Richard Psík, Henricus de Isernia and his Invectiva Prosotetrasticha in Ulricum Polonicum, ArNoS 4

ArNoSARCHIVIO NORMANNO-SVEVO

Testi e studi sul mondo euromediterraneo dei secoli XI-XIIIdel Centro Europeo di Studi Normanni

Texts and Studies in Euro-Mediterranean World during XIth-XIIIth Centuries

of Centro Europeo di Studi Normanni

4

2013/2014

a cura di Edoardo D’AngeloFulvio Delle Donne

Centro Europeo di Studi NormanniAriano Irpino

ArNoS ARCHIVIO NORMANNO-SVEVO

Testi e studi sul mondo euromediterraneo dei secoli XI-XIII del Centro Europeo di Studi Normanni

COMITATO SCIENTIFICO

G. Arnaldi, Th. Asbridge, P. Bouet, M. Caravale, G. Coppola, F. Delle Donne, M. D’Onofrio, H. Enzensberger, S. Fodale, C.D. Fonseca, J. France, G. Galasso, V. Gazeau, B. Grévin, E.C. van Houts, Th. Kölzer,

C. Leonardi (†), O. Limone, G.A. Loud, J.M. Martin, E. Mazzarese Fardella, F. Neveux, M. Oldoni, F. Panarelli, A. Paravicini Bagliani, A. Romano, V. Sivo,

W. Stürner, A.L. Trombetti, H. Takayama, S. Tramontana

SEGRETERIA DI REDAZIONE L. Russo, T. De Angelis

COMITATO DI DIREZIONE

A. Cernigliaro, E. Cuozzo, E. D’Angelo, O. Zecchino

© 2014 Centro Europeo di Studi Normanni

I contributi scientifici sono sottoposti a doppia lettura anonima di esperti

ISSN: 2036-7759 ISBN: 978-88-98028-07-8

OrtensiO ZecchinO, Federico II e il declassamento della sacralità impe-riale nel nuovo ordo coronationis imposto da Innocenzo III

FulviO Delle DOnne, Il papa e l’anticristo: poteri universali e attese escatologiche all’epoca di Innocenzo IV e Federico II

Klementyna GlińsKa - Benoît Grévin, Circulation, interpréta-tions et exploitation des «comédies élégiaques» dans le royaume de Si-cile. De Pierre de la Vigne à Boccace (XIIIe-XIVe s.)

richarD Psík, Henricus de Isernia and his Invectiva Prosotetrasti-cha in Ulricum Polonicum

PietrO cOlletta, Per un’edizione del codice Fitalia: l’apporto della tra-dizione manoscritta della Cronica Sicilie

DariO internullO, Una poco nota raccolta di dictamina di epoca angioina

victOr rivera MagOs, Politiche ecclesiastiche e interessi territoriali nel Regno di Sicilia. L’intolerabilis contentio tra i canonici di Gerusa-lemme e la chiesa tranese per il Santo Sepolcro di Barletta (1130-1162)

carMine Megna, Il castello di Cervinara: ricerche storico-architettoniche e stato di conservazione

MarianO Messinese, I combattimenti del chiostro di Santa Sofia

7

17

45

75

103

125

147

175

193

arnos 4 (2013-2014)

sOMMariO

HENRICUS DE ISERNIA AND HIS INVECTIVA PROSOTETRASTICHA IN ULRICUM POLONICUM*

RichaRd Psík

Henricus of Isernia, an outcast from south Italy, came to Bohemia at the beginning of the seventies of the 13th century. He was one of the last representatives of the southern Italian rhetorical school and he probably came to Bohemia in order to gain the support of its king for the Italian war campaign. However, he departed from his original intentions and that could have been the reason for the great significance with which he entered the Bohemian history.

The personality of Henricus of Isernia raised a considerate amount of controversy. According to some researchers, Henricus of Isernia is actually the same person as the protonotary of the royal chancery, who is called Henricus Italicus in the historical sources1. This protonotary is said to be the author of a documentary formulary collection, which is however not yet published in a critical edition2. J. B. Novák3, who dealt

1 Besides that, he was also a canon of Prague, Olomouc and Vyšehrad and he received a rectory in Gars in Austria in the final years of his life. We can also find his epithet in both collections, either Siculus or Apulus.

2 This collection was published on the basis of the one manuscript by J. Voigt, Das urkundliche Formelbuch des königl. Notars Heinricus Italicus: aus der Zeit der Könige Ottokar II. und Wenzel II. von Böhmen, «Archiv für Kunde österreichischer Geschichtsquellen» 29, 1863, str. 1-184.

3 Cfr. J.B. NoVák, Henricus Italicus und Henricus de Isernia, «Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung» 20, 1899, pp. 253-275; id., Tzv. Codex epistolaris Primislai Ottacari II., «Český časopis historický» 9, 1903, pp. 46-69. He dealt with the issue of the two Henricuses in detail also in his reviews of the work of a. PetRoV (see «Český časopis historický» 13, 1907, pp. 422-427, and 14, 1908, pp. 330-338).

* This article is a short and modified version of the introductory study to an edition of this treatise: Invectiva prosotetrasticha in Ulricum Polonum. Součást sbírky listů a diktamin mistra Jindřicha z Isernie, ed. R. Psík, Ostrava 2008 (heNRicus de iseRNia, Inv., further on).

RichaRd Psík76

with the collection of letters in detail, came to the conclusion, that there were two Henricuses in Prague in the seventies of the 13th century, both of whom came from Italy and kept in touch with each other4. Among other things, he based his theory on the fact that the collection of letters contains a letter of Henricus of Isernia addressed to the protonotary Henricus and that Henricus of Isernia does not appear in the collection of documentary formularies at all. H. M. Schaller holds a similar opin-ion. D. Třeštík5, on the other hand, refuses this reasoning, saying that the protonotary does not appear in the collection of letters, since he had not been a protonotary until 1274; regarding the letter addressed to the protonotary Henricus, he claims that it is a mere error and points out that in the Cracow manuscript, the letter is addressed to Master Ulricus; referring to mere stylistic exercises, he also refuses the indications of Henricus of Isernia being married. According to Třeštík, both collec-tions share the author and therefore Master Henricus of Isernia and protonotary Henricus are one and the same. Solving this question will hopefully bring about a complete critical edition of both collections6.

Henricus de Isernia probably was the first one to bring and spread the knowledge of the art of writing dictamina and epistles throughout Bohemia in its theoretical and practical form. Considering the theory, Henricus wrote a treatise called according to its incipit Epistolare dictamen7, which represents probably the first theoretical writing dedicated to ars

4 The group of proponents of this theory contains among others also K. DosKočil, Protonotář Jindřich Vlach a notář Jindřich Vlach z Isernie, «Časopis archivní školy» 15, 1940, pp. 89-98.

On the contrary, s. duškoVá (Kdo byl notář Jindřich?, «Sborník prací Filozofické fakul-ty brněnské univerzity» C 7, 1960, pp. 68-69) claims that only one Henricus worked in the royal chancery at this time and maybe was of a Czech origin. The conclusion that the royal protonotary Henricus was of a Czech origin and he merely completed his studies in Italy was also reached by J. ŠebáneK, Čeští notáři na cestě Václava II. za polskou korunou, «Studia źródloznawcze» 4, 1959, p. 75. Still, both authors stemmed mainly from surviv-ing documents (charters) while almost ignoring the formulary collection and did not comment on the issue of identity of both Henricuses.

5 D. TřeŠTíK, Formularze czeskie XIII wieku; rękopisy i filiacje, «Studia zródloznawce – Commentationes» 7, 1962, pp. 54-56.

6 A summary of all previous opinions is offered by J. Dienstbier in his diploma thesis Osobnost Jindřicha z Isernie z pohledu jeho epistolárních formulářů – Henricus de Isernia from the view of his epistolar dictamina, Praha 2010 (unpublished).

7 For a non-critical edition of this treatise see J. TříŠKa, Prague Rhetoric and the Epistolare dictamen (1278) of Henricus de Isernia, «Rhetorica» 3, 1985, pp 183-200 (heNRicus de iseRNia, Ep. dict., further on).

77Henricus de Isernia and his Invectiva Prosotetrasticha in Ulricum Polonicum

dictandi in the Bohemian setting, and a treatise De coloribus rhetoricis8. The practical outcome of his efforts would then be the most significant, vast and thematically diverse collection of letters and dictamina. If we disre-gard singular appearances, featured in various manuscripts9, we know four manuscripts10 currently containing this collection:

Klagenfurt manuscript (C) – Archive of the Diocese of Gurk, Klagenfurt, sign. XXXI b 12

Cracow manuscript (Cr) – Jagiellonian Library Cracow, sign. 439Prague manuscript (P) – National Library of the Czech Republic,

Prague, sign. XII B 12Vienna manuscript (V) – Austrian National Library Vienna,

sign. 3143

All manuscripts come from the 14th-15th century. The extensive is the manuscript from Vienna, which contains 252 pieces. The collection is in this case divided into two disparate parts. The first one (V1 – ff. 40r-149r) includes 163 pieces, the second one (V2 – ff. 167v-203r) only 89 of them. Both parts differ not only in their extent, but also in their contents and arrangement. While V1 is ordered by subject and contains virtually only letters and dictamina, which however almost always repre-sent a coherent unit, the arrangement in V2 is more or less chronological and we can also find pieces focused on the composition of individual parts of a certain letter and stylistic features corresponding with the

8 Critical edition of this treatise, complemented with a detailed study, was prepared by B. schaller, Der Traktat des Henricus de Isernia De coloribus rethoricis. «Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters» 49/1, 1993, pp. 113-153. (heNRicus de iseRNia, De col. ret. further on)

9 For a comparison of all the manuscripts, including references to editions, see heNRicus de iseRNia, Inv., pp. 130-146.

10 A complete analysis of these manuscripts was carried out primarily by a. PetRoV, Henrici Italici libri formarum e tabulario Otacari II. Bohemorum Regis quatenus rerum fontibus aperiendis possint inservire, I, S. Peterburg 1907, pp. 1-7; K. hamPe, Beiträge zur Geschichte der letzten Staufer. Ungedruckte Briefe aus der Sammlung des Magisters Heinrich von Isernia, Leipzig 1910, pp.10-11 and TřeŠTíK, Formularze, particularly p. 54, containing a draft of a filiation scheme.

In connection with Henricus of Isernia, we also have to mention a manuscript from the beginning of the 14th century, which is currently stored in the State National Archives Litoměřice (the fund of the Cistercian Order, sine. sign., inv. no. 1641a). This manuscript, or more precisely a modern convolute, in fact contains among other texts the only known example of Henricus’ theoretical treatise Epistolare dictamen supplement-ed by a few letters with marginal and interlinear glosses.

RichaRd Psík78

requirements of the medieval discipline of ars dictandi11. V2, contain-ing mostly letters and dictamina that originated during Henricus’ travels through Europe until his arrival into Prague (1270–1271), represents probably the oldest part of the collection, as it contains data about the period and place of origin of some parts of the collection, based on which we can divide V2 into six parts12.

V1, containing a series of letters whose author-“sender” is either Henricus himself or the letters refer back to him, originated later on. The arrangement of the original version is traditionally dated into the period shortly after the year 127813. The ordering of the whole V1 is based on the subject of the pieces therein and by the formal criteria, we can define several basic groups of letters14.

The manuscripts from Klagenfurt and Prague are mere variations of the one from Vienna, more precisely of its first part, V1, and together, they represent one version of the collection. Prague manuscript how-ever was not completed. This fact is also showed by the text ending in the middle of a sentence (Nam stolide levitatis vexatur – f.142rb) and the initials and regests in the headings are missing15, although the space for them had been reserved beforehand. Some of the pieces were probably

11 For example, a large group is dedicated only to the introductory sections of the letter, like the exordia, prohemia, preambula and their use. Other point towards examples of stylistic figures – exemplum agnominacionis, conversionis, complexionis, contencionis, repeticionis etc.

12 The letters that originated in Naples while Henricus was in Rome, at Peter of Prece’s, in Altari, in Pirna and in Prague. A detailed evaluation of this collection remains a task for further research. See V1 – ff.17lv, 189v, 192r, 195r, 199r-v; Cfr. heNRicus de iseRNia, Inv., pp. 25-26.

13 Cfr. for example TřeŠTíK, Formularze, p. 46.14 Letters inviting to studies on the school of Vyšehrad (no. 1-9); letters related to

the papal election (10-12); letters expressing praise – laudationes (13-33); invectives (34-36); letters related to the events in the Kingdom of Hungary (37-38); pleas for favour and support, expressing favour, letters of thanks (39-44; 46-47; 49; 55; 57-59-; 61; 71; 108; 110); letters related to the Strahov Monastery and the election of its abbot (44; 61-67); complaints (45; 48; 50; 63-64); reports from the stay in Italy (53-54; 56); letters in the name of the king about various issues (69-70; 79-80; 84-86; 88; 90-92; 95-107; 109; 111-113; 146-152); the appeal to the abbot for an establishment of a benefice (120-123); a dispute between the provost of Vyšehrad and the bishop of Prague (121-122); consolation (124-125); the correspondence of the fictitious Venus’ court-letters with amorous and sexual theme (127-136) the correspondence between Ceres (Nicolaus de Ponte Curvo) and Neptune (Henricus) with the participation of Master Velislav (137-145); fictitious papal correspondence (155-157); fragments of papal letters (158-163).

15 The red initials are present only on the first folio of the collection (P 92r).


intentionally left out due to their “unsound” content16, like letters with amorous and sexual content the correspondence from the so called Venus’ court.

The manuscript from Cracow represents a standalone version, which to some extent corresponds with V1 (in a few cases also with V2), but other than that, it contains letters and documents not exclusively related to Bohemia, which do not appear in any other manuscript and could have been copied from another collection or be a separate addition of the compiler.

This collection, which was from various points of view the subject of interest of many Czech and foreign medievalists, even though they dealt only with selected pieces17, is still waiting for its complex critical edition and publication. The prologue of the collection is comprised of several letters addressed to the students of Prague schools, where Henricus explains the contents of grammar, logic, rhetoric and philoso-phy. These letters18 actually represent a programme and at the same time they serve as an invitation to study at a new school focused on teaching of the trivium and on educating future notaries, which was probably founded by Henricus in the church of Vyšehrad19.

The comprehensive part of Henricus’ collection, called Invectiva pro-sotetrasticha in Ulricum Polonum is thematically similar to invitation letters. This article focuses on the content and analysis of the aforementioned

16 The problematic nature of the content was also apparent to the scribe of V1, who wrote on the folio 114v, where the pieces with sexual theme start: Hic non legas!

17 Only digests of various length were published so far, in most cases in a non-crit-ical edition, e.g. Codex epistolaris Primislai Ottocari II. Bohemiae regis, complectens semicenturiam literarum ab Henrico de Isernia, ejus notario, partim ipsius nomine, partim ad ipsum scripturarum, ed. T. Dolliner, Viennae 1803; B. UlanowsKi, Neues urkundliches material zur Geschichte Ottokar II. von Böhmen, «Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung» 6, 1885, pp. 421-439; Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae, II, ed. J. Emler, Pragae 1882, passim (RBM futher on); K. hamPe, Beiträge, p. 68 ff.; PetRoV, Henrici Italici libri formarum, II, p. 53 ff.

18 For the critical edition of the first nine letters see henricUs De isernia, Inv., pp. 118-127.

19 «Scolares omnes Pragam habitantes ad mensam meam, quam in Wyssegradensi ecclesia erexi, duxi presentibus invitandos, ubi, quamquam forsitan semiplene scolares in artis gramatice cunabulis vagientes lactis ope tepidi poterunt enutriri, pugilis dyalec-tice anceps denudabitur gladius et rutilantis rethorice purpura diversis colorum sideri-bus illustrata splendore favorabili resultabit»; heNRicus de iseRNia, Inv., p. 124. Cfr. M. bláhová, Artes und Bildung im mittelalterlichen Böhmen (vor der Gründung der Prager Universität), in Scientia und ars im Hoch- und Spätmittelalter, cur. I. Craemer-Ruegenberg, A. Speer, II, Berlin - New York 1994 (Miscellanea Mediaevalia 22), pp. 777-794.

RichaRd Psík80

rather extensive grammatical-rhetorical treatise, which is carefully dis-guised as a polemic. With the help of selected examples, we will try to present the method and grounds of Henricus’ argumentation, including the authorities, which he relied on in his conclusions. We will also try to delineate the problems related to the identification of his enemy, Master Ulricus.

According to the manuscript tradition, this treatise is one of the three pieces the author considers to be invectives, as is apparent from the indications in the regests in the heading20. In compliance with the factual arrangement of the collection, all three pieces are in succession within the manuscript, while they are preceded by a whole series of laudatory letters (laudationes). It is therefore apparent that the pieces, which accord-ing to their form fall into the category of the genus demonstrativum, were put at the beginning of the collection.

The whole treatise is structured as a critical analysis of a single letter, whose alleged author Ulricus Polonus is, who is apart from his name an unknown figure. The idea of this polemic being dedicated to his colleagues and students is supported by the words: «Opusculum se-quens contexui et in conspectu magistrorum atque scolarium publicavi» (Praef.)21. The name “Invective” alone stems from the fact that the basis for the author’s development of grammatical-rhetorical contemplations is a letter, or more precisely violations of the basic disciplines of the trivium contained in the letter. The alleged author of that letter is Ulricus

20 The first invective (RBM, II, n. 1045) is the letter written in the name of Ottokar II of Bohemia and directed to the margraves of Meissen. Its sender announces the be-trayal of the Duke of Bavaria, who deserted to the side of the Roman king Rudolph, and warns the receiver not to trust the Duke at all. The contradiction between the friendship and brotherly affection of the king and the treachery of the traitor and perjurer, who is called miles ignobilis, dux devians, amicus perfidus or compater infidelis, is heavily emphasized. The main stylistic element in this letter is a rhetorical question. The second and longest is the invective against Ulricus Polonus, which is dealt with further on. The third and last invective (see k. hamPe, Beiträge, pp. 109-115), like the preceding one, is not written in the form of a letter, but rather an oration. Henricus criticizes the depravity of the clergy and the tone of the work is close to the tone of his treatise, where the empire is com-pared to the sun and the church to the moon (In ista epistola questio solvitur, et quod imperator soli comparari debeat determinatur, see RBM, II, n. 2557).

21 The references to the corresponding chapters of the Invective are stated in paren-theses after the text.


Polonus himself. We are not able to determine whether the letter is a real document or a mere fictitious dictamen.

In the introduction of the Invective, Henricus claims that he carefully copied Ulricus’ letter, which was written by the author’s own hand and in the presence of many witnesses, while he changed only the names and places, to prevent a potential scandal22. This procedure, i.e. omitting or changing particular data, is very typical for compilers of formularies. Considering the mention of the ways of certification of documents, we can assume that the author was well acquainted with the works of a chancery.

From the formal point of view, the Invective is very similar to the ancient oration in its structure and line of argumentation and it basically fulfils the requirements that the greatest of Roman rhetoricians states in his work Orator:

ordiri orationem, in quo aut concilietur auditor aut erigatur aut paret se ad discendum; rem breviter exponere et probabiliter et aperte, ut quid agatur intellegi possit; sua confirmare, adversaria evertere, ea que efficere non perturbate sed singulis argumentationibus ita concludendis, ut efficiatur, quod sit con-sequens iis quae sumentur ad quamque rem confirmandam;post omnia perorationem inflammantem restinguentemve concludere23.

Henricus’ Invective, much like an oration, in fact tries to induce a state of tension in the listener and win him over (he states the reason for writing the speech, i.e. Ulricus’ slanders, and continues to point out that despite what was said, the author is not holding a grudge but instead is led by a sincere wish to help a friend). The whole issue is then briefly presented and the next step is outlined; the core of the speech is then formed by a concluded set of arguments confirming the overall propo-sition. The oration is then finished by a final, emotional summary.

The name “Invective” is complemented by the attribute prosotetras-ticha, which suggests that the whole text is written in prosimetrum, i.e. alternating between prose and poetry. With the exception of the final summary, the parts in verse consist of quatrains of various rhymes and of various metres (hexameter, Sapphic stanza, glyconic verse, asclepiad

22 «…per autenticandi maneriem transcriptum est fideliter et transumptum, nisi quod ad evitandum quorundam scandalum tam personarum mutata sunt nomina quam locorum, que in ipsa epistula tenebantur» (heNRicus de iseRNia, Inv., I).

23 cic., Or. 35.

RichaRd Psík82

and choriamb). Verses sometimes follow after the prosaic part of text, sometimes they precede it, but they always offer some kind of summary of the whole chapter. The verses come with a heading at the beginning of the chapter, containing the name of the given verse and a description of its structure. At the same time, Henricus quite successfully attemps to compose metrical verses.

The whole treatise is divided into 21 chapters, a preface and an intro-duction. Natural dividing lines between chapters are formed by inserted verses. In the preface preceding the incipit itself24, Henricus states the reasons leading him to writing this work and who is it for. After the incipit with explained name of the Invective, the introduction follows. Its first part reminds us of the form of arengas used in deeds. The author in fact reminds us of the usefulness of a reproach, which is led only by love and friendship, which «non de vena scaturizat invidie, non ex turgide arrogancie contagiosa ventositate decurrit, sed de solius dilec-cionis progreditur incentivo». Then, as if Henricus moves from arenga to a narration, he starts to specify his general formulation and states that when writing this dictamen, he was led by sincere affection towards Master Ulricus, and that the dictamen should help him to «libere ag-nicionis intuitu se valeat intueri et racionis ponderet trutina, quantum possit, fiatque michi propterea de iuncto iunctior» (Proem.). In the last part of the introduction, in compliance with the ancient and medieval tradition, the author invokes the Muses so that they would support him in his efforts and help him reach a successful ending.

To prevent potential evasions and excuses of his opponent, Henricus explains in the first chapter that the criticized letter thoughtfully and calmly written by Master Ulricus, he very carefully and word by word copied including the punctuation. This letter is inserted in the following chapter25, and its analysis forms the whole content of the Invective, accom-

24 «Incipit invectiva prosothetrastica in Vlricum Polonum dicta a proson, quod est prosa et tetra, quod est quatuor, et stichos, quod est versus, quia cuilibet prose subiciun-tur quatuor versus».

25 For better understanding, we offer this list without any omissions:«Amicorum specialissimo, domino W., Wratyslaviensi sacriste, A., divina providen-

cia eiusdem ecclesie primicerius, Lubencensis archidiaconus, cancellarius tocius ducatus Slesie et sedis apostolice capellanus perhenne vinculum amicicie ac nodum indissolubi-lem perpetue caritatis.

Illi merito panduntur prospera seu adversa, qui et in contrariis compati et in secun-dis novit habundancius congaudere. Cum igitur, amicorum karissime, vestram experti


panied by a brief, universally stylized critique. According to Henricus, this letter presents a child’s work trying to conceal its nature under a layer of various deceiving masks. If we want to prevent this fragrant façade from cheating a potential reader and to make everybody understand that the boastfulness of the author of the letter is completely inappropriate, we need to wash this coating off.

After this general critique, Henricus is more specific about the of-fences Master Ulricus committed against the disciplines of the trivium

simus vigere providenciam in utroque, gracia Dei nulla contraria, sed omnia prospera, quemadmodum Ipsius ordinante clemencia nobis evenerunt, vobis duximus nunccianda.

Primo enim cum in Franciam venissemus, quamvis prima fronte dure cervicis homi-nes et nodosum quasi negocium multis cavillacionibus involutum invenissemus, tandem nodos dissolvimus et argutias seu cavillosas raciones, Dei Omnipotentis adiutorio licet non sine magno labore ac cauto ingenio ad illum finem negocium duximus, ad quem modis omnibus nitebamur, videlicet ut ad honorem domini nostri ducis et tocius terre tranquillitatem omnia evenirent. Quo quidem facto cum magno tripudio non absque grandi sudore ad ducem reversi fuimus pacato animo et negocio totaliter informato.

Expeditis itaque rite omnibus ad hunc articulum spectantibus in Ytaliam profecti fuimus volatu celeri, via cita, itinere veloci respersi pulvere, sudore perfusi, equis et cor-poribus non modicum fatigati, sed ibidem, ut optati, ab omnibus generaliter sumus gra-tanter suscepti, gratancius affati, gratantissime pertractati. Rex enim suis muneribus nos eleganter donavit, episcopus de gracia speciali singulis annis de parata pecunia quarun-dam villarum quadraginta marcarum nobis redditus assignavit. Quo autem affectu domi-nus episcopus Bononiensis, prepositus Arcaniensis (sic, vel Arcumensis, vel Artraniensis mss.; fortasse rectius Ariminensis), alii ceteri fratres nostri necnon barones et alii milites aut desiderio nos pertractaverint, si omnia seriatim scriberentur, ex diffusione nimia forsitan fastidium pocius quam delectamentum scribentibus et legentibus generarent.

Unde istis obmissis ex eo, quod me vestris litteris premunistis, vobis graciarum uberas refero acciones. Et sic vobis presentibus innotescat, quod prestante et disponente misericordia Altissimi Creatoris inclitum ducem nostrum in tali reliquimus voluntate, quod confisi de Illo, qui ad se ingemiscentibus non deest, ynmo suis adest, qui suis adesse consuevit, detractores et inimici nostri ut canes rabidi terram lingent, porro cum in se sperantes dominus non relinquit, sed detrahentibus et persequentibus iustos supplicium preparet sempiternum.

Verum quia in omnibus, que nobis vel fame nominis nostri possint impedimenta aliqua generare, – cum crudelis sit, qui negligit famam suam – debemus prudenter in-telligere et futuris casibus solercius obviare, ynmo nascentes morbos penitus extirpare, vestro functi consilio domini pape concilio vel sinodo volumus presencialiter interesse, proxima tercia feria post diem sancti Bartholomei Ravennam finaliter venientes. Unde placeat vobis quoscumque amicos nostros et vestros requirere, ut spiculis et telis no-bis adversancium armati et conmuniti resistere divina nobis astante clemencia valeamus. Petimus itaque, ut cum prefata die, tercia feria videlicet, prandium in villa, Ravennam finaliter venientes facere intendamus, quod non agravemini nobis ibidem venire in occur-sum super premissis et aliis diversis adinvicem tractaturi» (heNRicus de iseRNia, Inv., II).

RichaRd Psík84

while he continuously and apparently ironically calls Ulricus his friend and also outlines his next move. In order to be more comprehensible, Henricus divides his reproaches: he would start out with grammar, then list the offences against orthography and punctuation and lastly mention the imperfections of Ulricus’ rhetoric. Henricus does not deal with the last discipline of the trivium in any part of the work. Logic26 permeates through all the chapters and helps the author of the invective to find the “truth” about Ulricus, which means to point out his incompetence. Through examples, Henricus shows that the logical structure of some of Ulricus’ statements is faulty, because with a more detailed analysis, it leads to misleading and false conclusions.

Regarding the method, Henricus usually proceeds by citing a select-ed, and allegedly incorrect, passage from Ulricus’ letter and then he more or less detailly elaborates on the grammatical rule violated in the given part. Henricus devotes particularly much effort in proving the mean-inglessness of Ulricus’ sentences, and he does it ingeniously. In fact he pretends that he is looking for a meaningful explanation or simply any kind of interpretation of Ulricus’ phrases so that at the end, he could reach the conclusion that Ulricus’ statements are imperfect, if not plain absurd, and thus confirming his premise from the end of the third chapter, stating that Ulricus is incongruus gramaticus, pseudoloycus et orator cacodicus. It however seems that this “quest” of Henricus not only aims to show the complete perplexity of Ulricus’ phrasing, but also tries to show Henricus’ own proficiency in individual disciplines. This method, typical for the whole Invective as well as for each of its parts, basically cor-responds with the logical requirements of argumentation, as they were worded in Henricus’ theoretical treatise Epistolare dictamen27.

Grammar, representing the cornerstone of the trivium, the mother, whose breast milk one must first imbibe in order to be able to absorb

26 Logic, which flourished since the 12th century due to the access to other Aristotle’s works, could be briefly characterized as Ars discemendi verum a falso. Henricus describes it in the second of his letters among other words also like this: «… veritatis omnimode pervigil indagatrix, que scilicet ad omnium methodorum principia viam habet... rerum disquirit seriem et discriminat seriatim ancipiti gladio a veris conmenta recidens mendacii adulteram sophistarum ypocrisim denudando, qui sub veri pallio nituntur inducere fal-sitatem, coloris adventicii murice superficietenus purpuratam ...» (heNRicus de iseRNia, Inv., p. 119).

27 Cfr. heNRicus de iseRNia, Ep. dict., p. 196.


more nutritious food of the other disciplines28, is the first discipline Henricus pays attention to. In his grammatical lectures, he relies name-ly and most of all on Priscian, from whose Institutiones grammaticae he sometimes, although not entirely accurately, quotes. In accordance with the medieval tradition, he divides Priscian’s main work into two parts: the first is the so-called Ars maior, containing first sixteen books of the Institutiones, and the second are the last two books (XVII-XVIII – De constructione), in the Middle Ages usually copied separately, and are known under the name Ars minor or Priscianellus29.

The analysis of grammatical errors itself is preceded by a list of conditions, which one has to fulfil in order to be considered as an expert in rhetorics or in any other discipline. A good rhetorician then

artis preceptis deserviat, maiorum imitetur vestigia et frequenti exerci-cio, que speculative virtutis perspexerit oculus, ad actum nitatur redu-cere per practici dexteram intellectus (IV).

In his requirements, Henricus held onto the classical tradition of three main elements necessary for good rhetorician, i.e. studying and observing rules, imitating the old masters and frequently exercis-ing. However, in his requirements for an expert on certain discipline, Henricus rather surprisingly does not include one of the traditional con-ditions, namely talent (ingenium – intellectus – natura)30. He surely knows this criterion, for in his theoretical treatise he himself considers ingenium to be the first necessary condition:

Hoc autem dictatorie facultatis munus non omnis assequetur, sed is, qui racione viget, ingenio et intellectu. Sed idem quippe non nisi arte, imitacione, exercicio id munus poterit conparare31.

It then seems as if he omitts this element on purpose, since proving its lack or even absence in his foe would be difficult, if not impossible.

28 The whole first letter of the collection is dedicated to grammar (see heNRicus de iseRNia, Inv., pp. 118-119).

29 Henricus uses the terms volumen maius and minus or directly Priscianus maior and minor.

30 E.g. Isidore of Seville sees the basic requirements of a good rhetorician also in three things – natura, doctrina, usus (Etym. II,3,2) and similarly to Henricus, he does not relate these requirements only to a rhetorician, but to everybody, who wants to devote themselves to any discipline.

31 heNRicus de iseRNia, Ep. dict., p. 195. The second part of his requirements stems from the anonymous oration Ad Herennium I,2,3.

RichaRd Psík86

He also could have based his approach on Poetria nova by Geoffrey of Vinsauf, that he must have known very well. Geoffrey actually, when talking about the attributes of a perfect writer, says:

Rem tria perficiunt: Ars, cuius lege regaris; usus, quem serves; meliores, quos imiteris. Ars certos, usus promptos, imitatio reddit artifices aptos, tria concurrentia summos32.

At first, Henricus deals with constructio, i.e. the structure of sentences or connecting the words. He points out that each constructio has to make sense (intellectus), because if a phrase does not make sense, it cannot be a constructio. He refers to Priscian33 and he adds one more definition, called by him magistralis34. According to it, constructio represents a line of words connected in a way that elicits a complete understanding in the reader’s mind35.

After this explanation, Henricus subjects the salutation, or address, which reads amicorum specialissimo, domino… to a critique. The apposition itself is the subject of his analysis. According to Henricus, it does not make perfect sense, as it is not clear from this phrase, which friends are meant by that. The missing thing is, Henricus says, a definite pronoun, in this case suorum. He considers this imperfection to be a disgraceful ellipsis, which cannot be forgiven, not even if it had been a figure; such a mistake would have been excusable only in poetry, where the rules of the profession are not as strict due to the metrical structure.

Henricus however is not satisfied with this statement and in order to clarify the meaninglessness of the given phrase, he proceeds with the

32 GalfreDUs De vino salvo, Poetria nova, in Les arts poétiques du XIIe et du XIIIe siècles, ed. E. Faral, Paris 19582, vv. 1705-1708.

33 Cfr. PRisciaNus, Institutiones grammaticae XVII, ed. M. Hertz, Lipsiae 1855, p. 178: «Omnis enim constructio, quam Graeci σύνταξιν vocant, ad intellectum vocis est reddenda».

34 We were not able to reveal the author of this definition.35 A similar request appears a little later in the work of one of the representatives

of speculative grammar, Thomas of Erfurt. According to him, a complete constructio has two goals: «finis propinquus est expressio mentis conceptus compositi, secundum distantiam». The second goal is then defined like this: «finis remotus constructionis est generare perfectum sensum in anim auditoris, ex constructibilium debita unione». The quote is adapted from G.L. bUrsill-hall, Speculative Grammars of the Middle Ages: the Doctrine of Partes orationis of the Modistae, Hague – Paris 1971, p. 308. Cfr. Also Isidore of Seville, who similarly defines oratio – Est autem oratio contextus verborum cum sensu. Contextus autem sine sensu non est oratio (Etymol. I, 5, 3). On the identical meaning of the words oratio and constructio Cfr. e.g. schUlThess, Kontext, p. 348 nn.


analysis. At first, with a quote from Priscian, he reminds the reader that the superlative is used either separately, to signify a very high degree of a certain attribute, or to highlight a fact that the given object or attribute stands out among the others of its kind, so that he could point out that it is possible to understand such a statement in two different ways, while in both of them, it directly proves a statement to be false or even a lie. The phrase specialissimus amicorum could be interpreted as “the dearest” of all the friends that ever were, which would mean that the author com-mitted an unthinkable excess of using an antonomasia36, because there surely were more illustrious examples of friendship in the past, which Henricus immediately illustrates with five of them37, or the phrase could be interpreted as “the dearest” of friends that are, which cannot be true. In each case, by omitting the temporal facts, Ulricus again “committed” an ellipsis.

The analysis of this single phrase is enough for Henricus to get back to the requirements expected from a good rhetorician at the end of the chapter and to declare with biting irony:

quam bene iste amicus noster precipuus artem noscat, quam bene [quam bene] autenticorum sequitur vestigia magistrorum, <quam bene> conservat consuetudines approbatas (IV).

He dedicates the whole following chapter to the consequences of his findings as he goes back to the aforementioned mistakes and again he reminds the reader that

magister Vlricus ... claudicarius redditur, dum sic sepe claudicat eclipsando sicque se nota turpitudinis inficit, dum construcciones conficit defectivas sicque se reddit ab artis nobilitate degenerem, dum sic artis degenerat in regula generali (V).

In the sixth chapter, Henricus at first points out another case of ellipsis and then turns his focus towards solecism. With a great indigna-tion, he finds out that Ulricus uses the perfect participle of the depo-

36 Antonomasia belongs traditionally among tropes and is based on the substitution of a particular name with a general one. Its definition can be found in virtually any an-cient or medieval work on grammar or rhetoric. Cfr. e.g. aeliUs DonaTUs, Ars grammatica, ed. H. Keil, Leipzig 1864, p. 400; iUlianUs ToleTanUs, Ars gramatica, poetica, rhetorica, II, 19, 25.

37 Firstly the biblical pair of David and Saul’s son Jonathan. Other examples come from the ancient tradition: Theseus and Pirithous, Tydeus and Polynices, Euryalus and Nisos, Pylades and Orestes.

RichaRd Psík88

nent verb for, faris and its compounds, namely affor, affari, in their passive meaning. In this case, he considers the issue to be so apparent that it is not even necessary to support it by a quote from the ancient authori-ties. On the other hand, this method could also have a purpose since Priscian, quoting the classical authors, admits the use of the participle fatus in both meanings, i.e. active and passive, when he says: «solebant enim antiqui ‘fatus’ communiter proferre»38. The awe and contempt for Ulricus’ impudence is expressed in the final exclamation. Rather patheti-cally, Henricus labels his efforts to create a piece of literature as a display of utter insanity when he compares him to a soldier diving into a fray un-armed or to somebody, who is trying to climb a steep slope in the dark:

Ha deus, quo furore ducitur homo ille, qui prerupta montis precipi-cia et rupes nititur scandere ruinosas noctis sub silencio intempeste. Ha deus, quibus vesanie stimulis pungitur homo ille, qui hostilis tur-me conflictum non dubitat ingredi nulla munitus penitus armatura. Ha deus, qua presumpcionis temerarie audacia trahitur homo ille, qui temptat illud facere, quod ignorat (VI).

Henricus deals with the issue of solecism even further on and he points out the incorrect use of grammatical cases in a grammatical rela-tion of the verb dono, are. Again, relying on Priscian, he proves that this verb is acquisitive and takes the dative case, which expresses the recip-ient, and the accusative, which stands for the object of giving. Ulricus however switched these cases and thus created a solecism, rendering his statement to be meaningless.

Henricus’ next goal is to solve the issue of the relation between the verbs dono and honoro. The impulse to this was probably some older polemic where a statement saying that the verb dono could be used in the same meaning as the verb honoro would justify the grammatical relation Ulricus used. Henricus quotes Priscian to show that the verb honoro is an adorative verb, not acquisitive and thus has a different meaning. It is this difference that distinguishes between the verbs and because of it they cannot be used interchangeably. He compares the closeness of mean-ings of these verbs, with a notable exaggeration, to the “similarity” of the sentences: Amo Bertham and Video Bertham. He however admits that Hugutio Pisanus regards both verbs as synonyms to the verb remunenare

38 PRisciaNus, Institutiones grammaticae VIII, p. 413.


in his dictionary, which Henricus explains by saying that Hugutio was in-fluenced by the vernacular when explaining some of the words and adds that especially in the vernacular, the verbs honoro and dono are often used as synonyms when expressing gratitude for a certain gift. In no other case though does this substitution appear and should it by any chance appear somewhere, it would be an unacceptable solecism. The chap-ter ends with this statement, missing the usual indignant exclamation, typical for the preceding chapters. That could be explained by the fact that the majority of the issue at hand here is related not only to Ulricus’ dictamen, but it is also related to a universal problem, which raised a dis-cussion among a greater group of people-students, and Henricus surely did not want to create any new enemies and foes by harsh statements.

Henricus dedicates the most extensive and detailed grammatical ex-planation to the word order in the sentence «Episcopus de gracia speciali singulis annis de parata pecunia quarundam villarum nobis redditus as-signavit» (VIII), namely in the dependence of the genitive case quarun-dam villarum. He tries to prove that this sentence in this structure allows the dependence of said genitive on virtually any sentence element. At first, stemming from Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae, Henricus presents seven types of constructions with genitive: genitive may express pos-session, quality, a part of a whole, object or subject, content, wish or a relation. From the point of view of contemporary terminology, he talks about the possessive genitive, genitive of quality, partitive genitive, sub-jective genitive, objective genitive and relative genitive. After explaining the basic genitive forms, he tries to gradually apply some of them on the criticized sentence.

He begins with a possible dependence of the genitive quarundam vil-larum on the ablative parata pecunia in a possessive meaning, i.e. villae habent pecuniam, which is a meaningless assertion. However, Henricus elaborates on this issue and considers the possibility of villages having money and comes with six explanations (as a quality; as something on the body; as something on parts of the body; as a body part itself; as something that is usually in containers or as possession), only to discard them all in the end. He ironically admits one other possibility, namely that the stat-ed genitives could have been dependent on the given ablative with the meaning of content, i.e. villae continent pecuniam, however only provided the fact that in those villages were such mines, which would produce “ready-made” money. He dismisses the remaining options merely by

RichaRd Psík90

saying «de aliis regiminis viribus liquido constat, quod ex ipsarum aliqua non reguntur» (VIII).

In the ninth chapter Henricus with a poorly concealed pleasure crit-icizes Ulricus for his ignorance of morphology, namely for declining the adjective uber, -is, which Ulricus declines according to the first and second declension. He does not feel the need to prove the fact that this adjective belongs to the third declension and thus all the more space could be dedicated to ridiculing Ulricus:

O, mirabilem perspicui potenciam intellectus, qui tanta limpiditate viget acuminis, ut tocius philosophie intueatur penita, et bene tamen “uberes” adhuc nesciat declinare! O, stupendum ventilabrum legisti-ce potestatis, que tam bene, tam congrue novit inanes falsitatis paleas a tritico secernere veritatis, et tamen prime et secunde declinacionis credidit esse “uber”! O, exuberantis sciencie scaturiginem indefessam, que “uberes” nimis exuberans convertit in “uberas” et per terminacio-nes diccionum varias visa est variare nomen, quod articularibus tantum pronominibus variatur! Ubi est nunc magniloque lingue iactantia, o Vl-rice precluis, nove Mevi? Ubi tantarum rabulacionum garritus existunt, per quas rabby ab ignorantibus nuncuparis? Nunquid est verum, quod predicas de te ipso? (IX).

For the first time here Henricus uses the term “New Maevius” for Ulricus. Maevius was a very poor poet whose name appears in Horace and Virgil. He belonged, together with Bavius to the literary objectors of Virgil and Virgil’s commentators later called them the worst of the poets. Horace’s poem39, where he wishes the worst to “stinking Maevius”, who embarks on a journey to Greece, and even calls for his ship to wreck, is a certain sort of invective in verse, inspired by Archilochos. Virgil men-tions Maevius only once in the Eclogues, where he says:

Qui Bavium non odit, amet tua carmina, Maevi,atque idem iungat volpes et mulgeat hircos40.

By comparing Ulricus to Maevius Henricus unquestionable express-es feelings about his personality as well as clearly demonstrates his opin-ion on Ulricus’ literary efforts, even though he calls him a close friend

39 Cfr. hoR., Epod. X.40 Cfr. VeRg., Ecl. III, vv. 90-91. This verse is later quoted in all commentaries on

Virgil.


on many occasions. This simile completely corresponds with the general tone of the Invective.

After the general grammatical mistakes, Henricus proceeds to errors made in the orthography. In this case, the interpretation is rather ques-tionable since the text is available only through its copies and the graphic form of the words often does not correspond to Henricus’ reproaches. Henricus explains that the noun annus is in all composites as well as stand-alone written without the initial h sound. It is therefore necessary to write perennis, not perhennis. Another reproach is related to the substi-tution of syllable ti for ci in the comparative potius. Henricus admits that this substitution often occurs before a vowel, however in this particular case, he considers it to be a barbarism and he refers to all those that «de diccionum derivacionibus tractaverunt» (XI). He is apparently thinking of aforementioned Hugutius of Pisa41. He also criticizes the orthogra-phy of obmitto, when he correctly explains that in this case, the assimi-lation occurred initially and only then was the abbreviation of the first syllable by omitting one m possible. The correct spelling is then omitto and as an example, Henricus presents Horace’s verse «aut spem deponas aut artem illusus omittas»42. It seems that he mentions Horace only to in-dignantly inform the reader that this poet «proch pudor, Vlricus tociens adducere in testimonium consuevit» (XI).

Henricus’ next critique is aimed at the adverb ynmo. In accordance with Donatus43, he states that the adverb is not an adverbium eligendi and that the last syllable should be marked with an acute accent so that it is different from the ablative of the superlative imus44. It is unlikely that he would criticize the absence of this accent as well as it is improbable that he would consider the initial y to be an orthographic error. The explana-tion is offered only in the final list where it is clear that Henricus is both-ered by the fact that the word was written with n and m, which however

41 Cfr. uguccioNe da Pisa, Derivationes I-II, ed. E. Cecchini, Firenze 2004, (P118).42 hoR., Serm. II, 5, v. 26. This verse is quoted also by PRisciaNus (Institutiones gram-

maticae, II, 18).43 Cfr. aeliUs DonaTUs, Ars grammatica III, 13.44 About the fact that according to some grammatical scholars, certain words end

with a acute accent in order to distinguish the meaning is mentioned by QuiNt., Inst. I, 5, 25. However, he does not mention the adverb immo directly.

RichaRd Psík92

does not contradict the medieval orthography of this adverb45. After all, that holds true in the case of all stated orthographic errors.

The final issue, that Henricus deals with, is the writing two “l” in the adjective sollers. According to Henricus, this word should be written only with one l as it corresponds with the etymology of the word solers, which is said to be derived from the name Solon. This etymology is incorrect, however in the Middle Ages it was widely spread. Henricus’ source here probably was Hugutius of Pisa one more time46. The word is in fact a composite of the nouns sollus and ars47. Henricus is therefore wrong in his conclusions, however it does not prevent him from looking for the reasons of Ulricus’ alleged error. The chapter dedicated to the orthogra-phy again ends with an indignant exclamation:

Ha deus, qualiter tociens delirare potuit docta manus! Ha deus, quanto tante intercapedinis intervallo tanti viri cognicio ab intellectu seiungitur aliorum! Ha deus, quomodo errare potuit sacra manus, que iuxta ipsam testimonium possidentis de vernantibus Parnasi flores legere consue-vit recessibus totumque sibi suppeditant Helicona, miror admodum et conturbor! (XI).

The next problem to be dealt with is the punctuation. In his theoret-ical treatise Epistolare dictamen, Henricus brings the reader’s attention to the importance of proper structuring of the text, which contributes to its clarity and coherence, by saying:

Claret ac sapit non solum, qui decenter determinat, verum qui clausulas suis punctis distinguit, ipsas debitis ordiens pedibus et concludens48.

Unlike the treatise, where a mere statement that correct punctuation is necessary sufficed, he goes into a greater detail in the Invective. He still classifies it under the grammar even though he should not address it

45 The simplifying change of the consonantal group -mm- into -m- occurs in the stems of Latin words only in several cases, among which belongs also the adverb immo, written imo/ymo perhaps under the influence of the superlative imus, a, um. It was custom-ary in the early prints to write this adverb with a mark of a heavy accent at the ending, in order to distinguish the dative and the ablative case of the aforementioned superlative. See P. stotz, Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters, III, München 1996, p. 286.

46 Cfr. uguccioNe da Pisa, Derivationes S188.47 Cfr. A. walDe, Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg 1906, p. 581.48 heNRicus de iseRNia, Ep. dict., p. 195.


until he reaches the part dealing with rhetorics. As an apology, Henricus says that in the field of spoken word, rhetoric partially pertains to gram-mar, which also includes the theory of writing, and he also presents probably his own definition of grammar: «Gramatica est sciencia recte scribendi et recte pronunciandi et recte construendi» (XII). Contrary to the traditional definitions49, the theory of a proper structure is hereby explicitly included as a part of the constitutive elements of grammar. The theory might have been a part of the field of grammar since long time ago, however it was concealed under the more universally formulat-ed requirement recte loquendi in the definition50.

In accordance with both ancient and medieval tradition (namely cit-ing Isidore of Seville), Henricus differs between three punctuation marks serving the purpose of dividing individual parts of a sentence: coma, co-lon, periodus. He introduces their graphic form and explains the manner of use, using an example. The utility of these marks is twofold, since «recitantes reddunt audientibus graciosos, dum sensus statim eligitur ex pausa debito modo facta» (XII), and they are therefore necessary for a good rhetorician. In this context, Henricus mentions the instructions on the division of sentences from Poetria nova by Geoffrey of Vinsauf while supporting it with a direct quote. At the same time, he points out that exactly this work Master Ulricus oretenus bene novit, however not minding the rules stated within. Henricus settles for a brief observation regarding a single sentence to provide an example of bad division of sentences, thinking that further mistakes of this nature are clearly apparent to any-body reading Ulricus’ letter. Today it is virtually impossible to judge the quality of the text structure as Ulricus’ letter was preserved only through

49 Cfr. for example the definition of grammar by QuiNt., Instit. I, 4, 1-3: «recte lo-quendi scientiam et poetarum enarrationem ... et scribendi ratio coniuncta cum loquendo est».

50 Cfr. BoNcomPagNus, Rhetorica novissima IX, 5, 2-3: «Proponit grammaticus, quod grammatica est scientia recte loquendi recteque scribendi omniumque artium fundamen-tum ... Primum membrum tue diffinitionis est falsum, quia grammatica non est scientia recte loquendi: immo dicere debeas recte construendi…» (url: http://scrineum.unipv.it/wight/rn9.htm).

RichaRd Psík94

its copies, lacking the punctuation altogether or, should it be there, it is highly likely that it does not correspond with the original.

Stemming from the premise that where the parts are missing, the whole is missing as well, Henricus concludes at the end of this chapter that

partibus absumptis perit et substancia tota, ex quibus efficitur: non est gramaticus, a quo non sunt bene nota membra, quibus struitur (XII).

It is therefore impossible to consider Ulricus an expert on grammar as he is not knowledgeable in the principles of the field.

Henricus begins the part dedicated to rhetoric by elaborating on a salutation expressing votum epistolam transmittentis. In this definition, he universally relies on facultatis dictatorie professores (XIII). Then, with the help of Priscian’s definition, he explains the meaning of optatives. He does not consider omitting an optative verb to be a mistake since in medieval dictatorial practice as well as in the theoretical handbooks of the period51, these verbs are usually not explicitly stated in the saluta-tions and it is therefore necessary to surmise them. Henricus however points out that it is vital to pay attention to the wishes in the salutation, as we may only express a wish that has chance to happen. This idea he supports by quoting an example mentioned by Priscian explaining the use of the preterit with optative verbs. And it is here that Ulricus made a grave mistake, says Henricus, because vinculum amicitie or nodus caritatis, which sacriste optat, cannot pertain to a single person, it must always be at least two of them. According to Henricus’ interpretation, confusion was stirred up by omitting relevant facts, i.e. not mentioning, between who the firm bond of friendship should be born. Henricus puts this reproach at the beginning of the treatise on the violations against rhetoric proba-bly purely because of its relation to salutation, i.e. the part of the letter, which was at the centre of attention in the handbooks of ars dictandi.

51 Cfr. e.g. GUiDo faba, Summa dictaminis, ed. A. Gaudenzi, «Il propugnatore» 3/13-14, 1890, p. 327: «... pre nimio mentis affectu verbum in salutatione celatur ... Et in salu-tatione subauditur aliquod istorum verborum “mittit, mandat, legat, delegat, optat, cupit, desiderat vel affectat”, vel aliud verbum quod ad mittendum pertineat, vel ad optandum».


The structure of an ancient oration, much like the individual parts of the letter, falls within the field of rhetoric.

In the next chapters, Henricus deals with the mistakes in the in-troduction (exordium). In this case, he relies on Cicero, who in his work De inventione mentions the violations, that one should avoid at all times. They are: vulgare, commune, commutabile, longum, separatum, translatum, contra praecepta52. He however deals only with some of these mistakes. At first, Henricus points out that Ulricus’ exordium is commutabile, i.e. that its meaning can easily be turned into its opposite, and presents Cicero’s definition of this violation53. He proves it by placing the negative particle non before one verb and one adverb, inducing a shift in the meaning54: while the meaning of the original sentence is that «if we confide in those people that understand us and feel for us, we do it because these people deserve our trust», while the modified version with the non particle says that «if we confide in people not feeling for us, we do it despite the fact that they do not deserve our trust». A commendation would thus change into denigration.

After this introduction, Henricus compares Ulricus’ letter to a dress sewn together from many worthless rags, irritating one’s sight as well as mind, due to an unsuitable structure of the text and individual clauses. Then he proceeds to analyse individual clauses of the narration and ac-cuses Ulricus of breaking the rules of correct narration. According to Cicero, a narration should be brevis, aperta et probabilis. And it is exactly the first of these principles, brevity, that Ulricus violated by repeating the same several times, though using different words. He violates Ciceronian principles55 also by a wrong sentence arrangement which impedes the correct understanding of the text.

The following chapter is dedicated to an analysis of Ulricus’ attempt to artificially extend a topic through a hyperbole, namely the phrase «In Ytaliam profecti sumus volatu celeri, via citta, itinere veloci» (XVI). This attempt is thoroughly rejected by Henricus due to the fact that there are asymmetrical expressions (volatu × via, itinere). He admits that it would have been possible to accept this hyperbole, if the attributes were in the

52 Cfr. cic., Inv. I, 18, 26.53 Cfr. also QuiNt., Inst. IV, 1, 71.54 «Illi (non) merito panduntur prospera seu adversa, qui et in contrariis compati et

in secundis (non) novit habundancius congaudere».55 Cfr. cic., Inv. I, 20, 29, which reads: «hic erit considerandum, ne quid perturbate,

ne quid contorte dicatur...».

RichaRd Psík96

superlative. Then he generally notes that hyperbole is a proper figure but it is necessary to use it moderately and reasonably. Further he supports this notion by verses from Vinsauf ’s Poetria nova. This is the work that Ulricus, whom Henricus ironically calls magister doctissimus magistrorum, should know very well according to his own boastful proclamations.

Further on, Henricus draws attention to an apparent contradiction (contrarietas), based on the fact that the author of the letter does not want to tire the hearing and mind of the reader, whom he earlier called ami-corum karissimum, knowing that the reader is capable of rejoicing at the accomplishments of a friend and sympathizing with him when he fails. Henricus then ironically points out that the recipient is probably not the best friend, otherwise he would «tanto habundancius letaretur, quan-to scriptura esset habundancior» (XVII). Then he states that Ulricus’ exordium is bad not only due to the mistake called commutabile, as was evidenced above, but that he also committed the mistake that Cicero calls separatum56 by putting the initial statement in contradiction to the following one, and subsequently lists series of various figures to support this claim. These figures are introduced by a quote from Horace’s Ars poetica and their list ends with another, although indirect, allusion to the Horace’s work57. The note stating that in some places the author speaks of himself in plural while in other places in singular feels like a mere postscript.

Further on, Henricus notices a rhetorical figure called correctio, which he at first defines by a loose quote of an anonymous treatise Rhetorica ad Herennium, which he calls Novella rhetorica and attributes it to Cicero. He claims that Ulricus not only did not use a more suitable or fitting verb in the phrase «non deest, ynmo adest», in order to «antedictum in melius reformaret», but he used a synonym, which means that his correction is «nedum ridicula, sed eciam reprobanda» (XVIII). The last mistake Henricus attends to in detail is amphibology. He tries to prove that Ulricus’ sentences are not unambiguous and they can be interpreted in several different ways.

In the last chapter, Henricus offers a summary, where he reminds the reader of virtually all the reproaches in the same order as they appeared in the preceding text. The list of violations Ulricus committed against

56 This error is defined by Cicero as follows: «separatum, quod non ex ipsa causa ductum est nec sicut aliquod membrum adnexum orationi» (Inv. I, 18, 26).

57 hoR., Ars II, 3, vv. 1-5.


individual disciplines is introduced with a rhetorical question58. The Invective is concluded by a series of appeals. On the one hand, Henricus urges Ulricus to be somewhat self-critical and on the other, he warns Ulricus’ sympathizers and sycophants:

Caveat sibi, caveat, ne stagnum conetur vendere pro argento et fucum ficticium pro murice geniali, attendens, quod non omnes possident oculos lippientes, non omnes logistice carent equilibrio potestatis et nedum sic ignorantem laudum purpuramentis exornat, falsitatis cense-atur figulus seque probet per consequens ignorantem (XXI).

The author of the letter examined in the Invective and subjected to a crushing criticism is the man Henricus calls magister Ulricus Polonus. However a person of this cognomen is documented only in Henricus’ work. The other sources of the period do not mention him and there-fore a further identification of this master is nearly impossible. We also need to take into account that in polemical treatises, the Invective surely belongs among them, the opponents often present themselves under a pseudonym, although it is necessary to mention that these substitute names frequently bear a certain hidden meaning59.

The letter subjected to criticism, which Henricus copied, as he him-self says, word by word into his Invective, misses the full name of the is-suer. If Ulricus had been the issuer, there would not be a reason for this omission. He thus was apparently only a dictator of said letter.

It is quite likely that Henricus knew Ulricus, or rather his “literary” activities, very well. His opinion of Ulricus’ stylistic prowess and knowl-edge is in fact very stern and denouncing and it is virtually impossible to draw conclusions based only on a single letter. The negative attitudes towards Ulricus expressed by Henricus in his Invective, simply must have a deeper root. Unfortunately, we cannot say anything in particular about them and we can only enounce certain hypotheses. It can be assumed that both of them met in Prague and they were competitors to a certain degree. This competition might have been related for one thing to the

58 E.g. «Quoniam si ipsa gramatica mater et loyca vive vocis organo loqui possent, nunquid non talem prorumperent in loquelam?» (XX).

59 Cfr. e.g. matthieu de VeNdôme, Ars versificatoria, in Les arts poétiques du XIIe et du XIIIe siècles, ed. E. Faral, Paris 19582, vv. 1 seqq.

RichaRd Psík98

royal chancery, for another it could have pertained to their pedagogical activity.

According to some authors, certain Master Ulricus Polonus in fact was in Prague during this period, and an effort to write logically, clear-ly and understandably was typical of his work, while he appeared in-different to metaphorical expressions, ornate sentences and rhythmical endings. He allegedly counted among the proponents of pedagogical practice at that time developing at the University of Paris and he was ap-parently influenced by didactics and methodical procedures mentioned in the first three books of the treatise Didascalion by Hugh of Saint Victor. Ulricus’ alleged authorship of an interpretation of Geoffrey of Vinsauf ’s Poetria nova should support the scientific nature of his peda-gogical activity60. The speculation about Ulricus’ authorship stems from the explicit of a commentary on this work in the manuscript of Austrian National Library no. 52661, which reads: Explicit Nova poetria Vdalrici. However this interpretation is merely one of the copies of a commen-tary of an unknown author, which was published in a critical edition by Marjorie Curry Woods62. Therefore it seems that Ulricus mentioned in the explicit was not exactly the author of the commentary, but he mere-ly copied it, even though he used his creativity to some extent. Next, we must ask ourselves a question, whether this Ulricus is identical with Ulricus Polonus. It seems quite likely when we consider the passage, where Henricus ridicules his opponent because of a wrong hyperbole while stating that

male Ganfredum intelligere videtur Anglicum, qui precepta novelle observare non noverit poetrie, quam tam eleganter, tam egregie iste no-ster amicus intelligere se se fatetur unctis loquacibus dissultando. Ubi fuit illud, pro Deo, ubi fuit illud, o magister doctissime magistrorum?

Currat yperbolicus, sed non excurrat inepte sermo: refrenet eum racio placeatque modestus finis, ut excessum nec mens, nec abhorreat auris! (XVI).

60 Cfr. M. šVáB, Školy a antická tradice v přemyslovských Čechách, in Antika a česká kultura, Praha 1978, p. 30; P. sPuNaR, Kultura českého středověku, Praha 1985, p. 229.

61 A commentary on Poetria nova is located on ff. 95vb-111vb. The manuscript, which originated in the second half of the 13th century, contains also the so-called Formulary of Queen Kunigunda.

62 An Early Commentary on the Poetria nova of Geoffrey of Vinsauf, ed. M. C. Woods, New York - London 1985.


Should this contemplation be correct, we can consequently deduce that Henricus’ adversary’s name was in fact Ulricus.

But why is he the object of Henricus’ criticism? Apart from the introductory passages of the Invective, the treatise De coloribus rhetoricis provides some evidence. The definitions of the figures and tropes there-in are supplemented by examples authored in most cases by Henricus himself. Ulricus’ name appears in said treatise on several occasions.

As an example of an asyndetic coordination of names, which he calls articulus, Henricus offers: «Non est mirandum, si te lingue gladio vulneravi acriter, o Ulrice, cum tu cottidie lacesseres iniuriis, detraction-ibus, perfidia, ingratitudine, voce, gestu». This example, which does not appear in the Invective, confirms the idea that the reason for the mutual animosity between the two authors was not the issue of trivium, but rather some personal disputes, that is hard to determine for the time being. Henricus actually “justifies”, why he verbally attacked Ulricus; it appears then that the aforementioned text was written later than the Invective, even though we cannot dismiss the possibility of mutual as-saults in front of an audience, be it small or a large one. An indirect proof of the fact that the clash of opinions between the two men in fact happened is visible in the text of the Invective itself.

The next example, which Henricus presents in connection with the so-called subiectio, also attests to the background and causes of writing the Invective:

Quero igitur ab omnibus, qui me de invectiva, quam contra Ulricum Polonum composui, forsitan arguere conantur, an contra eum non de-bui processisse. Sed idem Ulricus mihi suis oblocutionibus detrahere non cessabat. An equanimiter ferre debebam, etsi contra me sue lingue iaculum acuebat, cum mihi propterea officere non valeret? Sed immo-derate patientie tolerantia maxima pars ypocrisis perhibetur, et qui de iniuriis sibi illatis non irascitur, homo sensus mortui iudicatur. An aliter debui procedere contra ipsum? Sed rationis mihi calculus suadebat, ut armis me similibus defensarem et illatas iniuste propulsarem iniurias, ut ignorans argumentis probaretur veridicis, qui me non est veritus appel-lare falso tamen multotiens ignorantem. Quare merito? Quippe merito dampnum luat, si stulte contra stimulum calcitravit63 et non timuit me-

63 A paraphrase of the ancient proverb adversum stimulum calces – «to struggle against the spur (or goad)», i.e. «to resist in vain» (teR., Phorm., v. 78) or an allusion to the Acts of the apostles: contra stimulum calcitrare (Act 9,5). Cfr. also isid., Etym. I, 37, 28.

RichaRd Psík100

lioribus derogare, attendens quod in os proprium recidit sputum, quod emittitur supra capud64.

We can deduce from the above stated text that the Invective stirred a certain response and Henricus therefore did not hesitate to utilize the situation to distinctly point out, though in a rather general manner, to the fact that his assault on the grammatical field was entirely justified. With a certain degree of probability, we can also suppose that the un-specified lies told by Ulricus in the preface of the Invective were related to Henricus’ stylistic prowess.

Even further mentions point to a significant contempt towards Master Ulricus. Henricus observes probably the most obvious violation Ulricus had made, the declension of the adjective uber according to the first and second declination, even in his treatise dealing with the rhetor-ical embellishments, where he offers the following as one of the exam-ples of the figure called conduplicatio:

O Ulrice, deprecor, ubi nunc est magniloque lingue iactantia? Magnilo-que lingue, in qua iactantia, ubi nunc est, deprecor, o Ulrice? Quo nunc cessit ille tuus intellectus mirabilis? Ille tuus intellectus mirabilis, quo nunc cessit? Numquid uber, -ra, -rum declinatur? Quia te dicere non puduit «uberas actiones»!65

The last two examples where Ulricus makes an appearance are relat-ed to the trope called permutatio66. As an example of allusion, Henricus offers:

Errat Ulricus Polonus, si contra me facere quid attemptat, nam me vivente valide habene facundie suos dentes compriment et eloquentie iugo domitus noscet obedire maioribus, mitius cum minoribus agere et pares equanimiter tolerare.

64 heNRicus de iseRNia, De col. ret., p. 141. As the editor of the text correctly points out, the image of “a spit returning into one’s own face” also appears in the work of Petrus de Vinea.

65 Ibid., p. 144.66 In compliance with his main source, i.e. Rhetorica ad Herennium, Henricus men-

tions three ways of the implementation of this trope: per similitudinem, argumentum et con-trarium. In this case it is permutatio per argumentum.


He then returns to the same simile via another allusion:

Est enim intentio, quod me vivente rationabiliter superbia concludatur et deprimatur Ulrici, sicut equi per frena et iuvenci per iugi pressuram domantur67.

Invectiva prosotetrasticha in Ulricum Polonum represents the most exten-sive and comprehensive part of a collection of letters and dictamina of Master Henricus of Isernia. This polemical treatise uses the structure of an ancient oration and it is unique within the collection due to its contents. It is in fact a critical, or rather hypercritical analysis of a letter authored by Ulricus Polonus from the point of view of the disciplines of the trivium, i.e. grammar, rhetoric and logic. Henricus’ aim is to com-pletely ridicule the dictatorial skills of said Ulricus, whom he calls the modern Maevius, and in order to achieve that, he often criticizes only seeming mistakes. On the basis of indirect mentions and allusions, it can be assumed that Ulricus was a master of liberal arts and in the seventies of the 13th century, he worked in Prague, where he was probably asso-ciated with the royal chancery, or he also could have worked on one of Prague’s schools. His argument with Master Henricus was a long-stand-ing and more or less public issue and the analyzed Invective in fact orig-inated as a form of defence through offence, which followed after the preceding verbal assaults. From a certain point of view, we could con-sider this Invective as some sort of an addendum to Henricus’ theoretical works, because he basically deals with the analysis of mistakes of one dictamen.

Abstract. The study targets analysis of the polemic tract called according to its incipit Invectiva prosotetrasticha in Ulricum Polonum. It represents coherent part of the collection of letters and dictamen by Henricus of Isernia. The Invective is conceived as a hypercritical analysis of single letter written by master Ulricus Polonus. Henricus gradually analyses individual offenses against the subjects of trivium committed by the author of the letter. I attempt to demonstrate the way

67 heNRicus de iseRNia, De col. ret., pp. 152-153.

RichaRd Psík102

of Henricus’ argumentation including the quotations of authorities supporting his conclusions and also to outline the problem of master Ulricus’ identifica-tion. The article also contains overview of the manuscripts containing men-tioned collection as well as the list of Henricus’ work.

([email protected])

Richard Psík, Henricus de Isernia and his Invectiva Prosotetrasticha in Ulricum Polonicum, ArNoS 4

Documents

Transcript of Richard Psík, Henricus de Isernia and his Invectiva Prosotetrasticha in Ulricum Polonicum, ArNoS 4