.To simplifythe footnotesand to show
the exact order and contents of the manuscriptsI append a special
diagram.
i Stanspuerad mensm
domini
bonadogmata
discas.
Dumloqueris,
manus
inpacepedessint.
digitique
Sixvultusimplex,
visumnecubiquerevolvas.
Necparies,speculum,
baculusnecsittibipostis.
carnem
g Necnaresfodias,
propriam
nequescalpas.
Neccaputinclines,
faciessitinoreloquentis.
Pacifice
pervicosatqueplateas.
pergas
Neclevitate
citocolorinfacievarietur.
Neccoramdomino
debesmonstrare
cachinnas.
10 Hecdocumenta
haber
i.
tene,si visurbanus
Illotismanibus
escsne sumpseris
unquam,
verithospes.
Atquelocosedeas,tibiquemsigna
Summum
sisnisiiussus.
spemelocumtibisumere,
[Escsnecapias,doneebenediccio
fiat].
doneesintsita,paniparcemeroque,
ig Fercula
Ne famecaptusdicaris
sivegulosus.
Mundisintungues,
ne sordesodali.
noceant
Morcellum
totum
comedas
veldeturegenis.
Pacefruens
multis
caveasgarrire
loquelis.
57

12:10:43 PM

sicvilificari.
2o Spemecachinnari,
poteris
bolocaveasexpandere
Maxillamque
magno,
cibissimuloris.
Necgemina
partevescare
ridebis
necfaberis
orerepleto.
Numquam
Necdiscosonitumnimium
sorbendo
patrabis.
2g In disconumquam
coclearstet,necsuperoram
pollutudo.
Ipsiusiaceat,necmappam
nonsit.
In discum
tactabuccellaretrograda
deforme
mundetur;
[Nasum
sputum,
tegatur].
de panepriustibimorso].
[Necfaciasoffas
nisiterso.
30 Orequepollutononpotabis
nonrevocabis.
Discumde mensasublatum
necdesuper
Necultramensm
spueris
umquam.
s verres
Neccarnem
propriam
equescalpes.
digiti
manus
devitet
munda
nasum.
Semper
tergere
mundare
caveto.
3 Mensacultellodentes
escampotmsuperaddere
noli.
Oretenens
Quodnoceatsociis,inmensane refer
umquam.
consors
inmensasittibinumquam.
Mureligus
a nasomucusnecorexisab ore].
[Necfluat
mensanasonecsibiletanus].
resonet
40 [Nec
nuncintendat
vultus
simulet mens].
[Maiori
cultello
nonludes,nonalicere].
[Prandens
[Seustesseusedeas,ne sepemovete
pedes].
caveaspalpare
Mensamureligum
canemque.
maculare
caveto.
4; Mensacultellomappam
ac escissemper
sufflare
Potibus
cavebis,
noli.
Vasesuoquesalemmorcello
tangere
Quandolavas,nonvasespuasne turpevidetur.
simulindiscum
[Nonintrent
digitisociorum].
Privetur
mensa
hecdocumenta.
go
qui spreverit
Hec qui medocuit,grossum
caputestsibinomen.
Presulet illefuit,cuifelixdetdeusomen.
leccio,tempus],
benediccio,
[Sittimorindapibus,
vultus
brevis,
hilaris;parsdeturegenis].
[Sermo
delicie,detraccio,
SS [Absint
rixe];
crapula,
ciboreddatur
christo].
[Assumptoque
gratia
NOTESTO THE CRITICALTEXTOF "STANSPUERAD MENSM*
Foraddition
andinversion
, omission
oj linesseethediagram
inpacequiescant
discatB^T1. 2. Dum. . . sint]Sedmanus
i . discas]
atquepedesdigiti
n.
B1; digitique
manusin]manuset digitiC; pedes]pedeG. Cf.Walther,Proverbia
revolves
B1!*1.
C, revolvat
6578. 3. Sis]Sic B1,SitT1; vultu]wultuRT1; revolvas]
fodeas
A; fodias]
4. nec]nonC, veroT1; tibi]sibiB1. . Nec]AutT1; nares]narres
B1
carnem
B1; carnem
inv.
;
B2^,
ACG,fodeat
T1,fodiat
scalpas]
proprium
propriam]
Inpacepergas
B1!"1. 6. caput]capudOG. 7. Pacifice
H, In
scalpesH, scalpet
pergas]
,8

12:10:43 PM

inpaceB2G. 8. cito]suaC. 9. Nec]AutT1; domino]

dominis
R, Pergas
pacepargas
chachinnas
A,cachynnos
AB2;debes]debetC, decetT1,decethuncB1; cachinnas]
T1,
B1G. 11.sumpseris]
sumseris
A; unquam]
B2P. 12.Atque]
cachinnos
umquam
IpseT2;
monstraverit
G. 13. speme]
loco]locasR; sedeas]sediasR; tibi]et O; signaverit]
Escs
Non
escs
benedicio
A.
O.
14.
P;
i. donecsint
ne]
benediccio]
spernere
sita]donecsitasintO, sitadonecsintT2; sita]cita AR; pani]pane AG,primaB2.
videaris
16. Ne] NeveA, NequeG; dicaris]
T2. 17. Mundi]MundeH,
B2,vitaris
ne inv
MumdiP; sintom.A; noceant]
noceatG; noceant
. P; sorde]forteGH. 18.
commedas
Pasificus
G; Pace]ParceH; fruens]
A,comedaP. 19.Pacefruens]
comedas]
fruere
tisO. 20. cachinnari]
GT2;poteris
B2; loquelis]
P, cachinnare
loquen
caginnare
vileficare
nimium
risusfugiatur
sicvilificari]
T2; sic]quoAG,queB2,eo P; vilificari]
G,
villificari
P. 21. Maxillamque]
O, velificari
H, versifican
A, Maxillasque
Maxellamque
A. 22. Nec . . . oris]Maxillabinavicenon
P; expandere]
G, Maxcellamque
expande
eademT2; vescare]vestareO, viscarisP, vescarisR; cibis]sibisP. 23.
vescaris
ritebibesT2; nec]nequeG; faberis]
fabere
R; ridebis]
B2,fabiles
Numquam]
Nunquam
de discoresonare
Sorbens
cavenimis
alteT2; Nec]
T2. 24.Nec . . . patrabis]
P, faveris
R (2a manus);sorbendo]
InGOP; sonitum]
solitum
O; nimium]
OP, unquam
numquam
sorbande
codiarPR; stetnecinv. G. 26.iaceat]iacetAG,noceatB2,
P. 2$. coclear]
discoO ; buccella]
iaciatO ; nec]neO ; udo]indeG,ungues
R. 27.discum]
OT2,unguis
buxellaA, bucellaOR; retrograda]
O. 28. Cf. Walther,
G, retrocapta
retrograta
Proverbia
in the
n. 15902a. 29. Cf.ibid.n. 16016bandalsothatqueerlineoccurring
non
de
carnibus
et
faciatis"
above
mense:
"Bartholomeum
note
53,
(see
Speculum
pane
p.
3). 30. Orequepolluto]PollutislabiisT2; polluto]polutoAB2P; terso]carsoO,
tersis
T2. 32. Nec]NonG; spueris]
GHP. 33. Nec]
O; umquam]
unquam
sperneris
NonG; carnem
verres
HO
inv.
GP
inv.
;
;
propriam
digitis]
digitis
digitoAGHP; verres]
varesP; scalpes]
nudaB2G;devitet]
divitta
O;
G, devutas
scalpasAB2GP. 34. munda]
O, tergeR. 35. Mensa]MemsaP; caveto]cavetiP. 36. tenens]
tergere]
tangere
addereO. 37. noceat]nociatOP;
tenesAO; escam]escsG; superaddere]
semper
ne referes
B2,sittibiAOT2,tangere
H;
sociis]sociosG, sociusP; inom.B2; ne refer]
Murelicus
socius
AHOT2. 38. Mureligus]
P; consors]
G, numquam
umquam]
unquam
P; 40. sibilet]sibilatT2. 44. Mensamureligum]
H; caveas]
numquam
Mureligum
noliO. 45. Mensa]Mappam
mensaHO,
HOT2; cultello]cumcultroT2; mappam]
T2. 46. ac] autT2; escis]essisGO. 47. Vase]VasaO; suoquesalem]salem
digitis
dumsitT2; suoque]tuoqueO; morcello]
morsello
OR, mocelloP. 48. Quando]Cum
nec
GO; spuas]spernas
O; ne]
GOT2;videtur]
AGOP,situnquam
R, feratur
cuiquam
T2. 50. Privetur]
Privatur
hoc
O.
B2ORT2;
O; spreverit]
i. me]
hec]
spernit
iamB2; caput]capudGORT1. 52. Pesul]
PesulO; omen]emenB2. 53. benediccio]
buenediccio
O. Cf.Walther,Initia
multis
n. 18347and18319. 54. vultus]
O, wultus
illerisO, hillaris
R. Cf.Walther,Proverbia
n. 28074andalso443ia SS'
R; hilaris]
Assint
n. 164.
O; delicie]delucioO; crapulaora.O. Cf.Walther,Proverbia
Absint]
reddetur
Amenadd.O.
O; christo]
$6. reddatur]
As thefollowingdiagramindicates,the CambridgeUniversitymanuscript
Add. 686^ (= C) reports,afterthe first9 lines, a piece of 18 proper
lines and then the conclusion of Stanspuerad mensm(line i-l). This
conclusionagain is followedby 23 proper lines. It is interestingto note
that, if Thomson's judgmentof the longer redaction of our poem had
59

12:10:43 PM

LINESOF THE POEM"STANSPUERAD MENSM*

AS CONTAINEDIN THE VARIOUSMSS
A

Bx

B2

T1

T2

i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7

i
3
S
4
9
2

i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'3
>
I
I
I
I
I
I
27

i
i
2
I
6
I
3
I
4
I
filili
9
I

I
I
I
X*
I
X
13
x
1S
X
I
X
I
X
I
X
I
X
I
X
I
X
27
X
X
X
30
X
I
X
I
X
37
X
X

i
I
I
I
I

i
I
I
I
I

i
I
I
I
I

i
I
I
I
I

i
3
4
S
9

I
I
I
I
I
'3
iS
I
I
I
I
2J

I
I
I
I
I
'3
i
I
I
23
1J
24
26
27

7
9

.o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
28

I
I
I
I
I
13
if
I
I
I
I
I
I
27

i
I
I
I
I
I
7
9
8

30
I
I
37

30
I
I
37

30
I
I
I
38

30
I
I
I
38

44
i
i
i
48

44
i
i
i
48

44
46
45
47
48

44
i
i
i
48

SO
S
Ills
J2
I
I
I
I
I
S6

30
I
I
I
38

30
I
I
I
38

44
i
46
48
47

44

$0
I
s2

46
i
48
S

JO
I
il

Eighteen
lines.
proper

SI
J2

46
44
38
47
48
5
I
J2

S3
I
I
I
S6
SO

I
I
I
I
I
S6

12:10:43 PM

I
'3
'S
I
I
I
I
I
26
29
I
3'
3
37
39
i
i
46
48
47
49
S
52

been foundedon thismanuscript,it would have been almost exact. For

the 18 lines insertedbetween line 9 and the end of our poem are indeed
largelytaken fromthe Libercurialis.The additional part afterthe conclusion is mainlyderived from the poem Quisquses in mensa
, however
with notable variants.An old hand wrote on the top of the page the
words: "versussancti Roberti Grosseted lincolniensis"and a later hand
made of it: "Carmina Puerilia seu versus sancti Roberti Grosseted
lincolniensisepiscopi". I thinkit worth printingthe whole of the text1.
bonadogmata
domini
i Stanspuerad mensam
discat.
manuset digiticumpacepedessint.
Dumloqueris,
faciessitin oreloquentis.
Neccaputinclines,
visumnecubiquerevolves.
Sisvultusimplex,
baculusnonsittibipostis.
Necparies,speculum,
carnem
Necnaresfodeas,
propriam
nequescalpas.
debetmonstrare
Neccoramdomino
cachinnas.
suacolorinfacievarietur.
Neclevitate
Admensam
zonamlaxarecaveto.
comedens
10 Antecibumlicitezonamlaxarevalebis.
denstuacessetroderepanem.
Interfercula
Dentesemeltactum
panemnecfrusta
reponas
In disco;iaceantineo coclearia
numquam.
Fercula
nullapetas;que suntpresencia
sumas.
1g Postescssumptas
mappacodearatergas.
tibidat.
Poculanullapetasusquepincerna
Nectibisanguineus
sitvelspecialis
amicus.
Escsnoncomedas
illas.
postquam
culpaveris
Si sorbere
licet,nolisorbere
guise.
20 Pulmento,
velistu.
potunoninsufflare
si sitcalidum,
inilla
Pulmentum
frangatur
velcocleari.
crustatur
Paiscrustosus,
violarecaveto.
Salso,pulmento
mappam
tuponesodali;
Si iacetindiscopinguis,
2g Illuninonsumas,
ne rusticus
excipiaris.
Nonungues
intrent
simulin discosociorum.
Hecquimedocuit,grossum
caputestsibinomen.
Presulet illefuit,cuifelixdetdeusomen.
Nemocibumcapiatdoneebenediccio
fiat.
30 Neccapiatsedem,nisicumvultquiregitedem.
Doneesintpositatibifercula,
sumere
vita.
caveasab utroque.
Panivinoque
parcens
Indiscoiactanonsitbuccellaredacta.
Et mundi
politi.
digititibisintunguesque
1 Cambridge,
LibrAdd.686s, f. ir; I havetothank
Univ.
Dr.R. W.Hunt,
ofWestern
Keeper
oftheBodleian
whocalled
tothisvolume.
Library,
myattention
Manuscripts
6l

12:10:43 PM

escaquovaselocatur.
3 Salnontangatur
Nectangas
auresnudisdigitis
equenares.
Necmundes
ex cultellocomedentes.
dentes
Necultramensm
ne iecerisumquam.
sputum
nonsitperte revocatus.
Discussublatus
mensaruetare caveto.
40 Si potes,recepto
Inmensacubitum
poneresitvetitum.
vult
debet
Qui
;
potare,
priusos vacuare
Attamen
illiussitlabratersaprius.
Ne dicasverbum
cuiquam
quodsi sitei acerbum,
Ne
nasci.
4
queatirasciquisveldiscordia
Inmensacarequamsintresnonmemorare.
Ne moveas
famulo
iurgianeccatulo.
Vultusishilaris,
nimium
necpravasequeris.
Si parceloqueris,
frui
pace
poteris.
et extravasexpuequandolavas.
o Semper
Hocpenitus
caveasne sociisnoceas.
Our littlepoem continuedprosperingand in the firsthalfof the fifteenth
centuryit was attributed,as nearlyeverythingabout thattime, to John
. As a matterof fact, Lydgatedid give an Englishadaptationof
Lydgate1
the text2,but I have been unable to findthe Latin text to whichhe might
have had recourse3. Evidentlyconnected with our poem is the text that
was published by Frederick JamesFurnivallunder the title Ut te geras
in mensm*.
It is an attemptto compress a number of rules, expressed
in the Stanspuerad mensam
in currenthexameters,into leonine verses.
The resultis not veryencouraging.A somewhatsimilarexperimentwe
found in the paper codex Bodley832 , a medley of prosody, rhetoric,
astrologyand other matter, apparentlycompiled and writtenby John
Longe (?), alias Sampford,chaplainof St. Catherine'sChapel at Bridport,
before 1470s. On f. iiiy-i2ir occurs a work in rhymedhexameters,
entitled Liberconvivii
. It is provided with a proem thatbegins:
1 SeeF.j. furnivall,
Manners
, lxix.
2 The
Minor
Poems
TextSociety.
Extra
, ed.H. N. MacCracken
ofJohn
Lydgate
series,
(Early
English
107.Original
series,
1934,739-744.
192),11,London
3 Another
oldEnglish
into250lines,
waspublished
forthe
adaptation,
expanded
byF. J.Furnivall
TextSociety
bothHugh
series,
8, London
English
1869,parti,$6-64).Moreover
Early
(Extra
inhisBoke
Rhodes
andtheanonymous
author
of
Mannersy
(ed.furnivall,
1,71-81)
ofNurture
part
The
Boke
from
Grosseteste's
Stans
1,297-327)
(ibid,
ofCurtesye
gottheir
part
inspiration
largely
puer
admensam.
Thepoembegins
Doctus
dicetur
hecquidocumenta
andwasedited
Manners
,
sequetur
byfurnivall,
Initia
n.4692doesnotnotethisedition;
n. 2i6aand20653seemto
II,26-28.
Walther,
part
beconnected
with
this
poem.
s Seethedescription
inf.madan,
andn. denholm-young,
h. h. e. craster
ASummary
Catalogue
inthe
Bodleian
atOxford
1,Oxford
ofWestern
, 11/
Manuscripts
1922,416-418
Library
(n.2538).
62

12:10:43 PM

messis
venite1.
matura,
Eya,messoris
scite.
novacarmina
calamos
;
scriptores,
Carpite,
and ends on f. 1 1ir :
trinus
et unus,
Te, deusomnipotens
qui regnes
munus.
Amen.
utquantum
faciasmepandere
Deprecor
The work properthatnow followshas thisrubric: "Incipitpars excutiam
presentis. Et discurrit compositor primo tractans de moribus et in
generaliantequamaggrediaturmensam.Et dicit: assintergo rudesetc. "2.
The firstlines read :
Assint
poculamorum3.
ergorudesscicientes
haurire
Hicfontem
dulcempoterunt
leporum.
Hicfacescie
ortulus
parit
undiqueflores,
Ex quibusindocti
mores.
poterunt
excerpere
For the greaterpart the work is inspiredby the Facetos,of which many
lines are copied, though with considerable poetic licence. The more
general rules end on f. 117r with the lines:
Conviva
citorebus
raro,neconsumptis
Inbrevibus
fiasmendicus
diebus.
inopsque
There is insertednow a rubric aDe facessiacirca mensam"and it is this
part in which we are especiallyinterested.The firsttwo lines are taken
fromthe Facetosin substitutionof the firstline of Stanspuerad mensam
,
but then follows the rest of our poem which with a fair command of
languageis enriched with rhymes.May the reader judge for himself:
Defacessia
circamensam*
i Te tuamensacolatitasi necsimulabere
scurris;
Dedicusestsi discurrens
alienaligurris.
Dumloqueris,
et pespacefruantur;
digitimanus
Sisvisusimplex,
oculinecubiqueferantur.
baculusnecsittibipostis
S Necparies,speculum,
;
Ne naresfodias
nequemembrum
leporisuthostis.
Neccaputinclines,
faciessitinoreloquentis
;
Pacifice
nec
uterelentis.
pergas, gressibus
Nonlevitate
cavecolorinfacievarietur;
1 Cf.WALTHER,
Initia
n. 317.
2 Oxford,
Bod
Bod.Libr.y
what
theauthor
intends
tosaywith
the
ley832, f. i i2r;I donotknow
title
which
Excutiam
heusedtodesignate
thefollowing
main
part.
3 Cf.WALTHER,
Initia
n. 1623.
* Oxford,
Bodl.
118?.Astolinei and49cf.Walther,
Initia
n. 924
Libr.y
832,f.1171-Bodley
and12093.
6}

12:10:43 PM

nasum
io Neccoramdomino
curvare
iubetur.
Summum
ni iubearis
;
spemelocumtibisumere,
Illotismanibus
escaspalpare
negaris.
Fercula
donecsintsita,iampaniparcemeroque
;
Nevefamecaptusveledaxvidearis
utroque.
utmicent
ne fortesodales
1g Mundisintungues
;
facundia
tales.
Spemecachinnari,
dampnat
;
loquelis
Dignusutisedeas,caveasgarrire
t convivia
nelis.
Otiacave,perte turbe
totum
Morcellum
comedas
veldeturegenis
;
boliscaveasexpandere
20 Maxillasque
plenis.
Oriset inpartegemina
c/eto
;
prandere
necfaberis
ridebis
orerepleto.
Nunquam
;
hospes
Inquelocosedeastibiquemsignaverit
undegratis,
Necsurgas
nisismalesospes.
sorbens
2 Indiscosonitum
necfeceris
unquam;
Orequepolluto,ni terso,tubibenunquam.
Indisconunquam
coclearstat,sedsuperoram
neceo depinge
decoram.
Ipsius;mappam
nonsit;
Indiscum
tactabuccellaretrograda
Donec
scindatur
benediccio
30
panis,
presit.
Nonultramensm
screabis
;
equetutardando
Discosde mensasublatos
nonrevocabis.
Nudamanus
renuat
nasum
;
semper
detergere
A manibus
rerum
renuunt
convivia
casum.
Nondigitis,
sederitnasipurgacio
lanis;
Intrat
in os antequecumque
cibariapanis.
escaspotumsuperaddere
noli;
Oretenens
ne sittibitardaquestiosoli.
Admensm
Quodnoceatsociis,inmensane refer
unquam;
consors
inmensasittibinunquam.
40 Murelegus
Mensacultellodentes
;
purgare
negabis
necsociabis.
canempalpabis
Noncatumve
vitamaculare
Prosale,morcellus,
salinum
;
Etpriusattingit
meliorpersona
catinum.
4 Dumcibusestet inoretuo,potarecaveto;
decetnecin orerepleto.
Inciphisconfiare
Nonpanem,quemvisindiscum
mittere,
morde;
nasum
madidum
tibisorde.
Necmappam
tergas
Necmappatutergemanus
fluentes;
oculosque
sedentes.
o Ne turpes
sputotecumque
gentes
Cumlavas,necvasespuas; sunthectibitenta
;
hecdocumenta.
Privetur
mensaqui spreverit
, some other 122
Though the remainingpart of this Facessiacircamensm
the
from
Facetus
it
taken
is
almost
, mightbe interesting
lines,
entirely
.
to printit on account of its variants1
1 Ibid.f.I I8kI2IT.
64

12:10:43 PM

Inpropriis
rebuslausestsi largus
haberis,
Dedecusalterius
reslargedandomereris.
forma:
scientia,
Luxusopum,prolesgenerosa,
Bisduosuntquibusextollit
se quissinenorma.
A fumo,stillante
muliere
domo,nequam
Te remove;triasuntpoterunt
que sepenocere.
Duc tibiprolemorumque
tam,
vigorevenus
60 Si cumpacevelisvitamdeducere
iustam.
Si tibicontingat
siccummuliere
sedere,
Versus
eamnolitogenusubcruretenere.
vultudebesassurgere
leto,
Magnati
Necconiunctus
ei, ni iusserit
ipse,sedeto.
tibinonnotamveneris
6 In quamcumque
edem,
Mundasuperficies
terredonettibisedem.
Cumpareconstanter,
si vis,potesirelicenter;
tarnen
hunepermitte
libenter.
Quodte prcdt
Si tibicontingat
quodcummuliere
vageris,
70 Postcedasdoneelatuseiusadireiuberis.
Si quisdignetur
offerre
eifum
tibi,lete
facete.
bibas,reddasque
Accipias,
modiceque
si sis,effundito
Pauperet indignus
potum;
tureddecifum
Etvacuum
priusundiquelotum.
Quandocifum
capias,aversone bibedorso;
Nonoffas
faciasde panepriustibimorso.
Mensatuumeubitum
sustentet
edenti;
numquam
Si rectesedeas,tecumservito
sedenti.
Cumcifum
manucapiatur;
capias,utraque
80 Etperutrumque
teneatur.
latus,nonperripam,
Cumparesi debesvelcummeliore
iacere,
'In quapartethorivelisipsequiescere'
queris.
Cumquacumque
tibipropevelproculacciditire,
Nomenet essesuum,quo quissumet unde,require.
velcummeliore
8$ Cumparesi pergas
peregre,
Quodvoloipsevelis;tibisiccupiatnihilegre.
Si tibiquisloquitur,
invultum
cerneloquentis
;
Etsuaverbatuesecretis
inserementis.
A iubilopueri,servilingua,
canisore,
caveasblesoquelepore.
90 A manu,pedibus
Si quavelisemere,taxabis
emenda
modeste;
Necmagesiveminus
iurans
instabis
honeste.
debescorrodere
dente,
Obliquonullum
Etlivoris
acunullum
tupungelatente.
tatishonore,
9S Si quevissuperexcellasprobi
Noniactes;quialausproprio
sordescit
inore.
manedeumcubiturus
laudes;
Nocteque
vespere
tuisdiscedens
reddito
laudes.
Hospitibusque
letumdebesostendere
vultum
;
Hospitibus
100 Vultus
enimletusdandiduplicat
tibicultum.

12:10:43 PM

canemnolidormire
Irritare
volentem
;
Necmoveas
iramposttempora
longalatentem.
os artemalinepravaloquatur;
Compescas
Ne maluserumpat
latrina
fetor,
cogatur.
minando
io Nilsupertuotualingua
loquatur;
Hostem
suumminuit
minatur.
namque
quicumque
Esttibisummus
honoscitosolvere
; solvelibenter
;
diesveniat,
Cumfestiva
vestire
decenter.
Ultraquamvestisqueatextendi,
tuacrura
11o Nonextendantur,
si vivere
vissinecura
nolisubmessem
Alterius
mittere
falcem,
caveasalienum
Inquelectum
ponerecalcem.
Si tecumcomedat
servire
memento
minori
;
Partibituqueparida cultellum
meliori.
il g Si teforte
domusalienarogavi
t ad escas,
Dumiussum
fuerit
innullasedequiescas.
Si te maiori
pelvisfamuletur
aquosa,
Admanicas
eiustuasitmanus
officiosa.
Si videasopusessecibo,succurre
;
parando
12o Siquenecessemonet,
mensefamulabere
stando.
Si parvelminor
fuerit
tibifortelocutus,
suaverbasilequasimutus.
Doneedesierit
Rarofideiussor
etnumquam
creditor
esto;
res
illorum
tur
fine
molesto,
Sepius
geri
i 2 Si maiortecumcomedat,
sitesce
quecumque
Nonapponemanum,
doneegustaverit
ipse.
Etfugias
talos,faustum,
tabernam,
scortumque,
Si decuset vitamtibiquerishabereeternam.
Composinartemaline tecumpravaloquatur,
130 Ne meliuserumpat
usqueproculindeferatur.
ab equo,velequumcitoscandat,
Si quisdescendat
De presente
sibimanus
officium
sibipandat.
Remde qualoqueris
caveto
;
digitomonstrare
Ne, dumsermosuperovibussit,ovilevideto.
ab equo,calcarremovendum
!35 Quamcitodescandas
Estde calcetuo; tibisitquidtuncsitagendum.
Si magno
deo,citopone
servisque
loqueris
turregione.
Pilleavelquicquidcapitis
geri
Ne iactestefacturum
quodnullarepleris
140 Vistuatotaqueat;nugaxsimilidareeris.
mensemanus
Dumcomedas,
intendat
tuasoli;
Autcaputautaliudmembrum
tuscalpere
noli.
Inpotumsufflare
tuumnolitocibumque,
Ne sputomaculare
tuovidearis
utrumque.
si sorstibiprospera
cedat;
i4 Nonextollaris,
Namdeusingrato
citotollitmuera
que dat.
tuadampna
;
Quicquidagas,hostinumquam
loquaris
de paupertate
Atquetuanumquam
loquaris.
66

12:10:43 PM

tuusmoveatur,
In te si domina
dominusve
i o Dumcadatiranihilin eostualingualoquatur.
fereque
Nunciasi tuleris
corammagnate,
Missa,loquenstractim,
docte,breviter,
lepideque.
Si tibiquisgratus
dederit
;
bona,sumite
grate
a te.
Etdatacumdantelaudentur
plenius
i gg Sittuamundadomuset inipsaquicquidhabetur;
os, oculus,naristibimanelavetur.
Dens,manus,
Nolitoculparedapesquassumere
speras,
Nec quasprepones
invitas
te tibiqueras.
Rumores
et nuncius
esseministri
;
fugias
160 Necsinere cupiasnomenhaberemagisti.
tibisit,
A quocumque
viromissus
quicumque
malum
tibi
dicit.
Doctesustineas
quodcumque
vexaresuperre
Nolimaiorem
verbis
De qua,si vellet,possettibidampna
referre.
16 Nonintromittas
te de re que nihilad te,
stul
tumvelnequam,
credo,probatte.
Quisquisque
monachale
crux:inspiciantur
Coniugium,
iugum,
Hec inmentepriusa te quamsuscipiantur.
nubilis
etas,
Filia,si tibisit,cumvernet,
solamnolitranscurrere
metas.
170 Claustrales
Adquamcumque
antevocato
domum
perrexeris,
Qua subeastu,sisqueloquensetad hostiastato.
noniusticium,
vultiurisamicus
;
Iusticiam,
noniusticiam,
vultiurisiniquus.
Iusticium,
Still one other aspect of our poem Stanspuerad mensam
should be mentionedhere. In a recentpaper BrotherBonaventura,F.S.C., summarized
what can be learned frommedieval manuscriptsabout the teachingof
Latin in later medieval England1. He foundthat our poem Stanspuerad
mensam
, together with the Distichsof Cato, Theodule's Eclogues
, the
Facetus
, Libercartule
, Liberparabolarumand the poem
, Liberpenitencialis
0 magnatum
filii, was largelyused in the grammarschools as a reading
text2. This is an interestingstatement,for it proves that,apart fromthe
predominantlymoral instructionobtained from a ChristianisedCato,
from Facetusand the Parabole, and apart from the more religious and
instructionalreading of Theodulus, Cartula and Liberpenitencialis
, the
1 Brother
inLater
F. S. C., TheTeaching
Mediaeval
Bonaventure,
, inMediaeval
ofLatin
England
Studies
23(1961)1-20.
2 Ibid.7-11. Useful
andaccurate
information
onthiskind
ofbooks
inr. avesani,
canbefound
II
ritmo
delgrammatico
e ilcosiddetto
"Liber
Catoni
anus"
medievali
, inStudi
, 3a
primo
perla morte
Ambrogio
6 (1965)4^^-488
andintheforthcoming
work
ofthesame
author
miscellanee
medioevali
Serie,
Quattro
e umanistiche,
e letteratura.
Ediz.diStoria
Roma,
67

12:10:43 PM

later medieval Englishyouth received their good mannerschieflyfrom

our Stanspuerad mensm,as the above mentioned 0 magnatum
filii was
in
read
a
more
restricted
milieu1
.
apparently
LIBER CURIALIS
It is now time to pass to the otherpoem ascribed to Robert Grosseteste,
thatis to say to the Libercurialis
, which begins with the words: "Curia
si
subnutriat
This
te
alis".
work seems to have escaped all Grosseregalis
teste's bibliographersup to Thomson who noticed it in an Oxford
manuscript2.As early as 18^2 Henry Octavius Coxe had provided a
fair descriptionof this miscellaneous codex, though some corrections
should be made3. Our poem, consistingin 671 hexameters,is cast into
a collectionofproverbialsentencesand excerptsfromSeneca and Cicero,
which is typical of the early thirteenthcentury. The rubric, which
attributesthe work to Grosseteste,is in the same hand as the text itself.
It reads: "Incipit liber curialis quem composuit magister Robertus
Grosteste In all probabilityboth the text and the rubricwere copied
froma manuscriptthe scribe of which knew only of "Master" Robert
Grosseteste, thus before Grosseteste became a bishop in 1235. For
afterwardsthis title almost disappeared and was replaced by Grosseteste's common epithet "episcopusLincolniensis"or simply"Lincolniensis". It is on this account that Thomson argues that the compositionof
the work may be fixedin the pre-episcopalperiod. He proposes a date
between 1229 and 1235s.
Consideringthatno othermanuscriptof the Libercurialiswas known
which might contest Grosseteste's authorship,the early ascription in
the TrinityCollege copy gave sufficientsecurityto affirmthat Grosseteste was the author of the work. When however, yearsago, I decided
1 Onlythree
ofthispoemareknown:
Brit.
Harl.1587,f. 118-120;
London,
Mus.,
manuscripts
Peniarth
Libr
D. 295,f.lv~3r
Nat.Libr.
Bodl.
; Aberystwyth,
., Rawl.
356(quoted
Oxford,
ofWales,
without
folio
reference
loc.cit.,10).
Bonaventure,
byBrother
2 Oxford,
andWalther,
Initia
Coll.18,f. i68ra-ij2ra
; cf.Thomson,
148-149
Trinity
Writings,
n. 3970.
3 Cf.H.O. coxe,Catalogus
manutodicum
codicum
S. Trinitatis
(Catalogus
manuscriptorum
collegii
oxoniensibus
hodie
vol.11),Oxonii1852,8-9.It
asservantur,
aulisque
quiincollegiis
scriptorum
ofthis
waswritten
isquite
inthefourteenth
true
that
themajor
Nevertheless,
century.
medley
part
andbelong
covers
ourpoemmight
wellbe earlier
tothesecond
halfofthe
which
thesection
ofthat
conThelastfolios
dateevenfarther
backtothemiddle
thirteenth
They
century.
century.
treatise
tainanearly
textofGrosseteste's
domini.
Templm
4 Oxford,
Coll.18,f.168r (upper
Trinity
margin).
5 Thomson,
, 149.
Writings
68

12:10:43 PM

to edit the Libercurialisand was looking for possible other copies of

the work, I came upon two notable fragmentswhich pretty well
complicated the edition I had in view. An anonymouspoem of 106
hexameterson table manners,found in the manuscriptBodley3101 and
beginningwith thewords "Versus prandentemtecum tua lumina sepe",
proved, to the extent of two thirds,to be identical with parts of the
Libercurialis, but the lines were in a completely differentorder. The
rest seemed to be originalmaterial. Embodied in the manuscriptsection
thatwas writtenlate in the fourteenthcentury2,the text did not afford
any clue either for establishingthe authorship or a better reading.
Another poem, called Curialitatesmense
, likewise anonymous, and
beginning"Dente semel tacta pais non fractareponasw3,could also be
identifiedin some igt; lines with the Libercurialis. Though there are
some notable omissionsand a few originallines, the whole of the poem
the pertinentpart of the TrinityCollege text of
follows quite faithfully
Libercurialisand not seldom even supplies a much better reading. Still
more importantwas the fact that the Rawlinson manuscriptwhich
containsthese 164 hexametersdates fromthe beginningof the thirteenth
century*,if not from the end of the twelfth.Merely on this account
Thomson's suggestionconcerning the composition date of the Liber
curialisseemed to require anticipation. Could it be, I wondered, that
Grossetestecomposed the work when he was in the household of the
bishop of Herefordabout 1198?
Meanwhile I got into serious difficulties
on account of the vocabularyused in the LibercurialisSome words I could not findin any of the
usual dictionaries.When in 1965 Latham's RevisedMedievalLatin Wordn words
Listappeared5, I was happilysurprisedto findall my "difficult
listed. They were constantlyreferredto one single source: Daniel of
Beccles' Urbanusmagnus
6. The text of thiswork, publishedat an unfortunate time, was not easily available, but when I finallysucceeded in
gettinga copy and went throughit, I was taken aback at line 87^. The
text reads: "Curia regalissi te subnutriatalis" and continuedthroughall
the 671 hexameterswhich the TrinityCollege manuscriptso confidently
attributed to Master Robert Grosseteste. Recovering from the first
1 Oxford,
LibrBodley
Bodl.
Initia
cf.WALTHER,
n. 20253.
310, f. 14.jva-14.8ra;
2 Cf.F.MADAN,
andN.DENHOLM-YOUNG,
H.H.E. CRASTER
op.cit.,2I9-220.
3 Oxford,
Bodl.
Rawl.
Initia
C,552,f.2iva-2$rb;
cf.Walther,
n. 4252.
Libr.,
4 Cf.H. O. COXE,
codicum
Bibliothecae
Bodleianae
Catalogi
, V/2,Oxonii
1878,col.
manuscriptorum
297-299.
5 R.e. latham,
Revised
Medieval
Latin
Word-List
British
andIrish
Sources
, London
1965.
from
6 DanielBECCLESIENSIS,
Urbanus
, ed.cit.; seeabove
magnus
p. gi.
69

12:10:43 PM

astonishment,I noticed however that Daniel's Urbanusmagnusis not a

veryhomogeneous work and could possiblybe composed fromseveral
,
independent treatises. Already we have encountered a Moduscenandi
takenfrom(or assumed into?) the Urbanusmagnus1
. It is also interesting
to note that the oldest manuscriptSmylyused for his edition, at the
exact place where the Libercurialisbegins, has the followinginsertion:
"Sunt quedam que, nisi materie cursus expeteret, pudor rescidenda
persuaderei; verumptamen,quia rei seriesnec veritatiparcere novitnec
verecundie, nec ego dehonesto quod preteriri non permittiturincognitum,circumscisislabiis res inhonestain necessariisexacta poterit
venustaverborumutilitatedepromi"2.Should thisindicatethe beginning
work? Moreover, the Rawlinsonmanuscripts,in which we
of a different
identifiedthe Curialitatesmenseas a fragmentof the Libercurialis
, contains immediatelybefore this text a collection of proverbs Proverbia
Urbani, selected fromthe first150 lines of Urbanusmagnus
, and Curialiwhich can be read in Smyly's edition fromline i
tatesecclesiasticorum
on. Althoughit seems more likely that these three sections ( Proverbia
and Curialitatesmense)were copied
Urbaniy Curialitatesecclesiasticorum
from one single work, viz. the Liber urbanusascribed to Daniel of
of the work in this early manuscriptcould
Beccles, the fragmentation
also be a hint that the Urbanusmagnusas it was edited by Smylyis only
a collection of amalgamatedworks. In that case the plain attributionof
the Libercurialisto Grossetesteshould be of some weight for ranging
thepoem among the authenticworks of the bishop. Butonlya thorough
4 and an
reexamination of the manuscripts of the Urbanusmagnus
of
the
work
in
contents
of
the
its
historical
and
literary
intelligentstudy
resolve this problem. Four our purpose it is
setting,mightdefinitively
sufficientto have proposed the question in its actual state of research.
In conclusion, if this survey of the medieval Latin courtesy-books,
among which we have placed Grosseteste's little poem "Stanspuer ad
and the problematicalLibercurialis, occasioned furtherstudies
mensamn
in this very interestingfield of social behaviour and manners,I should
feel more than compensatedfor my contribution.
1 Seeabove
p. gi.
2 DanielBECCLESIENSIS,
Therubric
isinthemanuscript
Camop.cit.,31,notetoline874-875.
I hadnoopportunity
Gonville
toexamine.
SlCaius
bridge,
College
6ll$,which
3 Oxford,
Libr
Urbani
ecclesiastiBodl.
C. 2,f.iyr-lor
., awl.
(Proverbia
(Curialitates
), f.2or-22r
f.llva-l^rb
(Curialitates
mense).
corum),
4 See,besides
theintroduction
ofSmyly,
alsoWalther,
Initia
n. 11223andnn.3970,4252,5178,
20253.
70

12:10:43 PM

APPENDIX1
ThepoemCastrianus
Bodl
Rawl.D. 295,f. iv-3r [15thC.]
. Libr.f
(Oxford,
tusperAnachoritam
de Lenne,
Proscholaribus
etonensibus
scrip
i O magnatimi
commensales,
filii,nostri
Investris
sitiscuriales.
operibus
Etintrantes
'Deushic' dicatis;
domum,
Etcumnosvideritis,
genuaflectatis.
Hoc
verbum
fuerit
;
g
proferetis
quodaptum
Nullussedemcapiat,seriatim
stetis.
moveatur
Hueautillucfaciesnusquam
;
Nullaresindomibus
manucapiatur.
Nilsupportet
eubitum,
postesnontangatis;
10 Inloquentis
faciem
vultum
dirigatis.
Vultus
fiatstabilis,
levetur,
caputque
Manussive digitus
nichilopere
tur.
utpediculosi
Nonlevetis
;
scapulas
nonestgenerosi.
Talismodusmobilis
1 Tibiastextoribus
nonassimile
tis;
Genunobisflecti
te quandorespondetis.
Si maioradvenerit,
locumdetisei;
Honordeturomnibus
inhonoreDei.
dorsum
nonvertatis,
Notovelextraneo
20 Etcumpotaverimus
omnestaceatis.
Si nospercipitis
aliquidloquentes,
Donecdictum
fuerit
stetisaudientes.
Nullusalterideatsivecolloquatur;
Homocarensmoribus
vocatur.
rusticus
2g Cumquenosiusserimus
vossimulsedere,
Nullusdebetaliilocumprohibere.
Nullaturpis
vobisdominetur;
fabula
Necservoderisiocuiquam
paretur.
Volenspuerdiligiautumquam
vigere
deridere.
30 Nondebet,utfatuus,
quemquam
vossumme
Si quiscommendaverit
parentes,
Stetissursum
proprie
agentes.
gracias
a nobis,
Si vobisoppositum
fuerit
te; decensestprovobis.
Absquemorasurgi
3g Que materfamilias
egitautmatrona
Nulluspetat,fuerint
malasivebona.[f.2r]
se de cunctis
rebus,
Qui vultintromittere
inpaucisdiebus.
Hospites
despiciunt
Cumpotumcontigerit
nobisministrari,
assistite
famulari.
40 Surgentes
prompte
1 Seeabove,
p. SSand67-68.
71

12:10:43 PM

Si servus
lumenteneatis;
defuerit,
Utgulosipoculanullacapiatis.
Nosterciphusforsitan
si vobisdonetur,
fuerit
nondetur.
Nisiiussum
pluribus
si vobismittantur,
4 Delicataprandia
Altavocegracienobisexsolvantur.
Pluresobservancie
possunt
assignari
A nobis,de prandio
paucanimisfari.
manus
abluatis
Omnesanteprandium
o Et cultellos
speros
purosfaciatis.
nulliretrahantur,
A nostra
presencia
Doneepervosgraciestando
finiantur.
dicatis:
Si solifueritis,
gracias,
Unusiam,erasaliusomnibus
signatis.
cumsitisequales,
$ Omnesincommunibus
sitissociales.
Utvenitis
sedibus
Cumsitisinprandio
paritersedentes,
nonanglicum
sitiscolloquentes.
Latinum
Sitloquelatacita,paxpredominetur
;
60 Fabulaluxurie
nullarecitetur.
bibliasiveliberullus,
Cumlegatur
debetessenullus.
Rabians
autgarrulans
Cumvobispotagia
habere,
contingat
Ea nonpoteritis
;
guisesorbere
6$ Cocliarilepidepurocomedantur;
cocliaria
discodimittantur,
Numquam
urbani
Prohibet
tas;quandocomedetis,
inclinetis.
numquam
Caputad parapsidem
cibosapponatis,
Queritescissorium,
70 Nonturpetur
lepidescindatis.
gausape,
residuum
simulcollocetur
Prandii
Superpanemmodicum,
quipropeponetur.
manusobtergantur;
Cumpotumsumpseritis,
cummieisdemantur.
Sordesde scissorio
[f.2v]
sitoreconstitutus,
bolusnumquam
7 Tantus
si quissitlocutus.
Quinloquipoteritis,
Dentesnoneffodere
tabulapotestis
;
inhonestis.
horrent
Cumiungive
pateant,
cumdapibus
nonad os feratis,
Cultellos
80 Necmanuparifica
diuteneatis.
Melioraprandia
cuiquereponantur,
Priuscibisaliisminime
tangantur.
epulepresentes,
Quantumcumque
placeant
voscircumsedentes.
Ex illisparticipent
totum
manducantes
8$ Rudessuntet rustici
nichilindedantes.
Quodinmanucapiant,
benecaveatis;
Ideode talibus
Cibis,licetplaceant,
parcatis.
quandoque
7*

12:10:43 PM

vacuetis
tis,serras
;
Quandocarnesscindi
serraseparetis.
90 Pudor,si fercula
Cumscindatis
te cultellos;
caseum,
tergi
Nonsimulsedsinguli
capitemorcellos.
Os nullusad tabulam
debetinclinare
frvola
cantare.
equeveludfatuus
95 Et,si sitscissorium
priusdeturpatum,
Unumsuperaliudversum
sitlocatum.
Caseuspinguedinem
nondebetgustare
;
sit,dico: vitare.
Quicquidinhonestum
Cumfinis
advenerit
vobiscomedendi,
100 Cultelli
tuncundique
puresunttergendi.
Plurade similibus
dicerepossemus,
Tarnen
essettedium
si prolongaremus.
sit,omnesresurgentes
Aquacumporrecta
SimulDeo gracias
diciteviventes.
lo Si puersitdominus,
aquamministretis
Etproreverencia
genuacurvetis.
suismanibus
seupelvemtenetis
;
Mappam
facere
debetis.
Quicquidopusfuerit
cumsitispresentes
Sed,sicutprediximus,
110 Dicatisad invicem
gracias
agentes.
Nullirestt
dubium
: si Deuslaudetur,
Inagendis
meliustuncexpedietur.
[f.3r]
omnibus
finitis
Hiis,utiampremittitur,
Rudesinhospicio
forenevelitis.
iteproperanter
115"Si noxsit,ad cameras
;
nimium
nocens
estnoctanter.
Vigilare
Si feratis
lumina
recordantes,
quequam
Nonsitisincameris
vestris
rabiantes.
Etquidquid
feceritis
quandovigilatis,
i 20 Candelas
securius
vestras
extinguatis.
Inauroris
te,sicuteststatutum
;
surgi
Os oracionibus
nonsitdesti
tutum.
Nobiscasualiter
si vosobvietis,
reverenciam
ritefrequentetis.
Quandam
nontantam
i2 Nobisreverenciam
inquiramus,
Istatamen
dictasuntutvosdoceamus.
omnibus
bonisascultetis,
Disciplinis
Sedinscolisanglicum
nullum
proferetis.
Resinlibrisscribi
tepostquam
doceantur
;
inscolishabeantur.
130 Nullamercimonia
Cumcontingat
vosvenire,
aliquempropter
Nonabsquelicenciadebetisexire.
alterespndete
Quandovobisloquimur,
Etdocenditempore
tacete.
precunctis
13 Nichilhorribilius
nobisestaudire
Quam,repleto
polipo,singultire.
73

12:10:43 PM

sitad villam,
Quamcitode patriaventum
nonsuffles
Sedensinhospicio
favillarci.
benerespondetis,
Virtutibus
utimini,
scolisfrequentetis.
140 Etcumtotisviribus
Hecdictasufficiunt
causabrevitatis
;
Commensales
peritisistarepetatis.
filius
infinelaborum
Summi
patris
detregnapolorum.
Nobisposthocseculum
i4 Etdetnobisgraciam
perhocdocumentum
felixincremen
Addere
virtutibus
tum.
Martini
sanctissimi
festoconfessoris
Finiset principium
factus
estlaboris.
libercompilatus
dicitur
Castrianus
;
i o Nonvultquicomposuit
essenominatus.
Rome
71, ViaBoncompagni

Istituto
storico
Fratiminori
cappuccini

74

12:10:43 PM

Books received

Remigius
AUTISSIODORENSIS.
Commentum
inMartianum
Libri/-//;
editedwithan
Capellam.
introduction
byCoraE. Lutz.Leiden,E. J.Brill,1962,25 x 19cm.,x, 219pp.
REMIGIUS
AUTISSIODORENSIS.
Commentum
in Martianum
LibriIII-IX;editedby
Capellam.
CoraE. Lutz.Leiden,E. J.Brill,196$,2$ x 19cm.,vm,380pp.
Master
of
hring,NikolausM.LifeandWorks
; a Twelfth-century
ofClarembald
ofArras
theSchoolofChartres.
Pontifical
ofMediaeval
Institute
Toronto,
Canada,
Studies,
andTexts10).
1965,2j x 17cm.,XVI,276pp. (Studies
Gothica
Libraria
MediiAevi
joachim.Scriptura
Kirchner,
; a saeculoxiiusquead finem
Lxxxviiimaginibus
illustrata.
Monachiiet Vindobonae,
in AedibusRudolfi
mdcccclxvi,
34,$ x 24 cm.,82 pp.
Oldenbourg,
van STEENBERGHEN
au XlIIesicle.Louvain,Publications
, Fernand.La philosophie
Universitaires;
Paris, Batrice-Nauwelaerts,
1966, 2g x 16 cm., 94 pp.
mdivaux
9).
(Philosophes
VANDE VYVER,
A. Abbonis
Floriacensis
et
OperaineditaI: Syllogismorum
categoricorum
enodatio
doorR. Raes.Brugge
"DeTempel",1966,
; uitgave
hypotheticorum
verzorgd
2S x !*>,S cm.,96,A- i pp. (Rijksuniversiteit
door
teGent;Werken
uitgegeven
de faculteit
vande letteren
en wijsbegeerte,
140eaflevering).

Reviews
zulateinischen
desMittelalters
Akademie
J.B.schneyer,
, Bayerische
Wegweiser
Predigtreihen
derWissenschaften,
frdieHerausgabe
Texteausder
Verffentlichungen
ungedruckter
mittelalterlichen
BandI, in Kommission
beiderC. H. Beck'schen
Geisteswelt,
Verlagsxxv
DM
+
Mnchen,
1965,
76.- .
$88pp.,
buchhandlung,
dessermons
latinsdu moyen
et la philosophie
de
L'importance
gepourla thologie
cettepoqueestreconnue
Moinsconnue,maistoutaussirelleest
depuislongtemps.
leurinfluence
surle stylede la proselatinemdivale
et mmepostmdivale.
Maisce
convenablement
contribution
ces sermons,
qui nousmanquepourmettre
pourainsi
direinnombrables,
c'estun Kepertorium
surle modlede ceuxcomposs
parMgr.F.
Pour
ce
travers
Guide
les
M.
Stegmller. prparer
pareilrpertoire, Schneyer
publie
de sermons
collections
latins
Le grosde l'ouvrage
dans
mdivaux.
(pp. 1-546)consiste
une liste,alphabtiquement
avec renvoiaux manuscrits,
le cas
d'incipits
arrange,
chant
aussiauximprims,
contiennent
des
sermons
commencent
Suit
ainsi.
qui
qui
unenumration
fortcomplte,
desauteurs
de sermons
latinspourqui
(pp. 47-555),
uneliste*incipits
a dj tpublie.Vientenfin
uneliste(pp. 6-576),
provisoire
certesmaistrssuggestive,
de formules
initiales
d'unauteur
et finales,
caractristiques
dtermin.
Ce Wegweiser
de M. Schneyder
serauninstrument
de travail
fortutile.
J.E.
75

12:10:58 PM

zumEinuss
Studien
Senecas
undTheologie
Klaus-dieter,
NOTHDURFT,
aufdiePhilosophie
. Leiden-Kln,
E. J.Brill,1963,23 x 16,xii,218pp,1 gefaltete
deszwlften
Jahrhunderts
undTextezurGeistesgeschichte
desMittelalters,
Bd.vu), Gld28.- .
Karte.(Studien
whichSenecaexerted
aimis to showtheinfluence
Theauthor's
upontwelfth
century
He starts(Erster
with
andtheological
Hauptteil:
Grundlegungen)
philosophical
writings.
to designthegeneral
frame-work
ofthetwelfth
with
anattempt
acquaintance
century
thetradition
ofSeneca'sworksup to 1300(pp. 11-34)
Senecaandtriesto reconstruct
theSenecanimagein thetwelfth
andto sketch
(pp. 35-46).Thesecondpart
century
Welt
DerEinuss
Senecas
Abendlndische
des12.Jahr(Zweiter
aufdieChristlichHauptteil:
as
a
with
the
Roman
as
an
ethician
deals
47-160),
hunderts)
philosopher
philosopher
(pp.
andas a metaphysician
ofnature(pp. 161-181),
(pp. 182-197).Theworkis concluded
indexofsourcesandliterature,
an indexofnamesandoneofSenecan
witha helpful
an
the
circulation
ofSenecanmanuscripts
and
up to
mapshowing
passages
interesting
1200.
hasusedthenumerous
available
forthisperiodwith
documents
Dr. Nothdurft
and
with
an
control
of
the
matters
his
involved.
Accordingly,
intelligent
greataccuracy
oftheworks
hitherto
about
workseemstobe morethana mereamplification
published
has
in thetwelfth
Nothdurft
influence
certain
separate
aspectsoftheSenecan
century.
in presenting
a comprehensive
viewoftheuseofSenecantextsmade
reallysucceeded
and theology.
in twelfth
philosophy
century
ofCassiodore,
hasused(p. 29)theMigneedition
A fewminor
Nothdurft
remarks.
oftheexcellent
edition
Institutiones
instead
(Oxford1936,21963);he quotes
byMynors
bookaboutGeoffrey's
ofSt.Victor's
from
Eons
Ph.Delhaye's
Philosophiae
(p. 44) Geoffrey
workbyP. Michaudoftheformer
edition
thereexistsanexcellent
Microcosmos
ythough
ofDoncaster's
ofWilliam
Quantin
(Namur1956).A discussion
Aphorismata
philosophica
onpp.
on thematters
dealtwithbytheauthor
haveyielded
additional
evidence
might
Mittelalterliches
Geistesleben
60-62.(See M. Grabmann,
in, Munich1956,pp. 36-49).
ofother
on theinfluence
bookmakestheneedofa parallelous
Nothdurft's
study
thanbefore.Dr.
Ciceroand Horace,feltmoresharply
ancientauthors,
especially
mantofillupthisgap.
Nothdurft
wouldcertainly
be theright
De R.
Inleidende
studie
van Perihermeneias.
VERHAAK,
c., S. J.ZegervanKortrijk
, commentator
PaleisderAcademin,
withan English
en tekstuitgave,
1964,26 x
Brssel,
summary.
VlaamseAcademie
vande Koninklijke
18, cxlviii,212 pp., 6 afbn.(Verhandelingen
voorwetenschappen,
letteren
en schonekunsten;
jg. xxvi,nr52).
bookpartially
fillsup a gapwhichhasexistedformanyyears,afterG.
Dr. Verhaak's
an original
de Sigerde Courtrai
Lesoeuvres
Wallerand's,
(Louvain1913), bysupplying
on Aristotle's
De interpretation
texteditionofSiger'scommentary
, whichis thethird
on thearsvetus.
editionofthetextofSiger's
Thisexcellent
partofhiscommentary
contains
is
a
learned
chapter
preceded
by
study.
commentary
introductory The first
andtheauthenticity
aboutthelifeofSigerofCourtrai
somenewdataandsuggestions
andhistorical
a literary
onthearsvetus.
Thesecondchapter
ofhisworks
study
presents
- commentary.
summarizes
ofthetextofthePerihermeneias
The thirdchapter
Siger's
of language".
viewaboutlogic,metaphysics,
andwhatmightbe called"philosophy
76

12:11:17 PM

is precededby a description
of themanuscripts
thetextofthecommentary
Finally,
oftheeditorial
usedanda statement
principles.
oftheauthenticity
Theproblem
ofSiger'sworkon thearsvetus
areextremely
of
because
their
in
the
to
different
authors
available
ascription
complicated
manuscripts.
mentions
several
fortheirauthenticity.
instead
Theauthor
ofpointing
However,
grounds
betweenSiger'sworksin conventional
to similarities
have
topics,it wouldcertainly
theargument
to confine
to suchspecialindications
as theascriptions
in
beenpreferable
somereliable
manuscripts.
FatherVerhaak
As to thePerihermeneias
pointsout an important
commentary,
on thefirst
bookandthatonthesecondbookas
betweenthecommentary
difference
Cl. [for:Classis
intheVenetian
found
; theauthor
(Marciana,
manuscript
prints
wrongly
is thatas a.magister
C. L. (codexlatinus?)]
vi, 21 = 2461).Verhaak's
suggestion
Siger
thenoteshe hadmadeas a student
whileattending
usedmorefreely
an expositio
of
whichwas veryclose to thatby Ammonius
and thatby Thomas
the Perihermeneias
forthe supposition
thatourtextis a reportatio
Aquinas.He adducesreliablegrounds
in librum
Perihermeneias
of an expositio
bymasterSigerof Courtrai.However,his
workseemsto lacksufficient
ofa "thomistic"
speaking
ground.
ofan important
In orderto arrive
at a betterevaluation
periodas thethirteenth
tohavea profound
ofalltheevents
ofthattimewhich
was,itisuseful
knowledge
century
so far.Theauthor
is quiteright(p. cv; cfrp. cxli) inconhavebeenin thelimelight
as a background
Therefore
character.
his putting
Sigerof Courtrai
sidering
Siger's
in thegeneral
frameworkofthirteenth
Perihermeneias-commentry
century
logic(pp.
themostinteresting
xxi-cv)forms
partofhisintroductory
study.
of
the
studies
Robins
and Mediaeval
Grammatical
in
(Ancient
Following
Theory
ofthedevelopment
Verhaak
ofgrammar
, London1951),andothers,
Europe
givesa survey
ofthegrammatica
Theorigin
is clarified
wellby
speculativa
up to Siger'slifetime.
pretty
recentinvestigations.
seem
Dr.
to
However,all thesescholars,
Verhaak,
including
intologicand,generally
theintrusion
ofgrammar
fail
to
misinterpret
speaking, recognize
andactual)oftheinterference
oflogicandgrammatherealsignificance
(bothhistorical
Thismuchseemsto be quitecertain,
thattheorigin
ticalanalysis.
ofterminism
in the
secondhalfofthetwelfth
due
to
the
of
and
co-operationgrammar logicexisting
century,
in theSchoolofChartres),
from
aboutthemiddleoftheeleventh
is
(probably
century
fruit
ofthisco-operation
thanspeculative
was.
(andearlier)
quitea different
grammar
The latter,no doubt,cameintoexistence
a (ratherquestionable,
I think)
through
to logicandlanguage,
inturn,
which,
(and,partly,
approach
philosophic
psychological)
aboutthemiddle
ofthethirteenth
influenced
terminism
from
Itwouldbe very
century.
taken
terminism
and
useful
toinvestigate
thedifferent
approaches by
speculative
grammar
I amsurethatsuchaninvestigation
tothesamesubject-matter.
couldbe safely
entrusted
to suchan expertas Dr. Verhaak,
whoiswellacquainted
withthethirteenth
century
which
as thespecific
Perihermeneias
literature,
maybe considered
pointof encounter
andthelogician.
No doubt,thedifference
between
themodista
between
terminism
and
bothof themin theirown rights,
wouldbe usefully
speculative
important
grammar,
clarified.
De R.

77

12:11:17 PM

"
Essai

Nani

gigantm

d'interprtation
EDOUARD

humeris insidentes"
de Bernard

de Chartres

JEAUNEAU

de Salisbury, en son Metalogicon(crit vers Tan 11^9), nous

rapporteune comparaisonqu'aimait employerBernardde Chartres
Jeanet
qui devait connatreun long succs :
humeris
insidenDicebatBernarduscarnotensisnosessequasinanosgigantium
visusacumine
videre,nonutiqueproprii
tes,utpossimus
pluraeiset remotiora
et extollimur
sedquiainaltumsubvehimur
auteminentia
magnitudine
corporis,
gigantea.1
Les nains, dans cette comparaison, reprsententles modernes; les
gants reprsententles anciens. Il serait intressant mais la tche est
quasimentinfinie de suivre traversles sicles la fortuned'une telle
contextes
Il
faudrait
videmmentdistinguerles diffrents
comparaison2.
historiqueset culturels,car tous ceux qui utilisentl'image des nains et
des gants ne la comprennentpas de la mme faon. Beaucoup d'entre
eux ignorent d'ailleurs qu'ils sont, sur ce point, les hritiers d'un
coltre du Xlle sicle. Les historiensmodernes,eux, ne l'ignorentpas.
Ils ont rendu Bernardde Chartresce qui est de Bernardde Chartres^.
En vrit, ils seraientplutt tents de lui rendre plus qu' il ne lui est
la comparaisondes nains et des gants
d : volontiersils interprteraient
comme une professionde foi dans le progrsdes sciences et de la culture,
ce que, vraisemblablement,dans la pense du Chartrain,elle n'tait pas.
1Metalogicon
III,4; d.Cl.Webb,
Oxford,
1929,p. 13623-27.
2Ontrouvera
onthe
suivantes:
danslestudes
G. Sarton,
leslments
decettehistoire
Standing
andCivilization
Review
devoted
totheHistory
shoulders
, vol.24
, dansIsis.International
ofScience
ofgiants
dans
onthe
vol.2$(1936),
shoulders
R.E. Ockenden,
Isis,
ofgiants,
Standing
(1935-36),
p. 107-109;
vol.26(1936),p. 147-149;
ontheshoulders
R. Klibansky,
, dans/sis,
Standing
ofgiants
p. 451-452;
DuCange)y
Aevi
t. 18(1945),
Latinitatis
Medii
Nani
etgigantes
Archivm
, dans
(Bulletin
J.deGhellinck,
und
inMittelalter
etdesModernes"
desAnciens
29; A. Buck,
der"Querelle
AusderVorgeschichte
p. 25-etdocuments
.
</'
etRenaissance.
Travaux
Humanisme
Renaissance
,t.20(1958),
, dans
p.527-541
Bibliothque
dela comsurl'histoire
l'attention
d'attirer
C'estdoncGeorge
Sarton
quia eule mrite

deNewton
avaittmiseenveilparunelettre
desnains
etdesgants.
Sa curiosit
paraison
onthe
itisbystanding
onouslisons:"IfI haveseenfarther,
Robert
Hooke(5 fvrier
1675/76)
shoulders
ofgiants"
, p. 107-108).
(G. Sarton,
opcit.
3II ya cependant
dwarfs
on
Posner
desexceptions.
C'estainsiqueRebecca
parledes"Voltairian
de
dansRomance
t. 20 (1966-67),
Jedois l'obligeance
giants"
Philology,
p. 321[pp.321-331].
curieux.
d'avoir
cetexte
connu
M.leprofesseur
Engels
Joseph
pourlemoins
79

12:05:44 PM

Sorti de son contexte, en effect,le mot de Bernard de Chartres

peut illustreret justifierles thsesles plus opposes. On peut y voir une
mise en valeurdu modernisme(ou de la modernit,comme on voudra) :
les modernesvoient plus loin que les anciens. On peut y dcouvrir,au
contraire, la marque d'un culte excessif pour l'antiquit: quoi qu'ils
fassent,les modernes sont et restentdes nains; les gants, ce sont les
anciens. C'est de cette derniremanire que l'humanisteespagnol Luis
Vives (149 2-140) comprenaitla comparaison des nains et des gants,
en laquelle il ne voyaitque faussetet ineptie:
simili
Falsaest enimatqueineptailla quorundam
tudo,quammultitamquam
Nosad priores
collates
esse
in
acutissimam
, utnanos
excipiunt,
atqueappositissimam
nos
nec
illi
sed
non
est
sumus
homines
humeris
nani,
ita,neque
gigantm:
gigantes,
maneat
et quidemnosaltiusevectiillorum
omnesejusdemstaturae,
beneficio,
attentio
et amorveri;
modoin nobis,quodin illis,studium,
animi,vigilantia,
sedhomines
humeris
necingigantm
sedemus,
jamnonnanisumus,
quaesiabsint,
humi
justiemagnitudinis prostrati.1
De son ct, Gassendi (i 92-16^) s'insurgecontre l'ide que la nature,
aprs avoir, dans les tempsanciens,produitde grandsgnies, ne pourrait
plus, de nos jours, enfanterque des nains:
sed absurdos
tantum
nonjam homines
naturam
Hincsi existimemus
gignere,
veteresquasialiquosgigantes
:
simias
: sinosutnanosdespiciamus,
suscipiamusque
nostriquamullonaturae
at iniquapotiusdamnatione
itaquidemessecontinget:
vitio.Illaquippenonminusinnosquamin illosliberlis
fuit,si modosedulitate
si expendamus
attentius
nontantum
velimus
contendere:
quid
atquediligentia
sed et quidvaleant
humeri.Reveraenim,si ut antiquianimum
ferrerecusent,
ingiganteam
eveheremur
adjutisubsidiis
longealtius:illorumque
applicaremus,
tandem
molemexcresceremus
aliquando.2
quandam
Il y aurait bien un moyen d'chapper aux critiques de Luis Vives et de
Pierre Gassendi, ce serait de dire que les modernes sont comme des
nains juchs, non sur les paules des gants, mais sur les paules J'un
gant*. Le gant serait alors l'humanit tout entire considre, dans

1L. Vives,
umI, $, dans
omnia
arti
Ludovici
Vivis
Valentini
Decausis
, t. 6
opera
Joannis
corruptarum
Edetanorum,
(Valentiae
178$),p. 39.
2P. Gassendi,
adversus
Aristoteleos
Exercitationes
, Lib.I, Exercitatio
II, 13,dansPetri
paradoxicae
Studio
su
edempirismo.
Scetticismo
Gassendi
t. 3 (Lyon,
. . . operat
16^8),p. n$. Cf.T. Gregory,
Gassendi
, Bari,1961,p. 30.
3Nous
aucours
duprsent
delaformule
derencontrer,
aurons
l'occasion
expos,
plusieurs
exemples
unseul:"Pour
lesesprits,
bienloindesediminuer,
ausingulier.
ici,d'enciter
Contentons-nous,
lesmesmes
: ilsontcetavantage
deplusenplus: veuqu'estans
ilssesubtilisent
queceuxdesanciens
et
d'ungant,
d'oildescouvre
toutcequevoitlegant,
surlateste
sureuxqu'auroit
unpigme
Recueil
desquestions
traictes
sconfrences
outre
celavoidencor
gnral
luy"(Th.Renaudot,
pardessus
16^6,29;
beaux
decetempst
dematires
sortes
sur
toutes
dubureau
d'adresse
Paris,
16^5parlesplus
esprits
citparA.Buck,
opcit..>
p. 41).
80

12:05:44 PM

son dveloppementhistorique,comme un seul homme, selon ce qu'crit

Pascal dans sa Prfacepour le Traitdu vide: "De l vient que, par une
prrogativeparticulire, non seulement chacun des hommes s'avance
de jour en jour dans les sciences, mais que tous les hommes ensemble y
fontun continuel progrs mesure que l'univers vieillit, parce que la
mme chose arrive dans la succession des hommes que dans les ges
diffrentsd'un particulier. De sorte que toute la suite des hommes,
pendant le cours de tant de sicles, doit tre considre comme un
mme homme qui subsiste toujours et qui apprend continuellement"1.
Les modernes,dans ce cas, ne peuventplus s'estimerlss : le gigantisme
devient un attributde l'humanit dans son ensemble, il n'est plus le
privilge de quelques individus dont le mrite serait d'tre ns il y a
fort longtemps2. Malheureusement, si la formule au singulier (les
paules du gant) se rencontre au Xlle sicle, il n'est pas sr qu'elle
revte alors la significationqu'on vient de dire. De toute faon, la
formuleau pluriel (les paulesdesgants) reste le cas le plus frquent.Le
problme pos par Luis Vives et Pierre Gassendi demeure donc entier
pour nous, qui cherchons pntrerle sens de la comparaisondes nains
et des gants, non dans son essence abstraite,mais en la replaantdans
le contextehistoriquequi l'a vu natre, savoir l'cole capitulairechartrainedu dbut du Xlle sicle. C'est Chartres,en effet,et plus prcisment chez Bernardde Chartres (chancelier de 1119 1126) que cette
comparaison apparat pour la premire fois, notre connaissance du
moins, car il n'est pas exclu, naturellement,que Bernardde Chartresait
empruntsa comparaison plus ancien que lui.
Que signifieau juste le mot de Bernardde Chartressur les nains et
les gants? Est-ilune professionde foi dans le progrs indfinides sciences et de la culture?Est-ilseulement,comme le veut M. Etienne Gilson,
l'expression d'une "firemodestie"; ou faut-ily voir, avec le P. Henri
1Penses
etlettres
deBiaise
Pascal
1844),p. 98;
tfragments
, t. i (Paris,
publis
par.. . M.Prosper
Fougre
L'oeuvre
dePascal
dela Pliade),
, d.J.Chevalier
Paris,1936,p. 310.De mme
(Bibliothque
estpourainsidirecompos
Fontenelle
: "Unbonesprit
detouslesesprits
dessicles
:
prcdents
cen'estqu'unmme
toutcetemps-l."
surlesanciens
et
esprit
quis'estcultiv
(Digression
pendant
lesmoderneSy
deJulleville,
Histoire
texte
citdans
delalangue
etdelalittrature
L. Petit
t. 6:
franaise,
Dix-huitime
sicle
yParis,
1898,p. 8.
2 "Lesanciens
c'estsurcepoint
onttoutinvent,
doncilsavoient
queleurs
partisans
triomphent;
dutout;mais
ilstaient
avant
autant
nous.J'aimerais
quenous:point
beaucoup
plusd'esprit
qu'on
lesvantt
l'eaudenosrivires,
surcequ'ilsontbulespremiers
etquel'onnousinsultt
surceque
nous
restes"
nebuvons
sur
lesanciens
etlesmodernes
de
Oeuvres
(Fontenelle,
Digression
,dans
plusqueleurs
Fontenelle
Histoire
dela querelle
etdesmodernes
desanciens
,t.g(Paris,
,
1790),
p.28^).Cf.H.Rigault,
18$6.
Paris,
8l

12:05:44 PM

de Lubac, "un aveu de misre"P1Telles sont les questionsqu'on peut et

doit se poser. Avouons que nous ne sommes pas, premire vue, dans
de bonnes conditionspour y rpondre, puisque nous ne possdons pas
les critsde Bernardde Chartres.Nous sommes rduits interrogerses
disciples plus ou moins proches. Mais, si nous menons convenablement
une telle enqute, il me semble que nous devrions russir cerner
d'assez prs la pense de Bernardlui-mme. Et si nous n'arrivonspas
dterminer,avec la dernire prcision, ce qu'il a voulu dire, nous
pourrons peut-tre entrevoirce qu'il n'a pas voulu dire. Ce ne serait
pas un si mdiocre rsultat,puisque cela nous permettraitd'liminer les
contresensauxquels ce mot clbre a donn lieu.
Le premier tmoignageque nous devons examiner est celui de Jean de
Salisbury,non qu'il soit le plus ancien ni le plus direct- Jeande Salisbury
n'a jamais suivi les leons de Bernardde Chartres- mais parce que c'est
lui qui nous assure que la comparaison des nains et des gants tait
familireau chancelier chartrain.Le chapitre IV du livre III du Meta, dans lequel nous lisons le mot de Bernardde Chartres,est conlogicon
sacr au Ilepi p(XY)veta
d'Aristote. Jean de Salisburyloue cet ouvrage,
non seulement pour son contenu, mais pour sa forme. Au reste, dit
Jean, il fautaccorder grande rvrence aux mots mmes dans lesquels
les anciens ont moul leur pense, les cultiver, en user avec assiduit.
Et pourquoi, pourrions-nousdemander, ce culte des textes? Parce que,
rpond l'auteur, ces textes possdent la majest antique (quandam a
magnisnominibus
antiquitatispraeferunt
), et aussi parce qu'on
majestatem

aisment
d'un
Ce dernier,en
adversaire.
eux,
peut, grce
triompher
se
laissera
facilement
si
la
vrit
lui
est
assne dans
effet,
plus
persuader
sa formulationantique que si elle est formule par un moderne. Et
etveterum
sitsensus
Jeande Salisburyconclut: Licetitaquemodernorum
idem,
venerabilior
estvetustas2.
A l'appui de ses dires, l'auteur du Metalogicon
rapporteune observation qu'aurait faiteAblard et que, pour sa part, il approuve entirement. Ablard pensait qu'il serait facile un homme de son temps et ce contemporaina tout l'air d'tre Ablard lui-mme - d'crire un
traitde logique qui ne ften rien infrieur,pour le fondcomme pour
la forme, ceux des anciens, "mais qu'il serait impossibleou du moins
1E. Gilson,
mdivale
dela philosophie
, 2esrie,
Paris,
L'esprit
1932,p. 226;H. deLubac,
Exgse
mdivale
, t.II,2 (Paris,
1964),
p. 2o.
2Metalogicon
III,4; d.Cl.Webb,
p. 1369-10.
82

12:05:44 PM

trs difficile un tel auteur de s'lever ... au rang d'une autorit"1.

Les anciens, ajoutait Ablard, ont lgu leurs successeurs le fruitde
leurs travaux. Ainsi, ce qu'eux-mmes n'ont dcouvert qu'au prix de
longues et pnibles sueurs, nous pouvons, nous, l'obtenir facilementet
rapidement. Notre poque jouit des acquisitions des poques prcdentes. Elle sait souventplus de choses qu'on n'en savaitautrefois,non
point en vertu de son propre talent, mais parce qu'elle s'appuie sur
l'opulence de ses anctres. C'est ce point prcis de son expos que
Jean de Salisburyintroduit la comparaison fameuse: "Nous sommes,
disait Bernard de Chartres, comme des nains assis sur des paules de
gants. .
On ne sauraitcontesterque l'ide de progrssoitici affirme.
Jeande
Salisburyva jusqu' dire que les modernes ont russi amliorer la
d'Aristote:
prsentationdu Ilepl p[AY)veia
est his quae vel aristotilesin Periermeniis
docet?Quis
Quis enimcontentus
aliundeconquisi
ta nonadjicit?Omneenimtotiusartissummam
et
colligunt
verbisfacillibus
Vestiunt
enimsensusauctorum
tradunt.
cultu
cotidiano,
quasi
festivior
estcumantiquitatis
clariusinsignitur.2
qui quodammodo
gravitate
Assurmentencore, Jean de Salisburyne professepour les crits des
anciens ni idoltrie ni superstition.Dans la prface de son Metalogicon
il va jusqu' crire:
Nec dedignatus
summodernorum
sententias
in plerisque
proferre
quosantiquis
3
nondubito.
praeferre
Il reste qu' ses yeux l'antiquit possde une gravit,une autorit, une
est vetustas.Tout cela
majest qui la rendentplus vnrable: venerabilior
est nuanc, infiniment
et
bien
dans
la
manire
de l'auteur. A qui
subtil,
penseraitque toute question est susceptible d'tre rsolue par oui ou
par non, qu'il fautncessairementchoisir entre le pour et le contre pour ou contre les anciens, pour ou contre les modernes- l'attitude de
Jeande Salisburyserait des plus dcevantes.
Jeande Salisburyn'a jamais suivi les leons de Bernardde Chartres.De
qui tient-illa comparaisondes nains et des gants? Nous ne pouvons le
1Metalogicon
la traduction
J.Isaac,Le"Peri
III,4; d.cit.,p. 13610-1;. J'emprunte
franaise
wenOccident
Her
meneias
saint
Histoire
untrait
Thomas.
littraire
, deBoce
d'Aristote,
Paris,
19^3,
p. 552Metalogicon
III,4; d.Cl.Webb,
p. 1371-7.
3Metalogicon
d.cit.,pp.3-4.
, prologue;
83

12:05:44 PM

dire avec certitude.Mais il ne seraitpas impossiblequ'il l'et apprise de

Guillaume de Conches, qui fut son matre, aprs avoir t lui-mme
, Guillaume
disciple de Bernardde Chartres.Or, dans ses GlosessurPriscien
la
fameuse
nous
de Conches
comparaison des
rapporte prcisment
nains assis sur les paules des gants. Le tmoignagede Guillaume est
plus rapprochde la source que celui de Jeande Salisbury.Le Metalogicon
de ce dernier,ainsi qu'on l'a dit, futterminvers n^9I. La premire
rdaction des Glosessur Priscienest probablementantrieure 11232. Si
cette dernire supputationest exacte, le tmoignagede Guillaume de
Conches seraitplus ancien, d'une bonne trentained'annes, que celui de
Jean de Salisbury; il serait peu prs contemporain de Bernard de
Chartres(chancelier de 1119 1126).
La comparaison des nains et des gants vient sous la plume de
Guillaume de Conches propos d'une phrase de Priscien, grammairien
latin du Vie sicle de notre re, n Csare. Priscien reproche aux
grammairienslatins d'avoir suivi, jusque dans leurs erreurs,les anciens
grammairiensgrecs et d'avoir nglig les plus rcents: Hrodien
d'Alexandrie (Ile sicle aprs J.C.) et Apollodore d'Athnes (vers 140
avant J.C.). Pourtant, remarque Priscien, plus les grammairienssont
.
, tantoperspicaciores3
rcents, plus ils sont perspicaces: quantojuniores
Voici comment Guillaume de Conches explique ces mots dans la
:
premirerdactionde ses GlosessurPriscien
Bene
tanto
Auetores
, posteriores,
, grammaticae,
perspicaciores.
quanto
juniores
cujus
suntquam antiqui,sed non sapientiores.
dicitquia moderniperspicaciores
Nosautem
habenius
nisiea quaeipsicomposuerunt.
nonhabuerunt
scripta
Antiqui
et omniainsuper
omniaeorumscripta
tempus
quaeab initiousquead nostrum
Etitapluraperspicimus
fuerunt
il<lissed)nonplu<rasci)mus.Multo
composita.
.... di .... Undesumusquasinanus
estnovainvenire
majorenimsapientia
nonex
t longius
Ille quidemaspici
superpositus.
gigante,
aliquishumeris
gigantis
et nospluravidemus
tatesupposi
ti. Similiter
sed ex quanti
tatepropria,
quanti
sednon
eorumoperibus
nostra
superaddita,
parvaet magnis
antiquis,
quiascripta
immoillorum
..A
ex ingenio
et laborenostro,
1A.Clerval,
- Paris,
1895,p. 277.
deChartres
Lescoles
auMoyen
, Chartres
Age
2E. Jeauneau,
dethologie
deConches
deGuillaume
surPriscien
desgloses
Deux
rdactions
, dansRecherches
etmdivale,
ancienne
t. 27(i960),p. 227,n.60[pp.212-247].
3Priscien,
Latini
XVIII
libri
Institutionum
,vol.II-III,
, d.M.Hertz
[H.Keil,Grammatici
grammaticarum
t. I, p. 1 6-7.
i8-i89],
Leipzig,
4 Guillaume
Laurentienne
surPriscien
Ms.Florence
Gloses
deConches,
,
, Bibliothque
(1re
rdaction),
Deux
rdactions.
. ., cit.,p. 23$.Lesmots
citdansE. Jeauneau,
SanMarco
310,fol.iv-2r;texte
le
Endeuxendroits,
desconjectures.
dansdescrochets
> reprsentent
<
quej'ai inclus
lespoints
de suspension.
c'estce qu'indiquent
estillisible:
de Florence
manuscrit
84

12:05:44 PM

La premire rdaction des Glosessur Priscien

, selon le tmoignage de
Guillaume lui-mme, tait une oeuvre de jeunesse. L'auteur devait la
reprendreplus tard et en donner une nouvelle rdaction o le mme
passage de Priscien est plus succinctementcomment:
auctores
tanto
Non
, grammaticae,
existentes,
, quanto
Cujus
perspicaciores
juniores.
dicitdoctiores,
sedperspicaciores.
Nonenimpluraseimus
sed
quamantiqui, plura
Habemus
enimillorum
hoc,naturale
perspicimus.
scriptaet, praeter
ingenium
Sumusenimnanisuperhumeros
ex
quo aiiquidnoviperspicimus.
gigantm,
alterius
tate?]multum,ex nostra
qualitate[quanti
parvum
perspicientes.1
Les modernesoccupent bien une position suprieure celle des anciens,
mais tout le mrite en revient ces derniers. L'ensemble des Glosessur
Priscienrend le mme son. Le but de Guillaume de Conches, en faitde
grammaire,n'est pas d'innover,mais de restaurer,par del les dviations
des modernes, le bon usage des anciens: Sumusrelatoreset expositores
veterum
novorum2
Et cette rflexiond'un bon artisande la
, noninventores
"
"renaissance du Xlle sicle fait penser au mot d'un humaniste de
l'autre Renaissance, Erasme (1467-1 36): Nos veterainstauramus
, nova
3. Jusque dans la
nonprodimus
des
ae
Guillaume
graphie
diphtongues , oe,
veut qu'on revienne l'usage ancien d'crire les deux voyelles, bien
qu'une seule doive tre prononce. Ce sont les "modernes" qui ont
prisl'habitude de remplacerces diphtonguespar un e cdill ; et cela, par
condescendance pour les ignorants "qui veulent prononcer tout ce
qu'ils voient crit"*.
Guillaume de Conches admire les anciens; il n'hsite pas les dire
suprieursaux modernes. Et cette suprioritse manifeste,selon lui,
en ce faitque les modernes ont grande peine comprendreet commenterles crits des anciens:

1Guillaume
de Conches,
Gloses
surPriscien
Ms.Paris
, BNLat.15130,fol.2ra;
(2e rdaction),
texte
citdansE. Jeauneau,
Deux
rdactions.
. ., cit.,p. 235.
2 Guillaume
deConches,
Gloses
surPriscien
SanMarco
Bibl.Laur.,
310, fol.45rb;Ms.
, Ms.Florence
Paris
citdansE. Jeauneau,
Deux
rdactions.
. . cit.,p. 23c.
, BNLat.15130,fol.49vb;texte
3 "Nosvetera
novanonprodimus"
Lettre
Godescalc
Rosemondt
instauramus,
(Erasme,
(Louvain,
18octobre
Roterodami
denuo
Des.Erasmi
etauctum
1^20),dansOpus
epistolarum
recognitum
perP. S.
Allen... etH. M. Allen,
t. 4 (Oxford,
115-3,
185-186
1922),Lettre
lignes
(p. 367).Ce mot
d'Erasme
estcitetcomment
Notes
surune
conteste
dyhistoire
, dansArchives
parE. Gilson,
frontire
doctrinale
etlittraire
duMoyen
M.LonE. Halkin,
, t. 2$(1958),p. 88.Jesuisredevable
Age
professeur
l'Universit
deLige,
d'avoir
cetexte
dontM. Gilson
nedonne
repr
paslarfrence.
* Guillaume
de Conches,
Gloses
surPriscien
, Ms.Paris
, BNLat.15130,fol.88ra;textecitdans
E. Jeauneau,
Deux
rdactions
. . ., cit.,p. 242.

12:05:44 PM

modernis:
quod in operibuseorumapparet,
Antiquimultomelioresfuerunt
laborant
moderni.1
semper
quorumexpositione
Le fait,pour un matre chartrain,d'invoquer la comparaisondes nains
et des gants ne l'empche donc pas d'admirer l'antiquit, voire de la
prfrer,sous tel ou tel aspect, aux temps modernes. L'antiquit est
dit Jeande Salisbury;les anciens
estvetustas),
plus vnrable ( venerabilior
valaientmieux que les modernes (antiquimultomeliores
),
fueruntmodernis
dit Guillaume de Conches2. Nous sommes sur le plan des arts libraux,
notons-le,et non sur celui de la science sacre.
Le tmoignagede Jean de Salisburyet celui de Guillaume de Conches
sont d'une grande importance. C'est sur eux que doit porter surtout
notre attention, si nous voulons interprtercorrectementle mot de
Bernardde Chartres.Il n'est pas sans intrt, toutefois,de glanerici ou
l, dans le Xlle sicle et au-del, quelques tmoignagessupplmentaires.
Alain de Lille (1128-1203 environ) crit en la prface de son
et propos de cette oeuvre mme :
Anticlaudianus,
nullosreprehensionis
morsussustineat,
In hoc tamennullavilitateplebescat,
redolet
et
florem
et dilimodernorum
ruditatem,
praeferunt
qui ingenii
quod
cum pygmaeahumilitas,
excessuisuperposita
dignitatem^,
gentiaeefferunt
1Guillaume
surMacrobe
Gloses
deConches,
II,XI,i], Ms.Copenhague
, Biblio[InSomnium
Scipionis,
variantes
, Gl.Kgl,S. 1910,40fol.i22r.Mmetexte, quelques
Royale
thque
prs,dansles
etduVatican
deBamberg,
Bibi.Nat.Class.
Lat.1140,
manuscrits
40[H.J.IV.2/],fol.24.va,
, Urbin.
dumme
chezDanielSennert:
uneremarque
fol.146V.
type
)
Signalons
"Ipsi(ils*agitdesanciens
illigigantes
nobis
sunt
humeris
noshomunciones
duces
enim
adsapientiam
; etistisunt
magni
quorum
noncerneremus.
Et quidhodieegregii
veritatem
subvecti
quamhumihaerentes
adspicimus,
iHorum
Immo
commentariis
sublectum.
habemus
quishodiead priscorum
quodnone veterum
satisidoneus
?" (D. Sennert,
et
De Chymicorum
cumAristotlicas
commentationes
interpretandas
liber
omnia
acdissensu
Galenicis
consensu
, cap.3, dansOpera
, t. i (Paris,1641),p. 921)je dois
Tullio
d'avoir
ainsi
connu
letexte
deDaniel
deM.leprofesseur
Sennert,
Gregory
l'obligeance
que
Gassendi
citplushaut.
celuidePierre
2 Onpeutciter
sensla Microcosmographia
deTrves
dansle mme
, Stadtbibliothek
1041
(Ms.Trves
de 1164
Guillaume-aux-Blanches-Mains
deChartres
quifutvque
(1267),pp.S~SS),ddie
deconstitutione
etejussimilicreberrimas
humanae
naturae
1168: "Cum
quaestiones
apudantiquos
inveniam
ventilatas
esseet quasdam
cumaliisnaturis
tudine
etdifferentia
solutas,
[naturas,
Migne]
dissertationi
modernorum
invenrelictas
vero
nonsolum
cumsuisdubitationibus
; modernos
quasdam
necsaltem
cumeisdubitasse,
sedstudio
nonpraeluxisse,
suisveljudicio
tionibus
negligenti,
antiquis
in memoria
fuerunt
infudisse
adeout,si prius
in eismagnas
terutuntur,
tenebras,
quoturpi
inoblivionem
PL
venerint
dansMigne,
omnimo
eorum
." (d.Martne
[fuerint,
negligentia
Migne],
en
deMigne
surle manuscrit
deTrves,
le texte
etje l'aicorrig
209,871 C-D).J'aicontrl
deuxendroits.
3II ya, danscesmotsd'Alain
auctores
deLille,unerminiscence
vidente
dePriscien:
"Cujus
etingeniis
valuisse
omnium
etdiligentia
sunt
tanto
floruisse
judicio
juniores,
perspicaciores,
quanto
Institutions
t. i (Leipzig,
confirmantur
eruditissimorum."
yPrface,
1; d. M. Hertz,
(Priscien,
18SS),p. i 6-8).
86

12:05:44 PM

et rivusa fontescaturiens
in torrentem
altitudine
praeveniat
gigantem
giganteo,
excrescat.1
multiplicatus
Dans le premier quart du XlIIe sicle (entre 1212 et 1225), Raoul de
d'Alain de Lille et interLongchampdevait commenterVAnticlaudianus
prtercomme suit l'image des nains et des gants:
- istudidem
cumgruibus
humilitas
. Pygmaei
populinanisuntet pugnant
Pygmaea
- sedsuperpositi
decretorum
humeris
diciturinprohemio
com(m)enti
gigantm
ex quanti
vident
tatepropria
etex quanti
tategigancium.
quamipsigigantes
longius
Sic et moderni,
et,
antiquorum
philosophorum
praemanibus
qui habentscripta
et
alcius
et
forcius
vident
hoc,
subtilitatem,
Cod,] ingenium
quam
[propter,
praeter
antiqui.2
Il faut citer aussi, dans la dpendance d'Alain de Lille, un auteur du
XlIIe sicle qui, selon M. RaymondKlibansky,doit beaucoup l'cole
de Chartres, Henri Le Breton. Ce dernier crit, en effet, dans sa
:
Thilosophia
verbum
Huicetiamconsonai
priscianiinprincipio
is,ubidicitquodquanto
Major
tantoperspicatiores
et ingenio
floruisse
moderniores
videntur.
Supraquod
magis
dicitp<etrus>h<eliae>quodsumussicutnanuspositussuperhumeros
gigantis,
videre
quiasicutpotestviderequicquidgigaset adhucplus,sicmoderni
possunt
inventum
est
ab
et
si
novi
Huic
etiam
addere.
quicquid
antiquis quid
potuerunt
alanus cumdicit: "Pygmaea
consonat
humilitas
excessu[sic]superposita
giganteo
et rivusde fontecacurizans
multi[sic]in torrentem
superat
ipsiusaltitudinem
excrescit."
sui
est,
plicatus
quidampopulus quempropter parvitatem
Pygmaeus
Ex hocpatetquodpossibile
estnosad adeptionem
devorare.
philogruesvolunt
3
sophiaedevenire.
1AlaindeLille,Anticlaudianus
, d.R. Bossuat,
Paris,195$,p. ss~56. Cf.M. - Th.d'Alverny,
deLille.Textes
indits
sursa vieetsesoeuvres
Alain
avecuneintroduction
, Paris,196^.AlaindeLille
uneprfrence
absolue
auxmodernes?
accordait-il
Guillaume
d'Auxerre
(fi230)nelepensait
pas,
danssoncommentaire
de /'Anticlaudianus:
"Cum
humilitas
quicrivait
pyg{maea
). Quiadixerat
crediquodactorsimpliciter
modernos
florum",
"ingenii
praeferunt
posset
praeferret
antiquis,
ideosignt
intell
istud
, BNLat.8299
, fol.14V).
igit"(Ms.Paris
quomodo
2 J'utilise
lathse
deMmeR.Bloch-Cornet,
madisposition
indite
mise
aimablement
:
parl'auteur
Lescommentaires
deVAnticlaudianus
d'Alain
deLille
D. Cornet,
deRaoul
deLong, t. 2: Lecommentaire
nationale
deschartes.
1.
Positions
desthses.
. . de194St
champ,
dactylographie,
p. 12.Cf.Ecole
P77-8
Letexte
BNLat.8083,fol.3r. MmeBloch-Cornet
estceluiduMs.Paris,
a relev
les
reproduit
variantes
duMs.Paris,
BNLat.8301,fol.i8r.Lesplusintressantes,
cit,sontles
pourlepassage
suivantes
: sedsuperpositi]
exquantitate
sisupposito
sedgigantm
; non
; proprium
propria
quantitate
ingenium.
Notons
semble
s'trelui-mme
d'Alainde Lillequandil
queRaoulde Longchamp
inspir
critdansle Prooemium
de soncommentaire:
"Licetequidem
hujuslibri(qui) Anticlaudianus
inscribitur
altitudinem
meaepygmaeitas
. ." (Ms.Paris
inquisitionis
attingere.
pienenonpossit
BNLat.8083>
fol.ir).
3Ms.Oxford,
Christi
surdeuxpoints
decelle
diffre
283,fol.147ra.Matranscription
Corpus
College
dansIsist. 26(1936),p. 148: je lispotuerunt
M. R. Klibansky
etnonpoterunt,
quepropose
superetnonsupposita.
posita
87

12:05:44 PM

La comparaisondes nains et des gantsse trouve ici rapprochedu mot

fameuxde Priscien: quantojuniores
. On ne devra donc
, tantoperspicaciores
pas s'tonner qu'Henri Le Bretoninvoque l'autorit de Pierre Hlie qui,
comme Guillaumede Conches et souventen accord avec lui, a comment
Priscien1.
Voici un autre tmoignage,tir d'un crit d'origine monastique,
la Theographiade Longuel de Clairvaux, compose, selon dom Jean
Leclercq, entre 1186 et 1193. Nous y lisons:
me essesentiam
vel censeam.Ceterum
Nonquiasapientem
sim,
qualiscumque
abjectushomuncio,licet etiamnanos gigantmhumeris
quantumcumque
amatorem
tamensapientiae
audacter
et
cumadmiratione
incubantes
suscipiam,
Et quidemverasapientiaChristus
me essepronuntio.
ex sententia
est,utpote
Dei virtus
et Dei sapientia.2
Alain de Lille, Raoul de Longchamp et Longuel de Clairvaux ont au
moins un point commun: leur appartenance l'ordre cistercien. Dans
un contexte diffrent,il fautciter le mdecin Gilles de Corbeil (11401224?), qui utilise, lui aussi, l'image des nains et des gants. Faisant
l'loge des matresde Salerne, Pierre de Musanda et Maurus, Gilles de
Corbeil dit que le premier, en mourant, lgua son esprit au second.
Maurus est comme le nain juch sur les paules de Pierre de Musanda.
Gilles s'adresse en ces termes son propre livre:
sole nitenti Et nitetet
Tibi defensacula
apex,quo tanquam
ponetMusandinus
funere
famaSalerai:Cujussi fueritresolutum
nituitillustris
corpus,Spiritus
MauriTotareplet.Maurus
redimii
etmagni
exultt,
pectora
damnumque
rependit
nanushumeris
Primaquod in Petropassaest et perdidit
aetas,Qui tanquam
tueturLongius,et summo
Desuperincumbens
ipso fortasse
colloquegigantis
Musandinus
nuncviveret
auctor!3
culmina
monti.O utinam
superaddit
Gilles de Corbeil est peut-trel'un des premiersmdecins - mais,
vrai dire, Guillaumede Conches revendiquaitaussi le titrede physicus
avoir invoqu la comparaisondes nains et des gants. Il ne sera pas le
dernier. Guy de Chauliac en son trait La grande chirurgie
, dat de
i 363, crira: "Nous sommes comme enfantsau col d'un gant: car nous
1R. W. Hunt,
intheeleventh
andtwelfth
Centuries
andRenaissance
onPriscian
Studies
, dansMediaeval
Studies
; t.II (i9)>PP-i-*6.
, t.I, 2 (1943),
194-231
pp.
wde
2J.Leclercq,
deClairvaux
Cistercienses
La "Theographia
Commentarii
, dansCiteaux.
, t. 12
Longuel
[pp.211-22$].
(1961),p. 2148-62,
3 C. Vieillard,
medicale
etreligieuse
auXIlesicle.
deCorbeil
dePhilippe
Gilles
Essai
surla socit
, mdecin
deNotre-Dame
M. Andr
etchanoine
(1140-1224
?),Paris,1909,p. 340-341.
Jeremercie
Auguste
de m'avoir
ainsiqueplusieurs
faitconnatre
ce texte,
l'EcoledesChartes,
Vernet,
professeur
enleurtemps.
autres
queje signalerai
88

12:05:44 PM

pouvons voir tout ce que voit le gant et quelque peu dauantage"1.

Ambroise Par (1517-i 90) empruntera Guy de Chauliac la fameuse
comparaison2;et son disciple Pierre Pigray(*1*1613) l'imitera^. Remarquons, en passant,que Vimage des nains assis sur les paules des gants
peut aussi bien servir la cause des mdecins traditionalistesque celle
des novateurs.Ainsi, en 1580, Alexandre Dionyse l' invoque-t-il contre
les nouveauts tmraires de Franois Martel (1549-1610)4; et ce
dernierl'invoque contre le traditionalismetroitd'Alexandre Dionyse*.
Avant de quitter les disciples d'Hippocrate, citons encore Alexandre Ricart, mdecin des rois d'Aragon de 1395 1422:
Non est quo mireris
ex eademmateriasuisquestudiisdiversosdiversaapta
in
eodem
canisleporem,
ciconialacertam.
pratobosherbam
colligere;
quaerit,
1LaGrande
deM.GvideChavliac,
Medecin
deVUniversit
deMompelier
Chirurgie
, composee
tres-Jameux
Vandegrace
nouvellement
a sadignit
Iovbert
. . ., Lyon,
1363.Restituee
1^80,p. 2.
parM.Laurens
2 "Nous
avons
dubonpereGuidon
deChauliac
comme
l'enfant
[= Guy
appris
] quenoussommes
qui
estsurlecolduGant:
c'est--dire
escrits
nousvoyons
cequ'ilsontveu,etpouvons
queparleurs
voiretentendre
encore
ilfaudroit
Autrement
eustfaict
seulement
ledevoir
dauantage.
queNature
devraye
mere
envers
sespremiers
etenvers
nouscomme
sefust
monstre
enfans,
marastre,
puis-nez
nouslaissans
desnuez
detoutesprit,
etsteriles
eninvention:
cequ'onneluypeutimproperer
sans
etsansserendre
decrime
deparricide,
accusant
iniustement
unesi
tort,
grand
luyfaire
coupable
iuste
mere"
ouentre
la vraye
dela Chirurgie
Par,Introduction
(Ambroise
pour
,
parvenir
cognoissance
Aulecteur,
dansLesoeuvres
Ambroise
conseiller
etpremier
duRoy
Par,
, 1ie dition,
chirurgien
Lyon,
nonnumrotes).
i62,premires
pages
3 "Nous
direquenoussommes
comme
l'enfant
aucolduGant,
pouuons
quivoidtoutcequepeut
voirle Gant,
etquelque
chose
deplus:ainsinousvoyons
ce quelesanciens
ontveuetquelque
chose
nousdeuons
tant
loer
leursoing
etdiligence,
et
dauantage,
desquels
qu'ilnousestpossible,
leurlabeur,
encore
faire
plusimiter
pourauoirestsigrand,
quec'esttoutcequenouspouuons
despreceptes
deMedecine
etChirurgie
avecample
declaration
desremedes
(Epitome
quede l'imaginer"
auxmaladjes
Paris,
1609,p. 2).
propres
parP. Pigray,
* . . Etaussi
neporter
aucun
honneur
etreuerence
nozbonsanciens
medecins
etchirurgiens,
trauaill
nouslaisser
unnombre
infini
deliures,
et
quionttant
parescript
pournousenseigner
enla curedetousulceres
conduire
etautres
maladies
Tellement
sanables.
bien
quenouspouuons
direquenous
etexerons
nostre
estt
leurs
comme
estans
enfans
mis
practiquons
propres
despens,
surle coldugant.
etResponse
deAlexandre
. ." (Traicte
maistre
etbarbier

Dionyse,
chirurgien
Vendosme
. . ., Paris,
cahier
Alexandre
date
1^81,nonpagin,
D, page1).Danssaprface,
Dionyse
sontrait:
"CeXXijNouembre
i8o".
s "Quant
l'eautoute
iel'ayilya quinze
ouseizeans,assezprouu
mixtionne,
pureetnullement
enunpetit
discours
sousmonnom,auquel
a voulu
de
contredire
unchirurgien
quiestimprim
Vendosme
nomm
raison
sinon
Dionise,
lequelpourtoute
n'allegue
qu'ilnel'a iamais
ouydire
comme
si nousestions
si miserables
d'inventer
nyveupratiquer
qu'ilnenousfust
paspermis
chose
denouueau.
Noussommes,
ditlebonGuidon,
surle colduGant,
c'esta direnous
quelque
ce quenosperesontveu,etvoyons
euxquelque
maisil ya certaines
voyons
chose,
pardessus
teincte
enescarlatte,
etquand
ilsontunefois
chauss
personnes
quiontlaceruelle
quelque
opinion,
il estmalais
Ilsmettent
delaleuroster.
tousiours
enauant
la coustume,
etmoy
iecroy
quec'est
uneespece
detyrannie,
seulement
lacoustume,
siellen'estappuyee
dequelque
raison"
d'alleguer
leschirurgiens
a la vraye
connoissance
Martel,
, dansIntroduction
(Franois
Apologie
pour
pour
parvenir
dela chirurgie
deFlesselles
. . ., Paris,
, parM.Philippe
dogmatique
1635-,
p. 162-164).
89

12:05:44 PM

in collo
ad illos,sicutMinaliopygmaeus
Fateortarnen
quodsum,comparatus
Atlantis
erectus.1
Notre propos tant de mieux comprendre la pense de Bernard de
Chartres,nous devons accorder une particulireattentionaux auteurs
du Xlle sicle qui, par les proccupationset la culture, s'apparentent
l' cole de Chartres. De ce nombre semble bien avoir t Alexandre
Neckam. Dans son De naturisrerum(crit entre 1150 et 1200), ce
dernier introduitla comparaisondes nains et des gants propos de la
fablede l'aigle et du roitelet. Les oiseaux, un jour, concoururentpour la
royaut: celui qui volerait le plus haut serait le roi. Un tout petit
sur la tte de l'aigle et prtenmoineau (parr) se hissa frauduleusement
dit tre le vainqueur du concours. On l'appela le roitelet (regulus).Et
voici la morale de la fable:
illos tangi
t qui, aliorumlaboresintrantes,
Haec relatiofabulosa
gloriamaliis
nossumusquasinani
inse praesumunt
transferre.
debitam
Et,utaitphilosophus,
tenemur
itaquenostrisascribere
Praedecessoribus
stantes
superhumeros
gigantm.
similes
transferre
ea quaeingloriam
audisnostrae
audemus,
parrae
nonnunquam
est.2
vicisse
protestata
quaelevilabore,immonullo,aquilam
Nous sommes loin, on en conviendra, de certaines exgses rcentes
selon lesquelles l'image des nains et des gantsattesterait,chez ceux qui
l'utilisent, un sens aigu du progrs de la culture, voire du progrs de
l'histoire. Le propos d'Alexandre Neckam semble tre, bien plutt,
de rabaisser la superbe de certains modernes. A la limite, c'est une
leon d'humilit qui nous est donne, rien de plus. Cette tendance
moralisatriceapparat en pleine vidence dans un sermon de Raoul
Ardento nous lisons:
in
etpontfices
Talesquippeessedebent
sacerdotes
ut,quemadmodum
ipsimagni
ut et magniesse mereantur
ita magnisintin sanctitate,
praemii
praelatione,
etinfima
altusgradus
resestatqueturpissima,
retribu
tione.Monstruosa
siquidem
mei- qui,
nostrum
est- unde dolendum
vita.Quodcontraquosdam
est,fratres
se super
et simoniam
cumsintvitaet moribus
tarnen
infimi,
perambitionem
in
vertices
elevant
ut
sublimati,
majores
tanquamsuper
gigantm
appareant
inpopulis.3
et commotionem
derisum
et subsannationem
capitis
1Antoine
- Lapeyssonnie
dansG.Beaujouan,
Dureau
adresse
auroiMartin
, d.J.-M.
Ricart,
Prface
- Paris,
etvtrinaire
Mdecine
humaine
lafinduMoyen
1966,pp.276-277.
Jedois
, Genve
Age
deM.Andr
Vernet
d'avoir
connu
cetexte.
l'obligeance
2Alexandre
Denaturis
rerum
Londres,
1863,pp.122-123.
Neckam,
I, 78; d.Th.Wright,
3RaoulArdent,
deRaoul
Vobit
Homiliae
II, 21[= 187];PL1g,1^67A. Cf.M.-Th.d'Alverny,
Ardent
d'histoire
etlittraire
duMoyen
t. 13(1940-42),
doctrinale
, dansArchives
pp.403-40$.
Age,
90

12:05:44 PM

Plus significatif
pour notre propos est le tmoignagede Pierre de Blois.
N Blois vers 1130, Pierre est trs li au milieu chartrain.Il est l'ami
de Guillaume-aux-Blanches-Mains
et celui de Jean de Salisbury,Tun et
P autre vques de Chartres.Il se considre lui-mme comme un chartrainexil outre-Manche.De Londres, o il tait archidiacre,il crivit
un jour au Doyen et au Chapitre de Chartresune lettre que la reconnaissanceavait dicte et dans laquelle se lit son amour pour le sanctuaire
chartrain,dpositairede la sainte Tunique de la Vierge1. Par la chronologie comme par l'esprit, il est assez proche de Jeande Salisbury.C'est
dans sa Lettre92, adresse Regnault, vque de Bath, qu'il voque
l'image des nainsassis sur les paules des gants. Un calomniateurjaloux
l'a accus de plagiat. Pierre se dfenden invoquantl'exemple des saints
Pres qui, dans leurs ouvrages, citent frquemmentles paroles de
l'Ancien et du Nouveau Testament, l'autorit de Macrobe et de
Snque qui recommandent l'crivain d'imiter l'abeille, enfin la
clbre comparaisondes nainset des gants:
sues, ego semperaemulabor
Quidquidcanesoblatrent,
quidquidgrunniant
veterum
mea; necme,sipotero,
: inhiseritoccupatio
solunquam
inveniet
scripta
humerossumus,quorumbeneficio
otiosum.Nos quasinanisupergigantm
dumantiquorum
inhaerentes
tractatibus
quamipsispeculamur,
longius
elegantiores
eorumsententias,
aboleverat
hominumve
in
quasvetustas
quasimortuas
neglectus,
novittm
essentiae
suscitamus.2
quamdam
Et Pierre de Blois poursuit:
Seimus
a prophetis,
abapostolis,
eta doctoribus
doctores
aliosdoctores,
apostolos
sicutHieronymum
de librisOrigenis,
Bedani
de
libris
et
Ambrosii,
Augustinum
Ambrosium
verode scriptis
Ciceronis
et Senecae,Gregorium
tis
quoquede scrip
et Hieronymi
nonsolumsententias,
sed verbaipsain causammutui
Augustini
accepisse.3
Un sicle plus tard, le chroniqueurGirard d'Auvergne, dans la prface
de son Historiaguralis - qui va de l'origine du monde l'an 1272 reprendra son compte la comparaison des nains et des gants en
utilisant,ou plus exactement, en recopiant la Lettre92 de Pierre de
Blois :
1PL207,19-52
Unarchidiacre
deLondres
etlevoile
de
cf.A. Clerval,
lettre,
. Ausujetdecette
Notre-Dame
au XUesicle
deNotre-Dame
deChartres
, dansLa Voix
1908(11 avril),
(supplment),
pp.183-185.
2PL207,290A-B.
3PL207,290C.
91

12:05:44 PM

Quasiergonanussuperhumeros
positus,eorumbeneficio
speculabor
gygantum
et
eorum
hominumve
;
sentencias,
quasjamvetustas
quam ipsi elegantiores
longius
inquandam
novittm
essenciae
suscitavi.1
aboleverat,
quasijammortuas
neglectus
Le sens de Vimage des nains assis sur les paules des gants,chez Pierre
de Blois, semble assez clair. L'impressionque nous prouvons la lecture
de la Lettre
92 est confirmepar la Lettre101 , que H. Denifleet E. Chatelain datent des environsde Tan 11602. Pierre de Blois y critique une
certaine mthode rcente d'enseignement- qui n'est pas sans analogie
avec les procds des "Co miliciens"3 - visant substituerl'tude de
brves notes de cours (schedulae) la lecture approfondiedes anciens.
Tout autre est la mthode qui a l'assentimentde Pierre de Blois :
estscientia"
de lacu
estquia "inantiquis
(JobXII, 12). Nec Jeremias
Scriptum
vestes
veteres
etattritae
ei submittantur
doneeinfunibus
. XXXVIII,
educitur
(Jer
nonascendi
tia ad lumenscientiae
turnisiantiquorum
12-13).Namde ignoran
Gloriatur
se scriptis
studio
tur.
Jeronimus
relegan
scriptapropensiore
Origenis
se
insti
Oracius
Homerum.-*
tisse.
jactitat
quoque
operosior
relegisse
Pour son compte, Pierre de Blois se flicite d'avoir pratiqu, non
seulement la correspondanced 'Hildebert de Lavardin,mort vque du
Mans en 1134 - un "moderne" par consquent - mais aussi Trogue
Pompe, Josephe,Sutone, Hgsippe, Quinte Curce, Tacite, Tite-Live
et beaucoup d'autres. Chez tous ces auteurs, ajoute-t-il, "la diligence
des modernes" peut trouver les fleursaromatiques dont elle a besoin
pour fabriquerson miel. Et les fleursque recherche notre auteur dans
le jardin des anciens, ce sont, avant tout, de belles citations,des rcits
1L. Delisle,
dessavants
oud'Anvers
Girard
Lechroniqueur
, dans
, Anne
1900,p.
Journal
d'Auvergne
M.Andr
Vernet
d'avoir
connu
cetexte.
23S (PP*232-242].
Jesuisredevable
2 H. Denifle
universitatis
Parisiensis
Chartularium
etE. Chatelain,
, t. 1 (Paris,
1889),
pp.27-29.
3 Pierre
illisexpendere
diessuosinhiisquaenecdomi
eneffet:
deBloiscrit
,
"Quidenim
prodest
necalicubi
alicui,nisidumtaxat
necinclaustro
necinforo,
necmilitiae
, necinecclesia
, necincuria
,
prosint
"
enitaliques
setrouvent
etE. Chatelain,
inscolisi
cit.,p. 28).Lesmots
imprims
(d.H. Denifle
deSalisbury,
chezJean
textuellement
II,9 (d.Cl.Webb,
Metalogicon
p. 77 1-3).A propos
quasi
Notizie
e questioni
sulmovimento
e Ricerche
cf.F. Alessio,
desCornificiens,
, dansStudi
"corniciano"
duchefde l'cole,ce mystrieux
medievale
diFilosoa
, Pavie,1961,pp.3-12.La personnalit
a longtemps
leshistoriens.
de Salisbury,
dontparleJean
M. leprofesseur
"Cornificius"
intrigu
nouvelle
etsingulirement
sur
deprojeter
unelumire
clairante
De Rijkvient
Lambert-Marie
Cornificius
avecle matre
d'identifier
Guaio
: L. M. deRijk,
enproposant
cettenigme,
parisien
andtheSchool
SteGenevive
Alberic
ontwelfth
Evidence
new
Some
, dansVivariumt
century
Logic.
ofMont
4(1966),pp.4-8[pp.i-sj].
* Pierre
etE. Chatelain,
Lettre
101, d.H. Denifle
deBlois,
cit.,p. 29;PL207,313C - 314A.
deBlois,
taitfamilier
Guillaume
iciparPierre
deConches:
deJob(XII,12),invoqu
Letexte
Priscianum
Platonem
Glosae
Paris,196^,p. 84; Glosae
, Ms.
, cap.23,d. E. Jeauneau,
super
super
de
Deux
citdansE. Jeauneau,
rdactions
desgloses
deGuillaume
Paris
, BNLat.1^130,fol.ira,texte
etmdivale
dethologie
ancienne
dansRecherches
surPriscien,
Conches
, t. 27(i960),p. 243.
92

12:05:44 PM

historiques qui difient le lecteur et rehaussent le discours. Nous

sommes sur un plan purementlittraire. Les proccupationsde Pierre
de Blois sont des proccupations de lettr, de grammaticus
, bien plus
de
de
ou
que
philosophe
thologien.
Pourtant,aprs avoir voqu l'image des nains assis sur les paules
des gants, Pierre de Blois crivait: "Nous savons que les aptres ont
"
empruntaux prophtes,et que les docteursont empruntaux aptres.
Cette remarquenous invitetoutnaturellement dire un motdes fameuses
verriresde Chartres o les quatre vanglistessont reprsentsassis
sur les paules des quatre grandsprophtes.
Au transeptmridional de la cathdrale de Chartres, sous une rosace
qui reprsente la glorificationdu Christ, sont cinq grandes fentres.
Celle du milieu reprsentela Vierge Marie tenantdans ses bras 1'Enfant
divin. Les quatre autres contiennentchacune deux personnages: Tun,
debout, est un prophte, l'autre, assis sur les paules du premier, est
un vangliste. Isae porte ainsi saint Matthieu, Jrmie saint Luc,
Ezchiel saint Jean, Daniel saint Marc. Ces verriresfurentoffertes,
vers l'a n 1221, par Pierre Mauclerc, comte de Dreux. Par la perfection
du dessinet par la richessedu coloris, elles sont d'une beaut exceptionnelle qu'aucune descriptionne sauraitrendre: il fautles voir flamboyer
dans la splendeurd'un midi d't1.
On a souvent dit que le mot de Bernardde Chartressur les nains
et les gants pouvait bien avoir inspir cette magnifiquecomposition
iconographique qui lui est postrieure d'un bon sicle. M. Raymond
Klibanskya justement contest cette affirmation.On trouve, en effet,
des exemples de reprsentationspicturales ou plastiques des aptres
ports par les prophtes, en des zones o il est difficilede penser que
l'influencede Bernardde Chartresait pu s'exercer2. On cite mme une
peinture (aujourd'hui presque anantie) de l'ancienne glise San
Sebastianoin Pallara, sur le Palatin, Rome, qui date du Xe sicle, et
qui est donc antrieure Bernard de Chartres3. De plus, dans les
verriresde Chartres,ni les aptres ne sont des nains, ni les prophtes
des gants.
1Y. Delaporte,
Lesvitraux
deChartres
Chartres,
1926-27,
(Texte),
pp.431-433.
2 R. Klibansky,
onthe
shoulders
Isist. 26(1936),pp.147-148.
, dans
Standing
ofgiants
Surlesfresques
deSanSebastiano
inPallara
surlesglises
romaines.
, cf.E. Mle,Etude
L'empereur
III Rome
Otton
etlesglises
duXeSicle
desdeux
mondes
t. 41 (1937),pp.4-82
et
, dansRevue
; Rome
sesvieilles
l'obligeance
de M. le
, Paris,1942,pp. 1^4-15:8.
glises
Jedoiscesrenseignements
chanoine
YvesDelaporte.
93

12:05:44 PM

La chose parat claire: le texte de Bernard de Chartres et les

vitraux offertspar Pierre Mauclerc au XlIIe sicle appartiennent
deux traditionsdistinctes.Mais il n'est pas impossible que, de Tune
l'autre, une certaine osmose se soit produite. Au reste, la vie et la
survie des images sont un peu comme la vie et la survie des mythes:
elles dfientsouvent les lois de la logique. On ne peut priori exclure
que l'image des nains juchs sur les paules des gants ait influencles
exgtes et, par eux, le programmeiconographiquedes verrireschartraines.Manipuleparles exgtes,en effet,la comparaisondes nainset des
diffrente
de celle que nous
gantspourraitbien prendreune signification
lui avons reconnue jusqu'ici. Applique la Sainte Ecriture, elle serait
susceptible d'illustrerle thme du progrs de la Rvlation ,lequel est
dans un monde o la foi chrtienneimprgne.profondeffectivement,
ment la pense, le thme du progrs de la culture et du progrs de
l'histoire.
Prcisment, nous connaissons au moins un auteur de la fin du Xlle
sicle qui a appliqu au domaine de la science sacre l'image des nains
et des gants. J'ai dit que nous connaissonscet auteur. Il et t presque
aussijuste de dire que nous ne le connaissonspas. Nous savonsseulement
que l'initiale de son nom tait un B, qu'il tait clerc et probablement
chanoine Troyes, entre 1180 et 11921. Il possdait des bnficeset des
biens qui, aprs avoir t dvolus l'glise Saint-Etiennede Troyes, lui
furentrestitusgrce la protection de l'archevque de Reims, Guillaume-aux-Blanches-Mains,ancien vque de Chartres2,et du comte de
ChampagneHenri II (1 180-1192). La lettre qu'il nous a laisse au sujet
de cette affairen'est sans doute pas un chef d'oeuvre de composition
littraire. Les images s'y croisent et entrecroisentet, parmi beaucoup
d'autres, celle des nains et des gants:
ad asilumconfugimus
et scrip
turasaneta saginamur.
Ad ecclesiam
ergotanquam
et
cibus
est
inquoelephas
enim
sane
ta
tura
potus,gemma
perforata,
Scrip
pelagus
litterameretrix
natatet agnuspedatet ambulaiet, ut compendiose
dicamus,
turasaneta pelagusest in quo
. . Scrip
est ad quoslibetsensusaccommodata.
1H. Omont,
latin
886desnouvelles
dela Bibliothque
surlemanuscrit
III.
Notice
nationale.
acquisitions
delafinduXIlesicle,
dansNotices
desmanusd'unauteur
etextraits
relative
auxoeuvres
Lettre
champenois
i (Paris,1909),pp.24-27.Onconsultera
nationale
ce sujet
dela Bibliothque
crits
, t. XXXIX,
et P.-E.Beichner
dansRecherches
dethologie
lesarticles
J.R. Smeets
parP. Glorieux,
publis
t. 30(1963),pp.336ancienne
etmdivale
t. 24(19^7),pp.155-161
; t. 28(1961),pp.334-337;
l'obligeance
deM.Andr
Vernet.
340.Jedoistouscesrenseignements
2J. Mathorez,
Mains
de Chartres
Guillaume-aux-Blanches, vque
, Chartres,
1911, dansArchives
deChartres
dudiocse
, t. 20[ = Picesdtaches,
3evolume],
Chartres,
1914,pp.185historiques
340.
94

12:05:44 PM

non
elephasnatat.Superbienimet elati,ut auctoreset philosophi,
attingere
de
Deo
ea
dicuntur
et
under
"O
altitudo
divitiarum
ad
ecclesia,
quae
possunt
Dei!" (Rom.XI, 33) Scriptura
sanctapelagus
estvelfluvius
et scientiae
sapientiae
Moisesnobisquam
in quo agnusnatat,pedatet ambulai.Plus enimprofuit
et quasiidiotaequamMoises
Habraham,
plusPetruset Pauluset ceterisimplices
tanto
enim
anUS,lnstitutiones,
velceteri
Quanto
(prisci
juniores,
perspicatiores
prophetae.
de quanti
tate
Epist.dedic.,1). Nanietenimsumussuperhumeros
gigantm,
sanctameretrix
estad quoslibet
sensus
alterius
Scriptura
prospicientes.
longius
immoquamplurimis,
Sicutenimmeretrix
seseexponit,
accommodata.
multis,
estsensus
: estenimsensus
itainlittera
historialis,
multiplex
tropoloallegoricus,
gica.1
L'intrt de ce texte est qu'il nous montre la comparaisondes nains et
des gants applique la Sainte Ecriture et non plus seulement aux
auteurs profanes. Il bloque, en quelque sorte, deux images: celle des
aptres ports par les prohtes, celle des nains assis sur les paules des
gants.
On peut encore citer deux textes dans lesquels l'image des nains
et des gants est applique la Sainte Ecriture, mais dans un sens tout
diffrent.Le gant, c'est la parole de Dieu; le nain est l'entendement
humain. Le gant s'abaisse au niveau du nain, autrement dit, Dieu
accommode son langage la faiblesse de l'homme. Ainsi lisons-nous
dans un recueil de sentences thologiques apparent, semble-t-il,
l'cole de Laon, et que dom Odon Lottin dataitdes environsde 1 160 :
Ipsaverodivinapaginaquasiquidamaltissimus
gigasest,nosveroquasiparvuli
se et condescendat
nobisipsadivinascriptura,
ergout humiliet
pueri.Opportet
Ita planefaci
taliter
t. Condescendit
nobis
loquensut eamintell
igerepossimus.
ita
ut
eum
ascendere
altissimus
super
possimus.
ipse
gigas
Cumquesupereum
elevatnosusquead nubes.2
ascenderimus,
Dans le mme sens, un commentaire du Xlle sicle sur l'ptre aux
Romains,appartenant,selon le P. Nicholas Haring, l'cole porrtaine,
crit:
1Ms.Paris
8^r. Comme
mel'a aimablement
faitremarquer
, BN,Nouv.
Acq.Lat.886, ff.84Vsontempruntes
saintGrgoire-lede cesimages
Grand:
MissBeryl
"Quasi
Smalley,
plusieurs
etaltus
utitadixerim,
inquoetagnus
estfluvius,
etelephas
natet"
ambulet
planus
quidam
quippe
inJob,
Moralia
etL.-M.Hartmann
Grand,
Epist,.
cap.4; PLjg, 515A; d.P. Ewald
(Grgoire-leI (Berlin,
Germaniae
dansMonumenta
histrica,
Epistolae
1891),p. 357.
2Ms.Rouen
Lasentence
enquestion
estattribue
saint
S53(A.452),fol.134V.
, Bibl.mun.
Augucbartraine
dansunmanuscrit
dansGlane
deRouen,
dela Socit
dansMmoires
stin.Jel'ai publie
desentences
t. 21(Chartres,
Lerecueil
d'Eure-et-Loir,
1957-1961),
p. 21[pp.17-30].
archologique
de Rouen,
dumanuscrit
se trouve
lesfolios134-137
dansle Ms.Evreux,
galement
quioccupe
l'obligeance
deMelleJeanne
Bibl.mun.
Cf.
19,ff.137-14^
(je doisceurenseignement
Barbet).
arumn
dela Summa
sententi
dessources
dethologie
ancienne
et
A propos
O. Lottin,
, dansRecherches
recueils
d'crits
Hugues
attribus
deSaint-Victor,
mdivale
ibid.
t. 25 (1958),pp.42-^8;Quelques
pp.248-284.
9S

12:05:44 PM

humnus
intui
frustratur
tus.Quo
Sedquotienssuperna
intendit,
comprehendere
a
deficiunt
etverbaad eloquendum.
deficiente
ad intelligendum,
Ideoque naturali
ascenverbatransumimus,
supernaquodomocumque
quotiensad eloquendum
ascendit(ascendati
dimus.Sicutenim,ut superhumeros
) nanus,prius
gygantis
noster
ascendat
terrae
animus,
ita,utad intelligendum
superna
prosternitur
gygas
nos
assumens
ad
facultatis
humiliatur.1
verba
naturalis
priustheologica
Les exgtes chrtiensne sont d'ailleurs pas les seuls avoir utilis la
comparaison des nains et des gants. On la rencontre chez plusieurs
crivainsjuifs dont je suis redevable M. Georges Vajda d'avoir connu
les noms. Le premier en date semble avoir t Isae de Trani2. Celui-ci
aurait lui-mme reu la comparaisondes nains et des gants des "sages
des Gentils", c'est--dire des docteurs chrtiens. Voici, en effet,ce
qu'crit Sdcias ben Abraham dei Mansi (2e moiti du XlIIe sicle)
dans le prologue de son ouvrage rituel ibboleyha-Leqet:
matre
Isaede Trani uncollgue
le grand
C'estdansle mmesensquerpliqua
de faivenir unhomme
l'idepeut-elle
qui luiposacettequestion:Comment
le
coeur
tait
dont
desanciens
auxenseignements
re desobjections
scholarques,
une
?
Il
lui
la
du
sanctuaire
ouvert
aussilargement
par
parabole
rpondit
que porte
le plus
dessagesdes Gentils.Lesphilosophes
interrogrent
qu'il avaitentendue
avaient
plusde
que les anciens
grandd'entreeuxet lui dirent:Nousconfessons
des objections
nousleurfaisons
que nous,et pourtant,
sagesseet d'intelligence
et nousavonsraison.
leursproposen beaucoupd'endroits,
et nousrfutons
leurrpondit:
se faire?Le philosophe
celapeut-il
Comment
Qui voitplusloin,
il fautbiendirequec'estle gant,dontlesyeuxsontplacs
dunainou dugant?
le nainsurle coudu
plushautqueceuxdu nain.Maissi tufaismonter
beaucoup
les
gant,qui verraplusloin?Il fautbiendireque c'estle nain.Carmaintenant
nous
ainsi
C'est
du
les
sont
haut
nain
du
que
plus
placsque yeux gant.
yeux
desnainsjuchssurles cousdes gants,
sommes
parceque nousavonsvu leur
nousdisons
et nousl'approfondissons
et,parla vertude leursapience,
sapience,
toutce quenousdisons;et ce n'estpasque noussoyons
avecsagesse
plusgrands
qu'eux.3
Un autre crivainjuif, Azariah de' Rossi (n Mantoue entre ii
ii4, mort en 1577) dclare:

et

1Ms.Boulogne-surdu
l'obligeance
ce texte
connu
Bibl.mun.
24, fol.164.r.
Mer,
Jedoisd'avoir
P. Nicholas
Haring.
2II peuts'agir
soitd'Isae
diTrani),
nvers
benElijahu
lejeune(Jesaja
deTrani
soitd'Isae
1220,
du
versla finduXlleetdansla1remoiti
benMalidiTrani)
l'ancien
deTrani
quivcut
(Jesaja
inGeschichte
undGegenwart
DasJudentum
XlIIesicle.Cf.Encyclopaedia
, t. 9 (Berlin,
1932),
Judaica.
col.19-22.
3Sdcias
deiMansi,
benAbraham
Wilno,
1886,
, d.S. Buber,
ha-Leqet
p. 3$. La traSihboley
ici
m'ataimablement
duction
Vajda
communique
queje remercie
parM.Georges
franaise,
chaleureusement
.
96

12:05:44 PM

la parabole
dunainjuchsurle gant,quecitedansson
Etc'estl ques'applique
au nomd'unsageancien.1
l'auteurduibboley
Introduction
ha-Leqet
Enfin,le juif portugaisJoseph ben Abraham Ibn Hayyn, qui vivait
Lisbonne vers 1470, voque la comparaison qui nous intressedans le
. Mais, au lieu
prologue de son commentairedu Cantiquedes Cantiques
du nain, Ibn Hayynparle d'un petit enfant:
surl'pauledu gant;tesyeux
Moncoeurm'a dit: Tu es commel'enfanon
en aideet te
te viendront
unergionplusloigne
verront
; leurscommentaires
le chemin
montreront
divin.2
pardessustout,le secours
quetudoissuivre,
Cette course trop rapide traversles sicles nous aura au moins fait
toucher du doigt quel point l'image des nains et des gants est multiforme, combien dlicate est son interprtation.Notre propos, il est
vrai, n'tait pas d'en retracer l'histoire, mais plutt d'en saisir la
significationoriginelle, en d'autres termes, de chercher mieux
comprendrece que Bernardde Chartresentendaitdire lorsqu'il parlait
des nainsassis sur les paules des gants. Le momentest venu de dgager
les rsultatsde notre enqute, en concentrantnotre attentionsur les
auteurs du Xlle sicle. Parmi ces derniers, il me parat possible de
distinguersommairementdeux orientations,suivantque la comparaison
est applique aux lettressacres ou aux lettresprofanes.
Comme exemple de la premire orientation, nous avons mentionn le clerc B. de troyes^. Chez lui l'image des nains et des gants
semble bien exprimerle progrs de la Rvlation: Mose nous est plus
prcieux qu'Abraham, Pierre et Paul nous sont plus prcieux que Mose
et les prophtes*.D'une certaine faon, l'image des nains et des gants
illustreici la thse pauliniennede l'accroissement du corps mystiques.
1Le texte
andJewish
estcitdansS. W. Baron,
hbreu
Historians
, Philadelphie,
History
1964,p.
m'a
422,note131.Il estcomment
(opcit.,p. 201).Latraduction
parSaloW. Baron
franaise
taimablement
communique
parM.Vajda.
2 Letexte
dansle manuscrit
suivant:
setrouve
Paris
hbreu
, BN,Hbr.
261,fol.40. M. Vajdaa
et mecommuniquer
bienvouludchiffrer
la traduction
Cf.
franaise.
pourmoile manuscrit
inGeschichte
undGegenwart,
DasJudentum
t. g (Berlin,
Encyclopaedia
Judaica.
1930),col. 199-200.
3Notre
surle douzime
attention
essentiellement
sicle.Maisil n'estpasimpossible
porte
qu'une
desexgtes
de nouveaux
AinsiGeorge
Sarton
tmoins.
enqute
postrieurs
apporte
auprs
mentionne-t-il
Burton:
DiegodeEstella
(124-1578)
l'exgte
espagnol
queciteRobert
"Pygmaei
humeris
vident"
ontheshoulders
gigantm
(G. Sarton,
plusquamipsigigantes
Standing
impositi
dansIsist. 24(1935-36),
ofgiants,
p. 108).
* Pierre
aussi:"Seimus
a prophetis,
deBlois,
onl'a vu,crit
abapostolis
eta
doctores
apostolos
mutui
aliosdoctores
doctoribus
deBlois
... incausam
(PL207,290C). MaisPierre
aeeepisse"
del'emprunt
deprogs.
insiste
surlefait
davantage
quesurlanotion
5Ephes.
IV,11-13.
97

12:05:44 PM

Ainsi comprise, la fameuse comparaison pourrait exprimer ce que les

philosophes contemporainsappellent le progrs de la culture ou le
progrs de l'histoire, puisqu'il s'agit, en fait, du progrs de la Rvlation, de la marche en avant de l'humanit rachete, de l'accroissement
de la Cit de Dieu. Encore convient-ild'viter les anachronismeset de
ne point oublier que, derrire le thme du progrs,se cache parfois,
pour un auteurmdival, celui de la snescence du monde1.
Quoi qu'il en soit, ce n'est pas dans cette directionque nous devons
interprterle mot de Bernardde Chartres. Ce dernier, en effet,parle
des nains et des gants,non propos des lettressacres, mais propos
des lettres profanes. Les chos de sa pense doivent tre cherchs
auprs de Guillaume de Conches, de Jean de Salisbury,de Pierre de
Blois. Jeande Salisbury,on l'a vu, admet que les modernespuissentfaire
accomplir la logique de rels progrs. Mais il s'agit de la forme
beaucoup plus que du fond. En gnral, d'ailleurs, Jean de Salisbury,
Guillaume de Conches et Pierre de Blois parlent en grammatici
, en
hommes de lettres: ils ont le souci du "bien dire", du "bien crire".
Ils ne font point de philosophie de l'histoire. Leur propos est plus
modeste. Matres de grammaire,ils veulent surtout faire comprendre
leurs lves, qui sont souventde tout jeunes gens,une rgle fondamentale de leur art: le secret de bien crire s'apprend en lisant et relisant
les oeuvres des grands anciens, en se hissant, force de travail et de
mthode, sur leurs paules. Ils ne visent pas exalter les modernes au
dtriment des anciens: ils insistent davantage sur le gigantisme de
ceux-ci que sur la position "plus leve" de ceux-l. Mais ils ne prchent
pas, non plus, le culte servile de l'antiquit. Malgr certainesformules
- tel le Sumusrelatoreset expositores
veterum
novorumde
, non inventores
Guillaume de Conches - on peut dire d'eux ce que le P. de Lubac a dit
des mythologuesmdivauxen gnral: "Ils ne voulaientpas reconstituer,
1Unepaged'Othon
deFreising
trssignificative.
Il s'agit
duprologue
(j*n$8) est, ce propos,
aulivre
V delaChronica
d'Othon
rerum
inusum
scholarum
(dA.Hofmeister,
Scriptores
germanicarum
editi
historieis
exMonumentis
Germaniae
des
, 2ed.,Leipzig,
1912, pp. 226-228).
separatim
L'image
duprogrs
nains
dela culture
etdesgants
n'yparat
pas.Maislethme
yestnettement
voqu,
- encore
etaussi
Noussommes,
(translatio
pas- celuidesontransfert
quelemotnes'ytrouve
studii).
Il s'appuie,
surlesanciens.
enprogrs
surle motdePriscien
Othon,
pourle soutenir,
pense
que
nousconnaissons
bien:quanto
Maisla consquence
d'un
inluctable
, tanto
perspicaciores.
juniores
dumonde.
Lasagesse
delafin
estl'approche
telprogrs
nat l'Orient
etvient
(comme
l'empire)
danslesGaules
l'Occident.
Elleestdjarrive
etdanslesEspagnes.
mourir
Comment
pourraitnejetteunsibrillant
clatqueparcequ'elleestprsdemourir.
elleallerplusloin?Laculture
rledumonde
audernier
: "Nosverononsolum
Nousassistons,
ditOthon,
sedetvidere
credere,
dummundum.
suntpossumus,
. . nosjamdeficientem
et tanquam
ultimi
senii
quaepraemissa
mus"(d.cit.,pp.227-228).
extremum
cerni
trahentem
spiritum
98

12:05:44 PM

mais construire.Ce qu'ils demandaientaux anciens, c'tait un point de

dpart d'o s'lancer leur tour"1. Nbus savons, en effet,que Bernard
de Chartresgourmandaitses lves quand ils recopiaientservilementet
insraientclandestinementdans leurs propres compositionsdes passages
drobs aux auteursanciens. Il flairaitle larcin, dcouvraitsans peine le
morceau antique maladroitementcousu sur un tissu moderne, et il
en profitaitpour donner ses lves une utile leon : imiterles anciens
ne consistepas les recopier, mais crire aussi bien qu'eux, crire de
telle sorte que les gnrations futures puissent prendre modle sur
nous, comme nous-mmesprenonsmodle sur les anciens2.
Telle me parat tre la porte de la comparaison des nains et des
gantschez Bernardde Chartres.N'y cherchonspas une philosophie de
l'histoire qui n'y est sans doute pas. Contentons-nousd'y voir une rgle
pratique, nonce par un matre dont toute l'ambition semble avoir
t d'enseigner l'art de bien lire et de bien crire. Une telle conclusion pourra paratredcevante. Il seraitsi bon de penser que Bernard
de Chartresest du ct des modernes,donc du bon ct ; qu'il a prophtiquement entrevu ce que nous appelons le progrs de l'histoire. De
telles perspectivessont sduisantespour nous, mais elles eussent probablement bien tonn Bernard et ses disciples. Mme monts sur les
paules des gants,les matresde Chartresne pouvaientvoir aussi loin3.
Paris (15)
7 Rue Dutot
1H. deLubac,
mdivale
, t.II,2 (Paris,
Exgse
1964),
p. 220.
2 "Siquisautem
ad splendorem
suioperis
alienum
assuerat,
pannum
redarguebat
deprehensum
sedpoenam
noninfligebat.
Sicveroredargutum,
sihoctarnen
meruerat
furtum;
saepissime
inepta
tioad exprimendam
auctorum
modesta
conscendere
facieposi
imaginem,
indulgentia
jubebat,
utquimajores
fieret
imitandus"
imitabatur,
I, 24; d. Cl. Webb,
batque
(Metalogicon
posteris
- Paris,
Lescoles
deChartres
auMoyen
Cf.A.Clerval,
, Chartres
p. ^6 14-20).
1895,
Age
P*226.
3Laprsente
tude
sousuneforme
certains
desthmes
reprend,
plustechnique,
quej'aiabords
dansuneconfrence
etlesgants
surlesnains
au cours
duColloque
surLarenaissance
duXllesicle
tenu Cerisy-la-Salle
du 20au 30juillet196^,sousla direction
de M. Maurice
de
(Manche),
Letexte
delaconfrence
Gandillac.
doitparatre
dans
lesActes
dececolloque.
remercier
Jetiens
M.deGandillac
prendre
laparole
aucolloque
deCerisy,
m'adonn
l'occasion
qui,enm'invitant
delierengerbe
lesnotes
accumules
annes
surlethme
desnains
etdesgants.
pendant
plusieurs
- La correction
despreuves
mepermet
d'enrichir
la bibliographie
duprsent
article
parla
mention
d'unetude
deconnatre
importante
qu'ilnem'apastpossible
plustt:H. Silvestre,
iuniores
la Querelle
. Antecedents
desAnciens
etdesModernes
"Quanto
, tanto
perspicaciores"
, dansPublications
deVUniversit
Lovanium
deKinshasa.
Recueil
duXeAnniversaire
dela Facult
de
commmoratif
- Paris,
etLettres
danscettetude(date
, Louvain
s.d.,pp. 231-2^^.On trouvera
Philosophie
d'octobre
uneinterprtation
dela comparaison
desnains
etdesgants
aveclaquelle
1965:)
je me
sensenplein
aussi
deprcieux
Onytrouvera
accord.
laprsente
complments
esquisse.
99

12:05:44 PM

Pelbartus

of Temesvr: a Franciscan Preacher and Writer

of the Late Middle Ages in Hungary
ZOLTAN J. KOSZTOLNYIK

are eight codices composed in Magyar and dating back to

four decades of the sixteenth century that preserved
the
first
There
fragmentsof the Hungarian translationsfrom the writings of
Pelbartus of Temesvr1. It may not be importantforposterityto study
the Hungarianliteraryfragmentsof the writingsof Pelbartus,as his six
known major works survivedhim in print,and survivehim theydid in
1Mysincere
Innocent
aredueto Prof.
for
thanks
Dm,OFM.,ofSt.Bonaventure
University,
works
nowoutofprint
several
andunobtainable.
The
to mydisposal
hisrendering
secondary
thefollowing
: i . Nagyszombati512-i3
MSSare,inchronological
between
order,
eight
copied
" codex,
"ANagyszombati-kdex,
cf.K. Timr,
scribe,
;
30,1934,p. i8off.
Magyar
Nyelv,
byanunknown
a Hunyadiak
sa Jagellk
vdelme
Defense
of
I. Dm,ASzepltelen
korbant
Fogantats
Magyarorszgon
inthereigns
inHungary
oftheHunyadis
andtheJagellos,
theImmaculate
Rome,
Conception
az Ujszvetsegben
oftheNewTestament,
SziizMaria
, TheVirgin
195S>
Mary
P*S1^*G. Mihlyi,
desin 1850into
2. Corni
codex,
MS,subdivided
Rome,1954,p. 205fr.
originally
partofa larger
of
irodalomtrtenet
fiveportions
cf.J.Pintr,
, History
Library,
bythePestUniversity
Magyar
8vols.,Budapest,
"Adalkok
cf.K.Timr,
I,p. 637;onthecodex,
literature,
1930-41,
Hungarian
oftheHungarian
ontheorigin
Irodalomtrteneti
kdexeink
codices,
,
forrsaihoz,"
Kzlemenyek
Essay
a
work
ofLeaRskai,
, about1522,
; Dm,opcit.p. 7off.
3. Horvth-coex
36,1926,p. 179ff.
Amagyar
irodalmi
kezdetei
ofHungarian
Dominican
, Thebeginnings
nun,cf.J.Horvth,
mveltsg
2nded.,Budapest,
work
offour
about125-31,
codex,
culture,
1944,p. 229fr.
4. Telekiliterary
ofwhom
scribes
F. Sepsiszentgyrgyi,
cf.Dm,opcit..t;6.
OFM.,isknown,
one,friar
; Horvth,
about1519-25
ofwhich
werecopied
codex,
5. Ersekujvrop.cit.p. 213fr.
(?),portions
byMartha
Dominican
"Alexandriai
The
another
szentKatalin
nun,cf.L. Katona,
legendja,"
Svnyhzi,
inHungarian
ofAlexandria
Akadmiai
Ertesit
ofSt.Catharine
literature,
;
, 14,1903,
legend
p. 58fr.
emlekeink
a knyvnyomtats
remains
until
theageofprinting,
G.Zolnai,
Hungarian
korig,
Nyelv
literary
work
of
6. Kazinczy-c
; Horvth,
odex,around
1526-45,
1894,P266ff.
op.cit.p. 234fr.
Budapest,
unknown
three
cf.Dm,op.cit.p. 58ff.
; Zolnai,
; Horvth,
opcit.p. 26off.
opcit.p. 2iof.
copists,
"Kdexeink
skolasztikus
intheHunScholastic
cf.C. Horvth,
element
elemei,"
codex,
TTihanyIrodalomtrteneti
42, 1932,p. 235fr.;
Horvth,
codices,
Kzlemnyek>
op.cit.p. 194i.; Dm,
garian
M
about1524-27,
"Temesvri
cf.C. Horvth,
Pelbrt
s kdexeink,
codex,
op.cit.6iff.8. Erdycodexliterature,
and
andHungarian
Pelbartus
ofTemesvr
Szemlet
65, 1891,p. 382fr.,
Budapeti
szentek
F. Toldy,
a carthasui
ed.,Magyar
66, 1891,p. 2iff.Zolnai,
op.cit.p. 239fr.;
legendai
saints
ofHungarian
nvtelentl
Carthusian,
Pest,1859;
, Legends
Hungarian
bytheAnonymous
Onsixteenth
codex
literature,
; Horvth,
Dm,op.cit.p. 8off.
op.cit.p. 243fr.
Hungarian
century
Kzle
kdexcsaldok,"
codexgroups
Irodalomtrtneti
seefurther
K. Timr,
Hungarian
"Magyar
Thematerial
; 38,1928,p. 52fr.;
, 37,1927,p. 6off.,
39,1929,p. i6ff.,
mnyek
p. 146fr.
p. 2ioff.
wasedited
andpublished
ofthethirty-nine
available
codices
rege
magyar
byG.Volf,Nyelvemlktr:
andprints,
Pincodices
OldHungarian
1874kdexek
snyomtatvnyok,
Also,
15vols.,
1908.
Budapest,
irodalom
trtnetnek
ofHungarian
ter,op.cit.I, p. 636fr.;
idem,A magyar
, Handbook
keziknyve
2 vols.,
Amagvar
The
irodalom
1921-23,
1,p.25fr.
; Z. Bethy,
trtnetet
Budapest,
literary
history,
2 vols.,3rded.,ed.F. Badies,
ofHungarian
literature,
I, p. 169fr.
1901-03,
history
Budapest,
I OO

12:05:57 PM

known editions between 1483 and 159o1. Pelbartus, thereeighty-four

been a well-known personage of an age that began to
must
have
fore,
the
printedword, while the fact that all of his works were
appreciate
printed in Germanyand Italy points toward his continentalreknown
as a writer2.
Little is known of him today. He was a HungarianFranciscanfriar
born about 1430 in Temesvr, an area that formed the southeastern
region of the realm of Matthias Corvinuss. In 14^8 he matriculatedat
1Cf.L. Hain,Repertorium
2 volsin4, Stuttgart-Tbingen,
1826-38,
by
bibliographicum,
reprinted
whorendered
a partial
listofPelbartus'
inMilan,
no.12548-66,
Grres
1948,II,pt.2,p. off.,
biblicum
medii
aevi
until
works
Madrid,
, 4 vols.,
i94oetc.,
1500.F.Stegmller,
Repertorium
published
a scanty
ofPelbartus,
mention
and,worse
still,confused
IV,p. 2i3f.,no.6371,1-4,madeonly
see
ibid
de Lasko,
a confrere
ofPelbartus,
Oswaldus
himwithfriar
, IV,p. 164.On Oswaldus
dethologie
intheDictionnaire
A. Teetaert
, vols.,Paris,1908-50,
11,col. 1657i.
catholique
thelatter
wasnotthearchbishop
alsoheldfalse
notions
aboutOswaldus:
Teetaert
Unfortunately,
minorum
ordinis
anddidnotdiein1531,cf.Dm,op.cit.p. 101.L. Wadding,
ofGnesen
,
Scriptores
toOswaldus
onp. 181.;J.H. Sbaralea,
reference
made
ed.,Supple
Rome,1906,p. 183f., with
ordinum
trim
etcastigatio
adscriptores
s.Frantici,
ed.L. Wadding,
mentum
Rome,1908,II,p. 316f.
irk
ofPelbartus
werelisted
Theworks
korbl,"
Hunyadi
Hungarian
byE. Bkesi,
"Magyar
Mtys
Katholikus
Szemble
inthetimes
ofKing
Matthias
writers
Corvinus,
; A.Teetaert
, 16,1902,p. 33iff.
of
Temesvri
Pelbrt
lete
smunki
inDictionnaire
, Thelifeandworks
; A. Szildy,
, 12,col.715"ff.
isa complete
work
There
ofeachindividual
ofTemesvr,
Pelbartus
1880,p. 5ff.
listing
Budapest,
andA. Hellebrant,
inK. Szabo
works,
, OldHungarian
3 volsin4, Budapest,
Rgi
knyvtr
magyar
writers
devoted
tothenonworks
ofHungarian
vol.Illintwoparts
1879-98,
being
Magyar
published
coronae
Mariae
Themajor
works
are:Stellarium
outside
ofHungary,
, 21
III,pt.2,p. 8320*.
Virginis
Detempore,
Sermones
18editions;
: Desanctis
Sermones
, 19editions;
editions;
quadragesimales,
pomerii
ad
Psalmorum
Aureum
libri
Rosarium
20editions;
editions;
, twoknown
theologiae
compendiosa
Expositio
anedition
of1636.
known
loc.cit.p. 336,mentioned
Sententiarum
editions;
, four
Bkesi,
2 Cf.Szab-Hellebrant,
Biblio"Laskai
s a bibliogrfia,"
Ozsvt
K. Timr,
op.cit.III,passim;
theidentity
ofOswaldus
de Laso,Magyar
errors
, 18,1910,p.
concerning
Knyvszemle
graphical
Laskai
122ff
. ; R. Horvth,
Osvt,
1932,p. 8f.; Bethy,
op.cit.I, p. i7ff.
Budapest,
3OnPelbartus,
Pelbarti
deTemesvr,
exoperibus
cf.Dm,op.cit.p. 24ft.
; idem,Repertorium
ElliMediolanensi,
from
Scientiae
ab Angelo
O.F.M., collectum,"
O.F.M.,aliorumque
reprint
inCorvina
alsoinItalian
, 1,Florence,
1952,p.
; samearticle
, 1,Rome,
n.d.,p. io^ff.
artesque
theco-Redmptrix,
trsaKrisztusnak,"
, 13,Budapest,
; idem,"Kegyoszt
i64ff.
Vigilia
Mary
A synthesis
ofPelbartus,
ofthewritings
Pelbrt
szintzise,"
1948,p. iff.;idem,"Temesvri
Ferences
Franciscan
outlook,
szemmel,
1943,
op.cit.p. iff.;C. Horvth,
Budapest,
p.
Szildy,
ofPelbartus,
Thesermons
"Temesvri
Pelbrt
I,
, Supplement
beszdei,"
Kzlny
Egyetemes
Philolgiai
smunki
irk
lete
ofHungarian
ed.,Magyar
, Thelivesandworks
; J.Szinnyei,
1889,p. 145ff.
A magyar
art.cit.;J.Kudora,
10,col.72off.
; Bkesi
1891-1914,
authors,
14vols.,Budapest,
trtnete
ofHungarian
irodalmnak
Catholic
katholikus
beszd
, Thehistory
Budapest,
preaching,
egyhzi
derungarischen
andF. Szinney,
Literatur
ed.,Geschichte
1911,
; L. Katona
, Leipzig,
1902,p. 68ff.
dela littrature
etal,ed.,Histoire
;
; C..Horvth
1900,p. 22ff.
Hongroise,
Budapest-Paris,
p. 17ff.
irodalmi
Irodalom,
lexikon,
; Horvth,
Pintr,
ed.,Magyar
op.cit.I, p. 433ff.
p. 57.; F. Vnyi,
Rerum
decades
cf.A. Bonfini,
Corvinus,
1926,p. 785.OnMatthias
quatuor,
Ungaricarum
Budapest,
was"unBonfini
himself
vol.IV,passim;
ed.J.Fgeletal,4 vols,.Leipzig-Budapest,
1936-41,
aevi
medii
nurfrdieZeitMatthias
histrica
cf.A. Potthast,
ibliotheca
,
kritisch,
glaubwrdig,"
inCambridge
2 vols.,rev.ed. Berlin,
Medieval
1896,I, p. 163.B. Hman
8, p. 612f.;
History,
Matthias
inCambridge
Modern
V.Frakni,
E. Reich
, 1,p. 329ff.
History
Mtys
King
Hunyadi
kirly,
I OI

12:05:57 PM

the Universityof Cracow, where he obtained a Bachelor's degree in

theology in 1463. His matriculationrecord indicates that he was a
"scriptorCelebrisecclesiasticus"by the time of thisgraduation,though,
on a second thought,this writeris inclined not to believe such a statement on groundsthat such a remarkmust have been a later addition to
his record1. In view of the factthathe went to Cracow at a more mature
age for advanced studies, the possibilityexists that he previouslyor
duringhis yearsof studytriedhis pen at writingand privatelycirculated
his essays. His firstprintedopus, however, failed to appear until 14832.
These two decades, from 1463 to 1483, forma blankpage in his record.
In 1483, he was mentionedforthe firsttime in the house annalsof
the Franciscancommunityat Buda, the capital of the Hungarianrenaissance king, Matthias Corvinus, as "solemnis predicator at in theologia
non mediocriter imbutus," who "in conventuBudensislegebat fratribus
aptis super Sententiis." From this scant record scholars drew the conclusion thatPelbartustaughtadvanced theologyat theFranciscanstudium
generale in Buda3. As his lecture notes, naturallyin a revised form,
had not appeared in print before 1^03, this writer would hesitateto
accept such an opinion; on the other hand, the 1498 edition of his
sermones
referredto him as "litterarumdivinarumprofessoreximissimus*,
"Matthias
derUngarn,"
Rundschau
, 2,
1890;D. Csnki,
Corvinus,
Knig
Ungarische
Budapest,
"Dieungarische
Grossmacht
desMittelalters,"
Histo; G. Stadtmller,
I9I3P8$ff.,
p. 3i6ff.
andG. Szekf,
trtnet
B. Hman
risches
, 70,19^1,p. iiff.
, Hungarian
Magyar
history,
Jahrbuch
1939,II,p. 467fr.
S vols.,6thed.,Budapest,
1According
information
received
from
toSzildy,
Frakni;
however,
op.cit.p. 3,n. 1,following
at theUniversity
ofCracow
Ladislai
ofPelbartus
reads:"Gewardus
de
thematriculation
entry
" cf.Album
Universitatis
studiosorum
Cracoviensis,
I, p.
s vols.,Cracow,
Themeshwar,
1887-19^6,
- inspite
onPelbartus
I found
nofurther
comment
ofthefact
that
several
i3, anno14^8,andmade
orthedeedsoftheperson
theperson
notice
oneither
Onthe
entries
that
entered.
gavefurther
himself
referred
tohisstudent
atCracow
seeBkesi,
art.cit.p. 332,n.4; thefriar
1463date,
days
while
desanctis,
toP. Szalczi,
"Temes
vriPelbrt,"
ofhisPomerium
intheioist sermon
according
hisundergraduate
studies
the
y14,Budapest,
1949,p. 72iff.,thefriar
among
completed
Vigilia
a kultura
The
Jagiellonski
"Uniwersytet
wegierska,"
upper2% ofhisclass.Also,E. Kovcs,
Slavica
andHungarian
cultural
ofCracow
relations,
, 4, Debrecen,
1964,p. ^ff.
University
2 Hain,Repertorium
, n. 12^48;Szbo-Hellebrant,
op.cit.III,no.g.
3Cf.Szildy,
minorum
hisinformation
B.deZalka,
"Chronica
fratrum
upon
op.cit.p. 7,whobased
" inF.
I hadno
Analecta
Bosniae
etHungariae,
deobservantia
, I, p. 2^off.
, a work
Toldy,
provinciae
nemzeti
trtnete
A magyar
irodalom
oflecturies
onHungarian
accessto.Also,F. Toldy,
, A series
1878,p. 3if.I amcertain
that
Pelbartus
attheFranciscan
4thed.,Budapest,
taught
literary
history,
andsupported
todowiththeuniversale
andhadnothing
houseofstudies
, founded
by
gymnasium
Annales
Matthias
atBuda,cf.G. Pray,
, 3 vols.,Vienna,
1764,III,p. 3i^f.,and
regum
Hungariae
bis1400
andJ.Abel,
DieUniversitten
desMittelalters
H.S.Denifle,
, Berlin,
i88$,I,422f.,
Egyetemeink
a kzepkorban
universities,
1881,p. 64,n. 31.;Dm,op.cit.p. 26.
, Medieval
Hungarian
Budapest,
W. A. Copinger,
in3 volumes,
s Repertorium
toHain'
Milan,
, 2 parts
bibliographicum
Supplement
ofthe1895edition,
i9o,reprint
pt.II,vol.2,p. 9,no.466$.
I02

12:05:57 PM

thus he may have become a prominentteacher and author toward the

end of his life. P. Szalczi indicated in his studyon Pelbartus that the
latter was elected guardianof the Esztergomhouse of the Franciscans.
I was unable to check Szalczs sources of information.We know for
certain, however, that Pelbartus died on January19, 1504, at Buda,
and his confrereslooked upon him as a distinguishedauthorand teacher
who also carried the day againsthis theological opponents1.
The works of Pelbartuswere published and republishedoutside of
Hungary, while the Hungarian vernacular portions of this writings
appeared in and after iio in order to remain in private manuscript
circulation. There seems to be a coincidence between his reappearance
in Hungaryin 1483 and the firstprintedversion of his sermonswhich
also appeared in the same year under the care of a Nrnbergpublisher.
My view is thatthe friarhad strongcontactswith publishinghouses and
printersoutside of his native country,and these contacts might have
been established by personal relationshipsformed duringthe earlier
years. After1483, his writingswere given almost constantattentionby
various foreignprinters,thus he had to know at least some of them to
aim at and secure this success. Had Pelbartus spent the two decades
behind the secure walls of the Franciscanreligious houses at Buda and
Esztergomfollowinghis graduationfrom Cracow in 1463, I doubt that
he would have been able to secure foreignpublishersfor his writings2.
There is no record, however, to underwrite such a hypothesis,
and my only "clue" in the matteris based on the sudden appearance of
his writingsby non-Magyarprintersabroada. As some of his sermons
related to the feastsof the great Hungarian saints, a St. Stephen, St.
Ladislas, St. Elizabeth, etc., contain sharp, cuttingremarkson the nonChristian,immorallifeof King Matthiasand his court at Buda and drew
an unfavorableparallel between the saints and his contemporaries,it
mightseem probable that the king or his courtierswho took offenseat
1 MEt
Pelbartus
: artus
nomine
miles
ethostem,
vicit
nomen
obtinet
plebians
plebem,
//docuit
//. .
tunostrae
decus
tugloria
nobis
etcaelum
tepatria
Deum
tenet
gentis,
cernis,
//iamcredita
//et
cumpatre
nobis
ora,"quoted
Seraphico
bySzildy,
op.cit.p. 17.
2According
toDm,op.cit.p. 19,Pelbartus
attheBudahouse
ofstudies
sincethei4os!
taught
Szent
Ferenc
trtenete
oftheHungarian
J.Karcsonyi,
IJl1-ig,History
rendjnek
Magyarorszgon
Franciscans
until1711, 2 vols.,Budapest,
in
likewise
littleeffort
1923,II, p.
presents
howthefriar
became
so important
withnon-Magyar
AlsoSzildy,
explaining
op.cit.
publishers.
p. of.
3Thisassumption
isbased
onthe"data
ofpublication"
rium,
no.
listings
provided
byHain,Reperto
il SS1etc.,that
a definite
contact
ofPelbartus
with
hispublishers.
proves
I03

12:05:57 PM

the unpolished remarksof the simple friarsilenced him on the pulpit

and saw to his expulsion fromthe realm1.
Two decades, however, forma substantialamount of time in the
lifeofanymatureandpubliclyactivepersonage,and it would be rewarding
to find some solution to lift the cover of darkness from Pelbartus'
activitiesin this period. E. Bkesi assertedhis hypothesisthatPelbartus
did actually remain until 1471 at the Universityof Cracow, where he
went throughthe normalprocedure to acquire his doctorate. According
to Bkesi, Pelbartus may have returned to Hungary in 147 1. This
particular date, however, corresponds with the rebellion in Hungary
led by the small group of the intelligentsiaof the realm against the
personal and tyrannicreign of King Matthias2.As there were constant
bickeringsbetween the royal court and the Hungarian Franciscansat
the time, it would not be surprisingif Pelbartus,freshlyreturnedfrom
his studiesabroad, foundhimselfamong the dissentersversusthe king*.
1Fortext,
onPrince
onSt.Stephen,
szentek
cf.Toldy,
, p. 3ff.,
p. 32ff.,
Emery,
Magyar
p. $9ff.,
TextalsoinF. Brisits,
onElizabeth
ofHungary.
orp. n6ff.,
theSaint,
onLadislas
ed.,Temesvri
Latin
textwithHungarian
ofPelbartus,
from
theworks
mveibl
Pelbrt
translations,
, Selections
irodalmi
vol.VIoftheMagyar
Also,Zolnai,
, ed.L. Vajth,
1931,p. 94ff.
op.
ritkasgok
Budapest,
withtheFranciscans,
Vaticana
relations
cf.Monumenta
OnKingMatthias'
cit.p. 239ff.
,
Hungariae
Corvinus
withtheVatican,
ofMatthias
thecorrespondence
1891,ser.1,tom.i, no.
Budapest,
levelei
ofMatthias
, Thecorrespondence
Corvinus,
ed.,Mtys
kirly
io; andin V. Frakni,
I wishtopoint
thatPelbartus
wasa unique
2 vols.,Budapest,
out,however,
II,p. 2ff.
1893-9$,
because
hiscontinental
standards
cf.Denifle,
op.cit.I, p. 4i3ff.,
only,
byHungarian
phenomenon
andcontroversies:
in theological
studies
involved
T. Thinemann,
weredeeply
contemporaries
ofPelbartus,
TheGerman
nmet
Pelbrt
"Temesvri
kortrsai,"
Egyetemes
Philolgiai
contemporaries
Vexemplum
la littrature
etdidactique
dans
, orcf.J.Th.Welter,
, 44,1920,p. 73ff.
religieuse
Kzlny
andE. Wegerich,
Notizen
demoyen
1927,p. 409!?*.,
"Bio-bibliographischen
age, Paris-Toulouse,
Studien
Franziskanische
des1$jahrhunderts,"
berFranziskanerlehrer
, 29,1942,p. 190fr.
Although
on
thecultoftheHungarian
roleinspreading
cf.hissermon
animportant
Pelbartus
saints,
played
andinI. deBatthyny,
Gerardi
inBrisits,
ofCsand
Grard
ed.,Sancii
episcopi
op.cit.p. io8ff.,
andG. Szekf's
article
hactenus
actaetscripta
Chanadiensis
ineditat
Alba-Carolinae,
1790,p. 362fr.,
volumes
toKing
oftheSzent
Istvn
St.Stephen,
volume
inthethird
, Memorial
Emlekknyv
Budapest,
seeJ.Bolte
andG. Polivka,
ofHungarian
ontheworld
folk-tales,
ed.,
1938,hehadnoinfluence
derBrder
Grimm
undHausmrchen
zudenKinder
191$etc.,
, newed.,vols.,Leipzig,
Anmerkungen
Ferencesrendy
II,p. 9off.
V,p. 176fF.
, no.23.Karcsonyi,
2 Bonfini,
art.cit.p.
Rerum
Reich,
, IV,p. 40; Homan-Szektii,
op.cit.II,p. 548ft.;
Ungaricarum
humanism
Azirodalmi
: magyar
humanizmus
, Hungarian
megoszlsa
miiveltsg
33jf.Also,J.Horvth,
- division
inliterary
culture,
1935,p. 147ft.
Budapest,
3V.Frakni,
Relations
between
andtheHoly
sa rmai
See,3vols.,
Szentszk,
Hungary
Magyarorszg
Rerum
1901-03,
, IV,
leveleit
Also,
Bonfini,
II,p. 12off.
Idem,
I,p. ioff.
Mtys
Ungaricarum
Budapest,
Anoutline
ofHungarian
vonsaibant
fbb
egyhztrtneime
Magyarorszg
p. 47f.,andJ.Karcsonyi,
Amagyarorszgi
Theageof
humanizmus
church
kora,
1929,p. 4$f.T. Kardos,
history,
Veszprm,
oftheHungarian
Thecream
inHungary,
humanism
19g,p. ioff.
belonged
intelligentsia
Budapest,
ofVard,
wasJanus
whose
ofconspirators,
tothegroup
Pannonius,
outstanding
Bishop
participant
DieWiederbelebung
desclassischen
Altertums
cf.Bonfini,
, 2 vols.,2nded.,
IV,p. 48,andG. Voigt,
; J.Hegediis,
Pannonius,"
, 13,1948,
1880-81,
II,p. 323;G.Takts,
Berlin,
"Janus
Vigilia
p. 66off.
I 04

12:05:57 PM

His sermonsbear witness to this. It is known about Matthias that he

endured no criticism by anyone; it is also evident from the king's
correspondence with the Holy See that he held little respect for the
Hungarian mendicantsand was deeply disturbedand irritatedby their
.
pettystrife1
It is possible, therefore,thatthe royal court ordered the expulsion
of the friarfrom the confinesof the royal capital, and Pelbartus, an
eminent graduate of a foreignuniversity,was sent, or went, abroad.
In the late fifteenthcentury, Europe still formed an intellectualunit
that enabled its scholars to seek employmentat any of its centers of
.
learning2
The returnof Pelbartusto Buda in 1483, on the other hand, might
have been substantiatedby the already referredto publication of his
firstmajor work by a Nrnbergpublisherthatsame year. This timefactor
coincides exactly with the firstofficialentryof his whereaboutsin the
house annals of the Buda Franciscans. To a Hungarian,publishinghis
own works abroad must have been an extraordinaryachievement at
thattime - it still is - and Matthias,softenedin his personal attitudeby
his second marriageto Beatrixof Naples in 147^, could have permitted
Pelbartus' returnon account of the friar'sliteraryfame establishedoutside the realm3. The king loved books, appreciated writers,thoughhis
librarycontained mostly handwrittenworks. The art of printingwas
not accepted as yet at the renaissancecourt of Hungaryin the 1470s*.
leveleJanus
Thecorrespondence
ofan English
humanist
Pannoniushoz,"
angolhumanista
"Egy
Akadmiai
rtesi
with
art.cit.p. 242ff.
Pannonius,
t,14,1903,
; Bkesi,
; J.Horvth,
Janus
p.42ff.
humanizmus
, p. 7$ff.
; Pintr,
op.cit.I, p. 147fr.
Magyar
1Matthias
IVin1480: ". . . quodrecte
exnulla
toSixtus
seprocessit
nisiquiainregimine
eorum
alteri
nonfuit.
slev
elei
unapars
. ." Frakni,
, li,p. if.; idem,
s,
Mty
impedimenta
Hunyadi
Mty
p. 21iff.
2 Cf.P. Rad,"AzImmakulata
tisztelete
a magyar
devotion
to the
Hungarian
kzepkorban,"
in theMiddle
oftheImmaculata
doctrine
, Budapest,
6, 1954;F. Heer,
Ages,Uj Ember
June
undAntike."
, Stuttgart,
; W. Goetz,"Renaissance
19^3,p. 24$ff.
Geistesgeschichte
Europische
112, 1924,p. 237fr.
Historische
Onthepersonal
behaviour
ofMatthias
cf.
Corvinus,
Zeitschrifty
"Arenaissance
sMtys
andtherenaissance,
Szemle
D. Csnky,
,
KingMatthias
kirly,"
Budapeti
onHungarian
; B. Menczer,
1891,p. 392ff.
Literaturet
1956,
Commentary
Castrope-Rauxel,
thebehaviour
about
ofthearchbishop
ofEsztergom
totheHolySee,
p. i$; Matthias'
complaint
Vaticana
Dec. 19,1479,inMonumenta
ofMay30, 1480,andSeptember,
, I, p. 158;hisletters
evelei
M. Zsilinkszky,
, II, pp. 26and49i.,respectively;
1480,to thepopeinFrakni,
Mtys
Theoldest
historians
ofKing
inMtys
trtnszei,"
Matthias,
,
legrgibb
"Mtys
emlhknyv
kirly
Memorial
volume
toMatthias
ed.S. Mrki,
Corvinus,
1902,p. 241fr.
Budapest,
3Cf.G. A. Berzeviczy,
"Beatrix
wifeto Matthias
Corvinus,
ibidf
QueenBeatrice,
kirlyn,"
p.
I26ff.
*Cf.J.Fitz- K.Zolnai,
bibliothecae
Matthiae
Corvini
, Budapest,
Bibliographia
regis
1942; P. Gulys,
Aknyv
sorsa
, Hungarian
;
3vols.,Budapest,
, 1,p. 178fr.
Magyarorszgon
1961
bibliographical
history,
ofMatthias
idem,
, Thelibrary
; L. Zamba,
Corvinus,
Mtys
kirly
knyvtra
1916,
Budapest,
p. 3off.
IO

12:05:57 PM

The compilatorsand copyistsof the Hungariancodices in the early

sixteenthcenturymade heavyuse of the worksof Pelbartus.Throughthe
effortsof the compilatorof the rdycodex, Pelbartusreallybecame influentialin the development of the writtenvernacularas the sermons
contained in the codex also necessitatedthe translationsof the pericopae
into Magyar.It mightbe of interestto note thatwithinfiveyearsof the
codex, the firstprintedversionof the Hungarian
completionof the rdyNew Testamentappeared in Cracow in i 331.
In this context it is necessaryto inquire about the fate of the first
Hungarianprintingpress of 1473. Namely, as therewas a functioning
printingshop at Buda by that early date, and its owner printed three
publicationsof various lenghtswithina short intervalof a few months,
it would be surprisingif Pelbartus had made no use of its facilities2.
Evidence points, however, to the early cessation of the printingestablishmentin the Hungariancapital, and we may be sure thatby the time
Pelbartus returnedto his country,the printingpress was no more in
existence. Judgedby the crude letter type and outlay of the Hungarian
press at thattime, it would also be doubtfulwhetherits owner, Andreas
Hess, had been in a position to provide good work for the writingsof
Pelbartus. Hess, in spite of this Germanbackgroundand havinglearned
the tradein Rome, musthave been a second rate printer.The cultivated
taste of the Hungarian humanistsof the age indicates that they were
used to betterqualitywork, and thismightbe the real reason for Hess'
.
lack of luck with his establishmentin Hungary*
The literaryfragmentscontained in the alreadyreferredto codices
call our attentionto other interests.First,theirlate, relativelyspeaking
verylate, appearance, as they were copied down and translatedfrom
earlier, alreadyprintedworks*. Second, the relativesmoothnessof the
redi Ungheria
di Mattia
Corvino
Corvina
: le bibliotheca
, Budapest,
1937;Bethy,
ed.,Bibliotheca
op.cit.I, p. 14.off.
1Cf.Toldy,
szentek
. ; Zolnai,
, p. Illff
op.cit.p. 243!?.;Pintr,
op.cit.I, p. 641,andp.
Magyar
arorsz
Aknyv
sorsa
II,p. 68ff.
6jo(.; Gylus,
gon,
Mgy
2 Ibid
s introduction
tothefacsimile
Pintr,
, I, p. 44ff.
reproduction
op.cit.I, p. 468t.V.Fraknoi
Budense
oftheChronicon
ofthe1473edition
1900,p. 3f.TheBuda
, printed
byA.Hess,Budapest,
in Hungary.
Matthias
undderBuchdruck,"
is thefirst
bookprinted
Chronicle
J.Fitz,"Knig
Aknyvnyomtats
Mainz,
1939,
yed.A.Humpel,
Gulys,
Magyarorszgon
p. i28ff.P.
Jahrbuch
Gutenberg
- portions
ina rearranged
ofthiswork
a XVsa XVIszzadban
1931,p. i7ff.,
, Budapest,
appear
humanizmus
form
inthe1961edition,
, p. i66ff.
Horvth,
I, p. i6off.
Magyar
3J.Abel,Magyarorszgi
andtheDanusa DunaiTuds
humanists
humanistk
, Hungarian
Trsasag
bianAssociation
ofScholars,
1880;Pintr,
op.cit.I, p. 493ff.
Budapest,
4 Horvth,
IV, ed.,with
anintroduction
rerum
libri
Irodalmi
Ungarorum
J.M.Bruti,
milvehsg,
p. 126ff.
histrica
inMonumenta
, Scriptores
, vol.XII,Pest,1863.
Hungariae
byF. Toldy,
I 06

12:05:57 PM

Magyar vernacular of the period implies that the Hungarian tongue

mighthave been a literarylanguage from a far earlier date. Last, the
late appearance of the codices mighthave been due to the unfortunate
economical and domestic situationin Hungaryupon the untimelydeath
of MatthiasCorvinus in 1490 that led to the Mohcs disasterin 1526.
Thus, insecure conditionswithinthe realm made any higherand collective intellectual endeavour such as printingdifficultif not impossible.
This may be also the reason for the lack of a Hungarianprintingpress
in the kingdom in the late decades of the fifteenthand the early sixteenthcentury,thoughby 137 - a time afterthe bubble of uncertainties
burst and the permanentTurkish occupancy of the central portion of
the realmbecame reality- printingpresseswere set up and in operation
within the western remainsof Habsburg Hungary.
The freshnessof the written Hungarianvernacular,on the other
hand, requires some explanation. As early as the mid-eleventhcentury,
the Charter of Tihany abbey shows the existence of a developed vernacular, which, in turn, was not used in writing1.The late twelfth
centuryMagyar literaryremains, such as a vernaculartranslationfrom
the officialLatin text of an eulogy, "Oratio supra sepulchrum," likewise
bear witnessto the versatilityof the vernacular,this time in a religious
context,while portionsof the Bible were to appear in Magyarduringthe
fifteenth
century2.
It was in this traditionthat Pelbartus kept up with his sermon
material. Except the last and we may admit, least successful of his
writings,the summaryof his lectures on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, all of his works deal with sermons prepared and preached on
various occasions during the ecclesiastical year. As the canons of the
earliestHungariansynodsrevealed the need forpreachingin Hungarian,
the noble friar tried hard indeed to fulfillthis obligation on every
Sunday and greater feasts of the year, though, as it was pointed out
above, one has the impressionthat he presentedonly a new approach
1TextinL. Erdlyi,
Rendtrtnet
oftheBenedictines
ofPannonhalma,
ed.,Pannonhalmi
, History
orinH. Marczali,
12vols.,Budapest,
historiae
10,p. 487fr.,
ed.,Enchiridion
1902-07,
fontium
andMagyar
sentence
usedintheLatin
1901,p. 8iff.TheHungarian
, Budapest,
Hungarorum
phrases
thattheeleventh
theroyal
charter
alsoprove
Hungarian
including
incidentally
century
clergy,
- a problem
than
leaders
knew
Latin
that
faced
better
theHungarian
chancellor,
constantly
Magyar
oftheArpdian
irodalmunk
, Stylistic
latinnyelvii
age,cf.J.Horvth,
Arpdkori
stilusproblmi
problems
inthemedieval
ofArpdian
Latin
literature
194,p. 3off.
Hungary,
Budapest,
2 Cf.P. Rado,Libri
manu
bibliothecarum
, Budapest,
1947,p. 3iff.,
liturgici
Hungariae
scriptorum
inBethy,
ofthe"oratio;"
op.cit.I, p. 108;textinZolnai,
op.cit.p. i6ff.,
esp.p. $8; facsimile
andp. 384fr.
Pintr,
op.cit.I, p. 2iff.,
107

12:05:57 PM

rather than new thoughtin his sermon literature. What he possessed

was the spiritof the times1.
Pelbartus wrote much - and presumablypreached as well - on
a religiousdoctrine not unfamiliarto
behalfof the ImmaculataConception
the medieval Hungarianmind. The themewas veryreal at the time both
in Hungaryand the West. The resolutionsof the Council of Basel, 143 1,
and the attitude of pope Sixtus IV necessitated a lively controversy
on the subject, while at the Hungarianroyal court, in the presence of
MatthiasCorvinus,a learned disputeis said to have takenplace between
two Hungarianfriarsdedicated to the doctrine of the Immaculata
. The
Dominican
Antal
of
the
Zara
and
the
were
Paulist
friars
Michael
two
Pannonius2.The early education of the king by clerical tutorsrevealed
his religiousand intellectualinterests,thoughhe was not a religiousman.
If he supportedthe canonizationcase of JohannCapistrano,his father's
friendat arms againstthe invadingTurk in 14^6, Matthiasdid this for
3
politics. The kingand the friarsdid not agree on religiousmatters.
1TheAureum
IVlibros
: ad Sententiarum
Rosarium
theologiae
quadri
Hagenau,
pariformiter
partition,
art.cit.Onthe
i03,inSzab-Hellebrant,
op.cit.III,no. 114;Dm,op.cit.p. 26f.Szalczi,
inthevernacular,
actstopreach
Enchiridion
of
cf.Marczali,
thesynod
, p. 870".,
synodical
early
1112,respectively.
ofTarczal,
Also,Welter,
Szabolcs,
1092,andp. 11iff.,thecouncil
op.cit.
p. 4.57ft.
2J.Turmel,
andEthics
"Immaculate
, ed. J.Hastings,
13
Encyclopaedia
Conception,"
forReligion
oftheNewYork,1908-26,
Maria
edition,
VII,p. i6^ff.
Rad,art.cit.F. Khr,
vols.,reprint
inthei Ithand12thcentury
hazailiturgiban
a XIsa XIIszzadi
tiszteletnk
, Mariology
Hungarian
Mulier
amicta
sole
, Budapest,
1948,p. 3ff.
; R. Bkefi,
1939;S. Horvth,
liturgy,
Budapest,
oftheHungarian
trtnete
schools
A kapt
aianiiskolk
cathedral
gonI S40-igy
History
Magjarorsz
toDm,op.cit.p. 24,Pelbartus
havegained
untili40,Budapest,
1910,p. 63.According
may
attheUniversity
ofCracow;
"Akrakki
with
hisacquaintance
cf.J.Waldapfel,
Mariology
egyetem
szellemi
intellectual
inCracow,
s lengyel
relations
sa magyar
let,"Hungarian-Polish
Egjetemes
deCracovie
dansla cultur
; idem,"Leroledel'universit
, 69,1946,p. 26ff.
Kzlny
Philolgiai
Universitatis
Annales
ed.,
, sec.phil.,, 1964,p. 3ff.
; W. Wislocki,
Budapestiensis
Hongroise,"
Cracoviensis
Universitatis
Acta
rectoraba
, Cracow,
i893etc.,I, no.32i,andno.3224.Seefurther
deimmaculata
asiliensis
Doctrina
. VMariae
concila
H. Ameri,
,
theologorum
conceptione
tempore
a bzeli
"Mria
krdse
Thequestion
ofMarilogical
zsinaton,"
Rome,I9S4;A. Aldsy,
iinnepek
Szemle
s
ofBasel,Katolikus
feasts
onthesynod
, 44, 1930,p. 66iff.T. Kardos,
"Dekmiiveltsg
andHungarian
and
culture
Szzadok
Latin
renaissance,
renaissance,"
, 72,1939,p. 29^ff.,
magyar
dellaFonte,"
"Bartolomeo
Irodalomtrtneti
, 12,1902,p. iff.
; J.Hegediis,
Kzlemnjek
p. 443ff.
3Dm,op.cit.p. i8ff.,
atthecourt;
to
andp. 9g.,onthepublic
Prof.
Dm,inreferring
dispute
intheVatican
ofMatthias
nowpreserved
Corvinus:
Rossiana
thetwomissals
No. 1164,
Library
for
theMaria-sequentia
dated1469,andCod.lat.urb.No. 110,dated1488,madethenotethat
Immaculate
antecanonem
inserta"
Dec. 8 intheformer
MS,andthe"imago
plustheMass-text
inthelatter
forthefeast
MSbearwitness
ofBasel
tothereligious
conviction
bythesynod
prescribed
I amoftheopinion,
that,especially
ordered
ofMatthias
thetextus
missae
Corvinus.
however,
by
theHungarian
interests
from
theHoly
toward
tobegained
theBaselsynod,
king's
political
points
withtheVatican,
ofMatthias
slevelei
See!Thecorrespondence
cf.Frakni,
, I, p. 29f.,
Mty
Vaticana
a policy
andp. 33f.,andintheMonumenta
that
aimed
atgaining
, I, no.23,clarified
papal
- andinorder
western
Roman
hisobjective
forMatthias'
torealize
emperor
support
plantobecome
I08

12:05:57 PM

What one may find remarkable about the writingsof Pelbartus

in the vernacularcodices is theirbeautifulMagyar. Whether he actually
wrote the survivingpieces in Magyar,or ifthe pieces were transcribedor
translatedfromhis Latin works is immaterialreally. The point is that
he gave a deep foundationand a forcefulpush to the slowly developing
abstract Hungarian thought. That these writings were composed in
medieval Latin or in budding Magyar meant that they avoked general
interest: had the tragedyof Mohcs not occurred, the Magyarsmight
have reached their long overdue intellectual maturityby the early
decades of the sixteenthcentury1
.
One is to bear in mind that Pelbartus was not the only person
composing sermons for all the feastsof the church calendar. He was,
however, the firstand only ecclesiasticalwriteramong his kindred,and
he learned his "trade" throughforeigncontactswhile livingabroad. His
writingsindicate also that he never considered himselfa social outcast
or political exile. He was trulya European who enjoyed the fullfledged
citizenshipof the continentalscholar2.It was in his writings,ideas taken
fromthem and translationsprepared according to them, that Pelbartus'
teachinglived and survivedthe ages. It was his chief merit, and of his
Matthias
madeready
useofanymeans
: hewaswilling
tousetheconciliar
movement
tohisown
hencethereligious
oftheabovementioned
theme
to Bonfini,
adventage,
1488MS!According
wasnota religious
ambitions
areamply
op.cit.IV,p. 162,Matthias
man;theking's
political
indicated
Chronica
in J. G. Schwandtner,
rerum
byM. J.Thurcz,
ed.,Scriptores
Hungarorum,
cf.
, 3 vols.,newed.,Vienna,
Hungaricarum
1746-48,
I, p. 39ff.,
esp.cc. 66etc.OnThurcz,
andPintr,
rodalom
Hain,
, I,pt.2,p.414,no.i$i6-i8,
Repertorium
,
op.cit.I,p.444i.; Horvth,
cf.1.Dm,"Lamission
desaintJean
deCapistran,"
p. 68andp. 31if.OnCapistrano,
europenne
lehet
: revue
littraire
etculturelle
Marchand
, Paris,
Ahogjr
April,1956,p. 4f.; idem,"Capistran
The
Cord
with
bibl.onp. 318.
, 6,St.Bonaventure,
19^6,p. 3ooff.,
Hunyadi,"
1Cf.Dm,op.cit.p. i8ff.,
andp. 93ff.,
whocommented
ontheworks
andlivesofa lively
Hungarian
ofintellectuals
ofthetime
: Michael
ofPannonia,
Antal
ofZara,Johann
ofPozsony,
group
Albert
ofCsand,
Andreas
ofPannonia,
aliasCoelius
be
etc.Itshould
George
Pannonius,
Gyrffy
outherethat
Michael
ofPannonia
isnotidentical
with
Michael
ofHungary,
onthelatter
pointed
cf.Hain,Repertorium
no.9043-56
art.cit.onOswaldus
andthe
, II,pt.1,p. H3ff.,
plusTimr's
"Michael
XIIIbeszde,"
deHungaria
C. Horvth,
Thethirteen
sermons
bibliography;
byMichael
ofHungary,
Irodalomtrtneti
Pannonius
wasa Carthusian
, ,1895,p. 129.Andreas
Kzlemnyeh
cf.Dm,op.cit.p. 39ff.
Pannonius
ferrarai
monk,
; idem"Andreas
priorsgnak
viszontagsgai,"
Theadversities
suffered
ofPannonia
astheprior
ofFerrara,"
Dei, 1, 1956,p.
Civitas
byAndreas
10iff.
inDictionnaire
dethologie
adhistoriam
rerum
; S. Antore
, 2, col. 2312,;J.Abel,Analecta
renascentium
inHungaria
litterarum
, Budapest,
1903,p. iS.;idem,"Andreas
oputati
Pannonius,"
"
Revue
art.cit.p. 134i.; J.Horvth,
, ,1888,
; Bkesi,
Ungarische
p. 23iff.
Pannonius,
Jr.,"Andreas
M.
"Andreas
Pannonius
s
Borino
de
, 66, 1946,p. ij.; Rvsz,
Egjetemes
Kzlny
Philolgiai
cf.Stegmller,
Scala,"
ibidy
59, 1935,p. 7^ff.On Gregorius
, II, p. 363^,
Gyrffy,
Repertorium
no.2623-24,
andEggerer,
art.cit.p. 302.Also,I. Vrady,
Lalitteratura
e la suainfluenza
italiana
in
, Rome,
Ungheria
1934.
2 A.Zawart,
"TheHistory
ofFranciscan
andofFranciscan
Franciscan
Studies
Preaching
Preachers,"
,
old.ser.,7, 1928,p. 24iff.,
esp.p. 333ff.
I 09

12:05:57 PM

followers! - thathe finallysucceeded in breakingthroughthe intellectual

trepidityof his countrymen.His works, whether in Hungariantranslation or in printed Latin originals,form a valuable source for the researcher interested in the cultural history of Hungary in the late
Middle Ages1.
College of Liberal Arts
TexasAS^M University

1Pintr,
Irodalom
. I, p. 46ff.
Histoire
; Horvth,
, p. 229#.;
Horvth,
, p. 44.
op.cit
I IO

12:05:57 PM

The second tract on insolubilia

B.N.

Lat.

found

in Paris,

16.617.

An edition oj the text with an analysis

of its contents

H. A. G. BRA AKHUIS

his article Somenoteson theMediaevaltractDe Insolubilibus

, withthe
a
the
end
the
tract
edition
, which
of
twelfthcentury
of
datingfrom
IN
appeared in the last volume of this journal1, ProfessorDe Rijk has
called attention2to the fact that M. Grabmannin the analysishe gave3
of the Parisian manuscriptB.N. Lat. 16.617, clearly made a mistake
where he says*that from f. 46v up to f. 4V only one tract De insolubilibusis found. De Rijk found that on f. $ov a new tract on insolubilia begins, quite differentfrom the preceding one, and that it is this
new tract which ends on f. 4V. The mistakemade by Mgr. Grabmann
could be made the more easilys,since the beginningof this second tract
on insolubiliafollows directly after the end of the first,without any
other indicationin the manuscriptthan is usually employed to indicate
* I would
here
ofgratitude
liketogiveexpression
tomyfeelings
towards
DeRijk.
Without
Professor
hisencouragement
andconstant
assistance
thisarticle
couldnothavebeenwritten.
I
Especially
I hadmade
a first
forhaving
owehimthanks
after
todecipher
thetext,
thetract
discussed,
attempt
ina seminar;
aswellasthose
oftheother
hisremarks
Mr.Th.
(MissR. Raymakers,
participants
vanHuygevoort,
andMr.J.Jamar)
Mr.C. Kneepkens
elucidated
a difficult
Atthe
many
passage.
1hadthopportunity
intheBibliothque
toinspect
themanuscript
endofmylabour
itself
Nationale
anerroneous
I hope.
inParis;
thisprevented
many
reading,
1L. M.deRijk,
Deinsolubilibus
Some
notes
ontheMediaeval
tract
theedition
, with
dating
ofa tract
from
IV (1966),pp.83-1
theendofthetwelfth
, inVIVARIUM,
ig.
century
2Op.cit. p. 91.
3SeeM.Grabmann,
DieIntroductiones
desWilhelm
inlogicam
von
Shyreswood
( nach1267).LiteraturundTextausgabe.
derWiss
historische
. derBayer.
Akad.
Abt.,
., Phil.-hist.
(Sitzungsber
Einleitung
1937,pp.i-26.
1937,Heft10),Mnchen
Jahrg.
* Grabmann,
op.cit.t
pp.20-21.
s Prantl,
wasonly
oninsolubilia
tohavethought
that
there
onetract
onff.46V-4V,
too,appears
imAbendlande
derLogik
fortherefers
tracts
, Bd.IV,pp.40-41)to twoanonymous
(Geschichte
should
inourmanuscript,
theoneofwhich
bethat
which
runs
from
found
tractatum
deinsoluCirca
W( = f.62v).
bilibus
(- f.46v)uptoExpliciunt
obligationes
magisti
hasbeenmisled
It is possible
thatGrabmann
under
theinfluence
ofPrantl's
view.It is
desmanuscrits
dela Sorbonne
Delisle(Inventaire
remarkable
thatLopold
etc.,Paris1870),whom
thefollowing
contents
ofourmanuscript
infact,
Grabmann
gives
quotes,
(op.cit.,p. 70): Mag.
- Ejusdem
inlogicam
introductiones
deShyreswode
Guill.
sincategoreumata
(23)- DeInsolubilibus
~
R*
O'Donnell
De
etc
(The
,
J
(46*)- sophismatibus
(sv)
Sjncategoremata
ofSherwood
ofWilliam
III(1941),pp.46-93)evidently
in:Mediaeval
Studies
follows
(p. 46)theviewofGrabmann.
III

12:06:03 PM

a new part or chapter of a work - this in contrastinctidionto the

beginningsof the surroundingtracts, which are marked by marginal
notes of a later hand.
Anyhow,as a resultof the critical sense of De Rijk, we know now
that there are foundtwo tractson insolubiliain the manuscriptin question, the firston if. 46v-$ov, the second on if. ov-4v. The purpose
of this article is to give an edition of the text of this second tract, of
1. I
which De Rijk in his article has given only the exordium
prefacethis
edition by an analysisof the contents of the tract, which I hope will
make it easier to understand,and by using the material made available
by De Rijk I shall try to assess its position among the other tractson
insolubiliadealt with by him.
The tract startswith a short exordium
, which is full of biblical allusions
) and in which our author proudlyannounces to offer
(cf. the apparatus
for the firsttime the simple truthabout the solution of the insolubilia.
Afterthatfollows the body of the tractitself,which is made up of two
), the former of which discusses
parts (itractatusprimusand secundus
solution
of the insolubiliaand has eight
questions preliminaryto the
chapters, while the latter taking into account the findingsof the
precedingpart deals with the actual solution of the insolubiliaand has
the author gives a
seven chapters. At the beginningof each tractatus2
1
2
summaryofthe chaptersit contains(see below, p. 3 and p. 139). In my
discussionI shall follow these chaptersone by one.
the author intendsto prove
In the firstchapterof the firsttractatus
eo
cuius
estpars"3, or, as he puts
nec
nec
terminus
supponit copulaipro
"quod
that
"no
it at the end of the chapter,
propositionstatessomethingabout
(refers to) itself", and that "thus, no proposition-termrefersto the
whole of which it formspart"*. To demonstratethis, he offersthree
argumentsregardingthe subject-term,the firstof which is the most
important.It runs as follows: anythingabout which somethingis stated
formsan integralpart5of what is statedabout it; ifnow the subject-term
suppositsfor the utteranceof which it formspart, then that utterance
1De Rijk,
op.cit.,p. 91.
2Forthesakeofclarity,
I
whereas
tractatus
tothetwoparts
ofourtract,
I shall
refer
bytheterm
ofourtract.
thewhole
term
(tract)
designate
bythelatter
3Seebelow,
text
, p. 13211-12.
* Nulla
dicit
totum
terminus
cuius
est
text
sermonem
desejacit
; seebelow
, etsicnullus
p. 133IZ-13.
propositio
s estparsintegrlis
ofShyreswood,
inlogicam
seee.g.William
Introductiones
, p.
; forthisnotion,
constituitur
totum
secundum
sunt
exquibus
integritatem
integrales
33I2.14
partes
(ed.Grabmann):
totum.
etdehiisnunquam
predicatur
II2

12:06:03 PM

will state somethingabout itself; consequentlyone and the same thing

will formpart of itself; and thus the part will be equal with the whole ;
but this is impossible1. The importance which the author himself
attachesto this firstargumentappears from the factthatthe takes pains
to explain it further.The two other argumentspresuppose the first;
the second starts from the assumption that the subject about which
somethingis statedis prior to what is statedabout it, the thirdfromthe
assumptionthat a proposition-termis simpler than the proposition as
a whole.
It is evident that the thesis the author defendshere is the same as
that of the so-called restringentes
of who Walter Burleighin his treatise
De insolubilibus
dixerunt
:
says "qui
quod pars numquampotest supponere
pro toto cuius est pars"2. And also the firstargument our author
produces here to supporthis thesisshows a remarkablesimilarityto the
entesin
argumentswhich are reported* to be advanced by the restring
is
of
their
It
to
be
thesis.
that
our
author
neither
noted, however,
proof
mentionsthis name nor uses the word in the context here, nor does he
anywheregive the impressionthat he knows that it is (or can be) used
in this context.
In the second chapter the author draws the conclusion, that the

is said byme', provided nothingis said before, is

proposition: something
false.
In the third chapter he adduces three arguments,each of which
takes the proposition of the preceding chapter as a starting-pointand
then concludes that this propositionmust be true.
To solve this difficulty,our author starts the fourthchapter by
distinguishing with Aristotle, as he says between utterances that
are numericallythe same and utterancesthat are specificallythe same.
As a matterof fact I have not been able to findthisdistinctionin the
works of Aristotle,and I doubt whetherit is foundthere at all. Indeed,
everythingseems to indicate that the general distinction between
"
thesame" and "specifically
the same", which indeed we find
numerically
in Aristotlein several places*, was applied to the domain of speech and
1Seebelow
I follow
thetext
I shall
refer
tothetextwhennecestext,
; since
closely
p. i $222-2s
only
forthesakeofclarity.
sary
2SeeDe Rijk,op.cit.y
B.N.Lat.11.412,
(ibid.,p. 96)ofMsParis
p. 88; cf.alsothequotation
f.91ra.
3SeeDe Rijk,
op.cit.,ibidem.
- to ocuto
*Forthisopposition
seeBonitz,
Index
to ocuto
eloeiinAristotle,
Aristotelicus
,
api0puo
a
a
cf.
94 3-40; especially
I, 103 8-10.
Topica
IH

12:06:03 PM

logic by our author himself1.It is this distinctionthat is the pivot on

which the simplexVeritas
of our author hinges. By employingit he states
firstthatthe propositionof the second chapter (' something
is said byme')
and, in general, any proposition stated twice, is not numericallythe
same but only specifically,and next that,althoughit is impossiblethata
proposition-termsupposits for the proposition which is numerically
the same as thatof which it formspart, it is quite possible thata proposition-termsuppositsfora propositionwhich is specificallythe same as
the propositionof which it formspart. Having stated these two points,
our author explains his point of view further: when the proposition:

is said byme is statedtwice, the firsttime it will be false,but

something
the second time it will be true, forthen the subject-termof it refersto
the propositionstated the firsttime; and thus, it is not a proposition
thatis numericallythe same thatwill be falseand true at the same time,
but only a proposition that is specificallythe same, and this does not
forma difficulty.
The author seems to intend the end of this furtherexplanationat
the same time as a refutationof the firstargumentof the thirdchapter,
thatis to say he does not refutethe argumentitself,but only attacksits
The factnamelythatthe propositionwhich
value as a counter-argument.
our author had stated to be false, appears to be true in the conclusion
of thatargument,does not forma real difficulty
in his opinion, for the
two are only specificallythe same.
He explicitlydeals with the other argumentsof the third chapter
in the same way. Beforedoing so, he has alreadyraised the question how
it is that numericallydifferentpropositionssuch as ' something
is said by
me stated twice happen to be at the same time false and true, whereas
such is not the case with numericallydifferentpropositions such as
'
9
Socratesis runningstatedtwice. He answersin a ratherintricatepassage,
in which one has to tell the two groups well apart2,that the reason is
that in the firstgroup of propositionsthe subject-term is common to
'
'
complex and non-complex things (i.e. aliquid in the proposition
'aliquid dicitura me stated the firsttime = aliquid, but 'aliquid' in the
same propositionstated the second time = aliquid dici a me, which is
namely the whole proposition statedthe firsttime3), which is not the
1Sointhesixth
ofthis
tractatus
first
text
13723)hetakes
toexplain
(seebelow,
pp.1362?chapter
pains
itagainst
thisdistinction
further
someobjections.
Andinthesamechapter
eventhe
bydefending
usesthis
inthedomain
Aristotle
distinction
isleft
ina different
concerned
possibility
openthat
way
than
ourauthor
usesit! (cf.below,
himself
p. 116).
2Seetexty
p. 13419-2s.
3Cf.text
andp. 134*3-15.
p. 13316
114

12:06:03 PM

case with the second group. Thereforewithinthe firstgroup it is quite

possible to verifythe one proposition for the other, whereas this is
impossible within the second group; consequently,when a proposition
of the lattergroup is false,it will be falsewhen it is repeatedas well.
Having finishedthe exposition of the fourthchapter, on which I
have dwelt at some lenght,because it is here thatour author offersone
of the key-argumentsof his solution of the insolubilia
, I would like to
call attentionto a certain resemblancebetween the view taken here by
our authorand the type of solution called transcasus
by Walter Burleigh,
of which he says: uet est transcasusquando aliqua propositio mutatura
veritate in falsitatem,vel econverso"*. To this subject I shall have to
returnlater2.
The fifthchapter is devoted to the proof of the firststatementof
the fourthchapter,i.e. thata propositionstatedtwice is not numerically
the same. This proof is based on the successive character of speech,
forit is assumed thatnothingthatis successive,once havingtakenplace,
returns as numerically the same. Having proved this for speech in
pronunciation,our author proves the same for the two other of the
three kinds into which, following Boethius, he distinguishesspeech,
namely speech in the mind, in writing, and in pronunciation. These
proofs,of which thatfor speech in the mind is ratherample, are based
on the same assumption.At the end of the chapter he gives the reason
whyhe has giventhe proofthata sentencedoes not returnas numerically
the same foreach of the threekindsof speech separately.For it is within
these three kinds,he says, thatthe radicesof the insolubiliaare generally
put, the firstof which proceeds from the act of writing, the second
fromthe act of speaking,the thirdfromthe act of understanding*
.
In the sixth chapter the author faces two objections which are
raised against the statement that a proposition stated twice is not
1SeeDe Rijk,
op.cit.,p. 89.
2Seebelow,
p. 127.
3Wemay
notice
that
theviewoftheso-called
radices
from
the
offered
herebyourauthor
differs
inthetracts
inthose
four
views
wefind
discussed
tracts
byDe Rijk.Asfaraswecanascertain,
areinnowayconnected
with
thedistinction
thethree
radices
between
(orspecies
) oftheinsolubilia
kinds
ofspeech.
ofthose
four
thegreatest
thethree
tracts
theInsolubilia
Monacensia
show
Perhaps
: 'propositio
withourauthor's
ofview.Inthistract
in
resemblance
scriptura
scripta
(example
point
isdiscussed
ofthe
hoc
est
(seeDe Rijk,
op.cit.,pp.113-114)asa subdivision
folio
falsa*)
separately
second
ofthethree
intowhich
itsauthor
theinsolubilia
: (1) those
distinguishes
species
proceeding
exactuhominis
which
exactu
exofficio
dicendi,
e.g.medicere
(among
falsum
), (2) thoseproceeding
exessentia
nonestverum
wesee
vocis
insolubilis
, and(3) those
(e.g.'aliquid
prose*).Thus,
proceeding
that
thepropositions
ofourtract
asexamples
ofthethree
radices
areconsidered
given
bytheauthor
oftheInsolubilia
Monacensia
thethree
different
kinds
ofinsolubilia.
, too,asrepresenting
bytheauthor

12:06:03 PM

numericallythe same. The firstobjection, which assertsthat a proposition stated twice has to be numericallythe same, since it shows a
greater resemblance than is shown by two propositions that are only
specificallythe same, is rejected by our author, because, with reference
to a passage of Aristotle,he holds it quite possible that things,without
being numericallythe same, show a resemblancethatis more thanonly
specific. He adduces the instance of two differentindividuals which
belong to the same species and possess besides the same quality. The
which is raised is just the opposite of the first,since it
second difficulty
that
Aristotle
seems to regard it as possible that a sentence or
argues
is
opinion that numericallythe same, is both true and false, and that
since such a thingdoes not occur simultaneously,it thereforeseems to be
possible that a numericallythe same proposition is accepted in a twofold sense i.e. true and false) at differenttimes. Tackling this objection
our author answers that the passage cited does not representone of
Aristotle's own opinions, but only an objection faced by him. This is
indeed the case in the passage concerned ( Categ. 4a2i-bi9).
Our
I
and
consider
this
of
the
view
taken
author, however,
significant
by
our author concerning the solution of the insolubilia,as I have said
already1 also9leaves 4open the possibilitythat Aristotleequates 'numerthe same' which our author
ically the same with morethan specifically
himselfdefinitelydoes not, as we have seen a momentago. Proceeding
fromthis supposition,our authordoes not only dispose of the objection
raised, for in that case the argumententirelyfalls in with the point of
view of our author, namelythatpropositionswhich are more thanspecificallythe same, but not numericallythe same (in casu a proposition
statedtwice), can be the one true, the otherfalse. But, proceedingfrom
this supposition,our author is also able to applyto a sentencewhat Aristotle observes about substance,namely,that "it is a distinctivemarkof
substance, that while remainingnumericallyone and the same, it is
takingplace
capable of admitting contrary qualities, the modification
"2. For it is thisappliance, in fact,that
itself
through
changein thesubstance
entirelyin contrast with Aristotle's intention, our author appears to
use at the end of this chapter.
In the seventhchapterthe second statementof the fourthchapteris
proved, namely that is it quite possible for a proposition-termto supposit fora propositionwhich is specificallythe same as the proposition
of which it formspart, or as our author formulatesit here, that one
1Cf.above,
p. 114,n. 1.
2I quotetheOxford
ismine).
translation
(underlining
116

12:06:03 PM

propositioncan referto anotherwhich is numericallybut not specifically

different.To prove this, our author states that it is possible to speak
about anythingwhatever, provided that two requirements are met,
namelythat the subject about which somethingis said is simpler than,
and thereforenaturallyprior to, what is said about it. The two requirements our auther claims here are the same as the assumptionshe had
required for the second and thirdargumentof the second chapter (see
above p. 113). Now, justas itis possiblethatoftwo individualthingswhich
are specificallythe same, the one is prior in time to the other, this is
possiblefortwo propositionsthatare specificallythesame; and therefore,
since what is prior in time is naturallyprior, the later proposition can
referto the prior.
In the second half of the chapter our author states as his opinion
it
that was the ignoranceof the numericaldifferencebetween a proposi.
tion statedtwice thatcaused errorand discord concerningthe insolubilia
he
has
numerical
this
once
realized
difference,
Consequently,
having
supersededall the attemptsat solution made beforehim. This numerical
differenceand yet specific identity,he continues, is also the reason
, and not circulatio
why in the discussion of insolubiliathe term reflexio
is used, the formerbeing a returnto what is specificallythe same, the
. This is the
latterto what is numericallythe same as the starting-point1
to be
he
considers
what
at
where
our
author
hints
only place,
directly
the definitionof an insolubile
.
In chaptereightthe objection is raised that,in contradistinctionto
the thesisof the second chapter,it seems to be possible thata proposition
refersto itselffromthe beginning.For when on two spots of a wall two
is
persons write down at the same moment the proposition 'something
first
written
on
the
since
the
then
it
wall'
(a)
being
proposition
happens,
is referring,as it seems, to the second ( b) and the second ( b) to the first
(a), that a from the beginningrefersto itself. Strictlyspeaking, our
author does not refute this objection. Stickingto what he had said in
the seventhchapter, he simplystates that only in case the one proposition is prior to the other (a prior to b; or: b prior to a), it is possible
thatthe one refersto the other (b to a ; or : a to b). And he goes on to
give two argumentswhich merelyshow thatin case the two propositions
are simultaneous,it is impossible for someone to understandthat they
referto each other ( b to a and a to b). Assuming that the two are
1Fortheword'circulatio*
Theoreumata
de Gostynin,
inthiscontext
onemight
Iacobus
compare
mediae
seureditio
nostri
intellectus
nonestperfecta
circulatio
etc.,: inintellectione
(seeLexicon
etinfimae
Latinitatis
Polonorum
, s.v.).
II7

12:06:03 PM

simultaneous,it is possible, indeed, that someone should imagine a to

be prior to b and fromits point of view, it is true, b can referto a, and
also the reverse (i.e. when he imagines b to be prior to a, then from
his point of view a can referto b) ; but it is impossiblefor one and the
same person to consider a to be prior to b and simultaneouslyb to be
prior to a y and thereforeto consider b to referto a and the reverse
(i.e. a to referb). And even assumingthat the two proportionsshould
referto each other, then for each of them there should be a regressus
ad
is
for
one
it
to
but
no
understand
infinite
and
;
infinitum
possible
things
consequentlyto understandthata refersto b and b to a.
In the second tractatus
, which is devoted to the solution of the insolubilia on the basis of what has been said in the firsttractatus
, our author
confineshimselfto the treatmentof what he considers to be the most
1
of all insolubilia
difficult
, viz. : whatI am sayingisfalse9 ('ego dicofalsum1).
First, he undertakes to refute three arguments,which, he says, are
usually brought up concerning this insolubile.This takes up the first
three chapters; next he considers and solves the Aristoteleanform of
argument.
In the firstchapter the firstof the usual arguments,a syllogism,
is dealt with. The author sets out to prove that the proposition: 'what
I am sayingis false1 has to be false1,for, provided that someone starts
by saying'what I am sayingisfalse' this proportioncannot be verified
for itself, because it does not refer to itself, nor is there any other
statementfor which it could be verified.But, he continues,when this
propositionis false, then its contradictoryopposite: 7 am sayingnothing
thatisfalse* (' nullum
falsumdico1)must be true. And takingthis proposition as major-premiss,one could syllogize as follows: 7 am saying
it is notthiswhatI am saying'2.
thatisfalse; butthisisfalse; therefore
nothing
It is this syllogismthat our author solves by showing that it is a paraof the firstof the two kinds he
logismi secundumquid et simpliciter
he
demonstrate
To
.
this, gives two argumentsfromwhich
distinguishes*
it appears that the proposition: 7 am sayingnothingthatis false' (the
major-premissof our syllogism) does not refer to the proposition:
1Thisargument
inthesamewayasthat
runs
theproposition
: 'something
concerning
approximately
*offered
inthesecond
ofthefirst
issaidbyme
tractatus.
chapter
'what
2Theword'this*
andtheconclusion
refers
totheproposition:
oftheminor-premiss
'('/loc')
I amsaying
isfalse
.
3Forthese
twokinds
oftheparalogismus
secundum
theSumma
, onemight
quidetsimpliciter
compare
Modernorum
elencorum
Vol.I),p. 3716-12.
sophisticorum
(ed.De Rijk,
Logica
I18

12:06:03 PM

1
whatI am sayingisfalse (which is indicated by the minor-termof the
. The firstof these two argumentsis based on the thesis that
syllogism)1
in an affirmation
and its negationthe same thingis spoken of because of
theirbeing contradictory2
; but the affirmation
('whatI am sayingisfalse9)
does not referto itself(i.e. to thisproposition: 'whatI amsayingisfalse')* ;
thereforealso the negation (7 am sayingnothingthatisfalse9) does not
9
4
referto thisproposition whatI amsayingisfalse . The second argumentis
based on the thesis that the subject about which somethingis said is
prior to what is said about it4; but the two propositionsunder discussion are equal in kind because of their being contradictory,and thus
the conclusion is the same as thatof the firstargument.
On the strenghtof this.proof our author continues by sayingthat
the term false9of the proposition 7 am sayingnothingthat
consequently
9
not
referto the proposition ' whatI am sayingisfalse9 and
does
isfalse
that thereforestrictlyspeakingthe proposition 7 am sayingnothingthat
9
has to be understoodas 7 am sayingnothingelse thatisfalse but
isfalse
9
this (' nullumaliudfalsumab hocdicitura me9).And thus the syllogismin
secundum
, in such
quid et simpliciter
question is, indeed, a paralogismus
a way that the medium has a restrictedsense in the major-premiss,but
is not restrictedin the minor-premiss.The followingfiguremay clarify
this:
'

nullum
falsum( aliud ab hoc) dico
hocestfalsum

M(d) - T
-M
t

- T,
t
ergohocnondico9
in which T is the maiorextr
emitas
and
, t the minorextr
emitas,M the medium
d
the
which
is
determinate,
(i )
only understood.
In the second chapter a syllogismof the second figureis dealt

with, which also startsfromthe contradictionof the proposition what

I amsayingisfalse9, viz. 7 amsayingnothing
thatisfalse9, as a major-premiss
and then draws the conclusion that the proposition ' whatI am sayingis
9
false is not false. Afterits reductionto the firstfigureour authorshows
1Itwillberemembered
that
theformer
isthecontradiction
ofthelatter.
proposition
2Forthisthesis,
seeAristotle
DeInter
andthecomments
ofBoethius
onthispassage
pr.,17a34-37
thediscussion
devoted
tothistopic
anditsbearing
offallacy
onthetheory
(cfr.
byL. M.deRijk,
Acontribution
tothehistory
Modernorum.
terminist
Vol.I: Onthetwelfth
Logica
century
ofearly
logic.
theories
, Assen
1962,pp.2$ff.).
offallacy
3Thishadbeenproved
inthebeginning
ofthischapter,
cfr.
above,
byourauthor
p. 118.
Onthisthesis
alsothesecond
ofthefirst
ofthefirst
hadbeenbased,
tractatus
argument
chapter
cfr.above,
p. 113andalsop. 117.
119

12:06:03 PM

secundum
similar to that of the
it to be a paralogismus
quid et simpliciter
firstchapter.
In the third chapter our author deals with an enthymema,which
taking as its starting-pointthe proposition 7 am sayingnothingthat is
that thereforeI am not making this false statement (in
false', infers
9
1
which thisfalse statementindicates the proposition: 'what I am saying
isfalse1). This argumentseems to be correct, since the universalproposeems to include the particularone
sitionwhich servesas a starting-point
which is inferred. To solve this argument the author applies to the
'
proposition whatI am sayingisfalse9a distinctionhe broughtup in the
fourthchapter of the firsttractatus1
(where this distinctionwas used in
is said by me'), namely that
connection with the proposition 'something
the propositionstated the firsttime is false, but stated the second time
is true, since in the latter case it refersto the proposition stated the
firsttime. Therefore the contradiction (a) of the former (a) will be
true, but the contradiction(b) of the latter () will be false2.Now the
of the argument is the
proposition which serves as a starting-point
4what I am
9
of
the
contradictoryopposite
proposition
sayingis false
stated the firsttime; thereforeit is a. However, the propositionwhich
is inferred(7 am notsayingthisfalse one9)is not a particularone included
in a, since a does not referto a (this was shown by our author in the
firstchapter of the second tractatus
3), whereas the propositionwhich is
inferredwas explicitlyrequired to referto a. The propositionwhich is
inferredis thereforea particularone included in b (since b as contradiction of refersto a), and since b is false,also the propositioninferred
mustbe false. In this way he proves the argumentto be incorrect,since
the universal proposition from which it starts does not include the
particularone which is inferred.
In the fourthchapter the author discusses the form of argument
. The
which, as he sees it, Aristotle uses concerning the insolubilia
is
author
He
states
that
this
of
our
remarkable.
Aristotruly
procedure
telean formis the insolubilewhich is offeredwhen Socrates swears that
he forswearshimself: assuming that he swears a true oath, it would
follow that he forswears himself; and assuming that he forswears
himself, it would follow that he swears a true oath. However, our
author goes on to say that he only supposes this to be the Aristotelean
form, basing himselfon the followingpassage of Aristotle: "nor if a
1Seeabove,
p. 114.
2Thenames
a andp byme.
a andbhavebeengiven
bytheauthor,
3Seeabove,
pp.118-119.
I 20

12:06:03 PM

man keeps his oath in this particular instance or in this particular

respect, is he bound also to be a keeper of oaths absolutely"1. From this
passageit appears, our authorsays,thatthe conclusion of the paralogism
intended by Aristotle is that Socrates swears rightly(keeps his oath).
Now this conclusion is only reached in the argumentmentionedabove,
when it is assumed that he forswearshimself. Therefore, our author
concludes, this is what according to Aristotle must be assumed. But,
as our author now stresses,in that part of the argumentwhich starts
from the assumptionthat Socrates forswearshimself,it is impossible
to reach the followingargumentation:'he keepshis oath (swearsrightly
)
in thisparticularrespect
he keepshis oath (swearsrightly
; therefore
)' and it is
equally impossible even to arrive at the proposition: 'he swearsrightly
in thisparticularrespec, but this is the very proposition from which
Aristotlestartsin the passage cited. To solve this difficulty,
our author
concludes that Aristotledoes not mean this proposition to be taken in
the literal sense but that he really means it to be taken as follows:
' that
Socrates
is true' That these two propositionshave
forswearshimself
the same meaning is shown by our author in the following way: *to
9 is
swearrightlyin thisparticularrespect
the same as ' thisis swornrightly'
' is
and since what is rightlysworn is true, 'thisis swornrightly
the same
as 'thisis true' and this is also true in the case that 'this1signifies'that
9
Socrates
forswearshimself.
In the fifthchapter our author evolves the whole argumentwhich
in his view Aristotle intended in the passage quoted in the previous
chapter. It runs as follows: 'that Socratesforswearshimselfis true; and
Socratesswearsthat Socrates
whatSocratesswears
forswearshimself;therefore
is true9
. This argumentis not a proper deduction, our authorpoints out,
since it is a paralogismsecundum
quid et simpliciter.
Thus we see that the argument which our author offersby a
remarkable example of expositioreverentialis
as the Aristotelean one,
in
to
the
second
of
fact, only
appears be,
part the insolubilementioned
above, viz. thatpart2which is inferredwhen it is assumed thatSocrates
forswearshimself.It is surprisingthat our author only shows this part
to be a paralogismand does not discuss the other part at all. Therefore,
althoughour author does not say so explicitly, the main point of the
discussiondevoted to the insolubilein question seems to be the following:
in order to solve this insolubileone has to assume that Socrates for1Soph.
I quote
theOxfordTSetJ
xa eoopxev.
El.,180a38-39:out'eleopxet
TflSe,
vy>t7)
doesnotfitvery
which
however
wellhere.
translation,
2Seebelow,
text
, p. i42I2-!3.
I 2I

12:06:03 PM

swears himself1,but to reject the argumentbased on this (namely the

second part) as it a is paralogism.
That the argument concerned is a paralogism is shown by our
author in the followingway. He begins his explanationby statingthat
the question: "does he swear rightlyor does he forswearhimself?",
when Socrates swears that he forswearshimself,is equivalent to the
question; "is it true that Socrates forswearshimselfor is it false?".
Now, in the preceding chapter it was shown that Aristotleassumes:
4thatSocrates
is true'2.What Socrates swears, however,
forswearshimself
is false, as the explanation of the question: "does he swear rightlyor
does he forswearhimself?"as givenabove showsmore clearly3. Therefoie
'
the proposition: 'that Socrates
himselfas assumed by Aristotle,
forswears
and the same proposition as sworn by Socrates, are not numerically
the same, since the formerpropositionis true and the latterfalse. Now,
in the argumentunder discussionthe subject-termof the major-premiss
is the formerproposition,while the latterserves as the predicate-term
in the minor-premiss.Thereforethe medium in the argumentis not the
same, although this may seem so, since the two propositions ('that
Socrates
),
himself')are very close of expression ( prximadictione
forswears
since theyare more than specificallythe same. Having thus shown that
the argumentis a paralogism, our author explains the secundum
quid et
1Thatonehastoassume
also
from
text
to ourauthor,
this,according
mayappear
p. i4225-26;
forswears
hasbeenmade
thatSocrates
whenthepresumption
canbe explained
only,
p. 143*5-16
himself
n. 3).
(cf.below,
2Thispassage
somemoreexplanation.
ForhereSortem
needs
text
, p. 14312-")
periurareest
(below
- is
- as is saidhereandwassaidinthefourth
assumes
is whatAristotle
which
chapter
rerum,
assumes
was
said
that
Aristotle
the
fourth
it
iurat
while
in
with
bene
as
,
chapter
regardedequivalent
therefore
Sortem
est
herewith
. Onecould
as equivalent
is regarded
periurare
, which
falsum
periurat
andthat
herewhat
hehadsaidinthefourth
contradicts
that
ourauthor
chapter
gettheimpression
isnotthecase.
assumes
bene
iurat.
tosayherethatAristotle
heintends,
This,however,
perhaps,
asasked
with
relation
totheproposition:
bene
iurat
Uaut
ofthequestion:
Themeaning
, autperiurat't",
*Sortes
aut
se(= Sortem)
"Sortes
iurat
seperiurare*
iurat
is,wearetold,thefollowing:
periurare,
aut
as: "verum
estse(= Sortem)
which
isthesame
se( = Sortem)
periurare,
periurare?",
periurat
' denotes
'Sortem
inthis
that
Wesee,thus,
falsum
estse (= Sortem)
periurare
question
periurare?".
'Sortem
estverum
Butintheproposition:
orwrongly,
issworn,
what
'
periurare
bySocrates.
rightly
' denotes
' ofthe
*Sortem
the'periurat
which
is saidtobeassumed
question
periurare
byAristotle,
himself
itdenotes
thecasethat
Socrates
forswears
autperiurat?",
"autbeneiurat,
and,accordingly,
there
are
Itevidently
that
doesassume
Aristotle
that
andpresupposes,
therefore,
periurat.
appears
*Sortem
And
est
of
them:
verum1
both
.
twodifferent
indeed,
periurare
although,
saying
propositions
between
hepoints
outatanyratethedifference
twopropositions,
these
toidentify
ourauthor
seems
' which
'Sortem ' which
and4Sortem
is given
periurare
byAristotle;
bySocrates,
periurare is sworn
that
Aristotle
assumes
herepeats
andlater
on(text,
periurat.
explicitly
p.14320),
3When
himself
thismeans
forswears
thatSocrates
forswears
thatSocrates
itis assumed
himself,
what
that
itmeans
andthus
seperiurare
himself
that
heforswears
) (cf.thepreceding
note),
(periurat
isnottrue.
heforswears
that
Socrates
himself,
swears,
namely
122

12:06:03 PM

characterof the argument.He points out that,whereas in the

simpliciter
major-premissthe medium is used absolutely, in the minor-premissit
has a restrictedsense. For, as was shown in the firstchapterof the first
tractatus
1, when Socrates says: "by God, I forswearmyself",the term
'I forswearmyself
' since it formspart of this oath, cannot referto this
same act of forswearing,but it refersto anyotheroath thanjust thisone.
Therefore,by virtue of this term: 'I forswearmyself
, the proposition:
9 is not
'Socratesswearsthat he forswearshimself
stated without some
delimitation, but has to be understood as stated2 in the following
restrictedsense: Socrates swears that he forswearshimselfby an other
oath thanthis one.
At thisplace an annotationis foundin the marginof our manuscript
explaining that the presumption must be made that no other oath
preceded. And, althoughour author does not say so in connection with
thisinsolubile
, this presumptionis necessary,since otherwisethe propo'
' could
sition: Socratesswearsthat he forswearshimself
refer to that
preceding oath and, accordingly,would not be necessarilyfalse.
To conclude our treatmentof the discussion which the author
devoted to this insolubile
view
, I give the following figureillustratinghis
of the so-called Aristoteleanargument:
*
Sortem
periurareestverum jfArist. J
SortesiuratSortem
Af(J)Socrperiurare t
'
t
T.
ergoiuratverum
Our author continues this chapter by stating that the insolubile
4
resultingfromthe proposition: whatI am sayingisfalse' must be solved
in the same way as the previous insolubile
. To the question: "is what I
am sayingtrue of false?", one has to answer (and our author states this
time explicitlythat this is the assumptionrequired), 4whatI am sayingis
but not the argument drawn from this proposition, namely
false'
'
thatwhatI am sayingisfalse, is true;and I am sayingthatwhatI am sayingis
whatI am sayingis true9. For it appears thatthe medium of
false; therefore
this argumentis not the same in the major-premissas in the minorpremiss,because the proposition: 'whatI am sayingisfalse1as stated the
firsttime (= a) is false,ifnothingis statedforwhich it could be verified,
1Seeabove,
p. 112.
2That
thepassage
istobe interpreted
concerned
insuch
a manner,
(pp.i4329-i44I)
mayappear
when
onecompares
onp. 14432-33.
thesimilar
passage
123

12:06:03 PM

since it cannotbe verifiedfor itself1; but when stated the second time
(b) it will be true, for then it is verifiedfor the former(a), which is
numericallydifferentfrom fc2.It is here, that our author attacks the
point of view of those who answer to the question: "is what I am saying
true of false?", thatnothing is said, which, as is known, is the point of
view of the cassantes
3. He rejects this view on the ground that when I
this
the
say
(namely
proposition: 'whatI am sayingis false'), I do' say
something. Hereafter,our author repeats that the proposition: what
I am sayingisfalse' when stated the firsttime is false, basinghimselfthis
time on the authorityof Aristotle,accordingto whom one has to answer
to the question concerned, thatwhat I am sayingis false. It appears,thus,
our author concludes, that the proposition a and the proposition
assumed by Aristotle,which is b (for in the reply of Aristotleit is the

same proposition: what I am sayingis false1 which is said, but now

stated the second time) are not numericallythe same, the formerbeing
false, the lattertrue.
Now, in the major-premissof the above-mentionedargumentthe
subject-term is the proposition />,whereas the predicate-term in the
minor-premissis the propositiona . Finallyour author remarksthatthe
medium in the minor-premissis not stated withouta delimitation,but
that it should be understoodin a restrictedsense*.
To conclude I give here the figureof the argumentin question:

'me dicere
T
falsumestverum Mb
et dicomedicere
t
M(d)a
falsum
'
t
T.
ergodico verum
In the sixth chapter the argumentis put forwardwhich, given the

proposition: what I am sayingis false', answers to the question: "is

what I am sayingtrue or false?" by assumingthat what I am sayingis
false (which our authorhad insistedon in the previouschapter); on the
basis of this assumptionthe argumentleads to the conclusion that I am
not sayingwhat is false, which conclusion seems to be opposed to what
had been assumed. According to our author, however, the conclusion
4
is not opposed to the proposition: whatI am sayingisfalse' given as an

1Thesame
ofthesecond
tractatus
saidinthefirst
wasalready
, seeabove,
chapter
p. 118.
2Hereisapplied
ofthefirst
hasbeensaidinthefourth
what
seeabove,
tractatus,
chapter
p. 114.
3SeeDe Rijk,
Monacensia
article
, passim.
(Some
quoted
notes),
pp.87,88,95,andtheInsolubilia
* Here,too,anannotation
inthemargin
thatthepresumption
isfound
bemadethat
must
saying
elsethatis false.
Thistime,
tobe
thisannotation
seems
I didsaypreviously
however,
anything
thispresupposition
hadmentioned
see
thistime,
sinceourauthor
rather
explicitly
superfluous,
below,
p. 144*3-14.
124

12:06:03 PM

answer to the above question. On the contrary,it follows from this

but is opposed only to the proposition: 4whatI am sayingis false as
stated in the beginning.
That in the view of our author the latter does not affordany
difficulty
may' be explained in the followingway. Accordingto him the
proposition: whatI am sayingisfalse' as statedin the beginningcan only
be verifiedfor another proposition, i.e. it is only by means of another
propositionthatit becomes true thatwhat I am sayingis false,and thus,
assumingthatno other propositionwas stated,one is able to state thatI
am not sayingwhat is false1.
In the seventhand last chapterour author explains the reason why
it is more difficultto solve the insolubiliathan the other paralogisms
secundum
. The reason is that in the insolubiliathe two
quid et simpliciter
of
which
act as the medium, are more close of expresportions speech
sion than those constitutingthe medium of the other paralogisms,since
in the latter case the restrictivedetermitationis explicitly expressed,
while in the case of the insolubiliathis delimitation (viz. otherthan
exactlythis) is not expressed explicitly, but is only understood (sub).
intelligitur
As appears from the analysisof the contents of the tract, our author
does not follow the method that seems to have been popular among
writers on insolubilia
2, namely that of discussing the various manners
of solution proposed by others dealing with the same subject and then
explicitlyprofessingoneself to be an adherent to one of these, or yet
another manner of solution. Therefore, it may be useful to try to
characterizethe solution of the insolubiliaproposed by our author.
Firstly,it is clear that the solution proposed is a so-called solutio
1Formyexplanation
oftheopinion
ofourauthor,
onemight
William
De
compare
Burleigh's,
inwhich
hereports
theexplanation
ofthesameargument
as ourauthor
discusses
insolubilibus,
here
asgiven
whoreply
totheinsolubilia
oftranscasus
bythose
bymeans
(seeDeRijk,
op.cit.,p. 89):
etquando
fitprocessus
sic:sidicofalsum,
estmedicere
dicitur
falsum,
ergofalsum
(sc.bythose
whodefend
thetranscasus)
sidicofalsum,
falsum
estmedicere
iniliotempore
falsum
quodverum;
etconceditur
iniliotempore,
seddicofalsum
intempore
proquodicofalsum
quodnondicofalsum
Ideononplusconcluditur
nisiquoddicofalsum
inistotempore
sequenti.
(sc.tempore
sequenti)
etnondicofalsum
inaliotempore.
2Ofthefour
tracts
De Rijkhasdealtwith(op.cit.),three
follow
thismethod,
Walter
namely
B.N.Lat.16.617(thefirst
andB.N.Lat.11.412.A well-known
is
Burleigh's,
tract),
example
further
thediscussion
PaulofVenice
devoted
totheinsolubilia
inhislogica
, ed.Venice
1499,
Magna
fif.
Formale
(Cf.Bocheski,
i92rl>sqq.
, Freiburg/Mnchen
19^6,pp.277-292).
Logik
2S

12:06:03 PM

secundum
, or as it is also called1, the solutioAristotilis.
quid et simpliciter
Not only does our author explicitly reckon2the insolubiliaamong the
, but, what is more important,in
quid et simpliciter
paralogismssecundum
the actual solutionhe also appears to proceed in the verymannerwhich
He assumes
is reported3to be thatof the solutiosecundum
quidetsimpliciter.
thatthe proposition'ego dicof alsum1is falsewhen it is firstuttered*,and
demonstratesthat the argumentswhich are built on this assumption
and infer a conclusion that is in contrast with this assumption, are
5.
quid et simpliciter
paralogismssecundum
As we have seen above6, our author, in the firstchapterof the first
tractatus
, defends a thesis which is the same as that defended by the
restr
, namely that a proposition-termcannot supposit for the
ingentes
propositionas a whole of which it formspart. This thesisis used in the
which
actual solution to explain the secundum
quid of the paralogisms
'
of
the
the
falsehood
from
drawn
the arguments
proposition ego dico
' are shown to be?.
For, basing himselfon this thesis, our author
falsum
4
the
he
states
when
that
proposition ego dicofalsum' thisproposition
says
has to be understoodas 'ego dicoaliudfalsumab hoc*. Now thisis exactly
the point of view taken by the restringentes
, who state, as we are told^,
'
'
thatin the proposition egodicofalsum1(or: Sortesdicitfalsum1)the term
1
falsum is restrictedin that it supposits for a proposition other than
this one. We could say, therefore, that our author interpretesthe
in such a manner that the view of the
solutiosecundum
quid et simpliciter
is incorporatedin it. It may be usefulto call attentionhere
restringentes
in BN. Lat.
to the fact that we know from the tract De insolubilibus

1Inthetract
inB.N.Lat.11.412, seeDe Rijk,
Deinsolubilibus
op.cit.,p. 9
2Intheseventh
cf.above,
tractatus
ofthesecond
, see(text)
p. i2$.
p. i49-10,
chapter
3SeeB.N.Lat.11.412(De Rijkop.cit.,p. 9$):siverosolvetur
dicetur
Aristotilis,
persolutionem
fallacia
secundum
etinargumentatione
estsimpliciter
quidet
proponetur
sequente
quodfalsa
simpliciter.
4 Sointhefirst
1446); aswehave
seen
tractatus
ofthesecond
andfifth
(text,
pp.13925-2*and
chapter
that
totheinsolubile
ofSocrates
thesamewith
hestates
regard
swearing
(cf.abovepp.121-122)
himself.
heforswears
s SoinII i, 2 and.
6 Above,
p. 113.
7SeeII i, and2, where
tothis
of'egodico
doesnotrefer
hesaysthatthecontradiction
falsum
he
doesnotrefer
toitself
sincethisproposition
(text,
p. 140*
sqq.):andIIg,where
proposition,
ofbotharguments
hediscusses
hastobeunderstood
intheminor-premiss
saysthatthemedium
andp. 14431-34).
sense
ina restricted
1442
(text,
pp.143258SeeII 7,(p. i4ii6_i7)
inthepreceding
heexpliInp. 14327.28
mentioned
note.
: andalsotheplaces
I
1
of
thesis
.
to
the
refers
citly
9SeeDe Rijk,
andp. 96(B.N.Lat.11.412.)
Burleigh)
op.cit.,p. 88(Walter
126

12:06:03 PM

11.412 that such an interpretationof the solutiosecundum

quid et simexisted1
.
pliciteractually
There is yet a thirdcharacteristicof the solution proposed by our
1
9
author. This is the factthathe applies to the proposition egodicojalsum
what he had said in the fourthchapter of the firsttractatus2
concerning
c
the proposition aliquid dicitura me' namelythatwhen this proposition
is statedtwice, thefirsttimeitwill be false,butthe second timeit will be
true3. It will be clear that this thesis presupposes that of the restriction
for when stated the firsttime the propositionis false, because no other
false proposition was stated before, while stated the second time the
propositionis true, because it then refersto the propositionstated the
firsttime, which was false*.
I have already*called attentionto a certain resemblance between
this thesis of our author and the manner of solution called transcasus
by
Walter Burleigh. Let me illustrate this resemblance here somewhat
further.Transcasusis definedas the transitionof the same proposition
frombeing true into being false, or the reverse6,which does not seem
to differverymuchfromour author's above-mentionedthesis. The main
of transcasus
seems to be the fact thatthe
point of the solution by means
'
refers
to
the
time
proposition 'ego dicojalsum
preceding the utterance
of it; our author stresses that the subject about which somethingis
stated, has to be prior (in time) to what is stated about it?, and says
'
that the proposition ego dicojalsum9 can only be verifiedfor something
that was stated before8. It seems furtherthat our author discusses the
argumentof the sixth chapter of the second tractatusin approximately
the same way as is done by those who defend the transcasus
, as I have
said already*.However, therestillseems to be a greatdifferencebetween
the solution of our author and that of the transcasus9
for as far as I can
ascertain,Walter Burleighdoes not mentionin this context the numerical differencebetween a proposition stated the firsttime and that
propositionstated the second time; therefore,in the case of transcasus
1Seethesecond
oftheAristotelean
solution
advanced
inquestion
interpretation
(De
bythetract
a difference
between
thesolution
discussed
there
andthat
is,however,
Rijk,
op.cit.y
p. 97).There
ofourauthor,
cf.below
p. 128.
2 Cf.above,
p. 114.'
*isusedinII 3ands
3Thisapplication
to egodico
(seetext
falsum
p. 14128sqq.and14411
sqq.).
Cf.text
andp. 14411-16.
p. 134*3-16
s Above,
p. iii".
6 Cf.forthispassage
thetextquoted
andthediscussion
devoted
toitbyDe Rijk,op.cit.p., 89.
? InI i (text
and8 (p. 382*sqq
7 (pp.i3729-i386)
p. 1331-5)
).
8InII g (text.
p. 144i2-1*).
9Above,
p.12
127

12:06:03 PM

the point seems to be thatone and the same propositionis falseand true,
whereasour authorexplicitlybases his thesison the numericaldifference
between a propositionstated the firsttime and that propositionstated
the second time1; and thus,accordingto him, thereare two numerically
different
propositions,of which one is falseand the other true. However
that may be, it is clear that in our author's view the thesis in question
quid
only formspart, thoughan importantpart, of the solutiosecundum
et simpliciter
.
With relation to this characterizationof the solution proposed by
our author, two more remarkscan be made.
Firstly,when we call the solution proposed by our author a solutio
and when we state that our author proceeds
secundum
quid et simpliciter
in a manner which in the tract of B.N. Lat. 11.412 is reported to be
adopted by those who hold this solution2,then it should be noticed that
neverthelessthere is a differencebetween the solutiosecundumquid et
of our author and that which according to the tract in B.N.
simpliciter
Lat. 11.41 2 is the purport of this solution. For in the latter tract it is
considers the proposition
said that the solutiosecundum
quid et simpliciter
'
but
secundum
be
alsum*
to
false,
quid true,and thisis
simpliciter
ego dicoj
there3.
repeatedforthe threetypesof thissolutionthatare distinguished
'
the
when
even
our
to
however,
author,
proposition ego dico
According
aliudj alsumab hoc ,
dico
sense
of
in
restricted
the
is
taken
'ego
falsum*
for
which it could be
before
was
said
if
it is evidentlyfalse*, nothing
verified.Whether this propositionis false or true, depends for him on
other reasons,as we saw above*. Thus, it appears thatwith regardto the
our author holds a view which is
solution secundum
quid et simpliciter
in
B.N.
Lat. 11.41 2, and which is also
that
differentfrom
proposed
furtherremoved fromthe Aristoteleanpoint of view6.
Secondly I would like to call attentionto a peculiar trait of the
solution of the two insolubiliaof the fifthchapterof the second tractatus.
To reject the argumentsbased on the assumptionthatthe starting-point
of the insolubiliain question is false,our authordeals withboth arguments
1Seetexty
p. I441*-16.
2 Cf.above,
p. 126.
3Seethepassages
that
thisviewcorresponds
Itwillbenoted
op.cit.,pp.96-97.
byDe Rijk,
quoted
totheAristotelean
one.
intheminor4Thisappears
themedium
hesaysthat
inII 5, where
most
egodico
Jalsum*
clearly
intherestricted
sense(cf.text
andhastobeunderstood
isfalse
p. i4427-34).
premiss
s Cf.above
p. 127.
6Inthiscontext
of
ourauthor
ofthepassage
recall
theremarkable
I might
gives
interpretation
1.
inII4, cf.above,
Aristotle
pp.120-12
128

12:06:03 PM

in the same manner1. He states firstthat the medium-termis not

numericallythe same in the major-premissas in the minor-premiss,
since it is true in the formerand false in the latter,and next he shows
that in the major-premissthe medium is taken simpliciter
, whereas in
the minor-permissit is taken secundumquid. Now, if I understand
our author'sintentionsrightly,the latterpartof thisproofis superfluous,
since the formerpart proves by itselfthat the argumentin question is a
paralogismand for this reason lacks conclusiveness.
Thus when our author combines the application of the thesis that
some propositionsstatedtwice are the firsttimefalseand thesecond time
true - a thesisour author considersbeyond doubt as onlyforminga part
of his solution - with the rest of his solution, it appears thatthe former
entails the superfluityof the latter. I think we are entitled to gather
from this and from what was said in the preceding remark, that the
solution presented by our author is an highlydeveloped form of the
solutiosecundum
, such a complicated form,indeed, that
quid et simpliciter
it can hardlybe designatedby thatname2.
I am not able to say to whom belongs the undoubtedly strong and
original personalitywe encounter in our tract. De Rijk seems to be
found
rightin stating3with referenceto the other tract De insolubilibus
in our manuscriptthat Grabmann'ssuggestionthatit maybe ascribed to
William of Shyreswood lacks good grounds. What De Rijk says with
relation to the former tract, is equally true, or even more so, with
regardto our tract.
I can only tryto suggestthe presumableperiod in which our tract
was writtenand to assess its position among the other tractson insolubilia dealt with by De Rijk. In this attemptI am forced to base myself
almost entirelyupon internal evidence since the date ascribed to the
manuscriptin which our tract is found*,only entitles us to conclude
that it is possible that our tracthad been writtenbefore that of Walter
Burleigh5.To be sure, internal evidence is perhaps not very reliable,
1Seetext
p. 14312
sqq.andp. 144"sqq.
2 Inthiscontext
it maybeinteresting
tonotice
thatofthevarious
solutions
discussed
byPaul
ofVenice
thefourteenth
the
(cf.Bocheski,
( secundum
accidentem)
opcit.y
pp. 287-288)shows
resemblance
withthesolution
greatest
proposed
byourauthor.
3op.cit.p. 93.
*It wasdated
to thebeginning
of thefourteenth
and by
byDelisleas belonging
century,
inthelatethirteenth
seeDe Rijk,
Grabmann
century,
op.cit.y
p. 90.
s Since
thiswasdated
written
in1302,seeDe Rijk,
byDe Rijkasprobably
op.cit.p. 87.
129

12:06:03 PM

especiallynot in our case, in view of the factthathithertoso few tracts

on insolubiliahave been edited in full.
Therefore,I can only say that I am inclined to place our tract in
approximatelythe same period as the tract on insolubiliafound in Ms
Paris B.N. Lat. 11.412, which was dated by De Rijk about the third
decade of the thirteenthcentury1,and the tract on insolubiliathat in
our manuscriptimmediatelyprecedes our tract and which was dated
by De Rijk about the middle of the thirteenthcentury2.It is clear that
there is a certain correspondence in the stage of development of the
discussion of the insolubiliaas found in the three tracts: .theyall three
reject the cassatioand theyall three propose as solution a formof solutio
secundum
, and furtherthey all three in one way or
quid et simpliciter
anotherdeal with the thesisdefendedby the restringentes.
There seems to be, however, an additionalreason to date our tract
later than that found in B.N . Lat. 11.41 2, for in our tract a form of
is foundwhich is far more complicated
solutiosecundum
quid et simpliciter
and also furtherremoved from the Aristoteleanform than that found
in B.N. Lat. 11.41 2, as I have alreadypointed out3.
This complicated formof our tract is on the other hand the very
reason why I am inclined to place it more in the surroundingsof the
tract that precedes our tract in our manuscript,which also seems to
have a complicated formof solutiosecundum
; the more
quid et simpliciter*
so as there seems to be a certainresemblancebetween the views of our
author and those of the author of that other tract. The latter namely
and
recognizes the relative value of the solution of the restringentes
regards it as the road to the right solution, since, in his view, the
are rightin statingthatthe part cannotsuppositforthe whole
restringentes
of which it formsparts. Now we have seen the importantpart which
the same thesis as that of the restringentes
plays in the solution of our
of his solution6,yet our
authorand thatit even formsthe starting-point
it
as
considers
author, too,
merely formingpart of his solutiosecundum
et
Moreover, in support of their solution7 they both
simpliciter.
quid
solution.
seem to use an argumentresemblingthatof the transcasus
1Op.cit.,p. 98.
*Op.cit.,p. 93.
3Seeabove,
p. 128,andalsop. 129.
Forthiswhole
inquestion,
devoted
cf.thediscussion
op.cit.,pp.
byDe Rijktothetract
passage
91-93.
s Licet
nonpotest
benedicant
autem
prototo(f.48r).
quoadhocquodpars
supponere
restringentes
6Seeabove
pp.126-127.
i Cf.forourauthor,
above
pp.127-128.
I30

12:06:03 PM

Yet there is, I think,a reason for datingour tract earlier than this
other tractwhich precedes our tract in the manuscript.For our author
merely bringsup the thesis that a part cannot supposit for the whole
of which it formspart, to be sure without defendingit againstpossible
objections1, whereas we have seen that this thesis is of the greatest
importance for his solution. The author of the other tract, on the
other hand, carefully lists and discusses possible objections against
this thesis2.It will be clear, thatin order to reach more certaintyabout
the relation of our tract with the tract preceding it in the manuscript
a complete edition of the latter tract is indispensable.
However, there seem to be good reasons to assign our tract to a
date nearerto the other tracton insolubiliafoundin the same manuscript
thanto the tracton insolubiliafoundin B.N. Lat. 11.41 2.
To conclude this paper I print the text of the tract discussed. I
AlterDe Insolubilibus
.
propose to call it the TractatusSorbonnensis
TRACTATUS SORBONNENSIS ALTER DE INSOLUBILIBUS
SIGLA
S

= codex Sorbonnensis1797 (= ParisiensisB.N. Lat. 16.617) saec.

XIII-XIV

Sc

= manus quae correxit S

= scripsi
[ ] = expunxi(t)
< > = supplevi(t)

(T)Empestive deficiet qui in mendacio confidit,quia non sola Veritasf.iov,1.13

set et falsitasmendacio contradicit. Hinc est quod veriores semper
conveniunt,mendaces vero frequentiussibi contradicunt.Quid mirum
igitur a se ipsis discordare qui a veritatefuere discordes! Hinc potuit
5 esse quod a seculo est inauditum in dissolutione insolubilium etiam
duos concordes fuisse; quia enim Veritas hucusque latuit, singuli
singulas erroris plateas sunt ingressi. Hinc est quod secretum placuit,
1Onecanonlysaythatheconsiders
in
drawn
from
theconclusion
thisthesis
objections
against
inquestion,
theseobjections
notbydefending
thethesis
I 2,soinI 3 andI 8; andhe refutes
a proposition
ofthenumerical
difference
between
stated
thefirst
butbybringing
upthethesis
time.
andthesecond
time
2Seeff.47v-48r
inquestion,
ofthemanuscript
S -t-inmargine
: Empestive
i adtempestive
HI

12:06:03 PM

et Ipse Idem qui videt in abscondito1, novit quia non feci ut contradicerem, sed ne abscondendo frumentumillam maledictionemincurrerem qua dicitur: "qui abscondit frumentummaledicetur in populis"2;
ne etiam talentmdominimei reponens in sudariopenam servinequam3
5 incurrerem.Et ut melius pateat quod hoc ut contradiceremnon feci,
aliorum opiniones nec etiam tangere volui, sed simplicem veritatem
meam narravi. Quam cum quis diligenterinspexerit,aliorum opiniones
secundummagiset minusa veritate distarevidebit.
<T>Ractatusprimusin precedentibus*ad dissolutionemparalogismorum
10 que dicunturinsolubilia.
Primum capitulum in ostensione quod terminusnec supponit nec
copulat pro eo cuius est pars. Secundumin ostensioneeius quod sequitur
ex predeterminato.Tertium in prima5destructionehuius consequentis
per rationes apparentes. Quartum in solutione rationumapparentium.
IS Quintum in ostensione unius suppositi in dissolutionequinqu predictarum rationum, et est quod oratio repetita non est eadem numero.
Sextum in dissolutione questionum contradicentiumhuic suppositioni
ostense. Septimum in ostensione alterius suppositi in dissolutione
rationum apparentium. Octavum in prima contradictione ostensionis
20 capituli secundi et eius contradictionisdissolutione.
primum. Quod terminusnon supponit pro oratione cuius est pars,
sic demonstratur.Omne id de quo fitsermo est pars integrlissermonis
de ipso facti; sed si terminusqui subicitursupponitpro orationecuius est
pars, sermo | ille faciet sermonemde se ipso; ergo idem erit pars sui f. s1*
25 ipsius, et sic pars equalis toti; quod est inpossibile. Et ut manifestiorsit
demonstratio: propositio cuius pars supponit pro toto, vocetur a ;
terminusautem eius qui statpro toto, voceturb ; dico ergo : b est pars a ;
b est equalis ei quod est a; ergo pars equatur toti. Minor sic ostenditur:
a facitsermonemde se ipso, et id de quo a facitsermonemest b, et in
30 propositione una non ftsermo nisi de uno; ergo b est idem quod a .
Et sic idem pars et totum,cui contradicitquod ' omnetotum
estmaiusetc.'.
1 = Deus,cfr.Matth.
inabscondito.
tuus,
VI,4 and6: Pater
quividet
2Proverbia
3Cfr.Matth.
andLucas
XI,26.
yXXV,14-30
XIX,12-28.
* = "prolegomenis
5= initial
?
S 4 meiSc unum5 9 ad tractatus
SedicemS populis]
: Rac3 dicitur
propulis
tatus5 -t-inmargine 13 consequentis
21 primum
etp. 13314secundum
-f [in]S
S inmargine
2 pars+ [sit]S
etc.semper
132

12:06:03 PM

Dico iterum. Si sermo est, tunc id de quo fitsermo est, et non e

naturamid de quo fit
converso; ergo per diffinitionem
priorissecundum
sermo
factus
de ilio ; ergo b
est
secundum
naturam
sermo,
quam
prius
est priusa secundumnaturam; sed b est idem quod a, ut preostensumest;
5 ergo idem prius se ipso; quod est inpossibile.
Dico iterum. Omne illud in quod resolvitur aliud, simplicius est
ilio quod resolvitur in ipsum, sed propositio resolvitur in terminos;
ergo terminisunt simpliciorespropositione; ergo b est simpliciusquam
a, et b est idem cum a ; ergo idem simpliciusse.
Et sicut ille radones ostenduntquod subiectum non supponit pro
10
eo cuius est pars, eisdem ostendi potest quod nec predicatum. Si ergo
hec sint inpossibilia, nulla propositio de se facit sermonem, et sic
nullus terminusdicit totum cuius est.
secundum. Hoc demonstrato tanquam corollarium infero quod hec
'
15 est falsa: aliquiddicitura me' nullo priusdicto. Quia cum hec propositio
non facitsermonemde se, significabit
aliquid dici a me ; quod falsumest;
4
hec
est
falsa
etc/.
aliquid
ergo
TERTiuM.Quod eadem sit vera, sic videtur ostendi. In tempore in quo
4
a me , est hec vera: hec dicitura me'
profero hanc: 'aliquid dicitur
'
20 demonstratahac propositione aliquid dicitura me9. Et similiterin eodem
'
tempore est hec vera: hec est aliquid9. Ex hiis duabus conclusum erit
verum in eodem1, scilicet 'aliquid dicitura me9; concludit enim per
'
figuramtertiam,ut patet. In eodem igiturtempore est hec vera: aliquid
dicitura me*.
1
'
Dico iterum. ' Ego dico aliquid' tu dicisaliquid' ille dicitaliquid9,
25

' 9
'
isti sermonesidem significant,si hec pronomina ego9, tu9y ille eadem
substantiam2demonstrent; ergo si unus istorum est verus, et omnes;
9
'
sed me dicente ' ego dico aliquid9 et alio dicente ad me tu dicis aliquid
hec est vera: 'tu dicisaliquid; ergo et hec 'ego etc.'.
9 '
9
30
Dico iterum. In hac propositione: ' aliquid dicitura me ly aliquid
non restringi
tur, quia a predicato non potest restringi,predicatumenim
non restringitsubiectum, nec subiectum se ipsum; sed terminusnon
1sc.tempore

2 = individual

2 converso+ [aut]Sc
fitsermo)Sc
io sicutSc sic 5
1-3(estet non
12 inpossibilia]
24 me + [et
(?) 5 14 (hec)Sc 17aliquid+ [est]S
incopolia
dico + [ergo]5
falsum
(?)] 5 2 primm
133

12:06:03 PM

restrictaspotest supponerepro omni eo de quo predicatur; ergo cum ly

'
'
a me , - possum
aliquid predice<t>urde hac propositione: 'aliquid dicitur
'
'
enim vere dicere 'hec estaliquid'1, - poterit ergo ly aliquid supponere
pro eo cuius est pars.
S QUARTUM.Et ad horum solutionem distinguo cum Aristotile2quod
enuntiationum quedam sunt eedum numero, quedam sunt heedem
9
specie. Et dico quod hec oratio: 'aliquid dicitura me bis dicta non est
eadem numero sed specie ; quod hie supponatur,quia posterius^ demonstrabitur.Et si hoc est, dico quod quamvisinpossibilesit quod terminus
10 supponit pro eadem oratione numero cuius est pars, potest tamen
supponere pro oratione que est eadem specie cum oratione cuius est
pars; quod similiterostendeturposterius*.
Dico ergo* quod hec oratio: aliquid dicitura me9dicta posterius,
'
ly 'aliquid9 in ea potest supponere pro hac tota: aliquid dicitura me9
15 dicta prius. Et prius quidem dicta erit falsa, secundo autem dicta,
cum possit facere sermonemde primo dicta, erit vera; et sic quidem in
eodem temporenon erit eadem numero vera et falsa,sed eadem specie ;
quod non est inconveniens.
Quare autem in | hiis diversisnumero6contingitunam esse veram f.s iv
20 et alteram falsam in eodem tempore, non autem in talibus diversis
'
'Sortescurri, Sortescurrit9, Sortescurrit'7,est quia in hiis6subiectumest
commune ad res complexas et incomplexas. In aliis?vero subiectumnon
est communenisi ad res incomplexas. Et ideo in talibus?una pro altera
non verificatursicut in hiis6. Et ideo in aliis? si una est falsa, et ista
25 que est eadem ei est falsa.
Ex eodem solvitar secundum8, quia cum primo dicam ' aliquid
dicitura me' et alius dicat michi ' aliquid dicitura te', non est dictuma me
et ab isto idem numero; unde nichil prohibetunum esse verumet aliud
falsum.
30
Ex eodem patet solutio tertii^,quia inpossibile est quod hec dic
tio: aliquid', que subicitur in hac oratione: aliquid dicitura me',
1Cfr.supra
, p. 13319-21
3Videinfra
, p. i3?sqq.
5Ctr.supra
, p. 13318-24.
7thelatter
group.
9 Chr.suprat
pp.i33so-i344.

2 Cf.what
I havesaidabove,
pp.113-114.
*
Videinfra
yp. i3729sqq.
6theformer
group.
8 Cfr.supra
, p. i 332S-29.

i (omni)Sc horumSceorumS 13dicitur

Scdubitatur
S 15 quidem+ [prius]
S
Sc 20tempore
dicitur
Sc dice5
+ [nonautem]S 27 primm
i6possi[i]tS 19<hiis>
a te Sc me5
134

12:06:03 PM

prediceturde hac eadem oratione numero, quia si terminusde aliquo

vere predicatur,pro eodem vere poterit stare si subiciatur. Ergo si ly
1
de hac oratione cuius est pars: ' aliquid dicitura
aliquid1'vere predicetur
'
me' ly aliquid supponat pro eodem in subiecto, et sic terminus
5 supponetpro eodem numero cuius est pars; quod superius1inprobatum
est.
QUINTUM.Quod autem enuntiatiobis dicta non sit eadem numero, quod
supponimus2,sic probatur. Nichil quod corruptumest, redit in idem
numero; sed omne successivumcum factumest, est corruptum; ergo
10 nullum successivumredit in idem numero, cum factumest. Sed sermo
est de numero successivorum; ergo nullus sermo, cum factusest, redit
in idem numero. Sed factumesse sermonisest dictum esse, quia suum
fieriest suum dici; ergo nullus sermo, cum dietus est, redit in idem
numero. Et hoc est quod dicit Aristotiles: "dictum est et non potest
15 amplius sumi"3.
Ut autem hoc plenius pateat, hoc idem sic ostendo. Oratio est
triplex,ut dicit*Boethius,in mente, in scripto, in pronuntiatione.
De oratione in scripto, quod non est eadem numero bis scriptasic
patet; quia aut in eadem superficienumero scribitur,aut non. Si non:
20 cum oratio in scripto non sit nisi figure- figuraautem est qualitas et
accidens superficiei,- manifestumest quod oratio scripta in diversis
partibussuperficieinon est eadem numero. Si autem in eadem superficie
numero scribitur,sed primo quidem scribetur,deinde delebitur, tertio
scribeturibidem, tune non erit idem numero quod prius, quia accidens,
25 postquamnon fuerit,non redibitin idem numero quod prius; cum ergo
oratio in scriptonon sit nisi figure- figuraautem est qualitasaccidentalis
ergo, postquam deleta fueritetc.
De oratione autem in pronuntiatione,quod non sit eadem numero
bis pronuntiata sufficienterostensum est5, et hoc modo verissime
30 dicituroratio.
De oratio in mente, dico quod oratio bis intellectanon est eadem
numero. Oratio enim in intellectu non est nisi quod intelligitur,dum
intelligiturin actu ; cum ergo nullum individuumredit in idem numero
1Videsapra,
2Videsupra
, p. 134s.
pp.i322l-i33I3.
3Categ.j
VideARISTOTELES
LATINUS.
Editio
ed.L.Minio-Paluello,
/a.
34-3$.
Categoriae.
composita,
p.
*InPeriherm.
s Videsupra
II,4215 (ed.Meiser).
, p. 13i8-15.
i (de aliquo)5e 2 primm
vere-f [de termino]
S 9 successivum
inidem
4-[redit
S
est + [sed]S
17 triplex
S tripliciter
18 (quod)Sc
numero]
primm
(?) 5e
sicbisscripta
S 28 [numero]
S
ns

12:06:03 PM

postquamfueritcorruptum,quamvis quidem habitumaneatin intellectu,

in anima, tarnensi prius intelligaturactu, deinde non intelligaturactu,
actus quidem corruptusest; ergo idem actus numero non redibit; ergo
oratio bis intellectanon est eadem numero.
5
Item. GramaticaSortis gramaticaPiatonis est diversa numero, que
sunt individua gramatice, sicut dicit1 Aristotiles. Ergo aliqua cognitio
gramaticein Sorte et Platone est diversanumero, et qua ratione eadem
propositio, mentalis | dico, est diversa numero in Sorte et Platone, f.s2*
licet ab eis sciatur in eodem tempore, eadem ratione eadem propositio
10 erit diversa numero bis intellectaa Sorte, scilicet ab eodem in diversis
temporibus,dico cum interpolatione,scilicet quod primo sit intellecta
a Sorte, deinde non intellecta, tertio intellecta.
Item. Intelligerein diversis temporibus facit diversitatemnumeralem sicut intelligia diversis, sicut est patens de albedine in diversis
15 subiectis et in diversistemporibus. Et etiam quod intelligitur in anima
forteest successivum et in fieri,sicut lux et color que apprehenduntura
sensu, linde sicut non est eadem lux numero, que nunc accipitur in
oculo et prius, sic est de accepto in intellictu. Et secundumhoc eadem
est ratio de oratione in mente que de oratione in pronuntiatione,cum
20 utrumque sit successivum. Sed huius maiorem2 ad presens relinquo,
quia hec magisphilosophie quam sophisticeconvenit.
De triplicioratione ostensumest quod nulla redit eadem numero,
quia penes has tres insolubilium poni soient radices, quarum una
in hocfolio' alia
scribitur
ut 'falsa propositio
provenitex actu scribendi,
'
'
25 de actu dicendi, ut egodicofalsum'tertiaex actu intelligendi,ut aliquid
nonestverum
perse', quod tamen proveniredicunt ex actu enuntiationis.
et negatio sint species
sextum. Sed tunc oritur questio, cum affirmatio
et negatumsunt differentie.Cum
enuntiationis,et hoc quia affirmatum
'
iste enuntiationes: 'Sortescurri, Plato disputasint eadem specie quia
'
hec oratio: Sortescurri bis dicta magis est idem
30 utraque affirmativa,
quam idem specie, magis enim conveniunt quam priores; sed que sunt
magis idem quam idem specie, sunt idem numero; ergo cum hec
oratio: 'Sortescurri bis dicta sit magis idem quam specie, erit idem
numero.
1Cfr.Categ.y
insubiecto
enim
est.
ib8-':quaedam
grammatica
2Videsupra
, p. i36*5-18.
ii sitScestS

23 hasSc hosS

(soient)Sc

28 affirmantum
S

136

12:06:03 PM

1
Ad hoc autem dicendum cum Aristotilein PrimoTopicorum
quod,
sicut aqua unius fontiscum aqua alterius fontisest eadem specie similiter cum aqua eiusdem fontis,quamvis maior convenientiasit alicuius
aque cum aqua eiusdem fontisquam cum aqua alterius fontis,similiter
5 hec oratio: 'Sortescurriest eadem specie et non numero cum se scripta
'
vel pronuntiatavel intellecta et cum hac Plato curri; et si validior
sit similitudo, sicut Sortes et Plato non sunt idem numero, quamvis
conveniantin albedine simul cum hoc quod conveniuntin specie.
In Predicamentis
, videtur Aristotiles
autem, capitulo De substantia
10 nobis contradicere. Videtur enim concedere2 quod eadem sit oratio
numeroet opinio vera et falsa,sed hoc non contingitin eodem tempore;
ergo contingiteandem orationemnumero accipi bis in diversistemporibus.
Et dico quod si quis bene intelligitAristotilem, videbit eum non
15 concedere eandem orationem numero veram et falsam, et patet cum
dicit Aristotiles"sed et si quis hoc suscipiat,tamenmodo differt^ quod
dicit: non ego hoc suscipio. Possumusetiam dicere quod eadem numero
vocat istas que magis sunt idem quam specie. Quod ergo primo dixit
proprium substantie sine additione huius, scilicet "secundum sui
20 mutationem"*,est ut verumsubtiliterconsiderantibusnon lateret; quod
autem in fine addit hoc proprium substantie, est ut vulgo ignoranti
diversitatem numeralem orationis et opinionis satisfaceret, ut sic
provectisaliquid esse propriumsubstantienon lateret et etiam ydiotis.
septimum. Et quia in solvendo duas dietas radones* diximus6 quod
25 oratio bis dieta vel scripta vel intellecta non est eadem numero, et
etiam quod oratio aliqua potest facere sermonem de alia numero etsi
non sit alia specie; quia primam harum confirmavimus7,secundam
confirmemus.
Dico ergo quod sermo potest fieri de quolibet quod est | prius f.$2V
30 secundum naturam ipso sermone facto de ipso, et de solo tali, quia
subiectumest simplicius,et sic prius secundum naturamoratione facta
1Topica
2Categ.,
I, 103a14-23.
4a 21-28.
3Categ
Editiocomposita,
ed. L. MinioLATINUS.
., 4a 28-29.VideARISTOTELES
Categoriae.
* Cfr.Ibid.,
Paluello,
p. 317-18.
p. f4I*-I5.
s Auctor
enim
noster
errare
erant
tresrationes
solvebantur.
videtur;
quaeincapitulo
quarto
6Videsupra
7 Videsupra
, p. i347-12.
, capitulum
quintum.
8 conveniant
Scconvenient
S 11numero
+ [significatur
( ?)]S
ansedet5 18 (vocat)Sc 23 ydiotis
Sc ydeotis
S

sedet]
16Aristotiles
137

12:06:03 PM

de eo1. Cum ergo eorum que sunt idem specie, contingitunum esse
prius altero tempore,ut Sortem Platone et universaliterpatremfilio,et
similiter cum nichil prohibeat duarum orationum que sunt eedem
specie, unam esse prius dietam, seriptam, aut intellectamalia, nichil
5 prohibet unam de alia facere sermonem, quia omne quod est prius
tempore est prius natura.
Item. Ignorantiahuius diversitatisnumeralisque est in hac oratione
bis dicta vel intellectavel scripta,fuitcausa erroriset discordieomnium
loquentium de insolubilibususque hodie. Quorum omnium opiniones
10 si perscrutatusfueris, et hanc diversitatemnumeralem suppositionis
videbis quod dico; singulas namque perspexi; perspectas, cum hanc
vidi diversitatem,reprobavi. Et hec quidem diversitas in numero et
identitasin specie est causa quare reflexiodiciturin insolubilibuset non
circulatio. Circulatio enim est reditus ab eodem in idem numero,
15 reflexioautem in idem specie, linde et hec oratio: 1aliquid dicitura me9
super se ipsam non convertit se, sed super aliam sibi consimilem,
scilicet super se prius dietam et non super aliam. Et ideo in insolubilibus diciturreflexioet non circulatio.
ocTAVUM. Item autem opponetur: ponamus in duobus locis parietis
20 simul a duobus scribi hanc propositionem: ' aliquid scribitur
in paete ,
et una vocetur a et alia b ; a ergo, ut videtur,facit sermonemde b et
eadem ratione b de a; ergo a primo a facit sermonem de se; quod
ostensumest esse inpossibile.
Et dico: nisi unum sit prius altero, non faciet unus sermonem de
25 alio. Sed quamvisunum non sit prius altero, aliquis tamenymaginabitur
a esse prius f>,et apud ipsum b faciet sermonemde a, et similitereconverso; sed unum intelligenteminpossibile est intelligere b esse prius
a et a esse prius b9 et ideo inpossibile est unum et eundem hominem
intelligerea faceresermonemde b et econverso. Et etiamsia faceretser30 monem de b et econverso, utrumque esset infinitum,quia si a faceret
sermonem de b> significareia: aliquid scribi in pariete, et tune si b
faceretsermonemde a, significareib : aliquid scribi in pariete: scribi
in pariete: scribi in pariete, et sic in infinitum;si ergo nullus intellectus
1Cfr.supra
, p. 1331-9.
Scprohibet
S
i <eorum>
Sc 3 prohibeat
4 aliaScaliam5
S
+ [<ue]S
<in specie)Sc
13ydemptitas
perspectas
se
16-17(alterum
super)Sc 2 tamen-f [non]S
primm
pariete)Sc nullusScnullisS
138

12:06:03 PM

11 (dico)Se
S
14 redditus
33 (scribiin

sufficitintelligereinfinita,patet quod nullus potest intelligereb facere

sermonemde a et econverso.
Et ex hiis intellige quod nichil in ventate facit sermonemnisi de
eo quod est prius in veritate; facit tamen sermonemsecundum opinio5 nem de eo quod opiniaturesse prius, etsi non sit in veritateprius. Et
ideo si neque a est prius b nec econverso, neutrumde altero facietsermonem; ymaginantiautem b esse prius a> a faceretsermonemde b.

(T)Ractatus secundus in dissolutione paralogismorum insolubilium ex

precedentibus.
10
Capitulum primum in dissolutione sillogismifamosiprime figure.
Capitulum secundum in dissolutione sillogismi famosi secunde figure.
Tertium capitulum in dissolutione emptimematisfamosi. Capitulum
quartum in modo formationisparalogismorumsecundum Aristotilem.
Capitulum quintum in dissolutione paralogismorumforme Aristotilis.
15 Capitulum sextum in dissolutionerationisabbreviate. Capitulum septimum in causa difficultatisparalogismorum insolubilium super alios
paralogismos(secundum) quid et simpliciter.
(primm) Hiis sup I positis ad solutionem paralogismorumsolutionem f. s 3r
manifestabimusin sillogismo difficillimoomnium, et est: 'ego dico
20falsum*
.
Et primo solvemusformasargumentorumconsuetorumfieriin hoc
.
paralogismo,deinde formamquam facitAristotilesin SecundoElencorum1
Forma autem argumentorumconsuetorum est duplex, scilicet sillogistica et entimematica.
25
Et primo solvamsillogismum.Dico ergo cum queritur: "hoc aut est
verum, aut est falsum?", dicendum quod falsum. Cuius ratio est:
4
incipientealiquo sic loqui: ego dicofalsum' cum ille sermo non faciat
sermonemde se, nec poterit verificanpro se ipso aliquid p*edicebatur
pro quo possit verifican.Ergo dicendo hoc: 'dicofalsum' simpliciter,et
30 ipse2 infert3;ergo sua contradictioest vera, hec scilicet: ' nullum
falsum
dico*yper locum ab oppositis
. Et tunc ex hoc sillogizabit:
1Cfr.infra
, capitulum
quartum.
3Se.suifalsi
tatem.
8 insolulubilium
(sic!) S
5
cabatur

2Se.sermo.

i8 paralogismorum
+ [et]S

28 predicebatur
Sc predi139

12:06:03 PM

' nullum
falsumdico
hocestfalsum
hoc
nondico'.
ergo
Et est paralogismussecundum quid et simpliciter.
Ad manifestationem
5
sciendum quod omnis paralogismussecundum
quid et simpliciter uno horum duorum modorum fit, in prima dico
figura;aut quia maior extremitasdiciturde medio determinato,medium
autem sine determinationeet simpliciter de minori extremitate,et
concluditur maior extremitas de minori simpliciter; aut quia maior
10 dicitur de medio sine determinatione,medium autem determinatum
de minori.
Exemplum primi est hoc :
'Omnealbumpedemcurrit
Sortesestalbus
15
ergoSortescurri.
secundi
est
:
Exemplum
4
Omnealbumestalbum
Sortesestalbuspedem
ergoSortesestalbus'.
20
Dico ergo quod in predicto sillogismo1est secundum
quid et simpliciter
maior
extremitas
dicitur
de
medio
secundum
, eoquod
quid, medium
de
autem
minori extremitatesimpliciter.
Ad cuius ostensionempreostendendumest quod hec : 'nullum
falsum
dico9 non facit sermonem de hac: 4ergodicofalsum9.Quod est quia de
25 eodem simpliciterfitsermo in affirmatione
et negatione per rationem
4
contradictionis.Sed in hac affirmatione: ego dicofalsum' non fit sermo de se ipsa; ergo nec in sua negatione, hac scilicet: 4nullum
falsum
9
dico .
Item. Id de quo propositiofacitsermonemestpriussecundumnturm
30 quam sermo factusde ipso2. Sed ille sunt simul natura quia contradic9
4
tione; ergo hec 'nullum
falsumdico non facitsermonemde hac ego dico
falsum'.
'
4
Ergo ly falsum in hac non supponitpro hac falsa: ego dicofalsum'
Ergo si significado huius sermonis explicite exprimatur, dicetur ly
35 falsum9 cum determinationesic: 4nullumaliudfalsumab hocdicitura me'.
1Videsupra
, p. ^o1-^.
4 (quid)Sc
ScquamS

+ [d]S
simpliciter

2 Cfr.supra
, p. 1331-5.
16secundi]
secundum
5 30sedScquiaS quia

140

12:06:03 PM

'
Et sic maior extremitas,scilicet: dici a me negaturnon de omni falso
4
simpliciter,sed de omni falso cum hac determinatione: aliud ab hoc .
Et sic maior extremitasdicitur de medio determinato,medium autem
'
;
simpliciterdiciturde minoriextremitate,cum dicitur sedhocestj alsum1
5 et concludit simpliciter.
secundum. Fit etiam iste idem sillogismusin secunda figurasic :
'nullum
falsumdico
sed hocdico
estfalsum9.
hoc
non
ergo
Et ad huius solutionem convertamusmaiorem, et fiet in prima
10
'
'
. Non fitsermo de hac: ego dio
figurasic: nullumdictuma meestjalsum9
9
9
'
dico
jalsum
falsum9,quia iste sunt simul natura: ego dicofalsum 'nullum
9'
quia contradictione; et iterum ille: 'nullumjalsum dicitura me nullum
dictuma me estfalsum9convertunturet neutra neutriusest causa. Ergo
4
9'
15 a primo ille sunt simul natura: ego dicojalsum nullum| dictuma meestf-S3V
jalsum9. Ergo hec: 'nullumdictuma meestjalsum9non facitsermonemde
hac : 'ego dicojalsum9, quia illud de quo fitsermo est prius sermonefacto
de ipso secundum naturam,ut prius1.
Et nonest inconveniensad solvendumistumparalogismumreducere
20 in primam figuram,eoquod idem est paralogismusin prima figuraet ita
eadem eorum solutio.
TERTiUM.Loco autem dictorum sillogismorum fitemptimemasic : nullum falsum dico; ergo hoc falsum non dico, demonstrate me dicere
jalsum. Et videtur quidem sequi per locum a toto in quantitate.Hec
25 enim: 'hocjalsum non dico9,cum sit singularis,est alicuius universalis,
nonnisi huius: 'nullumjalsum dico9; sequitur ergo sicut particularisex
universali.
Et ad huius solutionemdicendum quod hec primo modo proposita:
est falsa,ut patet. Hec iterum: 'ego dicojalsum eadem
'ego dicofalsum9
30 illi in specie et non in numero, vera est pro prima,sicut patuitsuperbis2.
Et quia prima est falsa,sua contradictioest vera, scilicet 'nullum
jalsum
dico9y que vocetur a . Et quia secunda est vera, sua contradictio est
falsa,que vocetur b, scilicet hec: 'nullumjalsum dico9,que est diversaa
priori in numero.
9
35
Dico ergoquod hec : 'nullum
falsumdico per quam sillogizat,estcontra1Videsupra
2 Videsupra
, p. 14029-32.
, p. i 34!3-16.
S 33 (a) Sc
13nullum+ [falsum]

34 <in)Sc
141

12:06:03 PM

9
,
dictio huius: 'ego dicojalsum predicte. Hec autem: 'hocjalsumnondico
que concluditur, non est singularis de ay quia subiectum singularis
debet esse sub subiecto universalis. In a autem universalinon fitsermo
'
de hac: 'ego dicofalsum primo dieta. In hac autem singulari: 'hocJal'
'
5 sumnon dico fitsermo de hac: ego dicoJalsum' primo dieta; sed hec
'
singularis: 'hocfalsumnon dico est singularisipsius b. B autem est falsa
et sua singularissimiliter.Inferturergo singularisnon ex sua universali;
et sic non est ibi locus a totoin quantitate.
QUARTUM.Redeamus ergo ad formamparalogismorum Aristotilis. Et
10 est hec, licet non videaturex suis verbis: sit quod Sortes iuret se periurare. Aut bene iurat, aut periurat?Si bene iurat: sed iurat se periurare;
ergo periurat, si periurat: ergo verum est se periurare, et iurat se
periurare; ergo verum; ergo bene iurat.
Quod hanc formaminnuatAristotiles,ex suis verbissupponosuppo15 nendo quod omnia dixit bene. Hec ergo sunt eius verba in Secundo
secundum
:
Elencorum
, capitulo De solutione
paralogismorum
quid et simpliciter
aut
secundum
bene
iurat
hoc
necesse
est
bene
iurare"1.
hoc,
"Neque qui
Patet ergo ex hac linea quod conclusio paralogismiest hec: 'beneiurat'
Hoc autem non concluditurin dicto sophismate,nisi dico quod periuret.
20 Dandm autem secundum Aristotilem,solvendo hanc partem contra'
dictions, Sortesperiura.
Sed quantumcumquelaboraveris,non invenies in deductione huius
hoc; ergo beneiurat' vel
partis hoc argumentum: 'bene iurat secundum
aliud argumentum huic simile. Ergo, licet videatur, non intendit
25 Aristotileshoc argumentum.Et etiam dato quod periuret, quod dari
debet, ut patet rationeet per Aristotilem,numquampoteris concludere
hanc: 'bene iurat secundumhoc . Ergo, cum hec sit falsa: 'bene iurat
9
secundumhoc et non possit concludi, dato quod periuret, aut male
sumit eam Aristotiles,aut non ipsam ad litteram intendit, sed aliam
30 intenditper ipsam.
hoc9
Quod concedimusdicentes quod per hanc : 'beneiuratsecundum
intendithanc: 'Sortemperiurareest verum9.Quia beneiuraresecundum
hoc
est hoc beneiurari,et quia quod bene iuratur | est verum, intenditper f.S4r
'hoc beneiurari 'hoc esseverum
' et si 'hoc9demonstrareiSortem
periurare;
1Soph.
EI.ti8oa38-39.
S
14 (suppono)Sc
4.-S <inhacautem
17aut]autem
primodicta)Se
Sesumat
Sc
S 32 Sortem]
Sc
28
me(?) S
29 sumit
19(quod)
(non)
142

12:06:03 PM

sermone hoc antecedens: ' beneiuratur'suum conseposuit ergo in suo1

(
.
quens, scilicet esseverum'
QUiNTUM.Dicamus ergo cum Aristotile loco huius: 'bene iurat secun'
' et addamus
dumhoc hanc: Sortemperiurareest verum
ei propositionem
'
'
S quam subintellexit Aristotiles, et est : sed Sortesiurat se periurare;
et sequitur apparenter quod intendit Aristotiles, scilicet quod Sortes
iuratverum
.
Dico ergoquod hoc argumentumpeccat secundumquid et simpliciter:
'
Sortem
periurareestverum
et
Sortes
iurat
Sortem
10
periurare
'
ergoiuratverum
Ad huiusostensionemdicendumquod idemestquerere "autbene iurat,
aut periurat?,,quod querere "Sortem periurare aut est verum, aut
falsum?". Et constat, ut prius ostensumest2, quod Aristotilesdat hanc
15 partem: quod Sortemperiurareest verum.Istud tarnenquod Sortes iurat,
fuit falsum, ut constat. Ergo Sortemperiurarequod iuratura Sorte, et
Sortemperiurarequod datur ab Aristotile, non est idem numero, quia
una3 vera, reliquat falsa. Cum medium in dicto argumentosit Sortem
, dico quod medium non est idem, quia in prima subicitur
periurare
20 Sortemperiurarequod est datum ab Aristotile, in secunda predicatur
Sortem
periurarequod iuratura Sorte. Medium autem, etsi non sit idem,
videtur idem, quia Sortemperiurarein prima et secunda prxima sunt
dictiones, sunt enim magis idem quam idem specie, ut predictumest6.
Et ut pateat quid et simpliciter
plenius, dico quod medium in prima
25 subicitursine determinationealiqua, predicaturautem in secunda non
Quod sic patet: cum Sortesdicit:
simpliciter,sed cum determinatione.

'
"per Deum periuro", ly periuronon subicit pro hoc periurare,cum sit
huius iuramentipars,ut dictumest7,sed pro omni alio iuramentoab hoc.
'
'
Ergo de virtutehuius sermonis8, Sortesiuratseperiurarenon dicitursine
1Sc.Aristotle's.
2Videsupra
, p. 14218-21.
3 Viz.thelatter
4 Viz.theformer!
!
s Cfr.Aristotle,
thischaracterization
ofesse
and
El.,167a4.-$.Aristotle,
Soph.
however,
gives
quid
esse
simpliciter.
6Videsupra,
7 Videsupra,
p. i363-3!.
pp.I3221-i33i3.
8c. periuro
.
i suum+ [a]S
ut constat
ig verum+ istudtarnen
quodSortesiuratfuitfalsum
a SorteetSortem
estverum5 con.Sc.
ergoSortemperiurare
quodiuratur
periurare
Sc
27<lyperiuro)
!43

12:06:03 PM

determinatione,sed intelligiturcum determinationesic: Sortes iurat

se periurarealio iuramentoab hoc.
Similiter est hoc: ego dico falsum. Aut dico verum, aut dico
falsum?Si verum: et dico me dicere falsum; ergo me dicere falsumest
5 verum; ergo dico falsum.
Et dico quod dandum est in questione hec pars: 'dicofalsum'; et non
videlicet hoc argumentum:
4medicere
falsumestverum
et dico medicere
falsum
.
10
ergodico verum*
Patetquod mediumnon est idem inmaioriet minori,quia cum primo
dico me dicerefalsum,hec est falsa: iego dicofalsum9- que vocetur a nisi aliqua dicta sit prius pro qua verificequia pro se non verificatur,

tur. Hec autem: ego dicofalsum'secundo loco dicta, erit vera - que vo15 cetur b - verificaturenim pro prima, cum sit diversa ab ea secundum
numerum.Et quod ille suntdiverse,patet per Aristotilem1
.
autem
mentiantur
cum
"aut
dico verum,
dicunt,
Quod
qui
queritur
aut dico falsum?",quod nichil dico, sic demonstratur
: hoc dicitura me,
demonstrato me dicerefalsum; ergo aliquid dicitur a me. Probatio:
20 predicatumest utrobique idem, et subiectumsub subiecto- et secundum
eos, concedunt enim quod hoc aliquid est - ergo de necessitatepropositi sub propositione; ergo dicere hoc est dicere aliquid. Et potest
etiam hoc demonstran, quia fit processus a singulari ad indfini
tam.
'
9
Dato enim quod hec: aliquid dicitura me non sit sua indefinita,non
25 potest invenirialia.
'
Quod autem hec primo dicta sit falsa: ego dicofalsum', patet, quia
ad hanc dat2 Aristotilesme ' dicere
falsum. Ergo patet quod f-S4V
respondendo
4medicere
falsum'primo dictum,quod est a , et 'medicere
falsum'datumab
Aristotile,quod est fc,non est idem numero; primumenim est falsum
30 et secundum verum. In prima ergo propositione dicti sillogismisubicit
lme dicerefalsum' quod est b ; in secunda predicatur 4me dicerefalsum'
quod est a. Et medium in minori non dicitur absolute, sicut in maiori,
sed cum determinatione; de vi enim sermonissubintelligitur
: dico me
dicere aliud falsumab hoc.
1Cfr.supra
, p. 1345-9.

2Soph.
EL,180b-6.

: et supponendum
est quodnonprecessit
2 hoc + notamarginalis
aliudiuramentum.
S 26 (patetquia)Sc 27datScdicit5 32sicutin -f[minori]
Sefalsum
10verum
5
estquodnondixialiudfalsum
34hoc + notamarginalis:
supponendum
144

12:06:03 PM

SEXTUM.Forte cautius opponetur et sic: Aut dico verum, aut falsum?

Si falsum: ergo falsumest me dicere falsum; ergo non dico falsum. Et
non procedei ulterius,eoquod conclusum videturoppositum dati; dedi
enim medicere
fai sum, et conclusum est menondicere
falsum.
Et
dicendum quod id quod concluditur, scilicet me non dicere
5
falsum, non est oppositumeius quod est medicere
falsumquod fuitdatum,
sed sequitur ex eo. Sed opponitur ei quod primo dicebatur, scilicet me
dicere
falsumyet non ei quod dabaturrespondendoad questionem.
SEPTiMUM. Causa autem difficultatisparalogismorum qui dicuntur
10 insolubilia, super alios paralogismossecundum quid et simpliciter,est
cum medium in maiori et minori sunt prxima secundum dictionem
magis quam in aliis. Minus enim idem sunt et secundum dictionem in
mente et secundum dictionem in ore et secundum dictionem in pro9
nuntiationealbus9 et ialbus pedem
quam me dicerefalsum. Et causa est,
'
15 quia, cum dico albus pedem9,manifestepono extra determinationem,
cum autem dico medicere
falsum,non extra pono hanc determinationem:
1
aliud ab hoc , sed de vi sermonissubintelligitur,
ut dictumest.
Nijmegen
31
Driehuizerweg

7 <ei>s*

12:06:03 PM

Thomas

de Cantimpr, De naturis
Etat de la question

rerum

G. J.J. WALSTRA
trois principales encyclopdies du XHIe sicle: le De prorerumde Barthlemyl'Anglais, le Speculumnaturalede
Des prietatibus
Vincent de Beauvais et le De naturisrerumde Thomas de Cantimpr, seule cette dernire n'a pas encore t dite. Certes, des
extraits ont pass dans le De animalibusd'Albert le Grand, dans le
Speculumnaturalede Vincent de Beauvais et, au sicle suivant,dans le
moralede Pierre Bersuire; ils peuvent donc tre consults
Reductorium
dans les ditions imprimes de ces ouvrages. Puis, des fragmentsont
t publis, notammentpar Bormans,Pitra, Delisle, Hellmann, Hilka,
Ferckel, Evans, Brckneret Thorndike. En outre, ds le moyen ge,
des traductionsplus ou moins compltes et exactes ont t faites,
notammentcelle de Jacob van Maerlant en vers moyen-nerlandaiset
celle de Konrad von Megenbergen vers moyen-allemands.
Toutefois, ni ces extraits ni ces fragmentsni ces traductionsne
tenir la place d'une dition critique complte
sauraientdfinitivement
le besoin se fait fortement sentir. Cette
dont
du De naturisrerum
,
dition critique sera un travaild'assez longuehaleine, par suite du grand
nombre de manuscritsconservs; par suite aussi des connaissancesfort
diffrenciesde realia requises. En attendant, le temps presse. C'est
pourquoi, dans le cadre des tudes poursuivies l'Instituutvoor Laat
moralede Pierre Bersuire, et pour
Latijn sur les sources du Reductorium
pouvoir aider les collgues spcialistes des sciences naturelles qui
demandent rgulirementdes transcriptionsde passages du De naturis
rerum
, nous avons entreprisla transcriptiondu ms. Utrecht,Bibi. Univ.
la version en 20 livres. Elle est projete pour paratre
contenant
710
dans la collection dite par l'Institut1.Cette dition provisoiredevra
boucher le trou, et non - cela va de soi - barrer la route l'dition
critique futureque, au contraire, elle pourra contribuer prparer.
C'est galementen vue de l'dition critique que nous prsenterons
loin
un relev des manuscritsdu De naturisrerumsignalsjusqu'
plus
maintenant.Sans aucun doute, bien d'autres s'ajouteront aux 138 que
1 Werkmateriaal
derRijksuniversiteit
Utrecht
LaatLatijn
tuut
voor
door
hetInsti
, 3 voll,parus
uitgegeven
(1960-6).
146

12:06:09 PM

nous avons dnombrs. Pour faciliter1'identification,nous transcrivons

avant le relev le Prologue entier, les incipitet les explicitdes vingt
livres d'aprs le ms. Utrecht 710.
Il convenait de situer, ne ft-ce que brivement, l'homme et
l'oeuvre. Malheureusement, la bibliographie concernant Thomas de
Cantimpr et ses crits est aussi disperse qu'elle est abondante; on
peut s'en rendre compte en parcourant la liste chronologique, sinon
exhaustivedu moins tendue, que nous avons rdige. Ici surtout,nous
avonsd nous borner tablirun tatde la question ,en nous concentrant
sur ce qui touche au De naturisrerum.
La vie
Les vnementsmajeurs de la biographie de Thomas taient dj
connus de G. Colvener. Il les rapporte1dans l'introductionqui prcde
sa troisime dition, parue en 1627, du Bonumuniversalede apibus2.
Il s'appuyaitsur les Gestesdu vnrable Thomas de Cantimprpar Jean
Gielemans ("1*1487)3. et sur les notices*de Henri de Gands, Dionyse le
Carthusien6,JeanTrithme7,Landre Alberti8,Guillaume Eysengrein?,
Antoine de Sienne10,Jeanvan der Meulen11,Robert Bellarmin12,luste
Lipse1*et Pierre Spinelli1*.En 1719, Qutif donna une mise au point1*.
Les biographespostrieurstels Daunou16,Pfeiffer17,
Verwijs18,Delisle1^,
n'ont
Kaufmann21,
Vet22,
Huyben23
Auger20,
pu ajouterrien de vraiment
essentiel.La plupartdes datationsrestentapproximativessinonincertaines.
Thomas - qui l'on a parfoisattribuabusivementplusieursautres
1Aliaeiusdem
Thomae
vitaexeiusdem
etaliunde
.
Cantipratani
conscripta
operibus
2 Colvenerius
suivis
d'unmillsime
la Bibliographie
renvoient
1627.- Lesnomsd'auteurs
C,
Liste
chronologique
qu'ontrouvera
plusloin,pp.
3Gesta
venerabilis
Thomae
deCantiprato
Praedi
AXIV= 1895,
catorum
domus
Lovaniensiumt
supprioris
dans
l'introsetrouve
etdans
H. Choquet
1618,
p. 87;SH3 A2,i99,p. 178.Letexte
pp.89-100
nonpagine,
malheureusement
deColvenerius
duction,
1627.
* Cesnotices
onttimprimes
dansl'introduction
de Colvenerius
1627;ellesy constituent,
aveclesGesta
deGielemans
vita
deColvenerius,
etVAlia
uneVita
auctoris.
6 Dionysius
s Henricus
Gandicavensis
Carthusianus
1639.
1487et 1532.
7Ioannes
8Leander
Trithemius
Albertus
1494.
1519.
10Antonius
9Eysengrein
Senensis
1565
i$8.
11Ioannes
voirColvenerius
Molanus,
1627. 12Bellarminus
1613.
*3Iustus
*4Petrus
1610.
voirColvenerius
1627.
Lipsius
Spinellus,
16Daunou
etEchard
1719.
Qutif
1838.
*7Pfeiffer
18Verwijs
1861,pp.xxix-xxxii.
1878,pp.xiii-xxx.
ioDelisle1888.
20Auger
1892.
21Kaufmann
22Vet1902,pp.1-73.
1899.
23Huyben
1927.
147

12:06:09 PM

prnoms: Nicolas1, Guillaume2, Henris ou Jean4 naquit en 1201

environs Leeuw-Saint-Pierre (Sint-Pieters-Leeuw),une commune du
Brabant situe au sud-ouest de Bruxelles. De l vient son surnom
Brabantinus6
. Il descendait de la famillenoble De Monte ou Du Mont,
qui rsidait Bellenghem(actuellementBellingen)prs de Leeuw-SaintPierre. De l, pour Thomas, un second surnom: Van Bellenghem?.
Le pre de Tho;nas, afind'obtenir le pardon de ses pchs, avait
le
fait voeu d'offrirs >n fils Dieu. En consquence, il l'envoya, ds
l'ge de cinq ans, aux coles de Lige pour tre duqu et instruit8.
Vers 121$9, un sermon prononc par Jacques de Vitry10,qui prchait
alors la croisade contre les Albigeois11,fut pour Thomas l'occasion
d'entreren rapportsavec lui ; il conut pour lui une profondevnration,
qui ne s'est jamais dmentie.
Vers l'ge de dix-sept ans12, Thomas dcida de se faire chanoine
rgulier de saint Augustin, en quoi il suivait peut-tre l'exemple de
Jacquesde Vitry. Du reste, Bellenghemil y avait depuis longtempsun
, qui dpendaitde l'abbaye de Cantimpr1*
prieurde chanoinesrguliers13
de
dans
cette
C'est
Cambrai.
abbayequ'il entracomme novice, pour
prs
demeurer
y
pendant quinze ans1*; c'est elle qui lui a valu les surnoms
et de Canti(m)prato16. Devenu chanoine et
Cantipratanus,Cantipratensis
ordonn prtre, il futnomm confesseur17.Toutefois,s'estimantmieux
dou pour l'tude que pour le confessionnal,il demandaet obtintl'autorisationde passer aux Frres Prcheurs, dont il prit l'habit, Louvain,
entre 1230 et 1232. Peu aprs - il travaillaitdj depuis un certaintemps
1Parsuited'unersolution
NpourNomen
fautive
del'abrviation
Aliavita
, Colvenerius,
; Qutif
etEchard
1719,p. 2^4;Daunou
1838,p. 181; Vet1902,p. 30;p. 34,nte3.
2 Parconfusion
avecGuillaume
de Moerbeke,
Antonius
Senensis
Aliavita
i8;Colvenerius,
;
1843;Pelzer1964,p. 182.
Jourdain
3Parconfusion
Henri
deBrabant,
avecundominicain
1843;Pelzer1964,pp.178-82;
Jourdain
217-8.
* Colvenerius,
s Kaufmann
Aliavita.
1899,p. 8; Vet1902,pp.2-3.
6 Colvenerius,
Aliavita
; Axters
1965,p. 242.
7 Veerdeghem
1899,pp.115-6;Vet1902,p. 3; Axters
1932,p. 15;Axters
1965,p. 242.
8 Gielemans,
Gesta
Aliavita
.
; Colvenerius,
9 Colvenerius,
Aliavita;Qutif
etEchard
1719;Vet1902,p. 3.
10Daunou
Moreau
1835,pp.209-46;
1945,pp.s37sv;Waasi960.
11Daunou
1835,p. 210.
12Colvenerius,
Aliavita
etEchard
; Qutif
1719,p. 250.
*3Veerdeghem
1899,p. 115.
Cottineau
1949;Moreau
1945,p. 437.
1939;Chartier
Qutif
etEchard
1719,p. 2o; Axters
1965,p. 241.
16Colvenerius,
Aliavita
etEchard
; Qutif
1719,p. 253;Daunou
1838,p. 177.
17Gielemans,
Gesta
Aliavita
etEchard
; Qutif
; Colvenerius,
1719,p. 250.
148

12:06:09 PM

- ses
la rdactiondu De naturisrerum
suprieursl'envoyrentcomplter
ses tudes Cologne, o il suivitles cours d'Albert le Grand.
Colvener1, Du Boulay2 et, tout rcemment, Brouette*ont cru
tort qu'il a eu comme condisciple Thomas d'Aquin, mais celui-ci, n
en 122, ne sera Cologne que de 1248 1252*.
A partirde 1237, et tout au moins jusqu'en 1240. Thomas rside
dans le couvent Saint-Jacques Paris*. En 1246, de retour Louvain,
il remplitles fonctionsde sous-prieuret de lecteur. Dans la suite, sa
connaissance des langues le fera dsigner comme prdicateur gnral
dans une rgion qui couvre une partie de l'Allemagne, de la Belgique
et de la France6.Colvener7entreautresa rpandula lgende, reprisepar
De Raisse8et mme par l'historiographedes dominicainsbelges Bernard
de Jonghe^, selon laquelle Thomas aurait t pendant une trentaine
d'annes le coadjuteur de Nicolas de Fontaines,de 1249 1272 vque
de Cambrai10.Pourtant,un autre historiographede l'ordre dominicain,
Qutif11,crivantcomme De Jongheen 17 19, rejette juste titrecette
hypothse. Si celle-ci a pu natre, c'est que nous n'avons aucune
certitude concernantla date de la mort de Thomas de Cantimpr. Le
ncrologe de son couvent nous apprend bien qu'il dcda le 15 mai,
mais sans mentionnerl'anne12. Est-ce 1263, 1270, 1272 ou 1280? On
retientle plus souvent 1270-1272.
13
Les crits
Encore jeune, Thomas commena la rdaction d'une Vie de Jean,
premierabb de Cantimpr1*,qu'il n'acheva toutefoisque vers la finde
sa vie; elle est reste indite. Il composa une Vie de sainte Christinede
en change du petit
S. Trond1*et une Vie de la bienheureuseLiutgarde16,

1 Aliavita.
2Bulaeus
3 Brouette
1666.
1965.
* Grabmann
1926;Steenberghen
1964;Pelzer1964,p. 29$.
*Qutif
etEchard
1719,p. 250;Moreau
1965,p. 241.
194$,p. 493;Axters
6 Qutif
etEchard
1719,p. 250;Raissius
1634;Daunou
1838,p. 178.
8Raissius
? Aliavita.
1634.
Jonghe
1719,pp.146-8;Axters
1965,pp.241-2.
10Moreau
11Qutif
etEchard
1719,p. 2^1.
1945,pp.167-9.
12Qutif
etEchard
; Kaufmann
1719,pp.2^0-1
1899,p. 14.
" Pourlesditions,
voirla Bibliographie
B,Textes
, plusloin,p. 164.
Vita
etEchard
abbatis
monasterii
etejus
Ecclesiae
1719,
,Qutif
Johannis
Cantipratensis
primi
Jundatoris
1838,pp. 178sv.;Vet1902,pp.29-30;De Vocht1930,col.30; Axters
pp.2^2-4;Daunou
196^,p. 241.
Vita
sanctae
Christinae
mirabilis
Aliavita
etEchard
; Qutif
, Colvenerius,
1719,p. 2^2; Vet1902,
P. 32.
16Vita
Aliavita
et Echard
, Colvenerius,
; Qutif
piaeLiutgardis
I7i9,p.252;Vet1902,p. 33;
Moreau
; OGE1946,passim.
194^,pp.s39-41
149

12:06:09 PM

doigt de la dfunte. Aux deux livres que Jacques de Vitryavait crits

sur la vie de Marie d'Oignies1, Thomas en ajouta un troisime2.On lui
attribueun supplment la Vie de la bienheureuseMarguerited'Ipres^,
qu'il aurait crit l'aide de notices biographiques lui transmisespar
Siger de Brabant. Thomas composa aussi un hymne*en l'honneur du
premier matre gnral des Frres Prcheurs, le bienheureux Jordan
de Saxes, insr ensuitedans le Bonumuniversale
de apibus(II, 57).

C'est
tort que plusieurs biographes6ont attribu Thomas,
sa
,
pendant priode parisienne,un petit crit (De) Disciplinascholarium
la
vie
des

tudiants
Paris
et

la
facult
des
qui critique
l'enseignement
arts vers 1230. Cette critique tant cense maner de Boce, il n'est
pas tonnant que l'opuscule ait aussi t imprim sous son nom, si
bien que Migne l'a publi parmi les oeuvres de cet auteur. Aujourd'hui
on estime gnralementque la Disciplina scholarium
est soit d'Elie de
soit
d'un
certain
Conrad^.
Trickingham8,
Nous avons vu plus haut que, dans les annes trente et quarante,
Thomas s'est beaucoup intress aux choses de la nature, ce qui a
rsult dans la rdaction du De naturisrerum.Mais dans la suite, sous
l'influence d'une certaine hostilit envers les tudes scientifiques
prvalantdans l'ordre dominicain10,il abandonneles sciences pour se
consacrer dsormais exclusivement au bien des mes. Dans cette
ambiance,Thomas compose entre 12^6 et 1263 son dernierouvragequ'il
intituleBonumuniversale
de apibus. C'est un recueil d'exemples difiants,
ddi Humbert de Romans11,et qui prend comme point de dpart le
. Dans la ddicace,
chapitreDe apibusdans le livre IX du De naturisrerum
l'auteur se rfre expressment son encyclopdie, en ces termes:
Revolviautemlibrumilium De natura rerumy
quem ipse multolabore per
1 Vita
beatae
Marae
etEchard
1719,p. 254;Moreau
, Qutif
194^,pp.538-9.
Oigniacensis
*Supplementum
ad Vitam
beatae
Marae
Aliavita
etEchard
, Colvenerius,
, Qutif
1719,
Oigniacensis
1835,pp.222-4;Vet1902,p. 30.
p. 24;Daunou
3Colvenerius,
Aliavita
etEchard
; Qutif
1719,p. 2^2;Daunou
1835,pp.397-8;Vet1902,pp.
34-S4 Hymnus
debeato
1627,note la p. 43,p. 158;Kaufmann
, Colvenerius
Jordano
1899,p. 43; Vet
1902,pp.339-45.
s Gieraths
i960,coll.1120-1.
6Fabricius
1721-2;Grsze
1843et1861
; Wattenbach
1894,PSl Auger
1892,p. 138.
1 Migne,
Pat.Lat.LXIV,coll.1223sv.
8J.Porcher,
LeDedisciplina
scholarium
dansEcole
desChartes
nationale
desthses
soutenues
; Position
par
delapromotion
leslves
de1921; Steenberghen
1966,p. 277.
9 Lehmann
1927.
10Cette
a tfort
hostilit
biencaractrise
1966,
1927,
parVanSteenberghen
p.277; cf.Huyben
PP.73-4 Planzer
1934;Gieraths
i960.
IO

12:06:09 PM

Dans cettephrase,comme
utilissime
auctoribus
annos15 de diversis
compilavi1
ailleurs dans le recueil, De natura rerumest le titre prfr celui
de De naturis rerum
qu'on lit dans le prologue de Vencyclopdie.
LE DE NATURIS RERUM
Afin de faciliter 1'identificationdes manuscrits du De naturisrerum
,
nous avionsdcid de donnerde substantielsextraitsd'un seul manuscrit.
Mais lequel choisir? Les manuscritsreprsententtrois versions diffrentes: deux rdactions authentiques et un remaniement. En effet,
Thomas a compos d'abord une rdaction en 19 livres. Ce n'est que
plus tard l'auteur nous l'apprend lui-mme2 qu'il en a ajout un
vingtime, saisissantl'occasion pour corriger sa version primitive et
pour y supprimeret ajouter des dtails. Un certainnombrede manuscrits
commencent par le livre qui est le seizime dans les deux rdactions
authentiquesde Thomas. Delisle3 et Ferckel* y voient juste titre un
remaniement. Il allait donc de soi qu'il fallaitchoisir un reprsentant
de la rdaction en 20 livres, la dernire rvise par l'auteur. Poui ce
reprsentant,nous avons prfr le ms. Utrecht, Bibi. univ. 710,
complet et trs soigneusementexcut.
Extraitsdu De naturis rerum d'aprs le ms. Utrecht
, Bibi. univ. y10
Nous imprimonsci-aprs le texte du Prologue entiers, des incipit
tel qu'il se prsentedans le ms. Utrecht,Bibi. univ. 7 io6
et des explicity
contenantla versionen 20 livres. Nous donnonsle texte en introduisant
les majuscules et les signes diacritiques, mais sans signalerla rsolution
des abrviations.
Aprs Y explicit du vingtime livre (. . . designandumaccensus.
Amen.,f. i92ra) le scribe a copi douze lignesavec l'en-tte De polipodio
pisce, sans aucun renvoi. Ce qui suit, c'--d. le reste du f. i92r, les ff.
i92v et i93rv, - le scribe l'indique clairementau moyen d'un signe en
forme de croix - doit tre insr aprs les capitula du premier livre,
o nous l'avons restitu.
1Dansl'dition
1627,p. 1.
Colvenerius,
2 Prologus
, voirplusloin,p. ig.
3Delisle1888,p. 386.
Ferckel
1912,pp.15-16.
s Thorndike
lems.Vat.Pal.1066.
le Prologue
1963a publi
d'aprs
6 Pource manuscrit,
codicum
manu
Universitatis
Bibliothecac
voir[P. A. Tiele],Catalogua
scriptorum
[I],1887,p. 185.
Kheno-Trajectinae

12:06:09 PM

[prologus]
[f. ira] Incipit prologus in libro De naturisrerum:Naturas rerum in
diuersis auctorum scriptislate per orbem sparsasinuenienscum labore
nimio et sollicitudine non parua, annis fere XV operam dedi ut, inspectisdiuersorumphilosophorumet auctorumscriptis,ea que de naturis
creaturarumet earum proprietatibusmemorabilia et congrua moribus
inueniremin vno volumineet hoc in paruo breuissimecompilarem.
Hic ergo primo considerandaest anathomiahumani corporis, passiones & cura earum; postea uero tractatusbreuis et vtilis de anima,
cuius virtutemdoctor incomparabilisAugustinusin libro De anima et
spirituplenius lucidiusque distinxit; deinde cause et species monstruorum hominum ac deinde de natura pecudum, volucrum ac beluarum
marinarum pisciumque, serpentium, vermium, arborum, herbarum,
fluminum,lapidum, metallorumet humorumaeris; de septem planetis
et passionibus aeris; de cursu solis et lune et eorum defectibus et
vitimo de quatuor elementis.
Propterearerumproprietatesper editionesuariasapertedistinguens
auctores dictorum singulis proprietatibusapplicaui. Proinde isti sunt
qui sequens opusculum eleganterilluminant:
Primusomnium Aristotelesest qui non solum in hiis, uerum eciam
in omnibus ad philosophicamdisciplinamuel doctrinampertinentibus eminentiorcunctiseffloruit.
Secundus est Plinius qui et tempore antiquitateet auctoritatevenerabilisinterharum rerumauctores copiosus magis enituit.
Tercio autem Solinum ponimus qui et ipse eloquencia valde
mirabilis in libro quem de mirabilibus [f. irb] mundi edidit,
plurimade rerumnaturisdiligensperscrutatorinseruit.
Quartus beatus AmbrosiusMediolanensispresul est qui de naturis
bestiarum et volucrum in libro qui Examerondicitur multa distinguitiqui utique per omnia secutus et modo scribendi & ordine
Magnum Basilium in libro quem eciam Examerongreco eloquio
edidit, cuius eciam sententias quasdam nostro operi oportunis
locis dignissimumduximusinserendas,quas utique beatusAmbrosius
breuitatiscausa minime comprehendit.
diffusus
Quintus Ysidorus episcopus est qui in libro Ethimologiarum
valde et utilis est.
Sexto loco magistrmJacobumde Vitriaco quondam Aquonensem
episcopum, nunc uero Tusculanum presulem et Romane curie
cardinalem,licet meritispotiorem, quasi etate ultimumponimus;
I2

12:06:09 PM

qui de naturisrerum et historiisque in transmarinispartibusmodernis temporibus euenerunt, eleganti sermone conscripsit et

hune librum voluit Orientalemhistoriamappellari. - Librumuero
rerum
, libellum admodum paruum, inueni qui eciam de naturis
rerum plurima comprehendit. Inueni eciam quendam librum
subpressoauctorisnomine quem modernistemporibuscompilatum
audiui; cuius sentenciamvbicumque reppereris,ex hoc cognosces
quod hoc nomen Experimentatorsubsequentibus inuenies prelibatum. [in margine]Palladius in libro De agriculturaeximius ualde
est.
Septimus Galienus et Platearius preclari auctores in phisica sunt,
qui de natura humni corporis, arborum et herbarum virtutes
medicine vsui congruentes,plane distinguunt.
Octauo scilicet et Phisiologum
compendiosum satis et utilem locis
diuersisinserui.
Nono Adelinum quoque philosophum qui etsi pauca, tamen bona
ualde conscripsit.
Ceteri uero quorum nomina plerumque inter alios posuimus non
tamen auctores in [f. iva] rerum naturis sunt quam pro scriptorum
suorum oportunitatibusassertores. Interdumautem & vulgi opiniones
non per omnia refutandasposuimus. Ipsa enim antiquitas in talibus
plerumque honorandaest dum aperte non sit dissona veritati.
Et notandumquod sub AlexandroMagno o voluminaedita suntad
mandatum illius; que Plinius 37 editionibus comprehendit breuiter.
Auctores uero tales suo libro prefixit;pretermisimustamen muitos ex
illis & posuimus magis vulgatos & precipuos, & sunt isti: Lucillus
philosophus, [in margine]Pyso, Theophrastus, Claudius Cesar, Dyogenes, Dorotheus Ateniensis, Democritus Appollodius qui de bestiis
venenatis,Dyonisiusmedicus qui transtulitMagonm, Cato censorinus,
Marcus Varo, Heraclides, Orpheus, Pitagoras, Menander, Homerus,
Nycander,Mutianus,Virgilius,Petronius,Dyagoras, Andreas,Jubarex,
Metellinus, Philometorrex, Ptholomeus rex, Antigonusrex, Archelaus
rex, Vmbritius, Philemon, Alphius, Flauuius, Nigidius, Seneca et
Cycero, Hyginus, Macculius, Hypocras. Hii sunt auctores secundum
Plinium in naturarerum.
Proinde moralitates & significanciasrerum breuiter in quibusdam per
interualla distinximus et ideo non continue, quia uero vitauimus

prolixitatem.

12:06:09 PM

Nunc igitur quantum hoc opus prosit & quantam vtilitatemprestare

possit hiis qui uerbo predicatoris uolunt insistere, ad plenum scire
hominum estimo neminem nisi cui in profundioribusdiuina sapientia
dedit intellectum. Dicit enim Aristoteles, De animalibus
, libro XIo :
sicutillud quod celesteest,siueignobilesicutestcreatura
Siue sit nobilissimum
animalium
, erat tarnencausa magnedilectionisillis qui illud possuntcognosi
vb
]cere.Propterhoc igiturdebemus considerare formascreaturarum
[f.
& delectari in artifice qui fecit illas, quoniam artificiumoperantis
in naturis
manifestaturin operatione & propter hoc ait: Intendamus
animaliumuilium& nongrauesitnobisyquoniamin omnibus
rebusnaturalibus
ociose
est mirabileet resnaturalisnobilis, quoniamnonfuit ullumnaturatum
ideo
habet
&
creatumeque casualiter9sed propteraliquod complementum
vilissimum
nobilem
locumetordinem
.
aliquodedam reputatum
Illud autem in hoc opere Lector consideretut, si naturas & mores
animalium aut effectusherbarumaliter in occidente reppereritquam
relatio philosophorum contineat, qui fere omnes in orientis partibus
non statimincipiatquasi ficticiumreputarequod scriptum
scriptitarunt,
est, ymo prudenteraduertat, quia habeat se aliter orientis pars mundi
cum suis creaturis quam occidentalis, aut aquilo siue meridies, cum
oppositus sit dispositione nature occidens orienti, meridies aquiloni.
Aliter enim machina mundialis stare non posset, et ecce probatio:
Oriens calidus et humidus est; occidens uero frigiduset humidus;
meridiescalidus & siccus est; aquilo uero frigiduset siccus. Nunc autem
si omnes quatuor plage vnius qualitatis essent, et calor solis orbem
totaliteroccuparet et nichil esset quod eius vehemencieper contrarium
obuiaret, semper enim nullo sibi resistentecrescerei, quoadusque in
suis elementis mundum consumerei. Nunc ergo calor frigori,frigus
calori, siccum hmido, humidum sicco opponitur, et mundus in suis
plagis oppositarumqualitatumcoequata lucta firmiusstabilitur.
Crede ergo, Lector, quia et complexiones in animalibus& effectus
in herbissecundumqualitatemaeris variantur.
Hiis ergo scriptissi quis studiumadhibueritad argumentafideiet
correctionesmorum integumentismediis sufficientiam
reperiet,[f. 2ra
vt interdum predicatore quasi vestigio scripturarumapte digresso
cessantibuseloquiis prophetarum,ad euigilationembrutarummentium
occulta fide creaturarumtestes adducat, vt si que sepius audita de
scripturis& inculcatanon monstrent,saltemnoua more suo pigritrantium
aures demulceant.

1S4-

12:06:09 PM

Hinc ergo ab ipso homine initium nobis sumendum est, qui inter
mortalia mortalis quidem creatus, cunetis mortalibusanime dignitate
prelatusest.
Liber ergo primusde anathomiahumani corporis est.
Secundus
: de anima.
Tertius
: de monstruosishominibusorientis.
: de animalibusquadrupedibus.
Quartus
: de auibus.
Quintus
Sextus
: de monstrismarinis.
: de piscibus fluuialibus[in margine
] atque marinis.
Septimus
: de serpentibus.
Octauus
Nonus
: de vermibus.
Decimus
: de arboribuscommunibus.
Vndecimus
: de arboribusaromaticis & medicinalibus.
Duodecimus
: de uirtutibusherbarumcommunium.[inmargine
]
medicinalium & aromaticarum.
Tredecimus
: de fontibus.
Quartusdecimus : de lapidibus preciosis et eorum sculpturis.
Quintusdecimus : de septem metallis.
Sextusdecimus : de VII regionibuset humoribusaeris.
Septimusdecimus: de spera et VII planetis & eorum virtutibus.
Octauusdecimus : de passionibusaeris scilicet fulgure,tonitruoet
consimilibus.
Nonusdecimus : de quatuor elementis.
Vicesimumautem post finemlaboris nostrinon tamquamex nostra
compilationesed tamquamnecessariumipsi operi precedentiaddidimus,
qui utique de orntuceli et motu syderumatque planetarumad intelligendam speram & eclipsim solis et lune euidentissimetractarevidetur.
Addidimustamen aliqua et quedam subtraximusatque nonnulla in
libro eodem correximus. Explicit prologus.
[I]
[f. 2ra]Incipiuntcapitulaprimilibri. Primogeneraliter.
De capite [f. 2rb] de cerebro [. . .] de senectute [f. 2va] de decrepita
etate, de morte et quid [in margine]sit mors & si subito ceciderit, quid
faciendumsit.
[f. 2ra, in margine]Alia capitula habentur in fine libri que hic stare
deberent secundum quoddam exemplar aliud, et deinde lo versus tali
signo 0.
[f. i92rb] Incipiunt capittula libri de membris corporis humani et
15S

12:06:09 PM

stabit ante tali signo . Generaliterde membriscorporis humani: de

f.
capite; que signa in facie faciunt hominem cognoscibilem; [. .
cito
si
faciensit
mors
de
morte
et
.
.
ceciderit, quid
et,
I93vb,
.]
quid
dum sit. Deo gradas. Expliciunt capitula. Incipit versus 20. Verte duo
folia. Aue.
[f. 192ra] Incipiuntversus20 qui continentmateriamlibrorumsecundum
numerumversuumet stabuntante in principiopost capitula de membris
corporis humanum[f. 19 2rb]:
Membra prius morbosque simul curasque videbo,
Inde quid est anima certa ratione docebo.
Hinc dixi uultus hominumformequepatebunt,
Quadrupedum species librumpro parte tenebunt.
Hinc volucres uideas uarium quas scema beauit,
Monstramaris que mira satis Deus ipse creauit.
Fluminisatque marispisces post ista locantur,
Serpentesvarii uel queque nociua sequantur.
Vermes reptantesnichilominusinde coapta,
Siluarumligna communibususibus apta.
Hinc eciam sequiturlignumredolens specierum,
Herbarumvirtuscuris tutissimarerum.
Flumina uel fontespia quos naturabeauit,
Gemmarumvirtusquas discolor irradiauit.
Hinc alkimineseptena metalla notantur,
Aeris humoresque septem regna vocantur.
Inde planetarumcursus si scriptarequiris,
Quid tonitruus,fax, stella cadens, quid ventus & yris.
Quatuor hinc elementa, inde post finempatescit
Cur uenit eclipsis, scanditsol, luna retrescit.
[f. 2va] Incipit liber primus de anathomia humani corporis. Generaliter primo: Anathomiadicitur ab ana quod est resoluere, et thomos
quod est partes, quasi resolutio partium. Partes corporis humani
principaliter create sunt, ut dicit Aristoteles, et posite secundum
creationes [. . .] De capite: Caput hominiset eius testa [. . .]
[f. 36ra, . . .] ut ilium intelligamusqui non habet terminmmortis.
Explicit athonomia.
pij
[f. 36ra]Incipitliber 2USde animaet eius virtutibusnaturalibussecundum
beatum Augustinum. Anima simplex est et incomposita, ut dicit
i 6

12:06:09 PM

beatus Augustinus, eque duas animas dicimus in vno homine [. . .]

[f. 42rb, . . .] Hec de anima dicta sufficiant.Nunc autem ad librum
tercium de monstruosishominibus transeamus. Explicit liber 2US de
anima.
[III]
liber
IIIUS
de
monstruosis
hominibusorientis. Primo &
[f. 42rb] Incipit
ter
vnde
homines
monstruosi
descenderunt.
Quoniam de
generali
monstruosishominibusorientis liber sequitur, primo querendum est si
hominesilli de Adam primo homine descenderunt.Et respondendumest
quod non, nisi [. . .]
[f. 44ra, . . .] Hec tibi Vienna ciuitas Austriepropter vicinitatemcerta
testabitur.Explicit liber 3US [f. 44rb] de monstruosishominibus.
[IV]
[f. 44rb] Incipiunt capitula libri 4i de quadrupedibus. Generaliterde
quadrupedibus: Azinus [ . . . , f. 44va, . . . ] Zybo qui est de genere
hyene. Expliciuntcapitula libri 4U de quadrupedibusanimalibus.
[f. 44va] Incipit liber quartus de quadrupedibusanimalibus. Generaliter
primo dicendum est de animalibusquadrupedibus. Aristoteles: Ammalia
ilia que habentduospedesuel nullosuel quatuor
, habentsanguinem
[. . .]
[f. 78ra, . . .] dicunt nonnulli quod zibo de genere hiene bestie est et
satisvideturin moribus. Explicit liber de quadrupedibusanimalibus.
[V]
de auibus. Generaliterde auibus:
[f. 78ra] Incipiunt capitula libri
.
.
. .] zelentides. Expliciuntcapitula
,,f.
78va,
[.
Aquila septentrionalis
libri quinti.
[f. 7 8va] Incipit liber quintus de naturis auium. Primo generaliter.
Omnis auis que est bone ale, id est velox in volando, est malorumpedum,
id est debiliumsicut yrundoet similia [. . .]
[f. io4vb, . . .] nec tamen vnde veniantaut quo vadantcompertumest
nisi cum presidio earum indigent homines terre illius. Explicit liber
quintusde naturisauium.
[Vi]
libri
6U
de monstrismarinis.Abydes [. . .,
[f. io4vb] Incipiuntcapitula
f. iora, . . .] Zyfius.
[t. iora] Incipit libe/ sextus de monstrismarinis. Monstramarinasunt
ab omnipotente Deo in ammirationemorbis data. In hoc enim magis
157

12:06:09 PM

admirandavidenturquia raro conspectibus hominum offeruntur[. . .]

[f. 113rb, . . .] si oris abissumfugiesvelut mortisvoraginem,si oculos
horrebis, si ceterum corpus fateberisin rebus nichil simile te vidisse.
Explicit liber 6US de monstrismarinis.
[VII]
[f. 113rb Incipiuntcapitula libri ymde piscibus communibus.Anguilla
[. . f. ii3va, . . .] virgiliales.
[f. 113va] Incipit liber septimus de piscibus marinissiue fluuialibuset
primo in generali. Nullus piseis, ut dicit Aristoteles,habet Collum uel
virgamuel testculosuel mamillas. De hiis tamen delphinumet cethum
et cetera monstramaris excipimus [. . .]
[f. 12ra, . . .] Vnde Salomon: Est qui nequiterhumilitse et interiora
eiusplena suntdolo. Explicit liber ynausde piscibus.
[VIII]
[f. i2$ra] Incipiunt capitula libri octaui de serpentibus. Aspis [. . .,
f. i2$rb, . . .] vipera.
[f. 12rb]Incipitliber octauus de serpentibus.Et primo de illis in generali. Generaliter primo dicendum est de serpentibus. Aristoteles:
Nullusserpens
habettestculos
, sedmassicutpiseisetmatrixeiusestlonga[. . .]
.
.
[f. i32rb,
.] depone asperitatemmorumut tibi sedula uxor occurrerit,
propelle indignationem. Non es dominus, maritus, non ancillam
sortitus es, sed vxorem. Explicit liber octauus de serpentibus.
[IX]
[f. 13 2rb] Incipiuntcapitula libri noni de vermibus. Apes [. . .] vermes
Celidonie.
[f. i32va] Incipit liber nonus de vermibuset primo in generali. Primo
generaliter de vermibus dicendum est. Nullum insectorum, id est
vermium,ut dicitPlinius,habetsanguinemnisiinmodica quantitate[. . .]
[f. 141rb, . . .] Noli, inquam, timere, quia si Dominus illuminatiotua
ad cognitionem sui et eciam in periculis salus, quem timebis? Quasi
dicat nullum.
[f. 141va] Explicitliber nonus de vermibus.
[X]
[f. 141va] Incipiunt capitula libri Xmi de arboribus. Generaliter de
arboribus. Arbores paradisi [. . .] vlmus. Expliciunt capitula de arboribus.
i*8

12:06:09 PM

[f. 141va] Incipit liber decimus de arboribus et primo in generali.

Generaliter primo dicendum est de arboribus communibus. Quedam
arbores sunt que oriunturex semine aliarumarborum. Quedam autem
oriunturper se [. . .]
[f. i49rb, . . .] deinde excisa et in humo fixaradicibusse [f. 149va] ipsa
demargit.Explicit liber decimus de arboribus.
[XI]
[f. i49va] Incipiunt capitula vndecimi de herbis aromaticis. Primo
generaliterde arboribus uel herbis aromaticis. Aloe herba [. . .] thus.
Expliciuntcapitula vndecimi libri.
[f. i49va] Incipit liber vndecimus de herbis aromaticis et primo in
generali. Primo generaliter dicendum est de arboribus uel herbis
aromaticiset de generationeipsarum, ut dicit Magnus Basilius in libro
Exameron.
[f. i4va, . . .] fiatemplastramex puluere eius et vino. Contra reuma
capitis in ore tenta duo frustradiutius comestaque multum conferunt.
Explicit liber vnde[f. 14vb]cimusde arboribusaromaticis.
[XII]
[f. i4vb] Incipiunt capitula libri duodecimi de herbis aromaticis.
Absinthium[. . .] zuchara. Expliciunt capitula libri XIIml de herbis
aromaticis.
[f. i4vb] Incipit liber duodecimus de herbis aromaticis et primo in
generali.Generaliterprimode herbisdicendumest. Habet enimmaximam
questionemqualiternascanturherbe sine preiacentimateriauel semine,
[f. i 8va, . . .] Contra dolores capitis ex calida causa et ad solutionem
ventrisaccipiantur zucara et aqua decocta cum uiolis et misceatur et
detur huius potus patientibus.Explicit liber XIIUSde herbis aromaticis.
[XIII]
[f. i^8vb] Incipitliber XIIIUSde fontibusdiuersarumterrarum.Generaliter de fontibusdicendum est quod saporem aut virtutemuel colorem
ex occultis terre visceribus trahunt, de quibus originem fluentes
ducunt. Subsequentis libri in singulis fere capittulis auctores sunt
Augustinus,Plinius, Solius, Ysidorus et Jacobus.
Fons limpidissimuset amenus in remotisorientispartibusvidelicet
in paradiso terrestrioritur [. . .]
[f. i9vb, . . .1 et hoc probatumfuitex mandato Frederici imperatoris
nunciisin hoc directis. Explicit liber XIIIU8de fontibus.
1S9

12:06:09 PM

[XIIII]
[f- *9 vb] Incipiuntcapitula libri XIIIImlde lapidibus. Ametistes[. . .,
f. i6ora, . . .] topacius, sculpture gemmarum. Expliciunt capitula
XIIIImi libri de lapidibus.
[f. i6ora] Incipitliber XIIIIUSde lapidibus et primo in generali. Generaliter primo dicendum est de lapidibus preciosis. Est autem questio
quomodo fiuntin visceribus terre. Et respondemus ex dictis philosophorumquod ex uaporibusfiunt[. . .]
[f. i66vb, . . .] hunc lapidem scribit Plinius tante magnitudinisfuisse
inuentum ut ex eo Ptolomeus Philadelphiis statuam faceret quatuor
cubitorum.
[f. i66vb] De sculpturis lapidum secundum antiquorum scriptorum
relationes. Sequunturet relationesantiquorumscriptorumde sculpturis
lapidum nec approbande multumnec penitus refutande[. . .]
[f. i68vb, . . .] virtutemtuamper illos sibi adesse sentiatdonaque gratie
tue et tutelam virtutis accipere mereatur per Dominum nostrum
JhesumXristi, filiumtuum qui tecum uiuit et regnatin vnitateSpiritus
Sancti, Deus per omnia scula seculorum.
[f. i69ra] Explicit liber XIIIIUSde lapidibuspreciosis.
[XV]
[f. i69ra] Incipiunt capitula libri XV11 de VII metallis: Aurum [. . .]
ferrum.Expliciuntcapitulalibri XV*1 de VII metallis.
[f. i69ra] Incipit liber XVtus de VII metallis et primo in generali.
Generaliterprimo dicendum est de metallis. Sicut liber Genesistestatur,
Lamech, qui septimus ab Adam bigamiam introducens,ex Ada vxore
vna genuitJabel,qui primo adinuenittentoriapastorm; ex alteravxore
Sella Lamech genuit Tubalcayin, qui ferrariamartem primus inuenit
[.]
[f. i7orb, . . .] aptum est et fit fusile sicut cuprum uel argentum,sed
ductile non est sicut ferrumaliarummundipartium.Explicit liber XVtus
de VII metallis.
[XVI]
libri
XVI*1 de VII regionibusaeris: Prima
[f. i7orb] Incipiuntcapitula
roris
.
[. .] septima regio mannatis. Expliciunt capitula XVI**
regio
libri de regionibusaeris.
[f. i7orb] Incipit liber XVItus de regionibus aeris et primo de eis in
generali, [f. i7ova] Generaliterprimo dicendum de septem regionibus
aeris et earum humoribus. Septem sunt aeris regiones, vt dicunt
160

12:06:09 PM

philosophi, sub firmamentoceli in quibus aquosi humores terre per

attractionemcaloris ex sole aliquando visibiliterper nebulas, aliquando
inuisibiliterper humidioremaerem ascendentes[. . .]
[f. i73ra, . . .] in decoctione autem de facili non ponatur,nisi pura et
non mixta si inueniaturquod vix numquam uel raro fit. Explicit liber
i6us de Vlitmregionibusaeris.
[XVII]
liber
17^8
[f. i73ra] Incipit
spera et motu eius. Generaliterprimo
dicendumest de spera et motu eius. Spera celi in rotundumformataest,
ut dicuntphilosophi,cuius centrumterraest omnibuspartibusequaliter
conclusa. Hanc speram nec principiumhabere dicunt nec finemet ideo
quia rotundum.
De spera moti. Spere motus duobus axibus [. . .]
[f. i77vb, . .] quia tam euidenti ratione probatur ut a nullo possit
tantaueritas infirmari,sed quoniam tanta res ocium singularedeposuit,
de hiis ad presens supersedendummelius iudicaui. Explicit liber 17111us
de spera et VII planetis & cetera.
[XVIII]
1
i8mus
liber
de
[f. 77vb] Incipit
passionibusaeris, fulgure, tonitruoet
consimilibus. Generaliterprius de passionibus aeris uideamusque quomodo aut qua ratione aer concuciatur in multis, ut sunt venti, fulmina
choruscationes ac tonitrus que non solum aerem in superioribus,
uerum eciam terram[. . .]
[f. i8ira, . . .] Dicunt autem nonnulli quod archus iste celestis annis
quadragintaante finemmundi non videbiturin nubibus. Hec de aere et
de eius passionibusdieta sufficiant.Explicit liber i8mus de passionibus
aeris.
[XIX]
[f. i8ira] Incipit liber nonus Xus de j0Telementis. Generaliterprimo
dicendum est de quatuor elementis,et primo quidem distinguendumest
qualis et quid sit mundus. Mundus est, ut dicunt philosophi, quasi
vndique motus, est enim in perpetuo motu. Huius figuraest in modum
pile rotunda, sed instaroui elementis distincta[. . .]
[f. i8iva] De terra. Terra elementm est accomodatissimumhomini
[. ..]
[f. i8va, . . .] Hec sunt quatuor elementa: terra, aqua, aer, ignis, de
quibus simul et singulariterquidam ex nostrissatisapte distinxit,dicens:
161

12:06:09 PM

Terra iacens stabilis; aqua fluitlabilis; aer nutat mobilis; ignis uolat
nobilis; uoluitur rotabilismachina speralis.
Consummate)
igitur opere uteumque potuimus, a discreto
Lectore veniam postulamus certi utique, et si minus inuenerit quam
necesse sit, cogitare poterit quod impossibile sit omne philosophos
qui a diuersis et multis inueniri et legi potuerunttoto orbe terrarum,
casualiter vnum hominem inuenire posse et legere atque exs[er]pere
et in vno uolumine compilare. Credimus tamen quod tanta et tam
diuersa, in tam paruo uolumine posita uix inter latinos potuerunt
inueniri.Neque enim laboribusaut expensisullo modo pepercimusquin
opus istud ad effectumperduceremus. Anni iam quatuordecim aut
quindeeimelapsi suntex quo libro De naturisrerum
diligenterintendimus,
illud beatissimi patris Augustinidictum in libro De doctrinaChristiana
(Deum) habentes pre oculis, vbi dicit utilissimumfore, si quis labo[f. i8$vb]rem assumerei quo in unum uolumen naturas rerum et
maxime animalium congregarei. Congregaui ergo, nec michi suffecit
Gallia atque Germania,que tamenin libris copios[i]ores sunt regionibus
uniuersis, ymo in partibus transmariniset in Anglia libros de naturis
editos aggregauiet ex omnibusmeliora et commodiora decerpsi.
Si quem ergo collecta iuuant, oret pro me ut secundum laborem
meum michi Deus mercedem restitutin futurum.Amen.
Explicit liber i9us de 4or elementis.
[XX]
[f. i8^vb] Incipitliber vicesimusde orntu celi et motu syderum& hiis
similibus.
Post finemlaboris nostrivicesimamquoque editionemapponimus.
Sed hanc non tamquamex nostracopilatione, sed tamquamnecessariam
ipsi operi precedenti. Addidimustamen aliqua et quedam subtraximus
atque nonnullacorreximus.Est autem scribentisintencio de orntuceli
et motu syderumatque planetarumet ualet multum ad intelligendam
speram, in distributionemsignormad agnoscendamrationemeclypsis
solis siue lune.
Hinc primum de orntu celi dicendum est. Ornatus uero eius
[...]
[f. i92ra, . . .] Cum ergo stelle eiusdem emisperii apparerent,iterum
stella illa que maior uidetur non apparet. Non ergo est stella sed ignis
iuxta uoluntatemcreatorisad aliquid designandumaccensus. Amen.
162

12:06:09 PM

[f. i92ra] De polipodio pisce.

Polipodius piseis est marinus,jacens in concha in marisprofunditate
ascenditque ad litus maris in altum super rupem tempore quo ros est
super terramin ortu solis et sic os aperiens ex propria saliua, rore celi
et calore solis concipit margaritam.
Cancer uero maris polipodium appropinquanspariatlapidem inter
conchas et aliquando pedem interponit. Quod cum vidt polipodius
pedem truncat.
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
A SIGLESET ABREVIATIONS
- ActaSanctorum
eiusab anno1643 usquead
et successoribus
a Jo. Bollando
edita
nostram
aetatem
.
diligenter
= Analecta
Bruxelles.
AB
Bollandiana,
= Archivimi
Fratrum
Rome.
AFP
Praedicatorum,
- Algemeene
enLetterbode,
Harlem.
KonstAKL
Du Cange
mediae
aevi,Bulletin
latinitatis
ALMA = Archivm
, Paris.
= Bibliothque

consacre
rudition
de l'EcoledesChartes
. Revue
BEC
spcialement
Vtude
dumoyen
Paris.
ge,
Texte
undUntersuchungen
desMittelalters.
derPhilosophie
zurGeschichte
BGPMA - Beitrge
,
Munster
i.W.
und
Texte
undTheologie
desMittelalters.
derPhilosophie
zurGeschichte
BGPTMA- Beitrge
Unter
Munster
i.W.
,
suchungen
= Bibliotheca
aetatis
etmediae
latinaantiquae
BHL
, 2 voll.,Bruxelles,
hagiographica
1898-1901.
= Biographie
etdes
dessciences
nationale
BNB
, deslettres
, publie
royale
parVAcadmie
deBelgique
beaux-arts
, Bruxelles.
d'histoire
etdegographie
DHGE = Dictionnaire
, Paris.
ecclsiastiques
=5 Dictionnaire
Le
desLettres
DLF
Paris,
1964.
ge,
franaises,moyen
= Histoire
dela France
littraire
HLF
, Paris.
= Lexikon
undKirche
LTK
, zweitevlligneu bearbeitete
Auflage,
frTheologie
Fribourg-en-Brisgau.
dessavants
etmmoires
couronns
cour.= Mmoires
Mm.
royale
publis
parl'Acadmie
trangers
deBelgique
etdesbeaux-arts
dessciences
, Bruxelles.
, deslettres
voorwetenschappen
Academie
vande Koninklijke
Vlaamse
MKVAW= Mededelingen
, letteren
Bruxelles.
vanBelgie
enschone
kunsten
, Klassederwetenschappen,
- Nouvelle
lesplusreculs
lestemps
NBG
,
, depuis
jusqu'nosJours
biographie
gnrale
consulter
etVindication
dessources
aveclesrenseignements
,
bibliographiques
Paris.
= Nouvelle
universelle
NBU
, Paris.
biographie
= Neuedeutsche
NDF
, Berlin.
Forschungen
= OnsGeestelijk
derNederlandsche
voordestudie
OGE
ErfDriemaandelijksch
tijdschrift
totcirca1J0.Orgaanvande Kuusbroec-vervroomheid
vanafde bekeering
eeniging.
AA.SS.

163

12:06:09 PM

repr.
RQH
SH
TNTL

=
=
=

reproduction
anastatique.
desquestions
Revue
, Paris.
historiques
Subsidia
, Bruxelles.
hagiographica
Taal-en Letterkunde
de
voorNederlandsche
, uitgegeven
vanwege
Tijdschrift
en
Nederlandsche
TaalLetterkunde
te
der
de.
Leiden,Ley
maatschappij
= Vivarium
andtheintellectual
Vivarium
, i4journal
philosophy
lifeofthe
formediaeval
Assen.
middle
yVanGorcum,
ages
voorTaal-en
vande Koninklijke
Vlaamse
Academie
enmededelingen
VMKVA= Verslagen
Letterkunde
, Gand.

B TEXTES
monasterii
abbatis
Vita
ThomasCantimpratanus,
, indite.Pour
Joannis
Cantipratensis
primi
voirQutifet Echard1719,pp. 252-4.
dums.Ste-Genevive,
desextraits
BHL1746;Helin1934,no. 350; AA.SS.t
lui. 24,
mirabilis.
Christinae
Vitasanctae
V, pp. 650-60.
lun. 16, 111,
BHL4950; Helin1934,no. 429;
VitapiaeLiutgardis.
pp.
234-62;3e d. IV, pp. 189-209.
BHL5517; Hlin1934,no. 447;
Mariae
beatae
ad Vitam
Oigniacensis.
Supplementum
Iun.23,IV,pp.666-76;3ed. V, 572-81.(PourNicolao
, voirla note1,
AA.SS.t
, p. 148.)
supra
BHL5319; Hlin
deIpris
beataeMargaritae
ad Vitam
, authentique?
Supplementum
Praedicatorum
, Douai,1618, pp.
1934,no. 441; H. Choquet,SanciiBelgiOrdinis
144-200.
voirle Relev
rerum
De naturis
, plusloin.
, indit.Pourlesmanuscrits,
Hlin
Febr.
no.
beato
de
AA.SS.f
23, II, pp. 738-9;
419;
1934,
Jordano.
Hymnus
universale
insrdansle Bonum
1627,pp. 577-80).
(d. Colvenerius,
deapibus.Hlin1934,no. 288; Stegmller
Bonum
universale
1955,no. 8083 (
de Vet1902).
la
dissertation
barrer
Den
dernire
l'avantigo2
'
(c'est
Haag
ligne:
de G. Colvenerius,
et augmente
la 3e d. corrige
Nousutilisons
Douai,1627.
le titreMiraculorum
etexemplorum
Sesditions
(1597,1605)portaient
prcdentes
libriII (voirAxters1932,nos.34 et 35).
suitemporis
memorabilium
dansMigne,
dition
scholarium
Pseudo-Thomas
, dernire
(De) Disciplina
Cantimpratanus,
latinaLXIV,coll. 1223sv.
Patrologia
rerum
Auteurs qui ont utilis le De naturis
a) medio-latins
BGPMA
libriXXV1%
d. H. Stadler,
De animalibus
Albertus
XV-XVI,Munster
Magnus,
i.W., 1916-20.
1601[repr.Frankfurt,
Dererum
Bartholomaeus
, Frankfurt,
1964].
Proprietatibus
Anglicus,
naturale
Vincentius
,
Douai,
Bellovacensis,
1624
[repr.Graz,1964].
Speculum
morale
dition
Reductorium
Petrus
, dernire
Berchorius,
(PierreBersuire)
Cologne,1731.
b) traducteurs
vanJacobvanMaerlant
bloeme
, metinBormans,
J.H., Dernaturen
JacobvanMaerlant,
englossarium
vanHSS.,aenteekeningen
I, livres
I-IV,Bruxelles
1857.
, Varianten
leiding
vanMaerlants
naturen
1878.
bloemei
E., Jacob
Verwijs,
Groningue,
164

12:06:09 PM

en natuurkundig
BroederGheraert,
Clarisse,J., Sterre, gemeenlijk
onderwijs
genoemd:
Natuurkunde
vanhetGeheel-al
voor
hetwerk
vanzekeren
Broeder
Gheraert
, engehouden
. . ., Leyde,1847.
KonradvonMegenberg,
1861(cf.Pelzer
Pfeiffer,
Fr., Das BuchderNatur
, Stuttgart,
1964,PP-55S sv.).
C liste d'tudes qui ont trait au De naturisrerumde Thomas de
DANSoRDRE DE LEUR PUBLICATION1.
CANTIMPR
De quatuor
novissimis
Carthusianus,
, Delft,1487,articulus
go.
Dionysius
De scriptoribus
Iohannes
ecclesiasticis
. . ., Baie,1494,f. 70v.
Trithemius,
LibriVIdeviris
illustribus
Leander
ordinis
Albertus,
, Bologne,ii9.
praedicatorum
minorum
tomus
Carthusianus,
primus,
Operum
Dionysius
Cologne,1532,pp.418-9.
universalis
C. Bibliotheca
. . ., Zurich,154.5,p. 617.
Gesnerus,
animalium
Historiae
. . ., I-III,Zurich,1551-5.
testium
veritatis
G.
. . ., Dillingen,
1565,p. 120.
Eysengrein,Catalogus
Ordinis
Fratrum
Antonius
Bibliotheca
Praedicatorum
Senensis,
, Paris,1^85,p. 99; p. 242.
A. Apparatus
sacri... II, Cologne,1608,pp.484-5^.
Possevinus,
Lovanium
etacademiae
IustusLipsius,
eiusdescriptio
1610,pp. 6-7.
, id estoppidi
, Anvers,
ecclesiasticis
R. Descriptoribus
. . ., Cologne,1613,pp. 364-5".
Bellarminus,
Bibliotheca
. . . Cologne,1618,p. 12.
Molanus,
materiarum,
Johannes
Sancii
Ordinis
Praedicatorum
H.
, Douai,1618.
Belgi
Choquetius,
Bonum
universale
deapibus
G. L'introduction
Colvenerius,
3,Douai,1627,nonpagine,
et lesnotespp. 1-176.
Christiana
A. Belgica
. . ., Douai,1634,PP'
Raissius,
HenricusGandicavensis,
De scriptoribus
ecclesiasticis
. . ., ed. A. Miraeus,Bibliotheca
ecclesiastica
... I, Anvers,
1639,p. 172.
descriptoribus
Ph. Dissertano
ecclesiasticis
Labbaeus,
II,Paris,1660,pp.438-41.
philologica
universitatis
Parisiensis
C. E. Historia
. . . III,Paris,1666,p. 711.
Bulaeus,
ecclesiasticorum
historia
literaria
Caveus,G. Scriptorum
I, Genve,1694,p. 06.
livreII, Amsterdam,
G. J.Operaomnia
IV, De historieis
Vossius,
latinis,
1699,p. 1^3.
dominicanum
sive
Historia
B.
Germaniae
sacri
provinciae
inferioris
Jonghe, de, Belgium
ordinis
FF. Praedicatorum
, Bruxelles,
1719, pp. 146-9.
Le Long,J.Bibliothque
dela France
, Paris,1719, nos.2894,6343.
historique
ordinis
Praedicatorum
... I, Paris,1719, pp. 2^0-4.
Qutif,J. et Echard,J. Scriptores
Historia
et
medii
aevi
P.
a natoChristo
C.C.C.C.,
X,
poetarumpoematum
Leyser,
postannum
seculorum
, Halle,1721, pp. 1000-1.
latina. . ., Hambourg,
Fabricius,
1721-2,II,pp. 649-^0;III,pp. 217-8.
J.A. Bibliotheca
C. G. Allgemeines
Gelehrten
Lexikon
coll. 1146-7.
IV, Leipzig,175-1,
Jocher,
D. Florilegium
historico-criticum
librorum
Gerdes,
rariorum,
1763,p. 54.
Groningue-Brme,
literarium
... II, Utrecht,
Saxe,Chr.Onomasticon
1777,p. 311.
in Krakau
zurKunstPenzel,Abt,Beschreibung
, dansMurr's
einiger
Handschriften
Journal
undzurallgemeinen
Litteratur
X = 1781,pp. 239-^7.
geschichte
1 Pourdesraisons
ontt insrs
titres
pratiques
quelques
qui ne se rapportent
que d'une
manire
auDenaturis
rerum.
Plusieurs
indirecte
titres
dufichier
de
proviennent
bibliographique
l'Institut
del'Universit
d'Utrecht.
bio-historique

12:06:09 PM

vanoudHollandsche
vonFallersleben,
deropgave
Hofmann
Dichtwerken
, dansAKL
Vervolg
II = 1821,pp. 371-7.
imMittelalter
desrmischen
Rechts
Fr.C. Geschichte
III,Heidelberg,
1822,pp.315-6.
Savigny,
deVitrj,
historien
, dansHLFXVIII= 1835,pp. 209-46.
Daunou,P.Jacques
Prcheur
deFlandre,
SigerdeLilleouZegher
, dansHLFXVIII= 1835,pp. 397-8.
frre
der
Bibliotheek
Nederlandsche
S.
I, Middelbourg,
Wind, de,
1835, pp.
Geschiedschrijvers
509-10.
tweeoudewerken
derbinboec
ende dialogen
der
, getiteld
Scheltema,
J. Bericht
aangaande
in1488, dansGeschiedenLetterkundig
beide
creaturent
VI,Utrecht,
gedrukt
Mengelwerk
1836,pp. 149-84.
dansHLFXIX = 1838,pp. 177-84.
deCantimpr9
Daunou,P. Thomas
einer
allerbekannten
Vlker
derWelt
Grsze,
J. G. Th. Lehrbuch
allgemeinen
Literrgeschichte
ZeitII, 3, Dresde-Leipzig,
bisaufdieneueste
vonderltesten
1843,pp. 926-7.
sur1geet1origine
destraductions
latines
A. Recherches
d'Aristote2,
Paris,
Jourdain,
critiques
1843[repr.NewYork,i960],pp. 64-71.
Sterreennatuurkundig
Natuur, gemeentelijk
Clarisse,
J.L'introduction
onderwijs
genoemd:
voorhetwerk
vanzekeren
Broeder
kunde
vanhetGeheel-al
Een
Gheraert.
, engehouden
uithetlaatstderXlIIeofhetbegin
leerdicht
nederduitsch
derXlVeeeuw.
oorspronkelijk
naarvijjzeeroudehandschriften
vanvierlatere
maarzeer
, met
gebruikmaking
Uitgegeven
eene
en
met
,
,
nauwkeurige
afschriften inleidingaanteekeningen
Leyde,1847.
Leven
vansinteChristina
de wonderbare
, in oud-dietsche
Bormans,
J. H. L'introduction
uitdeXIV
e oj XVeeeuw9
met
naereenperkementen
t aenteekehandschrift
inleiding
rijmen9
enandere
, Gand,1850.
bijvoegsels
ningen
derNederlandsche
Geschiedenis
. Beknopte
Letterkunde
Vloten,J. van,Boekaankondigingen
,
doorProfessor
I. G. Visscher
, dansAKL,185:1,p. 260-1.
comme
de Cantimpr
unedessources
o Albert-le-Grand
et
Bormans,
J. H. Thomas
indiqu
de leurscrits
Maerlant
ontpuislesmatriaux
surVhistoire
naturelle
surtout
, dans
etdesbeaux-arts
dessciences
deBelgique
Bulletins
deVAcadmie
, deslettres
XIX,
royale
i = 1852,pp. 132-59.
derMiddennederlandsche
Dichtkunst
W. J. A. Geschiedenis
III, Amsterdam,
Jonckbloet,
**SS,PP- 33-SSI PP-477*86.
Solesmense
. . ., Paris,1855,II p. 520; III pp. lxxv-vi;pp
Pitra,J. B. Spicilegium
33-7HoraeBelgicae
dermittelniederlndischen
Hofmann
vonFallersleben,
I2,Uebersicht
,
Dichtung
Hanovre,
1857,nos.429-30;no. 438; no. 481.
der Botanik
desXIII.Jahrhunderts
IV, Die Encjclopdiker
,
Meyer,E. H. F. Geschichte
91-6.
1857,
Knigsberg, pp.
a Hetleven
vansinte
tenlaetste
, eenDietsch
Bormans,
J.H. L introduction
Lutgardis
gedieht
derXlVeeeuw
vandetweede
vanBroeder
Geraert,
, naarhetoorspronkelijk
helft
handschrift
Amsterdam,
1857-8.
undMedicin
Incunabeln
L. Graphische
Choulant,
, Leipzig,1858[repr.
frNaturgeschichte
Munich,
1924;repr.Hildesheim,
1963],pp. 99-119.
latinamediae
etinmae
latinitatis
V-VI,ed. MansiFlorence,
Fabricius,
J. A. Biblotheca
1858[repr.Graz,1962],p. 541.
B. Humbert
, dansNBUXXV,1858,coli.483-5.
Haurau,
de
, dansNBUXXVI,1858,col. 556.
Jean Holywood
rares
etprcieux
delivres
... II,Dresde,e.a. 1861, pp. 38-9.
Grsze,
J.G. Th.Trsor
DasBuch
derNatur
vonKonrad
von
1861.
Fr.L'introduction
Pfeiffer,
, Stuttgart,
Megenberg
166

12:06:09 PM

derGegenwart
Ein
undVorzeit
. Culturhistorischer
K. F. W. Botanik
Jessen,
Entwicklung.
zur
Geschichte
der
Abendlndischen
Vlker
Waltham,
,
1864
[repr.
Beitrag
Leipzig,
Mass.1948],pp. 159-61.
deCantimpr
E.R. Thomas
, dansNBGXLV,1866,col. 219.
de Nederlandsche
Letterkunde
W. J. A. Geschiedenis
I, Groningue,
1868,p.
Jonckbloet,
126; p. 458.
literaturae
Botanicae
. . ., Milan,1871,[repr.Milan,1950],
Pritzel,G. A. Thesaurus
56.
p.
undCharLDarwin
der
derZoologie
bisaufJoh.Mller
, Geschichte
Carus,J.V. Geschichte
in Deutschland,
neuereZeit XII, Munich,1872,pp. 211-23.
Wissenschaften
der
Bartholomaeus
dasmd
desMeisters
. Arzneibuch
, dansSitzungsberichte
Haupt,J. Ueber
=
Akademie
derWissenschaften
Classe
LXXI
Kaiserlichen
Philos.
-Hist.
1872,
, Vienne,
pp. 558-9.
imMittelalter
und
derdeutschen
untersucht
, nachdenQuellen
Mystik
Preger,W. Geschichte
I, Leipzig,1874,PP*46-7.
dargestellt
derGeschichte
derMedicn
undderepidemischen
Krankheiten
Hser,H. Lehrbuch
I3,lna,1875,
p. 696.
einaltdeutsches
Gedicht
vonVolmar
H. Das Steinbuchi
, Heilbronn,
1877,pp. xxvLambei,
xxxiii.
werken
beschouwd
alsSpiegel
vande13eeeuwt
Winkel,
J.te,Maerlants
Leyde,1877;Gand,
1892.
JacobvanMaerlants
Naturen
E. L'introduction
1878,pp.
Bloemef
Verwijs,
Groningue,
ix-lxiii.
Bloeme
SandeBakhuyzen,
W. H. vande, Aanteekeningen
", dansTNTLI
op "DerNaturen
= 1881,pp. 191-219; pp. 261-80.
derNederlandsche
Letterkunde
Winkel,
I, Harlem,1887,p. 285.
J.te,Geschiedenis
divers
surlesproprits
deschoses
de
deschoses
, III La nature
, parThomas
Delisle,L. Traits
=
dans
HLF
XXX
,
1888,
365-88;
Cantimpr
pp.
pp. 615-6.
derMiddelnederlandsche
Taal-enLetterkundey
Petit,L. D. Bibliographie
Leyde,1888,nos.
1480-1.
au moyen
surlesmystiques
cour
A. Etude
desPays-Bas
. XLVI= 1892,
ge,dansMm.
Auger,
I35-43du livreI du Trsor
deschapitres
C-CXXV
Latini
deBrunetto
Delisle,L. La source
, dansBEC
LIV = 1893,pp. 406-11;pp. 587-8.
W. Deutschlands
imMittelalter
Wattenbach,
II, Berlin,1894,P 465;
Geschichtsquellen
p. 487; p. 500.
durch
A. Wegweiser
dieGeschichtswerke
deseuropischen
Mittelalters
bis 1500 II2,
Potthast,
Berlin,1896,p. 1063.
derNederlandsche
Brink,
Amsterdam,
1897,pp. 174-5.
Letterkundef
J. ten,Geschiedenis
Leven
vansinte
boek
naar
Fr.van,L'introduction
tweede
enderde
Lutgartt
Veerdeghem,
eenKopenhaagsch
, Leyde,1899,PP*i-xxvii;pp. 115-6.
Handschrift
vonChantimpr
A. Thomas
Kaufmann,
, Cologne,1899.
Hetbinboec
enzijnexemvanThomas
vanCantimpr
Vet,W. A. vander,L'introduction
, diss.,Leyde;La Haye,1902,pp. 1-73;pp. 408-447.
pelen
initsrelation
toAster
and
E. S. History
inthehistory
, Studies
Botany
ofpre-Clusian
Burgess,
variations
oftheTorreybotanical
clubX, published
I. Memoirs
ofAsters
bythe
club,NewYork,1902,pp. 282-3.
167

12:06:09 PM

dessources
deVhistorie
dupaysdeLige
au moyen
cour.
Balau,S. Etude
critique
ge, dansMm.
LXI = 1902-3,PP. 434-6.
G. Denkmler
Mittelalterlicher
vonSchriften
undKarten
Hellmann,
, Neudrucke
Meteorologie
berMeteorologie
undErdmagnetismus
XV, Berlin,1904,pp. 27-8; pp. 117-26.
derBotanik
V. von,Geschichte
inBhmen
Maiwald,
, Vienne- Leipzig,1904,pp. 6-7; p.
13; p. 16.
derNederlandsche
Letterkunde
G. Geschiedenis
I, Groningue,
Kalff,
1906,pp. 149-f
.
Albertus
Thomas
von
undVincenz
vonBeauvais
H.
und
Stadler,
,
, dansNatur
Magnus
Cantimpr
IV = 1906-7,pp. 86-90.
Kultur
overdemiddeleeuwsche
derAbdijRolduc
Gils,P. . M. van,Eenige
,
opmerkingen
boekenlijst
vanhetvijjdeNederlandsche
dansHandelingen
, Leyde,1907,p.
Philologencongres
ii, no. 89.
U. Rpertoire
dessources
du moyen
Chevalier,
II2, 1907,
historiques
gefBio-bibliographie
coll.4499-500.
derNederlandsche
Letterkunde
Winkel,J. te, De ontwikkelingsgang
I, Harlem,1908,pp.
334-medizinische
K. Deutsche
Inkunabeln
Sudhoff,
, Leipzig,1908,pp. 73-9.
Benediktionen
imMittelalter
Franz,A. Die kirchlichen
I, Fribourg-en-Brisgau,
1909,pp.
43-42.
deCharles
du XVes. XI, Paris,1910,
P. La librairie
d'Orlans,
Champion,
Bibliothques
p. 14.
aus Thomas
hominibus
Orientis
vonCantimpr:
De naturis
Hilka,A. Liberde monstruosis
aus
der
der
Breslauer
rerum.
Stadtbilbiothek
nebst
zwei
Bilderhandschrift
Erstausgabe
Seiten
Facsimile
zurJahrhundertfeier
derUniversitt
Breslau
, dansFestschrift
, hrsg.vom
Schlesischen
Breslau,1911, pp. i$2-6.
Philologenverein,
dela nature
aumoyen
etdumonde
Ch. V. La connaissance
ge, Paris,1911.
Langlois,
desThomas
vonBrabant.
EinBeitrag
zurKenntnis
desMittelFerckel,Chr.Die Gynkologie
alterlichen
undihrer
, Munich,1912.
Quellen
Gynkologie
vonMegenberg
O. Konrads
Deutsche
Deutsche
Textedes Mittelalters
Matthaei,
Sphaera,
XXIII,Berlin,1912.
Albertus
libriXXVI
Stadler,H. L'introduction
, De animalibus
, BGPMA
XV,
Magnus
Munster
i.W., 1916.pp. vii-xiv.
M. DiePhilosophia
Albert
vonOrlamunde,
undihrVerfasser
dansBGPMA
Grabmann,
Pauperum
XX,2 = 1918,pp. 7-13.
Albertus
libriXXVIt
BGPMA
Stadler,H. L'introduction
, De animalibus
XVI,
Magnus
Munster
i.W., 1920,pp. v-viii.
Hetleven
doorThomas
A. L'introduction
vandeheilige
vanCantimpr
,
Janssens,
Lutgard
Louvain
e.a., 1921.
inEngland,
Evans,J. E. Magical
Jewels
ofthemiddle
agesandtherenaissance,
particularly
Oxford,
1922,pp.91-2; pp. 223-34.
L. A history
andexperimental
science
the
thirteen
centuries
Thorndike,
ofmagic
during
first
of
oureraII, Londres,
1923,p. 196;pp. 372-400.
Ch. H. Studies
in thehistory
science
Haskins,
, NewYork,1924[repr.New
ofmediaeval
York,i960],p. 41.
derWiegendrucke
der
frden Gesamtkatalog
, hrsg.vonder Kommission
Gesamtkatalog
I-VIII,1, Leipzig,192-40.
Wiegendrucke,
derRbe(Beta)alsKulturpflanze
E.O. von,Geschichte
, Berlin,192^,pp. -6.
Lippmann,
168

12:06:09 PM

M. Mittelalterliches
Geistesleben
zur Geschichte
derScholastik
und
Grabmann,
, Abhandlungen
I, Munich,1926,p. 158.
Mystik
undscholastische
B. Diepatristische
, Berlin,1927[repr.Bale- Stuttgart,
Philosophie
Geyer,
190], P- 380; p. 732.
enThomas
vanCantimpr
, dansOGEI = 1927,pp.61-79;
J.Bartholomaeus
Anglicus
Huyben,
pp. i 8-79.
Literatur
desMittelalters
derBibliothek
P. Pseudo-antike
Lehmann,
, Studien
XIII,
Warburg
i
notes
o
1927,
27-8;
i,
152-4.
pp.
p.
Leipzig,
dansla littrature
etdidactique
dumojen
Welter,J.Th. Vexemplum
religieuse
ge, ParisToulouse,1927,pp. 338-9etpassim
, voirl'index,p. 544.
zurGeschichte
F. S. Materialien
derEntomologie
bisLinne
Bodenheimer,
I, Berlin,1928,p.
127;pp. 168-9;pp. 182-3.
H. Mittelalterliche
Pflanzenkunde
Fischer,
, Munich,1929,p. 35; p. 43; p. 52.
inmediaeval
culture
Ch. H. Studies
Haskins,
, NewYork,1929,p. 40; p. 196;p. 220.
" au
mdivales
surla "connaissance
dela nature
etdumonde
Board,M. de, Encyclopdies
= 1930,pp. 258-304.
moyen
ge, dansRQH, 3e srieXVI(CXIIede la collection)
deCantimprt
dansBNBXXV= 1930-32,
coll. 28-34.
Vocht,H. de,Thomas
ofscience
tothehistory
G. Introduction
Sarton,
II, Baltimore,
1931,pp. 592-4.
The
mediaeval
latin
versions
S.
D.
, with
oftheAristotelian
corpus
scientic
special
Wingate,
tothebiological
works
, Londres,1931 [repr.Dubuque,Iowa,s.d.],voir
reference
l'index,p. 135.
toteenbibliographie
vandenederlandsch
I,
St. Bijdragen
dominikaansche
vroomheid
Axters,
dansOGEVI = 1932,pp. 5-39.
au XVes. desbibliothques
deslivres
de Belgique
Polain,L. Catalogue
, 4 voll.,
imprims
Bruxelles,
1932.
derPharmakognosie
A. Handbuch
Tschirch,
, zweiteerweiterte
I, 2: Allgemeine
Auflage
, Leipzig,1932,p. 1030.
Pharmakognosie
mediaeval
M. S. English
Londres,
Evans,J.andSerjeantson,
1933.
lapidaries,
VII = 1933,
medii
aevi, dansALMA
Hlin,M. Index
scriptorum
operumque
latino-belgicorum
pp. 77-163.
moralisierende
desLiberdemonstruosis
hominibus
Hilka,A. Einealtfranzsische
Bearbeitung
Orientis
vonCantimpr
ausThomas
rerum
, Denaturis
, Berlin,1933.
VII ,
toteenbibliographie
vandenederlandsch
St. Bijdragen
vroomheid
dominikaansche
Axters,
dansOGEVIII = 1934,PPI4I"77vonRomans
Ordensmeister
derDominikaner
Planzer,D. FritzHeintke
, Humbert
, derfnfte
,
dansAFPIV = 1934,pp. 262-67.
derdeutschen
Boeckl.C. DieBedingtheiten
desMittelalters
, Suppl.III,
, dansBGPTMA
Mystik
2 = 1935,PP-1011-20.
Geistesleben
und
zurGeschichte
derScholastik
M. Mittelalterliches
Grabmann,
, Abhandlungen
II, Munich,1936,p. 361; p. 378.
Mystik
desmdecins
enFrance
auMoyen
E. Dictionnaire
Wickersheimer,
biographique
geII, Paris,
1936,p. 758.
dela chronique
deJacques
A. de, Autour
deSoest
etdesesditions
Guimaraes,
, dansAFPVII
= 1937,PP-290-304.
Vondenersten
derBotanik.
biszurGegenwart
Mbius,M. Geschichte
, lna,1937,
Anfngen
pp. 18-9.
vonMegenbergy
undSchriften
desKonrad
MittelalterdansNDF, Abteilung
Ibach,H. Leben
licheGeschichte
7, Berlin,1938.
I 69

12:06:09 PM

99
"
etla chronique
debibliographie
dominicaine
H. D. Notes
, I La Tabula deStanis
Simonin,
=
VIII
deSoest
dans
AFP
deJacques
1938,pp. 193-213.
,
eeuw
derdertiende
indeNederlanden
St. Dominikaansche
, dansOGEXIII =
Axters,
zielzorg
1939PP-149-84.
- Bruxelles,
derNederlanden
vandeLetterkunde
I, Bois-le-Duc
1939,
Baur,F. Geschiedenis
286
sv.
pp.
etprieures
desabbayes
L. H. Rpertoire
I, Macon,1939,
Cottineau,
topo-bibliographique
col. 589.
rerum
vanThomas
vanCatimpr
met
denaturis
inverband
Toi,J.F. ]. van,Enkele
opmerkingen
vande Vereeniging
dansAnnalen
tot
b. de Nat. Rer.ende Kyr
(a, Datering:
aniden),
deKatholieken
inNederland
onder
derwetenschap
XXXI
vandebeoefening
hetbevorderen
= 1939,PP-171-80.
XXII== 1941,pp.
um1200,dansArchiv
L. DieBiene
imWissen
Armbruster,
furBienenkunde
49-144.
sciences
, Waltham,
Mass.,1942,p. 60.
Reed,H. S. Ashort
history
oftheplant
van
van
Maerlant
A.
Damme,1943,pp. 29-32;pp.
,
, proeve bibliographie
Arents, Jacob
190-8.
deVEgliseenBelgique
III, l'Eglise
Bruxelles,
Moreau,E. de, Histoire
fodale1122-1378,
voir
l'index.
194S*passim,
vanMaerlant,
Turnhout,
1946,
Mierlo,J.van,Jacob
zijnbeteekenis,
zijnwerken,
zijnleven,
PP-47-3.
vanonzeplanten
H. De volksnamen
, Zuthpen,
1946,pp.47-8.
Uittien,
andThomas
Aiken,P. Theanimal
, dansSpeculum
Magnus
ofCantimpr
history
ofAlbertus
XXII= I947,pp. 20J-2
.
derbiologie2,
Gorinchem,
1947,p. 2$.
Sirks,M. J.Deontwikkeling
douTresor
de Brunetto
Latini
of
Li livres
L'introduction
F.
, University
Carmody, J.
inmodemphilology
California
XXII,California,
1948.
publications
enBelgique
de1*
E. de,Histoire
Bruxelles,
I, Texte-Cartes,
, tome
Moreau,
complmentaire
Eglise
1948.
dansDHGEXI = 1949coll. 781-3.
M. Cantimpr,
Chartier,
La Haye,1949,p. 38$.
W. 50Jahre
Junk,
Antiquar,
anditscommentators
L. TheSphere
, Chicago,1949.
Thorndike,
ofSacrobosco
vroomheid
indeNederlanden
van
de
Geschiedenis
St.
, Anvers,
1950-3,I, devroomheid
Axters,
vanRuusbroec,
: II, deeeuw
hetiaar 1300, passim
totrond
passim.
LXXIV= 1953,pp.433-.06.
dansRomania
dessirnes,
depoisson
Farai,E. La queue
dans
in
de Compendia
vandeXUleeeuw,
van
De
A.
de,
Velde, J. J.
natuurwetenschappen
= I9S3,p. 13i PP-*4"*;P-47i P- S2MKVAWXV
enCharadius
in depoezie.Calander
W. Tweevreemde
, dansHandelingen
vogels
Asselbergs,
Nederlands
vanhetdrieentwintigste
,
1954,pp. 88-103.
Philologen-congres
Groningue,
enFrance,
dela botanique
A. D. de,Histoire
Paris,1954,p. 19.
Virville,
AeviV, Madrid,
Medii
Biblicum
Fr.Repertorium
19, nos.8082-3.
Stegmller,
Letterkunde
der
Nederlandse
Geschiedenis
de
Handboek
tot
G.
I, Bois-le-Duc,
Knuvelder,
1957[= 4e d 1967],PP-122-31.
vonSoest
E. Jacob
, dansLTKV = i960,col. 847.
Filthaut,
de
Romanis
Humbertus
G.
, dansLTKV = i960,col. 533.
Gieraths,
v. Sachsen
, dansLTKV = i960,coll. 1120-1.
Jordanus
VIII = i960,pp. 6-23.
L. Delapidibus
, dansAmbix
Thorndike,
=
V
col. 849.
dans
LTK
de
A.
i960,
,
Waas, Jacob Vitrj
I 70

12:06:09 PM

vonMegenberg
E. Konrd
, dansLTKVI = 1961,col. 469.
Bauerreiss,
"De animalibus
zu
Konrad
vonMegenberg
A.
, Thomas
Brckner, Quellenstudien
Cantipratanus
99als Vorlaae
im99
BuchderNatur99,
diss.Frankfurt
a. M., 1961.
quadrupedibus
dePrussia
W. Petrus
, LTKVIII = 1963,col. 378.
Eckert,
undTheologie
desXII
zumEinflusz
Senecas
Studien
D.
Kl.
Nothdurft,
aufdiePhilosophie
180-1.
,
1963,
Jahrhunderts
Leyde Cologne,
pp.
ofCantimpr,
dansIsisLIV,2 = 1963,pp. 269-77
K. More
Thorndike,
manuscripts
ofThomas
99
DerNaturen
vanEck-Kampstra,
twee
A. van,JacobvanMaerlants
Panthaleon
Bloeme99,
La
dans
Het
Boek
derde
overhandschriften
notities
,
reeks,XXXVI, Haye,1963-4,
,
pp. 222-32.
mdivaux
d9histoire
littraire
surla scolastique
mdivale
. . ., Philosophes
Pelzer,A. Etudes
- Paris,1964,pp. 177-82;pp. 217-8;p. 295; p. $6.
Vili,Louvain
dansDLF, 1964,coll. 710-11.
d9Aquin,
F. van,Thomas
Steenberghen,
vanCantimpr
St.Thomas
, dansVMKVA
1965,pp. 241-51.
Axters,
vanCantimpr
E. Thomas
, dansLTKX = 1965,col. 139.
Brouette,
andtheinterpretation
the
Nature
M. I. Theant-lion:
text,
Gerhardt,
from
study
ofa biblical
III = 1965,pp. 1-23.
toAlbert
theGreat
, dansVivarium
Physiologus
Scot
L. Michael
, Londres,
Thorndike,
1965,p. 1; p. 33; pp. 60-4.
9and
Ancient
andmedieval
on99ink-fishes9
in
decline.
M.
I.
Gerhardt, Knowledge
information
IV == 1966,pp. 144-75-.
habits
their
, dansVivarium
au Xlllesicle
mdivaux
F. van,La philosophie
IX, Louvain
, Philosophes
Steenberghen,
Paris,1966,p. 97; p. 277.
vanmedisch
inDietsche,
eenmiddelnederlandse
Daems,W. F. Boecvanmedicinen
compilatie
, supplments
VII, Leyde,1967.
literatuury
Janus
Jarmaceutische
D. Albertus
, Oxford,
1967.
, Book
Magnus
ofminerals
Wyckoff,
Asuivre

Utrecht
voor
LaatLatijn
Instituut

171

12:06:09 PM

Reviews

Mittellateinisches
, hrsg.vonKARLlangosch,III = 1966,Selbstverlag-Kln,
Jahrbuch
DM
30.-.
304pp.,
enmemetempsque
et la rapidit
la qualitdesarticles
de sa parution,
Parla rgularit
le plus
esten trainde devenir
le Mittellateinisches
la soliditde l'information,
Jahrbuch
defond
Voicilesarticles
: P. Klopsch,
aulatinmdival.
consacrs
despriodiques
prcieux
deCologne)
l'universit
Literatur
indermittellateinischen
Prosa
undVers
;
(discours
inaugural
deshohen
lateinischer
undVerfasserschaft
derUberlieferung
Probleme
D. Schaller,
Liebesbriefe
imMittelalter
undStruktur
Mittelalters
;
; H. Brinkmann,
Lyrik
religiser
Voraussetzungen
DerLeipziger
Mittelalter
imschwedischen
L.
ZurOjfiziendichtung
A. nnerfors,
;
Gompf,
"Ordoartiumn
Treverense"
II; H. Walther,Die poetische
; F. Brunhlzl,
uFlorilegium
undsprachliche
BemerTextkritische
descod. Oxford
Rawl.C. 1o ; A. nnerfors,
Anthologie
De nonnullis
versibus
orum"desC. deBridia;D. Kuijper,
storia
Tartar
zur"ty
Nequam
kungen
etH. Roos.
zurmittellateinischen
desMiscellanea
Suivent
Poetae
attributis.
Lyrik
parS. Ebbesen
faire
contribuent
fortdtaills,
les quarante
rendus,
Enfin,
parfois
pagesde comptes
uninstrument
annuaire
de ce troisime
indispensable.
J.E.
desXlleetXlllesicles
La survie
d'Ovidedansla littrature
SIMONE
,
viARRE,
scientifique
du C.E.S.C.M. IV, Poitiers,
Publications
1966,184pp., i NF.
aux
d Ovideoffre
A la premire
pagede sonlivre,MlleViarredclare:"Le Nachleben
n'ontpas encore
chercheurs
un chantier
rapidesou prmatures
que des synthses
peine s'y intresser,
commencent
Les Franais
dfinitivement.
aprsles
organis
mais
d'accordavecla premire
Italiens
et lesAllemands".
Jeseraisentirement
phrase,
ans
il y a plusde quatre-vingts
auxseulsParisiens,
nonavecla seconde.Pouren rester
Chrtien
son
V
littraire
de
la
France
dans
Histoire
Paris
Gaston
(XXIX)
Legouais
publiait
que
de Mlle Viarredoit
et imitateurs
d'Ovide.A monavis, l'ouvrage
etautres
traducteurs
il ya
ouprmatures"
les "synthses
trerang
Pourtant,
qu'ellednonce.
rapides
parmi
la
est
une
thse
En effet,
des circonstances
attnuantes.
complmentaire,
l'ouvrage
" d'Ovide
etla pense
dansles"Mtamorphoses
tantL'image
thseprincipale
, laquellea t
lesgrandes
d'Etatfranaises,
thses
soutenu
L'effort
accueillie.
favorablement
qu'exigent
surl 'antiquit
tude
l'auteur
cette
n'ait
surtout
Paris,
portant
puprparer
explique
que
se
en
vraiment
aux
tudes
mme
s'initier
en
mdivales,
et,
particulier
temps,
classique
a t,non
dumoyen
aveclesencyclopdistes
familiariser
commeil fallait
ge.L'erreur
maisbienpluttde la publiertelle
cettethsecomplmentaire,
pastantde prsenter
quelle.
J.E.

172

12:06:19 PM