In Hebreo: The Victorine Commentaries on the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets in the Light of Its Northern-French Jewish Sources [Multilingual ed.] 9782503575421, 2503575420

Citation preview

BIBLIOTHECA VICTORINA XXVI

BIBLIOTHECA VICTORINA subsidia ad historiam canonicorum regularium investigandam

edenda curaverunt Patrick Gautier Dalché * Cédric Giraud * Luc Jocqué * Dominique Poirel

XXVI

IN HEBREO THE VICTORINE EXEGESIS OF THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ITS NORTHERN-FRENCH JEWISH SOURCES

H F

BIBLIOTHECA VICTORINA XXVI

Montse Leyra Curiá

IN HEBREO THE VICTORINE EXEGESIS OF THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF ITS NORTHERN-FRENCH JEWISH SOURCES

2017

F

© 2017 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/2017/0095/130 ISBN 978-2-503-57542-1 e-ISBN 978-2-503-57543-8 DOI 10.1484/M.BV-EB.5.112982 Printed on acid-free paper

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments Abbreviations A Note on the Editions, Transcriptions, and Terms Employed

9 11 15

General Introduction A. Aim of the Research B. History of Research C. The Life and Works of Hugh and Andrew of St Victor D. Methodology E. The Sorts of Interpretations Considered for this Study Appendix: A Note on Technical Matters

17 17 18 30 35 38 39

Chapter One THE LATIN SOURCES Introduction to Chapter One A. Aim B. Latin Sources Analysed C. Hrabanus Maurus D. Angelom of Luxeuil E. Latin Sources Available to Hugh and Andrew F. The Victorines’ Use of their Latin Sources G. Hugh’s Approach to his Latin Sources H. Etymologies of Hebrew Names

45 45 45 47 47 49 54 56 57

I. The Latin Sources of the Commentaries on Genesis A. Jerome B. The Gloss C. The School of Auxerre

59 59 76 109

II. The Latin Sources of the Commentaries on Exodus, Leviticus, and Judges A. The Commentaries on Exodus B. The Commentaries on Leviticus C. The Commentaries on Judges

128 128 139 148

III. The Latin Sources of the Commentaries on the First and Second Books of Samuel 149 A. Bede 150 B. Jerome 154

6

Table of contents C. The Gloss and Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones D. Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones E. Andrew and Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones F. Hugh and Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones G. Hugh and the Gloss on the Former Prophets H. Andrew and the Gloss on the Former Prophets I. Other References to the Hebrew or to Jewish Traditions

155 156 159 163 163 163 181

Chapter Two THE BIBLICAL TEXT Introduction to Chapter Two A. Aim B. The Old Latin Translation or the Vetus Latina C. Knowledge of Greek and Use of the Septuagint by Hugh and Andrew D. Andrew’s Collation of Manuscripts of the Vulgate Containing Variant Readings

185 185 186 192 201

I. Latin Variants Contrasted with Andrew’s in Hebreo Interpretations 207 A. Interpretations of Andrew Based on Readings of the Septuagint or the Vetus Latina or Both Versions 207 B. Interpretations of Hugh and Andrew Based on Readings Developed in the Course of the Textual Transmission of the Vulgate 210 II. The Text Referred to as in Hebreo A. Introduction B. Variant Readings of the Septuagint or the Vetus Latina Referred to as in Hebreo C. Variant Readings of the Vulgate Referred to as in Hebreo D. The Victorines’ Access to the Hebrew Text

214 214 215 220 225

Chapter Three THE PASHTANIM AND OTHER JEWISH SOURCES Introduction to Chapter Three A. Aim and Method B. Interpretations Included in the Analysis C. Interpretations Excluded D. Lives and Works of the Northern-French Pashtanim

235 235 236 238 239

Table of contents E. The Relationship between Rashi’s Biblical Commentaries and those of Joseph Qara and Rashbam F. Oral or Written transmission



7

243 244

I. Rashi A. Interpretations in Hebreo Found in the Commentaries of the Victorines and in the Commentaries of Rashi. B. Interpretations in the Victorines Found both in Rashi’s Commentaries and in those of his Students (or Other Jewish sources), but in which Rashi’s Interpretations are Closer to those of the Victorines than the interpretations of the Other Jewish Sources. C. Interpretations in the Victorines Equally Close to Rashi as to Other Pashtanim

248

II. Joseph Qarah Interpretations Containing Exegetical Elements Found Only in Joseph Qara or Characteristic of Him

279

III. Rashbam A. Interpretations Providing Information in Addition to That Reached by Reading the Hebrew text Alone B. Linguistic Principles or Rhetorical Devices Characteristic of Rashbam Found in the Commentaries of Hugh and Andrew C. Identification of Rashbam as one of Hugh and Andrew’s Jewish Sources

304

IV. Bekhor Shor and Other Jewish sources? A. Bekhor Shor B. Midrashim: the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael, Exodus Rabbah, and Tanhuma Buber C. Targum Onkelos D. Avraham Ibn Ezra E. Other Jewish Interpretations

339 339

249

259 269

279

305 315 335

343 351 353 358

Conclusion 1. The Latin sources 2. The Biblical Text of Hugh and Andrew 3. The Jewish Sources

362 364 365

Bibliography Bible and Versions Dictionaries, Reference Works and Collections of Sources

371 372

8

Table of contents Latin and Hebrew Primary Sources: Editions and Translations Latin Primary Sources Hebrew primary sources Secondary Sources

Index Manuscripts Biblical quotations Authors and titles of works

373 373 376 378 397 400 404

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is a pleasant task to thank all those who have helped me in the course of this work on the Victorines and their Northern-French Jewish Sources. These include first of all Dominique Poirel, Patrice Sicard, and Patricia Stirnemann at the Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes in Paris, Luc Jocqué at Brepols Publishers, and the advisors of my doctoral dissertation, Professors Sara Japhet at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the late Michael Signer, of the University of Notre Dame, Indiana. The Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture in New York, and both the Centre for the Study of Christianity and the Institute of Jewish Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have been of great help in supporting me with scholarships or grants during several years of work on this project. Colleagues and staff at a number of institutions generously offered their assistance. I gratefully acknowledge the help of Gilbert Dahan at the École pratique des hautes études (Université Paris 7), Bernardo Estrada at the Università della Sancta Croce (Rome); Robert Harris, at the Jewish Theological Seminary of New York; Martin I. Lockshin at York University, Toronto; Daniel Shereen and the personnel at the Medieval Institute of the University of Notre Dame, Indiana; Lesley Smith, at the University of Oxford, and Franz Van Liere, at Calvin College (Grand Rapids, Michigan). I wish to thank also Joanna Ball at Trinity College Library (Cambridge); Gill Cannell at the Parker Library in Corpus Christi College (Cambrige); and Marie-Françoise Damongeot at the Bibliothèque nationale de France. I have benefited greatly from consultation with teachers and colleagues at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem – in particular Malachi Beit-Arie, the late Moshe Greenberg, Itamar Kislev, Menahem Kister, Simha Kogut, Ronela Merdler, Jordan S. Penkower, David Satran, Michael Segal, Guy Stroumsa, Sifra Sznol, Emanuel Tov, Nili Wazana and Eran Wiezel. I am also grateful to Spanish professors or colleagues: Luis Díez-Merino and Adelina Millet at the Universitat de Barcelona; Cira Morano Rodríguez at the Centro Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (Madrid); Julio Trebolle Barrera, at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid; Patricio de Navascués, Manuel Crespo and Manuel Aróztequi at the Universidad de San Damaso, and Francisco Varo at the Universidad de Navarra. A number of colleagues have proofread parts of the text at various stages and I much appreciate their assistance: Ruth Clements, Andrew Irving, Dafnah Strauss, Joel Graham, and Stewart Vanning. Finally, I offer my thanks to my family and friends for their encouragement and affection.

ABBREVIATIONS Bible Biblia Sacra  Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem, Textus ex interpretatione Sancti Hieronymi. H. Quentin et al., eds, 18 vols (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1926–95). Brooke-McLean-Thackeray  The Old Testament in Greek, according to the text of Codex Vaticanus, supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint, ed. by A. E. Brooke, N. McLean, H. St John Thackeray. NJPS  JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh: The Traditional Hebrew Text and The New Jewish Publication Society Translation. Septuaginta Göttingen  Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum, ed. by Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1931-). The Douay translation  The Holy Bible Translated from the Latin Vulgate [The ‘Douay‒Rheims‒Challoner’ translation]. Vetus Latina 2 B.  Fischer, Vetus Latina 2: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel: Genesis (Herder: Freiburg, 1951–54). Vetus Latina Database  Vetus Latina Database: Bible versions of the Latin ­Fathers. The comprehensive patristic records of the Vetus Latina Institut in Beuron on CDRom. Scholarly direction: R. Gryson.

Primary sources1 Alcuin, Gen. Alcuin of York, Interrogationes et responsiones in Gene­ sim, PL 100. Andrew, Gen. Exod. Lev. Andrew of St Victor: Expositio super Heptateuchum,   Num. Deut. CCCM 53. Andrew, In Lev. II Andrew’s own commentary on Leviticus (De littera ab aliis indiscussa), CCCM 53. Andrew, Reg. I–II Andrew of St Victor, Expositio hystorica in Librum Regum, CCCM 53A. Angelom, Gen. Angelom, Commentarius in Genesin, PL 115. 1



For rabbinic sources, I use the abbreviations in the SBL Guide of Style.

12

Abbreviations

Angelom, Reg. I–II Angelom, Enarrationes in libros Regum I–II, PL 115. Augustine, LH Augustine, Locutionum in Heptateuchum libri VII, CCSL 33. Augustine, QH Augustine, Quaestionum in Heptateuchum libri VII, CCSL 33. Bede, Gen. I–III Bede, Libri quatuor in principium Genesis, CCSL 118A. Bede, Sam. I Bede, In primam partem Samuhelis libri IIII, CCSL 119. Berliner, Rashi on the Pentateuch A.  Berliner, ed., Rashi: the Commentary of Solomon b. Isaac on the Pentateuch. Edwards, Remigius on Genesis Remigius of Auxerre, Expositio super Genesim, ed. by B. Van Name Edwards, CCCM 136, intro., ix–lv. Eppenstein, Joseph Qara on S. Eppenstein, ed., Rabbi Joseph Qara’s Commentaries   Former Prophets  on Former Prophets. Glossa ord. marg.  Biblia latina cum Glossa ordinaria (Editio princeps: A. Rusch of Strasbourg 1480/81; repr.: 1992), Glossa ordinaria marginalis. Glossa ord. int. Ibid., Glossa ordinaria interlinearis. Haimo, Gen. Haimo of Auxerre, Commentarius in Genesim, PL 131. Hayward, HQG  Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis, trans. with intro. and comm. by C. T. R. Hayward, 1995. Hrabanus, Gen. Hrabanus Maurus, Commentaria in Genesim, PL 107. Hrabanus, Exod. Hrabanus Maurus, Commentaria in Exodum, PL 108. Hrabanus, Reg. I–II Hrabanus Maurus, Commentaria in Libros IV Regum, PL 109. Hrabanus, Par. I Hrabanus Maurus, Commentaria in Paralipomenon I, PL 109. Hugh, Pent. Hugh, Notulae in Pentateuchum. Hugh, Iud. Hugh, Notulae in Iudices. Hugh, Reg. I–II Hugh, Notulae in Librum Regum I–II. Jerome, Ep. Jerome, Epistulae, CSEL 54–56. Jerome, LIHN Jerome, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, ed. by P. de Lagarde, CCSL 72. Jerome, QHG Jerome, Quaestiones Hebraicae in libro Geneseos, ed. by P. de Lagarde (Leipzig, 1868, repr.: CCSL 72). Lockshin, Genesis Lockshin’s translation of Rashbam’s Commentary on Genesis. Lockshin, Exodus Lockshin’s translation of Rashbam’s Commentary on Exodus.

Abbreviations

 13

Lockshin, Leviticus Lockshin’s translation of Rashbam’s Commentary on Leviticus. Lohr and Berndt, Super Andrew of St Victor, Expositio super Heptateuchum, ed.  Heptateuchum by C. Lohr and R. Berndt, CCCM 53, Prolegomena, ix–xxii. Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘Haketer’ M.  Cohen, ed., Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘Haketer’: A Revised and Augmented Scientific Edition of ‘Mikra’ot Gedolot’ Based on the Aleppo Codex and Early Medieval MSS (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1992–2007 [Hebrew]). Nevo, Bekhor Shor on the Torah Y.  Nevo, ed., The Commentary of Rabbi Joseph Bekhor Shor on the Torah. Remigius, Gen. Remigius of Auxerre, Expositio super Genesim, CCCM 136. Rosenbaum and Silbermann English translation of Rashi’s commentary on the Pentateuch by M. Rosenbaum and Silbermann. Rosin, The Torah Commentary of Rashbam D. Rosin, ed., The Torah Commentary of Rashbam. Signer, In Ezechielem  Andrew of St Victor, Expositio in Ezechielem, ed. by M. A. Signer, CCCM 53E, intro., ix–lxxxv. Torat Chayim  Torat Hayim: Hamishah Humshei Torah ( Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1987, 1990). Van Liere, In Librum Regum  Andrew of St Victor, Expositio hystorica in Librum Regum, ed. by F. A. Van Liere, CCCM 53A, intro., ix–cxxxiii.

Series and reference works BDB Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. The BrownDriver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. CCCM  Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medievalis (Turnhout: Brepols). CCSL  Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (Turnhout: Brepols). CSEL  Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vien­na, 1866–). PL  Patrologiae Latinae cursus completus, 221 vols, ed. by J.-P. Migne.

14

Abbreviations

Various B.M. Bibliothèque municipale. Bibl. Maz. Bibliothèque Mazarine. Bibl. Ars. Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal. Bibl. Apost. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. BnF Bibliothèque nationale de France. crit. app. critical apparatus.

A NOTE ON THE EDITIONS, TRANSCRIPTIONS, AND TERMS EMPLOYED For the quotations of Hugh’s Notulae on the Pentateuch, Judges and, 1–2 Samuel, I use Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092. For several interpretations, I have contrasted this manuscript with Paris, BnF, MSS lat. 7531 and 15,315. I have transcribed the texts of the sources as they appear in either the manuscript or the most recent edition cited for each work: for example, for quotations from Hugh’s manuscripts I have transcribed the diphthong ‘ae’ using the e-caudata (ę), which is present in the manuscripts, in place of the ‘ae’ of the PL edition. In transcribing the ‘u’ and ‘v’, I have followed the manuscript for Hugh, and the CCSL/CCCM edition for Andrew and the other Latin sources. Likewise, I have written the proper names in lower cases when transcribing from manuscripts in which they are thus written. I use both the phrases in hebreo (in italics) or ‘according to the Hebrew’ to refer to all the translations and interpretations that are referred to as ‘said or thought by Jews or been written in Hebrew’ in the commentaries of Hugh and Andrew of St Victor or in their Latin sources. When I use the expression an ‘in hebreo interpretation or translation’ in discussion I use the e-caudata (ę). However, when quoting from an edition, I strictly follow the orthography of the edition used. In order to avoid confusion, I use the terms ‘interpretation’ or ‘comment’ to refer to individual explanations of individual verses, and the term ‘commentary’ to refer to a whole book of a commentator or author. Since I quote the same text from different sources and different editions, I have not followed the punctuation of the editions, but set the quotation of the biblical text in italics and what is not biblical text in Roman letters, without quotation marks if the work is cited in block quotes, or with quotations marks if it is cited in the footnotes. I render in italics all Latin transliterations from the Hebrew or Greek found in Latin sources, as well as the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin words that appear isolated in an English text. I use single quotation marks in parentheses for all English translations of a word, phrase, or sentence in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. I have introduced the italics and quotation marks into editions that did not contain them for the sake of consistency, and have thus modified in this respect critical editions of Andrew of St Victor, manuscript versions of Hugh, and the editions of the texts in the Corpus Christianorum and the Patrologia Latina. For the Victorines’ biblical lemmata and their cited biblical text, I quote the English translation of Douay, but have altered this translation whenever the Victorines quote a variant reading with respect to the Vulgate text translated. For English translation of ­biblical names, I have followed the Douay’s English translation of the Vulgate.

16

Editions, Transcriptions, and Terms Employed

For Jerome’s Hebrew Questions, I use the edition Hebraicae Quaestiones in libro Geneseos (CCSL 72; Turnhout: Brepols, 1959), which reprints P. A. de Lagarde’s edition (Leipzig, 1868). For specific interpretations and because of a number of misprints displayed in the CCSL edition, I have also used the edition of D. Vallarsi, Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Stridonensis Presbyteri Liber Hebraicorum Quaestionum in Genesim (PL 23: 955–1010; Paris, 1865). The latter is the one used by C. T. R. Hayward for his English translation of the work: Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis. For the Babylonian Talmud, I use the English translation edited by I. Epstein (London: The Soncino Press, 1936–88). I use A. Berliner’s edition of Rashi’s commentary on the Pentateuch. In general, I have followed Rosenbaum and Silbermann’s English translation of this work. Whenever Hugh and Andrew have two or three interpretations of the same verse, I have written the number (1), (2), or (3) following the number chapter and verse in order to indicate to which of the interpretations I am referring. For Genesis, I use the printed edition of B. Fischer, Vetus Latina (Herder: Freiburg, 1951–54). For Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Judges, and 1–2 Samuel, I use the Vetus Latina Database. For the Spanish manuscripts of the Vulgate with marginal glosses of Vetus Latina in 1–2 Samuel, I have used Ciriaca Morano Rodríguez, Glossas marginales de Vetus Latina en las Biblias Vulgatas españolas (1–2 Samuel) (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1989). This edition has replaced the edition of C. Vercellone, Variae lectiones Vulgatae Latinae Bibliorum editionis (Roma I 1860, II 1864). C. Morano collates codices 91, 92, 94, and 95 of the Spanish manuscripts with glosses of Vetus Latina: she has omitted MS 93 because it is a deficient copy of MS 91.

General Introduction A. Aim of the Research In their commentaries on the Pentateuch and on the Former Prophets, the twelfthcentury Latin authors Hugh (1090/1100–41) and Andrew (d. 1175) of Saint-Victor often refer either to the Hebrew text, the Hebrew language (in hebreo), or to the Hebrews (hebrei, secundum hebreos). These references were presented either as a literal translation to Latin different from the lemma of their interpretations, as a Latin transcription of the Hebrew, or as both a translation and a Latin transcription of the Hebrew, set alongside the Vulgate translation that they employed. A number of scholars, such as B. Smalley, M. Awerbuch, R. Berndt, G. A. C. Hadfield, and F. A. Van Liere, have pointed out similar or identical content parallels to these in hebreo or secundum hebreos interpretations in the biblical commentaries of one or more of the twelfth-century Jewish writers of the Northern-French school of literal exegesis or ‘plain meaning’ (in Hebrew: peshat): Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac or Rashi (1040–1105), Rabbi Joseph Qara (c. 1055–1130), Rabbi Samuel ben Meir or Rashbam (1080–1160), and Rabbi Joseph ben Isaac Beckhor Shor [mid-to late twelfth century]; or in other either earlier or contemporary Jewish sources: the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael [third century ce] or commentaries by Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1167) and Rabbi David Qimhi or Radaq (1160–1235). Other scholars, such as S. Kamin, M. Signer, and E. Touitou have observed similarities in exegetical method or linguistic-literary principles between interpretations by the Victorines and those coming out of the Northern-French school of Jewish exegesis. However, no systematic analysis of all the Victorine’s in hebreo interpretations has been carried out with respect to the specific linguistic principles and literary-rhetorical devices found in the commentaries of the Jewish exegetes of the Northern-French school. The aim of this book is fourfold. Firstly, I wish to determine whether the Victorines came into any direct contact with a Hebrew text of the Bible; that is, to find out whether for a number of their interpretations they borrowed their quotations of the Hebrew biblical text directly from a Hebrew manuscript of the Bible. Secondly, I shall try to point out further parallels unnoticed by previous scholars between the Victorines’ in hebreo references and the interpretations coming out of the Northern-French school of Jewish exegesis. I shall also try to point out further common elements in parallels between the interpretations of the Victorines and those of the Pashtanim that have been already discussed.

General Introduction

18

Further, the need remains for an analysis of the relationship between the various Jewish sources and the Victorines where parallels exist between the Victorines and more than one Jewish source, including authors other than the exegetes of the Northern-French school. Such an analysis would serve to determine whether one specific Jewish exegete, rather than others, can be proved to have been a direct source for certain in hebreo interpretations of the Victorines. Finally, I wish to ascertain whether in their in hebreo interpretations Hugh and Andrew of St Victor can be shown to have employed any of the linguistic principles and literary-rhetorical devices that are characteristic of the Jewish exegetes of the Northern-French school. In order to establish the answers to these questions, I need to answer several preliminary questions: (a) Did the Victorines distinguish between variant readings coming out of the Vetus Latina and those coming out of different traditions of the Vulgate? (b) Did they distinguish between those readings coming out of Latin textual traditions and those coming out of the Hebrew Masoretic text? (c) Did the Victorines reach an understanding of the Hebrew text of the Bible by themselves or they had to rely on other commentators; (d) Which of the Victorines’ Latin and Jewish sources were their direct sources and which were transmitted to them via later intermediate sources? (e) Is there any difference between Hugh and Andrew with respect to the in hebreo interpretations that both transmit? I will deal with two additional issues in the course of the book. The first is the authenticity of the Latin transcriptions of the Hebrew in Hugh’s and Andrew’s commentaries on the Pentateuch and on the Former Prophets. The second is the question of whether Hugh and Andrew established contact with the same Jewish scholars and had access to the same Hebrew material, or whether Andrew learnt new Hebrew material from Jews other than those who had been in contact with Hugh.1 B. History of Research As early as the 1940s, Beryl Smalley pointed for the first time to the frequent references made to the Hebrew text and to Jewish interpretations in some of Hugh’s and Andrew’s biblical commentaries. She also suggested that, for a number of interpretations in their commentaries, the two Victorines may have relied on information received from exegetes belonging to the Northern-French school of peshat (‘plain meaning’): Rashbam, Joseph Qara, or Bekhor Shor.2 1

The question of whether or not Andrew learnt Hebrew from the same Jews as those who were in contact with Hugh took shape in an email discussion with Dominique Poirel in September 2009. I am indebted to him for this exchange. 2 B. Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Blackwell, 1952), pp. 103–5, 154–56. For the Jewish movement towards literal exegesis in northern France, see A. Grossman,

General Introduction

 19

Later, Awerbuch, Berndt, Dahan, Hadfield, Kamin, Signer, Touitou, and Van Liere pointed to similarity or identicalness with respect to either content or method between certain interpretations in several of Hugh’s and Andrew’s biblical commentaries and the parallel comments of the Northern-French school of literal exegesis or other Jewish sources. Hadfield and Dahan analysed a number of those commentaries by Hugh and/ or Andrew and discussed their possible Jewish sources.3 From her analysis of the similarity or identicalness between some of Hugh’s interpretations and their parallels in Joseph Qara’s, Awerbuch concludes that Hugh probably did not learn interpretations from Joseph Qara or other students of Rashi’s school whose works have come down to us but borrowed some of their interpretations via other Jews from Northern France.4 Kamin pointed out a number of parallels with respect to methodology and literary principles between Rashbam and Hugh and Andrew.5 In his edition of Andrew’s commentary on Ezekiel, Signer focused on the similarity or identicalness between some of Andrew’s in hebreo interpretations in his commentary on Ezekiel and Rashi’s and Joseph Qara’s parallel interpretations in their commentaries on that book. However, he draws no conclusion as to whether Hugh and Andrew may have drawn on Joseph Qara himself or via his students rather than other contemporary Jewish scholars.6 In several studies on Andrew’s biblical exegesis and especially in both his monograph on Andrew and an article on the Latin and Jewish sources of Andrew’s ‘The School of Literal Jewish Exegesis in Northern France’, in Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (until 1300), ed. by M. Saebø, 5 vols (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–2008), I/2 (2000), pp. 321–71; The Early Sages of France: Their Lives, Leadership and Works, 3rd edn ( Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001) (Hebrew), especially chs. 1 and 8; S. A. Pozńanski, ed., Commentary on Ezekiel and the Twelve Minor Prophets of Eliezer of Beaugency (Warsaw: Mekize Nirdamin, 1913), pp. ix–ccxxx, especially xiv and n. 1 (Hebrew). 3 G. Dahan, Les intellectuels chrétiens et les juifs au moyen âge (Paris: Cerf, 1999), pp. 282– 83, 296–97; G. A. C. Hadfield, ‘Andrew of St Victor a 12th Century Hebraist: An Investigation of his Works and Sources’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oxford University, 1968). See also: H. Hailperin, ‘Jewish “influence” on Christian Biblical Scholars in the Middle Ages’, Historia ­Judaica, 4 (1942), 163–74 (pp. 167–68). 4 M. Awerbuch, Christlich-jüdische Begegnung im Zeitalter der Frühscholastik, ed. H. Gollwitzer, Abhandlungen zum christlich-jüdischen Dialog, 8 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1980), pp. 220–30, 231. 5 S. Kamin, ‘Rashbam’s Conception of the Creation in Light of the Intellectual Currents of his Time’, in Studies in Bible, ScrHier, 31, ed. by S. Japhet ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1986), 91–132 (pp. 113–19). 6 M. A. Signer, In Ezechielem, pp. xxviii–xxxiii. Here, Signer records very similar parallels between Andrew’s and Joseph Qara’s interpretations of Ezekiel 10.2; 10.14; 17.24; 24.17; 37.11; 37.19; 37.19. For Joseph Qara, see also: Signer, ‘Exégèse et enseignement: les commentaires de Joseph ben Simeon Qara’, Archives Juives, 18 (1982), 60–63.

20

General Introduction

commentary on the Heptateuch (Pentateuch, Joshua, and Judges), Berndt has identified either Jewish or Latin or both sources (including Hugh) for many references of Andrew to the Hebrew and to Jews and interpretations related to Judaism. He found that a high number of these references are very close to interpretations by Rashi, Rashbam, Joseph Qara, and Bekhor Shor, or to those found in earlier Jewish sources such as Genesis Rabbah or the Babylonian Talmud.7 Van Liere discussed Andrew’s Jewish sources in his edition of Andrew’s commentary on Samuel and Kings and pointed out a few interpretations in Andrew which have parallels in the commentaries of Rashi, David Qimhi, and other Jewish sources on Samuel and Kings.8 Most of these scholars have agreed on the fact that one of the ways in which Hugh and Andrew learnt Jewish interpretations and translations from the Hebrew text was through conversation with or instruction from contemporary Jewish scholars,9 and that the language in which they communicated with one another was French.10 Smalley highlighted Hugh’s stress on the literal-historical level of interpretation of the Bible as a necessary step to reaching the moral and allegorical interpretations.11 Following Smalley, a number of scholars studying the intellectual relations between Jews and Christians have found a connection between the emphasis on the literal sense evident in the commentaries of Hugh and Andrew of St Victor, and the stress on the peshat level of interpretation found in the Northern-French and other Jewish commentators who wrote commentaries according to the peshat. These scholars have based their perceptions of such a connection on the similarity 7 R. Berndt, ‘Les interprétations juives dans le Commentaire de l’Heptateuque d’André de Saint-Victor’, Recherches augustiniennes, 24 (1989), 199–240; André de Saint-Victor (†  1175): exégète et théologien, Bibliotheca Victorina, 2 (Paris-Turnhout: Brepols, 1991), pp. 221–24; ‘La pratique exégétique d’André de Saint-Victor: tradition victorine et influence rabbinique’, in L’abbaye parisienne de Saint-Victor au Moyen Âge, Bibliotheca Victorina, 1, ed. by J. Longère (Paris-Turnhout: Brepols, 1991), pp. 271–90 (pp. 279–80); ‘L’influence de Rashi sur l’exégèse d’André de Saint-Victor’, Rashi Studies, ed. by Z. A. Steinfeld (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1993), 7–14 (pp. 8–9). 8 F. A. Van Liere, ed., Andreae de Sancto Victore Opera: Expositio hystorica in Librum Regum, CCCM, 53A (Turnhout: Brepols, 1996), pp. xxix–xxxvii. 9 Smalley, The Study, pp. 103–4, 154–57; Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 201–3; Van Liere, In Librum Regum, pp. xxxv–xxxvii; Signer, In Ezechielem, pp. xxi, xxv, xxvii. 10 Smalley, The Study, pp. 103, 155; Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 200–2 (for Andrew’s employment of French glosses in his commentaries, see also: Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 196–201); Signer, In Ezechielem, p. xxv; for the study of French glosses or leazim employed by Rashi, Joseph Qara, Rashbam, and Bekhor Shor, see: M. Banitt, ‘The La’azim of Rashi and of the French Biblical Glossaries’, in World History of the Jewish People: The Dark Ages, ed. by C. Roth ( Jerusalem: Jewish History Publications, 1966), pp. 291–96. 11 Smalley, The Study, pp. 87–97, 102.

General Introduction

 21

between specific interpretations made by Hugh and Andrew and their parallels in the commentaries of scholars from Rashi’s school concerning to the stylistic principles, literary-rhetorical devices, and the study of the grammar and the context of the text.12 Some of these scholars have asked whether the contacts between Christian and Jewish intellectuals may have been one of the reasons to prompt the Christian movement toward literal interpretation and the Jewish movement toward peshat or whether, on the contrary, it was the movement toward peshat or literal interpretation that prompted contact between intellectuals from the two communities. Against the backdrop of the Latin tradition of biblical exegesis, Smalley considered Hugh’s insistence not to neglect the literal sense as innovative.13 In his work Exégèse médiévale, however, H. de Lubac remarks that Hugh’s stress on the literal-historical sense did not imply a substantial break with the previous Latin exegetical tradition but rather a confirmation of it, since this tradition had always expressed the value and need of the literal-historical level as a foundation for the other senses, and since Hugh had also mastered the interpretation according to the moral and mystical senses.14 Hugh’s original contribution lies rather in the fact that he provides a methodology for the study of the relationship between the

12

E. Touitou, ‘Rashbam’s Exegetical Method against the Historical Background of his Time’, in Festschrift E. Z. Melamed (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1982), pp. 53, 64–65 (Hebrew); id., Exegesis in Perpetual Motion: Studies in the Pentateuchal Commentary of Rabbi Samuel Ben Meir (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2003), 31–32; S. Kamin, ‘Affinities between Jewish and Christian Exegesis in Twelfth-Century Northern France’, in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and Ancient Near East, ed. by D. Asaf, 5 vols ( Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1988), I, pp. 141–55; repr. in Jews and Christians Interpret the Bible ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1991), pp. 12–26; Signer, ‘Peshat, Sensus Litteralis, and Sequential Narrative: Jewish Exegesis and the School of St Victor in the Twelfth Century’, in The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume, ed. by B. Walfish (Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1993), I, pp. 203–16. See also: A. Grabois, ‘The Hebraica veritas and Jewish-Christian Intellectual Relations in the Twelfth Century’, Speculum, 50 (1975), 613–34 (pp. 619–24); O. Limor, ‘The Exegesis of the Bible in the Twelfth century’, in Jews and Christians in Western Europe: Encounters between Cultures in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, 2nd edn, Unit 6 (Tel Aviv: The Open University of Israel, 1993, 1998), IV, pp. 39–46, 60–61 (Hebrew). 13 Smalley, The Study, pp. 89–90, 102. 14 H. de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale: les quatres sens de l’écriture, 4 vols (Paris: Aubier, 1959–64), I/II, pp. 425–87; II/I, pp. 287–91, 317–33. For other analyses of Hugh’s and Andrew’s emphasis on the literal-historical level of interpretation of the biblical text see: G. A. Zinn, ‘History and Interpretation: “Hebrew Truth”, Judaism, and the Victorine Exegetical Tradition’, in Jews and Christians: Exploring the Past, Present, and Future, Shared Ground Among Jews and Christians: A Series of Explorations, 1; ed. by J. H. Charlesworth (New York: Crossroad, 1990), pp. 100–26, (pp. 107–15); J. W. M. Van Zwieten, The Place and Significance of Literal Exegesis in Hugh of St ­Victor (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, 1992), pp. 7–56.

General Introduction

22

three senses.15 According to de Lubac, one could instead speak of innovation with respect to the exegetical tradition in Andrew’s approach to biblical exegesis.16 Ambrogio M. Piazzoni explains that Hugh acknowledges a plurality of possible senses in the interpretation of the Bible, and this is grounded on the fact that in the Holy Scriptures not only words but also things (biblical characters, places, events, objects, etc.) are meaningful.17 At the same time, Piazzoni describes Hugh’s emphasis on the importance of the literal-historical reading of the biblical text and of the historicity of the Bible as Hugh’s most original and fruitful contribution to the future of biblical theology.18 According to Stammberger, Hugh’s interest in the literal meaning of the text comes out of his eagerness to know the truth in the biblical text. In the third chapter of the sixth book of the Didascalicon, Hugh explains that only an individual who has correctly studied the history of the Bible can discern which texts should be taken in their literal meaning and which are to be understood allegorically.19 In his commentary on the Octateuch (Pentateuch, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings), Hugh explains the literal meaning of precisely those books that in the Didascalicon he had advised his students to read for the study of history (he also commented on Leviticus). Therefore, Hugh is applying to his commentary on the Octateuch the theoretical reflections of the Didascalicon.20 Berndt and Van Liere have analysed Andrew’s approach to the literal sense.21 Berndt observes that Andrew applied some of Hugh’s hermeneutical principles in his commentaries, drawing from Hugh this interest in the literal-historical interpretation.22 Van Liere explains that for his commentary on Samuel and Kings, Andrew relied on many previous Latin commentators who interpreted those biblical books according to the literal sense.23

15

de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale, II/I, p. 319. de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale, II/I, p. 364. 17 A. M. Piazzoni, ‘I Vittorini’, in Storia della Teologia nel Medioevo, ed. by G. d’Onofrio, 2 vols (Piemme: Casale Monferrato, 1996), II, pp. 179–208 (p. 184). 18 Piazzoni, ‘I Vittorini’, pp. 184–85. 19 R. M. W. Stammberger, ‘Die Exegese des Oktateuch bei Hugo von Saint-Victor’, in Bibel und Exegese in der Abtei Saint-Victor zu Paris. Form und Funktion eines Grundtextes im europä­ ischen Rahmen, ed. by R. Berndt, Corpus Victorinum: Instrumenta, 3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2009), pp. 235–57 (p. 237). 20 Stammberger, ‘Die Exegese des Oktateuch’, p. 239. See also Awerbuch, Christlich-jüdische Begegnung, p. 220. 21 Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 178–85, 242–63; Van Liere, In Librum Regum, pp. xxxviii–lvii. 22 Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 178–79, 181. 23 Van Liere, In Librum Regum, p. lvi. 16

General Introduction

 23

The authenticity of many of Hugh’s works, as well as the dating of their composition, has been the subject of numerous studies. R. Goy listed nearly 2000 manuscripts of Hugh’s works, provided an approximate dating for many of them and recorded the countries and institutions, both civil and religious, which have transmitted them.24 P. Sicard reviewed and supplemented Goy’s study.25 Until a few years ago, the touchstone by which scholars have tested the authenticity of Hugh’s works has been their inclusion in the Indiculum, or table of contents, of the first edition of Hugh’s works, a copy of which has been edited by Joseph de Ghellinck.26 Gilduin, who was abbot of St Victor between 1113 and 1155, produced this edition between Hugh’s death in 1141 and his own death in 1155.27 The author of the Indiculum notes down the titles of most of the works which formed the four volumes of Gilduin’s edition, their incipits and explicits.28 He expressly states that he has omitted many small works with their incipits and explicits in the second volume, and that the titles of certain works are missing in the edition from which he is copying.29 According to these explanations from the author of the Indiculum, scholars have adopted the critical principle that the inclusion of a Hugonian work in the Indiculum is a decisive argument for Hugh’s authorship, but that the absence from it of any given work is not in itself a sufficient criterion for declaring it inauthentic.30 As the Indiculum does not expressly mention all of Hugh’s writings and in fact omits some of them, the reconstruction of the complete list of Hugh’s authentic works requires the witness of manuscripts containing not only the works described in the Indiculum but also those absent from it. Joseph de Ghellinck observed the 24 R. Goy, Die Überlieferung der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, 14 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1976); see also Poirel, ‘L’École de SaintVictor au Moyen Âge: Bilan d’un demi-siècle historiographique’, Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes, 156 (1998), 187–207 (p. 193 and n. 37). 25 P. Sicard, Iter victorinum. La tradition manuscrite des œuvres de Hugues et de Richard de Saint-Victor. Répertoire complémentaire et études, Bibliotheca Victorina, 24 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015); see also Berndt, ‘Das Corpus Victorinum: Intellektuell-Spirituelle Topographie eines Pari­ ser Mikrokosmos (12.–18.) Jahrhundert’, in Schrift, Schreiber, Schenker: Studien zur Abtei Sankt Viktor in Paris und den Viktorinern, ed. by R. Berndt, Corpus Victorinum, 1 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2005), p. 13; and Poirel, ‘L’École de Saint-Victor au Moyen Âge’ (as in note 24), p. 192. 26 The complete name is the Indiculum omnium scriptorum magistri Hugonis de Sancto Victore que scripsit, from Oxford, Merton College, MS 49 (fourteenth century); see J. de Ghellinck, ‘La table des matières de la première édition des œuvres de Hugues de Saint-Victor’, Recherches de science religieuse, 1 (1910), 270–89 and 385–96; the Indiculum appears on pp. 277–83. 27 De Ghellinck, ‘La table’, 274, 282. D. Van den Eynde, Essai sur la succession et la date des écrits de Hugues de Saint-Victor (Rome: Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum, 1960), p. 2. 28 De Ghellinck, ‘La table’, 272. 29 De Ghellinck, ‘La table’, 273. 30 Van den Eynde, Essai sur la succession et la date, pp. 2–3.

General Introduction

24

similarity in content between the Indiculum and the Victorine manuscript Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 717 (mid-twelfth century).31 In 1960, R. Baron pointed out the critical value of two manuscripts, Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 717 and Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,506 (twelfth-thirteenth centuries), for establishing the authenticity of Hugh’s works, because they are similar in content to the first two volumes of the Indiculum: Baron argued that they belong to the same family, that they complement each other, and that Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 717 presents some authentic writings by Hugh which are not mentioned in the Indiculum.32 In the course of their work on critical editions of Hugh’s writings, Patrice Sicard, Dominique Poirel, and Ralf Stammberger have independently analysed and contrasted with the Indiculum not only Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 717 and BnF, MS lat. 14,506 but also other manuscripts that are similar in content both to the Indiculum and to Bibl. Maz., MS 717, such as Paris, BnF, lat. 15,695 (thirteenth century) and Birmingham, Publ. Libr. 91/Med./3 (fourteenth century).33 Both Poirel (2002) and Stammberger (2005) have suggested reconstructions of the contents and structure of the first two volumes of Gilduin’s edition. Poirel does this by contrasting the Indiculum, first with Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 717, which he sees as a modified member of a group of texts that originally constituted an exact copy of Gilduin’s edition, and then with other manuscripts (Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,303 (c. 1200); BnF, MS lat. 14,506; BnF, MS lat. 15,695, and Birmingham, Publ. Libr., MS 91/Med./3), which are partial copies of Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 717, but at the same time complement it. He furnishes examples of manuscripts for all of Hugh’s works in the reconstructed edition.34 For Stammberger, however, who takes up some of the results of Poirel’s study, Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 717 and BnF, MS lat. 14,506 constitute two witnesses to Gilduin’s edition that are independent of each other. Stammberger works out the reconstruction of Gilduin’s edition by collating Bibl. Maz., MS 717 and BnF, MS lat. 14,506 with copies of Bibl. Maz., MS 717 (BnF, MS lat. 15,695 and Birmingham, Publ. Libr. 91/Med./3) that complement it, and by contrasting them all with the Indiculum. He gives the incipits and 31

De Ghellinck, ‘La table’, 274. R. Baron, ‘Étude sur l’authenticité de l’œuvre de Hugues de Saint-Victor d’après les mss Paris, BMaz. 717, BN. 14506 et Douai 360-366’, Scriptorium, 10 (1956), 182–220 (esp. pp. 182–96); ‘Note sur la succession et la date des écrits de Hugues de Saint-Victor’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 57 (1962), 88–118 (pp. 88–89). 33 P. Sicard, ed., De archa Noe. Libellus de formatione arche, CCCM, 176 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001), pp. xxvii–cclxxxvii (esp. xliii–xlvi, lxi, lxxxi–lxxxix, cxlvii–clvii). Sicard does not analyse Paris, BnF, MS lat. 15,695; Poirel, Livre de la nature et débat trinitaire au xiie siècle: Le De tribus diebus de Hugues de Saint-Victor, Bibliotheca Victorina, 14 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002), pp. 27–86; Stammberger, ‘Die Edition der Werke Hugos von Sankt Viktor († 1141) durch Abt Gilduin von Sankt Viktor († 1155) – Eine Rekonstruktion’, in Schrift, Schreiber, Schenker, pp. 119–231. 34 Poirel, Livre de la nature, pp. 61–75. 32

General Introduction

 25

explicits of each work according to either Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 717 or BnF, MS lat. 14,506, or both.35 As a result of this research, the touchstone for the authenticity of Hugh’s works has shifted from the listing given in the Indiculum to that of the actual contents of Gilduin’s first edition. Thus, by attempting to reconstruct which of Hugh’s works were actually contained in Gilduin’s edition, scholars have been able to determine more exactly which works were considered to be Hugh’s in Gilduin’s time. Between Gilduin’s first edition (between 1141 and 1155) and J.-P. Migne’s edition in Patrologia Latina (1854–79), several additional printed editions of Hugh’s works appeared. In his Patrologia Latina, Migne reproduced the edition made by the canons of St Victor in Rouen in 1648.36 In his edition, Migne included a number of works not written by Hugh, while some of Hugh’s authentic works are absent.37 In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, a number of Hugh’s works have been the objects of new and separate editions.38 Some of these editions are based on all extant textual witnesses of the corresponding work (these editions reconstruct a text as close as possible to the original one); other editions are based on several or on a single extant manuscript of the given text.39 Among these new, individual editions of Hugh’s works are: the Didascalicon de studio legendi;40 De grammatica, Epitome Dindimi in philosophiam,41 Descriptio mappe mundi;42 De unione spiritus et corporis; Sententiae de divinitate;43 De institutione novitiorum, 35

Stammberger, ‘Die Edition der Werke’, pp. 193–231. B. Haureau, Les œuvres de Hugues de Saint-Victor; Essai critique (Paris, 1886; repr. Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1963), p. ix. 37 Baron, ‘Étude sur l’authenticité’, 182; Poirel, ‘Bilan’, 192; Berndt, ‘Das Corpus Victorinum; Intellektuell-Spirituelle Topographie’, in Schrift, Schreiber, Schenker, p. 15 and n. 16. 38 For more editions of Hugh’s works, see the bibliography in Bibel und Exegese in der Abtei Saint-Victor zu Paris. Form und Funktion eines Grundtextes im europäischen Rahmen, ed. by R. Berndt, Corpus Victorinum: Instrumenta, 3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2009), pp. 561–64. 39 The edition of a textus historicus is based on a single extant manuscript that is historically accessible, i.e., that can be dated to a specific time. For the difference between the edition of a textus historicus and a textus recollectus, see Berndt, ‘Das Corpus Victorinum; Intellektuell-Spirituelle Topographie’, pp. 13–18. 40 C. H. Buttimer, ed., Hugonis de Sancto Victore Didascalicon de studio legendi, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Latin, 10 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1939). 41 R. Baron, ed., Hugonis de Sancto Victore opera propaedeutica, Publications in Medieval Studies, 20 (Notre Dame, IN., 1966), pp. 15–64; 75–163, and 187–207. 42 P. Gautier Dalché, ed., La ‘Descriptio mappe mundi’ de Hugues de Saint-Victor; Texte inédit avec introduction et commentaire (Paris, 1988); ‘La Descriptio mappe mundi de Hugues de SaintVictor: retractatio et additamenta’, in L’abbaye parisienne de Saint-Victor au Moyen Âge, ed. by J. Longère, Bibliotheca Victorina, 1 (Brepols: Turnhout, 1991), pp. 143–79. 43 Piazzoni, ed., ‘Il “De unione spiritus et corporis” di Ugo di San Vittore’, Studi medievali, 3rd ser., 21/2 (1980), 861–88; ‘Editi ed Inediti: Ugo di San Vittore, “auctor” delle “Sententiae de 36

26

General Introduction

De virtute orandi, De laude caritatis, De arrha animae;44 De archa Noe, Libellus de formatione arche, De tribus diebus, and De sacramentis christianae fidei.45 Currently, Stammberger is preparing both a textus historicus edition of Hugh’s ‘Notes on the Octateuch’ and a synoptic edition of the same text, based on all extant manuscripts.46 De Ghellinck, Van den Eynde, Baron, Goy, and Stammberger have discussed the authenticity of Hugh’s Note in Pentateuchum et Reges, independently confirming the work’s authenticity on the basis of one or more of the following reasons:47 (a) The Notes on the Pentateuch, Samuel, and Kings are expressly mentioned in the Indiculum.48 Though the Note on Judges are mentioned neither in the Indiculum nor in manuscripts Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 717 and BnF, MS lat. 14,506, nearly all the manuscripts that transmit this text group it together with some or all of the Note on the Pentateuch, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings and, according to

divinitate”’, Studi medievali, 3rd ser., 23/2 (1982), 861–955. 44 L’œuvre de Hugues de Saint-Victor, 1: De institutione novitiorum, De virtute orandi, De laude caritatis, De arrha animae, Latin text by H. B. Feiss and P. Sicard; French translation by Poirel, H. Rochais, and P. Sicard; Introduction, notes, and appendices by Poirel; Sous la Règle de saint Augustin, 3 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997). 45 For the edition of De archa Noe and Libellus de formatione arche, see note 33; Poirel, ed., Hugonis de Sancto Victore De tribus diebus, CCCM, 177 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002); R. Berndt, ed., Hugonis de Sancto Victore De sacramentis christiane fidei, Corpus Victorinum: Textus historici, 1 (Münster/ Westf.: Aschendorff, 2008). On the deep biblical exegetical basis of Hugh’s works in general and of De sacramentis in particular see: Berndt, ‘Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von Exegese und Theologie in “De sacramentis christiane fidei” Hugos von St Viktor’, in Neue Richtungen in der hoch- und spätmittelalterlichen Bibelexegese, ed. by R. E. Lerner in collaboration with E. Müller-Luckner, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs: Kolloquien, 32 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1996), pp. 65–78. 46 Stammberger, ‘Die Exegese des Oktateuch’, p. 252 and n. 48. 47 Previously, Hauréau had discussed the authenticity of the Note: Les œuvres, pp. 3, 5, 7–8. I have employed the Latin word Note as a title of Hugh’s comments on the Pentateuch and Former Prophets instead of Notulae, which appears in the Indiculum, since the word note is found as a part of the incipit and explicit of Hugh’s comments on each biblical book in at least nine of the manuscripts. For instance, in Cambridge, Trinity College Library, MS 23 (B. 01.05), fol. 48r, one reads: ‘Expliciunt note super Genesim ad litteram. Incipiunt note de Exodo.’ Other examples may be found in Trinity College Library, MS 23 (B. 01.05), fols 53r, 57r; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 7531, fol. 268v; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,507, fol. 150v, 182r; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 15,695, fol. 79r; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 15,315, fol. 182r; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 13,422, fol. 32v; Douai, B.M., MS 362, fols 133r, 139v; Douai, B.M., MS 365, fols 97r, 103v. J.-P. Migne employs as the title of Hugh’s comment the word Adnotatiunculae Elucidatoriae. 48 Notulas istas facit super Pentateucum et librum Regum (‘He makes these brief notes on the Pentateuch and the Book of Kings’); De Ghellinck, ‘La table’, 278, 285.

General Introduction

 27

Stammberger, they were probably meant to be referred to in the Indiculum under the overarching title In Pentateuchum et Reges.49 (b) The Note on either the Pentateuch, Samuel, and Kings, or Judges and Kings appear in a good number of Victorine or other manuscripts explicitly ascribed to Hugh, and in many of the manuscripts they are grouped together with other works by Hugh. All of them appear in manuscripts Paris, BnF, MS lat. 15,695 and Birmingham, Publ. Libr. MS 91/Med./3, which stem from Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 717, and, therefore, go back to Gilduin’s edition.50 (c) The Note on Judges share features of aim, method, and style with those on the Pentateuch, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings, and with them form a textual unity.51 The Note on the Octateuch have come down to us in different textual traditions, none of which corresponds with the text as arranged by J.-P. Migne in PL 175, cols 32C–114B. On the other hand, De Scripturis et scriptoribus sacris never appears in the manuscripts as an independent work, but in many of them appears consistently associated with Jerome’s prologue to the Pentateuch and some or all of the Note in Octateuchum and they probably constitute with them a single work.52 Smalley, Baron, Pollitt and, more recently, Stammberger have written about the various textual traditions of the Note in Octateuchum and De Scripturis et scriptoribus sacris and have classified them into either two (Smalley, Pollitt) or several groups (Baron, Stammberger).53 They have argued that the textual differences between the groups reflect the existence of several modified versions or reelaborations of Hugh’s work, which, according to Stammberger, probably all go back to the author himself.54 Stammberger adds another group comprised of 49 Van den Eynde, Essai sur la succession et la date, pp. 3–4; Baron, ‘Note sur la succession et la date des écrits de Hugues de Saint-Victor’, Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique, 57 (1962), 88–118 (p. 92); Goy, Die Überlieferung, pp. 53–55; Stammberger, ‘Die Edition der Werke’, p. 164 and n. 92. 50 Stammberger, ‘Die Edition der Werke’, pp. 146–54. 51 Van den Eynde, Essai sur la succession et la date, pp. 4–5. 52 G. A. Zinn, ‘Hugh of St Victor’s De Scripturis et scriptoribus sacris as an accessus treatise for the study of the Bible’, in Traditio, 52 (1997), 111–34 (pp. 116–19) argues that De Scripturis et scriptoribus sacris was meant to be the student’s introduction to the reading of Scripture; Poirel, Livre de la nature, pp. 97–105; Stammberger, ‘Die Exegese des Oktateuch’, pp. 239–45. 53 For the classification of the manuscripts into different groups and the arrangement of the text in each manuscript, see Stammberger, ‘Die Exegese des Oktateuch’, pp. 240–53; Smalley, The Study, p. 98; Baron, ‘Hugues de Saint-Victor: Contribution’, 253–56; and H. J. Pollitt, ‘Some Considerations on the Structure and Sources of Hugh of St Victor’s Notes on the Octateuch’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 33 (1966), 5–38 (pp. 6–9). 54 Smalley, The Study, p. 98; Baron, ‘Hugues de Saint-Victor: Contribution’, 253–56; Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, 5–9; Stammberger, ‘Die Exegese des Oktateuch’, pp. 240–53; ‘Diligens Scrutator Sacri Eloquii: An Introduction to Scriptural Exegesis by Hugh of St Victor Preserved at Admont Library (MS 672)’, in Manuscripts and Monastic Culture: Reform and Renewal in TwelfthCentury Germany, ed. by A. I. Beach (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), pp. 261–67.

General Introduction

28

thirteen additional manuscripts unknown to earlier scholars.55 These manuscripts do not contain the Note on the Pentateuch, Judges, and Kings, but they do contain another text of Hugh, called by its incipit: Diligens scrutator, which consists of an introduction to scriptural hermeneutics. Parts of this text’s contents are very close to chapters 14, 15, and 18 of the PL edition of De Scripturis et scriptoribus.56 Both Baron and Pollitt have suggested that the different textual traditions might correspond to different periods of Hugh’s life and teaching; thus, one or several later versions would represent Hugh’s own revision of his earlier Note and might also reveal a deeper knowledge of Hebrew.57 By contrast, Smalley and Pollitt stated that the different versions in the manuscripts of the Note in Octateuchum suggest that others, possibly Hugh’s pupils, arranged them at a later stage.58 This possibility is supported by the fact that other Hugonian works, such as the Sententiae de diuinitate, arouse out of notes taken by students who attended Hugh’s lessons.59 According to Stammberger, both phenomena may have taken place: first, Hugo’s revision of the Note; then, at a later stage, the rearrangement of received material by Hugh’s students or subsequent copyists.60 The forthcoming critical edition of the Note will shed light on this question. The question of whether Andrew employed Hugh’s Note in his own commentaries on the Pentateuch, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings is dealt with by Smalley, Berndt, and Van Liere.61 Many excerpts, both long and short, from Hugh’s Note appear in Andrew’s commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings, in the exact words (or with slight modifications) in which they appear in PL 175 and Hugh’s manuscripts.62 At the beginning of his second commentary on Leviticus, Andrew expressly acknowledges that he has borrowed his first commentary from ‘others’, and, in fact, his first commentary 55

Stammberger, ‘Diligens Scrutator’, pp. 241–83; see also Stammberger, ‘Die Exegese des ­Oktateuch’, pp. 244–47. 56 Stammberger, ‘Die Exegese des Oktateuch’, p. 246. 57 Baron, ‘Hugues de Saint-Victor: Contribution’, 255–56; Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, 5, 7. 58 Smalley, The Study, pp. 98–99; Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, 8–9. 59 Piazzoni, ‘Editi ed Inediti’. For the edition of the dedicatory letter, see B. Bischoff, ‘Aus der Schule Hugos von St Viktor’, Aus der Geisteswelt des Mittelalters: Studien und Texten, Martin Grabmann zur Vollendung des 60. Lebensjahres von Freunden und Schulern gewidmet, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters: Texte und Untersuchungen (Münster in Westph.: Aschendorff, 1928–), Supplementband III/1 (1935), pp. 246–50. 60 Stammberger, ‘Die Exegese des Oktateuch’, p. 253. 61 Smalley, The Study, pp. 126–27; Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, p. 221; id., ‘Les interprétations juives’, 200–1; Van Liere, In Librum Regum, pp. xxx–xxxi. 62 In Andrew’s commentaries on 1–2 Samuel, there are fewer interpretations identical in form to the Note than in the other commentaries mentioned.

General Introduction

 29

on Leviticus is identical to that of Hugh’s.63 There is, however, no evidence of Andrew’s use of Hugh’s Note in the case of Numbers, Deuteronomy, or of most of the supplementary notes on the Pentateuch and 1–2 Samuel.64 Beryl Smalley rediscovered for scholars the biblical commentaries of Andrew of St Victor. Furthermore, she edited and translated excerpts from Andrew’s biblical commentaries.65 Around seventy years later, eight of Andrew’s biblical commentaries were edited in critical editions in the CCCM series or other publications: De historica Andreae Victorini expositione in Ecclesiasten, ed. by G. Calandra, Theses ad Lauream, 46 (Palermo: Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum, Fac. theol., 1948); A. Penna, ‘Andrea di S. Vittore. Il suo Commento a Giona’, Biblica, 36 (1955), 305–51; Expositio super Heptateuchum, ed. by C. Lohr and R. Berndt, CCCM, 53 (1986); Expositio super Danielem, ed. by M. A. Zier, CCCM, 53F (1990), Expositio in Ezechielem, ed. by M. A. Signer, CCCM, 53E (1991); Expositiones historicae in libros Salomonis, ed. by Berndt, CCCM, 53B (1991); and Expositio hystorica in Librum Regum, ed. by F. A. Van Liere, CCCM, 53A (1996); and Expositio super duodecim prophetas, ed. by Van Liere and M. A. Zier, CCCM, 53G (2007). The other two commentaries are being prepared at present. R. Berndt has published a monograph on Andrew’s life, his exegetical works and method, and his theological conceptions.66 The authenticity of Andrew’s commentaries on the Heptateuch and on Samuel and Kings has been confirmed by C. Lohr and R. Berndt, for the commentary on the Heptateuch, and by F. Van Liere, for the commentary on Samuel and Kings.67 H. J. Pollitt has analysed the Latin sources of Hugh’s interpretations in his commentaries on the Pentateuch, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings. A. Saltman, Berndt, and Van Liere have done the same for Andrew’s works.68 These scholars have studied the Latin sources of all the interpretations of Hugh and Andrew in those commentaries and have not limited themselves to the interpretations that feature explicit ascriptions to the Hebrew text or to the Jews/ Hebrews. 63

Andrew, Lev. II, ll. 503–507; Smalley, The Study, p. 127. Smalley, The Study, pp. 98, 127. 65 In chapter four of the Study of the Bible, Smalley translates into English a number of fragments from different biblical commentaries by Andrew; she presents the original Latin texts in the appendix, pp. 375–94. 66 Berndt, André de Saint-Victor: see n. 7 above. 67 Lohr and Berndt, Super Heptateuchum, p. ix; Van Liere, In Librum Regum, pp. ix–x. 68 Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, 9–38; id., ‘Hugh of St Victor as Biblical Exegete’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield, 1960), pp. 219–21; A. Saltman, ‘PseudoJerome in the Commentary of Andrew of St Victor on Samuel’, Harvard Theological Review, 67 (1974), 195–253; Van Liere, In Librum Regum, pp. xvii–xxviii. 64

General Introduction

30

A few studies have dealt with some aspects of the subject matter in the second chapter: the biblical text of Hugh and Andrew and the knowledge of Hebrew reflected in Hugh’s and Andrew’s in hebreo interpretations. Berndt has analysed the Vulgate text of Andrew as it is reflected in both his interpretations of individual passages and his references to biblical versions other than the Vulgate in his commentaries on the Heptateuch, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel, and Daniel.69 He has also investigated the question of which Latin biblical text was Andrew’s source for his citations of variant readings in those commentaries.70 Gilbert Dahan has noted several of Andrew’s observations on variant readings from other Latin texts and from the Hebrew text and has discussed the Vulgate text that both Hugh and Andrew employed.71 William McKane has analysed a number of interpretations in hebreo found in several commentaries by Andrew and has concluded that the Victorine relied mainly on the Vulgate for such comments, having at best a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew.72 Berndt concludes that Andrew probably had a passive knowledge of Hebrew rather than an active one.73 Saltman and Signer also dealt with Andrew’s knowledge of Hebrew.74 A few remarks on Hugh’s knowledge of Hebrew may be found in Baron.75 C. The Life and Works of Hugh and Andrew of St Victor 1. The Abbey of St Victor When William of Champeaux (c. 1070–1121) left his chair in the Cathedral School of Notre Dame in 1108, he retired with his disciples to a hermitage dedicated to St Victor near Mount St Genevieve, on the left bank of the Seine, and founded a religious community there.76 In 1112, a year before William’s departure 69

Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 119–53. Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 154–57. 71 G. Dahan, L’exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en Occident médiéval: xiie-xive siècle (Paris: Cerf, 1999), pp. 232–33. 72 W. McKane, Selected Christian Hebraists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 42, 46–47, 50–61, and footnotes thereto (217–22). 73 Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 201–13. 74 Signer, In Ezechielem, pp. xxi–xxvii; Saltman, ‘Pseudo-Jerome in Andrew of St Victor’, 195–253. 75 Baron, ‘Hughue de Saint-Victor lexicographe’, 118–19. 76 F. Bonnard, Histoire de l’abbaye royale et de l’ordre des chanoines réguliers de Saint-Victor de Paris, 2 vols (Paris: Arthur Savaète, 1904), 1, pp. 2, 4–5, 16. Bonnard’s work was reprinted in 1996; On William of Champeaux, see: C. J. Mews, ‘William of Champeaux, the Foundation of Saint-Victor (Easter, 1111), and the Evolution of Abelard’s Early Career’, in Arts du langage et théologie aux confins des xie-xiie siècles. Textes, maîtres, débats, sous la direction d’I. Rosier-Catach, Studia Artistarum, 26 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), pp. 83–104; C. de Miramon, ‘Quatre notes bio­ graphiques sur Guillaume de Champeaux’, in Arts du langage et théologie aux confins des xie-xiie 70

General Introduction

 31

to be consecrated bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne, this community became an abbey of canons regular, which followed the rule of St Augustine.77 The abbey soon expanded in both the continent and England to become a temporary federation.78 When William left St Victor for Châlons, Gilduin, one of his disciples, was chosen as abbot of St Victor, to remain in that office from 1113 until his death in 1155.79 The Abbey quickly became a centre of learning and enjoyed wide contacts and illustrious patronage – in particular that of the French royal family.80 A good number of existing monasteries in England, France, Normandy, Italy, and Denmark adopted the rule of the Order and became daughter houses of St Victor.81 One of these daughter houses was Wigmore in Wales, where Andrew of St Victor served as abbot during the years 1147–54 and 1163–75. The Liber Ordinis has transmitted to us a collection of the normative customs and the organisation of everyday tasks adopted by St Victor and its dependent abbeys in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.82 siècles, pp. 45–82. For a survey of Victorine personalities and works, see: J. Châtillon, ‘De Guillaume de Champeaux a Thomas Gallus: Chronique d’histoire littéraire et doctrinale de l’École de Saint-Victor’, Revue du Moyen Âge latin, 8 (1952), 139–62, 247–72. Poirel updates Châtillon’s chronicle in his article (cited above) ‘L’École de Saint-Victor au Moyen Âge: Bilan d’un demisiécle historiographique’. There, Poirel takes stock of the studies and monographs produced on the Abbey of St Victor and the Victorines, and of the new editions of their works that have been published since Châtillon’s study. 77 Bonnard, Histoire de l’abbaye royale, pp. 12, 14; J. Führer, ‘L’abbaye de Saint-Victor dans la réforme canoniale’, in 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, actes réunis par D. Poirel, Bibliotheca Victorina, 22 (Brepols, 2010), pp. 57–77 (pp. 58–59); R. Grosse, ‘Entre cour et cloître: Saint-Victor et les Capétiens au xiie siècle’, in L’école de Saint-Victor de Paris. Influence et rayonnement, pp. 79–177 (pp. 80–82); Châtillon, ‘De Guillaume de Champeaux a Thomas Gallus’, p. 146; id., ‘La crise de l’Église aux xie et xiie siècles et les origines des grandes fédérations canoniales’, in Le mouvement canonial au Moyen Âge: Réforme de L’Église, spiritualité et culture, ed. by P. Sicard, Bibliotheca Victorina, 3 (Paris: Brepols, 1992), p. 36. 78 Châtillon, ‘De Guillaume de Champeaux a Thomas Gallus’, p. 146. 79 Bonnard, Histoire de l’abbaye royale, p. 15; Châtillon, ‘La crise de l’Église’, pp. 36–37; L. Jocqué et D. Poirel, ‘De Donat à Saint-Victor: un De accentibus inédit’, in La tradition vive. Mélanges d’histoire des textes en l’honneur de Louis Holtz, réunis par P. Lardet, Bibliologia, 20 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003), pp. 161–92 (pp. 162, 165–68). 80 Châtillon, ‘La crise de l’Église’, p. 37; R. Grosse, ‘Entre cour et cloître’, L’école de Saint-Victor de Paris. Influence et rayonnement (as in note 77), pp. 80–85. 81 Châtillon, ‘La crise de l’Église’, p. 38; P. Delhaye, ‘L’organisation scolaire au xiie siècle’, ­Traditio, 5 (1947), 211–68 (esp. p. 242). 82 L. Milis and L. Jocqué, eds, Liber ordinis Sancti Victoris, CCCM, 61 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1984); see also: L. Jocqué, ‘Les structures de la population claustrale dans l’ordre de Saint-Victor au xiie siècle; un essai d’analyse du Liber Ordinis’, in L’abbaye parisienne de Saint-Victor au Moyen Âge, ed. by J. Longère, Bibliotheca Victorina, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols 1991), pp. 53–95.

General Introduction

32

2. Hugh of St Victor: Life and Works Hugh was probably born between 1090 and 1100 in Saxony.83 In his early youth, he lived and studied in the Augustinian Abbey of St Pancras in Hamersleben, near the city of Halberstadt in Saxony.84 Towards 1115–18, he moved to Paris and entered the Abbey of St Victor. From references in some of his works it appears that he was teaching and writing there from before 1120, since by 1127 he had already produced several books.85 He continued writing and teaching until his death in the abbey on 11 February 1141.86 Hugh’s letter to the canons of Lucca indicates that he travelled to Italy.87 Hugh was in contact with notable public figures in theology and Church life such as St Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153), with whom he corresponded.88 Other works by Hugh reveal that he kept informed and that people consulted him on the 83

That he was born in Saxony is the predominant opinion among scholars today: J. Miethke, ‘Zur Herkunft Hugos von St Victor’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 54 (1972), pp. 241–65; J. Taylor, The Origin and Early Life of Hugh of St Victor: An Evaluation of the Tradition (South Bend, IN: The Mediaeval Institute, University of Notre Dame, 1957); Poirel, ‘Hugo Saxo. Les origines germaniques de la pensée d’Hugues de Saint-Victor’, in Francia. Forschungen zur Westeuropäischen Geschichte, 33/1 (2006), Atelier: ‘L’histoire des idées au temps de la réforme: contribution des échanges entre l’Empire et ses voisins européens (850–1150). Round table organised by l’Institut historique allemand de Paris, 23 june 2003 [proceedings ed. by Thierry Lesieur], pp. 163–74. The hypotheses that Hugh was born either in Ypres (now the Low Countries) or in Lorraine were defended in the past by F. Vernet, ‘Hugues de Saint-Victor’, in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ed. by A. Vacant and E. Mangenot (Paris: Letouzey and Ané, 1922), VII, pp. 240–308 (pp. 240– 42); F. E. Croydon, ‘Notes on the life of Hugh of St Victor’, The Journal of Theological Studies, 40 (1939), 232–53; and Baron, Études sur Hugues de Saint-Victor (Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963), pp. 9–30. For the question of Hugh’s origin, Smalley (The Study, p. 85) relies on Vernet and Croydon. 84 See Hugh’s letter to the canons of Hamersleben, which he wrote as the prologue to his work Soliloquium de arrha animae (Soliloquy on the Espousal Gift of the Soul), PL 176, cols. 951–52. The letter is translated into English by Taylor, The Origin and Early Life, pp. 54–55. Manuscripts of works by Hugh of St Victor have been found in the library of the cathedral school of Halberstad: Stammberger, ‘Die Halberstädter Glosse zum Matthäus-Evangelium und zum Buch Josua zur Wiederentdeckung der Handschrift Halberstadt, Dom-Gymnasium 47 aus der ersten hälfte des 12. Jahrhundersts’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 68 (2001), 18–33. 85 Taylor, The Origin, p. 67; Van den Eynde, Essai sur la succession et la date, p. 207; Poirel, Livre de la nature, pp. 111–14, 151–52. 86 See the eyewitness account of his death written by the Victorine infirmary attendant ­Osbert (PL 175, cols 161–63). 87 Poirel, Hugues de Saint-Victor, p. 31. 88 Only St Bernard’s reply has been preserved: J. Leclercq and H. Rochais, eds, S. Bernardi ­opera, vol. 7 (Rome, 1974), pp. 184–200; French translation in Leclercq and Rochais, eds, Bernard de Clairvaux: Lettres, Introduction and notes by M. Duchet-Suchaux (Paris: Cerf, 2001), letter 77.2, pp. 311–67. The subject of the letter is the need to receive the sacrament of Baptism in order to be saved.

General Introduction

 33

theological issues of the day.89 In some of his writings, Hugh implicitly refers to Abelard’s opinions and shows he knew of him and his works.90 Hugh wrote in many different fields: theology, biblical exegesis, asceticism, mysticism, and education or pedagogy. Among Hugh’s most famous works are: Didascalicon de studio legendi, De Scripturis et scriptoribus sacris, De triebus diebus, De arrha animae, De archa Noe, De institutione novitiorum, and De sacramentis christianae fidei. Amongst his biblical commentaries are: Note in Octateuchum (Pentateuchum, Iudicum, et Ruth), Expositio super Threnos, and Expositio in Ecclesiasten. In his works De Scripturis et scriptoribus sacris and Didascalicon, he explains and stresses the importance of understanding the literal sense of the biblical text before expounding according to other levels of interpretation such as the allegorical or moral. In his above-mentioned study, Van den Eynde establishes an approximate chronology of Hugh’s works based on: (a) cross-references in the various works; (b) a comparative examination of parallels in the different works with respect to both Hugh’s thought and his literary style; and (c) references to historical figures and events found throughout the works. Specifically, he contrasts parallel passages in the Note and other compositions, such as the Didascalicon and the De sacramentis, and he argues that the Note contains the earliest versions of the parallels. He dates Hugh’s Note in Octateuchum to before 1125.91 Some scholars, such as Baron and Poirel, have called into question different aspects of Van den Eynde’s methodology.92 Poirel argues that Hugh’s commentary on the Heavenly Hierarchy as well as his De sacramentis and his biblical commentaries on Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and the Octateuch were probably writen over a long period of time and perhaps simultaneously. This would account for their unfinished state. In addition, Poirel also observes that Hugh produced two recensions of some of his works, distant in time from each other.93 With respect to Hugh’s Note on Genesis, Baron questions Van den Eynde’s argument for dating these Note before the Didascalicon.94 On his part, Poirel takes issue with Van den Eynde’s argument for dating the Note in Genesim before the De tribus diebus, arguing that it is not possible from that argument 89 Stammberger, ‘“De longe ueritas uidetur diuersa iudicia parit”: Hugh of St Victor and ­Peter Abelard’, Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 58/1 (2002), 65–92. 90 Stammberger, ‘De longe ueritas’, 69, 72 and nn. 40, 77 and 84, in which the author claims that some works by Hugh and others by Abelard reflect that on certain theological questions there was a debate between the two, whereas on other theological issues, they shared the same view. 91 Van den Eynde, Essai sur la succession et la date, pp. 40–45 and the table on p. 214. 92 Baron, ‘Note sur la succession et la date’, 88–118; Poirel, Livre de la nature, pp. 131–50; id., Des symboles et des anges: Hugues de Saint-Victor et le réveil dionysien du xiie siècle, Bibliotheca Victorina, 23 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), pp. 61–70. 93 Poirel, ‘Livre de la nature’, pp. 132–33; id., Des symboles et des anges, pp. 215–20. 94 Baron, ‘Note sur la succession et la date’, 109–10.

34

General Introduction

to determine which work was written before the other.95 The forthcoming critical edition of the Note will probably give us more information on the matter. 3. Andrew of St Victor: Life and Works Andrew was a regular canon of the Parisian Abbey of St Victor and a student of Gilduin.96 Several historians and scholars have maintained that Andrew was English by birth, though there seems to be no conclusive evidence to corroborate this.97 Andrew was in St Victor around 1147/48, since it was from there and at this time that the canons of the Abbey of St James of Wigmore in Herefordshire (Wales), called upon him and asked him to be their abbot.98 He served as abbot in Wigmore until 1154/55. Between 1154/55 and 1161/63, Andrew probably moved back to St Victor: there is evidence of his residence there at least between 1159 and 1162.99 He was recalled to the Abbey of Wigmore between 1161 and 63 and remained there until his death in October 1175.100 Andrew was already called Magister when he was appointed abbot of Wigmore, and he had produced his commentary on the Pentateuch by 1147. This leads scholars to think that he had already resided in the Parisian Abbey for a number of years before, perhaps from the thirties or beginning of the forties, perhaps earlier. This makes it plausible, though not certain, that he studied under Hugh.101 Andrew wrote commentaries on the following biblical books: the Heptateuch (the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Judges); Kings (1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings); the Prophets (Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets); and some of the 95 Poirel, ‘Livre de la nature’, pp. 136–37. He dates De tribus diebus to between 1115/18 and 1120/21: ‘Livre de la nature’, pp. 150–52. 96 Smalley, The Study, p. 112; Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, p. 20. 97 Smalley, The Study, pp. 117–19. This affirmation may find some support from the fact that Andrew was called to be abbot in an abbey in Wales, and that most of the Victorine canons who were called from Paris to daughter houses in England were English: Signer, In Ezechielem, p. ix; Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 46–47. 98 Smalley, ‘Andrew of St Victor, Abbot of Wigmore: A Twelfth-Century Hebraist’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 10, (1938), 358–73 (pp. 364–66); ead., The Study of the Bible, pp. 112–13; Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 20, 34–35, 49; id., ‘The School of St Victor in Paris’, in Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300), ed. by M. Saebø, 5 vols (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–2008), I/2 (2000), p. 479. 99 Smalley, ‘Andrew of St Victor’, pp. 365–68; The Study, p. 114; Berndt, ‘The School of St ­Victor’, p. 479. 100 Smalley, ‘Andrew of St Victor’, pp. 366–70; The Study, p. 115; Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 25–26, 32–33, 39 and 49; ‘The School of St Victor’, p. 479. 101 Smalley, ‘Andrew of St Victor’, p. 370; The Study, p. 112; Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 48–49.

General Introduction

 35

Writings (Daniel, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes).102 At the end of his commentary on Kings, he also wrote an appendix in which he included an abridgement of the last part of the Second Book of Chronicles and a selection of texts related to the biblical historiography of Kings and Chronicles.103 From cross-references in his commentaries and other allusions in the Victorine’s works, scholars date most of Andrew’s works to the two periods during which he lived in the Parisian Abbey of St Victor: his commentaries on the Heptateuch and Kings were composed between his entry into the abbey and 1147/48; his commentaries on the Prophets and those on Daniel, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes were written either during his second stay at St Victor between 1154/55 and 1161/63 or soon after, at the beginning of his second stay in Wigmore.104 A terminus a quo for the composition of Andrew’s commentary on the Heptateuch is the redaction of Hugh’s Note on the Pentateuch, Judges, 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings, which are dated to before 1125, as well as that of Hugh’s De sacramentis, dated between 1130/31 and 1137.105 This observation is based on the fact that Andrew reveals having employed these two works in his own commentaries on those biblical books.106 D. Methodology I have approached the biblical commentaries of Hugh and Andrew using a methodology grounded on linguistic and literary analyses of their texts and of their sources, both Christian and Jewish. To do this, I have paid attention to: (a) parallels in vocabulary; (b) parallels in literary techniques, and (c) similarity or identity of content. I have systematically analysed all the in hebreo interpretations in the commentaries of Hugh and Andrew on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Judges, and 1–2 Samuel. 102 Andrew appears to have ranked the Book of Daniel among the Hagiographa or ‘Writings’, as it is placed in the Hebrew Bible. His commentary on Daniel does not follow that on Ezekiel but is placed together with those on Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. See Berndt, ‘The School of St Victor’, p. 479; André de Saint-Victor, pp. 85, 114–15. 103 On the content of this appendix on Chronicles, see Van Liere, In Librum Regum, pp. civ– cxiv; cf. Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 72–76. 104 Smalley, ‘Andrew of St Victor’, p. 371, nn. 51–372; Berndt, ‘La pratique exégétique’, 272; ‘The School of St Victor’, p. 479; for other criteria, see Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 82–88. In his general Prologue to the Prophets, for instance, Andrew indicates that a long period of time had elapsed since he had written his commentaries on the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings. The general prologue to the prophets is translated in Smalley, The Study, pp. 121–23; for the Latin text, see: ibid., p. 376; cf. Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 83–85. For his commentary on Samuel-Kings, see: Van Liere, Reg. III, ll. 160–163. 105 Van den Eynde, Essai sur la succession et la date, pp. 40–45, 100–3, 214. 106 Smalley, The Study, pp. 126–27, 132–33; Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, p. 86.

36

General Introduction

Due to the excessive amount of material found, I have excluded from this analysis Hugh’s Note on Numbers, Deuteronomy, and 1–2 Kings, as well as Andrew’s respective commentaries on Kings and on Joshua. I have chosen to omit these books in particular because there is no commentary by Hugh on Joshua and because Hugh’s Note on Numbers and Deuteronomy only consists of a few isolated interpretations which are absent in a number of Hugh’s manuscripts. Of the Jewish sources, I have analysed the commentaries on Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus by Rashi, Rashbam, and Bekhor Shor, as well as Rashi’s and Joseph Qara’s commentaries on Judges and 1–2 Samuel. I have also examined the comments parallel to the in hebreo interpretations of the Victorines that are found in Ibn Ezra’s commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus, in David Qimhi’s commentaries on Judges and 1–2 Samuel, and in several early Jewish sources such as the Mekhilta, Genesis Rabbah, Exodus Rabbah, Tanhuma, Tanhuma Yelamdenu, Targum Onkelos, Targum Jonathan, and several passages of different tractates of the Babylonian Talmud. I exclude from my analysis Hugh’s and Andrew’s references to Jewish customs, or to Jewish interpretations which are not expressly introduced as in hebreo, Hebrei dicunt, etc. A reference to a Jewish custom is not necessarily connected to any knowledge of Hebrew. The Victorines may have borrowed such references from Latin sources. The studies dealing systematically with the Victorines’ in hebreo interpretations focus on either Hugh alone (Awerbuch) or Andrew alone (Berndt, Hadfield, Signer, and Van Liere). Berndt focuses on Andrew alone and treats Hugh as a source for Andrew. Consequently, he does not search for the sources of Hugh’s interpretations that do not appear in Andrew or in which Hugh presents a different interpretation from his disciple. On the contrary, I have searched independently for the sources of both Hugh’s and Andrew’s interpretations, including those in which only one of them comments on a certain verse and those in which they both comment on the same verses but in which there are differences between them. The relationship between Hugh’s and Andrew’s in hebreo interpretations will be elucidated as we compare the texts of both Victorines with those of their sources. Andrew incorporates into his commentaries many of Hugh’s in hebreo interpretations. In many of these cases, we are substantially dealing with only one interpretation, that of Hugh. In some of the interpretations which appear in both Victorines, however, the phrase in hebreo is absent from both Migne’s edition of Hugh’s Note and Hugh’s manuscripts, whereas it is present in Andrew’s commentaries (for example, the comments of Hugh and Andrew on Gen 4.23 and on Exod 15.5). However, Andrew does not always reproduce Hugh’s comments word for word, but on occasions he summarizes them in his own words or modifies them. Consequently, the comparison between the ways in which Hugh and

General Introduction

 37

Andrew individually transmit a certain interpretation in hebreo may shed light not only on the sources of the interpretations but also on the relationship between Hugh’s text and that of Andrew. I shall therefore present the text of Hugh beside that of Andrew and compare between them when both of them are extant in the analyses of the different sources. Previous studies such as Berndt’s article or Hadfield’s dissertation have indicated the sources of many different interpretations. In many cases, Berndt points to both a Latin and a Jewish source or to several Latin and Jewish sources for the same interpretation, and does not ascertain which of them seems to be Andrew’s most likely direct source. In the present study, I have examined the relationship among the Latin sources themselves, on the one hand, and the Jewish sources, on the other; noted the degree of similarity to the Victorines’ interpretations of each source with respect to the other sources containing the same interpretation. Thus I have tried to ascertain which of the sources seems to have been a direct source for the Victorines and which have been transmitted via later, intermediary sources. When identifying the source, whether Jewish or Latin, for a certain text of the Victorines, I have sometimes transcribed only the word, phrase, or sentence which I want to compare in both the texts of the Victorines and in the text, or texts, of the different available sources. On other occasions, I have written a greater amount of the text that surrounds that sentence or phrase in the different texts under comparison. Thus, when several sources contain the interpretation under analysis, the direct source will be more easily identified if more elements can be compared between the sources. In the previous section on the history of the research I briefly referred to studies dealing with Hugh’s and Andrew’s approach to the literal sense. However, an analysis of the Victorines’ approach to the literal sense in and of itself falls outside the aim of this book.107 On many occasions, Hugh’s and Andrew’s in hebreo interpretations correspond to the literal sense, but their commentaries also contain many other literal interpretations which relate neither to the Hebrew text nor to Jewish exegesis. On the other hand, the commentaries of Hugh and Andrew include Jewish interpretations that do not correspond to the literal-historical sense. In the first chapter of the book I shall analyse the in hebreo interpretations that the Victorines borrowed from earlier Latin sources. In order to establish that certain interpretations in the commentaries of the Victorines have been taken from 107

Some scholars examining the relationship between Christian and Jewish Medieval exegesis (E. Touitou, A. Grossman, S. Kamin, and M. Signer) have seen a connection between the emphasis on the literal sense in Hugh’s and Andrew’s commentaries and the stress on the peshat level of interpretation in the commentaries according to the peshat produced in the Northern-French school and other Jewish commentators.

General Introduction

38

Jewish contemporary authors, it is first necessary to ascertain that these interpretations are not to be found in earlier Latin commentaries. In the second chapter, I shall examine the different versions of the Latin Bible that the Victorines employed in their in hebreo interpretations. In the third chapter, I shall analyse those interpretations which include exegetical material that is not found in the earlier sources but does exist in the commentaries of one or more of the Jewish exegetes of the peshat from Northern France: Rashi, Joseph Qara, Rashbam, Bekhor Shor. I shall not deal with Eliezer of Beaugency, who also belongs to the Northern-French school of the peshat, because I have restricted my analysis in this book to commentaries on the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets, and Eliezer of Beaugency wrote commentaries only on the Latter Prophets. In addition, I shall deal with other Jewish sources such as the Mekhilta of Rabbi Yishmael, or the commentaries of Avraham Ibn Ezra and David Qimhi, since in their comments on certain texts they alone offer certain interpretations identical to interpretations of the Victorines. Amongst the interpretations found in the exegetes of the Northern-French school or other Jewish sources, I include: (a) those providing additional information to that reached by reading the Hebrew text; (b) those presenting a new interpretative approach in comparison to the earlier Latin interpretations or exegetical methods that are peculiar to the exegetes of the peshat. E. The Sorts of Interpretations Considered for this Study I shall restrict my analysis to those interpretations which feature explicit ascriptions to the Hebrew text or to the Jews/Hebrews and to those interpretations which feature these ascriptions together with a verb of speech, thought, or writing, that is, where Hugh or Andrew assert that either the Jews say or hold a certain interpretation, or that the interpretation is written in a Hebrew text.108 The reason why I choose to limit myself to interpretations introduced by these expressions is that my aim is to ascertain whether Hugh and Andrew had direct contact with contemporary Jewish exegetes of the Northern-French school or with a Hebrew text, and the Victorines are more likely to express their awareness of this direct contact in interpretations introduced by these expressions. I have classified these interpretations into three categories: (1) Translations or interpretations in hebreo: i.e., references to the Hebrew text of the Bible expressly introduced by the phrase in hebreo (‘in the Hebrew text’), 108

Both Hugh and Andrew employ the expressions hebreus, hebrei, apud hebreos, and iudei to refer to both biblical Hebrews and their Jewish contemporaries. I have respected the differences between the Latin expressions by using the English translations, ‘the Hebrew/Hebrews’, ‘according to the Hebrews’ and ‘the Jews’, respectively.

General Introduction

 39

hebreus, hebreum (‘the Hebrew text’), hebraice (‘in Hebrew’), or hebraica veritas (‘the Hebrew Truth’). (2) Interpretations that report a Jewish tradition or identify an anonymous biblical character. Those interpretations are introduced either: by the phrase in the plural arbitrantur hebrei, hebrei putant, putant iudei (‘the Hebrews/the Jews believe or think’); tradunt iudaei (‘the Jews transmit’), hebrei dicunt, hebrei aiunt (‘the Hebrews say’), hebrei uolunt (‘the Hebrews suggest’), Quod ita hebrei edisserunt (‘that which the Hebrews explained in the following way’); asserunt hebrei (‘the Hebrews assert’); apud hebreos (‘among the Hebrews’), secundum hebreos (‘according to the Hebrews’); or by the phrases in the singular: hebreus suspicatur (‘the Hebrew conjectures’); arbitratur iudeus (‘the Jew thinks’); and hebreus intelligit (‘the Hebrew understands’). (3) References to grammatical features peculiar to the Hebrew language. I shall not refer to those literary figures of speech, such as recapitulatio, hyperbole, or metonymia, that are characteristic of the Latin and Greek languages and are frequently found in the earlier Latin sources.109 I have excluded from this investigation any etymologies of Hebrew names which lack an ascription to the Hebrew or to Jews, any of Hugh’s and Andrew’s descriptions of Jewish customs that do not include a verb of speech or thought, and any interpretations which are similar or identical in the commentaries of the Victorines and the Jewish exegetes, but which are not introduced by the formula in hebreo.110 Appendix: A Note on Technical Matters 1. Manuscripts Consulted The original manuscripts of Hugh’s Note on the Pentateuch, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings have not been found.111 Of the surviving manuscripts that include 109

Thus, Hugh explains the text in Gen 5.1 as recapitulatio (‘recapitulation’). This interpretation can already be found in Walafrid Strabo and the Glossa ordinaria on the same texts. For rhetoric and other figures of speech from the Latin classical and patristic traditions used by Medieval Latin exegetes in their interpretation of the Bible, see Dahan, L’exégèse chrétienne, pp. 253–62. 110 I shall provide a few examples of those interpretations which I have excluded in the introductions to the corresponding chapters: examples of Hebrew etymologies without ascription to Jews or to the Hebrew I shall provide in the introduction to Chapter One, which is devoted to the Latin sources; examples of Andrew’s descriptions of Jewish customs as well as close or identical parallels of Hugh and Andrew with the French Jewish exegetes of the peshat, but which lack the phrase in hebreo I shall provide in Chapter Three, which is devoted to the French Jewish exegetes of the peshat and other Jewish sources. 111 Goy, Die Überlieferung, p. 570.

40

General Introduction

Hugh’s Note, I have consulted the following: Paris, BnF, lat. 345 (c. 1220); Paris, BnF, lat. 2092 (third quarter of the twelfth century); Paris, BnF, lat. 3011 (third quarter of the twelfth century); Paris, BnF, lat. 13,422 (third quarter of the twelfth century); Paris, BnF, lat. 16,284 (second quarter of the thirteenth century); Paris, BnF, lat. 7531 (third quarter of the thirteenth century); Paris, BnF, lat. 14,507 (second quarter of the fifteenth century); Paris, BnF, lat. 15,315 (c. 1260–70); Paris, BnF, lat. 15,695 (last quarter of the thirteenth century); Valenciennes, B.M., MS 198 (twelfth century); Douai, B.M., MS 362 (twelfth century); Douai, B.M., MS 365 (twelfth century); Charleville, B.M., MS 71 (thirteenth century), Charleville, B.M., MS 166A (twelfth century), Laon, B.M., MS 19 (thirteenth century); Cambridge, Trinity College Library, 23 (twelfth century); Cambridge, University Library, K.k. 2. 22 (fifteenth century); Vatican, Bibl. Apost., Vat. lat. 13,014 (thirteenth-fourteenth centuries), and Vatican, Bibl. Apost., Urb. Lat. 108 (fifteenth century).112 Of the manuscripts of Andrew’s commentaries on the Heptateuch and Samuel-Kings, I have consulted: Paris, BnF, lat. 356 (twelfth century); Paris, BnF, lat. 14,798 (twelfth-fourteenth centuries); Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 30 (thirteenth century); and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud. lat., 105 (twelfththirteenth centuries).113 For the marginal corrections of the Vulgate from the Hebrew, I have consulted: the Vulgate manuscript Paris, BnF, lat. 11,937 (ninth century); and the Bible of Stephen Harding, Dijon, B.M., MSS 12–13 (twelfth century). For the Glossa Ordinaria, I have consulted: Paris, Bibl. Ars., MS 47 (between 1140 and 1150); Soissons, B.M., MS 71 (between 1140 and 1150); Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,400 (1150); Rouen, B.M, MS 41/A. 326 (between 1140 and 1150), BnF, MS lat. 14,771 (1150), and Paris, Bibl. Maz., MSS 131–33 (early thirteenth century). 2. The Latin Transliterations from the Hebrew and the Hebrew Letters In their commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Judges, and 1–2 Samuel, Hugh and Andrew adduce a number of Latin transliterations of the Hebrew text. Some of these transliterations appear in both Hugh and Andrew; others, only in Hugh; a third group appear in Andrew alone. Those that appear only in Andrew belong to interpretations that he has borrowed from his Latin sources, e.g. phara, 112 I received the information about the dating of the manuscripts of Paris, BnF, from Patricia Stirnemann: email communication, 29 January 2000. For the approximate dating of the other manuscripts, see Goy, Die Überlieferung, pp. 48–54, 56–57. 113 For the manuscripts of Andrew’s commentaries on the Heptateuch and Samuel and Kings, see: Lohr and Berndt, Super Heptateuchum, pp. x–xvii; Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 50–81; Van Liere, In Librum Regum, pp. lviii–cxiiii.

General Introduction

 41

in Andrew’s comment on Gen 16.12; Seir, in his comment on Gen 25.25; Edom, in that on Gen 25.30; sabe, in that on Gen 26.33; and Cariath and arbe, in his comment on Gen 35.27.114 In this section, I will discuss only those transliterations which appear in either Hugh alone or both Hugh and Andrew and that I have not found in the Latin examined sources. The manuscripts consulted do not contain the Hebrew characters which appear along with the Latin transliterations in PL 175, cols 35D–106B.115 In fact, neither Hebrew nor Greek characters are found in Latin manuscripts from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.116 However, the Latin transliterations of the Hebrew are present in all the manuscripts consulted. On the other hand, a number of the transliterations in certain manuscripts are less in accord with the Hebrew phonetics than those in other manuscripts. One example is the transliteration of the Hebrew word ‫מכבר‬, michbar (Latin craticula, English ‘grate’ or ‘grating’) in Hugh’s comment on Exod 27.4: PL 175 Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092 Paris, BnF, MS lat. 16,284 Paris, BnF, MS lat. 345 Paris, BnF, MS lat. 13,422 Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,507 Paris, BnF, MS lat. 15,695 Paris, BnF, MS lat. 7531 Paris, BnF, MS lat. 15,315 Cambridge, Trinity College Library, MS 23 Charleville, B.M., MS 71 Douai, B.M., MS 362 Douai, B.M., MS 365 Vatican, Bibl. Apost., MS Urb. lat. 108 Charleville, B.M., MS 166A

Exod 71A–B fols 107v–108r fol. 37v fols 157r-v fol. 38v fol. 156r fol. 81v fol. 270r fol. 192v fol. 52r fol. 79v fol. 128r fol. 102r fol. 203r fol. 59v

nuchhar, nucchar michar michar michar michar michhar michhar michha, michbar nuchhar, michhar michar, michhar michar michar michar michbar michar

The transliteration michbar (in Paris, BnF, MS lat. 7531 and Vatican, Bibl. Apost., MS Urb. lat. 108) reflects a pronunciation in accord with Hebrew phonetics. The 114

Andrew, Gen., ll. 2002; 2414; 2418; 2447; and 2670. Smalley (The Study, p. 103) and Baron (‘Hugues de Saint-Victor lexicographe’, p. 117) had already observed this. 116 Dahan, L’exégèse chrétienne, p. 207. 115

General Introduction

42

transliteration michhar (in Paris, BnF, MS lat. 15,695, MS lat. 14,507, MS lat. 15,315, and Cambridge, Trinity College Library, MS 23) indicates that the copyists or the editors mistook the b for an h (that is, they read h where b was written) whereas the transliteration michar in the other manuscripts cited omits one consonant: the b. The transliterations nuchhar or nucchhar, which appear in PL, are probably a misreading of michhar by either the copyists or the editors, who read the syllable ‘mi’ as ‘nu’. At any rate, the transliteration itself, whether more or less in agreement with Hebrew phonetics, is present in all the manuscripts. The transliterations are always part of the main body of the text; i.e., they are placed neither above the lines nor in the margins. Moreover, they constitute an integral part of the commentary, that is, they are demanded by the context of the respective in hebreo interpretations within which they are included. An example of this may be seen in Hugh’s comment on Exod 27.4, where the transliteration michbar is written: Secundum hanc itaque lectionem non uidetur michar craticulam sonare cui assandę carnes superponerentur sed opus quadrangulum propter leuitatem undique perforatum, […].117

And thus, according to this reading, [the word] michbar does not seem to signify a grating craticula upon which the flesh that is to be roasted should be placed, but rather a quadrangular work pierced through on all sides for it to be lighter […].118

Should we omit the word michbar from this passage, the complex sentence would remain without its subject. This shows that the transliteration was an integral part of Hugh’s original in hebreo interpretation, and that, accordingly, it was not inserted by a later copyist.119 In addition, the transliterations which appear in Hugh are not found in any of the Latin sources that I have examined, and most of them are part of those of Hugh’s interpretations that are similar or identical to the parallel interpretations in one or more of the Jewish sources analysed. In this volume, I shall analyse these transliterations in the context of the interpretations to which they belong. I will try to ascertain whether they more likely point to Hugh’s knowledge of written Hebrew or to his interaction with contemporary Jewish exegetes.

117

Hugh, Pent, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092: fol. 108r. Also in Andrew, Exod., ll. 1922–1925. 119 Smalley (The Study, p. 103) already claimed that the Latin transliterations were authentic. Baron (‘Hugues de Saint-Victor lexicographe’, pp. 117–18), however, ascribed some or all the transliterations to later copyists. 118

General Introduction

 43

In short, I propose, in this book, to explore the question of the origins of the in hebreo interpretations found in the commentaries of Hugh and Andrew on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Judges, and 1–2 Samuel. I seek to ascertain to what extent the Victorines inherited such interpretations through the Latin tradition, and to what extent they might have either taken them directly from a Hebrew text, or heard them from contemporary Jewish interpreters. In the process, I hope to contribute to the larger questions of the place of the Hebrew text in medieval Latin Christian biblical interpretation and of the Christian and Jewish scholarly interaction in medieval Europe.

CHAPTER ONE

The Latin Sources Introduction to Chapter One A. Aim The aim of the first chapter of this book is to ascertain which, if any, of Hugh and Andrew of St Victor’s interpretations ‘according to the Hebrew’ in their commentaries to the Pentateuch and to the Former Prophets, were drawn from earlier Latin commentaries on the Bible. The primary focus of this chapter will be the in hebreo translations as well as the references to Jewish interpretations and to the Hebrew language that appear in the Latin sources of the Victorines. I have accordingly examined the Latin sources only in those places which contain parallels with in hebreo translations or with Jewish interpretations in the commentaries of Hugh and Andrew. Therefore, I shall not be concerned here with the dependence of the commentaries of Hugh and Andrew on these Latin sources as a whole, but only as regards specifically these parallel passages. B. Latin Sources Analysed I have analysed the Latin commentaries on the Pentateuch and Former Prophets of those Latin Christian authors working prior to Hugh and Andrew, who supply in hebreo translations or Jewish interpretations and ascribe them expressly to the Hebrew text or to Jews.1 I treat the following authors and works: Josephus Flavius, Antiquitatum Iudaicarum Libri i–v.2 Augustine: Quaestionum in Heptateuchum libri vii. Isidore of Seville: Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum. Pseudo-Bede: In Pentateuchum Commentarü. 1

For a list and general analysis of the Latin Christian authors who adopt and transmit translations in Hebraeo or Jewish interpretations in their biblical commentaries, see Dahan, L’exégèse chrétienne, pp. 376–87; B. Blumenkranz, Juifs et chrétiens dans le monde occidental (430-1096), (ParisThe Hague: Mouton et Cie, 1960), pp. 46–52; and C. Merchavia, The Church versus Talmudic and Midrashic Literature (500–1248), ( Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1970), I, pp. 3–223 (in hebrew). 2 Although Josephus is a Jewish author I have included him among the Latin sources, for Andrew, as most of Medieval Latin authors, read Josephus’s works in Latin translation, and all the references to the Hebrew text or language, or to Jewish traditions that he adopts from Josephus were written in Latin.

46

Chapter One Bede: Libri quatuor in principium Genesis usque ad nativitatem Isaac et eiectionem Ismahelis adnotationum; In primam partem Samuhelis libri iiii; In Regum Librum xxx Quaestiones; De tabernaculo and De templo; De arte metrica et de schematibus et tropis. Pseudo-Jerome: Quaestiones Hebraicae in libros Regum et Paralipomenon. Anonymous: Commentarius in Canticum Debborae. Anonymous: Decem tentationes Populi Israel in deserto. Alcuin of York: Interrogationes et responsiones in Genesin. Hrabanus Maurus: Commentaria in Genesim, in Exodum. Angelom of Luxeuil: Commentarius in Genesim and Enarrationes in libros Regum. Haimo of Auxerre: Commentarius in Genesim. Remigius of Auxerre: Positio super Genesim. Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria.

In examining these Latin sources, I have asked two guiding questions: first, which, if any, of these Latin sources provided the Victorines with in hebreo translations or Jewish interpretations?; and, secondly, did Hugh and Andrew draw on these Latin sources directly or via intermediate sources? Some of the aforementioned Latin works do indeed constitute ultimate sources for Hugh and Andrew, since they contain parallel renderings to in hebreo translations or to Jewish interpretations in the commentaries of the Victorines. Among these commentaries we may count those of Josephus Flavius, Augustine, PseudoBede, Alcuin of York, Hrabanus Maurus, and Angelom of Luxeuil. I shall try to show, however, that there is no clear indication that either Hugh or Andrew borrowed parallels directly from these authors, but that they rather drew on them by way of later Latin sources. For those authors whom I consider to be direct sources for the in hebreo interpretations of Hugh and Andrew, I have written brief introductory remarks (short biography, names of works, etc.) in the section devoted to the biblical book in which their interpretations are discussed, before turning to the analysis of the interpretations themselves. For those authors to whom Hugh and Andrew do not resort directly I have not written introductory remarks. In this introduction, however, I do wish briefly to refer to two authors who are particularly germane to the concerns of this chapter, since their compilatory commentaries provide readings that are parallel to nearly all the references to the Hebrew in the commentaries of the Victorines on the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets, and therefore sources of many of the interpretations used by the Victorines. The two commentators are Hrabanus Maurus and Angelom of Luxeuil.

The Latin Sources

 47

C. Hrabanus Maurus Hrabanus Maurus (d. 856), abbot of Fulda and later bishop of Mainz, was a disciple of Alcuin of York. He wrote commentaries on many biblical books, among them, the Books of the Pentateuch and of Samuel and Kings.3 However, only his commentaries on the Books of Genesis, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings contain references to the Hebrew text and language and to Jewish interpretations. The portion of Hrabanus Maurus’s commentaries on Genesis and on the Books of Samuel and Kings that is devoted to the literal sense is, for the most part, a compilation.4 It consists of excerpts copied verbatim and in extenso from works of the Church Fathers (e.g.: Jerome, Augustine, Isidore, and Bede) and other ecclesiastical authors (such as Alcuin and Pseudo-Jerome). He usually quotes his sources by name at the beginning of the interpretations that he borrows from them. In his commentary on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Hrabanus Maurus reveals a great interest in Jewish traditions.5 However, his knowledge of textual and linguistic questions is quite poor, and his works attest no knowledge of Hebrew. This is readily evinced by the fact that he often either transcribes incorrectly or omits the references to the Hebrew text that he finds in his sources. In his commentary on Genesis, Hrabanus adopts many of Jerome’s interpretations ‘according to the Hebrew’ in HQG, but he frequently omits from the work of the Church father the linguistic explanations of Greek and Hebrew words as well as the comparisons between the Hebrew text and other biblical versions.6 D. Angelom of Luxeuil Angelom of Luxeuil (d. 855) composed his commentaries on Genesis, Samuel, and Kings, and the Song of Songs between 825 and 855.7

3

PL 107–109. PL 107, cols 439C–670B and PL 109, cols 11A–124B, 123C–280A. 5 For bibliography on Hrabanus’s approach to Jews and to Judaism see Dahan, L’exégèse chrétienne, p. 83, n. 2. For bibliography on Hrabanus’s exegetical method, see Dahan, L’exégèse chrétienne, p. 88, n. 5. Hrabanus also composed a chart of the Hebrew and other alphabets: see C. J. Singer, ‘Hebrew Scholarship in the Middle Ages among Latin Christians’, in The Legacy of Israel, ed. by E. R. Bevan and C. J. Singer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927), pp. 283–314 (pp. 288, 290). 6 Gen 4.6–7; 49.22–26, and 49.27. 7 M. Gorman, ‘The Commentary on Genesis of Angelom of Luxeuil and Biblical Studies under Lothar’, Studi medievali, 3rd ser., 40 (1999), 559–631 (p. 563). M. L. W. Laistner, ‘Some Early Medieval Commentaries on the Old Testament’, Harvard Theological Review, 46 (1953), p. 28, suggests a later date for the beginning of Angelom’s exegetical work, but he produces no evidence in support of this position. On Angelom, see S. Cantelli, Angelomo e la scuola esegetica di Luxeuil, Biblioteca di ‘Medioevo latino’, 1 (Spoleto, 1990). 4

Chapter One

48

His commentary on Samuel and Kings, which seems to have been his most popular work at least in the twelfth century,8 was probably written between 833 and 840.9 After receiving several modern editions,10 it was reprinted by J.-P. Migne in PL 115, cols. 243–552. A large part of Angelom’s commentary on Genesis and his commentary on the Books of Samuel and Kings are composed of excerpts copied verbatim from Bede and Hrabanus Maurus.11 However, in his commentary on the Books of Samuel and Kings, Angelom adopts a number of in hebreo interpretations from Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones that are not found in Hrabanus;12 the Gloss in turn borrows them from Angelom. In his commentary on Genesis, Angelom transmits Jewish traditions or interpretations, which are found neither in Pseudo-Jerome nor in Hrabanus Maurus.13 In point of fact, Angelom evinces no direct knowledge of Hebrew. Indeed, he expressly declares that he has drawn his in hebreo translations from an intermediate source by means of specific formulas such as: in hebreo, ut aiunt (‘in Hebrew, as they say’).14 In his commentary on 1 Sam 22.9–10, for example, he refers to a variant reading between the Hebrew text and the Vulgate, which is also found in Hrabanus and Pseudo-Jerome. But whereas Hrabanus and Pseudo-Jerome simply note that such a variant is found in the Hebrew text, Angelom specifies that he knows it to be in the Hebrew text because the Jews report the Hebrew text as having it.15 Indeed, there are occasions when Angelom erroneously ascribes a certain textual variant to the Hebrew text.16 In addition, Angelom frequently explicitly indicates that he has taken his references to the Hebrew text or to Jewish interpretations from an intermediate Latin source.17 Saltman asserts that Andrew drew on both Angelom and Hrabanus in his commentaries on the First and Second Books of Samuel: according to Saltman, 8

Gorman, ‘Angelom on Genesis’, p. 570; cf. Laistner, ‘Medieval Commentaries’, p. 36. Laistner adduces the comparatively large number of extant manuscripts of this commentary as one of the arguments for its popularity. 9 Gorman, ‘Angelom on Genesis’, pp. 562–63. 10 Gorman, ‘Angelom on Genesis’, p. 560. 11 Laistner (‘Medieval Commentaries’, p. 37) asserts that the amount of commentary composed of extracts from these two exegetes is ‘between two thirds and three quarters’. 12 Laistner, ‘Medieval Commentaries’, p. 38. See for instance: 1 Sam 17.18 (A. Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones on the Book of Samuel [Leiden: Brill, 1975], q. 60, p. 91); Angelom, PL 115, cols 310D–311A. 13 Cf., for example, Angelom’s interpretation of Gen 4.23: Gen., PL 115, col. 152A–B. 14 Angelom, Reg. I, PL 115, col. 260D. 15 ‘Doeg Idumaeo, qui voto se obligaverat, sicut in Hebraeo legitur, prout Judaei tradunt’. Angelom, Reg. I, PL 115, col. 322B. 16 Cf., for example, Angelom’s interpretation of 2 Sam 5.8, PL 115, col. 344D. 17 Cf. his interpretations of 1 Sam 9.19, PL 115, col. 292C–D, and of 2 Sam 5.23, PL 115, col. 347D.

The Latin Sources

 49

Andrew adopts many of the Pseudo-Hieronymian quaestiones that he incorporates in his commentaries from them.18 For his part, H. J. Pollitt maintains that Hugh resorted to Hrabanus and Angelom directly.19 In my own research, however, I have found no conclusive evidence that Andrew drew any of the interpretations in hebreo or his references to Jewish traditions from any of these authors. Indeed, all the translations in hebreo or references to Jewish traditions found in these two sources were available to Hugh and Andrew in at least one of the other aforementioned Latin sources, and frequently, in more. Indeed, I have found closer parallels to the text of Andrew’s interpretation in at least one of the other sources mentioned above. E. Latin Sources Available to Hugh and Andrew The intention of the following remarks is to ask whether my conclusions regarding the Latin sources of the in hebreo interpretations found in the commentaries of the Victorines are supported by manuscript evidence, by ascertaining whether those Latin sources, on which Hugh and Andrew seem to have relied directly, are or were represented in manuscripts of the Victorine library.20 For some of those Latin sources, such as Jerome, I also ask whether manuscripts of his works, datable to between the eighth and the twelfth centuries, were extant in French libraries. If this is the case, the probability that Hugh and Andrew had access to them is greater. Obviously, this enquiry can only be approximate, since a certain amount of these manuscripts are only reported to have belonged to the Victorine library in a later period than that of Hugh and Andrew’s activity at the Abbey of St Victor. In addition, not all the books that Hugh and Andrew consulted need to have belonged to, or even to have been located in, the library of the Abbey. There is evidence that this library allowed a number of its books to be lent to other institutions or to individuals and, in its turn, the library borrowed books from elsewhere.21 In addition, both Victorines may have consulted books in or from libraries outside the walls of St Victor. Moreover, the catalogue of the Victorine manuscripts prepared by Claude de Grandrue (1514) and recently edited by Gilbert Ouy includes only 18 Saltman, ‘Pseudo-Jerome in the Commentary of Andrew of St Victor on Samuel’, Harvard Theological Review, 67 (1974), pp. 195–253. 19 Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 33 (1966), pp. 26–29 for Hrabanus, and 29–32 for Angelom. 20 On St Victor’s library in the twelfth century, see also F. Gasparri, ‘Scriptorium et bureau d’écriture de l’abbaye Saint-Victor de Paris’, in L’abbaye parisienne de Saint-Victor au Moyen Âge, ed., J. Longère, Bibliotheca Victorina, 1 (Paris: Brepols, 1991), pp. 119–39. For the fifteenth-century library see: G. Ouy, Les manuscrits de l’abbaye de Saint-Victor: Catalogue établi sur la base du répertoire de Claude de Grandrue (1514), 2 vols, Bibliotheca Victorina, 10 (Brepols: Turnhout, 1999). 21 Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, I, p. 28.

Chapter One

50

a part of the works that belonged to the library of the Abbey:22 many works were stolen,23 and catalogues prior to Grandrue’s were lost.24 Most likely, both Hugh and Andrew had access to the Latin translation of Josephus Flavius’s work the Jewish Antiquities. Of the 171 extant manuscripts of this translation, eighty-nine are datable to between the sixth and the twelfth century, twenty-eight belong to French libraries,25 and one extant copy from the twelfth century comes from St Victor’s library: Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,361, fols 1r–139r, 235v–264r.26 It is very likely that most of Jerome’s works were available to both Victorines. Bernard Lambert, in his work on the manuscript tradition of Jerome’s works registers a total of 106 manuscripts of QHG, datable to between the eighth and the twelfth centuries, of which 45 belong to French libraries.27 He lists a total of 101 manuscripts of Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, datable to between the eighth and the twelfth centuries, of which forty-two are of French libraries;28 and eighty-one manuscripts of De situ et nominibus locorum Hebraicorum liber, datable to between the eighth and the twelfth centuries, and thirty-four of these belong to French libraries.29 Moreover, the catalogue of Grandrue lists two manuscripts of QHG (Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,851, fol. 3; and Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,471, fol. 45, from the end and the middle of the twelfth century respectively);30 two manuscripts containing his Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum (Paris, BnF, lat. 15,149, fols 66–101 and BnF, lat. 14,471, fols 17–45, both from the middle of the twelfth century);31 and one manuscript of De situ et nominibus locorum Hebraicorum liber (BnF, MS lat. 14,851, fol. 108, from the end of the twelfth century).32 Grandrue’s catalogue records several manuscripts of Jerome’s epistles. Among them are included: Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,805, fol. 77, datable to between the ninth and tenth centuries, which contains among others Jerome’s Epistle 20 addressed to Damasus;33 Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,473, fol. 51, dated from the beginning of the

22

Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, I, pp. 34, 75. Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, I, pp. 30–34. 24 Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, I, pp. 26, 35–36. 25 F. Blatt, The Latin Josephus I: Introduction and Text. The Antiquities: books I–V, Acta ­Jutlandica 30.1, Hum. Ser. 44 (Copenhagen: University of Aarhus, 1958), pp. cvii–cxi. 26 Blatt, The Latin Josephus I, pp. l, cviii; Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, II, p. 429. 27 B. Lambert, Bibliotheca Hieronymiana manuscripta: la tradition manuscrite des œuvres de saint Jérôme, 4 vols, Instrumenta Patristica, 4 (Steenbrugis: in abbatia S. Petri, 1969), II, pp. 1–9. 28 Lambert, Bibliotheca Hieronymiana manuscripta, II, pp. 11–21. 29 Lambert, Bibliotheca Hieronymiana manuscripta, II, pp. 23–29. 30 Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, II, pp. 187 and 451. 31 Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, II, pp. 446 and 451 respectively. 32 Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, II, p. 187. 33 Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, II, p. 568. 23

The Latin Sources

 51

twelfth century, includes among others the Epistle 25 to Marcella;34 and Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,474, fols 2, 14, 93, 142, 162, datable to the mid-twelfth century, includes, among others, Epistles 18A, 20, 36, to Damasus, and Epistles 64 and 78 to Fabiola.35 Lambert’s lists of Jerome’s epistles, however, indicate that Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,805, fol. 77 contains not only Epistle 20 to Damasus but also Jerome’s Epistle 30 to Paula.36 Following Lambert’s evidence, the approximate numbers of extant manuscripts of Jerome’s epistles from which we have ascertained that Hugh and Andrew borrowed Hebrew material are as follows: Ep. 18A to Damasus: 122, all dating between the eighth and the tenth centuries; 33 in French libraries.37 Ep. 20 to Damasus: 148, all dating between the eighth and the tenth centuries; 41 in French libraries or of French provenance.38 Ep. 25 to Marcella: 158, all dating between the eighth and the tenth centuries; 45 in French libraries or of French provenance.39 Ep. 30 to Paula: 146, all between the eighth and the tenth centuries (excepting one datable to between the sixth and the seventh centuries); 44 are in French libraries.40 Ep. 36 to Damasus: 174, all dating between the eighth and the tenth centuries; 45 in French libraries or of French provenance.41 Ep. 64 to Fabiola: 148, all dating between the eighth and the tenth centuries; 38 in French libraries or of French origin.42 Ep. 78 to Fabiola: 94, all copied between the eighth and the ninth (excluding one, between the sixth and the seventh centuries); twenty-eight in French libraries.43 All of the manuscripts of Jerome’s epistles listed by Lambert were copied before the eleventh century, in most cases between the eighth and the tenth centuries, some even earlier. In addition, a large proportion of them are of French origin. This evidence makes it very likely that Jerome’s letters would have been available to Hugh and Andrew. 34

Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, II, p. 190. Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, II, pp. 188–90. 36 Lambert, Bibliotheca Hieronymiana manuscripta, IB, pp. 439, 496. 37 Lambert, Bibliotheca Hieronymiana manuscripta, IB, pp. 426–30. 38 Lambert, Bibliotheca Hieronymiana manuscripta, IB, pp. 439–43. 39 Lambert, Bibliotheca Hieronymiana manuscripta, IB, pp. 471–76. 40 Lambert, Bibliotheca Hieronymiana manuscripta, IB, pp. 496–500. 41 Lambert, Bibliotheca Hieronymiana manuscripta, IB, pp. 519–25. 42 Lambert, Bibliotheca Hieronymiana manuscripta, IB, pp. 702–7. 43 Lambert, Bibliotheca Hieronymiana manuscripta, IB, pp. 781–84. 35

Chapter One

52

Similarly, only one manuscript of Jerome’s commentary on Isaiah, from the second half of the twelfth century, is registered in the fifteenth-century Victorine catalogue (Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 175, fols 93v–160r).44 Lambert, however, registers a total of 152 manuscripts of the Hieronymian commentary on Isaiah, dated to between the seventh and the twelfth centuries, of which sixty-five belong to French libraries or are of French provenance.45 Lambert registers approximately 111 manuscripts of Jerome’s commentary on the Book of Jonah – usually, it is found together with the commentaries on all or some of the other Twelve Minor Prophets –, datable to between the eighth and the twelfth centuries, of which fifty-five are of French provenance or are in French libraries.46 The fifteenth-century catalogue registers only one manuscript containing Jerome’s commentary on Jonah (Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,287, fol. 132), though that is dated to the beginning of the thirteenth century and therefore it was not available to either Hugh or Andrew.47 Almost all of Augustine’s works are represented in Grandrue’s catalogue, in most cases with more than one exemplar.48 Though the Quaestiones in Heptateuchum libri vii are not listed, there is little doubt that Hugh and Andrew had access to this work. Both Victorines probably had access to Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones on Samuel and Kings. Of the forty-three manuscripts of that work listed by Saltman, twentyfour were written between the ninth and the twelfth centuries.49 The library of St Victor held at least one manuscript of this work (BnF, MS lat. 14,471, fol. 73) datable to the mid-twelfth century.50 It is also very likely that both Hugh and Andrew had access to Isidore’s Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum. There are two manuscripts, from the beginning and second half of the twelfth century respectively, listed in Grandrue’s catalogue (Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,762, fols 241–317 and Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,853, fols 153–208).51 Manuscripts of Bede’s biblical commentaries were frequently copied between the eighth and the twelfth centuries. According to Laistner’s Hand-list, the number of extant manuscripts of Bedan works datable to our period are as follows: four manuscripts of the short commentary on Genesis (covering only the first 44

Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, II, pp. 36–37. Lambert, Bibliotheca Hieronymiana manuscripta, II, pp. 73–90. 46 Lambert, Bibliotheca Hieronymiana manuscripta, II, pp. 153–89. 47 Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, II, p. 186; cf. Lambert, Bibliotheca Hieronymiana manuscripta, II, p. 179. 48 Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, I, pp. 262–68. 49 Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, pp. lxi–lxii. Saltman’s list is derived from catalogues of manuscripts in the London University Palaeography Library, ibid., p. 61. 50 Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, II, p. 451. 51 Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, II, pp. 232 and 237–38 respectively. 45

The Latin Sources

 53

three chapters, also called Hexameron); twelve of the long commentary on Genesis; thirty-three of In Regum Librum xxx Quaestiones; seven of the commentary on the First Book of Samuel; fifty-three of De tabernaculo; and twenty-seven of De templo Salomonis.52 In every instance, the number of manuscripts preserved in French libraries or of French origin is high: nine of the long commentary on Genesis; one of the short commentary on the same Book; thirteen of In Regum Librum xxx Quaestiones; three of the commentary on the First Book of Samuel; twenty-four of De tabernaculo; and thirteen of the De templo Salomonis. At least twenty-three works by Bede are recorded in Grandrue’s catalogue.53 Of those works on which Hugh and Andrew drew for Hebrew or Jewish material, only In Regum Librum xxx Quaestiones is represented with one manuscript in that list (Paris, BnF, lat. 14,762, fol. 317) from the beginning of the twelfth century, though only from the end of that century in St Victor’s library.54 Three manuscripts of two works by Hrabanus Maurus are listed in the catalogue drawn up by Claude de Grandrue.55 None of them, however, is a commentary on either the Books of the Pentateuch or on those of Samuel. It is not certain whether the Victorine library possessed those commentaries by Hrabanus at the time when Hugh and Andrew were producing their commentaries on those biblical books. The Victorine manuscripts of the Glosa Ordinaria (Paris, BnF, MSS lat. 14,398– 14,410 and Paris, Bibl. Maz., MSS 131–44) date to between the middle and end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth centuries respectively.56 Hugh and Andrew, therefore, could not have used Paris, Bibl. Maz., MSS 131–44. It appears that they did not use Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398. They may have used Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399 of the Gloss on Genesis. Remigius of Auxerre’s commentary on Genesis is not represented in the Victorine fifteenth-century catalogue. The repertorium does, however, list eleven manuscripts containing other works by this author: seven of them date from the early or mid-twelfth century; the remainder, from the thirteen-century.57 There52

Laistner, A Hand-List of Bede Manuscripts (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1943), pp. 41–43, 62–66, 70–78. The existence of additional copies of the said Bedan works is attested in medieval book-lists or catalogues: Laistner, A Hand-List, pp. x–xiii. 53 Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, I, p. 270. 54 Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, II, p. 232. 55 Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, I, p. 291. 56 L. Delisle, Inventaire des manuscrits de l’abbaye de Saint-Victor (Paris, 1869), pp. 12–13 cited in Berndt, ‘La pratique exégétique’, p. 274; Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, II, pp. 9–15. On the history and paleographic and codicological description of these manuscripts, see M. M. Tischler, Die Bibel in Saint-Victor zu Paris: Das Buch der Bücher als Gradmesser für wissenschaftliche, soziale und ordensgeschichtliche Umbrüche im europäischen Hoch- und Spätmittelalter, Corpus Victo­ rinum: Instrumenta, 6 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2014), pp. 22, 24, 31, 66–71, 118–19, 199–209. 57 Ouy, Les manuscrits de Saint-Victor, I, p. 318.

Chapter One

54

fore, at least some of Remigius’s works were known in St Victor’s library already at an early period, and it is likely that also the commentary on Genesis would have been available to Hugh and Andrew. No work by Haimo of Auxerre or Angelom of Luxeuil is represented in the fifteen-century catalogue. Further, the mere fact that Andrew or Hugh used an intermediate source, such as a Carolingian adaptation of Jerome or any other of the fathers, does not necessarily mean that the original source was not available to them in their library. They might have preferred to use a later manuscript copy for the sake of convenience. Thus, I shall argue that Andrew does not draw on Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones directly, but took this work from the Gloss. It seems most likely, however, that Andrew did have access to that work in the Abbey library. F. The Victorines’ Use of their Latin Sources Medieval Latin exegetes, such as Hrabanus Maurus, Remigius, and the Gloss usually incorporate the interpretations of Church fathers as well as those of other writers such as Pseudo-Jerome word for word. For this reason, it is not always possible to determine whether Andrew and Hugh borrow an interpretation directly from an ancient author or via an intermediate source. Normally, Andrew does not copy his Latin sources out in extenso. Only at times, does he lift the whole commentary from his source; instead, he usually simply adopts the idea of his source and summarizes it. For example, Angelom quotes the entire question on whether Mathusalem lived out fourteen years after the Flood or not from QHG 5.21–27. Andrew, however, summarizes this question in just two lines. Thus, Andrew frequently paraphrases his sources. On many occasions, however, he does quote his sources verbatim.58 In contrast, Hugh seldom copies texts from his sources word for word.59 Accordingly, it is often easier to identify Andrew’s sources than those of Hugh. There is another obstacle to the precise identification of the Latin source for Hugh and Andrew: very seldom do Hugh and Andrew expressly mention by name Latin sources later than Bede (eighth century) upon which they draw.60 Sometimes, however, though they do not name their source, Hugh and Andrew do acknowledge that they are borrowing from another source to which they refer with the pronouns quidam, nonnulli (‘some’), or alii (‘others’), or the phrase secundum quosdam (‘according to some’). These indefinite pronouns without the 58

Cf. Van Liere, In Librum Regum, p. xix. Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, p. 10; Hugh as Biblical Exegete, p. 115. 60 Vernet, ‘Hugues de Saint-Victor’, col. 290; Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, pp. 9–10; id., Hugh as Biblical Exegete, p. 115, and n. 40. For Andrew, see: Van Liere, In Librum Regum, p. 19. 59

The Latin Sources

 55

name Hebrei or Judei usually indicate a Latin, not a Jewish source. For example, in his comment on Gen 1.2, Andrew writes: Et uentus – qui hic spiritus Domini secundun quosdam appellatur – […]

And the wind – which according to some [secundun quosdam] is called here the Spirit of the Lord – […].61

With the indefinite pronoun quosdam Andrew is, in fact, referring to Jerome, who had written in QHG: Et spiritus dei ferebatur super aquas. […] Ex quo intelligimus non de spiritu mundi dici, ut nonnulli arbitrantur, sed de spiritu sancto, qui et ipse uiuificator omnium a principio dicitur.62

And the Spirit of God moved over the waters […]. Consequently we understand that this is said not about the spirit of the world, as some suppose, but about the Holy Spirit, Who is also said from the beginning to be Himself the Life-giver to all things.63

Likewise, in their interpretations of 1 Sam 13.1, both Hugh and Andrew employ the indefinite pronouns quidam (‘some’) and alii (‘others’) to introduce the interpretation that they borrow from the Latin sources, and subsequently contrast to it the interpretation ‘according to the Hebrew’: Hugh Quidam sic exponunt […]. Hebrei dicunt […]. (Some explain it thus: […] The Hebrews say […]).64

Andrew Hanc litteram sic quidam exponunt […]. Alii dicunt […]. In Hebreo sic habet: […]. (Some expound this text thus: […]. Others say […] In the Hebrew text it is rendered as it follows: […]).65

That Hugh and Andrew take their interpretations introduced with quidam (‘some’) and alii (‘others’) from the Latin sources is clear from the fact that both interpretations also appear in Latin sources prior to the Victorines: the first, which is introduced by quidam, is found in the commentaries of Pseudo-Jerome, Hrabanus, Angelom, and the Gloss.66 The second, which Andrew introduces with 61

Andrew, Gen., ll. 107–108. QHG 3, Lag. 4 (9–11). 63 Hayward, HQG, p. 30. In CCSL, 72: non nulli (in two words). 64 Hugh, Reg. I, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092, fol. 130v. 65 Andrew, Reg. I, ll. 1374–1412. 66 Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome: Quaestiones, q. 43, p. 84; Hrabanus, Reg. I, PL 109, col. 40B–C; Angelom, Reg. I, PL 115, col. 295D; Glossa ord. int., Reg. I, p. 19. 62

Chapter One

56

alii, is found in the same four sources except for Pseudo-Jerome, and is ascribed to Hrabanus in the Gloss.67 One example that proves that the use of an indefinite pronoun alone does not indicate a Jewish, but, in fact, a Latin source is Andrew’s comment on 1 Sam 1.5: in Hebreo inuenitur secundum quosdam: duplex […]. Nonnulli tamen Hebreorum […] asserunt.68

in the Hebrew [text] it is found according to some (secundum quosdam): ‘double’ […]. However, some of the Hebrews assert that […].

The interpretation introduced with the pronoun secundum quosdam (‘according to some’) appears in Pseudo-Jerome’s comment on the same passage.69 Andrew also refers to Hugh as quidam or secundum alios.70 G. Hugh’s Approach to his Latin Sources Most of the in hebreo interpretations that I analyse in this chapter also belong to Andrew’s commentary on the Pentateuch and on the Former Prophets. Hugh did rely on Latin sources. In contrast to Andrew, however, Hugh incorporates in his commentaries very few of the in hebreo translations or Jewish interpretations that he found in his Latin sources. One probable reason for this apparent lack is that Hugh, unlike his disciple, did not intend to deal exclusively with literal interpretations of the biblical text. Indeed, in his Note, one also finds moral and allegorical interpretations. When he draws on his Latin sources, Hugh is interested in a wide range of interpretations, and does not seem to have turned to the Latin sources for interpretations ‘according to the Hebrew’, but for other sorts of comments. For most of his references to the Hebrew text or Jewish interpretations, Hugh resorts to his contemporaneous Jewish sources directly. Accordingly, I shall analyse in this chapter very few of Hugh’s interpretations. Most of Hugh’s references to the Hebrew shall be treated in the third chapter, which is devoted to the Jewish sources.

67

Hrabanus, PL 109, cols 40A–B; Angelom, PL 115, cols 295D–296 A; Glossa ord. marg., Reg. I, p. 19. 68 Andrew, Reg. I, ll. 129–134. 69 Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome: Quaestiones, q. 4, p. 67. 70 Cf. Andrew’s comment on Gen 20.16: Gen., ll. 2215–2231; for Hugh’s interpretation, see Hugh, Pent., Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092, fol. 93v. In his introduction to his second commentary on Leviticus, which he borrows entirely from Hugh, Andrew acknowledges having written his first commentary on that book secundum alios: Andrew, Lev. II, ll. 503–507.

The Latin Sources

 57

H. Etymologies of Hebrew Names Like Jerome and other medieval Latin authors such as the Carolingian exegetes, Hugh and Andrew discuss a number of etymological explanations of Hebrew names in their commentaries on the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. Among them, there are Andrew’s interpretations of Gen 14.5, 7; 21.31; 22.2; 23.2; 26.32–33; and 35.27;71 Exod 1.1; 23.21;72 1 Sam 1.1, 20; and 2.12;73 and Hugh’s comments (all of which except Judg 1.1 are transmitted by Andrew) on Lev 1.1;74 Judg 3.15; 4.6; 5.18;75 and 1 Sam 6.18 (1).76 However, I have found only a few etymological explanations with an expressed ascription to the Hebrew, to wit: Andrew’s interpretations of Gen 14.5; 26.32–33: Exod 1.1; 23.21; Hugh’s interpretations of Lev 1.1; 5.18; and 1 Sam 6.18 (1). In this introduction, I shall give two examples of etymologies that are not ascribed to the Hebrew whereas in other sections of this chapter, I shall analyse etymologies containing an explicit ascription to the Hebrew. Both Andrew and Hugh always introduce these etymological explanations according to a fixed formula. After the Hebrew name (in its Latin transcription), the Victorines write either the expression id est (‘that is to say’) or the verb interpretatur (‘is translated’, ‘it may be understood’); next, they add the meaning of the name under discussion, and sometimes, also an explanation of its origin. For example, in his interpretation of Gen 23.2, Andrew explains the meaning of the second element of the name Kiryat Arbaah as follows: Andrew, Gen., ll. 2314–2316 Arbee, id est quattuor. Quia ibi AbraArbee, that is to say, four; because in that ham, Isaac et Iacob conditus est et place Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the first Adam primus, sicut in libro Iosue aperte Adam were buried, as is clearly shown in 77 demonstratur. the Book of Joshua.

71

Andrew, Gen., l. 1895; l. 1912; ll. 2281–2282, 2290–2291, 2314–2316, 2243–2448, 2669–2670. Andrew, Exod., ll. 2–6, ll. 1534–1535. 73 Andrew, Reg. I, ll. 29–31, ll. 213–214, l. 399. 74 Hugh, Pent., Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092, fol. 110v; Andrew, Lev., ll. 4–5. 75 Hugh, Iud., Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092, fols 123r–v, 125v–126r; Andrew, Iud., ll. 51–55, 69–70, 195–201. 76 Hugh, Reg. I, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092, fol. 129v; Andrew, Reg. I, l. 905. Andrew does not ascribe the interpretation of 1 Sam 6.18 (1) to the Hebrew. 77 Cf. Jerome, QHG, p. 28, Lag. 35 (20–30); and Jerome, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, p. 61, Lag. 3.5–6. 72

Chapter One

58

And in his interpretation of 1 Sam 1.20, Andrew comments: Quod a Domino postulasset eum. Causam nominis ponit. Samuel enim interpretatur postulatio Dei uel nomen eius Deus.78

Because she [Hannah] had asked him of the Lord. He [the biblical writer] gives the reason for the name. For Samuel may be understood either as ‘request from God’ or ‘his name is God’.

Jerome and the two Alexandrian exegetes Philo and Origen were the ultimate sources for the etymological explanations of Hebrew names contained in the works of medieval Latin authors, and therefore also of the Victorines. Jerome wrote abundantly on etymological interpretations of Hebrew names. His widely known work the Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum is entirely devoted to explaining such onomastic etymologies. He also deals with Hebrew etymologies in his biblical commentaries, especially in QHG, and in many of his letters.79 The works of Philo, Origen, and Jerome were transmitted to the Latin medieval West either directly, or in Latin translation (such as Rufinus’s translation of Origen), or through the works of intermediate authors, such as Ambrose of Milan (339–97), Augustine (354–430), Aponius (c. 400), Eucherius of Lyon (d. 455), Cassiodorus (490–583), Gregory the Great (d. 604), Pseudo-Melito (early seventh century), and Isidore of Seville (d. 636).80 In addition, knowledge of Hebrew etymologies was also made accessible through different sorts of collections, viz., onomastic lists or alphabetic glossaries.81 Through these exegetical works and lists the etymologies were transmitted to medieval authors earlier than the Victorines, such as Bede, Pseudo-Bede, Alcuin of York, Hrabanus Maurus, Angelom of Luxeuil, Haimo of Auxerre, Remigius of Auxerre, and the author of the Gloss. 78

Andrew, Reg. I, l. 214; cf. Jerome, LIHN, p. 85, Lag. 21.5; p. 105, Lag. 36 (20–21). The epistles of St Jerome most pertinent to exegetical questions of the Old Testament and to etymological interpretations of Hebrew names in the Bible are those addressed to Pope Damasus (18A, 18B, 20, and 36), Marcella (25, 26, 28, 29, 34, and 37), Paula (30), Faviola (64 and 78) and to Principia (65). 80 M. Thiel, Grundlagen und Gestalt der Hebräischkenntnisse des Frühen Mittelalters (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 1973). Thiel analyses the Latin sources from the early medieval period which contain etymological explanations of Hebrew names. In the second part of this work, the author presents all the Hebrew onomastic material transmitted from Origen to Isidore of Seville, as well as the bibliographic references where this material was found. He also includes some other later medieval sources. 81 Thiel, Grundlagen, pp. 53–180. For an example of onomastic lists, see the list of the ten biblical names for God in Jerome’s Ep. 25 addressed to Marcella (Thiel, Grundlagen, pp. 69– 70, 72–75); for an example of Glossaries, see the Interpretationes nominum hebraicorum ascribed to Pseudo-Bede: see Thiel, Grundlagen, pp. 158–74 (the oldest extant manuscripts are thirteenth century). 79

The Latin Sources

 59

The fact that these etymologies may be found already in so many earlier Latin sources, as well as in glossaries may, in fact, be the reason why, in contrast to other medieval authors, Hugh and Andrew include so very few of them in their commentaries. Every Latin author had them at hand in the glossaries, if he wished to quote them; there was no need for a later Latin author to repeat such a work. It is therefore most probable that both Hugh and Andrew borrowed those etymological interpretations from their Latin sources. Andrew seems to have adopted most of the etymologies that he discusses in his works from the Gloss.82 What is more, it is most unlikely that the Victorines should have borrowed the etymological interpretations of Hebrew names from Hebrew sources. Most of the etymologies refer to names widely used in the Hebrew language, and do not need to be glossed for the Hebrew reader: their meanings would be obvious to him. It is only the Latin reader ignorant of Hebrew who would need to have them explained to him. I. The Latin Sources of the Commentaries on Genesis The commentaries of both Hugh and Andrew of St Victor on the Book of Genesis contain ninety-eight references to the Hebrew text, the Hebrew language, or Jewish interpretations. Of these, Andrew borrows a total of thirty-three, Hugh adopts only one, from earlier Latin sources. There are four Latin sources for these references to the Hebrew: Jerome, Bede, Remigius, and the Gloss. A. Jerome 1. Introduction The works of Jerome (340s–420) constitute the main source for all the material related to the Hebrew text, the Hebrew language, and Jewish exegesis found in Latin Christian writings from the late antique and the medieval period.83 Therefore, most of the in hebreo interpretations that Hugh and Andrew derive from 82 In his interpretation of the name Beersheva in Gen 21.31, Andrew is closer in wording to the Gloss (the interlinear gloss in Rusch’s edition) than to the other Latin sources. Andrew’s interpretation of Arbaah in Gen 23.2 is identical in wording to that of the Gloss (marginal gloss in Rusch’s edition). 83 For the discussion on the exact year of Jerome’s birth, see the bibliography cited in A. Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993; repr. 2002), p. 1. For Jerome’s life and work, see: McKane, Selected Christian Hebraists, pp. 31–41; J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome, his Life, Writings, and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1975); H. F. D. Sparks, ‘Jerome as Biblical Scholar’, in The Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to Jerome, ed. by P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. ­Evans, 3 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), I, pp. 510–41.

Chapter One

60

Latin sources in their commentaries on Genesis and some in hebreo interpretations in their commentaries on other biblical books are ultimately traceable to Jerome’s QHG, the Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, some of his letters, or to one of his biblical commentaries. Jerome’s interpretations and translations in hebreo agree on many occasions with a Hebrew text very similar to the Masoretic text (MT). However, for his translation of the Bible from the Hebrew into Latin, as well as for his other works related to the Hebrew language and Jewish interpretations, Jerome does not rely exclusively on this Hebrew text.84 He draws to a great extent on Greek translations of the Bible extant in his time, namely the Hexaplaric Septuagint and the three Greek revisions of it made in the second century ce, viz. those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (hereafter The Three).85 Further, he makes use of both Aramaic biblical translations and rabbinic interpretations. Finally, Jerome’s own understanding of the importance of the context of the narrative and of the sense of the words and phrases in the text plays an important role in his choice of particular renderings. The influence of the Old Latin version (the Vetus Latina) and of the Greek versions of the Bible on Jerome’s translations and interpretations in hebreo is attested in his works written throughout his life.86 The biblical lemmata of the interpretations in QHG as well as those used in many of his biblical commentaries are drawn from the Vetus Latina (VL). The latter translates a Greek text from the second century of the Christian era, prior to Origen’s Hexaplaric revision of the Septuagint.87 Jerome used Origen’s Hexaplaric Septuagint as the basis for his revision of the Vetus Latina.88 His working knowledge of this recension of the Septuagint is evident from several prefaces to his translations of Biblical books in the Vulgate, such as the Preface to Chronicles, Job, and the first preface to the Psalter.

84

Jerome produced his translation of the Bible into Latin from the original Hebrew between 391 and 405. See Kamesar, Jerome, pp. 73–74, 76–78, 81; cf. Sparks, ‘Jerome as Biblical Scholar’, p. 516. 85 For the designation of The Three as revisions, see, see E. Tov, The Textual Criticism of the Bible: An Introduction, The Biblical Encyclopaedia Library, 4 ( Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1989; repr. 1997), pp. 113–17. 86 Kamesar, Jerome, pp. 54–55. 87 J. Trebolle Barrera, La Biblia judía y la Biblia cristiana: Introducción a la historia de la ­Biblia, Biblioteca de ciencias bíblicas y orientales, 3rd edn (Madrid: Trotta, 1998), p. 392. 88 The texts that remain from this revision are the ‘Gallican’ Psalter, Job, and the prefaces to Chronicles, Proverbs, Eclesiastes, and the Song of Songs: see Sparks, ‘Jerome as Biblical Scholar’, p. 515. The ‘Galllican’ Psalter, or Psalterium iuxta LXX, has been handed down in the Vulgate together with the Psalter according to the Hebrew or iuxta Hebraeos.

The Latin Sources

 61

By means of Origen’s Hexapla, Jerome had access not only to the Hexaplaric Septuagint but also to The Three.89 Jerome frequently quotes renderings of The Three in QHG and contrasts their translations with readings in the Septuagint and in the Hebrew text.90 In QHG, he reveals a first-hand knowledge and a profound understanding of the renderings of the three later Greek translations. On several occasions in QHG, he presents one of the renderings of the Three as the exegetical ‘solution’ for his in hebreo interpretation.91 He also employs this interpretative strategy in certain renderings in the Vulgate.92 It is, therefore, clear that Jerome used The Three as one means to understand the range of possible meanings of the Hebrew text.93 Several in hebreo interpretations in QHG are found to be identical to the textual renderings given in extant Aramaic translations and in rabbinic interpretations in some midrashim. In some of these interpretations, Jerome presents a ‘solution’ that accords both with one of the Aramaic translations and with a rabbinic interpretation in one of the midrashim.94 In others, he agrees only with one or several of the Aramaic translations rather than other rabbinic Jewish sources or the Greek translations.95 89 For evidence of Jerome’s comparison of the Septuagint with The Three and with the Hebrew, see Jerome’s epistles 18A and 18B on Isaiah’s vision of the seraphim and of the Lord sitting on a throne (Isa 6.1–9); and his Ep. 20 to Damasus on the Hebrew word Hoshanna. The references to Jerome’s epistles are according to CSEL, 54: Hieronymi Epistulae I–LXX, ed. by I. Hilberg (­Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschften, 1996). 90 Examples of those quotations are: Gen 2.8, 15, 23; 3.8; 4.4–5, 6–7, 15; 6.2, 4; 15.2–3; 22.13; 24.43; 26.12, 21, 32–33; 29.34; 30.10–11; 36.24; 37.3; 38.5; 41.43; 43.11; and 45.17. 91 For example, the ‘solution’ of his in hebreo interpretation of Gen 4.26 in QHG, p. 8, Lag. 10 (1–7) is identical with Symmachus’s rendering; see Kamesar, Jerome, pp. 145 and 149. The technical term solutio (‘solution’) is used first in Greek and Latin literature and then in biblical commentaries to refer to the answer to an exegetical or textual difficulty in a certain text, the latter being explicitly formulated or implied. For a broader explanation of the term, see Hayward, HQG, pp. ii–vii. 92 In the Vulgate interpretation of Gen 4.26, Jerome translates one of the extant versions of Aquila: see Kamesar, Jerome, p. 149. 93 Kamesar, Jerome, pp. 149–50, 180–81. 94 In his interpretation of Gen 26.26 in QHG, Jerome translates the passage in the same way as Targum Onkelos. His rendering is also found in Bereshit Rabbah. However, the latter provides two solutions: the first is the one given in the Targum; the second is identical to the reading of the Septuagint. However, Jerome renders only that extant in the Targum. See M. Rahmer, Die hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus (Breslau: Schletter (H. Skutsch), 1861), p. 42. 95 For example, see Rahmer’s discussion of Jerome’s in hebreo interpretation in QHG 49.14 (Die hebräischen Traditionen, pp. 52–54). In this instance, Jerome agrees in part not only with the Targumim Jonathan and Neophiti but also with Gen. Rab. However, – Rahmer also notes – the last part of Jerome’s interpretation, where it is stated that ‘all the tribes of Israel should serve Issachar, as if bringing gifts to a master’, appears not in the Midrash, but only in the Aramaic Targumim.

Chapter One

62

As in QHG, also many of Jerome’s renderings in the Vulgate agree with Aramaic Targumim and rabbinic interpretations in Midrashim.96 The Hebrew text used by Jerome was not vocalised or punctuated, and therefore it was open to a greater variety of possible interpretations than the later vocalised and punctuated text. Therefore, in addition to the Greek later revisions, Jerome turns to Aramaic translations and to rabbinic interpretations as further means to ascertain all the possible meanings of the Hebrew text.97 In fact, it is likely that he sometimes employs both sources – the three Greek revisions on one hand and the Aramaic and rabbinic on the other, not as alternatives to one another, but using them rather in concert.98 Lastly, Jerome’s own independent judgement is seen in the transformation to which he subjects some of the renderings he adopts from his sources, as is the case in his interpretation of Gen 6.3 in QHG.99 In short, many renderings of the Vulgate diverge from the Masoretic text, and are identical to that of the Septuagint or to one of The Three;100 but also in QHG Jerome occasionally presents one of the renderings of The Three as ‘the solution’ of his in hebreo interpretation.101 From this two conclusions may be drawn: (a) there exist differences between certain individual translations in the Vulgate and a number of renderings of the parallel passages in the in hebreo translations in QHG; and (b) several renderings of the interpretations labelled in hebreo in QHG do not necessarily constitute a more literal translation of the Masoretic text than the parallel translations of the same passages in the Vulgate. 2. Jerome and the Victorines Hugh and Andrew of St Victor could have hardly been aware of the textual complexity and variety lying behind Jerome’s renderings ‘according to the Hebrew’. Indeed, their in hebreo translations and references to Jewish interpretations evince a lack of first-hand discernment of the similarity or differences existing among Jerome’s various renderings from the Hebrew.

96 B. Kedar-Kopfstein, ‘The Vulgate as a Translation: Some Semantic and Syntactical Aspects of Jerome’s Version of the Hebrew Bible’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1968), pp. 62–64. 97 Kamesar, Jerome, pp. 180–81. 98 Kamesar, Jerome, pp. 189–91. 99 See the analysis of it below, pp. 93–100; cf. Kamesar, Jerome, pp. 184–86. 100 See above, p. 61, n. 92; cf. also Hayward, HQG, p. xi, who asserts that in his translation of Genesis in the Vulgate, Jerome adopts the rendering of the Septuagint on approximately twentyfour occasions. 101 See above, p. 61, n. 91.

The Latin Sources

 63

In this section, I wish to determine whether Hugh and Andrew relied directly on Jerome for any of their literal interpretations in his commentaries on the Pentateuch and on the Former Prophets. In his article ‘The Structure and Sources of Hugh of St Victor’s Notes on the Octateuch’ as well as in his doctoral dissertation ‘Hugh of St Victor as Biblical Exegete’, H. J. Pollitt treats the question of whether Jerome could have been a possible source for Hugh’s literal interpretations.102 He explains that in his Note in Genesim, Hugh refers to Jerome by name twice.103 Moreover, Jerome’s QHG is the ultimate source for twenty-two annotations of Hugh in this work.104 Some of Hugh’s interpretations in the Note contain ideas and even words found in Jerome.105 Nevertheless, since this material is also found in Latin authors later than Jerome, such as Bede or Hrabanus Maurus, we cannot be sure whether Hugh consulted Jerome directly or drew on him through later sources. Pollitt’s conclusion is that there is no clear evidence in Hugh’s Note as to whether he resorted to Jerome directly.106 Like Pollitt, for Hugh’s literal interpretations as a whole, I have found no conclusive evidence of Hugh’s direct dependence on Jerome for any of the in hebreo translations or Jewish interpretations in his commentary on Genesis. Like Hugh, Andrew cites Jerome by name twice in his commentary on Genesis.107 In contrast to his teacher, however, Andrew frequently adopts interpretations from Jerome’s QHG verbatim, though he usually abbreviates them and omits the allegorical and moral interpretations, as well as Jerome’s christological comments.108 Andrew’s commentaries on other biblical books reveal the same dependence on Jerome: Andrew copies entire passages verbatim, yet abbreviates and usually omits the references to textual variant readings, the allegorical and moral interpretations, 102 Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, 5–38. The pages devoted to Jerome as Hugh’s source are 10–13, 15–16, 33, 36–37. See also the pages dealing with Jerome in Pollitt’s doctoral dissertation: Pollitt, Hugh of St Victor as biblical exegete, pp. 116–27, and 161, and nn. 43–46, 50–164, and 536. 103 The first reference is to Jerome’s commentary on Titus in Hugh’s prologue to the Pentateuch, Hugh, PL 175, col. 34A–B; Jerome, PL 26 (1845), col. 560A–B; the second is in Hugh’s interpretation of Gen 2.8, where the Victorine rejects Jerome’s theory that paradise was created before the heaven and earth: ‘Non antequam coelum et terram crearet (ut uidetur uelle Hieronymus) sed a tempore conditionis, […]’, Hugh, PL 175, col. 34A–B; Jerome, QHG, 4, Lag. 5.6–8. See Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, p. 11; and id., Hugh as Biblical Exegete, p. 117 and nn. 43–46. 104 Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, p. 11; Hugh as Biblical Exegete, pp. 125–27 and nn. 152–64. 105 See, Hugh’s interpretation on Gen 5.29 (PL 175, col. 45C–D); Jerome, QHG 9, Lag. 12 (18– 21); cf. Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, pp. 12–13; Hugh as Biblical Exegete, p. 124 and nn. 132–34. 106 Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, pp. 11 and 33; id., Hugh as Biblical Exegete, pp. 116, 118, 125– 27 and nn. 151–64. 107 Cf. Andrew’s interpretation on Gen 2.17: ‘Miror, quomodo Hieronymus dicat Symmachum, qui dixit “Mortalis eris”, melius dixisse […]’. Andrew, Gen., ll. 921–922; Jerome, QHG 4, Lag. 5.19–20; and his comment on Gen 5.25–27: ‘Secundum Hieronymum eo anno, quo diluuium fuit, mortuus est Mathusalam’. Andrew, Gen., ll. 1344–1345; Jerome, QHG 8, Lag. 11 (15–17). 108 Cf. Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, p. 220.

64

Chapter One

and Jerome’s christological comments.109 However, I shall try to show that Andrew, unlike Hugh, can be shown to have drawn from Jerome directly. 3. Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim (QHG) My analysis shows that most of the in hebreo interpretations in Andrew’s commentary on Genesis are traceable to Jerome’s QHG and Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum. Berndt already pointed out this in his article on the Jewish and Latin sources of Andrew’s Commentary on the Heptateuch. For a significant number of these, however, Andrew did not rely directly on QHG, but drew instead on later Latin sources, mainly the Gloss, but also Remigius of Auxerre. I shall note the places where I follow Berndt as well as those where I differ with him. I have examined the relationship among the different Latin sources themselves, on the one hand, and the Jewish sources, on the other, by analysing the degree of similarity to the Victorines’ interpretations of each source with respect to the other sources containing the same interpretation. For a smaller group of interpretations, Andrew seems to have borrowed directly from QHG: Gen 5.29; 14.5; 26.32–33; 49, 14–15, 19, 21, and 27. For another, Gen 4.7,110 which is transmitted by Hrabanus, Angelom, and the Gloss, Andrew’s summary does not indicate whether he borrowed it from Jerome or took it from another intermediate source. Berndt has identified QHG and Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum as the sources of this small group of interpretations.111 However, I shall analyse several of them from a different perspective. I shall try to show whether or not Andrew was able to discern which of Jerome’s translations, the Vulgate’s or the translation presented as in hebreo in QHG was closer to the Hebrew masoretic text. Two examples of such interpretations are his commentaries on Gen 5.29 and 49.19. Gen 5.29 in the Vulgate translation reads: Vocavitque nomen eius Noe dicens iste consolabitur nos ab operibus et laboribus manuum nostrarum in terra cui maledixit Dominus.

And he called his name Noe, saying: this individual (lit. this same) shall comfort us from the works and labours of our hands on the earth which the Lord hath cursed.

109 For Andrew’s use of the exegetical material on Ezekiel borrowed from Jerome, see Signer, ‘St Jerome and Andrew of St Victor: Some Observations’, in Studia Patristica, 17/1 [Papers of the Eighth International Conference on Patristic Studies met in Oxford from 3 to 8 September 1979], ed. by E. Livingstone (Leuven: Peeters, 1993), 333–37 (pp. 334–35). For Andrew and the Gloss on Ezekiel in Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,432, see Signer, In Ezechielem, pp. xvi–xvii, xxxviii–xlviii. 110 Andrew, Gen., ll. 1184–1193; Jerome, QHG 7, Lag. 8 (23–32)–9 (1–7); Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, cols 501D–502C; Angelom, Gen., PL 115, col. 147C–D; Glossa ord. marg. et int., Gen., p. 31. The interlinear Gloss shares with Andrew’s text the word premium. 111 Berndt, ‘Les interprétations juives’, nos 23, 48, 64, 88–89, 91, and 94 respectively. He points to both Hebrew Questions and Rashi as possible sources for Andrew on these interpretations.

The Latin Sources

 65

Jerome’s interpretation in QHG and that of Andrew run as follows: Jerome Et uocauit nomen eius Noe dicens Iste requiescere nos faciet ab operibus nostris. Noe ‘requies’ interpretatur. Ab eo igitur, quod sub illo omnia retro opera quieuerunt per diluuium, appellatus est ‘requies’.112

Andrew Iste consolabitur, etc. In hebraeo habet: ‘Iste requiescere nos faciet ab operibus et laboribus manuum nostrarum in terra’ etc. Sensus est: In diebus istius cessare nos faciet Dominus ab operibus et laboribus nostris, quia a superueniente diluuio omnia hominum opera et labores cum ipsis hominibus perdentur. Vel: Consolabitur nos, ut scilicet, cum diluuio perditum fuerit genus humanum, per hunc saltem restaurabitur, quod propter peccata nostra perditum fuerat.113 This individual (lit. this same) shall And he called his name Noe, saying, This comfort, etc. In the Hebrew it has: ‘this one will make us rest from our works. one will make us rest from our works and ‘Noe’ can be explained as meaning ‘rest’. labours of our hands on the earth’, etc. Therefore he was called ‘rest’, because in that man’s days all former works ceased as The meaning is: in this man’s days, the Lord will make us cease from our works a result of the Flood. and labours, for all of men’s works and labours along with men themselves will be destroyed by the Flood that is befalling us. Or he shall comfort us, that is to say, when the human race has been destroyed by the Flood, at least through this [man], that which had been destroyed because of our sins shall be restored.

The question arises: what future action does the biblical text ascribe to Noe, which is also given as the reason for his name? The Masoretic text reads ze yenahamenu mi-maasenu u-mi-itzabon yadenu min ha-adamah. The Hebrew verb yenahamenu comes from the root nhm (‘to comfort’, ‘to console’). Therefore, the Vulgate’s translation this one will comfort us is an accurate rendering of the Hebrew text. In QHG, however, Jerome translates the passage as ‘this one will make us rest’ (Iste requiescere nos faciet), which is also the Septuagint’s rendering. The Septuagint 112 113

Jerome, QHG 9, Lag. 11 (18–21). Andrew, Gen., ll. 1346–1353.

Chapter One

66

along with the Vetus Latina interprets the verb yenahamenu not as coming from the Hebrew root nhm (‘to comfort’, ‘to console’) but from the root nwh (‘to rest’, ‘to cause to rest’). This interpretation therefore took both the proper name ‘Noe’ and the action that gave origin to his name as derived from the same root nwh. For his part, Andrew opens his interpretation of this text with the Vulgate: He shall comfort us, etc. Then, he gives two different interpretations of the text, each one corresponding to one of the two different Hebrew roots nwh (‘to rest’) and nhm (‘to comfort’). His second interpretation is taken from Hugh: Iste consolabitur nos ab operibus et laboribus, etc.: […]. Vel consolabitur nos; scilicet postquam per diluuium deletum fuerit humanum genus per istum saltem restaurabitur quod diluuium propter opera manuum nostrarum et propter labores a diuina ultione irrogabitur.114

This man will comfort us from our works and from the labour, etc. […] Or he shall comfort us; i.e. after the human race has been destroyed by the Flood, at least, it shall be restored through this man, for the Flood shall be inflicted by the divine wrath on account of the works of our hands and because of our toil.

Andrew’s second interpretation emphasizes not the Flood itself, but the events after its end. Noe is considered to be a consolation for humans because thanks to him humanity shall not absolutely perish but shall continue to exist on earth after the Flood. However, the interpretation of the Septuagint that Jerome follows in QHG focuses on the time of the Flood itself. In Noe’s days, God shall cause men to cease from their works because the Flood shall destroy them all. According to Andrew’s first interpretation, Noe is not the ‘saviour’ on whom humans put their hope for survival after the Flood. Instead, he only marks the time when God is going to send the Flood. It is this interpretation chosen by the Septuagint and QHG that Andrew introduced with the phrase In hebreo habet (‘in the Hebrew it has’). Moreover, the Victorine actually contrasts this interpretation that he labels in hebreo to the one based on the Vulgate, which in fact renders a more accurate translation of the Hebrew yenahamenu. It is clear then that Andrew was not aware at all that the translation of QHG corresponded to the Septuagint and the Vetus Latina, but believed it to be a more faithful rendering of the Hebrew text. A further proof that he was not translating the Masoretic text is the fact that he makes no comment with respect to the patent difference in meaning between the Hebrew word

114

Hugh, Pent., Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092, fol. 88r.

The Latin Sources

 67

itzabon (‘pain’, ‘grief ’) and the too general translation of the Vulgate laboribus (‘works’). Four Latin sources adopt both the Vulgate translation this man will comfort us and the interpretation of QHG This one will make us rest: viz., Bede, Hrabanus, Angelom, and the Gloss.115 Yet none of them was a source for Andrew. Neither Hrabanus nor the Gloss quote the rendering of QHG This one will make us rest; rather they draw only upon the interpretation accompanying it. Bede and Angelom, on the other hand, do quote the translation of QHG. However, they present that translation as belonging either to the Septuagint (Bede) or to ‘others’ (Angelom).116 Lastly, Berndt suggests both Hebrew Questions and Rashi as two possible sources where Andrew could have found this in hebreo interpretation.117 It is not probable, however, that Andrew obtained the interpretation ‘ease from’ or ‘cease’ from Rashi because each exegete explains it in a different way. Rashi gives as a reason for the meaning ‘ease from’ or ‘cease’ the fact that men did not have agricultural implements before Noah came and prepared such implements to ease their work, whereas Andrew’s explanation of the meaning is that the Flood was destructive and therefore made men cease from their work. The second example of a translation that Andrew labels in hebreo, but which corresponds not to the Masoretic text but to the translation labelled in hebreo in QHG is his comment on Gen 49.19, which reads: Gad accintus proeliabitur ante eum, etc. In hebraeo: ‘Gad latrunculus latrocinabitur eum.’ Totum illud est, quod ante Ruben et dimidiam tribum Manasse Gad filios, quos Transiordanem in possessionem transmiserat, – post quattuordecim annos reuertens – proelium aduersus eos uicinarum gentium grande repperit et uictis hostibus fortiter dimicauit. Lege Iosue et Paralipomenon.118

115

Gad, well girded, shall fight before him. In the Hebrew: Gad a brigand shall rob him. All this refers to the fact that Gad had formerly sent away Ruben and the half-tribe of Manasse to [those] sons who were in occupation of the land across the Jordan, and returning after fourteen years he found a great battle in progress against them waged by the neighbouring peoples; and, when the enemies had been defeated, he strove bravely. Read the Books of Joshua and Chronicles.

Bede, Gen. II, ll. 884–919; Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, col. 511D; Angelom, Gen., PL 115, cols 154D–155A; Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 35. 116 Bede, ibid., ll. 902–905; Angelom, ibid., 154D. 117 Berndt, ‘Les interprétations juives’, no. 23, p. 207. 118 Andrew, Gen., ll. 3023–3029.

Chapter One

68

Andrew opens his interpretation of this text with the Vulgate: Gad, being girded, shall fight before him: and he himself shall be girded backward.119 The Masoretic text reads: Gad gedud yegudenu we-hu yagud akev. Jerome gave two different translations of this verse: one in the Vulgate; the other, as the lemma of his interpretation of this verse in QHG: Gad latrunculus latrocinabitur eum: et ipse latrocinabitur plantam. Iuxta hebraeum interpretati sumus. Sed ubi nos latrunculum posuimus, ibi scriptum est gedud, ut ad Gad nomen alluderet, qui significantius εὒζωνος, id est accintus siue expeditus exprimi potest. Totum autem illud est, quod ante Ruben et dimidiam tribum Manasse ad filios, quos trans Iordanen in possessionem dimiserat, post XIV annos reuertens praelium aduersus eos gentium uicinarum grande reppererit et uictis hostibus fortiter dimicarit. Lege librum Hiesu Naue et Paralipomena. Non ignoro plura in benedictionibus patriarcharum esse mysteria, sed ad praesens opusculum non pertinet.120

Gad, a brigand shall rob him; and he himself shall rob the sole of the foot. We have translated according to the Hebrew. But where we have put brigand, gedud is written in that place, so as to pun on the name Gad: this can be expressed more clearly as euzonos, that is, ‘armed’, or ‘ready for military action’. Now all this refers to the fact that he had formerly sent away Ruben and the half-tribe of Manasse to [those] sons who were in occupation of the land across the Jordan, and returning after fourteen years he found a great battle in progress against them waged by the neighbouring peoples; and, when the enemies had been defeated, he strove bravely. Read the Books of Joshua the son of Nave and Chronicles. I am not unaware that further mysteries exist in the blessings of the Patriarchs; but this is not relevant to the present work.121

In the Vulgate, Jerome renders gadud, vocalised with qametz as accintus, a past participle referring to Gad: it is Gad who is well girded or armed. This translation is also found in Pseudo-Jonathan and in the Targum Neophyti.122 It seems, therefore, that Jerome here turned to Jewish sources for his translation in the Vulgate. 119

The Douay translation, ad loc. Jerome, QHG 54–55, Lag. 69 (32–33) –70 (1–10). 121 Hayward, HQG, p. 86. 122 Pseudo-Jonathan nach der Londoner Handschrift (Brit. Mus. add. 27031), ed. by M. Ginsburger, (S. Calvary & Co.: Berlin, 1903), trans. by M. Maher (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992), p. 160. A. DíezMacho, ed., Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinense: MS. de la Biblioteca Vaticana (­Madrid-Barcelona: ­Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1968), I: Genesis, pp. 332–33. 120

The Latin Sources

 69

On the other hand, the lemma of Jerome’s interpretation in QHG is the Vetus Latina’s translation: Gad, a brigand shall rob him, which originates in the Septuagint.123 Indeed, the Hebrew (‫)גדוד‬may also be read with shewa as gedūd, a collective noun that means ‘band’ or ‘troop’. The Septuagint preserves the Hebrew’s collective noun: Gad, a gang of brigands shall rob him; however, he shall plunder them back. This is the translation that Andrew presented as being in hebreo. The Vetus Latina, however, differs here from the Septuagint in the rendering of this verse, for it translates gedud as a singular noun: a brigand shall rob him. By translating so, the Vetus Latina goes further away from the Hebrew. By presenting the lemma of Jerome’s interpretation of Gen 49.19 in QHG (which in fact corresponds to the Vetus Latina) as the translation in hebreo Andrew reveals that he did not consult the Hebrew text but obtained his in hebreo translation from his reading of QHG, where he believes the Vetus Latina’s rendering re­ presents the Hebrew text. On the other hand, Berndt suggests Rashi as another possible source for this interpretation of Andrew. In my view, however, Andrew did not obtain his in hebreo translation from Rashi’s interpretation ad loc. either because Rashi explains gedud as a collective noun with the verb in plural: a troop.124 The marginal Gloss borrows its interpretation of this verse from QHG, just as Andrew does. However, Andrew’s text seems closer to that of QHG; for the Gloss omits Jerome’s reference to the Books of Joshua and Chronicles, thus Andrew could not have borrowed this reference from the later source.125 As I suggested above, some of Jerome’s renderings in his Vulgate diverge from the Masoretic text and are identical to that of the Septuagint or to one of the Three. Likewise, many of Jerome’s in hebreo interpretations in QHG represent one of the renderings of the Three.126 Hence, several of Jerome’s interpretations labelled in hebreo in QHG do not necessarily constitute a more literal translation of the Masoretic text than the parallel translations of the same passages in the Vulgate. In addition, in QHG Jerome does not always expressly indicate the names of the different versions that he is using. Consequently, Andrew presents a number of interpretations in hebreo as correct renderings of the Hebrew text while rejecting the corresponding translation of the Vulgate. His rendering is identical to the translation ‘according to the Hebrew’ in QHG. However, the Latin translation of the Vulgate is in fact a more literal and accurate translation of the Masoretic text than the one labelled in hebreo in QHG. 123

Vetus Latina 2, ad loc. Berliner, Rashi on the Pentateuch, ad loc. 125 Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 108. 126 See above, pp. 61–62, and nn. 91, 101. 124

Chapter One

70

From this we may deduce that Andrew did not obtain his in hebreo translation from a personal reading of the Hebrew text, but simply regarded the translation labelled in hebreo in QHG as identical to the Hebrew. Another interpretation that goes back to QHG is Andrew’s comment on Gen 6.4.127 Berndt points to both QHG and Pirqei de Rabbi Eliezer as two possible sources for this intepretation.128 Two other Latin sources borrow this in hebreo translation from QHG: Bede and the interlinear Gloss.129 As Pirqei de Rabbi Eliezer is later than QHG and Andrew employs QHG and Bede for other interpretations, he is likelier to have borrowed this in hebreo interpretation from one of these Latin sources or from the Gloss. However, in all three of the Latin sources, only the short reference to the Hebrew is adopted from Jerome and not the comment following it. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether Andrew is drawing directly on Jerome here or relying on one of the intermediate sources. Other in hebreo interpretations in his commentary on Genesis suggest that by the translation in hebreo Andrew means not the Hebrew text, but, in fact, the translation labelled in hebreo in QHG.130 In these interpretations, the Vulgate renders a more literal translation of the Hebrew text than the translation labelled in hebreo in QHG. Furthermore, in some of these interpretations (e.g. Gen 49.3–4), the translation labelled in hebreo in QHG is based on the Septuagint, whereas the Vulgate faithfully represents the Hebrew text. For these interpretations, Andrew ultimately depends on QHG. However, he has borrowed them via an intermediate Latin source, mainly the Gloss. Therefore, I have not included them among the interpretations adopted directly from QHG, but shall refer to them in the section that deals with the Gloss as Andrew’s source. 4. Etymologies of Hebrew Names in Andrew’s in Hebreo Interpretations Berndt has pointed out two of the Hebrew Questions and Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum’s etymologies containing a reference to the Hebrew in Andrew’s interpretations: those of Gen 14.5 and 26.32–33. I however, would like to ascertain whether Andrew copied QHG and LIHN mechanically, without understanding the Hebrew, or he understood the Hebrew text to which Jerome

127

Andrew, Gen., ll. 1385–1390. Berndt, ‘Les interprétations juives’, no. 27, p. 208; Pirqei de Rabbi Eliezer, pp. 22, 2. 129 Jerome, QHG 10, Lag. 12 (20–28); Bede, Gen. II, ll. 990–1006; Glossa ord. int., Gen., p. 35. 130 Two clear examples of this kind of interpretations are Gen 49.3–4 and 49.8–9; see below: p. 92, nn. 261–262. 128

The Latin Sources

 71

referred. In his interpretation of Gen 26.33, Andrew explains the etymology of the name Beershevah: Bersabee. Locus id. est, cui sicut supradictum est: nomen est impositum a septem agnis uel a iuratione. Tamen nunc ex eo, quod aqua ibi inuenta est, Isaac ad nomen ciuitatis, quae ita uocabatur, alludens declinauit paululum litteram. Et pro stridulo Hebraeorum sin, a quo sabe incipit, graecum sigma – id. hebraeum samech – posuit.131

Bersabee. This is the very place to which the name was given, as it was said above, after the seven lambs or [the word] ‘oath’. In this instance, however, in view of the fact that water was found there, Isaac punned on the name of the city, which was so called. He deviated a little in the pronunciation of one letter, and instead of the hissing sin of the Hebrew with which sabee begins, he put the Greek sigma that corresponds to the Hebrew samech.132

Two reasons for the name Beershevah had already been given in Gen 21.30–32: (a) Abimelech received seven she-lambs from the hand of Abraham; and (b) Abraham and Abimelech swore oaths in that place. The words ‫‘( שׁבעה‬seven’) and ‫‘( שׁבועה‬oath’) are written in Hebrew with the same consonants, differing from each other only in their vocalization. The ‘Hebrew hissing shin’ (Andrew’s ‘stridulum Hebraeorum sin’) is the first letter in both words shevah and shevuah. In his interpretation of Gen 26.32–33, Andrew gives a new etymology on account of the finding of water by the servants of Isaac. Interestingly, Andrew nowhere mentions the new meaning of the name. He states only that the new Hebrew word given to the city is different in one consonant from the previous one: instead of shin, the new word is written with samech, which in Greek is transliterated as sigma. In the Masoretic text, however, one does not find any Hebrew word written with samech. Indeed the name Beershevah is written with shin in both Gen 21.31 and Gen 26.33. As stated above, the words ‫‘( שׁבעה‬seven’) and ‫‘( שׁבועה‬oath’) in Gen 21.31 are written with shin; but so also is the name given to the well in Gen 26.33 written with the same letter. Again, Andrew’s comment does not seem to be based on his having read the Hebrew text. In fact, the meaning of Andrew’s interpretation of Gen 26.32–33 can be understood only when one reads Jerome’s interpretations of this verse in the Vulgate and

131

Andrew, Gen., ll. 2443–2448. For the translation of Andrew’s text, I have followed Hayward’s translation of Jerome’s interpretation of this passage. 132

Chapter One

72

in those works.133 In the Vulgate translation of Gen 26.33, Jerome renders the name of the well as abundantiam ‘abundance’, from the Hebrew sobah: unde appellavit eum Abundantiam et nomen urbi inpositum est Bersabee usque in praesentem diem

hence he called it [the well] ‘abundance’ and to the city was given the name ‘Bersabee’ until this day.

In QHG, Jerome writes: E contrario in hebraeo, cui interpretationi Aquila quoque consentit et Symmachus, hoc significat quod inuenerint aquam et propterea appellatus sit puteus ipse saturitas et uocata ciuitas Bersabee, hoc est puteus saturitatis: licet enim supra ex uerbo iuramenti siue ex septenario ouium numero, quod sabee dicitur, asseruerimus Bersabee appellatam, tamen nunc ex eo, quod aqua inuenta est, Isaac ad nomen ciuitatis, quae ita uocabatur alludens, declinauit paululum literam, et pro stridulo Hebraeorum sin, a quo sabee incipitur, graecum simma, id est hebraeum samech posuit […].134

By contrast, in the Hebrew, with whose meaning Aquila and Symmachus agree, this verse indicates that they found water and therefore that well was called ‘Abundance’; and the city was called ‘Bersabee’, that is, ‘The Well of Abundance’. For although we have stated above that Bersabee was named after either the word of the oath or the number seven (which is pronounced as sabee) referring to the sheep, in this instance, however, in view of the fact that water was found, Isaac punned on the name of the city which was so called. He deviated a little in the pronunciation of one consonant (the shin with the supralinear dot on the left), and instead of the hissing sin of the Hebrew with which sabee begins, he put the Greek sigma that corresponds to the Hebrew samech […].135

Jerome here renders the new meaning of the name Beersabee (= Beersheva) and explains it on the basis of its link with the new narrative in Gen 26.25–33: the servants of Isaac found water in the well that they had previously dug in that place; and on account of this finding, the well was called Abundance. With the Latin word abundantiam (‘abundance’), Jerome seems to be translating the Hebrew word ‫‘( שׂבעה‬satiety’), which is not written with the same consonants as ‫‘( שׁבעה‬seven’) and ‫‘( שׁבועה‬oath’). Indeed the word ‫‘( שׂבע‬satiety’) 133

Berndt, ‘Les interprétations juives’, nos 48, 64, pp. 211, 214. Jerome, QHG, pp. 33–34, Lag. 42.26–43.5. 135 Hayward, HQG, p. 62. 134

The Latin Sources

 73

starts not with shin (with the supralinear dot on the right), but with sin (with the supralinear dot of the left). Jerome spells the word ‫ שׂבעה‬with samech. With the mention of the name abundantiam, the description of the change of the letters is understood. Andrew, however, omits precisely the two reasons that explain that change: (a) the name given to the well, and (b) the new meaning of the name of the city Beersheva, which is the link between the name given to the well and the narrative of the finding of the water. This fact again indicates that Andrew has not read the Hebrew text directly himself, but borrows this text from his Latin sources. The interpretation of QHG is also found almost word for word in Hrabanus Maurus and in the Gloss, however, the texts of the Gloss and Hrabanus present slight differences in wording when compared to Andrew’s text.136 The Gloss omits QHG’s phrase quae ita vocabatur, which Andrew preserves. Both the Gloss and Hrabanus write hebreorum samech posuit, whereas Andrew and QHG use the singular hebraeum samech posuit. Consequently, Andrew must have borrowed this interpretation from QHG directly. Another etymology that Andrew expressly refers to the Hebrew is found in his interpretation of Gen 14.5. Cariath enim hebraice, latine ‘ciuitas’ dicitur.

For in Hebrew [it is said] Cariath, in Latin it is said ‘city’. 137

The interpretation of the name Kyriat [Andrew: Cariath] is explained six times as one of the two elements of composite names of several cities in Jerome’s book Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum.138 Bede also refers to that etymology in his interpretation of the same text from Genesis.139 Andrew shows that he has understood the meaning of the word Cariath in itself, since he explains it separately from other nominal elements, with which it frequently forms composite names in Jerome’s book.140 He probably reached his interpretative conclusion independently, from his analysis of that word in the context of its occurrences in Jerome’s works as an element forming composite nouns, which would have enabled him to know its meaning when the word occurs without other components.

136

Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, col. 587B–C; Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 70. Andrew, Gen., l. 1895. 138 Jerome, LIHN, p. 80, Lag. 17 (6–7); pp. 91–92, Lag. 26 (3, 5–6); p. 103, Lag. 35.4; p. 126, Lag. 53.22; and p. 130, Lag. 57.5. 139 Bede, Gen. III, l. 1491. 140 For example, ‘Cariathiarim ciuitas siluarum’, where the name Kyriat (‘city’) is joined with the word yaar (‘forest’) forming the word “city of the forests”’. Jerome, LIHN 103, Lag. 35.4. 137

74

Chapter One 5. Interpretations of Jewish traditions from QHG

There are nine interpretations referring to Hebrew traditions in Andrew’s commentary on Genesis that are ultimately derived from QHG: Gen 4.26; 11.28–12.4; 14.18; 22.2, 14, 21; Gen 49.15, 21, and 27. In four of the interpretations (viz., those on Gen 14.18; 22.2, 14, and 21), Andrew’s text is closer to the text as presented in the Gloss than to either the text as rendered in QHG or in the other Latin sources, and for this reason I shall refer to them below in the section dealing with the Gloss. For three of the interpretations, Andrew renders a text identical or very close to the one given in QHG: to wit Gen 49.14–15, 21, and 27.141 Several earlier Latin sources employ one or more of these interpretations: Hrabanus, Angelom, Haimo, Remigius, and the Gloss endorse all three; Alcuin incorporates only Gen 49.21. Haimo and Remigius introduce many modifications in all the three interpretations, and their texts diverge significantly from that of Andrew: hence they may be discounted as sources for Andrew’s interpretations.142 On the other hand, Alcuin, Hrabanus, Angelom, and the Gloss, in their interpretations of Gen 49.21 follow very closely the text as it appears in QHG, and therefore as rendered by Andrew. And yet the texts of these Carolingian authors and of the Gloss diverge from the text in QHG to a greater extent than Andrew’s text, and therefore, the Victorine seems to have borrowed this interpretation from QHG directly. Berndt points to two possible sources for Andrew’s interpretation of Gen 4.26: QHG and the Babylonian Talmud.143 However, Hugh and Andrew’s interpretations are closer to QHG than to the Babylonian Talmud, since the latter refers to the idolatry of Enosh’s generation as a sin, whereas both QHG and the Victorines describe the fabrication of idols or images in a neutral or even positive light. Indeed, I do think that the Victorines must have employed as one of their sources either QHG or one of the other texts that render Jerome’s work verbatim, namely Hrabanus and Angelom. Andrew could also have used the Gloss. It is evident, however, that Andrew did not rely exclusively on any one of the mentioned 141 Andrew, Gen., ll. 2990–3004; Jerome, QHG, p. 54, Lag. 69 (10–13); Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, col. 656C–D; Angelom, Gen., PL 115, col. 234B; Haimo, Gen., PL 131, col. 129C; Remigius, Gen., ll. 4379–4401; Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 108; Andrew, Gen., ll. 3032–3040; Jerome, QHG, p. 55, Lag. 70 (15–22); Alcuin, Gen., PL 100, col. 560C; Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, col. 657B– C; Angelom, Gen., PL 115, cols 234D–235A; Haimo, Gen., PL 131, col. 130C; Remigius, Gen., ll. 4455–4467; Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 109; Andrew, Gen., ll. 3079–3090; Jerome, QHG, p. 56, Lag. 71 (22–29); Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, cols 657D–658A; Angelom, Gen., PL 115, col. 235C; Haimo, Gen., PL 131, col. 132B–C; Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 109. 142 Besides, Remigius’s interpretation of Gen 49.27 lacks Jerome’s ascription to the Hebrews. 143 Berndt, ‘Les interprétations juives’, no. 22, p. 207; b. Shabbat 118b.

The Latin Sources

 75

sources, but that he also drew on Hugh. For he notably modified Jerome’s interpretation in QHG on the basis of Hugh’s comment on the same biblical text. The Victorines omitted the idea of Enoch’s fabrication of idols, which is present in the Talmud, QHG and the sources dependent on the latter, and they write instead of Enoch’s creation of statues or images representing God to help people worship Him with devotion. Likewise, Andrew’s interpretations of Gen 11.28 and 12.4 also derive ultimately from QHG. However, Andrew’s text in both content and phrasing shows that for these interpretations he draws on more than one Latin source. Both interpretations relate the Jewish tradition according to which the Chaldeans threw Abraham into the fire because of his refusal to worship it as a god, as it was the Chaldean custom. According to this tradition, God saved Abraham from the fire, and on account of this the age of the Patriach is reckoned from that time.144 This Jewish tradition appears in all the Latin sources mentioned so far in this chapter: QHG, Augustine, Bede, Alcuin, Angelom, Hrabanus, Haimo, Remigius, and the Gloss.145 It is fairly certain that at least for his interpretation of Gen 11.28, Andrew relied on Bede’s commentary on Genesis, for Andrew shares with Bede’s text an explanation that is not included in the other sources.146 Besides this detail, Andrew alone shares with the text of Haimo the verb projectus, which is not found in the other sources; he therefore seems to depend on Haimo as well. Finally, Andrew appears to draw on either Augustine’s Quaestionum in Heptateuchum i (de Genesi), or on any of the Latin sources that handed it down, namely Hrabanus, Remigius, or the Gloss. Each of these three sources also includes Jerome’s comment in QHG, which was also entirely transmitted by Alcuin and Angelom. In short, Andrew certainly depends in part on Bede and, probably, on Haimo for a portion of his interpretations on Gen 11.28 and 12.4. In addition, he shares elements from Augustine’s comments on Gen 11.26, 32, and 12.1–4 in his Quaest. de Genesi. Andrew may have resorted to this text directly, but he may also have borrowed it from one of its later adaptations by Hrabanus, Remigius, or the Gloss. Andrew’s text adopts elements also from Jerome’s interpretations of Gen 11.28 144

Andrew, Gen., ll. 1816–1818, 1825–1837. Jerome, QHG 15, Lag. 19 (2–13), 20 (1–6); Augustine, QH: Gen., 25, 2, p. 9; Bede, Gen. III, ll. 835–865; Alcuin, Gen., PL 100, col. 534B–C; Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, cols 531B–D, 532A–B, 534A; Angelom, Gen., PL 115, cols 168C, 169D–170A; Remigius, Gen., ll. 2376–2387; 2409–2436; Haimo, Gen., PL 131, col. 81D; Glossa ord. marg., Gen., pp. 43–44. 146 Both Hugh and Andrew borrow from Bede the remark that the words in Gen 11.28 ante Thare patrem suum (‘before his father Terah’) may mean both ‘presence’ and ‘time’: (a) presence: Haran died in front of his father, and (b) time: Haran’s death occurred prior to the death of his father; cf. Bede, Gen. III, ll. 835–840; Andrew, Gen., ll. 1816–1818; Hugh, Pent., Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092, fol. 91v. 145

Chapter One

76

and 12.4 in QHG, but he could have borrrowed them from the texts of Alcuin or Angelom. In addition, Andrew’s comment on Gen 11.28 is very close to that of Hugh, though the latter does not ascribe it to a Jewish tradition. Hugh, however, does not employ the verb projectus from Haimo’s text, but only presents Bede’s explanation to which we have alluded above. B. The Gloss 1. Introduction In a passage from his general prologue to the commentaries on the Prophets, Andrew claims to have consulted libros glosatos (‘glossed books’):147 I keep watch for myself; I work for myself. Consulting my poverty, which cannot always have commentaries (commentarios) and glossed books (libros glosatos) to hand, I have collected together what is scattered and diffused through them, pertaining to the historical sense, and have concentrated it, as it were into one corpus.148

In his commentary on Gen 1.28, Hugh uses the term glossa: Crescite: id est ‘multiplicamini’, ut unum sit glosa alterius.149

Be fruitful and multiply: Be fruitful, i.e. multiply, so that one [word] may be the explanation [glosa] of the other.

It is clear that in each of the texts quoted above, the terms glossa and glossatos have a different meaning. Hugh employs the word glossa to mean ‘a word that explains another word’. Andrew, however, applies the adjective glossatos to entire books. Furthermore, from his use of the phrase ‘glossed books’ as an alternative to ‘commentaries’, Andrew seems to be referring to two different sorts of sources. The word glossa applied to the Bible is found in Latin works since Isidore of Seville in the seventh century.150 In early usage it describes commentaries upon either Classical literature or biblical interpretation, and later it is used to refer to commentaries on works from other fields of knowledge such as law. In Carolingian works, the word glossa can denote either: (a) an explanation or interpretation of 147

The spelling of the Latin words glossae/glosae (or glosę), glossulae/glosulae, (cum) glossis/ glosis, glossatos/glosatos is inconsistent: they are spelt both with one ‘s’ and with two ‘ss’. For the sake of consistency, I have written these words with two ‘ss’ except when I found them written with one ‘s’ in titles or cited texts. 148 Smalley, The Study of the Bible, p. 123. The English translation is Smalley’s. Smalley transcribes the Latin text in the appendix to chs 2 and 4 of this book: p. 377, ll. 9–14. 149 Hugh, Pent., Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092, fol. 80v. 150 G. Lobrichon, ‘Une nouveauté: les gloses de la Bible’, in La Moyen Âge et la Bible, ed. by P. ­Riché et Lobrichon, Bible de tous les temps, 4 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1984), pp. 95–114 (p. 96).

The Latin Sources

 77

a single word, phrase, or sentence; or (b) a continuous commentary on the whole text of a certain book. Glossae in the first sense were transmitted in collections such as the ninth-century glosses that John Contreni has ascribed to Haimo of Auxerre and John Scottus Eriugena.151 B. Smalley and J. de Blic supply examples from the Carolingian period for the second use of the term, i.e. commentary152 (which also appears in the diminutive glossula).153 In contrast to the use of the term glosa, Andrew’s expression libros glosatos (‘glossed books’) appears only in manuscripts from 1100 on and refers exclusively to manuscripts containing both the complete biblical text and individual explanantions or glosses attached to it.154 The twelfth-century Gloss was of a composite nature, that is to say, it consisted of various layers: (1) excerpts from commentaries by the expositores: (a) Church fathers (such as Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory the Great, Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, and Bede) and (b) other early or Carolingian ecclesiastical authors (such as Origen in Rufinus’s translation or Hrabanus Maurus).155 Some of the biblical commentaries by these authors constitute almost the only source for the Gloss on certain biblical books.156 151 J. J. Contreni, ‘The Biblical Glosses of Haimo of Auxerre and John Scottus Eriugena’, S­ peculum, 51 (1976), 411–34. On p. 425, Contreni quotes a gloss taken from Haimo’s commentary on Ezek 8.14, which is introduced with the title: aliter g[lossa]. 152 Thus, Smalley, ‘Gilbertus Universalis, Bishop of London (1128–34), and the Problem of the “Glossa Ordinaria”’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 8 (1936), 24–60 (p. 25), quotes a manuscript ascribed to Walafrid Strabo (d. 849), who abbreviated biblical commentaries of his teacher Hrabanus Maurus. The incipit of Strabo’s abbreviation of Hrabanus’s commentary on Leviticus reads: ‘Incipit glosa in Librum Leviticum’. J. De Blic, ‘L’œuvre exégétique de Walafrid Strabon et la Glossa ordinaria’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 16 (1949), 5–28 (p. 14) quotes the entrance from a ninth-century catalogue at St Gall: ‘Walafridi glosa in Leuiticum et Numerum’. 153 E. Bertola, ‘La “Glossa ordinaria” biblica ed i suoi problemi’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 45 (1978), p. 46, quotes a text by Notker Balbulus (PL 131, col. 998), who at the end of the ninth century ascribes to Hrabanus Maurus glosses on all the books of Sacred Scripture, and he calls them glosulae: ‘Si glosulas volueris in totam Scripturam divinam […]’. Smalley, ‘Gilbertus Universalis’ (1936), p. 51, quotes the twelfth-century MS Laon 17, which gives the name of glosula to Gilbert the Universal’s continuous commentary on the Book of Psalms: ‘Incipit glosula magistri G universalis super Psalterium’; cf. id., ‘La Glossa Ordinaria: Quelques prédécesseurs d’Anselme de Laon’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 9 (1937), p. 367. 154 Lobrichon, ‘Une nouveauté: les gloses de la Bible’, p. 97. 155 M. T. Gibson, ‘The Glossed Bible’, in Biblia latina cum Glossa ordinaria (ed. princeps by A. Rusch of Strasbourg, 1480/81; repr.: Turnhout, 1992, introd. K. Froehlich and M. T. Gibson), p. viii. Origen is often referred to by the pseudonym ‘Adamantius’. 156 A. Andrée (Gilbertus Universalis, Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes Ieremie prophete: Prothemata et liber I. A Critical Edition with an Introduction and a Translation, Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Studia Latina Stockholmiensia, 52 [Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell

78

Chapter One

(2) The work of the glosatores, the Carolingian authors who collected the excerpts from the works of the expositores, summarized them, and at times, added explanations of their own (e.g.: Hrabanus Maurus and his disciple Walafrid Strabo, Haimo of Auxerre, or Paschasius Radbertus).157 We know about their contribution to the Gloss because the standard Gloss to Genesis and Exodus preface many excerpts with the initials of their names,158 or because authors of biblical commentaries from the eleventh and twelfth centuries ascribe to them excerpts that are found to be identical to excerpts in the twelfth-century Gloss.159 (3) Finally, the compilatores, who put together all the glosses on an individual biblical book. The hand of a compilator is revealed sometimes in the fact that he expressly refers to both the expositor and the glosator,160 or because he is referred to as having ordered (ordinavit) or compiled (compilaverit) earlier glosses.161 The twelfth-century Gloss gathers together the compilations of the individual biblical books into a singular work.

International, 2005], p. 10) asserts that Pascasius Radbertus’s commentary on Lamentations constitutes the basis of the Gloss on that Book. Bertola (‘La “Glossa Ordinaria” biblica ed i suoi problemi’, pp. 61–65) states that both the interlinear and the marginal glosses for the Books of Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sirah) and Wisdom are drawn almost exclusively from the commentaries by Hrabanus Maurus on those books; see also Gibson, ‘The Glossed Bible’, p. ix. 157 Gibson, ‘The Place of the Glossa Ordinaria in Medieval Exegesis’, in Ad Litteram: Authoritative Texts and their Medieval Readers, ed. by M. D. Jordan and K. Emery, Notre Dame conferences in medieval studies, 3 (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1992), p. 10; L. J. Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary, Commentaria: Sacred Texts and Their Commentaries: Jewish, Christian and Islamic, ed. by F. Van Liere, L. Smith, E. A. M ­ atter, T. E. Burman (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2009), III, pp. 41–42. 158 J. De Blic, ‘L’œuvre exégétique de Walafrid Strabo et la Glossa ordinaria’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 16 (1949), 5–28 (pp. 10–11). Blic refers to the excerpts ascribed to Walafrid Strabo in Migne’s edition of the Gloss (PL 113–14). Some instances of excerpts prefaced by the initials of Strabo in Rusch’s edition are: Gen 4.14: Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 32; Gen 8.14: Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 39; Exod 12.2: Glossa ord. marg., Exod., p. 132; and Exod 23.19: Glossa ord. marg., Exod., p. 160. 159 De Blic, ‘Walafrid Strabo et la Glossa ordinaria’, pp. 11–14; and Smalley, ‘Quelques prédécesseurs d’Anselme de Laon’, p. 399. 160 In a late twelfth-century manuscript of the Gloss (Cambridge, Pembroke College 7, fol. 254d), Smalley quotes one of these by the compilator references: Vide quia glosator hoc apposuit, nec est de littera Ieronimi. Littera enim Ieronimi expeditior est et aptius continuatur (‘See that it was the Glossator who added this, and it does not belong to Jerome’s writing, for Jerome’s words are clearer and fit more with the text that follows’). Smalley, ‘A Collection of Paris Lectures of the Later Twelfth Century in the MS. Pembroke College, Cambridge 7’, The Cambridge Historical Journal, 6 (1938), 103–13 (p. 108). The English translation is mine. 161 Smalley, ‘A Collection of Paris Lectures’, p. 30; see also Smalley, ‘Gilbertus Universalis’ (1936), p. 39.

The Latin Sources

 79

There have been thirteen editions of the Gloss.162 Karlfried Froehlich and Margaret Gibson have published a facsimile reprint of the editio princeps produced by Adolph of Strasbourg probably by 1480/81. This edition transmits the text of the Gloss in manuscripts from the second half of the twelfth century or beginning of the thirteenth century.163 However, the text of Rusch’s edition differs from the twelfth- and thirteenth-century manuscripts in several respects. Firstly, in many cases, the twelfth- and thirteenth-century manuscripts have fewer attributions of the glosses to authors than Rusch provides.164 Secondly, some manuscripts contain glosses that do not appear in Rusch’s text while others omit glosses which are included in it or they have the same marginal Gloss but a different interlineal text or vice versa. Still others are completely different from Rusch’s text.165 For the purposes of comparing between Hugh’s and Andrew’s text with the Gloss, I have employed this edition. Several authors contributed to the compilations of different biblical books.166 The evidence for authorship of individual glossed books comes from twelfth-century manuscripts of the Gloss, early editions of it, and other twelfth- or thirteenthcentury works, be they chronicles, treatises, catalogues, or biblical commentaries.167 The beginnings of the work of glossing individual books of the Bible appears to have been carried out in the schools of Laon and Auxerre between the end of the eleventh and first decades of the twelfth century.168 The Glosses on the Psalter, on the Pauline Epistles, and on the Gospel of St John are ascribed to Anselm of Laon (d. 1117),169 and the Gloss on the Gospel of Mat-

162

Froehlich, Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria, pp. 12, 27. Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria, p. v; for the date and name of editor, see Froehlich, p. xiii; Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, p. 13. 164 Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, pp. 57–65. 165 Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, pp. 3, 75. 166 Smalley, ‘Quelques prédécesseurs d’Anselme de Laon’, in Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 9 (1937), pp. 365–67; ‘Gilbertus Universalis’ (1936), pp. 48–49. 167 Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, pp. 21–32. For another view on the attribution of the Gloss of some individual biblical books to the mentioned authors, see Gibson, ‘The Place of the Glossa Ordinaria’, pp. 20–21. 168 Smalley, ‘Quelques prédécesseurs’, p. 366; ead., ‘A Collection of Paris Lectures’, p. 110; J. Châtillon, ‘La Bible dans les écoles’, in La Moyen Âge et la Bible, ed. by G. Lobrichon and P. ­Riché, Bible de tous les temps, 4 (Paris, 1984), p. 177; A. Andrée, Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes, pp. 3, 9; Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, pp. 23, 31. 169 Smalley, ‘Gilbertus Universalis’ (1936), pp. 30–34, 40–42; R. Wielockx, ‘Autour de la Glossa Ordinaria’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 49 (1982), 222–28 (pp. 225–26); Andrée, Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes, pp. 20–21; Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, pp. 19–22. 163

80

Chapter One

thew to his brother Ralf of Laon.170 The compilation of the Gloss on Lamentations by Gilbert of Auxerre (d. 1134) is attested by its colophon, which appears in most extant manuscripts of this glossed Book, as well as by a twelfth-century manuscript of the Gloss that ascribes the authorship of this part of the Gloss to him.171 Gilbert also seems to have contributed to and perhaps compiled the Gloss on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,172 the Twelve Minor Prophets,173 and the Pentateuch.174 The Gloss on Job, the Song of Songs, and the Canonical Epistles are associated with Laon and, probably, also with Anselm’s pupils or collaborators.175 Alberic of Reims may have compiled the Glosses on Acts and Revelation.176 Relying on Smalley’s ascription of the Gloss on the Pentateuch to Gilbert, R. Wasselynck ascribed to the same author the Gloss on the Books of Samuel and Kings, together with the Gloss on Joshua and Judges.177 Wasselynck’s concern was not so much with identifying the compiler, as with stressing that the same hand that compiled the Gloss on the Pentateuch also compiled the Gloss on Joshua, Judges, and Samuel and Kings.178 His argument in support of this assertion is that he perceived in the compilation of all these books a common trait, namely the closeness and fidelity to the texts of Paterius’s Liber testimoniorum, through which Gregory the Great’s interpretations on most of the books of the Bible (among them those of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel and Kings) were incorporated into the Gloss. 170 The attribution is made by Peter Comestor (d. c. 1178); Smalley, ‘Gilbertus Universalis’ (1936), p. 39; Andrée, Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes, p. 21 and n. 70 (see there the reference to Weisweiler). 171 Smalley, ‘Gilbertus Universalis, Bishop of London (1128–34), and the Problem of the “Glossa Ordinaria”’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 7 (1935), 235–62 (p. 251); ­Andrée, Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes, p. 21 and n. 71. On Gilbert’s life and his contribution to the Gloss in general, see: Smalley, ‘Gilbertus Universalis’ (1935), 235–51, and ead., ‘A Collection of Paris Lectures’, pp. 110, 112; and Andrée, Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes, pp. 37–49. 172 Smalley, ‘Quelques prédécesseurs’ (1937), p. 365 and n. 2; Andrée, Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes, p. 21 and n. 72. 173 Smalley, ‘Gilbertus Universalis’ (1935), pp. 248–49, 259–62; Andrée, Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes, p. 22, nn. 74, 41. 174 Smalley discusses the evidence for the contribution of Gilbert to the Gloss on the Pentateuch in her three articles: ‘Gilbertus Universalis’ (1935), pp. 253–59, ‘Gilbertus Universalis’ (1936), pp. 48–50; and ‘A Collection of Paris lectures’, p. 110; see also: Andrée, Glossa Ordinaria in ­Lamentationes, p. 21, n. 72, p. 42. 175 Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, p. 32. 176 Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, pp. 31–32. 177 R. Wasselynck, ‘L’influence de l’exégèse de S. Grégoire le Grand sur les commentaires ­bibliques médiévaux (viie-xiie s.)’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 32 (1965), 157–204 (pp. 186–91); cf. Smalley, ‘Glose ordinaire et gloses périmées’, p. 19; id., ‘Glossa ordinaria’, Theo­ logische Realenzyklopädie, 13 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter and Co., 1984), pp. 452–57 (p. 453). 178 Wasselynck, ‘L’influence de S. Grégoire le Grand’, pp. 184, 186–91.

The Latin Sources

 81

According to these ascriptions, a good number of biblical books must already have been compiled by 1134. Anselm died in 1117, Ralph died in 1132 or 1134, and Gilbert became bishop of London in 1128 and died in 1134.179 The peculiar page format and the distribution of space to biblical text and to interlinear and marginal glosses that characterise the glossed books of the late eleventh and twelfth centuries can be traced back to the Carolingians. M. Gibson describes a number of Carolingian manuscripts, mainly from the east of the Rhine, dated to the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries.180 All of them show that the copyist has intentionally planned both biblical text and marginal gloss as a unity from the start.181 Unlike marginal glosses, interlinear glosses seem not to have been planned from the start in most Carolingian biblical manuscripts.182 Interlinear glossing, however, does appear in the Carolingian manuscripts of secular classical texts.183 From the mid-eleventh century, however, even interlinear glosses are found systematically to form an integral part of the text, alongside marginal glosses and the biblical text.184 This process of regularisation of the distribution of space devoted to the different glosses seems to have been the result of a process that started by the mid-eleventh century and developed through the twelfth century until it reached its culmination towards the latter half of the twelfth century.185 Christopher De Hamel studied the development of the page layout of the Gloss throughout the twelfth century.186 Today this development is considered one of the indices to use in the approximate dating of the manuscripts of glossed books. Since the end of the eleventh century and until the mid-twelfth century, the page was ruled for the biblical text, which was copied first in the central column throughout the whole manuscript. Then, the glosses corresponding to the 179

Smalley, ‘Gilbertus Universalis’ (1936), p. 48; ead., The Study, p. 49; Andrée, Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes, pp. 23, 40. 180 Gibson, ‘The Place of the Glossa Ordinaria’, pp. 6–12; ead., ‘The Twelfth-Century Glossed Bible’, Studia Patristica, 23/19 [Papers presented to the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1987] ed. by E. Livingstone (Peeters: Leuven, 1989), 232–44 (pp. 234– 37, 241); ead., Gibson, ‘The Glossed Bible’, pp. vii–viii. 181 ‘The Twelfth-Century Glossed Bible’, p. 236. 182 Gibson, ‘The Glossed Bible’, p. 8; ‘The Place of the Glossa Ordinaria’, pp. 5–6. See, however, Lobrichon, ‘Une nouveauté’, p. 99 and n. 8, who points out at least one biblical manuscript with interlinear glosses that dates to around 800 and comes from Ireland. 183 Lobrichon, ‘Une nouveauté’, p. 98; Gibson, ‘The Place of the Glossa Ordinaria’, p. 12; ead., ‘The Glossed Bible’, p. 8 and n. 15. 184 Gibson, ‘The Place of the Glossa Ordinaria’, pp. 6, 14–17; cf. ead., ‘The Glossed Bible’, p. viii and n. 16. 185 Gibson, ‘Glossa ordinaria in medieval exegesis’, pp. 14–17. 186 C. F. R. De Hamel, Glossed Books of the Bible and the Origins of the Paris Book Trade (Suffolk: Brewer, 1984, repr. 1987), pp. 14–27.

Chapter One

82

biblical text on each page were inserted in the columns on the right and left sides of the biblical text. The longer glosses were extended across at the top and bottom of the page. From roughly the 1130s onward, the width of the central column started to vary from page to page, according to the extent of the biblical text and the accompanying Gloss. Thus the longer glosses could fit better on the relevant page.187 From the middle of the twelfth century, a second type of layout appears in Gloss manuscripts: biblical text and gloses were seen as a visual unity. Before beginning to write, space on a particular page was designated both for the biblical text and for its gloss, and all three columns were widened or narrowed accordingly.188 This shows that the text of the Gloss was becoming stable and no substantial changes were expected. From about 1160, a new change is produced in the layout of Northern-French glossed books. The biblical text is written on alternate ruled lines, whereas the glosses are written on every ruled line and in a size smaller than that of the biblical text. The central column of the biblical text varies in width even on a single page. Thus all glosses that were required could be inserted in the lateral columns directly next to any given part of the biblical text.189 Lesley Smith describes manuscript copies of this second type of Gloss, which present differences among themselves as to the format and disposition of the space occupied by biblical text and glosses.190 She also describes certain manuscript copies of the Gloss as transitional between the two types of layout.191 Lobrichon has analysed the evolution of the text of the Gloss based on an examination of 170 manuscripts.192 The first manuscripts of certain individual biblical books of the Gloss date to the third quarter of the eleventh century: these correspond to the Books of Psalms, Song of Songs, the Pauline Epistles, and the Apocalypse.193 Some of these manuscripts from the late eleventh century and the first half of the twelfth century contain primitive glosses some of which were not incorporated later into the standard Gloss.194 The first crystallisation of the Gloss begins by the mid-twelfth century, and by the third quarter of the twelfth century the text of the Gloss acquires stability.195 The final stage of the text appears only in 187

De Hamel, pp. 16, 27. De Hamel, p. 17. 189 De Hamel, pp. 24–25, 27. 190 Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, pp. 105–8. 191 Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, pp. 115–20. 192 Lobrichon, ‘Une nouveauté’, p. 99, nn. 10–113. 193 Lobrichon, ‘Une nouveauté’, p. 99 and n. 11. 194 Smalley, ‘Les commentaires bibliques de l’époque romane: glose ordinaire et gloses périmées’, in Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, 4 (1961), 15–22 (pp. 16–19); ead., ‘Quelques prédécesseurs’, pp. 365–400, at 371–400; Lobrichon, ‘Une nouveauté’, p. 105 and n. 24. 195 Lobrichon, ‘Une nouveauté’, p. 109. 188

The Latin Sources

 83

manuscripts from the thirteenth century.196 It was only later that this book would receive the name of Glossa ordinaria. M. Zier has collated ten manuscripts of the Gloss on Daniel from France and England dated to between the early twelfth century and the first half of the thirteenth century.197 He concludes that it is not possible to know whether the common text of the earliest French manuscripts predates the twelfth century, and that the contribution of Gilbert the Universal to the text of the Gloss in the second or third decade of the twelfth century can be seen either in the summaries of the patristic excerpts for Daniel or in the addition of new glosses. The Parisian manuscripts dated to the thirteenth century show the fullest recension of the text of the Gloss. Zier’s analysis of the evolution of text, format, and handwriting of the Gloss in the manuscripts confirms most of the developments described by de Hamel and Lobrichon. Mary Dove and Alexander Andrée have published modern editions of the Gloss on Song of Songs and part of the Gloss on Lamentations, respectively. Andrée explains that there were two recensions of the Lamentation Gloss: he dates the first one to before 1125; the second, to around 1140. The second recension is the one appearing in most manuscripts copied after 1200 as well as in Rusch’s edition.198 Mary Dove thinks a revision of the Gloss on Song of Songs happened around 1170.199 Lesley Smith suggests that there was probably more than one recension of the Glosses on other biblical books as well.200 Relying on palaeographical and artistic criteria, Patricia Stirnemann has analysed the oldest glossed manuscripts in northern France dated to before 1150 and has pointed to probable places of provenance and dates of origin.201 A first group of glossed manuscripts dating to the first third of the twelfth century corresponds to the Books of Genesis, Job, Song of Songs, Proverbs, ­Ecclesiastes, St Matthew, St John, the Pauline Epistles, and the Canonical Epistles.202 Another manuscript, Reims, B.M., 135, which contains a glossed Apocalypse, is dated by Guy Lobrichon to the end of the eleventh or beginning of the 196

Lobrichon, ‘Une nouveauté’, pp. 110–11. M. A. Zier, ‘The Manuscript Tradition of the Glossa Ordinaria for Daniel, and Hints at a Method for a Critical Edition’, Scriptorium, 47 (1993), 1, pp. 3–25. 198 Andrée, Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes, pp. 5, 61; cf. Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, pp. 12, 73. 199 M. Dove, ed., Glossa Ordinaria, Pars 22, In Canticum Canticorum, CCCM, 170 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997) cited in Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, p. 12. 200 Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, p. 12. 201 P. Stirnemann, ‘Où ont été fabriqués les livres de la glose ordinaire dans la première moitié du xiie siècle?’, in Le xiie siècle: Mutations et renouveau en France dans la première moitié du xiie siècle ed. by F. Gasparri, Cahiers du Léopard d’Or, 3 (Paris, 1994), pp. 257–301. 202 Stirnemann, ‘Les livres’, pp. 258–61. The Genesis manuscript is Paris, BnF, lat. 14,398. 197

Chapter One

84

twelfth century.203 Stirnemann dates the second group of glossed manuscripts to between 1140 and 1150. Within this group there are glossed copies on Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Ruth, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Daniel, Minor Prophets, Mark, Luke, and Pauline Epistles.204 She dates the manuscripts on the Gloss on every other biblical book to between 1150 and 1175, except those on Chronicles and Maccabees, which date to after 1200.205 M. Tischler examines collections of glossed biblical manuscripts coming from either individuals or institutions between the early twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.206 He bases his analysis on an examination of the manuscripts themselves, library catalogues from the twelfth, thirteenth, or subsequent centuries, ex-libris revealing the earliest owners, and other legal documents containing references to such collections. He concludes that the earliest extant complete sets of the Glossa Ordinaria date only from the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth centuries.207 Likewise, not until the end of the twelfth century or beginning of the thirteenth century do we find an emerging homogeneity in some sets of glossed Bibles.208 A good number of scholars have examined the relationship between the Gloss and the Victorines from different angles and using different methods. Some of them have suggested that the School of St Victor actually contributed to the production of the Gloss.209 Lobrichon, De Hamel, and Stirnemann analyse a group of manuscripts which were given to Clairvaux by Prince Henry, the son of King Louis VI, when he entered the monastery as a monk roughly in 1146.210 Among the manuscripts now at Troyes and Montpellier are the Gloss on Psalms, the version of the Gloss on Psalms and the Canonical Epistles by Gilbert de la Porrée, and glossed manuscripts on each of the Gospels and on St Paul’s epistles.211 Some of the manuscripts bear the 203

Stirnemann, p. 261; Lobrichon ‘Une nouveauté’, p. 99, n. 11. Stirnemann, pp. 266–68. 205 Stirnemann, p. 268. 206 M. M. Tischler, ‘Dekonstruktion eines Mythos. Saint-Victor und die ältesten Sammlungen glossierter Bibelhandschriften im 12. und frühen 13. Jahrhundert’, in Bibel und Exegese, pp. 35–68. 207 Tischler, ‘Dekonstruktion’, pp. 56–57. 208 Tischler, ‘Dekonstruktion’, p. 57. 209 Gibson, ‘The twelfth-century Glossed Bible’, p. 244; ‘The Place of the Glossa Ordinaria’, pp. 20–21; Lobrichon, ‘Une nouveauté: les gloses de la Bible’, pp. 108–9; and L. Smith, ‘What was the Bible in the Twelfth and Thirteenth centuries?’, in Neue Richtungen in der hoch- und spät­ mittelalterlichen Bibelexegese, pp. 1–15 (p. 5); Tischler, ‘Die Bibel in Saint-Victor’, pp. 33 n. 1, 35–36, 59 and 78. 210 Lobrichon, ‘Une nouveauté’, p. 108 and n. 29; De Hamel, Glossed Books of the Bible, pp. 5–7 and passim; Stirnemann, ‘Les livres’, pp. 264–66. 211 Lobrichon ‘Une nouveauté’, p. 108, n. 29; Stirnemann, ‘Les livres’, p. 265. 204

The Latin Sources

 85

ex-libris ‘Henricus regis filius’ and this has lead some scholars to dating them before Louis VI’s death in 1137; but other scholars point out that since Henry was not Louis VI’s heir, he probably continued to be known as ‘the king’s son’ even after his father’s death.212 A. Wilmart, G. D. Hobson, and W. Cahn had already studied these manuscripts from different angles and linked them with Paris.213 Lobrichon, from a formal viewpoint, has established that a number of these manuscripts share similarities with other manuscripts from St Victor and concludes that it is likely that the manuscripts in Henry’s group were also produced at St Victor.214 Stirnemann points to other Victorine manuscripts that were not indicated by Lobrichon but bear the same decorative style (in some of the manuscripts) or the same filigreed initials (in other manuscripts) as those appearing in Henry’s manuscripts.215 She finds, however, that only five manuscripts of the Gloss bear the same decorative style as other Victorine manuscripts dating between 1140 and 1150. In her opinion, all the other extant glossed manuscripts at St Victor date to after 1150.216 She suggests that these early glossed manuscripts were not produced in St Victor but bought or donated.217 She also suggests that artisans who painted and illuminated the first glossed books produced in and distributed from Paris around the 1140s, such as Henry’s books, learnt their technique in the schools of Chartres.218 M. Tischler treats the collections of glossed manuscripts from the library of St Victor and points to different ways of analysing them.219 In another publication, Tischler analyses and describes the former owners, donors, and individuals commissioning the writing or illumination of the glossed bibles from the library of St Victor’s.220 He also describes the history and paleographical and codicological features of all the identified manuscripts with the biblical Gloss that belonged to or whose production was commissioned by the Abbey of St Victor.221 212

Lobrichon, ‘Une nouveauté’, p. 108, n. 29; Stirnemann, ‘Les livres’, p. 265; Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria, p. 159. 213 For the bibliographic references to Wilmart, Hobson, and Cahn, see De Hamel, Glossed Books of the Bible, p. 6, n. 41; and Stirnemann, ‘Les Livres’, pp. 264, 279, n. 27. 214 Lobrichon, ‘Une nouveauté’, p. 108 and n. 29; see Tischler, ‘Dekonstruktion’, in Bibel und Exegese, p. 38 and n. 7. 215 Stirnemann, ‘Les livres’, p. 266. 216 Stirnemann, ‘Les livres’, p. 268. 217 Stirnemann, ‘Les livres’, p. 269. 218 Stirnemann, ‘Les livres’, pp. 269–77. 219 Tischler, ‘Dekonstruktion’, pp. 58–68; ‘Die glossierten Bibeln von Saint-Victor’, in Schrift, Schreiber, Schenker, pp. 67–74. 220 Tischler, ‘Die Auftraggeber, Vorbesitzer und Schenker der Bibeln von Saint-Victor’, in Schrift, Schreiber, Schenker, pp. 27–65. 221 Tischler, Die Bibel in Saint-Victor zu Paris: Das Buch der Bücher als Gradmesser für wissenschaftliche, soziale und ordensgeschichtliche Umbrüche im europäischen Hoch- und Spätmittelalter, Corpus Victorinum: Instrumenta, 6 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2014).

Chapter One

86

F. Van Liere has concluded that the Gloss was one of Andrew’s sources in his commentaries on 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings and that through it he borrowed exegetical material from earlier sources. He argues that: (a) Andrew’s version and that of the Gloss share the same text whereas their common readings differ from the original or intermediate sources; (b) the Gloss has retained some readings or a longer text of the source text that cannot be found in Andrew; and (c) Andrew copied from the Gloss mistaken attributions of portions of the text.222 He also points out that Andrew copied from the Gloss the false ascription to Isidore in the interpretation of 1 Sam 6.18, when in fact its author was Pseudo-Jerome.223 According to Van Liere, therefore, the text of the Gloss on the Books of Samuel and Kings was available to Andrew in St Victor and he made extensive use of it in his commentary on Samuel and Kings.224 The bulk of extant manuscripts of the Gloss can be dated to between 1140 and 1220.225 Gibson establishes the dominance and usefulness of the Gloss approximately between 1125 and 1275.226 The process of glossing the Bible starts at the end of the eleventh century and reaches to the end of the twelfth century.227 Different biblical books were glossed at different times throughout the twelfth century.228 From mid-twelfth century onwards, the Gloss suffers no major additions or changes and its text remains stable throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.229 Around the 1140s, the Gloss started to be commercially promoted and spread from Paris and this beginning is linked to the presence in Paris of Gilbert de la Porrée (c. 1080–1154) and the inclusion of his expanded version of the Gloss on Psalms and the Pauline Epistles in the manuscripts of the Gloss in the early 1140s.230 It is also linked to Peter Lombard and to the secular manuscript makers of Paris.231 The Gloss on specific individual books, such as the Book of Psalms, Lamentations, and some of the Gospels, was in circulation by the 1140s 222

Van Liere, In Librum Regum, pp. xxii–xxvii; ‘Andrew and the Gloss on Samuel and Kings’, pp. 251–52. 223 Van Liere, In Librum Regum, p. xxvii. 224 Van Liere, In Librum Regum, p. xxviii; ‘Andrew of St Victor and the Gloss on Samuel and Kings’, p. 253. 225 Gibson, ‘The Place of the Glossa Ordinaria’, pp. 5, 19; Smith, ‘What was the Bible in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries?’, pp. 5, 8–9. 226 Gibson, ‘The Twelfth-Century Glossed Bible’, p. 244. 227 Lobrichon, ‘Une nouveauté’, pp. 110–13. 228 Smalley, ‘Gilbertus Universalis’ (1936), p. 48; Van Liere, ‘Andrew of St Victor and the Gloss on Samuel and Kings’, p. 249. 229 Gibson, ‘The Place of the Glossa Ordinaria in Medieval Exegesis’, pp. 19–20; Andrée, Glossa Ordinaria in Lamentationes, p. 26 and n. 99. 230 Stirnemann, ‘Les livres’, pp. 264–65, 269–70 and nn. 53 and 54, p. 276; Smith, ‘The Glossa Ordinaria’, pp. 145, 149. 231 Smith, ‘The Glossa Ordinaria’, p. 194.

The Latin Sources

 87

and may have been produced in the 1130s or earlier. The earliest manuscript of the entire Glossa Ordinaria containing the Gloss on Lamentations already appears to have been copied in 1131 in Riechenberg (Germany).232 With respect to the Pentateuch, an extant manuscript of the Gloss on Genesis (MS Paris, BnF, lat. 14,398), with a Laon provenance, dates to the second quarter of the twelfth century and before 1140.233 Manuscripts of the Gloss on Exodus (Paris, Bibl. Ars., 47; Soissons, B.M., 71), Leviticus (Rouen, B.M, 41/A. 326) and Deuteronomy (Laon, B.M, 10; Paris, BnF, lat. 186) date to between 1140 and 1150.234 One of the oldest manuscripts containing the Gloss on Joshua found to date seems to have reached Halberstadt from Paris originally and perhaps from St Victor and it dates to before 1151.235 Another manuscript of the Gloss on Judges from Halberstadt (Halberstadt, Cathedral-School, MS 39) also dates to before 1151.236 The library of St Victor’s contains manuscripts of the Gloss on Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus from the mid-twelfth century (Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,400; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,771).237 Patricia Stirnemann dates Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399 to c. 1165–75.238 The library at St Victor also holds a set of glossed manuscripts on the Bible including the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings (Paris, Bibl. Maz., MSS 131–40), dating to the first or second quarter of the thirteenth century.239 On the other hand, the earliest extant manuscripts of the Gloss on 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings date to the 1170s.240 However, Van Liere has compared and contrasted various manuscripts of the Gloss on Samuel and Kings with Rusch’s edition of the Gloss. His conclusion

232 Kassel, Universitatsbibliothek, MS 2, Theol. 6: Andrée, The Glossa in Lamentationes, p. 23, n. 82. 233 Stirnemann, ‘Les livres’, pp. 260, 262; Tischler, ‘Dekonstruktion’, pp. 60–61; id., ‘Die glossierten Bibeln von Saint-Victor’, p. 69. 234 Stirnemann, ‘Les livres’, pp. 266–67. 235 Halberstadt, Cathedral School, MS 47: Stammberger, ‘Die Halberstädter Glosse’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 68 (2001), pp. 19–20, nn. 6–8, 28–30. 236 Stammberger, ‘Die Halberstädter Glosse’, pp. 19–20 and nn. 6–7; Tischler, ‘Dekonstruktion’, p. 60. 237 Tischler, ‘Dekonstruktion’, p. 61; id., ‘Die glossierten Bibeln von Saint-Victor’, p. 69. 238 E-mail communication, 23 julio, 2015. I thank Patricia Stirnemann for this information. 239 Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, p. 221; Tischler, ‘Dekonstruktion’, p. 61; id., ‘Die glossierten Bibeln von Saint-Victor’, p. 69. 240 Van Liere, In Librum Regum, p. xxii, n. 64; id., ‘Andrew of St Victor and the Gloss on Samuel and Kings’, Media Latinitas. A collection of essays to mark the occasion of the retirement of L. J. Engels, ed. by R. Nip et al., Instrumenta Patristica, 28 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1996), p. 249 and n. 4. References to some of the manuscripts of the Gloss on those books and to their dates are given in both publications.

88

Chapter One

is that the Gloss on the Books of Samuel and Kings did not undergo profound modifications after its compilation, because its textual tradition is stable.241 2. The Gloss as a Source of Hugh’s and Andrew’s Commentaries on the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets My aim here is to carry out a comparative analysis between the text of the Gloss on the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets (in Rusch’s edition of 1480/81 and five manuscripts of the Gloss) and the parallel passages in the commentaries of Hugh and Andrew, and determine whether sufficient similarity exists between the texts to conclude that the Gloss on these books did indeed serve as Hugh’s and/ or Andrew’s source. In this examination, I have limited the analysis to the references to the Hebrew or to Jewish traditions that appear in the standard twelfth-century Gloss (Rusch edition) and the following eight manuscripts of the Gloss: Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398, and MS lat. 14,399 (Genesis); Paris, Bibl. Ars., MS 47 and Soissons, B.M., MS 71 (Exodus); Rouen, B.M, MS 41/A. 326 (Leviticus); Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,471 (Leviticus); Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131 (Genesis and Exodus), and Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 132 (Samuel and Kings). Did Hugh and Andrew adopt in hebreo interpretations from the twelfth-century Gloss? The studies described above are compatible with the hypothesis that the Gloss on the Pentateuch, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings (as individual compositions) would have been accessible to Andrew when he wrote his commentary on those books. These studies call into question, however, the hypothesis that Hugh would have had access to the Gloss on those biblical books when he wrote his Note before 1125.242 The publication of Hugh’s Note on the Pentateuch, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings has been dated to the period before 1125.243 Andrew’s commentaries on the Pentateuch and on the Former Prophets are dated to the period between 1141 and 1149.244 We have seen that the Gloss does not reach its final stage until the end of the twelfth century. However, manuscripts of the Gloss on specific 241 Van Liere, In Librum Regum, p. xxii, and n. 66; id., ‘Andrew of St Victor and the Gloss on Samuel and Kings’, pp. 249–50 and nn. 4–5. 242 See Smalley, who already points in this direction: ‘Quelques prédécesseurs d’Anselme de Laon’, p. 367; The Study of the Bible, p. 126. 243 Van den Eynde, Essai sur la succession et la date, pp. 40–45, and table I. 244 Smalley, ‘Andrew of St Victor’, p. 372; ead., The Study of the Bible, p. 112, dates Andrew’s commentaries on the Octateuch to before 1147. Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, pp. 86–88, has established the terminus a quo for the production of the commentaries on the Octateuch between 1137/38 and 1141, and the terminus ad quem in 1149; cf. Berndt, ‘La pratique exégétique’, p. 272; Van Liere, In Librum Regum, p. ix and n. 4.

The Latin Sources

 89

individual biblical books such as the Psalms, Lamentations, Job, the Gospels, and the Pauline Epistles are attested in the 1130s or 1140s. Also attested are glossed commentaries on Genesis from before 1140 and on Exodus, Leviticus, Joshua, and Judges from before the mid-twelfth century. In addition, glossed manuscripts in different stages of evolution have been found. Andrew might have employed glossed books containing a text that had not yet been fully developed, but still lacked some of the glosses that later found their way into the standard version of the Gloss. Hugh, in his turn, might have used an early version of the Gloss to some individual books. The relationship between Andrew and the Gloss is easier to analyse than that between Hugh and the Gloss, because while many of the parallel interpretations in Andrew and the Gloss have the same or very similar wording, none of Hugh’s interpretations is identical in wording to the parallel text in the Gloss. Therefore, I will only briefly discuss the relationship between Hugh’s Note on Genesis and the Gloss on that Book, and then go on to analyse those interpretations in Andrew’s commentary on Genesis that, in my view, have been adopted from the Gloss. 3. Hugh and the Gloss on Genesis In both his article on the structure and sources of Hugh’s commentaries on the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets, as well as in his doctoral dissertation, Pollitt has examined the parallel passages between Hugh’s Note and the Gloss.245 He has found a number of very similar renderings in the commentaries on Genesis of these two works. According to Pollitt, Hugh relies on the Gloss for four interpretations of his Note on Genesis: Gen 1.26, 4.13–15, 5.1, and 31.12.246 However, in three out of the four interpretations, Hugh differs significantly from the Gloss in wording, and the few phrases that both of them share appear also in two or more other sources, such as Jerome’s QHG, Bede, Alcuin, Hrabanus, and Angelom. The evidence for these four passages is, therefore, not conclusive. The evidence Pollitt offers that both Hugh and the Gloss on Gen 5.1 employ the word recapitulatio does not necessarily afford sufficient proof of Hugh’s dependence on the Gloss.247 However, of the examples that Pollitt adduces, there is nonetheless one interpretation in the Gloss that seems to reveal a very close affinity to the parallel comment

245 Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, pp. 33–35; id., Hugh as Biblical Exegete, pp. 118–26, 128–33, 137–44, 146–49, and nn. 50–129, 135–45, 152, 157, 159–60, 162, 178–86, 209–44, 274–75, 279–80, 289–306, 315–25, 326–42, 346–51, 378–82, 391–97, 403–4. 246 Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, p. 34; id., Hugh as Biblical Exegete, pp. 118, 124–26, 141, 146–47, 149, and nn. 50–51, 135–45, 159–60, 162, 315–20, 378–82, 403–4. 247 Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, p. 34; id., Hugh as Biblical Exegete, p. 149 and n. 403.

90

Chapter One

in Hugh’s Note: viz., the gloss on Gen 1.26.248 Another close parallel between the two, which is not found in Pollitt, is the comment of both Hugh and the Interlinear Gloss on Gen 49.21: the content is the same in both texts and they are close, though not identical, in wording. But then, Hugh’s wording is closer to that of Haimo’s comment on the same verse than to the Gloss’. In short, though there exist a few close parallel interpretations between Hugh’s commentary on Genesis and the Gloss on that Book, those parallels do not provide conclusive evidence that the Gloss on that Book was Hugh’s source. Likewise, in my analysis of Hugh’s Hebrew material, I have found no clear evidence that Hugh draws on the Gloss on Genesis for any of the in hebreo translations or Jewish interpretations in his commentary on that Book. 4. Andrew and the Gloss on Genesis Of the thirty-three references to the Hebrew text, the Hebrew language, or Jewish traditions that Andrew borrows from the Latin sources in his commentary on Genesis, it is certain that he adopts eleven, and perhaps as many as seventeen, from the Gloss. I have collated Andrew’s in hebreo interpretations with their parallels in Rusch’s edition of the Gloss and with the manuscripts of the Gloss on Genesis: Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131. As a whole, Andrew’s text in these in hebreo interpretations is closer to the Gloss in Rusch’s edition and in Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399 and Bibl. Maz., MS 131 than to the other sources. BnF, MS lat. 14,398 differs from the texts of Andrew, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, Rusch’s edition, and Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131 in that it preserves the same wording as QHG and keeps more particles and phrases from the same work (QHG) than Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131. In addition, BnF, MS lat. 14,398 does not include what Andrew, Rusch’s edition, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131 present as interlinear glosses. However, it does preserve the content of all the in hebreo interpretations which are in Andrew and Rusch (except Gen 8.7) and the introductory phrases in hebreo (except in Gen 49.3–4) to those interpretations. On the other hand, Andrew is even shorter than the Gloss in Rusch’s edition and MSS Paris, BnF, lat. 14,399 and Bibl. Maz., MS 131: he abbreviates and omits particles (such as ergo, enim) and entire phrases and sentences from the text of the Gloss. It appears that the texts of Andrew and the Gloss in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131 are related to one another. The text of the Gloss in 248 Pollitt, Hugh as Biblical exegete, p. 141 and nn. 315–20. The gloss is also found in Rusch (editio incunabilis, Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 3981), in Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, fol. 10v, and Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, fol. 10r. Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399 differs from the other two in some words.

The Latin Sources

 91

Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398, however, seems to represent an earlier stage of the Gloss than that which Andrew and the other texts of the Gloss reflect. This manuscript is dated to before the middle of the twelfth century, when the Glossed texts of Genesis were as yet incomplete and those on other biblical books had lacunae.249 Andrew might have contributed to the second and more developed recension of the Gloss. With one exception, all the in hebreo translations or Jewish interpretations that Andrew borrowed from the Gloss may be traced to Jerome’s QHG. The one exception, besides being included in the Gloss, also appears in both Remigius and Haimo of Auxerre. One other interpretation is found only in QHG and the Gloss: Andrew’s interpretation of Gen 6.14. The remaining interpretations appear not only in QHG and the Gloss but also in one or more of the following Latin sources: Augustine, Bede, Alcuin, Hrabanus, Angelom, Haimo, and Remigius. There is not, however, the same evidence in all the interpretations for seeing the Gloss as the source of Andrew’s references to the Hebrew text or to Jewish traditions. One group of interpretations shows that Andrew’s text is strikingly close to that of the Gloss (in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131 versions) and, when contrasted with those of the other sources, the dependence of Andrew on the Gloss is clearly seen, since both texts differ in the same way from those in the other sources. The resemblance of Andrew’s text to that of the Gloss is not always evident in completely identical wording (though indeed this is nearly always the case); sometimes it is seen in the fact that Andrew and the Gloss share ideas or concepts that are not found in the other sources. The other examples I have found belonging to this group are his interpretations of: Gen 1.10,250 Gen 6.3,251 6.4,252 6.14 (int. gloss),253 6.16(1),254 6.16 (2), int. gloss, 249

Tischler, ‘Dekonstruktion’, p. 42. Andrew, Gen., ll. 299–301; Jerome, QHG, p. 3, Lag. 4 (17–19); Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, col. 451D; Angelom, Gen., PL 115, col. 119D; Remigius, Gen., ll. 332–334; Bede, In Gen. I, ll. 360– 363; Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 11; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, fol. 8v; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, fol. 6r; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398, fol. 8r. 251 For those references not given here, see the corresponding comments below. 252 Andrew, Gen., ll. 1385–1387; Jerome, QHG, p. 10, Lag. 12 (23–24); Bede, Gen. II, ll. 990– 1006; Glossa ord. int., Gen., p. 35; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, fol. 38r; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131 (int), fol. 31. BnF, MS lat. 14,398, fol. 26v has this gloss in the margins in wording different from Andrew and the other three texts of the Gloss. Berndt, ‘Les interprétations juives’, no. 27, p. 208, points to QHG, Pirkei de R. Eliezer, 22, and Rashi as possible sources for Andrew’s interpretations. It is less probable that Andrew borrowed this interpretation from a Jewish source directly, since he could read it in one of the Latin ones. 253 Andrew, Gen., ll. 1421–1422; Jerome, QHG, p. 10, Lag. 13 (1–2); Glossa ord. int., Gen., p. 35; Interlinear gloss: Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, fol. 39r; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, fol. 31v. 254 Andrew, Gen., l. 1430; Jerome, QHG, p. 10, Lag. 13 (4–7); Bede, Gen. II, ll. 1238–1240; Glossa ord. int., Gen., p. 36; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, fol. 39v; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131 (int.), fol. 32r. 250

Chapter One

92

14.18, 16.12, 22.2,255 22.14 (1),256 22.14 (2),257 22.21 (int. gloss),258 25.25 (int. gloss),259 25.30,260 49.3–4,261 and 49.8–9.262 In some of these, 6.3, 6.4, 6.14 (int. gloss), 6.16 (2), 14.18, 16.12, 22.14 (2), and 25.25 (int. gloss), both Andrew and the Gloss (in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131) have the same wording and preserve the same amount of text as against QHG and the other sources. In a second group (6.16 (1), 255

Andrew, Gen., ll. 2288–2293; Jerome, QHG, p. 26, Lag. 33 (20–26); Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, col. 566C–D; Angelom, Gen., PL 115, cols 194D–195A; Haimo, Gen., PL 131, col. 95C; Remigius, Gen., ll. 3141–3143; Alcuin, Gen., PL 100, col. 544D; Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 60; Paris, BnF, MS. lat. 14,399, fol. 73r; Bibl. Maz., MS 131, fols 56v–57r; BnF, MS lat. 14,398, fol. 56v. 256 Andrew, Gen., ll. 2298; Jerome, QHG, p. 27, Lag. 34 (22–24); Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, col. 568B; Haimo, Gen., PL 131, col. 96C; Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 61; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, fol. 74v and Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, fols 57v–58r. The active verb in the lemma of Andrew’s text in hebreo videbit, instead of the original spelling of the QHG in Hebraeo videbitur, may have been a mistake that Andrew or his copyists made when copying the Gloss. Since the text of the Gloss renders the verb videbitur in an abbreviated form (‘ur’ is only a small sign above the word), it is possible that videbit was mistakenly read instead of videbitur. 257 Andrew, Gen., ll. 2298–2300; Jerome, QHG, p. 27, Lag. 34 (24–29); Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 61; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, fol. 74v; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, fols 57v–58r; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398, fol. 57v. Rusch’s edition of the Gloss, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131 summarise QHG in the same way as Andrew, whereas Hrabanus and Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398 preserve more text from QHG. Hrabanus and Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398 employ the same words and particles as QHG, whereas Andrew and the Gloss in the other manuscripts use different wording. Alcuin, Remigius, and Haimo differ from both groups. 258 Andrew, Gen., ll. 2312–2313; Jerome, QHG, p. 27, Lag. 35 (9–14); Alcuin, Gen., PL 100, col. 546C–D; Angelom, Gen., PL 115, col. 196D; Haimo, Gen., PL 131, col. 96D; Glossa ord. int., Gen., p. 61; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, fol. 75r; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131 (int), fol. 58r. Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398 (marg.), fol. 58r has this gloss in the margins, not between the lines, and its wording differs from that of the other texts of the Gloss. 259 Andrew, Gen., ll. 2414–2415; Jerome, QHG, p. 32, Lag. 40 (30–32); Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, col. 582A; Remigius, Gen., ll. 3354–3355; Haimo, Gen., PL 131, col. 102A; Glossa ord. int., Gen., p. 67; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, fol. 84v; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, fol. 64v; BnF, MS lat. 14,398, fol. 66v. The wording of the marginal gloss in Paris, BnF, MS lat 14,398 coincides with that of the marginal gloss in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131, and all three are identical to QHG and Hrabanus. Andrew’s wording, however, coincides with that of the interlinear Gloss in Rusch, BnF, Paris, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131. 260 Andrew, Gen., ll. 2417–2418; Jerome, QHG, p. 32, Lag. 41 (3–5); Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, col. 583A; Remigius, Gen., ll. 3363–3367; Haimo, Gen., PL 131, col. 102A–B; Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 68; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, fol. 85r; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, fol. 65r; Paris, MS lat. 14,398 (marg.), fol. 67r. 261 Andrew, Gen., ll. 2917–2931; Jerome, QHG, p. 52, Lag. 66 (29–34)–67 (1–7); Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 107; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, fol. 140r; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, fol. 107r; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398 (marg.), fol. 127v. 262 Andrew, Gen., ll. 2948–2954; Jerome, QHG, p. 53, Lag 68 (7–12); Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 107; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, fol. 140v; Paris, BnF, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, fol. 107v; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398, fol. 128r.

The Latin Sources

 93

Gen 8.7, 22.14 (1), 22.21, 25.30, and 49.3–4), the Gloss in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131 preserve a few particles, words, and even phrases or sentences from the original source which Andrew omits, but this group still shortens some phrases or sentences from QHG, or omits some words in the same way as Andrew and is closer to Andrew than to the other sources (Hrabanus, Angelom, and Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398), which preserve even more text from QHG. In his comment on 6.14, Andrew has two phrases which are not included in the interlinear gloss in Rusch or Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131. In a third group of interpretations, Andrew’s text still shares one or two more elements with the text of the Gloss in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131 than with the other sources (Gen 1.10, 22.2, and 49.8–9) or is close in the same way to the Gloss in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat., 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131 and at least to one, and, sometimes, several of the other sources (Gen 8.7; and 22.14 (1)).263 The evidence proving that the Gloss was Andrew’s source is therefore less conclusive in the third group. However, bearing in mind Andrew’s frequent use of the Gloss, it is highly likely that he would have also drawn on it for the texts of this third group. An example of the first group of interpretations is Andrew’s comment of Gen 6.3. The Masoretic text and the Septuagint read: MT ‫ויאמר ה' לא ידון רוחי באדם לעלם בשגם הוא‬ ‫בשר‬

LXX Καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ὁ θεός Οὐ μὴ καταμείνῃ τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς σάρκας, ἔσονται δὲ αἱ ἡμέραι αὐτῶν ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι ἔτη.

The Hebrew verb in the Masoretic text is yadon (‘to judge’, ‘to punish’, ‘to govern’). Instead of this Hebrew verb, the Septuagint καταμείνῃ seems to have translated either the Hebrew verb ‫ ילון‬or the Hebrew verb ‫‘( ידור‬to dwell’, ‘to abide in’, ‘to remain’). Furthermore, the Septuagint translates ‘these men’ instead of the singular 263

Berndt, ‘Les interprétations juives’, p. 209, no. 37, pointed to the interlinear Gloss as Andrew’s source for his comment on Gen 8.7. Andrew, Gen., ll. 1558–1562; Angelom, Gen., PL 115, col. 160A B; Glossa ord. int., Gen., p. 39; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, fol. 43r; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, fol. 34v. In contrast to Angelom, who is the only other source that transmits the in hebreo translation from QHG, only the interlinear Gloss and Andrew borrowed from QHG the first verb (in hebrew wa-yetze, in latin egressus est), which was absent from the Vulgate. Along with Andrew’s Vulgate text, the Gloss’s text also attests the variant reading et non revertebatur, which is found in several manuscripts of the Vulgate: crit. app. in Biblia Sacra: Genesis, p. 169, n. 7. Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399 and Bibl. Maz., MS 131 include the variant et non revertens in the interlinear gloss parallel to Andrew’s in hebreo interpretation.

Chapter One

94

‘man’ of the Masoretic text, and by so doing, it interprets God’s threat as intended not for all men but for ‘these [particular] men’, i.e. the generation of the Flood. Interestingly, Jerome’s translation of the passage in the Vulgate preserves elements of both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint: And God said: My spirit shall not remain Dixitque Deus non permanebit spiritus in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his meus in homine in aeternum quia caro est eruntque dies illius centum viginti annorum days shall be a hundred and twenty years.

Here, Jerome incorporates the translation non permanebit (‘shall not remain’) from the Septuagint. He does not, however, accept the Septuagint’s rendering ‘in these men’, but chooses instead the singular of the Hebrew text’s reading ‘in man’. In his in hebreo interpretation in QHG, however, in contrast to his translation of the passage in the Vulgate, Jerome translates the verb ‫( ידון‬dyn/dwn) from the Hebrew text and not the verb καταμείνῃ from the Septuagint, but maintains the Septuagint’s rendering ‘these men’ instead of the singular ‘man’: 264 265 Et dixit dominus deus: Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis in aeternum, quia carnes sunt. In hebraeo scriptum est: non iudicabit spiritus meus homines istos in sempiternum, quoniam caro sunt.264

And the Lord God said: My Spirit shall not remain in these men for ever, because they are flesh. In Hebrew is written: My Spirit shall not judge these men for evermore, since they are flesh.265

From his interpretation it appears that Jerome understands the verb ‫ ידון‬to mean ‘to punish’.266 However, Jerome encounters a difficulty in the Hebrew text: by asserting that he shall not punish men, God seems to be showing mercy to them. Why then does he shorten men’s days to a hundred and twenty, and above all, why does he bring the Flood shortly thereafter? The Septuagint’s translation ‘My spirit shall not remain in those men for ever’ fits the following context better: both the shortening of human lifespan and the Flood are the result of God’s decision that his spirit would not remain with the men of the generation of the Flood. In his in hebreo interpretation in QHG, Jerome treats this difficulty in two ways. First, he comments that the Flood did not constitute an absolute evil, but only a temporal punishment, and that God applied this punishment out of mercy: by

264

Jerome, QHG, p. 9, Lag. 11 (30–33). Hayward, HQG, p. 36. 266 The Hebrew verb dyn (or dwn) appears in the Bible with the meanings ‘to minister judgment’, ‘to act as a judge’ (Pss 9.9; 72.2; Isa 3.13), ‘to punish’ (Gen 15.14), ‘to plead the cause of ’ ( Jer 22.16), ‘to rule’ (Zech 3.7), and ‘to contend with’ (Eccl 6.10): see BDB, p. 192. 265

The Latin Sources

 95

punishing those men ‘during their lives on earth’, God was liberating them from a far worse evil in the future, i.e. ‘eternal damnation’. 267 268 […] hoc est, quia fragilis est in homine condicio, non eos ad aeternos seruabo cruciatus, sed hic illis restituam quod merentur. Ergo non seueritatem, ut in nostris codicibus legitur, sed clementiam dei sonat, dum peccator hic pro suo scelere uisitatur. Vnde et iratus deus loquitur ad quosdam non uisitabo filias eorum, cum fuerint fornicatae, et sponsas eorum, cum adulterauerint. Et in alio loco uisitabo in uirga iniquitates eorum et in flagellis peccata eorum, uerumtamen misericordiam meam non auferam ab eis’.267

That is, because a frail condition exists in mankind, I shall not preserve them for everlasting tortures, but shall pay them here what they deserve. Therefore Scripture refers not to the strictness of God, as is read in our codices, but to the mercy of God when this sinner is visited for his wicked deed. So when God is angry, He speaks to certain people: I shall not visit [i.e. punish] their daughters when they commit fornication, nor their wives, when they commit adultery. And in another place [He says]: I will visit their iniquities with the rod, and their sins with whips; but I shall not take away My mercy from them. Next, lest He might seem to be cruel on the grounds that He had not given a place of repentance for sinners, He added: But their days shall be 120 years. This means they shall have 120 years to do penance. […] However, because they made light of doing penance, God was unwilling to wait for the time which He had decreed; but the time was cut short by the space of twenty years, and He brought in the Flood in the hundredth year appointed for their doing penance.268

In order to support his exegesis that it is God’s mercy that moves him to punish men during their lives on earth, Jerome brings two other biblical texts to bear on his discussion: Hos 4.14 and Ps 89.33–34. The text in Hosea portrays God as not being merciful as he decides not to punish the sins of adultery and fornication. The text in Ps 89.33–34, on the other hand, tells of God’s decision to punish sins precisely as an instantiation of his mercy. 267

Jerome, QHG, p. 9, Lag. 11 (33–34)–12 (1–8). Hayward, HQG, pp. 36–37.

268

Chapter One

96

Secondly, by adopting the Septuagint’s reading ‘these men’, Jerome interprets that God’s punishment was aimed only at the men of the generation of the Flood, and not at men in general. Jerome explains that the 120 years do not refer to the shortening of the lifespan in general, but to the time for doing penance that had been given to men of the Flood’s generation, which time was shortened in twenty years because of their refusal to do penance.269 Andrew’s in hebreo translation in his comment on this verse can be traced to QHG. This is seen from the fact that along with the in hebreo translation, he also adopts Jerome’s explanation on the reason for the Flood and the 120 years. Andrew writes: 270 Non permanebit spiritus meus in homine. Hebraeum : ‘Non iudicabit spiritus meus in homines in s e m p i t e r n u m , quia caro sunt’, id est fragilis naturae. Et ideo non aeternam seruabo eis poenam. Sed hoc reddam, quod merentur.270

My Spirit shall not remain in man. The Hebrew [text]: My Spirit shall not judge men for evermore since they are flesh, i.e. they have a frail nature. Therefore I shall not preserve them for everlasting punishment, but shall give them that which they deserve.

Other Latin commentators before Andrew had also appropriated Jerome’s in hebreo translation from QHG, hence the question is whether Andrew took it directly from QHG or whether he is transmitting it from one of the other Latin sources. Berndt points to QHG as Andrew’s source.271 In the following texts I compare and contrast Andrew’s rendering of Jerome’s text in QHG with the renderings of the same text by three other Latin commentators (Bede, Hrabanus, and Angelom) and the four consulted versions of the Gloss on Genesis: Rusch’s edition, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and BnF, MS lat. 14,398, and Bib. Maz., MS 131.272

269

‘Porro ne uideretur in eo esse crudelis, quod peccantibus locum poenitentiae non dedisset, adiecit sed erunt dies eorum CXX anni, hoc est habebunt CXX annos ad agendam poenitentiam. […] Quia uero poenitentiam agere contempserunt, noluit deus tempus expectare decretum: sed XX annorum spatiis amputatis, induxit diluuium anno centesimo agendae poenitentiae destinato’. Ibid. 270 Andrew, Gen., ll. 1372–1380. 271 Berndt, ‘Les interprétations juives’, p. 208, no. 26. He also points to Rashi and Bekhor Shor as possible sources for this interpretation of Andrew’s. However, I do not think it likely that Andrew should have taken from a Jewish source information that was available to him in the Latin ones. 272 I have written in expanded letters the words and phrases which Andrew shares only with the Gloss (except Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398) as against the other sources. PL renders dixique instead of dixitque.

The Latin Sources

 97

Bede

Hrabanus and Angelom

Andrew

Dixitque Deus, Non permanebit Spiritus meus in homine […] In Hebreo, inquit [Hieronimus], scriptum est, ‘Non iudicabit Spiritus meus homines istos in sempiternum quia caro sunt.’ Hoc est, quia fragilis est in homine conditio, non eos ad aeternos seruabo cruciatus, sed hic illis restituam quod merentur. […], ‘Eruntque dies illius centum uiginti annorum.’ Hoc est, habebunt centum uiginti annos ad agendam poenitentiam. Quia uero poenitentiam agere contempserunt, noluit Deus tempus exspectare decretum sed, uiginti annorum spatiis amputatis, induxit diluuim anno centesimo agendae poenitentiae destinato.

Dixitque Deus: Non permanebit spiritus meus in homine […]. Hieron. In Hebraeo scriptum est: Non iudicabit spiritus meus homines istos in aeternum [Angelom: in sempiternum], quia [Angelom: quoniam] caro sunt; hoc est [Angelom: quasi dixisset], quia fragilis est in homine [Angelom: in hominibus] conditio, non eos ad aeternos servabo cruciatus, sed hic illis restituam quod merentur. […] Sed erunt [Angelom: eruntque] dies eorum [Angelom: illius] centum viginti anni [Angelom: annorum], h o c e s t , centum viginti annos habebunt [Angelom: habebunt centum viginti annos] ad agendam poenitentiam. Non igitur humana vita, ut multi errant, in centum viginti annos contracta est, sed generationi illi centum viginti anni ad poenitentiam dati sunt. Siquidem invenimus quod post diluvium Abraham vixerit annos centum septuaginta quinque, et caeteri amplius ducentis trecentis annis [Angelom omit. Non… annis]. Quia vero poenitentiam agere contempserant [Angelom: Sed quia genus humanum illius temporis agere poenitentiam contempsit], noluit deus exspectare tempus decretum [Angelom tempus exspectare decretum]: sed viginti annorum spatiis amputatis, induxit diluvium anno centesimo [Angelom: anno centesimo induxit diluvium] agendae poenitentiae destinato [Angelom: … omit].

Non permanebit spiritus meus in homine. H e braeum : ‘Non iudicabit spiritus meus in homines in sempiternum, quia caro sunt’, id est fragilis naturae. Et ideo non aeternam seruabo eis poenam. S e d hoc reddam, quod m e r e n t u r . Eruntque dies illius centum uiginti annorum. N o n s p a t i u m humanae uitae deinceps futurae definit, cum multo plus homines postea uixisse leg antur, se d e orum quos fuerat diluu i o d e l e t u r u s quibus tamen indultum uiginti annorum spatium propter impoenitentiam subtraxit.

Chapter One

98

Bede

Hrabanus and Angelom

Andrew

MS 131, fol. 31r (marg.) and the Rusch Gloss (marg.)

BnF, MS lat. 14,399, fol. 37v–38r

MS lat. 14,398, fol. 26v

Jer. Non permanebit spiritus meum, etc. [Rusch: Hiero.] h e b r ę u m . non iudicabit spiritus meum homines in sempiternum quoniam caro sunt. hoc est quia fragilis est hominum conditio: non eos ęterno cruciatui reseruabo sed hic r e d d a m q u o d m e r e n t u r  […]. Sed erunt dies illius CXX anni. Non enim intelliguntur predicti esse anni humanę vitę [Rusch: vitę humanę] cum post inveniatur homo amplius vixisse, sed intelligitur ante annos XX quam inciperet arca fieri quae facta legitur C annis Deum ad Noe hoc dixisse pręnunciando diluuium non vitę humanę deinceps futurę prescribendo spatium: sed eorum quos fuerat diluuio deleturus.

Jer. Non permanebit spiritus meum, etc. h e b r ę u m . non iudicabit spiritus meum homines i n s e m p i t e r n u m quoniam caro sunt. hoc est quia fragilis est hominum conditio: non eos ęterno cruciatu reseruabo sed h i c reddam quod merent u r  […]. Sed erunt dies illius C viginti anni. Non enim intelliguntur predicti esse anni humane vite cum post inveniatur homo amplius vixisse sed intelligitur ante annos XX quam inciperet arca fieri quae facta legitur C annis Deum ad Noe hoc dixisse prenuntiando diluuium n o n vite humane deinceps future prescribendo spatium sed eorum quos fuerat diluuio deleturus.

Dixitque deus non permanebit spiritus meus et reliqua. In hebreo scriptum est: non iudicabit spiritus meus homines i n s e m p i t e r n u m quoniam caro sunt. Hoc est quia fragilis est in homine conditio non eos ad ęternos reservabo cruciatus sed hic illis restituam quod merentur. […] Sed erunt dies eorum CXX anni. […]. Quomodo ergo intelliguntur deinceps anni vitę humane predicti CXX cum inveniatur homo vixisse amplius qua­ dringentis annis nisi quia intelligitur ante viginti annos quam inciperet arca fieri quae C annis facta reperitur. Hoc deum dixisse ad noe cum iam pręnunciaret facturum esse diluuium nec vitę humanę deinceps futurę in his qui prius diluvium nascerentur spacium predixisse sed vite horum quos fuerat diluvio deleturus.

Bede, Hrabanus, and Angelom transcribe Jerome’s in hebreo translation and its interpretation either verbatim (in Hrabanus’s case) or nearly so (in the case of Bede and Angelom).273 In contrast, the Gloss (in Rusch; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399; and Bibl. Maz., MS 131) and Andrew change several elements in both the translation and the interpretation.274 First, whereas Bede, Hrabanus, and Angelom 273

Bede, Gen. II, ll. 961–981; Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, col. 512C–D; Angelom, Gen., PL 115, col. 155C–D. 274 Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 35; see the reference to Andrew’s text in p. 97, n. 270.

The Latin Sources

 99

employ the Septuagint’s demonstrative adjective istos (‘these’), which refers to the plural homines (‘men’), as Jerome had done, instead of leaving the singular homine (‘man’) from their Vulgate text, Andrew, along with the Gloss in Rusch’s edition, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, BnF, MS lat. 14,398, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131 omit the adjective ‘these’ and write simply homines (‘men’). Secondly, Bede, Hrabanus, Angelom, and the Gloss’s Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398 introduce the in hebreo translation with the phrase in hebraeo scriptum est (‘in Hebrew it is written’), exactly as Jerome had done in QHG. Only the Gloss (in Rusch’s edition, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131) employs the abbreviated Hebreum (‘the Hebrew [text]’) in the same way as we find in Andrew. Thirdly, there are two phrases where Andrew’s wording is identical to that of the Gloss (in Rusch’s edition, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131) in contrast to the wording of the other sources that transcribe QHG word for word or nearly so. The first is Jerome’s expression sed hic illis restituam quod merentur (‘but shall pay them here what they deserve’). Bede, Hrabanus, Angelom, and Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398 transcribe it verbatim. Andrew, however, is identical to the Gloss (Rusch’s edition, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131) in rendering the expression slightly differently: Sed hoc reddam quod merentur [the Gloss: hic] (‘but shall give them back [the Gloss: here] that which they deserve’). The second phrase is Jerome’s comment that the one hundred years do not refer to the shortening of the human lifespan in general, but to the shortening of the time for doing penance that had been granted to the generation of the Flood. Hrabanus transcribes Jerome’s comment word for word. Bede and Angelom omit this comment. The Gloss and Andrew, however, summarize Jerome’s interpretation – moreover, both summaries are here very similar in wording. On the other hand, the Gloss in Rusch’s edition, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131 preserve some words and phrases from QHG that are not in Andrew’s text. The fact that the Gloss alone among all the other sources renders a summary of the text in QHG very similar in wording to that of Andrew shows that Andrew must have taken his wording from the Gloss

100

Chapter One

Jerome, Bede, Hrabanus, and Angelom

Andrew

The Gloss (Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131)

But their [Bede, Angelom: and his] days shall be one hundred and twenty years. This means they shall have one hundred and twenty years to do penance. So, human life is not shortened to 120 years, as many mistakenly suppose, but 120 years were given to the generation of the Flood for repentance. For indeed we find that after the Flood, Abraham lived for 175 years, and others lived more than 200 or 300 years [Bede and Angelom omit: So … years]. However, because they [Angelom: but since the human race of that time] scorned doing penance, God wished not to wait for the time which He had decreed; but cutting off the span of twenty years, He brought in the Flood in the hundredth year appointed for doing penance.

And his days shall be one hundred and twenty years. He does not determine the future human lifespan from that time on, since it is read that men afterwards lived longer, but [the lifespan] of those whom He was going to destroy with the Flood. However, because of their lack of penitence, He took away the span of twenty years granted to them.

But his days shall be 120. It is not to be understood that human lifespan is predicted here, since later on, man is found to have lived longer, but rather that God said this to Moses 20 years before they began to build the Ark (which we read was built over 100 years), announcing the Flood and not prescribing the span of future human life from that time on, but [the lifespan] of those, whom He was going to destroy with the Flood.

On the other hand, BnF, MS lat. 14,398 contains an element shared by all the other mentioned versions of the Gloss but not by the other sources, the fact that the building of the Arch lasted one hundred years and that God announced the life­ span of those who were going to perish with the Flood twenty years before the building of the Arch began.

The Latin Sources

 101

Another interpretation that clearly shows Andrew’s dependence on the Gloss is his comment on Gen 16.12. In QHG, Jerome writes: 275 Jerome, QHG, pp. 20–21, Lag. 26 (14–20)

Hayward, HQG, p. 49

Hic erit rusticus homo: manus eius super omnes, et manus omnium super eum: et contra faciem omnium fratrum suorum habitabit. Pro rustico scriptum habet in hebraeo fara, quod interpretatur ‘onager’. Significat autem semen eius habitaturum in heremo, id est: Sarracenos uagos incertisque sedibus, qui universas gentes, quibus desertum ex latere iungitur, incursant, et inpugnantur ab omnibus.

And he shall be a boorish man; his hand shall be upon all, and the hands of all men shall be upon him. And he shall dwell over against the face of all his brothers. Instead of boorish man stands written in the Hebrew phara, which means ‘wild ass’. Now it means that his descendants would dwell in the wasteland,275 and refers to the Saracens who wander with no fixed abode and often invade all the nations who border on the desert; and they are attacked by all.

In QHG, Jerome’s lemma is the Vetus Latina’s rendering of the Hebrew phrase ‫פרא‬ ‫ אדם‬as rusticus (‘a boorish’, ‘rude’, or ‘country-like man’), following the Septuagint’s reading ἂγροικος.276 In the Vulgate, however, Jerome renders the same Hebrew expression as ferus (‘wild’, ‘untamed’): Hic erit ferus homo manus eius contra omnes et manus omnium contra eum […].277

Andrew seems to have adopted Jerome’s in hebreo interpretation of this passage in QHG, at least substantially: 278 Hic erit homo ferus, alii ‘rusticus’. In hebraeo habet phara, quod interpretatur ‘onager’. Significat semen eius habitaturum in deserto, id est: Saracenos uagos – incertis sedibus –, qui omnes gentes, quibus desertum ex latere iungitur, incursantes impugnantur ab omnibus.278

And he shall be a wild man, others ‘boorish man’. In the Hebrew it has phara, which means ‘wild ass’. It means that his descendants will dwell in the desert, that is, the wandering Saracens, without fixed abode who, invading all the nations who border on the desert, are attacked by all.

275 Hayward translates Latin heremo here as ‘desert’, but I have translated heremo as ‘wasteland’ in order to distinguish it also in translation from Latin desertum, which was used later in the same interpretation by Jerome, as well as by Andrew in both places. 276 Οὗτος ἒσται ἂγροικος ἂνθρωπος· αἱ χεῖρες αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πάντας, καὶ αἱ χεῖρες πάντων ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, Rahlfs, p. 21. 277 Biblia Sacra: Genesis, p. 203. 278 Andrew, Gen., ll. 2002–2006.

Chapter One

102

However, after having introduced his comment with the Vulgate’s ferus (‘wild man’), Andrew does not identify rusticus (‘boorish man’) from QHG as being the Vetus Latina or the Septuagint but refers to it as alii, other [manuscripts]. Whereas in QHG, Jerome had contrasted the Vetus Latina with the Hebrew text, for Andrew, both the source of the lemma for his comment and the point of comparison with the in hebreo reading were not the Vetus Latina, but the Vulgate. Two other Latin sources make use of this in hebreo interpretation from QHG: viz., Hrabanus Maurus and the Gloss. Like Andrew, both Hrabanus and the Gloss introduce their comments to this passage with the Vulgate’s ferus. Neither of them identifies the version rusticus of QHG as the Vetus Latina. Hrabanus calls it simply alia editio (‘another version’), and the Gloss introduces it with the general phrase secundum alios (‘according to other [manuscripts]’). Hrabanus reproduces the in hebreo interpretation from QHG word for word. The Gloss and Andrew, however, deviate somewhat from Jerome’s original wording. 279 QHG

Hrabanus

MS lat. 14,398, fol. 44v

Hic erit rusticus homo: […] Pro rustico scriptum habet in hebraeo fara, quod interpretatur onager. Significat autem semen eius habitaturum in heremo, id est: Sarracenos uagos incertisque sedibus, qui universas gentes, quibus desertum ex latere iungitur, incursant, et impugnantur ab omnibus.

Hic erit ferus homo: […] Alia editio ita habet: Hic erit rusticus homo: […] Pro rustico in hebraeo scriptum habet phere, quod interpretatur onager. Significat autem semen ejus habitaturum in eremo, id est: Saracenos vagos incertisque sedibus, qui universas gentes, quibus desertum ex latere jungitur, incursantes, impugnantur ab omnibus.279

Hic erit ferus homo et reliqua. Pro fero uel rustico in h e b r e o h a b e t fara quod interpretatur onager. Significat autem semen eius habitaturum in heremo, id est, sarracenos uagos incertisque sedibus qui universas gentes, quibus desertum ex latere iungitur incursantes et inpugnantur ab omnibus.

279

Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, col. 544A–B.

The Latin Sources The Rusch Gloss (marg.) and MS 131, fol. 46r, marg. [MS 131: Jer.] Hic erit ferus homo, vel rusticus secundum alios. Hieronymus: in hebręo habetur phara [MS 131: fara], quod interprętatur onager. Significat semen eius habitaturum in deserto, id est: Saracenos vagos, incertis sedibus, qui omnes gentes, quibus desertum ex latere iungitur, incursantes impugnantur ab omnibus.

 103

BnF, MS lat. 14,399, fol. 58v

Andrew

Hic erit ferus homo. Jer. Hic erit f. h. vel rusticus secundum alios. In hebreo habetur fara, quod interpretatur onager. Significat semen eius habitaturum in deserto, id est: saracenos vagos incertis sedibus, qui omnes gentes, quibus desertum ex latere iungitur incursantes, impugnantur ab omnibus.

Hic erit homo ferus, alii rusticus. In hebraeo habet ‘phara,’ quod interpretatur ‘onager’. Significat – semen eius habitaturum in deserto, id est: Saracenos uagos – incertis sedibus –, qui omnes gentes, quibus desertum ex latere iungitur, incursantes impugnantur ab omnibus.

Hrabanus reproduces verbatim from QHG the phrase Pro rustico […] scriptum habet in hebraeo fara. BnF, MS lat. 14,398 reads: Pro fero uel rustico in hebreo habet fara quod interpretatur onager. Andrew and the Gloss in Rusch’s edition, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131, however, write first ‘alii (Gloss: secundum alios) rusticus’ and then separatedly in hebreo habet fara (the Gloss: habetur). The Gloss in Rusch’s edition, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, and Andrew omit autem from the phrase in QHG Significat autem semen ejus, whereas Hrabanus and the Gloss in Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398, fol. 44v preserve it. Hrabanus and Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398, fol. 44v retain the word heremo from QHG. In its place, Andrew uses deserto, as does the Gloss in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131. Hrabanus and the Gloss in Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398 copy verbatim from QHG the expression incertisque sedibus, with the enclitic –que. In contrast, both the Gloss in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, and Andrew omit the enclitic particle. Finally, whereas Hrabanus and Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398, transcribes verbatim QHG’s universas gentes, Andrew sees no problem in reading omnes gentes, exactly as does the Gloss in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131. Verbal agreement with the Gloss could not be greater. No other explanation could be found for this identity but the dependence of one source on the other. The fact that it is the Gloss that ascribes the interpretation to Jerome leads to think that it is Andrew who borrowed Jerome’s text from the Gloss and not the other way around. While Andrew could easily omit the name of the author to

104

Chapter One

whom the excerpt was ascribed, it is hard to conceive of the Gloss inventing this ascription and adding it to Andrew’s text. Among the interpretations that Andrew takes up from QHG via the Gloss are some that do not replace the Vulgate’s rendering with a translation introduced by the phrase in hebreo but report a Jewish tradition. An example of this is Andrew’s comment on Gen 14.18. 280 Melchisedech rex Salem, […] Hunc, aiunt Hebraei, esse Sem filium Noe. Et computatione annorum ostendunt eum usque ad Isaac uixisse, et omnes primogenitos a Noe usque ad Aaron pontifices fuisse.280

Melchisedech king of Salem, […] The Hebrews assert that this man is Sem, the son of Noah. And by calculating his years, they show that he lived until the time of Isaac, and that all the first-born sons from Noah until Aaron were priests.

Andrew’s text is an abridgment of Jerome’s interpretation of the same passage in QHG: And Melchisedech king of Salem […] Because our little book is, in a word, a collection of Hebrew questions or traditions, let us therefore introduce what the Hebrews think about this. They declare that this man is Sem, the son of Noah, and by calculating the years of his life, they show that he lived up to the time of Isaac; and they say that all the first-born sons of Noah were priests before Aaron performed the priestly office […].281

Berndt points to QHG as Andrew’s Latin source for this interpretation.282 However, there are several Latin sources prior to Andrew that transmit this interpretation from QHG: Alcuin, Hrabanus, Angelom, Remigius, Haimo, and the Gloss.283 Hrabanus reproduces the text in QHG word for word. The other sources, though preserving the substance of Jerome’s interpretation, modify it by omitting some words or phrases, or by summarising some of its sentences. Some of them also add comments not found in Jerome.284 280

Andrew, Gen., ll. 1928–1932. The verb aiunt (‘declare’, ‘assert’) points to a personal subject (‘Hebrew men’) rather that to ‘Hebrew books’. 281 Jerome, QHG, p. 19, Lag. 24 (13–16); Hayward, HQG, p. 47. 282 ‘Les interprétations juives’, no. 50, p. 211. He also points to Rashi as another possible source for Andrew here. 283 Alcuin, Gen., PL 100, col. 536C; Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, col. 540B–D; Angelom, Gen., PL 115, cols 175D–176A–C; Remigius, Gen., ll. 2569–2587; Haimo, Gen., PL 131, col. 85C–D; Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 47. Of special interest for the study of Jewish traditions is Angelom’s text. 284 Besides borrowing from QHG, Angelom’s interpretation offers a different Jewish tradition not found in Jerome. Andrew makes no mention of this or of other traditions that Angelom, independently of Jerome, ascribes to the Jews in his commentary on Genesis. This fact may indicate that Andrew did not employ Angelom’s commentary.

The Latin Sources

 105

Among these, however, only the text of the Gloss (in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131) is identical to that of Andrew, in both content and wording, with the exception that the Gloss (in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131), like all the other mentioned sources, retains Jerome’s allegorical comment on the association of Melchisedech’s priesthood with that of Christ, whereas Andrew omits it.285 QHG Aiunt huc [sic] esse Sem filium Noe, et supputantes annos uitae ipsius ostendunt eum ad Isaac usque uixisse, omnesque primogenitos Noe, donec sacerdotio fungeretur Aaron, fuisse pontifices. […]

Hrabanus

Angelom

(Hieron.) Aiunt hunc esse Sem filium Noe, et supputantes annos uitae ipsius, ostendunt eum ad Isaac usque uixisse, omnesque primogenitos Noe, donec sacerdotio fungeretur Aaron, pontifices fuisse. […]

Propterea, ut Hebraei aiunt, […]. Tradunt etiam hunc, mutato nomine, Sem esse filium Noe, et supputantes annos vitae ipsius, ostendunt eum ad Isaac usque vixisse, omnesque primogenitos pontifices fuisse, hostias Deo immolasse usque ad tempora Aaron, […]. Haimo

Alcuinus

Remigius

Aiunt enim Hebraei, hunc Melchisedech mutato nomine Sem esse filium Noe, et supputantes annos vitae ipsius ostendunt, eum usque ad Isaac tempora vixisse; omnesque primogenitos pontifices fuisse, [et] hostias Deo immolasse usque ad tempora Aaron […].

Istum ferunt Hebraei esse Sem filium Noe mutato nomine, et supputatis annis uitae eius ostendunt illum usque ad Isaac tempora uixisse. Sacerdos autem erat, quia et primogenitus. Omnes enim primogeniti a Noe usque ad Aaron pontifices extiterunt.

285

Hunc Melchisedech tradunt esse Sem filium Noe, et computantes annos dicunt eum vixisse usque ad tempus Isaac. […] Omnes enim primogeniti a Noe sacerdotes fuerunt usque ad Aaron qui primus legalis sacerdos fuit.

Jerome, QHG, p. 19, Lag. 24 (17–24); Hayward, HQG, p. 47.

106

Chapter One

MS Lat. 14,398, fol. 42r Aiunt hebrei hunc esse sem filium noe et supputantes annos uitę ipsius ostendunt eum ad ysaac usque vixisse omnesque primogenitos a noe donec sacerdotio fungeretur aaron pontifices extiterunt. […]

Andrew The Rusch Gloss hier. hunc, aiunt hebręi, Hunc, aiunt Hebraei, esse sem filium noe et esse Sem filium Noe. Et computatione an- computatione a n n o r u m ostendunt n o r u m ostendunt eum eum u s q u e a d y s a a c usque ad Isaac uixisse, e t uixisse. e t o m n e s p r i omnes primogenitos a Noe usque mog enitos a noe usque ad aaron ad Aaron pontifpontifices fuisse. ices fuisse. r Gloss marg., MS 131, fol. 44 MS lat. 14,399, fol. 55v Jer. At vero melch. etc. Hunc aiunt ebrei Hunc aiunt hebręi, esse sem filium noe esse sem filium noe et c o m p u t a t i o n e et c o m p u t a t i o n e a n n o r u m ostendunt eum usque ad ysaac uixisse. e t a n n o r u m ostendunt eum usque ad ysaac uixisse e t o m n e s p r i m o g e omnes primogenitos a noe nitos a noe usque ad aaron usque ad aaron pontifices pontifices fuisse. fuisse.

Whereas Hrabanus, Angelom, Alcuin, the Gloss in Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398, and Remigius retained from QHG the phrase et supputantes annos uitae ipsius (Remigius: et supputatis annis uitae eius), and Haimo modified it to et computantes annos, Andrew, along with the Gloss in Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, Bibl. Maz, MS 131, and Rusch changed it into et computatione annorum. Andrew and the Gloss in Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, and Rusch summarize in identical wording the sentence from QHG omnesque primogenitos Noe, donec sacerdotio fungeretur Aaron, fuisse pontifices and render et omnes primogenitos a noe usque ad aaron pontifices fuisse. In view of the identity between Andrew’s text and that of the Gloss in Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, and Rusch, it seems clear that one of these two sources, Andrew or the Gloss, drew from the other. From the evidence that the Gloss retained Jerome’s allegorical comment and that the earlier Gloss Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,398 retained some words and phrases (donec sacerdotio fungeretur) from the original text of QHG that were not included in Andrew, I conclude that it is Andrew who borrowed from the Gloss and not the other way around, since the Gloss could not have copied the allegorical comment or the words and phrases from Andrew. The Gloss also appears to have been Andrew’s source for an in hebreo interpretation that is not found in QHG, to wit his comment on Gen 6.16 (2). Andrew writes:

The Latin Sources

 107

286

Fenestram hanc tradunt Iudaei crystallinam fuisse, ut aquas non admitteret et lucem ministraret. 286

A window: The Jews relate that this window was [made out] of crystal, so as to prevent the water from coming in and to provide light.

The lemma of Andrew’s comment is fenestra (‘window’), which is the Vulgate’s translation of the Hebrew tsohar. Andrew, however, did not draw on Jerome for his ascription to the Jews. In his comment on this passage in QHG, Jerome explains only that the literal meaning of the Hebrew word tsohar (a cognate of tsohorayim) is meridianum (‘noon’ or ‘light of the sun at noon’).287 Andrew’s comment about the window being of crystal seems to be close to the interpretation of tsohar as ‘a precious stone that lets the sunlight pass’ in some extant Jewish sources such as Gen. Rab. 31.11, b. Sanh. 108b, y. Pes. 1.1, Pirqe R. El. 23.1, or Rashi.288 Andrew, however, does not seem to have borrowed this interpretation directly from a Jewish source, since it is similar in both wording and content to the interpretations of three other Latin sources: the interlinear Gloss (in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131), Remigius, and Haimo. Berndt points to Remigius as the Latin source for Andrew’s interpretation. 289 290 Andrew Fenestram h a n c tradunt iudaei crystallinam f u i s s e , ut aquas non admitteret et lucem ministraret.

MS lat. 14,399, fol. 39v Hanc tradunt iudei cristallinam fuisse.

286

Haimo Fenestram in arca facies […] Quam f e n e s t r a m t r a d u n t Hebraei c r y s t a l l i n a m f u i s s e .289

Remigius Fenestram in arca facies et reliqua. […] Et ferunt Hebraei quod eadem f e n e s t r a c r i s t a l l i n a fuerit ut non esset eam necesse crebro aperire, sed intus positi perspicuitate illius lapidis possent nosse discretionem inter diem et noctem.290 The Rusch Gloss Gen., p. 36 MS 131 (int.), fol. 32r Fenestram. hanc tradunt Hanc tradunt iudei cristallinam iudei cristallinam fuisse. fuisse.

Andrew, Gen., ll. 1430–1432. Save for this text, the biblical appearances of the word tsohar are in the plural form tsohorayim (‘midday’, ‘noon’): e.g. Gen 43.16, 1 Kgs 18.26–27, Jer 6.4, Amos 8.9, Ps 55.18, and Job 5.14; cf. BDB: pp. 843–44. 288 Berndt, ‘Les interprétations juives’, no. 31, p. 208, points to b. Sanh. 108b and to Rashi as possible Jewish sources for Andrew. 289 Haimo, Gen., PL 131, col. 75B–C. 290 Remigius, Gen., ll. 1968–1974. 287

108

Chapter One

On the other hand, there is an important difference between both texts. Only Andrew and Remigius added to the Hebrew tradition the reason why the window was made out of crystal. However, both explanations differ from each other and accordingly seem to be independent. Andrew A window: The Jews relate that this window was [made out] of crystal, so as to prevent the water from coming in and to provide light.

Remigius And you shall make a window for the ark, etc. And the Hebrews say that the same window was made out of crystal, so that there would be no need of opening it frequently, yet those who were placed within should be able to know the difference between day and night through that stone’s transparency.

The interpretation ascribed to the Hebrews about the ark’s window being made of crystal is reported in a similar fashion by the three sources: the Gloss, Remigius, and Haimo. Yet, when the wordings in the three sources are compared, one discovers that Andrew’s wording is identical to that of the interlinear Gloss in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131. Both Andrew and the Gloss employ iudei, whereas Remigius and Haimo use hebraei. Andrew and the Gloss write hanc [fenestram] (‘this window’), whereas Remigius writes eadem fenestram (‘the same window’), and Haimo quam fenestram (‘which window’). Instead of writing tradunt (‘transmit’), as do Haimo, the Gloss, and Andrew, Remigius employs ferunt (‘say’). This identity of wording and content between Andrew’s text and that of the interlinear Gloss (in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131), leads me to conclude that one of them must have been the source for the interpretation of the other. We have analysed but a few in hebreo interpretations that show direct interdependence between Andrew and the Gloss on Genesis in Rusch’s edition, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131, but sometimes only in the marginal gloss. These, along with the rest of the seventeen in hebreo interpretations in the commentary on Genesis, reveal that it is likely that the Victorine resorted to the Gloss on Genesis directly or that both Andrew and the author of the Gloss in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131 borrowed from the same source. Thus it contributes to establishing that the Gloss on the Pentateuch and Judges, probably in a version close to that of Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131, was available to Andrew when he wrote his commentaries on this section of the Bible. It is not likely that the Gloss, as it is reflected in Rusch, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,399, and Bibl. Maz., MS 131 borrowed in hebreo

The Latin Sources

 109

interpretations from Andrew because, in many interpretations, the Gloss contains more of the original text than Andrew. C. The School of Auxerre 1. Introduction The three principal masters of the School of Auxerre in the Carolingian period are Haimo (d. 865–66, or 875), Heiric (d. 877 or after 883), and Remigius (d. 908).291 Haimo was Heiric’s teacher, and in his turn Heiric taught Remigius.292 Haimo and Remigius wrote commentaries on several books of the Bible, from both the Old and the New Testaments.293 Both of them are credited with a commentary on Genesis.294 However, the identification of the precise commentary which each wrote has been made difficult by the inconsistency of the author ascriptions in the manuscripts themselves, as well as by the confusion of the authors’ names in library catalogs and in modern scholarly research.295 I have analysed two Carolingian commentaries on Genesis which include a significant number of references to the Hebrew text and to Jewish traditions. Those two commentaries have been transmitted with different author attributions, among them attributions to Haimo and Remigius. In referring to them respectively as the works of Haimo and Remigius, I have followed Burton Van Name Edwards, who has published the critical edition of one of these commentaries: 291

On Haimo, Heiric, and Remigius, see: H. Barré, ‘Haymon d’Auxerre’, in Dictionnaire de spiritualité, ascétique et mystique, doctrine et histoire, VII/1 (1968), cols 91–97; id., ‘Héric d’Auxerre’, in Dictionnaire de spiritualité, VII/1 (1968), cols 282–85; C. Jeudy, ‘Remi d’Auxerre’, in Dictionnaire de spiritualité, XIII/1 (1987), cols 338–43. See also: Jeudy, ‘L’œuvre de Remi d’Auxerre: État de la question’, in L’École carolingienne d’Auxerre: de Murethach à Remi 830-908. Entretiens d’Auxerre 1989, ed. D. Iogna-Prat, C. Jeudy, and G. Lobrichon (Paris: Beauchesne, 1991), pp. 373–96; and Iogna-Prat, ‘L’œuvre d’Haymon d’Auxerre: État de la question’, in L’École carolingienne d’Auxerre, pp. 157–79; Smalley, The Study, pp. 39–40. 292 Barré, ‘Haymon d’Auxerre’, col. 91; Jeudy, ‘Remi d’Auxerre’, col. 338. On Haimo’s teaching and Heiric’s testimony to it, see: R. Quadri, ‘Aimoni di Auxerre alla luce dei Collectanea di Heiric di Auxerre’, in Italia Medioevale e Umanistica, 6 (1963), 1–48. 293 To Haimo are ascribed commentaries on Genesis, Isaiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Song of Songs, the Pauline Epistles, and Revelation. To Remigius are attributed commentaries on Genesis, Psalms, and Matthew. For Haimo, see: Barré, ‘Haymon d’Auxerre’, cols 93–94; and Iogna-Prat, ‘L’œuvre d’Haymon d’Auxerre’, pp. 158–59. For Remigius, see Jeudy, col. 341; and ‘L’œuvre de Remi d’Auxerre’, pp. 374–77. 294 B. Van Name Edwards, ‘In Search of the Authentic Commentary on Genesis by Remigius of Auxerre’, in L’École carolingienne d’Auxerre, pp. 399–412 (400–406); id., Remigius on Genesis, pp. ix–xii, xvi–xx. 295 Van Name Edwards, ‘In Search of the Authentic Commentary’, pp. 400–406; id., Remigius on Genesis, pp. ix–xii, xv–xx.

110

Chapter One

the commentary on Genesis noted by Stegmüller 7195.296 Having examined the extant manuscripts containing each one of the commentaries, Van Name Edwards concludes that the commentary that begins Scriptoribus Hebraeorum hic mos est (Stegmüller 7195) is the one actually written by Remigius, whereas the commentary whose incipit reads Auctor huius operis (Stegmüller 7194, edited in Migne, PL 131, cols 51–134) was written by Haimo of Auxerre.297 In these two commentaries on Genesis, both Haimo and Remigius provide their readers with many references to the Hebrew text and to Jewish traditions; most of these references go back to QHG.298 A number of them, however, are not found in earlier Latin sources. Among the latter, several are found in other commentaries from the Carolingian period.299 Where does all this Jewish material come from? Scholars have pointed to different solutions. Van Name Edwards refers to the connection between the School of Auxerre and Fleury,300 and hints at the possibility that the Jewish scholar who helped Theodulf to correct the Vulgate might have also transmitted Jewish exegetical material to the Carolingian schools.301 Johannes Heil has furthered this line of investigation and suggested a link between Haimo and either Theodulf or his intellectual circle, within which there was probably a Jewish scholar of Spanish origin.302

296

Van Name Edwards, Remigius on Genesis, pp. xxi–xli. Van Name Edwards, ‘In Search of the Authentic Commentary’, p. 400, and Remigius on Genesis, pp. x–xx; Iogna-Prat (‘L’œuvre d’Haymon d’Auxerre’, p. 159) treated the ascription to Haimo of PL 131, cols 51–134 only as probable. However, Edwards’s conclusion has the authority of his having examined all of the extant manuscripts of the commentaries ascribed to any of the two authors. See his response to Iogna-Prat in Remigius on Genesis, p. xx. 298 Haimo of Auxerre discusses the Hebrew alphabet in his work ‘Interpretation of Hebrew names in Alphabetical Order’ (PL 131, col. 50); cf. A. C. Skinner, ‘Veritas Hebraica: Christian attitudes toward the Hebrew language in the High Middle Ages’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1986), p. 112. 299 Van Name Edwards, Remigius on Genesis, pp. xlix–l. 300 Van Name Edwards, ‘In Search of the Authentic Commentary’, p. 407; id., Remigius on Genesis, pp. xliv–xlv. 301 Van Name Edwards, Remigius on Genesis, p. l. 302 J. Heil, Kompilation oder Konstruktion?: Die Juden in den Pauluskommentaren des 9. Jahr­ hunderts, Forschungen zur Geschichte der Juden, 6, ed. by H. Castritius et al. (Hannover: Hahn, 1998), pp. 206 and 330; cf. id., ‘Theodulph, Wisigoths, Jews and the Emergence of Carolingian Culture, or: Exploring the Bermuda-Triangle of Carolingian Culture’ (paper given at South Bend: Erasmus Institute, Notre Dame University, 2004). I thank Johannes Heil for having provided me with this material. 297

The Latin Sources

 111

2. The Influence of the Auxerrois Masters on Hugh and Andrew In the commentaries of Hugh and Andrew on Genesis, I have found several interpretations ascribed to the Hebrew or to Jewish traditions that actually reveal close affinity with the corresponding interpretations in the Genesis commentaries written by Haimo and Remigius. Gen 19.12–15 tells of two biblical figures, called at times ‘angels’ and at times ‘men’, who warned Lot of the coming destruction of Sodom and advised him to flee the city together with his relatives. The Vulgate’s translation of v. 14 presents the text as follows: Egressus itaque Lot locutus est ad generos suos qui accepturi erant filias eius

So Lot went out, and spoke to his sons in law that were to have his daughters, […]

Andrew comments on this verse: 303 Ad generos suos. Qui futuri erant, si non perissent. In hebraeo: ‘sponsos’, quod est planius. 303

To his sons-in-law: Those who were about to be, had they not perished. In the Hebrew [it says]: ‘betrothed’, which is clearer.

Andrew thus suggests amending the translation of the Vulgate’s generos (‘sons-inlaw’) to sponsos (‘betrothed’), and presents the latter as the reading of the Hebrew text. In fact, however, Andrew is not being precise. The Masoretic text reads: hatanav loqhei benotav. In the Bible, the word hatan can mean both: ‘daughter’s husband’ and ‘bridegroom’.304 Similarly the Latin word gener can mean both ‘daughter’s husband’ and ‘bridegroom’, and therefore the Vulgate’s translation of hatan is correct. The meaning of the Latin sponsus is limited, however, to ‘bridegroom’ or ‘betrothed man’. Moreover, Jerome in his Vulgate translation understands generos as ‘betrothed’ and not as ‘men already married to Lot’s daughters’, since after the word generos he translates the Hebrew participle lqhy by the future periphrastic: who were about to take his daughters in marriage.

303

Andrew, Gen., ll. 2155–2156. BDB, p. 368. Kamesar, Jerome, p. 169, states that the Septuagint and The Three render the Hebrew hatan in other passages not only with Greek gambros, which refers to connection by marriage alone (‘son-in-law’, ‘brother-in-law’, etc.), but also with nymphios, which means both ‘son-inlaw’ and ‘betrothed man’. 304

112

Chapter One

Andrew’s in hebreo translation is found in earlier Latin sources, all of which are ultimately traceable to QHG, which reads: 305 306 307 Et locutus est ad generos suos, qui acceperant filias eius. Quia postea duae filiae Lot uirgines fuisse dicuntur, de quibus et ipse dudum ad Sodomaeos dixerat ecce duae filiae meae, quae non cognouerunt uirum, et nunc scriptura commemorat eum habuisse generos, non nulli arbitrantur illas, quae uiros habuerant, in Sodomis remansisse, et eas exisse cum patre, quae uirgines fuerunt. Quod cum scriptura non dicat, hebraea ueritas exponenda est, in qua scribitur egressus est Lot et locutus est ad sponsos, qui accepturi erant filias eius. Necdum ergo uirgines filiae matrimonio fuerant copulatae.305

And he spoke to his sons-in-law who had taken his daughters in marriage. Because Lot’s two daughters are later said to have been virgins (he himself had also recently said about them to the Sodomites, Behold my two daughters, who have not known a man), and Scripture now recounts that he had sons-in-law, some people think that the ones who took husbands remained in Sodom, and that those who were virgins left with their father. 306 Since Scripture does not say this, the Hebrew truth must be set forth, in which it is written: Lot went out and spoke to the betrothed men who were about to take his daughters in marriage. Thus the virgin daughters had not yet been joined in marriage.307

Besides referring to the double meaning of the word hatan in QHG, Jerome is confronting another difficulty in the Hebrew text: the absence of vocalization of the participle lqhy that follows the word hatanav. If vocalized as a present participle, loqhei would mean ‘the ones about to take (his daughters) in marriage’; if it were vocalized as a passive past participle, however, the meaning would be ‘the ones taken by’ or ‘married to his daughters’.308 Both the Septuagint and the Vetus Latina, however, render the word as an active past participle: ‘sons-in-law, who “had taken” his daughters in marriage’. Jerome uses the Vetus Latina’s translation as the lemma that opens his interpretation of this passage in QHG. In short, Jerome not only contrasts different translations of the Hebrew hatanav, but also compares the different translations of the Hebrew participle lqhy. 305

Jerome, QHG, p. 23, Lag. 29 (10–20). A tradition accounting for four daughters instead of two is also reported in Gen. Rab. 49.13; 50.9; as well as in other later midrashim. However, Kamesar, pp. 170–71, distinguishes between the form of the aggadah in Gen. Rab. and that in QHG. The references to later midrashim are given in Kamesar, ibid., p. 171. See also Hayward, HQG, pp. 169–70. 307 Hayward, HQG, p. 51. 308 The English translation of the participles is from Hayward, HQG, p. 170. 306

The Latin Sources

 113

Andrew, however, only compares the translations of hatanav. He apparently sees no need to contrast different translations of the participle, because he does not use the Septuagint but the Vulgate, and the latter gives a future sense to the participle, just as, indeed, the Masoretic text has it. Several Latin sources take up this interpretation from QHG: Hrabanus, Haimo, Remigius, and the Gloss.309 In the following consideration I contrast Andrew’s text with that presented in the other sources.310 Hrabanus transmits Jerome’s interpretation from QHG word for word, so his text offers no evidence as to whether Andrew used it or QHG as his source. The Gloss’s version is substantially the same as the one in QHG, although it omits some words and replaces others. In contrast, the texts of Remigius and Haimo differ from QHG not only in wording but also in content. In QHG, Hrabanus, and the Gloss, the subject is ‘Lot’s daughters’ throughout the text, whereas the texts of Haimo and Remigius have two subjects: (a) ‘the daughters’; and (b) ‘the men betrothed to Lot’s daughters’. Andrew’s text refers exclusively to the betrothed men, not to the daughters. 311 312 313 Andrew

Haimo

Remigius

Ad generos suos. Qui futuri e r a n t , si non perissent. I n hebraeo: ‘ s p o n s o s ’, quod est planius.311

Locutus est ad generos suos. […] Sed alia translatio dicit aperte: Locutus est ad sponsos qui accepturi erant filias. Ergo nondum erant generi, sed esse volebant.312

Locutusque est Loth ad generos suos, qui accepturi erant filias eius. […] Quod perspicue falsum est, nam i n H e b r a e o ita habetur: Locutus est Loth ad sponsos qui accepturi erant filias eius. Necdum ergo filiae Loth uiris iunctae fuerant, sed sicut solet scriptura sponsos appellare maritos uel uiros, eo modo nunc dicitur Loth habuisse generos n o n q u i i a m erant sed qui futuri essent, […].313

309 Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, col. 556C–D; Haimo, Gen., PL 131, col. 91C–D; Remigius, Gen., ll. 2916–2928; Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 55. 310 See Berndt, ‘Les interprétations juives’, no. 54, p. 212, who points to QHG as Andrew’s source for this interpretation. 311 Andrew, Gen., ll. 2155–2156. 312 Haimo, Gen., PL 131, col. 91C–D. 313 Remigius, Gen., ll. 2916–2926.

Chapter One

114

Andrew

Haimo

Remigius

To his sons-in-law: ‘T h o s e w h o were about to b e , had they not perished’. I n t h e H e b r e w [it says]: ‘betrothed’, which is clearer.

He spoke to his sonsin-law. […] However, another translation says plainly: [Lot] spoke to the betrothed men who were about to take his daughters in marriage. Therefore, they were not yet sons-in-law, but they wanted to be.

And Loth spoke to his sons-in-law, those who were about to take his daughters in marriage. […]. This is obviously false since t h e H e b r e w h a s as follows: [Lot] spoke to the betrothed men who were about to take his daughters in marriage. Therefore, Lot’s daughters had not yet been joined in marriage to the men, but just as the Scripture is wont to call the betrothed men ‘married men or husbands’, likewise now Lot is said to have had s o n s - i n l aw, m e a n i n g n o t t h a t t h e y already were, but that they w e r e g o i n g t o b e , […] 

As far as the wording is concerned, Andrew’s text follows the text of Remigius more closely than the texts of the other sources.314 Whereas QHG and Hrabanus introduce the in hebreo translation with the phrase hebraea ueritas, and the Gloss opens with the similar expression hebraica veritas, Haimo writes alia translatio (‘another translation’). The text of Remigius alone agrees with that of Andrew in using the simpler phrase in Hebraeo. The second turn of phrase that Andrew shares with Remigius is found in the conclusion of Remigius’s text. Where Andrew writes: Qui futuri erant (‘those who were about to be’), Remigius, in a similar manner, has: non qui iam erant sed qui futuri essent (‘not that they already were’, ‘but that they were to be’). Andrew Ad generos suos. Q u i f u t u r i e r a n t erant, si non perissent. I n h e b r a e o : ‘ s p o n s o s ’, quod est planius.

314

Remigius Locutusque est Loth ad generos suos […], nam i n h e b r a e o ita habetur: Locutus est Loth ad sponsos, sed sicut solet scriptura sponsos appellare maritos uel uiros, eo modo nunc dicitur Loth habuisse generos n o n q u i i a m e r a n t s e d q u i f u t u r i e s s e n t , […].

It is true that the Gloss alone shares with Andrew the word perissent, whereas the other sources retain from QHG remansisse (two of Lot’s daughters stayed in Sodom). However, the Gloss uses this word to refer to ‘the daughters who perished in Sodom’, but Andrew is referring to ‘the betrothed men who would have married Lot’s daughters had they not perished in Sodom’.

The Latin Sources

 115

In short, Andrew’s text c o i n c i d e s with that of Remigius in three elements. First, both texts present the ‘men betrothed to Lot’s daugthers’ as the grammatical subject of the interpretation. Secondly, Andrew and Remigius share the phrase in hebreo. Thirdly, both Remigius and Andrew share the future periphrastic construction qui futuri erant (essent). Some of the other sources share one or two of these elements with Andrew’s text; but only Remigius’s text presents all three. It seems most probable therefore that Andrew relied on Remigius for this intepretation. Remigius of Auxerre’s influence on Andrew is also clearly seen in the Victorine’s interpretation of Gen 24.63: 315 et egressus fuerat ad meditandum in agro inclinata iam die.315

And he [Isaac] was gone forth to meditate in the field, the day being now well spent.

The Vulgate translation ad meditandum (‘so as to meditate’), from meditari (‘to meditate’, ‘to muse over’) replaces the Vetus Latina’s translation exerceri (‘so as to busy himself ’) that appears in the lemma of Jerome’s explanation of the passage in QHG. However, Jerome’s in hebreo interpretation within the same comment in QHG reads: 316 317 Et egressus est Isaac exerceri in campo ad uesperam. […] Quod autem ait et egressus est, ut exerceretur in campo, quod graece dicitur adoleschesai, in hebraeo legitur et egressus est Isaac, ut loqueretur in agro declinante iam uespera. Significat autem secundum illud, quod dominus solus orabat in monte, etiam Isaac, qui in typo domini fuit, ad orationem quasi uirum iustum domo egressum et uel nona hora uel ante solis occasum spirituales deo uictimas optulisse.316

And Isaac went out to busy himself in the field at evening. […] And what Scripture says: And he went out in the field to busy himself, which is said in Greek as adoleschesai, is read in the Hebrew as: And Isaac went out to speak in the field when the evening was already declining. Now it means that even Isaac, who was a type of the Lord, went out from his house to prayer as would a righteous man, in accord with the fact that the Lord used to pray alone on the mountain; and that at the ninth hour and before sunset he offered spiritual victims to God.317

In fact, both of Jerome’s translations – the Vulgate’s ad meditandum and that ascribed to the Hebrew in QHG ut loqueretur (‘so as to speak’) – render two accurate 315

Biblia Sacra: Genesis, p. 246. Jerome, QHG, p. 30, Lag. 38 (11–20). 317 Hayward, HQG, p. 59. 316

116

Chapter One

meanings of the Hebrew verb śwh/śyh in the Bible, other meanings including ‘to mutter’, ‘to complain,’ and ‘to sing of ’.318 The Latin ad meditandum can also have a more practical connotation, and in this sense does perhaps approach the meaning inherent in Vetus Latina’s exerceri. Meditari, however, refers chiefly to activities of the mind (‘to design’, ‘to intend’),319 whereas the use of exerceri could indicate not only ‘occupy one’s self in an intellectual activity’, but also a physical activity: ‘to exercise one’s self physically’, ‘to engage busily’, ‘to keep at work’.320 Exerceri is, therefore, a legitimate translation of the Hebrew śwh/śyh; indeed, the Vetus Latina employs it, mostly in the Psalms, for translating śwh/śyh when it means ‘consider or muse over God’s commandments’. Jerome, however, considers it to be an inexact translation of the Hebrew word. This is clear from the fact that in his translation of the Psalms iuxta Hebraeos he replaces all the translations of the Hebrew śwh/śyh that have been rendered by a form of exerceri with either meditare321 or loquere (‘to speak’).322 As does Augustine in his interpretation on this biblical passage, Jerome understands that exerceri includes among its meanings also that of a physical activity.323 On the other hand, while Jerome renders the in hebreo translation in QHG as ut loqueretur (‘so as to speak’), in the comment following the translation, he describes Isaac’s action in the field as ‘to pray’, which is the rabbinical interpretation 318 Examples of biblical occurrences of the verb śwh/śyh with the different meanings are: ‘to muse over’, ‘to meditate upon’ (Pss 77.13; 119.15, 27, 148); ‘to mutter’, ‘to complain’ ( Job 7.11); ‘to speak’, ‘to talk about’ (Ps 69.13); and ‘to sing of ’ (Ps 105.2). Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, pp. 1311–12; and BDB, p. 967, n. 7878. 319 J. Leclercq, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God. A Study of Monastic Culture, trans. by C. Misrahi (New York: Fordham University Press, 1962), pp. 24–26, provides a detailed explanation of the various meanings of the word meditari in Christian Latin writings from the late Antique and Medieval periods. He notes that the word meditari is also applied to physical exercises and sports. Jerome, however, both in the Vulgate and in his translation of the Psalms iuxta Hebraeos, uses this word for intellectual or spiritual activities only. 320 In this context, it is interesting to note the similarity of the Vetus Latina’s rendering of this word to Rashbam’s interpretation of the passage under discussion: ‘Since he had arrived from Beer-lahai-roi only that day and did not know what his labourers, who were planting gardens and orchards, were doing, isaac went lasuah in the field. [Lasuah should be understood] like the word siah, in the phrase (Gen 2.5), “No plant (siah) of the field”. In other words, he went to plant trees and to see the work of his labourers’. D. Rosin, ed., The Torah Commentary of Rashbam (Bres­ lau: Solomon Schottlaender, 1881), ad loc. (Hebrew); M. I. Lockshin, Rabbi Samuel Ben Meir’s Commentary on Genesis, Jewish Studies, 5 (New York: Edwin Mellen, 1989), p. 124. From this text, the question arises: could Rashbam have drawn his interpretation of Isaac’s activity in this passage from a knowledge of variant readings of the Vetus Latina? 321 E.g. Pss 119.15, 23. 322 E.g. Pss 69.13; 77.13; 119.48. 323 Cf. Augustine, QH: Gen., 69, p. 26, ad loc.

The Latin Sources

 117

of the passage. He does this in two ways: first, through allegorical exegesis, ­Jerome associates Isaac’s action with Jesus’s custom to pray alone on the mountain.324 Secondly, he refers to the ninth hour as the time for Isaac’s ‘activity’, which is one of the established hours for prayer in Judaism.325 Jerome’s interpretation of the in hebreo translation ut loqueretur as ‘so as to pray’ found a much broader welcome among Latin medieval commentators than the in hebreo translation itself. Certainly, Hrabanus and the Gloss borrow from QHG both the in hebreo translation and the Hieronymian interpretation.326 Haimo of Auxerre likewise adopts both, though he presents Jerome’s translation ut loqueretur merely as ‘another translation’, without referring it to the Hebrew.327 Other Latin commentators, however, such as Angelom of Luxeuil and Remigius of Auxerre, omit the in hebreo translation ut loqueretur and only use Jerome’s interpretation ‘so as to pray’.328 For these Latin commentators, the translation ut loqueretur ‘so as to speak’ did not fit into the context of the passage: did Isaac go out in order to speak alone? They saw it necessary to add to the in hebreo translation Jerome’s subsequent explanation of it as ‘so as to pray’. The words orationem/orationes or orabat/ orandum appear in all of the texts. Since the text in Hrabanus is identical to the one in QHG quoted above, I transcribe only the texts of the other commentators: The Gloss

Angelom

Hiero. […] In hebręo legitur Egressus est ysaac ut loqueretur in agrum […]: ubi significatur quod dominus solus o r a b a t in monte et ysaac qui typus domini fuit ad o r a t i o n e m quasi virum iustum domo egressum […]. Haimo […] ad meditandum in agro. […] Alia quoque translatio dicit: ut loqueretur in agro inclinata iam die. Quia vir sanctus jam post nonam horam diei ad vesperam inclinatam egressus fuerat […], ut o r a t i o n e s et hymnos persolveret. […]

[…] ad meditandum in agrum. Quae est exercitatio Isaac, qua se exercere dicitur in campo ad vesperam? Significat autem ista exercitatio o r a t i o n e m secundum illud quod Dominus orabat in monte. Etiam Isaac in typo Domini fuit. Remigius […] ad meditandum dicit, id est, ad o r a n d u m . In exemplum enim Domini qui solus orabat, etiam uir iustus hora nona uel uespere spiritales Deo precum suarum hostias offerebat.

324

Mtt 14.23; Mark 6.46; Luke 6.12. Gen. Rab. 60.14; b. Ber. 26b; jer. Ber. 4.1; b. Avod. Zar. 7b; Pirkei de R. Eliezer 16.3. 326 Hrabanus, Gen., PL 107, cols 573D–574A; Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 65. 327 Haimo, Gen., PL 131, col. 99C. 328 Angelom, Gen., PL 115, col. 199B–C; Remigius, Gen., ll. 3285–3290. 325

Chapter One

118

Hrabanus and the Gloss follow the text in QHG closely in their wording. Angelom, Haimo, and Remigius, however, present Jerome’s interpretation with some modifications. Andrew, however, does not adopt Jerome’s in hebreo translation ut loqueretur, but suggested instead another in hebreo translation: adorandum (‘so as to worship’). 329 Ad meditandum, in hebraeo: ‘adorandum’.329

[And Isaac was gone forth] to meditate. In Hebrew: so as to worship.

It is evident that Andrew takes from the Vulgate the biblical lemma that introduces his interpretation ‘so as to meditate’. However, from where does he adopt the interpretation ‘so as to worship’ that he refers to the Hebrew? One possible explanation is that Andrew actually found it in the Hebrew text. If this is true, then the explanation could be that he linked the Hebrew roots ‫שׂיח‬/ ‫ שׂוח‬with the root ‫שׁחה‬, and thus he considered the reading to be ‫‘( להשׁתחוות‬to worship’, ‘to adore’), instead of la-suach ‫לשׂוח‬. Berndt suggests a similar explanation: Andrew may have learnt this interpretation from Rashi.330 However, the comparison between the text of Andrew’s interpretation and those of earlier Latin sources aforementioned leads me to prefer another solution. One of the manuscripts consulted of Andrew’s commentary on Genesis enable us, in this passage, to read ad orandum as two separate words: the preposition ad (‘so as to’) and the gerund orandum (‘to pray’) form ad orandum, meaning ‘so as to pray’. The textual plausibility of this reading finds support in the occurrence of the same variant reading in the critical edition of Remigius of Auxerre’s commentary on Genesis. In the critical apparatus, the work’s editor, Van Name Edwards, renders as a manuscript variant of Remigius’s biblical lemma the verbal form adorandum, from the verb adoro (‘to worship’), as one word. In the body of the text, however, Van Name Edwards presents the same lemma ad orandum as two words. Moreover, we have seen that the words orationem/orationes or orabat/orandum are key-words in the different interpretations of the Latin sources. I have contrasted the text of Andrew’s interpretation with the texts of these commentators, and have seen that Andrew’s text is almost identical to that of Remigius of Auxerre: Remigius

Andrew

Ad meditandum dicit, id est, ad orandum. Ad meditandum, in hebraeo: ‘ad orandum’. 329

Andrew, Gen., l. 2390. Berndt (‘Les interprétations juives’, no. 61, p. 213) points to both Hebrew Questions and Rashi as Andrew’s possible sources for this interpretation. 330

The Latin Sources

 119

The only difference between these two texts is that Remigius, unlike Andrew, does not ascribe the phrase ad orandum to the Hebrew. It seems that Andrew considered Jerome’s explanation ‘so as to pray’ as a part of his translation in hebreo ‘so as to speak’. Therefore, in referring his in hebreo translation to the Hebrew, Andrew relied on Jerome’s interpretation of ut loqueretur as ‘so as to pray’, which he probably found in one of the Latin sources quoted above, most likely the Gloss. The translation itself, however, he borrowed from Remigius of Auxerre. 3. The Latin Sources of Genesis 4.23 I shall now turn to another interpretation in the commentaries of both Hugh and Andrew that is given by the Gloss, Remigius, and Haimo: Lamech’s narrative in Gen 4.23. I shall argue that Andrew takes his interpretation from the Gloss. At the same time, however, I will show that his text is also close to that of Haimo. In addition, we shall see that Hugh’s comment on the same verse is closer to Remigius’s text than to the texts of any of the other Latin sources. Genesis 4.23 transmits an enigmatic conversation between Lamech and his wives. The Vulgate’s translation reads: 331 Dixitque Lamech uxoribus suis Adae et Sellae audite vocem meam uxores Lamech auscultate sermonem meum quoniam occidi virum in vulnus meum et adulescentulum in livorem meum.331

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.

Whom did Lamech kill? How did it happen? The biblical text answers neither question, and this very silence leaves the door open for various interpretations of the passage. Following the above quoted complaint of Lamech, v. 24 adds: Septuplum ultio dabitur de Cain de Lamech vero septuagies septies (‘Sevenfold vengeance shall be taken for Cain: but for Lamech seventy times sevenfold’).332 Some verses earlier, in Gen 4.15, one reads: Sed omnis qui occiderit Cain septuplum punietur (‘but whosoever shall kill Cain shall be punished sevenfold’).333 To resolve the first question: ‘Whom did Lamech kill?’ early Jewish and Christian sources turned to the link that the biblical text makes between these three verses, namely Gen 4.15, 23, and 24.

331

Biblia Sacra: Genesis, pp. 156–57; The Douay translation, p. 43. Biblia Sacra: Genesis, p. 157; The Douay translation, p. 43. 333 Biblia Sacra: Genesis, p. 155; The Douay translation, p. 42. 332

120

Chapter One

One of the Jewish sources that considered the three verses as linked together was Josephus Flavius, who posits the interpretation that God would punish Cain in ‘his descendants during the seventh generation’,334 and that Lamech foresaw ‘that he would suffer the punishment for Cain’s fratricide’.335 Josephus, however, nowhere asserts that Lamech killed Cain. Turning to Christian commentary, Jerome tells us in one of his letters that instead of ‘sevenfold’ Symmachus had translated ‘the seventh’, understanding it as the seventh generation from Adam.336 Together with Symmachus’s translation, Jerome reports a tradition that he ascribes to ‘our elders’, according to which Lamech, being the seventh from Adam, killed Cain.337 Both the tradition cited by Jerome as well as Josephus’s paraphrase of the biblical passage explain that vengeance should not be taken on the one who killed Cain, but on Cain himself on account of Abel’s murder. Jerome does not specify the identity of ‘our elders’. In the same letter, however, he declares to have found written in ‘a Hebrew volume’ that Lamech, being the seventh from Cain, killed Cain by accident.338 I have found no written Jewish source datable before Jerome’s death (420 ce), containing the assertion that Lamech killed Cain by accident.339 Nevertheless, if we trust Jerome’s testimony, we may conclude that, at least by the end of the fourth or early fifth century, there existed at least one written Jewish source asserting that Lamech killed Cain by accident in the seventh generation from Adam. The early sources do not, however, answer the second question of how the death occurred, that is to say, what the circumstances were surrounding Lamech’s killing 334 Flavius Josephus, Antiquitatum Iudaicarum Libri I–V, ed. by B. Niese (Berlin: Weidman, 1888), I, 58. For the English translation, I have followed Judean Antiquities 1–4, trans. and commentary by L. H. Feldman, in Flavius Josephus: translation and commentary, ed. by S. Mason (Leiden: Brill, 2000), III. 335 Judean Antiquities, I, 65. The English translator writes ‘Kais’ instead of Cain. 336 Jerome, Ep. ad Damasum, p. 2 and 4. 337 ‘De eo autem, quod Aquila posuit septempliciter et Symmachus ‘ebdomatos siue septimus ulciscetur’, maiorum nostrorum ista sententia est, quod putent in septima generatione a Lamech interfectum Cain.’ Jerome, ibid., p. 4. 338 Ibid., 4: ‘Lamech, qui septimus ab Adam non sponte, sicuti in quodam Hebraeo uolumine scribitur, interfecit Cain.’ 339 Though the final edition of Gen. Rab., the earliest extant Midrash on Gen 4.23–24, is dated to the fifth century, it draws on earlier sources: H. L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (1931, repr. by arrangement with the Jewish Publication Society of America, A Temple Book. Atheneum. New York, 1969), p. 304; The Literature of the Sages, ed. by S. Safrai et al., 2 parts, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum: section II (Assen, The Netherlands – Minneapolis, MN: Royal Van Gorcum-Fortress Press, 2006), IIIB, p. 149. However, Gen. Rab. does not identify Lamech as Cain’s killer, nor says that Cain was killed by accident.

The Latin Sources

 121

of Cain. Later sources, however, both Jewish and Christian, offer two other interpretations that evolved from trying to answer this question. It is these two interpretations that refer to the second question that will be discussed in this book, since Hugh and Andrew attribute these interpretations expressly to the Jews. Hugh and Andrew relate both of these interpretations, each of which came to them from a different source. They learned the second interpretation directly from Jews living in their time, and therefore I shall refer to it in the third chapter, which is devoted to the Jewish sources of the Victorines. The first, however, they took from their Latin sources, and it is this one that shall be discussed here.340 The narrative of Lamech’s killing of Cain is substantially the same in Hugh and Andrew, yet each renders it in different words and the text of each contains details that do not appear in the other. 341 342 Hugh

Andrew

Occidi uirum in uulnus meum. Opinio antiqua hebreorum tradit lamech fuisse cecum, et tamen uacasse venationi per quoddam instrumentum, id est arcum qui non fallit; cuius cordam extensam quodcumque animal tangit retendit arcum et vulneratur. […] Cum igitur quodam tempore lamech et puer qui eum ducebat vacarent venationi, et cain sicuti furibundus curreret per illum locum, directione sui ductoris lamech eum interfecit. Vnde ille iratus puerum suum qui eum ducebat occidit; et ideo de utriusque interfectione conqueritur cum uxoribus suis hoc modo: Occidi uirum, etc.341

Quoniam occidi uirum in uulnus, etc. Dicitur Lamech, exercens uenationem, quo adolescens, qui ductor eius – iam prae senectute uidere non ualentis – erat, indicauerat, sagittam emisisse casuque Cain inter frutecta latitantem interfecisse. Quo audito, prae dolore adolescentem occidit. Et hoc est, quod dicit: Quoniam occidi uirum (id est Cain) in uulnus meum (id est per telum, quo uulnus fit) et adolescentem (rectorem scilicet meum) in liuorem meum (id est per baculum uel forte per arcum).342

340 Smalley, Study of the Bible, p. 104, n. 1, attributed both interpretations to Jews contemporary with the Victorines: to Rashi she ascribed the interpretation that Hugh considered as ‘old’; the second one, which Andrew referred to ‘My Hebrew (teacher)’, Smalley ascribed to Joseph Qarah. 341 Hugh, Pent., Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092, f. 87v. 342 Andrew, Gen., ll. 1307–1314.

Chapter One

122

Hugh

Andrew

I have killed a man to my wound. An old belief of the Hebrews tells that Lamech was blind and that he nevertheless used to busy himself with hunting by means of a certain instrument, that is a bow, which does not fail; when its string is stretched out and then released, the bow hurts whatever animal it hits […]. On a certain day, I say, when Lamech and the boy, who used to lead him, went hunting, and Cain happened to be running about furiously in that same place, Lamech, shooting in the direction indicated by his guide, killed him. Wherefore, becoming enraged, he [Lamech] also killed the boy who was leading him; and therefore, he complains of both killings to his wives in the following way: I have killed a man, etc.

I have killed a man to my wound, etc. It is said that Lamech while engaging in the hunt shot the arrow at where the lad who was his guide had indicated him – since he was unable to see on account of his old age – and he killed Cain by accident, who lay hidden between the shrubs. Having heard this, he [Lamech] killed the lad out of distress. And this is what he says: ‘because I killed a man (i.e. Cain), by my wound (that is by means of the dart, with which the wound is produced) and a boy (that is, my guide) by my bruise (that is by means of the staff or perhaps by means of the bow).

Andrew does not indicate his source, though he does state that he is dealing with a tradition (dicitur: it is said). Hugh, however, attributes the story to a Jewish tradition that he designates as being antiqua (‘old’). Interestingly, only here of all the interpretations on the Pentateuch and Former Prophets that he attributes to Jews does Hugh describe a Jewish interpretation as antiqua. As I shall explain in greater detail below, it seems to me that his use of this adjective is not arbitrary. The tradition of the account of Lamech’s killing of Cain is found in several Jewish sources datable to prior to the period in which Hugh and Andrew produced their commentaries, such as Midrash Tanhuma Bereshit 1.11 (between the sixth and the ninth centuries); Midrash Aggada on Gen 4.23 (eleventh century); and Rashi on Gen 4.23.343 343

Later midrashic compilations containing the Lamech’s story are Yalkut Shimeoni I. 38 and Midrash ha-Gadol on Gen 4.23, p. 118; cf. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909, 1937), I, pp. 116–17; and V, nn. 28, 37, 42–44. For the dating of the collection Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, see: M. Bregman, The TanhumaYelammedenu Literature: Studies in the Evolution of the Versions (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2003), pp. 180–88; cf. Strack-Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, pp. 332–33; for the dating of Midrash Aggada, see H. Mack, The Aggadic Midrash literature (Tel-Aviv: Mod, 1989), p. 113 (Hebrew).

The Latin Sources

 123

Three Latin sources from the Carolingian period together with the Gloss report the tradition, and attribute the aforementioned interpretation to ‘the Hebrews’: viz. Angelom of Luxeuil, Remigius of Auxerre, and Haimo of Auxerre.344 Theoretically, Hugh and Andrew could have taken the interpretation from a Jewish source. However, there are several pieces of evidence in support of the argument that both Victorines borrowed it from a Latin source. The evidence for this comes from three significant elements that are present in the afore-mentioned Jewish sources but do not appear either in Hugh or in Andrew: (1) Lamech’s guide is identified with his son Tubal-cain;345 (2) Lamech kills Tubalcain by smiting him with the palms of his hands as he clasped them together;346 (3) (appearing in several, though not in all, the Jewish sources) Cain has a horn protruding from his forehead.347 With respect to the second element mentioned, Andrew does not seem to have been aware of the tale as it is in the Jewish sources, since he diverges considerably from it when he states that Lamech killed Tubalcain ‘by means of the staff or perhaps by means of the bow’, and not with the palms of his hands.348 Hugh, however, does not refer to the specific means by which Lamech’s guide was killed. None of these three elements common to the Jewish sources are included in any of the Carolingian sources quoted above, or in the Gloss. The absence of the same three elements in both the Victorines and in the other Latin sources makes it unlikely that the Victorines should have borrowed the story from a Jewish source. It would seem most probable that both Hugh and Andrew took it from one of the mentioned Latin sources. Yet in the Latin sources it is easier to identify Andrew’s source than it is to ascertain Hugh’s since there are some elements common to Andrew and the Latin sources that are found neither in the Jewish sources nor in Hugh. Not all of those elements, however, are included by the four Latin sources, but some Latin sources include more elements than others. First, Andrew shares with the four Latin sources that it was because of his old age that Lamech had incurred weakness of the eyes. A second element, however, is only shared by Andrew, the Gloss, and the two Auxerrois 344 Remigius, Gen., ll. 1685–1700; Angelom, Gen., PL 115, cols 151D–152B; Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 33. 345 Midrash Tanhuma Bereshit 1.11; Midrash Aggada on Gen 4.23; Rashi on Gen 4.23; Yalkut Shimeoni I. 38; Midrash ha-Gadol on Gen 4.23, p. 118; Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, I, p. 116. 346 Midrash Tanhuma Bereshit, ibid; Rashi, ibid; Yalkut Shimeoni, ibid.; Midrash ha-Gadol on Gen 4.23, p. 118; Midrash Aggada, ibid; Ginzberg, ibid., pp. 116–17. 347 Midrash Tanhuma Bereshit, ibid; Midrash ha-Gadol on Gen 4.23, p. 118; Midrash Aggada, ibid; Ginzberg, ibid., 116. However, the detail that a horn grew out of Cain is reported already by Gen. Rab. on Genesis 4.15. 348 Andrew, ibid.

Chapter One

124

masters: to wit, the remark that Cain was wandering about or hiding among shrubs (‘vagus per frutectorum / inter frutecta latitantem / latentem’) when Lamech shot him, this fact being one of the reasons why the lad (Tubalcain in the Jewish sources) took Cain for a beast. Finally, only Andrew, Haimo, and the Gloss point out that Lamech killed Cain by accident. This third element marks an additional difference with the Jewish sources, since the latter refer the circumstance of being killed by accident (be-shogeg or be-shegagah) to Tubalcain, Lamech’s son, and not to Cain.349 In short, out of the four Latin sources that comment upon the Lamech narrative, the texts of Haimo and of the Gloss are the closest to Andrew. Below is my translation of those two texts: 350 351 Haimo

The Rusch Gloss

I have killed a man to my wound, and a youth to my bruise. The Hebrews explain this passage by saying that Lamech, by living for a long time, had incurred darkness of the eyes, and he could not see. He had a certain lad who would guide his steps. Now on a certain day that he went hunting, aiming his darts where the youth had indicated, he hit Cain – who lay hidden among the bushes – by accident due to the youth’s pointing, who had thought that he was a wild animal. However, when he [Lamech] had found out that he had killed a man, becoming enraged against the youth, he killed him as well. And this is [the meaning of ] what follows: I have killed a man, i.e. Cain, unto my [own] wound because I shall be wounded also and killed because of him and a youth unto my [own] bruise, since I shall also be condemned because of him.350

And Lamech said. R. The Hebrews say that, by living for a long time, Lamech had incurred darkness of the eyes and had a youth as a leader and guide of his way. So then, while engaging in the hunt, Lamech directed an arrow where the youth indicated and killed Cain by accident, who lay hidden among the bushes. And this is what he means [with the words]: ‘I have killed a man to my wound, that is to say, by the wound that I have thrust, I have not killed a beast, but a man’ – whence inflamed with rage –, I have killed a boy.351

349

Midrash Tanhuma Bereshit, ibid. Midrash ha-Gadol on Gen 4.23, p. 118; Ginzberg, ibid., p. 116. Midrash Aggada, ibid., reports that Tubalcain had identified Cain before indicating his father the direction at where he should shot the arrow. 350 Haimo, Gen., PL 131, cols 71D–72A. See the Latin text in the following chart. 351 Glossa ord. marg., Gen., p. 33. See the Latin text in the following chart.

The Latin Sources

 125

However, when placed alongside the texts of Haimo and the Gloss, Andrew’s text shares more words and turns of phrase with the Gloss than with Haimo Haimo

The Rusch Gloss

Andrew

Occidi uirum in uulnus meum et adolescentem in liuorem meum. Hunc locum ita Hebraei exponunt L a m e c h diu vivendo caliginem oculorum incurrerat, n e c v i d e r e p o t e r a t . Habebat autem quendam a d o l e s c e n t e m qui gressus ejus regebat. Cum quadam die v e n a t i o n e e x e r c e r e t u r , illuc jacula dirigens quo a d o l e s c e n s indicasset, casu Cain inter fruteta l a t i t a n t e m indice adolescente, percussit, qui feram esse putaverat. Sed cum cognovisset se hominem occidisse, iratus adolescenti ipsum quoque interfecit. Et hoc e s t q u o d sequitur: Occidi uirum id est Cain, in vulnus meum, quia ego quoque pro illo vulnerabor et o c c i d a r : et adolescentem livorem meum, quia pro illo quoque damnabor.

Dixitque lamech: R. Aiunt hebręi L a m e c h diu viuendo caliginem oculorum incurrisse et a d o l e s c e n t e m d u c e m et rectorem itineris habuisse exercens ergo venationem sagitt a m direxit q u o a d o lescens indicauit casuque cayn inter frutecta latentem interfecit et hoc est quod dicit: occidi virum in vulnus meum, i. vulnere quod infixi non bestiam sed hominem occidi. Unde et furore accensus occidi adolescentem.

Quoniam occidi uirum in uulnus, etc. Dicitur Lamech, exercens uenationem, quo a d o l e s c e n s , qui d u c t o r eius – iam prae senectute u i d e r e n o n u a l e n t i s   – erat, indicauerat, sagitt a m emisisse c a s u q u e Cain inter frutecta latitantem i n t e r f e c i s s e . Quo auditu, prae dolore adolescentem occidit. Et hoc est, q u o d d i c i t : Quoniam occidi uirum (id est Cain) in uulnus meum (id est per telum, quo uulnus fit) et adolescentem (rectorem scilicet meum) in liuorem meum (id est per baculum uel forte per arcum.

This resemblance in wording between Andrew’s text and that of the Gloss makes it very likely that it was Andrew’s source. Unlike Andrew, Hugh does not draw the tale verbatim from the Latin sources. It is, therefore, more difficult to identify his direct source. His text, however, does share more words and phrases with Remigius than with the other Latin sources.

Chapter One

126

Hugh, like Remigius, ascribes the story to an opinio hebraeorum (‘belief of the Hebrews’), in genitive plural. Just as Remigius, Hugh describes Lamech simply as caecus (‘blind’), in contrast to the other Latin sources that depict him as having incurred caligine oculorum (‘darkness of the eyes’, i.e. poor vision). Hugh and Remigius alone describe Lamech’s guide as a puer (‘child’), instead of referring to him as adolescens (‘young man’) like the other Latin sources. Hugh

Remigius

Occidi uirum in uulnus meum. O p i n i o antiqua h e b r e o r u m tradit lamech fuisse c e c u m , […]. Cum igitur quodam tempore lamech et p u e r q u i e u m d u c e b a t vacarent v e n a t i o n i , et cain sicuti furibundus curreret per illum locum, directione sui ductoris lamech e u m i n t e r f e c i t . Vnde ille i r a t u s puerum suum qui eum duceb a t occidit;

Dixitque Lamech uxoribus suis: […] Sed H e b r a e o r u m t r a d i t i o aliter sentit. Dicunt enim istum Lamech peritum fuisse u e n a n d i . Qui cum iam senuisset, et d u c e q u o d a m p u e r o utpote c a e c u s uteretur, uenit quodam die in saltu. Cumque Cain, ut erat uagus per frutectorum densitatem, incederet, ille designante p u e r o aestimans feram esse, emisso iaculo percussit et i n t e r f e c i t e u m . Quod cum agnouisset se scilicet ita deceptum felle, c o m m o t u s rursus p u e r u m , c u i u s d u c a t u u t e b a t u r , ictu percussit et interemit.

With regard to the content, Hugh shares with the four Latin sources an element not present in either the Jewish sources or Andrew, namely, the idea that the realization that he had killed Cain led Lamech to become furious, and, dominated by his anger, to kill his guide (Tubalcain in the Jewish sources). Hugh Remigius Haimo Angelom The Gloss

Vnde ille i r a t u s p u e r u m s u u m qui eum ducebat occidit […], c o m m o t u s r u r s u s p u e r u m , cuius ducatu utebatur, ictu percussit et interemit. […], i r a t u s a d o l e s c e n t i ipsum quoque interfecit. Tunc furore permotus vertit arcum, […]. U n d e e t f u r o r e a c c e n s u s occidi adolescentem.

As I already mentioned above, the Jewish sources, however, lay stress on the fact that Lamech killed his young guide be-shogeg (‘inadvertently’)352 or else, like Andrew, making an unconscious movement out of grief or despair.353 352

Ginzberg, ibid. Midrash Tanhuma Bereshit, ibid; Midrash ha-Gadol, ibid.

353

The Latin Sources

 127

Hugh therefore shares not only several words and turns of phrase with Remigius, but he also shares with the four Latin sources a significant piece of information that is not found in the Jewish sources. Hence I conclude that Hugh, like Andrew, takes this narrative from his Latin sources, most probably from Remigius. We can turn now to Hugh’s description of the Jewish tradition as ‘old’. In our treatment of the Gloss, we noted that, unlike Andrew, Hugh seldom draws on the Latin sources’ interpretations as ‘Jewish’ or as ‘according to the Hebrew’. When he does borrow from the Latin sources, he is not dealing with Jewish traditions or interpretations in hebreo, but with Christian interpretations. Conversely, most of the interpretations that Hugh ascribes to Jews do not appear in the earlier Latin sources; he adopts them directly from the Jews. I suggest that Hugh’s use of the adjective ‘old’ here points to the fact that this is one of the few places where Hugh is making use of a Jewish tradition through a Latin source. The adjective ‘old’ means here that the Jewish tradition had already been circulating in the Latin world, and that Hugh is not contributing with a new interpretation, but he has found it already in his Latin sources. We have seen that Andrew relies on Remigius of Auxerre for two in hebreo interpretations in his commentary on Genesis: 19.14 and 24.63. Other interpretations not related to the Hebrew in the commentaries on Genesis by Hugh and Andrew show close parallels to either Haimo or Remigius. Remigius points to textual variants in the different biblical versions. In contrast to other Latin sources, he identifies the translations as derived from the Septuagint, and he shows some knowledge of Greek.354 Hugh probably relied on him for his comment on the Vulgate’s textual variant in Gen 1.21, which we shall discuss in the second chapter (on the Biblical text). Andrew’s comments on Gen 1.3355 and 26.10356 render a text that is practically identical to that of Haimo. The influence of the school of Auxerre on the Victorines can also be seen in works other than their commentaries on Genesis. Some scholars have pointed to the influence of Heiric of Auxerre on Hugh’s De archa Noe.357 We may, therefore, safely conclude that both Hugh and Andrew drew on the Auxerrois masters for a 354 I have only analysed Remigius’s commentary on Genesis. For Remigius’s discussion of textual variants in his commentary on Psalms, see Smalley’s comments and bibliography in The Study, pp. 40–41. 355 Andrew, Gen., ll. 129–130: ‘Lux a luendo (id est purgando) tenebras dicitur. Tenebrae autem a tenendo dicuntur, eo quod teneant oculos, ne videant’. Haimo, Gen., PL 131, col. 55B–C: ‘Fiat lux. Lux dicitur a luendo, id est a purgando tenebras’; PL 131, col. 55C: ‘Et divisit lucem a tenebris. Tenebrae a tenendo dictae sunt, quia tenent oculos ne videant’. 356 Andrew, Gen., l. 2433: ‘Imposuisti, decepisti; unde impostores’; Haimo, Gen., PL 131, col. 102D: ‘Quare imposuisti? Id est, quare decepisti? Hinc impostores dicuntur’. 357 Patrice Sicard, De archa Noe III: 17, demonstrates that Hugh is inspired by Heiric’s homilia I, 16. I thank Dominique Poirel for calling my attention to this source.

Chapter One

128

number of the interpretations they ascribed to the Hebrew or to Jewish traditions, and used Remigius specifically for some of their references to textual variants in the Vulgate and Septuagint against the Hebrew text. II. The Latin Sources of the Commentaries on Exodus, Leviticus, and Judges A. The Commentaries on Exodus In the commentaries of Hugh and Andrew on the Book of Exodus, there are seventy-nine references to the Hebrew text or to Jewish interpretations, of which I have traced seven in earlier Latin sources: viz., Exod 1.1; 2.4; 3.2; 12.12; 20.3; 23.21; and 28.36. All of these interpretations are found only in Andrew’s commentary, save the last one, which appears in both Hugh and Andrew. The sources of the interpretations are: Jerome (Exod 23.21); Bede (Exod 20.3); and the Gloss (Exod 1.1; 2.4; 3.2; 12.12; and 28.36). 1. Jerome’s Book on the Interpretation of Hebrew names Jerome’s book Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum is Andrew’s most likely source for his etymological interpretation in his commentary on Exod 23.21. Jerome, LIHN 104, Lag. 35.29 Iosue saluator Ioshua [means] ‘savior’.

Andrew, Exod., ll. 1534–1535 Nomen meum in illo. Josue enim – ut aiunt Hebraei – ‘salvator’ dicitur. My name [is] in him. For Joshua – as the Hebrews say – means ‘saviour’.

2. Bede Of the three sorts of in hebreo interpretations that the Victorines cite in their commentaries, we have so far treated only two: (a) translations according to the Hebrew text of the Bible; and (b) interpretations that report a Jewish tradition or identify an anonymous Biblical character. There is yet a third category of in hebreo interpretations, namely those in which the Victorines refer to grammatical features that are peculiar of the Hebrew language. It is true that the mere reference to features of the Hebrew language does not, in itself, necessarily imply that the Victorines had resort to a Hebrew text. Indeed, Hugh and Andrew may perfectly well have made these remarks on the basis of a Latin translation. Certainly, some of these observations do reveal a correct knowledge of actual features of the Hebrew language, yet they are written from the

The Latin Sources

 129

perspective of a Latin speaker, who contrasts the Hebrew language to the Latin one, and expresses this contrast by employing a linguistic terminology that is characteristic of the Latin language. An example of the use of Latin grammatical categories to refer to features of the Hebrew language is Andrew’s interpretation of Exod 20.3: Andrew, Exod., ll. 1272–1276 Non habebis deos alienos coram me. […] Idioma est hebraeae linguae futurum indicatiui pro praesenti imperatiui ponere.

You shall have no other gods before me. […] It is a feature of the Hebrew language to write a future indicative instead of present imperative.

Andrew thus explains that for commands or prohibitions, whereas the Hebrew language employs the future tense, Latin uses the present imperative. Here, Andrew is accurately pointing out a feature of the Hebrew language. At the same time, however, he expresses himself in linguistic terms taken from Latin grammar: indeed, the category ‘indicative’ does not exist in Hebrew. Accordingly, we do not need to conclude from Andrew’s comment that he drew his knowledge of this feature from his reading from a Hebrew Bible. He might just as well have borrowed this observation from a Latin translation. In fact, a similar remark may be found in Bede’s commentary on Gen 4.7. Bede reveals in his commentaries a particular sensitivity to languages and he frequently remarks on grammatical features of the Hebrew and the Greek languages in the Bible. Andrew may have drawn this comment from the following Bedan interpretation: Bede, Gen. II, iv. 7, ll. 97–104. Sed sub te erit appetitus eius et tu dominaberis illius. Iuxta idioma linguae hebreae indicatiuum modum pro imperitiuo posuit, qualia habes innumera: Diliges Dominum Deum tuum […], Diliges proximum tuum […], Non fornicaberis […], Non furtum facies […], ‘Non falsum testimonium dices […], pro eo ut diceretur: ‘Dilige […]’, ‘Et ne occidas […]’, ‘Ne forniceris […]’, ‘Ne furtum facias […]’, ‘Ne falsum testimonium dicas […]’.

And unto you shall be his desire, and you shall rule over him. According to the usage of the Hebrew language, he [the biblical writer] rendered an indicative in place of an imperative. You have countless examples of this use [in the Bible]: You shall love the Lord your God […], You shall love your neighbour […], You shall not commit fornication […], You shall not steal […], You shall not bear false witness […], instead of saying: ‘Do love […]’, ‘And do not kill […]’, ‘Do not commit fornication […]’, ‘Do not steal […]’, ‘Do not bear false witness […]’.

130

Chapter One

Bede (672/3–735) was a direct source for Andrew’s commentaries on the Books of Genesis, Exodus, and the First Book of Samuel. In his interpretation of Gen 12.4, Andrew draws on Bede’s commentary on that book.358 In his interpretations of Exod 26.1 and 28.22, Andrew reproduces extensive quotations from Bede’s De tabernaculo,359 and mentions Bede by name four times in his commentary on the same book: twice, in his interpretation of Exod 26.1, where he refers expressly to that work by Bede;360 once, in his interpretation of Exod 26.9;361 and a fourth time, in his interpretation of Exod 28.22.362 In his second commentary on Leviticus, Andrew cites Bede by name in his interpretation of Lev 8.7, referring to Bede’s interpretation of Exod 28.22.363 Finally, Andrew draws on Bede’s commentary on In primam partem Samuhelis (1 Sam 1.21) for his interpretation of 1 Sam 9.9 and 20.16.364 3. The Gloss The Gloss is the source of the references to the Hebrew or to Jewish traditions in Andrew’s interpretations of Exod 1.1; 2.4; 3.2; 12.12; and of Hugh’s comment on Exod 28.36, which Andrew reproduces. I have collated the editio princeps of the Gloss with four manuscripts containing the Gloss on Exodus: Paris, Bibl. Ars., MS 47, from Saint-Martin des Champs; Soissons, B.M., MS 71, from Fécamp; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,400; and Bibl. Maz., MS 131 (2). The first two are dated to between 1140 and 1150; BnF, MS lat. 14,400 is dated to 1150; and Bibl. Maz., MS 131 (2) is dated to the thirteenth century.365 The four manuscripts contain the following in hebreo interpretations that are included in Andrew and in Rusch’s edition and present the same wording as Andrew and

358

Andrew, Gen., ll. 1825–1827; see the reference to Bede’s Gen III cited there. I shall treat Hugh’s dependence on Bede in the third part of this chapter, i.e. the Latin sources for the commentaries on the First and Second Books of Samuel. 359 Andrew, Exod., ll. 1691–1790; and ll. 1995–2028, respectively; see the references to Bede’s De tabernaculo II and III cited there. 360 Andrew, Exod., ll. 1691–1693; Bede, De tabernaculo II, ll. 71–96. 361 Andrew, Exod., l. 1840; Bede, De tabernaculo II, ll. 436–454. 362 Andrew, Exod., l. 1996; Bede, De tabernaculo III, ll. 496–533. 363 Andrew, Lev. II, l. 690; Bede, De tabernaculo III, ll. 496–533. 364 Andrew, Reg. I, ll. 1136–1137, and ll. 1856–1861 respectively; Bede, Sam. II, ll. 524–530, and In Regum Librum xxx Quaestiones: V, ll. 7–27 respectively. 365 Stirnemann, ‘Les livres’, pp. 266–67.

The Latin Sources

 131

Rusch: Exod 2.4;366 Exod 3.2;367 Exod 12.12;368 and Exod 28.36.369 None of the four manuscripts contains the in hebreo reading of the Gloss on Exod 1.1 (Hellesmoth hebraice) that appears in Rusch’s edition (glossa marg., p. 112). Andrew must have taken it from some other source. These interpretations are found not only in the Gloss, but also in one or several other Latin sources, such as Josephus Flavius, Jerome, Isidore of Seville, Bede, Pseudo-Bede, and Hrabanus Maurus.370 Some of these works were, in their turn, sources for the Gloss. However, the identity of wording between the texts of Hugh and Andrew and that of the Gloss leads me to conclude that it is on the Gloss rather than on the earlier sources that Hugh and Andrew draw. For example, Andrew comments on Exod 3.2: Out of the midst of the bush. The Hebrews assert that the Lord appeared to Moses in a bramble-bush, so that the Jews could not carve an idol for themselves from it; for God always cuts short any occasion of falling into idolatry.371

Hadfield has found this same interpretation in three sources: Isidore, Hrabanus, and the Gloss.372 However, she does not discuss how these sources relate to one 366 Andrew, Exod., l. 63; Rush: Glossa ord. int., Exod., p. 114; Paris, Bibl. Ars., MS 47, int., fol. 5r; Soissons, B.M., MS 71, fol. 2v; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,400, fol. 5v; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, int., fol. 116r. 367 Andrew, Exod., ll. 89–91; Rush: Glossa ord. marg., Exod., p. 116; Paris, Bibl. Ars., MS 47, marg., fol. 8; Soissons, B.M., MS 71, marg. fol. 4v; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,400, fol. 8v; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, fol. 117v. The only difference between Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,400 and the others is that the former writes ‘dicunt’ instead of ‘aiunt’. 368 Paris, Bibl. Ars., MS 47, int., fol. 42v; Soissons, B.M., MS 71, marg. fol. 21v; Rusch: Glossa marg., Exod., p. 133; Andrew, Exod., ll. 582–585; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, fol. 137v; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,400, fol. 42r; Jerome, Ep. ad Fabiolam 78.3; Isidore, Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum: In Exodum, PL 83, col. 294C–D; Hrabanus, Exod. I, PL 108, col. 52C–D; Pseudo-Bede, In Pentateuchum Commentarii: In Exodum, PL 91, col. 307D; Hadfield, Andrew of St Victor, pp. 74–75; Berndt, ‘Les interprétation juives’, no. 121, p. 222.. 369 Paris, Bibl. Ars., MS 47, int., fol. 134; Soissons, B.M., MS 71, marg. fol. 62r; Rusch: Glossa marg., p. 183; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, fol. 195v. Hugh, Pent., Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092, fol. 109r. Andrew, Exod., ll. 2048–2053. Some words (domini, constans) and letters that are included in Rusch’s text are missing from Paris, Bibl. Ars., MS 47. Other words are rendered in an order that differs from that of Rusch, but the text is substantially the same in both. The Gloss, Soissons, B.M., MS 71 omits the last part of the allegorical explanation. 370 Andrew’s comment on Exod 1.1 also appears both in the Gloss and in Pseudo-Bede (Andrew, Exod., ll. 2–6; Pseudo-Bede, In Pentateuchum Commentarii: In Exodum, PL 91, cols 285C– 286C; Glossa ord. marg., Exod., p. 112). Andrew’s interpretation of Exod 2.4 is also found in the Gloss and in Josephus Flavius (Andrew, Exod., l. 63; Josephus, Ant., II, pp. 221, 226; Rush: Glossa ord. int., Exod., p. 114). 371 Andrew, Exod., ll. 89–91. For the Latin text, see the following chart. 372 Hadfield, Andrew of St Victor, pp. 73–74.

132

Chapter One

another, nor does she determine the source from which Andrew borrowed directly. Hrabanus clearly relies on Isidore, since the wording is identical in the texts of both exegetes, and Isidore is the only source prior to Hrabanus that transmits the text. The Gloss in its turn could have drawn on either Isidore directly or on Hrabanus’s transmission. Andrew, however, seems to have drawn on the Gloss, since both sources, Andrew and the Gloss, summarize the text of the two earlier exegetes, and the wording of Andrew’s text is almost identical to that of the Gloss: 373 374 Isidore and Hrabanus

The Gloss

Andrew

Hebraei autem dicunt propterea in rubo apparuisse Deum Moysi et non in alio ligno, ne forte sculperent (Hrabanus: exculperent) in eodem Judaei idolum. Semper enim Deus abstulit (Isidorus: illis) occasionem idololatriae.373

Aiunt hebręi ideo in rubo deum apparuisse moysi ne possent sibi inde ydolum sculpere iudęi. Semper enim deus ydolatrię occasionem recidit.374

De medio rubi. In rubo ideo Dominum aiunt Hebraei apparuisse Moysi, ne possent inde sibi idolum sculpere Iudaei. Semper enim Deus idolatriae occasionem recidit.

Exodus 28.36 In Exod 28.2–43, a detailed description is given of the priestly garments that God commanded to be made for Aaron and his sons, so that they might wear them when ministering before Him. One etymological explanation that found its way into most Latin commentaries on Exodus including both Hugh’s and Andrew’s comments on the same passage is Jerome’s interpretation of Exod 28.36 from his epistle to Fabiola on the mystical meaning of the priestly garments.375 Hugh’s and Andrew’s transmission of this interpretation runs as follows:

373

Isidore, Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum: In Exodum VII. 5, PL 83, col. 290A; Hrabanus, Exod. I, PL 108, col. 20B. 374 Rush: Glossa ord. marg., Exod., p. 116. 375 Jerome, Ep. ad Fabiolam 64.17, p. 604.

The Latin Sources

 133

376

Hugh and Andrew Facies et lamminam [Andrew: laminam] de auro purissimo [Andrew: puro] in qua sculpes sanctum domino. has duas scilicet dictiones. pro eo quod nos habemus sanctum domino in hebreo habetur: aiuoth adonay [Andrew: anoth adonai]. Hoc autem nomen – id est adonay [Andrew: adonai scilicet] – quatuor [Andrew: quattuor] litteris scribitur: he, ioth, heth, vau. [Andrew: wau] quod interpretatur: Iste principium passionis uitę, et ineffabile dicitur.380

You shall also make a plate of most pure gold [Andrew: of pure gold], and you shall grave upon it Holy to the Lord [sanctum domino], i.e. these distinct words. What we have as Holy to the Lord, the Hebrew renders: auoth adonay. This name – i.e. adonay – is written with four letters: he, ioth, heth, wau, which means ‘he is the beginning of the passion, i.e. of life.’ And it is said to be unutterable.

The interpretation of Exod 28.36 that appears in the commentaries of both Hugh and Andrew is similar to that of Andrew in his second commentary on Lev 8.9. Yet in their interpretations of the Exodus passage, Hugh and Andrew add an allegorical explanation of the meaning of each of the letters that form God’s name in Hebrew, to which Andrew does not refer in his interpretation of Leviticus. It is worth noting, however, that in their interpretation of Exod 28.36 both Victorines transliterate the four Hebrew letters of God’s name in a different order: both Hugh and Andrew transcribe the four Hebrew letters as he, ioth, heth, vau, instead of rendering the transliteration ioth, he, uau, he. Furthermore, both Victorines write heth instead of the second he, transcribing thus a Hebrew letter different from the one actually written in the Hebrew text. The question arises: is this different order due simply to orthographic errors in the transmission of the text of the Victorines, or did the Victorines find this different order already in their sources? The texts in the manuscripts of both Hugh and Andrew contain the different transliteration.377 376

Hugh, Pent., Paris, BnF, lat. 2092, fol. 109r; Andrew, Exod., ll. 2048–2053. In the body of the text to his edition of Andrew, Berndt chose to write the four letters of God’s name in the order in which they appear in that passage of the Masoretic Hebrew text, i.e. ioth, he, wau, heth. In the critical apparatus, however, he notes that all of Andrew’s manuscripts give the different transliteration: he, ioth, heth, vau. Almost all of Hugh’s manuscripts render the different transliteration as well: he, ioth, heth, uau (or vau): Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092, fol. 109r; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 15,695, fol. 82r; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 15,315, fol. 193r; Cambridge, Trinity College, MS 23 (B. 01. 25), fol. 52v; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 16,284, fol. 37r (he, ioth, heth, vahu); Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,507, fol. 157r; Charleville, B.M., MS 71, fol. 81v; Douai, B.M., MS 362, fol. 128v; Douai, B.M., MS 365, fol. 102v; Charleville, B.M., MS 166A, fol. 60r; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 13,422, fol. 39v; Vatican, 377

Chapter One

134

The Latin transcription of the Tetragrammaton – ‘the four Hebrew letters that form God’s name’ – is found in many other medieval Latin commentaries on the Bible, as well as in medieval glossaries. Jerome refers to it in three of his epistles. One of them is that addressed to Fabiola on the mystical meaning of the priestly garments. The other two are his letter 18A to Damasus (on Isaiah’s Seraphim) and his letter 25 to Marcella (on the ten names with which God is called among the Hebrews). In all of them, the transcription of the Tetragrammaton is given as ioth, he, uau, he. In Jerome’s letter 64 to Fabiola, the fourth letter is transliterated as heth, whereas in the other two, it is transliterated as he. In Jerome’s letter 18A to Damasus, the letter iod is repeated instead of the letter vav. 378 379 380 Jerome’s ep. 64 to Fabiola

Jerome’s ep. 25 to Marcella

Octaua est lamina aurea, id est ‘sis zaab’, in qua scriptum est nomen dei Hebraicis quattuor litteris ioth, he, uau, he, quod apud illos ineffabile nuncupatur.

Nonum tetragrammum, quod ἀνεκφώνητον, id est ineffabile, putauerunt et his litteris scribitur: iod, he, uau, he […].

The eighth [garment] is a golden plate, i.e. ‘sis zaab’ in which the name of God is written with the four Hebrew letters: ioth, he, uau, heth, which [name] is said among them [the Jews] to be unutterable.378

The ninth [name] is the tetragrammaton, which they thought to be ἀνεκφώνητον, i.e. unutterable, and is written with these letters: iod, he, vau, he.379

Jerome’s ep. 18A to Damasus Dominus quoque ipse hic quattuor litterarum est quod proprie in Deo ponitur: iod he iod he, id est duobus IA, quae duplicata ineffabile illud et gloriosum Dei nomen efficiunt. The very word ‘Lord’ here consists of the four letters properly used for God: iod, he, iod, he; that is JA repeated. These letters when doubled form the ineffable and glorious name of God.380

Other Latin sources containing the Latin transliteration of the Hebrew letters of God’s name are Bede, Pseudo-Bede, Hrabanus, and the Gloss. Pseudo-Bede’s text is closer in wording to the interpretations of the Gloss and of Andrew on Lev 8.9, Bibl. Apost., MS Vat. Lat., 13,014, fol. 182v; Vatican, Bibl. Apost., MS Urb. Lat. 108, fol. 203r. There are only two manuscripts that inverse the order of the last two letters rendering ‘he.ioth.vau.heth’ (Paris, BnF, MS lat. 7531, fol. 270r and BnF, MS lat. 345, fol. 158r, that renders hech instead of heth). 378 Jerome, Ep. ad Fabiolam 64.17. 379 Ep. ad Marcellam, 25.2. 380 Ep. ad Damasum 18A, 7: The Letters of St Jerome, 1–22, trans. C. C. Mierow, Intr. and notes: T. C. Lawler, Ancient Christian Writers, 33 (New York: Newman, 1963), I, p. 87.

The Latin Sources

 135

and it probably draws upon Jerome’s comment on that same passage of Leviticus in his Epistle to Fabiola.381 However, Pseudo-Bede’s text as it stands in the PL only renders the first three letters of God’s name. Nevertheless, these three letters are transcribed in the same order as the Hebrew Masoretic text. Therefore, PseudoBede’s cannot have been the source for the different transcription in the text of the Victorines. Hrabanus seems to have borrowed his transliteration from Bede’s De tabernaculo for his commentary on Exod 28.36. Since the two texts are identical in wording, I present here the version according to Bede’s text in the CCSL edition: 382 Sanctum autem domini quod in lammina sculpi iubetur nomen eius sanctum et uenerabile significat quod apud Hebraeos quattuor litteris uocalibus scribi solet, hoc est. ioth. he. uau. he, cuius interpretatio lingua eorum ineffabile sonat non quia dici non potest sed quia finiri sensu et intellectu creaturae nullius potest […].382

‘Holy of the Lord’, which is commanded to be engraved in the plate, signifies his ‘holy’ and ‘venerable’ name, which is usually written among the Hebrews with four vowels, that is, ioth, he, uau, he. The interpretation of this name in their tongue is said to be unutterable not because it cannot be uttered, but rather because no created sense or intellect can define it.

In contrast to the Victorines, both Bede and Hrabanus, like Jerome before them, transcribe the Hebrew letters of God’s name as the Masoretic text on Exod 28.36: ioth, he, uau, he. Therefore, it is clear that the Victorines did not inherit the different transliteration from these earlier Latin works. Where then did it come from? The key to answering this conundrum may be found in Jerome’s Epistle 25 to Marcella on the divine names in a passage following that quoted above. The complete citation runs as follows:

381

Pseudo-Bede, In Pentateuchum commentarii: Exodus, PL 91, col. 327C–D. Bede, De tabernaculo III, ll. 810–815; Hrabanus, Exod., PL 108, cols 200A–B. In the PL edition, the letters of God’s name are written in Hebrew characters. In all probability, modern editors have added these Hebrew letters. Indeed, instead of the Hebrew letters that are employed in the PL edition of the commentaries of Hrabanus Maurus on Judges and on the First and Second Books of Samuel, only transcriptions in Latin letters appear in one of the manuscripts of the commentaries of Hrabanus on these books (Dijon, B.M., MS 54). In like manner, the PL edition of Hugh’s Note on the Pentateuch and on the Former Prophets inserts Hebrew characters where all the manuscripts render only Latin transcriptions of the Hebrew. 382

136

Chapter One

383

Nonum tetragrammum, quod ἀνεκφώνητον, id est ineffabile, putauerunt et his litteris scribitur: iod, he, uau, he, quod quidam non intelligentes propter elementorum similitudinem, cum in Graecis libris reppererint, πι πι legere consueuerunt […].383

The ninth [name] is the tetragrammaton, which they thought to be ἀνεκφώνητον, i.e. unutterable, and is written with these letters: ioth, he, vau, he. When some [writers] found this in Greek books, not understanding it because of the likeness of one character to the other, they used to read πι πι.

In the first part of the appendix to Jerome’s works in PL 23 (iii), we learn of the existence of a series of Greek glosses on Hebrew names that were published from Greek manuscripts as an appendix to Jerome’s Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum.384 First Martianay, between the last decade of the seventeenth century and the first decade of the eighteenth century, and then Vallarsi, in the nineteenth century, edited these Greek glosses in their respective editions of Jerome’s works.385 Some of the glosses are devoted to God’s names in the Bible.386 Vallarsi explains that in Greek manuscripts the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew letters. Later, however, the Greek copyists, not understanding the Hebrew characters, took them for those Greek letters that in their alphabet were most similar to the Hebrew characters of the Tetragrammaton (ΠΙ ΠΙ).387 Indeed, in his Prologus Galeatus (the Preface to his translation of the Books of Samuel and Kings), Jerome asserts that even in his own time he could find Greek volumes where the four letters of God’s name were written in old characters.388 And in his letter 25 to Marcella above mentioned, Jerome states that some Greek readers (quidam) used to read those Hebrew characters ΠΙ ΠΙ as if the characters were Greek. They read the Hebrew letter he as their pi in both the second and the fourth positions of the name, and both the Hebrew letters waw and ioth as their Greek iota. Furthermore, instead of reading these four letters in the Hebrew direction of reading, i.e. from right to left, the first letter being the ioth in Hebrew (corresponding to the iotha in Greek), which would give ‘ioth he vau he’, the Greek copysts read them in the Greek direction of reading, i.e. from left to 383

Jerome, Ep. ad Marcellam 25.2. PL 23, appendix 1, cols 1145–1296. Some of these Greek glosses are published as anonymous whereas others are ascribed to Origen, Philon of Alexandria, or Josephus Flavius. 385 Ibid., 1143–44. 386 Ibid., 1269–82. 387 Ibid., 1271. 388 ‘Et nomen Domini tetragrammaton in quibusdam graecis voluminibus usque hodie antiquis expressum litteris invenimus.’ Biblia Sacra: liber Samuhelis, Prologus Galeatus, p. 4. 384

The Latin Sources

 137

right, in which case the first letter is the he in Hebrew (corresponding to the pi in Greek): this results in ‘he ioth he vau’. Therefore, the Victorines did not make a mistake in their transliteration of the Hebrew letters. They simply copied their transliteration of the Tetragrammaton from a source that read the Hebrew letters as if they were Greek. In addition, we must note that both Victorines add in their interpretation a comment that does not appear in the sources mentioned above. Both Hugh and Andrew include the phrase: ‘which is understood “he is the beginning of the passion”, i.e. ‘of life’.389 Where did the Victorines find this interpretation? If we turn to the parallel excerpt of the Gloss we see that, like Hugh and Andrew, it presents the letters of God’s name in the different order: he, ioth, heth, vau, instead of the transliteration in the Masoretic text ioth, he, vau, he. The author of the Gloss also, again like both Hugh and Andrew, transliterates heth, instead of he. Moreover, in the second part of the interpretation, the Gloss presents the allegorical comment on the Hebrew letters contained in both Hugh and Andrew: 390 Ineffabile nomen [Paris, Bibl. Ars., 47, BnF, lat. 14,400, Soissons, B.M., 71: nomen ineffabile] domini [Paris, Bibl. Ars., 47; Paris, BnF, lat. 14,400; Soissons, B.M., 71; Paris, Bibl. Maz., 131 om.] quattuor litterarum [Soissons, B.M., 71: litteris] constans [Paris, Bibl. Ars., 47; Soissons, B.M., 71; Paris, BnF, lat. 14,400; Paris, Bibl. Maz., 131: om.]: he scilicet quod interpretatur iste, ioth quod est principium, heth quod est passionis [Paris, Bibl. Ars., 47; Soissons, B.M., 71; Paris, BnF, lat. 14,400: eth], vau hoc est vitę. Quod totum sonat: iste principium passionis vitę, quia christus est principium vitę in adam amissę qua reparauit sua passione [Soissons, B.M., 71:‘Quod totum […] passione’ om.; Paris, BnF, lat. 14,400 quam reparavit […] passione om.; Christus nobis […] add.].394

389

The unutterable name of the Lord consists of four letters: he, which means ‘he’; ioth, which is ‘beginning’; heth, which is ‘passion’; vau, that is ‘life’. Put together this sounds out: ‘He is the beginning of the passion’, i.e. of life, because Christ is the beginning of the life which was lost in Adam, but which he restored by his passion.

‘quod interpretatur: Iste principium passionis uitae.’ Hugh and Andrew, ibid. Rush: Glossa ord. marg., Exod., p. 183; Paris, Bibl. Ars., MS 47, int., fol. 134; Soissons, B.M., MS 71, int. fol. 62r; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,400, fol. 110r; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 131, fol. 195v. 390

138

Chapter One

The allegorical interpretation of the Hebrew letters can be traced in part to Jerome’s letter 30 to Paula on the mystical meaning of the Hebrew alphabet,391 and for the first two Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton, the ioth and the first he, the Gloss adopts the interpretation found in this letter: the letter he means ‘this’, and the letter ioth means ‘beginning’.392 The interpretation of the other two letters, however, is different from that found in Jerome: whereas Jerome explains the meaning of the letter waw as ‘and’, and the letter heth as ‘life’, the Gloss, on the contrary, explains the meaning of the letter wau as ‘life’, and the meaning of the letter heth as ‘passion’. The Gloss is unique among the Latin sources thus far consulted in, like Hugh and Andrew, giving both the order he, ioth, heth, vau, the transliteration of the letter heth for the letter he, and the interpretation of the letter heth as ‘passion’. However, a portion of the interpretation in the Gloss is not found in Hugh’s (or Andrew’s) comment, namely the last part of its explanation of the allegorical meaning of the four letters that form God’s name: ‘Because Christ is the beginning of the life which was lost in Adam but which he restored by his passion’.393 Hugh, like Andrew, had only written: ‘He is the beginning of the passion, i.e. of life’. I have found the last part of the allegorical explanation not only in Rusch’s edition of the Gloss but also in the Gloss’s Paris, Bibl. Ars., MS 47, fol. 134 (interlinear gloss). However, the Gloss manuscript Soissons, B.M., 71 omits this last part of the allegorical explanation.394 It appears that the twelfth-century Gloss could not have borrowed this interpretation from Hugh since the Gloss has more text than the Victorine. On the other hand, Hugh may have borrowed his interpretation from one of the earlier types of glosses on Exodus prior to the standard twelfth-century Gloss. Pollitt, who does not restrict his analysis to the in hebreo interpretations, but whose research encompasses all of Hugh’s Note, points to further parallels between Hugh’s interpretations and interpretations of the Gloss.395 However, I have found no further 391

‘[…], HE “ista”, VAV “et”, ZAI “haec”, HETH “uita”, […], IOD “principium”, […]’ Jerome, Ad Paulam, 30.5. 392 Jerome (ibid.) uses ista (‘this’, or ‘these’) as opposed to the iste (‘he’) elsewhere. 393 ‘quia christus est principium vitę in adam amissę qua reparauit sua passione’. Rush: Glossa ord. marg., Exod., p. 183; cf. Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, p. 35. 394 Two words (domini, constans) and letters of this interpretation that are included in Rusch’s text are missing from Paris, Bibl. Ars., MS 47; others (nomen ineffabile) are rendered in an order different from that of Rusch, but the text is substantially the same in both. The Gloss manuscript Soissons, B.M., 71, fol. 62r, however, omits this last part of the allegorical explanation. 395 Pollitt supplies examples of parallel interpretations on the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Judges, in both his article (‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, pp. 34–35); and his dissertation Hugh as Biblical Exegete (pp. 149–66; and corresponding nn. 408–11, 413–15, 423–25, 441, 446–48, 451, 458–67, 476–86, 489–511, 514–23, 530–52, 556–62, 564–69, 572, 577–84).

The Latin Sources

 139

in hebreo references in Hugh’s commentaries on the Pentateuch and Judges, for which there is evidence of his dependence on a text of the twelfth-century Gloss. B. The Commentaries on Leviticus Hugh wrote one commentary on Leviticus. Andrew wrote two: the first is a wordfor-word paraphrase of Hugh’s commentary – Andrew himself expressly declares in his second commentary that he adopted the first from his master;396 while the second is original to Andrew. The first commentary contains ten references to the Hebrew text or Jewish traditions, of which at least one (Lev 1.1) and probably a second (Lev 27.28) are borrowed from Latin sources. Andrew’s second commentary on Leviticus contains nine references to the Hebrew or Jewish traditions, three of which are borrowed from Latin sources: the comments on Lev 1.1, 8.7 (1), and 8.7 (2). The Latin sources for the two in hebreo interpretations in the commentary which is common to Hugh and Andrew are Jerome’s Vulgate (for the interpretation on Lev 1.1) and an anonymous commentary on the literal sense of Leviticus (Hugh and Andrew on Lev 27.28). The Latin source for the three in hebreo interpretations in Andrew’s second commentary on Leviticus (Lev 1.1, 8.7, and 8.9) is the Gloss. 1. The Gloss I have collated Andrew’s in hebreo interpretations with their parallels in Rusch’s edition of the Gloss and with three of the Gloss’s manuscripts on Leviticus: Rouen, B.M, 41/A. 326, originally from Fécamp and dated to between 1140 and 1150; Paris, BnF, lat. 14,771 (from 1150); and Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 132.397 Andrew’s interpretation of the title of Leviticus (Lev 1.1) in his second commentary treats the meaning of that title in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin: This book is called in Hebrew Vagecra, in Greek Leviticus, in Latin ‘oblatory’ or ‘sacrificial’ because it deals with sacrifices and ceremonies.398

In fact, Andrew probably borrowed this interpretation from the Gloss as can be seen by a comparison of the nearly identical wording of the two texts:399 396

‘Et quoniam magna ex parte huius libri explanationem, […], secundum alios, qui ab Hebraeis, sicut et nos, litteralem sensum pentateuchi edocti sunt, nullis penitus mutatis, supra posuimus, nunc litterae, quam illi indiscussam reliquerunt insistamus’. Andrew, Lev. II, ll. 503–507. 397 For the dating of the manuscripts, cf. Stirnemann, ‘les livres’, pp. 226–227 and Tischler, ‘Dekonstruktion eines Mythos’, p. 61. 398 Andrew, Lev. II, ll. 499–501. 399 Berndt, ‘Les interprétations juives’, no. 177, p. 231, points to Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus and Isidore’s Etym. VI, i. 4 as Andrew’s sources for this interpretation. However, Jerome’s Prologus

Chapter One

140 400

Andrew Liber iste dicitur hebraice Vagecra, graece ‘Leuiticus’, latine ‘offertorius’ uel ‘sacrificatiuus’, quia de sacrificiis agit et caerimoniis.

The Gloss Vaietra, alias vayqra hebraicę, leuiticus grece et latine offertorius vel sacrificatiuus quia de sacrificiis et cerimoniis agit.400

This in hebreo interpretation appears in Rusch’s edition of the Gloss and in the Gloss Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 132 (first quarter of thirteenth century), fol. 1r.401 However, it is absent from the manuscripts of the Gloss on Leviticus Rouen, B.M, MS 41/A. 326 and Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,771. Lev 8.9 In the commentaries of both Hugh and Andrew on Exod 28.36, which we have analysed above,402 the Victorines refer to the golden plate which is to be worn upon Aaron’s forehead when ministering before God, and to the Hebrew letters of God’s name written on it. Lev 8.9 relates how Moses puts the golden plate on Aaron’s head. In his interpretation of the verse, Andrew writes: The eighth [garment] is a golden plate, in which the Lord’s name is written with the four Hebrew letters: ioth, he, uau, heth, which name is said among them [the Jews] to be unutterable.403

I have found this interpretation in three other Latin commentaries: Jerome’s Epistle to Fabiola on the allegorical meaning of the priestly garments cited above, Pseudo-Bede on Exod 28.36, and the Gloss on Lev 8.9. The final sentence contained in the texts of Jerome, the Gloss, and Andrew is absent in Pseudo-Bede’s version, and therefore the latter may be discounted as Andrew’s source for this interpretation.404 The original source for all the three texts is Jerome’s Epistle to Fabiola. Below, I contrast Jerome’s text on the one hand, and those of the Gloss and Andrew on the other, highlighting the variants between Jerome’s text and those of Andrew and the Gloss. Galeatus furnishes only the transliteration and translation of Vagecra, not the remainder of the text common to both Andrew and the Gloss. 400 ‘Vaietra, elsewhere [it is called] in Hebrew vayqra, in Greek Leviticus, and in Latin ‘oblatory’ or ‘sacrificial’ because it deals with sacrifices and ceremonies.’ Glossa ord. marg, Lev., p. 209. 401 ‘Vagechra ebraice leviticus grece et latine offertorius uel sacrificativus quia de sacrificiis et cerimoniis agit’. 402 See above, pp. 132–138. 403 Andrew, Lev. II, ll. 715–717. For the Latin text, see the comparative chart. 404 Pseudo-Bede, In Pentateuchum Commentarii: In Exodum, PL 91, col. 327C–D.

The Latin Sources

 141

Since the content of the three texts is nearly identical, and I have just supplied the translation of Andrew’s text, I shall only transcribe the Latin texts of Andrew, Jerome’s Epistle, and that of the Gloss. The interpretation appears in Rusch’s edition of the Gloss and in Rouen, MS 41/A. 326, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,771, and Bibl. Maz., MS 132. 405 406 407 Jerome’s ep. to Fabiola Octaua est lamina aurea, id est ‘sis zaab’, in qua scriptum est nomen dei Hebraicis quattuor litteris ioth, he, uau, he, quod apud illos ineffabile n u n c u p a t u r .405

The Gloss

Andrew

Octaua est lamina aurea in qua scriptum est nomen domini quattuor h e b r a i c i s litteris ioth, he, vau, h e t h . quod apud illos ineffabile d i c i t u r .406

Octaua est lamina aurea, in qua scriptum est nomen Domini quattuor h e b r a i c i s litteris ioth, he, uau, h e t h . Quod apud illos ineffabile d i c i t u r   […].407

There are five variants between the text of Jerome and those of Andrew and the Gloss, in all five of which Andrew’s text accords exactly with that of the Gloss. First, neither the Gloss nor Andrew takes from Jerome the transliteration of the Hebrew name zitz zahav ( Jerome: sis zaab). Secondly, both the Gloss and Andrew render Domini instead of Jerome’s Dei. Thirdly, both the Gloss and Andrew write dicitur (‘it is said’) against the nuncupatur (‘it is called’) of Jerome’s text. In Andrew’s critical edition, Rusch’s edition of the Gloss, and the Gloss Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 132, the last Hebrew letter of God’s name is transcribed incorrectly as heth instead of he, which is the letter written in the Hebrew text. Finally, the compiler of the Gloss accords with Andrew in having written two words of the interpretation (viz., hebraicis and quattuor) in an order different from that of Jerome’s text. This comparison between the texts of Andrew and the Gloss and that of Jerome leads to the conclusion that the Victorine drew his interpretation from the latter and not from the Hieronymian epistle. In his interpretation of Lev 8.7, Andrew deals with the two stones upon the shoulders of the ephod. Andrew draws on the Gloss for his interpretation:

405

Jerome, Ep. ad Fabiolam 64.17, p. 604. Rush: Glossa ord. marg., Lev., p. 228; Rouen, MS 41/A. 326, fol. 29v; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,471, fol. 37r–37v, Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 132, fol. 22v; Rouen, MS 41/A. 326 omits litteris and writes ioht instead of ioth. BnF, MS lat. 14,471 presents only the initial letter h. instead of either he or heth. 407 Andrew, Lev. II, ll. 715–717. 406

142

Chapter One

408

Habebat superhumerale contra utrumque sacerdotis humerum duos lapides, quos Iosephus sardios uocat, cum hebraeo consentiens, ut colorem lapidum uel patriam demonstret auro inclusos […].408

The ephod had upon both of the priest’s shoulders two stones, which Iosephus, agreeing with the Hebrew, calls carnelians enclosed in gold, so as to represent either the colour of the stones or the native land.

From Andrew’s words, it might appear that he himself contrasted two texts concerning the names of the stones upon the ephod: the Hebrew text and the text of Iosephus Flavius. That this was not so is clear from a comparison of the interpretations of this passage in the various Latin sources with Andrew’s commentary. Josephus Flavius refers to the two stones enclosed in gold upon the ephod in Jewish Antiquities III.7. Since, as we shall see in the second chapter, Andrew knew no Greek, he must have read Josephus’s work in the Latin translation produced at the end of the sixth century at the instigation of Cassiodore.409 Indeed, the number of extant manuscripts of this work and the fact that the library of St Victor possessed one of the many copies datable to the twelfth century makes it very likely that Andrew had direct access to this work.410411 Superhumerale vero duo sardonychi lapides infiblant per singulos humeros auro clausi […].411

Indeed, two sardonyx stones enclosed in gold clasp the ephod one on each shoulder.

Josephus calls the stones sardonychi lapides (‘sardonyx stones’), and not sardii (‘carnelians’) as we read in Andrew’s commentary: in each case a quite different stone is specified as having been placed in the vestment of the Israelite priest. The Hebrew word for the two stones upon the ephod is shoham, which the Vulgate usually translates as onyx,412 and occasionally as sardonix, which is the reading found in 408

Andrew, Lev. II, ll. 694–696. Cassiodorus, Institutiones I. 17, 1, ed. R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937), p. 55; Blatt, The Latin Josephus I: The Antiquities books I–V, pp. v, xii, xvii; cf. H. Schreckenberg, Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und Textkritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 1977), p. 58. 410 Berndt, André de Saint-Victor, p. 222; Blatt, The Latin Josephus I, p. l; cf. intr. to the present chapter, p. 50, and nn. 25–26. Andrew draws on Josephus’s Jewish Antiquitites and mentions him by name in numerous interpretations in his commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus (cf. Lohr and Berndt, Super Heptateuchum, Index locorum auctorum, pp. 238–39), as well as in interpretations of his commentaries on the First and Second Books of Samuel (Van Liere, In Librum Regum, ‘Index auctorum’, p. 153). 411 Josephus Flavius, Ant. Iud. III, ch. 7.5; Blatt, The Latin Josephus I, III, 7.5. 412 E.g. Gen 2.12; Exod 25.7; 28.20; 35.9, 27; 39.6, 13; Ezek 28.13; 1 Chr 29.2. 409

The Latin Sources

 143

the Latin Josephus.413 Andrew’s sardii (‘carnelians’), however, nowhere stands for shoham, but is the Vulgate’s translation of the Hebrew odem (‘carnelian’), a different precious stone which is the first one of the first row of stones set in the breastplate of judgment.414 Did Andrew make an orthographic mistake when he copied the translation, or did he find the incorrect translation already in his source? The assertion that the name of the stones in Josephus Flavius agrees with that in the Hebrew text is not original to Andrew. Indeed, it can be traced to Jerome’s Epistle 64 to Fabiola, and is also found in Pseudo-Bede and in the Gloss (Rusch’s edition and the three consulted manuscripts).415 The content is substantially the same in the four sources. Jerome’s text, however, is longer than the texts of the other sources. Pseudo-Bede’s version depends on Jerome’s text; it may, however, be discounted as the source for either Andrew or the Gloss, since the latter preserve elements from Jerome that are not contained in Pseudo-Bede’s text. Below, I translate only Jerome’s text and transcribe the Latin text of both Andrew and the Gloss. 416 417 Jerome In each one of the shoulders, [the ephod] has one stone enclosed and set in gold, which are called ‘soom’ in Hebrew, ‘onyx’, by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, [and] ‘emerald’ by the Septuagint; Iosephus, agreeing with the Hebrew and with Aquila, calls them ‘sardonyx’ so as to represent either the colour of the stones or the native land.416 Jerome

The Gloss

Andrew

In utroque umero habet singulos lapides clusos et adstrictos auro, qui Hebraice uocantur ‘soom’, ab Aquila et Symmacho et Theodotione onychini, a Septuaginta zmaragdi; Iosephus sardonichas uocat cum Hebraeo Aquilaque consentiens, ut uel colorem lapidum uel patriam demonstraret.

In vtroque humero singuli lapides clausi auro astricti, qui hebraicę dicuntur soom, ab aquila et symacho et theodotione onichini, a Septuaginta smaragdi. Iosephus s a r d i o s vocat cum hebręo consentiens, ut colorem lapidum v e l patriam d e m o n s t r e t .417

Habebat superhumerale contra utrumque sacerdotis humerum duos lapides, quos Iosephus s a r d i o s uocat, cum hebraeo consentiens, ut colorem lapidum u e l patriam d e m o n s t r e t auro inclusos.

413

E.g. Job 28.16. Exod 28.17; 39.10; Ezek 28.13. 415 Pseudo-Bede, In Pentateuchum Commentarii: In Exodum, PL 91, col. 327A. 416 Jerome, Ad Fabiolam, Ep. 64.15, p. 602. 417 Rush: Glossa ord. marg., Lev., p. 228; Rouen, MS 41/A. 326, fol. 29r; Paris, BnF, MS lat. 14,771, fol. 36r; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 132, fol. 22v. 414

Chapter One

144

The Gloss cannot have drawn this interpretation from Andrew, for it preserves elements from Jerome’s text that are simply not present in the text of the Victorine. Thus, the Gloss adopts from Jerome the reference to the textual variant of the Septuagint as well as to those in Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, whereas the references to these textual variants do not appear in Andrew’s text. It seems rather that Andrew drew on the Gloss. While Jerome, like Josephus, names the stones sardonichae, Andrew names them sardii, which is the translation in the Gloss. In addition, Andrew renders other words and phrases in a wording identical to that of the Gloss, in contrast to the wording of these words and phrases in Jerome’s text. For instance, Andrew writes ‘demonstret’, in present conjunctive, like the Gloss, in contrast to the imperfect conjunctive ‘demostraret’ in Jerome’s text. Likewise, Andrew writes the particle uel once after the conjunction ‘ut’, again like the Gloss, instead of writing it twice, as does Jerome. Hence, we may conclude that the Gloss was Andrew’s source for this interpretation. 2. Jerome’s Vulgate The reference to the Hebrew text in Hugh’s interpretation of Lev 1.1 (that Andrew adopts) reads: 418 Liber Leuiticus hebraice uagecra dicitur, quod sic sonat ac si diceretur: ‘Vocauit.’

The Book of Leuiticus is called in Hebrew uagecra, which sounds as though ‘He called [uocauit]’ were said.422

The source of this interpretation is probably Jerome’s Vulgate, either the incipit of the translation of Leviticus or the preface of the translation of Samuel and Kings, where Jerome transliterates and interprets the Hebrew titles of the different biblical books. The incipit of the Vulgate’s translation of Leviticus reads: Biblia Sacra: Exodus and Leviticus, p. 339 Incipit liber uaiecra id est leuiticus. Vocavit autem […].

418

Here begins the Book Vaiecra, that is Leviticus. ‘And He called […]’.

Hugh, Pent., Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092, fol. 110v; Andrew, Lev., ll. 4–5.

The Latin Sources

 145

In the preface of the translation of Samuel and Kings (also called Prologus ‘Galeatus’), Jerome makes it explicit that this is the title according to the Hebrews: 419

Prologus Galeatus Primus apud eos liber vocatur Bresith, quem nos Genesim dicimus; […]; tertius Vaiecra, id est Leviticus; […].

The first book among them [i.e., the Jews] is named Bereshit, which we call Genesis; […] the third [is] Vaiecra, that is Leviticus.419

3. The Anonymous Commentary on the Literal Sense of Leviticus Beryl Smalley discovered an anonymous commentary on the literal sense of Leviticus which she styles ‘X’.420 The commentary is composed of two sorts of glosses: (a) traditional glosses of an allegorical kind, which she considers as belonging to one of the early compilations of glosses that were superseded by the official twelfthcentury Gloss; (b) glosses on the litteral sense of Leviticus which the anonymous author added to the traditional glosses.421 The commentary contains references to the Jews, to the Hebrew text, and to Jewish traditions.422 Smalley dates this commentary to before the middle and after the first decade of the twelfth century.423 She furnishes two arguments for her dating: (a) the earliest of the two manuscripts in which it has been preserved can be dated to the mid-twelfth century or earlier; (b) this anonymous author shows knowledge of some doctrinal Christian teachings which became common opinion only by the mid-twelfth century.424 According to Smalley, the author of this work shows no knowledge of either Hugh’s commentaries or Andrew’s.425 Among the in hebreo interpretations of this anonymous author transcribed in Smalley’s article, however, I have found two that are similar to interpretations of the Victorines. The first, on Lev 27.16, is parallel to the interpretation of Lev 27.28, which is found in both Hugh and Andrew. The second, on Lev 4.7, is strikingly close in content and wording to several interpretations of Andrew’s second commentary on Leviticus. 419

Biblia Sacra: Prologus Galeatus, p. 5. Smalley, ‘An Early Twelfth-Century Commentator on the Literal Sense of Leviticus’ in Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 36 (1969), pp. 78–99 (78). 421 Ibid., p. 82. 422 Ibid., pp. 83–89. 423 Ibid., pp. 82–83. 424 One of the views that had become common opinion by the mid-twelfth century and that he takes for granted is that circumcision remitted original sin under the Old Law as baptism does under the New: ibid., p. 93. 425 Ibid., p. 82. 420

Chapter One

146

If indeed the anonymous author of this Leviticus commentary drew upon neither of the Victorines, the question arises whether, in fact, Hugh or Andrew made use of him. The interpretation of Hugh (that Andrew transmits) of Lev 27.28–29 reads as follows: Everything that is consecrated to the Lord be it either a man or an animal. This consecration is called in Hebrew ‘anathematization’, because these things were set aside from the common use of men. Whatever was consecrated to the Lord in this way – because no ransoming could give it back to men even if a father has consacrated his son – should die before being ransomed, and this is [the meaning of ] but shall surely be put to death.426

The anonymous author puts forward the same idea in very similar wording in his interpretation of Lev 27.16: In fact, this difference of consecration is plainly shown in the Hebrew books. These render cothex, which may be understood as ‘holy’ where the matter discussed is the consecrated things that can be redeemed. In contrast, where the subject under consideration is those consecrated things that cannot be redeemed, they render herhun, which means ‘anathema’, i.e. separated from the common use.427

The distinction between two kinds of consecrated things, those that could be redeemed, and those that could not, as well as the use of the Latin anathema/ anathematizare for the latter can be found in other Latin commentaries on Leviticus, such as that of Hrabanus Maurus.428 Hrabanus, however, does not ascribe the translation anathema to the Hebrew, as the Victorines and our anonymous author do. Besides, Hrabanus does not render the meaning of anathema as ‘something removed from the common use of men’ that is shared by the Victorines and the anonymous author: Hugh and Andrew anathematizatio, quia ista a communi

hominum usu remouebatur;

426

Anonymous author anathema, id est ab usu communi

separatum.

Hugh, Pent., Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092, fol. 118r; Andrew, Lev., ll. 478–483. For the Latin text, see the comparative chart on the following page. 427 Oxford, Bodl., MS Laud. lat. 14 (L), fol. 112vb, quoted in Smalley, ‘An Early Twelfth-Century Commentator on the Literal Sense of Leviticus’, p. 89. 428 Hrabanus, Lev., PL 108, cols 575B–D, 582B–C; cf. Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, p. 29.

The Latin Sources

 147

I print the Latin texts of Hugh and Andrew, the anonymous author, and Hrabanus Maurus below for a conspectus: Hugh and Andrew on Lev 27.28

Anonymous author on Lev 27.16

Hrabanus on Lev 27.28

Omne quod Domino consecratur siue homo siue animal. I s t a consecratio in hebraeo dicitur ‘ a n a t h e m a t i z a t i o ’, quia ista a c o m muni hominum usu rem o u e b atur. Quicquid hoc modo sacrabatur Domino – quod nulla redemptione p o t e r a t r e u e r t i ad hominem etiam si pater consecrasset filium –, prius moreretur, quam redimeretur; et hoc est morte morietur […].

H e c vero diversitas consecrationis aperte declaratur in hebreis codicibus, qui habent cothex, quod sanctum interpretatur, ubi de rebus agitur consecratis, que redimi possunt. Ubi autem agitur de illis q u e n o n possunt redimi, habent herhun, quod interpretatur a n a t h e m a , id est a b u s u c o m m u n i separatum.

Omne quod Domino consecratur, sive homo erit sive animal, […] Ergo aliud est sanctificare Deo, licet enim ei qui sanctificavit, hoc modo utique nunc nobis legislator ostendit; aliud est anathema quid facere. Hujus enim usus prohibitus est. […] Quae differentia est inter anathematizare et sanctificare secundum litteram per ea quae superius discussa sunt ostendimus, ubi hoc quod anathematizatum est nullo modo in usum humanum, nullius, ne quidem sacerdotis, fas esse reverti, diximus, […].

Despite the common elements between the interpretation of the Victorines and that of the anonymous author, the two texts present significant differences: while Hugh and Andrew refer to the second kind of consecration as anathematizatio, the anonymous author calls it anathema. Whereas our author refers to hebreis codicibus, Hugh and Andrew employ simply the expression in hebreo. In contrast to the Victorines, the anonymous author transliterates, albeit incorrectly, the Hebrew words codesh (cothex) and cherem (herhun). Therefore, the two texts are not similar enough to enable us to draw the conclusion that the Victorines took their interpretation from the anonymous author. Indeed, both may have drawn from a common earlier Latin or Jewish source. The second interpretation is that of the anonymous author on Lev 4.7. As the idea contained in it is found in several Jewish contemporary sources, I shall deal with this in the third chapter. Indeed both the anonymous author and Andrew may have drawn on Jewish sources.

Chapter One

148

There are other interpretations in the commentary of the anonymous author which do not refer to the Hebrew or to Jewish traditions, but which are parallel to interpretations of the Victorines; for example, Andrew’s interpretation of Lev 7.1 in his second commentary on Leviticus is identical in content, though not in wording, to that of the anonymous commentator on Lev 6.17. 429 430 Andrew ad Lev 7.1 Pro delicto. […] Quidam tamen dicunt

esse delictum, cum non facimus, quod debemus; peccatum cum facimus, quod non debemus […].433

X ad Lev 6.17 erit sicut pro peccato. Peccatum est quando

committitur illud quod est prohibitum velut furtum; delictum est quando deseritur illud quod preceptum est, velut Deum diligere et parentes honorare; […].434

In any event, even if the Victorines are not dependent on the commentary of the anonymous author, this twelfth-century commentary on Leviticus attests that consultation of Jews by Christians for in hebreo translations or Jewish traditions was not a rare phenomenon in the twelfth century, only seen in Hugh and Andrew of St Victor, but it is rather a phenomenon which is documented in other contemporary authors. C. The Commentaries on Judges Only two of the Latin commentaries on Judges prior to the Victorines that I have analysed contain in hebreo interpretations: viz., the Commentary on the Song of Debborah and the Gloss.431 However, none of the references to the Hebrew or to Jewish traditions in these two works appears in the Victorine commentaries.

429

Andrew, Lev. II, ll. 630–633. Oxford, Bodl., MS Laud. lat. 14 (L), fol. 48va, on Lev 6.17, quoted in Smalley, ‘An Early Twelfth-Century Commentator on the Literal Sense of Leviticus’, p. 86. 431 Many manuscripts of Jerome’s QHG subjoin to this work the Commentarius in Canticum Debborae (‘Commentary on the Song of Debborah’, PL 23, cols 1321D–1328D) together with another work entitled Decem Tentationes Populi Israel in Deserto (‘The Ten Temptations of the People of Israel in the Desert’, PL 23, cols 1319A–1322D). Both works were falsely ascribed to Jerome probably because they contain references to the Hebrew text or Jewish interpretations. In fact, however, both the author and the time of the composition of these works are unknown, though they appear already quoted in ninth-century Latin commentaries such as those of Hrabanus Maurus (see the brief notice preceding the two commentaries The Ten Temptations of the People of Israel in the Desert and the Commentary on the Song of Debborah in PL 23, cols 1317–1318; cf. Merhavia, The Church versus Talmudic and Midrashic Literature, pp. 29, 42). The Gloss (Glossa ord. Iud., pp. 471–502) incorporates verbatim many of the references to the Hebrew and to Jewish interpretations from the Commentary on the Song of Debborah. 430

The Latin Sources

 149

The commentaries of Hugh and Andrew on the Book of Judges contain ten references to the Hebrew text, the Hebrew language, or to Jewish interpretations. Nine of the ten references appear in the commentaries of both Victorines; the remaining two are found in that of Hugh alone. Among these references, I have found only one in earlier Latin sources: viz., the comment on Judg 1.1, which is one of the two interpretations which appears only in Hugh’s commentary but not in Andrew’s. Hugh writes: 432 Liber iudicum qui hebraice sopthim dicitur.432

The Book of Judges, which in Hebrew is called Sopthim.

Most likely, Hugh borrows his interpretation on Judg 1.1 from one of Jerome’s several prefaces in the Vulgate, where the Church father transliterates and interprets the Hebrew titles of the different biblical books. The incipit of the Vulgate’s translation of the Book of Judges reads: Biblia Sacra: Judges, p. 221 [Here] begins the Book Sopthim, i.e. of Judges.

‘Sopthim id est Iudicum’.

In the Prologus Galeatus, Jerome makes it explicit that this is the title according to the Hebrews: 433 Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus Primus apud eos liber vocatur Bresith [sic], quem nos Genesim dicimus; […] Deinde subtexunt Sopthim, id est Iudicum librum; […].433

The first [book] among them is named Bereshit, which we call Genesis; […] Thereafter, they subjoin Sopthim, i.e. the Book of Judges.

III. The Latin Sources of the Commentaries on the First and Second Books of Samuel The commentaries of Hugh and Andrew on the First Book of Samuel contain in total sixty-two in hebreo interpretations: either references to the Hebrew text or to Jewish traditions. Andrew’s commentary on the Second Book of Samuel contains twenty-four in hebreo interpretations. 432

Hugh, Pent., Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092, fol. 122r. Biblia Sacra: Samuel I, pp. 5–6.

433

150

Chapter One

Of the sixty-two in hebreo interpretations in the commentaries on the First Book of Samuel, the Victorines draw fifteen from their Latin sources. Hugh borrows one: 1 Sam 1.1; whereas Andrew borrows fourteen: 1 Sam 1.3, 5, 24, 26; 2.5 (a), (b); 6.19; 9.19; 17.54; 21.7; 28.6 (a); 28.6 (b); and 31.10 (= 1 Chr 10.10). Of the twenty-four in hebreo interpretations in the commentaries of Hugh and Andrew on the Second Book of Samuel, Andrew takes eighteen from Latin sources: 2 Sam 2.8, 9; 5.23; 7.23; 11.1; 12.30; 13.39; 15.7; 16.17; 17.10; 19.24, 29; 20.18; 21.20; 23.8 (b); 23.20 (a); 23.21; and 24.15 (= 1 Chr 21.5). In contrast, none of Hugh’s in hebreo interpretations in his commentary on the Second Book of Samuel appears in an earlier Latin source. The Latin sources of the fifteen in hebreo interpretations in the Victorine commentaries on the First Book of Samuel include Jerome (1 Sam 1.3 and 1.26); Bede (1 Sam 1.1); Pseudo-Jerome (1 Sam 1.5); and the Gloss (1 Sam 9.19, 17.54, 21.7, 28.6 (a), and 28.6 (b)). The Latin source of the eighteen in hebreo interpretations in Andrew’s commentary on the Second Book of Samuel is exclusively the Gloss (2 Sam 2.8, 9; 5.23; 7.23; 11.1; 12.30; 13.39; 15.7; 16.17; 17.10; 19.24; 19.29; 20.18; 21.20; 23.8 (b); and 23.20 (a)). Though they are found in several Latin sources, and are to be traced to Latin and not Jewish authorship, there is no clear evidence for determining the exact source of Andrew’s interpretations of 1 Sam 1.24; 2.5(a), (b); and 31.10 (= 1 Chr 10.10), 2 Sam 23.21; and 24.15 (= 1 Chr 21.5). A. Bede Bede was a direct source for Hugh of St Victor’s Note on the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. Moreover, the English exegete is one of the three sources (the others being Jerome and Gregory the Great) whom Hugh mentions by name in this work.434 Indeed, Bede’s name is mentioned twice, each time introducing a quotation from Bede’s Hexaemeron.435 Pollitt notes that other interpretations in Hugh’s Note, though they may not refer explicitly to Bede by name, are very similar to other exegetical comments in Bede’s works; he concludes that Hugh probably borrowed them from Bede.436 I have examined most of the parallel quotations between Bede and Hugh pointed out by Pollitt. There is not the same degree of certainty in all cases with respect to Hugh’s dependence on Bede. Pollitt twice refers to five of Hugh’s

434

Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, p. 10. Ibid., p. 11. The two quotations are in Hugh, Pent.,PL 175, cols 35A–B, from Bede, In Gen. I, i, ll. 252–259; and Hugh, Pent., PL 175, col. 39D, from Bede, In Gen. I, ii, ll. 1521–1523. 436 Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, pp. 12–18. 435

The Latin Sources

 151

interpretations which in his view were borrowed from Bede.437 However, in fact, Bede did not compose those interpretations; rather they are part of the anonymous Pentateuch commentary printed in PL 91, cols 189–394.438 Nevertheless, Hugh could perhaps have regarded this work as having been composed by Bede, since there are manuscripts from the ninth and the twelfth centuries, as well as ninth-century catalogues that ascribe it to the English Church father.439 Of the authentically Bedan interpretations, many evince similarities to Hugh’s parallel annotations, and although they are not identical in wording, but reveal similarities only in content, Hugh’s borrowing from Bede seems at least quite plausible.440 There are other examples, however, where Hugh’s dependence on Bede is more clearly evident;441 and I am certain of Hugh’s borrowing from Bede of at least one interpretation: his comment on Gen 11.28, which he draws from Bede’s Commentary on Genesis.442 Hugh seems to rely on Bede also for his in hebreo interpretation of 1 Sam 1.1. Hugh writes: 443 Ramathaim, sicut in hebreo, uel ut quidam arimathaim, unde arimathia in euangelio.443

Ramathaim, as in the Hebrew text, or as some [say] arimathaim, whence arimathia in the Gospel.

By means of the Latin indefinite pronoun quidam (‘some’), Hugh refers rather vaguely to one or more of his Latin sources. We do not know who was the precise Latin author (or authors) whom Hugh had in mind, yet there are indeed several 437

Pollitt (‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, p. 14) refers for instance to the comments of both Bede (Pseudo-Bede, according to M. Gorman) and Hugh on Exod 3.5 (Hugh, PL 175, col. 62B, and PseudoBede, PL 91, col. 294B), Exod 4.10 (Hugh, PL 175, col. 62C–D, and Pseudo-Bede, PL 91, col. 297B), and Exod 6.8 (Hugh, PL 175, col. 63B, and Pseudo-Bede, PL 91, col. 298D). Later (p. 17), Pollit refers to the interpretation of Gen 22.2 (Hugh, PL 175, col. 53B, and Pseudo-Bede, PL 91, col. 244C). 438 M. Gorman, ‘The Commentary on the Pentateuch Attributed to Bede in PL 91.189–394’, ­Revue bénédictine, 106 (1996), 61–108 (p. 64). Gorman presents arguments against Bede’s authorship of that commentary (ibid., 64), concluding that the commentary was produced in Spain sometime between the last half of the seventh century and the year 800 (ibid., 67; see also the second part of the article: id., ‘The commentary on the Pentateuch attributed to Bede in PL 91.189–394’, Revue bénédictine, 106 (1996), 255–307 (p. 257). 439 Gorman, ibid., pp. 73 and 255. 440 Cf. the comments of Bede and Hugh on Gen 4.3–4 (Hugh, Pent., PL 175, col. 44A–B; Bede, In Gen. II, iv, ll. 37–40); or their comments on Gen 5.29 (Hugh, Pent., PL 175, col. 45C–D; Bede, In Gen. II, v, ll. 889–892). 441 Hugh is likely to have borrowed from Bede his interpretation of Gen 7.2 (Hugh, Pent., PL 175, col. 47A–B; Bede, In Gen. II, vii, ll. 1446–1455). Similarly, Hugh’s comment on 1 Kgs 6.9 (Reg. III, PL 175. col. 106C–D) is probably taken from Bede (In Regum Librum xxx Quaestiones: XIII, 305, ll. 7–10). 442 Hugh, Pent., PL 175, col. 50B–C; Bede, In Gen. III, xi, ll. 837–840. 443 Hugh, Reg. I, Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2092, fol. 129r, and Paris, BnF, MS lat. 15,315, fol. 198v.

Chapter One

152

Latin commentaries prior to Hugh that point out the existence of two textual variants for the name Ramathaim in different Latin manuscripts. The two commentaries most relevant for our discussion here are those of Angelom of Luxeuil and the Gloss. 444 Intra cunctas namque tribus habitationem Levitarum fuisse non dubium est Ramathaim, ipsa est quae in Evangeliis Arimathia legitur, de qua fuisse Joseph eadem Evangelia comprobant. Est enim civitas in regione Thamnitica, juxta Diospolim. De qua notandum est, quod juxta Hebraicam veritatem non Ramathaim, sed Armatha sive Aramathaim (sicut in libris locorum legimus) habetur. Similiter etiam interpretationibus Hebraicorum nominum Aramathaim reperitur, quod nos ita legendum non dubitamus, unde et Armathia nuncupatur, et interpretatur excelsa duo vel eorum […].444

For indeed there is no doubt that from among all the tribes, the dwelling-place of the Levites was Ramathaim; this is the very city that is called in the Gospels ‘Arimathia’; the same Gospels confirm that this is where Joseph was from. In fact, this city is located in the Thamnitic region, close to Diospolim. It should be noted that, according to ‘the Hebrew truth’, the name of this city is not written ‘Ramathaim’, but ‘Armatha’ or ‘Aramathaim’ (as we read in the Books of Places). Likewise, ‘Aramathaim’ is found in [ Jerome’s book on] ‘The Interpretations of Hebrew Names’, for which reason we do not doubt that this is to be read so; hence it is also called Armathia and explained as ‘two high places’ or ‘their high places’.

The Gloss provides two interpretations of this place-name, both on the same page, one in the left margin, and the other in the right: Glossa ord. marg., Reg. I, p. 3: the left margin

Glossa ord. marg., Reg. I, p. 3: the right margin

Armathaim uel ramathaim. Interpretatur ‘excelsa duo’ ut duę intellegantur tribus: regalis scilicet et sacerdotalis ex quibus extitit pater eius et mater’. Armathaim or ramathaim is translated as Ramathaim. Or. or armathaim, as it is written in other books, is translated as ‘their ‘two elevated positions’ so that the two tribes may be understood: i.e. the kingly height’. tribe and the priestly tribe, to which his father and mother belonged. Ramathaim. Or. siue armathaim, quod in aliis codicibus habetur: altitudo eorum interpretatur.

444

Angelom, Reg. I, PL 115, col. 249B–C.

The Latin Sources

 153

The ‘other books’ alluded to by the Gloss refer to Jerome’s Liber de situ et nominibus (‘Book of Places’), which Angelom mentions explicitly. The relevant passage in this work, which is known to be Jerome’s Latin translation of Eusebius’s Onomasticon, reads: 445 Armathem Sophim, civitas Helcanae et Samuelis (in regione Thamnitica), juxta Diospolim, unde fuit Joseph, qui in Evangeliis de Arimathia scribitur.445

Armathem Sophim: the city of Elcanah and Samuel, in the Thamnitic region, close to Diospolim, where the Joseph who in the Gospels is said to be from Arimathia was from.

Both Eusebius’s Onomasticon in the original Greek and Jerome’s translation of it into Latin render the place-name as Armathen.446 However, Angelom betrays his ignorance of the Hebrew text when he states: ‘according to “the Hebrew truth”, the name of this city is not written Ramathaim, but Armatha or Aramathaim’, for, on the contrary, the textual variant thought to be in the Masoretic Hebrew text is indeed none other than Ramathaim. The fact that Aramathaim or Armathem is the variant in Jerome’s Liber de situ et nominibus led Angelom to consider it too as the variant extant in the Hebrew text. Contrary to Angelom’s statement, however, Jerome’s Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum does not render Aramathaim, but Ramathaim, as does the Masoretic text,447 though it is possible that Angelom’s version of Jerome’s work could indeed have presented him with Aramathaim. As has been shown then, Hugh’s linking of the name Arimathaim in 1 Sam 1.1 to the Gospels’ place-name Arimathia came from ultimately Eusebius’s Onomasticon and Jerome’s translation of it. It is ultimately to this source that the references to the place-name in other Latin commentaries, such as those of Angelom or the Gloss can be traced. The importance of the city Aramathaim or Armathem for Eusebius, Jerome, and those other Latin sources, lay mainly in its being the city of Joseph of Arimathea, the one whom the gospels record as having asked Pilate for the body of Jesus, who took it down from the cross, wrapped it in a linen cloth and laid it in a rock-hewn tomb.448 445

PL 23, col. 875A–B; Eusebius, Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen, ed. E. Klostermann (Hildesheim, 1966), pp. 32–33, ll. 21–23. 446 Cf. also Eusebius’s association of Arimathea with the Hebrew place-name Aruma ( Judg 9.41) in both the Liber de situ et nominibus (PL 23, col. 917A), and the Onomastikon (ibid., 144–45, ll. 27–29); though the latter is rendered by Eusebius as ‘Ruma’, it had been translated as ‘Arima’ by the Septuagint. 447 ‘Ramathaim excelsa eorum’. Jerome, LIHN 104, Lag. 36.17. 448 Cf. Matt 27.58–60; Mark 15.43–46; and Luke 23.52–53. He is also described as a member of the Sanhedrin in Mark 15.43 and Luke 23.50; and as a disciple of Jesus in Matt 27.57 and John 19.38.

Chapter One

154

To this transcription of the place-name Armathaim drawn from the Latin sources, Hugh opposes the Latin transcription from the Hebrew Ramathaim. In fact, Hugh probably learned that this was the textual variant in the Hebrew text from Bede, for Bede had not only transcribed the name as it appears in the Hebrew text, but also explicitly asserts that the variant Armathen is actually taken from the Vetus Editio or the Vetus Latina. Indeed, this is the textual variant rendered by the Septuagint, on which the Vetus Latina translation was based. As we find in The Books of Places, Ramathaim is a city in the Thamnitic region close to Diospolim, where the Joseph who in the Gospels is said to be from Arimathia was from. Now Sophim is Mount Efraim in Ramathaim, which the Old translation transcribed [as] ‘Armathem’.

It is true that Hugh could also have taken the in hebreo variant from his own copy of the Vulgate. However, the fact that he points out the difference between the two versions, the Hebrew text and the Vetus Latina, hints at his awareness of the existence of the two renderings. The Vulgate itself would not have furnished him with this evidence. The fact that Hugh resorts to Bede on other occasions makes it likely that he would have drawn on him in this instance as well. B. Jerome Andrew twice adopts Hieronymian interpretations ‘according to the Hebrew’ for his commentary on the First Book of Samuel. The first instance is found in his comment on 1 Sam 1.3, which reads: Andrew, Reg. I, ll. 108–109 Domino Exercituum. In Hebreo: Sabaoth, To the Lord of the Armies. In Hebrew: id est miliciarum uel uirtutum […]. Sabaoth, that is to say, of hosts or of powers.

This explanation may be found in three of Jerome’s writings: in the Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum; in one of his epistles to Pope Damasus, and in his Commentary on Isaiah. Andrew probably used Jerome’s Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum for this comment,449 since the wording there is closer to

449

Cf. Andrew, Reg. I, ll. 108–109, crit. app.

The Latin Sources

 155

the wording in Andrew’s text than the wording in Jerome’s Ep. 18A to Damasus and in Jerome’s commentary on Isaiah. 450 Jerome, LIHN 105, Lag. 36.20

Jerome’s Epistle 18A, 7, 6

Jerome, In Esaiam I, i, 9, CCSL 73, I: 2

Sabaoth: exercituum uel uirtutum.

Sciendumque, quia, ubicumque septuaginta interpretes ‘dominum uirtutum’ et ‘dominum omnipotentem’ exprese­ rint, in Hebraeo sit positum ‘dominus sabaoth’, […]’.

Sabaoth: of the armies or of powers.

‘[…] and we should realize that wherever the seventy translators have employed the expression ‘Lord of powers’ and ‘almighty Lord’, there is found in the Hebrew ‘Lord of Sabaoth’.454

Pro Domino exercituum, quos nos, secuti Aquilam, in Latinum uertimus, in Hebraeo legitur, Dominus sabaoth, quod LXX interpretetes pro locorum qualitate dupliciter transferunt, aut Dominum uirtutum, aut Dominum omnipotentem’. What we, following ­Aquila, have translated into Latin as ‘the Lord of the Armies’, in the Hebrew is read ‘Lord of Sabaoth’, which the seventy translators rendered in two ways according to the nature of the passages either as the Lord of Powers or as almighty Lord.

For the second instance of his employment of a Hieronymian interpretation in his commentary on the First Book of Samuel, i.e., his comment on 1 Sam 1.26, Andrew probably relied on Jerome’s Commentary on Jonah, which Van Liere presents as Andrew’s source, as well as on Jerome’s letter 20 to Pope Damasus.451 C. The Gloss and Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones The five in hebreo interpretations or interpretations ascribed to Jews that Andrew adopts from the Gloss in his commentaries on the First Book of Samuel, in addition to the sixteen that he borrows from the same source in his commentary 450

The English translation is taken from The Letters of St Jerome, p. 87. Cf. Andrew, Reg. I, ll. 244–248, crit. app.; S. Hieronymi presbyteri Commentarii in Pro­ phetas Minores: In Ionam iv, 3, CCSL 76, ll. 37–39; Hieronymi Epistulae, XX. 3. 3–4. 451

156

Chapter One

on the Second Book of Samuel may be ultimately traceable to Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones on the First and Second Books of Samuel. The two Carolingians, Hrabanus Maurus and Angelom of Luxeuil, adopted in turn many of these quaestiones from Pseudo-Jerome. Later, the Gloss incorporated most of PseudoJerome’s quaestiones through these two exegetes, mainly Hrabanus. When the three sources, Hrabanus, Angelom, and the Gloss, are compared and contrasted, Hrabanus’s commentary is the closest to the text of the Quaestiones as presented in the Gloss. The Gloss itself introduces the Quaestiones with the first three letters of Hrabanus’s name. Therefore, in my analysis of those of Andrew’s interpretations that I consider to have been borrowed from the Gloss, I shall refer not only to Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones but also to the commentaries of both Hrabanus and Angelom on the First and Second Books of Samuel. D. Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones The Quaestiones Hebraicae in Libros Regum et Paralipomenon consist of a series of interpretations of passages from 1–2 Samuel, 1 Kings, and 1–2 Chronicles that make continuous references to Jewish traditions and to the Hebrew text of the Bible. They were composed in Latin at the beginning of the ninth century, and were first published by J. Martianay (1693–1706) together with other works ascribed to Jerome.452 However, it was Martianay himself who first asserted that the Quaestiones were not written by the Church father at all, but by a later writer. In the third quarter of the twentieth century, A. Saltman has produced a new edition of the Quaestiones based on manuscripts older than the previous editions for the First and Second Books of Samuel.453 The principal grounds for attributing the Quaestiones to Jerome is that they are actually ascribed to him in almost all the manuscripts that have been preserved 452 ‘Admonitio in opuscula subsequentia Quaestionum Hebraicarum in libros Regum et Paralipomenon’, in Sancti Hieronymi operum tomus tertius pars secunda, ed. D. Vallarsii, Venice 1767 (form. max.), pp. 803–4; repr.: J.-P Migne (PL 23, Appendix: pars altera, cols 1329–1330). 453 Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, pp. lviii–lxii. Saltman used for his edition three out of the four manuscripts dated from the ninth and tenth centuries: Rheims, MS 118, fols 38–67 (from?845–82); St Gall, Stiftsbibl., MS 672, fols 138–252 (end of the ninth century); and Orleans, MS 38, 1–50 (from the tenth century). Saltman (‘Rabanus Maurus and the Pseudo-Hieronymian Quaestiones Hebraicae in Libros Regum et Paralipomenon’, Harvard Theological Review, 66 [1973], p. 47, n. 8) writes that he had also consulted the fourth manuscript: Paris, BnF, MS lat. 2384, fols 117–34 (ninth-tenth centuries). In the introduction to his edition of the Quaestiones (pp. 16 and 61), Saltman claims that both Martianay and Migne based their editions on late manuscripts of the Quaestiones, i.e. dated to the twelfth century on. He deduces this from the fact that the only sporadic references of these authors to manuscripts are to a twelfth-century manuscript, Rouen, B.M., 450/A. 344, from Jumières and to the fifteenth-century Milanese manuscript Ambros. D 88.

The Latin Sources

 157

from the eleventh century on.454 However, it must be noted that the four earliest extant manuscripts, which date from the ninth and tenth centuries, do not attribute the Quaestiones to Jerome, but, in fact, contain no ascription whatsoever or else ascribe them to a Jew and ask the reader to be cautious in his reading of them.455 The Quaestiones include a series of glosses or explanatory annotations that are attributed to the Hebrew text of the Bible. Interestingly, these glosses are also found in some of the manuscripts containing the Theodulfian recension of the Vulgate, such as Paris, BnF, MS lat. 11,937.456 Three scholars, Martianay, Berger, and Saltman, attribute the Quaestiones and the Hebrew glosses to the same author, whom they call ‘the Hebraist’.457 This author has also been linked with the hebreus to whom Hrabanus Maurus refers in the prefaces of his commentaries on the Books of Samuel, Kings,458 and on the Books of Chronicles,459 written in 829 and in 834/38 respectively. This famous text is essentially the same in both prefaces, although it does vary slightly in the preface to the Chronicles commentary. It runs as follows: Moreover, I have inserted in a number of places together with the citation (nota) of his name, the opinion of a certain Hebrew of modern times, more than adequately (non ignobiliter) learned in the knowledge of the Law, which he puts forward as the Hebrew tradition in the chapters of this book. Without any intention of forcing him on anybody as an authority, I have simply set down what I have found written, leaving the decision of his authenticity to the judgment of the reader.460

There is little doubt that the hebreus of Hrabanus Maurus is the author of the Quaestiones, since the interpretations ascribed to the hebreus in Hrabanus’s commentaries on the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are identical certainly 454

In the introduction to his edition of the Quaestiones (pp. 61–62) Saltman provides a list of forty-three manuscripts of the Quaestiones. Twenty manuscripts are dated to the eleventh-twelfth centuries; eight, to the thirteenth century; seven, to the fourteenth-fifteenth centuries; and four are undated. Only four manuscripts are dated to the ninth or tenth centuries. 455 Saltman, ‘Pseudo-Jerome in Andrew of St Victor’, p. 197. 456 Theodulf of Orleans (760–821) produced a revision of the Latin Vulgate, based mainly on manuscripts of the Septuagint, but, on some occasions, also on variants drawn from the Hebrew text. Later, however, some of the Theodulphian manuscripts were corrected anew according to the Hebrew text. The Hebrew glosses were first printed by Martianay in his edition of Jerome, and then reprinted in the Migne edition of the Vulgate (PL 28–29). I shall deal with these Hebrew glosses in the chapter devoted to the Biblical text. 457 Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, pp. xvi–xvii; see Berger, Quam notitiam linguae ­Hebraicae habuerint Christiani medii aevi temporibus in Gallia (Paris: Nancy, 1863), p. 3, where the author supplies Martianay’s opinion and his own. 458 Hrabanus, Reg. I–IV, PL 109, cols 9A–10D: Praefatio. 459 Hrabanus, Par. I–II, PL 109, cols 279B–282A: Prologus. 460 The English translation is taken from Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, p. 25.

158

Chapter One

in content and, frequently, also in wording to the corresponding interpretations in the Quaestiones. It is true that some scholars have argued that the identification can be confirmed only if all the interpretations that Hrabanus ascribes to his hebreus in his commentaries are contained in the Quaestiones.461 However, at least for the Quaestiones in Chronicles, and perhaps also for those on Samuel, Hrabanus’s manuscript of that work may in fact have preserved a more complete version of the original text.462 If the Hrabanus’s hebreus is one and the same as the author of the Quaestiones, this suggests that the Quaestiones must therefore have already been written before Hrabanus wrote the first prologue, i.e. before the year 829. Since the author of the Quaestiones used the Hebrew glosses contained in the Theodulphian manuscripts, he could have not written much earlier than 800, the date given for the Theodulphian manuscripts,463 and shortly after Theodulf produced his revision of the Vulgate.464 Martianay believed that the author of the Quaestiones was a Jew.465 Against this view, Ginzberg asserted that the author of the Quaestiones was a Christian, who wrote down the exegetical and haggadic interpretations that he had heard from his Jewish teacher or teachers.466 Finally, Berger and Saltman argued that Pseudo-Jerome was born and educated as a Jew, but later converted to Christianity.467 In any case, according to M. Laistner, the phrase modernis temporibus, which Hrabanus applies to the hebreus, does not necessarily make the latter his contemporary, and Hrabanus could have been referring to a written source. The adjective modernus was used by exegetes of this period to refer to commentaries and exegetes 461

B. Blumenkranz, Les auteurs chrétiens latins du Moyen Âge sur les juifs et le judaïsme (Paris: Mouton & Co, 1963), p. 174, n. 1. 462 Saltman, ‘Rabanus Maurus and the Pseudo-Hieronymian Quaestiones’, p. 53. 463 Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, p. 5. 464 Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 148. See Dahan, L’exégèse chrétienne, p. 166, who alludes to the hypothesis that the hebreus of Hrabanus could have been the same Jew who helped Theo­dulph in his revision of the Vulgate. 465 ‘Admonitio in opuscula subsequentia Quaestionum Hebraicarum in libros Regum et ­Paralipomenon’, ibid.; see above, n. 456. 466 L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvätern. Erster Theil: Die Haggada in den pseudo-Hieronymianischen ‘Quaestiones’ (Amsterdam: Gebr. Levisson, 1899), p. v. According to Ginzberg, the Quaestiones preserve much haggadic material that had not otherwise survived, as well as variants of haggadot known to us from rabbinic writings. In several places of his book, Ginzberg proves that the Quaestiones draw on certain midrashic collections such as the Pirkê de Rabbi Eliezer, and could therefore help to determine the date of their composition. 467 Berger, Quam notitiam linguae Hebraicae, p. 2; Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, p. 19.

The Latin Sources

 159

belonging to the previous century or to two centuries earlier. For instance, Angelom, living in the ninth century, refers to Bede, who lived between the seventh and the eighth centuries as a doctor modernus.468 Nevertheless, in the present section we will be concerned not with the Jewish origin of Pseudo-Jerome, but with the question of whether Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones on the Books of Samuel and Kings was a direct source for the commentaries of Hugh and Andrew on those books or not. E. Andrew and Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones There are two arguments that suggest that Andrew resorted to Pseudo-Jerome directly. I shall first present these arguments before attempting to determine whether or not they are valid. The first argument for direct dependence is that there is a quaestio including a reference to the Hebrew text that is not found in the other three Latin sources (viz., Hrabanus Maurus, Angelom, and the Gloss), but only in Pseudo-Jerome and in Andrew: the quaestio on 1 Sam 1.5.469 The problem discussed in this Quaestio is the meaning of the Hebrew word apaim, which is a hapax legomenon in the Bible, and received different interpretations through the centuries by both Jewish and Christian commentators. Andrew’s commentary is based on the rendering of that word in the Vulgate:

468

Laistner, ‘Some Early Medieval Commentaries’, p. 30. Angelom’s reference to Bede is in PL 115, col. 197B–C; Cf. M.-D. Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on New Theological Perspectives in the Latin West, ed. and trans. by J. Taylor, and L. K. Little (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1968), p. 190. 469 Another reference to the Hebrew text in Andrew’s commentary (1 Sam 2.3) is only partly found in Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones. Since Andrew had to borrow the other words of that reference from another source, it is unlikely that he should have borrowed just one word from Pseudo-Jerome’s text: Andrew, Reg. I, ll. 322–325; Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, q. 8, 69.

160

Chapter One

470

The Vulgate Annae autem dedit partem unam tristis

But, with sadness he gave to Hannah just a single portion Andrew That [word] is rendered in our manuQuod in nostris codicibus inuenitur, scripts as ‘sad’, and it is explained that tristis, et exponitur quod tristis dabat it was with sadness that he [Elcanah] illi unam partem quia dolebat illam non would give to her just ‘a single portion’, habere liberos pro quibus et in quibus plures acciperet partes, in Hebreo inueni- because he grieved at her having no children for whom and in whom she tur secundum quosdam: ‘duplex’. Et est sensus secundum eos: Anne dedit partem should receive more portions. [That word] is rendered in the Hebrew accordunam duplicem, id est partem unam equipollentem duabus aliis partibus quas ing to some [commentators], as ‘double’. And this is the meaning in their opinion: aliis dabat. Nonnulli tamen Hebreorum ‘To Hannah he gave a double portion’, quod Hebraicum uerbum ibi positum etiam ‘tristem’ significet asserunt. Secun- i.e. a portion equivalent to the other two dum utramque sententiam bene sequitur: portions that he would give to the others. However, some of the Hebrews assert quia Annam diligebat. that the Hebrew word appearing there also means ‘sad’. Both interpretations fit well with what follows: for he loved Hannah.470

It appears fairly certain that Andrew did not read his in hebreo interpretation directly from the Hebrew text, but borrowed it from another source. This is clear from the fact that he uses the phrase secundum quosdam (‘according to some commentators’), i.e he does not assert that he has found that word in the Hebrew text; rather, he depends on what some commentators claim that the Hebrew text renders. As has been discussed in the introduction to this chapter, the Victorines often employ the indefinite pronoun quidam (‘some’) to refer to a Latin source.471 Van Liere points to Pseudo-Jerome as Andrew’s source for this interpretation.472 And, in fact, Pseudo-Jerome is the only Latin source among those so far analysed that contains the interpretation that Andrew ascribes to ‘some commentators’: 470

Andrew, Reg. I, ll. 127–135. The inverted commas in the words duplex and tristem of the Latin text are mine. 471 See above, pp. 54–56, nn. 61–70. 472 Andrew, Reg. I, ll. 127–130, crit. app.

The Latin Sources

 161

473

Annae autem dedit partem unam tristi. In Hebraeo autem ita legitur: ‘Anne autem dedit partem unam duplicem quia Annam diligebat.’473

But to Hannah he gave with sadness just a single portion In the Hebrew, one reads thus: ‘Yet to Hannah he gave a double portion, since he loved her.’

Thus Andrew may have borrowed this reference to the Hebrew from Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones. However, Andrew’s text is much longer than that of the ninthcentury writer, besides which the text of the Victorine includes other references to the Hebrew that are not contained in the Quaestiones. The reference to the Hebrew text is also found as a marginal annotation in the Theodulphian biblical manuscript Paris, BnF, MS lat. 11.937 (ΘG).474 In my second chapter (on the Biblical text of the Victorines), I shall examine the possibility that Andrew did indeed know and make use of this source. If Paris, BnF, MS lat. 11.937 (ΘG) was indeed Andrew’s source for this interpretation, then Pseudo-Jerome was not the only Latin source from which Andrew could have drawn, and consequently there is no clear evidence in favour of the argument that Pseudo-Jerome was a direct source for Andrew’s commentary on the Books of Samuel and Kings. The second argument in support of Andrew’s direct resort to Pseudo-Jerome’s text of the Quaestiones centres on the existence of four passages in Andrew’s commentary on the Books of Samuel and Kings that reproduce four of PseudoJerome’s Quaestiones. These texts are introduced either by the phrase Vel sic secundum Ieronymum (in the first three instances), or by Ieronymus dicit (in the fourth). Both phrases are also used in other manuscripts to introduce Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones.475 The first three of these texts of Andrew, namely Andrew’s interpretations of 1 Sam 3.2–3;476 2 Sam 3.8,477 and 2 Sam 3.13478 are identical in wording to the text of Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones. The fourth example is Andrew’s comment on 1 Sam 6.17–18, which reproduces part of Pseudo-Jerome’s quaestio, after he had conveyed its content in different words.479 473

Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome, Quaestiones, q. 4, 67. For 1 Sam 1.5, cf. 11, 937 ΘG Tristi] h. partem unam duplicem. Pseudo-Jerome, ibid. and for 1 Sam 2.3, cf. Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, q. 8, p. 69. 475 Saltman, ‘Pseudo-Jerome in Andrew of St Victor’, p. 199. According to Saltman, the ascription to Jerome would imply that Andrew (or the author of these quotations) could only have used a manuscript of the Quaestiones written from the eleventh century on, since earlier manuscripts of the Quaestiones do not attribute that work to Jerome. 476 Andrew, Reg. I, l. 682; Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, q. 20, p. 74. 477 Andrew, Reg. II, l. 78; Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, q. 102, p. 111. 478 Andrew, ibid.; Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, q. 103, p. 111. 479 Andrew, Reg. I, ll. 918–922; Pseudo-Jerome, Quaestiones, q. 27, p. 77. 474

162

Chapter One

Van Liere, however, considered these four texts as, in fact, later interpolations into Andrew’s original text.480 In the first place, the first three texts exist only in three out of the nine manuscripts that have preserved Andrew’s commentary on Samuel and Kings (viz., C, S, and V).481 Secondly, two of the texts ascribed to Hieronymus repeat sections of Andrew’s interpretations without a Hieronymian ascription. In his comment on 1 Sam 3.2–3 for instance, Andrew summarizes Pseudo-Jerome’s quaestio already in the first five lines of his comment on this verse, and he subsequently adds to it an interpretation ‘according to the Hebrew’. Immediately after this in hebreo interpretation, the three mentioned manuscripts place Pseudo-Jerome’s quaestio, which Andrew had already summarized at the beginning of his commentary. A section of Pseudo-Jerome’s quaestio 27 on 1 Sam 6.18 is reported two consecutive times in Andrew’s interpretation of the same biblical passage: first, it is expressed in Andrew’s own words; in a second time, PseudoJerome’s quaestio is reproduced in a wording closer to Pseudo-Jerome’s text, placed next to Andrew’s first reference to the quaestio. These two reasons lead Van Liere to conclude that these texts ascribed to Jerome are indeed later interpolations. Another piece of evidence that supports Van Liere’s conclusion is that two of the interpretations (2 Sam 3.8 and 3.13) belong to two different Quaestiones in Pseudo-Jerome’s text (quaestiones 102 and 103), yet they are placed together as if they were one in those three manuscripts of Andrew’s commentary. Andrew had also commented on 2 Sam 3.12, and this interpretation, which in the three aforementioned manuscripts is placed after 2 Sam 3.13, would surely have been placed between the two mentioned interpretations, had it been written by the same author who wrote 2 Sam 3.8 and 2 Sam 3.13. Furthermore, there are many references to the Hebrew text in Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones, mainly in the quaestiones on the Second Book of Samuel, that are absent from both Andrew’s and Hugh’s commentaries. Many other references in Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones to these biblical books differ significantly from Andrew’s references to the Hebrew in his interpretations on the same biblical passages. In fine, the two arguments are not capable of proving that Andrew resorted directly to Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones for his commentary on the First and Second Books of Samuel. It is, however, possible that Andrew drew on him for his in hebreo interpretation of 1 Sam 1.5.

480 See Van Liere’s critical apparatus to Andrew’s texts on Reg. I, l. 682; Reg. II, l. 78; and Reg. I, ll. 918–922; see also Van Liere, In Regum, p. xx, nn. 55, 98, 104. 481 See Andrew, Reg. I, l. 682; and Reg. II, l. 78.

The Latin Sources

 163

F. Hugh and Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones I have found no evidence that Hugh drew on Pseudo-Jerome’s Quaestiones for any of his references to the Hebrew text. For other interpretations not related to the Hebrew or Jewish traditions, however, Hugh may indeed have resorted to Pseudo-Jerome directly.482 G. Hugh and the Gloss on the Former Prophets I have found no conclusive evidence that Hugh resorted to the Gloss for any of his in hebreo translations or Jewish interpretations in his Note on the First and Second Books of Samuel. In his doctoral dissertation, Pollitt points out a good number of parallel interpretations in Hugh’s commentaries on the First and Second Books of Samuel and the Gloss on these books: Pollitt’s analysis encompasses all of Hugh’s comments and does not focus specifically on those interpretations related to the Hebrew or Jewish traditions.483 However, Pollitt acknowledges that an examination of these parallel interpretations nonetheless furnishes no conclusive evidence that the Gloss was Hugh’s source for the interpretations of the commentaries on the Books of Samuel.484 H. Andrew and the Gloss on the Former Prophets Van Liere has compared the text of Andrew’s commentary on certain biblical verses from Samuel and Kings both with that of the Gloss and with the original source.485 He offers examples in which the Gloss and Andrew share the same text, whereas their common reading differs from the original. In other examples, he shows that the Gloss contains more of the source than Andrew. In those publications and in the apparatum fontium of his edition, Van Liere provides a number of parallels between interpretations of the Gloss and those of Andrew in their respective commentaries on Samuel and Kings for which Van Liere points to the Gloss as Andrew’s source. These are: 1 Sam 2.10; 9.19; 28.6 (1); 2 Sam 2.9; 5:23;486 11.1;487 12.30; 16.17; 17.10; 19.24; 19.29; 21.20; 23.8 (2); and 23.20.488 482

Pollitt, ‘Hugh on the Octateuch’, p. 32. Pollitt, Hugh as Biblical Exegete, pp. 155, 160–64, and nn. 477–83, 530–66, 572–76. 484 Pollitt, Hugh as Biblical Exegete, p. 165, and n. 576. 485 Van Liere, In Librum Regum, pp. xxii–xxvii; ‘Andrew of St Victor and the Gloss on Samuel and Kings’, pp. 251–52. 486 Van Liere, Reg. I, ll. 388–389; ll. 1156–1158; ll. 2062–2064; Reg. II, l. 56; ll. 122–125. 487 Van Liere, Reg. II, ll. 183–187; id., ‘Andrew of St Victor and the Gloss on Samuel and Kings’, p. 251. 488 Van Liere, Reg. II, ll. 212–215; 284–285; 287–292; 306–307; 311–314; 347–348; 372–376, 389–396. 483

164

Chapter One

My own analysis, which has focused only on the paragraphs introduced by the phrase in hebreo or similar, has corroborated Van Liere’s thesis as a whole. However, I have concluded that Andrew borrowed from the Gloss two additional PseudoJerome’s quaestiones on the First Book of Samuel (17.54; 21.7) and five additional Pseudo-Jerome’s quaestiones on the Second Book of Samuel (2 Sam 2.8; 7.23; 13.39; 15.7; and 20.18a), for which Van Liere does not give the source (1 Sam 17.54; 2 Sam 13.39; 20.18a) or points exclusively to Pseudo-Jerome (1 Sam 21.7; 2 Sam 2.8; 7.23; and 15.7). Below, I analyse three interpretations, 1 Sam 21.7; 17.54, and 2 Sam 15.7, and give arguments to prove that Andrew borrowed them from the Gloss (1 Sam 17.54), or from Pseudo-Jerome via the Gloss (1 Sam 21.7; 2 Sam 15.7) and not, as Van Liere contends, from Pseudo-Jerome directly. Secondly, I have striven to show that in some interpretations, Andrew’s correction of the Vulgate by means of Pseudo-Jerome’s in hebreo readings reveals that he did not quite understand the Hebrew text, since the Vulgate was in fact closer to it than Pseudo-Jerome’s reading and there was no need to correct it. The quaestiones adopted by Andrew are also found in the commentaries on the First and Second Books of Samuel by Hrabanus and Angelom, save for those commenting upon 1 Sam 21.7 and 2 Sam 7.23, which are found in Hrabanus’s commentary alone and not in that of Angelom. I have collated Andrew’s text of the Quaestiones with the version of that work not only in Pseudo-Jerome, Hrabanus, and the Gloss, but also in Angelom’s commentary on Samuel and Kings. Like Hrabanus, also Angelom reproduces the whole or most of Pseudo-Jerome’s text word for word.489 In contrast to them, both the Gloss and Andrew introduce modifications, omit portions, summarize the text of the Quaestiones or add to it. In all of the examples, the version of the quaestio in the Gloss is closer to Andrew’s text than to the texts of the other three sources; therefore one can draw a distinction between the texts of Andrew and the Gloss on the one hand, and the texts of Pseudo-Jerome, Hrabanus, and Angelom, on the other. The examples analysed below include examination of Angelom’s text. In addition, I give two examples to show that in some of his corrections of the Vulgate by means of the in hebreo readings in Pseudo-Jerome’s quaestiones, Andrew did not notice that the Vulgate 489

In several of the interpretations, the text of Hrabanus and that of Angelom contain some minor differences from the text of Pseudo-Jerome. Angelom introduces slight changes in 2 Sam 12.30; 13.39; 19.24; and 19.29; and more significant ones, in 2 Sam 5.23. Hrabanus’s text shows slight differences from the text of Pseudo-Jerome in 2 Sam 12.30 and 19.24. In his commentary on those verses, Hrabanus employs a phrase that is missing in Pseudo-Jerome’s text (in 2 Sam 12.30, ut Hebrei volunt, and in 2 Sam 19.24, ut Hebraei tradunt). The fact that the text of the Gloss contains this phrase, modified into ‘secundum Hebraeos’, proves that the Gloss borrowed Pseudo-Jerome via Hrabanus and not directly.

The Latin Sources

 165

renders the Hebrew text literally, whereas Pseudo-Jerome’s translation of the Hebrew is incorrect: these examples concern 1 Sam 17.54 and 2 Sam 17.10. Nonetheless, there is not the same degree of similarity between Andrew’s text and that of the Gloss in all cases. Van Liere noted that while some examples give evidence only of the interdependence between the Gloss and Andrew’s commentary, others prove that it was Andrew who employed the Gloss and not viceversa.490 I have collated Andrew’s in hebreo interpretations with their parallels in Rusch’s edition of the Gloss and in Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 133, dated to the beginning of the thirteenth century. The latter two are identical to each other or nearly so. I have divided the examples which Van Liere noted and those which I have found into two groups: (a): examples showing the interdependence of the texts of the Gloss and Andrew, both being identical or almost so in wording and in content. The interpretations in this group are: 1 Sam 9.19;491 21.7; 28.6 (b);492 2 Sam 2.9;493 5.23;494 11.1;495 16.17;496 17.10;497 20.18;498 21.20;499 and 23.8 (b).500 I shall analyse only three of these examples: 1 Sam 21.7; 28.6 (b); and 2 Sam 17.10. The Vulgate on 1 Sam 21.7 reads: 490

Van Liere, In Librum Regum, pp. xxiii–xxvii; ‘Andrew of St Victor and the Gloss on Samuel and Kings’, pp. 251–52. 491 Andrew, Reg. I, ll. 1156–1160; Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, q. 33, p. 80; Hrabanus, Reg. I, PL 109, col. 37C; Angelom, Reg. I, PL 115, col. 292C–D; Glossa ord. marg., Reg. I, p. 15; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 133, fol. 19r. 492 See the bibliographical references in the analysis below. 493 Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, q. 99, p. 110; Hrabanus, Reg. II, PL 109, col. 75A–B; Angelom, Reg. II, PL 115, col. 336D; Glossa ord. int., Reg. II, p. 50; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 133, fol. 52r; Andrew, Reg. II, l. 56. 494 Andrew, Reg. II, ll. 122–125 and crit. app.; Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, q. 112, pp. 115–16; Hrabanus, Reg. II, PL 109, col. 83A–B; Angelom, Reg. II, PL 115, col. 347D; Glossa ord. marg., Reg. II, p. 56; Andrew, Reg. II, ll. 122–125; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 133, fol. 59r. 495 Andrew, Reg. II, ll. 182–187; Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, q. 135, pp. 124–25; Hrabanus, Reg. II, PL 109, col. 97D; Angelom, Reg. II, PL 115, col. 361B; Glossa ord. marg., Reg. II, p. 63; cf. Van Liere, ‘Andrew of St Victor and the Gloss on Samuel and Kings’, p. 251; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 133, fol. 67r–v. 496 Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, q. 156, p. 134; Hrabanus, Reg. II, PL 109, col. 106C; Angelom, Reg. II, PL 115, col. 371B; Andrew, Reg. II, ll. 284–285; Glossa ord. int., Reg. II, p. 73; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 133, fol. 79r. 497 See the bibliographical references in the analysis below. 498 Andrew, Reg. II, ll. 317–339; Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, q. 173, pp. 142–43; Hrabanus, Reg. II, PL 109, col. 111C–D; Angelom, Reg. II, PL 115, col. 378A–B; Glossa ord. int., Reg. II, p. 81; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 133, fol. 86v. 499 Andrew, Reg. II, ll. 347–348; Hrabanus, Reg. II, PL 109, col. 113D; Angelom, Reg. II, PL 115, col. 379D; Glossa ord. int., Reg. II, p. 82; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 133, fol. 88v. 500 Andrew, Reg. II, ll. 372–376; Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, q. 156, p. 134; Hrabanus, Reg. II, PL 109, col. 116B; Angelom, Reg. II, PL 115, col. 383B; Glossa ord. int., Reg. II, p. 84; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 133, fol. 91r.

166

Chapter One

501

The Vulgate erat autem ibi vir de servis Saul in die illa intus in tabernaculo Domini et nomen eius Doec Idumeus. Pseudo-Jerome Erat autem ibi quidam vir de servis Saul Now a certain man, one of Saul’s servants, in die illa intus in tabernaculo et nomen was there on that day within the tabernacle ejus Doech Idumeus. In Hebreo dicitur and his name was Doeg the Edomite. In ‘obligatus in conspectu Domini’. ‘Obliga- the Hebrew it is said: ‘he was bound [to tus’ i d . Doech Idumeus erat v o t o q u o be] in the presence of the Lord’. The same s e o b l i g a v e r a t aliquot diebus in Doeg the Edomite was bound by a vow tabernaculo Domini i m m o r a t u r u m by which he had obliged himself to dwell e t o r a t i o n i v a c a t u r u m . 501 for some days within the Lord’s tabernacle and to devote himself to prayer.

In the Vulgate, the verb ne‘etsar in the Hebrew text is translated simply as ‘within’ (intus). It seems therefore that Jerome understood the Hebrew word ne‘etsar (‘was restrained’, ‘was retained’) in a physical sense as ‘shut up’, ‘imprisoned’. Accordingly, the Hebrew phrase lifnei Adonai is explained in the Vulgate as the place of imprisonment and translated as ‘within the Lord’s tabernacle’ (in tabernaculo Domini). Pseudo-Jerome improves the Vulgate’s translation giving the verb ne‘etsar the more abstract sense of ‘being hindered or restrained by a vow’, and rendering the preposition lifnei with the more literal translation ‘in the presence of the Lord’. Whereas Hrabanus Maurus’s text is a word for word transcription of PseudoJerome,502 Angelom, for his part, introduces several modifications to PseudoJerome’s text, the most significant of which being his remark that he has not resorted directly to the Hebrew text but has learnt of the in hebreo translation from a Jewish tradition.503 The texts of Andrew and of the Gloss, however, shorten the phrases of Pseudo-Jerome’s text with nearly an identical wording. For example, whereas Pseudo-Jerome, Hrabanus, and Angelom give the phrase voto quo se obligaverat, the Gloss and Andrew write only uouerat. Another example is that instead of the phrase In hebreo dicitur, which we find in Pseudo-Jerome and Hrabanus, and Angelom’s sicut in hebreo legitur, the texts of the Gloss and Andrew simply use the brief in hebreo.

501

Pseudo-Jerome, Quaestiones, q. 72, p. 97. Hrabanus, Reg. I, PL 109, col. 59C–D. 503 Angelom, Reg. I, PL 115, col. 322B. 502

The Latin Sources

 167

504

Angelom […], in Doeg Idumeo, qui voto se obl i g a v e r a t , sicut in Hebraeo legitur, p r o u t Judaei tradunt, ut antiquantisper in tabernaculo Domini i m m o r a r e t u r , et orationi v a c a r e t , […].

The Gloss

Andrew

In tabernaculo. In Hebreo: In tabernaculo. Rab. In o b l i g a t u s in conhebręo o b l i g a t u s in conspectu domini. F o r t e spectu Domini. F o r t e u o u e r a t quod aliquot enim vouerat: diebus in tabernaculo q u i a aliquot diebus Domini m o r a r e t u r et in tabernaculo domini m o r a r e t u r e t u a c - orationibus u a c a r e t ’. aret orationibus. Within the tabernacle. In the Hebrew: ‘he bound himself in the presence of the Lord’. Perhaps he had vowed that he should dwell for some days in the tabernacle of the Lord and devote himself to prayers.504

However, the texts of Andrew and of the Gloss are not simply summaries. Rather, they introduce a change of meaning in Pseudo-Jerome’s interpretation: whereas Pseudo-Jerome and Hrabanus had stated a fact, both the Gloss and Andrew present the same explanation as a possibility. According to Pseudo-Jerome and Hrabanus, Doeg the Edomite had in fact vowed to dwell some days in the tabernacle of the Lord and to devote himself to prayer. This is expressed by the future participle of the verbs in the subordinate clause: immoraturum […] orationi vacaturum. The Gloss and Andrew, however, express the sense of possibility both by the adverb forte (‘perhaps’) and by the subjunctive in the subordinate verbs: moraretur […] uacaret (‘he would dwell […] he would devote’). Angelom, like Andrew and the Gloss, also changes the future participle into imperfect subjuntive; but unlike them, he does not add the adverb forte. (2) In 1 Sam 28.6 (b), the Vulgate translates the Hebrew word urim as ‘priests’. Pseudo-Jerome claims that the rendering ‘priests’ does not correctly express the meaning of the Hebrew urim; he suggests instead translating the word as ‘doctrine’: 505 neque per sacerdotes (Hebreus: ‘neque per doctrinam’) […]: […] ‘Per doctrinam’, per ephod scilicet quod sacerdos in pectore portabat.505 504

nor by the priests (The Hebrew: ‘neither by doctrine’) […]: […] ‘By doctrine’, i.e. by the ephod, which the priest used to wear (portabat) on their breast.

Glossa ord. marg., Reg. I, p. 35; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 133, fol. 35v. Andrew, Reg. I, ll. 1937–1939. Pseudo-Jerome, Quaestiones, q. 86, p. 102.

505

168

Chapter One

Urim means literally ‘lights’ but is employed in the Bible to refer to either the twelve gems,506 or to the two small images of the pouch of judgement worn on the breast of the High Priest.507 Through these gems or images, the High priest would receive God’s answer to his questions about what should be done or be prevented from being done. In the Vulgate, the Latin word doctrina (‘religious teaching’, ‘that which is taught’, ‘wisdom’) is usually employed to translate the Hebrew words da‘at (‘knowledge’), musar (‘discipline of a moral nature’, ‘correction’), sechel (‘prudence’, ‘insight’, ‘understanding’), and dabar (‘speech’, ‘word’). But it is also the most frequent equivalent in the Vulgate for urim,508 following the Septuagint’s renderings of the Hebrew word: delosis-eos or deloi, from the adjective delos (‘visible’, ‘manifest’, ‘clear to the mind’). Yet in 1 Sam 28.6 (b) and in Num 27.21, the Vulgate translates the Hebrew urim as ‘priests’ (sacerdotes and sacerdos), since it was the priests who used to carry the urim. Andrew’s interpretation is based on Pseudo-Jerome’s quaestio: nor by priests […]: In the Hebrew: neither by doctrine, i.e. by the ephod that the priests would wear on their breast, in which the doctrine and the truth were written.

The Pseudo-Hieronymian quaestio is also found in the commentaries of Hrabanus, Angelom, and the Gloss; indeed Hrabanus and Angelom reproduce PseudoJerome’s text verbatim.509 The texts of the Gloss and Andrew, however, differ in three elements from the texts of the other three commentaries: first, only the Gloss and Andrew add the phrase from Exod 28.30 ‘where there were written the doctrine and the truth’; secondly, both the Gloss and Andrew make use of the introductory formula in hebreo instead of the formula hebreus or hebreus habet of Pseudo-Jerome, Angelom, and Hrabanus; finally, whereas Pseudo-Jerome and Angelom both employ the verb portabat and Hrabanus the verb gestabat, both the Gloss and Andrew use the verb gerebat/gerebant.

506

Josephus, Ant., iii. 8. 9. Philo, Vit. Mos. iii. 508 Urim is translated as doctrina in Exod 28.30, Lev 8.8, and Deut 33.8; and as doctus, from the same Latin root, in Ezra 2.63 and Neh 7.65. 509 Hrabanus, Reg. I, PL 109, cols 66D–67A; Angelom, Reg. I, PL 115, col. 328C–D. 507

The Latin Sources

 169

510 511

Andrew Neque per sacerdotes. I n H e b r e o : Neque per doctrinam, per ephot scilicet quod sacerdotes in pectore g e r e b a n t in quo scripta erant doctr i n a e t u e r i t a s .510

The Gloss Neque per sacer. neque, etc. […] Rab. I n h e b r ę o . Neque per doctrinam neque per ephoth scilicet quod sacerdos gerebat in pectore in quo scriptum erat doctrina et v e r i t a s .511

Here too, it is apparent that Andrew did not read this correction directly from the Hebrew text, for in his interpretation of Exod 28.30, he had noted that the Vulgate translation doctrina stands for the Hebrew urim.512 (3) The biblical passage 2 Sam 17.7–10 reports the advice of Hushai the Archite to Absalom not to follow Ahitophel’s counsel, i.e. not to attack David’s troops on the following night. Hushai furnishes two reasons in support of his argument: (a) David would not be spending the night with his troops anyway, but is hidden somewhere; and (b) by night it is difficult to distinguish between the men of one’s own army and those of the enemy. Therefore, Hushai argues, were Absalom’s men to fall upon David’s army in David’s absence anyone could think that the ones who are being overthrown were Absalom’s men. In v. 10 of the passage, Hushai adds according to the Vulgate translation: 513 et fortissimus quique cuius cor est quasi leonis pavore solvetur […].513

and every extremely strong man, whose heart is like the heart of a lion will melt with fear […].

The question arising from the biblical text is: to whom does Hushai refer with his description of fading strength; who is the extremely strong man (fortissimus)? The Vulgate text translates the Hebrew pronoun we-hu as quisque or quique (whoever), which together with the superlative adjective fortissimus (‘the strongest’) means ‘every extremely strong man’, ‘all the extremely strong men’.514 Accordingly, 510

Andrew, Reg. I, ll. 2065–2067. Glossa ord. marg., Reg. I, p. 44; Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 133, fol. 45r (neque: om. Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 133). 512 In the pouch of judgment you shall put the doctrine and the truth. For ‘doctrine’ and ‘truth’, in the Hebrew: urim and tumim. Andrew, Exod., ll. 2037–2039. 513 Andrew, the Gloss, Hrabanus Maurus, and most of the Vulgate manuscripts render either quique or quisque (whoever, everybody). Three Vulgate manuscripts, however, suggest the emendation quoque (also, too, even [the extremely strong]). Jerome, Biblia Sacra: Samuel II, p. 314. 514 Ibid. 511

170

Chapter One

the Vulgate understands both the pronoun we-hu and the adjective ‘the extremely strong’ to refer either to the army of Absalom or to those among the people of Israel who ‘are yet indecisive’. Pseudo-Jerome’s interpretation takes up this question. He understands ‘the extremely strong man’ (fortissimus) to refer to David. Accordingly, he suggests translating the Hebrew pronoun of third person we-hu as ipse (‘he himself ’), and presents this as the translation in hebreo. He explains that if, however, David is indeed the man to whom Hushai is referring, the sentence should be understood as negative, i.e. ‘and he himself the strongest, whose heart is like that of a lion, will not melt with fear’: And every extremely strong man, whose heart is like the heart of a lion, will melt with fear. In the Hebrew text, one reads thus: ‘however, he himself the strongest, whose heart is like that of a lion, will [not] melt with fear’. This must be stated not positively but negatively. This ‘strongest’ should be taken to mean David, which meaning is also made clear by the sentence that follows: ‘for all Israel knows that your father is strong and strong are also all those who are with him’.515

In fact, the Vulgate is here rendering the Hebrew text literally, whereas PseudoJerome’s translation of the Hebrew is incorrect. Moreover, the Vulgate translation fits the context of the biblical narrative better. For according to the biblical context, Hushai the Archite is trying to persuade Absalom not to attack David. In the immediately precedent v. 9, Hushai had stated the reason for his advice: in an attack by night, Absalom’s men could be thought to be the ones who are being overthrown: ‘Whoever should hear that men are falling, will think that it is Absalom’s men who are being defeated’. Since both the pronoun we-hu (quique) and the adjective fortissimus (‘the extremely strong’) follow immediately after that statement, they must both refer to Absalom’s men and not to David’s: it is Absalom’s men who will think that their fellow men are falling and will therefore fear. Accordingly, Pseudo-Jerome’s Latin translation is actually a hypercorrection of the Vulgate. Hrabanus, Angelom, and the Gloss all adopt Pseudo-Jerome’s interpretation of ‘the extremely strong’ as David. However, whereas Hrabanus and Angelom transcribe Pseudo-Jerome’s text word for word, the marginal Gloss summarizes it:516

515

Saltman, Pseudo-Jerome. Quaestiones, q. 158, pp. 134–35. For the Latin text, see the comparative chart on p. 75. 516 Hrabanus, Reg. II, PL 109, col. 106D; and Angelom, Reg. II, PL 115, col. 371C. For the Latin texts, see the comparative chart on p. 172.

The Latin Sources

 171

And every extremely strong [fortissimus] man. In the Hebrew [text]: ‘And he himself the strongest, whose heart is like that of a lion, will he melt with fear?’ You must supply the word ‘non’. This ‘strongest’ is taken to mean [intelligitur] David, whence: ‘for all Israel knows that your father is the strongest’.517

Whereas Pseudo-Jerome, Hrabanus, and Angelom read the sentence ‘this must be stated not positively but negatively’, the Gloss laconically insists: ‘You must supply the word non’. Whereas Pseudo-Jerome, Hrabanus, and Angelom use the periphrastic form intelligendus est (‘must be understood’), the Gloss uses the simple present passive intelligitur (‘is understood’, ‘is taken to mean’). The Gloss shortens Pseudo-Jerome’s ‘the meaning of which is also made clear by the sentence that follows’ with a single adverb: unde (‘whence’)’. Andrew furnishes two interpretations of this text. In the first, he explains the Vulgate’s text, showing that he has understood it correctly. To that interpretation, however, he adds Pseudo-Jerome’s quaestio, which he introduces as in hebreo. In the second interpretation, Andrew actually expands and explains the Gloss. The whole text of the Gloss is included in Andrew’s comment, and with respect to the section of Pseudo-Jerome’s quaestio shared by all the sources mentioned, Andrew renders a summary of the text in a wording identical to that presented in the Gloss. 518 Fortissimus quisque cuius cor est quasi leonis pavore solvetur. Fortissimus etiam quilibet in exercitu tuo audito tali nuncio pauore soluetur. Vel interrogative: ‘Fortissimus ipse (quod est in Hebreo) cuius est cor quasi leonis pavore solvetur?’. Subaudis: non. Fortissimus iste David intelligitur. Vnde statim subiungitur: Scit enim omnis Israel patrem tuum esse fortissimum, etc. […]’.

And every extremely strong man, whose heart is like the heart of a lion, will melt with fear. Anyone, even the strongest in your army, after having heard such news, will melt with fear. Or, as a question (as in the Hebrew text): ‘Being himself the strongest, whose heart is like that of a lion, will he melt with fear?’ You must supply the word ‘no’. This ‘strongest’ is taken to mean David, whence the text immediately adds: ‘for all Israel knows that your father is strong and strong also are all those who are with him’.518

517 Glossa ord. marg., Reg. II, p. 74. For the Latin text, see the comparative chart on p. 172: Paris, Bibl. Maz., MS 133, fol. 79v. 518 Andrew, Reg. II, ll. 286–292.

Chapter One

172

Like the Gloss, Andrew writes: ‘You must supply the word non’, in contrast to the longer sentence of the other three sources: ‘This must be pronounced not positively but negatively’. Instead of using the phrase intelligendus est, as we find in Pseudo-Jerome, Hrabanus, and Angelom, Andrew, like the Gloss, uses intelligitur. Instead of the long sentence in the other Latin sources ‘the meaning of which is also made clear by the sentence that follows’, Andrew follows the text of the Gloss, merely writing Vnde statim subiungitur (‘whence the text immediately adds’). The fact that both Andrew and the Gloss summarize the quaestio in almost the same wording indicates that both sources are directly related to each other. The Gloss Et fortissimus. In Hebręo Fortissimus ipse cuius est cor quasi Leonis pavore solvetur’. S u b a u d i s : n o n . Fortissimus iste David i n t e l l i g i t u r u n d e : Scit enim omnis Israel patrem tuum esse fortissimum.

Andrew

Pseudo-Jerome, Hrabanus, and Angelom

Fortissimus quisque cuius cor est quasi leonis pavore solvetur. Fortissimus etiam quilibet in exercitu tuo audito tali nuncio pauore soluetur. Vel interrogative: ‘Fortissimus ipse (quod est in Hebreo) cuius est cor quasi leonis pavore solvetur?’. S u b a u d i s : n o n . Fortissimus iste David i n t e l l i g i t u r . Vn d e s t a t i m s u b i u n g i t u r : Scit enim omnis Israel patrem tuum esse fortissimum.

Et fortissimus quique cujus cor est quasi leonis pauore solvetur. In Hebreo ita habetur: ‘Et fortissimus ipse cujus cor est quasi leonis pavore solvetur’. Q u o d non adfirmando sed negando pronuntiandum est. Fortissimus iste David intelligendus est, quod et sequentia d e c l a r a n t : Scit enim omnis Israel fortem esse patrem tuum et robustos omnes qui cum eo sunt.

There is yet another example of an interpretation where Andrew’s summary of Pseudo-Jerome’s text is identical to that found in the Gloss and, at the same time, where both texts, that of Andrew and that of the Gloss, along with those of PseudoJerome, Hrabanus, and Angelom, correct its Latin text unnecessarily: 2 Sam 5.23. The Latin pirorum (