63 Colloquial and Li.. - Ganino.com

chapter 23
The tale of Frodebert’s tail
Danuta Shanzer
Das ist das wahrste Denkmal der ganzen Merowingerzeit.
B. Krusch (Winterfeld 1905: 60)
ne respondeas stulto iuxta stultitiam suam ne efficiaris ei similis
responde stulto iuxta stultitiam suam ne sibi sapiens esse videatur
(Proverbs 26:4–5)
What is known about how a text is transmitted affects the evaluation of
its content. 1 And evaluation and classification of content in turn affect
the interpretation of words and language. Literary historians must decide
what it is they have in front of them using internal and, where available,
external evidence too. Lexicon, syntax, metrics, topoi, generic markers, and
more, all go into the taxonomic decision. And once a work has a place
in some sort of scholarly taxonomy it may then be used (or abused). A
text’s nature and classification may also be interpreted in widely divergent
ways by scholars who never engage each others’ views. Near the end of
the long period this volume covers (third century bc – eighth century ad)
the Letters of Frodebert and Importunus, texts that some regard as serious
documents and others as obvious parodies, provide a case study of such
a problem. Commentary on them can easily expand to book-length. 2 My
concern here will be to pinpoint the nature of a late text of controversial
content, genre and characteristics (learned/vulgar, literary/colloquial,
ecclesiastical/secular, written/oral, Latin/Romance). My discussion will
begin with the mise en scène and continue with series of limited textual
and interpretative problems showing how arguments even about small
1 My thanks to Karen Dudas and Bruce Swann, our incomparable Classics librarians, who found me
what I needed – fast. Ian Wood, trusty friend in the seventh century, read a draft and made helpful
comments. Julia Barrow, learned and acute, both helped me think this through in conversation
and contributed her expertise in ecclesiastical history when she read a draft. And Ralph Mathisen,
favourite partner in early medieval epistolography, as always helped me hammer out my thoughts.
This piece is for Jim, Latinist extraordinary, in gratitude for almost thirty years of wonderful guidance.
2 P. Meyer 1867: 344; Walstra 1962 is a case in point.
376