[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Luchaire (Bibl.dela Fac.des lettres de Paris, 8 [Paris, 1899],  Étude sur quelques manuscritsde Rome et de Paris , pp.27 9), and even after its cataloguing not whollysatisfactorily by Loriquet (Catal.gén.xxxix/1 [1904]), s.n (pp.539 43).To make matters more confused, Luchaire (cit.) unfortunately referredto the manuscript under a provisional new catalogue number ( 1137 ) whichwas subsequently abandoned, identified it with the old catalogue numberof a quite different manuscript (= Loriquet 1402, a Rheims passionary ofs.xi2, which includes the complete Hincmarian Remigius-dossier) and datedit to the tenth century.On the other hand, he provided (op.cit., pp.93 7)the first complete edition of fols 32 37v: IIII.EX LIBELLO MIRACULO-RUM S.DIONYSII which Mabillon had only incompletely published and intwo separate places (Luchaire unhappily reversing the correct references onhis p.94! while Krusch, art.cit.pp.601 2, printed as unpublished themiracle-story on fol.33v which he would have found if he had turned overanother two pages of the De re Diplomatica).Levillain, to whom the cor-298See Pt.II ch.3.299Henry Louis Gates, Jr.,  A Dangerous Literacy: the Legacy of FrederickDouglass , The New York Times Book Review, May 28 1995, p.16.bullough/f2/1-124 8/27/03 9:17 AM Page 121in defence of the biographical approach.the sources 121rectly-dated 1395 was or should have been of exceptional importance forhis reconstruction of the early history of the Miracula s.Dionysii, uncharac-teristically simply adopted Luchaire s account of the manuscript completewith errors, and he had a very incomplete notion of its contents: see BÉC.,82 (1921), pp.58 ff.and esp.p.59 n.1.Wallace-Hadrill, relying unquestion-ingly on Levillain, similarly did not realise ( Archbishop Hincmar and theLex Salica , The Long-Haired Kings [1962], pp.96 8) that this was the samemanuscript as that containing, at fols 40v 45 as the third part of item V,the earliest copy of the pre-Hincmar Vita Remigii; and he introduced a fur-ther element of confusion (and weakened his own arguments at this point)by transferring to the Miracula Levison s doubts about Hincmar s al.Hilduin sauthorship of the Gesta Dagoberti ( weder d.eine noch d.andere Annahmescheint mir wirklich begründet : Wattenbach-Levison, Deutschlands Geschichts-quellen, 1, p.113 n.254), which is not among the texts in Rheims 1395,although the earliest manuscript evidence may be of Rheims origin (but iscertainly post-Hincmar).H.Barré, supposing the manuscript to be a tenth-century one, failed to recognise the importance of its fols 2 32 as testimonyto Hincmar s Marian devotion: Prières Anciennes, pp.80 f., cf.p.82 n.74.More recently, Devisse seems to have consulted neither the manuscriptnor Loriquet s catalogue, since in his table of vitae sanctorum and their manu-script-sources available to Hincmar (Hincmar, 3, p.1510) he cites Rheims1395 only for  miscellanea sur S.Rémi and adds in a footnote that itmight be possible to add, e.g., a Life of S.Eufrosina on the evidence ofclm.6382 pt.1, a probably French manuscript of s.ix2, one of the scribesof which shows Rheims influence (but does not  come from Rheims , asDevisse asserts): in fact 1395 fols 120 30 is XV.VITA S[AN]C[T]AEEUFROSINAE (BHL.2723), which is therefore one of the earliest copies ofthis ?eighth-century translation from the Greek, probably preceded only bythe Metz (and only later Autun) passionary, Montpellier Bibl.Univ.cod.55,of s.ix in.The description of the manuscript by J.Gijsel, Die unmittelbareTextüberlieferung des sog.Pseudo-Matthäus (Verh.van de Kon.Akad.voorWetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Kl.Lett., nr.96;Brussels, 1981), pp.38 9, has some additional codicological information butis inadequate on the texts, apart from the identification of the (pre-PaschasiusRadbertus)  I.DE NATIVITATE SANCTAE MARIAE on fols 2 17v.In the same section as the last-named text, on fols 26 32, is III.EXSERMONE CUIUSDAM SAPIENTIS DE ASSUMPTIONE SANCTAE MARIAEinc.Loquamur aliquid in laudibus sacratissimç virginis, a text attributed in somelater manuscripts to Alcuin but recently convincingly claimed for AmbrosiusAutpertus by R.Weber: Ambrosii Autperti Opera, (CCCM), 3, pp.874 5, 885 9,edition pp.1027 36.It is to be observed finally that Arndt, editing the Vita Alcuini for theMGH and relying on Mabillon for the readings of the  lost Rheims man-uscript, mistakenly assumed that its text concluded with Alcuin s verse epi-taph and the prose record of Alcuin s obit, which he accordingly printed asan integral part of his edition.The typography of Duchesne s edition, whichis the actual source, makes it clear that this earlier editor had introducedit from some quite different (and so far unidentified) manuscript.bullough/f2/1-124 8/27/03 9:17 AM Page 122122 in defence of the biographical approach.the sourcesADDITIONAL NOTE IIThe early manuscript evidence for Alcuin s epitaph(S.-K.no.6688)Perhaps the oldest text of all is that among the very early miscellaneousadditions to Paris BNF lat.4629, at fols 55v 56, a probably Bourges copyof a ?Court collection of laws and capitularies, with some  school material,written not long after 805: Mordek, BCRFM, pp.502 6; Bullough, Charlemagne s Court-library re-visited (forthcoming).But almost as earlymust be the text in a Rheims book of the ?820s (possibly even a little ear-lier), BAV Vat.Reg.lat.2078,  one of the most significant collections ofCarolingian poetry in association with older verse, at fol.122, where itfollows the unique copy of King Pippin of Italy s epitaph; a recent suggestion(Turcan-Verkerk in RHT.29 [1999]) that the conjunction may be due toAngilbert seems unnecessary.Certainly not much later in date are the possibly-related copies in BNFlat.2826 fol.141v of s.ix 1 2/4 (although the epitaph appears to be aslightly later addition on the previously blank last page of a quire) and BNFlat.2328 fol.96v, of s.ix 2/4, both written at unidentified scriptoria southof the Loire (S.Burgundy? so Bischoff in 1975) and subsequently at St.-Martial, Limoges; and BNF nouv.acq.lat.1613 fol.18v.The second andthird of these are very miscellaneous manuscripts:  mit allerlei Unregelmässig-keiten, wie man sie besonders in jungen Abteien bzw.Scriptorien antrifft,wo man sich möglichst rasch die notwendigsten Bücher beschaffen musstesays Bonifatius Fischer ( Bibeltext u.Bibelreform [1965], Lat.Handschr., 120)of lat.2328, which includes a complete text of Alcuin s De virtutibus et vitiis;BNF lat.2826 is, however, predominantly  theological.So also, in its com-plete pre-Libri form as Tours Bib.Mun.42 ( perhaps Brittany , s [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]