classica et beneventana: essays presented to virginia brown on the occasion of her 65th birthday

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 latini 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 commentariorum, 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).
- 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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