Classica et Beneventana: Essays Presented to Virginia Brown on the Occasion of her 65th Birthday
-
Upload
others
-
View
0
-
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FestschriftCLASSICA ET BENEVENTANA
Leonina, 1987-1999)
L. HOLTZ (Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, Paris,
1999-
2003)
Vice-Président :
Membres du Comité :
Ch. BURNETT (The Warburg Institute, London)
M.C. PACHECO (Universidade do Porto, Gabinete de Filosofia
Medieval)
N. VAN DEUSEN (Claremont College, CA / Medieval Academy of
America)
Trésorier :
Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’Études Médiévales
TEXTES ET ÉTUDES DU MOYEN ÂGE, 36
CLASSICA ET BENEVENTANA
on the Occasion of her 65th Birthday
Edited by F.T. Coulson and A.A. Grotans
F
© 2008, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwhise, without the
prior
permission of the publisher.
tema36_voorwerk 19-02-2008 08:27 Pagina IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Bibliography of Virgina Brown
..................................................XIII-XXI
CLASSICA
SANDRO BERTELLI, Sul frammento dei Getica di Giordano conservato a
Losanna
.....................................................................1-8
GRETI DINKOVA-BRUUN, Prouerbia Salomonis: An Anonymous Accretion to
Peter Riga’s Aurora
..................................................9-44
JULIA HAIG GAISSER, Apuleius in Florence from Boccaccio to Lorenzo
de’ Medici
.....................................................................45-72
JACQUELINE HAMESSE, La survie de quelques auteurs classiques dans
les collections de textes philosophiques du moyen âge
......73-86
JAMES HANKINS, Notes on the Composition and Textual Tradition of
Leonardo Bruni’s Historiarum Florentini
populi libri
XII...........................................................................87-109
HOPE MAYO, New York Academy of Medicine MS 1 and the Textual
Tradition of Apicius
.......................................111-135
LUISA MIGLIO AND MARCO PALMA, Presenze dimenticate (III)
......................................................................137-148
MARIANNE PADE, The Fortuna of Leontius Pilatus’s Homer. With an
Edition of Pier Candido Decembrio’s «Why Homer’s Greek Verses are
Rendered in Latin Prose» ..149-172
RANDALL ROSENFELD, Early Comparative Codicology: Late-Medieval
Western Perceptions of Non-Western Script and Book Materials
................................................................173-200
MARJORIE CURRY WOODS, A Medieval Rhetorical Manual in the 17th
Century: The Case of Christian Daum and the Poetria nova
...............................................................201-209
tema36_voorwerk 19-02-2008 08:27 Pagina V
VI TABLE OF CONTENTS
BENEVENTANA
GABRIELLA BRAGA, I codici donati dal vescovo Guglielmo II alla
cattedrale di Troia. L’elenco del ms. VI B 12 della Biblioteca
Nazionale di Napoli
................................................................213-233
MARIANO DELL’OMO, Nel raggio di Montecassino. Il libellus precum di
S. Domenico di Sora (Vat. Reg. lat. 334)
..................................................................235-291
RICHARD F. GYUG, From Beneventan to Gothic: Continuity and Change
in Southern Italian Liturgical Ceremonies
...............293-310
CHARLES HILKEN, The Scribal Record of Prayer and Work in the
Chapter Room
.........................................................................311-331
MARIO IADANZA, L’inventario Rotondo (=ms. Benev. 455B) della
Biblioteca capitolare di Benevento
...............................333-362
THOMAS FORREST KELLY, A Beneventan Notated Breviary in Naples
(Archivio storico diocesano, fondo Ebdomadari, Cod. Misc. 1, fasc.
VII)
...........................................................363-389
LUISA NARDINI, The Mass for the Octave of the Epiphany in Some
Beneventan Manuscripts
...............................................391-405
ROGER E. REYNOLDS, Montecassino Cod. 125 and Henry
.....407-422
INDICES
Harald ANDERSON (Arlington, Virginia)
BIBLIOTECA APOSTOLICA VATICANA (Città del Vaticano)
BIBLIOTECA NAZIONALE VITTORIO EMANUELE III (Napoli)
John BOE (Green Valley, Arizona)
Gerald BONNER (Durham, North Carolina)
Elisabeth A.R. BROWN (New York and Paris)
Alfredo CALABRESE (CAMPI SALENT, LE)
Giuliana CAPRIOLO (Salerno)
Guglielmo CAVALLO (Roma)
STUDIES, The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio)
CENTER FOR MEDIEVAL AND RENAISSANCE STUDIES,
The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio)
CENTRO EUROPEO STUDI NORMANNI (Ariano Irpino, Italy)
Stephanie CORBET (Toronto)
Christopher DE HAMEL (Cambridge, England)
Paul Edward DUTTON (Burnaby, BC, Canada)
Mirella FERRARI (Milano)
VIII TABLVLA GRATVLATORIA
Mario IADANZA (Campolattaro, Italy)
Craig KALLENDORF (College Station, Texas)
KOMMISSION FÜR SCHRIFT- UND BUCHWESEN DES MITTEL-
ALTERS DER ÖSTERREICHISCHEN AKADEMIE DER
WISSENSCHAFTEN (Wien)
Aldo LUNELLI (Padova)
Patricia OSBORNE (Firenze)
Marco PALMA (Roma)
Lisa ST. LOUIS (Don Mills, Canada)
Peter SCHMIDT (Konstanz, Germany)
Martin SCHØYEN (Spikkestad, Norway)
Diane WALKER (Thornbury, Canada)
Wendy WATKINS (Columbus, Ohio)
Teresa WEBBER (Cambridge, England)
INTRODUCTION
Virginia Brown is recognized as one of the world’s leading
authorities
in the fields of Latin palaeography and classical reception. Her
numerous
publications on the Beneventan script, which was written in the
southern
Italian peninsula, have dramatically altered our knowledge of the
dissem-
ination of this book hand from 800 to 1600. Her editorial work for
the Cat- alogus translationum et commentariorum, as Associate
Editor and since
1986 as Editor-in-Chief, has resulted in several learned volumes
tracing
the fortuna and study of classical authors from antiquity to the
year 1600.
The Festschrift volume Classica et Beneventana, presented to her on
the
occasion of her 65th birthday by friends and colleagues, brings
together
eighteen essays in the two areas of Beneventan script and the study
of the
classics in the Middle Ages which have been the focus of Professor
Brown’s
research throughout her scholarly career.
Since 1970, Virginia Brown has been a fellow at the Pontifical
Insti-
tute of Mediaeval Studies at the University of Toronto where she
has earned
a formidable reputation among students as a teacher and supervisor.
Her
seminar on the editing of mediaeval Latin texts is legendary among
those
students who took the license degree in mediaeval studies, while
her sem-
inar in Latin palaeography, known for its rigorous attention to
detail, has
trained generations of scholars to localize, date, and read
manuscripts in
diverse scripts and genres. Her vast erudition and the enthusiasm
she brings
to her teaching have recently been recognized by the Medieval
Academy
of America, which honored Professor Brown in 2005 with an award
for
distinguished teaching — the highest honor the academy can
bestow.
As editor of Mediaeval Studies from 1975 to 1988, Professor
Brown
single-handedly produced tomes noted for their scholarly acumen. As
a
senior fellow at the Pontifical Institute, she has furthered the
high level of
scholarship associated with that institution. In particular, she
has been
instrumental in the publication of new editions of liturgical texts
written
in the Beneventan script under the auspices of the Monumenta
Liturgica Beneventana program which she jointly edits with Roger E.
Reynolds and
Richard F. Gyug.
Throughout her scholarly career, Professor Brown has created,
thanks
to her great generosity and kindness, an extensive network of
friends and
colleagues who wish to honor her with this Festschrift volume. The
eigh-
teen essays collected herein are written by leading scholars in the
fields of
palaeography, codicology, Beneventan script and classical
reception. Sev-
eral contributors, such as Marjorie Curry Woods, Luisa Nardini,
Charles
Hilken, Richard Gyug, Greti Dinkova-Bruun, and Randall Rosenfeld,
were
students of Professor Brown during her tenure at the Pontifical
Institute
of Mediaeval Studies and attest to her important work in training
the next
generation of scholars. Roger E. Reynolds, don Mariano dell’Omo,
and
Thomas Forrest Kelly have all worked closely on that «precious»
script
(as Professor Brown is wont to call it) on which she herself has
devoted-
ly labored throughout her career. Several other contributors to the
volume,
such as Julia Haig Gaisser, James Hankins and Marianne Pade, have
con-
tributed wide-ranging and seminal articles to the Catalogus
translationum et commentariorum. Lastly, the volume includes a
number of contribu-
tions from friends and colleagues who have benefited from
Professor
Brown’s expertise, including Sandro Bertelli, Jacqueline Hamesse,
Hope
* * *
The planning and publication of this Festschrift volume for
Virginia
Brown could not have been completed without the assistance of many
indi-
viduals whose contributions we gratefully acknowledge. For
generous
financial aid in the planning of the conference «Classica et
Beneventana»,
held at the Ohio State University on Oct. 28-29, 2005, we are
grateful to
David Hahm, former Chair of the Department of Greek and Latin,
Bar-
bara Hanawalt, George III Professor and former Director of the
Center for
Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies, Ken Adrien, former Chair of
the
Department of History, Bernd Fischer, Chair of the Department of
Ger-
manic Languages and Literatures, and Mark Fullerton, former Chair
of the
Department of Art History. Matthew Bester and Alessia Colarossi
provid-
ed invaluable proofing of the volume. Wendy Watkins, Curator of the
Cen-
ter for Epigraphical and Palaeographical Studies, fielded queries
from con-
tributors with her usual aplomb and set up the volume in
camera-ready
format with untiring goodwill. We are also most grateful to
Jacqueline
Hamesse, general editor of the series, for the help and
encouragement she
tema36_voorwerk 19-02-2008 08:29 Pagina X
INTRODUCTION XI
provided throughout, and to the readers for the press. We would
also like
to thank our colleagues at The Ohio State University, Bernd
Fischer, Chair
of the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures, Fritz
Graf,
Chair of the Department of Greek and Latin, and John Roberts, Dean
of
the College of Humanities, for providing a generous publication
subsidy
for the volume. Lastly, Frank is grateful to Todd, Fredegond and
Ajax for
their support and solace.
The publication of this volume has been made possible through a
gen-
erous publication subsidy provided by the College of Humanities of
The
Ohio State University.
BOOKS
1. The Textual Transmission of Caesar’s Civil War (Leiden,
1972).
2. Terra Sancti Benedicti. Studies in the Palaeography, History,
and Litur- gy of Medieval Southern Italy, Storia e letteratura 219
(Rome: Edizioni di
Storia e Letteratura, 2004), 788 pp. (including 97 plates).
3. (ed.), E.A. Lowe, The Beneventan Script. A History of the South
Italian Minuscule, 2nd revised and enlarged edition, 2 vols. (Rome,
1980).
4. (ed.) Mediaeval Studies 37 (1975) 550 pp.
38 (1976) 504 pp.
39 (1977) 519 pp.
40 (1978) 495 pp.
41 (1979) 539 pp.
42 (1980) 476 pp.
43 (1981) 536 pp.
44 (1982) 488 pp.
45 (1983) 429 pp.
46 (1984) 501 pp.
47 (1985) 494 pp.
48 (1986) 532 pp.
49 (1987) 540 pp.
50 (1988) 673 pp.
5. (Research Assistant to and collaborator with) E.A. Lowe, Codices
lati- ni antiquiores. A Palaeographical Guide to Manuscripts prior
to the Ninth Century, Supplement volume (Oxford, 1971) and vol. 2,
2nd revised and
enlarged edition (Oxford, 1972).
6. (Collaborator with) L. Bieler (ed.), E.A. Lowe, Palaeographical
Papers 1907-1965, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1972).
XIV BIBLIOGRAPHY OF VIRGINIA BROWN
7. (Associate Editor, with Editor-in-Chief F.E. Cranz and Associate
Edi-
tor P.O. Kristeller) Catalogus translationum et commentariorum,
vol. VI
(Washington, D.C., 1986).
8. (General Editor with R.E. Reynolds and R.F. Gyug for the
Monumenta Liturgica Beneventana programme), vol. 1: R.F. Gyug, ed.,
Missale Ragus- inum. The Missal of Dubrovnik (Oxford, Bodleian
Library, Canon. Liturg. 342), Studies and Texts 103, (Toronto,
1990), xxx, 435 pp. and 6 plates.
9. (Editor-in-Chief, with Associate Editors F.E. Cranz and P.O.
Kristeller),
Catalogus translationum et commentariorum, vol. VII (Washington,
D.C.,
1992), xxi + 356 pp.
10. (General Editor with R E. Reynolds and R.F. Gyug for the
Monumen- ta Liturgica Beneventana programme), vol. 2: C. Hilken,
The Necrology of San Nicola della Cicogna (Montecassino, Archivio
della Badia 179, pp. 1-64), Studies and Texts 135 (Toronto, 2000),
x, 178 pp.
11. (General Editor with R.E. Reynolds and R.F. Gyug for the
Monumen- ta Liturgica Beneventana programme), vol. 3: R.E.
Reynolds, The Collec-
tio canonum Casinensis duodecimi seculi. An Implicit Edition with
Intro- ductory Study, Studies and Texts 137 (Toronto, 2001), ix,
129 pp.
12. (Ed. and trans.), Boccaccio: Famous Women, I Tatti
Renaissance
Library, vol. 1 (Cambridge, Mass., 2001), xxv, 530 pp.
13. (Co-Editor with F. Avagliano), A.O. Citarella and H.M. Willard,
The Role of the Treasure in the History of Monte Cassino, 883-1058,
Miscel-
lanea cassinese 74 (Montecassino, 1996) (published 2002), 140 pp.
and
14 plates.
14. (Editor-in-Chief, with Associate Editors J. Hankins and R.A.
Kaster),
Catalogus translationum et commentariorum, vol. VIII (Washington,
D.C.,
2003), xxiv + 365 pp.
15. (Trans.), Boccaccio. Famous Women (Cambridge, Mass., 2003),
xxiii,
282 pp. (paperback edition, with minor changes; Latin text and
translation
first published in 2001 by the Harvard University Press).
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF VIRGINIA BROWN XV
16. S. Knight, trans.; V. Brown and S. Knight, ed., Leon Battista
Alberti. Momus, I Tatti Renaissance Library 8 (Cambridge, Mass.,
2003), xxviii,
420 pp.
ARTICLES
1. «The “Insular Intermediary” in the Tradition of Lucretius»,
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 72 (1968) 301-308.
2. «A Latin Letter from Oxyrhynchus», Bulletin of the Institute of
Classi- cal Studies (University of London) 17 (1970) 136-43 and
plate.
3. «An Edition of an Anonymous Twelfth-Century Liber de natura deo-
rum», Mediaeval Studies 34 (1972) 1-70.
4. «Giovanni Argiropulo on the Agent Intellect», in Essays in
Honour of Anton Charles Pegis, ed. J.R. O’Donnell (Toronto, 1974),
pp. 150-65.
5. «Gaius Julius Caesar», in Catalogus translationum et
commentariorum,
ed. F.E. Cranz-P.O. Kristeller, vol. 3 (Washington, D.C., 1976),
pp. 87-
139.
6. «Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella», ibid. 173-93.
7. «Lupus of Ferrières on the Metres of Boethius», in Latin Script
and Let- ters A.D. 400-900. Festschrift Presented to Ludwig Bieler,
ed. J.J. O’Meara-
B. Naumann (Leiden, 1976), pp. 63-79.
8. «A Second New List of Beneventan Manuscripts (I) », Mediaeval
Stud- ies 40 (1978) 239-89.
9. «Latin Manuscripts of Caesar’s Gallic War», in Palaeographica,
diplo- matica et archivistica. Studi in onore di Giulio Battelli,
ed. A. Pratesi, vol.
1 (Rome, 1979), pp. 105-57.
10. «Marcius Porcius Cato», in Catalogus translationum et
commentari- orum, ed. F.E. Cranz-P.O. Kristeller, vol. 4
(Washington, D.C., 1980), pp.
223-47.
11. «Marcus Terentius Varro», ibid., pp. 451-500.
12. «Portraits of Julius Caesar in Latin Manuscripts of the
Commentaries», Viator 12 (1981) 319-53 and 7 plates.
13. «The Survival of Beneventan Script: Sixteenth-Century
Liturgical
Codices from Benedictine Monasteries in Naples», in Monastica.
Scritti raccolti in memoria del IV centenario della nascita di S.
Benedetto (480- 1980), ed. F. Avagliano, vol. 1 (Montecassino,
1981), pp. 237-355 and 8
plates.
14. «Pastorale, Mysticum, Peccatorium: A Beneventan Manuscript
from
Telese and the Normans in Southern Italy», Scrittura e civiltà 7
(1983)
113-40 and 4 plates.
15. «A New Beneventan Calendar from Naples: The Lost
“Kalendarium
Tutinianum” Rediscovered», Mediaeval Studies 46 (1984) 385-449
and
14 plates.
16. (with B. Bischoff), «Addenda to Codices latini antiquiores»,
Mediae- val Studies 47 (1985) 317-66 and 18 plates.
17. «“Iohanna de Rouado” (Scribe) and a Manuscript of Virgil from
Bres-
cia», Fenway Court. Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. 1986, pp.
20-29
and 5 figs.
18. «Two Humanist Annotators of Virgil: Coluccio Salutati and
Giovanni
Tortelli», in Supplementum festivum. Studies in Honor of Paul Oskar
Kris- teller, ed. J. Hankins-J. Monfasani-F. Purnell, Jr.
(Binghamton, N.Y., 1987),
pp. 65-66, 91-148 and plate.
19. «A New Commentary on Matthew in Beneventan Script at
Venosa»,
Mediaeval Studies 49 (1987) 443-65 and 6 plates.
20. «ASecond New List of Beneventan Manuscripts (II)», Mediaeval
Stud- ies 50 (1988) 584-625.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF VIRGINIA BROWN XVII
21. «A Twelfth-Century Commentary of German Origin on
Virgil’s
Eclogues (Vat. Pal. Lat. 1695)», in Scire litteras. Forschungen zum
mittel- alterlichen Geistesleben, ed. S. Krämer-M. Bernhard
(Munich, 1988), pp.
73-86.
Mediaeval Studies 51 (1989) 424-66 and 4 plates.
23. (with C. Kallendorf), «Maffeo Vegio’s Book XIII to Virgil’s
Aeneid: A
Checklist of Manuscripts», Scriptorium 44 (1990) 107-25.
24. «A Homiliarium in Beneventan Script at Salerno», La specola:
Bol- lettino della Società salernitana di bibliologia e bibliofilia
1 (1991) 9-47
(including 6 plates).
25. «Boccaccio in Naples: The Beneventan Liturgical Palimpsest of
the
Laurentian Autographs (MSS. 29.8 and 33.31)», Italia medioevale e
uma- nistica 34 (1991) 41-127 and 6 plates.
26. (with B. Bischoff and J.J. John), «Addenda to Codices latini
antiquiores (II)», Mediaeval Studies 54 (1992) 286-307 and 6
plates.
27. «The Chronographia tripertita of Anastasius Bibliothecarius:
New
Fragments in Beneventan Script at Altamura and Matera», Altamura.
Ri- vista storica/Bollettino dell’A.B.M.C. 35 (1993) 129-40
(including 2 plates).
28. (with F. Mottola), «Per la storia della chiesa medievale di
Salerno: una
nuova fonte in scrittura beneventana (sec. XII/XIII)», Quellen und
Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 73 (1993)
658-
63.
29. «A Second New List of Beneventan Manuscripts (III)», Mediaeval
Studies 56 (1994) 299-350.
30. «In the Shadow of Montecassino: Beneventan Script in the
Province
of Frosinone», in In the Shadow of Montecassino. Nuove ricerche dai
fram- menti di codice dell’Archivio di Stato di Frosinone, ed. R.
Santoro et al.
(Frosinone, 1995), pp. 15-54, with 16 plates and Italian summary on
pp. 55-
58.
31. «Ad Maronis Mausoleum: Some Liturgical Considerations», Studi
petrarcheschi 9 (1992) 1-8.
32. «Beneventan Fragments in the Biblioteca della Società
Napoletana di
Storia Patria», Archivio storico per le province napoletane 113
(1995) 7-
68 (including 16 plates, pp. 53-68).
33. «Parerga beneventana. New C.L.A. Membra Disiecta in Naples
and
Rome», Mediaeval Studies 58 (1996) 289-303 and 4 plates.
34. «Parerga beneventana. Ambrogio Traversari’s Revision of the
Chron- icon casinense and the Dialogi de miraculis s. Benedicti:
The Oldest Man-
uscript Rediscovered», Mediaeval Studies 58 (1996) 327-38.
35. «Beneventana», in Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, vol.
2
(Stuttgart-Weimar, 1997), cols. 562-63 and 2 plates.
36. «Between the Convent and the Court: Boccaccio and a Beneventan
Grad-
ual from Naples» in Gli Zibaldoni di Boccaccio: memoria, scrittura,
riscrit- tura. Atti del Seminario internazionale di
Firenze-Certaldo (26-28 aprile 1996), ed. M. Picone-C. Cazalé
Bérard (Florence, 1998), pp. 307-13.
37. «Vitae vergilianae in Unpublished Virgilian Commentaries (Saec.
XV
and XVI)», in Style and Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell
Clausen,
ed. P. Knox-C. Foss (Stuttgart-Leipzig, 1998), pp. 174-98.
38. «The Montevergine 6 Codex and Sixteenth-Century Beneventan
Script
in Naples», in Per la storia del Mezzogiorno medievale e moderno.
Studi in memoria di Jole Mazzoleni, ed. S. Palmieri, Pubblicazioni
degli Archivi
di Stato, Saggi 48 (Rome, 1998), pp. 407-18.
39. «Early Evidence for the Beneventan Missal: Palimpsest Texts
(saec.
X/XI) in Montecassino 271», Mediaeval Studies 60 (1998) 239-306
and
4 plates.
40. «Homiletic Setting and a New Witness to Redaction I of the
Visio Sanc- ti Pauli: Funeral Sermons in Beneventan Script (Vat.
Borghese 86)», in
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF VIRGINIA BROWN XIX
Roma, magistra mundi. Itineraria culturae medievalis. Mélanges
offerts au Père L.E. Boyle à l’occasion de son 75e anniversaire,
ed. J. Hamesse,
Textes et études du Moyen Âge, 10,1 (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1998), pp.
71-
88.
41. «Origine et provenance des manuscrits bénéventains conservés à
la
Bibliothèque Capitulaire» and «Bibliographie», in La cathédrale de
Bénévent, ed. T.F. Kelly (Royaumont-Ghent, 1999), pp. 149-65, with
7
plates and pp. 221-29.
42. «A Second New List of Beneventan Manuscripts (IV)», Mediaeval
Studies 61 (1999) 325-92.
43. «Treasures of Montecassino», in Amici. The Newsletter of the
Friends of the Library, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 7
(fall, 1999) 3-4.
44. «Beneventan Script» (contribution to the CD-ROM «Testi antichi
della
Biblioteca “P. Siciliani”» produced by the Biblioteca Comunale,
Galati-
na, on its medieval and Renaissance holdings).
45. «“Where Have All the Grammars Gone?” The Survival of
Grammat-
ical Texts in Beneventan Script», in Manuscripts and Tradition of
Gram- matical Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Proceedings
of a Confer- ence Held at Erice. 16-23 October 1997, as the XIth
Course of International School for the Study of Written Records,
ed. M. De Nonno-P. De Paolis-L.
Holtz (Cassino, 2000), pp. 389-414.
46. «Gasparino Barzizza and Virgil», in Gasparino Barzizza e la
rinasci- ta degli studi classici: fra continuità e rinnovamento.
Seminario di studi. Napoli – Palazzo Sforza, 11 aprile 1997, ed. L.
Gualdo Rosa, Annali del-
l’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, Dipartimento di studi
del
mondo classico e del mediterraneo antico, sezione
filologico-letteraria 21
(Naples, 1999), pp. 189-208.
47. «Pro communi doctorum virorum commodo: Leonard E. Boyle,
O.P.
(1923-1999)», Scrittura e civiltà 24 (2000) 429-47.
tema36_voorwerk 19-02-2008 08:31 Pagina XIX
XX BIBLIOGRAPHY OF VIRGINIA BROWN
48. «New Documents at Rieti for the Monasteries of San Benedetto
ad
Xenodochium and Santa Sofia in Ninth-Century Benevento», Mediaeval
Studies 63 (2001) 337-51 and 2 plates.
49. «Research at the Vatican Library Still Continuing ... », in
Amici. Amer- ican Friends of the Vatican Library 32 (2001) 1,
3.
50. «Sermones pro defunctis in Beneventan Script (Vat. Borghese
86)», in
Opera et veritate. Studi in memoria di mons. Raffaele Calabrìa,
arcivesco- vo di Benevento (1960-1982), ed. M. Iadanza (Benevento,
2002), pp. 11-32.
51. «Il messale medievale e le “Missae votivae”: esempi di pratica
monas-
tica in area beneventana», in Il monaco, il libro, la biblioteca.
Atti del Con- vegno Cassino -- Montecassino 5-8 settembre 2000, ed.
O. Pecere (Cassi-
no, 2003), pp. 119-53.
52. «Lowe, Elias Avery», in Dictionary of British Classicists,
1500-1960,
ed. R.B. Todd et al., vol. 3 (Bristol, 2004), pp. 592-94.
53. «Contenuti, funzione e origine della “Bibbia di San Vincenzo
al
Volturno” (Roma, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, D 8)», Nuovi annali
della Scuo- la speciale per archivisti e biblioteca 18 (2004)
37-60.
54. «Latin and Italian Prayers in a Sixteenth-Century Beneventan
Manu-
script from Naples», in Ritual, Text and Law: Studies in Medieval
Canon Law and Liturgy Presented to Roger E. Reynolds, ed. K.G.
Cushing-R.F.
Gyug (Aldershot, Eng.-Burlington, VT, 2004), pp. 95-131, including
9
plates.
55. «I libri della Bibbia nell’Italia meridionale longobarda», in
Forme e modelli della tradizione manoscritta della Bibbia, ed. P.
Cherubini, Lit-
tera Antiqua 13 (Vatican City, 2005), pp. 281-307 and plates
22-24.
56. «E.A. Lowe and the Making of The Beneventan Script»,
Miscellanea Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae 13 (2006) 27-89,
including 3 plates.
57. «Palimpsested Texts in Beneventan Script: A Handlist with Some
Iden-
tifications», in Early Medieval Palimpsests. Acts of a Conference
Held in
tema36_voorwerk 19-02-2008 08:31 Pagina XX
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF VIRGINIA BROWN XXI
Brussels, 26-28 September 2002, ed. G. Declercq, Bibliologia 26
(Turn-
hout, 2006), pp. 99-144.
58. «Two Beneventan Scribes and the Verses of Paulus Diaconus et
monachus in Montecassino, Archivio dell’Abbazia, 349», Segno e
testo,
5 (2007), pp. 227-62 (4 plates).
CATALOGUES
Bookhands of the Middle Ages: Part IV. Beneventan Script. Bernard
Quar- itch Catalogue 1128 (London, 1990).
Descriptions of Montecassino MSS. 127, 271, 426, 559 in I Fiori
e’Frut- ti santi. S. Benedetto, la Regola, la santità nelle
testimonianze dei mano- scritti cassinesi, ed. M. Dell’Omo
(Montecassino, 1998), pp. 154-56, 130-
31, 152-53, 148-49.
Guide to the exhibit of «Treasures of Montecassino» (Pontifical
Institute
of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto, 25-28 October, 1999).
Descriptions of Split, Riznica Katedrale, Kaptolski Arhiv, MS. D
623 and
Trogir, Riznica Katedrale, Chapter Library, S.N. (Evangelistarium),
S.N.
(Epistolarium), in Tesori della Croazia (Venice, 2001), pp. 166-71
(nos.
67-68), 172-75 (no. 70).
(Editor-in-Chief, with Associate Editors J. Hankins and R.A.
Kaster), Ca- talogus translationum et commentariorum, vol. 9
(Washington, D.C.: The
Catholic University of America Press).
tema36_voorwerk 19-02-2008 08:31 Pagina XXI
ARTICLES
«A Second New List of Beneventan Manuscripts (V)», Mediaeval Stud-
ies.
«Beneventan Script and Liturgy at Veroli», in Studi per il
tercentenario della nascita di Vittorio Giovardi, ed. P. Scaccia
Scarafoni.
«Latin Classical Authors in the Sapientiale of Thomas of York», in
Inter- national Journal of the Classical Tradition.
XXII BIBLIOGRAPHY OF VIRGINIA BROWN
CLASSICA
SUL FRAMMENTO DEI GETICA DI GIORDANO CONSERVATO A LOSANNA∗
Il più antico ed autorevole testimone contenente le opere dello
storico bizantino Giordano (il De summa temporum vel origine
actibusque gentis Romanorum o Romana e il De origine actibusque
Getarum o Getica)1 era il cosiddetto «Codex Heidelbergensis»,
risalente all’VIII secolo e per lungo tempo conservato, con la
segnatura Palatino latino 921, alla Universitäts-bibliothek di
Heidelberg.
Ecco la scheda di descrizione del manoscritto offerta dal Lowe
nell’VIII volume dei Codices latini antiquiores (d’ora in poi CLA):
«1224. – [HEIDELBERG, UNIV.-BIBL. PALAT. LAT. 921]
ANGLO-SAXON MINUSCULE, SAEC. VIII-IX ¶ IORDANES, ROMANA, GETICA
(imperf.). Foll. 220; written in long lines. Script is Anglo-Saxon
minuscule of a type practised on the Continent, with rather long
descenders, including those of r and s. An Old High German gloss
occurs. Written in a German scriptorium in the Mainz region.
Belonged to the Mainz Cathedral Library, as is attested by the
well-known entry «iste liber pertinet ad librariam sancti Martini
ecclesie Maguntin. M(acarius) Sindicus subscripsit 1479» (fol. 1).
Migrated to Rome in 1622, and from there to Paris during the
Napoleonic wars. Restored to Heidelberg after the Vienna treaty in
1815. Perished in 1880 with three other Iordanes manuscripts in the
fire in Theodor Mommsen’s house. No exact facsimile exists. The
hand-drawn picture which we reproduce from Wilken is against the
assumption that the Lausanne fragment formed part of our
manuscript».
Come si può desumere dalla bibliografia relativa al manoscritto
posta in calce al volume2, il Lowe predispose la sua scheda
attingendo sia al lavoro dello storico
∗ È doveroso esprimere un particolare ringraziamento al prof. James
J. John per l’attenta lettura e i suoi generosi consigli. 1 Per le
quali, si veda Iordanis Romana et Getica, ed. by Theodor Mommsen,
Weidmann, Berlin 1882 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores
Antiquissimi 5), rispettivamente alle pp. 1-52 (Romana) e 53-138
(Getica). Per quest’ultima opera, si veda anche il vol. LXIX della
PL (Patrologiae Latinae cursus completus seu Bibliotheca
universalis... omnium SS. Patrum... Series latina in qua prodeunt
Patres... Ecclesiae Latinae, cur. Jacques Paul Migne, voll.
I-CCXXI, Paris 1844-1864), dove, in appendice all’opera di
Cassiodoro, si trova il testo di Giordano (coll. 1251-1296); e la
recente edizione Iordanis De origine actibusque Getarum, a cura di
Francesco Giunta-Antonio Grillone, Istituto storico italiano per il
Medioevo, Roma 1991 («Fonti per la Storia d’Italia» 117). 2 Cfr.
CLA, VIII, p. 69.
S. BERTELLI 2
tedesco Friedrich Wilken3, sia alla descrizione del codice fornita
dal Mommsen per l’edizione delle opere di Giordano4. Confrontando
di nuovo queste informazioni è possibile però apportare alcune
rettifiche alla scheda presente nei CLA. Ecco quanto scriveva il
Mommsen in fase di descrizione esterna del codice:
«membr. formae quadratae maioris scriptus est saec. VIII potius
quam IX in Germania ..., fortasse Fuldae, unde plures codices
similis scripturae venerunt in monasterium S. Martini Mogontiaci a.
1037 conditum: translatos eo esse per Marianum Scotum probabiliter
coniecit Giesebrechtius... quaterniones fuerunt quindecim, quorum
cum perierint primus et postremi folia duo postrema, remanserunt
folia scripta 110 (numerantur folia 112, scilicet 1. 2. 112 vacua
sunt, f. 17 errore duplicatum)... Litteratura est evidentissima et
optima formae Anglosaxonicae: a littera saepe aperta est, i eminens
aliquoties adest. Emendatus est liber saeculo nono decimove naevis
sublatis ab grammatista quodam, modeste tamen et ut paucis locis
exceptis antiqua lectio adhuc cernatur»5. Dunque, il «Codex
Heidelbergensis» 921 doveva avere una consistenza
originaria di 120 fogli6, distribuiti su di una struttura
fascicolare in quaterni, alla quale all’epoca del Mommsen mancavano
l’intero fascicolo iniziale e il primo e l’ultimo foglio del
fascicolo finale, cioè del 15° quaderno7. Ciò significa che il
codice di Heidelberg conteneva una versione acefala dei Romana e un
testo lacunoso e mutilo dei Getica. L’incendio del 12 luglio 1880
della casa del Mommsen sembrava aver posto fine all’esistenza di
questo importante testimone8, del quale quindi sopravviveva
soltanto un’immagine minutissima (tre linee di scrittura), quella
riprodotta da Wilken. Tuttavia, agli inizi del secolo appena
trascorso, durante uno studio sui monumenti medievali della cultura
materiale del Cantone di Vaud, il Besson9 si imbatté in un
frammento di codice molto antico, all’epoca conservato nel Musée
d’historiographie vaudoise10 ed ora passato alla Bibliothèque
cantonale et universitaire, dov’è collocato alla segnatura Ms. 398.
Il
3 Cfr. F. Wilken, Geschichte der Bildung, Beraubung und Vernichtung
der alten Heidelbergischen Büchersammlungen. Ein Beytrag zur
Literargeschichte vornehmlich des fünfzehnten und sechszehnten
Jahrhunderts, A. Oswald, Heidelberg 1817; una breve descrizione del
codice Palatino 921 si trova alle pp. 296-297. Si ringrazia Marco
Palma per la generosa disponibilità dimostrata in occasione della
consultazione e trascrizione delle informazioni sul manoscritto
offerte dal volume del Wilken conservato in Vaticana. 4 Cfr.
Mommsen, Iordanis Romana et Getica, pp. XLVII-XLVIII. 5 Cfr. ibid.,
p. XLVII. 6 La genesi dell’errata indicazione del Lowe («Foll.
220») è da ricondurre a Wilken. 7 La lacuna era stata già segnalata
anche dallo stesso Wilken («Desunt principium et extrema»). 8 Sulla
tragedia che colpì il Mommsen e che distrusse quasi completamente
la sua biblioteca di Charlottenburg, cfr. Oliviero Diliberto, La
biblioteca stregata: tracce dei libri di Theodor Mommsen in Italia,
Nuova ed. interamente rifatta ed ampliata, Robin, Roma 2003 («Libri
grigi» 4). 9 Cfr. Marius Besson, L’art barbare dans l’ancien
diocèse de Lausanne, Librairie F. Rouge & Cie, Lausanne 1909.
10 Fondato nel 1896 da Paul Vionnet (1830-1914). Gli archivi della
famiglia Vionnet — contenenti corrispondenza varia, carte di lavoro
e materiale diverso — si trovano conservati, in apposito fondo (con
segnatura IS 1909) al Cabinet des estampes de la Bibliothèque
cantonale et universitaire.
SUL FRAMMENTO DEI GETICA 3
frammento è costituito dalla metà inferiore dell’ultimo foglio di
un manoscritto contenente i Getica di Giordano, il ché consentì
naturalmente al Besson di avanzare l’ipotesi che il membrum
disiectum losannese provenisse proprio dal perduto «Codex
Heidelbergensis»11.
L’obiettivo del presente contributo sarà dunque duplice: in primis,
di segnalare il frammento all’attenzione degli studiosi, poiché per
qualche ragione è sfuggito, nonostante la citazione del Lowe, al
censimento dei CLA12; in secondo luogo, di verificare
l’attendibilità dell’ipotesi del Besson.
Il frammento di Losanna (cfr. Tavv. I e IIa), come accennato,
contiene, su 12 linee di scrittura a piena pagina per ciascuna
facciata, la parte conclusiva dei Getica, in particolare: f. 1r da
[Bar]baricos Vitiges in regno levatus, Romam ingreditur = Get.,
cap. LX, par. 310
a obsidione longa evellere cupiunt = Get., cap. LX, par. 312 f. 1v
da et virorum fortium facta. Haec laudanda progenies = Get., cap.
LX, par. 315 a quantum ad laudem eius qui vicit exponens = Get.,
cap. LX, par. 316
a cui seguono tre linee di colophon (in rosso e in caratteri
maiuscoli), ossia: Explicit de antiquitate Getarum actusque eorum
[quos devicit] Iustinianus imperator per fidem reipublicae
[Belesarium consulem].
La metà superiore del foglio doveva quindi contenere per lo meno
altre 14 linee di scrittura, di modo che, sul recto, si trovasse il
testo dei paragrafi 308 e 309, e sul verso, il testo della
rimanente parte del paragrafo 312 e quello dei paragrafi 313 e
314.
Le dimensioni del frammento sono di mm 145 (altezza) × 183
(larghezza). Il cattivo stato di conservazione non consente di
rilevare l’eventuale schema di rigatura13. Tuttavia, tenendo
presente che il margine inferiore non sembra aver subìto grandi
alterazioni e considerando che tra una linea di scrittura e l’altra
intercorre uno spazio di circa 8 mm, è possibile determinare con
qualche approssimazione l’altezza del manoscritto originario. I 145
mm di altezza sono ora suddivisi in 98 mm di specchio di scrittura
(ossia 12 linee × circa 8 mm) più 47
11 Cfr. Besson, L’art barbare, p. 126. 12 Infatti, non è presente,
né all’interno del vol. VII (relativo alla Svizzera), né si trova
descritto nel Supplementum, così come non compare nella lista delle
successive Addenda (cfr. Bernhard Bischoff — Virginia Brown,
«Addenda to Codices Latini Antiquiores», Mediaeval Studies 47
[1985] 317-366; Bernhard Bischoff — Virginia Brown — James J. John,
«Addenda to Codices Latini Antiquiores [II]», Mediaeval Studies 54
[1992] 286-307; della stessa Brown, si veda anche «New C.L.A.
membra disiecta in Naples and Rome», Mediaeval Studies 58 [1996]
291-303). 13 Il recto reca diffuse macchie di umidità, che
compromettono in più luoghi l’intelligenza del testo. Inoltre il
frammento mostra le tracce di alcune piegature lungo i margini
dello specchio di scrittura, che fanno pensare all’adattamento
della pergamena al formato di un altro libro. Se così fosse, il
frammento avrebbe ricoperto il ruolo di carta di guardia.
S. BERTELLI 4
mm di margine inferiore; considerando che il margine superiore è
solitamente circa la metà di quello inferiore (dunque
approssimativamente 23 mm) e che il testo mancante tra il recto e
il verso del frammento doveva essere distribuito su 14 linee di
scrittura (dunque 14 × 8 mm = 112 mm), dovremmo aggiungere ai 145
mm attuali per lo meno altri 135 mm, in modo tale da ottenere
un’altezza complessiva molto prossima ai 280 mm. Quanto alla
larghezza del codice originario, è da dire che non doveva
discostarsi poi molto dagli attuali 183 mm attestati dal frammento.
Infatti, il margine interno misura circa 18 mm e non dovrebbe aver
subìto rilevanti asportazioni di supporto; lo specchio di scrittura
misura circa 150 mm; e il margine esterno è di 15 mm. Supponendo
quindi che siano stati asportati alcuni millimetri al margine
interno (intorno ai 5) e una porzione più consistente a quello
esterno (tra i 25 e i 35 mm) otterremmo una larghezza
approssimativa compresa tra i 200 e i 210 mm.
La scrittura è una minuscola anglosassone piuttosto omogenea e
calligrafica, frutto evidentemente di un amanuense molto abile. La
catena grafica è caratterizzata da un’ottima distribuzione degli
spazi (tra le linee, le parole e le lettere) e dal prolungamento
piuttosto accentuato delle aste ascendenti e discendenti, che
mostrano distintamente anche i caratteristici allargamenti in forma
di triangolo all’inizio delle aste stesse.
La morfologia delle lettere è conforme agli esempi di minuscola
anglosassone appartenenti alla seconda metà avanzata dell’VIII
secolo, o, al più tardi, ai primissimi decenni del
successivo14:
- a prevalentemente eseguita con un occhiello piuttosto sviluppato
e
con la «spalla» che raramente oltrepassa il corpo della lettera; -
d realizzata in duplice forma: quella onciale, con l’asta
talvolta
molto contenuta, realizzata in corpo di parola; e quella con l’asta
dritta e il corpo della lettera lasciato aperto eseguita
sistematicamente all’inizio di parola (con un’unica eccezione
rappresentata da ad eorum di v l. 9);
- e di modulo ampio, alta, con l’occhiello cioè che molto spesso si
eleva abbondantemente sopra all’ipotetica linea superiore del corpo
delle altre lettere;
14 Sembrerebbero propensi ad ascriverlo a quest’ultimo periodo sia
Herrad Spilling, «Angelsächsische Schrift in Fulda», in Artur Brall
(ed.), Von der Klosterbibliothek zur Landesbibliothek. Beiträge zum
zweihundertjährigen Bestehen der Hessischen Landesbibliothek Fulda,
A. Hiersemann, Stuttgart 1978, pp. 47-98, che ritiene la sua
scrittura simile a quella del manoscritto Firenze, Biblioteca
Medicea Laurenziana, San Marco 610 (databile agli anni 825-830
ca.), sia Bernhard Bischoff, «Paläographische Fragen deutscher
Denkmäler der Karolingerzeit», Frühmittelalterliche Studien 5
(1971) 101-134, che invece lo associa (p. 110) ad un codice di
Kassel contenente Paolo Diacono (scritto a Fulda nel secondo quarto
del sec. IX).
SUL FRAMMENTO DEI GETICA 5
- f eseguita col terzo tratto (quello di stacco) piuttosto marcato
e leggermente abbassato al di sotto dell’ipotetica linea inferiore
del corpo delle altre lettere;
- g si presenta generalmente piuttosto sviluppata, col tratto di
stacco della parte inferiore che si richiude sull’asta a formare un
occhiello;
- I di forma allungata regolarmente eseguita all’inizio di parola
(ad eccezione di ipsis a v l. 8);
- n eseguita sporadicamente in forma maiuscola in contesti dove
questa non sarebbe richiesta (r l. 4, inter); in questo caso la
lettera si presenta con i due tratti laterali ben distanziati (col
primo leggermente più prolungato del secondo) e con l’articulus
centrale disposto orizzontalmente rispetto alla base di
scrittura;
- q si presenta col corpo della lettera piuttosto sviluppato e
affusolato; - r il cui tratto finale mostra un andamento
tendenzialmente obliquo
rispetto alla riga di base; - s col tratto di stacco che accenna a
discendere verso la base di
scrittura.
Il sistema delle legature sembrerebbe abbastanza ricco: oltre a
quelle originate dagli incontri naturali, spontanei dei tratti
finali con quelli iniziali fra lettere contigue (come, per esempio,
accade per ed, eg, ei, em, en, er, es, ti, tu, etc.), sono da
segnalare le legature di et (per esprimere la congiunzione), di si
(r l. 1, praemissisque; r l. 2, fidelissimis; r l. 2, sibi, etc.) e
quella di ti, con la i «appesa» alla t (come accade in inquirenti,
v l. 5). Anche il ricorso alle abbreviazioni risulta piuttosto
nutrito. Si rilevano per lo meno quelle tipiche di questa scrittura
e quelle meno diffuse, ossia:
- b seguita da un tratto piuttosto prolungato a forma di 3, per
-bus (v ll.
2-3, aetatibus); - c rovesciata per con (v l. 3, consul); - c
rovesciata, accompagnata da un breve articulus che si
appoggia
appena al tratto semicurvo della lettera, per eius (v l. 9); -
Imptor e Imp con titulus soprascritto per Imperator (v l. 3 e v l.
11); - p con un piccolo apice inverso posto sulla destra del corpo
della
lettera, a indicare per (r l. 3, perficiunt; r l. 10, per; r l. 11,
Perusia);
- q seguita da un breve tratto eseguito di frego per -que (r ll. 5
e 10); - q seguita da due punti soprascritti e una piccola virgola
a mezza
altezza (:,), per quae (v l. 8); - reipb e titulus che taglia
l’asta della lettera b, per reipublicae (v l. 11).
S. BERTELLI 6
La punteggiatura documentata dal frammento è resa in forme molto
semplici:
la pausa breve è rappresentata prevalentemente da un punto
sormontato da un tratto obliquo (!), anche se in qualche caso
ricorre il solo punto (posto leggermente al di sopra della base di
scrittura) o un segno più complesso formato dalla sovrapposizione
di un punto, di un breve tratto leggermente ascendente e da un
comma (come accade dopo legisse, v l. 5); la pausa forte è invece
suggerita da un punto che sovrasta un segno a forma di 7 che scende
abbastanza decisamente sotto alla riga di base. Sono da notare
anche alcuni interventi correttivi, eseguiti sia da parte del
copista, che corregge due sviste a v ll. 3-4 (dove inizialmente
aveva scritto Van- dallrici, depennando successivamente la seconda
l e la r) e a v l. 7 (dove, dopo quam, aveva indicato
l’abbreviazione per quae, accortosi dell’errore ha soprascritto ve
alla q), sia per conto di una mano recenziore che spesso esegue dei
trattini sopra e sotto le lettere per indicare la separazione delle
parole, e che a v l. 5 corregge latissima prata in latissimo prato
soprascrivendo alle a finali due piccole o. Se ora confrontiamo le
caratteristiche grafiche del frammento losannese con la
riproduzione del «Codex Heidelbergensis» 921 offerta da Wilken e
riportata dal Lowe nei CLA (cfr. Tav. IIb), possiamo notare come le
due scritture risultino sostanzialmente divergenti. Lo sviluppo
delle aste ascendenti e discendenti appare molto più contenuto nel
codice di Heidelberg rispetto al nostro frammento, che mostra
altresì una maggiore attenzione all’esecuzione omogenea delle
lettere. Le maggiori differenze dal punto di vista morfologico si
rilevano nella realizzazione delle seguenti lettere: la a nel
«Codex Heidelbergensis» presenta una forma prevalentemente simile a
quella della a di origine carolina, cioè con la «spalla» che
oltrepassa distintamente il corpo della lettera; la d con l’asta
dritta e il corpo della lettera lasciato aperto che si trova nel
frammento di Losanna all’inizio di parola non è eseguita nell’unica
occorrenza (l. 1, deinde) attestata dalla riproduzione del codice
di Heidelberg; la e non raggiunge mai l’altezza di quella del
frammento losannese e mostra un occhiello ridotto al minimo; la f
del codice di Heidelberg mostra il tratto finale appoggiato sulla
riga di base, mentre quella del frammento di Losanna si trova in
posizione leggermente più abbassata; la q nel frammento di
Heidelberg reca un occhiello rotondeggiante (l. 1, namque; l. 3,
oppressaque), mentre nel nostro membrum disiectum presenta un
occhiello decisamente affusolato; la r del codice di Heidelberg
mostra un tratto di stacco discendente in senso verticale rispetto
alla base di scrittura, mentre quella del frammento di Losanna
mostra un andamento tendenzialmente obliquo; la s presenta nel
codice di Heidelberg un tratto finale appena accennato e disposto
solitamente in senso orizzontale rispetto alla riga di base;
infine, la n maiuscola del frammento di Heidelberg (l. 1, namque)
si presenta
SUL FRAMMENTO DEI GETICA 7
di modulo ridotto, con le aste verticali piuttosto vicine e il
tratto centrale discendente da sinistra verso destra. Si tratta
dunque evidentemente di due scritture diverse. La supposizione del
Besson risulta quindi priva di qualsiasi fondamento, sebbene non
sia da escludere la possibilità che il «Codex Heidelbergensis» 921
fosse stato scritto da più mani. Quel che è certo, però, è che
siamo di fronte ad una nuova acquisizione e ad un copista finora
sconosciuto.
Tav. I. Lausanne, Bibliothèque cantonale et universitaire, Ms. 398,
f. 1r
S. BERTELLI 8
Tav. IIa. Lausanne, Bibliothèque cantonale et universitaire, Ms.
398, f. 1v
Tav. IIb. Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, Pal. lat. 921 (da
CLA, VIII, 1224)
GRETI DINKOVA-BRUUN (Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,
Toronto)
PROVERBIA SALOMONIS: AN ANONYMOUS ACCRETION TO PETER RIGA’S
AURORA
Despite its impressive length of over 15,000 verses, Peter Riga’s
biblical poem Aurora does not versify all the books of the Bible.
In fact, both the Old and the New Testament in Riga’s composition
are rather incomplete; missing from the Old Testament are the books
of Paralipomenon, Ezras, Psalmi, Prouerbia Salomonis, Ecclesiastes,
Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Hieremias, Baruch, Hieziechiel,
and almost all of the writings of the twelve Minor Prophets1. From
the New Testament only the Gospels and the Actus Apostolorum were
versified2. These «imperfections» of the Aurora inspired fervent
poetic activity, but while Riga’s New Testament was never
supplemented with any of the biblical epistolary or apocalyptic
material, his Old Testament was repeatedly expanded with new
anonymous compositions, only a few of which have been edited:
Cantica Canticorum Beate Marie, Liber Ecclesiastes, and Liber Esdre
Prophete3. The present article strives to remedy this situation by
presenting a critical edition and a short study of yet another
anonymous accretion to the Aurora, the 300-hexameters- long
Prouerbia Salomonis. I. MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF THE VERSE PROVERBIA
SALOMONIS The poem is found in eight manuscripts, seven of which
contain the complete poem incorporated into the text of the Aurora.
The remaining one, preserved in the Royal Library of Copenhagen
(see below, K) exhibits only a fragment of 41 verses,
1 They are briefly mentioned in Riga’s Recapitulationes, vv.
411-466. See P. Beichner, Aurora Petri Rigae Versificata, 2 vols.,
University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN, 1965, 2, 622-624. 2
The Actus Apostolorum, Cantica Canticorum and Liber Iob were added
only in the third and final redaction of the work. See Beichner,
Aurora, 1, xix. 3 See P. Beichner, «Cantica Canticorum Beate
Marie», Marianum. Ephemerides Mariologicae XXI, fasc. II (1959)
1-15; G. Dinkova-Bruun, «Liber Ecclesiastes: An Anonymous Poem
Incorporated in Peter Riga’s Aurora (Ott. Lat. 399)», Miscellanea
Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae VIII, Studi e Testi 402 (2001),
159-172; and G. Dinkova-Bruun, «The Story of Ezra: A Versification
Added to Peter Riga’s Aurora», in S. Echard and G. Wieland (eds.),
Anglo-Latin and its Heritage: Essays in Honour of A.G. Rigg on his
64th Birthday, Brepols, Turnhout 2001, pp. 163-188 (Publications of
The Journal of Medieval Latin 4), where further information on the
other anonymous accretions can be found on pp. 164-165.
G. DINKOVA-BRUUN 10
which are randomly excerpted from the poem and follow Hugutio’s
Deriuationes4. Eight witnesses is a relatively high number for an
anonymous addition to the Aurora; with the exception of the
Lamentationes Ieremie Prophete, which I have seen in 53
manuscripts, the remaining anonymous poems are found in a single
codex or a relatively restricted number of codices. With the
exception of I and K, the provenance of the manuscripts preserving
the Prouerbia Salomonis is unknown. They are (in order of
approximate date): B = Bruxelles, Bibliothèque Royale, Ms. 14881
(cat. no. 182) (saec. XIII), ff. 1r-241v5. Contains the third
medieval edition of the Aurora to which the Lamentationes Ieremie
and the Prouerbia Salomonis are added. Order of books: Octateuch,
I-IV Regum, Recapitulationes from verse 385 to end, Lamentationes
Ieremie on an added quire, Daniel, Tobias, Iudith, Hester, Machabei
to verse 440, Iob on an added quire, Cantica Canticorum, Prouerbia
Salomonis (ff. 184r-189v), Euangelia, Recapitulationes from verse 1
to verse 384, Actus Apostolorum from verse 1 to verse 43. Both
marginal and interlinear glosses are present, especially in the
Octateuch. M = Montecassino, Biblioteca della Abbazia, Ms. 369
(saec. XIII), pp. 1-216. Contains the third medieval edition of the
Aurora with the first redaction of Aegidius of Paris, the
Lamentationes Ieremie and the Prouerbia Salomonis. Order of books:
Prefatory material6, Octateuch, I-IV Regum, Daniel, Tobias, Iudith,
Hester, Machabei, Recapitulationes, prose prologue to Gospels,
Euangelia, Actus Apostolorum, Prouerbia Salomonis (pp. 183-187),
Cantica Canticorum, Lamen- tationes Ieremie, Iob. L = Firenze,
Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Ms. Plut. 15.2 (saec. XIIIex.), ff.
1r-321r. Contains the third medieval edition of the Aurora with the
two later redactions of Aegidius of Paris7, the Lamentationes
Ieremie and the Prouerbia Salomonis. Order of books: Prefatory
material8, Octateuch, I-III Regum, Cantica Canticorum, IV Regum,
Lamentationes Ieremie, Daniel, Iob, Tobias, Iudith, Hester,
Machabei, Recapitulationes, De penis inferni by Aegidius, Mysterium
de agno paschali by Aegidius, Euangelia, Prouerbia Salomonis (ff.
301r-305r), Actus Apostolorum.
4 See E. Jørgensen, Catalogus codicum latinorum medii aevi
Bibliothecae Regiae Hafniensis, Gyldendal, København 1926, pp.
343-344. 5 See J. van den Gheyn, Catalogue des manuscrits de la
Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique, vol. 1: Écriture sainte et
liturgie, Henri Lamertin, Bruxelles 1901, p. 85. 6 See Beichner,
Aurora, 1, 3-8 (nos. 1-4). 7 See Beichner, Aurora, 1, xx-xxiv. Some
of Aegidius’s verses are marked in this manuscript with a dot in
the margin. 8 See note 6 above.
PROVERBIA SALOMONIS: AN ANONYMOUS ACCRETION 11
O = Vaticano, Città del, BAV, Ms. Ottob. lat. 399 (saec. XIIIex.),
ff. 2r-257v. Contains the third medieval edition of the Aurora with
the two later redactions of Aegidius of Paris, the Lamentationes
Ieremie, the Prouerbia Salomonis, Ecclesiastes, and Matthew of
Vendôme’s Tobias. Order of books: Prefatory material9, Octateuch
with Mysterium de agno paschali by Aegidius included in Exodus,
I-IV Regum, Tobias, Matthew of Vendôme’s Tobias, Iudith, Hester,
Daniel, Machabei, Cantica Canticorum, Iob, Prouerbia Salomonis (ff.
168r-171r), Ecclesiastes, Lamentationes Ieremie, prose prologue to
Gospels, Euangelia, Actus Apostolorum, Recapitulationes. I =
Innsbruck, Universitätsbibliothek, Ms. 280 (saec. XIV), ff.
1r-277r. Provenance: probably the Cistercian Abbey of Stams in
Austria10. It contains the third medieval edition of the Old
Testament of the Aurora with the two later redactions of Aegidius
of Paris, the Lamentationes Ieremie, the Prouerbia Salomonis, and
Ecclesiastes. Order of books: Prefatory material11, Octateuch with
Mysterium de agno paschali by Aegidius included in Exodus, I-IV
Regum, Tobias, Daniel, Hester, Iudith, Machabei, Cantica
Canticorum, Iob, Prouerbia Salomonis (ff. 259r-265v), Ecclesiastes,
Lamentationes Ieremie. Numerous glosses are present in the margins.
E = Engelberg, Stiftsbibliothek, Ms. 329 (saec. XIV, paper), ff.
2r-240v. Contains the third medieval edition of the Aurora with the
first redaction of Aegidius of Paris, the Lamentationes Ieremie,
the Prouerbia Salomonis, Ecclesiastes, and the Cantica Canticorum
Beate Marie. Order of books: Prefatory material12, Octateuch, I-IV
Regum, Tobias, Daniel, Hester, Iudith, Machabei, Cantica
Canticorum, Cantica Canticorum Beate Marie, Iob, Prouerbia
Salomonis (ff. 170v-173v), Ecclesiastes, Lamentationes Ieremie,
Floridus Aspectus by Peter Riga, Euangelia, Actus Apostolorum,
Recapitulationes, postscripts13. K = København, Kongelige
Bibliotek, Ms. Gl. Kgl. Saml. 426 fol. (saec. XIV), ff. 1r-137r. On
f. 1r is written: «Liber sancte Marie sanctique Johannis
euangeliste in Ciscemer», which identifies the manuscript as
belonging to the Benedictine Abbey of Saint Mary and Saint John the
Evangelist in Cismar, near Lübeck, Germany. It contains Hugutio’s
Deriuationes. After it, on f. 137r, a fragment of the Prouerbia
Salomonis is copied. It contains 41 verses apparently selected at
random
9 Same as in manuscripts L and M. 10 G. Kompatscher, Katalog der
Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Innsbruck, Teil 3: Cod.
201-300, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien 1999,
pp. 270-275. 11 See Beichner, Aurora, 1, 3-11 (nos. 1-7). 12 See
Beichner, Aurora, 1, 3-4 (no. 1). 13 See Beichner, Aurora, 1, 18-19
(nos. 14-16).
G. DINKOVA-BRUUN 12
from the poem unless they have been intended as examples for words
explained in the Deriuationes14. C = München, Bayerische
Staatsbibliothek, Clm 16230 (saec. XV, paper), ff. 1r-247r.
Contains the third medieval edition of the Old Testament of the
Aurora with the two later redactions of Aegidius of Paris, the
Lamentationes Ieremie, the Prouerbia Salomonis and Ecclesiastes.
Order of books: Prefatory material15, Octateuch with Mysterium de
agno paschali by Aegidius included in Exodus, I-IV Regum, Tobias,
Daniel, Hester, Iudith, Machabei, Cantica Canticorum, Iob,
Prouerbia Salomonis (ff. 231r-236v), Ecclesiastes, Lamentationes
Ieremie. The contents of this codex and the order of the books it
preserves suggest a close relationship with the Riga manuscript
from Innsbruck (see above, manuscript I). The manuscripts of the
Aurora that also contain the anonymous accretion Prouerbia
Salomonis fall into two groups. The first one comprises manuscripts
CEIO, which all place the Prouerbia between the book of Job and
Ecclesiastes, whereas in the rest of the witnesses (BLM) the
position of the poem is unstable: B copies it between the Song of
Songs and the Gospels, L between the Gospels and the Acts of the
Apostles, and M between the Acts and the Song of Songs16. This
major split in the manuscript tradition of the Prouerbia Salomonis
is also confirmed by the observations presented below. The
anonymous poem Prouerbia Salomonis is preserved in two distinct
formats: manuscripts CEO copy the poetic text uninterrupted by
prose rubrics, whereas manuscripts BLM combine direct quotations
from the Bible with their verse rendition. Manuscript I is a
special case; even though it contains the rubrics, they appear to
have been excerpted from the Bible independently from manuscripts
BLM, which means that the codex is more closely connected to the
CEO-branch of the tradition even though at a first glance it seems
otherwise17. Manuscript K, the
14 For the verses present in K (lines 5-7, 12-21, 27-30, 33-38,
46-48, 96-97, 120-121, 142-145, 174- 175, and 179-183), see the
edition of the entire poem. 15 See note 11 above. 16 Manuscript K,
which does not contain a copy of the Aurora, clearly cannot be
included in this discussion. 17 This conclusion is based on some
peculiarities found in I: first, it exhibits rubrics that are not
attested in manuscripts BLM (see Appendix I, verses 16, 40, and 90)
and omits others that are present in them (see Appendix I, rubrics
after verses 71, 85 and 135); second, on many occasions it provides
rubrics that are different from the ones in BLM (see Appendix I,
rubrics after verses 17, 115, 133, etc.); and third, it sometimes
introduces the rubrics in places that do not coincide with those in
BLM (see Appendix I, rubrics after verses 94 and 254). It is also
worth noting that many of the rubrics in I are often written twice,
once in the body of the poem and once in the margins, and often by
different hands. All in all, it is evident that the prose rubrics
in I belong to a different tradition than the ones found in
BLM.
PROVERBIA SALOMONIS: AN ANONYMOUS ACCRETION 13
fragmentary copy, does not have the rubrics but it is difficult to
establish whether they were also missing in its exemplar or were
merely left out like so many verses from the poem. The version of
the Aurora copied without the rubrics appears to be the original
for two reasons. First, some of the rubrics do not suit the actual
text of the poem18; and second, on at least one occasion a rubric
which is needed has not been provided19. These inconsistencies
suggest that the rubrics were probably added to the already
finished versification in an attempt to help the reader identify
the biblical references, as well as to create a version of the poem
which would fit the format of the remaining books of the Aurora,
all of which contain prose rubrics that break the text into shorter
and more manageable sections. For the same reasons, I have decided
to include the rubrics in my edition of the Prouerbia. Next, it is
worth investigating whether the verses are copied in the same order
in all the witnesses and whether lines have been omitted in any of
them. The instances (all recorded in the apparatus criticus) which
provide useful information in this regard are: 33-34 Versus 33-34
cum titulo praecedenti post uersum 36 posuerunt BLM 54 Versum 54
om. BLM 59 Versum 59 om. BLM 64-65 Versus 64-65 om. BLM 109 Versum
109 om. CEIO 160 Versum 160 om. L 174-75 Versus 174-175 ante uersum
153 posuerunt LM, semel ante uersum 153 et semel in hoc loco
scripserunt CEI, in hoc loco scripserunt BO 189 Versum 189 om. M
205-06 Versus 205 et 206 tr. M 207-08 Versus 207-208 cum titulo
praecedenti post uersum 214 posuit L 237-48 Versus 237-248 cum
titulo praecedenti post uersum 95 posuit M 240 Versum 240 om. BLM
249-300 Versus 249-300 cum titulo praecedenti post uersum 184
posuerunt BLM 266-67 Versus 266-267 om. L 291 Versum 291 om. CEIO
The differences are revealing. Not only is the already established
split CEIO/BLM confirmed yet again but also the relationships
between the individual manuscripts begin to emerge. It is evident
that branch CEIO preserves a much
18 See below, notes to verses 46 and 116 of the edition. 19 See
below, note to verse 185 of the edition.
G. DINKOVA-BRUUN 14
more uniform text than branch BLM, whose members, especially L and
M, exhibit peculiarities, such as omitting verses or displacing
them, traits not found in the other codices. Also, the order of the
verses in CEIO is definitely more acceptable than the one in BLM,
which place the versification of Prov. 30, 21-33 (vv. 249- 300)
before the versification of Prov. 27, 4 (v. 185). Finally, our
understanding of the relationship between the manuscripts
containing the anonymous Prouerbia Salomonis is expanded even
further through an examination of the textual variants found in
their poetic texts. A number of interesting conclusions can be
reached here: 1) All the manuscripts exhibit their own unique
errors, which suggests that none of them is a direct copy of
another20. By comparing the number of individual variants (titles
excluded), it becomes apparent that manuscripts CEIO transmit a
better text than manuscripts BLM; manuscript I preserves the best
text and manuscript M the worst. The manuscript that has been most
often corrected is E, which is not surprising considering the fact
that the codex also contains numerous interlinear glosses. The
table below shows the relevant figures:
MS Number of individual
Variants Number of corrections
I 2 9 C 5 3 K 8 (only 41 verses) 0 O 10 8 E 16 13 L 28 0 B 37 7 M
56 0
2) Within the two clearly defined branches of the tradition, the
following relationships emerge: first, manuscripts CEIO are all
direct copies of a lost exemplar; and second, manuscripts BM share
variants on at least ten occasions which suggests a common exemplar
once removed from the lost archetype of the BLM-branch21.
20 I provide selective examples here: 98 sana] uana B; 236 solium]
solum C; 104 dat] sed E; 242 lauat] lauit I; 12 hii] si K; 196
celos] celum L; 56 hoc] om. M; 117 gustum] mortem O. 21 All of
these conclusions are based on the variants presented in the
apparatus criticus (Appendix I). For the relationship of BM see,
for example, 8 male pendens] malefida BM; 35 incurret] incurrit BM,
incurrunt L; 50 propriatu] propriandi BM, propriando L, etc.
PROVERBIA SALOMONIS: AN ANONYMOUS ACCRETION 15
3) Because branch CEIO preserves a text of better quality, I have
often accepted the variants preserved in its manuscripts. However,
in some cases the variants of the two branches are equally
acceptable and, thus, interchangeable. For example, in verse 28, I
have chosen to print following manuscripts CEIO, «Contrahet ille
notam peccati puluere plenam», though the text in manuscripts BLM
also makes sense: «Contrahet ille notam peccati uulnere plenam».
Another example is found in verse 66 where both branches of the
tradition present acceptable versions: «Accipe per foueam sedes
sordentis Auerni» (CEIO) and «Accipe per foueam sedem torpentis
Auerni» (BLM)22. Finally, it is worth remembering that since only a
relatively short section of the Aurora was studied for this
article, many of the observations on the relationship between the
manuscripts which were presented above must be considered
preliminary. We will certainly be able to reach conclusions that
are more precise when the entire text of the poem is examined. Yet,
the study of the anonymous Prouerbia provides a valuable insight
into the very complex textual tradition of Riga’s masterpiece. Of
the eight witnesses preserving the anonymous Prouerbia Salomonis,
manuscript E is the only one that contains a considerable number of
interlinear glosses23. Some marginal annotations are also present
but they simply consist of the word Allegoria added by the verses
in which further interpretation of the biblical text is provided24.
The glosses in E do not show a high level of sophistication. In
many cases, where the subject of the sentence is a pronoun, they
offer a clarification (e.g., 127 que] mens, 132 qui] doctores, 177
que] arena, 223 qui] corui); on other occasions, synonyms are
supplied (e.g., 40 nam] quia, 76 reueretur] amet) or rudimentary
help with the syntax is offered (e.g., 62 ne] pro ut, 195 piger]
o). In general, the glosses in E are useful but their simplicity
suggests that they were devised for readers whose Latinity was not
yet well developed. The presence of some additional interlinear
sigla (e.g., single dots, double dots or other markers that look
like the letters x, y, and z), which seem to provide hints about
how the sentences should be construed, also confirms this
supposition. All things considered, several aspects of the codex
with its small untidy script, lack of even the smallest attempt at
decoration, numerous glosses and reader’s aids suggest that
manuscript E was a copy used for study rather than display. If it
was ever used for teaching, it must have been at a relatively
introductory level.
22 For similar instances, see verses 89 (fidei precepta docentes]
uite precepta ferentes BLM), 246 (gracia] gloria BLM), and 249
(proteruus] prophanus BLM). 23 Occasional interlinear glosses are
also attested in I but they really are too few to deserve a more
detailed study. See verses 22, 82, 106, 153, 245, 268, 279, and 290
in the apparatus criticus (Appendix I). One gloss is found in K,
see verse 174. 24 All the glosses in E are listed in Appendix
II.
G. DINKOVA-BRUUN 16
II. CONTENTS, RHYME AND METRE OF THE PROVERBIA SALOMONIS The
biblical text of the book of Proverbs was rarely versified. In
fact, from the sapiential books, only the Cantica Canticorum
enjoyed an enormous popularity among the medieval exegetes and
poets. In the case of the Liber Prouerbiorum, only two
versifications exist: Hermann of Werden’s Hortus Deliciarum and the
anonymous accretion to the Aurora which is the subject of this
article25. Even though both Hermann and the anonymous poet seem to
have been inspired by a common desire to supplement Riga’s
monumental work, the results of their efforts are very different.
First, the Hortus is written in elegiac couplets, whereas the
anonymous Prouerbia is composed in Leonine hexameters. The poets’
choice of metre is interesting. Hermann’s elegiacs initially appear
to be better suited to the task, especially since he is supposedly
following in the footsteps of Peter Riga, who wrote his poem almost
entirely in this metre. However, in his last edition of the Aurora,
when he expanded his work with the Cantica Canticorum, Actus
Apostolorum and Liber Iob, Riga abandoned the elegiac couplets for
rhymed hexameters. The anonymous poet thus appears to be better
attuned to Riga’s sensibilities when he adopts for his
versification the same metre which Riga used for the Cantica
Canticorum, the only sapiential book included in the Aurora. The
rhyming patterns found in the anonymous Prouerbia are not unusual:
the majority of the verses are couplets of hexametri caudati
combined with simple Leonines (64 verses in total), a few hexametri
collaterales (vv. 12-13 and 104-105), and a couplet of hexametri
unisoni (vv. 264-265)26. The rhymes are exclusively disyllabic,
often repeated27 and sometimes not very imaginative28. The second
difference between the Hortus and the anonymous accretion to the
Aurora is the length of the two works. In 9,859 verses, Hermann
goes ploddingly through every single biblical sentence, while the
unknown poet, whose composition is 300 lines long, is much more
selective. First, he omits entirely the first nine chapters, as
well as the last chapter of the biblical text; and second, he
versifies only chosen statements from the remaining parts. In order
to explain the poet’s choices we need to examine carefully the
contents of the biblical book of
25 For the edition of Hermann’s poem, see Hermanni Werdinensis
Hortus Deliciarum, ed. by P. G. Schmidt, Brepols, Turnhout 2005
(Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 204). 26 For
definition of these rhyming patterns and further examples, see A.
G. Rigg, A History of Anglo- Latin Literature 1066-1422, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge 1992, especially the appendix on metre,
pp. 313-329. 27 For example, uerbum (uerba, uerbo)… acerbum
(acerba, acerbo) (vv. 69, 142-143, 155-156, 157 and 203-204),
Christo… in isto (vv. 16-17 and 132-133), etas… metas (vv. 18-19
and 247-248), etc. 28 In a number of cases the poet achieves the
rhyme by using a simple word (either a verb or a noun) and its
compound, for example, promittens… mittens (v. 115), esto… adesto
(vv. 108-109), discernis… cernis (v. 158), inaurem… aurem (vv.
136-137), inimicus… amicus (vv. 144-145), etc.
PROVERBIA SALOMONIS: AN ANONYMOUS ACCRETION 17
Proverbs. After an introductory exposition on morality and wisdom,
the text of the book is divided into four distinct sections, each
given an individual title: 1) Chapters 1-9 – Introduction. 2)
Chapters 10-24 – Parabolae Salomonis. 3) Chapters 25-29 – Haec
quoque parabolae Salomonis quas transtulerunt uiri Ezechiae regis
Iudae. 4) Chapter 30 – Verba congregantis filii uomentis. 5)
Chapter 31 – Verba Lamuhel regis; uisio qua erudiuit eum mater sua.
In his commentary on Proverbs, Bede gives illuminating explanations
on the meaning of each of these divisions. The Parabolae Salomonis
is a nouum genus locutionis in which the actions of the good and
evil men are discussed alternis uersibus29. The sayings collected
by King Hezekiah of Judah should be understood as allegorical
parables offering advice to the reader about what to strive for and
what to avoid30. Chapter 30 returns to Salomon’s Proverbs which
have been pronounced at a different time than the ones already
presented31. Finally, chapter 31 contains the words of Lamuel’s
mother (Prov. 31, 1-9) and Solomon’s praise of the wise woman as a
symbol of the Catholic church (Prov. 31, 10-31)32. The anonymous
poet versifies neither the introductory material nor chapter 31,
which suggests that he was primarily interested in including in his
work practical advice on religious morality, spiritual purity, and
good behavior. Even though it is impossible to perceive a
definitive rationale for the selection of biblical statements
versified in the anonymous Prouerbia, some recurring themes can be
isolated:
29 See Beda Venerabilis, In Prouerbia Salomonis, ed. by D. Hurst,
Brepols, Turnhout 1983, p. 66, 1-4 (Corpus Christianorum Series
Latina 119B): «PARABOLAE SALOMONIS. Nouum ponit titulum quia nouum
genus locutionis incipit ut non sicut prius de singulis bonorum
malorumue partibus diutius disputet sed alternis uersibus actus
utrorumque describat». 30 See Beda, In Prou. Sal., p. 125, 4-12:
«In quibus tamen legens quisque uel audiens quid appetere, quid
cauere debeat, apertissime dinoscat. Quas quidem parabolas uiri
Ezechiae transtulisse referuntur quia fortassis ad eius usque
tempora dispersae habebantur a pluribus, prout ex ore sapientissimi
regis semel dictas exceperant sed per industriam illius collectae
in unum et in huius libelli sunt corpus insertae. Notandum sane
quia in his parabolis multo sunt plura quam in ceteris per
allegoriam dicta ex collatione uidelicet rerum quae figuris aptae
uidentur». 31 See Beda, In Prou. Sal., p. 141, 2-5: «Hinc rursum
uerba Salomonis ab ipso alias dicta et forsan ipse ab eo quod
Graece ecclesiastes dicitur nunc interpretato in Latinum nomine
illo congregans appellatur». 32 See Beda, In Prou. Sal., p. 149,
65-67: «Huc usque uerba Lamuhel. Hinc sapientissimus regum Salomon
laudes sanctae ecclesiae uersibus paucis sed plenissima ueritate
decantat». King Lamuel is otherwise unknown. Interestingly, the
Christian name of Jonathan Swift’s hero Gulliver is Lamuel, which
certainly cannot be a coincidence.
G. DINKOVA-BRUUN 18
1) One should strive to be calm, gentle and patient when one talks
to others because anger never leads to good results – vv. 20-21,
120-121, 142-143, 153-162, 163-165, 166-168, 174-181, and 182-189.
2) A wise man does not talk much because deeds are more eloquent
than words – vv. 27-28, 33-34, 37-39, and 110-113. 3) One should be
generous with one’s possessions and willing to assist both friends
and enemies – vv. 12-13, 14-17, 55-59, and 144-152. Hermann’s
Hortus and the anonymous Prouerbia are similar in at least one
respect. They both use almost exclusively Bede’s commentary on
Proverbs for the allegorical interpretation of the biblical text33.
On two occasions, the anonymous poet also refers to figures from
classical mythology: in verse 54 he warns the reader that unless
his body and mind are pure he will fall and drown like Icarus, and
in verse 250, Bacchus’s nectar is the symbol of the stupid man’s
gluttony. The source for these ideas is unknown, but it is quite
likely that they were common knowledge among the literate. III. THE
PRESENT EDITION This article presents a critical edition of the
anonymous poem Prouerbia Salomonis, based on all eight witnesses of
the text. As already mentioned, the apparatus criticus is placed in
Appendix I, whereas Appendix II contains the glosses found in
manuscript E. Biblical references and other textual sources are
included in the edition as footnotes. Orthographical variants are
excluded from the apparatus criticus because they do not bring any
new information on either the relationship between the manuscripts
or medieval orthography in general. They are all of the common type
showing uncertainty in the correct use of aspiration,
palatalization, double consonants, and the vowels -i- and -y-; all
diphthongs are generally reduced to single vowels. Some examples
are: 172 habena] abena BM 71 sulphure] sulpure C 166 sicienti]
sitientis BLM 35 puppem] pupem EI 210 hilarescat] hylarescat BEI,
ylarescat L, ilarescat M
33 See the notes to the edition below.
PROVERBIA SALOMONIS: AN ANONYMOUS ACCRETION 19
EDITION OF THE POEM Incipit prologus in Prouerbiis Salomonis. Que
docet iste liber prouerbia sunt Salomonis Multis plena bonis,
celestibus inclita donis. Nomen inest libro Masloth, quem
transtulit ille Ieronimus, quem nobilitant preconia mille. Explicit
prologus. Incipiunt Prouerbia. Filius sapiens letificat patrem,
filius uero stultus mesticia est matris sue (Prov. 10, 1) 5 Filius
in Domino sapiens dat gaudia patri, Filius insipiens grauis est
confusio matri. Esse Deum patrem reor, ecclesiam uoco matrem.34
Circulus aureus in naribus suis mulier pulcra et fatua; desiderium
iustorum omne bonum, prestolacio impiorum furor (Prov. 11, 22-23).
Est aurum splendens in nare suis male pendens; Sic mulier nitida
facie, sensu malefida 10 Denotat hec heresim que uerbi luce
coruscat,35 Sed reprobi sensus ipsam corrupcio fuscat. Alii
diuidunt propria et ditiores fiunt, alii rapiunt non sua et semper
in egestate sunt (Prov. 11, 24). Hii sua spargentes sunt omni
tempore pleni, Non sua tollentes alii sunt semper egeni. Qui
abscondit frumenta, maledicetur in populis; benedictio autem super
caput uendencium (Prov. 11, 26). Qui triticum celat, erit in
populis maledictus; 15 Qui triticum uendit, erit a Domino
benedictus.
34 v. 7 – cfr. Beda, In Prou. Sal., CCSL, vol. 119B, p. 66, 6-8. 35
vv. 10-11 – cfr. Beda, In Prou. Sal., CCSL, vol. 119B, p. 72,
98-104.
G. DINKOVA-BRUUN 20
Post mortem fit egens qui mundo torpet in isto, Sed prediues eris,
mens fortis, dedita Christo. Animus gaudens etatem floridam facit,
spiritus tristis exsiccat ossa (Prov. 17, 22). Spiritus exultans
facit ut tua floreat etas; Triste cor ad uite te cogit currere
metas. Sermo durus suscitat furorem, responsio mollis frangit iram
(Prov. 15, 1). 20 Durus, atrox oris sermo parat arma furoris; Iras
subtollis, si sit responsio mollis. Sicut acetum dentibus et fumus
oculis, sic piger hiis qui miserunt eum (Prov. 10, 26). Fumus obest
oculis et dentibus hoc quod amarum; Dentes aut oculi doctores sunt
animarum36 Culpas mordentes, clare sacra uerba uidentes. 25 Missus
ab hiis aliquis, quem nectit inercia morum, Turbat eos, quia non
docet hic exempla bonorum. In multiloquio peccatum non deerit; qui
autem moderatur labia sua, prudentissimus est (Prov. 10, 19). Qui
nimium lingue uerborum lassat habenam, Contrahet ille notam peccati
puluere plenam. Plus proficit correptio apud prudentem quam centum
plage apud stultum (Prov. 17, 10). Plus prodest docto solum iusti
documentum, 30 Per quod corripitur, quam stulto uerbera
centum.
36 vv. 23-24 – cfr. Beda, In Prou. Sal., CCSL, vol. 119B, p. 68,
109-111.
PROVERBIA SALOMONIS: AN ANONYMOUS ACCRETION 21
Verte impios et non erunt, domus autem iustorum permanebit (Prov.
12, 7). Verte malos nec erunt, quia si uertatur iniquus37 Ad
Dominum, peccata cauens erit eius amicus. Qui ambulat fraudulenter,
reuelat archana; qui autem fidelis est animi, celat commissum
(Prov. 11, 13) Qui fraudes agitat, socii secreta reuelat; Qui sine
fraude manet, commissa tegens homo celat. Vbi non est gubernator,
populus corruet; salus autem ubi multa consilia (Prov. 11, 14). 35
Incurret rupem, nisi nauta regat bene puppem Nec tanget scillam, si
consilio regat illam. Qui priusquam audiat respondit, stultum se
esse demonstrat (Prov. 18, 13). Qui prius auditu respondet, stultus
habetur; Si taceat, cautus et prudens esse uidetur. Vbi non sunt
boues, presepe uacuum est; ubi autem plurime segetes, ibi manifesta
fortitudo bouis (Prov. 14, 4). Si bobus careas, presepe manebit
inane, 40 Nam sudore boum facis ut non sis sine pane. Si doctor
desit, remanet plebs omnis egena;38 Si bona uerba serat, remanet
plebs fenore plena. Simplex credit omni uerbo, astutus considerat
gressus suos (Prov. 14, 15). Consulit astutus sibi, non facit hoc
homo brutus. Est ibi paupertas, ubi nullus sermo redundat, 45 Sed
quicumque bonos gerit actus, semper habundat.
37 vv. 31-32 – cfr. Beda, In Prou. Sal., CCSL, vol. 119B, p. 75,
40-41. 38 vv. 41-42 – cfr. Beda, In Prou. Sal., CCSL, vol. 119B, p.
83, 18-23 and 26-32.
G. DINKOVA-BRUUN 22
Qui parcit uirge, odit filium suum; qui autem diligit illum,
instanter erudit (Prov. 13, 24). Non aufers puero doctrine nobile
dictum,39 Non morietur enim, si uirge porrigis ictum, Nam uirge
tactus prauos exterminat actus. Eice derisorem et exhibit cum eo
iurgium, cessabuntque cause et contumelie (Prov. 22, 10). Vt
cessent lites, illudentem tibi uites. Ne erigas occulos tuos ad
opes quas habere non potes; quia facient sibi pennas sicut aquile
et uolabunt in celum (Prov. 23, 5). 50 Ne tollas oculos ad opes
quas in propriatu Non capies, quia te fugient super astra uolatu.
Si penetrare nequis celi secreta profunda, Simpliciter uiuas; mens
et caro sit tibi munda, Ne mersus pereas uelut Icarus equoris unda.
Munus absconditum extinguit iras et donum in sinu indignationem
maximam (Prov. 21, 14). 55 Extinguit diras absconsio muneris iras,
Si detur munus, et respicit hoc Deus unus. Pectore clementi cum
prebes illud egenti40 Inque sinu donum summum facit esse patronum
Mitem, placatum tibi tergentemque reatum. Propter frigus piger
arare noluit; mendicabit autem estate et non dabitur ei (Prov. 20,
4). 60 O piger, ad penas, ad frumentum uel auenas Cur das torpori
digitos oculosque sopori? Cur animo trepidas ne surripiat tibi
latro, Scindere cur terram pro frigore spernis aratro?
39 vv. 46-47 – cfr. Prov. 23, 13. The rubric suggested by the
manuscripts is difficult to reconcile with the text of the poem. 40
vv. 57-59 – cfr. Beda, In Prou. Sal., CCSL, vol. 119B, p. 109,
33-38.
PROVERBIA SALOMONIS: AN ANONYMOUS ACCRETION 23
Ieiunis igitur a fructibus undique glebis 65 Ieiunus pauper et
mendicans remanebis. Fouea profunda os aliene; cui iratus est
Dominus, incidet in eam (Prov. 22, 14). Accipe per foueam sedes
sordentis Auerni;41 Concremat inmundos ibi iudicis ira superni. Os
scorti, lene quod dicitur os aliene, Oscula uel uerba mellita notat
nec acerba. 70 Tales inferno qui regnat in axe superno Tradet, ut
hii penas paciantur sulphure plenas. Mulierem fortem quis inueniet
procul (Prov. 31, 10). Fortis, discretus uir uerba per ista
notatur; Mens mulier mollis ac indiscreta uocatur. Accidit ut talis
uir sit quandoque subactus 75 Peccato, mulier iustos exerceat
actus. Sed uir discretus cito punit quod reueretur Vulneribusque
suis gemitu lacrimisque medetur. At mulier gaudens propter bona
facta tumorem Concipit ac ideo perdit mercedis honorem. 80 Sed uir
iniqua gerens, sed fortiter inde resurgens Est melior quam sic
faciens bene femina turgens. Laus tua, Christe, fuit quod sol sub
nube lateres Et deitate latens nobis in carne pateres. Et laus
discipulis fuit ut tua dulcia uerba 85 Scrutando saperent, messem
querendo sub herba. In multitudine populi dignitas regis et in
paucitate plebis ignominia principis (Prov. 14, 28). Discipulos
reges uoco, mundum namque regebant Et supra populum uite diadema
ferebant. Isti sunt reges qui se populumque regentes Presunt
ecclesie, fidei precepta docentes. 90 Quantum sit celum sublime
solumque profundum Scire nequis, nec habes latum cognoscere
mundum;
41 v. 66 – cfr. Beda, In Prou. Sal., CCSL, vol. 119B, p. 114,
128-129.
G. DINKOVA-BRUUN 24
Sic archana Dei, que sancti gratia flatus Discipulos docuit horum
tergendo reatus, Plane scire nequis, nisi sit tibi proximus idem 95
Spiritus adiutor et sis subiectus eidem. Gloria Dei celare uerbum
et gloria regum est inuestigare sermonem (Prov. 25, 2). Qui celat
regum secreta meretur amorem Et qui uerba Dei uestigat habebit
honorem. Aufer rubiginem de argento et egredietur uas purissimum
(Prov. 25, 4). De scriptis, quibus est incerta sciencia sana, Tolle
foris paleas, resplendent mistica grana. 100 Simplicis historie
palee sunt uilia uerba, Misticus est sensus, ubi fructum carpis in
herba. Aufer impietatem de uultu regis et firmabitur iusticia
thronus eius (Prov. 25, 5). Exulet impietas de pectore regis et
ore, Firmus erit thronus illius racione, uigore. Inpietas, sed non
pietas, reges dat egere; 105 Et pietas, non inpietas, dat regna
manere. Ne gloriosus appareas coram principibus (Prov. 25, 6). Non
in sublimi stes coram principe sede, Ne princeps dicat tibi forsan:
«Surge, recede». Sed magis extremis residens in sedibus esto, Vt
tibi dicatur: «Sursum, bone frater, adesto».42 Que uiderunt oculi
tui, ne proferas in iurgio cito, ne postea emendare non possis cum
dehonestaueris amicum (Prov. 25, 8).
42 v. 109 – cfr. Prov. 25, 7.
PROVERBIA SALOMONIS: AN ANONYMOUS ACCRETION 25
110 Que patuere tuis oculis, qui sunt tibi testes, Fratris secreta,
cito ne cuiquam manifestes,43 Nam numquam recipit emissus sermo
medelam, Si semel in fratrem profers ex ore loquelam. Nubes et
uentus et pluuie non sequentes uir gloriosus et promissa non
complens (Prov. 25, 14). Flatibus aurarum que rore carent pluuiarum
115 Par est promittens et nulli munera mittens. Fili, mel
inuenisti. Commede quod sufficit tibi, ne saciatus euomas illud
(Prov. 25, 16). Qui nimium comedens inuento melle fruetur44 Illum
post gustum uel mors uel pena sequetur; Sed qui scrutantur deitatis
uerba profunda, Maiestatis eos demerget et opprimet unda. Lingua
mollis mitigat iras (Prov. 25, 15 et 26, 10). 120 Si blande
loqueris et sit responsio mollis, Cordis duriciam socii de pectore
tollis. Dens putridus et pes lapsus qui sperat super infideli in
die angustie et amittit pallium in die frigoris (Prov. 25, 19-20).
Dens tibi putridus est, aliquo si crimine sordes Nec panem uite
plenum dulcedine mordes. Est tibi pes lassus, si mundi puluere
pressus 125 Nescis ad uitam mentis discernere gressus. Mala aurea
in lectis argenteis qui loquitur uerbum in tempore suo (Prov. 25,
11).
43 v. 111 – cfr. Prov. 25, 9. 44 vv. 116-119 – cfr. Prov. 25, 27.
The text of the poem is a much more suitable versification of Prov.
25, 27 than of Prov. 25, 16.
G. DINKOVA-BRUUN 26
Sunt sacra uerba thori, quia mens in eis requiescit,45 Que mundum
fugiens terrena negocia nescit. Argentum sonat et lucet, sacra
uerba sonora Sunt, quando resonant uirtutum luce decora. 130 Mala
super lectos imponunt aurea iusti, Preclari meritis, doctorum laude
uenusti, Qui tipicos sensus carpunt ex arbore Christo, Doctrine
fructum qui mundo sparsit in isto. Argenti lectos sic malis
purpurat auri, 135 Qui sacra uerba suo dat tempore cuilibet auri.
Inauris aurea est et margaritum fulgens qui arguit sapientem et
aurem obedientem (Prov. 25, 12). Qui nitet ex auro, signatur homo
per inaurem,46 Qui sacris uerbis deuote porrigit aurem; Quicquid in
aure bibit, sapienti perficit actu Et celeste iubar uult cordis
querere tactu. 140 Par est egregius doctor gemme radianti, Qui
docet illustrans alios sermone micanti. Verba susurronis quasi
simplicia et ipsa perueniunt ad intima uentris (Prov. 26, 22).
Lingua susurronis nos urget simplice uerbo, Sed grauiter nostrum
cor uulnere pungit acerbo. Si esurierit inimicus tuus, ciba illum;
si sitierit, da ei aquam bibere; prunas enim congregabis super
caput eius et Dominus reddet ei (Prov. 25, 21-22; Rom. 12, 20). Si
tuus esuriens aut est siciens inimicus, 145 Escas offer ei, da
potum sicut amicus; Ignis carbones supra caput huic ita pones. Sic
fit ut illius mens frigida sepe calore Diuino feruens ignescat
fratris amore. Mentem designat caput, illo membra reguntur. 150 Sic
actus nostri dominatu mentis aguntur,
45 vv. 126-132 – cfr. Beda, In Prou. Sal., CCSL, vol. 119B, p. 126,
61-78. 46 vv. 136-141 – cfr. Beda, In Prou. Sal., CCSL, vol. 119B,
p. 127, 78-85.
PROVERBIA SALOMONIS: AN ANONYMOUS ACCRETION 27
Sic igitur prunas supra caput eius adunas Qui facit ardentem uerbi
dulcedine mentem. Acetum in nitro et qui cantat carmina cordi
pessimo (Prov. 25, 20). Nitria dat nitrum,47 cui si miscetur
acetum,48 Feruet et ebullit hominem turbando quietum. 155 Sic cordi
reprobo si porrigis utile uerbum, Hunc tua sepe magis correptio
reddit acerbum, Sed licet hoc uerbum multis uideatur acerbum. Si
bene discernis sensum, nichil hic graue cernis. Ardor prunarum
sanctum designat amorem,49 160 Qui castum generat in nostro corde
calorem. Iustus enim paciens laudantem non reprehendit, Sed pro
nequicie uerbis pia uerba rependit. Ventus aquilo dissipat pluuias
et facies tristis linguam detrahentem (Prov. 25, 23). Stringit
aquas uentus aquilo pluuiis uiolentus Et facies tristis, que non
est fronte serena, 165 Disrumpit lingue que detrahit atra uenena.
Aqua frigida anime sitienti et bonus nuncius de terra longinqua
(Prov. 25, 25). Frigidus humor aque sicienti mitigat estus;
Mittentis releuat animum legatus honestus, Qui de longinquo ueniens
bona narrat amico.
47 Nitria is the name of the province where the mineral nitrum is
found in large quantities. This explanation is found in Bede, In
Prou. Sal., CCSL, vol. 119B, p. 128, 145-146. Nitria is a region in
the modern Slovak Republic; see Orbis Latinus, ed. by J. G. Graesse
and revised by F. Benedict and H. Plechl, Klinkhardt and Biermann,
Braunschweig 1972, 3, 30. 48 vv. 153-156 – cfr. Beda, In Prou.
Sal., CCSL, vol. 119B, p. 129, 162-166. For Bede’s source see
Gregorius Magnus, Homiliae In Hiezechielem, hom. 9, 32, ed. by M.
Adriaen, CCSL, vol. 142, Turnhout 1971, p. 140, 646-650. The
passage is used also by Hrabanus Maurus in his Commentaria in
Ezechielem, book 3, 2; see PL, vol. 110, 560AB. 49 vv. 159-160 –
cfr. Beda, In Prou. Sal., CCSL, vol. 119B, p. 129, 172-173. These
verses refer to Prov. 25, 22 which was versified in the previous
section. Whether they were meant to be included there or here is
impossible to know.
G. DINKOVA-BRUUN 28
Fon