Sonderdruck überreicht vom Verfasser

MITTELLATEINISCHESJAHRBUCH

Internationale Zeitschrift für Mediävistik und HumanismusforschungRevue internationale des études du moyen âge et de l’humanismeInternational Journal of Medieval and Humanistic StudiesRivista internazionale di studi medievali e umanistici

BAND 48JAHRGANG 2013

1. HEFT

ANTON HIERSEMANN VERLAG

STUTTGART 2013

MAREK THUE KRETSCHMER

«Puer hic», ait, «equet Homerum ...»

Literary Appropriations of the Matter of Troy in MedievalLatin Poetry ca. 1070—1170 (Part 1)

Die wahre und grosse Bedeutung der mittellateinischen Literarurbesteht nichr in dem, was sie der antiken Literatur nachgeamt hat,sondern in dem, was sie selbständig und neu geschaffen har.Dies ist sehr Vieles und für uns sehr Werthvolles”.

«The lot of the historian of Mediaeval Latin poetry is not a happy one’>. Thiswas the British scholar Walter Bradbury Sedgwick’s concluding remark of a 1933note2 on the >Pergama flere volo’, one of the most famous examples of MedievalLatin poems on Troy. Today, some eighty years later, Sedgwick’s statement is stillvalid. We have no canon of Medieval Latin poetry, not even a comprehensive monograph on the medieval literature related to the matter of Troy (something thatcould match Ziolkowski aud Putnam’s recent book on the reception of Virgil)3.Such a volume would have to cover the epics from the anonymous >Historia Troiana> to the <Ylias’ and the ‘Troilus’ of Josephus Iscanus and Albertus Stadensisalong with the historians from Fredegar to Geoffrey of Monmouth; and since theliterature in Latin is ciosely related to vernacular works — Benot de Sainte-Maure,for instance, based his <Roman de Troie’ (ca. 1165) on Latin sources from LateAntiquity (Dictys Cretensis and Dares Phrygius), but his Old French romance wasreworked back into Latin by Guido de Columnis rowards the end of the thirteenthcentury — such a volume would also have to include everything from the <Tréjumannasaga>, to Christine de Pisan (<Cent histoires de Troie>), Chaucer (<Troilusaud Criseyde>) and Boccaccio (<il Filostrato>). The list of autbors and works iscertainly a long one4.

Wilhelm Meyei Eine gereimte Umarbeitung der ‘Ilias Latina<, in: Nachrichten von derKönigl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, philologisch-historische Klasse (1907) 235—245,here 236.2 Walter Bradbury Sedgwick, <Pergama flere volo’, in: Speculum 8 (1933) 81—82.Jan M. ZiolkowskilMichael C. J. Putnam (eds.), The Virgilian Tradition. The First FifteenHundred Years (New Haven 2008).Cf. Werner Eisenhut, Spätantike Troja-Erzählungen, mit eienem Ausblick auf die mittelalterliche Troja-Lireratu; in: Miat. Jb. 18 (1983) 1—28; Arianna Punzi, La circolazionedella materia troiana nell’Europa del ‘200. Da Darete Frigio al ‘Roman de Troie en prose’,in: Messana 6 (1991) 69—108; Margaret Roseman Scherer, The Legends of Troy in Art

42 Marek Thue Kretschmer Puer hic’, ait, equet Homerum 43

When it comes to the problem of fictionality and medieval literary uses of thematter of Troy — that is, the relationship between myth and history, and betweeninvention and truth, in the medieval rewritings of the ciassical legend of Troy —

scholars have been mainly concerned with the question of historical truth and thefunction of genealogical construction and dynastic legitimisation (Ursprungskonstruktionen») in historiography, epics and romance5. The medieval men ofletters themselves regarded Troy as the point of origin of European civilization,and they distinguished between authentic and flctional narratives of the Trolanmatter6. Considerably less attention has been drawn to the different strategies ofliterary assimilation in the (especially elegiac) poems on Troy. When appropriatingthe Trojan matter the medieval poets manifested contrasting attitudes and approaches. Some poems are pure imitations; others involve quite elaborate allegorical,moral or ideological adaptations. This articie explores the relatively short (usuallybetween 50 and 500 lines) metrical poems in vogue during the Renaissance of the

and Literature (New YorklLondon 1964); Jean-Yves Tilliette, Troiae ab oris. Aspects de larévolution poétique de la seconde moitié du XP siècle, in: Latomus 58 (1999) 405—431;Kordula Wolf, Troja, Metamorphosen eines Mythos. Französische, englische und italienische Überlieferungen des 12. Jahrhunderts im Vergleich (Europa im Mittelalter 13), Berlin2009. For the historical context, Haskins’ classic is still a good read: Charles Homer Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge Mass. 1927). A more recentalternative is Robert L. Benson/Giles Constable (eds.), Renaissance and Renewal in theTwelfth Century (Oxford 1982).Cf. Andrea Giardina, Le origini troiane, dall’impero alla nazione, in: Morfologie socialie culturali in Europa fra tarda Antichità e Alto Medioevo, Settimane (1998) 177—209;Frantiiek Graus, Troja und trojanische Herkunftssage im Mittelalter, in: Willi Erzgråber (ed.), Kontinuität und Transformation der Antike im Mittelalter (Sigmaringen 1989)25—43; Thomas Haye, Legitimationsstrategien mittellateinischer Troja-Epiker. Ein Beitragzur Deutung antikisierender Dichtung, in: WS 116 (2003) 203—228; Helene Homeyer, Beobachtungen zum Weiterleben der Troanischen Abstammungs- und GrOndungssagen imMittelalter, in: Res publica litterarum. Studies in the Classical Tradition 5 (1982) 93—124;Hildebrecht Hommel, Die trojanische Herkunft des Franken, in: RhM 99 (1956) 32—341;Francis Ingledew, The Book of Troy and the Genealogical Constroction of History. TheCase of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s >Historia regum Britanniae’, in: Speculum 69 (1994)665—704; Bruno Luisielli, Il mito dell’origine troiana dei Galli, dei Franchi e degli scandinavi, in: Romanobarbarica 3 (1978) 89—121; Jean-Marc Pastre, l’Empire et Troie. Lesenjeux politiques littéraires de la translatio regni, in: Bien dire et bien aprandre 10 (1992)119—128.For instance, Henr. Hunt., Hist. 7, 38: ... sicut plereque gentes Europe, ita Franci a Trojanis duxerunt originem; aud Bernard. Silv., Virg. Aen., prol.: Virgiltus (...) intendit ttaquecasus Enee aliorumque Troianoriim errantiurn labores evolvere atque hoc non usque secundurn historie ueritatem, quod Frigius describit; sed ubique ut Augusti Cesaris gratiarnlucraretur, Enee facta fugamque ficmentis extollit. Editions by Diana Greenway (ed.),Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon. Historia Anglorum’, The History of the English People (Oxford 1996), here 478; and Julian Ward Jones/Elizabeth Frances Jones (eds.), TheCommentary on the First Six Books of the ‘Aeneid’ of Vergil Commonly Attributed toBernardus Silvestris (Lincoln/London 1977), here 1.

twelfth century. It will be argued that we find, on the whole, two main tendencies:the epistolary poems, such as those written by Godfrey of Reims and Baudri ofBourgueil, implicitly or explicitly marked by the idea of translatio studii> or thetopos of superiorjty7;and the moralistic-rhetorical elegies and epyllia written byHugh Primas, Pierre de Saintes, Peter Riga, Simon Chèvre d’Or aud the anonymous author of the >Pergama flere volo>.In the twelfth-century Munich manuscript Cim 19488 from Tegernsee we findthe following seventeen leonine hexameters:

Ut puer etate, puer es mentis levitate.Arguis, opponis, quod scripta lego Ciceronis,T r o ja e fa t a, [ugam ducis, huius bella, triuinphos,Et pecus et curam pecoris terramque colendarn,Mel et apes et apum congressus, prelia, reges.Mantua quem genuit vir plenus Apolline djxit,Qui duce venerunt Enea: nonne fueruntHit fundatores urbis? si bella, laboresDiscjrnus illorurn, virtus, industria quorumUrbern fundatam rexit gentemque togatani,Nurnquid peccamus? si rursus scire probarnus,Quae bohus, armentis, gregjbus sit cura, nocentisPropulsare mali contagia, denique qualiOrdine plantandae sint vites sive putandae,Cultus et agrorutn qua sedulitate laborurnVult exercerj, vel apurn quae cura doceri,Nu hzc peccatur nec pro vicio reputatur.

Evidently, Cicero and Virgil were considered so unsuitable that the anonymouspoet felt the need to excuse himself from reading them. One solution was to provide the reader with an explication, some sort of comment or interpretation that canunveil the >integumentum>, that is, the allegory9.This is exactly what the author of

Cf. Alexandru N. Cizek, Imitatio et tractatio. Die literarisch-rhetorischen Grundlagen derNachahmung in Antike und Mittelalter (TObingen 1994) 28—29; Ernst Robert Curtius,Europàische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter (Bern 21954) 477—478; Walter Haug,Vernacular Literary Theory in the Middle Ages. The German Tradition, 800—1300, inila European Context (Cambridge 1997) 116; and Marek Thue Kretschmet Bourgueil,la nouvelle Athènes (ou Troje), et Reims, la nouvelle Rome. La notion de translatio studiichez Baudri de Bourgueil, in: Latomus 70 (2011) 1102—1116.> Edited in Wilhelm Wattenbach, Mittheilungen aus zwei Handschriften der k. Hof- undStaatsbibliothek, in: SB MOnchen 3 (1873) 685—747, here 703—704. The poem is part ofa longer verse miscellany.‘ Frank Bezner, Vela Veritatis. Hernseneutik. Wissen und Sprache in der lntellectual History des 12. Jahrhunderts (Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters, 85),Leiden 2005; Cf. Hennig Brinkmann, Verhüllung (integumentum) als literarische Darstellungsform im Mittelaltei in: Alfred Zimmerman (ed.), Der Begriff der Repraesentatioim Mittelalter. Stellvertretung, Symbol, Zeichen, Bild (Miscellanea Mediaevalia 8), Berlin1971, 314—339; Marie-Dominique Chenu, Involucrum. Le mythe selon les théologiens

44 Marek Thue Kretschmer Puer hic’, ait, equet Homeruin 45

another Tegernsee poem does, the Profuit ignaris’°1 written in 191 leonine hexameters. These verses, addressed to a group of cloistered ladies, explain how to readthe ancient fables about the illicit and promiscuous amours of the pagan gods. Af-ter a preambie (1—19) on his wanting to remain anonymous, the poet deciares thatpagan love poems are unwelcome within the convent walls (20—28):

Rursus ad hoc cavi, s i delectatio pravi,Mentibus humanis temptacio surgat inanis,Lingua perita foris commercia pensat amorisEt stilus hec vota describit imagine nota,Vos insignate quasi canonica gravitateDicta refutatis, ob dicta reuni reputatisC a r m i n i s a ti c t o r e ,n. Quis enirn Venerern vel amorernAut Veneris puerurn, quis tela Cupidinis, arcurnNominet in vobis, ubi sunt scola castra pudoris?

The problem being with such descriptions is that (33—34):

Scripta poetarum divum probra sive dearum,Et genus et mores, vitam reserunt et amores.

After a catalogue ofJove’s amorous escapades (35—54) the poet proposes the solution; allegorically, the adventures of the pagan gods and goddesses correspond tothe sacred acts of clerics and abbesses (55—69):

Nec qui gesserunt peccare dii potuerunt —Aut monstravere nobis ea facta licere.At si que nobis virtus dominatur a;noris,Igne sui teli superavit nununa celi.Quid culpare soles quod apnat nunc carnea proles?

médiévaux, in: AHDL 22 (1955) 75—79; Paule Demats, Fabula. Trois études de mythographie antique et médiévale (Publications romanes et françaises 122), Genève 1973;Peter Dronke, Gli dei pagani nella poesia latina medievale, in: Claudio Leonardi (ed.),Gli umanesimi medievali (Atti del II Congresso del!’ Internationales Mittellateinerkomitee,Firenze, Certosa del Galluzzo, 11—15 settembre 1993), Firenze 1998, 97—110; LudwigGompf, Figmenta poetarum, in: Alf Onnerfors/Johannes Rathofer/Fritz Wagner (eds.),Literatur und Sprache im europäischen Mittelalter. Festschrift für Kar! Langosch (Darmstadt 1973) 53—62; Gertrud Griinkorn, Die Fiktiona!ität des höfischen Romans um 1200(Berlin 1994); Edouard Jeauneau, l’Usage de la notion d’integumentum à travers les glosesde Gui!!aume de Conches, in: AHDL 24 (1957) 35—100; Daniel Poirion, Résurgences.Mythe et littérature à l’lge du symbole (XII’ siècle), Paris 1986. For the general context,see Birger Munk-Olsen, l’Esprit critique à l’égard de la littérature païenne au moyen ge,Jusqu’au XII’ siècle, in: Mireille Chazan/Gilbert Dahan (eds.), La méthode critique au moyen âge (Bibliorhèque d’histoire culturelle du moyen âge 3), Turnhout 2006, 27—45.Edited in Wattenbach (note 8) 695—701; aud Peter Dronke, Medieval Latin and the Riseof European Love-Lyric, vol. 2 (Oxford 21968) 452—457. Dronke also offers an analysis(vol. 1, 232—238) and a translation (vol. 2, 457—461).

Et inortale genus quid ob hoc culpare solemus?Vos notat et clerurn tarn mystica fabula rerurnAbbatissarum genus, et grex omnis earurnSunt Pallas plane, tria virginis ora Diane,funo, Venus, Vesta, Thetis — observantia vestraEst expressa satis cultu tante deitatis.Vos notat istaruns genus et gens sacra dearurn,Nos ratione pari divurn deitate notariCredirnus, et den typus illa videtur haberiInclita magnoruin series memorata deorum.

The poet elaborates on his interpretation (70—101), then goes on to philosophizeon Ovid’s Metamorphoses (102—177), and finally concludes with a rather seifcongratulatory epilogue (178—191).

If we turn to another twelfth-century manuscript, the Berlin Phillipps 1694produced at the St. Arnulph Monastery at Metz, the point of view vis-à-vis theciassical literature is perfectly antithetical to that of the Tegernsee poems. The codex contains a most interesting collection of poems by authors whom we easilyassociate with the Renaissance of the l2th century, namely, Hildebert of Lavardin,Marbod of Rennes, Godfrey of Reims, Petrus Pictor, Peter Riga and others°. In theanonymous .Inclita progenies>, a poem consisting of twenty-four leonine collateralhexameters (with a double rhyme, that is between the penthemimeral caesuras andthe endlines: a-b-a-b), an aristocratic lady is praised precisely for, among other virtues, reading ciassical literature:

Inclita progenies, patnie flos et specialis,Sis michi inatenies in carminibus generalis.Te 7nea musa refert, minabiliter ,nodulando.Te cunctis prefert, preconia tot numerando.Si dea nobilitas aut dives glonia rerum,Et si simplicitas, prudentia, dicere veruns,Possent fatata vitare penicula mortis,Talibus ornata, quam posses vivere fortis!Omnibus est noturn, quantum sis dives avorum,Non valeo toturn genus enurnerare virorurn.Pre cunctis apta rebus,si nata fuisses,Coniuge pro capta scio Grecia non doluisset.Sed quarnvis alii te raptam Phrige dolerent,Te tamen imperii regalia sceptra decerent.Dicenis et menito regali digna corona,Cuius dextra cito tnibuit largissima dona.

See, for instance, Christopher James McDonough, Hugh Metel and the ‘Floridus Aspectus’ of Peter Riga (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Phillipps 1694),in: MSt 67 (2005) 27—74.

46 Marek Thue Kretschmer ‘Puer hic», alt, eqtiet Homerum ...“ 47Lectio Nasonis izon te latet o veneranda,Sed neque Platonis sententia vera probanda.To quoque barbarico nosti sermone profari:Ordine mirifico didicisti versificari.Sed michi da veniam, vacuantur sanguine vene.Cum iam deficiam, non possum psallere plene:Victa iacet mea mens, ingentes ,novimus actus,Redditus est amens animus meus et stupefacius.

Not oniy is the noble lady complimented on her ciassical education, verses 11—12elegantly express the idea that she outshines Helen. A medieval poet’s linking of hiscontemporaries, or of his fictional characters, with gods, heroes or historical figures of Antiquity is a topos to which we wilI return. The link is often rendered moreexplicit by insertion of a qualitative alter or novus.

We find an association of this kind in Peter Riga’s <Sponsus adversus sponsamand Responsio sponsae’, respectively the charge and defence of a married couple’sdispute about the wife’s alleged unfaithfulness. The poems are written in thirty-sixand twenty-eight distichs12 and appear in the same Metz miscellany. The husband,a merchant, comes home after a longer journey and finds his wife enriched withgold bequeathed to her by a neighbouring suitor who died following several attempts at gaining her favours. In verses 35—40 and 47—50 of the ‘Sponsus adversussponsam>, the accused adulterers are associated with the legendary affairs of Joveand Danaë (alluding to the neighbour’s seduction with gold) and Paris and Helen(alluding to the wife’s irresistible beauty):

0 res mira! Dolo caret unda, fide caret uxor,In pelago tutus, naufragus exsto domi.

Sponsa fidem laesit, nec prosunt ferrea pulchrisClaustra, nec esse potest tutus in arce decor.

In gremium Danaes pluit alter Jupiter aurum,In terriS alium pertulit illa Jovem.

Nec moveor, si ;noechus in hanc oculum vel a,noremFixit, praedari lumina forma solet.

Q uisue genis Helenae visis Paris esse recuset?Gorgone quis visa tardet inesse lapis?

Cf. Migne PL 171, 1453 —1455. Wilhelm Wattenbach edited a longer (thirty-three distichs)and diverging versjon of the Responsio sponsae, from which we quote: Wilhelm Wattenbach, Beschreibung einer Handschrift mittelalterlicher Gedichte, NA 17 (1892) 351—384.See also the comment in Barthélemy Hauréau, Les mélanges poltiques d’Hildebert deLavardin (Paris 1882) 165—167. André Boutemy claimed that the poem is part of the‘Floridus Aspectus in MS Paris BibI. Arsenal 1136: André Boutemy, Recherches sur leFloridus Aspectus’ de Pierre la Rigge I. Prolégomènes I une édition de cette anthologie, in:Le Moyen Age 54 (1948) 89—112. These poems do not appear in the new edition of Carsten Wollin, Der ‘Floridus Aspectus D des Petrus Riga. Erstausgabe nach der HandschriftDouai 825, Miat. Jb. 43 (2008) 355—391 and 44 (2009) 407—447.

In the ‘Responsio sponsae> (35—52), the wife’s lawyer contends that although shehas the beauty of Helen, she also has the faithfulness of Penelope:

Unda freinens illum procul abstulit, ecce reatus!Sponsa precans isti profuit, ecce fides!

Obicit hic, niecho patuisse domurnque thorumque:Hec patnisse donzum noii negat, immo tboru,n.

Claustra domus patefecit ei, non claustra pudoris,Esse studens alii grata. pudica sibi.

Grata, pudica simul fuit. Hospicium dedit, ecceGratia! Mechari noluit, ecce pudor!

Si decor absit, abest pudor, obicit iste. Repello!Ista decore nitet, jsta pudore viget.

Que virtus raro nitet hoc in tempore, vernatIsta genis Helene, Penelopesque [ide.Casta decens rarum est, sed si rarum, preciosum:Casta decens fuit hec, tunc preciosa magis.

Non dedit ergo locum donis, ut falleret, ista:Non men tita fuit aurea gutta Iovem.

Q ui deludat eam, nec se lovis alter inaurat,Q ui predetur eam, nec Paris alter amat.

So far our examples have been limited to occasional references and allusions toTrojan topics, but we have already observed two tendencies: an apologetic or cxegetic approach in the Tegernsee manuscript versus a more emulative approach inthe Metz manuscript. But are these examples typical? In ordet to obtain a clearerpicture we will have to turn to the ‘real’ Trojan poems of the period. Already in thelate eleventh century, may be seen the rise of a poetry heavily influenced by Ovid13.Poems are written in elegiac distichs (or hexameters), often in the form of a poetical epistle, and the description of female beauty (descriptio puellae)14 becomes akey topos. What is more, in some cases the flctional characters are Trojan heroes,in other cases the Trojan narratives are told as a story in the story (by ekphrasisor other literary techniques such as the report of a dream) or by association, forexample as part of a ‘descriptio puellae>. Thus, we find poems like the anonymous

13 Cf. Marek Thue Kretschmer, The Love Elegy in Medieval Latin Literature (Pseudo-Ovidiana and Ovidian Imitations), in: Thea Selliaas Thorsen (ed.), The Catnbridge Cornpanionto Latin Love Elegy (Cambridge, in press); and Winfried Offermanns, Die Wirkung Ovidsauf die literarische Sprache der lateinischen Liebesdichtung des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts,Beihefte zum Miat. Jb. 4 (1970).° Cf. Gerald A. Bond, The Loving Subject. Desire, Eloquence, and Power in RomanesqueFrance (Philadelphia 1995) 129—157; Hennig Brinkmann, Geschichte der lateinischenLiebesdichtung im Mittelalter (Darmstadt 1979) 88—93; Alexandru N. Cizek, Das Budvon der idealen Schönheit in der lateinischen Dichtung des Frühmittelalters, Miat. Jb. 26(1991) 5—35; Edmond Faral, Recherches sur les sources latines des contes et romans courtois du Moyen Age (Paris 1913) 99—109; Edgar De Bruyne, Etudes d’esthétique médiévale, 2 vols. (Bruges 1946), vol. 2, 173—194; Therese Latzke, Der Fiirstinnenpreis, in: MIat.Jb. 14 (1979) 22—65; and Offermanns )note 13) 129—56.

48 Marek Thue Kretschmer Puer hic’, alt, equet Homerum 49

<Deidamia Achi1li’5,Baudri of Bourgueil’s poems 7_816 (which in their entirety arependants respectively to Ovid’s <Heroides’ 3 and 16—17) and the <semi-Trojan poems of Godfrey of Reims17,where the Trojan narratives depend on the main action,inserted as they are by various literary techniques.What I find particularly interesting in this material is the play, relationship or

tension (or absence thereof) between the poetical myth and the author’s contemporary world, and I wonder if sorne of Dennis Howard Green’s findings regardingfiction and history in medieval romanc&8 might be applied, <mutatis mutandis’,to the Medieval Latin poetry on Troy. Green considers «cases where the distinction between fiction and history can be blurred in two directions, by the iricorporation of historical details into fictional literature and conversely by the wayin which historical writing can make use of rhetorical and poetic devices andembellishments»19.This is not that unlike the play of fiction we encounter when

Edition with commentary by Jürgen Stohimann, ‘Deidamia Achilli’. Eine Ovid-Imitationaus dem 11. Jahrhundert, in: OnnerforsfRathofer/Wagner (note 9) 195—231.

‘ Cf. Gerald A. Bond, Composing Yourself. Ovid’s Heroides, Baudri of Bourgueil and theProblem of the Persona, in: Mediaevalia 13 (1987) 83—117; Christine Ratkowitsch, Diekeusche Helena. Ovids Heroides 16/17 in der mittelalterlichen Neudichtung des Baudrivon Bourgueil, in: WS 104 (1991) 209—236; Jean-Yves Tilliette, Savants et poètes du moyen âge face à Ovide. Les debuts de l’aetas Ovidiana, in: Michelangelo Picone/BernhardZimmermann (eds.), Ovidius redivivus. Von Ovid zu Dante (Stuttgart 1994) 63—104;and Michael Von Albrecht, La correspondance de Pâris et d’Hélène. Ovide et Baudri de Bourgueil, in: Raymond Chevallier (ed.), Colloque Présence d’Ovide (Paris 1982)189—193. Edition by jean-Yves Tilliette, Baudri de Bourgueil, Poèmes, vol. I (Paris 1998)14—43.

‘ Edition with commentary by Elmar Broecker, Gottfried von Reims. Kritische Gesamtausgabe mit einer Untersuchung zur Verfasserfrage und Edition der ihm zugeschriebenen Carmina (Frankfurt a. M. 2002). For the chronology, see ib., 65—66. For general discussionsof Godfrey’s uvre, see Reto Raduolf Bezzola, Les origines et la formation de la littératurecourtoise en occident, 500—1200 (Paris 1960) 11.2 379—382; Bond (note 14); André Boutemy, Autour de Godefroid de Reims, in: Latomus 6 (1947) 231—255; Helena De Carlos,La materia de Troya en Godofredo de Reims, in: Michael W. HerrenlChristopher JamesMcDonoughlRoss G. Arthur (eds.), Latin Culture in the Eleventh Century, 2 vols. (Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Medieval Latin Studies, Cambridge,September 9—12 1998), Turnhout 2002, vol. 1, 186—213; Thornas C. Moser, A Cosmosof Desire. The Medieval Latin Erotic Lyric in English Manuscripts (Ann Arbor 2004);Frederic James Edward Raby, A History of Secular Latin Poetry in the Middle Ages, vol. 1(Oxford 1934) 313—316; Jean-Yves Tilliette, Le retour d’Orphée. Réflexions sur la placede Godefroid de Reims dans l’histoire littéraire du XI’ siècle, in: HerrenlMcDonoughlArthur (quoted above), vol. 2, 449—463; Wilhelm Wattenbach, Lateinische Gedichte ausFrankreich im elften Jahrhundert, in: SB Berlin (1891) 97—114; and John R. Williams,Godfrey of Reims. A Humanist of the Eleventh Century, in: Speculum 22 (1947) 29—45.For a review of Broecker’s edition, see Helena de Carlos Villamarn, On a New Edition ofthe Carmina by Godfrey of Rheims, in: Troianalexandrina 3 (2003) 9—22.

° Cf. Dennis Howard Green, The Beginnings of Medieval Romance. Fact and Fiction,1150—1220 (Cambridge 2002) 134—201.

‘ Green (note 18) 142.

Baudri and Godfrey associate Tro jan heroes with their contemporaries (and evenwith themselves). Also, we must not forget that Troy had a key position in theideology of <translatio imperii> (equally true for the medieval romance), and thesepoetical associations are often combined with the topos of superiority: novus (oratter) means ‘new and better>. Even more interesting, perhaps, is the fact that thefictional play involves the use of Ovid, in particular the <Heroides>. In this respect,it is interesting to observe that the Medieval Latin poets anticipate by a centurythe later phenomenon described by Green, namely, the widespread use of the ‘Heroides’ in the medieval romance20. ‘<Especially helpful here (i.e. for the vernacularromancers c. 1170)«21, says Green, «were the Roman poet’s <Heroides’ and theirtwelfth-century commentaries». And, Green concludes: «the antique romance wasregarded as history, but with fictional insertions, whilst the Arthurian romance isfiction with possible additions of historical details>’22.

Elsewhere I have discussed the Ovidian impact23 on the poetry of the twelfthcentury and the intricate and subtle combinations of literary techniques and ideologies in Baudri’s poems24;in the remainder of this article I will therefore focus onGodfrey of Reims (in a future article I will discuss the aforementioned moralisticrhetorical elegies and epyllia).

In the decade between 1075 and 1085, Baudri’s ideal and fellow poet Godfreyof Reims wrote the four poems that constitute the so-called <Epistolarum Liber’,in chronological order: <Ad Ingeirannum Archidiaconum de moribus eius’ (78 distichs), «Sompnium Godefridi de Odone Aurelianensi> (133 distichs), <Satyra dequadam puella virgine’ (50 distichs) aud <Godefridus ad Lingonensem episcopum’(481 leonine hexameters)25.All of them contain lengthy <Trojan> sections, exceptthe first, in which we find only a short association. The poem begins as a praise ofthe literary learning and poetical talent of Ingelrann (archdeacon of Soissons andbishop of Laon from 1098 to his death in 1104), but towards the end it takes anunexpected turn. Ingelrann had ventured to write verses to Adela, the daughter ofWilliam the Conqueror, but was not up to the task (139—156):

Quam licet ingenti tollas ad sidera nisu,Altior officiis eminet illa tuis.

Dom cupis egregios ca1ano conscribere snores,Magna quidem scribis non tamen equa sibi.

Dom, quam sit locuples, quam prodiga, dicere te<nptas,Dicere temptanti lingua manusque cadit.

Dumque refers, quantum viget et decus et decor orisClaraque quam uero lumina sole micant,

Cf. Green (note 18) 156 ff.21 Green (note 18) 161.22 Green (note 18) 200.23 Cf. Kretschmer (note 13).24 Cf. Kretschmer (note 7).‘- For bibliugraphic references, see note 17.

50 Marek Thue Kretschmer Puer hic», ait, equet Homerum 51Deficis haut aliter, quarn si regina PelasgumDepingenda tibi uirgo Lacena foret.

Nec sic implicituni Veneris te forma teneret,Cum Phrigio Paridi nuda videnda fuit.

Ti spectanda qnideni placituraque carmina mittis,Sed te ;naterie pondus honusque pre;nit.

Carnuna digna quidem tua sunt, sed carmine dignaNobiliore satis regia virgo fuit.

Tarn bona scriptores exposcit forma priores,Ut species laudern possit habere parem.

It may be worth mentioning that other Loire poets like Baudri and Hildebert ofLavardin also wrote poems to AdeIa26,but nu poem has ever been ascribed to Ingelrann. Yet, it has been suggested that he was the author of the above-mentioned‘Inclita progenies and that he wrote this poem to Adela27,and it certainly is possible to read it as the object of Godfrey’s criticism.

The matter of Troy is ingeniously inserted into the <Sompnium Godefridi deOdone Aurelianensi’, a poem fittingly described by André Boutemy as an adaptation of Ovid’s ‘Epistulae ex Ponto’ 3, 3 (which describes the apparition of Amorin Ovid’s dream and the subsequent dialogue between the two)28. In a similar butoriginal fashion Godfrey telis how Odo of Orléans, identified as Odo de Meung orOdo de Cambrai29,appeared to him in a dream. After a long panegyrical description (29—144) of Odo’s physical and moral qualities, noble descent and skilis as apoet and musician, the dialogue between Odo (147—190) and Godfrey (193—224)begins. Under the guidance of Apollo, Odo has flown through the air frorn Orléansto Reims. He has brought his poem on Troy and invites Godfrey to listen whilehe recites from it. Godfrey glacily accepts, and the poem ends with his résumé(235—262) which includes the episodes of Paris and Helen, the sacrifice of Iphige

Cf. Baudri’s poems 134—135 aud Hildebert’s ‘carmina minora’ 10 and 15. Editions byJean-Yves Tilliette, Baudri de Bourgueil. Pohmes, vol. 2 (Paris 2002) 2—45; aud AlexanderBrian Scott, Hildebertus Cenomannensis episcopus. ‘Carmina minora’, (Bibliorheca Teubneriana), Leipzig 22001, 4—5.

27 Cf. Bond (note 14) 146—147.Cf. André Bouterny, Trois ruvres inédites de Godefroid de Reims, in: RMA 3 (1947)335—366, here 351. Broecker disagrees and suggests the apparition of Hector in the Aeneid’, 2, 268 Ef. Cf. Broecker (note 17) 46—51.

29 Wattenbach (note 17) 100 first identified Odo Aurelianensis as Odo the abbot of SamtMartn de Tournai and bishop of Cambrai (t 1113), and Boutemy (note 17) 238 followedhis identification. On the basis of Godfrey’s mention of Odo as the author of a medicalwork (141—142), Williams (note 17) 34—35 claimed that Odo had to be the author ofthe‘De viribus herbarum’, namely Odo de Meung. Broecker (note 17) agrees with Williams.On the basis of the description of Odo de Cambrai in Heriman’s ‘Liber de RestaurationeEcclesiae Tornacensis’, De Carlos Villamarin (note 17) 11—14 opts for the original identification of Wattenbach, and also proposes an alternative, namely, Odo of Ostia, the future Pope Urban II, who bad studied together with Godfrey under Bruno at the cathedralsclsool of Reims.

nia, the siege of Troy, the duel of Hector and Achilles, the Trojan Horse, the deceitof Sinon and the final ruin of the city. Strictly speaking, Godfrey’s summary is theonly Trojan part of the poem, but the lengthy section leading up to it contains anextended series of explicit associations of Odo with the heroes of the Greek myths.Like Baudri, Godfrey here expresses the superiority of his own culture over the ancient world — or rather, be quite blatantly states that Odo has renewed the classicaltradition (109—112):

Postremo veteri sic sunt impressa ,nonete,Ut sit visa mihi vera poesis agi,

Ut rear antiquos nondurn occubuisse poetasEt superesse modo secula prisca putem.

In the praise of Odo as a musician, Godfrey’s message is straightforward: Odo(iste, hunc, isti) is a new and better Amphion or Orpheus (127—140):

Te licet, Arnphyon, rigidi 7nontes sequerenturParerentque tue saxa vocata lire,

Arbitrio tamen i s i e meo tibi commodus essetAuxilioque tibi voce ;nanuque foret.

Narn dum concineret, scopuli rupesque venirentNec tardata diii ?nenia cepta forent.

Orphea mirata est Rodopeia silva canentemTotaque, dum preiit, pone secuta fuit.

Orphea crederet h fl n c Rodopeia silva canentemTotaque, durn preiret, pone secuta foret.

Euridicen princeps runbraru,n reddidit illi,Ante feras gentes curn lira questa fuit.

Euridicen princeps umbrarum redderet i s t i,Ante feras gentes cum uro questa foret.

And Odo himseif, recounting his flight, lets Godfrey know that Apollo was a betterguide for him than Daedalus was for Icarus (151—156):

Aera per vacuuni suspenso corpore pennisA Genabo Rernis me levis aura tulit.

Dum vagor ignarusque vie sub nubihus erro,Previus ambiguas rexit Apollo vias;

Rexit commodius longe quanz rexerit olnnDedalus Icaream prevolitando fugarn.

The implicit message is that Odo succeeds where Icarus fails, and Icarus, being theson of Daedalus, represents, archetypically, the product of Greek art. Hence, Odo’sart is superior to Greek art. Further, Odo came to Godfrey without fear, and heukens his arrival to the arrivals of Leander, who came to Hero unafraid of the sea;Hercules, who came to Hades unafraid of Cerberus; and Pylades, who togetherwith Orestes came to Tauris unafraid of King Thoas (165—172):

52 Marek Thue Kretschmer “Puer hic, ait, equet Homerum 53Tranat Abidenus freta plena timore Leander,Nec mare quid possit, cecus amore videt.

Ingreditur manes raptum simulacra parentisAlcides, Stigii nec pavet ora ducis.

At Pilades rabido iunctus comes hesit Oresti,Cum petiit Scitbicos barbaricosque deos.

Sic ego me ventis credcns te propter, amice,Non timui dubias pendulus ire vias.

Godfrey’s third poem, the <Satyra de quadam puella virgine, should be readagainst the background of his letter to Ingelrann. If Godfrey could criticizeIngeirann’s description of Adela’s beauty, it was because he knew how to do it bet-ter himseif. Godfrey embroiders his own descriptio pue1lae with colourful Trojandetails. Again, the Trojan matter is inserted as part of an unmistakable topos ofsuperiority. Re begs an unnamed gir! to keep away from cosmetics and ornaments(1—32), as her natural beauty surpasses Nature herseif (33—56). In the last part ofthe poem Godfrey imagines the Tro jan myth with the giri in the place of Helen andeven ofVenus (57—100, of which we quote 57—58, 69—82 and 89—96.):

Non Helene mater nec par tibi fllia Lede,Quamvis hec Paridem moverit, illa lovem.

(«.)Ast Helene facies et opima potentia formeDardanio Paridi per mare preda fuit.

Grecia coniurat, repetendam mille carinis.Jurat et hanc ratibus Grecia mille petit.

Te tam conspicuam Phrygius si predo videretEt te vel velo vel rapuisset equo,

Grecia iuraret populis te mille petendam,Et merito populis mille petita fores.

Annis tracta decem sunt Troica bella, sed uno,Si pro te fierent, mense peracta forent.

Virgine Ledea me iudice dignior esses,Pro qua Troianas flamma cremaret opes.

Tu poteras Priamo validissima causa fuisse,Nulla sit ut cura regna perisse sua.

(...)De pretjo forme cum tres certamen inissentElectusque Paris arbiter esset eis,

Prefecit Venerem Paridis censura duabusDeque tribus victe succubuere due.

Cuin tribus ad Paridem si quarta probanda venires,De tribus a Paride quarta probata fores:

Pomaque si forme potiori danda fuerunt,Hec potius forme danda fuere tue.

Finally, the last and also most Trojan poem is <Godefridus ad Lingonensemepiscopum<, Godfrey’s letter to the bishop of Langres, first identified as Hugh ofBreteuil (1012—1049) by Wattenbach, later corrected to Hugh Rainard of Bar

(1065—1085) by Boutemy and Wiltiams30.The poern is written as a dialogue bet—ween Godfrey and Calliope: Godfrey offers Calliope a special cloak (given to himby the Parcae) if she would only fly to Langres to honour the poet Hugh, whereupon Calliope asks Godfrey to explain the cloak and in particular its needlework(1—117). Godfrey describes the first motif, which represents the legend of Herculesand Cacus (118—167). Calliope believes that the cloak must have been the oneworn by Jove during the battie against the giants and subsequently implores Godfrey to continue (168—179). Encouraged by Calliope’s impatient demand, Godfreydraws out the account with a digression on Orpheus (180—205). Calliope begsGodfrey to keep to the point (206—207), so Godfrey carries on with the next sceneon the cloak, which depicts Ganymedes hunting on the slopes of Ida (208—249).Further prompted by Calliope (250—256), Godfrey explicates the third episode,the abduction of Helen (257—381). Calliope has never heard anyshing more gra—tifying (382—389). Godfrey concludes by describing the scenes from the ruin ofTroy (390—481): Sinon’s fraud, the Trojan Horse, the nocturnal combat, the exploits of Hector and the wrath of Achilles. The poem is incomplete and ends withAchilles raging against the Trojans before the citywalls31.Like the <Sompnium Godefridi’, the «Godefridus ad Lingonensem episcopum< isalso a dialogue poem that involves a flight by air to a fellow poet. Odo delivers apoem under the guidance of Apollo, while Godfrey engages Calliope as his messenger. Godfrey’s dream ends with his report on Odo’s Trojan poem, whereas his letterto Hugh transmits the Trojan matter by means of a clever ekphrasis.But what I find most significant is, again, the topos of superiority that permeatesthe entire poem. In the «Sompnium< the message was that Odo’s poetry surpassesthe poetry of old. Now, it is Hugh’s and especially Godfrey’s own poetry that beatsthe ciassical authors. To convince Calliope of Hugh’s extraordinary talents Godfrey claims that Aratus would marve! at Hugh’s learning and that his eloquencewould put Virgil to shame: he outdoes Plato in knowledge and Cato in morals, andeven Amphion and Arion would have to surrender (79—84):

Quem philosophantem radioque superna notantemA Styge forte datus demiraretur Aratus.Oris verba boni inaculam fecere Maroni,Artes Platonem, mores vicere Catonem.Qui Thebana iocis animabat menia vocis,Cederet Amphyon captusque sileret Arion.

But enough about Hugh — with his account of the Parcae, Godfrey deciares that heis now himself the new Homer (105—108):

30 Bouremy (note 17) 246—250; Cf. Wattenbach (note 17) 109; and Williams (note 17) 36—37.« Boutemy (note 17) 251 and De Carlos Villamarfn (note 17) 21—22 point out that the textmost probably suffers from a lacuna in connection with a hornoiote!euton at 439. Consequently, we may imagine a missing cornment by Calliope before the scenes on Hector andAchilles, and that this final part forms a distinct scene.

54 Marek Thue Kretschmer

Me querulum, flentem, ia,n ventos ore bibentemCorripuit Ciotbo fusoque coloque remotoDansque mihi nomen socias invitat ad omenMeque tuens puerum. u e r h i c’, ait, «e q u e t Ho in e ru in ...«

And Calliope, having listened to Godfrey’s description of the cloak’s first motif,concludes that Godfrey now possesses the cloak that Jove wore against the giants.In other words: Godfrey is the new Jove who fights the giants, that is, allegorically,the modern poet who has replaced the poets ofold (169—175):

Hec ciamis illa, pu to, nec ut anceps credere nuto,Pulvere squalentem que texit cuncta tuentern,Prelia pro mundo cum gessit Marte secundo,Cum male contuso, ter te, Briaree, refusoLassa Giganteis rediit lovis ala tropheis,Terraque cum mesturn daret orba per aera questum,Pressaque cum gemeret et cum prope tota lateret.

Finally, after the portrait of Helen’s abduction, to remove any doubt, Godfrey hasCalhope say that his account pleases her more than the poetry of Virgil (382—386):

Cuni mihi inille inodis placuisset lingua Maronis,Domque sonante lyra linces removentur ab ira,Dom pice consuta scopulos animante cicutaPersonat et celeri ,not,t facit arva inoveri,Nu mihi stillatuin dedit auribus ut niage gratum.

In conclusion, the twelfth century is marked by a new interest in ciassical literature, and the matter of Troy became one of the favorite topics. Dennis HowardGreen has shown that Ovid’s ‘Heroides became an important source for the vernacular romancers who around the year 1170 inserted Trojan love affairs into theirstories, thus creating a variety of combinations of fiction and history. Our analyssshows that a similar play of fiction, often inspired by Ovid, is present already in theTrojan> poems written in Latin by the Loire poets beginning with Godfrey of Reimsin the 1070s. All of Godfrey’s poems imply some sort of literary dialogue wjth thepast. The poetical frame is always a contemporary situation (Godfrey’s criticlsm ofIngelrann’s poetry; Godfrey’s dream and dialogue with Odo; Godfrey’s appraisal ofa giri’s beauty; Godfrey’s dialogue with Calliope), into which the Trojan matter isinserted by summary nr by ekphrasis, or with which it is associated (Odo with Amphion/Orpheus/Leander/HerculeslPylades; the puella with Leda/Helen/Venus; Hughwith AratusfVirgillPlato/Cato/AmphionlArion; and Godfrey himseif with the twogreatest poets of Antiquity — Homer and Virgil, the fathers of the Trojan tradition32).

32 These associations remind us of the idea of ‘translatio studii’ and the topos of superioritypresent in the poems 7—8 of Baudri of Bourgueil, according to whom Godfrey and himselfwere the Ovids and Homers of his time. Cf. Kretschmer (note 7) 1111—1115.