DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.51197#0381
219] LAMBETH LIBRARY 353
Porrectani in uno vol. magno glosatum. This cannot be our book,
which is neither large nor ‘glossed’ in the technical sense.
At top of f. i : psalterium Gileberti uniuersalis. On this see
below. ' ■
B(eatus vir). (Q)uid est ambulare in consilio impiorum nisi
iniquis consentire consiliis.
The initial B is extremely fine; the letter is in red and white on
a pale blue ground with some panels of dull green. In the
upper lobe are two, and in the lower three birds (red and
white) among conventional foliage.
Initials to ordinary Psalms are in red, green, blue, with modest
ornament.
The nocturnes have slightly larger initials in some cases.
The first words of Quid gloriaris are in small capitals, but this
is the case in other psalms also.
The comment on Ps. 150 is almost all in verse, written as
prose.
Laudate dominum in sanctis eius. Sint domino grates sint laudes
sintque honores
Agmina sanctorum quod sic pollere suorum
Fecit in hac uita nunc autem sede benigna, etc.,
ending : omnis spiritus laudet dominum.
Spiritus omnis eum benedicat nunc et in euum
Gaudet ametque colat quem rachel mater adorat
Hec fecunda quidem sterilis sine semine pridem
Hoc pater hoc flamen hoc filius audiat. Amen.
Verso blank.
If the attribution is correct, the author is Gilbert the Universal,
Bp. of London 1127-34 (?). His works are sometimes confused with
those of Gilbert de la Porree and Gilbert of Auxerre. But it is
probably not correct. Dr S. C. Cockerell, to whom I showed the
MS., recognized a resemblance to a commentary by Odo of Asti
1120) of which he possesses a beautiful xiith-century copy
written in Italy. (The text is printed with a large gap in Migne,
P.L. clxiii.) A comparison with this MS. showed that the texts
were indeed identical. There seems to be quite satisfactory evidence
for Odo’s authorship, since there is a prologue (absent from our
copy) addressed to Bruno of Signi. The reason for the attribution
to Gilbert which, though not original, is quite old, is yet to seek.
The Lambeth MS. is interesting as affording a second, and a com-
plete, copy of the Commentary. A comparison of some passages
with Dr Cockerell’s MS. shows that though as a rule inferior it does
l.c. 23
Porrectani in uno vol. magno glosatum. This cannot be our book,
which is neither large nor ‘glossed’ in the technical sense.
At top of f. i : psalterium Gileberti uniuersalis. On this see
below. ' ■
B(eatus vir). (Q)uid est ambulare in consilio impiorum nisi
iniquis consentire consiliis.
The initial B is extremely fine; the letter is in red and white on
a pale blue ground with some panels of dull green. In the
upper lobe are two, and in the lower three birds (red and
white) among conventional foliage.
Initials to ordinary Psalms are in red, green, blue, with modest
ornament.
The nocturnes have slightly larger initials in some cases.
The first words of Quid gloriaris are in small capitals, but this
is the case in other psalms also.
The comment on Ps. 150 is almost all in verse, written as
prose.
Laudate dominum in sanctis eius. Sint domino grates sint laudes
sintque honores
Agmina sanctorum quod sic pollere suorum
Fecit in hac uita nunc autem sede benigna, etc.,
ending : omnis spiritus laudet dominum.
Spiritus omnis eum benedicat nunc et in euum
Gaudet ametque colat quem rachel mater adorat
Hec fecunda quidem sterilis sine semine pridem
Hoc pater hoc flamen hoc filius audiat. Amen.
Verso blank.
If the attribution is correct, the author is Gilbert the Universal,
Bp. of London 1127-34 (?). His works are sometimes confused with
those of Gilbert de la Porree and Gilbert of Auxerre. But it is
probably not correct. Dr S. C. Cockerell, to whom I showed the
MS., recognized a resemblance to a commentary by Odo of Asti
1120) of which he possesses a beautiful xiith-century copy
written in Italy. (The text is printed with a large gap in Migne,
P.L. clxiii.) A comparison with this MS. showed that the texts
were indeed identical. There seems to be quite satisfactory evidence
for Odo’s authorship, since there is a prologue (absent from our
copy) addressed to Bruno of Signi. The reason for the attribution
to Gilbert which, though not original, is quite old, is yet to seek.
The Lambeth MS. is interesting as affording a second, and a com-
plete, copy of the Commentary. A comparison of some passages
with Dr Cockerell’s MS. shows that though as a rule inferior it does
l.c. 23