Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:34:22.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Medieval Accessus ad Auctores

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2017

Edwin A. Quain S.J.
Edwin A. Quain S.J.*
Affiliation:
Fordham University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The custom of medieval commentators on classical authors of prefixing to their works a schema generally called an accessus has long been known. In such a prefatory note they treated of items such as the following: vita auctoris, titulus operis, intentio scribentis, materia operis, utilitas, and cui parti philosophiae supponatur In different works the number of these items might be curtailed or expanded, but the common purpose of providing an introductory summary to the work in question, is present in all forms of the accessus.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 3 , 1945 , pp. 215 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © 1945 by Cosmopolitan Science & Art Service Co., Inc. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The first mention of the accessus by a modern scholar is that of Sebastian Gunther, Geschichte der litter arischen Anstalten in Baiern (München 1810) I, 271: ‘Ich habe mehrere solche Auslegungen gesehen, die grossentheils die Aufschrift führten: explanationes oder accessus ad poetas.’ Sporadic mention is found, mainly in M. Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters (München, 3 v. 1911–1931) especially I, 167; 482; 505; 512. III, 314; most of Manitius’ references are to Schepss and Przychocki as below. Traube, L., Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen II, Einleitung in die lateinische Philologie des Mittelalters (edit. Lehmann, P, München 1911) 165: ‘Man fasste diese sogennanten accessus öfters zusammen und hatte dann eine richtige Schulliteraturgeschichte. Es scheint, dass hierbei Remigius von Auxerre ein leitendes Beispiel war. Gewöhnlich sind die accessus nach bestimmten Gesichtspunkten angelegt. Man findet diese Gesichtspunkte der römischen Literatur zuerst bei Boethius. Da wird nach sechs Dingen gefragt: intentio, utilitas, ordo, si germanus propriusque liber, inscriptio operis, ad quem philosophiae partem. Später heisst es in principio omnium librorum tria [oder quattuor oder quinque] requirenda esse videtur: persona, tempus, locus.’ Lehmann, P., ‘Literaturgeschichte im Mittelalter I,’ Germanisch-romanische Monatschrift 4 (1912) 572: ‘ Kommentaren älterer lateinischer Dichter vorangeschickt waren und kurz über den Autor und seine Schriften nach einem bestimmten Schema orientierten; in diesen Accessus ad poetas, die für die Einführung in die schulmässige Lektüre berechnet waren, hatte man literargeschichtliches Material.’ Przychocki, G., ‘Accessus Ovidiani,’ [Symbolae ad veterum auctorum historiam atque ad medii aevi studia philologa], Rosprawy Akademii Umiejetnosci Wydzial Filologizny (Dissertations of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Philological section) Series III, 65–126 (Krakow 1911; also published separately, same year). Schepss, G., Conradus Hirsaugiensis Dialogus super Auctores sive Didascalon (Würzburg 1889). Young, Karl, ‘Chaucer's Appeal to the Platonic Deity,’ Speculum 19 (1944) 1–13.Google Scholar

2 Complete references to the studies made in these fields on the accessus will be given below when each of these fields will be explored as to its use.Google Scholar

3 Cf. Rand, E. K., ‘The Classics in the thirteenth century,’ Speculum 4 (1929) 252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

1 Cf. n.1, supra. ‘Conradus Hirsaugiensis natione Teutonicus, Spirensis dioecesis, vir in divinis scripturis et in saecularibus litteris valde peritus, philosophus, rhetor, musicus et poeta insignis, multa praeclara composuit opuscula, in quibus ornata sententiarum dispositio et venusti sermonis cultura nulli veterum inferiorem suum declarat auctorem Quidquid autem Conradus scripsit, Tullianam resonat eloquentiam Claruit sub Conrado imperatore, a.d. 1140,’ Fabricius III, 79, quoted by Schepss, op. cit. 8. As to Conrad, cf. M. Manitius, op. cit. III, 315.Google Scholar

2 Dialogus 20–33.Google Scholar

3 Dialogus 57–60.Google Scholar

4 Schepss 10–11.Google Scholar

5 Cf. Haskins, C. H., The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, Mass. 1933) 93–126 and Paré, G., Brunet, A., Tremblay, P, La Renaissance du XII e siècle (Paris 1933) 56–179.Google Scholar

6 Cf. supra, introd. n. 1.Google Scholar

7 Monac. lat. 19475 (olim Tegernseensis 1475, s. xii) is a collection of accessus to the following auctores: Ovid (Epp.), Prudentius, Cato, Avianus, Maximianus, Homerus Latinus, Physiologus, Theodulus, Arator, Prosper, Sedulius, Ovid (Ars Amat., Remedia, Ex Ponto, Tristia, Amoves, Fasti), Lucan, Cicero, Boethius, Priscian, Horace. MSS catalogues often suggest and occasionally mention the presence of accessus; cf. Vat. lat. 1593 (Ovid, Metamorph.) s. xii ex. (Codices Vaticani Latini, ed. Nogara, B., Romae 1912, I, 87); Vat. Reg. 72, 138, 230 (Codices Reginenses Latini in Bibliotheca Vaticana, ed. Wilmart, A., Romae 1937). For references to other MSS, cf. Przychocki 79.Google Scholar

8 Przychocki, op. cit. 80–85.Google Scholar

9 Cf. Conrad, supra, at n. 2: “Quorum omnium brevis solutio videtur mihi quaedam ad auctores intelligendos introductio Nec etiam a te magna requiro; non ut totius domus apertae supellectilem scruteris, sed clausis claves adhibeas ostiis; non au torum quaero lectionem vel explicationem ”Google Scholar

10 Conrad, Dialogus 45; Przychocki, op. cit. 106; The sections of the text italicized above are, in Przychocki, in Roman but with a space between the letters to make them stand out.Google Scholar

11 The proofs of these statements Will be given in extenso in the later chapters of this paper when we treat of the rhetoricians and dialecticians.Google Scholar

12 Przychocki 103. Apparently Przychocki got his notion of the influence of scholastic philosophy on the development of the accessus from the remarks of Ehwald, R., ‘Ad historiam carminum ovidianorum recensionemque symbolae,’ Programm des Herzoglichen Gymnasium Ernestinum zu Gotha 2 (1892) 1–2, from which he quotes in another connection: ‘Nolo fusius nunc in haec ipsa inquirere eorumque initia, quae tarnen omnia cum Aristotelicae philosophiae studiis coniuncta ad unum quasi fontem referenda esse clamat codicum diversissimorum consensus, nec tertio decimo demum saeculo scholasticum hunc excultum esse usum, sed prioribus iam saeculis in monasteriorum scholis illa ratione scriptores veteres esse explicatos saeculi undecimi docet Benedictoburanus commentarium metamorphoseon cum praefatione continens in quo leguntur haecce, ex quibus etiam ante scriptores ipsius aetatis latiore quasi circuitu eadem adnotari solita esse concludas: cum multa possent inquiri in capite uniuscuiusque libri, moderni autem gaudentes brevitate tria principaliter inquirenda statuere id est materiam intentionem et cui parti philosophiae supponatur.’ Ehwald in this connection refers to Haase, F, De medii aevi studies philologicis (Breslau 1856) 13: ‘Non autem credendum est fuisse magnum quoddam studium historiae litterariae, quo qui vera nesciebant, falsa effingere adducerentur; a quo studio quantopere abhorruerint medii aevi docti homines, saepissime ii testati sunt qui post vulgatam philosophiam Aristotelicam commentarios in libros cuiuslibet generis scripserunt; hi enim praefatione constanter sic composita usi, ut libri de quo agerent quattuor causas explicarent, ubi causam efficientem memorabant, brevissime plerumque libri auctorem appellabant, raro aliqua de eius vita et scriptis addebant.’ Both of these inferences are drawn from the late (13th century) use of the accessus; cf. Paré-Brunet-Tremblay, op. cit. 116, ‘Ces introductions, dont le plan consiste régulièrement à exposer les causes efficiente, matérielle, formelle et finale de l'ouvrage, telles qu'on en rencontre souvent au XIIIe siècle.’ They do not seem to refer to the invention of the technique in the works of early Aristotelian commentators, a conclusion which, as we shall see, can be maintained.Google Scholar

13 A detailed discussion of this matter would go far beyond the scope of this paper, but out of the welter of bibliographical data that is given on the subject, the following are really valuable. Bartsch, H., Albrecht von Halberstadt und Ovid im Mittelalter (Quedlinburg 1861) is the source of much else that has been written along these lines; Comparetti, D., Virgil in the Middle Ages (New York 1929) is mainly on Virgil but has many remarks on Ovid; Peeters, F, Les Fastes d'Ovide (Bruxelles 1938); Schevill, G., Ovid and the Renaissance in Spain (Berkeley 1916) in which the first chapter gives a survey of the data outside of Spain; Sedlmayer, J., ‘Beiträge zur Geschicht der Ovidienstudien im Mittelalter,’ Wiener Studien 6 (1884); Nogara, B., ‘Di alcune vite e commenti medioevali di Ovidio,’ Miscellanea Ceriani (Milano 1910) is most informative and suggestive; Pansa, G., Ovidio nel medioevo e nella tradizione popolare (Sulmona 1924) and De Nino, A., Ovidio nella tradizione popolare di Sulmona (Casalbordino 1886) contain many oral traditions which provide a contrast to the literary traditions. Ghislaberti, F, Integumenta Ovidii Joannis de Garlandia (Milano 1933); Paetow, L. J., The Battle of the Seven Liberal Arts (Berkeley 1929) and The Arts Course in Mediaeval Universities (Berkeley 1914); Paris, G., Les anciennes versions françaises de l'Art d'aimer et des Remědes d'Amour d'Ovide (Paris 1884) is essential for the study of Ovid's influence on French literature; the following will be helpful: Faral, E., Recherches sur les sources latines des contes et romans courtois du moyen-ǎge (Paris 1913); Jeanroy, A., Les origines de la poésie lyrique en France au moyen ǎge (Paris 1925); a good summary will be found in Rand, E. K., Ovid and His Influence (Debt to Greece and Rome, Boston 1924) and the same author's ‘The Metamorphoses of Ovid in Le Roman de la Rose,’ Studies in the History of Culture (1942) is a detailed study of the influence of Ovid on Jean de Meun. On MSS of Ovid cf. Manitius, M., ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte römischer Dichter im Mittelalter,’ Philologus 47 (1889) and ‘Philologisches aus alten Bibliothekskatalogen,’ Rheinisches Museum (1892); also Buttenweiser, H., ‘Manuscripts of Ovid's Fasti: the Ovidian Tradition in the Middle Ages,’ Trans. Amer Philol. Assoc. 71 (1940) 45–51. For Chaucer cf. Shannon, E. F., Chaucer and the Roman Poets (Harvard Studies in Comp. Lit. 7, Cambridge, Mass. 1929).Google Scholar

14 Vat. lat. 1479; cf. B. Nogara, Miscellanea Ceriani (n. 13, supra).Google Scholar

15 Sandys, J. E., A History of Classical Scholarship, 3 vols. (Cambridge 1906) I, 29.Google Scholar

16 Origen, De Principiis IV, 11 (GCS, Origines Werke V, ed. Koetschau, P, Leipzig 1913, p. 311–312): ‘Tripliciter ergo describere oportet in anima sua unumquemque divinarum intelligentiam litterarum: id est ut simpliciores quique aedificentur ab ipso, ut ita dixerim, corpore scripturarum (sic enim appellamus communem ilium et historialem intellectum); si qui vero aliquantum iam proficere coeperunt et possunt amplius aliquid intueri, ab ipsa scripturae anima aedificentur; qui vero perfecti sunt et similes his, de quibus apostolus dicit: “Sapientiam autem loquimur inter perfectos, sapientiam vero non huius saeculi neque principum huius saeculi, qui destruentur, sed loquimur dei sapientiam in mysterio absconditam, quam praedestinavit deus ante saecula in gloriam nostram,” hi tales ab ipsa “spiritali lege,” “quae umbram habet futurorum bonorum,” tamquam ab spiritu aedificentur. Sicut ergo homo constare dicitur ex corpore et anima et spiritu, ita etiam sancta scriptura, quae ad hominum salutem divina largitione concessa est.’ Noteworthy also is Gregorius Magnus, Hom. xv in Evangelia (PL 76, 1131) where he is explaining Luke viii, 4–15. It is the parable of the seed that fell by the wayside, among thorns, on rocks and on good ground, which was explained by Christ to the Apostles as the word of God. Gregory remarks: ‘Unde et idem Dominus per semetipsum dignatus est exponere quod dicebat, ut sciatis rerum significationes quaerere in iis quae per semetipsum noluit explanare. Exponendo ergo quod dixit figurate se loqui innotuit, quatenus certos vos redderet cum vobis nostra fragilitas verborum illius figuras aperiret.'Google Scholar

17 Jerome, St., Ep. xxii, 30 Ad Eustochium, (ed. Hilberg, I., CSEL 54, 1910) 189 and Augustine, St., Confessiones I, xiii (ed. Knöll, P, Leipzig 1926) 15.Google Scholar

18 Augustine, St., De doctrina Christiana II, 60 (Florilegium Patristicum 24, ed. Vogels, H. J., Bonn 1930) 46. cf. Exod. iii, 22; xi, 2; xii, 35.Google Scholar

19 Deut. xxi, 10–13: ‘Si egressus fueris ad pugnam contra inimicos tuos, et tradiderit eos Dominus Deus tuus in manu tua, captivosque duxeris, et videris in numerum captivorum mulierem pulchram, et adamaveris eam, voluerisque habere uxorem, introduces eam in domum tuam; quae radet caesariem et circumcidet ungues et deponet vestem in qua capta est.'Google Scholar

20 Maurus, Rhabanus, De clericorum institutione III, 18 (PL 107, 396).Google Scholar

21 Cf. Paré-Brunet-Tremblay, op. cit. 147–149.Google Scholar

22 Thurot, C., ‘Extraits de divers manuscrits latins pour servir à l'histoire des doctrines grammaticales au moyen ǎge,’ Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale 22, 2 (1868) 103–104.Google Scholar

23 Distinctly refreshing is the viewpoint of Douglas Bush, Mythology and the Renaissance Tradition (Minneapolis 1932) 6, 12: ‘ the genial Ovid would probably have been less disturbed than [modern] scholars if he had known not merely that he would not wholly die, but that through the centuries he would be, like Caesar's wife, all things to all men. Some, though by no means all of the elements of that popularity [of Ovid in the Middle Ages] were alien to the real Ovid, but we can ill afford to patronize medieval students who, whatever their occasional vagaries, had a vital contact with Latin literature. Their classical past was a usable one—as ours hardly is—and the diversity of uses that the Latin authors served is the best proof of a fruitful tradition. How was a medieval translator to make intelligible to readers such a poem as the Ars Amatoria? With the self-confidence and independence that is sometimes called medieval naiveté he made over Ovid for his own purposes and to suit his own world.’ When a humane openmindedness such as this becomes the characteristic trait of writers on the Middle Ages we shall no longer have discussions to which the word of Abailard—said, no doubt unfairly, of Anselm of Laon—applies: ‘Cum ignem accenderet, domum suam fumo implebat, non luce illustrabat’ (PL 178, 123).Google Scholar

24 Przychocki, op. cit. 108. Thilo-Hagen, Servii Grammatici in Vergilii Aeneidos (Leipzig 1923) I, 1–3. Cf. Vita Vergilii Donatiana, in Brummer, J., Vitae Vergilianae (Leipzig 1912) 11–19.Google Scholar

25 Vat. lat. 2781; Przychocki 108.Google Scholar

26 Przychocki 110.Google Scholar

27 Cod. Marcianus, s. xii.Google Scholar

28 Cf. supra, at n. 2.Google Scholar

29 Halm, C., Rhetores minores latini (Leipzig 1863) I, 141; I, 102–103. To these may be added Julius Victor, C., Ars rhetorica (Halm 374, 424) and Albinus, De arte rhetorica dialogus (ibid, 527): ‘Plenaria causa septem habet circumstantias, personam, factum, tempus, locum, modum, occasionem, facultatem. In persona quaeritur quis fecerit, in facto quid fecerit, in tempore quando fecerit, in loco ubi factum sit, in modo quomodo fieri potuisset, in occasione cur facere voluisset, in facultate, si ei suppeditaret potestas faciendi.'Google Scholar

30 Rabe, H., Rhetores graeci VI (Leipzig 1913) 140.Google Scholar

31 Przychocki 114–115.Google Scholar

1 Roman law as codified by Justinian was in the Middle Ages known as the Corpus iuris civilis, and Digest, Code, Institutes, and Novels were grouped, somewhat arbitrarily, into a) three Digesta (Digestum Vetus, Infortiatum, Digestum Novum), b) the Codex [I–IX], c) the Tres Libri [Cod. X–XII], d) the Instituta, e) the Authenticum (Novellae). Cf. Hazeltine, H. D., ‘Roman and Canon Law in the Middle Ages,’ CMH V, 697–764; F C. von Savigny, Geschichte des römischen Rechts im Mittelalter, III (2nd ed. Heidelberg 1834) 422–504.Google Scholar

2 The sources for this story are given by Savigny, Geschichte III, 92–102 and are mainly: an Italian chronicle of the fourteenth century which says: ‘E per commandamento de esso sommo Pontefice Papa Innocenzio II li pisani pridie nonas augusti armorno 46 galee: furono alla costa de Malfi et quello di per forza lo preseno cum septe galee e doe naue: in la quale citta trouorno le pandette composte dalla Cesarea Majesta de Justiniano Imperatore; dopoi brusunno quella, e l'altro di andorno a trani; et quello preseno per forza.’ The second item is to be found in an historical poem of the fourteenth century, reading: Malfia Parthenopes datur et quando omne per aequor Unde fuit liber Pisanis gestus ab illis Juris, et est Pisis Pandecta Caesaris alti. Savigny rejects the story, leaning on the testimony of Odofredus who mentions that a copy of the Digest had been brought to Pisa from Constantinople in the time of Justinian. He concludes: ‘Und so ist also die ganze Sache noch immer unter die zahlreichen Fabeln zu rechnen, wodurch der Patriotismus der Italiener die Ehre der Vaterstadt zu verherrlichen suchte.’ To this negative testimony may be added the account in a twelfth-century chronicle written by a contemporary: ‘A. D. MCXXXVI. Pridie nonas Augusti fuerunt Pisani cum xliv galeis super Malfim et ipso die capta est, et cum septem galeis et duabus aliis multis navibus, combusta est et prorsus exspoliata est. Eadem vero die Trani capta est.’ This chronicle continues with other events and makes no mention of the finding of the Pandects. The similarity between this and the Italian account given above, suggest that the contemporary record was embellished two centuries later. Cf. Annales Pisani di Bernardo Maragone, in Muratori, Rer Ital. Scriptores VI, ii, 9–10 (edit. Gentile, M. L.): Maragone lived between 1110 and 1188 and was a prominent figure in the political life of Pisa, cf. Schaube, A., ‘Bernardo Maragone doch der Verfasser der Annales Pisani,’ Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 10 (1885) 141–161. Kantorowicz, H., ‘Ueber die Entstehung der Digestenvulgata,’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Rom. Abt. [Hereafter cited as ZRGRom.] 30 (1909) 203: ‘Die Erzählung dass die Hs. in Amalfi gelegen habe, dann 1135 (oder 1137) von den Pisanern erbeutet ist Legende.'Google Scholar

3 The testimony of Odofredus as to Irnerius having been a teacher of the artes liberales before he turned to the study of the law is accepted by Savigny IV, 10–11 and III, 427 Odofredus said: ‘Dominus Yr. (Irnerius) qui fuit apud nos lucerna iuris i.e. primus qui docuit in civitate ista. Nam primo coepit studium esse in civitate ista in artibus Sed dominus Yr. dum doceret in artibus in civitate ista coepit per se studere in libris nostris, et studendo coepit docere in legibus et ipse fuit maximi nominis et fuit primus illuminator scientiae nostrae et quia primus fuit qui fecit glosas in libris nostris, vocamus eum lucernam iuris’ (In Dig. vetus, L. 6 de iust. et iure). Cf. Savigny IV, 11, testimony of Chronicon Urspergense as to the influence of the Countess Matilda on the direction of Irnerius’ studies. This background of Irnerius in the artes is a pregnant source for our interest in the origin of the accessus technique among the jurists. Fitting made a great deal of the study of law in the rhetorical schools of the Middle Ages, particularly the genus iudiciale; cf. Fitting, H., Die Anfänge der Rechtsschule zu Bologna (Berlin 1888) 92; cf. however the serious restrictions to this view in Kantorowicz, H., ‘A Medieval Grammarian on the Sources of the Law,’ Revue d'histoire du droit (Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis) 15 (1937) 37–39 and ZRGRom. 33 (1912) 417; 436.Google Scholar

4 Kantorowicz, H., Studies in the Glossators of the Roman Law (Cambridge 1938) 33. (Hereafter cited as: Kantorowicz, Glossators.)Google Scholar

5 Rashdall, H., The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (New edition, Powicke, F M. Emden, A. B., Oxford 1936) I, 121 and Kantorowicz, ZRGRom. 31 (1910) 50.Google Scholar

6 Kantorowicz, Glossators 33 and ZRGRom. 31, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Thus: Warnerius, Wernerius, Guarnerius, Gernerius, Irnerius, Hirnerius, Yrnerius. Cf. Savigny IV, 15.Google Scholar

8 Kantorowicz, Glossators is an edition of Brit. Mus. Royal MS 11. B. XIV which contains forty-one pieces of legal writings of the twelfth century by Irnerius and his followers, accompanied by a commentary on the glossators that is always illuminating and frequently brilliant. For an extensive review of this work see Kuttner, S., ‘Zur neuesten Glossatorenforschung,’ Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 6 (Romae 1940) 275–319.Google Scholar

9 Savigny III, 561–4 and Thurot, C., ‘Doctrines grammaticales’ (Note 22 supra ch. I) 103, note 1.Google Scholar

10 Kuttner, S., Repertorium der Kanonistik (1140–1234): Prodromus corporis glossarum (Città del Vaticano 1937) 123–4 and Meijers, E. M., ‘Sommes, Lectures et Commentaires,’ Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Diritto Romano I (Bologna/Roma 1934) 433.Google Scholar

11 Odofredus in Dig. vetus, L. 1. de transact. ‘Dominus Rogerius contra dixit in summa sua quam fecit super codice et fuit prima summa quae umquam fuerit facta ’ quoted by Savigny IV, 214 a; and Kantorowicz, Glossators 149–180. This work now known as the Summa Trecensis was edited by Fitting (Summa Codicis des Irnerius, 1894) and attributed to Irnerius. Kantorowicz proves that Rogerius was the author, while Meijers, Tijdschr voor Rechtsgesch. 17 (1939/40) 119–21 assigns the Summa to the School of Martinus.Google Scholar

12 Kantorowicz, Glossators 46–48; 233–239. It is inscribed ‘Super eodem Garnerius’ in the London MS.Google Scholar

13 Op. cit. 37–67Google Scholar

14 Op. cit. 233–239.Google Scholar

15 Savigny IV, 70, citing Radevicus, De gestis Friderici I, 2, 5 as follows: ‘Habensque quatuor iudices, videlicet Bulgarum, Martinum, Jacobum, Hugonem, viros disertos, religiosos et in Lege doctissimos, Legumque in civitate Bononiensi Doctores et multorum auditorum praeceptores.’ Cf. Kantorowicz, Glossators 68–69.Google Scholar

16 Savigny IV, 82 and Kantorowicz, Glossators 68–70.Google Scholar

17 CMH V, 737.Google Scholar

18 Kantorowicz, Note in: Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford 1941) 36–38.Google Scholar

19 Kantorowicz, Glossators 41–46.Google Scholar

20 Brit. Mus. Royal MS 15, B. IV, cf. Kantorowicz, op. cit. 43, 6a.Google Scholar

21 Supra note 11 and Kantorowicz, op. cit. 125–133; Text: Savigny, IV 524.Google Scholar

22 Pescatore, G., Miscellen, Beiträge zur mittelalterlichen Rechtsgeschichte, Heft 2 (Berlin 1889); cf. Savigny IV, 543.Google Scholar

23 Kantorowicz, op. cit. 44.Google Scholar

24 Ibid. 44; Savigny V, 1–44; Azonis Summa Aurea (Lugduni 1557).Google Scholar

25 Kantorowicz, op. cit. 59–65.Google Scholar

26 Ibid. 47; Kuttner, Glossatorenforschung 281.Google Scholar

27 See the text of Bulgarus, supra. Google Scholar

28 Kantorowicz. op. cit. 44–46.Google Scholar

29 Ibid. 37–38. In the anonymous ‘Juris peritie operam dare volentibus’ (edited by Fitting, Juristische Schriften des früheren Mittelalters, [Halle 1876] 145) an alternative is offered to the pars philosophiae, ‘ in hoc quod tractat de interpretatione verborum supponitur loice’ (sic).Google Scholar

30 Ibid. 51.Google Scholar

31 Ibid. 38.Google Scholar

32 Ibid. 39; the Accessus Institutionum opens: ‘Sicut et in aliis libris ita in libris legum quedam requiruntur: materia, modus tractandi, intentio, utilitas, cui parti philosophiae supponatur, causa operis.'Google Scholar

33 Encycl. Brit. I (11th ed.) 113.Google Scholar

34 Kantorowicz, op. cit. 39–40.Google Scholar

35 Ibid. 40.Google Scholar

36 Ibid. 41.Google Scholar

37 Ibid. 50–58.Google Scholar

38 Juristische Schriften (note 29 supra). Cod. Prag. Metr. J. LXXIV On the contents of this MS cf. Kantorowicz, op. cit. 52–53.Google Scholar

39 Fitting, Die Anfänge (note 3 supra) passim, and Juristische Schriften 88–107; the latter work was reviewed by Bruns, ZRGRom. 13 (1878) 105–120 who said: ‘Ich glaube, dass hier Fitting seine alten Lieblinge wieder etwas überschätzt, wenn er eine vollständige Continuität zwischen ihnen und den Glossatoren annimmt und grade daraus das Räthsel der plötzlichen Grösse der Glossatorenwissenschaft erklären will.’ In the same volume (196–204), Mommsen discussed the textual portion of Fitting's exposition and ‘disposed of it, once for all.’ Fitting published a rejoinder to the two foregoing in the same volume, ‘Ein Wort der Vertheidigung’ (285–310) in which he reiterated his textual and historical arguments in support of his favorite view, mentioning traces of juristic studies, back to St. Gregory the Great. Later, Max Conrat (Cohn), Geschichte und Quellen und Literatur des römischen Rechts im früheren Mittelalter (Leipzig 1891) 155–156 showed the Prague Fragment to be a work of the twelfth century. Kantorowicz, Glossators, thus sums up: ‘His arguments were in part textual, in part historical. The introductions, he declared, had used a text of the Digest which is independent of the Pisan (afterwards Florentine), and therefore of the school of Bologna; they follow the rules set up by the ancient rhetors and therefore must have been written in their epoch or connected with them by an unbroken juristic tradition. The textual part of the arguments was instantly disposed of, once for for all, by Mommsen. The historical argument is like gazing reverently at the Doric columns of the Brandenburger Tor and then concluding that it must have been built in the times of Solon or that the Doric style had always been cultivated on the banks of the Spree.’ Cf. also Kuttner, Glossatorenforschung 282 and note 12.Google Scholar

40 Juristische Schriften 95.Google Scholar

41 Boethii In Isagogen Porphyrii Commenta, editionis primae I, 1 (ed. Brandt, S., CSEL 48, Vindobonae 1906); Fitting 96.Google Scholar

42 Liber Legis Langobardorum Papiensis dictus, MGH SS IV, 290 (ed. Boretius, A., 1875); Fitting 99.Google Scholar

43 von Schulte, J F, Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des Canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf die Gegenwart (Stuttgart, I 1875; II 1877) I, 46–75; de Ghellinck, J., Le, S.J. mouvement théologique du xiie siècle (Paris 1914) 277–346; Kuttner, S., ‘The Father of the Science of Canon Law', Jurist, 1 (1941) 1–19.Google Scholar

44 Decretum Magistri Gratiani, ed. Friedberg, A. (Leipzig 1879); Prolegomena on the sources used by Gratian, xix–lxxv. As to the formal division of the work, the distribution of part ii into thirty-six Causae, with a number of quaestiones each, is original, but the formal division of parts i and iii, and of Causa 33, quaestio 3, into distinctiones is not. Cf. Gillmann, F., Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht 112 (1932) 504 ff.Google Scholar

45 e. g. Stephen of Tournai, cf. Warichez, J., Etienne de Tournai et son temps (Tournai/Paris 1936) 19.Google Scholar

46 Kuttner, S., ‘Bernardus Compostellanus Antiquus, A Study in the Glossators of the Canon Law,’ Traditio, 1 (1943) 279–285. ‘For the moment, apparently not much was left to be said about Gratian's work in the way of commenting and glossing. No other Summa appeared in Bologna and the only writings published on Gratian during the nineties were intended for other purposes than that of adding to the exegetic discussion The slackening of the decretist production was due to a fundamental innovation in the study of canon law. Hitherto, the new decretals of the recent popes had been used occasionally as extravagantes (i.e. decretales extra decreta vagantes) by the Bolognese school But now for the first time a collection of decretals was formally made the subject of lecturing, apart from the Decreta: the Breviarium extravagantium by Bernard Balbi of Pavia, composed between 1188 and 1192, and which was later called the Compilatio prima. It established the pattern for all other decretal collections and decretalist science to come. For Bologna then, the prevailing interest in the interpretation of the new decretals explains, in our opinion, the stagnation of decretist production after the time of Huguccio.'CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 Schulte, Quellen (supra note 43) I, 109; Kuttner, Repertorium 125–6; 12; see also Traditio 1, 280 note 9. Text: Schulte, Die Summa des Paucapalea (Giessen 1890).Google Scholar

48 Schulte, Quellen, I, 114–118; Kuttner, Repertorium 127–129; 56; 12; Text: Thaner, F, Summa Magistri Rolandi (Innsbruck 1874) and Gietl, A. M., Die Sentenzen Rolands (Freiburg im Breisgau 1891).Google Scholar

49 Schulte, Quellen I, 121–130 (incorrect); Kuttner, Repertorium 131–132; 12; Traditio 1, 280 note 10. Text: Singer, H., Summa decretorum des Magister Rufinus (Paderborn 1902, with an important introduction).Google Scholar

50 Schulte, Quellen I, 133–136; Kuttner, Repertorium, 133–136; 12; Traditio 1, 282 note 20. Text: Schulte, Die Summa des Stephanus Tornacensis über das Decretum Gratiani (Giessen 1891), and text of the exordium: Schulte, Quellen, I, 251–255. There is a recent life by Warichez, J. (supra note 45).Google Scholar

51 Schulte, Quellen I, 137–140; Kuttner, Repertorium 143–146; 145: ‘Nicht als Autor im modernen Sinn, sondern als einflussreicher und wirksamer Vermittler der Lehren seiner Vorgänger ist Johannes also historisch zu würdigen.’ Kuttner, Traditio 1, 281 note 11. Text, selections: Schulte, ‘Die Glosse zum Dekret Gratians von ihren Anfängen bis auf die jüngsten Ausgaben,’ Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, Philosophisch-historische Classe 21, 2 (1872) 40.Google Scholar

52 Schulte, Quellen I, 143–145; Kuttner, Repertorium 150–153; portions of the text are to be found in Schulte, Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, Phil.-histor Classe 63 (1869) 337—The Summa of Sicardus’ somewhat older contemporary, Simon of Bisignano, dated 1177–1179 (Schulte I, 141–142; Kuttner, Repertorium 148f.; Traditio 1, 281 n. 12), is not available.Google Scholar

53 M. Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters III, 191–193; Schulte, Quellen I, 156–170; Kuttner, Repertorium 155–160; Traditio 1, 283 notes 21 and 22.Google Scholar

54 Schulte, Sitzungsberichte Wien, 64 (1870) 130; Quellen I, 224; Kuttner Repertorium 177 Text: S BWien 64, 119.Google Scholar

55 Schulte, Quellen I, 175–182; Kuttner, Repertorium 387–390; Traditio 1, 295; 299 n. 38. Text: Bernardi Papiensis Faventini Episcopi Summa Decretalium (ed. Laspeyres, E. A., Ratisbon 1860).Google Scholar

56 Kuttner, Repertorium 392–393, who quotes the opening lines of the materia: ‘Formavit Deus hominem etc Ex his igitur iam patet materia, liquet intentio, utilitas innotescit.’ In Glossatorenforschung 281 note 10, he implies that the Summa Ambrosii also lists the item cui parti philosophiae supponatur. This unpublished passage reads in the MSS Venice, Marc. lat. IV 25 and Fulda D. 10 (information supplied by Dr. Kuttner): ‘Cum autem tres sint partes philosophie, sc. ethica, phisica et logica, queritur cui parti philosophie subponatur. Et quidem ethice, quia tractat de moribus, sicut omnes libri alii iuris.'Google Scholar

57 Kuttner, Repertorium 393–396; Schulte, ‘Literaturgeschichte der Compilationes Antiquae,’ SBWien 66 (1870) 139–140 gives the text. Quellen I, 194 n. 2.Google Scholar

58 Kantorowicz, Glossators 37 note 4.Google Scholar

59 Schulte, SBWien 63 (1869) 337Google Scholar

60 Die Summa des Magister Rufinus 5.Google Scholar

61 Bernardi Papiensis summa decretalium (ed. Laspeyres) 2.Google Scholar

62 MSS of Venice and Fulda (cf. note 56 supra). Ambrosius’ source is here a gloss by Vincentius Hispanus (ed. Schulte, SBWien 66, 106f.).Google Scholar

63 Damasus, Summa, gives a different intentio: ‘ ut metu poenarum in eis [sc. constitutionibus summorum pontificum] expressarum humana coerceatur audacia et iusti vivere possint in quiete’ (Schulte, SBWien 66, 140).Google Scholar

64 The consecrated phrase seems to have been: ‘Materia sunt canones ', cf. Maassen, F, ‘Ein Beitrag zur juristischen Literargeschichte des Mittelalters,’ SBWien 24 (1857) 13 and Schulte, Denkschriften (supra note 51) 7Google Scholar

65 Cf. the exordium of Stephen of Tournai (ed. Schulte) 1.Google Scholar

66 Cf. Ambrosius (Kuttner, Repertorium 393); Vincentius, loc. cit. n. 62 supra. Google Scholar

67 Schulte, Quellen I, 253–255.Google Scholar

68 MGH SS IV, 701; Potthast, A., Bibliotheca historica medii aevi, I, 37; Vita by Waitz, G., MGH ibid. 829–846.Google Scholar

69 Cf. supra at n. 41. This letter is mentioned by Kantorowicz, Glossators 41.Google Scholar

70 Schulte Quellen I, 44: ‘Burchards Decretum: Dies ist die ausnahmlos allen Glossatoren des XII. Jahrhunderts bekannteste Sammlung, wie zahlreiche Citate in den Glossen und Summen bekunden. Bei Rufin kommen sehr viele Citate aus ihm vor, einige bei Stephanus, über 50 bei Simon de Bisiniano, viele bei Johannes Faventinus, mehrere bei Sicardus, in der Summa Coloniensis, Parisiensis, über 50 in der Lipsiensis usw.’ Cf. Conrat (supra note 39) I, 261.Google Scholar

71 Of the other sources of the Decretum Gratiani that were available none contains a materia, cf. Maassen, F, ‘Glossen des canonischen Rechts aus dem carolingischen Zeitalter,’ SBWien 84 (1877) 235–298; nor do we find anything pertinent in Ivo of Chartres, Panormia, PL 161, 1042, or Decretum, ibid. 9; cf. Menu, J. R., Recherches et nouvelle étude critique sur les recueils de Droit Canon attribués à Yves de Chartres (Paris 1880); Fournier, P, ‘Les collections canoniques attribuées à Yves de Chartres,’ Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des chartes 57 and 58 (1896–97); Bras, Fournier-Le, Histoire des collections canoniques en occident II (Paris 1932) 55–114; 337, likewise Amalarius of Metz, De officiis ecclesiasticis (Pl. 105, 986), Regula sanctimonialium (935), and Regula canonicorum (815).Google Scholar

1 ‘Ego omne Aristotelis opus quodcunque in manus venerit, in Romanum stilum vertens, eorum omnia commenta latina oratione perscribam, ut si quid ex logicae artis subtilitate, et ex moralis gravitate peritiae, et ex naturalis acumine veritatis ab Aristotele conscriptum est, id omne ordinatum transferam, atque id quodam lumine commentationis illustrem, omnesque Piatonis dialogos vertendo, vel etiam commentando, in latinam redigam formam. His peractis non equidem contempserim Aristotelis Platonisque sententiam in unam quodammodo revocare concordiam, et in his non ut plerique dissentire in omnibus, sed in plerisque quae sunt in philosophia maxime consentire demonstrem.’ In librum de interpretatione, secunda editio II c. 3 (ed. Meiser, C., Leipzig 1877–80:II, 79–80). On similar ambitions in the twelfth century, John of Salisbury remarked: ‘Egerunt operosius Bernardus Carnotensis et auditores eius ut componerent inter Aristotelem et Platonem, sed eos tarde venisse arbitror et laborasse in vanum ut reconciliarent mortuos qui, quando in vita licuit, dissenserunt.’ Metalogicon II, xvii (ed. Webb, C. C. J., Oxford 1929, p. 94). On Boethius see Rand, E. K., The Founders of the Middle Ages (Cambridge 1929) 156; Usener, H., Anecdoton Holderi (Bonn 1877); Coster, C. H., The Indicium Quin-quevirale (Cambridge, Med. Acad. Monographs X, 1935); Bark, William, ‘Boethius vs. Theoderic, Vindication and Apology,’ American Historical Review 44 (1944) 410–426. On the popularity and influence of Boethius in the Middle Ages, see Grabmann, M., Geschichte der scholastischen Methode (Freiburg im Breisgau 1909) I, 148–177 and Baumgartner, M., Die Philosophie des Alanus de Insulis (Münster 1896) 12. Boethius was the principal source of knowledge of the logic of Aristotle up to the time of the reception of the complete Organon in the twelfth century.Google Scholar

2 Boethius, In Categorias Aristotelis (PL 64, 201B): ‘Etsi nos curae officii consularis impediunt quominus in his studiis omne otium plenamque operam consumimus, pertinere tarnen videtur hoc ad aliquam rei publicae curam, elucubratae rei doctrina cives instruere.’ And, the opening lines of the same commentary (159A); ‘Expeditis his quae ad praedicamenta Aristotelis Porphyrii institutione digesta sunt, hos quoque commentarios. ’ Boethii In Isagogen Porphyrii Commenta (ed. Brandt, S., CSEL 48) xxvi–xxvii. A recent article by Lorenzo Minio-Paluello (‘The genuine text of Boethius’ translation of Aristotle's Categories,’ Medieval and Renaissance Studies I, ii [London 1941–43] 151–177) denies the authenticity of the received text of Boethius’ translation of the Categories of Aristotle. He believes that the translation accompanying the commentary of Boethius (PL 64, 159–294) is not that of Boethius, but a shorter version of some tenth century translator who re-translated some passages from the Greek, and revised others because the text of Boethius was not complete originally, Boethius having omitted the parts not indispensable to his commentary; and also because scribes assumed that readers would have a continuous text at hand when reading the commentary and hence did not transcribe the lemmata in their entirety. The original text of Boethius, he believes, is to be found in MSS Marcianus Z. L. 497 and Paris B. N lat. 2788, mainly because, in those places where the text of the commentary resumes the text of the lemma, the commentary agrees with these two MSS rather than with the received text. Hence he concludes that ‘the version which up to now has been ascribed to Boethius partly belongs to the tenth century and therefore, there was a medieval translation of Aristotle into Latin at a much earlier date than is commonly supposed.’ Cf. Théry, G., O.P., Alexandre d'Aphrodise (Bibliothèque Thomiste VII, Le Saulchoir 1926) 16.Google Scholar

3 Boethius’ works on the quadrivium (Institutio arithmetica, Institutio musica, Ars geometrica) seem to have been his earliest published works; cf. Brandt, CSEL 48, xxvii–xxix and Excursus II, lxxix–lxxxii; Rand, E. K., Der dem Boethius zugeschriebene Traktat De fide catholica (Jahrbücher für klassische Philologie, XXVI. Supplementbd. Leipzig 1901).Google Scholar

4 CSEL 48, 4, 11–14: ‘Rogo ut mihi explices id quod Victorinus orator sui temporis ferme doctissimus Porphyrii per Isagogen dicitur transtulisse.’ And, ibid. 347, 24–348, 1: ‘Nos etiam, quoniam promissi operis portum tenemus atque huius libri seriem primo quidem ab rhetore Victorino, post vero a nobis Latina oratione conversam gemina expositione patefecimus. 'Google Scholar

5 Editio secunda is one third longer; cf. Brandt, op. cit. xviii–xxvi.Google Scholar

6 Op. cit. 143, 8–148, 12.Google Scholar

7 PL 64, 159A–161C.Google Scholar

8 In lib. de interp. (cf. note 1, supra) I, 32; 34; II, 7, 13. On the importance of Boethius’ work as a commentator, cf. Grabmann, Geschichte I, 159: ‘Für uns handelt es sich hier nur, in ganz allgemeinen Umrissen die vorbildliche Bedeutung der Kommentare des Boethius zu Aristoteles und Porphyrius für die mittelalterliche Kommentierungsliteratur, speziell für die Aristotelesexegese, darzulegen. Im Einleitungskapitel zu seiner ersten Isagogeerklärung gibt Boethius im Anschlusse an griechischen Quellen die Richtpunkte an, die für die Erklärung einer philosophischen Schrift massgebend sind. Es sind Gesichtspunkte, an der Hand welcher mittelalterliche Interpreten sich eine zu erläuternde Quellenschrift gründlich und nach allen Seiten besehen konnten.'Google Scholar

9 Ammonius, In Porphyrii Isagogen sive V voces (ed. Busse, A., Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca [Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae] IV, iii, Berlin 1891). All citations of these commentators will be referred to as: ALRB, volume and page, of each edition. Cf. the valuable note of Brandt in his edition of Boethius, Excursus I, lxxviii–ix, which first directed this writer to the sources of Boethius among the Alexandrian commentators.Google Scholar

10 Ibid. xxii–xxvi. Cf. Excursus A, infra. Google Scholar

11 PWK I, 1863 (Freudenthal): ‘In der That war er ein kenntnisreicher, vielseitiger, und auch ein besonnener und vorurteilsfreier Gelehrter, der zugleich als Mathematiker, Astronom, Grammatiker, Rhetor und Philosoph sich hervorthat Fest steht schon heute dass auch jüngere Commentare zum Organon, wie die des Olympiodor, Johannes Philoponus, Elias, David, Nikephorus, Blemides, Leo Magentinus u. a. mittelbar oder unmittelbar auf Ammonius’ Erklärungen zurückgehen.'Google Scholar

12 Christ-Schmid-Stählin, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur II, 1066–7: ‘Die erhaltenen Aristoteleskommentare des Ammonius verraten keine besondere geistige Selbständigkeit, aber vielseitige Gelehrsamkeit und verhältnismässig nüchternen Sinn, und für seine Lehrbegabung spricht die grosse Zahl seiner bedeutenden Schüler. Alle tüchtigeren Aristo-telesexegeten des ausgehenden 5. Jhs. sind nämlich aus seiner Schule hervorgegangen; auf Damaskios hat er weniger gewirkt, aber auf Simplicius, Asklepios v Tralles, Olympiodorus den Jüngeren, Johannes Philoponus v Kaiserea, ist seine Art übergegangen und auch die späteren stehen noch unter seinem Einfluss.’ Cf. Busse, op. cit. xxxv; Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen (3. Aufl. Leipzig 1879) II2 828.Google Scholar

13 Cf. supra, ch. I at n. 10. A. Busse, Die Neoplatonischen Ausleger der Isagoge des Porphyrins (Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Programm des Friedrichs-Gymnasiums zu Berlin, Ostern 1892 [Berlin 1892]) 3: ‘Zwar fehlt es im Kommentar nicht an Spuren christlicher Anschauung, aber diese Stellen sind sämtlich auf Kosten der Abschreiber zu setzen, wie denn überhaupt die Schrift starke Erweiterungen erfahren hat.'Google Scholar

14 Busse loc. cit.: ‘Als Lebenszeit des Philosophen dürfen wir auf Grund der doppelten Beziehung, auf seinen Lehrer Proclus, welcher 485 starb, und auf seine Schüler Damascius und Simplicius, welche 529 nach Persien auswanderten, und Olympiodor, die zweite Hälfte des fünften und den Anfang des sechsten Jahrhunderts festsetzen Die Geburt unseres Philosophen dürfte in die Jahre 457 bis 474 fallen.’ Brandt, CSEL 48, xxii.Google Scholar

15 PWK II, v, 203–213 (Praechter): ‘Simplicius ist neben Alexander v Aphrodisias der schätzenwerteste unter den erhaltenen philosophischen Kommentatoren des Altertums;’ cf. Simplicii In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (ed. Kalbfleisch, C., ALRB VIII, Berlin 1907). Christ-Schmid-Stählin II, 1063: ‘S. nimmt ohne Vorbehalt alle Lehren der Schulüberlieferung an und hat, anders als Proklos, nur das Bestreben, überall nachzuweisen, dass Aristoteles mit Platon in voller Harmonie stehe.’ This is interesting in view of the ambition of Boethius mentioned above. Cf. Prantl, C., Geschichte der Logik im Abendlande (Leipzig 1927), I, 643; Zeller, op. cit. II2, 829.Google Scholar

16 PWK XVIII, 1, 207–227 (Beutler, R.). Olympiodori Prolegomena et in Categorias Commentarium (ed. A. Busse, ALRB XII, i, Berlin, 1902) and Olympiodori In Aristototelis Meteora Commentaria (ed. W Stüve, ALRB XII, ii, Berlin 1900); Olympiodori philosophi In Piatonis Gorgiam Commentaria, (ed. Norvin, W, Leipzig 1936). On these commentators, cf. ‘Conspectus Commentatorum Graecorum,’ in: Porphyrii Isagoge et in Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (Busse, A., ALRB IV i, xxxiv–l).Google Scholar

17 PWK II, 1697–98 (Freudenthal); Zeller, V, 843, 1; Asclepii In Aristotelis Metaphysicorum Libros A–Z Commentaria (ed. Hayduck, M., ALRB VI, ii, Berlin 1888).Google Scholar

18 PWK IV, 2232 (Kroll); Krumbacher, K., Geschichte der Byzantinischen Literatur (München 1897) 432; Busse, Ausleger 13–20; Neumann, C. F., Mémoire sur la vie et les ouvrages de David, , philosophe Arménien, (Paris 1829): ‘L'ouvrage qui donne véritablement un rang à David parmi les plus grands philosophes et les plus savans hommes de son siècle, est celui qui est intitulé Fondemens de la Philosophie 1 (cited from Ausleger 18). Davidis Prolegomena et in Porphyrii Isagogen Commentarium (ed. Busse, A., ALRB XVIII, ii, Berlin 1904).Google Scholar

19 Ausleger 14; Prantl, op. cit. I, 642: ‘da dort auch noch Ammonius erwähnt wird, so muss David nicht zu weit in das 5. Jahrh. zurück, sondern mehr in die erste Hälfte des 6. gesetzt werden.'Google Scholar

20 Krumbacher, , op. cit. 432; Eliae In Porphyrii Isagogen et Aristotelis Categorias Commentaria (ed. Busse, A., ALRB XVIII, i, Berlin 1900).Google Scholar

21 PWK IX, ii, 1764–1795 (Kroll); Krumbacher op. cit. 581; Prantl, op. cit. I, 643; Kroll: ‘zweifellos einer der produktivisten, vielseitigsten und gelehrtesten seiner Zeit.’ Philoponi In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (ed. Busse, A., ALRB XIII, i, Berlin 1898); In Analytica priora (ed. Wallies, M., ALRB XIII, ii, Berlin 1905); In Aristotelis Analytica posteriora Commentaria (ed. Wallies, M., ALRB XIII, iii, Berlin 1909).Google Scholar

22 Cf. David, , Isagoge (ALRB XVIII, ii) 83, 8 and Elias, In Isagogen (ALRB XVIII, i) 35, 5 and 127, 5. Ammon. De Interp. (ALRB IV, v) 1, 13.Google Scholar

23 Ammonius In Isagogen 21, 6–8.Google Scholar

24 Ammonius, In Oategorias 7, 15–16.Google Scholar

25 Olympiodorus, In Categorias 1, 10–12.Google Scholar

26 Cf. David, In Isagogen 80–81: Cf. Ammonius, In Categorias 13, 25 and ibid. 7, 20.Google Scholar

27 All of the commentators who use these ten points, Ammonius, Olympiodorus, Elias, Simplicius and John Philoponus, stress the fact that this must be done in the introduction to every work of Aristotle; cf. their introductions, opp. citt. Google Scholar

28 cf. infra, p. 262f.Google Scholar

29 Simplicius, In Categorias (ALRB VIII, 3, 18–29); Google Scholar

30 Simplicius, In Categorias 8, 28–9, 3.Google Scholar

31 David, , In Isagogen 83, 93; Elias, In Isagogen 39, and In Categorias 129.Google Scholar

32 Aristotle, Analytica Priora 43b, 1–25.Google Scholar

33 Olympiodorus, In Categorias 1, 13.Google Scholar

34 Alexandri In Aristotelis Analyticorum Priorum Librum I Commentarium (ed. Wallies, M., ALRB II, i, Berlin 1883) and Alexandri Quod fertur in Aristotelis Sophisticos Elenchos Commentarium (ed. Wallies, M., ALRB II, iii, Berlin 1898); Prantl, op. cit. I, 621; ‘Sein Reichtum an historischem Material machte ihn uns schon oben bei den Untersuchungen über die Peripatetiker und Stoiker oft zur einzigen Quelle, und in dieser Beziehung könnten wir alle übrigen Commentatoren, mit Ausnahme höchstens des Simplicius, sehr leicht vermissen, wenn die Schriften Alexanders erhalten wären.’ Cf. PWK I, 1453–55 (Gercke); Christ-Schmid II, 489.Google Scholar

36 Gilson, E., ‘Les sources gréco-arabes de l'augustinisme avicennisant', Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen ǎge 4 (Paris 1929) 5–149.Google Scholar

36 The copious references to Alexander in the editions of the sixth-century commentators bear eloquent testimony to this popularity.Google Scholar

37 Op. cit. (n. 1 supra) II, 505; Théry, op. cit. (n. 2 supra) 17 believes that Boethius knew only this work of Alexander.Google Scholar

38 Porphyrii Isagoge et in Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (ed. A. Busse, ALRE IV, i, Berlin 1887); Prantl I, 626–638; Christ-Schmid II, 2, 678; Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III2, 631–677Google Scholar

39 Cf. Zeller, , op. cit. 774–826; Prantl I, 641; Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam (ed. Kroll, W, Leipzig 1899, 2 vols.) and In Platonis Timaeum (ed. E. Diehl, Leipzig 1903); Elias, In Categ. 107, 24–26: Google Scholar

40 It has been deemed advisable in view of the value of this item for an estimate of the scholarly stature of these commentators to give, on this point of and on the following note a rather large portion of their text. These will be found in Excursus B, infra. Google Scholar

41 Cf. Excursus B, infra; Zeller II2, 182.Google Scholar

42 Cf. David, , 1–79.Google Scholar

43 Aristotle, Analytica posteriora, B 89b 2.Google Scholar

44 David, , loc. cit. 1–9.Google Scholar

45 Ibid. 9–76.Google Scholar

1 Cf. supra, p. 227. Theon, Thus, Rhetores Graeci (ed. Spengel, L., Leipzig 1854, II, 78). Hermogenes lists (ibid. II, 212); and Aphthonius has: (ibid. II, 49).Google Scholar

2 Cf. PWK (Ziegler, K.) II, 5, 2037–2054; Sandys, J. E., A History of Classical Scholarship, (Cambridge 1906) I, 318; Baldwin, C. S., Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic (New York 1928) 23.Google Scholar

3 Christ-Schmid-Stählin, , op. cit. VII, 2, 2, 729–736; PWK (Radermacher) VIII, 1, 865–877; Baldwin, op. cit. 23–39.Google Scholar

4 Text in Rabe, H., Rhetores Graeci VI (Leipzig 1913) 213; 93; 28; 1; 414.Google Scholar

5 PWK (Jülicher) I, 2797–2801; Sandys, op. cit. I, 319.Google Scholar

6 Rabe, H., Prolegomenon Sylloge, in Rhetores Graeci XIV (Leipzig 1931). Rabe has here edited a collection of prolegomena to commentaries on the works of Aphthonius and Hermogenes. Thirty-four pieces are edited and of these, eleven show the schema in which we are interested. In the chart showing their use of this schema, which they occasionally call Rabe's numbers will be found at the head of each column. Of these, #8, #9 and #10 are Prolegomena in Aphthonii Progymnasmata; #13, #15, #17 and #20 are Prolegomena in Hermogenis #27 is in Hermogenis and #28, #32 and #33 are in Hermogenis Google Scholar

7 Cf. Rabe, op. cit. passim, where the testimonia are given above his app. crit. Google Scholar

8 Cf. Rabe, , op. cit. 73–74 and 134, 10, as follows: #27 in treating of the last topic finally claims Rhetoric as a branch of Logic, and in so many words, refrains from discussing the question of the relation of Logic to Philosophy. It seems probable from a cursory reading of much of the literature on this topic that the relations between the two arts of Rhetoric and Dialectics were very close, and that the rhetoricians had practically adopted the manner of treatment of the Logicians.Google Scholar

9 Rabe, , op. cit. 293, 9–13 and infra, note 21.Google Scholar

10 Rabe, , op. cit. 79, 8–17 and infra, note 19.Google Scholar

11 Rabe, , op. cit. 373, 1–13.Google Scholar

12 This latter topic is the traditional division of styles into genus sublime, medium et humile, traditional among the Rhetoricians since Aristotle.Google Scholar

13 Thus, Rabe #9 Johannis Doxapatris in Aphthonii Progymnasmata 127, 22–25 refers to these topics as ‘the points so often talked about': Rabe, , #17, 288, 9: Rabe, , #20, 304, 4–6; 360, 9–11; and especially, 401, 27–29: Google Scholar

14 Rabe, , op. cit. 317, 8–11: Google Scholar

15 Thus they ask whether Rhetoric is from the gods; was it used by the ‘heroes'; how did it come to mankind; why did it reach its peak at Athens; definition of rhetoric, forms of rhetoric, the number of rhetoricians, kinds of rhetorical treatises, kinds of civil constitutions, and how many ways of rhetorical exegesis are used by rhetoricians. The development of this last topic is unlike the schema we have been studying; he claims the rhetorical Commentator may handle his matter: (Rabe, , 41–42). As to the origin of these ten questions, Rabe says: ‘In medio relinquo, utrum interpretes rhetorici schema X capitum constituerint an philosophici, certe eodem consilio ab utrisque adhibitum est: ut decas efficeretur’ (Praefatio, v). From a careful study of these ten topics in the rhetoricians and the philosophers, I believe that the framework erected by the latter gives evidence of greater solidity and less of a mere desire to construct a series of ten questions.Google Scholar

16 Aristotle, Anal. Post. 89b 23.Google Scholar

17 Rabe, , op. cit. xlvii, cvii–cix. Thus from the fact that one of these commentators speaks very highly of Porphyry, he concludes that it must have been written not much later than the fifth century (78, 1). This would seem to imply that there was a lapse in the knowledge of Porphyry and his work, a conclusion that is hardly tenable, in view of the frequency of commentary many centuries after his time.Google Scholar

18 Rabe, , op. cit. #8, 73, 11–17 Google Scholar

19 Rabe, , op. cit. #8, 79, 8–17 Google Scholar

20 Rabe, , op. cit. #8, 79, 18–80, 7Google Scholar

21 Rabe, , op. cit. #17, 293, 9–13.Google Scholar

1 Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford 1941) 74: ‘After a short prologue Hugh [of St. Victor] summarizes the various kinds of sacrifice prescribed in Leviticus, the persons who are to offer, the times and the seasons. This is not quite equivalent to the usual prologue, known as accessus or materia, with its causa scribendi, materia, intentio which was common to the grammarians, the theologians, and the lawyers.’ From this statement, I infer that the practice of an accessus was not notably developed among the exegetes. In any case, it would not seem that its use in that field or among the theologians is of great significance for the origins of the practice. Abailard in his Commentariorum super S. Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos libri quinque (PL 178, 785–786) speaks of Intentio generalis omnium epistolarum and of intentiones propriae [singularum epistolarum], materia and modus tractandi. Thierry of Chartres in his De sex dierum operibus mentions intentio, utilitas, titulus; cf. Hauréau, B., Notices et extraits de quelques manuscrits latins de la bibliothèque nationale I (Paris 1890) 52, citing from Paris B.N. lat. 647, (saec. XII). Cf. Wilmart, A., Codices Vaticani Reginenses, pp. 118 [Vat. Reg. lat. 50, fol. 77v] and 176 [Vat. Reg. lat. 79, fol. 74r], both of the twelfth century.Google Scholar

2 Abaelardi, Petri Glossae super Porphyrium (ed. Geyer, B., Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, XXI, 1, 2, Münster 1919, pp. 2 and 111–113) has intentio, materia, modus tractandi, utilitas, per quam partem logicae. This work is a commentary on Boethius and hence it is clear whence Abailard took at least this use of the technique. Cf. also Cousin, V, Oeuvres inédits d’ Abélard (Paris 1848) 608. Jansen, W, Der Kommentar des Clarenbaldus von Arras zu Boethius De Trinitate, Ein Werk aus der Schule von Chartres im 12. Jahrhundert (Breslau 1926) 3*, a work which purports to be a complete edition of the MSS, strangely omits three folia. Thus, fol. 66r: ‘Librum hunc de Trinitate inchoantibus primo videndum est, quae sit auctoris intentio, quae libri utilitas, ad quem scribat [fol. 69r] Christianae religionis. etc.’ From the length of the indicated gap, it would appear that this is a rather substantial prologue and its omission is somewhat hard to understand.Google Scholar

3 ‘Sex igitur sunt quae in principio cuiusque doctrinalis operis inquirenda sunt, videlicet subiectum, agens, forma, finis, libri titulus et genus philosophiae.’ Le Opere di Dante, Testo Critico della Società Dantesca Italiana (Firenze 1921) Ep. XIII, 436.Google Scholar

4 Cf. Meyer, P, ‘Les manuscrits français de Cambridge’ (cod. St. Johns F − 30), Romania VIII (Paris 1879). This work of Peter of Peckham is said to be a vernacular adaptation of the Elucidarium of Honorius of Autun, in which he tells us: Cinc choses sunt en ja enquere Au commencement en liver fere: Ki fut autur e l'entitlement E la matire e la furme ensement, E la fin, par quei ceo est resun Fu fete la composiciun (487–492). He then continues in some detail on each one of the points and makes a distinction between ‘une fin générale e une autre espéciale.’ The entrance of the technique of the accessus into the vernacular in the thirteenth century is, perhaps, the final goal of this practice that had come so far over the centuries. Pierpont Morgan MS 761 (saec. xiii ex.) contains a complete text of this work.Google Scholar

5 Boethius’ works on mathematics, mainly translations from Nicomachus, show no indication of its use in that field. It is very probable that his interest in mathematics preceded his work on Porphyry and Aristotle, and hence it may be suggested that he did not become acquainted with the accessus until he turned to the philosophers.Google Scholar

6 This is not to imply that the practice was completely sterile in the twelfth century. The use of the technique could have been a stimulating and effective school practice even though the students were unaware of the steps whereby they were constrained to decide where in the field of philosophy they should locate the works of Ovid or Lucan.Google Scholar

7 Suringar, W H. D., Historia critica scholiastarum latinorum (Lyon 1854) I, 213, publishes a ‘Fragmentum scholiastae inediti ad Ciceronem De Inventione Rhetorica,’ to which he assigns a date very close to that of Boethius, on evidence that seems to me to be rather scanty.Google Scholar

8 The personal popularity of Abailard in the schools of Paris and his use of this technique in his lectures would have been a potent means of spreading the acquaintance with this form of prologue, among students of the twelfth century.Google Scholar

9 Cf. Kozik, Ignatius S., ‘St. Jerome's Biblical Preface’ (Fordham University, unpublished Master's dissertation, 1938).Google Scholar