* Please give the Docx reader a test drive @ 2014-08-11 21:55 Jesse Rosenthal [not found] ` <871tsmwv2h.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Jesse Rosenthal @ 2014-08-11 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw Dear All, The MS Word docx reader in the new pandoc is working pretty well these days. Before the next release, though, I'd love it if we could run as many real-world Word docs through it as possible, to catch any odd behavior. As many different academic/professional fields as possible would be ideal, since I know everyone uses word a bit differently. Everyone testing it so far has brought some oversight to my attention, so I'd love to get more eyes on it. If you do try it out, and you find something that doesn't behave correctly, please open an issue on my pandoc fork (<https://github.com/jkr/pandoc.git>), and send me the document over email if it's possible to share it. If you can't share it, it would be great if you could try to reproduce the issue in a different document. Some notes: - All text, and all text formatting (unless it comes from an unusual style) should be preserved. If it isn't, it's a bug. - There's not much we can do, with a few exceptions, with ad-hoc visual stylization: making columns by pressing space a lot, pressing return to make the end-of-the-line a bit prettier. The rule of thumb is: can the property in question stand a change in margins and font? If so, we should probably be able to interpret it. If not, we probably can't. - Headers, titles and the like will be interpreted correctly if they have the correct style. The reader can't guess at a header just because some text is in bold, or uses another font. (Though at some point in the future, I might introduce a filter with some heuristics for guessing.) - Block quotes should be picked up by either styling with Quote or BlockQuote, or by block indentation. If someone uses another style to produce a blockquote, please let me know, so I can add it to the list. - Track-changes can be used with the "--track-changes=accept|reject|all". accept will take the insertions, reject will stick with the deletions, and all will put in everything, marked up with spans. - Equations should appear as LaTeX. Anyway, please do give it a try and let me know, through the channels above, what weirdnesses you encounter. To get the development pandoc, it's probably best to use a cabal sandbox (available, I believe in cabal >= 1.18). git clone https://github.com/jgm/pandoc.git cd pandoc cabal update cabal sandbox --init cabal install --only-dependencies cabal install The binary will then be located in pandoc/.cabal-sandbox/bin. Thanks, Jesse ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <871tsmwv2h.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive [not found] ` <871tsmwv2h.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> @ 2014-08-13 0:28 ` Andrew Dunning [not found] ` <72E1556B-D515-4519-9E9A-20F7EBDBD240-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 2015-02-13 12:36 ` Oliver 2015-02-17 18:16 ` russurquhart1 2 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Andrew Dunning @ 2014-08-13 0:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1589 bytes --] Dear Dr Rosenthal, I finally broke down and installed the development version; this is truly impressive. I’ve tested it on something I wrote in my pre-Pandoc days; there are a few odd things happening, in part because the file has already gone through some strange conversions: - 18/19, 1123, 1130: Not quite sure what '<span class="anchor"></span>’ is for. - 83 to 120: Not sure if there’s a better way of dealing with this list. It’s pretty non-standard (should be a definition list), so probably not. - 188/89 (line in the output file): 'De uiris illustribus' italicized in Word, but reduced to the colon; something similar happens at lines 934 and 944. It looks as if italics are not applied if an ‘Italic’ character style is applied? - 191–205, 568–70, 576–79: A block quotation is not picked up, but that’s my fault for using a non-standard style name. I only bring it up because it seems odd that the one block quotation that was picked up was the one that didn’t use my ‘Block Quotation’ style. - 211, 706: Unexpected phrases italicized. - 300: Adjacent styles for small capitals should perhaps be combined? - 349, 376, 557, 558 (etc.): Space after a word set in small caps: this is surely a problem in the original file and fixing it may have issues, but it would be really neat if this could be cleaned up. - The reader sometimes applies italics to headings (704, 880, etc.) and sometimes doesn’t (it’s part of the paragraph style), but I imagine this is an inconsistency in the source document. Many thanks for your work on this. All best, Andrew Dunning [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 3373 bytes --] On 11 Aug 2014, at 5:55 p.m., Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > The MS Word docx reader in the new pandoc is working pretty well these > days. Before the next release, though, I'd love it if we could run as > many real-world Word docs through it as possible, to catch any odd > behavior. As many different academic/professional fields as possible > would be ideal, since I know everyone uses word a bit > differently. Everyone testing it so far has brought some oversight to my > attention, so I'd love to get more eyes on it. > > If you do try it out, and you find something that doesn't behave > correctly, please open an issue on my pandoc fork > (<https://github.com/jkr/pandoc.git>), and send me the document over > email if it's possible to share it. If you can't share it, it would be > great if you could try to reproduce the issue in a different document. > > Some notes: > > - All text, and all text formatting (unless it comes from an unusual > style) should be preserved. If it isn't, it's a bug. > > - There's not much we can do, with a few exceptions, with ad-hoc > visual stylization: making columns by pressing space a lot, pressing > return to make the end-of-the-line a bit prettier. The rule of thumb > is: can the property in question stand a change in margins and font? > If so, we should probably be able to interpret it. If not, we > probably can't. > > - Headers, titles and the like will be interpreted correctly if they > have the correct style. The reader can't guess at a header just > because some text is in bold, or uses another font. (Though at some > point in the future, I might introduce a filter with some heuristics > for guessing.) > > - Block quotes should be picked up by either styling with Quote or > BlockQuote, or by block indentation. If someone uses another style > to produce a blockquote, please let me know, so I can add it to the > list. > > - Track-changes can be used with the > "--track-changes=accept|reject|all". accept will take the > insertions, reject will stick with the deletions, and all will put > in everything, marked up with spans. > > - Equations should appear as LaTeX. > > Anyway, please do give it a try and let me know, through the channels > above, what weirdnesses you encounter. > > To get the development pandoc, it's probably best to use a cabal sandbox > (available, I believe in cabal >= 1.18). > > git clone https://github.com/jgm/pandoc.git > cd pandoc > cabal update > cabal sandbox --init > cabal install --only-dependencies > cabal install > > The binary will then be located in pandoc/.cabal-sandbox/bin. > > Thanks, > Jesse > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/871tsmwv2h.fsf%40jhu.edu. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. [-- Attachment #3: Collecta Introduction Combined.docx --] [-- Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document, Size: 152828 bytes --] [-- Attachment #4: collecta-intro.md --] [-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 97889 bytes --] Samuel Presbiter Notes from the School of William de Montibus — Collecta ex diuersis auditis in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte *edited from* Oxford, Bodleian Library, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860 *by* Andrew Dunning # \ <span class="anchor"></span>Contents Preface iii Acknowledgements iv Abbreviations v Introduction vii The School of William de Montibus vii Samuel Presbiter and his Collecta xii Who wrote Samuel’s books? xviii The Manuscript: Oxford, Bodleian Library <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860 (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*sc*</span> 2723) xx Sources xxiv Metre and Rhyme xxviii Editorial Practice xxix Collecta ex diuersis auditis in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte Bibliography XX\ # Preface [To be supplied by David Townsend] \ # Acknowledgements This project began at a suggestion from Joseph Goering, whose tactful advice always turns out to be even more astute than one first realizes. He generously read the text at several stages of its development and made many astute suggestions. Alexander Andrée and Greti Dinkova-Bruun also examined the text at an early stage and in particular offered helpful comments on improving the layout. A grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada allowed me to view the manuscript in person in Oxford. While there, James Willoughby was of great help in acting as a sounding board in my attempts to wrest as much information as possible from the manuscript; James Carley and Ann Hutchison most generously provided their home as a base for studies. Thanks are also due to the Keeper of Special Collections for permission to consult the manuscript at the Bodleian Library and to publish the text. The comments of David Townsend and the members of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">tmlt</span> editorial board improved the book immensely. My wife Susan Bilynskyj Dunning saw to it that I remembered to eat in the midst of checking references, and in her fathomless patience spent many hours discussing medieval history, typography, and points of Latin grammar. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">a.n.j.d.</span> \ # Abbreviations <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cccm</span><span style="font-variant:small-caps;"> </span>Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis. Turnhout: Brepols, 1966–. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ccsl</span><span style="font-variant:small-caps;"> </span>Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina. Turnhout: Brepols, 1953–. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">csel</span><span style="font-variant:small-caps;"> </span>Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vienna: 1866–. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*dmlbs*</span><span style="font-variant:small-caps;">* *</span>R.E. Latham, D.R. Howlett, and R.K. Ashdowne, eds. *Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources*. Oxford: Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, 1975–2013. *Glosa* Margaret T. Gibson and Karlfried Froehlich, eds. *Biblia latina cum glossa ordinaria: Facsimile reprint of the editio princeps, Adolph Rusch of Strassburg 1480/81*. 4 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 1992.\ *Glosa interl.* refers to the interlinear gloss; *Glosa marg.* to the marginal. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pl</span><span style="font-variant:small-caps;"> </span>Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina. 221 in 222 vols. Paris: Migne, 1841–65. Rolls Series Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores. 99 in 253 vols. London: 1858–1911. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*sc*</span><span style="font-variant:small-caps;"> </span>R.W. Hunt, Falconer Madan, and P.D. Record. *A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford*. 7 in 8 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895–1953. Vulg. Robert Weber and Roger Gryson, eds. *Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem*. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007. ## Works of Samuel Presbiter *Ad habendam memoriam Collecta ad habendam memoriam quorumdam utilium in sacra scriptura* *Ex diuersis auditis* *Collecta ex diuersis auditis in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte* *Ex speculo cum uersibus Collecta ex speculo beati Gregorii cum uersibus* *Ex speculo sine uersibus Collecta ex speculo beati Gregorii sine uersibus* *Super psalmos Collecta ex auditis super psalmos in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte* ## <span class="anchor"></span>Other Abbreviations add. addition/added corr. corrector/correction/corrected eras. erased/erasure fol./fols. folio/folios marg. margin <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> manuscript om. omitted *subst.* substituted ## Editorial signs ⟨ ⟩ signal letters supplied by the editor \*\*\* indicate unreadable letters \ # Introduction ‘Hec sunt collecta ex diuersis auditis in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte’ – ‘These are collected from various things heard in the school of master William de Montibus’. The heading to this work (called *Ex diuersis auditis* hereafter) explains much about the work’s origin, uniquely preserved in Oxford, Bodleian Library, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>Bodley 860, though its compiler, Samuel Presbiter, remains obscure. It consists of a collection of lessons on a wide range of concerns regarding the practical application of theology, interspersed with a series of playful verses to aid memorization of the material. ## The School of William de Montibus William de Montibus was born in Lincoln, and, like most learned Englishmen of his day, studied theology in Paris, where Peter Comestor was among his teachers, and he met both Alexander Neckam and Gerald of Wales. In the 1180s, Bishop Hugh invited him to teach at the cathedral school of Lincoln, where he was chancellor from at least 1194 until his death in April 1213 in Scotland, while England was under interdict.[^1] He was a beloved teacher, and Lincoln’s luminary until the rise of Robert Grosseteste. The sixteenth-century antiquary John Leland provides a succinct and colourful description of his work in De uiris illustribus*:* Gulielmus Montanus, theologicae cognitionis professor, inter canonicos supremae Lindiorum urbis celeberrimus uixit, et cancellarii in eadem ecclesia dignitate functus est. Erat saeculum in quod incidit spinosis sophistarum argutiis miserrime obnoxium; inter quas tamen ille ita eluctatus est difficultates ut, si non eloquentiam profluentem illam, at neruos interim et pondus rerum sibi conquisiuerit, ac aliis tanquam per manus studiose tradiderit. William de Montibus, a most famous teacher of theology, lived among the canons of the chief city of Lincolnshire and was chancellor in the same church. The age in which he lived was sorely plagued by the thorny subtleties of the sophists, but he surmounted these difficulties so well that he gained for himself, if not truly flowing eloquence, then at least the stylistic vigour and substance of things, which he studiously passed straight on to others.[^2] Keeping in mind Leland’s tendency to lionize every English author that preceded him, his core point has not been overturned by modern scholarship: William was one of the pre-eminent teachers of his day, and though his writings are not high literature, they are evidence of a creative and highly effective pedagogical programme. *The present work* is one of the important witnesses to what William passed on to his students, and of the cathedral schools in general; although there are a number of student reportationes from Paris and the later universities, those from cathedral schools are more scarce, and those representing something other than a straightforward lecture are even more unusual. *Ex diuersis auditis* is structured under a series of headings, to each of which is attached a poem of one to eleven lines, with a commentary to explain its contents. Six of these poems (2, 4, 5, 6, 18, 34) also appear in William de Montibus’s similar work *Versarius,* where they have a much sparser commentary. In both cases, it appears that the poems are intended to be memorized in order to learn something about the subject at hand. Many specifically direct this: ‘memorato’ (000, 000, 000); ‘commemorato’ (000); ‘memora’ (000, 000, 000), ‘poteris reminisci’ (000). Verse was widely used as a didactic tool in this period, as other scholars have already discussed in detail.[^3] Goering has proposed that the context of *Ex diuersis auditis* was that of the scholastic collationes or *repetitiones.*[^4] These occurred at the end of the school day, and seem to have involved a discussion of what had previously been stated by the master, rather like a modern student’s seminar.[^5] The present text has nothing of debate, though it does include many passages repeated from William de Montibus’s lectures on the Psalms preserved by Samuel in *Collecta ex auditis super psalmos* (hereafter *Super psalmos*)*,* but in a different context, recapitulating the material on its own terms rather than as a means of understanding another text. The style of the commentary is adapted, however, and in a format reminiscent in some ways of Alexander Neckam’s *Sacerdos ad altare,* the author provides his own, slightly dense text as a starting point for an accessible discussion.[^6] Unlike what one might expect from a notebook, this is a very polished text, and it may have either been copied from written notes belonging to William or received his approval, as other teachers are known to have done on occasion for student reporters. Much as the title might lead us to think of a cleaned-up version of a student’s lecture notes, the text itself indicates a written rather than an oral transmission. For the six poems that also appear in William’s *Versarius*, its text is just as good as what comes through the rest of the manuscript tradition. The style of the verses is quite consistent throughout, with the exception of no. 54, which is probably by Samuel; a mixture of rhyming schemes are used here that is consistent with Samuel’s other work (as noted in Metre and Rhyme, below), and the style of the commentary in this section is quite different from the rest of the work, written as outlines organized using schematic *distinctiones* rather than formal prose.[^7] Conversely, it seems safe to assume that the verses found here that do not appear in *Versarius* are not from Samuel, for elsewhere he frequently writes longer poems than those found in *Ex diuersis auditis* and breaks them up into smaller sections with paraph marks (¶), a device never used in the present work. The style of the commentary found in *Versarius* is rather different from what is found here; it is thus more difficult to attribute this directly to William. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that it simply represents Samuel’s memories about what was said about the material, for there are a number of passages that appear in the same words in *Super psalmos*, just different enough in many cases to preclude direct copying, while there are other passages originating with Peter Lombard, Gratian, and the *Glosa* that seem to have been copied from these works directly. This could either indicate that Samuel carefully assembled the material from various sources, or that he had a source from William from which he could copy directly; perhaps it was a mixture of both. The order of the various subjects discussed in the collection is not entirely random, though it does not have the sort of organizational scheme that William de Montibus might have applied to it if he had published it himself. His Versarius is organized under an alphabetical scheme, while his Numerale follows a numerical scheme. *Ex diuersis auditis* bears more resemblance to the organization of a work that has a number of parallels, Peter the Chanter’s *Verbum adbreuiatum*, which follows some logic in the progression of its subjects but has no strict organizational scheme. The verses recorded in *Ex diuersis auditis* are not as utilitarian as some other literature from the period designed to aid in learning, some of which simply cannot be understood without additional texts. Some versifications of the Gospel, for instance, simply crammed together relevant words and phrases into a hexameter line, and are entirely incomprehensible without knowledge of the biblical text.[^8] Even here, however, the verses cannot completely stand on their own due to the use of mnemonics that are explained in the commentary.[^9] Every modern student is familiar with the sequence ‘who, what, when, where, why, how’: its medieval form – ‘quid, cui, cur, quomodo, quando, quantum’ (12. 000, literally ‘what, to whom, why, how, when, how much’) – is here used for remembering the purpose of works of charity.[^10] More common is the use of acronyms. These are typically imperatives with a very direct action implied (e.g. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">scope doces</span>, ‘investigate, teach’, 26.000), or sometimes nonsense-words with a catchy sound (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cim cisset ner</span><span style="font-variant:small-caps;">v</span><span style="font-variant:small-caps;">o</span>, 16.000) to memorize aspects of the subject at hand. These are sometimes very well integrated with the subject matter: under <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">scinde</span> (‘tear’ or ‘divide’, 17.000), for instance, is placed the various causes for which a marriage can be dissolved.[^11] It is also common throughout the text to use numbers as a mnemonic device, the central feature of William de Montibus’s Numerale.[^12] Along with its context in medieval memorization, *Ex diuersis auditis* should also be considered as a text written in a crucial period for the development of pastoralia, as Leonard Boyle called the literature of pastoral care, identifying the inception of an effort to create accessible manuals of pastoral care between the Third and Fourth Lateran Councils of 1179 and 1215.[^13] There is a great deal of concern evident in *Ex diuersis auditis* for the priest’s role as a member of the community, and especially as a preacher (the topic that prompts the longest discussion in the entire work, 38); it is always very concerned with good character and judgement (see especially 2, 4, 23, 24). This reflects the practical concerns of William de Montibus in transforming theories into principles, shared by contemporaries such as Peter the Chanter and Alan of Lille.[^14] Another of William’s students, Richard of Wetheringsett, wrote a *summa* known from its incipit as *Qui bene presunt,* assembling material similiar in subject to as what is found in the present text in a more programmatic manner.[^15] While there are several such *summae* in existence, *Ex diuersis auditis* provides a perspective of how it was taught in the classroom. *Given the clearness of thought and creativity evident in Ex diuersis auditis*, one might wonder why Lincoln did not become one of the leading schools in the thirteenth century, rather than Oxford or Cambridge. In 1206, after the newly elected bishop of Lincoln Hugh of Wells aligned himself with Archbishop Stephen Langton, King John seized the temporalities of Lincoln Cathedral. It is unclear what effect this might have had on the schools at Lincoln, but it may have taken William de Montibus away from his teaching duties, for when he died in April 1213, he was still chancellor of the cathedral, but was living in Scotland – perhaps in exile, like the Archbishop. Oxford and Cambridge quickly eclipsed Lincoln, and serious theological teaching seems to have ceased there after approximately 1225, arguably because the school failed to seize upon the opportunity to become a centre for the study of canon law.[^16] Nonetheless, *Ex diuersis auditis* remains as an important record of theological teaching before the dominance of the universities. ## Samuel Presbiter and His Collecta All that is known of Samuel Presbiter is his link to William de Montibus; the only certain references to him are the identical closing lines of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>Bodley 860 (fol. 206v) and Cambridge, Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> 115 (fol. 77r), written in both cases in the same hand as the rest of the text: ‘Expliciunt collecta Samuelis presbiteri’. (Although some reference works refer to him as ‘Presbyter’, this spelling does not appear in medieval sources.[^17]) Both manuscripts once belonged to the Benedictine abbey of Bury St Edmunds, and are mostly written in the same hand, which dates from the late twelfth or early thirteenth century. A second hand also makes corrections in both manuscripts. Given their consistency and contemporaneity with the known dates of William de Montibus, it is very likely that at least one of these hands belongs to Samuel. The provenance of the manuscripts and a reference to the ‘lingua Britanie’ forms the best evidence that Samuel studied at William’s school in Lincoln rather than Paris.[^18] There are few known references in documentary sources that might be identified with the author. A Samuel Presbiter appears in Huntingdon in 1198,[^19] and there is a ‘Samuel de Ounebi’ (Owmby by Spital, in Lincoln) who witnesses a charter alongside William de Montibus between 1196 and 1203.[^20] A ‘Samuel presbiter de Pilton’ in Somerset, mentioned in several pipe rolls between 1164/65 and 1183/84,[^21] is too early to be identified with a student of William de Montibus, though it does at least caution one against identifying any cleric named Samuel as the author. Josiah Cox Russell admirably dug up several references to one or more figures named Master Samuel with whom he suggested the author might be identified.[^22] It is openly stated, however, that the last part of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>Bodley 860 was composed after Samuel left the school; ‘Hec composita sunt post dicessum a scola’ (fol. 108r) is his only autobiographical statement. Given this, one would assume that he would have called himself Master Samuel if he had earned the title, especially as he is careful to use it with reference to William de Montibus. This does not necessarily preclude the possibility that he may have attended another school after William’s, but it is unlikely that he would have had the means to produce such books as those now surviving while still a student. On the basis of the name Presbiter, which is unusual but found in the city of Lincoln, Goering has suggested that the author may have been a Jewish convert, or from a family of converts (the name having been used as a translation of ‘Cohen’).[^23] It is perhaps relevant that *Ex diuersis auditis* contains a passage that could be read as a non-hostile attempt to understand the Jewish position regarding the Crucifixion at 30.000; in *Collecta ad habendam memoriam* (hereafter *Ad habendam memoriam*)*,* the Jews are also the primary example in a discussion ‘Ad sciendum qualiter oporteat bonos se gerere erga malos sibi inimicos’ (fols. 173r–177r, with ‘Obiectio contra quedam predicta’ at fols. 177r–v, and ‘Solutio’ at 178r–181v). This approach contrasts, notably, with that of Peter Lombard and Peter the Chanter.[^24] In the end, however, all that can be said for certain about Samuel is that he attended the cathedral school at Lincoln under William. Despite Samuel’s obscurity, there are two surviving manuscripts that contain a series of his writings, which have never been fully catalogued:[^25] Oxford, Bodleian Library, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860 - A verse paraphrase of Psalm 1 (fols. 1r–8v), written with informal glosses[^26] - *title* Beatus uir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum. - *incipit* Qui non consiliis abiit que suasit iniquus - *explicit* Pena feretur ei delectari cupienti. - *Collecta ex auditis super psalmos in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte* (fols. 9r–93v), a prose commentary on the Psalms (incomplete)[^27] - *tit.* Hec collecta sunt ex auditis super psalmos in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte. - *inc. Non sic impii.* Dicendo bis ‘non sic’, duo superius attributa beato - *exp.* Ecclesia semper est (*catchword:* inter malleum et incudem) - *Collecta ex diuersis auditis in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte* (fols. 94r–107v), the present work, a collection of verses with a formal prose commentary[^28] - *tit.* Hec collecta sunt ex diuersis auditis in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte. - *prose inc.* Duo necessaria sunt ad hoc ut aliquid uideatur usu corporeo - *verse inc.* Nulli cernentur oculis que subicientur - *prose exp.* Fidelitate, Accelerat⟨i⟩o⟨n⟩e, Caritate - *verse exp.* Redditioque notent circum ueho demo cauefac - *Collecta ad habendam memoriam quorumdam utilium in sacra scriptura* (fols. 108r–206v), a collection of verses with informal glosses in the same style as the paraphrase of Psalm 1 - *tit.* Hec collecta sunt ad habendam memoriam quorumdam utilium in sacra scriptura. Et eorum quedam sumpta sunt a uerbis expositionum ewangeliorum, et quedam ab ipsis uerbis ewangelicis, et quedam ab aliis uerbis necessariis ad salutem anime. Et hec composita sunt post dicessum a scola. - *inc.* Leprosum tetigit Cristus sic omnia munda - *exp. * Migrent a mundo translati fine beato. - *exp. tit.* Expliciunt collecta Samuelis Presbiteri. Cambridge, Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> 115 - *Collecta ex speculo beati Gregorii cum uersibus* (fols. 1r–41v), verses with a formal prose commentary in the style of *Collecta ex diuersis auditis* - *tit.* Hec collecta sunt ex speculo beati Gregorii. - *prose inc.* De inani gloria in obedientia - *verse inc.* Ex septem uiciis capitalibus exoriuntur - *prose exp.* nec ortum iam nec occasum solis agnosco. - *verse exp.* Occasum solis in se prospicit ortum. - *exp. tit.* Expliciunt collecta ex speculo beati Gregorii cum uersibus. - *De oratione dominica* (fols. 41v–44v), verses with a formal prose commentary. Followed in the manuscript by a repetition of the opening prose of *Collecta ex speculo beati Gregorii cum uersibus* on 44v–45r, later cancelled. - *tit.* De oratione dominica, silicet Pater noster. - *prose inc.* Septem sunt uicia capitalia siue principalia - *verse inc.* Quam Cristus docuit oratio quinque petitiis - *prose exp.* sanitates beatitudines felicitatis gaudium - *verse exp.* Et bene sonato felicia gaudia confert. - four short compositions (fols. 45r–46r) consisting of verses with a formal prose commentary in the style of *Collecta ex diuersis auditis* - 1\. Est proprium domini mentem bene pacificare (*8 lines*) - 2\. Est uagus hic cuius animus non recta cupiscit (*2 lines*) - 3\. Flos bonus est actus hoc est spes fulgor odorque (*12 lines*) - 4\. Multiplex hominis pacientia dicitur esse, *tit.* ‘De patientia’ (*2 lines*) - *Collecta ex speculo beati Gregorii sine uersibus* (fols. 47r–77r), in prose - *tit.* Hec sunt collecta ex speculo beati Gregorii sine uersibus. - *inc.* Deum timere est nulla que facienda sunt bona preterire - *exp.* nec terrore pene sed amore iusticie. - *exp. tit.* Expliciunt collecta Samuelis Presbiteri The glosses to both the paraphrase of Psalm 1 and *Ad habendam memoriam* contain references to the *Speculum beati Gregorii* (i.e. Adalbert of Metz’s epitome of Gregory the Great’s *Moralia in Iob*),[^29] which might indicate that they were written after the *Collecta* made from this book. In both manuscripts, the only attribution to Samuel comes at the very end, but it can presumably be taken to refer to the entire contents, given their consistent style. The Oxford manuscript, however, is a composite of originally separate books, meaning that the explicit of this manuscript can only strictly be taken to refer to *Ex diuersis auditis* and *Ad habendam memoriam.* There is no real question, nonetheless, of the association of either the paraphrase on Psalm 1 or the commentary on the Psalms with Samuel. The versification of Psalm 1 is in precisely the same style as the biblical paraphrases found in *Ad habendam memoriam,* both in terms its of language and page layout, and its first page is headed with a set of verses also found at the beginning of Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>115, as described below. It is unclear whether the paraphrase has any relationship to the school of William de Montibus, though Greti Dinkova-Bruun has noted its concern with the Hebraica ueritas of the Psalms, characteristic of William, and moreover found in *Ex diuersis auditis* (at 39.000 and 36.000).[^30] As for the Psalms commentary, one will immediately note that the title follows the same format as that of the other Collecta listed above, and several passages from *Super psalmos* are repeated almost verbatim in *Ex diuersis auditis* It seems safe, therefore, to attribute the entire book to Samuel. It is tempting to dismiss Samuel as a mere excerpter,[^31] or as Thomas Tanner thought, little more than a devotee of William de Montibus.[^32] Modern readers are often troubled in understanding the motive behind the authorship of books that may contain little strictly original material, as in the classic case of Peter Lombard’s *Sentences.*[^33] Samuel himself provides some idea of his motives behind his work, despite the lack of a prologue. The first folios of both <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>Bodley 860 and Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>115 contain the following text, written in red ink: > Mens conseru per opus ne stulta uag\ > etur etur.\ > Sic studiis d ut que prosint oper Additionally, both manuscripts have the following at the bottom of the last page of text:[^34] Hec qui coll eterna pace qui\ egit escat.\ Hec quicumque l oret simul ut requi Both sets of lines are mildly clever, forming hexameter lines that can be read in four different ways. Thus, the second of these can be read in any of the following ways: May he who collected these things sleep in eternal peace.\ May whoever reads these things pray likewise that he may rest.\ May whoever reads these things sleep in eternal peace.\ May he who collected these things pray likewise that he may rest. This improvement of the mind, bringing about the mutual benediction of the author and reader, is probably how Samuel would explain his reason for compiling his works. Mary Carruthers has expressed much the same thing in modern terms: ‘composition in the Middle Ages is not particularly an act of writing. It is rumination, cogitation, dictation, a listening and a dialogue, a gathering (*collectio*) of voices from their several places in memory.’[^35] Further, ‘learning is itself a process of composition, collation, and recollection. But the result of bringing together the variously stored bits in memory is new knowledge. It is one’s own composition and opinion, *familiaris intentio.* This is the point at which collation becomes authorship.’[^36] ## Who Wrote Samuel’s Books? It seems very likely that Samuel was involved in the production of the books containing his writings, with a correcting hand found in both manuscripts that reflects an intimate knowledge of the texts and willingness to make changes that would point to someone more than a zealous pedant in possession of the exemplar. The same text hand is found throughout both <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>Bodley 860 (with the exception of parts of the Psalms commentary) and Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>115; both books are also constructed mostly of quaternions, of roughly the same size, and share a similar scheme of decoration. This is a neat English protogothic script of the late twelfth or early thirteenth century, using both one- and two-compartment *a,* written above the top line. There is a smaller variant used for prose passages and glosses (typically about 4 mm tall), while a slightly taller and finer version of the hand is used for verses (with letters about 6 mm tall). The only serious difficulty presented by the script (as in many other of its variants) is the distinction between ‘c’ and ‘t’, which are constructed using the same number of strokes in a very similar manner. The vertical stroke of both can often protrude slightly above the top of the letter. The cross-stroke of ‘t’, however, always begins very deliberately to the left of the vertical stroke, whereas the top stroke of ‘c’ will occasionally begin very slightly to the left, but only by a small amount, and is more curved. A different hand, unprofessional but still tidy, with very thin strokes and generally in a lighter shade of ink, has corrected both manuscripts (though only sporadically in the Psalms commentary). Where it has been identified, it is labelled ‘another hand’ in the critical apparatus to *Ex diuersis auditis.* Some parts of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860 also show other contemporary hands that make additional corrections and add the occasional gloss in the paraphrase on Psalm 1 and *Ad habendam memoriam*. In *Super psalmos,* some notes are also found in the margins in a fourteenth-century hand (sometimes noting terms, for an index to the Psalms commentary found in the back of the book). Even if one thinks it possible that unique copies of the works that survive in the same hand and with the same knowledgeable corrector could have been made after the author’s death, the differences in the arrangement of the commentary in the texts establish the author’s involvement. The commentaries in *Ex diuersis auditis* and the works in the Pembroke College manuscript were copied along with the rest of the text, and the page is ruled in such a way to accommodate prose as well as verse. On the other hand, the Psalm 1 paraphrase and *Ad habendam memoriam,* the first and last works found in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>Bodley 860, were originally arranged on the page to include verse only without a commentary. The comments on these works are added in a rather haphazard way wherever they can be made to fit on the page, but they are written in a neat fashion, and are formal explanations rather than off-hand remarks from a reader, forming ‘a complex apparatus of literary citations from a variety of authoritative sources’, as Dinkova-Bruun observed of the glosses to Psalm 1.[^37] While the original hand of the text adds the largest batch, many have been added over an extended period of time, to judge from the many shades of ink and variations in the hand, among which the corrector can sometimes be found. If this material had been available when the book was first written, and especially if the book had been copied from a complete exemplar, one would assume that the scribe would have arranged them in the same formal fashion as used in *Ex diuersis auditis.* Given that the entirety of both manuscripts containing Samuel’s works is in the same hand, one might ask whether the author himself might have written them; this seems unlikely, on balance. Samuel’s relationship with his scribe certainly must have been long-term. It seems odd in some ways that Samuel would have composed additional comments after having someone else copy out his verses, and then have that same person return to fit them in wherever possible; but perhaps he had not planned the commentaries at all, and only decided to add them after seeing the success of *Ex diuersis auditis* and the works in the Pembroke manuscript. Certainly, they were treated as works in progress, as there are also verses added to *Ad habendam memoriam* that seem to have been improvements rather than omissions through scribal error. The clearest evidence against the idea that the scribe might be identified with the author is the reality that, at least in the case of *Ex diuersis auditis,* the scribe was not always able to read the exemplar, but was obviously concerned to write precisely what he saw. In particular, the scribe often writes ‘c’ or ‘t’ for ‘m’ and ‘n’ (giving us, for example, ‘acumaretur’ for ‘animaretur’, ‘iutibra’ for ‘umbra’, ‘consideratis’ for ‘considerans’, ‘sitium’ for ‘sinum’) and for ‘r’ (‘tectum’ for ‘rectum’, ‘iurate’ for ‘iurare’, ‘considerate’ for ‘considerare’, ‘carhalogus’ for ‘cathalogus’, ‘fiete’ for ‘fieri’; in reverse, ‘ira’ for ‘ita’). There are also some lacunae that seem to indicate that the scribe could not read the exemplar, later filled in by the corrector. This corrector is intimately familiar with the text, and seems to have gone through it methodically after it was copied; he leaves a very faint note in the lower corner of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>Bodley 860, fol. 103r that reads ‘usque hunc in parte’. Some of the corrections could have been made by anyone with an exemplar, but some of them seem to be original, in particular the five points in the text where the corrector adds a variant word for understanding the verse (e.g. *uel legit* for *posuit* at 000). This device is also found in Samuel’s other poetic works, written by both the corrector and the text hand, though only by the corrector in *Ex diuersis auditis,* which lends weight to the idea that they are an addition of Samuel rather than something from the original material of William de Montibus. In most cases, they note a word that should be understood in place of the one glossed, but they are usually unmetrical alternatives, thus why the original verse is not changed (which the corrector does not hesitate to do). There are also cases in which it seems likely that the corrector is revising the work rather than making a correction from an exemplar, as when ‘multi’ is changed to ‘Pharisei’ to match the Vulgate at 000, or when a second ‘que’ is removed at 000. The corrector also carefully revises the punctuation, adding particularly *puncti eleuati* () to the verses. These corrections, made so much in keeping in Samuel’s style and with very high accuracy, while in appearance not belonging to a professional scribe, are very likely made directly by the author. ## *The Manuscript* *The unique manuscript of Ex diuersis auditis*, *Oxford, Bodleian Library,* <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860 (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*sc*</span> 2723)*, is* *written entirely in Latin on parchment, arranged in the standard hair-flesh-flesh-hair order*, with pages measuring 270 × 200 mm (variable by several millimetres). It belonged to the Benedictine abbey of Bury St Edmunds at least by the fourteenth century, as evidenced by a note on the flyleaf in the hand of librarian Henry Kirkestede (c. 1314–c. 1378): Liber monachorum sancti Edmundi in quo continentur\ Postille seu collecta super psalterium\ in scolis magistri G. de montibus\ Collecta samuelis presbiteri in scolis predictis. A pressmark of B. 233 is also from the abbey library, categorizing it with other commentaries on the Psalms; B. 231, B. 232, and B. 240, still surviving in modern libraries, share this element.[^38] Following the dissolution, the book eventually made its way with many other Bury manuscripts to Pembroke College;[^39] it is listed there in the survey published by James in 1600.[^40] The *Summary Catalogue* conjectures that it was acquired by the Bodleian Library in 1603–4. No evidence of ownership from Cambridge is to be found in the manuscript itself; the marks ‘Ms Mod 124’ and ‘Th S 5.8’ found on the flyleaf and fol. 1r are from Oxford. The manuscript is composite, consisting of three separate ‘booklets’, collated i, 1^8^ || 2^8^–6^8^, 7^(8–3,\\ 6/7/8canc)^, 8^8^–12^8^ || 13^8^–24^8^, 25^(8+2,\\ 4/5add)^, 26^8^, i. (The original fol. 207 was cancelled, and the existing leaf attached to the stub.) It is not altogether clear when the book was assembled in this fashion. The separate foliation of the Psalms commentary, quires 2–12, in a fourteenth-century hand, with leaves added for a corresponding index at the back of the book, probably suggests that the book was rebound around this time, but it is not clear whether this also involved a rearrangement of its contents. Kirkestede’s notice happens to repeat the information from the first and last folios of each of the largest booklets, and might thus suggest itself as being done from the perspective of having seen these as separate books; but if this were his methodology, it would be curious that he should omit any mention of the paraphrase of Psalm 1, and it should also be noted that he appears to see the unifying factor in the book as William de Montibus rather than Samuel Presbiter; it does not seem that he even thought of the Psalms commentary as having been recorded by Samuel. The placement of the Psalm 1 paraphrase, on the other hand, is too felicitous in following the pattern of Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>115 for it to have been an accidental placement by someone unaware of Samuel’s authorship. This suggests that someone aware of Samuel’s authorship assembled the book before the time of Kirkestede, possibly even the author himself. This first quire (fols. 1–8) is in codicological terms independent, but it does not appear to have circulated on its own, since its final folio is much cleaner than the first. A space of half a page at the end of fol. 8v confirms that no following text has been lost, while the lack of an *explicit* further suggests that it was not intended for the end of a book. It fits with *Super psalmos* very conveniently, as it supplements that commentary’s lack of the first verses of Psalm 1. The page has a writing space of 109 × 220; the lines are 11 mm apart, containing letters 6 mm high. It is ruled mostly in pencil, with some of the marginal comments ruled in crayon. The page is only ruled formally for the verses; rules are added for the glosses on an ad hoc basis. An opening capital letter is decorated in red and blue with the arabesque decorations common in this period (primarily red). The verses of the psalm that are paraphrased are written in red above the applicable lines of poetry. Paraph marks indicating new sections of the poem alternate between red and blue. Some pen trials, probably from the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century, are added on 1v and 3r. The addition of comments is quite heavy up to 5r, but stops thereafter. One might imagine that it could have been copied specifically to preface the following Psalms commentary in order to compensate for its deficiencies after Samuel had given up on completing that work. Quires 2 through 12 (fols. 9–93), *Super psalmos,* use a two-column layout, and were evidently intended to form a separate volume. It is a much less complex affair than the rest of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>Bodley 860 in terms of its layout and contents, and is ruled in pencil. The decoration is of the same style as the rest of the manuscript, but this could have been added at a later stage. Each psalm begins with a two-line versal alternating between red and blue, and using the second colour for basic arabesque decoration (the first being slightly more ornate). Lemmata for the Psalms are often underlined in red, but this has not been done throughout the book. The first page of *Super psalmos* (fol. 9r) includes these lines at the top of the page, written in red ink: Hec qui coll studiose pleraque l\ egi egi.\ Quedam que l credite digna l One might speculate that this is an earlier version of the ‘Mens conseruetur’ and ‘Hec qui collegit’ verses already described; it is interesting that it uses the first rather than the third person. At the very top of 9r, partially trimmed, is also ‘Sancti spiritus assit nobis gratia’, the first line of the sequence hymn for Pentecost, a frequent invocation placed at the beginnings of commentaries in this period.[^41] *Distinctiones* on fols. 9r–14v summarizing sections of the commentary are written in a lighter shade of ink in a slightly different hand, though this could be the same person as the body text using a more informal style. On 10r–12r are drawn small figures with red pointed caps to draw attention to certain passages. The page has a writing space of around 188 × 141, divided into two columns, with lines ruled 4 mm apart, and the writing about the same height. Catchwords are found in the bottom-right corner of the last folio of most quires. Many quires are also numbered with at the bottom of the page in the centre, beginning at ·i· (sometimes at the beginning as well as the end), showing that the manuscript was expected to have begun with the commentary. No quires are missing within, as the last is numbered ·xi· and all catchwords match with the following page, but material is missing after this, as the commentary breaks off discussing Psalm 82 with ‘Ecclesia semper est’ (and a catchphrase ‘inter malleum et incudem’). It may be the case, however, that the folios after 93v were never finished, and therefore appropriated for other purposes, for the text begins with Psalm 1:4, and there are many more defects. On fol. 53r, half of the first column is filled (discussing Psalm 33), and the rest of the leaf is left blank; the three leaves following have been cut out of the book. The commentary picks up again on fol. 54r on Psalm 55 in a more condensed hand, though this could conceivably be the same scribe trying to save space; the writing again becomes smaller at fol. 86r (the lines now ruled 3 mm apart and with slightly wider columns). Blanks are also left at fols. 57ra–b (a little more than half a column) and 89va (a fifth of a column). Despite its unfinished state, at least one later reader found the book interesting, as foliation in ink (probably from the fourteenth century) is added to facilitate an index that is added in the back of the book from fols. 207–8, beginning with 1 on 9r, with index terms noted in the margins. Quires 13–26 (fols. 94–206), containing *Ex diuersis auditis* and *Ad habendam memoriam,* appear to have been written in a context different from that of *Super psalmos.* These quires do not use catchwords, but each is numbered at the end with a large Roman numeral at the base of the page in the centre (though these numbers have sometimes been trimmed from the bottom), and with letters from ‘a’ to ‘f’ (with an additional mark unique to each quire) pencilled in the bottom inner corner of each page in the first half of most quires to indicate the correct sequence of the leaves. This is the same pattern as that found in Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>115. Also unlike the Psalms commentary, the quires are ruled in crayon. On the whole, the quality of the production is significantly finer. For this entire section, titles are placed in the left margin, written in red, and each poem begins with an arabesque capital, varying in primary colour between red and blue (with the other colour used as an accent). The first letter of each line of verse is placed in the left margin. The rubrication was done before the book was bound, as the titles are very close to the leftmost part of the page (compare a title that appears to have been forgotten initially on fol. 98r, no. 18 in the text). An ‘x’ has been marked in pencil in the margin where each title was to be placed, in addition to a ‘per’/‘par’ sign (ꝑ) for rubricated paraph marks and small letters to show what should be filled in by the rubricator. All this is in common to the two works contained in these quires, but they differ slightly in other respects. *Ex diuersis auditis* (94r–107v) is arranged in a manner that formally integrates the prose commentary and verses, providing a writing space of 98 × 201 with 4.5 mm line spacing. Lines of verse are allowed two ruled lines, though the letters are only about 6 mm high. The extra space above the lines is used for the wavy lines that frequently link the verses to the commentary. Fols. 94–95 and 100–101 were initially pricked for a different layout that would have provided for a larger outer margin; this might be the result of an experiment with the notion of writing the verses together and placing the commentary in the outer margin. There is a break of about a third of the page at the end of no. 53 on fol. 107r: it is tempting to take this as evidence that no. 54 was considered as separate from the rest of the material, but this is probably done only because the material on fol. 107v needs to be placed entirely on the same page to be best understood. Despite the different style of this last section, the lack of a new title and a page layout that follows the basic norms of the preceding material indicates that it was probably intended as part of *Ex diuersis auditis.* As has already been noted, *Ad habendam memoriam* uses the same layout as the paraphrase of Psalm 1, using a writing space of 82.5 × 207, with ruling only for verses (10 mm) and glosses added as necessary on 4.5 mm ruling. The number of glosses added to the verses ranges widely (from none to enough to fill nearly the entire page). ## *Sources* The work uses biblical texts as the basis for most of its arguments, making frequent use of allegorical interpretations. Regardless of the source, the majority of quotations are introduced by a generic phrase such as ‘dicitur’ or ‘unde illud’. Biblical sources are sometimes identified more specifically with the names of Jesus, Christ, or Paul, or noting that a quotation occurs ‘in psalmo’ or ‘in ewangelio’. As one frequently finds in medieval books, quotations can vary wildly at times from any identifiable variant of the Vulgate,[^42] indicating that they are either quoted from memory or via another source. To take an extreme case, at 27.000: ‘Alibi dicitur: “*Separabit oues ab edis et oues statuet ad dextram et edos ad sinistram”,* scilicet bonos ducet ad eternam beatitudinem, malos mittet ad eternam dampnationem.’ This paraphrases Matthew 25:32–33: ‘Et congregabuntur ante eum omnes gentes, et separabit eos ab inuicem, sicut pastor segregat oues ab hedis, et statuet oues quidem a dextris suis, hedos autem a sinistris.’ Although ‘dicitur’ is normally used for a direct quotation, the form of the words is rather different. Biblical sources can also be treated in a rather fluid way to suit their didactic purpose. Quotations are frequently combined from non-contiguous passages without any indication that this has been done (e.g. the use of Matthew in 24.000 or the quotations of Paul in 1.000). An *enim* or *autem* early in a quotation is early removed, and first-person verbs are frequently changed between singular and plural (especially in quoting the letters of Paul). Further indicating the degree to which passages were memorized, the text follows the typical medieval practice of abbreviating quotations, especially biblical ones. For instance, a quotation of Psalm 6:7 in 10.000 reads: ‘Vnde dicitur in psalmo penitentiali: *Lauabo per sing. noc. lec. me. la. m. stra. me. ri.’* The reader is apparently expected to remember the full text, ‘Lauabo per singulas noctes lectum meum: lacrimis meis stratum meum rigabo.’ This practice is not used with all quotations: it is most common by far with the Psalms, as one would expect, but also occurs with many passages from the Gospels, predominantly Matthew, suggesting that these were the texts with which the author was most familiar. Some of these are expected, such as the Decalogue or the popular psalm Super flumina Babylonis, and many would be familiar from the liturgy; other passages seem a little more obscure.[^43] Similarly, in Samuel’s paraphrase of Psalm 1, it is evident that the Psalms are so familiar that they are expected to be recognized without a specific citation.[^44] There are also quotations from classical authors (Juvenal, Ovid, Horace), never by name, but sometimes identified as being from a ‘poeta’. There are some references to the liturgy (‘in oratione’), while medieval authors are cited anonymously and once by name (Pope Alexander). Patristic sources, on the other hand, are always advertised with a name (Jerome, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Chrysostom, Isidore, Origen), though these can almost always be shown to be quoted via a more recent source. Many of these point to Peter Lombard’s Sentences, the classic medieval textbook on theology from the twelfth century, whose explication of theological topics is sometimes followed quite closely. There is also substantial use of Gratian’s Decretum *(originally called* Concordia discordantium canonum*),* the counterpart to the *Sentences* for canon law.[^45] There is also substantive use, especially for etymologies, of both the marginal and interlinear *Glosa* (as it is called at 54.000) to the Bible, later known as the *Glossa ordinaria,* though its precise influence is difficult to pin down due to the lack of an edition representative of a text William or Samuel might have used.[^46] Patristic works are almost always quoted via one of these medieval sources. *Ex diuersis auditis* has many parallels with Peter the Chanter’s Verbum adbreuiatum *and* *Summa de sacramentis et animae consiliis*. They are of a sort, however, that most likely reflect a shared milieu rather than direct use of either of these works. These works appear to have been compiled after William de Montibus had gone to Lincoln, the earliest version of the *Verbum adbreuiatum* being dated to 1187–91, the *Summa de sacramentis* to 1191–92, and the later versions of the *Verbum adbreuiatum* to after Peter’s death in 1197.[^47] A copy of the *Verbum adbreuiatum* was probably available in Lincoln in William’s time, as the *Gemma ecclesiastica* of Gerald of Wales, thought to have been written while studying in Lincoln around 1196–99,[^48] is heavily dependent on this book.[^49] Gerald, however, definitely uses earliest version, now published as the *textus prior,*[^50] whereas *Ex diuersis auditis* has parallels in all three versions, with the least correspondence to the *textus prior* (all are cited in the commentary to the text for comparison). While Gerald’s use of Peter the Chanter is very direct, *Ex diuersis auditis* never uses verbatim quotations; it often uses the same quotations from earlier sources as Peter, but in a very different way. The resemblances sometimes consist of nothing more than a similarity of unusual vocabulary or a kindred strain of ideas; quite unlike, for instance, the use of Peter Lombard’s *Sentences*, which is followed much more closely when a parallel can be identified. It is just as interesting to note what is not used from Peter the Chanter: in some cases, a section in *Ex diuersis auditis* with a title identical to a chapter of the *Verbum adbreuiatum* approaches its subject rather differently. Despite the number of similarities, therefore, one cannot identify direct use of Peter the Chanter’s works with any certainty. This situation is similar to what Goering found for William de Montibus’s *Tropi* and *De septem sacramentis*. There was obviously some form of influence between William and Peter, but it is unclear whether this connection was any stronger than presence at the same schools in Paris. Hugh MacKinnon once suggested that Peter the Chanter was a teacher of William de Montibus, but Goering found the evidence for this to be unsustainable, while allowing for the possibility that they might have known one another.[^51] Indeed, it is not even clear whether Gerald of Wales, though he followed Peter’s work so closely, was a direct student of Peter the Chanter.[^52] It is interesting that there are passages in *Ex diuersis auditis* similar to later works written by Peter’s students, notably those by Thomas of Chobham,[^53] which appear without any apparent parallel in earlier works. One must be cautious about drawing conclusions from this, however, as there are certain passages in *Ex diuersis auditis* that have more in common with authors as late as Bonaventure or Thomas Aquinas than any published work contemporary with William de Montibus, indicating the continuity of the oral scholastic tradition, and reflecting the number of sources from this period still left unpublished. ## *Metre and Rhyme* The verse is written in a combination of simple Leonines and *elegi Leonini*, which consist respectively of classical hexameters and elegiac couplets, with the addition of a rhyme between the caesura (always occurring in the third foot) and the end of the line.[^54] It admirably achieves its stated purpose of functioning as a memory aid, with an uncanny ability to stick in one’s head, and it is written in a fluid manner with relatively few syntactical contortions. Written in Leonines are 2, 3, 4, 7, 16, 17–19, 21–24, 26–34, and 36–53. Written in *elegi Leonini* are 1, 5, 6, 8–15, 16a, 20, 25, and 35. The rhyme is omitted in the first two verses of 2, though the second of these is adopted from the penultimate verse of 36, which does rhyme. The last section, 54 (which, as has been noted, is of a rather different character from the rest in a number of respects) is in hexameter, but uses an inconsistent scheme for its rhymes. It uses Leonines for the first and fourth verses; verses two and three are *collaterales* (with the last syllable before the caesura rhyming with the following caesura, and likewise for the end of each line); verse five is unrhymed. This mixture is also found in Samuel’s versification of Psalm 1,[^55] and it seems likely that Samuel himself wrote it rather than William de Montibus. Most of the rhymes are monosyllabic, as the following (the first two verses of 5, forming an elegiac couplet): īntēr | sūr cā|*dēs* • ăbră|hām pŏsŭ|īt sĭbĭ | sē*des*\ crīmĕn ĭn | hīs dē|l*ēt* • uīr bŏnŭ|s ātquĕ că|u*et* There are also many disyllabic rhymes (the first two verses of 18, in hexameter): sī mălĕ | iū*rān|dī* • fōr|mās sīt | mēns mĕmŏ|*rāndi*\ pēr prī|mās f*ā|tō* • pĕr ĭ|dōnĕă | cōmmĕmŏ|r*āto* Some of the rhymes are a little tenuous: sēx īs|tīs uēr|bī*s* • nŏtĕ|t ēssĕ tĕ|nēndă să|cērdo*s* For the most part, however, the scheme is very consistently applied. In a few cases, one must supply the correct sound when individual letters are included, as in this verse (the second of 29): quōd dē|sīgnāt | c[*ē*] • gĕnĕr|ālĕ uĕl | ēst spĕcĭ|āl*e* Verses such as this can be easily understood as long as one keeps in mind the differences between classical and medieval pronunciation (e.g. ‘caus*e*’ rhymes with ‘tacer*e*’ at 41.000).[^56] ## *Editorial Practice* *Ex diuersis auditis* is here edited in its entirety for the first time. Joseph Goering previously printed the first section in addition to the headings and first lines for the rest; I have used his numbering of the sections, which is strictly editorial (with the section separated from 16 labelled 16a).[^57] Sections that overlap with *Versarius* have been checked against Cambridge, Corpus Christi College <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> 186, yielding one correction (at 4.000); other variants from this manuscript are not reported. The division of the verses does not diverge from the manuscript. The layout of the text as presented here is intended to reflect its structure as transparently as possible while adapting to the conventions of print: the reader will wish to note that each section of prose applies to the verses below, and not above. While this is not what modern readers would expect, it presents the least number of compromises of several different options explored while producing this edition. There are two levels of commentary within the work. Passages of the commentary that are preceded by a letter apply only to the word or phrase in the verse to which the letter is keyed; this is represented in the manuscript with a line drawn between the appropriate place in the verse and the prose. Passages written before a verse without any such indicator apply to the entirety of the verses following, generally up to the next unkeyed passage of commentary. Thus, in the first section, the first prose passage applies to the following two verses, despite the intervening line glossing *interior* in the second verse. A third level of commentary of a sort has been added later (as discussed above) in a style similar to other works by Samuel Presbiter, offering alternate words that could be understood in place of what is in the verse, preceded by ‘uel’; these are positioned above the word to which they apply, as in the manuscript, and are printed in italics to distinguish them as additions. The mnemonic acronyms used at several points in the commentary have been modified slightly: in the manuscript, the letters are only written out in the verse, with wider spacing to fit in the words above, and each letter of the acronym is joined by an individual line to its corresponding word. I have instead written the mnemonic in small capitals in the verse, and repeated the letters beside the words to which they apply. The commentary for the last section in the work (54, which as discussed above probably reflects more of a contribution from Samuel Presbiter than William de Montibus) is exceptionally arranged using *distinctiones,* and translates rather poorly into print (though this was done successfully in an earlier Toronto Medieval Latin Texts volume, Robert Grosseteste’s *Templum Dei*). The text has been presented here in the form of a modern outline, in which each item higher in the hierarchy applies to the subordinate items; this does not necessitate rearrangement of the text. The critical apparatus notes all editorial modifications as well as corrections made to the manuscript itself; the corrector discussed above is always referred to as ‘another hand’. The spelling of the manuscript has been reproduced, even in its inconsistencies. The scribe uses ‘ci’ and ‘ti’ with particular irregularity; one finds, for instance, ‘iuditio’ at 12.000 but ‘iudicium’ at 12.000, or ‘ociose’ inconsistently corrected to ‘otiose’ in 18.000. The word ‘Cristus’ is never written in full in the manuscript; it is spelled in this manner on the basis of ‘Cristiani’ (000), ‘Crisostomus’ (000), and ‘crisma’ (000).[^58] Following the scribe’s practice, I do not distinguish between u and v, using V in the majuscule; minuscule v occurs only decoratively in the manuscript, in both an initial and medial position, and without any consistency. Punctuation is inspired by what is found in the manuscript, but it has been freely adapted to make better sense of the text. The commentary seeks to show sources and parallels for the text and assist students of medieval Latin. Words with particularly troublesome spellings are glossed in their classical form, and definitions have been provided for unusual vocabulary, generally considered to be words that do not appear in Lewis and Short’s *Latin Dictionary* (still, at this writing, the Latin-English dictionary most commonly used among medievalists) and whose meaning might not be quickly guessed. Readers will receive better guidance, however, from the *Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources,* to which references have been provided when it includes quotations that are helpful in illustrating the contemporary usage of a word or phrase. *\ * # <span class="anchor"></span>Bibliography ## Texts by medieval authors ------------------------------ [insert bibliography] ## <span class="anchor"></span>Secondary Sources Alexander Neckam. *Sacerdos ad altare*. Edited by Christopher J. McDonough. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cccm</span> 227. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010. Andrée, Alexander. ‘Laon Revisited: Master Anselm and the Creation of a Theological School in the Twelfth Century (A Review Essay)’. *Journal of Medieval Latin* 22 (2012): 257–81. doi:10.1484/J.JML.1.103258. Baldwin, John W. *Masters, Princes, and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and His Circle*. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970. Boutemy, A. ‘Giraud de Barri et Pierre le Chantre: Une source de la *Gemma ecclesiastica*’. *Revue du moyen âge latin* 2 (1946): 45–62. Boyle, Leonard E. ‘The Inter-Conciliar Period 1179–1215 and the Beginnings of Pastoral Manuals’. In *Miscellanea Rolando Bandinelli, Papa Alessandro* <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*iii*</span>, edited by Filippo Liotta, 45–56. Siena: Accademia senese degli intronati, 1986. Carruthers, Mary J. *The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture*. 2nd ed. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Chenu, Marie-Dominique. ‘Notes de lexicographie philosophique médiévale’. *Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques* 16, no. 4 (1927): 435–46. Clanchy, Michael, and Lesley Smith. ‘Abelard’s Description of the School of Laon: What Might It Tell Us About Early Scholastic Teaching?’ *Nottingham Medieval Studies* 54 (2010): 1–34. doi:10.1484/J.NMS.1.100766. Colish, Marcia L. Review of *Petri Cantoris Parisiensis Verbum adbreviatum: Textus conflatus*, by Monique Boutry. *Speculum* 81, no. 3 (July 2006): 905–6. doi:10.1017/S0038713400016407. Curry Woods, Marjorie, and Rita Copeland. ‘Classroom and Confession’. In *The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature*, edited by David Wallace, 376–406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Diem, Albrecht. ‘Virtues and Vices in Early Texts on Pastoral Care’. *Franciscan Studies* 62 (2004): 193–223. doi:10.1353/frc.2004.0008. Dinkova-Bruun, Greti. ‘Notes on Poetic Composition in the Theological Schools Ca. 1200 and the Latin Poetic Anthology from Ms. Harley 956: A Critical Edition’. *Sacris Erudiri* 43 (2004): 299–391. doi:10.1484/J.SE.2.300126. ———. ‘Remembering the Gospels in the Later Middle Ages: The Anonymous *Capitula Euangeliorum Versifice Scripta*’. *Sacris Erudiri* 48 (2009): 235–73. doi:10.1484/J.SE.1.100559. ———. ‘Samuel Presbyter and the Glosses to His Versification of Psalm 1: An Anti-Church Invective?’ In *Florilegium mediaevale: Études offertes à Jacqueline Hamesse à l’occasion de son éméritat*, edited by José Francisco Meirinhos and Olga Weijers, 155–74. Textes et études du moyen âge 50. Louvain-la-Neuve: Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’Études Médiévales, 2009. ———. ‘The Verse Bible as Aide-Mémoire’. In *The Making of Memory in the Middle Ages*, edited by Lucie Doležalová, 115–31. Later Medieval Europe 4. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Foster, C.W., and Kathleen Major, eds. *The Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln*. 10 vols. Publications of the Lincoln Record Society 27–29, 32, 34, 41, 42, 46, 51, 62, 67, 68. Hereford: Lincoln Record Society, 1931\_68. Gerald of Wales. *Giraldi Cambrensis opera,* vol. 5, *Topographia Hibernica et Expugnatio Hibernica*. Edited by James F. Dimock. Rolls Series 21. London: Longman, 1867. Gibson, Margaret T. ‘The Twelfth-Century Glossed Bible’. In *Papers Presented to the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford, 1987*, edited by E.A. Livingstone, 5:232–44. Studia Patristica 23. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. Goering, Joseph. ‘Leonard E. Boyle and the Invention of *Pastoralia*’. In *A Companion to Pastoral Care in the Late Middle Ages (1200–1500)*, edited by Ronald J. Stansbury, 7–20. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 22. Leiden: Brill, 2010. ———. ‘The Summa *Qui bene presunt* and Its Author’. In *Literature and Religion in the Later Middle Ages: Philological Studies in Honor of Siegfried Wenzel*, edited by Richard G. Newhauser and John A. Alford, 143–59. Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 118. Binghampton, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ny</span>: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1995. ———. *William de Montibus (c. 1140–1213): The Schools and the Literature of Pastoral Care*. Studies and Texts 108. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1992. Golding, Brian. ‘Gerald of Wales, the *Gemma Ecclesiastica* and Pastoral Care’. In *Text and Traditions of Medieval Pastoral Care: Essays in Honour of Bella Millett*, edited by Cate Gunn and Catherine Innes-Parker, 47–61. Woodbridge, Suffolk: York Medieval Press, 2009. Hamesse, Jacqueline. ‘*Collatio* et *reportatio*: deux vocables spécifiques de la vie intellectuelle au moyen âge’. In *Actes du colloque ‘Terminologie de la vie intellectuelle au moyen âge’ Leyde-La Haye 20–21 septembre 1985*, edited by Olga Weijers, 78–87. Études sur le vocabulaire intellectuel du Moyen Age 1. Turnhout: Brepols, 1988. Hunt, R.W. ‘English Learning in the Late Twelfth Century’. *Transactions of the Royal Historical Society*, 4th ser., 19 (1936): 19–42. doi:10.2307/3678685. James, M.R. ‘Bury St. Edmunds Manuscripts’. *English Historical Review* 41, no. 162 (April 1926): 251–60. doi:10.1093/ehr/XLI.CLXII.251. James, M.R., and Ellis H. Minns. *A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Pembroke College, Cambridge*. Cambridge: University Press, 1905. James, Thomas. *Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrigiensis*. 2 vols. London: George Bishop and John Norton, 1600. Ker, N.R. *Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books*. 2nd ed. Guides and Handbooks 3. London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1964. ———. *Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books. Supplement to the Second Edition*. Edited by Andrew G. Watson. Guides and Handbooks 15. London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1987. Kiessling, Nicolas K. *The Library of Anthony Wood*. Oxford Bibliographical Society Publications, 3rd ser., 5. Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical Society, 2002. Leland, John. *De uiris illustribus/On Famous Men*. Edited and translated by James P. Carley. British Writers of the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period 1. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2010. Lesieur, Thierry. ‘La *collatio*: Un modèle chrétien de résolution de la question?’ In *La méthode critique au Moyen Âge*, edited by Mireille Chazan and Gilbert Dahan, 65–81. Bibliothèque d’histoire culturelle du Moyen Âge 3. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006. MacKinnon, Hugh. ‘William de Montibus: A Medieval Teacher’. In *Essays in Medieval History Presented to Bertie Wilkinson*, edited by T.A. Sandquist and M.R. Powicke, 32–45. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1968. Meyer, Christoph H.F. *Die Distinktionstechnik in der Kanonistik des 12. Jahrhunderts: Ein Beitrag zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte des Hochmittelalters*. Mediaevalia Lovaniensia, 1st ser., studia 29. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000. Parkes, M.B. ‘*Folia librorum quaerere:* Medieval Experience of the Problems of Hypertext and the Index’. In *Fabula in tabula: Una storia degli indici dal manoscritto al testo elettronico*, edited by Claudio Leonardi, 23–41. Quaderni di cultura mediolatina 13. Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto medioevo, 1995. Peter the Chanter. *Verbum adbreuiatum: Textus prior*. Edited by Monique Boutry. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cccm</span> 196a. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012. Pipe Roll Society, ed. *Feet of Fines of the Tenth Year of the Reign of King Richard* <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*i*</span>*,* <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*ad*</span> *1198 to* <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*ad*</span> *1199*. Publications of the Pipe Roll Society 24. London: Love and Wyman, 1900. ———. , ed. *The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Reign of King Henry the Second*. Publications of the Pipe Roll Society 1, 2, 4–9, 11–13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25–34, 36–38. London: Wyman, 1884\_1925. Pontifical Abbey of St Jerome-in-the-City, ed. *Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem*. 18 vols. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1926\_95. Riché, Pierre, and Jacques Verger. *Des nains sur des épaules de géants: Maîtres et élèves au moyen âge*. Paris: Tallandier, 2006. Rigg, A.G. *A History of Anglo-Latin Literature, 1066–1422*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ———. ‘Anglo-Latin’. In *Singing Early Music: The Pronunciation of European Languages in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance*, edited by Timothy J. McGee, 46–61. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996. Robert Grosseteste. *Templum Dei*. Edited by Joseph Goering and F.A.C. Mantello. Toronto Medieval Latin Texts 14. Toronto: Published for the Centre for Medieval Studies by the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1984. Robertson, D.W., Jr. ‘A Note on the Classical Origin of “Circumstances” in the Medieval Confessional’. *Studies in Philology* 43, no. 1 (January 1946): 6–14. Rosemann, Philipp W. *The Story of a Great Medieval Book: Peter Lombard’s Sentences*. Peterborough, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">on</span>: Broadview Press, 2007. Russell, Josiah Cox. *Dictionary of Writers of Thirteenth-Century England*. Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, Special Supplement 3. London: Longmans, 1936. Sanford, E.M. ‘Giraldus Cambrensis’ Debt to Petrus Cantor’. *Medievalia et Humanistica* 3 (1945): 16–32. Sharpe, Richard. *A Handlist of the Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland before 1540*. Publications of the Journal of Medieval Latin 1. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997. ———. ‘Reconstructing the Medieval Library of Bury St Edmunds Abbey: The Lost Catalogue of Henry of Kirkstead’. In *Bury St Edmunds: Medieval Art, Architecture, Archaeology, and Economy*, edited by Antonia Gransden, 204–18. The British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions 20. Leeds: British Archaeological Association, 1998. Sharpe, Richard, James P. Carley, Rodney M. Thomson, and Andrew G. Watson, eds. *English Benedictine Libraries: The Shorter Catalogues*. Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues 4. London: British Library in association with the British Academy, 1996. Smalley, Beryl, and George Lacombe. ‘The Lombard’s Commentary on Isaias and Other Fragments’. *The New Scholasticism* 5, no. 2 (April 1931): 123–62. doi:10.5840/newscholas19315217. Stegmüller, Friedrich. *Repertorium biblicum medii aevi*. 11 vols. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1950\_80. Stotz, Peter. *Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters*. 5 vols. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 2.5. Munich: Beck, 1996\_2004. Tanner, Thomas. *Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica; siue, De scriptoribus, qui in Anglia, Scotia, et Hibernia ad saeculi* <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*xvii*</span> *initium floruerunt, commentarius*. Edited by David Wilkins. London: G. Bowyer, 1748. Thorndike, Lynn. ‘Unde versus’. *Traditio* 11 (1955): 163–93. Valgimogli, Lorenzo. *Lo «Speculum Gregorii» di Adalberto di Metz*. Archivum Gregorianum 8. Florence: SISMEL, 2006. Van Liere, Frans. ‘The Study of Canon Law and the Eclipse of the Lincoln Schools, 1175–1225’. *History of Universities* 18 (2003): 1–13. Watt, Jack. ‘Parisian Theologians and the Jews: Peter Lombard and Peter Cantor’. In *The Medieval Church: Universities, Heresy, and the Religious Life. Essays in Honour of Gordon Leff*, edited by Peter Biller and Barrie Dobson, 55–76. Studies in Church History, Subsidia 11. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Published for the Ecclesiastical History Society by the Boydell Press, 1999. Weber, Robert, and Roger Gryson, eds. *Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem*. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007. Winroth, Anders. *The Making of Gratian’s* Decretum. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Wordsworth, John, and Henry Julian White, eds. *Nouum Testamentum Domini nostri Iesu Christi Latine, secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi*. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889\_1954. Yeatman, John Pym. *The Feudal History of the County of Derby: Chiefly during the 11th, 12th, and 13th Centuries*. 9 vols. London: Bemrose, 1886\_1907. [^1]: The life and works of William de Montibus are described and analysed in Joseph Goering, *William de Montibus (c. 1140–1213): The Schools and the Literature of Pastoral Care*, Studies and Texts 108 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1992). He was also called ‘de Monte’, as is most likely the case in this manuscript (the abbreviation is slightly ambiguous); see ibid., 5–7. [^2]: John Leland, *De uiris illustribus/On Famous Men*, ed. and trans. James P. Carley, British Writers of the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period 1 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2010), chap. 255. [^3]: The classic article on the subject is Lynn Thorndike, ‘Unde versus’, *Traditio* 11 (1955): 163–93; for more recent work, see for example Greti Dinkova-Bruun, ‘The Verse Bible as Aide-Mémoire’, in *The Making of Memory in the Middle Ages*, ed. Lucie Doležalová, Later Medieval Europe 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 115–31; and Greti Dinkova-Bruun, ‘Notes on Poetic Composition in the Theological Schools Ca. 1200 and the Latin Poetic Anthology from Ms. Harley 956: A Critical Edition’, *Sacris Erudiri* 43 (2004): 299–391, doi:10.1484/J.SE.2.300126. [Andrée WANTS DIFF REFS, MAYBE CARRUTHERS] [^4]: Goering, *William de Montibus*, 504–6 (with additional references). [^5]: Alexander Andrée, ‘Laon Revisited: Master Anselm and the Creation of a Theological School in the Twelfth Century (A Review Essay)’, *Journal of Medieval Latin* 22 (2012): 263, doi:10.1484/J.JML.1.103258; Michael Clanchy and Lesley Smith, ‘Abelard’s Description of the School of Laon: What Might It Tell Us About Early Scholastic Teaching?’, *Nottingham Medieval Studies* 54 (2010): 19, doi:10.1484/J.NMS.1.100766; Pierre Riché and Jacques Verger, *Des nains sur des épaules de géants: Maîtres et élèves au moyen âge* (Paris: Tallandier, 2006), 119. *Collatio* is also refer to an intellectual process: cf. Thierry Lesieur, ‘La *collatio*: Un modèle chrétien de résolution de la question?’, in *La méthode critique au Moyen Âge*, ed. Mireille Chazan and Gilbert Dahan, Bibliothèque d’histoire culturelle du Moyen Âge 3 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 65–81; Jacqueline Hamesse, ‘*Collatio* et *reportatio*: deux vocables spécifiques de la vie intellectuelle au moyen âge’, in *Actes du colloque ‘Terminologie de la vie intellectuelle au moyen âge’ Leyde-La Haye 20–21 septembre 1985*, ed. Olga Weijers, Études sur le vocabulaire intellectuel du Moyen Age 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1988), 78–87; Marie-Dominique Chenu, ‘Notes de lexicographie philosophique médiévale’, *Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques* 16, no. 4 (1927): 435–46. [^6]: Alexander Neckam, *Sacerdos ad altare*, ed. Christopher J. McDonough, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cccm</span> 227 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010). [^7]: Organization by *distinctio* (i.e. a division, often applied to sections of books) is a vast topic; in this period, it was often manifested in the form of diagrams connecting various terms with lines to show their relationship. An excellent example of this method of layout translated into print is Robert Grosseteste, *Templum Dei*, ed. Joseph Goering and F.A.C. Mantello, Toronto Medieval Latin Texts 14 (Toronto: Published for the Centre for Medieval Studies by the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1984). On the concept in the twelfth century*,* see Christoph H.F. Meyer, *Die Distinktionstechnik in der Kanonistik des 12. Jahrhunderts: Ein Beitrag zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte des Hochmittelalters*, Mediaevalia Lovaniensia, 1st ser., studia 29 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000). [^8]: Greti Dinkova-Bruun, ‘Remembering the Gospels in the Later Middle Ages: The Anonymous *Capitula Euangeliorum Versifice Scripta*’, *Sacris Erudiri* 48 (2009): 235–73, doi:10.1484/J.SE.1.100559. [^9]: This is found in nos. 12, 16, 17, 18, 26, 29, 32, 34, 35, 43, 46, 49, 50, and 54. [^10]: Goering, *William de Montibus*, 395 identifies some sixty uses of these words (in what he calls ‘circumstantial’ poems) in William de Montibus’s *Versarius*. For additional context and use in *Peniteas cito*, see Marjorie Curry Woods and Rita Copeland, ‘Classroom and Confession’, in *The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature*, ed. David Wallace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 393–94; for other variants, see D.W. Robertson Jr, ‘A Note on the Classical Origin of “Circumstances” in the Medieval Confessional’, *Studies in Philology* 43, no. 1 (January 1946): 6–14. [^11]: This was perhaps one of the most popular of William’s mnemonics; see the references in the commentary to this passage. [^12]: See further references in M.B. Parkes, ‘*Folia librorum quaerere:* Medieval Experience of the Problems of Hypertext and the Index’, in *Fabula in tabula: Una storia degli indici dal manoscritto al testo elettronico*, ed. Claudio Leonardi, Quaderni di cultura mediolatina 13 (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto medioevo, 1995), 34 nn. 41–44. [^13]: Joseph Goering, ‘Leonard E. Boyle and the Invention of *Pastoralia*’, in *A Companion to Pastoral Care in the Late Middle Ages (1200–1500)*, ed. Ronald J. Stansbury, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 22 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 7–20; Leonard E. Boyle, ‘The Inter-Conciliar Period 1179–1215 and the Beginnings of Pastoral Manuals’, in *Miscellanea Rolando Bandinelli, Papa Alessandro* <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*iii*</span>, ed. Filippo Liotta (Siena: Accademia senese degli intronati, 1986), 45–56. [^14]: Albrecht Diem, ‘Virtues and Vices in Early Texts on Pastoral Care’, *Franciscan Studies* 62 (2004): 193–223, doi:10.1353/frc.2004.0008. [^15]: Joseph Goering, ‘The Summa *Qui bene presunt* and Its Author’, in *Literature and Religion in the Later Middle Ages: Philological Studies in Honor of Siegfried Wenzel*, ed. Richard G. Newhauser and John A. Alford, Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 118 (Binghampton, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ny</span>: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1995), 143–59. [^16]: Frans van Liere, ‘The Study of Canon Law and the Eclipse of the Lincoln Schools, 1175–1225’, *History of Universities* 18 (2003): 1–13. [^17]: Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>115, on the verso of the flyleaf, also records ‘Collecta Samuelis presbiteri ex speculo beati Gregorii pape’, in a slightly later hand, while a sixteenth-century hand records ‘Presbyteri’ on fol. 1r. [^18]: In *Collecta ex auditis super psalmos*: <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>Bodley 860, fol. 59rb. Noted by Goering, *William de Montibus*, 499 n. 9. [^19]: Pipe Roll Society, ed., *Feet of Fines of the Tenth Year of the Reign of King Richard* <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*i*</span>*,* <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*ad*</span> *1198 to* <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*ad*</span> *1199*, Publications of the Pipe Roll Society 24 (London: Love and Wyman, 1900), 71 (no. 104). [^20]: C.W. Foster and Kathleen Major, eds., *The Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln*, Publications of the Lincoln Record Society 27–29, 32, 34, 41, 42, 46, 51, 62, 67, 68 (Hereford: Lincoln Record Society, 1931\_68), 4:32–33 (nos. 1140/41). It is probably the same person who owned the ‘mansionem Samuelis’ mentioned in Owmby by Spital around 1200–1210, 4:31 (no. 1138). There is also a Samuel de Cartis (also recorded as Scartres and Chartres) found in Owmby in 1230–40 (4:33–35, nos. 1142/43). [^21]: Pipe Roll Society, ed., *The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Reign of King Henry the Second*, Publications of the Pipe Roll Society 1, 2, 4–9, 11–13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25–34, 36–38 (London: Wyman, 1884\_1925), 8:64 (11 Hen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 7, m. 1d), 9:97 (12 Hen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 7, m. 2d), 11:150 (13 Hen <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 10, m. 2), 12:141 (14 Hen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 10, m. 1), 13:2 (15 Hen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 1, m. 1), 15:113 (16 Hen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 8, m. 1d), 16:13 (16 Hen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 1, m. 1d), 18:73 (18 Hen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 6, m. 1). There is also a ‘Samuel presbiter de Blidsworth’ found in Nottingham in 1186/1187 according to John Pym Yeatman, *The Feudal History of the County of Derby: Chiefly during the 11th, 12th, and 13th Centuries* (London: Bemrose, 1886\_1907), 1:133; this is likely a misprint for ‘Simon presbiter de Blidewurda’, as found in Pipe Roll Society, *The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Reign of King Henry the Second*, 37:168 (33 Hen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 12, m. 1d), but I have not had an opportunity to check the original. [^22]: Josiah Cox Russell, *Dictionary of Writers of Thirteenth-Century England*, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, Special Supplement 3 (London: Longmans, 1936), 147 nn. 2–4 (s.v. ‘Samuel Presbyter’). [^23]: Goering, *William de Montibus*, 45 n. 68. The same assumption is separately made of the Huntingdon Samuel Presbiter in Foster and Major, *The Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln*, 3:200. [^24]: Jack Watt, ‘Parisian Theologians and the Jews: Peter Lombard and Peter Cantor’, in *The Medieval Church: Universities, Heresy, and the Religious Life. Essays in Honour of Gordon Leff*, ed. Peter Biller and Barrie Dobson, Studies in Church History, Subsidia 11 (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Published for the Ecclesiastical History Society by the Boydell Press, 1999), 55–76. [^25]: Samuel’s paraphrases of the gospels and Ps. 31 in Richard Sharpe, *A Handlist of the Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland before 1540*, Publications of the Journal of Medieval Latin 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997), 600–601 (s.v. ‘Samuel Priest’, no. 1604), are considered below to be part of *Collecta ad habendam memoriam.* The listing in Friedrich Stegmüller, *Repertorium biblicum medii aevi* (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1950\_80), 5:201–2 (nos. 7593–7593.3) is mostly correct, but omits the Pembroke manuscript; Thomas Tanner, *Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica; siue, De scriptoribus, qui in Anglia, Scotia, et Hibernia ad saeculi* <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*xvii*</span> *initium floruerunt, commentarius*, ed. David Wilkins (London: G. Bowyer, 1748), 651 lists both. [^26]: This work has been discussed in detail with a partial edition by Greti Dinkova-Bruun, ‘Samuel Presbyter and the Glosses to His Versification of Psalm 1: An Anti-Church Invective?’, in *Florilegium mediaevale: Études offertes à Jacqueline Hamesse à l’occasion de son éméritat*, ed. José Francisco Meirinhos and Olga Weijers, Textes et études du moyen âge 50 (Louvain-la-Neuve: Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’Études Médiévales, 2009), 155–74. [^27]: The text of fol. 9r is printed in Goering, *William de Montibus*, 501–3. [^28]: Excerpts from this text were previously printed in ibid., 508–14; it was also briefly described in Beryl Smalley and George Lacombe, ‘The Lombard’s Commentary on Isaias and Other Fragments’, *The New Scholasticism* 5, no. 2 (April 1931): 141–42, doi:10.5840/newscholas19315217. [^29]: There is no edition of this book, but see Lorenzo Valgimogli, *Lo «Speculum Gregorii» di Adalberto di Metz*, Archivum Gregorianum 8 (Florence: SISMEL, 2006). Many copies of it are known to have existed in England, including one at Bury St Edmunds by the late twelfth century: Richard Sharpe et al., eds., *English Benedictine Libraries: The Shorter Catalogues*, Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues 4 (London: British Library in association with the British Academy, 1996), B13.48a. [^30]: Dinkova-Bruun, ‘Samuel Presbyter’, 157 n. 4; Goering, *William de Montibus*, 265. [^31]: Russell, *Dictionary of Writers of Thirteenth-Century England*, 147. [^32]: ‘Qui Gulielmi de Monte celeberrimi suo tempore Oxoniae theol. professoris auditor diligens et admirator extitit.’ Tanner, *Bibliotheca britannico-hibernica*, 651, citing ‘Br[ian] Twyn[e] in princ. A. Wood. Ms. Pits’, probably the missing copy of the *Relationum historicarum* noted in Nicolas K. Kiessling, *The Library of Anthony Wood*, Oxford Bibliographical Society Publications, 3rd ser., 5 (Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical Society, 2002), 489–90 (no. 5263). [^33]: For a helpful perspective of the authorship of this book and the commentaries written on it, see Philipp W. Rosemann, *The Story of a Great Medieval Book: Peter Lombard’s Sentences* (Peterborough, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">on</span>: Broadview Press, 2007). [^34]: Written at the bottom of f. 206v in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>Bodley 860 and on f. 77r of Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>115. [^35]: Mary J. Carruthers, *The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture*, 2nd ed., Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 10 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 244. [^36]: Ibid., 246. [^37]: Dinkova-Bruun, ‘Samuel Presbyter’, 168. [^38]: In a reconstruction of the Bury catalogue from extant manuscripts, these are placed under a larger a larger ‘Biblia’ section in Richard Sharpe, ‘Reconstructing the Medieval Library of Bury St Edmunds Abbey: The Lost Catalogue of Henry of Kirkstead’, in *Bury St Edmunds: Medieval Art, Architecture, Archaeology, and Economy*, ed. Antonia Gransden, The British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions 20 (Leeds: British Archaeological Association, 1998), 210; for an earlier listing of survivors, see M.R. James, ‘Bury St. Edmunds Manuscripts’, *English Historical Review* 41, no. 162 (April 1926): 254, doi:10.1093/ehr/XLI.CLXII.251. For a more up-to-date list organized by current owners, see N.R. Ker, *Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books*, 2nd ed., Guides and Handbooks 3 (London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1964), 16–22; with further corrections in N.R. Ker, *Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books. Supplement to the Second Edition*, ed. Andrew G. Watson, Guides and Handbooks 15 (London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1987), 5–7. [^39]: For a summary of the Bury library’s history and further references, see Sharpe et al., *English Benedictine Libraries*, 43–49. [^40]: Thomas James, *Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrigiensis* (London: George Bishop and John Norton, 1600), 2:132 (no. 149). This is not altogether unusual; there are 31 manuscripts from his list that are now missing, with several of them now in Oxford, listed in M.R. James and Ellis H. Minns, *A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Pembroke College, Cambridge* (Cambridge: University Press, 1905), xx–xxiii, where this manuscript is no. 2077, following its enumeration in Bernard’s union catalogue of 1697 (which for Pembroke simply reprinted James’ listing). [^41]: This is a fairly common feature in manuscripts of this period, though it is only occasionally noted in catalogues; I have happened across it in Oxford, Bodleian Library, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>Auct. D. 2. 9, fol. 1 (Peter Lombard on the Psalms); Oxford, Bodleian Library, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms </span>Auct. F. 5. 23, fol. 7r (Alexander Neckam, *Corrogationes Promethei*); Oxford, Bodleian Library, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 528, fol. 1r (Alexander Neckam, *Tractatus super Mulierem fortem*); Oxford, Jesus College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> 94, fol. 57r (Alexander Neckam, Commentary on Proverbs); and San Marino, Huntington Library, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms hm </span>35300 (Bede, Commentary on Acts). There is also a variation, ‘Spiritus sancti assit nobis gratia’. [^42]: The text below generally follows Robert Weber and Roger Gryson, eds., *Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem*, 5th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007). I have not reported variants that are found either in this edition or the large ones upon which it is based: Pontifical Abbey of St Jerome-in-the-City, ed., *Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem*, 18 vols. (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1926\_95), covering the Old Testament; and John Wordsworth and Henry Julian White, eds., *Nouum Testamentum Domini nostri Iesu Christi Latine, secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi*, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889\_1954). [^43]: The following passages are abbreviated so heavily that one would almost certainly need to know the passage in order to understand the quotation: Deut. 6:5 (39.000), Ps. 6:7 (10.000), Ps. 17:13 (38.000), Ps. 18:3 (38.000), Ps. 18:9 (34.000, 38.000), Ps. 24:9 (4.000), Ps. 26:6 (39.000), Ps. 37:15 (15.000), Ps. 40:10 (14.000), Ps. 41:4 (10.000 and 26.000), Ps. 72:3 (14.000), Ps. 101:5 (26.000), Ps. 111:5 (12.000), Ps. 118:130 (34.000), Ps. 136:1 (10.000), Ps. 144:6–7 (38.000), Ps. 146:11 (53.000), Ps. 149:4 (4.000), Matt. 4:2 (11.000), Matt. 5:3–4 (15.000), Matt. 5:10 (15.000), Matt. 6:3 (27.000), Matt. 6:25 (42.000), Matt. 24:45 (41.000), Matt. 25:35 (11.000, 51.000), Mark 10:18 (46.000), Luke 4:18–19 (16.000), Luke 11:14 (16.000), John 6:51 (26.000), John 6:54 (24.000), John 16:12 (41.000), 1 Thess. 4:13 (10.000). [^44]: Dinkova-Bruun, ‘Samuel Presbyter’, 168. [^45]: For an introduction to Gratian, see Anders Winroth, *The Making of Gratian’s* Decretum, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 49 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), chap. 1. [^46]: Margaret T. Gibson, ‘The Twelfth-Century Glossed Bible’, in *Papers Presented to the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford, 1987*, ed. E.A. Livingstone, vol. 5, Studia Patristica 23 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 243 notes its use in *Collecta ex auditis super psalmos*. [^47]: For a summary of the revised dating resulting from the editing of the *Verbum adbreuiatum,* see Marcia L. Colish, review of *Petri Cantoris Parisiensis Verbum adbreviatum: Textus conflatus*, by Monique Boutry, *Speculum* 81, no. 3 (July 2006): 905–6, doi:10.1017/S0038713400016407. [^48]: On the date, see James F. Dimock, introduction to Gerald of Wales, *Giraldi Cambrensis opera,* vol. 5, *Topographia Hibernica et Expugnatio Hibernica*, ed. James F. Dimock, Rolls Series 21 (London: Longman, 1867), liii n. 2; cited with further context in Brian Golding, ‘Gerald of Wales, the *Gemma Ecclesiastica* and Pastoral Care’, in *Text and Traditions of Medieval Pastoral Care: Essays in Honour of Bella Millett*, ed. Cate Gunn and Catherine Innes-Parker (Woodbridge, Suffolk: York Medieval Press, 2009), 48, 51. [^49]: A. Boutemy, ‘Giraud de Barri et Pierre le Chantre: Une source de la *Gemma ecclesiastica*’, *Revue du moyen âge latin* 2 (1946): 45–62; E.M. Sanford, ‘Giraldus Cambrensis’ Debt to Petrus Cantor’, *Medievalia et Humanistica* 3 (1945): 16–32; Golding, ‘Gerald of Wales’, 52–54. [^50]: See, for instance, *Gemma ecclesiastica* 2.26 in Boutemy, ‘Giraud de Barri et Pierre le Chantre’, 49; this is only to be found in Peter the Chanter, *Verbum adbreuiatum: Textus prior*, ed. Monique Boutry, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cccm</span> 196a (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), chap. 22 (pp. 175–76, lines 71–90), which is indeed much closer to Gerald’s text than the version Boutemy cites from the *Patrologia Latina* as edited by Georges Galopin. [^51]: Goering, *William de Montibus*, 11–12 (with further references); Hugh MacKinnon, ‘William de Montibus: A Medieval Teacher’, in *Essays in Medieval History Presented to Bertie Wilkinson*, ed. T.A. Sandquist and M.R. Powicke (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1968), 33. The link between William de Montibus and Peter the Chanter was first suggested by R.W. Hunt, ‘English Learning in the Late Twelfth Century’, *Transactions of the Royal Historical Society*, 4th ser., 19 (1936): 21, doi:10.2307/3678685. [^52]: John W. Baldwin, *Masters, Princes, and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and His Circle* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), 1:41–43. [^53]: On their relationship, see ibid., 1:34–36. [^54]: For an introduction to metre in contemporary usage, see A.G. Rigg, *A History of Anglo-Latin Literature, 1066–1422* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 313–29, with examples of Leonines at 319 and of *Elegi Leonini* at 322. [^55]: Dinkova-Bruun, ‘Samuel Presbyter’, 156. [^56]: For general guidance, see A.G. Rigg, ‘Anglo-Latin’, in *Singing Early Music: The Pronunciation of European Languages in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance*, ed. Timothy J. McGee (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), 46–61. [^57]: Goering, *William de Montibus*, 508–14. [^58]: On this spelling, see Peter Stotz, *Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters*, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 2.5 (Munich: Beck, 1996\_2004), 3:168 (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vii</span> 128.3). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <72E1556B-D515-4519-9E9A-20F7EBDBD240-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive [not found] ` <72E1556B-D515-4519-9E9A-20F7EBDBD240-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> @ 2014-08-13 4:27 ` Jesse Rosenthal [not found] ` <m1k36dt3nx.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Jesse Rosenthal @ 2014-08-13 4:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Dunning, pandoc-discuss@googlegroups.com [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3108 bytes --] Dear Andrew, Thanks so much -- this was *extremely* helpful. I haven't solved all the issues you brought up, but I've solved a number of them (I hope you don't mind, but they're on my "dunning-fixes" branch). I've attached a markdown version of the new and improved output, in case you want to compare without pulling and building. Almost all of the issues have, I think, been fixed. (Individual notes below, including why a couple probably can't be fixed.) May I ask your permission to cut out chunks of this to use for test cases? On the individual issues: > - 18/19, 1123, 1130: Not quite sure what '<span > class="anchor"></span>’ is for. Has to do with how docx does header anchors. I had been ignoring anchor spans with no id. Fixed. > - 83 to 120: Not sure if there’s a better way of dealing with this > list. It’s pretty non-standard (should be a definition list), so > probably not. I don't quite see how. It's not a list, or at least docx doesn't think it is, so it just ends up being treaated like weird paragraphs. And, unfortunately, we currently collapse tabs into spaces. That could be rethought if it's clear that tabs are used as you use them here. > - 188/89 (line in the output file): 'De uiris illustribus' italicized > in Word, but reduced to the colon; something similar happens at lines > 934 and 944. It looks as if italics are not applied if an ‘Italic’ > character style is applied? I hadn't been interpreting this sort of character style before, since it usually just uses the ctrl-i italic setting. I now interpret "Italic" and "Bold". I'll keep an eye out for others to support as well. > - 191–205, 568–70, 576–79: A block quotation is not picked up, but > that’s my fault for using a non-standard style name. I only bring it > up because it seems odd that the one block quotation that was picked > up was the one that didn’t use my ‘Block Quotation’ style. I had previously picked up "Quote" and "BlockQuote." I've now added "BlockQuotatation" to the list. > - 211, 706: Unexpected phrases italicized. I hadn't taken into account all the options for the italics tags (the tag is there, but just to tell me not to use it?) Anyway, now it should work > - 300: Adjacent styles for small capitals should perhaps be combined? Bug, plain and simple. > - 349, 376, 557, 558 (etc.): Space after a word set in small caps: > this is surely a problem in the original file and fixing it may have > issues, but it would be really neat if this could be cleaned up. Cleaned up now. This was a symptom of the above bug. > - The reader sometimes applies italics to headings (704, 880, etc.) > and sometimes doesn’t (it’s part of the paragraph style), but I > imagine this is an inconsistency in the source document. I don't know if there's a way to solve this. The text is manually italicized, so I couldn't know that it's not a foreign word, or a book title, or something. Were it *just* the paragraph style, I think it would come out unitalicized. Thanks again, Jesse [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 2 bytes --] e [-- Attachment #3: collecta.md --] [-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 94985 bytes --] Samuel Presbiter Notes from the School of William de Montibus --- Collecta ex diuersis auditis in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte *edited from* Oxford, Bodleian Library, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860 *by* Andrew Dunning Contents ======== Preface iii Acknowledgements iv Abbreviations v Introduction vii The School of William de Montibus vii Samuel Presbiter and his Collecta xii Who wrote Samuel's books? xviii The Manuscript: Oxford, Bodleian Library <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860 (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*sc*</span> 2723) xx Sources xxiv Metre and Rhyme xxviii Editorial Practice xxix Collecta ex diuersis auditis in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte Bibliography XX\ Preface ======= [To be supplied by David Townsend] \ Acknowledgements ================ This project began at a suggestion from Joseph Goering, whose tactful advice always turns out to be even more astute than one first realizes. He generously read the text at several stages of its development and made many astute suggestions. Alexander Andrée and Greti Dinkova-Bruun also examined the text at an early stage and in particular offered helpful comments on improving the layout. A grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada allowed me to view the manuscript in person in Oxford. While there, James Willoughby was of great help in acting as a sounding board in my attempts to wrest as much information as possible from the manuscript; James Carley and Ann Hutchison most generously provided their home as a base for studies. Thanks are also due to the Keeper of Special Collections for permission to consult the manuscript at the Bodleian Library and to publish the text. The comments of David Townsend and the members of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">tmlt</span> editorial board improved the book immensely. My wife Susan Bilynskyj Dunning saw to it that I remembered to eat in the midst of checking references, and in her fathomless patience spent many hours discussing medieval history, typography, and points of Latin grammar. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">a.n.j.d.</span> \ Abbreviations ============= <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cccm</span> Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis. Turnhout: Brepols, 1966--. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ccsl</span> Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina. Turnhout: Brepols, 1953--. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">csel</span> Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vienna: 1866--. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*dmlbs*</span> R.E. Latham, D.R. Howlett, and R.K. Ashdowne, eds. *Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources*. Oxford: Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, 1975--2013. *Glosa* Margaret T. Gibson and Karlfried Froehlich, eds. *Biblia latina cum glossa ordinaria: Facsimile reprint of the editio princeps, Adolph Rusch of Strassburg 1480/81*. 4 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 1992.\ *Glosa interl.* refers to the interlinear gloss; *Glosa marg.* to the marginal. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pl</span> Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina. 221 in 222 vols. Paris: Migne, 1841--65. Rolls Series Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores. 99 in 253 vols. London: 1858--1911. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*sc*</span> R.W. Hunt, Falconer Madan, and P.D. Record. *A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford*. 7 in 8 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895--1953. Vulg. Robert Weber and Roger Gryson, eds. *Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem*. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007. Works of Samuel Presbiter ------------------------- *Ad habendam memoriam Collecta ad habendam memoriam quorumdam utilium in sacra scriptura* *Ex diuersis auditis* *Collecta ex diuersis auditis in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte* *Ex speculo cum uersibus Collecta ex speculo beati Gregorii cum uersibus* *Ex speculo sine uersibus Collecta ex speculo beati Gregorii sine uersibus* *Super psalmos Collecta ex auditis super psalmos in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte* Other Abbreviations ------------------- *add. addition/added* *corr. corrector/correction/corrected* *eras. erased/erasure* *fol./fols. folio/folios* *marg. margin* <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> manuscript *om. omitted* *subst.* substituted Editorial signs --------------- ⟨ ⟩ signal letters supplied by the editor \*\*\* indicate unreadable letters \ Introduction ============ 'Hec sunt collecta ex diuersis auditis in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte' -- 'These are collected from various things heard in the school of master William de Montibus'. The heading to this work (called *Ex diuersis auditis* hereafter) explains much about the work's origin, uniquely preserved in Oxford, Bodleian Library, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860, though its compiler, Samuel Presbiter, remains obscure. It consists of a collection of lessons on a wide range of concerns regarding the practical application of theology, interspersed with a series of playful verses to aid memorization of the material. The School of William de Montibus --------------------------------- William de Montibus was born in Lincoln, and, like most learned Englishmen of his day, studied theology in Paris, where Peter Comestor was among his teachers, and he met both Alexander Neckam and Gerald of Wales. In the 1180s, Bishop Hugh invited him to teach at the cathedral school of Lincoln, where he was chancellor from at least 1194 until his death in April 1213 in Scotland, while England was under interdict.[^1] He was a beloved teacher, and Lincoln's luminary until the rise of Robert Grosseteste. The sixteenth-century antiquary John Leland provides a succinct and colourful description of his work in *De uiris illustribus:* > Gulielmus Montanus, theologicae cognitionis professor, inter canonicos > supremae Lindiorum urbis celeberrimus uixit, et cancellarii in eadem > ecclesia dignitate functus est. Erat saeculum in quod incidit spinosis > sophistarum argutiis miserrime obnoxium; inter quas tamen ille ita > eluctatus est difficultates ut, si non eloquentiam profluentem illam, > at neruos interim et pondus rerum sibi conquisiuerit, ac aliis tanquam > per manus studiose tradiderit. > *William de Montibus, a most famous teacher of theology, lived among > the canons of the chief city of Lincolnshire and was chancellor in the > same church. The age in which he lived was sorely plagued by the > thorny subtleties of the sophists, but he surmounted these > difficulties so well that he gained for himself, if not truly flowing > eloquence, then at least the stylistic vigour and substance of things, > which he studiously passed straight on to others.*[^2] Keeping in mind Leland's tendency to lionize every English author that preceded him, his core point has not been overturned by modern scholarship: William was one of the pre-eminent teachers of his day, and though his writings are not high literature, they are evidence of a creative and highly effective pedagogical programme. The present work is one of the important witnesses to what William passed on to his students, and of the cathedral schools in general; although there are a number of student *reportationes* from Paris and the later universities, those from cathedral schools are more scarce, and those representing something other than a straightforward lecture are even more unusual. *Ex diuersis auditis* is structured under a series of headings, to each of which is attached a poem of one to eleven lines, with a commentary to explain its contents. Six of these poems (2, 4, 5, 6, 18, 34) also appear in William de Montibus's similar work *Versarius,* where they have a much sparser commentary. In both cases, it appears that the poems are intended to be memorized in order to learn something about the subject at hand. Many specifically direct this: 'memorato' (000, 000, 000); 'commemorato' (000); 'memora' (000, 000, 000), 'poteris reminisci' (000). Verse was widely used as a didactic tool in this period, as other scholars have already discussed in detail.[^3] Goering has proposed that the context of *Ex diuersis auditis* was that of the scholastic *collationes* or *repetitiones.*[^4] These occurred at the end of the school day, and seem to have involved a discussion of what had previously been stated by the master, rather like a modern student's seminar.[^5] The present text has nothing of debate, though it does include many passages repeated from William de Montibus's lectures on the Psalms preserved by Samuel in *Collecta ex auditis super psalmos* (hereafter *Super psalmos*)*,* but in a different context, recapitulating the material on its own terms rather than as a means of understanding another text. The style of the commentary is adapted, however, and in a format reminiscent in some ways of Alexander Neckam's *Sacerdos ad altare,* the author provides his own, slightly dense text as a starting point for an accessible discussion.[^6] Unlike what one might expect from a notebook, this is a very polished text, and it may have either been copied from written notes belonging to William or received his approval, as other teachers are known to have done on occasion for student reporters. Much as the title might lead us to think of a cleaned-up version of a student's lecture notes, the text itself indicates a written rather than an oral transmission. For the six poems that also appear in William's *Versarius*, its text is just as good as what comes through the rest of the manuscript tradition. The style of the verses is quite consistent throughout, with the exception of no. 54, which is probably by Samuel; a mixture of rhyming schemes are used here that is consistent with Samuel's other work (as noted in Metre and Rhyme, below), and the style of the commentary in this section is quite different from the rest of the work, written as outlines organized using schematic *distinctiones* rather than formal prose.[^7] Conversely, it seems safe to assume that the verses found here that do not appear in *Versarius* are not from Samuel, for elsewhere he frequently writes longer poems than those found in *Ex diuersis auditis* and breaks them up into smaller sections with paraph marks (¶), a device never used in the present work. The style of the commentary found in *Versarius* is rather different from what is found here; it is thus more difficult to attribute this directly to William. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that it simply represents Samuel's memories about what was said about the material, for there are a number of passages that appear in the same words in *Super psalmos*, just different enough in many cases to preclude direct copying, while there are other passages originating with Peter Lombard, Gratian, and the *Glosa* that seem to have been copied from these works directly. This could either indicate that Samuel carefully assembled the material from various sources, or that he had a source from William from which he could copy directly; perhaps it was a mixture of both. The order of the various subjects discussed in the collection is not entirely random, though it does not have the sort of organizational scheme that William de Montibus might have applied to it if he had published it himself. His *Versarius* is organized under an alphabetical scheme, while his *Numerale* follows a numerical scheme. *Ex diuersis auditis* bears more resemblance to the organization of a work that has a number of parallels, Peter the Chanter's *Verbum adbreuiatum*, which follows some logic in the progression of its subjects but has no strict organizational scheme. The verses recorded in *Ex diuersis auditis* are not as utilitarian as some other literature from the period designed to aid in learning, some of which simply cannot be understood without additional texts. Some versifications of the Gospel, for instance, simply crammed together relevant words and phrases into a hexameter line, and are entirely incomprehensible without knowledge of the biblical text.[^8] Even here, however, the verses cannot completely stand on their own due to the use of mnemonics that are explained in the commentary.[^9] Every modern student is familiar with the sequence 'who, what, when, where, why, how': its medieval form -- 'quid, cui, cur, quomodo, quando, quantum' (12. 000, literally 'what, to whom, why, how, when, how much') -- is here used for remembering the purpose of works of charity.[^10] More common is the use of acronyms. These are typically imperatives with a very direct action implied (e.g. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">scope doces</span>, 'investigate, teach', 26.000), or sometimes nonsense-words with a catchy sound (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cim cisset nervo</span>, 16.000) to memorize aspects of the subject at hand. These are sometimes very well integrated with the subject matter: under <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">scinde</span> ('tear' or 'divide', 17.000), for instance, is placed the various causes for which a marriage can be dissolved.[^11] It is also common throughout the text to use numbers as a mnemonic device, the central feature of William de Montibus's Numerale.[^12] Along with its context in medieval memorization, *Ex diuersis auditis* should also be considered as a text written in a crucial period for the development of *pastoralia,* as Leonard Boyle called the literature of pastoral care, identifying the inception of an effort to create accessible manuals of pastoral care between the Third and Fourth Lateran Councils of 1179 and 1215.[^13] There is a great deal of concern evident in *Ex diuersis auditis* for the priest's role as a member of the community, and especially as a preacher (the topic that prompts the longest discussion in the entire work, 38); it is always very concerned with good character and judgement (see especially 2, 4, 23, 24). This reflects the practical concerns of William de Montibus in transforming theories into principles, shared by contemporaries such as Peter the Chanter and Alan of Lille.[^14] Another of William's students, Richard of Wetheringsett, wrote a *summa* known from its incipit as *Qui bene presunt,* assembling material similiar in subject to as what is found in the present text in a more programmatic manner.[^15] While there are several such *summae* in existence, *Ex diuersis auditis* provides a perspective of how it was taught in the classroom. Given the clearness of thought and creativity evident in *Ex diuersis auditis,* one might wonder why Lincoln did not become one of the leading schools in the thirteenth century, rather than Oxford or Cambridge. In 1206, after the newly elected bishop of Lincoln Hugh of Wells aligned himself with Archbishop Stephen Langton, King John seized the temporalities of Lincoln Cathedral. It is unclear what effect this might have had on the schools at Lincoln, but it may have taken William de Montibus away from his teaching duties, for when he died in April 1213, he was still chancellor of the cathedral, but was living in Scotland -- perhaps in exile, like the Archbishop. Oxford and Cambridge quickly eclipsed Lincoln, and serious theological teaching seems to have ceased there after approximately 1225, arguably because the school failed to seize upon the opportunity to become a centre for the study of canon law.[^16] Nonetheless, *Ex diuersis auditis* remains as an important record of theological teaching before the dominance of the universities. Samuel Presbiter and His Collecta --------------------------------- All that is known of Samuel Presbiter is his link to William de Montibus; the only certain references to him are the identical closing lines of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860 (fol. 206v) and Cambridge, Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> 115 (fol. 77r), written in both cases in the same hand as the rest of the text: 'Expliciunt collecta Samuelis presbiteri'. (Although some reference works refer to him as 'Presbyter', this spelling does not appear in medieval sources.[^17]) Both manuscripts once belonged to the Benedictine abbey of Bury St Edmunds, and are mostly written in the same hand, which dates from the late twelfth or early thirteenth century. A second hand also makes corrections in both manuscripts. Given their consistency and contemporaneity with the known dates of William de Montibus, it is very likely that at least one of these hands belongs to Samuel. The provenance of the manuscripts and a reference to the 'lingua Britanie' forms the best evidence that Samuel studied at William's school in Lincoln rather than Paris.[^18] There are few known references in documentary sources that might be identified with the author. A Samuel Presbiter appears in Huntingdon in 1198,[^19] and there is a 'Samuel de Ounebi' (Owmby by Spital, in Lincoln) who witnesses a charter alongside William de Montibus between 1196 and 1203.[^20] A 'Samuel presbiter de Pilton' in Somerset, mentioned in several pipe rolls between 1164/65 and 1183/84,[^21] is too early to be identified with a student of William de Montibus, though it does at least caution one against identifying any cleric named Samuel as the author. Josiah Cox Russell admirably dug up several references to one or more figures named Master Samuel with whom he suggested the author might be identified.[^22] It is openly stated, however, that the last part of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860 was composed after Samuel left the school; 'Hec composita sunt post dicessum a scola' (fol. 108r) is his only autobiographical statement. Given this, one would assume that he would have called himself Master Samuel if he had earned the title, especially as he is careful to use it with reference to William de Montibus. This does not necessarily preclude the possibility that he may have attended another school after William's, but it is unlikely that he would have had the means to produce such books as those now surviving while still a student. On the basis of the name Presbiter, which is unusual but found in the city of Lincoln, Goering has suggested that the author may have been a Jewish convert, or from a family of converts (the name having been used as a translation of 'Cohen').[^23] It is perhaps relevant that *Ex diuersis auditis* contains a passage that could be read as a non-hostile attempt to understand the Jewish position regarding the Crucifixion at 30.000; in *Collecta ad habendam memoriam* (hereafter *Ad habendam memoriam*)*,* the Jews are also the primary example in a discussion 'Ad sciendum qualiter oporteat bonos se gerere erga malos sibi inimicos' (fols. 173r--177r, with 'Obiectio contra quedam predicta' at fols. 177r--v, and 'Solutio' at 178r--181v). This approach contrasts, notably, with that of Peter Lombard and Peter the Chanter.[^24] In the end, however, all that can be said for certain about Samuel is that he attended the cathedral school at Lincoln under William. Despite Samuel's obscurity, there are two surviving manuscripts that contain a series of his writings, which have never been fully catalogued:[^25] Oxford, Bodleian Library, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860 - A verse paraphrase of Psalm 1 (fols. 1r--8v), written with informal glosses[^26] - *title* Beatus uir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum. - *incipit* Qui non consiliis abiit que suasit iniquus - *explicit* Pena feretur ei delectari cupienti. - *Collecta ex auditis super psalmos in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte* (fols. 9r--93v), a prose commentary on the Psalms (incomplete)[^27] - *tit.* Hec collecta sunt ex auditis super psalmos in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte. - *inc. Non sic impii.* Dicendo bis 'non sic', duo superius attributa beato - *exp.* Ecclesia semper est (*catchword:* inter malleum et incudem) - *Collecta ex diuersis auditis in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte* (fols. 94r--107v), the present work, a collection of verses with a formal prose commentary[^28] - *tit.* Hec collecta sunt ex diuersis auditis in scola magistri Willelmi de Monte. - *prose inc.* Duo necessaria sunt ad hoc ut aliquid uideatur usu corporeo - *verse inc.* Nulli cernentur oculis que subicientur - *prose exp.* Fidelitate, Accelerat⟨i⟩o⟨n⟩e, Caritate - *verse exp.* Redditioque notent circum ueho demo cauefac - *Collecta ad habendam memoriam quorumdam utilium in sacra scriptura* (fols. 108r--206v), a collection of verses with informal glosses in the same style as the paraphrase of Psalm 1 - *tit.* Hec collecta sunt ad habendam memoriam quorumdam utilium in sacra scriptura. Et eorum quedam sumpta sunt a uerbis expositionum ewangeliorum, et quedam ab ipsis uerbis ewangelicis, et quedam ab aliis uerbis necessariis ad salutem anime. Et hec composita sunt post dicessum a scola. - *inc.* Leprosum tetigit Cristus sic omnia munda - *exp. * Migrent a mundo translati fine beato. - *exp. tit.* Expliciunt collecta Samuelis Presbiteri. Cambridge, Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> 115 - *Collecta ex speculo beati Gregorii cum uersibus* (fols. 1r--41v), verses with a formal prose commentary in the style of *Collecta ex diuersis auditis* - *tit.* Hec collecta sunt ex speculo beati Gregorii. - *prose inc.* De inani gloria in obedientia - *verse inc.* Ex septem uiciis capitalibus exoriuntur - *prose exp.* nec ortum iam nec occasum solis agnosco. - *verse exp.* Occasum solis in se prospicit ortum. - *exp. tit.* Expliciunt collecta ex speculo beati Gregorii cum uersibus. - *De oratione dominica* (fols. 41v--44v), verses with a formal prose commentary. Followed in the manuscript by a repetition of the opening prose of *Collecta ex speculo beati Gregorii cum uersibus* on 44v--45r, later cancelled. - *tit.* De oratione dominica, silicet Pater noster. - *prose inc.* Septem sunt uicia capitalia siue principalia - *verse inc.* Quam Cristus docuit oratio quinque petitiis - *prose exp.* sanitates beatitudines felicitatis gaudium - *verse exp.* Et bene sonato felicia gaudia confert. - four short compositions (fols. 45r--46r) consisting of verses with a formal prose commentary in the style of *Collecta ex diuersis auditis* - 1\. Est proprium domini mentem bene pacificare (*8 lines*) - 2\. Est uagus hic cuius animus non recta cupiscit (*2 lines*) - 3\. Flos bonus est actus hoc est spes fulgor odorque (*12 lines*) - 4\. Multiplex hominis pacientia dicitur esse, *tit.* 'De patientia' (*2 lines*) - *Collecta ex speculo beati Gregorii sine uersibus* (fols. 47r--77r), in prose - *tit.* Hec sunt collecta ex speculo beati Gregorii sine uersibus. - *inc.* Deum timere est nulla que facienda sunt bona preterire - *exp.* nec terrore pene sed amore iusticie. - *exp. tit.* Expliciunt collecta Samuelis Presbiteri The glosses to both the paraphrase of Psalm 1 and *Ad habendam memoriam* contain references to the *Speculum beati Gregorii* (i.e. Adalbert of Metz's epitome of Gregory the Great's *Moralia in Iob*),[^29] which might indicate that they were written after the *Collecta* made from this book. In both manuscripts, the only attribution to Samuel comes at the very end, but it can presumably be taken to refer to the entire contents, given their consistent style. The Oxford manuscript, however, is a composite of originally separate books, meaning that the explicit of this manuscript can only strictly be taken to refer to *Ex diuersis auditis* and *Ad habendam memoriam.* There is no real question, nonetheless, of the association of either the paraphrase on Psalm 1 or the commentary on the Psalms with Samuel. The versification of Psalm 1 is in precisely the same style as the biblical paraphrases found in *Ad habendam memoriam,* both in terms its of language and page layout, and its first page is headed with a set of verses also found at the beginning of Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> 115, as described below. It is unclear whether the paraphrase has any relationship to the school of William de Montibus, though Greti Dinkova-Bruun has noted its concern with the *Hebraica ueritas* of the Psalms, characteristic of William, and moreover found in *Ex diuersis auditis* (at 39.000 and 36.000).[^30] As for the Psalms commentary, one will immediately note that the title follows the same format as that of the other *Collecta* listed above, and several passages from *Super psalmos* are repeated almost verbatim in *Ex diuersis auditis* It seems safe, therefore, to attribute the entire book to Samuel. It is tempting to dismiss Samuel as a mere excerpter,[^31] or as Thomas Tanner thought, little more than a devotee of William de Montibus.[^32] Modern readers are often troubled in understanding the motive behind the authorship of books that may contain little strictly original material, as in the classic case of Peter Lombard's *Sentences.*[^33] Samuel himself provides some idea of his motives behind his work, despite the lack of a prologue. The first folios of both <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860 and Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> 115 contain the following text, written in red ink: > Mens conseru per opus ne stulta uag\ > etur etur.\ > Sic studiis d ut que prosint oper Additionally, both manuscripts have the following at the bottom of the last page of text:[^34] > Hec qui coll eterna pace qui\ > egit escat.\ > Hec quicumque l oret simul ut requi Both sets of lines are mildly clever, forming hexameter lines that can be read in four different ways. Thus, the second of these can be read in any of the following ways: > May he who collected these things sleep in eternal peace.\ > May whoever reads these things pray likewise that he may rest.\ > May whoever reads these things sleep in eternal peace.\ > May he who collected these things pray likewise that he may rest. This improvement of the mind, bringing about the mutual benediction of the author and reader, is probably how Samuel would explain his reason for compiling his works. Mary Carruthers has expressed much the same thing in modern terms: 'composition in the Middle Ages is not particularly an act of writing. It is rumination, cogitation, dictation, a listening and a dialogue, a gathering (*collectio*) of voices from their several places in memory.'[^35] Further, 'learning is itself a process of composition, collation, and recollection. But the result of bringing together the variously stored bits in memory is new knowledge. It is one's own composition and opinion, *familiaris intentio.* This is the point at which collation becomes authorship.'[^36] Who Wrote Samuel's Books? ------------------------- It seems very likely that Samuel was involved in the production of the books containing his writings, with a correcting hand found in both manuscripts that reflects an intimate knowledge of the texts and willingness to make changes that would point to someone more than a zealous pedant in possession of the exemplar. The same text hand is found throughout both <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860 (with the exception of parts of the Psalms commentary) and Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> 115; both books are also constructed mostly of quaternions, of roughly the same size, and share a similar scheme of decoration. This is a neat English protogothic script of the late twelfth or early thirteenth century, using both one- and two-compartment *a,* written above the top line. There is a smaller variant used for prose passages and glosses (typically about 4 mm tall), while a slightly taller and finer version of the hand is used for verses (with letters about 6 mm tall). The only serious difficulty presented by the script (as in many other of its variants) is the distinction between 'c' and 't', which are constructed using the same number of strokes in a very similar manner. The vertical stroke of both can often protrude slightly above the top of the letter. The cross-stroke of 't', however, always begins very deliberately to the left of the vertical stroke, whereas the top stroke of 'c' will occasionally begin very slightly to the left, but only by a small amount, and is more curved. A different hand, unprofessional but still tidy, with very thin strokes and generally in a lighter shade of ink, has corrected both manuscripts (though only sporadically in the Psalms commentary). Where it has been identified, it is labelled 'another hand' in the critical apparatus to *Ex diuersis auditis.* Some parts of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860 also show other contemporary hands that make additional corrections and add the occasional gloss in the paraphrase on Psalm 1 and *Ad habendam memoriam*. In *Super psalmos,* some notes are also found in the margins in a fourteenth-century hand (sometimes noting terms, for an index to the Psalms commentary found in the back of the book). Even if one thinks it possible that unique copies of the works that survive in the same hand and with the same knowledgeable corrector could have been made after the author's death, the differences in the arrangement of the commentary in the texts establish the author's involvement. The commentaries in *Ex diuersis auditis* and the works in the Pembroke College manuscript were copied along with the rest of the text, and the page is ruled in such a way to accommodate prose as well as verse. On the other hand, the Psalm 1 paraphrase and *Ad habendam memoriam,* the first and last works found in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860, were originally arranged on the page to include verse only without a commentary. The comments on these works are added in a rather haphazard way wherever they can be made to fit on the page, but they are written in a neat fashion, and are formal explanations rather than off-hand remarks from a reader, forming 'a complex apparatus of literary citations from a variety of authoritative sources', as Dinkova-Bruun observed of the glosses to Psalm 1.[^37] While the original hand of the text adds the largest batch, many have been added over an extended period of time, to judge from the many shades of ink and variations in the hand, among which the corrector can sometimes be found. If this material had been available when the book was first written, and especially if the book had been copied from a complete exemplar, one would assume that the scribe would have arranged them in the same formal fashion as used in *Ex diuersis auditis.* Given that the entirety of both manuscripts containing Samuel's works is in the same hand, one might ask whether the author himself might have written them; this seems unlikely, on balance. Samuel's relationship with his scribe certainly must have been long-term. It seems odd in some ways that Samuel would have composed additional comments after having someone else copy out his verses, and then have that same person return to fit them in wherever possible; but perhaps he had not planned the commentaries at all, and only decided to add them after seeing the success of *Ex diuersis auditis* and the works in the Pembroke manuscript. Certainly, they were treated as works in progress, as there are also verses added to *Ad habendam memoriam* that seem to have been improvements rather than omissions through scribal error. The clearest evidence against the idea that the scribe might be identified with the author is the reality that, at least in the case of *Ex diuersis auditis,* the scribe was not always able to read the exemplar, but was obviously concerned to write precisely what he saw. In particular, the scribe often writes 'c' or 't' for 'm' and 'n' (giving us, for example, 'acumaretur' for 'animaretur', 'iutibra' for 'umbra', 'consideratis' for 'considerans', 'sitium' for 'sinum') and for 'r' ('tectum' for 'rectum', 'iurate' for 'iurare', 'considerate' for 'considerare', 'carhalogus' for 'cathalogus', 'fiete' for 'fieri'; in reverse, 'ira' for 'ita'). There are also some lacunae that seem to indicate that the scribe could not read the exemplar, later filled in by the corrector. This corrector is intimately familiar with the text, and seems to have gone through it methodically after it was copied; he leaves a very faint note in the lower corner of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860, fol. 103r that reads 'usque hunc in parte'. Some of the corrections could have been made by anyone with an exemplar, but some of them seem to be original, in particular the five points in the text where the corrector adds a variant word for understanding the verse (e.g. *uel legit* for *posuit* at 000). This device is also found in Samuel's other poetic works, written by both the corrector and the text hand, though only by the corrector in *Ex diuersis auditis,* which lends weight to the idea that they are an addition of Samuel rather than something from the original material of William de Montibus. In most cases, they note a word that should be understood in place of the one glossed, but they are usually unmetrical alternatives, thus why the original verse is not changed (which the corrector does not hesitate to do). There are also cases in which it seems likely that the corrector is revising the work rather than making a correction from an exemplar, as when 'multi' is changed to 'Pharisei' to match the Vulgate at 000, or when a second 'que' is removed at 000. The corrector also carefully revises the punctuation, adding particularly *puncti eleuati* () to the verses. These corrections, made so much in keeping in Samuel's style and with very high accuracy, while in appearance not belonging to a professional scribe, are very likely made directly by the author. *The Manuscript* ---------------- The unique manuscript of *Ex diuersis auditis,* Oxford, Bodleian Library, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860 (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">*sc*</span> 2723), is written entirely in Latin on parchment, arranged in the standard hair-flesh-flesh-hair order, with pages measuring 270 × 200 mm (variable by several millimetres). It belonged to the Benedictine abbey of Bury St Edmunds at least by the fourteenth century, as evidenced by a note on the flyleaf in the hand of librarian Henry Kirkestede (c. 1314--c. 1378): > Liber monachorum sancti Edmundi in quo continentur\ > Postille seu collecta super psalterium\ > in scolis magistri G. de montibus\ > Collecta samuelis presbiteri in scolis predictis. A pressmark of B. 233 is also from the abbey library, categorizing it with other commentaries on the Psalms; B. 231, B. 232, and B. 240, still surviving in modern libraries, share this element.[^38] Following the dissolution, the book eventually made its way with many other Bury manuscripts to Pembroke College;[^39] it is listed there in the survey published by James in 1600.[^40] The *Summary Catalogue* conjectures that it was acquired by the Bodleian Library in 1603--4. No evidence of ownership from Cambridge is to be found in the manuscript itself; the marks 'Ms Mod 124' and 'Th S 5.8' found on the flyleaf and fol. 1r are from Oxford. The manuscript is composite, consisting of three separate 'booklets', collated i, 1^8^ || 2^8^--6^8^, 7^(8--3,\\ 6/7/8canc)^, 8^8^--12^8^ || 13^8^--24^8^, 25^(8+2,\\ 4/5add)^, 26^8^, i. (The original fol. 207 was cancelled, and the existing leaf attached to the stub.) It is not altogether clear when the book was assembled in this fashion. The separate foliation of the Psalms commentary, quires 2--12, in a fourteenth-century hand, with leaves added for a corresponding index at the back of the book, probably suggests that the book was rebound around this time, but it is not clear whether this also involved a rearrangement of its contents. Kirkestede's notice happens to repeat the information from the first and last folios of each of the largest booklets, and might thus suggest itself as being done from the perspective of having seen these as separate books; but if this were his methodology, it would be curious that he should omit any mention of the paraphrase of Psalm 1, and it should also be noted that he appears to see the unifying factor in the book as William de Montibus rather than Samuel Presbiter; it does not seem that he even thought of the Psalms commentary as having been recorded by Samuel. The placement of the Psalm 1 paraphrase, on the other hand, is too felicitous in following the pattern of Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> 115 for it to have been an accidental placement by someone unaware of Samuel's authorship. This suggests that someone aware of Samuel's authorship assembled the book before the time of Kirkestede, possibly even the author himself. This first quire (fols. 1--8) is in codicological terms independent, but it does not appear to have circulated on its own, since its final folio is much cleaner than the first. A space of half a page at the end of fol. 8v confirms that no following text has been lost, while the lack of an *explicit* further suggests that it was not intended for the end of a book. It fits with *Super psalmos* very conveniently, as it supplements that commentary's lack of the first verses of Psalm 1. The page has a writing space of 109 × 220; the lines are 11 mm apart, containing letters 6 mm high. It is ruled mostly in pencil, with some of the marginal comments ruled in crayon. The page is only ruled formally for the verses; rules are added for the glosses on an ad hoc basis. An opening capital letter is decorated in red and blue with the arabesque decorations common in this period (primarily red). The verses of the psalm that are paraphrased are written in red above the applicable lines of poetry. Paraph marks indicating new sections of the poem alternate between red and blue. Some pen trials, probably from the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century, are added on 1v and 3r. The addition of comments is quite heavy up to 5r, but stops thereafter. One might imagine that it could have been copied specifically to preface the following Psalms commentary in order to compensate for its deficiencies after Samuel had given up on completing that work. Quires 2 through 12 (fols. 9--93), *Super psalmos,* use a two-column layout, and were evidently intended to form a separate volume. It is a much less complex affair than the rest of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860 in terms of its layout and contents, and is ruled in pencil. The decoration is of the same style as the rest of the manuscript, but this could have been added at a later stage. Each psalm begins with a two-line versal alternating between red and blue, and using the second colour for basic arabesque decoration (the first being slightly more ornate). Lemmata for the Psalms are often underlined in red, but this has not been done throughout the book. The first page of *Super psalmos* (fol. 9r) includes these lines at the top of the page, written in red ink: > Hec qui coll studiose pleraque l\ > egi egi.\ > Quedam que l credite digna l One might speculate that this is an earlier version of the 'Mens conseruetur' and 'Hec qui collegit' verses already described; it is interesting that it uses the first rather than the third person. At the very top of 9r, partially trimmed, is also 'Sancti spiritus assit nobis gratia', the first line of the sequence hymn for Pentecost, a frequent invocation placed at the beginnings of commentaries in this period.[^41] *Distinctiones* on fols. 9r--14v summarizing sections of the commentary are written in a lighter shade of ink in a slightly different hand, though this could be the same person as the body text using a more informal style. On 10r--12r are drawn small figures with red pointed caps to draw attention to certain passages. The page has a writing space of around 188 × 141, divided into two columns, with lines ruled 4 mm apart, and the writing about the same height. Catchwords are found in the bottom-right corner of the last folio of most quires. Many quires are also numbered with at the bottom of the page in the centre, beginning at ·i· (sometimes at the beginning as well as the end), showing that the manuscript was expected to have begun with the commentary. No quires are missing within, as the last is numbered ·xi· and all catchwords match with the following page, but material is missing after this, as the commentary breaks off discussing Psalm 82 with 'Ecclesia semper est' (and a catchphrase 'inter malleum et incudem'). It may be the case, however, that the folios after 93v were never finished, and therefore appropriated for other purposes, for the text begins with Psalm 1:4, and there are many more defects. On fol. 53r, half of the first column is filled (discussing Psalm 33), and the rest of the leaf is left blank; the three leaves following have been cut out of the book. The commentary picks up again on fol. 54r on Psalm 55 in a more condensed hand, though this could conceivably be the same scribe trying to save space; the writing again becomes smaller at fol. 86r (the lines now ruled 3 mm apart and with slightly wider columns). Blanks are also left at fols. 57ra--b (a little more than half a column) and 89va (a fifth of a column). Despite its unfinished state, at least one later reader found the book interesting, as foliation in ink (probably from the fourteenth century) is added to facilitate an index that is added in the back of the book from fols. 207--8, beginning with 1 on 9r, with index terms noted in the margins. Quires 13--26 (fols. 94--206), containing *Ex diuersis auditis* and *Ad habendam memoriam,* appear to have been written in a context different from that of *Super psalmos.* These quires do not use catchwords, but each is numbered at the end with a large Roman numeral at the base of the page in the centre (though these numbers have sometimes been trimmed from the bottom), and with letters from 'a' to 'f' (with an additional mark unique to each quire) pencilled in the bottom inner corner of each page in the first half of most quires to indicate the correct sequence of the leaves. This is the same pattern as that found in Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> 115. Also unlike the Psalms commentary, the quires are ruled in crayon. On the whole, the quality of the production is significantly finer. For this entire section, titles are placed in the left margin, written in red, and each poem begins with an arabesque capital, varying in primary colour between red and blue (with the other colour used as an accent). The first letter of each line of verse is placed in the left margin. The rubrication was done before the book was bound, as the titles are very close to the leftmost part of the page (compare a title that appears to have been forgotten initially on fol. 98r, no. 18 in the text). An 'x' has been marked in pencil in the margin where each title was to be placed, in addition to a 'per'/'par' sign (ꝑ) for rubricated paraph marks and small letters to show what should be filled in by the rubricator. All this is in common to the two works contained in these quires, but they differ slightly in other respects. *Ex diuersis auditis* (94r--107v) is arranged in a manner that formally integrates the prose commentary and verses, providing a writing space of 98 × 201 with 4.5 mm line spacing. Lines of verse are allowed two ruled lines, though the letters are only about 6 mm high. The extra space above the lines is used for the wavy lines that frequently link the verses to the commentary. Fols. 94--95 and 100--101 were initially pricked for a different layout that would have provided for a larger outer margin; this might be the result of an experiment with the notion of writing the verses together and placing the commentary in the outer margin. There is a break of about a third of the page at the end of no. 53 on fol. 107r: it is tempting to take this as evidence that no. 54 was considered as separate from the rest of the material, but this is probably done only because the material on fol. 107v needs to be placed entirely on the same page to be best understood. Despite the different style of this last section, the lack of a new title and a page layout that follows the basic norms of the preceding material indicates that it was probably intended as part of *Ex diuersis auditis.* As has already been noted, *Ad habendam memoriam* uses the same layout as the paraphrase of Psalm 1, using a writing space of 82.5 × 207, with ruling only for verses (10 mm) and glosses added as necessary on 4.5 mm ruling. The number of glosses added to the verses ranges widely (from none to enough to fill nearly the entire page). *Sources* --------- The work uses biblical texts as the basis for most of its arguments, making frequent use of allegorical interpretations. Regardless of the source, the majority of quotations are introduced by a generic phrase such as 'dicitur' or 'unde illud'. Biblical sources are sometimes identified more specifically with the names of Jesus, Christ, or Paul, or noting that a quotation occurs 'in psalmo' or 'in ewangelio'. As one frequently finds in medieval books, quotations can vary wildly at times from any identifiable variant of the Vulgate,[^42] indicating that they are either quoted from memory or via another source. To take an extreme case, at 27.000: 'Alibi dicitur: "Separabit oues ab edis et oues statuet ad dextram et edos ad sinistram", scilicet bonos ducet ad eternam beatitudinem, malos mittet ad eternam dampnationem.' This paraphrases Matthew 25:32--33: 'Et congregabuntur ante eum omnes gentes, et separabit eos ab inuicem, sicut pastor segregat oues ab hedis, et statuet oues quidem a dextris suis, hedos autem a sinistris.' Although 'dicitur' is normally used for a direct quotation, the form of the words is rather different. Biblical sources can also be treated in a rather fluid way to suit their didactic purpose. Quotations are frequently combined from non-contiguous passages without any indication that this has been done (e.g. the use of Matthew in 24.000 or the quotations of Paul in 1.000). An *enim* or *autem* early in a quotation is early removed, and first-person verbs are frequently changed between singular and plural (especially in quoting the letters of Paul). Further indicating the degree to which passages were memorized, the text follows the typical medieval practice of abbreviating quotations, especially biblical ones. For instance, a quotation of Psalm 6:7 in 10.000 reads: 'Vnde dicitur in psalmo penitentiali: Lauabo per sing. noc. lec. me. la. m. stra. me. ri.*'* The reader is apparently expected to remember the full text, 'Lauabo per singulas noctes lectum meum: lacrimis meis stratum meum rigabo.' This practice is not used with all quotations: it is most common by far with the Psalms, as one would expect, but also occurs with many passages from the Gospels, predominantly Matthew, suggesting that these were the texts with which the author was most familiar. Some of these are expected, such as the Decalogue or the popular psalm *Super flumina Babylonis,* and many would be familiar from the liturgy; other passages seem a little more obscure.[^43] Similarly, in Samuel's paraphrase of Psalm 1, it is evident that the Psalms are so familiar that they are expected to be recognized without a specific citation.[^44] There are also quotations from classical authors (Juvenal, Ovid, Horace), never by name, but sometimes identified as being from a 'poeta'. There are some references to the liturgy ('in oratione'), while medieval authors are cited anonymously and once by name (Pope Alexander). Patristic sources, on the other hand, are always advertised with a name (Jerome, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Chrysostom, Isidore, Origen), though these can almost always be shown to be quoted via a more recent source. Many of these point to Peter Lombard's *Sentences,* the classic medieval textbook on theology from the twelfth century, whose explication of theological topics is sometimes followed quite closely. There is also substantial use of Gratian's *Decretum* (originally called *Concordia discordantium canonum*)*,* the counterpart to the *Sentences* for canon law.[^45] There is also substantive use, especially for etymologies, of both the marginal and interlinear *Glosa* (as it is called at 54.000) to the Bible, later known as the *Glossa ordinaria,* though its precise influence is difficult to pin down due to the lack of an edition representative of a text William or Samuel might have used.[^46] Patristic works are almost always quoted via one of these medieval sources. *Ex diuersis auditis* has many parallels with Peter the Chanter's *Verbum adbreuiatum* and *Summa de sacramentis et animae consiliis*. They are of a sort, however, that most likely reflect a shared milieu rather than direct use of either of these works. These works appear to have been compiled after William de Montibus had gone to Lincoln, the earliest version of the *Verbum adbreuiatum* being dated to 1187--91, the *Summa de sacramentis* to 1191--92, and the later versions of the *Verbum adbreuiatum* to after Peter's death in 1197.[^47] A copy of the *Verbum adbreuiatum* was probably available in Lincoln in William's time, as the *Gemma ecclesiastica* of Gerald of Wales, thought to have been written while studying in Lincoln around 1196--99,[^48] is heavily dependent on this book.[^49] Gerald, however, definitely uses earliest version, now published as the *textus prior,*[^50] whereas *Ex diuersis auditis* has parallels in all three versions, with the least correspondence to the *textus prior* (all are cited in the commentary to the text for comparison). While Gerald's use of Peter the Chanter is very direct, *Ex diuersis auditis* never uses verbatim quotations; it often uses the same quotations from earlier sources as Peter, but in a very different way. The resemblances sometimes consist of nothing more than a similarity of unusual vocabulary or a kindred strain of ideas; quite unlike, for instance, the use of Peter Lombard's *Sentences*, which is followed much more closely when a parallel can be identified. It is just as interesting to note what is not used from Peter the Chanter: in some cases, a section in *Ex diuersis auditis* with a title identical to a chapter of the *Verbum adbreuiatum* approaches its subject rather differently. Despite the number of similarities, therefore, one cannot identify direct use of Peter the Chanter's works with any certainty. This situation is similar to what Goering found for William de Montibus's *Tropi* and *De septem sacramentis*. There was obviously some form of influence between William and Peter, but it is unclear whether this connection was any stronger than presence at the same schools in Paris. Hugh MacKinnon once suggested that Peter the Chanter was a teacher of William de Montibus, but Goering found the evidence for this to be unsustainable, while allowing for the possibility that they might have known one another.[^51] Indeed, it is not even clear whether Gerald of Wales, though he followed Peter's work so closely, was a direct student of Peter the Chanter.[^52] It is interesting that there are passages in *Ex diuersis auditis* similar to later works written by Peter's students, notably those by Thomas of Chobham,[^53] which appear without any apparent parallel in earlier works. One must be cautious about drawing conclusions from this, however, as there are certain passages in *Ex diuersis auditis* that have more in common with authors as late as Bonaventure or Thomas Aquinas than any published work contemporary with William de Montibus, indicating the continuity of the oral scholastic tradition, and reflecting the number of sources from this period still left unpublished. *Metre and Rhyme* ----------------- The verse is written in a combination of simple Leonines and *elegi Leonini*, which consist respectively of classical hexameters and elegiac couplets, with the addition of a rhyme between the caesura (always occurring in the third foot) and the end of the line.[^54] It admirably achieves its stated purpose of functioning as a memory aid, with an uncanny ability to stick in one's head, and it is written in a fluid manner with relatively few syntactical contortions. Written in Leonines are 2, 3, 4, 7, 16, 17--19, 21--24, 26--34, and 36--53. Written in *elegi Leonini* are 1, 5, 6, 8--15, 16a, 20, 25, and 35. The rhyme is omitted in the first two verses of 2, though the second of these is adopted from the penultimate verse of 36, which does rhyme. The last section, 54 (which, as has been noted, is of a rather different character from the rest in a number of respects) is in hexameter, but uses an inconsistent scheme for its rhymes. It uses Leonines for the first and fourth verses; verses two and three are *collaterales* (with the last syllable before the caesura rhyming with the following caesura, and likewise for the end of each line); verse five is unrhymed. This mixture is also found in Samuel's versification of Psalm 1,[^55] and it seems likely that Samuel himself wrote it rather than William de Montibus. Most of the rhymes are monosyllabic, as the following (the first two verses of 5, forming an elegiac couplet): > īntēr | sūr cā|*dēs* • ăbră|hām pŏsŭ|īt sĭbĭ | sē*des*\ > crīmĕn ĭn | hīs dē|l*ēt* • uīr bŏnŭ|s ātquĕ că|u*et* There are also many disyllabic rhymes (the first two verses of 18, in hexameter): > sī mălĕ | iū*rān|dī* • fōr|mās sīt | mēns mĕmŏ|*rāndi*\ > pēr prī|mās f*ā|tō* • pĕr ĭ|dōnĕă | cōmmĕmŏ|r*āto* Some of the rhymes are a little tenuous: > sēx īs|tīs uēr|bī*s* • nŏtĕ|t ēssĕ tĕ|nēndă să|cērdo*s* For the most part, however, the scheme is very consistently applied. In a few cases, one must supply the correct sound when individual letters are included, as in this verse (the second of 29): > quōd dē|sīgnāt | c[*ē*] • gĕnĕr|ālĕ uĕl | ēst spĕcĭ|āl*e* Verses such as this can be easily understood as long as one keeps in mind the differences between classical and medieval pronunciation (e.g. 'caus*e*' rhymes with 'tacer*e*' at 41.000).[^56] *Editorial Practice* -------------------- *Ex diuersis auditis* is here edited in its entirety for the first time. Joseph Goering previously printed the first section in addition to the headings and first lines for the rest; I have used his numbering of the sections, which is strictly editorial (with the section separated from 16 labelled 16a).[^57] Sections that overlap with *Versarius* have been checked against Cambridge, Corpus Christi College <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> 186, yielding one correction (at 4.000); other variants from this manuscript are not reported. The division of the verses does not diverge from the manuscript. The layout of the text as presented here is intended to reflect its structure as transparently as possible while adapting to the conventions of print: the reader will wish to note that each section of prose applies to the verses below, and not above. While this is not what modern readers would expect, it presents the least number of compromises of several different options explored while producing this edition. There are two levels of commentary within the work. Passages of the commentary that are preceded by a letter apply only to the word or phrase in the verse to which the letter is keyed; this is represented in the manuscript with a line drawn between the appropriate place in the verse and the prose. Passages written before a verse without any such indicator apply to the entirety of the verses following, generally up to the next unkeyed passage of commentary. Thus, in the first section, the first prose passage applies to the following two verses, despite the intervening line glossing *interior* in the second verse. A third level of commentary of a sort has been added later (as discussed above) in a style similar to other works by Samuel Presbiter, offering alternate words that could be understood in place of what is in the verse, preceded by 'uel'; these are positioned above the word to which they apply, as in the manuscript, and are printed in italics to distinguish them as additions. The mnemonic acronyms used at several points in the commentary have been modified slightly: in the manuscript, the letters are only written out in the verse, with wider spacing to fit in the words above, and each letter of the acronym is joined by an individual line to its corresponding word. I have instead written the mnemonic in small capitals in the verse, and repeated the letters beside the words to which they apply. The commentary for the last section in the work (54, which as discussed above probably reflects more of a contribution from Samuel Presbiter than William de Montibus) is exceptionally arranged using *distinctiones,* and translates rather poorly into print (though this was done successfully in an earlier Toronto Medieval Latin Texts volume, Robert Grosseteste's *Templum Dei*). The text has been presented here in the form of a modern outline, in which each item higher in the hierarchy applies to the subordinate items; this does not necessitate rearrangement of the text. The critical apparatus notes all editorial modifications as well as corrections made to the manuscript itself; the corrector discussed above is always referred to as 'another hand'. The spelling of the manuscript has been reproduced, even in its inconsistencies. The scribe uses 'ci' and 'ti' with particular irregularity; one finds, for instance, 'iuditio' at 12.000 but 'iudicium' at 12.000, or 'ociose' inconsistently corrected to 'otiose' in 18.000. The word 'Cristus' is never written in full in the manuscript; it is spelled in this manner on the basis of 'Cristiani' (000), 'Crisostomus' (000), and 'crisma' (000).[^58] Following the scribe's practice, I do not distinguish between u and v, using V in the majuscule; minuscule v occurs only decoratively in the manuscript, in both an initial and medial position, and without any consistency. Punctuation is inspired by what is found in the manuscript, but it has been freely adapted to make better sense of the text. The commentary seeks to show sources and parallels for the text and assist students of medieval Latin. Words with particularly troublesome spellings are glossed in their classical form, and definitions have been provided for unusual vocabulary, generally considered to be words that do not appear in Lewis and Short's *Latin Dictionary* (still, at this writing, the Latin-English dictionary most commonly used among medievalists) and whose meaning might not be quickly guessed. Readers will receive better guidance, however, from the *Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources,* to which references have been provided when it includes quotations that are helpful in illustrating the contemporary usage of a word or phrase. \ Bibliography ============ --------------------------- Texts by medieval authors ------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- [insert bibliography] Secondary Sources ----------------- Alexander Neckam. *Sacerdos ad altare*. Edited by Christopher J. McDonough. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cccm</span> 227. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010. Andrée, Alexander. 'Laon Revisited: Master Anselm and the Creation of a Theological School in the Twelfth Century (A Review Essay)'. *Journal of Medieval Latin* 22 (2012): 257--81. doi:10.1484/J.JML.1.103258. Baldwin, John W. *Masters, Princes, and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and His Circle*. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970. Boutemy, A. 'Giraud de Barri et Pierre le Chantre: Une source de la *Gemma ecclesiastica*'. *Revue du moyen âge latin* 2 (1946): 45--62. Boyle, Leonard E. 'The Inter-Conciliar Period 1179--1215 and the Beginnings of Pastoral Manuals'. In *Miscellanea Rolando Bandinelli, Papa Alessandro <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>*, edited by Filippo Liotta, 45--56. Siena: Accademia senese degli intronati, 1986. Carruthers, Mary J. *The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture*. 2nd ed. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Chenu, Marie-Dominique. 'Notes de lexicographie philosophique médiévale'. *Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques* 16, no. 4 (1927): 435--46. Clanchy, Michael, and Lesley Smith. 'Abelard's Description of the School of Laon: What Might It Tell Us About Early Scholastic Teaching?' *Nottingham Medieval Studies* 54 (2010): 1--34. doi:10.1484/J.NMS.1.100766. Colish, Marcia L. Review of *Petri Cantoris Parisiensis Verbum adbreviatum: Textus conflatus*, by Monique Boutry. *Speculum* 81, no. 3 (July 2006): 905--6. doi:10.1017/S0038713400016407. Curry Woods, Marjorie, and Rita Copeland. 'Classroom and Confession'. In *The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature*, edited by David Wallace, 376--406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Diem, Albrecht. 'Virtues and Vices in Early Texts on Pastoral Care'. *Franciscan Studies* 62 (2004): 193--223. doi:10.1353/frc.2004.0008. Dinkova-Bruun, Greti. 'Notes on Poetic Composition in the Theological Schools Ca. 1200 and the Latin Poetic Anthology from Ms. Harley 956: A Critical Edition'. *Sacris Erudiri* 43 (2004): 299--391. doi:10.1484/J.SE.2.300126. ---------. 'Remembering the Gospels in the Later Middle Ages: The Anonymous *Capitula Euangeliorum Versifice Scripta*'. *Sacris Erudiri* 48 (2009): 235--73. doi:10.1484/J.SE.1.100559. ---------. 'Samuel Presbyter and the Glosses to His Versification of Psalm 1: An Anti-Church Invective?' In *Florilegium mediaevale: Études offertes à Jacqueline Hamesse à l'occasion de son éméritat*, edited by José Francisco Meirinhos and Olga Weijers, 155--74. Textes et études du moyen âge 50. Louvain-la-Neuve: Fédération Internationale des Instituts d'Études Médiévales, 2009. ---------. 'The Verse Bible as Aide-Mémoire'. In *The Making of Memory in the Middle Ages*, edited by Lucie Doležalová, 115--31. Later Medieval Europe 4. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Foster, C.W., and Kathleen Major, eds. *The Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln*. 10 vols. Publications of the Lincoln Record Society 27--29, 32, 34, 41, 42, 46, 51, 62, 67, 68. Hereford: Lincoln Record Society, 1931\_68. Gerald of Wales. *Giraldi Cambrensis opera,* vol. 5, *Topographia Hibernica et Expugnatio Hibernica*. Edited by James F. Dimock. Rolls Series 21. London: Longman, 1867. Gibson, Margaret T. 'The Twelfth-Century Glossed Bible'. In *Papers Presented to the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford, 1987*, edited by E.A. Livingstone, 5:232--44. Studia Patristica 23. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. Goering, Joseph. 'Leonard E. Boyle and the Invention of *Pastoralia*'. In *A Companion to Pastoral Care in the Late Middle Ages (1200--1500)*, edited by Ronald J. Stansbury, 7--20. Brill's Companions to the Christian Tradition 22. Leiden: Brill, 2010. ---------. 'The Summa *Qui bene presunt* and Its Author'. In *Literature and Religion in the Later Middle Ages: Philological Studies in Honor of Siegfried Wenzel*, edited by Richard G. Newhauser and John A. Alford, 143--59. Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 118. Binghampton, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ny</span>: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1995. ---------. *William de Montibus (c. 1140--1213): The Schools and the Literature of Pastoral Care*. Studies and Texts 108. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1992. Golding, Brian. 'Gerald of Wales, the *Gemma Ecclesiastica* and Pastoral Care'. In *Text and Traditions of Medieval Pastoral Care: Essays in Honour of Bella Millett*, edited by Cate Gunn and Catherine Innes-Parker, 47--61. Woodbridge, Suffolk: York Medieval Press, 2009. Hamesse, Jacqueline. '*Collatio* et *reportatio*: deux vocables spécifiques de la vie intellectuelle au moyen âge'. In *Actes du colloque 'Terminologie de la vie intellectuelle au moyen âge' Leyde-La Haye 20--21 septembre 1985*, edited by Olga Weijers, 78--87. Études sur le vocabulaire intellectuel du Moyen Age 1. Turnhout: Brepols, 1988. Hunt, R.W. 'English Learning in the Late Twelfth Century'. *Transactions of the Royal Historical Society*, 4th ser., 19 (1936): 19--42. doi:10.2307/3678685. James, M.R. 'Bury St. Edmunds Manuscripts'. *English Historical Review* 41, no. 162 (April 1926): 251--60. doi:10.1093/ehr/XLI.CLXII.251. James, M.R., and Ellis H. Minns. *A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Pembroke College, Cambridge*. Cambridge: University Press, 1905. James, Thomas. *Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrigiensis*. 2 vols. London: George Bishop and John Norton, 1600. Ker, N.R. *Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books*. 2nd ed. Guides and Handbooks 3. London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1964. ---------. *Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books. Supplement to the Second Edition*. Edited by Andrew G. Watson. Guides and Handbooks 15. London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1987. Kiessling, Nicolas K. *The Library of Anthony Wood*. Oxford Bibliographical Society Publications, 3rd ser., 5. Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical Society, 2002. Leland, John. *De uiris illustribus/On Famous Men*. Edited and translated by James P. Carley. British Writers of the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period 1. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2010. Lesieur, Thierry. 'La *collatio*: Un modèle chrétien de résolution de la question?' In *La méthode critique au Moyen Âge*, edited by Mireille Chazan and Gilbert Dahan, 65--81. Bibliothèque d'histoire culturelle du Moyen Âge 3. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006. MacKinnon, Hugh. 'William de Montibus: A Medieval Teacher'. In *Essays in Medieval History Presented to Bertie Wilkinson*, edited by T.A. Sandquist and M.R. Powicke, 32--45. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1968. Meyer, Christoph H.F. *Die Distinktionstechnik in der Kanonistik des 12. Jahrhunderts: Ein Beitrag zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte des Hochmittelalters*. Mediaevalia Lovaniensia, 1st ser., studia 29. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000. Parkes, M.B. '*Folia librorum quaerere:* Medieval Experience of the Problems of Hypertext and the Index'. In *Fabula in tabula: Una storia degli indici dal manoscritto al testo elettronico*, edited by Claudio Leonardi, 23--41. Quaderni di cultura mediolatina 13. Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull'Alto medioevo, 1995. Peter the Chanter. *Verbum adbreuiatum: Textus prior*. Edited by Monique Boutry. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cccm</span> 196a. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012. Pipe Roll Society, ed. *Feet of Fines of the Tenth Year of the Reign of King Richard <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ad</span> 1198 to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ad</span> 1199*. Publications of the Pipe Roll Society 24. London: Love and Wyman, 1900. ---------. , ed. *The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Reign of King Henry the Second*. Publications of the Pipe Roll Society 1, 2, 4--9, 11--13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25--34, 36--38. London: Wyman, 1884\_1925. Pontifical Abbey of St Jerome-in-the-City, ed. *Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem*. 18 vols. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1926\_95. Riché, Pierre, and Jacques Verger. *Des nains sur des épaules de géants: Maîtres et élèves au moyen âge*. Paris: Tallandier, 2006. Rigg, A.G. *A History of Anglo-Latin Literature, 1066--1422*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ---------. 'Anglo-Latin'. In *Singing Early Music: The Pronunciation of European Languages in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance*, edited by Timothy J. McGee, 46--61. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996. Robert Grosseteste. *Templum Dei*. Edited by Joseph Goering and F.A.C. Mantello. Toronto Medieval Latin Texts 14. Toronto: Published for the Centre for Medieval Studies by the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1984. Robertson, D.W., Jr. 'A Note on the Classical Origin of "Circumstances" in the Medieval Confessional'. *Studies in Philology* 43, no. 1 (January 1946): 6--14. Rosemann, Philipp W. *The Story of a Great Medieval Book: Peter Lombard's Sentences*. Peterborough, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">on</span>: Broadview Press, 2007. Russell, Josiah Cox. *Dictionary of Writers of Thirteenth-Century England*. Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, Special Supplement 3. London: Longmans, 1936. Sanford, E.M. 'Giraldus Cambrensis' Debt to Petrus Cantor'. *Medievalia et Humanistica* 3 (1945): 16--32. Sharpe, Richard. *A Handlist of the Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland before 1540*. Publications of the Journal of Medieval Latin 1. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997. ---------. 'Reconstructing the Medieval Library of Bury St Edmunds Abbey: The Lost Catalogue of Henry of Kirkstead'. In *Bury St Edmunds: Medieval Art, Architecture, Archaeology, and Economy*, edited by Antonia Gransden, 204--18. The British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions 20. Leeds: British Archaeological Association, 1998. Sharpe, Richard, James P. Carley, Rodney M. Thomson, and Andrew G. Watson, eds. *English Benedictine Libraries: The Shorter Catalogues*. Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues 4. London: British Library in association with the British Academy, 1996. Smalley, Beryl, and George Lacombe. 'The Lombard's Commentary on Isaias and Other Fragments'. *The New Scholasticism* 5, no. 2 (April 1931): 123--62. doi:10.5840/newscholas19315217. Stegmüller, Friedrich. *Repertorium biblicum medii aevi*. 11 vols. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1950\_80. Stotz, Peter. *Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters*. 5 vols. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 2.5. Munich: Beck, 1996\_2004. Tanner, Thomas. *Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica; siue, De scriptoribus, qui in Anglia, Scotia, et Hibernia ad saeculi <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">xvii</span> initium floruerunt, commentarius*. Edited by David Wilkins. London: G. Bowyer, 1748. Thorndike, Lynn. 'Unde versus'. *Traditio* 11 (1955): 163--93. Valgimogli, Lorenzo. *Lo «Speculum Gregorii» di Adalberto di Metz*. Archivum Gregorianum 8. Florence: SISMEL, 2006. Van Liere, Frans. 'The Study of Canon Law and the Eclipse of the Lincoln Schools, 1175--1225'. *History of Universities* 18 (2003): 1--13. Watt, Jack. 'Parisian Theologians and the Jews: Peter Lombard and Peter Cantor'. In *The Medieval Church: Universities, Heresy, and the Religious Life. Essays in Honour of Gordon Leff*, edited by Peter Biller and Barrie Dobson, 55--76. Studies in Church History, Subsidia 11. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Published for the Ecclesiastical History Society by the Boydell Press, 1999. Weber, Robert, and Roger Gryson, eds. *Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem*. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007. Winroth, Anders. *The Making of Gratian's* Decretum. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Wordsworth, John, and Henry Julian White, eds. *Nouum Testamentum Domini nostri Iesu Christi Latine, secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi*. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889\_1954. Yeatman, John Pym. *The Feudal History of the County of Derby: Chiefly during the 11th, 12th, and 13th Centuries*. 9 vols. London: Bemrose, 1886\_1907. [^1]: The life and works of William de Montibus are described and analysed in Joseph Goering, *William de Montibus (c. 1140--1213): The Schools and the Literature of Pastoral Care*, Studies and Texts 108 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1992). He was also called 'de Monte', as is most likely the case in this manuscript (the abbreviation is slightly ambiguous); see ibid., 5--7. [^2]: John Leland, *De uiris illustribus/On Famous Men*, ed. and trans. James P. Carley, British Writers of the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period 1 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2010), chap. 255. [^3]: The classic article on the subject is Lynn Thorndike, 'Unde versus', *Traditio* 11 (1955): 163--93; for more recent work, see for example Greti Dinkova-Bruun, 'The Verse Bible as Aide-Mémoire', in *The Making of Memory in the Middle Ages*, ed. Lucie Doležalová, Later Medieval Europe 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 115--31; and Greti Dinkova-Bruun, 'Notes on Poetic Composition in the Theological Schools Ca. 1200 and the Latin Poetic Anthology from Ms. Harley 956: A Critical Edition', *Sacris Erudiri* 43 (2004): 299--391, doi:10.1484/J.SE.2.300126. [Andrée WANTS DIFF REFS, MAYBE CARRUTHERS] [^4]: Goering, *William de Montibus*, 504--6 (with additional references). [^5]: Alexander Andrée, 'Laon Revisited: Master Anselm and the Creation of a Theological School in the Twelfth Century (A Review Essay)', *Journal of Medieval Latin* 22 (2012): 263, doi:10.1484/J.JML.1.103258; Michael Clanchy and Lesley Smith, 'Abelard's Description of the School of Laon: What Might It Tell Us About Early Scholastic Teaching?', *Nottingham Medieval Studies* 54 (2010): 19, doi:10.1484/J.NMS.1.100766; Pierre Riché and Jacques Verger, *Des nains sur des épaules de géants: Maîtres et élèves au moyen âge* (Paris: Tallandier, 2006), 119. *Collatio* is also refer to an intellectual process: cf. Thierry Lesieur, 'La *collatio*: Un modèle chrétien de résolution de la question?', in *La méthode critique au Moyen Âge*, ed. Mireille Chazan and Gilbert Dahan, Bibliothèque d'histoire culturelle du Moyen Âge 3 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 65--81; Jacqueline Hamesse, '*Collatio* et *reportatio*: deux vocables spécifiques de la vie intellectuelle au moyen âge', in *Actes du colloque 'Terminologie de la vie intellectuelle au moyen âge' Leyde-La Haye 20--21 septembre 1985*, ed. Olga Weijers, Études sur le vocabulaire intellectuel du Moyen Age 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1988), 78--87; Marie-Dominique Chenu, 'Notes de lexicographie philosophique médiévale', *Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques* 16, no. 4 (1927): 435--46. [^6]: Alexander Neckam, *Sacerdos ad altare*, ed. Christopher J. McDonough, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cccm</span> 227 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010). [^7]: Organization by *distinctio* (i.e. a division, often applied to sections of books) is a vast topic; in this period, it was often manifested in the form of diagrams connecting various terms with lines to show their relationship. An excellent example of this method of layout translated into print is Robert Grosseteste, *Templum Dei*, ed. Joseph Goering and F.A.C. Mantello, Toronto Medieval Latin Texts 14 (Toronto: Published for the Centre for Medieval Studies by the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1984). On the concept in the twelfth century*,* see Christoph H.F. Meyer, *Die Distinktionstechnik in der Kanonistik des 12. Jahrhunderts: Ein Beitrag zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte des Hochmittelalters*, Mediaevalia Lovaniensia, 1st ser., studia 29 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000). [^8]: Greti Dinkova-Bruun, 'Remembering the Gospels in the Later Middle Ages: The Anonymous *Capitula Euangeliorum Versifice Scripta*', *Sacris Erudiri* 48 (2009): 235--73, doi:10.1484/J.SE.1.100559. [^9]: This is found in nos. 12, 16, 17, 18, 26, 29, 32, 34, 35, 43, 46, 49, 50, and 54. [^10]: Goering, *William de Montibus*, 395 identifies some sixty uses of these words (in what he calls 'circumstantial' poems) in William de Montibus's *Versarius*. For additional context and use in *Peniteas cito*, see Marjorie Curry Woods and Rita Copeland, 'Classroom and Confession', in *The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature*, ed. David Wallace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 393--94; for other variants, see D.W. Robertson Jr, 'A Note on the Classical Origin of "Circumstances" in the Medieval Confessional', *Studies in Philology* 43, no. 1 (January 1946): 6--14. [^11]: This was perhaps one of the most popular of William's mnemonics; see the references in the commentary to this passage. [^12]: See further references in M.B. Parkes, '*Folia librorum quaerere:* Medieval Experience of the Problems of Hypertext and the Index', in *Fabula in tabula: Una storia degli indici dal manoscritto al testo elettronico*, ed. Claudio Leonardi, Quaderni di cultura mediolatina 13 (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull'Alto medioevo, 1995), 34 nn. 41--44. [^13]: Joseph Goering, 'Leonard E. Boyle and the Invention of *Pastoralia*', in *A Companion to Pastoral Care in the Late Middle Ages (1200--1500)*, ed. Ronald J. Stansbury, Brill's Companions to the Christian Tradition 22 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 7--20; Leonard E. Boyle, 'The Inter-Conciliar Period 1179--1215 and the Beginnings of Pastoral Manuals', in *Miscellanea Rolando Bandinelli, Papa Alessandro <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>*, ed. Filippo Liotta (Siena: Accademia senese degli intronati, 1986), 45--56. [^14]: Albrecht Diem, 'Virtues and Vices in Early Texts on Pastoral Care', *Franciscan Studies* 62 (2004): 193--223, doi:10.1353/frc.2004.0008. [^15]: Joseph Goering, 'The Summa *Qui bene presunt* and Its Author', in *Literature and Religion in the Later Middle Ages: Philological Studies in Honor of Siegfried Wenzel*, ed. Richard G. Newhauser and John A. Alford, Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 118 (Binghampton, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ny</span>: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1995), 143--59. [^16]: Frans van Liere, 'The Study of Canon Law and the Eclipse of the Lincoln Schools, 1175--1225', *History of Universities* 18 (2003): 1--13. [^17]: Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> 115, on the verso of the flyleaf, also records 'Collecta Samuelis presbiteri ex speculo beati Gregorii pape', in a slightly later hand, while a sixteenth-century hand records 'Presbyteri' on fol. 1r. [^18]: In *Collecta ex auditis super psalmos*: <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860, fol. 59rb. Noted by Goering, *William de Montibus*, 499 n. 9. [^19]: Pipe Roll Society, ed., *Feet of Fines of the Tenth Year of the Reign of King Richard <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ad</span> 1198 to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ad</span> 1199*, Publications of the Pipe Roll Society 24 (London: Love and Wyman, 1900), 71 (no. 104). [^20]: C.W. Foster and Kathleen Major, eds., *The Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln*, Publications of the Lincoln Record Society 27--29, 32, 34, 41, 42, 46, 51, 62, 67, 68 (Hereford: Lincoln Record Society, 1931\_68), 4:32--33 (nos. 1140/41). It is probably the same person who owned the 'mansionem Samuelis' mentioned in Owmby by Spital around 1200--1210, 4:31 (no. 1138). There is also a Samuel de Cartis (also recorded as Scartres and Chartres) found in Owmby in 1230--40 (4:33--35, nos. 1142/43). [^21]: Pipe Roll Society, ed., *The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Reign of King Henry the Second*, Publications of the Pipe Roll Society 1, 2, 4--9, 11--13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25--34, 36--38 (London: Wyman, 1884\_1925), 8:64 (11 Hen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 7, m. 1d), 9:97 (12 Hen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 7, m. 2d), 11:150 (13 Hen <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 10, m. 2), 12:141 (14 Hen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 10, m. 1), 13:2 (15 Hen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 1, m. 1), 15:113 (16 Hen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 8, m. 1d), 16:13 (16 Hen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 1, m. 1d), 18:73 (18 Hen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 6, m. 1). There is also a 'Samuel presbiter de Blidsworth' found in Nottingham in 1186/1187 according to John Pym Yeatman, *The Feudal History of the County of Derby: Chiefly during the 11th, 12th, and 13th Centuries* (London: Bemrose, 1886\_1907), 1:133; this is likely a misprint for 'Simon presbiter de Blidewurda', as found in Pipe Roll Society, *The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Reign of King Henry the Second*, 37:168 (33 Hen. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, r. 12, m. 1d), but I have not had an opportunity to check the original. [^22]: Josiah Cox Russell, *Dictionary of Writers of Thirteenth-Century England*, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, Special Supplement 3 (London: Longmans, 1936), 147 nn. 2--4 (s.v. 'Samuel Presbyter'). [^23]: Goering, *William de Montibus*, 45 n. 68. The same assumption is separately made of the Huntingdon Samuel Presbiter in Foster and Major, *The Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln*, 3:200. [^24]: Jack Watt, 'Parisian Theologians and the Jews: Peter Lombard and Peter Cantor', in *The Medieval Church: Universities, Heresy, and the Religious Life. Essays in Honour of Gordon Leff*, ed. Peter Biller and Barrie Dobson, Studies in Church History, Subsidia 11 (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Published for the Ecclesiastical History Society by the Boydell Press, 1999), 55--76. [^25]: Samuel's paraphrases of the gospels and Ps. 31 in Richard Sharpe, *A Handlist of the Latin Writers of Great Britain and Ireland before 1540*, Publications of the Journal of Medieval Latin 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997), 600--601 (s.v. 'Samuel Priest', no. 1604), are considered below to be part of *Collecta ad habendam memoriam.* The listing in Friedrich Stegmüller, *Repertorium biblicum medii aevi* (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1950\_80), 5:201--2 (nos. 7593--7593.3) is mostly correct, but omits the Pembroke manuscript; Thomas Tanner, *Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica; siue, De scriptoribus, qui in Anglia, Scotia, et Hibernia ad saeculi <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">xvii</span> initium floruerunt, commentarius*, ed. David Wilkins (London: G. Bowyer, 1748), 651 lists both. [^26]: This work has been discussed in detail with a partial edition by Greti Dinkova-Bruun, 'Samuel Presbyter and the Glosses to His Versification of Psalm 1: An Anti-Church Invective?', in *Florilegium mediaevale: Études offertes à Jacqueline Hamesse à l'occasion de son éméritat*, ed. José Francisco Meirinhos and Olga Weijers, Textes et études du moyen âge 50 (Louvain-la-Neuve: Fédération Internationale des Instituts d'Études Médiévales, 2009), 155--74. [^27]: The text of fol. 9r is printed in Goering, *William de Montibus*, 501--3. [^28]: Excerpts from this text were previously printed in ibid., 508--14; it was also briefly described in Beryl Smalley and George Lacombe, 'The Lombard's Commentary on Isaias and Other Fragments', *The New Scholasticism* 5, no. 2 (April 1931): 141--42, doi:10.5840/newscholas19315217. [^29]: There is no edition of this book, but see Lorenzo Valgimogli, *Lo «Speculum Gregorii» di Adalberto di Metz*, Archivum Gregorianum 8 (Florence: SISMEL, 2006). Many copies of it are known to have existed in England, including one at Bury St Edmunds by the late twelfth century: Richard Sharpe et al., eds., *English Benedictine Libraries: The Shorter Catalogues*, Corpus of British Medieval Library Catalogues 4 (London: British Library in association with the British Academy, 1996), B13.48a. [^30]: Dinkova-Bruun, 'Samuel Presbyter', 157 n. 4; Goering, *William de Montibus*, 265. [^31]: Russell, *Dictionary of Writers of Thirteenth-Century England*, 147. [^32]: 'Qui Gulielmi de Monte celeberrimi suo tempore Oxoniae theol. professoris auditor diligens et admirator extitit.' Tanner, *Bibliotheca britannico-hibernica*, 651, citing 'Br[ian] Twyn[e] in princ. A. Wood. Ms. Pits', probably the missing copy of the *Relationum historicarum* noted in Nicolas K. Kiessling, *The Library of Anthony Wood*, Oxford Bibliographical Society Publications, 3rd ser., 5 (Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical Society, 2002), 489--90 (no. 5263). [^33]: For a helpful perspective of the authorship of this book and the commentaries written on it, see Philipp W. Rosemann, *The Story of a Great Medieval Book: Peter Lombard's Sentences* (Peterborough, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">on</span>: Broadview Press, 2007). [^34]: Written at the bottom of f. 206v in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 860 and on f. 77r of Pembroke College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> 115. [^35]: Mary J. Carruthers, *The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture*, 2nd ed., Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 10 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 244. [^36]: Ibid., 246. [^37]: Dinkova-Bruun, 'Samuel Presbyter', 168. [^38]: In a reconstruction of the Bury catalogue from extant manuscripts, these are placed under a larger a larger 'Biblia' section in Richard Sharpe, 'Reconstructing the Medieval Library of Bury St Edmunds Abbey: The Lost Catalogue of Henry of Kirkstead', in *Bury St Edmunds: Medieval Art, Architecture, Archaeology, and Economy*, ed. Antonia Gransden, The British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions 20 (Leeds: British Archaeological Association, 1998), 210; for an earlier listing of survivors, see M.R. James, 'Bury St. Edmunds Manuscripts', *English Historical Review* 41, no. 162 (April 1926): 254, doi:10.1093/ehr/XLI.CLXII.251. For a more up-to-date list organized by current owners, see N.R. Ker, *Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books*, 2nd ed., Guides and Handbooks 3 (London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1964), 16--22; with further corrections in N.R. Ker, *Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books. Supplement to the Second Edition*, ed. Andrew G. Watson, Guides and Handbooks 15 (London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1987), 5--7. [^39]: For a summary of the Bury library's history and further references, see Sharpe et al., *English Benedictine Libraries*, 43--49. [^40]: Thomas James, *Ecloga Oxonio-Cantabrigiensis* (London: George Bishop and John Norton, 1600), 2:132 (no. 149). This is not altogether unusual; there are 31 manuscripts from his list that are now missing, with several of them now in Oxford, listed in M.R. James and Ellis H. Minns, *A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Pembroke College, Cambridge* (Cambridge: University Press, 1905), xx--xxiii, where this manuscript is no. 2077, following its enumeration in Bernard's union catalogue of 1697 (which for Pembroke simply reprinted James' listing). [^41]: This is a fairly common feature in manuscripts of this period, though it is only occasionally noted in catalogues; I have happened across it in Oxford, Bodleian Library, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Auct. D. 2. 9, fol. 1 (Peter Lombard on the Psalms); Oxford, Bodleian Library, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Auct. F. 5. 23, fol. 7r (Alexander Neckam, *Corrogationes Promethei*); Oxford, Bodleian Library, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> Bodley 528, fol. 1r (Alexander Neckam, *Tractatus super Mulierem fortem*); Oxford, Jesus College, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms</span> 94, fol. 57r (Alexander Neckam, Commentary on Proverbs); and San Marino, Huntington Library, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ms hm</span> 35300 (Bede, Commentary on Acts). There is also a variation, 'Spiritus sancti assit nobis gratia'. [^42]: The text below generally follows Robert Weber and Roger Gryson, eds., *Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem*, 5th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007). I have not reported variants that are found either in this edition or the large ones upon which it is based: Pontifical Abbey of St Jerome-in-the-City, ed., *Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem*, 18 vols. (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1926\_95), covering the Old Testament; and John Wordsworth and Henry Julian White, eds., *Nouum Testamentum Domini nostri Iesu Christi Latine, secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi*, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889\_1954). [^43]: The following passages are abbreviated so heavily that one would almost certainly need to know the passage in order to understand the quotation: Deut. 6:5 (39.000), Ps. 6:7 (10.000), Ps. 17:13 (38.000), Ps. 18:3 (38.000), Ps. 18:9 (34.000, 38.000), Ps. 24:9 (4.000), Ps. 26:6 (39.000), Ps. 37:15 (15.000), Ps. 40:10 (14.000), Ps. 41:4 (10.000 and 26.000), Ps. 72:3 (14.000), Ps. 101:5 (26.000), Ps. 111:5 (12.000), Ps. 118:130 (34.000), Ps. 136:1 (10.000), Ps. 144:6--7 (38.000), Ps. 146:11 (53.000), Ps. 149:4 (4.000), Matt. 4:2 (11.000), Matt. 5:3--4 (15.000), Matt. 5:10 (15.000), Matt. 6:3 (27.000), Matt. 6:25 (42.000), Matt. 24:45 (41.000), Matt. 25:35 (11.000, 51.000), Mark 10:18 (46.000), Luke 4:18--19 (16.000), Luke 11:14 (16.000), John 6:51 (26.000), John 6:54 (24.000), John 16:12 (41.000), 1 Thess. 4:13 (10.000). [^44]: Dinkova-Bruun, 'Samuel Presbyter', 168. [^45]: For an introduction to Gratian, see Anders Winroth, *The Making of Gratian's* Decretum, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 49 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), chap. 1. [^46]: Margaret T. Gibson, 'The Twelfth-Century Glossed Bible', in *Papers Presented to the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford, 1987*, ed. E.A. Livingstone, vol. 5, Studia Patristica 23 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 243 notes its use in *Collecta ex auditis super psalmos*. [^47]: For a summary of the revised dating resulting from the editing of the *Verbum adbreuiatum,* see Marcia L. Colish, review of *Petri Cantoris Parisiensis Verbum adbreviatum: Textus conflatus*, by Monique Boutry, *Speculum* 81, no. 3 (July 2006): 905--6, doi:10.1017/S0038713400016407. [^48]: On the date, see James F. Dimock, introduction to Gerald of Wales, *Giraldi Cambrensis opera,* vol. 5, *Topographia Hibernica et Expugnatio Hibernica*, ed. James F. Dimock, Rolls Series 21 (London: Longman, 1867), liii n. 2; cited with further context in Brian Golding, 'Gerald of Wales, the *Gemma Ecclesiastica* and Pastoral Care', in *Text and Traditions of Medieval Pastoral Care: Essays in Honour of Bella Millett*, ed. Cate Gunn and Catherine Innes-Parker (Woodbridge, Suffolk: York Medieval Press, 2009), 48, 51. [^49]: A. Boutemy, 'Giraud de Barri et Pierre le Chantre: Une source de la *Gemma ecclesiastica*', *Revue du moyen âge latin* 2 (1946): 45--62; E.M. Sanford, 'Giraldus Cambrensis' Debt to Petrus Cantor', *Medievalia et Humanistica* 3 (1945): 16--32; Golding, 'Gerald of Wales', 52--54. [^50]: See, for instance, *Gemma ecclesiastica* 2.26 in Boutemy, 'Giraud de Barri et Pierre le Chantre', 49; this is only to be found in Peter the Chanter, *Verbum adbreuiatum: Textus prior*, ed. Monique Boutry, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cccm</span> 196a (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), chap. 22 (pp. 175--76, lines 71--90), which is indeed much closer to Gerald's text than the version Boutemy cites from the *Patrologia Latina* as edited by Georges Galopin. [^51]: Goering, *William de Montibus*, 11--12 (with further references); Hugh MacKinnon, 'William de Montibus: A Medieval Teacher', in *Essays in Medieval History Presented to Bertie Wilkinson*, ed. T.A. Sandquist and M.R. Powicke (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1968), 33. The link between William de Montibus and Peter the Chanter was first suggested by R.W. Hunt, 'English Learning in the Late Twelfth Century', *Transactions of the Royal Historical Society*, 4th ser., 19 (1936): 21, doi:10.2307/3678685. [^52]: John W. Baldwin, *Masters, Princes, and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and His Circle* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), 1:41--43. [^53]: On their relationship, see ibid., 1:34--36. [^54]: For an introduction to metre in contemporary usage, see A.G. Rigg, *A History of Anglo-Latin Literature, 1066--1422* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 313--29, with examples of Leonines at 319 and of *Elegi Leonini* at 322. [^55]: Dinkova-Bruun, 'Samuel Presbyter', 156. [^56]: For general guidance, see A.G. Rigg, 'Anglo-Latin', in *Singing Early Music: The Pronunciation of European Languages in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance*, ed. Timothy J. McGee (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), 46--61. [^57]: Goering, *William de Montibus*, 508--14. [^58]: On this spelling, see Peter Stotz, *Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters*, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 2.5 (Munich: Beck, 1996\_2004), 3:168 (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vii</span> 128.3). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <m1k36dt3nx.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive [not found] ` <m1k36dt3nx.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> @ 2014-08-15 5:36 ` Peter Sefton [not found] ` <CAGQnt7X6nt6cBA6YnT3Bjg8+vfNw10-gDdUC7AphpXsgUtq9uw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Peter Sefton @ 2014-08-15 5:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5332 bytes --] Hi Jesse, Thanks for this - it's looking pretty good. Attached is a test document where I don't think the output is right. The markdown I'm looking for is: ``` Test document – multi paragraph lists - First level bullet - First level bullet > Part of above bullet > Quote - First level bullet Quote ``` What I get is: ``` Test document – multi paragraph lists - First level bullet - First level bullet > Part of above bullet - First level bullet ``` I think the behaviour should be to make things that are indented to the same level as the text of a list paragraph a part of that list item. On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> wrote: > Dear Andrew, > > Thanks so much -- this was *extremely* helpful. I haven't solved all the > issues you brought up, but I've solved a number of them (I hope you > don't mind, but they're on my "dunning-fixes" branch). I've attached a > markdown version of the new and improved output, in case you want to > compare without pulling and building. > > Almost all of the issues have, I think, been fixed. (Individual notes > below, including why a couple probably can't be fixed.) May I ask your > permission to cut out chunks of this to use for test cases? > > On the individual issues: > > > - 18/19, 1123, 1130: Not quite sure what '<span > > class="anchor"></span>’ is for. > > Has to do with how docx does header anchors. I had been ignoring anchor > spans with no id. Fixed. > > > - 83 to 120: Not sure if there’s a better way of dealing with this > > list. It’s pretty non-standard (should be a definition list), so > > probably not. > > I don't quite see how. It's not a list, or at least docx doesn't think > it is, so it just ends up being treaated like weird paragraphs. And, > unfortunately, we currently collapse tabs into spaces. That could > be rethought if it's clear that tabs are used as you use them here. > > > - 188/89 (line in the output file): 'De uiris illustribus' italicized > > in Word, but reduced to the colon; something similar happens at lines > > 934 and 944. It looks as if italics are not applied if an ‘Italic’ > > character style is applied? > > I hadn't been interpreting this sort of character style before, since it > usually just uses the ctrl-i italic setting. I now interpret "Italic" > and "Bold". I'll keep an eye out for others to support as well. > > > - 191–205, 568–70, 576–79: A block quotation is not picked up, but > > that’s my fault for using a non-standard style name. I only bring it > > up because it seems odd that the one block quotation that was picked > > up was the one that didn’t use my ‘Block Quotation’ style. > > I had previously picked up "Quote" and "BlockQuote." I've now added > "BlockQuotatation" to the list. > > > - 211, 706: Unexpected phrases italicized. > > I hadn't taken into account all the options for the italics tags (the > tag is there, but just to tell me not to use it?) Anyway, now it should > work > > > - 300: Adjacent styles for small capitals should perhaps be combined? > > Bug, plain and simple. > > > - 349, 376, 557, 558 (etc.): Space after a word set in small caps: > > this is surely a problem in the original file and fixing it may have > > issues, but it would be really neat if this could be cleaned up. > > Cleaned up now. This was a symptom of the above bug. > > > - The reader sometimes applies italics to headings (704, 880, etc.) > > and sometimes doesn’t (it’s part of the paragraph style), but I > > imagine this is an inconsistency in the source document. > > I don't know if there's a way to solve this. The text is manually > italicized, so I couldn't know that it's not a foreign word, or a book > title, or something. Were it *just* the paragraph style, I think it > would come out unitalicized. > > Thanks again, > Jesse > > > > e > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "pandoc-discuss" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/m1k36dt3nx.fsf%40jhu.edu. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- Peter Sefton +61410326955 pt-uoIRqaBSbk9Wk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org http://ptsefton.com Gmail, Twitter & Skype name: ptsefton -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/CAGQnt7X6nt6cBA6YnT3Bjg8%2BvfNw10-gDdUC7AphpXsgUtq9uw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7590 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAGQnt7X6nt6cBA6YnT3Bjg8+vfNw10-gDdUC7AphpXsgUtq9uw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive [not found] ` <CAGQnt7X6nt6cBA6YnT3Bjg8+vfNw10-gDdUC7AphpXsgUtq9uw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> @ 2014-08-15 5:37 ` Peter Sefton [not found] ` <CAGQnt7Wxyjn2VY-dkqarA1yuZvemqxH_jGYauEMDfNcKfRSL7g-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Peter Sefton @ 2014-08-15 5:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5857 bytes --] Sorry all, managed to hit send prematurely this post is garbled - I'll get back to you! On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Peter Sefton <ptsefton-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > Hi Jesse, > > Thanks for this - it's looking pretty good. Attached is a test document > where I don't think the output is right. > > The markdown I'm looking for is: > > ``` > > Test document – multi paragraph lists > > - First level bullet > > - First level bullet > > > Part of above bullet > > > Quote > > - First level bullet > > Quote > > > ``` > > What I get is: > ``` > Test document – multi paragraph lists > > - First level bullet > > - First level bullet > > > Part of above bullet > > - First level bullet > > ``` > > I think the behaviour should be to make things that are indented to the > same level as the text of a list paragraph a part of that list item. > > > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> > wrote: > >> Dear Andrew, >> >> Thanks so much -- this was *extremely* helpful. I haven't solved all the >> issues you brought up, but I've solved a number of them (I hope you >> don't mind, but they're on my "dunning-fixes" branch). I've attached a >> markdown version of the new and improved output, in case you want to >> compare without pulling and building. >> >> Almost all of the issues have, I think, been fixed. (Individual notes >> below, including why a couple probably can't be fixed.) May I ask your >> permission to cut out chunks of this to use for test cases? >> >> On the individual issues: >> >> > - 18/19, 1123, 1130: Not quite sure what '<span >> > class="anchor"></span>’ is for. >> >> Has to do with how docx does header anchors. I had been ignoring anchor >> spans with no id. Fixed. >> >> > - 83 to 120: Not sure if there’s a better way of dealing with this >> > list. It’s pretty non-standard (should be a definition list), so >> > probably not. >> >> I don't quite see how. It's not a list, or at least docx doesn't think >> it is, so it just ends up being treaated like weird paragraphs. And, >> unfortunately, we currently collapse tabs into spaces. That could >> be rethought if it's clear that tabs are used as you use them here. >> >> > - 188/89 (line in the output file): 'De uiris illustribus' italicized >> > in Word, but reduced to the colon; something similar happens at lines >> > 934 and 944. It looks as if italics are not applied if an ‘Italic’ >> > character style is applied? >> >> I hadn't been interpreting this sort of character style before, since it >> usually just uses the ctrl-i italic setting. I now interpret "Italic" >> and "Bold". I'll keep an eye out for others to support as well. >> >> > - 191–205, 568–70, 576–79: A block quotation is not picked up, but >> > that’s my fault for using a non-standard style name. I only bring it >> > up because it seems odd that the one block quotation that was picked >> > up was the one that didn’t use my ‘Block Quotation’ style. >> >> I had previously picked up "Quote" and "BlockQuote." I've now added >> "BlockQuotatation" to the list. >> >> > - 211, 706: Unexpected phrases italicized. >> >> I hadn't taken into account all the options for the italics tags (the >> tag is there, but just to tell me not to use it?) Anyway, now it should >> work >> >> > - 300: Adjacent styles for small capitals should perhaps be combined? >> >> Bug, plain and simple. >> >> > - 349, 376, 557, 558 (etc.): Space after a word set in small caps: >> > this is surely a problem in the original file and fixing it may have >> > issues, but it would be really neat if this could be cleaned up. >> >> Cleaned up now. This was a symptom of the above bug. >> >> > - The reader sometimes applies italics to headings (704, 880, etc.) >> > and sometimes doesn’t (it’s part of the paragraph style), but I >> > imagine this is an inconsistency in the source document. >> >> I don't know if there's a way to solve this. The text is manually >> italicized, so I couldn't know that it's not a foreign word, or a book >> title, or something. Were it *just* the paragraph style, I think it >> would come out unitalicized. >> >> Thanks again, >> Jesse >> >> >> >> e >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "pandoc-discuss" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org >> To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/m1k36dt3nx.fsf%40jhu.edu >> . >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> > > > -- > > Peter Sefton +61410326955 pt-uoIRqaBSbk9Wk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org http://ptsefton.com > Gmail, Twitter & Skype name: ptsefton > > -- Peter Sefton +61410326955 pt-uoIRqaBSbk9Wk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org http://ptsefton.com Gmail, Twitter & Skype name: ptsefton -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/CAGQnt7Wxyjn2VY-dkqarA1yuZvemqxH_jGYauEMDfNcKfRSL7g%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8592 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAGQnt7Wxyjn2VY-dkqarA1yuZvemqxH_jGYauEMDfNcKfRSL7g-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive [not found] ` <CAGQnt7Wxyjn2VY-dkqarA1yuZvemqxH_jGYauEMDfNcKfRSL7g-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> @ 2014-08-15 5:45 ` Peter Sefton 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Peter Sefton @ 2014-08-15 5:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7169 bytes --] Hi Jesse, Trying again. Thanks for this - it's looking pretty good. Attached is a test document where I don't think the output is right. The markdown I'm looking for is: ``` Test document – multi paragraph lists - First level bullet - First level bullet Part of above bullet > Quote - First level bullet > Quote ``` What I get is: ``` Test document – multi paragraph lists - First level bullet - First level bullet > Part of above bullet > Quote - First level bullet Quote ``` I think the behaviour should be to make things that are indented to the same level as the text of a list paragraph a part of that list item. BTW Using pandoc to generate a docx from the correct source above doesn't work as expected either. I have attached that output as well as out.docx Cheers, Peter On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Peter Sefton <ptsefton-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > Sorry all, managed to hit send prematurely this post is garbled - I'll get > back to you! > > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Peter Sefton <ptsefton-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> Hi Jesse, >> >> Thanks for this - it's looking pretty good. Attached is a test document >> where I don't think the output is right. >> >> The markdown I'm looking for is: >> >> ``` >> >> Test document – multi paragraph lists >> >> - First level bullet >> >> - First level bullet >> >> > Part of above bullet >> >> > Quote >> >> - First level bullet >> >> Quote >> >> >> ``` >> >> What I get is: >> ``` >> Test document – multi paragraph lists >> >> - First level bullet >> >> - First level bullet >> >> > Part of above bullet >> >> - First level bullet >> >> ``` >> >> I think the behaviour should be to make things that are indented to the >> same level as the text of a list paragraph a part of that list item. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Andrew, >>> >>> Thanks so much -- this was *extremely* helpful. I haven't solved all the >>> issues you brought up, but I've solved a number of them (I hope you >>> don't mind, but they're on my "dunning-fixes" branch). I've attached a >>> markdown version of the new and improved output, in case you want to >>> compare without pulling and building. >>> >>> Almost all of the issues have, I think, been fixed. (Individual notes >>> below, including why a couple probably can't be fixed.) May I ask your >>> permission to cut out chunks of this to use for test cases? >>> >>> On the individual issues: >>> >>> > - 18/19, 1123, 1130: Not quite sure what '<span >>> > class="anchor"></span>’ is for. >>> >>> Has to do with how docx does header anchors. I had been ignoring anchor >>> spans with no id. Fixed. >>> >>> > - 83 to 120: Not sure if there’s a better way of dealing with this >>> > list. It’s pretty non-standard (should be a definition list), so >>> > probably not. >>> >>> I don't quite see how. It's not a list, or at least docx doesn't think >>> it is, so it just ends up being treaated like weird paragraphs. And, >>> unfortunately, we currently collapse tabs into spaces. That could >>> be rethought if it's clear that tabs are used as you use them here. >>> >>> > - 188/89 (line in the output file): 'De uiris illustribus' italicized >>> > in Word, but reduced to the colon; something similar happens at lines >>> > 934 and 944. It looks as if italics are not applied if an ‘Italic’ >>> > character style is applied? >>> >>> I hadn't been interpreting this sort of character style before, since it >>> usually just uses the ctrl-i italic setting. I now interpret "Italic" >>> and "Bold". I'll keep an eye out for others to support as well. >>> >>> > - 191–205, 568–70, 576–79: A block quotation is not picked up, but >>> > that’s my fault for using a non-standard style name. I only bring it >>> > up because it seems odd that the one block quotation that was picked >>> > up was the one that didn’t use my ‘Block Quotation’ style. >>> >>> I had previously picked up "Quote" and "BlockQuote." I've now added >>> "BlockQuotatation" to the list. >>> >>> > - 211, 706: Unexpected phrases italicized. >>> >>> I hadn't taken into account all the options for the italics tags (the >>> tag is there, but just to tell me not to use it?) Anyway, now it should >>> work >>> >>> > - 300: Adjacent styles for small capitals should perhaps be combined? >>> >>> Bug, plain and simple. >>> >>> > - 349, 376, 557, 558 (etc.): Space after a word set in small caps: >>> > this is surely a problem in the original file and fixing it may have >>> > issues, but it would be really neat if this could be cleaned up. >>> >>> Cleaned up now. This was a symptom of the above bug. >>> >>> > - The reader sometimes applies italics to headings (704, 880, etc.) >>> > and sometimes doesn’t (it’s part of the paragraph style), but I >>> > imagine this is an inconsistency in the source document. >>> >>> I don't know if there's a way to solve this. The text is manually >>> italicized, so I couldn't know that it's not a foreign word, or a book >>> title, or something. Were it *just* the paragraph style, I think it >>> would come out unitalicized. >>> >>> Thanks again, >>> Jesse >>> >>> >>> >>> e >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "pandoc-discuss" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org >>> To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/m1k36dt3nx.fsf%40jhu.edu >>> . >>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Peter Sefton +61410326955 pt-uoIRqaBSbk9Wk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org http://ptsefton.com >> Gmail, Twitter & Skype name: ptsefton >> >> > > > -- > > Peter Sefton +61410326955 pt-uoIRqaBSbk9Wk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org http://ptsefton.com > Gmail, Twitter & Skype name: ptsefton > > -- Peter Sefton +61410326955 pt-uoIRqaBSbk9Wk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org http://ptsefton.com Gmail, Twitter & Skype name: ptsefton -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/CAGQnt7Uia0BJMjy8TBDnZcd8KWQ2RdpnRkzB8pWqKUXqYZLn4Q%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 12990 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Test document – multi paragraph lists.docx --] [-- Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document, Size: 29762 bytes --] [-- Attachment #3: out.docx --] [-- Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document, Size: 8540 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive [not found] ` <871tsmwv2h.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> 2014-08-13 0:28 ` Andrew Dunning @ 2015-02-13 12:36 ` Oliver [not found] ` <e11d96c5-d197-4ccf-bd08-a324d1faf2e9-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org> 2015-02-17 18:16 ` russurquhart1 2 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Oliver @ 2015-02-13 12:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1673 bytes --] Hello, the DocX to md reader seems to be working really well. I think that the Pandoc documentation however is a little confusing regarding the track-changes options. It states: --track-changes=*accept|reject|all*... *accept* (the default), inserts all > insertions, and ignores all deletions. *reject* inserts all deletions and > ignores insertions. *all* puts in both insertions and deletions, wrapped > in spans with insertion and deletion classes, respectively. maybe this is semantic quibbling, but to me "ignores all deletions" makes it sound as if the deletion is not being respected (ie the deleted text will be present), while "inserts all deletions" makes it sound as if the deleted text is being put back in (ie they are the wrong way round). I think it would be clearer if it followed Word's nomenclature (even at the risk of being a circular definition), and said something like "accept accepts[or respects] all insertions and deletions, reject ignores all insertions and deletions". I understand that it is tricky to discuss a negation like this in a clear way though. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/e11d96c5-d197-4ccf-bd08-a324d1faf2e9%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2960 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <e11d96c5-d197-4ccf-bd08-a324d1faf2e9-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive [not found] ` <e11d96c5-d197-4ccf-bd08-a324d1faf2e9-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org> @ 2015-02-13 12:41 ` Oliver 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Oliver @ 2015-02-13 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1931 bytes --] On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 12:36:40 PM UTC, Oliver wrote: > > Hello, the DocX to md reader seems to be working really well. I think that > the Pandoc documentation however is a little confusing regarding the > track-changes options. It states: > > --track-changes=*accept|reject|all*... *accept* (the default), inserts >> all insertions, and ignores all deletions. *reject* inserts all >> deletions and ignores insertions. *all* puts in both insertions and >> deletions, wrapped in spans with insertion and deletion classes, >> respectively. > > > maybe this is semantic quibbling, but to me "ignores all deletions" makes > it sound as if the deletion is not being respected (ie the deleted text > will be present), while "inserts all deletions" makes it sound as if the > deleted text is being put back in EDIT, actually this is what reject does. > It is just the definition of "accept" that I find counter-intuitive. I > think it would be clearer if it followed Word's nomenclature (even at the > risk of being a circular definition), and said something like "accept > accepts[or respects] all insertions and deletions, reject ignores all > insertions and deletions". I understand that it is tricky to discuss a > negation like this in a clear way though. > In fact, I just realised I got them muddled myself (see highlight above) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/4eff1e01-41bb-409f-8835-c5d47c8060f1%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3362 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive [not found] ` <871tsmwv2h.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> 2014-08-13 0:28 ` Andrew Dunning 2015-02-13 12:36 ` Oliver @ 2015-02-17 18:16 ` russurquhart1 [not found] ` <97f48a84-e4f7-4617-95be-69493a3b47fa-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org> 2 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: russurquhart1 @ 2015-02-17 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3482 bytes --] Hi, I have some issue with the latest Docx reader. Is there a way to get your sandbox version for windows? Thanks,m Russ On Monday, August 11, 2014 at 4:52:32 PM UTC-5, Jesse Rosenthal wrote: > > Dear All, > > The MS Word docx reader in the new pandoc is working pretty well these > days. Before the next release, though, I'd love it if we could run as > many real-world Word docs through it as possible, to catch any odd > behavior. As many different academic/professional fields as possible > would be ideal, since I know everyone uses word a bit > differently. Everyone testing it so far has brought some oversight to my > attention, so I'd love to get more eyes on it. > > If you do try it out, and you find something that doesn't behave > correctly, please open an issue on my pandoc fork > (<https://github.com/jkr/pandoc.git>), and send me the document over > email if it's possible to share it. If you can't share it, it would be > great if you could try to reproduce the issue in a different document. > > Some notes: > > - All text, and all text formatting (unless it comes from an unusual > style) should be preserved. If it isn't, it's a bug. > > - There's not much we can do, with a few exceptions, with ad-hoc > visual stylization: making columns by pressing space a lot, pressing > return to make the end-of-the-line a bit prettier. The rule of thumb > is: can the property in question stand a change in margins and font? > If so, we should probably be able to interpret it. If not, we > probably can't. > > - Headers, titles and the like will be interpreted correctly if they > have the correct style. The reader can't guess at a header just > because some text is in bold, or uses another font. (Though at some > point in the future, I might introduce a filter with some heuristics > for guessing.) > > - Block quotes should be picked up by either styling with Quote or > BlockQuote, or by block indentation. If someone uses another style > to produce a blockquote, please let me know, so I can add it to the > list. > > - Track-changes can be used with the > "--track-changes=accept|reject|all". accept will take the > insertions, reject will stick with the deletions, and all will put > in everything, marked up with spans. > > - Equations should appear as LaTeX. > > Anyway, please do give it a try and let me know, through the channels > above, what weirdnesses you encounter. > > To get the development pandoc, it's probably best to use a cabal sandbox > (available, I believe in cabal >= 1.18). > > git clone https://github.com/jgm/pandoc.git > cd pandoc > cabal update > cabal sandbox --init > cabal install --only-dependencies > cabal install > > The binary will then be located in pandoc/.cabal-sandbox/bin. > > Thanks, > Jesse > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/97f48a84-e4f7-4617-95be-69493a3b47fa%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5332 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <97f48a84-e4f7-4617-95be-69493a3b47fa-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive [not found] ` <97f48a84-e4f7-4617-95be-69493a3b47fa-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org> @ 2015-02-17 18:28 ` Matthew Pickering 2015-02-17 19:19 ` John MacFarlane 2015-02-17 19:30 ` Jesse Rosenthal 2 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Matthew Pickering @ 2015-02-17 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw Can you explain a bit more what you mean? On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:16 PM, russurquhart1 <russurquhart1-H+0wwilmMs3R7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I have some issue with the latest Docx reader. Is there a way to get your > sandbox version for windows? > > Thanks,m > > Russ > > > On Monday, August 11, 2014 at 4:52:32 PM UTC-5, Jesse Rosenthal wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> The MS Word docx reader in the new pandoc is working pretty well these >> days. Before the next release, though, I'd love it if we could run as >> many real-world Word docs through it as possible, to catch any odd >> behavior. As many different academic/professional fields as possible >> would be ideal, since I know everyone uses word a bit >> differently. Everyone testing it so far has brought some oversight to my >> attention, so I'd love to get more eyes on it. >> >> If you do try it out, and you find something that doesn't behave >> correctly, please open an issue on my pandoc fork >> (<https://github.com/jkr/pandoc.git>), and send me the document over >> email if it's possible to share it. If you can't share it, it would be >> great if you could try to reproduce the issue in a different document. >> >> Some notes: >> >> - All text, and all text formatting (unless it comes from an unusual >> style) should be preserved. If it isn't, it's a bug. >> >> - There's not much we can do, with a few exceptions, with ad-hoc >> visual stylization: making columns by pressing space a lot, pressing >> return to make the end-of-the-line a bit prettier. The rule of thumb >> is: can the property in question stand a change in margins and font? >> If so, we should probably be able to interpret it. If not, we >> probably can't. >> >> - Headers, titles and the like will be interpreted correctly if they >> have the correct style. The reader can't guess at a header just >> because some text is in bold, or uses another font. (Though at some >> point in the future, I might introduce a filter with some heuristics >> for guessing.) >> >> - Block quotes should be picked up by either styling with Quote or >> BlockQuote, or by block indentation. If someone uses another style >> to produce a blockquote, please let me know, so I can add it to the >> list. >> >> - Track-changes can be used with the >> "--track-changes=accept|reject|all". accept will take the >> insertions, reject will stick with the deletions, and all will put >> in everything, marked up with spans. >> >> - Equations should appear as LaTeX. >> >> Anyway, please do give it a try and let me know, through the channels >> above, what weirdnesses you encounter. >> >> To get the development pandoc, it's probably best to use a cabal sandbox >> (available, I believe in cabal >= 1.18). >> >> git clone https://github.com/jgm/pandoc.git >> cd pandoc >> cabal update >> cabal sandbox --init >> cabal install --only-dependencies >> cabal install >> >> The binary will then be located in pandoc/.cabal-sandbox/bin. >> >> Thanks, >> Jesse > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "pandoc-discuss" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/97f48a84-e4f7-4617-95be-69493a3b47fa%40googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive [not found] ` <97f48a84-e4f7-4617-95be-69493a3b47fa-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org> 2015-02-17 18:28 ` Matthew Pickering @ 2015-02-17 19:19 ` John MacFarlane 2015-02-17 19:30 ` Jesse Rosenthal 2 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: John MacFarlane @ 2015-02-17 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw The version Jesse is referring to in this message is the version he was working with on Aug. 11. This has long since been merged, and is now in the released version. +++ russurquhart1 [Feb 17 15 10:16 ]: > Hi, > I have some issue with the latest Docx reader. Is there a way to get > your sandbox version for windows? > Thanks,m > Russ > On Monday, August 11, 2014 at 4:52:32 PM UTC-5, Jesse Rosenthal wrote: > > Dear All, > The MS Word docx reader in the new pandoc is working pretty well > these > days. Before the next release, though, I'd love it if we could run > as > many real-world Word docs through it as possible, to catch any odd > behavior. As many different academic/professional fields as possible > would be ideal, since I know everyone uses word a bit > differently. Everyone testing it so far has brought some oversight > to my > attention, so I'd love to get more eyes on it. > If you do try it out, and you find something that doesn't behave > correctly, please open an issue on my pandoc fork > (<[1]https://github.com/jkr/pandoc.git>), and send me the document > over > email if it's possible to share it. If you can't share it, it would > be > great if you could try to reproduce the issue in a different > document. > Some notes: > - All text, and all text formatting (unless it comes from an > unusual > style) should be preserved. If it isn't, it's a bug. > - There's not much we can do, with a few exceptions, with ad-hoc > visual stylization: making columns by pressing space a lot, > pressing > return to make the end-of-the-line a bit prettier. The rule of > thumb > is: can the property in question stand a change in margins and > font? > If so, we should probably be able to interpret it. If not, we > probably can't. > - Headers, titles and the like will be interpreted correctly if > they > have the correct style. The reader can't guess at a header just > because some text is in bold, or uses another font. (Though at > some > point in the future, I might introduce a filter with some > heuristics > for guessing.) > - Block quotes should be picked up by either styling with Quote or > BlockQuote, or by block indentation. If someone uses another > style > to produce a blockquote, please let me know, so I can add it to > the > list. > - Track-changes can be used with the > "--track-changes=accept|reject|all". accept will take the > insertions, reject will stick with the deletions, and all will > put > in everything, marked up with spans. > - Equations should appear as LaTeX. > Anyway, please do give it a try and let me know, through the > channels > above, what weirdnesses you encounter. > To get the development pandoc, it's probably best to use a cabal > sandbox > (available, I believe in cabal >= 1.18). > git clone [2]https://github.com/jgm/pandoc.git > cd pandoc > cabal update > cabal sandbox --init > cabal install --only-dependencies > cabal install > The binary will then be located in pandoc/.cabal-sandbox/bin. > Thanks, > Jesse > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "pandoc-discuss" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [3]pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To post to this group, send email to > [4]pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To view this discussion on the web visit > [5]https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/97f48a84-e4f7-4617- > 95be-69493a3b47fa%40googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit [6]https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > >References > > 1. https://github.com/jkr/pandoc.git > 2. https://github.com/jgm/pandoc.git > 3. mailto:pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org > 4. mailto:pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org > 5. https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/97f48a84-e4f7-4617-95be-69493a3b47fa-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer > 6. https://groups.google.com/d/optout ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive [not found] ` <97f48a84-e4f7-4617-95be-69493a3b47fa-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org> 2015-02-17 18:28 ` Matthew Pickering 2015-02-17 19:19 ` John MacFarlane @ 2015-02-17 19:30 ` Jesse Rosenthal [not found] ` <87h9uk1gko.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> 2 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Jesse Rosenthal @ 2015-02-17 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: russurquhart1, pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw As has been mentioned, this thread was a call for testing way back when. It's not really the best place to report this sort of thing. But if you do have a bug -- especially if it's a new regression -- I'd love to hear about it! Can you post an issue on the github issue tracker? --Jesse russurquhart1 <russurquhart1-H+0wwilmMs3R7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org> writes: > Hi, > > I have some issue with the latest Docx reader. Is there a way to get your > sandbox version for windows? > > Thanks,m > > Russ > > On Monday, August 11, 2014 at 4:52:32 PM UTC-5, Jesse Rosenthal wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> The MS Word docx reader in the new pandoc is working pretty well these >> days. Before the next release, though, I'd love it if we could run as >> many real-world Word docs through it as possible, to catch any odd >> behavior. As many different academic/professional fields as possible >> would be ideal, since I know everyone uses word a bit >> differently. Everyone testing it so far has brought some oversight to my >> attention, so I'd love to get more eyes on it. >> >> If you do try it out, and you find something that doesn't behave >> correctly, please open an issue on my pandoc fork >> (<https://github.com/jkr/pandoc.git>), and send me the document over >> email if it's possible to share it. If you can't share it, it would be >> great if you could try to reproduce the issue in a different document. >> >> Some notes: >> >> - All text, and all text formatting (unless it comes from an unusual >> style) should be preserved. If it isn't, it's a bug. >> >> - There's not much we can do, with a few exceptions, with ad-hoc >> visual stylization: making columns by pressing space a lot, pressing >> return to make the end-of-the-line a bit prettier. The rule of thumb >> is: can the property in question stand a change in margins and font? >> If so, we should probably be able to interpret it. If not, we >> probably can't. >> >> - Headers, titles and the like will be interpreted correctly if they >> have the correct style. The reader can't guess at a header just >> because some text is in bold, or uses another font. (Though at some >> point in the future, I might introduce a filter with some heuristics >> for guessing.) >> >> - Block quotes should be picked up by either styling with Quote or >> BlockQuote, or by block indentation. If someone uses another style >> to produce a blockquote, please let me know, so I can add it to the >> list. >> >> - Track-changes can be used with the >> "--track-changes=accept|reject|all". accept will take the >> insertions, reject will stick with the deletions, and all will put >> in everything, marked up with spans. >> >> - Equations should appear as LaTeX. >> >> Anyway, please do give it a try and let me know, through the channels >> above, what weirdnesses you encounter. >> >> To get the development pandoc, it's probably best to use a cabal sandbox >> (available, I believe in cabal >= 1.18). >> >> git clone https://github.com/jgm/pandoc.git >> cd pandoc >> cabal update >> cabal sandbox --init >> cabal install --only-dependencies >> cabal install >> >> The binary will then be located in pandoc/.cabal-sandbox/bin. >> >> Thanks, >> Jesse >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/97f48a84-e4f7-4617-95be-69493a3b47fa%40googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <87h9uk1gko.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive [not found] ` <87h9uk1gko.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> @ 2015-02-17 20:06 ` russurquhart1 [not found] ` <3f8b9778-4923-4e41-95e0-c38b0153f981-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: russurquhart1 @ 2015-02-17 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw Cc: russurquhart1-H+0wwilmMs3R7s880joybQ [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6113 bytes --] Hi, I wasn't for certain that you had rolled in that version into the 1.13.2 build. We have a doc, that i tried converting with 1.13.1 and now 1.13.2, and there were still some issues that seem simple. 1. Many bullted items, did not come across as such. Even though the source line had a bullet character, and appeared to by styled as such, it came across as a para element when converted to DocBook. (Only thing i could guess is that the line was not indented any.) 2. A simple table, 3 X 2 cells. Everything comes across, as a table, EXCEPT for the contents of cell 2,2 and cell 3,2. This was all done as a table, no fancy tabs, etc. 3.Right below the above mentioned table, I don't know if the author of this doc was trying to help by putting in some xml element names, but through the document there are: <note> Some text. </note> Like i said, these seem simple issues, etc. about 93% of the document was processed properly. I've attached it for you to have a look at. Thanks, Russ These all seemed to come over as how they look here. In ONE case, however, there were two of these "note" element blocks, one after another. For whatever reason, the first "note' block never made it to the output. Nothing unusual about the text. On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 1:30:34 PM UTC-6, Jesse Rosenthal wrote: > > As has been mentioned, this thread was a call for testing way back > when. It's not really the best place to report this sort of thing. > > But if you do have a bug -- especially if it's a new regression -- I'd > love to hear about it! Can you post an issue on the github issue > tracker? > > --Jesse > > russurquhart1 <russur...-H+0wwilmMs3R7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org <javascript:>> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > I have some issue with the latest Docx reader. Is there a way to get > your > > sandbox version for windows? > > > > Thanks,m > > > > Russ > > > > On Monday, August 11, 2014 at 4:52:32 PM UTC-5, Jesse Rosenthal wrote: > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> The MS Word docx reader in the new pandoc is working pretty well these > >> days. Before the next release, though, I'd love it if we could run as > >> many real-world Word docs through it as possible, to catch any odd > >> behavior. As many different academic/professional fields as possible > >> would be ideal, since I know everyone uses word a bit > >> differently. Everyone testing it so far has brought some oversight to > my > >> attention, so I'd love to get more eyes on it. > >> > >> If you do try it out, and you find something that doesn't behave > >> correctly, please open an issue on my pandoc fork > >> (<https://github.com/jkr/pandoc.git>), and send me the document over > >> email if it's possible to share it. If you can't share it, it would be > >> great if you could try to reproduce the issue in a different document. > >> > >> Some notes: > >> > >> - All text, and all text formatting (unless it comes from an unusual > >> style) should be preserved. If it isn't, it's a bug. > >> > >> - There's not much we can do, with a few exceptions, with ad-hoc > >> visual stylization: making columns by pressing space a lot, > pressing > >> return to make the end-of-the-line a bit prettier. The rule of > thumb > >> is: can the property in question stand a change in margins and > font? > >> If so, we should probably be able to interpret it. If not, we > >> probably can't. > >> > >> - Headers, titles and the like will be interpreted correctly if they > >> have the correct style. The reader can't guess at a header just > >> because some text is in bold, or uses another font. (Though at some > >> point in the future, I might introduce a filter with some > heuristics > >> for guessing.) > >> > >> - Block quotes should be picked up by either styling with Quote or > >> BlockQuote, or by block indentation. If someone uses another style > >> to produce a blockquote, please let me know, so I can add it to the > >> list. > >> > >> - Track-changes can be used with the > >> "--track-changes=accept|reject|all". accept will take the > >> insertions, reject will stick with the deletions, and all will put > >> in everything, marked up with spans. > >> > >> - Equations should appear as LaTeX. > >> > >> Anyway, please do give it a try and let me know, through the channels > >> above, what weirdnesses you encounter. > >> > >> To get the development pandoc, it's probably best to use a cabal > sandbox > >> (available, I believe in cabal >= 1.18). > >> > >> git clone https://github.com/jgm/pandoc.git > >> cd pandoc > >> cabal update > >> cabal sandbox --init > >> cabal install --only-dependencies > >> cabal install > >> > >> The binary will then be located in pandoc/.cabal-sandbox/bin. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Jesse > >> > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "pandoc-discuss" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to pandoc-discus...-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to pandoc-...-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org > <javascript:>. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/97f48a84-e4f7-4617-95be-69493a3b47fa%40googlegroups.com. > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/3f8b9778-4923-4e41-95e0-c38b0153f981%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 9697 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Sensor.docx --] [-- Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document, Size: 371223 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <3f8b9778-4923-4e41-95e0-c38b0153f981-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive [not found] ` <3f8b9778-4923-4e41-95e0-c38b0153f981-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org> @ 2015-02-17 20:45 ` Jesse Rosenthal [not found] ` <87vbj0z2pm.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Jesse Rosenthal @ 2015-02-17 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: russurquhart1, pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw Cc: russurquhart1-H+0wwilmMs3R7s880joybQ Dear Russ, This is not a useful way to submit a bug report: 1. Immediately after an email saying this thread was not a good place to submit a bug, and directing you to the issue tracker, you sent an email to this thread, and not to the issue tracker. 2. You sent a 35-page document without telling me where the problems are. It would take me the better part of an hour to read the output, let alone find the errors What you really want here is a MWE (minimal working example) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_Working_Example). Find the table in question, cut it into its own document, and submit it. 3. You didn't offer either the output or the expected output. I'm not sure from your description what *precisely* you think you should have gotten, so it's hard to compare or test. I'm sure the problems are there, and I'd love to take a stab at fixing them. I doubt that they're "simple," as you say, because these formats aren't simple. But blocks inside table cells is something I came across as a problem recently, and I think I fixed it in the dev version. And inherited list environments are an ongoing issue that will require some major plumbing work (I'm guessing that's probably your problem, but I'm not sure). But if you want your particular issues addressed any time soon, you can't just dump a document and say "find the table." You need to submit to the correct place, be specific about the issues, and not push the labor of finding the relevant parts onto us. Best, Jesse ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <87vbj0z2pm.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive [not found] ` <87vbj0z2pm.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> @ 2015-02-18 16:06 ` russurquhart1 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: russurquhart1 @ 2015-02-18 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw Cc: russurquhart1-H+0wwilmMs3R7s880joybQ, russurquhart1-H+0wwilmMs3R7s880joybQ [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2587 bytes --] Hi Jesse, Please for give me you are absolutely right! I was kind of in a work haze yesterday, so let me apologize again to you and everyone here. I will definitely file an issue tracker, as well as denote the locations in the attached file of problematic areas. Again, sorry for the inconvenience. Russ On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-6, Jesse Rosenthal wrote: > > Dear Russ, > > This is not a useful way to submit a bug report: > > 1. Immediately after an email saying this thread was not a good place > to submit a bug, and directing you to the issue tracker, you sent an > email to this thread, and not to the issue tracker. > > 2. You sent a 35-page document without telling me where the problems > are. It would take me the better part of an hour to read the output, > let alone find the errors > > What you really want here is a MWE (minimal working example) (see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_Working_Example). Find the > table in question, cut it into its own document, and submit it. > > 3. You didn't offer either the output or the expected output. I'm not > sure from your description what *precisely* you think you should have > gotten, so it's hard to compare or test. > > I'm sure the problems are there, and I'd love to take a stab at fixing > them. I doubt that they're "simple," as you say, because these formats > aren't simple. But blocks inside table cells is something I came across > as a problem recently, and I think I fixed it in the dev version. And > inherited list environments are an ongoing issue that will require some > major plumbing work (I'm guessing that's probably your problem, but I'm > not sure). But if you want your particular issues addressed any time > soon, you can't just dump a document and say "find the table." You need > to submit to the correct place, be specific about the issues, and not > push the labor of finding the relevant parts onto us. > > Best, > Jesse > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/4083e77d-31bc-4fee-83d1-dbe2140ebe88%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3821 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-02-18 16:06 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-08-11 21:55 Please give the Docx reader a test drive Jesse Rosenthal [not found] ` <871tsmwv2h.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> 2014-08-13 0:28 ` Andrew Dunning [not found] ` <72E1556B-D515-4519-9E9A-20F7EBDBD240-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 2014-08-13 4:27 ` Jesse Rosenthal [not found] ` <m1k36dt3nx.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> 2014-08-15 5:36 ` Peter Sefton [not found] ` <CAGQnt7X6nt6cBA6YnT3Bjg8+vfNw10-gDdUC7AphpXsgUtq9uw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2014-08-15 5:37 ` Peter Sefton [not found] ` <CAGQnt7Wxyjn2VY-dkqarA1yuZvemqxH_jGYauEMDfNcKfRSL7g-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2014-08-15 5:45 ` Peter Sefton 2015-02-13 12:36 ` Oliver [not found] ` <e11d96c5-d197-4ccf-bd08-a324d1faf2e9-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org> 2015-02-13 12:41 ` Oliver 2015-02-17 18:16 ` russurquhart1 [not found] ` <97f48a84-e4f7-4617-95be-69493a3b47fa-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org> 2015-02-17 18:28 ` Matthew Pickering 2015-02-17 19:19 ` John MacFarlane 2015-02-17 19:30 ` Jesse Rosenthal [not found] ` <87h9uk1gko.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> 2015-02-17 20:06 ` russurquhart1 [not found] ` <3f8b9778-4923-4e41-95e0-c38b0153f981-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org> 2015-02-17 20:45 ` Jesse Rosenthal [not found] ` <87vbj0z2pm.fsf-4GNroTWusrE@public.gmane.org> 2015-02-18 16:06 ` russurquhart1
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).