El accessus de Legitur, fuente de Arnulfo de Orleansuna cuestión de cronología relativa

  1. Ruiz Arzalluz, Iñigo 1
  1. 1 Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
    info

    Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea

    Lejona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/000xsnr85

Journal:
Cuadernos de filología clásica. Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos

ISSN: 1131-9070

Year of publication: 2023

Issue Title: Número especial: Κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων. Estudios en homenaje a Luis Gil Fernández

Issue: 33

Pages: 277-285

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5209/CFCG.89181 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Cuadernos de filología clásica. Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos

Abstract

 The accessus at the beginning of both the Terentian commentary Legitur and the commentary on Lucan by Arnulf of Orléans show common elements that can only be explained as the result of an influence by the former on the latter, which allows us —among other things— to establish the last quarter of the XIIth century as a terminus ante quem for the commentary on Terence. Because Legitur shares numerous passages with Hugutio’s Derivationes, it has been assumed that the commentary depends on the lexicon: the new dating would represent yet another obstacle to this hypothesis and, at the same time, would speak in favor of the existence of a now-lost lexicon that would have circulated in XIIth century Orléans and would have also been a source for Hugutio.

Bibliographic References

  • Baehrens, E. (1883), Poetae Latini minores, V, Leipzig, Teubner.
  • Ballaira, G. (1968), «Praefatio Monacensis ad Terentium quae integra in cod. Vat. Lat. 11455 asservatur», Bollettino del Comitato per la Preparazione della Edizione Nazionale dei Classici Greci e Latini n.s. 16: 13-24.
  • Brugnoli, G. (1960), reseña de Marti (1958), Studi medievali s. III, 1: 260-263.
  • Cecchini, E. (2004), «Introduzione», en Id. & al. (eds.), Uguccione da Pisa, Derivationes, I, Firenze, Edizioni del Galluzzo: xix-xlv.
  • Coulson, F.T. (1986), «New manuscript evidence for sources of the accessus of Arnoul d’Orléans to the Metamorphoses of Ovid», Manuscripta 30: 103-107.
  • Coulson, F.T. (2011), «Ovid’s Metamorphoses in the school traditions of France, 1180-1400: Texts, manuscript traditions, manuscript settings», en J.J. Clark & al. (eds.), Ovid in the Middle Ages, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 48-82.
  • De Angelis, V. (1997), «I commenti medievali alla Tebaide di Stazio: Anselmo di Laon, Goffredo Babione, Ilario d’Orléans», en N. Mann & B. Munk Olsen (eds.), Medieval and Renaissance scholarship. Proceedings of the second European science foundation workshop on the classical tradition in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (London, The Warburg Institute, 27-28 november 1992), Leiden – New York – Köln, Brill: 75-136.
  • Engelbrecht, W. (2003), Filologie in de Dertiende Eeuw: De «Bursarii super Ovidios» van magister Willem van Orléans. Editie, inleiding en commentaar, Olomouc, Vydavatelství Univerzity Palackého.
  • Engelbrecht, W. (2006), «Carmina Pieridum multo vigilata labore / exponi, nulla certius urbe reor: Orléans and the reception of Ovid in the aetas Ovidiana in school commentaries», Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 41: 209-226.
  • Engelbrecht, W. (2008), «Fulco, Arnulf, and William: Twelfth-century views on Ovid in Orléans», The Journal of Medieval Latin 18: 52-73.
  • Engelbrecht, W. (2022), «The Bursarii super Ovidios: A medieval ‘philological’ catena commentary on Ovid», Eirene. Studia Graeca et Latina 58: 39-77.
  • Esposito, P. (2004), «Per un’introduzione alla scolastica lucanea», en Id. (ed.), Gli scolii a Lucano ed altra scoliastica latina, Pisa, ETS: 11-24.
  • Fredborg, K.M. (2014), «The Ars poetica in the eleventh and twelfth centuries: From the Vienna Scholia to the Materia commentary», Aevum 88: 339-442.
  • Friis-Jensen, K. (1990), «The Ars poetica in twelfth-century France. The Horace of Matthew of Vendôme, Geoffrey of Vinsauf, and John of Garland», Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin 60: 319-388 [reimpr.: Id., The medieval Horace, ed. K. Margareta Fredborg et al., Roma, Quasar, 2015: 51-99].
  • Gura, D.T. (2010), A critical edition and study of Arnulf of Orléans’ philological commentary to Ovid’s «Metamorphoses», Diss. Ohio State University.
  • Gura, D.T. (2015), «Living with Ovid: The founding of Arnulf of Orléans’ Thebes», en E. Kwakkel (ed.), Studies in medieval and Renaissance book culture. Manuscripts of the Latin classics 800-1200, Leiden, Leiden University Press: 131-166.
  • Holzworth, J. (1942), «Hugutio’s Derivationes and Arnulfus’ commentary on Ovid’s Fasti», Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 73: 259-276.
  • Jakobi, R. (2007), «Das Commentum Brunsianum», en P. Kruschwitz, W.-W. Ehlers & F. Felgentreu (eds.), ‘Terentius poeta’, München, Beck: 37-49.
  • Lanza, L. (2001), «Arnulfus Aurelianensis», en CALMA. Compendium Auctorum Latinorum Medii Aevi (500-1500), I, 4, Firenze, SISMEL – Edizioni del Galluzzo: 476-478
  • Marti, B.M. (1958), Arnulfi Aurelianensis glosule super Lucanum, Roma, American Academy in Rome.
  • Matthews Sanford, E. (1934), «The manuscripts of Lucan: accessus and marginalia», Speculum 9: 278-295.
  • Munk Olsen, B. (2009), L’étude des auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles. IV. 1. La réception de la littérature classique. Travaux philologiques, Paris, CNRS.
  • Rieker, J.R. (2005), Arnulfi Aurelianensis glosule Ovidii fastorum, Firenze, SISMEL – Edizioni del Galluzzo.
  • Riou, Y.-F. (1973), «Essai sur la tradition manuscrite du Commentum Brunsianum des comédies de Térence», Revue d’Histoire des Textes 3: 79-113.
  • Roy, B. & Shooner, H. (1985-1986), «Querelles de maîtres au XIIe siècle: Arnoul d’Orléans et son milieu», Sandalion 8-9: 315-341 [reimpr.: B. Roy, Une culture de l’équivoque, Paris, Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 1992: 141-163].
  • Roy, B. & Shooner, H. (1996), «Arnulfi Aurelianensis glosule de remediis amoris», The Journal of Medieval Latin 6: 135-196.
  • Ruiz Arzalluz, I. (2021), «Hacia una definición de los commentarii recentiores a Terencio», Revue d’Histoire des Textes 16: 145-171.
  • Ruiz Arzalluz, I. (en prensa a), El comentario «Legitur» a Terencio, Firenze, SISMEL – Edizioni del Galluzzo.
  • Ruiz Arzalluz, I. (en prensa b), «Legitur y las Derivationes de Uguccione: Nuevos indicios en favor de un léxico del s. XII en el entorno de Orleans», Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale.
  • Sabbadini, R. (1894), «Il commento di Donato a Terenzio», Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 2: 1-134.
  • San Juan Manso, E. (2015), El «Commentum Monacense» a Terencio, Vitoria-Gasteiz, UPV/EHU.
  • Tilliette, J.-Y. (2016), «Une collection de commentaires aux classiques latins, le manuscrit de Berne, Bürgerbibliothek 411», Interfaces 3: 162-178.
  • Tucker, R.A. (1991), «The alleged Neronian epitaph for Lucan», Latomus 50: 176-183.
  • Velaza, J. (2018), «Mantua me genuit: génesis, datación y modelos epigráficos del ‘autoepitafio’ de Virgilio», Anuari de Filologia. Antiqua et Mediaevalia 8: 875-891 [Miscellanea philologica et epigraphica Marco Mayer oblata, ed. A. Guzmán Almagro & J. Velaza].
  • Villa, C. (1984), La ‘lectura Terentii’. I. Da Ildemaro a Francesco Petrarca, Padova, Antenore.
Data source: Dialnet