Intermediate sources for the Manipulus florum

§ 10 The Rouses noted that Thomas cites three intermediate sources from which he extracted patristic and classical quotations: the Glossa ordinaria, Gratian’s Decretum and an anonymous twelfth-century florilegium known as the Flores angelica, which Thomas usually cited as "Prouerbia philosophorum". They also made the important discovery that Thomas made extensive use of two other previous florilegia, characterized by the Rouses as "major sources", which he did not cite or otherwise acknowledge: the Flores paradisi and the Liber exceptionum (Rouse and Rouse 1979, 126-56). In the process of editing the Manipulus I have discovered several other intermediate sources that Thomas did not acknowledge. The most important of these Fontes proximi are Thomas Aquinas’ Secunda secundae from the Summa theologiae, Arnoldus Brixiensis’ Liber consolationis, and Pseudo-Guillaume de Conches’ Moralium dogma philosophorum. Copies of all three of these works were available to Thomas when he was compiling the Manipulus at the Sorbonne; in fact, as the Rouses pointed out, he actually owned a copy of Aquinas’ Secunda secundae which survives among the former Sorbonne manuscripts now in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (Rouse and Rouse 1979, 96).

§ 11 Thomas’ use of Aquinas’ Secunda secundae became apparent because his Summa theologiae, of which it is a part, is included in one of the most important research tools for this project: the Cetedoc Library of Christian Latin Texts (CLCLT-6) database, published by Brepols. His use of the Liber consolationis and the Moralium dogma philosophorum was discovered by Internet searches which led to the digital transcriptions of these two public domain texts provided on Angus Graham’s website (http://freespace.virgin.net/angus.graham/Albertano.htm). While the extent of Thomas’ use of the Liber consolationis and the Secunda secundae remains to be determined, I have already conducted a close analysis of the Moralium dogma philosophorum and determined that Thomas derived about fifty quotations in the Manipulus from two different copies of the Moralium that were in the library of the Sorbonne in 1306. This analysis was essentially complete before Andrew and Frank began developing Janus, so we were able to use the electronic text of the Moralium, downloaded from Graham’s website, in order to test prototype versions of the search engine and adjust its search parameters to ensure that all of the expected hits in the Moralium were reported with a minimal number of coincidental "false" hits.

Example of a confirmed intermediate source in the Moralium dogma philosophorum

§ 12 An important component of the editorial project has been to distinguish mere coincidences from genuine cases of direct textual influence when dealing with suspected intermediate sources. One of the more reliable indicators that an intermediate source has been employed is seen when a clause or sentence that was original to the intermediate source was inadvertently included with the actual transmitted quotation. Another tell-tale sign is when two quotations from different original sources appear together in both the intermediate source and in the Manipulus. An excellent example of both of these types of evidence is Doctrina siue doctor ax.

§ 13 Doctrina siue doctor ax in the Manipulus florum: Quia fragilis est memoria et rerum turbe non sufficit, ideo egregie doctorem formare uidetur qui dicit: quicquid precipies esto breuis ut cito dicta percipiant animi dociles teneantque fideles; omne superuacuum pleno de pectore manat. Petrus Blesensis.^[2]

§ 14 Fons proximus for Doctrina siue doctor ax from the Moralium dogma philosophorum:^[3] Primum ideo quia fragilis est memoria et rerum turbe non sufficit; necesse est <enim> quantum recipit emittat et antiqua recentibus obruat. Ideo egregie scriptorem formare uidetur qui dicit: quicquid precipies, esto breuis, ut cito dicta percipiant animi dociles teneantque fideles; omne superuacuum pleno de pectore manat (J. Holmberg ed. 1929, 5).

§ 15 Fontes primi for Doctrina siue doctor ax: Vt excusem tibi inbecillitatem, inprimis uas fragile est memoria et rerum turbae non sufficit; necesse est, quantum recipit, emittat et antiquissima recentissimis obruat (Seneca, De beneficiis, 7.28.2). Ideo egregie scriptorem formare uidetur qui dicit: (original to the Moralium dogma philosophorum) Quidquid precipies, esto brevis, ut cito dicta percipiant animi dociles teneantque fideles: omne supervacuum pleno de pectore manat (Horace, De arte poetica, 335-8).

Example of a possible intermediate source in John of Wales’ Communiloquium

§ 16 Another indication of Thomas’ use of an intermediate source is a shared paraphrase, where the version in a suspected intermediate source and the Manipulus are identical or very similar, but significantly different from the original source. Yet another sign of intermediate sourcing is the similiarity of attributions. Both of these types of evidence are seen when Correctio da in the Manipulus florum is compared to a passage in John of Wales’ Communiloquium, a late thirteenth-century tract that contains a large number of quotations useful for composing sermons:

§ 17 Correctio da in the Manipulus florum: Puniendis peccatis tres esse causas existimatum est: una cum adhibetur pena castigandi atque emendandi gracia ut is qui deliquit attentior fiat correctiorque; alia est cum dignitas eius auctoritasque in quem peccatur tuenda est ne pretermissa animaduersio contemptum eius parcat; tercia propter exemplum ut ceteri metu pene terreantur. Agellius libro VII. et ponit Taurus in commento Platonis.

§ 18 Possible Fons proximus for Correctio da in the Communiloquium: Similiter Aggellius libro vii. ubi ait puniendis peccatis tres esse causas existimatum est, una cum adhibetur pena, castigandi atque emendandi gracia, ut is qui delinquit attentior fiat correctiorque. Alia est cum dignitas eius auctoritasque in quem peccator tuenda est, ne pretermissa animaduersio contemptum eius pariat. Tercia propter exemplum ut metu pene ceteri terreantur. Et has tres scripsit Thaurus in primo commentariorum super Gorgiam Platonis (Iohannes Galensis, Communiloquium, 1.9.5).

§ 19 These nearly identical versions of the passage (with very similar ascriptions) constitute fairly loose paraphrases of the original source: Poeniendis peccatis tres esse debere causas existimatum est. Vna est causa, quae Graece <vel χόλασις> vel νουδεσία dicitur, cum poena adhibetur castigandi atque emendandi gratia, ut is, qui fortuito deliquit, attentior fiat correctiorque. Altera est, quam hi, qui vocabula ista curiosius diviserunt, τιμωρίαν appellant. Ea causa animadvertendi est, cum dignitas auctoritasque eius, in quem est peccatum, tuenda est, ne praetermissa animadversio contemptum eius pariat et honorem levet; idcircoque id ei vocabulum a conservatione honoris factum putant. Tertia ratio vindicandi est, quae παράδειγμα a Graecis nominatur, cum poenitio propter exemplum necessaria est, ut ceteri a similibus peccatis, quae prohiberi publicitus interest, metu cognitae poenae deterreantur … Has tris ulciscendi rationes et philosophi alii plurifariam et noster Taurus in primo commentariorum, quos in Gorgian Platonis composuit, scriptas reliquit (Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, 7.14.1-5).

§ 20 This apparent intertextual relationship between the Manipulus and John of Wales’ Communiloquium was discovered by Jenny Swanson who reasonably concluded on the basis of this evidence that Thomas probably used the Communiloquium as "a classical quarry" in compiling the Manipulus florum (Swanson 1989, 27-8, 203). In reaching this conclusion Swanson was revising a theory previously posited by Richard Rouse, who had argued that all seven of the quotations from Gellius’ Noctes Atticae in the Manipulus, including Correctio da, had been derived by Thomas of Ireland from a now-lost copy of the original text that was at the Sorbonne when the Manipulus was being compiled (Marshall, Martin and Rouse 1980, 379-80).

§ 21 In asserting that there is probably a direct relationship between the Manipulus and John of Wales’ tract Swanson did not consider whether Thomas of Ireland had access to a copy of the Communiloquium, but there is a former Sorbonne copy of it which survives in BnF MS lat. 15451, cited as MS 319 in Swanson’s survey of manuscripts containing John of Wales’ works (Swanson 1989, 250, 274). However, the catalogue for the Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris dates the manuscript containing this copy of the Communiloquium, under the alternate title Summa collectionum, to the fourteenth century (Delisle 1870, 12). So it is entirely possible that this codex did not yet exist when Thomas completed the Manipulus in 1306.

Using Janus to determine whether the Communiloquium was an intermediate source for the Manipulus florum

§ 22 I decided to test Swanson’s theory by using Janus to compare the entire text of the Communiloquium with the edited portion of the Manipulus, the first use of this intertextuality search engine for such a purpose. Because there was no digital version of the Communiloquium or even a modern critical edition that could be scanned, a research assistant and I transcribed the entire text of the long recension of that text from the 1475 Augsburg edition (over 125,000 words),^[4] the same edition Swanson had consulted for her book. In August 2009, once the transcription was complete, I conducted a Janus search with the entire text of the Communiloquium when the database contained about 50 percent of the edited text of the Manipulus florum. Although the search produced numerous hits of possible cases of intertextual influence besides Correctio da, I determined that they were merely coincidental and that there were no other examples in the edited portion of the Manipulus to support Swanson’s contention that Thomas had used the Communiloquium as an intermediate source in compiling his florilegium. This finding led me to conclude that Swanson was probably incorrect and that there must be some other explanation for the close correspondence between these paraphrases of the passage from Aulus Gellius. Therefore, I decided against adding a Fons proximus document to the online edition that would cite the Communiloquium as an intermediate source for Correctio da.

§ 23 I repeated this search just prior to the submission of this article, after the Janus database had been updated and expanded to its current 63 percent level. The results page reported 285 hits, including Correctio da. To facilitate comparative textual analysis, the commonalities on the results page are highlighted in both the excerpts from the search text and the matched quotations from the Manipulus florum, with variants indicated by breaks in the highlighting in the same way that underscoring is used in the Fontes documents for the critical apparatus of the online edition. Moreover, the name of the Manipulus entry which appears in the left-hand column is linked to the Fons primus/Fontes primi PDF document for that quotation, or to the Varia PDF document if the original source has not yet been found. Thus, without leaving the intertextuality report screen, users of the Janus search engine can call up the PDF as a pop up in order to compare a particular passage in their search text with both the version in the Manipulus and the version in the best modern edition of the original source (or sources), unless it has not yet been identified. These features are shown in the following screen shot from the recent Janus search of the Communiloquium:

Figure 1: A screen-shot from a Janus search of the Communiloquium

§ 24 Four Manipulus florum quotations (Ebrietas z, Clericus l, Electio u, and Coniugium m) rank higher than Correctio da on the Janus search results page because they each share more textual content with the Communiloquium. However, all of these quotations have been dismissed as examples of Thomas’ supposed use of the Communiloquium as an intermediate source:

1. Ebrietas z is unlikely because the quotation in the Manipulus comprises two non-contiguous passages from the source that have been spliced together, but they appear separately in the Communiloquium. Also, the text of the first part of Ebrietas z is identical to the modern edition of that text, but in the Communiloquium there are some variants.
2. Clericus l can be ruled out because that version of the quotation and the parallel passage in the Communiloquium both vary significantly from the original source but in different ways.
3. Electio u (same rationale as Clericus l).
4. Coniugium m can be ruled out because Thomas misattributed this quotation to his actual intermediate source, Hugh of Folieto’s De nuptiis, which he misattributed to Hugh of St. Victor, rather than to the original source, which is Jerome’s Aduersus Iovinianum, as correctly attributed in the Communiloquium.

§ 25 On grounds such as these many of the remaining legitimate hits (as distinct from the "false" hits which are merely coincidental) for this search have been rejected as evidence for Thomas’ supposed use of the Communiloquium as an intermediate source. Other disqualifying factors that apply to many of the other hits are when the quotation in the Manipulus is longer than the excerpt in the Communiloquium. There are also a number of parallel passages that cannot be used as evidence in support of Swanson’s theory because both the textual and ascription evidence are inconclusive; in other words, the passage in the original source is identical to the versions in both the Communiloquium and the Manipulus, and there is no variant attribution evidence (as in the case of Coniugium m) to be considered.

§ 26 Besides Correctio da, only one quotation was found in this search which may indicate that the Communilioquium was used by Thomas of Ireland as an intermediate source for the Manipulus:

§ 27 Honestas c in the Manipulus florum: Nichil turpe faciendum bono uiro, eciam si ex omni parte lateat, eciam si omnes deos hominesque celare possimus. Nichil tamen in nobis auare, nichil iniuste, nichil libidinose, nichil incontinenter esse faciendum. Sapientis enim est proprium, nichil quod penitere possit facere, nichil iniuste, sed splendide, constanter grauiter honeste, omnia. Tullius libro III. de officiis.

§ 28 Fontes primi for part of Honestas c: Atque etiam ex omni deliberatione celandi et occultandi spes opinioque removenda est; satis enim nobis, si modo in philosophia aliquid profecimus, persuasum esse debet, si omnes deos hominesque celare possimus, nihil tamen avare, nihil iniuste, nihil libidinose, nihil incontinenter esse faciendum (Cicero, De officiis, 3.38). Sapientis est enim proprium nihil quod poenitere possit facere, nihil invitum, splendide, constanter, graviter, honeste omnia, nihil ita exspectare quasi certo futurum, nihil cum acciderit admirari, ut inopinatum ac novum accidisse videatur, omnia ad suum arbitrium referre, suis stare iudiciis; quo quid sit beatius mihi certe in mentem venire non potest (Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes, 5.28.81).

§ 29 While most of Honestas c is derived from these two sources, the opening line has not been found in any classical or medieval source, except for the Communiloquium:

§ 30 Possible Fons proximus for part of Honestas c: Quantum autem gentiles detestati sunt peccata ob suam turpitudinem quia nichil turpe est faciendum bono uiro, etiam si ex omni parte lateat, nichil iniuste, nichil libidinose, nichil inconuenienter esse faciendum philosophia persuadet, prout ait Tullius iii. de officiis capitulo x (Iohannes Galensis, Communiloquium, 3.5.1).

§ 31 However, this apparent case of intertextual influence is weakened considerably by the fact that the brief Ciceronian sententia (nichil iniuste…esse faciendum) that follows in the Communiloquium corresponds to only part of the excerpt from De officiis that appears in Honestas c, and the passage from the Tusculan disputations does not follow at all; nor does it appear elsewhere in the Communiloquium. One possible explanation for this anomaly is that the text in the 1475 edition of the Communiloquium may be significantly different from the manuscript that Thomas presumably used, BnF MS lat. 15451 (Swanson MS 319), that is, if he did actually employ John of Wales’ tract as "a classical quarry". I have not yet had an opportunity to check that manuscript to determine whether this is the case, but I suspect that it is not because the apparent truncation of the Ciceronian sententia in the 1475 Augsburg edition would only make sense if that version were the short recension of the Communiloquium, which it is not (Swanson 1989, 64).

§ 32 The results from this second Janus search of the Communiloquium therefore seem to confirm the results of the first search, which led me to conclude that Swanson was probably incorrect in suggesting that Thomas of Ireland used the Communiloquium as an intermediate source for classical quotations. But how, then, do we explain the Aulus Gellius paraphrase which appears in virtually identical versions in the Communiloquium and in Correctio da in the Manipulus and has been found nowhere else, and the existence of a single line in Honestas c, which is apparently original to the Communiloquium, although the rest of Honestas c was very likely not derived from John of Wales’ tract?

§ 33 In claiming a connection between the Communiloquium and the Manipulus florum Swanson did not consider the old theory that John of Wales began the Manipulus and Thomas of Ireland later completed it. This claim is made in the colophons of several early manuscript copies of the Manipulus, and it was picked up by an Italian bibliographer in the early fifteenth century and perpetuated by subsequent scholars until it was rejected by the Rouses, who argued that Thomas of Ireland was probably the sole creator of the Manipulus florum (Rouse and Rouse 1979, 106-10). However, in light of Correctio da and Honestas c and their parallel passages in the Communiloquium, it appears that the old tradition of John of Wales’ early involvement in the creation of the Manipulus may, in fact, be correct. For if Thomas of Ireland did use the Communiloquium as an intermediate source for classical quotations, he did so in a manner that is completely different from his use of the Moralium dogma philosophorum, the Secunda secundae and other intermediate sources which he extensively pillaged. There is also the uncertainty as to whether Thomas even had access to a copy of the Communiloquium when he was compiling the Manipulus. Given all of these circumstances, it seems more plausible that the rare instances of intertextuality between the Manipulus and the Communiloquium are actually relics of John of Wales’ initiation of a project that was left incomplete until Thomas of Ireland assumed it a few years later. This scenario would also explain certain inconsistencies that have become apparent while editing the Manipulus, such as the careful citation of the Decretum and the Glossa as intermediate sources for some quotations, but the absence of such citations in other cases where one of those texts was surely used as an intermediate source. Further research may result in a definitive answer to the question of John of Wales’ purported involvement in the compilation of the Manipulus florum.