Commentary on the First Six Books of the Aeneid of Virgil commonly attributed to Bernardus. Silvestris. A new critical Edition by Julian Ward Jones and Elizabeth Frances Jones.

Aus der Bibliothek von Prof. Wolfgang Haase, langj�igem Herausgeber der ANRW und des International Journal of the Classical Tradition (IJCT) / From the library of Prof. Wolfgang Haase, long-time editor of ANRW and the International Journal of the Classical Tradition (IJCT). - sehr guter Zustand / very good condition - Introduction -- The author -- The commentary here presented was first edited by William Riedel, student of theology and Oriental languages, and published by Julius Abel at Greifswald in 1924. Riedel, led by the superscription of the only manuscript he knew (Parisinus Latinus 16246, described below), confidently designated as the author of the commentary Bernardus Silvestris, renowned master of the school at Tours, gifted composer of the cosmographicalDe UniversitateMundi, and brilliant luminary of the twelfth-century Renaissance. The current editors believe that the authorship of Bernardus may no longer be assumed, and they have indicated their doubt by the Latin title they have given to this edition. Since the time of Riedel, three other manuscripts of the commentary�two of them older than Riedel's�have been discovered, and they are all anepigraphic. A fourth copy, which does not now exist, but which Coluccio Salutati quotes in his De Laboribus Herculis was apparently also anonymous, since Salutati knows the author only as the "Maronis allegorizator" or the "serius" or "diligens allegorizator Virgilii." Furthermore, cross-references in the notes of Riedel's edition to the De Universitate Mundi do not show, when careful comparison is made, that the author of the one work wrote or knew the other. At times, the commentary on Vergil and the De Universitate do touch the same matters, but resemblances are general rather than precise and do not definitely establish a relationship. -- A more positive cause of doubt is now also at hand. In a recent article, Abb�douard Jeauneau reported the discovery in Cambridge University Library manuscript Mm. 1.18, fol. 1 ra-28 ra, of a commentary on Martianus Capella which, after perusal, proved to be a composition by the same author who wrote our Vergil commentary. Jeauneau, accepting the ascription of the Vergil commentary to Bernard, ipso facto attributed the Capella commentary to Bernard as well. Actually, in our view, the Capella commentary tends to refute the idea of Bernard's authorship of either work. In one place (fol. 16 rb; Jeauneau, "Note," p. 844), the writer of the Capella commentary speaks as if his locale is Orleans, a center with which Bernard is not known to have been connected. Also, as Brian Stock has asserted, there are important doctrinal differences between the Capella commentary and the De Universitate Mundi. He notes, for example, that the doctrine of the waters above the firmament (Gen. 1:6-7) is endorsed in the Capella commentary (fol. 19 rb-va), while the cosmographical scheme of the latter work automatically excludes such a doctrine. -- Since Homer's day, attempts have occasionally been made to give literary works a certain respectability (and greater chance for circulation and survival) through the ascription of a great name. We suspect this may be the case with Bernardus Silvestris. In any event, it is appropriate to observe here that the bibliography of this author is by no means a settled matter. Andr�ernet has studied all the works which, in one place or another, have been attributed to Bernardus, and he establishes the following categories: (1) apocryphal works, (2) works of doubtful authenticity, (3) works of possible authenticity, (4) authentic works. He places the Vergil commentary in the third category, but says Bernard's authorship is "bien douteuse."-- M. Vernet has offered the intriguing suggestion that our commentary may really have been written by another Bernard-Bernard of Chartres. For centuries Bernardus Silvestris was not distinguished from the famous Chartrian and his writings were generally attributed to this figure. In the case of the Vergil commentary, however, Vernet argues, the confusion between the two Bernards may have worked in favor of the master of Tours. In any event, John of Salisbury seems to know our commentary, but he does not seem to know Bernardus Silvestris and does not cite the De Universitate. On the other hand, he does know Bernard of Chartres and is familiar with his teachings and methods. -- The claim that Bernardus Silvestris wrote the Vergil commentary which we have edited must, for the reasons just stated, at least be considered suspect. Our investigations have not provided us with evidence to definitively refute or substantiate this claim. Fortunately, the commentary itself has a definite integrity, and it is possible, by proper attention to internal factors, to construct a sound critical text without settling the question of authorship. ISBN 9780803208988