Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reading Sallust in Twelfth-Century Flanders

  • Article
  • Published:
International Journal of the Classical Tradition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. For discussion of the survival of the larger fragments, see L. D. Reynolds, ‘Sallust’, in Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics, ed. L. D. Reynolds, Oxford, 1983, pp. 341–9 (347–9).

  2. For discussion of the development of Augustine’s interest in Sallust, the type of text he used and the passages he cited, see H. Hagendahl, Augustine and the Latin Classics, 2 vols, Göteborg, 1967, II, pp. 631–49, and in particular pp. 637–8, where he identifies BC 1–16.4, 51–4 (Caesar’s and Cato’s speeches), BJ 1–4, and Historiae 1.1 as passages of great interest to Augustine. Note also his summation: ‘Catiline is represented as the very prototype of a scoundrel’ (p. 646). For further discussion, see R. M. Stein, ‘Sallust for his Readers, 410–1550: A Study in the Formation of the Classical Tradition’, PhD diss., Columbia University, 1977, pp. 11–69.

  3. See Stein (n. 2), pp. 21–2, 46–9.

  4. For discussion of its scope and the extant fragments, see P. J. Osmond and R. W. Ulery, ‘Sallustius’, in Catalogus translationum et commentariorum; Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries; Annotated Lists and Guides, VIII, ed. V. Brown, Washington DC, 2003, pp. 183–326 (301–2). For Asper’s dates, P. L. Schmidt, ‘Aemilius Asper’, in Brill’s New Pauly, ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider, Leiden, 2003, II, col. 218.

  5. For discussion of its origins and diffusion, see W. M. Stevens, ‘The Figure of the Earth in Isidore’s “De natura rerum”’, Isis, 71, 1980, pp. 268–77; A. D. von den Brinken, ‘Mappa mundi und Chronographia: Studien zur imago mundi des abendländischen Mittelalters’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, 24, 1968, pp. 118–86, esp. 128–31; P. Gautier Dalché, ‘De la glose à la contemplation: Place et fonction de la carte dans les manuscrits du Haut Moyen Âge’, in Testo e immagine nell’alto Medioevo, 2 vols, Spoleto, 1994, II, pp. 693–771.

  6. For the dates see Gautier Dalché (n. 5), p. 707.

  7. For the former type, see MS Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek [hereafter, BSB], clm 4559 (11th century) fol. 20r, and MS Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana [hereafter, BAV], lat. 3325 (10th century) fol. 24r. For the later, see the discussions of MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson G.44 (11th century), fol. 17v, and Deventer, SAB, 11 F 1 (12/13th century), fol. 1r later in this article.

  8. Besides the dissertation of Stein (n. 2), there is now the work of Étienne Rouziès, ‘Lectures médiévales de Salluste’, Thése diplôme d’archiviste-paléographe, Paris-ENC, 2004 (online summary available at http://theses.enc.sorbonne.fr/2004/rouzies). For Maes, see ‘Sallust’, in Brill’s New Pauly, Supplement: The Reception of Classical Literature, ed. C. Walde, Leiden, 2012, pp. 370–8.

  9. Osmond and Ulery (n. 4).

  10. E.g., the ‘Anonymus Ratisbonensis A’, described in Osmond and Ulery (n. 4), p. 227, as ‘showing argumentation of a decidedly scholastic bent’.

  11. C. Cardelle de Hartmann, ‘Sallust in St. Emmeran: Handschriften und Kommentare in der Bibliothek des Klosters St. Emmeran (Regensburg)’, The Journal of Medieval Latin, 18, 2008, pp. 1–23.

  12. See L. D. Reynolds, ‘The Lacuna in Sallust’s Jugurtha’, Revue d’histoire des textes, 14–15, 1984, pp. 59–69.

  13. For an overview of the political history of Flanders, see D. Nicholas, Medieval Flanders, London, 1992, esp. pp. 56–96. For a more detailed discussion of the role of the abbeys in the late 11th century, see S. Vanderputten, ‘Crises of Cenobitism: Abbatial Leadership and Monastic Competition in Late Eleventh-Century Flanders’, English Historical Review, 127, 2012, pp. 259–84.

  14. See P. Godman, The Silent Masters: Latin Literature and its Censors in the High Middle Ages, Princeton NJ, 2000, pp. 37–41.

  15. MSS Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, LIP 26 (from St Peter, Ghent), and Valenciennes, Bibliothèque municipale, 448 (from St Amand).

  16. See Vanderputten, ‘Crises of Cenobitism’ (n. 13), pp. 270–1.

  17. See D. Ganz, [Review article] ‘D. H. Wright, The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence’, Early Medieval Europe, 18, 2010, pp. 131–3, referring to the fifteen lines of the Heauton timorumenos in capitalis script copied into MS Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France [hereafter, BNF], lat. 2109 (from St Amand) as a probatio pennae.

  18. See B. Munk Olsen, L’étude des auteurs classiques latins aux xi e et xii e siècles, 3 vols, Paris, 1982–1989, III, pp. 216–19.

  19. Ibid., II, p. 349.

  20. Vanderputten, ‘Crises of Cenobitism’ (n. 13), p. 262.

  21. For a full description, see A. Boutemy, ‘Notice sur le manuscrit 749 de la Bibliothèque Municipale de Douai’, Latomus, 3, 1939, pp. 183–206 and 264–98. See also Munk Olsen (n. 18), II, pp. 320–1.

  22. See Osmond and Ulery (n. 4), pp. 231–2.

  23. Boutemy (n. 21), pp. 184, 195–200.

  24. Very occasionally the Douai witness will agree with another Flemish manuscript and against the Valenciennes witness (e.g., in BC 20.1, where Douai 749 shares the reading ‘imperatam’ with MS Vat. lat. 3325 and against the correct reading imparatam in MS Valenciennes 549 [503]), but the infrequency of such parallels and the common nature of these types of error make it far more likely that they occurred by chance.

  25. The scholion in both witnesses to ‘comitiis’ from BC 24.1 discussed below is a good example of this; both manuscripts use exactly the same contractions for initial ‘con’ and abbreviations for ‘quandoquidem’ and ‘omnes’.

  26. Besides the Florilegium Duacense mentioned below (see the discussion of Sallust in St Omer), another extensive florilegium of classical texts is found in MS Douai, BM 747 itself, at fols 23r–61v; see Boutemy (n. 21), pp. 187–9, for a description, and pp. 195–6 for his conclusion that the missing portion of the copy of the BC in this manuscript was used as a source by the scribes who compiled the florilegium.

  27. For other evidence for the use of classical texts at Marchiennes during the 12th century, see the hagiographer Gualbert, active there between 1124 and 1130, who cited Juvenal in his Translatio S. Jonati; see S. Vanderputten, ‘A Miracle of Jonatus in 1127: The Translatio sancti Jonati in villa Saliacensi (BHL 4449) as Political Enterprise and Failed Hagiographical Project’, Analecta Bollandiana, 126, 2008, pp. 55–92 (7.22–23).

  28. For manuscripts containing the Vita et Miracula S. Dunstani of Eadmer which were written for St Rictrude in Marchiennes and St Sauveur in Anchin in the mid to late 12th century, see Eadmer of Canterbury, The Lives and Miracles of Saints Oda, Dunstan, and Oswald, ed. A. J. Turner and B. J. Muir, Oxford, 2006, pp. lxxix–lxxxi.

  29. Reynolds, Texts and Transmission (n. 1), pp. 341, 344.

  30. Thus, in BC 3.3 Valenciennes 549 inserts a above the line before the phrase ‘studio ad rem publicam’, and this reading is also found incorporated in the text in MS Douai 747 and a witness from Ghent, MS Vatican City, BAV Reg. lat. 686; in BC 3.5 Valenciennes 549 originally agreed with another Ghent witness, MS BAV, Vat. lat. 3325, in writing ‘ab reliquis malis’, but the corrector expuncted ‘reliquis’ and corrected it above the line to the proper reading ‘reliquorum’, and this is also transmitted in the text of the Douai witness. In BC 7.7 Valenciennes 549 originally wrote ‘trahat’ for ‘traheret’, and this reading is found in the Douai witness, but a later corrector in Valenciennes 549 emended it above the line to the correct form.

  31. Found on fol. 1r of Valenciennes 549 and fol. 70r of Douai 749.

  32. See the opening comment: ‘Totus liber iste uersatur in duobus contraiis; in defensore patriae et hoste, et hii duo sunt eius materia’ (‘this entire book turns upon two contrary men, the defender of the homeland and its enemy, and these two are its subject matter’). For discussion see Osmond and Ulery (n. 4), p. 231, and for a general account of this phenomenon in Sallust manuscripts, pp. 193–4.

  33. Osmond and Ulery (n. 4), p. 231.

  34. Valenciennes 549, fol. 6v; Douai 747, fol. 76r.

  35. Valenciennes 549, fol. 5r; Douai 747, fol. 74v.

  36. A variant of it appears again in the commentary on the BJ; with regard to triumuirum coloniis deducundis (BJ 42.1), the commentary in Valenciennes 549 (f. 29r) states here: ‘Colonia est noua ciuitas, et mos erat apud romanos ut in nouis ciuitatibus post xl dies familiae militum mutarentur’ (‘a colony is a new city, and it was the custom that after 40 days the companies of the soldiers would be changed’).

  37. See Thesaurus Linguae Latinae [hereafter, TLL], Leipzig, 1900-, III, p. 1698. For Augustine, ‘colonia dicta…est a colendo’ (Augustine, De ciuitate Dei X.1); for Isidore, see below.

  38. See TLL, VIII, p. 1645 (municeps), 1648 (municipium).

  39. Valenciennes 549, fol. 29r.

  40. Glossing ‘nam duo sunt sinus’ (‘for there are two gulfs’; BJ 78.2).

  41. Beginning ‘Consules dicti sunt uel a consulando ciuibus’ (cf. Isidore, Origines IX.3.6); the first hand continues to IX.3.64 (‘agmen dicitur ab a[u]gendo’). The second scholiast overlaps with the first, beginning ‘Excubitores dicti’ (IX.3.42) and concluding ‘patres conscripti uocati’ (IX.4.11); he provides definitions of quaestor and supplicia not included in the standard editions of Isidore.

  42. See Cardelle de Hartmann (n. 11), p. 11 and esp. n. 37.

  43. See P. Schmitz, ‘Mont-Blandin’, in Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques [hereafter, DHGE], Paris, 1912-, IX, cols 118–29, esp. 121.

  44. Described in E. Pellegrin et al., Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane, 3 vols, Paris, 1975–2010, II.1, pp. 95–7; Munk Olsen (n. 18), II, pp. 352–3.

  45. For the date of the ex-libris, see Munk Olsen (n. 18), II, p. 352.

  46. Printed in A. Derolez et al., Corpus catalogorum Belgii: The Medieval Booklists of the Southern Low Countries, 7 vols, Brussels, 1994-, vol. 3, pp. 72–97; see also the discussion of the library based on this list at pp. 48–51.

  47. Pellegrin et al. (n. 44), II.1, p. 96.

  48. Munk Olsen (n. 18), II, p. 352.

  49. See fol. 22r, where a passage omitted from BJ 29.6 [‘pro consilio…pondere’] was supplied in the margin by a corrector, although parts of it were then lost when the page was cropped.

  50. For the identification of these two sections as the same hand, see Pellegrin et al. (n. 44), II.1, p. 96; for the date, Munk Olsen (n. 18), II, p. 352.

  51. In my collation of variants in Valenciennes, BM 549, Reg. lat. 686 and Vat. lat. 3325 (from St Peter), just for the portion of BJ 103 which belongs to the replacement text there are fourteen variants from the Teubner text of Kurfess, and ten of these are found in Reg. lat. 686 alone.

  52. The few meagre and partial lists of books to survive from the 15th century are collected in Derolez et al. (n. 46), III, pp. 111–15.

  53. For discussion of its holdings, see A. Derolez, ‘Scriptorium en bibliotheek tijdens de Middeleeuwen’, in Ganda & Blandinium: De Gentse abdijen van Sint-Pieters en Sint-Baafs, ed. G. Declercq, Ghent, 1997, pp. 147–60. For a list of surviving manuscripts, numbering some 68 books, see Derolez et al. (n. 46), VII, pp. 140–4.

  54. See Horace, Carminum liber quartus ex antiquiss. manuscriptis codicibus, cum commentariis falso adhuc Porphyrioni et Acrioni adscriptis, ed. Jacob Cruq, Bruges, 1566, p. 4. The most important of these is the so-called Blandinius uetustissimus; for the importance of its readings in reconstructing the text of Horace, see Horace, Opera, 4th ed., ed. D. R. Shackleton-Bailey, Munich, 2001, pp. iii–iv, and E. Courtney, ‘The Transmission of the Text of Horace’, in Brill’s Companion to Horace, ed. H.-C. Günther, Leiden, 2013, pp. 547–60 (550–1).

  55. For the text of the anathema see n.70 below; it is found in MSS Oxford, Bodleian Library, D’Orville 145 (Hyginus, 11th century), fol. 66v; Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 88 (Martianus Capella, 9th century), fol. 2v; BAV, Reg. lat. 1987 (Martianus Capella, 9th and 11th century), fol. 146v; and Escorial, Real Biblioteca del Monasterio de San Lorenzo, M.III.14 (Nonius Marcellus, 11th century), fol. 2r, and L.III.33 (Vegetius, 10th century, with 11th-century additions), fol. 78r, as well as in Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, LIP 26 (f. 1r) and Vat. lat. 3325 (discussed below).

  56. Discussed in detail in my forthcoming article ‘The Ghent Manuscript of Terence and its Intellectual Environment’.

  57. See Munk Olsen (n. 18), II, p. 339. See further R. W. Hunt and F. F. Madan, A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, 7 vols, Oxford, 1895–1953, III, p. 350 (no. 14775).

  58. See J. Van de Wiele, ‘De zestiende eeuw; De Sint-Baafsabdij afgeschaft en gesloopt, de Sint-Pietersabdij een ruïne’, in Ganda & Blandinium: De Gentse abdijen van Sint-Pieters en Sint-Baafs, ed. G. Declercq, Ghent, 1997, pp. 73–84.

  59. See O. E. Pächt and J. J. G. Alexander, Illuminated Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, 3 vols, Oxford, 1966–73, I, p. 20.

  60. For the date see Hunt and Madan (n. 57), III, p. 350. P. Saenger, Space between Words: The Origins of Silent Reading, Stanford CA, 1997, who assumed that this manuscript was written in St Peter under Wichard, also seemed to suggest that the fly-leaves were a product of that scriptorium; he contrasted their script, which he defines as ‘written in hierarchical word blocks of fewer than fifteen characters in length’ with the (fully) separated script which he attributed to the reform of the scriptorium under Wichard (pp. 198, 200).

  61. Munk Olsen (n. 18), II, p. 339.

  62. Fol. 17r concludes with BC 51.18, and the text resumes on fol. 18r.

  63. W. Nippel, ‘Vis’, in Brill’s New Pauly, ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider, XV, Leiden, 2010, cols 462–3.

  64. See the comments in the anonymous Inuectiua in Ciceronem, attributed to Sallust and already known to Quintilian, that Cicero fined certain conspirators while he made judgements under the lex Plautia ([Sallust], Inuectiua in Ciceronem, 2.3), or those in the late antique Scholia Bobiensia (p. 19, 5), that P. Sulla, whom Cicero was defending against accusations of joining in the same conspiracy, was tried by a jury assembled at the same time for another (aborted) trial under this law.

  65. In later commentary traditions the explanation of the lex Plautia became much more confused; for Renaissance views, see R. W. Ulery, ‘In the Margins of Sallust. Part II’, in Antiquaria a Roma. Intorno a Pomponia Leto e Paolo II, Rome, 2003, pp. 13–33 (26) [I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for IJCT for this reference].

  66. A black and white image of fol. 17v is available on the Bodleian Library’s ‘Luna’ website (http://bodley30.bodley.ox.ac.uk:8180/luna/servlet).

  67. E.g.: ‘Materia uero huius operis est catilina ceterique coadiutores coniurationis suae’ (‘the subject matter of this work is Catiline and the other helpers in his conspiracy’).

  68. Although this device also appears in other manuscripts, predominately of the second part of the 12th century. Thus, MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson G.43, a 10th-century manuscript perhaps from the south of France, has a ‘T’ map on fol. 56v as an addition, dated by Munk Olsen (n. 18), II, p. 338, to the second half of the 12th century, and like Rawlinson G.44, this map also writes ‘Syrtes Leptis Syrtes’, in this instance just below the Nile. See also the discussion below of MS Deventer, SAB, 11 F 1.

  69. A comprehensive description is provided in the latest (2010) volume of Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane; see Pellegrin et al. (n. 44), III.2, pp. 260–1. See also Munk Olsen (n. 18), II, pp. 355–6.

  70. Edited in Pellegrin et al. (n. 44), III.2, p. 261; it now reads: ‘liber Sancti Petri Gandensis ecclesiae; Seruanti bedictio [sic], tollenti maledictio. Qui folium ‹ex eo tuler›it uel ‹curtau›erit, anathema ‹sit›’ (‘a book of the church of St Peter of Ghent. A blessing on whoever preserves it, a curse on whoever steals it. He who removes a folium or cuts off part of it, let him be excommunicated’).

  71. Pellegrin et al. (n. 44), III.2, p. 260. Published in H. M. Bannister, ‘Liturgical Fragments’, Journal of Theological Studies, 9, 1908, pp. 398–427 (412–21), who attributes them, however, to an Irish scribe. For general discussion of the presence of English manuscripts in Flanders at this period, see P. Grierson, ‘The Relations between England and Flanders before the Norman conquest’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th series, 23, 1941, pp. 71–112 (108–12).

  72. For links between Flemish monasteries and Canterbury in this period, see Grierson (n. 71) and S. Vanderputten, ‘Canterbury and Flanders in the Late Tenth Century’, Anglo-Saxon England, 35, 2006, pp. 219–44. For Dunstan’s sojourn at St Peter, see M. Winterbottom and M. Lapidge, The Early Lives of Dunstan, Oxford, 2012, pp. xxxiii–xxxiv and cxxv–cxxx, for the hagiographic work Lectiones in depositione S. Dunstani by Adelard of Ghent. See also the early 12th-century account of Dunstan’s exile by Eadmer of Canterbury (n. 28), pp. 100–3.

  73. Described and edited by F. Stella, ‘Il ritmo de Ioseph patriarcha di Segardo Audomarense: edizione dal Vat. lat. 3325 (Blandiniensis)’, Filologia medio-latina, 5, 1998, pp. 279–90.

  74. Now MS Valenciennes, BM 413 (9c). The text corresponds to the commentary on Prudentius, Psychomachia 8 and 10 printed in J. M. Burnam, Commentaire anonyme sur Prudence d’apres le manuscrit 413 de Valenciennes, Paris, 1910, p. 88. For the diffusion of this commentary tradition and the question of authorship by Remigius, see S. O’Sullivan, Early Medieval Glosses on Prudentius’ Psychomachia: The Weitz Tradition, Leiden, 2004, pp. 23–7.

  75. The hands are so similar that F. Stella concluded wrongly that this text formed the conclusion of the supplementary text for the BJ; see Stella (n. 73), p. 182.

  76. Pellegrin et al. (n. 44), III.2, p. 261.

  77. For these dates see ibid. Munk Olsen (n. 18), II, p. 356, dated the addition to the 12th century.

  78. It is not mentioned by Reynolds in his discussion of the stemma in Reynolds, Texts and Transmission (n. 1), nor is it used for his edition: Sallust, Catilina, Iugurtha, Historiarum Fragmenta Selecta; Appendix Sallustiana, ed. L. D. Reynolds, Oxford, 1991, although he does suggest it may be useful for reconstruction of the lacuna in Reynolds, ‘The Lacuna’ (n.12). Kurfess uses it occasionally, grouping it in the family ‘Y’; see Sallust, Catalina, Iugurtha, fragmenta ampliora post A.W. Ahlberg, 3rd edition, ed. A. Kurfess, Stuttgart, 1991, and it was also used by A. Ernout, Salluste: Catilina, Jugurtha, fragments des Histoires, 7th edition, Paris, 1967.

  79. Spellings are, however, quite inconsistent; thus, on fol. 3r, Vat. lat. 3325 has both ‘capiundae’ (BC 5.6) and ‘accipiendis’ (BC 6.5). Occasionally this type of archaic form was transmitted in other, later manuscripts, slipping through apparent attempts to modernize spellings; thus, on fol. 15v, Valenciennes, BM 549 reads ‘optumum’ (BC 57.5), although on the next page it reads ‘optimum’ (BC 59.3).

  80. Clear examples occur on fols 14r (‘talis’; BC 51.17) and 18r (‘montis, cohortis’; BC 59.2).

  81. On fol. 10r (BC 36.5).

  82. On fol. 3r the corrector in Vat. lat. 3325 places inversion marks over the words ‘sapientiae parum’ (BC 5.4), corresponding to the reading of Valenciennes 549 and Douai 747; on fol. 13v the corrector places them over ‘reges atque populum’ (BC 51.4), corresponding to the original reading of Valenciennes 549. On fol. 5v the corrector adds ‘erat’ above the line at the end of the phrase ‘in Italia nullus exercitus’ (BC 16.5), coinciding with the reading in Valenciennes 549 and Douai 747; likewise on fol. 6v the corrector glosses the phrase ‘uictoria in manu nobis est’ (BC 20.10) with ‘uel uobis’; Valenciennes 549 and Douai 747 both read ‘uobis in manu’ here.

  83. In addition to those variants noted in other manuscripts in the editions of Reynolds and Kurfess, Vat. lat. 3325 and Valenciennes 549 share the following: they add ‘esse’ after ‘id’ in the phrase ‘id imminutum’ (BJ 110.3), ‘amicitia’ after the phrase ‘semper apud me integra’ (BJ 110.4), and omit ‘uobis’ from the phrase ‘quando uobis ita placet’ (BJ 110.7).

  84. On fol. 42v, at the beginning of Marius’s address to a ‘contio’ of the Roman people (BJ 85), a scholiast writing in a script with Gothic features noted: ‘Oratio Marii consulis ad populum Romanum’; on fol. 49r, at the start of Sulla’s speech to Bocchus (BJ 102.5–11), another hand, possibly that of the scribe of the additional text, wrote: ‘oratio… ad regem b…’ (some text is lost here due to cropping). For the presence of similar subheadings for the BJ in MS Munich, BSB, clm 14477, see Cardelle de Hartmann (n. 11), p. 10.

  85. Posing the initial questions ‘Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, quomodo, quando’; see Osmond and Ulery (n.4), p. 194.

  86. For discussion, see G. H. Brown, ‘Anthologia Latina 666 in Codices Vat. Lat. 3325 and Monacens. CLM 14613’, Classical Philology, 68, 1973, pp. 213–24.

  87. Found with slightly different wording in Rawlinson G.44; see above.

  88. Described by Munk Olsen (n. 18), II, p. 350; see further p. 313 (# 107), where this manuscript is the only one cited for this particular text.

  89. Adapted slightly from the translation of S. A. Barney, W. J. Lewis, J. A. Beach and O. Berghof, The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, Cambridge, 2006, p. 306.

  90. Isidore, Origines, V.26.21 and V.26.23.

  91. Servius, Aeneid, I.159, which cites BC 55.3 (‘est in carcere locus quod Tullianum appellatur’).

  92. Pompeius Festus p. 395.3–5 [Lindsay], glossing BJ 38.9 (‘sub iugum missurum’) with an account of the construction of the yoke.

  93. See Cardelle de Hartmann (n. 11), p. 9 and n.32; for the dating of these glosses to the 11th or 12th century, see p. 8.

  94. See Munk Olsen (n. 18), II, pp. 343–4, dating the various glosses in this manuscript to the 10th–12th century, and for an illustration showing a gloss to BJ 12.5 (‘tugurio mulieris ancillae’) from Servius, Aeneid, I.409, E. Chatelain, Paléographie des classiques latins, 2 vols, Paris, 1884–1900, I, pl. 53.

  95. See the discussion of the scholiastic hands Σ3 and Σ4 in my forthcoming article ‘The Ghent Manuscript of Terence and Its Intellectual Environment’.

  96. See A. Berthod, ‘Notice du Cartulaire de Simon, Manuscrit de la Bibliotheque de St. Bertin’, Nouveaux mémoires de l’Académie impériale et royale des sciences et belles-lettres de Bruxelles, 1, 1788, pp. 227–31; reprinted in G. Becker, Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui, Bonn, 1885, pp. 181–4. For a list of classical Latin literary texts from this catalogue, see Munk Olsen (n. 18), III.1, pp. 221–2. For further discusion of the intellectual environment at St Bertin during this period, K. Ugé, Creating the Monastic Past in Medieval Flanders, Woodbridge, 2005, pp. 37–49.

  97. See DHGE, XII, cols 1046–8.

  98. For descriptions, see Munk Olsen (n. 18), II, p. 848 ([C. 12] Douai, BM 285, from Anchin), pp. 848–9 ([C. 14] Douai, BM 533, from St Rictrude, Marchiennes), and pp. 867–8 ([C.53.5] St Omer, BM 8, from Clairmarais).

  99. See Encomium Emmae Reginae, ed. A. Campbell, with a supplementary introduction by Simon Keynes, Cambridge, 1998, p. cxi [p. xxix in the original edition]; for his extensive list of clear parallels, see pp. cxi–cxii [pp. xxix–xxx].

  100. As suggested initially by Keynes in Campbell (n. 99), pp. xxxix–xli; see also the recent discussion of E.M. Tyler, ‘Talking about History in Eleventh-Century England: The Encomium Emmae Reginae and the Court of Harthacnut’, Early Medieval Europe, 13, 2005, pp. 359–83.

  101. See Reynolds (n. 12), p. 59.

  102. See the partial edition of O. Holder-Egger, ‘Simonis gesta abbatum S. Bertini Sithiensium’, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores XIII, Hanover, 1881, pp. 635–63 (644), with references to BC 20.4 and 2.4.

  103. See R. F. Berkhofer, Day of Reckoning: Power and Accountability in Medieval France, Philadelphia, 2004, pp.75, 78–9. For discussion of the transmission of this work and its relationship to contemporary social issues and historiography, see also S. Vanderputten, ‘Monks, Knights, and the Enactment of Competing Social Realities in Eleventh- and Early-Twelfth-Century Flanders’, Speculum, 84, 2009, pp. 582–612, and id., ‘Individual Experience, Collective Remembrance and the Politics of Monastic Reform in High Medieval Flanders’, Early Medieval Europe, 20, 2012, pp. 70–98 (esp. p. 73, n.11).

  104. For discussion, see esp. K. De Coene and P. De Maeyer, ‘One World under the Sun: Cosmography and Cartography in the Liber Floridus’, in Liber Floridus 1121: The World in a Book, ed. K. De Coene, M. De Reu and P. De Maeyer, Tielt, 2011, pp. 90–127.

  105. For descriptions, see Catalogus der Handschriften berustende op de Athenaeum-Bibliotheek te Deventer, Deventer, 1892, p. 39; Munk Olsen (n. 18), II, p. 320; and (partly superseding these), the online description provided by the Koninklijke Bibliotheek at ‘Medieval Manuscripts in Dutch Collections’ (http://mmdc.nl/static/site/index.html).

  106. This information is provided on the ‘Medieval Manuscripts in Dutch Collections’ website, where it is attributed to ‘unpublished institutional documentation’. The Catalogus der Handschriften (n. 105) merely describes the epitaph of Baldwin as ‘Epitaphium cujusdam comitis’, and notes that the final folio is ‘geheel onleesbaar’ (‘entirely illegible’); Munk Olsen, however, describes its contents as ‘en partie illisibles’.

  107. The map is now poorly legible; see the ‘Medieval Manuscripts in Dutch Collections’ website for a reproduction. There is, however, a useful redrawing of it in J. Keuning, ‘XVIth Century Cartography in the Netherlands’, Imago Mundi, 9, 1952, pp. 35–63 (36).

  108. See Munk Olsen (n. 18), I, p. 158, and II, p. 319. For the provenance, see also F. Masai, ‘Le catalogue d’Egmond et le Bruxellensis 10057–62’, Scriptorium, 5, 1951, pp. 121–3.

  109. See A. C. F. Koch, ‘Egmond’, in DHGE, XV, cols 23–7 (23).

  110. An inscription stating: ‘Liber magistri balduuini quem dedit ecclesiae ekmundensi’ occurs at the top of fol. 59r. For the unity of the two separate parts of this manuscript, Cicero and Sallust, see Masai (n. 108), p. 123, n. 40.

  111. Munk Olsen (n. 18), I, p. 158.

  112. A. Salvatore, ‘De duobus Sallusti codicibus Bruxellensibus’, Scriptorium, 8, 1954, pp. 38–60 (50).

  113. In BC 2.1 all three witnesses read ‘in initio, intentus negotio’ and ‘bonae artis’; in the collation of Brussels 10057–10062–III by Salvatore (n.112) these readings are only attested in the Brussels manuscript.

  114. Munk Olsen (n. 18), II, p. 319.

  115. Thus, on fol. 87r a gloss to ‘facinoris’ in BC 2.9 reads: ‘Facinus et in bono et in malo accipitur’ (‘facinus is understood both in a good and a bad sense’).

  116. For direct citation, Cicero’s De inuentione is cited on fol. 87v with respect to BC 5.4 ‘satis eloquentiae, sapientiae parum’ (‘Cicero dicit in rhetoricis sapientiam sine eloquentia…’ cf. Cicero, De inuentione 1.1), while Vergil’s Aeneid is cited on fol. 88v with regard to BC 7.2 ‘belli patiens’ (‘Vergilius at patiens operum…’; cf. Virgil, Aeneid, IX.607–8).

  117. Thus, the definitions of quaestor and praetor (Isidore, Origines, IX.4.16) are written in the margin of fol. 91v opposite a usage of ‘quaestor pro praetore’ (BC 19.1), although in reverse order to Isidore’s text.

  118. On fol. 89r with regard to Carthago in BC 10.1 the scholiast cites Jerome, Chronicle 143.22–6 for the number of years from the foundation of Carthage to its surrender. On fol. 146r with regard to the crushing defeat of a Roman army at Orange mentioned by Sallust at BJ 114.1, the scholiast cites Orosius, Historiae,V.16.3–4, and on Marius’s campaign against the Cimbri, to which Sallust refers indirectly at the end of the BJ (BJ 114), the scholiast cites Jerome, Chronicle, 148.22–4 for the numbers of barbarians killed or captured.

  119. See Osmond and Ulery (n. 4), p. 193; Reynolds, Texts and Transmission (n. 1), p. 345.

  120. Clm 14477, which she shows had reached the library of St Emmeran by 1080 at the latest; Cardelle de Hartmann (n. 11), pp. 6–7.

  121. Vanderputten, ‘Crises of Cenobitism’ (n. 13), pp. 262–3.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne, Old Quadrangle Building, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Andrew J. Turner

Authors
  1. Andrew J. Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J. Turner.

Additional information

The research for this article was undertaken in 2011/12 while I was a visiting fellow at the Vlaams Academisch Centrum in Brussels, working on the project ‘Classical Scholarship in Mediaeval Flanders’. I would like to thank the staff and fellows there for all the assistance they gave me, and in particular my colleague, Professor Steven Vanderputten of Universiteit Gent, whose detailed knowledge of the sources and intellectual issues involved were of enormous benefit to me. I would also like to thank Dr Ann Kelders of the Royal Library in Brussels for her great assistance with images, and from my own university Professor Bernard Muir, for his knowledge of manuscripts and some meticulous proof-reading, and Dr Frederik Vervaet, for his answers on Roman republican questions. The anonymous reviewer for IJCT also provided useful corrections and tips, which I gratefully acknowledge.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Turner, A.J. Reading Sallust in Twelfth-Century Flanders. Int class trad 21, 198–222 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12138-014-0344-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12138-014-0344-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation