Marek Thue Kretschmer Rewriting Roman History in the Middle Ages The "Historia Romana" and the Manuscript Bamberg, Hist. 3 Doctoral thesis for the degree of doctor artium Trondheim, March 2006 Norwegian University of Science and Technology Faculty of Arts Department of History and Classical Studies Innovation and Creativity NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology Doctoral thesis for the degree of doctor artium Faculty of Arts Department of History and Classical Studies © Marek Thue Kretschmer ISBN 82-471-7382-4 (printed version) ISBN 82-471-7381-6 (electronic version) ISSN 1503-8181 Doctoral theses at NTNU, 2005:239 Printed by NTNU-trykk Note to the reader: Please do not quote, cite or reproduce. A revised version of this work is forthcoming. Acknowledgements During my work on this project I have had two excellent tutors. Professor Lars Boje Mortensen – who introduced me to the field of medieval historiography when I was studying for my master’s degree at the University of Bergen – proposed the subject for this doctoral dissertation. My work would be inconceivable without his research on the subject. I am also thankful for his invitations to the Centre for Medieval Studies (Nordic Centre of Excellence) in Bergen. On several occasions I have benefitted greatly from participating in seminars and congresses held there. My three-year scholarship, for which I also want to express my gratitude, was granted by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in 2002, and I consider it an honour that professor Gunhild Vidén, vice-dean of the Faculty of Arts, became my tutor. I thank her for having been a constant support and a good critic. I have received valuable comments from my friend and colleague, professor Staffan Wahlgren. I also want to thank Dr. Lena Wahlgren Smith (Southampton) for her comments and for improving my English. Professor Odd Einar Haugen (Bergen) commented upon my work at an early stage. Finally, my thanks are due to the following libraries, which have provided me with microfilms of manuscripts: Universitätsbibliothek in Augsburg, Staatsbibliothek in Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek in Berlin, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence, Historisches Archiv der Stadt Köln, Library of the Earl of Leicester, Universitätsbibliothek in Leipzig, British Library in London, Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid, Biblioteca Palatina in Parma, Biblioteca Angelica in Rome, Publichnaia biblioteka in Saint Petersburg, Universitätsbibliothek in Salzburg, Hartley Library at the University of Southampton, Universitets-biblioteket in Uppsala and the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. I am much obliged for having been permitted to consult the original manuscripts of Bamberg, Oxford, Paris and Salisbury. I therefore owe special thanks to the librarians Suzanne Eward, M.A. (Salisbury Cathedral) and Dr. Christine Ferdinand (Magdalen College, Oxford), to the conservator Monique Cohen (Bibliothèque Nationale de France) and to the director of Staatsbibliothek Bamberg Prof. Dr. Bernhard Schemmel. Marek Thue Kretschmer Nidrosiae die translationis beati Olavi MMV 1 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 SUBJECT, AIM AND METHOD.......................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 THE HISTORIA ROMANA................................................................................................................................10 1.3 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON EUTROPIUS, PAUL THE DEACON AND LANDOLFUS SAGAX .................................. 11 1.4 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON B.......................................................................................................................... 13 2. CLASSIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF MANUSCRIPTS CONTAINING ABBREVIATIONS AND/OR PARAPHRASES OF THE HISTORIA ROMANA (HR)............................... 19 2.1 MANUSCRIPTS CONTAINING ABBREVIATIONS AND/OR PARAPHRASES OF EUTROPIUS, PAUL THE DEACON AND LANDOLFUS SAGAX .................................................................................................................................. 20 2.2 CLASSIFICATION OF MANUSCRIPTS CONTAINING ABBREVIATIONS OF EUTROPIUS....................................... 26 2.3 CLASSIFICATION OF MANUSCRIPTS CONTAINING ABBREVIATIONS AND/OR PARAPHRASES OF PAUL THE DEACON............................................................................................................................................................ 26 2.4 CLASSIFICATION OF MANUSCRIPTS CONTAINING ABBREVIATIONS AND/OR PARAPHRASES OF LANDOLFUS SAGAX .............................................................................................................................................................. 28 2.5 COMMENT ON THE CLASSES OF EUTROPIUS................................................................................................. 29 2.5.1 Class E-1............................................................................................................................................ 29 2.5.2 Class E-2............................................................................................................................................ 31 2.6 COMMENT ON THE CLASSES OF PAUL THE DEACON .................................................................................... 33 2.6.1 Class P-1 ............................................................................................................................................ 33 2.6.2 Class P-2 ............................................................................................................................................ 36 2.6.3 Class P-3 ............................................................................................................................................ 36 2.6.4 Class P-5 ............................................................................................................................................ 37 2.6.5 Class P-6 ............................................................................................................................................ 39 2.7 COMMENT ON THE CLASSES OF LANDOLFUS SAGAX ................................................................................... 39 2.7.1 Class L-1............................................................................................................................................ 39 2.7.2 Class L-2............................................................................................................................................ 40 2.7.3 Class L-3............................................................................................................................................ 41 2.7.4 Class L-4............................................................................................................................................ 41 2.8 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................... 43 3. CLASS P-4: RELATIONSHIP AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT.............................................................. 44 3.1 THE MANUSCRIPTS ...................................................................................................................................... 44 3.2 THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE MANUSCRIPTS................................................................................................... 47 3.3 THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT.......................................................................................................................... 55 4. EDITION OF THE HISTORIA ROMANA (=HR) CONTAINED IN MS BAMBERG, STAATSBIBLIOTHEK, HIST. 3 (=B) ............................................................................................................. 62 4.1 EDITORIAL PRINCIPLES................................................................................................................................62 4.2 ORTHOGRAPHY AND PUNCTUATION ............................................................................................................ 62 4.3 APPARATUS................................................................................................................................................. 62 4.4 TEXT ........................................................................................................................................................... 64 5. THE LANGUAGE OF TEXTS CONTAINED IN B ................................................................................. 166 5.1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ........................................................................................................................ 166 5.2 SYNTAX AND VOCABULARY OF PAUL THE DEACON: EPISTOLA AD ATHELBERGAM (1R)............................. 173 5.3 SYNTAX AND VOCABULARY OF EPITOME DE CAESARIBUS (1R-17V) .......................................................... 175 5.3.1 Subordinate clause with ut, quia or quod instead of accusative + infinitive (AcI) or nominative + infinitive (NcI).......................................................................................................................................... 176 5.3.2 Substitution of oratio obliqua with direct speech ......................................................................... 176 5.3.3 Finite use of the present participle ...............................................................................................