[In the following essay, Kratz examines Hroswitha's Latin epic Gesta Ottonis, concluding that it is "among the most successful attempts in the history of Latin literature to adapt the epic genre for the expression of a Christian definition of heroic excellence."]

Best known for the comedies which she wrote in order to provide her Benedictine sisters a Christian alternative to the comedies of Terence, Hroswitha of Gandersheim stands as a unique figure in the history not only of Latin drama but of epic as well. Her Gesta Ottonis and Primordia Coenobii Gandeshemensis are the only Latin epics we possess which were composed by a woman.¹ While the latter poem is not without merit, the Gesta Ottonis, to which this essay is devoted, is in many respects Hroswitha's finest literary achievement; and the fact that its author is a woman is a far from inconsequential element of its success. For Hroswitha's consciousness of the epic genre as a "masculine" domain provided her with the justification, if not the inspiration, for a departure from tradition which helps raise her narrative above any other tenth century attempt at Christian epic.

Hroswitha turned to epic at the culmination of her literary career. She had already composed eight verse legends and six comedies when, in 967, she began the Gesta Ottonis. The narrative is ordered chronologically. Hroswitha begins by praising Otto's parents, Henry and Mathilda. After mentioning each of their three sons—Otto, Henry, and Bruno—she focuses attention on Otto by describing his marriage to Edith, daughter of King Edward. At this point in the narrative, his father dies, and Otto assumes the throne. Almost immediately war breaks out, led by a certain Everhard. Although Otto puts down this rebellion, Everhard soon leads another; and he persuades Otto's brother Henry to join him. After a pitched battle, Otto again is victorious. A third rebellion, in which Henry again participates, ends in an abortive attempt to assassinate Otto on Easter; however, Otto forgives the now repentant Henry. Hroswitha then lauds Otto's rule; but this passage is followed by the report of Edith's death.

The second half of the Gesta Ottonis revolves around the conflict between Otto and Berengar II, who had usurped the Italian throne after the death of King Lothair. Lothair's wife, Adelaide, imprisoned by Berengar, escapes and is rescued by Otto. After marrying her, Otto then sets about conquering Italy. He sends his son Liudolf to win over the Italians as allies, then enters Italy himself along with an army, and captures Pavia without opposition from Berengar, who has retreated to a fortified sanctuary. After putting Liudolf in charge of Saxony, Otto devotes his full attention to subduing Italy and soon captures Berengar. He allows Berengar to retain his authority, on condition of obedience to himself; but when Berengar immediately rebels, Otto is compelled to fight again. At this point the text, lamentably, breaks off. Its last extant passages mention a final mission by Liudolf to Italy in 957 and various events from the years 962 through 967.

The narrative seems at first glance straightforward and unexceptional.² But Hroswitha has made the Gesta Ottonis more than a simple chronicle of events; for underlying her descriptive account of Otto's accomplishments we can discern a prescriptive definition of the qualities which the truly Christian ruler must exhibit. Otto, central figure in the epic, is in fact Hroswitha's model of Christian heroic virtue.

The key to the poem's underlying meaning—and to Hroswitha's artistry—is the comparison of Otto with the Biblical king David which serves as one of the unifying themes in the epic. This theme begins before the narrative itself; for in the second of two verse prefaces to her poem, Hroswitha twice likens Otto's son to the Biblical king Solomon. The first passage urges the younger Otto to follow the example of Solomon in accepting the responsibility of kingship (Prologue 2: 19-23):

Sed quia te memini sublimiter assimilari
Nato famosi regis David Salomoni,
Qui genitore suo praesente iubenteque sancto,
Optata regnum suscepit pace paternum,
Ipsius exemplo te contentum fore spero.³

In the second passage, Hroswitha addresses Otto II as "our Solomon" (31: nostrum Salomonem), as she asks him to receive her unworthy tribute to his father (Prologue 2: 31-38). These comparisons of Otto II to Solomon in the second prologue serve as an introduction to a major theme of the epic—the comparison of Otto I to David, the father of Solomon. Hroswitha first applies this image to Otto while describing his coronation as Emperor (136-140):

Insuper e tantis ipsum sacra dextra potentis
Protegit insidiis occulta fraude paratis
Et tam magnificis omat persaepe triumphis,
Ut credas regem David regnare fidelem
Iam nunc antiquis fulgentem rite triumphis.

Hroswitha's poem, we should note, provides the first literary mention of Otto bearing the title of Emperor. Moreover, David was the name given to Charlemagne by the members of his court circle, a fact which may have influenced Hroswitha; for Otto, like Charlemagne, was attempting to renew a Christian Empire in the West.⁴

Hroswitha employs the David/Otto theme to help portray the necessary qualities of the Christian hero. The first requirement, as articulated in the passage quoted above, is a special relationship with God, Who responds to the hero's fidelity (139: David …fidelem) by placing him under His divine protection against the power of evil (137: protegit insidiis occulta fraude paratis). This divine protection gives to the Christian hero a strength surpassing that of his enemies. Hroswitha is here making use of the common emphasis by Christian writers on David as a figura of strength, much as Solomon represented wisdom. She goes on to stress this facet of her comparison, stating (141-145) that Otto not only preserved the territories which he inherited but even extended the boundaries of the Empire. The passage continues (146-152):

Ad bellum certe quoties processerat ipse,
Non fuit populus, quamvis virtute superbus,
Laedere qui posset vel exsuperare valeret
Ipsum caelestis fultum solamine regis;
Eius nec cessit telis exercitus ullis,
Ni sua spernendo forsan regalia iussa
Illic pugnaret, quo rex idem prohiberet.

In this passage, Hroswitha states clearly that Otto's might derives from God's favor (149: ipsum caelestis fultum solamine regis); and she contrasts this strength with the haughtiness (147: populus … superbus) of his enemies.

The negative corollary of the power which emanates from God is fraus, or treachery inspired by the devil. Hroswitha alludes to this concept in the same passage in which she first associates Otto I with David (137: insidiis occulta fraude paratis). In describing Everhard's rebellion, the first discord to trouble Otto's reign, Hroswitha establishes fraus as her symbol for the sinfulness which provokes men to the disruption of political harmony (163-167):

O quam tranquillum ridens deduceret aevum
Fortunata satis nostrae res publica gentis,
Quae nimis imperio regis regitur sapientis
Si non antiqui male calliditas inimici
Turbaret nostrum secreta fraude serenum!

The outbreak of a second insurrection led by Everhard is likewise attributed to the power of fraus (202-205):

His bene dispositis regis iussu sapientis,
Protulit antiqui rursum mala fraus inimici
Inventum sceleris primo mage deterioris,
Cunctis horrendum saeclis meritoque
 stupendum.

Fraus underlies as well the plot to assassinate Otto on Easter Sunday (318). Berengar too is closely associated with the symbolic image of fraus. Hroswitha sees this power at work when he treacherously rebels against Otto despite his sworn promise to respect the Emperor's authority (727-731).

We have already observed that Hroswitha contrasts his enemies' superbia and fraus with Otto's own Davidlike reliance on God; and she devotes the rest of the epic to defining more precisely Otto's heroic excellence. One of three specific elements comprising that definition is wisdom, or sapientia. On four occasions, Hroswitha speaks of Otto's wisdom. The last mention makes reference to his habit of acting wisely (701: rex, qui semper fecit sapienter). The third combines the themes of wisdom and strength (378-385):

Avaresque per hunc saevi saepissimi victi
Post haec Ottonis regnum regis spatiosum
Non laedunt telis consueto more cruentis
Tangere nec contingentes audent nationes,
Ex terrore ducis tanti nimium tremefacti;
Hic quia, prudentis functus valetudine mentis,
His hominum monstris bellis obstans iteratis
Ad nos pergendi calles secluserat omnes.

Significantly, each of the first two appearances of this theme, which occur in passages which we have already discussed (163-167, 202-205), sets Otto's wisdom in contrast to fraus. Moreover, Hroswitha has foreshadowed the appearance of the sapientia theme with her mention of Solomon in the second prologue. We have made note of the general association of Solomon with wisdom, an association which Hroswitha echoes by describing him as prudenter legum condens decreta (25) and penetrans animo rerum secreta profundo (26).

The second, and most emphasized, element of Hroswitha's definition of heroism is pietas. The scene in which she introduces this concept into the epic centers on the battle in which Otto defeats the army of Everhard and Henry. Although Hroswitha does not describe any of the fighting, she does not completely pass over the events of the battle. Instead, she redirects our attention by repeating the comparison of Otto with David (251-256):

Hoc dico solum (recte quod dicere possum);
Qui solus semper fecit miranda potenter
Quique, David regem toties de fraude fidelem
Eripiens Sauli, sceptrum regni dedit ipsi,
Hunc pariter regem David pietate sequentem
Protexit de millenis persaepe periclis.

This passage repays careful analysis. In it, Hroswitha asserts that Otto, like David, is under God's special favor through his fidelity, and therefore protected from the dangers of fraus. Key words—-fraus, fidelem, protexit—are repeated from the first David/Otto comparison (136-140). Moreover, in the last two lines, Hroswitha calls this special relationship pietas, and says specifically that the model for Otto's pietas is David (255: David pietate sequentem).

By so carefully establishing a Biblical model for Otto's pietas, Hroswitha adds a second level to her portrait of the Christian hero. Inevitably the application of the epithet pius to an epic hero calls to mind Aeneas. Hroswitha's use of David as the exemplar of pietas gives her later use of pius both Classical and Christian echoes. We recall again that Otto viewed himself as a continuator of the line of Roman emperors; but also, like Charlemagne, saw himself as superior to his Roman predecessor because of his Christianity.

As the battle rages, Hroswitha's attention continues on Otto's reactions, rather than the fighting, and she uses the opportunity to strengthen his association with the Biblical king. Of particular importance is this speech in which Otto bitterly mourns the death of so many brave men (266-275):

At si forte suos, pugna crescente sinistra,
Audivit socios letali vulnere laesos,
Praedicti regis lacrimans mox utitur orsis,
Quae maerens dixit, tristi cum pectore sensit
Ictibus angelici populum gladii periturum:
"En, qui peccavi, dixit, facinusque peregi,
Hinc ego vindictae dignus sum denique tantae!
Hi quid fecerunt, damnum qui tale tulerunt?
lam nunc, Christe, tuis parcens miserere
  redemptis,
Ne premat insontes iusto plus vis inimica!"

Otto's words are modelled on the lament uttered by David when God sent a pestilence upon Israel (II Regum xxiv. 17):

dixitque David ad Dominum cum vidisset
  angelum caedentem populum:
ego cum qui peccavi ego inique egi.
isti qui oves sunt quid fecerunt?
vertatur obsecro man us tua contra me
 et contra domum patris mei.

Among the verbal imitations, Otto's adaptions of David's ego cum qui peccavi, ego inique egi, and quid fecerunt are unmistakable. Immediately after this speech, Hroswitha again makes note of Otto's pietas. In this instance, it prompts God to grant him the hoped-for victory (276-279):

Has igitur preculas miserans divina potestas
Parcebat regis solita pietate ministris.
Et dedit optatum miserans ex hoste
 triumphum,
lusto praedictos comites examine perdens.

At the conclusion of the battle, Hroswitha compares Otto's sadness even at the death of his foes to the reaction of David when he learned that Saul was dead (292-296):

Denique dum pugnae sensit discrimina tantae,
Haut gaudens inimicorum de morte suorum,
Sed plus tantorum maerens de caede virorum,
Sumpsit non modicum, Davidis more,
 lamentum,
Qui super occasum doluit regem pie Saulum.

Here again Hroswitha uses literary evocation (295-296: Davidis more… pie) to conjoin the theme of Otto's pietas with that of David as the model of his heroic virtues.

This entire scene (202-315) stands at the artistic center of Hroswitha's epic. In it, as we have shown, she meticulously establishes David as the exemplar virtutis for Otto. She does so at the expense of the battle description which we would expect in an epic poem. It is important to note that she begins the scene by stating her aversion to treating such subject matter; for that passage (237-249), as we will see, establishes even more firmly the centrality of the scene which we have been discussing.

Having now established pietas and wisdom as two elements in her portrait of the Christian hero, Hroswitha completes her triad of heroic virtues by emphasizing, in later episodes, Otto's mercy (clementia) toward his enemies. For example, his pietas leads Otto (363: victus pietate benigna) to forgive his brother Henry; and his mercy extends even to the treacherous Berengar (701-707). In this instance, Hroswitha combines the theme of Otto's clementia with his wisdom (701: rex qui semper fecit sapienter).

We can see, then, that Hroswitha's portrait of the Christian hero, as it is presented in the Gesta Ottonis, follows an orderly development. Like David, he must be faithful to God, Who will then grant him protection against treachery inspired by the devil. It is from this divine protection that his might derives. The Christian hero takes no pleasure from his military victories; for he mourns the death of allies and enemies alike. In the aftermath of victory, he is merciful and forgiving. In all his actions, he displays wisdom; and this complex of three interconnected virtues—pietas, clementia, sapientia—comprises Hroswitha's definition of Christian heroism.

Hroswitha's emphasis on these three virtues, along with military strength, as the qualities of an idealized Christian ruler is, of course, far from unique. It is impossible even to isolate the specific influence on her thought because the basic political conception, which has its Christian roots in the writings of Augustine, pervades the Ottonian literature.⁵ In addition, the emphasis on clementia and pietas as virtues of a Roman emperor can be traced back to Augustus.⁶ With regard to the epic tradition, the importance of pietas in Vergil's portrait of Aeneas can hardly be overemphasized. Moreover, to combine fortitudo with sapientia in the description of a hero was a commonplace of Latin epic poetry.⁷ Indeed, similar language in the description of the idealized Christian ruler can be discerned in other Ottonian literature, most dramatically the Modus Ottinc.8

Hroswitha alone, however, among tenth century poets was able to use the Latin epic genre as a vehicle for the expression of this Christian concept of heroic excellence; and her success stands out even more clearly when we compare the Gesta Ottonis with two other attempts at Christian historical epic, the Annales of the so-called "Saxon Poet" (which she probably had read) and the Gesta Berengarii (which she probably had not).

The Annales,⁹ which recounts in five books the events of 771-814, was composed around 888 by a Saxon monk from Corvey. As a historical source, it has little value, since it is largely drawn from prose sources, particularly the so-called Annales Einhardi. As literature, the work has attracted little attention. A recent study, however, has put forth the suggestion that the poet's ambitious goal was to create an enkomion to Charlemagne, in the form of a heroic epic, which would play a part in Carolingian Europe analogous to that of the Aeneid in Roman culture.¹⁰

If the Saxon Poet's goal was the creation of a new Aeneid, he failed. The Annales is, for the most part, an uninspired recitation of events, with sporadic imitation of epic themes and language. Of some interest, however, is his attempt to enhance Charlemagne's reputation by comparing him with great heroic figures of the past. The one most extensive comparison is that between Charlemagne and David (IV.323-333). Although this association is not developed as a continuing theme in the poem, it does reappear briefly in another long passage devoted to placing Charlemagne's greatness in historical perspective (V.645-686). Among the great historical leaders cited are Constantine and Theodosius, with whom Charlemagne is said to share "Davidic virtue" (V.661-662):

Illic Daviticae pollet virtutis honore
Cum Constantino atque Theodosio.

While these instances may have served as one of the models for Hroswitha's use of the David/Otto comparison, the distinction between the two poets' use of the comparison should be noted. Put briefly, Hroswitha succeeded in integrating the image of David into the larger fabric of her epic poem; and the Saxon Poet did not.

A very different work, the Gesta Berengarii was composed in the first quarter of the tenth century by an anonymous Italian poet. Its author was a learned man, who was familiar with a wide range of Latin literature." The poem reveals his close familiarity with both classical epic (the Aeneid, Thebaid, and Ilias Latina) and patristic epic (the Carmen Paschale of Sedulius and Prudentius' Psychomachia). Its subject is the life of Berengar, who was the grandfather of the treacherous Berengar in Hroswitha's epic, from the time he assumes the kingship over Italy until his coronation as Emperor in 915. The greater part of the narrative, which is divided into four books, concerns Berengar's conquest of his arch-enemy Wido of Spoleto.

The poet views his poem as a Christian continuation of the Latin epic genre. In a 32-line prologue he expressly states his intention to imitate, though not rival Homer and Vergil (Prologue I.1-4):

Non hederam sperare vales laurumve, libelle,
Que largita suis tempora prisca viris.
Contulit hec magno labyrinthea fabula
 Homero.
Aeneisque tibi, docte poeta Maro.

In the beginning of the narrative itself, the poet returns to the question of his relation to Classical epic. Using language which reflects a familiarity with Sedulius' discussion of the same issue in the Carmen Paschale,¹² he defends his poem on the grounds that, if the Greeks and Romans praised their epic heroes, it is proper for him to adopt their literary genre to praise a Christian ruler (I.1-51). Moreover, he concludes the Gesta Berengarii as he began, by declaring his reverence for Homer and Vergil (IV.200-202):

Quando brevi tantos cludo sermone triumphos?
Doctiloquum, credo, labor iste gravaret
 Homerum,
Officio et genuit tali quem Mantua dignum.

The extent to which the poet imitates Classical epic is in fact impressive. He might well have mentioned Statius, along with Homer and Vergil, as a model, since he has reproduced more than 100 lines from the Thebaid in the Gesta Berengarii. The Ilias Latina provides 28 borrowed lines; the Aeneid, 14. In the characterization of the two adversaries we can recognize most clearly the poet's desire to recreate a Classical epic. Adopting the furor/pietas dichotomy of the Aeneid, he contrasts the madness of Wido with Berengar's piety. The model for Wido is Turnus; for Berengar, Aeneas. Like Aeneas, Berengar exhibits both pietas and warlike prowess. For most of the epic, the emphasis is on the latter virtue. Berengar does, to be sure, make a speech (I.107-123) in which he both justifies his war against Wido and professes his dislike for killing. Once in a battle, however, Berengar displays little reticence. He is a cruel and implacable fighter, who shows no mercy to his foes (II.259-262):

… Secreta tibi committere nullus
Audebit, Thirrene, dehinc, quod apertus
 habunde
Hac illacque flues. Sint hec monimenta,
 minorem
Te frustra voluisse meis illudere telis!

The mocking tone of speech such as this, uttered by Berengar to a man whose skull he has just split in two, reminds one more of Tydeus than a Christian ruler.

In the final two books, the theme of Berengar's pietas becomes more important; but the transition from battlefield to church is too abrupt, and the poet's attempt to fuse piety with ferocity into a portrait of a "holy warrior" does not succeed. Rather, there is an unresolved tension in the characterization of Berengar. The Christian elements are not harmonized with the pervasive influence of Classical epic. That influence is particularly noticeable in the poet's fondness for extended battle scenes, and his descriptions of his hero's aristeiai. Consequently, Berengar seems not an integrated portrait of Christian heroism, but an amalgamation of pagan and Christian values.

Hroswitha, on the other hand, avoids the problems which, unresolved, mar the Gesta Berengarii. Of crucial importance, as has been demonstrated, is her choice of David, not Aeneas, as the paradigm for Otto's pietas. Equally important, however, is her conscious decision to omit scenes of battle from her epic. The interconnection between the two decisions has already been suggested. At the point in her narrative where a battle scene is expected, she substitutes in its place the speech by Otto in which he uses David's very words to lament the death of so many soldiers.

Aware of her departure from epic tradition, Hroswitha both provides a justification for it and underscores its importance (237-249):

Non me plus licito tantae sophiae fore iacto,
Ut sperem plene verbis edicere posse,
Quanta gratiolae Christus virtute supernae
Saepius hunc ipsum regem digne benedictum
Fecit multiplices salvum percurrere fraudes
Necnon insidias hostili parte paratas;
Sed nec hoc fragilis fas esse reor mulieris
Inter coenobii positae secreta quieti,
Ut bellum dictet, quod nec cognoscere debet.
Haec perfectorum sunt conservanda virorum
Sudori, quis posse dedit sapientia patris
Omnia compositis sapienter dicere verbis,
Principium qui cunctarum, finis quoque,
  rerum.

We have earlier alluded to the importance of this passage. In it, Hroswitha first argues that she lacks the ability (237: sophiae) to cope with so demanding a subject. She then declares that it is unseemly, moreover, for a woman (243: fragilis … mulieris)—and particularly a nun—to speak of war. The description of fighting is better left to men (246-7: virorum sudori) who have the talent (248: sapienter dicere) which Hroswitha lacks.

We observe in this passage the common topos of "the poet's incompetence" given a second aspect; for Hroswitha has added the difficulty which the material presents to a woman poet. The phrase perfectorum sunt conservanda virorum sudori contains a double antithesis—between Hroswitha and accomplished poets, between Hroswitha and men.

Throughout the Gesta Ottonis, she has threaded the twin topoi of her humility before the theme of Otto's greatness and her inability, as a woman, to deal adequately with so masculine a subject as war. Like the Otto/David comparison, they serve to unify the epic. For example, the same topoi of humility (vili … sermone) and womanhood (femineo prohibebor sexu) appear at the conclusion of the epic (1485-1488):

Nunc scribenda quidem constant, quae fecerit
 idem
Augustus solium retinens in vertice rerum.

Tangere quae vereor, quia femineo prohibebor
Sexu, nec vili debent sermone revolvi.

Both passages from the epic itself are foreshadowed by Hroswitha in her prose preface to the Gesta Ottonis (4 … 9):

In huius sudore progressionis quantum meae
inscitiae obstiterit difficultatis … quanto
sexus fragilior scientiaque minor, tanto
venia erit facilior …

We see in this passage Hroswitha's emphasis on her ignorance (inscitiae … minor scientia) and womanhood (sexus fragilior) as together rendering her incapable of coping with her subject. The two passages in the narrative not only repeat the conjoining of the two ideas, but also contain echoes of its language.

Protestations of inadequacy are, of course, not uncommon in Latin literature. They occur with particular frequency, as Janson has shown, in prose prefaces.¹³ Hroswitha's excusatio, then, makes use of a long-standing rhetorical tradition. But, as with her use of the David theme, she has adapted a common topos with great originality to her own purposes. In using the excusatio to introduce the subsidiary theme of a woman's aversion to describing battles, she sets the stage for her most striking departure from epic tradition. In the place of a battle, she has the pivotal scene—which includes the use by Otto of David's very words—in the establishment of the Biblical exemplar for Otto's pietas.

It is a mistake, we must conclude, to take literally Hroswitha's rhetorical protestations of a tenuis Musa. Her narrative artistry, far from being meager, is strikingly apparent not only in her adaptation of traditional themes but also in her skillful interweaving of disparate threads into a complete fabric. The key to her achievement is her use of David (rather than Aeneas, as in the Gesta Berengarii) as the exemplar for the conception of pietas which underlies her definition of heroism. Unlike the Saxon Poet, who makes a similar comparison between David and Charlemagne, Hroswitha successfully integrates the David theme into the overall design of her narrative. The key to this successful integration derives from her innovative conjoining of a traditional excusatio and her own declaration that a woman ought not to describe battles. At the point in the narrative where a battle description would be appropriate, Hroswitha inserts instead an extended and forceful comparison with David.

Earlier in her career, we recall, Hroswitha had attempted to compose Christian comedies; and her reputation long has rested on the Dulcitius and its companion pieces. But whatever her achievement as a dramatist, her Gesta Ottonis stands among the most successful attempts in the history of Latin literature to adapt the epic genre for the expression of a Christian definition of heroic excellence.

Notes

¹ With the possible exception of the Vergilian cento composed ca. 360 by Faltonia Proba. She refers to an epic poem which she had written concerning Constantius' war against Magnentius, but it has not survived.

² Cf. F. J.E. Raby, Secular Latin Poetry I² (Oxford, 1957): "… there is nothing remarkable about their [referring to both epics] construction or the material with which they deal …" Two recent studies which express a more sympathetic view are H. Homeyer, "Imitatio und Aemulatio in Werk Hrotsvithas v. G." Studi Medievali S 3. ix (1969), pp. 966-979; and Marianne Schuetze-Pflugk, Herrscher- und Maerty-rerauffassung bei Hrotsvit v. G. (Wiesbaden, 1972), esp. pp. 62-101. See also the valuable remarks of C. Erdmann, "Das ottonische Reich als Imperium Romanum," Dt. Archv. für Erf. des MA. 6 (1943), pp. 412-441.

³ Text: H. Homeyer, Hrotsvithae Opera (Paderborn, 1970).

⁴ For the iconography of David, see Hugo Steger, David: Rex et Propheta (Nuremberg, 1961).

⁵ See Erich Auerbach, Literary Language and its Public in Late Latin Antiquity and in the Middle Ages, transl. Ralph Manheim (London, 1965), pp. 156-179; Werner Braun, Studien zum Ruodlieb (Berlin, 1962), pp. 18-27; Ludwig Zoepf, Das Heiligenleben im 10. Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1908), passim.

⁶ Res Gestae Divi Augusti, ed P. A. Brunt and J. M. Moore (Oxford, 1967), 34.2.

⁷ See E. R. Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, transl. Willard R. Trask (New York, 1953), pp. 173-182.

⁸ Karl Strecker, Die Cambridger Lieder (Berlin, 1955), pp. 33-36.

⁹ Text: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini, Vol. IV. Part 1, ed. P. Winterfeld (Berlin, 1894), pp. 7-71.

¹⁰ See J. Bohne. Der Poeta Saxo in der historiographischen Tradition des 8.-10. Jahrhunderts (Frankfurt am Main, 1965), pp. 13-86.

¹¹ Text: MGH, PLAC, IV. 1, pp. 355-405.

¹² Cf. Sedulius Carmen Paschale I.1-81. Text: Sedulii Opera Omnia, ed. Johannes Huemer, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vol. 10.

¹³ On prefaces, see T. Janson, Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in Literary Conventions (Stockholm, 1964). On "protestations of inadequacy", see also E. R. Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, tr. W. Trask (New York, 1953), pp. 410-415.