This will reveal the genesis of Glossa. Because he has no more copy at his disposal at that point, he concludes his work in the middle of quire VIII, on f. Below, I should like to offer a brief introduction to the components of the Utrecht compilation. Notanda The passages in quire XII have several characteristics in common, which they share with the other missing passages. The third commentary is even more ingrained with Ps. A surprising feature of this third version is the modernization of the terminology used in the prologue: Though his personality as a writer is permeated by his academic schooling, it is clear that literature fostering meditation and devotion is now nearer to his heart.

Nom: 7ira w 8ira
Format: Fichier D’archive
Système d’exploitation: Windows, Mac, Android, iOS
Licence: Usage Personnel Seulement
Taille: 7.15 MBytes

In he settled down in Ulm ; before that, he worked in various places in South-Germany, Switzerland. The first text leaf is missing ; this passage is to be found in MS Munich, f. For example, in the margin of f. The three branches of the vine Gen. Demandez à la communauté.

The Genesis of Glossa Tripartita super Cantica. Three versions of this text 77ira known. Successive extended versions occur in three fifteenth-century 8jra.

It can be proved that the text in MS Assisi was a work in progress: The nucleus of the text is a scholastic framework of diuisiones and distinc- tiones, probably resulting from an academic course.

Over a period fo more than a decade the author extended this nucleus by compiling from several texts, mainly compilations. Three of these source texts are identifiable: Trois versions sont connues.

La plus ancienne et la plus courte se trouve dans le ms. Des versions postérieures plus développées apparaissent dans trois mss du XVe siècle. Les différentes versions reflètent plusieurs étapes dans le travail de l’auteur- compilateur. Une étude codicologique extensive du ms. Le noyau du texte est un cadre scolastique de diuisiones et distinctiones, probablement issu d’un cours. Sur une période de plus d’une décennie, l’auteur développa ce noyau en compilant d’autres textes, surtout des compilations, dont trois sont identifiables: The differences between the versions can be easily described by collating the texts of the four manuscripts.

It is quite a bit more difficult, however, to answer the question of how the different versions are related to one another. In this case, both methods — codicological and text-historical research — are equally necessary. One of these versions is to be found in the 7kra manuscript of Glossa Tripartita: MS Assist, Sacro Convento di San Francesco,probably written in phases from the last years of the thirteenth to the early fourteenth century. We find a third version in two manuscripts: The Utrecht MS was written during the first few years of the fifteenth century, the Munich MS was written before Therefore, research into the textual genesis of Glossa Tripartita should concentrate on describing and, if possible, explaining the differences between the version in the Assisi MS on the one hand and the two other versions on the other.

7ira w 8ira

With these four manuscripts we seem to possess an original version as well as two later versions, emanating from needs felt at a later date.

We will see that the case is not as simple as seems to present itself at first sight. It will become clear that MS Assisi already contains text sections we 8lra be inclined to consider part of the elaborations of the later versions. This study will show how this commentary from a minor Franciscan master grew to its definitive shape 7irq the course of many years.

The study will give an insight into the very concrete processes of production of scholastic-exegetic texts in the late thirteenth, early fourteenth century. The text stands midway between strictly academic thirteenth-century commentaries on the Song of Songs on the one hand, and purely devotional Song of Songs-texts on the other hand. Glossa Tripartita has a penchant for elaborateness, so characteristic of devotional texts, and is, therefore, of impressive length.


Sicut dicit beatus Gre- gorius in Moralibus: Diuinus sermo habet in publico unde paruulos nutrat, in secreto unde mentes sublimium in ammiracionem ducat. Et beatus Augusti- nus 5 Super Genesim: Sacra scriptura altitudine sua superbos irridet, pro- funditate sua doctos terret, simplicitate sua humiles docet.

Et haec ratio est quia sub simplicitate littere latet uarius modus intelligencie, quod secundum beatum Dyonisium, Angelica ierarchia, diuina dispensacione factum est, ut electis et fidelibus ueritas manifestetur, superbis uero et reprobis tanquam. Non enim omnium est sciencia, ut dicit i Cor.

With the theme of 1 John 5.

7ira w 8ira

This motif, in various shapes and forms, is a recurrent feature in the rest of the prologue, the author apparently considering it a valuable tool to underline the rationale behind his threefold commentary. Writing a threefold commentary to the Song of Songs is not just a whim of the author; there are objective reasons for this choice, as the author subsequently demonstrates.

For the tabernacle a veil is to be made consisting of four different fabrics Exod. This veil is a symbol of the four ways of interpretation: Because a historical interpretation can hardly apply to the Song of Songs, if at all, we may rightly state: The three branches of the vine Gen.

Tres sunt qui testimonium dant emphatically refers to the three books of Solomon as well: Proverbs, teaching the novices how to avoid sin; Ec- clesiastes, teaching the advanced to despise the world, and the Song of Songs, teaching the perfect to love the bridegroom. Groom and bride are interpreted allegorically as Christ on the one hand and the church, the loving soul and Mary, respectively, on the other5.

In parte precedenti sancta mater ecclesia ad obediendum sponso parata sponsi inuocauit patrocinium; hic, quia ad uotum non prestitit quod postulauit, ne. Sedulitatem inquisitionis innuit cum dicit: Sources of Glossa Tripartita super Cantica.

So far, Glossa Tripartita merely presents itself as a typically scholastic- exegetic commentary; in order to get more grip on the text, we should try to bring it out into full relief.

A study of the sources used is an appropriate way of doing this, for an insight into the sources used provides an insight into the character, the nature and, possibly, the origin of the text.

One result yielded by the source study, which is perhaps 7ora very surprising, is that the number of sources used is certainly considerably smaller than the number of authorities mentioned in the text.

Javascript Error Detected

After all, this is also 8iga case when florilegia are used. Glossa Tripartita is special in that two other commentaries on the Song of Songs could be identified as direct sources, each of these two texts forming the source for many of the authorities mentioned. The texts identified are the following: Glossa super Canticum Canticorum; Iohannes Russel: In addition to these, there is a text which, in the version at our disposal, is not a direct source for Glossa Tripartita.

It was probably a predecessor of this text that served as a source for Glossa Tripartita. This text occurs only in one manuscript: MS Utrecht, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Because the title in the manuscript is incorrect, I have named this text: Glossa super Canticum Canticorum. An important source for Glossa Tripartita is i8ra commentary on the Song of Songs by a certain Cantuariensis; for gaining an insight into the genesis of Glossa Tripartita this text may even be labelled by far the most important.

The commentary is found in one manuscript only, MS Innsbruck, Uni- versitatsbibliothek,f. Its provenance is the Charterhouse of Schnals, near Merano, where 7kra appears to have been written in On the pastedown the text is named: A further specification is to be found in the old catalogue of Schnals: On the other hand, in Glossa Tripartita there is one reference to Cantuariensis that cannot mean anything else 7iga the Cantuariensis text.


It is clear then that the author of Glossa Tripartita here uses the designation Cantuariensis for its author, as does MS Innsbruck:. The Cantuariensis text and the commentary on the Song of Songs by Io- hannes Pecham11 are closely related, the first making extensive use of the latter. Pecham was archbishop of Canterbury fromand might therefore have been called Cantuariensis.

This may explain the name of the text: The name certainly points towards an author of English descent, and. If he was English, he may have received his education in Paris instead of in England Riedlinger13 presumes the Cantuariensis text to date from the thirteenth or fourteenth century, and gives ca.

7ira w 8ira

Riedlinger finds that the text exhibits skilful and original structuring, and that the author shows a profound knowledge of his sources. Riedlinger deserves credit for having ascertained the connection between Cantuariensis and Glossa Tripartita, but the relation between source text and incorporating text is the reverse of what he surmised.

There can be no doubt that Glossa Tripartita borrowed directly from Cantuariensis. Cantuariensis is a Franciscan text, because St.

Francis is termed pater noster. Stigmata domini nostri Ihesu Christi in corpore meo porto. The text opens with a double prologue, each of them offering a general discussion of the entire Song of Songs.

Both prologues have a Scriptural passage as their theme. These themes are ingeniously linked up with the exegesis of the Song of Songs. Each part of the theme is linked up with an aspect of the Song of Songs; the analysis of the Scriptural passage, having as its focal point the Song of Songs, forms the basis of the textual organization of both prologues.

In accordance with the requirements of the genre, the exegete is showing his skills here, the aim being to put the Song of Songs in a fascinating and unexpected perspective, and to do so in a convincing manner, by effectively applying an appropiate Scriptural passage.

The theme of the first prologue is: Deus canticum nouum cantabo tibi, in psalterio decacordo psallam tibi Ps. Funiculus triplex difficile rwnpitur Ecclesiastes 4. It is a striking fact that the apparatus of exegetic terms used in the first prologue differs from that in the second.

The first prologue uses the causae terminology of the Aristotelian prologue: In the second prologue we find a similar, but by then old-fashioned system of concepts: How can this fact be interpreted? Perhaps the text originated at a time when the Aristotelian system of concepts was superseding the system used previously, perhaps the exegetist wanted to practise applying both systems.

Further on in the text it becomes apparent that the author is more conversant with the Aristotelian terminology than with the older system.

bayrem artista 7ira w ghira – bayrem artista 7ira w ghira –

It is also possible that in the second prologue the author of the Cantuariensis text bases himself on other source texts. The second prologue Funiculus triplex bears a strong relation to the prologue of the text of the same name to be discussed later. The proportion of originality between the two texts has not become clear yet.

The first prologue is the most interesting, not only with regard to Glossa Tripartita, but also in itself. A remarkable feature of this prologue is the large part played by the terminology pertaining to the theory of music and to ‘literary theory’.