¹ I thank Traditio's reader, Winthrop Wetherbee, for several helpful suggestions.Google Scholar

² The most recent survey is McGregor, James H., ‘Ovid at School: From the Ninth to the Fifteenth Century,’ Classical Folia 32 (1978) 29–51.Google Scholar

³ For a description of the methods of an inspired instructor, Bernard of Chartres, see John of Salisbury, Metalogicon 1.24.Google Scholar

⁴ De Ovidiana in Carminibus Buranis quae dicuntur imitatione (Strasbourg 1914).Google Scholar

⁵ The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture, trans. Misrahi, Catharine (New York 1961; rpt. 1977) 155.Google Scholar

⁶ The Allegory of Love (1936; rpt. London 1973).Google Scholar

⁷ ‘The Altercatio Phyllidis et Florae as an Ovidian Satire,’ Medieval Studies 30 (1968) 119–33.Google Scholar

⁸ ‘Some Functions of “Love” in the “Carmina Burana,”’ Deutsche Beiträge zur geistigen Überlieferung 6 (1970) 11–25.Google Scholar

⁹ All numbers and quotations are from the edition of Alfons Hilka, Otto Schumann, and Bernhard Bischoff (Heidelberg 1930–1970). No. 105 is in I 2.173–75.Google Scholar

¹⁰ This line does not scan properly and may be corrupt; the auctoritas seems to echo Ars amatoria 2.345, ‘nil adsuetudine maius.’ Google Scholar

¹¹ See n. 14 for the auctoritas. Google Scholar

¹² Walsh, P. G., Thirty Poems from the Carmina Burana (Reading University Medieval and Renaissance Texts; Reading 1976); Walsh does not, however, view the poem as a particularly serious statement but stresses (rightly) its playfulness.Google Scholar

¹³ Stanza 2, ‘Cupido pharetratus,’ cf. Amores 2.5.1, ‘pharetrate Cupido,’ Metamorphoses 10.525, ‘pharetratus puer’; stanza 6, ‘evanuit iam virtus,’ cf. Met. 14.356–57; stanza 9, cf. ‘condita si non sunt Veneris mysteria cistis,’ AA 2.609; stanza 10, ‘corporibus non tactis,’ cf. AA 2.634.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Stanza 6, cf. ‘Otia si tollas, periere Cupidinis arcus,’ Remedium amoris 136; stanza 7, see n. 10 above; stanza 8, cf. ‘qui sibi notus erit, solus sapienter amabit,’ AA 2.501; stanza 9, ‘Praecipue Cytherea iubet sua sacra taceri,’ AA 2.607; stanza 10, cf. ‘at nunc nocturnis titulos inponimus actis,’ AA 2.625. All citations of the Ars amatoria are from the text of E. J. Kenney (Oxford 1961).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Walsh (above, n. 12) sees a possibility that CB 105 is a parody of Walter.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Walter of Châtillon, however, appears to have taken his citations of Juvenal directly from the florilegia: see Strecker, Karl, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 64, n.f. 52 (1927) 168. For use of the classical authors in florilegia, see Rochais, Dom H. M., ‘Contribution à l'histoire des florilèges ascetiques du haut moyen âge latin: Le “Liber Scintillarum,”’ Revue Bénédictine 43 (1953) 246–91. To give only one example, the Florilegium Gottingense includes 22 citations of Ovid, more than from any other single source except the Vulgate (cf. Voigt, Ernst, Romanische Forschungen 3 [1887] 281–314).Google Scholar

¹⁷ This statement is based both on my own reading and on the useful, if not quite complete, studies of Manitius, Max, ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte des Ovidius und anderer römischen Schriftsteller im Mittelalter,’ Philologus Suppl. 7 (1899) 732f. The poet appears to have avoided well-known quotations, for he neglects AA 2.603, cited fairly frequently by other writers, which could have been adapted to suit his purposes.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For a discussion of Ovid's playful distortion of the concept of self-knowledge, central to Greco-Roman philosophy, see Solodow, Joseph B., ‘Ovid's Ars Amatoria: The Lover as Cultural Ideal,’ Wiener Studien n.f. 11 (1977) 115–16.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Solodow, , op. cit., adduces other evidence for incongruity between style and content (his examples concern imitation of other, traditionally more serious genres such as epic). For other discussions of the role of incongruity in Ovid's poetry, see Fyler, John M., ‘Omnia vincit amor: Incongruity and the Limitations of Structure in Ovid's Elegiac Poetry,’ Classical Journal 66 (1971) 196–203; Durling, Robert M., The Figure of the Poet in Renaissance Epic (Cambridge, Mass. 1965) 26–43.Google Scholar

²⁰ Kenney, E. J. discusses the incongruous and parodic nature of Ovid's theophanies; ‘Nequitiae Poeta,’ in Ovidiana: Recherches sur Ovide, ed. Herescu, N. I. (Paris 1958) 201–209 especially 205 n. 8. For the epic ancestry of the theophany, see Prinz, K., ‘Untersuchung zu Ovids “Remedia Amoris,”’ Wiener Studien 36 (1914) 41–44.Google Scholar

²¹ See Solodow (above, n. 18) 110. The story, as Ovid tells it, conforms to the tale-type popular in the Ages, Middle, ‘the cuckold beaten and content’: Per Nykrog, Les Fabliaux (Publications Romanes et Françaises 123; Geneva 1973) 23n. See also the introduction to my translation of the Provençal Castia Gilos, ‘Ramon Vidal de Besalú: The Punishment of the Jealous,’ Allegorica 1 (1976) 103.Google Scholar

²² For witty use of statues of Venus (Aphrodite) see the series of epigrams in the Greek Anthology 16.159f.Google Scholar

²³ Lines 624 (cf. CB 105.49) and 625 (cf. CB 105.45).Google Scholar

²⁴ For example, cf. Capellanus, Andreas, De Amore, Rule 13: ‘Amor raro consuevit durare vulgatus’ (Andreae Capellani regii Francorum De amore libri tres, ed. Trojel, E. ([2nd ed.; Munich 1964] 310).Google Scholar

²⁵ Walsh, (above n. 12).Google Scholar

²⁶ ‘La poésie amoureuse en langue latine au moyen-âge,’ Classica et mediaevalia 14 (1953) 189.Google Scholar

²⁷ Dialogus super auctores, ed. Huygens, R. B. C. (Leiden 1970) 78.Google Scholar

²⁸ For the importance of incongruity to satire, see Frye, Northrop, Anatomy of Criticism (1957; rpt. Princeton 1973) 224. Frye writes: ‘Satire demands at least a token fantasy, a content which the reader recognizes as grotesque, and at least an implicit moral standard.’ Google Scholar

²⁹ Francisco Rico has suggested that one reason for Ovid's great popularity in the Middle Ages is the seemingly autobiographical nature of his poetry; ‘Sobre el origen de la autobiografía en el “libro de Buen Amor,’” Anuario de Estudios Medievales 4 (1967) 304.Google Scholar

³⁰ The closest parallel to this inelegant figure is Natura in the De planctu Naturae, who is elaborately clothed but whose cloak is torn by schism (‘tunica suarum partium passa discidium’); ed. Wright, Thomas, The Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets and Epigrammatists of the Twelfth Century (London 1872) II 441.Google Scholar

³¹ For example, both organum and absinthio are common in religious contexts: see Cange, Du, s.v. Google Scholar

³² For a discussion of this complex poem, see Rico, Francisco, ‘On Source, Meaning and Form in Walter of Châtillon's “Versa est in luctum”’ (Publicaciones del Seminario de Literatura Medieval y Humanística; Barcelona 1977).Google Scholar

³³ Walsh, (above, n. 12) 99.Google Scholar

³⁴ The classic study of the accessus method remains Quain, Edwin A. s.j., ‘The Medieval Accessus ad Auctores,’ Traditio 3 (1945) 215–64.Google Scholar

³⁵ Huygens, R. B. C., Accessus ad auctores (Leiden 1970), ‘Accessus Ovidii Epistolarum (II)’ 30.Google Scholar

³⁶ The most recent discussion of Arnulf is Ferruccio Bertini, ‘Riflessi di polemichi fra letterati nel prologo della “Lidia” di Arnolfo di Orleans,’ Sandalion 1 (1978) 193–209.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ghisalberti, F., ‘Arnolfo d'Orléans: Un cultore di Ovidio nel secolo XII,’ Memorie del R. Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere; Classe di lettere, scienze morali e storiche 24.4 (1932) 181 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

³⁸ Pactum, as Walsh (above, n. 12) notes, may refer specifically to the marriage contract (cf. Juvenal 6.25; Valerius Flaccus 8.401, Tacitus, , Annals 6.45). For pactio conjugalis in the twelfth century, see Bras, Gabriel Le, ‘Le mariage dans la théologie et le droit de l'Église du xi^e au xiii^e siècle,’ Cahiers de civilisation médiévale (X^e-XII^e siècles) 11 (1968) 194. Marriage was held by some (e.g. the Countess of Champagne, as reported by Andreas) to be antithetical to love.Google Scholar

³⁹ Wright, (above, n. 30) 431.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ ‘Auditores theologiae aures vendunt ut audiant, doctores eas emunt, ut scientiam suam jactanter exponant. Jam theologia venalis prostituitur, et in quaestu pro meretrice sede.’ Google Scholar

⁴¹ Strecker, Karl (above, n. 16) 166.Google Scholar

⁴² Witke, Charles, Latin Satire: The Structure of Persuasion (Leiden 1970) 236–44. I follow Witke's interpretation of this complex poem.Google Scholar

⁴³ Manitius, (above, n. 17) lists six examples.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Vitalis, Orderic, Historia ecclesiastica 5; PL 188.373. The first verse is not by Ovid; the others are RA 135, 139, and 140.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Walsh, (above, n. 12) 98.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ De amore 1.7, ed. Trojel, 221 (emphasis added). I am particularly grateful to Winthrop Wetherbee for calling this passage to my attention. It is hard to take this defense as other than facetious. In a similar vein is Ovid's humorous excuse for Aegisthus' adultery — he had nothing better to do (‘quaeritis, Aegisthus quare sit factus adulter? / in promptu causa est: desidiosus erat,’ RA 161–162).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ De amore, ed. Trojel, 311.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ De amore 106.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Douglas Kelly, for example, calls the De amore ‘the only true art of courtly love we possess,’ although he goes on to point out the harshness of its attack on love in the Third Book; ‘Courtly Love in Perspective: The Hierarchy of Love in Andreas Capellanus,’ Traditio 24 (1968) 119. See also Schlösser, Felix, Andreas Capellanus: Seine Minnelehre und das christliche Weltbild um 1200 (Bonn 1960) especially 176f.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Butturff, Douglas, ‘The Comedy of Coquetry in Andreas’ De Amore,' Classical Folia 28 (1974) 181–90, and the bibliography cited there. Butturff suggests that the De Amore is best viewed sub specie ludi (181). Peter Dronke in his review of Schlösser (Medium Aevum 32 [1963] 60) concludes that the finest poets of courtliness and ‘the amusing, vulgar, gossiping little clerc have virtually nothing in common.’ As Dronke points out, Andreas is not an isolated case but must be viewed in his proper context, as one of numerous medieval adaptations of the Ars. To give only one example, another adaptation of Ovid's joke, the Facetus ‘Moribus et vitae,’ is decidedly cynical (see Allegorica 2 [1977] 27f.) Google Scholar

⁵¹ Bowden, Betsy, ‘The Art of Courtly Copulation,’ Medievalia et Humanistica 9 (1979) 67–85.Google Scholar

⁵² The text is in Oulmont, Charles, Les Débats du clerc et du chevalier (Paris 1911); also Meyer, W., Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse (1914) 1–19. The poem is squarely in the Ovidian tradition; at the ‘trial’ the Gospel according to Ovid, the Ars Amatoria, is read.Google Scholar

⁵³ Shedd, Gordon M., ‘Amor Dethroned: The Ovidian Tradition in Courtly Love Poetry’ (Diss. Pennsylvania State University 1965) 48.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ One of the most outspoken of Ovid's critics was Guillaume de St. Thierry, whose censure of Ovid's followers in De natura et dignitate amoris (PL 184.379) is so harsh its editor has subtitled the work ‘Anti-Nasonem.’ Conrad, , Dialogus super auctores (above, n. 34) 114. Bacon, Roger, Opus tertium cap. 15, in Opera quaedam hactenus inedita, ed. Brewer, W. S. (London, 1859) I 54. Google Scholar