No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2016
No single manuscript containing both the major collections of John of Salisbury’s letters is known to survive, but it seems possible to establish that such a manuscript once existed from the evidence of a fourteenth-century tabula found in Durham Cathedral Library MS A.IV.8 fols 53-9. There is no indication of when or how this tabula came to Durham; the composite manuscript of which it forms part was not assembled in its present form until after 1500, when the last section was still separate. The tabula contains some four hundred quotations arranged under 235 subject headings running in alphabetical order from Absencia to Penitencia; the remainder is missing. Almost every entry consists of a quotation, a number in arabic numerals, a name or personal title in the dative case or with ad and the accusative, and a brief indication of position; so for example under the heading Exulare the one entry runs bis exulat qui domi exulat 387 archidiacono exon prope finem. The quotations are from letters in John of Salisbury’s collections or from the other Becket correspondence.
1 d varied from the Vatican Archetype, Ouggan Appendix 3, in having one more letter between Vat. Lat. MS 6024 nos 40 and 43, one less between nos 82a and 85, none between nos 93 and 95, one more between nos 95 and 96, and again between nos 230 and 248. d nos 147-148 and 226-236 are not quoted in the tabula, but it is likely that they represented the last two letters of Vatican Archetype part 1 and the first eleven of part 2.
2 Duggan p. 52 n. 3; Bodleian no 8 was d no 155 while it is interspersed as no 9 in the Vatican MS.
3 d nos 174, 175, 176, 178, 189 and 194 occur in other Becket collections as Bodl B, III nos 12, 13 and 14; Bodleian Archetype nos 30 and 73; and Bodl B, II no 131: see Duggan pp 252, 248, 230, 232, and 251. d nos 200, 201, 205, 218 and 224 as Lambeth Addition (a) nos 105, 106, 123 and 132; and Bodl B, II no 284: Duggan pp 246-7 and 251. d nos 291, 294 and 295, neither of which are quoted verbatim, as Lambeth Addition (b) nos 264, and probably 360 and 361: Duggan pp 248 and 250.
4 Duggan p 74.
5 d differed from C, Letters 1 pp. lviii-lix and lxvii, in having two fewer letters between C nos 2 and 19, and one more between C nos 21 and 25. Important discussions of the origins of P and C are R. W. Southern’s review ofLetters 1 in EHR 72 (1957), pp 493-7, and Letters 2 pp ix-x. d nos 377-391 corresponded to P nos 73-97, Letters 1 pp lvii-lviii, with the omission of the letters in C and two other letters between P nos 82 and 91, but d nos 402, 404 and 408 were P nos 121, 115, 59 and 60, which does not correlate with the previous ordering of P’s four quires revealed by the copy derived from P in Vatican Latin MS 6024.
6 d differed from Q, Letters 2 pp. lxxiv-lxxvi, in having Q no 39, the treatise on the canon of scripture, as its first letter, and in transposing Q nos 114-120 with Q’s nine missing letters plus Q nos 135b-137.
7 H. H. E. Craster, A History of Northumberland (1907) viii. 63n.
8 Duggan pp. 119-121; Letters 2 pp. lii, lxi-lxii, lxxiv-lxxix. A visit by Dr A. I. Doyle has brought to light fragments of a fourteenth-century manuscript containing parts of Letters 2, 168 used as the front pastedown, and nos 181 and 182 as the back, in a copy of Piers Plowman, San Marino, USA, Huntington Library, MS HM 128; nos 181 and 182 occur consecutively in Alan of Tewkesbury’s collection but not in manuscripts like Q.