34

assunt ibi. W. assenti.

vim. W. pacem.

conualescentibus. W. qualescunque.

20 sanctumque senatum Romane curie. W. suumque senatum

ratione curiae.

quod turpe. W. quia tempore.

semite. W. stricte.

Attamen seudo-prophetas. W. actum. Pseudo-prophetas.

Cf. 55. II.

sine causa proscribunt. W. sumtam praescribunt.

8 sine causa.

42

W. sive tam.

9 Nero. W. vero.

sine murmure. W. summi ratione.

si cibi parcitas. W. si tibi peccas.

15 potest. W. prout.

55 25 in necessitate unccionis uel uiatici. W. in nec. mittendi

PAGE

74

75

78

79

86

91

122

142

171

181

183

196

206

LINE

223

229

235

248

253

19 in termis.

12

deuia.

19 in cunis.

ecclesie.

27

3

I

30

5

per uerbum. W. puerulum.

per estum interceptus. W. perstans in terris.

2, 3 inmaniores . . . a manibus. W. in amores . . . amantibus.

vitrici. MS. victrici.

I

15

31

207
214 7,8

W. interius.

7

24

15

W. Denis.

hominium. W. homini.

27 militum. W. aulicum.

28

vincat. W. nunciabatur.

W. in cujus.

W. culeriae.

lacrimis. W. Latinis.

15

se cun(c)ta. W. secunda.

9 cel(er)ique. W. coelique.

W. quidam ex

In the above selection-a very small one—I have picked out a fair number of specimens from the earlier pages, and, from the latter part of the book, a few only, representative of the places where the sense is materially affected. Any one who cares to examine Wright's text will easily add to their number. There are, besides, places in which gaps have been filled up, and very many in which the punctuation and division of sentences has been completely changed. Puzzles and corruptions remain, of course; but I do believe that the present text is a great deal more readable than the former one.

The only other edition known to me of any part of the text (save the Epistola Valerii ad Ruffinum) is the series of extracts in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, vol. xxvii, pp. 61-74. These were collated with the manuscript by Dr. F. Liebermann, but some errors escaped even him. The passages are as follows, reference being made to the present edition :

――

The range of Map's reading, as attested by his quotations, is not inconsiderable. He is, to begin with, saturated with the language of the Latin Bible. The borrowed phrases are noted in my margins so far as I have been able to detect them; but it is certain that I must have missed some. Biblical turns of language are employed by him on the most unexpected occasions, and sometimes display his impish humour in a rather shocking fashion.

On two occasions he quotes Office Hymns. Of older church writers he cites by name Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory; and makes tacit use of Jerome's treatise against Jovinian. The writers nearer his own time may be laid under contribution

more copiously than I have seen. Those to whom there are plain allusions are Hildebert, Bernard, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Peter Comestor (the Historia Scholastica), the History of Pseudo-Turpin, not to mention the unidentified romances and sagas from which many of his longer stories are supposed to be derived.

More general interest attaches to his use of ancient secular authors. Of the poets Virgil, Horace, and Ovid are the favourites. He has also read Terence, Juvenal, Persius, Martial, Lucan, Pseudo-Cato, Claudian, and perhaps Statius. There are traces of the use of works of Cicero, of Caesar, Pliny, Solinus, Quintilian, Gellius, Apuleius, Martianus Capella, and express quotations from Boethius, Porphyry, Macrobius. An allusion to Tacitus (p. 45) is likely to be delusive: one to Livy (p. 204) is shadowy.

In addition to verbal citations account must be taken of the facts and names with which Map shows an acquaintance. He is familiar with a great deal of mythology, largely, no doubt, through the medium of Ovid's Metamorphoses: he has read of Alexander the Great, of Numa, perhaps in the Fasti, of Scipio, of Catiline, of the death of Julius Caesar, and of Nero and Vitellius. It is possible that for this knowledge he may depend upon Sallust, upon Suetonius, and upon some general history like that of Orosius.

It is natural to suppose that he was familiar with at least the Policraticus of John of Salisbury, since he has borrowed the second title of that work as the sole title of his own. I have not been able to find that he has done more. The habit of classical allusion is common to both writers: one, at least, the story of Cicero and Terentia (p. 150), is told by both, but I cannot see that Walter has copied it from John.

I append a list of the sources, other than Biblical, to which I have found allusions in the text of the de Nugis curialium.

Though I am far from supposing that it is complete, I doubt if the researches of future students will add any names of importance to it.