MS. Milan Ambrosian I. 64 and Medieval Perceptions of Similitude

MS. Milan Ambrosian I. 64 and Medieval Perceptions of Similitude Manuscript I. 64 of the Ambrosian Library in Milan contdns two major texts: the collection of moralized fables known as the Dialogus Creaturarum Moralizatus and a version of the Historia de Preliis, a romance or legend of Alexander the Great. The apparent dissimilarity of these two texts might immediately suggest that their conjunction in the codex is merely fortdtous, a coincidence without significance. A closer examination of the nature of the texts, however, and the evidence of a series of annotations in the manuscript chdlenges the vdidity of such a response and sheds light on contemporary perceptions of similitude. M S . Milan Ambrosian I. 64 is a fourteenth-century parchment codex, in good condition, contdning 69 numbered folios.1 It measures 290 x 225mm with a written space of 230 x 185mm ruled to give 35 to 39 lines to the page, with margins. The writing throughout is a smdl, neat, humanist minuscule. Collation is 1-78 86 98 . The last folio, fol.70, is unnumbered and blank, and has been pasted to the inside of the back cover. There are no fly leaves at back or front Thefirstfolio is somewhat damaged and spotted, and is attached to the stub of a paper leaf which is glued into the front cover. Although the codex is now in m o d e m binding, the uniformity of the handwriting and of the ruling throughout and the consistent style of the annotations to both major texts argues that its present state represents, at least in the conjunction of the two major texts, its origind arrangement Inside thefrontcover is a list of contents in a modem hand: 1. Fabulae ignoti auctoris quibustitulusest de contemptu sublimitatis. 2. Alexandri macedonis historia, fabulis cateris singularibus. Item 1, the Contemptus Sublimitatis (which is more commonly known, from thetitleassigned it in the early printed editions, as the Dialogus Creaturarum Moralizatus)2 occupies fols. l-39v. Folio40 is blank, and the Alexander text begins on fol.41r, continuing to fol. 68r. O n fols. 68v and 69r are three poems ('Carmina' acording to thelnventario of the library) praising Alexander. In item 1, the Dialogus Creaturarum Moralizatus (hereafter abbreviated to D C M ) , natural history, in the form of descriptions of the natural world and of 'See Inventario Ceruti dei manoscritti della Biblioteca Ambrosiana, vol. 2, 1975, 456 for a brief description of the manuscript which I myself have had the privilege of examining. 2 This title does not occur in any of the nine extant manuscripts. The title Contentusi'Contemptus sublimitatis is found in Paris, B.N. f.l. 8507; Cremona, Biblioteca Statale MS.143; Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale M S . H. B3. 6 and Toledo Archivo y Biblioteca Capitulares M S . 10.28. (These latter two add an alternative tide: Liber de animalibus.) 78 E. Moores fables, is the source of extended mordization on the virtues (especidly the cardind virtues) and on transience. But the DCM is not limited to natural history as the source of its moral teaching. It amplifies its instructiond impulse by including lessons drawn from a wide range of classicd and patristic sources, among which are some seventeen episodes drawn from the life of Alexander. Throughout the Middle Ages, accounts of the career of Alexander the Great were regarded not just as narrative records of his exploits, but dso as repositories of anecdotd materid vduable for both the moralist and the natural historian. For the moralist, Alexander's career itself became an emblem of the transience of earthly glory and indeed of life itself; while in his character and actions such virtues as generosity, wisdom and compassion were nobly exemplified.3 In the descriptions of Alexander's journeys into the East and to India, compilers of natural history found exciting accounts of the wonders of creation (Cary, 335-36, 234, 220-21). The Alexandri Historia contained in this manuscript is a version of the Latin translation of the work cdled the Pseudo-Cdlisthenes. The Latin translation, attributed to Leo the Archpriest, is believed to have been written about 950 (Cary, 38). As Cary (43-57) explains, three major interpolated recensions of Leo's text (which...