vivarium - vol. 9, nos. 1-2, 1971

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vivarium-vol-9-nos-1-2-1971 1/163

/';-=09 )(8*=-0/']

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


vi vari um

AJOURNALFORMEDIAEVAL PHILOSOPHY ANDTHE INTELLECTUALLIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES

REVUECONSACRÉE ÀLAPHILOSOPHIEMÉDIÉVALE ETÀ LA VIE INTELLECTUELLEDUMOYENÂGE

ZEITSCHRIFTFÜR PHILOSOPHIE UND GEISTES LEBENIM MITTELALTER

VOLUME 9, 1971

cirxnn

VAN GORCUM- ASSEN- NETHERLANDS

Reprinted with permission of

Van Gorcum,Assen

bySWETS &ZEITLINGER B.V.

LISSE - 1985

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


vivaci um

A JOURNALFOR MEDIAEVALPHILOSOPHYANDTHE INTELLECTUALLIFE OFTHEMIDDLEAGESvivariumsdevotednparticularotheprofane ideofmediae-valphilosophynd hentellectualife f heMiddleges.

editors C.J. deVogel,Utrecht)L. M.deRijk,Leyden)J. Engels,(Utrecht)H. A. G.Braakhuis,Nijmegen).Secretaryf he ditorialoard Prof. . M.deRijk,Witte ingel71,Leyden,he Netherlands.

publishers Royal anGorcumtd., Dr. H.J. Prakke H. M. G.Prakke)Assen,heNetherlands.subscription Per nnum: fl. ( . 7,oo/£. )SINGLECOPIES Hfl. £.00 . 4,2 /£. -7i)published Twiceyearly, ayndNovember;a160pagesearly.

Contributionsubmittedo vivariumhoulde writtenreferablyinEnglish,renchr German. he manuscriptshouldetype-writtennddoublepaced,xcept or ong uotationsndfoot-notes.Adequatemarginsijinch)should e left t eachedgeof he heet. ootnoteshouldenumberedontinuouslyhrough-out ach rticle. heymay eplacedither t the oot f he ageor t the nd f he ext.Contributorseceive off-printsree.REVUECONSACRÉEÀ LAPHILOSOPHIEMÉDIÉVALEETÀ LAVIEINTELLECTUELLEDUMOYENÂGEvivariumstconsacréout pécialementuxaspects profanesde aphilosophieédiévaletde avie ntellectuelleumoyenge.

ZEITSCHRIFTFÜRPHILOSOPHIEUNDGEISTES-LEBENIM MITTELALTERvivariumst esondersenprofanenAspektendermittelalter-lichenPhilosophiend desgeistigenebensdes Mittelaltersgewidmet.

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


CONTENTS OF VOLUME IX (1971)

Paul vincent AnAnonymousract n InsolubiliaromMs. Vatspade Lat.674.AnEditionndAnalysisf heText. . . 1Toronto

J. ENGELS Véditioncritique de VOvidiusmoralizatus eUtrecht Bersuire 19

maria s. van Petrus erchoriusReductoriumoraleliberXV:der Bi L Ovidiusmoralizatus,ap. iiUtrecht

c.J.

DEVOGEL Boethiana49Utrecht

L. M.de ri JK TheDevelopmentf Suppositioaturalis n Mediae-Leiden valLogic 71

JOHNMALCOLM On GrabmannText f Williamf Sherwood . 108DavisCalif. U.S.A.

HARRYF.REIJNDERS Aimericus,rs ectoría i) 119Amersfoort

j. ENGELS NoticeurJeanThenaud2) 138Utrecht

REVIEWS 67, I£7BOOKSRECEIVED 68, l6o

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


An Anonymous Tract on Insolubilia JromMs Vat. ¡at. 674.

An Edition and Analysis of The Text

PAUL VINCENT SPADE

i Introduction

The however,author ofis giventhe Insolubiliain the explicitedited: 1368.belowTheis unknown.position maintainedThe date,however, is given in the explicit 1368. The position maintainedin the treatise was, in one form or another, commonone in the

Middle Ages. The author's version of its central thesis sstated n para-graph 7: an insoluble proposition s "equivalent" to a copulative pro-position. For example, supposing that Socrates utters the followingsentence only: 'Socrates is speakingfalsely', that sentence s equivalentto the following one: 'Socrates is speaking falsely and this is true:"Socrates s speaking alsely"'.

This equivalenceholds only for insoluble propositions. ParagraphH seems to imply that not all propositions are equivalent to suchcopulativeones. In this respect the author's position conforms o thatof other writers n the same tradition.

It might at first eem that this "equivalence" is a relation suchthat P is equivalent to Q if and only if P coimplies Q. But this inter-pretation does violence to the author's actual practice. Moreover,elementary ogical transformations ill show that, on this interpreta-tion, insolublesare true, whereas the author argues that they are false.The interpretation hus violates not only the author's practice, but hisverdict as well. Instead, as a careful reading of the text will show,"equivalence"must be interpreted s a relation uch that P is equivalentto Q if nd only f P is true' coimplicsQ.

What this means is that in the case of an insoluble sentence, thefollowing iconditionalholds

(I) X is trueif andonly f p andXis true),where 'p' is replaced by the insoluble sentence, and 'X' by a nameof that sentence. On the other hand, the following, tronger icondi-tional does not hold for nsolubles

i

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


(II) X is trueif and only f p.

(II), of course, is Tarskťs criterion of adequacy.1 According toTarskťs terminology, definition f truth is said to be "adequate"if all biconditional of the form (II) follow from t.2 The anonymousauthor's position, then, amounts to the contention that Tarskťs cri-terion is too strong. n the case of insoluble propositions, the weakerbiconditional I) is all that holds. Byelementary ogicaltransformations,it can be seen that I) amounts o a weakening f the Tarski biconditional(II)to the following onditional

(III) X is true only f p.It is clear that insolubles are false and the paradoxes broken if onlythis weaker condition (III)is allowed. For, in the nsolublecasewhere Xis identical with 'X is not true', (III)yields *X is true only if X is nottrue', from which it follows that X is not true. Since (III) only is al-lowed, and not its converse, the conditional 4X is true if X is not true'is rejected, and the paradox does not arise.3

Variations of this position were maintained by several mediaevalauthors. Amongthem were Albert of Saxony,*John Buridans nd Paulof Venice.6 The unidentified

opinionreferred to as the second

pre-liminary opinion by the anonymous author of the lnsolubilia n MSBrit. Mus., Harley 3243, ff. 47ra-£6rb? s yet anotheť version of this

1Cf., .g.,Alfredarski,heemanticonceptionfTruth,nHerberteiglndWilfredellars,eds., eadingsnPhilosophicalnalysisNew ork: ppleton-entury-rofts,nc.,1949),.2 bid.3The uthor epartsromhis ositionnconsideringonditionalnd ausalnsolubilespars.40-50).here emaintainshat onditionalnd ausalnsolublesre rue. nthe ther and,tmight equestionedhetherhe uthor'sxamplesnthese ases rereallynsolublest allaccordingohis efinitionnpar. .For he onstructionf he aradoxependsn fallaciousinferencenvolvingconditionalor, quivalently,causalroposition),ot n overlookinghe"additional"eaninghichnsolublesave.f, n he asuso heseinsolubles, twere ositedthat he ropositionsignifyreciselystheir ermspretend",he aradoxouldtill e voided-contraryo he efinitionf n nsolublenpar. - by implyointingut he nvalidnference(cf. ar. 6).4Cf.Albertf axony,nsolubiliapublishedith is ophismataParis: elix aligault,495)[Hain582].5John uridan,ophismataParis:AntoineenidelndNicole elaBarre,c. 1496-100J)[IncunabulanAmericanibraries3rd ensus,-1295],a. 8.Cf. lso, heodoreermitcott,r.John uridan:ophismsnMeaningndTruth"Centuryhilosophyourcebooks";ewYork:Appleton-Century-Crofts,966),h. .6Paul fVenice,ogicaagnaVenice: lbertinusRubeus)ercellensis,or ctavianuscotus,1499)Hain12505].7Cf.my ditionf his ext s a dissertationor he ontificalnstitut«fMediaevaltudie«(Toronto),969.

2

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


position. A certain Robert Fland (i.e., of Flanders?)8 s perhaps alsoto be included n the tradition.

In the cases of Albert ofSaxony,

the unidentifiedopinion

mentionedin MS Harley 3243, and perhaps also Robert Fland, the relation thatholds between X, on the one hand, and the fact that p and the factthat X is true on the other, is said to be one of "signification".Xsignißes hat p and that X is true. This was apparently common wayof describing the situation. Buridan, however, criticizes this choiceof terminology.9 His own account of the relation between X and thefact that X is true is m terms of "involvement . X involves (implicaithe fact that X is true, just as an antecedent involves ( mplicai its

consequent.10 n the light of Buridan' criticism f the common "signi-fication" terminology, t is noteworthy hat the anonymous uthor ofthe present ractdescribes herelation s an "equivalence"

X is equivalento4p and X is true9

In addition to the tradition of the "weakened Tarski-biconditional",the author lso finds imself n a second tradition, whichmight be calledthe obligatio-radition. t was characterized not so much by any oneposition on how to "resolve" the antinomies as it was by a generalattitude oward them. This approach to insolubles viewed them fromthe standpoint f the mediaeval treatises n obligationes" The emphasiswason the dialectical situations n which insolublesmight rise. Accor-dingly, this tradition was concerned to give rulesfor the handling ofinsolubles in disputations, ules determining ust what one can safelygrant one's opponent, andwhat must be denied.

Perhaps the most influential spokesman of this approach wasWilliam Heytesbury n the first chapter De insolubilibus)f his Regulaesolvendisophismata.12he purpose of Heytesbury's treatise was "tohelp sophisters responderen disputations".1* hus, the chapter on in-solubles contains a series of rules by which to evaluate a proposed8Bruges,ibl. ub.,MS 97, f. 3rb-44va.neInsolubilest ropositioignansrimotprin-cipalitericutst, t xconsequentiliter uamst. f. A.dePoorter,atalogueesmanuscritselabibliothèqueubliquee avilleeBruges.9Buridan,p. it., a.8, oph.. Cf., cott, p. it., . 194.10 uridan,oc. it. cott, p. it., . 195.11 nobligationes,f.James.Weisheipl,evelopmentsn he rts urriculumtOxfordn he arlyFourteenthentury,n: Mediaevaltudies8 1966), p.163-165.12Williameytesbury,egulaeolvendiophismata,ublishedn Tractatusuilielmientisberiesensuompositot iviso,egulaeiusdemumophismatibus,eclaratioaetaniupraasdem(Venice:Bonetusocatellus,or ctavianuscotus,494)Hain 8437],f. va-7rb.13Weisheipl,ckhamnd ome ertonians,n:Mediaevaltudies0 1968),. 197.

3

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


insoluble. The anonymous uthor of the treatise edited below followsa similar procedure. The following assagesfrom Heytesbury's reatise1«

should be compared with the first hree rules (pars. 4-6) s in the textbelow.

1 Sifiat asus e nsolubili,ut onitur ualiterllud nsolubileebeatignificareautnon.Sinon,propositosto nsolubili,espondendumst ad illud mninosicut espondereturon uppositolio casu (Cf.par. 6 of the text editedbelow).2. Secundost advertendumuod, i ponatur asus e insolubili,t cum hocsupponaturuod llud nsolubileraeciseignificeticut ermini stius ommu-niter raetendunt,asus stenullatenusdmittatur (Cf.par. 4, below).3. Tertio, ifiat asus e nsolubili,t cumhoc upponaturuod lludnsolubilesignificeticut ermini psius raetendunt,ontamen ic praecise,dmissoisto asu, oncedendumst llud nsolubileuocumqueocoproponaturamquamsequens,t negandumst llud sseverum amquamepugnans.erbigratia,suppositouod ortesolummodoicat llam ropositionemortes icit alsum',et quod llasicsignificet,ontamen raecise,une oncedendast stacumproponituramquamequens,t negandumst llam sseveram amquame-pugnans.equiturnim: Sortes icit anc ropositionemSortesicit alsum",quae icsignificai;gitur ortes icit alsum'.ed,cumnuUam ropositionemdicat ortes isi stam ortes icit alsum',equituruod sta stfalsa, t ex hoc

sequiturllam on sseveram. oncedendumst gitur uodSortes icit alsumtamquamequensx casu, t negandumst stam ropositionemSortes icitfalsum'sseveram amquamidemrepugnans.t dem ccidit niversaliternquocumqueasuconsimili,icut iscurrentier singulosoterit pparere.Si autem uaeraturn sto asu uid ignificavista ropositioicdicta Sortealiter uam uodSortes icit alsum,uicdicitur uod respondensonhabetistam uaestionemolvere eu determinare,uiaex casusequitur uod illapropositiolitersignificaiuam uod ortes icit alsum;edcasus on ertificatquid llud it; deononhabet espondensuaesitumllud lterius eterminare.

The following s a brief utline of the contents f our text

Generalonsiderationsf he ature f n nsolublend ts asusFive ulesfor nsolubles pars. 1-8Two senses f the term insoluble' 9Generaltatementf wo chools f thought n nsolubles.heir econ-ciliation 10-14Considerationf implensolubles £-24

14Heytesbury,p. it., .6va.15 he ourthnd ifthulesre f differentind.heyonot ell ne ow o eplyn isputations- whats obe oncededndwhateniedbut atherimplytatequivalences.

4

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Considerationf opulativensolubles 2£-3Considerationfdisjunctivensolubles 34*39Considerationf onditionalnsolubles 40-46Considerationf ausal nsolubles 47-50Considerationf emporalnsolublesConsiderationf xclusivensolubles £7-6Considerationf xceptivensolubles 62-6$.

The only known copy of this treatise s contained n MS Vat. Lat674, ff. i£vi-ii7v9. It is written n a clear fourteenth-century and,one column (44 lines) to the side. Marginalia re mostly ndicationsofarticulations n the argument. 1 have supplied the paragraph divisionsand have normalized the

orthography ccordingto Lewis' and Short's

A Latin Dictionary. he abbreviations Sor', etc., have been expandedto 4Sortes rather than to 4Socrates' in conformity with a mediaevaltradition regarding hename.

In the interest of clarity, words and phrases n material suppositionhave been signalledby single quotation marks, in the manner that isnow customary n philosophicalwritings. The MSsometimespunctuateswith dots at these places, but the practice is not observed throughout.

The MShas been examined n microfilm copy only.

2 Text

1 Circa tractatum e insolubilibus ria sunt notandaper ordinemprimo namque, quid sit insolubile; secundo, quot modis dicatur in-solubile' tertio notandae sunt aliquae regulae generales de ipsis in-solubilibus.

21Circa primum nota quod insolubile est propositio vel argu-mentum dip non de facili solubile, vel sic: insolubile est propositio

vel argumentum e difficili olubile, ita quod non dicitur "insolubile"quodnullo modopossit olvi,sedcum difficultate olvitur.3

3 *Circa secundum principale sciendum est quod 'insolubile'

1marg.rimumotabile.2Readingncertain.erhapsfalsetart ordifficili'.3Onlygeneralharacterizationf nsolublessgivenere. ontrastar. ,wherewo lternativedefinitionsre iven,orrespondingo he wo ensesf he erm insolubile'.ote lso hat ere

the iscussionsgivenn ermsf propositioel rgumentum",husncludingothensesf heterminsolubile'ivenn ar. .4marg.otabile.

S

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


logismus secundum quid ct simpliciter ex reflexione alicujus actussuper se cum dictione privativa." Quandoque accipitur 'insolubile*

pro propositione insolubili, et tunc definitur ic1^ "Insolubile estdifficilispropositio quae, si cum (casu) ponitur ignificare icut terminipraecisepraetendunt, equitur psa(m) fore falsam t veram."

10 1 Nota quod de insolubilibus sunt duae opiniones, quarum unaponit quod pars non potest supponere pro toto, et alia ponit quod parspotest upponere pro toto.

11 ^Prima dicit quod ista propositio est falsa Sortes dicit falsum',quia, per istam denotatur quod aliquod falsum dicatur (aliud) a pro-positione quam dicit Sortes, quia 'falsum', quod est pars propositionis,non potest supponere pro ilia propositione. Et ideo, quia aliam nondicit, lla est falsa.

12 16 ecundaopinio dicit quod per 'falsum' non denotatur ortemdicere aliquod falsum, sed solum denotatur Sortem dicere falsum.Ideo illa est falsa sufficitquod ilia dicat.17

13 Et illa opinio habet multa argumenta ro se, quia in ista pro-positione 'Omnis propositio est vera', ly 'verum' supponit pro ipsapropositione, t in ista Omnis propositio est falsa' similiter.

14 18 ed nota quod ambae opiniones possunt salvari, quia, ut

'falsum' est pars, non supponit pro toto; sed, ut totum praedicabilede illa et de aliis, supponit pro parte, et sic diversimode.19

13Comparehe ollowingexts:(JohnfHolland,nsolubiliaMSVienna,at. ibl. 698, .79r):Propositioutemnsolubilis,el nsolubile,st ropositioe ua itmention ali asui.e.,n

casue nsolubiliEd.] uae,icum odemasu oniturstamraeciseignificareicut erminipraetendunt,equituram sse eramt alsam.(Williameytesbury,p.cit, f.6rb):

. propositionsolubilisst e ua itmention asunsolubiliuae,i um odemasuignificetpraeciseicut erbi lliijsommuniterraetendunt,deamsse eramequituram sse alsam,et converso.14marg. otabile. 15marg.rimapinio. 16marg.ecundapinio.17 he ensef he ar. sobscure.erhapsaliud' houlderead or aliquod'.r perhapshecontrastaliquodalsum""falsum"s an llusionothe allacyecundumuidt impliciter.hetwo ccurrencesf ilia' n he econdentenceresumablyefero Sortesicit alsum'cf. helast entencef ar. 1).Whathat ropositionaysufficeshattbefalse. he easoningehindthissnot ivenere.18margNota.19 f. unscotus,uaestionesuperibroslenchorumU, ives,.2,p.75)

Unded uaestionemicendumuod ars,nquantumars, ro ota ropositioneupponereonpotest.t ihocmaginatumsset,dem ssetmaginari,tparietemupponerero ota omo.Sed arnenllud uodst ars, on ariatumecundumignificatumec ecundumodumigni-ficandootestespectujusdemabereationemotiusniversalis.

Theres omeisputebouthe uthenticityf his ork.

7

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


15 Per praedicta patet falsitasquorundam sophismatum, t primohujus: 20Ponaturquod Sortes dicat propositionem Sortes dicit falsum'.

Et tunc ponatur quod termini significent icut communi er praetendunt.Tunc quaeritur an Sortes dicit verum [vel] aut dicit falsum. Si dicitverum et Sortes solum dicit istam propositionem Sortes dicit falsum',igitur sta propositio est vera 'Sortes dicit falsum' et, si ista propositio<est vera) 'Sortes dicit falsum', sic sit sicut per ipsam significatur etper ipsamsignificatur ortem dicere falsum igitur Sortes dicit falsumquod est oppositum oncessi.

16 Si autem dicatur quod Sortes dicat falsum, ontra arguitur ic:Sortes dicit falsum; et Sortes solum dicit istam propositionem Sortes

dicit falsum' igitur ista propositio est falsa 'Sortes dicit falsum'et, si ista est falsa, aliter est quam per ipsam significatur; t per ipsamsignificatur Sortem dicere falsum; igitur non sic est quod Sortedica<t>falsum; quod est oppositum primo concessi.

17 21 ecundo probatur quod haec sit falsa 'Sortes dicit falsum'.Et arguitur sic22: Sortes dicit falsum; igitur haec est vera 'Sortesdicit falsum'; igitur sua opposita est falsa; sed sua opposita est'Sortes non dicit falsum' igitur haec est falsa 'Sortes non dicit fal-sum' igitur haec erit vera 'Sortes dicit verum'. Consequentia pro-batur, quia ista est falsa 'Sortes non dicit falsum' et suaoppositaestvera 'Sortes dicit falsum'; et Sortes dicit istam propositionem Sortesdicit falsum' igitur Sortes dicit verum.

18 23Tertioarguitur ic: Sortes dicit istam propositionem Sortesdicit falsum' vel igitur ic est sicut per ipsam significatur el non. Sisic est sicut per ipsam significatur, t per ipsam significatur ortemdicere falsum; igitur sta est falsa Sortes dicit falsum', et sic est quodSortes dicit falsum; et Sortes solum dicit istam propositionem Sortesdicit falsum'; igitur sta est falsa Sortes dicit falsum'.

19 Si autem non est sic sicut per ipsam significatur, t per ipsamsignificatur ortem dicere falsum; igitur non est sic quod Sortesdicit falsum; igitur haec est falsa Sortes dicit falsum'; et, per conse-quens, quo(d)cumque dicatur, psaest falsa,ut probatum st.

20 24Quarto potest probari quod Sortes dicat falsum sic. Etponatur quod ista propositio 'Sortes dicit falsum' sit a. Tune arguitur

20mar.Primumophisma.21marg.ecundarobatio.22MSdds n llegibleark.23marg.ertia robatio.24marg.uartarobatio.

8

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


sic: Sortes dicit a ; sed a est falsum; igitur Sortes dicit falsum. Majorest nota et minor igitur tc.2®

21 26Adilludsophisma

t ad similiarespondetur.

tprimo, quandoponitur quod Sortes dica<t>istam propositionem Sortes dicit falsum',

et quod nullus loquatur nisi Sortes,2? admittendus est casus.28 Etpostea, quando quaeritur an Sortes dicat falsum ut verum, dicendumest quod Sortes dicit falsum, ta quod ista propositio est falsa. Et adprobationem, quando arguitur ic2* "Haecpropositio est falsa 'Sortesdicit falsum'; igitur aliter est quam significet; sed ipsa significaiSortem dicere falsum; igitur non sic est quod Sortes dicat falsum,"negatur onsequentia. Et causa est quia stat antecedensfore verum sine

consequente,quia stat quod aliter sit quam ipsasignificet, t quod tamensignificet alsum. Sed, si3o in minori ponetur quod ipsa significareipraecise (Sortem dicere) falsum, tunc consequentia esset bona, sedminor esset falsai Et sic patet solutio primi argumenti.

22 32Ad secundum argumentum, quando arguitur quod, si illaest falsa, sua opposita est vera, concedendum est. Et ulterius, quandodicatur quod ilia est sua opposita 'Sortes non dicit falsum', negandaestminor. Et causa est quia opposita ejus est una disjunctiva, ut patet exquinta regula nsolubilium.Et ideo negandaest illa consequentiapropterillam causam, quia prima aequivalet uni conjunctivae, scilicet huic'Sortes dicit falsum t haec est vera 'Sortes dicit falsum". Et oppositumejus est haec propositio Sortes non dicit falsum el haec est falsa Sortes[non]dicit falsum' .

23 33Ad tertium, dicitur quod propositio est falsa. Et concedendumest quod sic est sicut per ipsam significatur, uia per ipsam significaturSortem dicere falsum. Et ex hoc non sequitur quod ipsa sit vera, quianon ponitur 'praecise' in antecedente. Si autem poneretur, conse-quentiaessetbona, et antecedens sset falsum. 4

24 Ad quartam rationem conceditur quod argumentum st bona,et forma est bona, si a aequivalet propositioni categoricae. Sed, quia25 he rgument,ike he eplypar. 4)sobscure.urelyheminorsnot nota",ut atherspreciselyhats n uestion.26marg.esponsiorima.27 histipulationsnot n he riginaltatementf he ophism.f. bove,ar. .28Cf. ule , bove, ar. .29 he ollowingrguments paraphrasef art f ar. 6.30nteri.31 f. ule, above,ar. .32marg.ecundaesponsio.33marg.ertiaesponsio.34 f. ule, above,ar. .

9

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


aequivalet uni hypotheticae, ideo consequentia non valet, quia in-(f. n6r) tulit syllogismus xpositorius. Et licet non sit bona, tamen

conceditur quod a sit falsum, t dictum est.3525 36SeqUiturnunc videre de insolubili composito, et primo deinsolubili causatoex copulativa. Et circa hoc tria sunt facienda: primo,notandumquid requiritur d hoc quod insolubilecausetur x copulativasecundo, ponenda sunt duo sophismata; tertio, respondendum est adilla.

26 Circa primum nota quod ad formandam propositionem copu-lativam nsolubilem, portet quod sumatur na37 propositio necessaria*«,et ex ilia, cum una alia quae sit falsificans otam copulativam,formetur

una copulativa, verbi gratia, sic dicendo 'Homo est animai et tota istacopulativa st falsa', et sic de consimilibus.

27 Circa secundum sit hoc primum sophisma: 39p0natur quodista sit conclusio 4Homo est risibilis*. Pono tibi istam copulativam'Homo est risibilis et tota ista copulativa est falsa*. Tunc quaero autista copulativa est vera aut falsa. Si tu dicis quod tota copulativa estvera, igitur quaelibet pars ejus erit vera igitur ecundapars erit veraet secunda pars dicit totam copulativamesse falsam; igitur tota copu-lativa erit falsa; et, per te, erat vera; igitur rit vera et non vera, quodimplicai

28 Si autem dicatur quod tota copulativa est falsa, igitur ambaepartes erunt falsae,vel una tantum. i ambae erunt falsae, otacopulativaerit falsa; et sic secundapars erit vera; et sic secunda erit falsa et nonfalsa.

29 Siautem una pars tantum rit falsa, gitur prima vel secunda. Nonprima, quia necessaria*0; gitur, secunda; igitur, sta erit (falsa) 'Totacopulativaest falsa* et, si illa erit falsa, vel hoc erit quia utraque parssit vera*1 el quia utraque pars sit falsa. Si primo modo, igitur psa eritvera, et, per consequens, vera et non vera. Si autem quia utraque parssit falsa, gitur tota copulativaerit falsa; et, per consequens, haec erit

35Cf.par. 0.The eplysobscure.he rgumentnpar. 0 s indeednexpositoryyllogism,since is singularerm.t snot lear hat ifferencet makeshatV beequivalentohypothetical.36marg.e nsolubiliomposito.37MSno.38nfact, contingentlyrue ropositionill it he uthorargumentsust swell.39marg.rimumophisma.40t s necessaryecauset sthe onclusioncf.par. 7)of (demonstrative)rgument.f.Aristotle,ost. nal.,6,74bff.41 hismakeso ense.ndeed,n he eplypar. 2), he uthorgnoreshislternative.

IO

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


vera 'Tota copulativaest falsa', et, per consequens, vera et non vera,quod implicaimanifeste.

30 42Secundumsophisma: Ponatur quod Sortes dicat istam copu-lativam Deus est et nullus homo dicit verum'. Et nullus alius loquaturnisi Sortes. Tunc quaero aut ista copulativa est vera aut est falsa. Sivera, igitur utraque pars est vera; igitur ecunda pars est vera, scilicet'Nullus homo dicit verum' et, per consequens, Sortes non dicitverum; et Sortes dicit illam copulativam; igitur illa copulativa nonest vera; igitur, i est vera, non est vera, quod est falsum.4*

31 Si autem dicatur quod estfalsa, gitur ltera pars est falsa; igiturprima vel secunda. Non prima; igitur secunda; igitur haec est falsa

'Nullus homo dicit verum'; igitur haec est vera 'Aliquis homo dicitverum' et nullus loquitur nisi Sortes igitur Sortes dicit verum etSortes praecise dicit illam copulativam; igitur lla copulativaest vera;et, si sic, igitur st vera et non vera.

32 44Ad primum ophisma, dmittitur asus.4*Et poste<a>,quandoquaeritur an Sortes dicit verum aut falsum, dicendum est quod illacopulativaest falsa,quia altera pars est falsa.Et ad probationem, uandodicitur "Illa pars est falsa; igitur tota copulativaest falsa; igitur haecest vera 'Tota copulativa est falsa'", negatur consequentia, quia stat

antecedent fore verum sine consequente, quod tota copulativasit falsa,et quod ilia pars sit falsa Tota copulativaest falsa', quia se ipsum estfalsificans.

33 46Ad secundum sophisma,admittitur asus similiter,4? t diciturquod copulativaest falsa, uia secundapars est falsa.Et quandoprobatur,quia tunc opposita erit vera, concedendum est; sed illa non est suaopposita 'Aliquis homo dicit verum', sed est una disjunctiva,videlicetista 'Deus non est vel aliquishomo non dicit verum', et ista est vera.48Et hoc patet ex quarta et ex quinta regula insolubilium, ut est prius.

42marg.ecundumophisma.43"quodst alsum"efersonon st era', ot o he hole onditionalSi st era, on st era'.The atterstrue. he ointsthat,f t strue, omethingalseollowsand encet s not rue.44marg.esponsiodprimum(ophisma),artiallyut jj t hedgef hejolio.45 f. ule ,above,ar. .Strictlypeaking,f ourse,casusspositednpar. 7.But, incenothingssaid herebout ow he entencesto ignify,ule spresumablypplicable.46marg.d ecundumophisma.47Cf. ule , bove,ar. .48As t tands,hisstrue ut rrelevant.or he ropositionitedsthe ontradictoryeitherfthe nsolubles wholeor f ts econd art. he uthorsprobablyhinkingf Deus on stvel liquisomo icit erum',ut his,x asusfalse.Whatswantedspresumablyhe ontra-dictoryf he econdart f hensolublenly. his ouldeemobe Aliquisomoicit erumvelhaec st alsa:Nullusomoicit erum".hisstrue nvirtuef he econdisjunct.

I I

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


34 49Sequitur nunc videre de insolubili formato ex propositionedisjunctiva. Ubi tria sunt similiter notanda. Primo, quod ad formandum

insolubile ex propositione disjunctiva, oportet quod sumatur unapropositio impossibilis,50 t ex ilia, cum una alia falsificante e ipsam,formetur isjunctiva, verbi gratia,

4Homo est asinus vel tota ista dis-junctiva st falsa'

35 siSophismaprimum est istud. Ponatur quod ista sit conclusiotua 'Motus non est in instanti'. Tunc pono tibi istam disjunctivam'Motus est in instand vel tota sta disjunctiva st falsa' Tunc quaero autest vera aut est falsa. Si est vera, altera pars est vera, vel ambae partessunt verae. Si ambae sunt verae, igitur haec est vera 'Mo tus est in

instanti' et haec est vera, per te, 'Motus non est in instanti', quae estconclusiotua; igitur, duo oppositasunt imul vera, quod est impossibile.36 Si vero una pars tantum it vera, vel igitur prima vel secunda.

Si prima, igitur duo opposita sunt simul vera, quod est falsum. Si verosecundapars sit vera, cum secunda pars dicat disjunctivam sses*falsam,igitur disjunctivaest falsa; et, per consequens, pars erit falsa, quia adfalsitatem ejusS3sic requiritur; igitur secunda pars erit falsa; igitursi secunda pars erit vera, secundapars erit falsa, quod répugnât.

37 Si vero dicatur quod disjunctiva it falsa, gitur utraque (pars)erit falsa igitur ecundapars erit falsa igitur liter est quamsignificetsed, cum ipsa significet isjunctivam esse falsam, igitur non sic eritquod disjunctiva it falsa; et, cum sic sit quod ipsa sit vera vel falsa,igitur sic erit quod ipsa erit vera; igitur si ipsa erit (falsa), ipsa eritvera, 4quod est impossibile, s ut patet.

38 s6 ecundumsophisma st hoc 'Homo est asinus vel utraque parsistius disjunctivae est falsa'. Et probatur et improbatur ut sophismapraecedens.

39 s7Ad primum sophisma dicitur quod disjunctiva est falsa.Et ad probationem, quando dicitur quod secunda pars est falsa, con-ceditur, et quod aliter est quam significet, t quod ipsa significai is-junctivam esse falsam.Et ulterius, negatur lia consequentia "igitur non

49marg.e insolubili)orma(to)xd(isjunctiva),artiallyut ff t hedgef heolio50nfact,ny alseropositionill o.51MSdds e secundoenotatur?)sophismatauo, uteemso eletet.» MSst.53.e.,disjunctivaenot artis).54MSalsa.mend,nd dd falsa' arliern he entence,or he ense.55 f. . 43 nd, elow, .64.56marg.ecundumophisma.57marg.esponsio.

12

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


sic <erit>quod disjunctiva it falsa".*8Et quod consequential sit malapatet, quia stat antecedens esse verum sine consequente. Sed, si inantecedente

ponatur quod praecise60significet psamfore

falsam,tunc

consequentia esset bona, sed antecedens esset falsum.61Et similiterrespondetur ad sophisma secundum, eodem negando consequentiam.

40 62Sequiturnunc videre de insolubili formato ex propositioneconditionali. Ubi tria similiter sunt notanda: primo, quid requiriturad formandum nsolubile ex propositione conditionali; secundo, po-nendasunt duo sophismata; tertio, dandaesunt solutiones.

41 Circa primum notandum quod ad formandum nsolubile exconditionali, oportet quod una propositio sumatur conditione, quae,

si est vera, sequitur ipsam esse falsam, el ad quam sequitur oppositumsui ipsius.42 Circa secundumponuntur f. 1 6v) tria sophismata. 3Sophisma

primum est hoc 'Aliqua propositio est quae si est vera, nulla propositioest vera'. Tunc quaero aut ista conditionalis st vera aut falsa. Si vera,igitur aliqua propositio est quae si est vera, ipsa non est vera; igitursi ipsa est vera, ipsa est falsa, quod est impossibile. * Consequentiaest nota, et antecedensverum; igitur et consequens.

43 Si autem dicatur quod illa conditionalis sit falsa: Contra,quod illa propositio 'Nulla propositio est vera' sit. Tunc arguitur ic:Haec propositio est aliquapropositio; et, si ilia est vera, nulla est vera;igitur aliqua propositio est quae si est vera, nulla propositio est vera.Casus est possibilis antecedens est verum, et consequentia est bona;igitur et consequens est verum; igitur prima propositio vera; igituretc.

44 65 ecundum sophismaest istud. Pono tibi istam propositionem'Aliqua propositio est vera, quae si est vera, nihil esť. Et improbatursicut praecedens. Et probatur eodem modo, posito quod haec propo-sitio 'Nihil est' sit in mente vel in scripto.66Et tunc fit dem argumen-tum, quod prius fiebat, uia ilia est, et si ilia est vera, nihil est; igituretc.*8Cf. ar. 7.5® Sausa.60MSraeciseuod.61 f. ule, above,ar. .62marg.e nsolubiliormatoxconditionali.03marg.rimumophisma.

Cf.nn. 3,gg. t s"impossible"resumablyecause,f t were rue, henome ropositionwouldeboth ruend alse.he uthorenieshistepnhis eplyo he rgument,ar. 6.65marg.ecundumophisma.66t snot lear hyinvoce'somitted.

13

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


45 67Tertium sophismaest hoc. Ponatur ista propositio 'Aliquidest possibile quod si est verum, nihil est possibile*. Et improbatur

eodemmodo sicut

praecedens.Et

probatur imiliter, posio

quod haecpropositio Nihil est possibile' sit n scripto vel in mente.6846 6^Ad illa sophismatarespondendum st, et primo ad primům.

Admittendus st casus, 0 et concedendum est argumentum otum, quiaillud non est impossibile - immo est verum, ut probat argumentum.Ex hoc tarnen71 on sequitur quod aliqua propositio sit vera et falsa,quia conditionalis ihilponit. Ideo, concedendumest totum. Et similiterrespondendum est ad secundum sophisma et ad tertium, quia illaepropositiones sunt verae, ut patet, quia ad veritatem ipsarum nihil

aliud requiritur nisi quod consequensincludatur n antecedente.47 72Sequiturnunc videre de insolubili formato ex propositionecausali. Ubi primo73 ot sunt ponenda quod <de) insolubiliformato xconditionali. Et primo quod ad formandum nsolubile <ex> causali,requiritur uod sumatur na propositio cum causa,quae ad ipsamveramsequitur psamfore falsam.

48 Secundo solvuntur7*aliqua sophismata. 75Primum st de istapropositione ('Quia ista propositio est vera) 'Nulla propositio est',nulla propositio <est>'76 Probatur eodem modo, et improbatur, et

solvitur icut nsolubilede conditionali.49 77Secundum ophisma, de ista propositione Quia ista propo-

sitio est vera 'Nihil est', nihil est'. Et probatur et improbatur t sol-vitur ut prius.

67marg.ertiumophisma.68Cf. . 66.69marg.esponsi70Cf. ule , bove,ar. .71nteri.

72marg. otabile.73Readingncertain.74MS olvitur.75marg.rimumophisma.76 heMS sclearlyorruptere. he ophismas een econstructedy nalogyith he thertwo xamples.t s not ltogetherlear ow he nsolubleanbe"proved",disproved"nd"solved"fter he ashionf onditionalnsolubles.tfirst ight,t wouldppearhat, hereas"conditionalisihilonit"par. 6), he quia"lausen he resentxampleoesositomething- viz., hathis ropositionNullaropositiost' s, samatterf act,rue.f his s o, hent scertainlytrangeo ayas nemust,f he nsolubles obe solved"ike conditionalnsoluble)that he nsolublestrue.t eems,n he ontrary,hat hathe uthorsdoingerestreatingtheseausalentencess houghhey ereimplyonditionals.n hort, e eemsobe ssimilatingthe ausalonnectionnto logicalne. imilaremarkspplyothe econdnd hird ophismsin hisection.77marg.ecundumophisma.

14

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


50 ?8Tertium est de ista propositione 'Quia ista propositio estpossibiliset vera 'Nihil est possibile', nihil est possibileñeque verum'

Et probatur et improbatur t solvitur eodem modo.51 79Sequiturnunc de insolubili formato x propositione tempo-rali. Ubi tria ponuntur. Primo, quod ad formandum nsolubile extemporali, oportet sumere unam propositionem veram, et ex ipsa,cum una falsificante otam temporalem, formetur na temporalis, verbigratia de ista Homo est substantiaquando tota ista temporalis st falsa'.Et sicde similibus.

¡2 Circa secundum ponuntur duo sophismata. 8oPrimum: Po-natur quod ista sit conclusio tua 'Homo est substantia'. Praeterea, for-

metur ex conclusione, ut dictum, una temporalis, cilicet, 'Homo estsubstantia quando tota temporalis est falsa'. Et postea quaeritur auttemporalis st vera aut falsa. Si vera, igitur secunda par<s>est vera81et per consequens,si ipsaest vera, psaest falsa,ut patet ex superioribus.

53 Si temporalis st falsa, gitur mbae partes vel una pars tantumest falsa. Si ambae, igitur conclusio tua falsa est. Si una pars tantum,igitur rima vel secunda.Siprima, gitur onclusio tua falsa. Si secunda,igitur liter est quam ipsa significet; t ipsa significai emporalem essefalsam igitur non sic est quod temporalis st falsa.

54 82Secundumsophisma: Ponatur quod Sortes dicat istam pro-positionem 'Asinus est animai, quando nullus homo dicit verum'. Etponatur quod nullusalius loquatur nisi Sortes. Tunc quaeritur ut Sortesdicit verum, dicendo temporalem, ut falsum. Si verum, gitur tempo-ralis est vera; igitur secunda pars est vera; igitur Sortes non dicitverum; igitur tc.

55 Si temporalis est falsa, igitur prima pars vel secunda; nonprima; igitur secunda; sed, cum ipsa significet ortem non dicereverum, igitur non sic est sicut significai; gitur Sortes dicit verum, 3quod patet ex superioribusmanifeste igitur i dicit falsum, icit verum.

56 84 irca tertium, pro solutione sophismatum, dicendum estad primum quod casus est possibilis. s Et poste<a>,quando quaeritur78margTertiumophisma.79marg. otabile.80marg.rimumophisma.81 incet s lreadyivenhatmans substancesit onclusioua"),henferenceollowsnlyif quando'sread s"whennd nly hen",r s"just hen".othroughouthe ectionntemporalnsolubles.82marg.ecundumophisma.83MSalsum.mendorense.84marg.esponsio.85 f. ule , bove,ar. .

IS

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


aut propositio est vera aut falsa, dicendum est quod est falsa. Et adprobationem, conceditur quod aliter est quam significet, et quod

signiñcat emporalemesse falsam. Et ulterius negatur consequentia, etcausaquare dicta est prius. Et ad secundum respondendum st eodemmodo.

57 86Sequitur unc videre de insolubili formato x proposi ionibusexclusivis. Ubi tria sunt notanda. Primo quod ad formandum nsolubileex propositionibus exclusivis, oportet sumere unam propositionemveram et unam aliam falsificantem e ipsam. Et prima,8? verbi gratia,'Tantum Sortes dicit verum', posito quod Sortes dicat istam proposi-tionem 'Deus est', et quod nullus alius loquatur nisi Sortes. Et sic de

similibus.58 Circa secundumnotantur duo sophismata.88Primum: Ponaturquod Sortes dicat hanc propositionem Accidens non potest esse sinesubjecto', et quod Plato dicat ista<m> 'Tantum Sortes dicit verum'.Et nullus alius loquatur nisi isti duo. Tunc quaeritur aut Plato dicitfalsum ut verum. Si Plato dicit verum, gitur lius a Sorte dicit verum;igitur non tantum Sortes dicit verum; igitur si tantum Sortes dicitverum, non tantum Sortes dicit verum, quod est falsum.8*

59 Si vero Plato dicit falsum, t Sortes dicit verum, et nullus alius

homo loquitur nisi Sortes et Plato igitur tantum Sortes dicit verumigitur ista propositio est vera 'Tantum Sortes dicit verum' et Platodicit istam propositionem; igitur Plato dicit verum; igitur, etc.

60 «(»Secundumsophisma: Ponatur quod Plato dicat hanc propo-sitionem Deus est'. Et Sortes dicat istam aliam 'Solus Plato non dicitfalsum'. Et nulli alii loquantur nisi Sortes et Plato. Tunc quaeritur imi-liter, si Sortes dicit verum aut falsum. Si verum, alius a Platone nondicit falsum; igitur non solus Plato dicit verum. Si falsum, t nulli aliiloquuntur nisi Sortes et Plato; igitur solus Plato dicit verum; igiturilia est vera; et Sortes dicit istam; igitur Sortes dicit verum; igituralius a Platone dicit verum.

61 91 irca tertium olvuntur sta sophismata.Etprimo d primumadmittitur asus.92Et postea, quando quaeritur aut Plato dicit verumaut falsum, dicitur quod Plato dicit falsum, quia dicit propositionem86marg. otabile.87Presumablynderstandomethingike Etprimaropositioit, erbi ratia,tc."88marg.rimumophisma.89Cf. . 43.90marg.ecundumophisma.91marg.esponsio.92 f. ule , bove,ar. .

16

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


falsam. Et ad probationem, quando dicitur quod Sortes dicit verum,concedi ur to um antecedens et negatur consequentia, quia stat ante-

cedensesse verum sine

consequente.Et similiter

respondeturd

se-cundumsophisma.62 ^Sequitur nunc videre de insolubili formato x propositionibus

exceptivis.Ubi tria notantur. rimumquodadformandum ale nsolubile,requiritur uod sumatur una propositio vera, et ex illa, cum una ex-ceptiva falsificante e ipsam, sequitur formaliter argumentum, t patetin exemplo.

63 Circa secundum solvuntur duo sophismata.9* rimum est: Po-natur quod Sortes dicat istam propositionem

4Homo est animai', etPlato dicat istam aliam 'Nullus dicit verum nisi Sortes', et quod nullialii loquantur nisi illi duo. Tunc quaeritur (f. ii7r) aut Plato dicitverum aut falsum. Si verum, igitur lius a Sorte dicit verum, quod estcontra positum. Si falsum, gitur haec est vera 'Nullus homo, etc'.Et Plato dicit illam; igitur Plato dicit verum; igitur etc. Patet exsuperior bus.

64 95 ecundum sophisma: Ponatur quod Plato dicat istam pro-positionem

4Animal rationale est homo', et Sortes dicat istam aliam

'Quilibet praeterPlatonem dicit

falsum',et

quodnulli alii

loquanturnisi Sortes et Plato. Tunc quaeritur aut Sortes dicit verum aut falsum.Si verum, igitur non quilibet praeter Platonem dicit falsum. Et, siSortes dicit falsum et Sortes dicit istam, igitur sta est falsa; igitursuaoppositaerit vera.96

97Circa tertium olvuntur sta sophismata.Et primo ad primumadmittitur asus.98Et postea, quando quaeritur aut Plato dicit verumaut falsum, dicitur quod Plato dicit falsum, quia dicit propositionemfalsam. Et quando arguitur quod Plato dicit verum, conceditur ante-

cedens et negatur consequentia, et causa quia stat antecedens esseverum sine consequente, quia sta(t> quod Sortes dicat verum, et quodPlato falsum, t quod nulli alii loquatur, et Plato dicat illam, et tarnen

93marg.otabile.94marg.rimumophisma.95marg.ecundumophisma.96 he rgumentaye ompletedsfollows:Et uumppositumst Alliquisraeterlatonemdicit erum';ednullusliusoquiturisi ortes t Plato;gitur, ortes icit erum,uod stoppositumoncessi."he eplysthat Aliquisraeterlatonemicit erum'snot, nfact,the ppositef he ropositionnquestion.97marg.esponsi98Cf. ule , bove,ar. .

17

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


dicat falsum. Et sic respondetur d secundum sophisma. Et sic sit finisde insolubilibus n ista materia.

Expliciuntinsolubilia nova et noviter

compilata1368Anno Domini

TorontoPontificialnstituteoj mediaevaltudies

18

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


L'Edition critique de l'Ovidius moralizatusde Bersuire

J. ENGELS

L'éditionaire decritique

l'Ovidius

du

moralizatus

Deformisdefigurisque

Pierre Bersuire,

deorumce

parutchapitre

en 19661.

limi-

naire de l'Ovidiusmoralizatuse Pierre Bersuire,parut en 19661.Elleannonçaitcelle des quinze chapitresrestants, mais pour unavenirpas trop rapproché.Eneffet, omme e le disais dansl'Introduc-tion2,deux facteurs n entravent a parutionrapide legrandnombre demanuscrits, 'une part; la pluralitédesversionsd'autrepart. Ace jour,une soixantaine de manuscrits nt été dénombrés,dans leur majeurepartie signaléssuccessivementpar MarioEsposito3,Fausto Ghisalberti*et JacquesMonfrin*.Le rassemblementdes reproductionspour tousces manuscrits,dispersésdans le monde entier, a exigé plusieursannées. Unebibliographieextensiveétant en voie d'achèvement,jepeux me borner pour le moment à les énuméreravecleur sigle:

1. B : Bergame, Bibl. civ. Phi $(retro) 8.2. Bo : Boulogne-sur-Mer,Bibl.mun. 187.3. Br, : Bruxelles, B.R. 863-9.4« ®r2 • » m 2I944-£. Bu : Burgode Osma, Bibl.cap. 11.6. Cj Cambridge, Peterh. 2.3.9.

7. C2 : „ Queens'Coll. 10.8. C3 : „ SidneySussexColl. $6.9. C4 : „ Univ. Libr. Ii. 2.20.

10. Ch : Chantilly, MuséeCondé290.11. Cr : Cracovie, Bibl.Czartoryski 315.1Petruserchorius,eductoriumoraleLiberV,: vidiusoralizatuscap. Deormisigurisquee-orumTextuscodicerüx., ibl.Reg.63-9riticeditus, ERKMATERIAL-uitgegevendoor et nstituutoor aat atijnerRijksuniversiteittrecht,966.1Werkmateriaal-ip. II.3

BibliographieansmaNoteur uelquesanuscritsythologiquesvivariumI,pp.102-3.4Vu vidiusoralizatusdiPierreersuireRome,933,p.£2 w.5Charlesamarant Jacquesonfrin,ierreersuireprieure aint-ÉloieParis12907-1362),HistoireittéraireeaFranceXXIXpp. 34- o.Cf. ivariumI,pp.1 4-24.19

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


12. D : Dublin, Trinity Coll. ii£.13. Dm : Durham(Angl.), Bibi.cap. B. IV. 38.

14. Dr : Durham(Etats-Unis),DukeUniv. 3$.ig. G : Gotha, Landesbibl. Mbr. I.98.16. H : Hereford, Bibi.cap. O.l.ix.17. Ho : HolkhamHall, 324.18. L : Leeds, SheepscarLibr. Vyner6120.19. Ld : Leyde, Bibl. univ. Voss. Ch. F. 32.20. Lo, : Londres, B.M. Old Royal15.C.XVI.21. Lo2 : „ „ Add. MSS.15821.22. Lo3 : w „ Harl. MSS.1847.23. M, : Milan, Bibl.AmbrosianaD 66.24. M, : „ „ „Gin.2£. Mu : Munich, Bayerischetaatsbibl.Clm 3604.26. N : Naples, Bibl.naz. V.D. 37.27. Oi : Oxford, Bodl.Libr. 571.28» 02 : „ » » 844.29. O3 : „ MertonColi. 85.3°- °4 : » 299-31. 05 : „ New Coli.191.32. 06 : „ St. John's Coli. 137.32bis. Pa : Paris, B.N. lat.4969.33. Pai : „ „ » 8°i9.34. Pa2 : „ „ „ 8020.3S P**3 » » w 8 *2336. Pa4 : „ „ „ 8253A.37. Pa5 : » » » I4U6.38- Pa6 : » » » i**«-39. Pa7 : „ „ « 16787.40. Pa8 : „ „ n.a.l. 1830.41. Pa9 : „ Bibl.Mazarine3876.42. R : Reims, Bibl.mun. 1262.43. V, : Rome, Vat. Chig.lat. H.V. 168.44. V2 : „ „ lat. 6302.45. V3 : w „ Ottob. lat. 18.46. V4 : „ „ Pal. lat. 159.47. V5 : „ „ Ross.lat. 1136.48. Rn : Rouen, Bibl. mun.936.49. Ro : Rovigo, Bibl. Concordiana187.£o. S : Saint-Omer, Bibl. mun.662.

20

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


çi. Si : Sienne, Bibi.com. H. VI. 23.£2. Tj : Tortosa, Bibi.cap. go.

£3- Tz : „ „ „ 224.54. To : Toulouse, Bibl.mun. 226.££. Tr : Trévise, Bibl.com. 344.$6. Ty, : Troyes, Bibl.mun. 1627.SI- Ty2 : „ 1634.$8. Ve : Venise, Bibl.Marciana .40.£9. Wo, : Worcester, Bibl.cap. F 89.60. Wo2: „ „ „ Q 93.61. Wr, : Wroclaw, Bibl. univ. F 42.

62. Wr2 : „ „ Q 84.Quantà la pluralité des versionsde VOvidiusmoralizatusdans

r Introduction u Deformis igurisque eorumly'avais donné l'état dela questiontel qu'il se présentaiten 1966. Actuellement, a connais-sancede l'ensemble des manuscritspermet de faire une mise au point.Il se confirmeque le remanieurWimaginépar Ghisalbertin'est qu'unfantôme2. l se confirme ussi que Bersuire,à Paris, dans sa versiondéfinitive , a amplifié ne version de VOvidiusmoralizatusaiteaupara-vant à Avignon, u moyende VOvidemoralisén versrançaisen mêmetemps que du Fulgentiusmetaforalis*Pourtant, et contrairementce que tout le mondeadmettaitjusqu'ici, cette version avignonnaisen'est passa versionprimitive ite A Eneffet, orce nousest d'admettreque Bersuire,encore à Avignon,a lui-mêmemodifiésensiblement aversionprimitive, et qu'il faut distinguerdeux versionsavignonnaisesAjet A2,dont la seconde,amplifiée,deviendraP. On n'avaitpassuffi-sammentpris à la lettre l'avertissement que Bersuire avait donnénotammentdans le Prologueau premier livre du ReductoriumLaboroveronunchaec omniacorrigendoet semper liquidutile n diversisocis etmateriisggregando.

Cettefaçonde procéderde Bersuire mènepour la critiquetextuelleune conséquenceassez inattendue* Le recours aux manuscritsdesdeux versionsavignonnaisesevientinopérant pour établir le texte dela versiondéfinitive . A ce point de vue, le texte opérationnel laborépar MlleM.S. van der Biji*sur la basedes cinquante-deuxmanuscrits1Werkmateriaal3, p. II vv. f. ivariumI,pp.118-9.2 bid.,.V.3 bid.,. V.4 bid.,.V.5VIVARIUMX, p.2$SW.

2

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


qui entraient n lignede comptepour le secondchapitrede VOvidiusmoralizatus,st certes convaincant.onexpérience uradoncétépayante.

L'apparatcritique permet de conclureque les leçonsdes manus-crits du groupeol1 29 mss. de la versionAx)ne sont pertinentes uelorsqu'ellesont été conservéesdans le groupea2 (7 mss.de la versionA2).Mais,par là même, elles deviennentsuperflues.Cela vautaussipour les leçonsdu groupeoc2,esquellesne sont guèrepertinentes uesi ellesont passédansP, maispar là même deviennentégalement uper-flues.Le fait est que les 16 manuscrits u groupe7T,voiremêmeg à 6choisisparmiles meilleursexemplairescomplets,suffisentpour établirun texte critique pleinement atisfaisant e la version finaleP. Je sou-

ligne: satisfaisantu point de vue critique car indépendammentdesaccidentsde transmission,a versionP en tant que rédactionest par-cipar-là moins satisfaisanteque la version A2et surtout que Ax, J'aimontré1pour le premier chapitre de VOvidiusmoralizatuset l'apparatcritiquede MlleVan der Bijile confirmepour le second,queles modifi-cationsque Bersuirea introduites ans ses versions uccessivesne sontpas autant d'améliorations;loin de là. Alors,aurait-on 'idée de cor-rigerBersuire ontreBersuire?Evidemment on.

Le secondchapitrede VOvidiusmoralizatusst d'une compositionplus simple que le premier. 11 consiste essentiellementdans le brefrésuméde dix-sept«fables»,empruntées n principe ux Métamorphoses.Chaquerésuméest suivide petits exposés allégoriquesou mystiques,contenant es diversesapplicationsux vertus t aux vices que le mytheen questionpeut suggérer. Bersuire reste fidèle au plan qu'il s'étaittracé, dès le Prologue,pour les seize livres du Reductoriumorale celuide «réduire» tout l'univers à son aspect moral: les Propriétés deschoses(I-XII1);les Merveilles du Monde(XIV);les Fables despoètes(XV); les Personnagesbibliques(XVI).Commeil l'indiqueaussi dansle Prologue:la «matière»change;mais la «forme»reste a même.

Lesexposéssontparfois édigés la troisièmepersonne stud otestallegari . . ; Aliud ntegumentumabet . . .), plus souvent à la deuxièmepersonne,maisalors tantôt du singulier Velallegafabulam...; Veldiemorliter . .) et tantôt du pluriel, dans ce cas souvent introduitsparl'expressionKarssimi.La contradictionn'est qu'apparente,car l'im-pératif ingulier 'adresse auprédicateur n train de composerson ser-mon, tandis que les Karissimiont ses futurs uditeurs. Les exposésintroduits

parcette

expressionont des

fragments arachevésdestinés

1Werkmateraai-$pp.XVIvv.

22

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


être inséréstels quelsdans un sermon. Ils sont construits uivants espréceptesdes Artes raedicandi,t se terminent, d'après les règlesdu

genre, sur une «concordance»,c-à-d

une citation biblique qui répètelemot-clédel'exposition.Certes, aujourd'hui, l'idée d'utiliser esMétamorphosesour étoffer

dessermonsparaîtra augrenue, t Tondouteravolontiersque beaucoupde prédicateurs ient eu recoursà Bersuire.Or, citons aussitôt e nomdeJacquesLegrand1JacobusMagni),célèbreprédicateurdu roi CharlesVI et d'Isabeaude Bavière,et auteur lui-même d'un Introductoriumsermocinandionservédansle ms. Bordeaux3062.Cet émulede Gersonaimaità parsemer es sermonsde citations,directes ou indirectes,em-

pruntéesaux Métamorphoses*,t puisaitses exemplesde préférence uReductorium*Beltrán*supposeavec raisonquelemanuscrit ont e servaitLegrand tait 'actuelms. B.N. lat.167876,le quelsetrouvait lors danssabibliothèquedesGrands-AugustinsParis,sur le quaidu mêmenom.Sansdoute, Legrand tait un fervent e Bersuire. l a mêmecomposéunabrégédu Repertoriumorale resté inconnu des bibliographesbercho-riens - intitulé Abbreviano ictionariìmoralis-biblici etriBerchorii7tconservédans les manuscrits aris, B.N. lat. 15137set Toulouse74^.Faut-il considérercet usagerde Bersuirecomme uneexception?

Il me sembleque la réponse,négative, cette questionest donnéepar la soixantainede manuscritsparvenus usqu'à nous de VOvidiusmoralizatus. ertes, ce livre n'attirait pas les seuls prédicateurs.Unprofesseurmoralistecomme Jean de Hesdin10le Galluscalumpniatorcorrespondant e Pétrarque),y trouvait ussi son compte. Je n'oublie1Bibliographiencienneans .Coville,eJacobiagniitat peribusParis,889.'état e aquestiononcernantet uteurient'êtreenouvelé:.Combes,acquesegrandAlfredovilleet e Sophilogium ,ugustinianaII= 1957,p.327-48493-514;III, p.129-63.r. Roth,JacquesegrandJacobusagnif1 2£,AugustinianaII,pp.313-26;d.,Thepitaphf acquesLegrandbid,pp. 85-92..Beltrán,acquesegrandfi41 )prédicateurAnalectaugustinianaXX= 1967, p. 48-209.2ProvenantesAugustinseBordeaux.at. én. esmss.zs ibl.ubi,eFranceDépartementsXXIII,ordeaux,°,Paris,894,.170;.xvnotere apsusXlleiècle );.xlvii. oth II,p.321.H.Caplan,ediaevalrtesraedicandiAhand-listCornellniversityress,934,°74.3Beltrán,p.171,79, 83.a.*Beltrán,.202.5 bid.6Pourems., oir ivariumII, .68.7Coville,p. 2-3. oth, II, p.322-3.8Olimaint-Victor85;L.Delisle,.E.C.1869,.75.«ProvenantesAugustinseToulouse.at. én.esmss.esibl.ubi,es ép, 40,VII,oulouse-NîmesParis,885,.439.10Berylmalley,eaneHesdinO.Hosp.. oh.yecherchese héologienciennetmédiévaleXVIII1961,p. 1 w.

23

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


pasThomasde Walsingham,qui a construit es Arcanadeorum1partird'une versionavignonnaise,ni ceux intéresséspar les descriptionsdesdieux dans le De

formis igurisqueeorum

Toutefois, en'en crois

pasmoinsque les ouvragesde Bersuirequi ont connu une véritablevogue- VOvidiusmoralizatust le Repertoriumorale(égalementunesoixantainede manuscrits onservés) la devaient urtout ux prédicateurs.

11 st facilede le démontrerpour le Repertoriumt ce sera une oc-casiontoute trouvée pour résoudre, en terminant, n petit problèmeresté naguère2en suspens.Pasplus que mes prédécesseurs,e n'avaisréussià mettre a mainsur lessermonsde Bersuire,dont lui-mêmecitepourtant esincipits in sermoneaetare ierusalemLaetare terilisHaeccine

reddis ominoLasolutionestpourtant portée de lamain.Il ne s'agitderien autre chose que de lemmesparticulièrement éveloppésdu Re-pertorium. Si le prédicateur trouvait dans VOvidius moralizatusesfragments éjà rédigés,prêts à être insérés,le Repertoriumettait sadisposition es sermons ntièrementpréfabriqués.

UtrechtInstituut oor aatLatijn

1Ed.Robert.van luyve,urham,.C.,1968.f. ivariumI, p. Ç-7;02-6.*VIVARIUMII, p.147-8.3Voir ar xemplee sermonaetareierusalems.v. HierusalemdansadernièreditionuRepertoriumIV,Cologne,731,p.271ir). n utre elexemplestfourniar e sermon-lemmeudusmêmedition, , pp.126-7),equelient 'être xaminéarWilliam.Heckscheranshe umanormn ontemporaryrtThe uke niversityuseumfArt, urham,Northarolina,7 p. 17;pp.10-3.

H

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Petrus BerchoriuSy Reductorium morale, liber XV:

Ovidius moralizatus,cap.

ii

MARIAS. VANDERBIJL

[i] [DEUCALIONET PYRRHA]

In Ponitnoua fert

enimanimus

Ouidiusetc.

in*/*

[libro[Paris.,

primo]2/0B.N. lat.

quod16787k,

postquamf. i 2ra]

Ponit enim Ouidius in [libro primo]2/0 uod postquam mundusdiluuio consumptus esset et solus Deucalion cum vxore Pirra

remansissent, templa deorum voluerunt consulere quid facerent,[quomodop humanumgenus iterum propagarent. Isti ergo ad fluuiumCopheidperuenerunt t a Themis*, diuinacionisdea, responsum uperhoc petierunt. | Precepto igitur | dee iussi sunt quam cito recedere,cingula sua deponere et sua capita operire vestibus et || ossa magneparentis i. terre, s. lapides, iussi sunt retro proicere. Quod cumfecissent, isi sunt lapidesduriciam suam deponere et se in [homines]*

Siglacf. ivariumX, p.19-21).Codices, (versionisvenionensisrimae)C,,C3,C4,Cr,D, Dm,G,H, Ho,L,Loj,Lo2,

L03,Mu,N,Oj,02,O3,O4,05, Oj, Pag, yj,Ty2, 2,V4,Wo,,Wr„Wr2.

Codices2(versionisvenionensisecundae)B,Ro,T,,Tr,V,,V3,V5.Codices (versionisarisiensis) : Bo,Br,, h,Ld,M,,Pa,,Paa, a5, a6, a7, a9,

R,Rn, , Ta,To.I II bestemperna,,plerumquena¿.

1capitulumrimumdd.nmarg.a7primusiber etamorphoseost ecundumapitulumdd. a9.2 n sto ecundoa7.*quone ue)nPa7.a. oda. .4-somn.odd. .6Br,MxasR]hominemet. odd. .aMet., i. - Nous uivons'éditionritiquevec ariaectiobondantee H. Magnus,erlin,1914.to our e ms., oir ivarium II, .68.c Met., 313-41.d"Cephisidasndas".

25

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


transformare; icque de lapidibushomines creantur1 t de hiis [quos]2vir iecerat masculi, de hiis vero [quos]2 ecerat vxor feminegenerantur.

Quia ergo humanum genus de lapidibusfactum st, ideo corda lapideanaturaliter nobis insunt, mentesque nostre, ut ait, in malo faciliterindurescunt. rInde' inquit, rgenus durum sumus experiensque ma-lorum13/a# Aduerte autem quod illud diluuium n Tesalia inundauit,et quod ibi to um genus humanum, preter Deucalionem et Pirramvxorem suam, consumpserat.Qui s. in montem Parnasům nter ipsaduocacumina altíssima in nauiculam ascendentes se liberauerunt et postgenushumanum e se propagauerunt. |

Istud potest allegari quod Deus quandoquemirabiliter e peccato-ribusfacit ustos. Constat enim quod diluuiumviciorum quasiiamtotumgenus humanum consumpsit et ideo, quia iam to us mundus est iustishominibusspoliatus, quia s. per peccatum et per prosperitatis iluuiumiam omnes innocenciam miserunt, necesse est ut Deucalion i. Xristus,ex ipsis lapidibus . duris peccatoribus, ustos faciat ipsosque per peni-tenciam viuificet t componat. | LucIIII[3]: rDic ut lapides isti panesfiant1. * Sed quomodo hoc facits? Pro certo [ipsos]6 apides retro seproiciendo i. ipsos duros peccatores, [f. i2va] qui s. dicuntur proprieossa terre n quantum sunt terreni]? t auari, tribulacioni t paupertatisubiciendo et post [dorsum]8 bligacionissue in presenti ponendo | etquasi de eis non curando ||*- Ps rNunc autem repulisti t detraxisti1brconuertisti post tergum uumlc rconuertisti os retrorsum post inimi-cos nostros, et qui oderunt nos diripiebant ibi1d-, quia reuera sepefit quod homo | durus,||* lapideus et obstinatus x tali deiectione |etpostposicione ||* et tribulacione, peni ere compellitur et in se percontricionem mollitur et sic||4in hominem . in personamracionalemper

graciamet penitenciam transformatur |*. Lue [III,8]: rPotens est

enim Deusde lapidibus stis uscitare ilios Abrahe1.1creatiunt ,.2PasR] ue et. odd. .3 aborums; a9.*•bestn ,sfit , PasK.6ipso a7.?05 Vr,7>;Bo SJ erreiet. odd.8deorsuma7.a. odd. .»Met.,414.bCf. s.XLIII,0.cCf. ze.XXIII,g.dCf. s.XLIII,

26

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Vel allegafabulam1quod illi qui de lapidibusfiunt homines i. quide rusticis fiunt nobiles uel magnates, seu qui de pauperibus fiunt

diuites, uel quide humilibus fiunt

potentes,sicut sunt illi

quosDeus

post tergum roicit et, de quorum salute desperans, psossue voluntadexponit||2 et [inp peccatis suis prosperan permittit. Taies, dico,semper soient primam naturam sapere et racione sue prime originisrudes, crudeles, |duri||2 et illiberales manere | et lapideam duriciamin suis cordibus retiñere |2. lob [XLI,i$]: rCor eius indurabitur quasilapis1

I Vel die moraliter uxta exposicionem quam inueni in rithimisgallicisa,quod diluuium significai abundanciam t submergium vicio-

rum; quod pro certo qui vult euadere, debet in montem Parnasům .in contemplacionis celsitudinem ascendere, inferiora contempnere etde celestibus cogitare et inter duo perfectionis acumina et inter duocaritatis precepta, manere. Tandem ad fluuium Cephei i. ad lauacrumbaptismi per lacrimas debet accedere et post ad deam diuinacionis .ad verbum Dei audiendum, transiré; tandem debet cingulumviciorumdimittere, caput mentis per timorem et humilitatem tegere, lapides[i]4duriciam cordis, deponere et sic in se ipso poterit homines . motusracionales, reparare et mundi i. se ipsum qui minor mundus dicitur,virtutibus propagare. EzeXXXVI[26; 2$]: rAuferam or lapideum decarne vestra et dabo vobis cor carneum; efifundamsuper vos aquammundam, tc.1. |

[ii] [DAPHNE]bCum diluuio recedente*/*; erra húmida multa ammalia enormia

creauisset, accidit quod Phitonem serpentem maximum creauit, quemPhebussuissagittis ccidit6. Propter quod, dum superbirei t gloriaretureo s. quod Phitonem serpentem stum magnum cciderat et sagittauerat

1allegaabulam]ie jMlw2abestn I#3 nde a7.a. odd..4ac M, ad et. odd. .5capitulumiadd.nmarg.a7.6 nterfecit, Mx.

aDeBoer, 218^-364.f. ivariumI,p.97.bPourette able,oirW.Stechow,pollond aphneLeipzig/Berlin,932Darmstadt,965);Yves. A.Giraud,a ableeDaphne.Genève,969.cMet.,416-542.

27

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


- qui ita erat magnusquod tria terre iugera occupabat -, incepit con-tempnere CupidinemfiliumVeneris et ei inuidere de hoc quod sagittam

et archum portabat, dicens quod ad hoc nullus preter eum [f. i2vb]dignus rat qui tantumserpentem cciderat. Item CupidoaduertensquodPhebus Dane]I/apulcherrimam irginem mabat, duas sagittas uasacce-pit, vnam cum telo aureo quam in corde Phebi infixit, ue s. amoremaccendebat, alteram cum telo plumbeo qua [Dane]2percussit, et istaamorem fugere faciebat. Et sie factum est quod ex tunc Phebus noncessauit post [Dane]2currere, ipsa vero ex tunc non cessauit Phebumfugere, ta quod quanto Phebusvirginemmagis equebaturet exorabat3,tanto virgo ipsum magis fugiebat et contempnebat |* et abhorrebat.

Ista enim virginitatem ouerat et virum habere perpetuo non volebat.Iste Phebus,karissimi, ignificat uosdam[dep virtutibusgloriantes,

qui sunt in seculo et in claustro. Serpens iste significat arnem6 que[veneno]7deliciarum suarum premit et occupât totum mundum, quiapro certo multi sunt hodie qui quando possunt preualere contra ser-pentem i. contra carnem venenosam, exinde superbiunt in]8 tantumquod Cupidinem deum amoris i. amorem carnis et sectatores ipsius,abhorrent t vilipendunt et maxime uuenes asciuoset curiosos |, non

considerantespropriam fragilitatem, ed gloriantes e habere castitatem,I abhominantes^ omnem alienam iuuenilem societatem |*. Sed, procerto, dico quod tales Deus volens humiliare llos, sagittis . carnalisamoris | punctura||, vulnerari permittit t ad amandum mulierumdelicias eos laxat, ut sic s. sue carnis condicionem cognoscant et]10peccatoresalios non contempnant et ut de virtute astitatis on super-

1dane danem,anam)leriqueodé,, et a2; Mx a9danphne;daphne 05; daphiram

(daphire)u

a%4Wr2'yanamet. odd.

2Cf. . , sed a2dapnam.3precabatur,.4abestn ,.5om. a7.6crucemo .7CrGN]ventreet. odd.8pleriqueodd.]tPa7.9abhorrenteslPasR.10 ePa7.

*Pouraconfusion,onstanteumoyenge, ntre aphnétDanaé,oir ar xemplearubriqueDephebot ane nmargeeMet.,4^2dansems.Vat. at. 479,.£8r; emêmeesdeuxu-briquesePhebotDane tDe ovetDaneanses ntegumentovidiieJean eGarlande,d.F.Ghisalberti,ome,933, .43;p. $4.

28

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


biant nec présumant 1 exemplo beati Petri, qui alios contempnens|et nimis de se presumens | dixerat rEt si omnes scandalizatifuerintin

te, ego nunquam1 MtXXVI, 33], quitarnen Deo

permitientevilius

cecidit quam aliquis aliorum. Deus enim, sicut dicitur udith VI [15]rDeus presumentes [de]2 se et de sua virtute gloriantes, humiliât1.

Vel die quod Phebus significai mundane glorie appetitores, quiquando Phitonem ccidunt . quando aliquod laudabilefecerunt, ummesuperbiunt t gloriantur t exinde ad contempnendum lios animantur.[Dane]3ergo pulcherrima puella i. mundi gloria, a talibus adamatur,ita quod ipsam quantum possunt continue insequuntur, icut patet demilitibus qui pro ista habenda [circueunt]* guerras et torneamenta,

[dep ypocritis ui pro ista habenda paciuntur penitenciam t tormenta,de clericis qui pro ista habenda dimittunt patriam et delectamenta, deI auariset H1 mbiciosisqui pro mundi gloriam habendaadhibent omniablandimenta.Nichil enim est delectabilius is quam sit ista puella, nichilsua forma speciosius, nichil suis membris appetibilius. Sicut enimPhebus, ut dicitur bidem8-, re desiderio membrorum f. 13ra] Dane]3pulchritudinem nominabat ipsamque ad suum amorem humiliter ap-pellabat, sic et isti. Ista enim habet diuersa membra appetibilia s. caputi. altitudinem honoris; brachia i. amplexusamoris; ventrem . affectus

deliciarum; oculos i. aspectus scienciarum; capillos i. successus diui-ciarum. Ista enim Phebo i. vanigloriosis, lacent; ista summe desiderantet affectant, post istam infatigabiliter equuntur et in ea iugiter medi-tantur||. MtVili: rSequimini amquocumqueintroierit1b.

Sed quid? Pro certo, de Dei disposicione fit quod ista [Dane]3i. mundi gloria, tales sui immoderatos appetitores6 fugiat ipsosquerespuat H1 t contempnat,| quia vere vix fit quod talis glorie appetitoresgloriam habeant. Quinymo quanto magis eam querunt, tanto ipsamminus et tardius comprehendunt | . Ecci XI [10]: rSisequarisnon cóm-prehendes1, uia sicut dicit Hugo7/0:rHec est glorie gloriosaproprietasquodappetitores uosfugiat t appetat contempnores1.

1 bestn t.2om. a7.3Cf. uprap.28,n. 2.4circuerunta7vaduntda,.»om. a7.6amatores,7de anctoictoredd. as.

aMet.,497-£o2. bCf.Mt. ili, 9. cCf. ivariumII, . i6f.

29

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


[iii]Dicit Ouidius libro primoa quod [Dane]1pulcherrima uella nimis

fatiga afugiendo hebum, qui earn incessabilitersequens | corrumperevolebat, volens virginitatem uam seruare | sicut patri suobpromiseratse seruaturam2, um amplius pre lassitudinefugere non valeret ||, ro-gauit Tellurem [deamp terre ut illam pulcritudinem uferret ibi queerat causa et occasio tanti doloris, et sic [istadea miseria]* ius mutauitearn n laurum. Nam subito pedes eius qui leues valdefuerant, onuersisunt in radičem, pellis conuersa est in corticem, brachia in ramos etsic laurus effecta hebi cupidinemeuasit, et virginitatem uam vouerat,custodiuit.

Phebus iste, karissimi, potest significare yabolum, [Dane]1ani-mam xristianam, uia procul dubio dyabolus stam virginem, nimam,per temptaciones persequi non cessât ut [eamp per malum consensumsibi coniungat et per peccatum destruat et corrumpat. Sed quid? Procerto ipsum debet fugere, ccasionespeccati et [temptaciones]6 itandoet I si illud non suffîciat | debet rogare Deum terre s. Xristum, quodearn de manibus stius Phebi eripiat, formam liam | s. religionishabi-tům y sibi dando et sic pro certo debet fieri aurus . persona religiosa,uirtuosa et perfecta, pedes vanorum gressuum radicaliter Agendo,cor-ticem penitencie nduendo et ramos bonarum ffectionumacquirendo etviro em conuersacionis honeste]?nunquam perpetuo deponendo. Sicenim mutata istius Phebi cupidinem non timebit et virginitatem .integritatem mentis, perpetuam retinebit. Vnde loh. XX[i4] dicitur deMagdalenaquod rconuersa retrorsum idit Ihesum'

I Vel si vis allega de beatis virginibus Agnete, Agatha, Cecilia,Katerina t Margareta0, ue amatores uosvelut stercora contempseruntet ab eorum connubio refugere t in lignum pro virginitate eruanda

i Cf. upra,.2 ,n.2.2secundumaturantidd. asR.3GMuNPa VAWr^'eumet. odd.4PagWr2)ii stimiserti N; steille) eusmisertuset. odd.seum a7.

a,J emptacionem2;-urn .aiM om.et. odd.7

»Met., S43-S2-bVoirnfrap.32, igne3.cAgnesomaeBHLn°s1^6-67);gathaatanaeBHLnos 33-40);aeciliaomaeB//L,n°s 49£-£oo);atharinaenensisBHL,os1702-9); argaritaliasReparata,icta elagius(BHL,°£323).

30

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


mutate fuerunt, n quantum vitam humanam perdiderunt [f. 13rb]et corpora sua sicut truncum ligneum reliquerunt. H1

Velallega

de multisvirginibus ue pulcritudinem orporis propterquam sequebantur, dampnauerunt,2 icut dicitur accidisse in Angliade

quadam virgine, quam cum rex patrie summe vellet habere ipsamqueincessanter rogaret, peciit ab ipso quid erat illud quod tantum n eadiligebat. Rex vero asseruit pulcritudinem oculorum suorum tantumdiligere. Illa [autem domump pergens oculos sibi eruit et regi, ut se-daret eius concupiscenciam,transmisita. ste enim audierant* llud EcciXXI[2] rQuasia facie colubri fugepeccatum1, figurâtes n illa muliere,ApoXII[i4], cui date sunt ale due aquile ut a facie drachonis insequentis

fugeret t ut in solitudinem e saluaret H1.I Vel die quod ista [Dane]6naturam humanamsignificai, uam s.Appollo, deus sapiencie i. Xristus, sapienciaDei patris, percussus teloCupidinisqui deus erat amoris i. inflammatus eruenti t inextinguibilicaritatis more, a principio umme dilexit et eius allectus [pulcritudinepeius connubium concupiuit et eius copulam, que fit per graciam, re-quisiuit. Ipsa tarnen stum amorem vilipendens per errores et viciaab eo fugiit, ed tandem per beatam incarnacionem b eo comprehensa,in laurum . in honestatis ecorem et in sacre fideivirorem, e mirabiliter

mutauit, quam tunc iste Phebus, Xristus, per caritatem amplexatuspluribusbeneficiisinsigniuit.

Vel die quod ista puella est synagoga uam deus sapiencie, Xristus,summe diligens et]8propter earnsibi coniugendam t ad fidem onuer-tendam de celo usque ad Iudeamipsampersonaliter ersequens, ab ipsafuit mnino contemptus t sermo sue predicacionis b [ea]9non auditus.Quinymo ipsa [Dane]6,synagoga, ibi fuit n laurum mutata n quantumab ipsa pro eo crucifigendo rux lignea fuit preparata. Istam ergo ar-borem aurum . sánete rucis lignum, psePhebus,Xristus, specialiter]10

1 bestn 1#2MxasPa7RT2 o] eponunt, deprauaueruntet. odd.3a, a2]cceditddomumo acceditomiet. odd. .4 ste udierant]sta udierat, a2LdPasPa6R.*figurata2Pa5 a6R.6danesa9;danaMxdapnaa2dyanaet. odd. .7pulcritudinema7.som. a7.9Br, ax a5eocet.odd. .10spiritualiterh; inalitera7.aVoir our etype f ale, . C.Tubach,ndexxemploritmAhandbookfmedievaleligiousalesHelsinki,969,o 744k.

31

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


sibi vendicai et multis priuilegiis eam ditat et ipsam personaliteramplexatus virore et vigore ipsius fidem et pulcritudinem perpetuo

ordinat atque mandat-

vide in paragrapho equentia 1er XVII1 8]rErit folium eius viride nec aliquandodesinet facere fructum1.Vel die quod ista est beata Virgo que Deo patri suo virginitatem

vouerat et tarnen de Dei filio est amata et tandem in laurum sempervirentem st mutata, nquantum viror sue virginitatis iret et durât, inpuritate perpetua conseruatab.

Vel die de Cupidine, qui duplici telo erat armatus, quod iste estDeus amoris, Dei filiusquia s., sicut dicitur i loh [IV2, 8], rDeuscaritasest1. Sagitte psius sunt diuina mandata, duplici s. penna impennata .

in duplici caritate fundata. ed reuera de istis telis vnum erat acutum etaliud obtusum, n quo s. notatur quod aliqua sunt mandata ffirmatiua,alia negatiua; prima sunt boni amoris inflammatiua, ecunda sunt[f. i 3va]mali amoris repressiuac.

Vel die litteraliter quod Dane^fuit quedam nobilis puella que fu-giendo cuiusdammalum amorem, qui Phebus dicebatur, est mortua etsub lauro quadam sepulta, et sic mutata n laurum ab aliis* fuit fictad.Quod ad synagogam ertinet ue, quia Xristum fugiit, deo sub lauro i.sub cruce, sepulta dicitur, in quantum per crucem et crucis virtutem

synagogepotencia deficit t sopitur. IUIRegIX[ 34] rSepelite am quiafiliaregis st1.

Aliud autem integumentume abet quod Peneus pater Danes estquidam fluuius Thessalie in cuius ripis, quia laurorum multitudo eratquas ibi sol de humore generabat, fictum st quod Phebus Penei filiami. humorem, amabat; occasione cuius laurus [proueniebat]6.

Vel die quod Cupido est luxuriosus qui, licet sit Veneris filius tlasciuus, sagittas tamen diuinorum eloquiorum portât, de quo tamen

124Pa7t leriqueodd..2ßr,] II et. odd. .3dyanao r, d Pas To danaMxdanes eldane ag.4poetis x a5.sdyaneoßrl .6perueniebata7.aP. 33, ignes-ig.bDe Boer, 32 6-60.cDeBoer, 3320-30.dDe Boer, 3075-108.eDe Boer, 3067-74.Poura notion ntegumentumvoir . Jeauneau,a ecturees uteursclassiquesV coleeChartresurantapremièreoitiéuXlleiècledans lassicalnfluencesnEuropeancultureA.D.£00-1OO, ambridge,971,p.100-.

32

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Febusnoster, Xristus, psum indignum udicat et contra eum in ?salmo[XLIX,16-8] sic clamat infra1: rPeccatori autem dixit Deus: Quaretu enarras iusticias meas?1, et: rTu vero odisti

disciplinam,et cum

adulteris porcionem tuam ponebas etc."1 |

[iv]Laurus [que]2alio modo dicitur [daphnesp/*, pro eo forte quod

Dane* in laurum est mutata, est arbor quam sibi Phebus | i. sol ||*apropriauit et quam osculatus et amplexatus tenerrime adamauit, ip-samque specialibus priuilegiis insigniuit. Voluit enim quod de laurofierent ibi corone, cithare et sagitte; voluit quod victores lauro]6 oro-narentur; voluit

quodlauro domus

imperatorum,et eciam

quercuset alie sibi vicine arbores, a fulmine tuerentur, quia s. teste Pliniobsola laurus inter arbores non fulminatur; voluit insuper quod comaistius arboris nunquam deponeretur, sed quod viror eius perpetuovideretur, icut ponit Ouidiuslibro primo0.

Rarissimi, ista laurus significai rucem que pro certo fuit arborPhebo i. Xristo, Soli iusticie, dedicata et ab eo corporaliter mplexata.Ista enim debet esse nobis pro corona honoris et gloriacionis, pro ci-thara laudis et

graciarumctionis,

pro sagittaverbi Dei et sante

pre-dicacionis, pro gloria vieto ie cuiuslibet temptacionis, pro tutela ful-minis diuine sentencie et eterne dampnacioniset, quod plus est, proviro e eterne glorie et future aluacionis.Ista enim omnia in cruce in-ueniuntur | ab illis qui in ea confidentes protectioni ipsius commit-tuntur y , de quo IohannesCrisostomus: rCrux est Xristianorum spes,Romanorum? victoria, cecorum dux, conuersorum via, claudorumbaculus,pauperum onsolatio, rbor resurrectionis, ignum ite eterne*10.

1om.

oBrtMlPa5

RS.1BoBrx t ax a5RS]qui et. odd. .*LLot 5Wox]anphne;danphe ;daphneusIo3 3;daphireasWr2-usMu-eusV4;daffius2;daphe(n)uset. odd.x;draffus",daffereusr dafiust; afiuset. odd. 2, mn.

codd..4danphne;danphnedaphnes5;daphyrema&V4Wr2;ana r Mxdyanar1.5abestn ,.6a,Pas t] m. et. odd.7preliorumN;prauorumet. odd. ; pugnatorum2.aCf.Myth.II Bode,.201, 3-5). f. ivariumI,p.76.bHist. at. I, vi.

cMet., ££3-67.d n anctamrucemMigne,G o, ol. 19. Voir .A.deAldama,epertoriumseudochrjsostomicumParis,96$, °494.

33

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


[v] [gigantes]Narrat Ouidius libro primoa quod Gigantesaffectauerunt regnum

celeste, et ideo ut ad celum possent ttingere oniecerunt t aggraueruntmontem1supra montem1 t ita inaltauerunt f. 13vb]habitacionem uamquod quasi ad sydera attingebant. ed summus deorum, Iupiter, istudvidens fulmine e celo misso montes stos subuertit t corpora gigantea2subtus oppressit et terram eorum sanguine humectauit. | Isti autemGigantes Ty annic fuerunt dicti, qui habere pedes serpentinos ueruntficti, ui eciamalio modo fuerunt terrigene ppellati.

Ad litteram utem isti fuerunt quidam potentes, qui contra ouemin terra congregato exercitu pugnauerunt. Sed quia Iupiter et sui oc-cupauerunt montes, isti vero in valle remanserunt, t ut ascenderentad Iouem, turres et machinas construxerunt ideo montes aggregaredicti sunt. Quia eciam contra montes repere contendebant, deo pedesserpentinos habuisseficti fuerunt. Iupiter uero in monte, tanquamdeussuperius n celo, manere fingi ur, et quia lapidibusde monte ruentibusobruit illos de valle, ideo ipsos fulminasse de celo dictus fuitc. ||

Reuera, karissimi, tales Gigantes sunt hodie tyranni diuites etauari,

quibuss. non sufficit sse in statu suo nec in statu subiectionis

et humilitatis, ymo in celum, ad sta um alte prelacionis et domina-cionis, summe nituntur scendere et volare, [sicut]*patet in ambiciosisetc. Y a XIIII[13; 14] rAscendam n celum supra astra celi et exaltabosolium meum; similis ero Altissimo1. stud eciam patet in auaris quicupiunt fieri milites, iudices | et bailliui ||s et locum celi i. alte iuri-dictionis, summe cupiunt occupare. Sap XVIII[16] rVsque ad celosattingebat tans n terra"1. t ideo tales ut illud melius faciant t optine-ant, aggregant hodie montes ad montes, prata ad prata, domos ad

domos,et

sicde

aliis,contra

quosYsa

V[8]rVe

qui coniungitisdomum

ad domum, agrum agro copulatisi Non cessant enim hodie auari etambiciosi6diuicias aggregare ut sic eis mediantibus possint celum i.

1montesj a2.2gigantům-ium)a9 t leriqueodd.tj 2.3Pa7tyranniet. odd. .4sed a7.5abestn ,.6auarit mbiciosi]uariciat mbiciof.

cMet., igi-S'toMyth.II Bode,. i$6,30-4).Cf.Werkmateriaal-},p.3£-6,ignes6 qq.aCf.De Boer, 1 01-35.

34

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


mundanam celsitudinem, optinere. | Repere enim et sursum velieascendere non cessant, et ideo serpentinám maliciam representant.Déos enim de celis i. iustos de suis officiis, ituntur etrahere t contraeos eciam bella facere ut sic ipsi possint loco eorum in altis mundiofficiisconregnare. |

Sed quid? Pro certo, lupi er summus deus quandoque talibusocculte emittit fulmen i. suam subitam sentenciam per mortem uelinsperatam ribulacionem, psosque montes i. eminenciam sui status,destruit t prosternit t eos a sua vanaopinione retardat et impedit |iet terram circumiacentem . patriam, sanguine sue infame mortis etdampnacionis mbuit et remollit. Ps [CV, 38]: Interfecta est terra n

sanguini useorum"1.I Vel die quod celum est ecclesia quam tyranni mpugnare noncessant et serpentinis pedibus i. maliciosis affectibus, epere contraipsam. Ista tamen [f. i4ra] salua remanet et saluatur et a loue, Deo,deffenditur. Ipsi vero in infernum orruunt et dampnantur t diuinasentencia ulminantur. |

[vi]Dicit Ouidius libro primo8- uod cum Iupiter fulminasset Gi-

gantes, de sanguineeorum nati sunt alii Gigantesqui peiores facti suntquam erant patres sui. Nam quia de sanguine erant nati, sanguinemideo naturaliter iccierunt, numina superna contempserunt t cunctismolesti et violenti fuerunt, propter quod postmodum | diluuio ||perierunt. rContemptrix' inquit, rsuperum uidissimacedis fuit ut exsanguinenatafuit lla propago10.

Reuera, karissimi, ic accidit multociens n hoc mundo. Constatenim quod Deus sepe fulminât, ccidit et dampnat malos Gigantes .superbos et peccatores, sed vere de genere et sanguine uo nascunturaliquociens alii Gigantes i. mali filii et imitato es, qui in locum pre-decessorum patrum nsurgunt, ui malam eorum mortem uel depres-sionem non metuunt nec attendunt, ed velut nati ex sanguine . exparentibus sanguinolentis, anguinem crudelitatis iciunt, superna nu-mina s. Deum et sanctos, contempnunt. De malis enim parentibus2

1 bestn 1.2patribusleriqueodd.x.

aMet., i£ -62bCf.Met., 1 0-2

3S

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


mali filii faciliter generantur, uia patrem sequitur sua proies. Et istiut sanguineaproles in sanguinedelectantur; per ipsos | boni || homines

molestantur, propter quod summus deus Iupiter ad iram prouocaturet eisdem dampnacionem perpetuo comminatur. 1er VII126]: rPeiusoperati sunt quam patres eorum1; [NumXXXII2,14]: rVos surrexistispro patribus vestris, incrementa et alumpni hominum peccatorum1.

I Vel potest allegari contra bailliuos qui quamuisa loue i. a prin-cipibus et prelatis, videant predecessoressuos propter eorum excessusfuissedestructos t adnichilatos, fulminatos, ppressos et exheredatos,quandoqueinsuper uspensos et dampnatos, psi tamen ex hoc non suntmeliores, sed ut communiter precedentibus unt peiores, et ideo penaconsimilimoriuntur. |3Istud eciam potest allegari generaliter e omnibus malis, quia veromors et punicio predecessorum non est correccio maligno um. VndeProu XXVIH, 22]: rSi [contuderisp stul um quasi in pila tipsanas, nonrecedet ab eo stulticia sua1.

[vii] [concilium deorum]rEstviasublimisi.

Dicit Ouidius libro primob uod Iupiter deus celi quadamdie omnesalios deos ad consilium conuocauit, et dicitur bi quod dii vocati statimad domum ouis, ad tectum regale, ad celeste pallacium conuenerunt]6Verumptamen non per quamcumqueviam, ymo dicit quod [venerunt]7ad Iouem per vnamviamspecialemque erat sublimis, ue erat manifesta,que erat candida, que eciam vocabatur actea. rLactea' inquit, rnomenhabet, candore notabilis ipso; [hac]8 ter est superis'c.

Et reuera talis via videtur esse ilia via per quam peruenitur ad

paradisum. Constat enim quod Deus celi [continue^ vocat deos spiri-1velXI dd. a7.2Bfx)eut. X Ipleriqueodd.3abestn , Tr.4ßr,R]XIXet. odd.5a, a2Br]contenderiset. odd..6conueniunta7.a. odd. .7veniunta7.a. odd. .8hoc a7t leriqueodd.9cotidieo a7 .

aMet., 168.bMet., 163-76.cMet., 1 9-70.

36

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


tuales .1 viros ustos | et perfectos |2, ad suum secretum consilium, adceli domicilium et ad habitaculum paradisi. | [Ps LXXXI,i] : rDeusenim stetit n

synagogadeorum12, et sequiturp || [Ps XLIX,iJ:rDeus

[deorum]* ominusloqutusest et vocauitterram1.Sed, pro certo, via per quam isti dii i. per quam viri sancti,

perueniunt d Iouem est multum singularis t [priuilegiatap quia procerto sti veniunt

¡per

per

perper

tem

viam

viam

viam

viamet manifestam

sublimen

lacteam

apparen-

candidam

quantum

quantumquantumquantum

ad

adad

adrelucentemeuidentem

eminentem

demulcentem

celsitudinem

pulcritudinemlimpitudinem

plenitudinem

sane

veritatis,castitatis,

pietatis.

ti a is,per viamapparen-

¡per

tem et manifestam quantum ad euidentem limpitudinem veritatis,per viam candidam quantum d relucentem pulcritudinem castitatis,per viam acteam quantum ad demulcentem plenitudinem pietatis.

Sancti enim veniunt d Xristum per viam acteam6 . per viam?pietate,castitate, veritate [et sanctitate]8 ulgentem. deo de tali via dicitur,Y a 30 [21]: rHec est via, ambulate in ea, nec deuietis« ex ea neque addextramnequead sinistram1. Vide infraVili. ||10

[viii] [lycaon]

Narrat Ouidius libro primoa quod lupi er deus celi, | postquamattenta corrupcione totius humani generis cum diis vniuersis onsiliumcelebrasset quod totum genus humanum diluuio submergi deberet,voluit primo personaliter d mundum descendere et terram sub aliaspecie circuire ut s. si crimina que de hominibusdicebantur ssent veravideret. Iste igitur | humana indutus ymagine descendit nterrami11,[ut]12 Lichaonem, nequissimum quendam tyrannum, visitaret. Qui

1spirituales.] nv. t.2abestn ,.3M]om. j quia 2 t et. odd. .4a, a2] orum .spriuilegiaa7.6?asPa7]m. et. odd.i vitam2.8om.a7.9declinetisoMx T2.10m.MxasPa9.11 m. a7.12

a2tnonnulliodd.

,]vbi um .

»Met., 177-243.

37

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


[quidem]1Lichaonparato sibi quodam lecto2 n domo sua ipsum occulteoccidere attemptauit; propter quod dictus Lichaon ab ipso mutatus

est in lupum et ut lupus incepit vlulare et vagabundusper nemoracircuire.

I Rei autem Veritas ecundum [integumentump/a uit ista quod,cum multi essent confederati ad bellandum contra Iouem regemCrethe, qui se deum a suis subditis aciebat redi et vtens magicis rtibusadorari, pro explorando exercitu inimicorum mutato habitu usque adArchadiam andemvenit, vbi fraudulenter Lychaonereceptusb. Nocteparatis insidiis ipsum Lychaon occidere attemptauit, propter quodIupiter terram suam sibi abstulit. Sed et mortem prudenter precauensipsum in montem et siluas fugere coegit, vbi diu rapinis et latrociniisvixit, et sic mutatus n lupum non inmerito dictus fuit. |

Recte, karissimi, talis Lichaon videtur fuisse peruersus populusIudeorum. Constat enim quod summus Iupiter, Dei Filius, assumptahumana ymagine per incarnacionem ad terram noscitur descendisse,iuxta illud Baruch II [38]: rPostea n terris visusest et cum hominibusconuersatus st1. Dornumeciam Lichaonis . populum udeorum, voluitpersonaliter isitare, ed quiadictus Lichaoni. dictuspopulus udeorum,eidem preparauit lectum mortis i. crucem, vbi ipse voluit mortemferre*/ , ideo mutatus est in lupum, quia s facti sunt fugaceset vaga-bundi ad modum lupi propter mortem quam Dei Filio attemptauerunt.Vnde Osee IX, 17] rEt [eos]*abiciet Dominus Deus [quia]?non audie-runt eum, et erunt vagi in nacionibus"1. Terra eciam et regno fueruntpriuati et in alienis terris t patriis exulati. Ipse tarnen Iupiter, Xristus,mortem ciuit euadere et [per]8resurrectionem e lecto mortis surgereet ab isto um maliciase saluare.

Vel die quod Lichaon fuit Herodes, qui ad litteram Deum interinfantes? ccidere voluit, sed ipsesapienter recauitc. j

1quidama7. . codd.2prandioasR.3PasR] egumentumet. odd. .4 pse ferre rl a7]umipsum)oluit orteenre leriqueodd.,et 2 ipsamoluit ortemferre al asR; psumoluit ortemerreet.odd..5Br¡] IIIet. odd. . • ai a2ßrj cumet. odd. .7a a2ßr, as] uareet. odd.. 8post ö7.9 nnocentesa$R.

aDe Boer, 1389-444.bPouregenre 'anacoluthe,oirWerkmateriaal-j,p.XVI-XX.cDe Boer, 1 35-67.

38

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


[ix]Lychaona fuit quidam tyrannus nequissimus qui habebat mores

lupinos1,icet homo exterius

apparerei.Iste dum

Iupiterad domum

eius veniret, ccidit vnumhominem quem captiuumde gente Molenabtenebat, | et eius carnes sibi optulit ad comedendum. Propter quamcrudelitatem ratus Iupiter mutauit eum in lupum, et sic lupus factusest manifeste, ui lupus fuerat mentaliter t occulte.

I Veritas autem videtur fuisse quod iste qui erat raptor, Iouiconuiuium preparauit et sic eum carnibus humanis i. de substanciaaliena, pauit, cuius nequicias audiens Iupiter eum regno priuauit etc.,

sicut dictum est paragrapho recedenti. |Sic vere multi sunt hodie qui quamuis videantur sse homines i.quamuis fingant e esse iustos, racionabiles et benignos, ipsi tarnenmentem habent crudelem, impiam et lupinám, sicut patet de multisqui crudeliter rapiunt et puniunt et tarnen plures eleemosynas et aliabona faciunt. Qui eciam Deo ipsi carnes humanas ofiferunt, uia multisunt qui subditos suos et alios rapinis et vsuris occidunt2 ut exindeIoui i. Xristo, conuiuium faciant s. eleemosynaspauperibus dando,altaría ornando |p et cetera pietatis opera faciendo. Sed dicitur quodIupiter noluit gustare, quare Deus talia opera noscitur reprobare quia,sicut dicitur Ecci 34 [24]: rQui offert [eleemosynas]*de substanciapauperis, quasi qui vnicum filium victimat n conspectu patris"1. amsicut ibidem [23] dicitur: rDona [iniquorump non probat Altissimus1.Tales ergo finaliter mutantur n lupos, quia s. condiciones habentlupinas in quantum raptores magni et notorii efficiuntur, uibus i.pauperibus, nsidiantur, anibus . prelatis t predicato ibus, nimicanturet pro voce sanelocucionisvlulatu terroris, actancieet comminacionisII3[f. 1 V ] infamie et detractionis, | tristicie et desperacionis ||3vtuntur. Vnde isti sunt illi lupi de quibus dicitur Soph II: rPrincipeseiuslupi rapaces10.

I Vel die quod tales sunt bailliui et officiates, uia s. de carnibusMolenorum i. de substanciis pauperum subdito um, loui i. magistris1moresupinos]entemupinámleriqueodd.t.2spolianttoccidunt,.3 bestn ,.4om. a7.5impioruma7.

aMet., 226-31bMet., 226: Molossa".c Cf. oph.B,3etMt.VII,g.

39

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


suis, soient larga conuiuia preparare. Quibus tarnen non obstantibussoient boni principes talia conuiuia abhorrere t eos deponere, et regno

et statu priuare, et sic in lupos ipsos mutare dicuntur n quantum . ipsicogunt os vlulare. |

[X] [ YO

Narrat Ouidius libro primo11 uod Yo fuit filia cuiusdamfluminisqui dicebatur Ynachus, quam propter suam pulcritudinem lupi eradamauit. Qua refugíente morem clara die lupi er mundum nebul s,ne deprehenderetur Iunone1impleuit et sic nimpham rapuit | quasi[excecatamj |2et [corrupitp.

Iupiter n isto loco potest significare surarios*principes t raptoresqui filias luminum . pauperumpossessiones,rapiunt t extorquent ed,ne a lunone i. a prelatis t correctoribus, urtum huiusmodip ognoscatur, nebulas malarum, falsarum, autelarum, excusacionum]6 et pal-liacionum ||? inducunt. Vnde YsaVI8: rVide<> ebulám totam terramtegentem1

IVel die

quodtalis est

dyabolusquiad hoc

quodYo i.

animam,possit decipere, solet primo nebulis ignorancie psam includere, et sicipsam liberius potest per vicia maculare. ||

[xi]Cum Iupiter [timeret]I0/b uod lunodeprehenderet psum n adul-

terio cum Yo, amicasua, induxit nebulas ne videretur, t insuperdictamYo mutauit n vaccam pulcherrimam et formosam]1 .

1 limoner,; a7nmarg.]m.et. odd. .2Pa ] xcecama7.a. odd. .3BoBri <*st ]corrumpitet. odd. .*mundi,; mundisurarios2.splurimiodd.]ius o huiuset. odd.6pleriqueodd.]xecucionuman.7abestn 1.8a, a2MiPa7 o]YsaXVIet. odd. cantatcclesiaadiusWerkmateriaal-2p.42 in. 1).• vidi leriqueodd.10imensa7.11 m. a7.

»Met., $83-600.&Met., 610-12.

40

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Taliter pro certo videntur facere latrones. Quando enim timentquod furtum uum cognoscatur, oient tempus nebulosum, secretum et

obscurum expectare | et ipsas res furatas ransformare |xet

mulieremin vaccam,capamin capucium, tunicam n caligastransmutare.Vel die quod lupi er est dyabolusqui [quando]2non vult quod Yo i.

anima, cum qua per peccatum fornicatur, Iunone i. ab ecclesias,cognoscatur et | conuertatur t || retrahatur, mutat earn in vaccam i.facit earn peccatricem et carnalem et ab omni spiritualitate lienam, etsic in eius iuridictione ipsam retinet obligatam. Vnde ?s [CV, 20]:rMutaueruntgloriam suamj*n similitudinem ituli ommedentisfenum1.

[xü] Yo mutata in vaccama, dum iret ad fluuium Ynachi patris sui,in aqua videns cornua se habere et pulchritudinem uam amisisse etvocem in mugi um commutasse, timuit et abhorrait* semetipsam.Et ideo finaliter uit ad fluuium Nili, vbi ad Iouem oculos erexit, et quoditerum n femineam puellam mutaretur loue | preeibus et fletibus |[f. i £ra] mpetrauit.

Sicvere anima peccatrix que per peccatum de virgine Dei amicain

vaccami. in vilem6 peccatricem, mutatur, uandoque vadit ad fluuiumSacre scripture, qui est fluuius Dei Patris, et ibi pro certo cognoscitse habere cornua superbie et elacionis, mugi um turpis et inhonesteloqueionis, formam vaccinam bestialis et carnalis conuersacionis. Istaergo se ipsam et vilem condicionem suam debet abhorre e?, fluuiumNili i. fluuium acrimarum, uerere, Iouem i. Deum, orare et sic resti-tucionem forme [i.]8 innocencie pristine poterit impetrare. Tre 1 8]rIpsa utem gemens onuersa st retro sum1.

[xiii]Cum Ynachusfluuiusb, ater Yo, videret eam mutatam n vaccam,

1abestna,.2om. a7 2.i non dd. a7 2.4om. a7.sPasPa7t] orruitet. odd.6personamdd. a5R.1Pa5 a7Ä]horrereet. odd.8CrMu agWr2]t et. odd.aMet., 639-41728-39.t>Met., 642-63.

41

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


summe doluit et ei compaciendodicebat: „Heu" inquit „filia, uid tutalis es Sperabam" nquit „te nobiliter maritare t ex te prolemnobilem

reportare. Nunc vero cum tu sis vacca, virum habere non poteris nisithaurum. rDe grege" nquit „tibinunc vir et de gregenatushabendus"1a.

Sicvere Deusvel prelatusplangit filiam uam . animamracionalem,quando videt earn n vaccam i. in peccatricem, mu atam. Nam cum ipsadeberet ex sui condicione maritari nobiliter, s. cum Deo, angelis |et sanctis H1per graciam s. in presenti, et per gloriam n futuro, psatarnen de grege inferni elegit sibi virum s. dyabolum, carnem uelmundum, quibus s. per malos consensus maritatur, t a quibus fetus2

malorum operum concipit | quamdiu sub talis vacce i. sub carnali etpeccatrici similitudine commoratur |. Et ideo Bernardus n libro Demeditacionibusicebat: rO, inquit, animainsignita ei ymagine, ecoratasimilitudine, sponsata fide, dotata spiritu, capax beatitudinis etc.lbquasi dicens turpe est Dominum dimisisse et peccatum et dyabolumelegisseetc.

[xiv]luno que erat vxor ouisc, | cum visisnebulisquas Iupiter ntroduxe-

rat, statim fuisset suspicata quod propter celandum suum adulteriumIupiter obnubilauerat, ta celum descendit; sed cum loue non nisi Yoin vacce specie repperit. Cui petenti vnde tam pulchra venisset, deterra fore [genitamp upiter cauteloserespondi . luno igitur vaccam sibidari a loue postulat, quod Iupiter, [licet]*non piacerei eidem, nulla-tenus sibi negat. Hec igitur || istam vaccam suam speciosam s. Yo,custodiendam cuidam pastori qui habebat centum oculos, qui dice-batur Argus, radidit, ui ita eciam erat vigilquod de suis oculisdormiresimul non poterant nisi duo. rCentum"1inquitd rluminibus inctum caput

1 bestn ,.1prolem, a2.3genita t a7 24 icereta7Rn.aMet., 66o.*>Migne,L184,ol. 89. Pour e traité 'inspirationernardine,nc.Multi ultaciuntt eipsosesciuntparfoisttribuéHugoeSaint-Victor,aiseplusouventBernardeClairvaux,et mpriméous on om, oir iet, e piritualitéI,col. çoo;J.de aCroix outon,ibliogr.bernardine/ 91-1957,aris, 9^8, . 160 t n° 1001CîteauxndeNederlandenVI= 19pp.287-8; esamtkatalogerWiegendruckenos 023-42.c Met., 601-72dMet., 62^-6.

42

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


verba, quibus consopiunt auditores quia, sicut dicitur Prou [XI,1 9]:Simulator2 ore decipit amicum suum1 [XVI, 29] ret ducit eum per

viam non bonam1 et Prou VII[21]: rIrretiuit um multis ermonibus"1|3.[Die ergo quod luno, dea et vxor louis i. ecclesia, sponsaXristi,committit quandoque Argo i. alicui circumspecto prelato, custodiamYo i. regimen subdito ump. Sed, pro certo, incantator Mercurius i.adulatores, qui ut communiter alescircumstant t talibus se associant,cum fistula verborum suorum tales Argos sepissime taliter incantantquod ipsos faciunt in viciis obdormire et a vigilia circumspectioniscessare, et maxime quando tangunt eos virga sue iuridictionis, queinducit eis sompnum maledictionis. | Tangunt, dico, eos de sua iuri-

dictione laudando et eis omnia licere contra subditos asserendo. Iuri-dictio enim est virga sompnifera que sensum et racionem ebetat,figurata iuxtap || Exo[VII6,2o]a,vbi dicitur quod virga quap percussusfluuius, versus est in sanguinem, quia s. virga temporalis uridictionisillos quos tangit, uandoque facit sanguíneos .8 carnales, et sic finaliterper istos ncantatorescaput recte intencionis Argo i. prelatis t superio-ribus, aufertur t mors eterne dampnacionis nfertur. deo tales superio-res figurantur n ilio Oloferne, cui dormienti mulier abstulit caput, quiavere multis superioribus per mulierem i. per molles et adulatorespersonas, caput recte intencionis mittitur t aufertur. udith XIV?,16]:rEcceHolofernes acet in terra et caput eius non est in eo'

Vel die quod Argus est dyabolus oculatissimus et subtilissimus,qui Yo mutatam n vaccam . animaspeccatrices, n suo dominiodetinet.SedMercurius . Xristus, ui demásculofactus st femina, e10Deofactusest homo, quandoVerbum caro factum st [f. 1$va]assumptahumanitatisnostre fistula, psum Argum i. dyabolum, consopiuit ipsumque pervirgam crucis superauit et de eius dominio Yo i. humanam naturam,liberauit, et tandem de vacca in mulierem i. de peccatrice in iustam,ipsam upiter, DeusPater, | transmutauit.1ßr,] VIet. odd..2 dulator,*abestna,.4ont. a7.*ßr,] upraet. odd. .6ßr, VI et. odd. .7pierueodd.)m. a7.8et a, a2Pa.• ßr,] IIIet. odd. .10.dePa5R.*Cf.ñed.mor. VI,v.

++

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


I Vel die quod [sicut]1 ntegumentuma abuleponit, Ynachus fluuiuserat, circa quem Argus, quidam magnus patrie dominus, vaccarum

multitudinem utriebat. Quiibidem vnum nobile Castrum abebat

quodcentum turribus rat munitum t sic habere centum oculos dictus2 rat.Mercurius autem filius Iouis, regis Crete, ipsum obsessit et occiditet caput cum centum oculis i. Castrum um [centump turribus, ibiabstulit et sic vaccam suam i. animalium suorum multitudinem, ibisubtraxit.

Aliaautem exposiciolitteralisb e Yo supponit quod Yo fuit Ynachiprimi regis Grecorum filia, que a loue rege Crete prius cognita etrapta*, tandem publica meretrix est effecta, t sic mutata in vaccam

est dieta et talis, in tam vili statu, a patre suo vbique ipsam querenteest inventa. Ipsa tarnen postea penitens laudabiliter vixit, et tandemin Egiptum descendens Egiptos primo litteras docuit et litteras deGrecia in Egiptum primo introduxit, propter quod Egiptus ipsam prodea coluit et recepit. |s

[xv]Dicit Ouidius libro primo0 quod Yo, que primo fuerat vacca]6,

erepta de dominio Argi, fugit d fluuium Nili, vbi orauit louem, quieam mutauit de vaccain feminam t sic ei figuram erdi am?restaurauit.Sed aduerte, quid dicitur hie?8 Quod s. ipsa, quamuis mutata fuisset nfeminam, on tarnen udebat loqui; et hoc quia timebat mittere mugi-tum ad modum vacce | sicut antea faciebat |.

Sic debent facere uuenes religiosi, qui de dominio Argi . dyaboli,ad fluuium deuocionis fugiunt, vbi de vacca in feminam . de viropeccatore in virum iustum, mutantur, quia vere isti debent timereloqui. Nam quia de nouo sunt conuersi et mutati, deo, forte ne loquan-tur sicut vacce i. sicut viri carnales et [indiscreti]9, tile est eis tacere.Nam, prout10 dicit sapiens, Prou XVII[2 8] rStultus utem si tacuerit1Pa Tj] ic et. odd. .1fictusasR.3Brx ax asRTz' mcet. odd. .*Br¡ d at a7 o]aptaet. odd..s I .. Iln; nLozman.aadd.nmarg.6ai a2l m717pristinam, Bo8 duerte.. hic] icit , a2;om. o ;ecce uid icituricRn.9 ndiscretea7.a. odd. .10 t et. odd. .aDeBoer, 3797-829. bCf.De Boer, 3833-904. cMet., 722-46.

4S

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


sapiens reputabitur1. AmosV[i3]: rPrudens n tempore ilio tacebit,quoniam tempus malum est1.

[xvi]Yo, amicalouis, primo de muliere mutata st in iuuencam1 t Argi

dominio subiugata. Sed, tandem iberata de dominio Argi2, fugit uxtafluuium Nili, vbi a loue fuit terum de vacca in feminam ransmutata,et figura humana in ea reparata et ad [moremp pristinum restituía.Et tandem facta est stella et in celo collocata et inter celi numina com-putataa.

Sic vere amica louis i. [anima]*,Xristi sponsaet amica, quandoqueefficitur acca per peccatum i. vilis, bestialis et carnalis, et Argo i.dyabolo, subiugatur. ed tandem Iupiter, Xristus, mediante Mercurioi. predicatorum officio, t sua virga i. pastorali cura, et sua fistula .suo dulci eloquio, || ipsam de Argi i. dyaboli, dominio libérât percontrictionem et ad fluuium Nili i. [f. i£vbj ad sacramentumbaptismiuel ad fluuium acrimarum, fugit per compuncionem. Et | sic Iupiteri. Deus, de vacca in feminam . ||s de peccatrice in iustam, ipsam |misericorditer

|sconuertit et

mutat,et ad

pristinummorem

quemper peccatum perdiderat, recipit et restaurai, et figuram humanam[i.J6honestatis onuersacionem quam per peccatum amiserat, n ea ||s[reparatp et tandem n [mortej8 psam in celo | et paradiso || collocai,et inter celi numina . inter paradisisanctos et angelos, ipsamcomputai- Sap V[$]: rEcce quomodo computati sunt inter filios Dei"1 -, etclaritatem telleam sibi přestat, | in quantum s. in die iudicii ipsam^et corpus eius per beatitudinem larificat t illustrât, | iuxta illud Gen.I[17] ^Stellasin firmamento eli posuiť. Sap III: rFulgebunt usti sicut

sol in conspectuDei1b.1vaccamoMiPa2 To;vaccamel uuencamasR.2dedominiorgi]beoat.3N;Bo as ] moremet. odd.4a,]om. et. odd.5abestn ,.6pleriqueodd.]tPa7.7temperaia7.8pleriqueoda.] ortema7.9animamasR.aMyth.II: DuodecimaeliignaBode,.235, 2-4).bCf. ap.II, etMt. III,3.

46

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


I Vel die litteraliter quod Siringafuit quedam puella que, fugiensviolenciam vnius qui earn volebat deflorare, volens transiré quendam

fluuium vbi erant arundines, bi submersa est,et

sic ficta est in arun-dinem fuisse mutata. Illud autem quod Mercurii fistula sit, nichilest dictum nisi quia pastores de arundinibus nstrumentum musicumquod syringa1 icitur, faciunt, vel quia eciam [f. i6ra] ventus perflansarundines ibilos facit2.

Vel si visdie moraliter quod istaSyringa st bonapersona uuencula,que Panisi ipsam corrumpere volentis i. dyaboli, carnis uel mundiipsam per delectabilia inficere cupientis, volens maliciam fugere, oletquandoque fluuium religionis uel penitencie subintrare, vbi s. in

arundinem onuertitur, . sicca et macillentaper abstinenciam fficitur,tandem vero efficitur nstrumentum musicum, in quantum e conuertitad faciendum iuine laudis predicacionis t graciarum ctionis*melodiamet concentum. Ad hoc enim, quod nimpha . iuuenis religiosus, istulai. predicator, Mercurii, Xristi, efficiatur, ecesse est quod primo inarundinem conuertatur et quod per [siccitatemp abstinencie omnis inipso carnalitas consumatur et quod per obedienciamad flatum prelatifacilitermoueatur. Sap III[7] rTanquam cintille n arundineto iscurrentetc.1. II

UtrechtInstituut oor aatLatijn

1 irin rl dT2To.2I facit inLo2man.®dd.nmarg.3Pan rj dMxa9.♦Paxa7om. et. odd. .* iccitatea7.

4s

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Boethiana

I.

The forBoethius

the thirdresearch

volumeof

ofthe

thelast

Germandecades,

workof which

AufstiegI gave

undNiedergangan outline

for the third volumeof the German work AufstiegndNiedergangderrömischenelt preparedat Tübingenfor 1972,has leftus with

a few problemswhichare certainlyworthconsidering.Ahighly ontro-versialproblemis whencedid Boethiusderivehis Greekculture,fromAthens, from Alexandria,- or have we to imaginethat he simplyworkedin his library n Rome?

The possibilityhathe studiedat Athens,plausiblethough t mightseem in itself,wasrathergenerallydiscarded,sincePorcherprovedtheunauthenticity f the De disciplinacolariuma small workprinted n thePatrologiaLatina t. 64, and attributed to Boethiusby a tradition ofseveral centuries.1n that writing t is mentioned hathe "gotstrength"at Athensat the ageof 18.2The wordsdo not evenprovidevery learevidence.In classicalLatinthey wouldsuggest hatBoethiusrecoveredfrom an illnesswhen at Athens at the age of 18, but accordingtothe usageof ater Latin writerstheymay simplymeanthat he "grewup"there, just as was saidof a plant. However,with the later Neoplaton-ists, saysincePorphyry, t is a more or less technicalexpressionto saythat one "gets strength nd is purified by education. Anyhow,theDedisciplinacolariumtemsfrom he 1 3th century.

On the other hand,the letter of Theodoric,preserved n Cassiodo-rus, Variae, 4^,3,3 is not conclusive.It maybe interpreted as it hasbeen, in fact, firstby Pierre Courcelle,next by Minio-Paluello,*nd by

1M.Porcher,e"Deisciplinacolarium,traitéuXlIIeiècle,aussementttribuéBolceParis921.aP.L.64,1232:"Annisuobusevigintithenisonvalui".*Th.Mommsen,.G.H.,Auctoresntiquissimiol.XIII,.40,g qq.4P.Courcelle,irstnBoècetV coleAlexandrie.colerançaiseeRome,élanges'Archéologieetd'Histoire,93$,p.185-223;atergainnLesettresrecquesn ccidenteMacrobeCassidore,

49

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


manyothersafter hem - in the sense that Boethius, n spite f thelongdistance hat separatedhim romAthenspenetrated so deeply into the

doctrineof ts schools- "sic nimAtheniensiumcholasonge ositusntroisti(notethe plural scholas) that he madethe doctrinesof the Greeksthepossessionof the Romans,sc. by translating reek philosophicalworksinto the Latin language:and this he did while sitting n his libraryin Rome.Thewords onge ositus"malgréPéloignement",rathersuggestthat Boethiushad neverbeen to Athens.

Yet Courcellecannotbelievethat Boethiusgot his Greek culture- a thoroughknowledgeof the mathematical ciences and ofphilosophy,that s to say,of the Neoplatonicphilosophy f the day- in Rome.That

is almost impossible.Boethiusprovesto have had a preciseknowledgeof the then quite recent commentaries f the Alexandrianchool,thoseof Ammoniuswho, after the death of Proclus,was the chiefrepresen-tativeof the Neoplatonist chool.At that time the School ofAthenswasof no importance.We find hewholegeneration fter Proclusflockingto Alexandria:Damascius,Simplicius, Asclepius, Olympiodorus,Theo-dotus,Philoponus, ll of them heard Ammoniusndbecame hisstudents.And Boethius?How couldhe, in Rome, havegot hold of Ammonius'commentarieswhichappearedquite recently?

That he knewthese commentariesndwishedto passtheir thoughtson to the comingcivilizationf Western Europe,isfor Courcellebeyonddoubt. Nowthis s preciselywhatis deniedby Minio-Paluello,who inhis above-citedpaper6refers o the then not yet publishedstudiesofJ. Shiel onthe logicalwritings f Boethius.The resultof Shiels investi-gationsappearedin Mediaevalnd RenaissancetudiesV (19^8).7 To thequestionof "What were Boethius*commentaries nd logicaltreatises:were theyoriginalworks or were theytranslations rom he Greek"theauthor

replies theywere translationsfrom the Greek, just literal

translations f the marginalnoteswhich Boethius found n his copyofthe logicalwritingsof Aristotle.This must have been a copy of theAthenianSchoolof Proclus. For the relation to that School appearstobe muchcloserthanto Ammonius.With the latter here s someagree-ment, but there are alsoimportant ifferences, oo important or us tobe ableto deducedependence.(thèse)aris943,1948. nglishranslation:ateatin ritersnd heirreekourcesCambridge(Mass.)969.. Minio-Paluello,es raductionst esommentairesristotélicienseBoèceinStudiapatristicaI,Berlin957,p. 64 .5Seenparticularhe ages2 f. f he bove-citedaperoècet 'ÉcoleAlexandrie.6 n tudiaatristica957.7pp.216-244.

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


This conclusionof Shiel's has, on the whole, been reinforcedbyL. M. de Rijk,who in his studyon the chronology f Boethius'works

on logicin the year 1964of this

Journalonfirmed he

mainthesis ofShiel,with a slightcorrection of a few details.Thus, the view of thelogicians,who deriveBoethius'Greek culturefromAthens,but ndirect-ly, supposinghathe hadneverbeenthere, no more thanhe wasever nAlexandria, tandsoppositeto Courcelle'sview, whomakesBoethius astudent nd follower f Ammonius.t is thisantogonismwhichiscertainlya challengeto any further esearch,the more so sinceCourcellekeptto his view in his last great work, La Consolatione Philosophieans atradition ittéraire Paris 1967, no doubt while knowingabout Shiel's

theory nd the adhesiongivento it byMinio-Paluello.Letus thencheckbothhypothesesnd see which of them accounts best forthe facts.Onepreliminary emark bout Athens.ThepossibilityhatBoethius

studied for some time in that city, has in the last half century beendecried with suchunanimity, hat t is not superfluousopointout thatthere are a few more or less importantpoints in favourof it. First,Athenswasby a longand venerable traditionnot onlya famouscentreofphilosophicaltudies,but it was forphilosopherslmost sacredplace.Is it true that towardsthe year goothere was no philosophicalifeat allin Athens?That is whatCourcellebelieves,on the testimony f Aeneasof Gaza.8However,Aeneas himself amefrom he School of Alexandria(underHierocles)which wasobviously rivalSchool.Is it wise to givecredenceto him withoutanyfurther inquiry? think t is better to seefor ourselves.We then find Proclus' immediatesuccessor Marinus oc-cupying he chair of Athens. t is true that Damasciusspeakswith littleappreciation f him he assessedthisphilosopher s rather banalspirit,since hewas not ableto understand roclus' lofty octrineof thehenadsbutpreferred oreturn o Plato's Ideas.Ourjudgmentmight edifferent.Moreover, Damascius was knownto be severe in his criticism ofothers,evenof those he appreciated. Thus,in myopinion,there re notsufficientgroundsto denya priori the possibility hat Boethiusmighthavebeen inAthens nd havestudiedtherefor longeror shorterperiod.

So much for generalarguments.However, it is not so that con-temporary videncewould be lacking.The Dedisciplinacolarium asnot a work of Boethius.Butwe have the testimony f Ennodius and of

8Patrologiaraecat. 8$, ol.877A,uotedy ourcellenBoècet 'École'Alexandriep.190.9Thiswaslreadyut orwardy eller,hil. . Gr. II,2p.897.Cf.Damascius'udgmentnAsclepiodotus,b.896.

£1

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Cassiodorus.The former ecordsthat, s a youngboy, Boethiuswassentto Athens by his guardiansto go to schoolthere.10Accordingto the

expressionn armis uerilibushismust have been at quite an earlyage,sayat the ageof 9 or 10,whena Germanboyis sent to the Gymnasium.Cassiodorustestifies o the same fact.11Both authorsdeclarethat theyoungBoethiusmade brilliantprogress. do not see anyreasoneitherto reject or to ignorethisevidence.Why, after ll, shouldhisguardiansnot havesent Boethiusto school in Athens?Andwhyshould he nothavegot a first nitiation nto Neoplatonismin the school of Marinus?Ofcoursethis does not exclude the possibility hat he went to Alexandriaafterwardsnd wasAmmonius' tudent or notherperiod,at a somewhat

riper age.In Athenshe mayhave foundhiscopyof the Aristoteleslogicushavebought t and taken t with him to Rome,where he later read andstudiedit, just as nowadayscholarsgo home from research journeytakingwith them the photocopiesand microfilms f manuscriptswhichtheyread and study ater.

Mysecond remark oncernsBoethius' method ofworking.We canget an idea of this on the basis of his mathematical reatises, n par-ticular the Institutiomusica.This work has recently been studied byH. Potiron.12His results re of great nterest o thepresent nvestigation.InthisworkBoethiusappearsto us not at all as a homonius ibri On thecontrary, eprovesto havehad a thoroughknowledgef Greekmusicol-ogy, of which he is the exponent,not at all by either translating rsummarizingust one work - say Nicomachusof Gerasa(as was sug-gestedby Courcelle)- but by usingthe Greek sourcesfreely nd goinghis own waywhere he choosesto do so. BoethiusquotesNicomachusfrequently, ut he did not merely ollowhim.As far s we know Nicoma-chusdid not givea theoryof tones and of staff-notation. or Boethius,however,thiswas avery mportant art ofmusicology.He knewPtolemyvery well. He followed himin the calculationof the intervals nd inhis treatment f the division of the tetrachord, ut not in his theory ftones. In that part he developedhis own theory, s he did in notations.Thus,in musicologyBoethiusappearsto us as ascholar,wellup in Greekmusicology,usingthe works of his Greekpredecessors,but usingthemfreely, ollowinghempartly, nd partly oinghis own way.

This result s interesting ndeed. "But",so it mightbe asked, "is itsufficientlyounded o builda conclusionon it? Has it not been radically

10 nnodiusII13PatrolLat.3,120;M.G.H.7,p.236).11 assiodorus,ariae45 PatrolLat. 9,J39ÎM.G.H., 12, .406.12H.Potiron,oèceThéoriciene aMusiquerecque.aris960.

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


questionedin U. Pizzano sStudi ulle ontidel "De institutione usica"diBoezio12* "

Pizzanotakesavery

different iew of Boethius'musicologicalwork,indeed: after analysinghe Greeksources of the treatisehis finalcon-

clusionis, that not Boethius brought ll this materialtogether nto onesingle tract written n Latin, but that some other Latin author did,shortly eforeBoethius,probablyAlbinus.Onlythe introductionwouldhave been written by Boethiushimself. By this hypothesis otiron'sviewhas been questionedindeed,and evenradicallyquestioned.But Iwouldnot saythat s has beenrefuted.(1) Is it not somewhatimprobablethat Boethius would havewritten

treatiseon musicologyof exactlythe samecontents s that of a recentLatinpredecessor?(2) Does it not appear from the logicalworks that, on the whole,Boethius workedmuch more on Greek thanon Latinsources?(3) Is there not, evenaccordingto Pizzanohimself, ne point at leastthat speaksagainstthe hypothesis hat n this treatise BoethiusfollowedAlbinus?I am thinking f the fact that in those chaptersof book IVwhere Pizzanowas able to point out that Boethius followed a Latinsource, Albinus'terminologywasexplicitlyrejectedand appearentlydifferent atin source wasused.For these reasons then I think that Potiron's view of Boethius'musicologicalwork has not been refuted. do think t must make uscautious with regard to a theory that tends to make Boethius ameretranslatingmachine,not only n his commentaries n Aristotle'slogicalwritings, ut even in his logicaltreatises.Would it not be surprising fthis man, who wasa first ank logicianand verywell ableto composebis logicaltreatiseshimslelf, id nothing n those treatises han literallytranslate ome Greekmaterial?

Mythirdpreliminary emark efers o the extentof Boethius' Greekculture. Courcelle wasquite right when emphasizingthe fact thatBoethiuswasbyno meansonlya logician,but an all-roundNeoplatonistphilosopher. t was proper to this philosophy o attach o muchvaluetothe mathematicalciences,includingmusicology.Moreover,the kind ofproblemsBoethius had while in prisonand robbed of everything, eretypically heproblemsof a man reared n that philosophy. trange houghit might seem to us, they were not so much a Christian'sproblems,but rather hose of a man who, thoughwishingo have a Christian'sfaith

12Än:Sacrisrudiri16,1965,p.5-164.

Sì

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


in the lovingProvidence ofa God who caresfor ndividualmen, in factlookedat the world in the paganwayof a late Neoplatonist,who sees

the Providenceof God in the cosmic order but cannot find t in the lifeof individualmen.Thisleadsusa stepfurther hanmerely o thequestionof theextent

of Boethius'knowledge.That questioncan be answeredby pointing oBoethius'knowledgeof the mathematical ciences,next to his logicaltraining nd lastly ohis all-roundknowledgeofNeoplatonicphilosophy,its doctrine of God,of nature nd of man.We know thatBoethiuswassomucha logician,that he appliedthe method of logicandthe distinctionsmade by it to the problemsof Christiantheology. To this fact - a

methodicalinnovationof great consequence- sufficient ttention hasbeengiven n the scholarlyworld. However,thereare two other pointsthat houldbe brought ut. Aftermythreeprecedingremarks et me listthesepointsasa fourth nd a fifth.

Thefourth, hen, s the fact hat n the mostcriticalphaseofhis ifeBoethius'problems sprangessentiallyfrom a paganphilosophy.Now,sincewe knowthat Boethiuswas aserious catholicChristian nd on theother hand, sincein the Consolatiohe crucialpointwasprecisely herewhere Christian aithwascontrary opaganphilosophy, iz.in the dea ofthe Providenceof God, we mustconclude that the impactof the Neo-platonicphilosophyn Boethius' mindhas beenparticularly trong.Thismust have beenso in such a measure,that we cannotimaginehim asalwayshavingived n Romein hisownspiritual limate.It ismuch moreplausibleindeed thathe spenta few of his mostimpressiveyears n thecircleof an important aganNeoplatonistphilosopher'sSchool.It musthavebeen a spiritualcentre of an intense ife, that could leave suchamarkuponthe mind of a youngmanof a Christianfamily.

Which school, that of Athens or that of Alexandria?We cannotdecidein this context. Allwe cansayis that a stayof someduration nAthens is a priori probable and by contemporaryevidence almostcertain, but that the most important choolof the daywasAlexandria.It seems mostlikelythat the School ofAmmoniusput its stampon theyoungBoethius'mind n hisriper studentyears, f there re anypreciseindications hat he had been there at all.

My fifth nd last preliminary emark is that in more than onepassagethe text of the Consolatio ecalls thatof the EnneadsOf coursethere are manythings n Plotinus that havepassedover into the laterNeoplatonistsSchool philosophy. Yet, certain literal resemblances,certain expressionsand thoughtsproper to Plotinusand not found n

£4

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Proclustestify hat, in fact, Boethius was familiarnot only with theNeoplatonismf the day,butwith the Enneads swell.I mention ust two

passages.One is in the first ook of the Consolatio

pr. VI,wherePhil-

osophiafinds he greatestcause ofBoethius'illnessin the fact that hehas lost the memoryof "what he is himself". Now souls whohaveforgotten romwhere they are havegone most radicallyastray. Thisrecallsthe openingpassageofPlotinus,Enn.V, i , where t is said: "Howdoesit come aboutthat o many ouls haveforgottenGod,their Father,anddo not know anymore whencethey re?" Thesesouls haveturnedto perishable hings nd attached realvalueto them. Butthat snothingbut turning wayfrom he true value. Now, howto cure a manwho is in

sucha state of mind?-

Plotinusreplies: "Thatmust be done by twokinds of XóyoL,ne of which has to explainthe non- alue of thosethings n which that manhas now put his trust, while the other mustbring n understandingf whatrealvalue s andwhat s the origin f Soul.

Now this is preciselyboth the diagnosisand the therapywhichPhilosophia appliesto Boethiusin Consolatio, pr. 6, 39 ff. Stewart-Rand.1 It is true that the doctrine of the soul's return to itself s thestarting-point f all philosophywas the commonproperty f the Neo-platonist chool,taught xplicitly yPorphyry, amblichus ndProclus.1

It is true that Proclusin his commentary n the Alcibíadeseclaresthervû&i orauTÓvo be the basisof all true philosophynd saysthat he soulwhich knows tselfknows lsoGod.1 In hiscommentaryn the Timaeus6he explainsthe circular motionof whichPlatospeaksas theèmaTgcxpT)of the soul to itself,which is the beginning f a life full of insight, othinto that which precedes(i.e. the Noûs)and into that which comesafter t (i.e. the world ofsensiblethings, n sofar s they ome intobeingas an imageof Souland Noûs). Boethius knew thiscommentary ndprobablyalso that on the AlcibíadesYet I think it probable that inwriting he Consolatio, pr. 6 he had the openingchapterof Plotinus*treatiseV 1 in mind with its impressive omplaintthat so manysoulshave lost the memoryof God their Father by having ost the view ofwhat they are themselves, nd its admonition bout the two Xóyoiywhich thosesouls have tobe cured.

L.Bielern he ew ditionf he orpushristianorum,urnhout957,.1 doesot eferhere oPlotinusither.14 heubjectsdealt ith y .Courcelle,eConnais-toioi-mêmechezesNéoplatoniciensrecs,n:LeNéoplatonismeColloqueeRoyaumont969),arisC.N.R.S.)971,p.1^3-166.'s Proclus,n rimůmlcibiadem3ff. d.Westerink,msterdam954,.1.16d.Diehl,Ip.286,6ff.

SS

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Theother passages inCons.V, pr. 6, 65-89Stewart-Rand.1Boethiusis speakinghere about GocL-Providence,ho is oneandstableand, as it

were, in the centre of the universe,while thingsmovedby Fate turnaround t n circles whichare morestablethenearerthey re to thehinge.No doubt the main thought of Providenceas the divine cause of thegood, stable itself and superior to all movingthings, nd Fate as themovingforceof things ecoming ea quaegenerantur)which are mobiliaandcorporaliaisfound n Proclus treatiseDeprovidentiat ato knowntous in the Latin rendering f William of Moerbeke.18 Proclus refersoPlato's áváyxT)n the Timaeuswhich in that dialogueis definitely ub-ordinate to the Noûs-Demiourgos,while movablethings re said to

turn round in a circle.™Yet H. R. Patch wasperfectly ight npointingout the factthatBoethius'pictureof God-Providencesthecentreroundwhich all moving things turn is not explicitlypresent n Proclus.20With us, thatpicturerecalls thosepassagesn the EnneadswherePlotinusmakes the One the centre round which is Noûs, which as a firsteradiancegoes out from the First, next Soul which "dances roundNoûs", a second eradiancegoing out immediatelyfrom Noûs itself,indirectly rom heFirst, nd, since it is perfect nd divine n its origin,givesrise to a third circle that s aroundit, that of visible and movingthings. Quite rightly Patch pointed to these passages, suggestinghat"what s missing n Proclus,Boethiussuppliedfrom Plotinus.

There are other lines in the Consolatiowhich seem inspiredbyPlotinus.Klingnerreferred o them, e.g. in III,m. 9.16 f. Suchpreciseparallelsmakeit probableand almost certainthat Boethius was notonlywell read in the Mastersof his generation,but knew the "classics"bypersonalreading.Thiswill applyto Plato - certaindialoguesat least-,the logicalworksof Aristotle, nd to the Enneads f Plotinus.

Thus, Boethius standsbefore us as a man of erudition, who had apersonalgrip on the problemshe tackled,a livingand thinkingmind.Let usnowturn to the arguments rought orward oth by Shiel andbyCourcelle,eachin supportof his own hypothesis.

Shiel'sargumentruns as follows.In his commentary n the Categ'7Bieler,.80, 7-7.At he recedingines eferencesmadeoProclus,edecernubitationibusc.providentm;tour assageheame orksreferredo.Plotinussnotmentioned.18 roclihilosophilatoniciperaneditaed.V. Cousin,aris864,ol. ji, 11.18-31, 4,18-19nd 29f. Repr.961).

Deprov.t atool. £j.18-32.20 atenBoethiusnd he eoplatonistsin peculumV,1929,p.62-72.atchhinkst snotvenimplied

s*

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


oríes Boethiusis said to have followedPorphyry'sKonrà 7ceö<jivaiá7cóxpi<Jiv.n fact, there is quite a good part of Porphyry'swork in

Boethius' commentary, yet what is found there is neither purelyPorphyrynor Porphyry lone. It is Porphyry n an indirect form andmixed up with other elements.There are a few quotationsfrom 1am-blichus, though not direct either, and there is some resemblance toSyrianbut no quotations.The six xecpdcXociaf the introduction, itedby Courcelleas an indicationof dependenceon Ammonius,do not, infact, come from Ammonius,since they agree only partly with him.Andpartialagreement n the xscpáXaialusa fewdiagrams o not offersufficientgrounds to deduce dependence. Partial agreement must

rather be explainedby the use of a commonsource. In further om-parison half a dozen parallelswith Ammoniusmay be pointedout.However,allof them occurin Simpliciuss well.This factspeaksratherin favourof Athensas Boethius'source.

FromAmmoniuseshows fewmarkeddifferences. irst, hosepas-sagesnBoethiuswhich howthe nfluence f amblichus re not n Ammo-nius. On theotherhand, lmost ll Greekparallels uotedbyBoethius rein Simplicius.Nowthe atter s themostfaithfulexponent f theAtheniantradition, o whichbelongsProclus,Syrian nd Iamblichus.Thelatter s

muchcited in Simplicius,not so in Ammonius.Thus,Boethius seems todraw on the Athenian radition ather han to followAmmonius.So much for the commentary n the Categories.hat on the Peri

hermeneiasoesnot proveto agreewith Ammonius ither. The generalstructure f the two commentariessdifferent, mmonius as£xe<páXocia,while Boethiushas6. All that which is saidin Boethius'firstchapter slackingn Ammonius.On the other hand,AmmoniusftenquotesPlatoandpointsto agreementwithAristotle,while Boethiusquotesonly aterauthors, such as Alexanderof Aphrodisias,Aspasius,HerminusandPorphyry. Sometimeshe adds somethingfrom the Stoa or Syrian. nch. 14of Perihermeneiashedifference s particularlymportant:whileAmmoniusmplydiscussesSyrian's ixe7rixe^piQ[i.aTagainst he uthent-icity of this chapter, Boethiusis altogether ilent on them. He givesjustanelementarynd rathermeagrecommentary. Lastly, n Boethius'commentary here are a fewsentences nd exampleswhichare entirelylacking n Ammonius.

The above argumentsmust lead to the conclusionthat Boethius'commentary n Deinterpretationeoesnot derive fromAmmonius.Heretoo, muchcomesfromPorphyry ut not all. It is, the author thinks, hetranslation f short Greekmarginalnotes, for the greaterpart, but notentirely, derivedfrom Porphyry.

SI

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


With regardto the commentary n Porphyry's sagogeBrandthadalready pointedto a strongmeasureof agreementwith Ammonius.He

did notice that there are alsodifferences. ne wayto explainthisfactwas inhisopinionthe possibilityhatbothauthorsused thesamesource.For Shielthis s not ust onepossibility it is the only wayto explainthefacts. Moreover,the differences etweenBoethiusand Ammoniusareaccordingto himmuchmore important han Brandtthought heywere.It is againthe matter of an only partial agreementn the xe9<xXaia,ndthe absenceof anyquotationsfrom Plato.

ShielfurthersupposeshatBoethius'codex of heAristoteleslogicuson-tainednotonlymarginal otesto the works of the Organon,but lsoprole-gomena.Boethius'treatisesDesjllogismisategoricisnd ntroductiodsyllo-gismos ategóricosere in hisopiniona translation f Greekprolegomenato the Analytics.t must have beenessentiallysummaryf the De interpre-tation with a diagram f the 7rp0Tá<j£iç,hich s twiceusedbyBoethius.

Similarlyhe asserts that the treatisesDesjllogismisypotheticisndDe divisionere translations romGreekprolegomena.

In the treatise Detopicis ijferentiisoethius useda diagramderivedfromThemistius'commentary n the Topicswhichhasnot come downto us. Shielsupposesthat Boethiusfound that diagram n his Greekmarginalnotes to the Topics.

Of MariusVictorinusBoethiusknew the translationndcommentaryon the Isagogeof Porphyry, he work De defìnitionend the In TopicaCiceronis.or the rest he worked on Greek sources.His methodwasapparently irst o translate selection of the scholia (first dition of hiscommentaries);next the completematerial secondedition).HisGreektexts with marginalnotes andprolegomenacouldbe easilycontained none codex. It must have been verymuch like our oldest GreekMSofthe

Organon,the Urbinas3^, a

ByzantineMSfrom he 9th

century.If we wish to believeShiel,every ine and everyword of Boethius'

commentaries nd treatiseswasa translation f Greeknotes.This s to betakenstrictly. hus,boththecross-referencesoundnBoethius'commen-taries nd the ratherpretentious rogram f studiesfound ntheopeningpagesof the In De interpretationIlose theirproper ense the cross-refer-ences are nolongercross-referencesf Boethius, nd the program f tu-dies was nothisprogram. Ourauthor eemstofeelrelievedby his esult)

As to thecross-references,

eRijk21

made somereservations.He

11nVivarium964.

f8

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


feels, however, inclinedto acceptShier main thesisand thinkshe canreinforce t by pointingout that n his doctrineof conversionBoethiusdid not follow Ammoniusbut rather

agreeswith Alexander of

Aphro-disias.The remark tself s correct, as were most of Shiel'sobservations

concerningthe only part agreementwith Ammonius.The onlypointin questionis: what to infer from those facts. We haveto emphasizethen that Shiel'sexplanationof the symptom f partialagreementwason no accountthe only possibleway.Thealternativewas thatBoethiusdid know Ammonius,but took a rather independent ttitude towardshim, just as we found him doing towards other Greek sources, say

Porphyry n logic,NicomachusandPtolemy n musicology.Thatwouldmean thathe may ertainly ave been in Alexandriand in anycaseusedAmmonius'commentaries,but used them freely, not followinghimeverywhere nd in everything, ut goinghis own wayboth in smallerandin greater hings.

There are a few more or lessimportant oints that speakfor thisanswerto the questionunderdiscussion.First, t is Boethius* sualwayof behavingwith regardto his Greeksources.Second,it is more like ascholar's attitude of mind, whereas Shiel's theory actually makes a

machine of Boethius.Third, there are a few things n Boethius'com-mentariesthat flatly ontradict Shiel'sview. Fourth, there are a fewother things n his logicaltreatiseswhich cannot be accounted forbyShiel'shypothesis, ut definitely oint in another direction.

To the things n flat contradictionwith Shield's theory reckonsuch a passages InIsag.Porph, p. 208, 22Brandt,wherehe isfollowingAmmonius,but not without makingthe critical remark: "Huncenimmundumveteres deum vocabant et Ioviseum appellationedignati untdeumquesolem ceteraque caelestiacorpora, quae animata esse cumPlato, tum plurimusdoctorumchorusarbitra us est". He will not havefound hat nanyGreekmarginal otesoriginating rom he NeoplatonistSchoolof Athens.That Schoolwas rather emphaticallypagan- muchmore than Alexandria-, but it is the ChristianBoethius whoby thisremark makes his reservations n view of certain well-knownandgenerally cceptedNeoplatonicdoctrines.

A similarremark s found in Boethius'commentary n Cicero'sTopicswhere he says "Homoseiungitur b his animalibusquaeaeternasunt,velutsol aPlatonicisdicitur".22Butthatcommentary ouldanyhow

22nTop./c., .L.64,1070.

S9

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


accóunt of the facts,cannotbe confirmed.On the contrary, hereare too many lementsthat do not tallywith t.

(3) Accordingto the fact of

partial agreementwith

Ammonius,Boethiuscertainlymayhave been hisstudent.Agreementn thingsthat wereactuallyproper to Ammoniuspoints n thisdirection n amore categoricalway.

Here, then, we have topasson to Courcelle'sarguments.

Courcelle'shypothesiswascertainlyneither hastilyproducednoran arbitrary roduct of the mind. At the beginningthe author waspointed n this directionbygeneralgrounds, uch asthose we expoundedabove,in the opening pagesof the presentpaper. With regardto thosearguments ome reservations ad to be made, yet on a few importantpointstheydo holdgoodandshould notbe overlooked.It was true thatin those daysthe School of Ammonius wasthe most importantNeo-platonist chool,rather hanthe School ofAthens;but it was too muchto saythat n the Athens of those daysthere wasnothing t all fromphilosopher'spoint of view. It wastrue that, f he had always stayednRome, Boethiuscould hardly have had such a precise knowledgeofAmmoniusthen quite recent commentaries s he provesto havehad.On the other hand- and here we havepassedalreadyfrom he generalor "a priori arguments o theparticular nd "aposteriori kind , it wassaying oo much thatBoethiusmerely"followed"Ammoniusnhiscom-mentaries, s ifhe did soalwaysndeverywhere. ut fter ll, it wasCour-celle who wrote that he problemofwhether r not BoethiusdependsonAmmonius annotbe solvedsolelyon the basisof the logical writings, utcan be settled only if the whole of Boethius'philosophys taken intothe account.

It is true that the logicalwritings f Boethiusare not altogetherconclusive withregard o the author'sdependenceon Ammonius.Whatwe can saywith certainty s, that t is an error to think that Boethiusmust either have followed Ammoniusalwaysand in everything, r nothaveknown him at all. The alternativemustbe rejected tertium atur,sc. Boethius canhave knownAmmoniusand havebeen influencedbyhim withoutfollowinghim in everything.

Neither the partialagreement n the xe9áXociocor the occurrenceof the same diagrams ould prove the dependenceof Boethius on Am-moniusin the logicalwritings.Does theConsolatiopermit us to drawthe conclusion withcertainty?

I think t doesaddsomething othe evidence of thelogical writings.

61

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


What canbe saidwith certainty s that the philosophy f the Consolatioultimatelypoints to Ammoniusand to Plotinus as much as it does to

Proclus.Asfor Proclus and Plotinusno

arguments

neededhere. Thereader can findBoethius'dependenceon Proclussufficiently rovedinKlingner'scommentary, n particularon III, metr. 9. With regard toPlotinus,references o him are not lackingin Klingnereither; more-over, a fewreferenceswere madein the precedingpagesof the presentpaper. ThebooksIVand V of the Consolatioirect us to Ammoniuswiththe strongestmeasureof probability.But let us first emark hat Cour-celle actuallycorrected Klingner'sviews on a few rather importantpoints.Thechiefpoint s, nodoubt,thatKlingner mphaticallyeparatedbookII, whichhe characterizeds a Cynic-Stoicdiatribe,frombook IIIwhichis of Platonicinspiration.Now, without ny doubt there s quitean amountof Stoic doctrine in book II of the Consolationot the leastin its view ofthe regularmotionsof the cosmosand the heavenly odies,of the stable lawruling heearthly lements nd keepingup a perpetualharmony n "thefighting eedsof things".2* ut we mustnotforget hat,both in physics nd in ethics,quitean important art of Stoicdoctrinewas incorporatedinto Neoplatonism26and that Boethius,who wasbrought p in that philosophy,mplicitlymbibed gooddeal ofStoicism.

The above-citedfinalsongof book II testifies o thisfact howeverStoicits views may appear to us, it is thisview of the cosmoswhichBoethiushas beentaught n the Neoplatonist choolof Athens.There is the wordperpetuumn the text,

quodpugnantia eminafoedusperpetuumtenent,

to remind us of the fact that not a Stoic poet, but the NeoplatonistBoethiusis speaking,who does not forget that the so-called"eternallaws" ofNatureare not aeternae ut perpetuae

Courcelle, then, was perfectly ight n arguingthat b. II of theConsolatiohouldnot, becauseof its Stoic character,be opposedto thePlatonismof III. It is quite true that both booksspringfrom he samephilosophicalbackground,which is: contemporaryNeoplatonism.

2* husn he inalongf . I metr. , 1-4).26 or he iew f he hysicalorldee .g.Enn.V4, 3£ on osmicympathyndheworldas oneivingeing);nmy reekhilosophy,ol.ll,nr.1431b;f.1432a.n thicsndwhatsnowadaysalledanthropology"t s hetoicdealf rcáOsiand f hewiseman hichlotinusincorporatednto is iewfmannd f heptimumf umanife.ee .g. nn.2-3Souls n tsessenceraxï)ç);GreekhilosophyII,nr.1414a;nd nn.4, 14 thewisemansbeyondheTráO"/]),reekhilosophyII,nr. 423.

62

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Another mportant oint brought ut by Courcelleis that Klingnerwas notalwayssuccessfuln pointing o whatmusthavebeenBoethius'

direct sources. A striking xampleis the wayin which BoethiusdealswithJamaas a gift of Fortune,referring o Cicero,but apparently otquotinghim literally "AetatedeniqueM. Tullii, sicut psequodamocosignificai").27hencomparinghetextofCicero,SomniumcipionisW22,with Boethius,we find hat Cicerois speakingof the fame of an indi-vidualman, while BoethiusmentionstheJama Romanaeeipublicaeaformulawhich is all the morestriking ince, in fact, he too wasdealingwith the renown of individualmen. How to explainthis? - Courcelleoffers heright olution:Boethiushad Macrobius'Commentary n the

Somniumcipioniseforehim and there he read that the Romani ominisJamacouldnot cross either the Gangesor the Caucasus.28

After the gifts of Fortune have been discussed fromdifferentpointsof view - first s ever shifting nd not our own (bookII), next as in-sufficiant o reach the "end" which is cuSaifxoviabook III)-, Phi-losophiacomesat lastto the true Goodwhich s one andperfect III,pr.9). The readermayfeel remindedof the unityof virtue, advocatedbyPlato's Socrates,e.g. in the ProtagorasYet, it is not mere Socraticismwhatwe have before us in the presentpassageof the Consolationd onewoulddo better not to seek for directparadeigmatan Plato'sdialogues.Thereisagooddeal of Plato'sTimaeusn the famousNeoplatonichymn oGodin III,metr. 9 (0 quiperpetua; but it is not merely heTimaeus hatwe have before us here: here and there it is the TimaeusexplainedbyProclus. Thiswasbrought ut by Klingner n his commentary.On theother hand, when in the first part of book IV, Boethius'Philosophiarenews the viewsof Socrates n Plato's Górgiasarguing hat the unjustman s neitherpowerfulnor happy, hathe is the moreunhappywhenheisnot punished nd that the man who ill-treated thers s moreunhappythan the man who was ill-treatedby somebodyelse, it is not merelyPlato's Socrateswho is speaking.The reader of the Górgiasecognizesthe Socraticviews; he findsthere Socrates' leadingtheme, that theunjustman is not able to do "what he wishes",but in the argumentsgivenin supportof the Socratic thesishe will findBoethiusgoinghisown way. No doubt he is convincedust as Socrateswas,that evilmenare not able to reach "the end" ("thatwhichtheyreallywish", i.e. thegood),and hence denies thatthey re powerful.But the argument hat

27 onsolatioI,pr. ,30ff. tewart-andBieler.32, 6-33.1f.28Courcelle,aConsolatione hilosophieansa traditionittéraireParis967,.1 6 f.

63

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


but not absolutely ertain. For who cangiveus a guarantee hatnobodybeforeAmmoniusverusedthe argument f thetwo sorts f necessity3i

What can be saidwith certainty s: that there are fairly tronggroundsfor holdingthat Boethius was Ammonius'student for a fewyears,which then have to be placedin his riper youth, say from his17thor 18th to his 20th year. Thesegroundsare partly of a generalcharacter, akenfrom he cultural ituation f those days,partly articu-lar, founded n a numberofparallelsbetween theworksof Boethiusndthe Alexandrianmaster^. These parallelsare for a part in the logicalwritings where, by the way, they are not confinedto the xe9áXociaand a few diagrams),for a part in the Consolatiowhere they are not

limited to the books IV andV)33.We fully ecognizedhat n thelogicalwritings here re other tendenciess well,so that t would beerroneousto think hat Boethius simplyfollowedAmmonius. Onthe other hand,to conclude thathe did not knowAmmonius nd didnot follow him inanything, ppearsto be as great an error. On the whole, the evidencedoesspeakin favour f a stay n Alexandria.

Summing p the resultof this part of my nquiry think can makethe followingmodeststatements.

(1) On the basisof contemporary vidence it must be acceptedascertain that Boethiusspenthis schoolyears n Athens, ayfrom the ageof 9 or io up to about 17 or 18

(2) It is very probable that immediately fter that period he wasAmmonius' tudent t Alexandria, rom heageof 17or 18 till about20.

(3) Takinginto the account that he was extremelyprecociousit isprobablethat he returned to Romeas earlyas the year gooor a littlelater. There and about thatdate he composedthe first f his mathematicaltreatises, he Institutiorithmetica>nd followed t up by the other three.

To these three points addafourth, oncerning heperiod n whichBoethius' other works were written. In the preceding pages I did

J1 lexanderfAphrodisias,nAnal.r. 10, .140.Wallies,henealingithhe ecessityfthe onclusion,akesdistinctionetweenhe7rX(T)Çvayxaíovndhat hichsnoto.Re-ferringo helepl pjATjvetaçp.14»ft-) e'says:òyàp Ç tcoOcrewçvayxaiovoioOtov¿<m.Cf. . i£4 .32 or recisearallelsetweenoethiusndAmmoniusnDenterpr.eeCourcelle,oèceetl*coleďAlexandrie,p. 01-203,orhe ecisiveriterionbid.,.204;lso esettresrecquesn ccident,p.276.« See,ornstance,nCons.ll,pr.10 heermorismatathichsfrequentlysednProclusndinAmmonius.

65

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


not discussthe important rticle of C. H. Costeron The allofBoethius3*whichdid not touch on my subject.However,the presentaccountof

Boethius'youngeryearswhichbringsus up to the beginning f his ownworksmaybedulyconcludedbya correction f thetraditionallycceptedfinal erm of his life and work. I think that Coster's above-citedpaperoffers he grounds or ucha correction.Bya carefulanalysis f the con-temporary ourcesthe author comes to the conclusion thatthe execu-tion of Boethius nd Symmachusmusthave takenplacein the ummer fg26 shortlybefore Theodoric'sdeath. If that s correct - and I thinkCoster's arguments re solid-, the framework nto which the list ofBoethius'works is to be fitted will be enlargedby two years.Since a

fewyears go Dr. De Rijkdrewup such a list in the pagesof the presentJournal, 5it maynot be out of placeto mention the result of Coster'sresearch t the end of this study.

What I have not done in these pagesbut wish to do in the nextnumber of this Journal, is to reconsider Boethius'argument n theConsolatioorecloselyfrom hepointof view of what does and whatdoesnot correspondto his own convictions.

(Tobe continuedn thenext ssue).

34C.H.Coster,heall f oethius;is haracterin:AnnuaireeVnstitute hilologiet 'Histoireorientalest lavesXII,1952),p. Ç-81,Mélanges.Grégoire)ruxelles9^3.

Idealt ithhisapern ectionIofmy ontributionotheGermanork ufstiegnd ie-derganger ömischeneltBandII,preparedtTübingenor 972.35VivariumI2,J 64, . £9ff.

66

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Reviews

Mittellateinischesahrbuchhrsg. onK. LangoschnterMitwirkungonH. Dahlmann,F. W. Lenz, . Minis, . Önnerfors, . Walther, = 1968A.HennVerlag, atin-gen), .M.32.00.

Lecinquièmennuaireditepar e professeurangosch,ui vient e célébrerson oixante-dizièmenniversaire,ontient enombreuxrticles efond D.Schaller,Bemerkungenu einigenextenermittellateinischeniebeslyriknP. DronkerseuerditionK. Schreiner, achträgeu Venus nd Virginitas™M.J IV,26-60);R. Düchting,Seduliuscottusnd . Optatianusorfyrius;. Schupp, erDichteres ModusiebincnK.Forstner, as mittellateinischelexisgedichtnd ie weiolgendenedichtemAdmonterCodex64;T. Latzke, ieMantelgedichteesPrimas ugo onOrleansndMartialL.Weinrich, Dolorumolatium- Text ndMusikon baelardslanctusavidCf.M.J. V,122-44);U. Kindermann,asEmmausgedichtesLaurentiuson urhamF. W. Lenz,Daspseudo-ovidischeedichtDesompnioE. J. Thiel,Mittellateinischeachdichtungenvon vids Arsmatoriaund Remediamori P. G. Schmidt,Derebusbscuris- eineallegorischeichtungm1200 J. Bujnoch, ieSpruchdichtunges alutarisoeta;U.Pretzel, eiträgeur Geschichteermittellateinischenhilologie.uivent: esprechungenAnzeigenndMitteilungennoussignalonsix pagesd'addenda, ar F. Wagner, uCarmina ediievi osteriorisatinaIde H.Walther.

Mittellateinischesahrbuch..., I = 1970.D.M.34.00.

Articlesefond: . vonderNahmer, ber ieEntstehungszeiter ltestenVita .Aviti ; . Schaller, ortrags-nd irkulardichtungmHoJ arls esGroszentaltherulstzum 0.GeburtstagD. Kuijper .f.,Ad QuerelamagistřireverensisK.Forstner, asTraumgedichtaudrison ourgueilCarmen7) H.Oehler, tudienuden GestarancorumJ. Oberg, inige emerkungenu denGedichtenerlos onWilton;. Latzke, erToposMantelgedicht;. J. Thiel, eiträgeuden vid-NachdichtungenPseudo-rs matoriaundPseudo-RemediamorisnJ. B. Bauer, inparodierteronzilskanon;. Streckenbach,

Paulus iaviSyLatinumdeomaronovellistudentibus einGesprächsbüchleinus demLetztenierteles1 . Jahrhunderts;. Westerbergh,um GlossariumediaeatinitatisSueciae ; . Kabeil,DiemittellateinischehilologienDänemarkH.Douteil, ieTechnikalsHilfsmitteleim ollationierenO.Zwierlein,rüheateinischeersinschriftenn chweden.Suiventescomptes-rendus,ont e signale olaMinis, eutschesndmittellateinischesSchrifttummMittelalterSammelbesprechung. F. Wagner, n nouveauupplémentuxCarminaedii evi osteriorisatinaI Registre).

Lavitalité ecet nnuairepparaîtussi ans a création 'unenouvelleollection:Beihefteum Mittellateinischenahrbuchhrsg. onKarlLangoschdontnous vons eçule no 4 Maximiliancherner, iesprachlichenollenm ateinischeneihnachtsliedesMittelaltersUntersuchungenur religiösenede nd um pochenwandelmMittelalterA.HennVerlag,Wuppertal-atingen-Düsseldorf,970,346pp.Broch. .M. 29.80.

C'est non ans motion ue nous pprenonse décèsd'un desrédacteurs,eprofesseurriedrich alter enz de l'université u Texas, pécialisteéputé esétudes vidiennest

pseudo-ovidiennes.l est triste e penser u'il ne pourra lusmener terme arévisione l'édition-MagnusesMétamorphosesu'ilavait ntrepriseetpour aquellelétait lus uetout utre ualifié. J.E.

67

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Books Received

jean pépin,Dante t la tradition e l'allégorieConférence lbert-le-Grand969),Montreal,nstitut 'étudesmédiévales;aris, ibrairie. Vrin, 971;164pp. Prix$ $.00.

Dans cette onférence lbert-le-Grand,'auteur pplique Dante a méthodeélaboréeans onMythet llégorie.

j. M.fuchs OLGAEIJERS,exiconatinitatiseerlandicaeediieviWoordenboekan etmiddeleeuwsatijn an enoordelijkeederlandenfase. -2,AmsterdamA. M.Hakkert),1970-1. rix l.30, -f 30, .

marshallw. Baldwin, hristianityhroughhe hirteenthentury.elected ocumentsedited yMarshall . Baldwin. Volumen the Documentaryistory f WesternCivilisation.heMacmillanress td. HoundmillsBasingstokeampshire970, 31pp., £ £.00.Fromhe over Coveringhecenturies f Christianityrom he Council f Nicaea(A.D.32$)to thedeath fThomas quinas1274), he electionsnthis olume avebeen hosen o illustrate hefeatures ost haracteristic f eachof thefour eriods.First as he atristicge,with ts ouncilsnd arbarianruptions.ollowinghe eathofGregoryheGreat A.D.604)come heCarolingiange nd hen hat f uropeanrecovery, hichastedo hemiddlef he welfth entury. he ourtheriod,thehighmiddleages' to the end of he hirteenthentury, as, gain, time f CouncilsndSaints.Thedocuments,n widevariety, ight e describedsselectionsillustratinghristianlife, argelyntheWest, n tsvariedndchangingspects. or eason f pace ertaincategories,uch s controversiesver urisdictionndByzantinehristianity,ave eenomitted. any f he ranslationsave een reparedy he ditor or his olume.

fernando NCIARTE,ormaormarum.trukturmomenteer thomistischeneinslehreimRückgriffufAristoteles.SymposionPhilosophischechriftreihe,erausgegebenonMaxMüller, ernhard elteund rik Wolf).Verlag arlAlber, reiburg-München970, r. 32.184 eiten. ngl.Brosch.

8,DM.

Fromhe overHierwird inBegriff,er rst nunserem ahrhundertxplizite eltungerlangt at, uf eine Ursprüngeurückverfolgt:er Begriff onStruktur. eiderÜbernahmendWeiterbildungerTheoremeon er Seele ls forma ormarum'ndvom ein ls actus ctuum tformarum'urchMeister ckhardtndNikolausonKuesbestand och ineengeVerbindungwischenweiArten onDenken, erenUnter-schiedenheitich m Laufe er Zeit mmer ehr is ur GegensätzlichkeiterBegriffevon ubstanznd unktionnd amit on MetaphysikndWissenschaftuspitzenollte.Nunhat die neuerelogische orschung achgewiesen,aszdie ersten nsätzeumStrukturbegriffmUmkreiserAristotelisch-Thomistischennalogienusuchenind.Schon onhier us tellt ichdieFrage, b die Substanzlehreer raditionelleneta-

physikatsächlichor em unktions- nd trukturbegriffeichen usz, enn ich erUbergangon iner enPhänomenenertrauendeninstellungu einer hnen issen-schaftlich isztrauendenaltung ollzieht. ie Unterscheidungerschiedeneneflex-

68

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


ionsstufenn dermetaphysischenubstanz-zw.Seelenlehreowien hremlogischenGegenstück,erLehre on er ifferentiapecifica,eigt, asz asGegeneinanderspielenvonkritischen unktionsbegriffenndnaivenSubstanzvorstellungenelbst iner riti-schen evisionedarf. ieseReflexionsstufenind ie der UnivozitätndSynonymitäteinerseits ndder AnalogiendParonymiendererseits.hnen ntsprechenufderlogisch-methodischeneite iegeneralisierendebstractiootius nd ie formalisierendeabstractio ormae.nciarte eist unnach, aszdieThomasforschung,ofern iesichimmerusschlieszlcher mNeoplatonismusrientiert, efahräuft, ie weite nd iefereSchicht usdemAuge u verlieren, ie dasschon inmal n der Schulphilosophiegeschehenst. ndiesem inne chriebr chon rüher "DieGefahriner ntleerendenVerarmunger Wirklichkeit roht icht us der Formalisierung,ondern ielmehrdaraus, aszdiese uf die Form er Quantität eschränkt ird . . NochCajetanuskonntem16.Jahrhundertber ieformalisierendeethodeerMathematiksagen,ieseider

metaphysischeneparatioahe

verwandt,propter uodmetaphysicaliat sic

non omparanturd physicaliaermodumotius niversalis. . .) sed ut formaliadmaterialia,icut t mathematicalia.t hoc st valde otandum'Inde ente t essentia.Prooemium).

Bald arauf reilichahm ie mathematischeaturwissenschaftieFormalisierungnBeschlag,nddie metaphysischeormalisierunguszte as Feldräumen.hr eererPlatzwurde ann on inergeneralisierendenntologieingenommen,iedemAnsturmderKantischenritik ichtmehr tandhaltenonnte."

Aristotelesatinus V 1-3Topica.ranslartooethii, ragmentůmecensionislteriuset translationonyma.didit aurentius inio-aluellodiuvanteernardo . Dod.

Brussels-Paris,esclée e Brouwer 969.BERNARDIETRILIA,uuestionesisputataee ognitionenimaeeparatae.dfidemodicumedidit iusKünzle . P. Corpus hilosophorum ediiAevi uspiciis cademiarumconsociatami ditum. peraphilosophida ediae etatis electa.Vol. I, 420 pp.AFranche . G. Verlag. ern 969. fr. 0, .

Walter urley's reatise eFormisonFrederich .Down cott. Veröffentlichungender Kommissionürdie Herausgabengedruckterexte us der mittelalterlichenGeisteswelt.and ).München970.

Verlager

BayerischenkademieerWissenschaften.1 Seiten, 3,

DM.

MAURICEIELE,ERNANDAN TEENBERGHEN,ERNARDAZAN,rois ommentairesanonymesur e Traité e V Ame 'Aristote£28pp. Philosophes édiévaux,omeXI.Publicationsniversitairesouvain/Beatrice-auwelaertsaris 971. 00BF.

69

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


The Development of Suppositio naturalis

in Mediaeval Logic

L.M.DERIJK

I NATURALSUPPOSITIONASNON-C O NTEXTUALSUPPOSITION

Arecentdoctrine

publicationof supposition

of majorin the

importance1largerdomain

hasof

putthe

thehistory

Mediaevalof theoctrineof suppositionn the largerdomainof the history f the

logic of indefinitepropositionsand those about individuals. Itsauthor,Mrs. Dr. E. M.Barth,hasconvincinglyhownthat speciallyhetheories of the so-called 'naturalsupposition' (suppositioaturalisyrabsolutaor secundumabitůmhavemuchcontributed o, or show muchaffinity ith, some ofthe moderninterpretations f the matter nvolved,amongothers thoseof J. Maritain,H. B. Veath, and Bruno Baron vonFreytag öringhoff, hileespeciallythe latter's theory f the so-termedlogophoricconceptsis interesting n this respect2.

Mydiscussionwith Mrs.Barthduringthe preparation f her bookhasbrought hequestionof naturalsupposition ndermy ttentionagain.I hadalreadydiscussedthismatter n the second volumeof LogicaModer-norumAssen1967 pp. S7I_^78)an(' *n e paperSignificanosuppositioen PedroHispano3

The aim of this paperis to elaborateand, partly, orrect the viewof naturalsuppositiongiventhere by a discussionof the most represen-tative thirteenth century authors and of some fourteenth century1Dr.ElseM.Barth,e ogicaane idwoordennde raditioneleilosofieThe ogicf heArticlesinTraditionalhilosophy;ithSummarynd onclusionnEnglish,p.387-410),eiden971.The resentuthorad he onourf eingco-readerf his octoralhesis,hichamentoexistencenderhe romotorshipfhis olleaguerofessorabrieluchelmans.Theworkwill epublishednEnglish.2Mann önnteagen,olchellgemeinkonkretaie"Rose" nthalteninen ogophoreinenontologischelbständigenrägerer ier emeintenigenschaften,er einerseitsis uf iesesMerkmaler ntologischenelbständigkeitnbestimmtleibt,ine eerstelleie n in eeignetesIndividuumintretenann ennman on er Rose"u "dieseose"bergeht.on reitag,Logik.hr ystemndhr erhältnisur ogistik.tuttgart961,.26, uotedromarth,p. it.,pp. 6-27.3 n: Pensamiento$ 1969),p. 25-234.

71

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


IbidAccidentalisutemuppositiost cceptioerminiommunisroeisproquibusexigitdiunctum.t homost' iste erminushomo1upponitro resentibuscum utemdiciturhomouit', upponitropreteritis;umvero iciturhomoriť, upponitrofuturis.t ta habet iversasuppositionesecundumiversitatemorumueeiadiun-guntur.

The crucialproblem is that of the relation of natural suppositiontosignification.et us startwith Peter's definition f signification.or himsignifications the mere representation f a resaccomplishedthroughwordbyconvention, he resbeingeither universal ature r any ndivid-ual8partaking n this universalnature:

TractatusI, i : Significadoermini,rout iesumiur, streipervocemecundumplacitumepresenatio. uare um mnis es ut it universalisutparticularis,portetdictioneson ignificantesniversaleelparticulareon ignificareliquid.Sofor Peter the notion of signißcatiooversboth the connotation f theuniversalnature or essence and the denotation of the individualspar-ticipating n this essence.

Now theproblem ies not in the fact that Peter makes the impres-sion of failing o givea clear-cut distinctionbetweensuppositionandsignification since heactuallydoesgive t - , but in thefact hat t the

same time he introducesnaturalsupposition,which seems to enervatethe clear-cut distinctionpreviously iven.Let us face the facts.Peter starts with the followingdefinition f

suppositionsuppositios the acceptanceof a substantival erm s standingfor something.He immediatelydds two differences etweensupposi-tion and signification. irst, significationrisesby imposingon a vocalsound(vox)the function f signifyingomething,whilesuppositions theacceptanceof a term alreadysignificant, s standing or something.Sowhenonesays

ťhomourriť the term Fottìo' tands(supponit)orSocratesor for Plato, and so on. Hencesignifications (logically)prior to sup-position.Besides,significationnd suppositiondo not concern the samething ither, for, to signify elongsto the vocalsound(assuch),whereasto supposit supponere)elongsto the term whichis, as it were, alreadyconstituted rom vocal soundanda significationTractatusI,3 Suppositioero st cceptioerminiubstantiviro liquo.DifFeruntautemuppositiot significadouiasignificadostper impositionemocis dremsignificandam,uppositioerost cceptiopsiuserminiamignificantisem ro liquo.Utcum iciturhomourriťiste erminushomo'upponitro orte elproPlatone,t

8Peter as articulare.

73

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


sicdealiis.Quareignificadorior st uppositione.equeunt iusdem,uia igni-ficarest ocis,upponereero st erminiam uasi ompositixvocet ignificaione.Ergoupposiionon st ignificado.

Thus Peter explicity states the difference between significationndsupposition.However,his naturalsupposition,beingdefined n contra-distinction with accidental supposition,which is determined by aproposi ionalcontext, seemsto be accomplishedapart from uch con-text, sinceit is said to be the supposition f a term takenby tself persesumptus.

We should not be surprisedto find different interpretations fPeter's natural supposition.Joseph Mullallyseemsto think that thephrase persesumptusindicatesthat the term doesnot enter t all into aproposition. For that matter, Mullally explicitlysaysthat for Petersuppositionwas theproperty f anysubstantive erm n virtueofwhichthe term could substitute ora thing r things, egardlessfwhethert wasa componentart of a statementr not,10

ErnestMoodyenergetically ejectsthis view,11but his argumentsadducedagainstMullally' view are not whollyto the point, amafraid.First, he takesPeter to stateexplicitly hatsuppositions a property fthe termandnot, likesignification, property f vocal sounds,the termbeing defined,accordingto Moody,by Peter as "that into which aproposition s resolved,as into its subjectandpredicate". Moodyrefersto Peter's definition f terminusn the openinglines of De sillogismis.However,Peter explicity aysthat n our tract (Desuppositionibustheword 4terminus1s takenas a vocalsound whichsignifies universalorindividual.12 Secondly,Peter's entirediscussion fsuppositionhows,Moody says,that the kind of suppositiona term has, dependson itsoccurrencein a proposition.However,Moody'sremarkdoesnot hold

goodfornatural

uppositionnotevenfor ll kinds f accidental

suppositioneither, s willbe shown,below,p. 76-79.- Finally,Moodyholdsthat toconstruesupposition s the direct relation of a significantermto whatit signifieswouldbe completelytrivial nd allow no basis for the sharp9The ummulaeogicalesfPeterf pain,otre amendiana94$,ntroduction,.XLVIII:WAubstantivalermossessesaturaluppositionhent s akenytself.t sonly henheermentersnto statementhatthasccidentalupposition".10bid,p.XLVn talicsine).11 ruthnd onsequencenMediaevalogicAmsterdam95:3,p.21-22.12 ractatusI,1 dictionesonignificantesniversaleel articularenon runterminiproutieumiturterminus'Theres glossatingromsearlys he nd f he th enturyinR nC, eemydition)terminusero,t icumiturest oxignificansniversaleel ingulare,ut4homovelSortes*elalbum'

74

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


distinction rawnby Peter betweensuppositionnd signification. gain,Moodyseems toneglectthe specialplaceof Peter's naturalsupposition,not to mentionhis erroneous

opinionthat n

Mullally'sview

suppositionwouldbenothing lsethan hedirectrelation f a significanterm o whatit signifies, o the extent that "aname is the name of whatever t is thename"; if this wouldbe the case, the opponentview were completelytrivial ndeed.That t snotcompletelyrivialwillbearguedbelow,p.

The late Father Boehnerhas givenan ingenioussolutionof ourproblem.1 He takesPeter's naturalsupposition s the naturalcapacityfor suppositiona term has due to its having signification.He doubtsMullally's interpretation hat for Peter a substantival erm possesses

naturalsuppositionwhenit is consideredby itself, hat s, apart rom tsJunctionn a propositionFor the rest, unlikeMoody,Boehnerseesourproblem verywellandproposesthe following olution Peter does notdenythat the suppositionoccursonly in a proposition.Consequently,naturalsupposition,too, has reference o a proposition,although t isabstracted romanyconcreteoccurrence n a proposition.1As toPeter'sexampleof naturalsupposition,Boehnergivesthe followingnterpreta-tion: when 'h mo*s considered n itself persesumptus that s, un-specifiedand undeterminedby a deßnite redicate, it has, by its verynature, suppositionfor all men, who are, have been, and will be.1*Accidentalsupposition,on the contrary, s accomplished,n Boehner'fview, whenwe donot abstract rom heconcreteoccurrence of a termbut considerit in the propositionalcontext, that is, when the termoccurs withsomethingdjoinedto it (<diunctum, the term stands itherfor somethingof the present, past, or future. Sucha suppositionisaccidental,sincethe kind of suppositionthe term hasis determinedbywhathappensto be joinedto it.16

Boehner'sinterpretation asthemajoradvantagef bringing aturalsuppositionloser to significationut avoiding, t the sametime, to makeit contradict ne of the apparentkey-notions f the conceptof supposi-tion, viz. that suppositions a property f a term n so ar as it is usedna propositionalontext.13Medievalogic.nOutlinef tsDevelopmentrom2^0oc. 1400,ManchesterniversityPress952,p. 3-34.14op.it., .34.» op.it., .33.16think,oehner'siewf he nspecifiednd ndeterminedropositionalunctionf termhavingaturaluppositionay ecomparedith on reyag'Leerstelle- ofcoursexceptfor he eneralntologismf he atter'sogophoricntities.17or he ropositionalontexts n ssentialequirement,eemy ogicaodernorumI1pp.1 -117; 23-125;99; 20;94;S39-Í49;nd 61.

IS

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


I think, Boehner squite right n considering1naturalsuppositionthe natural capability or suppositiona significative ord has. Indeed,

significationndowsa vocalsound(vox)with the function f signifyingsomething,nddueto thissignificativeunctiont iscapablef suppositingfor everything ywhichthe universalnaturesignified ythatvocalsoundmaybe participated n.1^Thusthe term's relation to extramentalthingsto be denoted sassured, ndMoody'sfearfor he completely rivial iewof natural supposition s the direct relation of a significanterm to itssignißcatumaken s mentalrepresentation,s superfluous,ince a term'snaturalsuppositiondoesnot primarily oncernwhat t signißesbut whatit maydenotes a result of having ignification.

Allthe same Iam afraidBoehner'sviewof Peter's naturalsupposi-tion is not completely orrect. Althoughhe is certainly ight n taking tfor the natural capacityof a term (= significative ocal sound)forsupposition,he is not in thinking hatfor Peter naturalsuppositionlsohasreference oa proposition

To my mind Peter is certainlynot explicit in denying hat sup-positionoccurs only in a propositionalontext. ut, fairly peaking,heshouldhavedeniedit if, at least, he were asked to givea straight-onanswer. For more than once he speaksof supponeren casesof a nonpropositionalontext. I givesomeexamples.

(1) Discussingrestriction in the tract Deampliationibushe definesit as the contraction f a common term from greater upposition o alesser one. So when one says: 'homo lbus curriť the adjective'albusrestricts hesupposition f man to white men:

TractdtusX,2 Restrictiost oarctadoerminiommunismaioriuppositionedminorem.t cum iciturhomolbusurrit' oc adiectivumalbus1estringitomi-num1dsupponendumro lbis.

It is clear from this text that n Peter's viewthe naturalsupposition fthe term homo is limitedhere not byanypredicatebut bythe adjectivenoun albus',thepredicate curriťbeingquite rrelevant nd,accordingly,the occurrence of the expression

ťhomolbus in a propositiondoesnotmatter ither.

(2) In the tenth tract (Deappellationibusappellations defined sthe acceptanceof a commonterm for an existing hing. t differs rom

18ee p. it.%.33.19 quibusptusatusst sc.terminus)articipanTract.I4,quotedbove,.72).Boehnerreadsop. it.y. 120)with ocheñskiwho sed ratheradmanuscriptor is dition):equibusptusatusst redicaried.Bocheñski.04).

76

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


The third nd fourthtypesof restriction, n the contrary, o not implyeither a propositional ontext, thoughthe examplesgivenare proposi-

tions. Indeed,the expression1homour ens*makes

ihomoto supposi foronly men who are running; the predicate 'disputât' in: 'homo urrens

disputât) is of no use here. Thesame can be saidof the predicateťcurriť

used in Peter's fourth exampleIbid Alia it er articipium.tcum iciturhomourrensisputât',ste erminushomo1supponitpro currentibus.liaper mplicationem.t cum iciturhomoui st lbuscurriťhocquodst21qui st lbusrestringitominumdalbos.

(4) The subdivisionsPeter givesof the firsttypeof restriction an

only confirmmy interpretation. Againthe (restricted)supposition seffectedby nounsapart rom nypropositionalontexte.g.'animal-homo,

where the mere adjunction of 'homo' restricts the former term'ssupposition.The sameholdsgoodfor the other sub-typesIbid. Item.Restrictionisacteernomenliafit er nferiusppositumuperiori.tcum icituranimal-homo'ste erminusanimalsupponit antumro nimalibusuesunt omines.liafit erdifferentiamdvenientemeneriueestessentialisum itconstitutivapeciei. t cum icituranimalationale; hic nimanimal*upponit rorationabilibus.lia fitperadiectivumccidentis.t cumdiciturhomolbus*isteterminushomosupponitpro lbis antum.

(5) Peter's discussionof the specialrule for he restriction ffectedby meansof nouns affords further onfirmation f myview thatPeterpracticallyuses suppositionsoutside propositionalontextIn the nextsection(XI,4) he explicitly tates22hat n such expressionss 'animalhomoand homo lbus the term djoined(respectively,homo'nd albus')restricts he precedingone (respectively,

'animal and 'homo')whenaddeddirectlyadiunctumx eademparte)23o a more commonterm. It

shouldbe noticed that Peter speakshere of an immediateuxtaposition.Well, this expressions never used in Mediaevalgrammar nd logicforthe adjunctionof a predicate-erm to a subject-erm.

(6) Somemore support for my thesis can be found in Peter'sdiscussionXI, 18)of the restriction ffected y usage(restrictioueßt

21hoc uodst* 'the xpression',he hraseeingne f he atinquivalentsf heGreekarticle6usedsameansosubstantívatehe xpressionhichmmediatelyollows.ee lsobelow,.100,.63.22 e restrictioneactaernomenommunierumptaalis atur egula:mne omenondiminuensequeabensaturammpliandi,diunctumx ademarteerminoagisommuni,restringitpsumd upponendumro iisue xigituaignificado.23exeademartedi ngere' 'toplacedjacento

78

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


ab usu).It clearly ppearshere, too, that the propositional ontextdoesnot matter s such.Whenonesays 'nichil st n archa2*,the propositionis true, whenthere re no solid

objectsin the box,

althought is fullof

air, since the term nichiVfrom ts usagesuppositsfor absentsolid andfirm bjects. Here the propositional ontext s certainly elevant, incethe term nichiVhasthissupposition nly n combinationwithpredicatessuch as 'essen archa On the contrary, or Peter's second and thirdexamplesthe propositional ontext s quite irrelevant indeedthe term'Rex*akenasa loose termsuppositsfrom ts usagein a certainregion,for the kingof that region; for the term magisterthe sameholdsgoodmutatismutandis

TractatusI, 1 Soletutem oni uodquedamestrictioit busu.Utcumdiciur'nichilst n rcha*4, uamvisitplenaere, uia ste erminusnichiVupponitb usupro ebusolidisive irmis.t Rexeniťrorege atrie,t *Magisteregitpromagistroproprio2*.

The onlyconclusionto be drawn from the precedingtexts s, that, forPeterofSpain,naturalsuppositions the natural capacity f a significativeword for supposition,be it in or outside heproposition.This is to beunderstood n the followingway.

When a vocalsound(vox)s endowedwith significationnd, thus,hasbecome a voxsignißcativar term, i it signifies universalnatureoressence(its signißcatum),nd (2) it has a naturalcapacityto standfor(supponerero)allactualandpossiblendividualspartakingn this universalnature; it is said,then, to havenaturalsuppositionsuppositioaturalis).Thisnaturalcapacity,however,maybe limited n its actualfunctionbyanother erm djoinedto the first ne this djunctmaybe thepredicate-term f the proposition f whichthe first erm s the ubject-term in thiscase Peterspeaksof (3)accidentalsuppositionsuppositioccidentalis, forwhich, accordingly,the propositionalcontext is an essentialpoint;however, the limitation, or restriction, can also come from a non-propositionaldjunct, such asan adjectivenoun, or another ubstantivenoun (andthe other casesmentionedabove,p. 77-8);in all thesecases

24theresnothingn heox*.25 heo-calledummeetensesre rettylearn ccountf his indf estrictiontermedhererestrictiosualiserntonomasiam)Per ntonomasiam,tcum iciturRexeniť.icetnimsteterminusrex*upponatommuniterro uolibetege,arnenx usu oquendiestringiturdsupponendumro egeatrienquast oquens.imilest e stis ominibus:dominusin ua

domo,episcopusin piscopatuuo, t icde imilibus.quotedrom y ogicaoâernorumI ip.463).t s self-evidenthathe ontexthichffectshisestricteduppositions socialne,not propositionalne.think,he amean e aid f eter'siew f hematter.

79

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


(4)Peter alsospeaksofsupponerethiskindof restricted upposition eingtermed restrictiontogether with other kinds of restriction which are

proposi ional)2

Sonatural uppositions indeeda term's suppositionor better: itscapacityfor supposition)which is the direct result, or counterpart, fitshaving ignification.t has not necessarily reference oapropositionalcontext, s Boehnerthinks.As anatural apacityfor supposition,naturalsuppositionhas a reference to a possiblecontext, which suppliesanadjunct to limit (or: restrict) the term's originalcapacity.However,thiscontext s of a three-fold ype(a) a propositional ontext, in which the adjunctis a predicate-term;

in suchcaseswe have sometypesof restriction(b) an attributive ontext resulting rom mere uxtaposition adiunctioex eademarte) n whichthe adjunct s an attributive erm or phrasethen, we have someother typesof restriction

(c) a socialcontext, n which the adjunct' is the specialusageof somesocialunit (e.g. family, chool,or region); in thesecaseswe havesometypes f restrictio sualis= restrictionoccurring yusage).2?

1 think, this interpretationwill be confirmedwhen other thirteenthcentury uthorsare taken nto consideration.

2- Williamof Sherwood'sso-calledntroductionesnlogicartic. i 2$o?)28

For Williamof Sherwoodsignifications nothingmore than ustthe mentalpresentation f a universalnature,whilesuppositions theorderingof one conceptunder some other; finally, opulationis theordering or cumulation)of someconceptover and abovesomeother

Introd.y. 7616"18d. Grabmann:st gitur ignificadoresentadolicuius ormedintellectum.uppositioutemst rdinariolicuiusntellectusub lio.Et st opulatioordinatiolicuiusntellectusupralium.29

26 he erm'significativeunctionodenotendividualsaylso ecompletelyakenway;nthat ase heermnlyeferso ts ignificatumPeteras(VI,g) proe niversaliignificataeripsum,c.terminům),ndwehaveimpleuppositionuppositioimplex, then.27ome therypesf sualectrictioneingropositional;ee bove.28thinkhe sualrgumentsor ating illiam'sork. i240renot onclusiveorre hoseadducedor isnfluencenPeterf pain,ambertfAuxerrend ther asterssuchsAlbertthe reatnd homasquinas).ee hentroductionomy eterf paindition For hat atteramnclinedodateWilliam'sorkbout2 o nd o ocatet nOxford,here illiamasactives mastert hat ime.

80

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


WhatexactlydoesWilliam meanby 'ordering' (ordinatio)whenhe saysthat suppositions the orderingof one concept under ome other and

copulationtheone overndabove omeother?Onemight hink hat n thecase ofsuppositionheordering oncernsthepredicative elation f bothterms s found n a proposition. n fact, havedefended hisview inmyLogicaModernorumII i, pp. £67-570),but feel inclined,now, to makesomequalification.ndeed, the ordering n a propositionalcontext isone of the kinds of ordinatio probablythe most important, ut not theonlyone. William's viewmaybe comparedwith Peter's, and, again,wemay dducesomesupport romWilliam'sdiscussion frestriction, hichis found n his tract Deappellatanepp. 82-85ed. Grabmann).oWilliam

givesa rule regarding upposition nd appellations1terminusommunison res rieus,habens ufficientiamppelatorum,upponens*2verbo epresentionhabentiim mpliandi,upponit33antumro hiisquesunt(p.82*4-26)."anunrestrictedommonerm, avingufficientppellatandbeinghe ubjectfpresent-ense erb hat asnoampliatingorce,uppositsnly or hosehingshatdoexist."

Next the expressionnon restrctus9unrestricted) s explained.It mustbe added,Williamsays,because,if a commonterm s restricted, t maysuppositfor something hatdoesnot exist (andin such casesappellationis ruled out). Williampointsout that of the four typesof restriction,three34 re excludedby the abovecondition non-estrctus', izé restric-tion effected yanadjectivenoun(e.g.

'homolbus), restriction ffectedbya relative lause( mplication.g.

'homoquifuiť or 'homouiest lbus),andtheone effectedby participle e.g.

'homourrens). In all thesecasesthere can be spokenof a restricted commonterm (ierminusommunis

29 ormynterpretationf heseefinitions,eeLogicaodernorumIi, pp. 66-^75.30Grabmann'sditionfWilliam'sorks ven orsehanocheriski'sditionf eter'summulae.Aist f orrectionsf he ormerill epublishedy ohnalcolm,elow,p.1 81 ManyfGrabmann'srroneouseadingsre lreadyoticednd orrectedyNormanretzmann,illiamof herwood*IntroductionoLogictranslatedith n ntroductionndnotes, inneapolis966.Iowemuchohis ranslation.31appellationeingefineded.Grabmann,p. 6-28)s he resentorrectpplicationf term,i.e.the ropertyith espectowhich hathe ermignifiesan e aid f omethinghroughthe se f he erbis' Appellatioutemst resensonvenientiaermini,.e.proprietasecundumquamignificatimierminiotestici e liquomedianteoc erboest').32'Supponere'.dativo 'tobethe ubjectf'.33'Supponerero'= 'to uppositor'= 'to tandor').34Kretzmanneemsoberightn upposinghathe extscorruptereop.it.p.1 4,n.78).I think e haveoreadomethingike: t deiusimilitudinemicunturmplicadot imiliter(participiumt)dictiodiectivaestringereerminůmommunem.

8l

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


restrictos), hich the rule given s to exclude.This doesnot holdgood,Williamadds,for thefourthtype frestriction, iz.theoneaccomplished

by a verb. I givethe text:Et pponiturocmembrumnon-iestrictus'uia i it estrictussc.terminusommunis),potestupponereronon xistenti,thic:*homoui uit st onns'.Sedntelligeuod estringerestproprieogéréliquidsse nbrevioriocoquamuenatureompetit.t d eius imilitudinemicuntur^smplicatiot imiliterparticipiumet)dictiodiectivaestringereerminůmommunem.Undeetribusestrictionibusntelligendumsthic, etnon everbo,icet uandoquerestringat;thic: homourriťiste erminushomo1ecundumepotest upponerepro preteriis,presenibus, t futuris,edcoarctaturic adpresenteserverbumpresentísemporis.bid, pp.8226-832).

Williamapparentlywants to make clear primarily hat the word 'un-restricted*dded to 'commonermin the rule given s to be understood sruling ut the three first inds of restriction, nd not the one effectedbya verb.36Enpassant e comesto speakof the fourth ypeof restriction,viz. the oneeffected y a verb in a proposition.

The following bservationsmaybe made(1) restringereeemsto be definedby Williamin the same manneras

by Peter of Spain,viz.as the contraction f a commonterm fromgreater o a lessersuppositionsee above,p. 76).37

(2) sincerestriction s said [see (1)] to be a kind of supposition, ndWilliam'sthree firsttypesof restriction re all of them restrictionsofthenon-propositionalypeour author implicitly tatesthat there ssomethingikesuppositionffectedbyanon-propositionalontext.3»

(3) WhenWilliamsays:the term 6man takenas such(secundume),hemeansexactlythe same as what Peter of Spaincalls terminuser sesumptusnd, accordingly,Williamhas here in view what he else-where calls (p. 7422ff.) supposition habitu nd what Peter termsnatural upposition

35 ormy uessf heorrecteadings,ee he reviousote.36ee he xcellentranslationivenyKretzmanndhoc.37 fr. retzmann'sote,p. it., .124,.78.38Kretzmannightlybservesibid., . 80)thatWilliamseemshus o havexplainedhat*unrestrictedinthe ules ntendednlyorule ut uch estrictionssmayccur ithinhesubject-termtself'awhitean, 'arunningan,a man hoswhite');owever,is peakingf1subject-erm'ightauseomeonfusionn hatt uggestspropositionalontext.think,ewillagreehathe estrictionsnderiscussionre ll ffectedithinhehrasesa whitean, arunningmanetc., uitepartromhe acthathey ayct ssubject-termsn proposition.fr.myexplanationsivenbove,. jî.

82

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Beforewe may compareWilliam's viewof suppositionwith Peter's,wehaveto discussthe former'sconceptofsuppositioecundumabitům

In the first ection of his tract Deproprietatibusermini illiampointsout that suppositionnd 'copulation like manynamesof this sort, areused in two ways: either with respect to an actual occurrencein aproposition secundumctum) r with respect to the capacityorsuchanoccurrence(secundumabitům. He addsthat the above definitions39fsupposition nd copulationare givenwith respect to what they are inactualoccurrence.Next he givestheir definitions ith respectto whatthey re in capacity. n this sense suppositions calleda significationfsomething s subsisting;for what is of that sort, he says,is naturallysuited natum st)to be ordered under something lseIbid p. 7419-24Etnotandumuod uppositiot opulatioicuntur ultiplicitersicutmulta uiusmodiomina :aut ecundumctum,ut ecundumabitům.t suntstediffinitionesviz.the bovementioned,. 7416f.) arumecundumuodunt n actu.Secundumutemuoduntnhabitu,icituruppositioignißcatiolicuiust ubsistentisquodnim ale st,natumst rdinariub lio.

What sstrikingnWilliam'sdefinition f habitual, r virtual, uppositionis that he considers t a certainkind of signification.n doingso he goeseven further hanPeter seemsto do in distinguishingfter ll betweensuppositionnd signification.t shouldbe noticed n thisconnectionthatWilliamputsboth on a linebycallingsignifications well assupposition(andcopulationandappellation)propertiesof a term

Ibid., . 74i2-i6;uatuorunt roprietateserminiuasdpresensntendimusiversi-ficare.. Et unt eeproprietates:ignificado,uppositio,opulatio,t ppellatio.

Thus Williambringsnatural (habitual)supposition n an even closerrelationwith

significationhanPeterdoes.

Therefore,n William's view

the questionof the distinction betweensignificationnd suppositionsmoreurgent.

William'ssuppositioecundum abitům s defined s significationfsomething s subsisting signißcatiolicuius ut subsistentis). ell, sincesignifications definedby our author as the presentation f someformto thought presentatiolicuiusjorme.adntellectual),ehavebysubstitutionthefollowing efinitionfhishabitualsupposition:presentation f some-thing someform) ssubsistingothought.Accordingly,William's natural

(habitual)supposition s the signification f subsistentthings forms),39eebove,.80.

83

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


i.e. those thingsor forms that are suited to be underlying 7roxetfxeva(= subiectar supposita, i.e. entitiesthat underlyas substratadjacent

entities nd are signified y substantivalerms.So we may concludethat for William in the case ofthe genericconceptof significationhe distinction f grammatical ategories sub-stantive, adjectivenoun, verb) is irrelevant, while it is of decisiveimportance orthe distinction f two speciesofsignification,iz. natural(habitual)suppositionconcerning ubstantive ouns)andnatural habit-ual) copulation (concerningdjectivenouns andverbs).Let us take theconceptsman and iwhite s examples.Thegenericconceptof significa-tion concerns them taken in either formal abstraction (humanitas

respectively lbedo or in total (material)abstraction homo ua homorespectively lbumqua album).Natural (habitual)supposition,on thecontrary, s the significationffectedby the substantival oun 'homo',andnatural habitual)copulationthe one effectedby the adjectivenoun4albus or the verb 'albere

In fact William's viewsgo parallelwith those of Peter of Spaininsomerespects, n others not. I quotethe relevant exts from he latter'swork:

TractatusI,2 Significationisliaestrei ubstantive,t habet ieri ernomenubstan-tivum,t /îomo'aliarei diective,thabet ieriernomendiectivumelperverbum,ut albus*el curriť. uareproprie on st ignificadoubstantivaeladiectiva,edaliquid ignificaturubstantivet aliquiddiective,uiaadiectivatioelsubstantivatiosuntmodi erumuesignificantur,t non ignificationis.Nominaero ubstantivadicunturupponere,ominaero diectivat etiam erba icuntur opulare.

"Of ignifications,ne s that fa substantivalhingnd s to be accomplishedysubstantivaloun,s4homo;anothers hat f n djectivalhingnd s obe ccomplishedby nadjectiveoun,s albusorby verb,s curriťAccordingly,roperlypeakingnot ignificationssubstantivalr djectival,ut omethingssignifiedn he ubstantivalwaynd ome ther hingn the djectivalay, ince djectivationnd ubstantivationaremodesf he hingsignified,ot f signification.Well,substantivalouns resaid osupposit,ut djectivalounsnd lsoverbsre aid ocopulate."

Forbothauthorssignificationakengenericallys the mentalrepresenta-tion of a thing res),whichis subdividednto that of a subsistentthing,as man, nd that of an adjacentthing, s white r running. urther, heyseem toagreein taking hementalrepresentation f a subsistentthing snatural

(respectively,abitual)

supposition ccomplishedbysubstantival

nouns. However, unlike Peter, William carriesthe line through bycallingthe mentalrepresentation f an adjacentthinghabitualcopula-

84

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


tion.4° Another difference s that Peter apparentlywants to give aclear-cut distinctionbetweensignificationnd supposition see above,

p. 73f.)and doesnot definenaturalsuppositions a kindof signification,which it is in factfor him, too, whileWilliamdoesso explicitly.Thusfor Williamhabitual uppositions more closelyrelatedto significationthan for Peter, at least as far as their expositionsof the matter areconcerned.

However,the gist of their views seems to be the same: a term*natural habitual)suppositions its virtualsupposition, .e. its capacityforsuppositingor oncrete ndividuals thiscapacityscloselyrelated to(thegenericconceptof)significationnd has,ascapacity, reference o

a possiblecontext, which is to actualize this potency. However, thiscontext s not necessarily propositionalontext.

3- The Anonymousract Deproprietatibusermonůmc. 1220)

This tract is found in the collective manuscriptMunichC.L.M.14.4^8andhas been edited n my LogicaMoJernorumI 2, pp. 703-730.*2

Its anonymousauthor starts**his discussion of significare ithpointing o the specialmeaningof this word whensaidof voceswhenone saysvoxest ignificanssignificativa),relation s predicatedof vox,rather han n action,unlikewhen onesaysof a personthat he is signifi-cansremper vocemThis is a relation between a word and the thingsignifiednd maybe considered kind of resemblancef the word takenasa signand the thing ignified signatum. Accordingly, wordsignify-inga thing s nothing lse but a wordgiving signabout a thing

Tract,eprop,ermonůmp. yio22-yiild.DeRijk: ignificareutem, t dictum stdevocibus,onvidetur redicaregere edpotius elationemi e similitudinemquandamt convenientiamigninquantumst signum,d signatum... linde nonaliud ideturicere ocemignificareem isivocemacereignumere,nonquod acetedicatgere,ed ignumaceredest:notam44sse.

40 or hat atter,t houldenoticedhatopulationsonlyefinedy eter, ot iscussed.41 fr. bove,.82.42 or hisract,eeLog.Mod.I1,pp.£7£-£78;80.43d.DeRijk,.7108f.44 otasAristotle'sujxßoXovDenterpr.,16a).Cfr. oethiusranslationf he assagen-volved:unt rgo aquaeuntnvocearumuaeuntn nimaassionumotaeed.MinioPaluello,. 4"6).

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Significares divided into supponerend copulareTo supposit {supponete)is etymologicallyefined s to denotesomething hrough omeuniversal

nature designareliquidsubaliquaforma).A substantival ounsignifiesan individualthrough n universalnature, that is its essentialpart orsubstance essence),and this kind of significations calledsupposition.Anadjectivenoun,on the contrary, ignifiesn individualthrough oneof)its adjacentnatures viz.its properties), nd thiskind of signification,beingof the additive or cumulativetype, s calledcopulation:Ibid 7115-719:Significareutem, rout icitur e voce,dividiturn supponeretcopulare.Queraturrgo uid it upponereecundumuod icitur"nominaubstan-tiva upponunt,ednominadiectivaon ubponuntedcopulant.Videturutemuodupponereecundumtimologiamocumon itnisi ub oneredestdesignareliquidub liquaormaNomenrgo ubstantivumive ubpositivumiciturstud ropriet secundumrimaminventionemuod stnomenuppositiiveubstantieecundumormamerfectamlliussubstantie.ndenomenubstantivumignificatnumt utunum.ignificatnim emqueest ub ua orma,on uedicaturd llamem,ed ueestde reetparsssentialisrei.Undeicitur omenubstantivumuia stnomenubstantie,dest rout stper eexistenst ad cuius ignificationemotest ieridiectioer liumerminůmationeuisignificati.Adiectivumrgo icituroquoddicirem uamubstantivo,ecfit ubiectumermonis

adiectivumisimedianteubstantivo.ignificatnim t ad aliud ec ignificatt stansper e.Unde icituropulare,dest ignificareopulativeive oniunctivedaliud.

Supposition,then, is defined as significationf a thing, through tssubstantial atureor essence,asfar s it is conceivedassubsistent

Ibid.,1 6-18Suppositiogiturst ignificadoei ub ormaubstantialierficientearnproutubpsaogitatast esutperfectumtper eens,non daliud icta ermodumaccidentis,ed dquoddicaturliud.

Like in the other thirteenthcentury

ractssupposition

s often viz. forall kinds of accidentalsupposition,termed here suppositioespectiva)linkedup with the requirements f true predication n a proposition.However, in this tract, again,natural supposition s found, which iscalledhere suppositiobsoluta.t is the suppositionof the term taken nitself 1erminuser esumptus).t shouldbe notedthat our tract explicitlystatesthat ccidentalsuppositionsuppositioespectiva)s effectedthroughthe adjunctionof a verb, whichis an argument contrarioorthe thesisthat natural suppositions effectedwheneveranypropositional ontextis

missing:45ee og.Mod.I p.ç 7, ndhe ractatusassim.or hisharacteristic,ee elow,.106.

86

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


It must be agreed,however,that apartfromnatural absolute)sup-position the non-propositionaluppositiondoes not play any rôle in

this Tractatus.For that matter, our author's definition f supposition,does notexplicitly tate the propositional ontext as a requirement ora term'shavingsupposition,ust like sucha requirement s missingwith Peterof Spainand Williamof Sherwood.9On the contrary,whenhe defines(71110;seeabove,p. 86) supponeres designare liquidsubaliquaforma,the latter phrase s to be taken for designareubforma ubstantialis° i.e.denotinga thing through ts essentialnature, where any referencetoa context (propositionalor non-propositional)s missing.

The conclusionmaybe drawnthat, ike Williamof Sherwood,ouranonymousuthor akessuppositionor kind of significationseeabove,pp. 8$and 86),viz. thesignificationf a subsistentthing,whichis capableofbeingthe subjectof talking dequopossitieri ermo)Ibid71 18'21Undeupponerest ignificareem ub liquaormatper uamogitaturresut per<se>nset stansnanimat dequopossit ieri ermot respectuuiusdicatvu*liud. .siWell, sincetalking boutsomethingsaccomplishedhrough headditionof a verb to the term signifyinghatthing, this capacity, n fact, s thecapacityfor beingthe subject-erm of a proposition.Andsince, to theMediaevalmind,everyproposition ontains verbanda verbeffects herestriction f a term's significationo denoting nlya certainportionofthe ndividualspartakingn the universalnaturesignified y the term,suppositions considereda term's capacityfor denoting ndividuals.So

our authorseems tobe in line with both Peter of Spainand William ofSherwoodasfar s the basic function f suppositionsconcerned.UnlikePeter, he agreeswith William in neglecting clear-cutdistinction e-tweensuppositionnd signification.49Unlikehe hirteenthenturyerynfluentialract umitnostrahichefinesupponeresremuamubpposito= predicate)onere.p.446301d.DeRijk).eeLog.ModII1,p.568.5°Misledy ur uthor'sliquahave ronglyakenheliquaormaor heormaredicatinmyLog.Mod.Ii, p.$69.The ontextsee .71 6ff.) learlyhowshatur uthor eanshe wnsubstantialormf he hingignifiedsuppositio.. estignificatioeiubormaubstantialierficienteearnroutubpsaogitatast es t erfectumt ere ns.51 he ontinuationf ur assagecumpsumonogitaturt ependensb liohocespectuabitodeaqueuntecundumodumecundumuemstd uodstubstantiabetrayshe uthor'snterminglingof heogicalnd ntologicalomains,hichharacteristicsfoundhroughouthewholeork.

88

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Finally,his absolute(= natural)suppositionfits n verywell withhis generaldiscussionof significationnd supposition, houghhis intro-

ductionof the distinctionbetweenabsolute andrespective uppositionseemsto be rather ncidental.52

Thenext sectionwillshowthat nother hirteenth entury ogician,Lambertof Auxerre,whogivesa ratherprolixdiscussionofsignificationand suppositionand their relations,has much the same views ofthematter nvolved.

4 - Lambertof Auxerre's Summulac. 1260)

The Black FriarLambertof Auxerre wrote a compendiumof logicprobably t the Court of Troyesor Pamplonabetween 12^3and 12^7and publishedit in Paris between 12^7and 1276, most likelyabout1260.53 quotefrom hemanuscripts, speciallyfrom the manuscriptParis,B.N.Lat. 16.617.

Unlike WilliamofSherwoodLambertdoes notconsidersignificationa property f a term, but, like PeterofSpain,he takessignificationobeprior to supposition.Theyare related to one anotheras what is calledthe perfection f a term to its property. Therefore,he wantsto startwith the former'sdefinition nd to showthe differences etween signi-fication nd suppositionf. 2ov:Cumogicuserminůmonsideret,onveniensst ut determineteterminiproprietatibuscuiusnim st onsiderareubiectum,t proprietates.Multe utem untproprietatesermini,cilicet upposiio, appellatio,mpliatio,restrictio,istributiot relatio.nter uasprimo esuppositioneicendumst. Sedquiaignificadost icut erfectioerminit terminiroprietatesupraignificationemfundantur,deonprincipiodevidentiamequentiumidendumstquid it terminisignificadot nquodifférâtsuppositione.

Well, the significationf a term s definedby Lambertas the con-cept, or mental representation = intellectus, of a thing, which is52ee heext.tem.oletonialis ivisio etc.seebove,.87).53eemy oten heatef ambertfAuxerre1Sammuleyn his ournal1969) p.160-162.To he levenanuscriptsentionedherewhereroyes401stobe orrectednto royes402two thers ayeadded,he o-called.T.S.odexnCambridge.S.A.seeBulletine aSociétéour'Etudee aphilosophieédiévale-91966-67),.125),nd he odexynžvart(Königswart,hecho-Slowakia)seeFranciscusada, odd.mss. iblioth.astelliynžvart,Prague965.

89

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


accomplishedby the arbitrary mpositionof a word. For the wordsaresignsof the mentalrepresentationsnd the latter re signsof things

Ibid Significadoerminist ntellectusei, dquemntellectumeivoxmponiur dvoluntatemnstituentis.am icut ultAristotilesnPrimo eryermenias,ocesuntsignaassionumue untn nima,destntellectuum,ntellectusutemuntignaerum.

Next, our authorexplainsthe relationsof word, mentalrepresen-tationandthing t length

Ibid.Adcuiusntelligentiamciendumuod d hocquod liquaox it ignificativa,quatuorxiguntur:es,ntellectusei,vox, t unio ocis umntellectuei.Res iciturllud uod xtra nimamxistenser ui peciembanimapprehenditur,uthomovel apisIntellectusei iciturpeciesel imilitudoei ue st n nima. am,icut ult ristotilesinTertioeAnima,apisnon st n animaed peciesapidis.t per stampeciemelsimilitudinemnimaempprehendit.Voxst llud uodprofertur. uandorgo it nio ocisumntellectuei, une niursignificadooci t efficiturox ignificativa.t icet es it naturalist ntellectusei tvox imiliter,uia principiisaturalibusormantur,arnenuia volúntateit niointellectusei um oce t nhoc onsistitocismpositiodsignificandum,ideovoxdiciturignificaredvoluntatemnstituentis.Sic

ergoox

primotper

e et nmediatestignum

ntellectusei,

ulteriusero tmediatestsignumei.Sicut nim icitur uod quicquidst causa ause,stcausacausati,icpotest ici imilimodouod uicquidst ignumigni,st ignumignati.Undeum ox it ignumntellectust ntellectusit ignumei t sicres it ignatum,- vox,queest ignumigni,cilicetntellectus,rit ignumignati,cilicetei, edinmediateignumntellectus,ediateutemignumei.

Fromthis passageit clearlyappearsthatLambertholdsanepistem-ologicaviewof the Aristoteliantype.Sothe significationf a term s thenaturalrepresentation n mind denotingan extramentalthing, such as

manor stonewhosementalrepresentations put upon ( mponitur, andunited with (unitur a word, whichbecomesby this a voxsignißcativaNext, our author givestwo differences etween significationnd

supposition.Theformerdirectly ollows romheforegoingxplanations.Significations (logically)prior to supposition n that the word (vox)primarily eceivessignifications its formal principle forma),due towhichunion of matter vox)and form (significatio)voxbecomesa voxsignißcativar terminus, hile suppositions a property f the term thusconstituted

Ibid.Differtutemignificadosuppositionenhocquodprior st ignificadouamsupposiio.Significadonim st ntellectuseiquipervocemepresentaturante uius

90

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


unionemum ocenon st erminus,ed onstituiur erminusnunionelliusntellectusrei um oce.Supposiiovero stquedam roprietaserminiicconstiuti.

Another difference s that signification nly concerns the thingsignified y the term res ignificata), hilesuppositionmayalsoconcernall individualsheterm can stand for. E.g. the term homo' signifiesnlyMantaken s a species,while it may uppositnot only or hespeciesMan%but also for ndividualmen, such as Socrates andPlato.Ibid Aliast ifferentiauia ignificadoolumxtenditurdrem dquamignificandamimponiur erminus,edsupposiio non olumxtenditurd rem ueperterminůmsignificatur,edpotestxtendidsuppositaontentaub liare.Verbi ratia:ignificatio'hominis'olumxtenditurdhominemnon d contentaubhomine

ťhomoenimignificaihominemnonSortem ecPlatonem;otest arnenhomosupponereroSorte t pro

PlatonetprohomineFromthis t appearsthat for Lambert the thing ignified y a term

(ressignificata)s the universal nature or essence. In other words:significationoncernsthe universalnature or essence and suppositionmayconcernboth, essenceand individual concretethingspartaking nthis essence.

The latter difference s brought nto relief by Lambert's distinctionof the four differentways n whichthe name'suppositio's used.54Onlythe first nd the fourth re of importancenow. Suppostitin the firstsense is the substantivalwayofsignifying thing nd, accordingly, s aspecialkind of signification, ot a term's property, while the fourthsense of suppositio's theoneusuallymeant n the tracts e suppositionibusIbid. Sciendumutemuodsuppositwuatuor odisiciur.Unomodo ici ur up-positiosubstantivaeidesignadoelsignificatioQuartomododicituruppositioacceptioerminiro e sive rore suavelpro liquo uppositoontentoub esuavelpro liquibusuppositisontentisubre sua.Et istoquartomodosthic ntentioesupposiione Primoutemmodouppositiostquedampecialisignificatioermini,et non erminiroprietasSedestsuppositiorimomododieta ignificatioerminisubstantii. Ethuicuppositioniespondetopulado,ueest diectivaei ignificatio.

Thussuppositioi) is nothingbut a specialkindof signification, izthe substantivalne, in contra-distinctiono the adjectivalone whichislabelledcopulatiowhereassuppositio4) is a property f a term havingsubstantival r adjectivalsignification,.e. a specialacceptanceof theterm, whichin fact imits ts use to just one of its possibleapplications.Thuswe havethe following cheme54 his istinctionsquiteifferentromhatoundn he ummuleialecticesp.268201)ditedyRobertteeleOperaactenusneditaoeriacon,ase.V, xford940)nderogeracon'same.

91

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Scheme

{(i)2)

termini

terminidiectivi

substantivi=

=

copulatio.

suppositiorimo odoicta

(2)terminidiectivi copulatio.Well, Lambert ays, hefirst-typeuppositiowhich sakindofsignificatiois not intendedhere. The subjectof the tract Desuppositionibuson thecontrary, s the suppositionwhich is not a kind of signification,ut aproperty f the term, something hat s basedonitshaving ignification.

Unfortunately atters re somewhatcomplicated bythe introduc-tion of anotherdistinction,viz. suppositioommuniterictaand suppositioproprie icta It shouldbe noticed at the outset that thisdistinction on-cerns

suppositionn the technical ensein whichit is used in the tracts

underdiscussionf. 1 12:Sciendumeroquod suppositioequa ntenditurie dicitur uobusmodiscilicet ommunitert proprie.It appearsfrom he context thatsuppositionn the wider sense(suppositiocommunitericta)is a commonnameused for both the suppositionofsubstantival ermsand that of adjectivalterms (= copulation);takenproperly suppositionnlyconcerns ubstantivalerms.And in the latter

senseit is dealt with in our tract n contra-distinction ith copulationwhichis also (shortly)discussed nthe tract De suppositionibusIbid Est utemuppositioommunitericta,icutam ictumst, cceptioerminirose ive ro e ua vel cceptioerminiro uppositoue ei ive ro uppositisCumenim iciturhomost pecies, 'homoteneturro e sive ro e ua, tnon ro uppositoaliquo.ivero icaturhomourrit*homo*eneturro upposito.imiliterumdicitur1albumisgregai',album*eneturiepro e sive roresua,namllud redicatumonconvenitlbo ationeuppositi,edrationeueforme. umvero icituralbumurrit'teneturro upposito.

In the next lines Lambertsaysthat suppositionn the wider senseis the commonname forboth suppositionn the strict enseandcopula-tion. However,in the preceding inesall the examplesof what s calledsuppositionn the wider senseare those of suppositionn the strictersense,none of them concerning opulation.If our text is not corrupt,Lambert s not very learIbid.Dividiturutemuppositioommuniterictan uppositionemroprieietam tcopulationem.ommuniternim oquendo upponunterminiubstantivit terminiadiectivi,edproprieoquendouppositioonveniterminisubstantiiset copulatioterminisdiectivis.Sowemayset up another cheme

92

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


SchemeI

suppositioommuniter (O terminiubstantivisuppositioroprieictodicta

ļ (2)terminidiectivi copulatio.Combiningchemesand// omeonfusioneems o beobvious

SchemeII (=1 + 11)significano ( (O terminiubstantivisuppositiorimo odoicta= suppo-ignificano(suppositioommunitersitioroPrieicu)d'cia) ( (2)terminidiectivi copulatio.

Thusthe confusion s twofold(a) not only suppositio(viz.primomodo icta) s used(seeScheme) forspecialkind of significationquedam pecialisignißcatio, viz. that of asubstantivalword, but also (seeSchemeT)for signißcatioeinga genericterm designating oth the significationf substantivalwordsandthat ofadjectivalwords.(b) suppositioroprie icta= suppositiorimomodo icta but, at the sametime, it is, together with its counterpart, uppositioommuniterictasubsumedunder

suppositioe

quaintenditur ie

i.e. suppositiouartomododictaThe result s (1) that after ll there s no clear-cut distinction e-

tween significanond supposition Lambert's work and (2) that thesuppositioroprie icta n fact s anall-overlappingmember of the distinc-tion. The latter point appearsfrom the continuation f the text:

Et st uppositioroprieictacceptioerminiem ixamtper e tantemepresentantis[inotherwords: t is a specialind f ignification,iz. that f substantivalords],secundumuameneriotest ro se, ive ro)re ua, ive rosuppositoel uppositiscontendsub esuai.e. t s the asisor he ifferentindsf upposition].

We maynow dress two other schemesillustrating he confusingterminology sedby Lambert.The one is set up from heview-point fsuppositiothe otherfrom hatofsignißcatio.owever,it should bebornein mindthat urauthorwouldcertainly othaveendorsedthese chemes,sinceall hisdistinctions, nd the divisionssuggested y them, eemto bemeant as a numberof distinctions hat are unrelated to one another.However,the confusionwhich is bound to originatefrom Lambert'suse ofparallel explanationsf the membersof the different istinctions,cannotbe better thrownout in relief than through heseschemes.

93

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


(O M2 2*3 "boI: èd 3O O

í| %*s i<u(OVIh%*^ g1O h^ g1MO Oo P Ofa fa oK fa fauCuCu Oh ut-i M•> •£ M«M

Iw aísl ¿ I S ^*w

il ** g 1*8. 1^

Sa-sige .2 Si S.iUiS-iSa-sigeO 60S ^ ^ .2HiSiß 3 wS.O - 60S ^ ^ U ß 3 wJļ -s M - s oû.|

ļ -s g a g - $ s .ii i-in : ri ä111 fr I Iii s îg îg« --a s» 3'g s g gfrn 0*» S-C£ cL a.g Z, il il s -B 8 s S.

î I Iii'■3 t? -s-•sÛ* ilC W *§B ¡¡-sc ï* C W « B ^ c ï*O .2 G .S - S,g

-S.O .2

§ & .S*J if®

- g

1.2 I-S Stalli s"8S ou.y ■§o s Io.«ç u.y o « ¿ o s.«fl 0 £ *135¿13V « eA CU 0 ^ ¿ O (S.ÖLUe•Bg-

CU-S §9

^ ¿s 5

O8S.8

LUZ-S

S3 i." è 5 £ * iL§S « &*l s"g il o"Il«« «

g " w g ilw Il«« «

•?<§" - ■ -

IIÖ sa* 3| i11 eE os SSa. Î3•suw• §.-uw a-

s: .2

fi»

S oS a.X euu sca S

94

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


ThoughLamberthimselfwouldnot agreewiththesecomprehensiveschemesIVandF),he seemsto havebeenawareof a possibleconfusion,

forheexplicitlywarnshisreaders odistinguish ellbetweensupposition(andcopulation)taken s a kindofsignificationndasa term's property:Ibid Expredictisatet uod uppositiostterminiignificatiot terminiroprietas,et similiteropulatio.liter arnenumiur suppositioutest erminiignificatio,t utest erminiroprietas.imiliterst opulatio,tvisumst.Et de suppositionet copulationeuesunt ermini roprietates,t nonprout untterminiignificationes,ic ntenditur.

Thushe rejectsthe combinationf our Schemesand//, nd, accordingly,SchemesVand V The

onlygroundfor this

rejectionis the Mediaeval

logicians'distinction f the significationf a word and its significativefunctionof suppositing or things. t is exactlythis distinctionwhichunderliesthe distinction f natural nd accidentalsupposition.

Allthe foregoing istinctionsnd divisions re primarily oncernedwith the severalways n which the term *suppositiomaybe used.They

maybe collectivelyheadedbythequestionsquid it uppositior quotmodisdicatursuppositio9.The proper division of the kinds f supposition to be headed: de

divisioneuppositionumisa different atter. Accordingly, ambertmakesa fresh tart.

Theprimary ivision fsuppositions that nto natural ndaccidentalsupposition.Naturalsuppositions that which the term has of its own,or by nature. A term has naturalsuppositionwhen it is put by itself(perse)and is not oinedwith another term whatsoever. Havingnatural

suppositiont stands for both all actualandall possibleindividuals ar-taking n the universalnaturesignified y the term. The name4suppositionaturalis refers o the fact that term hasthis suppositionby natureorfromwithin ab intrinseco, not from n adjunct(abadiuncto:f. 21 Suppositiorimoicdividitursuppositionumlia stnaturalis,lia ccidentalis.Naturalisuppositiostquam abeterminusseeta naturaua.Hanc icitur abereterminusuando er eponitur,dest uandoulli lii diungitur.erminusero abensillamuppositionemon olumupponitrohiisqueparticipantormamuam,mosupponipro mnibusiis uepossuntelpotueruntarticipareormamuam,cilicet

propresenibus,reteritis,t futuris.Diciturutemsta uppositioaturalisoquodon st nterminob extrínsecoed bintrinseconaturalenim st uius rincipiumst ntra.

96

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Its counterpart, ccidentalsupposition, s defined s that whicha termhas from an adjunctto the extent that the latter determines what theterm tands or

supponit).his

adjuncteems tobethe

predicate-erm f

proposition f whichour term s the subject-term.The name accidentalsuppositionefersto the fact that a term's suppositiondependson anexternalfactor:

Ibid.Accidentalisuppositiostquam abeterminusbadiuncto.t nhac upponitterminusecundumxigentiamllius ui diungitur.ienim icaturhomost' supponitpropresentibus,uia diungiturerbo epresenti;idicaturhomofuiť,upponitropreteritis;idicaturhomorti' profuturis.Diciturutem ec accidentalisoquodnest erminob extrínseco:uodenim bextrínseconest licui,ccidentalest i.

Next, accidentalsuppositions subdividednto simplexndpersonalisthelatter beingsubdividednto discreta nd communisand so on.

We are only interestednow in natural supposition.The crucialquestionis whether the phrases

(1) quamhabet erminus se et a natura ua and(2) quandoperseponitur idest uandonulli alii adiungitur

indicate that Lambert thinks here of a kind of suppositiona term hasoutsidehe proposition.As to the former there may be some doubt,whereasthe latter seems to exclude any doubt. To all appearancewehavehere the same viewof naturalsupposition s with Peter of Spain(seeabove,p. 79f.), and with the anonymousuthor of the Tractatus eproprietatibusermonůmound n Munich C.L.M 14.458(see above,p.87f.).

However,there seemsto be somecomplication.Whendiscussingthe kind of suppositionwhich is termed later on suppositioimplexLambertsaysthat a term hasthis suppositionowingto its form or uni-versalnature rationeorme). givethe relevant exts:

f. 21 Cumnim iciturhomost pecies14homotenetur ro e siveproresua, tnonpro uppositoliquo. i verodicaturhomourriť*homotenetur ro upposito.Similiterum icituralbumisgregai*6*albumtenetur iepro e ive ro e ua, amillud redicatumonconvenitlborationeuppositis?,edrationeue orme*8.umvero icituralbumurriťtenetur ro upposito.*6 iz. isum 'pierces',penetrates'.or hiserm,eeAristotle,opicaII 119a0-31n hetranslatiooethiied.Minio-Paluello,. £9)M. albist atioolorisgregativusisus.57.e.aconcrete,ndividualartakingn he ssencehiteness.58.e.the ssencehiteness.

97

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


f. 1 1 Suppositionumccidentaliumlia st implex,liapersonalis.implexuppositioest lia ecundumuameneturerminusro e velproresua,nonhabitoespectudsuppositaub econtenta.Diciur utemlla uppositioimplexueest nterminoationeormeue.Etquia ormade sesimplexst t ndivisibilis,deo lla uppositioue nest erminoforma,implexdici ur.

Thedecisivequestion s whetheror not there s anydifference etweena term's naturalsupposition nd its (accidental)simple supposition.fany, there mustbe a paralleldifference etween the phraseshaving tssupposition ynature <seet a natura ua)9and 'having predicateowingto its form or nature (rationeue orme)9I think there s in Lambert's

opinionanimportant ifference etween thesephrases nd, accordingly,betweennaturaland simplesupposition,which maybe worded thus.Whenhavingnaturalsupposition term s taken by itself, .e. withoutanyrelationto anadjunct,and,accordingly,meets with no limitation fits applicationwhatsoever:therefore t is taken as standing or all itsactualand possiblesuppositai.e. individualswhichpartake n the uni-versal naturesignified y that term). On the contrary,when a term hassimplesuppositiont hasasa subject-term f a proposition relationtoan adjunct(= predicate),but this verypredicatecausesour term to betaken s standing oronlythe universalnaturesignified y it, not or anysuppositumhatsoever.It shouldbe noticed that in the definition fnaturalsuppositionthe phrase natura ua9refers o the own nature ofa term qua term, whereas in the definition f simplesuppositionthephraserationeormemeans owingo the orma r naturasignißedy he erm

The followingconclusionsmay be drawn concerningLambert'sviews(1) Significations the mental representation f auniversal ature,which

is unitedwith a word and makes it a significative ord (vox igniß-cativa).Significations prior to any acceptanceof a term in thecontextof a proposition, .e. it logicallyprecedesanyrelationshipto a predicate.

(2) natural uppositions the illimited or unrestrictedsuppositionof aterm, .e. its standing orall its actual and possible supposita.Anyrelationship o an adjunct s excluded.

(3) simple suppositions the most imitedsupposition f a term, .e. itsstandingfor only its ownforma,with the explicitexclusionof its

standingor

anyndividual

partakingn this

forma.A term's

havingsimplesuppositions causedby ts relationship othe predicate-termof the proposition f which t itself s the subject-erm.

98

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


There sa closeaffinity etweennaturalsuppositionndsignification.Significationf a wordbeingthementalpresentation f auniversal ature

signified ythat word endowesa word with a

significativeunction

bynature (< naturasua to stand for all actual and possibleindividualspartakingn thisuniversalnature.However,its significativeunction anbe obstructedbyan extrinsic actor ab extrínsecoi.e. byanadjunct).Sowe can say: significationndowes a word with a natural significativefunction nd when exercisingthis function unobstructed he word hasnaturalsupposition.n anycase ofobstruction he word hasaccidentalsupposition, .e. either simpleor personalsupposition.

Simple suppositionis a rather peculiaruse of a word in that it

privesthe wordcompletely rom ts naturalsignificativeunction,whichis to designatendividualspartaking n the universalnaturesignified ythe word. Insteadof exercisingts natural function t standsfor tself rits owncontent prose velproresua).

Personal supposition,with all its subdivisions,makes a wordexerciseits significativeunctionmore or lesslimited.

Viewedfrom a word's significativeunction,natural suppositionmaybe defined s virtualsupposition,viz. the capacityof standing or ll(actualand possible)individuals supposita)partaking n the universal

naturesignified y that word. As virtualsuppositiont is neither ctualsuppositionnor signification,ut the generalproperty f a termresultingfrom ts having ignification,ust asrisibilitas= the capacity f laughing)is a propriumof manresulting romhis rationality, o use a Mediaevalcomparison.

Lambert'sview of natural suppositionshowssome affinity ithWilliam ofSherwood'sin that, unlikePeter of Spain,they othmake thedistinction aturalis-accidentalis(respectivelyecundumabitům secundumactum) he basicone, whilefor Peter it is onlya sub-distinction f thesuppositioommunis.

Our next question is whether, for Lambert, too, the contextrequiredfor ccidentalsuppositionsnecessarilyhatofa proposition, nother words: is the adjunctrequiredalwaysthe predicateof a propo-sition?

It mustbeagreedthatLambert'sdiscussionf accidentalsuppositionstrongly upportsan affirmativenswer to the question: his examples

59or ambert,eehe extuotedbove,.96suppositiorimoicdividitur.orWilliam,eeabove,.83.For eter,eehis ractatusI4,quotedbove,.72.

99

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


alwaysntroduce predicative djunct,not an attributive ne, suchas in'homo lbus960

However,like Peter and William,our author certainlyknows ofthe other kindsofadjuncteffecting restrictedsupposition, uchas therelative lause,likein thomouiest lbus Just s with Peter andWilliamwe haveto look for them n his discussionof restriction.

When dealingwith appellationLambertgives the same rule asWilliam(seeabove,p. 81), be it with somefurther ualifications:f. 1 2VTerminusommunisubstantialisel ccidentata,onestrictusliunde,upponensvelapponenserbo resentísemporis,onhabentiim mpliandisenec abalio,restringiturdsupponendumropresentibus,ihabeatppellatumel ppellatasi vero

nonhabeat,estringiturdnon xistentia.Next the rule is explained.The phrase

*nonrestrictusliundeis ntendedto rule out attributive estrictions, uchasthe oneeffectedbya relativeclause(implicatio)Ibid.'nonestrictusliundeibiponituroquoder liquiddditumerminoupponentiverbo resentísemporisenepotesterminusupponerero lioquam ropresenti.Utcumdiciturhomoui uit st', homosupponituicverboest', t tamen ationeimplicationisue biponitur,upponitropreterito.

Whensummarizinghe ntention f this rule, Lambertexplicitly pposesrestrictionsbeingeffected xparte erminio those effected xparte erbi61

Ibid Breviterrgo icipotest uod ntentioeguleredictest sta quandoerminuscommunisupponiterbo epresenti,ec xparteerminist mpedimentumec xparteverbi etc.

Thisis the moreapparentwhen Lambertdeals with restriction t greaterlength n his tract Derestrizione. e defines t as a reductionof a theextensionof a commonterm to the effect hat t is taken for essindi-vidualsthan s requiredby its actual occurrencein a proposition suchas one says whiteman 'man' is restricted n its suppositionby

'white'f. 23r:Restrictiostminoratiombituserminiommunisecundumuam eneripotest ropaucioribusuppositiserminusommunisuamxigatua ctualis62uppo-sitio.Quodpatetcum iciturhomolbus'restringiturhomoper oc uodst6 albus'60ec bove,.97.61 erehe o-calledmpliativeerbsremeant,uchs potēsi',opinatur'laudator*.62Noticehatambertereseshewordctualisorccidentali^n waynalogousoWilliam'susage.6*'per ocuodst* 'by hewordMediaevalogiciansndicateaterialuppositionmodern'autonomousse') y herticlely (orii')orby uchhrasess hocuodst',hocuodicoSeelsobove,.78,n.21.

IOO

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Namicetde suaactualiuppositioneeneri ossit rohominibusuocumqueolorecoloratis,amenernaturamuius diunctialbus1minoraturius upposiio dhocutsolumro lbis eneatur.Thereare manykindsof restriction.Their maindivisions,accordingtoLambert,that nto restrictions ffected by an adjunct (termednaturalrestriction) nd those effectedwithout an adjunct (restrictiosualis,.e.that resulting romusage).6*Ibidf. 1 1 Restrictioitmultis odis. nomodo it estrictioer l quodd eniensterminoestricto6*,liomodo it estrictioullo dvenientei quodrestringitur.e-cundumocpotest ici uod estrictionumlianaturalisliausualis.Restrictioaturalisst uefit er liquoddvenienserminoestricto,oquodestrin-

gitur erminuslle ecundumaturamius uod iadditur. sualisutemiciturlia ueest n terminoonper liquoddditum;t dicitur sualisoquodx usuprovenit,non xnaturalicuiusdditi d restrictum.sta estrictiost n hocterminoRexcumdiciturRexveniť cum utem iciturRex enit' steterminusRexrestringiturdsupponendumrorege atrie equasermoste icitur.

Natural restriction s divided into that effected by a phrase,suchas in *homoqui est albus, and that effectedby a dictio.The latter issubdividedinto that effected through the signification f the adjunctterm and that effectedby its consignification.he latter may be ac-complishedby a nounor a verb this s instancedby LambertIbid. Restrictiouefit erdictionem,otest ieri ationeignificationiselrationeconsignificationis.ationeonsignificationisotest ieri amper nomen uamperverbum;er nomen it atione eneris,erverbumationeemporis.diectivumenimubstantivumuumestringitationeeneris. am ifueritdiectivumasculinigeneris,estringiturubstantivumdmares,ifemininieneris,estringiturubstantivumadfeminas.nde umdiciturhomost lbus*restringiturhomoadmares;i verodicaturhomost lba restringiturhomoadfeminas.

Notethat Lambertgivesas anexampleofthe restriction ffectedthroughan adjectivenoun a propositionof which that noun is the predicativeterm, whereas the phrases

4homo lbus and ťhomo lba9 would havesufficed.

The restrictions ffectedby the adjunctionof a dictio re of thefollowing ypes(1) 4asinus ortis1here 'ass9is restricted o stand for onlySocrates'ass(2) ťanimal-homo; here 'animal9 srestricted o standonly for animals

that are men

In hatase nemightayhatheres n djunctomingromheocialontext.ee bove,p.8o.6*estrictoi.e.restrictedy hisdjunct.

IOI

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


whatsoever.However,ascapableofoccurring n somecontext,which sto limit or restrict its standingfor all individuals,the term having

natural uppositions

virtuallyelated to some

context.Thiscontextmaybe eitherpropositional r attributive r what havecalledsocial.Thusnaturalsuppositionsuppositioaturalis)s the counter-part ofa term's having ignificationsignißcatio.

Wheneversucha context is present, the term has accidental(oractual,or respective)upposition.Allauthorsexplicitly tate hat term'shaving ny adjunctis a necessaryrequirementfor its havingaccidentalsupposition.68ut it should be stressed, gain anaccurateanalysisf thetexts nvolvedshowsthat the adjunctis not necessarily f the proposi-tionaltype.However,it mustbe agreedthat n the discussion ofthe differentkinds f suppositionsfound n thespecialsectionsheaded Desuppositioni-bus69the rôle of the propositionalcontext is preponderant, f not ofexclusiveimportance.

Asto the earlytracts n suppositionboth views ofsupposition,viz.suppositiontakenas naturalsuppositionand suppositiontaken as acci-dentalsupposition, re found,sometimes ideby side. For that matter,two keynotions can be observed n the definitions f suppositiongivenin thosetracts(1) supposition s considereda property of a substantivalerm, which

distinguishes t from signification, s the latter concerns bothsubstantivalnd adjacentthings

(2) suppositions considereda property term has whenoccurring na proposition.0

ad (l) supposition aken asnaturalsupposition:Summeetenses( 2 v:Est utemuppositioubstantivaeidesignado,dest ernomensubstantivum.t

upponerest ubstantiveem

esignare,inde

homo',asinusalbedo

dicunturerminiuppositiones71.LogicaUtdicit9. 4öS26"2?d.DeRijk:Etest uppositioubstantivaeidesignado,hocestuedam roprietaserminiubstantivi.Dialécticaonacensisp.6o623'29d.DeRijk: upponereiquidemstsubstantiverem>significaretper e et ine ependentiaali ueest nprincipaliignificationeDiciturautemerminusllesupponereuinullamependentiamabetnprincipaliua igni-68lbeitrue hatheyonot onsiderhe actorffectinghe ocialontextviz.he sagefcertainilieu)n diunctum.or ambertfAuxerre,ee bove,.101.69n ontra-distinctiono he iscussionsoundn ometherectionsespeciallye estrictionibus)70nLog.Mod.II1,p.$68,nd assim)haveakenhemnsufficientlypart.71quotedromog.Mod.I1,p.4 S.

IO3

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


ficatione.tpatetnhoc erminoh mo',ui ubstantiamum ualitateiniteignificai,quesunt eprinicipaliignificatine. Etsimiliterateat equolibetubstantivo.

Tract,epropr.ermonůmp. 7i2l6*18d. DeRijk:Suppositiogitur st ignificadoeisub ormaubstantialierficientearn routubpsaogitatast esutperfectumtperse ens (etc.for he ontinuation,ee bove,. 86).

ad (2): supposition aken as accidentalsuppositionFirst, the etymology f the word 'suppositionhouldbe borne in

mind,viz. suppositio subiectio(opp. appositio= putting term as thesubjectof some verb. 2Secondly,the originof the suppositiontheoryfrom hetwelfthcentury ppellation heory73ausedthat heformerwas

closelyconnectedwith the term's occurrence in a proposition,sincethe different inds of the early ppellationwere effectedbythe differenttensesof the verb.

As a firstexampleof this view of supposition heTractatusAnagninimaybe taken, pp. 260ff. ed. De Rijk.The anonymousuthor derivesthe variety f suppositionsrom hevariety f terms, whichdependsoneither a word's consignification,r its principalsignification, r onusage(p. 26o1*-1?d. De Rijk); they are all taken in a propositionalcontext (seeibid., pp. 260-282and, Log.Mod.II 1, p. £41ff.).

Moreexplicitformulationsre found n the following racts,wherethey occur side by side with the formulasconcerningnatural sup-positionIntrod.arisiensesp.371 S-322 d.DeRijk: uppositiost uedamroprietasue nestdictionixeoquod ubstantiveivexistenterignificat,t dictio ubstantiva Cumigiturmne erbumepresentieldepreteritoeldefuturoit t,utdicitAristotiles,terminusst ars rationisubicibiliselpredicabilis,esuppositionibust ppellationi-bus exdanturegule,uedepresentit due depreteritot duedefuturo, roptersubiectumtpredicatum.Logicaumit ostra,.446I7*33d.DeRijk: t st uppositioubstantivaeidesignado,idest ignificadoerminiubstantivéItem.Suppositiost sermonisubicibilisignificado;sermonisubicibilisponiturddifferentiamermonisredicabilis.Hec estdifferentianter uppositionemtsignificationem.upponerestrem uamubapposito onere;ignificarest rem uam ubprincipaliadonepsi s instituentisdesignare.erminusupponituandooniturn ratione"?*terminusignificative oniturin orationeive xtra rationem.72eeLog.Mod.I1,pp. 16-528. 73eebid.,p. 28-541547-Í4»; S*-SS4-74 fr. he elatedract t icity.4082627,uotedbove,.103.75think,ur uthorakesereratioor ropositio.f ot, ewouldxpressuitexactlyhatnycontext,e tpredicativer ttributive,srequiredoraccidental)upposition,inceuchhrasesas%homolbus*homoui st lbusare ermedrationesmperfecteby heMediaevalogicians.

I04

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Comparethe glossaddedby a later handin one of our manuscriptsof the LogicaCum itnostra (Oxford, Digby2, on the top of f. 43r):

suppositioustantivaeidesignationelpotest iciquod suppositiostproprietasextremiecundumuodextremumrdinaturd rerum aturamnpropositionedWe get the sameimpression rom thirteenthcenturywriter who

dealsshortlywith supposition n his encyclopedicalwork, VincentofBeauvais(d. 1264).

Vincent wrote his Speculumoctrinalebout i2$o. Chapter36 dis-cusses the suppositioneserminorum.ere supponetes clearlytaken as aproperty of the term when occurring n a proposition,while naturalsuppositionas clearlyis a non-propositional ne; and suppositionin

generalseems to be taken as naturalsupposition:Speculumoctrinale7, ap.36col.239:Conditionesutem erminorum,ivepartiumprincipaliumategoricaeropositionis,unt upponere,ppellare,opulare.uorum,genusst ignificare.Significarestrem liquamx institutionerincipaliesignare.taqueuppositiostalicuiuseisubstantivaesignado.Substantivadiciur d differentiamdiectivorum,quaedésignantem uamdiacentemunde on icunturroprieupponere,edmagiscopulare.Suppositionumliaestdiscreta,uamcilicetabeterminusiscretus,t Sortes; aliacommunis,uam abet erminusommunis,t homo'.thaecstmultiplex.uaedamenimstnaturalis,uaedamccidentalis.aturalisstquam abeterminusommunisnon balio, edvirtuteropriaeignificationis.t ste erminushomosumptuser epotestupponererohomineuiest t quinon st, idicaturomnisomoAccidentalisest llaquamontrahiterminusbextrínseco,icutbaliorestringente.The sameviewof supposition ppearsin Vincent's tract De appellatio-nibus

¡bid.,ap.37.col.240:Appellatioero icituruaedam roprietasuaenest ermino

eoquodllepotestccipi ro liquo upposio ctu xistente.nde iffertsuppositioneeoquoduppositiost ndifferensespectu<xiste>ntiumtnon <xiste)ntium,ppellatiovero est>espectu<xiste>ntiumantum.Undeidicaturomnisomo'y homo'upponitro mni ocuipotestnesseui orma,velpotuitvel oterit). amennpropositioneestringituruppositiosicutum icitur'omnisomourriťly homonon otestppellareominemuinonest, edhominemexistentemolum. nde uppositioommuniorstquam ppellatio.Et ciendumuoduppositioerminiultipliciterestringiturquandoqueer ualitatemnominisdiectivi,uandoqueeractum articipii,uandoqueeractum erbi ircaterminůmmplicitum,liomodo erdifferentiasemporis.

76eeLog.Mod.I , p.$6.77Vincentiusellovacensis,peculumoctrínaleDouai624,eprintraz 96$.

IO*

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Sincethe first hreekindsof restriction re not-propositionalnd restric-tion is defined s the reductionof a more commonsupposition o a less

commonone (ibid.), our author turns out to know non-propositionalsuppositionsthat are not naturalsuppositions.* **

All the above testimoniesmost clearlyreflect the ambiguousap-proachto languagemadebythe twelfth nd thirteenth entury ogicians.On the one hand, they certainly id not confine heir investigationsoan inspectation f wordstaken sisolated elf-contained nitsapartfrom

any context. Unlike the Ancientand the EarlyMediaevalstudentsoflanguagethey had a clear notion of the fundamentalimportanceof theproposition s the verbal context that decidinglydetermines heactualmeaning f a term. To denote that ctualmeaning hey ntroduced newword: 'suppositio, to be distinguished ell from he meaningof a wordtakenby itself. However,they still sticked to the radical AncientandMediaevalpresupposition f the basicimportanceof the significationfa word, whichwas consideredits naturalmeaningpreviousto, andin-dependentof, anycontext. Thus mostof them were bound to construesomethingmidway ignificationd suppositioviz.naturalsupposition.Butafter ll their nnovationwas thediscoveryof what I havetermed "thecontextualapproach"of language.78

Thedevelopment f thirteenth nd fourteenthcentury ogicmaybecharacterizedby an increasingpredominanceof that approach.Suchadevelopmentwas bound to happen, since both the older theory ofappellationand its naturaloff-spring, he theory of supposition,werefocussedon the congruitasocutionisnd the Veritasropositioniss the basicrequirements <xigentiefor stating heactualmeaningof termsusedinthe proposition.Thus there existedin most of our tracts a firm ndwell-conceivedbond between the meaningof a term and the truth-conditionsof the propositionin which it occurs, to such an extent,indeed, that the supposition(and former appellation)theory may beconsideredan attempt to specify the truth-conditions or (mostlyaffirmative)ategoricalpropositionsn a formalmanner.As a matter offact, fourteenth

century logicians,like the nominalists William of

78eeLog.Mod.I , pp.113-117;23-12$;99;220;494; S39~S49i61 S9*>'S9*>

I06

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


On Grabmanns Text of William of Sherwood

JOHN MALCOLM

I

offer

logicam

the

offollowingWilliam of

corrections

Sherwood

of

(Paris,

the text

B.N.

of

Lat.

the

16.617)

Introductiones

given by

in

logicam f William of Sherwood (Paris, B.N. Lat. 16.617) given byMartin Grabmann in Sitzungsberichteer Bayerischen kademie erWissenschaftenJahrgang 937, Heft 10. Although the great majority fthese are fairly rivial, here are several which ought to be considered nfurther study of this work.

In my list the pagesand lines refer o Grabmann's edition. In thecase of substitutions he variations re given, for ease of comparison, ntwo parallel columns. In the caseof additions nd omissions he originalis given, rather paradoxically, s a variant of the Grabmann text andthese are then noted in one column only. Additionsover the line (s.l.)and in the margin i.m.) are so indicated. Thesewere incorporated withno such indication nto Grabmann's text. No attempt s made here todistinguish he different ands.

Errors noted by Kretzmann translation, ntroduction nd notes,Minnesota, 1966) are indicated by ť(K)' In fairness o him one mustpoint out that he limited himself to remarking n variants of majorimportance. It is clear, however, that he does not take into accountseveral readingswhich would have rendered superfluous ertain nter-polationsand paraphrases n his translation nd some suggested menda-tions n the received text.

All of my corrections re given n pages 1 11 1 18 of the following.On pages 108-111 I list separately nd, to a degree, discuss those whichseem of special importance.

i Major missionsnGrabmann Page Line48 21

is102 17

108

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


2) CorrectionssuggestedyKretzmannhich re ctuallynmanuscript:Page Line Page in K

68 13 93,n. 11273 4 ioi, n. iss

3 CorrectionsfGrabmannhichendernnecessaryracketeddditionsyKretzmannPage Line Page in K

3 12 3042 10 4361 4 7961 27 80

71 17 9882 17 12392 30 14698 6 igg.

Let me illustrate hese with three examples.SinceG.,1on page42,line 10, omitted an exclusionemound n the originalmanuscript, K.1 hasto add 'exclusionon page 43 of his translation. On page 71, line 17 G.omits a 'non.' K. (p. 98) has to add a 'not'. On page 92, line 30 G. reads'in omni nim sermone' which the

passagewill not

allow,for we are

givena contrast with poetical discourse. K. (p. 146), to savethe sense,interpolates n brackets other kind oj' The true reading 'in communienim sermone' givesthe required contrast etween poeticaland ordinarydiscourse.

4) Correctionsf Grabmannhich emoveheneed oringeniousd hoc xplanationsbyKretzmannnhisfootnotes.

Page Line Page in K

46 36 53,n. 10S6 6-12 67,n. 3978 34 114,n. 3982 9-10 122,n. 7384 37 129,n. 9785 22 130,n. 10288 30 138,n. 36.

I shall discussthree examples. On page 46 line 36 the misreadingposterius eeds explaining and K. (p. £3, note 10)

suggests,"It seems

1LetK.standor retzmannndG.for rabmann.

109

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


apparent hat perposteriushere must be doing the same ob as 'mediantespecie in the preceding sentence; perhaps species is called '

posterius

here becauseit is the atter of the two predicablesso far discussed. Thetrue reading prius' llows a standardinterpretation orwe get Utrumque(i.e. genus and proprium) enim per prius predicatur de homine (andthrough his, .e. the species, are predicated of the individuals).

On page 85 line 22, the point havingbeen made that n 'man runsthe predicate does not extend the supposition f the ubject- ermbeyondpresently xisting men, G. then has 'Si autem dicatur, homo currit elpotest currere, am trahi ur haec supposi io ad non existentes'. To getaround the present tense of 'curriť K. (p. 130, note 102) introduces

compounded sense, 'it is possible that there is at least one individualsuch that t is a man and it is running' nd adds 'In the compoundedensethe suppositionof 'man is ampliated by the modality) to include pos-sible, nonexistent men - e.g. future men.' The correct reading,cucurrity estores the simplepoint that a past tense verb may extend thesupposition f ts subject to nonexistents.

With respect to page $6, lines 6-12, K. notes (p. 67, n. 39), 'Thisparagraph asbeen more nearly reconstructed han translated. . . Thisis undoubtedly mangled copy of Sherwood's version of Aristotle'sproof . . that all the moods reduce to the two 'most evident' moods,Barbaraand Celarent' The mangling, unfortunately, s the work of G.who not only does not indicate marginalnotations n the originalmanu-script but also misplaces them in the text. When these are properlyplaced we can get an acceptable reading. I give in italics the marginaladditions nd add comments n bracketsExpraedictisatet uod nquattuor odis rimae iguraeBarbara, elarent, arii,Ferio] educunturmnes lii. Tertius utem rimae iguraeotest educin ecundumsecundaet quartus rimaen primum ecundaeer conversionemer mpossibile[Darii educesoCamestresnd erio oCesare]t lii, cilicetrimust ecundusecundaeabhiisduobusmodis, cilicetertiotquartorimaepossunteducin secundumrimae[CesarendCamestres,hich re,of ourse, ther han arii nd Ferio, anbe re-duced oCelarent]t sic n duos rimos rimae iguraeeducunturmnes lii.

The passage givesa much easier reading, however, if we omit thelater marginal additions entirely. Having reduced Darii and Ferio toCamestres nd Cesare, we continue as follows: et alii [and the others,i.e. Darii and Ferio and, perhaps, by implication, all which can bereduced to Darii or Ferio] ab hiis duobusmodis i.e.

byCesare and Ca-

mestres] an be reduced to Celarent and so all others can be reduced tothe first wo moods of the first figure Barbaraand Celarent).

110

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Page Line MS. Grabmdnn43 9 quandosJ.)

27sunt

sint32-33 talibus(32).omnibus33i.m.)33 omnibus tal bus

44 IS~17 Iteni(,S) praecedente(,7)i.m.)1 una uno18 contradictorioi.m.)

45 12 intendentes?) attendentes14 altero alio,

dicitur praedicaturaltero alioa

46 6 quia quod23 om. e230 speciebust non epluribusi.m.)31 similiter nec3 prius posterius

47 31 modo loco37 fit upliciter sitduplex

48 21 corruptionem verbi ratialbumadvenitominipsopraeexistentet beodem emoveturine

corruptione28-9 remanebit remaneret49 i Haec hoc

2 hie s.I.)8 positisdest i.m.)9 et, + in

coniugationes congeries50 3£ estnon non2st

36 estnon non2st9 adprincipale¿.m.)

3$om. st

16 maiorii.m.)21-22 in hoc s.I.)33 negativam negationem

53 5 quaedam quod7 concludentius conclutentibus()

SS 16 scilicet¿.m.)$6 8 primum secundaes.I.)

8-9 om. rimust secundusecundae9 alii+ scilicet rimust

secundusecundaei.m.)10 scilicet ertio t quarto rimae i.m.)i2 nota etiam1 minori maiori

112

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Line MS. Grabmana28-9 probabilibuscl xprobabilibuspparen-

ter i.m.)31 ergo in ?) vero6 esthaec haec st30 amplius accipitur3£ t moveturiffinitioi.m.)2 homoi.m.)

1 arguatur argumentativ22 de oco i.m.22-23 interpretadoominis nomini»nterpretatio2 vel aut28 sapientiam philosophiam (K)

30 malus,i.m.)14 materialisf cilicet ars i.m.)om. ars enim pars

2 ergo f nimal27 cum s.l.)10-1 omnis omo st nimal omnenimalsthomo K)23 currit2s.l.)4 minimas numerales

20 totum nim nquantitate^i.m.)24 convenit?) (i.m.)2g reducantur reducatur27 currit2 Socratessthomo31-32 Fac homO(3j)i.m.)18 om. dverbio222 sic s.l.)23 arguiur argumentatur34 principiumi.m.)

om. rimům7 sic s.l.)8 non2s.l.)

i o Socratesurrit currit ocrates

21cum

cui,cum cui226 vituli vitri (K)20-22 a formato.. forma(22)i.m.)28 om. ie2 est, -f effecta

11 alius+ autem17 om. mnis31 loci s.l.)

substantiami.m.)32 substantiam esse8 terminům termini1 quocumque quorumeumque

20 quam quem

113

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Tage Line MS Grabmann13 formalisf utem29

poterit potest30 loqutio loquutio76 ig aut e autem e

30 scilicetndiscretasJ.)77 6 responden omnino

1 manerialis materialis (K)27 hanc i.m.)34 signatacorr. .m.)

78 21 autemsJ.)34 personalis particularis3g singulariter singulares

79 8 mulieri.m.)18 habet f communiter2J personalis personali

indeterminatam indeterminataconfusam confusa

30 enims. .)80 2 hominemi.m.)

2 li hominem hichomo8 aliquo aliqua2

2£ hominei.m.)27 ergo 5./.)28 habet irtutem virtutem abet81 2 hominem2fnon (K3 ut -f ig videat videt

20 copulat copulatur82 9-10 inquantum numquam

10 om. um12-13 exparte ubiectiupponiti.m.)1 appellai et secundumuod st

predicatimi

17-18 secundumutem uodpredicaturi.m.)20 nota etiam21 appellatum appellativum2£ om. t

supponens suppositiones (K)83 13 sint s.l.)

21 li hic2g hoc haec29 dico s.l.)32 poniturs.l.)

84 8 cucurrit currit (K)1 suppositionem suppositum1 duplice dúplices

cucurrit currit (K)

11g

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Page Line MS Grabmann17 tunc s.l)1 li hic22 cucurrit currit (K)34 cxistenti enti37 currentibus e xi tenti us

8 2 temporiss.l.)3 supponit tantum6 supponere suppositione (K9 terminům tantum

iç appellatimi terminusnim upponitpro ppellatis

8£ 16 dīcamus dicimus22 dicam dicaturcucurrit currit31 propterea proprie

86 14 sophistica sophisticam17 tamquam3eius

87 4 i.e. terminationsi.m.)8 iam in

21 ex s.l.)2 con(ignification«)s.l.)26 unitatis.l.)3f mutatur¿.m.ì

88 i2 identitas non(l3)¿.m.)16-17 natura uam ratio unaquaqueratone22 altero alio24 dicendum est30 autem aut36 i.e.dictionerdinatas.l.)

i.e.j (s.l.)89 7 hie s.l.)

8 autems.l.)9 om. t

16 movet arat (K)24 non s.l.)90 23 propositioera vera ropositio

38 sumiur f enimnunc fesse

91 6 sumeretur sciretur22 divisa diversa (K)24 tantumdem tamdem2 tantumdem tamdem

92 11 est et (K)1 quodquod quod1 dictionem di isionem (K)30 communi omni

accentus s ati

I 16

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Page Line MS. Grabmann34 ex et

93 7figura

facta (K)1 inhuiusmodiaralogismis huius aralogismi2 significet significat29 modusraedicandii.m.)3 quidlibet quodlibet

94 9 quid s.I.)i o esthoc hoc st (K1 om. ic

in + ad34 i.e.facta ernominativůmi.m.)3g i.e.facta er asumbliquumi.m.)

9Ç 16 quiddam quoddamcuius sc. accidentisdditi i.m.)20 sint i.m.)

96 8 perhocquoddico dem s.I)9- perhoc uod ico xtraneumt divisum

(s.I.)17-18 scilicetccidentisdditi i.m.)

97 17 propterea properea2 contradictoria contradictio21 contradictoria contradictio29 eo(s.I.)

98 4 in s.I.)6 contradictorie contradictione29 omittatur comitatur32 huiusmodii.m.)33 nostras.I.)

99 g totidem tot11 hie-f omnium2 cum quia28 om. t

est s.i.)

3*ut

s.I.)100 10 quodi.m.)1 universale particulare (K)

principiumi.m.)20 quod-f st30 affirmando negando (K)

1 1 12 ergo, i.m.)om. rgo2

34 quasi quod3£ quod s.I.)36 predicetur praedicatur

102 2 di ersami.m.)4 accidit accidensi£ impossibilitas impossibilis

117

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Page Line MS Grabmann1 sint sunt17 eadem sumet ppositumius nimat

vita int dem t concluderempossibilesicanima t vita unt dem21 verum vita32 curamusi.m.)34 ad(*•'•>

103 2 etiams.l.)1 una unam26 reliquum aliquum

104 g gratiai.m.)8 autems.L)

14 quamvisitpropositioluresi.m.)davis, California,U.S.A.Universityf California

118

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Aimericus, Ars lectoría (l)

HARRYF. REIJNDERS

PRAEFATIO

Iamde

saeculum

rebus grammaticispraeteriit

medii

ex quoaevi

Ch.

duos

Thurot1

usque

in

eopraeclaroinexploratos

suo

codicesopere

de rebus grammaticismedii aevi duosusqueeoinexploratosodicesadhibuitcomplectentesArtemectoriamuiusdamAimericidatam nnoMLXXXVÍ.Exindenonnullialii codicesprovenerunt ompluresqueexiis loci transcripti unt: quae omnia brevi in conspectuM. Manitius2conscripsit.Nominatimetiam memoranda unt studia,quaestimulantemagistro uoP. Lehmann3Aimericoinsumpsit . A. Hurlbut*, ui autemeditioniselaborandaetempus uppetiissenon videtur.

Quis et unde Aimericusfuerit, nescimus,quamvisin suo librocontendat e "na umesseGastiniae,SilnectisSenlis]paratům".Temporeoperisscribendi "Feliciostat . . castro",unde fortasse tiam Ademarusepiscopusortusest, cui Aimericusdedicat"librumquem. . . composui",quemque adloquitur: "Noster Ademare, noster tu Feliciane". DeťAdemaro' inter tot 'Ademaros' Galliae, ñeque de ťFelicio castro'quidquamcerto dici potest.

Codicesquos huic editioni usurpavi quosquetantum per artemphotomechanicamonsulerepotuiA: Ms. Erlangen,Universitätsbibliothek86, ff. 2 2ovb-2 rl>5.Sine

nomineauctoris. Continetutrumqueprologůmet initium tracta us.Codex miscellaneusErlangensis86 (antea 3^7), membranaceus,s. XIIscriptus n monasterioCisterciensiumn Heilsbronn.

B: Ms. Erlangen,Universitätsbibliothek9^, ff. ira_^0ra6.Codex miscellaneusErlangensis antea £16), in folio, membra-

1Thurot869;f. hurot8jO. ?Manitius931,p.180-2.3Lehmann918p.32 tn.2;Lehmann941p.24 tn.3.4Hurlbut932;urlbut933.5Katalogusss.rlangen, 928pp.207-9;Manitius931,.182;Waither959-1969,° S27*p.78.6Katalogusss.rlangen, 1928pp. 70-1Manitius931,.182;Hurlbut932,. ii;Hurlbut1933,.260, . .

II9

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


naceus,s. XII velXIII;attesta us s. XIII-XIVin monasterioCister-ciensium n Heilsbronn1

C: Ms. Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche ibliothek der Stadt, Q 46, ff. 76v-io3v2.

CodexmiscellaneusAmplonianusQ[uarto]46 (antea40), membra-naceus,s. XII,Almericoascriptus3.

D: Ms. Paris,Bibliothèquenationale 11277, ff. £2r-7iv*.Sine nomineauctoris.Continetutrumqueprologůmet magnampartemtractatus.

Codexmiscellaneusparisinus atinus 11277, in 8°, s. XIVs,olimSupplementatin 292e.Pervenit n Bibliothecamregiampost 1740?non ortus ex Echternach8.

E: Ms. Tours, Bibliothèquemunicipale 843, ff. 2or-6ov (64r?)o.Prologusmetricusdeest.

Codexmiscellaneusturonensis843 (antea41610),s. XII,oliminBibliothecacapitulansancti Gatiani11

F: Ms. Firenze, BibliotecaMedicea Laurenziana,(Plut.) XVI,ff. 42vb-74rbi2#

Codex miscellaneusFlorentinus Laurentianus,(Plut.) XVI, £,membranaceus,n 4°, s. XIIIineuntis, nscriptus"AymericiArslectoría".

G: Ms. Firenze, Biblioteca MediceaLaurenziana,(Plut.) XLVII, 8,ff. 89r-26iri3. Prologusmetricusdeest.

Codex miscellaneusFlorentinusLaurentianus, Plut.) XLVII, 8,chartaceus, n 40, s. XV. Exemplarhumanistium.

1Mittelah.ibliothekskatalogeeutschlandsli fi, 933,.213,. 34;cf.Kerler865,.203.2SchumHandschriftensammlungrfurt887,p.321-2,.98$;Walther959-1969n°1^27,.78.3Titulumuiusractatusonnvenipudehmann928.4Deliie,nventaire862-1871BEC4, .227;Thurot869pp.13-4;hurot8jOyp.244qq.;Happ962p.189,. p.190,.3.sHurlbut933p.260, .1,perperamcribitaec.ii6Fox90y p.vn-vni.7Delisle,nventaire62-1jl BEC2,p.28.8Gasnault963p.£3, .6.Quamvisegering921p.81,p.8$.oCataloguess.oursCoi/on,900-2905,,pp.61 -6; hurot8yofp.242qq.;GottliebÍ90,pp.12-3,.3;Hurlbut933p.260, . 1.10 ehoc umero16, f.Happ962pp.190-1,.4.11 ataloguess.oursCoi/on,900-190$,,p.v II,p.1062,.1078.12MontjauconJ39I,p.274*»;LF747*P- 72-3;andini774-1775,»C°N.68-70;urlbut1932tp. i-iii; urlbut933p.260, . 1.13Montjaucon739I,p.332b;HLF747pp.472-3;andini774-1775H, oll. 92-4;urlbut1932pp.i-iii; urlbut933p.260, . 1.

I20

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Codex fundamentalisuiuseditionis est CodexErlangensisB, inquotantum itia manifesta dminiculoceterorum odicumemendavi.

Exemplar nscriptumAimericusetorie rtis iber UI cuiusmentiofitin finecodicisParisini,B.N. lat. £926quodquea Delisle1refertur dbibliothecamtalianamaut Galliaemeridionalis,nondumrepertum estvel recognitum. dem dici debet de exemplářia glutinatore nserto nvolumen nnocenciiuperVIIPsalmos.uod quidemsubtitulo Liber meritide quantitateillabarumet de octopartibus racionis]2n catalogos. XIVexeuntis3monasteriiCisterciensiumHeiligenkreuzn Austria ndicatur,sed iamnon ibi est«.

Complures codices continentArtem ectoriam, quae interdum

ascribitur uidamSiguinoSe-)6,(? fortasseRobertusSeguinus,. 1078-1094abbas inCasaDei, LaChaise-Dieu,Haute-Loire),cuiusquerelatioad Artem imericidiligentiusnquirenda st. In hac editionetantumperoccasionemhi codicescomparantur.Quorum praesertimmemorandisunt7S : Ms. Firenze,Biblioteca MediceaLaurenziana,(Plut.) XLVII,27;47 ff-8-

Codex Florentinusaurentianus,Plut.) XLVII,27,membranaceus,in

8°,s.

XII,inscriptusPriscianiLectoriae Artis ibri

duo";in f.

Ivascriptus iguino.Codex hie inbibliothecamLaurentianamenittemporeCosimo,simulcum ceteris ibrisColuciiSalutati9.

S2: Ms. Grenoble,Bibliothèquemunicipale831; 173ff.10.Codex Gratianopolitanus31 (olim 322),membranaceus,n 8°,s. XIII,sub titulo "Arslectoría maģistri Seguini".E bibliothecadomusCartusie(Grande-Chartreuse)11.

L: Ms. Luxembourg,Bibliothèquenationale60, ff. 2r-2£VIZ.

1DelisleCabinet68-1881III,p.£ tn.1 Manitius931p.182.2Manitius93 p.182, .4.3Mittelalt.ibliothekskatalogesterreichs915p.55,p.73;DeGhellinck9S5p.268.♦SicutpparetxXêniaernardina891II, pp.1 5^-291.5Hurlbut933,.262, .1.6Cf.HLF746,p. 0-1HLF756,p.364-5;esne940p.51.Ullman963p. 14$.7Ad odicestift wettl68 tAugsburgo20pertractandosondume areotui.8MontfauconJ39,, p.33b;Bandini774-IJ75,I,coll. 16-7;Walther959-/969n°15:27,p. 204.9Mostra49, .47,n°147.Ullman963pp.145-6.10Cataloguess.renobleFournier1889p.250;Hurlbut933p.262, . Walther959-/969,n°519, .258.11 ournier,rande-Chartreuse1889,.6^.12Werveke894,p.153-4;eclercq948p.181.

I 2

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


tarium ine nomine uctoris raditum st n codice Paris,B.N. lat.84271Alterum nno 1298compositum st a IohanneVignaco(Jeande Vignai)

servatumquen

4codicibus

Paris,Arsenal

1038 Paris,B.N. lat.1

3031;Boulogne,Bibliothèquecommunale184; Lamballe,Bibliothèquecom-munale£. Huius commentariiodices,olim falso ttributi etro Bercho-rio, in hoc periodicovivarium plene pertractati unt2.

Ineuntehocannocumprofessor .Engels,praefectus octissimustillustrissimusnstitūti atinitatis mediaevalisUniversi atisUltraiectensis,editionemAimericiDearte ectoría urandummihiobtulit, ibenterhocmunus ccepimultarum nsciusdifficultatumuasopushocsecumferret,

ñequead finem

pervenissemnisi

perpetuoeius auxilio

eiusquecolla-

boratorisDrs. C. H. Kneepkensususessem. Maximasgratias is agentimihi gratumest hanc editionemofferre ectori in hoc sensu benevolosi ad vitiaquaeinevitabiliterprimaeeditioniadhaerentindagandatqueemendanda uvareme sit paratus.

CONSPECTUS LIBRORUMA Exempla scholastica

Exemplascholasticaex auctoribusclassicis autchristianis b Aime-ricoadregulasllustrandas liatacitanturper abbreviationesx Lewis andShort,A LatinDictionaryOxford, 19^5,pp. viisqq.Plenusexemplorumnumerusnon expeti usest.

B Notitiae codicumStudia,quae sub B, C et D, in ordine chronologicosequuntur,

plerumqueabbreviatacitantur um nominibuset/aut titulis auctorum,deinde cum annoeditionis,ambocursive.

B.deMontfaucon,ibliothecaibliothecarumanuscriptorumova,vol.,Paris,739.CatalogusodicumanuscriptorumibliothecaeegiaeIII, v,Paris, 744.Catalogusodicumatinorumibliothecaeediceaeaurentianaeed. A. M.Bandinius,

I-II,Fior., 774-177^.Catalogueeneralesmanuscritses ibliothèquesubliqueses épartementsII[Troyes,

Paris,8££.Dr. Kerler,KatalogesKlosterseilsbronnusdem 3.Jahrhundertferapeum

ZeitschriftürBibliothekswissenschaftHandschriftenkundend ltere itteratury6, 1865,pp.199-203.

L.Delisle,nventaireEtat)desmanuscrits. ., BEC3-32, 862-1871.

1Cat. ibi.egiaeJ44III, v, .457.2Engels965pp.132-7.

123

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


L.Delisle,e abinetesmanuscrits.4vol.,Paris, 68-181.Ch.Thurot, xtraitse divers anuscritsatinsourervir Vhistoireesdoctrines

grammaticalesu mojenge,Noticest extraitsesmanuscritse a BibliothèquempérialeXXII,aris, 869repr. rancfort,964).Ch.Thurot, ocumentselatifsVhistoiree agrammaireumoyen-âgeAcadémiedesnscriptionst Belles-ettres,omptesenduses éancese Vannée8JO, aris, 870,pp.242-51.

P. Fournier, oticeur a bibliothèquee a Grande-Chartreuseumoyen-âgesuivied'un ataloguee etteibliothèqueu XVmeiècleGrenoble,887.

W. Schum,eschreibendeserzeichniser mplonianischenandschriften-SammlunguErfurtBerlin,887.

Catalogueénéralesmanuscritses ibliothèquesubliqueseFranceDépartementsVII,Grenobleed.P. Fournier. ., Paris, 889.

Th.Gottlieb,ber ittelalterliche

ibliotheken,eipzig,890repr.raz

955).XeniaernardinaII,DieHandschriften-Verzeichnisseer isterenser-tifte,-ii,Wien,1891.

N.vanWerveke,atalogueescriptifesmanuscritse aBibliothèqueeLuxembourg,Luxembourg,894.

CatalogueénéralesmanuscritsesbibliothèquesubliqueseFranceDépartements,XXXVII, ours,d.M.Collon,aris, 900-905.

W. Fox,Remigiiutissiodorensisn ArtemonatiminoremommentumLipsiae,1902.

CatalogueénéralesmanuscritsesbibliothèquesubliqueseFrance,épartements,XXXVIII,eims,d.H.Loriquet,aris, 904-1906.

Th.Gottlieb, ittelalterlicheibliothekskatalogesterreichs,, Niederösterreich,ien,19 i-H.Degering,andschriftenusEchternachnd rvalnParis, ufsaetzeritz ilkau

gewidmet,eipzig,92 ,pp.48-85.KatalogerHandschriftenerUniversitätsbibliothekrlangen,eubearbeitung,, Die

lateinischenergamenthandschriften,d. H.Fischer,rlangen,928.P. Lehmann,ittelalterlicheibliothekskatalogeeutschlandsndder chweizII,

Bistumainzrfurt, ünchen,928.S. A.Hurlbut,lorilegiumrosodiacumlorentino-rlangense,ashington,932.P. Ruf,Mittelalterlicheibliothekskatalogeeutschlandsnd er chweiz,II, i,Bistum

Eichstätt,ünchen,933

repr.969).

J. Leclercq,'arithmétiquee GuillaumeAuberive,tudia nselmianaXX,1948,pp.181-204.

Mostraella ibliotecai Lorenzoella ibliotecaediceaaurenziana,irenze,949.J. Leclercq,extesisterciensans es ibliothèques'Allemagne,nalectaacrirdinis

cisterciensis,II,1951,p.46-70.H. Walther, arminaediieviposteriorslatina, , Alphabetischeserzeichniser

VersanfängeittellateinischerichtungenErgänzungsheft,öttingen,959-1969.P. Gasnault,eux hartese 'abbayeEchternachetrouvéeslaBibliothèqueationale

deParis, evueénédictine,3, 1963,p.48-56.J. Engels,erchoriana,es seudo-Bersuires,. Commentaireur e Doctrinale'Alex-

andree VilledieuvivariumII,1965,p.132-7.M.Hubert, orpustigmatologicuminus,LMAXXVII,970, p.5-11.

124

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


C Libri in quibus de Aimerico vel eius Arte lectoría agiturHistoireittérairee a FranceVIII,1747,p.472-3.

Rouleauxesmorts...,. L.Delisle, aris, 866,. 123.E.Dümmler,usHandschriftenX,NeuesrchiverGesellschaftür ltereeutscheGeschichtskunde...,, 1880,p.632-3.

B.Hauréau,eaneVignai,rammairien,rofesseurDijon, istoireittérairee aFrance,XX, 888, p.280-93.

Idem,Anonyme,uteurune loseur e Grécismet e Doctrinal,istoireittéraireela FranceXXX,888, p.294-302.

T.deL.,Sur crivainaintongeaisimeri,t ure ieu eGâtine,evuee aintonged'Aunis,X, 1889,. 211.

J.Nanglard,ouilléistoriqueuDiocèseAngoulême,,Angoulême,94, p.48-9,146-8, 64.

P. Meyer, oticeur esCorrogationesromethei'Alexandreeckám,oticest xtraitsde a Bibliothèqueationale...,XXV, i, 1897,pp.641-82.Cf. L. Traube, erlinerPhilologischeochenschrift,VIII, 898,oll.1068-70;H.Walther,inemoral-sketischeDichtungesXIII.Jahrhunderts:rorogationsovi rometheiesAlexandereckamMediumAevumXXI,962, p.33-42.

U.Chevalier,imericeGâtineSaintonge)poète, épertoirees ourcesistoriquesumoyenge,Bio-bibliographie,, Paris, 905repr.NewYork960),col.84.

A.E.Schönbach,ber utolfon eiligenkreuz.ntersuchungennd exte,BPh.-Hist. l.Ak.Wissenschaften,50/2,Wien, 90$,129pp.

P. Lehmann,ufgabenndAnregungener ateinischenhilologieesMittelalters,

München,918.M.Manitius,eschichteerateinischeniteraturesMittelalters,II,München,93.M.Barroux, imeri,it de Gâtine, ictionnaireebiographierançaise,, 1933,

coll.999-1000.S.A.Hurlbut, orerunnerfAlexandereVilla-Dei,peculumIII,1933,p.2^8-

63.E.Lesne,es colese afinduVIIIeiècle lafinduXIIe,ille,1940.P. Lehmann,ufgabenndAnregungener ateinischenhilologieesMittelalters,

ErforschungesMittelalters.., I, Stuttgart,941repr. 959),p.1-46.E.R.Curtius,uropäischeiteraturndateinischesittelalter2,ern, 954.J. deGhellinck,'essore a littératureatineu XIIeiècle2,ruxelles,95 .B.L.Ullman,he umanismf oluccioalutati,edioevoUmanesimo, Padova, 63G.Glauche,chullektüremMittelalter...,ünchen,970.

D Alii libri qui adhibenturHistoireitérairee aFrance,II,1746, . 40.Histoireitérairee aFrance,, 1756,. 365:.R.Ellis,ome ew atinragments,he ournalfPhilology,III,1879,p.122-4.

Cf.A.Riese,ursiansahresbericht,I, 1880, p.261 qq.L.Bréhier,dhémareMonteil,vêqueuPuy, ictionnaireebiographierançaise,,

1933,oll. 90-8.M.Prévost,démar,vêqueAngoulême,ictionnaireebiographierançaise,, 1933,col.£48.

125

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


pro volúntatevariant.Que quidemvariacio multimoda ichabetur personoslitterarum, er ipsitatem monimorum,per varietates nnúmeras

declinationum t generum, et per accentus sillabarumpenultimarum.Eosque quoniamscirelegentiumusus maximeindiget,de istiset nos, sivi am dederit deus prolixiorem,prolixiusdocendumdisponimus.Utigitur ncomptum epius proferam lane legentibus uid1 ipsumarduummihiquantu[f. irb] lumcumquevidetur, rectoshic ususlegendisolumtenendosmonstro.Ceterum n operealioquoddemetrica rte faciemus,omnes sillabas subregulis aliis aliter distinguere2 urabimus; quodneminemante nos usquamaut umquamegissead liquidumadverterepotuimus.Sedad opusillud licet precipuumnon satago,quiaperfacilli-mum inveniremihi est quicquidde arte metrica doceri potest. Huicenim scolarisépotiusstudui.Id itaqueinterim mitientes nostrçdemumin partehacpropositionismodulumteneamus.Ceptiergooperissequenshec perplexio4fuerit.

Incipit erplexio Americi eArte ectoría

DemonosillabisOmnis dictiomonosillaba nlectionetenetur nec

inclinatur,t rhic vir

est de quo dixi venitvir postme quiante me factus st, quiaprior meerat1a.Item rante me non est formātusdeus et post me non erit1b.Excipiunturtres -ne, -que, -ve, coniunctionesque precedentiumdic-tionummutant n finem ccentus,cumsunt5 nepro an, -quepro et, -vepro aut, ut rvidesnehoc?1,rmichitibiquepara1,rpatri matrivedona1.Compositeverodictionesmonosillabçnon in se, hoc est in fine, ccen-tantur, ed in penultima potius more dissillabarum el polisillabarum,ut 'usquedum,adit, adest, prodi 6, prodest, abit, abest, nepost, cir-

cumdat, nterest, eflet, onfiât, efer, dsum' Excipiunturmonosillabic terminate, ue in se, hoc est in fine, tiamcomposite,accentantur, t[f. iva] 'exhinc,adhuc,reduc, deduc,perdue,addic?, iliac,istac, illic,istic, llinc, istinc, bhinc, illuc, istuc, indue, maledic, benedic,calefac,madefac, iquefac,tepefac, refac'

Et notandumquod supradicte ille: -ne, -que, -ve nominumet

1quod . 2perstringereDEFG.3potest scolarism. BFG. *proplexioBF.ssitG. 6om. B.?adduc.• loan.,30. bha.43,10.

127

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


adverbioriimccentussicut n appositioneta et in compositionemutantet penultimam enericogunt in lectionisusu, etiamsi natura t metro

corripiantur, t 'utraque,pleraque,quandoque,ubique'. Namconiunc-tionum accentus minime mutant, ut 'itaque', sed et 'utique' ideopenultimamcorripuit, ne verbum ante coniunctionemputaretur et'dénique' ob differentiam, t rnoveniIdeniquedecimabantur12.

De dissiI b sOmnisdictiodissillaba,hoc est duarumsillabarum,priorem n lectionetenet, sive illa brevis sit sive longa,ut 'mater, pater, parens, codex',nisiforte

propterdifferentiam aroin ultima nveniri

contingat,t 'eo,

ilio' cum adverbiasunt, ut reo ire nolo1, rillo timui ire1. Que, idest'eo, ilio' cumrursuspronominaunt, npriori ccentantur, t reo oco1,rtempore lio1.Eque quoqueet cum verbumest, ut rdomum eo1. Et'una' cum adverbium est et "simul" significai,ut riste et ille unávenerunt1.Nomenvero in priori habet^,ut runadomus1,runafamilia1.Et 'pone, sine' cum verbasunt, n priori, ut rponequodportas1,rsinequodtenes1.Cumveroprepositionesunt ut adverbia,n finali, t rponetribunal, idest iuxta tribunal, astat14,rsine timore manet1, rpone

sequeba[f. ivb]tur

eum1,dest "retro"vel

"post".Item circum' nomen

in priori, ut rad circum ntueri spectaculadecucurrit1.Cumpreposiiovel adverbium, n finali,ut rcircumortos aquarumfluentaducit1.Et'penes,palam'nomina n priori, ut rpenes itis*parasitům auperavit1qui parapsideslavat, idest scutellas,vel parasitus,idest coquus6.Etrpalam urno etrahensingredientisatus llisit1 cumprepositionesunt,in finali, t rpenes micos consiliumst1,rpalamomnibus ctumest1.Etadverbiumest similiter, ut rpalamfactum est1. Et 'pape' nomen inpriori, ut rdecreta pape romanf1 cum interiectio est, in finali, ut

rpape,quam?cito venisti1.Et 'cades,cedar', cumverbasunt, n priori,ut rsi labaris,cades1,rsi magisterrescierit, cedar1; cum vero nominasunt ocaliaet indeclinabilia,n finali, t rdesertum ades1a,rhabitantesCedar1b.tem nostras,vestras,magnas,primas,cuias', cum nominativisingularesunt et tercie declinationist "nostrates, estrates,magnates,primates, uiates"significant,n finali ccentantur8; umveroaccusativi1novemBFG. 2declinabantur2.3habetccentum. *Hic esinit.5penesarasitům,penes,demid st)pi(s)casúus',penes,destpigauus' ,penesuusG.6quiparapsides.coquusm. DE7quoniam. 8 ccentuantur.aPsa.8,8. bPsa. 9,5.

128

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


pluralespossessivorum,n priori. Et 'Salem,Aram', si1 nomina ocalia,in finali;cum vero accusativi atinorumnominumet declinabilium,n

priori. Item 'fumat, udit' cum pro 'fumavit, udiviť syncopata, ttes-tante Priscianoa,proferuntur, n finali.Itemhebreanomina ut greca,siexpartedeclinata uerint t latinam

regulamex integro non observaverintper declinaionem,in finali,ut'Adam, Ad§,Iesus, Iesum,lesu' et cetera talia. [f. 2ra]Item 'pascha,pasche' in utriusquefine accentaur, non solum propter difiereniamimperativi erbi,quodest 'pasce'et inpriori accentatur,ut rpasceoves,pasce agnosl2b,sed quia etiam excedit latinamregulam.Nam primadeclinatioet quinta non habent neutrum genus, sicut nec quarta aut

quinta commune aut proprium. Nullum enim communeest, nisi adviventia ertineat.Ergo dies, finis,margo,clunis' et cetera taliacuminutroque nvenianturgenere,communianondicuntur. Clunis' enimnonvivens edparsviventis st. Item necte, deme, prome, Perse,quamvis,inquam, inquis'et cetera talia, cum dissillabesunt dictiones,in prioriaccentantur, t rnecte (proliga)nodum1 rdemepilum1 rprome inum1rArabes t Persevenerunt13, quamvis alleam,tamen anussum1. Cumvero dividuntur t monosillabçsunt, accentumsuumquequeretinent,ut rnec te, nec iliumnovi1,rde me dixisti1, prome locutusest1,rper esolusegit1,religequamvisistarum1, inquampartemvergit1,rin quiserror nest1.

Nominagrecaaut hebreaaut dubianomina«, i fuerint ndeclinabi-lia, in fine accentanturomnia, ut 'manna, Cains, Abel, Noe, Iaphet,Eber, Iacob, Phares, Levi, Zamri6,Chusi,Ophni, Melchi,Nairn,Tare,Sare,Sadoch,Enoch,Lamech, Tobi7,David,Cephas,Heli,Booz,Obed8,Raab, Baal, Gebal, Ioseph, Cusis^,Iamnes, Mambres, Sion, Assur,Passur, Aser, amen, racha,Rabi,Ioram,Thamar' 'luda' cumgenitivusest, ut relegit ribum uda1c.Cum enim'luda' vocativusest, in prioriaccentumhabet, ut rO luda, mercator pessime1.Cum autem [f. 2rb]latinamregulamex integro servaverint, ccentumquoquelatinůmexintegro onservabunt, t 'ludas,Iudç,Iudam'

1tantum. 2pasceagnosm. .3vicerunt. «•ubiaomina]dubioota DEFG.smana,aim. 6ZambriDEFG.7ZobiFG. 8Ober.9SusisDE.

aPrise.nst.ram.V,22. b oan. £-j.cPsa.7,68.

129

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Detrissillabiset ultraOmnisdictio trissillaba el tetrasillaba t ceterçpolisillaban penultimasillabaproducunturvel breviantur, um latinç sunt, nisi forte causadifferentien ultimararo nveniri2contingat, t 'aliás,alió' cumadverbiasunt et3 'óptimas', cum nominatīvussingularis st terciç declinationis,ut roptimatesmixti cum plebe proclamabanť1Et 'amabo', adverbiumoptandi,ut ramabo,llud damihi1.Etgentilia sta'Capenas,Arpiñas*

Quodsibarbara nominaex parte declinata,latinamtarnenregulamexcesserint,finalis quin in i insuper* sillaba accentumobtinebit,ut 'Moyses,Moysi,Moyse6,Moysenper n . Nullum enimpropriumnomen?in es facit

genitivumn i.

'Abraham, Abrahe', 'mammona,mammone8'.Quodsibarbarůmaliquodaccentumlatinům et latinamdeclinationemhabens- ut 'hic et huius et O Iordanis,Iordanem,alordane', 'Israel, Israelis, sraeli, Israelem,ab Israele', ut dispersionesIsraeliscongregatoti et in Exodo rfugiamussraelem,dominus enimpugnatpro eis contra nos$lb- ad10 casum latinůmnonpervenerint,accentum n ipsiusfinalihabebunt,ut 'trans Iordanen' per n et 'DeusIsrael'. Ceteraitaquenon latina et ex toto indeclinabilia n fine ccen-tantur mnia,ut 'īsai, Cusai,Sarai,Berzellai,Giezi11,ebee12,Salmana,

Effraim,saac1*f. 2va],Noemi,Zàbulon,erusalem,Beniamin,Arfaxad,Balaam1*, araa,Chanaan,Betphage,Sinai, Genesareth1*,hogorina16,Abacuc, Phineel, Fanuel, Cherubin, Seraphin, Iosaphat, Ieppee1?,Capharnaum,Iericho, Abdénago'. 'Salome', proprium mulieris, quedicitur mater ohanniset Iacobimaioris.Nam Iacobus minorfrater stDomini,qui Ierosolimisrequiescit18.

Sed priusquamex serie per omnes litteras Artem cudere incipiamus,omniaque perturbare ectorempossunt1^,n diversi atibus ccentuum,

sonorum,numerorum,generumet declinationum disseramus20Nam1dissillabist rissillabisFG. 2 nvenireontinget.3om.. *Arpenas.5quinn insuperm. , nsuper. 6om. .' om.. 8mammoni.9contraosm. CEFG. 10i dD.» lezi . 12ebei .»3sa ar DE. *4 aalam.

Generaseth. 16Togorman,TogormaG.»7elboeDE. 18qui requiescitm. .*9alentDEFG. 20disseremusE.aPsa.46, . bExod.4, £.

I30

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


'Iepūs', quod est "animal genitivum orripit léporis'; 'lepos', quodest "pulchritudo producit lepóris', ut rtractus ter leporespluresuter

educetapros1ai.Item raulicus t facundus rat

multiquelepóris1. tem'decus', quodest "honor"obliquoscasuscorripit décoris' et 'decor',quodest "pulchritudo" roducit decóris'. Et 'fénix', de Fenitiahomo,producit 'fenicis' et 'fenix', nomen avis que est in Egypto, corripit'fénicis'. Et 'conditus' quod est a 'condo/condere'corripitur t 'con-ditus', quodest a 'condio/condire'producitur,ut rcibusmaleconditus1et rcorpus onditum romatibus"1t rvinum onditumregibus1rcondituslardo lepus est qui conditusantro"12.t ab 'oblino/oblinis'corripitur'óblitus', ut Sanguinefauces óblitus1et rpedibusóblitis limo1et ab

'obliviscor'producitur óblitus'. Et 'ambitus' cum nomenest, corripi-tur. Oratiusin libro Poetrie ret properantis que per amenos[f. 2vb]ambitusagros1; et cum participium ambitus', producitur. OvidiusinprimoMetamorphoseon r̂iussit t ambitçcircumdare itora terrç1c.Et'peri um' cum a deponentiest 'perior/periris' nde 'experior' compo-situm,producitur;cum a neutro 'pereo/peris', corripitur, uod pulchreLisorius in uno versusic ostendit rnon peri um tendis, si vis audireperitum1d.Et 'decora' cumverbumest imperativům, orripitur; cumnomenest, producitur.Oratius n Heroicisracbenenummatum ecorat

SuadelaVenusque1e.Lisorius rveste decora me decora, decoraberisipse1f.Et 'severis' nomenproducitur; cum verbum est a 'sero/seris'quodfacitpreteritum sevi', corripitur, t rperdiderisucrum,sterili iseverisagro1,rseveris n terra pacemcumgente severa1«.Et 'tributes'nomenproducitur. Oratius*ret soleascum pilleoloconvivatribulis1^;est autem 'tribulis' consanguineus,hoc est ex eademtribu congenius.Et 'tribules' verbum corripitur. Lisorius in poemate rnon tribulesdominans xternos ivetribules111.t 'persona'cumverbum st corripi-tur cum nomenest, producitur, t6rinredituvatis aneplebset personaomnis1.Et 'amicis' nomen producitur; cum verbum est, corripitur.Oratius in secundoEpistularumret piper et quicquidcartis amicitur

1tractusquistereporesluresnterducitprosFt ractustereporeslurester ducetaprosD£,d st enutriat",tractusquistinameporesluresnterducitpros .2conditus antroantum. 3metamorphoseosFG.*severis severaantum. 5om. .6ut corripiturm.aHor. p.,i£,2. bHor.A.P.ij.cOv.Met., 37. dLisoriusrgm..eHor. p. ,6,38. řLisoriusrgm..*Hor. p. , , ç. hLisoriusrgm..

131

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Et 'stabilitas, nanitas, mpunitas, nfinitas1,f. 3rb] enitas, evitas,largi as, uni as' cum nominativisingularessunt tercie declinationis,

breviantur,t rstabilitasn clero

sancta1,larius n secundo deTrini ate

libro rinmensitasst in excelso,infinitasn eterno1a. tem sic est runitasfidefb. Salomonin secundo rinanitas st et afflictio1c,ic enimhabeturin editionequinta.Item rexsultat evitate puer, gravitate enectus, nterutrumquemanensstat iuvenile decus1d.Item rmansuetudo t leni as"1.Cumautemaccusativiplurales untprimedeclinationis, roducuntur, trres measbene habeo stabilitas"1t rrixasperfero infinitas1 t rundaslebetisnondum nanitasvideo21et Sacerdoteset levitasdominus ordi-navit1 t raures rincipismultaprecelenitas dii1 et rres largitas auperi-

bus centuplicandasnovi1 et rgentes mnes fideunitasmiror1.Item a nomine barbarus' corripitur ccusati us 'barbarům' et a'barba' produciturgenitivusharumbarbarům'.Itema verbis invideo,provideo'producuntur reterita invidi,providi'et de nominibus'provi-dus,invidus'genitivi reviantur'providi, nvidi'. Item'porrigo' verbumcorripitur t 'porrigo' nomenproducitur. uvenalisrgrex otus n agrisuniusscabie cadit etporrigineporci1. Item a 'rigeo/riges' compositum'dirigeo/diriges', nde 'dirigui', nfinitivůmproducit dirigere' et 'rego/regis', unde [f. 3va]compositumdïrigo/dirigis' nde 'direxi', infiniti-

vůmcorripit dirigere'.Item 'concido, excido,incido^,occido, intercido, recido' cum a'cado/cadis' componunturet ad casumpertinent, breviantur; cum a'cedo/cedis',quodest "seco/secas"t adconscisionem4pertinent, rodu-cuntur. Item a verbis teneo, venio, niteo, mittos, libet, latet, patet'producitur tenere, venére,nitere, misere, libere, latere, patere', et anominibus tenera, misera, Venus, latus, libera, patera' et de verbo'patior/pateris, itor/niteris' revianturtenere, ibere6,misere,Venere,latere,patere,nitere'. Itema verbis'indigeo,pario,hebeo,illicio,tero,traduco, reduco, induco?' producuntur indigétis, parietis, hebetis,illícis, terétis, tradúcis, reducis, inducis8'; et a nominibus'indiges,paries, teresa, hebes, tradux, redux, indux10,llex' brevianturgenitivi

1om. F. 2habeo.3om.. 4concisinemE.smiteo. 6om. .7 ndicoDE. 8 ndicisDE.9om.. 10ndexDE.

»Hilariuse rin.I, £-6. bEph.,i .«Eccl.,8. ûMaxim.. , o£-6.e uv. at. 1,79-80.

I33

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


[f.4ra]ciamusvocibus1a,producitur ciátis' et 'cíatus' nomencorripit'ciatis', ut est illud rut ciatis potent, convivasqueso ciatis"1.tem

'icére, degére,vertére, egére, scandére,pandére,mandére, exedere,meminére, ruere, fuere, lavere' cum sunt preteriti temporis terciçpluralespersone,producuntur.Lucanusin secundo rmox vincula1ferriexedere senem^b.Oratiusin Liricis rmiserarum st neque amori dareludum,nequedulci vino malalavere"10.t 'dego' ab 'ago' compositumestet preteritum issillabum abet,ut Priscianusdsserii, degi'. Quodsialiquistrisillabum'degui' inapocrifiscripturis egerit, orrigere atagat,quia2 per ignorantiamctum est. Item vetéris' cuma passivoest 'vetor/vetaris', producitur; cum a nomine 'vetus/veteris', orripitur. Item

'compoti' cuma 'potare' est, producitur; cuma 'compotus', quodestcomputare,corripitur. tem 'veneris, fugéris' cum prime sunt coniu-gationis 'venor/venaris' t 4

fugo fugare', roducuntur; cum a 'venio/venis,fugio/fugis' icitur, corripiuntur. tem 'iuveris, averis,videris,moveris, overis' nactivobreviantur, npassivo ongaunt. tem 'indico/indicas,prédicas/prédico primebreviantur;et 'indico/indicis/indicens,predico/predicis/predicens'n tercia coniugationeproducuntur. Item'comperimus, invenimus' cum significant3presens tempus, sunt*longa; cum preteritum, breviantur*. tem 'maledico/maledicis'cum

verbum est, producitur; cum a nomine 'maledicus' sunt obliqui,breviantur, t illud rnequemaledicipossidebuntregnum f-4rb]Dei1e.Itema verbis necto, canto, aro' longasunt nectari, cantari, rari' et anominibusnectar, cantarus,Araris'corripitur6nectari,cantari,Arari'.Item petite, cupite,accérsite, lacessite,capessite'cumsunt imperativimodisecundeplurales persone,breviantur; um vero sunt obliquicasusparticipiorumfemininorum, onga. Item 'cecidi' cum a 'cado' est,breviatur;cuma 'cedo', idest "seco",producitur.

Omniaenim verbaque primam sillabamnon positione, sed naturatenentlongam, arotempore,numquam oce7mutant llam,compositioneexcepta.Que enim brevemhabentprimam,mutare aliquandopossuntillam,ut 'ago/egi,frango fregi', nde et 'frágilis'breviatur, iacio/ieci,facio/feci, apio/cepi'. Quereitaque,tu lector, omnia verbaqueprimamnaturali er habent longam, si8 umquamsicut in istis mu atam vocei vinclaFG. 2quam.3significatF. 4om. C.5breve,brevis. 6diciturorripitur,dicitur.7tempora..vocem,vocem. 8siveG.

aPrud. ath., 81 bLuc. hars.I,72-3.«Hor. . II,12, . dPrise.nst.ram.,33.e/Cor., 10.

US

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


viderisearn1,ut 'dico, duco, pedo, munio, vado, ledo, rideo, nitor,fido, udo, trudo, pono, como,promo, cudo, scribo,nubo' et cetera.

Quodsiad differentiam ic 'cecidi', illic 'cecidi'2 dici debereastruxe-rint, audiantquoniamunumpreteritum sse duorumverborumpotest,ut 'fero et tollo' 'tuli', 'pendeoet pendo' 'pependi', 'resistoet resto''restiti', 'lugeo et luceo' 'luxi', 'mereor et mereo' 'merui', 'aceo etacuo' 'acui', 'paveo et pasco' 'pavi', unde 'expavi', 'capioet cepio'[f.4va](quod inusitatum st) 'cepi', 'cresco et cerno' 'erevi'. Unde'excresco/excrevi,concresco/concreviet discerno/discrevi,ecerno/secrevi'- Ovidiusin primoMetamorphoseonet liquidumspissosecre-vit ab aere celum1a- 'pango et pacisco'3'pepigi', 'polluo et polleo''pollui', 'recubo' prime et 'recumbo' tercie 'recubui', 'cado et cedo''cecidi', sed hoc corripitur, lludproducitur. Ovidius inquarto«Meta-morphoseonrsilvavetusstabat,quamnullacecideratetaslb. Verbaveroneutrapreteritum n uihabentiararo habent t supina.Etsciendumest*quoniamurgeo, compesco,ferio, ollo,ango,timeo,metuo' cumactivasint, supiniscarent,nam tultum et anctum'abusiveponuntur.Verbaliain sor6 in femininis assumunt t, ut 'tonsor/tonstrix, isor/ ristrix'- Lisoriusn Corni io rpuelleristricisme osoremprofiteor^0 'sessor/

sestrix, nvasor/invastrix,ossessor/possestrix,ensor/censtrix'Verbum?'mulceo' facitpreteritum er s 'mulsi' et supinummulsum',undeilludest rcomeditepinguiaet bibite mulsum"1. Vocatur autemmulsumvelaquavel vinum,cumper mel aut per herbas ex crudi atisausteri ate insuaviorem deducuntursaporem.Quod quidamignorantes, um per sequidsit mulsumnonpossint dvertere, mendatores e temerefacientes'multum8' ponunt. Et 'mulgeo' per x 'mulxi' et 'augeo' per u et x'auxi' et 'aigeo' per1 et s 'alsi', hoc est "frigus abeo".Et 'frigeo' cumad friguspertinet, preteritum acit 'frigui'. 'Fulgeo' 'fulsi' et 'fulcio'

'fulcivi', 'odio'o 'odivi'. Et 'frigeo10' umpertinet d sartaginem acit'frixi'. Sic11et unum supinumduorumverborum. Sed forsitan orri-gendumme temerarii mendatoresputabunt uod 'duorum' dixerimet

1mutataoceiderisaB€ 2cicidiCEFG.3paciscorE. *tercioDE.5om.E. 6Verbalian sor. censtrix]m. FG.7om. . 8mustumDE.9om. . 10frigo/frigis.11icut .

*Ov.Met., 23. bcf. v.Met.II,28.0Lisoriusrgm.. d2Esdr..10.

136

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Notice sur Jean Thenaud ( 2)

J. ENGELS

Dans manuscritle premier

de saarticleMargarite

surJeande France

Thenaud1,secacherait

j'estimaisdans

probable2telou telfonds.

qu'unmanuscrite sa Margarite e France secacherait ans telou telfonds.Je ne savaispassi bien dire car le professeur. MaïlaryMasterseChapelHill, North arolina m'informeu'il a retrouvéa chroniqueans e

ms LondresBritish useumAdditionalanuscripts39^9-Hvient 'annoncersatrouvailleansun article henaud and Dante,paruauxEtats-Unis3

La descriptionu manuscritpar F Madden*dansle CatalogueduBritishMuseumciteunerubriqueJ. 3r mentionnante titre e la chroniqueet e nom e sonauteur:

«La Margarite de France ; ou, Lenumbre,ordre et temps destresnoblesRoysqui ont régné es Gaules,despuyscent quarantequatre ans après le deluge,jusquesà Tan mil quatre cens quatrevingtzdix sept; en trois traictez; par Jehan Thenaud,frere mi-neur.» Thework wascomposedin i £o8,andis dedicatedto Louiseof Savoy,Countessof Angoulesme,mother of FrancisI,) whosearms are painted n the initial etter f the dedication.On vellum.Folio,[i 3,969.]

Lecataloguee donneucune ndicationur a provenanceumanuscritquineparaîtpasêtre eluideFoncemagne*Ignoranta reliure e ne saispassipeut-être l s'agit de celui deFrançoiser «couverte velouxramoisi»6.e ms.139691comporteuJ. lr la note uivante: Purchasedf Tho.Rodds1 th1VIVARIUMIII 1970,p. 9-122;igle: oticehenaudi).2Noticehenaudl),p.113.3G.Mallaryasters,henaudnd anteDantetudiesXXXVIII1970pp.149-^4),. 1^3,note .4CataloguefAdditionso hemanuscriptsn he ritishuseumn heearsDCCCXLlMDCCCXLV,Londres,850,.3.sNoticehenaudi),p.113.6Noticehenaudl),p.112.7J'ai u xaminernmicrofilmimablementxécutéour otrenstitutares ervicesuBritishMuseum.

T >

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Mar 1843 I from LordKingsboroughsale at Dublin 1 Nov 1842. Lot609. I». 11 donc té cheté Thomasodd heYounger, libraire tabliGreat

Newporttreet Londres LeCataloguedes imprimésu BritishMuseum2présenten temCataloguesof printedbooksandMSS.offered orsalebyThomasRodd theYounger,Londres,[1823-50],8°, maisparmalchancelerecueil encomporteasentrees années839eř I843.

Quantà LordKingsborough>'est-à-dire dwardKing(né en 1J9S3,la vued'unmanuscrit exicainla Bodléienneedécida se consacrerésormaisà la préhistoireuMexiqueApartir e 1830 il publia neuf olumesin-Joliodans esquelsl s'efforçaite démontreruecepaysavait étéautrefoisolonisépar es sraélites.ommea Margarite e Franceremontejusqu'à Samothès-Disy

petit-fils résumée NoéyKingpouvait spérerrouveranscette hroniqueesargumentsour tayer a thèse sansdouteoriginaleQuoiqu'ilensoit l'entre-priseuicoûta uelque£ 32 OOOt eruina Misenprison ourdettes Dublinily mourute 27février 83J de lafièvre yphoïde.a bibliothèqueevait trevendueinqansplustard.

J'ignore uandet commentordKingsboroughst entré n possessionumanuscritToutefoislef. 1v présentene istedepossesseursntérieurscritedeplusieursmains:

MaistreClementVaillant/aduocatn parlement. deParisMeThibautVaillantPr fiscalMaistre GillesVaillantprocureurfiscalMeNicolaspr fiscalMeJeanFoyVaillantD.M.

LeJ. 2r donne nVallantiorumEpitaphium

Filiushic, Paterhic, Auushic, proauusque quiescunt,Conditurhic Abauus,conditurhic Atauus,Qui propeducentosfiscigessereper Annossub sexatquetribusmuñerapraesulibus.

Les VaillantétaientuneJamille ù les livres taient ransmisegénérationngénération. ans le ms. Paris B.N. Nouv.Acq.Jr. IOJ38*contenantes1Dictionaryf ationaliographyd. idneyee,XLIX,ondres897,.78.2Britishuseum.eneralataloguef rintedooksPhotolithographicditiono19S volumeo$,Londres,961,ol.8^3.3Cf. ictionaryf ationaliographyd. idneyee,XXXI,ondres,892,p.130-1*B.N.Cat. én.des ss.fr.arH.Omont,ouvellescquisitionsrançaisesVN0ã000-1 3et20001-2281),Paris,918,p. 2-3.

I39

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Coutumese Senlis Clermont-en-Beauvaisist Gerberoyon lit auf. 1 «SumDominiTheobaldiaillant, etau basduf 22çv«parMe GillesVaillant Me

Clement aillant, dvocat n Parlementson oncle le ve mars1596, en lavillede Paris».LeJ.2Vestresté nblancAuf. 3r aprèsa rubriqueusmentionnéevient

la listedesrois yantrégné esGaules»quidonne e canevase la chronique,et quivadeSamothès-DisCharlesVIII(f. 4V Suit un long dithyrambesur LouisXII(-f. 5r; lef $v étant n blanc),quiest dit être lors dans aonzièmennée esonrègne, lequel commencée27mai14982.C'estpourquoionadmet uela Margaritede France a étécomposéeoiten 1508(Fevret;Mercier-a),soit n 1509(Mercier-b).

Auj. 6r (-Jv commencee Prologue-dédicaceLouisee Savoie:«A masouuerainet tresgenereuseame tprincessemadamea contesseEngoulesme,frèreJehanThenaud desfrèresmineurse meindret des docteursn sainctetheologiee minime. .». Thenaud en déclinant estitres nese ditpasencoregardiendesmineurs Angoulême,equinous amènevant e9 décembre1143A cette ate en revancheil étaitdéjàdocteurnthéologie.édansa « chastelleneyede Melle»*,V ctuellecommune elle-ur- ér nneà cinquante .mau sudde Poitiersc'est sansdoute l'universitéecettevillequ'il a obtenusondoctorat n théologieprécédé e la maîtrises arts. Mais lesregistresď immatriculationesétudiantsyant étédispersés, il ne serapeut-êtreassimple 'en trouvera confirmation.

Thenaudevaitmême tredéjàdocteur n 1508/9,à tout e moinsi leprologueu ms. 13969est resté onforme l'original.Est-cee cas?A ceproposil seposeuncurieuxroblèmeechronologie.n effetplus oindansce prologuef 6V) , aprèsavoirproclamé ue la France surtout epuisl'avènemente LouisXII ne e cède nrien uxmonarchies'AssyriedePersede Grèceu de RomeThenaud éclare:

Et despuyshuyt ours en ça considérant ue si monoeuure [= laMargarite e France] de longtempsconceu, et retardé pour lesTriumphese vertuz squelzde present par vostre commandementsuysoccupé, [et] pour mon ineloquenceet rudi é barbare - estoitde voz precieusesmainsattouché, de voz tresbenings t limpidesyeulx approuué,et à vostre tresglorieuxnom dédié, qu'il seroit

1Cepassageaussité ité ar evretd'aprèsems. eFoncemagne.2Histoireénéalogiquet hronologiquee a maisonoyaleeFrance... pareP. Anselme,.. 3*éditionevue,aris,726repr. ew ork,967),,p.127.3Noticehenaud1),p.103.4PaulinarisIV, .139);HolbanR 971,.6$poure igle,oirnfrap.14$,.4).sR.Filhol,* niversitée oitiersousAncienégimePoitiers,967,.9.

140

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


plusagreableet autentique,me suys icelluy[laMargaritependantvostrepresencedonné,aul resnegocesmysarriere.

Lemanuscrite Londresomporteu moinsrois utres envoisu Triumphedesvertus1

En cestuytempsfust bastie en Alexandriea tour nommé Pharus,qui est une des sept merueillesdu monde2,de laquelle ayfaictmenciónou prologuedu Triumpheesvertusf. 4ov).Les officesd'ung chascun estâtay escriptbien au longou Triumphedesvertuzou traie é de Prudence etou

chapitrede

Intelligence,parquoyn'en toucherayriens icy (f. 6or).Aprèsfut e bon et tresvertueuxroy Elphrede,duquelay escriptlesfaicts u TriumpheePrudencef. 95*).

Sansanticiperur a datation u Triumphedesvertus, quenous xamineronsplus oin je signale uelepremierolume étéjusqu'cigénéralementitué uplus tôt en 1517-8 (PaulinParis /F, pp. 143-4 Holban,pp. 267 svj.Commentxpliquerlors esréférencesu'onlit dans e manuscriteLondres ela Margaritede France, composéeès 1508-9?Sans doutepourles troisdernièresla difficulté est pas insurmontable.n pourrait upposerà larigueurqueThenaud unjour ait tenu intercalerans unmanuscrite laMargarite esrenvoisu Triumphecomposéntretemps.aispour a premièreréférencerien faire. Thenaudy déclarexpressémentuevoilàlongtempsu ilavait onçuaMargarite eFrance,maisue 'achèvementna étéretardé arcequ'ilétait ccupésur rdre e Louisede Savoie àcomposere Triumphedesvertus toutefoisepuis ne emaineencouragéarsaprésenceil s'est emis lachroniqueouteaffaire essante.l faut doncadmettre ue Louise ui avaitcommandée Triumphe,nonvers1517/8, mais dèsavant1508/9 et qu'aumoment'achever a Margarite, l avaitdéjà rédigéoutre n prologueuneébaucheonsacréePrudencedupremierraité u Triumphe, t quec'està cetexteprimitif u'ilfait lestrois envoisnquestion.elachangeasmal la pers-pectivehronologique.

Laßn duprologuef. 7VJcontientotammenta phrase urFrançoisuMoulindeRochefortignaléear Fevret3 t se termineur1'explicit . é l'ayleuy ceu t trouué».'G.Mallaryasters,henaudnd anteart. it., .153, ote .2Cf. chefr, .23.3Noticehenaudi),p.106;f. .n;.

141

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Auf. 8r commencea Margaritede Francepropre incipit: «Dès lacreaciónu mondejusquesu deluge. .». LepassageurPierre er u re1 quia

été epoint edépart e aprésenteoticese it dansechapitreur eanI leBon( fè 12 12JV .y en transcrisu courant ela plume nfragmentssezlongpourdonner ne déede la chroniqueil s'arrête n 1362 annéede la mortdeBersuire2

DEJEHANQUI REGNAQUATORZEANSL'anmil roysens inquanteevingtixiesmeour e eptembre,utacré Rainsleroy ehanilzePhelippeseValoys. estuystoit n a viedeson ère ucdeNormandie.ucommencemente son

règneut

décapitée connestablee

France aoul,onte 'Eu etde Guignes,n l'hostel eNeesle Paris, ourplusieursraysonsu'il voitonspiréuprofitesAngloys.t 'on eistonnestableCharles'EspaigneuqueleRoy onnaaconté 'Angoulesme.equelevesquitguieres,arCharlesoy eNavarree feist ccire n on hostellerien aville eLeglenNormandiearPhelippeseNavarre,onfrère, t parJehan,oys tPhelippese Harecourtt fut aictonnestableacquese Bourbon,rère ePierreseBourbon.e cest ilain aicteroy eNavarreriamercyuRoy nlagranthambree Parlemente Paris n presencee tous.Mais,parce ueledit oy e Navarreien ostprès ssituroyaulmeans esceuduRoy, outesses eigneuriesurent ises n amain uRoy ors eureuxhierbourgt quatreaultres.ien ost près,uchasteaueRouan,eRoy rintedit harles,oy eNavarre,u'ilfeist ec re nprisonParisleconteeHarecourtt troysultresqu'ilfeistmenneru Chastellet,t furent inablementenduzt estranglez;tlesseigneurseGravile,eMaubuc,e Mante t Maretz t ColinDouble eistincontinentécapiteruditRouan.ongtempsprès ut 12r]délivréesdictesprisonse Pariseroy e Navarrear atraysoneJehanePicquigny.L'an mil troyspens inquanteinqeroy Angleterre*escenditCalais tvintjusquesHedin nbrûlantout. eRoy fut udevante uy noffrantombatrecorps our orps,upovoir povoir, aiseroy 'Angleterre'y oulutntendreet s'en retourna.e filz isnédudit oyd'Angleterre,e prince e GallesS,descenditn Gascoignet degastaespays eLanguedoc,uvergne,imousin,Perigort,t fortifiae chasteau'Engoulesmeuqueleist aireagrandeale.PuyshevauchaarBerryt Poictou.t eRoy int udevante uy Chauvignypres oictierstfurentesFrançoysaincusedixneufviesmeeseptembren 'anmil roysens inquanteix. llecmoururentierre, ucdeBourbon,acqueseBourbon,onnestableeFrance;ehanArthoys,onte 'Eu;Charleson rère,conte eLongueville;egissart,ousinermainuRoy;JehaneMelun,ontedeTancarvillet sesenfans,ont 'ung stoit rchevesqueeSen[l]is;egnault

1Noticehenaud/),p.99.2Pourette ériode,oir ontemporaryhroniclesf he undredearsarromhe orksf eaneBelJeanroissartEnguerrandeMo stelet,r.&ed.by eter .Thompson,ondres,966.3Ms:quatre. *■douardII.sEdouard,ilsuprécédent,ppelée Princeoir.

142

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Chauveau,vesqueeChaalons;esconteseVantaudour,ampmartin,en-dosme,audemont,arragosse,auson;hevalierstbarons,usquesunumbrededix ept ens inquanteeux annieres.t esaulvèrentharles,aulphin,ucdeNormandie;oys onte 'Angeou,ehanonte ePoictou,nfansudit oyJehan; helippesucd'Orleans,rère uRoy, t peud'aultreseigneurs.Etfut edit oyJehanrins risonnier, ennéBourdeaulx,uysnAngleterre.Lorsurentssemblezestroysstatzour élivrereRoy,esquelzffrirentrantayde ar insi ue 'ondesapoinctastesofficiersuroyJehant queeroyaulmefust ouvernéar uatrerelatz,ouzehevalierstdouzeourgeoys,equinefuttrouvéonneaccepté aredit aulphin,ucdeNormandie.our eallaquérirconseilt secoursMaitz sononclemessire harlese Boesmempereur.tgouvernae royaulmeedit aulphin,remièrementommeieutenantuRoy,secondementommeelluy qui l apartenoit,t mectoitn sestiltres harlesaisnéilzeFrance,

ouvernanteroyaulme.

orsehan

arcel1,revost

eParis,et Roberte Coq,evesqueeLaon,eirentlusieursultraigesn Paris uditdaulphin,f. 2 V]ar lz econtraignirentefaireespendreeconte eHarecourtet sescompaignons,t de les faire nterrer onorablementommeustes tiniquementenduz. uysccist edit revostn lachambret presenceuditdaulphin,euxienshambrelains,'est scavoirehaneConflans,areschaleChampaigne,t Robert e Clermont,areschaleFrance. uqueledaulphindist "Monsr.ePrevost,aulvezoyavie".Lorseprevostuy ailla onhaperonmy arty erougetpers, ontepers stoit dextre,tprintesien, u'ilportatout celluyour.Et fut ontrainctedaulphinpprouvere faict esoccisquifurentraynezusqueslapierre emarbreupalaysarlement.t esprincesdusangurentarforcezorter elz haperonsy artis.Maisedit revostutbien ost près ccispar etumulteupeuplee Parist trayné ortusquesSaincteatherineu ValdesEscoliers.EncelluyempsesJaquierseBeauvoisis]deMontmoransytMucien ccirenttous esnobles,ant ommesuefemmest enfans, icelluy ays. t feirentplusieursaulx,mais lz furentesfaitzar eroy eNavarreuienoccist lusdevingt il.Jacquesipe, uitenoit sparnayardeuxns, eistrans illaiges.Ung hevalierngloys,ommé obert anolle,eistmoult emaulx tdegastatout, e(s)BretaigneusquesAuxerre.L'anmil roysens inquanteuytmoururent:adameeur lancheeFrance,religieuseeLongchamp,t llec ut nterrée t on ueur uxCordelierseParis.I(s)temMadameahault,illeuconteainct-Paoul,emmeeMonsr.harleseFrance,ontede Valoys,'Alenczon,hartrest Angeou,nterréeusditzCordeliers.L'anmil roysensoixante,ppoinctementut aict ntre edaulphin,égenteFrance,t eroy 'Angleterret eprince eGalles'aultreart, our a déli-vranceuroyJehan. t fut iet uelespays eGuienne,ascoigne,oictou,Xantonge,ngoulmoys,erigort, imousin,igorre, ouerge,Monteran-sur-Mer,Poynthieu,alais,Mereq,Bouloigne,uignes, emourroyentusditzAngloyst à leurs uccesseurs,ans ecognoistre'iceulxulcunupérieurnhomaige,essortufoy, t queon eur ayeroitroysmilions'escutzdivers

termes. ussiesditzngloysenuncioyent[f. 2 1*]acouronneeFrance,ux1Etiennearcel

143

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


ducheztcontez'Angeou,eMayne,ormandie,ourayne,retaigne,landres.Lesquelleshosesurentespuysonfirméesar esroys, ar ermensaictzurcorpusominit es ainctesvangiles.t furentettres asséest decretéesarInnocentixiesme.uys ut e Roydélivré t mys n sa iberté Bouloigne,equatriesmenaprèsacaptivité,ngmoys,ix ours, t oustaigeseson angbaillez uxAngloys.Ungnaprèsmouruthelippes,ucdeBourgoigne,onte Arthoys,ouloigneet Auvergne.uant la duchéuy uccedae Roy, uant uxcontez ut onheritiere argarite,ille ePhelippeseLong,mère u onte eFlandres.L'anmil roysens oixanteeux, elèrentesvignesar oute rancenapvriltellementueendeux ensrpensevigne'onn'eustceu voir ne ipe evinet n'estoit ueverjust.CestuyoyJehan ourute huytiesme'apvrilmiltroys ens oixanteuatreaprès asques.t avoit eudeux emmes,'est scavoir adameonne,illeel'empereurenry, e aquelleut uatrenfans lepremierut harleseQuint,lorsducd'Angeou;ehanucde Berry; helippesucdeTouraynet, pareschange,eBourgoigneetquatre illes,'uneroyne eNavarre,asecondeduchessee Bar, a troysiesmesabel, uchessee Milan,a quatriesmeutreligieuseePoissy.a seconde emmeut ehanne,illeu ducd'Auvergne,uiavoitstémariéear vant PhelippeucdeBourgoigne.Despapes. L'anmiltroys ens inquanteroys,nnocentixiesmeunom,Limousinenación,ut ape t vesquitn telledignitéixans.Cestuymoultlabourareformer'Egliset ommençasoymesmes,ar l dechassae acourttoutes hosesissoluest superflues,n commandantuxcardinaulxueainsi

feissent.laimamoultesreligieuxien ivans,esquelzunisteprivileges.uysfut nterré n la Chartreuseu'ilavoit aictdifierèsAvignon,l'honneursainct ndré.Auqueluccedarbaininquiesme,atif eLimousin,bbéde Sainct icteurdeMarseille,ui vesquituyt ns inqmoys. estuyu cinquiesmen de sonpontificatlla Romet meistes chiefzainctf. 1 V] ierre t Sainctaoul,ainsi ueàpresentont, SainctehaneLatren.uys etournaMarseilletmourut.EncelluyempslorirentartholuseSaxoferrato,rançoyslbergotus,uristesPierre eBersuyreuifeistedicionnaire.estuyut remièrementordelier,puysmoynet prieur eSainct icteur; eonard e[Chifano]1,remièrementgeneralesfrères ineurs,uysardinal,uicompousaur esSentencest surlesCantiques.

LaMargaritede France,écrite ansunstyle llègre mérite être ubliéeAvantďabandonnera chroniqueje signalequedans Vexemplairee

La Croix du Maineet Du Verdier2annoté ar VAbbé deSaint-éger3ilsetrouveolléen acedulemmeurBersuire*ne iche ommençantinsi: «Tite

1Ms: thisanou chisano.2Noticehenaudl),p.io£.3Noticehenaudl), p.1063a).4Paris,.N.mpriméses. ^2o6,.2^4.

144

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Liveet P. BerchoireLa Cr. du M. Tom. 2 Pag. 254) revoir e texte eThenaud Marguerite de France sur Pierre erchoireet verifieri ilne dit riendeTiteLive.VoirVart. BerchdansDreuxdu Radier Tomll. MSSdela TraductionnSorbonnea SteGenevievet chez ePrince eCondé»2.

Dyutre art MmeMarieHolbanvient epublier ans esEtudesrabe-laisiennes4roisaragraphesubstantielsur eanThenaudui rédigésntérieure-ment ma notice a recoupentar momentsEn outre elle a bienvoulum' crirelonguementesobservationsuecepetit ravail ui avait nspiréesDesonpleinaccordje lesrésumet rapporteci9d'autantplusvolontiersuecelapermettradepréciserertainsoints. llesconcernentnpremierieu eVoyaged'Outre-

mers.MmeHolban admet adémonstratione deuximprimésu Voyage6 lepremiereprésentéar l'exemplaireeParisētelui eLondres;esecond,arceluide aBibliothèqueolombineSévilleyequelcommeousVapprendon olophon

Jut exécutéour a veuve eJean Saint-Denjs Toutefoisellese demandei letitre u premiermpriméontient raimenttinaire au lieu de Itinéraire,etsi peut-êtree signeďabréviationour-er- s'y trouverait ien mais à peinetracé.Ory e signemanque.el'ai vérifiéans 'exemplairee la Bibliothèquenationale etcela est onfirméar la reproductionutitre ansAtkinson?.

MmeHolbanrevientussi auproblèmehronologique.e récit u voyageenOrientccompli arlecordelier e 1511 à 1513,quanda-t-ilété mpriméEn 19558, elle avaitnotétantôt en 1531»et tantôt après1131». Cettedernière ate est manifestementne coquille.En effet elle m'écrit « C'esttoujoursn qu'il faut lire Et celapour a bonne aison uele texte dû êtreachevéu vivant e Louisede Savoiequiestmorte n septembre5319aprèsavoirlangui quelque emps.etévénementepouvait asêtrepassésous ilence

1Bibliothèqueistoriquet ritiqueuPoitou tome, Paris, 54, p.357-7(cf. ivariumI,

p.73).La

référencest ncomplète,'est ue, ansne otemanuscritejoutéenmargee apage£3»'Abbée aint-Légerenaite raitere et rticleu'il ualifiee étendut urieux".2Lauiteecetteichet a ficherécédentetaientonsacréesuxmpressionse atraductiondeTite-Livear ersuire.3Noticehenaud/),p.1*EtudesabelaisiennesX,1971= TravauxHumanismetRenaissance7),Autoure eanhenaudtde rèreeanes ntonneurspp. 9-51);ures racese rèreeanpp.52-65);xtraitea versionfrançaisee'Élogee aFolie'ÉrasmeueJ. Thenaudpp. 6-9).igle: olbanR 971Cesagesappartiennentun uvragelustendu,npréparation.f.Noticehenaudj), p.1 ,n°11.sNoticehenaud/),pp.11-9.6Noticehenaudi),pp.118-9.7Noticehenaudi),p.1 6,n.1etp.115, .3.8Holbanp.266;p.283.Cf.Noticehenaudi),p.116.9Histoireénéalogiquet hronologiquee amaisonoyalee rance. pareP.Anselme,d. it., ,

pp. 10-1.

14S

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


par sonprotégéqui la nomme ans lesdernièreshrases e sontexte».Parailleursversa mêmepoqueMmeHolbandéclarait: LemomenteVimpression

peuttoutde mêmetre itué vecplusde précisionansYntervalle mars1531- 21 septembre53i»1.Il vade soiqueV xistenceedeuxmpressionsu Voyage,au lieuďune

seule changeraitensiblementesdonnéesu problèmehronologique.oute-fois, il seposeciunequestionréalable.Eneffetsur afoi de la descriptionnfac-similé ar Jean Babelonfavais admisquele titre de YexemplaireeSévilleortait tinéraire, equidu reste strépété ans enouveaucataloguee19482.Pourtantsur a photocopieuela Colombinema aimablementom-muniquée,e constateuece titre lafaute ďimpressiontinaire out emême

queceluide Paris.Enoutre, eanBabelonffirmait uele corps u texte om-porte 6 lignes ar page.Toutefois,en compteeplussouvent7, chiffreuiest ussiceluiduditnouveauatalogueévillan,mais galementeluidonnéarAtkinsonourVexemplairee la Bibliothèqueationale.Celaétant, qu'enreste-t-il e la doublempressionuVoyage?Pourrépondre cette uestion,lfallait collationnera photocopiee Sévilleavec Vxemplairee la Biblio-thèque ationale,V ditionmoderniséeeSchefer3 esy prêtant as.

Voici, rièvementésumées,es onstatations:1) Misesà part lesparticularitésypographiquest orthographiques,l

n'y a aucunedifférencentre esdeuxexemplairesansle texte ui-mêmeuVoyage.

2) Latypographiet a mise npagedesdeux itresont ifférentes.3J SeulV xemplaireévillanrésenteauf 64v) uncolophon*vec,en-

dessous,a marqueesSaint-Denys*L'expressionmpriménouuellement anscecolophonermet e considérerexemplairee Pariscommeédition rinceps,endispensantesonger une ontrefaçon.

4 Quantau corpsdu texte,nousavonségalementffaire, onà deuxtiragesmaisvéritablementdeux mpressions:escatégoriest le nombreesdifférencestant elsquilsne sauraienttre xpliquésar des correctionssoléesdansunecompositionxistante.

5 L'édition rinceps, otammenta justißcationt sa mise n page,aservi e modèleypographiqueour a réimpression.'estcequi explique ue,jusqu'au f. H ir = 57r desdeuxexemplaires,eurspagescommencentt1HolbanR 971p.$i,n. 6.2Bibliotecaolombina.atálogoe usibrosmpresos.(7vol.,evilla888Madrid948Sevilla19^2),omoeptimo,adrid,948,p.25-6.3Le nome ce savante trouveeplusnplusrthographierronémentcheffervecfcequipouremoinse aisseraas ecréeres roblèmesibliographiques.4Noticehenaudi), p.119.5Ph.Renouard,esmarquesypographiquesarisiennesuXVetXVIeièclesParis,926,p.330-2.

146

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


ßnissentnprincipear e mêmemotAinsi,esmots-contrôleherbes,pouponset que aultresces qu'Atkinson cités ommeetrouvant ansl'exemplaireeParis

respectivementuf.B ii recto

haut,et

auf.F iiii verso

bas,selisent

exactementu même ndroit dans Vexemplaireévillan.Atkinson a pasremarquéu à partirduf. 5Jr V xemplaireeParispeut voir 26 lignes ulieu de2J.

Maintenant,outdouteconcernanta réalitédes deuximpressionsuVoyageétant éfinitivementcarté, etournonsleurdatation Laréimpressionque ecolophonéclare xécutéeourClaudeSaint-Deny, sesituenécessairemententrea mort esonmari survenue, aprèsRenouard2,ntre e 20 mars t e9 décembre531- et celledela veuvelle-même.a mort e Louise eSavoie

en septembre531 ne mesembleas constituern terminusnte quemde laréimpression,ès lors quil s1agit d'une simple reproductione l'éditionprinceps. 'après Renouard, laudemourut n 1133. D'aprèsJean Muller,dans e tout écent ictionnaire, elle xerçaitncoreemétier e libraire-éditeuren 1S4°- Toutefois,i cette ernièrehypothèseevait econfirmer,e terminusante quemserait donnédansl'achat de l'imprimé ar FernandColombnoctobre135-Enbref, a réimpressionété xécutéentrefin 1531d'unepartet 1533ou bienoctobreS35d'autrepart.

Cesdates imitesS3i- 1533 5 constituentn mêmetempsnterminusnte

quem e l'édition rinceps,ommea mentione la prisedeRhodesar Solimanen 1523estun terminusostquem.Laprinceps,arue ansnom 'éditeurmaissur e titre éclarée n vente l'enseigneaint-Nicolas ela rue Neuve,doitavoirétéexécutéeoitpourJean Saint-Denys,oitpoursa veuve.Dans cettedernière ypothèse,laudeauraitprocuré eux mpressionsifférentesn bienpeude temps. 'autre part, commeMmeHolbanl'a souligné,l estdifficiled'admettreue Thenaudurait envoyé l' imprimerieu laisséimprimereVoyagesous aforme ctuelle, près a mort e LouisedeSavoieenseptembre153i' Enoutre, e cordelier, 'ordinairei enclin étaler outes esqualités,n'aurait-ilpas, après1529/30,substituéur le titre Abbé de MélinaisàGardien desfrères mineursd'Angoulême?Maislescirconstancesui ontentourée passageducordelier u couventfranciscain l'abbayedesaugustinssont ropmalconnues.M. Gualdo desArchives u Vatican promis eguetterla suppliqueui ut à la basede a bullededispense,t quia deschances'avoirété nregistrée.ettesuppliqueous ermettrait'y voir lusclair.1Maisutresu ieu e ultres.2Ph.Renouard,épertoireesmprimeursarisiens... éd.J.Veyrin-ForrertB.Moreau,aris,i9^Sy.389rééditionePh.Renouard,mprimeursarisiens.., Paris,898).3Jean uller,ictionnairebrégéesmprimeursféditeursrançaisu eizièmeiècle.épertoireiblio-graphiqueesivresmprimésn ranceu eizièmeiècle= BibliothecaibliographicaurelianaXX,

Baden-Baden,970,.87.

I47

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Ily a belleurette ueLazareSainéana signaléhezRabelaisesempruntsau Voyaged'Outremer. MmeHolban2 bondedanssonsens n brossant n

tableauimpressionnantescorrespondancesu'onpeutdécelerntre es deuxFrère ean Rabelais e seraitnspiré eJeanThenaudour réer eandesEntom-meures.l aurait même rêté son hérosuffisammente traits u personnageréelpourpermettreux initiés el'y reconnaîtreSans doutetousesargumentsavancésar MmeHolbannesont as d'égalevaleuret ils gagneraient êtreprésentésn ordremoinsdispersé Toutefoisl'ensemblee laissepas d'êtresuggestif;eßlon mérite 'être xploré avantage

Je voudrais erminereparagrapheur e Voyaged'Outremer par unequestionlus généraleCommente ait-il quesur a demi-douzained'ouvragesécrits arJeanThenauddont a plupart vaient técommandésar lafamilleroyale euleVoyageait été mprimévoire euxois?Cettexceptionient-ellel'extraordinairengouementour esvoyageset eurs écitsque'on constatepartirdesannéesrente?ngouementui seradénoncélus tardpar MauriceScève

Levaintravailde voirdiversaisAportestime quivagabondrreCombienu'il perde changer iel et terre

Sesmeilleursoursdu tems arron rahis . .

JEANTHENAUDMYTHOGRAPHE(suite*)Lems. Paris,B.N.f. fr. 2081(antea7947,antea1^13,antea2139)

est un manuscrit, etit n -8°, en papier, du XVIesiècle,relié - entredeuxfeuillesde gardeen vélinnon chiffrées en maroquinrouge,auxarmes de France en or sur les plats; au dos les L entrelacéesen or deLouisXIV, avec le titre Lignéede Saturne.l consisteen 124feuillets,sansfiligrane, 2à 30longuesignesparpage(lesversosdesff. 123et 124restés en blanc).Au versode la premièregardeen vélin: «FrereJeantenand sic)religieulxmineur faict e liurequi traictede Poesie». F.iren haut, les trois cotes anciennesprécitées la plusancienneen chiffresromains. Puis, incipit du prologue-dédicace«[P]ource que plusieurssonten cestuymondequi autre chosene demandeforslonguevie . . .».1L.Sainéan,evuees tudesabelaisiennesVili 1910,p.350-60.f.Noticehenaud/),p.1 7,n.3.2HolbanR 971.3SonnetiminaireuMicrocosmeans euvresoétiquesomplèteseMauricecève réuniesarBertranduégan,aris,927,. 191.4ContinuationeNoticehenaud/),p.122.

148

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Scheferpp. LXXIII-IV)a résumé brièvement le contenu de laLignéeeSaturneSiTon peut en croire Thenaud,ce sont des souvenirs

de sajeunessestudieuse,notéspour njaire[auprince]1uelqueasse-tempsd'ungourou heure Il s'était adisintéressé lamythologie,maisplustardelleluiasembléncompatiblevec sa vocationdecordelier.LeprofesseurMallaryMastersm'informe que son édition du texte est sous pressechezDrozà Genève.C'est lui maintenant ui prendra a parolesur cetraité mythologique e Thenaud.

Retournonsmaintenant u traité mythologiquenonyme,contenudans e ms. Paris,B.N. f.fr. 1358

(antea7488,antea808,antea1

134)2.C'est un manuscrit, n papier,du XVIesiècle,relié - dansune reliureverte en carton,moderne- entre plusieursfeuilletsde garde.Ceux-ciprésentent n filigrane rançais u typeBriquet £̂097,attesté n l'annéei £91 trois couronnes avecen-dessouse nom edmonenisey embre dela famillede papetiers troyens.Sur le dos, le titre LignéeeSaturneLemanuscrit onsisteen 14 feuillets,275 x 188mm., numérotés1, 2,ibis, usqu'à 13. Ilsprésentent nfiligrane, ssentiellementrançaisuneroue dentée, la roue de supplicedite de Sainte- atherine 6 dents,à

manivelleet surmontée d'une

crosse,du

type Briqueť*13451,très

fréquentvers la findu XVesiècle,et après.Lef. ir est resté en blanc; f. iv : un dessin colorié avec aumilieu

la figure e Saturne.Les troiscotesanciennesse lisentau f. 2r, la plusancienneen toutes lettres. Plus bas, l'incipit du prologue: «Puisquenaturelleconclusion meveult inclinera vous seruirMonseigneur . .».Explicitdu prologue(f. 2V):«... une choseimparfaicte.Nihil faciūtnoui; qd nõ fuerit actūprius». Suit la rubrique «DeSaturne».Incipitdu texte «[Sļaturneut dix enfans ommeonpeutveoir en cestefigure».Explicit (f. 13r) «... Duquel ensuyurenulle occasionne me sauroitdesmouuoir».Suiventdeux rondeaux. Incipit du premier (f. 131"):«Fortunçet tēporis dialogusfortuna:)Tempsque faiztu . . .»5.Incipit

1Scheferp.LXXIIImprimetort ousu ieu evous.2Noticehenaud/),p.122.3C.M.Briquet,esligranes.ictionnaireistoriqueesmarquesu apierèseurpparitioners282jusqu'en600.Afacsimilef he 9OJditionithupplementaryaterialontributedy numberfscholarseditedyAllantevenson,msterdam,968,,p.304;I, .n.£097.*C.M.Briquet,d. it., I,pp. ^7v; V, .n. 34Ç1.5«"Fortunet emporisialogus";ittelfranzösischer,ei ommatzschichtnd, ie s cheint,auchonstirgendsrwähnterext;rhaltennPar. ranç.358,.13ij. Jahrhundert),ochunveröffentlicht.»Ainsilaus eitmannans rchivür ulturgeschichte7=196$,.276,ote6.

i s°

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


prendre connaissance,elle montre que le traité a été composé,vers1510/1 parFrançoisduMoulinde Rochefort1pour le comted'Angou-lême. Antérieurement, lle avait pu établir2que ce précepteur^deFrançois er était par la suite resté à son servicecommeancienmaîtred'école et aumônier. La situation sociale de Du Moulin était doncentièrement elle décritepar l'auteur du prologuedu ms. 13^8.Depuislors, MmeHolbana constatéque l'écriture de ce manuscrit e retrouvedansun autre manuscritdu fondsfrançais, e ms. 1863*,nommémentattribué à «Fr. Demolins»,lequel y est désignécomme «L'indigneprécepteurde monseigneur», c'est-à-direde Françoisd'Angoulême.Cesfaits nlèventdéfinitivementu cordelier,pourl'attribuer Françoisdu Moulinde Rochefort, a paternitédu traité anonymecontenudansle ms. 13^8.Vu lesrelationspourainsidire triangulaires,xistant ntrele destinataire es deuxLignéeeSaturnet leurs auteurs, l est vraisem-blableque Thenauden composantvers îçiyiçiç la sienne,avaitprisconnaissancede celleque Du Moulin avaitrédigéevers 1510/11.

M. MallaryMasters m'informe que, à titre documentaire,il ainclus e ms. 13^8dans e volume souspressechezDroz.

LETRIUMPHEDESVERTUSLe titre fait allusion auxquatrevertusdites cardinales prudence,

force, justice et tempérance.Toutefois, le Triumphees vertus 'estnullementun traité de moralescolastique.C'est une sorte de mélangerécréatif, crit en l'honneurde Louise deSavoie- quil'avaitcommandéet en avait elle-mêmesuggéré e plan- et de différents embresde safamille, eprésentéshacunparunevertu. L'ouvragesecomposededeux«volumes»,rédigéset dédiés successivement.Chaquevolume est sub-diviséen deux «traictés»; ceux du premier volumesont consacrés àPrudenceet à Force; ceux dusecond,à Justice t à Tempérance.

Lepremiervolume a étéconservédanstrois manuscrits le seconden un seul. Thenaud estimant ue l'humilité de son état lui interdisait1Biographietbibliographieommairesans oticehenaud/),p.1 ;.2Marieolban,rançoisuMoulineRochefortt aquerellee a Madeleinedans umanismetRenaissanceI= 1935,p. 6-43; 47~7I-3P.Jourdaop.it.y,p.2$)edédoublen euxersonnages,n isant:Des ruditsdonnaientaux nfantsde ouisee avoie]es rincipes'uneolideulture.rançoisemoulin,rançoiseRochefort,bbée aint-Mesmineurnseignèrentu atin Demême'Index,.1 71sousDemoulinetp.1 80sousochefort).♦Voiradescriptione emanuscritansibliothèquempériale.épartementesmanuscrits.ataloguedesmanuscritsrançais.omeremier.ncienondsParis, 868,.327.Cems.,gfeuillets,nvélin,vecminiatures,etermineur eux ondeaux,outommeems. 3^8.

152

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


de senommer, esmanuscrits ont parfois estésanonymesu ont étémalattribués.

le premier volume duTriumphe

es vertus été transmispar

lesmanuscrits:Léningrad,Bibl.pubi., Fr. F. v. XV, i; Paris,Ars. 33^8;Paris,B.N. f.fr. 143.

a) Lems.Léningrad, ibliothèquepubliqued'Etat Saltikov-Chtché-drine, finançais] folio] vļelin]XV [Eloquence],1 , provientde Saint-Germain-des-Prés2où Dom Poirier avaitdéjàconstaté a disparition ece manuscrit oté 1713),en passant par la collectionDubrowski*.Lemanuscrit, xécutépour Louisede Savoie,a été décrit, brièvementparGustaveBertrands n 1874; ensuiteplusen détail par A. de Laborde6.

Il a été signalédansla liste des Manuscritsrançaisdumojen âgeconservésLéningradar MlleEdithBrayed, quin'avaitpaspu disposerde l'articleoù Holban l'identifiait omme étant e premiervolume du Triumpheesvertus e Thenaud.

Labordesupposaitque le ms. pourrait dater d'après l'année 1520ou i£22, ce qui sera discutéplus tard.

Pour la reliure et la décoration, e renvoieà Laborde. Celui-ciacompté184feullets, n-folio, n vélin,34longuesignes lapage.Titrescourants,compensanten partie une folio ationdéfectueuse. Laborde a

remarquéque le manuscrit st incompletde quelquesfeuillets la fin.Les microfilms e permettent pas de le constater, rien ne paraissantmanquerà l'explicit. Toujours est-il que le manuscrit été mutilé end'autres endroits. Labordea signaléque trois miniatures«manquent».Pour la deuxième(«f. 87»)et la troisième «entre les ff. 1 1g et 116»),il faut omprendre u'elles ont été enlevées,ce quia entraînédeux trous1Lemicrofilmue'InstituteRecherchetd'Histoirees extesParisvaitimablementisma isposition,st lout afoliotationllisible,ommeelast 'ailleursndiqué.ur otre e-mande,aBibliothèqueeLéningradbien ouluxécuterour ous nmicrofilmluslairt,saufxceptions,ieuxisibleue 'autre.2Delisle,abinetesmss.,,p.184,ote .3Delisle,abinetesmss.,I,p.çy.*Michelrançois,ierreubrowshjt esmanuscritse aint-Germain-des-PrésLéningraddans émorialduXIVeentenaireeVAbbayee aint-Germain-des-Prés,ecueile ravauxuremonastèret a ongréga-tione aint-MaurVrin, aris, 9^9= Revue'histoiree'EgliseeFrancetome LIII i9£7,PP-33-41 Delisle,abinetesmss.,I,pp.£2 v.5Catalogueesmanuscritsrançaise aBibliothèquee aint-PétersbourgParis,874,-*89.6A.deLaborde,es rincipauxanuscritspeinturesonservésans ncienneibliothèquempérialepubliquee aint-Pétersbourg,econdeartie,aris,938,p.1^3-4;lancheXIV. A ap.1^3corrigeracoteXVu ieu eXII)à a igne corrigerliz e ranceFol.V n 2 A ap. 4,dansabibliographie,prèselisle,,184,ote, jouter:I,p.57;derrière.Paris,esManuscrits,corrigerII n V.1BulletinnformationeVnstituteRecherchet 'Histoireesextes,= 19^8parun19^9), .28.8p.26g, ote ;cf.Noticehenaud/),p.1135. iii.

1Si

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


dansle texte. La folio ation moderne du manuscrit, aiblement racée,necorrespondplusàl'état actuel.Déjàpour cesraisons, lya undécalageentre la folio ation du manuscrit t celle indiquéesur l'enveloppetrans-parente du microfilm e Paris. Lefutur diteur devracommencerparcompter et folioter de nouveaule manuscrit.

Immédiatementprèsla miniature u f. iv, figuranta présentationdu livrepar l'auteur à Louise deSavoie,incipitde la dédicace:«Quantie considère, treshaulte dame, tresillustreprincesse, mère et fleurproductifue u sacréliz deFrance,vostrediuegeniture,haul enoblesse,profondesagesseet luysanterenommée...». Explicit de la dédicace(f. 3V): «... paruenir au celeste et triumphant oyaulmeeternel.».Suivent fif. r-£v) es rubriquesdes n chapitresdu traité de Prudenceet des io chapitres u traité de Force.Ellesserontplusou moins ittéra-lementrépétéescommeen- ête avant eur chapitrecorrespondant.Leschapitres upremier raité nt comme titres ourants Prologue,Genèse,Doctrine, Conseil,Memoire,Intelligence,Prouidence,Sophie,Folie,Reformación, riumphede Prudence. Ceuxdu secondtraité: Prologue,Labeur, Honneur, Magnificence, Magnanimité,Pacience, Victoire,Perseuerance, Fortune,Triumphede Force.

F. 6r, miniature.F. 6V,rubrique: «Leschapitresdu premiertraictédePrudencecomparéeau fleuuePhison. - Commentl'explorateur duparadisterrestre ui veult veoir les triumphesde vertuz, faict sa con-templaciónet oracionou mont Sinay.Et commentil fut confortéetendoctrinéparvneNymphe insiqu'il dormoit ou lieu susdit. - Cha-pitre premier». Incipitdu premier raité «Aprèsdiuers limatz, erres,nacions,prouinceset regionsvisitées,de ennuytrauailléet de trauailennuyé:Encelluyanque l'on disoit estre de la Creacióndu mondeseptmilseptcenset vnze,et de la Recreaciónd'icelluymilcinqcens etdouze,me transportay n celluysainctet hault mont d'Arabie. ..». Explicitdupremiertraité «le formulaire t vray xemplairede prudenceainsiqueauoyeveuet sceu.».Incipitdu traitéde Force «Commentl'explorateuren descendantdu mont Sinaysoyendort en la chapellesainctHelye . .Chapitrepremier. - Moultfuzresioyd'auoir veu le triumphalmanoiret curre de Prudence.».Explicitdu second traitéet du premiervolume «... et fuz outesmer-ueilléme trouuer encoresou sainct mont Oreb en la chappellesainctHelye,où mys par escrit tout mon songeet ma visioncommel'ay cy-dessusescripte. Puysadroissayma priere à Dieu pour le triumphantdictateur, n ceste maniere

154

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Je prie Dieuque au roy belliqueuxet fortQui a par Forceet triumphant effortEu de fortune

tant fastueuse ictoire,Luydoint de sesvertuz et labeurs confortTant qu'aprèsceste vie et 1assaultde mortTriumphateur oit en eternelle gloire.».

b) Le ms. Paris,Arsenal33^8a été brièvementdécrit par HenryMar-tin1,qui en a ensuite retracé 'histoire. Il provientde la collection dudonateurde la bibliothèquede l'Arsenal,M. de Paulmy, equell'avaitachetéen 1781au baron de Heiss2.Asontour, ce collectionneur'avait

acheté, avec un lot de 83 manuscrits, ux Augustinsdéchaussés delaCroix-Rousse àLyon*.Dansleur catalogue, rédigépeu après 1667parun certain frère Éloi, le manuscrit st décrit, sous la cote 124, commesuit: «Triomphedes vertus et vertueux, autrement e voyageurduparadisterrestre, u de l'empire des vertus, en façonde roman. Cetoriginala été fait par un sçavantet dévot pèlerin, où l'horoscopedeFrançoisIer, roy de France est représenté. Manus,papier. In-folio.»*.Auparavant,e manuscrit tait en possessiondu collectionneurlyonnaisOctavioMeydont le nom, suivi de la date 1640,se lit sur le f. is.

Le ms. Ars. 33^8 est en papier, 282 feuillets n-folio,à longueslignes.Sur la feuille de garde, une mainmoderne a tracé: le liureduTriompheesVertus Receuilsic)desvertueuxtitre emprunté u prologue(f. ir, dernièreligne- f. iv). Incipitde la dédicace(f. ir): «Quantjeconsidère,ma superillustredame, souueraineprincesseet tresheuréemère, aussi fleurproductiuedu sacré liz deFrance,vostrediuegeniture,trescoruscante ace et tresprofondehaul esse. .». Explicit de la dé-dicace «... En tousioursme soubzmectant lacorrectionet feruledesmyeulx cauanset disans.»(f. 31*).. 3V «S'ensuyt atabledesvertuzdePrudence et Force».Lesrubriques,qui serontrépétéesavant e chapitrecorrespondant, 'arrêtent au f. jT le f. est resté en blanc. F. 8r,incipitdupremiertraité «Prudence. Commentl'explorateurde paradisterreste ue veultveoir les triumphes e vertuz,faictsa contemplationet oration au montSynay.Et comment l fut conforté t endoctrinéparvneNymphe insiqu'il dormoitou lieususdit.Chapitrepremier. Après

1Cat.esmss.e aBibl.e Mrs.,II,1887,p.346-7.2Cat.esmss.eaBibl. eArs.,III, istoiree aBibliothèqueeVArsenal,899,.240,ote .3 bid.,.248,tnote.* bid.,.2£j.5 bid.,p. 19-20.

i ss

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


diuersclimatz,terres, nations, prouinceset regionsvisitées,de ennuytrauailléet de trauail ennuyé: En celuyan queTon disoit estre de la

Recreationdu mondemil cinqcenset douze,me transportay n celluysainct et hault mont d'Arabie...». Explicitdu premier traité: «leformulaire t vray xemplairetel queTaydescriptcydeuant.»(f. 1481).Incipitdu secondtraité (f. 1491"):«Commentl'explorateuren descen-dantdu montSynayoyendorten la chapellesainctHelye . . Chapitrepremier. Moult fuzresiouyd'auoir ainsiveu le triumphal manoir etcurre de Prudence...». Explicitdu secondtraité t du premier olume(ff. 28iv-282r): «...et fuz tout esmerueillé me trouuer encoresousainct mont Oreb en la chapellesainctHelye,où myspar escripttout

monsongeet ma vision commee Tay cy-dessusscripte. Puysadroissayma priere a Dieupour esusdittriumphant ictateur, n cestemaniereJe pry Dieuque au roy belliqueuxet fortQui a par Force et glorieux effortEn ce monde eu si fastueuse ictoire,Luydoint de ses vertuz et labeurconfortTant que aprèsceste vie et l'assaultde mortTriumphateur oit en l'eternellegloire».

c) Le ms. Paris,B.N. f.fr.443, en papier, a été décrit par PaulinPariscomme étantun volume n-foliomagnode 194feuillets, lignes ongues,relié en veau racine au chiffre e Louis XVIIIsur les plats. Au dos,l'inscriptionL9Explorateures uatre leuvesuparadis errestreC'est undes206 manuscritsde la collectiond'Antoine Lancelot(ancienn° 148;nouveaun° io)2que celui-cia cédés à laBibliothèquedu roi en 17333.Dansle cataloguede Clémentde 1682,on l'a inséré sous lacote 70323.Le titre ue luidonneMontfaucon*,insiquecelui ducataloguede 1868*a été emprunté la rubriquede l'Epître dédicatoire.Parélimination, e manuscrit oit être l'exemplaire queHolban(p. 26$,note 2; p. 283, note 2) considèrecomme ayant été exécuté pourMarguerited'Angoulême.

Utrecht AsuivreInstituut oorLaatLatijn

1 V, p. 36-44;énemaud,.63. 2PaulinarisV, .136. 3Delisle,abinetesmss.,,p.409.♦B.deMontfaucon,ibliothecaibliothecarumanuscriptorumova.. II,Paris,739,.1669a.sCatalogueesmanuscritsrançais.. I,p.44.Commeilleurs,a datessignéeumanuscritMXIV*siècle")st rbitraire.

1^6

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Reviews

DIETERURRER,odusproblemeeiNotker.ie modalen ertendenNebensätzener on-solatio-bersetzung.Nr. 2derReihe:DasAlthochdeutscheon t. Gallen. exte ndUntersuchungenur prachlichenberlieferungt. Gallens om . biszum 2. Jahr-hundert). alter e Gruyter, erlin/New ork 1971.XIX/201eiten.GanzleinenDM56-.

Der Verfassertellt ich ur Aufgabe,enModusgebrauchn den NebensätzenerConsolatio-ÜbersetzungotkersII.von t. Gallen± 950- 02 )unddasVerhältnisder lthochdeutschenodi u den ateinischenu untersuchen nd weiter er Frage

nachzugehen,b der Notkerscheebraucher

Modi,besonderses

Konjunktivs,m

Vergleichum ateinischen ebrauch ehrinhaltsbezogen-freind weniger ram-matikalisiert, eniger ormiert st. Nach der UmschreibunginigerwichtigerBegriffe erden ieMethode er Untersuchung,ie Einteilunger Nebensätzend- umden ateinischenruck uf dasAlthochdeutscheu erfassen die vom Vf.benutzten ichtlinienur Feststellunger Abhängigkeit,ezw.UnabhängigkeitomLatein eschrieben.

Es stfür enVf.mitRecht twas elbstverständliches,ei seinerUntersuchungnicht ur denKonjunktiv,ondernuchden ndikativ u berücksichtigen.r erklärtdabei enKonjunktivnNotkers ebensätzenlsZeicheneingeschränkterültigkeit ,den ndikativlsZeichen vollerGültigkeitesGeschehens ,eht lso on inerModali-

tätstheorieus,diezwar iskutabeläre, ich ber ei derUntersuchungines lthoch-deutschenextes lsbrauchbarrweist.Im 2. Teilwerden ie verschiedenenrten es Nebensatzesesprochen:ondi-

tionalsätzem ndikativ,mKonjunktivräsentisnd mKonjunktivräteriti, onzessiv-sätze ndkonjunktionsloseonjunktivsätze,elche atzarten it roßer enauigkeitund einem nterscheidungsvermögennUntergruppeningeteiltnd esprochener-den.Vf.kommt u der Schlußfolgerung,aßNotkermGebraucherModi n weitausdenmeisten ällenunabhängigon einerVorlageuWerke eht, aßedoch b und uDruck er ateinischenorlagengenommenerden uß nd aß das lthochdeutscheModussystemurwenigWahlfreiheitmModusgebrauchuläßt. urchgenauesinteilenundVergleichenerbesprochenenätze ommtr manchmalu nterpretationen,iegenauerlsdiebisherigenind.EinMangeles Teilesst as ehleninerUmschreibungesBegriffesodalverb.Mankönntefragen, b die Verbamugenndnamentlich ellenwie sie auf . 52ff.,bezw.71f. behandelt erden, irklich odalverba ind, b sie also n sich mit ereingeschränktender vollenGültigkeitesGeschehenstwas u tun haben.Auch

über asVerhältniswischen onditional-ndKonzessivsätzenurde as etzteWortnoch icht esagt.

Der3.Teil nthält tatistischeAngabenber as vollständigeaterialerNeben-sätze n derConsolatio-Übersetzung.

Das Buch st inwertvollerBeitragu demModusproblemnd urhistorischen

Syntax,ie

uchür

nsere enntniserÜbersetzungstechnikotkers on t. Gallen.Bilthoven F. van er Rhee

1S7

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


AENEASylvius ICCOLOMINUSPius I),De Gestisoncila asiliensisommentariorumibriII,ed. and ranslated yDenisHay ndW. K. Smith, xford, t theClarendonress

1967,xxviii-268

p. Oxfordedievalexts, ).

This s the first ritical dition, ith n Englishranslation,f Aeneasylvius'sye-witnessccount f he ncidentst the CouncilfBasle hat edto the ethronementfPopeEugeneV Gabriel ondulmaro)uring he 4th essionn 2$June 439, nd heelection fAmadeus,uke f avoyFelixV)on£November439. t s a well-knownfact hat Aeneas issociatedimselfrom hese ommentarlifterwards,artly ecauseof he isappointingesultsf heCouncil. ut his arrative ccount,nwhich laboratespeechesy he reat rotagonists ave een ncluded a.o.Nicolò eTudeschi rch-bishop f Palermo Panormitanus)nd Ambassadoro KingAlphons f AragonndNaples; ouis Aleman, ardinalndArchbishopf Aries, resident f he Council;John f Segovia, rchdeaconf Villa Vezzosa; odovico e Pontano, mbassadoroAlphons ), s ofgreat nterest ohistoriansndtheologians.heprincipalssuesduringtheperiod overed yAeneas'sccount ere, nabstractothe uestion f thepope'sobedienceoa representativessemblyf the Church Militant seethe theologicalresolutions,. 21,which vokedlengthy iscussionslasting or ays),nd he roblemofhow odealwithEugene, ho efuseduch bediencen oncreto.eneasresentsheargumentsro nd on, o that is ccountsmore han factual ecord f heCouncil'sproceedingsit also lluminates hedevelopmentf he deas nd he ressure roughtto bear y hemonarchsnd heir elegates.herole layed y he owerclergy urnsout o have een f onsiderablemportancenthis ssue after any relates adwith-

drawn, hey inallyecidedhe ssue.Intheir ntroductionhe uthors iscusshe arious ss. f hework hat ave eenpreserved.It s ikely, ith n eyeon his ater areer s Pope,that eneas ad theautographestroyed;heres no text n the Vaticanollections).hreemss. re n theUniversityibraryfBasle,wonVienna,ne n Edinburgh,ut hems. he ditors avemost elied n s theViennese s.Nationalbibl.104,which ontains oth ooks ndis dated £April 444.toffers, nthewhole, better ext. heViennese s.makesheimpressionf having eenwritten s a whole,whichwould ispose f Voigt' claimthat eneasmay avewritten third ook f heCommentariitowhich e ssupposedoalludehimself relatio rocessusapae = the dethronementf Eugene). lthoughthey cknowledgehe hronologicalapn he ext May oNovember439), he ditorsdo not hinkt ikely hat here verwas third ook coveringhis eriod;Aeneas'sallusionanbeexplainednterms f he ext f he wo ooks hat re xtant.

BesidesheViennese s., he ditiorincepsprinted yAndreas artmann'Crat-ander') t Basle ound $2i hasbeenused s a textual ource. heeditors ttributeindependentuthorityo this dition, dmittinghat hey ave ot een ble o dentifythe ext n which t sbased n any f he xtant anuscriptollectionsp. xxxiv).twould eem ome,however,hat here snopoint ntrying o find single odex on-taining he ompleteontents f he rinted ollectionf racts,etters ndprocesses,in which he Commentariire lsofound. heprinted ollection as obviouslyut o-gether y omeone howished o make ppearn print setofdocumentsnd racts

which, lthough ating rom ariousenturies, ere ll anti-papal;t s very nlikelythat single and- ritten opy f uch collectionhould ave reviouslyxisted. ntheother and, he ditors ucceedn makingt seem redible hat he ditor r printer

i*8

8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


8/9/2019 Vivarium - Vol. 9, Nos. 1-2, 1971


Books Received

HANSerhard enger: DiePhilosophieesNikolauson ues or em ahre440UntersuchungenurEntwicklunginer hilosophienderFrühzeit esNikolaus1430-1440).Reihe:Beiträgeur GeschichteerPhilosophiendTheologieesMittelalters.NeueFolge, and . BegründetonClemens aeumker,ortgeführtonMartin rab-mann ndMichaelchmaus. erausgegebenonLudwig ödlundWolfgang luxen.1971,VIII und 209 Seiten, art. 38. DM(Best.Nr. 3147).VerlagAschendorffMünster.Fromhe over:DieseUntersuchungilt denfrühen hilosophischenenkansätzenesNikolaus onKues nd omit erGeneseenes roßen ndoriginalenntwurfs, endas rsteHaupt-werk Dedocta gnorantia nthält. er Verfasser eist ach, aßdiedortgeleisteteErkenntniskritikrgebnis inerlangjährigenuseinandersetzungitder naturwissen-schaftlichennkommensurabilitätslehreesSpätmittelaltersst,daßdarüber inaus iereinenotwendigeorausleistunguf emWege ur pekulativenrkenntnismetaphysikder pätwerkerbracht urde.Senger at lle Texte er Frühzeit ntersucht, iekaum dergarnicht nter hilo-sophischemesichtspunkteachtet orden ind. einneuartigerroblemansatzerhalfihm u Einsichten, elche iebisherige erspektiverweitern ndverändern. abeiwird eder chritt ethodisch larangesetztndsorgfältigbgesichert.

FERRUCioASTALDELURicercheuGoffredo'Auxerrel CompendiononimoelS

vivarium - vol. 9, nos. 1-2, 1971

Documents