Interpretation of Scripture: Practice: A Selection of Works of Hugh, Andrew, Richard, and Leontius of St Victor, and of Robert of Melun, Peter ... of ... (Victorine Texts in Translation, 6) 9782503553122, 2503553125

Citation preview

Interpretat i on of S c ri p t ure : P ract i ce

VICTORINE TEXTS IN TRANSLATION Exegesis, Theology and Spirituality from the Abbey of St Victor

6 Grover A. Zinn Editor in Chief Hugh Feiss, OSB Managing Editor Editorial Board Boyd Taylor Coolman, Dale M. Coulter, Christopher P. Evans, Franklin T. Harkins, Frans van Liere

Interpretation of Scripture: Practice A Selection of Works of Hugh, Andrew, and Richard of St Victor, Peter Comestor, Robert of Melun, Maurice of Sully, and Leonius of Paris

Frans van Liere Franklin T. Harkins eds.

F

© 2015, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2015/0095/124 ISBN 978-2-503-55312-2 Printed on acid-free paper.

Twelfth-century Glossa ordinaria on Genesis, from the abbey of Saint Victor. The colophon reads: “This book belongs to Saint Victor in Paris. Whosoever steals or conceals this book, or destroys the title page, let him be cursed.” Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 14399, fol. 5v

For Kees, Thomas, and Joseph

TABLE OF CONTENTS 11 Preface 13 Acknowledgments 15 Abbreviations 25 General Introduction Frans van Liere and Franklin T. Harkins Literal Exegesis 51 Hugh of St Victor: Notes on Genesis Introduction and Translation by Jan Van Zwieten 53 Introduction 61 Text Littera and Historia: Four Texts on the Intersection between History and Exegesis 121 Introduction by Frans van Liere and Mark Zier 135 Hugh of St Victor: On the Three Most Important Circumstances of Deeds, that is, Persons, Places, and Times Translation by Grover A. Zinn 147 Richard of St Victor: On the concordance of the times of the kings co-ruling over Judah and Israel Translation by Frans van Liere 161 Peter Comestor: Historia Scholastica : the settlement of contrary statements Translation by Frans van Liere 169 Andrew of St Victor: Commentary on Daniel, selections Translated by Mark Zier

8

Table of C ontents

The Spiritual Senses in Exegesis and Theology: Two short Theological works of Richard of St Victor 215 Introduction by Hugh Feiss, OSB 227 Richard of St Victor: On Isaiah: Interpreting “He calls to me from Seir” Translation by Hugh Feiss, OSB, and Dale Coulter 259 Richard of St Victor: Explanations of Several Difficulties of Scripture Translation by Hugh Feiss, OSB, and Dale Coulter From Exegesis to Theology 277 Robert of Melun: Questions on the Divine Page Introduction and translation by Franklin T. Harkins 279 Introduction 289 Text Hebraica Veritas, Jews, and Judaizers 347 Richard of St Victor: On Emmanuel Introduction and translation by Frans van Liere 349 Introduction 357 Text From Text to Sermon: Three Sermons by Richard of St Victor And Maurice of Sully 441 Introduction by Hugh Feiss, OSB 455 Richard of St Victor: The Book of Notes II.12.5: On the man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho Translation by Hugh Feiss, OSB

Table of C ontents



461 Richard of St Victor: Sermon 70, On the Day of Pentecost Translation by Hugh Feiss, OSB 469 Maurice of Sully: Sermon 35, For the Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost Translation by Hugh Feiss, OSB Exegesis and Poetry 475 Leonius of Paris: Histories of the Old Testament: The Book of Ruth Introduction and translation by Greti Dinkova-Bruun 477 Introduction 487 Text 497 Bibliography 523 Indices

9

PREFACE In the long twelfth century, the Abbey of St Victor was a community of canons regular, who came to Paris from different parts of Europe and from there colonized or reformed other communities in France, the British Isles and elsewhere in Europe. They were a very diverse group of men, who were committed to following a common way of life devoted to love of God and neighbor. Their way of life was outlined in the Liber ordinis, whose content drew heavily on monastic sources. Yet, the canons regular of St Victor differed from most monks in their commitment to priestly ministry outside the community. They aimed to set good examples of this in the priories that were staffed from the abbey and in foundations elsewhere. The canons emphasized preaching and confession, although in the early decades of the community’s existence, the monastery also educated scholars from outside the community. For centuries afterwards, the twelfth-century Victorines continued to educate through their writings, a ministry that Victorine Texts in Translation aims to facilitate. The soil from which the community’s life and work drew sustenance was the Bible. The Victorines approached the Sacred Scriptures from many angles, making use of the exegetical tools available to them. Hugh of St Victor taught that study of the Scriptures should begin with the literal or historical sense, which meant the plain meaning of the text as presented by the author. Since much of the Bible is historical narrative, the Victorines were very interested in history; they provided tools which situate the historical accounts of the Bible in the context of non-biblical history, or perhaps it would be just as true to say, they situated non-biblical history in the context of Biblical history. This concern with the literal and historical meanings had ecumenical implications, since it prompted some Victorines to learn from the Jews who had access to the veritas hebraica of the Old Testament. Then as now, there were questions and controversies about how this austere, detached study of the text related to other ways of reading the Bible and the place of the Bible in the Church. The canons of St Victor also were masters of the rich Christian tradition of allegorical interpretation. Guided by the literal meaning of the Scriptures, the creedal teachings of the Church, and a millennium of

12

P reface

Christian pondering and imagining regarding the non-literal meanings of the Bible, they elaborated allegorical interpretations that probed the mysteries that were contained in the text or that the Holy Spirit who inspired the text inspired in them as they read the text. A third approach to the Scriptures used by the Victorines was logical and literary analysis. They produced works of careful analysis, their contribution to the scholasticism taking shape in the schools of Paris, with which they had many ties. The Victorines also produced works of rare beauty, such as poems of Adam of St Victor and some of the opuscula of Hugh of St Victor. They created synthesizing works such as Hugh of St Victor’s On the Sacraments, Richard’s Book of Notes (Liber exceptionum), and Godfrey’s Microcosmus, which, though deeply rooted in prayerful study of the Bible, are organized in part on bases other than salvation history. Sermons on biblical texts were at the very heart of Victorine life and ministry. The canons listened to sermons in the chapter room and in church; they heard sermons read in the dining room, and individually they read sermons available in the abbey library. We have almost no sermons of Hugh of St Victor (although some of his works seem to be notes for or developments of sermons), but we are richly supplied with the sermons of his successors: Achard, Richard, Godfrey, Walter, Absalom of Springiersbach and Thomas Gallus, as well sermons by those closely associated with St Victor, such as the Bishop of Paris, Maurice de Sully. These sermons take a biblical text, image or teaching and draw from it lessons for Christian faith and living. Thus, the Bible was the soil, the inspiration, and the norm of Victorine life and thought, as it was of the thought and life of the Church that conveyed to the Victorines the Bible and a tradition of interpretation stemming from Origen, Jerome, Augustine and Gregory and many others. For their part the Victorines sought to interpret, live and proclaim Scriptures for their contemporaries in lectures, commentaries, opuscula, summae, and sermons. This volume, ably edited by Professors Van Liere and Harkins, allows the canons of St Victor to speak to us as well. 

 

Hugh Feiss, OSB Managing Editor, Victorine Texts in Translation Monastery of the Ascension, Jerome, ID

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This sixth volume of Victorine Texts in Translation is the companion to the third volume in this series, Interpretation of Scripture: Theory. As with the previous volume, this one is the result of the cooperation of a large number of scholars. We are especially grateful to Jan van Zwieten, Mark Zier, Grover Zinn, Hugh Feiss, Dale Coulter, and Greti DinkovaBruun for translating the works by Hugh, Andrew, Richard, Maurice of Sully, and Leonius of Paris that appear below. Jan van Zwieten, Mark Zier, Hugh Feiss, and Greti Dinkova-Bruun also wrote the introductions to these works. We also gratefully acknowledge the contributions of all members of the editorial board who vetted the translations and introductions that constitute this volume. Luc Jocqué, our Editor at Brepols and a distinguished scholar in the field of Victorine studies, has been a guiding light and insightful commentator on the series and its individual volumes since the beginning. We are indebted to him for his support of this project and his assistance in bringing this volume to fruition. The translation of De Emmanuele that appears below was completed during Frans’ sabbatical at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton: we are especially grateful to Agnes Gund and Daniel Schapiro for enabling this fellowship, and to the board and trustees of Calvin College for granting the sabbatical. We are indebted to Franklin’s graduate research assistant, Jessica van’t Westeinde for updating the abbreviations list. We especially wish to thank Rachel A. Weaver and Anna E. Lindner, Frans’ student assistants, for assembling the bibliography, Lisa Eary for indexing the volume, and the Calvin Center for Christian Scholarship (CCCS) for providing the grant that made their employment possible. Finally, we are most grateful to our families, who have shared us generously with the twelfth-century scholars of the abbey of St Victor. We dedicate this volume to our sons: Kees, Thomas, and Joseph. 



Frans van Liere, Calvin College Franklin T. Harkins, Boston College

ABBREVIATIONS General Abbreviations ACW AHDLMA BAV BGPTMA

BnF BV CCCM CCL CCT CF CS CSEL CV Denz.-Hün

Ancient Christian Writers (Westminster,  MD/New York, NY: Newman/Paulist, 1946‒). Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge (Paris, 1926‒). Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters (Münster  i.  W.: Aschendorff Verlag, 1891‒). Bibliothèque nationale de France (Paris) Bibliotheca Victorina (Turnhout: Brepols. 1991‒). Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaeualis (Turnhout: Brepols, 1967‒). Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954‒). Corpus Christianorum in Translation (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009‒). Cistercian Fathers (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1970‒). Cistercian Studies (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1970‒) Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vienna: Tempsky, 1866‒). Corpus Victorinum (Münster: Aschendorff, 2007‒). Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen. Lateinisch-Deutsch: Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum. 3rd ed., ed. and tr. Peter Hünermann (Freiburg: Herder, 2009). Tr. Compendium of creeds, definitions, and declarations on matters of faith and

16

A bbreviations

morals, ed.  Robert Fastiggi (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012). L’école de Saint-Victor Dominique Poirel, ed. L’école de Saint-Victor de Paris: Influence et rayonnement du Moyen Âge à l’époque moderne. Colloque international du C.N.R.S. pour le neuvième centenaire de la fondation (1108‒2008) tenu au Collège des Bernardins à Paris les 24‒27 septembre 2008, BV 22 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010). FOC The Fathers of the Church (Washington, D.C.: CUA Press, 1947‒). GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte (Berlin and Leipzig: Hinrichsche Buchhandlung, 1897‒). NPNF Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (New York, 1887‒92; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). Oeuvre 1 L’oeuvre de Hugues de Saint-Victor, vol.  1, Latin text by H.  B. Feiss and P.  Sicard, tr.  (French) D.  Poirel, H. Rochais, and P. Sicard, intro., notes, and appendices D. Poirel, Sous le Règle de saint Augustin (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997). Oeuvre 2 L’oeuvre de Hugues de Saint-Victor, vol.  2, intro., tr., and notes by B. Jollès, Sous le Règle de saint Augustin (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000). PL Patrologiae cursus completus sive bibliotheca universalis, integra, uniformis, commoda, oeconomica, omnium ss.  Patrum, doctorum scriptorumque ecclesiasticorum qui ab aevo apostolico ad Innocentii  III tempora floruerunt  … series Latina, ed.  J.-P.  Migne, 221  vols (Paris: Migne, 1844‒64). PG Patrologiae cursus completus … series graeca, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris: Migne, 1857‒76). RTAM Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale (Louvain, 1929‒). RTPM Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales (Louvain, 1990‒). SBO Sancti Bernardi Opera, ed. J. Leclercq, C. H. Talbot, and H. M. Rochais, 9 vols (Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1957‒98).

A bbreviations

SC TPMA VTT WSA



17

Sources Chrétiennes (Paris: Cerf, 1942‒). Textes philosophiques du Moyen Age (Paris: J.  Vrin, 1958‒). Victorine Texts in Translation (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010‒). Works of Saint Augustine (New York: New City Press, 1990‒).

Victorine Authors1 Hugh of St Victor Adnot. in Pent.

Adnotationes elucidatoriae in Pentateuchum, PL  175.29‒86 [Notes on the Pentateuch, partial tr. VTT 6]. Adnot. in Num.-Dt. Adnotatiunculae elucidatoriae in librum Numeri  – Deuterononium, PL  175.84‒86. [Notes on Numbers  – Deuteronomy]. Adnot. in Jud. Adnotatiunculae elucidatoriae in librum Judicum, PL 175.87‒96 [Notes on Judges]. Adnot. in Reg. Adnotationes in librum Regum, PL 175.95‒114 [Notes on Kings]. Archa Noe De archa Noe (De arca Noe morali), ed.  Sicard, CCCM 176 [Ark of Noah]. Chronicon Chronicon vel de tribus maximis circumstantiis gestorum. [On the Three Most Important Circumstances of Deeds, that is, Persons, Places, and Times, partial tr. VTT 6]. Didasc. Didascalicon, ed. Buttimer [Didascalicon, VTT 3.81‒202]. Diligens Diligens scrutator sacri eloquii [The Diligent Examiner, VTT 3.231‒48]. Eulogium Eulogium sponsi et sponsae (De amore sponsi ad sponsum), PL  176.987‒94 [Praise of the Bridegroom, VTT 2.125‒36].

1

An asterisk (*) indicates doubtful authenticity.

18 In hier. cael.

Libellus

Meditatione Sac. dial. Sacr.

Script. Sent. div. Sent. liber

A bbreviations

Commentariorum in hierarchiam caelestem, PL  175.923‒1154 [Commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy]. Libellus de formatione arche (De arca Noe mystica), ed. Sicard, CCCM 176 [A Little Book about Constructing Noah’s Ark, tr. Weiss]. De meditatione, ed.  Baron, SC  155 [On Meditation, VTT 4.381‒94]. De sacramentis dialogus, PL 176.17‒42 [Dialogue on the Sacraments]. De sacramentis christianae fidei, PL  176.173‒618 [On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith, tr.  Deferrari, partial tr. VTT 3.253‒68]. De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris, PL  175.9‒28 [On Sacred Scipture and its Authors, VTT 3.215‒30.]. Sententiae de divinitate, ed.  Piazzoni [Sentences of Divinity, VTT 1.111‒77]. Sententiarum liber, ed. Van den Eynde.

Richard of St Victor XII patr.

Adn. Ps. Apoc. Arca Moys.

*Cant. Concord.

De duodecim patriarchis (Benjamin Minor), ed. Châtillon [The Twelve Patriarchs, tr. Zinn, Twelve Patriarchs, 51‒147]. Mysticae adnotationes in Psalmos, PL  196.265‒402 [Mystical Notes on the Psalms]. In Apocalypsim, PL 196.683‒888 [On the Apocalypse, partial tr. VTT 3.327‒70]. De arca Moysi (De arca mystica; Benjamin major), ed. Grosfillier [Ark of Moses, tr. Zinn, Twelve Patriarchs, 149‒343]. In Cantica Canticorum explanatio, PL 196.405A‒534A [Explanation of the Song of Songs]. De concordantia temporum, PL  196.241‒56 [On the concordance of the times of the kings co-ruling over Judah and Israel, VTT 6].

A bbreviations

Decl. nonn. diff.

Diff. sacr.

Emman. Erud. Gem. pasch. *Joel LE *Misc. Misit Her. Missione Pot. lig. Serm. cent. Sp. blasph. Statu Super exiit Trin. Vis. Ezech.



19

Declarationes nonnullarum difficultatum Scripturae, ed.  Ribaillier [Resolutions of Some Difficulties in Scripture, VTT 6]. De differentia sacrificii Abrahae a sacrificio Beatae Mariae Virginis, PL 196.1043‒60 [The Difference between the Sacrifices of Abraham and Mary]. De Emmanuele, PL 196.601‒66 [On Emmanuel, VTT 6]. De eruditione hominis interioris, PL  196.1229‒1366 [Instruction of the Interior Person]. Sermo in die pasche, PL 196.1059‒74 [Twofold Pasch]. In Joelem, PL 175.321‒72 [On Joel]. Liber exceptionum, ed. Châtillon [Book of Notes]. Miscellanea, PL 177.721‒836 [Miscellanea]. Misit Herodes rex manus, PL 141.277‒306 [Herod the King]. De missione Spiritus sancti sermo, PL  196.1017‒32 [Sermon on the Sending of the Holy Spirit]. De potestate ligandi et solvendi, ed. Ribaillier [The Power to Bind and Loose]. Sermones centum, PL  177.899‒1210 [One Hundred Sermons]. De spiritu blasphemiae, ed. Ribaillier [On the Spirit of Blasphemy]. De statu interioris hominis post lapsum, ed. Ribaillier [On the Interior State]. Super exiit edictum siue De tribus processionibus, ed. Châtillon and Tulloch [On the Three Processions]. De Trinitate, ed. Ribaillier and Salet [On the Trinity, VTT 1.209‒382]. In visionem Ezechielis, PL 196.527‒606 [The Vision of Ezekiel].

Andrew of St Victor Hept.

Expositio super Heptateuchum, ed. Lohr and Berndt, CCCM 53 [On the Heptateuch].

20 Reg.

Ezech. Danielem XII prophetas

A bbreviations

Expositio Hystorica in librum Regum, ed.  Van Liere, CCCM 53A [Commentary on Samuel and Kings, tr. Van Liere, CCT 3]. Expositio in Ezechielem, ed.  Signer, CCCM  53E [On Ezekiel]. Expositio super Danielem, ed.  Zier, CCCM  53F [On Daniel, VTT 6]. Expositio super duodecim prophetas, ed. Van Liere and Zier, CCCM 53G [On the Twelve Minor Prophets].

Godfrey of St Victor Fons

Fons philosophiae, ed. Michaud-Quantin [The Fountain of Philosophy, VTT 3.389‒426].

Robert of Melun Sent. Sententiae, ed. Martin. Quaest. Quaestiones de epistolis Pauli, ed. Martin.

Gilduin of St Victor Accentibus

Libellus de accentibus cum Prologo, ed.  Jocqué and Poirel.

Achard of St Victor Serm.

Sermons inédits, ed. Châtillon [Sermons, tr. Feiss].

Maurice of St Victor Serm.

Sermones inediti triginta sex, ed. Châtillon, CCCM 30 [Sermons].

A bbreviations



21

Walter of St Victor Serm. ined.

Sermones inediti triginta sex, ed. Châtillon, CCCM 30 [Sermons].

Writings Associated with St Victor Liber ordinis

Liber ordinis Sancti Victoris Parisiensis, ed. Jocqué and Milis, CCCM 61.

Other Authors Ambrose De officiis In Lucam

De officiis ministrorum, PL 16.23‒184. Expositiones Evangelii secundum Lucam, CCL  14 [Commentary of Saint Ambrose on the Gospel according to Saint Luke, tr. Ni Riain].

Augustine C. Faust. Civ. Dei Conf. De baptismo De mor. eccl.

Div. quaest. 83

Contra Faustum Manicheum, PL 42.207‒518 [Answer to Faustus, tr. Teske]. De civitate Dei, ed. Dombart and Kalb, CCL 47‒48 [The City of God, tr. Dyson]. Confessiones, ed.  Verheijen, CCL  37 [Confessions, tr. Boulding, tr. Chadwick]. De baptismo contra donatistas IV, ed.  Petschenig, CSEL 51; PL 43.107‒244 [On Baptism, tr. King]. De moribus ecclesiae catholicae, ed. Roland-Gosselin [On the Catholic and the Manichean Way of Life, tr. Teske]. De diversis quaestionibus LXXXIII, ed. Mutzenbecher, CCL  44A; PL  40.11‒100 [Responses to Miscellaneous Questions, tr. Ramsey].

22

A bbreviations

Doc. Chr.

De doctrina Christiana, ed.  Martin, CCL  32 [On Christian Doctrine, tr. Hill]. En. Ps. Enarrationes in Psalmos, ed.  Dekkers and Fraipont, CCL 38‒40 [Expositions of the Psalms, tr. Boulding]. Ench. Enchiridion ad Laurentium de fide et spe et caritate, ed. M. Evans, CCL 46 [The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love, tr. Harbert and Arand]. Gn. litt. De Genesi ad litteram, ed. Zycha, CSEL 28.1 [The Literal Meaning of Genesis in On Genesis, tr. Hill] Jo. ev. tr. In Johannis evangelium tractatus, ed. Willems, CCL 36 [Tractates on the Gospel of John, tr. Rettig]. Lib. arb. De libero arbitrio, ed. Green, CCL 29 [The Problem of Free Choice, tr. Pontifex]. Retract. Retractationes, ed. Mutzenbecher, CCL 57; PL 32.581‒655 [Retractations, tr. Bogan]. Serm. Sermones, PL 38‒39 [Sermons, tr. Hill]. Trin. De Trinitate, ed. Mountain and Glorie, CCL 50‒50A [On the Trinity, tr. Hill].

Bede In Marc.

In Marci evangelium expositio, PL 92.131‒300.

Cassiodorus Inst. Institutiones, ed. Bürsgens; PL 70.1105‒50.

Flavius Josephus Ant.

Antiquitates Judaicae, ed.  Niese and Blatt [Jewish Antiquities, tr. Thackeray).

A bbreviations



23

Gregory the Great Hom. ev. Hom. Ez. Mor.

Homiliae in Evangelia, ed. Étaix, CCL 76; PL 76.1075‒1312. Homiliae in Hiezechielem, ed. and tr. Morel. Moralia in Iob, ed.  Adriaen, CCL  143‒143A‒143B, PL  75.509‒1162. [Morals on the Book of Job, tr. Anonymous]

Isidore of Seville Etym. Sent.

Etymologiarum sive Originum Libri  XX, ed.  Lindsay [Etymologies, tr. Barney, et al.]. Sententiae, ed. Cazier, CCL 111; PL 83.537‒738.

Jerome Heb. nom. Prol. in Pent. Prol. in Dan. In Dan.

Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, ed. De Lagarde, CCL 72. Prologus in Pentateucho. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, ed. Weber; PL 28.147‒52. Prologus in Danihele. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, ed. Weber; PL 28.1291‒1311. Commentariorum in Danielem libri, ed. Glorie, CCL 75.

Anselm of Canterbury De Inc. Verbi

De incarnatione verbi, ed. Schmitt [On the Incarnation of the Word, tr. Davies and Evans].

Bernard of Clairvaux Conv. ad. cler.

De conversione ad clericos sermo seu liber [On Conversion: A Sermon to Clerics, tr. Saïd].

24 SCC

Ep./Tract.

A bbreviations

Sermones super Cantica Canticorum. Ed.  Leclercq, Talbot, Rochais, SBO  1‒2. [On the Song of Songs, tr. Walsh and Edmonds]. De moribus et officio episcoporum, ed. Leclercq, Talbot, Rochais, SBO 7:184‒200 [On Baptism and the Office of Bishops, tr. Matarasso].

Peter Abelard TSch

Theologia “Scholarium,” ed.  Buytaert and Mews, CCCM 13.

Peter Lombard Collect. Sent.

Collectanea in epistolas Pauli, PL 191.9‒519. Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae, ed. Brady [Sentences, tr. Silano].

Thomas Aquinas ST

Summa theologiae, ed. Caramello [Summa theologica, tr. Fathers of the English Dominican Province]

GENERAL INTRODUCTION Frans van Liere and Franklin T. Harkins Due in large part to the groundbreaking work of Beryl Smalley more than a half century ago, today we recognize the central place of the so-called School of Saint Victor in medieval biblical exegesis.1 What Smalley meant by the “school” of Saint Victor was a number of influential Christian exegetes and teachers at the abbey of Saint Victor, just outside the city walls of Paris. The abbey, a community of Augustinian canons, was founded in 1108 by William of Champeaux and chartered as a royal abbey in 1113. Saint Victor was a place of monastic and spiritual reform, and it attracted some of the great minds of the time, many of whom are represented in this volume. The most influential representative of the school was Hugh of St Victor. He entered the abbey of Saint Victor with his uncle, archdeacon Hugh of Halberstadt, shortly after the abbey’s foundation (probably between 1115 and 1118), and remained there until his death in 1141. Both men had come from a noble family in Germany, and they had traveled to the South of France before making their petition of entry to the abbey. On their trip they had acquired some precious relics of Saint Victor (the fourth-century saint to whom the abbey was dedicated), which they offered to the abbey; both the relics and the men were received with honor and joy.2 The younger Hugh was to become school master and educator in the young abbey. Sometime during the 1120s, he wrote a curricular handbook, entitled the Didascalicon de studio legendi, in which he showed how the study of the liberal arts

1 2

Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Blackwell, 1952; 3rd ed., 1983), 83‒111. For more on the early life of Hugh and his arrival at Saint Victor, see Jerome Taylor, The Origin and Early Life of Hugh of St. Victor, Texts and Studies in the History of Medieval Education 5 (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1957); and Franklin T. Harkins, Reading and the Work of Restoration: History and Scripture in the Theology of Hugh of St Victor (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2009), 1‒3.

26

G eneral I ntroduction

served as the basis for the reading of Scripture.3 Master Hugh’s program of reading and learning was directed toward the moral and spiritual growth of his students as well as toward their intellectual instruction. At the basis of this holistic formation, Hugh emphasized, should stand a thorough program of reading in the liberal arts and memorization of historical events. The introduction to Hugh’s Chronicon, translated in this volume, attests to this pedagogical approach. The foundational work of memory-training and arts education, in turn, enabled the student profitably to study Sacred Scripture, first in its literal sense, before aspiring to its higher spiritual meanings. Hugh put his hermeneutical theory—as set forth in the Didascalicon and in On Sacred Scripture and its Authors and The Diligent Examiner4—into exegetical practice in writing a series of lecture notes on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Judges, and the four books of Kings (1‒2 Samuel and 1‒2 Kings), called Notulae or Adnotationes.5 These books, together with the New Testament books of the Gospels and Acts, he deemed most appropriate for reading in their historical sense. The Notulae originally formed a unity with Hugh’s treatise On Sacred Scripture and its Authors.6 Later redactions of his Notulae expanded the original concept to include the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy.7 Hugh’s Notes on Genesis are translated in the present volume for the first time. Hugh’s immediate successors with regard to exegetical practice were Andrew of St Victor and Richard of St Victor. Both men were probably from England, although some scholars have identified Richard as of Scottish origin.8 Although they died only two years apart, Andrew was of an older generation than Richard. It is likely that Andrew, unlike Richard, attended classes with Hugh and possibly succeeded him in his position as school master after Hugh’s death. Andrew’s title “Magister” has been taken to suggest this, but very little evidence beyond this exists. Andrew wrote his major works, commentaries on the Old Testament, in the 1140s. In 1148 he left Saint Victor to become abbot of Wigmore Abbey, a daughter foundation of Saint Victor in England, 3 4 5 6 7 8

The Didascalicon is translated by Franklin T. Harkins in VTT 3.81‒201. On the dating of the work, see VTT 3.64‒65. On Sacred Scripture and its Authors and The Diligent Examiner are translated by Frans van Liere in VTT 3.213‒52. Hugh, Adnot. in Pent. (PL 175.29‒86) and Adnot. in Jud. – Reg. (PL 175.87‒114). See the Introduction of Frans van Liere in VTT 3.205‒11. Rudolf Goy, Die Überlieferung des Werke Hugos von St. Viktor: ein Beitrag zur Kommunikationsgeschichte des Mittelalters (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1976), 52. Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 107.

G eneral I ntroduction



27

only to return in 1155 after a conflict with the brothers at his new abbey. In 1161, Andrew was called upon again to serve as abbot of Wigmore; he returned to England and stayed there until his death in 1175. In the commentaries of Andrew, literal exegesis reached its apex at Saint Victor. This volume includes a translation of a substantial portion of his commentary on Daniel, probably one of his later works. Richard rose to fame as a novice master and teacher at Saint Victor in the 1150s, probably in the period of Andrew’s absence. Richard became sub-prior in 1159 and prior in 1162. The 1160s were difficult years at Saint Victor, when mismanagement by a new abbot, Ernis, brought the abbey to the brink of ruin.9 Fourier Bonnard has argued that the school’s intellectual decline also began at this time, but Richard’s prolific output of pedagogical, exegetical, and mystical writings certainly does not convey that impression. Still, Richard’s invective against Andrew on the topic of the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, A Virgin shall conceive, would indicate that conflict was not alien to the abbey at this time. Richard’s work, De Emmanuele, presents a splendid example of how the theology of the Incarnation could determine the content of historical as well as allegorical exegesis. After 1160, with the rise of what Martin Grabmann called the “biblical-moral school” of scriptural commentators, patterns of exegesis changed.10 At the same time, the place of Saint Victor in the field of biblical studies became less prominent, even though several works by Parisian school masters attest to the great influence of Victorine exegesis. Many of these school masters had ties to Saint Victor, and most retired there as canons. The tradition of literal commentary continued in the work of Peter Comestor, for example. Born in Troyes, Peter became dean of the cathedral school of Notre Dame in Paris. His Historia scholastica, written sometime before 1173, was dedicated to William Whitehands, the bishop of Sens. The influence of Andrew’s commentary on this work is evident throughout, especially in the chapter on the co-regnancy of the kings of Israel and Judah, which is translated in this volume. Following the example of many prestigious Paris clerics before him (such as Bishop Stephen Garland, the former benefactor of Peter Abelard), Peter Comestor retired as a canon at the abbey of Saint 9 10

Fourier Bonnard, Histoire de l’abbaye royale et de l’ordre des chanoines réguliers de Saint-Victor de Paris. t. 1. Première periode (1113‒1500) (Paris: Arthur Savaète, 1904), 215‒45. Martin Grabmann, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode: nach den gedruckten und ungedruckten Quellen dargestellt, 2 vols (Freiburg: Herder, 1909‒11), 2:476‒501.

28

G eneral I ntroduction

Victor, and died there in 1179. Robert of Melun, who flourished around the middle of the twelfth century, is another Parisian master with ties to Saint Victor. Robert was one of Hugh’s students, and his work has been seen as a synthesis of the theological approaches of his two renowned teachers, Hugh and Peter Abelard. Robert succeeded Abelard as master of the school at Saint Geneviève, shortly before this abbey was reformed by the canons of Saint Victor. He then taught at Melun, before becoming bishop of Hereford in 1163, in the same diocese as Wigmore.11 His Questiones de divina pagina, translated below for the first time and dating from the mid 1140s, show how exegetical problems contributed to the development of scholastic theology as well as canon law. Maurice of Sully, like Peter Comestor, was not directly connected to the School of Saint Victor. He arrived in Paris as a student sometime around 1140, and succeeded Peter Lombard as bishop there in 1160. He retired as a canon at the abbey of Saint Victor shortly before his death, in 1196. Maurice stands out as a prolific preacher, and his oeuvre reminds us that by the end of the twelfth century catechetical and expository preaching (rather than the exegetical preaching represented in, for instance, the work of Richard of St Victor) was seen as the main outcome of biblical study. Peter the Chanter, another Parisian master and contemporary of Peter Comestor and Maurice of Sully, noted in his exegetical handbook, the Verbum adbreviatum: The study of Scripture consists of three things: reading, disputation, and preaching… Reading is like the foundation and the substrate of those that follow, for the other uses are placed upon it. Disputation is like the wall in this study and this building, for nothing can be clearly understood and faithfully preached unless it is first broken by the teeth of disputation. But preaching, to which the former two are subservient, is like the roof, protecting the faithful against the heat and the storm of vice. Thus, after reading Scripture and investigating difficult passages through disputation (and not before), we should preach, so that thus one curtain may draw another.12

Like Peter Comestor and Maurice of Sully, Leonius (or sometimes Leoninus) of Paris (d. 1201) retired to the abbey of Saint Victor to11 12

See the biographical sketch of Robert offered by Dale Coulter in VTT 3.429‒43. Peter the Chanter, Verbum Adbreviatum 1.2 (ed.  Boutry, CCCM  196.9). “One curtain”: cf.  Exod. 26:5 and Thesaurus proverbiorum medii aevi, ed.  Samuel Singer, et  al. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001), 12:285.

G eneral I ntroduction



29

ward the end of his life. He was canon at the cathedral of Notre Dame, where he enjoyed an illustrious reputation as a musician and poet. He is the author of a long poetic biblical paraphrase, the Historie veteris testamenti, which he dedicated to the abbot of Saint Victor, Guérin (1173‒93). By borrowing from Comestor’s Historia scholastica,13 his poetic paraphrase shows the influence that Victorine literal exegesis exerted in late-twelfth-century Parisian intellectual circles. Reading, Exposition, and Meditation

The reading of Sacred Scripture stood at the heart of the educational program at the abbey of Saint Victor in the twelfth century. Victorine reading shared certain affinities with the traditional monastic approach to Scripture known as lectio divina.14 In his Didascalicon, Hugh described the process by which the student proceeds from reading the words on the page to the comprehension of the text, and eventually to meditation and contemplation. The text (littera) itself is comprised of words that were shaped so that they would make sense (sensus) in their own narrative context. Even if a direct, plain sense were sometimes lacking, Sacred Scripture still conveyed a deeper meaning (sententia) by signifying the deeper mysteries of faith (sacramenta). Hugh explains: Exposition consists of three things: the letter, the sense, and the meaning. The letter is found in every narrative, for the very words [that constitute it] are letters; but the sense and the meaning are not found together in every narrative. Some narratives have the letter and sense only; others have the letter and the meaning only; and still others contain all three of these simultaneously. But every narrative must have 13 14

Craig Wright, “Leoninus, Poet and Musician,” Journal of the American Musicological ­Society 39 (1986): 1‒35. See Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 26‒36; Jean Leclercq, “The Exposition and Exegesis of Scripture: From Gregory the Great to Saint Bernard,” in The Cambridge History of the ­Bible: The West from the Fathers to the Reformation, vol. 2, ed. G. W. H. Lampe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 183‒97; Michael Casey, Sacred reading: The ancient art of lectio divina (Liguori: Triumph Books, 1996); Ivan Illich, “‘Lectio divina,’” in Schriftlichkeit im frühen Mittelalter, ed. Ursula Schaefer, ScriptOralia 53 (Tübingen: Narr, 1993), 19‒35; Ivan Illich, In the Vineyard of the Text. A Commentary to Hugh’s Didascalicon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993); Jacqueline Hamesse, “The Scholastic Model of Reading,” A History of Reading in the West, ed. Guglielmo Cavallo and Roger Chartier, tr. Lydia Cochrane (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999), 103‒19.

30

G eneral I ntroduction

at least two. A narrative contains the letter and the sense only when it so clearly signifies something through its own narrative sequence that it leaves out nothing necessary for its comprehension. The narrative, however, of which the listener can understand nothing unless an explanation or exposition is added contains the letter and the meaning. Finally, that narrative contains the sense and the meaning that clearly signifies something, but also leaves something else that is necessary for its comprehension to be explained through exposition.15

Reading for Hugh thus included the stages of littera, sensus and sententia; literal or historical exegesis encompassed the first two of these, while the sententia of the text referred to the other two senses.16 Whereas sacred learning begins in exposition, it continues and comes to completion in meditation. “Meditation takes its beginning from reading,” Hugh affirms, “but it is bound by none of its principles or precepts. For it delights to run in open areas where it fixes its keen and unrestrained vision on the contemplation of truth.”17 By means of meditation, then, the reader of Scripture is encouraged to move eventually to the contemplation of the mystery of God itself. As Hugh explains in De meditatione: “Reading offers material to know the truth, meditation assimilates it, prayer lifts it up, action organizes it, and contemplation rejoices in it.”18 For Hugh, meditation itself follows the steps of the threefold interpretation of Scripture: Meditation on reading is a threefold examination according to history, allegory, and tropology. It is according to history when we either seek or admire the reason for the things that are done, which is perfect in its times, places, and suitable arrangement. In this respect, consideration of divine judgments is a good exercise for one who meditates, for at no time these judgments failed to be righteous and just, and through them what should have happened and what was just was rendered to each. According to allegory, meditation endeavors to order past events by looking at their signification of future events, because this order was arranged by a wondrous reason and providence, as was necessary to shape an understanding and the formation of faith. According to tropology, meditation endeavors to identify what fruit certain sayings 15 16 17 18

Hugh, Didasc. VI.8 (tr. Harkins, VTT 3.174‒75). See Dale M. Coulter, Per visibilia ad invisibilia: Theological Method in Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173), BV 19 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 79. Hugh, Didasc. III.10 (tr. Harkins, VTT 3.125). Hugh, Meditatione II.1 (tr. Van Liere, VTT 4.387).

G eneral I ntroduction



31

bring forth, and to discern what they suggest ought to be done or what they teach should be avoided, what the reading of Scripture propounds for teaching, for exhortation, for consolation, or to strike fear;19 what illumination it gives for the understanding of virtue, what food it gives to affection, and what instruction it gives on the rule of conduct for the path of virtue.20

According to Hugh’s hermeneutic, the rightly ordered reading and exposition of Scripture and the reader’s meditation on it necessarily begins at the level of the letter or history, proceeds to allegory, and then moves on to tropology. As such, historia (understood both as the textual letter and its first level of signification) not only serves as the foundation for the higher discipline of spiritual reading, but also reveals the perfection of God’s ordering of things in time, inculcates Christian faith in the reader, and exhorts him or her to a life of virtue.21 Literal and Historical Exegesis

One of the central principles of the hermeneutic of Hugh of St Victor is that, before one makes any attempts at reading Scripture allegorically, one must be firmly grounded in a knowledge of what the scriptural letter says and signifies in its most basic sense. The literal sense of Scripture is the foundation on which the building of faith is subsequently erected. Allegory is the edifice itself, because through it the reader ponders the mysteries of the Christian faith. Finally, like an external coat of paint, the moral or tropological reading of the sacred text completes and perfects the outward appearance of the edifice of faith.22

19 20 21

22

Cf. 2 Tim. 3:16. Hugh, Meditatione II.3 (tr. Van Liere, VTT 4.388). On the role of scriptural reading as an exhortation to virtue, according to Hugh, see Franklin T. Harkins, “Lectio exhortatio debet esse: Reading as a Way of Life at the Twelfth-Century Abbey of St. Victor,” in From Knowledge to Beatitude: St. Victor, Twelfth-Century Scholars, and Beyond. Essays in Honor of Grover A. Zinn, Jr., ed. E. Ann Matter and Lesley Smith (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013), 103‒30; and Ineke van ’t Spijker, Fictions of the Inner Life: Religious Literature and Formation of the Self in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 61‒77. For Hugh’s building analogy, and on the necessary foundation of historical or literal reading, see Didasc. III.2‒3 (tr. Harkins, VTT 3.164‒67) and Script. 5 (tr. Van Liere, VTT 3.216‒18). See also Harkins, Reading and the Work of Restoration, 171‒87.

32

G eneral I ntroduction

Traditionally, scholars have distinguished two trends in patristic and medieval exegesis, associated with two early Christian schools of biblical interpretation, those of Antioch and Alexandria. The Antiochene school, represented by Theodore of Mopsuestia and John Chrysostom, was known for its philological and historical emphasis, whereas the Alexandrian school, represented by, for instance, Origen and Clement of Alexandria, is more commonly known for allegorical interpretation. While the latter was well represented in the massive biblical commentaries of the Carolingian age, which made extensive use of the patristic tradition, the Antiochene tradition found a revival in the literal commentaries of Hugh and Andrew of St Victor. It was not entirely neglected, however, in the early Middle Ages. Bernard Bischoff and William Laistner have pointed out that the Antiochene approach was kept alive in those early medieval monasteries that were founded by monks from the British Isles, hence in “insular” commentaries.23 Some of the collections that were representative of this exegetical tradition, the so-called Canterbury and Reichenau glosses, were well known and extensively used by Hugh and Andrew of St Victor in their literal exegeses. More recent scholarship on the history of Christian exegesis has helpfully recognized the limits of this traditional historiographical storyline, and particularly the dangers of making too much of the distinction between Antiochene and Alexandrian approaches. Christoph Schäublin, Karlfried Froehlich, John J. O’Keefe, and Elizabeth A. Clark, for example, have noted how these traditional distinctions are often blurred in the actual practice of patristic exegesis.24 Indeed, Clark affirms: “Almost all ancient Christian exegetes, of whatever school, aimed to uncover the spiritual or moral lesson of a text, which for them was the true meaning. They would, I think, have been puzzled by claims 23

24

M. L. W. Laistner, “Antiochene Exegesis in Western Europe during the Middle Ages,” Harvard Theological Review 40 (1947): 19‒31; and Bernhard Bischoff, “Wendepunkte in der Geschichte der lateinischen Exegese im Mittelalter,” Sacris erudiri 6 (1954): 189‒281, also in Mittelalterliche Studien 1:205‒273 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1966). See Christoph Schäublin, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der Antiochenischen Exegese, Theophaneia 23 (Cologne: Peter Hanstein, 1974), 28‒29; Karlfried Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 20‒21; John J. O’Keefe, “Impassible Suffering? Divine Passion and Fifth-Century Christology,” Theological Studies 58 (1997): 39‒60, at 42; John J. O’Keefe, “Christianizing Malachi: Fifth-Century Insights from Cyril of Alexandria,” Vigiliae Christianae 50 (1996): 136‒58, at 138 and 140; and Elizabeth A. Clark, Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 70‒73.

G eneral I ntroduction



33

of twentieth-century scholars that only through the historical-critical approach to the Bible can ‘truth’ be ascertained.”25 Nearly all medieval Christian interpreters too understood the spiritual senses as revealing the truest signification of the sacred text. Even Hugh of St Victor, for all of his emphasis on the scriptural narrative and its first meaning, teaches that “it is necessary … that we follow the letter in such a way that we do not believe that the entire expression of the truth is articulated in it.”26 In his Old Testament commentaries, Andrew of St Victor shows himself to be a rare exception to this traditional Christian interpretive approach. A number of texts translated in the present volume reveal that the boundary between literal and spiritual interpretation in Victorine exegetical practice was rather more fluid than scholars have tended to imagine. In general, whereas medieval allegorical commentaries usually consisted of longer, homiletic sections relative to the scriptural text, the practice of literal commentary moved from verse to verse, offering more detailed elucidations. A brief citation of the biblical text, called a “lemma” and often underlined in the commentary (rendered in italics in the translations in this volume), indicated which specific part of the sacred text was being interpreted. Literal commentary could include a wide range of exegetical observations and textual analyses, which may be generally described in the following, non-exhaustive terms. First of all, at their most elementary level, literal comments offered textual criticism, often by comparing codices or by comparing the Latin with other versions, in the case of the Old Testament most notably Hebrew. Greek versions were less known to medieval commentators, but circulated indirectly in the commentaries of Jerome. The Hebrew and Greek versions were rarely cited in their original, however; rather, they were more commonly translated, or at least transliterated into Latin. When Greek and Hebrew words were cited in Latin transliteration, invariably they were mangled by medieval scribes; early modern editors of these texts have sometimes reconstructed the Greek or Hebrew versions, giving a false impression of the medieval author’s extent of mastery of Hebrew or Greek. In addition to Jerome’s commentaries, 25 26

Clark, Reading Renunciation, 73. Didasc. VI.4 (tr. Harkins, VTT 3.171). For a fuller treatment of this important passage, see Franklin T. Harkins, “Littera et Lex: Scriptural Hermeneutics and the Old Law at the TwelfthCentury Parisian Abbey of St. Victor,” in Das Gesetz – The Law – La Loi, ed. Andreas Speer and Guy Guldentops, Miscellanea Mediaevalia 38 (Berlin-Boston: W. de Gruyter, 2014), 281‒97, esp. 281‒83.

34

G eneral I ntroduction

works by Jewish exegetes also provided medieval authors with access to the Hebrew text. In a few instances, there are indications that Victorine authors had direct access to the Hebrew text.27 In the second place, literal comments could include lexical analysis. Examples can be found in Hugh’s discussion of the difference between “void” and “empty” in Gen. 1:1 and between “image” and “likeness” in verse 27. Commentators sometimes pointed out unusual grammatical forms and etymologies that not only shed light on the essential meanings of these words but could also provide the groundwork for a later allegorical interpretation, as Hugh does, for instance, on Gen. 27:27‒28 and 41:42. Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies were often used in such instances. Many literal readings also offered translations of any Hebrew names occurring in the text; these too could function as a basis for subsequent allegorization of the text. Jerome’s On Hebrew Names was often the source in these cases. After such lexical analysis, the exegete could offer rhetorical analysis by pointing out tropes and rhetorical figures, or expressions that were common to the biblical idiom but may have seemed more strange to the contemporary reader (as Andrew does on Dan. 9:2), such as the use of parallelism (as, for example, in Hugh’s comments on Gen. 49:9‒12). The commentator could then illustrate this rhetorical usage by noting parallels in either the biblical text or the classics. Aside from these textual and lexical analyses, literal commentary often contextualized the biblical passage by relating it to historical events. Most of Andrew of St Victor’s comments on Daniel, for instance, explain obscurities in the text by showing the historical context to which particular verses may refer. Likewise, literal comments could serve to explain unusual biblical customs, animals, or objects. Finally, literal commentary served the goal of solving apparent contradictions in the text, aiming to smooth out the narrative and its historical sequence. Andrew’s and Peter Comestor’s treatises on the sequence of the regnal years of the kings of Israel and Judah, for instance, were primarily aimed at resolving such issues. In general,

27

See Montse Leyra, “The Victorines on the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets: The Sources of the In Hebreo Interpretations in Light of their Parallels with the Peshat School of Northern France and Other Jewish Sources.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2011 (on-line at http://hufind.huji.ac.il/Record/HUJ001735014); See also Frans van Liere’s introduction to Andrew of Saint Victor, Reg., tr. Van Liere, CCT 3:14.

G eneral I ntroduction



35

then, literal exegesis aimed to make the text “plain” in its meaning,28 and it involved textual interpretation at several levels: establishing the correct reading of the text, uncovering the historical referent(s) of the text, and, finally, reconstructing the historical narrative to which the text referred.29 Despite the effort to make the sense of the text plain, there could be certain passages, even whole chapters and books, that were still shrouded in obscurity. Even if the text and its referent were perfectly clear, there could be some difficulty in understanding how these passages related to the larger narrative of God’s salvation. The prophetic books of the Old Testament were especially problematic in this respect. Andrew starts his commentaries on the prophets with these words: “Dark waters in the clouds of the air. The sharpness of our mind is inhibited in some way and covered, as it were, by a certain darkness, so that we are unable to perceive the fruitful showers of saving wisdom in the obscure words of the prophets.”30 Such obscurity was particularly apparent in the prophet Daniel, Andrew’s commentary on which has been translated in this volume. The prophets, inspired by the Holy Spirit, were thought to be able to “see” the future and to describe future events through their often obscure prophecies.31 Although Daniel was not regarded as one of the prophets in the Jewish canon, Christian authors took his words as a prediction of future events, imagining that Daniel had predicted events long after the time that the prophet was thought to have lived, which was around the time of the fall of the Babylonian empire and the beginning of Persian rule. As we will see, Andrew often disagreed with Jerome, Josephus, and the Jews on the exact historical sequence of events to which the text referred in its literal sense. Other prophetic texts, such as Isaiah 7:14, could also raise serious questions, particularly because Christian exegetes understood them as 28 29

30 31

Compare to Hugh’s use of the phrase “plain sense” commenting on Gen. 1:31 (below, p. 68), and Andrew’s use of the word “plain” commenting on Dan. 9:24 (below, p. 196). For a theoretical analysis of Hugh’s literal exegesis, see also Dale Coulter, “Historia and Sensus litteralis. An Investigation into the Approach to Literal Interpretation at the Twelfth-Century School of St. Victor,” in Transforming Relations: Essays on Jews and Christians throughout History in Honor of Michael A. Signer, ed. Franklin T. Harkins (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010), 101‒24. Andrew, General Prologue to the Commentary on the Prophets (tr. Van Liere, VTT 3.278, citing Ps. 17:12). Richard cites the same passage in Emman. I.8, below, p. 373. Medieval authors often cited 1 Sam. 9:9 in this context: He that is now called a prophet in time past was called a seer. See also Richard of St Victor, Emman. I.1, below, p. 363, and A. B. Kraebel’s introduction to Richard, Apoc. (VTT 3.330‒36).

36

G eneral I ntroduction

signifying key events in the saving life and work of Jesus Christ, a claim flatly disputed, of course, by the Jews. What do these texts reveal or signify in their “literal” or “plain” meaning? As Jan van Zwieten points out in his introduction to the Notes on Genesis below, Hugh regards the meaning that was intended by the author as the literal meaning of a particular text.32 But who was the author of the text: God, or the human “scriptor,” the prophet who wrote the text by divine inspiration? And if God was the author, is not the Christological meaning also at least part of what God intended to signify by means of the text? This is the crux of Richard’s objection to Andrew’s reluctance to interpret Isaiah 7:14 in a Christological way. While Victorine authors may have occasionally touched on these questions of the boundary between literal and allegorical interpretation, the proper development of this discussion would have to wait until the thirteenth century, when Christian authors started to distinguish two literal senses of scripture, a literal sense proper and a “parabolic” or “prophetic” literal sense.33 Much less problematic than the prophetic books were those texts that conveyed a historical narrative: Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, Chronicles, the Gospels, and Acts. But even those texts that did not seem to convey a direct historical narrative could still be read in a literal, historical mode, insofar as the words of these texts nevertheless conveyed an overt and plain meaning.34 Chronology and Mnemotechnics

One of the principles of history is the establishment of a chronological order of events. Interest in biblical chronology has a venerable tradition within Christian thought and exegesis. It emerged with Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 339), whose work was adapted by Jerome (d. 420).35 Eusebius and Jerome were primarily concerned to integrate biblical history into the framework of pagan historiography as part of the larger 32 33

34 35

See below, p. 58. Frans van Liere, “Andrew of Saint Victor and His Franciscan Critics,” in The Multiple Meaning of Scripture, ed. Ineke van ’t Spijker, Commentaria 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 291‒309. See also Frans van Liere, An Introduction to the Medieval Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 133‒39. Hugh, Didasc. VI.3 (tr. Harkins, VTT 3.166). Eusebius of Caesarea, Chronicon, ed. Rudolf Helm, Eusebius Werke: Siebenter Band. Die Chronik des Hieronymus. Hieronymi Chronicon, GCS 47 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956).

G eneral I ntroduction



37

attempt to make Christianity more accepted within the context of the Roman Empire. Unfortunately, this integration was not without its problems. Biblical exegetes ran into a number of textual and interpretive conundrums, some caused by the variety of textual traditions of the Old Testament (going back to differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible) and others caused by internal inconsistencies within the biblical text. Several serious medieval biblical scholars—the Venerable Bede (d. 735), for example—made some efforts to reconcile such inconsistencies. And in the twelfth century, Hugh and Andrew of St Victor devoted particular attention to these chronological problems. Not all these chronological subtleties are immediately apparent to the modern reader. In his commentary on Genesis 5:31, and Noah, when he was five hundred years old, begot Shem, Ham and Japheth, Hugh hastens to point out that “he did not beget his three sons at once, but one after the other.”36 In Genesis 7:6, it says that Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters appeared on the earth, while the text of Genesis 11:10 says: When Shem was a hundred years old he became the father of Arpachshad, two years after the flood. Of course, a brief calculation will show that, if Shem was born when Noah was 500 years old and if the flood occurred when Noah was 600 years old, then Shem was 100 years old at the moment the flood occurred, not two years after the flood. Andrew’s comments on this passage seem more aware of the exegetical problems posed by this passage. In his commentary on Genesis 11:10, he takes care to point out that Shem, even though he is mentioned first, was actually the youngest of the three brothers.37 One of the major chronological challenges in the scriptural witness was the Book of Kings, which was, by its very nature, rich in chronological references. Many of these, however, did not match up exactly. The apparent contradictions and difficulties in the chronology between the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel posed such distressing problems for Andrew, both for establishing the exact chronology of world history and for his belief in the internal consistency and veracity of the biblical text, that he dedicated an entire treatise—as an appendix to his commentaries on Samuel and Kings—to solving these problems.38 Richard of St Victor wrote a treatise on the same topic, largely to refute 36 37 38

See below, p. 81. Andrew, Hept. (CCCM 53.57). Andrew, Reg. (CCCM 53A.135‒43).

38

G eneral I ntroduction

Andrew’s reasoning on this matter.39 Peter Comestor also dedicated one chapter of his Historia scholastica to these problems, following Andrew’s text to a great extent.40 Richard’s and Peter’s texts are translated below into English for the first time, offering an interesting insight into what must have been a hotly debated topic at the abbey of Saint Victor. The influence of the Victorines was still evident a century later, when all three texts were used by Peter John Olivi in a treatise on the same subject.41 Like history, chronology was seen as the preparation for spiritual understanding. Hugh recommended that his student should carefully memorize the exact events and order of the biblical narrative, as a memory palace within which could be placed the sacramenta or mysteries of salvation. In the preface to his Chronicon, Hugh writes: First, our task is to commit history to memory, as the foundation of all doctrine. Because, as we said, memory rejoices over brevity, but the facts of history are almost infinite, we have to construct a brief summary out of all of them, as a foundation of the foundation, that is, the first foundation, which the mind can easily understand and retain in its memory.42

Hugh’s Chronicon is not a chronicle in any modern sense of the word. Instead, it consists of long lists of patriarchs, judges, priests, and kings, as well as the rulers of various non-biblical kingdoms, inspired by, and in part copied from, Eusebius’ fourth-century Chronicon, as translated into Latin by Jerome. The fact that these lists can also be found in manuscripts under the names of Richard and Andrew of St Victor (the latter a student of Hugh) suggests that this rote memorization of world chronology was an essential element of the educational program at the abbey of Saint Victor. The Chronicon was not confined to biblical history, however. It included lists of Corinthian, Lydian, 39 40 41 42

Richard of St Victor, Concord. (PL 196.241‒48). Peter Comestor, Historia scholastica, cap. 47 (sedatio contrarietatum), PL 198.1427‒32. Olivi’s treatise is preserved in ms Padua, Biblioteca Universitaria, 1540, fol. 178r sq. Hugh of St Victor, Chronicon preface (ed. William M. Green, “Hugh of St. Victor, De Tribus Maximis Circumstantiis Gestorum,” Speculum 18 (1943): 484‒93, here 491). A partial edition of the Chronicon itself can be found in L. B. Mortensen, “Hugh of St. Victor on Secular History. A preliminary edition of a chapter from his Chronica,” Cahiers de l’Institut du moyen âge grec et latin 62 (1992): 3‒30. For a study of the Chronicon preface, see Grover A. Zinn, “Hugh of Saint Victor and the Art of Memory,” Viator. Medieval and Renaissance Studies 5 (1974): 211‒34.

G eneral I ntroduction



39

Vandal, Gothic, and Lombard kings, and even Frankish emperors. In their breadth and comprehensiveness, these chronological lists offered the student a mental map of all of time, comprising the totality of God’s work of salvation. Jewish Sources: Scholarship and Controversy

Smalley appreciated the exegetical renewal at the School of Saint Victor for two reasons: because of its turn away from the allegorizing exegesis that had dominated Christian exegesis up to the twelfth century, and for its emphasis on the study of the original languages of Scripture, mainly Hebrew. We must keep in mind that it was a great deal easier for scholars in twelfth-century northern Europe to learn Hebrew than to learn Greek: for the former, they needed only to knock on the door of the local synagogue; for the latter, they would have been required to travel to Southern Italy or Greece.43 In consulting Jews as authorities on biblical matters, medieval scholars followed the lead of Jerome himself, who in his preface to the Pentateuch admonished the reader, “If I seem to you to err in my translation in any way, go and ask the Hebrews; consult the rabbis in various cities.”44 Both Hugh and Andrew queried their Jewish contemporaries because they considered them experts in the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and the Hebrew language. The commentaries of the northern French Jewish exegetes that they consulted emphasized a literal reading of Old Testament books, and took care to offer historical and contextual interpretations and to situate the texts in their historical and literary contexts. The influence of the school of the French Jewish exegete Rashi (d. 1105) is evident in the commentaries of both Hugh and Andrew.45 In addition to borrowing rabbinic interpretations, both men relied on their Jewish sources to give alternative renderings of the Hebrew into Latin, to suggest more meaningful punctuation, or to apply textual criticism where the Latin did not make sense.

43

44 45

Bernhard Bischoff, “Das griechische Element in der abendländischen Bildung,” in Mittel­ alterliche Studien. Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte, 2:246‒75 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1967). Jerome, Prol. in Pent. (Weber, 1:4). Herman Hailperin, Rashi and the Christian Scholars (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1963).

40

G eneral I ntroduction

But Andrew’s method of using his sources went a step further than did Hugh’s. Andrew’s work can be read as a selective reuse of two wellestablished sources: the commentaries of Jerome and the Glossa ordinaria, which in turn made ample use of Carolingian commentators such as Haimo of Auxerre and Hrabanus Maurus. In his work on the Heptateuch and Samuel and Kings, Andrew still followed the format of Hugh’s Notulae, by selectively using his sources in a series of short running notes. In his commentaries on the prophets, by contrast, Andrew more consistently juxtaposed longer excerpts from Jerome and the Gloss with lengthy alternative comments derived from Jewish sources, or, if those comments did not sufficiently address the exegetical difficulties of the text, his own exegesis.46 His commentary on Isaiah is an example of this method, and it was the alleged uncritical representation of Jewish sources as an alternative to Jerome’s comments that provoked the ire of Richard of St Victor.47 Richard’s work shows that not all Christian exegetes were comfortable with the Jewish influence on Christian biblical studies. To be sure, they appreciated the use of Hebrew sources where this could resolve textual uncertainty or ambiguity, decide between two divergent readings in Latin biblical codices, or clarify some words that Jerome perhaps had not translated accurately. But they were also worried that this influence would lead to what they called “judaizing” among adherents to Christianity. The problem was especially felt in the interpretation of prophetic texts, which the Church had always read as prophecies about Christ. What was the literal sense of these texts? Jews and Christian could agree on the philology and the translation of these texts, but to what, in their overt sense, do they refer? Here Jews obviously could come to different conclusions than their Christian counterparts. In his commentary on Isaiah, Andrew offered the Jewish, “literal” sense of some passages that, for Christians, stood among the most essential prophecies predicting Christ: for example, Isaiah 7:14 (A virgin shall conceive), Isaiah 11:1 (A shoot shall spring from the stock of Jesse), and Isaiah 53 (the so-called 46

47

For a detailed analysis of Andrew’s use of Jerome and the Glossa ordinaria in his commentaries on the prophets, see Van Liere’s introduction to Andrew, XII Prophetas (CCCM 53G. xvii-xxi). Andrew’s commentary clearly prefaced the Jewish commentaries with a critical note. It is too simple to assert that Andrew “simply agrees with most of their literal exposition,” as Van Zwieten posits: J. W. M. van Zwieten, “Jewish Exegesis within Christian Bounds. Richard of St. Victor’s ‘De Emmanuele’ and Victorine Hermeneutics,” Bijdragen. Tijdschrift voor philosophie en theologie 48 (1987): 327‒35, here 328.

G eneral I ntroduction



41

song of the suffering servant). If these texts refer to Christ, do they do so according to the literal or the mystical sense? Such questions, and the answers that Christian exegetes gave to them, would come to redefine the shape of biblical hermeneutics in the later twelfth century. Richard of St Victor was more aware of the spiritual danger that was lurking behind Jerome’s advice to consult Jewish scholars concerning unclear or ambiguous biblical texts. Richard and Andrew disagreed not on the basic question of whether Christian exegetes should consult Jewish scholars in their interpretive work. Following Jerome, both Victorines assumed the utility, if not the necessity, of at least sometimes doing so. They differed, however, on what constituted, to use Van Zwieten’s phrase, “Jewish exegesis within Christian bounds.” Much of Andrew’s exegeses of these pivotal prophetic passages was clearly “out of bounds” for Richard.48 Spiritual Exegesis

Literal and moral interpretations seem more congruous with the way modern readers approach the biblical text than does allegorical exegesis. It was allegorical reading, however, that offered the most compelling mode of interpreting Scripture, particularly the Old Testament, for the medieval reader. “I do not think you need me to exhort you to allegorical reading,” Hugh of St Victor teaches, “since this activity appears sufficiently worthy of your attention on its own.”49 The biblical books especially suitable for allegorical reading, according to Hugh, are Genesis (the first chapter), Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel, Job, the Psalter, and most books of the New Testament.50 Allegory, as Hugh understands it, is when “one thing is said and another is meant.”51 In Hugh’s hermeneutics, everything in Scripture had a meaning, but not everything had a meaning according to its literal or historical sense. This does not mean that these parts were denuded of literal interpretation, however. Hugh makes clear that “the letter tells us something, even when what is said is not understood in the way it is said but means something else.”52 In such cases, the words 48 49 50 51 52

Van Zwieten, “Jewish Exegesis within Christian Bounds.” Hugh, Didasc. VI.4 (tr. Harkins, VTT 3.167‒68). Hugh, Didasc. VI.4 (tr. Harkins, VTT 3.172). Hugh, Script. 3 (tr. Van Liere, VTT 3.215). Hugh, Script. 5 (tr. Van Liere, VTT 3.217).

42

G eneral I ntroduction

still refer to things (Hugh calls this the “physical sense” of the text),53 and the deeper or higher meaning can be grasped only by exploring the allegorical nature of these things. Those textual elements that lacked an overt historical sense (sensus) could only be interpreted allegorically. In contrast to the exponents of the Alexandrian school, however, Hugh cautioned that not everything in Scripture was necessarily hiding an allegorical meaning: “Some things have been set forth in Sacred Scripture that can only be understood spiritually, some serve only the dignity of morality, and some have been said only according to the simple historical sense.”54 Since the allegorical meaning often did not directly follow the primary meaning of the text and could even seem alienated from, or even contrary to it, allegorical reading had the potential to be quite a dangerous endeavor. Meanings could be read into the text that were unconventional or even heretical. This is why Hugh warns his students thus: You should not presume to teach yourself lest, by chance, while you imagine that you are introducing yourself to allegorical reading, you are actually leading yourself astray. You must seek to obtain this introduction from teachers and the wise, who can explain allegorical exegesis to you in a way that is useful by having recourse to the authority of the holy Fathers and to the testimonies of Scripture itself.55

In his On Sacred Scripture, Hugh provides some indications as to what clues in the biblical text might indicate a deeper, allegorical meaning: they are natural qualities of inanimate things, persons (the translation of whose names often were indications of a deeper meaning), numbers, and places.56 Allegorization was a common mode of textual interpretation especially in medieval sermons. Richard of St Victor’s sermon on Isaiah 21:11, He calls me from Seir (in which Seir is taken to mean the contrite reprobate, as opposed to Mount Zion, the self-righteous presumed elect) and his allegory on the unleavened bread mentioned in 1 Cor. 5:7 (where ‘leaven’ is taken to refer to wickedness and sin), translated in this volume, provide good examples of such allegorical sermons. Indeed, many of Richard’s major works, such as the Mystical Ark (an 53 54 55 56

Hugh, Script. 5 (tr. Van Liere, VTT 3.218). Hugh, Script. 4 (tr. Van Liere, VTT 3.216). Hugh, Didasc. VI.4 (tr. Harkins, VTT 3.172). See, e.g., his explanation of the significance of ‘lion’ in Script. 5 (tr. Van Liere, VTT 3.216‒17).

G eneral I ntroduction



43

extended allegory on this sacred object, which is described in the book of Exodus) and Benjamin minor (a psychological allegorization of the twelve sons of Jacob), are extended allegories, which probably originated as evening sermons, collations, for the brothers at the abbey. But, as has been suggested, drawing the line between literal and allegorical reading was sometimes difficult. A good example may be found in the interpretation of the two kings in Isaiah 7:16: Before the child knows to reject evil and choose good, the land which you abhor shall be forsaken of the face of those two kings. Whereas Andrew read the two kings as the kings of Israel and Aram, Pekah and Rezin, who both threatened the kingdom of Judah at the time of King Ahaz, Richard chose to interpret the two kings in their literal (albeit metaphorical) sense as two kinds of kings, the one legitimate from the tribe of Judah and the other illegitimate, usurpers as most of the kings of Israel were. Arguing that the kingdom of Judah had a king of neither kind at the time of Jesus’ birth, Richard maintained that the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 in its literal sense referred to Christ, not to the child of the prophet. At the request of his (probably fictional) interlocutor Hugh, however, Richard also offered an allegorical reading of these two kings, interpreting them as evil spirits, some of whom rule over humans by their own consent and others by force. Likewise, Richard read the “butter and honey” that Emmanuel is said to have eaten (Isa. 7:15) theologically and allegorically. In line with Hugh’s hermeneutic, however, his allegory of each of these foods was based on its natural qualities. Honey, Richard taught, was congealed dew, which descended from heaven and was uniquely sweet. It indicated the highest divine goodness and beatitude that was present in the person of Jesus Christ. Butter was congealed milk, which derived from the flesh. Its unique property of pleasantness indicated the conquering of the fallen nature of human lust and malice through Christ’s incarnation.57 It is in passages such as these that we may discern the ultimate goal of Hugh’s educational program: meditation on Sacred Scripture comes to fruition in the understanding and contemplation of these higher mysteries of the economy of salvation.

57

Richard, Emman. II.21 (tr. Van Liere, below p. 425).

44

G eneral I ntroduction

Exegesis, Theology, and Pedagogy

The characteristic feature of medieval scholastic educational culture may very well be the development and systematic use of the question (quaestio) in teaching and learning. As R. N. Swanson has noted, a major aim of the schools of the twelfth century and the universities in the thirteenth century and beyond was “to resolve uncertainty by reconciling contradictory texts and authorities,” and the quaestio emerged as a key educational tool toward this end.58 Beginning around the middle of the twelfth century, masters of theology raised specific, and often particularly difficult, questions related to the scriptural texts on which they lectured, bringing to bear important patristic authorities in an attempt to resolve these exegetical and theological difficulties.59 Such questions became increasingly speculative and further removed from the scriptural contexts from which they originated, and eventually came to be organized and systematized according to logics other than those determined by the biblical narrative itself. What previously had been the spontaneous growth of exegetical and theological questions on the surface of the sacred text became, around the middle of the twelfth century, systematically organized into formal collections of quaestiones or sententiae.60 Indeed, Chenu identifies this transition as “the crucial step in the making of scholasticism.”61 One of the most significant forms that this systematizing of theological questions, together with the patristic authorities that promised to shed light on them, took around mid-century was that of Sentences collections. The most well-known of these is the Four Books of Sentences of Peter Lombard, the final edition of which was produced in 1155‒57.62 It became the standard text on which all aspiring scholastic masters of theology were required to lecture in order to receive the license to teach. 58 59

60 61 62

R. N. Swanson, The Twelfth-Century Renaissance (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), 12‒39, here 35. See, e.g., Timothy B. Noone, “Scholasticism,” in A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, ed. Jorge J. E. Garcia and Timothy B. Noone (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003), 55‒64, esp. 61. M.-D. Chenu, Nature, Man and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on New Theological Perspectives in the Latin West (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 291‒92. Chenu, Nature, Man and Society, 291‒92. For general studies of Peter Lombard, his Sentences, and its commentary tradition, see Marcia L. Colish, Peter Lombard, 2 vols (Leiden: Brill, 1994); Philipp W. Rosemann, Peter Lombard (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); and Philipp W. Rosemann, The Story of a Great Medieval Book: Peter Lombard’s Sentences (Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press, 2007).

G eneral I ntroduction



45

Also in the 1150s, as the Lombard was compiling his great work, Robert of Melun, who studied and taught dialectic and theology in and around Paris from c. 1120 to c. 1162, composed his own collection of Sentences (1152‒60).63 The distinct structures of the Sentences collections of Peter Lombard and Robert of Melun represent two different appropriations or combinations of the theological visions of Hugh of St Victor and Peter Abelard, thus highlighting the influence of Victorine hermeneutics (and the foundational place of the scriptural narrative of salvation history within it) on the early development of scholastic theology.64 Robert’s overall contribution may at first sight appear rather modest when considering his Sentences alongside the Lombard’s equivalent collection. Indeed, Marcia Colish has maintained: “Whether in his schema, or in his method, or in his doctrinal contributions more widely, it cannot truly be said that Robert of Melun advances the state of systematic theology as an intellectual enterprise very much.”65 However, the attentive reader of his Questiones de divina pagina doubtlessly will recognize the degree to which Robert does, in fact, advance the state of systematic theology as an intellectual enterprise in this work. In offering what Gilbert Dahan has identified as the first example of a scriptural commentary in the form of quaestiones, Robert’s Questions on the Divine Page (1143‒48) instantiate the watershed transition from sacra pagina to sacra doctrina that was a central feature of the development of scholastic culture.66 As such, this work does not merely advance the state of systematic theology, as the Lombard’s Sentences clearly would do a decade later; rather, it may be said to inaugurate—or, at the very least, help to inaugurate—theology as a systematic intellectual enterprise. Robert’s Questions on the Divine Page, which illustrate Victorine exegetical practice in its own right and, beyond this, break the ground for the highly speculative theology of the great thirteenthcentury masters, are translated in this volume for the very first time.67 63 64

65 66 67

For more on Robert’s life and works, see the Introduction to his Questions on the Divine Page by Franklin T. Harkins below, p. 279‒88. On the structure of and influences on these two Sentences collections, see Colish, Peter Lombard, 1.72‒90; Rosemann, Peter Lombard, 57‒65; and Dale Coulter’s Introduction in VTT 3.429‒43, esp. 439‒43. Colish, Peter Lombard, 1.77. Gilbert Dahan, L’exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en Occident médiéval xiie-xive  siècle (Paris: Cerf, 1999), 142‒45, at 143. Among the more ‘forward-looking’ and influential questions, in terms of later developments in scholastic method and content, are those on the transfiguration of Christ (qq. 27, 28, 68, 69), which are treated in some detail in the Introduction to the work below.

46

G eneral I ntroduction

As the Questions on the Divine Page reveal, the methodological transition from interpreting the scriptural text to the systematizing of increasingly speculative theological questions was driven primarily by pedagogical concerns, which were often also quite practical and pastoral.68 Students and aspiring masters of theology needed to know, for example, what the keys given to Peter and to his successors are and how many there are (q. 25), whether the splendor that appeared at Christ’s transfiguration was truly in His flesh (which was mortal until that time; q. 27; cf. q. 68), whether all who depart from this life in equal sin ought to be punished with an equal penalty (q. 40), whether—since the substance of all three persons of the Trinity is the same—the substance of the Father became incarnate (q. 47), whether every parable in the Gospels really happened as it is related (q. 66), whether—since every person is our neighbor—we are required to love everyone individually (q. 82), whether a person can be saved without receiving baptism (q. 93), whether it is beneficial to pray to the saints (q. 107), and for what simple and ignorant people ought to pray (q. 125). Victorine preachers and the lay listeners to whom they transmitted and interpreted the Christian faith as contained in the scriptural witness also sought answers to significant theological and pastoral questions such as these. Achard of St Victor’s sermon 12, for instance, treats questions related to the literal and allegorical interpretation of Christ’s transfiguration as recounted in chapter 17 of Matthew’s Gospel. Rejecting the position of some that the splendor appeared only in the air around Christ’s face, Achard affirms: “We say that by his divine power the Lord laid aside the form of mortality and took up at will the form of glory, and showed this to his disciples, yet without all the greatness it was going to have [at his resurrection].”69 This interpretation quite clearly echoes the solution that Robert of Melun offers to the question of what happened after the transfiguration to the earlier form of Christ if it were truly of such a condition as appeared visibly to the disciples on Mount Tabor, namely: “Christ’s form was naturally of such a condition that appeared glorified [at the transfiguration], because your appearance is splendid above the sons of men [Vulg. Ps. 44:3]. But [ordinarily] the form of infirmity overshadowed the form of glorification.”70 68

69 70

See, e.g., Noone, “Scholasticism,” 61‒62, who discusses the development of the quaestio in the context of lectures on Scripture and subsequently of disputations held by members of the faculty of theology at the universities. Achard, Serm. 12 (tr. Feiss, Works, 191). See Robert, Questions on the Divine Page, q. 68 below, p. 477‒86.

G eneral I ntroduction



47

The sermons translated below by Richard of St Victor and Maurice of Sully on the parable of the Good Samaritan illustrate two important Victorine convictions concerning the biblical text, namely: that allegorical and tropological interpretations are necessarily rooted in the scriptural letter and its first meaning, and that the riches of spiritual interpretation serve a larger pastoral purpose and must be shared with those beyond the walls of the religious community. This second conviction is particularly palpable in sermon 35 of Maurice of Sully, which is part of a cycle he composed as bishop of Paris, to serve as a resource for preaching to and teaching the laity. The Victorine concern for teaching Sacred Scripture and how it might be read most profitably also manifests itself in the poetic works of various thinkers associated with the twelfth-century abbey. Godfrey of St Victor’s Fountain of Philosophy, which drew inspiration from the educational program and hermeneutical theory set forth in both Hugh’s Didascalicon and Richard’s Book of Notes, stands out as a significant example.71 Another is the Historie ueteris testamenti of Leonius of Paris, who, as a canon and priest at Notre Dame from c. 1180 until his death c. 1201, participated in the scholarly life of the Victorine abbey. Leonius’s Historie, likely composed sometime after 1180, is a versification of the Octateuch in 14,065 unrhymed hexameters. His versification of Liber Ruth, which appears in translation below for the first time, consists of 264 verses that conclude the twelfth and final book of the Historie. Like Andrew of St Victor in his commentaries on the Old Testament, Leonius is most interested in expounding the literal meaning of the scriptural narrative, with virtually no concern for the higher spiritual senses. In his interest in the divinely-revealed deeds done in time and the fundamental meaning of the narrative of these deeds, Leonius is first and foremost an historian, the poetic counterpart, it has been suggested, to Peter Comestor.72 In Leonius, then, we return to what is, quite literally, the foundational emphasis—indeed the sine qua non—of Victorine exegetical theory and practice: the scriptural letter and its literal sense. Approximately a century after Andrew and Richard of St Victor flourished, Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa Theologiae, the open71 72

The work is introduced and translated by Hugh Feiss, OSB, in VTT 3.371‒425. See Greti Dinkova-Bruun, “Autor, Authorship and the Literal Sense of the Bible: The Case of Leonius of Paris,” in Bibel und Exegese in der Abtei Sankt Viktor zu Paris. Form und Funktion eines Grundtextes im europäischen Raum, ed. Rainer Berndt (Münster: Aschendorf, 2009), 259‒77, here 274‒76; and her Introduction to Leonius below, p. 477‒86.

48

G eneral I ntroduction

ing question of which treats the nature and extent of sacred doctrine (sacra doctrina). Here Thomas presents sacra doctrina, as distinct from the theology that is a discipline of philosophy, as a divinely revealed science that takes its first principles from the higher scientia Dei, that is, God’s own perfect self-knowledge.73 Because the principles of this science are obtained by revelation, sacra doctrina uses arguments based primarily on the authority of those scriptural writers to whom God has revealed Himself. Thomas makes clear, however, that scriptural authority is the strongest form of argument precisely because it is based on divine revelation.74 And because the author of Sacred Scripture is God Himself, who signifies not only by means of words but also by means of the things signified by words, Scripture may contain several meanings under one letter. Like Hugh of St Victor before him, Thomas explicitly teaches that the spiritual sense (which he divides into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical) “is established on the literal and presupposes it.”75 That Thomas here cites Hugh by name and invokes his threefold division of the spiritual sense (viz., historical, allegorical, and tropological) in his treatment of the nature of sacred doctrine highlights the direct and lasting influence that Victorine hermeneutics had on scholastic theology as it developed in the high and late Middle Ages.76 Conclusion

The texts that constitute the present volume evince why the masters at Saint Victor had such a profound influence on exegesis and theology in the following centuries. This sixth volume of Victorine Texts in Translation aims to offer texts that complement those of its earlier companion volume, Interpretation of Scripture: Theory. Whereas that third volume treated hermeneutics broadly conceived, this one shows how representatives of the school of Saint Victor variously put exegetical theory into practice in a number of different genres. The texts show Victorine exegetes at work in the distinct modes of scriptural interpre73 74 75

76

Thomas Aquinas, ST I q. 1 aa. 1 and 2 (ed. Caramello, 1.2‒3). ST I q. 1 a. 8 ad 2 (ed. Caramello, 1.7‒8). ST I q. 1 a. 10 c.: “Illa ergo prima significatio, qua voces significant res pertinent ad primum sensum, qui est sensus historicus vel litteralis. Illa vero significatio qua res significatae per voces, iterum res alias significant, dicitur sensus spiritualis; qui super litteralem fundatur, et eum supponit” (ed. Caramello, 1.9; translation ours). See also ad 1 here. See ST I q. 1 a. 10 ad 2 (ed. Caramello, 1.9).

G eneral I ntroduction



49

tation—analyzing the littera, establishing its sensus, and discovering the deeper sententia—and with a view to its varied theological and pastoral purposes. The volume is divided into thematic sections, each of which treats one broad area or aspect of the practice of scriptural interpretation at the Victorine abbey. First, Hugh’s Notes on Genesis provide a characteristic example of literal exegesis, revealing the master at work in establishing the primary sense of the scriptural text. The second section—which includes the preface to Hugh’s Chronicon, Richard’s and Peter Comestor’s treatment of the chronological difficulties in the books of Kings, and selections from Andrew’s Daniel commentary—explores the next interpretative stage: namely how literal exegesis is used to establish a larger historical narrative, even if passages sometimes contradict each other, or when the textual referent is ambiguous. The next section offers significant examples of spiritual exegesis and its role in the practice and development of theology, including Richard’s comments on Isaiah and his Explanations of Several Difficulties of Scripture. Robert of Melun’s Questions on the Divine Page provide one important snapshot of the crucial moment in the development of scholastic theology in the mid-twelfth century, when questions arising naturally from the scriptural text began to be organized systematically. The Quaestiones of Robert thus provide a crucial bridge between the hermeneutical theory and exegetical practice of Hugh, on the one hand, and the science of theology as understood and practiced by Thomas Aquinas and other university masters, on the other. The next section of the book, “From Text to Sermon,” provides some fine examples of what Hugh Feiss calls the “homiletic legacy” of Saint Victor, reminding us that exegesis had significant pastoral and practical purposes: the spiritual instruction of the brothers at the abbey and the catechetical instruction of the laity. Finally, the survey offered here concludes with the poetry of Leonius of Paris, clear evidence of the considerable reach of Victorine hermeneutics and exegetical practice into the realms of history and poetry. The Victorine project of biblical exegesis was not without its conflicts. Not only did the brothers occasionally exchange barbs on details of literal interpretation;77 they also engaged in lively debate on the methodological implications of literal exegesis, wherein at times they 77

See Van Liere’s introduction to the Commentary on Samuel and Kings (CCT 3:17), and Andrew on Gen. 20:16 in Hept. (CCCM 53.69, l. 2219 and 2225). We wish to thank Joy Schroeder for drawing our attention to this passage.

50

G eneral I ntroduction

seemed to contradict some of the implicit Christian assumptions about the sacred text. The invective of Richard against Andrew, found in the former’s On Emmanuel, illustrates just how deeply the conflict could run, even in the same religious community. In the twelfth century, as today, biblical interpretation could be a deeply divisive issue. Each in its own way, the texts introduced and translated in this volume intimate how much modern readers of Scripture stand to learn by engaging medieval exegesis. As Beryl Smalley observed, “the danger of neglect may threaten not only an individual, but a whole generation. We have seen an entire school of exegesis fall into an oblivion so profound that its successors remind us of men building on the site of a buried city, unaware of the civilization lying beneath their feet.”78 If this volume contributes in any way to the archeological work that Smalley began some six decades ago, her labors will not have been in vain.

78

Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 357.

HUGH OF ST VICTOR NOTES ON GENESIS INTRODUCTION AND TRANSLATION BY JAN VAN ZWIETEN

INTRODUCTION “In the entire biblical exegetical literature until his days, no Christian author had in any of his writings stuck so faithfully to the task of finding the literal sense of Scripture as Hugh of Saint Victor in his Adnotationes.” The Adnotationes to which Marianne Awerbuch refers1 belong to a series of writings from Hugh’s early career. The series includes an exposition of Jerome’s Prologue to the Pentateuch, and exegetical notes on the literal sense of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Judges, and the four books of Kings. It is complemented by the hermeneutical treatise On Sacred Scripture and its Authors. While the treatise dates from after 1125, the exegetical parts go back to Hugh’s first years at the abbey of Saint Victor, around 1120.2 The order in which these writings are set in volume 175 of the Patrologia Latina has no basis in the manuscripts. In its first arrangement, the series did not begin with On Sacred Scripture but with the exposition of Jerome’s Prologue. The hermeneutical treatise was not a separate work, as it is in the Patrologia, but directly preceded the Adnotationes on Genesis.3 Drawn up as a “practical handbook to the study of the Bible,” it is an important reference for evaluating the work that originally followed it.4 The Adnotationes or Notes on Genesis and the books that follow had never drawn much attention from scholars until Beryl Smalley’s Study of the Bible was first published in 1940. Smalley asserted that the Notes marked a revival of biblical scholarship, which had long sunk below the standard set by Jerome’s linguistic and exegetical achievements. This revival was marked by a renewed interest in the literal 1 2 3

4

Christlich-jüdische Begegnung im Zeitalter der Frühscholastik (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1980), 220 (my translation). Damien van den Eynde, Essai sur la succession et la date des écrits de Hugues de Saint-Victor (Rome: Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum, 1960), 40‒45, 214. An inventory of some 45 manuscripts is presented by Ralf M. W. Stammberger, “Die Exegese des Oktateuch bei Hugo von Saint-Victor,” in Bibel und Exegese in der Abtei Saint-Victor zu Paris, ed. Rainer Berndt (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2009), 239‒53. The authenticity of the sparse notes on Numbers and Deuteronomy (Adnot. In Num.-Dt., PL 175.84D‒86D) is doubtful. See Grover A. Zinn, “Hugh of St. Victor’s De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris as an accessus treatise for the study of the Bible,” Traditio 52 (1997): 111‒34.

54

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R – N OT E S ON G E N E S I S

sense of Scripture, the Hebrew original and, following almost naturally, Jewish exegesis. The example of Hugh’s Notes inspired Andrew of St Victor to devote most of his work to literal exegesis and to extend the utilization of Jewish sources, both for textual problems and for interpretative issues. In Smalley’s view, the Victorines paved the way for the Sola Scriptura of the Reformation, and even for modern biblical scholarship.5 The compelling case made by Smalley for the innovative exegetical work of the Victorines was challenged in particular by Henri de Lubac in his Exégèse médiévale. De Lubac argued that it was not so much Hugh’s attention to the literal sense that set him apart as the care he devoted to the exegetical method.6 While De Lubac focused on the theoretical framework of Hugh’s exegesis and its roots in the tradition, Smalley based her views mainly on the exegetical practice embodied in Hugh’s Notes and the works of Andrew. The raison d’être for a work on the literal sense of Genesis may be easily explained from Hugh’s hermeneutical observations about the study of Scripture. In the Didascalicon he says: “First you should learn history and diligently commit to memory the truth of things having been done, reviewing from beginning to end what was done, when it was done, where it was done, and by whom it was done.” The books of Genesis, Exodus and Kings are named among those best suited for this course. The student should not leap forward to the spiritual interpretation because, as Hugh explains, “I do not think that you can be perfectly perspicacious with regard to allegory unless you have first been grounded in history.”7 Over and above these didactic considerations, Hugh’s valuation of biblical history is tied up with a central dichotomy in his theological thought: the work of foundation and the work of restoration. While Sacred Scripture begins with creation and fall, its principal subject matter is the salvation of man. History is the stage where the deeds of salvation are manifested: “The work of restoration is the Incarnation of the Word with all its mysteries, both those that came before the Incarnation from the beginning of the world and those that followed it until the end of the world.”8 5 6 7 8

Smalley, The Study of the Bible, xii-xvii, 97‒106. Henri de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale. Les quatre sens de l’Écriture, II.1, Théologie, 42 (Paris: Aubier, 1961), especially 287‒91. Didasc. VI.3 (Buttimer, 113‒17; tr. Harkins, VTT 3.164‒67). See also Script. 5 (PL 175.13A‒15A; tr. Van Liere, VTT 3.216‒18). Sacr., Prol. 2 (PL 176.183A‒184A; tr. Evans, VTT 3.262). See also Script. 2 (PL 175.11AD; tr. Van Liere, VTT 3.214).

I ntroduction



55

Jewish and Christian Sources

In all his efforts to stress the importance of the literal reading of Scripture, Hugh seems to provide no hermeneutical foundation for the apparently uninhibited adoption of Jewish exegesis. Ralf Stammberger has suggested that this adoption was a logical development of the guidance Hugh took from Jerome. In the Prologue to the Pentateuch, Jerome had explained why the Hebrew text, rather than the Septuagint, had been the basis for his work: in its original form, the Hebrew text had contained more references to Christ than the Septuagint.9 It was, therefore, very useful for any Christian exegete to study the Hebrew and to consult Jewish biblical scholars.10 Apart from his aforementioned exposition of Jerome’s Prologue, Hugh reproduced its main argument in On Sacred Scripture and indicated in the Didascalicon how dark passages might be clarified from the Hebrew.11 Still, one would expect a more pronounced explanation of his utilization of Jewish exegesis in light of the problems that were bound to arise. As we will see later in this volume, Andrew and Richard of St Victor would clash on precisely this point around the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14: A virgin shall conceive.12 The presence of Jewish elucidations and interpretations in the Notes on Genesis is modest in comparison with the work that Andrew would produce, but still significant. In the endnotes I have quoted parallel texts from Rashi’s Commentary on Genesis and some other Jewish writings. Whether Hugh had direct access to these works is uncertain. Rashi drew heavily on the midrashic tradition, which throughout the centuries had been used by Jewish and Christian exegetes alike, as Hailperin pointed out.13 In just a few cases one may detect a direct influence of Rashi’s particular type of philological exposition. The possibility of exegetical discussions between Hugh 9 10 11 12

13

Jerome, Prol. in Pent. (Weber 1:4) Ralf M. W. Stammberger, “Die Exegese des Oktateuch,” 255‒56. See also Hailperin, Rashi, 106‒7. Script. 9 (PL  175.17B‒18A; tr.  Van Liere, VTT  3.221‒22); Didasc. VI.10 (Buttimer 126‒28; tr. Harkins, VTT 3.175‒77). The place of Jewish exegesis in Hugh’s hermeneutic is discussed by Ralf M. W. Stammberger, “Zur jüdischen Exegese im Werk Hugos von Sankt Viktor,” in Kulturkontakte und Rezeptions­ vorgänge in der Theologie des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts, ed. Dieter Bauer and Ulrich Köpf. Archa Verbi. Subsidia 8 (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2011), 247‒61. Herman Hailperin, “Jewish ‘Influence’ on Christian Biblical Scholars in the Middle Ages,” Historia Judaica IV (1942): 163‒74.

56

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R – N OT E S ON G E N E S I S

and Jewish scholars at Paris, first suggested by Smalley and Hail­ perin, has gradually gained general support. Apart from the midrashic tradition and Rashi, parallels have been indicated with Hugh’s contemporaries Rashbam, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Joseph Bekhor Shor and Joseph Kara.14 In comparison with the Jewish influence, the Christian sources of the Notes on Genesis have received less attention. My references to these sources in the endnotes are largely based on the investigations of Herbert Pollitt half a century ago.15 It is to be expected that the forthcoming critical edition of the Notes from the Hugo von Sankt Viktor Institut will make the necessary progress in this area.16 The main works to which Hugh could turn were the Hebrew Questions on Genesis by Jerome, the various comments on Genesis by Augustine, and The Beginning of Genesis by Bede. Interpretations originating in Jerome, Augustine and Bede had been transmitted and reworked by various intermediate authors. Only on a number of occasions can one be certain that Hugh consulted the original sources firsthand. Even in these cases he has the tendency to adapt or summarize the material. Beside the three authors just mentioned, Hugh used the ninth-century Genesis commentaries of Angelom of Luxeuil, Hrabanus Maurus, and, in particular, Haimo of Auxerre.17 The influence of Haimo may be gauged from the fact that he, too, began his commentary with an exposition of Jerome’s Prologue to the Pentateuch.18

14

15

16 17

18

See Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 102‒4; Hailperin, Rashi, 107; Awerbuch, Christlich-jüdische Begegnung, 215‒30; Rebecca Moore, Jews and Christians in the Life and Thought of Hugh of St. Victor (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998); Rivka Basch, “Zwischen Tradition und Revolution. Die Exegese von Hugo von St. Viktor und Rabbi Schemuel Ben Meir (“Raschbam”),” in Kulturkontakte und Rezeptionsvorgänge, 227‒45. Herbert J. Pollitt, Hugh of St. Victor as Biblical Exegete (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1960); idem, “Some Considerations on the Structure and Sources of Hugh of St. Victor’s Notes on the Octateuch”, RTAM 33 (1966): 5‒38. Cf. Stammberger, “Die Exegese des Oktateuch,” 255. For recent developments on this project, see Stammberger, “Zur jüdischen Exegese,” 249. Haimo’s work has long been attributed to Remigius of Auxerre, under whose name it is printed in the Patrologia Latina. See the introduction to Remigius’ genuine Genesis commentary (ed. B. Van Name Edwards, CCCM 136 [Turnhout: Brepols, 1999], xiii-xx). Both Angelom and Hrabanus are named among Hugh’s sources by Pollitt, but Haimo/Remigius seems to have escaped his attention. PL 131.51C‒54C. Cf. Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 99.

I ntroduction



57

Composition

The seemingly random structure of the Notes will not escape the eye of the reader. Smalley has proposed that “they were either scholia on isolated passages, or they were extracted from the literal part of a literal, allegorical and moral commentary, or from an introductory literal historical course on the Octateuch.” She also suggested that the Notes were collected by Hugh’s pupils and represent his oral teaching, which would somehow account for their lack of structure and apparent omissions.19 More recently, Stammberger has adduced strong evidence that the Notes originated from the table reading in the abbey of St Victor during the septuagesima, the seventy days before Easter.20 By way of introduction it may be useful to review the composition of the Notes on Genesis in some detail. The five chapters preceding the explanatory notes are set around certain themes. The first three chapters discuss the name and subject matter of the first biblical book, and the manner of treatment and the intention of the author. These structural steps in approaching a text were part of the accessus method, which in Hugh’s day was widely used in the study of the secular arts.21 The third chapter initiates a discussion of more properly theological themes, which is continued in the fourth and fifth chapter: simultaneous creation, prime matter, and the works of the six days. This part of the Notes on Genesis looks like a preliminary study for the first book of Hugh’s major theological work, On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith.22 The thematic treatment then makes way for a long series of explanatory notes that follow the sequence of the biblical text. Here again one finds several observations that were later developed in On the Sacraments, of which I have indicated the most obvious examples. About one third of the explanatory notes are devoted to the creation of heaven and earth, the creation of man, and his fall. Hugh also dwells more or less extensively on Cain and Abel, Noah’s ark and the deluge, the confusion of tongues, and the blessings of Jacob. Although these themes may be seen as highlights of the book of Genesis, it is impossible to detect a pattern of selection. On several chapters we have only one or two notes, which suggests that other material somehow was lost. The Notes on Genesis conclude with a recapitulation of some Hebrew textual variants. This 19 20 21 22

The Study of the Bible, 98‒99. See also Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 8‒9. “Die Exegese des Oktateuch,” 253. See Zinn, “Hugh of St. Victor’s De scripturis,” in particular 122. Sacr. I.1 (PL 176.187A‒206A; tr. Deferrari, 7‒27).

58

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R – N OT E S ON G E N E S I S

part is only found in a couple of manuscripts and contains a few additions to, as well as some repetitions of what has gone before. Exegetical Method

The exegetical method in the Notes on Genesis may largely be described on the basis of the Didascalicon and On Sacred Scripture. The first work mentions four focal points in the literal or historical reading: the person, the deed, the time, and the place. It comes as no surprise that most of Hugh’s annotations on Genesis are indeed about these basic elements of history. There are also many Notes that deal with the literary idiom of Scripture. Here one may see the implementation of the guidelines laid down in the Didascalicon on the “method of sentence construction” in the Bible, which “more than all other written works is concise in its literary style.” And Hugh adds: “There are certain passages in the sacred page that cannot be interpreted literally and ought to be read with much careful discernment.” The reader of biblical history will also stumble upon seemingly unimportant details. But Hugh explains: “There are many things in the Scriptures that seem to offer nothing worth seeking, but if you read them in light of the surrounding passages and begin to weigh them in their larger literary context, you will see that they are as indispensable as they are suitable.”23 The Notes include various examples of this contextual approach. Several other annotations deal with the order of the narrative, which does not always follow the order of events. In the Didascalicon this is mentioned as a distinguishing feature of the biblical text, just as are its frequent omissions and repetitions. Another aspect of the exegetical method that is both announced in Hugh’s hermeneutic and applied in his practical work is his recourse to the Hebrew text and, more implicitly than explicitly, to Jewish exegesis. A final element of the literal reading may be gathered from the chapter in the Didascalicon on the “divine meaning” of Scripture. Some passages have multiple meanings, which the reader may not always grasp. Hugh’s advice is to look for “that meaning that appears to have been certainly intended by the author.”24 The intention of the human author, Moses, or that of the biblical figures is indeed one of the recurring themes in the Notes on Genesis. 23 24

Didasc. VI.3 (Buttimer, 113‒17; tr. Harkins, VTT 3.164‒67). See also Script. 5 (PL 175.13A‒15A; tr. Van Liere, VTT 3.216‒18). Didasc. VI.7‒11 (Buttimer, 125‒29; tr. Harkins, VTT 3.174‒78).

I ntroduction



59

So far, then, we may distinguish the following elements in Hugh’s exegetical method: a focus on person, deed, time, and place; attention to biblical sentence construction; recognizing passages without a literal meaning; setting unimportant details in their literary context; comparing the order of the narrative with the order of events; recognizing omissions and repetitions; having recourse to the Hebrew text and Jewish exegesis; and looking for the intention of the author. Complementing this literary-historical framework, the liberal arts are a further reference point for Hugh’s exegetical method. The famous Augustinian idea that the arts support divine reading is expressed as follows in On Sacred Scripture: The fruit of divine reading is twofold: it instructs the mind with know­ ledge and adorns it with morals. … One of these, knowledge, pertains more to history and allegory; the other, instruction in morals, pertains more to tropology. All of Sacred Scripture serves this end. The seven liberal arts serve this knowledge: the trivium considers the significance of words, and the quadrivium the significance of things. Grammar teaches right speech and proper pronunciation. Dialectic is useful for distinguishing their meanings and for investigating truth through disputation. Rhetoric considers both of these things. Physics teaches the interior natures of things, and mathematics their exterior forms and numbers.25

Hugh further explains that the significance of things pertains to the spiritual understanding of Scripture, which in this respect is fundamentally different from other writings.26 This does not mean, however, that the realm of physics and mathematics (or the quadrivium) is excluded from the historical reading. Just as the tools of grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric are applied quite naturally in the Notes on Genesis, so the exposition may, with the same self-evidence, dwell on the form or nature of things. Even though the liberal arts were promoted by Hugh to a more prominent place than they had been in Augustine,27

25 26 27

Script. 13 (PL 175.20C-D; tr. Van Liere, VTT 3.225). Script. 14 (PL 175.20D‒21C; tr. Van Liere, VTT 3.225‒26). See also Sacr., Prol. 5‒6 (PL 176.185AD; tr. Evans, VTT 3.264‒65). See Jerome Taylor, The Didascalicon of Hugh of Saint Victor: A Medieval Guide to the Arts (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), 28‒36; Eileen C. Sweeney, “Hugh of St. Victor: the Augustinian Tradition of Sacred and Secular Reading Revisited,” in Reading and Wisdom. The De doctrina christiana of Augustine in the Middle Ages, ed. Edward D. English (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995), 61‒83.

60

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R – N OT E S ON G E N E S I S

they remained necessary aids in establishing the literal sense as a firm foundation for the spiritual interpretation. Presentation

The translation of the Notes on Genesis presented here is based on the Latin text in the Patrologia Latina, vol. 175, col. 32C‒61B. The title Adnotationes Elucidatoriae under which the text is printed is an editorial addition, just as is its division into chapters. In the manuscript tradition, the text has no subsections and is sometimes entitled Notes on Genesis.28 For the sake of convenience the division into chapters has been retained in the translation, with the headings set in brackets. Hugh’s exposition of Jerome’s Prologue to the Pentateuch has been omitted from the translation, which starts at the exposition of Genesis. I have attempted to facilitate reading by adding the chapters and verses of Genesis in the margin, complementing the indications in the Patrologia. I have also prefixed the relevant biblical texts (rendered in small capitals) to Hugh’s expositions. For this purpose I have used the Douai-Rheims translation of the Vulgate, only emending some proper names to their modern spelling. In a couple of instances I have translated directly from the Vulgate to make Hugh’s exposition understandable. I have also corrected the text or punctuation of the Patrologia where necessary. These corrections were checked against manuscript Paris, BnF, lat. 15695, which was available through the online facilities of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.29

28 29

As in Paris, BnF, lat. 15315, fol. 182v. http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/

NOTES ON GENESIS [On the Name of the First Book of the Pentateuch]

This book, the first of the Holy Books, is called Beresith in Hebrew, which is as if to say In the beginning. Some Hebrew writers follow the convention of naming their books after its beginning, that is, its first words.1 In the same manner, we call one of the Psalms: Have mercy on me, O God,2 and another one: Blessed are the undefiled.3 The Greek name of the book is Genesis, on the one hand after the generation of heaven and earth, which it treats first of all, on the other hand after the creation of man or the propagation of mankind over the face of the earth. And these are the three stages that constitute and define the proper subject matter of this book. [That Moses in His Writing of Genesis Was Both Historian and Prophet; And That Two Things Are to Be Considered in It: The Truth of the Events, and the Quality of the Words]

One should know that Moses is an historian in this book, where he weaves the history from the beginning of this world to the death of Jacob. He also tells in prophetic fashion what occurred before the creation of man, just as he includes in this book what Jacob in his blessings predicts would happen after his death. In this way, the realization of future things verifies the belief in things past—which is the opposite of what Gregory says somewhere, namely, that the realization of things past verifies the belief in future things.4 There are two things in this book that deserve special consideration: the truth of the events, and the form of the words. Just as we learn the true nature of things through the truth of words, so we may learn the true nature of words more easily when we know the truth of things.5 For it is through this historical narrative that we are exalted to the understanding of higher things.

62

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

[What Moses’ Intention in Genesis Is; And Whether All Things Are Created Together]

Moses’ intention in this book is first and foremost to demonstrate three things: God as Creator, the creation of matter, and its formation; and all of this to the praise of God and for the benefit of man, for whom it is beneficial to wonder at and give veneration to God. In the fact that God created the world, that is, made it from nothing, we admire His power. In the fact that He adorned the world, that is, made it beautiful, we admire His wisdom. It is on this issue that our authors differ from the philosophers. For the philosophers state that God is only the artificer, and that there are three first principles: God, matter, and archetypal ideas. Our authors, however, postulate one single principle, that is, God alone.6 While this issue is settled among all commentators of the Divine Word, namely, that there is one single principle, there is much debate about the manner of creating. Some say that God created all and everything together. Others divide the work into six days and say this division is figurative and only made in view of its hidden meaning and did not take place literally. The first seek to prove their opinion by the following text: He that liveth forever created all things together.7 And also by another text, taken from the book of Genesis, where after the works of the six days the author makes the following recapitulation: These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, on the day that God made the heaven and the earth, and every plant of the field.8 And their argument is that it does not behoove God to make, in a human manner, something incomplete, unordered, or unformed. But it is easy to rebut these opinions. Against the argument just quoted we can say that God, who could have made everything at once, divided His works into six days not because of His inability (which does not exist), but for the instruction of and as an example to rational creatures. Just as He first gave being to things and then beautiful being, so would He have granted to angels and men, whom He had given rational being, also blessed being had they stood firm, which would have been beautiful being. But because one angel did not heed this example and had only regard for his rational being, he fell irrecoverably by his excessive over-confidence while the others were unalterably confirmed. Indeed it was for the restoration of man that God wished to divide His work into six days, so that man would have a way to engage his soul in his own instruction. Furthermore, the statement that God created something incomplete or unformed is neither harmful nor unsuitable. This has to be said in comparison with the

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S



63

greater perfection and beauty which God, through Himself and at His chosen time, added to His creation. In the same manner does He create children each day that are incomplete as to the growth that follows, yet complete as to the number of their limbs, that is, hands, feet, and other parts of the body. So this opinion seems the more probable of the two. [On Prime Matter: When, Where, And of What Quality it Was Created]

Another issue is when, where, and of what quality the prime matter of things was created. Now it is certain that this happened in the beginning of time, before the first day, in such a way that time and matter began together. And at the same moment the angels, about whom it is said: First of all wisdom was created.9 This did not happen before the creation of the world as some Greek authors have supposed, to whose opinion Jerome alludes by saying: Who knows how many years or periods before the creation of the world the angels have praised their Creator?10 In the same manner, Solomon says somewhere: Who knows if the spirit of beasts goes downward, and the spirits of men upward?11 But neither states as his opinion what he puts forward as a question. Our reason to say that time and matter were created together is that time is nothing but the succession of change, which came into being together with changeable matter. This matter was first created in the same place where it now exists in its proper form, and it occupied the same space as it does now. Created means unformed, not however without any form, but unformed in comparison with the beauty and order that would follow. The earth was in the center and had basins and channels, which were receptacles for the waters floating above as well as below it. And the three remaining elements, mixed together as a thick cloud, hovered over the earth from every part of its surface up to the highest heaven. And these elements are referred to as earth in the following: God created heaven and earth.12 [On the Respective Works of the Six Days]

On the first day God set apart fire from the other elements. And this is what He Himself says: Let light be made,13 that is: Let fire be set apart from the other elements. For here “to be made” is understood as “to be set apart.” Both in creating and in setting apart God made everything

64

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

not through labor, but through His will alone, which was from eternity. The fire that was set apart gave the lower world some kind of light and had a circular motion. Like a luminous cloud it circled around, just as the sun does now. By its rising and setting it marked the first three days.14 It is unknown what shape it had, that is, round or elongated. But it is commonly accepted that this light was created in the same place where the sun comes up. Therefore the beginning of the first day was not preceded by any dawn or daybreak to announce the sunrise. And this is subtly indicated where Scripture divides the first full day by two boundary-marking moments: And it became evening, which marks the end of the daytime, and it became morning,15 which marks the end of the night. While daytime starts at sunrise and ends at sunset, a full day consists of day and night together, which is demonstrated by their equal length at the equinox.16 On the second day the firmament was made, to separate the waters from the waters. Bede says the firmament consists of solidified water, like crystal stone.17 This seems probable, because its color suggests the same to our eyes. Others say the firmament is of a fiery nature. That there are indeed waters above the firmament is proven both by Genesis and by the prophetic writing, where it is said: The waters that are above the heavens, let them praise the name of the Lord.18 How these waters are composed is not agreed among our writers. Some say they are frozen like ice in that place. But I find it more probable that these waters are hovering like a vapor, in the manner of smoke or mist.19 On the third day the waters were gathered together in one place, that is, their proper basin, or the abyss that is the source of the waters. In other words, either the place of the ocean and all other seas,20 or a subterranean cavity, from which the rivers were dispersed through fissures, that is, underground channels, and began to flow both under and upon the earth. And the dry land appeared and received the power to bring forth.21 On the fourth day God made the sun from the aforesaid light or fire, improving it in form and splendor. That the sun was made from the light mentioned above may be inferred from the fact that the Gospel was somehow made from the Law of Moses, like the wine was made from water at the marriage [at Cana].22 Just as we sometimes find a deeper meaning of the signified through things acting as signs, so we may often infer the truth of the signifiers from the signified, both here and elsewhere.23 Only the sun has its own light and the sun alone is made from fire. All the stars as well as the moon are made from airy matter and reflect rather than emit light.

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S



65

On the fifth day the fishes and birds were made from water. Hence the following: Some You send back to the deep, some You lift up to the sky.24 On the sixth day the earth brought forth animals of various kinds. And on the same day man was made according to the image and likeness of God. And it was appropriate that man was made after everything else, because he was to be favored above all others. These are the works of the six days. On the first three days God created everything in matter and ordered it, and on the last three days He adorned it.25 But let us now turn to the literal text. [Explanatory Notes on Words and Sentences in Genesis Covering Practically Every Chapter, as We Shall Indicate]

In the beginning God created heaven and earth. and the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. In the beginning God created heaven and earth. The three higher elements are called heaven. And the earth was void and empty. Void as concerns seeds, empty with regard to growing things. Or void may refer to the cavity, and empty to the fact that in this cavity of the earth was nothing but air and cloudiness. And darkness was upon the face of the deep. Darkness can indicate the cloud, that is, the mixture of the three elements of fire, air, and water, and the deep denotes the cavity. Another opinion is that the deep refers to the cloud and darkness to the absence of light. And the spirit of God moved over the waters. The spirit of God means His intention, which like an artisan supervised26 the formation of the work.27 The waters refers to the aforesaid cloud on account of its instability. And so the same thing is called the deep for its profundity, darkness for the absence of light, and the waters for its instability. Observe that the earth and the air did not leave their original place, as fire and water did. The reason is that human life needs earth and air everywhere: the earth to sustain it, and air to inhale and exhale the breath of life. But it does not always need the heat of fire or the humidity of water. 1:14 And God said: let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons. Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven. Here the author begins to speak about the ornamentation in the last three days, after the setting in order in the first three days.

1:1‒2

66

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

And first he treats the ornamentation of things up high.28 Just as the sun starts the day and marks it by its rising and setting, and subdivides the parts of day by its procession, and sets the day apart from the night by the splendor of its light, so the moon and the stars distinguish the night. Time is marked by the sun, which is now indispensable for the restoration of mankind. Because time is the succession of change, its presence is indispensable now so that man may from his state of imperfection attain perfection and changelessness. And when he has attained this, change will no longer be indispensable but rather become harmful, for in this state of perfection change will relapse into imperfection. And let them be for signs and for seasons, that is, for some of our enterprises, such as sowing, harvesting, navigating and so on. But they do not have so much impact on our soul that they remove our free will and drive us to certain actions, as the astrologers falsely claim. Still it is true that they govern our bodies in some way. God made three wonders of beneficial influence in creation: herbs, precious stones, and the stars. Some herbs have the power to cool down and to warm up, causing a complete change in the condition of the body. This power they received from the Lord at their creation. Precious stones too, in their own way, bring about a complete change of the body. And all the stars, the planets in particular, have specific effects through the air on bodies subsisting below them. And when the body is changed, its affinity with the soul inside causes the soul to change as well, receiving joy or sadness or other such affections from outside. But these affections do not rule the human soul to such an extent that our actions follow them rather than our discretion and free will. The latter opinion, as some venerable writers say, was first put forth by Hercules, Atlas, and Prometheus, who were incarnated demons as it is thought. They handed over the art of mathematics, at least a false version of it, which they tried to prove by some plausible ideas in order to deceive men more easily and burden them with anxiety.29 1:21‒22 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters had brought forth,30 according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. and God saw that it was good. and he blessed them, saying: increase and multiply. Living and moving creature, or changeable, as it is in Hebrew. For everything that God made for the sake of man He made for change and mortality, but man alone for immortality. Which the waters had brought forth. That is, which they brought forth after God created them. Increase, that is, multiply, so that one word explains the other.

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S



67

And God said: let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. Cattle and creeping things, and beasts. He mentions three kinds. Cattle are all domesticated animals. Creeping things come in three varieties: those that drag themselves along, those that crawl, and those that move suddenly. Those that drag themselves along are the worms, which first clamp their mouths to the ground, and then drag their body along. Those that crawl are the serpents, which have no legs on the outside of their body but do have ribs on the inside, by the simultaneous support of which they are carried forward. Those that move suddenly are the ones with legs on the outside, such as frogs, lizards, and scorpions. The wild animals are called beasts, which bring harm with their claws or teeth and by their beastly senselessness, like the wolf. 1:26‒27 And he said: let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. and God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him. Let Us make man to Our image and likeness. First it was said: In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Then it was said: Let there be light. And now in the third place it is added: Let Us make man, etc. Three progressions may be discerned in this: first, the work; second, the formative word; and third, the consultation, in that which is added here: Let Us make man, etc. The reason for introducing a consultation is not that God was unable to make something great with the same ease as something small, but to demonstrate the dignity of man’s creation;31 and also to caution us not to scorn the advice of those who are equal or even inferior to us.32 For He spoke thus to the angels, by whose service the body of man may have been made. Or better, let us accept that this was the consultation of the Trinity, where the distinction of the divine Persons is indicated by the plural verb and the unity of the divine Being by the singular that follows, namely, to Our image and likeness.33 Now let us see what is meant by image and what by likeness. An image consists in resembling features, a likeness in sharing a particular characteristic. The image of God in man may refer to the cognition of truth, and His likeness to the love of unity, because these two reside in both God and man. It is in his soul that man is made to the image of God.34 Just as the image of a thing can be perceived in a mirror, so the 1:24

68

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

soul may come to know God in its rational faculty.35 Man was made to the image, because he is not completely similar to God. The Son is the image of the Father, and not to His image, because the Son has by nature all and everything of His Father. But in man the image of God is to the image, because man does not by nature have what belongs to God, but by participation or imitation.36 Another interpretation of to the image of God: like God, man has an image of all creatures in his mind. And of to the likeness: man is like God because all people descend from one man, just as all things come from one God.37 Or image may mean that man is endowed with reason, and likeness that man rules the animals just as God rules mankind.38 Let him have dominion over the fishes, etc. Man was destined to rule everything, but by his sin lost his authority over big as well as small creatures. Yet to his comfort he retained his command over creatures of average size. Over big creatures, such as lions, man lost his rule to make him see that he had forfeited his own dignity. Over small creatures, such as fleas and mice, he lost control to make him aware of his vileness. That is why the Lord sent a swarm of wasps to take vengeance on Egypt, so that their vileness would be revealed.39 To the image of God He created him. This is emphasized to drive home that man could find his likeness to God in that which refers to God, that is, in the simplicity of his being and the versatility of his wisdom, according to the soul. 1:31 And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And they were very good. Take note of three degrees: good in the plain sense, which refers to any creature; very good, which refers to all things together; and the supreme good, which refers to God alone.40 2:4‒6 These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth; and every plant of the field before it sprang up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth. but a spring rose out of the earth, watering all the surface of the earth. These are the generations of the heaven and the earth. This recapitulation seems to contradict the preceding narration about the six days, because there the author seems to say that everything was made in six days, but here in one day. But when we understand the word day in the broad sense, as a period, our interpretation will be both truthful and

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S



69

easy. Then it will be clear that this word is used to indicate the period of the six days. The word generations may either be taken in the passive or in the active sense. In the passive sense: the heaven and earth that were generated are these, that is, like this. In the active sense: God did already work on their behalf before every plant of the field sprung up, etc. That is, God performed this work before trees and plants began to grow by reproduction, as they do now through the work of the cultivator who imitates and assists nature. Indeed in an instant He made trees that were fully grown and fruit-bearing, and likewise all other plants. Before it grew, because everything emerged at once fully grown.41 For God had not rained, etc. The reason why the growth of things was not brought about by the work of nature or the cultivator is here revealed: God had not rained. When it is fertilized by rain, the earth will bring forth through the addition of warmth, which is the work of nature. And there was not a man, that is, a farmer, to cultivate the earth. But a spring rose up, or to put it differently: it had not rained, but a spring rose up. In other words, although the trees and herbs that were created had no rain to help them grow, they did have the spring to save them from dehydration. This spring may be seen as the abyss, the source of all waters, from which all water springs and rivers originate. Or you may take the singular for the plural, to make the word spring indicate more springs. The spring rose up and irrigated the whole surface. It did not cause a flood, but just as now supplied moisture to water the earth. It is believed that the water of a river does not only moisten and irrigate the land closest to the banks, but all the surrounding land to a distance of twelve or sixteen furlongs through underground channels.42 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life. And the Lord God formed man, etc. Because there was not a man to cultivate the earth, He formed, etc. Here the author calls God for the first time Lord, because He became a true Lord when He acquired a servant, that is, man. He makes no mention of angels, but focuses as an historian on visible things. He says that man, that is, the human body, was formed from mud, which is sticky earth. This is an indication that man was made for mortality, that is, could die. Or it may be a reminder for man to consider his vileness and to follow the way of humility. And breathed, namely, into the body He had prepared, the breath of life. In particular into his face, because there the inner life is revealed in the bodily senses. And by someone’s face we can see more clearly than by other parts if he is alive or dead.43

70

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed. And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning. Not before He created heaven and earth, as Jerome seems to think,44 but in the time of the foundation, namely, on the third day. Wherein He placed man. God chose to make man outside of paradise, to make him understand that he was placed in paradise not by nature but by grace.45 2:9 And the Lord God brought forth of the ground all manner of trees, fair to behold, and pleasant to eat of: the tree of life also in the midst of paradise: and the tree of know­ ledge of good and evil. The tree of life. It is said that the two trees, namely, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, were in the midst of paradise in view of the great mysteries to which they refer. And they have these names for various reasons. The tree of life is so called because it had the power to prolong man’s life if he would eat from it in proper fashion. For man was made both mortal and immortal: immortal in the sense that he could have averted death by taking the necessary nutrition, mortal in the sense that he could perish by violence from without. But God strengthened him from within by giving the tree of life for his food, and from without by divine power so that he could avert death. On the inside He locked the door of negligence by man’s rational faculty, and on the outside He locked the door of violence by divine protection. In this way, no harm would enter through the door of violence, unless man should abuse his rational faculty and open the door of negligence. But because he did not want to look out for himself and guard the door entrusted to him, it was just that God gave up His protection of the door of violence.46 Now the tree of knowledge is so called not on account of its inner quality, but because through it would be revealed whether man was good or evil, that is, obedient or disobedient; or because by obedience toward this tree man would attain the good that awaited him, while by disobedience he would run into the evil of which God had warned him; or because through this tree he got to know both good and evil by experience.47 Concerning the great mysteries for which these trees were placed in the middle of paradise, you may thus assume the following: the tree of life was given to man to sustain his temporal life, and through the tree of knowledge man could attain eternal life if he was obedient. 2:10 And a river went out of the place of pleasure to water paradise, which from thence is divided into four heads. And a river went out. This is the aforesaid spring, or a river springing from 2:8

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S



71

it, which first was one and then split into four streams. Out of the place of pleasure, that is, paradise. It did not spring forth there to go out immediately to other places, but it went out to irrigate paradise. Which from thence is divided. Either in paradise itself, having flowed for a while as one, or after going out of paradise. The question is raised how these rivers sprang up in paradise while they have well-known springs on our earth, as Bede says.48 For this reason, some commentators say the entire earth would have been a paradise had man not sinned, but all of it became a place of exile through sin. Although this may be considered plausible, we maintain nothing else than the doctrine accepted among our venerable writers, namely, that paradise is a separate place somewhere on earth; and that the four rivers have their source in paradise, and are absorbed there by the earth, and then outside of paradise spring up again. And it is these secondary springs that are known to us. 2:16 And he commanded him, saying: of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. And He commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise, etc. It is here that He gives the commandment by which He would protect paradise if man observed it. And the only commandment is: Of the tree of knowledge thou shalt not eat. The preceding words, Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat, are a permission. So first He soothes by permitting, and then He speaks more severely by prohibiting. The question is raised why God, without any commandment, did not give man the good He was to give him; and why He permitted so much and prohibited only one thing; and why He did not rather command than prohibit the eating, which would have been easier for man while yielding an equal obedience to his merit. Now the commandment was given so that man by merit of his obedience would attain the good in a more glorious way. And much was permitted to make allowances for man’s weakness, and to give him no excuse for his disobedience. God did not give a commandment to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil so that man’s obedience would be unambiguous. For the devil would have found reason to say that man ate from the tree not on account of the commandment, but for his own advantage.49 2:18 And the Lord God said: it is not good for man to be alone: let Us make him a help like unto himself. Let Us make him a help like unto himself. For he already had many helpers, but all were unlike him.

72

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature, the same is its name. And brought them to Adam, etc.: either on the sixth day, as the order of the narrative seems to suggest, or much later, perhaps when he was seeing various animals in various places. The reason they were brought to Adam was that he was going to be lord over them all, wherefore it suited him to give them the names of his choice. 2:21 Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. Then He cast a deep sleep upon Adam. This was done so that God, if He removed the rib while he was awake, might not appear to injure him. But now He took the rib so gently that Adam did not even wake from his sleep.50 Whether Adam had more ribs in the side from which the rib was taken than in the other; and if so, whether he had an excessive part before it was taken; and if not, whether he became defective afterwards: all these are foolish questions. For neither are the teeth of children called excessive even though they will later change, nor are children regarded as defective when they do not yet have their natural growth. It is better to consider that the part from which the woman was made was neither taken from the head nor from the feet of the man, so that she would neither be seen as his mistress if taken from the head, nor as his slave if taken from the feet. Therefore it was suitable that she, that is, the rib, was taken from the middle, so that she would be regarded as his companion.51 The question is raised whether the woman was made from the rib with the addition of external matter, or only from the rib; and some say there was an addition. But if God took external matter to build the woman from the rib, Scripture should rather have said that she was made from that which provided the greater part of her substance, as this additional matter was greater than the rib. So it remains for us to say that this rib expanded in itself and that the woman was formed from it without any external addition.52 It was greater to make everything from nothing than to expand something small in itself, as we also say about the five loaves of bread in the Gospel.53 And filled up flesh for it, so that the cavity would not disgrace him if it remained completely empty. On the other hand, if one rib would grow back for the other, no sign of the removed rib would be left to indicate that there is only one beginning of all mankind. So for this

2:19

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S



73

reason the sign was preserved, just as the wounds of Christ were in his victory. 2:24 Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. Wherefore a man shall leave, etc. Only two persons are excluded [from intercourse] in paradise, namely a father from having intercourse with his daughter or a son with his mother. The Law of Moses excludes ten persons and the Gospel everyone up to the seventh degree.54 What does it mean when it is said: He shall leave? Perhaps that he does something first and then leaves it? Surely not. Rather, he shall leave means that he shall never be attached to her in the carnal sense. Nor should it be thought that a man has to give up all family life and love, but only the special kind of love he should reserve for his wife. What he also leaves behind is his father’s rule and protection, from which he is now emancipated. In this way he himself becomes head of the household, and is ready to look after his own family. And they shall be two in one flesh. That is, the love between man and woman will be so strong that the spirit of neither will see any difference between the body it animates and the body it loves, and would gladly inhabit one and the same body if possible. And because they cannot create this unity in reality, they create unity in their love, something they can do. In one flesh may also mean that they will jointly bring about the generation of one flesh, that is, offspring.55 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. and he said to the woman: why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? Now the serpent, etc. He was permitted to tempt man, because otherwise it would not have been glorious had man stood firm.56 Observe that man was not tempted by some innocent animal like a dove or a lamb. In this way he had no excuse for his transgression saying: Who would suspect any evil inside such a lovely appearance?57 Why hath God commanded you? In a subtle way he feigns to doubt the prohibiting commandment, and thereby causes the woman to doubt as well. And he also suggests that God by prohibiting the fruit from such a good tree did not love them as much as He should. 3:3‒4 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. and the serpent said to the woman: no, you shall not die the death. Lest perhaps we die. Take note: The Lord affirmed by saying: Thou shalt

74

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

die the death. The woman doubted by saying: Lest perhaps we die. So now the devil hopes to realize his plan by saying as a true adversary: No, you shall not die the death.58 3:5‒6 For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. and the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband, who did eat. Your eyes shall be opened. The devil promises her divine knowledge, by which God comprehends the essence of all things in one perfect glance. And you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. Two things he promises her, dignity and abundance, in order to persuade her to one thing, the eating of the apple. By the two things he promises, he seduces her to pride and greed. Thus inflamed by doubt she wavered between the devil’s promise and God’s prohibition. And when she observed the tree she was so overcome with gluttony that she was persuaded to eat from the tree by the mere sight of it, apart from the devil’s promises.59 And deservedly so, for he that is filthy, let him be filthy still.60 Yet the eating of the apple is called the first sin, but with reference to the action, because it was preceded by pride and greed. 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons. And the eyes of them both were opened, not in the sense that they saw something they had not seen before, but because with their eyes they perceived and realized that something had changed. And when they perceived themselves to be naked, that is, when they noticed that their nakedness bothered them on account of a forbidden urge they could not suppress, they wanted to cover the parts where they felt this urge.61 It was just that the Lord gave this punishment to man, because if man’s reason did not show obedience to its superior, that is, God, reason would not be obeyed by its inferior, that is, the flesh. Through God’s compassion, however, it was so ordered that all parts of the body move or stand still at the command of reason, while only one part does not listen to reason as a sign of man’s transgression, namely, the genitalia. Because the entire propagation of mankind would pass through this part, the sign of the parents’ disobedience is inscribed on it, as though on a gate, by the disobedience inflicted on the members. Fig leaves. Because of this some commentators think the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a fig tree.62 And also because the Lord

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S

3:8

3:9‒10

3:11

3:12‒13

3:14



75

says to Nathanael in the Gospel: Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.63 And when they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise at the afternoon air, Adam and his wife hid themselves. The voice of the Lord walking. Note how great God’s compassion is: He does not want to confront them suddenly with their fault, lest they lose their respect and become shameless and stubborn. Instead, He gives them time for repentance and consideration, and walks around to make them hear and remember Him. And the Lord God called Adam, and said to him: where art thou? and he said: I heard thy voice in paradise; and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself. Adam, where art thou? This question is asked either with reproach or with compassion.64 Because I was naked. See how stupid he acts by adducing to his excuse what rather adds to his accusation. Thus he is convicted of his sin with the apple rather than excused. And he said to him: and who hath told thee that thou wast naked? Who hath told thee? It is as if He says: You sought to excuse yourself by your nakedness, but rather you are accused by it. For it indicates that wickedness and sin preceded in you. And this is indeed what it indicates, because what else than your wickedness has told you that you were naked? And Adam said: the woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat. and the Lord God said to the woman: why hast thou done this? and she answered: the serpent deceived me, and I did eat. The woman, whom Thou gavest me, etc. Convicted of his deed he shifts the crime onto the woman, just as the woman shifts it onto the serpent, so that both cast back the blame upon God the Creator.65 And the Lord God said to the serpent: because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth. Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed. He does not immediately pass judgment on man’s sin, but gives him time to consider his predicament and to repent. But on the devil He does pass immediate judgment, because he had sinned against Him before and had now driven man to sin. So the devil received most of the blame and obtained the liberty to lead all men that would ever be into temptation, which would, however, only add to his defeat. Even as Lucifer alone elevated himself, so all other demons conspiring with him fell just as he did. And while it was Lucifer alone who deceived the woman

76

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

in the guise of a serpent, all other demons conspiring with him received the same curse as he did. The serpent itself was not cursed, however, but the devil hiding in the serpent. Because he had put on this guise like a cloak, he is called by this name, albeit in a mocking sense. Likewise a thief who puts on the clothes of a monk to perpetrate his theft among the monks in secrecy will mockingly be called a monk when caught in the act, on account of his clothes. By calling the devil a serpent, He attributes to him the qualities of a serpent, which is a metaphorical narrative.66 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. I will put enmities between thee, etc. This indicates that Eve had recovered her senses and repented, which the devil lamented. It is as if He says: You were delighted to have cast her down, but in vain, because by a woman you shall be67 conquered. Thy seed, etc. The seed of the devil refers to the other demons. The seed of woman indicates all other people, some of whom would be holy and would crush the head, that is, the pride of the devil in man’s downfall. And thou shalt lie in wait for her heel, that is, you will always follow her trail to deceive her. 3:16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee. I will multiply thy sorrows, as compared to the sorrows of man. And thy conceptions. This does not seem to be a curse but rather a blessing. In fact, it is the barren woman who is cursed in the Law of Moses.68 But these words refer to the sorrows of childbirth, either because of the uselessness of all conceptions without birth, or because even after birth children would die, or because not all were predestined to eternal life as they would have been had she not sinned. In sorrow shalt thou bring forth, etc. This sorrow is greater than all others. And thou shalt be under thy husband’s power. Not just under his rule, as before, but under his violent domination where he will strike you with wounds.69 3:17‒18 And to Adam he said: because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee, that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work: with labor and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. Cursed is

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S

3:20

3:21

3:22‒23

3:24



77

the earth. It will not by itself bear fruit for your sustenance, nor will it always reward the labor you invest. Thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. Earlier He had said: Behold I have given you every green herb and every fruit-bearing tree for your food. There He gave man herbs to use for the animals, and the fruit-bearing trees for his own food. But here He gives man herbs, that is, the fodder of animals, for food by way of a curse. And Adam called the name of his wife Eve: because she was the mother of all the living. She was the mother of all the living, that is, was to be. And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of skins, and clothed them. And He made them garments of skins, either from the elements through the assistance of the angels, or He taught man to make them by skinning animals.70 And he said: behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now therefore lest perhaps he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever. and the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure. Behold Adam is become as one of us. This is mockery, recalling man’s stupid confidence in the words of the serpent: You shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.71 And although Eve alone and not Adam believed this, he is still charged with it as her master and teacher. Such mockery is sometimes made as a just reward for its victim, as in the present case, and sometimes by the wickedness of him who makes it.72 And it is a sarcastic figure of speech. Now therefore lest perhaps he put forth his hand, etc. This suggests that even after his sin man could become immortal if he ate from the tree. It is also an elliptical expression.73 What is left out is revealed by the narrator where he adds: And the Lord God sent him, etc., which shows what was omitted above: Let us send him out of the paradise. And so the addition was made: And the Lord God sent him, etc. And he cast out Adam: and placed before the paradise of pleasure cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way. Because both man and the devil sinned in paradise, both were cast out. And to prevent either of them from reentering, a guard and obstacle was put in place against both: the cherubim to ward off the devil, and the fire to keep man out. Another thing to note is what one reads in the Life of St Nicholas, namely, that God makes or has made a kind of fire to which one may hold his hand and feel the heat without being burned. And this fire has the power

78

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

to consume the spirit without needing matter to burn on, which also applies to the fire in the solar sphere.74 But the fire we know does need matter and burns the body alone. 4:2‒4 And Abel was a shepherd, and Cain a husbandman. and it came to pass after many days, that Cain offered, of the fruits of the earth, gifts to the lord. Abel also offered of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat: and the lord had respect to Abel, and to his offerings. And Abel was a shepherd, etc. The author touches briefly upon the things he does not need to elaborate. Cain offered of the fruits of the earth. We believe that God taught Adam the holy rites by which he could regain the divine benevolence he had lost by the sin of transgression, and that Adam instructed his sons as to the offering of tithes and first fruits.75 The Lord had respect to Abel, etc. It is commonly accepted that God used to help the ancient fathers at their sacrifices by sending fire from heaven upon the offerings of those who pleased Him.76 And that the offerings themselves did not please Him, but rather the merit of him who offered, is indicated by the fact that He had respect for Abel before having respect for his offering.77 4:7 If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it. Shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? Something can be said to be present at the door in two ways: either to enter, or to go out.78 The same may be understood here with reference to sin. The sin that is at the door to enter means that after an evil thought the occasion to sin presents itself. And this is a just reward for man’s evil will, and is rightly held against him in God’s judgment. Indeed the good or evil deeds of man are called his good or evil will, because the will of man is free to choose between one or the other, without any external incitement. Now the sin that is at the door to go out is the evil will, which cannot remain hidden but has to come out and reveal itself in some sign. But the lust thereof shall be under thee, that is, it is in your power to ward off the evil on the inside as well as the occasion to sin on the outside.79 4:9‒10 And the lord said to Cain: where is thy brother Abel? And he answered: I know not: am I my brother’s keeper? And he said to him: what hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth to me from the earth. Where is thy brother Abel? Under all circumstances does the Lord ask our confession to give our free will no excuse. The voice of the blood, etc. It calls out because it is in need of revenge.80

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S



79

When thou shalt till it, it shall not yield to thee its fruit: a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be upon the earth. And Cain said to the lord: my iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon. Behold thou dost cast me out this day from the face of the earth, and from thy face I shall be hid, and I shall be a vagabond and a fugitive on the earth: every one therefore that findeth me, shall kill me. And the lord said to him: no, it shall not be so: but whosoever shall kill cain, shall be punished sevenfold. And the lord set a mark upon Cain, that whosoever found him should not kill him. A fugitive because he wandered from home, and a vagabond out of fear. My iniquity is greater. See how his sinfulness keeps growing. First he commits fratricide, then he tries to conceal the deed by falsely denying it, and now that he is convicted of his crime he gives up all hope.81 From the face of the earth, and from Thy face. He thinks all human consolation is taken from him, that is, the goodness of his fellow men and communication with God. Whosoever shall kill Cain, by his own evil intent, because I want him punished sevenfold. That is, may punishment concerning you be inflicted temporally. Another interpretation: Let Cain’s murderer be punished manifold times82 on account of the prohibition of murder announced by God, which was not announced to Cain. A mark upon Cain, namely, a tremor of the limbs as seen in a fanatic, that is, one stricken with madness.83 In this way he would deserve man’s pity, because he was afflicted and sent into exile by the wrath of God. 4:17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and brought forth Henoch. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and brought forth. Only after the first sin is mention made of men having intercourse with their wives, and of wives conceiving and giving birth. This indicates on the one hand that all children were born as sinners, while on the other hand all descendants from Cain were sinners on account of their own actions. 4:23‒24 And Lamech said to his wives Ada and Sella: hear my voice, ye wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech: for I have slain a man to the wounding of myself, and a stripling to my own bruising. sevenfold vengeance shall be taken for Cain: but for Lamech seventy times sevenfold. I have slain a man to the wounding of myself. According to an ancient Hebrew tradition Lamech was blind, but still practiced hunting by using a special tool, namely, a bow that could not miss. When he drew back the bow and stretched 4:12‒15

80

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

the string, any animal he aimed at would be hit. If it is asked why they hunted, since the eating of meat was not permitted before the Flood,84 we say it was for the hides of animals from which they made shoes and clothes. So one day when Lamech and the boy guiding him were busy hunting and Cain in his madness was running all over the place, Lamech, following the instructions of his guide, killed Cain. Enraged by this, he killed the boy who had guided him.85 And so he mourned with his wives over both killings saying: I have slain a man, etc. Sevenfold vengeance, etc. It is as if he says: Cain was heavily punished, but Lamech shall be punished even more. There is yet another opinion on Lamech’s lament. Some say the two wives of Lamech continuously harassed him, and did so for no reason. Enraged by this, he summoned them one day and spoke the following words to them: Hear ye wives of Lamech, etc. I have slain a man; or did I perhaps commit another crime for which I deserve to be treated like this? Surely sevenfold vengeance shall be taken for Cain, that is, great punishment shall be suffered by his killer, but still greater punishment shall be inflicted on you on my behalf.86 4:26 But to Seth also was born a son, whom he called Enos: this man began to call upon the name of the lord. This man began to call upon the name of the Lord, by creating new rites and prayers to invoke God specifically, or images to represent God and incite more love for Him.87 5:1‒3 This is the book of the generation of Adam. in the day that God created man, he made him to the likeness of God. He created them male and female; and blessed them; and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. and Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. This is the book of the generation, etc. The reason for this recapitulation is to show that after the rejection of Cain’s descendants the propagation of mankind would occur through Seth. And called their name Adam. First He gave them the common name of Adam, and then only the man received it as his proper name.88 And begot a son to his own likeness: one mortal begot another mortal,89 one body begot another body, but one soul did not beget another soul. 5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying: this same shall comfort us from the works and labors of our hands on the earth, which the lord hath cursed. This same shall comfort us from the works and labors of our hands, etc. This is a prophecy, where works

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S

5:31

6:2

6:3

6:4

6:5‒7



81

indicate the sins90 and labors the punishment of sins. Another interpretation of he shall comfort us is that after mankind was destroyed by the Flood it would be restored through him.91 And this flood was inflicted by divine vengeance on account of the works and labors of our hands. On the earth, which the Lord hath cursed, when he spoke to Adam saying: Cursed is the earth in thy work.92 And Noah, when he was five hundred years old, begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Noah, when he was five hundred years old, begot, that is, began to beget, for he did not beget his three sons at once, but one after the other. The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose. The sons of God seeing, etc. In Hebrew this is the sons of angels, either good or fallen angels, who according to some had intercourse with women and brought forth very strong and large men.93 And God said: my spirit shall not remain in man forever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. My spirit shall not remain forever, namely, the spirit I gave to vivify man, or the soul. Because he is flesh. The whole man, namely it weighs down the whole man and degrades his spirit to an animal nature, while he should rather elevate his flesh to a spitirual nature. A hundred and twenty years. Just as God threatened Hezekiah with instant death, but postponed his death when he repented,94 so He granted mankind a time of a hundred and twenty years to repent. But when they grew more evil by this concession, the time granted was shortened.95 It should not be thought that God’s design changed in any aspect, but only His verdict. Likewise there is no conflict between what God says in general: My spirit shall not remain forever, and the fact that Noah as the eighth person96 was saved by God’s mercy. He threatens in general, but in His mercifulness punishes in part. Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men from the world,97 men of renown. Now giants were upon the earth. The enormity of their body parts symbolizes the pride of their souls. The mighty men from the world, that is, in worldly things, or mightier than were seen from the beginning of the world. And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, it repented him that he had made man

82

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart, he said: I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts. And God seeing that the wickedness of man was great, etc. This is emphasized and repeated to indicate that God’s patience could not lightly be provoked to such a destruction of mankind, without having a very just cause. It repented Him that He had made man. He was sorry to see a change in that which seemed to have begun in paradise, where He gave man a warning for the future saying: Increase and multiply and fill the earth.98 It was not so that He from whom nothing is hidden lacked foresight and came to a view He had not had before. But the precaution of Him who prohibits has to be answered by the precaution of the one receiving the prohibition, who should take care to avoid what is forbidden. Touched with sorrow of heart. Remember that no sorrow is greater than that over lost love. Thus we say when we lose something we do not care for: It does not touch our heart. For the deeper the love is, the heavier the sorrow will strike. Here indeed the destruction of something beloved is treated, and so it is rightly said that there was great sorrow. From men even to beasts. This indicates how great God’s wrath is, stretching from great to small and from the depths to the heights. 6:9‒11 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just and perfect man in his generations; he walked with God. And he begot three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. and the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. These are the generations of Noah, that is, the sons about whom he had already spoken. He mentions them once more and then adds: And the earth was corrupted before God,99 etc. All this is recapitulated and emphasized to demonstrate the growth of man’s crime and the just wrath of the Avenger. What he says, before God, refers to100 the person of a judge. And it indicates that God knows like a judge, who is assumed to know nothing until it is proven before him. Although he may know it in itself, he does not know it in relation to his verdict. This crime, however, was so apparent that it did not need to be proved. Before God may also indicate that He noticed their sins. In fact, they sinned so heedlessly that they did not even realize they were sinning. 6:13 He said to Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth. The end of all flesh, etc. In retribution for the universality of sin the punishment was given to all in common, but was partly reduced out of compassion.

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S



83

And thus shalt thou make it. The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits: the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. Thou shalt make a window in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish the top of it: and the door of the ark thou shalt set in the side: with lower, middle chambers, and third stories shalt thou make it. Three hundred cubits. The normal cubit measures a foot and a half. Here, however, Moses uses the geometrical cubit, which he had learned in Egypt, and which measures nine full cubits.101 Therefore it is certain that the magnitude of the ark was sufficient to receive all the animals that came to it. There are various issues concerning the construction of the ark: whether it was wide at the base and ever slanting toward the top, or whether its sides went up straight, or whether above they stood even more apart than below, and what size the roof was that topped the ark.102 Middle chambers (coenacula). The word is derived from coena, “supper,” and indicates terraces. Third stories (tristega). These were rows of three compartments that ran lengthwise through the lodgings. The word comes from tris, “three,” and stega, “deck,” which is the place where one could stand on the vessel. 6:19 And of every living creature of all flesh, thou shalt bring two of a sort into the ark, that they may live with thee: of the male sex, and the female. Thou shalt bring two of a sort into the ark. This refers to the equality of male and female.103 7:2‒3 Of all clean beasts take seven and seven, the male and the female. But of the beasts that are unclean two and two, the male and the female. Take seven and seven. This means seven, male or female, and not fourteen. Similarly, two of each unclean sort, and not four.104 7:11‒12 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the floodgates of heaven were opened: and the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. All the fountains of the great deep were broken up, etc. It is asked whether the Flood was caused only by the water on earth, or whether air and the other elements were changed into water in the form of rain or mist, from which the Flood was made. This is indeed debatable, as is the question whether the evaporation by which water goes upward to cool the higher spheres diminishes the water down below or not. And the floodgates of heaven were opened. Some commentators think the firmament was opened,

6:15‒16

84

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

and that the waters above the heavens came down as rain. But this is also debatable. 8:1 And God remembered Noah, and all the living creatures, and all the cattle which were with him in the ark. And God remembered Noah, as regards His work, not in His love. He seemed to have forgotten him because He had left him in danger for so long. But now it is said that He remembered because He liberated him. 8:3‒5 And the waters returned from off the earth going and coming: and they began to be abated after a hundred and fifty days. And the ark rested in the seventh month, the seven and twentieth day of the month, upon the mountains of Armenia. and the waters were going and decreasing until the tenth month: for in the tenth month, the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared. After a hundred and fifty days, counting from Noah’s entry into the ark. This was on the first day of the sixth month of the Flood, because one hundred and fifty days equals five months. And this day was also the eighteenth day of the seventh month of the year.105 And the ark rested in the seventh month, the seven and twentieth day. This day was the twentieth day106 of the ninth month of the year, not of the Flood. For in the tenth month, of the Flood, on the first day of the month, which was the eighteenth day of the ninth month,107 the tops of the mountains appeared. 8:6‒11 And after that forty days were passed, Noah, opening the window of the ark, which he had made, sent forth a raven: which went forth and did not return, till the waters were dried up upon the earth. He sent forth also a dove after him, to see if the waters had now ceased upon the face of the earth. But she, not finding where her foot might rest, returned to him into the ark: for the waters were upon the whole earth: and he put forth his hand, and caught her, and brought her into the ark. And having waited yet seven other days, he again sent forth the dove out of the ark. And she came to him in the evening carrying a bough of an olive tree, with green leaves, in her mouth. And after that forty days were passed, that is, after the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month, Noah sent forth a raven, etc. He sent forth also a dove, etc., namely, when seven days had passed after sending out the raven. This may also be inferred from what is said the second time he sent out the dove: Having waited yet seven other days, that is, after the first time. And she came to him in the evening, namely, on the nineteenth day of the first month

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S



85

of the six hundred and first year. Counting from the beginning of the Flood, this was the second day of the twelfth month, which was forty days108 less. Yet he waited seven more days, to complete the ninth day of the twelfth month of the Flood and the twenty-fifth109 day of his six hundred and first year. 8:13‒14 Therefore in the six hundredth and first year, the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were lessened upon the earth, and Noah opening the covering of the ark, looked, and saw that the face of the earth was dried. in the second month, the seven and twentieth day of the month, the earth was dried. Therefore in the six hundredth and first year, etc. What is introduced here in the order of the narrative cannot have followed this sequence in the order of events. Let us therefore assume that the things that were first omitted in the narrative are now told in retrospect.110 Now if someone makes the objection that on the first day of the six hundredth and first year Noah saw the face of the earth dried, while we said before that on the nineteenth day of the first month the dove brought back a branch, and that it could not find a place to rest its feet when it was sent out eight days earlier, that is, on the twelfth day of this month, he should know that a dove cannot by nature rest its feet in mud.111 And that the earth is called dried here is not because all water had disappeared, but because the force of the waters had subsided and water remained only in muddy pools. And so it says that the earth was dried in the second month, which is more.112 9:2‒5 And let the fear and dread of you be upon all the beasts of the earth, and upon all the fowls of the air, and all that move upon the earth: all the fishes of the sea are delivered into your hand. And every thing that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you: saving that flesh with blood you shall not eat. For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of every beast, and at the hand of man, at the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man. Let the fear and dread of you be upon all the beasts of the earth. Not even the lion is so violent that it does not fear man, unless it is provoked. It shall be meat for you. This shows that mankind was not destroyed by the Flood on account of the eating of meat. So it is not the food that is censured, but the excessive consumption of it.

86

9:15

9:18

9:22

9:25‒26

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

Flesh with blood you shall not eat. Because the consumption of the blood of allowed meat is so explicitly forbidden, this prohibition is a sign to make them understand that they should abstain from spilling the blood of human flesh, which they are not allowed to eat. And that this is how the prohibition should be understood is shown by the addition: The blood of your lives, etc. So the latter is the actual prohibition of murder through the penalty that is threatened, while the former is a prohibition that somehow supports the latter’s fulfillment. For if beasts are subject to punishment and revenge when they spill human blood not by wickedness but by their bestial and irrational nature, how much more does man, who is endowed with reason, need punishment when he spills the blood of another man! I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of every beast, so that the entire substance of man will be given back to him at the Resurrection, even if it had first been transformed into the substance of a beast that devoured him. And at the hand of man. In two ways: either by returning his substance, or by demanding his revenge.113 And I will remember my covenant with you, and with every living soul that beareth flesh: and there shall no more be waters of a flood to destroy all flesh. I will remember my covenant, that is, I will make you remember, so that you shall have trust and no fear of perishing by another flood. And the sons of Noah, who came out of the ark, were Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. And Ham is the father of Canaan. The reason to mention this in advance is that Noah was about to curse his grandson Canaan for the sin of Ham, the father of this Canaan.114 Which when ham the father of Canaan had seen, to wit, that his father’s nakedness was uncovered, he told it to his two brethren without. That his father’s nakedness was uncovered. This indicates that the men of old did not wear breeches. He told it to his two brethren. This shows how great the wickedness of Ham was: it was not enough for him to have seen it by himself, without involving others in his impudence. He said: cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. and he said: blessed be the Lord God of Shem,115 be Canaan his servant. Cursed be Canaan. It is as if he says: Just as I have no joy in you, my son, so you shall find no joy in your son. And he delivers the curse where there is usually the greatest happiness. For parents rejoice in particular over their sons. Blessed be the Lord God

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S



87

of Shem. He does not bless Shem, but his God, to make us understand that all our good is to be ascribed not to ourselves but to God. 10:1 These are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them sons were born after the flood. These are the generations of Noah. The generations that follow include seventy-two patriarchs, peoples, and languages: fourteen sons of Japheth, twenty-seven sons of Shem, and thirty-one sons of Ham, which total seventy-two sons or peoples. 10:5 By these were divided the islands of the gentiles in their lands, every one according to his tongue and their families in their nations. By these were divided the islands. After the confusion of tongues the earth was divided as follows: The sons of Japheth acquired the northern part of Asia, and the whole of Europe. The sons of Ham obtained the southern part of Asia, and the whole of Africa. And the central part of Asia, which is greater than Europe and Africa, was occupied by the sons of Shem.116 10:8‒14 Now Chus begot Nimrod: he began to be mighty on the earth. And he was a stout hunter before the lord. Hence came a proverb: even as Nimrod the stout hunter before the lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar. out of that land came forth Asshur, and built Nineveh, and the streets of the city, and Calah. Resen also between Nineveh and Calah: this is the great city. And Mizraim begot Ludim, and Anamim and Lehabim, Naphtuhim, and Pathrusim, and Casluhim; of whom came forth the Philistines, and the Caphtorim. He began to be mighty on the earth. This Nimrod, who surpassed other men in physical size and strength, began to rule over them with violence. He coerced them into idolatry and made them worship fire as their god. For he saw that the influence of the sun, which has a fiery nature, brought great advantages to the earth. This heresy was later adopted by the Chaldeans. Nimrod did manifold injustice to both God and man. While God alone should have ruled over mankind, Nimrod stole this privilege when he put himself in God’s place and led man into ignorance by expropriating the worship due to God. To man he did injustice because he oppressed him by his unjust rule and seduced him into error by his deceit. It was by Nimrod’s deliberation and command that the tower of Babel was built, in which he was assisted voluntarily by his sinful conspirators, but only through compulsion by righteous men like Shem, Eber, and other good men. The book of Genesis gives the following reason why

88

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

men built this tower. Before they would be scattered over various lands they wished to create something glorious as a monument for their descendants.117 Others say they made it to protect themselves against a second flood, so that God could not harm them should He wish to punish mankind again with a flood. Another opinion is that Nimrod built this tower out of his lust for power.118 After the confusion of tongues Nimrod and his family stayed in that place, while others departed. But Asshur was expelled, although by hereditary law the abiding fell to him as descendant of the oldest son Shem. Now Asshur departed to the land that was later called Assyria after him, and begot offspring until Ninus, who was born in his lineage. This Ninus founded a city and won the battle against Ham, who had lived until that time. Ham had become king of Bactria and was the neighboring ruler to Ninus. He was also known as Zoroaster, the inventor and author of the wicked art of mathematics, who inscribed the seven liberal arts on fourteen columns, seven of bronze and seven of brick, to provide a protection against both floods to the benefit of his descendants. Upon winning the victory, Ninus burnt Zoroaster’s books of mathematics. He then became more audacious and invaded the land of Nimrod, that is, the Chaldeans, and acquired Babylon, which he made the capital of his empire.119 That is why the following text says: Out of that land came forth Asshur. That Nimrod is called a hunter is the same as saying: He confined his fellow men as strictly as a hunter does animals. This corresponds to the proverb that is usually construed as follows: You are as cruel as Nimrod the stout hunter, etc. This is the great city. This refers to Nineveh.120 Of whom came forth the Philistines, and the Caphtorim. These are peoples that departed from them not after but before the confusion of tongues, when the peoples would separate according to their own language. Otherwise there would not be seventy-two languages. We cannot say that these were proper names, because the book of Genesis does not tell us whose sons they were. 10:19 And the limits of Canaan were from Sidon as one comes to Gerara even to Gaza, until thou enter Sodom and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboiim even to Lasha. And the limits of Canaan, etc. Speaking to his people, the author Moses thus defines the boundaries of the land of Canaan, which they would acquire by God’s promise. 10:24 But Arpachshad begot Shelah, of whom was born Eber. But Arphachshad begot Shelah. Observe that according to Luke Arphachshad had a son named Cainan, who is mentioned before Shelah in the

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S



89

genealogy of Christ.121 Unless we add this Cainan to the number of the others, we will not get a total of seventy-two. 10:32 These are the families of Noah, according to their people and nations. by these were the nations divided on the earth after the flood. These are the families of Noah. He refers once again in general terms to the descendants of Noah, to move on to the confusion of tongues through the tower of Babel. Take note that all the patriarchs descending from the three sons of Noah as well as others that were mentioned had certain unnamed sons besides the ones listed in the book of Genesis. And these unnamed sons stayed behind in the families of their fathers, while the sons that were named set up their own families apart from the families of their fathers. 11:28 And Haran died before Terah his father, in the land of his nativity in Ur of the Chaldeans. And Haran died before Terah his father. This means either that he died in front of his father, when he was put in the fire he refused to worship, or that he died earlier than his father.122 12:13 Say, therefore, I pray thee, that thou art my sister: that I may be well used for thee, and that my soul may live for thy sake. Say, therefore, I pray thee, that thou art my sister. The question is raised why such a righteous man would by lying want to risk the death of his soul in order to save the life of his body. Or why he looked after his own life but disregarded the chastity of his wife, as if God could not safeguard both his life and his wife’s chastity.123 But it is certain that he did not lie, because she was indeed his sister.124 Moreover, if a word or sign is produced to indicate something that is not so, and if this is done not by deceit but to a certain purpose or in order to correct or rebuke, it is not called a lie. Similarly, the Lord Himself made as though He would go farther when He was with Cleopas and another disciple.125 Yet His intention was not to leave them but to be held back, so that He could rebuke and encourage them. Again, when the prophet Elisha was besieged, he told those looking for him that he was not the one they wanted. He promised to guide them to the right one, but then led them straight into the hands of their enemies, which they had deserved before God.126 He was the messenger of God’s will and not of his own. So he cannot be accused of lying, just as little as someone reporting the words of another. Or we may conclude that Abraham did lie because he was only human. This is no wonder, for men do not always speak the truth. Did not the blessed Peter lie at the passion of Christ from fear of death?127 But let us be aware that the fall

90

12:17

12:20

13:4

13:9

13:15

14:1‒2

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

of these holy men, when it happens and God permits, is set before our eyes in the hope of our recovery. But the lord scourged Pharaoh and his house with most grievous stripes for Sarai, Abram’s wife. But the Lord scourged Pharaoh, namely, with infertility. For the Lord had closed up all of Pharaoh’s wives as well as their sisters, so that they would not conceive.128 And Pharaoh gave his men orders concerning Abram: and they led him away and his wife, and all that he had. And Pharaoh gave his men orders concerning Abram, namely, to give him a safe conduct and let him move all of his possessions without anyone hurting him. In the place of the altar which he had made before, and there he called upon the name of the lord. And there he called upon the name of the Lord. This may be understood in two ways: that he called upon the Lord when he had finished the altar, or at the present moment in the narrative.129 Behold the whole land is before thee: depart from me, I pray thee: if thou wilt go to the left hand, I will take the right: if thou choose the right hand, I will pass to the left. If thou wilt go to the left hand. By giving the choice to him, Abraham is playing on Lot’s emotions, lest Lot should think that Abraham wished to leave him in order to acquire and retain the best part of the land for himself. All the land which thou seest, I will give to thee, and to thy seed forever. I will give to thee, and to thy seed, that is, to you in your seed, not to you personally. Forever: Not that they would possess it continuously from that time on, but because no moment is mentioned when it would be lost or taken away. In the same manner, Melchizedek is said to have no father or mother for the sole reason that Scripture does not mention them.130 And it came to pass at that time, that Amraphel, king of Shinar, and Arioch, king of Pontus, and Chedorlaomer, king of the Elamites, and Tidal, king of nations, made war against Bera, king of Sodom, and against Birsha, king of Gomorrah, and against Shinab, king of Admah, and against Shemeber, king of Zeboiim, and against the king of Bela, which is Zoar. Chedorlaomer. This one called all the kings from far away to help him fight the five kings of Sodom, who had stood up against him. King of nations. The author does not say of which, for he ruled over many

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S

14:18‒19

14:22‒23

15:2

17:14

18:2



91

nations. And against the king of Bela. He does not call him by name, because he had committed fewer sins than the kings whose names are mentioned. But Melchizedek, the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God, blessed him, and said: blessed be Abram by the most high God, who created heaven and earth. But Melchizedek, bringing forth bread and wine. This is a symbol of peace among the Gentiles, just like the olive branch used to be. Pay attention to the order: first he brought forth these things, and then he blessed, namely, by the most high God, because the blessing pertained to Him. For he was a priest of the most high God. Another interpretation: Bringing forth bread and wine, not as common food, but as a sacrifice. For he was a priest of the most high God, etc.131 And he answered him: I lift up my hand to the Lord God the most high, the possessor of heaven and earth, that from the very woof thread unto the shoe latchet, I will not take of any things that are thine, lest thou say: I have enriched Abram. I will lift up132 my hand, abstaining from earthly desires, to the Lord God, who can give better things. From the very woof thread symbolizes the inner life, and unto the shoe latchet refers to the outer life. So by these two things he rejects all things in general. And Abram said: Lord God, what wilt thou give me? I shall go without children: and the son of the steward of my house is this Damascus Eliezer. Lord God, what wilt thou give me? He does not say this out of unbelief, but from the desire to know what he was due to receive.133 And the son of the steward is this Damascus, etc. As someone in anger he is stumbling over his words. The male whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant. That soul shall be destroyed out of his people. If one who has come to the years of discretion will refuse to accept it, he shall be killed or expelled from his people. And when he had lifted up his eyes, there appeared to him three men standing near to him: and as soon as he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent, and adored down to the ground. And when he had lifted up his eyes. He did not see them approaching, but they appeared unexpectedly, which is a sign of power.

92 18:10

18:13

18:21

18:23

19:2

19:22

19:24

19:27

19:29

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

And he said to him: I will return and come to thee at this time, life accompanying, and Sarah, thy wife, shall have a son. Which when Sarah heard, she laughed behind the door of the tent. Life accompanying: this is a manner of speaking.134 It may also be read as life accompanying you, and then it is a promise. And the lord said to Abraham: why did Sarah laugh? Why did your wife laugh? He rebukes the husband, because it is his task to discipline his wife. I will go down and see whether they have done according to the cry that is come to me. I will go down: God went down when He entered Sodom through his servants.135 And drawing nigh, he said: wilt thou destroy the just with the wicked? Wilt thou destroy the just with the wicked? By his subtle reasoning he wants to convince God to spare the wicked on account of the just. Yet he asks whether God would kill the just on account of the wicked, which would be inappropriate. And said: I beseech you, my lords, turn in to the house of your servant, and lodge there: wash your feet, and in the morning you shall go on your way. and they said: no, but we will abide in the street. And they said: No. They did not deny that they would enter the city, but they indicated by a rhetorical figure of speech that the citizens to whom they had come were dishonorable. Make haste, and be saved there: because I cannot do anything till thou go in thither. I cannot do anything. What He says is a human manner of speaking, as if He were saying: Being resolved to do this, I will not be able to do otherwise. And the lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the lord out of heaven. And the Lord rained from the Lord, that is, the Lord whose presence manifested itself on earth rained from the Lord manifesting Himself in the heavens. And Abraham got up early in the morning, and in the place where he had stood before with the lord. And Abraham got up early in the morning. Take note of the concern of this holy man, who got up early in the morning to see whether the Lord had spared those for whom he had pleaded. Now when God destroyed the cities of that country, remembering Abraham, he delivered Lot out of the destruction of the cities wherein he had dwelt. Remembering Abraham, not however by sparing the wicked on account of the just, but by not de-

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S

19:33

19:37‒38

20:1

20:3

20:12



93

stroying the just on account of the wicked, which He had previously promised to Abraham. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the elder went in, and lay with her father: but he perceived not, neither when his daughter lay down, nor when she rose up. But he perceived not, neither when his daughter lay down, etc. It seems surprising that he had intercourse with his daughter without noticing that he performed the act. But we may understand this as follows: Lot had regular intercourse with his wife, and when he got drunk he assumed she was with him. And so he did not feel or realize it was in fact his daughter, on account of his drunkenness. Yet both father and daughter committed a sin, even though neither had malicious intentions.136 And the elder bore a son, and she called his name Moab: he is the father of the Moabites unto this day. the younger also bore a son, and she called his name Ammon; that is, the son of my people: he is the father of the Ammonites unto this day. Moab is translated as “from the father.” She gave him this name, because she had conceived him by her father. The other daughter called her son Ammon, which means “son of my people.”137 And this name does not refer to her wicked deed, but only indicates she had conceived by someone from her people. Abraham removed from thence to the south country, and dwelt between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar. Abraham removed from thence to the south country, etc. And sojourned in Gerar. This seems to be told in retrospect, because the statement that Sarah charmed Abimelech on account of her great beauty does not seem to fit. For the author had said earlier that she had grown old and withered, and that her womanhood had ceased.138 Still it may be said that even though she was far advanced in age she had not lost her beauty, which nature had given her in abundance. And God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and he said to him: lo, thou shalt die for the woman that thou hast taken: for she hath a husband. And God came to Abimelech in a dream. It may be assumed that the same had happened to Pharaoh, even though it was not mentioned there.139 Howbeit, otherwise also she is truly my sister, the daughter of my father, and not the daughter of my mother, and I took her to wife. The daughter of my father, that is, the daughter of Terah. The view of some commentators is that Terah the father of

94

20:16

20:17‒18

21:19

22:2

22:4

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

Abraham took another wife when Abraham’s mother had died, and begot Sarah by her. So Sarah was not the daughter of Haran.140 Another opinion is that she was a daughter of Abraham’s father Terah in the sense that she was his granddaughter.141 Yet another interpretation: The daughter of my father, that is, of him who is my brother.142 And to Sarah he said: behold I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver, this shall serve thee for a covering of thy eyes to all that are with thee, and whithersoever thou shalt go: and remember thou wast taken. This shall serve thee for a covering of thy eyes, that is, to buy yourself veils and robes, so that you shall no more uncover your face and be loved by someone and be taken by him, as happened now. Another exposition: For a covering of thy eyes, that is, to cover your dishonor and blush of shame, for people tend to cover their eyes over some deed when they are blushing with shame. And remember thou wast taken, in the sense that you were caught saying that your husband was your brother.143 And when Abraham prayed, God healed Abimelech and his wife, and his handmaids, and they bore children: for the lord had closed up every womb of the house of Abimelech, on account of Sarah, Abraham’s wife. And when Abraham prayed, God healed Abimelech and his wife, etc. What the author adds here with regard to Abimelech, namely, his own healing and that of his wives and maids, whom God had closed so that they would not conceive, may likewise be applied to Pharaoh. But these things were omitted in the relevant episode. In this way it is revealed with which plague Pharaoh was scourged, namely, infertility.144 And Pharaoh was cured in the same way as Abimelech by Abraham’s prayers. And God opened her eyes: and she saw a well of water. God opened her eyes: and she saw a well. This well did not suddenly materialize, but had been there before and was now suddenly seen by her. He said to him: take thy only begotten son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and go into the land of vision. Take thy only begotten son Isaac, whom thou lovest, etc. The intention of all these words is to stir up bit by bit the fleshly love of the father toward his son, so that the victory he won by giving the love of God preference over his fleshly love would be more glorious.145 And on the third day, lifting up his eyes, he saw the place afar off. And on the third day, lifting up his eyes. Because it is not a three days’ journey from Beersheba to Jerusalem, some commentators say the mountain where Abraham sacrificed was not the same as

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S

22:16‒17

23:14‒15

23:17

24:12

24:14



95

where Christ was crucified.146 But we think that those who claim this are mistaken. Abraham might have made short trips each day, as a man who was very worried, now about the death of his son, now about the Lord’s command, and who did not pay much attention to the progress of his journey. Because thou hast done this thing, and hast not spared thy only begotten son for my sake: I will bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the sea shore; thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies. Thy only begotten son, that is, by a free woman. Thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies, that is, they shall be strong man and warriors and shall by force occupy the cities of their enemies. Or this may mean that they would be judges over their enemies, because lawsuits are usually held in the city gates. And Ephron answered: my lord, hear me. the ground which thou desirest, is worth four hundred shekels of silver: this is the price between me and thee: but what is this? Bury thy dead. But what is this? It is as if he says: It would be too much for you, and I would inconvenience you. Rather do as you please and give me nothing. The phrase But what is this? may also be read as follows: This affair is too little for me, and I shall never be the seller for so small an amount. Instead, you should take it for free. And the field that before was Ephron’s, wherein was the double cave, looking towards Mamre, both it and the cave, and all the trees thereof, in all its limits round about. The double cave. This was an underground accommodation with two floors, where many could be buried in various graves in the lower and the upper floors. Ephron committed no sin by selling the place, nor did Abraham by buying it. Nor does one nowadays commit a sin by buying an unspoiled piece of land to set up a cemetery. But one who sells a cemetery does commit a grave sin.147 O lord, the God of my master, Abraham, meet me today, I beseech thee. O Lord, the God of my master. He is speaking in accordance with Gentile beliefs, where each nation has its own deity. Now, therefore, the maid to whom I shall say: let down thy pitcher that I may drink: and she shall answer, drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let it be the same whom thou hast provided for thy servant Isaac: and by this, I shall understand that thou hast shown kindness to my master. Now, therefore, the maid to whom I shall say, etc. This is an act of divination,

96

24:18

24:32

24:33

24:35

24:41

24:49‒50

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

but he did not commit a sin, because he acted on inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And she answered: drink, my lord. And quickly she let down the pitcher upon her arm, and gave him drink. She let down the pitcher. From her shoulder or upper arm she let it down upon her arm, to let him drink more comfortably.148 He unharnessed the camels, and gave straw and hay, and water to wash the feet of the camels,149 and the feet of the men that were come with him. And water to wash the feet of the camels, that is, [different] water to wash the feet of the camels, so that no filth would harm the men. And bread was set before him. but he said: I will not eat, till I tell my message. He answered him: speak. Bread was set before him. Observe150 that the Old Testament hardly ever mentions other food being served besides bread. This is not because they lived on bread alone,151 but because bread is indispensable at the table, and above all because it refers to the indispensable spiritual Bread. He answered him, that is, Bethuel the father of the girl did. And the lord hath blessed my master wonderfully, and he is become great: and He hath given him sheep and oxen, silver and gold, men servants and women servants, camels and asses. And the Lord hath blessed my master. Throughout his speech he is trying to persuade the parents to give their daughter to the son of Abraham, because he is God’s beloved, and rich, and youthful, and future heir to the entire estate of his father; and also because Eliezer himself found them by chance and with God’s help. And all these things demonstrate the divine will, against which nothing may be done. But thou shalt be clear from my curse, when thou shalt come to my kindred, if they will not give thee one. If they will not give thee one. See how Eliezer lays the full weight of the refusal on their shoulders should they ignore not just what Abraham desires, but also what God orders. Wherefore, if you do according to mercy and truth with my master, tell me: but if it please you otherwise, tell me that also, that I may go to the right hand, or to the left. And Laban and Bethuel answered: the word hath proceeded from the lord: we cannot speak any other thing to thee but his pleasure. If you do according to mercy and truth. These two are frequently united: there is truth when there is equity, and there is mercy when something can be denied without anyone objecting. The word

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S

24:53

24:57

24:67

25:5

25:31‒34

26:17‒18

26:22



97

hath proceeded from the Lord. He answers with the argument that is the strongest. And bringing forth vessels of silver and gold, and garments, he gave them to Rebecca, for a present. To Rebecca, for a present, that is, by way of a betrothal-gift. And they said: let us call the maid, and ask her will. Let us ask her will. Here began the tradition to ask the partners’ will in betrothals.152 Who brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother, and took her to wife: and he loved her so much, that it moderated the sorrow which was occasioned by his mother’s death. And he loved her so much, that it moderated the sorrow, but it did not completely remove it. This is not said on account of his lust, but in view of his comfort. And Abraham gave all his possessions to Isaac. All his possessions. His most important property such as houses and buildings he gave to Isaac. And Jacob said to him: sell me thy first birthright. he answered: lo, I die, what will the first birthright avail me? Jacob said: swear therefore to me. Esau swore to him, and sold his first birthright. And so taking bread and the pottage of lentils, he ate, and drank, and went on his way. Sell me thy first birthright. This may refer to the first-born of the animals, which fell to the oldest son beside his hereditary portion. But the first birthright may also denote his dignity as a priest.153 We cannot relate this to the paternal blessing, for in the following verses Esau will say: He hath supplanted me, lo, this second time: My birthright he took away before, and now this second time he hath stolen away my blessing.154 Lo, I die. It is as if he says: I shall not live forever, but shall die without knowing when. So what use is the first birthright to me? Swear therefore to me. He does not believe him without the other making an oath to keep his promise. And the pottage of lentils. This reveals what the aforesaid concoction was. So he departed, and came to the torrent of Gerar, to dwell there. and he dug again other wells, which the servants of his father, Abraham, had dug. At the torrent of Gerar he dug wells, because there is no water in a torrent except when it has rained, but this quickly flows away. Going forward from thence, he dug another well, for which they contended not; therefore he called the name

98

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

thereof, latitude, saying: now hath the lord given us room, and made us to increase upon the earth. Now hath the Lord given us room. It is obvious that they considered a well a valuable commodity in this dry and foreign land. 27:23 And he knew him not, because his hairy hands made him like to the elder. then blessing him, he said: art thou my son Esau? He answered: I am. Blessing him, he said: Art thou, etc. He is not yet giving his blessing, but is making preparations by asking: Art thou my son Esau? and the rest that follows. 27:27‒28 And immediately as he smelled the fragrant smell of his garments, blessing him, he said: behold, the smell of my son is as the smell of a plentiful field, which the lord hath blessed. God give thee of the dew of heaven, and of the fatness of the earth. Smell (fragrantia) comes from the verb “to smell” (fragrare), which allegedly comes from the verb “to break” (frangere), because redolent things produce a stronger smell when they are crushed.155 As the smell of a plentiful field, coming from the redolent flowers, which the Lord hath blessed, by giving it such great abundance of these flowers. God give thee of the dew of heaven, and of the fatness of the earth. This represents the blessing in temporal things, which mainly consists in the two things he unites, namely, the dew of heaven and the fatness of the earth. When it rains but the earth is not rich, or when the earth is rich but there is no rain, the abundance is not complete. It should be noted that this blessing is not so much made intentionally, but rather in words only. Likewise it could happen that a bishop thinks he is ordaining one of the clerics of his own diocese, while he in fact ordains a cleric from another diocese who looks like the other. In that case the one presenting himself by deceit would actually be ordained, and not the one the bishop had in mind. Also the question is raised whether a marriage may be continued when someone betrothed to a man is fraudulently replaced, and the man thinks he is marrying another. It should be known that it may not be continued, because everything settled in a wedding can only be ratified by the consent of both parties. Yet if on second thought both parties wish to agree, the marriage will stand and be judged legal. Another thing to note is that God showed such grace to the ancient fathers that the son whom they blessed was also made richer than his brothers in temporal things. 27:37 Isaac answered: I have appointed him thy lord, and have made all his brethren his servants. I have appointed him thy lord. Here it is demonstrated that a blessing once given cannot be altered.

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S

27:39

27:46

28:11

28:17‒18

28:22

29:10‒11

29:13‒14



99

Isaac being moved, said to him: in the fat of the earth, and in the dew of heaven from above, shall thy blessing be. In the fat of the earth, and in the dew of heaven, shall thy blessing be. It is as if he says: Your blessing shall be partial, not complete.156 And Rebecca said to Isaac: I am weary of my life, because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the stock of this land, I choose not to live. If Jacob take a wife, etc. She does not want to show him her hatred of Esau, to prevent the father from hating his son Jacob. And when he was come to a certain place, and would rest in it after sunset, he took of the stones that lay there, and putting under his head, slept in the same place. He took one of the stones that lay there, etc. It seems probable that Jacob did not travel alone, because he slept outside the city.157 This city was first known as Luza, and was later called Bethel by him on account of the vision he saw near the city while he was sleeping with his head resting on a stone. And trembling, he said: how terrible is this place! This is no other but the house of God, and the gate of heaven. And Jacob, arising in the morning, took the stone which he had laid under his head, and set it up for a title, pouring oil upon the top of it. How terrible is this place, that is, worthy of respect and fear on account of the majesty that was seen there. And set it up for a title, that is, a sign and memorial of his vision. And this stone, which I have set up for a title, shall be called the house of God. And this stone, which I have set up, etc. He called the city as well as the stone the house of God, that is, Bethel.158 He removed the stone wherewith the well was closed. And having watered the flock, he kissed her: and lifting up his voice, wept. He removed the stone wherewith the well was closed. Here is another indication that Jacob was not alone but had brought friends along from his father’s house. And lifting up his voice, wept. This is a sign of affection. Who, when he heard that Jacob his sister’s son was come, ran forth to meet him: and embracing him, and heartily kissing him, brought him into his house. and when he had heard the causes of his journey, he answered: thou art my bone and my flesh. And when he had heard the causes of his journey. This does not refer to Jacob’s going into exile out of fear of his brother, but to the fact that he had now come to get a wife from among his relatives. My

100

29:25

30:2

30:16‒17

30:31

30:33

30:40

31:12

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

bone and my flesh. These are words of affection, as if he were saying: Whatever the reason that you have come here, it suits me to welcome you. And he said to his father-in-law: what is it that thou didst mean to do? Did not I serve thee for Rachel? Why hast thou deceived me? That thou didst mean to do, in other words: Why have you yielded to this choice? It is as if he says: Why have I deserved that you should do this? And Jacob being angry with her, answered: am I as God, who hath deprived thee of the fruit of thy womb? Am I as God?, that is, in God’s place, so that I could give you back what He has taken away? And when Jacob returned at evening from the field, Lia went out to meet him, and said: thou shalt come in unto me, because I  have hired thee for my son’s mandrakes. And he slept with her that night. And God heard her prayers; and she conceived: and bore a fifth son. He slept with her, and God heard her prayers. This indicates that he did not acquire a concubine out of lust, but only to beget offspring, for God would not have granted an impious wish. And Laban said: what shall I give thee? but he said: I require nothing. I require nothing, that is, this time I want to receive nothing from you that is yours. Another interpretation: I desire no other recompense than what God will give me by virtue of His faithful covenant. And all that is not of divers colors, and spotted, and brown, as well among the sheep as among the goats, shall accuse me of theft. And all that is not of divers colors, and spotted, etc. What is implied is: If I take them, you shall accuse me of theft. And Jacob separated the flock, and put the rods in the troughs before the eyes of the rams. Jacob separated the flock, namely, by separating the rams from the sheep until drinking time, so that an even number of rams would mount the sheep when they both saw the rods in the troughs. For I have seen all that Laban hath done to thee. I have seen all that Laban hath done to thee. The divine answer demonstrates that Jacob had not committed a sin by any deceit,159 because it was appropriate that he should receive another reward beside his wives, whom Laban should have given him for free.

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S

33:10

33:16

34:25

35:2

35:14

36:6



101

I have seen thy face, as if I should have seen the countenance of God: be gracious to me. As if I should have seen the countenance of God. Jacob is flattering Esau to save his own life. So Esau returned that day, the way that he came, to Seir. So Esau returned that day, the way that he came, to Seir. It does not seem likely that he returned in one day to Seir with such a great troop. He set out for it, but did not reach it the same day. And behold the third day, when the pain of the wound was greatest: two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, the brothers of Dina, taking their swords, entered boldly into the city and slew all the men. When the pain of the wound was greatest. There may be a physical reason why the pain of the wounds was greater on the third day. And Jacob having called together all his household, said: cast away the strange gods that are among you. Cast away the strange gods, etc. There may have been some in Jacob’s company who venerated false gods. Another interpretation is that although these ancient people believed in one God alone, they still used to keep certain images which they worshipped. They did not, like idolaters, believe in them as gods, but used them to remember the highest God. Jacob now prohibited his family from having these, to prevent them from being put to wrong use. But he set up a monument of stone, in the place where God had spoken to him: pouring drink-offerings upon it, and pouring oil thereon. Pouring oil thereon. This is the second time he is pouring oil. And Esau took his wives, and his sons and daughters, and every soul of his house, and his substance, and cattle, and all that he was able to acquire in the land of Canaan: and went into another country, and departed from his brother Jacob. Esau took his wives, and his sons, etc. How can it be said after Isaac’s death that Esau moved all the possessions he had in the land of Canaan to Mount Seir and stayed there from that time on, while previously it was said that Esau already lived on Mount Seir and moved from there to meet his brother Jacob, after which he parted again from his brother and returned to his habitation?160 What we can say to this is that he had come with all his property to solemnize his father’s funeral. But it may also be that he was so overwhelmed with joy about his brother’s arrival that he moved to the land of Canaan to live with his brother. And there

102

36:31

37:2

37:3

37:9‒10

37:25

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

he stayed until his father’s death and then returned to Mount Seir, as the author now describes.161 And the kings that ruled in the land of Edom, before the children of Israel had a king, were these. And the kings that ruled in the land of Edom. It seems likely that when Ezra restored the Law of Moses after its burning by the Babylonians he added this part to it, because he could well know which kings ruled over the people of Edom before Saul became king of Israel. It seems foolish to say that Moses related this by the spirit of prophecy.162 And these are his generations: Joseph, when he was sixteen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren. And these are his generations. The author now comes to the descendants of Jacob, who had been omitted so far, and goes on from there. Now Israel loved Joseph above all his sons, because he had him in his old age: and he made him a coat of divers colors. A coat of divers colors. By this and many other accumulating causes his brothers’ envy was kindled and stirred up. For the Lord gives the occasions to sin to those who deserve it. Therefore it was said above: If thou do ill, sin shall be forthwith at the door.163 He dreamed also another dream, which he told his brethren, saying: I saw in a dream, as it were the sun, and the moon, and eleven stars worshipping me. and when he had told this to his father and brethren, his father rebuked him and said: what meaneth this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother, and thy brethren worship thee upon the earth? I saw as it were the sun, and the moon. The dream suggests that if Joseph’s mother had lived on she would have worshipped him just like his father and brothers. Shall I and thy mother? The father says this to show that the dream has no significance, because it is unsuitable for a mother to worship her son. In this way Jacob is trying to mitigate the envy of Joseph’s brothers.164 And sitting down to eat bread, they saw some Ishmaelites on their way coming from Gilead, with their camels, carrying spices, and resin, and liquid myrrh165 to Egypt. And sitting down to eat, without Reuben, who was the only one unaware of the new plan to sell Joseph. He had in mind to get him secretly out of the pit and return him to his father. So he was very sad when he did not find him there. Resin and liquid myrrh. Resin is a product of trees, which either stays liquid or hardens into gum. Liquid myrrh is the best part of the myrrh tree, and is also known as gutta or aloe.166

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S

37:28

38:1

38:8

38:14

38:18

39:6‒8

40:2



103

And when the Midianite merchants passed by, they drew him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites, for twenty pieces of silver: and they led him into Egypt. Midianites and Ishmaelites are the same people.167 Or if they were different peoples, the merchants who sold Joseph came from both. At that time Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, named Hirah. At that time Judah went down. The author returns to the history of the other sons of Israel. A certain Adullamite. This was a shepherd of Judah, yet Judah claimed this shepherd’s daughter as his wife. Judah, therefore, said to Onan his son: go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. Observe that many things were customary before the Law that were later recorded in the Law. This is demonstrated here where Judah tells his son to go in to the wife of his brother, and in the following where he orders Tamar to be burned as one caught in the act of adultery.168 And she put off the garments of her widowhood, and took a veil. A veil is a garment so finely woven that a woman is able to see others through it, but cannot herself be seen in the face. Judah said: what wilt thou have for a pledge? She answered: thy ring and bracelet, and the staff which thou holdest in thy hand. the woman therefore at one copulation conceived. The woman at one copulation conceived. Judah cannot be excused, because he desired intercourse out of mere lust, seeing that he took her for a prostitute. But Tamar can be excused, because she only desired offspring.169 Neither knew he any other thing, but the bread which he ate … behold, my master hath delivered all things to me, and knoweth not what he hath in his own house. Neither knew he any other thing, but the bread which he ate. That is, this Egyptian did not have to care for any of his affairs. But he had handed over everything to Joseph without knowing, that is, without caring for, anything else than the bread which he ate. Or one can say that although Joseph served in this way, he was not gaining anything from his service except food. And Pharaoh being angry with them (now the one was chief butler, the other chief baker,) he sent them to the prison. Now the one was chief butler, etc. As if the author says: It is

104

40:18

41:44

41:42

42:9

42:27

43:7

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

no wonder that he was angry with them, because they were in charge of such services in the king’s palace that they could easily offend him. Joseph answered: this is the interpretation of the dream. This is the interpretation of the dream. Today it is not permitted us to interpret dreams; in fact, it is forbidden. And the king said to Joseph: I am Pharaoh: without thy commandment no man shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt. No man shall move hand or foot, etc. This is a hyperbolic expression, indicating how great his power was. We may also say that this moving of hand or foot denotes great enterprises like the building of a tower or resettlements upon leaving or entering Egypt. The king’s words I am Pharaoh thus confirm what follows, as if he were swearing an oath by his own name. And he took his ring from his own hand, and gave it into his hand: and he put upon him a robe of silk, and put a chain of gold about his neck. He put upon him a robe of silk. The word for robe, stola, is derived from the Greek stolon, which means “long.” It is a long cloak covering the entire body down to the ankles, and is also known as talaris or poderis.170 The stole nowadays used by priests is called orarium from orare, “to pray,” because no ceremonial prayer is performed without it, such as exorcism, absolution, the consecration of water, and the like. And remembering the dreams, which formerly he had dreamed, he said to them: you are spies. you are come to view the weaker parts of the land. You are spies, etc. In this verse some things are omitted that are later told in retrospect, namely, that Joseph first asked them whether they still had a father, and whether they had yet another brother, and made a full inquiry after the rest of their family. Once he had learned this he wanted to charge them with a crime, not with any evil intention, but to make them bring Benjamin, who was born of the same mother as Joseph. Now if he was lying it is of no concern, because he did not do so out of malice.171 And one of them opening his sack, to give his beast provender in the inn, saw the money in the sack’s mouth. And one of them opening his sack, to give, etc. The same can be applied to the others, as the verses that follow will show. But they answered: the man asked us in order concerning our kindred: if our father lived: if we had a brother. The man asked us in order concerning our kindred. It should not be assumed that

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S

43:25

44:5

44:10

44:15

44:19

45:13

45:27‒28

46:34



105

they are lying to their father by way of self-defense. Rather they are introducing some things here that should have been told previously. But they made ready the presents, against Joseph came at noon: for they had heard that they should eat bread there. Against Joseph came at noon, etc. This demonstrates the moderation of the ancient people, who were not so gluttonous that they would eat before noon, as those do about whom it is said: Woe to the land when thy king is a child, and when the princes eat in the morning!172 The cup which you have stolen is that in which my lord drinketh, and in which he is wont to divine. In which he is wont to divine. He is making this up to aggravate the circumstances of their offense. So Joseph was not really engaged in this kind of sorcery. And he said to them: let it be according to your sentence: with whomsoever it shall be found, let him be my servant, and you shall be blameless. Let it be according to your sentence, in the sense that one of them would be made a slave. This was part of their sentence, although there was more to it.173 And he said to them: why would you do so? Know you not that there is no one like me in the science of divining. Know you not that there is no one like me in the science of divining. This is mockery.174 My lord. Thou didst ask thy servants the first time: have you a father or a brother? Thou didst ask thy servants the first time, etc. This verse demonstrates that they did not lie to their father when they said: The man asked us in order concerning our kindred.175 Now being in so much danger they could not have lied to him about something well known.176 You shall tell my father of all my glory, and all things that you have seen in Egypt: make haste and bring him to me. My glory. He does not say this to boast, but to comfort and cheer up his father. And when he saw the wagons, and all that he had sent, his spirit revived. And he said: it is enough for me if Joseph, my son, be yet living. His spirit revived, because he was overcome177 with the joy of consolation after his desolation. It is enough for me. It is as if he says: I don’t care much for pain or glory,178 as long as he is alive. And this you shall say, that you may dwell in the land of Goshen, because the Egyptians have all shepherds in abomination. The Egyptians have all shepherds in abomination, because they did not eat sheep, but rather venerated them as their god, Amon.179

106 48:3

48:7

48:12‒13

48:15

49:3‒4

49:5

49:9‒12

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

And when Joseph was come in to him, he said: God almighty appeared to me at Luz, which is in the land of Canaan, and he blessed me. God almighty appeared to me at Luz. He recalls this180 to demonstrate that by the blessing he received from God he has the power to appoint Ephraim and Manasseh heads of their families and to adopt them. For, when I came out of Mesopotamia, rachel died from me in the land of Canaan in the very journey. Rachel died. He brings to mind the misery of her untimely death, so that the addition to Rachel’s sons, which he has just mentioned, would be a consolation for the maternal misfortune. Another interpretation is that he apologizes for not having buried Rachel where he wished to bury her at that time.181 And when Joseph had taken them from his father’s lap, he bowed down with his face to the ground. And he set Ephraim on his right hand, … but Manasseh on his left hand. And when Joseph had taken them from his father’s lap, that is, from his embrace, he bowed down with his face to the ground, that is, he humiliated himself before God, cast down to the ground. And he set Ephraim, etc. We may also say that Joseph humiliated himself in order to receive the blessing for his sons. And Jacob blessed Joseph his son.182 And Jacob blessed Joseph, that is, through his sons. So it is to the sons that the whole blessing that follows is given. Reuben, my firstborn, thou art my strength, and the beginning of my sorrow; excelling in gifts, greater in command. thou art poured out as water, grow thou not. Thou art my strength: You should have been my strength, but yet you are poured out as water, that is, you are soiled183 as water poured out from a vessel. Grow thou not, that is: You will not ascend to the dignity of ruling over the others, which you would have done by hereditary right if you had not sinned.184 Simeon and Levi brethren: vessels of iniquity waging war. Vessels of iniquity, because they kept their evil intention to do wrong locked inside, and hid like vessels what they had in mind. Judah is a lion’s whelp: to the prey, my son, thou art gone up: resting thou hast couched as a lion, and as a lioness; who shall rouse him? The scepter shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations. Tying his foal to the vineyard, and his ass, o my son, to the vine. He shall wash

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S



107

his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape. his eyes are more beautiful than wine, and his teeth whiter than milk. Resting thou hast couched as a lion, and as a lioness. By this metaphor, Jacob indicates that Judah will be a strong warrior, whom no one dares to disturb. The scepter shall not be taken away, that is, some kind of primacy, such as being the first to cross the Red Sea, or the first to make an offering in the desert when the tabernacle was made, or another such minor privilege.185 Till He come that is to be sent. In Hebrew this is: Till Shilo comes, that is, the place where Saul was anointed king by Samuel.186 And the meaning is: Until Saul, after whom Judah will regain power, because he liberated Joseph from his brothers’ hands.187 The words that follow, and he shall be the expectation of nations, are entirely referred to Judah by the Hebrew commentators. The expectation is explained by the Lord’s promise: Judah shall go up in battle for you,188 in which case nations indicate the various tribes. Tying his foal to the vineyard. It is as if he says: His vineyard will be so fruitful that an ass can be loaded with the yield of just one vine, to which it can be tied until it is fully loaded.189 To the vine, etc. What follows here is a repetition. The text in Hebrew is: And to the vine the young of an ass, instead of: O my son. He shall wash in wine. This is another hyperbole illustrating fertility. And in the blood of the grape is again a repetition. Robe and garment may indicate any type of clothing. His eyes are more beautiful than wine. In Hebrew the text has redder than wine, which according to the Hebrew commentators points to the abundance of wine that appears in the eyes of the drinker. His teeth whiter than milk. According to the same, this indicates the abundance of milk and eggs that brightens up the teeth of the eater.190 49:13 Zebulun shall dwell on the seashore, and in the road of ships, reaching as far as Sidon. Zebulun shall dwell, etc. This text describes his place of dwelling in the Promised Land. 49:14‒15 Issachar shall be a strong ass, lying down between the borders. he saw rest that it was good: and the land that it was excellent: and he bowed his shoulder to carry, and became a servant under tribute. Issachar shall be a strong ass. He is predicted to live on the borders of various regions and be a tradesman and become very rich from it. The latter is indicated by the phrase: And became a servant under tribute, which does not mean that he became anyone’s slave. He saw rest. The word rest refers to the fertile land he possessed, which is also suggested by the phrase: And the land that it was excellent.

108 49:16‒18

49:19

49:20

49:21

49:22‒26

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

Dan shall judge his people like another tribe in Israel. Let Dan be a snake in the way, a serpent in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels, that his rider may fall backward. I will look for thy salvation, o lord. Dan shall judge,191 etc. To prevent192 him from being considered inferior to the others as the son of a servant, Jacob says that he will judge like the others. And he says this with a view to Samson, whom he calls in a metaphor a snake and a serpent. For Samson, who walked the earth seemingly humble and did not ride a horse, took down many horsemen of the Philistines. And this is indicated in the metaphor: That biteth the horse’s heels. I will look for thy salvation, O Lord. As if Jacob says: Even though you shall be so great and wonderful, you may not be seen as the Messiah, that is, Christ. But I shall expect another Savior.193 Gad, being girded, shall fight before him: and he himself shall be girded backward. Gad, being girded, etc. Here Jacob indicates that Reuben and Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh would cross the river Jordan before the others to occupy the promised land for their brothers, and would then return to their own land the near side of the Jordan,194 which they had claimed because it was full of pasture. Some commentators say, however, that before these three would return together from conquering the promised land, Gad came back by himself to liberate his sons and wives who had been attacked by the enemy while the three were on campaign across the Jordan. And this is how they say the following should be interpreted: He shall be girded backward. Asher, his bread shall be fat, and he shall yield dainties to kings. Asher, his bread shall be fat, etc. According to the Hebrew commentators, this only refers to future delights and abundance. Naphtali, a hart let loose, and giving words of beauty. Naphtali, a hart let loose. He is called a hart let loose because the land he acquired yielded a full-grown crop sooner than other lands.195 For this reason, he was the first at Passover to make the offering and sing God’s praise, which the text refers to as words of beauty. Joseph is a growing son, a growing son and comely to behold: the daughters run to and fro upon the wall; but they that held darts, provoked him, and quarrelled with him, and envied him. his bow rested upon the strong, and the bands of his arms and his hands were loosed, by the hands of the mighty one of Jacob: thence he came forth a pastor, the stone of Israel. The God of thy father shall be thy helper, and the

N OT E S ON G E N E S I S



109

almighty shall bless thee with the blessings of heaven above, with the blessings of the deep that lieth beneath, with the blessings of the breasts and of the womb. The blessings of thy father are strengthened with the blessings of his fathers: until the desire of the everlasting hills should come: may they be upon the head of Joseph, and upon the crown of the Nazarite among his brethren. Joseph is a growing son. The text refers to the double inheritance, namely, what was received by Joseph’s sons, and what Joseph obtained for himself. Comely to behold. He is alluding to his beauty, for which the Egyptian women loved him. And this is revealed by the words: The daughters run to and fro upon the wall, namely, to see him. But for this very reason the men hated him, as it is said: But they provoked him. This may also be applied to his brothers, who bore a grudge against him, notwithstanding how great he would be.196 But from this evil he was set free by the Mighty One of Jacob his father, that is, by God. Because upon the strong, that is, God, rested his bow, that is, Joseph’s bow. And the bands of his arms, which impeded every movement, were loosed by the hands of the Mighty One, that is, by divine operation. Thence, that is, by the Mighty One of Jacob, he came forth a pastor, namely, in Egypt, where he became a pastor for all his family. And by this pastor, yet through God, Israel was made a stone, that is, strong. But the phrasing in the Hebrew is: Thence he herded the stone of Israel. With the blessings of heaven and of the deep. With these two, that is, the higher good of heaven and the lower good of the earth, Jacob is referring to the perfect abundance of temporal things. Of the breasts and of the womb. In reverse order this indicates the blessing of conception and nurture. For one thing has little value without the other. The blessings of thy father are strengthened with the blessings of his fathers, that is, of Abraham and Isaac, who had blessed their sons. These blessings were heaped upon Joseph by the blessing of his father Jacob. Until the desire of the everlasting hills should come, that is, until the desired of all nations shall come,197 which is Christ. The text may also be: Until the everlasting hills are united in heaven, as it is in Hebrew. And this means: May Joseph be blessed everywhere, or, as the saying goes, all the way to where heaven and earth meet, that is, throughout the whole world.198 Upon the crown of the Nazarite, that is, of the one sanctified, who is deemed more worthy than his brothers. 49:27 Benjamin a ravenous wolf, in the morning shall eat the prey, and in the evening shall divide the spoil. Benjamin a ravenous wolf, etc., because this tribe was very pugnacious, and because

110

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

they gave up their prey as quickly as they caught it, as is the habit of predators, for he who acquires with ease will also spend with ease. 49:28 All these are the twelve tribes of Israel: these things their father spoke to them, and he blessed every one with their proper blessings. With their proper blessings, which means either that they were blessed for the most part, as is usual in Scripture, or that Jacob gave some a blessing and others a curse, as they deserved it. 50:22 And he saw the children of Ephraim to the third generation. the children also of Machir, the sons of Manasses, were born on Joseph’s knees. The children were born on Joseph’s knees, that is, after they were born Joseph took them on his knees. [A Recapitulation Of Some Alternative Interpretations On The Basis Of The Hebrew] 49:32 49:12

49:16

49:21

49:24 49:26

He drew up his feet upon the bed. In Hebrew this is: He lay down at the head of his bed. His eyes are more beautiful than wine, that is, redder than wine, or on account of wine. And his teeth are whiter than milk, that is, from milk, or because of drinking milk. Dan shall judge his people, like any other tribe in Israel. Jacob mentions this because Dan was a servant’s son, but did not have to fear exile as Ishmael did.199 In the following he does not repeat the same for the other servant’s sons, because he had already said it for Dan and meant the same for the others. Naphthali, a hart let loose. In Hebrew this is a hind let loose on account of Deborah, who hastened with speed to her prey. And giving words of beauty refers to the canticle of Deborah, which she sang after her victory.200 Thence he came forth a pastor, the stone of Israel. In Hebrew this is: Thence became the stone of Israel a pastor. Until the desire of the everlasting hills should come. In Hebrew this is: Until the desire of the height of the world, that is, until the desire of that which is higher and greater than anything else in this world.

NOTES 1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16

17 18 19

20 21 22

23

24

See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos 1,1 (CCL 72.3). Ps. 50:3. Ps. 118:1. Quoted with adaptation from Gregory the Great, Hom. ev. I.1 (CCL  141.6). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 11. This hermeneutical principle seems at odds with Hugh’s theory that all biblical exegesis should be based on the understanding of words. Cf. Didasc. V.3 (Buttimer, 96‒97; tr. Harkins, VTT  3.151‒52) and Script. 3 (PL  175.11D‒12A; tr.  Van Liere, VTT  3.214‒15). Still Hugh applies this very principle in the Notes on Genesis wherever he elucidates words or phrases from his knowledge of things and events. See Haimo of Auxerre, Commentarius in Genesim I.1 (PL 131.53D‒54D). Sir. 18:1. Gen. 2:4. Sir. 1:4. Quoted with adaptation from Jerome, Commentarii in epistulas Pauli: Ad Titum  I (CCL 77C.10). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 11. Sir. 3:21. Gen. 1:1. Gen. 1:3. See Rashi on Gen. 1:14 (tr. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann, Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and prayers for Sabbath and Rashi’s commentary. Genesis [London: Shapiro, Vallentine & Co., 1929], 5): “During the first seven (another reading is “three”) days of Creation the primeval light and darkness functioned together both by day and by night.” Gen. 1:5. Adapted from Bede, In principium Genesis usque ad nativitatem Isaac et eiectionem Ismahelis adnotationum I.i.5 (CCL 118A.9‒10). Cf. Hugh, Sacr. I.1.9 (PL 176.194BD; tr. Deferrari, 15): “The work of God must have been begun from what was completed. […] The first day did not have a preceding morning, since it took its beginning from a full and perfect light.” Bede, In principium Genesis I.i.6‒8 (CCL 118A.10). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 11. Ps. 148:4. See Bede, In principium Genesis I.i.6‒8 (CCL 118A.11). Cf. Hugh, Sacr. I.1.23 (PL 176.202AD; tr. Deferrari, 24‒25): “In a certain way we see why those waters which are above heaven were not to be collected and compressed into one place, since charity ought always to be spread out and extended.” See Rashi on Gen. 1:9: “He now gathered them together into what now constitutes the Ocean, which is the largest of all seas” (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 4). Cf. Hugh, Sacr. I.1.21‒22 (PL 176.201C‒202A; tr. Deferrari, 23‒24). See John 2. Cf. Hugh, Sacr. I.1.15 (PL 176.198D‒199B; tr. Deferrari, 20‒21): “Who knows whether that same light was not afterwards transformed into the substance of the sun, and with increased clarity received a better form, just as Jesus at the marriage feast made wine out of water, that He might show the state of change for the better and the sacrament of restoration?” Another formulation that deviates from Hugh’s exegetical theory (cf. note 5, above). Eileen Sweeney speaks about a “moving back and forth between literal and figurative, between signs and things.” See her article “Hugh of St. Victor: the Augustinian Tradition,” 76. From the first strophe of the hymn Magnae Deus Potentiae, attributed to Gregory the Great: Magnae Deus potentiae qui ex aquis ortum genus partim remittis gurgiti partim levas in aera.

112

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R – N OT E S ON G E N E S I S Cf. Hugh, Sacr. I.1.27 (PL 176.203C-D; tr. Deferrari, 26): “While some are justly left below in that corruption in which they were born, others are raised above by the gift of grace to the lot of their heavenly country.” See Bede, In principium Genesis  I.i.14 (CCL  118A.15). Cf.  Hugh, Sacr. I.1.24‒25 (PL 176.202D‒203B; tr. Deferrari, 25). praeerat for praecerat, as in Paris, BnF, lat. 15695, fol. 72v. Adapted from Haimo of Auxerre, In Genesim I.2 (PL 131.55B). Cf. Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 19. See Augustine, Gn. litt. V.5 (CSEL 28/1.146). See Augustine, Civ. Dei XVIII.8 (CCL 48.598‒99). Following the Vulgate: quam produxerant aquae. The Douai-Rheims translation has: brought forth. See Haimo of Auxerre, In Genesim I.26 (PL 131.56D‒57A). See Rashi on Gen. 1:26 (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 6‒7): “the verse does not refrain from teaching proper conduct and the virtue of humbleness, namely, that the greater should consult, and take permission from the smaller.” Adapted from Augustine, Gn. litt. III.19 (CSEL 28/1.85). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 29‒20. See Haimo of Auxerre, In Genesim I.27 (PL 131.57A). Cf. Hugh, Sacr. I.6.2 (PL 176.264C-D; tr. Deferrari, 95). Adapted from Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber 16 (CSEL 28/1.500‒2). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 21‒22. Cf. Hugh, Sacr. I.6.34 (PL 176.284A-B; tr. Deferrari, 117). Adapted from Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos I.xxvii.28 (CSEL 91.96). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 21. See Exod. 8:24ff. See Bede, In principium Genesis I.i.31 (CCL 118A.31). See Bede, In principium Genesis I.ii.4‒5 (CCL 118A.41). Adapted from Haimo of Auxerre, In Genesim II.6 (PL 131.60A). Adapted from Hrabanus Maurus, Commentariorum in Genesim I.11 (PL 107.474C-D). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 26‒27. See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 2,8 (CCL 72.4). See Haimo of Auxerre, In Genesim II.8 (PL 131.60D). Cf. Hugh, Sacr. I.6.33 (PL 176.284A; tr. Deferrari, 117). Adapted from Augustine, Gn. litt. VI.25 (CSEL  28/1.197). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 22‒23. Cf. Hugh, Sacr. I.6.18 (PL 176.275A‒276B; tr. Deferrari, 107‒8). See Augustine, Gn. litt. VIII.6 (CSEL 28/1.240). Cf. Hugh, Sacr. I.6.31‒32 (PL 176.283AD; tr. Deferrari, 116). In principium Genesis I.ii.10‒11 (CCL 118A.48). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 11. Cf. Hugh, Sacr. I.6.29 (PL 176.282C-D; tr. Deferrari, 115). Cf. Hugh, Sacr. I.6.36 (PL 176.284C-D; tr. Deferrari, 117‒18). Adapted from Augustine, Gn. litt. IX.13 (CSEL  28/1.284). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 24. Cf. Hugh, Sacr. I.6.35 (PL 176.284B-C; tr. Deferrari, 117). See Augustine, Gn. litt. IX.13 (CSEL 28/1.284). See John 6. Cf.  Hugh, Sacr. I.6.36 and 37 (PL  176.284C-D, 286B-D; tr.  Deferrari, 117‒18, 119‒20). See Lev. 18 and Matt. 22:23‒33. Cf. Hugh, Sacr. II.11.4 (PL 176.483B-C; tr. Deferrari, 327). See Rashi on Gen. 2:24: “One flesh: Both parents are united in the child” (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 12). Adapted from Augustine, Gn. litt. XI.6 (CSEL 28/1.339).

N otes 57

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

70 71 72 73 74

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85



113

Cf. Hugh, Sacr. I.7.2 (PL 176.287BD; tr. Deferrari, 121): “The wily enemy came to man as a serpent, who, perhaps, if he had been permitted, would have preferred to come in the form of a dove. But the Holy Spirit reserved this vessel for himself,” etc. Cf. Sacr. I.7.4 (PL 176.288BD; tr. Deferrari, 122). See Gregory the Great, Hom. ev. XVI.2 (CCL 141.111). Cf. Hugh, Sacr. I.7.6‒8 (PL 176.289A‒ 290B; tr. Deferrari, 122‒24). Rev. 22:11. Adapted from Augustine, Gn. litt. XI.31‒32 (CSEL 28/1.364‒66). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 23. See Rashi on Gen. 3:7: “Fig leaves: This was the tree of which they had eaten” (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 13). Cf. Awerbuch, Christlich-jüdische Begegnung, 227. John 1:48. See Bede, In principium Genesis I.iii.7 (CCL 118A.62). See Augustine, Gn. litt. XI.34 (CSEL  28/1.368). Cf.  Awerbuch, Christlich-jüdische Begegnung, 227. Adapted from Angelom of Luxeuil, Commentarius in Genesin III.12 (PL 115.140A-B). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 30. See Augustine, Gn. litt. XI.36 (CSEL 28/1.370‒71). eris for oris, as in Paris, BnF, lat. 15695, fol. 74v. See Deut. 7:14. Ut te vulneribus affligat: possible reference to the act of defloration. See Petrus Comestor quoting Hugh in Scolastica historia, liber Genesis 24 (ed. Agneta Sylwan, CCCM 191 [Turnhout: Brepols 2005], 44): “Sub viri potestate eris violenta, ut etiam vulneribus te affligat in defloratione.” See Haimo of Auxerre, In Genesim III.21 (PL 131.67B). Gen. 3:5. Adapted from Haimo of Auxerre, In Genesim III.22 (PL 131.67C). Adapted from Angelom of Luxeuil, In Genesin III.22 (PL  115.144D‒145A). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 31. Adapted from Haimo of Auxerre, In Genesim III.23 (PL 131.67D). Cf. Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 31. See Symeon Metaphrastes, Vita Nicolai XXXI (PG 116.354C‒355C), where a miraculous fire over the sea destroys a demon but leaves a ship with pilgrims unharmed. This may be a reference to St Elmo’s fire, which in some mediterranean countries is named after St Nicholas. Adapted from Bede, In principium Genesis II.iv.3‒4 (CCL 118A.74). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 12. See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 4,4‒5 (CCL 72.6‒7). Adapted from Bede, In principium Genesis II.iv.4‒5 (CCL 118A.74). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 12. See Alcuin, Interrogationes et responsiones in Genesin 84 (PL 100.525B). See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 4,6‒7 (CCL 72.7). Adapted from Haimo of Auxerre, In Genesim IV.10 (PL 131.69D). See Angelom of Luxeuil, In Genesin IV.13‒14 (PL 115.149A); Haimo of Auxerre, In Genesim IV.13 (PL 131.70A-B). Adapted from Bede, In principium Genesis  II.iv.15 (CCL  118A.79‒80). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 12. See Bede, In principium Genesis II.iv.14 (CCL 118A.79). See Gen. 9:3. Quoted as Jewish interpretation by Haimo of Auxerre, In Genesim IV.23 (PL 131.71D‒72A). Cf. Hailperin, Rashi, 109. Hugh’s observations about Lamech’s infallible bow and the purpose of his hunting may be derived from Joseph Kara. See Aryeh Graboïs, “The hebraica veritas and Jewish-Christian intellectual relations in the twelfth century,” Speculum 50 (1975), n. 36.

114 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112

113 114

115 116 117 118 119

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R – N OT E S ON G E N E S I S Another interpretation ascribed to Joseph Kara. See Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 104; Awerbuch, Christlich-jüdische Begegnung, 221. Quoted as Jewish interpretation by Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 4,26 (CCL 72.8). See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 5,2 (CCL 72.8). Adapted from Bede, In principium Genesis II.v.3 (CCL 118A.93). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 12. Cf. Hugh, Sacr. I.11.4 (PL 176.344D‒345A; tr. Deferrari, 183‒84). See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 3,17 (CCL 72.6). Adapted from Bede, In principium Genesis  II.v.25‒29 (CCL  118A.97‒98) and Jerome, ­Hebraicae quaestiones 5,29 (CCL 72.9). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 12‒13. Gen. 3:17. Adapted from Josephus, Ant. I.73 (tr. Louis H. Feldman, Judean Antiquities I-IV [Leiden: Brill 2000], 26‒27). Cf. Hailperin, Rashi, 109; Awerbuch, Christlich-jüdische Begenung, 226. See 2 Kings 20. See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 6,3 (CCL 72.9‒10). See 2 Pet. 2:5. Following the Vulgate: potentes a saeculo. The Douai-Rheims translation has: the mighty men of old. Gen. 1:28. coram Deo for coram Domino, as in Paris, BnF, lat. 15695, fol. 75v. notat for nota, as in Paris, BnF, lat. 15695, fol. 75v. See Origen, Homilies on Genesis, Homily II.2 (ed. Ronald E. Heine, [Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982], 76‒77). Hugh discusses the plan and shape of the ark in greater detail in De archa Noe 1.4 (CCCM 176.18‒23). See Augustine, Quaestionum in Heptateuchum I.8 (CCL 33.4). See Bede, In principium Genesis II.vii.2‒3 (CCL 118A.113‒14). The reference is to the six-hundreth year of Noah’s lifetime. See Gen. 7:11. Rather: the fourteenth day. Following Gen. 7:11, the chronology of Noah’s six-hundreth year is forty-seven days in advance to that of the Flood. Rather: the eleventh month. Rather: forty seven days. vigesimus quintus for vigesimi quinti, as in Paris, BnF, lat. 15695, fol. 76r. See Augustine, Quaestionum in Heptateuchum I.7 (CCL 33.5). See Augustine, Quaestionum in Heptateuchum I.8‒9 (CCL 33.5). Hugh sees a sequence in the Vulgate’s words exsiccata and arefacta. See Rashi on Gen. 8:13: “It (the earth) had become like clay, for now its surface had become somewhat hardened”, and 14: “It became hard as is its normal condition” (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 35). Adapted from Bede, In principium Genesis II.ix.5‒6 (CCL 118A.132‒33). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 13. Adapted from Rashi on Gen. 9:18: “Why is it necessary to mention this here? Because this section goes on to deal with the account of Noah’s drunkenness when Ham sinned and through him Canaan was cursed” (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 39). See Basch, “Zwischen Tradition und Revolution,” 229‒37. Following the Vulgate: Benedictus Dominus Deus Sem. The Douai-Rheims translation has: The Lord God of Shem. See Alcuin, Interrogationes et responsiones 141 (PL 100.532C). See Gen. 11:4. See Josephus, Ant. I.113‒15 (tr. Feldman, 40‒41). In his commentary on Josephus’ Antiquities I.70, Feldman links Hugh’s exposition to the twelfth-century Chronicles of Jerahmeel 32.4: “Ninus vanquished Zoroastres the Wise, who discovered the art of nigromancia […] He reigned in Bactria, and had written down the seven arts on fourteen pillars, seven of brass and seven of brick, so that they should be proof

N otes

120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129

130 131

132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157



115

against the water—of the flood—and against the fire—of the day of judgment. But Ninus vanquished him, and burnt the books of wisdom” (tr. Moses Gaster [London: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1899], 70). See Jon. 1:2 and 3:3. Luke 3:36. See Bede, In principium Genesis III.xi.12 (CCL 118A.163‒64). See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 11,28 (CCL 72.15); Bede, In principium Genesis III.xi.28 (CCL 118A.165‒66). Adapted from Haimo of Auxerre, In Genesim XII.13 (PL 131.82C-D). See Gen. 20:12. Luke 24:28. 2 Kings 6:19‒20. Matt. 26:69‒75. See Hugh’s note on Gen. 20:17‒18. Adapted from Rashi on Gen. 13:4: “Which he had made there at the first and where Abram had called …; but it may also be explained that it means that Abram now called there upon the name of the Lord” (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 52). Heb. 7:1‒3. See Angelom of Luxeuil, In Genesin XIV.18 (PL 115.175C). Cited by Smalley (The Study of the Bible, 99‒100) as a striking example of Hugh’s adherence to the literal sense, because the Melchizedek episode was usually seen as a prefiguration of the Eucharist. See also Awerbuch, Christlich-jüdische Begegnung, 220 n. 124. levabo for leva, as in Paris, BnF, lat. 15695, fol. 76v. See Bede, In principium Genesis IV.xv.2‒3 (CCL 118A.194). See Bede, In principium Genesis IV.xviii.14 (CCL 118A.217). See Gen. 19:1. See Bede, In principium Genesis IV.xix.31‒32 (CCL 118A.229). See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 19,36‒38 (CCL 72.24). See Gen. 18:11. See Gen. 12:11‒20. Cf. Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 20,12 (CCL 72.24). See Rashi on Gen. 20:12: “one’s children’s children are considered as one’s own children” (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 86). See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 20,12 (CCL 72.24). See Bede, In principium Genesis IV.xx.16 (CCL 118A.234). See Hugh’s note on Gen. 12:17. Adapted from Pseudo-Bede, In Pentateuchum commentarii XXII (PL 91.244C). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 17. Cf. Awerbuch, Christlich-jüdische Begegnung, 228. See Bede, Liber de locis sanctis II (CSEL 39.305). See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 23,16 (CCL 72.28). Adapted from Rashi on Gen. 24:18: “She let down her pitcher from off her shoulder” (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 103). Following the Vulgate: ad lavandos pedes camelorum. The Douai-Rheims translation has: to wash his feet. nota for notat, as in Paris, BnF, lat. 15695, fol. 78v. See Matt. 4:4. See Rashi on Gen. 24:57: “From this we may infer that a woman should not be given in marriage except with her own consent” (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 109‒10). Quoted as a Jewish interpretation by Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 27,15 (CCL 72.34). Gen. 27:36. See Lucretius, De rerum natura IV.696. in perfectionem for imperfectionem, as in Paris, BnF, lat. 15695, fol. 77v. Adapted from Augustine, Quaestionum in Heptateuchum I.lxxxv on Gen. 28:19 (CCL 33.32). See Pollitt, “Some Considerations,” 24‒25.

116 158 159 160 161 162 163 164

165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173

174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185

186 187

188 189

190

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R – N OT E S ON G E N E S I S See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 28,19 (CCL 72.34). See Haimo of Auxerre, In Genesim XXX.11‒12 (PL 131.109A). See Gen. 32:3‒6 and 33:16. See Augustine, Quaestionum in Heptateuchum I.cxviiii (CCL 33.45). See Augustine, Quaestionum in Heptateuchum I.cxxi (CCL 33.45). Gen. 4:7. See Rashi on Gen. 37:10: “Jacob’s intention in pointing out the absurdity of Joseph’s mother, who was dead, bowing down to him was to make his sons forget the whole matter so that they should not envy him” (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 181). See Awerbuch, Christlichjüdische Begegnung, 229. Following the Vulgate: resinam et stactem. The Douai-Rheims translation has: balm and myrrh. See Isidore, Etym. XVII.7.71 (Lindsay). See Augustine, Quaestionum in Heptateuchum I.cxxiiii (CCL 33.48). See Deut. 25:5 and Lev. 20:10. See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 38,26 (CCL 72.46). See Isidore, Etym. XIX.25.2‒3 (Lindsay). See Augustine on Gen. 42:15‒16, Quaestionum in Heptateuchum I.cxxxviiii (CCL 33.53‒54). Eccl. 10:16. See Rashi on Gen. 44:10: “When there are ten men and stolen property is found in possession of one of them, all of them are involved in the theft. I, however, shall deal with you within the line of strict justice … and only he with whom it is found shall be my bondsman” (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 219‒20). See Augustine, Quaestionum in Heptateuchum I.cxlv (CCL 33.55). Gen. 43:7. See Augustine, Quaestionum in Heptateuchum I.cxlvii (CCL 33.56). superveniente for supervenientes, as in Paris, BnF, lat. 15695, fol. 78v. pena et gloria for poena gloria, as in Paris, BnF, lat. 15695, fol. 78v. See Rashi on Gen. 46:34: “every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians: because they (sheep) are regarded by them as deities” (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 232). See Gen. 28:11‒22. See Rashi on Gen. 48:7: “although I trouble you to take me for burial into the land of Canaan and I did not do this for your mother”, etc. (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 239). Following the Vulgate: Benedixitque Joseph filio suo. The Douai-Rheims translation has: And Jacob blessed the sons of Joseph. vilificatus for vivificatus, as in Paris, BnF, lat. 15695, fol. 78r. See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 49,3‒4 (CCL 72.52). See Num. 7:12, where Nahshon of the tribe of Judah made the first offering in dedication of the tabernacle. In midrashic literature, Nahshon or the tribe of Judah was the first to enter the Red Sea. See Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer XLII (tr. Gerald Friedlander [London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, 1916], 330‒31). See 1 Sam. 10:1. See Hailperin, Rashi, 109‒10, where the parallel with the Midrash Tanhuma is pointed out. See Gen. 37:26‒27. See Hailperin, Rashi, 109‒110; Awerbuch, Christlich-jüdische Begegnung, 224‒25. The reference to the liberation of Joseph is derived from the midrash Genesis Rabbah, while the distinction of two phases in Judah’s reign owes something to Joseph Bekhor Shor. Judg. 1:2. See Rashi on Gen. 49:11: “the vines will be so productive that a man of Judah will bind to a vine one foal and he will fully load it with the grapes of only one vine, and from the produce of only one branch he would load one ass’s colt” (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 246). Adapted from Rashi on Gen. 49:12: “There will be redness of eyes because of abundance of wine and there will be whiteness of teeth because of abundance of milk” (tr. Rosenbaum

N otes

191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198

199 200



117

and Silbermann, 246‒47). See Hailperin, “Jewish Influence,” 167‒68; idem, Rashi, 107‒8; Awerbuch, Christlich-jüdische Begegnung, 223. judicabit for judicabat, as in Paris, BnF, lat. 15695, fol. 79r. ne for nec, as in Paris, BnF, lat. 15695, fol. 79r. See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 49,17‒18 (CCL 72.54‒55). See Josh. 13:15‒32. See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 49,19 (CCL 72.55). See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 49,21 (CCL 72.55). See Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones 49,22‒26 (CCL 72.55‒56). Hag. 2:8. Adapted from Rashi on Gen. 49:26: “He gave me a blessing that bursts all bounds, one that has no limits, that reaches even unto the four corners of the world” (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 251). See Gen. 30:1‒6 and 21:9‒14. See Judg. 5. See Rashi on Gen. 49:21: “He giveth sayings of pleasantness: Due to them (to the ten thousand men of Naphtali) Deborah and Barak sang a song” (tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann, 249).

LITTERA AND HISTORIA: FOUR TEXTS ON THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN HISTORY AND EXEGESIS

INTRODUCTION BY FRANS VAN LIERE AND MARK ZIER

INTRODUCTION History was an essential part of Victorine exegesis; it was regarded as fundamental to the understanding of Scripture. In Hugh of St Victor’s words, it was “the foundation, as it were, of all learning, a foundation that first of all should be gathered in the memory.”1 For Hugh, in good Augustinian fashion, God’s dealings with humankind were in the first place historical events (res gestae).2 But “history” was not just these events themselves, but also the “narration of deeds (rerum ge­ starum narratio), as expressed by the first meaning of the letter.”3 Thus the primary meaning of the biblical text was the historical narrative, consisting of the work of creation and the work of salvation. For Hugh, history was sacramental history. It was a framework within which all the “mysteries of faith” (sacramenta)4 had their place. Through the allegorical understanding of Scripture, “through an action in history that was found in the literal sense, another action, whether in the past, present, or future, is signified.”5 And thus the initiated reader could perceive how historical events pointed to other ones, especially to those that constitute the salvific work of Christ in this world. History was not a succession of random events, but a clearly structured plan for the salvation of this world, in which structures were repeated and patterns succeeded each other in successive ages, culminating in the greatest mystery of all, Christ’s incarnation, passion, and resurrection. The texts translated in this section represent the various ways in which history and exegesis intersected in Victorine learning. While Hugh’s Chonicon presents history as a bare-bones framework that students needed to memorize in order to understand Scripture, the texts following it here show that the establishment of such a historical narrative could some1

2

3 4 5

See below, p. 141. Translation mine. See also Franklin T. Harkins, Reading and the Work of Restoration: History and Scripture in the Theology of Hugh of St. Victor, Studies and Texts 167 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2009), 14‒41. See also Wendelin Knoch, “Geschichte als Heilsgeschichte,” in Hochmittelalterliches Ge­ schichtsbewußtsein im Spiegel nichthistoriographischer Quellen, ed.  Hans-Werner Goetz (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1998), 19‒30. See below, p. 141. I have chosen to translate “littera” here as “text” rather than as “letter”. Hugh of St Victor, Didasc. V.7 (tr. Harkins, VTT 3.158). See below, p. 141. Translation mine.

122

L I T T E R A A N D H I ST OR IA

times lead to exegetical challenges, both in the case of straightforward historical texts such as the book of Kings, but especially in the case of more prophetic texts such as the book of Daniel. Hugh’s Chronicon as an Exegetical Work

The first work presented here in translation is the preface to Hugh of St Victor’s Chronicon, On the Three Most Important Circumstances of Deeds. This Chronicon is not really a chronicle in the common sense of the word, but rather a collection of lists of patriarchs and priests, popes, and the rulers of the world empires arranged in parallel columns.6 In the preface to this Chronicon, Hugh says: Because, as we said, memory rejoices in brevity, while the deeds unfolded in history are almost without number, it is necessary for us to gather up a certain brief summary drawn from all these deeds—a foundation of the foundation so to speak—that is, a first foundation that the mind can easily grasp and retain in memory.7

The Chronicon was thus intended as a kind of two-dimensional memory palace, within which could be placed the sacraments or mysteries of God’s work of salvation.8 The fact that these lists can also be found in manuscripts under the names of Richard and Andrew of St Victor, the latter a student of Hugh, shows that this memorization of world chronology was probably an essential element of education at the abbey of Saint Victor. In his preface, Hugh clarifies the role of history within the framework of spiritual learning. He calls it “the foundation, as it were, of all learning; a foundation that first of all should be gathered in memory.”9 The preface to Hugh’s Chronicon has close parallels to what he devised in his Little Book on Forming the Ark.10 As Grover Zinn has pointed 6

7 8 9 10

Part of the Chronicon itself is edited by L. B. Mortensen, “Hugh of St. Victor on Secular History. A preliminary edition of a chapter from his Chronica,” Cahiers de l’Institut du moyen âge grec et latin 62 (1992): 3‒30. See below, p. 141‒42. Author’s translation. On the Chronicon as a work intended to train readers in the memorization of history, see Harkins, Reading and the Work of Restoration, 14‒41. See below, p. 141. Hugh, Libellus, translated as “A Little Book about Constructing Noah’s Ark,” by Jessica Weiss, in The Medieval Craft of Memory. An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, Mary Carruthers and

I ntroduction



123

out, Hugh envisioned his mental ark as a three-dimensional structure in which the timeline of history was the keel of the ark, while a map of the world (mappa mundi) was inscribed around the ark as seen from above. Thus history, as retained in one’s memory, was truly the foundation of all wisdom, that is, knowledge and understanding in action.11 Hugh divided history according to the two works of God: the work of creation and the work of restoration. The former took six days, the latter six ages (aetates): namely “the first from Adam to Noah, the second from Noah to Abraham, the third from Abraham to David, the fourth from David to the Babylonian captivity, the fifth from the Babylonian captivity to the coming of Christ, [and the sixth from the coming of Christ to the end of the world].”12 The pages that follow the preface in the manuscripts of the Chronicon spell out with long lists which rulers lived during these ages, presenting a continuous line from the beginning of creation to the present age. Hugh emphasized that the basis of this historical diagram should be the timeline according to the Hebrew text of the Bible (iuxta Hebraicam veritatem),13 rather than according to the Septuagint chronology. As we will see below, the idea of the primacy of Hebrew chronology was not new, but it may help to explain Hugh’s attention to the text of the Hebrew Bible, which was one of the methodological presuppositions underlying his literal exegesis, as Jan van Zwieten has pointed out in the previous section. The Reigning Years of the Kings of Israel and Judah

One of the texts that continually gave medieval exegetes historical headaches was the book of Kings. Essentially a parallel history of what modern exegetes have called the period of the “divided monarchy,” the book of Kings provided many chronological indications of the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah as well as their synchronicity. The problem, however, was that many of these statements did not

11

12 13

Jan M. Ziolkowski (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), 41‒70. Grover A. Zinn, “Historia fundamentum est: the role of history in the contemplative life according to Hugh of St. Victor,” in Contemporary Reflections on the Medieval Christian Tradition. Essays in Honor of Ray C. Petry, ed. G. H. Shriver (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1974), 135‒58. Hugh, Script. 17 (tr. Van Liere, VTT 3.229). See below, p. 143.

124

L I T T E R A A N D H I ST OR IA

completely align, and sometimes even contradicted each other. For example, 2 Kings 8:16 states that Jehoram of Judah started to rule in the fifth year of Jehoram of Israel. However, 2 Kings 1:17 says that Jehoram of Israel started to rule in the second year of Jehoram of Judah. In another example, 2 Kings 15:1 states that King Uzziah of Judah (also called Azariah) ruled for fifty-two years. King Pekah of Israel started to rule in the fifty-second year of Uzziah (2 Kings 15:27), but verse 32 indicates that Jotham, son of Uzziah, started to rule in the second year of Pekah. This would bring the total years of Uzziah’s rule to fifty-four, not fiftytwo. Similarly, according to 2 Kings 16:1, Ahaz, son of Jotham, started to rule in the seventeenth year of Pekah, who, as was said, reigned for twenty years. However, Pekah’s successor Hoshea started to rule in the twelfth year of Ahaz (2 Kings 17:1), leaving a discrepancy of nine, or at most ten, years between the two statements. Medieval exegetes were well aware of the discrepancies. Jerome, in a letter to the priest Vitalis, exclaimed: Re-read all the books of the Old and New Testament, and you will find such a discrepancy of years, and such a confused reckoning between the reign of both Judah and Israel, that to solve questions like these seems the task not as much for a scholar as for a man of leisure.14

Victorine exegetes, starting with Andrew of St Victor, made some courageous attempts to resolve these difficulties, however. As an appendix to his commentary on Samuel and Kings, which was composed sometime in the 1140s, Andrew wrote a treatise on the difficulties in the chronology of the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel.15 Disagreeing with Andrew’s resolutions, Richard of St Victor decided to write a similar treatise in which he offered his own solutions.16 Richard’s treatise is dedicated to a Bernard, whom some scholars have mistakenly identified as Bernard of Clairvaux.17 Apparently unaware of Richard’s treatise, Peter Comestor also dedicated one chapter of his Historia scholastica to this matter, in which he made extensive use of Andrew’s treatise, following it verbatim for the greater part.18 Since I have published the 14 15 16 17 18

Jerome, Letter 72, Ad Vitalem Presbyterem (PL 22.676A, my translation). Andrew of St Victor, Reg., CCCM 53A.135‒43. Richard of St Victor, Concord., PL 196.241‒48, translated below, pp. 147‒59. Rudolf Goy, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Werke Richards von Sankt Viktor im Mittel­ alter, BV 18 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), 112. But see also Feiss, below p. 215. Peter Comestor, Historia scholastica, cap. 47 (sedatio contrarietatum), PL 198.1427‒32.

I ntroduction



125

translation of Andrew’s treatise elsewhere, I have here translated Peter’s tract. Peter Comestor was a canon of the cathedral at Paris with close ties to the abbey of Saint Victor. His Historia scholastica is a running commentary on the entire historical sequence of Scripture, explaining it entirely according to the historical sense, which he wrote sometime before 1173. A century later, all three texts on the chronology of Kings were used by Peter John Olivi.19 The topic has not ceased to stir pens: later authors who wrote on the chronology of kings include famous chronologers such as Archbishop James Ussher,20 and, in the twentieth century, W. F. Albright and Edwin Thiele.21 Interestingly, the arguments used by modern authors to explain the discrepancies often are not that different from those of their Victorine predecessors. Andrew and Peter Comestor used a number of different explanations to account for the discrepancies in regnal years. Their most common-sense explanation was that of synecdoche, the figure of speech by which a part refers to the whole, or vice versa. In other words, even though a ruler may have ruled only for one month of a certain year, Scripture refers to this period as an entire year, rounding figures up or down by a year. The discrepancies in the reigns of Abijam (1 Kings 15:1, 9) and Nadab (1 Kings 15:25, 28) could be explained this way, they point out. Another explanation frequently cited by Andrew and Comestor was textual corruption and scribal error. One such case is the reign of Jeoahaz, where a contradiction between 2 Kings 13:2 and 10 made for a discrepancy of three years. Andrew says: “[…] perhaps this difficulty originated with the mendacity of the codices and the negligence of the scribes, which very often makes errors in numbers, especially when they are distinguished from each other by only a slight distance.”22

19 20

21

22

The treatise of Olivi can be found in ms Padua, Biblioteca Universitaria, 1540, fol. 178r sq. James Ussher, “De chronologia Veteris Testamenti,” in Annales Veteris et Novi Testimenti: a prima mundi origine deducti. Una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Ægyptiacarum chronico, a tem­ poris historici principio usque ad extremum templi et reipublicæ judaicæ excidium producto. Accedunt tria ejusdem opuscula: I. De chronologia Veteris Testamenti. II. De Macedonum et Asianorum anno solari. III. De symbolis (Geneva: Apud Gabrielem de Tournes et filios, 1722). Edwin Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1951); and W. F. Albright, “The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 100 (1945): 16‒22. See also John H. Hayes and Paul K. Hooker, A New Chronology for the Kings of Israel and Judah and its Implications for Biblical History and Literature (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988). Andrew of St Victor, Reg. (tr. Van Liere, CCT 3:202).

126

L I T T E R A A N D H I ST OR IA

A similar solution was offered in the case of the reign of Amaziah, where a comparison between 2 Kings 14:1‒2 and 17 made for a discrepancy of ten years. Ironically, in most of the cases where Andrew suspected scribal corruption, a survey of the biblical codices and versions showed no such thing; conversely, in the one case where there actually was corruption, Andrew failed to point it out. On the question of the age at which King Jehoram of Judah begat his son Ahaziah, the text of 2 Kings 8:16‒17 that Andrew used must have given Jehoram’s age as twenty-two, which suggested that at the time of the birth of his son he must have been eight years old. Andrew explained this contradiction by referring to a rabbinic tradition, which he found in the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Paralipomenon by Pseudo-Jerome, a ninthcentury Christian convert from Judaism. According to this tradition, only the years that Jehoram ruled justly and righteously were counted as the official years of his reign.23 (Andrew used a similar reasoning to explain the discrepancy in the reigning years of Zechariah given in 2 Kings 2:8, where he suggests that the years of his sinful reign were not officially counted.) Peter Comestor, by contrast, pointed out that the number “twenty-five” as Jehoshaphat’s age occurred in only some codices. Most manuscripts read “thirty-five” here. In fact, there does not seem to be much textual support for Andrew’s reading outside his own commentary. In some cases, political unrest was cited as the reason that Scripture gives conflicting dates. 1 Kings 16:23 states that Omri started to rule in the thirty-first year of Asa and ruled for twelve years, but 1 Kings 16:29 states that Omri was succeeded by Ahab in the thirty-ninth year of Asa. All three authors explain the discrepancy based on the fact that there was a rebellion by Thibni and Omri’s reign was contested. One passage states the total years he ruled, the other the years that he ruled without his rival. Similarly, in the reign of Hoshea indicated in 2 Kings 17:1, both Andrew and Peter concluded that the kingdom of Israel must have been without a king for at least eight years. Thus most problems could be explained by scribal error, synecdoche, or pointing to different ways of counting the years due to political turmoil, abdication, or periods of joint rule. As for the question of why different passages in Scripture should have different initial and terminal years for these monarchs, Andrew offered a surprisingly modern23

Pseudo-Jerome, Quaestiones Hebraicae in Paralipomenon, PL 23.1393C, discussing 2 Chron. 21:20 and 22:2, which give even more problematic numbers as the ages of these kings.

I ntroduction



127

sounding solution: the book of Kings really was a composite writing. It was composed of various historical accounts originally written by different prophets, who often had variant methods of counting the regnal years of the kings of Israel and Judah. Richard of St Victor, however, did not think that there was any contradiction at all, and he was scandalized by the idea that there should be no clear answers to some of these questions. His main trump card here was the appeal to Jewish tradition, even though there is very little evidence that he actually “consulted the writings of the Jews, by way of the Jews,” as he asserts in his preface.24 In any case, he boldly stated: “It is clear to me that in these things there is no contradiction at all, even though even for them [i.e., the Jews] the truth itself has remained hidden until now. Far be it from me to believe that in Sacred Scripture the truth is somehow so far hidden that it can in no way be recovered!”25 Richard’s solution was a simple one-size-fits-all: the kings of Israel and Judah must have crowned their own sons as co-regents during their own lifetime, just as the kings of France often did in Richard’s time. In fact, this solution also has been offered in modern treatments of the same matter, even though one modern author remarks that the “weakness of this assumption is the fact that the hypothesis of co-regencies is without biblical warrant.”26 Literal Exegesis and Chronology: Andrew of Saint Victor on Daniel

When Beryl Smalley wrote in the 1930s and 1940s of Andrew of St Victor’s work as “biblical science in potentia,”27 she was clearly attempting to locate Andrew in the dominant academic paradigm of her day. Even as biblical scholarship has evolved since then, it might be useful to restate Smalley’s insight in more contemporary terms. After all, Andrew was neither a biblical scholar nor an historian in the modern sense. His interest in history and chronology was driven by his desire to demonstrate the essential coherence and veracity of the biblical narrative. His goal was to give as smooth an account as possible of the biblical story, both with respect to chronology and narrative, and 24 25 26 27

Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 110, takes Richard’s assertion that he did at face value. See below, p. 149. Hayes and Hooker, A New Chronology, 11. Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 134.

128

L I T T E R A A N D H I ST OR IA

to make it come alive in a way that his contemporaries might recognize from their own “book of experience.” With the book of Daniel, Andrew chose to confront what is perhaps the mother of all chronological conundrums: a text with ambiguous historical markers at the beginning of several chapters, together with a complicated, convoluted, and obscure chronology associated with the prophecy of Jeremiah, who spoke of the desolation of Jerusalem lasting seventy years (Jer. 25:11‒12)—a desolation that by Andrew’s day had taken on apocalyptic dimensions.28 The very first words of the first chapter challenge the commentator, placing Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem in the third year of King Jehoiakim’s reign: this conflicts with Jeremiah, who speaks of the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign in the fourth year of King Jehoiakim.29 Andrew resolves this and other such inconsistencies with the same kinds of explanation described above, namely synecdoche, co-regency, viceroys, and in this case, a tradition of two Nebuchadnezzars from Josephus.30 Yet Andrew did not limit himself to what seemed to be explicit contradictions in the text. He made it a point in treating the episode of Daniel’s three friends in the fiery furnace to emphasize that when they were thrown into the furnace they were fully grown and no longer boys (pueri). Andrew seems to have felt compelled to make this point against Jerome and the common liturgical title for the song that they sang in the furnace: “the song of the three boys,” canticum trium puerorum. Andrew proceeded as follows: having treated the chronological marker in Daniel 2:1, “in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar,” which sets the stage for the stories in both Daniel 2 (Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s interpretation of it) and Daniel 3 (Nebuchadnez28

29 30

The final “vision” in the book of Daniel (ch. 10‒12) is for the most part a thinly veiled account of the political machinations of the Maccabean period, which even Jerome had admitted, at least as far as Dan. 11:21, where the anchorite of Bethlehem soars off into an apocalyptic reverie. Andrew does not comment at all on this final vision, leaving it to the reader to consult Jerome, who “has so diligently expounded the other things that follow from this point (Dan. 11:2) to the end of the work that it would be superfluous to add anything more” (Danielem 11, ll. 42‒44; CCCM 53F.113). It is perhaps ironic that the interest in the apocalyptic dimension of Daniel’s visions only grew through the balance of the medieval period. See M. Zier, “The Expositio super Danielem of Andrew of St. Victor: A Critical Edition Together with a Survey of the Medieval Latin Interpretation of Daniel” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1983), pp. 1*‒5*, et passim. For a more limited, but more accessible survey of the medieval interpretation of Daniel, see idem, “The Medieval Interpretation of Daniel: Antecedents to Andrew of St. Victor,” RTAM 58 (1991): 43‒78. See below, p. 171. See below, p. 172.

I ntroduction



129

zar’s statue and the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace), Andrew concluded that the “second” year was the second after Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of Egypt, and thus the twenty-seventh or twenty-eighth year since he had ascended the throne in Babylon. This led him to conclude that Daniel’s friends, who were indeed boys when they were first taken captive, must have been at least 20, if not closer to 30, years older at the time they were thrown in the furnace. The attention Andrew gave to this episode seems to have raised for him a second question: how was it that Daniel was entirely absent from this narrative? In the end he concludes that Daniel and the king together had contrived a way for Daniel to be conveniently unavailable when the king commanded his subjects to worship his statue, thereby saving him from punishment.31 With the visions that begin in Daniel 7, chronology is suffused with eschatology in both Jewish and Christian interpretations. Although Jerome was not about to embrace Jewish messianism, the overriding purpose in his commentary on Daniel was to refute the criticism of the pagan Porphyry, who had dismissed Daniel as “prophecy after the fact” written during the Maccabean period.32 In this context Andrew is faced with his greatest challenges. He tangles briefly with the received Christian tradition (summed up by an anonymous Jerome) that the ten horns of the fourth beast in Daniel 7 refer to ten future Roman kings ruling simultaneously. Andrew suggests that perhaps they will have reigned in a more sequential fashion. Not surprisingly he concludes that in the end the argument is purely speculative and that only time will tell.33 It is hard not to imagine that Andrew was tempted to read this vision as a veiled account of the kings of the Hellenistic period leading up to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (à la Porphyry); but on such a text, obscure from the outset, that had implications for how to understand the (Second) Coming of the Messiah, he chose to remain silent.

31

32

33

This is a much more imaginative interpretation than the standard historical-critical assumption that views the first six chapters of Daniel as a collection of independent stories—and so, there is no need to account for everyone in every story. See Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, The Book of Daniel: Introduction, New Interpreter’s Bible 7 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 20‒22. While most contemporary Christian theologians agree with Porphyry as to the origin of the text of Daniel, very few would discount its theological validity. See, for example, J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, International Critical Commentary 22 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 79‒80; and Smith-Christopher, The Book of Daniel, 106‒8. See below, p. 178‒80

130

L I T T E R A A N D H I ST OR IA

In Daniel 9 Andrew is confronted with the much more complicated and theologically challenging subject of the seventy years of the destruction of Jerusalem foretold by Jeremiah, which in turn becomes the basis for the revelation to Daniel by Gabriel that the seventy years of Jeremiah’s prophecy should be understood to be seventy times seven, or seventy Weeks of years.34 Daniel 9 begins with Daniel praying in the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede. This becomes the starting point of Andrew’s treatment of the seventy years. After wrestling with the account of Josephus, he dismisses it and moves on to an interpretation ultimately derived from rabbinic literature. He takes from the Jewish interpretation that there are in fact two periods of seventy years: one of the captivity in Babylon, the other of the desolation of Jerusalem. While largely approving of this interpretation, Andrew is not satisfied that the Jews give Cyrus the Persian only six years, when he is almost universally considered to have ruled for thirty years. Moreover, he thinks that the Jewish interpretation plays a little too fast and loose with the numbers, both of kings and of their reigns. In his own reckoning, Andrew counts Cyrus’ reign at 30 years, beginning the seventy years of desolation with the third deportation of the people in the twenty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and concluding in the second year of Darius the Persian, in keeping with the witness of Zachariah.35 The discussion to this point has been chronological; but with the “vision” of the seventy Weeks of years that follows, Andrew is confronted with the most tangled chronological-eschatological-apocalyptic passage in the Hebrew Scriptures. Modern historical-critical scholarship has attempted to unravel the knot by concluding that the principal author of this vision, a contemporary to the events in Jerusalem at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes IV (c. 165 bce), wrote to “include,” so to speak, the pollution of the Temple in his own day within the purview of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the desolation of Jerusalem. His solution—to propose that Jeremiah was speaking of 490 years—cleverly pointed to something closer to his own time. He can perhaps be forgiven if he

34

35

In his commentary on Jeremiah, Andrew focuses primarily on the fate of the enemies of God’s people and on explicating the geography described in this passage, rather than on issues of chronology raised by the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 25:11). See ms Cambridge, Pembroke College 45, fol. 105rb sq. On Andrew’s method of commenting, see Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 120. See below, p. 181‒90.

I ntroduction



131

was off by a several decades,36 given what must have been the chaotic historical accounts of the intervening period. But this discrepancy later gave rise to some very creative interpretation on the part of both Christians and Jews. The rabbis in Andrew’s acquaintance extended the prophecy to terminate in the destruction of the Temple under Vespasian and Titus in 70 ce.37 Many Christian interpreters saw the text of Daniel as pointing to Jesus and, like their Jewish counterparts, assumed that the 490 years were not continuous;38 others saw it pointing to the Second Coming of Christ. Jerome, even in his translation of the text, made it point more clearly to Jesus.39 From Jerome on, this text was viewed as a literal prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ and was used in nearly every treatise written by Christian polemicists. Andrew, on the other hand, chose to focus his commentary on a Latin translation of the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:24‒27 proposed by his Jewish interlocutors, together with the standard Jewish interpretation. The “anointed one” of Daniel 9:24 was any of a number of Maccabean rulers/high priests—not Jesus; and the last Week refers to the events under Vespasian and Titus that culminated in the destruction of city and Temple. Andrew makes no comment on this interpretation, nor does he try to give an alternative explanation. It would seem that for the historical meaning of the text, he finds it acceptable. And as for criticism, he merely comes back again to discuss the reign of Cyrus 36

37 38

39

If the desolation of the Temple began in 586 bce when it was destroyed by the Babylonians (using modern dating), the terminus ad quem of the 490 years would be 96 bce, some 69 years after the Maccabean revolt and a date that had no particularly special significance. The Jewish interpretation given by Jerome extends it to the Bar Kochba revolt of 135. See Jerome, In Dan. 3.9, CCL 75A.889. See below, p. 199‒200. Most of these exegetes started from a moment in the story of the Babylonian Exile, although some took a rather different approach by starting with Jesus and working backwards, trying to preserve the continuity of the 490 years. For the whole of Jerome’s treatment, see CCL 75A.867‒89. This is particularly obvious when Jerome’s text (in its Clementine edition) is compared to the new edition (1969) of the Latin Bible. A few of the key phrases have been revised in the new edition to reflect the Hebrew text better. In v. 24, abbreviatae (“shortened”; cf. Mark 13:20, breviasset, “cut short”) has been changed to decretae (“decreed”; in the Ysagoge in theologiam, a text roughly contemporary with Andrew, the Latin reads ordinantur: “ordered/ordained.” See Johann Fischer, “Die hebräischen Bibelzitate des Scholastikers Odo,” Biblica 15 [1934]: 50‒93, here p. 70. For more on this text, see note 43 below); prophetia (“prophecy”) has been changed to prophetes (“prophets”); v. 26, the phrase et non erit ejus populus qui eum negaturus est (“and the people that shall deny him shall not be his”) has been replaced with et nihil erit ei (“and there will be nothing for him”). These changes soften significantly the Christological focus of this pericope.

132

L I T T E R A A N D H I ST OR IA

the Persian and those of his successors who are known from secular historians but who are not mentioned in Scripture.40 This objection leads Andrew away from a consideration of the seventy Weeks of years and back to the Jewish calculation of the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem. This time he notes in some detail the discrepancies he has observed between the Jewish figures and others found either in Scripture or in secular sources, and then follows with his own calculations of both the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem and the captivity in Babylon, working hard to reconcile the sacred and secular accounts of the series of Persian rulers. With this Andrew ends rather abruptly his treatment of the seventy Weeks of years. He acknowledges unapologetically that he has let stand without comment the translation and commentary of these verses that he has received from his Jewish interlocutors. Even as Jerome had thrown up a confusing collection of discordant interpretations of this text without giving his own judgment,41 so Andrew has done much the same—except that he has remained silent on the key question of this text being a literal Christological prophecy. We know that when Andrew opted for the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, “Behold a young woman shall conceive,” etc., as the historical meaning of that text, he brought down upon himself the condemnation of Richard of St Victor. It is rather surprising that his treatment of Daniel 9:24‒27 apparently did not. How could it be that Richard would not have known this treatment of Andrew’s and condemned it? Smalley concluded, and subsequent scholars have given little reason to contradict her, that Andrew’s written works were composed during his time in Paris where he had access to the abbey library: his commentaries on the Heptateuch and Samuel/ Kings in the 1140s, and those on the prophets, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes during his second sojourn in Paris (mid 1150s to early 1160s).42 However, the commentary on Daniel is sufficiently different in its style and content from the rest that it may well have been composed during his second sojourn at Wigmore. In the first place, he cites Jerome, not with lengthy, verbatim excerpts like those we find, for example, in his commentary on the Minor Prophets, but rather simply in summary, 40 41

42

See below, p. 200‒01. One could make the argument that Jerome knew full well that Porphyry’s criticism of Daniel was essentially correct, but as a defender of the faith he had no choice but to throw against it every argument he could possibly muster. Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 112‒14.

I ntroduction



133

as though he did not have a copy of Jerome at hand, but had only his memory of Jerome’s opinions on which to draw. Similarly, his use of the Gloss is limited, again suggesting that he did not have the kind of access to it that he had had for his other works. Finally, the one source that he uses quite extensively in the commentary on Daniel is the interpretation of the Jewish tradition. Although it is unlikely that Andrew could have read Hebrew texts, he could have consulted with the Jews he encountered, even in a place like Wigmore, an abbey in the diocese of Hereford, a town that had a thriving Jewish community in the third quarter of the twelfth century.43 If Andrew had written his commentary on Daniel in Paris, Richard would surely have known it. It is possible (though not likely) that Andrew published this work after Richard’s death; or perhaps he published it when he was in England and it did not make its way to Paris during Richard’s lifetime. The argument from silence is always difficult to make; but the possibilities are intriguing.

43



“Thriving,” of course, does not mean “large” in this context; but the Jewish community in England was at its strongest and most vibrant in the third quarter of the twelfth century, with a population perhaps around 16,000 out of a total of 1‒2 million. As financiers for nearly anybody that needed one, including kings, nobles and clerics, their importance far exceeded their relative numbers. During the reign of Henry II, which coincides with Andrew’s time in England, Bristol, Gloucester and Hereford all had significant Jewish communities. Moses of Bristol and his wife Belaset were numbered among those who served as agents of the Crown in this period. See Cecil Roth, History of the Jews in England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), 12, 14, 276, 277. In any case, we know that the famed Jewish scholar Abraham ibn Ezra, who like Andrew, “had at least a glimmer of the principles of Higher Criticism” (ibid., 126), was in London in the 1150s and probably 1160s; and that the Ysagoge in theologiam (c. 1138), found in a single manuscript (ms Cambridge, Trinity College, B.14.33), contains a fascinating text of LatinHebrew polemics that suggests a lively theological exchange in the west of England in the middle of the twelfth century. Its author, Odo, dedicated this work to Gilbert Foliot. (See Fischer, “Die Hebräischen Bibelzitate,” 51; Artur M. Landgraf, Ysagoge in theologiam, in Écrits théologiques de l’ecole d’Abélard, Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 14 [Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense bureaux, 1934], 63‒285; and more recently, Michael Evans, “The Ysagoge in Theologiam and the Commentaries Attributed to Bernard Silvestris,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 54 [1991]: 1‒42, here 1.) Gilbert Foliot, when he was bishop of Hereford (1148‒63), must have known Andrew when he first arrived in Herefordshire, and later urged him to return. Prior to his time in Hereford, Gilbert had been abbot of St Peter’s in Gloucester (1139‒48). The manuscript of the Ysagoge belonged to the priory of Cerne, a dependency of the abbey of St Peter’s. Although these circumstances do not amount to proof, they suggest at least the possibility that the kind of conversation with his Jewish interlocutors that Andrew was accustomed to having in Paris was not impossible in the west of England.

134

L I T T E R A A N D H I ST OR IA

The Present Translations

The translation of Hugh’s preface to his Chronicon is based on the edition by William Green.44 Mary Carruthers and Jessica Weiss published a translation of this work in 2002.45 Both treatises on the chronology in the books of Kings are translated here into English for the first time. The only modern editions of Richard’s and Peter Comestor’s treatise are found in Migne’s Patrologia Latina. The PL texts were used as the basis for the translations here, but they were emended in several places. The translation of Andrew’s commentary on Daniel is based on Mark Zier’s critical edition in the Corpus Christianorum, continuatio mediaeualis.46

44 45

46

Hugh of St Victor, Chron. (Green, 484‒93). Hugh of St Victor, “The three best memory aids for learning history,” in The medieval craft of memory: an anthology of texts and pictures, ed. Mary J. Carruthers and Jan M. Ziolkowski (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), 32‒41. Andrew of St Victor, Dan., CCCM 53F.

HUGH OF ST VICTOR ON THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEEDS, THAT IS, PERSONS, PLACES, AND TIMES TRANSLATION BY GROVER A. ZINN

Sons, wisdom is a treasure and your heart is a treasure chest (archa). When you learn wisdom, you lay up treasures for yourselves: good treasures, immortal treasures, incorruptible treasures, which will never grow old nor lose the appearance of their splendor. Various kinds of riches are among the treasures of wisdom, and many chambers are in the treasure chest of your heart. In one location, gold is placed; in another, silver; in yet another, precious stones. An orderly arrangement (dispositio ordinis) vividly represents knowledge (illustratio est cognitionis). Set individual things in order and separate them in their own places, some of them here and others there, so that you may know what has been gathered together here and what there. Confusion is the mother of ignorance and forgetfulness, but making distinctions (discretio) illumines the understanding and strengthens the memory. You see a moneylender who has a variety of coins; you see how a single moneybag may contain many divisions, so that one sweeping motion may touch the many pockets in the bag. For, after dividing the money and separating the individual coins from one another, he sets all of them in order by keeping them in their individual places, insofar as the distinction (distinctio) of locations [enables] the separation of things. Just as the moneybag receives [the coins] into separate compartments, so it stores [them] without mixing them together. After this, you observe in the activity of money-changing how quickly the hand moves, without any impediment, to whatever place the command of the one who controls it has directed it. And quickly, without delay, the moneylender brings out into the open everything, separately and without confusion, whether he has reached out to receive or has promised to pay out. An entertaining and amazing spectacle would probably appear to on-lookers if, while one and the same moneybag pours forth so many types of coins all separated, the bag itself failed to show many interior chambers when it was opened. Now, however, the very ability [just described] to make distinctions among places at one and the same time removes for on-lookers amazement at what has been done, and for those performing such acts any impediment to doing them. For, just as we said earlier, making distinctions among things produces a striking presentation. Indeed, a striking presentation of things

138

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

both illumines the mind in knowing and strengthens it in memory. So return, sons, to your heart, and consider how you ought to gather together in it the precious treasures of wisdom and set them in order, so that you will know the individual receptacles for each one. And then, set what you have placed in those receptacles for storage in such an order that, when reason requests it, you will be able easily to find it by means of memory, to know it by means of understanding, and to set it forth by means of eloquence. Here I will offer you an excellent scheme for making such distinctions. Things that are learned can be distinguished in the mind in three ways: according number, according to place, and according to time. Thus, you will easily grasp with the understanding and retain for a long time in memory the things that you will hear, if you will learn to consider them according to these three modes of distinguishing. I will show how you can do this according to each particular mode. The first concerns making distinctions by means of numbers. Learn to behold in your mind the line of natural numbers stretched out before the eyes of your heart, as it were, from one to any length whatsoever. Then, when you hear any number whatsoever called out, become accustomed to turning your thoughts quickly to the place where the total space for that number is enclosed1—to that point, as it were, where the number itself fully ends. For example, when you hear “ten” you should behold the tenth point, and when you hear “twelve” you should behold the twelfth point, and likewise with the other numbers so that you grasp the whole according to the outer boundary. This way of thinking and imagining should become familiar and customary for you so that you perceive (intueor) the outer boundary and end of all numbers visually, as it were, as if they had been set out in separate places.2 Listen now to how this consideration may be useful for learning. For example, I wish to recite the Psalter by heart, word for word. So I proceed in this way. First I consider how many psalms there are. I find that there are one hundred and fifty. I learn all of them in order, so that I may know which is first, which second, which third, and so on for the rest. In such a way I arrange all of them in my heart according to their order on the line of natural numbers. And when I have given a name to each one in the “seat” where it has been placed along the line of natural numbers, at the same time I direct my attention there, whether by speech or thought, so that the same “seat” is as large to me as the view of my heart: “Blessed is the man,” which is the first psalm; “Why have they grumbled,” which is the second; “Why, O Lord, have

On the Three Most Important Circumstances of Deeds 

139

they multiplied,” which is the third; this means that I direct my attention to the first place, the second place, and the third place.3 And thus I imprint this consideration on the attention of the ever-vigilant heart so that when asked I can reply without any hesitation, by recognizing the arrangement of places—whether counting in order, or omitting one or several, or reversing the order and counting backward—which is first, which second, which twenty-seventh, forty-eighth, or whatever the psalm may be. People who, in using the authority of some psalm, say that this is written in the sixty-third, the seventy-fifth, or in any other psalm whatsoever show in this way that they have memorized the Scriptures, since they indicate the psalm by giving not its name but its number. Or do you think that when these people wish to indicate one of the psalms by number, they thumb through the pages of the Psalter so that, by counting in order from the beginning to the location of that psalm, they can know the number of a particular psalm? The labor involved in such a task would be very, very great. Therefore, they have in their heart, and retain in their memory a more powerful method of proceeding, since they have learned the number and the order of individual psalms. Now, after having learned the psalms according to their numbers, I develop a scheme for memorizing individual psalms beginning with the first section (versuum)4 like the method that I developed for the entire Psalter beginning with the first words of each psalm. Afterward, I easily retain in my heart the entire series of psalms according to their individual sections. By first partitioning and dividing the book according to individual psalms, then each psalm according to its sections, I have reduced a great number of words to a brief compendium. This can certainly be seen easily in the Psalter or in other books that have well-marked divisions (certas distinctiones). On the other hand, where there is a continuous series of words for reading, it is necessary to divide the text artificially, so that where it seems most suitable—according to the reader’s pleasure, to be sure—first the entire continuous text is divided into certain distinct parts, and then these are divided into other parts, and those smaller parts are divided again, until the whole mass of words is so reduced that the mind is able to grasp it easily in its individual parts. For memory always rejoices in brevity in extent and paucity in number. On that account, it is necessary that, where the text being read extends to a great length, the text first be divided into smaller units, so that at least the mind grasps by number (numero)5 what it is unable to grasp as a text extended in space (spatio).6 And

140

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

again, when the text is broken into many sections by the subdivision of parts, the mind is aided by the smallness and brevity of these individual sections. Behold, you have seen how powerful making distinctions according to number is for learning. Now look and consider how powerful making distinctions according to place is in the very same undertaking. Have you ever considered how difficult it is for a beginner (puer)7 to imprint upon his memory what he reads, if he frequently changes the codex from which he is reading? Why is this? Surely it is because the imagination of the heart is not able to hold within itself in a uniform way those distinctive characteristics of the page by which the memory is strengthened, when the imagination is fragmented on account of the variety of books with so many different figures entering from the exterior senses. For when the imagination is shaped by numerous figures in a disordered way, with one thing replacing another and the more recent always brushing away the less recent, nothing that might provide certainty through use and practice remains personal or familiar. Thus, it is quite useful for strengthening memory that when we read books we should strive earnestly to imprint on the memory by means of the imagination not only the number and order of sections and sentences, but also the very color and form of those letters together with their position and placement: where we have seen this written, and where that; in what section, in what place on the page (in the upper, middle, or lower part) we have seen the arrangement [of words], and what we have noticed about the tracing of a letter with color or the ornamented surface of a parchment page. I think that nothing is more useful for facilitating memory than this: that we never forget to pay attention to the circumstances of things that happen externally, so that, for instance, when we recall the appearance and quality or the location of the places where we have heard this or that, we also recall the faces and clothing of the people from whom we have learned this or that, and the conditions, if there are such, that accompanied the performance of a task. Indeed, all these things are basic (puerilia);8 yet, as such, they can be useful for beginners (pueris). After making distinctions according to number and place comes making distinctions according to time—that is, [determining] what has happened earlier and what later, how much earlier and how much later, by how many years, how many months, and how many days this preceded that or one thing followed another. Something else also per-

On the Three Most Important Circumstances of Deeds 

141

tains to this mode of distinguishing [i.e., according to time]: that at a later time we know how to recall the mind to the memory of things based on the very nature of the time when we learned this or that, since we remember that one thing occurred at night, another during the day; one in winter, another in summer; one under a cloudy sky, another under a clear sky. In truth, we have woven all these things together as a kind of pre­ lude, devising basic teachings for beginners, lest perhaps, in scorning these minimal rudiments of learning, we should begin to lose our focus gradually. For the usefulness of all teaching consists in memory alone, because just as it is of no use for a person to have heard those things that he is unable9 to understand, so too it is of no use for a person to have understood those things that he neither wishes nor is able to retain [in memory]. Thus, it is of use to have heard something only to the degree that it leads to understanding, and to have understood something only to the degree that it leads to being retained [in memory]. But there are certain foundational elements of knowledge10 that, if they are imprinted firmly on the memory, easily make all other things clear. On an attached page, we have written out these elements for you in an orderly arrangement that we wish to be implanted in your mind by means of memory, so that whatever we will construct afterward as a superstructure will be able to be solidly supported. All interpretation of Divine Scripture is carried out according to a threefold sense: history, allegory, and tropology, that is, morality. History is the narration of deeds as expressed by the first meaning of the letter. Allegory is when through an action in history that is found in the literal sense another action—whether in past, present, or future time— is signified. Tropology is when we learn what we ought to do in what we hear has been done. Whence tropology (that is, converted speech or unfolded speaking) rightly receives its name, because without a doubt we convert the words of a narrative about something else to our own education when, after having read about the deeds of others, we shape them into an example of living for ourselves. But now we have history at hand: the foundation, as it were, of all learning; a foundation that should be arranged in order (collocandum) in memory at the beginning [of learning]. But because, as we have said, memory rejoices in brevity while the deeds unfolded in time are almost infinite, it is necessary for us to arrange in our minds a certain brief summary (brevem summam) of all these deeds—the foundation of the

142

H U G H O F ST V IC T O R

foundation, so to speak, the first foundation that the mind can easily grasp and memory easily retain.11 Thus, there are three things on which the knowledge of deeds particularly depends, that is, the persons by whom the deeds were done, the places in which the deeds were done, and the times when the deeds were done. Whoever holds these three things in his mind by means of memory will find that he has a good foundation. On this foundation he will subsequently build without difficulty any superstructure whatsoever by means of reading; moreover, he will grasp it [i.e., what he reads] quickly and retain it for a long time. In truth, it is necessary to retain this first foundation in memory and to keep it familiar and well-known by constantly recalling it to mind. In this way, the heart may quickly ready itself for all the things that it hears, and may quickly apply the techniques that it has learned here to everything that it will hear in the future, organizing everything suitably according to place, time, and person. Since, indeed, time and number measure the length of the treasure chest of the heart (archa cordis), place enlarges its area in width, so that afterwards other things may be arranged in their proper places. First of all, therefore, we set out in an orderly arrangement persons with their times, extending the line [of time] along the length from the beginning. Next, then, insofar as the capacity of abbreviations allows, we mark places distributed over the entire world. Now, therefore, you have your hands full, so that you may imprint upon your memory, according to the mode and form of learning shown to you above, those things that have been carefully written out below. This is so that you can know the truth of my words by experience, when you see how valuable it is to devote yourself to and expend your effort on not only hearing and discussing Scripture but also memorizing it. The creation of things was completed in six days; the restoration of human beings will be completed in six ages. The world12 was made before all the days. It was given form over six days. On the first three days it was set in order; on the second three it was ornamented.13 On the first day light was made. On the second day the firmament separating the upper and lower waters was made. On the third day the waters beneath the firmament were gathered together in one place; dry land appeared and brought forth green plants and fruit-bearing plants. Behold the arrangement of the four elements: heaven was spread out above; then the air was made, clear and still; next the waters were brought together in one place; finally the earth appeared. The ornamentation followed. On the fourth day lights—the sun and moon and stars—were made

On the Three Most Important Circumstances of Deeds 

143

for the ornamentation of the heavens. On the fifth day the fish of the waters and the birds were made: the birds for the ornamentation of the air, the fish for the ornamentation of the waters. On the sixth day beasts of burden, wild animals, and other animals that move upon the earth were made for the ornamentation of the land. Lastly, for the completion of everything, human beings were made, Adam and Eve. When Adam had lived 130 years, he begat Seth. And Adam lived 800 years after he begat Seth. This is found in the Hebrew [text of Scripture]. However, the Septuagint translators write [that Adam lived] 230 years before the birth of Seth and 700 years afterward. And the entire period of Adam’s life was 930 years. And other things follow, set out just as carefully according to Hebrew truth.

NOTES 1

2 3

4 5 6 7

8

9 10 11

Ubi summa eius clauditur. As the presentation in this paragraph makes clear (with similar clues elsewhere in this work), the example of the art of memory presented by Hugh involves the visual “construction” of a line of numbers with a visual field, or bounded space, attached to each number. Hugh, in accord with the memory tradition in general, calls this the “seat” of something to be remembered, whether an image or a text. In Hugh’s example the space is filled with a text, specifically a small section (versum) of the text of a given psalm. Hugh makes clear the visual and spatial nature of the position for each “number”. Attention is directed here not merely to a sequence of numbers, but to a sequence of mnemonic “places” with “visual displays” containing brief texts set out in a strict numerical order. The same thing holds true for Hugh’s mnemonic process for memorizing each individual psalm: brief sections of the psalm are set out in numerical order so that the entire Psalm may be memorized via a number of short passages that are retained in the visual memory ordered via a number system. The Latin versus is not to be construed as a “verse” in the modern sense, but as a “section,” “subdivision,” or “line” as found in the Psalms commentaries of Cassiodorus, et al. I.e., grasps when the text is divided into a “number” of small fragments. Hugh understands spatio quite physically, i.e. the text extends continuously so that it covers a large space on the surface of one or more manuscript pages. Taking puer as indicating a beginner, not just a young boy. Cf. Rita Copeland, Pedagogy, Intellectuals, and Dissent in the later Middle Ages: Lollardy and Ideas of Learning (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 51‒98. Puerilia can be understood in two ways: literally as “childish,” or more figuratively as “basic”. I have chosen the second translation, primarily because Hugh would have written this treatise for young men just admitted to the abbey of Saint Victor and its school. These would have not been “boys,” but rather “young men” pursuing studies in the school as novices or as external students. For another distinction between ”childish” knowledge for boyish beginners (i.e., grammar) and knowledge for the older and more mature student (i.e. rhetoric), see Copeland, Pedagogy, Intellectuals, and Dissent, 55‒98 with her discussion of grammar as a beginning discipline for “boys” and rhetoric as an advanced study for the more mature. Again, one can think not of age, but of stages of educational advancement. In this sentence the form pueris is translated as “for beginners” not “for children”. Pituit in Green’s text (p. 490, l. 40) emended to potuit, in line with the use of potuit later in this sentence at l. 41. Namely, history as person, place, and time; see the later paragraph in this work that treats the three things on which the knowledge of deeds particularly depends. On history as the foundation of all learning for Hugh, see Zinn, “Historia fundamentum est,” 135‒58. In the following material in this treatise Hugh lays out this historical foundation as a visual phenomenon that is both linear (i.e., a timeline of deeds and people) and two-dimensional (i.e., a map associated with the timeline that is inscribed upon it). The references to the “superstructure” that will be built up by subsequent learning may seem to be merely metaphor. However, twice history appears as a structural foundation in representations of symbolic buildings in Hugh’s writings. The first is the presentation of history as keel/ foundation for the doctrinal and ascetic-contemplative superstructure described in Hugh’s De archa Noe and his Libellus. On this particularly complex symbolic structure, see Zinn, “Hugh of Saint Victor and the Art of Memory,” 211‒34, and Hugh of St Victor, “A Little Book About Constructing Noah’s Ark,” tr.  Jessica Weiss, in The Medieval Craft of Memory: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, ed. Mary Carruthers and Jan M. Ziolkowski (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), 41‒70. The second instance of history as a “physical foundation” in a symbolic structure is the foundation of subterranean rocks supporting the superstructure of theology/allegorical interpretation under the vivid image of constructing

N otes

12 13



145

a building in Didasc. VI.3 (tr. Harkins, VTT 3.166‒67). The Ark of Noah described in the Ark treatises and also mentioned in De vanitate mundi is a three-dimensional structure, represented in a two-dimensional drawing, and is fabricated with the timeline of history as the keel of the Ark and a mappa mundi inscribed “under” and around the schematic diagram of Noah’s Ark. Thus one’s “memory” of the res gestae of history must of necessity be secure and firm, for it is truly the keel and foundation for the construction of the superstructure of the Ark, which represents the remainder of one’s knowledge and action and, by extension, the rest of one’s life. Mundus. See the first page of Hugh’s Chronicon, where a diagram of the six days of creation shows that Hugh equated mundus with terra et celum. See Paris, BnF, lat. 15009, fol. 3v. This is a key distinction in Hugh’s thought on the creation of the world. After God creates the matter of the world, the world takes form over the six-day period (Gen. 1). During the first three days God establishes cosmic order (dispositio); the second three days involve the ornamenting (ornatus) of the cosmos, with the creation of human beings as the culmination of God’s creative action. This distinction between ordering and ornamenting the cosmos is a defining fundamental idea in Hugh’s presentation of creation as a process in time in his doctrinal summa, De sacramentis christianae fidei. See Sacr. I.1.1‒30 (PL 176.187A‒206A).

RICHARD OF ST VICTOR ON THE CONCORDANCE OF THE TIMES OF THE KINGS CO-RULING OVER JUDAH AND ISRAEL1 TRANSLATION BY FRANS VAN LIERE

In the things that are said in the book of Kings about the longenduring and ever-changing succession of reigns, there seems, as you say, much contradiction; hence it is thought that the computation of numbers has been corrupted by the vice of scribes.2 For that reason, before I wrote anything at your request about this, I consulted the writings of the Jews with the help of the Jews, and have learned to combine their writings as well as ours into one opinion.3 It is clear to me that in these things there is no contradiction at all, even though even for them4 the truth itself has remained hidden until now. Far be it from me to believe that in Sacred Scripture the truth is somehow so far hidden that it can in no way be recovered! In the first place, one should thus know that, when we read that a certain king ruled for this or that many years, one should not always understand it this way that each one thus completed the last year of his reign so that at the completion of his reign no small part of the year was left. But if the year that is divided between the successor and the predecessor were attributed to neither of them, a large part of the truth would be omitted from the sum total. Thus Scripture most aptly and succinctly attributes the year that is common to both of them to him who ruled during the larger part of that year, to avoid minor discrepancies. Even more, if we pay diligent attention, we will find for certain that the things that we often see done in our times were very frequent back in those times. We often see that kings crown their sons while they are still alive, to prevent dissent and rebellion among their subjects.5 This was a frequent occurrence among the kings of Israel, fearing that by some rebellion their kingdom would return to the house of David. This is often found in Scripture; although it is not openly said everywhere, it can still be easily established where it occurs. And it must be noted that the time that they are simultaneously ruling6 is sometimes attributed to the father only, sometimes to the son only, and sometimes both to the father and to the son. There are those who, even though they already had crowned their sons, in no way wanted them to exercise royal power while they were still alive. Thus, the time of such a reign is attributed rightly to the father alone. There are those who after the coronation of their sons retire in quiet, because of either their body’s or their mind’s feebleness, live a life of

150

R ichard of St   V ictor

leisure, and commit the business of ruling in all respects to their sons. Would not those times of ruling more rightly be attributed to the son than to the father? But when they managed the business of the kingdom together, and defended the kingdom against rebels, sometimes together and sometimes separately (as we read that the Roman emperors also did in their own time), would not these times of ruling rightly be credited to both? See, Jeroboam the king of Israel is said to have ruled for twenty-two years, and his son Nadab for two years.7 If those two are said to have completed twenty-six years in ruling, what is said about the comparison of the two reigns can never stand. For if Asa, king of Judah, ruled in the twentieth year of King Jeroboam, how could Nadab, as we read, rule in the second year of the reign of Asa, and in the third of Baasha?8 But if we understand that Asa started his reign by the end of the twentieth year, so that the year that was the twenty-first year for Jeroboam was the first for King Asa, and that the year that was the twenty-second for Jeroboam and the second year for King Asa was the beginning of Nadab’s reign and his first year, so that he ruled for one year with his father but the major part of the following year without his father—if, I say, you are willing to accept it this way, you will see that in all these things there is no contradiction. Again, it is said that Baasha, who killed Nadab, started to rule in the third year of the reign of Asa and ruled for twenty-four years.9 It is thus understood that Baasha lasted until the twenty-seventh year of King Asa, even though he did not complete the greater part of it. Then how is said that Elah the son of Baasha started to rule in the twenty-sixth year of King Asa and ruled for two years,10 unless that he ruled the twenty-sixth year of King Asa and the first part of the twenty-seventh with his father and the latter part of that year without his father? For at the end of that same twenty-seventh year Zimri killed him, and ruled in his stead for seven days.11 But we read that when the army heard that Zimri rebelled and killed the king, all of Israel made Omri its king.12 It is thus evident that the year that was the first of Omri’s reign was the twenty-eighth of King Asa. Then what is this, which we read about him, that he ruled in the thirty-first year of King Asa?13 However, we know that when Thibni rebelled, half of the people followed one king, and the other half the other.14 What is thus said, that he started to rule in the thirty-first year of Asa, is understood to be said about that time when he started to rule over the entire people after the death of Thibni. Scripture says, however, that he ruled for twelve years.15 If, then, the

On the concordance of   the   times   of   the   kings



151

twenty-eighth year of Asa was the first of Omri’s reign, it is evident that the thirty-ninth year of Asa was the twelfth of his [Omri’s] reign. How then can this agree with the fact that Ahab, the son of that same Omri, ruled, as we read, in the thirty-eighth year of Asa,16 unless without a doubt Ahab ruled together with his father for two years? This agrees with that passage (sententia) that says that Jehoshaphat, the son of King Asa, ruled in the fourth year of the reign of Ahab.17 For the same year that was the forty-first of Asa is the fourth of Ahab’s reign. Scripture indicates that King Asa died in the forty-first year of his reign, and his son Jehoshaphat ruled for him. Ahab ruled for twenty-two years, hence the same year that was the twenty-second and last of Ahab was the eighteenth in the reign of Jehoshaphat. But Ahaziah the son of Ahab ruled, as we read, in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat,18 and Jehoram, the brother of Ahaziah, ruled in his eighteenth year, that is, before the penultimate year of his father, but someone else ruled in his last year.19 Then how is it true that Ahaziah ruled for two years, or how can he have ruled for his father if his brother started to rule in the last year of their father? But from this we are made to understand that he acted for one year in his reign with his father and the other with his brother. It is understood that this same Ahaziah at the end of the penultimate year of his father received the reign from his father, and he finished the major part of the following year with his father. This same year, as we said, which was the last of Ahab was the eighteenth of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. It is thus assessed that at the end of his eighteenth year, after the death of his father Ahaziah, he was broken by a fall and, after a prophesy by Elijah, despairing about his life, he received his brother onto his throne, and finished another year with him while he was sick. But if Jehoram, the son of Ahab and brother of Ahaziah, ruled in the nineteenth year of Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, as we read about him,20 how then a little later can he be said to have ruled in the second year of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, that same king of Judah?21 Or was perhaps the same year that was the eighteenth of the father also the second year for the son? It could very well be that at that time the father crowned his son either because of some infirmity or for some other reason, even though he did yet allow him to exercise royal power for some time. For it should be noted that, while Jehoram the son of Ahab is said to have ruled in the second year of the other Jehoram, it is not said “of King Jehoram” and it is not said “in the second year of his reign.” Scripture says none of those things mentioned above that it was accustomed to

152

R ichard of St   V ictor

say of the other kings, but speaking about the death of Ahaziah it adds: And his brother Jehoram ruled for him the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah.22 If the son of Ahab ruled in the second year of the son of Jehoshaphat, how then is what is said to the contrary true, [namely] that the son of Jehoshaphat ruled in the fifth year of Jehoram the son of Ahab,23 unless we are made to understand that he shared royal power and managed the business of the kingdom together with his father from the time that his father allowed and ordained it? Hence it is that the times of these simultaneously ruling [kings] are attributed both to the son and to the father from the same fifth year on, for the ones before that are attributed to the father only. For the year that was the fifth for the son of Ahab was the twenty-third for Jehoshaphat, who ruled for twenty-five years. Do you wish to know more clearly from Scripture itself which of these years was common to all three? It says, In the fifth year of Jehoram the son of Ahab king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah ruled Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah.24 See, the same year is said to belong to King Jehoshaphat, which was the first year of his son, and the fifth of the son of Ahab, which was not the fifth of King Jehoshaphat, but which he had in common with all others. For three years son and father ruled together. In that same verse it seems to concur that the son of Jehoshaphat is said to have ruled for eight years. For after the death of his father he could not rule for so many years, for in the fifth year after the death of Jehoshaphat Jehu killed both Ahaziah, the son of the son of Jehoshaphat, as well as Jehoram, the son of Ahab. But in the kingdom of Judah, this Jehoshaphat is found first to have co-ruled with his father. One should note that the year that was the twelfth of Jehoram king of Israel was the eighth of Jehoram king of Judah. How then is it said that Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah ruled for his father, and for one year, if the same year for father and son was also the last one for the king of Israel?25 For at the same time, as has been said, Ahaziah and the king of Israel were killed by Jehu.26 But the son could have ruled for the major part of the year with his father and the rest without his father. And because he survived his father in his reign, he is said to have ruled for him. From these things that have been said it will be evident, I think, how false is the opinion of some (not to call it their assertion), who, after they stir up a false question, by way of an answer say that the son of Jehoshaphat ruled for twenty years.27 But the father could not rule for twenty years if his son, who ruled for him, was killed by

On the concordance of   the   times   of   the   kings



153

Jehu in the eighth year of his father or a little afterwards. It is evident that Jehu, as was said, killed Jehoram the son of Ahab, who ruled for twelve years, and afterwards it is said about this same Jehu that in the eleventh year of Jehoram the son of Ahab and of Ahaziah the king over Judah, he came to Jezrael and killed Jezabel.28 Then why is it that Jehu is said to have done thing that he did first in the twelfth year of Jehoram King of Israel, and that he is said to have done what he did later in the eleventh year of that same king? But by a marvellous reasoning it indicates that for all intents and purposes his eleventh and twelfth year was one and the same. For he [Jehoram] ruled by himself alone for eleven years, and he finished one year in his reign together with his brother. One should note that in this place we found a similar situation as we found above. Above, we read: In the fifth year of Jehoram the son of Ahab king of Israel and of Jehoshaphat king of Judah ruled Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah.29 But here it says: In the eleventh year of Jehoram the son of Ahab and of King Ahaziah over Judah, Jehu came to Jezrael.30 There the fifth year of Jehoram the son of Ahab is said to be both of Jehoshaphat and of himself, whereas it was the fifth year in the reign of Jehoram only. Here, the eleventh year of that same Jehoram is said to be of both Ahaziah and of himself, whereas it was the eleventh year in the reign of Jeroham only. Jehu ruled over Israel for eighteen years, and in his seventh year Joash the son of Ahaziah started to rule over Judah and he ruled for forty years.31 Now the same year that was the last one of Jehu was the twenty-second of Joash. Jehoahaz32 the son of Jehu started to rule in the twenty-third year of Joash and he ruled for seventeen years.33 How, then, is it written that Jehoash son of Jehoahaz ruled in the thirty-seventh year of Joash king of Judah,34 unless Jehoahaz installed his son as king three years before his death? But at the death of Jehoahaz, his son Jehoash ruled alone in the fortieth and last year of Joash king of Judah. Hence we also find that the first year of ruling for Amaziah the son of that same king of Judah is said to be the second for the son, Jehoash. Scripture says: In the second year of Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz king of Israel ruled Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah.35 One should note that the times of co-regnancy are only attributed to the father here, and that is why it is deduced that the son did not in any way exercise royal power before the death of his father. Jehoash the king of Israel is said to have ruled for sixteen years, and in his second year Amaziah ruled as king of Judah. Therefore, the year that was the sixteenth and last of Jehoash was the fifteenth of Amaziah. For how did Jeroboam

154

R ichard of St   V ictor

the son of Jehoash king of Israel rule in the fifteenth year of Amaziah, as Scripture says,36 unless he ruled together with his father in the last year of his father? The same year that was the fifteenth of Amaziah king of Judah, as we said, was the sixteenth and last of King Jehoash. Amaziah thus ruled for fourteen years after the death of Jehoash, and about him we read that he ruled for twenty-nine years.37 Then why is it that Amaziah is said to have lived for twenty-five years after the death of Jehoash if he is found to have ruled for only fourteen years after his death, according to Scripture?38 But we are given to understand that after the twenty-ninth year of his reign, either because of infirmity or for some other reason he retired and assigned the business of the kingdom to his crowned son. This is why Azariah, who is also called Uzziah, the son of Amaziah, is said to have ruled in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel, as we read in the following: In the twenty-seventh year,39 it says, of Jeroboam king of Israel ruled Azariah the son of Amaziah, king of Judah.40 As we already said above, the same year that was the last in his own father’s reign and life was the first in the reign for King Jeroboam. But between the first and the twenty-seventh year you find twenty-five years that Amaziah is said to have survived King Jehoash. From that time, then, Azariah the son of Amaziah started to exercise royal power, not only by the permission of his father, but also by hereditary right. As was said above, in the fifteenth year of Amaziah king of Judah Jeroboam started to rule over Israel. Thus the same year that Amaziah finished as his twenty-ninth was the fifteenth in the reign of Jeroboam. And if Azariah the son of Amaziah received the kingdom from his father immediately after the twenty-ninth year of his father, surely the same year that was Azariah’s twenty-sixth was also the fortyfirst and last in the reign of Jeroboam. For that same Jeroboam ruled for forty-one years and Azariah for fifty-two years.41 Then what is this, that Zechariah the son of Jeroboam started to rule in the thirty-eighth year of Azariah, as we read?42 Could it be that the kingdom of Israel remained without a king from the twenty-seventh year of Azariah until his thirty-eighth year?43 At any rate, it is doubtful that, either because of his age or because of rebellion or for some other reason, he could not yet prevail in the reign of his father. We have to understand the statement that Zechariah the son of Jeroboam ruled in the thirty-eighth year of Azariah king of Judah in this way, that he did start to rule in the thirty-eighth year and he ruled for six months, not just of that year but also the following, and after him ruled Shallum, who killed him, for one

On the concordance of   the   times   of   the   kings



155

month. After them, Menahem, starting to rule in that same thirty-ninth year, finished a minor part of that same year in his reign. For, if he had finished the major part of that year, Scripture would have assigned to him, according to custom, not just ten but eleven years. The things said about Pekaiah or Pekah seem sufficiently clear. Jotham the son of Uzziah is described as ruling for sixteen years, but Hoshea the king of Israel is presented as ruling in his twentieth year.44 Hence we are given to understand that he lived for twenty years in his reign, but that he established his son as king from the sixteenth year onward, and that for some reason the latter so deserved to be exalted in his reign that the times that they ruled together should be ascribed to the son rather than to the father. In the second year of Pekah, who ruled for twenty years, Jotham king of Judah started to rule. Thus the same year that was Pekah’s seventeenth, was the sixteenth for Jotham. Hence in the seventeenth year of Pekah, Ahaz the son of Jotham started to rule,45 but as we are given to understand, at the end of that year. For if he had ruled the whole time of that year or even the major part of that year, I do not see why that year should not be attributed to Ahaz, just as the others that follow. Hence the same year that was the twentieth of Pekah, whom Hoshea killed, was the third of Ahaz. Nevertheless, the same year that is said to be his father’s twentieth was the fourth of Ahaz. Hoshea thus ruled in the fourth year of Ahaz. Then why is it said in the subsequent verses that he ruled in the twelfth year of that same Ahaz?46 Or, just as happened to Zimri, could he perhaps not have gained the upper hand after he killed Pekah and taken over his reign until the twelfth year of King Ahaz, since many people rebelled? This is why it seems to happen that the subsequent but not the preceding years are ascribed to him in his reign. Otherwise, he would be said to have ruled for eighteen years rather than nine. A summary explanation of the two tables that follow in order to discern the contradiction and the concordance of the kings simultaneously ruling over Judah and Israel

Below, I have attached two tables, which contain what I have discussed above.47 The first one contains those things that seem to raise a question or introduce a contradiction. The second table displays those same things in such a way that those individual cases that raise questions can be understood from it without any explanation. On the first

156

R ichard of St   V ictor

table, in its first column, you will find the names of the kings ruling in Judah ordered from top to bottom; and in the second column how many years each one of them ruled. In the third column you will find the kings of the kingdom of Israel, and in the fourth the periods that they ruled. The numbers that are assigned to each of the kings indicate in what year of the reign of the king of the other region they started to rule. In the first column of the second table the order of dates from the beginning of the schism to the time of the first captivity is written. The second column contains the order of the times of the kings of Judah, in the sequence in which they succeeded each other. In the third column, one can see clearly when sons co-ruled with their fathers. And what is shown for the kings of Judah in the second and third columns is shown for the kings of Israel in the fourth and fifth columns. In these one can also perceive that sometimes the times of co-ruling are attributed only to the sons, sometimes only to the fathers, and sometimes both to the fathers and to the sons. On this first table you can see the issues that suggest contradictions between the times of rule of the reigning simulaneously kings of Judah and Israel. The names of the kings of Judah

The number of years they reigned

The names of the The number of kings years of Israel they reigned

Rehoboam Abijah Asa 2nd year 3rd year 26 27 31 38 Jehoshaphat 17 18 Jehoram 2 Ahaziah

17 3 12

Jeroboam 17 20 Nadab Baasha Elah Zimri Omri Ahab 4 Ahaziah Jehoram 5 Jehoram 12

25

8 1

22

2 24 2 7 days 12 22 2 12 28

On the concordance of   the   times   of   the   kings



The names of the kings of Judah

The number of years they reigned

The names of the The number of kings years of Israel they reigned

Athaliah Joash 23 37 Amaziah 15 Uzziah (Azariah) 38 39 39 50 52 Jotham Ahaz 12 Hezekiah 4 6

6 11

Jehu 7 Jehoahaz Joash 2 Jeroboam 27 Zechariah Shallum Menahem Pekaiah Pekah 2 17 Hoshea 3 7 9

29 52

16 16

28 17 16 41 6 months 1 month 10 51 20

40

157

NOTES 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

The PL edition adds, “to the blessed Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux.” Goy, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, 112, says that the attribution as a letter to Bernard of Clairvaux is “zweifelhaft.” See also p. 215, below. This is the opinion of Andrew of St Victor, an opinion that Richard sets out to refute: Andrew of St Victor, Reg., CCCM 53A.138, tr. Van Liere, CCT 3:198. There is no evidence that Richard consulted either Jews or Jewish writings for this treatise. The only writing consulted seems to be that of Andrew of St Victor. i.e. the Jews. Probably referring to the coronation of Louis VII, who was crowned co-ruler of France in 1131, and succeeded his father as sole king of France in 1137. Reading “conregnantium” rather than Migne’s “congregantium.” 1 Kings 14:20; 1 Kings 15:25. 1 Kings 15:9, 25, and 28. 1 Kings 15:33. 1 Kings 16:8. 1 Kings 16:15. 1 Kings 16:16. The Vulg. text has “Omri” here. However, the PL edition of Richard consistently subsitutes “Zimri” (lat. Zamri) for “Omri” (lat. Amri) in this passage. I have restored the text to read “Omri,” assuming that the error rests in the edition. 1 Kings 16:23. 1 Kings 16:21. 1 Kings 16:23. 1 Kings 16:29. 1 Kings 22:41. 1 Kings 22:52. 2 Kings 1:17. Cf. 1 Kings 22:52. 2 Kings 1:17. 2 Kings 1:17. 2 Kings 8:16. 2 Kings 8:16. 2 Kings 8:25‒26. 2 Kings 9:24 and 27. Andrew of St Victor, Reg., CCCM 53A.140; tr. Van Liere, CCT 3:201. 2 Kings 9:29‒30. 2 Kings 8:16. 2 Kings 9:29. 2 Kings 12:1. The Migne text reads here “Joas,” no doubt a mistake for Joachas (which is the Latin rendering of Jehoahaz). Both Joash son of Ahaziah and Jehoash son of Jehoahaz are called “Joas” in Latin. Joash king of Judah is sometimes also called Jehoash. For clarity, I refer to the king of Judah as Joash and to the king of Israel as Jehoash. 2 Kings 13:1. 2 Kings 13:10. 2 Kings 14:1. 2 Kings 14:23. 2 Kings 14:2. 2 Kings 14:17. Some printed Vulgate versions have “fifteen” here. Reading “vigesimo septimo” with the Vulgate, instead of “vigesimo” with the Migne edition. 2 Kings 15:1.

N otes 41 42 43 44 45 46 47



159

2 Kings 15:2 and 23. 2 Kings 15:8. Andrew of St Victor, Reg, CCCM 53A.141, tr. Van Liere, CCT 3:203. 2 Kings 15:30‒33. 2 Kings 16:1. 2 Kings 17:1. Since the second table is rather lengthy, and largely redundant, I  have only included the first table here.

PETER COMESTOR HISTORIA SCHOLASTICA : THE SETTLEMENT OF CONTRARY STATEMENTS TRANSLATION BY FRANS VAN LIERE

In the book of Kings there appear some contradictions about the comparison of the years of the kings of Judah and Israel, which sometimes can be solved. But where a solution cannot be found, we believe that the contradiction occurred through the fault of the scribes, who often make mistakes in proper names and numbers. Rehoboam and Jeroboam first ruled simultaneously for seventeen years, the one in Judea, and the other in Israel. After Rehoboam, Abijam his son started to rule in Jerusalem. In the eighteenth year of Jeroboam, who ruled for twenty-two years in Israel, Abijam ruled simultaneously with Jeroboam for three years,1 which is said as a synecdoche, namely two years and part of the third year, which was the twentieth of Jeroboam. And during the rest of that same year, Asa the son of Abijam started to rule, and he ruled for forty-one years in Jerusalem.2 In the second year of Asa, Nadab the son of Jeroboam ruled in Israel for two years,3 that is, one year and part of the second, which was still the third year of Asa, and Baasha killed him. And he started to rule in Israel in his stead in the third year of Asa, and he ruled for twenty-four years,4 but not entirely. For then he would have ruled until the twenty-seventh year of Asa, but he only ruled until the twenty-sixth. Thus Elah, the son of Baasha, started to rule in Israel in the twentysixth year of Asa, and he ruled for two years,5 that is for one year and for some part of the second year, which was the twenty-seventh of Asa, and in that same year Zimri killed Elah and ruled in his stead for seven days. When he died, the people were divided. One part followed Tibni, and the other followed Omri. Omri prevailed and he ruled for twelve years in Israel.6 Here we must note that the struggle over royal power between Omri and Tibni lasted for three years and more, for Scripture immediately states that Omri started to rule in the thirty-first year of Asa’s reign.7 If at the death of Zimri, Omri immediately started to rule when he was chosen, he would have started to rule in the twentyseventh or twenty-eighth year of Asa’s reign. But in truth Scripture says later that he started to rule in the year of his election, while it says that his son Ahab started to rule in the thirty-eighth year of Asa’s reign.8 If Omri ruled for twelve years, and he started to rule in the twenty-first year of Asa, and Asa ruled only for forty-one years, it is clear that Omri survived Asa by one year. How then can Ahab, succeeding his father,

164

P eter C omestor

have started to rule in the thirty-eighth year of Asa’s reign? This can be solved as follows: When Scripture says that Omri started to rule in the thirty-first year of Asa, we have to understand that he then started to rule alone and over all of Israel, after the death of Tibni. But when it says that he ruled for twenty-two, and elsewhere twelve, years, it counts from the twenty-eighth year of Asa, when Israel chose him to be king. This time extends until the thirty-eighth9 year of the reign of Asa, when Ahab started to rule. The following scriptural passage agrees with this view, where it says that Jehoshaphat the son of Asa started to rule in the fourth year of the reign of Ahab, which was the last of Asa, namely the forty-first.10 Next, Jehoshaphat ruled in Jerusalem for twenty-five years, in whose seventeenth year Ahaziah the son of Ahab started to rule in Israel, and he ruled for two years.11 Because he did not have a son, his brother Jehoram succeeded him in his reign, and Jehoram started to rule in Israel in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat. But the question is, if Ahaziah started to rule in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat, who ruled for twenty-five years, and he ruled only for two years, how did Jehoram his brother start ruling in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, and not rather the eighteenth or nineteenth year of Jehoshaphat? Besides, in the following passage Scripture immediately adds that in the eighteenth or nineteenth year of Jehoshaphat, Jehoram the son of Ahab ruled.12 This contradiction can be solved as follows: The two years that Ahaziah is said to rule are those that he ruled solely and unimpaired, before he fell through the lattices of his house. The remaining eight or nine years, in which his brother Jehoram took over the administration of the reign while he was sick, are not assigned to him, but to his brother. Hence it is written that Jehoram ruled in the eighteenth year of the reign of Jehoshaphat, because that is when he took up the administration of the kingdom for his brother who was sick. But the scriptural passage that says that Jehoram the son of Ahab ruled in the second year of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat counts the time that he started to rule alone after the death of his brother. For the treatise of the book of Kings is collected from the various writings of prophets. Hence it occurs that one assigns one, and another another beginning point to the reigns of the kings of both Judah and Israel, according to the different accounts. Jehoram the son of Ahab ruled twenty-two years over Israel. The scriptural passage that later on says that in the fifth year of Jehoram the son of Ahab king of Israel reigned Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah,13 counts the

H istoria S cholastica < C hapter   47 >



165

time that he started to administer the kingdom for his brother while he was still alive. This Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, was thirty-two years old when he started to rule and he ruled for eight years in Jerusalem. In the twelfth year of Jehoram son of Ahab ruled Ahaziah, the son of Jehoram, king of Judah. He was twenty-two years old when he started to rule and he ruled for one year in Jerusalem.14 Some faulty codices say that Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, was only twenty-two when he started to rule, which cannot stand.15 If he [Jehoram] were only twenty-two years old when he started to rule, and he only ruled for eight years, he was thirty years old when he died, but his son, succeeding him, was already twenty-two years old, and thus Jehoram was eight years old when he begat him, which is impossible. But the Hebrews say that Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, ruled for twenty years and lived for forty-two years, which seems to agree with that passage (litterae) that says that he was twenty-two years old when he started to rule. They say that Scripture counted as his reign only the eight years that he lived innocently, before he killed his brothers. At the death of Ahaziah, his mother Athalia ruled for six years in Jerusalem.16 For those same six years, Jehu, who ruled for twenty-eight years in Israel, ruled simultaneously with her. In the seventh year of Jehu Joash started to rule in Jerusalem, and he ruled for forty years.17 Thus Joash in Judah and Jehu in Israel ruled simultaneously for twenty-two years. When those years were over, Jehu died, and his son Jehoahaz succeeded him in his reign, starting to rule in the thirty-third year of Joash the king of Judah, and he ruled for seventeen years in Israel.18 But the question is: If in the twenty-third year of Joash Jehoahaz started to rule and ruled for seventeen years, since Joash ruled for only forty years, it is evident that Jehoahaz ruled until his thirty-ninth, or rather fortieth, year; how, then, does Scripture say, in what immediately follows, that Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz started to rule in the thirty-seventh year of Joash king of Judah?19 Perhaps he ruled for three years together with his father while his father was still alive. Or perhaps the negligence of the scribes, who often make mistakes when writing numbers, produced this difficulty. In the second year of Joash king of Israel, Amaziah ruled in Judah20 for twenty-nine years.21 The second year of Joash, in which Amaziah started to rule, is counted from the time that he ruled alone, after the death of his father. Amaziah the king of Judah lived for twenty-five years after the death of Jehoash king of Israel.22 And here a question

166

P eter C omestor

arises. It was said above that Amaziah, starting to rule in the second year of Jehoash king of Israel, ruled for twenty-nine years. But Joash ruled for sixteen years. Thus they ruled simultaneously for fifteen years. Thus after the death of Jehoash, there were only fourteen years left for Amaziah, or fifteen at the most. Maybe the scribe erred, writing twenty-five for fourteen, or perhaps Amaziah during his lifetime stopped ruling, and then lived for ten, or perhaps eleven, years longer than he ruled. Next, in the fifteenth year of Amaziah, Jeroboam ruled in Israel for forty-one years.23 Thus Amaziah in Judah and Jeroboam in Israel ruled simultaneously for at least fifteen years. How, then, can the subsequent scriptural passage say that Uzziah the son of Amaziah ruled in Jerusalem in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam?24 Perhaps Judah was without a king for fifteen years, because, as we said, Amaziah laid down the kingship while he was still alive, and Uzziah, because he was still a minor, could not yet rule. But at the death of his father, when he was ten years old, and Jeroboam in Israel had started the twentyseventh year of his reign, he started to rule in Jerusalem, and he ruled for fifty-two years. Next, in the thirty-eighth year of Uzziah king of Judah, Zechariah, the son of Jeroboam, ruled in Israel for six months.25 And here a question arises: It was said above that Uzziah started to rule in the twentyseventh year of Jeroboam, who ruled in Israel for forty-one years, and he ruled for fifty-two years. Thus Uzziah and Jeroboam ruled simultaneously for fourteen years, and if his son Zechariah immediately succeeded Jeroboam in his reign after he died after forty-one years, he started ruling not in the thirty-seventh, but in the fifteenth year of the reign of Uzziah. Therefore, either the kingdom of Israel was without a king for twenty-three years, or rather throughout those twentythree years Zechariah the son of Jeroboam ruled but these years are not counted as part of his reign because he lived a very evil life. Only the six months that he lived a more reformed life, in the thirty-eighth year of Uzziah, are credited to him. Now, in the thirty-ninth year of Uzziah, Shallum killed Zechariah and ruled in Israel for one month. That same year Menahem killed Shallum and ruled in Israel for ten years. In the fiftieth year of Uzziah, Pekaiah the son of Menahem ruled in Israel for two years. In the fifty-second year of Uzziah, Pekah the son of Remaliah killed Pekah, and ruled in Israel for twenty years. The second year of Pekah, Jotham ruled in Jerusalem, and he ruled there for sixteen years.26 Thus, for at

H istoria S cholastica < C hapter   47 >



167

least fifteen years Jotham ruled in Judah simultaneously with Pekah in Israel. And the year that was the last of Jotham was the tenth of Pekah, and thus Pekah ruled after Jotham for three years, during which Ahaz the son of Jotham ruled simultaneously with him. What we read, that Hoshea killed Pekah and ruled for him in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah,27 counts the rule of Jotham from that time that he ruled together with his father, who had leprosy. But where we read that he ruled in the second year of Pekah and that he ruled for sixteen years counts [his rule] from that time that he ruled alone after the death of his father. Next, in the twelfth year of Ahaz, Hoshea ruled for ten years in Israel.28 But if Pekah and Ahaz only ruled for three years simultaneously, as was said, then Pekah was killed in the fourth year of Ahaz. And if29 Hoshea, his killer, did not rule for him until the twelfth year of Ahaz, then the kingdom of Israel was without a king for eight years. Thus the aforesaid contradictions, and others as well that we may have overlooked, can be resolved either by synecdoche, because some of them ruled together with their fathers before they ruled alone, or because sometimes the kingdoms were sometimes without a king. Here ends the history of the books of Kings, in which are also included the books of Chronicles.

NOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

1 Kings 15:1. 1 Kings 15:9. 1 Kings 15:25. 1 Kings 15:28 and 33. The Migne edition of Comestor erroneously reads “thirty-four”. 1 Kings 16:8. 1 Kings 16:15‒23. 1 Kings 15:23. 1 Kings 15:29. Migne’s edition reads “twenty-eighth” instead of “thirty-eighth” here. Migne’s edition reads “twenty-eighth” instead of “thirty-eighth” here. 1 Kings 22:41. 1 Kings 22:42 and 52. 2 Kings 3:1. 2 Kings 8:16. 2 Kings 8:16‒17, 25‒26. While most of the treatise follows Andrew verbatim, this sentence is Comestor’s addition. The “faulty codices” Comestor is referring to is the reading of Andrew of St Victor, who presumably found the “twenty-two” in his copy of the Vulgate. See Andrew of St  ­Victor, Commentary on Samuel and Kings, CCT  3:201n. It seems to agree with the reading of ­Pseudo-Jerome, cited here as the “Hebrews”: Pseudo-Jerome, Quaestiones Hebraicae in Para­lipomenon, PL 23.1460A. 2 Kings 11:3. 2 Kings 12:1. 2 Kings 13:2. 2 Kings 13:10. Corrected from Migne’s reading “Israel”. 2 Kings 14:1‒2. 2 Kings 14:17. 2 Kings 14:23. 2 Kings 15:1. 2 Kings 15:8. 2 Kings 15:13‒33. 2 Kings 15:30. 2 Kings 17:1. Reading “et si” rather than “etsi”.

ANDREW OF ST VICTOR COMMENTARY ON DANIEL SELECTIONS TRANSLATED BY MARK ZIER



Dan. 1:1 In the third year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, Nebuchad­ nezzar, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem and besieged it. With these words Daniel implies how it happened that he and the three boys came to Babylon in the first place; even if they do not clearly say it, they suggest as much. For when he says Nebuchadnezzar came and besieged Jerusalem and the Lord handed over to him Jehoiakim and some of the vessels from the house of the Lord, he seems to imply that it was in this year that the king of Babylon carried off Daniel himself together with his friends to the land of Shinar. For you will not easily discover any other reason why he should recall the siege of Jerusalem, the handing over of Jehoiakim, and the carrying off of the vessels. Thus after he mentions what the king did with the vessels, straightway he adds what he commanded to be done with Daniel and the other boys. And so the time when they had come to Babylon, and how it happened that they came there, he designates when he says: In the third year of Jehoiakim, etc.

How can it be true that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came and besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, king of Judah, when the prophet Jeremiah1 says that the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim was the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon? This question can be solved in the following way: Daniel spoke only of those years, whole and complete, of the reign of Jehoiakim in which he ruled after his brother Jehoahaz2; but Jeremiah also numbered among the years of Jehoiakim’s reign the year in which his brother Jehoahaz, made king by the people of the land, had begun to rule, but whose reign came to an end before the year was out when Pharaoh Necho3, king of Egypt, had conquered him and taken him back to Egypt. Or perhaps Daniel judged it unworthy to number

172

A ndrew of St   V ictor

among the years of Jehoiakim’s reign that year in which, while he was besieged, he was unable to exercise the administration of his kingdom or to carry on in a royal manner. But Jeremiah,4 who attends to nothing other than the length of time that had passed since he began to rule, said that the fourth year of his rule was the first of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. There is another not improbable solution to this question that we have found in Josephus.5 The Nebuchadnezzar of the Scriptures, the son of the first Nebuchadnezzar,6 son of Merodach Baladan,7 led an army into Syria in the year in which his ailing father died. It is not unlikely that it was then that he came to Jerusalem, when Jehoiakim was in the third year of his reign, and besieged and captured it, and made a pact with Jehoiakim, accepting the royal boys as hostages in exile, or rather captives, and some of the Temple vessels. When he was recalled by his father, now near death, he returned to his own land and succeeded to the throne upon the death of his father. And thus it happened that the year that was the first of this Nebuchadnezzar’s rule was the fourth of Jehoiakim’s. Nonetheless, he was said to be in his third year by prolepsis. Alternatively, the king of Babylon is said to have come and besieged Jerusalem because it was his son and his army that came and besieged it; or again, Daniel was speaking of the father and Jeremiah of the son; and thus there is no contradiction. […]

1:21 Now Daniel continued up to the first year of king Cyrus. The end of Daniel’s life is not defined by this verse, as some expositors of the sacred eloquence assert, but rather how long he was invested with the royal insignia in his original dignity among the Chaldeans. Now, they say that the year of Cyrus in which he overthrew the Chaldeans was his first year, and that afterwards Daniel began to serve under Darius, son of Ahasuerus the Mede, who ruled over the kingdom of the Chaldeans. Now the reason for this assertion is found in what we read later on in this work: In the third year of Cyrus, king of the Persians, the word was revealed to Daniel, known as Belteshazzar.8 But although nothing about this has been mentioned, neither that Daniel had been elevated to some honor nor invested with the royal insignia, the consequence implied by this verse, Daniel continued up

C ommentary on D aniel



173

to the first year of Cyrus, is that he had been invested with the royal insignia up to that time. But we read nothing in the story to this point except that he stood with the three boys in the presence of the king. Is it possible that all who stood there were invested with the royal insignia and elevated to some particular grade of dignity? What can it mean that he was thus invested and elevated with honor up to the first year of king Cyrus? Did he then put off, or was ordered to put off, the insignia, and thereafter lived without them? Against this explanation, someone9 might object: “You’ve got it wrong. For the text does not simply say that he was invested with the royal insignia up to the third year of king Cyrus, but it adds: ‘among the Chaldeans’. I give my fullest attention to what you have to say.” He was invested with honor and the royal insignia among the Chaldeans until the time that Cyrus began to rule after the fall of Babylon. Afterwards, he was invested with the same and even greater honor among the Medes under Darius, son of Ahasuerus, king of the Medes and the Chaldeans. “Why is it then, I beg you, that the queen mother speaks of Daniel as though he were unknown to king Belshazzar, who himself promised Daniel that he would invest him with the royal insignia, if he would read and interpret for him the writing which the fingers of the hand had traced on the wall of the royal palace?10 How would he be invested when he had read and interpreted the words? With purple upon purple? Now why this should happen, I cannot see, except to ward off the cold, which is ridiculous.” Know that the years of Cyrus the king are understood in different ways in the Scriptures. Sometimes the years of his reign are numbered from the fall of Babylon when he began to rule together with his uncle; sometimes, from when he ruled alone after his uncle died. If, therefore, we should say that Daniel “continued,” that is, “lived” or “persisted,” as the propriety of speaking appears to demand, until the first year of Cyrus, we should understand the year in which the latter ruled alone after the death of his uncle; and that where we read below: In the third year of Cyrus the king, the word was revealed to Daniel, known as Belt­ eshazzar,11 we ought to understand it of the time in which he ruled together with his uncle. What is the contradiction? It is certain that they ruled together, and that the nephew survived his uncle. Thus it is that some things that we read took place under Darius, we also find to have taken place under Cyrus. The uncle was 62 years old when Babylon fell, and he administered the business of the kingdom and the palace. But

174

A ndrew of St   V ictor

the nephew, whose age was more suited to waging war, pursued and conquered with his army the Lydians and other nations allied with the Babylonians. One can read it in this way: “At this time all four stood in the presence of the king; but Daniel was in the presence of the Babylonian king, whoever it was, until the first year of Cyrus the king, that is, until the fall of Babylon.” If someone should ask how it is that he seemed to be unknown to Belshazzar when he stood in his presence, one can reply that the king knew who he was, but did not know that he excelled in knowledge, for which he had been brought to his attention.

2:1 In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnez­ zar saw a dream. If the years in which Nebuchadnezzar ruled are numbered from the capture of Egypt according to the interpretation of the Hebrews12 and according to what Josephus13 appears to think, the year that is here called the second is found to be the twenty-sixth or -seventh from which he began to rule over the Chaldeans: in the fifth year of the emigration of Judah, which is the twenty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar, as Josephus reports, that same king, having taken lower Syria, went to war with the Assyrians, the Ammonites, and the Moabites. When he had conquered them, he went down to Egypt and captured it. In the second year from this conquest he saw the dream described here.

We should consider carefully which conquest of Egypt it was, in the second year of which the Babylonian king saw that marvelous dream. For Egypt was captured not just once by the Chaldeans. Nebuchad­ nezzar, king of the Babylonians, the father of the younger who saw the dream, was convinced that the satrap of lower Syria and Phoenicia, who also ruled in Egypt, had defected from him. Since he was fatigued and not able, he resolved that his son Nebuchadnezzar, of whom we read above, at that time a youth, should crush and recall the rebels and defectors and committed an army to him for that purpose. When things in Syria and Phoenicia went his way, and he had subdued the Moabites and Ammonites and all the other regions apart from Judea,14 he went down

C ommentary on D aniel



175

into Egypt, and when King Nichan, whom our Scriptures call Necho, was killed, he put someone else on the throne. As these things came to a happy ending, he was struck with a sorrowful announcement. For his father, whom he had left ill, died in the twenty-first year of his reign in Babylon, returning the debt of nature. And so, hastening with a few of his men along the short route through the desert and sending the remaining multitude by another way to avoid the infinite swarm of thieves and highwaymen, he raced back to Babylon. There he took possession of the things set aside for him by the Chaldean princes and a certain nobleman faithful to him, and began the first year of his reign, which was the fourth of that of Jehoiakim. Berossus, the author of the Chaldean history, recounts this, as we read in Josephus,15 among the other deeds of this Nebuchadnezzar, who according to the same ruled 43 years. In the second year of this conquest, or rather devastation, of Egypt, the Babylonian king could not have seen that dream, since he had not yet put Judea (as was predicted) under his yoke, nor taken any captives. If someone were to say that this Nebuchadnezzar went up in the first year of his reign and of the devastation of Egypt against Jehoiakim who was in the third year of his reign, took some of the Hebrew people hostage, among whom were Daniel and his friends, and in the following year, which was the second of his reign and of the devastation of Egypt, just as the history at hand seems to suggest, dreamed that marvelous dream, one will see what to reply to those who will point to the three years of the boys’ education with the prince of the eunuchs before they came into the presence of the king. Perhaps he will say that the king dreamed his dream at the end of his second year, and that for a long time was determined to recall somehow what he had seen—for it was killing him—and inquire for a time that was as long as it was stupid if what he had seen had also been seen by others. Finally, as the fourth year of his reign began, when the boys now stood in his presence, in desperation he convoked the sages of Babylon to narrate and to interpret what he had dreamed. But even if they can be told in some other way, the narrator of this work put these things together using an artificial order, pursuing first whatever pertained to the education of the boys, and then following with the story of the dream, which was seen before they were brought in to the king. There is another opinion on this same point that we judge perhaps to be no less probable, and to pertain not a little to the matter, but we leave it to the readers to decide which they would prefer to follow. The historians tell us that this Nebuchadnezzar, after a siege of three years and ten months, after16 having poured out much labor while he strove to

176

A ndrew of St   V ictor

join it to his empire, finally took Tyre. For the effort by which he served the Lord in the battle of Tyre, as we read in Ezekiel,17 the Lord handed Egypt over to him as a reward. When18 he had in turn conquered Egypt, he carried off to Babylon, according to the prediction of Jeremiah,19, Johanan and the remnant of the Jews who had fled there against the counsel of the Lord that they had received from the mouth of that same prophet. And since Nebuchadnezzar was then so greatly elevated and his imperial rule so magnified and exalted, some assert that this was the first year of his reign, even though, as we have said, he had already ruled for 26 years and more. This can be demonstrated in the following way: we read that the fourth year of king Jehoiakim of Judah was the first of Nebuchadnezzar. Add the remaining eight years of Jehoiakim’s reign and the eleven of Zedekiah’s for a total of nineteen. Add four to these, for a total of twenty-three; for it was in the fifth year of the emigration or rather captivity of Judah, that Nebuchadnezzar, now established in lower Syria, battled the Syrians, the Ammonites, and the Moabites. After taking nearly four years to conquer Tyre, going down to Egypt, he attacked, devastated and captured it. In the second year of this conquest, which was the twenty-seventh or -eighth from when he first began to rule, Nebuchadnezzar saw that marvelous dream which Daniel learned from his own dream, and which he told and interpreted to the king. The writings of the prophets testify most clearly that by that time Jerusalem was devastated, Judea captured, the Temple burned down, and the Syrians, Ammonites and Moabites attacked and captured by the Babylonian king. We say this lest someone stuck on vocabulary should contend that all the things predicted by the prophets were done by Nebuchadnezzar in the fifth year, not of the captivity, but of the emigration of Judah, that is to say in the sixth year before the city was captured when Ezekiel began to prophesy in Babylon.20 For although “migration” should apply strictly to those who gave themselves up freely to their enemies and migrated from their own land, as we read that Jeconiah did, following the advice of Jeremiah, and “captivity” to those who were taken off willingly or not into captivity, nevertheless they are often used interchangeably. […]

3:91. Three men. Some of our authors21 call the ones who were thrown in the furnace “boys,” and call their hymn the hymn of the

C ommentary on D aniel



177

three “boys.” But after the dream of the king, canonical Scripture every­ where begins to call them men, and never boys. Whether they had been captured and taken to Babylon with Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, or with Jeconiah, his son, how could they still be boys in the second year of the captivity of Egypt? When they were brought into the house of the prince of the eunuchs they were erudite in all wisdom, secure in all knowledge, and learned in all teaching—which they would not have been if they were babes or youths. They spent three whole years learning the language and letters of the Chaldeans before they came into the presence of the king. If, as Scripture seems to suggest, they had been brought to Babylon in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, which was the first of Nebuchadnezzar’s, as boys erudite in all wisdom, secure in all knowledge, and learned in all teaching, they would have been at least ten or twelve years old. But Nebuchadnezzar, as we said above, in the second year of the conquest of Egypt had ruled twenty-seven or -eight years from the first in which he began to rule. If you add these to the ten or twelve years which the boys already would have reached when they were taken captive, you will discover that they were nearly 40 years old when, thrown into the furnace, they sang their hymn. But if someone wishes to contend that the boys had been taken captive immediately upon the death of Jehoiakim, who ruled eleven years, or with Jeconiah his son, only eight years can be subtracted from the total we mentioned above. And if one contends that they were taken captive in the eleventh year after the emigration of Jeconiah, when Jerusalem had been captured and Zedekiah taken off to Babylon, there remain twenty years or more of that total. This confirms our assertion that having interpreted the king’s dream, Nebuchadnezzar made Daniel prince and prefect of the entire province of Babylon and master of all of his sages, and put Daniel’s friends—at Daniel’s request—over all the works of the province of Babylon. A prudent man would hardly commit these responsibilities to boys.

The question is raised whether, among all the other princes, prefects, magistrates, and nobles, Daniel—who was prince, prefect, and master of both the province and the sages of Babylon—reverenced

178

A ndrew of St   V ictor

the statue of the king. Or, if he refused, by what arrangement did he, unharmed, evade the punishment that his companions endured? It is in no way credible that this good and holy man reverenced or worshipped the statue of the king against divine law. It is likely that the king did not wish to require that he, whom he had made second in the kingdom and to whom just a little while before he himself had reverenced, should reverence his statue. Or perhaps, lest the other princes, envious of Daniel’s power, insistently demand that he fulfill the king’s decree together with them, or if he should not, they force him to undergo punishment, since the king well knew that he would never be brought to bow his head to the statue, Daniel prudently absented himself. Josephus22 says that Daniel had been thrown in the furnace with the other three; but the subsequent parts of this work prove that this opinion cannot stand. It is sufficiently probable that the king, taking the counsel of this very Daniel, acted with such foresight that he spared this man who was a necessary familiar and dear to him, and whom he would not wish to destroy for any reason, and took away from the others the pretext for not fulfilling the decree. Daniel, not ignorant of divine counsel and knowing with certainty that his companions would be miraculously and powerfully liberated from danger and glorified for their liberation, left them behind on purpose and judiciously cut off any suspicion of his absence, which was voluntary and by deliberation and counsel, by leaving them at home. To one who asks if there were other Jews among the captives who were present at the dedication of the statue and reverenced it, we reply that it was not the captives, nor the people and the peasants, but Babylonian citizens and the princes from neighboring cities, rulers, judges, dignitaries, magistrates and operations officers who were convoked for this event. […] 23

7:7 And it had ten horns. As the angel will teach us in what follows, we learn that the horns stand for kings. Until now we have never seen ten kings rule simultaneously in the kingdom of the Romans. But someone might say: “Even though that many kings have never ruled it at the same time, there have been many more than ten in suc-

C ommentary on D aniel



179

cession; the ten horns of the beast signify those who stood out from the others.” But the following text does not permit us to seek asylum in this interpretation; let us pursue what follows, and prove whether that refuge will protect us. 7:8 I beheld the horns. “I looked carefully at the ten horns of the beast.” And look, another small horn rose up from the midst of them. If that small horn is “another,” and arose from the midst of them, it must be that all the others were already there when the other arose, and thus it is the eleventh horn of the beast. That this one is the eleventh, you say, I cannot deny since it is “another” apart from the ten; but I am not compelled to confess that the ten were all present when it arose. For it could be that after the fall of one of them, before others had arisen, that little horn emerged; and thus it is said that it arose from the midst of them, since it rose up between the first and the last. “You may think that you have escaped; but now a tenth wave is about to come crashing down on your miserable head. And three of the first horns were broken off from its face. Look: the first three horns among the ten were broken off by the little horn. Therefore they existed at the time when it existed. And so you must concede, since indeed this cannot have happened if the three had succeeded each other, that many will rule in the Roman kingdom at the same time, dividing the realm among themselves. If some chance has snatched you from this danger and you are not entirely finished off, and if perhaps you have something to say, put it out there.” I am snatched from no danger; none befell me. And by your dagger, which you think you have thrust into me with so strong a right hand, I am neither pricked nor pierced. So that you may better understand my argument, I ask that you listen patiently while I clearly lay out what I think concerning the matter. I understand that ten future kings in the Roman kingdom are signified by the ten horns. From the midst of them, that is, in the time of their kingdom, and from among them and in their land a little king will arise. And because he will appear to be of little or no consequence or importance in the eyes of that one of the ten who then will have attained the kingdom, he will be despised. Finally, gathering an army, he will do battle with the one by whom he is despised, and crush him. And when this one has been killed, two others who will come forth against the victor, following one after the other, will be defeated and killed by him. And the victor, having conquered

180

A ndrew of St   V ictor

three kings in short order, will finally occupy and obtain the whole kingdom, the great and famous effect of so many victories. And in Jerusalem he will rebuild the Temple with the Jews, and in it, according to what the Apostle24 has said: as though he were God he will sit, and in his days there will be such persecution and oppression of the saints and elect of God brought on by him as there has never been from the beginning of the nations up to that time, so that even had they been among the elect they might be led into error; and he will continue to flourish in the kingdom until the Lord Jesus shall kill this impious one with the breath of his mouth.25 There! You have my judgment, such as it is, on this matter. If perhaps it should appear to you to be nothing but wind and you are ready to refute it, I beg you, show restraint. Let us set aside the threats, let us set aside the injuries. Let it be the rule for who is almost vanquished to be vanquished. You ought to remember that the victory in this contest hangs on the future, nor can we know for whom glory shall await, for whom confusion, until the outcome of future events declares it. Therefore, please proceed and allow us to luxuriate in our own understanding unless what follows or some other passage of canonical scripture cries out against it. “I had taken up arms for close combat which the prayers of your supplication have now taken from my hands. For it does not behoove us to conquer you by force, so that you may conquer us with humility. Now, therefore, if it please you, let us continue to the rest.” […] 8:1. In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared to me. To this point the holy man Daniel has treated of the four kingdoms and of the fifth which will overthrow and destroy the others and will rule forever, both in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar as well as in his own visions. The same thing that is signified here in the visions by beasts26 is there signified in the dream by the members of the statue27. And what in the dream is the stone cut from the mountain without human hands, in the visions is the Son of Man coming to the Ancient of Days on the clouds of heaven. The stone struck the statue in the feet, smashing everything. When the beasts were dammed by righteous judgment, the Son of Man overturned the kingdoms of the world, subduing all things to himself. The stone grew into a great mountain and filled the whole earth. The people signified by this human being possessed the entire world, and their kingdom will endure forever.

C ommentary on D aniel



181

A question arises here: who are the holy people signified by the stone and by this human being who will destroy all the kingdoms of the world, and put them under his feet, and rule forever? This is the Jewish people, if we are to believe them, who in the last days, as they spin the story, will do battle against the Roman kingdom and, when it has been subjected, will rule the entire world; and the capital of the kingdom and royal seat will be Jerusalem. But it seems to our interpreters that the holy people, who now rule with Christ and who will be with him to the end of the world, whom even now many kings serve and whose king all will serve into eternity whether willing or not when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, will rule in the heavens, not on earth, as the Jews think they will rule. This is the power that will be eternal, and this is the kingdom that will not be overturned nor corrupted into all eternity. […]

9:1. In the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus, of the Medes. This Darius who is mentioned here is the one who with Cyrus the Persian captured Babylon, and after the death of Belshazzar succeeded to the throne and took Daniel with him to Media and wished to place him over his entire realm. This Darius, according to the histories which Pompeius Trogus wrote and the philosopher Justinus excerpted, appears to have been the son of Astrages, king of the Medes and the Persians, who was the maternal uncle of Cyrus.28 But I do not see why it should say in this place that Darius was the son of Ahasuerus, except perhaps that Astrages was also called Ahasuerus, if he was the uncle of Cyrus as the expositors29 of the sacred books assert, except perhaps he was a brother by the same mother but by a different father, whose name was Ahasuerus. It is certain that this Darius was not the son of that Ahasuerus who was also called Artaxerxes, who took Esther for his wife after he cast out Vashti, the niece of Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, since he ruled long after the fall of the Darius mentioned here. Since there are so many Dariuses so as to raise doubt, Daniel carefully spells out whose son and of what nation he was: son of Ahasuerus,

182

A ndrew of St   V ictor

of the Medes. He adds this about the kingdom where he reigned: who ruled over the kingdom of the Chaldeans. He was the first of the kings of the Medes to rule over the kingdom of the Chaldeans. 9:2. In year one of his reign. Where we say “first” the Hebrews frequently say “one.” Thus it is that even in the Gospel we read “one sabbath” for “first sabbath.”30 I, Daniel, understood in the books the number of years concerning which the word of the Lord that came to the prophet Jeremiah that the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem should be completed. In the books of the prophet Jeremiah31 we read that not only Judah and Benjamin, but also all the nations in the region, concerning which he had already spoken, were to serve the king of Babylon and his son and his son’s son for seventy years; and when the years of captivity were completed, Judah would return to his own land. Now some begin to count these seventy years in which they would serve the kings of Babylon from the time at which Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, began to rule;32 some from the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim (whose given name was Eliachim, son of Josiah), whom Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, put on the throne; some from the deportation of Jeconiah, son of Jehoiakim, with whom Daniel, his three young friends, and the prophet Ezekiel were carried off into Babylon, as even the opinion of certain Jews would have it; but some from the capture of Zedekiah, when the Temple and the city were burned, which took place some eleven years after the deportation of Jeconiah.33 Those who begin to number the seventy years of desolation from the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim argue thus: the entire time after the death of Josiah, under whom the Jews had unified as an independent nation, in which they were forced to give tribute to a foreign power or pay a penalty, should be numbered among the years of desolation. Belshazzar, as the Jews tell it,34 numbering those years from that moment, arrived at the second year of his own reign and completed the sum of seventy years in this way: adding together the forty-five years that Nebuchadnezzar ruled in Babylon, the nineteen years of his son and successor Evilmerodach, the four years that Jehoiakim had been on the throne when Nebuchadnezzar began to reign, and finally the two years of his own reign that had already been completed, he discovered that the seventy years had come to an end. Seeing that the time of their release and the promise of liberation from captivity had passed, and that their freedom had not yet become a reality, he thought that the promise was utterly broken and that the prophet who prophesied their release was false. And so, insulting the Jewish captives’ expectation of

C ommentary on D aniel



183

liberation from captivity as a vain hope, he ordered that the vessels of the house of the Lord which his grandfather Nebuchadnezzar had taken from Judea be brought in to the banquet that he had prepared for his nobles, and both he and his wives and concubines drank wine from them; and immediately there followed the wonder of the handwriting on the wall.35

There is a question at this point: how could Belshazzar pass over without mention the years of the reigns of those two kings who, according to Josephus,36 ruled between himself and Evilmerodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, namely, of Egressarius, who reigned for forty years, and of Labosordach, the father of Belshazzar who held the throne of the Chaldeans for twenty-one years? It should be noted that there is no mention of either of these kings in the canon of the Scriptures, nor are they counted among the number of the kings of the Babylonians by the Jews. It seems quite obvious to us that the series of kings in Josephus and what we read in the books of Jeremiah cannot both be true. In Jeremiah37 we read that after the seventy years in Babylon were completed, the captives would return to their own land. It is certain that only after the death of Belshazzar the Jews returned to Jerusalem, namely in the first year of Cyrus, king of the Persians, as we also read in Ezra.38 Now, from the first year of the captivity, even if you begin to number the years from the fall of the city when Zedekiah was captured to the death of Belshazzar, there are more than one hundred and eighteen years, according to Josephus.39 According to him, Nebuchadnezzar ruled forty-three years, Evilmerodach, his son, nineteen; Egressarius, his son, forty; and his son Labosordach, twenty-one, and Belshazzar, nineteen. These add up to a total of one hundred and forty-two years. If you subtract from these the eleven years of Zedekiah and the eight of Jehoiakim that he ruled before Nebuchadnezzar conquered him, you are left with more than one hundred and twenty years. Who does not see that it cannot be true both that the captives returned when the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem were completed, and that the captivity continued in Babylon for more than another fifty years? If someone should say that the prophet did not

184

A ndrew of St   V ictor

mean that the captives would immediately return at the end of seventy years, but that the return would occur in the future and not before seventy years, that would be ridiculous. We reply that, had the captivity in Babylon lasted another three or four days, it is still possible to say that he spoke truly that the captivity was at an end. Far be it from pious minds to believe that the prophet, speaking in the Word of the Lord, should say something so ridiculous, nay, so frivolous. Besides, the prophet Zachariah, long after the captivity had ended, said in the second year of Darius, son of Hystaspes: This is the seventieth year.40 And so we have it from a canonical scripture that the captivity ended even though the seventy years were not yet complete. But what are we to do? When we strive to cut the knot, we are bound more tightly. When we labor to avoid Scylla by fleeing far away, we fall into Charybdis. It is much more tolerable to have Josephus, whom we find contrary to many passages of the canonical Scriptures, as an adversary in this place than that one canonical scripture be contrary to one another. Jeremiah says that after seventy years the captivity would come to an end and the captives would return. Zechariah asserts that the second year of Darius, son of Hystaspes, which was the forty-second year from the first year of Cyrus when the captives were freed, is the seventieth year that Jeremiah predicted. Cyrus, king of the Persians ruled for thirty years, as the historians testify. Cambyses, his son, reigned eight years; the magician brothers,41 two years. Add the two years of Darius and you have forty-two years. If the captivity had ended so many years before the seventieth year had been completed, then the Babylonian captivity would have lasted for a little more than thirty years; and so the captivity would have ended some fifteen or sixteen years before the death of Nebuchadnezzar! How, then, can what Jeremiah said, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last for seventy years, and that the captivity would come to an end when those were completed, be true? How could it be true that, as Ezra relates,42 in the first year of the reign of king Cyrus of the Persians the captives were released? Why would Daniel,43 in the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus, beg and beseech with fasting and with sackcloth and ashes the Lord to show his face upon his sanctuary that was deserted and to see the desolation and the city upon whom his name was invoked, if the captives had returned sixteen years before the death of Nebuchadnezzar? How would they have served him, his son, and his son’s son, if they had returned while he was still alive?

C ommentary on D aniel



185

Now that the opinion of Josephus has been demolished, and before we struggle to solve what appears to be a contradiction in Scripture and to arrive at a single account of the sacred texts,44 we have judged it not unfitting briefly to summarize and to consider, to the extent possible, what Gamaliel,45 learned in the law, and the Jews think about the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem and the sequence of the kings of Babylon and of their own captivities, rehearsing their considered opinion to gain a clearer understanding. They say that Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Babylonians, captured and subjected Nineveh, to that point the capital of the Assyrians, in the first year of his reign, and built Babylon as the principal capital of his kingdom. In the second year of his imperial rule, he rose up against Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, king of Judah, who was already in the fifth year of his reign (perhaps at the very beginning or perhaps at the end), and led him captive to Babylon. After agreeing to terms, he returned to his kingdom and served the conqueror for three years. Thus we read about this matter in Kings: in his, that is, Jehoiakim’s, days, Nebu­ chadnezzar came up to Jerusalem, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years.46 After that, in the ninth year of his reign, he started a rebellion against his overlord Nebuchadnezzar. In the third year of his rebellion and the eleventh and last of his reign (which was the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s rule), that same king of Babylon came up against him, besieged Jerusalem, and the Lord handed Jehoiakim into his hand. Now, we read how he was handed over in Kings: against him, that is, Jehoiakim, the Lord sent thieves from Syria and Moab, from the Ammonites and Idumeans to kill him.47 While the king of Babylon was besieging the city, they burst in on Jehoiakim and captured him. And when they had killed him on the order of king Nebuchadnezzar, they left him unburied outside the walls of the gate of Jerusalem, according to the prophesy of Jeremiah who said that they cast him outside the walls of the gate of Jerusalem; and cast out and unburied he will be buried with the burial of an ass.48 That third year of the rebellion of Jehoiakim is the year that is mentioned at the beginning of Daniel.49 For in the third year of his reign Nebuchadnezzar could not have come against Jerusalem and besieged it, since, as we read in Jeremiah,50 the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim was the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.51 That Daniel calls it the third year of his reign and not of his rebellion is perhaps

186

A ndrew of St   V ictor

because he considers as his reign only those years when he ruled autonomously, subject neither to the Egyptians nor to the Chaldeans. The other years in which he served either the one or the other he deemed unworthy of the name of “reign.” The princes of the Chaldeans came up against Jeconiah, the son of this Jehoiakim, and besieged the city only three months into his reign. When Nebuchadnezzar arrived, Jeconiah took Jeremiah’s council and surrendered himself along with his mother.52 Then all the princes and ten thousand warriors, a thousand artisans and builders, as well as the children of the royal house, among whom were Daniel and his three friends, and Ezekiel, who began to prophesy five years later,53 were carried off. This was the first captivity of Judah. The second captivity took place eleven years after the first, when the city had been captured and the sons of Zedekiah were killed before his eyes in the land of Emath where Nebuchadnezzar rendered his judgment on him. And he himself was blinded on account of the transgression of his oath of fealty, shut up in a cage and taken to Babylon,54 according to what had been prophesied about him,55 that he would not see it. Not much later, when Gedaliah, whom the king of Babylon had put in charge of the rest of the poor in the land, was murdered by Ishmael, those who remained with Johanan, son of Kareah, fled into Egypt for fear of the Chaldeans. When Egypt was subdued, the booty was taken to Babylon, along with the rest of the people.56 This can be called the third captivity of Judah. The captivity under the Romans is the fourth and the last. But if someone disagrees that the earlier one is called the third, let him say that the captivity under the Romans was the third. In the thirty-seventh year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar was struck by madness and sent away, and lived for seven years among the wild beasts. In the same year in which this befell him, Evilmerodach his son brought up from prison the captive Jehoiachin, who was also called Jeconiah, and shared his royal table with him for the rest of his days.57 After the seven years in which Nebuchadnezzar lived with the wild beasts had run their course, he was restored to his senses and to the state of his original dignity. After this he lived and ruled for another eight years. Altogether he ruled forty-five years. His son and successor Evilmerodach ruled for nineteen years and was succeeded by his son, Belshazzar, who was killed in the third year of his reign by the Medes and the Persians. He was succeeded, as we read in Daniel58, by Darius the Mede, who with his nephew Koresh59 or Cyrus overturned Babylon

C ommentary on D aniel



187

and killed Belshazzar, and, in turn, was killed in the same year. After his death, his nephew Koresh or Cyrus ruled, but barely six years. When he was killed by the Scythians, Ahasuerus who is also called Artaxerxes and Darius60 ruled for fourteen years, and set aside Vashti to marry Esther,61 who was born of another nation. He was succeeded by his son Koresh, whom Esther had born to him, in whose second year both the Temple began to be rebuilt, as Haggai and Zachariah prophesied,62 and the seventy years of desolation, which took their beginning from the captivity of Zedekiah, were completed. This can be proved in the following way: in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, who reigned eleven years, Nebuchadnezzar began his reign of forty-five years. From which, if you subtract eight years that remained of Jehoiakim’s reign and the eleven of Zedekiah, from whose captivity the seventy years of desolation begin, twenty-six remain. Add to these the nineteen of Evilmerodach and you have forty-five. If you add to these the two of Belshazzar and one of Darius and six of Koresh also known as Cyrus, you have fifty-four. Add to these the fourteen of Ahasuerus and the two of Koresh, and you arrive at the total of seventy. Thus it is that in that same second year of Koresh, who is also called Darius, the prophet Zachariah says: This is the seventieth year.63 There is no contradiction that the prophets call this Darius the son of Hystaspes and we call him the son of Ahasuerus according to the tradition of the Jews; for the same king can be called by either name, and perhaps many more. Ezra calls the same king Artaxerxes,64 even though it was in the first year of the reign of Cyrus, king of the Persians, as we also read in Ezra, that the captivity came to an end by his decree, so that whoever of the people of the Jews wished could return to their own land. Since only a few returned, and those who returned refused the help of those in the surrounding region who offered it,65 the land remained uncultivated and, as it were, desolate and deserted. It is reasonable to count that entire time until the Temple was built in the second year of Darius among the years of desolation. See how what seemed confused just a little while ago has joined together in a single account of the sacred texts. And so it is true to say that the seventieth year was completed in the second year of Darius, and that the captivity came to an end in the first year of Cyrus, and that there were seventy years of desolation. This may seem to be contradicted by what we read in Ezra:66 that Nehemiah, the cup bearer to king Artaxerxes, was commissioned by him in the twentieth year of his reign, in the month of Nisan to restore

188

A ndrew of St   V ictor

the walls of Jerusalem. But here we said that Ahasuerus or Artaxerxes only ruled for fourteen years. But this is easily resolved by saying that this Artaxerxes was another king with the same name.

But what shall we say about Cyrus king of the Persians, whom not only the Chaldean, Greek, and Latin histories claim ruled for thirty years, but even Josephus and the expositors of Sacred Scripture67 attest to the same thing? Even Cicero,68 the philosopher and orator, asserts the same in his book of divinations, telling the story of Cyrus’ dream that compelled the magi to predict the length of his reign: while Cyrus slept, the sun appeared to him at his feet. Three times, writes Dinonis, he sought to grasp it with his hands without success; spinning around him, the sun slipped away and escaped. The magi, who were the learned sages among the Persians, said to him that the threefold attempt to grasp the sun portended that he would reign for thirty years. And so it turned out. For he was forty years old when he began to rule, and lived to the age of seventy. What could be clearer than the testimony of so great a philosopher, by which both the magi told Cyrus that it portended that he would rule for thirty years, and is proved by the lifespan of the man? But someone might say that Cyrus, before he overthrew Babylon with his uncle, ruled in Persia for many years, and that the claim that he ruled for thirty years does not contradict the opinion that reckons only six years for his reign. The six refer only to those after the capture of Babylon; the thirty, to those both before and after. But even if you make that argument, you should know that neither in the histories nor in the chronicles is there any mention of the years of Cyrus’ reign apart from those after Babylon was conquered. Thus the Jews swap kings for kings, expanding the years of some, extending the years of others, showing little concern as they make their argument that what they say and think is contrary to the historians and philosophers and all our writers. This opinion should be offered in a more measured spirit, as if it were a matter of their own kings, and not those of other nations, even though they could make a case by some witness of canonical Scripture or confirm it with some particular assertions.

C ommentary on D aniel



189

Since it seems hard—to say the least—to claim things that are contrary to historical truth and philosophical assertions without reasonable cause or authority, let us attempt, with no harm to them if we can, to bring these same seventy years of desolation to a fitting conclusion, and at the same time preserve everywhere the authority of the canonical Scriptures. We begin the years of desolation not from the same starting point that they used, namely, from the captivity of Zedekiah, but from the time at which the remnant with seven hundred souls were deported by Nebuzaradan to Babylon,69 and bring them to the end that we are able to provide, if we follow what we have heard is better and more true from others and willingly set aside our errors. We posit that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, ruled in Chaldea for forty-five years. In the twenty-third year of his reign the last of the captives were taken away, at which time the Promised Land was truly desolate, since there was virtually no one left to cultivate it. Scripture recounts that in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jeconiah, Evilmerodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, released Jeconiah from prison.70 And lest one think Nebuchadnezzar was merely cast out and not dead, as some of the Jews think,71 Scripture adds that this took place in the first year of the reign of Evilmerodach.72 Evilmerodach ruled eight years, while his father was cast out for seven and died in the next. Belshazzar, his son, when he had ruled for two years and begun the third, was killed by the Medes and the Persians. Darius and Cyrus succeeded him in the kingdom. Darius reigned for four years. Cyrus reigned for thirty years. Cambyses, his son, eight. Smerdis73 the Magician was killed after he had ruled for two years by the seven princes who had conspired against him. Darius the son of Hystaspes succeeded this magician, and in his second year the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem were completed. If you subtract twenty-three years from the forty-five years of Nebuchadnezzar that he ruled before the desolation, and the eight of his madness, fifteen remain. Add to these the eight of Evilmerodach, the two of Belshazzar, the three of Darius, and you have 28. Add the thirty years of Cyrus and you arrive at fifty-eight. To these add the eight years of Cambyses and two of Smerdis the Magician, and the total is sixty-eight. In the second year of Darius who followed Smerdis the number of seventy years is complete. But Daniel, like Belshazzar who began with the first year of the reign of Jehoiakim, thought that it had come to an end in the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus the

190

A ndrew of St   V ictor

Mede, in which Belshazzar was killed.74 Now Daniel had seen that the kingdom had been handed over from the Chaldeans to the Medes and Persians. And since it had been said through the prophet Jeremiah that the people would serve the kings of Babylon for seventy years and then be returned to their land, he set his heart to pray to the Lord that he should not delay to accomplish what he had promised. I, he says, understood.75 He thought that he understood from the words of the prophet Jeremiah that the number of the years of the desolation of Jerusalem would be completed before the people returned. Or perhaps thus: he understood in the books the number of years, namely, he understood that the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem were already completed.

9:3. And I turned my face to the Lord my God. “I turned myself with the whole focus of my mind to the Lord my God.” To that to which we diligently intend, we turn our face, not our shoulder or our back. To ask and pray in fasting and sackcloth and ashes. See what it is for which he turned his face to the Lord: namely, wasting his flesh by abstaining from nourishment, tormenting and afflicting himself with the harshness of sackcloth, and humbling himself by sitting in ashes and in the custom of mourners putting them on his head, he besought and prayed with great supplication that the Lord would remember his promise and cause the captives to be returned to their own land. 9:4. I confessed. “My sins, as well as those of the people.” I pray to you,” O Lord, great and fearful God, keeping covenant and mercy with those who love you and who keep your commandments. First with the words of one seeking favor he flatters the one from whom he proposes to seek what he wants, and then he shows that he has the power to accomplish whatever he promises and is true in fulfilling his promises, nor does anything stand in the way of fulfilling what was promised except the sin of those to whom the promise had been made. Lord. Whom every creature ought to serve. God. “You have created all things from nothing, for whom to wish is to do.” Great. Incomprehensible as much in substance as in power, wisdom, and goodness.76 Fearful. Fear can strike anyone. In this he implies that God was able to terrify those who held the people captive, such as Pharaoh, and Sisera and Ben-hadad,77 and thus to return the people to their own land. Keeping

C ommentary on D aniel



191

covenant and mercy with those who love you. As though he had said: “If we love you and keep your commandments as we ought, you will keep covenant and mercy with us.” He puts ‘mercy’ for ‘compassion,’ that is, the display of mercy. 9:5. We have sinned, we have committed iniquity, we have acted impi­ ously, etc. His prayer has proceeded thus far: “O Lord, you are thus and such”; but we have sinned, we have committed iniquity, we have acted impiously, as though to say: “We have been justly punished both for our vices and sins.” We have sinned. Sin, as some say, is the absence of justice where there ought to be justice. Thus they had sinned, doing works in which there was no justice when there ought to have been. We have committed iniquity. “We have worked against equity, giving evil for good to you and to your servants.” We have acted impiously. The first and foremost impiety is to abandon the worship of God, which the people, among whom this holy man counted himself, clearly had done. But there is no doubt that there were both many joined by the bond of blood and benevolent to the fatherland, and others who were cruel and monstrous. And we have abandoned and fallen away from your com­ mandments. Anyone who refuses to fulfill the Lord’s commandments abandons and falls away from them. And judgments. Judgments are those commandments in which fixed penalties are supplied for guilt. For example: “Whoever curses father or mother shall be killed.”78 9:6. We have not been obedient. By doing what they taught or commanded. In your name. Saying that they were sent by you, and claiming that they had received from you what they spoke. To our kings, our princes, our fathers, and all the people of the land. The prophets spoke some things only to the kings, some things only to the princes, some things only to the people, and some things commonly to all. 9:7. With you, Lord, is justice; but with us, confusion. “You, Lord, who taught us through your prophets what to do, are just if you punish those who disobey. But we, who have not accepted your teachings and have cast you aside, are unjust and are so confused that shame barely allows us to lift our eyes to you.” Just as even today. “For us, our shame and confusion appears just as in this time.” To every man of Judah, to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel. Just as all sinned, confusion enveloped all equally, both the twelve tribes, and the priesthood which is signified by the inhabitants of Jerusalem. On account of their iniqui­ ties. “That you cast us out of our land is not ascribed to the cruelty of your injustice, but to the iniquities of those who sinned against you.” Look where he assigns the cause of their ejection from the land: he

192

A ndrew of St   V ictor

does not say “on account of our iniquities” but “their iniquities,” since he was of such a young age when he was cast out that he could not have committed such a crime that the people would have been exiled on account of it. 9:9. Mercy and propitiation. He repeats himself by putting mercy and propitiation, which is the effect of mercy, where above he had put justice.79 He has put these in place of justice, so that he might turn the attention of the judge from that to these. 9:10. So that we might walk in his law. We did not so listen that we lived according to his law, which God himself established through Moses and the other prophets as a boundary which was not to be crossed. Although those ten commandments written on the tablets should properly be called the law, the other commandments written in the Pentateuch and in the writings of the other prophets are not unreasonably also called “law.” 9:11. All Israel. There was such a paucity of those keeping the law that he excludes no one. And they refused. They refused and turned away from the places where the prophets were and who wished to speak with them the words of the Lord. Befallen bit by bit. Little by little he rained destruction upon us, just as rain showers pour upon the earth drop by drop. Against him. Against the Lord. 9:12. He established his words … over us. “The words with which he threatened punishment to sinners, he confirmed and fulfilled over us.” Which judged us. “Which judged us to be so unjust and our people governed so unfairly that on account of our own iniquity they brought down upon us so great and so much affliction and misery as has never been seen under heaven.” Or thus: “he so established over us his threats that the words themselves bought great evil upon us.” That is to say, “Those words were so fixed upon us that the great evil that was contained in them was brought upon us.” Such as has never been under heaven. One’s own punishment seems to oneself the harshest and one makes light of the suffering of others, even if what another suffers is harsher. But I do not know by what arrangement the opposite is true in good things.80 According to what has happened in Jerusalem. Under no part of heaven has an evil occurred like what happened in Jerusalem. One can understand sin for evil, in that the princes and the officials, who were to be an example to others, induced those below them to sin, and that was such that nothing like it was known under heaven, since even Sodom, your sister, Jerusalem, is justified next to you.81

C ommentary on D aniel



193

9:13. Just as it was written in the law of Moses, etc. “Just as it was written in the law of Moses that evil will come over sinners,82 all the evil that is described there has come over us.” And we did not entreat your face, etc. “Afflicted by evils, we entreated you to turn us back from our iniquities and to know your truth, that is, your worship which is truth, while the worship of idols is falsehood.” Or: “We did not thus entreat you that we might return and might know” or: “We did not entreat you to turn us from our iniquities and know your truth in this way, since to ask you would be to do it.” 9:14. The Lord kept watch over the evil. He intended to bring this evil upon us. Which he did; understand: against us. His voice. His law and what he commanded through the prophets. 9:15. Who brought your people out from the land of Egypt, etc. “You, O God, who powerfully brought your people out from the land of Egypt, and in doing so, magnified the glory of your name, just as it has been revealed now”; understand: “thus even now may you do and hear.” Add here: “And now, O Lord, our God, I pray, avert your anger.” The rest is said in parentheses. 9:16. In all justice. Against all your justice. In your holy mountain. Zion or Moriah where the Temple stands. In reproach to all. All the nations around them reproached them for the evils that they suffered. 9:17. Now. “after having suffered such great evils”; or: “then you heard your people in Egypt crying out to you,” now… hear… the prayer of your servant… Show your face upon your sanctuary that is deserted. “Turn your face upon the Temple which has been sacrificed to you and now is deserted, and may it seem that you remember it; show your face to it by causing it to be restored and by returning your people to their own land.” For your own sake, etc. “On account of your goodness and mercy hear and see our desolation and the city, and spare us our miseries.” 9:18. For neither in our own justifications, etc. “We do not pour out prayers and supplications before you trusting in our own righteousness, but confident in your great mercies.” 9.19. Hear: “our prayers and supplications.” Be appeased: “you have been rightly angry with us.” Harken: “to the thing that we seek to be done.” Do not delay: “To the yearning spirit, nothing comes fast enough; every delay is painful to us. Thus do not put off doing what we ask.” Because your name. “Do not delay on account of yourself, and because your name is invoked over the city and over your people. This

194

A ndrew of St   V ictor

city and the people for which we beseech you are subject to you and under your authority.” 9:20. And while I was yet speaking, etc. “While I was speaking and praying and confessing my sins and those of my people, so that after prayer and confession I might pour out my petition before God on behalf of the desolation of the holy mountain of my God,” 9:21. Just then, I say, as I was saying my prayer, behold, the man Gabriel whom I had seen in the vision in the beginning, flying swiftly, touched me at the time of the evening sacrifice 9:22. and taught me. You can understand the holy mountain of God as that one upon which the Temple sits, or Mount Zion, or the city of Jerusalem itself. For the purpose of interpretation he repeats what he had said earlier in other words, saying: While he was speaking to me, etc. The man Gabriel. Since the archangel Gabriel appeared in human form, he calls him a man. In the beginning. If we read “in the preceding” for “in the beginning” as some would have it,83 it becomes clear that in the vision that precedes this one, he saw Gabriel, who made him to understand the vision that a certain other angel had revealed to him.84 But in our language we do not use ‘beginning’ in place of ‘preceding.’ But what prevents us from saying that he saw Gabriel in the vision in the beginning, that is, when he began to see the first vision, when he saw so many thousands of thousands ministering and standing before the Ancient of Days?85 What is to prevent us from saying that he was one of those standing there from whom he learned the meaning of that extraordinary vision? Or because he was one of those ministering, and not merely standing there? But even those who minister stand, and those who stand at the beck and call of the God who rules and disposes all things well also minister. For all, as the Apostle says, are ministers of the Spirit,86 etc. Swiftly flying. There should be no surprise that, appearing in human form, he is described as “flying” since he is seen in dreams, where we frequently see ourselves flying. He touched me. “Intent on my prayer, with a light touch he made me pay attention to him.” At the time of the evening sacrifice. In that hour at which the evening sacrifice was usually offered. 9:22. And taught me. “The seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem which I had thought had been completed, were not yet come to an end; and certain other things would come upon my people.” And he spoke to me and said. “Before he taught me he said to me a few additional things.” Now I have come forth to teach you, etc. In speaking to us Sacred Scripture uses our words. As though from the place of the abode of God, from a palace or a chamber, or from whatever other

C ommentary on D aniel



195

building that encloses God, the angel had come forth from the presence of God to come to the prophet. So he says: Now I have come forth to teach you. It is the custom of Scripture to speak of the Lord as though of some potentate whose ministers sent out by him to someone cannot come to those to whom they are sent unless first they go forth from the place where they are in his presence. And you will understand: “as I teach you, the things that you only know in part.” 9:23. From the beginning of your prayers, the word came forth. “From the time you began your anguished prayers before the Lord, the word to be spoken to you went forth from the Lord, and I came so that I might indicate to you the word that the Lord said to speak to you.” Since you are a man of desires. “Thus as soon as you began pouring out your prayer, the Lord spoke the word that was to be spoken to you; and I was sent to indicate it to you, because you are a man of great desire, and you desire vehemently to understand the liberation of your people and the most hidden of secrets. The vehemence of your desire immediately merited to be heard.” Or, this is the word to him and which was spoken concerning Daniel: that he was indeed a man of desires. Therefore pay attention to the word and understand the vision. “Because I came for this reason, to indicate to you the word that had gone forth from the Lord, bring all the powers of your mind to bear on understanding it, and when you have understood the word, you will understand the vision and prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem, which you have not yet understood.” That is to say: “When you will have understood the word, then you will understand the prophecy of Jeremiah.” Here he calls the prophecy a vision. For he saw no vision before the angel came to him, for the exposition of which the angel was sent to him. But since he thought that he understood in the books the number of years about which the word of the Lord had been given to Jeremiah, and the captivity was not yet ended, he anxiously entreated the Lord for its end. And so an angel was sent to him, who both made him to understand this prophecy and revealed certain other evils that were to befall his people.

9:24. Seventy Weeks are decreed or imposed upon your people, and upon your holy city, to put an end to falsehood and to consume sin and

196

A ndrew of St   V ictor

to destroy iniquity, and to bring forth everlasting justice, and to fulfill vision and prophecy, and to anoint the holy of holies. Since we have decided to put in this part of the work the exposition of this chapter that we have received from the most learned of the Hebrews,87 it seems that we should also present the letter that they say they have here. They assign this reason for why it should be a matter rather of sevens than of any other number concerning these years in which the people were held captive in the Babylonian captivity: the Lord commanded in the law through Moses that the seventh year should be a Sabbath for the land, so that it should neither be cultivated nor planted in that year.88 The transgression of this precept was in no small measure the cause of the captivity. To put it simply, sevens convey better than any other number both those years in which the land was desolate as well as those in which they would continue to be vexed in the land. The first verse treats briefly and in sum both the seventy years of desolation and terrible misery, as well as those that remained until the devastation of the land by the Romans—which years had their share of misery, even if was not as terrible. Thus the letter reads: Seventy Weeks (understand: of years) are decreed or imposed upon your people and upon your holy city to bring to an end, etc. Seventy Weeks of years total four hundred and ninety years. This number of years, just as many things are decreed or imposed upon any city or land, was decreed or imposed by the Lord upon the people of the Promised Land and upon Jerusalem; that is, it was decided by the Lord that they be molested and troubled for that many years. Your people… your… city he says, speaking to the prophet: “Both the people and the city are yours, since you were both born from them and you have been aroused on their behalf.” To put an end to false­ hood. “These weeks are upon your people to bring falsehood to an end in them.” To put it more plainly: “In these weeks, which are upon your people, the captivity will come to an end, because in them falsehood will be expiated and sin ended and iniquity will be taken away—the things that were the causes of the captivity. There will also be added in these years everlasting justice,” that is, the Temple, where sacrifice was performed properly and works of justice were exercised, will be restored. The Temple is called “everlasting justice” because Solomon, as we read in Kings,89 when it had been built, said of it: I have built a home for you, an everlasting habitation for your name. “In these years will vision and prophecy also be fulfilled, namely, that prophetic vision of the seventy years of desolation that you thought had already been completed.” And to anoint in them the holy of holies. The Temple or

C ommentary on D aniel



197

altar he calls here the holy of holies. It is the custom of the Hebrews that anything that is holier than another holy thing is called the holy of holies. Thus in the law,90 flesh that is holier than other flesh is called the holy of holies. And so the Temple and altar, which are holier than many other things that are holy, are called the holy of holies. All these things that have been mentioned will be completed in the first part of the seventy Weeks. 9:25. Know, therefore, and pay attention that from the going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem to the anointed prince there will be seven Weeks. What he has said briefly and as it were under a seal and lumped together, he now untangles; and spelling out the implications, he discloses: “What I have said thus far has been shut up, nor has the word of understanding gone forth. But now, from the going forth and explication of the word, that is, when I explain to you and make the word to go forth so that it can come into your understanding, know and pay attention that to the rebuilding of Jerusalem, that is, to the time that Jerusalem will be rebuilt, and to the anointed prince, there are seven.” That is to say, “Know this and pay attention that concerning the number of the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem, which you were thinking were already finished, up to the time at which Koresh or Cyrus rules and Jerusalem is beginning to be rebuilt, only seven Weeks of years will pass.” Which can be proved thus: from the first year of the deportation of Jeconiah to that in which he was freed from prison,91 which happened in the first year of the reign of Evilmerodach, son of Nebuchadnezzar (who was already dead), there were thirty-seven years. The fourth book of Kings and the end of the book of the prophet Jeremiah attest to this. Evilmerodach reigned for nineteen years, Belshazzar for two. When Belshazzar was killed, Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian succeeded him in the kingdom. If you add together the nineteen years of Evilmerodach, the two of Belshazzar, and the thirty-seven of Nebuchadnezzar, there are fifty-eight years from the first year of the deportation of Jeconiah to his release from prison. To these add, if you like, the one year in which nephew and uncle co-ruled (now Belshazzar was on the throne for part of that year, and so it says in the book of Daniel92: In the third year of Belshazzar) and there are fifty-nine. Darius died in that same year, and in the following year Koresh or Cyrus ruled alone. Add this year to the rest and you have altogether sixty years. If you subtract from this sum the eleven years of Zedekiah, from whose capture the seventy years of desolation take their beginning, there remain seven Weeks of years, or forty-nine

198

A ndrew of St   V ictor

years. And so Daniel learns that the number of seventy years was not completed in the one year of Darius the Mede, as he had thought, since it would only be with Cyrus that the seven Weeks would have passed. Therefore, the first year of Cyrus was the forty-ninth year of the desolation. Now this is what the angel said: Up to that time to build again Jerusalem and up to the anointed one, seven Weeks (understand: will pass). To this number, that is, forty-nine, if you add the five years of the rest of Cyrus’ reign and the fourteen years of Ahasuerus, you will discover that in the second year of Koresh son of Ahasuerus and Esther the seventy years will be completed. And so Daniel, who began to number from the first year of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, thought that they had been completed twenty-two years beforehand. Indeed, Ahasuerus, who thought that those same years were completed in the second year of his reign and did not see the end to the captivity of the Jews, thinking that the promise of God had been voided as far as the end to the captivity, celebrated that great feast that we read of in the book of Esther.93 Ahasuerus began to number the seventy years of desolation from the first year of Nebuchadnezzar and arrived at his second year in this way: the forty-five of Nebuchadnezzar and nineteen of Evilmerodach make sixty-four. He added the two of Belshazzar and one of Darius and one of Cyrus, and found sixty-eight. Thinking that according to this computation the seventy years of desolation had come to an end in the second year of his reign, when he saw that the captivity was not over, he rejoiced that everything that remained was for his pleasure and ordered the festive, royal banquet.94 And sixty-two Weeks. Beyond the seven Weeks and the three that remained of the seventy years of desolation, sixty-two Weeks were decreed upon the people and the city of Jerusalem, in which they were oppressed by tribulation and anguish, even if not as great as before: first by the Medes and the Persians, then by the Greeks, and finally by the Romans. And the street shall be returned, and shall be built and walls or trenches in troubled times. In those days of the sixty-two Weeks the wide street, namely, the spacious place where Jerusalem had been built before its overthrow, will be returned to its original state, that is, with buildings upon buildings. This is why the words are added: and shall be built. And walls or trenches are put around the street in times of trouble. All these things happened, but in a time of tribulation and anxiety brought on by the burdensome iniquity of their lords and magistrates and the cruelty of their enemies, which oppressed them. They were

C ommentary on D aniel



199

afflicted often by domestic injuries of their own and a grave shortage of things to eat, which forced them to sell their own children for food. All these things, and even worse than these, the Jews suffered after their return from captivity. If you doubt it, read Ezra and Josephus.95 9:26. And after sixty-two Weeks one made greater or anointed will be cut down, and not for him. The one who was made great with dignities or anointed high priest in the land will be cut down and taken away after the entire sixty-two Weeks have run their course. And not for him. Understand: what he had obtained. The sense is: a powerful Jew who had come to prominence in the land would be killed or removed from the power he held after this length of time. But it is not determined in the book how much time would pass after the stated sixty-two Weeks before this would happen. Where we have: And the people were not his who denied him, the Hebrews have: And not for him. This has already been explained that in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes certain high priests of the Jews were removed so that they could no longer exercise the priesthood. And we know with certainty that Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, who was king and priest just as his father Aristobolus had been, was executed by Herod. But Hyrcanus was first made king, then high priest. Aristobolus, his brother, after he ruled for ten years, was taken captive by Pompei, sent to Rome in chains, and kept as a token of Pompei’s triumph. There you have it: both kings and high priests, anointed from among the people of the Jews, were removed and killed after the prescribed time. And the people who will come to dominate will destroy the city and the sanctuary. This is also certain: that the Roman people who ruled long after the predicted time destroyed both the city of Jerusalem and the Temple. And its end, a waste. This was the end of the sanctuary and Temple: that it was destroyed and laid waste. The desolation is decreed to the end of the war. The desolation of the sanctuary is fixed and firm until the end of the war with Gog. The Temple will not be rebuilt in its former state until the war with Gog, who will be sent against the Jews, draws to an end. 9:27. But he will make a pact with the rulers or with many, one Week. The Roman Emperor Vespasian with his son Titus concluded a peace agreement with those who held power among the Jews, or with many of the Jews, pledged inducements for seven years. He calls the pact to be confirmed a Week, since it was set to be in effect or to last for that length of time.

200

A ndrew of St   V ictor

And in the middle of the Week, he will disrupt victim and sacrifice, and in the Temple, the abomination of desolation. He will confirm a pact for one week, but he will not honor it, because in the middle of it he will disrupt victim and sacrifice. To put it more clearly: “The Roman Emperors will confirm a peace agreement with your people, Daniel, and will make inducements for one Week of years. And in the middle of that Week, that is, after three and a half years, they will disrupt victim and sacrifice, that is, they will destroy the city and the Temple, so that there will be no one to enjoy the victim or offer sacrifice.” A victim is what is offered from among the animals; a sacrifice, from among the grain. And the desolation will be horrific, with every evil committed there. Why the desolation of the Temple should be so abominable, he adds that it will last to the consummation and the end of all time. “The end” is the same as “the consummation”.

Even if we should approve, perhaps unwillingly, all the other things in the exposition of the Jews of this most profound passage of the Scriptures, which our talents have struggled not a little to explicate, I still do not see how we can let stand that they attribute to Cyrus, king of the Persians, either no or just a few years to his reign after the fall of Babylon, when both historians and philosophers, as we said above,96 attribute to him thirty years. Nor are they mindful of Cambyses his son and the successor to Cyrus, who according to us ruled for eight years, and Smerdis the Magician, brother and successor to Cambyses, who reigned for two years. But someone might say: “The authority of the canonical Scriptures, to which they neither can nor ought to be opposed, compels us to say that these were other successors to Cyrus. Near the beginning of the book of Ezra97 we read that forty-seven thousand, apart from slaves and handmaids, in the first year of Cyrus, king of the Persians, by his command and permission, went up, each one to his own city. In the seventh month of that same year,98 they all went up to Jerusalem, and having erected an altar, made sacrifice and celebrated the solemnity of the Feast of Booths, and collected monies at the request of Jeshua the high priest and Zerubbabel, which was given to the stonemasons and workmen who laid the foundations of the Temple. But in the second year of the return, when the Samaritans and the other peoples in the

C ommentary on D aniel



201

region sought to be allowed to rebuild the Temple with them, they sent them all away in the same manner, and the work of the Temple was impeded, not only throughout the rest of the days of Cyrus, but also of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes, until the second year of Darius.99 See how Sacred Scripture places Ahasuerus immediately after Cyrus, and then adds Artaxerxes with no one in between.100 It places Darius third. Why would they pass over in silence these whom both their own and the canonical Scriptures name, whose writers were contemporaneous with them, and then recall those of whom they have never read?” We do not demand that they speak of things contrary especially to their own canonical Scriptures, to which indeed we in no way intend to say anything contrary, or that they recall those of whom they have never read, but that they not set aside our traditions with their own, preserving authority as much as possible. Let us so come together in this uncertain contest, that, without prejudging tradition with tradition, we appear not to contend for the sake of victory, but to see to the investigation the truth. Since the canonical Scriptures stand equally on our part and theirs, let either one, whether they or we, rather accede to them and proceed thoughtfully. And so, let us see concerning the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem, given that they ought to have a beginning and an end. Since the beginning of the question starts here, let us deal with it first. They begin them from the captivity of Zedekiah and end them in the second year of Koresh, son of Ahasuerus and Esther. Zedekiah was captured in the twenty-first year of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled for forty-five years, beginning his reign in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah. Adding to the twenty-six101 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign that remain, the nineteen of Evilmerodach, the two of Belshazzar, the one of Darius, the six of Koresh or Cyrus, the fourteen of Ahasuerus, and the two years at the beginning of the reign of Koresh, son of Ahasuerus, yields a total of seventy. The forty-five years of Nebuchadnezzar can be ascertained from the canonical Scriptures: for from the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, to the thirty-seventh year of the deportation of Jeconiah, which was the first year of the reign of Evilmerodach, are forty-five years. I do not recall having read in any canonical scripture that Evil­ merodach, son of Nebuchadnezzar, ruled nineteen years. They assign only two years to Belshazzar, although Daniel in his book asserts that he saw a vision in the third year of his reign.102

202

A ndrew of St   V ictor

They attribute to Darius the Mede only one year; indeed, not even one, since Belshazzar ruled in a part of that year. Yet we read in Daniel: I stood from the first year of Darius the Mede to comfort and give aid.103 How can he say that he stood from Darius’ first year, if he did not even rule one full year? How can there be a first if there is no second to follow it? A first implies a second. To Cyrus, to whom we assign thirty years, they assign only six. Now to Ahasuerus they attribute fourteen, although we read in the book of Esther only of his twelfth year: In the twelfth year of his reign the lots were put in the urn.104 We ask of them why they pass over the years of Artaxerxes, in whose days the work of the Temple was impeded, until the second year of Darius. Why also in the second year of Koresh they should say that the seventy years were completed, when we read in the prophet Zachariah that an angel appeared in the second year of Darius, son of Hystaspes (up to which time the work of the Temple had been impeded), and said: This is the seventieth year?105 Will they say that Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are one and the same? But Scripture says that the work of the Temple was impeded all the days of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes, which is not easy to say if they are one and the same. For the copulative conjunction usually joins different things. No one would ever claim that one could say: “The literature of Origen and Adamantius is great” or that “The output of Tullius and Cicero is outstanding.” Moreover, they assign only fourteen years to Ahasuerus, although we read of Artaxerxes, not just his seventh year when Ezra came up from Babylon, or his twentieth when Nehemiah, his cup bearer, came up to Jerusalem to build its walls, but even his thirty-second year. Ezra says: And for twelve years I and my brothers did not eat the provisions given to us by the princes up until the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes.106 But how can this Artaxerxes, who ruled this many years, be Ahasuerus, who died after he had ruled fourteen years before the Temple was built, when Nehemiah went up to Jerusalem to rebuild the walls in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, long after the Temple was built, which was completed in the second107 year of Darius son of Hystaspes? Indeed the Temple, which began to be built under Jeshua the high priest, son of Jozadak, was completed during the time of the prophets Haggai and Zachariah. But it was while Joiakim the son of Jeshua was high priest that the walls were restored by Nehemiah the cup bearer of king Artaxerxes.108

C ommentary on D aniel

 203

It appears to us that there was one period of seventy years during which the Jews and the other peoples of the region served the king of Babylon, and his son and his son’s son; and another of period of seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem. At nearly the very beginning of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, became his servant.109 But Jerusalem was not entirely desolate until the twenty-third year of his reign, when Nebuzaradan carried off to Babylon seven hundred souls and all the others who had remained with Gedaliah.110 The first seventy years begin from the first or second year of King Nebuchadnezzar and are completed in the first year of king Cyrus of the Persians when the captivity began to come to an end, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah. Ezra testifies at the beginning of his own book both that in this year the seventy years of the Babylonian servitude were completed according to what Jeremiah predicted,111 and that the prophet also predicted that the captivity would begin to come to an end in that same year, where he says:112 In the first year of Cyrus, king of the Persians, that the word of the Lord from the mouth of Jeremiah the prophet might be fulfilled, the Lord aroused the spirit of Cyrus, king of the Persians, and proclaimed throughout his entire kingdom in writing also, etc. Now the seventy years are numbered from the first or second year of King Nebuchadnezzar to the first year of King Cyrus in this way: Nebuchadnezzar ruled for forty-five years. Evilmerodach, nineteen; Belshazzar, three; Darius the Mede, three. Together, they make seventy years. When Cyrus began to rule, the seventy years of the Babylonian Captivity were completed, just as Jeremiah predicted; even if not all of the captives returned to their land, they were all freed from their servitude, since all who wished to do so were permitted to return. But the captivity was not entirely ended, because not all wished to return. Daniel, having the foresight to see that in the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus, the power of the Babylonians had come to an end, but that the time of the end of the captivity that the prophet predicted, although at hand, was not yet achieved, raised himself up to pray and beseech the Lord. It is better to say this than to say that Daniel, a man holy and good and the wisest of all who dwelt in the land, was mistaken and that he thought he understood what he did not understand. Look, Daniel and Ezra, the one than whom no one is wiser or better, the other, than whom no one is a swifter scribe in the law, agree in this:

204

A ndrew of St   V ictor

that in the first year of Cyrus, king of the Persians, the time of the end of the captivity that Jeremiah predicted had arrived. So if we assert the same thing and stray from the right path, we err with great authorities. And I do not know that it is not more praiseworthy and defensible to err, as some might say, when we follow these two along with our own predecessors distinguished by their thoughtful efforts than to walk the right path with those Jews of our time, if we believe them, who care with much greater zeal to numb the mind with numbers113 than to see to the diligent interpretation of the Scriptures. The seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem, taking their beginning from the twenty-third year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, came to an end in the second year of Darius the son of Hystaspes, when Haggai and Zechariah were prophesying and the rebuilding of the Temple was completed. Add to the twenty-two years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign the nineteen of his son Evilmerodach, and you have forty-one. Add to them the three of Belshazzar, the three of Darius and the three of Cyrus, and you have fifty. Adding the twelve of Ahasuerus, you have sixty-two. To these add the six of Cambyses, who is also called Artaxerxes in Sacred Scripture,114 and you arrive at sixty-eight. The seventieth year of the desolation of Jerusalem thus fell in the second year of Darius son of Hystaspes who succeeded these other kings. We have used the years for the reigns of these kings that we find in Sacred Scripture, apart from the three of Darius the Mede, of whom we read only of a “first” or one year. But if, following the Jews, we attribute only two years to Belshazzar and none to Darius, restoring the four years that we took away to Cambyses, who ruled eight years, and to the magician brothers, that is, Smerdis and his brother, who ruled two years, as the histories report, we will arrive at the predicted number of seventy years. To Cyrus, whom our histories115 report ruled for thirty years, the Scriptures are found to attribute only three:116 In the third year of Cyrus king of the Persians, said Daniel, the word was revealed to Daniel, named Balthassar, etc. Yet with these words it is not asserted that he ruled for only three years, but only that he had a third year. Cyrus, as we read in the histories, after he put things in order in Babylon, persecuted the peoples and nations that had come bearing gifts to the Babylonians. He first took up arms against the Lydians and vowed to conquer them. After they had rebelled and been put under the yoke, he moved on to subject other nations and peoples to his imperial power. After he placed all neighboring peoples under his power with enormous effort, he moved

C ommentary on D aniel



205

to Asia, which he completely subjugated to his rule in the timespan of hardly six years. Finally, coming to the eastern parts of the world, the Lord took his right hand, as we read in Isaiah,117 and he cast down the nations before his face, and turned the backs of kings, shattering their iron gates and breaking their iron bars to pieces. At this time, as we also read in Isaiah,118 the labor of Egypt and the commerce of Ethiopia and the high and mighty of Sheba came over to him and were his. It is likely that, when he went with two thousand warriors to Scythia and the north, he put Ahasuerus in charge of Egypt and the lands bordering it, both the people of Ethiopia and of Sheba, which is beyond Ethiopia, and all the parts of the Orient which he had acquired through war. Thus in the book of Esther119 we read that Ahasuerus ruled from India to Ethiopia. Sacred Scripture counts those first three years in which he expanded his empire to its limit. After that, in making no mention of him except that he was the monarch, it deals with those who carried on in his place, numbers their years and spells out their relations with the people of the Lord. These “viceroys,” being closer to the situation, found it beneficial and inevitable that the captives should be returned to their own land. Now that Artaxerxes, in whose days after Ahasuerus the work of the Temple was prohibited even to the second year of Darius, seems to us rather to have been one of those viceroys than that he was Cambyses, who ascended the throne after his father Cyrus was killed among the Scythians and who brought the captured idols of the Egyptian gods to Persia.120 Having briefly covered the seventy Weeks, let us go on to finish the rest of this work. We leave the seventy Weeks of years untouched, since they have been sufficiently commented upon by our interpreters and determined according to what is in our translation,121 and we have exposited them as much as we are able according to what is read among the Hebrews and according to the translation that we use. Let no one wonder if, by setting out the opinions of various commentators, and following their opinions in certain places, we have accounted now more, now fewer years to certain rulers. 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus the king. There is some question whether we are to understand the third year as that from which Cyrus began to rule with his uncle, or that from which he ruled alone after his uncle’s death. It is the opinion of some that Darius and Cyrus began to rule at the same time, and that they co-ruled for a while and that their co-reign is sometimes called the reign of Cyrus, and sometimes

206

A ndrew of St   V ictor

the reign of Darius, with no distinction between them.122 But it appears to us that the year at issue here is the third year of the reign of Cyrus after the death of his uncle.123 […] 11:1 But I, from the first year of Darius the Mede. Since Daniel was moved not only for the sake of his own people, but also for the sake of the Persian kingdom (on account of Darius by whom he had been honored), here he interjects that from the first year of his reign he had been praying constantly for Darius that he might be secure and strengthened in his rule.124 11:2 And now I shall announce to you the truth. On account of Daniel’s interruption, the angel reintroduces himself, repeating with these words what he had just said, and then continues: Look, yet three kings shall stand. Or, if you reverse the sequence of events to put them in chronological order, what Daniel heard from the angel in the first year of Darius the Mede, the angel repeats in the third year of Cyrus.125 Look, yet three kings shall stand. The Jews thus expound the letter: You, Daniel, had calculated the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem to have been completed in the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus; but there are still three kings that shall stand before those years are completed. They say that the first of these three was Cyrus, who succeeded Darius, in whose first year these things were said to Daniel. The second was Ahasuerus, and the third Koresh, son of Ahasuerus, in whose second year the seventy years were completed.126 But if, as it appears to some, the chronological sequence were reversed, Daniel heard everything that follows in the first year of Darius. When the angel began to announce to him in a vision in the third year of Cyrus what is set down in the scripture of truth,127 just as he had promised he would, it seems likely that it was on account of Daniel’s interruption that the angel repeated the very words that he had spoken just a little before, as we said above.128 Look, yet three kings. Here he begins to announce what he had promised. Knowing that Daniel was concerned for the welfare of the Persian kingdom, the angel foretold to him that there were yet three kings to stand, that is, to flourish and to abound with great riches; and the fourth would be enriched not only with great wealth, but with wealth beyond all measure. It was as if he had said, “Even though as I came forth the prince of the Greeks was coming to fight against the prince of the Persians, nevertheless, before the kingdom of the Persians should come to an end, three kings, that is, potentates with great wealth, shall

C ommentary on D aniel

 207

stand, and also a fourth, with even greater riches.” Understand that these three kings that he foretold would stand in Persia are Cyrus, who was the most powerful, Cambyses his son, who added Egypt to his father’s kingdom, and Xerxes, son of Darius, son of Hystaspes, who sailed the mountains and saddled the seas with bridges.129 The fourth was Darius, son of Arsamis, who was the last of the Persian kings, who assembled together a vast number of nations against Alexander, king of Greece, by whom he was afterwards defeated and killed. Jerome has so diligently expounded the other things that follow from this point to the end of the work that it would be superfluous to add anything more.130

NOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Cf. Jer. 25:1. Jehoahaz (“the LORD has held”), born Shallum, was the third son of Josiah, and ascended to the throne of Judah after the death of his father at Megiddo in 609. He reigned three months. Necho II, reigned 610‒595 BCE. Cf. Jer. 22:11; 2 Kings 23:31‒33. Cf. Josephus, Ant. X.11.1; Jerahmeel, Chronicle 66.3 Gaster, 206). This senior Nebuchadnezzar of the medieval tradition is commonly known more accurately as Nabopolassar today. Merodach-Baladan died in 702 BCE, and could not have been the biological father of Nabopolassar (d. 605 BCE), though the latter may have been descended from the former. Dan. 10:1. Cf. Jerome, In Dan. 3.620‒29 (CCL 75A.889). Cf. Dan. 5. Dan. 10:1. See Jerome, In Dan. 1.142‒48 (CCL 75A.783). Josephus, Ant. X.9.7; Glossa Ordinaria in Dan. 2:1 (Rusch 3.323a). I have retained Andrew’s occasional anachronism of referring to Judah as Judea, which he probably found in Josephus. Josephus, Ant. X.11.1. Read post for prius, Danielem 2.66 (CCCM 53F.19). Cf. Ezek. 29:17‒21. Read quando for quam, Danielem 2.70 (CCCM 53F.19). Cf. Jer. 25:8‒14. Ezek. 1:2. Jerome, In Dan. 1.619 (CCL 75A.803). Josephus, Ant. X.10.5. See Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 128‒29. 2 Thess. 2:4. 2 Thess. 2:8. Cf. Dan. 7. Cf. Dan. 2. Justinus, Epitoma I.4; Pompeius Trogus’ work is known only through Justinus. Andrew added a lengthy excerpt of Justinus as an appendix to his commentary on Samuel and Kings: see Van Liere’s introduction to Andrew, Reg., CCCM 53A.cviii). Cf. Jerome, In Dan. 3.1‒10, CCL 75A.860. Where? Cf. Luke 6:1: sabbato secundoprimo; John 20:1: una sabbati. Jer. 27:6‒7, 25:11. Cf. Megillah 11b (Simon, 65). Cf. Megillah 11b (Simon, 65‒66); cf. also Seder Olam 25 (Neubauer, 59). Jerome, In Dan. 2.30‒37 (CCL 75A.821); Glossa Ordinaria in Dan. 5:1 (Rusch, 3.332b). Dan. 5. Josephus, Ant. X.11. Jer. 25:11. Ezra 1:1. Josephus, Ant. X.11.1‒2, 4 (Neb. = 43, Evil. = 18, Eg. = 40, Lab. = 9 mos., Bel. = 17) Zech. 1:12. There is quite a bit of confusion concerning the successor(s) to Cambyses in the historical record, and so there is in Andrew: sometimes as here, ‘the magician brothers,’ sometimes ‘Esmerdes’ or ‘Esmerdes and his brother’. It would seem that Esmerdes (better known as Smerdis or Bardiya) was the brother of Cambyses. Upon the death of Cambyses, Bardiya

N otes

42 43 44

45

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

 209

took the throne; but Darius (before he was known as the Great) moved quickly to remove him, proclaiming that a magician had come to impersonate Bardiya, and so Bardiya was eliminated. I have used the name Smerdis in this translation. Ezra 1:1. Dan. 9:1‒19. ‘a single account of the sacred texts’ translates the phrase una facies eloquiorum castrorum, Danielem 9.129, CCCM  53F.82 (read castorum for castrorum; cf.  Augustine, Confessions, VII.21.27). Augustine used the phrase to describe the reconciliation of conflicting accounts. At this time when Jews were speaking with Christians, they seem to have referred to their traditions under the name of Gamaliel, whose name would have been familiar to Christians from the Acts of the Apostles, where Gamaliel, a Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin, advises the council not to be harsh with the followers of Jesus (5:34), and whom Paul references as his teacher (22:3). There is no known text attributed to Gamaliel, though it would seem that for a time in the middle of the twelfth century the Talmud was called “The Book of Gamaliel,” probably in an effort on the part of the Jewish community to ease Christian suspicions about its content. See Frans van Liere, “Twelfth-Century Christian Scholars and the Attribution of the Talmud”, Medieval Perspectives 17/2 (2002): 93‒104. The exposition that Andrew reports here can be found more or less in Seder Olam 24 (Neubauer, 58) and in the rabbinic traditions later compiled in the Great Rabbinic Bible (Mikra’oth gedoloth), especially Rashi’s commentary, starting at Dan 9.2. 2 Kings 24:1. 2 Kings 24:2. Jer. 22:19. Dan. 1:1. Jer. 25:1. A similar argument is made in Seder Olam 24 and Rashi on Dan 1:1. 2 Kings 24:8‒16; Jer. 22:24‒27. Ezek. 1:2. 2 Kings 25:6‒7. Jer. 29:21. Cf. Jer. 41‒42; 2 Kings 25:26. Cf. 2 Kings 25:27‒30. See Dan. 5:30‒31, 8:1, 9:1‒2. Andrew uses the Latin name Chore as an alternative to Cyrus, which is a fairly obvious variation on the Hebrew name for Cyrus, namely, Koresh, which is used in this translation. The name Chore will be used again as the name of the son of Artaxerxes below. I have translated the name Chore as Koresh in both places to reflect the ambiguity of the narrative. Cf. Jerome, In Dan. 2.236‒37 (CCL 75A.829: Darius = Artaxerxes) and In Dan. 2.526‒27 (CCL 75A.841: Ahasuerus = Artaxerxes) Est. 1‒2. Hag. 1; Zech. 1. Zech. 1:12. Ezra 4:7. Ezra 4:4‒5. Neh. 2:1‒7. Josephus, but where? Jerome, In Dan. 2.508‒9 (CCL 75A.840); Eusebius-Jerome, Chronicon 184F (Helm 7.104a). Cicero, De divinatione. 1.23‒46. Jer. 52:30. Jer. 52:31. Cf. Vayyikra Rabbah (Leviticus) 18.2 (Israelstam, 229). 2 Kings 25:27.

210 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101

102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113

A ndrew of S t   V ictor – C ommentary on D aniel The Latin form of this name in Andrew is Esmerdes. The present-day English form of his name is Bardiya. He may or may not have had anything to do with magic. Cf. Megillah 12a. Dan. 9:2. Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, Sacr. I.2.12‒13 (PL 176.211AB). Cf. Exod. 1‒14; Judg. 4; 1 Kings 20. Exod. 21:17. See Dan. 9:7 above, p. 191. The Latin text adds the following proverb: “The field is always more fertile in the lands of another, and the cattle of our neighbor have larger udders” (Ovid, Ars Amatoria 1.349‒50). The proverb is omitted in the Cambridge manuscript, correctly it would seem. It was probably written in the margin of the exemplar that stands behind the other manuscripts, as an answer to Andrew’s implicit question, but one that is not quite parallel to the example Andrew gives in the preceding text. Cf. Ezek. 16:56‒57; Matt. 10:15. Cf. Deut. 31:17. Cf. Glossa Ordinaria in Dan. 9:21 (Rusch 3.341). Dan. 8:13; cf. Jerome, In Dan. 3.97‒98 (CCL 75A.863‒64). Dan. 7:16. Cf. 2 Cor. 3:6. Cf. Rashi on Dan. 9:24‒27. Lev. 25:1‒7; cf. Lev. 26:34‒35; 2 Chron. 36:21. 1 Kings 8:13. Cf. Exod. 29:37; Lev. 6:29. 2 Kings 25:27; Jer. 52:31. Dan. 8:1. Est. 1:3. Cf. Megillah 11b (Simon, 66). Neh. 1‒6; Josephus, Ant. XI.5.6‒8. See above, p. 188. Ezra 2:64. Ezra 3:1‒7. Ezra 3:8‒4:5, 4:24. Ezra 4:5‒7; 4:24. This number (twenty-six) works to give the total of seventy; but if Zedekiah was captured in Nebuchadnezzar’s twenty-first year, then only twenty-four, not twenty-six, years remained of his rule. Dan. 8:1. Dan. 11:1. Est. 3:7. Zech. 1:12. Ezra 7:6‒7; Neh. 2:1‒8, 5:14. Read ‘second’ for ‘sixth’; Danielem 9.800 (CCCM 53F.103). Neh. 12:26. Cf. Jer. 25:1. Jer. 52:30. Jer. 29:10‒14. Ezra. 1:1. Ut assis animus coaceruetur, Danielem 9.851 (CCCM 53F.104) is translated here: ‘to numb the mind with numbers,’ which seems to fit the context. While ‘as’ is a unit of measure, it generally refers to coins. Smalley reads: ut assis nimius coacervetur (The Study of the Bible, 394.2) and translates this sentence: ‘For the Jews of today care much more for money-mak-

N otes

114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124

125

126

127 128



211

ing than for careful exegesis’ (ibid., 167). If she is correct, it is the only time in Andrew’s writing, as she admits, that the author uses this topos referencing the venality of the Jews— even if it can be attributed to frustration rather than prejudice. Cf. Ezra 4:6‒7. Cf. Justinus, Epitoma I.9. Dan. 10:1. Isa. 45:1. Isa. 45:14. Est. 1:1. Cf. Justinus, Epitoma I.9. Cf. Jerome, In Dan. 3.138‒550 (CCL 75A.865‒86). See Jerome, In Dan. 2.234‒36 (CCL 75A.829). See Jerome, In Dan. 3.621‒29 (CCL 75A.889). The referents in this verse are ambiguous. Jerome and most interpreters down to modern times (apparently including Andrew and the Jewish interpretation given below) understood the speaker to be Daniel, interrupting the angel who was speaking in the previous verse and who would again be speaking in the following verse. Modern scholars tend to understand the speaker in Dan. 11:1 to be the angel (presumably Gabriel who was mentioned by name in Dan. 8 and 9), and the implicit subject of the verbs “be secure and strengthened” (confortaretur et corroboraretur) of Dan. 11:1 to be Michael, the guardian angel of Daniel’s people (princeps vester, your prince) whose name appears at the very end of the previous verse (Dan. 10:21) and whom the angel Gabriel had been supporting in the heavenly contest against the “prince” of the Persians since “the first year of Darius,” but whom Gabriel had now left on his own to come to Daniel to announce to him the truth. See Jerome, In Dan. 3.791‒815 (CCL 75A.896‒97). See also Smith-Christopher, The Book of Daniel, 138‒39. Jerome has already commented on the reversal of historical sequence in Daniel at 6:1 and 7:1. See Jerome, In Dan. 2.237‒39, 242‒38 (CCL 75A.829‒30, 837‒38). At Dan. 10:21, Jerome had remarked that he understood Dan. 10‒12 to be a single vision that occurred in the third year of Cyrus (Dan.  10:1); but that the “Hebrew truth” reads Dan.  11‒12 as a separate revelation that took place some years before in the first year of Darius the Mede and recorded at this point in the text, reversing the historical order (In Dan. 3.791‒805 (CCL 75A.896‒97). Andrew seems to want to reconcile the two alternative approaches: the first, that Dan. 10‒12 is one vision in the third year of Cyrus; and the second, that Dan. 10 and Dan. 11‒12 are separate visions, written in reversed order. To do so he understands that what was announced in the first year of Darius is being repeated in the third year of Cyrus. If, following Jerome, Dan. 10‒12 is considered a single vision occurring in the “third year of Cyrus,” then Cyrus would be not be in the list of “yet three kings.” It may be that we owe the chronological acrobatics described here to the Jewish understanding that the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem came to an end in the reign of “Koresh, son of Ahasuerus,” who was the third Persian king in the Jewish enumeration that Andrew has reported above (p. 201). It is unclear where the name for this king comes from: it occurs in none of the usual sources. Does it represent an attempt to place the end of the seventy years of captivity as well as the seventy years of desolation in the reign of a king named “Koresh”? It is worth noting that Andrew never reports the name of this king as “Cyrus” (from the Greek) but rather “Chore,” which is another Latin form of the Hebrew “Koresh.” Andrew has already largely dismissed this account (above, p. 202), appealing to Zechariah 1:12 where the prophet proclaimed the end of the seventy years of desolation to be the second year of the reign of Darius the Persian. Dan. 10:21. This passage is a bit obscure. However one might understand the motivation of Daniel’s interjection, it does not seem to be quite in keeping with Daniel’s humility.

212 129 130

A ndrew of S t   V ictor – C ommentary on D aniel “who sailed the mountains and saddled the seas with bridges:” the Latin is clearly poetic: qui montes uelificauit et pontibus equora strauit. I have not been able to identify the source. Porphyry had insisted that the final vision of Daniel was nothing but a thinly veiled account of the events leading up to and surrounding the crisis presented by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and that it was not prophecy at all. Jerome agreed with him that the text follows historical events, though for Jerome it is still prophecy since it was revealed to Daniel several hundred years before. But then at Dan. 11:27, he latches on to a slight discrepancy between the account in Daniel and the known historical facts to launch into an apocalyptic reading of the text as a revelation of the coming of the Antichrist (Jerome, De Antichristo in Dan. [4].909ff (CCL  75A.914ff.). In the spectrum of the Christian interpretation of this vision, Jerome stands at the more sober end, with nearly all commentators throughout the Middle Ages pushing the moment at which an apocalyptic interpretation takes precedence earlier and earlier in the text, until by the end of the period all the visions of Daniel (7‒12) were read apocalyptically. See Zier, “The Expositio super Danielem,” 162, and “Nicholas of Lyra on the Book of Daniel,” in Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture, P. Krey and L. Smith, eds (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 173‒93, esp. 189‒90.

THE SPIRITUAL SENSES IN EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY: TWO SHORT THEOLOGICAL WORKS OF RICHARD OF ST VICTOR

INTRODUCTION BY HUGH FEISS, OSB

In a number of manuscripts a collection of ten of Richard of St Victor’s short writings on theology and exegesis is attached to his On the Trinity, sometimes as “Book Seven.”1 Some of these works are responses to questions from Richard’s friends and students. They show Richard as a friend, a careful and cautious thinker, and a conscientious religious who offers spiritual guidance, some of it quite stern, to correspondents and readers. His teaching draws on his study of the Bible and other sources of Christian teaching, the liturgy, his personal experience, and his knowledge of human psychology. The Explanations of Some Difficulties of Scripture is an exchange of pleasantries with a friend and student that shows a side of Richard that one might otherwise know nothing about. The origin of this collection of short works is obscure. Two of the works, On the Three Persons and He calls to me from Seir, explicitly say that they were written for a person named Bernard. Since Explanations is situated between these two works in the manuscripts, it is likely that it too was addressed to Bernard, who seems to been a fellow canon regular and friend of Richard’s and looked up to him as a teacher. In the past this Bernard was often identified as St Bernard of Clairvaux, but (1) the works were written after his lifetime, (2) he would not have approached Richard of St Victor as student to teacher, (3) some of Richard’s ideas would have been unacceptable to Bernard, and (4) there is no indication in St Bernard’s works that he ever wrote to Richard of St Victor. Some of the other works in the collection that do not mention this Bernard may also have been addressed to him. The requests he receives lead Richard to write about topics he does not often discuss. In He calls to me from Seir, Richard, in dialogue with Anselm’s Why God Became Man, ponders the reason for the Incarnation. In the Explanations, Richard speaks of the Eucharist and comments on Augustine’s idea that in receiving the Body of Christ the Christian is assimilated into Christ’s body rather than the other way around.2 1 2

For example, ms Valenciennes, Bibliothèque municipale, 198 (twelfth century) entitles the 10 works “Liber septimus de diversis questionibus”. The preceding is based on J. Ribaillier, ed., Richard de Saint-Victor, Opuscules théologiques, Textes philosophiques du moyen âge 15 (Paris: J. Vrin, 1967), 7‒10. What follows in this general introduction is based on Ribaillier’s introduction, 11‒54.

216

T he Spiritual Senses in   E xegesis   and T heology

Nine manuscripts (four of them mutilated) contain this entire collection of short works; three others contain most of it. Nine other manuscripts that contain only a few of the works usually have them in the same order as they appear in the complete manuscripts. Other manuscripts contain only one or two works or abridgements. That the manuscript that Jean Ribaillier identified as the origin of the manuscript tradition for Richard’s De trinitate (On the Trinity) does not contain these works indicates they were not originally part of it. The manuscript evidence does suggest, however, that these short works were formed as a collection in their own right. The reasons for putting them together are not apparent. These are not the only works Richard wrote in response to questions from correspondents, nor do they differ in genre from other works of Richard. One twelfth-century manuscript, Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, clm 23434, contains eight of the works (including both of those translated here, under the rubric, Incipiunt familiares consultationes magistri Bernardi ad priorem Sancti Victoris et responsa prioris ad ipsum (Here begin some friendly consultations of Master Bernard to the Prior of St Victor and the answers of the Prior to him). If this is accurate, it tells us that those eight works were written to Master Bernard after 1162, the year when Richard became prior. There are other indications (e.g., references to Peter Lombard’s Sentences) that make this date likely. Based on the way that Richard ends the fifth book and the less structured form of the sixth book, Ribaillier conjectured that at Richard’s death his De Trinitate had five books. Richard had written Book Six but was not finished with it. Perhaps Richard had kept the ten opuscules together because they all were addressed to communities and individuals with whom he corresponded and to whom he offered spiritual advice. After his death his confrères may have had both Book Six and the ten opuscules copied into a manuscript that contained the De trinitate, hence the idea that the ten opuscules were a seventh book of the De trinitate. He calls to me from Seir

In the manuscripts that contain all or most of this collection of ten of Richard’s short theological works, He calls to me (Ad me clamat ex Seir) comes seventh just after On the three persons (De tribus personis appropriatis in Trinitate) and Explanations (Declaractiones nonnullarum difficultatum Scripturae). Earlier editions omitted the last two chap-

introduction



217

ters of He calls to me and wrongly identified the addressee as St Bernard of Clairvaux. As noted above, He calls to me and On the three persons were written for an otherwise unknown Bernard, who seems to have been a student of Richard’s and a canon regular. The text of He calls me is complete in sixteen manuscripts and abridged in four others. Five of the complete manuscripts omit chapter 12. The work is a commentary on Isaiah 21:11‒12, but the Latin text that Richard discusses is a variant reading: “He calls to me from Seir. Who (quis) of the night,” instead of “He calls to me from Seir. What (quid) of the night.”3 He calls to me is presented as a letter with a brief introduction and conclusion and with scattered second person singular and second person plural passages throughout. However, the text is not a letter, or at least is not merely a letter. It often sounds like a sermon. The text on which it comments does not seem to have occurred in the liturgy at St Victor, so it may have originated as a talk given at an evening collation during Advent. In its current form it is longer and more complex than a sermon. In this volume on the Victorine practice of biblical interpretation, the primary interest is how Richard approaches the biblical text, but his reflections on the history of revelation and on the reasons for the Incarnation also deserve comment. The Senses of Scripture

Richard carefully comments on each word and phrase of the biblical text, investigating the literal, allegorical, and tropological senses. Richard says that he is explaining words of joy and subtlety that lead him to imagine things that he cannot find adequate words to express.4 In the course of his explanation, Richard finds that he needs to explain appropriations in the Trinity and reasons for the Incarnation not as independent questions, but as ways to cast light on Isaiah’s text. So, He calls to me seems to be a lengthy and theologically engaged exposition of a biblical text, which began as an oral presentation, developed into a treatise, and was sent to Bernard as a letter.

3 4

This variant is found in some manuscripts of Gregory the Great: see PL  75.748 note  d; PL 76.1151, note a. Ch. 1.

218

T he Spiritual Senses in   E xegesis   and T heology

Originally, no title seems to have been attached to the work. The manuscripts refer to it as a book (liber) or treatise (tractatus) or sermon (sermo) on the verses of Isaiah, or as a prayer or guide to prayer, and sometimes specify that it is about the Advent of Christ. The title by which is was long known, De verbo incarnato (On the Incarnate Word) was given to it in the Paris edition of 1518 and has no basis in the manuscripts. In He calls to me Richard refers to On the three persons.5 There are two additions to the text that are not found in the five manuscripts that Ribaillier chose as the basis of his edition, but occur in ten other manuscripts. There is a brief addition at the end of chapter 6. The edited version ends with “We have seen what it is for God to speak or promise.” The addition replaces this with “Notice the subtlety of divine Scripture. Because it has determined the person of the Father by connection to another, it did not wish—as indeed it should not have wished—to specify it by assigning [or: repetition] of ‘watchman.’”6 The other addition is chapter 12. Like the addition in chapter 6, this one seems to break the flow of thought. Ribaillier conjectures that Richard sent He calls to me to his correspondent without these two additions, but later added them to his own copy of the text, perhaps in response to questions or objections. Both additions have to do with the interpretation of “watchman.” Richard, like other Victorines, believed that scriptural interpretation should begin with the literal or historical sense. Mystical (allegorical and tropological) interpretation should draw on resemblances or similitudes based on the literal sense.7 He also had respect for the interpretations of early Christian writers, the Fathers of the Church, but he was willing to go beyond them when there were matters they

5 6

7

Ch. 5. The addition reads: “Nota subtilitatem divine Scripture, quoniam personam patris determinavit ex alia adjunctione, noluit, sicut non oportuit, eam custodis repertitionem [or: repetitione] designare” (Riballier, 229). Cf. Hugh of St Victor, Didasc. V.1‒3 (Buttimer, 95‒97; tr. Harkins, VTT 3.150‒52); Script. 3‒5 (PL 175.11D‒15A; tr. Van Liere, VTT 3.213‒18); Sacr. I.prol.4‒5 (Berndt, 32‒34; tr. Evans, VTT 3.264); Richard of St Victor, LE I.2.3 (Châtillon, 115‒16; tr. Feiss, VTT 3.311); Godfrey of St Victor, Fons, 482‒84 (Michaud-Quantin, 51; tr. Feiss, VTT 3.405); Walter of St Victor, Serm. 4.4 (Châtillon, 34); Maurice of St Victor, Serm. 6.4 (Châtillon, 229). Variations on the threefold and fourfold divisions of the senses of Scripture in Victorine writings are discussed in Hugh B. Feiss, Learning and the Ascent to God (Excerpts from a doctoral dissertation, Collegio Sant’ Anselmo, Rome [St. Benedict, OR: Mount Angel Abbey, 1979], 87‒100. The commentaries on Joel and Nahum sometimes assigned to Hugh or Richard of St Victor have some odd variations, as do Richard’s Adn. Ps.

introduction



219

had not settled.8 Jerome and Gregory, two of the Fathers whose writings were familiar to Richard, had interpreted Isaiah 21:11‒12. Richard’s interpretation differs from Jerome’s insofar as Richard interprets as the historical, but metaphorical, meaning of the text some things that Jerome assigns to the spiritual senses. Jerome thought that the allegorical meaning of Seir’s calling out was the prayer of the Church, whereas Richard interpreted it to be the Gentiles’ longing for the coming of the Redeemer. For Jerome, morning has come for believers; for Richard it is still to come for the Gentiles. For them to have known the mystery of the Redemption, they had to have known of the Trinity. Hence, Richard believes that the revelation of the Trinity is metaphorically present in the literal sense of these verses. In his Moralia, 6.19.34,9 Gregory explains “Watchman, who of the night,” as referring to the one who came from the night as Savior. He has come as the light of the world. Ribaillier thinks that Richard’s text explores the three meanings of the three phrases of the text in a perfectly symmetrical way. He provides this outline and indicates chapters where Richard explicitly mentions what sense he is explaining10: He calls to me from Seir (Ad me clamat ex Seir): Historical: The foreigner calls to God, the Jew is silent. Allegorical: The Gentiles await the Messiah, the Jews are indifferent. Tropological (ch. 3): Worldly people do penance and seek pardon, religious do not pray.

Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night (Custos qui de nocte. Custos qui de nocte). Historical (ch. 4): The foreigner calls humbly on the truth and goodness of God. Allegorical (ch. 8): The Gentiles long for the coming of the Messiah and the Holy Spirit, but do not dare to ask for it. Tropological: Sinners ask pardon for their sins and invoke the Son and Holy Spirit. 8

9 10

LE I.2.9 (Châtillon, 120; tr. Feiss, VTT 3.316‒17); Misit Her., praef. (PL 141.277C‒279A); Apoc. 2.2 (PL 196.749C); Apoc. 7.10 (PL 196.886B); Serm. cent. 10 (PL 177.920C) = LE II.10.10 (Châtillon, 395); Vis. Ezech. 10 (PL 196.562AD); Feiss, Learning and the Ascent to God, 133‒34. PL 75.748B; tr. Morals on the Book of Job, 4 vols Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1844) 1:338. Ribaillier, ed., Opuscules théologiques, 235.

220

T he Spiritual Senses in   E xegesis   and T heology

Morning is coming and night (Venit mane et nox). Historical: prosperity and adversity. Allegorical: the double coming of the Son and Holy Spirit. Tropological (ch. 14): justification and sin, consolation and temptation.

In He calls to me Richard discovers the literal and historical sense by way of history (e.g., ch. 1: Seir is Edom), and etymology (e.g., ch. 3, Seir means “rough and hairy”), and by referring to scriptural overtones of words (e.g., “he calls” [clamat] can mean to pray as in Exod. 14:15). The words of the historical sense, which in this case Richard interprets metaphorically, signify things, which it is the interpreter’s task to identify and explain. Thus, the three references to “watchman” are metaphors for the three persons of the Trinity: the believer invokes the Father through the Son and Holy Spirit. In identifying the literal, historical sense of Isaiah 21:11‒12 Richard made no effort to put the two verses into the wider context of Isaiah’s book, the author’s intention, or an historical setting to which the verses might have referred originally. This was not always the case with Victorine exegesis, but once Richard decided the literal meaning of the passage was metaphorical, he was able, in effect, to treat it as he would have one of the spiritual senses. However, his interpretations are not arbitrary. They are guided by authorities, ancient and recent. For example, reading the long hair and rough skin of Esau as trimming, but not rooting out, carnal desires came from Gregory the Great and Hugh of St Victor.11 Moreover, Richard developed his interpretations, whether literal or spiritual, within the context of Christian learning and living at St Victor. Within this context, the liturgy was particularly important in bringing him to a deeper understanding of the faith that he and those who went before him shared, even when it carried him to new exegetical and theological insights. The History of Revelation

Richard writes on this topic, as he did on appropriations in the Trinity, against a background of fairly recent controversy. Abelard taught 11

Gregory, Mor. 5.33.59 (PL 75.711‒12; tr. Morals on the Book of Job, 4 vols Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church [Oxford: John Henry Parker] 1:287); Hugh of St Victor, Eulogium 14 (PL 177.990CD; tr. Feiss, VTT 2.129‒30).

introduction



221

that the faith of the just of the Old Testament had to be the same as that of New Testament believers; hence, they had to have explicit knowledge of the Trinity. Hugh of St Victor responded by saying that faith was the same under both covenants, but that knowledge of the object of faith grew until the Savior finally came.12 Richard, unlike Hugh, distinguishes between the situation of Jews and Gentiles and concerns himself with the latter.13 Richard distinguishes four steps in the growth of the Gentiles’ knowledge through faith: (1) they knew the extent of the evil that had befallen humanity; (2) they knew the cause of this evil; (3) they knew what remedy was needed; (4)  some of them announced what they knew or wrote it down.14 In the Gentiles’ advance through these stages, divine illumination and human reason worked hand in hand. Related to the question of the Gentiles’ foreknowledge of Christ was the question of whether they had knowledge of the Trinity. Augustine thought that the pagan philosophers had some such knowledge,15 but Abelard went further and credited them with knowledge such as Christians have. Richard insinuates that the Gentiles’ did have some knowledge of the Trinity, when he says knowledge of Christ is impossible without knowledge of the Trinity.16 Reasons for the Incarnation

Just as his understanding of the historical development of revelation drew upon the thinking and disagreements of Abelard and Hugh of St Victor, so Richard’s discussion of the reasons for the Incarnation are 12

13 14

15 16

Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. I.10.6 (Berndt, 232‒38; tr. Deferrari, 173‒78). There is an excellent discussion of the opinions of Hugh and Abelard in Fabrizio Mandreoli, La teologia della fede nel De sacramentis Christiane fidei di Ugo di San Vittore, Corpus Victorinum, Instrumenta 4 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2011), 299‒366; see also Emero Stiegman, in Bernard of Clarivaux, On Baptism and the Office of Bishops, tr. Pauline Matarasso, CF 67 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 2004), 111‒18. According to Ribaillier, ed. Opuscules théologiques, 238, Richard presumably agreed with Abelard regarding the faith of the Jews. As examples of those who announced the remedy, Richard gives Balaam (Num. 24:17‒18) and the Sibylline oracle. For the latter he may be referring to Augustine, Civ. Dei XVIII.23.1 (CCL 48.612, 615; tr. Dyson, 849‒52). Jo. ev. tr. 2.1 (CCL 36.13‒14; tr. Edmund Hill, WSA III/2:57‒58). Ch. 6. Richard praises the achievements of the pagan philosophers; for example, in Trin. prol. (Ribaillier, 81; tr. Evans, VTT 1.209); Arca Moys. 2.9 (Grosfillier, 174; tr. Zinn, 186‒87), so he is probably thinking of them.

222

T he Spiritual Senses in   E xegesis   and T heology

influenced by St Anselm’s Cur Deus homo.17 The influence of Anselm is evident in Richard’s On the Trinity, but otherwise is not prominent in Richard’s works or in those of his contemporaries. Anselm’s argument was that the moral order of God’s universe required that man repair the damage that sin had caused, but in fact only God could do it, hence, satisfaction required a God-man. In Richard’s understanding, the Incarnation occurred “for the greater glory of fallen humanity.” Richard’s focus is not cosmic justice, but psychology. For him, the Incarnation was necessary because otherwise the devil and man’s own conscience could reproach humanity for having no right to a redemption received without human effort to satisfy for sin. Further, Eve believed the devil more than she believed her Creator. Knowing that, how could human beings be at peace until they made some satisfaction; how could they exclaim, “O happy fault”? Given the need for satisfaction through the Incarnation, Richard argues that, as sin was the self-exaltation of the human toward God, the highest, the remedy should be the humbling of God toward humanity. If a mere human being had saved humanity, humanity would be indebted to a creature and so still bereft of its original dignity. On the other hand, whoever saved humanity had to be a relative, a human being. Moreover, just as human disobedience caused human calamity, human obedience ought to have restored it. As sin made humanity liable to death, the undeserved death of a sinless person was necessary to satisfy for sin. Thus, someone truly divine and truly human was the surest mediator. The second person of the Trinity was the divine person most suitable for this task of redemptive incarnation. The Son has a meditating position in the Trinity.18 If the Holy Spirit had become incarnate, human beings might have felt that they were outnumbered because only the Holy Spirit was on their side. The Fall was an attempt to seize the divine likeness by robbery. The Incarnation of the Son was the emptying out of the divine Image into the likeness of fallen humanity. Humanity sought to reach equality with God’s Wisdom by achieving knowledge of good and evil. It was proper that the Divine Wisdom 17

18

F. S. Schmitt, ed., S. Anselmi Cantuariensis archiepiscopi opera omnia (Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1956), 2:37‒133; tr. Fairweather, 260‒356. My understanding of this work of Anselm owes much to René Roques’s introduction to his bilingual edition, Pourquoi Dieu s’est fait homme, SC 91 (Paris: Cerf, 1963), 9‒190. On this idea see Peter Lombard, Sent. III.1.1 (Brady, 1:24‒26; tr. Silano, 3:4‒5; Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. II.1.15 (Berndt, 283; tr. Deferrari, 206‒7).

introduction



223

should have earned them pardon for this. To put it in a slightly different way, humanity fell by stupidity. Since contraries are cured by contraries, it was fitting that humanity be saved by Wisdom. Explanations of Several Difficulties of Scripture

This short work consists of three texts, all of which are formulated as responses to questions about biblical interpretation. They are interesting less for the content of their exegesis than for their form. In them Richard uses logical and grammatical analysis to resolve biblical statements that puzzle him or his correspondent. He looks for the literal sense of the words (without much concern for their wider biblical context) before seeking spiritual meanings. His method in these texts differs from that used in He calls to me from Seir. There he gives a threefold exegesis of a text; here he answers questions that arise in reading a text on the literal level. In the bantering conclusion to the second of the three texts, Richard tells his correspondent (who we have seen, was probably an otherwise unknown person named Bernard) that he has answered his one question. In return, Richard poses two questions so that his friend can repay him with interest, and a third so that he can do something for Richard gratis. In fact, in the third of the texts Richard answers his three questions with a single prolonged exposition. This third text is a spiritual commentary on the epistle for Easter. Perhaps it originated in a homily that Richard expanded and adapted to answering his questions. The work has no title in the manuscripts. It was called Declarationes nonnullarum difficultatum Scripturae for the first time in an edition of 1518. In these texts, Richard gives no clear evidence of having consulted works of other authors. However, the ideas put forth have parallels in Richard’s De statu interioris hominis and De potestate ligandi et solvendi, as the notes in the following translation will indicate. Richard’s solutions to the difficulties in these biblical texts can be summarized briefly: 1. Why is it that God created all animals good (Gen. 1:31), but distinguishes between pure and impure ones (Gen. 7:2)? God distinguished pure and impure animals to teach human beings to avoid the impurity of sin. 2. Why does the Apostle call people unleavened, but tell them to purge out the old yeast (1 Cor. 5:7)? One needs to distinguish the leaven

224

T he Spiritual Senses in   E xegesis   and T heology

of vileness (fermentum nequitiae), which stands for sin against faith, from the leaven of wickedness (fermentum malitiae), which is a weak will. A person can have faith, but be remiss in living it, and so be unleavened in faith and leavened in action. 3. Richard posed three questions at the end of (2): (i) Why did Paul ask the Corinthians to become a new dough rather than unleavened bread? (ii) Paul calls the Corinthians unleavened bread in 1 Cor. 5:7, but in the next verse he invites them to celebrate Easter with the unleavened bread. Can they be both food and banqueters? (iii) Paul places the yeast of vileness and wickedness in parallel with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. If the yeast of vileness is opposed to the unleavened bread of truth (right faith), why does he write “bread of sincerity and truth” as though faith did not precede action?

Richard answers these three questions [i–iii under (3)] with an extended commentary on 1 Cor. 5:7‒8. He distinguishes a little yeast (venial sin), new yeast (temptation), and old yeast (habitual evil). These distinctions help him to make possible an answer to the three questions: (i) The new dough that Paul asked the Corinthians to become is a first step toward becoming baked unleavened bread. (ii) “Passover” means crossing over. To pass from injustice to justice in this life—a process never fully completed—we must be fed by the lamb. A second crossing over will take us from death to eternal life, when we will be completely unleavened bread for the lamb. In both cases the lamb assimilates us to himself, not vice versa. (iii) Affirming the principle that what one understands historically about Jewish Passover should be applied spiritually to Christ’s Passover, Richard writes that it is not enough to have unleavened bread (i.e., faith); one must also eat it (i.e., the Eucharist), but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, that is, true faith and pure intention expressed in works. While faith must precede good works, there is another kind of faith that follows good works and in this latter sense of faith sincerity precedes truth.

Richard’s solution to (iii) is indicative of a key aspect of his teaching and correspondence. Like other Victorines, he was convinced that the teaching of truth and the discipline of virtue were inseparable, like

introduction



225

a double helix. Understanding the faith nurtures action and virtuous action brings deeper understanding. “Where there is love, there is insight”: Ubi amor, ibi oculus.19

19

XII patr. 13 (Châtillon, 125‒26; tr. Zinn, 65): “Ubi amor, ibi oculus. Libenter aspicimus quem multum diligimus. Nulli dubium quia qui potuit invisibilia diligere, quid velit statim cognoscere, et per intelligentiam videre, et quanto plus crescit Judas (affectus videlicet diligendi) tanto amplius in Rachel fervet desiderium pariendi (hoc est, studium cognoscendi)” (“Where there is love, there is vision. We gladly gaze at someone whom we love very much. No one doubts that someone who loves visible things wants to know them immediately and see them with his understanding, and the more Judah—namely, the affect of love—grew, the more Rachel—that is, zeal for knowing—wanted to give birth”). St Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum super libros Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi, III. d. 35, q. 1, a. 2 sol. 1 (M. F. Moos, t. 3 [Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1933], p. 1177), quotes this passage in reference to the question of whether the contemplative life consists solely in the act of the cognitive faculty. In replying to the objections, Thomas refers to this text of Richard without mentioning him by name: “contemplationis desiderium procedit ex amore objecti, quia ubi amor, ibi oculus; et Matt. 6.21: Ubi est thesaurus tuus, ‘ibi est et cor tuum’ sic habet affectionem vita contemplativa sanctorum de qua loquimur.” On love as a source of vision see Augustine, De mor. eccl. 1.17.31 (Roland-Gosselin, Oeuvres de saint Augustin, I.1, La morale chrétienne [Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1936], 184‒85, tr. Roland Teske, WSA 1/19:45‒46); Div. quaest. 83.71.5 (CCL 43A.204‒5; tr. Boniface Ramsey, WSA 1/12:132‒133); and Jo. ev. tr. 96.4 (Willems, 571.1‒9); see also Gregory the Great, Mor. 6.37.58 (CCL 143.328‒29; tr. Morals on the Book of Job, 4 vols Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1844]1:358‒59) Mor. 10.8.13 (CCL 143.546; tr. Morals on the Book of Job, 4 vols Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1844] 588‒89); Hom. ev. 2.27.4 (PL 76.1206‒7; tr. David Hurst, Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, CS 123 [Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1990], 215); Hom. Ez. 2.5.17 and 2.9.10 (SC 360.261‒62, 448‒49); and Bernard of Clairvaux, SCC 67.8 (SBO 2:193‒94; tr. Edmonds, Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs, 4, CF 40 [Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1980], 2); Conv. ad cler. 13.25 (SBO 4:99‒100; tr. Marie-Bernard Saïd, On Conversion: A Sermon to Clerics, in Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermons on Conversion, CF 25 [Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1981], 61); cf. Etienne Gilson, The Mystical Theology of Saint Bernard, tr. A. H. C. Downes (London: Sheed and Ward, 1940), 147‒52. For William of St Thierry, for whom love as a source of vision was a central idea, see J.-M. Déchanet, “Amor ipse intellectus est. La doctrine de l’amour-intellection chez Guillaume de Saint-Thierry,” Revue du moyen âge latin 1 (1945): 349‒74.

RICHARD OF ST VICTOR ON ISAIAH: INTERPRETING “HE CALLS TO ME FROM SEIR” TRANSLATION BY HUGH FEISS, OSB, AND DALE COULTER

1. He calls to me from Seir. Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night. The watchman said: Morning is coming and night. If you seek, seek; turn and come.1 These are the words that you propose that I explain, and you are not ashamed to weary my foolishness. To tell the truth, these words seem very profound to me, and, because of their complexity, no less joyous if they are understood well. I know, I know, I am not ashamed to admit that penetrating their profundities is beyond my capacity, and I do not know if I will be able to explain as I should with suitable words what I imagine in them. He calls to me from Seir.2 Seir is what is referred to as Edom or Esau, from whom the land of Idumea is also named Seir.3 Now Esau and Jacob, who is also called Israel,4 were brothers,5 and from Esau are the Idumeans6 and from Jacob the Israelites.7 We read what the Lord has said about these two brothers through the prophet: Jacob I have loved; Esau I have hated.8 And so Jacob is the elect and Esau a reprobate; the Israelites are the sons of election, and the Idumeans the sons of reprobation.9 O what an astonishing reversal and a pitiful change. The foreign sons call to the Lord, but those he has chosen as his inheritance10 do not call to him. Consequently what occupies those in Idumea is said as a rebuke to those who are in Judah. Idumea calls; Judah says nothing; the former supplicates, the latter stays quiet. He calls to me from Seir.11 There is a calling from Mount Seir, silence on Mount Zion. They call from Seir by confession, and they remain silent on Zion in contempt. And so those of Judah—many, though not all—are silent, while the Idumeans call. Many who call shout not to their own god, but to a foreign God. Therefore, what is now said in a rebuke is cast as a reproach to the ignominy of those who are like that: To me, to me, I say, he calls from Seir.12 Unhappy and foolish Judah, the foreigners shout to your Lord, but you shout to a foreign god; those foreigners shout to the true God, you shout to a false god. He calls to me from Seir.13 Look at what he says. He does not say, “they call,” but “he calls.” He does not indicate this or that person. Nor does he indicate someone specifically; instead it is stated indefinitely lest some particular individual or only one person be understood. Recognize, then, that it was said indefinitely in terms both of quantity and quality of person, and in this he commends the unity of those

230

R ichard of St   V ictor

supplicating. One heart and one soul14 make many one. One intention and one devotion make many one. Just as the unity of him who is personally one is torn asunder when he is divided in the scattering of his mind by many gods, so also the many are one and are rightly called one when they are made one in one spirit. Therefore he says, he calls to me from Seir15—the unity of returning to their senses and the unanimity of those confessing. He calls to me from Seir.16 To me, he says, he calls.17 It does not say, “he prays” or “he supplicates,” but “he calls.” What is this crying out if not intense prayer or great devotion? If you pray with much desire, you call. The more fervently you pray, the more forcefully you call out to the ears of God.18 When desire grows more forceful, the call of supplication ascends even higher. The petition of the inner man19 is a fervent desire of the mind. Hence it is that the Lord says to Moses, why do you call to me?20 One does not read that he said anything, and yet he is presented as having called. Such calling penetrates heaven, calms anger, procures favor, furnishes grace, and reconciles the Lord, according to what we read in the Psalmist: The Lord has heard the longing of the poor.21 Consider, if you can, what or how much a person might accomplish who calls in this way. 2. He calls to me from Seir.22 Not only were there many among those from Seir who were importuning the Lord by their shouting, but there were also countless others from other nations who were yearning for the coming of Christ, longing for the coming of Christ, anticipating it with all their desire. Hence, the prophecy of the patriarch Jacob concerning Christ: And he himself, he says, will be the expectation of the nations.23 Those who were shouting to the Lord from Seir because of the yearnings of their devotion contain in mystery the figure of all these. Those from Seir were one with the rest of the nations insofar as all equally had existed as strangers to the covenant of God. Therefore, it is said about those who were strangers according to the flesh that they are no longer foreigners in the devotion of their mind: He calls to me from Seir.24 3. For our benefit, let us also strive, if you will, to turn to our time these things that we have heard from the divine voice regarding ancient times. It says, he calls to me from Seir.25 What is Seir? Seir is interpreted as “rough” or “hairy.”26 Esau was called Seir because he had excess hair (supra modum) and moderately (in modum) rough skin. Hair springs up from the flesh, yet as it grows it far surpasses the limit of the flesh. So in the same ways the desires of the flesh spring up from the needs

On I saiah



231

of the flesh, yet unless they are moderated by temperance and restraint they go beyond the limits of necessity and moderation. Therefore, carnal pleasure, worldly vanity, and any other kind of excess in desires of this kind relate to hair. Hair is cut without injury, but it is not plucked out without injury. In the same way an impulse from the flesh in superfluous things undoubtedly can and should be cut off without harm, but in necessary things it can and should be tolerated. The Levites were ordered to shave,27not to pluck out, the hairs of their flesh, for it is necessary to temper the desires of the flesh that we cannot tear out.28 So those who seek superfluous things,29 love them, and live amid every excess are, as it were, in Seir. Whether you are in or outside religious life, if you chase after superfluous things and delight in excess then you are counted among the inhabitants of Seir. Woe to you, whoever you are there, because you remain silent with the confidence of false security. Woe to you, if you inhabit Seir, and you do not call out to the Lord. The one who is pricked with compunction calls out, the one who confesses calls out, and the one who entreats the Lord calls out. The one who accuses himself of pleasure or vanity calls out from Seir. The one who praises the Lord for his patient kindness or abundant grace calls out from Judea. Often it happens that those who are in religious life and live in the promised land become sluggish in their excessive security and presume too much on their own holiness, and so they fall silent both in accusing themselves and in praising God. Conversely, those who still wear secular clothes often return to repentance after they have satisfied their desires. Pricked with compunction in their heart, they confess with their mouth, accusing and condemning themselves. As they judge themselves severely for their own perversity, they strike the ears of the Lord Sabaoth with great cries. Look at how often it happens that those living under a rule become silent in their torpor, while seculars call out in their devotion. To the shame of those who are sluggish in their religious life and silent in their senseless security, what people in the world repeatedly say is spoken as a rebuke to them: He calls to me from Seir.30 Someone rough, hairy, and filthy with the vileness of vices, having been pricked with compunction in his heart, now calls out to me, now importunes me with frequent groans, but you remain silent because you think that you are holy, saying in your heart: I am wealthy and in need of nothing, but you do not realize that you are wretched and miserable.31

232

R ichard of St   V ictor

He calls to me from Seir.32 The monk should be ashamed, the negligent and sluggish canon, lazy about everything and mute in praise of God, should be ashamed, as often he chants with his mouth and is silent in his heart. I say, he should be ashamed and should groan when he hears and reads in the Lord’s voice, He calls to me from Seir.33 The anchorite should be ashamed, the hermit should be ashamed, when with a wandering heart he spends time away from the praises of God. You, wretched man who pronounce and write these things, should also be ashamed; although you are mute in praise of God, you condemn those like you and accuse them of silence. You too should be ashamed who read and hear these things, if you recognize yourself as like me, mute in the sight of the angels. What is any contemplative going to say, if he is indolent in the praise for which he has been raised up? Are you, who have no other duty (officium), to be silent? Why are you not incited by prophetic and angelic examples? Hear the voice of the prophet, who says: I will bless the Lord at all times.34 The angels do not stop calling out day and night: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God almighty, who is and who was, and who is going to come.35 See how the angels call out constantly; and you, why are you not always calling out with the prophets?36 Why, if you call out, do you not call out to the Lord? Perhaps you flaunt yourself before your neighbor; perhaps you praise yourself to yourself.37 You call out, but not to the Lord. Perhaps you say to yourself: I am not like the rest of the brothers,38 nor am I like that carnal one who all day is a servant to his stomach and to gluttony, and for this reason, having abandoned Zion, has become an inhabitant of Seir and so, as it were, has been received into the company and fate of the Idumeans. This is to cause a ruckus within yourself, not to call out to the Lord. Yet perhaps that person whom you are judging already condemns and accuses himself, calls out to the Lord and, having been justified, leaves you behind, so that you should justly hear this as a reproach from the Lord: He calls to me from Seir.39 4. We have heard above about the inhabitant of Seir: how, when, and with what ardor he prays. Let us now hear about how humbly and wisely he prays. We have heard how devotedly he prays; let us hear with what discretion40 he prays. Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.41 Notice that the person who calls out to the Lord from Seir attends to where he dwells and the nature of his existence, and the more he considers how very deeply he has sinned and how very badly he has acted, the more he prays with greater shame and greater humility. Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.42

On I saiah



233

He notices how unjustly he has lived, and he does not dare to say, Pay attention to my righteousness, Lord.43 He notices how many people he has injured, and he does not dare to say, Judge me, Lord, according to my innocence.44 He recognizes that he never had inward depths (viscera) of mercy, and for this reason he does not presume to pray in this way: Have mercy on me, God, according to your great mercy.45 Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.46 He sees how unworthy he is of any mercy, if he is judged strictly. For this reason he presumes to ask for nothing. In his prayer he only shows the disposition (affectum) of a suppliant, without adding any petition, and only by insinuation does he signify what he desires: Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.47 He names the one whom he invokes a watchman, and by designating his office he suggests what such a one owes his own sheep by the law of creation. You are the one who should watch over48 the rational substance made in your image49; you alone are the one who can watch; you yourself are the one accustomed to watching. You should watch because humanity is your creature. You can watch, because you are omnipotent. You are accustomed to do so, because you are the most merciful. Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.50 A watchman’s role is to watch those placed under his care, to seek those who are lost, to call back those who have turned away, to gather those who are scattered, and to apply healing to those who are sick. I am a diseased and weak sheep. You know better than I what it is suitable for you to do; you see more clearly what ought to be done for me. Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.51 Perhaps this person who supplicates was enduring a deep night of great adversity when he prayed to the Lord is this way: Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.52 Certainly, he is the one who watches us in the day, and the one who watches us in the night. He watches his own in the day lest any adversity strike them; he watches in the night lest the lash of adversity exceed the measure of equity. To some it seems that the Lord has forsaken them when he has exposed them to the horrors of nocturnal tribulations, and it seems that he watches his own when the day of prosperity has smiled upon them. Notice that here he is silent about the day that is certain to all, but of the night about which there could have been doubts, he declares: Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.53 Indeed, we do not withdraw from the historical meaning (historia) when we interpret the day as prosperity and the night as ad-

234

R ichard of St   V ictor

versity, for it is common practice to embellish the historical sense with figurative speech, as is readily apparent in secular writings.54 And so, as I mentioned, the one making supplication in the night was longing for the day, but he was not presuming to make a petition in the face of so much perplexity and humility. Why, then, does the Lord answer him, morning is coming,55 unless because the true inspector of hearts56 knew that he desired the day? Therefore, one understands as an instance of insinuation what is twice said to the one who supplicates the Lord: Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.57 5. Certainly, when something is ventured against the divine command, it is done through obstinacy against the divine majesty.58 But when we wish to appease his majesty that we have offended, we have recourse to his mercy. To appease his majesty we have recourse to his goodness; but not just to that but to his truth as well. To those who are truly repentant,59 kindness has undoubtedly been promised by him, indeed, I say, by him who altogether cannot lie. Therefore, we have the mercy and truth of God like twin anchors of hope amid the storms of trials and the shipwreck60 of transgressions, lest, falling into the Charybdis of despair, we completely float away. These are what guide us to the harbor of salvation after many shipwrecks.61 These are what lead us from the greatest dangers into the ark of true security. The prophet declares, God has sent his mercy and truth and snatched away my soul.62 So, returning often to laments of repentance after we have done many evil deeds, we place the mercy and truth of God over against God that we might be able to appease the divine wrath.63 You know the name “God” is common to the three. You also know that nevertheless the practice of Divine Scripture64 is to attribute—especially, so to speak—power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, and goodness to the Holy Spirit. Now I have already written to you at another time, my Bernard, why these individual attributes are ascribed to each person and I need not review the matter here.65 When one considers certain properties, majesty belongs especially to the Father, truth belongs especially to the Son, and benevolence belongs especially to the Holy Spirit. When, therefore, we seek to appease the majesty that we have offended, what else do we strive to do but soften our affront to the Father? And when we require the mercy promised to penitents and the truth of the promise, what else do we try to do but assuage the wrath of the Father by the mediation of the Holy Spirit with the Son? When we appeal to supreme truth and supreme wisdom, we invoke the Son. What else is it to implore the highest clemency and the highest

On I saiah



235

goodness but to beseech the Holy Spirit? It is wisdom that expels the darkness of error and goodness that expels the coldness of iniquity.66 Wisdom watches over us during nightly terrors, and goodness watches us in the midst of nightly cold. So the Son of God is a watchman, and the Holy Spirit is a watchman. The Son sets us free from error, and the Spirit sets us free from iniquity. Since we have access to the principal light67 by means of these two, it is now rightly said twice: Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night. And then it is added: And the watchman has said.68 Notice that the name “watchman” is repeated a third time because the Trinity of persons is found in one Deity. The Father himself can also correctly be called our watchman in that, as truth protects from error and goodness from iniquity, so also majesty protects from any adversity. 6. Now let us discuss the literal meaning (litteram) more subtlety, and diligently investigate, on the basis of the words that were spoken, what ought to be assigned to which person. He calls to me from Seir. Watchman, who of the night.69 If he did not acknowledge himself as a watchman, he surely would not have said correctly, he calls to me.70 When he says, Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night,71 what does he mean by the statement that he adds afterwards: the watchman has said?72 He does not say, “I have said,” but the watchman has said, as though he were not a watchman. Or, perhaps are there two different individuals—a watchman who is invoked and a watchman to whom he responds—but one and the same Lord and God? That me is written first and then he has said73 shows a plurality of persons in one deity. Again, since the verse does not say, “he calls to us,” but he calls to me,” we understand that only one person is called in the twofold declaration, Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.74 But perhaps one also asks who is the one75 who is particularly invoked here? We know which one, because whatever the Son has, he has from the Father76: both his ability to watch and his habit of watching. What I say of the Son, I say also of the Holy Spirit. The Father watches through the Son, through the Holy Spirit, and through himself. If it were repeated three times in this invocation, Watchman, who of the night,77 it could be suitably understood only of the Father. The Son watches through himself and through the Holy Spirit, though not through his own Father. In the Trinity, only the Holy Spirit watches only through himself, for no person in the Trinity receives from the Spirit the doing of something or the capacity of doing something. Since there are two types of watching in this invocation, we

236

R ichard of St   V ictor

cannot rightly understand this to concern the Holy Spirit. The doubling of the invocation demands that it be understood as referring to the Son. The Son, therefore, is invoked when it is said: Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.78 Yet, notice that when one person is invoked, another is directed. He is directed, I say, not only to peace but also to the promise of desire. What the one calling out desires is promised when it says, morning is coming.79 We have seen which person is invoked; let us also see which one is appeased. Now, to be brief, the principal person is understood as the one for whose appeasement another is set in the middle. The Father is the origin of the Only-Begotten, but the Only-Begotten is also the origin of the Holy Spirit.80 So just as the Begotten is understood to be the mediator and propitiator, so the Unbegotten, and not the Holy Spirit, is understood to be the one who has been appeased. For it does not befit the Holy Spirit to demand satisfaction from the person whom the Son pardons, for from the Son the Spirit possesses all that he has. I believe that now you see more clearly81 what we already have said above, how in the passage when watchman is repeated three times, a Trinity of persons is understood. The Son is called a watchman first because he watches through himself, he is called that a second time, because he watches through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in the first statement only the Son is understood; in the second statement the Holy Spirit is also implied; and in the third statement only the Unbegotten is understood. Only the Unbegotten is understood when it is written: the watchman has said, morning is coming and night.82 What does it mean “to speak, if not to bring forth a word?”83 For the Father to speak is for him to proclaim the Truth; for the Father to speak is to generate Wisdom.84 He speaks to us when his good will becomes known to us by the revelation of his Wisdom. Then something is promised to us according to our desire by the internal speaking of the Father when a firm certainty of our hope and expectation is poured into our heart. Now, I believe, we can clearly understand to which person we ought to apply what is said, the watchman has said, morning is coming and night. We have seen what it belongs to God to say and promise. 7. Now let us examine what sort of thing it is that he promises. Morning is coming and night.85 At night, as I mentioned earlier, they were groaning under great tribulation and during the day sighing for the long desired prosperity.86 Therefore, why is what is proposed to them in the promise not only the morning they wished for, but also the night they did not want? One is promised as consolation, the other is

On I saiah



237

prophesied for instruction, and both for utility. Morning is coming and night.87 What is morning if not the end of the night, and what is night if not the end of the light? We have in one morning the end of night and the beginning of day. Therefore, morning is coming, because, behold, the night that terrifies you will now be ended, and the day for which you long so much will begin right away. When the day for which you have long hoped comes, it will not be permanent because morning is coming and night.88 It is as if he were saying clearly: as night will pass away that it may return again, so the day will return that it might again withdraw. Morning is coming and night.89 If you are in the night, do not despair because morning will come; if you are in the day, do not be complacent because night will come. Morning is promised so that they might not abandon working; the coming night is predicted so that they might be cautious: the former for healing, the latter for caution. Morning is coming and night.90 What else is it for the Father to say these things to someone if not to show the mutability of time and the variety of alternating vicissitudes, to form the mind in contempt for worldly adversity and to provoke it to desire of eternal things? Therefore he says, morning is coming and night.91 8. See, now that we have heard the meaning of the words according to history (iuxta historiam), let us investigate their significance according to the mystical understanding (iuxta misticam intelligen­ tiam).92 Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night. The watchman has said, morning is coming and night.93 As I have already indicated,94 many, not only from the among the Jews but also from among the Gentiles, had foreknown the coming of Christ and were waiting for it with great desire, according to the prophet, Behold the one desired of all the nations shall come.95 He does not say “the one going to be desired,” but “the one desired,” so you might understand that in all the nations some people at certain times burned with desire for him. Therefore, his coming was known beforehand and greatly desired by many from the nations. They came to this knowledge gradually over a period of time and they ascended step by step by progressive degrees. At first some of them, having been divinely illumined and taught by natural reason, understood what great darkness enveloped nearly all of the human race.96 Because they were slaves to idolatry both by deformed pluriformity and pluriform deformity, they said to wood and stone, You are my God.97 Nevertheless, these people, even those who believed and worshipped the one true God, were not yet able to understand fully the great weight of captivity under which they were labor-

238

R ichard of St   V ictor

ing. Soon others who were more profoundly enlightened understood more fully the misery of our captivity and the sentence of damnation. They understood how after sin human nature, having been inflicted with the wound of mortality, was ejected from paradise into the world, as if from its native land into exile, and afterward, through death would be cast out of the world into hell, as if from exile into prison. They understood the magnitude of the peril, but they were not able to understand as well how to escape it. Therefore, neither the former nor the latter—who were blinded under the cover of such great ignorance—had escaped the darkness of this hideous night. Nevertheless, some others, guided by the hand of grace, through deeper searching and more subtle consideration, found and scrutinized with much consideration not only the magnitude of damnation but also the manner of restoration. Those of this kind understood the manner of restoration, but beyond this they were ignorant of the divine good will. Finally, the divine plan was revealed in itself98 to certain persons not only among the Jews, but also among the Gentiles, so that they might in large part now foreknow the mystery of our restoration, and so that some also might prophecy it, and finally, so that some might even commit it to writing. The pronouncements of the prophets and the predictions of the Gentiles bear witness to this. Omitting the others, let us for now consider only those who, as we said, in this interim period understood the manner of restoration, but did not know the divine dispensation of it. Led by reason, but in the light of previous divine revelation, they understood that if man had not sinned, he would have been able, through the mediation of righteousness, to ascend to heavenly beatitude. However, if he had received, by mercy alone without any involvement of justice, the things lost and even promised after the Fall, he would have borne the eternal disgrace of his degradation. The devil could always accuse him, saying that he had obtained lawfully nothing that he had, and so maintain that he had not recovered his former dignity. Where the recovery of the first dignity was not complete, there would not be full restoration. Therefore, in order that the humanity might be able to arise again in accord with the nature of justice, there was need (opus) of satisfaction. This can be added to what has been said. If the humanity did not free itself by some satisfaction, then even if it had no external accuser regarding its offense, it could never fully blot out the accusation of a biting conscience and the mark of embarrassment. Did not Eve believe the serpent more than her most beneficent Creator? Did not Adam

On I saiah



239

choose to offend the Almighty rather than his own wife? How, after the boldness of such presumption, could they obtain a peaceful conscience or blot out the mark of embarrassment from their heart, if they made no satisfaction? Now the devotion of the faithful is more proud because of the satisfaction of their redemption than it was ashamed of the disgrace of such a great downfall, so much so that everywhere on earth the Church of the faithful sings with all confidence, O truly necessary sin of Adam and of us, which by the death of Christ was destroyed! O happy fault that has merited such a great Redeemer!99 Therefore, insightful reason teaches that without satisfaction humanity’s full restoration would be impossible.100 The fullness of satisfaction required101 that there be as much humiliation in the expiation as there was presumption in the transgression. However, among rational substances, God holds the highest place and man the lowest. Therefore, when man acted presumptuously toward God, there was self-exaltation from the lowest toward the highest. So, for a remedy of expiation it was required that there be humiliation from the highest to the lowest. Only someone in the Trinity of persons could do this. Similarly, if humanity were able to recover and did recover justice and with the mediation of justice was able to and did regain the glory of future blessedness through a creature rather than the Creator, would they not be, contrary to the excellence of their original dignity, more indebted to a creature than to the Creator, to the artifact than to the Artificer? For to be justified and blessed is certainly more than to be created.102 Therefore, insightful reason teaches that without a person who is God making satisfaction, humanity’s full restoration would be impossible. Nonetheless, it is evident that, as far as the nature of justice goes, whatever a person who was not human did, it accomplished nothing for humanity. Who does not see that it is fair, compliant with law (ple­ num juris), and also entirely reasonable for a son to satisfy on behalf of his father, or a brother for a brother, if the father is unable or the brother is not suitable for it? Therefore, the redemption of humanity demanded a human being who could cancel the debt of the creature by the merit of his own nature. Similarly, humanity incurred the debt of death by disobedience, and it was required for the expiation of that debt to undergo by obedience an unmerited death to eliminate the merited one. However, this was only possible if there were a man who was mortal and just and not in any way under the judgment of death. Therefore, so that the person of the human Redeemer might be suitable for the

240

R ichard of St   V ictor

satisfaction of the debt, it was required that he be true God who was capable of this task, and true man who by the law of necessity rightly discharged it. How, I ask, would someone who did not have something in common with both be a true and perfect mediator between God and humanity? On the contrary, there would be no more powerful or strong mediation than one that occurred through him who shared in both natures. See how from reason one concludes that the mediator between God and human is required to be true God and true man. 9. By the same reasoned inquiry, one discovers for which person of the highest Trinity this work of piety is most fitting. As was shown earlier, there was need of satisfaction to enable humanity to recover fully its original dignity. For this satisfaction to occur, it was required that there be both one who demanded satisfaction and one who paid it. Now it was not at all appropriate for the Son or Holy Spirit, both of whom have all that they have from the Father, to punish the offense or to demand some satisfaction for what the Father pardoned. Therefore, in this case it was required that either the Father or nobody accept repayment, and it was required that either the Son or the Holy Spirit render satisfaction on behalf of humanity. However, if the Holy Spirit took on the office of mediator, perhaps humanity would not have had confidence in this mediation. Would it be surprising, I ask, if humans were to think about this matter in a human way and be afraid like humans? Perhaps humanity would be afraid lest the Son would be more inclined toward the Father, from whom he has all that he has, than toward the Holy Spirit, from whom the Son has nothing. If humans were to have two against them and one for them, perhaps they would not have full confidence in such mediation. It was required that the nature that had perished by believing should rise again by believing. It had perished by believing the serpent; it would rise again by believing the Redeemer, so that what it had lost through faith it might recover through faith, and it would be compelled to return through the same door through which by God’s good pleasure it pleased humanity to go out. However, if the Son of God took up the cause of humanity, there would be no cause for humanity to be mistrustful.103 Since, in the light of the above argument, the Holy Spirit could not fail to forgive the offense that the Son wished to forgive, how much more the offense he had wished to eliminate by his own satisfaction! Indeed, there is no doubt that by virtue of the Son taking up the cause of man, it was required that the Holy Spirit exercise the office of co-operator rather than that of enforcer. See how clear reason

On I saiah



241

demonstrates that the cause of the humanity especially required the person of the Son for its expiation.104 10. Listen to this also: Through presuming the forbidden and through robbery, as it were, humanity desired to ascend even to the likeness of God. Consequently, so that the manner of satisfaction might correspond to the manner of transgression, reason required that the repairer of our ruin descend through self-emptying from the likeness of God to the likeness of the fallen. Now the Son is the image and form (figura) of the Father.105 So it was required that he, in accordance with a manner appropriate to the debt’s atonement, descend and assume the likeness of humanity, so that one and the same person might possess the likeness of God from divine generation and the likeness of humanity from human generation. We know that, according to nature, there is no type of human propagation where a human being proceeds from a human being without generation; but the Holy Spirit has this property, that he proceeds, God from God, without generation. Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit was not able to descend from the highest to the lowest in accordance with shared likenesses (juxta mutuam similitudi­ num congruentiam), so it was not suitable for the Spirit to take up the cause of humanity in order to remove the offense of having aspired to be like God. 11. Notice also what humanity was particularly seeking in that act of robbery, and you will discover, not surprisingly, that the particular aspiration was an injury to the Son. It says, You will be as gods, knowing good and evil.106 What is the Son of God if not the Wisdom of God?107 He who wanted to obtain knowledge through robbery sinned particularly against Wisdom. Consider, if you can, from the standpoint of the one how just, and from the standpoint of the other how kind it was that just as the Father vindicated the injury to his own Son, the Son forgave it. Learn, O human, what you may do! Learn what you ought to do! Learn, I say, to forgive injury against you and to avenge injury against another. See, it was not enough for the Son of God to forgive the fault against himself unless he also expiated it with the Father. O astonishing kindness and inestimable charity! Now just as contraries are cured with contraries,108 pay attention to how suitable, how ingenious it seems that the one who had perished by foolishness would rise up by Wisdom. It was proper that for the one whom falseness was the cause of perdition, Truth would become the way of salvation. It was fitting that the one who incurred death through the word of the devil would return to life through the Word of God. And so from what I have said it is sufficiently

242

R ichard of St   V ictor

clear, I think, that no other person in the Trinity was more fittingly appeased by another than the Father, and no other more suitably expiated the cause of humanity before the Father than the Son. Consequently, that highest Trinity of persons, the one God, divided up inter se109 the activity of human salvation so that the Father punished, the Son atoned for, and the Holy Spirit forgave one and the same offense of humanity. To the greater glory of fallen humanity,110 that it might rise through justice, the Father demands satisfaction, the Son pays it, and the Holy Spirit positions himself in between. This is the way, this is the gate of salvation. Here is the highest, the one and only way of human restoration. Many ancient Fathers, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles understood this, for they had been instructed in it, as was said above,111 both by (ex) innate reason and from (ex) divine revelation. Those who understood this but were ignorant of the divine favor toward it in no way presumed to ask for it. Indeed, who would ever have presumed to ask that the Son of God himself visit humanity to redeem it—that he visit through the Incarnation and redeem through the Passion. Who, I say, would have presumed to ask for this, unless beforehand he had known by divine revelation God’s plan for this. They desired what they dared not ask for. For this they longed, in this they sighed; because of this they importuned the Lord with groans and tears and cried aloud to him with cries of burning desire. An example (tipus) of these people is articulated in what the Lord says, He calls to me from Seir: Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.112 They say “Watchman, who of the night,” as though expressing through insinuation (per insinuationem)113 what they sought with such great surges of desire. We know, they say, Son of God, Word of the Most High, that we need (nobis est necessarius) your coming, but we do not presume to ask for it. We know that satisfaction on our behalf depends on your Incarnation and your Passion, but you do it if you want to. Who dares to ask for this, or who presumes to request it, unless they previously know your good pleasure about this. Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.114 12. I ask, who is speaking to whom?115 Certainly it is the creature to his Creator. In invoking the Creator, why, then, does he not say, “Creator, Creator?” Who hears this and from whom? Is it not the Lord from a servant? Why, then, does he not say to him, “Lord, Lord?” Clearly, that they had him as Creator and Lord God was common to them and to all. Yet, that they did not proceed down the broad way of perdition in common with the rest was the result of his watching them in

On I saiah



243

preference to the rest. Therefore, they present to him the prerogative of grace, which they received from him as a gift, when they say: Watch­ man, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.116 You are the one who has watched over us from the night, so that the fog of infidelity did not envelope us with the rest. You are the one who has watched over us from the night, lest the cold of malice extinguish our charity. The kindness already shown has prepared in us confidence to presume greater things. We hope that the salvation that is only begun will be perfected. It is necessary (necesse est) that you come to complete the salvation that has begun. It is necessary that you come yourself, and not only that, but that you also come through your Spirit: Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night. Therefore, ancient authors foresaw through the Spirit that it was necessary for the Son of God to come and likewise that he send the Holy Spirit. They foresaw this, I say, and for that reason they repeat the words when they cry out: Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.117 Notice that the coming of both is necessary. The faith of believers is founded upon the coming of the Son, and the faith of the faithful is confirmed by the coming of the Holy Spirit. The Son works (operatur) and the Spirit works with (cooperatur) him to effect one and the same salvation for humanity.118 How is it that man now doubts about placating the Father, when he sees that in this undertaking he has two equally powerful co-workers? Therefore, let him say to the one watching, let him say to the one who is going to watch, now through himself and then through the Holy Spirit: Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.119 13. The watchman said, morning is coming and night.120 From the hour of the first transgression until Christ, all were in (sub) the night and could not find the way back to their home country or the gate of entry into life. For that reason, those who were not unaware what darkness they suffered desired the morning of true day. See the answer given to them in accord with their desire, when the Lord says, Morning is coming.121 What is morning except a kind of beginning of daylight? You know who says, I am the light of the world. Christ, who enlightens every person coming into this world,122 is the light of the world and the sun of justice.123 The beginning of the true light, then, is the coming of our Savior.124 The true morning begins only with the rising sun of justice. We have what the prophet says about this morning, light has risen in the darkness for the just, the compassionate and merciful125 Lord. And so he declares, morning is coming.126 You desire the morning, and the

244

R ichard of St   V ictor

morning you shall have. You long for the coming of my Son. He whom you seek shall come quickly. The watchman has said, morning is com­ ing.127 As was said above, it does not say, “I have said,” but he has said.128 Therefore there is one person called upon, and another from whom the answer is given. The Son is asked, and the Father is appeased. The Son is importuned, and the Father shows mercy. The Son is implored, and the Father gives abundantly. The watchman has said, morning is coming.129 As has been said, the Father’s speaking is his revelation. The Father’s promising is the infusing of the good pleasure of his plan into the human mind through the confidence of hope. See what we have already said much earlier, that certain ones understood how human restoration had to come about.130 However, because they did not know the divine good pleasure about this, they did not presume to ask for it. Knowledge of such a sort was given to them in order that they might understand what to desire, for what they should long, so that by desiring for a long time, groaning and longing, those who needed to be endorsed for this might become worthy. See, the coming of the Redeemer is revealed to those who anxiously desire and humbly pray, who previously thirsted for it but did not foreknow it. See, they already merited to hear, morn­ ing is coming.131 Therefore, the coming of the Son of God is revealed to the Gentiles in that it is said mystically to the Idumeans (misticis Idumeis), morning is coming.132 The oracles of Balaam the prophet testify133 to what we say, the Sibylline prophesies witness to it.134 If I am not mistaken, the altar that was dedicated to the unknown god bears witness to this.135 When the Apostle Paul asked whether a man would come or a spirit of the gods, the blessed Dionysius answered him, “true God and true man, and he is going to renew the world.”136 Therefore, it is clearly understood from these [authorities] that by revelation the Gentiles had known the coming of Christ beforehand. However, after divine revelation about this had been received, prophetic men from either the Gentiles or the Jews sought with all insistence and confidence that for which earlier they dared not ask. What else did the voice of the prophet addressed to the Father seek when it said: Send forth the lamb, the ruler of the earth?137 For what else was the voice of the Psalmist, which addressed him with these words, longing: Send forth your hand from on high?138 Is not his advent sought from the Son himself with sufficient devotion and no less openly when through the prophet it is said to him: Oh, that you would break apart the heaven and come?139 Did not the Psalmist ask for his coming quite plainly when he cried out to him: Stir up your power and come to save us?140

On I saiah



245

14. Therefore the coming of Christ is predicted, and not only the coming of Christ, but also the coming of the Antichrist. Morning is coming and night.141 The coming of Christ makes the day; the coming of the Antichrist brings the night. O dark night, full of every horror, that is made by the presence of Antichrist. So great is the darkness of that time of leading astray that will come upon the entire world that if possible even the elect will be led into error.142 So he says, morning is coming and night.143 Perhaps we will find a source of edification, if now we turn to the tropological meaning of these words: Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.144 Certainly, all of us who are reborn in Christ145 and are sons of the light must walk as sons of the light.146 Doubtless the night of the Idumean is one thing, and the night of the Christian another. So also the day of the latter is different from the day of the former.147 As we said,148 the day of the Idumean is the prosperity of this world and his night is its adversity. What is said to the faithful man? He will lead forth your justice like the light, your judgment like midday.149 The path of the just becomes bright like the light and grows to perfect day.150 Our day is justice; our night is injustice. Diabolical temptation brings on the night; divine inspiration makes the day. As often as we sin through ignorance or wickedness, we run up against the darkness of the night. Then we need to call out to our Samaritan,151 Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.152 Who is this watchman who is called in the night, if not that Samaritan who was merciful to him who fell among robbers and healed him?153 “Samaritan” is interpreted as “watchman.”154 This Samaritan guards us in the daytime; he guards us in the night. I say, he guards us in the day as long as he enables us to persevere in good. He guards us in the night, lest after a lapse of sin we are led into feeling damned and, by going from evil to evil, we finally fall into despair or bondage of the mind. He, therefore, is our watchman; he is equally our consoler. It is he who guards us in temptation, he who consoles us in tribulation. We have him as watchman and consoler. By his asking and by his granting, we receive another. He says, I will ask the Father, and he will give you an­ other Paraclete.155 “Paraclete” means the same as “consoler.” Regarding this same Paraclete, whom we receive from the Son, the Son Himself says in another place, when the Spirit, the Paraclete, comes, whom I will send to you from my Father.156 Therefore, because the Only-begotten of God both guards us by consoling us and consoles us by guarding us, sometimes through himself and sometimes through his Spirit, it

246

R ichard of St   V ictor

is rightly said twice to him: Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.157 Since he guards us both through the day and through the night, as was just said, he hints that he is the one who calls out in this way in the night when he makes no mention of a daytime watch, but only of a nighttime one. The supplication of someone walking in the day must be different from that of someone walking in the night, and, further, the supplication of one who does works of light must be different from that of someone who does works of darkness.158 We know that whoever does the truth comes to the light so that his works may be revealed.159 Do you want to hear how faithfully a doer of this kind prays because he walks in the light? He says, on whatever day I call upon you, an­ swer me quickly.160 By contrast, listen to how timidly and ashamedly someone who is aware that he has run into the darkness of iniquity makes his supplication: Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.161 He does not say, “Spare [me], spare [me].” He does not say, “Have mercy.” Oh how hesitantly does someone make his request who does not dare to say, Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy,162 someone who does not presume to say, O God, be merciful to me a sinner.163 Often we hear those begging for alms call out to the passing rich man nothing but “Lord, Lord.” This is the way that such a person calls out with the voice of a suppliant to the ever-watchful and tireless guard over our weakness: Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.164 What wonder if a Christian calls out so humbly, when, as was said above,165 the Idumean calls out this way? The higher one’s position, the lower his fall.166 This is because it is much more difficult for a Christian to be made new after one fall into sin167 than for an unbeliever guilty of whatever sins to be made new. On this subject listen not to my opinion (sententiam), but to the Apostle’s He says, it is impossible that those who have once been illumined and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have been made sharers in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the power of the world to come, and then have fallen, to be restored again to penitence.168 For unbelievers coming to169 baptism, penitence by itself is sufficient without any satisfaction. For believing sinners and penitents penance alone without fitting (condigna) satisfaction is not enough. Expiation by Christians after a fall usually does not occur without slaying their own flesh; the passion of Christ, that is, the slaying of someone else’s flesh, usually bestows this on penitent unbelievers. For those of us who willingly sin after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice

On I saiah

 247

for sins.170 What wonder, then, if those who recognize the magnitude of their guilt groan humbly? Let them say, then, let those in this situation say: Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.171 They are not presumptuous; they show what they want to ask for by insinuation.172 It is as if they are saying openly: We wish to ask pardon to recover grace, but recognizing how foolishly we have acted, we do not presume to ask. By our own choice we deserted the ways of truth; we fell eagerly into the works of darkness. Now we want to return, but amid the terrors of the night, amid the horrors of the night, we cannot nor do we know how. It is you who can call such people back, who do call such people back. So do it now, if you wish. What you grant to others you can grant to us: Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.173 If any Christian whatsoever prays so humbly and so suppliantly after a fall, how much more should someone who is professed in an order or religious community!174 For the reproach and shame of those who grow lukewarm and desert religious life, the Lord interposes and offers as a rebuke what even secular persons often do: He calls to me from Seir. Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.175 If the inhabitant of Seir calls out so humbly, what more will the one honored by the word “religious” do, especially if he thinks he has fallen so basely? On the other hand, perhaps those who are like this do not know that a little yeast corrupts the whole lump.176 What help is it to collect rewards and put them in a sack with a hole in it,177 and to lose in a short time or a moment what was gathered from here and there over a long time with much sweat? O how the merits of how many years, the reward of so many merits can be lost by a single fall into sin! Or did you not know that he who is guilty in one thing is guilty of all?178 Someone who makes himself guilty of one sin against God makes himself guilty also in the other things that he observes; I say guilty, although not to the extent that, as it were, he is punished in hell for the transgression, but to the extent that he is deprived of that reward of incorruption that he was going to have in heaven from the observance of the rest. When he stands to make a request of God, what, I ask, is someone going to say who for a moment’s pleasure shows contempt for the God and Lord of all things, leaves the company of angels, and loses the kingdom of heaven? Let him at least learn by example what he should do. Let him learn, I say, how humbly he ought to pray, how shamefacedly he ought to supplicate, if an inhabitant of Seir, someone who never held any position of holiness, who never merited to taste how sweet the Lord is, how

248

R ichard of St   V ictor

good Israel’s God is to those who are just at heart,179 prays so reverently, calls out with such humble devotion. He says: To me he calls from Seir. Watchman, who of the night. Watchman, who of the night.180 15. Whoever you are, you who hear these things, if you consider the greatness of your dejection, it is not a cause for you to despair. Listen next to the reason for which you may rightly revive in hope: And the watchman said, morning is coming.181 Behold, the one laboring in the night, behold, the one asking to attain the morning, is suddenly and unexpectedly promised what he sought so humbly. There is no enormity of vices in which we should despair182 of the mercy of him who is bountiful to forgive.183 Ought we then to implore him impudently and irreverently because we acknowledge that he is so ready to forgive? On the contrary, the more we acknowledge the great kindness and sweetness of him whom we have obstinately offended, the more we ought to blush in his sight and ask pardon all the more humbly. The watchman said, morning is coming.184 For the watchman to speak this as a promise or to promise this by speaking is to pour the assurance of hope into the soul of the suppliant by the inspiration of his grace and to take away all hesitancy or lack of clarity about the hope of his desire. Through the answering promise, therefore, one understands what the watchman answered in mystical speech: morning is coming and night.185 16. As was already said above,186 divine consolation makes the morning, and diabolical temptation makes the night. In one and the same response, what the suppliant deservedly desired is promised to him, and what he rightly feared is foretold to be coming afterwards. The former is for consolation, the latter for instruction. In the former, he is made happy; in the latter, he is made cautious. Morning is coming and night.187Thus, he says, the morning of divine consolation will come so that again the night of diabolical temptation will follow. We necessarily find ourselves in this variety of alternating changes as long as we are on this pilgrimage: Morning is coming and night.188 17. The same watchman now adds: if you seek, seek, turn around, and come.189 Above it said: He calls to me from Seir.190 It did not say, “they call,” but “he calls.” Here he does not say in the singular, “if you seek, seek,” but in the plural, “if you seek, seek.” From this, as was said,191 one rightly understands that in the above one number is put for another. So he says in the plural, “if you seek, seek, turn around, and come.”192 Above we heard the Lord promising morning; let us now pay attention to him showing what he had promised. Did they not already have morning, since they saw from divine revelation and as though in clear

On I saiah

 249

light what they should avoid and what they should do? What they would need to avoid is shown when it says, night is coming.193 What they should do is added in what follows, if you seek, seek, turn around, and come.194 The manner of acting in specified by three things: seeking, turning, and coming. If you seek, seek; turn around, and come.195 Seek through effort, turn around through desire, come through practice. If you seek, seek, and persevere in seeking. One who never fully finds seeks in many ways. If you are unbelieving and you seek God through inquiry, seek rather through faith. Otherwise, if you do not believe, you will not understand.196 If you are believing, and you seek by faith alone, seek also through understanding (intelligentiam) of the truth, and if you now have in the Church the place not of Martha but of Mary,197 seek through the grace of contemplation.198 If you seek, seek;199 seek him, seek what is to be loved for its own sake, seek how one should reach him. If you have sought and found already, turn around and come.200 I say, if you have sought and found already through effort what is to be desired, turn around to it also through desire. Turn around and come.201 If you still love unlawful things, you have your back and not your face toward God, and so you cannot find him. So he says to you: turn around and come.202 If you turn your face to the left, so to speak, and are intent through love upon things that are lawful but superfluous, he still says to you: turn around and come.203 However, if you already have turned to the right and cling with intent and love only to necessary, but passing and bodily things, he still rightly says to you: turn around and come.204 There are things that are necessary for the body and likewise there are things that are necessary for the spirit: the former are to be tolerated; the latter are to be sought. It is necessary to use the former and to enjoy the latter. Thus it is necessary to love and desire those things necessary to the spirit.205 Why do I say necessary things, when Truth itself says, only one thing is necessary?206 We have, therefore, the place to which one should turn back, the place one should cling to by love. So, turn around and come.207 Having turned around, you should not look back or go the other way, because whoever puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not suitable for the kingdom of God.208 When the heavenly animals moved, they went and did not return.209 However, it is not enough for those who have turned around to stand and remain where they began. They need to go, advance, and, forgetting the things behind, stretch toward the things ahead.210 He says, go to him and be enlightened.211 So, he says, turn around and come.212 Some come by walking (eundo), others by running, and others by flying. Re-

250

R ichard of St   V ictor

garding the first, think about the saying, they will go from strength to strength.213 The ones who run are those who can say with the prophet: who sets my feet like those of deer.214 According to Isaiah, the ones who can and usually do fly take up wings like eagles,215 or like those that the Psalmist wished to receive: Who will give me wings like those of a dove.216 It pertains to the active to walk, to seers (speculativorum) to run, and to contemplators (contemplativorum) to fly.217 Behold, I have said what I could and have spoken how I could about this small, but very profound, matter. If I have become a fool, you have forced me.218

NOTES 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Isa. 21:11‒12. The Vulgate has “What of the night?” Ribaillier, Opuscules théologiques, 256 n. 1, reports that “Who of the night” is found in some manuscripts of Gregory the Great’s writings. I have tried to translate the phrase as neutrally as possible. Isa. 21:11. Gen. 36:8, 19‒20. Num. 24:18. Gen. 25:23‒25; Mal. 1:2. Gen. 43:36. Hugh of St Victor, Eulogium, 12 (PL 176.990C; tr. Feiss, VTT 2.129). Mal. 1:2. Cf. Jerome, In Esaiam 5:21 (PL 24.192C); Gregory the Great, Hom. ev. 7.3 (PL 76.1101C). Ps. 32:12. Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:11. Acts 4:32; Richard of St Victor, Trin. 6.10 (Ribaillier, 239; tr. Evans, VTT 1.328); Augustine, Jo. ev. tr. 14.9 (CCL 36.147; tr. Edmund Hill, WSA III/12:269‒70) and 18.4 (CCL 36.182; tr. Hill, WSA III/12:323‒24). Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:11. 1 Kings 8:21. Rom. 7:22; Eph. 3:16. Exod. 14:15. Ps. 9:17; cf. below, chs. 8, 13. Isa. 21:11. Gen. 49:10. Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:11. Jerome, In Esaiam 5.21 9 (PL 24.19C); Hugh of St Victor, Eulogium (PL 176.990D; tr. Feiss, VTT 2.129). Num. 8:7. Ps.-Hugh of St Victor, In Abdiam (PL 175.384C); Gregory, Mor. 5.33.59‒60 (PL 75.711D‒ 712A; tr. Morals on the Book of Job by S. Gregory the Great, Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, 18 [Oxford: John Henry Parker 1844], 1:287‒88) Hereafter this translation will be referred to as Morals, followed by volume and pages. Cf.  Augustine, Jo. ev. tr. 50:6‒7 (CCL  36.435; tr.  John Gibb and James Innes, Lectures or ­Tractates on the Gospel according to John, NPNF [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956] 280). Isa. 21:11. Rev. 3:17. Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:11. Ps. 33:2. Rev. 4:8. In this paragraph, Richard first admonishes representatives of various forms of religious life recognized in his time—monks, canons, anchorites and hermits (they all had female forms, but Richard addresses himself to men); then he directs his admonitions not just to third parties but to himself and his readers. They are privileged to praise God, and they had better do it.

252 37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45 46 47

48 49

50 51 52 53 54

55 56

R ichard of S t   V ictor – On I saiah On the triad, God, others, and self, see Richard of St Victor, Statu, 43 (Ribaillier, 115‒16; tr. Evans, VTT 4.294); Pot. lig. 23 (Ribaillier, 110); Sp. blasph. 2 (Ribaillier, 123). Luke 18:11. Isa. 21:11. “discrete”: “discretio” (discretion, discernment) is a very important idea in Richard’s thinking. See XII patr. 67 (Châtillon, 282‒85; tr. Zinn, 124‒25); Arca Moys. 3.23 (Grosfillier, 340‒43; tr.  Zinn, 254‒55); Adn. Ps. 121 (PL  196.363BC; tr.  Evans, VTT  4.196); Adn. Ps. 28 (PL 196.310C); Adn. Ps. 118 (PL 196.359B); Adn. Ps. 98 (PL 196.334BC; tr. Evans, VTT 4.282); Erud. 1.12 (PL 196.11248CD), 1.43 (PL 196.1298A), 2.3 (PL 196.1301C); Statu, 26‒27 (Ribaillier, 91‒94; tr. Evans, VTT 4.274‒76); Super Exiit (Châtillon, 32, 74). Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:11. Ps. 16:1. Ps. 7:9. Ps. 50:3. Matt. 5:7. Isa. 21:11. In speaking of insinuatio, Richard is following Hugh of St Victor’s application of terms of classical rhetoric to Christian prayer (oratio). Hugh of St Victor, De virtute orandi (ed. Feiss, tr. Sicard, Oeuvre 1:126‒71; tr. Feiss, VTT 4.331‒43, and especially the introduction, 322‒26). Gen. 28:2. Gen. 1:26‒27. The idea of human beings as created in God’s image and likeness is a key notion in Victorine theology. In Richard of St Victor, see LE I.1.1‒3 (Châtillon, 104; tr. Feiss, VTT 3.299‒300), 2.12.5 (Châtillon, 464); Statu, 14 (Ribaillier, 78‒79; tr. Evans, VTT 4.263); Erud. 1.30 (PL 196.1281AB); Trin. 6.18 (Ribailler, 253; tr. Evans, VTT 1.340); Serm. cent. 70 (PL 177.1119CD; tr. Feiss, VTT 6), and references in VTT 1.405. For this idea in Hugh of St  Victor, see Harkins, Reading and the Work of Restoration, 74‒100; and Boyd Taylor Coolman, The Theology of Hugh of St. Victor: An Interpretation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 50‒59. In Achard of St Victor, see Sermo 1.3 (Châtillon, 29‒30; tr. Feiss, 99‒100); 15.11 (Châtillon 211; tr. Feiss, 312); in Walter of St Victor, see Sermo 11 (Châtillon, 100); in Maurice of St Victor, see Sermo 6 (Châtillon, 228). For the theme of human beings as made in God’s image and likeness in twelfth-century theology more generally, see Stephan Otto, Die Funktion des Bildbegriffes in der Theologie des 12. Jahrhunderts, BGPTMA 40.1 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1963), especially 107‒73 (the Victorines); Robert Javelet, Image et ressemblance au douzième siècle de saint Anselm à Alain de Lille, 2 vols (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1967); R. Javelet, “Image et ressemblance au 11e et 12e siècle,” Dictionnaire de spiritua­ lité 7:1425. See Augustine, Civ. Dei XXII.24.2 (CCL 48.846‒52; tr. Dyson, 1159‒66); En. Ps. 66.4 (CCL 39.861; tr. Maria Boulding, WSA III/17,3:313‒14); Trin. 9.9‒16 (CCL 50.304‒7, tr. Hill, 276‒80; and Gregory the Great, Mor. 4.28.54 (CCL 143.198‒99; tr. Morals, 1:220), 8.10.19 (CCL  143.395‒96; tr.  Morals 1:429), 8.18.34 (CCL  143.405‒6; tr.  Morals, 1:440), 29.10.21 (CCL 143B.1448; tr. Morals, 2:316). Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:11. The historical sense and its connections with the other senses of Scripture is a central issue in the texts assembled in VTT 3; see “history” in the index to that volume. In a note to this sentence, Ribaillier, 261 n. 8, gives a bibliography of pre-1970 works that deal with the three or four senses of Scripture. For more recent bibliography, see Frans van Liere, An Introduc­ tion to the Medieval Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 110‒40. Isa. 21:12. Prov. 24:12.

N otes 57 58

59 60 61 62 63 64

65

66

67



253

Isa. 21:11. The idea here is lese-majesté. I  have translated “majestatem” as “divine majesty” because (1) that seems to be indicated by the context, and (2) in Christian Latin “majestas” often means specifically the divine majesty. A. Blaise, Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chré­ tiens (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954), 509, gives a number of examples, such as Heb. 1:3. See Richard of St. Victor, Pot. lig 5 (Ribaillier, 83‒84); Verbis ap. 5 (Ribaillier, 330‒31). Heb. 6:19. This nautical imagery can be found in Augustine, En. Ps. 64.3 (CCL  39.825; tr. Boulding, 3:268). See also the texts cited in VTT 2.503 n. 46. “perefluamus”: first person plural of the rare verb meaning, “to flow through” or “forget.” See Heb. 2:1, where the same form occurs; the Douai version translates it “drift away.” Ps. 56:4‒5. Mercy and truth are often paired in the Psalms; e.g., 24:10; 39:12; 60:8; 83:12; 84:1; 88:15, 25. Ribaillier, Opuscules théologiques, 262 n. 5, notes that here Richard is taking Divine Scripture in an inclusive sense to include works of the Fathers and Doctors. On this see, Hugh of  St  Victor, Didasc. IV.2 (Buttimer, 71‒72; tr.  Harkins, VTT  3.134‒35); Sacr. I.prol.7 (Berndt, 35; tr. Evans, VTT 3.266); Script. (PL 175.15A‒16B; tr. Van Liere, VTT 3.218‒19); Richard of St Victor, LE I.2.9 (Châtillon, 120; tr. Feiss, VTT 3.316‒17); see also the comments in VTT 3.39‒40 and Dominique Poirel “‘Alter Augustinus’—Der zweite Augustinus Hugo von Sankt Viktor und die Väter der Kirche,” in Väter der Kirche: Ekklesiales Den­ ken von den Anfängen bis in die Neuzeit [Festgabe Josef Sieben], ed. J. Arnold, R. Berndt, R. M. W. Stammberger, and C. Feld (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004), 643‒68. Richard is referring to his short work, De trib. (Ribaillier, 182‒87), which was incorporated into his Trin., 6.15 (Ribaillier, 247‒48; tr. Evans, VTT 1.335‒36). The appropriation of these attributes to the Divine Persons, which was advanced by Hugh of St Victor and Peter Abe­ lard, is discussed at length in VTT 1.28‒35, 55‒58. On the related metaphors of cold and darkness, see Augustine, Conf. X.36.59 (O’Donnell, 142; tr. Chadwick, 214), 12.15.21 (O’Donnell, 172; tr. Chadwick, 256); and Civ. Dei. XIV.3.2 (CCL 48.417; tr. Dyson, 585). The phrase “principale lumen” echoes Pseudo-Dionysius. See, for example, Hugh of St Victor, In Hier. cael. 2.1 (PL 175.933B‒934B), citing the Latin translation of Pseudo-Dionysius’ text: “Ego Jesus invocantes paternum lumen, quod est … verum quod ‘illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum’ per quem ad principale lumen Patrem accessum habuimus … et super principalem divini Patris claritatem.” Hugh comments (PL 175.939D): “Per lumen Jesum accessum habuimus ad lumen Patrem. Jesus enim lumen est, et Pater Jesu lumen; et genitus est a lumine Patre Filius lumen, et unum lumen Pater et Filius. Et dicitur Pater principale lumen, non quia majus lumen vel melius lumen, quia idem lumen; sed quia non de lumine lumen, ideo principale lumen.” Hugh then offers a second possible interpretation, in which he compares the light of the Father to the light that shone from the humanity of Christ (PL 175.941A): “In eo Jesu humanitas lumen fuit in eo quod veritatem demonstravit, et principale lumen Patrem revelavit.” Hugh offers a variation on this, beginning from the idea that Christ is the Wisdom of God (PL 175.940BC): “Et factus est nobis Jesus via ad Patrem; ex inferior lumine ad lumen principale … et perduceret ad principale lumen.” Colm Luibhéid, Pseudo-Dionysius, The Complete Works, Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), 145, translates the Dionysian phrase that Eriugena translated as “principale lumen” as “the light which is the source of all light.” On Hugh’s commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy and Pseudo-Dionysius’ limited influence on Hugh’s thought, see Paul Rorem, “The Early Latin Dionysius: Eriugena and Hugh of St. Victor,” in Re-Thinking Dionysius the Areopagite, ed. Sarah Coakley and Charles  M. Stang (Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 71‒84; and for Hugh of St Victor’s thought on light as influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius, see Dominique Poirel, Des symbols et des anges: Hugues de Saint-Victor et le réveil dionysien du xiie siècle, BV 23 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 371‒86. Poirel explains that whereas Pseudo-Dionysius thought of the “paternal light” in terms of

254

68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92

93 94 95 96

R ichard of S t   V ictor – On I saiah God’s illumination of what is not God, Hugh thought of it as a metaphor of the divine essence in which creatures may participate. While agreeing with other scholars that generally Hugh is a very objective and accurate expositor of the Celestial Hierarchy, Poirel sees in this particular case an indication that Hugh’s inclination was to soften the abrupt discontinuities in Pseudo-Dionysius’ metaphysics in favor of a more hierarchical view of creation that did not emphasize so much the abyss between creature and Creator. Csaba Németh, “The Victorines and the Areopagite,” in L’école de Saint-Victor, 333‒83, discusses Hugh’s theology of light and wisdom in relation to Pseudo-Dionysius (345‒52). Nemeth (360‒62) shows that, like Richard in his dependence on Hugh’s commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy, Walter of St Victor, Sermo 15.7 (Châtillon, 134), writes “Pater dicitur principle lumen” and refers to Christ as a ray of the “paternum lumen.” Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:11. “quae sit ista que”: “who is this who.” The pronouns are all feminine, and evidently refer to “persona.” Richard of St Victor, Trin. 6.23 (Ribaillier, 261.29‒30; tr. Evans, VTT 1.348). Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:12. Augustine, Trin. V.14.15 (CCL 50.222‒23; tr. Hill, 198); Peter Lombard, Sent. I d. 13 c. 2 (Brady, 1:122; tr. Silano, 1:69‒70). Above, ch. 5. Isa. 21:12. The previous paragraph ended by saying that the Unbegotten Father has said or spoken (dixit). Richard begins this paragraph by explaining what it is for the Father “to speak” (dic­ ere) by giving three equivalent verbs (bring forth, proclaim, generate). Richard of St Victor, Trin. 6.23 (Ribaillier, 261‒62; tr. Evans, VTT 1.348). Isa. 21:12. Gregory, Mor. 5.39 (PL 75.719D‒720A; Morals, 1:298). Isa. 21:12. Jerome, In Esaiam 5.21 (PL 24.193) interprets this as morning is coming to the Israelites and night to the Idumeans. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Richard now proceeds to discuss the allegorical or doctrinal (in this case Christological) meaning. However, he could, like Walter of St  Victor, Sermo 4.4 (Châtillon, 34), include both the allegorical and tropological senses under the “mystical understanding.” The Victorine understanding of these three senses (to which the anagogical sense is sometimes added as a fourth) is discussed at length in VTT 3. See above, n. 54. Isa. 21:11‒12. Above, ch. 2. Hag. 2:8. On the knowledge of redemption among those who lived before Christ, see Bernard, Ep./Tract. (SBO 7:184‒200; tr. Pauline Matarasso, Bernard of Clairvaux, On Baptism and the Office of Bishops, intro. Martha G. Newman and Emero Stiegman, CF 67 [Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 2004], 49‒77); Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. I.10.3‒7 (Berndt, 227‒38;

N otes

97 98 99 100 101

102 103 104

105 106 107 108

109

110

111 112 113 114 115

116 117 118



255

Deferrari, 167‒79); H.  Feiss, “Bernardus Scholasticus: The Correspondence of Bernard of Clairvaux and Hugh of St. Victor on Baptism,” in Bernardus Magister, ed. John Sommerfeldt, CS 135 (Spencer, MA: Cistercian Publications, 1992): 349‒78. On this section of Hugh’s discussion of faith, see Fabrizio Mandreoli, La teologia della fede nel De sacramentis Christianae fidei di Ugo di San Vittore, CV: Instrumenta 4 (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2011), 209‒366. Jer. 2:27. “in idipsum”: On this phrase, see VTT 2.134 n. 5, 179, 182 n. 5. From the Exultet, a text sung by the deacon at the Easter Vigil that originated in the fourthseventh centuries and is still sung today. Anselm, Cur Deus homo, 1.12‒13 (Schmitt, 2:68‒71; tr. Davies and Evans, 282‒87); Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. 1.8.4 (Berndt, 196‒98; tr. Deferrari, 143‒45). “opportuit”: In this discussion of the reasons for the redemptive Incarnation of the Son, Richard uses this term often, seemingly to avoid using the “necessary reasons” of Anselm’s Cur Deus homo, while he reworks Anselm’s argument. I have tried to translate this expression consistently as “it is required.” Richard does use the term “necessary reasons” often in his De Trinitate; on this see Gaston Salet, ed., Richard de Saint-Victor, La Trinité, SC 63 (Paris: Cerf, 1959), 465‒68. Augustine, Jo. ev. tr. 72.3 (CCL 36.508‒9; tr. Boulding, 3:472‒73). Cf. Richard of St Victor, Adn. Ps. 28 (PL 196.298D). Cf. Anselm, Cur Deus homo, 2.9 (Schmitt, 2:105‒6; Davies and Evans, 324‒25); De Inc. Ver­ bi, 5 (Schmitt, 2:20‒21; tr. Davies and Evans, 241‒42); Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. II.1.2 (Berndt, 283; tr. Deferrari 206‒7). Cf. Phil. 2:7. Gen. 3.5. 1 Cor. 1:24. Augustine, Doct. chr. 1.14.13 (CCL  32.13‒14; tr.  Hill, 111‒12); Gregory, Mor. 24.2.2 (CCL 143B.1189; tr. Morals, 3/l:50‒51); Isidore, Etym. IV.9 (Lindsay, www.thelatinlibrary. com/Isidore.html; tr. Barney, 113). The Latin reads “Divisit itaque inter se summa illa personarum Trinitas, unus deus.” The Latin “inter se” is quite vague. It is very difficult to translate into a theologically and grammatically acceptable form. Actions of God ad extra are common to the persons of the Trinity; only the Son became incarnate—a personal act (Sixth Council of Toledo, 638 ce: DenzHün. #491, tr.  Fastiggi 637‒8). Yet the New Testament and the Eucharistic liturgy tell us he offers himself to the Father and sends the Holy Spirit to his disciples. In this passage, Richard says the Trinity divided (singular verb) among himself or itself (inter se). If one translates it as “himself ” it seems to introduce a fourth “person” into the Trinity; if one says “itself ” it reifies the Tri-personal God. Hence, it seemed best to leave the phrase in Latin. “Ad majorem igitur lapsi hominis gloriam”: compare the motto attributed to St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus: “Ad majorem Dei gloriam inque hominum salutem.” Ch. 8. Isa. 21:11. On this term from rhetoric, see above, n. 46. Isa. 21:11. This chapter is missing in one important group of five manuscripts consisting of Paris, BnF, lat. 14519 (twelfth century), and four others dependent on it. The other eleven manuscripts contain it. Ribaillier puts it in a footnote, but gives it a number in the sequence of chapters. Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:11. The distinction between “operating” and “co-operating” grace derived from Augustine, particularly De gratia et libero arbitrio 17:33 (PL 44.901). Peter Lombard discusses it in Sent. II.

256

119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132

133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151

152 153 154 155 156

R ichard of S t   V ictor – On I saiah dist. 26 (tr. Silano 2:123‒31). Thomas Aquinas, ST I-II.111.2 (Caramello, 2:546‒47; tr. Dominican Fathers, 2:1136‒37) argues that the distinction is valid for both habitual and helping (“actual”) grace. Regarding the latter, if God is the sole mover, it is operating grace. If the created mind is not only moved but moves, it is cooperating grace. In operating grace, God moves the will; in cooperating grace, God enables the will to act and grants it the capability of operating. Regarding habitual grace, God operates to justify the soul, but insofar as grace is the principle of meritorious works, God’s working is called cooperating grace. Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:12. John 8:12. John 1:9. Augustine, En Ps. 25.2.3 (CCL 38.143; tr. Boulding, 1:258). Gregory, Mor. 16.59.72 (CCL  143A.840‒41; tr.  Morals, 2:269); 6.19.34 (PL  75.748BC; tr. Morals, 1:337‒38). Ps. 111:4. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Ch. 6. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Richard’s text literally means “to the mystical Idumeans,” that is, to the Idumeans insofar as this statement addressed to them has a allegorical or spiritual meaning referring to the coming of Christ. Num. 24:14‒16. Augustine, Civ. Dei. XVIII.23 (CCL 48.613‒15; tr. Dyson, 849‒52). Acts 17:23. Hilduin, Vita S. Dionysii (PL 106.27). Isa. 16:1. Ps. 143:7. Isa. 64:1. Ps. 79:3. Isa. 21:12. Matt. 24:24. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:11. John 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:23. Eph. 5:8. Jerome, In Esaiam 5:21 (PL 24.193). Ch. 13. Ps. 36:6. Prov. 4:18. Here and in the next sentences, Richard alludes to the Christological interpretation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. See his explanation in LE II.12.5 (Châtillon, 464‒65); and Serm. cent. 70 (PL 197.1120CD). These texts and the interpretation of this parable are discussed in this volume in conjunction with a sermon of Maurice de Sully. Isa. 21:11. Luke 10:30, 34. Jerome, Heb. nom. (Lagarde, 47.12‒13; 71.4, CCL  72.117,  148); Augustine, Jo. ev. tr.  43.2 (CCL 36.73‒74; tr. Gibb and Innes, NPNF 9:240). John 14:16. Cf. Richard of St Victor, Missione (PL 196.1027BC). John 15:26.

N otes 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197

198



257

Isa. 21:11. Rom. 13:12. John 3:21. Ps. 55:10. Isa. 21:11. Ps. 56:2. Luke 18:13. Isa. 21:11. Ch. 4. This proverbial statement occurs in Horace, Carmina, II.10.10 (www.thelatinlibrary.com/ horace/carm.shtml); Ambrose, De dignitate sacerdotali, 3 (PL 17.571A); Bernard, Sermo de diversis, III.8 (SBO 6/1:92). “criminis”: Richard is generally consistent in using “crimen” to mean serious or mortal sin. Heb. 6:4‒6. “confluentibus”: “flowing together,” an apt word for those approaching baptism. Heb. 10:26. Isa. 21:11. See n. 46 above. Isa. 21:11. See Ch. 3 above. Isa. 21:11. 1 Cor. 5:6; Richard of St Victor. Decl. nonn. diff. (Ribaillier, 202‒3; tr. Feiss and Coulter, in this volume). Hab. 1:6. Jas. 2:10. Ps. 72:1. Isa. 21:11. Isa. 21:12. Richard of St Victor, Sp. blasph. 3 (Ribaillier, 124‒25). Isa. 55:17. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Ch. 14. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:11. Chs. 1, 6. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 7:9. Isa. 7:9. On Martha and Mary as figures of action and contemplation, see for example, Gregory, Hom. Ez. 2.2.9 (Morel, SC 360.109); Bernard, SCC 57.10‒11 (SBO 2:125‒26; tr. Kilian Walsh and Irene Edmonds, On the Songs of Songs, 3, CF 31 [Kalamazoo; Cistercian Publications, 1979], 104‒6); Richard of St Victor, LE II.14.5 (ed. Châtillon, 503); Giles Constable, Three Studies in Medieval Religious and Social Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 1‒141. Richard of St Victor, XII patr. 74 (Châtillon, 302‒3; tr. Zinn, 131‒32); Trin. prol. (Ribaillier, 79‒84; tr. Evans, VTT 1.209‒12). On the ascent of the mind to God through three steps, such as “fides,” “intelligentia,” and “contemplatio,” see also Adn. Ps. 113.4‒8 (PL 196.337B‒

258

199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217

218

R ichard of S t   V ictor – On I saiah 344A; tr. Evans, VTT 4.186‒93); Arca Moys. 1.3 (Grosfillier, 92‒95; tr. Zinn, 155‒57); J. Ebner, Die Erkenntnislehre Richards von St.  Viktor, BGPTMA 19.4 (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 1917), 72‒78. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Isa. 21:12. Jerome, In Esaiam V.21.11‒12 (CCL 73.207; PL 24.193B). Luke 10:42. Isa. 21:12. Luke 9:62. Ezek. 1:17. Phil. 3:13; Augustine, Conf. IX.10.23 (CCL 27.147; tr. Chadwick, 170‒71). Ps. 33:6. Isa. 21:21. Ps. 83:8. Heb. 3:19. Isa. 40:13. Ps. 54:7. On the distinction between “activi,” “speculativi” and “contemplatavi,” see Richard of St Victor, Diff. sacr. (PL 196.1055A); Super exiit (Châtillon, 14, 67, 78), and the texts cited in n. 198. Sometimes Richard uses speculatio as a synonym for contemplation; e.g., Arca Moys. 4.21 (Grosfillier, 458; tr. Zinn, 300‒1) and XII patr. 18‒24, passim (Châtillon, 136‒57; tr. Zinn, 69‒77). At other times he distinguishes the two. Then contemplatio is reserved for a direct knowledge (quasi facie ad faciem) of divine reality, and speculatio refers to viewing objects that point beyond themselves to their Creator. In this sense of speculatio, objects are a mirror (speculum) that reflects the divine, or a vantage point (specula) from which to gaze toward God, or even a spectacle (spectaculum) that draws attention toward heavenly things. See G. Salet, ed., La Trinité, 491‒92; S. Pinckaers, “Recherches de la signification véritable du terme ‘speculatif ’” Nouvelle revue théologique 81 (1959): 673‒95; J. Châtillon, ed. Sermons et opuscules inédits 1: L’édit d’Alexandre, lxxi-lxxiii. The distinction is explained in Super exiit, 3 (Châtillon, 76.20‒78.2): “Speculativos hoc loco volumus intelligere qui celestium secretorum veritatem vident non nisi per speculum et in aenigmate, qui sine rerum corporalium similitudine nesciunt in rerum spiritualium intelligentiam assurgere. Contemplativos vero dicimus qui faciem revelatam habent et veritatem nude et aperte et absque involucro vident” (“In this context by “seers” we wish to understand those who see the truth of heavenly mysteries only through a mirror and in an enigma, who without a likeness of bodily things do not know how to rise up to understanding of spiritual things”). See Arca Moys. 5.14 (Grosfillier, 557‒58; tr. Zinn) Diff. sacr. (PL 196.1055A); Trin, 1.10 (Ribaillier 95; tr. Evans, 219); 5.6 (Ribaillier, 201; tr. Evans, 297‒98). See Walter of St. Victor, Serm. 9.6 (Châtillon, 80). 2  Cor. 12:11; Richard of St. Victor, Statu, prol. (Ribaillier, 62; tr.  Evans, in this volume); Sp. blasph. 6 (Ribaillier, 129).

RICHARD OF ST VICTOR EXPLANATIONS OF SEVERAL DIFFICULTIES OF SCRIPTURE TRANSLATION BY HUGH FEISS, OSB, AND DALE COULTER

1.1 You ask why, when all things in the first creation are said to be good,1 some of the animals to be taken onto the ark are called clean and others unclean,2 since the latter, being unclean, do not seem to be good. In the consideration of these matters, one judgment is made in terms of the first creation, another in terms of human custom, and still a third in terms of divine law. In terms of the first creation, all things are judged good or clean; in terms of human custom, some things seem clean and others unclean. A certain divine ordinance selects some of those that are clean by custom and distinguishes them from the unclean. The first judgment is according to the definition of reason, the second according to the sense experience, the third according to the decree of a divine ordinance. 1.2 Reason judges according to the nature and property innate in things. Sensation judges according to feelings, and the difference between its pleasure and disgust. Divine ordinance judges according to some likeness with respect to the grace of signification. According to reason’s judgment nothing is unclean except sin; sensation regards as unclean what terrifies or sickens the senses of the flesh. When a divine ordinance identifies something naturally clean as being unclean, it does so on account of signification, and refers it to something that is truly unclean and to be eliminated from human behavior. Consequently, many things thought to be unclean by custom or some decree are judged clean and good according to their proper character. 2.1 You ask how the Apostle calls “unleavened bread” (azimi) those whom he orders to purge the old yeast.3 For what for the Greeks is zima is called leaven among us.4 A-zima means un-leavened. Therefore, if they are not without leaven, how can they be called unleavened? Or if they are without any leaven, how can they purge what they do not have at all? Purge out, he says, the old leaven that you may be new dough, as you are unleavened.5 If you consider well these words of the Apostle, you will discover, it seems to me, not just one question, but several. However, as long as you propose only one, you imply that you have no doubts about the others. Therefore, I will gladly endeavor to resolve your uncertainty as long as you also resolve my uncertainty, which is not just one, but twofold, so that I might receive the talent entrusted with interest.

262

R ichard of St   V ictor

2.2 See we declare that the same things cannot in the same respect be unleavened and have leaven. However, the same things can be both unleavened and not without leaven in different respects. There are those who think nothing vile about God and are purged from all leaven of this kind of vileness, but because of evil living they have not yet merited to be purged from the leaven of wickedness.6 These people think true things about God according to the rule of goodness, but they are unwilling to live rightly by the rule of goodness. People like this do not have the leaven of vileness, but they still have the yeast of wickedness. Scripture says, think about the Lord in goodness.7 See how vilely the Jews think about Christ; see how the Gentiles cannot think true things about God. Therefore, both are full of the yeast of vileness. See some heretic who thinks rightly about God in one regard but in another regard still cannot think rightly about God. Therefore, he has not yet merited to be purged fully from the leaven of vileness. It is vileness when someone is still unable to think what he should. It is vileness when wickedness so inebriates the mind and blinds it to the extent that it still cannot think about God or neighbor according to what the rule of truth states. Observe now, Christians, and you will see how many there are who truly believe everything, but do not live it sincerely in all respects. They have the unleavened bread of truth, but do not have the unleavened bread of sincerity. They are unleavened in faith, but they are not unleavened in action. Therefore, it is rightly said to those who are like this, Purge out the old yeast so that you may be new dough, as you are unleavened.8 In this way those who are already unleavened in faith may cleanse with all zeal whatever impurity they have in action. 2.3 See, you have already heard what you sought. Listen also to what I want to be explained to me. Certainly, new dough cannot be eaten before it has been cooked. Bread without leaven can be eaten. Therefore, why are they not invited by the Apostle to receive what is proven to be better and more perfect? Why are they not invited to be bread without leaven rather than fresh dough? See my uncertainty. Now listen to the other one. What is unleavened bread if not food? If they were unleavened, should they not be taken as food? Instead they are ordered to feast on unleavened bread? Are not the ones to be feasted on and the one who are going to feast the same, the banquet and the banqueters, those feasting and the food? If they are unleavened bread, and are about to feast on unleavened bread, are they not to devour themselves? I require these two little questions for the debt with interest, and a third one for free. In accord with the abundance of your

E xplanations of S everal Difficulties of S cripture 

263

generosity you should answer one for free. Since it happens regularly that true faith always is, or should be, before sincere works, why are they first ordered to feast on the unleavened bread of sincerity and not on the unleavened bread of truth? 3.1.1 I confess, I no longer have the strength to endure calmly your persistent demand, when you require that I resolve not only the questions that you have posed for me, but also the questions that I posed for you. Yet, if we wish to explain them fully, we must explain that whole apostolic reading of the paschal celebration: Purge out the old leaven, that you may be new dough, as you are unleavened.9 3.1.2 To understand this passage of the Apostle more fully, it seems to me that one needs to investigate several issues. First, what is leaven, what is a little leaven, what is old leaven, what is the way to purge it, what is unleavened bread, what is new dough, and what is the difference between bread and dough? Lastly, which I have said above, why does he admonish us to become new dough rather than leavened bread? We already know what physical leaven is and how it works, and for this reason we wonder what we should think about spiritual leaven. It seems, therefore, that spiritual leaven is what corrupts the integrity of the spiritual and rational substance. This is why we say that spiritual leaven is every sin that corrupts it in either thinking or feeling. Its thinking is corrupted by falsehood and its feeling by impurity. As long as we can truly say, if we said that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,10 it is rightly said to us, and it seems that it should be said deservedly, Purge the old leaven.11 3.1.3 If every sin is correctly called leaven, it follows that “a little leaven” is to be understood as venial sin, because it is easily committed and easily forgiven. I say “a little” not because it is to be taken lightly, but because it is little in comparison to grave sins (peccatorum criminalium). Perhaps you will say: If, according to the Apostle, a little leaven can destroy the entire lump of dough,12 then we must understand a little leaven as something grave. In fact, you say, the Apostle had earlier argued against this position: although there was great sin, nevertheless it was a little leaven according to him. Otherwise, why does he add to it, do you not know that a little leaven corrupts the entire lump of dough?13 Perhaps it seems this way to you. What then? Did he who married the wife of his own father get a small amount of leaven?14 If a small amount of leaven creates a little corruption and a large amount of leaven creates great corruption, do we say that the man who committed such a disgraceful act was corrupted a little rather than

264

R ichard of St   V ictor

very much? For that reason, I understand differently (magis) what the Apostle said, a little leaven corrupts the entire lump of dough,15 as they did who heard how much corruption such an abominably disgraceful act brought forth and that it needed to be cleansed with great zeal and speed because even a little leaven normally corrupts the entire lump of dough. If, according to the Apostle John, every sin is iniquity,16 what will grave sin be if not great iniquity? Therefore, will we say that great iniquity is a little corruption? That is what seems to follow if a grave sin is called a little leaven. 3.1.4 How, you ask, according to the Apostle, can venial sin corrupt the entire lump of dough? Listen to what another Scripture passage says and from it consider how you should understand this one. One who neglects small things gradually falls away.17 We know that fire ignites from a small spark,18 and we often see that, while the head of a household is sleeping, the fire that started from a small spark consumes, in one night or hour, everything that he possesses and sometimes even the inhabitant himself along with his house. Thus, a little concupiscence, small at the beginning of a temptation, if neglected, begins gradually to grow and slowly enervates the strength of the mind; and when its strength has been exhausted, it impels it toward sin, and in this manner corrupts the mass of our merits. Thus, certainly, if it is neglected, a considerable lump often is corrupted by a small amount of leaven. On the other hand, if we are not negligent, but, though shamelessly fallen, to whatever extent we are energetic in forcefully purging the yeast of whatever serious sin, we can keep our lump of dough safe from the corruption of the good things that are ours. 3.1.5 Hence it is that, taking advantage of the opportunity, after a special admonition he rises to a general teaching when he says, Purge the old leaven.19 You think, does he teach us to be insistent in purging only a small amount or only a large amount and not rather both? Purge, he says, the old leaven.20 Leaven that infects the mind, which is then corrupted by the infection, is rightly called “old.” The leaven that as yet stirs the mind only through thinking seems new. What is in thought pounds only outwardly at the door; what already has hold of one’s affection occupies and defiles one interiorly. Therefore, the former is to be repelled; the latter is to be purged. The manner of expurgation is pluriform: accusing, praying, confessing, and making satisfaction.21 Concerning the first you have in the Psalm: What you say in your hearts be sorry for on your beds.22 Concerning the second and third you have in the Apostle James: Confess your sins to one another

E xplanations of S everal Difficulties of S cripture 

265

and pray for each other.23 Concerning the fourth there is what John the Baptist says: Produce fruits worthy of repentance.24 In the expurgation of serious sins there is certainly need for confession and satisfaction.25 Compunction and prayer usually suffice for the expurgation of venial sins.26 It is necessary to purge serious sins fully regarding both guilt and action: regarding the guilt, so that you might make satisfaction for past sins and so that you might presume nothing regarding the others. Yet, because we can never completely remove venial sins as long as we live in this corruptible flesh,27 we must always strive for their expurgation and renew our efforts at daily increments of purity. 3.1.6. He says, that you may be new dough, as you are unleavened.28 It seems that “unleaved” (azima) can be applied both to bread without yeast and to dough as yet without fermentation. Which of these should we understand when he says that they are unleavened? If they had already been new dough, he would not have admonished them to be what they were. As far as one can tell, when he says “unleavened,” he wants us to understand bread without yeast. What then? Did he want to admonish them to cease to be bread without leaven and become new dough? Who would say this? Dough is not normally made from bread, but rather bread from dough. Therefore, it is understood that they were unleavened in one respect and leavened in another. In respect to that in which they were not without yeast, he wanted them to become new dough. Many are unleavened in regard to faith, but not unleavened in their action; and many seem to be unleavened in action who nevertheless are not unleavened in their intention, and for this reason are hypocrites. There are some who possess unleavened sincerity in their intention, and yet are not completely without leaven in affection. There is no doubt that while we consent to the law of God in our minds,29 we see another law in our members opposing the law of our mind and holding us captive to the law of sin.30 As long as we find this in us, I say, we undoubtedly need to purge leaven, and we are rightly told, Purge the old leaven so that you may be new dough, even as you are unleavened.31 The dough he talks about is not just any dough, but new dough, which seems to be the same as if he had said, “not leavened,” for dough, even injected with yeast, is not fermented without some delay. After it has already been fermented, it ceases to be fresh dough and loses its newness. Therefore, in one regard they were already like bread without yeast, but in another regard he wished them to become dough without yeast. In both respects he wanted them to have unleavened bread, in both cases

266

R ichard of St   V ictor

to be without corruption, both in regard to what they already were and in regard to what they still could be. 3.2.1 Let us now see what the difference is between bread and dough. Bread, as was already pointed out, is made from dough, but dough is not made from bread. Dough is a soft and pliable material capable of receiving different forms. Bread is something already formed and firm, made solid by fire. Therefore, a practiced awareness makes bread unleavened; an affective disposition32 that is firm and robust in what is good makes bread unleavened. A recent intention of the mind, still rough and less practiced, creates new dough. Dough is formed between the hands, then it is made solid after it has been cooked in the fire and so becomes bread. In this way, certainly, the promotion of our merits and the renewal of our progress begins from deliberation, is moderated by discretion,33 and is consummated in love. Therefore, when we undertake something new to increase the purity of our mind and we concentrate on this intention with much deliberation, what else do we make by purging the yeast but new dough? 3.2.2 Not everyone can do everything, and all things are not equally expedient for everyone.34 When we learn our measure and a good way to act in working out any proposed action and are instructed about discretion through our own experience in such a way that we pursue all things with restraint, what else do we form but bread to be baked? Then bread is, as it were, baked in the fire, when a good intention is turned through use into delight and is made solid through love. The promotion of good is one thing, and the confirmation of good is another; the beginning of the good is one thing, and its consummation another. The latter pertains to bread and the former to new dough. Therefore, because no one is suddenly made the highest nor immediately strengthened in himself for every beginning of good, the Apostle, speaking to people in a human way because of their weakness, admonished them to become new dough, not bread without leaven, although without a doubt it tended to that end, so that, having been made new dough from new dough, they would also at some time become unleavened bread. No one makes dough for anything other reason than that it become bread. Therefore, the Apostle rightly admonishes them to become what in the meantime they could become, and by that fact indicates to what end they should strive, that is, that at some point they finally become completely unleavened and progress to the consummation and confirmation of the true good. See, you now have why they are admonished to become new dough and not unleavened bread.

E xplanations of S everal Difficulties of S cripture 

267

3.3.1 However, it is astonishing and no less worth investigating why those who are called unleavened are invited to the eating of the lamb. Eating is not for the unleavened, and to eat or be eaten is not for dough. Therefore, after saying that they were unleavened and enjoining them to become new dough I ask, what is the connection, that leads him to add, for Christ our paschal lamb has been offered as a sacrifice, therefore let us feast?35 We know the command in the law that, when they offered the lamb and celebrated the Passover, they were to eat no bread but unleavened. Therefore, if the Apostle had told them not to be unleavened bread but to have unleavened bread, and had invited them to have still more abundantly, it would seem logical enough that he added, for Christ our Passover has been sacrificed, therefore let us feast.36 What we understand historically about the former [viz., the injunction to be unleavened], we must understand spiritually about the latter [viz., the affirmation of Christ as the paschal sacrifice], for whatever is said about the former seems to be stated because of the latter.37 What is said there about physical leaven is understood here about spiritual leaven. One wonders for what reason those who are called not to have but to be unleavened bread are invited to eat unleavened bread or the lamb. If one wants to understand more fully the force of the apostolic teaching, it will be necessary to examine these things more deeply. Indeed we ought to celebrate a double Passover, and without doubt make a double crossing over. Passover (Pascha), as we have often heard, is interpreted as “crossing over.”38 First, one must cross over from unrighteousness to righteousness, and secondly from misery to glory. It is a good crossing over to pass over from iniquity to goodness and likewise good to cross over from misery to beatitude. We should do both in a festive way; we should rejoice inwardly about both, but the first in reality and the second in hope. We should perform the first celebration ourselves with his help, and the second we should await with hope from his gift alone. In the former case we should consume the lamb as food, and in the latter we should show ourselves suitable for his food. Therefore, in the former we need to have unleavened bread and to eat unleavened bread, whereas in the latter we should be unleavened bread and pass into the food of the lamb. 3.3.2 Do not be surprised by what you hear, that we ought to be fed by the lamb and to become the food of the lamb, since, if you remember, you read something similar: we put on Christ, but nonetheless we are Christ’s clothing.39 We have the testimony of the Scriptures about both. Therefore, presently we should become unleavened bread and be

268

R ichard of St   V ictor

purged from all old leaven, if we want to be found worthy and acceptable for that future celebration. If we want to be unleavened bread, we must eat unleavened bread. You ask: If we eat unleavened bread, will we then be bread? Certainly we know that normally bread is incorporated into the one eating it, but does not incorporate the eater into itself. We know that bread normally nourishes the flesh, fattens up the flesh, and renders it stronger. Who is this bread that makes what is flesh desert itself, and makes the eater cross over into its own likeness? That you may not be more astonished about this, listen to what kind of bread, what kind of unleavened bread, we propose to you for eating: I am the living bread which comes down from heaven.40 Without a doubt if you eat this bread, he will not be changed into you, but you will be changed into him. If you do not want to believe me, then listen to him whom you dare not contradict: “I am the food of the fully grown; grow and you will feed on me. You will not change me into you like the food of your flesh, but you will be changed into me.”41 3.3.3 Perhaps you still want to be shown more clearly how it can happen. Therefore, if you will gain enjoyment from the truth and be delighted by such food, do you think that by hungering for the truth and enjoying the truth you can change it into something false? If you receive Christ as your food, it is better for you that he make you a truthful person from a liar, than that you make him a liar from a truthful person. Without a doubt Christ is the highest truth, without a doubt Christ is the highest purity. The leaven of truth makes something true from what is false; the yeast of sincerity creates someone with a clean heart from someone with an unclean heart. When you have been confirmed in truth and sincerity you will without a doubt be unleavened and worthy so that you ought to be accepted into the food of the lamb. When he enters your food and when he receives you into his own food, in both instances he is not changed into you, but you are changed into him. In the first change, he makes you like himself in righteousness; in the second he makes you like himself in glory. In the first, as we have said, he makes a truthful person from a liar and someone with a clean heart from someone with an unclean heart; in the second he makes someone immortal from someone mortal, and someone incorruptible from someone corruptible, when he will configure the body of our humility, configured to the body of his glory. It is necessary, the Apostle testifies, that this corruptible body put on incorruption and this mortal body put on immortality.42 Therefore, if we want to be like him in glory,

E xplanations of S everal Difficulties of S cripture 

269

we must be unleavened; and if we want to become unleavened, we must eat the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.43 3.3.4 It is not enough to have this kind of leaven and to grasp through understanding and to hold in memory what is sincere and what is true. We must add that we also eat, and by acting, as if by chewing, strive to instill it into our affectivity and fill our innards with its sweetness and satiety. Certainly you see that it is one thing to have unleavened bread and another to eat unleavened bread, and still another to be unleavened bread. Therefore, if we cannot be unleavened bread unless we eat the designated unleavened bread, what wonder is it if he wished that those who are now partly unleavened and partly not unleavened become totally unleavened by means of new dough? What wonder is it, I ask, if he invited them to eat unleavened bread? Principally, however, he invited them to eat the lamb without whose grace they could not persevere in already being [partly] unleavened, nor, insofar as they were still yeast, become new dough and from it unleavened bread. 3.4.1 Now I ask you to pay attention to what follows: how fitting it is that you make yourself food from him who has made himself food for you. You have been seated at a rich man’s table. Pay attention to those things that have been placed before you and see how you should prepare such things. The Apostles wants us to become new dough and, from the dough, bread without leaven, and rightly so, for Christ our Passover has been sacrificed.44 Therefore, let us be made new dough so that Christ may find in us a sumptuous banquet for himself, for Christ our Passover has been sacrificed45 so that we may find in him that on which we can feast. Because Christ has been sacrificed,46 two things are brought about: that we must do what the Apostle rightly admonishes, and that we are able to complete it. From the sacrificial offering and eating of the lamb, provided we eat him in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth,47 we receive grace so that we can fulfill the admonition of the Apostle. Therefore, let one who is new dough, who desires to be pure from all leaven and who prepares himself to be the suitable and fitting food of Christ, eat the lamb with unleavened bread. 3.4.2 See, you have now received why those who are called unleavened, those who are admonished to become new dough are instructed to feast on the lamb with unleavened bread. It still remains to inquire about what we put in the last place. Since Solomon says, Your eyes precede your steps,48 one should look ahead before proceeding, think before acting. Why, then, does the Apostle place the unleavened bread of truth49 later in his admonition, if it must be eaten first? To come more

270

R ichard of St   V ictor

appropriately to the topic of this question, let us diligently examine those things that were previously set forth. The Apostle teaches how one is allowed to eat the lamb and how it is absolutely not allowed to eat him. One is not allowed to eat him in the leaven of wickedness and vileness, but rather, as you hear next, in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.50 3.4.3 Hence, one may note the difference between the Passover of the Jews and the Passover of Christians.51 Corporeal leaven is certainly prohibited in the former, but spiritual leaven in the latter. There unleavened bread is enjoined, here the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.52 This is right, for there a lawful but living lamb is offered as a sacrifice, but here a spiritual and supercelestial lamb. There a brute animal, here the God-man, the Word of God. The sacrificial offering of both grants a crossing over from slavery to freedom, but in the former from bodily to bodily, and in the latter from spiritual to spiritual. That former sacrificial offering grants a crossing over from Egypt into the desert; the latter grants a returning from the world to paradise. Finally, the former grants a crossing over from the servitude of Pharaoh to an earthly kingdom; the latter transmits one from servitude to the devil into the kingdom of heaven. From these things one understands how the latter celebration is incomparably greater and how inestimably more worthy than the former, our Passover in comparison with that of the Jews. Christ, our Passover has been sacrificed, therefore, he says, let us feast.53 3.4.4 You have heard what is the fruit of the sacrificial offering. Do you still want to hear who is the fruit of the feast? Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you.54 So no one will think this is said of just any life, let us hear what is said about it. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood, has eternal life.55 See what fruit one finds from eating him, indeed not everyone, but one who eats worthily. Otherwise, he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment on himself.56 Therefore, let us eat, but not unworthily. This is what the Apostle wished to teach you when he adds, not with the leaven of wickedness and vileness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.57 Eating with the leaven of wickedness and vileness58 undoubtedly means eating unworthily. Eat with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth59 so that you may become worthy. Notice that two things are prohibited and two are commanded. Look at how you have two against two: the unleavened bread of sincerity against the leaven of wickedness, and the unleavened bread of truth

E xplanations of S everal Difficulties of S cripture 

271

against the leaven of vileness. It seems that every spiritual corruption in human beings arises either from the concupiscence of the flesh or from the mind’s ignorance,60 and every kind of spiritual leaven is to be comprehended under these two. The Apostle does not seem to include every kind of leaven under the names wickedness and vileness. Not every craving pertains to wickedness, just as not all ignorance is assigned to vileness. It is one thing to feel concupiscence, and another to consent to it. It is infirmity that we feel a craving against our will; it is wickedness that we consent to the craving after deliberation.61 Wickedness is to consent to an evil thought with a ready mind after planning and deliberation. Therefore, what else is wickedness than unrestrained concupiscence? One type of concupiscence is restrained and another is unrestrained.62 The former is venial and the latter is damnable; but both poison, both corrupt, and both show in this way that they pertain to leaven. So, too, one type of ignorance is venial and another is damnable. Venial is what comes from infirmity, and damnable is what arises from wickedness; the former clouds the mind and the latter blinds it. For wickedness normally functions in such a way that it blinds a human being so much that it permits him to think in simplicity and goodness neither about his neighbor nor even about God. Therefore, wickedness begets and nourishes vice, which the Apostle here calls vileness, because one is unable to know the rule of truth and goodness in his judgment. 3.4.5 It should not trouble you to find this term (nequitia) used with another meaning, because the poverty of words63 compels us sometimes to broaden, to restrict, or to change in some other way the signification of the words. Yet in such situations, we should always consider and assign the meaning of the author from the literal context. Therefore, if we wish to follow the meaning of the Apostle, then, unless I am mistaken, we should interpret it that, just as wickedness is the opposite of sincerity, so vileness contrasts with truth. The property of vileness is always to suppose improper behavior, to interpret everything in a bad light, zealously to serve disparagement and slander, to criticize divine judgments, to hesitate in faith and to murmur at the scourgings of God. Therefore, just as not any type of concupiscence is understood by the term “wickedness,” but only that which is unrestrained, so not any type of ignorance is understood by the term “vileness,” but only that which is malicious. If the Apostle had said “not with the leaven of concupiscence and ignorance” where he put not with the leaven of wickedness and vileness, he would have seemed to have enjoined some-

272

R ichard of St   V ictor

thing more perfect and, as it were, in more exact opposition to with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.64 However, as we have already said, the Apostle wanted to teach how one is allowed or not allowed to approach the meal of the lamb. It is venial to come to it with venial concupiscence and venial ignorance. It is damnable to approach it with damnable concupiscence or damnable ignorance. Only damnable concupiscence pertains to wickedness and only damnable ignorance pertains to vileness. Therefore, the Apostle rightly did not wish to say “not with the leaven of concupiscence and ignorance,” but something more moderate, not with the leaven of wickedness and vileness,65so that he would not seem to prevent every human from the eating of the lamb. Who is capable of fully purging the leaven of concupiscence and ignorance in this life, where the flesh lusts against the spirit66 as long as we do not know how to pray as we ought?67 Therefore, pay attention how discerningly and advisedly the Apostle did not want to command what was beyond human power. He only enjoins upon human beings what he knew to be possible for them. Therefore, he says, not with the leaven of wickedness and vileness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.68 3.5 Now let us inquire about this reversal of order by which he puts the unleavened bread of sincerity before that of truth, since right faith is always prior to good action: Without faith it is impossible to please God.69 Now it is clear that faith is a certitude that stands beyond opinion but falls short of knowledge.70 There is one type of knowledge of truth that is by faith alone, another which is by an understanding of truth. The prophet indicates both when he says, If you do not believe, you will not understand.71 The knowledge that is by faith alone normally precedes good works. The knowledge that is by understanding follows good works, because we are illumined to truth through good action. This is why the wise man says, Son, you have greatly desired wisdom; keep the commandments and God will offer it to you.72 The one who said, I have understood from your commands,73 learned this in himself by experience. Consequently, the Apostle calls us to the knowledge of truth that is by understanding when he invites us to the feast of sincerity and truth.74 Therefore, it should not be enough for us to believe truthfully and firmly the mysteries (sacramenta) of our faith, unless we try, as much as we can, to grasp them by understanding also.75 Let us satisfy our affectivity with the unleavened bread of sincerity, and let us refresh out intellect from the unleavened bread of truth.76

NOTES 1 2 3 4

5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31 32

Gen. 1:31. Gen. 7:2. For this paragraph, see Peter Lombard, Collectanea in omnes divi Pauli Aposoli epistolas. In Ep. 1 ad Cor. (PL 191.1573). Zumè is a Greek word for leaven or yeast. It appears often in early Christian authors: see Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, 592‒93. In the Vulgate version of the Old Testament, the word “azymus” (without yeast, unleavened) appears often. 1 Cor. 5:7. 1 Cor. 5:8: “in fermento malitiae et nequitiate.” Richard is going to distinguish these two sorts of yeast throughout the rest of this work. I have tried to consistently translate the two terms are “wickedness” (malitia) and “vileness” (nequita). The result is somewhat wooden and odd, but it helps make Richard’s argument clear. Wis. 1:1. 1 Cor. 5:7. 1 Cor. 5:7. 1 John 1:8. Richard of St Victor, Statu, 21 (Ribaillier, 86; tr. Evans, VTT 4.268). 1 Cor. 5:7. “massam”: something that sticks together like dough, a lump or mass, or amount. On the basis of Augustine’s interpretation of Paul, “massa” became a quasi-technical term for sinful humanity. See Paula Fredricksen, “Massa,” in Allan D. Fitzgerald, ed., Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 545‒47, who shows that Augustine used the term as a synonym for “conspersio,” and that his use evolved as his doctrine of original sin developed. 1 Cor. 5:6. Verbis ap. 6 (Ribaillier, 331‒32), 1 Cor. 5:6. 1 John 3:4. Sir. 19:1; Hugh of St Victor, Didasc. VI.3 (Buttimer, 114; tr. Harkins, VTT 3.164); Augustine, Conf. IX.8.18 (O’Donnell, 110‒11; tr. Chadwick, 167‒68). Sir. 11:34. 1 Cor. 5:7. 1 Cor. 5:7. Richard of St. Victor, Pot. lig. 5 (Ribaillier, 83‒84). Ps. 4:5. Jas. 5:16. Luke 3:8. Richard of St. Victor, Pot. lig. 4‒5 (Ribaillier, 81‒84). Augustine, Ench. 71 (Rivière, 230‒31; tr.  Arand, 71‒72); Trin. XII.12.18 (CCL  50.372‒73; tr. Hill, 332). On forgiveness of minor sins through praying the Lord’s Prayer, see Jákó Örs Fehérváry, Multi sunt poenitentiae fructus: Pénitence monastique aux ve-vie siècles dans le paysage de la pénitence ecclésiale, Studia Anselmiana 147 (Rome: EOS Verlag, 2009), 120‒26, 181‒94. Richard of St Victor, Statu, 21, 38 (Ribaillier, 85‒86, 108‒9; tr. Evans, VTT 4.268 and 288‒89). 1 Cor. 5:7. Rom. 7:16. Rom. 7:23; Richard of St Victor, Statu, 5 (Ribaillier, 68; tr. Evans, VTT 4.255). 1 Cor. 5:7. “affectus”: This word and “affectio” are very difficult to translate into English. They usually mean something more permanent that “feeling(s),” but more specific than “affectivity” and more “feeling” than “conation.” Sometimes it seems best to translate them as “affect”

274

33

34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43 44

R ichard of S t   V ictor – E X PL A NAT I ON S and “affectivity,” at other times “feeling” is more accurate. Peter Kwasniewski, in his introduction to St Thomas Aquinas, On Love and Charity: Readings from the “Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard,” tr. Peter A. Kwasniewski, Thomas Bolin, and Joseph Bolin (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008), xxviii–xxix, says that St Thomas Aquinas used “affectus” “to refer broadly not only to all passions … but to all appetitive acts, whether sensitive or spiritual.” William C. Spohn, Go and Do Likewise: Jesus and Ethics (New York: Continuum, 1999), 40‒41, distinguishes affections from feelings. Feelings are transitory occurrences; affections are deeper emotions and dispositions that can be trained and evoked until they become second nature. In this sense, Paul could command the Thessalonians to rejoice always (1 Thess. 5:­18). Wyndy Corbin Reuschling, Desire for God and the Things of God: The Relationship between Christian Spirituality and Morality (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012), 7‒8, draws on Spohn and on Matthew Elliott’s article “Affections” in the Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Glen Scorgie (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 248‒49, to define “affections” as “dispositions and character traits that are grown in the heart.” In Richard’s view, all of a person’s life, feelings, virtues, and actions should be known, directed, moderated, and ruled by reason. Richard calls the application of reason to one’s inner and outer life “circumspectio,” “discretio,” and “deliberatio.” Richard recognized that these and related terms can be defined in different ways. In one place he gives these descriptions: “Circumspection is to bring under examination our customary ways of acting; discernment is to make a judgment on all matters [relating to our moral life]; deliberation is to seek and find counsel” (Erud., 1.12 [PL 196.1248CD]: “Circumspectionis est morum nostrorum modum in considerationem adducere; discretionis est in omnibus judicium facere; deliberatio autem consilium quaerere, invenire”). Discernment, which is a moral judgment (judicium), has two basic tasks: (1) to distinguish between good and evil, and (2) to discriminate among relative degrees of good and evil. The latter task involves (a) discerning relative degrees of evil or goodness, (b) pondering the nature of various vices, and (c) estimating the comparative dignity of each virtue (Statu, 25‒26 [Ribaillier, 90‒92; tr. Evans, VTT 4.273‒75). “Deliberatio,” or taking counsel, selects (eligere) what is concretely useful or expedient for the agent. The greatest good is not always the most useful one to try to implement. Cf. Richard of St Victor, Adn. Ps. 118 (PL 196.360D‒361C); Adn. Ps. 143 (PL 196.381A‒384C); Walter of St Victor, Serm. 13.6 (Châtillon 119.141‒43). Richard’s doctrine of discretio is placed in its historical context and thoroughly analyzed in François Dingjan, Discretio. Les origines patristiques et monastiques de la doctrine sur la prudence chez saint Thomas d’Aquin (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967), 159‒82; cf. Ebner, Die Erkenntnislehre Richards von St. Viktor, 32‒36. Sir. 37:31; 1  Cor. 6:12; Richard of St  Victor, Statu, 28 (Ribaillier, 94‒95; tr.  Evans, VTT 4.276‒77). 1 Cor. 5:7‒8. 1 Cor. 5:7‒8. This is one way to state a basic principle of Victorine exegesis, that the spiritual meaning must be based in the historical or literal meaning. Exod. 12:11; Peter Lombard, Collect. in Ep. 1 ad Cor. (PL 191.1573); Richard of St Victor, Super exiit (Châtillon, 41); Gem. pasch. (PL 196.1059). The crossing of the Red Sea and the Jordan River are dominant metaphors in Richard of St Victor’s De exterminatione mail et promotione boni (PL 196.1073B‒1160B; Italian tr. by Daniele Racca, Lo sterminio del male, Biblioteca dell’Anima 10 (Turin: Il leone verde, 1999). Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27. John 6:5. Augustine, Conf. VII.10.16 (CCL 37.82; tr. Chadwick, 123‒24). 1 Cor. 15:53. 1 Cor. 5:8. 1 Cor. 5:7.

N otes 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

58 59 60

61 62 63

64 65 66 67 68 69 70

71 72 73 74 75 76



275

1 Cor. 5:7. 1 Cor. 5:7. 1 Cor. 5:8. Prov. 4:25. 1 Cor. 5:8. 1 Cor. 5:8. Peter Lombard, Collect. In Ep. 1 ad Cor. (PL 191.1574A). 1 Cor. 5:8. 1 Cor. 5:8. John 6:55. John 6:55. 1 Cor. 11:29. 1  Cor. 5:8. Peter Lombard, Collect. in Ep.  1 ad Cor. (PL  191.1574B) interprets “malitia” (wickedness) as against others, and “nequitia” (vileness) as within oneself. He interprets sincerity as the absence of vices or a pure life, and truth as good works or the absence of all deceit. 1 Cor. 5:8. 1 Cor. 5:8. Richard of St Victor, Statu, Prol., 24 (Ribaillier, 61, 89; tr. Evans, VTT 4.251‒52, 271‒72); LE 1.1.3 (Châtillon, 105; tr. Feiss, VTT 3.300‒1); Emman. II.26 (PL 196.660D‒661A; tr. Van Liere, in this volume); Adn. Ps. 121 (PL  196.365C); Ps.-Richard of St  Victor, In Joelem (PL 175.333C). Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. I.7.27‒34 (Berndt, 189‒90; tr. Deferrari, 133‒38). Richard of St  Victor, Statu 39 (Ribaillier, 109‒11; tr.  Evans, VTT  4.289‒90); Verbis ap. 4 (Ribaillier, 326‒29). Richard of St Victor, Statu, 10 (Ribaillier, 73‒75; tr. Evans, VTT 4.259‒60). “verborum inopia”: Richard refers to the limitations of words and language several times: Trin. 6.18 (Ribailler, 173, 252; tr. Evans, VTT 1.276‒77, 339); Sp. blash. 4 (Ribaillier, 125); Adn. Ps. 143 (PL 196.382AB). On this topic, see G. R. Evans, The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Earlier Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), and The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Road to Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) 1 Cor. 5:8. 1 Cor. 5:8. Gal. 5:17, Richard of St Victor, Statu, 17 (Ribaillier 81‒82; tr. Evans, VTT 4.266). Rom. 8:26. 1 Cor. 5:8. Heb. 11:6. Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. I.10.2 (Berndt, 226; tr. Deferrari, 168); Sac. dial. (PL 176.36A). On this definition, see Fabrizio Mandreoli, La teologia della fede nel De sacramentis Christiane fidei di Ugo di San Vittore, CV: Instrumenta 4 (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2011), 117‒83. Isa. 7:9. Sir. 1:33. Ps. 118:104. 1 Cor 5:8. Richard of St Victor, Trin. prol. (Ribaillier, 79‒84; tr. Evans, VTT 1.209‒12); Anselm, De Inc. Verbi, 2 (Schmitt, 2:10‒14; tr. Davies and Evans, 238‒41). 1 Cor. 5:8.

ROBERT OF MELUN QUESTIONS ON THE DIVINE PAGE INTRODUCTION AND TRANSLATION BY FRANKLIN T. HARKINS

INTRODUCTION Robert, his Questions, and the Development of Scholastic Theology

Although scholars now recognize that the term “scholasticism” admits of no univocal application, there is little doubt that the question (quaestio)—as both a pedagogical and literary form—stands as one of the key features of the intellectual culture of the schools and universities of western Europe in the high and late Middle Ages.1 Indeed, Marie-Dominique Chenu has argued that “the crucial step in the making of scholasticism” occurred in the twelfth century when questions that arose rather spontaneously for theological masters in their commenting on the scriptural text began to be thematically or systematically organized.2 It may be said that this is what made theology an academic discipline during the long twelfth century.3 In terms of both their increasingly speculative nature and their pedagogical and literary organization, questions became more and more removed from the exegetical contexts in which they originated. And masters sought to “determine” these questions by reconciling or synthesizing the alternative perspectives represented in various authorities—scriptural, patristic, and philosophical—through the use of distinctions of various sorts (e.g., logical or philosophical, grammatical or linguistic).4 Around the middle of the twelfth century, masters began to organize these questions, together with authoritative statements (drawn primarily from Scripture and the Fathers) bearing on them, into collections of Sentences. Of these, Peter Lombard’s Four Books of Sentences is surely the most well-known, as it became the standard text on which all aspiring masters of theology in 1

2 3 4

See, e.g., Ulrich G. Leinsle, Introduction to Scholastic Theology, tr. Michael J. Miller (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2010), 1‒15; and Rolf Schönberger, Was ist Scholastik? (Hildesheim: Bernward, 1991), 41‒51. Chenu, Nature, Man and Society in the Twelfth Century, 291‒92. See also Noone, “Scholasticism,” 55‒64, esp. 61. See R. N. Swanson, The Twelfth-Century Renaissance (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), 115‒38. Noone, “Scholasticism,” 56.

280

R obert of M elun

the high and late Middle Ages were required to comment. But in the 1150s, just as the Lombard was compiling his Sentences collection and as an alternative to it, Robert of Melun (c. 1100‒67) was producing his own Sentences.5 A native of England, Robert of Melun studied and taught dialectic and theology in and around Paris for over four decades, from c. 1120 until c. 1162, after which he returned to his homeland to become bishop of Hereford.6 He likely acquired his cognomen from having taught dialectic at the royal palace of Melun, perhaps in the early 1120s. After studying theology under Peter Abelard and Hugh of St Victor in the late 1120s and early 1130s, Robert moved to Sainte-Geneviève by 1136, where he taught dialectic to John of Salisbury and others whom Godfrey of St Victor would later colorfully describe as “the Robertine crowd” (turbe robertine).7 Circa 1142, shortly after the deaths of Hugh and Abelard, Robert appears to have turned his pedagogical attention to theology, which he taught at Paris until around 1160.8 It was during this period that Robert penned his three surviving works, all of which are theological in nature, namely: Questiones de divina pagina (1143‒48), Questiones de epistolis Pauli (1145‒55), and Sententiae (1152‒60).9 Robert therefore occupies a significant place not only in the history of the Parisian schools but also in the evolution of scholastic modes of thought and discourse.10 His Questiones de divina pagina offer an important window onto the pedagogical transition from sacra pagina to sententiae that came to characterize early scholasticism; indeed, they provide a noteworthy snapshot of this pivotal moment in the production of medieval scholastic culture. 5

6

7

8 9 10

For an introduction to Robert’s Sentences, see Œuvres de Robert de Melun, Tome III: Sententie, volume 1, ed. Raymond M. Martin, O.P. (Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1947), v-xxi (hereafter: ed. Martin, t. III vol. 1). On Robert’s life and works, see Œuvres de Robert de Melun, Tome I: Questiones de divina pagina, ed. Raymond M. Martin, O.P. (Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1932), v-xiv (hereafter: ed. Martin, t. I); Constant J. Mews, “Between the schools of Abelard and SaintVictor in the mid twelfth century: the witness of Robert of Melun,” in L’école de Saint-Victor, 121‒38; and Dale Coulter’s “Introduction” to the Sentences in VTT 3.429‒43. Robert was ordained bishop of Hereford by Thomas Becket on 22 December 1163. For Godfrey’s description of Robert’s followers, see Fons philosophiae, l. 269 (ed. MichaudQuantin, p. 44; tr. Feiss, VTT 3.398). Godfrey’s remarks about “the Robertine crowd,” though quite disparaging, do reveal Robert’s considerable influence as a teacher (see Mews, “Between the Schools,” 122‒23). Coulter, “Introduction,” 434. See Coulter, “Introduction,” 435; and ed. Martin, t. III vol. 1, vi. See, e.g., ed. Martin, t. III vol. 1, x-xiv; Mews, “Between the schools”; and Coulter, “Introduction” (VTT 3.429‒43).

Questions on the Divine Page



281

Gilbert Dahan has observed that the corpus of Robert of Melun “probably offers the first example of scriptural commentaries in the form of quaestiones.”11 Whereas both the Questions on the Divine Page and the Questions on the Epistles of Paul move well beyond the scriptural text itself and straightforward commentary on it, this is particularly true of the former work. This work consists of 125 relatively brief questions—and in most cases, solutions—on a wide range of scriptural and theological topics, from the meaning of biblical terms and affirmations (e.g., qq. 1, 10, 19, 35, 43, 74, 117) to various speculative and practical subjects such as: the substance, nature, and existence of God (qq. 39, 47‒49, 58, 60, 67); divine power (qq. 52‒55, 81); the keys given to Peter (qq. 25, 26); sin, forgiveness, penance, and punishment (e.g., qq. 2‒9, 31, 40, 41, 61, 64, 65, 70‒73, 78, 84‒87, 92, 105); baptism (qq. 80, 93, 96‒100); the necessity and nature of prayer (qq. 107‒9, 123‒25); the mode of the incarnation (qq. 59, 63); the Lord’s temptation (qq. 113‒15); the transfiguration (qq. 27, 28, 68, 69); Christ’s resurrected body (q. 77); Christ’s eucharistic presence (q. 38); the nature of religious vows (q. 112); and the obligation to love one’s enemies (q. 122). Though many of his questions arise from specific biblical texts, a number of others are related to Sacred Scripture more obliquely. Some questions, for example, are either specifically on particular dicta or general teachings of Augustine or related indirectly to them (e.g., qq. 7, 36, 37, 39, 42, 47, 92, 107, 109), on festal celebrations in the liturgical calendar (qq. 21, 22), on ideas promulgated by Peter Abelard (e.g., qq. 52‒55), and on comments found in the Glossa ordinaria (e.g., qq. 20, 33, 34, 44, 45). This basic division of questions—between what moderns might describe as “scriptural” and “extra-scriptural”—should be understood in the context of the expansive medieval view of “the divine page” (divina pagina), under which rubric Robert explicitly sets forth and intends his questions. Hugh of St Victor had already illustrated the broad medieval understanding of “Sacred Scripture” by including the works of the Fathers among the writings of the New Testament.12 Whereas Robert certainly recognized the necessity of patristic exposition for understanding the scriptural text, he rejected Hugh’s wider canon.13 Yet for Robert the concept of divina pagina was more expansive than that of sacra scriptura. That Robert and his contemporaries understood his 11 12 13

Dahan, L’exégèse chrétienne de la Bible, 142‒45, at 143. See the discussion of Harkins and Van Liere in VTT 3.38‒40. See Sententie I.1.12‒13 (tr. Van Baak, VTT 3.466‒67).

282

R obert of M elun

work “on the divine page”—not only these Questions but also the second phase of his teaching more generally—as broadly theological is intimated, for example, by William Fitzstephen’s description of Robert as one “who had taught dialectic and the divine page (divinam paginam) for more than forty years at Paris.”14 Here divina pagina is synonymous with theology or the divine science, the study of God generally. As the form and content of Robert’s own corpus conspicuously attest, the very nature of the study of the divine developed significantly around the middle of the twelfth century. Over against the approach of Anselm and his school at Laon, Robert understood the study and teaching of theology, or the divine page, as much more than simply an exercise in scriptural glossing. “We cannot allege,” Robert declares in his preface to the Sentences, “that anyone who does not read the glosses or does not teach where they ought to be read is ignorant of the Psalter or does not understand the Apostle or is insufficient to teach these [books].”15 Although the Glossa ordinaria was one of the chief sources for the Questions on the Divine Page, this work makes clear Robert’s view that the reader or student who seeks to understand the meaning of Sacred Scripture must move beyond the simple glossing of the text to address the deeper theological questions or issues arising from it.16 Question 21 provides one example of how Robert makes good pedagogical use of the Glossa ordinaria in thinking through an apparent incongruity between the biblical witness and particular details of the Church’s liturgical practice. Here Robert asks why the beheading of John the Baptist is celebrated in the autumn, even though he was actually beheaded around the time of Passover. Robert offers a reading of the “Interpreter” (i.e., the glossator) of Mark that is taken from Bede and affirms that Matthew, Mark, and John testify to John’s beheading when Passover was drawing near. In light of the Gospel accounts, Robert determines the question by citing a linguistic or etymological distinction made by Bede but originating in an account of St John’s life: 14

15

16

See Mews, “Between the schools,” 121 n. 1 for the larger quotation, which may be found in: Vita S. Thomae Cantuariensis, in Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury, ed. J. C. Robertson, et al., 7 vols (London: Longman, 1875‒85), t. III (1877), 60; and PL 190.139CD. Robert, Sententie Pref. (ed. Martin, t. III vol. 1, 10): Non itaque aliquem arguere possumus, aut Psalterium nescire aut Apostolum non intelligere, aut ad eorum doctrinam non sufficere qui nec glosas legit nec ubi legi debeant docet. See Mews, “Between the schools,” 136. On Robert’s understanding of the proper use of glosses, see also Lesley Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 205‒8.

Questions on the Divine Page



283

“It should not be called the feast of the beheading (festum decollationis), but rather the feast of the gathering (festum de collatione), because, as it is written in his legenda, at that time [i.e., in the autumn] his bones were gathered together into one. Josephus recounts how this happened.”17 It is noteworthy that in the Roman calendar August 29 remains the Feast of the Beheading or Decollation of St John the Baptist, and that during his public audience on the 2012 feast Pope Benedict XVI noted that the feast especially commemorates the second discovery and transfer of the saint’s relics to the Church of San Silvestro in Rome rather than his actual beheading.18 Whereas a number of Robert’s questions hark back historically to expositions found in the Glossa ordinaria and particularly to his teachers, Hugh and Abelard, many of them look forward to later developments in scholastic method and content. Robert seems ahead of his time, for example, in the sophistication of his questions on the transfiguration of Christ (qq. 27, 28, 68, 69). Indeed, that he considers the transfiguration at all is striking, since this event in Christ’s life remained virtually untreated in theology of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.19 Robert’s four questions here are concerned with the nature and precise location of that splendor that appeared at the transfiguration, and with whether and how Moses and Elijah were actually present at the event. Question 27 asks “whether that splendor (splendor) which appeared was truly in His flesh, considering that until then it was mortal.” Robert’s framing of the question in this way intimates that the crucial issue behind the question is whether the glory of Christ’s transfigured body was identical to the glory of His resurrected, immortal body. Nearly a century after Robert, Hugh of St Cher’s Postilla super Marcum would frame this question in terms of the possibility of “clarity” (claritas), one of the gifts (dotes) of Christ’s glorified body, inhering in His preglorified body.20 Robert offers two opinions on the splendor made manifest at the transfiguration, each of which parallels one of the four 17 18 19 20

See below, p. 296. The actual source is not Josephus, but Rufinus, in his translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Pope Benedict’s speech can be found at: www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20120829_en.html. Aaron Canty, Light & Glory: The Transfiguration of Christ in Early Franciscan and Dominican Theology (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 16. Canty, Light & Glory, 37‒38. Other dotes of glorification include subtlety, agility, and impassibility.

284

R obert of M elun

positions that Hugh of St Cher subsequently describes.21 First, Robert teaches, “some say that it was truly in His flesh and that His flesh naturally existed in such a condition that exhibited itself at that time.” Second, “others say that that splendor was not truly in His flesh, which was until then mortal, but rather it appeared formed in the air.” Those who teach that the splendor was natural to Christ’s body seem to find support, according to Robert, in Ps. 44:3 (Vulg.): Your appearance is splendid above the sons of men. On the other hand, those holding that the radiance was only in the surrounding air introduce as testimony the fact that “His clothes appeared white like snow, such as, as Mark says, no fuller on earth could bleach them.” It is noteworthy that, having presented these two opinions (each with its own scriptural support), Robert refuses to determine the question and instead simply affirms, “We leave all these things to [divine] mystery.” Neither does Hugh of St Cher resolve the question definitely in his Postilla on Mark, though—invoking readings of Jerome and Bede— he seems to prefer the view that the clarity of the transfiguration was neither a gift of Christ’s resurrected body, nor natural to His mortal body, nor did it merely appear in the surrounding air, but rather that Christ somehow showed the glory of His resurrection here in His truly mortal body.22 The rather open-ended responses that both Robert and Hugh provide reveal their concern to hold the truth of the Gospel accounts of Christ’s bodily transfiguration together with the reality both of His full human nature and of His glorified, post-resurrection body, a concern that theologians after Hugh would also share. This is certainly true, for example, of John of La Rochelle’s Quaestio de transfiguratione, penned sometime before 1245, which has been identified as “the longest and most exhaustive examination of Christ’s transfiguration in the thirteenth century.”23 John distinguishes between the act and the habit of clarity, maintaining that the former was in Christ’s transfigured body whereas the latter was reserved for His glorified body alone. Because Christ’s mortal body retains its habit of darkness or opacity even here in the transfiguration, His transfigured clarity is less brilliant than that of His glorified body would be, John explains.24 But Christ’s “dark,” human body has the capacity for the act of clarity by virtue of its un21 22 23 24

Canty, Light & Glory, 38. Canty, Light & Glory, 38. Canty, Light & Glory, 86. Canty, Light & Glory, 134 and 99‒100.

Questions on the Divine Page



285

ion with the divine nature.25 In sum, although Hugh of St Cher’s consideration of the question of Christ’s transfigured clarity draws on a wider range of opinions than does Robert’s and although John of La Rochelle’s treatment is more philosophically sophisticated, it is Robert who frames the question and establishes the range of opinions in a way that becomes determinative of subsequent scholastic treatments. That this is the case is also clear if we consider Robert’s q. 28, on the presence of Moses and Elijah as witnesses to the transfiguration, with an eye toward Thomas Aquinas’s treatment in the Summa theologiae. After posing the question of whether Moses and Elijah were truly present at the transfiguration, Robert observes that “it would seem strange if they were truly there, considering that one of them, namely, Moses, had died.” He goes on to explain how any sort of appearance of Moses there seems problematic: “So if he were there, he was there either dead or alive. If he were there alive, then he had been raised up again. If he had been raised up again, then he [subsequently] died a second time and was reduced to ashes again, or not. If so, then he died twice. If not, then Moses lives. Both of these possibilities are unfitting.” The scriptural account of Moses’ death (Deut. 34) and the silence of the sacred page concerning a subsequent resuscitation of the lawgiver mean for Robert that the actual appearance of Moses at the transfiguration of Christ would be inconveniens. Particularly in the century after Robert, theologians such as Thomas Aquinas would develop “fittingness” arguments for various revealed truths that were necessarily beyond rational demonstration as a way of showing—in light of the absolute freedom of the divine will— the appropriateness, order, and beauty of God’s having done things the way He actually did them. Thomas, like Robert before him, understands the question of the witnesses primarily as a question of fittingness and as closely connected to the question of the nature of Christ’s clarity or splendor. Thomas affirms the fittingness of the true presence of Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration in light of the very purpose of the event, namely so that Christ might show his glory to humans in order to call those living both before and after Him to the glory of eternal beatitude through Himself. This beatific purpose was made manifest, then, by the presence of witnesses who preceded Christ—Moses and Elijah—as well as those who followed Him—Peter, James, and John.26 25 26

Canty, Light & Glory, 98. Thomas Aquinas, ST III.45.3c: Respondeo dicendum quod Christus transfigurari voluit ut gloriam suam hominibus ostenderet, et ad eam desiderandum homines provocaret. … Ad glo-

286

R obert of M elun

Robert determines q. 28 thus: “Some say, and reasonably, that neither Moses nor Elijah was there, but that they [merely] appeared there. Hence, an authority says: ‘Their angels appeared there.’” Although Robert concludes, as he did q. 27, by noting that this question is “an utter mystery,” his “reasonably” suggests his preference for the view, bolstered by the unidentified gloss on Luke 9:30, that the Old Testament prophets were not actually there, but rather were somehow represented by angels. Thomas also knows this gloss on Luke 9:30 and quotes a longer form of it in the second objection of q. 45 a. 3. The objection affirms that Moses and Elijah were unfitting witnesses to the truth of the transfiguration precisely because they themselves were not truly present; rather angels assumed their bodies and impersonated them on the mount of transfiguration.27 Against this view, Thomas’s sed contra straightforwardly affirms: “On the contrary is the authority of the Gospels.”28 In replying to objection 2, Thomas explains that the gloss in question should not be read as definitive because it is purportedly from a book entitled On the Miracles of Sacred Scripture, which is not authentic but falsely attributed to Augustine. Instead, Thomas introduces an interpretation from Jerome on Matt. 17:3 according to which Christ, in an effort to increase the faith of the apostles, gave a twofold sign: namely, the descent of Elijah from heaven and the ascent of Moses from Hell, both to the mount of transfiguration. Interestingly, Thomas’s reading of Jerome here aims to avoid the exegetical and metaphysical difficulties outlined by Robert over a century earlier. The Dominican master maintains that Jerome’s gloss should not be taken to mean that the soul of Moses took up his own body again, “but that his soul appeared through some assumed body, just as angels appear.” By contrast,

27

28

riam autem aeternae beatitudinis adducuntur homines per Christum, non solum qui post eum fuerunt, sed etiam qui eum praecesserunt. … Et ideo conveniens fuit ut de praecedentibus ipsum testes adessent, scilicet Moyses et Elias; et de sequentibus, scilicet Petrus, Iacobus et Ioannes (Pars IIIa et Supplementum, ed. Peter Caramello, Bernard-Marie de Rossi, Charles-René Billuart, Xavier Faucher, O.P., et al. [Taurin: Marietti, 1948], 281]; tr. Fathers of the English Dominican Province [New York: Benziger Brothers, 1948], vol. 4, 2256‒57). Thomas Aquinas, ST III.45.3 obj. 2: Praeterea, testes veritatis non decet aliqua fictio, sed veritas. Moyses autem et Elias non ibi vere affuerent, sed imaginarie: dicit enim quaedam glossa super illud Luc. 9, [30], Erant autem Moyses et Elias, etc.: Sciendum est, inquit, non corpus vel animas Moysi vel Eliae ibi apparuisse: sed in subiecta creatura illa corpora fuisse formata. Potest etiam credi ut angelico ministerio hoc factum esset, ut angeli eorum personas assumerent. Non ergo videtur quod fuerint convenientes testes (ed. Caramello, et al., 281; tr. English Dominican Fathers, vol. 4, 2256). Thomas Aquinas, ST III.45.3sc: In contrarium est Evangelicae Scripturae auctoritas (ed. Caramello, et al., 281; tr. English Dominican Fathers, vol. 4, 2256).

Questions on the Divine Page



287

Thomas explains, Elijah appeared at the transfiguration in his own body, which, of course, had never been separated from his soul in death on account of his having been taken up into heaven in a fiery chariot.29 We see, then, that both Robert and Thomas consider the mysterious events of the transfiguration in terms of fittingness, and both scholastics understand the truth of the presence of Moses and Elijah at the event as related to the truth of the splendor or clarity of Christ’s flesh on the mountain. But whereas Robert frames the question of Moses’ real presence in terms of its fittingness in light of the prophet’s death centuries earlier, Thomas considers its fittingness in terms of the divine purpose of the transfiguration, on the one hand, and the very truth of the Gospel accounts, on the other. For Thomas, if the Gospels relate that Moses was present, we can rest assured that indeed he was. Instead of postulating that Moses would have had to die twice or not at all in order to be present, Thomas solves the ontological problem by having his soul arrive in a body that was not his own, much like angels regularly do. Though their solutions differ significantly, the influence of Robert’s questions on Thomas’s treatment of the truth of the transfiguration is striking. The Manuscript, the Edition, and the Translation

The Questions on the Divine Page are preserved in only one extant manuscript: Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, cod. lat. 1977, fol. 85ra‒95ra. Raymond Martin assumes a Cistercian provenance for this manuscript, which may have belonged originally to the library of the monastery of Savigny.30 Robert’s Questions on the Divine Page are written here in a single hand dating to the end of the twelfth century. The work is divided into groups of thematically related questions, with these divisions marked in the manuscript by alternating blue and red opening initials. Although the scribe of ms Paris, BnF, lat. 1977 did not number Robert’s questions, for the sake of clarity and ease of reference Martin introduces each of Robert’s questions with a number in brackets and uses line-spacing to mark off each group of questions. The only complete modern Latin edition of the Questions on the Divine Page is 29

30

Thomas Aquinas, ST III.45.3 ad 2 (ed. Caramello, et al., 281; tr. English Dominican Fathers, vol. 4, 2257). Cf. Scriptum on the Sentences, in III d. 16 q. 2 a. 1 ad 5 (Scriptum super sententiis magistri Petri Lombardi, ed. R. P. Maria Fabianus Moos, t. 3 [Paris: Lethielleux, 1933], 519). Ed. Martin, t. I, xxv-xxxi.

288

R obert of M elun

that of Raymond Martin found in Œuvres de Robert de Melun, Tome I (Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1932).31 What appears below is the first-ever complete translation of Robert’s Questions in English and, as far as I am aware, in any modern language. I have made the translation from Martin’s edition and have followed his pattern of numbering the questions, though not his convention of grouping thematically related questions together without line-spaces between them. While many of the references to works cited by Robert that appear in the notes to my translation owe a debt to Martin’s careful scholarly work, I have updated his references by noting more recent editions and translations where they are available. I have also provided references for texts for which Martin offers no citation (see, e.g., my n. 198 on q. 92). Relatedly, in an effort to contextualize and/or clarify the particular questions and solutions that Robert sets forth, which are often brief and enigmatic, many of my notes move well beyond simple citations of the author’s sources to fuller exegetical and theological explanations (see, e.g., nn. 1, 5, 19, 28, 30, 46, 53, 57, 63, 64, 80, 90, 93, 97, 102, 114, 118, 126, 127, 141, 148, 149, 151, 152, 166, 179, 236, 246, 247, 249, and 254). Finally, in contrast to Martin’s edition, which italicizes all authorities of which Robert makes any use whatsoever, I have aimed for greater precision by indicating— through the use of quotation marks (or not) and by providing further explanation in the relevant notes—where Robert is quoting directly from his sources and where he is paraphrasing. Distinguishing direct quotation from paraphrase is not, of course, an exact science given such historical realities as the textual fluidity witnessed in the manuscripts from which Robert would have taken his various auctoritates, the imperfect relationship between any single manuscript and a given modern edition, and the highly mnemonic and oral/aural culture of scholastic teaching and learning. Nevertheless, based on the most recent scholarly editions of the relevant texts, I have sought to give the reader a better sense of when Robert himself apparently intended to quote his sources verbatim, digest and represent them, or allude to them more indirectly.32

31 32

In his own introduction Martin notes several scholarly publications in which one or another of Robert’s Questions as found in Paris, BnF, lat. 1977 is cited and/or briefly studied (xxi-xxii). I am grateful to Frans van Liere and Angela Kim Harkins for their invaluable comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this Introduction and the translation that follows.

QUESTIONS ON THE DIVINE PAGE [1] It is asked what an oath (iuramentum) is.1 An oath is a verbal pledge confirmed by the testimony of sacred things. [2] Similarly, it is asked who sins more, he who knowingly provokes another to swear falsely over wrongs that have been inflicted, or he who, having been provoked, swears falsely. He who swears falsely in this way is liable for two things, namely, his perjury and his contumacy in not making amends for the wrongs he has inflicted. But the other [sins] only in provoking [the other], while it is never permitted to repeat his [suggestion]. Therefore, he who swears falsely sins more. Augustine contradicts this, saying: “That person who provokes another person to swear an oath, and who knows that he swears falsely, is worse than a murderer, because a murderer kills the body, but that person kills the soul. More correctly, he kills two souls, namely, that of the person whom he has provoked to swear the oath and his own.”2 The Church agrees with this authority. [3] It is also asked whether he sins more who lies by swearing a false oath by false gods or by creatures, or he who lies by swearing falsely by the true God and supreme Creator. The Creator is holier than the creature. Therefore, he who swears a false oath by the Creator sins more than he who does so by a creature, as Augustine testifies: “For however great is the holiness of the one by whom one swears, so much greater is the penalty of false oaths.”3 But, on the contrary, he who swears by creatures and by other gods is an idolater, because he offers to a creature what he owes to God, as the Lord says in the Gospel: But make your oaths to God.4 The Interpreter of this passage says: “If it is necessary to swear, you should swear by the Creator, not by a creature. For every person reveres and loves, or fears, the one by whom he swears.” Similarly, on this same passage: “If someone swears by anything that is created, from the greatest all the way down to the smallest, that is, from the heavens down to a single strand of hair, he is convicted of swearing falsely against God.”5 In this way, then, he is held in bondage by a false oath and idolatry. Solution: He is more liable for perjury who swears by the Creator than he who swears by creatures, because the one by whom he swore was holier. Nevertheless, the other person offends to a greater extent because he is liable for a false oath as well as idolatry.

290

R obert of M elun

[4] It is asked to whom the Lord is speaking, whether to lay people or to prelates, when He says, If you forgive the sins of others, your Father in heaven will also forgive your sins.6 If to lay people, it is asked, on the contrary, how this is said to them, since the power to forgive wrongs or impose penalties is not theirs, but rather the Judge’s alone. Solution: He has in view lay people, not wanting them to avenge wrongs that have been committed, but to forgive from the heart, since the Lord says, Vengeance is mine and therefore I will repay, says the Lord.7 [5] Similarly, it is asked which of these comes first, our forgiveness of our neighbors or God’s forgiveness of us. If our forgiveness [of our neighbors] comes first, we would seem to merit the grace of God’s forgiveness. If this is the case, the grace of God is not grace. Solution: This very reality, namely, that we forgive, is grace. [6] It is asked whether every work depends on intention, that is, whether if there is a good intention there is a good work, and if there is an evil intention there is an evil work. Hence: If your eye is healthy, your whole body will be light; but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be dark.8 And again: “Your will (affectus) regarding your works establishes your name.”9 If this is the case, since Paul’s intention in persecuting the Church was good because his zeal for God motivated him, this work was good. Likewise, when the intention of someone giving alms on account of vainglory is evil, the work is also evil. Solution: Paul’s intention was not good in every respect because it was not directed toward that to which it should have been, and so it was not pure. So the authority [quoted above] is determined in the following way. “Your will regarding your works establishes your name,” that is, there is no work that you do with an evil intention that is not evil if your will is evil. [7] It is asked whether every sin should be judged according to the will [whereby the act was done], since Augustine says: “Every sin is voluntary to such an extent that if it is not voluntary, it is not a sin.”10 Therefore when someone, intending to lift a stone for the construction of a church, accidentally kills a person with it, he does not sin because that sin is not voluntary. But a censure of penance is imposed upon him by the Church; therefore it is a sin. Solution: The word “sin” is used in many ways: an evil will, an evil act, the penalty for sin, the inordinate movement that is even in children—all these are called “sin.” Accordingly, when Augustine says, “Every sin is voluntary to such an extent” etc., he says this concerning

Questions on the Divine Page



291

a perverse will and an evil act. He, however, reconsiders this [assertion] not for the purpose of correcting it, as some people think, but to reinforce it, wishing to show that every sin in children, even Original [Sin], is voluntary because it proceeds from the evil will of our first parents. This is also true of other things that happen accidentally, because [they proceed] either from some evil will of those by whom they happen, which preceded [the event in question], or from some good will that was oriented toward something else. Those who carefully consider this [i.e., the aforementioned case of accidental death] say that, if the worker took every necessary precaution in inspecting the area [before he lifted the stone] and it did not happen because of his carelessness, he is not held responsible for murder. [8] Similarly, it is asked whether those who are coerced to swear falsely or to do anything of this sort commit a sin. One authority seems to think not: What was done by reason of force or fear is considered as not having been done.11 Gregory seems to want to say that he [who is coerced] is liable for the sin of swearing falsely, saying: he did not altogether not will it, because he willed that thing (for instance, life) whereby he incurred swearing a false oath.12 Solution: The earlier authority does not determine what is legal, as it has at the end: “The governor said.” Because of this phrase, the sentence is held without any controversy. [9] It is asked whether a person is able, by doing penance, to make satisfaction for one sin in such a way that he does not make satisfaction for other sins. Because many think that he can, it is not necessary to bring their opinion to the center [of our discussion], but rather only the opinion that is less widely accepted, since it is very much opposed to that opinion. The latter opinion runs as follows. If a person truly does penance, charity is in him. If charity is in him, he is not a member of the devil. If he is not a member of the devil, he is a member of Christ. If he is a member of Christ, there is no mortal sin in him. Indeed, Truth says: No one can serve two masters.13 Paul says: A little leaven ruins the whole lump.14 And elsewhere: What fellowship is there between light and darkness, between Christ and Belial?15 In commenting on No one can serve two masters, Augustine says: “No one’s conscience can hate God.”16 But afterwards he himself reconsiders this by providing a correction, saying: “For I had not yet read, The pride of those who hate you increases continually.”17

292

R obert of M elun

[10] It is asked whether a person who works well with this intention, that he might avoid the punishments of hell and possess eternal life, is a hired servant (mercenarius).18 It is answered: The person who does this so that it may go well for him in the future, having considered his own benefit and not led by love of God, who ought to be the first and supremely causal cause (causa causalissima) [of all human action], is, in fact, a hired servant.19 All of our actions and intentions ought to be ordered to Him: If we die, we die for the Lord; if we live, we live for the Lord.20 He who eats, eats for the Lord; and he who does not eat, does not eat for the Lord.21 [11] It is asked whether a bad person is sometimes able to do something good, or a good person is sometimes able to do something bad, considering that Truth says: A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.22 Similarly: By their fruits you will know them.23 In his letters, John says: He who commits sin is of the devil.24 Likewise, it follows: Everyone who is born of God does not commit sin, because God’s seed remains in him and he is not able to sin.25 Also: In this the sons of God and the sons of the devil are apparent.26 Nebuchadnezzar—about whom the Lord says, Assyria, the rod of my anger,27 and to whom the Lord gave the power to destroy Jerusalem because he destroyed Tyre—seems to have received merit from the Lord by doing something good.28 This also appears to be true of others. A good person [namely, David] also seems to have done something bad in committing adultery with Bathsheba and in killing Uriah.29 And so a bad person can do something good, and a good person can do something bad. Solution: The root is the human person, the tree is the will, and the fruit is the work. And so the authority that says, A good tree cannot, etc. and vice-versa should be understood in this way, namely a depraved and perverse will cannot produce a good work. Nor can a good will produce a bad work. A bad work is certainly able to hang on a tree of good will, although it is not its own; just as good fruit can hang on a bad tree, and vice-versa, even though such fruit is not its own. Thus, someone living as a bad person is not able to do something good. [12] Since “spirit” is sometimes [used of] the Creator and sometimes denotes a creature, it is asked whether the created spirit is somewhere.30 If the spirit is somewhere, as Augustine reasons, it is a body. For he says in On Genesis: Nothing except a body is somewhere. But God is not somewhere. Therefore, it is not a body.31 Similarly, in order to demonstrate that it [i.e., the created spirit] is somewhere, Augustine also says: The Creator Spirit is changed (movetur) neither by place nor by

Questions on the Divine Page



293

time. The created spirit [is moved or changed] by place alone. A body [is moved or changed] by place and by time.32 Solution: Ambrose says that the Creator Spirit is not somewhere, but is nevertheless everywhere: He who is present nowhere by corporeal mass is absent nowhere by infinite essence.33 This should be understood in the following way. The Spirit does not make His presence known in one place in such a way that He does not make the very same presence known in another place. Indeed, He makes His presence known every­ where. What is said above—that the created spirit is not somewhere, because if it were, it would be a body—must be understood in the following way. The created spirit is not somewhere locally, that is, in some place such that prepositions of physical orientation—for example, in front and behind, above and below—can be used of it. [13] Similarly, it is asked how the spirit is moved from place to place. Solution: Without any interval [of time]: at one moment it is here, at another it is there. [14] It is asked why a person who had a wife before becoming a Christian and receiving the bath [of baptism] and who afterwards, having received baptism, led a second [woman into marriage] cannot be promoted [to or in ecclesiastical office] because he is a bigamist, whereas even if he had been an adulterer, a fornicator, or unchaste before receiving baptism, he would be promoted without a problem. That he was able to be cleansed of all of his sins [through baptism], then, seems to have done greater harm to his [prospects of] promotion than that he could have remained in no way cleansed of his sins. Solution: Gregory says: In baptism sins are washed away, but the bonds of marriage are not.34 Similarly, [the post-baptismal bigamist cannot be promoted whereas the pre-baptismal adulterer or fornicator can] in order that the beauty of the Church might be preserved whole and inviolable. [15] It is asked whether John the Baptist, when he sent two of his followers to Jesus in order to ask him, “Are you he who is to come or should we expect another?”35, doubted concerning Christ and so concerning the salvation of humankind, which was to come through His death. If it is true that he doubted, he did not have faith. If he did not have faith, he was not worthy of eternal life. Gregory seems to prefer [this position] when he interprets this passage with these words: “He does not say, ‘Are you he who has come?’, [but rather ‘Are you he who is to come?’,] as if to say, ‘Seeing that I will descend into hell, should I who have announced you to those above [i.e., on the earth] also announce

294

R obert of M elun

you to those below? Can it be that it is fitting for the Son of God to die, or will you send another to do these sacred things (sacramenta)?’”36 Solution: [According to] Bede: John, about to be killed by Herod, asked not because he doubted; after all, he had said to others, “Behold, the Lamb of God,” and had heard the voice of the Father say, “This is my beloved Son.” Rather, he asked so that those whom he sent, once they saw the signs, might believe, and so that by means of his words the works of Christ might produce faith, lest his followers expect another. From the words of Gregory we know that John doubted neither concerning Christ, that is, that Jesus himself was the Christ, nor concerning the fact of redemption, but rather [only] concerning the mode of redemption. For he did not know whether it would be accomplished by means of death or by another means, or whether by Christ’s own death or by the death of another, or by an angel. [16] It is asked, when Truth says, “Woe to you, Chorazin, woe to you, Bethsaida, for if the deeds of power that have been done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have done penance in sackcloth and ashes long ago,”37 by what reason, by what dispensation of God, or by what justice did what was proclaimed to those cities happen, since they did not receive this proclamation, and it was not, in truth, proclaimed to them. If they had heard the word of proclamation, in hearing it with their ears they would have obeyed the proclamation.38 By comparison: It is not fitting for a thoughtful and wise farmer to plant in soil (terra) that he knows is not suitable for producing fruit, or indeed not to plant in soil that he does know is suitable. Solution: The Interpreter of this passage says: “Christ Himself knows whose are the ways of mercy and truth.”39 Another says: “He proposed not to go beyond the boundaries of Judea, lest He give the scribes and Pharisees and priests a legitimate opportunity to persecute Him.”40 And another says: “There were in Chorazin at that time those who were going to be called,”41 and in Tyre those who were not going to be called. But others try to assign another reason. They say that this was done so that the all-encompassing nature of grace would be considered, and so that nothing would be attributed to humans, because humans on earth (terra), that is, the hearts of hearers, are powerless, without grace, to do anything from within.42 Hence: “Indeed, the tongue of the teacher labors externally in vain unless the One who teaches is within.”43 And God, who calls those things that are not as those that are,44 refreshes the unfruitful soil with the rain of His teaching. In truth, good soil does not bear fruit unless He grants it. And unfruitful soil does not bear fruit

Questions on the Divine Page



295

at all because He does not grant it, since neither he who waters nor he who plants, etc.45 [17] It is asked what it is to sin against the Son of Man and what it is to sin against the Holy Spirit, and whether these are different sins, since the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same [being], and since it is clear that whoever sins against the Son also sins against the Holy Spirit and vice-versa.46 Solution: To sin against the Son of Man is to detract from the excellence of His human nature based on human weakness, namely, [to hold] that He was not born of the Virgin, etc. In this way, to sin against the Holy Spirit is to detract knowingly from the divine goodness and to attribute to an evil spirit what is known to have been done by a good spirit, as those who said, He casts out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons47; or [to sin against the Holy Spirit is] to despair of the goodness of God, as did Cain, who said, My sin is greater than the degree to which I deserve to be pardoned.48 And so they are indeed different sins, although no one can sin against the Holy Spirit who does not also sin against the Son of Man and vice-versa. [18] Similarly, it is asked why this sin alone, which is called blasphemy of the Spirit,49 is said to be unforgivable. It is said to be unforgivable because it is never forgiven, that is, neither in this age nor in the age to come.50 Similarly, all sins for which any person is damned—such as adultery, fornication, murder, etc.—can be called unforgivable. Some people respond to this question in the following way. Adultery, fornication, murder, and other such sins are forgivable because sins of this sort are customarily forgiven. But blasphemy of the Spirit is never forgiven. But if they are forgivable, because sins of this sort can be forgiven if anyone should make satisfaction by doing penance, it is similarly the case with blasphemy. There are others who, with a clearer understanding, say that blasphemy of the Spirit is said to be unforgivable because it is unjust that it should ever be forgiven, because he who speaks blasphemy against the Holy Spirit deserves not to be forgiven for it. But all others, even if they should sin gravely, do not deserve that their sins not be forgiven. [19] It is asked what it means when it is said: The Son of Man will send His angels as harvesters, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks and those who work iniquity;51 and: The angels will go out and separate the evil from among the just, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire.52

296

R obert of M elun

Some people understand this literally; others in another way. Indeed, they say that for His angels as harvesters to gather all stumbling blocks and to separate the evil from among the just and to throw them into the furnace of fire is nothing other than for the Son of Man to not admit to His fellowship evil people, who in no way wished to accomplish [their salvation] by the ministry provided by the angels, although these angels had been assigned to them as their guardians. [20] Similarly, it is asked what it means to say that “angels carry our prayers to God,”53 since it is not necessary for our wills and actions to be revealed by messengers to Him from whom nothing is hidden, especially considering that angels themselves do not communicate by means of language. Solution: That angels carry our prayers into the presence of God means nothing other than that the ministry of angels on our behalf makes our prayers more acceptable to God. [21] It is asked why the beheading of John [the Baptist] is celebrated in the autumn, even though he was beheaded when Passover was drawing near. The Interpreter of Mark testifies to this, saying: “About to write [his account of] the miracle of the bread, John the Evangelist notes at the beginning that Passover, the festival of the Jews, was near.54 But Matthew and Mark relate this fact immediately after the murder of John.55 So the beheading of John is related at the very same time that Passover is drawing near, and the mystery of the Lord’s Passion was completed in the following year when Passover returned once again.”56 Solution: It should not be called the feast of the beheading (festum decollationis), but rather the feast of the gathering (festum de collatione), because, as it is written in his legenda, at that time [i.e., in the autumn] his bones were gathered together into one.57 Josephus recounts how this happened.58 [22] Similarly, it is asked why his beheading is not celebrated just like the birthdays of other martyrs. Solution: It must be considered that he was beheaded not for his faith, but because he accused Herod of adultery.59 [23] Likewise, it is asked whether what Herod did with the wife of Philip, his brother, was adultery. If it were adultery, then Philip and Herodias were joined in marriage, but it is clear that they were not. Only the appearance (forma) of marriage was there, which made Herod guilty of adultery.60 [24] It is asked whether that restorative meal that is related as having been made from five loaves of bread and two fishes was made from

Questions on the Divine Page



297

those elements alone or from them and something added to them.61 If it were made from something added and from those elements, it should be said that it was made from something added rather than from the substance of bread because there was more there from what was added than from the substance of bread. Those who agree with this view say that it does not follow at all, showing by means of an example that this is false. For if a large volume of water is added to a small amount of wine and someone should drink the mixture, it could be said that he drank wine, as long as it retains the taste of wine, rather than water. If the restorative meal were made from those elements alone, it was either made from them having been multiplied or not having been multiplied. It does not seem at all possible that it was made from them not having been multiplied, because so few elements could not have been distributed to so many thousands. But if it were made from them having been multiplied, then there was multiplication. [25] Concerning the keys given to Peter and to his successors, it is asked what they are and how many there are. Some say that there is only one key, which is said to be the power of binding and loosing. When it is said, And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom,62 they say that the plural is written for the singular, that is, “keys” for “key”. These people seek to escape the criticisms of those who bear down upon them with the argument that there are two keys, namely, the knowledge and the power of binding and loosing, and that both keys are given to everyone who is ordained a priest. This interpretation seems strange, since sometimes the one who ought to confer the two keys has little or no knowledge, and similarly the one on whom they ought to have been conferred also has little or no knowledge.63 Others, such as Master Hugh,64 say that he who ordains someone as priest gives him the knowledge-key, but not knowledge itself, because although the one who is ordained had knowledge previously, he did not have that key. But to give this key is nothing except to give power. Still others say that he who ordains another gives to him the power of binding and loosing, and that he ought to use them separately. [26] Similarly, it is asked whom the one who looses looses, that is, one who must be loosed or one having been loosed; and from what he looses him, whether from punishment or from guilt; and whether whomever he has bound has been bound and whomever he has loosed has been loosed. Some say that for a priest to bind or loose someone is nothing other than to reveal someone as already having been bound or loosed. They

298

R obert of M elun

seek to corroborate their opinion by noting that the Lord first cleansed the lepers and instructed them, once they had been cleansed, to go and show themselves to the priests.65 Others say that one cannot loose a certain person unless he deserved to be loosed, nor can one bind him unless he deserved to be bound.66 The interpreters67 agree with this position. From what the priest absolves a person follows next. He absolves him from eternal punishment when the sinner confesses his sins to him. If the sinner refuses to confess, he will incur this punishment. What follows [in answer to the third of the questions articulated here] is made clear in the previous solution. [27] Concerning the transfiguration of the Lord, it is asked whether that splendor which appeared was truly in His flesh, considering that until then it was mortal.68 Some say that it was truly in His flesh and that His flesh naturally existed in such a condition that exhibited itself at that time. Hence: Your appearance is splendid above the sons of men.69 But because until this time mortal eyes were unable to look upon the splendor of His appearance, He was obscuring it by presenting another appearance to them. Hence: We have seen Him, having neither a splendid appearance nor beauty.70 Others say that that splendor was not truly in His flesh, which was until then mortal, but rather it appeared formed in the air. And when the disciples saw it, they fell on their faces.71 This is also why it is called a transfiguration. And in order to prove this, they introduce the fact that His clothes appeared white like snow,72 such as, as Mark says, no fuller on earth could bleach them.73 We leave all these things to [divine] mystery. [28] Similarly, it is asked whether Moses and Elijah were truly present there,74 since an authority says: God ruled over heaven and sent Elijah; He ruled over earth and sent Moses.75 It would seem strange if they were truly there, considering that one of them, namely, Moses, had died.76 So if he were there, he was there either dead or alive. If he were there alive, then he had been raised up again. If he had been raised up again, then he [subsequently] died a second time and was reduced to ashes again, or not. If so, then he died twice. If not, then Moses lives. Both of these possibilities are unfitting (inconveniens). Some say, and reasonably, that neither Moses nor Elijah was there, but that they [merely] appeared there. Hence, an authority says: “Their angels appeared there.”77 This is, as the interpreters say, an utter mystery.

Questions on the Divine Page

 299

[29] It is asked whether a Christian sins who knows that some other [Christian] sins, [and] when he, moved by charity, has rebuked him privately, and afterwards has summoned two or three so that, having been fully reminded [of his sin] in secret, he might come to his senses [and repent]; then he revealed to the Church the sins of the one who was not in this way willing to repent, and if he will not listen let him be as a pagan and a publican.78 This person alone knows his sin. But no one should reveal the sin of another which that person alone knows. If someone does this, he should be called a betrayer of the sinner more than a rebuker [of him]. Therefore, no one should reveal the sin of another. Solution: There is one who should and one who should not [reveal the sin of another]. If a person confessed his sin to another, the latter should not reveal this sin. But if a person did not confess, and another saw him sinning and unwilling to be corrected, he ought to move forward toward revealing his sin to the Church according to the order that the Lord established for us in the Gospel.79 And note that this is permitted for pastors. [30] It is asked what it means when it is said: There is greater joy for the angels of God over one sinner doing penance than over ninety-nine just ones who do not need penance.80 The latter is a greater good than the former, that is, that many just ones are saved is a greater good than that one sinner is saved. Therefore, there ought to be greater joy over the latter. Solution: If we carefully consider the mode of our redemption, by which humankind—who is signified by the one lost sheep—has been saved, there is and ought to be more joy over this than over the angels who have remained steadfast in their integrity, who are signified by the ninety-nine. For it is greater, as Augustine says, to restore what is lost than to preserve what is created.81 [31] It is asked whether sins return [to the sinner who has been forgiven].82 It seems that they may, if one carefully reads that parable in which the master is said to have forgiven the servant’s entire debt because he begged him [to do so].83 But afterwards because that same servant refused to show mercy to his fellow servant, in anger his master handed him over to be tortured until he would repay his entire debt.84 If this is the case [viz., that sins return], what does it mean that the master is said to have forgiven the entire debt? Or, can it be, as perhaps certain people say, that God forgives sins conditionally? If the sinner should

300

R obert of M elun

depart from this life at that time [when God may have forgiven his sins conditionally], would he not fail to be saved? Solution: Sins do not return in such a way that someone may be damned for sins of his own that have been forgiven. But if someone proves to be ungrateful for the remission of his sins and falls back into similar sins, he will be punished for his lack of gratitude as much as if his past sins had never been forgiven. [32] It is asked to which state that murmur can be assigned which the Gospel mentions with these words: And receiving it, they murmured against the master of the house, saying: These most recent ones have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who have borne the burden of the day and the heat.85 If it is assigned to the present state, what does it mean when it is said, Call the workers and give them their payment […] and each one received a single penny,86 since the present life is only a place of meriting and not of receiving? If it is assigned to the future state, what does it mean when it is said, Or is your eye evil, because I am good?87 What shall we say? Can it be that this murmur will be in the future, where there will be the greatest peace, quiet calm, and delightful harmony, where for each person God will be the perfect and consummate Good? Solution: Some say that it is assigned to the present state. They explain the words, Give them their payment and each one received a single penny,88 in this way. They are said to be given their payment while it is [as yet] only promised by God, because indeed they were so secure [about it] as if they had already obtained what was promised to them. Others say that it is assigned partly to the present state and partly to the future state. Still others say that what is here called murmuring is nothing other than their being astonished by the bountiful goodness of God, namely, that the most recent [workers] were to receive so much. This is similar to what is said in another place [in Matthew’s Gospel]: Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, thirsty and give you drink?89 For it is absurd that these words are mentioned there.90 Note that those saying this assign the entire passage to the future state. [33] It is asked what it means when it is said, “The kingdom of heaven is not of him who gives, but of him who receives,”91 considering that both to will the good and to do the good through which it [i.e., the kingdom of heaven] is obtained come from God. Hence: It is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy,92 since God alone is able to give.

Questions on the Divine Page



301

Solution: “The kingdom of heaven is not of him who gives, but of him who receives,” [that is], it is not determined by the one who gives [viz., God] in such a way that all people possess it.93 [34] It is asked what it means when it is said that Jesus entered the city amid praises so that He might arouse the hatred of the Jews against him.94 If He incited them to hatred, He made them sin. If this is true, then they may be excused. Solution: That Jesus provoked the Jews to hatred means nothing other than that He revealed the hatred that was conceived in their minds. This is similar to what is said about Pharaoh: The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart,95 that is, He revealed it as hardened. [35] It is asked what it means when it is said: Unless those days had been shortened, no flesh would be saved.96 Would divine election have been shaken if those days had been longer? Can it be that the shortening of days had any influence on the divine fore-choosing? Solution: This is a manner of speaking, as when one says, “I would have died unless he had rescued me.” Although this is true, it does not therefore follow that divine providence can be shaken. [36] It is asked whether the human in the second state is not able not to sin. If so, he sins from necessity. He does not, therefore, sin from freedom of the will. Solution: The first state was that in which the human was able to sin and not to sin. The second is that in which the human is able to sin, even though he is able not to sin. The third will be that in which the human will not be able to sin. For when we say that in the second state the human is not able not to sin and therefore sins out of necessity, it does not follow that he seems compelled to sin. When it is said that the human has the ability to sin from freedom of the will, it is the equivalent of saying that the human is able to do nothing from freedom of the will. Indeed, the ability to sin is not regarded as anything.97 [37] Similarly, it is asked whether the human is able to be without sin. He ought to be without sin. If he ought to, he is also able, because if he ought not, neither is he able; and if he ought not be without sin, he ought to be with sin, but then it would not be a sin. If it is absurd to confess this, it is true that the human ought to be without sin, and it is evident that he ought to do nothing other than what he is able to do. Solution: Augustine says: “If you ask me whether the human is able to be without sin in this life, I answer that he is able through the grace of God and his free will, when the free will itself actually does not hesitate to move toward the grace of God.”98

302

R obert of M elun

[38] It is asked whether the body of Christ is received in the Church on earth according to the reality itself (re) or under an appearance (specie) [viz., of bread and wine].99 Gregory seems to want to say only under an appearance and not according to the reality itself when at one point after communion he says, “in order that we might grasp by the truth of the reality what we receive under an appearance.”100 This [authority] is interpreted in this way. The body of Christ is received presently under an appearance, that is, sacramentally, in order to signify that union by which we will be conformed to God. This will happen when we will see Him as He is.101 Nevertheless, those who receive [the Eucharist] worthily do not receive less than the reality itself. And it is not surprising that this receiving [of the body of Christ] is a sign of some union, considering that all things whatsoever that are in the Church on earth are signs of future realities. For in the future there will be no things that are signs of other things. And this is what it means to receive by the truth of the reality, that is, not figuratively. [39] It is asked whether “whatever is in God is God.”102 If so, since the will to do anything is in God, that will itself is God. But that will is able not to exist. Therefore, something that is God is able not to exist. Solution: The word “will” is used equivocally. When it is said that the will of God is to do this thing, it is nothing other than God willing. But when it is said that this thing is able not to exist, it is nothing other than [to say] that this thing will not be subject to His divine will. It is true when “the will of God” is understood as referring to things subject to His will, but it is not true when “the will of God” is understood as God Himself willing. [40] It is asked whether all who depart from this life in equal sin ought to be punished with an equal penalty. And so imagine that there are two people who die in equal sin. One of them has fully suffered in the present life the temporal punishment [due for his sins]; the other has suffered none of it. After death they are punished with an equal penalty: namely, the one who was punished temporally in this life, and the other who suffered none of the penalty [in this life]. So all sins that are equally grave are not punished with an equal penalty. That [first] person, then, unjustly receives punishment temporally. Solution: The judgment of God begins from the house of God.103 It is not a temporal punishment that this [first] person receives, because it will never end, although it may begin here [in this life]. That this [first] person, however, is afflicted with the punishment for a longer time than the [second] one does not mean that he has a greater penalty than the

Questions on the Divine Page



303

one who is afflicted for a shorter time or at a later time. This is evident from parallels to the contrary.104 If one of two people who departs from this life in equal charity is transported to glory more quickly [than the other], it does not mean that he obtains a greater glory. [41] Similarly, it is asked, in those cases where those who are going to be damned die in criminal activity, whether they ought to be punished after this life for additional venial sins, [that is, whether they ought to be punished] with that penalty with which they should be punished for venial sins. If they ought to be punished with an eternal penalty for those sins, God would seem to act unjustly toward them: because they will be punished with a penalty not owed for venial sins, and so mercy and truth do not meet each other.105 But they are not punished with a penalty other than an eternal one, because after this life there is no other punishment. Solution: It must not be conceded that they should be punished for their venial sins with a particular penalty [i.e., one that is proper to these sins]; but [they should be punished] according to some penalty, namely, an eternal one. Otherwise an eternal penalty would seem to be owed for those sins. But this is false, because they would never have suffered an eternal penalty if they had committed only venial sins in the present life. This is evident from parallels to the contrary. A person will be rewarded in eternal glory for the smallest good deed that he performs in the present life, but that deed alone would not suffice to merit eternal glory.106 [42] It is asked whether humans would have been created if the angels had not fallen. It seems not, since an authority says: humans were created so that the loss that constituted the angelic fall might be recovered.107 Solution: This is a manner of speaking, like what might be said of a certain father who is going to bring forth many sons: [namely,] if the first should die and afterwards he brings forth another, he has restored his own loss well, although he was not less likely to bring forth the second son if the first had not died. But it is asked what it means when it is said: Humans were created so that the number of angels would not be diminished.108 This is to say that the angels are going to arrive at such great glory for the sake of human restoration as humans would have possessed if the angels had not fallen. [43] Similarly, it is asked what it means when it is said that souls are carried by the angels into the bosom of Abraham.109

304

R obert of M elun

Solution: That souls are carried by the angels into the bosom of Abraham means nothing other than that the angels rejoice that these souls are admitted to Abraham’s inheritance as his fellow-citizens [in the heavenly kingdom], since the angels themselves have been assigned to them as guardians in this present life. [44] Similarly, it is asked what it means to say that “angels carry our prayers to God,”110 since it is not necessary for our wills and actions to be revealed by messengers to Him from whom nothing is hidden, especially considering that angels themselves neither use the tongue as an instrument [of speech] nor exchange words. [Solution:] That angels carry our prayers into the presence of God means nothing other than that their ministry on our behalf makes our prayers acceptable to God. [45] Similarly, it is asked what is intended when it is said, “The angels will tremble at the coming of the Lord,”111 since the angels are secure in their salvation. But what will the glory of the desert do when the cedar of Lebanon will be shaken?112 For Job says: The pillars [of heaven] tremble and they are terrified at His command.113 Solution: That the angels will be terrified means nothing other than that they will revere Him whom they love supremely, and that they will wonder at their fellow-citizens who will have been admitted into their fellowship. [46] Similarly, what does it mean when Origen says, “Angels are suspended close to the sun, so that there they might atone if they had contracted any dust while they were sent to us”?114 Solution: This is heresy according to some [interpreters]. Others, however, interpret it as follows: Angels are suspended close to the sun, that is, priests [are suspended] close to Christ. [47] It is asked whether, since the substance (substantia) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is the same, the substance of the Father became incarnate. Augustine says: “The substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit became incarnate.”115 Elsewhere it is said: “Divinity came to us wearing shoes.”116 If the substance of the Father became incarnate, the Father Himself also became incarnate. Solution: The essence (essencia) that is the Father’s and the Son’s and the Holy Spirit’s became incarnate. Nevertheless, it must not be conceded that the substance of the Father became incarnate, because it would thereby seem that the person of the Father became incarnate.

Questions on the Divine Page



305

But against this it is said: “Nothing that is common to the three persons became incarnate.”117 This should be understood as follows. Nothing that is common to the three persons, that is, divinity, was made flesh; because what happened there was not the change of one nature into another nature, but rather the assumption of a nature into the union of person.118 [48] Similarly, it is asked whether whatever belongs to the substance (substanciale) of one of the three persons belongs to the substance of the others as well.119 If so, since it belongs to the substance of the Father to be Father, and to the substance of the Son to be Son, and to the substance of the Spirit to be Holy Spirit, then these belong to the others as well. And if this is the case, “Father” can be predicated of each of the persons, “Son” can be predicated of each of them, and “Holy Spirit” can also be predicated of each. This argument is shown to be false in this way. Whatever belongs to the nature (naturale) of one of the three persons also belongs to the others. But it belongs to the nature of the Son to be from the Father by means of generation. Therefore, this also belongs to the nature of the others. [49] Similarly, it is asked whether there are two beginnings in the Trinity.120 It seems that there are because there is a beginning without a beginning and a beginning from a beginning. And beyond these there is the beginning of all creatures, namely, the Holy Spirit. Thus, there are three beginnings. Solution: When it is said that “there is one beginning of all creatures,” which is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, I speak of the divine essence. When I say, “a beginning without a beginning,” I speak of a person, namely, the person of the Father. When I say, “a beginning from a beginning,” I similarly speak of a person, namely, the person of the Son. And so it must be concluded that there is only one beginning in the Trinity. [50] It is asked whether Christ is the bridegroom of the foolish virgins.121 If He is their bridegroom, He is also their head. And if He is their head, they are also members of Christ. But if this is true, what does it mean when it is said that they were shut out [of the wedding banquet] with their lamps burning?122 Solution: Christ is called bridegroom and head in two ways: of good people, spiritually with regard to the merits of their lives; [and] of evil people, as long as they are in the Church through participation in the

306

R obert of M elun

sacraments. In this second way Christ is said to be the bridegroom and head even of the foolish virgins. [51] Similarly, it is asked what it means when it says that they [i.e., the foolish virgins] were shut out [of the wedding banquet] such that they shouted to those inside to open the door and the Lord replied that He did not know them.123 Solution: That they beat on the door and the Lord replied that He did not know them means nothing other than that they accepted the sentence of damnation and were tormented in their consciences. [52] It is asked whether God is able to do now everything that He is able to do.124 If God is able to do now everything that He is able to do, since He is able to do infinite things and no things are beyond the infinite, God is not able to do now any things that are beneath His power. But He is able to do them insofar as He is not omnipotent, and therefore insofar as He is not God. Similarly, if He is not able to do now everything that He is able to do, but only some of them, then He is not omnipotent, and therefore He is not God. [53] Similarly, it is asked if He is able to make the things that He has made less good than He has made them. Likewise, less and less good again and again and so on all the way to infinity, to the point where they are not able to be worse. If this is the case, His power can be circumscribed. And so He will be powerless, and therefore He will not be God. [54] Similarly, it is asked if He is able to make the things that He has made better, and so on to the point where they arrive at God Himself. So either His power is circumscribed in this regard, or He is able to make the things that He has made equal to Himself. But both of these possibilities are unfitting. [55] Similarly, it is asked if God is able to do some things that He does not will to do. God does not will to do anything except those things that He has ordained to do. But God is able to do more things than those He wills to do. Therefore He is able to do more things than those He has ordained to do. So He is able to do things that He has not ordained. Likewise, God is able to do many things that He will never do. If He were to do them, He also would have ordained them. So He is able to ordain things that He has not ordained. Therefore He is able to begin to ordain. [56] It is asked whether Christ was able to redeem the human race in a more expedient way than by His death, since Augustine says: Although another way was possible for God, no way was more fitting for our infirmity.125 But this was more fitting for our misery, [namely]

Questions on the Divine Page



307

that Christ redeemed the human race by a death that was not caused by [sins] other than those [of Adam and Eve], because in those many have sinned by consenting, whereas in others no one [else] sinned.126 Similarly, if no way were more fitting, it was then to be wished by the good that he should die in that way. Therefore, if they had conspired in the death of Christ, they would not have sinned.127 [57] It is asked whether Peter sinned by denying Christ.128 Christ predicted his denial of Him. Peter, therefore, was not able not to deny Him; and so he denied Him of necessity. If Peter, after Christ’s prediction, had wished not to deny Him, he would have sinned because he would have made the word of the Lord null and void; and so, insofar as he could have in his own mind, he would have made the Lord a liar. [58] It is asked whether “whatever is in God is God.”129 If so, since there is some particular will in God that is not able to be, then God is some thing that is not able to be. Similarly, there is some particular will in God that did not always exist, and that will is God. Therefore, something that is God began to exist. [59] It is asked, considering that there were two unions in Christ— namely, one of the flesh and the soul, and the other of the Word to the flesh and to the soul, [the latter of] which by His death did not cease to exist, as Augustine testifies, [affirming that] the flesh was separated from the soul, [but] the Word [was separated] from neither,130 and Jerome as well, [saying that] once the Word assumed human nature (hominem), He never set it aside131—it is asked, I say, whether at any time, at least in death, He ceased to be human. If so, it can be shown that Christ was made human twice. And there are authorities that seem to prefer this. Athanasius says: “He who does not believe that He assumed human nature a second time, let him be cursed (anathema sit).”132 On that passage [in the Gospels], Why have you forsaken me?,133 Augustine says: “The human, about to die, cries out on account of his separation from divinity.”134 Ambrose says: “The soul is the bond between the body and the Word.”135 But after the body and soul had been separated, there was not an intermediate reality between the body and the Word. Solution: He never ceased to be human, although the flesh and the soul were separated from one another. In truth, the authorities that seem to do violence [to this doctrine] should be determined as follows. “He who does not believe that He assumed human nature a second time, let him be cursed”: that is, he who does not believe that Christ lived again after the resurrection, let him be cursed. “The flesh of

308

R obert of M elun

Christ, about to die, cries out on account of its separation from divinity”136: that is, it cried out not on account of separation, but because it was destitute of a protector, that is, exposed to death. The third [authority set forth above] is easily explained.137 [60] It is asked whether it is the same thing for God to know and to exist. An authority testifies that it is: It is the same thing for God to know future things and to exist.138 But it is impossible for God not to exist. Therefore, it is impossible for God not to know future things. It is impossible, then, for future things not to exist, because it follows from God knowing future realities that they are going to exist. The argument is shown to be false in this way. It is impossible for God not to have begotten the Son. Therefore, He begot the Son necessarily. Similarly, God is able to know more things than exist, because there are more things that can exist that neither do exist, nor have existed, nor will exist, and God Himself is able to know them all. His knowledge, therefore, can be increased. His knowledge, then, is not immutable. This argument is shown to be false in this way. A particular craftsman, after the completion of his works, knows things as existing that, before he completed them, he did not know as existing. Nevertheless, he does not know more things than he knew before, because his knowledge was not increased. [61] It is asked whether someone who steals the individual parts of some particular whole, and steals those same parts over an extended period of time, commits many thefts. If so, then [does he commit different] crimes? If so, that man is held responsible for many crimes. The argument is shown to be false in this way. A person gives someone 100 pounds [of something] in separate installments. He, therefore, gives him many gifts. [62] It is asked whether the petition that Moses made while standing in the breach in the sight of God139 was just, that petition by which he prayed for the people with these words: If you will forgive, forgive [them]—or blot me out of the book of life.140 That is: either forgive the sin of the people, or blot me out of the book of life. This petition was unjust, because in saying this Moses was making clear that he wished to be separated from God eternally on behalf of the people. On the other hand, the petition seems just because God heard it and spared the people. Solution: Moses did not wish to be separated from God, although God might have never spared the people. Rather, in saying this he was

Questions on the Divine Page

 309

revealing the ardent passion of his soul, and he spoke to the Lord in the way that a friend would speak to a friend. Just as if a beloved son were to ask his father concerning something [he had done wrong], saying: “Either forgive me for this, or kill me.” The son in no way believes that the father wishes to kill him. And so the father, having been moved by his son’s devotion, spares the sinner. [63] “A human (homo) is God, a human was united to God.” There are two affirmations here. Each speaks about a certain person which is a third [person] in the Trinity.141 In one of these affirmations, it is said that this person is God; in the other, it is said that this same person was united as one [with God]. Seeing that what the first affirmation says is true, it is therefore also true that a certain person was united to God. And so this person was united to God who is one of the three persons, or to others. But he was not united to others. So he was united to one of the three persons; therefore, by this person [who was united to one of the others in the Godhead] the Trinity was made a Trinity. Solution: When I say, “A human was united to God,” I mean that the Word was united to a human; and if I say, “The Word assumed a human,” I mean a [human] nature, not a [human] person. Similarly, these three—the Word, flesh, and a soul—are one of the three persons of the Trinity, because one of the three persons is these three. These three are God. Therefore, certain created things are God. [64] It is asked whether an undue punishment is given to a person who has sinned. It seems so. Someone sins until death, but he thereby merits an eternal punishment. After his sin, having a truly contrite heart, he receives from a priest a penance, such as seven years [of fasting] or something of this sort, which is a temporal punishment; and so his sin is remitted on this side of death. Therefore, the penalty due for this sin is not paid [by the sinner]. Solution: By sinning until death he merited an eternal punishment, but by crying sorrowfully he merited that it should be reduced from an eternal to a temporal punishment. For example, someone deserves to be hanged. But a friend intercedes for his friend, so that only one of his eyes might be plucked out. [65] Similarly, it is asked when the sinner merited this temporal punishment: when he sinned or afterwards. Not when he sinned, because the punishment [incurred then] was strictly eternal; [but also] not after, because it actually was remitted only because of his sorrowful crying.

310

R obert of M elun

Solution: By sinning he merited the eternal punishment; he did not merit the temporal punishment. Likewise, God punishes with eternal punishments sins that are committed temporally, as Augustine says: “Sins come with interest, where there is more evil in the punishments than was committed in the sinning itself.”142 Therefore, the degree of the punishment is not in accordance with the magnitude of the fault. God, therefore, repays in unequal measure. Solution: The degree of the punishment is in accordance with the magnitude of the fault, that is, this fault is of such a magnitude that this punishment—namely, an eternal one—must be inflicted. And so it is just that a person who was unwilling to repent during his entire lifetime (in suo eterno) should be punished for eternity. [66] It is asked whether every parable really happened as it is related. It is clear that they did not. But against this [one could argue]: Christ, who is the Truth, related certain of these parables that in reality did not happen as related because the interior realities to which they referred did not happen. Therefore, not everything that the Truth uttered [actually] happened. Solution: When the Truth related these things, He was not relating them in such a way that the truth would be bound by those simple utterances, but rather in such a way that it would come to an end in the mystical understanding [that is] joined together with the simple understanding. Differently: In such [parables] one should not pay attention to whether the entire story is true as it is related, but rather to the individual expressions, as in the parable of the one lost sheep or the lost coin and of the man in exile.143 Note: A parable is a comparison between things of dissimilar natures. [67] It is asked whether the Father and the Son are one. In the Gospel the Truth testifies that they are: I and the Father are one.144 If they are one, they are one in actual reality; therefore, they are one particular thing that is God, or they are one particular thing that is not God. No one doubts that they are not one particular thing that is not God. Therefore, they are one particular thing that is God. And so that particular thing that they are is either the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit or the whole Trinity. But the Father and the Son are not either the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit or the whole Trinity. Therefore, they are not one particular thing that is God.

Questions on the Divine Page



311

Likewise, in the Gospel the Truth says: I am in the Father and the Father is in me.145 But the Father is the same thing as Paternity and the Son is the same thing as Filiation, because these very properties are nothing other than the persons themselves. Therefore, when the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, Paternity is in the Son and Filiation is in the Father. Solution: I and the Father are one, that is, of the same substance. And the other affirmation [of Christ] is understood similarly. [68] It is asked what became [after the transfiguration] of the earlier form of Christ if it were truly of such a condition as appeared visibly to the disciples on Mount Tabor, namely, whether he retained it or completely laid it down.146 If he completely laid it down, it either ceased entirely to exist or existed in another subject. That it existed in another subject is absurd. If this were true, another unformed subject would be the form of Christ, and that [subject] would be either a living being (animal) or something else. That it ceased entirely to exist is inappropriate, since Christ would have had the same form again [after the transfiguration]. Solution: Christ’s form was naturally of such a condition that appeared glorified [at the transfiguration], because your appearance is splendid above the sons of men.147 But [ordinarily] the form of infirmity overshadowed the form of glorification.148 Others answer this question in another way. Certain people say that He Himself was not of such a condition, but that He formed such an appearance in the air in order to reveal the glory of the future resurrection—and that this form ceased to exist when its function had been fulfilled. In order to demonstrate this they introduce the likeness of the dove, in the appearance of which the Holy Spirit was sent.149 [69] Similarly, it is asked whether Moses and Elijah themselves were truly there [on the mountain of transfiguration].150 Although it can be conceded that Elijah was somehow there, it does not seem to be right to say this about Moses, who was already dead [at this time]. For if Moses were truly there, he was there either dead or alive. It is clear that he was not there dead; so he was there alive. So he either always remained alive after that time, or he was reduced to ashes [again]. Both of these possibilities are unfitting.151 [70] It is asked whether a sin is forgiven a person who is truly repentant or a person who is not repentant. A truly repentant person is not held [captive] by any crime. Therefore, nothing is forgiven him.

312

R obert of M elun

This is shown to be false in this way. The answer is given to no one except the opponent, but he remains silent. Therefore, the answer is not given to him.152 [71] Similarly, it is asked whether sins that were previously forgiven a person who was truly repentant subsequently are imputed [to him] for the sake of punishment if he falls back into similar sins or into other mortal sins.153 The Lord seems to teach this in the parable that he related to the disciples concerning the servant whose master forgave his entire debt; but when the same servant refused to pardon his fellow servant, the text says: And in anger his master handed him over to be tortured until he would repay his entire debt.154 In commenting on the words in the same Gospel, So my heavenly Father will do to each one of you if you will not pardon your brother from your heart,155 Augustine also appears to teach this, saying: If you will not forgive from your heart sins committed against you, the penalty for which you had been forgiven will also be exacted from you.156 Solution: The same indivisible sins are not imputed [to the forgiven sinner] for the sake of punishment. But because he proved to be ungrateful that his sins had been forgiven, he is punished more for his lack of gratitude. For example, a master punishes a servant whose offenses he has often pardoned more than one whom he has never forgiven. [72] Similarly, it is asked whether a priest is able to forgive the sins of a person who is truly repentant, one who comes to him with a contrite heart. An authority says: Whenever the sinner cries sorrowfully, his sins are forgiven him.157 But he cried sorrowfully before he came to the priest. And so he had been forgiven of his sins before he came to the priest. Therefore, either his sins were forgiven twice or the priest does not forgive them. Ambrose seems to want to say that a priest does not forgive any sins: The Word of God alone is the judge of sin, and the priest [is as well]. A [human] priest, however, merely discharges a duty of his office. He does not make binding judgments with any power. When a person is oppressed by his own heavy burdens, he does not diminish those belonging to another.158 Origen says: Those err who think that the power of binding and loosing was given to all bishops. For it was given to those who imitate Peter not in the exaltation of his [episcopal] chair, but rather in the excellence of his merits.159 John Chrysostom seems to want to say that a priest does forgive: A person cannot regain the grace that he has lost by sinning, except after he has been forgiven.160 God also seems to attest that a priest for-

Questions on the Divine Page



313

gives, saying to Peter and thereby to the vicars of Peter: Whatever you bind on earth will also be bound in heaven.161 On the other hand, it seems that through the prophet God rejects this very idea [that a priest forgives], saying: I will bless your curses, and I will curse your blessings.162 And so the reasons and authorities adduced on both sides make this an intricate question. Solution: When at first the sinner cries sorrowfully, his guilt is remitted. But he is still bound by the debt of outward satisfaction; and if he neglects to make this satisfaction, he is not absolved of his guilt. If, however, he completes his satisfaction, he merits absolution. And in this way his sin will have been completely forgiven.163 By comparison: A slave sins against his master. He is reconciled to him by giving him ten marks. The master forgives him in order that he might pay the ten marks some day. The servant has been freed from the guilt, but he is bound by the debt of ten marks. If he pays it in its entirety, he will have restored his relationship (amicitia) with his master. [73] But it is asked of what a priest absolves him, since it seems that he binds him instead. Here different people say different things. Some say that he absolves him of a future punishment, if his penance was hidden. Others say that through the agency of a priest he merits to be a member of Christ and so to participate in Christ’s sacraments, of which he had been unworthy before. [74] It is asked whether the promise was given only to Abraham and his seed with these words: In your seed all nations will be blessed.164 Solution: It was given to the Jews alone, but not concerning the Jews alone. Indeed, it was given to the Jews concerning the Gentiles also, just as when a person promises to another person that he will give some particular thing to a third person. [75] It is asked why in the time of grace it was prohibited to take a wife from one’s own family (de cognatione sua), whereas it had been permissible for them [i.e., the Israelites] earlier. Solution: This was done in order to expand love, so that in any event the bond of marital agreement might bring together those whom the line of blood-kinship had not united. [76] Similarly, it is asked whether what was prohibited was good or bad when it was prohibited. If it were good, then something good was

314

R obert of M elun

prohibited. If it were something bad, then something bad was permitted earlier. This is shown to be false [in this way]. Circumcision is prohibited in the time of grace, although at one time it was something good. Therefore, something good was prohibited. [77] It is asked what became of that food that Christ ate after He rose from the dead, since Truth itself testifies: Everything that enters the mouth makes its way into the stomach and goes out into the latrine.165 On the other hand, whereas before [the resurrection] He had had an animal body, after the resurrection He had a spiritual body, foreshadowing the bodies that we will have after the resurrection, ones not needing food or drink. Solution: Some say that it is not appropriate to ask about this. Others say that we should not be astonished by this, since the angels also, having been received hospitably by certain humans, ate, though they had neither stomach, nor mouth, nor latrine, and that what they ate as food was consumed without delay, just as something combustible when it is put into a fire.166 [78] It is asked whether a priest should excommunicate someone who has stolen something belonging to someone else and who, after a third admonition, was repentant and confessed to a priest, but who did not have anything with which to make amends for the loss. If the priest excommunicates him, he will bind him with the penalty owed for the sin from which the priest earlier absolved him and of which God forgave him because he was truly repentant. If, however, the priest does not excommunicate him, the person whose property was secretly stolen will complain against him, alleging that he acted unjustly, and in due time he will voice his complaint in the presence of the prelates. Solution: The custom is that the person whom some say is held by the bond of anathema should be brought before the one accusing him [of theft] and should be excommunicated. [79] It is asked whether every judge who judges according to the decrees of the holy Fathers judges justly. Sometimes, however, a judge decides to join in marriage those whom blood-relationship will not allow to be joined. But he does this unknowingly. Therefore, he is deceived [by those seeking marriage]. However, he is not thereby free of fault, as Augustine testifies [when he says that] with regard to fault there is the smallest distance between being deceived and [knowingly] committing an error.167 Similarly, a judge assigns a penalty to someone who was falsely accused and earlier convicted by able, devout people,

Questions on the Divine Page



315

or he sentences someone to pay a fine whom he knows to be innocent of the charge [simply] because the accused is unable to refute the accusers. So he binds the one who should not be bound, and he does so knowingly and thus unjustly. Therefore, by following the decrees of the Fathers, [and] by judging knowingly and unjustly, he sins mortally, especially since “it is dangerous to decide concerning uncertain things,”168 and since if we do not know in what spirit these things were done we ought to interpret them more positively.169 About such things God says through the prophet: I will bless your curses, and I will curse your blessings; woe to you who call evil good and good evil.170 Solution: The Church is not deceived, nor by deciding in this way should the Church be said to judge unjustly, by not straying from the paths of the holy Fathers, whom it is not permitted to alter. Moreover, the ecclesiastical judgment seems to differ widely from the authority of the holy Fathers. Augustine says: “He who, having stolen something, does not strive to return it seeks penance in vain.” Again: “A sin is not cleansed unless what has been stolen is returned.”171 Solomon says that those who neglect to correct the errors of others should be punished with an equal penalty.172 Another authority says that a long stretch of time does not sweep away sin if there is no satisfaction.173 Contrary to all these authorities seems to run the ecclesiastical judgment by which it is confirmed: If someone has possessed the property of another person without challenge for thirty or forty years, that property legally passes over to him; and it is not lawful for another claimant to accuse him [of stealing it], even if the one who seized so much [property] seized it in bad faith.174 Solution: The canonical judgments made by the Church are always just, and the authorities do not bring in any injustice. The Church’s decision that the person who has resolutely possessed another’s property in this way thereafter has a right to it serves to curb the idleness of the one who has remained silent for such a long time and neglected to demand his property back, and so this judgment is provided as a warning to others. The authority [that says], “A sin is not cleansed unless what has been stolen is returned,” is determined in this way: what has been possessed for a long time without challenge should no longer be called stolen. But on the contrary it is said: The longer someone is a sinner, the worse he is. Therefore, he does not possess it more justly by the passing of time.

316

R obert of M elun

Solution: Something that was possessed unjustly in the past can certainly be possessed justly as time goes on, as when a man possesses a woman unjustly during the time when he has her as a concubine, but afterwards he can possess her justly if he leads her into marriage legally. Note that the person who has thus obtained a thing unjustly and possessed the thing obtained ought to make satisfaction because he obtained and possessed it in this way in the past, but not because he possesses it in this way now, for he possesses it canonically now. And note that this is done concerning ecclesiastical things. [80] It is asked, considering that the power of baptism is inviolable, whether a baptism performed by anyone whatsoever should be repeated, since baptism is always from God, because neither he who waters nor he who plants is anything, but it is God who gives the increase,175 and Paul refutes those who were saying, I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, I am of Cephas.176 But this seems to be opposed by a certain decree that says: If a priest who baptized someone was not himself baptized and afterwards it was discovered that he was not baptized, let him and however many were baptized by him be rebaptized.177 Solution: This decree was probably given at the time for some pressing reason, but afterwards it was changed and swept aside in this way: While those who were unaware that they had not been baptized and baptized [others] should be baptized, those who were baptized by them should not be.178 As Augustine says, the sighing of the dove is not driven away by the offense of him who ministers.179 [81] It is asked whether God is able to do all the things today that He was able to do yesterday. Yesterday He was able to make it such that He Himself would not be born or something similar, and so as time progresses His power is reduced with each passing day. Therefore, God is not able to do all the things today that He was able to do yesterday, because today He is not able to make it such that He Himself was not born.180 Solution: Some say that [today] God is able to do both this, namely to make it such that He was not born, and even this, to make it such that whatever things were done were not done. But Augustine says the opposite to Faustus the Manichean: Just as future events are not able not to happen, so too things that have existed are not able not to have existed. It is not in the divine wisdom that something is false to the degree that the very same thing is true.181 [82] It is asked whether, since every person is our neighbor, we are required to love everyone individually. There are many people whom

Questions on the Divine Page



317

we do not know, and we do not love them, as Augustine testifies: We are able to love or hate those we have not seen, but not those we do not know: because, although we have not seen them, their uprightness or wickedness is known by means of their reputation and accounts.182 Therefore, we are not required to do what we are not able to do. The solution is clear. On that passage, Everyone who is angry with his brother, etc.,183 Augustine says: “Uncontrolled anger is the cause of murder. Remove anger and there is no murder. If your eye causes you to stumble, etc.: If contemplation becomes tedious or leads to pride, give it up and move to the active life. For it is better to be saved in the active life than to be damned in the contemplative life.”184 [83] It is asked whether more is required of that servant to whom was given two talents, namely “understanding and working,” than of the one to whom was given one talent, namely “understanding alone.”185 Of him to whom one talent was given it is required that he work diligently according to that one, namely, understanding. Of him to whom two talents were given nothing is required but the very same thing, namely, that he work diligently according to understanding. Therefore, no more is required of one than of the other. However, more was given to this one than to that one. So either more is required of him, or the authority is false that says, To the one who is given more, of him more is required.186 Solution: More is required of him to whom more has been given, because it is required of him that he advance in understanding and help others to understand; and in addition to this, when he has the authority to manage external affairs, [it is required of him] that he not cease to give alms and do other things of this sort. Of the one to whom less is given, this alone is required, that he advance in understanding and help others to understand. [84] It is asked, since to lie is to speak against reason, whether a person lies who intentionally makes a promise to give another person something, but afterwards, when his intention has changed, does not give what he promised. What he said is false, because he did not give what he promised when he could have given it. [85] Similarly, it is asked when what he said began to be false, since it was not false at the time that he said it, and it may be that he never spoke again about that promise afterwards. [86] Similarly, it is asked whether he merited something when he made the promise, since he made it with a holy intention. If he did, he merited by some lie.187

318

R obert of M elun

[87] Similarly, it is asked whether a person sins mortally when, on account of humility, he says that he is a sinner, or the least, or something of this sort. Augustine seems to wish to affirm this when he says: He who says that he is a sinner when he is not becomes what he was not, that is, a sinner, by saying that he is what he was not.188 [88] It is asked whether John [the Baptist] was sanctified from the time he was in the womb, as it is said: From the womb I have sanctified you.189 If he were sanctified from the womb, he was holy from the womb. When he was born, therefore, he had no need of any sort of expiation for Original Sin. Solution: He was sanctified from the womb, that is, from the time he was in the womb divine grace revealed a sign of his future holiness, [namely] when the blessed Mary visited Elizabeth. [89] [It is asked whether] he who fails in one [point of the law] is guilty of all,190 that is, [whether] he who commits fornication is also guilty of murder and other sins. Solution: He who fails in one is guilty of all, that is, nothing remains for him as a defense; in order words, other points of the law are of no benefit to him. Or, he who fails in one, already proving to be without charity, is in a certain way guilty of all because he does not possess that by which he is able to observe the other points of the law. Or, he who fails in one is guilty of all, that is, he is guilty of the entire collection because he did not fulfill all of them. [90] It is asked whether we are commanded to love our enemies who do not repent for wrongs they have done. It seems that we are, since Truth admonishes [us]: Love your enemies, etc.191 If this is correct, we are commanded to be more merciful than God Himself, who forgives no one who does wrong unless he first repents. But we ought to imitate Him insofar as we are able. Therefore, we should not forgive those who act wrongly against us unless they first repent. [This is shown] in another way: we should not love murderers and people of this sort because they are members of the devil. Solution: When it is said that we ought to imitate God insofar as we are able, we ought to understand it in this way. We ought to imitate God who walked on earth according to His human nature, who even prayed for those who crucified Him, saying: Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.192 But we ought not, because we cannot, imitate God who dwells in heaven, who says concerning Himself: Vengeance is mine, and I will repay.193 When it is said that we ought

Questions on the Divine Page



319

not love murderers and people of this sort because they are members of the devil, we ought to understand it in this way. We ought to love what they are by nature, that is, that they are human, but we ought to hate their vice.194 [91] It is asked whether people living in the time of grace have the same faith as those who lived in the time of the law, namely the faith of Abraham and others. Augustine says: The times have changed, but the faith is the same. They believed that Christ would come, we believe that He has come.195 Therefore, they believed something that we do not believe. Likewise, Abraham believed that the Messiah, who is called Christ, would come. The Jews [now] also believe this. So the Jews have the same faith that Abraham had. Solution: Abraham believed the same things that we now believe, although in a different way, because it196 concerns the same realities. Or, stated differently, in his own time Abraham believed that Christ would become incarnate, and we believe the same thing from the perspective of Abraham’s time. That the Jews [now] seem to believe the same thing that Abraham believed is false, seeing that they hold this as an opinion whereas faith is certitude concerning unseen realities.197 [92] It is asked whether the person who sins unknowingly sins unwillingly. If he sins without willing to, his sin is not voluntary. But Augustine says: “Every sin is voluntary to such an extent that if it is not voluntary, it is not a sin.”198 So he who sins unknowingly does not sin. Therefore, the person who unknowingly crushes someone with a stone that he has raised for building, even though it is a fatal blow, does not sin, because the act is not from his will. Solution: He certainly does sin, and he does so from some evil will that precedes his action, although he may be unaware of it. According to some, he does this from the evil will of our first parents.199 [93] It is asked whether a person is able to be saved without receiving the bath [of baptism], considering that it is exceedingly necessary to be baptized, as it is written: Unless a person has been born again from water and the Holy Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.200 Solution: Indeed, someone who has not been baptized is quite able to be saved, if, having been put in a dangerous situation, he very much desires to be baptized. Augustine testifies to this, saying: Considering [this question] again and again, I find that not only does the shedding of blood without baptism suffice for salvation, but even the conversion of the mind toward God and compunction of the heart, at least in those

320

R obert of M elun

cases where the moment of death alone—not contempt of religion— prevents baptism.201 [94] It is asked whether there is marriage between infidels. Some authorities seem to suggest so. John Chrysostom says that Herod, who gave the head of John the Baptist on a platter to a dancing girl, added murder to adultery.202 Of Tarquinius and Lucretia, Augustine says that there were two people in bed: one an adulterer, the other one not.203 In On Faith and Works, Augustine says that a legitimate wife, having been conjugally joined to a man, does not sin if she takes another husband after baptism.204 The same [Augustine], on the letter to Timothy, says: “An affront to the Creator dissolves the bond of marriage for the one who is abandoned. But the infidel who abandons [his or her spouse] sins against both God and marriage.”205 On that passage, Everyone who divorces his wife and takes another commits adultery, and he who marries the one divorced from her husband commits adultery,206 Ambrose says: “Not every marriage is from God; for Christians are not united to pagans, considering that the Law forbids it. Where there is an unequal marriage, the Law of God is absent.”207 Gregory says: They made a very wise decision who were accustomed to not ordaining men who before baptism had one [wife] and after baptism another, because these men are bigamists. For in baptism sins are absolved, but the marriage covenant is not.208 On the contrary, Ambrose says that a marriage that is not in God is not certain.209 Reason also opposes this. That marriage is able to be dissolved. Therefore, it was not a marriage. Differently: There is currently no reason why that marriage that did not previously exist is annulled. But the only reason why it is annulled is that it is not a marriage. Therefore, it was not a marriage. Solution: It was not previously a marriage, but rather the appearance (forma) of marriage.210 But against this it is argued in this way: There was some sexual intercourse between them. Therefore, it was either licit or illicit. But all sexual intercourse outside marriage is illicit. But this [intercourse] was outside marriage. Therefore, it was illicit. Solution: The appearance of marriage protects them from blame, to such an extent that there is neither fornication nor adultery there. What follows is unfitting: if it is a marriage because it is not annulled by the Church, as others say, in the same way there can also be many marriages between one man and many wives, that is, one [man] is able to enter into more marriages with many wives. This can be done

Questions on the Divine Page



321

in different places. And so there will not be one [wife] of one [man]; and according to this rule there cannot be marriage between a father and a daughter, between a son and a mother, and between a brother and a sister. [95] It is asked whether God creates souls pure or impure. He creates them only in a body such as they are. But in a body they are never pure. Therefore, He does not create them pure. This is a falsehood [and is shown to be such in the following way]. God created the apostate angel [i.e., Satan] in heaven. But he was never pure in heaven. Therefore God did not create him pure. [96] It is asked whether an adult who was involved in many crimes before his baptism is able to be cleansed of Original Sin by receiving the bath [of baptism] if he approached it with an insincere heart and without contrition and did not repent for the sins that he had added [to Original Sin]. He carries out whatever [penance] was given for the satisfaction of his sin, because he accepts the sole remedy that he is liable to render for that sin, for it is not required that he repent of Original Sin since he did not commit that sin. And so it seems that he can be cleansed of Original Sin even though he is not sorry for the additional sins. If this is correct, the same person will be both a member of the devil, because he has committed many crimes for which he has not repented, and a member of Christ, through rebirth. This cannot be. Solution: Original Sin is the root and origin of all evils. And so that very root cannot be extirpated unless other sins are extirpated with it. [97] It is asked whether someone who has committed many shameful acts is able truly to repent and make satisfaction for one of them, although he neither repents nor makes satisfaction for the others. Many seem to think that it can be done. But if he truly repented and truly turned around (converteretur), he would love God. If he loved God, he would have charity. If he had charity, he would be a member of Christ because charity is the font in which the stranger does not share.211 And so someone who repents of only one [shameful act] but not of all of them cannot [truly] repent. [98] Similarly, it is asked whether someone who approaches [the sacrament] insincerely (ficte) is [truly] baptized. If so, he is baptized by Christ, because it is Christ alone who baptizes; [human] ministers merely dip and submerge. Hence, neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who produces the growth.212 If this is the case, he is baptized in the Spirit and water.213 If he has been baptized in water and the Spirit, he is spiritual. If he is spiritual, he is also clean.

322

R obert of M elun

Solution: Christ does baptize this person, because He gives this sacrament such power that anyone who does not keep himself away from it is able to be cleansed through it; and so [he is baptized] in water and the Spirit.214 [99] Similarly, it is asked what efficacy baptism has in the person who approaches it insincerely, since its efficacy is to remit sins. But it does not remit the sins of this person. And so it seems to lose its power in this one. Solution: It does not lose its actual efficacy in this person because it is such that if he approaches it worthily his sins are remitted through it. [100] Similarly, it is asked whether baptism has equal efficacy for the person who approaches it with a contrite heart and for the person who does not approach it with a contrite heart but afterwards truly repents. Solution: Inasmuch as it remits eternal punishment, it has the same efficacy. But inasmuch as it remits temporal punishment, it does not. For instance, the person who approaches [baptism] with a contrite heart, even though he had added many [actual] sins [to the Original Sin], is not bound to make satisfaction for them. But the person who repents after baptism is indeed bound to make satisfaction for additional sins. [101] It is asked whether Pilate sinned by crucifying the Lord, since the Lord Himself refused to respond to criminal charges.215 Continued silence is customarily understood as representing a confession, and the law rightly considers those who confess to be criminals.216 Solution: He certainly did sin because he knew that those charges being brought against the Lord were false. Hence [he said], I find no cause in him.217 [102] It is asked why Christ is said to be a great high priest not according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchizedek,218 since we read that Christ offered Himself once and not without blood,219 namely on the altar of the cross, and Aaron, the high priest, entered into the Holy of holies once each year, also not without blood.220 We read that Melchizedek, however, offered, without blood, nothing but bread and wine to Abram who was returning from the massacre of the five kings.221 Solution: Christ is said to be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek because it is said that Melchizedek was without a beginning and an end, without a father and a mother, and that he offered a sacrifice under those species under which the body and blood of Christ are offered today on the altar. And so Christ, without a father on earth

Questions on the Divine Page



323

and without a mother in heaven, who is true bread, offered His very self, about which He says: I am the living bread which has come down from heaven; whoever eats of this bread will never see death.222 But the sacrifice of animals that Aaron offered is not represented in the Church today. [103] It is asked whether Christ sought something from the Father when He said: Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, etc.223 It seems that He did not. If He sought something that He did not receive, His petition seems to have been inappropriate, which is scandalous to say about Him. But He did not receive that for which He asked. Therefore, it was inappropriate. But He sought what He sought by some will; and by that will He sought something that the Father did not will. Therefore, by that will He was contrary to the divine will. Solution: Some people say that He was not asking absolutely that the cup might pass from Him, but only if it were possible; nevertheless, He prayed not that His own will, but the will of the Father might be done.224 But against those who say this, it is argued that this could have happened, namely that the cup could have passed from Him, because Christ suffered not on account of any necessity but by His own free will. And so what they say is of no consequence. Similarly, it is argued in opposition that if Christ were seeking this, then He was seeking what He did not believe God the Father would do. And so His petition was in vain. But those who consider this more carefully say that in praying these words He sought nothing; rather, under the pretense of a petition He showed truly human emotion, according to which He was terrified of dying. Moreover, on account of His bodily nature he feared death, providing an example for us so that when our time of suffering and even death—which the flesh naturally dreads—draws near, we might entirely subordinate ourselves to the divine will.225 [104] It is asked whether a man is able to abandon his wife for suspicion of fornication alone, especially since in every case of an accusation there ought to be four persons: the judge, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the witness.226 The authority of the holy Fathers seems to suggest so. Jerome says: Suspicion of fornication alone prevails over love for a wife. Therefore, wherever there is fornication or suspicion of fornication, a wife is freely dismissed; nor should she be kept by her husband lest he incur reproach. For he who keeps an adulteress is foolish and wicked.227 John Chrysostom, on Matthew, says: “Just as he who

324

R obert of M elun

dismisses a chaste wife is cruel and wicked, so too he who keeps an adulterous wife is wicked and unjust; for he who conceals the offence of his wife is the defender of her indecency.”228 Solution: Suspicion is what happens to the judge when he finds reason to show by means of witnesses that someone is an adulteress. This [kind of suspicion] is certainly sufficient for dissolving a marriage. What is said, “he who keeps an adulterous wife is wicked and unjust,” should be understood in this way, namely: he who encourages her in her fornication is wicked and unjust. [105] It is asked whether the person who sins secretly and confesses his sin secretly ought to receive the same punishment as the one who sins publicly and confesses publicly, considering that only of the one sinning publicly does an authority say: He who sins publicly ought to do penance publicly.229 Imagine that there is a priest who secretly commits murder. He approaches the bishop, wishing to make satisfaction for his sin. What choice does the bishop have, but to depose him from his priestly office? What, then, will this penitential punishment be, if not public? Here we should add that this priest is suspected of [having committed] that murder, because the priest’s brother may have been killed by the father of the one who was killed by the priest. If the priest is removed from his sacerdotal office, it will be as clear as water to everyone that he committed that murder, because there was no one else who avenged the death of his brother except him. The canons also teach that such a priest should be deposed.
Why, then, is some lesser punishment imposed on this person than on the one who sins publicly? Solution: At any time there can be a dispensation for that [deposed priest], that is, so that he is restored to his former office. But there can never be a dispensation for the one who sins publicly. Differently: The bishop ought to be prudent and cautious, and with great care and deliberation ought to prohibit him from [carrying out] his holy office by transferring him from that place to another. [106] It is asked whether the poor of Christ and holy people who to this day are in the state of pilgrimage are more obligated to intercede for those from whom they receive alms and other benefits than for those from whom they have obtained nothing. The lives of the latter are more contemptible, and so these are more loved by God. Therefore, they230 ought to love the latter, whom they believe to be loved more

Questions on the Divine Page



325

by God, more than the former, by whose benefits they are supported, who are worse. Solution: They ought to love those more—that is, they ought to honor those more—whom they know better. But they ought to be more concerned about the salvation of those whose benefits they have received, as the Apostle says: From an equality in the present time let their abundance, namely that of the rich, supply the need of others, namely the poor; and let their abundance, namely that of the poor, which is in their merits, supply the need of the former, namely the rich, so that there might be an equality in the accounting of those giving and receiving.231 [107] Similarly, it is asked whether it is beneficial to pray to the saints to intercede for us, as when it is said, “Saint Peter, pray for us,” and likewise since, as Augustine says, it is uncertain whether they know that we pray to them.232 Solution: It is useful indeed, as blessed Augustine says, and nothing is recorded [in Scripture] regarding whether they know or do not know [that we pray to them], whereas He from whom nothing is hidden knows, for the love of whom they [i.e., those in this life who pray] prevail upon the saints themselves.233 [108] Similarly, it is asked what it means for us to pray to the saints to intercede for us, since they pour out no prayers to God. Solution: We pray that the merits of the saints may prevail in the presence of God, so that [His] holy affection toward them may be beneficial for us in meriting glory. [109] Similarly, it is asked whether the merits of some can be beneficial to others. Solution: They certainly can, as is clear from a careful consideration of the words of blessed Augustine, who says concerning the paralytic who was brought to Jesus and was healed234: “As strong as his own faith was in the presence of God, so strong was the faith of others that He healed the man interiorly and exteriorly.”235 [110] It is asked which of two men is obliged to act before the other by doing what he vowed, in the case where one man vowed to another man that he would give his daughter to him as his wife if the second man would come to him at an established time, and the second man vowed that he would come if the first man would give his daughter to him. If it is said that the first man, who vowed that he would give his daughter to the second if he would come to him, is obliged to act before the other by fulfilling his vow, this cannot be: because the first man cannot deliver to him what he promised unless the second man

326

R obert of M elun

comes [to him]. Likewise, if it is said that the second man should first do what he promised, thereby releasing himself from his obligation, this also cannot be: because in order for him to do this it is necessary that the first man first give [what he promised]. And so it seems that neither man is able to fulfill what he has vowed. [111] Similarly, it is asked whether that man who vowed first would release himself from his obligation by [actually] giving his daughter as a wife to him to whom he promised her if he would come at an established time. If it is said, “by giving his daughter to him,” it is said on the contrary that he did not vow this. If this is the case, then he released himself from his obligation by doing something that he did not vow [to do].236 [112] It is asked whether those who have been either monks or veiled virgins from an early age should be held in monasteries against their wills. There are different authorities on this question arguing both ways: that is, certain ones seem to want this, whereas some others seem to discourage it. Gregory says to Augustine, the bishop of the English: “You have added to this point [your question regarding] whether, if a father or mother has delivered his or her son over to the discipline of a rule within the walls of a monastery during the years of infancy, the oblate, after he or she has reached the age of puberty, is permitted to leave [the monastery] and marry. We shun this entirely, because it is a scandal that the reins of pleasure should be loosened for children offered to God by their parents.”237 Likewise, from the Council of Toledo: “Either a father’s devoting [him as an oblate] or his own profession makes [someone] a monk. Whichever of these there was, it will hold as binding. Hence we cut off their access to return to the world, and we forbid all of them from going back to secular affairs.”238 Isidore says: “Whoever has been entrusted to a monastery by his own parents should have known that he will remain there forever. For Anna offered her son Samuel, having been born and weaned, in service to God; he continued in the ministry of the temple to which he was entrusted by his mother, and he served where he was established.”239 According to the Council of Trebur: “He whose parents have delivered him over to a monastery and who has begun to chant and read can neither marry nor leave the monastery. If he does depart, he should be brought back; if he renounces the tonsure, he should be tonsured again; [and] if he

Questions on the Divine Page



327

takes a wife, he should be compelled to abandon her.”240 The authorities thus far seem to defend this. From here [we offer authorities] that argue to the contrary. The ninth synod [affirms]: “A profession of virginity will be binding when it has been made by a female of mature age who is customarily regarded as suitable for marriage and fully grown (perfecta).”241 According to a synod convoked by Eugenius: “Just as those who have chosen [to live in] a monastery are not permitted to depart from it, so those who have been introduced [into a monastery] unwillingly without having committed any offense are not to be held there against their wills: because they will not observe what they do not seek. And for this reason those who commit such especially great sins [as holding those who have been unwillingly introduced into a monastery] should carefully consider how to lament [having done so], as it is most clearly stated in the decree of the most holy Pope Leo.”242 Pope Leo says: “Girls who have not been coerced by the authority of their parents, but have chosen the manner of life and the habit of virginity by a judgment of their own will violate [their profession] if afterwards they should fall back on marriage, even if they have not yet been consecrated.”243 [On this sentence Gratian comments:] “From what is said in the beginning, ‘Girls who have not been coerced by the authority of their parents,’ it should be understood that if they have been forced to assume the habit of virginity they can abandon it without transgression.”244 This applies similarly to those who have become monks unwillingly. [113] It is asked whether the devil’s temptation of the Lord, whereby he tempted Him to commit three sins—namely, gluttony, avarice, and vainglory—was only in the Lord’s mind, as certain people rave, or whether the devil appeared visibly to Him.245 Some people say that it was in His mind: that is, that He was tempted not in His practical experience, but rather [merely] in His knowing, just as a physician has knowledge of a disease from which his patient suffers by knowing about it rather than by experiencing it himself. But this is utterly false. Because if this were the case, the first mode of suggesting [sin] would have been in someone who then was not entirely without fault [i.e., the Lord Himself], even if such a suggestion would have been only a venial sin. We believe, therefore, that the devil appeared visibly to Him and spoke the words that the Evangelists report him as having said. [114] Similarly, it is asked how that taking up (assumtione) happened about which it is said, Then the devil took Him up (assumsit), etc.246

328

R obert of M elun

Solution: The devil took up (assumsit) His body for himself,247 which was possible by God’s permission, so that he might lead the Lord away wherever and as far as God permitted him to. [115] Similarly, it is asked how the devil was able to place (statuere) Him on the pinnacle of the temple.248 Solution: It was not on the peak of the temple, as if the peak of a house in Palestine. Rather, the devil placed Him above the flat part [of the roof], and then He was raised there [to the pinnacle] by certain steps that are called cancelli.249 Hence, cancellarii are those who climb on the roofs of houses and officially announce the ordinances of a king. Thus, the Lord says: Proclaim it on the housetops.250 [116] It is asked about the temporal duration of Christ’s preaching. Some say that He preached for two years, and that beyond that He preached from the Epiphany of the Lord continuously until Passover, calculating that what remained [of the third year] was about half a year. They add that the Lord’s preaching began soon after he had been baptized, though [he then preached] secretly, as John had been imprisoned very close to Passover; and afterwards, a year having passed since his baptism, He made wine from water; and at the following Passover John was beheaded. See, you have a whole year, and as much as remains from Epiphany until Passover. A year after John’s beheading, Christ Himself was crucified. See, you have two years and somewhat longer, as was said above. And note that He preached openly from the imprisonment of John, but secretly before it. Others who investigate this question more subtlely say that He preached for three years, and as much as remains, as was said above, from Epiphany until Passover, since John was not imprisoned at the Passover immediately following the Lord’s baptism, but rather at the following [Passover]. This latter view accords with the interpreters of the Evangelists. [117] It is asked what a bill of divorce is.251 It is responded: a bill of divorce is a certain small note on which the reasons for divorce are written and even the dowry that was given to the rejected woman. [118] Similarly, it is asked whether Moses permitted something that should not have been permitted by permitting a bill of divorce.252 By permitting this, it seems that he permitted the separation of a marriage, which should not be permitted except on account of fornication, as Christ testifies.253 By divorcing their wives and taking others, the Jews

Questions on the Divine Page



329

were sinning mortally, and Moses was permitting this. Therefore, he was permitting a mortal sin. This is shown to be false in the following way. God commanded Samson to kill himself.254 But to kill oneself is a mortal sin. Therefore, God commanded a mortal sin. Solution: What Moses permitted was a dispensation. Since fornication is a lesser evil than murder, he permitted them to divorce their wives and take others lest they be led to commit murder. That is, he permitted a lesser evil in order that a greater evil might be avoided.255 [119] Similarly, it is asked whether it was lawful to fornicate in order to avoid murder either before Moses granted permission or after the Gospel came. Solution: It was not lawful before Moses granted permission, because they did this without permission [at that time]. Nor was it lawful after the Gospel was proclaimed, because it was permitted on account of the hardness of their hearts, as Truth says.256 [120] Similarly, it is asked whether by fornicating in order to avoid murder the Jews did something good. It seems that they did, because he who commits a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil does a good thing. Solution: By doing this, they did something good, but not something worthy of a reward. Nevertheless, by doing this they deserved to be punished less. [121] Similarly, it is asked whether they were avoiding a greater evil by committing a lesser one, considering that according to some people murder is less evil than adultery. For sometimes adultery is the cause of the death of two souls, which is a serious murder. However, bodily murder only kills a single person. Solution: In this way [i.e., by committing adultery] they avoided many murders. For it happened that whenever a wife had been killed, her parents rose up against her homicidal husband, and afterwards the parents of that husband who was killed rose up against the others. And so retaliatory murders resulted. [122] It is asked whether it is greater to love your enemies or your friends.257 The person who does not love his friends offends more than the one who does not love his enemies. It is greater, therefore, to love your friends than to love your enemies. This is shown to be false as follows. The person who commits criminal acts offends more than the one who offends with the tongue. Not

330

R obert of M elun

to sin criminally, therefore, is more perfect than not to offend with the tongue. [Solution:] To love your enemies is more virtuous, but it is rewarded less. The other is the opposite. [123] It is asked, since God does not need words in order to become more certain and since the secrets of human hearts are clear to Him who searches hearts and minds,258 why we offer words of prayer to Him. Solution: Augustine responds for me, saying that to pray is a work of justice.259 For God wants to be prayed to and venerated. This is made clear by a comparison: although God approves of the confession of a contrite heart, He nevertheless longs for a confession of the mouth. Hence: One believes with the heart for justification, but one confesses with the mouth for salvation.260 [124] Similarly, it is asked, since we ought to pray for our own death and the death of others, of what use it is to say: Blessed is the man…,261 Why have the nations raged…?,262 and other things of this sort, considering both that they do not seem to pertain to this [i.e., praying for a good death] and that there are very few lines in the entire collection of the Psalter that take the form of prayer. Furthermore, in the Gospel Christ advises against excessive talking when he teaches the disciples to pray, saying: And when you pray, do not speak a great deal, as the pagans do.263 Solution: There is not excessive talking except where there is chattering. And it must be understood that the Psalms pertain to many things, although it may not appear so. For in praying through them, sometimes we take on the role of a judge, sometimes the role of enemies, sometimes the role of our very selves, and sometimes we assume the perspective of some reality itself. There is also another reason [to pray the Psalms]: because in so doing our affection is aroused; otherwise our soul becomes sluggish. [125] Similarly, it is asked concerning the prayer of simple folk, the ignorant, for what they ought to pray. Solution: In these circumstances, simplicity itself prays for such people.

NOTES 1

2 3

4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11

12

13 14 15 16 17 18

19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

The singular iuramentum appears eighteen times in the Vulgate, namely at Gen. 26:3, Gen. 26:28, Exod. 22:11, Num. 30:4, Deut. 7:8, 1 Sam. 14:26, 1 Kings 8:31, Neh. 6:18, Isa. 65:15, Jer. 11:5, Ezek. 16:59, Ezek. 17:16, Ezek. 17:18, Ezek. 17:19, Zech. 8:17, Matt. 14:9, Heb. 6:16, and Jas. 5:12. The plural iuramenta appears another six times, namely at Num. 30:6, Deut. 29:14, Wisd. 12:21, Wisd. 18:22, Hab. 3:9, and Matt. 5:33. Robert’s questions 110 and 111 concern iuramenta, their conditions and fulfillment, in his own twelfth-century milieu. Augustine, Sermo 11 (PL 38.1409). Ivo, Decretum, P.  XII, cap. 35 (PL  161.789); Panormia, VIII.117 (PL  161.1333); Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XXII q. 1 c. 16 (Corpus Iuris Canonici, Pars prior: Decretum M ­ agistri Gratiani, ed. Aemilius Friedberg [Graz: Akademische Druck-  u. Verlagsanstalt, 1959], col. 865). Matt. 5:33. Both of these brief comments come from the Glossa ordinaria on Matt. 5:33 (PL 114.95). Robert regularly uses the word Expositor to denote the glossator responsible for a particular interpretation found in the Glossa ordinaria, the authoritative gloss on Scripture throughout the High and Late Middle Ages. I will therefore render it throughout as “the Interpreter.” Matt. 6:14. Deut. 32:35; Rom. 12:19. Matt. 6:22‒23. Ambrose, De officiis, I.30 (PL 16.66). Augustine, De vera religione, 14 n. 27 (CCL 32.204; PL 34.133; tr. Edmund Hill, WSA I/8:46). See Justinian, Digest, IV.2 n. 1, in Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. 1: Institutiones, ed. Paul Krueger / Digesta, ed. Theodorus Mommsen, rev. Paul Krueger (Berlin: Weidman, 1928), 80. A translation of selections of the Digest can be found in The Digest of Roman Law: Theft, Rapine, Damage and Insult, tr. Colin Francis Kolbert (New York: Penguin Books, 1979). The source seems not to be Gregory, but rather Augustine, Retract., I.13 n. 5 (CCL 57.38; PL 32.604; tr. Bogan, 53‒54). Cf. Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XV q. 1 c. 1 (ed. Friedberg, cols. 745‒46). Matt. 6:24. 1 Cor. 5:6. 2 Cor. 6:14‒15. Augustine, De sermone Domini in monte, II.14 n. 48 (PL 34.1290). Augustine, Retract., I.19 n. 8 (CCL 57.60; PL 32.617; tr. Bogan, 84), quoting Ps. 74:23 (Vulg. 73:23, according to the LXX). The words mercenarius appears only six times in the Vulgate, namely at Exod. 12:45, Lev. 22:10, Lev. 25:40, Job 7:2, John 10:12, and John 10:13. In posing this question, Robert seems to have no particular one(s) of these verses in mind. As he goes on to explain here, in affirming that God should be the causa causalissma of human action, Robert is thinking of the divine being as the final cause, that is, the one to whom all humans should direct their lives in general and each of their actions in particular. Rom. 14:8. Rom. 14:6. Matt. 7:18. Matt. 7:20. 1 John 3:8. 1 John 3:9. 1 John 3:10. Isa. 10:5.

332 28

29 30

31

32

33 34 35 36

37 38 39

40 41 42

43

R obert of M elun – Questions on the Divine Page In associating Nebuchadnezzar with Isa. 10:5 here, Robert appears confusedly to associate the seventh-century Babylonian king, and the Babylonian exile, with Assyria and its conquest of Israel. For the scriptural accounts of King Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of both Tyre and Egypt, see Jer. 46:13‒26 and Ezek. 29:18‒19. Nebuchadnezzar did, of course, also conquer Jerusalem and led 4,600 Judeans into captivity into Babylon (see Jer. 52:1‒30). Because Scripture itself understands Jerusalem’s defeat and exile as divine punishment for the evil of King Zedekiah of Judah, Robert here provides King Nebuchadnezzar as an example of a bad person who did a good thing in this instance. 2 Sam. 11:2‒17. The question here, which Robert seems to have received largely from Augustine, hinges on the distinction, with regard to mode of being, between the Holy Spirit (“the Creator Spirit”), on the one hand, and a spiritual creature (e.g., an angel, a rational soul; “the created spirit”), on the other. Whereas the Creator Spirit, who is God Himself, is immutable and immov­e­ able, the created spirit can be changed or moved according to place, Robert argues. In part because the word spiritus can be aptly predicated of both the Creator Spirit and the created spirit, and in part because Robert’s paraphrasing of Augustine in this question sometimes leaves open which “spirit” is being referenced, this is quite a difficult question to translate. In those cases where it was clear to me which “spirit” is the subject of discussion, I have identified this in brackets and/or by using the appropriate pronoun (“He” or “it”). Where it was unclear, I have left it ambiguous intentionally. This is not a direct quotation from one of Augustine’s commentaries on Genesis, as the italics in Martin’s edition suggest, but rather Robert’s paraphrase from q. 20 of Augustine’s De diversis quaestionibus (PL 40.15). Once again, this is not a direct quotation from Augustine, but rather Robert’s paraphrase of Gn. litt. VIII.20 n. 39 (CSEL 28/1.258‒59; PL 34.388; tr. Hill, WSA I/13:368‒69). Cf. Peter Abelard, Sic et Non, q. 43 (Sic et Non: A Critical Edition, ed. Blanche B. Boyer and Richard McKeon [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976], 198‒99; PL 178.1404; Yes and No: The Complete English translation of Peter Abelard’s Sic et Non, tr. Priscilla Throop [Charlotte, VT: Medieval MS, 2007; 2nd ed. 2008], 112‒13). Like Raymond Martin, I have been unable to find such an affirmation in the works of Ambrose. This is not Gregory, but rather Augustine, De bono coniugali 18.21 (CSEL 41.214; PL 40.388; tr. Ray Kearney, WSA I/9:49). Matt. 11:3. Robert wrongly attributes these words to Gregory. They are actually, with slight alterations, the words of Jerome, Commentarii in Evangelium Matthei II.11 (PL 26.69‒70). The full text of Jerome here clarifies the meaning of Robert’s somewhat enigmatic abbreviation found here. Matt. 11:21. Ps. 18:44 (Vulg. 17:45). Glossa ordinaria on Matt. 11:21 (PL 114.122), from Ps.-Bede, In Matthei evangelium expositio, II.11 (PL 92.58). As noted above, Robert regularly uses the word Expositor to denote the glossator responsible for a particular interpretation offered in the Glossa ordinaria. In such cases as this one, where Robert sets forth two other glosses from the Glossa ordinaria and introduces each with Aliter, it seems appropriate to translate Expositor as “the Interpreter.” Glossa ordinaria on Matt. 11:21. Glossa ordinaria on Matt. 11:21. Although with his phrase homo in terra Robert surely intends humans in this earthly life (i.e., on earth), he is also allegorizing terra, in accordance with his prior and subsequent uses of the term here, to signify the good and bad “soil” of human hearts in which God, by His grace, does and does not will to work. This quotation, slightly modified, is from Gregory, Hom. ev. 30 (PL 76.1222A).

N otes 44 45 46

47 48 49 50 51 52 53

54 55 56 57

58

59 60 61 62 63

64



333

Rom. 4:17. 1 Cor. 3:7. This question arises from Matt. 12:32: Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, neither in this age nor in the age to come. Luke 11:15. Gen. 4:13. Matt. 12:31. Matt. 12:32. Matt. 13:41. Matt. 13:49‒50. Glossa ordinaria on Phil. 4:6 (PL 114.607). The idea that angels offer or carry the prayers of humans to God is also attested in Tob. 12:12 and Rev. 8:3‒4. Robert asks this very question again among other questions on angels below (q. 44) and provides an essentially identical answer, though his words differ slightly. See John 6:1‒15, esp. v. 4. See Matt. 14:1‒21 and Mark 6:14‒44. Glossa ordinaria on Mark 6:37 (PL 114.203); from Bede, In Marc. II.6, and In Lucae evangelium expositio, III.9 (PL 92.190, 448). See Bede, In Marc., II.6 (PL 92.190D). It is noteworthy that in the Roman calendar August 29 remains the Feast of the Beheading or Martyrdom of St John the Baptist. The name of the feast notwithstanding, Robert apparently seeks here to explain why the liturgical commemoration of the Baptist’s death seems so far removed from the time of year at which he is reported, according to Scripture, to have suffered death. In reading Bede as found in the Glossa on Mark, Robert seems to have wrongly attributed to Josephus those particulars that are actually related by Rufinus in his translation of Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, II.28 (PL 21.536). Mark 6:18‒28. Cf. q. 94 below, where it is argued that in some cases there can be a legally binding form or appearance of marriage even if it is not a Christian marriage. Matt. 14:13‒21. Matt. 16:19. Robert seems to find the argument that there is a second knowledge-key, in addition to the power-key, strange in light of the twofold reality of (1)  bishops, who are responsible for conferring knowledge regarding the binding and loosing of sins to those priests whom they ordain, who themselves do not appear to have much, if any, of the knowledge that they intend to confer; and (2) priests who have had this knowledge conferred on them through the sacrament of Holy Orders, but who appear in reality not to have experienced an increase in their knowledge. See Summa sententiarum, tract. 6.14 (PL  176.152A-D). Raymond Martin reads Robert’s magister Hugo here as a reference to Hugh of St Victor, whom Robert knew personally. The fact that the opinion here attributed to Hugh is similar to what one finds in the Summa sententiarum, yet is not found at all in Hugh of St Victor’s On the Sacraments, strongly suggests to Martin that Hugh authored the Summa sententiarum (or at least that it passed for one of his works around the middle of the twelfth century, at which time a manuscript of this work may have circulated under his name [ed. Martin, Introduction, XLVIII-XLIX]). It must be noted, however, that the language attributed in this question to “Master Hugh” differs from that found in the Summa sententiarum: specifically, whereas “Master Hugh,” according to Robert, treats the “knowledge-key” (scienciam clavem), the Summa identifies this key as “discrimination” (discretio). Thus, instead of postulating Hugh as the author of the Summa, we may simply assume that Robert is here recalling the teaching of Hugh of St Victor that he heard in a lecture of his master or even in an informal conversation with him, an oral teach-

334

65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

77 78 79 80

81 82

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90

R obert of M elun – Questions on the Divine Page ing that has not come down to us in writing. Constant Mews also hypothesizes that Robert’s citation here may reflect an oral teaching (see Mews, “Between the schools,” 121‒38, here 126). It must be noted in this regard that, according to Rudolf Goy, the Summa sententiarum was likely not authored by Hugh, though it is from his school (see Goy, Die Überlieferung der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor, 486), and that Rainer Berndt attributes the work to Otto of Lucca, dating it c. 1140 (see Rainer Berndt, S.J., “La raison du salut. L’influence d’Hugues de Saint-Victor sur la formation des sommes de théologie aux xiie et xiiie siècles,” in L’École de Saint-Victor, 283‒98, here 293). Luke 17:12‒14. See, e.g., Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. II.14.8 (PL 176.568B-D; tr. Deferrari, 420‒21). Here again Robert uses expositores to designate those whose interpretations he has found in the Glossa ordinaria. See the Glossa ordinaria on Matt. 16:18‒19 (PL 114.142). Matt. 17:1‒9, here v. 2. For a detailed consideration of the ways in which thirteenth-century theologians treated such questions, see Canty, Light & Glory. Ps. 45:2 (Vulg. 44:3). Roman Breviary, fer. 5 on the Supper of the Lord, resp. 3; cf. Isa. 53:2. Matt. 17:6. Matt. 17:2. Mark 9:2. Matt. 17:3. Cf.  John Chrysostom, Homilia 56 In Mathaeum (PG  58.550). Robert asks this question again below (q. 69). For Elijah to have been truly present at the transfiguration would not have presented a problem—at least not this problem—considering that he had avoided death by being taken up into heaven in a fiery chariot (see 2 Kings 2:11). Cf. Glossa ordinaria on Luke 9:30 (PL 114.280). Robert casts the question here in terms of the guidelines for discipline set forth in Matt. 18:15‒18, some of the language of which he quotes directly. That is, in Matt. 18:15‒18. Surely recalling this scriptural passage from memory, Robert here conflates Luke 15:7 and 15:10. Furthermore, it should be noted, especially in light of Robert’s solution to this question, that his quotation of the words from Luke 15:10 differs in one important respect from those of the Vulgate: whereas the Vulgate has “… gaudium … coram angelis Dei …” (“… joy in the presence of the angels of God …”), Robert has “… gaudium est angelis Dei” (“… joy for the angels of God …”). So even the angels, according to Robert, rejoice more over the salvation of one human than over the fact that they themselves have maintained the integrity with which they were created. Glossa ordinaria on Luke 15:7 (PL 114.311). Cf. Augustine, Jo. ev. tr., 72.3 (CCL 36.508‒9; PL 35.1823; tr. Innes, 2:266‒68). Robert makes clear what he means in asking utrum peccata redeant below in q. 71: whether sins that have been forgiven ‘return’ in the sense of being imputed or taken into account in the punishment of the forgiven sinner if he should fall into these or other sins again. Matt. 18:23‒35. Matt. 18:34. Matt. 20:11‒12. Matt. 20:8‒9. Matt. 20:15. Matt. 20:8, 9. Matt. 25:37. Although Robert’s meaning here is less than entirely clear, there are at least three possible ways of reading this sentence. First, he may intend to note how outrageous the words of those first workers (viz., These most recent ones have worked only one hour, and you have

N otes

91

92 93

94 95 96

97

98 99

100

101 102



335

made them equal to us, who have borne the burden of the day and the heat) would be if understood literally, that is, as a complaint against the master of the house, who was perfectly just in giving them (and indeed all of the workers) exactly the payment that he had promised. Robert’s final note in this question further suggests an explanation for a non-literal reading of the text here: if their words are assigned to the future state of glory, they would seem less likely to be literally “murmuring” against the God who had granted them eternal beatitude and more likely to be amazed at the great gift He had also extended even to the last workers. Second, Robert may mean by this sentence that it is ridiculous to do what the “still others” described here have done, namely to associate or compare the words of Matt. 25:37 (Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, …?) with those of Matt. 20:12 (These most recent ones have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who have borne the burden of the day and the heat). Whereas those workers who speak the words of Matt. 20:12 are murmuring against their master for giving those who worked much less an equal reward, those who speak the words of Matt. 25:37 are in no way murmuring against Christ their Lord about the reward given to others but rather are simply seeking to understand how they themselves could have received such a great reward. A third possibility is that Robert could be affirming how absurd it seems that those who speak the words of Matt. 25:37 would be arguing with Christ regarding the positive decision that He has made concerning them at the Last Judgment. Glossa ordinaria on Matt. 20:23 (PL 114.151). The original source for this quotation seems to be Jerome, Commentarii in Evangelium Matthei, III, on Matt. 20:23 (PL  26.144A), although it also appears in Bede’s comments on Mark and in Hrabanus Maurus’s commentary on Matthew. It is noteworthy that Robert, both here and in the following question, asks about a dictum not from canonical Scripture itself, but rather from the Glossa ordinaria, indicating his more expansive medieval understanding of “the divine page.” For more on this, see the Introduction to this work above. Rom. 9:16. Robert’s final phrase here, a dante non stat quin omnes habeant, might be more literally translated: “…  it [i.e., the kingdom of God] does not stand from the one giving so that not everyone possesses it.” His intention clearly seems to be to note that who inherits the kingdom of God is not determined by God alone, without the cooperation or participation of the human who receives divine grace, in such a way that every person will attain to heavenly glory. See Matt. 21:1‒15; and the Glossa ordinaria on Matt. 21:10. Exod. 9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; and 14:8. Matt. 24:22. The connection between these words and the doctrine of predestination, with which Robert’s question here is concerned, is made clear in the final phrase of this scriptural verse, not quoted by Robert: “but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.” The influence of Augustine’s anti-Manichean understanding of evil—and by extension, sin—as a privation of good rather than a substantial reality, is clear here. For Augustine, and for Robert, sin is literally not a thing (i.e., nothing); rather, it is the free will’s falling away from the positive good (i.e., the something) that it was intended to do and to be. Augustine, De peccatorum meritis, II.6 n. 7 (CSEL 60.77; PL 44.155). The phrase that I have translated “in the Church on earth” is, in Robert’s Latin, in presenti ab Ecclesia. Although Robert’s Latin is less than clear, his use of the phrase in Ecclesia presenti later in this question sheds light on his intention. Liber sacramentorum Engolismensis (CCL 159C.203, rub. 1376; PL 78.142D), whose words differ from those set down by Robert only slightly: ut quae nunc specie gerimus rerum veritate capiamus. 1 John 3:2. Twice the Summa sententiarum (tract. I.4 and tract. I.11) attributes this dictum (Quidquid in Deo est Deus est) to Augustine (see PL 176.48B and PL 176.58D). Although I have been una-

336

103 104 105 106

107

108 109 110

111

112 113 114

R obert of M elun – Questions on the Divine Page ble to locate this exact quotation in the works of Augustine, the sense of it is found in De fide et symbolo IX.20 (CSEL 41.25‒27; PL 40.193; tr. Michael G. Campbell, in On Christian Belief, WSA I/8:170‒71), Trin. XV.17.28 (CCL 50A.502‒3; PL 42.1080; tr. Hill, WSA I/5:418‒19), and Civ. Dei XI.10.2 (CCL 48.330‒31; PL 41.325; tr. Bettenson, 440‒42). Robert asks this same question again below (in q.  58), where his explanation of it differs slightly and an explicit solution is absent. 1 Pet. 4:17. That is, from considering the reward given to those who died in equal charity. Cf. Ps. 84:11 (Vulg.), to which Robert here alludes: Misericordia et veritas obviaverunt sibi; justitia et pax osculatae sunt. In answering this question as he does, Robert seeks to make clear that although these damned people do, of course, suffer an eternal punishment, this punishment is not a penalty for their superadded venial sins, but rather for their mortal sins (i.e., the “criminal activity” [criminalibus] in which they die). Cf. Augustine, Ench. 61 (CCL 46.82; PL 40.261; tr. Harbert, WSA I/8:309‒10), whose words are slightly different from those put down by Robert here: …  ex ipsa hominum redemptione ruinae illius angelicae detrimenta reparantur. See also Glossa ordinaria on Eph. 1:10 (PL 114.589). Cf.  Augustine, Ench. 29 (CCL  46.65; PL  40.246; tr.  Harbert, WSA  I/8:291‒92); Gregory, Hom. ev. 21 (PL 76.11A). Luke 16:22. Glossa ordinaria on Phil. 4:6 (PL 114.607). The idea that angels offer or carry the prayers of humans to God is also attested in Tob. 12:12 and Rev. 8:3‒4. Robert asks this same question above (q. 20) and provides an almost identical answer. Although I have been unable to find this quotation in the exact form in which Robert presents it here, it appears to derive from a gloss of Bede found in the Glossa ordinaria on Mark 13:25: see Bede, In Marc., IV.13 (PL 92.263C-D); and Bibliorum sacrorum glossa ordinaria primum quidem a Strabo Fulgensi collecta, cum Postilla Nicolai Lyrani necnon additionibus Pauli Burgensis, ac Matthiae Thoryngi replicis, ed. Franciscus Fevardentius, Johannes Dadraeus, and Jacobus de Cuilly [Venice: Iuntas, 1603], vol. 5, col. 620. See also Quaestiones et decisiones in Epistolas Pauli, Part II: On 1 Cor., q. 5 (PL 175.514C), which Migne attributes to Hugh of St Victor. See Ps. 92:12 (Vulg. 91:13) and Ps. 29:5 (Vulg. 28:5). Job 26:11. Like Raymond Martin, I have been unable to find such a quotation in the corpus of Origen. However, an interesting parallel appears in the Jewish Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael. This rabbinic text, which was known in the West in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, describes the chief of the fallen angels or Watchers in a way reminiscent of this quotation that Robert attributes to Origen. The midrash says the following about the lead renegade angel known as Shemihazai (sometimes read as Semihazai and in some traditions Uzzah): “(12) What did Šemh.azai do? He repented and suspended himself between heaven and earth head downwards and feet upwards, because he was not allowed to open his mouth before the Holy One—Blessed be He—and he still hangs between heaven and earth” (The Book of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave  4, ed. J. T. Milik [Oxford: Clarendon, 1976], 328). This midrash makes allusions to the fallen angels traditions known from the popular Second Temple pseudepigraphic Book of the Watchers, chapters 1‒36 of the work known as 1 Enoch. Although the Book of the Watchers seems not to have been translated into Latin and is thought not to have circulated in the medieval West, echoes of Watchers traditions certainly appear in medieval Scholastic thought (see Franklin T. Harkins, “The Magical Arts, Angelic Intercourse, and Giant Offspring: Echoes of Watchers Traditions in Medieval Scholastic Theology,” in The Fallen Angels Traditions: Second Temple Developments and Reception History, ed. Angela Kim Harkins, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, and John Endres, S.J. [Washing-

N otes

115 116 117 118

119 120

121 122 123 124

125 126

127



337

ton, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, 2014], 157‒79). For the Watchers myth according to the Book of the Watchers, with particular reference to Shemihazai, see 1 Enoch 6:1‒7:6 and its interpretation in George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1  Enoch, Chapters 1‒36; 81‒108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 165‒87. On Origen’s posture (and that of other early Christian thinkers) toward the Book of the Watchers and Enochic pseudepigrapha more generally, see Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 194‒205. For more recent studies on Watchers traditions in antiquity, see The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Angela Kim Harkins, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, and John C. Endres, S.J. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014). Whereas J. T. Milik has hypothesized that the rabbinic Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael encapsulates the plot of the fragmentary Book of Giants from Qumran, Ken Penner has more recently argued that the Midrash does not directly preserve traditions known in the Book of Giants (see Ken M. Penner, “Did the Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael use the Book of the Giants?” in Sacra Scriptura: How “Non-Canonical” Texts Functioned in Early Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Lee Martin McDonald [London: Bloomsbury T. & T. Clark, 2014], 15‒45). I have been unable to find this sentence in Augustine’s corpus. Gregory the Great, Hom. ev. 7, n. 3 (PL 76.1101). Cf. Council of Toledo VI, 1 (PL 130.487C). Cf. Thomas Aquinas, ST III q. 3 a. 4c, where the Dominican master draws the distinction between the act of assuming and the term of the assumption and argues similarly that although what pertains to the action of assumption is common to the three persons, this common action was terminated in the Son alone becoming incarnate. Cf. Peter Abelard, Theologia Summi Boni II.29‒33 (CCCM 13.124‒26) and Theologia Summi Boni III.41‒43 (CCCM 13.175‒76). Cf. Augustine, Trin. IV.28 and V.13 (CCL 50.198‒99 and 220; PL 42.908 and 920; tr. Hill, WSA  I/5:173‒74 and 197‒98); Peter Abelard, Sic et Non, q.  14 (ed. Boyer and McKeon, 142‒45; PL  178.1370A; tr.  Throop, 59‒62); and Peter Abelard, Theologia Christiana, IV (CCCM 12.266‒346 [PL 178.1291A‒1293D]). See Matt. 25:1‒13. See Matt. 25:10‒12. Matt. 25:10‒12. Cf. Peter Abelard, Theologia “Scholarium,” III.57‒64 (CCCM 13.524‒27). This question, together with the three that follow (viz., qq. 52‒55), relates to a controversy provoked by Abelard over divine omnipotence. Although he appears not to answer the questions he poses here, Robert sets forth and refutes Abelard’s teachings on these points in the first 29 chapters of I, pt. 7 of his Sentences. See Augustine, Trin., XIII.10 n. 13 (CCL 50A.399‒400; PL 42.1024; tr. Hill, 353‒54); Glossa ordinaria on Rom. 5:8 (PL 114.485). Cf.  Rom. 5:12. Robert is noting the appropriateness of Christ, as redeemer, being without sin—both Original and actual—and therefore needing to die only on account of the Original Sin of our first parents, in which sin “many” humans (indeed, all save Christ and His Blessed Mother) participate. No one, by contrast, shares in the actual sins of any other human. Assuming that the Original Sin was the cause of Christ’s death and that this was the most fitting way for Christ to have redeemed humankind, Robert maintains that even good people would not have sinned in conspiring in or consenting to Christ’s death (even if they had known that the one they were crucifying was, in fact, the Christ, presumably). See also Robert on Rom. 5:9 in his Questiones [theologice] de epistolis Pauli, in Oeuvres de Robert de Melun, t. 2, ed. Raymond M. Martin, O.P. (Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1938),

338

128 129

130 131

132 133 134 135

136 137

138 139 140 141

142 143

R obert of M elun – Questions on the Divine Page 83. Cf. Thomas Aquinas, ST III q. 47 aa. 5 and 6, who understands both the Jews and the Gentiles who were responsible for Christ’s death as having sinned most grievously. Matt. 26:31‒35, 69‒75. Twice the Summa sententiarum (tract. I.4 and tract. I.11) attributes this dictum (Quidquid in Deo est Deus est) to Augustine (see PL 176.48B and PL 176.58D). Although I have been unable to locate this exact quotation in the works of Augustine, the sense of it is found in several of his works, as indicated in n. 102 above. Robert poses this same question above (q. 39), where he provides a more extended solution. Augustine, Jo. ev. tr., 47.10 (CCL  36.409‒10; PL  35.1738; tr.  Innes, vol.  2,  108‒9); Glossa ordinaria, on John 10:17 (PL 114.397). Rather, Augustine, Jo. ev. tr. 47.10 (CCL 36.409‒10; PL 35.1738; tr. Innes, 2:108‒9). On the meaning of homo as “human nature” (rather than “man” or “human person”) in ancient Western theology and in the Victorines, see Franklin T. Harkins, “Homo assumptus at St. Victor: Reconsidering the Relationship between Victorine Christology and Peter Lombard’s First Opinion,” Thomist 72 (2008): 595‒624. Rather, Vigilius Tapsensis, De Trinitate VI (PL 62.280A); attributed to Athanasius by Peter Abelard, Sic et Non, q. 81 (Boyer and McKeon, 296; PL 178.1465; tr. Throop, 202). Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34. Rather, Ambrose, In Lucam, X.127 (PL 15.1836). I have been unable to find this quotation in the corpus of Ambrose. Cf. Augustine, De agone Christiano, 18 n. 20 (CSEL 41.120‒21; PL 40.300; The Christian Combat, tr. R. P. Russell, FOC  2 [Washington: Catholic University Press, 1947], 335); Sententiae Florianenses, ed. Heinrich Ostlender (Bonn: Hanstein, 1929), 21 n. 44: Sed si anima separata est a corpore, quae vinculum erat Verbi et carnis … Note that Robert has slightly altered the subject in this quotation: whereas earlier he has it as homo (“the human”), here it has become caro (“the flesh”). Cf. Thomas Aquinas, ST III q. 50 a. 4, who explicitly disagrees with both Hugh of St Victor and Peter Lombard—and implicitly with Robert, of course—noting that it is an error against faith in the true death of Christ to hold that He was a true human during the three days. For this general idea, see Augustine, Trin. XV.7 n.  13 (CCL  50A.477‒79; PL  42.1066‒67; tr. Hill, 404‒5); and Sent. divinit., 155‒56. Ps. 106:23 (Vulg. 105:23). Exod. 32:32, according to the LXX. The interpretation set out here of homo assumptus, which represents a particular way of reading the first of Peter Lombard’s explanations of the mode of the union in the Incarnation (Sent., III.6.2 sect. 1), assumes that homo (human) refers to a person who was taken up, rather than a nature. Robert’s solution, by contrast, draws on Hugh of St Victor’s observation that whenever “homo” is used to describe what was assumed by the Word, it necessarily refers to a human nature rather than a person. See Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. II.1.9 (PL 176.394), e.g., and Harkins, “Homo assumptus at St. Victor.” What Robert appears to mean here in affirming that each of these statements (viz., Homo est Deus and homo est unitus Deo) speaks about “a third [person] in the Trinity” is that this particular interpretation of the Lombard’s first opinion understands the homo that has been assumed as another person, who becomes part of the Godhead, beyond God the Father, on the one hand, and the Son or Word who assumes this homo, on the other. If the Incarnate Word had been thus constituted of two persons, one human and one divine, the Holy Spirit would then presumably be the fourth person in the Godhead (and the Trinity would thereby be a Quaternity). Augustine, En. Ps., on Ps. 71:14, sect. 16 (CCL  39.982; PL  34.910; tr.  Boulding, WSA III/17:465); and Glossa ordinaria on Ps. 71:14 (PL 113.955). See Luke 15 for all three of these parables. Although Martin reads Robert’s final phrase here, de homine exulante, as a reference to Matt. 25:14, it seems more likely that Robert has in

N otes

144 145 146

147 148

149

150 151



339

mind the parable of the Prodigal Son, which is related—like the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin—in chapter 15 of Luke’s Gospel. John 10:30. John 14:10. Matt. 17:2. This question follows logically on the heels of q. 27 above and assumes that the splendor of the transfiguration was truly in the flesh of Christ, rather than merely in the air around Him or in His clothes alone. Interestingly, however, the question as it is posed here seems unaware of Robert’s solution to q. 27, for it intimates that this splendor may have actually come and gone in the actual form of Christ rather than that what was always actually there in Christ was simply revealed or not to humans at certain times. This suggests that the questions, as they appear here and in q. 27, derive from different school contexts, that is, that they were likely posed differently by different of Robert’s students at different times for different reasons. Ps. 45:2 (Vulg. 44:3). Cf. Thomas Aquinas who teaches, in ST III q. 54 a. 2c, that, although Christ’s soul was glorified from the instant of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead, it was fitting—in order that He might truly suffer and die for the sake of human salvation—that His soul not communicate its glory to His body during His earthly life. When the mystery of His Passion and death had been accomplished, however, the glory of Christ’s soul flowed into His body in the resurrection, thereby rendering it glorious as well. See also ST III q. 14 a. 1 ad 2. On the related questions of whether Christ’s soul enjoyed blessed fruition during the Passion and, if so, whether such fruition removed or diminished His pain and suffering, see, e.g., Aquinas, ST III q. 46 aa. 8 and 6, and Guerric of Saint-Quentin’s quodlibetal question 9 a. 4 (Guerric of Saint-Quentin, Quaestiones de quodlibet, ed. Walter H. Principe and Jonathan Black [Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2002], 386‒87). For a treatment of Guerric’s theology of the transfiguration, see Canty, Light & Glory, 75‒85. For one fourteenth-century treatment of the glory of Christ’s soul, see Walter Chatton, Reportatio on the Sentences III.13.2, in Reportatio super Sententias libri III-IV, ed. Joseph C. Wey and Girard J. Etzkorn (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2005), 86‒88. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; and John 1:32. Scholastic theologians held that it was not an actual, organic dove with which the Holy Spirit became somehow hypostatically united, but rather that the third trinitarian Person simply appeared, at Christ’s baptism, in the form of a dove in order to signify the descent of spiritual grace. In this way the appearance of the Holy Spirit at Christ’s baptism was fundamentally different from the divine Word’s own assumption of a human nature in the Incarnation. See, e.g., Albert the Great, Commentarium in libros sententiarum Bk. I d. 16 B a. 6 (ed. A. Borgnet, B. Alberti Magni Opera Omnia [Paris: Ludovicum Vivès, 1893], 25:451‒52); and Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum super libros sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi Episcopi Parisiensis Bk. I d. 16 q. 1 a. 3 (ed. R. P. Mandonnet [Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1929], 1:375‒78), Scriptum super libros sententiarum Bk. III d. 6 q. 3 a. 2c (ed. M. F. Moos [Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1933], 3:246‒47), and ST III q. 39 a. 6 obj. 2 and ad 2. In Robert’s question here, those who wish to argue that the transfigured form of Christ did not, in fact, truly belong to Him personally, but rather only appeared in the air around Him, invoke this understanding of the Spirit’s mere appearance in the form of a dove to bolster their position. Matt. 17:3. Robert poses this question earlier (q. 28) and provides a similar, though somewhat more detailed, answer there. In q. 28 above Robert makes explicit the two possible conclusions here that are unfitting: namely, either that Moses died twice, once at age 120 prior to the Israelites entering the promised land (Deut. 34:1‒8) and again at some point after Christ’s transfiguration, or that Moses did not die at all. Regarding this second possibility, it is not clear whether Robert has in mind: (1) that Moses did not die at the time that Deuteronomy attests that he died and continued to live up to the time of the transfiguration and died thereafter; or (2) that Moses

340

152

153 154 155 156

157 158

159

160

161 162 163 164 165 166

167 168

R obert of M elun – Questions on the Divine Page

did die at age 120 but was subsequently raised up in order to be truly present at the transfiguration and did not die thereafter. Although the question as set forth here remains open on this point, it is clear that Robert would find both of these sub-possibilities problematic. By using the analogy of an academic disputation, Robert here aims to show that the preliminary answer to the question (viz., “Therefore, nothing is forgiven him,” that is, the truly repentant person) is false. If the opponent in a disputation remains silent, the answer to or determination of the question is still said to be given to him (and to all others who are present, presumably). In like manner, although the truly repentant person is not held captive by his sin, it is still true that his sin is forgiven him in the sacrament of penance. Cf. q. 31 above, “whether sins return,” which is essentially the same question that Robert asks here. Matt. 18:34. The entire parable is related in vv. 23‒35. Matt. 18:35. These words do not, as Martin’s edition suggests, constitute a direct quotation from Augustine. Rather, see Gregory, Dialogi, IV.60 (Grégorie le Grand, Dialogues, t. III l. 4, ed. Adalbert de Vogüé and tr.  Paul Antin [Paris: Cerf, 1980], SC  265.204‒7; PL  77.428; tr.  Odo John Zimmerman, FOC 39 [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1959], 274‒75; n.b.: What appears as ch. 60 in the PL is ch. 62 in both the Sources Chrétiennes edition and the FOC translation.). Cf. 2 Kings 20:1‒6; Ezek. 18:21‒22 and 33:12‒15; and Luke 7:37‒48. Ambrose, De Cain et Abel, II.4 n.  15 (CSEL  32/1.391‒92; PL  14.348; tr.  John  J. Savage, FOC 42 [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1961], 416). Cf. Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XXXIII q. 3 c. 51, who qoutes Ambrose On Cain and Abel thus: Verbum Dei dimittit peccata: sacerdos est iudex; sacerdos quidem offitium suum exhibet, et nullius potestatis iura exercet (ed. Friedberg, cols. 1170‒71). See Peter Abelard, Ethica, I 77.1 (CCCM 190.78; PL 178.675D; tr. Paul Vincent Spade, in Peter Abelard, Ethical Writings: His Ethics or “Know Yourself ” and His Dialogue between a Philosopher, a Jew, and a Christian [Indianapolis: Hackett, 1995], 52 (sect. 211)]), who summarizes Origen’s comments on Matt. 16:19 (In Mattheum, XII n. 14; PG 13.1014‒15). See Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XXXIII q. 3 c. 41, who attributes the following words to Chrysostom: Non potest quis gratiam Dei celestis accipere, nisi purgatus fuerit ab omni sorde peccati per penitenciae confessionem, per donum baptismi salutaris (ed. Friedberg, col. 1168). Friedberg here indicates that these words come not from Chrysostom, but rather from Chromatius. Matt. 16:19. Although Martin’s edition italicizes everything that appears after the colon as if all of it were from Scripture, only the final phrase comes from Mal. 2:2, indicated here by my italics. Cf. Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. II.14.8 (PL 176.567CD). Gen. 22:18. Matt. 15:17. See Gen. 18:1‒8. The three visitors to Abraham and Sarah were understood by scholastic exegetes as angels who assumed anthropomorphic bodies in order to appear sensibly to and be understood by the humans to whom they were sent by God. Whereas these angelic visitors certainly seem to have eaten, most scholastic readers maintained that their bodies were strictly extrinsic and occasional (rather than intrinsic and organic), and therefore were not truly capable of engaging in the functions of life, such as eating, that the scriptural text appears to attribute to them. For a more extended treatment, see Franklin T. Harkins, “The Embodiment of Angels: A Debate in Mid-Thirteenth-Century Theology,” RTPM 78 (2011): 25‒58. Cf.  Augustine, Enchiridion, 18 (CCL  46.58‒59; PL  40.241; tr.  Harbert, WSA  I/8:283‒84); Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XXII q. 2 c. 7 (ed. Friedberg, col. 869). Cf. Glossa ordinaria on Matt. 7:1 (PL 114.107) and on 1 Cor. 4:3 (PL 114.525).

N otes 169 170

171

172 173 174 175 176 177

178 179

180

181

182 183



341

Cf. Augustine, De sermone Domini in monte, II.18.59 (CCL 35.154‒55; PL 34.1296); Glossa ordinaria on Rom. 14:4, 13 (PL 114.514‒15). Here Robert brings together two prophetic passages, namely Mal. 2:2 and Isa. 5:20. The initial phrase after the colon, “I will bless your curses,” is not found in Mal. 2:2, however; it seems as if Robert simply added it as a parallel to the following phrase, which is from Mal. 2:2. This and the previous dictum are from Augustine, Letter 153 n.  20 (to Macedonius; CSEL 44.419; PL 33.662; Epistulae 100‒155, tr. Roland Teske, WSA II/2:400); Ivo, Decretum, Part X, 4 and Part XV, 25 (PL 161.803, 862); Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XIV q. 6 c. 1 (ed. Friedberg, col. 742). Cf. Wisd. 18:11: Simili autem poena servus cum domino afflictus est. Cf. Augustine, Enchiridion, 65 (CCL 46.84; PL 40.262; tr. Harbert, WSA I/8:312); and Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XXXIII q. 3 c. 84 (ed. Friedberg, col. 1183). Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XVI q. 3 c. 15 (ed. Friedberg, cols. 794‒95). 1 Cor. 3:7. 1 Cor. 1:12. Cf. Ivo, Panormia I.96 (PL 161.1066); Abelard, Sic et Non, q. 110 (esp. the eleventh authority, from the Council of Compiegne; ed. Boyer and McKeon, 359; PL 178.1506A; tr. Throop, 262); Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. I q. 1 c. 60 (ed. Friedberg, col. 380). See Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. I q. 1 c. 60 (ed. Friedberg, col. 380) and the editorial note on this chapter (under the heading Notationes correctorum). Cf. Augustine, Jo ev. tr., 5.11 (CCL 36.46; PL 35.1419; tr. Hill, WSA III/12:110): “Non exhorreat columba ministerium malorum, respiciat Domini potestatem.” Augustine is here commenting on John the Baptist’s testimony, in John 1:32‒33, that he saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove on Jesus and that the one who sent John to baptize said to him, “He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” What John learned in this experience, according to Augustine, is that the power of the Lord’s baptism would not pass to any human minister of the sacrament; rather, the human, whether good or bad, would receive only the ministry or administration of the sacrament. In the following tractate, Augustine treats the ineffable “sighing” of the Holy Spirit in His role as intercessor for us (Rom. 8:26‒27), thereby connecting the Spirit’s descent as a dove on Christ (and, by extension, on Christ’s sacraments in the Church) with the Spirit’s intercessory “sighing,” both of which manifest the divine power for human salvation (tract. 6.1‒2 [CCL 36.53‒54; PL 35.1425‒26; tr. Hill, WSA III/12:121‒23]). The point of Robert’s paraphrase of Augustine here, then, is to affirm that the divine power that was at work in those who had been baptized by a minister who himself had not been baptized was not driven away or reduced by the minister’s own failure to receive baptism. The question here pertains to God’s absolute power in light of His ordained power. Whereas in the past God was able to make it such that He would not become incarnate (i.e., be born of a woman), the argument runs, now He is not able to do this because He did, in fact, actually become incarnate at a particular point in history. See Augustine, C. Faust. XXVI.4 (CSEL 25/1.732; PL 42.481; tr. Teske, WSA I/20:390). Although Martin italicizes all of the words following the colon, as if this were a direct quotation from Augustine, Robert is actually paraphrasing Augustine here. One important difference between the wording of Augustine and that of Robert occurs at the beginning of Robert’s second sentence: whereas Robert has Non est in divina sapiencia, Augustine has non est in dei voluntate. For a consideration of Anselm of Canterbury’s treatment of such questions of necessity, temporality, and contingency, see William L. Craig, “St. Anselm on Divine Foreknowledge and Future Contingency,” Laval théologique et philosophique 42 (1986): 93‒104. This is Robert’s paraphrase of Augustine, Jo. ev. tr., 90.1 (CCL 36.551; PL 35.1858; tr. Innes, 2:337‒38). Matt. 5:22. The following scriptural lemma in this quotation comes from Matt. 5:29.

342 184

185

186 187

188 189 190 191 192 193 194

195 196 197

198

199

200 201

202 203 204

205

206 207

R obert of M elun – Questions on the Divine Page Incorrectly attributed to Augustine, this quotation—at least the first half of it—appears to be from Ps.-Chrysostom, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, hom. 11.29 (PG 56.689), and is found in the Glossa ordinaria on Matt. 5:22 (PL 114.93‒94). See Matt. 25:14‒30. What appear here in quotation marks are interlinear glosses from the Glossa ordinaria on Matt. 25:22. See Bibliorum sacrorum glossa ordinaria, ed. Fevardentius, Dadraeus, and de Cuilly, 5:409‒410. Luke 12:48. Robert wants to make clear that the person who make a promise in good faith but subsequently reneges on that promise, which thereby becomes a lie, cannot merit anything for himself by this act. Augustine, Sermo 181 chs. 4‒5 (PL 38.981; tr. Edmund Hill, WSA III/5:326). See also Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XXII q. 2 c. 9 (ed. Friedberg, col. 870). Robert seems to be citing Jer. 1:5 from memory. Jas. 2:10. Matt. 5:44. Luke 23:34. Rom. 12:19. Here again Robert draws on the Augustinian understanding of sin as a privation of or defect in the good that the human, as long as he continues to exist as a human, always is ontologically. Augustine, Jo. ev. tr., 45.9 (CCL 36.392; PL 35.1722; tr. Innes, 2:81). That is, the faith that is common to Abraham and to Christians in Robert’s time and beyond. Cf. Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. I.10.2 (PL 176.327C‒331B; tr. Deferrari, 165‒69). Robert seems quite informed in this question by Hugh’s understanding that the basic content of faith, viz. in God as Creator and Redeemer, remains constant throughout time, whereas the cognition of this same faith grows throughout the ages. See Hugh, Sacr. I.10.6‒7 (PL 176.335A‒341A; tr. Deferrari, 173‒79); and Harkins, Reading and the Work of Restoration, 240‒53. Augustine, De vera religione 14 n. 27 (CCL 32.204; PL 34.133; tr. Hill, WSA I/8:46). See also Alan of Lille, Theologicae regulae 71 (PL 210.657C-D), and Peter of Poitiers, Sententiae, II.14 (PL 211.992B). Here Robert and those to whom he refers have recourse to the Augustinian notion that Original Sin, or the first sin of Adam and Eve, is the root and cause of all actual sin, however unintentional particular acts of sin may be on the part of the sinner. John 3:5. Cf. Augustine, De baptismo IV.22.29 (CSEL 51.257; PL 43.173; tr. J. R. King, revised by Chester D. Hartranft, NPNF I/4 [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, repr. 1989], 460‒61), which Robert paraphrases here. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Matt. 48 (al. 49), n. 4 (PG 58.492). Augustine, Civ. Dei I.19 (CCL 47.20; PL 41.32; tr. Bettenson, 29). See De fide et operibus, XVI.28 (CSEL 41.72‒73; PL 40.216; tr. Ray Kearney, in On Christian Belief, WSA  I/8:247), where Augustine, commenting on 1  Cor. 7:15, teaches—somewhat differently than Robert here indicates—that a Christian man may leave his legitimate wife if she refuses to stay with him because he is a Christian. Rather, Ambrosiaster, Commentarius in XIII epistulas Paulinas, on 1 Cor. 7:15 (CSEL 81.77; PL  17.219B). The Latin quoted here by Robert is virtually identical to that found in this text of Ambrosiaster, hence my quotation marks. Cf.  Glossa ordinaria on 1  Cor. 7:14‒15 (PL 114.530B-C); Abelard, Sic et Non, q. 125 (ed. Boyer and McKeon, 427; PL 178.1546; tr. Throop, 322). Luke 16:18. Ambrose, In Lucam VIII, nn. 2, 8 (PL 15.1765C, 1767C). Here Robert has joined together two sentences that appear in separate sections in Ambrose’s Exposition, viz., sections 2 and 8 of VIII.

N otes 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227

228

229 230 231 232

233 234 235

236



343

Rather, Augustine, De bono coniugali 18.21 (CSEL  41.214‒15; PL  40.387‒88; tr.  Kearney, WSA I/9:49). See Ambrosiaster, Commentarius in XIII epistulas Paulinas, on 1  Cor. 7:15 (CSEL  81.77; PL 17.219B). Cf. Glossa ordinaria on 1 Cor. 7:14‒15 (PL 114.530B-C). Cf. q. 23 above on the forma of marriage. Augustine, In Ioannis Epistulam, 7.6 (PL  25.2032; tr.  Ramsey, WSA  III/14:108). Cf.  Prov. 5:15‒17, which Augustine himself references here. 1 Cor. 3:7. This is an allusion to, or paraphrase of, the words of Christ in John 3:5: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu non potest introire in regnum Dei. John 3:5. See Matt. 27, esp. vv. 14 and 26. Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. II q. 1 c. 1 (ed. Friedberg, col. 438). John 18:38. See Heb. 5‒7, esp. 5:6, 5:10, 6:20, 7:17; and Ps. 110:4 (Vulg. 109:4). Heb. 9:7. See Heb. 9:25. Gen. 14:17‒20. For the larger context of the battle with the five kings, see Gen. 14:1‒16. This is essentially a quotation of Christ’s words in John 6:51‒52, though Robert here conflates the ending of v. 52 with that of v. 50. Matt. 26:39. See Robert Pullen, Sententiae, IV.6 (PL 186.834); and Sent. divinit., 87. See Robert Pullen, Sententiae, IV.6 (PL 186.834); and Sent. divinit., 87. Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. IV q. 4 c. 1 (ed. Friedberg, col. 541). Jerome, Commentarii in Evangelium Matthei 3, 19.9 (CCL 77.167; PL 26.140A); Abelard, Sic et Non, q. 128 (ed. Boyer and McKeon, 445; PL 178.1558; tr. Throop, 339‒40); Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XXXII q. 1 c. 2 (ed. Friedberg, col. 1116). The final sentence of Robert’s paraphrase of Jerome here—Qui enim adulteram tenet, stultus et inpius est—is a quotation of Prov. 8:22. Ps.-Chrysostom, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, hom. 32 (PG  56.802); Abelard, Sic et Non, q. 128 (ed. Boyer and McKeon, 445; PL 178.1558; tr. Throop, 340); Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XXXII q. 1 c. 1 (ed. Friedberg, col. 1115). See Ivo, Decretum, part. 15, 46 (PL 161.868). That is, the poor of Christ and holy peregrinators. 2 Cor. 8:13‒14, with Robert’s glosses interspersed. Cf. Augustine, De cura pro mortuis gerenda.13 (CSEL 41.647‒49; PL 40.604; Care to be Taken for the Dead, tr. J. A. Lacy, Treatises on Marriage and Other Subjects, FOC 27 [Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1999], 373‒75). Cf. Augustine, De cura pro mortuis 18 (CSEL 41.658‒59; PL 40.610; tr. Lacy, 383‒84). See also Hugh of St Victor, Sacr. II.16.11 (PL 176.596; tr. Deferrari, 451). Matt. 9:2‒8 and Mark 2:1‒12. Although I was unable to find this quotation in Augustine’s corpus, it does appear in the Glossa ordinaria on Matt. 9:2 (PL 114.115B). In the accounts provided in both Matt. 9 and Mark 2, it is clear that Jesus forgives the paralytic’s sins (i.e., heals him interiorly) and restores his ability to walk (i.e., heals him exteriorly) on account of the faith of those who bring him to Jesus. The question here, stated more precisely than Robert himself states it, is whether the first man vowed to the second man by giving his daughter or to give his daughter in marriage, that is, whether his daughter was the pledge or the object of his vow. As in other questions, here in qq. 110 and 111 Robert simply poses the question, points up the difficulties in answering it, and establishes the field of (possible and/or actual) responses without himself providing a definitive answer.

344 237

238 239

240 241 242

243 244 245 246

247

248 249

250 251 252

R obert of M elun – Questions on the Divine Page Gregory III, Letter 4 to Boniface (726); Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XX q. 1 c. 2 (ed. Friedberg, cols. 843‒44). As my subsequent notes make clear, Robert appears to have taken all of the authoritative sentences found in this question verbatim from Gratian’s Decretum, P. II ca. XX q. 1. Council of Toledo IV (633); Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XX q. 1 c. 3 (ed. Friedberg, col. 844). This quotation is not found in Isidore, but rather comes from ch. 59 of Smaragdus’s exposition of the Rule of St Benedict. Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XX q. 1 c. 4 (ed. Friedberg, col. 844). Council of Tribur (895). Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio, ed. Mansi, t. 18 A, col. 164, ch. 16; Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XX q. 1 c. 6 (ed. Friedberg, col. 844). Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XX q. 1 c. 1 (ed. Friedberg, col. 844). Synod convoked in 826 under Eugenius II. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio, ed. Mansi, t. 14, col. 1008, ch. 32; Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XX q. 1 c. 9 (Friedberg, col. 845). Leo, Letter 90 to bishop Rusticus, chs. 13‒14; Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XX q. 1 c. 8 (ed. Friedberg, col. 845). Gratian, Decretum, P. II ca. XX q. 1 c. 8 (ed. Friedberg, col. 845). Matt. 4:1‒11; Luke 4:1‒13. Matt. 4:5. Robert poses this question in an effort to clarify the devil’s assum[p]tio of Jesus in light of and in comparison to the divine Word’s own assumptio of a human nature in the Incarnation. Ecclesiastical and theological tradition uses this same word in describing what happened in the Incarnation, but when the devil took Jesus up to the holy city, was this “taking up” the same as, similar to, or utterly different from the Word’s “taking up” of a human nature? Robert’s question here, then, ultimately concerns the nature of Jesus’ own agency, will, and powers during His temptation by the devil: did the devil somehow “assume” Jesus—body and soul—such that he had full control over Him, or did he simply lead Him up in such a way that Jesus retained control of His will and other powers of operation? Robert’s Latin here, which I have rendered “for himself,” is sibi. He does not mean by this reflexive pronoun that the devil took on or took up the body of Jesus as his own, but rather simply that the devil picked it up, as it were, by his own power such that he could lead Jesus where he wished. Robert’s answer here, and in the following question, not only makes clear that the devil’s power to lead Jesus here and there is permitted and limited by God’s will (cf.  Satan’s role in Job’s trials in Job 1:9‒12 and 2:4‒6), but also intimates that Jesus himself necessarily retained some degree of freedom of will during His temptation. This comports with Jerome’s reading of Matt. 4:5, according to which he affirms: “This taking up (assumptio) that is spoken of [here] comes not from the Lord’s weakness, but rather from the pride of the enemy, who understands that the will of the Savior is necessary” (Jerome, Commentarii in Evangelium Matthei, 1, on 4:5 [PL 26.31D]). See also Augustine, De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum, 2.3.1 (CCL 44.81‒83; tr. Ramsey, WSA I/12:225‒26), which very well may be Robert’s immediate source for this question. In the Vulgate both Matt. 4:5 and Luke 4:9 indicate that the devil statuit, stood or placed, Jesus on the pinnacle of the Jerusalem temple. According to Lewis and Short, cancelli (-orum) means a lattice, enclosure, barrier, grating, grate, balustrade, bars, or railings. It is related, of course, to the verb cancello, meaning to make like a lattice and, by extension, to strike or cross out a writing lattice-wise (i.e., with an “X”), whence we get the English verb “cancel.” Also related, a cancellarius is a porter or door-keeper, one who is at the barrier and, as Robert goes on to explain here, makes official announcements for the king. The English “chancellor,” one meaning of which is the secretary to a king, derives from this word. Matt. 10:27. See Deut. 24:1 and Matt. 5:31. See, e.g., Deut. 24:1‒4.

N otes 253 254

255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263



345

Matt. 5:31‒32. See Judg. 16:23‒28, the account of Samson’s killing himself along with thousands of Philistines when he pushed down the pillars of the house in which they were all gathered. Although the scriptural narrative does not indicate that God commanded Samson to kill himself, of course, it appears to have been God’s will that Samson carry out this act of revenge against the lords of the Philistines, of which his own death was a necessary consequence. Robert’s point here, then, is that Moses no more permitted a mortal sin by allowing divorce than God commanded Samson to commit suicide. See John Chrysostom, Homilia 17 in Matthaeum (PG 56.696); and the Glossa ordinaria on Matt. 5:31 (PL 114.95). Matt. 19:8. This question surely arises from Matt. 5:43‒45 and/or Luke 6:27, 35. Ps. 7:9 (Vulg. 7:10). See Augustine, En. Ps., on Ps. 42:5, sect. 8 (CCL  38.480‒81; PL  36.482; tr.  Boulding, WSA III/16:263‒64); Civ. Dei XIX.27 (CCL 48.697‒98; PL 41.657‒58; tr. Bettenson, 892‒93). Rom. 10:10. Ps. 1:1. Ps. 2:1. Matt. 6:7.

RICHARD OF ST VICTOR ON EMMANUEL INTRODUCTION AND TRANSLATION BY FRANS VAN LIERE

INTRODUCTION Andrew’s Isaiah Commentary

Sometime in the second half of the 1150s, Andrew completed his commentary on the Prophet Isaiah.1 Conforming to Andrew’s working method on the prophets, this commentary interlaced excerpts of Jerome’s commentary on this same book with his own readings according to the literal sense.2 One of the chief sources for his own exegesis was his knowledge of the Jewish commentary tradition, as it was presumably communicated to him by the rabbis he consulted.3 It was in this context that Andrew presented the Jewish exegesis of Isaiah 7:14, “Behold, a virgin is with child, and will bear a son, as his name shall be Emmanuel,” which, Isaiah said, would be a sign of the liberation of Jerusalem from the two kings who were besieging it, Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel. Of course, in the Christian tradition, starting with Matthew 1:23, this verse has been interpreted as foretelling the birth of Christ, who was born of the Virgin Mary. We are not quite sure of the exact Jewish source for the exegesis of Isaiah 7:14 that Andrew presented, but interpretation of this verse had been a standard source of disagreement between Christians and Jews for a long time.4 1 2

3 4

For a discussion on the date of Andrew’s Isaiah commentary in relation to his Twelve Prophets Commentary, see my introduction to Andrew of St Victor, XII Prophetas, CCCM 53G.xii. Cf. Andrew’s description of his working method in his preface to his commentary on Isaiah in Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 378‒79. See also below, “litteralem sensus explanationem,” p. 350 and PL 196.604A. Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 156‒72; Rainer Berndt, André de Saint-Victor († 1175), exégète et théologien, BV 2 (Paris and Turnhout: Brepols, 1992), 261‒63. Of course Jerome already refers to the discussion in his commentary on Isaiah (Jerome, In Esaiam, III.7.14, CCL 73.102‒5 [PL 21.107C‒109A]); see also, from a Jewish angle, a reference in the tenth-century Kitab-al-Usul by Abū al-Walīd Marwān Ibn Janāh (in the Hebrew translation by Judah Ibn Tibbon, Sefer ha-Shorashim, ed. Wilhelm Bacher [Berlin: Bi-defus T. H. Ịttskov.sk.i, 1896], 372). I wish to thank Uri Melammed for this reference. Rashi, often cited by Andrew, also interprets the “young woman” as the wife of the prophet; however, for him the “sign” was the fact that the wife of the prophet would herself prophesy, by calling the child “Emmanuel.” The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary, tr. A. J. Rosenberg (New York: Judaica Press, [n.d.]), ad. loc., Http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/ jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm.

350

R ichard of S t   V ictor – On E mmanuel

So Andrew took the opportunity to present here some of the questions that Jewish exegetes of his own time had raised about it. How could the birth of Christ 600 years later, the Jews asked, serve as a sign to King Ahaz (the person addressed in this passage) that he would be freed from the hands of his enemies? A sign, the Jews pointed out, usually comes before, not after, the signified thing; if this prophecy were indeed referring to the birth of Christ, the sign of liberation would come 600 years after the actual liberation of Jerusalem from these two kings. According to the Jews, Isaiah’s sign referred instead to the young wife of the prophet who would conceive a son. “Alma,” translated here as virgin, simply means “young woman,” not technically virgin, the Hebrew word for which is “betula.” The prophesy meant in its “simple” literal sense that by the time this son was about three years old (which is what the prophet meant when he said, in verse 15, “by the time he has learned to reject what is bad and choose what is good”), the siege of Jerusalem would be over, the Jews said. Andrew makes it clear that he does not agree with this interpretation; however, he also does not engage in a refutation of the Jewish argument. Other had done this before him, he says: These are the projectiles that the Jews throw at us, calling us the falsifiers and violent distorters of sacred scripture. It is not necessary to answer them here, since others have done that before us. But whether that response was sufficient, may they who have answered them see for themselves.5

“Ipsi viderint” (may they see to it) is a phrase by which Andrew usually expresses a lingering doubt, if not skepticism. In any case, Andrew doubted that he himself would be able to win this “unpredictable battle” (anceps certamen), although he did not doubt that Jerome would have answered the Jews to satisfaction. “We have been meted out lesser powers, and we leave the more difficult work to the stronger ones.” he says. For his part, Andrew just continued his literal explanation, as he had started it. Richard’s De Emmanuele

Andrew’s reluctance to answer to the Jewish objections called forth a violent invective from Richard of St Victor in his De Emmanuele. How 5

See below, p. 360.

I ntroduction



351

could Andrew present the opinions of the Jews without any refutation? Not only did this seem to give the crown of victory in this debate to the Jews, but, according to Richard, it was pastorally dangerous not to offer any response to the Jewish arguments. One should not dig a well without covering it with a lid, reducing the risk that others might fall into it and drown, Richard said, citing Exodus 21:33‒34. Richard’s purpose in writing was: first, to “argue the blindness of the Jews”; second, to “break the deafness of the Judaizers” (that is, those Christians who follow the Jewish exegetes in their error); and finally, to “satisfy the devotion of the faithful and those who humbly enquire.”6 For Richard, the primary meaning of Isaiah’s words is the foretelling of the birth Christ, “Emmanuel,” that is, God-with-us. The authors of the Old Testament, inspired by the Holy Spirit, had foreseen this birth long in advance and expressed it in this prophesy. However, the prophets often spoke in a way that deliberately concealed their message, so as to confuse the devil and blind the Jews. For, Richard says, citing Paul, “if they had known it, they would have never crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8) and allowed God’s crucial act of salvation to happen. If the Jews do not accept this as prophecy, Richard says, we should try to convince them of the Christian truth, rather than use them as guides for the primary sense of Scripture. De Emmanuele consists of two parts. The first book begins by quoting Andrew’s and Jerome’s commentaries on Isaiah 7:14, and is followed by Richard’s treatise on the refutation of the Jewish exegesis and an exegesis of the same verse as referring to the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The second book consists of a dialogue between one Hugh, a student of Andrew, and Richard on the same topic. Richard begins Book One with a refutation of the Jewish arguments. First he counters the argument that the prophecy is really about the wife of the prophet, who will give birth to a son. Richard points out that the birth of this child would not have immediately relieved the fear of King Ahaz. Also, a sign is usually an exceptional and miraculous occurrence, but there is nothing exceptional or miraculous about childbirth by a young woman. The Jews countered this argument by saying that the young woman would have conceived at her very first intercourse. The word “alma,” they say, means “concealed one,” because her virginity had been assiduously guarded by her parents before she was given in marriage to the prophet. As proof of this miracle, two witnesses were 6

See below, p. 365.

352

R ichard of S t   V ictor – On E mmanuel

adduced, mentioned in Isaiah 8:2‒3. Richard counters how ridiculous and even scandalous it is to search for signs of virginity in a young woman, let alone to have two witnesses present at the conception of a child. In the second part of the prophecy it is said of this child that he will eat butter and honey, and that before he knows how to say the names of his father and mother the land would be freed from the two kings whom Ahaz feared. The Jews usually take this as a metonym for the coming of age of the boy. However, Richard points out that in this case, the sign of the liberation would come after the liberation itself, which was precisely the objection that the Jews had raised against the Christian interpretation. “The head of Goliath is now cut off with his own sword,” Richard gloatingly exults.7 After putting the Jewish interpretation to rest, Richard continues with his own exegesis of the verses in Isaiah. King Ahaz knew very well that the sign he was about to be given was not about the liberation of his own country from the two kings of Israel and Damascus, but about the defeat of the princes of darkness. This is the reason, Richard says, that he did not want to ask Isaiah for a sign (v. 12), since he was an idolater himself. Thus the sign was given not to him, but to the house of David (v. 13). The sign that is announced by the prophecy is threefold: one given in the mother (“a virgin will conceive,” which is the sign of incorruptibility), and two in the son (“she will call him Emmanuel,” which is the sign of dignity, and “He will eat curds and honey,” which is the sign of plenitude). The first entailed the virgin birth: the fact that his mother was, and remained, a virgin signifies the purification of the flesh through the virgin birth. The second sign is given in the name of the child: Emmanuel means “God with us,” which means that God himself restored dignity to mankind by uniting human and divine nature. The third sign is given in the eating of butter (curds) and honey. This, Richard says, signifies Jesus’ experience of the human condition: the sting of death (signified by the honey, which is made by bees who sting) and the uncleanliness of human life (signified by the curds, which attract unclean flies). Jesus took on the fullness of our human nature in order to defeat the “princes of darkness,” signified by the two kings Rezin and Pekah. With that he restored mankind to the plenitude of heavenly happiness, which it had lost through the fall of Adam. Just as this fall came about through eating the fruit in paradise 7

See below, p. 369.

I ntroduction



353

(Gen. 3:5), its effects are abolished though Emmanuel’s act of eating curds and honey. In the second book, Richard reiterates these arguments and expands the allegorical interpretation of the sign of Emmanuel in a dialogue with Hugh, a student of Master Andrew. In his own words, the first book of De Emmanuele “offended someone among the students of Master Andrew, whom I found still to be involved in that error.”8 Why did Richard not address Andrew directly? While some scholars, such as Pierluigi Cacciapuoti, date De Emmanuele to the late 1150s,9 when Andrew was still at Saint Victor, it is more likely, as Smalley assumed, that it was written after Andrew departed for his second stint as abbot in Wigmore, sometime between 1161 and 1163,10 out of the reach of Richard’s biting words. The first sentence of De Emmanuele, “I happened upon a certain treatise of Master Andrew that he wrote and published to explain the book of Isaiah,” also suggests that Richard knew of Andrew’s opinion only in writing, and that Andrew was not around to explain it to him in person. “Even today there are some of his disciples who contend that the above-mentioned prophecy was said not about the blessed Mary, but about the wife of the prophet,”11 Richard says, again suggesting that Andrew himself was no longer on the scene. Andrew’s Isaiah commentary shows that contacts with Jewish sources could lead Christian exegetes to question some of the most fundamental tenets of their faith. The difference between Richard and Andrew is not in their conviction of whether one should consult the Jews or not. Both believed in the truth of Jerome’s dictum: “If I seem to you to err in my translation in any way, go and ask the Hebrews; consult the rabbis in various cities.”12 But Richard was keenly aware of the spiritual danger that was lurking behind Jerome’s advice. Engagement with a different religion can lead one to question one’s own religious convictions. It remains an open question whether Andrew’s faith was seriously challenged by the “projectiles that the Jews throw at us,” and whether they succeeded in weakening “the most firm wall of [his] faith

8 9

10 11 12

See below, p. 397. Pierluigi Cacciapuoti, “Deus Existentia Amoris”: teologia della carità e teologia della trinità negli scritti di Riccardo di San Vittore († 1173), Bibliotheca Victorina 9 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), 72. Smalley, Study of the Bible, 172. See below, p. 357. Jerome, Prol. in Pent. (Weber 1:4).

354

R ichard of S t   V ictor – On E mmanuel

with the battering ram of their sophistry.”13 Judging by his own words, it seems more likely that he was willing to suspend religious judgment in favor of methodological doubt, without this affecting the core of his Christian beliefs. Anti-Jewish polemic in Andrew’s work is rare, but it does occur.14 There is no doubt, however, that occasionally Christians did convert to Judaism, convinced by the strength of their arguments. A prominent case was that of Bodo, a Carolingian court cleric who converted to Judaism sometime in the ninth century. Another one, in the twelfth century, was Johannes/Obadiah, who became convinced that the Jews had preserved a more authentic interpretation of the Old Testament and converted in 1102.15 More often, however, such conversions took place for more mundane reasons, especially where the living proximity of Jews and Christians was likely to lead to occasional amorous relations. The conversion of Jews to Christianity was more prominent; the most famous case was that of Herman Judaeus, a Jew from Cologne who converted and entered the Premonstratensian order sometime in the late twelfth century.16 It is probably fair to say that the danger of Judaizing and conversion to Judaism loomed larger in the imagination of Christians than it was in reality. It is unknown what effect Richard’s invective had on Andrew. Writing in the early seventeenth century, the English historiographer John Pits described the conflict between the two as follows: [Andrew’s] nemesis was Richard of St Victor, that is, a monk of the same monastery and institute, a Scot, who wrote a certain fairly biting work against that same Andrew. Andrew, loving peace more than strife, answered with patience and silence, and did not suffer his placid 13 14

15

16

See below, p. 360. Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, 263‒68. Berndt neglects to note, however, that much of this anti-Jewish polemic in Andrew’s work are in fact citations from either Jerome or the Glossa ordinaria. See also Frans van Liere, “Christ or Antichrist?: the Jewish Messiah in twelfthcentury Christian eschatology,” in From knowledge to beatitude: St. Victor, twelfth-century scholars, and beyond: essays in honor of Grover A. Zinn, Jr., ed. Lesley Smith and E. Ann Matter (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013), 342‒57. Alexander Schreiber and Israel Adler, “Obadiah, the Norman Proselyte,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed., vol. 15 (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), 366‒67. Online at Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://go.galegroup.com/ ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX2587514998&v=2.1&u=imcpl1111&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=00 32dd1193534f665baf5239dfbde911. Consulted 25 Apr. 2014. Karl F. Morrison, Conversion and Text. The Cases of Augustine of Hippo, Herman-Judah, and Constantine Tsatsos (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1992), 39‒113.

I ntroduction



355

mind to be distracted from the tranquility of his theological meditations, and to be shifted to quarrels and useless word fights. By yielding, he cared little if he walked away as victor or vanquished.17

Andrew had departed Saint Victor to become abbot (for a second period) of Wigmore in 1161 or 1162, and he died there in 1175, two years after Richard’s own death. The Edition and the Present Translation

The present translation is the first translation of Richard’s De Emmanuele into English. It is based on the only modern edition, contained in Migne’s Patrologia Latina. The text has been emended by comparing it with the manuscript of this text in the Heidelberg University Library, Cod. Sal. IX.32 (thirteenth century, from the Cistercian Abbey of St Mary in Salem, hereafter H), the only manuscript available to me electronically. Chris Evans was kind enough to confirm these readings with the manuscript available to him, which was ms Paris, BnF, lat. 17469 (hereafter P).18 The part of Richard’s treatise that cites Andrew’s commentary at length has been emended by comparing it to a manuscript of Andrew’s Isaiah commentary, ms Stuttgart HB IV.6 (hereafter S).19

17 18 19

John Pits, Relationum Historicarum de Rebus Anglicis (Paris: Rolin Thierry  & Sebastian Cramoisy, 1619; reprint Farnborough: Gregg International, 1969), 214. Goy, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Werke Richards von Sankt Viktor, 169 an 171. I wish to thank Christopher Evans for his thorough reading of my translation and his many corrections and suggestions for improving the text, which proved to be invaluable.

ON EMMANUEL Prologue

I happened upon a certain treatise of Master Andrew that he wrote and published to explain the book of Isaiah. In it I found several points that were not very prudently expressed, nor discussed in a very orthodox way (catholice). For in many places of that writing, he expressed the opinion of Jews as if it were not so much their own as his own, and as if it were true. In this particular place, See, a virgin shall conceive,1 he posits the objections and questions of Jews and does not solve them. By leaving them as being insoluble, it seems as if he has granted the Jews the victory palm. By such positions, the more experienced are scandalized and the less experienced are brought into disrepute, to such an extent that even today there are some of his disciples who contend that that above-mentioned prophecy was said not about the blessed Mary, but about the wife of the prophet. Thus to take away the error of those who are already deceived or who still can be deceived, I undertook to write something and counter the posited objections. Thus, it is appropriate first to set forth these objections at the beginning of this work, insofar as they are found in Master Andrew’s commentary. Second, I add, by way of testimony, certain words of St Jerome, insofar as he wrote them to explain this same passage. And, finally, it pleases to add from my own work as much as I think is sufficient to refute these objections. I. The Objections of Master Andrew That The Jews Commonly Raise about Our Emmanuel

See a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.2 When we explain this very clear prophecy about the conception and birth of our Savior and the integrity and virginity of his mother, ever virgin, as it is right, the Jews, the enemies of truth, rise up against us and try to weaken the very firm wall of our faith with the battering ram of their sophistry. First they say that in

358

R ichard of St   V ictor

the Hebrew, it does not have betula, which means “virgin,” but alma, which sometimes means “young woman,” and sometimes “concealed one”. And when we object and ask how this could be the sign of a future liberation, that a young female, or a concealed and hidden one, should conceive and give birth, when we see this happen quite frequently, they answer3 that this was the sign, that she who had not yet conceived would conceive the first time a man had intercourse with her and she would bear a son, who would be called by the people, or by his mother, “Emmanuel,” as if the prophet would say: “O house of David, if in a short while you see this young woman, who has not yet conceived, conceive and bear a son, you will know that the Lord has given you a sign of the future liberation from the above-mentioned kings.” But, they say, “you who explain this about the conception by the Virgin, the mother of your Jesus, and the birth, explain how an event that happened after six hundred years or more can be a sign for the house of David and Ahaz that they would be liberated from the hand of Rezin, then king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah? How could what they had never seen and would never see be a sign for them? You step over a precipice, but we walk over a level path, by which the entire content of the chapter is consistent; you deny the entire context of the text and cling to one verse.” To make this more clear, we will run through the entire chapter from beginning to end. The Lord ordered through the prophet that Ahaz seek a sign, by which he can be sure that it is not necessary that he be afraid of these two smoking wood stumps. When he did not want to ask for a sign, the prophet in turn addressed the people, and told them that the Lord himself would give them a sign, and he immediately adds what that sign would be, saying: See, a virgin shall conceive, and so on. He also adds the food of that same boy who was conceived and born of the virgin and the reason why he uses such food. After that, he interjects concerning the coming of the Assyrians in the land of Judah, and what they have to do in it at the end after the listing of those things that follow the devastation. The Lord commands the prophet to write in a large book clearly and legibly that the boy who will be born from a young woman, or a concealed one, will have these two names: Take away the spoils with speed; quickly take the prey.4 And so that there is no suspicion of underlying fraud or deceit, or so that what is said about the virgin, or rather young woman, about to give birth could not be applied to a different one but the prophetess, that is, the wife of Isaiah and the son born from her, he summons two credible witnesses, and

On E mmanuel



359

on the testimony of these witnesses he is approaching the prophetess to do his marital duty, and she conceives and gives birth to him whom, as is added,5 he gives a name according to the prescription of the Lord, and he adds6 the reason why he should be named that way. See, they say,7 all things are following rationally, all things that are promised happened. It is promised that a young woman who has not yet conceived will bear a son as a sign. Two trustworthy witnesses are brought in, who by sight and hearing could discern that the prophetess, with whom Isaiah has intercourse, is a young woman, and who know for sure that, once the time comes of her giving birth, she has conceived as a result of that intercourse with her husband. If you are uncertain about the young woman, the trustworthy witnesses will swear to it (fidem facient). It is predicted that she will conceive, and she conceives; and that she will bear a son, and she bears a boy. He eats the food that he was predicted to eat. See, the sign is given that the Lord promised he would give. Has8 not the thing signified followed the sign? In the days of the childhood of the virgin’s or young woman’s son, both kings for whose face Judah was trembling are dead: one killed by the Assyrians, and the other slaughtered by Hoshea, the son of Elah. See, the sign came first and the thing signified (res) followed. Judah is liberated from fear, and the sign was given for the sake of removing it. But that virgin birth of yours was not the sign by which the fear could be lifted, and neither could it be. For the thing for which the sign was given did not follow, but the sign you posit precedes it by five-hundred or more years. Explain, if you can, how the prophet Isaiah can have intercourse with the prophetess in the presence of known and named witnesses, and how from that intercourse she conceived and bore a son, whom the Lord for that reason commanded to be called Take away the spoils with speed; quickly take the prey, for in the days of his infancy the strength of Damascus, where Rezin ruled, was9 taken away by the kings of the Assyrians, and the spoils of Samaria, where Pekah the son of Remaliah was wielding the scepter. Sacred Scripture says very clearly that the Lord, who cannot lie, says that before the boy whom the prophetess bore to Isaiah knows to call his father and mother, Damascus and Samaria will be destroyed by the Assyrians. If you say that this virgin is the mother of this boy, you should also consequently say that Isaiah is his father. If immediately after the birth of Isaiah’s son by the prophetess and after the two kings had died, Judah was liberated from the fear that they inflicted on it, it is very clearly evident that the conception

360

R ichard of St   V ictor

and giving birth by that child’s mother was the sign of that aforesaid liberation. These are the projectiles that the Jews throw at us, calling us the falsifiers and violent distorters of sacred Scripture. It is not necessary to answer them here, since others have done that before us. But whether that response was sufficient, may they who have answered them see for themselves. Nor is it expedient to answer them, for if we perhaps go into this unpredictable battle with unequal force and succumb, the victors will not just attack us but also them, even though the former could be easily overpowered by their quickness of sharp wit, if only they had met with them. With our powers exhausted, leaving the more difficult task to those who are stronger than us, we continue with the literal explanation that we have started. He will give:10 by his own free will, not because of the merit of you perverse unbelievers. A sign: It will happen that the Lord will give you some kind of sign, and when you see it, it will signify to you that you will be freed from the fear of those two kings. See, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. The one conceived by and born of a young or concealed woman, when you see him, will signify to you that you shall be liberated from the aforesaid fear, and you, the house of Judah or she who has conceived, will call him Emmanuel. Thus the child shall be called by such a name, either by the house of Judah or by his mother, because they understand that the child will be for them a grace (propitium) and a helper of the Lord, when they see that the child that he promises to give them as a sign is born. Or because on the day of his birth, the Lord already started to bless them. He will eat butter and honey .11 If we make this ‘ut’ a causal conjunction, the knowledge to reject evil and choose the good is the reason he will eat butter and honey. Can this food confer such knowledge? Do not the foolish also eat butter and honey? If we make ‘ut’ a consecutive clause and say, “He will eat butter and honey, and he will reject evil and choose the good,” how can we explain what follows, for before the child knows to … etc., unless we take ‘for’ here, as in many other places, to be a copulative conjunction, and read it as follows: “He will eat butter and honey, and he will know to reject evil and choose the good, and before he knows to reject evil and choose the good, the land that you now curse will be relieved from the face of its two kings”? There are those who read it as follows: “He will eat butter and honey as someone who knows to reject

On E mmanuel



361

evil and choose the good, and even before he has such knowledge the land will be relieved,” etc. This they believe to be part of the sign that when he was a child, when one normally does not reject those things that are offered to oneself, he will reject evil things as unclean12 and will only eat clean foods, which are to be understood by synecdoche in the butter and honey. In what is said, he will eat butter and honey, the Hebrews say that there lies a promise of future fertility. Where we have that he may know to reject evil, they have, as they assert, “to the knowledge to abhor as evil and choose as good.” Which is to say: the son of the prophetess will eat butter and honey when he comes to the knowledge by which he can abhor evil and choose the good. Thus when he comes to the years of discretion, there will be such an abundance in the land that was ravaged by the enemies that it will flow with milk (which we understand by butter) and honey. He adds: Because before he knows etc. The child can very well eat butter and honey at that time, for while he is still a child Syria and the land of the ten tribes will be relieved from the two kings that you, Judah, fear. The Words of St Jerome13

When it is said, the Lord will give you a sign, it must be something new and miraculous. If a young woman, or a girl (as the Jews want it) who is not a virgin gives birth, how can one call that a sign since this is a word designating age rather than virginity (integritatis)? And indeed, if we want to stand toe to toe with the Jews, we should never give them the opportunity to laugh about our ignorance, for their despicable purpose. ‘Virgin’ in Hebrew is called betula, which is not written in this place. But for this word is placed alma, which, besides the Septuagint [which has parthenos],14 all others translate as “young woman.” Now alma in their language is an ambiguous word, for it means both young woman and concealed one, that is, apokryphos. Hence also in Psalm 9, where in Hebrew it says alma, all other translators render this as “the young woman,”15 which the Septuagint translates as “the concealed ones.” And in Genesis we read that where Rebecca is called alma, Aquila translates this not as ‘young woman,’ nor ‘girl,’ but ‘concealed one.’ The Shunamite woman also, after she lost her son and threw herself to Elisha’s feet, while Gehazi wanted to prevent her, heard from the prophet: Send her away for she is in grief, and the Lord has concealed

362

R ichard of St   V ictor

it from me.16 In Hebrew, we find written there eelim memmenni. Thus alma does not just mean girl, but also virgin, but said with epitasei (“emphasis”) it means a concealed or secret woman who never has appeared to the view of men and is guarded by the great diligence of parents. In the Phoenician language, which is said to flow from the founts of the Hebrews, a virgin is properly called alma, and, to provide some laughter to the Jews, in our language alma is also called “holy.” The Hebrews use words of almost all languages, such as the passage in the Song of Song about phoreion, that is, the litter that Solomon made for himself, which we likewise also read in Hebrew. The word “trifles” and “measure” the Hebrews call in the same way by the same word, and as much as I search my memory, I do not recall anywhere the word alma being used in the sense of woman who is married, but for a woman who is a virgin, and not only a virgin, but a virgin of a young age and in the years of her youth. It could be that virgin is betula,17 but this virgin was in her youthful years, certainly a virgin and not a girl; one that could not yet know a man, but yet was of nubile age. Hence in Deuteronomy, the nouns “girl” and “young woman” are understood to mean “virgin.” It says: If a man finds in the field a girl that is betrothed, and he sleeps with her with force, you shall only kill the man who had intercourse with her, and do nothing to the girl. It is not a sin to death for a young woman, for just like someone rises up against his neighbor, and kills his soul, it is a matter like this.18

BOOK ONE 1. The opinion of the Jews refuted and that of the Christians confirmed

See, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel, and he shall eat butter and honey, that he may know to reject evil and choose the good.19 Oh, how appropriately are they who can see so long in advance called ‘seers.’ For he who today is called ‘prophet’ once was called ‘seer.’20 For, if our chronographers make no mistakes, these things have been foreseen and predicted six hundred years, and even more, before they happened. Consider thus how long in advance he who predicted these things foresaw them. I think you will be amazed about the perspicuity of foresight, but be no less amazed at the depth of insight in the words of the prophet. The strength of foresight is no doubt amazing, but no less amazing is his manner of speaking. See, in the same words of the prophet whereby the Christian is enlightened, the Jew is blinded and the devil made a fool. “See, where the lamb walks, the elephant swims.”21 But he does not escape by swimming. See, where Christian simplicity finds a clear road, runs it, and does not offend, Jewish perfidy is drowned and the devil suffocated. The Christian is illuminated so much that he would rather die than deny the truth; the Jew is blinded so much that he would rather die than confess the truth; and the devil is fooled so much that he presumes that he can make him a sinner who clearly is the redeemer of all. He says: All these things I will give you if you throw yourself down and adore me.22 He provokes him to adore him, to whom every knee shall bow, in heaven, on earth and in the depths.23 See how foolish the princes of Zoan have been made.24 But still, it was necessary that the mysteries of our redemption were obscured by the ambiguity of words, so that it would not be understood by evil spirits or people and be obstructed. For if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.25 I am not so quick with words, or smart, that I think I can either explain the depth of the utterance of the prophet with words or comprehend in thought. It is enough for me in this place, if

364

R ichard of St   V ictor

I may be allowed, to satisfy the devotion of the faithful in the exegesis of the simple letter and to show how one ought to refer this prophecy of Isaiah to the incarnation of the Word: See, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel. Even though you would never know it from the aforesaid meaning (sententiam) of the surrounding context, you must believe that this prophecy was predicted about Christ and has been fulfilled in Christ. He who cannot understand the voice of him who prophesies should instead listen to the sense of him who explains it. He who does not grasp the meaning (sensus) of the prophesying prophet should instead believe the interpretation (sententia) of the evangelist who explains it. Listen to the one who relates it: See a virgin shall conceive. Pay attention to him who explains it: All this happened so that what was said by the prophet should be fulfilled: See a virgin shall conceive and shall bear a son, and his name will be called Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with us.26 What else? Do not fear, Joseph, to take Mary as your wife, for what is born from her comes from the Holy Spirit.27 See, the evangelist says that this prophecy is fulfilled in the blessed Mary. Who would dare to contradict that? There it is foretold that a virgin shall conceive, here she is said to have conceived by the Holy Spirit; thus she conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by a man. The Holy Spirit knows not to corrupt the Virgin, but to sanctify her. The Holy Spirit knows not to diminish the purity of the Virgin, but to augment it; he knows not to pollute, but to glorify. He who does not have his heart illuminated to understand the sense of the prophet prophesying, let him at least bring his ears, not heavy, and listen to the evangelist explaining it, so that he may not incur the words of Isaiah: Blind the heart of this people, and make their ear heavy.28 He who does not yet understand what he reads may at least believe with his heart, so that he may so deserve to gain understanding: If you have not believed it, you will not understand.29 It is such a firm foundation of our faith that both the prophets and the evangelists announce the same thing so harmoniously. What the prophet announces in advance, See a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel, is what the evangelist announced with other words: The word became flesh and dwelt among us.30 He said: He dwelt among us. He dwelt indeed, to be our Emmanuel, and be God with us. What the prophet expresses with one word when he calls him Emmanuel, that is what the angel more amply explained to Mary, when he announced to her on behalf of God: The Holy that is born from you shall be called Son of God.31

On E mmanuel



365

2. The arguments that the Jews, or the Judaizers,

usually raise against us, against what we hold about our Emmanuel But the Jews reject and softly murmur against this assertion of ours; but then, our own Judaizers loudly join their acclaim. They offer many objections by which they think they can refute our assertion. From here and there they bring in their arguments by which they strive to construct their own argument. Hence first we must disclose the blindness of the Jews. Second, we must break the deafness of the Judaizers. Third, if we are permitted, we must satisfy the devotion of the faithful and those who humbly enquire. Let us now see what kind and how many things must be weighed that our detractors bring in against us. They say that what we hold about this childbearing woman, or that child of ours, can never be a sign for that thing for which it is said, Ask for a sign from the Lord your God.32 Isaiah tells us that Rezin, the king of Syria, and Pekah, the son of Remaliah, are preparing to make war on the city of Jerusalem, and, after they depose King Ahaz, replace him with another king. For fear of this danger, the heart of the people was moved, as the trees in the wood move in the face of the wind.33 To take away that fear, Isaiah is sent by the Lord to meet King Ahaz, and say: Make sure to be silent, and your heart should not fear these two logs of smoking firewood,34 because without a doubt he was going to be freed from the face of these two kings. Thus as proof of future liberation a sign is presented here according to the wish of him who asks for it. He says, Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord your God, in the depth of hell, or in the height above.35 When he does not want to ask for a sign, he is nevertheless promised a sign, when it is said: For this reason, the Lord will give you a sign. See, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, etc.36 They say: “if what is promised for a sign is rightly understood to be about your Christ, show us how his conception or birth, which was to happen so long after that time, could be a sign for that thing that was to happen in the near future. For a sign needs to precede the thing itself, and the thing itself comes after the sign. However, if it is said to be the sign for the other thing, the question nevertheless stands. The sign was proposed and to be given to relieve their immediate fear. But how could it relieve the immediate fear if its fulfillment was so far off in the future? How could this kind of sign profit them if they never saw or never would see its fulfilment (res)? “See what objections they bring in to refute the truth of our assertion. But let us also see in what ways they try to whitewash their own asserted opinion.

366

R ichard of St   V ictor

3. In what manner the Jews think that all that is said about the Emmanuel needs to be understood about the son of the prophetess

They say: “One may counter the centerpiece of your argument, and you will see that all the things that are said apply to the son of the prophetess. Betula in Hebrew is the same as what in our language is ‘virgin’. But in this place, it does not say betula in the Hebrew, but alma, which is interpreted ‘young woman,’ or ‘concealed one.’ Hence consider that all these things that are foretold apply to the son of a young woman and seem fulfilled in the son of the prophetess. It is foretold that a young woman will conceive and bear a son, and in the following passage it is read that the prophetess conceived and bore a male son. About the child of the young woman it is foretold that before he knows to reject evil and choose what is good, the land that you abhor shall be forsaken of the face of its two kings.37 About the son of the prophetess a promise is repeated in very similar words, when it is said that before the child knows to call its father and his mother, the strength of Damascus will be taken away, and the spoil of Samaria, before the king of the Assyrians.”38 “See,” as they say, “the entire content of the chapter agrees with us. You advance over steep cliffs, but we by a level road. For, by rejecting the entire context of the letter, you hang on to one little verse.” But when they ask how it could be a sign of the future liberation that a woman of young age, or a concealed or secret one, conceives and bears a son, when we see this same thing happen so often, they respond, saying: “This is the sign that she who had never yet conceived would conceive the first time when her man got together with her, and she would bear a son, who is called by that people, or by his mother, Emmanuel. Two faithful witnesses were invited, so that from their testimony it may appear clearly that she conceived the first time her man got together with her, as they afterwards with certainty could deduce, when the time of childbearing had come.”39 4. How altogether impudent the assertion of the Jews seems to be on this point

But I say: “Surely, I ask, even if they saw that the prophet got together with the prophetess, how could they, I say, similarly see that she had conceived? Does not nature sometimes allow the moment that the birth

On E mmanuel



367

is due to come later or earlier, in such a way that not even one who is experienced could calculate the exact time of conception—whether the hour and or even the moment of it, not to mention the day—from the hour of birth?” But maybe they will counter that the diligence of the witnesses was such in this matter that no repetition of the intercourse could be concealed from them, and they could infer from the signs of her virginity that this sexual act that they witnessed was her first time with a man, and that is why they are so sure who say that she conceived the first time that she had intercourse with a man. I am amazed at the impudence of this statement. See, when it comes to their argument, they want the young mother to be a virgin; but when it comes to ours, they deny that she is a virgin. But let the Jews see, and let our Judaizers see if their opinion is true. It is evidently clear that much of it is full of disgrace. It is very repugnant and very shameful to stand close to someone who is having intercourse and to look for the signs of virginity with curious eyes. The way they see it, the prophet and prophetess have intercourse in the presence of reputable persons, something that even pimps and public prostitutes would hardly ever do. O, how much more reputable, how much more proper it would be if they said that these witnesses are brought in not for what comes after, but for what comes before! For this is what comes before: Take a large book, and write in it with a man’s pen: Take away the spoils with speed; quickly take the prey.40 But why, I ask, a large book when this could be contained on a small leaf, unless that often a brief matter is commonly more amply explained, and one and same matter can be repeated in a manifold manner and in many different ways? Or should he perhaps take a large book, even though it is a brief word, because it is so hard to be intelligibly uttered, according to this: Of whom we have much to say, and hard to be intelligibly uttered.41 And indeed because it is so deep for its mystery, it is called as large as it is deep. But it will be clearer and more self-evident if we say, as it usually happens, that it was ordered to be written in a large book for this reason, that it should be held in memory and transmitted to the notice of posterity. For large books are not that easily discarded or transported from one place to another. What is written first in this book is later given to the child of the prophetess as a name, and the reason for both the writing and the name is added when it says: Call his name, Take away the spoils with speed; quickly take the prey, for before the child knows to call his father and his mother, the strength of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away, before the king of the Assyrians. See, the prophet foretold what will come, committed it to writing, and

368

R ichard of St   V ictor

called in witnesses, so that, after these things finally were completed, they were proven to have been foretold by two sources, the book and the witness. And thus those prophecies, which the prophet foretold would happen in the distant future and could not be proven, would be proven true from those things that he foretold would happen in the near future and could be proven. As was said, does it not seem more appropriate to say that these said witnesses were called in for such a testimony, rather than to be witnesses to some scandalous thing? 5. How the opinion of the Jewish assertion is refuted with arguments of its own objection

Now then, so that we may come together with the Jews and Judaizers on equal footing, just as they do not want us to add anything of our interpretation to the words of the prophet, thus on the principle of equality we compel them also to add nothing of theirs. The prophet says: See, a virgin shall conceive; or otherwise, as they want it: “See, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son.” He does not say: “See, the prophetess shall conceive,” he does not say: “See, this or that woman shall conceive,” and, finally, he does not say: “this young woman of his shall conceive the first time a man has intercourse with her.” He simply says: “See, she shall conceive and bear a son.” And he adds: And his name shall be called Emmanuel, and he shall eat etc. Could it be that back then only the sons of old women and not of young women commonly ate butter and honey? For in our time, they both do this indifferently. But that aside, who cannot see how easy it is for any young woman to give a name to her son at will? What great, what marvelous, what new and uncommon thing is it when a son is conceived by a young woman, is born of a young woman, is given a random name, and eats butter and honey? What of these things is there that needs to be taken as a sign, so that rightly it can be said about this: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign?42 He says: “It is so great and wonderful that the Lord himself will worthily give you a sign, not by way of a man, nor an angel, but the Lord, by himself.” But certainly for the wise it is evident that there is nothing in all these things beyond normal daily routine, or anything that rightly can be said to be a sign for something mediocre, let alone for something great, unless they perhaps should want to say that that child, beyond what is common and against the laws of nature, has acquired the knowledge of good and evil before his time and before the age of discernment by eating butter and

On E mmanuel

 369

honey, for which reason it is read: He shall eat butter and honey, that he may know to reject evil and choose the good. He says: “He shall eat, that he may know.” But if it is really clear that the child got ahead of the age of discretion by this kind of food, I confess that that in itself stands out as a sign of a not negligible thing. But let us see what follows. For we find immediately adjoined that before the child knows to reject evil and choose the good, the land which you abhor shall be forsaken of the face of its two kings. See and observe that the land was to be freed from the sight of these two kings before the child had acquired the knowledge to discern good and evil. Thus the liberation preceded this kind of knowledge. This precocious knowledge could thus not be a sign of the past liberation. For a sign, as they assert, needs to precede the thing itself. But the signified thing needs to succeed the sign. Therefore, just as what we say about our Emmanuel cannot be a sign for that liberation, thus neither can what they assert about their Emmanuel be a sign for it. For that said knowledge of the child, which from the reading of the prophet can only be found to be the sign, is proven to succeed the liberation. Unless I am mistaken, my brothers, you eagerly will admit that the head of Goliath is now cut off with his own sword,43 and the presumption of the Jewish statement is here refuted by its own argument. But, again, they say that this sign was given for this purpose, that it could take away the immediate fear of that time. But a thing that was to happen after so many years cannot take away a fear that was then so immediate. To this I respond that just as a thing that was to happen after so many years could not take away the fear of immediate danger, so neither could a thing that was to happen after just a few months take it away. If by the giving of that sign God wanted to take away that fear, as they say, was his hand so feeble that he could not give a sign that same day, or week, or at least the same month, which would be sufficient to take away everyone’s fear? What did it benefit them, or what could it benefit them, to wait in trembling for so long for a sign, which, when it finally would happen, would be too late and worth nothing? For sure, as we read in the book of Kings, Samaria was captured in the sixth year of Hezekiah. What will they say? Perhaps that their child remained silent for six years, because, before he knew to call his father or mother, Samaria was captured? Or is it rather the case, which they do not prove, that the prophecy about this child of the prophetess happened in the fifth year of Hezekiah, or perhaps that in that same sixth year it both happened and was fulfilled? May the Jews see then how this can be the same sign, the one that is promised to Ahaz but not shown, and the one that is proposed and fulfilled under Hezekiah.

370

R ichard of St   V ictor

And finally they say that a thing that they never have seen and never would see cannot be a sign of anything for them, and therefore it could not expel the fear from which they were suffering at that moment. To this I respond that that prophecy, whether understood about that child of theirs or ours, or about whatever other child, could not in any way have taken away that fear (which was the reason it was given, they say), unless they say that that young woman conceived and gave birth so fast that the very novelty of that miracle and the precipitousness of that unexpected thing could easily lift the despondent souls up to faithfulness, and confirm them with the certainty of hope. Very prudently, the Jews do not want to admit what they cannot prove with scriptural authority, just as they do not at all dare to confirm that the designated child would come to early discernment by the eating of butter and honey, or even has already received it, even though Scripture seems to want to say this: He shall eat butter and honey, that (ut) he may know to reject evil and choose the good. But they interpret the ‘ut’ in that sentence as consecutive, not causal, and this ‘ut,’ according to them, is used there as an ‘and’ (et),44 as if it says: “He will eat butter and honey, and he will be able to reject evil and choose the good.” But, I ask you, is this such a big deal that he will have the knowledge to reject evil and choose the good? Can it be that all they want to say is that this Emmanuel of theirs will not be dim-witted? I tell you again: that a young woman conceives and bears a son; that the son of a young woman eats butter and honey, and is not dim-witted; what is so great or marvelous about this? What is here that needs to be believed as the sign for a great matter? Indeed nothing. Otherwise, regard me as a prophet in what I say.45 See, I predict. See, I promise that in the future a young woman will conceive and bear a son who will eat butter and honey and who knows how to reject evil and choose the good. Believe in this sign. Believe, I say, what I tell you: your opinion about your Emmanuel is false, and our opinion about our Emmanuel is true. When you are ready to believe the sign that I promise, I will see to it that all shadow of doubt is dispelled,46 and this so that this promised child may not lack the name Emmanuel. 6. How the things that they raise against us about the virgin are sufficiently refuted by the response of Jerome

But what will the response be to what they raise against us about the virgin? For ‘alma,’ as they say, which they read in this place, does

On E mmanuel



371

not seem to mean ‘virgin.’ But in this certainly the response of Jerome should be sufficient for them. For ‘alma’ does not simply mean virgin, but with qualification and with an emphasis: such a virgin as [the prophet] gives us to understand; such a virgin, I say, who was a young woman who was concealed and guarded so carefully by her parents that there was no doubt that she was an untouched virgin. Certainly, whoever calls Aaron ‘pontifex’ calls him ‘priest,’ but not simply a priest, but high priest and priest of priests. So in this place we also should understand that the word ‘alma’ does not simply mean virgin, but it means virgin with emphasis. And furthermore Jerome says: “In as far as I recall, I have never read that ‘alma’ meant married woman.”47 Freely, brothers, we should accept that the name ‘alma’ does not simply mean virgin, but a concealed virgin. See, brothers, what the Jew in his opposition has accomplished, and see how despite this opposition he has given us to understand that the Holy Spirit pointed to a virgin, and not just any virgin, but a concealed one, completely concealed from the looks of men, and so well-guarded by the care of her own that it was doubtlessly clear that she truly was an untouched virgin. The word of the Gospel intended to point to such a virgin when it says: Joseph, being a just man, not willing to expose her, wanted to send her away privately.48 If it had said that he was a pious man, we could think that it proceeded from piety that he did not want to expose her because he thought she was an adulteress. But it says, being a just man. Thus it proceeded not so much from piety as from equity that he wanted to spare her. Indeed, he would not be just if he would spare her whom he thought to be an adulteress, against the judgment of equity and the precept of the law. See what a high opinion he had about her integrity and what he assumed about her sanctity, who did not believe that she was an adulteress, even while he knew she was pregnant and not impregnated by his seed. O, how rightly does the Holy Spirit call her alma, whose future reputation would be so firm and so saintly! But if the Jews think that our Jerome has erred in this matter, who says that he never read that an alma was married off as a (mature) woman, they would have to prove him wrong by adducing testimony from Scripture. And even if they could do that, they would still not in this way be able to refute our opinion. For, according to the testimony of that same Jerome, in the Phoenician language, which is derived from the Hebrew, the word alma properly means virgin. See, even this the Jews must concede, that the word alma is a cognate in these different languages. What shall the Jews say if we say that the Holy Spirit, by placing here

372

R ichard of St   V ictor

this cognate, wanted to hide the sacrament of his counsel under the ambiguity of a word, so that the Jew might be blinded by it, according to this: Blind the heart of this people, and make its ears heavy?49 What will the contentious Christians say if we say that the height of the divine mystery lies concealed under the ambiguity of words, so that the devil might be made a fool, according to this: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory?50 But certainly this alone forces the Jews to receive the ambiguity of a word51 in the same way that we accepted it, because in any other way the sign that the prophet posited will be null and void. 7. How the Christians who differ in truth with our opinion on the subject of the words of Isaiah are to be refuted

So far we have spoken against the Jews. Let us now also say something briefly against contentious Christians. Should they perhaps say that the prophet of God did not possess the spirit of God, and did not speak by the Holy Spirit? Far be it from them to say or believe this! But what are they going to say about the evangelist of the Lord? Indeed, the same as about the prophet of the Lord, for without doubt each has the same Spirit of truth, and each has spoken in the same Spirit. If then the same Spirit was in both, he could not say contradictory things against himself. If he wanted to understand someone else besides the virgin Mary when he spoke through the prophet, See a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, why then does the evangelist later explain that same prophecy when he says, All this was done to fulfill what was said through the prophet, See a virgin shall conceive and bear a son?52 As we said above, he who cannot understand the person who states the prophecy should listen to the one who explains it. Who does not have eyes so he can see, let him have ears that he can hear.53 Are you perhaps so blind that you are also deaf? If you cannot understand it, can you not at least believe it? But if you believe it, why do you impugn your faith with vane quibbles? What good is it to adduce arguments for unbelief against your faith, and give no testimony of faith for your own faith? What good is it to bring up a question that you are not willing to solve or cannot solve? Is this not like opening a well and leaving it without a lid? What else is it to show the darkness of ambiguity and depth of perplexity by arguing, but to dig a well or open a cistern? And not to render an answer to a proposed question, but to leave it as though un-

On E mmanuel



373

solvable, what is this but to leave this cistern open and without a lid? If an ox or donkey falls into it, according to the precept of the Law the owner of the cistern needs to pay the price of the animal.54 What does it mean that an ox or donkey falls into such a cistern, but that certain simple men fall headlong into the lake of doubt and incur the risk of unbelief? And if by our knowledge a soul dies for whom Christ has died, what kind of price, I ask, will we give as a fee to pay for it? Is it not better to pass over in silence things that we cannot or do not want to explain than to cover up55 the truth, and to scatter snares of unbelief? 8. How the things that are said about our Emmanuel do not seem to contradict, but affirm the context of the text

Now it remains to meet the zeal of those who enquire piously, and satisfy their desire inasmuch as we can. First we must demonstrate how the opinion of our quibblers rather than ours seems not to support but contradict56 the context of the text, and after that we must diligently investigate by what circumstances the sign itself is pointed out. Finally, we must discuss the sign itself, and I think this should suffice. But first we must confess and cannot deny that the more sacred mysteries of our faith are revealed only obscurely in the sayings of the prophets. For dark waters are in the clouds of the air.57 There were certain things that needed to be known, and similarly certain things that reason required not to be known for the time being for the reason we already indicated above, so that the work of salvation would not be impeded by evil spirits or people. For, as was already said, if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. What, however, among Christ’s mysteries needed to be concealed for the time being was obscured partly by the veil of figures and partly by the ambiguity and obscurity of the letter itself. And of those things that are obscured by the perplexity of the surrounding text, some of them are such that they never can be understood to announce Christ unless the Holy Spirit explains it. Such is the case with this: Out of Egypt I have called my son.58 But some of them are such that, when inspected superficially, they seem to announce something other than Christ, but, when they are more diligently discussed and more fully understood, it is found that they can never mean anything but that. Such is the place in Scripture that we have at hand here. For where it is said: See, a virgin shall conceive, certain things are said before, and some afterwards, by

374

R ichard of St   V ictor

which the truth of this sentence is obscured, but not taken away. To obscure the truth, a sign is proposed of the king’s choice. But after he did not want to request it, a sign was nevertheless promised. And to one who does not pay enough attention it seems that this is dealing with the same sign. But to the one with a fuller understanding it will appear clear that what is said about Emmanuel is not a sign of that thing, nor should it be a sign of that thing, I say, for which is said: Ask thee a sign of the Lord your God.59 Above it was shown that reason clearly teaches that this cannot be a sign of that thing. But reason also clearly proves that it should not be a sign of the same thing. For the fact that the king does not want to ask for a sign does not come forth from piety, but impiety. For the cunning and idolatrous king understood how it would condemn idolatry, how it would confound all idolaters, and how much the glory of the Lord would grow if he sought and accepted a sign from the Lord. Thus out of great malice he did not want to seek a sign, but with no small cunning he disguised the matter of his impiety by the simulation of false religion. He said: I will not ask a sign, and I will not tempt the Lord.60 Thus such a king was henceforth unworthy to accept a sign to take away the fear, because he would rather labor longer under the fear of the danger of the moment than do that by which the glory of the Lord would increase. It seems a certain obscuring of the truth that, after a child is promised, later a child is introduced as having been born, so that one might think it could be understood about the same one. But as always, next to that which is posited for the sake of obscuring the truth, something else is added by which the truth is exposed. Thus some things are found to be similar, some dissimilar, and some that are contrary. See, about Emmanuel it is said that before the child knows how to reject evil and choose the good, the land shall be forsaken from the face of its two kings. This is similar to what is read about the son of the prophetess, because before the child knows to call his father and mother, the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be carried away before the king of Assyria. The fact that his name shall be called Emmanuel is different from what is said about the other: Call his name: Take away the spoils with speed; quickly take the prey. He does not say: “call his name Emmanuel.” If they contend that the latter also had this name, they should prove what they say by adducing testimony from Scripture. There we read that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. This is completely contrary to what we find here, where we read that a young girl conceived by the intercourse with a man, not, I say, a virgin but a young girl or a concealed one. How could it be that she

On E mmanuel



375

already had young sons, namely he who was left by Isaiah,61 and he who according to the Jews left his father and fled to the enemy,62 unless they can prove from Scripture that these were born from another wife and that after she died he took this one; or that while the first was still alive he committed adultery with the other one? See, by what impudence of lying they want all the things that they frivolously make up to be true. See how the entire content of the text is found not to argue against us, as they think, but against them. 9. On the things that seem to pertain to the commendation of the sign, by whom, why, and by what means it is given

But before the sign itself is discussed, let us first consider under what circumstances it is commended. Let us therefore see to whom and why it is given, who the giver of the sign is, or what kind of sign it is that he gives. Certainly a sign is promised to the house of David when it is said: Listen therefore, house of David.63 Was it not David who received this promise from the Lord: Of the fruit of your womb I will set upon your throne.64 Indeed, how great a glory was it for the house of David that from the ancestry of David the Messiah, mediator between God and men, was to be born? Even more, this same thing accomplished either exceptional glory or disgrace of them; glory for those who were to accept it, and disgrace for those who would not accept it. The house of David was given a sign, not because it would understand it at the time, but because what was to be a future sign of a certain great mystery would bestow on them a certain special favor. Now that we have heard to whom this sign was given, let us now hear also why it was given: Is it a small thing for you to be grievous to men, that you are grievous to my God also? Because of that, the Lord himself shall give you a sign.65 Because of what? Because they were grievous. In what were they grievous? In that they who were from the house of David were idolaters and were envious of his glory, and for that reason they did not want to seek such a sign as would bring his glory about. Thus a sign will be given especially for what they did not want to happen at all. It will be given to the greatest glory of God, and it will be given to them to greatly confound them. No doubt it will be given for the destruction of idolatry, to confound all idola-

376

R ichard of St   V ictor

ters. But some are confounded to punishment, others to penitence. Because you have grieved him, because you have detracted from his glory, God himself will give you a sign; a sign, I say, in which there is indeed admiration for divine power, a commendation of his wisdom, a show and proof of his mercy, an increase and consummation of his glory. And truly the glory of God will be more greatly increased by this sign than by the fact that he created heaven and earth out of nothing. See to whom it is given, and see for what reason it is given. Let us now consider also by whom it is given: He says, The Lord himself shall give. It was not enough for him to say “the Lord,” but he had to add “the Lord himself.” What does “the Lord himself ” mean, unless “the Lord by himself ”? The Lord will give a sign, not by a human being, not by an angel, but by himself. I say: the Lord will give it by him to whom the Lord says: Sit at my right hand. He says: The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand.66 The Lord himself will give it, not by a creature who is subject to him, but by his own presence: the Lord himself, in his own substance, in his own person. The Lord himself will give it to you. Why, I ask, does he say collectively “to you” when it does not profit anyone except the good? But rightly it is said “to you” collectively since the sign that is given in him is useful for all and can profit all alike. There, we have the “who,” the “why,” and the “for whom” he will give the sign. But a sign that will bring so much about, which is commended by so many circumstances, by whose commendation the aforesaid67 pales in comparison, needs to be a foreshadowing of a more worthy liberation than the one of which it clearly cannot be and indeed is not a sign. Is it perhaps a sign of liberation from the hands of the king of Babylon? Listen to what is said in the following verses: The Lord will bring upon you, and upon your people, and upon the house of your father, days as they have not come since the days that Ephraim separated from Judah with the King of the Assyrians.68 Thus he says that they will not be liberated from, but oppressed by the hands of the king of Babylon, so that it may not by chance seem to be a sign for that thing, but rather the prophet seems to announce such threats as the revenge for inflicted grief, to punish injury against God. In that day the Lord shall shave with a razor that is hired by them that are beyond the river, by the king of the Assyrians, the head and the hairs of the feet, and the whole beard.69 Of which thing, then, is what is said about our Emmanuel a sign?

On E mmanuel



377

10. How from the quality of the sign one can assess that it seems to be given in order to lift the first transgression

But as we begin to discuss the quality of the sign itself, perhaps it may happen that what we seek can be assessed only from its quality. Thus it seems a good idea to examine this sign itself and pursue more diligently the consideration of this thing: Behold, he says, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel, and he shall eat butter and honey, that he may know to reject evil and choose the good. Behold, all that is said about our Emmanuel is said to refer to original sin as if in an oblique way and correspond to it as if by opposites. There the serpent says about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: On the day that you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.70 Here we find something that is similar but opposite, where71 what is promised here truly is promised falsely there. The eating here caused merit, which there caused guilt; what there was a transgression here was a virtue. Our Emmanuel obtained the knowledge of good and evil by eating; but Adam could not obtain the knowledge that was promised to him by eating. There it is read that man was thrown out of paradise, rejected from the cohabitation and company of the Lord, but here it says that our child is called Emmanuel, which is interpreted “God with us.” It should be noted that it is not said that we will be with God, but, on the contrary, that he will be with us, so that we may understand that man has not returned to God, but that God followed man, as it were, forthwith into his exile, as it is written: The Orient from on high has visited.72 What mankind lost in the first man, namely to be with God, he is seen to regain in the new man. There it is said to the woman: In sorrow you shall bear children;73 here it is said about our young woman: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. Why would she give birth with sorrow, unless she had conceived with lust? Lust certainly is the cause of sorrow, and sorrow the effect of lust. Thus by the effect the cause is suggested in what is said, In sorrow you shall bear children. But by contrast and conversely, here we can deduce the removal of that effect from the removal of the cause. For she who conceives in virginity conceives without lust, and by consequence she is understood to have given birth without sorrow. There conception without guilt and birth without pain do not exist; here because the conception is without lust, the birth was also without stress. What human nature lost in that first young woman (namely to conceive

378

R ichard of St   V ictor

and give birth without corruption) it is seen to receive in this our young woman, as the first-fruit of its restoration. See how here man is set up against man, woman against woman; and how they seem to correspond, sometimes by opposites, and sometimes by contrast and with a certain similar dissimilitude. There a woman is born only of man; here a man is born only of woman. There from the stronger sex 74 from the weaker sex, a strong one is brought forth, who will restore both. Do you not see how such a dissimilitude of similitude and similitude of dissimilitude admonishes us that there is the beginning of something new in those things, just as there is the beginning of something old in these? In the first man there is as it were the beginning of old age in the condemnation of his posterity. But in the second man there is the beginning of newness in the restoration of his kind. This first Adam is the first head and origin of all who perish, but he is like another Adam, the head and beginning of all who are raised up in him. For him we have as a head, and we are all members of him in so far as we are raised up in him. Behold, the quality of this sign shows that it was given in order to take away the first transgression. Behold, what was said about Emmanuel is given as a remedy, but how is it given as a sign, unless it be that what happens first to the head is a sign for what will happen to the body? How would what happens first to the head have another effect to the body and be the sign for something else? Could it be that one part acts out now, while another part points forward to what is to come? For now it attends to those things that are for justification, and it foretells for posterity those things that are for glorification. 11. How from the first transgression followed a threefold loss, and according to the threefold loss a threefold promise, and according to the threefold promise a threefold sign

But because those things that are said about our Emmanuel, as is said, seem to correspond as if by contrast to the transgression of the first man, let us see what these things are that he lost by the same original guilt, and then perhaps we will see in what way the sign of which we speak is promised and fulfilled as the foundation for and as a sure token of hope of the same. He certainly lost though the guilt of his transgression the glory of imperishability, the prerogative of

On E mmanuel



379

dignity, and the abundance of fullness—the glory of imperishability because he was made immortal, the prerogative of dignity because he was made in God’s likeness, and the abundance of fullness because he was placed in a place of plenty. Hear about the stripping of mortality, where you read about the forbidden tree: On what day whatsoever you shall eat of this, you shall certainly die.75 The degradation of honor and the stripping of dignity occurred when he fell from the sublimity of God’s likeness to the similitude of beasts, as he says: And man when he was in honor did not understand; he is compared to senseless beasts, and is become like to them.76 And the abundance of fullness was taken away when he was thrown out of the place of plenty and met with this sentence of cursing: Cursed is the earth in your work; with labor and toil shall you eat thereof all the days of your life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth for you; and you shall eat the herbs of the earth. In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread.77 Behold, there is a triple curse, in the stripping of imperishability, dignity, and beatitude. But the merciful and forgiving Lord, according to the richness of his goodness, did not want to shut up his mercies in anger,78 but he was found to be as faithful to help as the devil was prone to destroy, for with God there is mercy and plentiful redemption.79 But redemption would not be plentiful unless our repairman would restore fallen man to his fullness. According to the threefold loss, then, from the generosity of the compassionate he receives a threefold promise: the promise to regain immortality, the promise to regain dignity, and the promise to regain beatitude: Your dead shall live, and my slain shall rise again.80 Behold, the promise of hope of immortality. I will give to them in my house and within my walls, a place, a name better than sons and daughters.81 Behold the promise to restore dignity. The eye has not seen, God, besides you, what things you have prepared for those who love you.82 Behold the promise to restore beatitude. Behold, as is said, a threefold promise according to a threefold curse. And behold now also according to the threefold promise, receive and pay attention to the threefold sign in the following: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. Behold, the first sign. And his name shall be called Emmanuel. Behold, the second. He shall eat butter and honey, that he may know to reject evil and choose the good. Behold, the third. You have one sign in the mother, and two in the offspring. The sign of incorruptibility in the mother, and the sign of regaining dignity and plenitude in the offspring.

380

R ichard of St   V ictor

12. On the sign for regaining incorruptibility

Listen to this about the mother: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. How great do you think this is? How great, how wonderful, how unusual, how stultifying, and a sign of what kind and how great a thing? The world has never heard of a virgin having conceived, a virgin bearing a son, and remaining intact after birth. Human nature in the blessed Virgin Mary has accepted, as pledges or first fruits of its future incorruptibility, the integrity of virginal incorruptibility. Why, I ask, can one not live in this life without corruption, unless for the reason that human nature cannot be sowed without corruption? For the root of our corruptibility starts to sprout from the hour of our conception. But, behold, in the blessed Mary the reason for this growth is cut off.83 And we know that when the root is cut off the entire fruit that comes from it dries up. Behold, he says, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. In the fact that he says a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, he clearly shows that both were about to be clean: flesh begetting and flesh begotten. Thus only the son of that young woman could on this part sing a new song to the Lord: “I am conceived without wickedness, and without sins my mother conceived me.”84 It is clear that he came to destroy sin, who by his coming into the world did not contract the stain of sin from his mother’s flesh but destroyed it. If just his conception was enough to destroy the kindling of lust and the root of all corruption, how powerful then, I ask, was his birth, humility, circumcision, way of life, patience, obedience, passion, and crucifixion for the expiation of his body? If what happened in one hour, or rather a portion of one hour, was so powerful, how powerful then were so many years devoted to the mystery of our redemption? He who could cleanse the innards of his mother by the infusion of grace at the time of his conception, why should we not believe that he can cleanse those who want to be part of that same grace, whenever and however he wishes? Why should we not believe that he can cleanse in each of us that nature, which in the blessed Virgin he could not only cleanse but also honor and glorify? For in this he glorified her in that he gave her something above nature. In her he did something that was against nature, something that was according to nature, and something that was above nature. Against the nature of our weakness was that a virgin conceived. According to nature was that he was conceived and formed in her womb, and was born at the appropriate time of birth. Above the nature not only of our infirmity, but even above the nature of the first condition, was that a

On E mmanuel



381

virgin conceived without a male seed. It was of purity that85 she was able to conceive without lust; of honor, that she was able to generate offspring clean from any stain of sin; of glory, that she conceived not by a man, but by the Holy Spirit. Certainly, if our Emmanuel would have wanted to be born from both sexes, and reason would have required this, he could have cleansed both to generate pure offspring. But if he had assumed flesh from both, he would have distanced himself certainly more from the likeness of his peculiarity (proprietas) and be less similar to our peculiarity. For it would have been dissimilar to his own peculiarity if he had a father and mother in his humanity, he who only had a father in his divinity. And in this he would be less similar to us, if he had two fathers,86 which we cannot have. But reason also required this, that just as there was one origin of the birth of our kind, thus there should also one origin of the redemption of our kind. Thus it was necessary for the redeemer of our kind either to be born of only a man, or only a woman. If he had assumed the female gender from a man, he would have confused the order of nature by preferring the female sex over the male, and he would have been called a son according to divinity and a daughter according to humanity. But if he had assumed the male sex from a man, then man would have had a double part of honor on that account and woman none. And certainly, if he had wanted to be formed of a man, he would have drawn his matter from the substance of our flesh, but in his incarnation nature would play no role at all and in this respect he would be more remote from the peculiarity of our nature. O how much honor or dignity for women, as well as for those born of women, did he bring in this, that the Creator of all and the Savior of all who were born wanted to be born of a woman. He needed to be born of a woman, for he needed to become in all things similar, as much as possible, to his brothers, as much as reason allowed it. But the reason above showed that he did not need to assume a woman’s nature from a woman, for that would confound the order of nature, as was said, and the double solace to women that it would have given would have provided no equivalent unique privilege to the male gender. It should be noted that God in his foresight ordained that both sexes would follow each other according to the proper order of their two states. There from the stronger sex the weaker is brought forth when Eve was formed from Adam. Thus state follows state, and once the better is brought forth, then the weaker is introduced. The earlier state was before the sin, when man could stand with manliness and

382

R ichard of St   V ictor

act with strength. The second was after the sin, when he was forced to live as woman and be subservient in many ways to carnal inducement. But here, by contrast, the stronger sex is brought forth from the weaker, when, as it were, from the new Eve, who truly is the mother of all who truly live, a second Adam was born. Thus here after one state rises another one, and after the worse state succeeds a better one. The first state is before the resurrection, in which man must often fall, often rise again, and stagger about like a woman. The second state is after the resurrection, when man can stand stable in the integrity of his perfection. And just as we believe about the lower sex in the virgin, that87 there was a time she could sin, and there was a time that she was not afraid of sinning, thus also in the former state whoever was elect feared to fall before death, but after death he did not at all fear to fall into sin. And just as the stronger sex could not sin at all in Christ, thus in the second state man does not fear to sin in eternity. And about the mother and her offspring, one should note that in the mother the flesh was purified, while in the offspring it was not purified but pure; in her it was cleansed, in him pure. Thus in the first state our nature is purified, but in the second it is found entirely pure. In the former it is sanctified, but in the latter it is glorified. The former is of purification and sanctification; the latter of purity and glorification. Thus in the mother we have a sign of our purification and sanctification; in the offspring we have a sign of our future purity and glorification. But a sign of both states we can observe only in the virgin mother. The sign of our purification is when she still has something that needs to be cleansed, and a sign of our purity is when, after the overshadowing by the Holy Spirit, the kindling of sin is extinguished and she is steadfast in purity. 13. The sign of regaining dignity

Behold, we have one sign in the mother. We also have another sign in what is said about her offspring: And his name shall be called Emmanuel. Certainly according to what the evangelist says, this prophecy is fulfilled in Christ. Hence he is called Emmanuel. But, I ask, by name or in essence (substantialiter)? But who calls him Emmanuel by name, rather than Jesus, as the angel taught? Thus he is not called Emmanuel by name, but in essence. Now, Emmanuel is interpreted “God with us.” If this is said essentially and if this is said truly, then it must be truly

On E mmanuel



383

and essentially so. Thus this child is essentially God, and is essentially with us. But if he is essentially with us, then he consequently must be both God and man. But what will the Jews say in this place, or what can they say? Can they perhaps prove from the testimony of some scripture that their child is called Emmanuel by name, or that he is called Emmanuel in essence by the declaration of some sect? Or what else will be the reason for this name, that for the sake of this child God should be said to be with them? How can he be with them? By the presence of his majesty or by the participation in grace? What great thing is it to be with men just as he is also with demons? In his being (essentialiter) he is everywhere, and nothing can escape his presence. Or was he not previously present with the holy fathers according to participation in grace, and only started to be that during the presence of that child of theirs? Who would say this, or presume to say this, unless he were mad? But certainly, unless I am mistaken, not even they would dare to say this, that either he by himself or others for his sake received a grace more abundant than others who came before him. Then what shall be said? For what reason can God be believed to be truly and essentially with us through the presence of this child, as is said, unless, as all Christians confess, by the conjoining of his and our nature in the unity of one and the same person? Rightly he is thus called “Emmanuel,” rightly “God with us,” who in unity with our nature has proven to be true God. Also hear the evangelist, how he concurs in the same sentence: Therefore the holy which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God.88 Behold how he is God. But how is he also God with us, unless how another evangelist explains it when he says, The Word was made flesh89 and dwelt among us.90 If the Word was made flesh, and if truly the Son of God was incarnated, you will notice, I think, how truly God is with us, unless you think that the Word of God and the Son of God are something other than God. But hear what he teaches: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.91 Behold indeed, a great and a miraculous sign, which can be a true sign for a great and admirable thing. It is a great sign and a marvelous mystery that the Son of God became Son of Man, and that the Lord of glory became a partaker in our infirmity. Who would doubt, indeed, who would not rightly presume that man by God can be and must become a partaker of divinity, if God for the sake of mankind became a partaker of our humanity? Did Christ for nothing empty himself, taking the form of a servant, and was found as man in appearance?92 Now if God became the Son of man by his birth because of mankind, then why for a far greater

384

R ichard of St   V ictor

reason could man through God not become a son of God by adoption? Behold how that dignity of divine humiliation was given as a sign of our future exaltation. But we should also not skip over the fact that our Emmanuel has become God with us, not only by taking on our nature, but also by living with us on our earthly pilgrimage. But why, I ask, has God followed man into his exile, unless to call him back into his kingdom? We have thus a very certain sign of homecoming, the familiar dwelling with us of divine cohabitation during our earthly pilgrimage. Behold how many eras preceded Christ, and after death they descended into the confines of hell. Behold, exile after exile, captivity after captivity. Who is, he says, the man who shall live and not see death; who shall deliver his soul from the grip of hell?93 To take away then the fear of such captivity, to remove the dread of future damnation, Emmanuel is given to us for a sign, showing us, as is said, the familiar dwelling with us. Behold, after the passion and resurrection of Christ, no one of those who are predestined to life is believed to descend into hell. Behold to what freedom we may aspire; behold to take away what fear that sign of which we speak is given. O, how more satisfyingly, O how more profitably is this sign given for redemption from the captivity of the devil than for the liberation from the hand of the king of Syria and the son of Remaliah. This is the mystery that the demons needed to hide; this is the mystery that is not expedient for the perfidious Jews to know. 14. The sign of regaining happiness

Behold, we have yet a sign after the sign. There is yet a third. He says, He shall eat butter and honey. If you understand what you read, and if you retain what you hear, you will more quickly understand how great and how profound a mystery this child is, and how he is a sign of such an admirable thing, this child who is truly God with us, he who is truly the only begotten of God, who eats and drinks, and subjects himself of his own will to the necessities of humanity. He, whose glory we have seen, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,94 he is said to eat butter and honey. Behold, that enormous power was one with angelic powers, and, by eating and drinking, with men and beasts. If, then, the Lord of angels came to share with beasts for the sake of men, why, conversely, does man through him not come to share with the angels? He says, He shall eat butter and honey. Why does he not rather say bread and meat? For he could say this in truth. Did he perhaps

On E mmanuel



385

want to hint at something with this peculiar expression?95 What else are honey and butter but delights for insects? And certainly, the first of the unclean, and the latter of the venomous. For bees carry a sting and possess poison. And see how they labor and even fight for honey, even to the extent that they risk their lives for it. Now, butter, as you know, is curdled milk, and we certainly know how flies often get into the milk because they like it so much and even lose their lives this way. Thus our Emmanuel eats butter and honey, and for our sake even stoops down to share with the insects. Was it not enough for God to share with beasts for the sake of men, unless he also for their sake shared with insects? Let the Jews hear, let the Christians hear, let all hear this. Behold, one of the persons in the Trinity has come to share with insects for the sake of men. Who then should henceforth despair whether man can share in eternal delights, if the Lord of majesty, as was said, stooped down to the delights of insects for the sake of man? Behold, how much he who subjected himself voluntarily to such indignity emptied himself for our sake. But this emptying of our Savior is given as a sign of and a certain argument for our future fullness. Behold, according to the threefold promise you have a threefold sign: one in the mother, two in the offspring. Here you have the integrity of the mother, and there the humiliation and emptying of the offspring. You can also see now how that threefold sign corresponds directly to the threefold promise. To this Jew it is promised: O death, I will be your death, and your destruction, o hell.96 To the Christian it is promised; The corruptible must be clothed with incorruption, and this mortal flesh with immortality.97 Either one accepts as a sign the integrity of virginal incorruption, as a promise and a kind of token of this reward. To the Jew it is promised: Instead of what is said, You are not my people, it shall be said to them: You are sons of the living God.98 To the Christian it is promised: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.99 Either one accepts as a sign of this promise the humiliation of their redeemer and his taking on of weakness. To the Jew it is said: They shall become drunk from the abundance of your house, and you will give them drink from the torrent of your pleasure.100 To the Christian it is said: I will dispose to you as the father has disposed to me, so that you may eat and drink at the table in the kingdom of my father.101 And either one accepts as a sign of this reward the emptying of his highest majesty. Behold, how this threefold promise is confirmed in this threefold sign, so that incorruption is a sign of incorruption, humiliation of exaltation, and emptying of future fullness.

386

R ichard of St   V ictor

15. To what humble knowledge God descends for the sake of man, who took on the experience of both our good and bad things

To what is said, he will eat butter and honey, it is immediately added: That he may know to reject evil and choose the good. Should we then believe that he obtains some kind of knowledge by eating? Indeed, not I, but the prophet says this. We should not pervert the prophetic sense, but investigate it; and if we can we must explain it, and what we cannot penetrate we must at least venerate. But a contentious Christian asks me: “If Christ, the Word of God, was the Wisdom of God, how could he obtain in time some knowledge that he did not possess before?” This Christian asks this, but I ask this Christian how Christ learned obedience by the things that he suffered.102 If the Apostle says this, who should contradict it? He may ask me how Christ learned obedience by the things that he suffered, and I will tell him how in some way he obtained some kind of knowledge that he had not possessed so far in the same way. The Jew asks me: “you say that this Emmanuel of yours was God. But since it is written that All wisdom is from God and always has been with him,103 how could he obtain some wisdom in time?” But this Jew should first tell me how the forbidden tree was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,104 and then maybe we will together find what he asks. Certainly the tree of life had that name because by its inner nature it had to save the life of those eating from it. But about the tree of knowledge, we should not believe anything like that. Otherwise, man would grow, not diminish, in wisdom by eating from it. Hence it offers not the effect, but the opportunity of the matter. For knew indeed good before the forbidden food both through understanding and experience, but he did not know evil by experience. But by the eating of the tree, he came to the knowledge of evil that comes by experience. Similarly there were some needs and lower goods to the use of which he descended by sinning, while previously he was blissfully ignorant of experiencing these. Thus, too, Christ, after he emptied himself and took on the form of a slave, became obedient to God the Father and learned through experience what he did not previously know from experience; in this way he learned by the act of eating what the difference is between the evil of hunger and the good of eating. By eating butter and honey he started to learn in the same way what it meant to be created in the likeness of God and become like the insects. By experiencing he learned what unworthy things that noble creature of God commonly had to suffer, and in that way he

On E mmanuel



387

learned how he must suffer with him, and indeed105 have mercy on him. Therefore, as the Apostle says, it behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become merciful.106 By eating, therefore, he could know in some way what he previously did not know in the same way. Certainly after his resurrection our Emmanuel is said to have eaten honey, for they offered him part of a broiled fish and a honeycomb.107 What he ate before his passion and resurrection was for his nourishment; what he ate after his resurrection was for the benefit of others (ad dispensationem). Then what he ate before his resurrection counted towards the rejection of evil; for he did not only know evil by its nature, but he knew it more fully and better by comparison and relation to the good. The eating that he did for food then was for the rejection of evil, or even for the affirmation of the good. But it does not say here, “so that he knows to reject evil and affirm good,” but “choose the good.” To choose is strictly speaking to separate the best from the good. Thus the eating after his resurrection was in order to choose the good, by which he confirmed what was the best. There, by experience, he confirmed the difference between the state in which his infirmity compelled him to eat for the sustenance of the flesh, and the state in which love allowed him to eat just for the benefit of others (ad solam dispensationem). But because evil is better known, as is said, by comparing it with good, and by the same token the good by comparing it to the best, this eating of the resurrected was not only to reject evil, but also to confirm and choose the good. Christ thus came to the fullness of knowledge that is through experience when he ate with his disciples after his glorious resurrection. Certainly, as is said above, Adam is known to have fallen into that experience of evil or want of good by eating; behold, we know that the second Adam by eating has stooped down to this same experience. 16. That he acquired the fullness of our nature by that humble fullness of supreme knowledge that he took on

Behold, to what an humble knowledge God descended for the sake of mankind, who took on the experience of our good and bad things, and who by that experience of our nature acquired not only the nature that the first man lost, but also that nature that he could have acquired by not eating, indeed by abstaining from, the forbidden fruit. Certainly, before the guilt of transgression, mankind knew by experience what

388

R ichard of St   V ictor

it meant to be present in the joys of paradise. But he did not yet know by experience what it meant to be among the joys of heaven. He knew what it meant to be in the place of delight, but he did not yet know what it meant to be in the glory of eternity. Had man not regained the former when he heard the Man-God say: Today you shall be with me in paradise?108 Did he not also merit to accept that sublime through the Man-God when the Man-God lifted his hands up to heaven, and ascending on high took captivity captive, and gave gifts to Man?109 Man received the former after the resurrection of Christ, and the latter after the ascension of Christ. Our Emmanuel, as is said, by the first humble of our nature acquired the latter sublime one. But if by eating he obtained the former, did he not also obtain the latter? Yes indeed, because he obtained the latter by means of the former. This is understood in what is said here: On the very day you shall eat thereof, you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.110 Let us understand the same in what we read here: He shall eat butter and honey, that he may know to reject evil and choose the good. Does not Scripture seem to suggest tacitly that the result of this eating here is what is falsely promised as the result of that eating there? This sublime and supreme Christ obtained in his ascension, when he entered forever into his glory. Pay attention to what is said, and how we read there: And eating with them, he commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem.111 And after some verses in between, it is added: In their sight, he was taken up.112 Behold, he ate and ascended; Adam, by eating, sank from the sublimity that he could have had to this abject and humble knowledge; our Emmanuel, by eating and ascending, left behind this humble knowledge and grasped that higher one. You say that Christ needed to suffer and rise from the dead and so to enter into his glory.113 What if we say that Christ needed to eat and ascend, and thus acquire this highest knowledge about which we have spoken? You say that the passion of Christ held so much merit that by virtue of his patience he merited to go into all fullness of glory, and to bring others in as well. What if we say that because it was such a burden to God that our Emmanuel ate butter and honey that he even communed with insects, so that out of the merit of his humility he both needed by right to enter into all fullness of knowledge and also lead others in? But that it is said that our child by eating learned to reject evil and chose good should not be taken to mean that he obtained that knowledge, which is by experience, just by the act of eating. For the Apostle also says that Christ learned obedience by the things he suffered.114 But is that only by

On E mmanuel



389

the things he suffered and not also by those things he did by himself? Indeed, certainly by the former and the latter, for in both he followed not his own will, but the will of the Father. Thus not just by eating and drinking, but also by experiencing hunger and thirst, or115 by whatever other kind of experience, he learned what he previously did not know from his own experience, and also by eating, not only butter and honey, but indeed any kind of nourishment. Thus one could say about other foods what is said here about butter and honey. But Sacred Scripture is intentionally silent about certain things that it still could say in truth. It elects to say certain things from the many things that could be said, which it recognizes to be necessary to say expressly, because of a certain mystery. For what other reason does it say that this man has been granted by eating that which the first man was promised falsely would be granted to him by eating, unless we understand that what doubtless there was counted as guilt here is counted as merit? Certainly you see now how our seducer lost by the seed of a woman the gain of his fraud, which he had acquired by means of a woman. Oh, that the Jews finally would wake up to this! Oh, that they finally would become wise and understand that this is that woman, and this her offspring, about whom the Lord has spoken to the serpent: I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and his seed.116 Why do they not understand that this seed of a woman would wage war and obtain the victory, when they hear that by eating he was successful on the same point where clearly by the persuasion of the serpent the first man was deficient? Behold how the sentence of our enemy is turned entirely into its very opposite by this. Whatever the latter fraudulently took away from man, the former has restored manifold. It can thus be easily deduced from the quality of the sign that by him we are to be freed from the captivity and oppression of the devil. 17. That many of the evil spirits are captured by the passion of our Emmanuel

But how should this be understood, which is immediately added to it: For before the child knows to refuse the evil and to choose the good, the land which you abhor shall be forsaken of the face of her two kings?117 That he says, before he knows to reject evil and choose the good, is the same as if he had said: “Before he would rise from the dead and ascend into heaven,” for, as was already said, before he was raised from the dead he had not re-

390

R ichard of St   V ictor

ceived the fullness of that knowledge that is by experience, just as he had not yet acquired the knowledge that comes with our nature. Why does he then say that before the resurrection or ascension of our Emmanuel the land must be freed from the face of these two kings, when it is clear that it was freed not only before his resurrection, but even six-hundred or more years before his nativity? But clearly what precedes his nativity by consequence also precedes his resurrection. If we say that what the prophet says is true in this way, nevertheless the Jew would contend that what is said is frivolous. But in the words of such a prophet, nothing is believed to be frivolous, just as nothing is false. But what if we say to this that the Holy Spirit under the guise of a certain absurdity in the text has purposefully veiled the depth118 of such a mystery? Even though it might seem frivolous according to what is said to be frivolous, yet there is nothing in it on account of which it merits being called frivolous. Indeed, if we want to interpret these kings here in the way we read in Daniel, there will be something in the words of the prophet that even the Jew cannot refute, nor a Christian dares to deny. And now, he says, I will return to fight against the prince of Persians. When I thus went out, there appeared the prince of the Greeks coming.119 Who cannot see that one should understand evil spirits by these kings in this place? We can thus, it seems to me, all the more interpret the kings in this place in this manner, unless one objects that “kings” here are called “princes” there. But we have to keep in mind that the same who is called prince of the Persians is called king of the Persians above. Behold, he says, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I remained there by the king of the Persians.120 Similarly also he who in the Gospel is called prince of this world121 is called king over all the children of pride elsewhere in Scripture.122 Those kinds of kings were lording over those who were engaged in idolatry either in Syria or in Samaria. I am also not saying that the king of Syria and the son of Remaliah in this place are understood mystically to be such kings, but that these words mean this according to their proper meaning and in their historical sense. He says: The land shall be forsaken of the face of those two kings. There is nothing here that seems to force you to understand it in any other way. He does not say “of the face of those two kings,” but “of the face of its two kings,” so that the narrative structure will prevent you from taking the preceding into account and understanding it as refering to those two kings. He does not say that these kings will be killed in their land or captured in their land, and he does not say that any of this will happen by the hands of the King of Assyria, as you read in the following passage, that the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be carried away before the King

On E mmanuel



391

of Assyria. He says nothing or no such thing that cannot be understood as referring to the kings of spiritual wickedness in the heavenly realm. We can discern that Scripture sometimes speaks about certain kings in such a way that what is said can be applied to both spiritual and carnal kings, so that in one and the same thing both infidelity is ridiculed and faithfulness highlighted. For the ambiguity itself of the text obscures the truth. But, on the other hand, the profundity of the mystery, the authority of the prophet, and the dignity of the sentence leads by the footpath of faith to the truth and compels us to enter. For who does not see that, because of the dignity of the mystery of those things that are said, those things that are added contain something great, and have to correspond to those things that are promised? Let us then see what Scripture declares about these kings that we talked about, and we will see how conveniently what is said corresponds to the above. Thus he says: For before the child knows to reject evil and chose what is good, the land shall be forsaken of the face of these two kings. Certainly in the book of Judges, where Jephthah speaks to Sihon the king or the Amorites, that land in which a demon is venerated as a god is called its possession. He says: Are not those things that your god Kemosh possesses due to you by right? But what the Lord our God has obtained by conquest shall be our possession.123 Why should the spirits of error not be called the kings of that land, who have ruled over it by the rule of faithlessness and depravity until the time of Christ? Of such bad and evil spirits, some are called the spirits of error,124 and others the spirits of fornication.125 Many such kings are captured by the passion of Christ and finally ousted from their tyranny, namely those who among the evil spirits were of greater intelligence and more forceful audacity than others; those indeed who could have hindered the salvation of them out of whom the early Church was to be gathered and the seeds of the faith to be sown, so that the harvest of the divine propagation could be gathered in the divine granaries, about which is read in the Gospel: Look at the fields, for they are yet white for the harvest.126 18. That the certain captivity of demons that has begun in Christ’s passion is a sign of their general damnation, just as the glorification of the risen in Christ’s ascension

Such a thing we have in the Gospel, where the Lord said: Now shall the prince of this be cast out.127 Behold, we know from where he is cast

392

R ichard of St   V ictor

out, but into where, I ask, is he cast? But into where better do we believe him to be cast than where he is assigned in the Revelation of St John? He says: And he took the ancient serpent dragon, who is the devil, and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and he cast him into the abyss, and closed it, and set a seal upon him, so that he should no more seduce the nations, until one thousand years were completed, and after that, he must be released for a little while. What he calls here the abyss he later calls the lake; he says, And the devil was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone.128 Into that abyss the demons beseech the Lord in the Gospel not to send them.129 Behold how the captivity of the demons has started as the head of all evil ones, when the prince of this world is cast out of this world at the passion of Christ and sent into the abyss. And just as130 Christ is believed not to have risen from the dead alone, for as it is written, many bodies of the saints who were sleeping rose up, and appeared to many;131 just as Christ, I say, is believed not to have risen alone, thus he is believed not to have ascended into heaven alone. For ascending to on high, he took captivity captive and gave gifts to man.132 Just as Christ, the head of all the good, did not rise alone or ascended alone, thus the devil, the head of all evil ones, is not believed to have been driven out of this world and cast into the abyss alone. They are believed to be among the number of those who are captured at the passion of Christ. About them it is said here: The land will be forsaken of the face of its two kings. How can the land in which they reigned for so long as princes be forsaken of them, unless they be dispelled from it and cast into the abyss? But this fact, because it happened at Christ’s passion, is fulfilled between his nativity and ascension, because before the child knows to reject evil and choose the good, the land is forsaken. He says that before the child knows by experience not only to reject evil and approve the good, but indeed to choose the good and to grasp the best, disregarding the lower goods, before he ascends into heaven, and by experience learns what it means and how much it is better than earthly delights to preside also with a corporal presence over heavenly joys, and be present among the angelic choirs; before that choosing of good, the land that Ahaz abhors shall be forsaken of the face of these two kings. For the one, as is said, is accomplished by the passion, and the other by the ascension. And note that it says “for”: For, he says, before the child knows, as if he said: I have said that God will give you a sign, and that this is a true sign of your future liberation. But before this is fulfilled completely, it will happen that for the devil and his angels this will be a sign of eternal captivity. Because, just as at the ascension

On E mmanuel



393

of Christ and those who ascend with him the liberation and exaltation of the captives has started, so in the ejection and casting out of the devil and those who fall with him, the captivity of the captors has started. And just as the glory that comes first in the head of all the good and part of its members is a sign of the general glorification, so the rejection of the head of the reprobates and part of its members that comes before it is a sign of the general damnation. And it should be noted that, just as in the general resurrection first the reprobation of the bad and then the glorification of the good happens, according to this: Let the wicked be removed, lest he see the glory of God,133 so around the time of the first resurrection the first-born, as it were, of the demons are captured, and afterwards the first-born of the elect are glorified. 19. By the incarnation of our Emmanuel God has become like one of us

Behold, my brothers, what the giving birth of the virgin has brought about, and what profit it bestowed, the incarnation of our Emmanuel. This alone is the child who did not take away the integrity of his mother, but even hallowed it. In this child God has become one with us; by this child the human race got back what it lost by the first parent of all. The child is rejected by him who first rejected him, and exalted by him who was first rejected. In this child man has regained his honor; he is the one who took away our shame. But what kind of shame, he explains: Man, when he was in honor, did not understand. He is compared to senseless beasts, and has become like one of them.134 However, man is made to the image and likeness of God, a great honor. But man did not understand this, and thus he disdained it. After he disdained and rejected the likeness to God, he changed himself to the likeness of beasts. Behold what a disgrace, a greatness of disgrace corresponding to the greatness of honor; hence a shame, a taunt; and rightly the taunts of those who heckle him fell on him. Rightly he thus calls out: Remove from me my shame and contempt.135 Man should weigh the faithfulness of God, if he can. Spurned by us, he could not sustain our contempt. Disdained by man, he did not put up with bearing the shame of disdain. Man rejected the likeness of God to which he was formed, but God conformed himself to that likeness to which man had transformed himself. Oh, what a reformation of honor! Oh, what a cleansing of contempt, after one is transformed to the likeness of a beast, to have

394

R ichard of St   V ictor

God still become like oneself! Behold, to wipe out our shame, God the Son of God has become for us Emmanuel, eating butter and honey, so that in the likeness of man he might know to reject evil and choose the good. The old shame should cease, and the ancient insult. Behold, I hear one of the three persons in the Trinity shout out with the voice of reproach: Behold, Adam has become as one of us.136 Certainly, you have reproached rightly, but will you still reproach us? Surely, if you say ironically that man has become like one of us, we on the other hand can say confidently and truthfully that God has become like one of us. The former is said rightfully with reproach, but we may say the latter with thanksgiving. The former is said in the voice of reproach and reproof, but now we may say the latter with the voice of exultation and praise. Behold what the offspring of our Mary, the Mother of God who was with child, has bestowed on us. Rightly is it said, and must be said: Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.137 A happy conception, and a happy birth of our Emmanuel, born from her, in whom without a doubt God has become like one of us. 20. Man has become like God, and true man has become true God

This God has become like man, knowing to reject evil and chose good, so that man might become like God, knowing good and evil. How does God know good, or how does he know evil? The evil he knows with full understanding but not through any experience, and the good with full understanding and through everlasting experience. In evil he has no access to experience; in the good he has uninterrupted experience. But in this way man will become one knowing good and evil, when he is confirmed in the good and consumed in joy forever, and just as he cannot sin, he will not fear death or suffering. For death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away,138 and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads.139 But what wonder is it that man has become like God, when indeed man has become true God? Certainly if the man Christ is God, indeed, because he truly is God, he has the same divinity as the Father and the Holy Spirit, and thus also the same power and the same wisdom. Thus in the same way the man Christ is as wise as the Father and the Holy Spirit. What is said by irony about the first Adam, the Father and the Holy Spirit can now say as a matter of fact

On E mmanuel



395

(ex sententia) about the second Adam: Behold Adam has become as one of us, knowing good and evil.140 The voice of reproach is turned into a matter of praise. Behold, let us hear it and say that man has become like one of them141 because of his divinity, and God has become like one of us because of his humanity. Behold what it bestows on us, what it profits us, this fruit of the virgin, this fertility of virginity. Rightly is it said and must be said: Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.142 21. The shame of reproach is turned into the matter of praise: see Adam has become like one of us

Behold, it has been demonstrated that what was said first about the first Adam by way of reproach can be a said now in truth about the second Adam. But what shall we say about that same first man, conformed to the glory of Christ and glorified in Christ, according to what is written: Who will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory (claritatis)?143 Will Adam, so glorified and transformed to the likeness of God, not truly be like one of them about whom he heard by way of shame: Behold, Adam has become like one of us? If Christ is one of the three persons of the Trinity, will he not be transformed to the glory of Christ as one of them? The irony ceases, and we can say it as a matter of fact (ex sententia). This is said as reproach, but now we should say it rejoicing and glorifying the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, from whom and by whom and in whom all that was done for our sake has been done. Say, unfaithful Zebulun, what good is your deceit now?144 What the mercy of Christ is bestowing on us is greater than what that fraudulent malice of yours has taken from us. Behold, man has become like God, knowing good and evil, as you fraudulently promised. Behold, man has became true God, which you could not even have imagined. Say now, oh say, unfaithful Zebulun, what is your once cruel victory worth to you now? Behold, once you were victor, but now you lie vanquished by the victory of Christ. You have deceived a woman, and by a woman you are cast out. Behold, see in a woman there was deceit, and by a woman you have now been overthrown and toppled. Behold what enmity he employed, and how the seed of the woman, the fruit of the Virgin mother, fought, overcame, and triumphed. Let us all say to her, let us all individually say: Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb.145

396

R ichard of St   V ictor

Let no one wonder, no one be offended that we have extended in such a long exposition such brief matter, and drawn out our words, multiplied words, and refuted objections and constructed arguments with such continual diligence and such diligent vigilance, and strengthened the opinion of truth all around. No one, I say, should take offense, no one should wonder when he sees the prophet in such few words lay down the foundation of our faith. Whenever saintly teachers, writers, or preachers touch on, discuss, or commend the mystery of the incarnation, this authority is always brought in as an argument. And certainly, if the building of our faith is not based on the firm ground of truth, what is built on top of it cannot be stable. If what we say is not sufficient for our defense, I will still add more that will suffice. The matter certainly is sweet, and we have time and it is pleasant to speak long about sweet matters.

BOOK TWO, IN WHICH HUGH AND RICHARD ARE INTRODUCED, HAVING AN ARGUMENT Immediately after I published that treatise that I dictated about the virgin birth or the infancy of our Emmanuel against the error of some, I offended someone among the students of Master Andrew, whom I found still to be involved in that error. My spirit therefore was incited to add something to those things that I already had said before, so that I even would be able to satisfy the weakness of those who still seemed to labor nearly to the point of despair under the contagion of that error. I believe that I can still please the devout minds by dedicating my insignificance to such excellent material with great diligence, and labor hard to lift the error from the immense depth of such a mystery. I have arranged the whole sequence of the following work in the form of a dialogue because this kind of discourse or teaching is more effective to persuade and more pleasant to listen to than other kinds of discourses. I have thus introduced one of Master Andrew’s students arguing with me, so that under the guise of reasoning, in keeping with the back and forth of questioning and answering, what could have become doubtful can better come to light. It should disturb no one if he sees me treat differently one and the same place in Sacred Scripture since he should know that expositors of Sacred Scripture often and most expediently do so. First I want to present the opinion given above about the two kings because it seems to match better the explanation of certain great men. And last, it pleases me to explain the opinion that is closest to my heart and mind. It is left to the judgment of the reader to choose which he judges to be more correct. 1. A preview of the matter with which this work deals

HUGH: After examining that treatise that you wrote about the conception or birth of Emmanuel, many things quite pleased me. However, I must confess, they could not satisfy me completely. For that exquisite reasoning of our exchange pulled me admittedly in an undecided di-

398

R ichard of St   V ictor

rection, but it cannot convince me firmly of the assertion of the contrary position. RICHARD: I think, my dear Hugh, that the intention of our zeal has effected something if it has brought you from obstinacy to an undecided opinion. For it is much more tolerable to doubt an assertion of truth than to build confidently on falsities. I am, however, astonished beyond measure and indignant that such a tenuous spider web can entangle you and your great intelligence and ensnare it almost completely. This entanglement of yours no doubt was the very reason that compelled me to write something in order to refute the cause of error: I feared that the error that could entangle you might also involve others, and, behold, what I feared has occurred. For later I offended another of your Master Andrew’s students, whom I found ensnared by the same trap of error by which I found you previously entangled also. H.: I do not know by which audacity you say “web of spiders,” since the whole endeavor of your machinations is insufficient to disentangle it. But lest someone think that I just seek a battle of words in order to be headstrong, I am ready to explain what disturbs me, receive a clear argument in all things, and give in to reason; and, to bear my mind even further, I am even more ready in light of the reverence due to such a mystery. Indeed, I am more ready to be vanquished by truth than to win with sophistry and to act in a contentious way. R.: I am very pleased, brother; I am pleased that even at a late hour the reverence for such a mystery touches you. But now I expect to hear from you yourself what the things are that rightly must or can move your mind. H.: First of all, the arguments by which you try to refute what you call error seem weak and not sufficiently convincing. Indeed those that you have brought up for the commendation of the sign that was given are agreeable enough, considered by themselves, but if we think about the circumstance of the text, they seem not at all to the point. For the opinion that you have given about the election of good seems forced (violenta) to me, and the one you give about the two kings seems utterly besides the point (peregrina). R.: I  am not sure what it is that you are calling pleasing in our treatise, if you disagree with almost everything we say. But you should explain more fully each of the issues that disturb you if you want us to respond to you on every single issue. H.: It will be my pleasure.

On E mmanuel



399

2. This said prophecy cannot in truth be understood about anything but the blessed Virgin Mary

H.: First of all, this still presses on my mind; that for the sake of carrying away fear, a sign was to be given, which the Lord proposed by way of the prophet. Behold, we concede what you say, that it originated in great malice, that the king did not want to ask for a sign; thus such a king was henceforth not worthy to receive a sign to abate his fear, because he would rather, as you taught above, suffer much longer for the fear of the imminent danger than to have that thing happen by which the glory of the Lord could increase. Behold, I say, we admit that these things are true, but it does not follow that God was regretting his promise. For often grace superabounds where malice abounds. Thus from his superabundant grace, by which he make his sun to rise on the good and the bad, and rain upon on the just and the unjust,146 he could give the promised sign, even against the merit of the king. The virgin birth, as you yourself admit, cannot be the sign of that liberation that was then desired. What is here proposed to King Ahaz for the sake of abating his fear and is promised and shown to the house of David, so that it could be a sign for the thing for which it is given, is rightly interpreted to be about the prophetess; and nevertheless it is completed in the blessed Virgin Mary, lest someone think we are judaizers and in error. Likewise, what is written, You shall not break a bone of him,147 is said certainly about the paschal lamb; nevertheless, according to the evangelist, it is fulfilled in Christ. R.: I want to hear from you whether you think that another virgin apart from the blessed Virgin Mary has ever conceived and given birth as a virgin? H.: I neither believe that this happened nor expect it to happen to another one. R.: Then what is said, Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, cannot correctly be understood to be about the prophetess. H.: You would be right if you read “virgin” in the Hebrew. But you surely have already heard that the word that is here in Hebrew does not translate as “virgin”. R.: It seems to us that whatever we cried out in the treatise above fell on deaf ears. We will therefore shout it out more loudly, if necessary, to see if we could thus break through your deafness. Please tell me, how do you know that that prophecy about which we speak is fulfilled in the Blessed Virgin Mary?

400

R ichard of St   V ictor

H.: Since the evangelist clearly says it, who, unless he is an unbeliever, would dare to deny that? The evangelist says: All this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet: Behold, a virgin shall be with child and bring forth a son.148 R.: What you said was said by the Lord through the prophet and fulfilled in the Virgin Mary. I would like you to repeat it in a louder voice. H.: Oh, how with a right judgment of God you attack the notion of deafness, but how rather unjustly you try to pin it on us! Raise your ears and hear me shout, if you cannot hear me speak. Behold, a virgin shall be with child. R.: I invited you to repeat it and shout it out, not to break our deafness, but your own. For have you not yet perhaps perceived with the ear of your intelligence what you just repeated? Why are you silent? Why do you not immediately respond as usual? H.: I completely rise up against myself out of anger and indignation, because I remember reading and hearing these things so often, and now I realize that I paid no attention to them. For, just as I understood and believed that this prophecy was fulfilled in the blessed Mother of God, because the evangelist declares that, thus I should have understood and believed that that young woman about whom we speak was called a virgin by the Lord. For that is what the evangelist confirms. R.: The evangelist has “shall be with child,” for what the prophet says “shall conceive,” but why, I ask, does no one say that the evangelist lies and say that it is not written in this way in the Hebrew? H.: Because in both places there is the same meaning, even though the words are different. R.: Similarly, one should understand the case where it says “alma” in Hebrew and “virgo” in Latin. The expression of the word “alma” does not have an equivalent word in Latin, but one never uses it about one who is married unless she is still a virgin. Thus he who said, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, or A virgin shall be with child, was thinking only about the gist of the meaning and wanted to express that as much as he could or needed to. H.: Behold, I eagerly accept that “alma” is not said unless about one who also is a virgin; eagerly I defer in this case to the evangelist or blessed Jerome, especially since this answers the objection of the Jew. For what according to his opinion can be a sign, namely that a young woman conceived the first time a man knew her, that, I say, is not a very powerful sign, unless he concedes that the prophet by his words was designating a virgin.

On E mmanuel



401

R.: You do well to concede this especially because it answers the objections of the Jew. H.: It seems to me that you think you have accomplished something, but do not boast too hastily. R.: Listen then. Above you said that the prophecy about which we speak was said about the prophetess, but nevertheless fulfilled in blessed Mary. But if you say that this means that a virgin conceives and becomes pregnant the first time a man has intercourse with her, and the prophet meant that, then according to this either the prophecy is not fulfilled at all in the blessed Virgin or she conceived the first time her husband had intercourse with her and not by the Holy Spirit. And in either case you make the evangelist into a liar because he said both. But if you admit that you cannot deny this unless you lie, because for a virgin to conceive and bear a son means to conceive without male seed and to remain a virgin during conception and childbearing, then either this prophecy should not be understood to be about the prophetess or you make the prophet into a liar who describes her as conceiving by his own seed. H.: No doubt this is a sufficient argument for the Christian, but not for the Jew, who neither accepts the testimony of the evangelist as authoritative nor agrees that Mary conceived without a male seed. R.: You do a good job, my brother, of seeking dens of your subterfuge sometimes in the shelter of Christians and sometimes in that of the Jews. 3. After giving the reason that satisfies the Christian, another one is given that should satisfy the Jew

R.: But listen yet to another reason that should be sufficient to satisfy the Jew, even though it probably will not. Would not the Jew, I ask, agree with you that that conception and birth was given by the Lord as a sign? H.: Indeed, he completely agrees with me on this, and I with him. And if you dare to deny it, we give you the testimony of the prophet. R.: You who say that this is a virgin who conceives, namely that this happens to her149 during the first intercourse, can you, I ask, prove that this is against the law of nature or against common human experience? H.: No indeed.

402

R ichard of St   V ictor

R.: For which reason, then, I ask, can it be said that this must be a sign for something, if he promises that it will be that a woman conceives at her first intercourse, just as if he says that a hare runs at sunrise or a dog barks, if all these things can commonly happen every day in any place? H.: Here I leave it to the Jew to answer for himself. R.: I again ask you and at the same time the Jew, if you believe that a woman can conceive by a man and remain a virgin. H.: Not at all, without a doubt. R.: Then how can it be said that a certain virgin conceives by a man, when, even though she conceives at her first intercourse, she looses her virginity before conception? H.: According to what the Jew says, that virgin conceived whom he found to be a virgin at the moment of conception. R.: But if he found her to be a virgin during intercourse at the moment of conception, did he also find her a virgin at the moment of childbirth? H.: Far be it from us to say this or ever believe it! R.: But certainly both are said about this virgin: She shall conceive, and will bear a son. It is not said: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and a non-virgin shall bear a son, but he says: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. See how carefully, how providentially the Holy Spirit forestalls ill-willing hearts and obstructs the mouth of those who speak evil. What do you have here, I ask, to answer on behalf of your Jew? H.: I answer that I am not a Jew and have no need to answer for him. Here again I leave it to him to answer for himself. But if you want your opinion to win the victory palm, you must prove either that that sign in the conception and giving birth of the virgin is not given for the sake of taking away the fear or how a thing that was going to happen after so much time could take away the fear that was then prevalent. R.: You do well to ask what you do not know, even though you should already know it from what was said and written. 4. How the authority of the book of Kings convinces that the virgin birth is not given for the sake of taking away the fear

R.: But if you do not want to submit to reason, will you at least be convinced by authority?

On E mmanuel

 403

H.: In part I have already stated why I do not accept your arguments. I am prepared to hear again whether what you propose is possible or whether it can be proved by authority. R.: Behold, meanwhile it was conceded that God has given such a sign that he thought sufficient to take away the fear. Should we think that God in his estimate somehow could deceive us? H.: Far be that from us! R.: Thus if he gave the sign for the sake of taking away the fear, it did take away that fear. But if it did not take away the fear, then he did not give it in order to take away that fear.150 H.: Nothing is truer that this allegation, and nothing more manifest. R.: Let us then consult on this issue the book of Kings to understand what we are to get from this. The book of Kings reports it in these words: Then Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to fight. And after some verses he adds: And Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of the Assyrians, saying: I am your servant and your son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, who are risen up together against me. And when he had gathered together the silver and gold that could be found in the house of the Lord, and in the king’s treasures, he sent it for a present to the king of the Assyrians.151 Certainly if he had no fear, he would not have so humbly asked for help in the protection of his safety. Certainly if he had no fear, he would not have depleted his treasuries and those of the house of the Lord in such an offering. Then tell me, if you can, when exactly that promised sign was given. If before this gift, this gift shows that it had not lifted the fear. But if it was given after the liberation, how then could it lift a fear that no longer was there? Or perhaps it was given between the gift and the liberation? But who says that the Lord gave it at that time, when he who gave it would give it in vain, and he who would receive it would receive it in vain? H.: I do not want you to elaborate this explanation any longer: I certainly see that it fights against reason and authority either to interpret what is written about Emmanuel as about the son of Isaiah or to see him as the sign given to lift the fear. R.: Behold, you have accepted how the reasoning of your master fights against both reason and authority. Do you want to hear how it fights against itself also? H.: Do not say “of my master,” but “of the Jews.” For he puts forth that reasoning not as his own, but as theirs.

404

R ichard of St   V ictor

R.: We will ask this of any reasoning, whether it be his or someone else’s. H.: Behold, I am prepared to hear what it is you want to say. R.: Let us bring in the words of your master. He argues in this way. 5. How the controversy of these sophists contradicts itself

R.: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. And afterwards he says about himself: “When we explain this very clear prophecy about the conception and birth of our Savior and the integrity and virginity of his mother, ever virgin, as it is right, the Jews, the enemies of truth, rise up against us and try to weaken the very firm wall of our faith with the battering ram of their sophistry.” But he will be understood more fully from his other words where he will speak with simplicity. At the end of his argumentation he gives the reason why it is not useful for him to respond to the Jews: “If perhaps we go into this unpredictable battle with unequal force, we may succumb.” Why does he say “unpredictable battle” with reference to not just a clear prophecy but, as he put it, a very clear prophecy? But perhaps these are words of humility. Let us have a look at what follows: “With our powers exhausted, leaving the more difficult task to those who are stronger than us, we continue with the literal explanation that we have started.” Behold, he promises us a literal explanation. Here, as you hear, he puts forward his own opinion and not that of the Jews. Thus he says: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. The one conceived by and born of the young or concealed woman, when you see him, will signify to you that you shall be liberated from the aforesaid fear.” Behold, let us hear ever more clearly how this very clear prophecy, as he put it, is explained with reference to the conception and birth of the Savior and the integrity and virginity of the mother. After many interjections, much later he says the following: “The son of the prophet will eat honey and butter when he comes to the knowledge by which he can abhor evil and choose the good.”152 What we read about the honey and butter no doubt is said about Emmanuel. Then what will be “the very firm wall of our faith” if Emmanuel is called the son of the prophetess? Certainly among women only the blessed Mary is both mother and virgin. If that very clear prophecy, as he wants it, deals with the integrity and virginity of the one who is his mother, it is very clearly true about the blessed Virgin Mary and likewise very clearly false about the prophetess. Then why does he ad-

On E mmanuel

 405

just the prophecy by explaining it in the sense that is most false, and not in the sense that it is most evidently true? If they who explain this prophecy as about the Savior and his mother do it right, then why does he explain it as referring to the prophetess, which is entirely not right? Here you can see how his explanation is contradicting itself. Would he not have philosophized more correctly if he had remained silent about these things? H.: Oh, if only he had never said that! But, as he admitted to us, he explained many things not according to his own opinion, but according to that of the Jews. R.: He certainly needed to determine that clearly by putting his own opinion forward as true and that of the Jews as false. H.: Now I expect to hear from you what you have already explained, how those reasons, which he put153 under the name of the Jews, seem to contradict each other and strangle each other with mutual wounds. R.: It would take too long to treat each individual thing, but we can highlight some matters and show by these what you seek. 6. How the reasons put forward under the name of the Jews seem to contradict each other

R.: After many things before it, he adds: “In the days of the childhood of the son of the virgin or young woman, both kings for whose face Judah was trembling are dead: one killed by the Assyrians, and the other slaughtered by Hoshea, the son of Elah: Behold, the sign came first and the thing itself followed.” And in another place, “Sacred Scripture says clearly that the Lord who cannot lie says that before the child whom the prophetess bore to Isaiah knows to call his father and mother, Damascus and Samaria will be destroyed by the Assyrians.” Understand here that, according to the prior sentence, Emmanuel was born before the death of Pekah, for the sign comes before, as was said, and the thing follows. According to the latter opinion, in the ninth year after the death of Pekah, the son of Isaiah still did not know how to say father and mother, for king Hoshea succeeded King Pekah, and in his ninth year Samaria was destroyed by the Assyrians. The son of Isaiah who at the time of the destruction of Samaria did not know how to say father and mother was thus not the same as Emmanuel, who according to the previous statement clearly was nine or more years old at the time. Again, at another place long after that your master says: “This

406

R ichard of St   V ictor

they believe to be part of the sign, that when he was a child, when one normally does not reject those things that are offered to oneself, he will reject evil things as unclean, and will only eat clean foods, which synecdochally are comprised in butter and honey.” If this was part of the sign, and the thing preceded the sign, he was one half or one year old when he received the knowledge to discern these foods as a sign of future liberation.154 In either case, according to this, in his tenth year Samaria was overturned. If then they say that this Emmanuel is the same as the son of Isaiah, how then can one and the same person be so precocious that he knows in his first year to discern the pure from the impure, and so dull that in his eleventh year he does not know to say father or mother? Also listen to this. For sure Hezekiah succeeded Ahaz in his reign, and in the sixth year of his reign Samaria was destroyed. Whence shall they demonstrate that he saw that child who in the sixth year after his death did not know how to say father and mother? How, according to the reason of their argument, could this child, whom he never saw, nor would see, be the sign of anything for the king? Now you have an idea, in my opinion, how troublesome and unpredictable this conflict is, which your master does not dare to take on. H.: Make sure you do not err in some way if you think that he says this in any way other than by irony. R.: Cunningly enough you defend your master, but you defend him while you do not know that it is to your disadvantage. For where is that feeble intellect of yours, which is esteemed less than the strength of a fly, if he can entangle you in such a web, woven by irony? H.: As it seems to me, you believe that you seem to have achieved a great thing in that you could disprove without much effort those things that my master said under the guise of irony, or I for the sake of argumentation. R.: Fine, what you first defended so vigorously, now you call irony. “By what knot shall I hold this Protheus who is forever changing his shape?”155 But when you see yourself being put in a narrow place, it is no wonder that you try to find a way out by evasion and subterfuge. H.: We should not waste our time with talking, for there are still many other things that push the mind to question. R.: Before we go on to discuss these things, we want you to state whether it is still clearly evident to you that this Emmanuel cannot be the son of Isaiah, and that he was not given as a sign to take away that fear.

On E mmanuel

 407

H.: Whether he be a Jew or Christian, whoever were to doubt any longer on this matter would be not in his right mind. R.: Then ask whatever you want. For you will be found ready to discuss the particular issues inasmuch as the Lord grants it. The prophet seems to posit some of the things we have at hand here as the foundation of our faith, and therefore it will be a lot of work to treat all the individual things worthy of questioning with the highest diligence. H.: I agree completely with what you say. 7. Of what thing the birth that the Lord proposes appropriately can be said to be a sign

H.: As I already said above, those things that are said about the quality of the sign, or its commendation, are pleasing when considered by themselves, but they seem to bear no relation to the context, and by that very fact they are not relevant at all. R.: Do you think, I ask, that everywhere in the prophets you can or must pay attention to this, that whatever is said at any place must fit together with what goes before or what follows? H.: I know that we frequently find both in the prophets: sometimes what follows forms a unit with what goes before, and sometimes it does not. But even though that coherence of sentences cannot always be observed everywhere, it does not for that reason follow that one ought not to observe it here. If the sign is proposed for the sake of a certain thing, see how absurd it would be if the sign for a completely different thing was frequently mentioned , and indeed of a thing that is not mentioned at all. R.: We already said and you heard that this was done for the sake of hiding the mystery, and that must be enough for you. H.: No one can convince me that it would be difficult for the Holy Spirit, who spoke through Isaiah, to mention secretly the thing for which the promised child could be a sign, and nevertheless to hide the depth of his secret under some veil of words. With that said, neither will what you said about the multiplicity of the sign weaken what I say, but rather strengthen it. For one and the same sign can be manifold and have many meanings. Indeed, it may be the case that the thing that I require from you is related, so to speak, to the foundation, while what you said above is related to the superstructure.

408

R ichard of St   V ictor

R.: One must humor your earnestness, not to mention your obstinacy, and satisfy it according to your desire, as one does for a delicate child. Remember what these kings who wanted to make war against Jerusalem proposed, or what the Lord afterwards promised by way of the prophet. They said: Let us go up to Judah, and rouse it up, and draw it away for us, and make the son of Tabeal king in the midst thereof. And the Lord says to this: It shall not stand and it shall not be.156 For what reason, I ask, do you think they want to come together to make war against Judah? H.: I certainly would have said to destroy its kingdom, if they had not proposed to substitute instantly another king in its place. Their effort and intent seems more to overturn the worship of the Lord than to destroy its kingdom. They said: Let us draw away Judah for us. Whence, I ask, and to what? Whence, I say, unless away from him to whom Judah turned away from them? And to what, I say, unless to that in which they were united? They certainly accepted a great many gods and in this respect they all consented and were of one avowal. But Judah was different from them in that according to their avowal they should worship the one and true God. They seemed mainly intent on this, that they could prevent them from worshipping the one God, and make sure that there was nothing from which it could again resurge.157 They said: Let us draw him away. To draw away is different from to trim. A tree, when it is trimmed at its branches or even at its trunk, still has its root whence it can recover. But when it is uprooted, there is nothing left by which it can be recovered. They who wanted to try to draw Judah away158 from the place of its faithfulness, so to speak, toward participation in their unfaithfulness, what else were they plotting among themselves than to irreparably destroy the worship of the one true divinity? R.: You have looked sharply enough into all these things, and there is nothing now for which you should be justly reprehended. They desired to eradicate the worship of the one and true God from among humans, and wanted to draw to themselves Judah, who at that time was the only one among mankind of that avowal, and implicate him in their error. About that destruction of worship, the Lord gives his response when he says: It shall not stand, and it shall not be. From henceforth, he says, and until eternity, it will not be that Judah is drawn away and the worship of the true God eradicated from among men. What here is now promised about Judah is the same as what is promised about the Church elsewhere in other words: And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.159 Just as in drawing away the worship of God no one can

On E mmanuel

 409

prevail against Judah, so in eradicating the catholic faith no one can prevail against the Church. H.: I understand what you want to say. But the statement, It shall not be, I think can be interpreted in two ways. Against that previous statement, we will draw away, there is this response: It shall not be. One can understand this specifically, namely, it will not be drawn away by them, or more generally, namely, it will never and in no way be drawn away. R.: Out of these two, which one seems greater to you? H.: The first promise is specific, or rather singular, the second is general. The first is for a short time, the second eternal; hence the latter is incomparably greater than the first. R.: No doubt the Lord promises that what is greater, and proposes a sign to confirm it with the words he speaks: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. 8. How one can assess for what this sign is not given, or how it was given to those who never saw it

H.: I certainly see, as we said, that that general promise is incomparably more worthy than the other one, and the more worthy, the more agreeable to divine dignity it is. But I would like, if it is possible, to have an argument from Scripture whence I can construe the sense that you prefer because that is the one that is preferable. R.: Your request seems quite reasonable to us. For it is the custom of Scripture often to allude in one place to what it is silent about at another place. Your question can be determined easily from the sign that is proposed to confirm the promise. For the virgin birth that was going to happen after so many centuries could not be a sign of that thing that was threatening at that time. But of the other promise, which will last until the end of time, this same virgin birth was such an appropriate and such a certain sign since it began to exist and to be made known that it can satisfy the prayers of the faithful for a thousand years and more, and will be able to satisfy them until the end. Also note in the words of the prophet how he hides the depth of the divine mystery under the veil of words, something that pleased you so much, as you already indicated. And indeed he constructs his oracle in such a way that he to whom this promise was given can understand it in one way, and he who gives the promise in another. For although it was given to King Ahaz to be able to understand from the prophet’s words

410

R ichard of St   V ictor

that the said kings could never overthrow his kingdom or replace him with another king, yet the Lord without a doubt promises that his faithful can never be drawn away from their faithfulness by some persecution. The king, of course, aspires to and hopes for the liberation from the imminent persecution from the face of the two kings, but the Lord promised liberation from both imminent and future persecutions of unbelievers, both men and demons. Because the Lord proposed to accomplish both what he intended and what the king intended, see how for some remarkable reason the Lord would have given a sign for both if the king had wanted to ask for a sign. But since, out of his manifold malice, he did not want to ask for a sign, the Lord showed only a sign for what he principally intended, in the way and at the time he wanted. H.: How, I ask, do we say that the Lord gave a sign to them to whom it was promised, a sign, I say, that was going to happen after so many centuries, and that was never going to be seen by them to whom it was promised? R.: Certainly the Lord promised to give to Abraham the land of the Canaanites as an inheritance, yet he never received it himself, but only through his heirs. No one would dare to say that he did not receive the promised heritage, or that the Lord fell short in his promise. Thus Abraham received the Promised Land after almost four hundred years through his heirs. David received the promised sign after six hundred years through his successors. If the first promise was worthy of such a long wait, then how much more the one that is much greater, by which man became God and God became man? By the former, humans have become heirs to the land of Canaan; by the latter humans are made co-heirs with the angels. By the former, the sons of Abraham have become heirs of a worldly and transitory kingdom; by the latter they have become sons of God by adoption and indeed co-heirs with Christ. H.: I see that you answer all my questions very well, so that nothing more needs to be asked about this chapter. R.: To compare what we have spoken here about the sign given by the Lord with those things that we said in our treatise above: According to this reading we hold that the people of faith in no way and at no time can be separated from the good of faithfulness. According to the first reading, we hold that they will again be planted in a place of abundance and unshakably will be rooted in the good of happiness. From this we hold that they cannot in any way lose the good that they regained by the grace of the Savior after the first sin. And from the latter we hold that they will recover fully whatever they lost by the malice of

On E mmanuel



411

the seducer. According to what already has been said about this sign, we are certain about the stability of received grace. According to what we said here about the same sign, we are certain about the fullness and perpetuity of the glory we are to receive. 9. The “election of the good” can be interpreted in diverse ways

H.: I must say, I am starting to listen to you not just gladly, but also with desire, and because we have said enough about the previous [points], I would like you to go on to discuss some other things that concern me. R.: Propose whatever you want, and you will have an answer as far as my capabilities allow me. H.: As I already said above, that sentence that you set forth on the election of good seems to me too violently twisted, and similarly a bit foreign to what you set forth about the kings. There you wanted the election of good to mean to select the best from among the good. Hence you strove consequently to show that our Emmanuel did not possess the election of good by that knowledge that is by way of experience until his resurrection, since he did not know yet by experience the good of immortality, impassibility, incorruptibility, and the heavenly good of over-worldly joy, which are the best goods of the exterior man. R.: What, in your view, must be called the election of good? H.: Certainly not only to select the best from the good, but also to discern and accept the good from the bad. R.: We do not deny that one can say this according to that interpretation. For, according to the custom of speech, we often at times extend the meaning of words, and at times restrict it, or vary it in some other way. But the diligent reader must carefully distinguish between these things, and collect from the context what, how, and according to what usage one needs to explain it in its own context. There is thus a difference between the approval of good and the election of good. The first is a matter of discernment, and the second of deliberation. To distinguish good from evil and to approve of the one and disprove of the other is a matter of discernment. To select what is best from among the good or what is more expedient for someone is a matter of deliberation. We cannot therefore rightfully be reproached if we have used this word more in accordance with the propriety of the word rather than with the license of speech.

412

R ichard of St   V ictor

10. Whence one can assess that the saying, Your land shall be forsaken from the face to its two kings, is not said about the Kings Rezin and Pekah

R.: We also have proved the interpretation we proposed about the kings by bringing up an example from Daniel. And an explanation from Scripture that is corroborated by the authority of Scripture is never rightly rebuked. H.: Certainly, even if you had interpreted those kings there as one commonly does according to history, and had extended the interpretation (sententia) that you set forth about the spiritual kings according to allegory, it would have been pleasing enough for me, and, in my opinion, it would have rightly pleased everybody. R.: Behold, even in this case we do our best to satisfy your desire. For we believe that that text (littera) receives a different explanation, with which, to speak the truth, our opinion accords even more. H.: In that case, we should put forward this opinion rather than the former. R.: Even more, to confound those on the opposite side who fight us with their banter, we should have the former and not omit the latter, so they may see and be ashamed that we find several reasonable escapes where they thought to have us surrounded with their arguments and where they thought there was no way out, either for them or for us. H.: Do not keep my mind waiting any longer, I pray; I quickly want to hear what I ought to think about these kings. R.: First we want to hear what you think about this. H.: Without a doubt, I understand them to be none other than Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah. R.: Also tell me: what land is it that King Ahaz abhors, of which these two designated kings are said to be kings, and about which it is foretold that it will be forsaken of them. H.: I am amazed how easily you bring me from a firm to a wavering interpretation only by your simple questioning, and make me pay attention to something that I needed to pay attention to but did not. For whether this is said about the land of Syria or the land of Israel, he who was by both faithlessly attacked abhorred them both equally, but neither of those lands had those kings , so that one could say rightfully about him: Before the child knows to reject evil, and choose good, the land which you abhor shall be forsaken of the face of its two kings.

On E mmanuel



413

11. By these two kings we should not understand the two who were still present in the kingdom of Israel

H.: But here it occurs to me what they want to say who think that Emmanuel is the same as the son of Isaiah. R.: Indeed, I would like to hear what that might be. H.: Certainly they who were from Israel and they who were from Judah were born of the same stock and should be of the same avowal. Thus they who were from Israel and fought under Pekah should by the right knowledge and right avowal not fight against their brothers, the sons of Judah, but defend them, and it was their duty to set up a defense against the king of Syria or against whatever other enemies. Thus, unless I am mistaken, King Ahaz especially abhorred the land in which Pekah was king; the more abominable he felt malice towards him, the more hateful he held it to be. But we know that the kingdom of Israel until its destruction had only two more kings ruling over it: namely Pekah who then held the scepter, and Hoshea, under whom it was to be destroyed. Thus the Jews can, in my opinion, properly refer what is said about those two kings to those kings , who after only a short while could no longer rule or defend that land, hateful to king Ahaz, either for themselves or for their heirs, because it was to be depopulated before that promised child, whom they think to be the son of Isaiah, knew to call his father and mother. R.: If the conclusion of the above disputation had not gone right over your head, there would be no place for the interpretation you just put forward. H.: What is that? R.: Certainly if their child was born in the time of King Pekah, at the time of the overthrow of the empire, he was almost ten years old if not more. How then shall we say that the child did not know to call his father or mother? But if he were born under King Hoshea, there was only one more king left for the kingdom of Israel, and it could not be said about him that before the child knows to reject evil and choose good, the land which you abhor shall be forsaken of the face of its two kings. H.: I am ashamed to admit, but I still do not see what I ought to think about those two kings, unless we say that the prophet put one number for another, and by the name of the land we ought to understand both the land of Israel and the land of Syria.

414

R ichard of St   V ictor

R.: There would be no explanation unless we explain what the prophet said here according to another manner of speaking about these lands or their spiritual kings. H.: It is time, please, to explain that interpretation of yours, to which your mind is leaning more. I for one do not think it probable that the prophet put one number for another in this place, and in one and same sentence here confused the number while there he expressed it with care. For while speaking about these kings he states the number explicitly when he says: Of the face of these its two kings. R.: You shall have what you asked for. 12. With regard to the two kings we do not understand only two persons, but two series of kings according to two ways of ruling

R.: But, please, first I would like to hear from you how you understand what you hear in the prophet: If these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, shall be in its midst; they shall deliver their souls by their righteousness.160 Do you take these three men to stand for only three persons? H.: Not at all; these are three kinds of people living according the morals of those men. R.: What do you say about what you read in the Gospel: There shall be two men in one bed?161 H.: Here also in the same way I understand two kinds of people. R.: What if we understand what is said about the two kings according to the same interpretation? H.: Certainly we should not spurn this interpretation here, if we will have seen how the context agrees with this sense. R.: We know for sure that the kingdom of Israel had two kinds of kings. For sometimes it had, so to speak, a legitimate king and sometimes an illicit one: a legitimate from the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David; an illicit one from whatever other tribe. The first is based on God’s institution, and the latter on usurpation. The first one God instituted while well-disposed, the second one he allowed in his anger. When they who were from Israel had a king according to the first institution, ruled both over them and Judah; but when they obtained a reign by way of usurpation, they ruled over the former alone, and not over Judah. For the sake of such kings then it is foretold to King Ahaz about the land that he, as you taught above, especially

On E mmanuel



415

abhors: Before the child knows to reject evil and chose good, the land which you abhor shall be forsaken of the face of those two kings. This is stated more clearly as follows: Before this child as a child starts to grasp the experience of our evils and goods and to have the knowledge of such experience, the carnal reign in Israel will start to wane, and from then on it will happen that they will never have a king either from the tribe of Judah or from whatever other tribe of its kind. For around the time of the birth of our Emmanuel the kingship of Israel will go over to another nation. At that time Herod took up the ruling rights over the Jewish people. 13. How the demise of the kingdom of Israel is predicted, and for what reason it is transferred to another nation

R.: One has to note also what it is that the prophetic word predicts will happen, and under what circumstances he utters such threats. At the very time that either king, namely the one from Israel and the one from Judah, had erupted into such great and manifest hatred of the divine religion, at that very time, I say, it is foretold what displeased them both and what was hateful to both. For the true religion was so hateful to the king of Israel that he would rather wage war against his own brothers, as we taught above, in order to destroy the worship of God than enlarge or enrich his own kingdom. In turn, we find the king of Judah, as is proven in the treatise above, to be so hateful that he would rather tremble with fear over the imminent danger than accept a sign of his liberation, both cunningly and faithlessly avoiding the Lord’s bringing out what would contribute to his glory and benefit the affirmation of his worship. While, then, either king is acting faithlessly against God, rightfully it is predicted that what would prove to be undoubtedly hateful to either one would happen. For to the king of Israel and those who were from Israel, it was utterly hateful that the succession of kings was coming to an end with them according to the latter way. And to the king of Judah and those from Judah, it was abominable that they could no longer have a king according to the prior way. While the king of Israel was faithlessly raging against King Ahaz and King Ahaz was faithlessly spurning the sign of his own liberation, and both were perversely acting towards God, the end was predicted to the reign of Israel, both according to its legitimate and

416

R ichard of St   V ictor

according to its illicit order, so that we may understand by whose guilt its royal power was transferred to another nation. 14. The disappearance of the kingdom of Israel, and the advent of our Emmanuel; how one can be comprehended from the other

R.: We also have to pay attention to how these two mutually correspond to each other, so that one can be comprehended from the other, namely, the disappearance of the reign of Israel and the advent of our Emmanuel. For after a foreigner started to rule in Israel, it was certain that the time of the promised child and the virgin birth was imminent. But also vice versa, after it had been announced that a virgin had given birth, it was certain that the reign of Israel had come to an end and from then on could never be restored to its pristine state. Certainly a thousand or more years had gone by since the virgin birth started to be announced, and, indeed, the desolation of the reign of Israel that already preceded it continues until today. Also note how in this place the prophet is silent about what the patriarch foretold, and, conversely, that the former predicts that what the latter was silent about will happen. For while the latter is completely silent about the ceasing of the reign in Judah, the former predicts that this indeed will happen to the land of Israel: He says, The land shall be forsaken of the face of its two kings. But the latter predicts about Judah what he is silent about: The scepter shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh, until he comes who is to be sent.162 It is one thing when the leadership is vacant for some time, and another thing when it is completely lacking. It is one thing to interrupt the succession of kings, and another to transfer the royal power from one people to another. A scepter is clearly taken away when it is given to foreigners. And indeed, from the time it was given to those who were from Judah to carry the scepter and exercise power (imperium), no foreigner was ever anointed king over Judah until Herod, under whom our Emmanuel came into the world by way of the virgin birth. The scepter was taken away from those who were from Judah at the time when it was given to Herod and transferred to his heirs. Judah in that matter also lost the right to reclaim it at the time when Herod possessed royal power without challenge and transferred it to his heirs. You now see how both what is said about Judah by the patriarch and about Israel by the prophet are fulfilled at one and the same time.

On E mmanuel



417

H.: Even though there is still something that moves me in our interpretation, yet this pleases me quite a bit because it seems to agree with the prophecy that is read aloud everywhere in the Church of Christ: “When the holy of holiest arrives, the anointing will cease.”163 R.: Now also pay attention to how conveniently the last explanation about that promised child corresponds to the above explanation. 15. How the election of time corresponds to the quality of the approaching person

R.: Since mentioned first that the promised child will receive the name Emmanuel and that he will grasp the experience of our good and evil things, and since he mentions this first, as I said, he immediately adds that before the child knows to reject evil and chose good, the land that Ahaz abhors shall be forsaken of the face of its two kings. It is as if the prophet had announced more clearly and said: Behold how great and how excellent this promised person is, and you will understand at what an apt and necessary time he comes. Pay close attention and consider intently how sublime, how humble, how powerful, how compassionate this person is who will be given . How sublime, indeed, how powerful is this person in whom God is with us, the person whose rule (imperium) will be on his shoulder;164 the person, I say, whose rule lies not in the many thousands of subjects, not in the innumerable quantity of armies, but entirely on his own shoulder. Likewise, how humble, how compassionate, this person is who has forgotten his own sublimity, who has denied the majesty of his power by eating butter and honey; he descended for our sake to dwell with the insects, and willingly took on the experience of both our goods and evils. Is there anything that that person, in whom God is or rather who is God with us, cannot accomplish for us? Is there anything he, who stooped down to our passions only out of compassion, is not willing to accomplish for our salvation? Behold, in these things you can discern how great and what kind of person he is, who, gifted with power and prone to compassion, effectually could and indubitably wanted to benefit his faithful. Let us now see how the election of the time accords or corresponds with the quality of the approaching person. First let us see when he came. He came indeed at the time that he was most needed. He came at that time when among the faithful the royal leadership was lack-

418

R ichard of St   V ictor

ing. He came when among the people of God any kind of succession of kings was lacking, both in manners that we discussed before and when because of the malice of the rulers the scepter was taken away from them and given to foreigners and infidels. When among the people of faith human solace and leadership was starting to be completely absent, divine solace and leadership was more than plentiful, so that where malice abounded, grace superabounded. The cause for the coming of the promised person is stated in what is said: For before the child knows to reject evil and chose good, the face of the land shall be forsaken of its two kings. It is as if he said openly: For this reason it will happen that a child will be given to us, who according to his name is God with us, because at the time of his advent the land will be void of all royal leadership, just as if it were forsaken of the face of its two kings. 16. From the hour of his conception he started to grasp and have the experience of our good and evil things

H.: I let you speak for a long time, so as not to interrupt your words before you had finished giving your interpretation; however, in your interpretation about the two kings there were some things that prodded my mind to ask a question. R.: Behold, we are ready to listen if you bring up something that justly upsets you. H.: Certainly, if these two kings, the way you define them, that is, those two lines of kings, of which you call one legitimate and the other one illicit, if these two lines of kings, I say, come to their final end at the time of the infancy of Emmanuel, before he came to the years of discretion according to his age, there would be not anything in your interpretation, it seems to me, for which one could rightfully reproach you. But it is quite evident that before the nativity of our Emmanuel, indeed even before his conception, the kingly power in Judaism had gone over to that of a foreign nation. Indeed, Herod had already ruled for quite some years before his [i.e., Emmanuel’s] advent. If the prophet then wanted to refer to that time when the kingdom of Israel ended, why does he say: Before the child knows to reject evil and chose good, the land shall be forsaken from the face to its two kings. Why did he not rather say “before he is born,” or rather “before he is conceived in the womb,” this land shall be forsaken of the face of its two kings?

On E mmanuel



419

R.: Is that what upsets you, brother, or what really should upset you? When do you think this child, about which you have heard so much already, when, I say, do you think he first comes to share in our meager knowledge which is by experience? H.: I already see that my question is answered, and I already see what I should have seen before. I did not consider this child carefully enough, although he was one like us. But say what you propose; I always like to hear the thing I know well, and perhaps I will hear something I do not know together with what I do know. R.: Then tell me, when do you think our Emmanuel first comes to share in our meager knowledge that is by experience? H.: I know that the soul of Christ from the hour of his conception received the fullness of both wisdom and knowledge; but nevertheless he came to share fully in the knowledge that is by experience by intervals of time. R.: Indeed, both in knowledge and in wisdom he advanced with the passing of time, but about his primordial knowledge there is in principle no disagreement between us. H.: I am more ready in this matter to hear your opinion than to put my own forward. R.: Certainly if the soul of Christ from the hour of his conception has the fullness of knowledge and wisdom, what was there that he could not know about his flesh or about himself? H.: Nothing really. R.: Then he who assumed the form of a slave,165 and who came in the similitude of carnal sin, indeed from the very hour of his conception learned by experience and knew what was the good of sensibility and the evil of passibility, insofar as he received sensitive and passible flesh. And not only according to the flesh, but also according to his mind he partook both in our good things and evil things, save sin. For he had well-ordered feelings, but was still able to suffer. This is attested by the fact that when he saw the city he started to weep over her, and at the time of his passion he started to be fearful and sad. Thus right from the beginning of his incarnation he learned by experience and knew by experience what the evil of corruptibility and the good of incorruptibility was relative to something: the evil of corruptibility according to punishment, and the good of incorruptibility according to guilt. Thus according to the expression of time and the truth of the interpretation, it is the same to say, Before the child knows to reject evil and chose good, as to say, before the conception of the child, the land shall be forsaken

420

R ichard of St   V ictor

of the face of its two kings. And note that while he says first, He shall eat butter and honey, that he may know to reject evil and chose good, he does not repeat it, so as to say: “For before he will eat butter and honey.”166 And neither does he say, “Before by eating butter and honey he will know to reject evil and choose good.” He says nothing that forces us to understand this to refer to the times of his infancy and that we cannot aptly refer to the time of his conception. 17. The prophet chose that manner of speaking that was more convenient for the hiding of the mystery

H.: According to the interpretation of the election of good that I put forward, your explanation is sufficient. But according to the interpretation that was posited by you in the treatise above, none will be sufficient. R.: Then accept also another one that is sufficient according to both. H.: While I do not reprove the explanation according to my opinion, I also expect to hear the one that you propose. R.: As we have already said elsewhere, it was necessary that the prophet composed his prophecy about this child in such a way that for the time being he concealed that child’s identity and the reason for and time of his coming; but nevertheless all of this could have been known and proven from Scripture in its own time, so that remarkably in one and same place in Scripture one could find something to blind unbelief and illuminate faith. Seek diligently from this Scripture what this child is given as a sign, and you find the reason why he came. Pay attention to what kind of name the prophecy assigns to him, and at the same time ponder the fact that he is never actually called that name, and you will understand who he was. Inquire attentively at what time the land that Ahaz abhors was forsaken of the face of its two kings, and you will find how one can determine the time of Emmanuel’s advent. So as to hide it from those who were to be blinded, and to notify in its proper time those who were to be illuminated that the promised child was given to affirm the worship of God, a sign was given also for what had been promised. To the sentence before, We shall draw away Judah to us, it is not added: It will not be wrenched away, just as it is neither wrenched away from you, but something is added that can understood in either way, namely, It will not stand, and it will not be. To hide it from those to be blinded, and notify those who were to be illuminated that

On E mmanuel



421

he who was promised would be both God and man, it is not said that “God-with-us” would be conceived by and born of a virgin, but that he would be called God-with-us. For the same reason, so that the time of the divine advent would be announced for the sake of the pious, and nevertheless would be concealed from unbelievers and demons, it is not said that before his advent the land of Israel would be forsaken of the two kinds of kings, but that the land which you abhor shall be forsaken of the face of its two kings. It so happened that by that ambiguity of words the Jews until today think that Emmanuel was promised as a sign for the liberation from the hands of Rezin and Pekah. Hence even today it is thought by some that this Emmanuel is the same as the son of Isaiah. It was also for the sake of obscuring the mystery that it was not said, “For before Emmanuel came to be, or was conceived,” but rather, Before the child knows to reject evil and chose good, the land which you abhor shall be forsaken of the face of its two kings. For if it were said in the former way rather than the latter, without a doubt it would be manifest that it could not be a sign for that liberation, because it not only came before his birth, but even before his conception. The prophet chose to say by divine inspiration what was more congruent for the sake of concealing the mystery, which, however, at the same time was equally true. For what came before the time of conception without a doubt also came before the time of discernment. H.: I see that you have satisfied in every respect all the things about which I am concerned, so that meanwhile I have nothing further to ask according to the historical sense. 18. How Jesus is understood to advance not only in age, but also in wisdom

H.: But that thing about the growing in wisdom, which you touched on above, I would like to hear more extensively from you how that is to be understood. For me, it seems to be entirely different. R.: Since the evangelist says it, who would dare to deny it? He says: Jesus advanced in wisdom and age, and in grace with God and men.167 H.: But they say that he only advanced in semblance.168 R.: Do you think that is false or true? H.: False, it seems to me. R.: Did he also advance in age only in semblance? H.: No, he did in truth.

422

R ichard of St   V ictor

R.: Good. So you would say that it is false that he advanced in wisdom, but that it is true that he advanced in age? H.: I do not want to discuss this, but only hear about it and gather from that what my opinion should be on this matter according to clear reason. R.: First tell me if you find it acceptable that one and the same expression in one and the same place can be taken to mean two different things according to the historical sense. H.: I know what I would answer, if I could find another way to explain it. But I do not want to disprove the interpretation that I hold for the time being, until I have found a better and more certain one. R.: Do you think that a knowledge of the virtues and the skills of working belongs to that same wisdom? H.: I do think that; indeed, I am certain of it. Nevertheless, I know that the soul of Christ possessed from the hour of his conception knowledge of and ability concerning all the virtues and received the fullness of both at the exactly the same time. Hence I also do not believe that he did advance or could advance in wisdom by the progression of time. R.: For certain he did have ability of all virtues from the beginning, but he did not exhibit the ability of all at the same time. He showed each one appropriately at its own time. He had the work skills from the beginning, but he grew to the knowledge of experience through the passing of time. By the moment of his incarnation, he learned from experience what it meant to be so humble as to incline himself as Lord of majesty to take on the form of a slave. By the time of his circumcision and baptism he learned from experience what it meant to be so dignified as to receive the sacraments of our salvation without any utility to himself from the hands of sinners, while without sin himself. By the time of his temptation he learned from experience what it meant to be so discerning as not to cede to the suggestions of the devil, and neither to be subject to his appetite while suffering hunger. By the hour of his passion he learned from experience what it meant to be so perfect as not to lose his internal peace and the tranquility of his soul among the threats and terrors, and while being crucified even to pray for his murderers. And to say briefly what we think about that, just as according to the Apostle he learned obedience by the things which he suffered,169 in the same way he progressed towards knowledge and wisdom. H.: That should be enough to answer the question that I asked.

On E mmanuel



423

19. What we are to understand in those two kings according to allegory

H.: But since what we are to understand about these two kings according to the historical sense has already been said, it remains for you to say also what one needs to think about them according to allegory. R.: What we see in humans we can also observe in evil spirits, namely that some play the boss over others and that they who are more astute and audacious arrange the positions of the inferior ones, and exert over them, as it were, a certain right to rule them. Such kings even among men acquire the right of lordship and kingship, while they consent by free will to their criminal and outrageous behavior. This is why, according to Daniel, one is called the prince of the Persians, and another the prince of the Greeks.170 We should note about these kings that when people consent to them easily and eagerly to the point of guilt, they receive, as it were, reign by right of equity over them and the power to dominate them. But when they have their way by an overwhelming relentlessness of temptations or, as it were, with a violent hand, then they seize the reign, as it were, by usurpation. This twofold difference of these two kings is rightly understood by these two kings, about whom it is said to Ahaz: The land which you abhor shall be forsaken of the face of its two kings. For whether you think these kings are carnal or spiritual in the land that Ahaz abhorred, some of them seem to have obtained the reign justly, and other unjustly. But I believe that I also mentioned this in that previous treatise, and there on the same chapter I taught that many demons were captured by the passion of Christ and were banished from the pursuit of mankind, but not just any kind and likewise not all of them, but only those who among them were more effective in doing evil and the ones that Scripture wanted to designate by these kings, namely those by whom the salvation of many who were to build the early church could be hindered. Since now this phrase, The land shall be forsaken of the face of its two kings, is preceded by, Before the child knows to reject evil and elect good, if you want to interpret the election of good according to the assigned meaning that we determined, you will see that all things come together in the interpretation that we presented. H.: I see it indeed, and it is not necessary that you elaborate further on this. For if you say, as you do, that the election of the good is to discern the best from all inferior goods and cling to them, it will surely be proven that our Emmanuel, according to the fact that he was

424

R ichard of St   V ictor

a child, came to the fullness of that knowledge by actually experiencing it through his resurrection and ascension. Admittedly before his resurrection he knew by experience what kind of good the mortal life of the flesh and the capacity to suffer was, but he did not know by experience what immortality and impassibility of the flesh was. Before his ascension he learned what the manner of life (conversatio) in this world was, but he had not known by experience what the manner of life in heaven was. Before he learned by experience what it was to live with men, but afterwards he knew by experience what it was to live with angels. Since, therefore, the said child did not know by experience the best goods of the exterior man before his resurrection, if, as it seems, the capturing of the demons was done during his passion, Scripture rightfully says about him: For before the child knows to reject evil and choose good, the land which you abhor shall be forsaken of the face of its two kings. But these things are treated more elaborately in the treatise above; the person for whom these things are not sufficient should look at that again. R.: Behold, you already see, as we believe, under what depth of ambiguity the truth is hiding, and with what difficulty it is retrieved, unless by those who seek it in faith and simplicity. Thus certainly the height of divine counsel should be both concealed for the infidels and reserved for the faithful, so that it truly might cause faith to be cultivated and unfaithfulness blinded. 20. One ought, if possible, to have this matter always in mind, and engage one’s mind continually in its admiration

R.: But it is time to come to an end of our long conversation, unless something comes to mind that you still want to ask. H.: Nothing comes to mind that I should still ask about, I must say, unless you have something at hand about how the food of our Emmanuel can be understood correctly according to it mystical sense. R.: Let us do our best to also satisfy your wish in this matter, unless those who strive for brevity should rebuke us for being too longwinded. H.: Oh, how in vain we should fear to delay our study of that material, which one ought, if one can, always to have in mind, and in whose admiration one should engage one’s mind continually! R.: No doubt, it is very true what you say here, and we do what you want. First we will look at the eating of butter and honey.

On E mmanuel



425

21. What mystically should be understood about the butter, or what the eating of such food can mean

R.: Honey, as is said, comes from heaven. Butter, as we know, comes from flesh. Honey comes from heaven through dew; butter from flesh through milk. What is butter but the thickness of milk, and what is honey but a certain sweet-flowing thickness, so to speak, of dew? In milk, because of its sweetness, we understand correctly sweetness of the heart; in butter, because of its origin, the exultation of the heart is rightly understood. Butter is collected from milk, and the true exultation of the heart is generated by the true sweetness of heart. As much as we overflow in milk, that much we can also overflow in butter. Similarly, according to the abundance of kindness, there will be the abundance of joy. If we consider the heart of Christ, there is nothing sweeter than it, nothing kinder than it. Nothing anywhere of all creatures can be sweeter than that heart, and nothing will ever be sweeter than it; no heart will more exult than this heart. The true joy of our hearts is usually about the testimony of our conscience. Our glory, he says, is this: the testimony of our conscience.171 The testimony of a good conscience in our heart is not to give in to lust. The testimony of conscience in heart was never to feel any lust. What was ever more pure than that conscience that did not feel any lust? What was ever sweeter than that heart that no malice ever touched, which did not have or could have any gall or bitterness? In him there was also a greatness of joy, according to the greatness of sweetness. Figure out, if you can, how great the sweetness of his heart was, that the harshness of such a passion could not interfere with it or lessen it. While suffering, he would rather have mercy on his enemies than feel pity for his own body parts. More than anyone else, Emmanuel had a fleshly heart prone to mercy, since when it came to feelings of pity nothing was ever more tender than it. Only Emmanuel could rejoice out of the true fullness and permanence of sweetness, and this was for him to bring forth and abound in butter from flesh, through the mediation of milk. For what else was this eating of butter with him than to enjoy continually the inner joy of sweetness?

426

R ichard of St   V ictor

22. How in butter one can understand the highestand intimate pleasantness, and how this food was plentiful for our Emmanuel

R.: We also have to pay attention to this fact about butter, that no food is more pleasant to eat than it. Bread, fish, and other such foods are first chewed before they are digested. But butter has no hardness, no toughness, and one does not need to chew it. And just as nothing is sweeter than honey, thus nothing is more pleasant to feed on than butter. Check out taste, and you will find that nothing is sweeter than honey to taste; check out texture, and you will acknowledge that nothing is more pleasant to digest than butter. Thus, understand by honey the highest sweetness, and by butter intimate pleasantness. If you want to know how Emmanuel from the moment he started to be man, and by the fact that he was man, had plenty of butter of intimate pleasantness or how he was overflowing with the fullness of milk, pay attention to these two things about milk. It normally is very white and most sweet. Thus indeed the milk of true goodness, to serve the peculiarity of its quality, normally has and must have these two things, namely the whiteness of intimate purity and the sweetness of full benevolence; the whiteness of purity within oneself, the sweetness of benevolence towards others. This heart of Emmanuel, our Lord, had the whiteness of milk in the integrity of the highest and intimate purity, and the sweetness of milk in the fullness of highest and intimate pity. The whiteness of milk in us sometimes diminishes and sometimes completely takes away the deformity of lust; the sweetness of milk sometimes diminishes and sometimes completely takes away the bitterness of malice. But our Emmanuel, because he did not feel nor was able to feel either one, continually preserved both in all fullness. We cannot resist lust or drive out malice without a great effort and much zeal, and preserve the unbroken integrity of liquid milk. But for Emmanuel, whatever the highest purity and highest piety required, all was sweet and delightful. For by the rule of goodness, what for us is often hard and difficult was for him completely sweet and delightful. And for him that was to collect butter of the highest sweetness and honey from true goodness, and have it in abundance. But since in us, this corruptible will put on incorruption, and this mortal will put on immortality,172 certainly in us also whatever is salvific will be sweet, and what is the highest praiseworthy good will be delightful, and then to us will be given his plentiful food and everlasting refreshment, whose partaking

On E mmanuel



427

and enjoyment will be without any effort or any kind of weariness.173 What we will receive in the future life he has received in this life, and what will be given to us in fulfillment is given to him from the hour of his conception. Thus the butter of highest sweetness, of which we expect to partake at the time of our glorification, he accepted when he entered into this mortal life, and also not as we have it, only partially, but in all fullness. Behold, now we have heard about butter; now we will see about honey. 23. About the spiritual honey of the highest sweetness, and that Emmanuel was satisfied by that food from the hour of his conception

Honey, as is said, comes from heaven and descends from the highest to the deep, while its sweetness exceeds incomparably all other kinds of sweetness. But from what heaven we do think that honey, from which our Emmanuel has tasted and eaten, descends? We believe that his coming was from the highest heaven. That honey-flowing sweetness descended from the storeroom of the Father, whence the infancy of Emmanuel was reared. Without a doubt, whatever sweetness, whatever loveliness, whatever joyfulness the Father possessed, he bestowed all of it on that Emmanuel. Behold, from what heaven did that dew come down, whence that heart was watered? The Father gave forth dew, and not just he, but also the Holy Spirit. The Father brought forth dew by begetting, and the Holy Spirit brought forth dew by uniting. Drop down dew, O heavens, and let the clouds rain the just; let the earth be opened, and bud forth a savior.174 The Father brought forth dew by sending him whom he begot; the Holy Spirit brought forth dew by inspiring him who united. For the one and same Emmanuel is born of the Father and conceived by the Holy Spirit. He was born of the Father according to his divinity, and conceived by the Holy Spirit according to his humanity. The one and same was sent by the Father and anointed by the Spirit. It says: For this reason, God has anointed you, your God, with oil of gladness, more than your consorts.175 Think, if you can, about what kind of or how much gladness that is, and what will we say, or what worthy thing can we say about it? It is oil, if you like; it is honey, if you like. It is oil because it anoints; it is honey because it feeds. Add to this, if you please, that that honey-like sweetness served him as food as well as drink. He was satisfied and inebriated by it. That

428

R ichard of St   V ictor

entire torrent of plenty yielded to his use, and it is a miracle how one human, indeed one small child, could absorb it all. From that torrent others will also partake and be satisfied, but in heaven; but he partook of it while still on his earthly pilgrimage. From that torrent he drank while on the road; that is why he lifted up my head.176 But, so you will be even more astonished, he of whom we speak, the small child that is given to us, ate from the honey-like super-celestial sweetness before he even was born. For when do you think this our Emmanuel started to eat butter and honey? Certainly from the moment that he became human; certainly from the very hour of his conception he was filled with the utmost sweetness and the fullness of all loveliness. 24. How Emmanuel was confirmed in all goodness by the acceptance of beatitude

R.: Behold, we have already heard how lovely and sweet this food of Emmanuel is, but let us now also hear how useful it is. We heard how tasty it is, but let us now also hear what it brings, and what it is worth. He says, He shall eat butter and honey. But for what? To know to reject evil and choose good. What do we say to that? What kind of food is that; what use is it, if this is the fruit of its eating? He says: To know to reject evil and choose the good. Certainly, wisdom is to know these things, and it is righteousness to exercise them. Let us investigate how much or in what way he is glorious, or what we should think about his food. What kind of child is this who attained wisdom as well as righteousness by eating, and what kind of food is it that promotes its eater both to wisdom and righteousness by eating it? Other men come to these things by fasting, abstaining, moaning, sighing, and laboring, but he has deserved to obtain the fullness of both by eating. We first learn so that we know; we know so that we can act, and we act so that we may obtain eternal delights by our merits, so that we may be worthy finally to eat some of the butter of intimate sweetness and the honey of the highest and everlasting loveliness. He says: And I dispose to you, as my Father has disposed to me, a kingdom; that you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom.177 Thus, we know first so that we may eat at last; he eats so that he may know. We are first illuminated in order to be justified, justified so that we may be confirmed, and confirmed so we deserve to be beatified.178 Since becoming a man and as a man, he received the fullness of eternal beatitude. For because he was God,

On E mmanuel

 429

he had it from eternity. Indeed, this beatitude was full and perfect in eternity. This child, then, who was made Emmanuel for us, from the very hour of his conception has received the fullness of divinity and by that the fullness of beatitude. From the moment that he received full beatitude, he was confirmed in all goodness. What comes last in us was first in him. But it was not first in this sense, as if this came first and the other thing followed, but in that no merit preceded the beatitude that he received. Thus he eats butter and honey, that he may know how to reject evil and choose good. Do you want to know more clearly how out of the beatitude he received he was confirmed in all goodness? Do you want to know, I say, how out of the affluence of these delights he was completed in wisdom and confirmed in righteousness? Certainly, as we already said, from the moment he was made man he merited to be satisfied with the butter of intimate sweetness. And without a doubt he immediately demonstrated internal peace, internal rest, intimate tranquility, security, and all similar sweetness by experience; he endorsed it, tasted it, loved it, and the more fervently he was provoked with desire for that sweetness, the more full, the more perfect he rejected its deprivation and hated it. For what is the bitterness of heart, the disturbance of the mind, a tiring and restlessness of the soul, but a deprivation of that intimate sweetness? From the moment he tasted and loved that intimate sweetness, he abhorred its deprivation, and rejected it as a true evil. Anger, envy, sadness, and whatever evil, and whatever else takes away that intimate sweetness or threatens it, with his experience of sweetness he taught how much it should be averted and made it hateful. By eating butter, then, he learned how to reject evil. And similarly by eating honey he learned to choose good. For he who at the beginning of this life was nourished by the highest sweetness realized by tasting and experiencing how much it should be preferred to and chosen over all lesser goods. Thus by that comparison he learned how any inferior pleasure is to be given little or no attention. In this way, Emmanuel learned how to reject evil and choose good. Indeed in this way, by the affluence of highest delights, he was educated to wisdom, but nevertheless he was also strengthened into all righteousness. For what was for him most sweet he found worthy of the highest love; and what he judged to be most loved he clung to with the highest love. By receiving that beatitude he is thus confirmed in all goodness, and, so you may be even more amazed, just as by securing glory he was strengthened to all righteousness, thus also by this endowed righteousness he was raised to all glory. For since he most highly loved that highest right-

430

R ichard of St   V ictor

eousness, he merited to be exalted to the highest joy and glory: For this reason, he says, God has anointed you with the oil of gladness, over all your consorts. And since he learned by experience the supremely sweet and supremely lovely delights of eternal beatitude, he clung fast both to their contemplation and love inseparably, so that we might rightly understand these words to be written about him: He shall eat butter and honey, that he may know to reject evil and choose the good. 25. How God has made the blessed Virgin, who deserved to bear such fruit, most marvelous

R.: It seems to me that you have already understood from what was said before how God has made wonderful his handmaiden, and how by such a birth be glorified the blessed Virgin Mary, so that she really could glorify and freely confess that henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.179 You have heard how God has made her great when giving birth, so that Emmanuel came to be and was called “God with us,” and that he at the same time was the only-begotten of God, and hers. Indeed, he made the mother marvelous beyond comparison and also made the offspring great beyond comprehension. Ponder, if you can, how marvelous it is to conceive as a virgin, to give birth as a virgin, and to remain a virgin after birth. Estimate, if you are able, how or how great a magnificence it is that the offspring of the virgin received every plenitude at the hour of conception and received the fullness of divinity in the truth of humanity. The singular glory and the special grace of the blessed Virgin Mary, who was born with the honor of virginity, also bore a son, and not just any son, but God. Rightly we have said, and rightly we must say: Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. Who would believe, who could believe that the prophet is promising such a fruit by the gift of God when he said, God will give mildness, and our earth shall yield its fruit?180 Since it is written that Every man is a liar,181 how great is it when a truthful man is born; how, I ask, indeed how great is it when Truth himself is born? Truth, he says, is sprung out of the earth.182 The earth thus gave its fruit so that truth was born. Oh what a fruit, a magnificent fruit, a glorious fruit, a desirable fruit, a sublime fruit! Unless I am mistaken, you remember what you read in the prophet: In that day, the bud of the Lord will be in magnificence and glory, and the fruit of the earth shall be high.183 And how could it be that our wretched earth could bring forth such fruit?

On E mmanuel



431

26. Unless she was completely cleansed, she could not bring forth such fruit

R.: Certainly even the blessed Virgin Mary was then earth according to the flesh, when she heard the angel say: Hail, full of grace. Behold, you shall conceive and bring forth a son.184 No doubt at that time she was earth according to the flesh and she went into the earth. She was earth by her mortality and she went into the earth by her death. How could it be that she could bring forth such a fruit for such an earth? Certainly it is evident that, unless she was fully cleansed, she could not bring forth such a fruit so sublime. What we just said, we will say more clearly. Unless she was completely cleansed from all contamination of vice, she could not give birth to the Son of God. For a virgin to conceive and for a virgin to give birth there was need for the highest sanctity, the highest purity. In what order or by what reason the glorious virgin is promoted to the grace of such sublimity is described in the mystical utterance, when it is said to Ahaz by the prophet: For before he knows to reject evil and choose good, the land which you abhor shall be forsaken of the face of its two kings. “Land” (terra) is derived from “to tread” (terendo), and rightly the evil of our calamity is denoted by it. This land has185 thus two kings, and if only they were as good as they are bad. Those two kings we interpret as the tyranny of the two principal vices, just as the earth we interpret as the evil of our calamity and captivity. But so you better know the quality of that earthly misery of which we speak, consider the threefold region in which we live. I do not mean Asia, Europe, and Africa, but the threefold calamity of the human condition. The first region of misery of our habitation is human corruptibility, the second human passibility, and the third human mortality. For often from the first corruption, albeit insensible, one is brought to a pernicious and anxious suffering, and these many passions lead to death. This miserable land and pernicious dwelling place has two ill-willing, savage, and strict kings that exert their tyranny. In the vice of lust they have a strong king. In the vice of ignorance they have a deceitful one. That one oppresses, this one seduces. Whatever in us opposes reason fights for this double kingship. Either one thus claims its reign in the mentioned land and hastens to expand it day by day; the first by violence and the second by fraudulence. The second subjugates to himself all unbelievers; but we wish only them! The first subjugates to himself all evil ones, even of the believers, but if only he would leave the good ones alone! Whom, I ask, does the heat of lust not

432

R ichard of St   V ictor

plague? Whom, I ask, does not the fault of ignorance sometimes assail? They who go after lust serve one of these kings. But they serve at the command of the other one who calls the good bad and the bad good; pretending the sweet is bitter and the bitter sweet, confusing light for darkness and darkness for light. Indeed, in this way and to such kings we are often forced to submit in the land of our captivity. Thus we have in these kings a double vice and in the land of our calamity we hold a threefold evil. The former pertains to guilt, the latter to punishment. It is the task of the faithful mind to sustain patiently those things that serve as punishment, but to hate and abhor those that bring on guilt. It is an act of unfaithfulness to freely embrace those things that bring guilt and utterly hate those things that serve as punishment. Hence the words spoken by Isaiah to the impious king: The land which you abhor. No doubt the impious abhor mortality because they want to live forever so they can sin forever. Aptly it is thus said to the impious King Ahaz: The land, which you abhor. But then he adds: It shall be forsaken of the face of its two kings. 27. She was freed from the double root of all evils before the conception of Emmanuel

Thus the land of our mortality and passibility is forsaken of the face of its two kings when the mortal and passible nature is entirely cleansed from both the vice of lust and the vice of ignorance. This indeed is what is promised to blessed Mary when the angel says to her: The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the most high shall overshadow you.186 About the disciples of the Savior and the witnesses to the transfiguration we read: A bright cloud overshadowed them.187 If the cloud that overshadowed the disciples of Christ was bright, how rightly is the cloud that overshadowed the mother of Christ also believed to be bright? But if that shadow of hers was bright, it showed forth both light and shadow: a light to repel ignorance and a shadow to extinguish lust. This overshadowing of the Holy Spirit was marvelous, for in one moment it swept away and rooted out from the Virgin both ignorance of the good and lust for evil. She proves in fact how completely in her all lust was rooted out because afterwards she conceives and gives birth with her virginity intact. She proves how deeply she was enlightened because she believed this mystery of such depth so truly and so quickly, this mystery that hardly any of the wise men of this world can

On E mmanuel



433

be persuaded to believe by so many and such miracles. To the believing Virgin, when she asked about the way in which this could happen, an answer is rightly given when the angel says: The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the most high shall overshadow you, as if it is said openly to her: In order that you are made worthy of such a mystery and found to be qualified, the strength of the Most High will overshadow you, both to root out all lust and to enlighten ignorance. This is what in another form is promised by Isaiah and is prophesied to happen when it is said: Before the child knows to reject evil and choose good, etc. Certainly, as we said before, from that hour or moment of his conception that child received the fullness of knowledge, which in the unity of his person was united with the Word. The time of conception is expressed in the words, Before he knows, as if to say more clearly: Before Emmanuel is conceived by his mother, the land of our condition, out of which the Truth is born, is freed from the double root of all sins. 28. Only what counted as punishment remained in the Virgin, but what counted as guilt was removed

The land, he says, shall be forsaken of the face of its two kings. One should take good note that it says: The land shall be forsaken; not just any kind of land, but the one that unbelief hates. Nothing here is said about the renewal of the misery of this our land, but only about its liberation. Freedom is given, but the glory of immortality is not reformed. You will certainly see that what was counted as punishment remained in the Virgin, while what was counted as guilt was removed. The viciousness withdrew, but the punishability (poenalitas) remained. The carnality was lifted, but the calamity was not removed. But I ask, what, what kind of justice is that, where punishment remains where there was no guilt? But if we pay attention well, we will find that this viciousness is the effect of our mortality and passibility. It seems thus against nature that, enduring for so long, it is deprived of its effect. But perhaps you ask to know how this viciousness can be the result of our mortality. Certainly by the inflicted mortality, the human sense decreases, and that causes ignorance. And certainly by taking on weakness, the appetite of the flesh grows and that causes lust. For the more mankind loses their interior and spiritual delights by sinning, the more they burn with lust for the inferior delights by the yearning of the flesh; and the weaker they are, the more effort it costs both to cure their

434

R ichard of St   V ictor

weakness and to repair their health. Thus it seems to be against nature that while mortality and passibility remained in human nature, the vice of both lust and ignorance was lifted. But it seems against justice that the mortality and passibility remained while the vice of both lust and ignorance was lifted. How miraculous, how astonishing that the very fount of piety, her son, permitted his mother to labor under the yoke of our captivity while she was fully cleansed from every sin! And by contrast, what a miracle, I ask, what a sign was it that the earth, bound to a curse and exposed to misery, free from the punishment for vice and all unrest, could obtain full peace on her part? 29. The young woman giving birth to our Emmanuel was perfected with the consummation of all virtues

Pay attention, I pray, to how great, how marvelous this wondrous sign was in the eyes of the prophet, since he invited everyone to its simultaneous consideration and admiration when he says: Come and behold the works of the Lord, what wonders he has done upon the earth.188 He subsequently adds what these wonders are that should be admired so much when he says: Making wars to cease even to the ends of the earth, he shall destroy the bow and break the weapons, and the shield he shall burn with fire. What is that earth, from the boundaries of which all wars will be banished, but the one about which that same prophet elsewhere says: Truth is sprung out of the earth, and justice has looked down from heaven?189 From that earth all conflict shall be taken away; on that earth full peace is restored. He says, He shall destroy the bow, and break the weapons, and the shield he shall burn with fire. Bow and arrows wound indeed, not by force but by skill. By contrast, sword and lance wound by force and not so much by skill. By “bow” therefore we should understand deceitful temptations and by “weapons” violent temptations. Behold then into what a citadel of security he builds himself up, where neither forceful nor deceitful temptations can have any access whatsoever. He says: He shall destroy the bow and break the weapons, and the shield he shall burn with fire. Just as we interpret the bow as seductions and the weapons as oppression, similarly we should interpret the arrows as excuses, about which you can find this in the prophet: Do not make my heart incline to evil words, or make excuses for sins.190 Excuses are indeed, in a way, like the arrows of vice, by which they defend themselves against the darts of truth and by which they

On E mmanuel



435

defend themselves not to a moderate extent against the assaults of the virtues. But one has to know that, if there is no accusation, without a doubt no excuse is needed. If one’s conscience is not accusing one in any way, there is no need to excuse oneself. That virginal young woman, to whom nothing was lacking in the full completion of virtues, did not need any excuse in any way at all. For if the impossibility did diminish in her the perfection of virtues in any way, that impossibility itself was an excuse for her. The heavenly fire of supreme and uncommonly blazing love, given in him, burns up the chosen arrows of all excuses, for the fullness of grace and consummation of love leaves no spiritual weakness or imperfection, which perchance would need to be excused by impossibility. From this one can learn that the young mother of our Emmanuel was complete in every perfection of the virtues. Who has ever in such a way fulfilled the first and greatest commandment in such a way? Who will ever be able to fulfill it in such a way? Love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul.191 By that flame of raging love are burnt up all the arrows mentioned above. 30. The young mother appeared both perfect as well as confirmed in every gift that she had received

One has to note that what is burned by fire is so consumed that no matter remains from which it could even partly be repaired. Hence according to that prophecy it should be understood that the divine love in her was so powerful, and so strengthened her in every good, that thereafter no spiritual defect whatever could befall her, and neither could anything that would subject her to any kind of excuse. It seems thus that, from the hour that the Holy Spirit overcame her and from the hour that the power of the Most High overshadowed her, it seems, I say, that the blessed Virgin was not only perfected in every grace but also confirmed in every good and gift that she had received. But, so that someone would not think that this said prophecy should be understood about Emmanuel himself rather than about his mother, the person who holds that opinion should pay close attention, for arrows that never were and never will be cannot be burned. I ask, what did our Emmanuel ever have in him that needed to be burned, or could be burned, who was perfected and confirmed in every good by accepting all fullness from the hour of his conception? This said prophecy, it seems, has to be understood only about the blessed Virgin Mary. For

436

R ichard of St   V ictor

in her the land of our miserable condition has obtained peace from the incursion of every vice, just as much as for her (ad ipsam) the land that Ahaz held as hateful was forsaken of the face of its two kings. 31. She has this above all other saints, that she could not be assailed by any vice

In other saints, we admire that they cannot be conquered by vice; in her it is seen as marvelous that she cannot be assailed by vice even in the slightest. With other saints one normally expects that sin would not reign in their mortal bodies; but to her alone it is granted that sin does not dwell in her mortal body at all. It says: Let not sin rule any longer in your mortal body.192 Behold, he admonishes that it should not rule, but does he say “may not dwell”? But pay attention to what he says elsewhere: If I do the evil that I will not, it is not I who acts, but sin that dwells in me.193 But because the extermination of sin took place in the Virgin Mary, it may be hoped for in the future for all saints. I say in the future not in their bodies while they are still mortal, but in their bodies that are made immortal. Indeed, first this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal body immortality.194 But this was in the blessed Virgin marvelous above measure, and unique over all the other saints, that in her such corruptibility could go together with such incorruptibility at the same time, and such incorruptibility with such corruptibility—corruptibility with respect to those things that belong to punishment, and incorruptibility with respect to those things that belong to guilt. For her this was to the culmination of future glory, and for us as a lesson in patience, that she bore the yoke of our passibility with such purity. But now that we explained these things the way we understood them according to the mystical sense, in response to your request, my Hugh, here we must make an end to our discourse. If someone thinks we were too verbose for the brevity of the material at hand, I must say, I am not sorry to be verbose when it comes to praising the Word and praising the virgin mother. H.: I am stupefied by this depth of mysteries in the words of the prophet, and, pondering them, I  was happily listening to you talking about them for a long time, in great and anxious admiration, and I thought it inopportune to interrupt the stream of your words, and for that reason I chose to honor them with silent veneration, since it seemed to me that no one could explain these words more fully than this.

NOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Isa. 7:14. Isa. 7:14. “a quibus respondetur” (ms T), rather than “respondent” (Migne and P). The abbreviation in T, a dash over the t for ‘tur,’ could easily be mistaken for the abbreviation for ‘-ent.’ Isa. 8:1. Subjungitur Migne and HS] subiungit P. Supponit Migne and S] subiungit P, subdit H. Inquit] inquiunt HPS. The “they” referred to are the Jews; interpretations in this vein can be found, e.g. in the exegesis of Rashi on Isa. 7:14, tr. Rosenberg, online at http://www.chabad. org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15938#showrashi=true or of Kara, in: Mikraot Gedolot, ad loc. nam] num HPS. esse Migne] esset HPS. Isa. 7:14ff. Migne’s edition does not do justice to the format of the Bible commentary, and neglects the underlined Bible lemmata. Isa. 7:15. Supplied from  S; not included in Richard’s Migne edition or in  P. Manuscript Heidelberg has “etc.”. immundis tanquam sordibus refutatis Migne and HT] immundum tanquam sordes refutans P. Jerome, In Esaiam, III.7.14, CCL 73.102‒5 (PL 21.107C‒109A). This phrase is not in the manuscripts; it can be found in Migne and is possibly supplied from Jerome. Suppressing the words “nomen quod” (Migne and P) or “quod” (H), which cannot be found in the text of Jerome’s commentary and make no grammatical sense. 2 Kings 4:27. Migne and the manuscripts here read “vetula.” Deut. 22:22. Isa. 7:14. 1 Sam. 9:9. Gregory the Great, Epistola ad Leandrum, Moralia in Iob, praef., CCL 143.6. Matt. 4:1‒11. Phil. 2:10. Isa. 19:13‒14. 1 Cor. 2:8. Matt. 1:22‒23. Matt. 1:20. Isa. 6:10. Isa. 7:9. John 1:14. Luke 1:35. Isa. 7:11. Isa. 7:2. Isa. 7:12. Isa. 7:12. Isa. 7:13‒14. Isa. 7:16. Isa. 8:4. Cf. Isa. 8:2‒3. Isa. 8:1. Heb. 5:11. Reading “ininterpretabilis” with the Vulgate, against “interpretabilis” in Migne and HP. Isa. 7:14.

438 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

R ichard of S t   V ictor – On E mmanuel 1 Sam. 17:51. et ipsum ut, ut dicunt, hic pro et ponitur H; et ipsum, prout dicunt, hic pro “et” ponitur P] et ipsum ut, prout dicunt, hic proponitur Migne. habete HP] habere Migne. ut omnis tergiversatio pereat procurabitur HP] ut omnis tergiversatio pareat, procuravimus Migne. Jerome, In Esaiam, III.7.14, CCL 73.103 (PL 21.108C). Matt 1:19. Isa. 6:10. 1 Cor. 2:8. uocabuli HP] uocali Migne. Matt. 1:23. Cf. Mark 8:18. Exod. 21:33‒34. obuoluere HP] absolvere Migne. non acclamare sed reclamare HP] non reclamare sed acclamare Migne. Ps. 17:12. Matt. 2:15. Isa. 7:11. Isa. 7:12. Isa. 7:3. Unidentified source. Isa. 7:13. Ps. 131:11. Isa. 7:13. Ps. 109:1. “primum illud,” presumably referring to the prophesy uttered by Isaiah in vs. 7‒9. Isa. 7:17. Isa. 7:20. Gen. 3:5. Both H and Migne read “nisi” (ń). P has ú, “ubi”. Luke 1:78. Gen. 3:16. Phrase omitted in Migne and supplied from H and P. Gen. 2:17. Ps. 48:13. Gen 3:17. Ps. 76:10. Ps. 129:7. Isa. 26:19. Isa. 56:5. Isa. 64:4; 1 Cor. 2:9. praeciditur HP] praecipitur Migne. Cf. Ps. 50:7. quod HP] quam Migne. patres HP] partes Migne. One of the characteristics of Richard’s Latin is the use of “quia” as a non-causative conjunction. Luke 1:35. “caro” omitted in Migne. John 1:14. John 1:1. Phil. 2:7. Ps. 88:49.

N otes 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146



John 1:14. quod ista specialiter expressit HP] qui ista … Migne. Hos. 13:14. 1 Cor. 15:53. Hos. 1:10. Matt. 5:9. Ps. 35:9. Luke 22:29. Heb. 5:8. Sir. 1:1. Gen. 2:9. “vel” in several cases I have not translated as “or,” but as a stronger “et”: “and indeed.” Heb. 2:17. Luke 24:42. Luke 23:43. Luke 24:50‒51 and Heb. 4:8. Gen. 3:5. Acts 1:4. Acts 1:9. Luke 24:26. Heb. 5:8. siue HP] sine Migne. Gen. 3:15. Isa. 7:16. profunditatem HP] profunditate Migne. Dan. 10:20. Dan. 10:13. John 12:31. Job 41:25. Judg. 11:24. 1 Tim. 4:1. Hos. 4:12; and 5:4. John 4:35. John 12:31. Rev. 20:3 and 9. Luke 8:31. sicut HP] ut Migne. Matt. 27:52‒53. Eph. 4:8. Isa. 26:10, reading according to the LXX/Vetus Latina. Ps. 48:13. Ps. 118:22. Gen. 3:22. Luke 1:42. Rev. 21:4. Isa. 35:10. Gen. 3:22. illis HP] nobis Migne. Luke 1:42. Phil. 3:21. Cf. 2 Chron. 30:10. Luke 1:42. Matt. 5:45.

439

440 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163

164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194

R ichard of S t   V ictor – On E mmanuel

Exod. 12:46 and John 19:36. Matt. 1:23. illi HP] ille Migne. Richard seems unaware that this is a logical fallacy: (a → b) does not imply (~a → ~b). 2 Kings 16:5‒8. Cf. above, p. 361. ponit HP] potuit Migne. That is, old enough to still coincide with the reign of Pekah, who dies nine years before the destruction of Samaria. Horace, Epistulae, I, 1, 90. Isa. 7:6‒7. eatenus HP] catenus Migne. Reading “avellere” instead of “a vellere.” Matt. 16:18. Ezek. 14:14. Luke 17:34. Gen. 49:10. Ps.-Augustine, Contra Iudaeos, Paganos et Arianos, sermo de symbolo, PL 42.1124 (= Paulus Diaconus, In  annuntiatione beatae Mariae, PL  95.1471A), cited from a liturgical source, Breviarum romanum, IV dominica adventus, lectio 4. Isa. 9:6. Phil. 2:6. Richard emphasizes here that in v.  16 the sentence about the choosing good and evil is repeated, but the phrase about the butter and honey is not. Luke 2:52. In opinione; that is, in the estimate of the onlookers, but not in reality, since he was already perfect. Heb. 5:8. Dan. 10:20. 2 Cor. 1:12. 1 Cor. 15:53. fatigatione HP] fagitatione Migne. Isa. 45:8. Ps. 44:8. Ps. 26:6. Luke 22:29. Cf. Rom. 8:30. Luke 1:48. Ps. 84:13. Ps. 115:2. Ps. 84:13. Isa. 4:2. Luke 1:28 and 31. habet HP] dicitur Migne. Luke 1:35. Matt. 17:5. Ps. 45:9. Ps. 84:12. Ps. 140:4. Deut 6:5, Matt. 22:37, Luke 10:27, and Mark 12:30. Rom. 6:12. Rom. 7:20. 1 Cor. 15:53.

FROM TEXT TO SERMON: THREE SERMONS BY RICHARD OF ST VICTOR AND MAURICE OF SULLY

INTRODUCTION AND TRANSLATION BY HUGH FEISS, OSB

The path that led from a biblical text to a twelfth-century Victorine sermon was a millennium long and had many stopping-places, though perhaps not quite as many stopping-places as the Israelites had on their journey from Egypt to the Promised Land.1 The twelfth-century Victorine sermon writers lived at a crucial moment in the process of the tradition, when concern for pastoral ministry to the laity led the Parisian bishop Maurice of Sully to compose a collection of homilies in Old French, which were designed to serve as resources for preachers to the laity. His effort was closely connected with the theological and pastoral concerns of the regular canons of St Victor. What follows is a brief inventory of the sermons that survive from twelfth-century St Victor,2 then a sketch of the Parable of the Good Samaritan as interpreted from the time it was penned by St Luke to the time of Richard of St Victor and Maurice of Sully, and finally examples of how the parable entered into the preaching of the these two Parisian men dedicated to preaching and to its improvement. The Homiletic Legacy of the Twelfth-Century Abbey of St Victor

Hugh of St Victor, whose writings nurtured all the twelfth-century Victorines, did not leave a collection of sermons. Nor did Adam of 1

2

There were 42: Num. 33:49; Origen, Homily 27 on Numbers (tr. Rowan A. Greer, Origen, An Exhortation to Martyrdom; Prayer; First Principles, Book IV; Prologue to the Commentary on the Song of Songs; Homily XXVII on Numbers, Classics of Western Spirituality [New York: Paulist, 1979], 245‒69); Hugh of St Victor, Libellus, 10 (Sicard, 15; tr. Weiss, 66‒67). This introduction has benefited greatly from materials kindly sent to me from Mount Angel Abbey Library by Fr. Augustine de Noble, OSB and Br. Tuan Le, OSB. Several Victorine sermons have already been published in Victorine Texts in Translation: VVT 2: Achard of St Victor, Sermon 5, for Palm Sunday; VTT 4: Achard of St Victor, Sermon 13, On the Dedication of a Church; Richard of St Victor, Sermon 4, “Ave Maris Stella”; Godfrey of St Victor, Sermon on the Nativity of the Virgin; Walter of St Victor, Sermo 6, On the Feast of the Purification. VTT 8, on the liturgical year, will include about 30 additional Victorine sermons. For the theology of preaching at St Victor and the importance that the Victorine canons assigned to preaching in their own lives and in the life of the Church, see Hugh Feiss, “Preaching by Word and Example,” in From Knowledge to Beatitude: St. Victor, Twelfth-Century Scholars, and Beyond. Essays in Honor of Grover A. Zinn, Jr, ed. E. Ann Matter and Lesley Smith (Notre Dame, IN; University of Notre Dame Press, 2013), 233‒80.

444

F rom T ext to Sermon

St Victor, the great composer of sequences.3 In the half century after Hugh’s death in 1141, however, the canons regular of St Victor produced and carefully preserved over two hundred sermons. Achard of St Victor was abbot of the community from 1155‒61 and died as bishop of Avranches in 1170/71. He left behind fifteen sermons, one or more of which are found in twenty-six different manuscripts. The longest and most copied of these (Sermons 13, 14 and 15 in Châtillon’s edition) are actually treatises, but seem to have originated as sermons and often circulated separately from the rest.4 Godfrey of St Victor (d. after 1194) prepared for posterity three manuscripts containing 31 of his own sermons. One additional sermon of his circulated more widely.5 Barthélemy Hauréau studied at some length a manuscript in which he found this additional sermon of Godfrey’s. He explains the attention he gave it: The 60 sermons [there are actually 66 as well as some excerpts from Hugh of St Victor’s In Ecclesiasten] that this volume contains appear to have been chosen as models. One can at least consider them to express in a most faithful manner the particular sentiments of the religious who heard them. Thus, we have here what one could call the parenetic teaching of St Victor. The style of all of them was carefully elaborated by preachers who were concerned to speak well.6

3

4 5

6

According to Goy, Die Überlierferung der Werke Hugos von St. Viktor, 329‒40, there are sixty extant copies of Hugh’s commentary on Ecclesiastes. It is entitled Homilia in Ecclesiasten in eleven manuscripts, Homilia XIX in Salomonis Ecclesiasten in two manuscripts, and Adnotationes seu sermones in Ecclesiasten in one. However, whatever its origins, the current work is not a series of liturgical sermons. Achard de Saint-Victor, Serm. (tr. Feiss, 59‒351). The manuscripts that Godfrey wrote or had written at St Victor are found in Paris, Mazarine 1002 and in Paris, BnF, lat. 14515 and lat. 14881 (which contain the same fourteen sermons, several of which overlap with those in Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine 1002). The sermon that is not in these manuscripts but circulated more widely was a Sermo communis (Vidi aquam egredientem) identified by Barthélemy Hauréau in his discussion of Paris, BnF, lat. 14590 (Notices et extraits de quelques manuscrits latins de la Bibliothèque Nationale. 6 vol. [Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1890‒93; rpt. Farnborough,: Gregg International, 1967] 3:18‒69). Two of Godfrey’s sermons have been published: In die omnium sanctorum (Vidi turbam magnam), ed. Philippe Delhaye in Le Microcosmus de Godefroy de Saint-Victor: Étude théologique (Lille: Facultés théologiques/Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1951), 133‒43; Sermo de Nativitate Beate Marie (Sacram et salutiferam), ed. Johannes Beumer, “Die Parallele Maria-Kirche nach einem ungedruckten Sermo des Gottfried von St. Viktor,” RTAM 27 (1960) 250‒56. Chris Evans and I have begun editing the rest of Godfrey’s sermons; translations of several of them will appear in VTT 8. Hauréau, Notices et extraits, 3:19.

introduction

 445

Châtillon found this same collection in whole or in part in sixty-two manuscripts. It contains twenty-one sermons of Walter of St Victor (d. 1180), the fifteen sermons of Achard of St Victor, six sermons of Master Maurice, who seems to have been a member of St Victor, one by an unidentified Master Henry, and, as we have seen, one by Godfrey of St Victor. In addition, there is one sermon by Odo of Soissons, a Parisian master who became abbot of Ourscamp, six by Peter Comestor, who was Maurice of Sully’s chancellor in Paris from 1164 and had good relations with St Victor, two by Peter Lombard, who seems to have studied at St Victor, and eight that are anonymous, several of which are probably Walter of St Victor’s.7 Châtillon published thirty-six of these sermons, including those by Walter of St Victor, Master Maurice [of St Victor], Master Henry [of St Victor?] and the eight anonymous sermons.8 Another author whose sermons reflect the milieu of late twelfthcentury St Victor is Absalom of Springiersbach, who left St Victor to become abbot of Springiersbach in the early 1190s and died there in 1204.9 A collection of his sermons was published in 1534 by the then abbot of Springiersbach, Dominic Schillinck, and reprinted by Migne in the Patrologia latina,10 where they are entitled Sermones festivales. This title would fit the vast majority of the surviving Victorine sermons, which are assigned to the major feast days of Christ and Mary and the liturgical seasons of Advent and Lent. The only saints for whose feast days the Victorines have left us sermons are St Victor and St Augustine. Richard of St Victor (d. 1173), who at his death was succeeded as prior of St Victor by Walter, has left us the most sermons of any Victorine, primarily in a collection called Sermones centum (One Hundred Sermons).11 The first twenty-seven of the sermons in this collection form a unit in Richard’s Book of Notes,12 and all or parts of several other 7 8 9 10 11

12

Jean Châtillon, “Sermons et prédicateurs victorins de la seconde moitié du xiie  siècle,” ­AHDLMA 32 (1966): 7‒60. Galteri a Sancto Victore et quorumdam aliorum, Sermones ineditos triginta sex, ed. Jean Châtillon, CCCM 30 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1975). Gabriele Ziegler, Augustinus als Vorbild der Predigt des Absalon von Springiersbach, Cassiciacum 47 (Würzburg: Augustinus Verlag, 1998), 45‒46. Schillinck transcribed Absalom’s sermons from a manuscript at Douai that came from the abbey of Anchin. The sermons are in PL 211.13‒294. PL 177.899‒1210. There is only one complete manuscript of this collection; another has the first 91 sermons. On this see Châtillon’s introduction to LE (Châtillon, 49‒50); Goy, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, 380. LE II.10 (Châtillon, 374‒438).

446

F rom T ext to Sermon

sermons in the Sermones centum are found elsewhere in the Book of Notes.13 Richard wrote the latter work to give a student the basic knowledge needed to study Sacred Scripture.14 The inclusion of the twentyseven sermons in the Book of Notes gives the student of Scripture not only information about the Scriptures, but also samples of how what he learns in reading and studying might be handed on to others in preaching. Goy identifies an additional thirteen sermons written by Richard.15 Near the end of Richard’s life, Maurice of Sully, bishop of Paris, prepared a cycle of sixty-seven sermons in Old French (of which he or someone else also prepared Latin versions). Their editor, C. A. Robson, dated them to 1168‒75. Maurice of Sully addressed the first sermon in the collection to his clergy. He gave them three directives: their lives must be worthy of their office; they must have suitable learning and discernment for hearing confessions and giving moral guidance; and they must faithfully fulfill Christ’s command to feed his sheep. They should have the necessary books, including “homilies” suitable for Sundays and the individual feasts of the year. They are to preach every day, not being deterred by the fear of evil people. In preparing the sermons for his clergy, Bishop Maurice made use of the writings of Richard of St Victor and may even have collaborated with him. A good example of that interaction is the explanation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan; but before examining the explanations of Richard and Maurice, we first we need look at some major Patristic commentaries on the Good Samaritan that shaped the interpretations of both men.16 The Good Samaritan: From St Luke to Maurice of Sully

The fountainhead of the Latin theological tradition of interpretation for the Parable of the Good Samaritan is a homily of Origen that was translated into Latin by Jerome. Origen’s exegesis was presented in sermon form; in fact, he may be regarded as “the Father of the Christian 13 14 15

16

Goy, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, 380. LE, I. prol., II, prol. (Châtillon, 97, 213; tr. Feiss, VTT 3.297‒98, 318‒19). Goy, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, 359‒81. Some of these are parts of two unedited works of Richard that are currently being edited by Christopher P. Evans for the Corpus Christianorum. There is an anthology of Patristic texts (from Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome) interpreting the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. New Testament III: Luke, ed. Arthur A. Just, Jr. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 177‒81.

introduction

 447

homily.” Of Origen’s Homilies on Luke, thirty-nine survive in Jerome’s translation. The first thirty-three are on Luke 1:1‒4:2. The last six, of which the homily on the Parable of the Good Samaritan is the first (Homily 34), are on isolated passages. They tend to be longer, more complex, and more polished than the first thirty-three.17 In Homily 34 Origen introduces the dialogue between Jesus and the man who asked what he should do to possess eternal life. Jesus commended the man when he declared that the Scriptures offer as guidance the twofold commandment of love (34.1‒2). Then, in a crucial paragraph, Origen gives an allegorical interpretation of the parable by an unnamed priest (quidam de presbyteris): The man who was going down is Adam; Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world; the robbers are hostile forces; the priest is the Law; the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ; the wounds are disobedience; the animal is the Lord’s body. The pandochium (that is, the stable),18 which receives all who wish to enter, is the Church. And further, the two denarii mean the Father and the Son; the stable-keeper is the head of a church, to whom its management has been entrusted. The Samaritan’s promised return represents the Savior’s second coming.19

In the remainder of the sermon (34:4‒9) Origen simply elaborates on the presbyter’s interpretation. Not everyone goes down to Jericho, but only those who do are wounded with vices and sins. Samaritan means “guardian,” a name Jesus did not refuse.20 It was Providence who kept the injured man alive and Providence that led the Samaritan 17 18

19

20

Origen, Homilies on Luke, tr. Joseph T. Lienhard, FOC 94 (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996), xviii–xxv. As Lienhard explains in Homilies on Luke, 138 nn. 10‒11, “pandochium” is the Greek word for “inn” (literally, “receiving all”) and the parenthesis that gives “stable” as its meaning seems to be Jerome’s gloss. Origen, Homiliae in Lucam, 34.3 (ed. Max Rauer, Origenes Werke, 9: Die Homilien zu Lukas in der Übersetzung des Hieronymus und die griechischen Reste der Homilien und des Lukas-­ Kommentars, GCS 49 [Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1959], 190‒91): “hominem, qui descenderit, esse Adam, Hierusalem paradisum, Hiericho mundum, latrones contrarias fortitudines, sacer­ dotem legem, Leviten prophetas, Samaritan Christum, vulnera vero inoboedientiam, animal corpus Domini, pandochium, id est stabulum, quod universos volentes introire suscipiant, ecclesiam interpretari; porro duos denarios Patrem et Filium intelligi, stabularium ecclesiae praesidem, cui dispensatio credita sit. De eo vero, quod Samarites reversurum se esse promittit, secundum Salvatoris figurabat adventum.” John 8:48.

448

F rom T ext to Sermon

to help him. Jesus, the Good Samaritan,21 put wounded humanity on his own body, for he deigned to assume humanity. The two denarii are knowledge of the Father and Son and their mutual indwelling, which Christ entrusted to the angel of the Church. In telling the man to “Go and do likewise,” Jesus was speaking to all, directing them to imitate his own compassionate action as the Good Samaritan. This interpretation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan was handed on by St Ambrose in his Commentary on the Gospel according to Luke.22 Ambrose follows Origen closely, though he adds moral exhortations for his readers after each allegorical interpretation. Jericho is the world into which Adam was cast because of his sin, by which he fell among robbers, angels of the night. They stripped away garments of spiritual grace and then inflicted wounds. The Samaritan (guard or keeper) descended from heaven and came close to us through compassion and mercy. He brought many medicines for the half-alive man, for his word binds with precepts, soothes with the oil of the remission of sin, and stings (compungit) like wine when it announces judgment. By the assumption of our flesh, he took us upon his shoulders. He led us to a stable, for we were beasts whom he raised from the dunghill and for whom he cared. The next day was the Resurrection, the two denarii were the two testaments (or the four gospels), and the stable-keeper is Paul and all those sent to preach the gospel. The Samaritan’s return is the last judgment. We love Christ as Lord and neighbor; we love Christ as head for us, his body; and we love those who imitate him by their compassion and mercy. St Augustine referred to the parable in several sermons. In Sermon 299D.2 he retells the parable without any allegory, emphasizing as the account in Luke does that the neighbor one should love is anyone who shows kindness.23 In Sermon 171, on rejoicing in the Lord, Augustine speaks of the paradox that Christ is far away above the heavens, yet 21

22

23

“hominem assumere”: see also Hom. 29.5 (tr. Lienhard, 121). This was a classical expression of Antiochene Christology (Lienhard, 140 n. 22, 121 n. 14), but also terminology favored by the Victorines. Ambrose, In Lucam, VII.67‒84 (CCL 14.237‒41; revised with Italian translation, J. Coppa, Expositionis Evangelii secundum Lucam, Sancti Ambrosii Episopi Meiolanensis opera 12 (Mediolani: Bibliotheca Ambrosiana/Rome: Città Nuova Editrice, 1978), 142‒53; tr. Íde M. Ni Riain, Commentary of Saint Ambrose on the Gospel according to Saint Luke (Dublin: Halcyon, 2001), 211‒15. Sermo Denis 16, in Miscellanea Agostiniana, Testi e Studi. Vol. 1: Sancti Augustini sermones post Maurinos reperti, ed. Germain Morin (Roma: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, 1930) 1:76‒77; tr. Hill, WSA III/8:256‒57.

introduction

 449

through his mercy is near to us as a neighbor,24 just as the Samaritan was to the Israelite traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho, who was robbed and left stripped and wounded and left half-alive but ignored or disdained by a priest and Levite of his own race. Christ, the Samaritan (“guard”), when challenged by his critics,25 did not deny being a Samaritan, though he denied their other charge of being demonpossessed. In a brief allusion to the Parable of the Good Samaritan at the end of Sermon 179A, Augustine refers the wine that the Samaritan brought to “the sacrament of the Only-begotten Son.” Being lifted onto his mule stands for belief in the Incarnation. Augustine elaborates on the inn, which is the Church where we are cured. He says the Lord has given him the task of an innkeeper, but it is the Lord’s money he is dispensing.26 According to Bede, the Good Samaritan is Christ who by his humanity made himself a neighbor to us and to anyone who acts mercifully. The robbers are the devil and his angels whose pride made them ripe to fall when tempted. The stripping is the loss of immortality and innocence. It recalls the cloak put on the returning Prodigal Son and the skin tunics with which the tradition that Bede was following said Adam and Eve covered themselves. The wounds the robbers inflicted are sins that leave humanity in a weak and vulnerable state. The robbers went away, not by ceasing from their deceits, but by hiding them. They left the man half-alive because they were able to deprive him of the blessedness of immortal life, but they could not completely destroy his rational sense. The priest and Levite stand for the ministry of the Old Testament, which by the decrees of the Law could show the wounds of the languishing world but could not cure them. The Samaritan, whose name means “guard,” is the Lord who took up our human condition when he came among us. He treated the wounds by giving hope to penitents and instilling the fear of punishment in sinners. Like the Good Shepherd he put the wounded man on his shoulders when he bore our sins. He bore humanity on his own shoulders to the stable by 24

25 26

Sermo 171, 2‒3 (PL 38.933‒35; tr. Hill, 3/5:247‒49. The text that is the focus of Augustine’s sermon is Phil. 4:4‒5: “Gaudete in Domino semper … modestia vestra nota sit omnibus homnibus Dominus prope” [in Augustine’ text: “Dominus in proximo est.”]. In the sermon Augustine emphasizes the paradox that one who is immortal, just, and utterly different from us came near as our neighbor and took upon himself the punishment, though not the guilt, of our injustice. Mercy connects the distant Lord to us as near neighbor. John 8:48‒49. Sermo II.7‒8, ed. André Wilmart, in Miscellanea Agostiniana I:680; tr. Hill, WSA III/5:312. The phrase quoted about the Eucharist is “sacramentum Unigeniti perceptisti.”

450

F rom T ext to Sermon

joining humanity to his body in baptism. On the next day he gave the stable master two denarii (the two Testaments), that is, he enlightened humanity through the grace of his Gospel before the resurrection and then with perpetual light after the Resurrection, when the Holy Spirit taught the apostles to preach the Gospel to the nations. No one is more a neighbor to us than the one who is merciful, and so we should love the Lord our God as a neighbor, as members of him who is our Head. We are to love whoever imitates Christ. We are also to do likewise, to do whatever we can to support another’s bodily and spiritual need.27 The Making of a Sermon at St Victor

In the texts presented below, Richard of St Victory and Maurice of Sully pass along the tradition of the Fathers regarding the interpretation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. They do so with specific audiences in mind. They are, in effect, responding to Bede’s admonition to continue the task of preaching the Gospel and bringing spiritual aid to meet others’ needs. The earliest of their interpretations of the parable seems to be that in Richard’s Book of Notes. The Book of Notes

Richard of St Victor’s Book of Notes survives in its entirety or in large selections (most frequently the allegories on the Old and New Testament that are contained in Part Two) in two hundred and thirtysix manuscripts, more than any of his other works.28 There are not many identifiable examples of its later use, perhaps because it was a resource for preachers and an introductory textbook to prepare readers for biblical studies as these were pursued in the twelfth-century Victorine setting. As such, it could have been used without acknowledgment or identifiable traces. As we shall see, one exception to this is Maurice of Sully, who clearly made use of Richard’s Books of Notes in preparing his collection of sermons in Old French.29 It is notoriously difficult to date Richard’s works, but Goy suggests that the Book 27 28 29

Bede, In Lucae Evangelium expositio (CCL 120.221‒25). Goy, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung, 20‒21. See Châtillon’s introduction to Richard, LE (Châtillon, 81‒86).

introduction



451

of Notes is probably Richard’s earliest work. He believes that Part I of the Book of Notes (which contains introductory material on the liberal arts and history) was written after 1141 and before 1153; the Allegories of the Old Testament (the first nine chapters of Part II), around 1145; and the Allegories on the New Testament (Part II, Books 11‒14), which particularly concern us here, slightly later. He makes no attempt to date the twenty-seven sermons that constitute Part II, Book 10, but if they were a part of the Books of Notes from an early stage one can surmise that they date to slightly before 1150. Goy also dates Richard of St Victor’s commentary On the Apocalypse, which has some verbal affinities with the Book of Notes, to before 1150.30 Richard’s treatment of the parable of the Good Samaritan occurs in Part II, Book 12, chapter 5 of the Book of Notes. He begins by saying “as we read in the homilies,”31 which might suggest Origen or one of Augustine’s sermons, However, Richard’s primary source seems to have been Bede. Like Bede, he refers to the loss of innocence and immortality. Richard then inserts a discussion of the two principal goods with which humanity was created, knowledge and love, and the corresponding evils that sin inflicted on them. This is a condensed form of a treatment at the beginning of the Books of Notes of three goods granted to human beings at creation and three evils incurred through Adam’s sin.32 Returning to Bede, Richard says that the Fall did not deprive humanity of all reason (sensus), though it did destroy all goodness. To illustrate this distinction Richard cites Ps. 4:7 and Ps. 103:30. He follows Bede again in his interpretation of the priest and the Levite. Christ, the Samaritan, administers the oil of consolation and the wine of rebuke. He takes up wounded humanity on his beast when through the flesh he assumed, suspended on the cross he expiated sin. Richard expands 30 31

32

Goy, Die handschriftliche¨ Überlierferung, 20‒21. LE II.12.5.4: “omeliis.” “Omelia” (var. homilia, omilia, homelia) came into Latin from the Greek word “homilia.” According to G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 951‒52, the word meant “association” (contact, conversation) or “communication” (utterance, speech, teaching, colloquy, discourse, sermon). The Latin word is not in Lewis and Short or the Oxford Latin Dictionary. Niermeyer, Mediae latinitatis lexicon minus (Leiden: Brill, 1984), 491, gives its meaning as “sermon familiar,” and according to Albert Blaise, Dictionnaire Latin-Français des auteurs chrétiens (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954) 397, the term was used in that sense by Jerome, Augustine, and Isidore. According to Isidore, Etym. VI.8.2 (ed.  Lindsay, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Isidore/home. html, tr. Barney, 139): “Secundum genus [opusculorum] homiliae sunt, quas Latini verbum appellant, quae proferuntur in populis”(“one type of “opusculum” is the “homilia,” which Latin speakers call a speech; they are delivered to people”). LE I.1.1‒3 (Châtillon, 104‒5; tr. Feiss, VTT 3.299‒301).

452

F rom T ext to Sermon

on Ambrose’s reference to manure by observing that as animals leave their manure in a stable, so sinners leave their sins in the holy Church through confession, a priority in Victorine theology and pastoral practice in the late twelfth-century. Richard then gives an interpretation of the two denarii that differs slightly from Bede’s. According to Richard, the two denarii refer to the two Testaments and to preaching them. Expanding at length on an idea that Bede merely broached, Richard, in keeping with the preoccupations of his abbey, relates the payment for expenses to be made when the Samaritan returns to the reward of those who study and preach, but does not mention other forms of mercy and compassion that Ambrose and Augustine mentioned. Nor does he allegorize on “the next day” as Bede did. Sermon 70: For the Feast of Pentecost

Richard’s Sermon 70, from the Sermones centum, was composed for Pentecost and directed to a congregation of canons. This sermon parallels and likely depends on his discussion of the parable of the Good Samaritan in the Book of Notes. He begins with the theme of humanity made in God’s image and likeness. To illustrate this idea, he cites the interpretation of “the doctors” of Ps. 4:7, an echo of a statement in LE II.5.12.33 He expounds on the effect of the Fall on the two goods with which humanity was created, just as he does in the discussion of the parable in the Book of Notes. As he does there, so in Sermo 70 he says “some spark of sense” remained in fallen humanity and illustrates this with citations of Ps. 50:12 and Ps. 103:30. Richard refers several times to “Providence,” just as Origen did. Then, after elaborating on the role and limits of the written Law, he turns to Pentecost (as Bede did obliquely) and to how the Spirit made the Church of the Acts one, with a unity and togetherness that should be found among the community Richard is addressing. Thus, Richard’s sermon is woven together from three components: the Victorine theological anthropology elaborated from the idea that human beings have been created according to God’s image and likeness, the Parable of the Good Samaritan, and the sending of the Spirit at Pentecost to unify the Church.

33

LE II.12.5 (Châtillon, 465.37‒40): “doctores in alterius cujusdam versiculi expositione declarant.” Sermo 70 (PL 177.1119D): “doctores in verbis Psalmistae declarant.”

introduction



453

Maurice of Sully, Sermon 35: For the Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost

With his Old French sermon cycle, Bishop Maurice of Sully provided model sermons in the vernacular for the use and instruction of his clergy. He begins Sermon 35 (par. 1‒2) by simply summarizing Luke 10:23‒35 in Old French.34 At the end of this summary and again at the end of the sermon, the preacher is to address his audience: Gentlemen, let us do good to all who need us; let us consider the example Christ has given us as our Good Samaritan and also his teaching to the man learned in the Law. Let us do what Jesus commands in return for all that God has done for us, whom we should love with all our heart, soul, and strength. In explaining the significance of the parable, Bishop Maurice follows very closely the interpretation handed down from Origen and found in Richard of St Victor’s Book of Notes. The human race went from glory and the vision of peace to the decay of the world by consenting to the devil. The devil took away the garment of immortality and innocence mentioned by Bede and the Book of Notes, wounding humanity with vice and sin, as Origen had explained. Like Bede and both works of Richard, Maurice says that humanity was left only half-dead because the devil did not completely deprive humanity of its reason. Maurice specifies that the Levite was a deacon. He says that the Levite and priest stand for the patriarchs and prophets who could not rescue humanity, whereas Jesus our Samaritan-guardian can. The beast of burden onto which Jesus hoisted injured humanity was His flesh, which, Maurice adds, was under and thus less than Jesus’ divinity. In keeping with the devotion of his time, Maurice adds that Jesus took up his flesh from Mary, our Lady. Nuancing slightly the explanation given by Bede about the healing substances administered by the Good Samaritan, Maurice says that the water is baptism, oil is comfort, and wine bitter warnings, all of which heal the wounds of sin. Maurice mentions that sinners leave the manure of their sins in the stable of the Church, specifying, as Richard had, that this occurs through confession. He elaborates on the role of the stableman, who is the parish priest who needs knowledge of the two laws to counsel, teach 34

C. A. Dobson, Maurice of Sully and the Medieval Vernacular Homily. With the Text of Maurice’s French Homilies from a Sens Cathedral Chapter ms (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952). Sermon 35 is on pages 153‒55.

454

F rom T ext to Sermon

and preach, ministries parallel to those Richard’s sermon emphasized to his congregation of canons. Conclusion

The Victorines were clearly very dedicated to the ministry of preaching. They carefully prepared collections of sermons and exhorted each other and other clergy to dedicate themselves to this ministry. Such preaching was a way to be a Good Samaritan, to administer to wounded humanity the medicine it needed: the oil of consolation and encouragement and the vinegar of admonition. In presenting the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Richard drew heavily on the traditional Christological interpretation inherited from Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Bede, and others. Like them he uses the parable and the example of Christ the Good Samaritan to urge his readers and listeners to the love of neighbor. He offers the example, not just of an imaginary Samaritan walking from Jerusalem to Jericho, but the Divine Samaritan, who came from heaven to heal the wounds of sin by bearing the weight of humanity’s sin in his body. For the canons of St Victor, being Good Samaritans, loving their neighbors, meant especially study and preaching of the Gospel, for which Richard’s Book of Notes and Sermones centum were resources, and his preaching an example and inspiration. It seems clear that in composing his Old French sermon, Maurice drew on Richard’s ideas expressed in the Book of Notes. He shares Richard’s interest in calling the clergy to be zealous in preaching. He presented the Christological and moral message of the parable shorn of digression and aimed at lay listeners, but with an admonition to his clerical readers to provide the medicine of preaching and teaching to their people.

RICHARD OF ST VICTOR THE BOOK OF NOTES II.12.5: ON THE MAN WHO WENT DOWN FROM JERUSALEM TO JERICHO TRANSLATION BY HUGH FEISS, OSB

A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, etc.1 As we read in the homilies,2 this man who went down from Jerusalem and fell in with robbers designates the human race, which in our first parents deserted the beatitude of the heavenly city,3 fell down through its fault to the misery of this exile, was despoiled of the garment of immortality and innocence by the deception of the ancient serpent, and was gravely wounded by the sinful proclivities (vitiis) of the original guilt. As we have said in another place, God made man according to his image and likeness,4 to his image according to reason, to his likeness according to love, so that through both he would cling to God and by clinging would be blessed. However, the devil envied human beatitude and in the original guilt inflicted on man two principal evils contrary to the two aforementioned goods: insofar as he had been made according to the image of God according to reason, he wounded him with ignorance of the good; insofar as he had been made according to the likeness of God according to love, he wounded him through desire for evil. However,5 man, now despoiled and wounded, was left half-alive6 because, although in human nature the divine likeness, which is found in love, could be completely corrupted, nevertheless the divine image, which is found in reason, cannot be completely destroyed. Although he could be afflicted with such wickedness that he loved nothing good, he cannot be blinded with such ignorance that he knows nothing true. Therefore, he is rightly said to be left half-alive, because although he was corrupted in part by these primordial evils, he still was not completely blinded. He still was alive even after his wounds in that some spark of sense remained in him. The enemy’s sword could not snuff out man completely as long as he could not completely destroy the dignity of his natural goodness. The Psalmist furnishes the basis for this opinion, saying, Create a clean heart in me, O God, a right spirit renew within me,7 for by a clean heart he designates the divine likeness within him, and by a right spirit, the divine image. When he asked that a clean heart be created in him, but a right spirit be renewed, he fittingly implied both that the divine likeness was completely corrupted and that the divine image cannot be completely destroyed. Where no good remained, if good would be restored, it is created, and where something of good remains, it is renewed.

458

R ichard of St   V ictor

Purity of heart is in the perfect love of God, rightness of spirit in sane reason.8 However, that the divine image and likeness can be understood according the preceding distinctions the doctors9 declare in their exposition of another verse where it is written: You have sealed upon us the light of your countenance, O Lord; you have given delight in my heart.10 Through the light that is sealed upon us or in us they single out the divine image in us, which they assign to the discernment of reason, and through delight, the divine likeness, which they locate in the joyousness of love. The priest and the Levite,11 who, having seen the despoiled and wounded man pass by, stand for the ancient fathers who traversed the journey of the present life by living in a holy way but did not in any way heal the human race wounded by its fault. However, the Samaritan12 passed by when Christ through his humanity ran through the brief periods of this life. He poured oil and wine13 on the wounded man when through his teaching he showed him both gentle consolation and severe rebuke. Binding his wounds he lifted him onto his beast of burden,14 when through the flesh he had assumed, lifted up on the cross by his death, he expiated his fault. He led him to a stable15 when he placed him within the holy Church. The stable signifies the holy Church, because just as animals leave their manure in a stable, so sinners, who previously lived like beasts, lay aside their sins in the holy Church through confession and satisfaction. The next day he brought out two denarii and gave them to the stable-keeper16 so he would take care of him. When the mystery of redemption had been completed, he distributed knowledge of both Testaments and the grace of preaching to all who must govern the Church.17 And whatever you do beyond this, I will repay you when I return.18 Prelates must do more in the care of the one who is sick so that they not only strive to preach the things contained in the two Testaments, but also labor at thinking out and making clear to others through preaching many other things in accord with the things which have been written. However, on the day of the judgment when the Lord has returned, he will bestow a reward according to their merit. When the Lord requires in this even what is ours, what are we going to say, what are we going to do, who rarely or never pay out what is his? If we never tell the simple letter to those to whom we owe teaching, what will happen to us, who should also ceaselessly preach to them innumerable ideas that by the help of grace have been thought out by our study and work, or at least heard from others, and most diligently deposited in our hearts?

T he B ook of N otes   I I . 1 2 . 5



459

We can say, therefore, that in this parable (figura), Jerusalem is heavenly contemplation; the robbers are demons; the going down is guilt; the clothes, immortality and innocence; the wounds, evil inclinations; the Levite and priest, the ancient fathers or event the ministers of the ancient priesthood; the Samaritan, Christ; the beast of burden, the flesh; the oil, gentle consolation; the wine, severe rebuke; the lifting up, redemption; the stable, the Church; the stable-keeper, prelates; the two denarii, knowledge of both Testaments.

NOTES 1 2

3

4

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Luke 10:30. “omeliis”: see the note on this term in the Introduction. Here Richard refers to homilies that served as the sources for this section of his Book of Notes, one purpose of which seems to have been to be a source book for preachers. “superne civitatis beatitudinem”: Richard must mean either that by sinning Adam and Eve forfeited heaven, for which they were destined after their stay in the paradise of Eden, or that while they were in Eden they were members of the city of God on earth. Later in this paragraph, Richard explains that one is “beatus” by clinging to God with one’s reason and one’s love. Gen. 1:26. Richard discussed the creation of human beings according to God’s image and likeness at the very beginning of his LE, I.1.1 (Châtillon, 104; tr. Feiss, VTT 3.299‒300), and again at II.3.4 (Châtillon, 253.49‒52), where he considers the twofold commandment to love, a treatment replicated in Serm. cent. 88 (PL 177.1177C‒1179D). The text from here to “sane reason” in the next paragraph is replicated in Serm. cent. 70 (PL 177.1120C‒1121A). Luke 10:30. Ps. 50:12. The text from here to the end of the paragraph is replicated in Serm. cent 70 (PL 177.1119D‒ 1120A). Richard of St  Victor may be referring to Augustine, En. Ps. IV.8 (CCL  38.17‒18). Richard often refers to “doctores,” who like prelates have the responsibility to study and teach the faith handed on from the apostles. They enrich the Church’s understanding and are part of the tradition that is the life and teaching of the Church. For some examples of his use of “doctor,” see Apoc., prol. (PL 196.683B), 1.1 (PL 196.692D), 2.2 (PL 196.749C), 4.5 (PL  196.808D), 7.10 (PL  96.886B); LE 2.10.22(2) (Châtillon, 416.12‒16)  = Serm. cent. 22 (PL 177.940AB); Serm. cent. 75 (PL 177.1138C). Ps. 4:7. Luke 10:31‒32. Luke 10:33. Luke 10:34. Luke 10:34. Luke 10:35. Luke 10:35. The duty of clergy to preach was an important concern for Richard; see Feiss, “Preaching by Word and Example,” 240‒53. Luke 10:35.

RICHARD OF ST VICTOR SERMON 70, ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST TRANSLATION BY HUGH FEISS, OSB

The Lord will give grace and glory.1 You who are dearly beloved to us, man2 was made according to the image and likeness of God so that he could be a participant by grace in that good that God is by nature. He was made to the image of God according to reason, to the likeness of God according to love; to the image according to knowledge of truth, to the likeness according to love of virtue; to the image according to understanding (intellectum), to the likeness according to affectivity (affectum). Thus, God the artificer made the human creature to his image and likeness, [so that through being made to the image of God he could know God],3 so that through being made to the likeness of God he could love God, and by knowing and loving possess God, and by possessing [God] be blessed. Thus, as in one element, namely fire, there are two different things, distinct from each other, namely brightness and heat, and brightness is not heat nor is heat brightness, because brightness gives light and is seen and heat burns and is felt. Brightness does not heat nor is it felt; heat does not give light nor is it seen. So in the human creature the image of God and the likeness of God are seen to be different, and somewhat distinct from each other. According to that good by which the human creature has been made to the image of God, he is alight to knowing, and according to that good by which he is made to the likeness of God, he warms to love. That4 the image and likeness of God can be understood according to the preceding distinctions, the doctors declare in the words of the Psalmist, where he says, The light of your face is sealed upon us, Lord. You have given joy in my heart.5 Through the light that is sealed upon us or in us they designate in us the divine image, which they locate in the discernment of reason; through joy, the divine likeness, which they determine is in the joyfulness of love. When man had been made according to the image and likeness of God, and when he had been established by divine providence as lord of the world in a place of delights, in the better part as it were,6 and, warned by the same divine providence, directed toward human reason to take care of the goods that he had and instructed to seek and obtain these goods that he was going to have by the precept of obedience with the working of grace, the devil7 saw and was envious that man would ascend through obedience to the place from which he himself

464

R ichard of St   V ictor

had fallen through pride.8 Because he could not harm him through violence, he turned to treachery so that by deceit he could overthrow the one whom he could not overcome by force.9 Deceiving man, the devil inflicted the two principal evils against the two principal goods mentioned above; he wounded him with two lethal injuries. In that he had been made to the image of God according to reason, he wounded him through ignorance of the good. In that he had been made to the likeness of God according to love, he wounded him through concupiscence of evil. These are the two principal evils from which all other human evils proceed. From ignorance proceeds dereliction; from concupiscence proceeds sin. It is dereliction when what ought to be done is not done; it is sin when what should not be done is done. Therefore, humanity, despoiled and wounded, despoiled of good things and wounded by evil ones, was left half-alive, because although in human nature the divine likeness, which is located in love, can be completely corrupted, the divine image, which is located in reason, cannot be completely destroyed. Although it can be affected by so great wickedness that it loves nothing good, it cannot, however, be blinded by such ignorance that it knows nothing true. This is evident in the devil, the prince of evil: although he is so corrupted that he loves no good, nevertheless, he cannot be so blinded that he knows nothing true. Rightly, therefore, man is said to have been left half-alive, because although he was partly corrupted through the primordial evils, he was not completely blinded. He certainly lived after his wounds in that some spark of sense remained in him. The enemy’s sword did not completely destroy man, as long as it could not completely destroy the dignity of natural good in him. The Psalmist chimes in with this interpretation, where he says, Create a clean heart in me, God, a right spirit renew within me.10 By a clean heart he points to the divine likeness, and by a right spirit to the divine image. When he asked that a clean heart be created in him, but asked that a right spirit be renewed, he fittingly indicated both that the divine likeness could be completely corrupted and that the divine image could not be completely destroyed. Where nothing good remained, if good was to be restored, it is created; and where something good still survived, it is renewed. Purity of heart is in perfect love of God, rightness of spirit in sound reason. Another passage in the psalms is in harmony with this interpretation: Send forth your spirit, and they will be created, and you will renew the face of the earth.11

S ermon 7 0 , On   the   D ay   of   Pentecost

 465

Therefore, man was established in honor through the two principal goods mentioned earlier, but he did not understand that he had been established in honor, and by consenting to the devil he corrupted the two goods in him by the two evils about which we have spoken already. Because he could not drive out the evils by himself, nor was he able to reform the goods, divine providence12 bestowed on him two principal remedies through which he cured the evils brought upon him and recovered the lost goods, namely, counsel and help. So that man would recognize his illness, he was first sent completely away from himself so there would be no chance of him thinking that grace was superfluous, if he had not recognized beforehand the debility of his illness. Hence, the time of the natural law established that nature would operate on its own, not because it could do anything on its own, but so that it would recognize that it could not. Having been left to itself, it began to wander from the truth through ignorance and was convinced of its blindness, to also be convinced later of its weakness. The written Law was given to illumine ignorance, but it did not strengthen weakness insofar as when man recognized his lack he was helped, but insofar as when he thought he was standing by himself he was forsaken. Having received the knowledge of truth through the Law he began to try to progress, but pressured by concupiscence he failed in the work of virtue because he did not have helping grace. The apostolic statement agrees well with this opinion when it says, for no flesh will be justified before him by works of the law,13 and again, the law brings nothing to perfection.14 Why? What comes through the Law? You supply: only knowledge of sin. Through the Law there is only knowledge of sin, not accomplishment. The Law warned by teaching, but man, having counsel though not assistance as well, failed in the doing. The Law gave knowledge about doing, but not the strength to accomplish it. Poor man would have remained in weakness had not the physician, who gives counsel about avoiding sin, also provided medicine as an antidote. Thus the one weakened through sin cannot be justified from sin by the Law alone, unless grace, the medicine for sin, is provided. Man, therefore, is convicted on both counts, because on his own he cannot know the truth nor can he accomplish the good. In the time of the natural law he was convicted of blindness, in the time of the written Law, of infirmity. Therefore, the prophet David, seeing that neither nature nor the Law could suffice to free humanity, and understanding that grace was necessary, and perceiving in the Law divine benevolence toward the human

466

R ichard of St   V ictor

race, consoling himself and all who had confidence in the grace of God and not in works of the Law, said, The Lord will give grace and glory.15 Therefore, after humanity knew its blindness and weakness, a law was fittingly given that would illumine the blind and heal the weak, illumine blindness and cool down concupiscence, illumine to know the truth and inflame to love virtue. For this reason, the Spirit has been given in fire, to have light and flame, light for knowing, flame for loving. The sacred solemnity of this best and perfect giving, which descends from on high from the Father of lights,16 is not new, unknown, or sudden, but ancient, well-known and genuine, once celebrated by Moses and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai in a typological way. For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth have come to be through Jesus Christ.17 The Law was given on a high mountain; grace is given above in the cenacle.18 The Law was given in flashing fire; grace was given in tongues of fire. The Law was given to the twelve tribes; grace was first given to the twelve apostles. The Law was written on two tablets; grace is perfected in the two precepts of charity. The Law was written by the finger of God on stone tablets; grace is written by the Holy Spirit on human hearts. The Law was given on the fiftieth day after the Passover was celebrated in Egypt; grace was given on the fiftieth day after the resurrection of the Lord. When the days of Pentecost were completed, the disciples were together in the same room and suddenly there was the sound from heaven of a strong wind, etc.19 The fullness of this Spirit is in the Head; participation in it is in the members. The Head is Christ, a member is a Christian. The Head is one, the members many. One body consists of the Head and members, and in the one body is one Spirit. Therefore, if the body is one and the Spirit one, whoever is not in that body cannot be vivified by the Spirit. As it is written, whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.20 Whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ is not a member of Christ. In the one body there is one Spirit. Nothing in the body is dead; nothing outside the body is alive. This is the anointing on the head, which runs down onto the beard of Aaron, all the way to the hem of his garment.21 As has been said, the head signifies Christ, who is the Head of all the faithful. The beard, which is attached to the head and is a sign of virility, designates the apostles, who adhered to Christ while he lived in the world, and adhering ate and drank with him, and heard his salvific teaching, and saw his miracles, and after his Ascension, strengthened by the fuller reception of his Spirit, acted manfully because they preached his faith through the

S ermon 7 0 , On   the   D ay   of   Pentecost

 467

kingdoms of the world, were handed over to councils because of his name, whipped in synagogues, and led before kings and magistrates.22 In all this they conquered. Therefore, the anointing of the Holy Spirit, which is in the Head in its fullness, runs down onto the beard, that is, the apostles, by participation, when he says to them, Receive the Holy Spirit,23 and when after the Ascension he sent the same Spirit to them and distributed the gift of tongues. It ran down to the hem of his garment, because that same Spirit is bestowed on those saints who are going to be even at the end of the world. Therefore dearly beloved, let us look at ourselves, and let us see whether we are cleansed from all stain of flesh and spirit, so that we can worthily have and receive the Holy Spirit on this sacred solemnity. Wisdom will not enter into an ill-disposed soul, nor will she dwell in a body subject to sin. The Holy Spirit of discipline will flee pretense, and she will depart from thoughts that are without understanding, and she will be carried away from the approach of wickedness.24 Let us imitate our Fathers, the holy apostles from whose Acts our order arises.25 What is written of them is extremely commendable and worthy of imitation: they were together in the same place.26 Brothers, let us be together not only by dwelling in one place, but by one faith, hope, charity, devotion, prayer, and invocation and expectation of the Holy Spirit, so that together we may merit by reception and participation of the Spirit to be justified through Him in time, so we may glory together in eternity. May our Lord Jesus Christ deign to grant us this, who is God blessed through the ages. Amen.27

NOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27

Ps. 83:12. From here to “warms to love” at the end of this paragraph, the sermon closely parallels Richard of St Victor, LE I.1.1 (Châtillon, 104; tr. Feiss, VTT 3.299‒300). This clause is missing in the Patrologia latina version of Serm. cent. 70, but is in LE 1.1.1. It clearly belongs here. This paragraph closely parallels LE II.12.5 (Châtillon, 465.35‒43, translated above). Ps. 4:7; see note 9 to the translation of LE II.12.5 above. “parte potiori”: cf. Mary of Bethany. Luke 10:42. The next few lines parallel LE II.12.5 (Châtillon, 464.11‒15) On human beings as replacing the fallen angels, see Hugh of St Victor, Libellus, 11 (Sicard, 161.114‒18; tr. Zinn VTT 5, forthcoming). “quem virtute superare non potuit”: Richard may have intended a pun here, since this can also be translated as “the one whom he could not surpass by virtue.” Ps. 50:12. Ps. 103:30. This paragraph closely parallels LE II.12.5 (Châtillon, 464.16‒465.35). This is the third occurrence so far of the phrase “divine providence.” As was noted in the introduction to these texts, Origen also mentions divine Providence three times in his sermon on Luke 10:25‒37. Rom 3:20. Heb. 7:19. Ps. 83:12. This verse is repeated from the opening line. Jas. 1:17. John 1:17. See James Martin, Jesus, A Pilgrimage (New York: HarperOne, 2014), 338‒40. Acts 2:1‒2. Rom. 8:9. Ps. 132:2. Matt. 19:17‒18; Mark 13:9‒10. John 20:22. Wis. 1:5. “odor”: this should read “ordo,” which is the way it is translated here. “Acts” need not refer to the biblical book rather than the deeds the apostles performed, but Richard next cites a text from the Acts of the Apostles that was paradigmatic for those who led the common life in a monastic or regular canonical ordo. Ordo means the pattern or rules by which a way of life is arranged (as in the Victorine Liber ordinis). It can then mean a group of monasteries that are united in professing the same way of life (the Order of St Victor). Or more broadly still it can refer to a larger segment of society, as in the clerical or religious ordo, as distinct from the knightly or farming ordines. Acts 2:1. This doxology is the one used by Maurice of Sully in many of his Old French sermons, though he never writes it out completely.

MAURICE OF SULLY SERMON 35, FOR THE THIRTEENTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST TRANSLATION BY HUGH FEISS, OSB

Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. I tell you that many prophets and kings wanted to see the things that you see and they did not see them.1 The Gospel today tells us that one time our Lord spoke to his apostles and said to them: Blessed are the eyes that see what you see; for truly I tell you, many prophets and kings wished to see you what you see and they did not see it, and to hear what you hear and they did not hear. When our Lord spoke thus, a man learned in the Law replied to him and said: Master, what should I do so that I can have everlasting life? Our Lord said in reply: What do you read in the Law? How is it written there? He answered him saying: You shall love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your thought, and your neighbor as yourself. Our Lord said to him: You have discerned rightly, you have answered rightly. Our Lord said: Do that and you will have everlasting life. He wished to justify himself, so he said to our Lord: And who is my neighbor? Our Lord looked up at2 him and said: A man went down from Jerusalem toward Jericho and on the way fell among robbers who despoiled him, and wounded him and went away, and left him half-dead.3 Then it happened that a priest was passing on that road and surely saw him, and passed by, and said not a word. After that a deacon passed by there, and he did nothing for him. After that a man passed by there from the city called Samaria whose inhabitants were pagan. And when he saw him he took pity on him, approached him, and put oil and wine on his wounds, and bound them, and placed him on his beast of burden, and led him to a stable, and so he took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the stable keeper and said to him: Take these denarii and take care of this wounded man, and when I return I will pay you, if you spend any of your own money on him. When our Lord had spoken this word, he asked the man learned in the Law: which of these seems to you to have been a neighbor to that man? He said, the one who had pity on him and showed him mercy. Go, our Lord said, and do likewise. Gentlemen, let us do well not only to our acquaintances, but also to all those who have need both of what is ours and of our help. Then we will merit everlasting life.

472

M aurice of Sully

But now let us consider further what this parable that our Lord told the man learned in the Law signifies. The man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho signifies the human race, which by the sin of Adam fell from the glory and splendor of our Lord and adhered to the decadence of this world and of this life, for in Scripture Jerusalem means “vision of peace” and Jericho means the “decay” of this world.4 The descent, that is, the going down, signifies consent to the devil whereby man lowered himself from the glory he had in paradise to the sorrow of this life. And when our first parent took the way of sin, then robbers despoiled him, and wounded him, for there the devil took from him the garment of immortality and of innocence with which God had clothed him when he made him. He wounded him, as was said, for the devil and his accomplices wounded him horribly in his flesh and spirit with vices and sin. They went away and left him half-dead. Although the devil took away his salvation, he could not completely take away his reason, and to the extent that he could not he left him half-dead. The priest and the deacon who passed by the wounded man and did him no good signify the patriarchs and prophets who indeed passed on the road of this life but could never rescue man from the sin of damnation in which he was placed. The Samaritan, which in our language means protector,5 is our Lord God, who protects the one he loves. He came to earth, he took pity on man, and he lifted him up and put him on his beast of burden when in his holy flesh, which he took up from my lady, St Mary, he purged our sins. The beast of burden signifies the flesh of our Lord, for just as the beast of burden is less valuable and less worthy and more lowly than the one who rides on it, so in our Lord was the flesh less worthy than the divinity that is in it and above it. He cleaned the wounds of the injured man when by baptism he removed man’s sins. He put oil on his wounds by the sweetness of his comfort and wine by the sting of his warnings, and the comfort and warnings are able to heal the wounds of sin. The stable signifies Holy Church, for just as the animals leave their manure in a stable, so also sinners leave their sins, which are foul things, in Holy Church, by the confession that they make to the priest. The stableman who took care of the stable is the priest who takes care of the Church and directs the parish. The two denarii that the gentleman gives to the stableman are the knowledge that the priest needs to have from God regarding the two laws so that he may counsel his people, and if he shares anything of his study and his thinking, our Lord will repay him when he comes on the day of judgment.

Sermon 35, for the Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost 

473

Good people, consider, as our Lord himself did, the example of charity that he commanded the one learned in the Law to follow and that he commands through us for you to follow. What do we do for God for all the things that he has done for us? Let us keep his commandments, let us love him with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength, so we will have everlasting life which …6

NOTES 1

2

3 4 5 6

Luke 10:2‒24. Maurice of Sully begins by quoting in Latin the first sentence of the Gospel passage that forms the subject of this sermon. In the course of the sermon he will cite two more Latin words, which will be indicated in the notes. The passage that the sermon paraphrases and interprets is Luke 10:23‒37. It includes three elements: Jesus’ statement that many prophets and kings have wanted to see what his disciples see (vv. 23‒24); Jesus’ conversation with the scribe about what he must do to attain eternal life (vv. 25‒29, 36‒37); and, elaborating on the identity of one’s neighbor who is to be loved as oneself, the parable of the Good Samaritan (vv. 30‒37). The author interprets the parable in the traditional Christological way discussed in the introduction. The author’s interest is centered on this third element. Since this sermon translates or paraphrases this Gospel story, it seems unnecessary to give the biblical references for each verse. Where the author seems to be quoting rather than paraphrasing, the text will appear in italics. Many thanks to Professor María Rebbert who kindly corrected this translation. “esgarde … sus”: As Robson notes (202 n. 1), “esgarde … sus” translates “suspiciens,” a variant found in some witnesses to the Latin text for “suscipiens.” See Fischer, et al., Biblia sacra vulgata, 1628 note to Luke 10:30. “demi mort”: the Latin has “semivivo,” “half-alive.” For this interpretation of the names of the two cities, see Jerome, Hebr. nom. (Lagarde 50, CCL 72.121, 9‒10; Lagarde 62, CCL 72.137, 9: Jericho = “odor” [stench]). Jerome, Heb. nom. (Lagarde 72, CCL 72.148): “Samaria custos.” “which”: Latin, “quod.” Maurice ends many of his Old French sermons this way. Sometimes he expands the ending to “quod nobis [or “ipse”] praestare dignetur …” (“which may he deign to grant us …). Maurice never gives the conclusion, which would be something like “qui vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum” (“who lives and reigns for ever and ever”). The wording would vary according to which person of the Trinity was being addressed.

LEONIUS OF PARIS HISTORIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: THE BOOK OF RUTH INTRODUCTION AND TRANSLATION BY GRETI DINKOVA-BRUUN

Leonius of Paris was an important twelfth-century member of the Parisian intellectual elite. As established by Craig Wright in 1986,1 during his life Leonius belonged to three religious institutions in Paris: first he was connected to the collegiate church of St Benoît, where he served until c. 1180; subsequently, he became a canon and a priest at Notre Dame, where he achieved fame as a musician and composer of polyphonic music; and finally, during the same period, Leonius was also a participant in the scholarly life of the renowned Abbey of St Victor. He probably died shortly after 1201, when his name stops being mentioned in any preserved contemporary documents. Leonius was a prolific poet, whose magnum opus, entitled Historie ueteris testamenti, represents a versification of the Octateuch in 14,065 unrhymed hexameters. The poem has never been printed and is virtually unknown today.2 In addition, Leonius wrote eight shorter poems, four on moralizing themes and four verse-epistles addressed to Pope Adrian IV, Pope Alexander III, Cardinal Henry of Marcy, and an anonymous friend.3

1 2

3

See Craig Wright, “Leonius, Poet and Musician,” Journal of the American Musicological ­Society 39 (1986): 1‒35. Excerpts from the Historie are published in Paul G. Schmidt, “Die Bibeldichtung des Leonius von Paris,” in Als das wissend die meister wol. Beiträge zur Darstellung und Vermittlung von Wissen in Fachliteratur und Dichtung des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit: Walter Blank zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. M. Ehrenfeuchter und Th. Ehlen (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2000), 253‒60, who edits 143 verses from the beginning of Book IV, describing the story of Joseph and the wife of Potiphar (Gen. 39); Greti Dinkova-Bruun, “Leonius of Paris and his Liber Ruth,” in Schrift, Schreiber, Schenker. Studien zur Abtei Sankt Viktor in Paris und den Viktorinern, ed. Rainer Berndt, CV: Instrumenta 1 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2005), 293‒316 (264 verses); Greti-Dinkova-Bruun, “Why Versify the Bible in the Later Middle Ages and for Whom?: The Story of Creation in Verse,” in Dichten als Stoff-Vermittlung: Formen, Ziele, Wirkungen. Beiträge zur Praxis der Versifikation lateinischer Texte im Mittelalter, ed. Peter Stotz, Medienwandel – Medienwechsel – Medienwissen 5 (Zürich: Chronos Verlag, 2008), 41‒55 (20 verses from Book I, day one of creation); and Dinkova-Bruun, “Autor, Authorship and The Literal Sense of The Bible,” 259‒77 (100 verses from Book I, the story of Abel and Cain). This introduction is based on my articles from 2005 and 2009. For an edition of the last two of these letters, see Bruce Holsinger and David Townsend, “The Ovidian Verse Epistles of Master Leoninus (c. 1135‒1201),” The Journal of Medieval Latin 10 (2000): 239‒54.

478

L eonius of Paris – H I ST OR I E S OF T H E OL D T E STA M E N T

Manuscripts and Contents of the Historie Veteris Testamenti

Leonius’s poem is found in eight manuscripts, two of which belonged to the Abbey of St Victor (nos. 1 and 2),4 two to the Benedictine monastery of St Denis (nos. 4 and 5),5 and one to the Collège de Navarre (no. 8).6 The extant manuscripts are as follows: Paris, BnF, lat. 14760 (s. XII), fols. 1r‒235r Paris, BnF, lat. 14759 (c. 1200), fols. 1r‒147v Paris, BnF, lat. 8111 (s. XIII), fols. 1r‒173r Vatican City, BAV, Reg. Lat. 283 (s. XIIIin), fols. 1v‒241r Paris, BnF, lat. 18559 (s. XIIIin), fols. 1r‒210v Paris, BnF, lat. 8111a (s. XIIIin), fols. 1r‒134v (imperfect)7 Paris, BnF, lat. 8100 (s. XIIIin), fols. 1r‒160v (imperfect)8 Paris, BnF, lat. 18560 (s. XIVin), fols. 1r‒235v.

The fact that Leonius is called presbyter Parisiensis in half of these manuscripts suggests that the Historie ueteris testamenti must have been completed after 1180 when he took his position at the Cathedral of Notre Dame of Paris. At precisely the same time Peter Riga composed his popular Bible in verse, the Aurora.9 The two poems, however, could not be more dissimilar in their exegetical approach, composition, and literary style (on which more below). Leonius divides his poem into twelve books, probably in conscious imitation of Virgil’s Aeneid. This unusual and artificial arrangement distinguishes Leonius’s Historie from the other biblical versifications of the period, which normally dedicate one book of verse to one book of the Bible.10 In contrast, Leonius covers Genesis in as many as four books and 4,511 verses that account for almost one third of the entire poem. Thus, the contents of the Historie can be outlined as follows:

4 5 6

7 8 9 10

See Ouy, Les manuscrits de l’abbaye de Saint-Victor, 2:19. See Donatella Nebbiai-Dalla Guarda, La Bibliothèque de l’Abbaye de Saint-Denis en France du ixe au xviiie siècle (Paris: CNRS, 1985), nos. 131 and 159. For the history of the College, see Natalie Gorochov, Le Collège de Navarre de sa fondation (1305) au début du xve  siècle (1418): histoire de l’institution, de sa vie intellectuelle et de son recrutement (Paris: H. Champion, 1997). The last 62 verses of the Liber Ruth and the epilogue are missing. The prologue, Book I, the first 170 verses of Book II, Liber Ruth and the epilogue are missing. See Paul Beichner, Aurora Petri Rigae Versificata, 2 vols (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1965). For more detailed discussion, see Dinkova-Bruun, “Leonius of Paris and his Liber Ruth,” 299.

I ntroduction

 479

Prologue – 55 vv. Addressed to an anonymous patron who appears to be Guérin, abbot of St Victor in 1173‒93.11 Book I – 1055 vv. From the story of creation to Noah’s death (Genesis 1‒10). Book II – 1152 vv. From the story of Abraham to the story of Esau giving up his right as firstborn (Genesis 11‒25). Book III – 1172 vv. From Isaac’s flight to Egypt to the birth of Tamar’s sons Esrom and Zara (Genesis 26‒38). Book IV – 1132 vv. From the story of Joseph and the wife of Potiphar to Jacob’s blessing of his sons (Genesis 39‒50). Book V – 1231 vv. From the description of the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt to the crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 1‒13). Book VI – 1187 vv. Moses sweetens the bitter water; ends with the description of the clothes of the high priest (Exodus 14‒39). Book VII – 1175 vv. Begins with the construction of the tabernacle (Exodus 40), continues with the instructions given in the Book of Leviticus and ends with the journey to Zared Valley in the Moab territory (Numbers 21:18). Book VIII – 1238 vv. Moses asks the king of the Amorites to allow the Israelites to pass through his land; ends with the death of Moses (Numbers 21:19 – Deuteronomy 33). Book IX – 1244 vv. Life and death of Joshua (Joshua 1‒24). Book X – 1162 vv. Judah and Simeon are sent to fight the Canaanites; ends with Sangar’s bravery (Judges 1‒3). Book XI – 1150 vv. The book comprises the stories of Deborah, Gideon, Thola, Manasseh, and Jair (Judges 4‒10:3). Book XII – 1045 vv. From Jephthah to Samson (Judges 10, 4‒16); ends with the story of Ruth (Ruth 1‒4). Epilogue – 60 vv. Leonius’s Historie is an ambitious work that was composed for didactic and mnemonic purposes, as were all biblical versifications of the period, such as Lawrence of Durham’s Hypognosticon, Peter Riga’s Aurora, Matthew of Vendome’s Tobias, and Petrus Episcopus’s Vetus Testamentum uersibus latinis, to mention only a few.12 The peculiarity 11 12

See Wright, “Leonius,” 20. For an examination of the corpus of Latin biblical versifications, see Greti Dinkova-Bruun, “Biblical Versification from Late Antiquity to the Middle of the Thirteenth Century: History or Allegory?,” in Poetry and Exegesis in Premodern Latin Christianity. The Encounter between

480

L eonius of Paris – H I ST OR I E S OF T H E OL D T E STA M E N T

of Leonius’s approach is revealed in his strong interest in expounding the literal sense of the biblical narrative while completely ignoring its higher spiritual meaning. Leonius accomplishes this by expanding the story of the Bible with numerous historical sources, the names of whose authors (Pomponius Mela, Origen, Flavius Josephus, Philo, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Bede, etc.) are entered in the majority of the manuscripts as marginal annotations. Leonius himself, Peter Comestor, and other of their contemporaries are also included among these authorities, with their interventions being marked in most cases with the abbreviations AT, AV, and AVT (probably standing for either autor or autentin).13 Even though it is unclear who wrote these marginal references, the fact that they appear to have equal respect for both the ancient auctoritates and the contemporary moderni suggests a much more nuanced understanding of the idea of authorship than we are used to imagining with respect to the Middle Ages. Leonius’s Liber Ruth

Leonius’s versification of the Liber Ruth is included in the twelfth book of the Historie ueteris testamenti and comprises 264 verses. It is a typical example of the poet’s working methods and distinct interest in historical exegesis. Thus Leonius’s rendition of the story follows closely the biblical narrative,14 which is expanded with details borrowed from the Roman historian Flavius Josephus’s Antiquitates Iudaicae and his contemporary Peter Comestor’s Historia scholastica, or representing expansions by Leonius himself. In the section on Ruth the sources used by Leonius are not marked in the margins, as is the case for the rest of the books in the Historie. However, in at least one manuscript (BAV, Reg. Lat. 283, fols. 235v‒238r) there are copious interlinear and marginal glosses of useful explanations of the text, which attest that the poem had at least some readership and appeal.15

13 14 15

Classical and Christian Strategies of Interpretation, ed. Willemien Otten and Karla Pollmann, Vigiliae Christianae, Supplements 87 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 315‒42. See Dinkova-Bruun, “Autor, Authorship and the Literal Sense of the Bible,” 270‒77. In fact only occasional biblical verses are not directly covered in the poem, such as Ruth 1:8‒10; 2:21; 3:11; and 4:1‒2. Some of these glosses were printed in Dinkova-Bruun, “Leonius of Paris and his Liber Ruth,” 304‒6. A small selection of the glosses to the poem is included in the notes to the translation.

I ntroduction



481

Most of the additional information included in the Liber Ruth is borrowed from the fifth book of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities (1st century ce), a work which, known in the West in the Latin translation of Rufinus, was considered an essential historical companion to the Bible.16 Examples of the influence of Josephus are seen in the statements that Naomi shared with Ruth the food that was given to her by their neighbors (vv. 120‒21) and that the kinsman who wanted to buy Elimelech’s field needed to remember the sacred laws in their totality not just partially and thus accept Ruth together with the land (vv. 218‒19).17 Further elaboration on this theme is seen in v. 225, where the validity of the bestowal of the field to Boaz is sealed by the next-of-kin untying his shoe and Ruth spitting in his face. The untying of the shoe is indeed mentioned in Ruth 4:7‒8, but the spitting in the face comes from Deutoronomy 25:9 and is mentioned by Josephus in this context.18 The spitting in the face is a ritual by which a widow puts a mark of shame on her brother-in-law who has refused to marry her. The situation in the Book of Ruth is slightly different, since the man who rebuffed her was only the next-of-kin, not her brother-in-law, but Josephus and by extension Leonius must have felt that the narratives were sufficiently similar to warrant the inclusion of the ritualistic spitting as a legal transaction in this context as well. Next to Josephus, the second source that provides useful details with which Leonius enriches his text is the Historia scholastica.19 The first instance is the mention in v. 2 of the name of Heli’s father Ithamar, who is the fourth son of Aaron, as explained in Numbers 26:60, while the second inspires the description of the customary feast at the threshing floor (vv. 151‒57). The third layer of additions consists of Leonius’s own expansions, which either elaborate on the emotions of the characters or express the poet’s own commentary on the unfolding events. The first category is exemplified in verses 44‒49 where Leonius describes Ruth’s decision to never abandon Naomi. In her steadfast resolve Ruth behaves like a daughter towards her mother, not like a daughter-in-law towards her mother-in-law. Naomi is duly impressed by this loyalty and accepts Ruth as a companion in her misfortunes with equal love and devotion. 16 17 18 19

The first five books of the Antiquities are edited in The Latin Josephus: Introduction and text. The Antiquities: books I-V, ed. Franz Blatt (Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1958). All other cases of borrowings from Josephus are listed in the notes to the translation. See Josephus, Ant. V, 9, 4 (Blatt, 349, 9). See PL 198.1293A‒1295B.

482

L eonius of Paris – H I ST OR I E S OF T H E OL D T E STA M E N T

None of these nuances is present in the Bible or any other of Leonius’ sources. The respect and love the two women share for each other is a motive that is repeated throughout the poem, and this is entirely Leonius’s contribution (see also verses 50‒51, 118‒19, 122‒24, 171‒72). As for Leonius’s own analysis of the story, there are two excellent examples that need to be mentioned: first, in verses 60‒64 Leonius explains that all the adversities that befall the two women are in fact preordained by God in his desire to provide Ruth with a better husband and Naomi with a better son; and second, in verses 231‒35 Leonius points out that God lent his approval to Ruth and Boaz’s marriage because they were brought together not by desire for gain, a pride in lineage, and lust, but by faith, devotion, and concern for upholding the sacred laws. It is possible that in this veiled way Leonius was expressing a criticism towards Philip Augustus and his improper divorce from his second wife Ingeborg of Denmark, which caused France to be put under papal interdict for a year.20 Furthermore, Leonius brings into the narrative of Ruth additional biblical elements, the most noteworthy of which is seen in 251‒53, where he develops the theme of the biblical phrase Vox populi, vox Dei (cf. Isa. 66:6) in relationship to the people of Bethlehem’s wishes for Ruth’s marriage to be happy and blessed with children. In conclusion, Leonius’s versification of the Liber Ruth is a surprisingly complex narrative that contains various levels of expansion and elaboration. All of them, however, are still within the realm of the literal sense of the Bible, adding more detail to the story but not explaining its allegorical meaning. In collecting and organizing all the historial information available to him, Leonius shows himself to be primarily a historian, who, as I have suggested elsewhere, can probably be seen as Comestor’s poetic counterpart.21 The fact that both Leonius and Comestor were connected to the Abbey of St Victor, where interest in the historical reality of the Bible was highly valued and actively promoted, must have to a certain degree shaped the scholarly output of these medieval intellectuals.

20

21

The interdict was lifted on 7 September 1200. For the importance of this year, see John W. Baldwin, Paris, 1200 (Stanford: Stanford University Press), 2010; English translation of the French original published in 2006). See Dinkova-Bruun, “Autor, Authorship and the Literal Sense of the Bible,” 274‒76.

I ntroduction



483

The Style of the Poem

Leonius’s Liber Ruth is written in unrhymed hexameters, as is his entire Historie ueteris testamenti. Prosody is not a problem for Leonius; his verses scan perfectly, even though they are characterized by somewhat wearisome use of elision and the endless repetition of the enclitic ‑que, which seems to be the poet’s favorite word. One among many examples of both these traits is seen at the very beginning of the poem (vv. 1‒9), where we have six cases of elision (in italics) and the enclitic ‑que is used as many as five times (in bold): Huic Aaronis Hely genus alto a sanguine ducens, Summus Hely primusque Ithamar de stirpe sacerdos, Successit populique data est huic cura regendi. Apprehenditque fames illo sub iudice terram Vxore et Noemi socia natisque duobus, E quibus hic Maalon, Chelyon hic nomen habebat, Elymelech cui nomen erat, uir Belleemites, Ire fame est urgente procul patriamque coactus Deserere, in terra cupiens Moabitide pasci.

Often the enclitic ‑que is attached to the first word in the verse, clearly for metrical reasons, which is understandable but does not make for exciting reading. See for instance verses 62‒67: Accessitque rei satis oportuna gerende Ex ipsoque data est occasio tempore, prima Namque metebantur tunc ordea Ruthque sequente Ire die socru sibi permittente per agros Messorumque manus fugientes tollere spicas, Colligere et petiit sparsas, ubicumque daretur.

In addition, Leonius shows a strong predilection for indirect speech and very long and complex sentences that span over many verses. This stylistic peculiarity does not improve the readability of the poem, and one is left to wonder how useful Leonius’ composition would have really been for the young and unschooled for whom he is supposedly writing.22 A good example of the complexity of Leonius’s Latin is seen 22

In his prologue Leonius avows that his work is to help the memory and education of the rudes and those who have to start their studies of the Bible ab teneris annis (see Dinkova-Bruun,

484

L eonius of Paris – H I ST OR I E S OF T H E OL D T E STA M E N T

in verses 160‒70, which basically comprise one single sentence governed by the verb “iussit” in verse 161, which triggers a long string of infinitive constructions (lauari et ungi, augere … decorem, se conferre loco … et latere, furtiuam ire … se proicere … tacitam iacere), some of which have their own subordinate clauses (donec Booz … tulerit dederitque quieti, cumque … sopor … teneret, quo loco … requiesceret): Astanti dixit sibi Ruth. Booz esse propinquum Commemorans citiusque lauari iussit et ungi, Augere et cultu meliore et ueste decorem, Seque illi conferre loco primumque latere, Donec finite post esum et pocula cene Se Booz ad lectum tulerit dederitque quieti, Cumque grauata uiri sopor altus membra teneret, Quo tamen ille loco requiesceret ante notato Furtiuam tunc ire operimentoque reducto A pedibus se proicere hic tacitamque iacere, Audierit donec ab eo sibi quid sit agendum.

This type of expression feels a bit strained; the text gives the impression that a historical prose narrative has been forced into a metrical jacket rather than being conceived as a poetic composition from the beginning. This effect might be related to Leonius’s desire to write a poem that would contain the fullest and most truthful account of the historical events that relate to the biblical times. Leonius is an excellent historian and a competent versifier, but not a very imaginative poet, even though his personal expansions of the biblical narrative bring a unique element to his work. However, the Historie ueteris testamenti would never match the international success of the Aurora of Leonius’s contemporary, Peter Riga. But then, very few biblical versifications could. Translating the Poem

As already mentioned, Leonius’s Liber Ruth is written mostly in unrhymed dactylic hexameters. Occasionally, as for instance in vv. 53‒54 and 198‒99, a final rhyme is used, making these verses an example of “Leonius of Paris and his Liber Ruth,” 298).

I ntroduction



485

Leonine caudati hexameters.23 A peculiar feature of Leonius’s verses is the poet’s predilection for ending them with, first, his beloved enclitic ‑que24 and, second, a form of the demonstrative pronoun ille.25 These repeated usages contribute further to the impression of the monotony of Leonius’s verses, which I have tried to sidestep to the best of my ability, while attempting to preserve as much as possible the original flare of the composition. The present translation of the Liber Ruth is based on the critical edition of the text published in 2005.26 However, in the course of preparing the translation, some corrections, mostly in the punctuation of the work, were introduced. They are listed here for the reader’s convenience: Verse

Previous Punctuation

New Punctuation

7

Elymelech, cui nomen erat uir Belleemites, Seque uel inuite comitem dabat. Illa manere Mens erat. In Bethleem uenere et nuncia uelox Ex ipsoque data est occasio tempore prima Ire die socru sibi permittente, per agros Messorumque manus fugientes tollere spicas Vidit, ut ignotam querens hec unde puella

Elymelech cui nomen erat, uir Belleemites, Seque uel inuite comitem dabat, illa manere Mens erat, in Bethleem uenere et nuncia uelox Ex ipsoque data est occasio tempore, prima Ire die socru sibi permittente per agros Messorumque manus fugientes tollere spicas, Vidit ut ignotam querens hec unde puella

25 51 63 65‒66

76

23 24

25 26

Verses 53‒54 read: Rumor et hic turbe muliebris in ore sonabat Plurimus: “Hec illa est Noemi.” Quibus illa negabat For a concise presentation on medieval metre, see A. G. Rigg, A History of Anglo-Latin Literature 1066‒1422 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 313‒29. Some examples are: expectare priusque (v. 29), larisque deisque (v. 34), potumque cibumque (vv. 89 and 121), populumque deumque (v. 96), pietasque fidesque (v. 122), uxore tuique (v. 220), etc. Some examples are: inaniter illi (v. 26), tenaciter illi (v. 43), clarus in illa (v. 69), immemor illi (v. 81), est filius illi (v. 237), etc. See above, n. 2. I would like to thank Professor Christopher McDonough and Dr. Laura Napran who read previous drafts of the translation and suggested important improvements.

486 Verse 155

L eonius of Paris – H I ST OR I E S OF T H E OL D T E STA M E N T

Previous Punctuation

Participans illis grandis conuiuia cene 165 Se Booz ad lectum tulerit dederitque quieti. 174 Sopiti a pedibus iacuit sensitque iacentem. 185 Indignus si iure suo neglexerit uti, 203 Vota nec illarum sua, nec promissa fefellit 245‒46 Deque nuru, quem non illi seruire puderet Nutrire et quondam uetulam propriisque, dedisset 255 Quem genere obscurum materno et uilis habentem

New Punctuation Participans, illis grandis conuiuia cene Se Booz ad lectum tulerit dederitque quieti, Sopiti a pedibus iacuit; sensitque iacentem Indignus si iure suo neglexerit uti. Vota nec illarum, sua nec promissa fefellit Deque nuru, quem non illi seruire puderet, Nutrire et quondam uetulam, propriisque dedisset Quem genere obscurum materno et “uilis” habentem

THE BOOK OF RUTH 1

5

10

15

20

25

30

Heli, a descendant of the noble blood of Aaron, a high priest and the first-born of Ithamar,1 succeeded him2 and was given the duty of ruling the people. In the time of this judge3 a famine gripped the land and a certain man from Bethlehem, whose name was Elimelech, together with his wife Naomi and his two sons, the first of whom was called Mahlon, and the second Chilion, was forced by pressing hunger to journey far away and leave his native country, wishing to find food in the land of Moab. And because of the advantages of the place and since the land had become pleasing to dwell in, they remained in the region as residents, and after the death of their old father both young men took Moabite wives: the name of one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. After ten years had passed the two sons died leaving no heirs. When Naomi, bereft of her husband and two sons, had remained alone and had heard that, with the time of famine driven away, the Lord had looked kindly upon her native land and fellow-citizens and had given them sustenance, she set out from the region of Moab and forsaking it returned to the land of Judah, from where she had come to these parts4 as a stranger, but much different than when she had come.5 And since on her return, in place of her sons and husband,6 both daughters-in-law clung to her as partners, joined their steps to hers, and gave themselves as companions to the one who was against it, urged them to remain in their native land and not to attach themselves uselessly to her who could have no further hope of bearing husbands for them; nor could they wait, even if7 she gave birth, to become old women before her sons matured for them. This persuasive speech affected only Orpah who, after kissing Naomi amid tears and exchanging

488

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

L eonius of Paris

a final “goodbye” with her, left the departing one and returned unwillingly to her own family, domestic deities and gods. Ruth, however, could not bear ever to be separated from her beloved mother-in-law, to whom she responded thus, when Naomi tried to convince her that she should not abandon her native land and the gods of her forefathers: “Your native land and your people are surely my native land and my people. From this moment my God will be no other than your God. The same successes or calamities await me with you; neither life nor death itself will take you away from me; whichever land gives you a tomb will give me one also.” So she spoke and proceeded to cling stubbornly to Naomi and to offer herself as a companion in the face of all misfortunes: not as a daughter-in-law following her mother-in-law, but a daughter following her mother.8 Seeing that Ruth would continue steadfastly with her, Naomi did not wish any longer to urge her return and no longer opposed her wishes, but, amazed at her loyalty, received her with the same ardor of mind and faithfulness. Then the two proceeded, a pair possessed of a single mind, as it were; they came to Bethlehem and gossip, a swift messenger, flying through the entire city, ran through the whole population, and this widespread rumor was heard on the lips of crowds of women: “This is the famous Naomi.” But she continued to deny that she was Naomi, saying that she was no longer beautiful, that she was undeserving of this auspicious name, but ought to be called Mara,9 that, though she had once departed with a plentiful family,10 now right before their eyes God was bringing her back destitute and, as it were, barren and had filled her with perpetual grief and bitter feelings. But God had provided otherwise, arranging11 to give Naomi a better son and Ruth a better husband. And there arrived a suitable occasion for carrying out the plan, granted from out of the season itself, for at that time the first crop of barley was being harvested. On the following day Ruth, with permission from her mother-in-law to go through the fields and glean the ears of grain tumbling from the hands of the reapers, rushed to collect the scattered ones, wherever she was allowed.

H istories of the Old T estament: T he B ook of Ruth 

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

489

There was a prominent man in the city, Boaz, who was a man of great wealth, a citizen of Bethlehem and a kinsman of Elimelech. Ruth, after entering his field either intentionally, because Naomi had pointed it out to her, or perhaps this happened by accident, was assiduously gleaning ears of grain behind the backs of the reapers. Soon afterwards this man, as it was the custom for owners of the fields to visit the harvesters, left the city and went to his field. After exchanging greetings with them, as12 he saw the unknown girl, he inquired from where had she come to them. He received as an answer13 that she was born in the land of Moab, that she was Naomi’s daughter-in-law and that, being poor, she had asked to glean the ears of grain that had slipped from the reapers’ hands. As he was a gentle man by nature and inclined to showing goodwill and as, being pious, he remembered the blood link to his kinsman, Boaz felt generously towards her and wished her, first, not to enter the field of any other man and, second, no longer to follow behind14 the footsteps of the reapers and cling to the remnants of the harvesters’ left-over grain, but instructed her to harvest herself and to glean as much as she wanted. He ordered his men that no one should deny her nor dare to molest her, adding that he was attaching her to his servant girls as a partner, and that she would take food and drink with them at the harvesters’ usual dining hour. As she wondered what was the reason for such great goodwill and how a foreign woman could deserve to have such a great man so well disposed towards her, Boaz said that he had learned from a reliable source15 with what devoted purpose the daughter-in-law had attached herself to her mother-in-law after the death of her husband, so that she had abandoned her native land and ancestral deities and had preferred to them the people and the God of Israel. He was praying that she should be rewarded a worthy price and be repaid, with God’s compassion, a recompense for such a pious act. Still, she was more humble on account of this, and considering herself as nothing and unworthy of the benevolence of such a great man, she insisted that she should not be deemed equal to any one of his servant girls.16 So, sitting by the side of the harvesters, she ate with them,

490 105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

L eonius of Paris

since she had joined them at the hour for having food. Sated, she kept the leftovers to take to her mother-in law. Afterwards she stood up to glean the sheaves lying on the ground, as was her habit, but Boaz gave orders to his men to throw down handfuls of sheaves and to leave them behind on their own initiative, so that in this way she, who might feel humiliated to reap for herself and carry what was not hers, could at least glean without feeling shame. Thus applying herself to her work until the arrival of late evening, Ruth gleaned in the field conceded to her and after her labor she returned to her mother-in-law laden with sheaves. When they had knocked out the grain from the outer covering of the chaff using a stick, it filled three measures or about the amount of one ephah.17 Also she offered her the leftover food, of which she had eaten her fill and which, pious and devoted, she had saved with a faithful heart for her mother-in-law as a daughter would do for her mother. With equal devotion the mother-in-law shared with her daughter-in-law18 the food and drink that the neighbors had given her. Sense of duty and devotion filled their honest hearts, so that with everything held in common neither of the two would think that anything was either her own or the other’s possession. When Naomi, in wonder, asked Ruth where she had worked and who had bestowed on her this produce, which neither the dedicated activity of a woman nor the labor of a single day could have produced, she said that she had gleaned in Boaz’s field. Then she openly told Naomi everything and recounted to her the things this good man had done for her. Then Naomi joyfully gave thanks to the Lord and explained that this man was a relative of her sons and husband and that he was acting out of a fraternal sense of duty, because the favor he had afforded the dead was the same one that he had rendered to the living. So Naomi began to ponder and deliberate by herself19 that Ruth could have Boaz as a worthy husband and could aim to bring back her daughter-in-law to the bed of a relative, if a suitable circumstance was offered and some opportunity of time and place presented itself. She knew what the loyal Boaz had advised

H istories of the Old T estament: T he B ook of Ruth 

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

491

and prudently she gave this same advice to her daughter-in-law, namely, not to go to the field of anyone else, but to make her purpose to join and present herself as a partner only to the servant girls of Boaz, stating that Ruth ought to fear being driven away by force from a field not conceded to her. Thus Ruth went out in early morning to glean ears of grain and while harvesting she attached herself to Boaz’s women servants until the wheat and the crops had to be stored in the granaries. After that, as she usually did, she went back and returned to her mother-in-law with the fruits of her labor. In those days this people had a solemn custom,20 that, when the wheat and crops had been winnowed, the threshing floor was cleared, and only grain remained after the removal of the chaff, the lord, participating equally with his servants and harvesters, prepared for them a banquet of a generous meal and, drawing everything to a close with a joyful finish, lay down for the night and slept in this very place. When Naomi heard that by this custom Boaz was attending the ready feast, she told Ruth standing by her side: “Daughter, I would try to find peace for you;”21 and reminding her that Boaz was a kinsman, she ordered her to wash and anoint herself quickly, to enhance her own beauty with better grooming and clothes, to take herself to this place and hide there at first until, after the end of the feast’s eating and drinking, Boaz would come to his bed and surrender to sleep, and after sleep took hold of him and overpowered his limbs, to go furtively to the place, previously noted, where he rested, to lie down at his feet after drawing back the blanket and to remain there still and silent until she heard from him what she ought to do. The daughter-in-law believed that just as it was not right to separate herself22 from her mother-in-law, so it was also not proper to resist her admonitions; so she did everything as she had previously been instructed, and laid down at the feet of the sleeping man. Boaz sensed her lying there, and awakened from his sleep around the middle of the night. Startled, after asking he learned her name and purpose, offered her his blessing, and gave her thanks, which were appropriate for the great devotion she offered,

492 180

185

190

195

200

205

210

215

L eonius of Paris

because not running after any young men with lustful love, but following her kinsman with chaste affection for her dead husband, she strove to surpass her previous devotion with this new one. However, he said that there was one man, who preceded him in right of kinship and to whom she should rather be given as wife, if he would be willing to accept her; but, he would be unworthy of the favor of the law if he were to neglect to exercise his own right. The good man promised not to fail her and asked God himself to hear these words and become their witness. Then he instructed her to sleep there the rest of the night, to get up at first light and to take care that no one should realize that she had lain down there. So Ruth rested for the night and when on the following morning she wanted to go home, Boaz weighed and gave her three measures of barley23 and sent her to her mother-in-law with this load which, received in a garment she had spread out,24 Ruth carried on her head and went away with nobody learning anything about the matter at all. She, returning joyfully, brought back no less delight and after repeating to her mother-in-law Boaz’s words and deeds, sure hope about what was to come took hold of both women.25 Naomi told her daughter-in-law to say no more and to await the outcome of the events, for the faithful man would not stop and would permit himself no rest until he had completed all the proper arrangements of which he had spoken. He did not disappoint the women’s prayers or his own promises to them,26 but returning to the city about midday and gathering ten of the city elders in one place, Boaz ordered Ruth to stand on one side and the next-of-kin on the other. He addressed the man in front of these witnesses, making these proposals: “Naomi has recently returned from the land of Moab and I wish you to know that she wishes to sell the parcel of land which belonged to Elimelech and his sons. It is evident that as the closest next-of-kin you have the first right to buy this land. If this is agreeable to you, let the property be ceded to you for a price, and you may possess the field as buyer; if this is not to your liking, let me know, so that I can decide what I need to do; although you are the first heir, I am rightfully the second.” The man, not realizing the consequences for the buyer, said: “I will buy the field.” To which Boaz responded: “It is not proper

H istories of the Old T estament: T he B ook of Ruth 

220

225

230

235

240

245

250

255

493

that you are being mindful of just the middle part of the sacred laws,27 for if you wish to obey the laws, you must accept the field with the widow of the deceased and thus restore the name of your kinsman in his share.” Defeated, he then conceded everything to Boaz and abandoned the field, although he wanted it, because he despised the widow.28 Boaz, summoning the elders as witnesses,29 ordered the man to untie his sandal straps and Ruth to spit in his face30 in order for the record of the bestowal to have the strength of law. Then, not forgetting his promise, he took her as wife with the full approval of the people and the elders, who prayed that a fortunate offspring would be born to Boaz by her and that she herself would become like Rachel and Leah. God let his presence to a marriage that was conducted faithfully,31 and in a lawful manner, and that was effected not by a base desire for gain, a pride of lineage,32 or the charm of a beautiful body, but by devotion alone; a marriage brought about by concern for upholding justice and by love for sacred law. The prayers of the people did not fall on deaf ears, and God made Ruth give birth and a son was born to her. Naomi took him in her lap and cradled him at her bosom, performing the duty of a bearer and nurse for him. Her entire neighborhood, rejoicing with her, gave thanks and showered deserved praise for this reason on the Lord who had sent to her, desolate and bereft of hope, this great solace of his; who did not permit her to be deprived of an heir and successor; and who allowed her, robbed of her own sons, to become blessed with a better one born by her daughter-in-law who was not ashamed to serve her and nurture her in her old age. Thus Naomi, having become a mother through divine favor, did not disregard what was said to her and called him Obed,33 giving him a name that means “service” in the Hebrew language.34 As the voice of the people, being as it were the voice of God,35 is usually the truthful harbinger of future events, the propitious birth ensued from a happy marriage. Everyone agreed that the birth of this boy was truly auspicious, for even though36 he was of obscure lineage on his mother’s side and had a name of “lowly service,” still a propitious line of powerful kings originating from him made him renowned;

494

L eonius of Paris

for he was the father of the illustrious man from whom David was born and from whom such a long line of noble descendants was drawn. 260 Consider that this tale about Ruth has been written for you, whoever you are,37 progressing from the lowest parts and brought to the peak of highest honor, and recognize your maker. Being both wise and good, strive to remember not what you are, but what you have been.

NOTES 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29

30

Ithamar was the fourth son of Aaron (cf. Num. 26:60). Ithamar is mentioned also in Peter Comestor’s own paraphrase of the story, cf. Historia scholastica (PL 198.1293A and 1295B). That is, Samson who was judge before Heli. Cf.  Josephus, Ant. V.9.1 (Blatt, 347,  6). This reference is confirmed also by the gloss to huic found in BAV, Ms. Reg. Lat. 283 (all glosses mentioned henceforth are from this manuscript). An interlinear gloss to sub illo iudice specifies that the judge meant here is Heli. Huc is explained by the interlinear gloss ad terram Moab (“to the land of Moab”). This comment is Leonius’s own addition. Leonius’s slightly unusual phrase pro natis proque marito is clarified by the interlinear gloss loco natorum et loco mariti (“in place of her sons and husband”). This translation of the conjunction ut is supported by the gloss to it, which reads quamuis (“even if ”). In verses 44‒49 Leonius elaborates on the feelings of Naomi and Ruth towards each other. The meaning of the name Mara is explained by the gloss idest amaram (“that is, bitter”). The word domo in the expression plena domo is glossed with idest familia, which warrants the present translation. Verses 60‒64 represent Leonius’s own additions to the story. Here the conjunction ut is glossed with postquam. Accepit is glossed with idest audiuit ab ea uel a messoribus (“that is, he heard from her or from the harvesters”). The adverb pone is glossed with idest a tergo (“that is, behind”). The phrase fido didicisse relatu is explained by the gloss idest a bono uiro et uero cui credendum erat (“that is, from a good man who was truly trustworthy”). A marginal gloss quotes Ruth’s precise words: Domine, non debeo nec sum similis et coequalis uestris puellis ut cum eis comedam et comagam (“Lord, I must not. I am not similar and equal to your serving girls so that I can eat and interact with them”). This amounts to c. 13 kilograms. Verses 120‒24 have no correspondence in the Bible. Verses 120‒21 are inspired by Josephus, Ant. V.9.2 (Blatt, 348, 9‒10), while verses 122‒24 seem to be Leonius’s own elaboration. Verses 135‒39 are not biblical.  They represent a free paraphrase of Josephus, Ant. V.9.3 (Blatt, 348, 13‒16). Verses 151‒57 are based on Peter Comestor, Historia scholastica (PL 198.1297AB). The gloss to quietem explains: .i. maritum per quem eris in quiete (“that is, a husband through whom you will be at peace”). Verses 170‒71 represent an elaboration by Leonius. The Bible states that Boaz gave Ruth six measures of barley, not three (cf. Ruth 3:15). expansa ueste is glossed with: .i. in camisia uel tunica quam laxam habebat et amplam (‘that is, in a shirt or tunic that she had opened widely”). Cf. Josephus, Ant. V.9.4 (Blatt, 348, 26). Here Leonius combines the text of Ruth 4:2‒3 and Josephus’s Ant. V.9.4 (Blatt, 349, 1‒2). Cf. Josephus, Ant. V.9.4 (Blatt, 349, 4‒5). A marginal gloss here offers further detail: Licet uellet habere agrum, tamen reliquit agrum nolens tam pauperem et uilem accipere uxorem (“Even though he wanted the field, he abandoned it because he did not want to accept as a wife such a poor and base woman”). Leonius borrows the unusual expression testificans Booz seniores from Josephus, Ant. V.9.4 (Blatt, 349, 8) or from Peter Comestor, Historia scholastica (PL 198.1294), where Josephus is quoted. A gloss explains the meaning of the phrase: ducens eos in testimonium huius facti (“asking them to bear witness to this fact”). The custom of ritual spitting is described in Deut. 25:9. Cf.  Josephus, Ant. V.9.4 (Blatt, 349, 9).

496 31 32 33

34 35 36 37

L eonius of Paris – H I ST OR I E S OF T H E OL D T E STA M E N T

Verses 231‒35 represent an expansion by Leonius. generis fastus is glossed with Ruth nobilitas (“Ruth’s noble origin”). A marginal gloss here gives the following explanation: .i. illi que dicta erant a populo et que dicebatur sibi, .i. ad utilitatem suam (“that is, the things that were said to her by the people and those she said to herself, that is, for her use”). Cf. Josephus, Ant. V.9.4 (Blatt, 349, 11‒12). Cf. Isa. 66:6. A marginal gloss reads: ut homines dicunt, ita Noemi et accidit (“as everybody said it, so it happened to Naomi”). The relative pronoun quem is glossed with quamuis puerum (“even if the boy”). For verses 260‒64, cf. Josephus, Ant. V.9.4 (Blatt, 349, 14‒16). A marginal gloss in the left margin reads: Hic loquitur auctor ad quemlibet (“Here the author addresses whomever”).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Works Abū al-Walīd Marwān Ibn Janāh. Kitab-al-Usul. See Judah Ibn Tibbon, Sefer ha-Shorashim. Achard of Saint Victor. Achard de Saint-Victor: sermons inédits. Ed.  Jean Châtillon. TPMA 17. Paris: J Vrin, 1970. Tr. Hugh Feiss. Works. CS 165. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 2001. Alan of Lille. Theologicae regulae. PL 210.617‒87. Alcuin. Interrogationes et responsiones in Genesin. PL 100.515‒70. Ambrose. De Cain et Abel. Ed. Karl Schenkl. CSEL 32/1. Vienna: Tempsky, 1897. ___________. De officiis. PL 16.23‒184. ___________. Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam. Ed.  M.  Adriaen and P.  A. Ballerini. CCL  14. Turnhout: Brepols, 1957. Ed.  J.  Coppa. Sancti Ambrosii Episcopi Mediolanensis opera 12. Mediolani: Bibliotheca Ambrosiana/Rome: Città Nuova Editrice, 1978. Pp.  142‒53. PL  15.1527‒1850. Tr. Ide M. Ni Riain. Dublin: Halcyon, 2001. Ambrosiaster. Commentarius in XIII epistulas Paulinas. Ed. H. J. Vogels. CSEL 81. Vienna: Holder, Pichler, Tempsky, 1966; PL 17.45‒509. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. New Testament  III: Luke. Ed.  Arthur  A. Just,  Jr. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Andrew of Saint Victor. General Prologue to the Commentary on the Prophets. Tr. Frans A. van Liere. VTT 3.278. ___________. Expositio hystorica in librum Regum. Ed.  Frans  A. van Liere. CCCM 53A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1996. Tr. Frans A. van Liere. Commentary on Samuel and Kings. CCT  3. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009. ___________. Expositio in Ezechielem. Ed.  Michael  A. Signer. CCCM 53E. Turnhout: Brepols, 1991. ___________. Expositio super Danielem. Ed. Mark A. Zier. CCCM 53F. Turnhout: Brepols, 1991.

498

B ibliography

Expositio super Duodecim prophetas. Ed.  Frans  A. van Liere and Mark A. Zier. CCCM 53G. Turnhout: Brepols, 2007. ___________. Expositio super Heptateuchum. Ed.  Charles Lohr and Rainer Berndt. CCCM 53. Turnhout: Brepols, 1986. ___________ Prologue to the Commentary on the Heptateuch. Tr. Frans van Liere. VTT 3.277. Angelom of Luxeuil. Commentarius in Genesin. PL 115.107‒244. Anselm of Canterbury. Cur Deus homo. Ed. René Roques. Pourquoi Dieu s’est fait home. SC 91. Paris: Cerf, 1963. Tr. Janet Fairweather. In Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works. Ed.  Brian Davies and G. R. Evans. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: University Press, 1998. Pp. 260‒356. ___________. De incarnatione verbi. Ed.  F.  S. Schmitt. Florilegium Patristicum 28. Bonn: Hanstein, 1931. Tr. Richard Regan. In Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works. Ed.  Brian Davies and G. R. Evans. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: University Press, 1998. Pp. 233‒59. ___________. Opera omnia, 6  vols Ed.  F.  S. Schmitt. Edinburgh: T.  Nelson, 1938‒61. Tr.  Brian Davies and G.  R. Evans. Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: University Press, 1998. Achard of Saint Victor. Achard de Saint-Victor: sermons inédits. Ed.  Jean Châtillon. Paris: J Vrin, 1970. Tr.  Hugh Feiss. Works. CS 165. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 2001. Augustine. Confessions. Ed. L. Verheijen. CCL 37. Turnhout: Brepols, 1990. Ed. and tr. J. J. O’Donnell. Confessions. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Tr. H. Chadwick. New York: Oxford, 1991. ___________. Contra Faustum Manicheum. PL 42.207‒518. Tr. R. Teske. Answer to Faustus, a Manichean. WSA I/20. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2007. ___________. De agone Christiano. Ed. Joseph Zycha. CSEL 41. Vienna: Tempsy, 1900. PL  40.289‒310. Tr.  Robert  P. Russell. The Christian Combat. FOC  2. Washington: Catholic University Press, 1947. ___________. De baptismo. Ed.  M.  Petschenig. CSEL  51. Vienna: Tempsky, 1909. PL 43.107‒244. Tr. J. R. King. Revised by Chester  D. Hartranft. St.  Augustin: the Writings against the Manicheans. NPNF  I/4. Edinburgh: T.  &  T. Clark, 1887, repr. 1989. ___________.

B ibliography

___________.

___________.

___________.

___________.

___________. ___________.

___________.

___________.

___________. ___________. ___________.

 499

De bono coniugali. Ed.  Joseph Zycha. CSEL  41. Vienna: Tempsy, 1900. PL 40.373‒96. Tr. Ray Kearney. Marriage and Virginity. WSA I/9. Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 1999. De civitate Dei. Ed. B. Dombart and A. Kalb. CCL 47‒48. Turnhout: Brepols, 1981. Tr.  R.  W. Dyson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Tr. Henry Bettenson. The City of God. New York: Penguin, 1986. De cura pro mortuis gerenda. Ed.  J.  Zycha. CSEL  41. Vienna: Tempsky, 1900. PL  40.591‒611. Tr.  J.  A. Lacy. Treatises on Marriage and Other Subjects. FOC  27. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999. De diversis quaestionibus LXXXIII. Ed.  Almut Mutzenbecher. CCL  44A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1975. PL  40.11‒100. Tr.  Boniface Ramsey. Responses to Miscellaneous Questions. WSA I/12. Hyde Park, NY: New York City Press, 2009. De doctrina Christiana. Ed. J. Martin. CCL 32. Turnhout: Brepols, 1962. Tr.  Edmund Hill. Teaching Christianity. WSA I/11. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1996. De fide et operibus. Ed. Joseph Zycha. CSEL 41. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1900. PL 40.197‒231. Tr. Ray Kearney. In On Christian Belief. WSA  I/8. Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 2005. De fide et symbolo. Ed. Joseph Zycha. CSEL 41. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1900. PL 40.181‒96. Tr. Michael G. Cambell. On Christian Belief. WSA I/8. Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 2005. De Genesi ad litteram; De Genesi ad Litteram imperfectus liber. Ed. Joseph Zycha. CSEL 28/1. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1894. PL  34.245‒486. Tr.  Edmund Hill. On Genesis. WSA I/13. Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 2007. De Genesi contra Manichaeos. Ed.  Dorothea Weber. CSEL 91, 96. Vienna: The Austrian Academy of Sciences, 1998. De libero arbitrio. Ed.  W.  Green. CCL  29. Turnhout: Brepols, 1970. Tr.  Mark Pontifex. The Problem of Free Choice. ACW 22. Westminster, MD: Newman, 1955. De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum. Ed.  Roland-Gosselin. Œuvres de saint

500

___________. ___________. ___________.

___________.

___________. ___________.

___________.

___________.

___________. ___________.

B ibliography

Augustin. Paris: Desclée De Brouwer, 1936. Tr.  Roland Teske. On the Catholic and the Manichean Way of Life. WSA III/ 9. New York, New City Press, 2006. De peccatorum meritis. Ed. C. F. Zycha. CSEL 60. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1913. PL 44.109‒200. De sermone Domini in monte. PL 34.1229‒1307. De Trinitate. Ed.  W.  J. Mountain and F.  Glorie. CCL 50‒50A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1968. Tr. Edmund Hill. The Trinity. WSA  I/5. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1991. De vera religione. CCL  32. Ed.  K.  D. Daur  & J.  Martin. Turnhout: Brepols, 1962. PL 34.121‒72. Tr. Edmund Hill. On Christian Belief. WSA I/8. Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 2005. Epistulae 124‒184. Ed. A. Goldbacher. CSEL 44. Vienna: Tempsky: 1904. PL 33. Tr. Roland Teske. Letters 100‒155. WSA II/2. Hyde Park, New York: New City Press, 2003. Enarrationes in Psalmos. Ed.  E.  Dekkers  & J.  Fraipont. CCL 39. Turnhout: Brepols, 1956. PL 36.67‒1027. Tr. Maria Boulding. Sermons. WSA  III/17. Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 2001. Enchiridion ad Laurentium de fide et spe et caritate. Ed. M. Evans. CCL 46. Turnhout: Brepols, 1969. Ed. and tr. Louis A. Arand. Faith hope and Charity. Westminster: Newman Bookshop, 1947. Ed.  and tr.  Jean Rivière. Exposés généraux de la foi: De fide et symbolo, Enchiridion. Paris: Desclée De Brouwer, 1947. Tr. Bruce Harbert. On Christian Belief. WSA  I/8. Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 2005. In Johannis evangelium tractatus. Ed. R. Williams. CCL 36. Turnhout: Brepols, 1954. Tr.  Edmund Hill. Homilies on the Gospel of John 1‒40. WSA III/15. Hyde Park, NY: New York City Press, 2009. Tr. John Gibbs and James Innes. Homilies on the Gospel of John. NPNF I/7. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956. In Ioannis Epistulam. PL  25.1977‒2062. Tr.  Boniface Ramsey. Homilies on the First Epistle of John. WSA III/14. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2008. Quaestionum in Heptateuchum libri VII. Ed. J. Fraipont and D. De Bruyne. CCL 33. Turnhout: Brepols, 1958.

B ibliography



501

Retractationes. Ed. A. Mutzenbecher. CCL 57. Turnhout: Brepols, 1984. PL  32.604‒17. Tr.  Mary Inez Bogan. The Retractations. FOC 60. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1968. ___________. Sermones. Ed. André Wilmart. In Miscellanea Agostiniana, Testi e Studi. 1: Sancti Augustini sermones post Maurinos reperti. Ed. Germain Morin. Roma: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, 1930. Tr.  E.  Hill. Sermons. WSA  III/5. Hyde Park: New City Press, 1992. ___________. Sermo Denis 16. Ed. M. Denis. In Miscellanea Agostiniana, Testi e Studi. Vol.  1: Sancti Augustini sermones post Maurinos reperti. Ed. Germain Morin. Roma: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, 1930. Pp.  75‒80. Tr.  Edmund Hill. Sermons. WSA III/8. Hyde Park: New City Press, 1994. ___________. Sermones. PL 38‒39. Tr. E. Hill. Sermons. WSA III/1‒20. Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 1990‒2004. Bede. In Lucae evangelium expositio. Ed.  D.  Hurst. CCL  120. Turnhout: Brepols, 1960. ___________. In Marci evangelium expositio. PL 92.131‒302. ___________. In Matthei evangelium expositio. PL 92.9‒132. ___________. Libri quatuor in principium Genesis usque ad nativitatem Isaac et electionem Ismahelis Adnotationum. Ed.  C.  W. Jones. CCL 118A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1967. ___________. Liber de locis sanctis. Ed.  P.  Geyer. CSEL  39. Vienna: Tempsky, 1898. Bernard of Clairvaux. De conversione ad clericos sermo seu liber. SBO 4:61‒116. Tr.  Marie-Bernard Saïd. On Conversion: A  Sermon to Clerics. In Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermons on Conversion. CF  25. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1981. Pp. 31‒79. ___________. De moribus et officio episcoporum. SBO  7:184‒200. Tr.  Pauline Matarasso. On Baptism and the Office of Bishops. CF  67. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 2004. Pp. 49‒77. ___________. Sermones super Cantica Canticorum. Ed. J. Leclercq, C. H. Talbot, and H. M. Rochais. SBO 1‒2. Tr. Kilian Walsh and Irene Edmonds. On the Song of Songs I-IV. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1971‒80. The Book of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. Ed.  J.  T. Milik. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. ___________.

502

B ibliography

Cassiodorus. Expositio Psalmorum. Ed.  M.  Adriaen. CCL  97. Turnhout: Brepols, 1985. ___________. Institutiones. Ed.  Wolfgang Bürsgens. Institutiones divinarum et saecularium litterarum/Einführung in die geistlichen und weltlichen Wissenschaften. Fontes Christiani. Freiburg: Herder, 2003. PL 70.1105‒50. Cicero. De divinatione. Ed. David Wardle. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006. Collectio Decretalium. PL 130.7‒1178. Denzinger, Heinrich and Peter Hünermann, eds. Kompendium der Glau­ bensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen. Lateinisch-Deutsch: Enchiridion Symbolorum, Defini­ tionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum. 3rd Ed.  Freiburg: Herder, 2009. Tr.  Compendium of creeds, definitions, and declarations on matters of faith and morals. Ed. Robert Fastiggi, et al. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012. Elî`ezer Ben-Hûrqanûs. Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer: According to the Text of the Manuscript belonging to Abraham Epstein of Vienna  – the Chapters of Rabbi the Great. Tr. Gerald Friedlander. London: Kegal Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1916. Eusebius of Caesarea. Chronicon. Tr.  into Latin by Jerome as Hieronymi Chronicon. Ed.  Rudolf Helm. Eusebius Werke: Siebenter Band. Die Chronik des Hieronymus. Hieronymi Chronicon. GCS 47. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956. PL 27.11‒652. ___________. Historia Ecclesiastica. PL 21.461‒540. Gilduin of Saint Victor. Libellus de accentibus cum prologo. Ed. Luc Jocqué and Dominique Poirel. “De Donat à Saint-Victor: un ‘De accentibus’ inédit.” La tradition vive. Mélanges d’histoire des textes en l’honneur de Louis Holtz. Ed. Pierre Lardet. Turnhout: Brepols, 2003. Pp. 181‒92. Glossa Ordinaria. Ed.  Karlfield Froehlich and Margaret  T. Gibson. Biblia latina cum glossa ordinaria. Facsimile reprint of the edition princeps: Adolph Rusch of Strassburg 1480/81. 4  vols Turnhout: Brepols, 1992. Ed.  Franciscus Fevardentius, Johannes Dadraeus, and Jacobus de Cuilly. Bibliorum sacrorum glossa ordinaria primum quidem a Strabo Fulgensi collecta, cum Postilla Nicolai Lyrani necnon additionibus Pauli Burgensis, ac Matthiae Thoryngi replicis. Venice: luntas 1603. PL 113‒14.

B ibliography



503

Godfrey of Saint Victor. Fons philosophiae. Ed.  Pierre Michaud-Quantin. Analecta Mediaevalia Namurcensia 8. Namur: Godenne, 1956. Tr. Hugh Feiss. VTT 3.389‒426. ___________. In die omnium sanctorum (Vidi turbam magnam). Ed.  Philippe Delhaye. In Le Microcosmus de Godefroy de Saint-Victor: Étude théologique. Lille: Facultés théologiques/Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1951. Pp. 133‒43. ___________. Sermo de Nativitate Beate Marie (Sacram et salutiferam). Ed. Johannes Beumer. “Die Parallele Maria-Kirche nach einem ungedruckten Sermo des Gottfried von St. Viktor,” RTAM 27 (1960): 250‒56. Gratian. Decretum. Corpus Iuris Canonici, Pars prior: Decretum Magistri Gratiani. Ed.  Aemilius Friedberg. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1959. Gregory the Great. Dialogi. Ed.  Adalbert de Vogüé and tr.  Paul Antin. Dialogues. SC  265. Paris: Cerf, 1980. PL  77.149‒431. Tr. Odo John Zimmerman. FOC 39. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1959. ___________. Homiliae in Evangelia. Ed. R. Étaix. CCL 141. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999. PL  76.1075‒1312. Tr.  David Hurst. Forty Gospel Homilies. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1990. ___________. Homiliae in Hiezechielem. Ed.  M.  Adriaen. CCL  142. Turnhout: Brepols, 1971. Ed.  and tr.  Charles Morel. SC 327, 360. Paris: Cerf, 1986‒90. ___________. Moralia in Iob. CCL  143‒143A‒143B. Ed.  M.  Adriaen. Turnhout: Brepols, 1979. Tr. Morals on the Book of Job by S. Gregory the Great. Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church 18. Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1844. PL 75.509‒1162. Guerric of Saint-Quentin. Quaestiones de quodlibet. Ed. Walter H. Principe and Jonathan Black. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2002. Haimo of Auxerre. Commentarius in Genesim. PL 131.51‒134. Horace. Epistulae. Ed. F. Klinger. Leipzig: Teubner, 1959. ___________. Carmina. Ed. L. Miller. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903. Hrabanus Maurus. Commentariorum in Genesim. PL 107.439‒670.

504

B ibliography

Hugh of Saint Victor. Adnotationes elucidatoriae in Pentateuchum. PL 175.29‒86. ___________. Adnotatiunculae elucidatoriae in librum Judicum. PL 175.87‒96. ___________. Adnotatiunculae elucidatoriae in librum Numeri – Deuterononium. PL 175.84‒86. ___________. Adnotationes elucidatoriae in librum Regum. PL 175.95‒114. ___________. Chronicon. Partial ed. William M. Green. “Hugh of Saint Victor, De Tribus Maximis Circumstantiis Gestorum.” Speculum 18  (1943): 484‒93; L.  B. Mortensen, “Hugh of St.  Victor on Secular History. A  preliminary edition of a chapter from his Chronica.” Cahiers de l’Institut du moyen âge grec et latin 62  (1992): 3‒30. Part.  tr. Mary Carruthers and Jessica Weis. “The three best memory aids for learning history.” In The medieval craft of memory: an anthology of texts and pictures. Ed.  Mary  J. Carruthers and Jan  M. Ziolkowski. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002. Pp. 32‒41. ___________. Commentariorum in hierarchiam caelestem. PL 175.923‒1154. ___________. De archa Noe. Ed. Patrice Sicard. CCCM 176. Turnhout: Brepols, 2001. ___________. De meditatione. Ed.  R.  Baron. Six opuscules spirituels. SC 155. Paris: Cerf, 1969. Pp. 45‒59. Tr. Frans van Liere. VTT 4.383‒99. ___________. De sacramentis christianae fidei. Ed.  R.  Berndt. CV: Textus historici  1. Münster: Aschendorff, 2008. PL176.173‒618. Tr.  Roy Deferrari. On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith (De sacramentis) of Hugh of Saint Victor. The Medieval Academy of America Publications 58. Cambridge: The Medieval Academy of America, 1951. Tr. C. Evans. VTT 3.261‒68. ___________. De sacramentis dialogus. PL 176.17‒42. ___________. De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris. PL 175.9‒28. Partially tr. Denys Turner. Eros and Allegory. CS  156. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1995. 267‒74. Tr.  van Liere. VTT 3.215‒30. ___________. De virtute orandi. Ed.  Hugh Feiss. Oeuvre 1.126‒71. Tr. Hugh Feiss. VTT 4.331‒43.

B ibliography

___________.

___________.

___________.

___________.

___________.

___________.



505

Didascalicon: De studio legendi. Ed.  Charles Henry Buttimer. The Catholic University of America, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Latin, 10. Washington, DC: The Catholic University Press, 1939. Tr.  Jerome Taylor. The Didascalicon of Hugh of Saint Victor: A  Medieval Guide to the Arts. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. Tr. Franklin T. Harkins. VTT 3.81‒202. Diligens scrutator sacri eloquii. Ed.  Ralf M.  W. Stammberger, “Diligens scrutator sacri eloquii: An Introduction to Scriptural Exegesis by Hugh of St Victor Preserved at Admont Library (ms 671).” In Manuscripts and Medieval Culture: Reform and Renewal in TwelfthCentury Germany. Ed. Alison I. Beach. Medieval Church Studies 13. Turnhout: Brepols, 2007. 272‒83. Tr. Frans van Liere. VTT 3.231‒48. Eulogium sponsi et sponsae (De amore sponsi ad sponsum). PL  176.987‒94. Partially  tr. A  Religious of the C.S.M.V. The Divine Love: The two treatises De Laude Caritatis and De Amore Sponsi ad Sponsam by Hugh of St. Victor. London: A. R. Mowbray & Co., 1956. 26‒38; partially tr. Richard  A. Norris,  Jr., in The Song of Songs: Interpreted by Early Christian and Medieval Commentators. The Church’s Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Pp. 167‒72. Tr. Hugh Feiss. VTT 2.125‒36. Libellus de formatione arche. Ed.  P.  Sicard. CCCM  176.121‒62. Turnhout: Brepols, 2001. Tr.  Jessica Weis. “A Little Book about Constructing Noah’s Ark.” In The Medieval Craft of Memory: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Ed.  Mary Carruthers and Jan  M. Ziolkowski. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002. Pp. 41‒70. Praesens saeculum. Ed.  Dominique Poirel. “L’opuscule ‘Praesens saeculum’: un texte inédit de Hugues de SaintVictor sur l’histoire sainte.” In Livre de la Nature et débat trinitaire au xiie  siècle. Le “De tribus diebus” de Hugues de Saint-Victor. BV 14. Turnhout: Brepols, 2002. 446‒51. Tr. Frans van Liere. VTT 3.237‒43. Sententiae de divinitate. Ed.  A.  Piazzoni. “Ugo di San Vittore ‘auctor’ delle ‘Sententiae de divinitate.’” Studi Medievali. 3rd series, 23 (1982): 861‒955. Tr. Christopher Evans. VTT 1.111‒77.

506

B ibliography

Sententiarum liber. Ed. Damien van den Eynde. “Le Liber Magistri Hugonis.” Franciscan Studies 23 (1963), 268‒99. ___________. Summa Sententiarum. PL 176.41‒173. Isidore of Seville. Etymologiarum sive Originum libri XX. Ed. W. M. Lindsay. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911. Tr.  Stephen  A. Barney, et  al. Etymologies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. ___________. Sententiae. Ed.  P.  Cazier. CCL  111. Turnhout: Brepols, 1998. PL 83.537‒738. Ivo of Chartres. Decretum. PL 161.48‒1022. ___________. Panormia. PL 161.1031‒1344. James Ussher and Thomas Smith. “De Chronologia Veteris Testamenti.” In Annales Veteris et Novi Testimenti: a prima mundi origine deducti. Una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Ægyptiacarum chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad extremum templi et reipublicæ judaicæ excidium producto. Accedunt tria ejusdem opuscula: I. De chronologia Veteris Testamenti. II. De Macedonum et Asianorum anno solari. III. De symbolis. Geneva: Apud Gabrielem de Tournes et filios, 1722. Jerahmeel, Chronicle. Ed. M. Gaster. Chronicles of Jerahmeel or, the Hebrew Bible Historiale. London: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1899. Jerome. Commentarii in epistulas Pauli: Ad Titum. Ed.  Federica Bucchi. CCL 77. Turnhout: Brepols, 2003. ___________. Commentarii in Esaiam prophetam. Ed.  M.  Adriaen. CCL 73‒73A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1963. PL 24.17‒678. ___________. Commentarii in Evangelium Matthei. PL 26.15‒218. ___________. Commentariorum in Danielem libri. Ed.  F.  Glorie. CCL 75A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1964. ___________. De Antichristo in Danielem. Ed.  F.  Glorie. CCL  75A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1964. ___________. Hebraicae Quaestiones in libro Geneseos. Ed.  Paul de Lagarde, Germain Morin, and Marc Adriaen. CCL  72. Turnhout: Brepols, 1959. ___________. Letter 72, Ad Vitalem Presbyterem. PL 22.325‒1224. ___________. Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum. Ed.  P. de Lagarde. CCL 72. Turnhout: Brepols, 1969. ___________.

B ibliography



507

Prologus in Danihele propheta. In Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Ed.  Robert Weber et al. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969. PL 28.1291‒1311. ___________. Prologus in Pentateucho. In Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Ed.  Robert Weber, et  al. Stuttgart: Würt­ tembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969. PL 28.147‒52. John Chrysostom. Homiliae in Matthaeum. PG 58.21‒793. Josephus, Flavius. Antiquitates Judaicae. In The Latin Josephus: Introduction and text. The Antiquities: books  I-V. Ed.  Franz Blatt. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1958. Tr.  Steve Mason and Louis  H. Feldman.  Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Judah Ibn Tibbon. Sefer ha-Shorashim. Ed. Wilhelm Bacher. Berlin: Bi-defus T. H. Ịttskov.sk.i, 1896. Justinian. Digest. In Corpus Iuris Civilis. Vol.  1: Novellae Institutiones. Digesta. Ed. Theodorus Mommsen, Paul Krueger. Berlin: Weidman, 1928. Tr.  Colin Francis Kolbert. The Digest of Roman Law: Theft, Rapine, Damage and Insult. New York: Penguin Books, 1979. Justinus, Junianus  M. Epitoma historiarum Philippicarum Pompei Trogi. Ed. Otto Seel. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1972. Liber ordinis Sancti Victoris Parisiensis. Ed.  Luc Jocqué and Ludo Milis. CCCM 61. Turnhout: Brepols, 1984. Liber sacramentorum Engolismensis. Ed. A. Dumas & J. Deshusses. CCL 159. Turnhout: Brepols, 1981. PL 78.25‒240. Lucretius. De rerum natura. Eds. W. H. D. Rouse, Martin Ferguson Smith. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1975. Maurice of Saint Victor. Galteri a Sancto Victore et quorumdam aliorum: Sermones ineditos triginta sex. Ed.  Jean Châtillon. CCCM 30. Turnhout: Brepols, 1975. Midrash Rabbah. Ed.  Maurice Simon and Harry Freedman, tr.  A.  Cohen, J.  Israelstam, S.  M. Lehrman, J.  Rabbinowitz, Louis  I. Rabbinowitz, and Judah J. Slotki. London: The Soncino Press, 1983. Odo of Asti. “Ysagoge in theologiam.” In Écrits théologiques de l’école d’Abélard. Ed.  Artur Michael  Landgraf. Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 14, Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense bureaux, 1934. ___________.

508

B ibliography

Origen. Homiliae in Lucam. Ed.  Max Rauer. Origenes Werke, 9: Die Homilien zu Lukas in der Übersetzung des Hieronymus und die griechischen Reste der Homilien und des LukasKommentars. GCS  49. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1959. Tr.  Joseph  T. Lienhard. Homilies on Luke. FOC  94. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996. ___________. Homilies on Genesis and Exodus. Ed.  Ronald  E. Heine. FOC  71. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1982. ___________. Homily 27 on Numbers. Tr.  Rowan  A. Greer. In An Exhortation to Martyrdom; Prayer; First Principles: Book  IV; Prologue to the Commentary on the Song of Songs; Homily  XXVII on Numbers. Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist, 1979. Pp. 245‒69. Ovid. Ars amatoria. Ed. Roy K. Gibson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Paulus Diaconus. In annuntiatione Beatae Mariae. PL 95.1470‒75. Peter Abelard. Ethica. Ed. Rainer M. Ilgner. CCCM 190. Turnhout: Brepols, 2001. PL 178.633‒77. Tr. Paul Vincent Spade. Peter Abelard, Ethical Writings: His Ethics or “Know Yourself ” and His Dialogue between a Philosopher, a Jew, and a Christian. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1995. ___________. Sic et Non: A Critical Edition. Ed. Blanche B. Boyer and Richard McKeon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976. PL 178.1329‒1610. Tr. Priscilla Throop. Yes and No: The Complete English translation of Peter Abelard’s Sic et Non. Charlotte, VT: Medieval MS, 2007; 2nd ed. 2008. ___________. Theologia Christiana. Ed.  E.  M. Buytaert. CCCM  12. Turnhout: Brepols, 1969. PL 178.1113‒1330. ___________. Theologia Scholarium. Ed. E. M. Buytaert and C. J. Mews. CCCM 13. Turnhout: Brepols, 1987. ___________. Theologia Summi Boni. Ed. E. M. Buytaert and C. J. Mews. CCCM 13. Turnhout: Brepols, 1987. Peter Comestor. Historia Scholastica. PL 198.1049‒1722. ___________. Scholastica historia: Liber Genesis. Ed.  Agneta Sylwan. CCCM 191. Turnhout: Brepols 2005. Peter the Chanter. Verbum Adbreviatum. Ed.  M.  Boutry. CCCM  196. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004.

B ibliography

 509

Peter Lombard. Collectanea in onmnes divi Pauli Apostoli epistolas. PL 191.9‒519. ___________. The Sentences, book  III: On the Incarnation of the Lord. Medieval Sources in Translation 45. Tr.  Giulio Silano. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2010. Peter of Poitiers, Sententiarum libri quinque. PL 211.783‒1288. Peter Riga. Aurora. Ed. Paul Beichner. Aurora Petri Rigae Versificata, 2 vols Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1965. Ps.-Ambrose. De dignitate sacerdotali. PL 17.567‒80. Ps.-Augustine. Contra Judaeos, Paganos et Arianos, sermo de symbolo. PL 42.1115‒30. Ps.-Bede, In Matthei evangelium expositio. PL 92.9‒131. ___________. In Pentateuchum Commentarii. PL 91.189‒394. Ps.-Chrysostom, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum. PG 56.611‒947. Ps.-Hugh of Saint Victor. Quaestiones et decisiones in epistolas S.  Pauli. PL 175.43‒634. ___________. In Abdiam. PL 175.371‒405 Ps.-Jerome. Quaestiones Hebraicae in Paralipomenon. PL 23.1327‒1402. Rashi. Mikraot Gedolot Hamishah humshe Torah. Ed. Hayim Rabinovits and Abraham ben Meïr Ibn Ezra. Jerusalem: Magnus Press, 1973. ___________. Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth, and Prayers for Sabbath and Rashi’s Commentary Translated into English and Annotated. Ed. Morris Rosenbaum and Abraham M. Silbermann. London: Shapiro, Vallentine & Co., 1929‒34. ___________. The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary. Tr.  A.  J. Rosenberg. New York: Judaica Press, [n.d.]. Online at: http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/ aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm. Remigius of Auxerre. Commentarius in Genesim. See Haimo of Auxerre. ___________. Expositio super Genesim. Ed. Burton Van Name Edwards. CCCM 136. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999. Richard of Saint Victor. De concordia temporum regum conregnantium super Iudam et super Israel. PL 196.241‒56. Tr. VTT 6. ___________. De XII Patriarchis. PL 196.63‒190. Ed. Jean Châtillon. Les douze patriarches ou Beniamin minor. SC 419. Paris: Cerf, 1997. Tr. Grover A. Zinn. Pref. Jean Châtillon. The Twelve Patriarchs, The Mystical Ark, and Book Three on the

510

___________.

___________. ___________. ___________. ___________.

___________. ___________. ___________. ___________. ___________. ___________. ___________. ___________. ___________. ___________. ___________.

B ibliography

Trinity. The Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1979. Pp. 51‒147. De archa Moysi. Ed. Jean Grosfillier. L’oeuvre de Richard de Saint-Victor. 1: De contemplatione (Beniamin maior). Turnhout: Brepols, 2013. Tr.  Grover  A. Zinn. Pref. Jean Châtillon. The Twelve Patriarchs, The Mystical Ark, and Book Three on the Trinity. The Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1979. Pp. 149‒370. De differentia sacrificii Abrahae a sacrificio Beatae Mariae Virginis. PL 196.1043‒60. De Emmanuele. PL 196.601‒66. Tr. Frans van Liere VTT 6. De eruditione hominis interioris. PL 196.1229‒1366. De exterminatione mali et promotione boni. PL  196.1073‒1116. Tr.  Daniele Racca. Lo sterminio del male. Biblioteca dell’Anima  10. Turin: Il leone verde, 1999. De missione Spiritus sancti sermo. PL 196.1017‒32. De potestate ligandi et solvendi. Ed.  Jean Ribaillier. Opuscules théologiques. TPMA 15. Paris: J.  Vrin, 1967. Pp. 77‒110. De spiritu blasphemiae. Ed.  Ribaillier. Opuscules théologiques. Pp. 121‒29. De statu interioris hominis post lapsum. Ed. Jean Ribaillier. AHDLMA 42 (1967): 61‒128. Tr. C. Evans. VTT 4.294. De tribus personis appropriatis in Trinitate. Ed. Ribaillier. Opuscules théologiques. Pp. 182‒87. De Trinitate. Ed. Jean Ribaillier. TPMA 6. Paris, J. Vrin, 1958. Ed.  G.  Salet. La Trinité. SC  67. Paris: Vrin, 1959. Tr. Christopher Evans. VTT 1.209‒382. De verbis apostolicis. Ed. Ribaillier. Opuscules théologiques. Pp. 314‒17. In Abdiam. PL 175.371‒406. In Apocalypsim. PL 196.683‒888. Partial tr. A. B Kraebel. VTT 3.327‒70. In Joelem. PL 175.321‒72. In visionem Ezechielis. PL  196.527‒606. Ed.  Jochen Schröder. Gervasius von Canterbury, Richard von Saint-Victor und die Methodik der Bauerfassung im 12. Jahrhundert, 2  vols Veröffentlichung der Abteilung

B ibliography



511

Architekturgeschichte des Kunsthistorischen Instituts der Universität zu Köln 71. Cologne: Kleikamp, 2000. ___________. Liber Exceptionum. Ed.  Jean Châtillon. TPMA 5. Paris: J. Vrin, 1958. Partial tr. Hugh Feiss. VTT 3.297‒319. ___________. Miscellanea. PL 177.496‒900. ___________. Misit Herodes rex manus. PL 141.277‒306. ___________. Mysticae adnotationes in Psalmos. PL  196.265‒404. Tr. C. Evans. VTT 4.196‒282. ___________. Sermones centum. PL 177.899‒1210. ___________. Sermo in die pasche. PL 196.1059‒74. ___________. Super exiit edictum siue De tribus processionibus. Ed. Jean Châtillon and W. J. Tulloch. Sermons et opuscules spirituels inédits: L’édit d’Alexandre ou Les trois processions. Paris: Desclée De Brouwer, 1951. Robert of Melun. Quaestiones de divina pagina. Ed.  Raymond Martin. Oeuvres de Robert de Melun, tome I. Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 13. Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense bureaux, 1932. Tr. Franklin T. Harkins, VTT 6. ___________. Quaestiones de epistolis Pauli. Ed.  Raymond Martin. Oeuvres de Robert de Melun, tome II. Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 18. Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense bureaux, 1938. ___________. Sententiae. Ed.  Raymond Martin. Oeuvres de Robert de Melun, tome III.1‒2. Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 21, 25. Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense bureaux, 1947‒52. Partial tr. Nancy Van Baak, VTT 3.445‒78. Robert Pullen. Sententiae. PL 186.639‒1211. Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Ed. J. D. Mansi. Venezia: Zatta, 1692‒1769. Seder Olam. Ed. A. Neubauer. Anecdota oxoniensia, semitic series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895. Sententiae Florianenses. Ed. Heinrich Ostlender. Florilegium Patristicum 19. Bonn: Hanstein, 1929. Symeon Metaphrastes. Vita Nicolai. PG 116.317‒56. Talmud. Hebrew-English edition of the Babylonian Talmud. Ed. and tr. Maurice Simon and Isidore Epstein. London: Soncino, 1960.

512

B ibliography

Thomas Aquinas. On Love and Charity: Readings from the “Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard.” Tr.  Peter  A. Kwasniewski, Thoman Bolin, and Joseph Bolin. Intro. Peter Kwasniewski. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008. ___________. Scriptum super sententiis magistri Petri Lombardi. Ed. R. P. Maria Fabianus Moos. Paris: Lethielleux, 1933. ___________. Summa theologiae. Ed. Peter Caramello, Bernard-Marie de Rossi, Charles-René Billuart, Xavier Faucher, O.P., et al. Taurin: Marietti, 1951‒56. Tr. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Bros., 1948. Vigilius Tapsensis. De Trinitate. PL 62.237‒334. Walter of Saint Victor. Sermones inediti triginta sex. Ed.  J.  Châtillon. CCCM 30. Turnhout: Brepols, 1975. William Fitzstephen. Life of Saint Thomas. Ed.  James Craigie Robertson. Materials for the History of Thomas Becket. London: Longman, 1877. William of Champeaux. Introductiones dialecticae secundum Wilgelmum and secundum G. Paganellum. Ed. Yukio Iwakuma. Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen Age Grec et Latin 63 (1993): 57‒114. ___________. Sententiae. Ed.  Odon Lottin. Psychologie et Morale aux xiie et xiiie  siècles 5: Problèmes d’histoire littéraire. L’école d’Anselme de Laon et de Guillaume de Champeaux. Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1959. Pp. 189‒227.

Secondary Works Albright, W. F. “The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 100 (1945): 16‒22. Awerbuch, Marianne. Christlich-jüdische Begegnung im Zeitalter der Frühscholastik. Abhandlungen zum christlich-jüdischen Dialog 8. München: Kaiser, 1980. Basch, Rivka. “Zwischen Tradition und Revolution. Die Exegese von Hugo von St.  Viktor und Rabbi Schemuel Ben Meir (‘Raschbam’).” In Kulturkontakte und Rezeptionsvorgänge in der Theologie des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts. Ed. Dieter R. Bauer and Ulrich Köpf. Archa Verbi: Subsidia 8. Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2011. Pp. 227‒46.

B ibliography



513

Baldwin, John W. Paris, 1200. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010. Berndt, Rainer. André de Saint-Victor († 1175), exégète et théologien. BV  2. Paris/Turnhout: Brepols, 1992. ___________. “La raison du salut. L’influence d’Hugues de Saint-Victor sur la formation des sommes de théologie aux xiie et xiiie siècles.” In L’École de Saint-Victor. Pp. 283‒98. Bischoff, Bernhard. “Das griechische Element in der abendländischen Bildung.” In Mittelalterliche Studien. Ausgewählte Auf­ sätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1967. 2:246‒75. ___________. “Wendepunkte in der Geschichte der lateinischen Exegese im Mittelalter.” Sacris erudiri  6 (1954): 189‒281. Also in: Mittelalterliche Studien. Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1966. 1:205‒73. Blaise, Albert. Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens. Turnhout: Brepols, 1954. Bonnard, Fourier. Histoire de l’abbaye royale et de l’ordre des chanoines réguliers de Saint-Victor de Paris. t. 1. Première periode (1113‒1500). Paris: Arthur Savaète, 1904. Cacciapuoti Pierluigi. “Deus Existentia Amoris”: teologia della carità e teologia della trinità negli scritti di Riccardo di San Vittore († 1173). BV 9. Turnhout: Brepols, 1998. Canty, Aaron. Light & Glory: The Transfiguration of Christ in Early Franciscan and Dominican Theology. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2011. Casey, Michael. Sacred reading: The ancient art of lectio divina. Liguori: Triumph Books, 1996. Châtillon, Jean. Le mouvement canonial au moyen âge; Réforme de l’église, spiritualité et culture. Ed.  Patrice Sicard. BV  3. Paris/ Turnhout: Brepols, 1992. ___________. “Sermons et prédicateurs victorins de la seconde moitié du xiie siècle.” AHDLMA 32 (1966), 7‒60. Chenu, M-D.  Nature, Man and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on New Theological Perspectives in the Latin West. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. Clark, Elizabeth A. Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Colish, Marcia L. Peter Lombard, 2 vols Leiden: Brill, 1994.

514

B ibliography

Constable, Giles. Three Studies in Medieval Religious and Social Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Coolman, Boyd  T. Theology of Hugh of St.  Victor: An Interpretation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Copeland, Rita. Pedagogy, Intellectuals, and Dissent in the later Middle Ages: Lollardy and Ideas of Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Coulter, Dale M. “Historia and Sensus litteralis. An Investigation into the Approach to Literal Interpretation at the Twelfth-Century School of St.  Victor.” In Transforming Relations: Essays on Jews and Christians throughout History in Honor of Michael A. Signer. Ed. Franklin T. Harkins. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010. Pp. 101‒24. ___________. Per visibilia ad invisibilia: Theological Method in Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173). BV 19. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006. Craig, William L. “St. Anselm on Divine Foreknowledge and Future Contingency.” Laval théologique et philosophique 42 (1986): 93‒104. Dahan, Gilbert. L’exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en Occident médiéval xiiexive siècle. Paris: Cerf, 1999. De Lubac, Henri. Exégèse Médiévale. Les quatre sens de l’Écriture  II.1. Théologie, 42. Paris: Aubier, 1961. Dingjan, François. Discretio. Les origines patristiques et monastiques de la doctrine sur la prudence chez saint Thomas d’Aquin. Assen: Van Gorcum & Co., 1967. Dinkova-Bruun, Greti. “Autor, Authorship and the Literal Sense of the Bible: The Case of Leonius of Paris.” In Bibel und Exegese in der Abtei Sankt Viktor zu Paris. Form und Funktion eines Grundtextes im europäischen Raum. Ed.  Rainer Berndt. CV: Instrumenta 3. Münster: Aschendorf, 2009. Pp. 259‒77. ___________. “Biblical Versification from Late Antiquity to the Middle of the Thirteenth Century: History or Allegory?” In Poetry and Exegesis in Premodern Latin Christianity: The Encounter between Classical and Christian Strategies of Interpretation. Ed. Willemien Otten and Karla Pollmann. Vigiliae Christianae, Supplements 87. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Pp. 315‒42. ___________. “Leonius of Paris and his Liber Ruth.” In Schrift, Schreiber, Schenker. Studien zur Abtei Sankt Viktor in Paris und

B ibliography



515

den Viktorinern. Ed. Rainer Berndt. CV: Instrumenta 1. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2005. Pp. 293‒316. ___________. “Why Versify the Bible in the Later Middle Ages and for Whom? The Story of Creation in Verse.” In Dichten als Stoff-Vermittlung: Formen, Ziele, Wirkungen. Beiträge zur Praxis der Versifikation lateinischer Texte im Mittelalter. Ed.  Peter Stotz, Medienwandel  – Medienwechsel  – Medienwissen 5. Zürich: Chronos Verlag, 2008. Pp. 41‒55. Ebner, Joseph. Die Erkenntnislehre Richards von St.  Viktor. BGPTMA 19.4. Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 1917. Elliott, Matthew A. “Affections.” In Dictionary of Christian Spirituality. Ed.  Glen Scorgie, Simon Chan, Gordon  T. Smith, and James  D. Smith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011. Pp. 248‒49. Evans, G. R. The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Earlier Middle Ages. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984. ___________. The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Road to Reformation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Evans, Michael. “The Ysagoge in Theologiam and the Commentaries Attributed to Bernard Silvestris.” In Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 54 (1991): 1‒42. Fehérváry, Jákó Örs. Multi sunt poenitentiae fructus: Pénitence monastique aux ve-vie siécles dans le paysage de la pénitence ecclésiale. Studia Anselmiana 147. Rome: Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 2009. Feiss, Hugh B. “Learning and the Ascent to God in Richard of Saint Victor.” Unpublished PhD. Diss. Rome: Collegio Sant’ Anselmo, 1979. ___________. “Preaching by Word and Example.” In From Knowledge to Beatitude: St.  Victor, Twelfth-Century Scholars, and Beyond. Essays in Honor of Grover A. Zinn, Jr. Ed. E. Ann Matter and Lesley Smith. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013. Pp. 233‒80. Fischer, Johann. “Die hebräischen Bibelzitate des Scholastikers Odo.” Biblica 15 (1934): 50‒93. Fredricksen, Paula. “Massa.” In Augustine through the Ages: An Encylopedia. Ed.  Allan  D. Fitzgerald. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Pp. 545‒47.

516

B ibliography

Froehlich, Karlfried. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Gilson, Etienne. The Mystical Theology of Saint Bernard. Tr. A. H. C. Downes. London: Sheed and Ward, 1940. Gorochov, Natalie. Le Collège de Navarre de sa fondation (1305) au début du xve  siècle (1418): histoire de l’institution, de sa vie intellectuelle et de son recrutement. Paris: H. Champion, 1997. Goy, Rudolf. Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Werke Richards von Sankt Viktor im Mittelalter. BV 18. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005. ___________. Die Überlieferung der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor: ein Beitrag zur Kommunikationsgeschichte des Mittelalters. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1976. Grabmann, Martin. Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode. Nach den gedruckten und ungedruckten Quellen dargestellt. 2  vols Freiburg: Herder, 1909‒11. Graboïs, Aryeh. “The Hebraica Veritas and Jewish-Christian Intellectual Relations in the Twelfth Century.”  Speculum  50 (1975): 613‒34. Green, William M. “Hugh of Saint Victor, De Tribus Maximis Circumstantiis Gestorum.” Speculum 18 (1943): 484‒93. Hailperin, Herman. “Jewish ‘Influence’ on Christian Biblical Scholars in the Middle Ages.” Historia Judacia 4 (1942): 163‒74. ___________. Rashi and the Christian Scholars. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1963. Hamesse, Jacqueline. “The Scholastic Model of Reading.” In A  History of Reading in the West. Ed.  Guglielmo Cavallo and Roger Chartier. Trans. Lydia Cochrane. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999. Pp. 103‒19. Harkins, Franklin T. “Homo assumptus at St.  Victor: Reconsidering the Relationship between Victorine Christology and Peter Lombard’s First Opinion.” Thomist 72 (2008): 595‒624. ___________. “Lectio exhortatio debet esse: Reading as a Way of Life at the Twelfth-Century Abbey of St.  Victor.” In From Knowledge to Beatitude: St.  Victor, Twelfth-Century Scholars, and Beyond. Essays in Honor of Grover  A. Zinn,  Jr. Ed.  E.  Ann Matter and Lesley Smith. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013. ___________. “Littera et Lex: Scriptural Hermeneutics and the Old Law at the Twelfth-Century Parisian Abbey of St. Victor.” In

B ibliography



517

Das Gesetz – The Law – La Loi. Ed. Andreas Speer and Guy Guldentops. Miscellanea Mediaevalia 38. BerlinBoston: W. de Gruyter, 2014. Pp. 281‒97. ___________. Reading and the Work of Restoration: History and Scripture in the Theology of Hugh of St. Victor. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2009. ___________. “The Embodiment of Angels: A  Debate in MidThirteenth-Century Theology.” RTPM 78 (2011): 25‒58. ___________. “The Magical Arts, Angelic Intercourse, and Giant Offspring: Echoes of Watchers Traditions in Medieval Scholastic Theology.” In The Fallen Angels Traditions: Second Temple Developments and Reception History. Eds. Angela Kim Harkins, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, and John C. Endres. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2014. Pp. 157‒79. Harkins, Angela Kim, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, and John C. Endres, eds. The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2014. Hauréau, Barthélemy. Notices et extraits de quelques manuscrits latins de la Bibliothèque Nationale. 6 vol. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1890‒93; rpt. Farnborough: Gregg International, 1967. Hayes, John H. and Paul K. Hooker. A New Chronology for the Kings of Israel and Judah and its Implications for Biblical History and Literature. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988. Holsinger, Bruce and David Townsend. “The Ovidian Verse Epistles of Master Leoninus (c. 1135‒1201).” Journal of Medieval Latin 10 (2000): 239‒54. Illich, Ivan. In the Vineyard of the Text. A Commentary to Hugh’s Didascalicon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. ___________. “‘Lectio divina’.” In Schriftlichkeit im frühen Mittelalter. Ed.  Ursula Schaefer. ScriptOralia, 53,  19‒35. Tübingen: Narr, 1993. Knoch, Wendelin. “Geschichte als Heilsgeschichte.” In Hochmittelalterliches Geschichtsbewußtsein im Spiegel nichthistoriographischer Quellen. Ed.  Hans-Werner Goetz. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1998. Pp. 19‒30. Laistner, M. L. W. “Antiochene Exegesis in Western Europe during the Middle Ages.” Harvard Theological Review 40 (1947): 19‒31. Lampe, G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961.

518

B ibliography

Leclercq, Jean. “The Exposition and Exegesis of Scripture: From Gregory the Great to Saint Bernard.” In The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Fathers to the Reformation. Ed. G. W. H. Lampe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. 2:183‒97. Leinsle, Ulrich G. Introduction to Scholastic Theology. Tr. Michael J. Miller. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2010. Leyra, Montse. The Victorines on the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets: The Sources of the In Hebreo Interpretations in Light of their Parallels with the Peshat School of Northern France and Other Jewish Sources. “Unpublished Ph.D.  Dissertation, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2011. Online at: http://hufind.huji.ac.il/Record/HUJ001735014. Mandreoli, Fabrizio. La teologia della fede nel De sacramentis Christiane fidei di Ugo di San Vittore. CV: Instrumenta 4. Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2011. Mews, Constant J. “Between the schools of Abelard and Saint-Victor in the mid twelfth century: the witness of Robert of Melun.” In L’école de Saint-Victor. Pp. 121‒38. Montgomery, J.  A. A  Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. International Critical Commentary 22. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927. Moore, Rebecca. Jews and Christians in the Life and Thought of Hugh of St. Victor. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Morrison, Karl  F. Conversion and Text. The Cases of Augustine of Hippo, Herman-Judah, and Constantine Tsatsos. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1992. Mortensen, L. B. “Hugh of St. Victor on Secular History. A preliminary edition of a chapter from his Chronica.” Cahiers de l’Institut du moyen âge grec et latin 62 (1992): 3‒30. Nebbiai-Della Guarda, Donatella. La Bibliothèque de l’Abbaye de Saint-Denis en France du ixe au xviiie siècle. Paris: CNRS, 1985. Neubauer, Adolph. Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles and Chronological Notes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1887. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Niermeyer, Jan Frederik. Mediae latinitatis lexicon minus. Leiden: Brill, 1984.

B ibliography



519

Noone, Timothy  B. “Scholasticism.” In A  Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages. Ed. Jorge J. E. Gracia and Timothy B. Noone. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003. O’Keefe, John. J. “Christianizing Malachi: Fifth-Century Insights from Cyril of Alexandria.” Vigiliae Christianae 50 (1996): 136‒58. ___________. “Impassible Suffering? Divine Passion and Fifth-Century Christology.” Theological Studies 58 (1997): 39‒60. Otto, Stephan. Die Funktion des Bildbegriffes in der Theologie des 12. Jahrhunderts. BGPTMA 40.1. Münster: Aschendorff, 1963. Penner, Ken M. “Did the Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael use the Book of the Giants?” In Sacra Scriptura: How “Non-Canonical” Texts Functioned in Early Judaism and Early Christianity. Ed. James H. Charlesworth and Lee Martin McDonald. London: Bloomsbury T. & T. Clark, 2014. Pinckaers, S. “Recherches de la signification véritable du terme ‘speculatif ’” Nouvelle revue théologique. 81 (1959): 673‒95. Pits, John. Relationum Historicarum de Rebus Anglicis. Paris: Rolin Thierry & Sebastian Cramoisy, 1619; reprint Farnborough: Gregg International, 1969. Poirel, Dominique. Des symbols et des anges: Hugues de Saint-Victor et le réveil dionysien du XIIe siècle. BV 23. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013. Pollitt, Herbert J. “Some Considerations on the Structure and Sources of Hugh of St. Victor’s Notes on the Octateuch.” RTAM 33 (1966): 5‒38. ___________. Hugh of St. Victor as Biblical Exegete. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1960. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Reuschling, Wyndy C. Desire for God and the Things of God: The Relationship between Christian Spirituality and Morality. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012. Rigg, A.  G. A  History of Anglo-Latin Literature 1066‒1422. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Robson, C. A. Maurice of Sully and the Medieval Vernacular Homily. With the Text of Maurice’s French Homilies from a Sens Cathedral Chapter ms. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952.

520

B ibliography

Rosemann, Philipp  W. Peter Lombard. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. ___________. The Story of a Great Medieval Book: Peter Lombard’s Sentences. Rethinking the Middle Ages. Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press, 2007. Roth, Cecil. History of the Jews in England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964. Schäublin, Christoph. Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der Antiochenischen Exegese. Theophaneia 23. Cologne: Peter Hanstein, 1974. Schmidt, Paul G. “Die Bibeldichtung des Leonius von Paris.” In Als das wissend die Meister wol. Beiträge zur Darstellung und Vermittlung von Wissen in Fachliteratur und Dichtung des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit: Walter Blank zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed. M. Ehrenfeuchter und Th. Ehlen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2000. 253‒60. Schönberger, Rolf. Was ist Scholastik? Hildesheim: Bernward, 1991. Schreiber, Alexander and Israel Adler. “Obadiah, the Norman Proselyte.” In Encyclopaedia Judaica. Ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. 2nd ed., vol.  15. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 366‒67. Online at Gale Virtual Reference Library: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE% 7CCX2587514998&v=2.1&u=imcpl1111&it=r&p=GVR L&sw=w&asid=0032dd1193534f665baf5239dfbde911. Consulted 25 Apr. 2014. Smalley, Beryl. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1952. Third Edition, 1983. Smith-Christopher, Daniel  L. The Book of Daniel: Introduction. New Interpreter’s Bible 7. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996. Smith, Lesley. The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Spohn, William  C. Go and Do Likewise: Jesus and Ethics. New York: Continuum, 1999. Stammberger, Ralf M. W. “Die Exegese des Oktateuch bei Hugo von SaintVictor.” In Bibel und Exegese in der Abtei Saint-Victor zu Paris: Form und Funktion eines Grundtextes im europäischen Rahmen. Ed.  Rainer Berndt. Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2009. Pp. 235‒57. ___________. “Zur jüdischen Exegese im Werk Hugos von Sankt Viktor.” In Kulturkontakte und Rezeptionsvorgänge in der Theologie des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts. Ed. Dieter R. Bauer

B ibliography



521

and Ulrich Köpf. Archa Verbi. Subsidia 8. Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2011. Pp. 247‒62. Swanson, R.  N. The Twelfth-Century Renaissance. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999. Sweeney, Eileen C. “Hugh of St.  Victor: the Augustinian Tradition of Sacred and Secular Reading Revisited.” In Reading and Wisdom: The De doctrina christiana of Augustine in the Middle Ages. Ed. Edward D. English. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995. Pp. 61‒83. Taylor, Jerome. The Origin and Early Life of Hugh of St.  Victor. Texts and Studies in the History of Medieval Education. 5. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1957. Thesaurus proverbiorum medii aevi. Ed. Samuel Singer, Werner Ziltener, et al. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995‒. Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings: A Reconstruction of the Chronology of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. Van den Eynde, Damien. Essai sur la succession et la date des écrits de Hugues de Saint-Victor. Spicilegium Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani 13. Rome: Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum, 1960. Van Liere, Frans A. “Andrew of Saint Victor and His Franciscan Critics.” In The Multiple Meaning of Scripture. Ed.  Ineke Van  ’t Spijker. Commentaria 2. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Pp. 291‒309. ___________. An Introduction to the Medieval Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. ___________. “Christ or Antichrist? The Jewish Messiah in TwelfthCentury Christian Eschatology.” In From knowledge to beatitude: St. Victor, twelfth-century scholars, and beyond: essays in honor of Grover  A. Zinn,  Jr. Ed.  Lesley Smith and E. Ann Matter. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013. Pp. 342‒57. ___________. “Twelfth-Century Christian Scholars and the Attribution of the Talmud.” In Medieval Perspectives 17.2 (2002): 93‒104. Van  ’t Spijker, Ineke. Fictions of the Inner Life: Religious Literature and Formation of the Self in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. Van Zwieten, J. W. M. “Jewish Exegesis within Christian Bounds. Richard of St Victor’s ‘De Emmanuele’ and Victorine Hermeneutics.”

522

B ibliography

Bijdragen. Tijdschrift voor philosophie en theologie 48 (1987): 327‒35. Wright, Craig. “Leonius, Poet and Musician.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 39 (1986): 1‒35. Ziegler, Gabriele. Augustinus als Vorbild der Predigt des Absalon von Springiersbach. Cassiciacum 47. Würzburg: Augustinus Verlag, 1998. Zier, Mark. “Nicholas of Lyra on the Book of Daniel.” In Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture. Ed. Phillip D. Krey and Lesley J. Smith. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Pp. 173‒94. ___________. “The Expositio super Danielem of Andrew of St. Victor: A Critical Edition Together with a Survey of the Medieval Latin Interpretation of Daniel.” Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1983. ___________. “The Medieval Interpretation of Daniel: Antecedents to Andrew of St. Victor.” RTAM 58 (1991): 43‒78. Zinn, Grover A. “Historia fundamentum est: the role of history in the contemplative life according to Hugh of St.  Victor.” In Contemporary Reflections on the Medieval Christian Tradition. Essays in Honor of Ray C. Petry. Ed. George H. Shriver. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1974. Pp. 135‒58. ___________. “Hugh of Saint Victor and the Art of Memory.” Viator. Medieval and Renaissance Studies 5 (1974): 211‒34. ___________. “Hugh of St. Victor’s De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris as an accessus treatise for the study of the Bible.” Traditio 52 (1997): 111‒34.

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:26–27 1:28 1:31 2:4 2:9 2:17 3:5

3:15 3:16 3:17 3:22 4:7 4:13 7:2 7:11 9:3 11:4 12:11–20 14:1–20 18:1–8 18:11 19:1 20:12 21:9–14 22:18

145 (n. 13) 34, 111 (n. 12) 111 (n. 13) 111 (n. 15) 252 (n. 48), 460 (n. 4) 114 (n. 98) 35 (n. 28), 223, 273 (n. 1) 111 (n. 8) 439 (n. 104) 438 (n. 75) 113 (n. 71), 255 (n. 106), 352, 438 (n. 70), 439 (n. 111) 439 (n. 115) 438 (n. 73) 114 (n. 92), 438 (n. 77) 439 (n. 136), 140) 116 (n. 163) 333 (n. 48) 223, 273 (n. 2) 114 (n. 105–6) 113 (n. 84) 114 (n. 117) 115 (n. 139) 343 (n. 221) 340 (n. 166) 115 (n. 138) 115 (n. 135) 115 (n. 124) 117 (n. 199) 340 (n. 164)

25:23–25 26:3, 28 27:27–28 27:36 28:2 28:11–22 30:1–6 32:3–6 33:16 36:8, 19–20 37:26–27 39 41:42 43:7 43:36 49:9–12 49:10

Exodus 1–14 8:24 9:12 10:20 10:27 11:10 12:11 12:45 12:46 14:8 14:15 21:17 22:33–34

251 (n. 5) 331 (n. 1) 34 115 (n. 154) 252 (n. 48) 116 (n. 180) 117 (n. 199) 116 (n. 160) 116 (n. 160) 251 (n. 3) 116 (n. 187) 477 (n. 2) 34 116 (n. 175) 251 (n. 6) 34 251 (n. 23), 440 (n. 162)

210 (n. 77) 112 (n. 39) 335 (n. 95) 335 (n. 95) 335 (n. 95) 335 (n. 95) 274 (n. 38) 331 (n. 18) 440 (n. 148) 335 (n. 95) 220, 251 (n. 20) 210 (n. 78) 438 (n. 54)

524

I ndex of scripture references

22:11 26:5 29:37 32:32

331 (n. 1) 28 (n. 12) 210 (n. 90) 338 (n. 140)

Leviticus 6:29 18 20:10 22:10 25:1–7 25:40 26:34–35

210 (n. 90) 112 (n. 54) 116 (n. 168) 331 (n. 18) 210 (n. 88) 331 (n. 18) 210 (n. 88)

Deuteronomy 7:8 7:14 22:22 24:1–4 25:5 25:9 29:14 31:17 32:35 34 34:1–8

331 (n. 1) 113 (n. 68) 437 (n. 18) 344 (n. 251), 344 (n. 252) 116 (n. 168) 495 (n. 30) 331 (n. 1) 210 (n. 82) 331 (n. 7) 285 339 (n. 151)

Numbers 7:12 8:7 24:1–16 24:17–18 26:60 30:4 30:6 33:49

116 (n. 185) 251 (n. 27) 256 (n. 133) 221 (n. 14), 251 (n. 4) 495 (n. 1) 331 (n. 1) 331 (n. 1) 443 (n. 1)

Joshua 13:15–32

117 (n. 194)

Judges 1:2 4 5 11:24 16:23–28 Ruth 1:8–10 2:21 3:11 3:15 4:1–2 4:2–3 4:7–8 1 Samuel 9:9 10:1 14:26 17:51 2 Samuel 11:2–17 1 Kings 8:13 8:21 8:31 14:20 15:1 15:9 15:25 15:28 15:33 16:8 16:15 16:15–23

116 (n. 188) 210 (n. 77) 117 (n. 200) 439 (n. 122) 345 (n. 254)

480 (n. 14) 480 (n. 14) 480 (n. 14) 495 (n. 23) 480 (n. 14) 495 (n. 23) 481

35 (n. 31), 437 (n. 20) 116 (n. 186) 331 (n. 1) 438 (n. 43)

332 (n. 29)

210 (n. 89) 251 (n. 18) 331 (n. 1) 158 (n. 7) 125, 168 (n. 1) 125, 158 (n. 8), 168 (n. 2) 125, 158 (n. 7–8), 168 (n. 3) 125, 158 (n. 7–8), 168 (n. 4) 158 (n. 9), 168 (n. 4) 158 (n. 10), 168 (n. 5) 158 (n. 11) 168 (n. 6)

I ndex of scripture references

16:16 16:21 16:23 16:29 20 22:41–42 22:52

2 Kings 1:17 2:8 2:11 3:1 4:27 8:16–17

158 (n. 12) 158 (n. 14) 126, 158 (n. 15) 126, 158 (n. 16) 210 (n. 77) 158 (n. 17), 168 (n. 10) 158 (n. 18), 158 (n. 20), 168 (n. 11)

158 (n. 19–22) 126 334 (n. 76) 168 (n. 12) 437 (n. 16) 126, 158 (n. 22–23), 168 (n. 13–14) 8:25–26 158 (n. 25), 168 (n. 14) 9:24 and 27 158 (n. 26) 9:29–30 158 (n. 28) 11:3 168 (n. 16) 12:1 158 (n. 31), 168 (n. 17) 13:1–2 125, 158 (n. 33), 168 (n. 18) 13:10 158 (n. 34), 168 (n. 19) 14:1–2 126, 158 (n. 35), 168 (n. 21) 14:17 126, 158 (n. 38), 168 (n. 22) 14:23 158 (n. 36), 168 (n. 23) 15:1 158 (n. 40), 168 (n. 24) 15:2 and 23 158 (n. 41) 15:8 158 (n. 42), 168 (n. 25) 15:30–33 158 (n. 44), 168 (n. 26–27) 16:1 158 (n. 45) 16:5–8 440 (n. 151) 17:1 126, 158 (n. 46), 168 (n. 28) 23:31–33 208 (n. 4)



525

24:1–2 24:8–16 25:26 25:27–30

209 (n. 46–47) 209 (n. 52) 209 (n. 56) 209 (n. 56), 210 (n. 91)

2 Chronicles 21:20 22:2 30:10 36:21

126 (n. 23) 126 (n. 23) 439 (n. 144) 210 (n. 88)

Ezra 1:1 2:64 3:1–7 3:8–4:5 4:4–5 4:5–7 4:7 4:24 7:6–7 Nehemiah 1–6 2:1–8 5:14 6:18 12:26 Tobit 12:12

Esther 1–2 1:1 1:3 3:7

208 (n. 38), 209 (n. 42), 210 (n. 112) 210 (n. 97) 210 (n. 98) 210 (n. 99) 209 (n. 65) 210 (n. 100) 209 (n. 64) 210 (n. 99–100) 210 (n. 106)

210 (n. 95) 209 (n. 66), 210 (n. 106) 210 (n. 106) 331 (n. 1) 210 (n. 108)

333 (n. 53), 336 (n. 110)

209 (n. 61) 211 (n. 119) 210 (n. 93) 210 (n. 104)

526 Job

1:9–12 2:4–6 7:2 26:11 41:25

Psalms 1:1 2:1 4:5 4:7 7:9/10 9:17 16:1 17:12 17:45 (18:44) 24:10 26:6 28 (29):5 32:12 33:2 33:6 35:9 36:6 39:12 44 (45):3 44:3 (45):2 44:8 45:9 48:13 50:3 50:7 50:12 54:7 55:10

I ndex of scripture references

344 (n. 247) 344 (n. 247) 331 (n. 18) 336 (n. 113) 439 (n. 122)

345 (n. 262) 345 (n. 263) 273 (n. 22) 451, 452, 460 (n. 10), 468 (n. 5) 252 (n. 43), 345 (n. 258) 251 (n. 21) 252 (n. 43) 35 (n. 30), 438 (n. 57) 332 (n. 38) 253 (n. 63) 440 (n. 176) 336 (n. 112) 251 (n. 10) 251 (n. 34) 258 (n. 211) 439 (n. 100) 256 (n. 149) 253 (n. 63) 46, 284 334 (n. 69), 339 (n. 147) 440 (n. 175) 440 (n. 188) 438 (n. 76), 439 (n. 133) 111 (n. 2), 252 (n. 45) 438 (n. 84) 452, 460 (n. 7), 468 (n. 10) 258 (n. 216) 257 (n. 160)

56:2 56:4–5 60:8 71:14 72:1 73 (74):23 76:10 79:3 83:8 83:12

257 (n. 162) 253 (n. 62) 253 (n. 63) 338 (n. 142) 257 (n. 179) 331 (n. 17) 438 (n. 78) 256 (n. 140) 258 (n. 213) 253 (n. 63), 468 (n. 1), 468 (n. 15) 84:1 253 (n. 63) 84:11 336 (n. 105) 84:12 440 (n. 189) 84:13 440 (n. 180), 440 (n. 182) 88:15/25 253 (n. 63) 88:49 438 (n. 93) 91:13 (92:12) 336 (n. 112) 103:30 451, 452, 468 (n. 11) 105 (106):23 338 (n. 139) 109:1 438 (n. 66) 109 (110):4 343 (n. 218) 111:4 256 (n. 125) 115:2 440 (n. 181) 118:1 111 (n. 3) 118:22 439 (n. 135) 118:104 275 (n. 73) 129:7 438 (n. 79) 131:11 438 (n. 64) 132:2 468 (n. 21) 140:4 440 (n. 190) 143:7 256 (n. 138) 148:4 111 (n. 18) Proverbs 4:18 4:25 5:15–17 8:22 24:12

256 (n. 150) 275 (n. 48) 343 (n. 211) 343 (n. 227) 252 (n. 56)

I ndex of scripture references

Ecclesiastes 10:16

116 (n. 172)

Wisdom of Solomon 12:21 18:11 18:22

331 (n. 1) 341 (n. 172) 331 (n. 1)

Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 1:1 1:4 1:33 3:21 18:1 19:1 37:31

439 (n. 103) 111 (n. 9) 275 (n. 72) 111 (n. 11) 111 (n. 7) 273 (n. 17) 274 (n. 34)

Isaiah 4:2 4:13 5:20 6:10 7:2 7:3 7:6–7 7:9 7:11–12 7:13–16 7:17 7:20 8:1 8:2–3 8:4 9:6 10:5 16:1 19:13–14 21:11–12 26:10 26:19 35:10

440 (n. 183) 258 (n. 215) 341 (n. 170) 437 (n. 28), 438 (n. 49) 437 (n. 33) 438 (n. 60) 440 (n. 156) 257 (n. 195–96), 275 (n. 71), 437 (n. 29) 438 (n. 59–60) 43, 437–39 (passim) 438 (n. 68) 438 (n. 69) 437 (n. 4, 40) 437 (n. 39) 437 (n. 38) 440 (n. 164) 331 (n. 27), 332 (n. 28) 256 (n. 137) 437 (n. 24) 251–58 (passim) 439 (n. 133) 438 (n. 80) 439 (n. 139)

45:1 45:8 45:14 53:2 55:17 56:5 64:1 64:4 65:15 66:6 Jeremiah 1:5 2:27 11:5 22:11 22:19 22:24–27 25:1 25:8–14 25:11–12 27:6–7 29:10–14 29:21 41–42 46:13–26 52:1–30 52:30–31

Ezekiel 1:2 1:17 14:14 16:56–57 16:59 17:16–19 18:21–22 29:17–21



527

211 (n. 117) 440 (n. 174) 211 (n. 118) 334 (n. 70) 257 (n. 183) 438 (n. 81) 256 (n. 139) 438 (n. 82) 331 (n. 1) 496 (n. 35)

342 (n. 189) 255 (n. 97) 331 (n. 1) 208 (n. 4) 209 (n. 48) 209 (n. 52) 208 (n. 1), 209 (n. 50), 210 (n. 109) 208 (n. 19) 128, 208 (n. 31), 208 (n. 37) 208 (n. 31) 210 (n. 111) 209 (n. 55) 209 (n. 56) 332 (n. 28) 332 (n. 28) 209 (n. 69–70), 210 (n. 91), 210 (n. 110)

208 (n. 20), 209 (n. 53) 258 (n. 209) 440 (n. 160) 210 (n. 81) 331 (n. 1) 331 (n. 1) 340 (n. 157) 208 (n. 17), 332 (n. 28)

528 Daniel 1:1 2 5 5:30–31 7 7:16 8:1 9:1–2 9:1–19 9:2 9:7 9:24 10–12 10:1

10:13 10:20 10:21 11–12 11:1 11:2 11:21 11:27

I ndex of scripture references

209 (n. 49) 208 (n. 27) 208 (n. 10), 208 (n. 35) 209 (n. 58) 208 (n. 26) 210 (n. 85) 209 (n. 58), 210 (n. 92), 210 (n. 102) 209 (n. 58), 210 (n. 75) 209 (n. 43) 34 210 (n. 79) 35 (n. 28) 128 (n. 28), 211 (n. 125) 208 (n. 8), 208 (n. 11), 211 (n. 116), 211 (n. 125) 439 (n. 120) 439 (n. 119), 440 (n. 170) 211 (n. 124–25), 211 (n. 127) 211 (n. 125) 210 (n. 103), 211 (n. 124) 128 (n. 28) 128 (n. 28) 212 (n. 130)

Hosea 1:10 4:12 5:4 13:14

439 (n. 98) 439 (n. 125) 439 (n. 125) 439 (n. 96)

Jonah 1:2 3:3

115 (n. 120) 115 (n. 120)

Habakkuk 1:6 3:9

257 (n. 177) 331 (n. 1)

Haggai 1 Zechariah 1 1:12 8:17 Malachi 1:2 2:2

209 (n. 62)

209 (n. 62) 208 (n. 40), 209 (n. 63), 210 (n. 105) 331 (n. 1)

251 (n. 5), 251 (n. 8) 340 (n. 162), 341 (n. 170)

I ndex of scripture references



529

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 1:20 1:22–23 1:23 2:15 3:16 4:1–11 4:4 4:5 5:7 5:9 5:22 5:29 5:31–32 5:33 5:44 5:43–45 6:7 6:14 6:21 6:22–23 6:24 7:18 7:20 9:2–8 10:15 10:27 11:3 11:21 12:31 12:32 13:41 13:49–50 14:1–21 14:13–21

437 (n. 27) 437 (n. 26) 438 (n. 52), 440 (n. 148) 438 (n. 58) 339 (n. 149) 344 (n. 245), 437 (n. 22) 115 (n. 151) 344 (n. 246–48) 252 (n. 46) 439 (n. 99) 341 (n. 183) 341 (n. 183) 344 (n. 251), 345 (n. 253) 331 (n. 1), 331 (n. 4–5) 342 (n. 191) 345 (n. 257), 440 (n. 146) 345 (n. 263) 331 (n. 6) 225 (n. 19) 331 (n. 8) 331 (n. 13) 331 (n. 22) 331 (n. 23) 343 (n. 234–35) 210 (n. 81) 344 (n. 250) 332 (n. 35) 332 (n. 37) 333 (n. 49) 333 (n. 46), 333 (n. 50) 333 (n. 51) 333 (n. 52) 333 (n. 55) 333 (n. 61)

14:9 15:17 16:18 16:19 17:2 17:3 17:5 17:6 18:15–18 18:23–35 18:34, 35 19:17–18 19:8 20:8–9 20:11–12 20:15 21:1–15 22:23–33 22:37 24:22 24:24 25:1–13 25:10–12 25:14 25:14–30 25:37 26:31–35 26:96–75 26:39 27:14/26 27:46 27:52–53

331 (n. 1) 340 (n. 165) 440 (n. 159) 333 (n. 62), 340 (n. 159–61) 334 (n. 68), 334 (n. 72), 339 (n. 146) 286, 334 (n. 74), 339 (n. 150) 440 (n. 187) 334 (n. 71) 334 (n. 78–79) 334 (n. 83–84), 340 (n. 154) 340 (n. 154) 468 (n. 22) 345 (n. 256) 334 (n. 86), 334 (n. 88) 334 (n. 85), 335 (n. 90) 334 (n. 86) 335 (n. 94) 112 (n. 54) 440 (n. 191) 335 (n. 96) 256 (n. 142) 337 (n. 121) 337 (n. 122–23) 338 (n. 143) 342 (n. 185) 334 (n. 89), 335 (n. 90) 338 (n. 128) 115 (n. 127), 338 (n. 128) 343 (n. 223) 343 (n. 215) 338 (n. 133) 439 (n. 131)

530 Mark 1:10 2:1–12 6:14–44 6:18–28 8:18 9:2 12:30 13:9–10 13:20 15:34 Luke 1:28/31 1:35 1:42 1:48 1:78 2:52 3:8 3:22 3:36 4:1–13 4:9 6:1 6:27, 35 8:31 9:30 9:62 10:2–24 10:25–37 10:27 10:30–35

10:42 11:15 12:48 15

I ndex of scripture references

339 (n. 149) 343 (n. 234–35) 333 (n. 55) 333 (n. 59) 438 (n. 52) 334 (n. 73) 440 (n. 191) 468 (n. 22) 131 (n. 39) 338 (n. 133)

440 (n. 184) 437 (n. 31), 437 (n. 87), 440 (n. 186) 439 (n. 137), 439 (n. 142), 439 (n. 145) 440 (n. 179) 438 (n. 71) 440 (n. 167) 273 (n. 24) 339 (n. 149) 115 (n. 121) 344 (n. 245) 344 (n. 248) 208 (n. 30) 345 (n. 257) 439 (n. 129) 286 258 (n. 208) 474 (n. 1) 468 (n. 12), 474 (n. 1) 440 (n. 191) 460 (n. 1), 460 (n. 6), 460 (n. 11–16), 460 (n. 18), 474 (n. 2) 258 (n. 206), 468 (n. 6) 333 (n. 47) 342 (n. 186) 338 (n. 143)

15:7/10 16:18 16:22 17:12–14 17:34 18:11 18:13 10:30, 34 22:29 23:34 23:43 24:26 24:28 24:42 24:50–51 John 1:1 1:9 1:14 1:17 1:32–33 1:48 2 3:5

3:21 4:35 6 6:1–15 6:5 6:51–52 6:55 8:12 8:48–49 10:12/13 10:30

334 (n. 80) 342 (n. 206) 336 (n. 109) 334 (n. 65) 440 (n. 161) 252 (n. 38) 257 (n. 163) 256 (n. 153) 439 (n. 101), 440 (n. 177) 342 (n. 192) 439 (n. 108) 439 (n. 113) 115 (n. 125) 439 (n. 107) 439 (n. 109)

438 (n. 91) 256 (n. 122) 437 (n. 30), 438 (n. 90), 439 (n. 94) 468 (n. 17) 339 (n. 149), 341 (n. 179) 113 (n. 63) 111 (n. 22) 256 (n. 145), 342 (n. 200), 343 (n. 213– 14) 257 (n. 159) 439 (n. 126) 112 (n. 53) 333 (n. 54) 274 (n. 40) 343 (n. 222) 275 (n. 54–55) 256 (n. 121) 447 (n. 20), 449 (n. 25) 331 (n. 18) 339 (n. 144)

I ndex of scripture references

12:31 14:10 14:16 15:26 18:38 19:36 20:1 20:22

439 (n. 121), 439 (n. 127) 339 (n. 144) 256 (n. 155) 256 (n. 156) 343 (n. 217) 440 (n. 147) 208 (n. 30) 468 (n. 23)

Acts 1:4 1:9 2:1–2 4:32 17:23

439 (n. 111) 439 (n. 112) 468 (n. 19), 468 (n. 26) 252 (n. 14) 256 (n. 135)

Romans 4:17 5:12 6:12 7:13 7:20 7:22 7:23 8:9 8:26–27 8:30 9:16 10:10 12:19 13:12 13:14 14:6 14:8 1 Corinthians 1:12 1:24

333 (n. 44) 337 (n. 126) 440 (n. 192) 273 (n. 29) 440 (n. 193) 251 (n. 19) 273 (n. 30) 468 (n. 20) 275 (n. 67), 341 (n. 179) 440 (n. 178) 335 (n. 92) 345 (n. 260) 331 (n. 7), 342 (n. 193) 257 (n. 158) 274 (n. 39) 331 (n. 21) 331 (n. 20)

341 (n. 176) 255 (n. 107)

2:8 2:9 3:7 5:6 5:7–8 6:12 7:15 11:29 15:53

2 Corinthians 1:12 3:6 6:14–15 8:13–14 12:11



531

351, 437 (n. 25), 438 (n. 49) 438 (n. 82) 333 (n. 45), 341 (n. 175), 343 (n. 212) 257 (n. 176), 273 (passim), 331 (n. 14) 42, 223, 224, 273–75 (passim) 274 (n. 34) 342 (n. 204) 275 (n. 56) 274 (n. 42), 439 (n. 97), 440 (n. 172), 440 (n. 194)

440 (n. 171) 210 (n. 86) 331 (n. 15) 343 (n. 231) 258 (n. 218)

Galatians 3:27 5:17

274 (n. 39) 275 (n. 66)

Ephesians 3:16 4:8 5:8

251 (n. 19) 439 (n. 132) 256 (n. 146)

Philippians 2:6 2:7 2:10 3:13 3:21 4:4–5

440 (n. 165) 255 (n. 105), 438 (n. 92) 437 (n. 23) 258 (n. 210) 439 (n. 143) 449 (n. 24)

532

I ndex of scripture references

1 Thessalonians 5:18

274 (n. 32)

2 Thessalonians 2:4 2:8

208 (n. 24) 208 (n. 25)

1 Timothy 4:1

439 (n. 124)

2 Timothy 3:16

31 (n. 19)

Hebrews 1:3 2:1 2:17 3:19 4:8 5–7 5:8 5:11 6:4–6 6:16 6:19 7:1–3 7:19 9:7 9:25

253 (n. 58) 253 (n. 61) 439 (n. 106) 258 (n. 214) 439 (n. 109) 343 (n. 218) 439 (n. 102), 439 (n. 114), 440 (n. 169) 437 (n. 41) 257 (n. 168) 331 (n. 1) 253 (n. 60) 115 (n. 130) 468 (n. 14) 343 (n. 219) 343 (n. 220)

10:26 11:6 James 1:17 2:10

257 (n. 170) 275 (n. 69)

5:12 5:16

468 (n. 16) 257 (n. 178), 342 (n. 190) 331 (n. 1) 273 (n. 23)

1 Peter 1:23 4:17

256 (n. 145) 336 (n. 103)

2 Peter 2:5

114 (n. 96)

1 John 1:8 3:2 3:4 3:8–10

273 (n. 10) 335 (n. 101) 273 (n. 16) 331 (n. 24–26)

Revelation (Apocalypse) 3:17 251 (n. 31) 4:8 251 (n. 35) 8:3–4 333 (n. 53), 336 (n. 110) 20:3/9 439 (n. 128) 21:4 439 (n. 138) 22:11 113 (n. 60)

INDEX OF ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL AUTHORS VICTORINE AUTHORS

Achard of St Victor Serm. 12 1.3

444 (n. 4) 46 (n. 69) 252 (n. 49)

5 13 15.11

443 (n. 2) 443 (n. 2) 252 (n. 49)

Andrew of St Victor Danielem

Hept.

208–12 128 (n. 28) 134 (n. 46)

Prol. Proph.

Reg.

37 (n. 37) 49 (n. 77)

35 (n. 30)

37 (n. 38) 124 (n. 15) 125 (n. 22) 158 (n. 2, 27) 159 (n. 43) 168 (n. 15)

Godfrey of St Victor Fons

218 (n. 7) 280 (n. 7)

Hugh of St Victor Adnot. in Pent.

Adnot. in Num.-Dt.

26 (n. 5)

53 (n. 3)

Adnot. in Jud.-Reg.

Archa Noe

26 (n. 5)

114 (n. 104) 144 (n. 11)

534 Chronicon

Didasc. III IV V VI

Eulogium 12 14 In hier. cael. 2 Libellus 10 11 Meditatione 2

I N D E X O F A N C I E N T A N D M E D I EVA L   AU T HO R S

38 122 145 (n. 12)

25, 26, 29, 47, 58 30 (n. 17), 31 (n. 22) 253 (n. 64) 111 (n. 5), 121 (n. 4), 218 (n. 7) 30 (n. 15), 33 (n. 26), 36 (n. 34), 41 (n. 49–50), 42 (n. 55), 54 (n. 7), 55 (n. 11), 58 (n. 23–24), 145 (n. 11), 273 (n. 17)

251 251 (n. 7) 220 (n. 11)

253 (n. 67)

122 (n. 10), 144 (n. 11) 443 (n. 1) 468 (n. 8)

30 (n. 18), 31 (n. 20)

Sac. dial.

Sacr. Prol. I

II

Script. 2 3 4 5

9 13 14 17

Maurice of St Victor Serm. 6

218 (n. 7), 252 (n. 49)

275 (n. 70)

54 (n. 8), 59 (n. 26), 218 (n. 7) 57 (n. 22), 111 (n. 16), 111 (n. 19–22), 112 (n. 24–25), 112 (n. 35), 112 (n. 37), 112 (n. 45– 54), 113 (n. 57–59), 114 (n. 89), 145 (n. 14), 210 (n. 76), 218 (n. 7), 221 (n. 12), 254 (n. 96), 255 (n. 100), 275 (n. 60, 70), 342 (n. 197) 222 (n. 18), 255 (n. 104), 334 (n. 66), 338 (n. 141), 340 (n. 163), 343 (n. 233)

218 (n. 7), 253 54 (n. 8) 41 (n. 51), 111 (n. 5) 42 (n. 54) 31 (n. 22), 41 (n. 52), 42 (n. 53), 42 (n. 56), 54 (n. 7), 58 (n. 23) 55 (n. 11) 59 (n. 25) 59 (n. 26) 123 (n. 12)

I N D E X O F A N C I E N T A N D M E D I EVA L   AU T HO R S



535

Richard of St Victor XII patr. 13 18–24 67 74 Adn. Ps. 28 98 113 118 121 143

225 (n. 19) 258 (n. 217) 252 (n. 40) 257 (n. 198)

218 (n. 7) 252 (n. 40), 255 (n. 103) 252 (n. 40) 257 (n. 198) 252 (n. 40), 274 (n. 33) 252 (n. 40), 275 (n. 60) 274 (n. 33), 275 (n. 63)

Apoc. Prol. 2 7 Arca Moys. 1 2 3 4 5 Concord.

Decl. nonn. diff.

Diff. sacr.

460 (n. 9) 219 (n. 8) 219 (n. 8)

258 (n. 198) 221 (n. 16) 252 (n. 40) 258 (n. 217) 258 (n. 217)

Emman. I II Erud. 1

Gem. pasch.

*Joel

LE I

II

38 (n. 39) 124 (n. 16)

Misit Her.

257 (n. 176)

Missione

258 (n. 217)

Pot. lig. 4 5 23

35 (n. 30–31) 43 (n. 57), 275 (n. 60)

252 (n. 40), 252 (n. 49), 274 (n. 33)

274 (n. 38)

275 (n. 60)

14 218 (n. 7), 219 (n. 8), 252 (n. 49), 253 (n. 64), 275 (n. 60), 446 (n. 14), 451 (n. 32), 460 (n. 4), 468 (n. 2–3) 219 (n. 8), 256 (n. 151), 257 (n. 197), 445 (n. 12), 446 (n. 14), 451 (n. 31), 452, 460 (n. 9), 468 (n. 4–5), 468 (n. 7), 468 (n. 11)

219 (n. 8)

256 (n. 155)

273 (n. 25) 273 (n. 21), 273 (n. 25) 252 (n. 37)

536

I N D E X O F A N C I E N T A N D M E D I EVA L   AU T HO R S

Serm. cent. 10 22 70

75 88

219 (n. 8) 460 (n. 9) 252 (n. 49), 256 (n. 151), 460 (n. 5), 460 (n. 8), 468 (n. 3) 460 (n. 9) 460 (n. 4)

Sp. blasph. 2 3 Statu

252 (n. 37) 257 (n. 182)

252 (n. 37), 252 (n. 40), 252 (n. 49), 258 (n. 218), 273 (n. 10), 273 (n. 27), 273 (n. 30), 274 (n. 33), 275 (n. 60–62), 275 (n. 66)

Super exiit

Trin. Prol.

258 (n. 217), 274 (n. 38)

221 (n. 16), 257 (n. 198), 275 (n. 75) 251 (n. 14), 252 (n. 49), 253 (n. 65), 254 (n. 76), 254 (n. 84), 275 (n. 63, 75)

6

Vis. Ezech. 10

219 (n. 8)

Walter of St Victor Serm. ined. 4 6 9

218 (n. 7), 254 (n. 92) 443 (n. 2) 258 (n. 217)

11 13 15

252 (n. 49) 274 (n. 33) 254 (n. 67)

CLASSICAL AUTHORS De divinatione

Carmina

Epistulae

Cicero 209 (n. 68) Horace 257 (n. 166)

440 (n. 154)

Ant. I V X XI

Josephus, Flavius 114 (n. 93), 114 (n. 118) 481 (n. 18), 495n, 496n 208n 210 (n. 95)

I N D E X O F A N C I E N T A N D M E D I EVA L   AU T HO R S

M. Junianus Justinus Epitoma historiarum I 208 (n. 28), 211 (n. 115), 211 (n. 120)



537

Lucretius De rerum natura IV 115 (n. 155) Ovid Ars Amatoria 1 210 (n. 80)

JEWISH SOURCES

Chronicle 32 66

Jerahmeel 114 (n. 119) 208 (n. 5)

Josephus, see Classical Authors Judah Ibn Tibbon Sefer ha-Shorashim 349 (n. 4)

Gen. Lev.

Midrash Rabbah 116 (n. 187) 209 (n. 71)

Elî`ezer Ben-Hûrqanûs Pirke de R. Eliezer XLII 116

Rashi Mikra’ot Gedolot Gen. 111 (n. 14), 111 (n. 20), 112 (n. 32), 112 (n. 55), 113 (n. 62), 114 (n. 112), 114 (n. 114), 115 (n. 129), 115 (n. 141), 115 (n. 148), 115 (n. 152), 116 (n. 164), 116 (n. 173), 116 (n. 179), 116 (n. 181), 116 (n. 189–90), 117 (n. 198), 117 (n. 200) Dan. 209 (n. 45), 209 (n. 51), 210 (n. 87) Is. 349 (n. 4), 437 (n. 7)

24 25

Seder Olam 209 (n. 45), 209 (n. 51) 208 (n. 33)

EARLY AND MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN AUTHORS Alan of Lille Theologicae regulae 71 342 (n. 198)

Alcuin Interrogationes in Genesin 84 113 (n. 78), 114 (n. 116)

538

I N D E X O F A N C I E N T A N D M E D I EVA L   AU T HO R S

Ambrose De Cain et Abel

De officiis

340 (n. 158)

331 (n. 9)

*De dignitate sacerdotali

In Lucam

XVIII

257 (n. 166)

342 (n. 207), 338 (n. 134), 448 (n. 22)

Ambrosiaster Commentarius in epistulas Paulinas 342 (n. 205), 343 (n. 209) Angelom of Luxeuil In Genesin III 113 (n. 65), 113 (n. 72) IV 113 (n. 81) XIV 115 (n. 130) Anselm of Canterbury Cur Deus homo 17, 222 (n. 17), 255 (n. 100), 255 (n. 104) De Inc. Verbi

C. Faust.

Civ. Dei I XI XIV

275 (n. 75) Augustine 341 (n. 181)

342 (n. 203) 336 (n. 102) 253 (n. 66)

112 (n. 29), 221 (n. 14), 256 (n. 134) 345 (n. 259) 252 (n. 49)

XIX XXII Conf. VII IX X

209 (n. 44), 274 (n. 41) 258 (n. 210), 273 (n. 17) 253 (n. 66)

De agone Christiano

338 (n. 135)

De baptismo

De bono coniugali

342 (n. 201)

332 (n. 34), 343 (n. 208)

De cura pro mortuis gerenda 343 (n. 232–33) De fide et operibus

De fide et symbolo

342 (n. 204)

336 (n. 102)

De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber 112 (n. 36) De Genesi contra Manichaeos 112 (n. 38) De gratia et libero arbitrio

De mor. eccl.

255 (n. 118)

225n

I N D E X O F A N C I E N T A N D M E D I EVA L   AU T HO R S

De peccatorum meritis

335 (n. 98)

De sermone Domini in monte 331 (n. 16) 341 (n. 169) De vera religione

Div. quaest. 83

Doctr. chr:

331 (n. 10), 342 (n. 198)

225n, 332 (n. 31), 344 (n. 247)

255 (n. 102)

En. Ps. 4 25 42 64 66 71

460 (n. 9) 256 (n. 123) 345 (n. 259) 253 (n. 60) 252 (n. 49) 338 (n. 142)

Ench. 18 29 61 71

340 (n. 167) 336 (n. 108) 336 (n. 107) 273 (n. 26)

Ep.

153

341 (n. 171)

Gn. litt. III V VI VIII IX

112 (n. 33) 112 (n. 28) 112 (n. 46) 112 (n. 47), 332 (n. 32) 112 (n. 51–52)

XI

Jo. ev. tr. 2 5 14 43 47 45 50 72 90 96 In Ioannis Ep.

Lib. arb.



539

112 (n. 56), 113 (n. 61), 113 (n. 64), 113 (n. 66)

221 (n. 15) 341 (n. 179) 251 (n. 14) 256 (n. 154) 338 (n. 130–31) 342 (n. 195) 251 (n. 29) 255 (n. 102), 334 (n. 81) 341 (n. 182) 225n

343 (n. 211)

255 (n. 118)

Quaestionum in Hept. 114 (n. 103), 114 (n. 110–11), 115 (n. 157), 116n Retract.

Sermones 11 171 181

331 (n. 12), 331 (n. 17)

331 (n. 2) 449 (n. 24) 342 (n. 188)

540

I N D E X O F A N C I E N T A N D M E D I EVA L   AU T HO R S

Trin.

252 (n. 49), 254 (n. 80), 273 (n. 26), 336 (n. 102), 337 (n. 120), 337 (n. 125), 338 (n. 138)

De locis sanctis

In Marc.

Bede 115 (n. 146)

333 (n. 56–57), 336 (n. 111)

In Luc.

333 (n. 56), 450 (n. 27)

In Principium Genesis

111n-115n

Bernard of Clairvaux Conv. ad. cler.

Ep./Tract.

Matt.

Mark Luke John Rom. 1 Cor. Eph. Phil.

Decretum

225n

254 (n. 96)

SCC

225n, 257 (n. 197) Eusebius of Caesarea Chronicon 36 (n. 35), 209 (n. 67) Historia Ecclesiastica 283 (n. 17), 333 (n. 58)

Ps. Dan.

Glossa ordinaria 338 (n. 142) 208 (n. 13), 34, 210 (n. 83)

Dialogi

331 (n. 5), 332 (n. 39–41), 334 (n. 67), 335 (n. 91), 94, 340 (n. 168), 342 (n. 184– 85), 343 (n. 235), 345 (n. 254) 333 (n. 56), 81, 336 (n. 111) 334 (n. 77) 338 (n. 130) 337 (n. 125), 341 (n. 169) 340 (n. 168), 342 (n. 205), 343 (n. 209) 336 (n. 107) 333 (n. 53), 336 (n. 110) Gratian 331 (n. 3), 331 (n. 12), 340 (n. 158), 340 (n. 160), 340 (n. 167), 341 (n. 171–74), 341 (n. 177–78), 342 (n. 188), 343 (n. 216), 343 (n. 226), 344 (n. 237–44)

Gregory the Great

Hom. ev.

Hom. Ez.

340 (n. 156)

111 (n. 4), 113 (n. 59), 225n, 251 (n. 9), 332 (n. 43), 336 (n. 108), 337 (n. 116)

257 (n. 197)

I N D E X O F A N C I E N T A N D M E D I EVA L   AU T HO R S

Mor.

220 (n. 11), 225n, 251 (n. 28), 252 (n. 49), 254 (n. 86), 255 (n. 108), 256 (n. 124), 437 (n. 21)

Guerric of Saint-Quentin Quaestiones de quodlibet 339 (n. 148)

In Gen.

In Gen.

Etym. IV VI XVII XIX

De Antichristo

In Ep. Pauli

In Esaiam

Haimo of Auxerre 111 (n. 6), 112 (n. 27), 31, 34, 42, 45, 113 (n. 70–71), 113 (n. 73), 113 (n. 80–81, 113 (n. 85), 115 (n. 123), 115 (n. 159) Hrabanus Maurus 112 (n. 43)

In Matth.

In Dan. 1 2

Isidore of Seville

Decretum

Panormia

255 (n. 108) 451 (n. 31) 116 (n. 166) 116 (n. 170) Ivo of Chartres 331 (n. 3), 341 (n. 171), 343 (n. 229)

331 (n. 3), 341 (n. 177)

3



541

Jerome 212 (n. 130)

111 (n. 10)

251 (n. 9), 251 (n. 26), 254 (n. 87), 256 (n. 147), 258 (n. 205), 349 (n. 4), 437 (n. 13), 438 (n. 47)

332 (n. 36), 335 (n. 91), 343 (n. 227), 344 (n. 247)

208 (n. 12), 208 (n. 21) 208 (n. 34), 209 (n. 60), 209 (n. 67), 211 (n. 122), 211 (n. 125) 131 (n. 37–38), 208 (n. 9), 208 (n. 29), 210 (n. 84), 211 (n. 121), 211 (n. 123–24)

542

I N D E X O F A N C I E N T A N D M E D I EVA L   AU T HO R S

Hebraicae Quaestiones 111 (n. 1), 112 (n. 44), 113 (n. 76), 113 (n. 79), 114 (n. 87–88), 114 (n. 90–91), 114 (n. 95), 115 (n. 122), 115 (n. 137), 115 (n. 140), 115 (n. 142), 115 (n. 147), 115 (n. 153), 116 (n. 158), 116 (n. 169), 116 (n. 184), 117 (n. 193–96) Ep. 72

124 (n. 14)

Heb. nom.

Prol. in Pent.

256 (n. 154), 474 (n. 4–5)

39 (n. 44), 55 (n. 9), 353 (n. 12)

John Chrysostom Homiliae in Matth. 334 (n. 75), 342 (n. 202), 345 (n. 255) Origen Homiliae in Luc. 447 (n. 17), 447 (n. 19) Homilies on Gen.

Homily 27 on Num.

In Mattheum

114 (n. 101)

Paulus Diaconus In annuntiatione beatae Mariae 440 (n. 163)

Ethica

Sic et Non

340 (n. 159)

332 (n. 32), 337 (n. 119–20), 338 (n. 132), 341 (n. 177), 342 (n. 205), 342 (n. 227–28)

Theologia Christiana

Theologia Summi Boni

TSch

337 (n. 120)

337 (n. 119)

337 (n. 124)

Peter Comestor Historia scholastica 38 (n. 40), 113 (n. 69), 124 (n. 18), 495 (n. 1), 495 (n. 20), 495 (n. 29) Peter the Chanter Verbum adbreviatum 28 (n. 12)

Collect.

443 (n. 1)

340 (n. 159)

Peter Abelard

Sent. I

Peter Lombard 273 (n. 3), 274 (n. 38), 275 (n. 51), 275 (n. 57)

254 (n. 80)

I N D E X O F A N C I E N T A N D M E D I EVA L   AU T HO R S

II III

255 (n. 118) 222 (n. 18), 338 (n. 141) Peter of Poitiers Sententiae 342 (n. 198)

Aurora

Peter Riga 478 (n. 9)

Ps.-Augustinus Contra Judaeos 440 (n. 163)

In Matth.

Ps.-Bede



543

Quaestiones et decisiones in Ep. Pauli 336 (n. 111) Ps.-Jerome Quaestiones Hebraicae in Paralipomenon 126 (n. 23), 168 (n. 15)

Sententiae

Robert Pullen

343 (n. 224–25) Symeon Metaphrastes Vita Nicolai 113 (n. 74)

Ps.-Chrysostom Opus imperfectum in Matth. 342 (n. 184), 343 (n. 228)

Thomas Aquinas Scriptum libros Sententiarum 225n, 339 (n. 149) ST I 48 (n. 73) I-II 256 (n. 118) III 285 (n. 26), 286–87 (n. 27–29), 337 (n. 118), 338 (n. 127), 137, 339 (n. 148)

Ps.-Hugh of Saint Victor In Abdiam 251 (n. 28)

Vigilius Tapsensis De Trinitate 338 (n. 132)

332 (n. 39)

In Pentateuchum commentarii 115 (n. 145)

SUBJECT INDEX Aaron, 322–23, 371 Abbey of St Victor. See St Victor, ­Abbey of. Abel, 78–79 Abraham Ibn Ezra, 56, 133 (n. 43 Abraham, 303–4; Abimelech and, 93– 94; covenant, 90–91, 95; Eliezer of Damascus, 95–97; faith of, 319; lift up hand, 91; Lot and, 90; lying, 89– 90; Mamre cave, 95; Melchizedek and, 90–91; mountain of sacrifice, 94–95; Pharaoh and, 90, 93–94; promises to, 313, 410; Sodom and Gomorrah, 92–93 Absalom of Springiersbach, 445 Abū al-Walīd Marwān Ibn Janāh, 349 (n. 4) Abundance, 74, 98, 109; fertility, 107–8, 361; restoration of, 379 accessus (ad auctores), 57 Achard of St Victor, 46, 444, 445 Acting, 269–70 Adam, 72, 80, 143, 448; God’s curse of, 76–77, 81, 379; rib of, 72–73; second, 378, 382, 387, 395; sin of, 239, 377– 78, 387; taught holy rites, 78 Adultery, 295, 296, 320–21; divorce and, 323–24, 328–29 Affectivity, 269, 272, 274 (n. 32), 463 Affectus/affection, 66, 264–65, 273 (n. 32), 290, 330 Ahab, 126, 151–52, 163 Ahaz, 155, 167 Ahasuerus the Mede, 172, 173, 181 Ahasuerus the Persian, 181–82, 187, 205; Artaxerxes and, 181, 187–88, 201–2;

Cyrus and, 201; years of reign, 198, 201, 202, 204, 206 Ahaz, 374, 399; land he abhors, 392, 412–13, 414–15, 420, 423; promise to, 358, 409–10; reign of, 124, 167, 406; sign to, 350–52, 358, 365–66, 369; spurning liberation, 415–16; threat to, 43, 365, 403 Ahaziah, 152–53, 154, 164 Alcuin, 113 (n. 78), 114 (n. 116) Alexander the Great, 207 Alexandrian exegesis, 32–33, 42 Allegorical exegesis, 41–43, 47, 141, 447–50; commentaries, 33–34; history and, 30–31, 54–55, 121; Hugh of St Victor, 31–32, 34; literal and, 35–36, 42–43; Richard of St Victor, 42–43, 218–20, 332 (n. 42), 352–53, 423–28 Allegorical meaning: butter, 425–27; signification and, 121, 141, 179–81, 191, 299; two kings, 390–91, 412–14, 423–24 Alma, 366, 399–400; betula and, 350, 358; concealed one, 351–52; Jerome on, 361–62, 370–71, 400 Amaziah, 153–54, 165–66 Ambiguity, 372–73, 391, 421, 424; Holy Spirit and, 372, 402, 407; prophets and, 407, 409–10, 420–21 Ambrose, 293, 307, 312, 320; Good Samaritan sermon, 448, 452 Ambrosiaster, 342 (n. 205), 343 (n. 209) Ammon/Ammonites, 93, 174, 176 Amon, Egyptian god, 105–6 Amorites, 391

546

SU B J E C T I N D E X

Andrew of St  Victor, 26–27, 353–54; chronology, 37–38, 124–27; contradictions, 171–72; Daniel chronology, 128–33, 172–74, 177, 187, 189, 194, 206; error of, 397–98; Isaiah commentary, 349–50, 353–54; Jerome citations, 132–33; Jews and, 39–41, 133, 349–50, 353–54; Jewish interpretation, use of, 130, 132, 187–88, 200–202, 403–5; Josephus citations, 172, 174, 175, 178, 183–84; literal commentaries, 32–33, 34; seventy years of desolation, 189–90, 203–7 Angelom of Luxeuil, 56, 113 (n. 72), 115 (n. 130) Angels, 62–63, 299, 304; co-heirs with, 410; at creation, 67; Fall and, 77– 78; food consumption, 314, 340 (n. 166); Gabriel, 194–95, 206, 211 (n.  124); as harvesters, 295–96; prayer and, 303–4; transfiguration and, 286; worship of God, 232 Angels, fallen, 303, 336 (n. 114), 4487; sons of, 81; watchers, 336 (n. 114), 340 (n.  166). See also Devil, Demons. Anselm, 215, 222 Antichrist, 212 (n. 130); night as metaphor, 245 Antiochene exegesis, 32–33 Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 129, 130, 199, 212 (n. 130) Apocalyptic interpretation, 128, 212 (n. 130) Apostles, anointing and, 466–67 Archetypal ideas, 62 Ark of Noah, 83–84; mental, 123, 145 (n. 11) Armenia, 84 Artaxerxes, 205; Ahasuerus and, 181, 187–88, 201–2; Cambyses and, 204 Asa, 150–51, 163–64 Asshur/Assyria, 88; Babylonians and, 174, 185; Israel and, 359, 405; Judah

and, 43, 365, 358–59, 403; Tiglathpileser and, 403 Astrologers, 66 Athanasius, 307 Atlas, as demon, 66 Augustine, 56, 59, 112 (n.  36), 209 (n. 44); on adultery, 320; on baptism, 319–20, 341 (n.  179); on deception, 314–15; on Eucharist, 215; evil, understanding of, 335 (n. 97); Gentile knowledge, 221; Good Samaritan sermon, 448–49; on love, 317; on Original sin, 342 (n. 199); on prayer to saints, 325; on redemption, 306–7; on sin, 290, 301, 310, 314, 319; on spirit, 292; on swearing falsely, 289; on Trinity, 304 Awerbuch, Marianne, 55 Azariah/Uzziah, 154, 166 Baasha, 150, 163 Babel, tower of, 87–88, 89 Babylon, 88, 129, 171–72, 175 Babylonian captivity, 130, 132, 176–77, 182; cause of, 191–92, 196; exile, 131; first, second, third, 186; Law of Moses and, 102; seventy years of, 183– 84, 203–4. See also Daniel, Ezekiel. Babylonian Empire, 173–74, 178, 181, 376. See also Belshazzar, Evilmerodach, Nebuchadnezzar. Baptism, 281, 293, 316, 341 (n. 179), 453; Augustine on, 319–20, 341 (n. 179); Christ and, 321–22; of Christ, 328, 339 (n. 149), 341 (n. 179), 422; efficacy in, 322; salvation and, 46, 246, 319–20, 450, 472 Bardiya, 208 (n. 41), 210 (n. 73) Beasts/animals, 85–86, 180; creation of, 66–67; humans like, 379, 393–94, 448, 458; Incarnation and, 384–85, 386–87, 417 Beatitude, 267; of Christ, 43, 428–30; eternal, 285, 335 (n.  90); human, 238, 379, 457

SU B J E C T I N D E X

Beautification, of creation, 65–66, 142–43 Bede, Venerable, 37, 282, 335 (n.  91); Good Samaritan sermon, 449–50, 451–52; In principium Genesis, 56; on John the Baptist, 294; in Notes on Genesis, 64, 71 Belief: of Adam and Eve, 222, 238; of Mary, 432–33; redemption and, 240–41; understanding and, 364, 372 Belshazzar, 173, 197; Vashti and, 181; years of reign, 182–83, 186–87, 189– 90, 197–98, 201–4 Bernard of Clairvaux, 124, 215, 217 Berossus, 175 Betula, 350, 358, 361–62, 366 Bible. See Scriptures. Binding and loosing, 297–98, 312–13, 333 (n. 63) Blindness, spiritual and mental, 186; ignorance and, 238, 372, 457, 464–66; of Jews, 351, 363–65, 372, 389–90, 420–21; sin and, 262, 271; unbelief and, 420, 424 Blood, 78, 86 Bodo, Carolingian court cleric, 354 Bread, 96, 103, 266; five loaves of, 72, 296–97; living, 268–70, 323; new dough, 263, 265–66, 269; Passover, 267–68, 296; spiritual, 96; unleavened, 42, 261–63, 265–66, 268–72 Bread and wine, 91, 302, 322 Butter, allegorical meaning, 425–27 Butter and honey, 43, 352; as clean food, 406; Incarnation and, 384–85, 386–87; knowledge and, 360–61, 368–69, 370, 377; as metaphor, 43, 352, 384–85 Cacciapuoti, Pierluigi, 353 Cain, 78–80; Lamech and, 80; mark on, 79 Called upon the Lord, 80, 90



547

Cambyses, years of reign, 184, 189, 200, 204, 205, 207, 208 (n. 41) Canaan, curse of, 86–87 Canaan, land of, 88 Canterbury Glosses, 32 Carolingian commentaries, 32, 40 Catechetical preaching, 28 Cemeteries, 95 Chaldeans, 87–88, 89; Berossus, 175 Change, 66, 74, 81; time and, 63–64, 66 Charity, 243, 291, 299, 321, 466–67; glory and, 303, guilt and, 318; repentance and, 321. See also Love. Châtillon, Jean, 445 Chenu, Marie-Dominique, 279 Christ Jesus: Adam’s rib and, 72–73; ascension, 388, 390, 392; attributes of, 417–18; baptism of, 328, 339 (n. 149), 341 (n. 179), 422; beatitude, 43, 428–30; chronology, 36–37; clarity, 283–84, 287; commentaries of, 33–34, 40–41; as Emmanuel, 364, 369, 373, 377–78; experience of, 387–89, 411; foolish virgins and, 305–6; as Good Samaritan (guard), 448–49, 451, 453, 458, 472; as Head, 466; heart, 425–26; as high priest, 322–23; human nature, 307–8; image of God and, 68, 222; imitating, 318; Joseph and, 109; knowledge, 394–95; knowledge by experience, 388–89, 390, 419–20, 422, 424; learned obedience through suffering, 386–87, 388–89, 422; as light, 243–44, 245; living bread, 268–70, 323; mercy of, 395, 448–49; the Messiah, 108, 219–20, 319; mountain of crucifixion, 94–95; as new man, 377–78; Original sin, death and, 337 (n. 126–27); passion, 242, 246, 296, 388, 419, 422; petition to Father, 323; post-resurrection body, 284, 307–8, 314, 339 (n.  148), 387; preaching, duration of, 328; prophecies of, 230, 365–66; provoking

548

SU B J E C T I N D E X

Jews, 301; redemption, 306–7; resurrection, 388, 390, 392–93; Savior, 108, 219, 221, 381; second Adam, 378, 382, 387, 395; second coming, 129–30, 131, 180–81; sign of, 383–84; soul of, 419, 422; stigmata of, 72–73; temptation of, 327–28, 344 (n. 246), 422; transfiguration of, 46–47, 283– 87, 298, 311, 339 (n. 146); two unions of, 307–8; wisdom, 421–22; as Word of God, 54, 241–42, 307–9, 383, 433. See also Incarnation, Son, Trinity. Christians: contentious, 372–73, 386; fall into sin, 246–48; night and day, 245–46; promises to, 385 Chorazin, 294 Chronology, 36–37, Andrew of St Victor and, 37–38, 124–27; of book of Daniel, 128–33, 172–74, 177, 187, 189, 194, 206; Hebrew, 123; Hugh of St Victor, 26, 37–39, 121–23; Jerome, 124–25; of book of Kings, 123–27, 403, 413–14; Peter Comestor, 124– 25, 126; of prophecy, 363; Richard of St Victor, 37–38, 124, 127, 149–57 Church, 239, 293, 302, 447; confession and, 299, 452, 453, 458, 472; drawing away from faith, 408–9; early, 391; healing in, 449; Holy Spirit and, 452; judgment of, 315; liturgy, 282, 417; marriage and, 320; persecution of, 290; prayer of, 219 Cicero, 188 Circumcision, 91, 314 Clark, Elizabeth A., 32–33 Clean/unclean, 261, 361, 406 Cleansing, 380–81 Commentaries, 33–34, 40–41; allegorical, 33–34; Carolingian, 32, 40; literal, 27–28, 32–36; poetical, 47 Commentators, Hebrew, 107–8 Concupiscence, 264, 271–72, 464–66 Confession, 231–33, 322, 453; Church and, 299, 452, 453, 458, 472; refusal

to, 298–99; of truth, 363, 373, 383, 430 Conscience, testimony of, 425–26 Contemplation, 249, 317, 430; meditation and, 29–30 Contextualization, 34–35, 39, 58 Contradictions, in Scripture, 34–35, 149, 155, 163–67 Conversion, to Judaism, 354 Co-regents, 127, 149–55, 164–67 Corruption/corruptibility, 380, 431; evil and, 419; leaven and, 263–64, 271; scriptural, 125–26, 165; spiritual, 271 Council of Toledo (638), 326 Council of Trebur, 326 Creation, 62–65, 123; beautification of, 65–66, 142–43; days of, 62–63, 68–69, 142–43; foundation of, 70; prime matter; 63, 145 (n. 14); progressions, 67 Crossing over, 267, 270 Curses: of Adam, 76–77, 81, 379; of Canaan, 86–87; of demons, 75–76; of Eve, 76; triple, 379 Cyrus the Persian, 131–32, 204–6; Darius and, 181–82; dream of, 188; reign length, 130, 172–74, 187, 200–201 Dahan, Gilbert, 280–81 Damascus/Syria, 43, 349, 358–59, 365 413–14; destruction by Assyria, 405 Damnation, 238, 472; future, 384; sentence of 306, 393 Dan, 108, 110; Samson and, 108 Daniel, book of: chronology, 128–33, 172–74, 177, 187, 189, 194, 206; seventy years of Jeremiah, 182–84, 185– 88, 189–90, 194–95, 197–98, 203–5; small horn, 179–80; ten horns of fourth beast, 178–80; vision of beasts and statue, 180–81 Daniel, prophet: age of friends, 176– 77; deportation, 171, 175, 185–86; on evil spirits, 390; in Isaiah, 414; prayer of, 190–95; protection by

SU B J E C T I N D E X

Nebuchadnezzar, 177–78; royal service, 172–73 Darius the Mede, 130, 181–82, 189–90; Cyrus and, 205–6 Darius son of Hystaspes/Koresh, 187, 189–90, 201, 202 David, as prophet, 465–66 David, house of: Israel and, 149; promises to, 399, 410; sign to, 352, 358, 375–76 Deeds, knowledge of, 141–42 Deeper meaning, of Scripture, 29, 42, 64; sententia, 29, 30, 49, 151, 364, 412. See also Allegorical meaning. Deliberation, 266, 271, 411 Demons: captured by Christ’s Passion, 389–93, 423–24; as devil’s seed, 76; God’s curse of, 75–76 Deuteronomy, 26, 41, 362 Devil, 453, 464; as accuser, 238; captivity to, 384, 389; cast out by Christ’s passion, 391–92; in Fall, 73–74, 222, 463–64, 472; God’s curse of, 75–76; made a fool, 363, 372; members of, 291, 318–19, 321; prince of darkness, 352; robber, 449; seed of, 76; sin of, 77; temptation of Jesus, 327–28, 344 (n. 246), 363 Dignity, 67, 74, 106, 457; of divine humiliation, 384; respect, 75, 78; restoration of, 222, 238–40, 352, 379; of women, 381 Dinonis, 188 Discernment, 58, 252 (n. 40), 272, 274 (n.  33), 368–70, 411; of good and evil, 368–70, 406, 411, 421–22; priests and, 446; reason and, 458, 463, 471 Discretion (discretio), 137, 252 (n. 40), 266, 333 (n. 64); free will and, 66; maturity and, 91, 232, 361, 369, 418 Distinctions, making, 137–41 divina pagina, 281–82

 549

Divine knowledge, 74–75, 387–88, 394–95; of Christ, by experience, 388–89, 390, 419–20, 422, 424 Divine meaning, 58–60 Divine ordinance, judgement of, 261 Divorce, 323–24; adultery and, 323–24, 328–29; bill of, 328–29 Doctors, 452, 458, 463 Doubt, 74, 350, 372–73; methodological, 354; truth and, 398 Dough, new, 263, 265–66, 269 Dove, Flood and, 84–85 Dreams, 104, 180, 188, 194 Earth: division of, 87; land, 431–32, 433; Mary and, 431; paradise on, 70–71, 77–78; seventy-two languages of, 88; threefold region, 431–32. See also Creation. Eating, 71, 74; butter and honey, 352, 425–27, 428–29; Incarnation and, 384–85; knowledge and, 368–69, 370, 377, 386, 387–89; Lord’s Supper, 270, 272; meat, 80, 85–86; after resurrection, 314, 387; righteousness and, 428–29; unleavened bread, 267–69 Ecclesiastes, 132 Ecclesiastical judgment, 314–15 Edifice/building, metaphor for exegesis, 28, 31 Edom/Idumeans, 229, 244, 245–46 Egypt, 68; Amon, 105–6; Cyrus and, 205; Joseph in, 103–5, 109; Moses and, 83; Nebuchadnezzar and, 174– 76, 186; Pharaoh Necho, 171, 182 Election, divine, 301 Elements, four, 63, 65–66 Elijah, 151; at transfiguration, 285–87, 298, 311, 333 (n. 76) Elliptical expression, 77 Emmanuel, 43, 349, 351–52, 374–75; butter and, 426–27; Christ as, 364, 369, 373, 377–78; essence, 382–83; sign of, 352–53, 358, 360, 366, 369–70,

550

SU B J E C T I N D E X

378, 383–84; as son of prophetess as, 352, 360–61, 366–67, 404–6. See also Butter and honey, Knowledge. Ephraim and Manasseh, 106 Epiphany, 328 Epitasei (emphasis), 362 Equality, male and female, 83 Error, Andrew and Richard of St Victor, 353, 397–98; darkness of, 235; deception and, 314–15, 357; of elect, 180, 245; spirits of, 391 Esau, 97, 98–99, 100–101, 230; Edom/ Idumeans, 229, 244, 245–46; Jacob and, 101 Eschatology, 129–30; in Daniel, 179–80 Esmerdes, 208 (n. 41), 210 (n. 73) Esther, 181, 187, 198 Eternal life, 70, 388, 427; beatitude, 285, 335 (n. 90); merits and, 428 Ethiopia, 205 Eucharist, 215, 224, 255 (n.  189), 302; body of Christ and, 302; Melchizedek and, 115 (n. 131) Eugenius, 327 Eusebius of Caesarea, 36–37, 38 Evangelist, the, 421; on virgin birth prophecy, 364, 372, 382–83, 399– 401, 421 Eve; Adam and, 76, 77; belief of, 222, 238; creation of, 72–73; curse of, 76; new, 382 Events, order of. See Chronology. Evil; avoiding greater, 328; corruption, 419; discernment of, 368–70, 406, 411, 421–22; double root of, 431–33; ignorance and, 431–33; knowledge of, 360–61, 387 431–33; lust/desire for, 431–33, 457; primordial, 464; two principles of, 465–66; as unclean, 361, 406 Evilmerodach, years of reign, 182, 183, 186–87, 189, 197–98, 201, 203, 204 Evil spirits: captured by Christ’s Passion, 389–93, 423; princes and,

390–91; two kings, 412–14, 423–24. See also Demons. Exegesis, 28, 31, 39–40; Alexandrian, 32–33, 42; Antiochene, 32–33; history and, 121–22; Victorine literal/ historical, 27–28, 29–30, 32–36, 49–50, 218–20. See also Allegorical exegesis, Historical exegesis, Jewish exegesis, Literal exegesis. Exodus, 26, 36, 43, 53–54, 351 Exposition, 29–31, 53, 55–56, 59, 217; doctors, 458; Patristic, 281 Ezekiel, 176, 182 Ezra, 183, 184, 199; Artaxerxes, 187, 201, 202; desolation of Jerusalem, 203–4; Nehemiah, 187–88; return to Israel, 200 Faith, 220–21, 240, 342 (n. 197), 373; of Abraham, 319; Church and, 408–9; good action and, 272; mysteries of, 121; seeking by, 249 Faithful, the, 239, 246, 410–11; Incarnation and, 417–18; persecution and, 409–10 Faithfulness, of God, 393–94 Fall, the, 73–75, 222, 238, 472; angels and, 77–78; the devil and, 73–74, 222, 463–64, 472; reason and, 451– 52, 453, 457–58; reversal of, 352. See also Adam. Father, 234–35; Emmanuel and, 427; redemption and, 240–41, 243–44; Son, union with, 309, 310–11; substance of, 304–5; as watchman, 235–36; will of, 323. See also Trinity. Fathers, holy. See Patristic fathers. Faustus the Manichean, 316 Fertility, 107–8, 361 Fig tree, 74–75 Fire, 77–78, 463; creation and, 63–64; grace and, 466; from heaven, 78; worship of, 87, 89 First/prime matter, 63, 145 (n. 14) Fittingness, 285–87, 306

SU B J E C T I N D E X

Flesh, the, 43, 74; hair and, 230–31; one flesh of marriage, 73; Seir as metaphor of, 230–31 Flood, 80, 84–86; causes of, 81–82; eating meat and, 85–86; a second, 88; water of, 83–85 Foretelling, prophetic, 308, 351, 357–58, 361–62, 367–68, 381–82 Forgiveness, 248, 290, 295; conditional, 299–300; of others, 312; priests and, 297–98, 312–13; repentance and, 311–12, 318 Fornication, 295, 318, 320; divorce and, 323–24, 328–29; spirits of, 391 Free will (or freedom of will), 66, 301, 423; sin and, 78–79 Froehlich, Karlfried, 32 Fruit, 294–95; of Mary, 430–31 Gabriel, 194–95, 206, 211 (n. 124) Gad, 108 Gamaliel, 185, 209 (n. 45) Garland, Stephen, 27 Gender, 381–82; equality, 83 Gentiles: idolatry of, 237–38; knowledge of coming Christ, 219–20, 221, 237–39, 242–43, 244–45 Gilbert Foliot, 133 (n. 43) Glory, 303; of God, 374–75, 375–76, 395, 399 Glorification/beatitude, of humans, 378–79, 382; future exaltation, 384; general, 393. See also Beatitude. Glossa ordinaria, 281–83 God, 190–91; abilities of, 306–8, 316–17; as Artificer, 62, 239, 463; as Creator, 242–43; compassion of, 75; faithfulness of, 393–94; as final cause, 331 (n.  19); followed man into exile, 377, 384; foresight of, 308, 381–82; forgiveness of, 248; glory of, 374– 75, 375–76, 395, 399; goodness, 234– 35; imitating, 318; intention of, 482; as judge/judgement of, 78, 82, 191, 192; knowledge, 387–88, 394–95;



551

as Lord, 69; love for, 94, 321, 458; love of, 435; mercy of, 81, 191–92, 193, 233–35, 379; omnipotence, 306; ordination, 306, 381, 482; patience of, 82; power of, 66, 91; promises of, 236–37, 248–50, 409; Providence, 301, 447–48, 452; sign giving, 376–77, 401–2, 403; as watchman, 233–34; will of, 64, 302, 306, 360; worship of, 191–92, 193, 408–9 Godfrey of St Victor, 12, 47, 280, 444–45 Gospel, and the Law, 64, 73 Good, 266, 272; discernment of, 368–70, 406, 411, 421–22; election of, 398–99, 411, 423–24, 429, 431; knowledge of, 360–61, 368–69; restoration of, 464; two principle, 464–65 Goodness, of God, 43, 234–35; rule of, 262 Good Samaritan parable, Christ as, 448–49, 451, 453, 458, 472; sermons on, 446–50, 453–54, 457–59, 471–73 Goy, Ruldolf, 450–51 Grabmann, Martin, 27 Grace, 243, 256 (n. 138), 290, 360; fire and, 466; helping, 465–66; malice and, 399, 410–11, 418; participation in, 383; super-abounding, 399, 418 Grammar, 59, 144 (n. 8); analysis, 223 Gratian, 327 Greek: history, 188; mythology, 66; philosophy, 62–63 Greek Empire, 206; Alexander the Great, 207; prince of, 390, 423 Greek language, 33–34, 39; leaven, 261; in Notes on Genesis, 104 Green, William, 134 Gregory the Great, 61, 219, 220; on coercion, 291, 326; hymn Magnae Deus Potentiae, 111 (n. 24); Isaiah commentary, 219; on John the Baptist, 293–94; on ordination, 320 Guérin of St Victor, 29

552

SU B J E C T I N D E X

Guilt, 246–47, 265, 318, 377, 419; confession and, 265, 313; original, 378, 457, 459; punishment and, 432–33, 436, 457; unbelievers and 246–47 Haggai, 187, 202, 204 Hailperin, Herman, 55, 56 Haimo of Auxerre, 40, 56 Ham, 86–87; king of Bactria, 88; was Zoroaster, 88 Haran, 89 Hauréau, Barthélemy, 444–45 Heart, 137–38, 425–26; bitterness, 429; of Christ, 425–26; compunction and, 231–32, 319–20, 322, 330; forgiveness, 312; loss and, 82; purity of, 268, 457–58, 464; wisdom and, 137–40, 142, 364 Heaven(s), 64; kingdom of, 300–301 Hebrew, commentators, 107–8; tradition, 79–80 Hebrew language, 33–34, 39–41, 55–56; in Isaiah, 361–62, 371–72 Hebrew text of the Bible, 62, 81, 109–10; chronology, 123; of Daniel, 131 Hebrews. See Jews. Herbs, 69, 77; power of, 66 Hercules, as demon, 66 Hereford, 28, 133, 280 Herman Judaeus, 354 Herod, 199; Emmanuel and, 415–16, 418; John the Baptist and, 294, 296, 320 Hezekiah, 81, 369, 406 Higher criticism, 133 (n. 43) Historia (historical meaning), 30–31, 233–34, 422 Historical exegesis: allegory and, 30–31, 54–55, 121; contextualization, 34–35, 39, 58; interpretation of Scripture and, 141–42; salvation and, 54, 121–22 Historical/literal sense of Scripture, 223–25, 235–36, 404, 480–82; mystical and, 218–20, 237–38

Holy Spirit, 65, 234–35; anointing and, 466–67; blasphemy of 295; body of Christ and, 466–67; Creator, 332 (n. 30); divination, 95–96; as fire, 466; hiding meaning, 372, 402, 407; as Paraclete, 245–46; prophecy and, 372, 373, 390, 402; redemption and, 240–41, 243–44; virgin birth and, 364, 381, 382, 400–401, 427; as watchman, 235–36. See also Trinity. Honey, spiritual, 427–28. See also Butter and honey. Honor, 173, 325, 381; of Christ, 393; Fall and, 379; of Mary, 430; restoration, 380; two principal goods and, 465 Hope, 236–37, 244, 248, 267, 449; mercy and truth, 234 Horns: small, 179–80; ten, of fourth beast, 129, 178–80 Hoshea, 155, 167, 359, 405, 413 Hrabanus Maurus, 40, 56, 335 (n. 91) Hugh of St Cher, 283–84 Hugh of Halberstadt, 25 Hugh of St  Victor, 25–26; allegorical reading and, 41–42; canon, 281; Chronicon/chronology, 26, 37–39, 121–23; creation, 142–43 De scripturis et scriptoribus sacris (On Sacred Scripture), 42, 53, 58–59; Didascalicon, 25–26, 29–30, 54–55, 58; exegetical method, 58–60; on faith, 220–21; hermeneutic, 30–33; on history, 121–23; interpreting Scripture, 141–42; Jewish exegesis and, 54–56; literal commentaries, 32–33; literal reading, 53–58; memorization, 137–41; Robert of St Victor and, 280 Hugo von Sankt Viktor Institut, 56 Humiliation, 239–40; of Christ, 384–85 Humility, 180, 247, 422; of Christ, 386– 87, 417, 422; knowledge, 387–88; repentance and, 232–33, 318; way of, 69

SU B J E C T I N D E X

Hunting, Nimrod, 88–89; pre-Flood, 80 Hyperbole, 107 Hypocrites, 265 Idolatry, 289; destruction of, 375–76; of Gentiles, 237–38; of Israelites, 229–30, 374–75; worship of God and, 408–9 Idumeans, 229, 244, 245–46 Ignorance, 137, 271–72, 457; blindness and, 238, 372, 457, 464–66; of good, 457, 464; idolatry and, 87; Law and, 465–66; root of evil, 431–33; spiritual corruption and, 271–72, 431–34 Image and likeness, of God, humans made in, 65, 67–68, 252 (n.  49), 452, 457–58; Christ and, 68, 222, 241; Fall and, 222; honor of, 393; love and, 80, 463; reason and, 233, 463–64 Immortal/immortality, 77, 268–69, 379; Christ and, 283, 411, 424; humans created, 66, 70–71; loss of, 449, 451, 457, 472; promise to regain, 379, 436 Incarnation: assumption of human nature, 344 (n. 246), 393–94; emptying, 384–86; experience and, 387–89; growth in wisdom, 421–22; Isaiah on, 364; mode of union in 338 (n.  141); reasons for, 221–23, 239–42; timing of, 417–18, 421 Incorruptibility, 380–81, 419; Christ and, 411, 419; Mary and, 436; sign of, 352, 379–80 Irony, 406–7 Insects, 384–85, 386–87, 417 Insinuatio, 252 (n. 47) Intention, 290–91, 292; of God, 482 Intercourse, sexual, 73 Interpretation: apocalyptic, 128, 212 (n.  130); Jewish, 130, 132, 187–88, 200–202, 403–5; threefold, 141–42 Isaac, 97–99



553

Isaiah, book of, 414; Andrew of St Victor on, 40–41, 132, 349–50, 353–54; on Cyrus, 205; Richard of St Victor on, 42–43, 49, 217–20; watchman, 218–20 Isidore of Seville, 34, 326 Israel, kingdom of, 149, 413–14; end of, 418–9; Judah and, 352, 403, 412–13; kinds of kings, 43, 414–15, 423; sin of, 191–92; true religion and, 415. See also Kings. Israelites, 229–30, 313 Issachar, 107 Jacob, 229; Abrahamic covenant and, 100; at Bethel, 99–100; blessings to sons, 106–10; Christ prophecy, 230; Esau and, 101; first birthright, 97; idols and, 101; Isaac’s blessing of, 98–99; Joseph and, 105–6; Laban and, 100–101; travel, 99 Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), 186, 189, 197, 205 Jehoahaz, 153, 165 Jehoash, 153–54, 165–66 Jehoiakim, 171–72, 176, 182, 185 Jehoram, 151–52, 164–65 Jehoshaphat, 151–53, 164 Jehu, 152–53, 165 Jeremiah, 176, 185; desolation of Jerusalem prophecy, 128–32, 182–85; Ezra and, 203–4; Zechariah and, seventieth year, 184, 187, 202. See also Daniel, book of. Jericho, as the world, 447–48, 472 Jerome, 34, 39; Andrew of St Victor and, 132–33; on Antichrist, 212 (n. 130); on chronology, 124–25; Daniel commentary, 128–29, 131, 132, 207, 211 (n.  124–25); Isaiah commentary, 219, 349, 361–62; on marriage, 323–24; in Notes on Genesis, 63, 70; Origen translation, 446–47; Prologus in Pentateucho, 53–54, 55–56; on transfiguration, 286

554

SU B J E C T I N D E X

Jerusalem, 181, 472; desolation of, 128– 32, 189–90, 191–96, 203–7; liberation from two kings, 349–50, 365, 403; mountain of sacrifice, 94–95; Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of, 171– 72, 176–77, 185–86, 292; as paradise, 447, 459; rebuilding of, 180, 197–99, 200–202; return to, 183–84 Jeroboam, 150–51, 163 Jeroboam II, 153–54, 166 Jesus Christ. See Christ, Son, Trinity. Jewish exegesis, 34, 188; Andrew of St  Victor and, 130, 132, 187–88, 200–202, 403–5; dangers of using, 353–54, 357–58; Emmanuel prophecy, 400–402, 405–7; French, 39– 41, 56; Hugh of St Victor and, 149; Richard of St Victor and, 350–52, 357, 360; on seventy year desolation, 185–88, 200–202, 211 (n. 126) Jewish tradition, 127, 133, 187–88 Jews: English community, 133 (n. 43); blindness of, 363–65, 372, 389–90, 420–21; knowledge of coming Christ, 237–39, 242–43; promises to, 313, 385 Joash, 153, 165–66 John, apostle, 264 John the Baptist, 282–83, 296; faith of, 293–94 John Chrysostom, 32, 312, 320, 323–24 John of La Rochelle, 284–85 John of Salisbury, 280 Johannes/Obadiah, 354 Joseph, 102–6; blessing of, 108–9; as pastor, 109–10; Pharaoh and, 104 Joseph father of Jesus, 371 Joseph Bekhor Shor, 56 Joseph Kara, 56, 113 (n. 85), 114 (n. 86) Josephus, Flavius, 128, 130, 199; Andrew of St Victor and, 172, 174, 175, 178, 183–84; Antiquitates Iudaicae, 480– 81; on Daniel, 178; Jeremiah and, 183–84; on John the Baptist, 296; on Nebuchadnezzar, 172, 174–75, 183

Joshua, book of, 36 Jotham 155, 166–67 Judah, 103–4; primacy of, 106–7; Saul and, 107; tribe of, 116 (n. 185) Judah, kingdom of, 229–30; coming of Emmanuel and, 416–17; Herod and, 416; Israel and, 352, 403, 412– 13; liberation from fear, 359–60, 365–66, 369–70, 374, 376–77, 403; reason for war against, 408–9; Roman captivity, 186, 196, 199–200 Judaizing/Judaizers, 40–41, 365, 367– 68, 399 Judges, book of, 26, 36, 53 Judgment, 239, 261; beasts and, 180; day of/final, 335 (n. 90), 448, 458, 472; ecclesiastical, 315; of God, 75, 78, 82, 191, 192; human, 271; penalties and, 191; of priests, 312 Justice, 192, 245–46, 434; absence of, 191; everlasting, 196; restoration and, 238–39, 242; sun of, 243–44 Justification, 378 Kings, book of, 149–50, 369; chronology, 123–27, 403, 413–14; co-regents, 127, 149–55, 164–67; kinds of, 414– 15, 423; reigns of kings, 150–55, 156–57, 163–67; virgin birth as sign, 403–4 Kings, evil spirits and (allegorical reading), 390–91, 412–14, 423–24; kinds of, 414–15; two, 43, 350–52, 359–61, 365–66, 390–92, 418–19; tyranny of, 431–32 Knowledge: of deeds, 141–42; eating and, 368–69, 370, 377, 386, 387–89; experience and, 388–89, 390, 419– 20, 422, 424; of evil, experience and, 386–89; Gentiles, of coming Christ, 219–20, 221, 237–39, 242–43, 244–45; of good and evil, 360–61, 368–69; Jews, of coming Christ, 237–39, 242–43; primordial, 419;

SU B J E C T I N D E X

tree of, 70–71, 377, 386. See also Discernment. Koresh/Cyrus, 186–87, 197, 201, 209 (n. 59). See also Cyrus. Koresh son of Ahasuerus and Esther, 187, 198, 201, 202, 206, 211 (n. 126) Labors, as punishment, 81 Land, 431–32, 433; abhorred by Ahaz, 392, 412–13, 414–15, 420, 423 Lamb, Passover, 267–68, 269, 272; spiritual lamb, 270 Lamech, 79–80 Latin language, 33–34, 483–84 Law of Moses, 73, 76, 192–93, 466; Ezra and, 102, Gospel and, 64, 73; ignorance and, 465–66; pre-Sinai observance, 103; seventh year Sabbath, 196 Lawrence of Durham, Hypognosticon, 479 Leaven: little, 263–64; purge the old, 261–62, 264–65, 268; spiritual, 263, 267, 270–71; of vileness/wickedness, 261–62, 270–72 Lectio divina, 29–30 Lemma, 33 Leonius of Paris, 47, 477; Historie veteris testamenti, 478–80; Liber Ruth, 480–86, 487–94 Leviticus, 26, 41, 53 Lexical analysis, 33–34 Liberal arts, 26–27; in Hugh of St Victor’s exegesis, 59–60; seven, 88 Life, 91; eternal, 70, 76, 224, 388, 427; inner, 69, 91; tree of, 70, 77–78, 386 Life of Saint Nicholas, 77–78 Literal exegesis: allegorical and, 35–36, 42–43; commentaries, 32–33, 34; historical, 27–28, 29–30, 32–36, 49–50, 218–20 Literal reading, of Scripture, 26, 31–33, 35–36, 39–41, 40–41, 47, 53–58 Littera, 29–30, 48–49



555

Lord’s Supper, eating, 270, 272. See also Eucharist. Lot, 90, 92–93 Love, 266, 317, 463, 481–82; for benefactors, 324–25; for enemies, 318–19, 329–30; for God, 94, 321; for neighbor, 316–17; sorrow and, 82, 97; of virtue, 466 Lubac, Henri de, 54 Lucifer, 75. See Devil. Lust, 100, 103, 380, 425–26; conception and, 381; for evil, root of evil, 431–33, 457; sorrow and, 377 Lying, 317; of Abraham, 89–90; of Joseph, 104–5; of Peter, 89–90 Maccabean period, 128 (n. 28), 129, 131 Magnae Deus Potentiae, hymn, 111 (n. 24) Malice, 43, 243, 395, 426; of Ahaz, 374, 399, 410, 413; Christ and, 425–26; grace and, 399, 410–11, 418 Malitia, 273 (n. 6), 275 (n. 57) Man/humanity, 472; body and soul, 66; condition, 431–33; corruption, 380; creation of, 66–68, 69–70, 303, 381; mortal and immortal, 70–71, 77, 268–69, 379; nakedness of, 74–75; unity with God, 393–95. See also Image and likeness. Manasseh, 108 Manner of speaking, 92, 301, 303, 363, 414 Marriage, 73, 293; consent of both parties, 97, 98; domination in, 76; to family member, 313–15; fraud in, 98; husband as master, 77, 92; infidels and, 320–21 Martha, Mary and, 249 Martin, Raymond, 287–88, 333 (n. 64) Mary, Virgin, mother of Jesus, 318, 349, 354, 357, 371, 399–400; blessing of, 394–95, 430; cleansing/purification of, 382, 431–34; incorruptibility

556

SU B J E C T I N D E X

and, 380–81; new Eve, 382; virtues of, 435–36 Mathematics, 59, 66; of Zoroaster, 88 Matthew of Vendome, 479 Maurice of Sully, 28–29, 47; Good Samaritan sermon, 453–54, 471–73; Richard of St Victor and, 446; sermons, 445, 446 Meditation, 30–31; contemplation and, 29, 43 Melchizedek, 90–91, 115 (n. 131); high priesthood of, 322–23 Melun, 280 Memorization: of biblical history, 26, 38, 122–23; of Scripture, 137–40; teaching and, 141–42 Menahem, 154–55, 166 Mercy, 471; of Christ, 395, 448–49; of God, 81, 191–92, 193, 233–35, 379; and truth, 96–97 Merit: beneficial to others, 325, 388–89; judgment and, 458 Metaphor, 107–8, 274 (n.  38); Antichrist, 245; butter and honey, 43, 352, 384–85; for exegesis, 28, 31; morning/day, 236–37, 243–44; night, 236–37, 238, 243; Seir, 230–31, 232–33 Metaphorical: interpretation, 219–220, 254 (n. 67), 457–59; narrative, 76, 219 Midrashic tradition, 55–56 Milk, butter and, 43, 385, 425–26; abundance, 361; Judah and, 107, 110 Mind, 237, 265–66; arranging, 141–42; bondage, 245, 265; conversion of, 319; distinctions and, 137–38; divine reading and, 59; ignorance, 271–72, 431–33; inhibitors of, 35, 230, 262, 264, 271; strength of, 264. See also Memorization. Moab, 93 Mockery, 105 Moneylender, illustration of wisdom, 137

Morals/morality, 59, 141. See also Tropology. Morning/day, as metaphor, 236–37, 243–44; for consolation, 248–49; tropological meaning, 245–46 Mortal sin, 291, 318, 329 Mortality, 77, 268–69, 379, 433–34; Christ and, 46; Fall and, 238, 379, 432; human condition, 431; human creation, 69–71 Moses, 83; divorce and, 328–29; as historian and prophet, 61–62; petition of, 308–9; at transfiguration, 285–87, 298, 311, 339 (n.  151). See also Law of Moses. Murder, 86, 295; anger and, 317; divorce and, 328–29 Murmuring, 271, 300, 335 (n. 90), 365 Mystical understanding, 310; of Scripture, 218–20, 237–38 Mystery, 298, 398; of faith, 373; of prophecy, 367–68, 407, 409–10, 420–21; of Scripture, 389, 409 Nadab, 125, 150, 163 Naphtali, 108; Deborah and, 110 Narrative, 29–30, 36; historical, 61–62, 121–22; metaphorical, 76, 219. See also Order of narrative. Natural law, 465 Nature, human, 387–88, 464; purification of, 382; unity with God, 383 Nature, order of, 380–81, 401, 434 Natures of Christ, two, 307–8, 344 (n. 246), 393–94 Navarre, Collège de, 478 Nebuchadnezzar, 128–129, 186, 189; dream of, 180; Egyptian conquest, 174–76, 332 (n. 28); Jerusalem conquest, 185–86; two theory, 171–72 Nehemiah, 187–88, 202 Nequitia, 271, 275 (n. 67) Night, as metaphor, 236–37, 238, 243; tropological meaning, 246–47 Nimrod, 87–88

SU B J E C T I N D E X

Ninus, 88 Noah, 80–81, 82–86; ark of 83–84, 123, 145 (n.  11); descendants of, 89; in Isaiah, 414; prophecy about, 80–81 Notre Dame, Cathedral in Paris, 27, 47, 125, 477–78 Numbers, memorizing and, 138–40 Obedience, 70–71, 74, 463–64, 473; of Christ, 386–87 Odo of Soissons, 445 Oil of gladness, 427–28, 430 O’Keefe, John J., 32 Olivi, Peter John, 38, 125 Omelia, 451 (n. 31) Omri, 150–51, 163–64 Order of narrative, 34–35, 58; Abraham, 93; of the Flood, 85; Joseph, 104–5; Melchizedek, 91 Ordination: of God, 306, 381, 482; of priests, 98, 297, 320 Origen, 304, 312, 336 (n. 114); Good Samaritan sermon, 446–48, 452, 453 Original sin, 79, 273 (n. 12); 318, 321– 22, 342 (n.  199); Christ and, 337 (n. 126–27), 377; guilt, 457; reversal of, 377–78 Parables, 310 Paradise, on earth, 70–71, 77–78; Jerusalem as, 447, 459; joys of, 387–88 Parallelism, 34 Paris, 132, 280–81, 477 Passion, of Christ, 242, 246, 296, 388, 419, 422; capturing demons, 389– 93, 423–24; devil cast out by, 391–92 Passover/Pesach, 108, 224, 328; bread, 267–68, 296; crossing over, 267, 270; lamb, 267–68, 269, 272; spiritual lamb, 270 Patriarchs, 87, 89, 453, 472; prophecies of, 416 Patristic fathers, authority of, 323–24; decrees of, 314–15; exegesis of, 32, 44, 281, 446; sermons, 446–50



557

Peace, 453; bread and wine, 91; of Christ, 422, 429; of Mary, 434, 436; restoration of, 300, 434; satisfaction and, 222, 239 Pekah, 124, 155, 157, 166–67; Emmanuel prophecy and, 43, 349, 358–59, 403, 405, 413; as prince of darkness, 352, 412 Pekaiah, 157, 166 Penance, 291, 299, 309–10 Pentecost, sermon on, 452, 463–67 Persian Empire, 132, 198, 204–7; prince of, 390, 423. See also Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, Cyrus, Darius the Mede. Person, memorizing and, 142 Pesach. See Passover/Pesach. Peter, apostle, 312–13; denying Christ, 307; keys given to, 297–98, 333 (n. 63–64); lying, 89–90 Peter Abelard, 28, 45, 220–21, 280, 337 (n. 124) Peter the Chanter, 28 Peter Comestor, 27–28, 38, 482; Andrew of St Victor and, 168 (n. 15); chronology, 124–25, 126; contradictions, 164–67; Historia scholastica, 480–81; sermons, 445 Peter Lombard, 28, 44–45, 279–80, 338 (n. 141); sermons, 445 Peter Riga, 478–79, 484 Petrus Episcopus, 479 Pharaoh: Abraham and, 90, 93–94; Joseph and, 104 Pharaoh Necho, 171, 182 Philip Augustus, 482 Philistines, 88 Phoenician language, 362, 371 Pilate, 322 Pilgrims/pilgrimage, 324–25; earthly, 384, 428 Pits, John, 354 Place, memorization and, 140, 142 Poetic style, 483–84 Pollitt, Herbert, 56

558

SU B J E C T I N D E X

Poor in Christ, 324–35 Porphyry, 129, 132 (n. 41), 212 (n. 130) Prayer, 80, 104, 330, 409; call to God, 230–31; ceremonial, 104; confession, 231–33; neglect of, 231–32; of pilgrims, 324–25; Psalter, 330; repentance, 234; to the saints, 325; to Trinity, 234–35; to watchman, God as, 233–34, 245–46 Preaching: catechetical, 28; expository, 28, 458; medieval sermons, 42–43, 46–47. See also Sermons. Precious stones, 137; power of, 66 Pride, 74; giants as symbols of, 81 Priest, discernment, 446; excommunicating for theft, 314–15; judgment, 312; ordination of, 98, 297, 320; power to forgive/absolve sins, 297–98, 312–13; prayer stole, 104 Prohibition, 74, 79, 82; of murder, 86 Prometheus, as demon, 66 Promises, 358, 409–10; to Abraham, 313, 410; to house of David, 399, 410; to Jews, 313, 385; threefold, 379, 385 Prophecy: foretelling, 367–68; hiding mystery, 407, 409–10, 420–21; interpretation of, 372–73, 386, 404; of Jacob, 108; mystery of, 367–68; near and far fulfillment, 409–11; about Noah, 80–81; obscurity and, 373–74 Prophetess, virgin, 350, 351–52, 357–60, 366–67, 374–75, 399–401; son of as Emmanuel, 352, 360–61, 366–67, 404–6 Prophetic books, 35–36; Kings written by, 127, 164; large, 367–68; literal reading, 40–41; order of, 407–8 Prophets, 363–64, 472 Protheus, 406 Providence, 301, 447–48, 452 Psalms, praying, 330 Pseudo-Bede, 115 (n. 145) Pseudo-Chrysostom, 342 (n. 184) Pseudo-Dionysius, 253 (n. 67)

Pseudo-Jerome, 126 Puerilia, 140, 144 (n. 8) Punishment, 74, 192, 302–3, 376–77; absolution, 312–13; avoiding, 292; divine, 332 (n.  28); eternal, 298, 309–10, 322; fear of, 449; guilt and, 419, 432–33, 436; labors and, 80–81; for murder, 86; secret/public sin, 324; universal sin and, 82 Question (quaestio), 44–46, 281–82 Rabbinic tradition, 126 Rachel, 106 Rashbam (Rabbi Shmuel Ben Meir), 56 Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzhaki or Salomon Ibn Isaac), 39, 55–56 Rational creatures, 62–63, 239 Reason, 274 (n. 33), 458; body and, 74; discernment and, 458, 463, 471; Fall and, 451–52, 453, 457–58; image of God and, 233, 463–64; judgement of, 261; rational faculty, 68, 70, 263, 449. See also Knowledge, Mind. Recapitulation (in the narrative), 62, 68, 80 Redemption, 222, 377–79; belief and, 240–41; by Christ, 240–41, 243–44, 306–7; Father and, 240–41, 243–44; from fear and captivity, 384, 389; Holy Spirit and, 240–41, 243–44; mysteries of, 363–64, 380–81, 458; one origin, 381; Trinity and, 219– 20, 239–42 Reformation, the, 54 Reichenau Glosses, 32 Religious life (canons, monks), 231–32; held in monasteries, 326–27; sin and, 247–48 Remembering, of God, 84, 92–93 Remigius of Auxerre, 56 (n. 17) Repentance, 75, 234, 299; charity and, 321; of Eve, 76; forgiveness and, 311–12, 318; of God, 82; humility and, 232–33, 318; pluriform, 264–65

SU B J E C T I N D E X

Repetition (in the narrative), 58, 59, 107, 218, 483 Restoration, 238–39, 379–80, 464; of dignity, 222, 238–40, 352, 379; justice and, 238–39, 242; of peace, 300, 434; six ages of, 123, 142; work of, 62–63 Resurrection, the, 86, 392, 448, 45; of Christ, 388, 390, 392–93; eating after, 314; general, 393; post-resurrection body, 284, 307–8, 314, 339 (n. 148), 387; second state, 382 Retribution, 82 Revelation, book of, captivity of demons, 392 Revelation, divine, 48, 130, 236, 238; of God’s plan, 242, 244; history of, 217, 220–21; of Trinity, 219 Rezin, king of Damascus/Syria, 43, 349, 358–59, 365 413–14; destruction by Assyria, 405; as prince of darkness, 352, 412, 414 Rhetoric, 144 (n. 8); dialectic, 59; figure of speech, 92 Rhetorical analysis, 34 Ribaillier, Jean, 216, 218, 219–20 Richard of St Victor, 26–27; Abbey of St Victor and, 220; allegorical interpretation, 42–43, 218–20, 332 (n. 42), 352–53, 423–28; Andrew of St Victor and, 132–33, 354; Anselm and, 215, 222; Augustine and, 215, 221; Bede and, 451–52; Bernard and, 124, 215–17; biblical interpretation, 223–25; Book of Notes, 450–52; chronology, 37–38, 124, 127, 149–57; De Emmanuele, 27, 350–35, 354–55; discretion/discernment, 252 (n. 40), 361; on Gentiles, 219– 20, 221; Good Samaritan sermon, 451–52, 457–59; Gregory the Great and, 219, 220; He calls Me from Seir, 215–17; Hugh of St Victor and, 220–21; Incarnation, reasons for, 221–23; Jerome and, 218; Jewish tra-



559

dition and, 127, 149; judaizing and, 40–41; Maurice of Sully and, 446; metaphorical interpretation, 220, 457–59; Peter Abelard and, 220–21; reason, 274 (n.  33); redemption, 219; scriptural interpretation, 217– 20, 223–25; Sermon 70, 452, 463–67; sermons, 42–43, 47, 445–46; On the Trinity, 215–16; yeast, 223–24 Righteousness, 428–29 Rites, 78 Robert of Melun, 28, 45–46, 280–81; fittingness, 285–87, 306; and the Glossa ordinaria, 281–82; scholastic method, 283–87; sin, understanding of, 335 (n. 97); Thomas Aquinas and, 285–87 Roman Empire, 37, 150; destruction/ captivity of Judah, 186, 196, 199– 200; Vespasian, and Titus, 131, 199–200 Roman kingdom, Jewish people and, 181; ten horns of Daniel and, 129, 178–80 Rufinus, 481 sacra doctrina, 48 Sacrifices, 78; of Christ, 269, 270 Salvation, 122–23, 242; baptism and, 46, 246, 319–20, 450, 472; historical exegesis and, 54, 121–22; impeded by evil, 373; repentance and, 234 Samaria, 359, 369, 390, 405–6, 471, 472 Samaritan, 245; Christ as, 448–49, 451, 453, 458, 472. See also Good Samaritan parable, sermons on. Samson, 108, 329, 345 (n. 254) Sanctification, 382; of Mary, 364 Sarah, 92, 93–94, 95 Sarcasm, of God, 77 Satisfaction, for sin, 315–16, 321, 458; outward, 313; peace and, 222, 239 Schäublin, Christoph, 32 Schillinck, Dominic, 445

560

SU B J E C T I N D E X

Scholastic theology/scholasticism, 28– 29, 44–45, 48, 49; angels/Watchers, 336 (n. 114), 340 (n. 166); baptism of Christ, 339 (n. 149); fittingness, 285–87; Robert of St Victor, 279–80 Scribal error, 125–26, 149, 163, 165, 166; textual corruption, 125–26, 165 Scripture: contradictions, 34–35, 149, 155, 163–67; deeper meaning of, 29, 42, 64; divine meaning, 58–60; historical/literal sense, 223–25, 235–36, 404, 480–82; historical reading, 26; interpretation, three fold, 141–42; Jews and, 201; lectio divina, 29–30; literal reading, 26, 31–33, 35–36, 39–41, 47; literary style, 58–59; revelation history, 220–21; senses of, 217–20; scribal error, 125–26, 149, 163, 165, 166; silence/mystery of, 389, 409; spiritual sense of, 33–36, 48, 59; study of, 28–29; textual corruption, 125–26, 165; Trinity and, 234 Second Adam, 378, 382, 387, 395 Second coming, of Christ, 129–30, 131, 180–81 Seed of the woman, 76, 389, 395 Seeking, 248–50 Seir, 229; as metaphor for the flesh, 230–31, 232–33 Sensation, judgment of, 261 Sensus, 29, 30, 42, 49, 364, 451 Sentences, 44–45, 279–80 Sententia, 29, 30, 49, 151, 364, 412; ex, 395 Septuagint, 55, 143, 361; chronology, 123 Sermons, 42–43, 46–47, 445–46; on Good Samaritan parable, 446–50, 453–54, 457–59, 471–73; of Patristic fathers, 446–50 Serpent, 73–76, 108, 238, 240, 377, 389; dragon, 392, 457 Seventy Weeks in Daniel, 130–32, 196– 200, 205

Seventy years of Babylonian captivity, 183–84, 203–4 Seventy years of desolation, Andrew of St Victor, 189–90, 203–7; Jewish exegesis, 185–88, 200–202, 211 (n. 126) Seventy years of Jeremiah, 182–84, 185– 88, 189–90, 194–95, 197–98, 203–5 Shame, 94, 191, 490; mark of, 481; rebuke and, 231–32, 247; removal of, 393–94, 395 Shem, 86–87 Sign, prophetic, 358–61, 65–66, 368–69, 374; to Ahaz, 350–52, 358, 365–66, 369; of Christ, 383–84; to house of David, 351–52, 375–76; liberation from fear and, 350–52, 358, 365–66, 369, 399, 410; quality of, 407; threefold, 379, 385; virginal incorruption, 385 Signification, 261, 271; allegory and, 121, 141, 179–81, 191, 299; signs and, 350, 352, 359, 369 Sin, 93, 102; dereliction, 464; destruction of, 380, 436; excuses, 434–35; falsehood, 196, 263; first, 73–75, 299; free will and, 78–79; iniquity, 264; justice, absence of, 191; knowledge of, 237–38; leaven as, 263; mortal, 291, 318, 329; neglect and, 264; pride and greed, 74; private/ public, 324; punishment/penalty for, 302–3, 309–10, 315, 376–77; return on, 299–300; as self-exaltation, 222, 239–42; swearing falsely, 289–90, 291; unknowingly, 319; venial, 263–65, 271–72, 303; voluntary, 290–91. See also Original Sin. Sincerity: leaven of, 268; and truth, 224, 263, 269–70, 271–72 Sinfulness, 106; growth of, 78–79 Sinners, 315, 318 Small horn, in Daniel, 179–80 Smalley, Beryl, 25, 39, 50; on Andrew of St Victor, 127–28, 132; on Notes, 53–54, 57

SU B J E C T I N D E X

Smerdis the Magician, 189, 200, 204, 208 (n. 41) Sodom and Gomorrah, 92–93 Son, 222–23, 234–35; Father, union with, 309, 310–11; image of God and, 68, 222; Paraclete and, 245–46; as Redeemer, 240–41, 243–44; sin against, 295; as watchman, 235–36. See also Christ Jesus, Trinity. Son of prophetess as, Emmanuel, 352, 360–61, 366–67, 404–6 Sophistry, 398; of Jews, 404 Sorrow: curse of Eve, 76; love and, 82, 97; lust and, 377 Soul, 67–68, 81; body and, 80, 89; created pure, 321; free will and, 66; image of God and, 67 Speculatio, 258 (n. 217) Spirit, human, 332 (n. 30); body and, 292–93; renewal of, 464. See also Holy Spirit. Spiritual sense of Scripture, 33–36, 48, 59 St Denis, Monastery of, 478 St Geneviève, Paris, 280 St Victor, Abbey of, 25–28, 57, 478; biblical studies, 450–51; educational program, 29–31, 122, 224–25; influence of, 48–50, 54, 220, 482; literal/ historical exegesis, 27–28, 29–30, 32–36, 49–50, 218–20; sermons, 443–46, 454 Stammberger, Ralf, 55, 57 Stars, 64, 142–43; power of, 66 States of existence, human, 300–301 Suffering, of Christ, 419, 425; obedience through, 386–87, 388–89 Sun, 64, 188; angels and, 304; worship of, 87 Superstructure, mental, 141–42, 144 (n. 11), 407 Swanson, R. N., 44 Sweeney, Eileen, 111 (n. 23)



561

Symbolic language, bread and wine, 91; of life 91; of pride, 81. See also Allegorical meaning. Synecdoche, 125, 149–55, 163–65; Andrew of St Victor, 171–72, 182 Syria, 43, 349, 358–59, 365 413–14; destruction by Assyria, 405 Systematic theology, 44–45 Tamar, 103 Temple, Jerusalem, 130, 193; desolation of, 200; destructions of, 131, 182, 199; holy of holies, 197, 417; location, 193–94; rebuilding of, 180, 187, 196, 199, 200–201; temptation of Christ, 328; vessels, 172 Temptation, 245–46, 264, 434; of Christ, 327–28, 344 (n.  246), 422; devil and, 363; night as, 248 Ten horns of fourth beast, 178–80 Textual corruption, 125–26, 165 Theft, 308, 314–16 Theodore of Mospuestia, 32 Thomas Aquinas, 49, 225 (n. 19); affectus, use of, 274 (n. 32); on assumption, 337 (n. 138); on body of Christ, 338 (n. 137), 339 (n. 148); on grace, 256 (n.  138); Summa theologiae, 47–48, 285 Tiglath-pileser, 403 Time, 68–69; change and, 63–64, 66; of Flood, 84–85; of human life, 81; memorization and, 140–41, 142 Titus, emperor, 131, 199–200 Transfiguration, 46–47, 283–87, 298, 311, 339 (n. 146); angels and, 286; Elijah at, 285–87, 298, 311, 333 (n. 76); Moses at, 285–87, 298, 311, 339 (n. 151); witnesses to, 285–86, 432 Tree of knowledge, 70–71, 377, 386 Tree of life, 70, 77–78, 386 Trinity, 309; attributes of, 234–35; beginnings, 305; creation and, 65, 67–68; essence, 304–5; Gentile knowledge of, 221; Incarnation

562

SU B J E C T I N D E X

and, 222–23, 239–42, 304–5, 427; nature, 304–5; redemption and, 219–20, 243–44; substance, 304–5, 310–11; union with humanity, 394– 95; as watchman, 235–36 Tropology, 30–31, 47, 59, 141; Richard of St Victor and, 218–20, 245–46. See also Morality. Troyes, 27 Truth, 398; confession of, 363, 373, 383, 430; leavening of, 268; mercy and, 96–97, 234; sincerity and, 224, 263, 269–70, 271–72 Tyre, 176, 292, 294, 332 (n. 28) Understanding, 317 Unity, 230, 383, 393–95 Unleavened bread, 42, 261–63, 265–66, 268–72 Van Zwieten, Jan, 41 Venial sin, 263–65, 271–72, 303 Versifications, biblical, 478–80, 483–84 Vespasian, 131, 199–200 Virgil, Aeneid, 478 Virgin birth, 349–50, 352, 364; conception, 367, 377–78, 380–81, 402; distant fulfillment, 350, 409–10; evangelist on prophecy, 364, 372, 382–83, 399–401, 421; foretelling of, 351, 357–58, 361–62. See also Alma. Virginity, honor of, 430–31 Virgin, Isaiah’s wife, the prophetess, 350, 351–52, 357–60, 366–67, 374–75, 399–401 Virgin Mary. See Mary, Virgin, mother of Jesus. Virgins: foolish, 305–6; held in monasteries, 326–27 Void, earth as, 34, 65 Violence, 70, 87, 431, 464 Vows, 325–26 Vulgate, 331 (n.  1); 334 (n.  80), 334 (n. 80); Douai-Rheims translation, 60

Walter of St Victor, 12, 254 (n. 62), 445 Water, at creation, 65, 69–70; of Flood, 83–85 Weakness, human, 71, 246, 266, 433–34, 465–66; spiritual, 435 Weapons, 434–35 Web, arguments as, 398, 406 Weiss, Jessica, 134 Wickedness, 75, 81–82, 86, 270–72, 464; leaven and, 224, 262; night and, 245; reputation and, 317; spiritual, 391 Wigmore Abbey, 26–27, 28, 132–33, 353, 355 Will, 300; free, 66, 78–79, 301, 423; of God, 64, 302, 306, 360; good and evil, 290–92, 319 William of Champeaux, 25 William Whitehands, 27 Wisdom, 137–38, 386, 421–22, 467; eating butter and honey and, 428–29; growth in, 421–22; heart and, 137–40, 142, 364; Incarnation and, 222–23, 241, 419–20; moneylender illustration, 137; Trinity and, 234–35 Witnesses, 324; to conception of prophetesses, 351–52, 358–59, 366–68; Moses and Elijah to transfiguration, 285–86, 432; in Ruth, 492–93 Woman, 381–82; creation of, 72–73; dignity of, 381; dominated by man, 76; seed of, 76, 389, 395; sorrows of, 76, 377 Word of God, 62; Christ as, 54, 241–42, 307–9, 383, 433; judgment and, 312; prophets speaking, 184 Work(s), deeds, 141–42; diligent, 317; of restoration, 62–63; as sin, 80–81 Worship, of God, 191–92, 193, 232, 408–9 Wright, Craig, 477 Xerxes, 207 Yeast, 223–24, 261–62. See also Leaven.

SU B J E C T I N D E X

Zebulun, 395 Zechariah, prophet, seventieth year, 184, 187, 202 Zechariah, son of Jeroboam II, 154, 166 Zedekiah, 177, 182–83, 186–87, 189, 197, 201

Zimri, 150, 155, 163 Zion, Mount, 229 Zinn, Grover, 112–23 Zoroaster, 88



563