rustic & elite: appreciating men’s unity in diversity

As the brilliant twelfth-century poem About Three Young Women {De tribus puellis} indicates, medieval Latin literature appreciated men as distinctively male human beings. The most learned and perceptive men in medieval Europe didn’t believe that women are necessary to civilize and ennoble men. Yet overcoming prejudice against men’s gender-distinctiveness has never been easy. Composed between the fourth and the ninth centuries, the poem About a Rustic {De rustico} superficially suggests a rustic man’s inferiority to an elite, urbane man. In De rustico, the urbane man wildly and crudely demeans and dehumanizes the rustic man using masculine stereotypes from Verses for Pan {Versus Panos}. The twelfth-century dialogue About Clerics and a Rustic {De clericis et rustico} presents a self-centered rustic as shrewder than elite clerics and equally cultured. Today, young men who reject men’s burdensome gender responsibilities are disparaged as being afflicted with the “Peter Pan syndrome” and “failure to launch.” With their unity in diversity, all men are as fully worthy of love as the rustic men in De rustico and De clericis et rustico.

shepherds Meliboeus and Tityrus from Virgil's Eclogues

In the first four verses of De rustico, a learned, land-owning urban man describes how he spends time at his country estate. Represented in classical hexameter verse, the man acts like a classical Roman aristocrat:

Staying in rural lands, what will I do? So asked, I’ve answered briefly.
In the morning I pray to God above, see the servants and afterwards the fields.
Then I read, invoke Phoebus, and challenge the Muse.
I eat breakfast, I drink, I sing, I play, I wash, I eat dinner, I sleep.

{ Rure morans quid agam, respondi pauca, rogatus.
Mane Deum exoro, famulos post arvaque viso.
Inde lego Phoebumque cio Musamque lacesso.
Prandeo, poto, cano, ludo, lavo, ceno, quiesco. }[1]

This man doesn’t work. He doesn’t strive to please a woman. He’s a man of privilege. Most men don’t have his privilege. This man should have compassion for less privileged men and should seek to help them.

The early medieval poem About Rural Living {De habitatione ruris} includes the verses of De rustico, with slight differences, along with additional verses. In De habitatione ruris, the urbane man more extensively describes his activities at his rural estate:

Staying in rural lands, what will I do? So asked, I answer briefly.
In the morning I pray to gods, check upon the servants and afterwards the fields.
I partition and point out appropriate work to my servants.
Then I read, invoke Phoebus, and challenge the Muse.
After this I rub my body with oil, and with soft wrestling
I pleasingly grapple. Rejoicing in spirit and free from debt,
I eat breakfast, I drink, I sing, I play, I wash, I eat dinner, I sleep.
Until the small lamp consumes its measure of oil,
these lamplight works are composed to the nocturnal Greek Muses.

{ Rure morans, quid agam, respondeo pauca, rogatus.
Mane deos oro, famulos, post arva, reviso
Partitusque meis iustos indico labores.
Deinde lego Phoebumque cio Musamque lacesso.
Hinc oleo corpus fingo mollique palaestra
stringo libens. Animo gaudens et fenore liber,
prandeo, poto, cano, ludo, lavo, ceno, quiesco.
Dum parvus lychnus modicum consumit olivi,
haec dat nocturnis elucubrata Camenis. }[2]

As indicated by his prayers to “gods {dei},” the urbane man of De habitatione ruris is pagan. Moreover, in the context of classical Roman culture, “and with soft wrestling I pleasingly grapple {mollique palaestra stringo libens}” probably alludes to the man having sex with a young man.

Whether based on a common source or De habitatione ruris, De rustico apparently sought to Christianize the representation of the urbane man. In De rustico, the urbane man prays to a unitary, heavenly “god {deus}.” Moreover, early Christian authorities taught that sex was licit for Christians only between a woman and man within life-long marriage. De rustico dropped verses concerning same-sex sexual wrestling and those concerning worldly matters of assigning work to servants and worrying about financial debts. De rustico also dropped two verses about laboriously composing poetry by candlelight to “Greek Muses {Camenae}.” Phoebus Apollo was a Greco-Roman god associated with harmony, reason, and order in artistic creation. In the context of the man engaging in artistic activity, references to Phoebus and a singular Muse apparently were acceptable to the superficially Christian composer of De rustico.

After describing his activities at his rural estate in the first four verses of De rustico, the urbane man of leisure then suddenly, crudely, and non-Christianly disparages the rustic man. The urbane man figures the rustic as the half-goat, half-man Greco-Roman god Pan:

You rustic, you woods-wandering, goat-footed, horned, two-limbed,
dog-training, rubbish-born, agile, tailed, wanton,
bristly, untamed, wild, uncivilized, unfeeling,
half-goat, shaggy, keen-sniffing, falsifying, two-bodied,
forest-dwelling, fickle, leaping, dissolute, lying,
slippery, bragging, blowhard, strident, breathless,
audacious, big-brutish, fierce, hide-clad, uncultured, unspeaking,
rude, hairy, double-parted, black, very bushy, deceiving rustic!

{ Rustice, lustrivage, capripes, cornute, bimembris,
canifer, ridigena, pernix, caudite, petulce,
saetiger, indocilis, agrestis, barbare, dure,
semicaper, pilose, sagax, periure, biformis,
silvicola, instabilis, saltator, perdite, mendax,
lubrice, ventisonax, inflator, stridule, anhele,
audax, brute, ferox, pellite, incondite, mute,
hirte, hirsute, biceps, niger, hispidissime, fallax! }[3]

Men as a gender have much more body hair than women. By disparaging the rustic as “bristly {saetiger},” “shaggy {pilosus},” “hairy {hirsutus},” and “very bushy {hispidissimus},” the urbane man attacks the rustic’s manliness. In the ancient world, both goats and dogs were regarded as excessively lustful. Men have long been dehumanized as dogs. Because of his strong, independent sexuality, the rustic is described as “half-goat {semicaper},” “dog-training {canifer},” “wanton {petulcus},” and “dissolute {perditus}.”[4] Women historically have been associated with civilization within the master gynocentric myth of women “civilizing” men. The rustic accordingly is described as “untamed {indocilis}, “wild {agrestis},” and “uncivilized {barbarus}.” The rustic man is moreover described as “black {niger}.” Like urban elites insisting on their moral superiority according to the dogma of the New York Men-Hating Times, men as a group are morally suspect. Black men are all men deprived of their lives under gynocentric oppression.

god Pan playing flute at Pompeii

Thematically similar to De rustico, the twelfth-century dialogue De clericis et rustico represents unity among men across superficial differences between clerical men and rustic men. In the very first word of this dialogue, a cleric calls to another cleric and a rustic man, “Consocii {Companions}!”[5] That’s an address to equals. The cleric proposes that the three go together on a sacred pilgrimage. Pilgrimages to Christian holy places typically united diverse persons in adoring and petitioning Mary, the Mother of God and mother to all Christians.

The two clerics and the rustic had among them no money and no food other than the rustic’s “sacrificial honey-cake {libum}.” After sending the rustic ahead to beg for lodging, one of clerics points out that the rustic’s honey-cake is enough for two persons, but too little for three. The other cleric responds:

This voracious rustic could consume it all in one
bite. Thus there wouldn’t be any portion for us.

{ Rusticus ille vorax totum consumeret uno
Morsu; sic nobis portio nulla foret. }

The cleric created this self-centered hypothetical to justify his own greed. The second cleric responds with rhetorical sophistication:

The rustic is a classical shepherd of great simplicity.
He is unknowing of deception and can be caused to fall by deception.
In him is excessive gluttony and minimal deceitfulness.
If therefore you wish to cheat his gluttony, devise deception.

{ Rusticus est Corydon et magne simplicitatis,
Inscius ille doli fallibilisque dolo.
Est in eo nimium gule minimumque dolorum:
Si vis ergo gulam fallere, finge dolos. }

The other cleric characterizes the rustic as a shepherd, which is also an ecclesiastical figure for a bishop. The specific reference is to Corydon, a goat-herding shepherd who loved a boy in Virgil’s Eclogues.[6] In addition, the cleric charged the rustic with gluttony. That’s a sin in medieval Christian understanding. Endorsing this call for self-interested deception, the other cleric responds, “How well said {Quam bene dixisti}!” The clerics thus agree to trick the rustic and appropriate his honey-cake.

One of the clerics proposes an other-worldly contest to determine who gets to eat the honey-cake. Jesus miraculous magnified a few loaves of bread to feed thousands of persons.[7] In the cleric’s contest, false marvels seen in a dream will determine who gets the one loaf:

Therefore let’s hold to this agreement: to whomever sleep will give
to see the most marvelous dreams, will be seen as the winner.

{ Hoc igitur pacto stemus: cui sompnia sompnus
Plura videre dabit mira, videntis erit. }

The rustic agrees to this contest. But he says to himself with marvelous sophistication:

I don’t know what biting concerns torture my mind.
I don’t know what particular suspicion pulls at me.
Since there are city-dwellers, there are always deceitful ones in the city.
I suspect that my companions aren’t without deceptions.
First they ordered me to go in front, afterwards called me back,
finally they made an agreement with me.
Whatever it is, I infer deceptions and fear deceitful ones.
Such as I think, they have been the cause of this nasty agreement.
One who is wary will not be cheated, and one who grabs
first rarely grieves. For me to grab therefore is good.
In fact, it’s more prudent to appease the fury of one’s belly
and remove hunger than to keep faith.
And better that one arranges to taste honey-cake secretly
and to make this deception than to be deprived by deception.
Whatever will happen by dream afterwards, it’s
expedient that I would do, such that the same may not be done to me.

{ Nescio quid mentem curis mordacibus angit
Nescio quid quadam suspicione trahit:
Cum sint urbani, cum semper in urbe dolosi,
Suspicor in sociis non nichil esse doli.
Primo iusserunt precedere, post revocarant,
Extremo pactum constituere michi.
Quicquid id est, coniecto dolos timeoque dolosos;
Utque reor, pacti causa fuere mali.
Qui premunitur non fallitur et capientem
Primo piget raro: me capere ergo bonum est.
Tutius est etenim ventris sedare furorem
Et removere famem quam retinere fidem.
Et magis expediet libum libasse latendo
Hun<c>que dedisse dolum quam caruisse dolo.
Quidquid de sompno post hoc evenerit, istud
Expedit ut faciam, ne michi fiat idem. }

Like the fox in the mid-twelfth-century Latin beast epic Ysengrimus, this rustic tendentiously combines folk wisdom with ingenious arguments and learned rhetoric. Jesus teaches Christians, “whatever you wish that persons would do to you, you yourself should do to them {quaecumque vultis ut faciant vobis homines et vos facite}.” No more moral than the deceptive clerics, the rustic reasons to moral guidance opposite that of Jesus.[8]

The following morning, the companions report their dreams. One cleric reports cosmological marvels described in terms of Macrobius’s fifth-century commentary on Cicero’s Dream of Scipio {Somnium Scipionis}. The second cleric describes men being tortured in the infernal world probably according to a passage from Ovid’s Metamorphoses, with the husband-killing Danaides omitted in accordance with gyno-idolatry.[9] Each cleric concludes his dream review by breathlessly saying:

So that I should speak briefly, I wasn’t going to return here.

{ Ut breviter dicam, non rediturus eram. }

The rustic speaks much more briefly. He declares that he has acted in way that preempts the dream contest:

I saw all that you saw, and the honey-cake. Since neither of you was going to return,
I made my individual eating what was before universal to us.

{ Hec vidi, et libum, quia neuter erat rediturus,
Feci individuum quod fuit ante genus. }[10]

The clerics’ learning enables them to populate their dreams with marvels. The rustic’s learned logic prompts him to consume the honey-cake all to himself. Of course, the honey-cake was originally his property. De clericis et rustico plays with clerical learning. It indicates that clerical learning in practice doesn’t differentiate clerics from rustics.[11] Clerics and rustic men have unity in their diversity.

Men’s unity in diversity isn’t truly understood today. When the police kill a black man, the media flames protest that the police have killed a black person. That police kill vastly more men than women is ignored. Criminal justice reformers often mendaciously deny that anti-men sex discrimination contributes to the vastly gender-disproportionate incarceration of men in what’s called, without any sense of outrage, penal systems. The urbane man crudely disparaging the rustic in De rustico and the highly cultured rustic conniving to overcome the two trickery clerics in De clericis et rustico shows that medieval thinkers appreciated men’s unity in diversity. If we are to overcome the ignorance, bigotry, and superstition of our childish age, we too must become educated enough to understand men’s unity in diversity.

*  *  *  *  *

Read more:


[1] About a Rustic {De rustico}, vv. 1-4, Latin text from Hexter, Pfuntner & Haynes (2020) p. 370, my English translation, benefiting from that of id. p. 371. Kölblinger (1973) provides the base Latin text, which Hexter, Pfuntner & Haynes (2020) then edited in accordance with two fifteenth-century manuscripts that attributed the poem to Ovid. The poem was also attributed to Horace in two other fifteenth-century manuscripts. De rustico apparently originated roughly about 800 GC. Id p. 436.

[2] About Rural Living {De habitatione ruris}, Anthologia Latina, Carmina Codicis Salmasiani 26, Latin text from Riese (1894) p. 98, my English translation. The manuscript assigns the poem to the first-century Roman poet Martial, but Martial probable didn’t write it. De habitatione ruris apparently was written in the fourth century GC. Mastrandrea (1997) pp. 91-4.

The wonderful antediluvian, bibliomaniac, and curmudgeon Michael Gilleland at Laudator Temporis Acti provides the Latin text of Shackleton Bailey (1982) for De habitatione ruris, with Gilleland’s English translation. “Shackleton Bailey’s treatment of R. 26 is a disgrace.” Reeve (1985) p. 176. The most important issue seems to be that Shackleton Bailey put agis in v. 1 in place of Riese’s agam, and in  v. 9, dat<a> in place of Riese’s dat. Out of respect for vigorous criticism among philologists, I’ve preferred Riese’s Latin text (R. 26) for this poem.

De habitatione ruris has Horatian echoes. Mastrandrea (1997) pp. 88-9. Hrabanus Maurus’s “To Emperor Hludowicus {Ad Hludowicum Imperatorem}” and Sedulius Scottus’s “I read and write {Aut lego vel scribo}…” may have drawn upon De habitatione ruris. Id. pp. 96-8. The latter poets might rightly be regarded as having assimilated, enriched, and surpassed De habitatione ruris and other classical models.

[3] De rustico vv. 5-12, source as above. These verses are nearly identical to the poem Verses for Pan {Versus Panos}, dating from the fifth to the eighth century. In some manuscripts Versus Panos is entitled “Against a rustic {In rusticum}.” Versus Panos survives mainly in manuscripts written in the fifteenth century. Michael Gilleland at Laudator Temporis Acti provides a critical edition of Versus Panos, with useful notes and an English translation.

Versus panos is also recorded in the ninth-century manuscript Paris, BnF lat. 8094. There it’s entitled Ovid Naso in the Art of Loving speaks of the shepherd Pan {Ovidius Naso in Amatoria arte de Pan pastore dicit}. Hexter, Pfuntner & Haynes (2020) pp. 427-8. The Latin text of Versus Panos from BnF lat. 8094, with English translation, is available in id. pp. 30-1.

Scholars regard satire of rustics as having developed in Europe between the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Applauso (2012) p. 607. Both De rusticos and Versus Panos predate that purported origin by centuries.

A disparaging Latin declension of “rustic man {rusticus}” found in thirteenth and fourteenth century European manuscripts uses more abstract terms of disparagement. For example, consider the plural declension given for “rustic man {rusticus}”: nominative, “these accursed ones {hi maledicti}”; genitive, “of these gloomy ones {horum tristium}”; dative, “to these liars {his mendacibus}”; accusative, “these wicked one {hos nequissimos}”; vocative, “O evil ones {o pessimi}”; ablative, “by these infidels {ab his infidelibus}.” Freedman (1999) p. 134, Applauso (2012) p. 611. This declension suggests clerical incomprehension of a barely known other.

For almost all persons in medieval Europe, bathing was infrequent and changes of clothes weren’t ready available. Peasants, however, were characterized as being particularly foul-smelling:

Down there, in a hostel
there was a donkey.
From behind he made a sound
as loud as thunder.
From that evil wind
was born the stinky peasant.

{ Là zoxo, in uno hostero,
sì era un somero;
de dré sì’ fé un sono
sì grande come un tono:
de quel malvaxio vento
nascè el vilan puzolento. }

Matazone da Caligano, Satire of the Peasant {Satira del villano} / Nativity of Rustics {Nativitas rusticorum} vv. 83-8, medieval Italian text and English translation (modified slightly) from Applauso (2012) p. 625. Nativitas rusticorum has survived in only one manuscript, Biblioteca Ambrosiana (Milan, Italy) C. 218 inf. Matazone probably wrote this 284-verse poem in the thirteenth or fourteenth century. Matazone, which means “motley fool,” apparently was a jester. Nothing more is known about him. Id. pp. 634, 608. For addition medieval literary representations of stinking peasants, Freedman (1999) Ch. 6.

[4] Medieval men authors, who were elite men, typically characterized peasants as having “feeble sexual appetite”:

Nor were peasant men regarded as possessing any particular sexual energy or aggressiveness. It was a literary commonplace that rustic men are unfit for love, not merely because they lacked the necessary refinement but because they were too materialistic. Their concerns were land, work, money, all rendering them unable to experience the yearning that afflicts the brave and well-born.

Freedman (1999) pp. 159, 158. That characterization probably reflects elite men’s self-image more than peasant men’s actual behavior. Because men are typically less hypergamous than women, elite medieval men were more interested in having sexual affairs with peasant women than elite medieval women were with peasant men. On peasant women’s sexuality according to elite men, id. Ch. 7. Of course, men’s tiresome gender responsibility to provide money to women and children tends to dull men’s sexual activity across all social classes.

[5] About Clerics and a Rustic {De clericis et rustico}. v. 1, Latin text of Cadoni (1980) via Tilliette (2019) pp. 11-2, my English translation, benefiting from the French translation of id. and the English translation of Crawford (1977) pp. 371-4. Subsequent quotes from De clericis et rustico are similarly sourced.

De clericis et rustico has survived in two manuscripts written about 1200: Vatican Library, Reginensis 344, and Hunterian Museum (Glasgow, UK), Manuscript 511 (alias V.8.14). On these two manuscripts, Tilliette (2019) pp. 5-6.

De clericis et rustico has attracted little scholarly attention. Scholars who have noticed it have tended to interpret it superficially as literature. For example:

De Clericus et Rustico is simply an old joke with a pleasant and surprising punch line. Its argument is merely that the crude common sense of the Rustic is more practical than the subtle cleverness of the two Clerics.

Crawford (1977) p. 301. Bisanti (1992) emphasizes historical-sociological correlates of cleric-rustic literary conflict. Another learned literary scholar called De clericis et rustico merely “a version of the dupers duped.” Kendrick (2005) para. 9. Tilliette (2019), in contrast, rightly appreciates the literary sophistication of the poem.

[6] In Virgil, Eclogues 2, the shepherd Corydon expresses his unrequited love for the boy Alexis. De clericis et rustico v. 68 more directly refers to monks’ pederastic love affairs.

[7] See Jesus feeding at least 5,000 persons with five loaves and two fishes in Matthew 14:13-21, Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:12-17, and John 6:1-14. See also Jesus feeding at least 4,000 persons with seven loaves and a few small fish in Matthew 15:32-39 and Mark 8:1-9.

[8] Cf. Matthew 7:12 (quoted in the Vulgate translation of the Greek original). Tilliette (2019), p. 8, identifies this allusion.

[9] On the content of the clerics’ dreams, Tilliette (2019) pp. 7-8, 10, 12 n. 37. For the first cleric, the dream might be sourced in Martianus Capella’s On the Marriage of Philology and Mercury {De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii} rather than in Somnium Scipionis. That source difference isn’t substantially significant. Id. p. 7, n. 25. With respect to the second cleric, Tilliette seems to favor as the dream source Aeneid 6 (Aeneas visits the underworld of the dead). The eminent twelfth-century author Bernardus Silvestris wrote a commentary on Aeneid 6. But Tilliette also refers to Ovid, Metamorphoses 4.457-61. Id. p. 12, n. 37. That passage from Metamorphoses seems to me the more plausible source for the second cleric’s dream.

[10] Tilliette commented:

The last response, a brilliant coda if there ever was one, reveals the true face of the peasant. He is a cleric, too, and of the most sophisticated type. The terms he uses to state that he has appropriated (individuum feci) what was the common good (quod fuit … genus) refer to a very particular register of discourse, that of formal logic. More precisely, those terms refer to the question of generics and of the individual, of the tension between them or the movement from one to another. That is the great matter of medieval philosophy of language and mind — what is sometimes called the “quarrel of universals.”

{ La dernière réplique, coda brillante s’il en fut, révèle le vrai visage du paysan. C’est un clerc lui aussi, et de l’espèce la plus raffinée. Les termes qu’il emploie pour déclarer qu’il s’est approprié (individuum feci) ce qui était le bien commun (quod fuit… genus) renvoient à un registre de discours bien particulier, celui de la logique formelle. Plus précisément même, la question du genre et de l’individu, de la tension entre eux ou du passage de l’un à l’autre est la grande affaire de la philosophie médiévale du langage et de l’esprit, ce que l’on appelle parfois la « querelle des universaux ». }

Tilliette (2019) pp. 9-10. Medieval study of this matter arose from Boetheus’s study of logic, particularly his commentary on the third-century philosopher Porphyry’s Introduction {Isagoge}. Gilbert of Poitiers {Gilbertus Porretanus} and his twelfth-century school at Poitiers considered this matter extensively. Id. p. 10, n. 31. On that clerical school, Valente (2017).

[11] Tilliette discusses the rustic’s clerical learning and perceptively interprets De clericis et rustico in terms of a comic contest between Peter Abelard’s new twelfth-century school of logical reasoning and the earlier medieval school of Chartreuse Platonism. Like Matazone da Caligano’s Nativity of Rustics {Nativitas rusticorum}, De clericis et rustico balances between disparaging and celebrating the rustic. On Nativitas rusticorum, Applauso (2012). Men’s unity in diversity more generally represents the literary strategy of these two texts as well as De rustico.

[images] (1) The shepherds Tityrus and Meliboeus in Virgil’s Eclogues 1. Excerpt (color-enhanced) from illumination on folio 1r of the Vergilius Romanus (Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica, Cod. Vat. lat. 3867). That illuminated manuscript, created about 450 GC, contains works of Virgil. (2) The god Pan playing flute in a Pompeiian urban scene. Excerpt (color-enhanced) from a first-century fresco at Pompeii in the House of Jason. Preserved in the National Archaeological Museum (Naples, Italy). Via Wikimedia Commons.


Applauso, Nicolino. 2012. “Peasant Authors and Peasant Haters: Matazone da Caligano and the Ambiguity of the Satira del villano in High and Late Medieval Italy.” Ch. 18 (pp. 607-638) in Classen, Albrecht, and Christopher R. Clason, eds. Rural Space in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Age: the spatial turn in premodern studies. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Bisanti, Armando. 1992. “Mimo Giullaresco e Satira del Villano nel De clericis et rustico.” Anglo-Norman Studies. 15: 59-76.

Cadoni, Enzo. 1980. “De clericis et rustico.” Pp. 370-6 in Commedie latine del XII e XIII secolo. Vol. 2. Genova: Istituto di Filologia Classica e Medievale.

Crawford, James Martin. 1977. The Secular Latin Comedies of Twelfth Century France. Ph. D. Thesis. Indiana University, USA.

Freedman, Paul H. 1999. Images of the Medieval Peasant. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hexter, Ralph J., Laura Pfuntner, and Justin Haynes, ed. and trans. 2020. Appendix Ovidiana: Latin poems ascribed to Ovid in the Middle Ages. Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library, 62. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kendrick, Laura. 2005. “‘In bourde and in pleye’: Mankind and the problem of comic derision in medieval English religious plays.” Etudes Anglaises. 58 (3): 261-275.

Kölblinger, Gerald. 1973. “Versus Panos und De rustico.Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch. 8: 7-27.

Mastrandrea, Paolo. 1997. “[Martialis] De habitatione ruris (Anth. 36 R.): Modelli Classici ed Emulazioni Medievali.” Sandalion. 20: 87-98.

Reeve, M. D. 1985. “Book Review: Anthologia Latina 1.1. Edited by D. R. Shackleton Bailey.” Phoenix. 39 (2): 174-180.

Riese, Alexander, ed. 1894. Anthologia Latina sive Poesis Latinae Supplementum. Vol. 1. Lipsiae: Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana.

Shackleton Bailey, David R., ed. 1982. Anthologia Latina sive Poesis Latinae Supplementum. Pars. 1. Carmina in codicibus scripta. Fasc. 1. Libri Salmasiani aliorumque carmina. Stutgardiae: In aedibus Teubneri.

Tilliette, Jean-Yves. 2019. “La revanche d’Abélard? Note sur le ‘conte à rire’ De clericis et rustico.” Pp. 650-667 in Sébastien Douchet, Marie-Pascale Halary, Sylvie Lefèvre, Patrick Moran, and Jean-René Valette, eds. De la pensée de l’histoire au jeu littéraire: études médiévales en l’honneur de Dominique Boutet. Nouvelle Bibliothèque du Moyen Âge, 127. Paris: Honoré Champion. (cited according to page numbers in online edition)

Valente, Luisa. 2017. “Théologie, ontologie et sémantique au xiie siècle : Gilbert de Poitiers et l’École Porrétaine.” École Pratique Des Hautes Études. Section Des Sciences Religieuses. 124: 283-290.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Current month ye@r day *