Please give the Docx reader a test drive

Please give the Docx reader a test drive

[Jesse Rosenthal]

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

Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive

[Andrew Dunning]

[-- 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).

Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive

[Jesse Rosenthal]

[-- 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).

Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive

[Peter Sefton]

[-- 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 --]

Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive

[Peter Sefton]

[-- 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 --]

Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive

[Peter Sefton]

[-- 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 --]

Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive

[Oliver]

[-- 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 --]

Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive

[Oliver]

[-- 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 --]

Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive

[russurquhart1]

[-- 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 --]

Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive

[Matthew Pickering]

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.

Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive

[John MacFarlane]

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

Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive

[Jesse Rosenthal]

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.

Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive

[russurquhart1]

[-- 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 --]

Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive

[Jesse Rosenthal]

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

Re: Please give the Docx reader a test drive

[russurquhart1]

[-- 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 --]