^{page 127 note 1} We shall refer to these as L (Londinensis), C (Cantabrigiensis), and H (Hamburgensis). No complete manuscript of the Entheticus has come to light since the discovery of Hamburgensis by Christian Peterson in 1843. An incomplete text, lacking more than half the poem, is contained in another fourteenth-century Cambridge University codex (Mm. II. 18, fol. 164–168) after the following incipit: ‘Abbreviatio ex libro qui intitulatur Enteticus magistri Johannis Saresberiensis de dogmate philosophorum editus ad Thomam Cancellarium postea Cantuariensem archiepiscopum.’ The portions of our poem which are in this manuscript agree with L, though lines are grouped haphazardly, and there are scribal errors and orthographical changes throughout. We have examined this codex closely, and find that it contributes nothing to the establishment of the text.Google Scholar

Petersen collated the Hamburgensis for his edition of the Entheticus, and in the preface to the work stated that he was unable to locate other manuscripts of the poem on the Continent, despite a considerable search: ‘nec Angliae, nec Franco-Galliae manuscriptorum catalogi, quos quidem perlustravi, ullum praebent vestigium.’ The catalogues of English libraries reveal no other manuscripts of our poem, and we are assured by the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes in a letter dated September 1970 that no French library has one: ‘En réponse … nous avons le regret de vous informer que nous ne connaissons dans les bibliothèques françaises aueun manuscrit de l'Entheticus de dogmate philosophorum de Jean de Salisbury.’Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 2} Giles, J. A. included the Entheticus (without apparatus criticus) in his edition of the Opera Omnia Johannis Saresberiensis (Oxford 1848). The poem also appeared in PL 199. Both constitute little more than reprints of Petersen's work.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 3} Petersen, C., Johannis Saresberiensis Entheticus de dogmate philosophorum (Hamburg 1843) 14. He writes: ‘Vir doctissimus, Thomas Wright, cui codicis collationem debeo. …’Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 4} A detailed discussion of this matter may be found in Ronald Pepin, E., The Entheticus of John of Salisbury: A Critical Edition and Commentary (Fordham University dissertation 1973) 3–5.Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 5} Pepin, , The Entheticus 60–68. There we cite, in discursive manner, the major errors in Petersen's text, and list all mistakes made by Petersen in determining and reporting the readings of the Entheticus. Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 6} A few portions of the poem are written in the margins only. These sections, which are indicated in our app. crit., are by another hand of the same century. Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 7} L exhibits a number of characteristic letter-forms of mid-twelfth-century script: letters m and n tend toward Gothic angularity; two forms of s (erect and looped) and d (erect and uncial) occur throughout the codex; the tironian et ( 7) is consistent; double i is distinguished from letter u by two slanted strokes above; the h is cramped and the cedilla has disappeared from use. The ‘seven and point’ mark of punctuation, and the ‘trailingheaded’ a distinguish this manuscript as an English product of the mid-twelfth century. See Ker, N. R., English Manuscripts in the Century after the Norman Conquest (Oxford 1960) 34–39 and plates.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 8} Scribal errors in L are few in number and usually involve some form of dittography, e.g. acccipe is written for accipe in line 1621, and si is written twice in line 1644, where it should occur but once.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 9} Several of the twelfth-century dating criteria discussed in n. 7 supra are observable in the marginal argumenta. Petersen believed the writer of these argumenta to have been a contemporary of the author, as he states on page 15 of his edition: ‘Ceterum qui argumenta haec composuit, utpote rerum peritus, auctori videtur aequalis fuisse.’ Although the topical headings of L do not seem far removed in time from the text itself, they were not written by anyone who had an intimate connection with the composition of the poem. Contrary to Petersen's view, their author was really rerum non peritus, for their weakness lies in the fact that they are incomplete and, more importantly, sometimes erroneous. At line 1165, for example, the heading is clearly incorrect in asserting that the Romans imitated Greek moderation in speech, for the poet goes on to accuse the former of quite a different use of language in the lines which follow. Often we see that argumenta do not reflect the true context of a passage, but mention only a name or a topic which receives no more than a passing glance from the poet. Therefore, the argumenta are unreliable as indicators of John's content in the Entheticus. If they were written by a contemporary, he surely was not intimately acquainted with our poem or its author.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 10} See Luard, H. R., ed. Matthaei Parisiensis, Monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Maiora II (London 1872) 278–279.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 11} See Luard, H. R., ed. Catalogue of Manuscripts in the University Library at Cambridge III (Cambridge 1858) 400. Luard reports that the manuscript is in one hand. However, we are informed in a letter from Owen, A. E. B., Under-librarian at Cambridge University, dated September 6, 1971, that ‘Our manuscript Ii. II.31, as stated in the published catalogue, is 14th century in date — a more precise dating is not possible — but it is written in several different hands, contrary to what is said in the catalogue.’Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 12} The rather frequent errors in transcription which occur in C are indicated in our app. crit. Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 13} The manuscript exhibits such mid-fourteenth-century characteristics as the Gothic a (formed by two parallel downward strokes crossed lightly above the middle); the shaded, pointed s, and the juncture between looped letters (d e o p). See the text and plates of Kirchner, J., Scriptura Gothica Libraria (Munich 1966) and Harrison Thomson, S., Latin Bookhands of the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge 1969).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 14} The letter cited in n. 11 supra informs us that C ‘was certainly in this library in 1600, but nothing is known of its earlier history or provenance.’Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 15} Petersen published Geschichte der Hamburgischen Stadtbibliothek in 1838.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 16} We were informed by Tilo Brandis, Dr., Librarian at the Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg, in a letter of January 14, 1971, that the codex was removed to Berlin during World War II.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 17} The dating of the Hamburgensis scripts is problematical, mainly because the whole period (17th c.) is a transitional one in English handwriting. A useful discussion of the problem may be assembled from several works: Dawson, G. E. & Kennedy-Skipton, L., Elizabethan Handwriting (New York 1966) esp. 12–13; Denholm-Young, N., Handwriting in England and Wales (Cardiff 1964) esp. 71, 75; Grieve, H. E. P., Examples of English Handwriting (Chelmsford 1954); Hector, L. C., The Handwriting of English Documents (London 1966) esp. 62–63; Jenkinson, H., The Later Court Hands in England (Cambridge 1927; rpt. New York 1969) esp. 16–17; Tannenbaum, S. A., The Handwriting of the Renaissance (New York 1930; rpt. 1967) esp. 14–15 — a work which must be used with extreme caution, however, since it is frequently unreliable in matters of detail. These general comments can be made: our conclusion is that the ‘second hand’ is mixed, English, a transitional secretary hand with italic elements. It was probably written in the 2nd quarter of the seventeenth century. The ‘first hand’ is a rather characterless, debased italic dating from the 3rd or 4th quarter of the seventeenth century. We wish to thank our friend George Fletcher of Fordham University Press for some helpful palaeographical suggestions.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 18} Petersen also held this theory (see page 15 of his edition), but with some degree of hesitancy (‘quamquam pro certo non habere possumus’). Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 19} Londinensis is described by Casley, Casley, A Catalogue of the Manuscripts of the King's Library (London 1734). Petersen consistently refers to this as the work of David ‘Carley.’Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 20} See the article on Patrick Young by Millar, A. H. in the Dictionary of National Biography 21. 1300–1301. Young was ‘deprived of his office in 1648,’ according to Edwards, E., Lives of the Founders of the British Museum (New York 1969) 167.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 21} Millar, (n. 20 supra) points out that this project was interrupted by the English Civil War.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 22} Petersen, , Geschichte 72. We may note, as a further chronological guide, the publication of Meibomius' De fabrica triremium liber in Amsterdam in 1671.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 23} Kristeller, P. O., Latin Manuscript Books Before 1600 (New York 1965) 121.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 24} Brooke, C. N. L., The Twelfth Century Renaissance (New York 1970) 59 refers to the Entheticus as a ‘first draft’ of the Policraticus. Webb, C. C. J., John of Salisbury (London 1932) 99–100 commended the poem to further research, but stated that it ‘contains little that may not be paralleled in the prose works.’ However, Raby, F. J. E., A History of Secular Latin Poetry in the Middle Ages II (Oxford 1957) 91 acknowledges the distinctive character of the Entheticus when he states that it is ‘no mere tour de force or school exercise. It has preserved its freshness because it bears the impress of his keen and judicial intelligence, of his grave irony and his deep seriousness.’Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 25} Wright, F. and Sinclair, T., History of Later Latin Literature (New York 1931) 232 simply mention the Entheticus as a ‘curious poem.’Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 26} We have adopted the format for a critical apparatus found in Kuttner, S., ‘Notes on the Presentation of Text and Apparatus in Editing Works of the Decretists and Decretalists,’ Traditio 15 (1959) 452–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 137 note 27} Although the Hamburg manuscript is currently in the Staatsbibliothek, Berlin, we shall cite it by the letter H, the designation used by Petersen.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 1} fructumque … capit: Cic. De diu. 2.5 Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 9} quo tendis etc.: Hor. Serm. 1.9.61–62 · 11 est Alethia etc. Mart. Cap. 2.114 · 29 vim verborum: Cic. Or. 32.115 Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 78} tempora pereunt: Ovid. Rem. Am. 107 Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 83} Ausibus est fortuna comes: Verg. Aen. 10.284 · 94 veterum fautor: Hor. Ep. 2.1.23 114 Graecia capta: Hor. Ep. 2.1.156 Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 119} insanire putes: Hor. Serm. 2.3.302 · 129 Garamantum: Verg. Ecl. 8.44 130 fasque nefasque: Ovid. Metam. 6.585 · 141 haberi… urbanus: Hor. Ep. 1.15.27 Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 156} turpis causa: Auct. Her. 1.6.9 · 159 sermone Latino: Cic. Or. 3.11 · 178 Mercurium jungit etc.: Mart. Cap. De Nupt. Phil, et Merc. · 179 Maurus ponens Philologia: Ter. Maur. · 184 lana caprina: Hor. Ep. 1.18.15 Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 203} sermo cothurnatus: Macr. Sat. 7.5 · 213 Stilbontis: Mart. Cap. 8.851 · 223 Juno … pronuba: Verg. Aen. 4.166 Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 257} rota Fortunae: Boeth. De cons. Phil. 2.1 Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 272} inflicto vulnere: Cic. Pis. 26.63 Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 307} Deus est… sapientia: Aug. De Trin. 7.1–3 · 310 omnia vincit amor: Verg. Eel. 10.69 · 325 vana fides: 1 Cor. 15.17 · 327 ordine cuncta geri etc.: Cic. De off. 1.5.14–17 Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 328} rebus inesse modum: Hor. Serm. 1.1.106 Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 359} ordo legendi: Hugo de St. Vict. Erud. Did. 1–3 passim Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 373} stricti juris: Just. Dig. 29.2.85 · 381 mundique … lux: Ioann. 1.9 et al. Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 403} forma nativa: Gilb. Porr. Comm. in Boeth. de Trin. passim · 434 tumet vitio: Cic. Tusc. 3.9 Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 465} meditatio mortis: Sen. Ep. 54.2; 70.18 · 468 (et 470) mortis imago: Verg. Aen. 2.369 Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 491} meditatio mortis: Sen. Ep. 54.2; 70.18 · 499 oris organa: Prud. Peristeph. 10.2 · 503 (Arg.) fatalem necessitatem: Cic. De nat. deor. 1.20.55 · 507 genethliacus: Isid. Etym. 8.9 Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 513} (et 515) Pronois: Cic. De nat. deor. 1.8.18 · 517 (Arg.) fatalem necessitatem: Cic. De nat. deor. 1.20.55 · 529 gaudia mentis: Cic. De fin. 2.4.13 Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 546} morte triumphata: 1 Cor. 15.55 · 557 nam gaudere etc.: Philip. 4.4 Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 591} stercora, vermes: 1 Machab. 2.62 · 594 gloria summa pudor: Philip. 3.19 Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 603} causarum series: Cic. De div. 1.55.125 · 606 numeri ponderis etc.: Aug. De Gen. ad Litt. 4.3–5 · 625 natura creatrix: Lucr. 1.629 Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 643} Vera Deus lux est: Ioann. 1.9 Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 667} ad unguem: Hor. Serm. 1.5.32; A.P. 294 · 687 nullus amare etc.: Matt. 6.24; Luc. 16.9–13 Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 693} honorum caeca cupido: Lucr. 3.59 · 699 timor ille beatus: Prov. 9.10 · 715 flexis genibus etc.: Philip. 2.6–10 Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 721} super astra: Isa. 14.13 Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 743} molle Tarentum: Hor. Serm. 2.4.34 · 768 corpus carceris: Cic. Tusc. 1.30.74 Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 785} aciem mentis: Cic. De nat. deor. 2.17.45 · 787 hominum curas: Pers. 1.1 · 809 animas ex traduce: Prud. Apoth. 915–16 Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 833} sublunaria casu: Chal. Comm. in Plat. Tim. 250 · 843 substantia quinta: Cic. Tusc. 1.10.22 · 844 signiferi… poli: Luc. Phars. 3.254 · 849 in orbem etc.: Macr. In Somn. Scip. 2.14.31 Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 851} est individuum: Boeth. Comm. in Porph. 3 · 871 lasciva puella: Verg. Ecl. 3.64 Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 877} praestantes mentes: Boeth. De cons. Phil. 2.7 · 883 amor habendi: Ovid Metam. 1.131 · 884 pronus ad omne nefas: Luc. Phars. 6.147 · 894 livor edax: Ovid. Rem. Am. 389 Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 917} dulce malum: Iob 20.12 · 925 ad unguem: Hor. Serm. 1.5.32 · 926 terra cinis: Eccles. 17.31 Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 942} ideas … hylen: Chal. Comm. in Plat Tim. 123; 268 Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 977} simplex aptusque etc.: Chal. Comm. in Plat. Tim. 226–27 · 982 ex individuo etc.: Chal. Comm. in Plat. Tim. 27 Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 987} corpusque caducum: Cic. De nat. deor. 1.35.98 · 989 magni terminus anni: Macr. In Soma. Scip. 2.11 · 995 vaga Cynthia: Luc. Phars. 1.218; solque calori: Macr. In Somn. Scip. 2.7 Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 1028} stabilis virtus: Ovid. Trist. 5.14.30 Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 1061} principium motus: Boeth. Contr. Eut. et Nest. 1 · 1062 causa latens: Aug. De civ. Dei 5.19 · 1067 zodiacus bis sex: Chal. Comm. in Plat. Tim. 78–82 · 1073 globus … terra: Cic. De rep. 6.16 Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 1082} caput attollit: Ovid. Metam. 5.503 · 1088 taetra libido: Hor. Serm. 1.2.33 · 1095 spiritus immundus: Luc. 9.43 · 1105 est oculus menti ratio: Claud. Mam. De statu anim. 1.27 Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 1130} maculosa manet: Plin. Nat. Hist. 2.9.6 · 1134 vaga luna: Hor. Serm. 1.8.21 Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 1139} Antitenes LC; et ante academico scr. Arg. C 1145 viva ratio tr. Arg. C 1157 temporat C 1159 Academicum Arg. C; temperamentum Academicum Arg. H; Graecis ante modus add. L²H 1161 causa C 1165 Romani Graecos in verborum temperamento imitantur Arg. H 1167 adverba C 1168 majus] manus C Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 1181} ritusque sacrorum: Verg. Aen. 12.836 · 1201 juvenesque senesque: Mart. Epigr, 1.3.5 Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 1204} colla subesse jugo: Eccles. 51.34 · 1206 scindit vela: Matt. 27.51 · 1225 ignorantia veri: Ovid. Metam. 7.92 Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 1243} cuncti mirantur etc.: Aug. Conf. 3.4 · 1257 ingenium Senecae: Quint. Inst. Or. 10.1.128 · 1260 dicendique genus: Quint. Inst. Or. 10.1.125 · 1261 sine calce … arenam: Suet. Cal. 53 Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 1289} manusque procaces: Plin. Nat. Hist. 22.6.7 · 1303 vicit avaritia Midam: Ovid. Metam. 11.85 seqq. · 1304 astutam vulpem: Hor. Serm. 2.3.186 Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 1335} Julia lex: Juv. 2.37 · 1337 Silvia: Flor. Epitom. 1.1.1; Quartillae: Petron. Sat. passim; Lauronia et Florae: Juv. 2.36, 2.49 Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 1350} pronus ad omne nefas: Luc. Phars. 6.147 · 1360 tutus in insidiis: Hor. Serm. 2.6.117 Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 1387} in saccum pertusum: Haggai 1.6 · 1403 gloria virtutem sequitur: Cic. Tusc. 1.45.109 Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 1417} exigit… munuscula: Juv. 6.36; Sporus: Suet. Ner. 28 · 1421 rem fortasse etc.: Hor. A. P. 329 · 1427 Dinomaches et Polydamas: Pers. 4.20; 1.4 · 1428 Photinus: Luc. Phars. 8.483 · 1431 Thrasonis: Ter. Eun. · 1432 Thais: Ter. Eun. · 1434 fruticante pilo: Juv. 9.15 · 1439 omnibus omnia fit: 1 Cor. 15.28 Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 1459} mens sana: Juv. 10.356 · 1462 mortis iter: Prov. 12.28 · 1465 insanire putes: Hor. Serm. 2.3.302; juvenesque senesque: Mart. Epigr. 1.3.5 · 1471 funambulus: Ter. Hec. prol. 4 · 1482 duo non duo sint: Matt. 19.6 · 1487 lucris inhiat: Sen. Controvers. 3.22.11; juvenesque senesque: Mart. Epigr. 1.3.5 Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 1501} cacoethes scribendi: Juv. 7.52 · 1515 stillabis in aure: Juv. 3.123 · 1523 retia solvuntur etc.: Val. Max. 7.2 Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 1529} torquere potentes etc.: Luc. 1.52 · 1541 Bavium: Verg. Ecl. 3.90; Dolonem: Macr. Sat. 5.16 · 1544 vultus hilaris: Eccles. 35.11 · 1558 frontis … urbanae: Hor. Ep. 1.9.11 Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 1564} Corydone: Verg. Eel. 2.1 al.; Juv. 9.102 · 1581 Bavius: Verg. Eel. 3.90 · 1582 Maevius: Verg. Eel. 3.90 Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 1601} lingua modesta: Ovid. Her. 18.63 · 1603 tardus ad iram: Iacob. Ep. 1.19 1624 quibus est venter: Philip. 3.19; Laverna: Hor. Ep. 1.16.60 Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 1648} centussem: Pers. 5.191 · 1657 gratia rore suo: Gen. 27.28 · 1663 Gillia: Val. Max. 4.8.2 · 1664 Demea: Ter. Adel. · 1665 Tantalus: Hyg. Fab. 82 Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 1673} Balatro: Hor. Serm. 2.8.21 al.; Davus, Pamphilus: Ter. And. · 1677 Eumolpis, Encolpius: Petron. Sat.; Adonis: Ovid. Metam. 10.503 seqq. · 1678 Gittone: Petron. Sat. · 1683 Plautinum Querolum: pseud. Plaut. Quer. · 1688 Gnatho: Ter. Eun. · 1692 Zoilus: Ovid. Rem. Am. 365; stillet in aure: Juv. 3.123 Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 1700} Zoile: Ovid. Rem. Am. 365 · 1701 Matoni: Juv. 7.129 · 1703 tressis agaso: Pers. 5.76 · 1707 Pedo: Juv. 7.129 · 1714 sub ciniflone: Hor. Serm. 1.2.98 · 1721 livor edax: Ovid. Rem. Am. 389 Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 1731} Euphorbi: Ovid. Metam. 15.161 · 1738 (et 1742) Baccara: Mart. Epigr. 7.91 · 1743 Davus: Ter. And. · 1745 Sergiolum: Juv. 6.105; Scaevam: Luc. Phars. 10.543 · 1746 Sardanapalus: Just. Epit. 1.3.1–5; pseud. Plaut. Quer. · 1747 Thersitae: Juv. 8.269 · 1749 barbara tellus: Ovid. Metam. 7.53 Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 1787} ingenuus … pudor: Juv. 11.154 Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 1810} ingenuusque pudor: Juv. 11.154 · 1815 causa sit una salutis: Hebr. 5.9 Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 1839} linguamque refraenent: Iacob. 1.26 Google Scholar