No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 February 2016
Petrus Helias is well known as a grammarian since his commentary, or rather summa, of Priscian's Institutiones Grammaticae enjoyed a lasting popularity in the Middle Ages. However, his rhetorical summa, too, should be taken into consideration, since it was widely read in the Middle Ages, and was as popular as the earlier, rhetorical commentaries by William (of Champeaux?) and Thierry of Chartres (from the turn of the century and the 1130s). We do not know much about Peter's life, but according to William of Tyre he came from Poitiers and was a pupil of Thierry of Chartres; in both cases, the information is substantiated by other sources. Doctrinally he was influenced by Thierry in both grammar and rhetoric, as well as by the twelfth-century humanist, philosopher, and grammarian, William of Conches. Peter's school was sought by such ambitious students as John of Salisbury, William of Tyre, and many others. He is mentioned by the author of the Metamorphosis Goliae (ca. 1140) among the famous Parisian masters.
1 The following abbreviations will be employed:Google Scholar
CIMAGL = Cahiers de l'institut du moyen-âge grec et latin (Copenhagen).Google Scholar
Menegaldus = Menegaldus in Primam Rethoricam Ciceronis , Cologne, Erzbisch. Diöz.-u. Dombibliothek, MS 197.Google Scholar
Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum = Helias, Petrus, Petrus Helias Summa super Priscianum , ed. Reilly, Leo, Studies and Texts (Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies) 113 (Toronto, 1993).Google Scholar
Priscian, = Prisciani Grammatici Caesariensis Institutionum Grammaticarum libri 18, ed. Hertz, Martin, Latini, Grammatici, ed. Keil, Heinrick, 2–3 (Leipzig, 1855–59; repr. Hildesheim, 1961).Google Scholar
Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries = The Latin Rhetorical Commentaries by Thierry of Chartres , ed. Fredborg, Karin Margareta, Studies and Texts (Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies) 84 (Toronto, 1988).Google Scholar
Victorinus, , ed. Halm, = Q. Fabii Laurentii Victorini Explanationum in Rhetoricam M. Tullii Ciceronis libri duo , in Rhetories Latini Minores , ed. Halm, Karl (Leipzig, 1863), 153–304.Google Scholar
Victorinus, , ed. Ippolito, = Marii Victorini Explanationes in Ciceronis Rhetoricam , ed. Ippolito, A., CCL 132 (Turnhout, 2006).Google Scholar
Ward, , Ciceronian Rhetoric = Ward, John O., Ciceronian Rhetoric in Treatise, Scholion and Commentary, Typologie des sources du Moyen Age occidental 51 (Turnhout, 1995).Google Scholar
William = texts in Fredborg, Karin Margareta, “The Commentaries on Cicero's De inventione and Rhetorica ad Herennium by William of Champeaux,” CIMAGL 17 (1976): 1–39.Google Scholar
In this article, I am indebted to the kindness of Mary Sirridge, and to John O. Ward, who made the study of Petrus Helias's rhetoric possible in the first place. My earlier study, “Petrus Helias on Rhetoric,” CIMAGL 13 (1974): 31–41, is long out of print, and certainly out of date since Ward, , Ciceronian Rhetoric; Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum; Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries; and The Rhetoric of Cicero in Its Medieval and Early Renaissance Commentary Tradition , ed. Cox, Virginia and Ward, John O. (Leiden, 2006).Google Scholar
2 See Huygens, Robert B. C., “Guillaume de Tyr étudiant. Un chapitre (XIX.12) de son ‘Histoire’ retrouvé,” Latomus 21 (1962): 811–29, at 822; Gibson, Margaret, in “The Summa of Petrus Helias on Priscianus Minor,” ed. Tolson, James J. with an introduction by Gibson, Margaret, CIMAGL 27–28 (1978): 159–61; Kneepkens, C. H., “Peter Helias,” in A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages , ed. Gracia, Jorge J. E. and Noone, Timothy B. (Oxford, 2003), 512–13.Google Scholar
3 For the grammar see Hunt, Richard W., “Studies on Priscian in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries 1: Petrus Helias and His Predecessors,” Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 1.2 (1941–43): 194–231; Fredborg, Karin Margareta, “The Dependence of Petrus Helias' Summa super Priscianum on William of Conches' Glose super Priscianum,” CIMAGL 11 (1973): 1–57; Kneepkens, C. H., Het Iudicium Constructionis: Het Leerstuk van de Constructio in de 2de Helft van de 12de Eeuw, 4 vols. (Nijmegen, 1987); Kneepkens, C. H., “Grammar and Semantics in the Twelfth Century: Petrus Helias and Gilbert de la Porrée,” in The Winged Chariot: Collected Essays in the Honour of L. M. De Rijk , ed. Kardaun, Maria and Spruyt, Joke (Leiden, 2000), 237–75; Kneepkens, C. H., “Peter Helias.” The summa is edited in Petrus Helias, “The Summa” of Petrus Helias on Priscianus Minor, and Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum. Google Scholar
4 Huygens, Robert B. C., “Mitteilungen aus Handschriften,” Studi Médiévali 3. ser. 2.2 (1962): 747–72, at 771.Google Scholar
5 See Ward, , Ciceronian Rhetoric; Fredborg, Karin Margareta, “Abelard on Rhetoric,” in Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West, 1100–1540: Essays in Honour of John O. Ward , ed. Mews, Constant J., Nederman, Cary J., and Thomson, Rodney M. (Turnhout, 2003), 55–80.Google Scholar
6 Ward, , Ciceronian Rhetoric , 145 n. 30. We even have a twelfth-century drawing presenting us with a picture of his statue, BL Royal MS 15.B.IV, fol. 10va, entitled “statua Petri Helie famosissimi et fulgentissimi grammatici.” Google Scholar
7 Cf. Gibson, Margaret, “The Early Scholastic ‘Glosule’ to Priscian ‘Institutiones Grammaticae’: The Text and Its Influences,” Studi Médiévali 3. ser. 20.1 (1979): 235–54, at 247; see also Kneepkens, , Het Iudicium Constructionis, 1:17; Reilly's, Leo introduction in Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum, 16; Ward, , Ciceronian Rhetoric, 157.Google Scholar
8 Cf. Gibson, Margaret in Helias, Petrus, “Summa,” 163.Google Scholar
9 James, M. R., Descriptive Catalogue of the MSS of Pembroke College (Cambridge, 1905), 77. C was copied in Bury St. Edmunds shortly after 1200, cf. Thomson, Rodney H., “The Library of Bury St. Edmunds Abbey in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,” Speculum 47 (1972): 617–45, at 639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Schum, W., Beschreibendes Verzeichnis d. Amplonianischen Handschriften-Sammlung zu Erfurt (Berlin, 1887), 342–43: “1–41 Item excerpta Herzonis de summa Victorini ex utraque rethorica Marci Tullii Cyceronis [quoted from Amplonius's fourteenth-century library catalogue of Collegium Amplonianum. For the identity of Herzo, see Manitius, Max, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, 3 vols. (Munich, 1931), 3:750, and further references in Victorinus, ed. Ippolito, , XXII n. 42. Since Ippolito has not consulted the manuscript, there is a misunderstanding of the actual content of E1 ]. Anfang wie Quarto 71 nr. 3., Ende, , ‘quidem sufficienter dictum est.’” Google Scholar
11 The transposition covers the discussion of the exordium, narratio, argumentatio, and the very beginning of reprehensio: “Docet deinde captare beniuolentiam a persona auditorum … assumptorum reprehensione,” corresponding to C fols. 88vb–94rb/S fols. 102v–117v.Google Scholar
12 Schum, , Verzeichnis d. Amplonianischen , 345: “Anf. wie Q.71 nr. 3. Ende: quidem sufficienter dictum est. In feiner Minuskel der 1. Hälfte des 13 Jh. Auf. vollst. Schema geschr.; ohne Schmuck; bunte Initialen fehlen.” Google Scholar
13 Fol. 58r: “Expliciunt Rationes Petri Elie super libro<s> rethoricorum ueterum Tulii.” Cf. Kristeller, Paul O., Iter italicum (London, 1967), 2:422: “mbr. Misc. XV. Petr. Elia, comm. on Cicero's Rhetoric. Stosch H 6. Mercati, , “Codici latini Pico,” [= Studi e Testi 75 (Città del Vaticano, 1938), 248: “membranaceo e uiene dello Stosch. In esso ci sono, secondo la sottoscrizione, fol. 58r le ‘Rationes Petri Elie super Libro Rethoricoum ueterum Tullii’ principianti: icut ordo…”].Google Scholar
14 Kristeller, Paul O., Iter Italicum (London, 1965), 1:400: “Summa rhetoricae Ciceronis.” Google Scholar
15 Kristeller, , ibid., 400: “Anon., commentarii super veterem rhetoricam”; Ward, , Ciceronian Commentaries, 145 n. 301; Ward, , “Alan (of Lille?) as Rhetor: Unity from Diversity,” in Atti del Convegno Internazionale “Dictamen, Poetria and Cicero: Coherence and Diversification” Bologna, 10–11 Maggio 2002 , ed. Montefusco, Lucia Calboli, Papers on Rhetoric 5 (Rome, 2003), 204.Google Scholar
16 Kristeller, , ibid., 31: “Commentum super Rhetorica veteri secundum divum Augustinum se referentem ad opinionem Victorini.” Google Scholar
17 Manegold's commentary is found in the Cologne MS, (n. 1 above), now available on http://www.ceec.uni-koeln.de/, and in Heidelberg Univ. bibl. MS 100, fols. 1r–30v; a fragment is copied in one of the manuscripts of William (of Champeaux?), Com Inv. rhet., York, Minster MS XVI. M.7, fol. 1ra–va (s. xii), and another fragment inserted between the Com. Inv. rhet. and the Com. Rhet. Her. by Thierry in Berlin, Bibl. Preussischer Kulturbesitz MS lat. oct. 161, fol. 36ra–va (s. xii); a more magisterial version is found in Trier Bistumsarchiv, MS 18, fols. 81–125 (s. xii), followed by his Com. Rhet. Her. fols. 125–46v (s. xii), cf. Ward, , in Cox, and Ward, , Rhetoric of Cicero (n. 1 above), 70.Google Scholar
18 See Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 179.6–12; ed. Ippolito, , 47.7–12 (n. 1 above), corresponding to Peter's, “Sex autem sunt capitula in quibus totus inuentionis tractatus consumitur …,” printed in Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric, 156–57; for Plato's and Aristotle's influence on the prologue, see Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries, 56.3–4.Google Scholar
19 Alanus's commentary on Rhetorica ad Herennium is even richer in quotations, cf. Caplan, Harry, “A Mediaeval Commentary on the Rhetorica ad Herennium,” in Of Eloquence: Studies in Ancient and Mediaeval Rhetoric by Harry Caplan , ed. King, Anne and North, Helen (Ithaca, NY, 1970), 247–70, at 260–62; in grammar, Ralph of Beauvais and the anonymous gloss “Promisimus” stand out by virtue of the wealth of literary examples, even from the Chanson de Roland; cf. “Promisimus,” in “‘Promisimus’: an Edition,” ed. Fredborg, Karin Margareta, CIMAGL 70 (1999): 81–228.Google Scholar
20 Cf. Ward, , Ciceronian Rhetoric , 136, and Villa, Claudia, “Tra Fabula e historia: Manegoldo di Lautenbach e il maestro di Orazio,” Aevum 70 (1996): 245–56.Google Scholar
21 Dickey, Mary, “Some Commentaries on the De inventione and Ad Herennium of the Eleventh and Early Twelfth Centuries,” Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 6 (1968): 1–41, at 10.Google Scholar
22 See Helias's, Petrus Accessus, Materia in Appendix 1: “Materia duplex … ars non potest habere materiam ex qua fit, … ars enim scientia est, ideoque simplex quoddam est — quare non habet materiam unde fiat. Si enim haberet materia unde fieret, oporteret ut forma illi materie adueniret ut inde fieret ars. Itaque ars quiddam compositum esset ex materia et forma, quod ratione caret.” Cf. Menegaldus, fol. 8r: “sicut fabri materia est ferrum ubi fit; unde fit incus, malleoli et forcipes … illud dicimus materiam huius artis in qua ostendenda omnis ars uersatur, id est precepta dantur.” Google Scholar
23 The constitutio indicates the rhetorical procedure adopted by the orators, that is an sit/coniecturalis (where the focus is primarily on whether he did or did not do the deed); or quid sit/finitionis (where the focus is on defining exactly what he did); or quale sit/qualitatis (where the focus is on the circumstances pertaining to the deed). Constitutio is variously defined and translated. Hubbell, H. M., translated it as “issue,” and adds the note (a) that it is a translation of the Greek stasis and was supplanted in Cicero's later writings by status (Cicero, De inventione, De optimo Genere Oratorum, Topica, Loeb Series [Cambridge, MA, 1960], 20). Leeman, Anton D., “Rhetorical Status in Horace, Serm. 2, 1,” Rhetoric Revalued: Papers from the International Society for the History of Rhetoric , ed. Vickers, Brian, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 19 (New York, 1982): 159–63, at 161, uses “status” with the following useful examples: ”… status –coniecturalis, finitionis, or qualitatis, the three statuses in descending order of strength: the client has not done the deed (say murder) he is accused of (coniecturalis); or he has done the deed, but it falls under a different definition (murder of a traitor, finitionis); or he has done the deed, but he had more or less good reasons for it (e.g., murder in self-defense or other extenuating circumstances, qualitatis).” My own suggestion is the somewhat homespun “focus” of the case, because any rhetorical case may have additional, minor “foci,” the so-called “status incidentes,” e.g., slipping into a definition used in written law, even if the main constitutio chosen is the conjectural one (“Whether my client, who was not at the right place at the right time for this alleged murder, should be charged with homicide in the technical sense of the law?”). Petrus Helias himself gives a number of very interesting definitions of status from classical and late classical authorities on rhetoric and law, edited in Appendix 2.Google Scholar
24 Boet, ., De diff. top. PL 64:1185A–B, ed. Stump, Eleonore, Boethius's De topicis differentiis: Translated, with Notes and Essays on the Text (Ithaca, 1978), 46.Google Scholar
25 As Petrus Helias uses the topic of the influence of false friends (locus a victu) and illustrates it with a quote from Sallust In Ciceronem 1.1.2, slandering Cicero for learning his immoderate rhetoric from Piso, M., C fol. 90vb, S fol. 108r, V fol. 29v, E1 fol. 23va, E2 fol. 72v: “A uictu … ‘Numquid apud M. Pisonem hanc immoderatam eloquenciam iactura pudicicie perdidicisti?’” Google Scholar
26 Menegaldus, fol. 10r (Inv. rhet. 1.7.9): “Est etiam notandum quia inuencionem longius hic quam superius accipit. Nam ibi (supra, Inv. rhet. 1.7.9) accipitur ut sit cogitacio RERUM UERARUM AUT UERISIMILIUM, QUAE CAUSAM PROBABLILEM REDDUNT, quae proprie dicitur inuencio. Hic autem accipitur inuencio quantum ad materiam scilicet ut ipsum thema, quae est materia questionis, sciat inuenire et questionem inde formare, hoc inuento sciat inuenire in quam causam questio illa cadat, scilicet an sit iudicialis an demonstratiua uel deliberatiua. Deinde cum unaquaque harum trium habeat sub se quattuor speciales constitutiones: coniecturalem, diffinitiuam, translatiuam, generalem, sciat inuenire in quam harum cadat, quod pertinet ad materiam. Ordo littere: Inventio quae princeps est OMNIUM PARCIUM POTISSIMUM CONSIDERETUR QUALIS ESSE DEBEAT IN OMNI GENERE id est uarietate causarum uel in generali causa illud est considerandum quid <pro> iudiciali uel deliberatiuo uel <de> monstratiuo genere sit inuenire”; and Manegold in William: York, Minster, MS XVI. M.7, fol. 41bisvb (Inv. rhet. 2.37.110): “Secundum magistrum Menegaldum sic: Differunt genere quia aliud genus est iudiciale, aliud deliberatiuum, et forma id est constitutionibus. Illa enim tria quasi informia formantur in constitutionibus, et ita ad suos fines tendunt, et sic differunt forma. Iudicialis enim forma est que in aliqua constitutione tendit ad iustum uel iniustum, quod numquam alia faciunt.” +iudiciali+uel+deliberatiuo+uel++monstratiuo+genere+sit+inuenire”;+and+Manegold+in+William:+York,+Minster,+MS+XVI.+M.7,+fol.+41bisvb+(Inv.+rhet.+2.37.110):+“Secundum+magistrum+Menegaldum+sic:+Differunt+genere+quia+aliud+genus+est+iudiciale,+aliud+deliberatiuum,+et+forma+id+est+constitutionibus.+Illa+enim+tria+quasi+informia+formantur+in+constitutionibus,+et+ita+ad+suos+fines+tendunt,+et+sic+differunt+forma.+Iudicialis+enim+forma+est+que+in+aliqua+constitutione+tendit+ad+iustum+uel+iniustum,+quod+numquam+alia+faciunt.”>Google Scholar
27 Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 260.9–21; ed. Ippolito, , 183.9–24.Google Scholar
28 De diff. top. PL 64:1207C.Google Scholar
29 Menegaldus, , fol. 41r–v (Inv. rhet. 2.4.12): “Verbi gratia. Quidam uidit iuuenem exeuntem de lupanari coniugem suam subsecutam. Ductum iuuenem in causa accusat cum coniuge sua concubuisse. /fol. 41v/ Ecce iudiciale genus in coniecturali constitutione. Deinde, postquam iuuenis ille de facto se nequit expurgare, transfert se ad diffinitiuam constitutionem, non debere uidelicet uocari adulterium quod in lupanari esset commissum. Ecce in eodem negotio, iudicale genus consideratur in diffinitiua constitutione quod prius conside-rabatur (MS desiderabatur) in coniecturali.” Google Scholar
30 Menegaldus, , fol. 11v (Inv. rhet. 1.10.13): “Non enim causa ad constitutionem, sed gonstitutio ad causam accommodatur. Causa namque per se informis est, nisi postquam /uel/ coniecturalis uel diffinitiua uel aliqua constitutionum accedit ad determinandum genus quod per se fuit incertum et confusum, et sic accomodantur causae id est quiddam commodum ei faciunt.” Google Scholar
31 William, , 29 (Inv. rhet. 1.10.13): “Itaque diuerse constitutiones non possunt se pati in eodem inferiori, sed deliberatio res uniuersalis bene suscipit coniecturalem constitutionem ad eandem causam faciendam, et item eadem res uniuersalis, scilicet deliberatio, suscipit definitiuam ad aliam causam faciendam, et eadem generalem in alio inferiori, eadem translatiuam in alio inferiori. Itaque eadem res suscipit omnes constitutiones, sed una constitutio non suscipit aliam constitutionem ad unam causam faciendam nec una plures ad plures causas indiuiduales faciendas.” Google Scholar
32 Fredborg, , “Abelard on Rhetoric,” (n. 5 above), at 59–60.Google Scholar
33 Abelard, , Historia Calamitatum , ed. Monfrin, Jacques (Paris, 1967), 65.80–91.Google Scholar
34 John Marenbon, Cf., “Life, Milieu, and Intellectual Contexts,” in The Cambridge Companion to Abelard , ed. Brower, Jeffrey E. and Guilfoy, Kevin (Cambridge, 2004), 13–44, at 33, and nn. 56, 57; Rosier-Catach, Irène, “The Glosulae in Priscianum and Its Tradition,” in Papers in Memory of Vivien Law , ed. McLelland, Nicola and Linn, Andrew (Munich, 2004), 81–99 and Rosier-Catach, , “Les Glosulae in Priscianum: sémantique et universaux,” Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica médiévale 19 (SISMEL Florence, 2008); 123–77; Ward, , in Cox, and Ward, , Cicero, 70, epilogue in William, , 33–39.Google Scholar
35 Ward, , Ciceronian Rhetoric , 109, 166; Ward, in Cox, and Ward, , Cicero, 25.Google Scholar
36 Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries , 89.29–35 (Inv. rhet. 1.10.13): “Pars autem causae constitutio dicitur, non quod integraliter causam componat, sed ideo quod quattuor constitutiones causam generaliter dividunt in singulas causas — haec quidem hanc, illa vero illam, alia vero aliam constituunt — quemadmodum substantiales differentiae partes generis dicuntur, non quod de his genus praedicatur, sed eiusdem generis divisivae esse perspiciuntur.” In the initial definition of causa and constitutio, Thierry wants constitutio to be “what a case hinges on”: “Constitutio est quaestio ex qua causa nascitur, id est dubitatio principalis … et idcirco status dicitur, quoniam circa idem statur, id est mora fit” (80.57–61).Google Scholar
37 Cf. Ward, John O., “Alan (of Lille)” (n. 15 above), 141–227, at 183: “Peter was his own man, had developed his own lecturing style and was deeply influenced by the lemmata/litteral commentaries of the age of William of Champeaux.” Google Scholar
38 Cf. Accessus, Artifex , Appendix 1: “Est artifex huius artis orator.” Google Scholar
39 Accessus, Species , Appendix 1: “Et hee forme dicuntur species, id est forme artis non quod artem informent, sed quoniam per artem attribuit artifex illas formas materie ut ‘artis’ pro causatiuo genitiuo accipiatur, unde habetur in Quarto Topicorum (PL 64:1207B) quod species ex rethorica ueniunt in causam ideo scilicet quod secundum artem et per earn formas predictas artifex materie attribuit. Species ergo artis sunt genera causarum sicut ex predictis manifestum est.” Google Scholar
40 Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum , 192.52–54.Google Scholar
41 Accessus, Materia , Appendix 1: “Sed queretur utrum hoc uniuersale ‘causa’ sit materia artis, uel causa omnis, uel si aliqua, una uel plures nec omnis. Sed quoniam rethorica sola particularia pertractat, ideo nullum uniuersale eius est materia; posset uero dici quod nominatum hoc nomine ‘causa’ ita tamen quod nullum eius sit materia. Sed potius dicendum est quod omnis causa materia eius est ita quod unaqueque, quoniam unamquamque earum pertractat artifex secundum artem.” Google Scholar
42 See the beginning of Appendix 2 below, and Ward, , Ciceronian Rhetoric , 53; Ward, , in Cox, and Ward, , Cicero (n. 1 above), 47–49; Hohmann, Hanns, “Ciceronian Rhetoric and the Law,” in Cox, and Ward, , Cicero, 193–207.Google Scholar
43 This all began with a garbled reference to Quintilian 3.6.24 (“Sed ex his omnibus prima quattuor ad status pertinere, cetera ad quosdam locos argumentorum videntur”) C fol. 86rb–va, V fols. 11v–12r, S fol. 96r, E1 fol. 8ra, E2 fol. 52r (Inv. rhet. 1.9.12): “Quoniam uero rethorica quodam modo quasi defluit ex arte logica, nititur Quintillianus constitutiones quatuor sub decem predicamentis redigere (includere V, uel sub decem predicamentis includere add SE2 ) hoc modo: Dicit enim: constitutio coniecturalis et diffinitiua ad predicamentum substantie quodam modo pertinent. In illa enim queritur an sit, in ista uero quid sit, quorum utrumque ad rei substantiam habet pertinere. Generalis uero constitutio sub tribus predicamentis includitur quoniam in ea queritur de qualitate, in hoc ad predicamentum qualitatis pertinet. Et quoniam in ea quoque (om SE2 ) de quantitate queritur quare ad predicamentum quantitatis refertur. In hoc rursus quod in ea queritur de comparatione sub predicamento Ad aliquid includitur. Translatiua autem constitutio ad cetera sex que restant predicamenta redigitur.” Cf. Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries , 85.17–21.Google Scholar
44 C fol. 92vb, V fol. 36r, S fol. 113r, E 1 fol. 28va, E2 fol. 82r (Inv. rhet. 1.29.45): “Est autem complexio quidem secundum eos sillogismus qui ab antiquis (Hier. Epist. 69.2, used in Aug. Contra Cresconium 1.13.16, PL 43:455) ‘cornutus’ dicitur propter duplicem quam habet conclusionem, ut si de aliquo proponas ‘aut probus est aut inprobus’ et utramque partem ad aliquod inconveniens trahas, id est ad aliquid quod adversarius (concedere add SE1 E2 ) pro inconvenienti habeat, ut si exequendo sic dicas ‘Si probus est, cur accusas?,’ contra eum scilicet qui accusaret eum. ‘Si (sin SE2 ) inprobus, cur tamen familiariter eo uteris?’ contra eundem scilicet si ab eius familiaritate non posset divelli. Dicitur autem a dialeticis indirecta ratiocinatio.Google Scholar
“Sunt etiam qui dicant quod complexio est species divisionis, disiuncta (disiunctio SE2 ) scilicet cuius utraque pars reprehenditur (Thierrry, Rhetorical Commentaries, 149.2). … Quidam enim ausi sunt et complexionem, enumeracionem et simplicem conclusionem locos argumentorum (Note Dunelmenses 6, in Thierry, ibid.) … Illud quoque a quibusdam dictum est quod complexio, enumeratio et simplex conclusio loca sunt non argumentorum sed necessitatis eorum.” Cf. Thierry, , ibid. 149.96–150.20, the logician ‘William of Lucca,’ in Fredborg, Karin Margareta, “Rhetoric and Dialectic,” in Cox, and Ward, , Cicero, 165–92, at 176–78.Google Scholar
45 It should be noted that in Peter's Priscian summa, his views on substance underwent a considerable doctrinal sophistication, cf. Kneepkens, , “Grammar and Semantics” (n. 3 above), 239–55.Google Scholar
46 Cf. the “res verbi” = lexical force as differently instantiated by the infinitive and by the other moods in Priscian 18.47 (227.31–228.4): “Igitur a constructione quoque vim rei verborum, id est nominis, quod significat ipsam rem, habere infinitum possumus dinoscere, res au/tem in personas distributa facit alios verbi motus. Quid est enim aliud ‘curro, curris, currit’ nisi ‘cursum ago, agis, agit?’ Itaque omnes modi in hoc [id est infinitum] transsumuntur sive resolvuntur, ut ‘ambulo’: indico me ambulare.” Google Scholar
Peter's commentary on this passage runs as follows: “Infinitivum etiam adiungitur alii infinitivo, interposito ‘est’ substantivo verbo, ut ‘Currere est agere.’ ‘Currere’ autem non est aliud quam ‘cursus,’ et idcirco idem est ac si diceretur, ‘Cursus est actio.’ Unde apparet quod infinitivum rem verbi nominat et quod omnis modus in eum resolvitur, sicut dictum est. Que res verbi, ut ait Priscianus, distributa per diversas personas facit diversos motus verbi, id est declinationes. Secundum enim quod actus verbi distribuitur per primam et secundam et terciam personam fit eius declinatio. Quid enim aliud est ‘curro ris rit’ nisi ‘Cursum ago,’ ‘Cursum agis,’ ‘Cursum agit,’ et ita in diversas personas distribuo ‘cursum’” [my italics] (Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum , 1032.94–1032.3).Google Scholar
47 C fols. 92vb–93ra, V fol. 36v, S fol. 113r–v, E1 fol. 28va, E2 fol. 82r–v (Inv. rhet. I.29.45): “Sed nos Victorini sententiam (Victorinus, ed. Halm, , 231.8–234.14; ed. Ippolito, , 136.7–140.138) preponentes quomodo hunc exposuerit locum explanabimus … de argumentorum generibus quedam ab eodem expositore subtilissime dicta a principio repetentes enodabimus: Tria, inquit, in confirmatione nobis traduntur: materia, argumentum, argumentatio …. Ait enim quod omnia nomina et verba res habent suas, habent (habeant … habeant SE2 ) et qualitates id est quasdam quas intelligere dant rerum suarum (om. GVE1 ) proprietates, ut si dicas ‘occidit,’ hoc ipsum ‘occidere’ res quedam est. Qualitas autem eius et, que in ipsa ex uocabulo intelligitur, asperitas quedam est et immanitas. Itaque cum res, inquit, nuda est et cum in se et sine respectu qualitatis sue consideratur, nichil aliud quam res est, id est nichil argumenti habet facere. Ita autem ex ea facere possumus argumentum, si eius qualitatem (qualitates SE2 ) inspiciamus. Quod subtilissime dictum fuisse nulla dubitatione tenetur.Google Scholar
“Cum rerum etenim qualitates sibi conueniunt faciunt argumentum. Cum autem non conueniunt, tunc omnino argumentum non faciunt. Ut si cum posuerimus ‘Occidit,’ deinde ponamus ‘inimicum.’ Rursus (est enim SE2 ) ‘inimicus’ res est (om. SE2 ) cuius rei qualitas asperitas quedam est atque crudelitas, quomodo eius rei que est ‘occidere’ qualitas est asperitas quedam et immanitas. Ideoque quoniam utriusque rei qualitas sibi conuenit, factum est argumentum, id est ‘Occidit quia inimicus fuit.’ Ita ergo cum due similes qualitates sibi fuerint coniuncte, faciunt, inquit, aliquam qualitatem, que qualitas est ut argumentum probabile esse uideatur, hoc est (et hoc etiam SE2 ) faciunt argumenti probabilitatem. Itaque si dicas: ‘Occidit quia gladio percussit,’ argumentum est quoniam qualitas utriusque rei similis est. Si uero dixeris ‘Occidit quia virga percussit,’ quoniam virga non habet qualitatem ei que est occidendi similem, idcirco qualitates horum in unum coniuncte non faciunt argumentum.” Google Scholar
48 Hadot, Cf. Pierre, Marius Victorinus: Recherches sur sa vie et ses œuvres (Paris, 1971), 93–94.Google Scholar
49 See a somewhat parallel discussion in Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum , on the signification and definition of the verb (196–99), and his own solution which allows verbs to have various semantic (connotational) features involving other accidentia than signifying action and passion (in an Aristotelian sense), 200.19–40, and Fredborg, Karin Margareta and Kneepkens, C. H., “Grammatica Porretana,” CIMAGL 57 (1988): 11–67, at 62–63.Google Scholar
50 C fol. 93ra, V fols. 36v-37r, S fol. 113v, E1 fol. 28va, E2 fol. 82vb (Inv. rhet. 1.29.45): “Complexio, inquit (Victorinus, ed. Halm, , 233.10–12; ed. Ippolito, , 138.84–86), est forma dictionis posita in rationibus necessariis, que duplici latere constat, unde quicquid fuerit electum, necesse est ut sit contrarium. Forma, inquit, dictionis, id est modus dicendi et tractandi argumentum rationibus necessariis, cuius latera duo appellat posita contra se cum diverso in (cum SE2 ) eadem disiuncta. Quorum utrumlibet assumatur, necesse est ut quod displicet adversario consequatur. Duobus autem modis proponuntur secundum eundem Victorinum complexio, nunc per simplex, nunc per necessarium (cf. Rhet. Her. 2.24.38). Per simplex cum non proponitur disiuncta, sed sola ipsius executio, ut ‘Si probus est, cur accusas?,’ ‘Si improbus, cur uteris?’ (si … uteris om. SE2 ); per necessarium hoc modo: ‘Aut probum aut improbum esse necesse est concedas.’ Vel ita: ‘Aut probus est aut improbus.’ In hac enim disiunctione quedam intelligitur necessitas.” Google Scholar
51 The best introduction to M. Victorinus and his philosophical and theological works is still P. Hadot's fine book from 1971 mentioned above (n. 48). Hadot calls Victorinus's substitution of “quality” for “accidentia” typically Stoic, and later deals with his more Neoplatonic discussion of definition and the subdivisions of definitions into substantial and non-substantial (ibid., 171). But see also Pronay, Andreas, C. Marius Victorinus, Liber de definitionibus: Eine spätantike Theorie der Definition und des Definierens: Mit Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar (Frankfurt am Main, 1997) and Markschies, Christoff, “C. Marius Victorinus,” Der Neue Pauly, 16 vols. (Stuttgart, 1999) 7:911.Google Scholar
52 Boet, ., In Ciceronis Topica Commentaria , PL 64:1071D: “Quaestio igitur, ut dictum est, an uxori Fabiae omne argentum legatum sit: subiectum, uxor Fabia; praedicatum vero, legatum argentum. Argumentum ab eo quod est in ipso de quo quaeritur, id est ab eo quod est in uxore de qua quaeritur. Est autem in uxore de qua quaeritur species uxoris (viz. materfamilias), ea scilicet quae in manum non convenit quae ad earn affecta est. Omnis enim species ad suum genus refertur, id est forma; factum est igitur argumentum ab eo quod est in ipso, ab affectis, a forma generis. Maxima proprositio est, quod de una specie dicitur, id in alteram non convenire.” Google Scholar
53 C fol. 90ra, V fol. 28r–v, S fol. 107r–v, E1 fol. 22va–b, E2 fol. 71r–v (Inv. rhet. 1.24.34): “Bona uero similitudine locos ita communiter tractatos ‘siluam’ apellat. Sicut enim silua rudis est atque confusa, ita quoque tractatus iste locorum nec (uero SE2 ) per certas constitutiones distinguitur nec per certa causarum genera. Eademque similitudine appellat ‘materiam’ argumenta sic communiter tractata. Hic enim tantummodo prebet argumentandi materiam non secundum singulas constitutiones distinguendo argumenta …. Vide ergo quod sicut in predicatiua questione dialectica queritur an predicatus terminus inhereat subiecto, ita quoque circa personam et negotium questio rethorica uersatur, ut in rethorica questione sit persona quasi terminus subiectus, negotium quasi predicatus. Unde dicit Boecius in Commento super Topica Tullii quod ibi ‘Fabie uxori legatum est argentum.’ ‘Fabie uxori’ subiectus est terminus, ‘legatum est argentum’ predicatus (PL 64:1071C), unde plures maxime turbantur. Secundum artem namque logicam ‘argentum’ subiectus est terminus, ‘legatum Fabie uxori’ est terminus predicatus, ‘est’ uero copula. Vide ergo quod Tullius more rethoris tractauerat Topica eo modo quo ad rethoricam ualent, ut scilicet inde (unde SE2 ) posset perpendi qui loci rethorici sub quibus dialecticis includantur et ex quibus emanent, Bo<ecius> itaque commentum super illum Tullii librum conscribens ut eius proposito deseruiret, secundum artis rethorice proprietatem dixit quod ‘Fabie uxori’ subiectus est terminus, ‘legatum est argentum’ predicatus. Rethorica namque questio est an Fabie uxori legatum est argentum. In causa uero in qua tractabatur hec (hoc C hic E2 om. V) controuersia persona erat Fabia uxor, ideoque quasi terminus subiectus. Negotium uero legatio argenti, ideoque ‘legatum et argentum’ quasi terminus predicatus. Et merito. Nam sicut per logicam questionem queritur ut subiectus terminus predicato inhereat, sic quoque per rethoricam questionem queritur utrum hoc uel illud negotium insit huic uel illi persone (et [merito-persone] om. CV). Ut ergo procedat ratio, attributa persone sunt conueniencia ipsi per que aliquid de ipsa comprobatur persona, attributa uero negotio sunt conueniencia ipso negotio per que aliquod comprobatur de ipso, sicut iam lacius explicabitur.” Repeated later C fol. 92rb, V fol. 35r, S fol. 112r, E1 fol. 27va, E2 fol. 80r.+itaque+commentum+super+illum+Tullii+librum+conscribens+ut+eius+proposito+deseruiret,+secundum+artis+rethorice+proprietatem+dixit+quod+‘Fabie+uxori’+subiectus+est+terminus,+‘legatum+est+argentum’+predicatus.+Rethorica+namque+questio+est+an+Fabie+uxori+legatum+est+argentum.+In+causa+uero+in+qua+tractabatur+hec+(hoc+C+hic+E2+om.+V)+controuersia+persona+erat+Fabia+uxor,+ideoque+quasi+terminus+subiectus.+Negotium+uero+legatio+argenti,+ideoque+‘legatum+et+argentum’+quasi+terminus+predicatus.+Et+merito.+Nam+sicut+per+logicam+questionem+queritur+ut+subiectus+terminus+predicato+inhereat,+sic+quoque+per+rethoricam+questionem+queritur+utrum+hoc+uel+illud+negotium+insit+huic+uel+illi+persone+(et+[merito-persone]+om.+CV).+Ut+ergo+procedat+ratio,+attributa+persone+sunt+conueniencia+ipsi+per+que+aliquid+de+ipsa+comprobatur+persona,+attributa+uero+negotio+sunt+conueniencia+ipso+negotio+per+que+aliquod+comprobatur+de+ipso,+sicut+iam+lacius+explicabitur.”+Repeated+later+C+fol.+92rb,+V+fol.+35r,+S+fol.+112r,+E1+fol.+27va,+E2+fol.+80r.>Google Scholar
54 Virgil, , Ovid, , Statius, , Lucan in Thierry, Rhetorical Commentaries , 131–33, but also long examples of his own from Stat. Theb. 2.554–62, 2.496–99.Google Scholar
55 C fol. 91 vb, V fol. 33r, S fol. 110v, E1 fol. 26ra, E2 fol. 77r (Inv. rhet. 1.21.29): “Vide ergo quod sicut hec circumstancia ‘Quis’ includit et continet omnia attributa persone, ita quoque hec circumstancia ‘Quid’ includit summam negocii et aministracionem negocii triplicem. Hec enim ostendit quid factum sit. Illa uero circumstancia que est ‘Cur’ includit causam ratiocinatiuam et impulsiuam. Utraque enim ostendit cur factum sit. Illa uero circumstanticia que dicitur ‘Ubi’ continet locum. Locus enim ostendit ubi factum sit. Circumstancia uero que dicitur ‘Quando’ includit et continet tempus et occasionem quoniam horum utrumque probat quando quid fieri potuit. Circumstancia quoque que appellatur ‘Quomodo’ includit modum. Illa uero que dicitur ‘Quibus auxiliis’ facultatem includit” (cf. Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries , 52.74–75, 123.43–54).Google Scholar
56 Boethius, , PL 64:1214A–B.Google Scholar
57 C fol. 92va–b, V fol. 35r–v, S fol. 112r, E1 fol. 28rb–va, E2 fols. 80r–81r. The inspiration is from Boethius's schemata, De diff. top. 3, PL 64:1201–04.Google Scholar
58 d'Anna, Gabrielle, “Abelardo e Cicerone,” Studi Médiévali 3. ser. 10 (1969): 333–419; Rosier-Catach, Irène, “Abélard et les Grammariens: sur le verbe substantif et la predication,” Vivarium 41 (2003): 175–248; Fredborg, , “Abelard on Rhetoric,” (n. 5 above).Google Scholar
59 Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 236.21; ed. Ippolito, , 143.244; Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries , 151.57–60.Google Scholar
60 C fol. 93rb, V fol. 38r, S fol. 114v, E1 fol. 30ra, E2 fol. 84r–v (Inv. rhet. 1.30.47): “Similitudo. Cum ea sibi conferimus que ‘ad aliquid’ sunt (Priscian 2.5.28, GL 2, 60.19), id est que in quodam respectu ad se dicuntur, ut ‘locare’ et ‘conducere,’ ‘uendere’ et ‘emere.’ Locat enim aliquis respectu conducentis; conducit autem quis respectu locantis. Locat enim qui precium recipit, qui uero dat conducit. Hec ergo uerba ad inuicem spectant. Fit autem ex his argumentum probabile, ut quoniam si Rhodiis turpe non fuit portorium locare, nec Hermacreonti quidem conducere. Quod ut totum absoluatur. Portorium erat officium exportandi e nauibus et reportandi empta uel uendita. Quodcumque autem officium erat, uilissimum (esset uile SE2 ), sed magne commoditatis” (cf. Menegaldus, fol. 26v [Inv. rhet. 1.30.47]: “Portorium est locus iuxta portum in quem naues exportantur ut reficiantur.”).Google Scholar
61 Cox, and Ward, , Cicero (n. 1 above), 452–64.Google Scholar
62 See Ward, , “Alan (of Lille?)” (n. 15 above), at 154–55.Google Scholar
63 Helias, Cf. Petrus, Super Priscianum , 62.18–20: “Materia cuiuslibet artis est id in quo artifex agit secundum artem. Non enim arti attribuenda materia unde fiat, sed potius in qua fiat, sicut alibi aperte demonstratum est.” Google Scholar
64 Victorinus, Cf., ed. Halm, , 170.26–31; ed. Ippolito, , 32.127–31; Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum, 61.6.Google Scholar
65 “Etsi ea is “in fact Petrus Helias himself”; the concomitant Inv. rhet. gloss Ista videnda “could be a different reportatio of his lectures, or lectures by someone more or less contemporary” (Ward, , “Alan (of Lille?),” 159, 211).Google Scholar
66 Ward, , “Alan (of Lille?),” 192–95: Variant version of Alanus in Venice, Bibl. Marc. Laur. MS XI.23 [4686] Ista videnda (on Inv. Rhet.) and Etsi ea (on Rhet. Her.); Vienna, Nat. Bibl., MS 240 Circa artem rhetoricam; Uppsala Univ. Bibl. MS C 928; and Stockholm, Kung. Bibl. MS Va 10.Google Scholar
Principal “long” version in BL, Harley, MS 6324, fols. 1ra–68va (s. xiv); Perugia, Bibl. Com. Augusta, MS D.55 (237), 75 fols. (s. xiv). Variant “long” version in Breslau, Bibl. Uniwersytecka, MS R 71 (CXXXI = S.I.4.22), fols. 1–61va (s. xiii).Google Scholar
Principal “short” version in Cremona, Bibl. Governativa MS 125, 98 fols. (s. xv); Florence, Bibl. Med. Laur., Plut 71, MS 4, fols. 6–69va (s. xiv), and Florence, Bibl. Med. Laur., Plut. 90, MS 87 sup., fols. 1r–59v (s. xiii) (marginal gloss); Oxford, Magdalen Coll. MS 82, fols. 1–104vb (s. xv); Paris, BNF, MS lat. 7757, 146 fols. (s. xv); cf. Ward, in Cox, and Ward, , Cicero , 74–75.Google Scholar
67 For the spurious works, see Reilly in Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum , 13; also Gibson, in Helias, Petrus, “The Summa” (n. 2 above), 161.Google Scholar
68 Cf. Ward, , “Alan (of Lille?),” 166–73.Google Scholar
69 C fol. 85va, S fol. 94r, V fols. 8v-9r (E1 fol. 9rb has a lacuna on Inv. rhet. 1.11.14–12.17) E2 fol. 48v (Inv. rhet. 1.11.14): “Ut si ueniret nunc in controuersiam an ordinati a Petro Leonis essent ad ordines promouendi, negotialis esset constitutio, quoniam de nouo iure formando. De huiusmodi enim re nullum ius constitutum fuit adhuc, quoniam ante ipsum ([ipsum] tempora hec SE2 illa tempora V) non est auditum scisma huiusmodi (huius C om. V) in ecclesia Dei. Per maius tamen uel minus uel simile posset fortasse conici quod ius super hoc esset constituendum ex illo beati Britti facto quia (qui SE2 ) de diocesi sua uiolenter expulsus, licet duo uel tres archiepiscopi interim sedi sue succederent, reuocatus tamen postea et omnibus misericorditer indulsit et quos illi ordinaverant ad ordines promouit.” Google Scholar
70 Chronicon Mauriniacense PL 180:169B; cf. Vitalis, Orderic, PL 188:932C-D.Google Scholar
71 Ward, , Ciceronian Rhetoric , 218.Google Scholar
72 Cf. Gibson, in Helias, Petrus, “The Summa,” 159; Ward, , “Alan (of Lille?),” 205 n. 241: “On balance, then, it seems safe to conclude that Fredborg was right, and that Petrus Helias was lecturing on rhetoric during the 1130s when John of Salisbury had it from him ‘plenius.’” Google Scholar
73 Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum , 62.19–20: “Materia cuiuslibet artis est id in quo artifex agit secundum artem. Non enim arti attribuenda est materia unde fiat, sed potius in qua fit, sicut alibi aperte demonstratum est” (my italics). In the grammar he sometimes harks back to Victorinus's commentary on the De inventione, e.g., concerning the very definition of grammar: “Grammatica ergo est scientia gnara recte scribendi et recte loquendi,” ibid. 61.6, where Victorinus (ed. Halm, , 170.30; ed. Ippolito, , 32.127–8) has: “Grammatica ars est gnara partium orationis, gnara syllabarum, gnara litterarum, per hanc discimus omnia vitia devitare.” William's gloss on Priscianus Minor, only to be found in the late version, is not known to Petrus Helias (cf. Fredborg, , “The Dependence” [n. 3 above], 5). In Leo Reilly's edition of the Priscianus Minor summa, there are some curious references to William of Conches, many of which amount to be listing where William discusses the same topic. However, what William actually says at those points is in no way comparable to Petrus Helias's statements, e.g., on barbarisms and soloecismus in Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum, 489.49–66 compared to William's gloss in Paris, BNF, MS lat.15130, fol. 87vb; or on persona, ibid., 865 and William's gloss on fol. 91vb lines 34–46 on Priscian 17.15, GL 3, 117.11–12.Google Scholar
74 The text was first found and discussed from Lucca, bibl. Feliniana, MS 614, fols. 199ra–205rc, and later also found in Milan, Bibl. Ambros. MS I.29, fols. 96ra–118va–b .Google Scholar
75 Appendix 1, Accessus. quid: “rhetoric teaches to speak well not only in a legal case but also outside that.” Google Scholar
76 Appendix 1, Accessus. Genus artis; dictator = “writer,” cf. William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum 1.31.1, in Winterbottom, Michael, “The Language of William of Malmesbury,” Google Scholar
Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West, 1100–1540. Essays in Honour of John O. Ward , ed. Mews, Constant J., Nederman, Cary J., and Thomson, Rodney M. (Turnhout, 2003), 129–47, at 138: “(literary style inevitably) varies with the nationality of the writer: “quia iuxta mores gentium varientur modi dictaminum.” Google Scholar
77 Appendix 3 below.Google Scholar
78 This rhetoric aims at conciseness, the author using words as “brevius,” “succincte,” “compendiose”; cf. Fredborg, Karin Margareta, “The ‘Lucca’ Summa on Rhetoric,” Papers on Rhetoric 5: Atti del Convegno Internazionale “Dictamen, Poetria and Cicero: Coherence and Diversification” Bologna, 10–11 Maggio 2002 , ed. Montefusco, Lucia Calboli (Rome, 2003): 115–40, at 119.Google Scholar
79 Cf. Fredborg, , ibid., 136–38.Google Scholar
80 Cf. Fredborg, Karin Margareta, “The Grammar and Rhetoric Offered to John of Salisbury,” in The Classics in the Classroom , ed. Ruys, Juanita, Ward, John O., and Heyworth, Melanie, Disputatio 20 (Turnhout, forthcoming).Google Scholar
81 Cervani, Roberta, ed. Papiae Ars Grammatica (Bologna, 1998), IV: “Hagen aveva sottolineato una totale dipendenza di quest'opera da Prisciano, ma ad un esame più attento (v. l'apparato delle fonti e l'appendice) risulta non solo che Papias ha utilizzato e risistemato la materia tratta di Prisciano per fornire un testo meglio organizzato et più facilmente fruibile.” Google Scholar
82 Papias, , ibid., 27–29.Google Scholar
83 Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum , 175–184. For the Italian grammatical tradition see also Thurot, , Extraits de divers manuscrits latins pour servir à l'histoire des doctrines grammaticales au moyen âge (Paris, 1869), 90–93; Passalacqua, Marina, I Codici di Prisciano, Sussidi eruditi 29 (Rome, 1978); Black, Robert, Humanism and Education in Medieval and Renaissance Italy (Cambridge, 2001), 45–98; Nauta, Lodi, review of ‘La consolazione della filosofia’ nel Medioevo et nel Rinascimento italiano (by Black, Robert and Pomaro, Gabriella), Vivarium 40 (2002): 321–23, at 321.Google Scholar
84 Fredborg, , “The ‘Lucca’ Summa,” 120–24, 136–37.Google Scholar
85 Fredborg, , “Petrus Helias on Rhetoric” (n. 1 above), 36, 38–41; cf. Dickey, , “Commentaries” (n. 21 above), 15–18, and Ward, , Ciceronian Rhetoric, 139–40, 216–17.Google Scholar
86 Kneepkens, C. H., “On Medieval Syntactic Thought with Special Reference to the Notion of Construction,” Histoire, Epistémologie, Langage 12.2 (1990): 139–76, at 141–42.Google Scholar
1 Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 170.25; ed. Ippolito, , 32.122.Google Scholar
2 Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 170.25; ed. Ippolito, , 32.122.Google Scholar
3 Thierry, Cf., Rhetorical Commentaries , 51.50–55; Quint. Inst. 2.15.1–38.Google Scholar
4 Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 171.6–15; ed. Ippolito, , 33.4–10.Google Scholar
5 Victorinus, Cf., ed. Halm, , 171.17; ed. Ippolito, , 34.14.Google Scholar
6 Thierry, Cf., Rhetorical Commentaries , 50.32–35.Google Scholar
7 Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 160.5; ed. Ippolito, , 13.186.Google Scholar
8 sollempnem cursum] cf. Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 171.23; ed. Ippolito, , 34.23.Google Scholar
9 Cf. Mart. Cap. 5.425, ed. Dick, Adolf (Stuttgart, 1969), 210.8–212.1: “Sonuere tubae … omnium regina et impellere quod uellet et unde uellet deducere.” Google Scholar
10 lite … questione] cf. Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 171.23; ed. Ippolito, , 34.23.Google Scholar
11 Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 174.5; ed. Ippolito, , 38.147.Google Scholar
12 Cf. Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum , 62.18–20: “Materia cuiuslibet artis est id in quo artifex agit secundum artem. Non enim arti attribuenda materia unde fiat, sed potius in qua fiat, sicut alibi aperte demonstratum est.” Cf. Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries, 51.56–9.Google Scholar
13 Cf. Menegaldus, , fol. 8r: “Et debemus accipere materiam huius artis secundum Boecium (sic! vide Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 174.5; ed. Ippolito, , 38.147) simpliciter ubi fit et unde fit. Ubi fit: in questione scilicet, quia questio [est] ducitur in causam. Unde fit: ex argumentis scilicet per que confirmatur et probatur questio, sicut fabri materia est ferrum ubi fit, unde fit incus, malleoli et forcipes … illud dicimus materiam huius artis in qua ostendenda omnis ars uersatur, id est precepta dantur.” Google Scholar
14 cf. Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum , 62.18–20.Google Scholar
15 triplex … genera] cf. Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 174.22; ed. Ippolito, , 39.169.Google Scholar
16 Cf. William, , York, Minster, MS XVI. M.7, fol. 41bisvb (Inv. rhet. 2.37.110): “Genus secundum magistrum Ansellum dicitur finis ad quem tendit causa, quia ipse est principalis natura per quam diuersum genus in in causa <+++>, formam uocat proprietatem quandam agendi, quam ex fine recipit. Alio enim modo agitur secundum finem recti, alio secundum finem utilis. Secundum magistrum Menegaldum sic: Differunt genere quia aliud genus est iudiciale, aliud deliberatiuum, et forma id est constitutionibus. Illa enim tria quasi informia formantur in constitutionibus, et ita ad suos fines tendunt, et sic differunt forma. Iudicalis enim forma est que in aliqua constitutione tendit ad iustum uel iniustum, quod numquam alia faciunt.” ,+formam+uocat+proprietatem+quandam+agendi,+quam+ex+fine+recipit.+Alio+enim+modo+agitur+secundum+finem+recti,+alio+secundum+finem+utilis.+Secundum+magistrum+Menegaldum+sic:+Differunt+genere+quia+aliud+genus+est+iudiciale,+aliud+deliberatiuum,+et+forma+id+est+constitutionibus.+Illa+enim+tria+quasi+informia+formantur+in+constitutionibus,+et+ita+ad+suos+fines+tendunt,+et+sic+differunt+forma.+Iudicalis+enim+forma+est+que+in+aliqua+constitutione+tendit+ad+iustum+uel+iniustum,+quod+numquam+alia+faciunt.”>Google Scholar
17 William, Cf., ibid., fol. 6va: (Inv. rhet. 1.5.7) = Manegold, in Dickey, , “Some Commentaries” (n. 21 above), 10: “He cause secundum magistrum Anselmum indiscrete ubique aguntur, sed magister Menegaldus certa et propria loca singulis causis attribuit. In foro enim aguntur (agitur MS) iudicialia placita ante iudices, in senatu deliberatiue cause ubi deliberantur an mitteretur exercitus Rome apud Parthos annon et similia, demonstratiue cause in Marcio Campo ubi laudabantur illi qui erant promouendi ad consulatum. Ibi enim dabantur honores. Has causas tres ita informatas quod agi debent uel demonstratiue uel deliberatiue uel iudicaliter dicit materias oratoris. Que secundum se dicuntur furta uel sacrilegia etc. secundum modum agendi accipientes formas dicuntur demonstratiue, deliberatiue, iudiciales.” Cf. William, , fol. 41bisvb (Inv. rhet. 2.37.110): “Secundum magistrum Menegaldum, qui uult certa loca singulis causis attribui.” Google Scholar
18 Alcuin, , Disputatio de Rhetorica et de Virtutibus , in Rhetores Latini Minores , ed. Halm, (Leipzig, 1863), 534.21–22; Geoffrey of Vinsauf, Documentum , ed. Faral, Edmond, Les Arts Poétiques du xiie et du xiiie siècle (Paris, 1971), 295.Google Scholar
19 Cf. the Epilogue by William, : “Nota etiam quod in materia oratoris diuersi sunt Boethius et Tullius. Dicit enim Boethius in Quarto libro Topicorum (PL 64:1207C) quodlibet negotium de quo intendit agere orator ipsius oratoris esse materia, quae postea sub demonstratiuo formatum uel sub deliberatiuo uel iudiciali cadat … Tullius uero nullam rem iudicat debere oratoris materiam appellari quamdiu consideratur non informatum aliqua illa proprietatum quae per demonstratiuum et deliberatiuum et iudiciale significantur” (William, , 33).Google Scholar
20 Cf. Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum , 62.27.Google Scholar
21 Cf. Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries , 53.84–89.Google Scholar
22 Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum , 63.40.Google Scholar
23 Cf. Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries , 53.91–94.Google Scholar
24 PL 64:1208D.Google Scholar
25 Arist. Top. 1.3 101b10, AL, 8; cf. Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries , 53.88–90.Google Scholar
26 PL 64:1208D: “Finis … in ipso bene dixisse id est dixisse apposite ad persuasionem.” Google Scholar
27 Boeth, . De diff. top. , PL 64:1209A.Google Scholar
28 Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum , 63.45–46.Google Scholar
29 Hor. Ars. P. 120–121.Google Scholar
30 Boeth, Cf., De diff. top. , PL 64:1179B; Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries, 54.7.Google Scholar
31 Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries , 53.4.Google Scholar
32 Calcidius, Cf. In Timaeum , ed. Washink, J. H., Plato Latinus 4 (London, 1962), 244.20–22.Google Scholar
33 Antiqui = William (of Champeaux?) and Abelard, cf. William, 22: “Praecogitare enim docet inuentio prius quod homo uel alius terminus habet cum substantia affinitatem talem quod iunctum alicui praedicando facit substantiam eidem cohaerere. Postea iudicium constituit aliquam argumentationem ubi hoc argumentum explicatur. Haec uero inuentio, quam hic definit (Inv. rhet. 1.7.9) inuenit locos et rationes probationum, ubi loci habent probandi efficaciam. Itaque habet et officium sui et iudicii.” Cf. Green-Pedersen, Niels Jörgen, The Tradition of the Topics in the Middle Ages: The Commentaries on Aristotle's and Boethius's Topics (Munich, 1984), 194–200; Abelard, , Pietro Abelardo. Scritti di Logica , ed. del Pra, Mario, Pubblicazioni della Facoltá di Lettere e Filosofia dell'Universitá di Milano 24, 2nd ed. (Florence, 1969), 212.29–30 and 213.26–214.13; Fredborg, Karin Margareta, “Abelard on Rhetoric,” in Rhetoric and Renewal in the Latin West, 1100–1540: Essays in Honour of John O. Ward , ed. Mews, Constant J., Nederman, Cary J., and Thompson, Rodney M. (Turnhout, 2003) 55–80, at 59–60.Google Scholar
34 Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum , 63.52.Google Scholar
35 PL 64:1207B.Google Scholar
36 Cf. Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries , 54.21–24.Google Scholar
37 Helias, Petrus, Super Priscianum , 64.60.Google Scholar
38 Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 156.24–25; ed. Ippolito, , 7.70–71; Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries , 54.25–26.Google Scholar
39 Cf. Sen, . Ep. 102.20.Google Scholar
40 Thierry, Cf., Rhetorical Commentaries , 55.30–31.Google Scholar
41 Cf. Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries , 55.35–37.Google Scholar
1 Inv. rhet. 1.8.10.Google Scholar
2 supra: C fol. 85ra, S fol. 92r: “Constitutio est summa cause quam uterque orator summatim et breuiter proponit presente iudice, quod secundum antiquum morem Romanorum dictum est. Erat enim consuetudo ut delata ad pretorem querela, traheretur reus in ius ibique accusator quid in reum intendit proponebat, verbi gratia: Occidisti Aiacem. Defensor quoque partem suam statim in presentia pretoris proponebat, uerbi gratia: Non occidi. Ecce iam constituta erat. Cause tamen tractatio quando uidebatur iudici differebatur, ita tamen quod qua die causa primo constituta tractabatur non licebat uel accusatori intencionen!, uel defensori mutare depulsionem.” Google Scholar
3 Inv. rhet. 1.8.10.Google Scholar
4 Rhet. Her. 1.11.18.Google Scholar
5 Ov. Pont. 1.2.57.Google Scholar
6 Top. 25.93.Google Scholar
7 Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 179.24 and 180.8; ed Ippolito, , 47.27 and 48.59.Google Scholar
8 Mart. Cap. 5.443, ed. Dick, Adolf (Stuttgart, 1969), 218.11.Google Scholar
9 Inst. 3.6.6; 3.6.21.Google Scholar
10 Locus non inventus, cf. Grillius, , ed. Martin, Joseph, Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 14.2 (1927): 50: “Constitutiones hae sunt. Aut facti aut nominis aut generis aut actionis, quae omnes ex naturali illa tripertita ratione descendunt. Quaerendum enim est utrum sit aliquid, quid sit, quale sit, quis fecerit.” Google Scholar
11 Locus non inventus , cf. Boethius, , PL 64:1211C: “Est uero tota rhetorica in speciebus. Species uero ita totam materiam informant, ut tamen uicissim totam sibi uindicent, quod ex hoc intelligi potest, quoniam omnes materiae partes singulae species tenent. Nam in iudiciali quattuor constitutiones inuenies, et in deliberatiuo demonstratiuoque easdem quattuor inuenire queas.” Google Scholar
12 Locus non inventus. Lis contestata = initium causandi, cf. Codex Iustiniani 3.1.14: “Patroni autem causarum qui utrique parti suum praestantes auxilium ingrediuntur, cum lis fuerit contestata, post narrationem propositam et responsionem, in qualicumque iudicio maiore uel minore, etc.” Corpus Iuris Civilis , ed. Hermannus, Aemilius. Editio stereotypa, 9th ed., 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1861) 2:103. No doubt, he is quoting a gloss to the Corpus Iuris, cf. Gouron, André, “Some Aspects of the Medieval Teaching of Roman Law,” in Learning Institutionalized: Teaching in the Medieval University , ed. Engen, John Van (Notre Dame, IN, 2000), 161–76.Google Scholar
13 PL 64:1209A.Google Scholar
1 Inv. rhet. 1.1.1.Google Scholar
2 Inv. rhet. 1.5.6.Google Scholar
3 Rhet. Her. 1.1.1; Inv. rhet. 1.1.1.Google Scholar
4 Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries , 49–55 has the order: genus, quid, materia, officium, finis, partes, species, instrumentum, artifex, cur uocetur, also used by Helias, Petrus and Alarms, , although they more logically start with quid before genus. Google Scholar
5 Inv. rhet. 1.5.6; Thierry, , Rhetorical Commentaries , 51.53.Google Scholar
6 Isid, . Etym. 2.1.1; Thierry, ibid. 51.50.Google Scholar
7 Victorinus, ed. Halm, , 156.24; ed Ippolito, , 7.72; Thierry, , ibid., 51.51.Google Scholar
8 Inv. rhet. 1.1.1.Google Scholar
9 Thierry, , ibid., 55.30–31: “Ars autem ista rhetorica dicitur a copia loquendi. ‘rhetoros’ enim Graece ‘copia loquendi’ Latine dicitur.” Google Scholar
10 Inv. rhet. 1.5.6.Google Scholar
11 Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 171.16; ed. Ippolito, , 34.14.Google Scholar
12 uersu] cf. Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 207.1; ed. Ippolito, , 94.8.Google Scholar
13 Inv. rhet. 1.5.6.Google Scholar
14 cf. Boethius, , PL 64:1208D: “Finis … in ipso bene dixisse id est dixisse apposite ad persuasionem.” Google Scholar
15 Hermestes, ] Rhet. Her. 1.11.18.Google Scholar
16 Hermogenes, ] cf. Praeexercitamina , ed. Hertz, Martin, Grammatici Latini 3, ed. Keil, Heinrich, (Leipzig, 1859), 440, app. crit: “Prisciani sophistae Ars Preexercitaminum secundum Hermogenem uel Libanium explicit feliciter.” Google Scholar
17 Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 156.23; ed. Ippolito, , 7.72.Google Scholar
18 Victorinus, , ed. Halm, , 161.42; ed. Ippolito, , 17.91.Google Scholar
19 cf. Hor. Carm. 3.11.2: movit Amphion lapides canendo, et Pseudacronis Scholia Vetustiora, ad locum , 2 vols., ed. Keller, Otto (Leipzig, 1902–4), 1:254: “iuxta hoc quod Cicero Tullius in Rhetoricis (Inv. rhet. 1.25.35, Rhet. Her. 4.4.7) dicit artium magistros adferre laudem siue uituperationem discipulis, rursum discipulos magistris. Unde hic Mercurius laudatur in Amphione discipulo cuius nota fabula est; eo quod idem Amphion citharae cantu et pecudes quarum pastor erat, ad se arcessire consuerit et lapides, quibus muri sunt extructi Thebani, ut Statius (Theb. 1.10) Quo carmine muris/iusserit Amphion Tyrios accedere montes.” Google Scholar