Opera 2: Expositio hystorica in librum regum 2503035337, 2503035345, 2503030009

Citation preview

CORPVS CHRISTIANORVM Continuatio Mediaeualis

LIii

A

ANDREAE DE SANCTO VICTORE OPERA TOMVS II

TVRNHOLTI TYPOGRAPHI BREPOLS EDITORES PONTIFICII MCMXCVI

ANDREAE DE SANCTO VICTORE OPERA

II EXPOSITIO HYSTORICA IN LIBRVM REGVM EDIDIT

FRANCISCUS

A.

VAN LIBRE

TVRNHOLTI TYPOGRAPHI BREPOLS EDITORES PONTIFICII MCMXCVI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research for this edition was made possible by a generous grant (301-177-059) from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). I am grateful to the colleagues and members of the Vakgroep Medieaevistiek and the Centre for Classical, Oriental, Medieval and Renaissance Studies of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen for providing a fruitful and congenial atmosphere, in which to conduct my research. I also wish to thank the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, and especially Prof. Giles Constable, for allowing me to finish this project there, in no less amiable surroundings. The staffs of the libraries of Corpus Christi College and Trinity College, Cambridge, the Bodleian Library in Oxford, the British Library, the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, the Vatican Library, the Wiirttembergische Landesbibliothek in Stuttgart, and the University Library of Salamanca have been more than helpful in providing me with microfilms, and allowing me ample access to their collections to inspect the manuscripts on which the edition is based. Of the great number of persons who assisted me, I can name but a few here. Of course this does not diminish my gratitude to those who are not named. I want to thank my parents for their unfailing support during my years of pre-academic and academic training. I wish to thank Dr Luc Jocque and the staff of the Corpus Christianorum for their support and cooperation; Dr Wout van Bekkum for his guidance on Andrew's Jewish sources and for his help in my dealings with the Hebrew commentaries; Prof. Willem Noomen for his advice on Andrew's use of Old French; Dr Peter Robinson for his help with the computer-assisted analysis of the manuscript relations; and Prof. Albert Derolez for his critical comments on the codicological description of the manuscripts. I wish to thank all those who gave their comments and criticism, including Prof. Onno Kneepkens, Prof. Peter Raedts, Prof. Claudio Leonardi, Prof. Rainer Berndt, Prof. Michael Signer; and especially Dr Jan van Zwieten and Dr Bert Roest. I wish to thank Dr Peter Binkley, and, above all, Dr Kate Elliot van Liere, my wife, for their thorough revisions of the English. Of course Kate's involvement in and support for this project has gone deeper than that. It was thanks to the whereabouts of a manuscript now in Salamanca, containing Andrew's commentaries, that I met Kate. Because this volume first appeared as a doctoral thesis for the University of Groningen, a special word of acknowledgement is due here to my advisor, Prof. L.J. Engels, a true teacher who never ceased to inspire and motivate me with a critical acuity that shaped my attitude and my thinking. I am especially grateful to him for the great dedication with which he took up

VIII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

the sole supervision of the research project after the sudden death of Dr Edme Smits. It is with gratitude, but in grief, that I remember Dr Edme Smits here. His sudden demise in May 1992 left a void that is still felt. If anyone was ever a spiritual father to a research project, he was to this one. He designed this project, which resulted from his own research on Helinand of Froidmont, and led me in his characteristically cheerful and inspiring way through the most difficult first two years of it. To him, therefore, I dedicate this book. Charleston, S.C.

Frans van Liere

ANDREW OF ST VICTOR'S COMMENTARY ON SAMUEL AND KINGS. AUTHOR, SOURCES, AND METHOD I. ANDREW OF ST VICTOR

It was Beryl Smalley who first drew attention to Andrew of St Victor's exceptional position in medieval biblical scholarship (1 ). Editions of his work and specialised studies, including a comprehensive dissertation by Rainer Berndt, followed (2 ). Andrew wrote commentaries on the literal sense of the Heptateuch, the books of Samuel and Kings (3 ), the Prophets, Wisdom, and Ecclesiastes. The present volume contains an edition of Andrew's commentary on Samuel and Kings, which he composed presumably before n47 (4 ). Attached to this commentary in all manuscripts is a dossier containing, among other texts, an abridgement of part of the second book of Chronicles (wrongly identified by some authors as a commentary on these books), and a treatise on the regnal years of the kings of Israel and Judah, both presumably Andrew's work. This dossier will be examined along with the commentary on Samuel and Kings in the present introduction, and the texts that can be ascribed to Andrew will be included in the edition hereafter (5 ). For the commentary on Samuel and Kings, there is little doubt about Andrew's authorship. Given the high consistency in style and content with his other commentaries, ascriptions to Andrew in (1) B. SMALLEY, Andrew of St Victor, Abbot of Wigmore; a Twelfth-Century Hebraist, in Recherches de Theologie ancienne et mldiivale, 10, 1938, 358-3 73; The School of Andrew of St Victor, in Recherches de Thlologie ancienne et mldiivale, 11, 1939, 145-16 7; The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, Oxford, 1952, 19833, 112-195. (2) R. BERNDT, Andre de Saint-Victor (t 1175). Exegete et thlologien, Turnhout/ Paris 1991 (Bibliotheca Victorina, 2). The edition of Andrew's complete oeuvre is foreseen in CCCM 53-53G. So far the following volumes have appeared: Expositio super Heptateuchum, eds. C. LOHR and R. BERNDT, CCCM 53; Expositiones historicae in libros Salomonis, ed. R. BERNDT, CCCM 53B; Expositio in Ezechielem, ed. M.A. SIGNER, CCCM 53E; and Expositio super Danielem, ed. M.A. ZIER, CCCM 53F. The editions of the commentaries on Isaiah (K. REINHARDT, CCCM 53C), Jeremiah (E. BJARNAOOTTIR, CCCM 53D), and the Twelve Prophets (M. ZIER and F.A. VAN LIBRE, CCCM 53G) are in progress. Other editions are contained in G. CALANDRA, De historica Andreae Victorini expositione in Ecclesiasten, Palermo 1948 (Ponti.ficium Athenaeum Antonianum, Fae. Theo/., Theses ad Lauream, 46) and A. PENNA, Andrea di S. Vittore. II suo commento a Giona, in Biblica, 36, 1955, 305-351. (3) 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings are called 1-4 Regum in the Vulgate. In abbreviations, I follow the Vulgate edition of Weber, and refer to them respectively as 1-2 Sm., and 3-4 Rg.; in the running text they are referred to as 1-2 Samuel and 3-4 Kings. References to Andrew's commentary in the edition below will be given in Roman numerals (I-IV for 1-4 Rg.) and line numbers. (4) SMALLEY, Andrew of St Victor, 3 72. (5) See below, p. civ ff.

X

INTRODUCTION

several manuscripts ( and quotations of this work by contemporaneous authors (7), one can safely conclude that this commentary is Andrew's. It formed part of his project to comment on all historical books of the Bible, as mentioned in his general prologue to the Prophets : 6 ),

I have decided to concoct some little explanation of the obscure prophetic writings, relying on divine help rather than on my own strength, as I did in time past, for the Pentateuch, Josue, Judges, Malachim (8 ).

Andrew was a regular canon of St Victor well before n48, and a student of Hugh of St. Victor (t 1141 ). The collegiate abbey of St Victor, founded in no8 by William of Champeaux (the foundation was confirmed by royal charter in 1n3), developed in the twelfth century into a prestigious centre of spiritual learning, with outstanding masters such as Hugh and Richard (t n73) (9 ). In the environment of the emerging schools at Paris, which would eventually give birth to the University, the school of St Victor sought to bridge the gap that was developing between scientific and spiritual culture, between learning and wisdom, between scientia and sapientia (10 ). In 1148, Andrew was requested to take up the abbacy of the newly founded Victorine abbey at Wigmore, Herefordshire. After a presumably troublesome period and a disagreement with the other canons he returned to Paris in n55, but in n62 he was called back to Wigmore to serve a second time as abbot, and he remained here until his death, on 19 October, n75 (11 ). At first sight, Andrew seems to have been a rare bird in St Victor. The works of his fellow Victorines, and indeed most exegetical works in the Middle Ages, were above all concerned with the deeper, spiritual meaning of Scripture, but Andrew sought to expound the biblical text only after its simple, literal

(6) MSS C, E, S and V, ef. below, p. lviii ff. (7) SMALLEY, The Study of the Bible, 182-183. (8) SMALLEY, The Study of the Bible, 122-123 (Smalley's translation. Latin text on p. 375, from MS Paris, Bibliotheque Mazarine, 175, fol. 93r). (9) F. BONNARD, Histoire de fabbaye royale et de fordre des chanoines riguliers de SaintVictor de Paris. t. 1, Premiere periode (1113-1500), Paris 1904. (10) CJ J. CHATILLON, La culture de flcole de Saint-Victor au XII' siecle', in M. DE GANDILLAC, E. JEAUNEAU (eds.), Entretiens sur Ja renaissance du XII' siede, Paris/La Haye, 1968 (Decades du Centre International de Cerisy-Ja-Salle, nouvelle serie, 9), 147-178, and R. BERNDT, Victorins, in M. VILLER, F. CAVALLERA, J. DE GUIBERT (eds.), Dictionnaire de spiritualite, a.rcltique et mystique, doctrine et histoire, t. 16, Paris 1992, 559-562. (11) A. MOLINIER, A. LoNGNON (eds.), Obituaires de Ja province de Sens. t. 1: Dioceses de Sens et de Paris, Paris 1902 (Recueil des historiens de Ja France, Obituaires, 1), 593.

INTRODUCTION

XI

sense (12 ). Whereas other commentators were looking for the foreshadowing of the mysteries of Christian faith in the books of the Old Testament (1 3 ), Andrew clarified difficulties that arose from the primary understanding of Scripture, rendered the difficult biblical idiom into comprehensible Latin, and explicated the text by grammatical analysis. Where possible, he related the text to its context and identified historical persons and places. If the meaning was obscure because of textual corruption, he made an effort to improve it by textual criticism, comparing Jerome's Vulgate to the Hebrew Bible. He carefully avoided any allegorical interpretation of the expounded texts, nor do we know of any theological or mystical treatises by his hand. It would seem that in thus restricting himself to the literal sense of Scripture Andrew was exceptional. The general tone of his prologue to the commentaries on the prophets, quoted by Smalley, seems to suggest that Andrew was aware of this position. He stressed here that he was working for himself alone. 'No one is obliged to accept my gift', he remarked, quoting Ovid (1 4 ). Smalley places high value on Andrew's great individual rational qualities and his 'humanism', and suspects they all arise from his Englishness (15 ). But although Andrew might be exceptional, he was certainly not eccentric; his commentaries were held in high esteem (16 ), and had considerable influence during the Middle Ages. They were, for instance, used by Helinand of Froidmont and Peter Comestor, and his remarks on the subject of Hebrew especially were much valued by the medieval scholars who were involved in the process of editing and improving the text of the Vulgate (1 7 ). To gain a clearer view of Andrew's position in medieval exegesis and his presumed exceptionality, the present introduction will examine Andrew's sources and discuss his method of (12) Andrew, however, occasionally includes moral admonishment in his literal explanations, such as in I, 101-107 and 1245-124 7. (13) On the principles of Christian exegesis in the Middle Ages, see above all C. SPICQ, Esquisse d'une histoire de f exegese Jatine au moyen age, Paris 1944; H. DE LUBAC, P.xegese medievaie; Jes quatre sens de fEcriture, 4 vols., Paris 1959-1964 (Theologie; eludes publiees sous Ja direction de Ja Facuite de theologie SJ. de Lyon-Fourviere, 41, 42, 59). (14) SMALLEY, The Study of the Bible, 377, see above, n8. (15) SMALLEY, The Study of the Bible, 119. ( 16) Adam of Dryburgh, in his De tripartito tabernaculo, used Andrew's commentary on the tabernacle, and called him 'vir quidam vitae venerabilis et diligens verbi Dei scrutator', PL 198, 63 7C. (17) CJ BERNDT, Andre de Saint-Victor, 89-106, and 329-350. To this may be added G. DAHAN, La connaissance de fhebreu dans Jes correctoires de Ja Bible du XIII' siecle, in Revue theologique de Lo11Vain, 23, 1992, 178-190, and the edition of Helinand's Chronicon currently in preparation for the CCCM by E.R. SMITS (t), J.B. VooRBIJ, M.M. WoESTHUIS, M. GEERTSMA and E.L. SAAK.

XII

INTRODUCTION

exegesis. It will focus first on the exegetical tradition on Samuel and Kings, the sources Andrew used, and the ways he made use of them. Special attention will be given to the Glossa ordinaria and Andrew's Jewish sources. Secondly, it will discuss Andrew's exegetical method, against the background of twelfthcentury hermeneutics, and the position of this commentary in the curriculum of the Victorine school and the spiritual attitude of this abbey.

2. ANDREW'S COMMENTARY ON SAMUEL AND KINGS IN THE EXEGETICAL TRADITION

The commentary tradition on Samuel and Kings before Andrew The books of Samuel and Kings had a great influence on the spirituality and theology of the Middle Ages. To the medieval mind, they were more than just historical accounts; they attested to an important period in God's dealings with this world, and, when interpreted typologically, they could also relate to other periods in the history of salvation. Among the themes they touched upon were the transference of priesthood, the emergence of kingship (the unlucky start with Saul's reign, and the formation and history of David's dynasty), the building of Solomon's temple, the division of the kingdom, and the downfall of the separate kingdoms (1 8 ). These themes occupied an important place in Patristic and medieval theology, and political theories of kingship and priesthood could also draw material from them (1 9 ). The worldly and often violent character of Samuel and Kings could often seem offensive to medieval readers. We need only think of the many wars described in Samuel and Kings, or descriptions of the immoral conduct of persons held in great esteem, such as the adultery of King David (2 Samuel n), to (18) Jerome, in his Ep. 53, Ad Paulinum presbyterum, 8, 5 (ed. I. HILBERG, CSEL 54, 456-45 7), states: 'Samuhel in Heli mortuo et in occisione Saulis ueterem legem abolitam, porro in Sadoc atque Dauid noui sacerdotii nouique imperii sacramenta testatur. Malachim, id est tertius et quartus Regum liber, a Salomone usque ad Iechoniam et ah Hieroboam, filio Nabat, usque ad Osee, qui ductus est in Assyrios, regnum Iuda et regnum describit Israhel. si historiam respicias, uerba simplicia sunt; si in litteris sensum latentem, ecclesiae paucitas et hereticorum contra ecclesiam bella narrantur'. (19) CJ P. Bue, Pouvoir rqyal et commentaires de la Bible (1150-1350), in Annales: Economies, Societes, Civilisations, 44, 1989, 691-713; and, by the same author, L'ambiguile du Livre: prince, pouvoir, et peuple dans Jes commentaires de la Bible au mqyen age, Paris 1994 (Theologie historique, 95), esp. 239-311.

INTRODUCTION

XIII

understand why many of these stories were prone to allegorization. As Angelomus of Luxeuil states: Although some people, who do not know how to understand [Scripture] spiritually, or are dedicated only to human wisdom, say that nothing else can be understood but the surface of the history, and the struggles of kings and the vicissitudes of many; yet in this volume many things appear to contain the mysteries of Christ and the Church in several ways (20 ).

But although the books of Samuel and Kings invited theological interpretation, continuous commentaries treating the entire corpus remained scarce before the sixth century. Exegetical material before this date was restricted to specific episodes in the text, such as the Apologia prophetae Dauid, De Belia et ieiunio and De Nabutha of Ambrose (340-397) (21 ). Ambrose's writings do not seem to have had a significant influence on the later exegetical tradition on Samuel and Kings, unlike, for instance, the sermons of Origen (t ea. 254) on the first two chapters of the book of Samuel (22 ). Among the most influential works of this period were no doubt the exegetical writings of Augustine (354-430 ). He devoted the second book of his De diuersis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum (23 ) to contradictions and theological difficulties arising from the interpretation of the books of Samuel and Kings. Many of these difficulties concerned the adaptation of their archaic theological imagery to the spirituality of late antiquity. How, for instance, could God regret that he had made Saul king (1 Samuel 15, n), if we believe in his providence? How could the deceased holy prophet Samuel be raised by ungodly necromancy (1 Samuel 28, 1219)? Many of these questions became issues in medieval exegesis, and Augustine's De diuersis quaestionibus became a model for other collections of quaestiones, such as the In Regum librum

(20) 'In quo quidem volumine (quanquam nonnulli, scientiae spiritalis intelligentiae ignari, aut humanae solummodo sapientiae dediti, aiunt nihil aliud posse intelligi nisi superficies historiae, et praelia Regum, ac casus multorum), multa tamen sacramenta Christi et Ecclesiae variis scilicet modis continere videntur', Angelomus of Luxeuil, Ena"ationes in Jibros Regum, praej, PL 115, 247. (21) Ambrose, Apologia prophetae Dauid 1-2, ed. C. ScHENKL, CSEL 32.2, 299408; De Helia et ieiunio, ibidem 410-465; De Nabutha, ibidem 469-516. (22) P. NAUTIN, M.-T. NAUTIN (eds.), Origene, Homelies sur Samuel. Edition critique, introduction, traduction et notes, Paris 1986 (Sources chretiennes, 328). For exegesis before Origen, ef. R. DEVREF.SSE, Les anciens commentateurs grecs de J'Octateuque et des Rois (fragments tires des chaines), Citta del Vaticano 1959 (Studi e testi, 201), and A. DE VoGOE, Les plus anciens exegetes du Premier Livre des Rois: Origene, Augustin et Jeurs ipigones, in Sacris erudiri, 29, 1986, 5-12. (23) Augustine, De diuersis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum, 2, ed. A. MUTZENBECHER, CCSL 44, 57-91.

XIV

INTRODUCTION

triginta quaestiones of Bede (672-735). In his De ciuitate Dei, Augustine treated two other important passages from the book of Samuel: the prophecy of Hannah (1 Samuel 2, 1-10), which he related to the election of the Church; and the transference of priesthood (1 Samuel 2, 27-36 ), typologically related to the transference of all priesthood to Christ (24 ). Gregory the Great (540-604) was the first Latin author to produce a continuous commentary on the first book, or at least the first sixteen chapters, of Samuel (25 ). His commentary was based on sermons delivered to a monastic audience, and above all he stressed the moral admonishment that could be drawn from the stories and historical figures. Many themes from Samuel and Kings Gregory had already touched upon in his Moralia, which prompted his pupil Paterius to make a florilegium of allegorical exegesis taken from this work, arranged in the order of the biblical books. For later authors, this florilegium provided the main access to Gregory's interpretation of Samuel and Kings (26 }. Commentaries written after 600 were largely dependent on the works that preceded them; the commentators gathered and compiled the exegesis of Origen, Augustine and Gregory, and added some of their own. To this compilatory tradition we can assign, for example, the Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum of Isidore of Seville (570-636) (27 }, an allegorical commentary treating successive topics from the biblical narrative, and Bede's commentaries, the verse-by-verse commentary on the first book of Samuel (In primam partem Samuhelis) and his In Regum librum triginta quaestiones. Bede also wrote an exegetical allegorical treatise on the building of the temple of Solomon, as he had done before on the tabernacle of Moses (28 ). In his exegesis, the temple was seen allegorically as a model for the Church, a building of Faith. This treatise proved enormously popular, and inspired exegetical literature throughout the Middle Ages (29 ).

(24) Augustine, De ciuitate Dei, 17, 4 and 17, 5; eds. B. DOMBART, A. KALB, CCSL 48, 554-566. CJ J. BLACK, «De Civitate Dei» and the Commentaries of Gregory the Great, Isidore, Bede and Hrabanus Maurus on the Book of Samuel, in Allgustinian Studies, 15, 1984, 114-127. (25) Gregory the Great, &positio in Jibrum primum Regum, ed. P. VERBRAKEN, CCSL 144. (26) Paterius, Liber de expositione Vtteris ac Novi Testamenti, de ditlersis Jibris S. Gregorii concinnaltls, PL 79, 683-1136. CJ R. WASSELYNCK, L'injluence de J'exegue de S. Gregoire le Grand sur Jes commentaires bibliques medie11aux (VII'-XII' s.), in Recherches de Theologie ancienne et medie11ale, 32, 1965, 157-204. (27) Isidore, Quaestiones in Vtltls Testamenltlm, in Regum, PL 83, 391-422. (28) Bede, In primam partem Samuhelis, In Regum Jibrum triginta quaestiones, ed. D. HURST, CCSL 119; De templo, ed. D. HURST, CCSL 119A, 141-234. (29) It was copied in its entirety by e.g. Hrabanus Maurus and the Glossa ordinaria. Andrew made extensive use of it in his description of the temple. CJ

INTRODUCTION

xv

In the commentaries of Isidore and Bede, the typological and allegorical interpretation of the books of Samuel and Kings prevailed. Great characters contained in the historical narrative (such as Samuel and David) were typologically related to Christ, and the frequently recurring theme of rejection and acceptance in the first book of Samuel (Peninah rejected in favour of Hannah, Heli in favour of Samuel, Saul in favour of David) became applicable to the theme of the rejection of Judaism and the election of Christendom, which was very popular in Christian theology. Some of the allegorisations may seem rather forced to the modern mind, and stand in sharp contrast to Andrew's literal exegesis of the same text. The etymology of names, as for instance given by J erome's De interpretatione nominum H ebraicorum (30 ), played an important role in this allegorical interpretation. Until the ninth century, explanations of the literal sense of Samuel and Kings had been scarce, and could only be found as passing remarks in the commentaries already mentioned. Since the sixth century, there had been the Latin translation of Josephus's (t 95) Antiquitates (31 ). Josephus had embellished the Old Testament narrative with many details and explanations not given in the biblical text, and thus had become an important source for the interpretation of these books. But a real commentary ad litteram did not appear until the Quaestiones Hebraicae in librum Samuelis, ascribed to Jerome, but in fact written by a ninth-century Jewish convert from Narbonne (32 ). This pseudo-J erome's Quaestiones were modelled on J erome's Quaestiones H ebraicae in Genesin, which probably triggered the false ascription. Pseudo-J erome's commentary included much original material from the rabbinical tradition that had not been available to Christian writers before. Some of what he presented as Jewish may have been his own creation, but in the absence of any comparable material the work gained great authority, and became the standard Christian source for the Jewish, literal, interpretation of these books. H. ROSENAU, Vision of the Temple. The Image of the Temple ofJerusalem in }Ndaism and Christianity, London 19792 • (30) Jerome, De interpretatione nominNm Hebraicof'llm, ed. P. DE LAGARDE, CCSL 72. (31) F. BLATT (ed.), The Latin JosephNs. 1. IntrodNction and Text. The AntiqNities; book.s 1-V, K0benhavn 1958 (Acta }Ntlandica 30:1, HMmanities series, 44). For the remaining books, I used FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, Josephi }Ndei historici preciara opera De antiqNitatibus libri viginti, Paris (F. Regnault, Joh. Petit) 1519, which according to Blatt (p. 117) is representative of the Latin Josephus before the Greek text was known. (32) Pseudo-Jerome, QNaestiones Hebraicae in lihf'llm Sa11111elis, ed. A. SALTMAN, Leiden 1975 (Sllldia Post-Biblica, 26).

XVI

INTRODUCTION

In the Carolingian period, the Old Testament and especially the books of Samuel and Kings became increasingly popular. No period produced more commentaries on these books. Their influence could also be noticed in liturgy, chronicles, legislation, and court ceremonial (33 ). The commentaries written in this period became standard for the exegesis of these books until the twelfth century. The main merit of the Carolingian commentators consisted in gathering dispersed and diverse patristic materials, and establishing a standardised commentary tradition on Samuel and Kings. The popularity of these books is attested by the commentaries of Claudius of Turin (t 827), following Bede's example with his Triginta quaestiones super libros Regum (34 ), and above all Hrabanus Maurus (780-856) (35 ), who in his compilation conscientiously listed his sources: Augustine, Jerome, Gregory, Bede, Isidore, and above all the Hebreus (the author of the Quaestiones H ebraicae, not yet mistaken for Jerome). The result was an impressively thorough commentary on all books of Kings, treating the text sometimes in its literal, sometimes in its moral, and sometimes in its mystical or allegorical sense. Angelomus of Luxeuil (t 855) set out to expound the text in all three senses simultaneously -literal, moral and mystical- on each pericope, but after the first chapter of r Samuel, he abandoned this effort, and became largely dependent on Hrabanus (36 ). The exegetical material of the tenth and eleventh centuries (33) CJ e.g. R. KOTIJE, Studien !Qlm Einfi1'13 des a/ten Testamentes auf Recht und Liturgie desfruhen Mittelalters ( 6. -8. Jahrhundert), Bonn 1970 (Bonner historische Forschungen, 23); J. CHYDENIUS, Medieval Institutions and the Old Testament, Helsinki 1965 (Societas scientiarum Fennica. Commentationes humanarum litterarum, 37. 2), 46-70; W. MOHR, Christlich-Alttestamentliches Gedankengut in der Entwicklung des karolingischen Kaisertums, in P. WILPERT (ed.), Judentum im Mittelalter. Beitrage !Qlm christlich-judischen Gesprikh, Berlin 1966 (Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 4), 382-409; P. LEHMANN, Der Einfiuss der Bibel auf fruhmittelalterliche Geschichtsschreiber, in La Bibbia nell'alto medioevo, Spoleto 1963 (Settimane di studio de/ Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo, 10), 129-140; W. ULLMANN, The Bible and principles of government in the middle ages, ibidem 182227; and P.E. SCHRAMM, Das Alte und das Neue Testament in der Staatslehre und Staatsymbolik des Mittelalters, ibidem 229-255. (34) Triginta quaestiones super libros Regum ad Theodemirum, PL 104, 623-834. CJ G. ITALIAN!, La tradizione esegetica nel commento ai Re di Claudio di Torino, Firenze 1979 (Quaderni dell'Istituto fiiologia classica «Giorgio PasquaiiJ>, 3) and J.B. HABLITZEL, Hrabanus Maurus und Claudius von Turin, in Historisches Jahrbuch, 27, 1906, 74-85. (35) Hrabanus Maurus, Commentaria in libros Regum, PL 109, 11-280. CJ J.B. HABLITZEL, Hrabanus Maurus. Bin Beitrag !Qlr Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Exegese, Freiburg i.Br. 1906 (Biblische Studien, 11, 3). (36) Ena"ationes in libros Regum, PL 115, 243-552. CJ S. CANTELL!, Angelomo e la scuola esegetica di Luxeuil, Spoleto 1990 (Biblioteca di 'Medioevo latino', 1); M.L. W. LAISTNER, Some Ear!J Medieval Commentaries on the Old Testament, in Harvard Theological Review, 46, 1953, 27-46.

INTRODUCTION

XVII

is scarce, and still largely unknown. Many materials await their first edition, such as the commentary of Remi of Auxerre (t 908) {37 }. Samuel and Kings were not commented on as frequently as were, for instance, the book of Psalms or the Song of Songs. Of Andrew's contemporaries, I mention here Gilbert the Universal (t n35), whose Glossa in Regum is largely dependent on Isidore (38 ). I have also examined Albert of Siegburg's Glossa Bibliorum (39 ), whose short glosses on the literal sense of Scripture cover the complete Bible, and who for Samuel and Kings relies heavily on pseudo-Jerome. The most interesting feature of his commentary is the use of interlinear explanations of single words in Old High German (40 ). Andrew's teacher, Hugh of St Victor (t 1141 ), with his relatively short Adnotationes elucidatoriae in libros Regum (41 ) set the example for Andrew in composing a commentary restricted to the literal sense of Scripture. Finally, the Glossa ordinaria (42 ), which will be discussed further below, stands out as the main compilatory work of biblical scholarship in the twelfth century. Andrew's use of sources and its problems In one of the few instances in which Andrew reflects on his own activities as an exegete, in his prologue to the Prophets, he tells us that he regards himself as a collector of exegetical

(37) &gum parva glossa, MS Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, lat. nouv. acq. 762. The commentary on Genesis, attributed to Remi, was apparently a source for Andrew's commentary on the Heptateuch. In the investigation of Andrew's sources, however, I had to limit myself to printed texts. Other commentaries on Samuel and Kings from these centuries are contained in MSS Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, lat. 11997 (s. ix); Barcelona, Catedral, 64; Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. Perg. 135 (both s. x); Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, lat. 15555 (s. xii); and Paris, Bibliotheque de l' Arsenal, 81 (s. xii, from St Victor). Many of these might be textually related to the various glosses ascribed to Isidore, PL 83, 391-422, 425-434 (= PL 93, 429-478, but there ascribed to pseudo-Bede), and PL 83, 1313-1320. (38) I examined the MS London, British Library, Royal 2.E.8, fol. 126v ff. On Gilbert's authorship of the Glossa ordinaria, see below, n63. (39) MS Stuttgart, Wiirttembergische Landesbibliothek, HB.IV.26; F. STEGMOLLER, K REINHARDT, R.tpertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi, Madrid 1950-1980 (Consejo superior de investigaciones cientlficas, Instituto Francisco Sud~), no. 1068. (40) E. STEINMEYER, E. SIEVERS (eds.), Die alth«hdeutschen Glossen, Bd. 1, Glossen ZJI Biblischen Schriften, Berlin 1879, 395-455. (41) Hugh of St Victor, Adnotationes elucidatoriae in Jibros &gum, PL 175, 95114. (42) Biblia Jatina cum Glossa ordinaria. Anastatical reproduction of the first printed edition, Strassburg, c. 1480 ( Adolph &Isch?), ed. K FROEHLICH, M. T. GIBSON, Turnhout 1992, vol. 2.

XVIII

INTRODUCTION

opinions pertaining to the literal, or historical, sense; his commentary was a compilation of exegesis ad litteram: I have collected together what is scattered and diffused through them (i.e. commentaries and glossed books), pertaining to the historical sense, and have concentrated it, as it were into one corpus (43 }.

In selecting and collecting, Andrew did nothing new, for the exegetical tradition before him, as we have seen, had already been compilatory. However, his decision to limit himself to the historical sense, though doubtless inspired by the example of his teacher Hugh, may have seemed innovative to his contemporaries. This selection principle can best be illustrated by an example of Andrew's use of Bede's De templo, which he knew via the Gloss (44 ). On 3 Kings 6, 31, for instance, Andrew copied Bede's exegesis on 'And in the entrance of the oracle he made the doors': There was one entrance to the oracle, but is was closed by two doors, and when these were unlocked it was opened, just as the temple and the portico also had one entrance (45 ).

But Andrew eschewed the allegorical interpretation offered subsequently in Bede and the Gloss: For there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God (Ephesians 4, 5-6); one entrance into the present Church by baptism; one into the heavenly kingdom to be hoped by the works of faith (46 ).

Apart from collecting and incorporating previous sources in his commentary Andrew also challenged different exegetical opinions with critical argument, and sometimes even rejected great authorities in favour of his own exegetical solution (47 ). Thus he disagreed with opinions of pseudo-] erome, as on 1 Samuel 1, 5 (48 ), and Hrabanus, on 1 Samuel 13, 1 (49 ). Among the most (43) SMALLEY, The Study of the Bible, 123 (ef. 375, from MS Paris, Bibliotheque Mazarine, 175, fol 93r). (44) See above, n29, and below, on the G/ossa ordinaria. (45) Below, III, 210-213; Bede, De templo, 1, ed. D. HURST, CCSL 119A, 1. 1535-1539, and Glossa ord. 111arg., ad Joe., 104. (46) Bede, De templo, 1, ed. D. HURST, CCSL 119A, 1. 1539-1542, and Glossa ord. 111arg., ad Joe., 104. (47) SMALLEY, The Study of the Bible, 140. On this method, which is reminiscent of the early scholastic quaestio, see below, p. xlix. (48) 'Some think that the shares, which Helcanah is said to have given to his wives and sons and daughters, are garments, which they changed at festive days. But it seems more likely that Scripture is talking here about shares of food [... )', below, I, 114-117; Pseudo-Jerome, Quaest. Hebr. in Sm., q. 3 (ed. SALTMAN, 1975, 67). (49) Below, I, 1380-1401, quoting Hrabanus, Co111111. in Rg., PL 109, 40. See also below, n 141.

INTRODUCTION

XIX

severely criticised was Andrew's own teacher, Hugh, as on 1 Samuel 6, 18 (50 ). Yet when venturing his own opinion in the case of a very difficult exegesis, on 1 Samuel 13, 8-rn, Andrew displayed a remarkable self-consciousness: Here we must meticulously examine and expound the whole sequence of the text, lest we, who rebuke the errors of others, are rightfully rebuked ourselves, if we proceed negligently (51 ).

To evaluate the position of Andrew's commentary in medieval exegesis, it is important to analyze his sources. But there are two difficulties to be faced. First, in accordance with the normal medieval practice Andrew often silently borrowed from other works, giving no indication that a certain exegesis was not his own. In these cases he incorporated his sources almost verbatim, without any form of acknowledgement. Second, if there is an indication that he did use a certain other author, it is very often difficult to identify exactly which source he is referring to. When quoting other commentaries or exegetical works, instead of naming the author, Andrew followed the medieval habit of acknowledging only vaguely that an opinion was not his own. He mentioned his source as 'quidam', 'nonnulli', or 'alii', or stated: 'sunt qui dicunt' (52 ). In these cases, Andrew also paraphrased the content, which makes it even harder to identify the exact provenance. As we have seen, the exegetical tradition on Samuel and Kings had been largely compilatory. Augustine's De diuersis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum was incorporated partly in Bede, Isidore, and Claudius of Turin. Bede's De triginta quaestiones was used by Claudius of Turin, Hrabanus and Angelomus. Hrabanus was copied entirely by Angelomus, and pseudo-Jerome was transmitted mainly via Hrabanus, as the Gloss a ordinaria attests (53 ). The Gloss can be seen as the culmination of this compiling tradition. In this process, certain exegetical opinions had become common to almost any commentary. Therefore, if the original provenance of a certain opinion in Andrew's commentaries can often be established, this is not to say that it is also the source where Andrew found his quotation. There are frequently many other exegetical works that off er the same opinion, in more or less the same words. (50) Below, I, 956-961, quoting Hugh of St Victor, Adnot. in Rg., PL 175, 97B. See also below, n140. (51) Below, I, 1464-1467. (52) 'Quidam' occasionally can also refer to a (corrupt) Bible-manuscript, as in I, 875-877. In I, 226-227, the 'quidam' may be either a corrupt codex, or a version of the Glossa ordinaria. The copy of St Victor, for instance, MS Paris, Bibliotheque Mazarine, 133, fol. Sr, inserts 'uel tuum' as an interlinear gloss. (53) See the introduction to Saltman's edition of pseudo-Jerome, SALTMAN, Leiden 1975, 35-38.

XX

INTRODUCTION

Some of these, especially from the tenth and eleventh century, are still unedited, which makes this investigation inevitably incomplete. One other characteristic of Andrew's commentary on Samuel and Kings also obscures the investigation of his sources: if we do find the name of an author, it is almost always an indirect quotation in which Andrew copied the name from the intermediate source (54 ), or a later interpolation not by Andrew (55 ). In some cases, the ascription is false (56 ). The sources that are least problematic to identify are classical or biblical. Andrew typically introduces citations from such sources with 'unde', 'ut', or 'ut ibi'. But even here the imprecise way of rendering these quotations suggests that he may have quoted them indirectly or from memory (57 ). With these restrictions in mind, it is still possible to gain an impression of the sources that Andrew had available, either directly or indirectly, and that he employed. The most prominent source was the commentary of pseudo-] erome on the books of Samuel, of which Andrew used all but a few quaestiones (58 ). Hrabanus, who had incorporated pseudo-] erome in full, was also an important source for Andrew's commentary. The commentaries of Augustine and Bede he used occasionally, and only in these places where they contained expositions on the literal sense. Gregory the Great and Isidore, although prominent, for instance, in the Glossa ordinaria, rarely appear in the present apparatus fontium, which makes clear that Andrew was working with a well defined principle of selection: he surveyed his sources and extracted what accorded with his concept of a commentary ad litteram. Gregory's moral comments and Isidore's allegorical interpretations were apparently unsuitable for this purpose. Since a great part of Andrew's commentaries consisted of historical, geographical and etymological references, he proba-

(54) Jsido111s, I, 910, from the Gloss; Valerius (for Valgius) and Tyro, I, 18371839, from Gellius' s Noctes Atticae; Hebreus and Josephus, II, 3 72-3 78, from Hrabanus or the Gloss. (55) The phrase 'Vel sic secundum Ieronimum' serves twice, in I, 682 and II, 78, to introduce an interpolation that exists in MSS CSV only. In I, 918923, a quotation, introduced by 'Ieronymus dicit' is an obvious doublet of the text two lines above it, and is presumably an interpolation. (56) Jsido111s for pseudo-Jerome, I, 910, Josephus for pseudo-Jerome, I, 10601061. (57) E.g. Gn. 50, 22, quoted in I, 973, does not correspond to any known Bible version, and ironically fails support the point Andrew wishes to make. CJ B. BLUMENKRANZ, Fidliitl du scribe. Les citations bibiiques, in Revue du moyen age latin, 8, 19 52, 323-326. (58) CJ A. SALTMAN, Pseudo-Jerome in the Commentary of Andrew of St Victor on Samuel, in Haroard Theological Review, 67, 1974, 195-253.

INTRODUCTION

XXI

bly had tools at his disposal for this kind of exegesis. Parallel accounts of the biblical story such as Josephus's Antiquitates provided him with this information, as did J erome's works on geography and Hebrew names. Isidore's Etymologiae or Genius's N octes Atticae seemed to have been a source for some of his references to etymology. Another set of sources is medieval glossaries, a genre that was both abundant and relatively uniform. In most cases, this uniformity makes the exact source hard to identify (59 ). The particular characteristics of Andrew's use of sources have considerable consequences for the apparatus fontium of the present edition, which will be discussed below, in the ratio edendi. But to complete the investigation of Andrew's sources, special attention must be given to two remarkable sources for Andrew's commentary: the Glossa ordinaria and Jewish exegesis. Andrew probably quoted many of his sources indirectly from the Gloss, which is not only significant for Andrew's method of compiling, but also sheds new light on the development of the Glossa ordinaria in a period we know next to nothing about. Andrew's use of Jewish exegetes has already been the object of many studies (60 ). This commentary, too, attests to the pioneering position Andrew and his circle must have had in the exploration of this exegetical tradition.

The Glossa ordinaria From the twelfth century onward, the Glossa ordinaria was the main medieval instrument for access to patristic biblical exegesis, and it became the standard commentary for the entire Latin Bible. It was remarkable above all for its layout: the biblical text, in large script on the middle of the page, was surrounded by marginal comments, and interspersed with short interlinear notes. The first years of the Gloss, n25-n50, are still 'shrouded in an uncertain and deceitful mist' (61 ). It is

(59) Most important medieval glossaries have been edited in Corpus glossariorum latinorum, ed. G. LOEWE, G. GOETZ, et al, 8 vols., Leipzig 1888-1923; and Glossaria latina, iussu academiae Brittanicae edita, 5 vols., Paris 1926-1930. I could not find the source for the etymologies in I, 868 and 1827-1828, whereas the explanations of the words uirosa (I, 18 76-18 77), inclitus (II, 18-19), compitum (II, 21-22), and doma (II, 101-102) could be found in various sources. (60) CJ SMALLEY, The Study of the Bible, 149-172; SIGNER, CCCM 53E, :xxviixxxvii, R. BERNDT, Les interpretations juives dans le Commentaire de l'Heptateuque d'Andri de Saint-Victor, in &cherches Augustiniennes, 24, 1989, 199-240 and, by the same author, L'injluence de Rashi sur l'exegese d'Andri de Saint- Victor, in Z.A. STEINFELD (ed.), Rashi Studies, Ramat Gan 1993, vii-xiv. (61) M.T. GIBSON, The Glossed Bible, in FROEHLICH/GIBSON, Biblia latina, vol. 1, xi.

XXII

INTRODUCTION

evident that not all books of the Bible were glossed at once: they were glossed by several persons, at several stages. Thanks to the research of Beryl Smalley, we are now reasonably certain that Anselm of Laon (t rn7) began the project of glossing the entire Bible, starting with the Psalms, Paul's Epistles, and possibly the Gospel of John. Gilbert the Universal (t n35) composed the Gloss on the Pentateuch, Lamentations and the Minor Prophets {62 ). We know regrettably little about the Gloss on Samuel and Kings, but it is Smalley's contention that Gilbert, after glossing the Heptateuch, also glossed Samuel and Kings (63 ). It seems that there are no manuscripts of the Gloss on Samuel and Kings before n70 (64 ), but one may assume that this gloss, as opposed to, for example, the Gloss on the Psalms or Daniel (6.5), underwent no great changes after its composition, because an examination of the manuscripts of the Gloss on Samuel and Kings shows that its textual tradition is remarkably stable. There are no great variations between the several manuscripts I have examined, nor between these manuscripts and the printed edition (66 ). My research on Andrew's sources for his commentary on Samuel and Kings (and the same may be valid for the Hepta(62) B. SMALLEY, Gilberlus Universalis, Bishop ofLondon (1128-1134) and the Problem «Glossa Ordinaria)), in Reeherches de Thlologie ancienne et medilvale, 7, 1935, 235262 and 8, 1936, 24-60. (63) B. SMALLEY, Glossa ordinaria, in Theologisehe Realen~klopadie, vol. 13, Berlin 1984, 453. Cj B. SMALLEY, Les commentaires bibliques de f lpoque romane: glose ordinaire et gloses perimees, in Cahiers de Civilisation Medilvale, 4, 1961, 15-22, esp. 19. WASSELINCK, L'in.fluenee de l'exigese, 189-191, gives additional arguments for Gilbert's authorship, on the basis of the use of Paterius's florilegium. Perhaps an examination of Gilbert's Glossa in Regum (contained in e.g. MS London, British Library, Royal 2.E.8, fol. 126v ff.) would shed more light on this hypothesis. It is my impression, however, that this commentary is not very different from Isidore's commentary, PL 83, 391-434; ef. above, n38. (64) The earliest manuscripts of the Gloss on Samuel and Kings are dated from the 1170s: MSS Cambridge, Trinity College, B.4.30, ea. 1170; Cambridge, Pembroke College, 56 and 144 ; Hereford, Cathedral Library, 0. 9. 1, all three ea. 119 5 ; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. D.3.15 (2208), late 12th c. ; Oxford, Magdalen College, 124, late 12th c.; Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, lat. 84, from Bonport, late 12th or early 13th c. The Glossa ordinaria from the library of the monastery of St Victor, MS Paris, Bibliotheque Mazarine, 133 was given to St Victor in 1246. Cj C.F.R. DE HAMEL, Glossed books of the Bible and the origins of the Paris booktrade, Woodbridge/Dover 1984, esp. 25, 27, 41, and 82. I am indebted to Dr M.A. Zier for most of these references. (65) M.A. ZIER, The manuscript tradition of the Glossa ordinaria for Danie4 and hints at a method for a critical edition, in Scriptorium, 47, 1993, 3-25. (66) I have examined the Gloss in the reprint of A. Rusch's edition of 1480 (FROEHLICH/GIBSON, Biblia latina, vol. 2) and compared this text with the MSS Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, 84; Bibliotheque Mazarine, 133; and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. D.3.15.

of the

INTRODUCTION

XXIII

teuch) has shown that it is highly probable that Andrew quoted many of his sources indirectly, from the Gloss (67 ). Very often the two share literally the same text, which is most conspicuous in the cases where both Andrew and the Gloss have a version that is significantly abbreviated compared to the original source. For instance, we may compare the commentaries on 2 Samuel II, I:

Andrew: Qua solent reges ad bella procedere. Maturis frugibus. In Hebreo:

Eo tempore quo reges ad bella processerant misit Dauid Ioab etc. Processerant scilicet ad pugnandum contra Dauid rex Roob et Istob et Soba et Maacha, qui reges Syrie fuerunt et pugnare uoluerunt contra Dauid conducti a rege Moab set deuicti sunt (68 ). Gloss:

In hebreo ita legitur. eo tempore quo reges ad bella processerant. misit dauid ioab etc. Processerant scilicet ad pugnam contra dauid: rex roob. et istob. soba et maacha. qui reges siri~ fuerunt: et pugnare uoluerunt contra dauid conducti a rege moab: sed deuicti sunt (69 ).

The source here is clearly pseudo-Jerome, possibly indirectly transmitted by Hrabanus Maurus: In Hebreo ita legitur: 'eo tempore quo reges ad bella processerant misit David Ioab' etcetera. Hos reges