DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61385#0045
Chapter III.—Description of the MSS. MS. B. xxxix
“ Also also sunte Augustinus seghet in deme boke van deme geloven
to sunte Peter: Eyn wunder is dat geheiten, dat wunderliken schut
boven de naturliken krefften und boven menslike wunder,” etc.
The corresponding passage is furnished by the Vernon MS., fol.
363. It begins : “ For as muche as seint Austin sei\ to Peter in pe
Booc of be leeuef etc. The metrical version, MS. Tiber. E. vii., 11.
2 if., reads :
11 and saint Austin, ]>e doctur dere,
and o\>er maisters mare <£- myn,
sais, ]>at men grete mede may wyn," etc.
This Guido1 leaves no doubt about himself, v. Bl. 99a : “ bin ich
Gowido veriest van der pine des vegevurs veir jar dan sich bord.e.”
The tradition is followed with fidelity in English. MS. Vernon
reads : “ ich am ]>e spirit of Gy f his soule, pai nou late was ded ” ;
MS. Tiber. E. vii. :
‘ ‘ ]>e voice answerd to him in hy
and, said: I am spirit of Gy,
]>e whilk 3e wate was newly dede,” etc.
It is quite as probable that the Guy of MS. B belongs to this family,
as that his prior be identified with Alquin of the Speculum. The
inference that MSS. Bodley 1731 and 3903, i. e. Fairfax 23, are the
same, is not ungrounded, but their identity has not been proved, and
the use of the term Bodley in both connections cannot be indicated
to be other than accidental.
Another theory originates in the prolific literature of the tradi-
tion.2 It is possible to explain Bodley 1731 as a composite title
representing several MSS., but not belonging necessarily3 to any of
them, a title without an individual text, one of that “ jumble ”4
described by Schick, Temple of Gias, p. cxlviii. ff., and Lockhart, II.,
p. 122. It might result not merely from “splitting up one work
into several” (Schick, p. cli.), but from the uniting of the titles of
the “ split portions ” of several works into a single heading without
definite MS. For Ritson, the “ dogmatical little word-catcher,”
nothing would be easier than to invent such a visionary title.
1 Guido is a “ child of the time,” see Arnt Buschman, p. 41: Ich bin eyn
geist, ein cristenmenschen, etc.
2 See Sprachforschung. Seelman enumerates seventeen texts of the Mirakel.
3 Harl. 2379 is a Liber de Spiritu Guidonis'. Narratio Legendaria de con-
fabulations habita inter Animam proedicti Guidonis civis de Alestey (guce distat
ab Avenion 21 miliarijs), and states Guido obijt 1323. Cotton Vesp. E 1. ends :
explicit . . . disputacio mirabilis inter priorem . . . et inter spiritum . . .
Guydonis.
4 Scott writes of Ritson’s Essay on Romance and Minstrelsy, cf. Lockhart,
IL, p. 122, that it reminds one of “a heap of rubbish, which had either turned
out unfit for the architect’s purpose or beyond his skill to make use of.”
“ Also also sunte Augustinus seghet in deme boke van deme geloven
to sunte Peter: Eyn wunder is dat geheiten, dat wunderliken schut
boven de naturliken krefften und boven menslike wunder,” etc.
The corresponding passage is furnished by the Vernon MS., fol.
363. It begins : “ For as muche as seint Austin sei\ to Peter in pe
Booc of be leeuef etc. The metrical version, MS. Tiber. E. vii., 11.
2 if., reads :
11 and saint Austin, ]>e doctur dere,
and o\>er maisters mare <£- myn,
sais, ]>at men grete mede may wyn," etc.
This Guido1 leaves no doubt about himself, v. Bl. 99a : “ bin ich
Gowido veriest van der pine des vegevurs veir jar dan sich bord.e.”
The tradition is followed with fidelity in English. MS. Vernon
reads : “ ich am ]>e spirit of Gy f his soule, pai nou late was ded ” ;
MS. Tiber. E. vii. :
‘ ‘ ]>e voice answerd to him in hy
and, said: I am spirit of Gy,
]>e whilk 3e wate was newly dede,” etc.
It is quite as probable that the Guy of MS. B belongs to this family,
as that his prior be identified with Alquin of the Speculum. The
inference that MSS. Bodley 1731 and 3903, i. e. Fairfax 23, are the
same, is not ungrounded, but their identity has not been proved, and
the use of the term Bodley in both connections cannot be indicated
to be other than accidental.
Another theory originates in the prolific literature of the tradi-
tion.2 It is possible to explain Bodley 1731 as a composite title
representing several MSS., but not belonging necessarily3 to any of
them, a title without an individual text, one of that “ jumble ”4
described by Schick, Temple of Gias, p. cxlviii. ff., and Lockhart, II.,
p. 122. It might result not merely from “splitting up one work
into several” (Schick, p. cli.), but from the uniting of the titles of
the “ split portions ” of several works into a single heading without
definite MS. For Ritson, the “ dogmatical little word-catcher,”
nothing would be easier than to invent such a visionary title.
1 Guido is a “ child of the time,” see Arnt Buschman, p. 41: Ich bin eyn
geist, ein cristenmenschen, etc.
2 See Sprachforschung. Seelman enumerates seventeen texts of the Mirakel.
3 Harl. 2379 is a Liber de Spiritu Guidonis'. Narratio Legendaria de con-
fabulations habita inter Animam proedicti Guidonis civis de Alestey (guce distat
ab Avenion 21 miliarijs), and states Guido obijt 1323. Cotton Vesp. E 1. ends :
explicit . . . disputacio mirabilis inter priorem . . . et inter spiritum . . .
Guydonis.
4 Scott writes of Ritson’s Essay on Romance and Minstrelsy, cf. Lockhart,
IL, p. 122, that it reminds one of “a heap of rubbish, which had either turned
out unfit for the architect’s purpose or beyond his skill to make use of.”